I believe that moral codes are immoral.
They are not only unnecessary but they exist for the purpose of deceiving ourselves into believing that an action we wish to take or have already taken is moral when we know that it is not.
True morality is innate and requires no written code.
We act morally when we act in harmony with our conscience.
We act in harmony with our conscience when our empathy is stronger than our fear because empathy enables us to feel what others feel as if we were them. We do unto others as we would have done unto us.
When our fear is stronger than our empathy we act immorally, because when we are consumed by fear we cannot feel what others feel and we are capable of harming them without remorse.
It is that simple.
Our conscience punishes us for doing so, and we feel the need to morally justify ourselves in a vain attempt to anesthetize our own conscience.
Such is the case with the belief that private property is evil.
We all know that there is nothing inherently evil about owning private property.
The act of owning it does not, by itself, cause harm to any person.
People might harm themselves by judging themselves harshly because they have less of it than others, but this hurt is an imaginary hurt that occurs solely in the mind of the individual.
Fear causes good people to do evil things.
What is really behind this belief that private property is evil is fear.
Fear that they are somehow inadequate because they have less of it than another.
Fear that it can and potentially will be used to cause harm to others.
Fear that those who have more of it somehow have more power than those who do not, leading the later to feel a self-inflicted sense of powerlessness.
Those who profess a belief that private property is evil hold that belief in their moral code because they intend to take what does not belong to them, or to support others who intend to do so or to morally justify the fact that they have already done so.
Were they to allow themselves to feel empathy for their victims they would realize that theft is immoral.
But their fear is stronger than their empathy, so they act immorally.
Moral codes are immoral.
They are invariably driven by fear but seek to camouflage themselves in fake empathy.
Wealth redistribution does not have anything to do with a genuine concern for the welfare of the poor.
This is a lie that the socialists tell themselves to morally justify what they know in their heart to be immoral.
Showing posts with label golden rule. Show all posts
Showing posts with label golden rule. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
What is to be done?
In the beginning were the barbarians.
They had been endowed by natural selection with a highly evolved sense of fear. The fight-or-flight response to the impulse of fear enabled them to survive in the hostile and threatening “survival of the fittest” environment in which they evolved over millions of years.
In time the barbarians triumphed over all of their rivals to become the undisputed masters of the animal kingdom. That triumph represented a major evolutionary turning point for the species of homo sapiens.
In the absence of predators the heightened sense of fear which had served them so well ceased to be an asset and instead became a liability. Natural selection began to reverse itself.
In the mind of the barbarians fear turned to anger, hatred and aggression with such ease and rapidity that it led them to inflict all manner of immorality on each other from theft, to rape to murder to the wholesale slaughter of millions, and they lived their lives in a constant state of conflict of varying intensity.
Their fear of death led them to invent religions which promised an after-life.
Their fear of each other lead them to divide into tribes and to go to war with each other.
Unable to control their fears they sought instead to control each other via the establishment of “the rule of law” and armed groups of men to inflict their will on each other.
The resulting cancer of government grew to assume control over nearly all aspects of the lives of the barbarians in their nation state tribes leading to paralysis, stagnation, and economic depression. The state grew in proportion to the inability of individuals to control their fears, and the inability of individuals to control their fears grew in proportion to the state. This vicious self re-enforcing and recurring cycle ended with unstable tyrants ascending to the pinnacle of power and unleashing unrestrained barbarous bloodbaths.
The history of the triumphant species of homo sapiens has many stories that differ in their particulars but the underlying story is always the same – the inability to control their fear lead to unremitting conflict and suffering.
The species was victorious but it was still emotionally immature. They had evolved a rational mind and were able to fend off some attempts of the more ancient fear-based mind from seizing control but they were not yet able to assume total dominance over their own destructive emotions.
The war of consequence was not without but within. It was a war for control their own mind. It was a war between the primitive fear-based brain of the barbarian and the rational mind of the post-barbarian. At its core it was a battle between fear and love, for one could only gain at the expense of the other and love was the means by which the rational mind assumed and maintained control – for the simple reason that the fight-or-flight response to fear robs the brain of the oxygen it needs to function properly.
With each passing generation the rational mind assumed greater dominance. Unbeknownst to all, natural selection was still at work and the unremitting warfare between tribes was actually serving the evolutionary purpose of cleansing the species of those most unable to control their destructive emotions.
Over the eons of barbarous warfare emerged a new type of homo sapiens - the non-barbarian - one who was able to control his fear and thus felt no need to control his environment.
The non-barbarian was able to control his fear of death and thus had no need for religion.
The non-barbarian was able to control his fear of others and thus had no need for government, the rule of law, power or coercion of any sort.
The non-barbarian naturally embraced the philosophy of voluntaryism.
The ascent of the non-barbarian represented a large evolutionary step forward in the history of the species. The triumph of love over fear enabled the rational part of the mind of homo sapiens to achieve dominance over the destructive emotions of his barbarian ancestors.
As the others continued to war and kill each other off the “evolved ones” continued to grow in number and to congregate amongst themselves and to ask the question:
What is to be done?
How do we survive and thrive amongst the hordes of emotionally unstable barbarians?
Whereas we see a world of unbounded opportunity for joy, the fearful barbarians see only threats.
Our very existence is a threat to them.
They seek to control us with their laws, and their governments and their threats of punishment and brutality.
They enslave us by looting our income at gun-point with taxation.
They throw us into their dungeons if we refuse to comply with their cowardly laws.
To live amongst these barbarians is a challenge to our tolerance for tyranny and immorality.
What is to be done?
The answer to that question depends upon the answer to another:
Has a majority of the species evolved to the point where they are physiologically capable of assuming control over their destructive emotions and resisting the temptation to respond to the impulse of fear with coercion?
An answer of “yes” suggests one course of action, whereas one of “no” suggests another.
In the final analysis, there are but two options, and the choice to respond to the impulse of fear with coercion is the deciding factor. To the extent that people continue to make this choice our civilization will remain stuck within the age of barbarism.
Option 1: Empowerment
Those who are willing can be counseled to change their conditioned response to the impulse of fear.
Instead of allowing the fear to grow to the point where the fight-or-flight response is triggered and coercion is embraced, they can choose to face and overcome the fear itself.
