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 Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

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.

It was a war that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…