![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no_apologiesThis is a continuation of what I started a little while ago, a day after an admirer of John Maynard Keynes (British economist) messaged me some incredibly foolish claims; that they didn't matter, and that "all ideas require force."
Let's go over what he said a bit. All ideas require force. It's as if voluntary ideas, according to him, don't exist at all, or haven't ever existed at all! According to the Keynesian Dolt's incredibly wacky claim, it's as if everyone is forcing anything onto anyone all at once; all party invitations, all of the friendly social gatherings, all of the of plays, movies, tv shows, game developing, and so on being the result from the initiation of aggression, or defensive force.
LOL... If that were true, then humanity wouldn't have evolved to adapt and live together in groups for very long at all. Keynesian Dolt wouldn't have been born. I know I wouldn't have been born, in the year 1984. XD
It's possible that he, in part, did not mean what he said in a literal sense. However, he still rejected the basic fact that good ideas don't require the use of force. He didn't agree with the positive statement that good ideas don't require force.
Did he object to that out of fear, ignorance, or both? I'd say it was both. For some reason, being as free as one can be from aggressive force, and to fully recognize each other as self-owning human beings is scary to him.
Of course, he's not the only one who's been that way. Too many other people around the world have been raised within their cultures to fear living their lives without someone around using the threat of force around them. Because bad and crazy people exist...
Members of the growing police state - policy enforcers - however are far from being righteous and noble as many believe them to be. Do any civilians around them ever feel safe in their presence? Do they defend them all the time from the common lowlifes who steal, rape, kill, and assault?
Haven't they attacked anyone who's not committing any acts of aggression towards them? Don't they kill dogs that aren't in their K-9 units without any second thoughts?
When law makers and law enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions the same way anyone else would? Not according to statists, who say, "No, because they have powers that most people don't."
Tell me more about these powers... Where do they come from?
Anyone who believes that having a state is necessary for us to be civilized would explain, "Other people. Because we let them have that power, to enforce the laws! There are maniacs out there who slaughter people like animals. They wouldn't care! Laws exist, so we don't end up killing each other. It's our duty to obey these laws. It's how we contribute to society."
Wouldn't that be claiming that morality comes from authority...? What are these laws? The codes and rules printed in complicated wording through legislation? Would these maniacs they're worried about truly tremble in fear and obey every one of these all-powerful judgments, backed by the threat of coercive force?
If all the thousands of laws were taught to children in schools, they wouldn't have time to learn about anything else.
If these judgments are so great, then why are they complicated to understand? To really understand what at least some of the legalese means, you'd have to look in a Black's Law dictionary to do so.
Those who believe in and rely on government turn a blind eye to a very unfortunate truth. Many of the injustices that have happened throughout history had been carried out by groups who were just following orders. Just doing as they were told to do, without question.
When it comes to obedience, it's just doing as you're told. So no, morality does not come from authority. And authority is someone who has the power to rule over others. Synonym terms include command, control, dominance, and supremacy.
I know I've said in part 1 that I would explain in two different ways as to how statism does not make sense to me. I'll be using present day information almost everybody knows.
About political "representatives": why are they acceptable by so many through the political process, but not any other situation?
Socialist communities vote for candidates by paper ballot or by using voting machines so that one of them can be elected to be president, the chosen leader and commander of USA Incorporated. They participate because they believe in this process, and that the men and women who say they'll help provide for them "represent" them.
Why? Because they're allowed to do things we're not allowed to do?
If I went from door to door in my neighborhood telling them what they can and cannot do, they'd look at me as if I had lost my mind. They'd tell me to leave.
Politicians are humans like us. They breathe the same air as we do, so why are they allowed to be put in charge? Because "consent of the governed"? That term itself is a bizarre, contradictory phrase. When a person consents, then he or she agrees to something voluntarily. Another word for govern is the word control... To consent and to be governed are mutually exclusive.
To consent to being governed by others, rather than to be given the room and education they'd require to self-govern themselves - wouldn't that be consenting to having each other enslaved within a political system?
Politicians are recognized by the larger majority as more than just human. They're allowed to be given these superhuman powers to call for policies to be set in place.
Authority in this way is a purely faith-based belief that certain groups of people are in the right to rule over others. If anyone disobeys the commandments of the ruling class (laws), then they are deemed sinners and deserve to be punished and caged (be cuffed, treated like a criminal, and taken to prison).
One of the most crazy things authority worshipers say to justify and cling to these core beliefs they were told over and over again is, "We are the government."
