Misrule and Criminal Rule of America
We and the Government as it stands:
Three billion years of evolution have imbued all life on earth with one basic motivation: All living organisms, including all human beings, always act in what they consider to be in their best self-interest. This unalterable motivation is the source for all other emotions of all living organisms. This motive is also the precursor of the Negative Golden Rule, which first appears in the writings of the nascent periods of major religions and civilizations.
The Biblical Golden Rule states: "Do unto others what you want done to yourself" The Negative Golden Rule states: "Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself". This nugget of wisdom goes back thousands of years. It appears in old Judaic teachings as well as in the ancient Tibetan Buddhist aphorism: "Let all hear this moral maxim and having heard it, keep it well: Whatever is not pleasing to yourself, do not that into others".
The actual Golden Rule, as embedded in the New Testament of the Bible, is adverse to human emotional and evolutionary motivation. Unfortunately, St. Matthew was not familiar with human nature when he said in (7-12) "Therefor all things whatsoever ye would that men do to you, do ye even so to them. For this is the law and the prophets".
Immanuel Kant, too, knew little about human nature when he torturously invented his Categorical Imperative. Since this long-winded moral exhortation is nothing but a convoluted version of the Golden Rule, it is just as ineffective as the Golden Rule. Most people are not even aware of this Kantian moral imperative and nobody pays any attention to it. This type of philosophizing exposes Kant as just another one of the many philosophers who lacked a basic understanding of human nature and reality.
The same psychological principles that apply to the moral code of a society, also apply to individual members of a society who merely wish to enhance their coexistence with other members of their family or society. All human beings have an infinite number of wants, needs and desires. It is impossible to know and understand all of the wants and likes of another person.
Therefore, it is impossible and presumptive for a person to decide what may be desirable for another person, merely as a projection of his own desires. A projection of our own likes would rely on the unrealistic assumption that others have the same needs and desires as we do. We know from everyday observations that other people do not have the same likes as we do and, since we can merely surmise what others may like, we will almost certainly create dismay more often than happiness.
So, we are not concerned with the political machinations of governments. We are merely concerned with the interaction between governments and our singularly individual needs. Our main individual concern in maintaining our own health, wealth and happiness is the need to protect ourselves from impositions created by governments.
We must be careful to achieve this objective without conflicting with the government and its laws, without rocking the boat of government and without even giving the appearance of interfering with the demands of the government.
Nothing good is going to happen if we attack any government in any way, form or shape. It is best if we leave confrontation to self-destructive hotheads. Rational persons have only one objective in life, and that is to be as happy as humanly possible. People who fight the government are not happy people and they usually lose.
We therefore cannot change the world, or the people in it, to any substantial degree. What we can do and what we must do in order to achieve happiness is to be fully aware of the way the world works, to align ourselves with the reality of the situation and to cope with obstacles in a non-confrontational, rational and efficacious manner.
It is the nature of governments to deprive their constituents of their hard-earned wealth by taxation and inflation; at worst, governments may subjugate us or kill us. Governments may not hesitate to force their constituents to become the willing or unwilling canon fodder of military involvements. If we should try to shirk this duty, we may be shot as deserters, just to set an example.
Our government will demand all such sacrifices in the interest of the Common Good of the Nation, as defined by the government. If it is in the interest of the political leadership, appropriate propaganda will persuade citizens to believe in and act upon false or spurious objectives.
Those who suffer from the tumultuous emotion of patriotism, commonly encourage the love of one's own country and its frequent offspring, war. Politicians invoke patriotism to stimulate sacrifices from those who will suffer the most from war. As George Bernard Shaw asserted so humorously but succinctly, "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others, merely because you were born in it".
Patriotism is to politics what faith is to religion: The unquestioned acceptance of information that is either unverified or that may actually be in conflict with factual evidence. Patriotism is the incubator of wars.
