Oppression: Symptoms and Causes
There are a lot of organizations that exist for the purpose of pointing out government corruption, abuse, waste, conspiracy, oppression and brutality. And that is a very valuable service: showing people all the nasty things that those in power are up to. However, while there have been people screaming “Look how bad this is!” for centuries, righteously condemning various misdeeds of “the powers that be,” most of those people have focused on the symptoms of authoritarian power, instead of on the underlying causes.
By analogy, imagine going to a doctor, and having him tell you that you are “really, really messed up.” You then ask exactly how and why you are “messed up.” What is the cause? And what can be done about it? He doesn’t really know, but he’s very eager to keep telling you how doomed you are. Yes, it’s good to know how bad the situation is, but at some point merely telling you how unhealthy you are doesn’t really help all that much. But when you ask him what to do about it, he just says, “I don’t know, maybe take an aspirin or something.”
It doesn’t take any great perceptiveness or astute powers of observation to notice that a lot is wrong with the world today. But if those loudly reporting the “wrongness” aren’t also aware of the root causes, and what can be done to actually change things, then mostly the message just becomes frustrating and depressing to listen to. And if people continually express righteous anger and indignation at the injustice they see, only to then propose pointless, worthless solutions—or no solutions at all—that doesn’t really help.
Often you will see a completely justified expression of outrage over yet another example of police brutality, followed by some vague, impotent call for “accountability.” Or you will see yet another example of political corruption, followed by a plea for people to vote harder. Or you will hear of the latest fascist legislation being proposed, followed by a suggestion that people “write their congressman.” All of these are fine examples of how simply knowing that something is wrong is not the same as knowing what is wrong, or having any idea what might actually stop it.
Henry David Thoreau was so right when he said that “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” Does anyone really believe that getting one sadistic cop fired is going to somehow reverse the many-decades-long trend of the country stampeding towards totalitarianism? Does anyone really believe that voting a particular scumbag out of office will make the rest suddenly become angelic and noble? Does anyone really think that holding another “protest,” where people loudly complain at professional liars, thugs and thieves, is going to make the politicians suddenly acquire a conscience?
When I say such things, often “activists” will object, saying that at least they’re “doing something,” by voting, petitioning, campaigning, complaining, etc. But if you’re doing something that has no record of success, and no chance of success, what’s the point? If it’s just to feel better about yourself, while accomplishing nothing, have fun with that. But the most frustrating part is when all the good people who recognize and criticize the results of authoritarianism and statism then turn around and make excuses in support of authoritarianism and statism.
Statist: “Look at how they are abusing their power again!”
Anarchist: “No one should have that power.”
Statist: “What?!? That would lead to chaos and mayhem!!”
This is why I call it “battered citizenry syndrome”: so many people object to the inevitable results of having a ruling class, but when faced with the idea of not having a political master at all, they get even more agitated and alarmed in the other direction. They start talking about how, yeah, we need “reform,” and need to petition and vote differently, but if someone suggests that maybe we should get away from the abuser entirely, they suddenly go into terminal Stockholm Syndrome mode.
“I know it’s been nasty and violent, but it can get better! Deep down I know it cares about me, and wants what’s best for me! It can change! And in a way it’s my fault. And I can’t possibly live without it!”
So let me be blunt to the point of being rude: if you zealously condemn the misdeeds of the powers that be, while continuing to argue that “government” is legitimate and necessary, you are an enabler of tyranny. If you keep talking as if people have to seek reform through the channels created by the ruling class, then you are ridiculously gullible and will accomplish nothing. If you bitch about the symptoms of authoritarian injustice, while still advocating the cause of that injustice, you are still part of the problem.
The way to end police abuse is to end “government” police. The way to end political corruption is to end the political system. When it comes to other types of violent, immoral aggression, people know this. Do good people advocate “reforming” and “limiting” murder, theft and assault? Or do they advocate ending those things? For the same reason, the violent domination and enslavement that is “government” should not be tinkered with, rearranged, reformed or amended. It should be ended. And that starts with people recognizing the fact that calling extortion and thuggery “law” doesn’t make it right, and calling a gang of violent parasites “government” doesn’t make their actions legitimate. Until all the statist protestors and activists realize this, they will be little more than slaves begging their owners to please whip them a little less often.
Well said Larken, well said. This is so indicative of the lack of critical thinking pervading our society. It is a manifestation of our lack of responsibility to discern the underlying causes. That isn't always easy to do though.
It's one thing to look at a diseased tree and say, we need to cut that branch off, as I see it is infested with a terrible fungus. The branch is removed, thinking the problem is solved. This continues until the tree is completely cut down and gone. The disease was in the roots, but what was the cause? Why is the fungus there in the first place? Perhaps the soil condition is the reason. What is contributing to the soil condition? Could it be something in the nearby stream? What is that yuk floating on the stream, is that caused by the fracking the city council has allowed? And on and on.
Getting at the root cause of a matter can be a rabbit hole. The planet is a closed biosphere, everything is related in one way or another. How direct must a cause be related to an effect to say the buck stops there?
I completely agree with you that we must get rid of our belief in authority as one important and direct cause that underlies the empowerment of tyrants, but is that really the root cause, or does it lie even deeper than that?
I paid a visit to Philadelphia decades ago and was awestruck with a room sized machine (similar to this one) that I sat for almost an hour watching as it ran. Sometimes I see the world just like that big Rube Goldberg machine, and we simply can't see it for what it is, because we're too focused on only a part of it. Until we gain perspective to see the entire "machine" we may never understand the actual root cause of symptom X.
