Mindless Hyperbole and the Primaries

Today I was giving some thought to why I had not blogged for awhile. I suspect it’s because of all the manipulative hyperbolic rhetoric attendant to the emotional intensity of the primary contests for Prez.

A wonderful example of the kind of wannbe-clever manipulation I'm referring to was Hillary's low-class scare ad against Obama. Junction Daily Blog's Ralph D'Andrea did a good job of dealing with it in his 2-29-08 post titled "Answering The Phone At 3:00 AM". Just for amusement, compare Hillary's ad to Obama's ad to a satire ad posted by "nyprogressive".

(If you're into Grand Junction's local political scene, you should definitely check what Ralph has to say from time to time. He's interested in some stuff that bores me to tears, so it's a lot easier to just keep an eye on what Ralph is writing than to go look the crap up myself.)

It’s all too easy to get too wound up and let one’s mouth get ahead of one’s brain. For example,  both “left” and “right” continually resort to the politics of personal destruction. By that, I mean the process of dehumanizing a person with hyper-emotional ad hominem attacks so you can destroy him, à la Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt, as implemented by Adolf Hitler’s minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels.

All you have to do to know exactly what I’m talking about is surf some of the talk strings on the web. E.g. some of the comments about the passing of William F. Buckley, Jr. were mindlessly savage. And that’s too bad, because it makes you hate the “hate” posters. Such are the dangers of the intellectual fraud of political correctness.

You see, at heart, down deep, I suspect almost everybody knows that most people like to think of themselves as decent people of good will. That includes both “left” and “right”. So where does all the mindless emotional intensity come from? What are the specifically articulated ideas that provoke such ignorant, rude, crude, and lewd manipulative anger?

Does anybody seriously think Hillary, Obama, Nader, McCain , Huckabee, or Ron Paul would send the world into nuclear winter any more than, say, FDR, LBJ or Reagan? Does any decent person of good will, in their heart of hearts, seriously believe the world would be a better place if only the folks on the "far left" or "far right" could be literally beaten to near death with a Roman flagellum or Russian knout and then drawn and quartered à la Edward Longshanks in "Braveheart"? Come on, folks, let's lighten up a little and get real.

So-called modern “liberals” — as touchy-feely, politically-correct, Nanny-State socialists, they are the polar opposite of the classical definition of individual-freedom-basedliberalJohn Stuart Mill spoke of in his essay “On Liberty” —  are like adolescents who haven’t accepted accountability and responsibility for their own behavior choices yet. They can’t believe the world is such a rough place, so they want to use the power of “government” to help them feel better about themselves by stealing from achievers to subsidize the ignorance and laziness of underachievers.

In my college days, I used to be one of these ignorant self-pitying unfortunates. Lots of people did. That’s the source of the old saying, “if you’re not liberal when you’re young, you have no heart; if you’re not conservative when you’re old, you have no brain.”

The problem with socialists is that they act as if there is no such things as the empirically observable cause and effect laws of Nature — including most especially those which relate to human behavior — when such is self-evidently not the case. For example, it is self-evident that 1 + 1 + 2, that a2 + b2 = c2 in a right triangle. The Golden Rule is also self-evident and logical to any kind-hearted and clear thinking individual. Of course, smart alecks and sophists could cite masochists as being the exception to the rule, but all non-sophists can agree that one doesn't define rules by their exceptions. Besides, masochism is self-evidently not normal healthy human behavior. At best it is some kind of aberration or adaptation. At worst, per Webster's dictionary, it is a perversion.

Nature’s first law of economics is in two parts: 1) whatever you tax (e.g. ingenuity, hard work, productivity, knowledge, generosity, self-sufficiency, responsibility, etc) you WILL get less of, and 2) whatever you subsidize (e.g apathy, laziness, unproductivity, ignorance, greed, dependency, irresponsibility, unwed motherhood, etc) you WILL get more of.

The question is what kind of a society do we want to live in? If you want a Nanny State, then government schools have to create a bunch of ignorant and helpless dependents. If you want a "therapy culture", then government schools have to create a neverending bunch of sick and dependent clients for the therapists to justify their salaries.

Furthermore, when you tax anything, you must necessarily resort to “government” (actually just a stupid human pecking order struggle), which fact is a main source of ignorance, misunderstanding and wishful self-centered thinking.

Humans are created (or evolved, if you prefer) as separate and distinct individuals, each with inherent free will and an inherent survival need for individual freedom, self-ownership and self-determination. That is the spiritual and intellectual essence of humankind.

We are also, by nature, gregarious creatures who like to hang out and fellowship in packs, families, villages and societies, which is where the “government” paradox enters the picture. The paradox is worsened by the confusion between the words "self-control", "governance", and "government".