They can choose to allow themselves to be consumed by the natural enemy of fear - empathy, compassion and love - and to consequently naturally act in accordance with the Golden Rule instead of resorting to coercion.
This choice leads inexorably to enduring happiness.
Why?
Because it enables us to live in peace and harmony with our conscience.
Because each time we overcome a fear we achieve an enduring sense of empowerment by expanding our comfort zone. When we do so the world becomes a less threatening and more beautiful place - not because it has changed but because we have.
Because the vacuum resulting from the absence of fear is naturally filled by empathy, compassion and love.
Option 2: Natural Selection
On the other hand there are those who are unable or unwilling to control their destructive emotions.
They continue to choose to allow themselves to be consumed by fear and subsequently choose to use ever more evil forms of coercion against others.
In time, they will be dealt with by those they have chosen to harm.
The converse of the Golden Rule is the Law of Reciprocity.
If one’s conscience is not strong enough to enforce the golden rule, the desire for retribution amongst the victims of the tyrants will get the job done.
We need merely sit back and allow nature to take its course. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. No action on our part is required.
Were we voluntaryists of many lands to give in to intemperance, however, we might perhaps seek to accelerate natural selection somewhat by encouraging the barbarians in our respective nation state tribes to war amongst themselves more voraciously so as to eliminate themselves from the gene pool more quickly.
Eventually, natural selection will ensure that the emotionally unstable barbarians will become a tiny minority and they can be dealt with by mental health professionals. As long as the inmates are running the asylum, however, a means of decreasing their numbers is required.
They had been endowed by natural selection with a highly evolved sense of fear. The fight-or-flight response to the impulse of fear enabled them to survive in the hostile and threatening “survival of the fittest” environment in which they evolved over millions of years.
In time the barbarians triumphed over all of their rivals to become the undisputed masters of the animal kingdom. That triumph represented a major evolutionary turning point for the species of homo sapiens.
In the absence of predators the heightened sense of fear which had served them so well ceased to be an asset and instead became a liability. Natural selection began to reverse itself.
In the mind of the barbarians fear turned to anger, hatred and aggression with such ease and rapidity that it led them to inflict all manner of immorality on each other from theft, to rape to murder to the wholesale slaughter of millions, and they lived their lives in a constant state of conflict of varying intensity.
Their fear of death led them to invent religions which promised an after-life.
Their fear of each other lead them to divide into tribes and to go to war with each other.
Unable to control their fears they sought instead to control each other via the establishment of “the rule of law” and armed groups of men to inflict their will on each other.
The resulting cancer of government grew to assume control over nearly all aspects of the lives of the barbarians in their nation state tribes leading to paralysis, stagnation, and economic depression. The state grew in proportion to the inability of individuals to control their fears, and the inability of individuals to control their fears grew in proportion to the state. This vicious self re-enforcing and recurring cycle ended with unstable tyrants ascending to the pinnacle of power and unleashing unrestrained barbarous bloodbaths.
The history of the triumphant species of homo sapiens has many stories that differ in their particulars but the underlying story is always the same – the inability to control their fear lead to unremitting conflict and suffering.
The species was victorious but it was still emotionally immature. They had evolved a rational mind and were able to fend off some attempts of the more ancient fear-based mind from seizing control but they were not yet able to assume total dominance over their own destructive emotions.
The war of consequence was not without but within. It was a war for control their own mind. It was a war between the primitive fear-based brain of the barbarian and the rational mind of the post-barbarian. At its core it was a battle between fear and love, for one could only gain at the expense of the other and love was the means by which the rational mind assumed and maintained control – for the simple reason that the fight-or-flight response to fear robs the brain of the oxygen it needs to function properly.
With each passing generation the rational mind assumed greater dominance. Unbeknownst to all, natural selection was still at work and the unremitting warfare between tribes was actually serving the evolutionary purpose of cleansing the species of those most unable to control their destructive emotions.
Over the eons of barbarous warfare emerged a new type of homo sapiens - the non-barbarian - one who was able to control his fear and thus felt no need to control his environment.
The non-barbarian was able to control his fear of death and thus had no need for religion.
The non-barbarian was able to control his fear of others and thus had no need for government, the rule of law, power or coercion of any sort.
The non-barbarian naturally embraced the philosophy of voluntaryism.
The ascent of the non-barbarian represented a large evolutionary step forward in the history of the species. The triumph of love over fear enabled the rational part of the mind of homo sapiens to achieve dominance over the destructive emotions of his barbarian ancestors.
As the others continued to war and kill each other off the “evolved ones” continued to grow in number and to congregate amongst themselves and to ask the question:
What is to be done?
How do we survive and thrive amongst the hordes of emotionally unstable barbarians?
Whereas we see a world of unbounded opportunity for joy, the fearful barbarians see only threats.
Our very existence is a threat to them.
They seek to control us with their laws, and their governments and their threats of punishment and brutality.
They enslave us by looting our income at gun-point with taxation.
They throw us into their dungeons if we refuse to comply with their cowardly laws.
To live amongst these barbarians is a challenge to our tolerance for tyranny and immorality.
What is to be done?
The answer to that question depends upon the answer to another:
Has a majority of the species evolved to the point where they are physiologically capable of assuming control over their destructive emotions and resisting the temptation to respond to the impulse of fear with coercion?
An answer of “yes” suggests one course of action, whereas one of “no” suggests another.
In the final analysis, there are but two options, and the choice to respond to the impulse of fear with coercion is the deciding factor. To the extent that people continue to make this choice our civilization will remain stuck within the age of barbarism.
Option 1: Empowerment
Those who are willing can be counseled to change their conditioned response to the impulse of fear.
Instead of allowing the fear to grow to the point where the fight-or-flight response is triggered and coercion is embraced, they can choose to face and overcome the fear itself.
They can choose to allow themselves to be consumed by the natural enemy of fear - empathy, compassion and love - and to consequently naturally act in accordance with the Golden Rule instead of resorting to coercion.
This choice leads inexorably to enduring happiness.
Why?
Because it enables us to live in peace and harmony with our conscience.
Because each time we overcome a fear we achieve an enduring sense of empowerment by expanding our comfort zone. When we do so the world becomes a less threatening and more beautiful place - not because it has changed but because we have.
Because the vacuum resulting from the absence of fear is naturally filled by empathy, compassion and love.
