There are two kinds of men in this world; those with loaded guns and those who dig, says Blonde in “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”. This is nothing more than the Hollywood version of what Oppenheimer called the choice between the “political means” and the “economic means”. In short, we can either produce for ourselves (or produce and mutually trade for other means) or steal from those doing the producing. The complexity of our highly industrialized “civilization” only lightly veils this fact today because so many, it seems, transfer the burden of morality to the omnipotent State. However, make no mistake, we have only these two choices –produce or steal. One only needs to ask themselves where the root of their paycheck directly comes from.
The word “politics” gives me a sinking feeling. It is the filth that humanity has thrown themselves into in flight of either productive effort or a very low and almost subconscious fear. A fear that guides the actions of mass minded down paths they would ordinarily not tread in everyday social situations. The fear evolves from our perceptions of what other people may do to us and not from a reality that most people go throughout the day in peace. From this fear, governments are formed, policy is enacted, and the thugs are unleashed to maintain “civility”. In reality, the perception of the exchange for safety from others is illusory. We are no safer with governments as we are without them. The choice between government or not should be rephrased as follow: Do we organize a group of people that we consent to have authority over us to protect us or do we not give consent to let any other have authority over us and protect ourselves (as we do anyway)? Secondly, at which point does the consent of the governed reach legitimacy? Now it can be heard, “who will protect us from the government?”. However, these exclamations are usually expressed half-heartedly and the same old fear slips in the back door again to justify the necessity of “necessary” evil or means.
Political philosophy, to me, has been a philosophy of the attainment of ultimate ends politically –a way of explaining why group X should rule, or not, over group Y and employ means 1,2, 3 for social good A, B, C, etc. This seems foolish to me for two reasons: (1) The possibility of a group or another individual making a “winning” argument and supposing the other group or individual will consent to be forced into the “winning” argument is zero. Believing otherwise is to believe in utopias. And, (2) The term “political” means the way an action by a group or individual is performing is through non-production, I.e.,theft or threat of. Thus, “political” philosophy is the philosophy of how to create a winning argument to convince another that what is being talked about is not crime on mass scale. Some may say that what I have described is not the definition or task of political philosophy –they may have a point. However, I find it no surprise that the political philosophies that espouse individual freedom to be the least popular in support of those who use the political means, I. e, the voters, politicians, unions, etc. The libertarian is always at a disadvantage because they must explain how things would work not as they are today, but how they would work in theory. Politicians explain policies and not theories –a severe disadvantage with our sound bite mass media outlets. Thus, the idea of attaining a pro-libertarian small government through the political process is wishful thinking at best. All political parties try to do the same thing: Try to make crime seem not criminal while committing crime when elected and in power.
I have been labeled an anarchist, a voluntaryists, or libertarian, but what I would most like to be called is an individual. It seems to me that many fallacies can be made when people think of society as one functioning and workable organism instead of just a group of individuals. Even the anarchists talk of the State as if it were one “thing” and not just a bunch of individuals acting as agents of the State. No individual is the same. The human mind seems to want to arrange reality in neat and non-chaotic categories, patterns, boundaries, borders, groups, files, labels, etc. Everything in it’s right place. The mind can fight this battle ad infinitum. One always seems to think, “why can’t the other person see the world as I do?”. Perhaps in it’s most simplest form, this is the real reason behind all conflict. When will we realize that reality is chaos?
Instead of acknowledging these great failures of what most call “achievement”, humankind, instead, presses onward to refine the “science” of politics. And, indeed, we all seem to be part of some grand social experiment –it’s most efficient vehicle for doing so being State power. I have been told that this, in fact, is reality. That If I should want to change things I should become a part of this “system”. I should vote, run for office, protest, act, reform, and write congressman. Change, action, and reform they cry! But, within the political realm, these are just words to transfer the heaviness of your chains onto your neighbor. One barely has time to fiddle with the weight of the chains on his own shoulders. It is no wonder why so many are eager to pass them off at any terms of cost or conscious.
Today a person can work themselves in frenzy about the affairs of the world. For a time, I was caught up in the craze of politics. I suspect as things get worse and the fear of things getting worse increases we shall see an unfortunate corresponding rise in the faith of politics. Lately, the voter turnout has been higher due to the flood of people grasping at what little scraps that are thrown to them from the table that is government.
The question of what to do about things has led me to the conclusion that there is nothing to be done. I found a great contradiction in the thinking that something could be accomplished that would not offer an equal and corresponding misery for someone else. Or, as Frank Chodorov said, “The historic pattern for doing something about it is to confront political power with organized opposition, which, again, is political power. While vengeance is sometimes served by this head-on collision of forces, the record shows that principles remain exactly as they were before the collision.”.
There is but one thing a lonely individual can do to improve the world: Present society with one improved unit, you.