Well, do they get to write the laws? Do they get to boss others around? Do they get to take one of their own disobedient citizens away and lock them up in a cage? If they answer no to each of those questions, then they'd be caught being dishonest to themselves.
Statism, in this way, is a cult religion. It is the most dangerous one of its kind.
The second way statism doesn't make sense to me is through an analogy I'll explain.
Many of us already know and understand our own on which behavior is good and which behavior is bad, without having to look through law books, asking lawyers, or turning to politicians and bureaucrats for help.
Yet, for some reason, many sometimes forget what is ethically and reasonably required to have communities of people who know how to get along with one another.
I grew up around people who went to Alcoholics Anonymous. My dad has been sober for over 20 years. We both thoroughly understand about those who drink too much. They clearly can't obtain sobriety or even try to by staying drunk.
I've seen enough movies that involve the theme alcoholism. The rational and ethical thinking are gone when alcoholics are heavily under the influence. They hurt themselves and anyone else around them, especially when they're incapable of knowing when to put away their poison of choice.
As for those who protest or advocate for more power from authority, they cannot be rationally nor morally be consistent with themselves. They'd demand for individuals they don't like or agree with to be threatened, or be put under obligation to do what they view as personally wrong to maintain peace within their communities.
Negative emotions (fear, hate, etc.) are dominant over good reasoning and decision making whenever this happens. And it's similar to whenever there are angry rioters in the streets. As they demand for others around them to be harmed and controlled under new laws and regulations, they are also hurting themselves.
If anyone's answer to any failure of government power is more government power, then they're similar to alcoholics who are trying to drink themselves sober.
If humans cannot be free to live in peace and be treated as self-owning individuals, then humans are doomed to fail. If we can't trust people with liberty but with power, then we will never learn to improve ourselves.
People behave stupidly and cowardly out of instinct when they're unable to control their emotions. When they reason too much, they tend to act insensitive. What keeps people from being too stupid or too insensitive? Ethics, and self-control!
If you've read up to this point, then please share this information. Encourage people to educate themselves, and free themselves from the lies that hold their minds and hearts hostage.
Also, if you come across anyone who says that morals don't matter or don't exist, then show them this entry, or part 1 that I've linked to in the beginning of it! Or show them the video version of part one I put together.
I intend to do a video version of this sometime later on.
Let's go over what he said a bit. All ideas require force. It's as if voluntary ideas, according to him, don't exist at all, or haven't ever existed at all! According to the Keynesian Dolt's incredibly wacky claim, it's as if everyone is forcing anything onto anyone all at once; all party invitations, all of the friendly social gatherings, all of the of plays, movies, tv shows, game developing, and so on being the result from the initiation of aggression, or defensive force.
LOL... If that were true, then humanity wouldn't have evolved to adapt and live together in groups for very long at all. Keynesian Dolt wouldn't have been born. I know I wouldn't have been born, in the year 1984. XD
It's possible that he, in part, did not mean what he said in a literal sense. However, he still rejected the basic fact that good ideas don't require the use of force. He didn't agree with the positive statement that good ideas don't require force.
Did he object to that out of fear, ignorance, or both? I'd say it was both. For some reason, being as free as one can be from aggressive force, and to fully recognize each other as self-owning human beings is scary to him.
Of course, he's not the only one who's been that way. Too many other people around the world have been raised within their cultures to fear living their lives without someone around using the threat of force around them. Because bad and crazy people exist...
Members of the growing police state - policy enforcers - however are far from being righteous and noble as many believe them to be. Do any civilians around them ever feel safe in their presence? Do they defend them all the time from the common lowlifes who steal, rape, kill, and assault?
Haven't they attacked anyone who's not committing any acts of aggression towards them? Don't they kill dogs that aren't in their K-9 units without any second thoughts?
When law makers and law enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions the same way anyone else would? Not according to statists, who say, "No, because they have powers that most people don't."
Tell me more about these powers... Where do they come from?
Anyone who believes that having a state is necessary for us to be civilized would explain, "Other people. Because we let them have that power, to enforce the laws! There are maniacs out there who slaughter people like animals. They wouldn't care! Laws exist, so we don't end up killing each other. It's our duty to obey these laws. It's how we contribute to society."
Wouldn't that be claiming that morality comes from authority...? What are these laws? The codes and rules printed in complicated wording through legislation? Would these maniacs they're worried about truly tremble in fear and obey every one of these all-powerful judgments, backed by the threat of coercive force?