Option 2: Natural Selection
On the other hand there are those who are unable or unwilling to control their destructive emotions.
They continue to choose to allow themselves to be consumed by fear and subsequently choose to use ever more evil forms of coercion against others.
In time, they will be dealt with by those they have chosen to harm.
The converse of the Golden Rule is the Law of Reciprocity.
If one’s conscience is not strong enough to enforce the golden rule, the desire for retribution amongst the victims of the tyrants will get the job done.
We need merely sit back and allow nature to take its course. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. No action on our part is required.
Were we voluntaryists of many lands to give in to intemperance, however, we might perhaps seek to accelerate natural selection somewhat by encouraging the barbarians in our respective nation state tribes to war amongst themselves more voraciously so as to eliminate themselves from the gene pool more quickly.
Eventually, natural selection will ensure that the emotionally unstable barbarians will become a tiny minority and they can be dealt with by mental health professionals. As long as the inmates are running the asylum, however, a means of decreasing their numbers is required.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
The destruction of the state is a moral imperative
Good and evil
What is morality?
What is right and wrong?
How do you answer this question?
Different people answer it differently.
Different philosophies answer it differently.
Different religions answer it differently.
Different legal systems answer it differently.
However, that which is perhaps most fascinating is not what is different but what is the same.
Beneath all the rules of all of the moral codes of all of the philosophies, religions, legal systems and individual belief systems of all the inhabitants of all of the continents of this planet throughout all the ages lies a single rule from which all other rules are derived and all morality springs.
It is the Golden Rule.
“Do unto others as you would have done unto you”.
Ponder that truth.
How can this possibly be?
It is my belief that the golden rule is seared into our very DNA.
It emerges from the neuro-chemistry of our brains.
The seed from which the Golden Rule germinates and the very foundation of morality is the emotion of empathy.
When we feel empathy for other beings we cannot harm them or through inaction allow harm to come to them because we feel their pain as if it were our own.
We do unto them as we would have done unto us.
What we refer to as our “conscience” is the powerful emotive force of empathy that guides our decision making.
When our empathy is strong we are at our happiest and feel most driven to share our joy with others and to treat them with kindness.
We do unto them as we would have done unto us.
Love is the word we use to describe a state of deep and consuming empathy.
We know intuitively that those who have the most love in their hearts are the ones whom always seem to have that sense of inner peace that comes from acting in harmony with their conscience.
They are the ones who are constantly seeking to bring joy to (and alleviate suffering from) the lives of others.
Unconditional love is the means by which a state of maximum empathy can be maintained.
When we feel unconditional love for others there is nothing that they can do which would cause us to stop loving them.
We are at our very best as human beings when we are consumed by feelings of unconditional love for others.
Why then does there appear to be so much evil in this world?
If morality is innate because we are all born with empathy, why does there so often appear to be such a dearth of it?
Empathy is not the only emotive force which drives us.
It has a powerful adversary in the emotion of fear.
Empathy and fear are constantly at war for control of our mind.
Some of our decisions we make under the influence of empathy, but some we make under the influence of fear.
Our destiny is shaped by which of these two powerful winds we choose to fill our sails with.
The power of empathy is inversely proportional to that of fear. One can only gain at the expense of the other.
When we feel fear our empathy for our fellow human beings is switched off.
The greater the fear the less we are able to connect with them.
The greater the fear the less we are able to feel their pain or joy as if it were our own.
The greater the fear the more self-absorbed we become.
The greater the fear, the more likely that the “fight or flight” response will be triggered and the fear will turn to anger.
The greater the fear the more likely we are to lash out at that which triggered the fear and bring pain to others.
Consequently the more likely we are to receive retaliation and to jointly descend into a downward spiral of barbarian conflict.
The inability to feel the pain of others, combined with the destructive emotion of anger can escalate into hatred, physical violence and even murder.
Are not most of the violent and unstable people we know men and women who are ruled by fear?
In a very real sense this neuro-chemical battle between empathy and fear is the battle between good and evil that rages within us all.
The impulse of fear puts us on trial and our conscience is the judge, jury and executioner.
How we choose to respond to the impulse of fear will put us on the path towards good or evil.
The root of all evil is the choice to respond to the impulse of fear with coercion against others.
The root of all good is the choice to respond to the impulse of fear by courageously seeking to overcome the fear itself and avoiding the temptation to initiate force against others.
The former is a choice to not to feel empathy for those who seek to control.
The later is a choice to embrace empathy for them and utilize it as a motivator for us to overcome our own fear.
Those who choose coercion chose to embrace the immediate gratification of short term pleasure at the cost of the long-term suffering of being tortured by their own conscience.
Those who choose to courageously face their fears choose to embrace short term pain in exchange for the reward of the enduring joy of living in harmony with their conscience.
The decisions we make under the influence of fear are not moral though we invariably try to deceive ourselves into believing that they are.
Question:
When you are unable to control your fear what do you do?
Be honest with yourself.
When you cannot control your own fear do you not seek instead to control your environment?
Do you not seek to control others?
Do you not seek to use coercion against them and limit their freedom?
When you do so are you really giving any thought as to the pain that you are causing them or are you too self absorbed by your own pain to feel theirs?
Is your empathy turned on or off?
Do you truly have their best interests at heart?
Be honest with yourself.
When the fear subsides do you not feel remorse?
Do you hear your conscience screaming at you “do unto others as you would have done unto you”?
What do you do about the screaming?
Do you embrace the short term pain of undoing what you have done in order to make peace with your conscience?
Or do you cower in fear at the thought?
Do you tell yourself lies?
Do you seek to silence the screaming by morally justifying your coercion against others in some fashion?
Does this really work?
Are you truly happy?
Are you able to experience deep love and intimacy without feeling pangs of guilt?
If you truly seek to silence your conscience there are but two ways to do it.
You can make peace with it by embracing empathy, choosing to make amends for the harm that you have caused and resolving to be a better person henceforth.
This is a choice that leads to a life of unremitting joy.
It is the choice that was made by the greatest human beings who have lived. The ones whom we revere.
People like the Buddha and Jesus.
The other way to silence your conscience is to choose to live your life consumed by the destructive emotions of fear and anger and to never experience love.
This is a choice that leads to a life of unremitting self torment.
It is the choice that was made by all of the great monsters of history who were driven by fear to ascend to the pinnacle of state power and use it to slaughter other people by the millions.
People like Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler.
The physical manifestation of evil
What is government?
What is the state?
Why does it really exist?
Please really think about that.
Is not the state simply an organization that forcibly robs from us and utilizes the loot to create and enforce all variety of laws with which to control us?
Recall for a moment the time in your life you were the most consumed by feelings of love and joy.
Picture yourself actually reliving that experience.
Recall the sights, sounds and smells that remind you of that moment.
Feel now as you felt then.
Now ask yourself the following question.
Is the existence of the state moral?
What was your initial gut reaction to this question?
Did you initially say “No”?
Did you then feel fear at the consequence of that answer and change your mind?
Did you search for a way to morally justify its existence somehow?
When you made this decision were you filling your sails with the winds of love or fear?
Do you accept the truth that decisions made under the influence of fear are not moral?
Is it moral to take what does not belong to you?
Is it moral to put a gun to the head of your neighbor and steal their hard-earned income?
Is it moral to stand by and not defend them as they are being gang-raped of their possessions by the state?
Is it moral to support and encourage the police state to inflict the will of the many on the few?
The prison system of the state is overflowing with people who have done no harm to any person who are being dehumanized, brutalized and raped as you read these very words.
Is that moral?
Deep down you KNOW it is not.
Why do you pay taxes when you know they will be used to finance barbarism?
Why do you vote when you know that the system would collapse without the consent of the voters?
Why do you refuse to resist evil?
Is it not because you like the security of believing that the things which you fear are being controlled by a big brother who cares about you?
Are you sure about that?
Do those coercion lovers who fight their way to the pinnacle of power truly have feelings of deep love for you? Is that what truly motivates them?
Even if it were true, have you ever asked yourself what price others are paying for your sense of security?
Do you have the courage to open your heart and allow yourself to feel the pain of your victims?
Is the existence of the state moral?
What is the state *really*?
The root of all evil is the decision to respond to the impulse of fear with coercion.
The state is an organization which exists solely for the purpose of enabling people to inflict their will on other people without ever having to look their victims in the eye.
As such, it attracts into its ranks the very worst elements of humanity – Those who are ruled by fear and who consequently actually enjoy using coercion against others.
The state is nothing more and nothing less than the physical manifestation of the evil that lies within us all.
The destruction of the state is a moral imperative.
But the way to do that is not by attacking the state itself.
Rather it is to focus on the force that gives rise to it.
The size and power of the state is directly proportional to the inability and/or unwillingness of the people within its domain to control their own fear.
Each time that each of us summons the courage to face and overcome our own fear instead of choosing to use coercion against another is a victory.
Overcoming fear in this fashion brings great joy to our lives because it enables us to live in harmony with our own conscience.
Conquering fear expands our comfort zone, and builds our self-confidence in our own abilities, and makes the world a little bit more beautiful than it was before.
And each time that one of us does this we deal a blow to the state.
In this fashion, love will overcome fear, good will triumph over evil, and the state will die a well deserved death.
The age of barbarism will come to an end and where coercion once ruled a new voluntaryist civilization of peace and prosperity will emerge in its place.
And in changing the world we will change ourselves.
After millions of years of evolution, our species will finally have transformed itself into one which has mastered fear.
Imagine what we could accomplish.
All of this can be achieved by the simple practice of choosing to overcome our own fear instead of using coercion against others.
All of this can be achieved by simply choosing to follow the Golden Rule.
What is morality?
What is right and wrong?
How do you answer this question?
Different people answer it differently.
Different philosophies answer it differently.
Different religions answer it differently.
Different legal systems answer it differently.
However, that which is perhaps most fascinating is not what is different but what is the same.
Beneath all the rules of all of the moral codes of all of the philosophies, religions, legal systems and individual belief systems of all the inhabitants of all of the continents of this planet throughout all the ages lies a single rule from which all other rules are derived and all morality springs.
It is the Golden Rule.
“Do unto others as you would have done unto you”.
Ponder that truth.
How can this possibly be?
It is my belief that the golden rule is seared into our very DNA.
It emerges from the neuro-chemistry of our brains.
The seed from which the Golden Rule germinates and the very foundation of morality is the emotion of empathy.
When we feel empathy for other beings we cannot harm them or through inaction allow harm to come to them because we feel their pain as if it were our own.
We do unto them as we would have done unto us.
What we refer to as our “conscience” is the powerful emotive force of empathy that guides our decision making.
When our empathy is strong we are at our happiest and feel most driven to share our joy with others and to treat them with kindness.
We do unto them as we would have done unto us.
Love is the word we use to describe a state of deep and consuming empathy.
We know intuitively that those who have the most love in their hearts are the ones whom always seem to have that sense of inner peace that comes from acting in harmony with their conscience.
They are the ones who are constantly seeking to bring joy to (and alleviate suffering from) the lives of others.
Unconditional love is the means by which a state of maximum empathy can be maintained.
When we feel unconditional love for others there is nothing that they can do which would cause us to stop loving them.
We are at our very best as human beings when we are consumed by feelings of unconditional love for others.
Why then does there appear to be so much evil in this world?
If morality is innate because we are all born with empathy, why does there so often appear to be such a dearth of it?
Empathy is not the only emotive force which drives us.
It has a powerful adversary in the emotion of fear.
Empathy and fear are constantly at war for control of our mind.
Some of our decisions we make under the influence of empathy, but some we make under the influence of fear.
Our destiny is shaped by which of these two powerful winds we choose to fill our sails with.
The power of empathy is inversely proportional to that of fear. One can only gain at the expense of the other.
When we feel fear our empathy for our fellow human beings is switched off.
The greater the fear the less we are able to connect with them.
The greater the fear the less we are able to feel their pain or joy as if it were our own.
The greater the fear the more self-absorbed we become.
The greater the fear, the more likely that the “fight or flight” response will be triggered and the fear will turn to anger.
The greater the fear the more likely we are to lash out at that which triggered the fear and bring pain to others.
Consequently the more likely we are to receive retaliation and to jointly descend into a downward spiral of barbarian conflict.
The inability to feel the pain of others, combined with the destructive emotion of anger can escalate into hatred, physical violence and even murder.
Are not most of the violent and unstable people we know men and women who are ruled by fear?