Similar to religion, patriotism is an emotion, as opposed to a rational thought process. Studies and surveys have consistently indicated that approximately 90% of persons in any given country have strong patriotic sentiments. This percentage is similar to the percentage of people involved in other faith-based activities, such as religion. This same percentage also reflects the bell-curve of the general intelligence level of a population: 90% of all persons in a Caucasian population group register an IQ below 120.
It is counter-productive to look to the government for gratuitous benefits. So-called free goods or services offered by the government are not free but always carry a hidden price tag: The price we pay could be a restriction of our freedom to act independently, or we may receive goods and services that are of inferior quality.
Governments only provide such services or goods that the Free-Market has declined to provide, usually due to a lack of demand for a product at a specific price level. Private investors do not hesitate to launch commercial satellites but they do consider it unprofitable, unproductive and a waste of resources to send space vehicles into the distant universe. Only governments engage in such wasteful endeavours in order to enhance their appeal to the patriotic masses.
We always need to be cognizant of the fact that the government, any government, has no money and no wealth of its own. Governments, as represented by professional politicians, have only four methods of acquiring financial resources that they can then dole out to further their own objectives. 1. Direct taxation of its citizenry; 2. Indirect taxation involving the counterfeiting of its own currency, also known as inflation; 3. Wars provide for the looting of other countries. 4. Political manipulation of the economy.
Bureaucrats, the true executive branch of any government, pursue only two objectives: To preserve their own jobs with a minimum of work and to create or enlarge their own private empires, their circle of influence. Ordinary citizens have no contact with the political power structure. Even in a democracy, members of the electorate are always restricted to dealing with bureaucrats, rather than having direct access to their elected representative.
The primary objective of bureaucrats is to lead simple and hassle-free lives. If we are dependent on their favourable response, we will find it to our advantage to flatter their sense of self-esteem. Bureaucrats will not condone any attempt to question their sense of importance: Keep it simple, flatter them, make life simple for them, do not contradict them, and all will be well. Do not rock the boat of government: It is far easier to simply slide through the quagmire of bureaucratic impositions.
The government has practically unlimited resources. Our own resources are limited and puny in comparison. If a government needs additional resources, it merely has to tap the wealth of its citizens by taxation. This approach to wealth is clearly an option not available to ordinary citizens.
At all costs, we should avoid a situation where the government may just want to set an example of its power to deal with any perceived or imagined obstructionism: If we expose ourselves to such a situation, we may lose all we have, including our freedom, on the altar of a god called Idealism.
Idealists, like Pastor Niemoeller and Company, pay dearly and accomplish nothing. Only other idealists, who are smart enough to avoid confrontations with the government, will glorify such misguided approach to happiness. Idealistic fools usually become unsung martyrs. We should only speak the truth, but we should not speak of everything that is true.
Aside from the practical consideration of not irritating the government, we need to remember that governments have always been an integral and necessary part of human society. Indeed, without governments, human society and civilization could not prevail. Governments are a curse and a blessing. They will continue to help and to plague us, until the very nature of man changes.
Governments exist because, similar to religions, they meet certain innate, irrational needs of man: People mistakenly believe that governments, or religions, can provide them with benefits that would not otherwise be available. People tend to overlook the fact that the government has no money and no resources, except those that it can claim from its citizens.
Taxes are the lifeblood of any government. Governments cannot exist without taxation. Any government can and will obtain compliance with its demands by the use of force or the threat of force.
The government can bankrupt us just by hauling us into its courts on spurious charges. We may win our case, eventually, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory because we will be much poorer. This process is also known as Winning the Battle but Losing the War. This outcome is inevitable if we play philosophical games with the government.
We must also remember that the Judicial System, from the local Justice Court to the Supreme Court, is an integral part of the government. Politicians set the salaries of all judges, even Supreme Court Justices, and pay for them out of tax revenues. There are the limits to the impartiality of judges. They know precisely who pays their salaries. Every human being always does what he considers to be in his best self-interest.
