none so blind
Thus when asked if I am for or against the police I find that no one can even understand my answer.
They believe that it is simply a yes or a no. One side or another. But I must always ask them back, "Which is of more value your life or the State?"
Most people will then assume that when I say State, I somehow magically manifest that word into meaning "a group of people", which I don't, but they do and they tend to say:
"That the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. "
Hogwash.
For it is still the actions and subsequent motion of individual persons who create an activity. It is individuals that make the many possible - The individual man starves and dies from this affliction.
It is the individual person that says of themselves that their life is of lesser value, the group does not define this for the individual. The individual creates and accepts his own miniaturization. It doesn't happen to him by proxy. It is not out of his control. He creates it. Thus, his need of this determination outweighed the needs of the many just because his consent is required. That is, his power to define the 'needs of the many' was an action of diminishing his own value, his consent is the determining factor of whose needs outweigh whose.
It is the individual person that says of themselves that their life is of lesser value, the group does not define this for the individual. The individual creates and accepts his own miniaturization. It doesn't happen to him by proxy. It is not out of his control. He creates it. Thus, his need of this determination outweighed the needs of the many just because his consent is required. That is, his power to define the 'needs of the many' was an action of diminishing his own value, his consent is the determining factor of whose needs outweigh whose.
Most people, pick "the many" and throw out the value of their own lives. When they say such, I give up. They are not reachable.
But occasionally there is one that gets a puzzled look on their face when I ask them which is more valuable. Then I ask, "Which is more valuable to you: My life or the State?" It is easy for a selfish being to believe himself more valuable than some nebulous object called State, but ask him to give the same value to another person and you treading off the reservation. For to most people, they assume, wrongly, that EVERYONE ELSE IS THE STATE and thus do not deserve the same access to Liberty that they wish for themselves.
One in a million might get this. To that individual, I then ask, "Is the state the manifest owner of all legislative actions? And of these actions, who enforces these instruments they define as laws; even if they are immoral, dangerous, corrupt, evil?"
Even that one in a million stops listening here. But if they do understand, they might actually start to get the ethics of Voluntaryism and why it is not like the other political system.
The Ethics are easy:
1. Men are not property
2. The only moral way, then, for men to deal with each other is by voluntary means.
3. Thus, it is the initiation of force that is the immoral act.
4. It, therefore, does not matter who initiates force.
If the agent in question is acting on that Ethics, then I'm in agreement, but most of the time the agent is instead acting on the authority created by the State's monopoly on violence, as a mean to initiate force against another person. I'm for the ethical treatment of people based on an actual ethical view of reality. For Liberty, as it were. That is what I'm for.
If the agent in question is acting on that Ethics, then I'm in agreement, but most of the time the agent is instead acting on the authority created by the State's monopoly on violence, as a mean to initiate force against another person. I'm for the ethical treatment of people based on an actual ethical view of reality. For Liberty, as it were. That is what I'm for.
Comments
Post a Comment