In a very real sense this neuro-chemical battle between empathy and fear is the battle between good and evil that rages within us all.
The impulse of fear puts us on trial and our conscience is the judge, jury and executioner.
How we choose to respond to the impulse of fear will put us on the path towards good or evil.
The root of all evil is the choice to respond to the impulse of fear with coercion against others.
The root of all good is the choice to respond to the impulse of fear by courageously seeking to overcome the fear itself and avoiding the temptation to initiate force against others.
The former is a choice to not to feel empathy for those who seek to control.
The later is a choice to embrace empathy for them and utilize it as a motivator for us to overcome our own fear.
Those who choose coercion chose to embrace the immediate gratification of short term pleasure at the cost of the long-term suffering of being tortured by their own conscience.
Those who choose to courageously face their fears choose to embrace short term pain in exchange for the reward of the enduring joy of living in harmony with their conscience.
The decisions we make under the influence of fear are not moral though we invariably try to deceive ourselves into believing that they are.
Question:
When you are unable to control your fear what do you do?
Be honest with yourself.
When you cannot control your own fear do you not seek instead to control your environment?
Do you not seek to control others?
Do you not seek to use coercion against them and limit their freedom?
When you do so are you really giving any thought as to the pain that you are causing them or are you too self absorbed by your own pain to feel theirs?
Is your empathy turned on or off?
Do you truly have their best interests at heart?
Be honest with yourself.
When the fear subsides do you not feel remorse?
Do you hear your conscience screaming at you “do unto others as you would have done unto you”?
What do you do about the screaming?
Do you embrace the short term pain of undoing what you have done in order to make peace with your conscience?
Or do you cower in fear at the thought?
Do you tell yourself lies?
Do you seek to silence the screaming by morally justifying your coercion against others in some fashion?
Does this really work?
Are you truly happy?
Are you able to experience deep love and intimacy without feeling pangs of guilt?
If you truly seek to silence your conscience there are but two ways to do it.
You can make peace with it by embracing empathy, choosing to make amends for the harm that you have caused and resolving to be a better person henceforth.
This is a choice that leads to a life of unremitting joy.
It is the choice that was made by the greatest human beings who have lived. The ones whom we revere.
People like the Buddha and Jesus.
The other way to silence your conscience is to choose to live your life consumed by the destructive emotions of fear and anger and to never experience love.
This is a choice that leads to a life of unremitting self torment.
It is the choice that was made by all of the great monsters of history who were driven by fear to ascend to the pinnacle of state power and use it to slaughter other people by the millions.
People like Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler.
The physical manifestation of evil
What is government?
What is the state?
Why does it really exist?
Please really think about that.
Is not the state simply an organization that forcibly robs from us and utilizes the loot to create and enforce all variety of laws with which to control us?
Recall for a moment the time in your life you were the most consumed by feelings of love and joy.
Picture yourself actually reliving that experience.
Recall the sights, sounds and smells that remind you of that moment.
Feel now as you felt then.
Now ask yourself the following question.
Is the existence of the state moral?
What was your initial gut reaction to this question?
Did you initially say “No”?
Did you then feel fear at the consequence of that answer and change your mind?
Did you search for a way to morally justify its existence somehow?
When you made this decision were you filling your sails with the winds of love or fear?
Do you accept the truth that decisions made under the influence of fear are not moral?
Is it moral to take what does not belong to you?
Is it moral to put a gun to the head of your neighbor and steal their hard-earned income?
Is it moral to stand by and not defend them as they are being gang-raped of their possessions by the state?
Is it moral to support and encourage the police state to inflict the will of the many on the few?
The prison system of the state is overflowing with people who have done no harm to any person who are being dehumanized, brutalized and raped as you read these very words.
Is that moral?
Deep down you KNOW it is not.
Why do you pay taxes when you know they will be used to finance barbarism?
Why do you vote when you know that the system would collapse without the consent of the voters?
Why do you refuse to resist evil?
Is it not because you like the security of believing that the things which you fear are being controlled by a big brother who cares about you?
Are you sure about that?
Do those coercion lovers who fight their way to the pinnacle of power truly have feelings of deep love for you? Is that what truly motivates them?
Even if it were true, have you ever asked yourself what price others are paying for your sense of security?
Do you have the courage to open your heart and allow yourself to feel the pain of your victims?
Is the existence of the state moral?
What is the state *really*?
The root of all evil is the decision to respond to the impulse of fear with coercion.
The state is an organization which exists solely for the purpose of enabling people to inflict their will on other people without ever having to look their victims in the eye.
As such, it attracts into its ranks the very worst elements of humanity – Those who are ruled by fear and who consequently actually enjoy using coercion against others.
The state is nothing more and nothing less than the physical manifestation of the evil that lies within us all.
The destruction of the state is a moral imperative.
But the way to do that is not by attacking the state itself.
Rather it is to focus on the force that gives rise to it.
The size and power of the state is directly proportional to the inability and/or unwillingness of the people within its domain to control their own fear.
Each time that each of us summons the courage to face and overcome our own fear instead of choosing to use coercion against another is a victory.
Overcoming fear in this fashion brings great joy to our lives because it enables us to live in harmony with our own conscience.
Conquering fear expands our comfort zone, and builds our self-confidence in our own abilities, and makes the world a little bit more beautiful than it was before.
And each time that one of us does this we deal a blow to the state.
In this fashion, love will overcome fear, good will triumph over evil, and the state will die a well deserved death.
The age of barbarism will come to an end and where coercion once ruled a new voluntaryist civilization of peace and prosperity will emerge in its place.
And in changing the world we will change ourselves.
After millions of years of evolution, our species will finally have transformed itself into one which has mastered fear.
Imagine what we could accomplish.
All of this can be achieved by the simple practice of choosing to overcome our own fear instead of using coercion against others.
All of this can be achieved by simply choosing to follow the Golden Rule.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Ayn Rand's Error
Ayn Rand is the author of the classic novel “Atlas Shrugged” and one of the foremost thought leaders of the freedom movement.
Her critique of socialism, and socialist thinking is quite good.
Her defense of freedom is IMHO significantly less so.
To my mind her argument is a variant of the following:
Greed is good.
Selfishness is a virtue.
Everyone should support it because it has trickle down effects that will benefit all.
This is hardly motivating.
