It didn’t go as intended—which was a given before we’d even set off—but our weekend away was nonetheless filled with a lot of pleasure. The snolfs got to try their fishing poles, at long last; but, not having tried to learn anything about their equipment nor the fish in the waters they were plying, didn’t get so much as a nibble. Snolf the First was especially frustrated, because his supposedly better reel kept tangling the line when he’d try to rewind, but Darlin’ Daughter’s willingness to share her rod offset that frustration quite nicely. They learned how to cast fairly quickly, and did pretty well at it. They apparently chose the most garish of lures they have—a big red and white stripedy thing—and it looked comically out of place in the clear, cold water of the lake. Maybe the fish were as amused as I was; all the same, the snolfs enjoyed themselves, and I enjoyed watching their antics and seeing their happiness.
We had other kinds of fun as well, but I won’t bore everyone with a detailed recounting. Suffice to say that we found more interesting things to explore than we had time for, and we intend to return to the area.
Lobo and I were each a bit preoccupied in our own ways by the doings of humans in the world at large, and that was hard to shake over the weekend. Yet, nestled up in the mountains, trying to avoid human interaction as much as possible, we too were soothed by the music of wind in pines or rushing rapids; we enjoyed seeing birds of prey coasting on thermals; in short, nature provided a welcome balm.
And I wonder how it is that regular individuals—not the petty tyrants who administer and bureaucratize and dictate the rules and regulations by which we’re supposed to order our lives; in being such creatures they show they have no soul left to reclaim or rejuvenate—can so seemingly placidly plod along with those restrictions and orders.
How can someone breathe deeply of fresh, clean air; take in the breathtaking beauty abundant in nature; feel a child’s small hand slip into theirs as they walk side by side; how can any person observe or even think about the countless ways the world displays its beauty, even amongst man-made jungles, and then turn to become a cog of the state?
How do people who see the glories and the wonder–full potential of our world willingly go off to kill others in some faraway place? How can they blind themselves to the potential of those faraway places, or worse, trash the beauty there?
What does the state offer that is so powerful, so enticing, that people willingly turn their backs on their own dreams and goals, and become its thralls? I do not think most people are intrinsically that evil, nor that stupid, to choose such a deal with such a devil. But its siren songs sing to them in ways I cannot hear; or perhaps more accurately, I heard but never stopped questioning, and hence the song held no charms for me.
I may be nothing but an aging idealist, yet I cling to the belief that many people’s eyes could be opened if they would just look a little harder, or have a key question dropped into their minds. While I often ask “why”, it seems to me that for many, pointing out the contrast between a life as it is, and that life as it could be—as it was meant to be, free from busybody interference and coercive intrusion—by asking “how” might be the right key.
How?
As B.W. might opine
I would say fear.
I'm glad you all had a good time and enjoyed the weekend.
The question is complicated
The petty bureaucrats are usually just ordinary people. Since they work for the state they have a vested interest in seeing it continue, but for the most part, they are not personally evil. The work they do is evil, but they do not see it that way.
Jared Diamond asks this question in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel. His answer is that the state, for all its problems, provides stability. I would say instead that it provides the illusion or the promise of stability. It also provides someone else to take the blame.
To quote P.J. O'Rourke "One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it's remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver's license."
It is more that annoying for most people. It is intolerable.
Then there is the "get something for nothing" part of it. There is the "I don't like what my neighbor is doing" part of it. There is the tendency to "go along". There is also fear. Not necessarily fear of the state, although that is a part of it, but more fear of change, fear of the unknown, etc. The State, or rather the people who control the State, play on all these things, and more.
I do not believe that one answer exists. Instead it is many. Probably different ones for different people.
Sounds like you had lots of fun on the weekend. Happy birthday to Snolf the First and Lobo.
Escape clause
Jorge is right - the 'state' provides a scapegoat, someone else to take responsibility and to blame when all goes wrong (allowing many to stay in a childlike frame of mind, because the govt will take care of them - indeed, these people dislike 'conspiracy theories' suggesting inappropriate conduct by their govt, as it becomes very uncomfortable if the pillar of their existence is questioned or thrown into doubt. Hence, they retreat further into unthinking acceptance and the open arms of the state. Such persons are easily manipulated by fear...and the greatest fear of all may be that the world is not always a nice place and that their govt might not really give a damn).
