The problem of what to do with fully-corrupted-humans, after victory

David Davis

Mr Eugenides fulminates suitably in his inimitable style, the loss to the world of which would be inestimable.

I am not clear to what level “antidrinkism” has seeped corrosively into the minds of the Enemy Class, and more especially and importantly, I guess, into the minds of “leisure industry workers”. Such as barmaids and the like.This sort fo stuff is just a symptom anyway of something much deeper and more purposefully-malevolent.

But, whether or not there will ever be a Libertarian civilisation or nation, let alone such a government as I opined before, suppose there was:

Let’s suppose we have something approaching what CountingCats sort-of-agrees is currently unachievable – a State in which broad libertarian principles inform its actions as a State, and in which a narrow majority tries to behave as if we can all do what we wish with our bodies and so on. What then do we do with an essentially rebellious, vindictive, contrarian and mutinous rentamob of ex-stooges and ex-State-nannies, forever carping on about their hard-done-byness, their righteousness and the injustice of it all, since everybody’s health is going to the dogs unless they get their way?

What is to be done with these people? We can’t let them anywhere near any sort of political power or influence: they would simply re-erect all the stuff we are trying to trash. But to be able to do that, we’d have to compulsorily reduce their circumstances in some economic way also. Perhaps some particularly invasive and highly-retrospective tax investigations would do, or something to do with their googling habits for the past 400 years.

As I get older, and see the deepness of the engrainment in GramscoFabiaNazis of their habit of never apologising and never admitting error (admirable and essential qualities in libertarians of course) I wonder how we can eliminate their threat to humanity permanently without emulating their methods, and I’d like suggestions please.

17 responses to “The problem of what to do with fully-corrupted-humans, after victory

  1. Nah. You are thinking like a controlist (statist). The only way they maintain their control is by continuously corrupting the truth. They went insane with fury as their power was slightly diminished over the last couple of decades. But, of course, neither were they in serious doubt as to who was holding the levers of control, because, to them, it is important and therefore they work at it.
    However, to get back to what to do if freedom was re-asserted.
    To maintain their control the controlists have to perpetuate and maintain continuous lies which is a very expensive and time consuming business. If their control can be pushed back again, somewhat, all that one would need to do is seriously and dedicatedly follow the truth and expose lies as the enemies of truth/reality/freedom try to implement them.

  2. I wish, sometimes, in my depression as I look at what these people have achieved for themselves, that I could think it would work.

  3. Yes, they have poured vast resources into gaining control and have got hold of the big items, such as the media, of course, and it is a heck of an uphill battle against the lies under those circumstances. And they leave all sorts of subtle deceptions, red herrings, straw men, and man traps all over the place.
    But there are still some friends in the “establishment” I think and one can work at the lies, sometimes cooperating with them to the extent that they fight against the enslavement of their country (Dan Hannan?).
    One can tease out the tangled thread of deception the controlists weave.
    I do think one needs to get the message “out there” . I know you people do and get on to radio, TV etc.
    One of the best things is to counter specific lies head on with the truth. Philosophy can leave many people lost but where they can see they have been specifically lied to (as they probably suspected all along) and you have now shown them the truth of a situation, you will have instant allies.

  4. I wish I could share your optimism, John

  5. Re the simplicity of undoing the lies. It seems to me the world is carried very much by perception. Perceptions created mainly through the media. For instance it had become fairly established perception that oil was running out and that was somehow linked to it going to $140 a barrel a year or so, ago. That was until they overdid it and nearly crashed the whole system but bailed themselves out with “thin air” money. Which was possibly also conveniently part of the whole deal to trash middle class wealth. But getting back to the perception of the scarcity of oil. Perhaps it is not scarce. I have heard there are vast reserves that have even been drilled and capped just north of Alaska that would supply all North America’s needs for the forseeable future. But they have been creating the perception and the mindset in North Americans of oil shortage and dependency on totalitarian foreign states to break the will of the American people. (Being very simplistic, okay.) Getting back to perception of oil shartage one would just have to definitely find out what sort of reserves there are and if the abundance is true, and then simply present that fact. The shortage mentality (rationing, wartime mentality) evaporates. And the people realise they have been lied to.
    I believe there are also vast reserves in other places off the US coast that have been declared off limits for exploitation. Why?
    If it’s because we are going to pollute to death, well that’s another story and set of concerns. And someone better sort out China.