I believe that Ayn Rand fundamentally misunderstood the basic nature of exchange.
The way she saw capitalism was not entirely different than the way that the socialists see it.
She saw people who acted greedily doing well for themselves and attributed the fact that they did well to the fact that they acted in their own self interest without regard to others.
This is simply a fundamental error in her interpretation of reality.
She basically adopted the same view of the world as the socialists and sought to defend it.
But it is the view itself that is erroneous.
It is, of course, true that many very successful people do, on occasion, act in a way that can be seen as greedy. But it is a logical fallacy to attribute their success to this behavior.
Invariably such people become wealthy not because of greed but in spite of it.
Consider the examples of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
Both of these men became very rich not because they sought to “take” for themselves but rather because they sought to “give” something of value to the world.
Bill Gates dreamed of a computer on every desk. He wanted to provide the software for that computer which enabled people to utilize this incredible new technology to make their lives better.
Steve Jobs had a similar dream. Apple Computer delivered the very first such desktop computers to the world. He saw an opportunity to deliver value to people and he pounced on it. He did the same with the iPod and the iPhone. He saw a need that was not being met and he took it upon himself to meet that need.
Both of these men, at times, acted greedily.
But each time that they did, however, it hurt them rather than helped them.
Bill Gate’s attitude towards competition, for example, hurt him badly.
He seems to have instructed his product managers to focus on the main competitors for each product with the intent of wiping out the competition.
Influenced by game theory he believed that fewer competitors made it easier to win.
Creating monopolies tends to kill innovation however. This was not his intent. He was all about innovation. But without healthy and vigorous competition the financial incentive to innovate deteriorates.
A fear-based view of competition which sees competitors as a threat is a selfish view because the act of wiping out a competitor does not “give” to anyone. It is an act of taking. It is a barbarian instinct to use force against an external threat to make it go away.
[Note the association of “fear” and “selfishness”. Fear is the destructive emotion which causes us to turn off empathy and become self-absorbed. I’ve written about this extensively elsewhere: http://tinyurl.com/9drnvy]
Instead, people who view competition as something that should be enthusiastically welcomed tend to do well without creating feelings of animosity towards themselves. Competition drives self-improvement and helps us to give more to others.
Ultimately the bad feelings generated towards Microsoft as a result of this behavior led to anti-trust lawsuits being filed against the company.
Having created so many enemies Microsoft was left without any defenders to fend off this attack from the state.
Contrast that behavior with those of the executives of Google whose motto is “Don’t be evil”.
Google continues to grow and has done so without making enemies.
The state, therefore, is loathe to attack them because if they choose to do so, Google will be able to rally public opinion behind them in a way that Microsoft was not able to do.
Ayn Rand was simply wrong.
Selfishness is not the cause of success.
The opposite is true.
Selfishness is the cause of failure.
The universe gives back to each in proportion to what they give to it.
The universe also takes from each in proportion to what they seek to take from it.
It’s all about give and take.
Some incorrectly believe that they can get away with stealing a little more for themselves without having to pay for it.
They are mistaken.
The law of reciprocity is real.
Her critique of socialism, and socialist thinking is quite good.
Her defense of freedom is IMHO significantly less so.
To my mind her argument is a variant of the following:
Greed is good.
Selfishness is a virtue.
Everyone should support it because it has trickle down effects that will benefit all.
This is hardly motivating.
I believe that Ayn Rand fundamentally misunderstood the basic nature of exchange.
The way she saw capitalism was not entirely different than the way that the socialists see it.
She saw people who acted greedily doing well for themselves and attributed the fact that they did well to the fact that they acted in their own self interest without regard to others.
This is simply a fundamental error in her interpretation of reality.
She basically adopted the same view of the world as the socialists and sought to defend it.
But it is the view itself that is erroneous.
It is, of course, true that many very successful people do, on occasion, act in a way that can be seen as greedy. But it is a logical fallacy to attribute their success to this behavior.
Invariably such people become wealthy not because of greed but in spite of it.
Consider the examples of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
Both of these men became very rich not because they sought to “take” for themselves but rather because they sought to “give” something of value to the world.
Bill Gates dreamed of a computer on every desk. He wanted to provide the software for that computer which enabled people to utilize this incredible new technology to make their lives better.
Steve Jobs had a similar dream. Apple Computer delivered the very first such desktop computers to the world. He saw an opportunity to deliver value to people and he pounced on it. He did the same with the iPod and the iPhone. He saw a need that was not being met and he took it upon himself to meet that need.
Both of these men, at times, acted greedily.
But each time that they did, however, it hurt them rather than helped them.
Bill Gate’s attitude towards competition, for example, hurt him badly.
He seems to have instructed his product managers to focus on the main competitors for each product with the intent of wiping out the competition.
Influenced by game theory he believed that fewer competitors made it easier to win.
Creating monopolies tends to kill innovation however. This was not his intent. He was all about innovation. But without healthy and vigorous competition the financial incentive to innovate deteriorates.
A fear-based view of competition which sees competitors as a threat is a selfish view because the act of wiping out a competitor does not “give” to anyone. It is an act of taking. It is a barbarian instinct to use force against an external threat to make it go away.
[Note the association of “fear” and “selfishness”. Fear is the destructive emotion which causes us to turn off empathy and become self-absorbed. I’ve written about this extensively elsewhere: http://tinyurl.com/9drnvy]
Instead, people who view competition as something that should be enthusiastically welcomed tend to do well without creating feelings of animosity towards themselves. Competition drives self-improvement and helps us to give more to others.
Ultimately the bad feelings generated towards Microsoft as a result of this behavior led to anti-trust lawsuits being filed against the company.
Having created so many enemies Microsoft was left without any defenders to fend off this attack from the state.
Contrast that behavior with those of the executives of Google whose motto is “Don’t be evil”.
Google continues to grow and has done so without making enemies.
The state, therefore, is loathe to attack them because if they choose to do so, Google will be able to rally public opinion behind them in a way that Microsoft was not able to do.
Ayn Rand was simply wrong.
Selfishness is not the cause of success.
The opposite is true.
Selfishness is the cause of failure.
The universe gives back to each in proportion to what they give to it.
The universe also takes from each in proportion to what they seek to take from it.
It’s all about give and take.
Some incorrectly believe that they can get away with stealing a little more for themselves without having to pay for it.