Stability
"the state, for all its problems, provides stability" ...and there is no more stable condition than "dead".
An outsider of sorts comments......
I’m posting because I am at best a newbie to freedom oriented thought, and at worst, still stuck in the world of the state. I’m a bit different from others who post here in that I haven’t fully turned the corner many of you have, and since “how” seems to be a genuine question, I can share one woman’s perspective on how and why (at least for my own self, but I am theorizing true for others too.)
I think people generally would like to live in such a way that their basic needs are met – that is to say they don’t have to fight (literally) for food and water, that they have shelter, that they are generally not faced with life-threatening danger – that sort of thing. When you have those in place, you move up Maslow’s ladder and start finding the time for love, and what interests you personally, etc.
The state supposedly offers to handle all the basics – which is going to sound pretty good to a lot of people. Manage commerce so goos and services are readily available, enforce rules so we're all safe, set up infrastructure to pipe things like electricity and water to us. Since most people in western ‘civilized” countries don’t have a clue how to do the basics themselves (milk a cow, kill a chicken, find safe food in the forest, use a gun, build a house or a well – heck most of us can’t even garden). If you don’t know how to do it at all, it’s not going to sound very appealing to have to do it on your own. And I think Americans are way too suspicious of evil corporations to embrace privatization.
So people conclude that the very best way to have the most enriching life for themselves and others is to let some collective entity (government) handle the things that are for our basic good. That’s “how” they let it happen. And then bigger and bigger government has crept up on us just like the boiled frog parable. The gradual effect has numbed everyone to even seeing the pervasive negative effect.
As I newbie, I think I hear freedom thinkers saying – Hey government doesn’t work! We freedom lovers also want what is best for the good of people. I know, I know, you’re all supposed to be about the individual, but I think that lens shortchanges the effect. At the end of the day, freedom for individuals produces the best end result for everyone. What I’ve learned from reading here and on other blogs, seems to suggest that many of you believe that if each individual is just in charge of himself, the world would work better.
Let me take an example that I’ve thought a lot about since being introduced to freedom thinking. Let’s assume we all agree that it would be a generally good thing if you could go drive on the road with minimal risk of a traffic accident. A typical American (me included) would initially think, make rules, enforce them, watch accidents go down.
Then I started seeing the problems here. As soon as I, as a driver cede the decision making to someone else, I get complacent. I lose my edge. I lose my initiative to think for myself. I drive 55 because it’s posted, regardless of weather, traffic or my own comfort & skills. I’ve unknowingly given up more than I’ve gotten, but I “feel” secure. Too bad it’s false. Without the rule, I would be forced to figure it out myself – I’d have to think, experience, make judgments. With a critical eye to the specific factors in my individual case, and pressed by self-preservation to do a good job, I think I’d be a better driver. I can play this example out across all sorts of scenarios and I come to the same conclusion – life teaches lessons more effectively than imposed rules, and having competent, proud, thinking people making their own decisions and living well, more lives than just their own would be better. Of course thid way doesn't produce perfect results - no way would - but I've come to conclude it would be much, much better. (Although worse on the surface in the short term as people grappled with all that new responsibility).
“How” can people subscribe to statism? I think it’s inaccurate and not even helpful to ascribe motives like fear and stupidity. I think at least some people hold the political beliefs that they do out of love and respect and desire to help – the exact same things that I think motivate some freedom lovers – Sunni I know has said she has this deep respect for people. Perhaps I am only speaking for myself, but as a former fan of big government, I can honestly say that I still want the same thing I always wanted, for life to be as good and decent as it can be for most people. The only thing that I have changed in switching to freedom thinking is that the path to that desired end is entirely different.
P.S. Sunni, sorry I dropped off the planet forever; I’d love to catch up.
Hmmm.
I’ve been thinking about my question, and the responses so far, for some time. Still not sure I have anything useful to say, but I’ll ramble for a bit anyway.
Pint, thank you; it was a very nice time. But your answer confuses me; the state offers fear? My thoughts regarding that concept generally run to state solutions taking advantage of our basic fears, or sometimes creating fears where none necessarily need exist (viz., USSA involvement in the Russia–Georgia situation). At best, state-based solutions offer a false security for our fears.
Jorge, this is an excellent point, but it begs several questions. Does any “ordinary” person view their work as evil? If so, how could they keep performing it in good conscience? Interesting as defining evil might be, I’m not keen on pursuing that path today.