So, do not believe a single word a politician utters and pay no attention to statistics or news releases by the government. In order to keep their constituents ignorant of the realities of life, and in order to renege on previous promises or contracts such as social security schemes, all releases of information by the government are highly suspect. From crime statistics to economic statistics, all such information is essentially self-serving and useless; it may even be dangerous.
For example, if we wish to inform ourselves of the actual level of inflation, we merely need to observe the price level of common goods over a period of several decades: From books, to cars, to stocks, to houses. We will then know, factually, that most governments routinely inflate their currency at the inconspicuous rate of 6-7%. This inflation goes on year after year, doubling all prices approximately every 10-12 years, decade after decade after decade.
However, government statistics consistently show that, due to the vigilance of our government, inflation runs only 2 or 3 % per year. In 2002, inflation in the housing sector was 25%, but government statistics showed an inflation rate of 1.4%. Such misrepresentations severely distort the economic projections and financial decisions of ordinary persons.
Reliance on such governmentally induced distortions can be extremely destructive to our financial health. Only governments can create inflation by counterfeiting their own money. However, governments assert simultaneously that they are struggling heroically against inflation. Unless we perceive inflation correctly, we may become the tragic victims of the economic policies of a government.
It would be ludicrous to pay any attention to the campaign promises of politicians. It is foolish to believe what any politician says: His sole objective in life is to be elected or re-elected. He is an expert in the elusive manipulation of data and he will camouflage in ambiguity any false statement or promise that will help him accomplish this objective.
If we really feel the wasteful need to participate in electing a particular politician, we need to look to his previous actions, not to his gilded promises. Do not pay attention to what a person says; pay only attention to what a person does.
Thus, do not waste your time participating in elections. It requires time, effort and thoughtful analysis to vote in political elections. Unless you are casting your vote on a small Board of Directors, or a similar small institution, your vote represents a meaningless illusion of power.
Voting in the political arena is like voting for tomorrow's weather. Your single vote will never make the slightest difference to the outcome of any election, no more than it would affect tomorrow's weather. In national elections, your vote is completely irrelevant because it is one of 100,000,000 votes. A person would have to be a raving megalomaniac to believe that his lone vote matters to the outcome of political elections.
Of course, some self-anointed patriots may admonish you by saying: "If everyone would take this attitude, our democratic form of government would collapse". However, the fact remains that most people are not motivated by rational thought processes. Most people are governed by the emotion-driven psychology of crowds. Therefore, most people will continue to vote, regardless of whether you vote, or not.
The concept of voting is a lure to the mind because it provides an illusion of power. Regretfully, it also results in a waste of our limited resources, such as our time and effort. Politicians will always exhort people to vote because "it is the patriotic thing to do". Their power and their income is dependant on the voting process: The more people vote, the more power accrues to the politician. Alas, the same benefits do not accrue to the voter.
While we navigate our puny vessel through the shoals of life, we realize that human existence is full of rocks, shallows and other disasters, waiting to destroy or damage us. Since our government appears to be all powerful because it commands police forces, armies, nuclear weapons and unlimited resources, we feel justified in assuming that our government can protect us from adverse events such as burglaries, thefts, injuries, terrorism, job loss, etc., etc. Unfortunately, this na?ve assumption is a complete fallacy and illusion, carefully nurtured by our politicians. Instead of protecting us, our government is frequently a major contributing factor to the calamities of our life.
Homes in most Western countries are burglarized around the clock. Can our government protect us? Of course, it cannot. If we want to protect ourselves against burglars, we need to install a burglar alarm, hire a guard or take other protective measures. The police can do nothing except try to catch the perpetrators and punish them.
This governmental approach to security may be interesting to the victim and enhance the prestige of the police, but it does not restore our property. We do not benefit at all from the fact that the burglar has been put behind bars for a limited period so that he cannot burglarize the homes of other persons.
The recovery of goods taken in burglaries is so miniscule as to be practically non-existent. To add insult to injury, we may be required to waste our time by having to attend the court proceedings as a witness, or to identify the culprit. This system is hardly worth having but probably better than no system at all. If we really want to be secure from burglars, we need to install and pay for a good security system in our house. The same situation prevails in all other instances where the government, or its agents, is supposedly protecting us.
