A PERSONAL WAY OF LIFE
The contents
At a personal level, we do have a way of like we would like to preserve, even if only a small piece of it. So, at a personal level, what does "our way of life" mean? It means one, many or all of the following items:
- Our current beliefs
- Our current economic or financial conditions
- Our current education
- Our properties
- Our family
- Our friends
- Our job
- Our life
- Our freedom
- And many others.
The analysis
These are truly personal choices. You won't find a single person on earth with the exact same list as yours. You are unique and as such your "way of life" is indeed unique. From this way of life, some items you like and some you dislike. That's OK. It is your way of life and you are the only person on this earth with the right to make decisions about it. As such, it is your decision to decide what you feel threatened against and what not. It is your decision if you are going to fight or flee against a threat. It is your decision how are you going to face a threat and with whom. It is your decision how are you going to compromise or negotiate and up to which point.
You know who is "they"
Oftentimes as you go through life, you will encounter foes. Most of the time, you know exactly who they are and what they want from you. As you know them, you can devise your unique and appropriate action or method to deal with the situation.
However, most of the time and for regular people such as you or us, "they" are represented by the government. "They" are the politicians who interfere with our true "way of life". "They" is the state that invariably forces you to do what you don't want to do in a way you don't want to do it. Furthermore, the state is based on preemptive action. All criminal laws are preemptive. The entire judicial system works on a preemptive manner. If you are accused of something, you are arrested and jailed. Why? There was nothing proved against you as yet, however, you are treated as guilty anyways. Of course, there are countries that are at least straightforward in this concept, France, for example. In France, the Napoleon code dictates that you are guilty until proven innocent.
Without going to France, you can most certainly experience this Napoleon-style so-called justice every day in every country if you happen to have the misfortune to cross paths with the taxman. In all countries without exception, all tax-related legislation is Napoleon-code like. You are indeed guilty until proven innocent. "They" are already inflicting preemptive violence on you every day of your life.
This concept of "they" is very clear indeed. The government is always present and in your face. You know who "they" are and you know "what" they want: more.
More of what?
More of everything. They want more of your money, more of your freedom, more of your servitude. It is exceedingly clear "who they" are.
SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE
These items forming your way of life are unique. As such they can never, ever be represented by the state. You are you and a one-size-fits-all statist "way of life" does not work for you. Therefore we are then forced to conclude that when politicians talk about "our way of life" they are talking about their twisted vision of their government which supplies them with a cushy job security. They are not and can never talk about your true way of life.
Now that we know with absolute certainty that "their" way of life is not "our" way of life, it is worth asking the following two questions:
Where does it say that they have the right to impose "their" way of life over "ours"
Where does it say that they have the right to impose the defense of "their" way of life over "ours".
Moral certainty and social contracts
The first question is addressed by two elements, both flawed. Politicians say that governments are legitimate because there is a social contract ratified by the electoral process. The only problem is that Social Contracts Are A Scam and therefore even if an electoral process could ratify them, they would still be invalid. Going a step further, it is also clear that electoral processes do not provide legitimacy simply because what electoral processes provide in the best case scenario is a dictatorship of the majority. Turning to the worst case scenario (which is the most widely existing scenario) they simply generate an oligarchy which is independent from the electorate.
Passed the point at which a government is elected, then they proceed to operate with moral certainty. This is the absolute knowledge that what they are doing is OK. The problem is, again, that morality and ethics are strictly subjective in terms of group. A politician may have a personal philosophy of ethics that may be objective, but there will still be plenty of other people who do not. Furthermore, these people are supposed to be represented by this politician, even against their will!
And so it is clear that governments have no legitimacy of any kind to define "their" way of life and much less to substitute "ours" with "their".
The answer to the first question is: nowhere!
There is no place where we have accepted the obligation to embrace "their" way of life and reject "ours".
The affairs of war
Similarly, politicians will often make use of their supposed powers of state to force us to defend "their" way of life over "ours". But as we have seen in the previous answer above, politicians have no legitimacy. As a consequence of this fact, their powers of state have no binding power over us. We are most definitively not obligated to defend "their" way of living over "ours".
Every time a politician gets us into an "armed conflict" they are simply conning us. It is a scam. They have no legitimate power over us.
Therefore the answer to the second question is: nowhere.
There simply isn't any binding agreement with our government that can force us to defend them.
Brute force
There is only one tiny problem. Politicians have those people with badges and guns that can send for us. They can throw us into the so-called "justice system", jail us and forget about us. Or worse. They can do this simply because they have brute force on their side.
You see, brute force comes very handy. If soldiers would be allowed to decide if they want to fight or not, wars would be incredibly short indeed. It would be impossible for politicians to have a decent war and a few decent massacres. This constitutes a problem because wars are usually popular with voters. Getting into a war is an emotional affair for most people because people had been set-up to believe and feel in this manner. Therefore, any politician that gets a country into a "just" war has his reelection pretty much assured. The only problem is that politicians need "the right reason" to go into a war… and this reason typically is "to defend our way of life"… the only problem is that they are defending "their" way of life, not "ours".
CONCLUSION
When politicians talk about "our way of life" they are indeed talking about "theirs" and not "ours". They are not being duplicitous; they are just playing with our assumptions. It is our job to think clearly and set them straight. It is our job to understand that they are into these kinds of things for themselves, not for us. It is our job to recognize "our" way of life and defend it against all enemies, foreign or domestic…(as a famous oath would say). How to defend this, our way of life and how far should we go, is a personal choice. A choice that was taken from us by politicians and recovering this knowledge is the first step towards true freedom. You have just taken your first baby step, whether you like it or not. Where you go from here is your decision.
Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.
