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

Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin)

Buy your copy today of  Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin) , available at  Amazon  and Barnes & Noble . The name Bobby Fischer reigns supreme in the world of chess, yet there was a time when it hogged headlines, struck fear into the eyes of the competition, and was on the lips of folks all across the globe. More than the face of the centuries-old game, there was a time when Bobby Fischer was synonymous with the cause and spirit of America, that his moves on the chessboard sought more than checkmate but to pit the strength of “raw-boned American individualism” against “the Soviet megalithic system” which had come to dominate the game of chess at the same time it dominated Cold War politics. Fischer’s triumph over the USSR's Boris Spassky in the ’72 World Chess Championship would ultimately be celebrated as a symbolic and diplomatic victory for the U.S., but, as time would tell, it would not mean the American...

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...

From BC to AD to AI

Artificial intelligence is bound not only to render the ordinary human being boring by comparison, and in many cases practically unnecessary, but to dispose human beings to hostility toward each other where any dares pose a question or raise a concern instead of taking it up with a chatbot (or AI interface); such a course of action eventually assuming such a regular place in human affairs as to stand in entirely for human discourse and daily interaction.  This is not only a very real possibility when considering the future course of human ‘civilization’; it is more than likely imminent or already upon us.  It is left to be seen just what this will look like, just how this will play out, just what tolerance the species (and even beyond) has for such extremes which this technology is to bring about. Likewise, it remains to be seen whether a heavily-indebted society facing never-ending and unavoidable taxes (i.e. taxes on property) can even be expected to retrain and retool for t...