They are mistaken.
The law of reciprocity is real.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Please don't vote
The overwhelming negativity of politics is something that I have a hard time dealing with and I usually choose to tune it out completely.
The very nature of the democratic system conditions the mind to pursue conflict and inflict pain and suffering on others. It teaches us to search for and find the worst qualities in our fellow human beings and to focus on these to the exclusion of their many good qualities.
Have you ever noticed that this negative mental attitude is the exact opposite of what you tend to find in really successful people? The real leaders in society - the ones whom we like, respect, admire and look to for guidance - are those who look for, find and bring out the best in others.
I view the democratic system from an historical perspective.
I believe that the human race is on the verge of a great awakening.
For the entire history of life on this planet the brain physiology of the of the higher animals has limited sentient beings to emotion-based behavior.
That is now changing.
The most ancient part of the brain is the amygdala. It is your emotional center.
The more recently evolved part of the brain is the cerebral cortex. It is your logical center.
The circuitry and neuro-plasticity of the brain has evolved to the point that you are now physiologically capable of gaining total control over your destructive emotional impulses.
Scientists have known this for some time now but most have failed to grasp the incredible implications this has for the future of humanity.
Imagine for a moment what the world will be like when we have developed the self-discipline to temper our destructive emotions.
Imagine how your life will change. Imagine how much better the lives of your children will be.
The opportunities for the advancement of human civilization are nearly boundless.
It is difficult to predict the future. However, one thing at least is certain: The ability of human beings to gain control over their destructive emotions will absolutely result in a dramatic decrease in conflict and the resultant suffering that it causes. In its stead will be increased compassion, love, peace and prosperity.
It is within this evolutionary context that I view the democratic system.
Our emotion-driven cave-dwelling ancestors were likely unable to restrain their emotional impulses.
When one caveman was hungry and saw that another had obtained food he most likely would not have been able to refrain from clubbing the other caveman over the head to take what he wanted.
It is hard to blame him for this since he probably lacked the neural circuitry to enable him to exercise restraint.
We humans of today, however, have no such excuse.
We are capable of both extra-ordinarily civilized behavior as well as the extra-ordinary barbarism of our ancestors.
The political systems of the age of barbarism consist mostly of various forms of authoritarianism wherein a small group of individuals imposed their will on the majority in a fashion similar to that of our cave dwelling alpha-male ancestors.
The past few hundred years, however, has seen the flourishing of democracy.
This great step forward for humanity has yielded significant increases in freedom and happiness and decrease s in suffering.
However, democracy is not IMHO the final evolutionary form of human civilization.
Rather it is merely a stepping stone to something much more beautiful.
We cave dwellers have taken the first step towards the future by ganging up on and killing the alpha male.
However, we then sought to emulate his methods and turned on each other.
Democracy does, after all, merely replace the tyranny of the minority with that of the majority.
And thus we arrive at our present day system where we take turns imposing our will on each other every few years.
If you have the courage to open your mind and look deep into your heart you will come to realize the truth of the following two statements.
The root cause of all conflict in the world is the CHOICE of individuals to impose their will on others.
And the reason for this choice is almost always FEAR.
We all desire freedom for ourselves and those that we care about but we all (to varying degrees) fear granting that same freedom to our fellow human beings. This is what I like to call the “freedom for me but not for thee” phenomenon.
But life doesn’t work that way.
Have you ever noticed that we tend to get back what we dish out?
If we seek to impose our will on others they will tend to want to return the favor.
We almost always have good intentions when doing so, but the decision to do so is almost always a misguided one and results from unclear thinking which is usually facilitated by fear.
The law of reciprocity is real.
The universe gives back to us in proportion to what we give to it.
Some believe that they can cheat the system but have you noticed this never seems to work?
The truth is that you will never have the freedom that you desire for yourself unless and until you are prepared to grant that freedom to others - especially those whom engage in practices which you find objectionable but do not actually case harm.
That is the price that must be paid if we truly desire freedom to pursue happiness. Sooner or later people will come to the realization that imposing their will on each other will not bring them the happiness that they desire. However, following the golden rule will.
The democratic system is a relic from the age of barbarism that we should be seeking to elevate ourselves out of.
We can and will do that at a time of our choosing.
All the pieces are now in place for the greatest leap forward that humanity has ever taken.
All that is required now is a decision.
That decision is yours to make.
What kind of a world do you want to live in?
What kind of a world do you want to create and leave for your children and their children?
Are you ready to put an end to the violence, conflict and suffering of the age of barbarism and to embrace the peace and love of the post barbarism era?
If so, I respectfully ask you to make pledges to yourself similar to these ones:
From this day forward I will do my best to refrain from imposing my will on my fellow human beings. Instead, when I feel strongly about something I will seek to persuade them while also keeping my mind open to the persuasive arguments of others. To this end I commit to doing the hard work necessary to develop my own emotional intelligence to the point where I have achieved complete mastery of my emotions. If ever I should fail to live up to this high standard I will not beat myself up. Instead I will have the courage to admit it and to seek to correct the situation.
I will lead by example and be a force for positive change in the world by working to reduce conflict, alleviate suffering and increasing the joy of my fellow human beings.
In the great tradition of passive resistance pioneered by the likes of Gandhi and Martin Luther King I resolve to peacefully withdraw my support for the democratic system. I will not vote and I will not cooperate with any government except when forced to do so by the armed force of the state.
I recognize that those in power and those who support them are good people who are doing what they believe to be right and are motivated by the desire to alleviate suffering and increase joy just like I am. I harbor no ill will towards them. In a spirit of friendship I seek merely to persuade them of the error of their ways.
I will continuously seek out opportunities to induce the state to use force against me for the purpose of illustrating to others the true nature of the system and to thus bring about its more rapid demise.
I will pay my taxes only when forced to do so but I will absolutely refuse to accept government hand outs of any sort because it is fundamentally immoral to benefit from the looting of my fellow human beings.
I will continuously seek out innovative ways to create and participate in alternative institutions to government.
The only moral type of exchange is that between two free parties on the basis of mutual consent. I pledge to maintain a high level of personal integrity and to never participate in any other sort of exchange in any fashion.
As our numbers grow the power of the state will diminish and eventually evaporate into thin air. I pledge to bring an end to the age of barbarism in my life time. This is my life purpose and if need be I will sacrifice everything in order to achieve this noble goal.