One might argue that all we can do is point out relationships between symptoms and suspected causes using inductive reasoning, and then use deductive logic to validate that relationship. Going so far as to label a cause "root" is not something we probably can do due to the inter-relatedness of everything. Saying that a cause X leads to symptom Y may be logical and true, but is that the whole story, or is there an even deeper truth that leads to why the cause exists in the first place?
The search for truth is never ending, but that doesn't mean we give up the search. Finding the primary causal agent of a symptom is not only a matter of discerning that a relationship exists, it also requires assessing the degree of influence a suspected cause has and evaluating whether others might be more important.
It's frustrating to see people believe they're efforts are addressing causes when from our perspective we see even deeper ones, as in your example with a corrupt cop. It's not the cop or the police or the city council or laws or .... government. It goes back to our belief in authority.
However, we should always be asking ourselves: are we looking deep enough?
Excellent post. I just wrote last night about how effective regulation is not done by government.
To your point about not just pointing out the flaws but starting to focus on solutions, one of the most influential books for me was For a New Liberty by Rothbard. For the first time in my life, I started imagining a world without government, authoritarian services. I started to think freely about how the things we want could be provided by individuals working together without violence.
Something I haven't done yet, but I keep thinking about... what if we all together as a Voluntaryist community took the federal budget, create a public google spreadsheet, and start outlining solutions to each and every entry on the list line by line (including striking out the ones which should be eliminated completely). I understand how no single individual can solve all the problems of 100's of millions of people and not even a committee of individual experts will have it all figured out. But I do think the wisdom of the crowd has a chance. I do think we can offer solutions instead of just complaining about the problems. Many of my friends who support government clearly see the problems themselves, but they haven't been shown a clear solution (yet). They are stuck in fear of the unknown. I'm hoping the Mirror will help with this. I'm hoping we as a community can focus more on solutions than problems.
I think Steemit is an excellent example. Uncensorable, free, open, unregulated by government. It's a beautiful thing.
Excellent points made by you too Luke. Thank you for the great visions and ideas!
Thanks!
Not surprising to read another one of your very powerful postings. Thanks for sharing this information that everyone should be aware of and, even more so, be educated in. Namaste :)
You have this idea that you can achieve an absolute.. that you can eliminate corruption entirely. It seems to contradict your idea that it's useless and futile to work toward an impossible/unrealistic goal.
You say:
Ethical people are happy with either reduction or elimination of these things. Among them, realistic people work toward a the feasible outcome of minimizing evil. If you get hung up on absolutes, then you might as well choose to live in Somalia over Denmark, for example. Denmark has not eliminated corruption entirely, but there's a measurable world of difference between the two (see the corruption index.
Boycotting is something that can have a positive effect on the world. Whenever a boycott catches on and large numbers of consumers decide to participate, it carries weight, using the one power companies understand: money. Recent example: Starbucks.
Hence why I advocate for:
You realize that if you boycott intel then all crypto currency is effectively dead?
That's nonsense. Proof-of-work and proof-of-stake are possible with any turing complete machine.
Please explain to me why this would be the case. Because you really lost me there.
Because the servers that run full nodes depend on intel and other companies on the list.
We need viable alternatives before we can boycott. I couldn't really develop steem without my intel powered machines.
Perhaps arm or amd with Linux, but that is a big handicap to me and little harm to intel.
So you mean to say that boycotting intel would disproportionally harm crypto currencies? Very interesting... Would it really kill it though?
That seems like maybe too harsh words to me, but I have to admit that I certainly do not know enough to make a definite statement.
It wouldn't matter if the inflation slowing (what dan considers to be "harm") were disproportionate or not. If it's disproportionate, then the less CPU-intensive currencies (which are also more eco-responsible) would have a well-deserved edge.
If the effect were proportional, then it would be less disruptive, which is a little less than ideal from an environmental standpoint. But in either case the "falling sky" narrative is wacky, and I hope that no one seriously uses it as a basis to rationalize the unethical consumption of Intel products.
There are many flaws in this idea. You have the implied premise that:
Impossible without governments of large nation-states and other corporations joining the boycott, and still unlikely even if nation-states and corporations were to participate. Even so, if we neglect that, you're also assuming:
Even if you believe existing chips would burn out before being surpassed by other chips, your stance also implies that:
Inflation slowing is /by design/, and it's balanced by pricing of the currency. Your bitcoin will be worth more, but 1 satoshi will not be too large to spend. This whole race discussion is irrelevant anyway due to quantum computing already existing and likely to be mainstream in the next 10 years (even w/out Intel involvement).
You also effectively disregard proof-of-stake crypto-currencies, which would get better positioning in the market.
There's a difference between what someone advocates, and what he expects to achieve. Statists CONDONE the violent subjugation of their fellow man.
Great article! I tried to share this on Facebook, but it's not working, steemit is banned apparently.. I have resteemed though, and will share on Twitter.
See if the twitter link will get past facebook.
No problem 4me sharing it on FB...
There have been some claims of "shadowbanning" and similar practices. I havn't been able to confirm, but I think it's good to be aware that even when links seem to show up they still might not be visible for others.
Refreshing, is how I would describe this article.
We use different definitions of "government", likely just because I come originally from a statist marxist, then from an Objectivist background, but that's also pretty much the difference on this particular issue I think. I just use the term "State" or "conscription" and it all still works itself out perfectly.