Chilling

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." -- Tacitus, Roman senator and historian (A.D. c.56-c.115)

When I first starting blogging, I didn't have a particular, well-thought out philosophical or political outlook. Sure, I had some idea of where I stood on things but I wasn't a nut about it. As time went on, and I began reading more and more about the state of our affairs in North America, I became concerned about individual liberties. It seemed to me we were no longer free and that free will was only free to the extent the state or corporations would permit it; that we must comply with their will.

In the nation-state computation, humans give up part of their freedoms to the state in return for something; usually this meant a give and take scenario. I give you the right to say, handle national security, and in return my life is protected from marauding invaders. That sort of thing. It was contractual and was never meant to allow the state to expand on it without the explicit agreement from its subjects.

In the 20th century, the idea of socialist-welfarism has meant we have given up all our rights to the state. It alone determines what is bad and what is good for the myth known as the "greater good." Man is an individual. He can only protect and govern himself for he can't think for another person. He can't determine, if say he wants to help another, if that person is truly in need or is lazy. He can make a determination but he alone should make that decision to give or not. It shouldn't be coerced through, as it stands, taxes.

Money coming out of my pockets to some well-intentioned program or service is very much throwing money away if it's not carefully traced. If we accept the individual-state contract concept, then it should truly be on an individual basis where the state offers options where I can give my money. If I know, say, one service is poorly managed then I won't give MY money to it. If I want to give to a political entity then it ALONE will get it. Subsidies should be kept to a tight confine.

That's true fairness for we know where everyone stands on issues. Forcing one to give against their will for the "greater good" is increasingly being questioned as it should.

Liberals and progressives will naturally read with horror and misunderstand my point. It's not a call for unrestrained freedom. No one believes this is possible. Man needs arbitrators to help govern against our vices and virtues.

I'm not advocating a callous world either. I care for my fellow man. I just don't believe I have the right make people believe in my causes and beliefs. That's why I write for a magazine that seeks to help human beings in Exceptional Family.

Rather, my argument stems from the fact that the natural state of man flows from the individual. Not the other way around. Yes, we can work in communities and communes but that's not our natural state for if there is free will these concepts work to the extent a person is getting something in return. If they're not, they may as well be in a cult where they perform labotomies. That's why the liberal/socialist/progressive message resonates little, if at all, with me.
I thought about this as I read this piece by John Stossel. I no longer believe these are isolated instances. 12-year-old kids should not be arrested and handcuffed for eating french fries. Five year olds should not be sent home for playing cops and robbers at school. Here in Quebec, a black student was arrested for placing her bag on a park bench next her breaking an unknown city by-law. In another case, a person was arrested for not holding the railing in the Metro.

Then, we're asked to grin and bear the absurd? I'm all for respecting authority. It's essential. But in some cases, we can and must voice our displeasure.

Think of the long-term consequences of such stupidities and the unnecessary trauma it may cause kids.

It's frightening the over reach by the state. Corporations piss on the government and both piss on the people.