|
|
||
Tyranny of One, Tyranny of AllChasing TailsWritten by Darrell Anderson. Several years ago I started a journey to resolve my understanding about irregularities I noticed concerning law, taxes, government, etc. I read, and read, and read. I asked a lot of questions. I had little previous exposure to the concepts of law, politics, money, etc.; therefore, I had little choice but to remain open-minded. Knowing almost nothing about these topics provided me an advantage, one I did not realize at the time. My advantage was that I was able to learn from scratch, without clouding my thinking with preconceived notions. Some time ago I learned that to understand a topic, I had to remain open-minded and study all sides of an issue. If I truly wanted to understand a topic, I had to learn the arguments from all sides. Initially, for many people this strategy is distasteful because humans are emotional creatures. People tend to believe what they want to believe to justify their own agendas and existence. Emotions drive and motivate, but reasonable objectivity is paramount to mastering a topic. As I continued my journey and the world wide web became more popular, eventually I found myself rarely surfing the internet to study these issues. Firstly, I found that most of the information presented by so-called patriots was undocumented, poorly researched, and difficult to validate. Secondly, to any individual with common sense, one could see that many of the arguments were flawed and lacking sound reasoning. There often is a reasonable seed within many of these arguments, but typically the subsequent logic is flawed. I hit the bookshelves and started to read scholarly efforts. I spent more hours than I can count reading Supreme Court cases. I also followed many of the citations within those cases. Typically I read those cases mostly to start understanding basic precepts of law, but being a neophyte to law, I admit I retained only a small percentage of what I read. However, slowly I began to understand how to read between the lines and more importantly, I learned to see all sides of an argument. Just as important, those cases provided me insight into history. Eventually I learned that Supreme Court process is one of the biggest hoaxes ever concocted, but that is a story for another time. I hope to one day write that story to teach people how to “read between the lines” to recognize all the nonsense. I then had the pleasure of meeting a man who had spent many years in the freedom movement. However, this man was quite different from the stereotypes with whom many are familiar within the movement. This man was smart, and gifted with common sense and wisdom. He took me under his wings and showed me the flaws with just about every so-called patriot theory that has floated around for decades. This man goes way back, long before the world wide web was even a figment of imagination. He did all of his studying the old fashioned way — by reading and studying at the library. This man, more than any other person I have known, helped me learn how to argue both sides of the fence. I was on the right path trying to see all sides of an argument, but he taught me to argue them as well. He taught me how to wear the other person’s shoes and to prepare my arguments accordingly. To this day, I remain indebted to him and I am still honored to call him friend. Shortly thereafter, with new energies to continue my studies, I began to realize the futility of statism and concepts such as parchment barriers. People within the freedom movement were arguing continually about superficial problems, but I saw deeper. The problem was not the mechanisms of the process, but the process itself. I have found few people who are willing to remain open-minded; and more so, who are willing to expend the energy learning to argue both sides of the fence. When I see failure after failure in the battle zones of the courts, I understand why so many lose. They refuse to understand or study the possibilities that the other side might have a few (or more) correct arguments. Even a blind hog occasionally finds an acorn. When the other side has no valid arguments (usually the case when bureaucrats are the opposing party), people refuse to study the philosophical and sociological undertones of those decisions. They get in over their heads, and then can’t figure out who pulled their pants down so quickly. Monetary theory is one such issue. I will not underrate the difficulty of this topic. Nonetheless, I refuse to cling to myths. Myths are powerful emotional tools. Myths tend to substantiate beliefs and agendas. Therefore, I hardly am surprised at the various arguments I hear when people engage me in discussions about the concept of money. What saddens me is how normally intelligent people willfully blind themselves from admitting or studying all angles of this issue. Overwhelmingly, within this so-called movement, there is a consensus opinion of a grand conspiracy, and that only gold and silver coin can serve as currency. My wise and aged friend warned me that none of the myths were new, that most of the myths existed even before he entered the fray, and that the myths only traveled faster today because of the Internet. When a greenhorn enters