Death through Entropy
[Note: Originally written October 20, 2019.]
An internet meme quoted a Democratic Presidential candidate, which I will paraphrase as follows: In America, it is your vote that keeps you safe not your gun.
His effort to distill human nature, political theory, and millennia of history into a Twitter-compliant soundbite does a disservice to the underlying issues, and ultimately, it does an extreme disservice to the electorate.
Like many Democratic presidential candidates, he would seem to have an uncomfortable relationship with and incongruent understanding of power. On the one hand, he and those of his ilk want power. They contend that they will use that power to do (only) good … at least by their own definition and for the benefit of their favored constituents. They allege unconvincingly that they are immune to the irresistibly corrupting influence of power. They promise that an unrestrained government with them at the helm can and forever will be benign and benevolent.
However, they insist that we take them at their naked word and that we trust in blind faith because that which they promise is entirely inconsistent with instinct, histories - both ancient and modern, and the singular reality, in which we must exist.
They exude great confidence in their own abilities. (Some would call such confidence: prideful, arrogant, or even a fatal hubris.) They assure that “I/We” can wield great unrestrained power to do unlimited good, and that they do so while exercising the supposed wisdom of Solomon and the selflessness of Cincinnatus. However, they are quick to assert and allege that “you/(s)he/they” are not capable of safely or productively utilizing such power, or nearly any power at all.
They contend that power, which might be bestowed upon or allowed to any but the chosen ones or their designees, will inevitably result in abuse, oppression, tyranny, and destruction. However, the same argument applies equally to all sides, parties, and factions. History has identified none - not one - who can resist the Siren’s Song. The quest for power and the exercise of unrestrained power are invariably corrupting.
Therefore, the argument goes that in order to be “safe” one must be powerless. In order to be protected, one must surrender the ability to protect himself. In order to be provided for, one must abandon self-reliance. However, the absence of power does not manifest itself in Utopia. The absence of power is entropy. It is death.
Power simultaneously has the potential for productivity and destruction, just as each individual has within himself the potential for both good and evil.
It has been said, “Nature abhors a vacuum.” This can be applied to power: In the absence of power, some more powerful force moves in to fill the void. If persons or peoples make themselves powerless or even less powerful, then they should expect that other parties will take advantage of their defenselessness or weakened state.
Is that “right,” “proper,” or “moral”? Perhaps, it is not. Nevertheless, that result is entirely consistent with (human) nature. It is consistent with the inherent traits of our bestial species. It represents the imperfect reality, in which we live. Any effort to act inconsistently with that reality is doomed to failure just as certainly as if one would commit to flight without consideration of the unavoidable influence of gravity. Regardless of the sincerity, nobility, and commitment, the effort will almost certainly end in disappointment or even destruction.
Powerful forces are not overcome by ignoring them. Aggressors do not defer to the defenseless. The powerful do not cower in the presence of a lesser foe. Instead, they are emboldened. Power is necessary. Its existence is necessary for survival. However, it must be understood.
Knowledge allows us to protect ourselves from the dangers of power and to harness it more productively. The first and most important lesson is that power cannot be unfettered. It cannot roam freely in a wanton quest of self-advancement content to sacrifice anything to its cause and committed to destroying everything, which stands in its path. Power can only be made productive if it is carefully and deliberately harnessed.
Power can only be controlled by some power equal to itself. Each power serves as a check and balance on the other, and it is the threat of loss, or even the possibility of mutually assured destruction, which moderates the exercise of power so as to avoid abuse, oppression, and tyranny. Ironically — but necessarily, it is each party’s self-interest, which motivates restraint, as opposed to some fanciful sense of altruism or less-than-universally-accepted concept of morality.
While the resulting “equilibrium” is imperfect, it represents our reality. When it becomes unbalanced, some opposing force or power must restore stability. When the environment changes, which it inevitably does, the organism (i.e. individual and/or society) must adapt (or it becomes obsolete and dies). When government is an unopposed sovereign, it condemns itself to extinction.
The primary failings of the “plans” put forth by politicians (i.e. Central Planning) is that they tend to ignore the innate motivations of self-preservation, self-advancement, and self-propagation, which are integral parts of human nature. Additionally, bureaucratic plans are based upon fixed assumptions and presumed variables, which either cannot be sufficiently controlled or which run counter to human nature and/or market forces.
Absent universal acceptance and absolute commitment by the entirety of the populace, such plans are ineffectual when they are proposed and obsolete from the moment that they are implemented. Immediately, persons, peoples, and parties, who feel disadvantaged, will work to circumvent the rules, to relieve themselves of the restrictions, or will seek to sabotage the underlying systems.
The only way that such plans can work in practice (as opposed to academic theory) is for those, who hold zealously to the reins of power (i.e. the political classes) to control all variables (by force … of law). They must control the environment, in which we live. They must control the people, who we are. They must fundamentally change the reality, in which we presently exist. In short, they must be “gods” or play “God.”
Who among us is comfortable with them playing that role? Who believes them to be sufficiently omniscient, wise, fair, and just to make the singularly “right” decision? (Remember, there can be no alternative view or opposing force for the system to work as they propose that it should.) Who is comfortable that all such decisions will be for his or her personal benefit and that he or she will not be sacrificed for the “greater good” of the collective? Who believes that for the first time in human history unrestrained power will not be absolutely corrupting?