All persons, with the exceptions of a person we call a sociopath; develop moral codes of one kind or another. A moral code is a code of conduct, a shortcut, to pre-determine the consequences of potential actions or inactions. When we deal with other persons in an environment of free markets, it is in our best self-interest to conduct our exchanges with other persons above board and without coercion, fraud or threats.
However, our dealings with governments are not based on a mutuality of benefits; they are based on coercion by force or the threat of force: If there were no punishment for the non-payment of income taxes, would anyone pay income taxes? Therefore, it may be advisable to use a modified moral standard when dealing with the government, then when dealing with people in consensual transactions.
Politicians lead their followers because they consider such action to be in their own best self-interest. Politicians find it rewarding to be leaders, because their status as a leader enhances their power, as well as their financial and emotional rewards.
When some persons refer to politicians as arrogant, demagogic or power-hungry, such denigration should not be considered a moral judgment. We are not the moral guardians of other persons in this society.
Therefore, we neither approve of the conduct of politicians nor condemn their conduct. We merely recognize that their conduct represents the way the world really is. If we were intellectually and temperamentally as cunning as politicians are, we might act in precisely the same manner.
Any effort we might expend to modify an undesirable situation in the political arena is a waste of time and imperils our happiness. We must not attack any obstacles that we encounter merely because they were set up by our politicians and our governments in the promotion of their own objectives. It is far simpler, and far more effective, to circumvent such impediments to our happiness while adhering to our lawful and peaceful conduct.
We must optimize our happiness by dealing effectively and realistically with our environment. It is essential to our happiness to clearly understand the nature of reality, including the innate nature of man, of politicians and of governments.
A case in point is the difference in attitudes between Europeans and Americans. In order to accumulate ever-larger houses and automobiles, Americans have to work more hours than Europeans do. Instead of two weeks vacation, practically all Europeans earn four or six weeks vacation each year. Americans traded appearances and the need to impress strangers, for the ability to rest longer and work less intensively. The perceived standard of living and the standard of happiness are obviously on the side of the Europeans. The life expectancy of Europeans, as an indicator of the standard of living and health care, is identical to the life expectancy found in Americans. Happiness does not rest in the quantity of money that we control; it rests in our quality of life.
If we have more money than we need for preserving the necessities of life, we will worry about losing it. The Ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes lived a very simple life and considered himself a much more fortunate and happy man than the most powerful man of his time, Alexander the Great. The story goes that, when the almighty Alexander asked Diogenes if he could do anything to alleviate his apparent poverty, Diogenes merely asked Alexander to step aside because he was blocking the sun.
As human beings it is our responsibility to determine what it is that we seek from our lives and how we set about achieving these objectives. If our current system of Government does not help us in achieving our shared life goals, we assume that we can change it and in this we are wrong.
Democracy is a carefully crafted tool of Government, one which requires participation of its individual subjects to thrive. The Democratic process is deeply embedded in our Psyche and we believe that we can only change a Democratic Government by subscribing to the processes of Democracy. In this we are wrong as the very act of engaging with the Democratic process simply perpetuates it. Democracy thrives on debate, factional arguments, individual choices and ultimately the ballot box.
This process changes nothing and simply serves to gift Politicians with more opportunity, more options for the accumulation of personal power and wealth and a greater capacity to interpret the Will of the People to their own ends.
The American Constitution was drafted by people far wiser than their time, visionaries who saw the inherent evil of the Democratic process and the contradictory simplicity of its ease in interpreting the Will of the People and in implementing it. Yet it has ultimately failed because the simplicity of Democracy is its greatest downfall. Its Achilles Heel. Whilst we participate in responding to the lies of Politicians at the Ballot Box, we will not change anything of benefit in our present system of Government.
But, if we stop participating, what happens then?
What if?
EDIT: Reconstructed an illogical paragraph.
