Skip to main content

Into the Wild: What the Statist, the Freethinker and the Capitalist See

There is a rather simple distinction between the freethinker, the capitalist, and the statist. 

When the independent thinker enters the wilderness, he sees the beauty of it, the way the leaves flap in the wind, the formation of the birds. 



He hears the whirring of the wind, the quacking of ducks, whistling of friendly flyers. 

He escapes into the fields, basks in the shimmering sun of independent thought, and gets lost in the exploration of the terrain, the cosmos and the subject of his very existence. 

He is guided inexorably by an unquenchable thirst for knowledge, an undefined set of tantalizing answers to curious questions, and a resolute and nearly desperate fascination with meaning. 

When the capitalist enters the wilderness, he sees opportunity. 

He views the trees, the streams and the wildlife as fountains of harnessable energy, usable materials for shelter, grazable and cultivatable lands for farming, formable trails for hiking and running, and depths of resourceful minerals yet to be discovered. 

He seeks to realize the greatest potential of the land and its resources to the untold betterment of those around him, and he sees a vastly improved standard of living spawning from the development and discoveries thereof. 

The statist, on the other hand, views little of it all. 

Instead, he sees problems. 

He is all over consumed by the nuisance of people, the perception of disorder and the problems which may arise if not for the institution of force by an entity armed with guns. 

The statist fails to see the beauty, the fallibility of his own thoughts, the opportunity for human advancement, and the trade-offs which attend the unyielding letters of the law. 

He sees only the problems which trouble his limited mind, which jeopardize the way he presently views and enjoys his world, and he wishes only to keep it that way and to insulate himself from the threats he’s manufactured and failed to reconcile in his own mind. 

He effectively sees what he wishes to see, whether consciously or unconsciously; thus, as a hammer, everything in his field of view has become a nail.

He cares not at all for the costs, the certainty of law, nor the consequent diminishment of liberty. 

He is concerned only with himself. 

And how can you blame him? 

It is for this reason, among myriad others, that the independent thinker and the capitalist must cooperate to ensure the preservation of freedom, as the many rational thinkers in this world are sure to besiege those counterparts who wish to keep it free. 

To them, freedom serves as the ultimate threat to their status quo and thence their peace of mind. 

They are the real enemies of all who wish to be free.

Comments

  1. I love it. Insightful take on the subjective nature of nature itself mixed with human involvement.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. Likewise, it was a war that would witness a five-fold increase in the number of civilians employed by the federal government, as federal gove

The Evils of Facebook in the War Against Reason

Facebook is one of the greatest frauds whereby thoughtless friends share or tacitly embrace ideas which, in doing so, adds personal, relatable flair to messages being distributed from largely unknown reporters.  In effect, these friends then subject a wider community to the thought that since their friends are supportive of such ideas, then they ought to carry some merit or authenticity.  Facebook commits a great disservice to communication, serving primarily to subject meaningful dialogue to inherently-binary measures of laudability or contemptibility.  Whereas scientific evaluation serves to extract emotion, Facebook serves to embolden the fallacy-ridden supposition that fact follows fanfare, that truth trails trendiness, and that democratic participation (by way of “likes” or “shares”) can reliably support truth or sustainably produce virtue. What's more, Facebook and other social media sites tend also to further the fallacy that the last breath, or more precisely the f

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators -- who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes --  who have fallen victim to the group think phenomenon, spawning the nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes, and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their supposed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's report whi