  6. The ALL of these contradictory behaviours IS rooted in our complex natures as creatures. It seems that we are so to speak obliged to rehearse all of the possible combinations of calamity at one another’s hands, until Hell is a cinder. And yet there is as well a sort of arrow in time. What Old Churchill called the ‘moral’ theme in History. So I perceive that (perhaps already) somewhere in a little room someone now opens tentatively the door past this molecular inefficient stage, of crass & grubby being.

    Ferret’s Axiom (‘Ferret’ Ball is a 2008 maths graduate of Augsburg College, and she is now doing graduate work in topology and ranching with her father and new husband in western NoDak) :

    “When it finally becomes obvious you CAN’T do shit with ‘reality,’ — THAT’S a fucken cult! –that’s when you dive headlong into outright fantasy. And finally you can get to WORK!”

  7. In short, the problem which libertarian politics shares with all politics is that it is a mode only convincingly congenial to /some/.

  8. Why does one need to “do shit with reality”. Just take it as one finds it, surely?
    If libertarian is seeking for individual freedom and individual responsibility, and this reflects the real nature of things, I don’t see a problem.
    The most efficient, effective, and thus most elegant way is simply to conform with reality. I think that would be found to be the most congenial way for anyone, once they truly experience it?

  9. We wouldn’t want to get rid of them, just take the power of coercion from them — in the free market of ideas, where reason and persuasion should rule, they perhaps have good ideas on health and behavior that many would freely choose to follow.

  10. I think that Ferret’s point, always, is that there is more to it (sic) than meets the eye just as a matter of /objective/ fact; and, I would just stick in, too, that ‘reality’ becomes cultic whenever we (or, still worse, ‘they’!) try to nail it into some (tick) box: there are, typically, coercive agendas undergirding most if not all of the fights over ‘definitions’.

    In this case, whether I like it or not, in reality there are loads of folks for whom our conception is /not/ congenial. Nor is this exclusively a fault of extraverted’conditioning’. The protagogues of the Nanny State of course should wish it were so, of course. However,/conditioning/ also comes from within the autonomus human being and takes different manifestations. As far as reality goes, then, /that/ fact is the thing we absolutely must take on board as we find it; and then, if need be, teach the conception that free people can /voluntarily/ do all of the ‘socialwork things they may choose.

    In fact, going a step further, pray allow me to suggest that we Libertarians must for our own cause — an it be as we flatter & assure ourselves the ‘true’ one! — bring in what the Americans call “a whole shitarree” of these more syrupy and, as we deem them perhaps, less thoughtful types. Or else in very short /our/ edenic pisshouse will no more than be open for business, and straightaway there will arise new yelps & phantasies of ‘ideal’ ‘benevolent’ ‘governance’.

    In the end & inasmuch we /are/ a social critter, a law of physics (as a student of sufism I am 100 % a materialist) is at work:

    We positively must (!) give (!) some of the fruit of our individual labours to those in need when this comes up. And, woe betide us (and NuLabour resurgit!) if we do not. The sole distinction — it is /the/ all-important one, however — is that we reserve to constitutional & statutory /individuals/ the moral right to decide /to whom/.

    Of course this means also that we must leave one another free not to give — and we will sure do that.

    But be aware that if the number who do not exceeds a statistical threshold, then we /will/ be fucked & far from home everytime, every time. Indeed, a quantum of energy in the very wealth itself will synergize with coercion, to leap again from out of our pockets at gun-point into the hands once more not of the poor, but of their would-be ‘guardians’. And to-morrow, and….

    This in fact is what we are all up against, our common human nature lodged, alas, in these separate vile bodies, always fighting to the back of the line in the Warsaw 1943 Umschlagplatz.

  11. David, just a general point- I’m not Counting Cats myself; Cats is an individualist collective (ho ho) of four of us- Cats himself, Nick M, the lovely Daphne and me, Ian B, and I just sort of hold the coats of my three superior fellow cat counters.

    On the main point of your post, I think I’d say that if we ever can come to power- though that’s not going to be easy, it is achievable- then we don’t need to worry about what to do with the Enemy Class because they will have been dethroned and, once liberty is in place, they will not rise again.

    Is that an excessive claim? I don’t think so. Firstly, our plan for moving from the current state to liberty will have had to have been achieved by popular consent- which means that each step on the way must be such that it gains more approval than disapproval from Teh Masses, and becomes an unstoppable snowball.

    Secondly, the Enemy have prospered on proposing false solutions to

    (a) the poverty and injustices of earlier, low productivity, poor, class-ridden societies.

    (b) problems of their own creation.

