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

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

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 whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes