Dependent on which candidate is named there will be those who celebrate and those who’ll shake their heads, kick the floor and think, “Aw, we
didn’t win. Boo hoo.”
Okay, I doubt that I’ll come across those exact words after the election, but I anticipate there will be high-pitched responses from those on the
side of the losing candidate. As for the winning candidate’s crowd I anticipate there will be a showing of big L’s across the foreheads of the
winners to remind the losers, “the will of the people has spoken—our people, and you lose.”
It’s interesting how an election cycle not only produces a winning & losing candidate, but also a winning & losing segment of society. “Candidate
X was defeated” is roughly as far as the narrative goes (i.e. "This political segment of the electorate lost" is not a main talking point in
political outcomes). Following this win-loss outcome the entire political process seemingly becomes reinvigorated by a transfusion of new blood
(maybe Superman’s blood?) into the Executive system. Wait, watch, and see: it’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s the MSM & paid-for intelligentsia
offering the secular equivalent of, “Your sins have been forgiven, my son. Now go forth, be fruitful and multiply.” And everyone ought to feel
good too because our democratic process worked: it produced winners and it produced losers, literally.
There are of course less desirable structures than that which a democracy provides. I’m thinking about those who are nomenklatura
)-minded, specifically. It is this pernicious crowd that worries me most, if only because their likeness
can assume more forms than the villainous Mystique. But notwithstanding the ad hoc revisionism which accompanies that crowd’s basis for societal
structure I’m actually beginning to feel a bit more optimistic that the future may not be intersecting to one central authority. Moreover, I think
President Obama’s recent “noise” trope as applied to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s red line
is an appropriate metaphor to describe the
“noise” occurring around the world. See lewrockwell.com...
to get an idea about the noise going around—a noise that
might just evolve into a thundering clap.
In a roundabout way I’m getting to the form of extremism that I endorse. Here, check this out—it’s the craziest thing you’ve ever heard
about. It’s so extreme that a new word is needed to emphasize the insane degree of extremism that my extremism endorses: the principle of
nonaggression (includes critical reviews as well: wiki.mises.org...
Whoa! Is that extreme or what!? That’s just crazy talk!! How in the heck will a democracy work if everyone adheres to the principle of
nonaggression!? How in the heck will I defend myself if I sideline pre-emptive aggression!? How in the heck will I get paid if I don’t expropriate
from others & secure legislation to advance my special interests!? How in the heck will I make a better world if I don't employ force to make the
world a better place
!? Sheer madness!
Ah, finally, the the snarky rant comes out! But on a more light note I want to suggest that there are means (call it norms) by which a people may
adhere to the principle of nonaggression and thrive. Furthermore, means
largely become individual responsibilities for a
society that embraces NAP as their premier principle. (Side note: see mises.org...
for an abundance
of material that made the case for
NAP long before my arrival.) Unfortunately for some, however, the tradeoff to the decentralization of authority is an umbilical cord that the
oppose ... for any number of reasons. In any case I’m not suggesting that a utopian NAP society would magically rid the outcome of winners
and losers, producing only winners. If you’re of a more secular slant then you probably recognize that there are winners and losers in nature; if
you’re of a more spiritual slant then perhaps you metaphysically interpret winners from losers. However one chooses to interpret winning and losing
it ought to be recognized that such interpretation in the areas of human action reduces to individual preferences. But to illustrate natural
as distinguished from preference
I will claim that it is collectively reasonable to say “murder is wrong,” but that to
collectively say “a tariff is good” is a murky claim. Why is murder wrong? I know of no one who will claim to benefit as the recipient of
murder, to include those whose well-being may be dependent upon the victim of murder—with very few and unusual exceptions. If nothing else, who
will argue against not being murdered but in instances of prolonged suffering or bizarre circumstances? And what about a tariff—what institutional
structure enforces such a mandate? Why does the institutional structure enforce such a mandate? And how does such an institutional structure enforce
such a mandate? Here is the summarized version: who, why, and how? Embedded within the answers to the murky claim that "a tarriff is good" are
winners and losers, along with coercion that, taken to the fundamental extreme, could result in an institution's violent action despite that a
had not acted out with aggression, yet failed to adhere to an institutional preference. But what about the claim that "murder is
wrong?" Do we need a statistical study to demonstrate, by and large, that people abhor murder? Is it not pretty clear that the preference to be
murdered does not rank high
on individual preference orders, so much so that we intuitively recognize virtually everyone has zero preference to
Commonness and preference often strike out at me as lines that are unnaturally made to join in politics. Anyway ...
Armchair reasoning’s effective range is probably dependent on the observer’s willingness to ask questions that work backwards from a particular
question to its fundamental origin rather than make a discrete jump from such question to its presumed origin. (I have a natural philosopher in mind
who said something very similar to this. I can't recall his name, but want to note that I did not independently arrive at this idea of regressing
from the question rather making foundational presumptions and moving forward to the question.) That I make discrete jumps while reasoning from time
to time is, by my own reckoning, axiomatic—I do. But I’m reading, watching, & listening to so much of what is going on and being said in the 2012
POTUS election cycle and thinking one thing: there will be individual winners and there will be individual losers, but the institution always wins.
It seems so much like a weekend at Vegas to me..