The very nature of the democratic system conditions the mind to pursue conflict and inflict pain and suffering on others. It teaches us to search for and find the worst qualities in our fellow human beings and to focus on these to the exclusion of their many good qualities.
Have you ever noticed that this negative mental attitude is the exact opposite of what you tend to find in really successful people? The real leaders in society - the ones whom we like, respect, admire and look to for guidance - are those who look for, find and bring out the best in others.
I view the democratic system from an historical perspective.
I believe that the human race is on the verge of a great awakening.
For the entire history of life on this planet the brain physiology of the of the higher animals has limited sentient beings to emotion-based behavior.
That is now changing.
The most ancient part of the brain is the amygdala. It is your emotional center.
The more recently evolved part of the brain is the cerebral cortex. It is your logical center.
The circuitry and neuro-plasticity of the brain has evolved to the point that you are now physiologically capable of gaining total control over your destructive emotional impulses.
Scientists have known this for some time now but most have failed to grasp the incredible implications this has for the future of humanity.
Imagine for a moment what the world will be like when we have developed the self-discipline to temper our destructive emotions.
Imagine how your life will change. Imagine how much better the lives of your children will be.
The opportunities for the advancement of human civilization are nearly boundless.
It is difficult to predict the future. However, one thing at least is certain: The ability of human beings to gain control over their destructive emotions will absolutely result in a dramatic decrease in conflict and the resultant suffering that it causes. In its stead will be increased compassion, love, peace and prosperity.
It is within this evolutionary context that I view the democratic system.
Our emotion-driven cave-dwelling ancestors were likely unable to restrain their emotional impulses.
When one caveman was hungry and saw that another had obtained food he most likely would not have been able to refrain from clubbing the other caveman over the head to take what he wanted.
It is hard to blame him for this since he probably lacked the neural circuitry to enable him to exercise restraint.
We humans of today, however, have no such excuse.
We are capable of both extra-ordinarily civilized behavior as well as the extra-ordinary barbarism of our ancestors.
The political systems of the age of barbarism consist mostly of various forms of authoritarianism wherein a small group of individuals imposed their will on the majority in a fashion similar to that of our cave dwelling alpha-male ancestors.
The past few hundred years, however, has seen the flourishing of democracy.
This great step forward for humanity has yielded significant increases in freedom and happiness and decrease s in suffering.
However, democracy is not IMHO the final evolutionary form of human civilization.
Rather it is merely a stepping stone to something much more beautiful.
We cave dwellers have taken the first step towards the future by ganging up on and killing the alpha male.
However, we then sought to emulate his methods and turned on each other.
Democracy does, after all, merely replace the tyranny of the minority with that of the majority.
And thus we arrive at our present day system where we take turns imposing our will on each other every few years.
If you have the courage to open your mind and look deep into your heart you will come to realize the truth of the following two statements.
The root cause of all conflict in the world is the CHOICE of individuals to impose their will on others.
And the reason for this choice is almost always FEAR.
We all desire freedom for ourselves and those that we care about but we all (to varying degrees) fear granting that same freedom to our fellow human beings. This is what I like to call the “freedom for me but not for thee” phenomenon.
But life doesn’t work that way.
Have you ever noticed that we tend to get back what we dish out?
If we seek to impose our will on others they will tend to want to return the favor.
We almost always have good intentions when doing so, but the decision to do so is almost always a misguided one and results from unclear thinking which is usually facilitated by fear.
The law of reciprocity is real.
The universe gives back to us in proportion to what we give to it.
Some believe that they can cheat the system but have you noticed this never seems to work?
The truth is that you will never have the freedom that you desire for yourself unless and until you are prepared to grant that freedom to others - especially those whom engage in practices which you find objectionable but do not actually case harm.
That is the price that must be paid if we truly desire freedom to pursue happiness. Sooner or later people will come to the realization that imposing their will on each other will not bring them the happiness that they desire. However, following the golden rule will.
The democratic system is a relic from the age of barbarism that we should be seeking to elevate ourselves out of.
We can and will do that at a time of our choosing.
All the pieces are now in place for the greatest leap forward that humanity has ever taken.
All that is required now is a decision.
That decision is yours to make.
What kind of a world do you want to live in?
What kind of a world do you want to create and leave for your children and their children?
Are you ready to put an end to the violence, conflict and suffering of the age of barbarism and to embrace the peace and love of the post barbarism era?
If so, I respectfully ask you to make pledges to yourself similar to these ones:
From this day forward I will do my best to refrain from imposing my will on my fellow human beings. Instead, when I feel strongly about something I will seek to persuade them while also keeping my mind open to the persuasive arguments of others. To this end I commit to doing the hard work necessary to develop my own emotional intelligence to the point where I have achieved complete mastery of my emotions. If ever I should fail to live up to this high standard I will not beat myself up. Instead I will have the courage to admit it and to seek to correct the situation.
I will lead by example and be a force for positive change in the world by working to reduce conflict, alleviate suffering and increasing the joy of my fellow human beings.
In the great tradition of passive resistance pioneered by the likes of Gandhi and Martin Luther King I resolve to peacefully withdraw my support for the democratic system. I will not vote and I will not cooperate with any government except when forced to do so by the armed force of the state.
I recognize that those in power and those who support them are good people who are doing what they believe to be right and are motivated by the desire to alleviate suffering and increase joy just like I am. I harbor no ill will towards them. In a spirit of friendship I seek merely to persuade them of the error of their ways.
I will continuously seek out opportunities to induce the state to use force against me for the purpose of illustrating to others the true nature of the system and to thus bring about its more rapid demise.
I will pay my taxes only when forced to do so but I will absolutely refuse to accept government hand outs of any sort because it is fundamentally immoral to benefit from the looting of my fellow human beings.
I will continuously seek out innovative ways to create and participate in alternative institutions to government.
The only moral type of exchange is that between two free parties on the basis of mutual consent. I pledge to maintain a high level of personal integrity and to never participate in any other sort of exchange in any fashion.
As our numbers grow the power of the state will diminish and eventually evaporate into thin air. I pledge to bring an end to the age of barbarism in my life time. This is my life purpose and if need be I will sacrifice everything in order to achieve this noble goal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