Collectivism and its denominational offshoots of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism cannot be made kinder and gentler. The political classes allege that they act with unique insight and singular enlightenment; however, what they offer is neither new nor different. They merely seek to rebrand, recycle, and regurgitate failed philosophies from the past.
A dependent people made powerless in deference to a self-perpetuating state should not be surprised when political minions come to see citizens merely as means to self-serving ends and as collateral damage, which can be sacrificed to their ignoble cause(s).
Government is never entirely benign and forever benevolent. However, it makes no sense to blame the nature of the beast. The Leviathan will always act entirely consistent with its inherent nature. The beast cannot be tamed. It cannot be domesticated. One can only confine it and limit its ability to destroy and to cause harm. If carefully harnessed, its power can sometimes be made productive, but it is never safe for it to roam freely.
HRC, who is the personification of an “establishment” Democrat, accused not Trump but Tulsi Gabbard, an Army major, sitting Democratic representative, and candidate for president, of being a “Russian Asset.” This is not about cooperation, collaboration, compromise, or consensus. This is purely, simply, and ALWAYS about power. Period.
Trump is a self-centered and narcissistic liar. But, he is notable because those negative traits of those things are obvious. HRC, Obama, Sanders, and Warren, etc. are in their own ways self-centered, greedy, and power-hungry, but they are much better liars! Their lies are no less prolific but well practiced. That makes their threats more insidious and exceedingly more dangerous. And, the naïvely idealistic are similarly dangerous because they do not even understand the perils into which they are delving.
The problem as I see it is in the unreasonable expectation and naive belief that the institution of government is benign and benevolent. It never is.
Yes, robber barons are potentially oppressive and abusive. Yes, individuals and entities are “in it for themselves.” But, we know that (or should): Caveat emptor (“Buyer beware”).
Nevertheless, in private and voluntary transactions, we have the CHOICE to deal with those, who may manipulate and potentially abuse us. Among many persons, much of life involves enabling and codependency. However, we have a concurrent, even if difficult, choice to do things differently.
There exist checks in the fear of loss and balances among the powers of competing “robber barons.” The idea that power will restrain itself absent the threat of loss and destruction is contrary to millennia of history and experience. Power is an inevitably corrupting influence. As power trends toward absolute, so does the certainty for corruption, and with corruption come abuse, oppression, and tyranny.
However, Government gives us no choice. We are commanded to act consistent with the rule of law, even if involuntarily. Eventually, all will find themselves in a position contrary to the collective.
For example, a codependent, complicit, and conspiratorial electoral majority enables a self-serving political class to abuse and oppress disfavored minorities (e.g. propertied classes). That numerical majority acts with a perverse moral certitude, which the expectant beneficiaries and their political benefactors mistakenly believe can be derived solely from their number.
How can that scenario possibly end well?
Tyranny is equally oppressive and damnable regardless of whether it is exercised by a single despot or electoral majority. In the newly popular “social justice” scenario, producers will refuse to produce maximally, and the unsated discontented masses will remain unsatisfied. Yet, the latter will be emboldened toward a fruitless “revolution.” It is a relentless cycle of power: They have it, and we want it. However, few, if any, ever demonstrate themselves worthy of wielding vast power.
Would-be revolutionaries quickly become enamored with their newfound power, and they soon come to resemble, if not exceed in villainy, the petty tyrants, whom they were so eager to replace. Revolution requires the destruction of all that is on the promise to “Build Back Better.” However, there will be no Utopia rising like a Phoenix from the ashes. Instead, the crumbling rubble will serve as a lasting monument to all that was lost, and the smoldering ashes will serve as a lingering testament to what once was.
With regard to presidential candidates, the real answer is to make the presidency so relatively impotent that it does not matter who occupies the Oval Office. If you allow for an Imperial Presidency, then you inevitably will have someone in that office, who is going to be abusive, oppressive, and tyrannical (as to some individual, group, or party).
Candidly, I fear Donald Trump much less than I do Beto O’Rourke, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, et al. [See C.S. Lewis regarding the contrast between “robber barons” and “moral busy bodies.”] Plato dreamed of “Philosopher Kings.” Roman legends spoke of “Cincinnatus.” We look for unicorns and fret about their scarcity. There are no such beings in the singular but imperfect reality, within which we exist.
I realize that I am anachronistic, but I do not believe that the current course leads to any place worth going. If collectively we are not prepared to reconsider the lessons of old, then we are cursed to repeat very unpleasant histories. Making government, any individual politician, or a particular party either scapegoat or savior is not the answer.
The answer lies within individuals — within ourselves. The individual must “do” something about his own condition. He must work to address his own problems. There is no single universal fix, which is simultaneously efficient, effective, fair, and just. Nevertheless, most persons want the blame and burden to fall on someone — anyone — other than themselves.
Putting government in charge of our lives is like stowing your bull in a China shop for safekeeping and then feigning surprise when you get a bill for all of the broken porcelain. There will be a day of reckoning. There will be a price to pay.
Statism was a bad idea from the outset, and there is no way to improve upon it other than to undo it. Otherwise, we the people must accept the damages and pay the costs. Those costs are denominated in the incessant erosion of liberties and usurpation of freedoms. It is a price much too high to pay. Personally, it is a price that I am not willing to pay.