    Since our society of liberty will suffer from neither aristocratic injustices nor the misery caused by socialist command structures, the socialist enemy will have no leverage with which to regain power.

    Winning will be extremely hard- let us have no illusions regarding that- but we only need to win once.

    • Ian, I had a brilliant reply, just ready to spellcheck – I pressed the wrong button, and WordPress zapped it into the eternal endarkenment.

      To summarise (again)
      The problem of the enemy class, though, is that they are _not_ good people. Their minds and brains do not model the Universe through the same prism used by ordinary social, co-operative and individualist human beings. I am convinced that that is why they become what they do. They choose evil, because (1) it is available to be chosen like good, and (2) because they decide to choose it because in a modern liberal civilisation the costs of this choice are low and their risks of their death caused by good people getting upset with them are bearable.

      Let us suppose that the victory you describe comes about. these others will not simply, I an sure, lie down happily and get on with interacting normally with everybody else who is a normal human being. They will surreptitiously cast about themselves for whatever product or shiny lever, produced under “The Lights of Perverted Science” that they can use to re-damage what we are recreating, and to re-de-civilise “Teh Masses”…

      One of the last things old Chris Tame said before he died was that there were probably not enough people left “to make a difference”. This is important as regards helping people like “Teh Masses” stand up, in the initial and very dangerous stages of a libertarian revolution (revolutions are institutionally democratic and liberal – the word has been corrupted by the Enemy Class since 1789) to very highly-structured wickedness, cleverly designed to sap their resolve.

      As liberal individualists, we can’t either kill all the Enemy Class on day one, or indeed deprive them of the means to continue prosecuting their deliberate wickedness and consciously-planned error. They will still be there, albeit temporarily deprived of office blocks and hard disks and the BBC: but they never, never apologise, for they are always always right.

  12. Bodwyn: There’s one of those old (1970s) Christian pop songs that goes: “Don’t try to drive the darkness out, you just turn on the light”. Sure, sometimes, in fact often, it is useful to identify and quantify the darkness and its techniques and “machinations” but there is a danger one can become over preoccupied with it to the point of fascination and even being drawn into it. The cure for the darkness, as always, is simply to turn on the light.
    Ian: I agree more or less. But the liars will always be there. Vigilance (within oneself) and a dedication to honesty; being honest with oneself; will always be necessary. And sometimes it is not so easy to see. (We are all greedy )

  13. sorry, annonymous was I

  14. ‘…there is a danger one can become over preoccupied with it to the point of fascination and even being drawn into it.’

    This is the absolute sine qua non of all actual transformative work in thought /at least/, and so indeed I /am/, certainly to the point of realising that sooner or later all lightbulbs must burn out.

    To externalists — in which dimension we necessarily /are /confined as politicians — this side of things is no doubt dismaying. Naturally we prefer the Rommel idea, ‘no matter what, do SOMETHING!’ Rat-tat-tat, buddabuddabudda*…”fuck YOU!”** But all that taking the reality of the inside of things as it is means, really, is that the real moral work of evolving human being is necessarily also to be done in parallel, or else there can be absolutely none of the progress which indeed is /our/ metaphor.

    As to our /common/ basis, all I am contending is that, beyond a certain amusing & self-consoling point of cheery & sarcastical satire, it is no good on Earth demonising everyone not with us as ‘part of the problem’. This is binarism, it is mentally lazy, it is not sufficient for fully human purposes therefore, and — all of of it amounts to handing over to the the Devil in Hell myriads of legionaries.

    If we indeed are the tertium non daturwe say we are, and not just to ourselves but at least /to/ the political affairs of North Atlantic men, then we must /be/ so, and not just binary & exhausted-aristotelian re-hashers.

    * — the rat-tats going are the WW I-style left-over brit machineguns and the buddas are the Necessarily More Nazi & Rapid Fire Nasty-German ones

    ** — /this/ is an Australian-American contribution — ed

  15. Ian says: ‘Firstly, our plan for moving from the current state to liberty will have had to have been achieved by popular consent – which means that each step on the way must be such that it gains more approval than disapproval from Teh Masses, and becomes an unstoppable snowball.’

    It is in this basically feeling-toned work of persuasion that lies /our/ moral test & challenge as, perhaps, more thinking types. Not all coercion is physical, and therein lies the temptation to make other sorts of ‘distinctions’ also.


    ‘Winning will be extremely hard- let us have no illusions regarding that- but we only need to win once.’

    There is concealed in this last the great question of the ‘right time’ and the ‘right people’.

  16. Pingback: Some Wookean Dog Days « Bodwyn Wook