User Rating: 0 / 5

Star inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactive
 

Our Way Of LifeToday we are going to explore (briefly) what is the meaning of the term "our way of life" and how far are we willing to go to defend it.

Every time politicians attempt to justify an aggression (be it internal or external), they invariable use "our way of life" as excuse. They were "threatening our way of life" or "our way of life was at stake" or "we had to defend our way of life" and so on.

From those sayings it would seem that the concept of "way of life" is something important; something worth defending. We would like to take just a little bit of your time to explore this concept.

THE STATIST'S WAY OF LIFE

The contents

As the term "way of life" is almost exclusively used by politicians, it is clear that it is a statist concept. This is, it is something that governments use but people not so much. So, in state terms, what does "way of life" mean?

We can safely assume that some (if not all) of the following items apply:

  • The current political system
  • The current monetary system
  • The current taxation system
  • The current military system
  • The current legal system
  • The current educational system
  • The current health care system
  • The current pension system
  • The current "other" minor government systems

That's pretty much it!

The analysis

It would seem that the items above described consist of all the elements that the state considers to be "our way of life" (by "our" they refer to "yours", whether you like it or not). Let's break it down by subject.

The current political system

Well, short of a few people that have only recently gotten out of dictatorships and are still in love with democracy, pretty much everybody that can think for longer than 3 seconds flat had realized by now that governments (and democracies are at least deeply flawed). Therefore, this concept is not really our way of life and it is therefore not worth saving.

The current monetary system

Well, considering all the booms and busts that we went through and all the future mega-booms and mega-busts still in the horizon but being manufactured right now by our tireless Central Bankers and Bankers, it is safe to say that people are at least pissed. Severely. They may not know why, but they do know that our current fiat monetary system smells like old urine. Therefore, this concept is not really our way of life and it is therefore not worth saving.

The current taxation system

Well, do we really have to point out all the people really pissed, and we mean really pissed at the tax system? Of course not. This would be redundant. Therefore, this concept is not really our way of life and it is therefore not worth saving.

The current military system

Well, much that we have nothing against military people per-se, we have everything against the concept of a military force. As we have shown time and time again, having a military is simply a temptation to go to war, formal or informal, overtly or covertly. The military is simply a tool of political oppression, wielded by any and all politicians. Yes, we are referring to left, right and center. They all do it. Therefore, this concept is not really our way of life and it is therefore not worth saving.

The current legal system

Well, we have explained ad-nauseum (to the point of vomiting) why the judicial system is ridiculous, useless, pointless, expensive, improper, irritating and all together unjust. People want reparations, not theoretical and abstract justice… which is the only thing that this justice system is designed to deliver. Therefore, this concept is not really our way of life and it is therefore not worth saving.

The current educational system

Well, people most definitely like free. You can't beat free. In many countries around the world, education is "free". The only problem is that it comes with an unbearable price tag: mental oppression. Governments (politicians) decide what you and your children will be taught regardless of what you or your children may want. Therefore, this concept is not really our way of life and it is therefore not worth saving.

The current health care system

Well, people need basic services and health care is one of those "basics". And so we just have to have it, right? Well… again no. And again, the price tag is too high; actually extremely high. The price we pay for "socialized" health care is many times over what the real price of private health care would be. It is the socialization of health care that makes it unreachable for many people hence requiring socialized health care. It is a vicious circle, a self-fulfilling prophecy that we most certainly don't need. Therefore, this concept is not really our way of life and it is therefore not worth saving.

The current pension system

Well, don't even get us starting with this one. Almost all "public" pension systems are broke. Kaput. Belly up. Bankrupted. Emptied. Vacuumed. They are gone, baby gone! Sure, politicians maintain the illusion that the money is there, but when it counts, when they actually need it, it's gone! In its place we typically find government bonds that are not worth the electrons spent to record the entries in the databases. Even in the few countries were government pension funds have not been looted, what they deliver at the end of the day is pathetic, insufficient and ludicrous. Therefore, this concept is not really our way of life and it is therefore not worth saving.

The current "other" minor government systems

Well, if none of the "big" government functions are "our way of life", why do we need these "minor" government functions? We could quite easy get rid of them and their non-existence changes almost nothing. Therefore, this concept is not really our way of life and it is therefore not worth saving.

And there you have it! These are all the reasons why all these statist points represent our way of life and why we will defend them with our…shit! We just realized… errrr…will get back to you in a moment after a short brain reboot.

Ahh… that's better. As we were saying when we were so rudely interrupted by reality. As you can see there isn't a single item in the entire statist list under the title "way of life" that it is actually "ours". We don't want them. We don't need them. Stop saying that we do!

Who is "they"?

A secondary element that it is worth exploring is the concept of "they". It would seem that anytime there is a threat to "our way of life", this threat comes from "them". Sometimes "them" are clearly defined; a country for example. Oftentimes these threats are vague, such as the "war on terror" and a threat against "national security" or an imminent danger to "our freedom". Very seldom do we hear from the government a precise definition of the threat. Very seldom do we hear that person XYZ is a threat to "our way of living" because said person is attempts to bomb the parliament or to poison us with a mutated virus or seed sedition in our children's minds. Why is it?

If the threat to "our way of life" by "them" is so imminent, to overwhelming, so terrible that "we had to act", how come we almost never know against who exactly do we have to act? Exactly!

When politicians and bureaucrats speak about "them" it is in their best interest not to identify them. This is so because most often their threat analysis does not support common sense analysis. It so happens that "they" are usually a minor threat if a threat at all. But that's not how governments operate. Any excuse is good if it allows them to do what they want to do anyway. The foggier the threat, the longer they (the politicians) retain an iron-grip on us. It is a matter of control, and nothing else.

Also, why preemptive action? In the past the only action recognized as moral and ethical involving violence was self-defense. Not anymore. Preemptive action "is the only action" nowadays. Why? Why do politicians have to kill indiscriminately on the "assumption" of a "possible" threat to our "way of life" which is not really "ours"?

The bottom line is that the concept of "them" is simply a straw-fear (in the philosophical meaning as when attacking a sound argument with a false straw-man). The concept of "them" is fictitious and can never, ever, be accepted at face value.

Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.

 

Comments | Add yours
  • No comments found
English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditNewsvineTechnoratiLinkedinMixxRSS FeedPinterest
Pin It