Wednesday, February 12, 2014

The Implied Truth of Power

I know I've covered this already, but it is still a thing in the news, so I'm going to talk about it again.
I grow tired of people acting shocked – SHOCKED IT TELL YOU – when people who they’ve willingly given unquestioned power over their lives, use that power to their own selfish desires.
Chris Christie shut down a highway to punish a political opponent? Yawn…
They freak the hell out like it is some abuse of their trust, and I just belly laugh, because who the hell thinks a guy like Christie sought out and took his power over the people of New Jersey for altruistic reasons? Who thinks that about any politician? He did it specifically so he could get the power to shut down highways, and people’s lives, on a whim. It’s his thing. It’s ALL of their things. The very people who seek power over others are the last people on Earth to whom we should grant it, and yet our political system only allows for those people.
The actual number of politicians who are in it to truly help people an make a difference are so few it is laughable that anyone thinks such a thing is common. Even those politicians aren’t excused, because they seek power to “help” people, usually at the expense of others.
The biggest joke is that the “problems” that people bring up that would exist without a coercive, violent government are generally so much less than the “problems” we face as a result of our coercive, violent government that I just can’t even put it in words.
“Without the police, people will prey on us!”
“Yeah, and WITH the police, people will prey on you, anyway, and the police will also prey on you because they can, and you won’t be able to do anything about it to boot!”
“Without the government, we won’t have roads!”
At this point, I just sigh, because anyone that believes that the government is the only thing on Earth that knows how to build a road is so far gone…
I usually try this on for size:
“Without the government, 150 million people wouldn’t have been slaughtered in war, concentration camps, famine, and purging in the 20th century. You can fear roving motorcycle gangs of gasoline thieves all you want, but they aren't myriad.  They don't have monopolies on the use of force.  They don't have weapons that you cannot get, or surveillance technologies that allow them to track your every move.  They don't have an implied, socially reinforced method to make you do things you do not want to do, and throw you in a cage if you choose not to.  The only thing they have is violence, and the ability to use it to make you do things, or deny you things, that you don't want to be made to do, or do not want to be denied.  You are fully justified to fight back against a gang, and it would not be futile.  Government?  Not only do they think that you not have the right, but most of your neighbors are going to agre with that, and they have bombs, drones, and machine guns.  If they decide you're going to the camp, you're going to the camp.  Period. I’m going to just keep on fearing government, thanks much.”

1 comment:

  1. I meant to make a point there with the "without the police" thing, but maybe didn't make it entirely clear.

    Let's put it this way.

    In the areas where there are the most police, crimes against individuals are the highest of any other place. In the areas where there are the least police, crimes against the individual are the lowest of any place.

    It doesn't matter what order you put the cause and effect - there is more crime because there are more police, or there are more police because there is more crime. Either way, the idea that having police, or having MORE police, will do something to stop bad men from preying on innocents is, at least to me, naiive.