September 11, 2006

"But, absent a government and certain rules, don't you think that things wouldn't work very well? I mean, the vast majority of people are not really capable of running things, wouldn't you say?"

This is basically what a caller to Stefan Molyneux's Saturday call-in show (start around 20 minutes) had to say as an argument for requiring people to obey rulers. I must say that he is right. Without certain organizing principles and those empowered with the necessary force to carry out the plans and strictures, the world would most likely not come out the way that this fellow believes that it should.

As another person said to me, as an explanation of why it is important to bomb Iraq off the face of the earth, "But I believe in Progress!" The implication being that it is better to use force to command the forward movement of society than to allow it to drift into "anti-progress," or whatever this person envisages as happening without the "progress" he holds sacrosanct.

Both of these thinkers appear to have a concept of societal organization and functioning in mind which is so important that it may justify coercion, perhaps even so much as mortal force, in bringing it about. Certainly we must agree that someone bent on destruction must be stopped. There can hardly be any objection there, can there? So if we have someone streaming across the border illegally hoping to secure a job by undercutting the wages that you are getting for that job, thus effectively throwing you out of work, surely that justifies securing our borders, no? These people are seeking to destroy America; there can be no question. By coming here looking for a better life, for a chance to work hard and earn enough money to be able to send money back home to provide food, education and a better roof for their families, they are trying to bring us down to their level. I say we should stop these people, at any cost, from tearing apart this great land of ours, even if we have to shoot them if they try to escape. It's our country after all, isn't it?

Certain prices are just not fair. Everyone should be paid a living wage, that much is beyond question. It is silly to think that those dirty Mexicans can live on what they are willing to work for. No one should be asked to do so. I am certainly not willing to live as crowded as they do; it's just unseemly. I think that we also should raise the prices of all products so that people can be paid better wages. Wal-Mart is destroying this country and must be stopped. We should make laws that require them to charge more for things. How else can we make sure that they will be able to pay their suppliers enough money so that the employees of those firms can live proper and decent lives?

Of course then prices will go up and we'll all have to pay more to buy stuff, but that is the cost of civilization. You can't expect to get a free ride after all. I'd be willing to live in a smaller house and drive an older car so that people could earn a living wage, wouldn't you? It's only fair. It is a crime to see the cramped conditions that some people live in so that they can better their lives. We must legislate fairness for all. Well, except for the Chinese, Mexicans, Vietnamese and all those others who live like animals and make the things we need so that we can live decent lives. I don't want to live like an animal. It's un-American. It's just not right. That, after all, is why we have laws, so that we can force people to support us in the way that we believe we have a right to live. We deserve it because we're better than those... those... well, you know what I mean. They don't believe like we do, after all. They're not human, look at how they live!

Okay, enough with the silliness.

The point that I'm trying to make is that we all have different views, expectations, backgrounds, needs and desires. A summer cottage for one person is the equivalent of a palatial mansion totally beyond the fantasies of someone else. Who is right? Who is wrong? The person above who proclaimed that he believes in "Progress" must obviously have some image in mind. The fact that he is willing to (as he stated to me) kill masses of people to bring his vision about is frightening. He truly believes in this vision of progress. And he may be right. I really have no trouble with him and his vision of progress, and his desire to seek progress. I doubt that anyone would. We all want progress. It's just the vision that may vary. For one it may be leaving the fancy New York apartment with the doorman, the car service and the extravagant expense account and heading into the wilds to seek spiritual enlightenment in a primitive and austere setting. For another, living in that primitive and austere setting, it may be a good job driving for the first fellow's car service in New York.

The key, as I see it, is to respect that no one can know what is right for another. No one can say, "Well we must have a publicly funded school system for education: its just too important to leave to chance." How arrogant. How can this person know what kind of education is important to another? Tribes in America, Africa, Australia and elsewhere have been living successfully for centuries without the benefit of the specific educational program decreed by the United States Department of Education. By what supreme kind of insane mindset is it acceptable to forcibly destroy an ancient culture and it's ways, as "we" did to the native American tribes, and continue doing, trying to force them to fit into a European culture? Do we know for sure that herding children is superior to herding sheep?

Even if we do know this, what grants us the right to dictate to someone else that they must choose a new life, totally foreign, over the one that they have grown up in and wear comfortably like second skin?

It all boils down to one simple idea: respect. Respect another to make his or her own choices. If you do this then it will be impossible for you to use force to direct the life of another. Maybe bright purple is not your favorite shade of porch paint. If your neighbor painted her porch that color she must believe differently than you in terms of color choices and that which enlivens her life. Who are you to tell her she is wrong? BUT! you say. Well, really? Do you respect her right to make her own choices, or not? BUT! you say... PURPLE?!? So aren't you really saying that you are better than her, and being better you have the right to forcefully direct her life for her own good? What else is it saying when you call the zoning board, or otherwise seek to force her to change her view of life so that it aligns with yours?

What if a man offers to do landscaping for you for $5 per hour, while the landscaper down the street with the big equipment, the advertising and mortgage to pay, has quoted you a rate of $35 an hour? The first guy risked his life to sneak across the border and is desperate for enough money to buy food for his children, where the second risks defaulting on his truck payments and his mortgage if he doesn't find enough people who are willing to pay his $35 per hour rate. Is there some way that you can tell me that one deserves the job more than the other on the basis of who he is? What if the border he came across was from the Navajo reservation, instead of from Mexico, would that matter? “Our Indian,” instead of one of “Their Indians?”

Isn't it all a bit disgusting, the way we treat other people at times?

I suggest considering this: As long as another person is trading with you voluntarily, there is respect. If you or he require laws and people in cars with emblems on the doors, then one of you has sunk to the depths of a common thug using brute force to take what you want, in total disregard of the sanctity of the life of another living, breathing, loving, dreaming, striving human being. (Or a lazy one. As long as he is peaceable about it, whose business is it, his level of energy?)

It is not "them." It is other people, each one a precious individual. “They” aren't doing this or that; it is Pablo, Annabel, Abdul, Greta, Franz, Chico, Samuel, Cherise or Ho with whom you are interacting.

The choice is to voluntarily come to whatever terms you may or may not agree upon, or to use force. It really is just that simple, regardless of all of the obfuscation and justifications and emotionalistic rants that others might make or claim. Respect. It is all about respect. And, oddly enough, it is not so much about respect for others as it is respect for yourself and the kind of person you want to think of yourself as being.

This article is not copyrighted and may be published, copied, dispersed, posted, and transported as long as the original URL and author's credit accompany it.

Archives

Why Evil Lurks, Leaps & Bounds