Natural "self control" starts when an individual realizes his moral obligation to not treat other individuals in any way he would not want to be treated himself. Natural “governance” starts when one individual has a good idea which is useful to all. For example one individual visualizes that it would be a good idea to dig a ditch and divert water from a stream or river into a corn field for irrigation. Everybody else thinks it’s a good idea too, so they all pitch in to dig the ditch and divert the water. With more water, the corn field yields many times more corn, and the village has plenty to eat all through the winter.

The smart individual who envisioned irrigation is a natural “leader”. The rest of the people look up to natural leaders, and can’t wait for the next good idea to make their lives easier and more content.

Gradually, over time, the “majority”, who want to do things the “leader’s” way, come to the conclusion that everybody should be forced to help pay for whatever projects the majorities and their leaders want to accomplish. They come to believe they have the right to use coercion to force every other individual to pay for whatever projects they want to do. Hence the evolution of “taxes” which the individual can be fined or imprisoned — even tortured — for refusing to pay one’s so-called “fair share”. So, gradually the words  “leader” and “government”, instead of meaning “one who has useful ideas”, evolves into meaning “one who has the power to force obedience from his followers on pain of fines, imprisonment, torture or death.”

Following or helping an individual who has good ideas useful to the whole community is the polar opposite from enabling “leaders” to use fear and violence to coerce obedience from the herd on pain of loss of labor, property, freedom, or even life.

There is no such thing as “fair share” of taxes, when, in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and the intent of the Founders, money, in and of itself, has become a secretive and deceptive debt-based manipulation of political power instead of a commodity possessing inherent usefulness to human beings.

There is no such thing as constitutional “government” when, in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and the intent of the Founders, the coercive power of the state has ceased to be the fair-minded and neutral referee on a level economic playing field and, instead, become a mere tool of private financial business interests to steal labor from the productive classes and redistribute the stolen loot to the political classes who vote for corrupt “leaders”.

Nature constructed humans under the “individual mind of A controls the individual body of A” paradigm. Government constitutes an inherently unnatural and unworkable “mind of A controls the body of B” paradigm.

The reason “government” does not, indeed cannot, work is because when the mind of A is allowed to control the body (physical labor) of B, there is no end to the wants, demands, and expectations of A’s mind. If “in (political) Power,” the wants, demands, and expectations of A’s mind are not restricted by the reality-based physical limitations of A’s body to produce all those wants, demands, and expectations for itself. If not “in (political) Power,” then A’s wants, demands, and expectations are restricted by the reality-based physical limitations of A’s body to produce all those wants, demands, and expectations for itself.

When the herd agrees to the “mind of A controls body of B” paradigm, better known by such terms as “feudalism”,  “fascism”, “socialism”, “collectivism”, “totalitarianism”, “authoritarianism”, “autocracy”, etc, because of the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting nature of One-Ring (see J.R.R. Tolkien) political power, the mind of A becomes exponentially deluded and corrupt, demanding ever more from the body of B. When the body of B can no longer suffer the increasing stress of increasing evil, it rebels and uses violence to defend itself against the intolerable demands of A.

Such rebellions on the part of the subject classes B against the ruling political classes A are commonly referred to as “revolutions”. Throughout the 6000 years of recorded human history, violent self-defensive revolutions have occurred every 200-500 years. Hence the so-called “revolutionary cycle”. Every 200-500 years everybody meets out in a field with swords and spears and hacks each other to pieces. When the battle is over, new politicians with new constitutions and hands on new Bibles, with a new batch of babies to kiss, promise to do better than the old “government”. Then they put on the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting One Ring of (political) Power, and start the insane cycle of pain and suffering all over again.

The inherently unnatural and unworkable realities of the anti-individual “mind of A controls the body of B” paradigm constitute the dispositive logical explanation as to why individual freedom and self-sufficiency are vastly preferable to collectivism and interdependency as both virtues as economics-based political theories. It is also the reason why, in the long run, no so-called “economy” can function successfully unless it is composed of willing individual buyers and willing individual sellers in a free marketplace: Nature, with its inherent law of the self-interested survival of the fittest, is, per se, in and of itself, a free market which rewards ingenuity, honest labor and useful production, while penalizing ignorance, laziness and lack of production.

I spent over 1600 words to get to the point where I can ask you this: why is it — when the big “news” item of interest is about how a bunch of disordered power-hungry control freaks are competing for your agreement for them to run your life and steal your labor — that we have to use mindless ad hominem obscenities, lies and spin in a childish attempt to dehumanize, demonize and destroy each other if it looks like we can’t have what we stupidly think is “our way”, when it should actually be easily possible for us to discuss ideas about economics and politics graciously and courteously even if we don’t agree on the ideas?

Can you any of you so-called “liberals” out there explain to me the specifically-articulated details of your economic and political theories as to exactly why you think I’m such a big jerk for not wanting to let you run my life and steal my labor?

Would you like for me to run your life and steal your labor? I thought not. Then I rest my case.

ShareThis