If all the thousands of laws were taught to children in schools, they wouldn't have time to learn about anything else.
If these judgments are so great, then why are they complicated to understand? To really understand what at least some of the legalese means, you'd have to look in a Black's Law dictionary to do so.
Those who believe in and rely on government turn a blind eye to a very unfortunate truth. Many of the injustices that have happened throughout history had been carried out by groups who were just following orders. Just doing as they were told to do, without question.
When it comes to obedience, it's just doing as you're told. So no, morality does not come from authority. And authority is someone who has the power to rule over others. Synonym terms include command, control, dominance, and supremacy.
I know I've said in part 1 that I would explain in two different ways as to how statism does not make sense to me. I'll be using present day information almost everybody knows.
About political "representatives": why are they acceptable by so many through the political process, but not any other situation?
Socialist communities vote for candidates by paper ballot or by using voting machines so that one of them can be elected to be president, the chosen leader and commander of USA Incorporated. They participate because they believe in this process, and that the men and women who say they'll help provide for them "represent" them.
Why? Because they're allowed to do things we're not allowed to do?
If I went from door to door in my neighborhood telling them what they can and cannot do, they'd look at me as if I had lost my mind. They'd tell me to leave.
Politicians are humans like us. They breathe the same air as we do, so why are they allowed to be put in charge? Because "consent of the governed"? That term itself is a bizarre, contradictory phrase. When a person consents, then he or she agrees to something voluntarily. Another word for govern is the word control... To consent and to be governed are mutually exclusive.
To consent to being governed by others, rather than to be given the room and education they'd require to self-govern themselves - wouldn't that be consenting to having each other enslaved within a political system?
Politicians are recognized by the larger majority as more than just human. They're allowed to be given these superhuman powers to call for policies to be set in place.
Authority in this way is a purely faith-based belief that certain groups of people are in the right to rule over others. If anyone disobeys the commandments of the ruling class (laws), then they are deemed sinners and deserve to be punished and caged (be cuffed, treated like a criminal, and taken to prison).
One of the most crazy things authority worshipers say to justify and cling to these core beliefs they were told over and over again is, "We are the government."
Well, do they get to write the laws? Do they get to boss others around? Do they get to take one of their own disobedient citizens away and lock them up in a cage? If they answer no to each of those questions, then they'd be caught being dishonest to themselves.
Statism, in this way, is a cult religion. It is the most dangerous one of its kind.
The second way statism doesn't make sense to me is through an analogy I'll explain.
Many of us already know and understand our own on which behavior is good and which behavior is bad, without having to look through law books, asking lawyers, or turning to politicians and bureaucrats for help.
Yet, for some reason, many sometimes forget what is ethically and reasonably required to have communities of people who know how to get along with one another.
I grew up around people who went to Alcoholics Anonymous. My dad has been sober for over 20 years. We both thoroughly understand about those who drink too much. They clearly can't obtain sobriety or even try to by staying drunk.
I've seen enough movies that involve the theme alcoholism. The rational and ethical thinking are gone when alcoholics are heavily under the influence. They hurt themselves and anyone else around them, especially when they're incapable of knowing when to put away their poison of choice.
As for those who protest or advocate for more power from authority, they cannot be rationally nor morally be consistent with themselves. They'd demand for individuals they don't like or agree with to be threatened, or be put under obligation to do what they view as personally wrong to maintain peace within their communities.
Negative emotions (fear, hate, etc.) are dominant over good reasoning and decision making whenever this happens. And it's similar to whenever there are angry rioters in the streets. As they demand for others around them to be harmed and controlled under new laws and regulations, they are also hurting themselves.
If anyone's answer to any failure of government power is more government power, then they're similar to alcoholics who are trying to drink themselves sober.
If humans cannot be free to live in peace and be treated as self-owning individuals, then humans are doomed to fail. If we can't trust people with liberty but with power, then we will never learn to improve ourselves.
People behave stupidly and cowardly out of instinct when they're unable to control their emotions. When they reason too much, they tend to act insensitive. What keeps people from being too stupid or too insensitive? Ethics, and self-control!
If you've read up to this point, then please share this information. Encourage people to educate themselves, and free themselves from the lies that hold their minds and hearts hostage.
Also, if you come across anyone who says that morals don't matter or don't exist, then show them this entry, or part 1 that I've linked to in the beginning of it! Or show them the video version of part one I put together.
I intend to do a video version of this sometime later on.