I can see that ... I don’t understand it, but I can recognize that this state exists. The problem is, that kind of individual seemed not to be as common just 60 years ago, let alone 100 or 200 years. People recognized that they were on their own to a fair degree—they sank or swam by their own lights and it was a good idea to be a good neighbor to others who were sinking, in case misfortune placed one in that same position. From my perspective, the handout mentality is the major cultural shift over that time, and that was fostered by state intervention into private lives. So there’s nothing inherent in individuals today that lead to such differences in thinking, it seems to me; it’s largely a cultural phenomenon that many simply don’t think about, much less try to get outside of. All that said, you are surely right: there are many explanations.
Before I forget, thanks to you and everyone who offered birthday wishes to the family. They’ve been passed along and the recipients say thanks, too.
Shaun, do you have any thoughts on how a “childlike frame of mind” has come to be so accepted in adults? That used to be considered a sign of diminished mental capacity, or whatever similar term one might wish to use for it ... but it certainly wasn’t considered rational or responsible, and wasn’t a desired frame of mind in a grownup at all. (Come to think of it, it wasn’t tolerated in children either, back when children were expected to work to help provide for their keep.)
Laura, thank you for your insights. While I do have some difficulties with Maslow’s hierarchy, your mentioning that strikes a chord: might part of the puzzle be that today’s world is so dizzyingly complex—connection-wise as well as technologically—that it is a sort of self-protection mechanism to turn over some part of one’s decision-making to others? Yeah, the gov may suck at a lot of things, but so far the infrastructure is holding up and relying on it is preferable to trying to solve all the puzzles of plumbing and electricity and heat oneself ... I can see that kind of shallow cost-benefit analysis going on. Relying on what exists frees up time and energy for other pursuits.
Hmm. You’ve touched on a lot of possibly sensitive issues in this paragraph ... there are factions in The Family that prefer to keep the focus on the individual, while others recognize our inherent social nature and try to weave a pro-freedom fabric that has individualism as warp and community as weft. And of course, many outsiders view that “to each his peaceable own” perspective as a thin veneer for racism, sexism, and any other manner of unacceptable “discrimination”—forgetting that in a truly free marketplace, such behaviors could very well cost an actor more than they might gain him. A politically incorrect disciminatory attitude might be held by some individuals, but again, in those cases it is an individual choice, not a community-wide standard coercively foisted upon everyone.
I think you’re right that an individualistic focus can make it harder for some to extrapolate and see how that can yield better communities. I honestly don’t know how to address such a situation, though.
It seems to me that other proponents of coercive governance have those motivations as well. But here’s the rub, as I currently see it: how can they genuinely claim to respect another if they’re unwilling to let him make his own choices, and take all the consequences? Being a parent also, I know you know how difficult it can be to allow a child to experience an unpleasant or painful situation—yet those uncomfortable lessons are often the best ones. What ground, in love and respect and concern, is there to thwart another’s choice? I would be content to be left alone by statist proponents, so that a voluntaryistic community could be attempted; and I would leave alone those who wanted to be governed by whatever coercive layer(s) of government that exist. But that isn’t possible in their model—I must be subjected to their rulers, for my own good and out of their concern for my welfare.
I have strayed quite far from the question as I originally intended it ... I have moments, when I am not distracted by nonsense, fear-mongering, or my own negative internal commentary, when I feel fully alive and competent to meet the challenges at hand. As I described above, often they come when I am out in nature, but working on things will bring them too—accomplishing something on my trailer, or cooking, or helping Darlin’ Daughter with her reading, or even tidying my things. I feel my own competence and the beauty of what’s possible, and the joy of those things leads me to want to reach for more. To me, that is freedom. Is it possible that many individuals have never felt a similar thing?
Yes....and No
There is a feedback loop. 200 years ago there was no state school to teach the virtues of the state. 100 and even 60 years ago the state school system was no where as developed as it is today.
Combine state school with the modern circus that is mass media and with a system that promises something for everyone, and there you go. This is probably a gross simplification, but I think largely true.
People have always wanted to hand responsibility off to someone else and have always wanted something for nothing. In my view religion is an attempt to do this. However, almost everyone knew that "the gods help those who help themselves". Even if you believed that praying to the harvest god is what brought in a good crop, you still had to work the fields.
