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

The Deal with Tariffs

Over the course of President Trump’s two terms, there has been much talk around the matter of tariffs — taxes on imported goods. However, much of the talk seems to miss the point. After all, for those of us who seek the truth, it’s not really a question of whether tariffs are ‘good’ but whether they are preferable to other kinds of taxes — assuming, of course, that taxes are the rule, as certain as the eventuality of death. First, let’s establish the theory: beyond the generic purpose of revenue generation for the state, the institution of tariffs ordinarily serves to  reduce (or discourage) imports by making them artificially more expensive, while encouraging domestic production by making domestic products more appealing on a relative price basis. In the realm of foreign affairs, tariffs are instituted or threatened in the course of international trade negotiations in order to signal dissatisfaction with existing trade barriers and to push for more favorable trade terms; or in ord...

Summarizing the “Separation of Church and State”

There is much confusion surrounding the concept of the “separation of church and state”; much of it likely born out of the steep secular decline in religious affiliation across recent generations, with particular emphasis among atheists and anti-deists.  While many have hastened to leverage this language (“separation of church and state”) in order to condemn or censure religious values — particularly those which are Christian — where they have carried influence in public life (i.e. prayer in schools, teachers covering lessons from the Bible, government representatives appealing to God, coinage bearing the words “In God We Trust”), the truth is that this “separation” was never expected to completely eliminate religious practice or religious sentiment from all matter of public life. In fact, religion was so deeply enmeshed in American life during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that the French magistrate and prison reformer Gustave de Beaumont, during his nine-month tour of A...

Rethinking “Forgiveness”

Forgiveness is often hailed as the ultimate moral virtue — a cleansing of the soul, a sign of spiritual maturity, and the first step toward healing fractured relationships. But in modern discourse, particularly in religious and pop-psychological circles, “forgiveness” has extended beyond the sensible, beyond etiquette, and beyond justice and useful application. The concept of “forgiveness” has been stretched far outside of the realms of that which is easy to “forgive”, that which is merely inconvenient or annoying, or relatively innocuous or insignificant, where “forgiveness” is merely part of tolerating people’s human shortcomings, their mistakes and  their accidents , or extending ‘mercy’ to those who’ve disrespected or “trespassed against us” (and have since offered sincere apologies and the necessary restitution). This reimagined kind of “forgiveness” has taken on a dangerously idealized form ignorant to or dismissive of the laws and limits of human nature and the potential imp...