Now, the state actually gives you something for nothing. Or at least the illusion of something for nothing. Most people do not want to look behind the curtain and discover that OZ is a fraud.
A big part of the reason we are in the mess we are today is that people have removed focus from the individual and said "we want everyone to be better off". Then someone comes along and says "My Plan will make everyone better off". The Communists are notable famous for this, but collectivists of all stripes do it. The "My Plan is Best for All" approach of the state is simply wrong, but very appealing.
There is nothing wrong with making a utilitarian argument that says (truthfully) "In Liberty every one will be better off", but be prepared for the strawman of "what if someone is crippled and can't take care of himself and no one is willing to help him, what then?" Or "What if there is only one way to build a vitally necessary road and one person refuses to sell their property?"
Also understand that when you make a utilitarian argument there will be someone who says "My Plan is Better. I can guarantee everyone's happiness and well being, Liberty cannot." It is both true and obvious that Liberty cannot, since Liberty explicitly does not guarantee results. The person with a Plan is either lying or naive, but that is not obvious to most people.
Right.
Right—that’s essentially my point, although I took longer to get to it than you did here. It is state meddling that has brought about the infantilizing of this country’s inhabitants to a large degree. In my infrequent forays into history, it appears that every time a step was taken, a number of people cautioned that the proposal (welfare, social security, unemployment, etc.) would have unwanted effects; they were shown to be right, but by that time it was “too late” to do away with the program. And subsequent generations largely never knew of the opposition; and being raised with the programs from day one, too often don’t question their existence or dubious benefit.
Maybe some people always want to duck responsibility, and maybe some people always want a free ride—and it is highly probable that if we were to sketch the groups in a Venn diagram, there’d be a lot of overlap. But I do not think either condition applies to all individuals, not even some of the time. I’m no paragon of virtue, but I remember feeling a burning shame when someone else was wrongly accused of something I’d done, even as a teen; I think that was equally due to my family situation and my personality. And it used to really grate on me that I could never really know if I got a job based solely on merit, or whether part of the reason I was hired was to help fill a “minority” column.
It also seems to me that children actively seek ways to test their abilities, which of necessity includes taking responsibility for what they do. Ducking responsibility—out of fear of punishment or whatever other reason—if it is permitted by the parents or other caretakers, is a learned response, not a natural one. And some adults show that they grok this, even as they engage in the dodge themselves.
But then, I am an idealist and I seem congenitally unable to do elsewise than see individuals as they could be, rather than as we really are. I would much rather try to live up to our potential and fail, than succeed at middling around (or worse).
delegating responsibility
Hi Sunni,
In an email to another friend, I've just answered a similar Q to the one you posed, regarding adults behaving like children.
Firslty, to be specific, when I say childlike, I refer to the propensity to delegate responsiblilty for decision making (DM) in certain situations.
When it comes to the issue of taking responsibility for decision making, the defining criteria is whether the available options are perceived as 'good/favourable' or 'bad/unfavourable'.
So, for eg, if both options are good (eg, which nice new car or plasma screen will I choose), individuals are likely to assume more responsibility + look for information to aid the DM (decision making) process.
The rationalle is that, as they cannot 'go wrong' in the scenario, they wish to take full credit for the outcome of that DM (i.e., the shiny new car/ big plasma).
But, if the available options are adverse, individuals are more likely to delegate DM to another party.
Eg; where there is a medical decision to make, where both options are unpleasant (eg. chemo/ radiotherapy V surgery), individuals are likely to avoid info gathering, and delegate the decision to a recognised 'medical authority'.
The rationalle here is that either way, the outcome will not be nice, so the individual does not want to take blame for a bad decision.
What is the point of all this?
If societal issues are framed as 'bad/bad', such as 'environment stuffed in 20yrs if we don't change V change = loss of jobs and standard of living we're accustomed to, then most individuals will prefer not to seek info, and instead (like children), delegate DM to 'recognised authorities'. This I've seen time and time again...(and it favours those who frame the decisions in those ways).
You can insert your own pair of 'negative' scenarios into the above - the outcome is usually the same.
Ah, okay.
I gotcha now; my thinking was in a different framework.
And relatedly, the vid that I just posted buttresses your point pretty well.
Oops!
I did mix that up. I meant the fear of the people allows them to turn to the false promises and stuff. I must have been in a big hurry.