the arena, almost without fail I see somebody recommend to the new person to obtain a copy of G. Edward Griffin’s book, The Creature from Jekyll Island. A notable effort, but the premise of the book is painfully clear. The premise is that there is a grand conspiracy afoot, and obvious to me is that every isolated fact researched for the book was massaged into fitting that premise. Griffin’s “Mandrake Mechanism” is a good description about how debt is monetized at the national level. Yet, with craftily chosen and emotionally charged words, the greenhorn is duped into thinking terrible things about this process. There is nothing magical or sinister about the process of monetizing debt, yet Griffin leads readers to believe exactly what he wants them to believe — that there is a grand conspiracy that everybody should somehow fear. There are indeed problems with modern monetary theory and a serious student should discover them rather easily without all the diversions, but Griffin and similar authors push the envelope of credibility. In the past, I used to pipe in on a few online discussions regarding these topics, but I quit that effort because I know that few people out there are willing to discuss these topics with an open mind. Most people are looking for bogeymen to blame their woes. Few people are willing to change their ways. Many people have firmly embedded within themselves a belief that everything they have read on the Internet, or heard at rah-rah meetings, is truth set in stone. Many of these people refuse to continue the life-long process of learning and adjusting; instead, they continue deeper and deeper into the abyss of mythology. Yet, on those occasions when I decided to engage others in discussions, I did so mostly for the benefit of the lurkers. Many of those discussion groups have hundreds of subscribers, although only a handful participate regularly. That leaves a large silent audience, often too afraid to join the discussions because of their limited knowledge. For them, I tolerated occasional disputes so the lurkers might learn that there is indeed more than one side to a story. But no longer do I participate — there are just too many conspiracy nuts and zealots out there. Like the dog that won’t stop barking, the noise eventually wears down an individual. Being an individual with a technical background, I tend to focus on solutions. Theory often is fun and engaging, but if that theory cannot be used in practical applications, then I believe an individual probably has wasted a great deal of time (unless pursued solely for intellectual stimulation and enjoyment). My encounters with people in this so-called freedom movement show that few focus on practical applications, and most tend to spend too much time searching for more evidence of the latest conspiracy theory or rumor, or attending monthly groan-and-moan sessions. Few use their experiences and knowledge to create a better life for themselves or others. They carry with them the albatross of bitterness wherever they go. The issues of taxes, law, money, etc., must be studied with an open mind and one must study all sides of the issues. Neither can history be ignored in order to understand root causes. As is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in between. The predicament I see with so many people in this so-called freedom movement is that most fail to acknowledge the underlying true root cause of all social and political problems: human nature. To people of a religious background, this root cause should hardly come as a surprise. Yet, most people continue looking for a grand conspiracy. If there is indeed a grand conspiracy afoot, the conspiracy lies within the nature of people. There is no need to look further. That the events of history tend to compound themselves into one long story does not mean a continuing conspiracy, but only that human nature has not changed in thousands of years. And likely will not change, short of miraculous intervention. Discussion groups often are supposed to be about solutions. Yet, so many people want to argue about what they think “once was.” They believe, for example, that they know exactly how to interpret the Constitution. In Antonin Scalia’s book (I do not defend the man, I only read his book), A Matter of Interpretation five scholars discuss how to interpret the Constitution, and the final message is that interpreting the Constitution is no easy task. Jack Rakove, in his book Original Meanings showed that during the constitutional convention there was much discussion about meanings. More so, within five years of ratifying, those same men barely could agree on how to interpret various portions of the document. Some of the original signers had even changed their minds from what they had argued at the convention. Five years! Yet today, more than two centuries later, there are some who want to argue every jot and tittle. Sadly, many of these people have done little more than spend several weeks surfing the Internet to enlighten themselves. What so few people realize is that the process is broken by design. The original design specifications are flawed. Thus, the best way to defeat statism is not directly, but indirectly. Ignore statists, don’t resist them. Life is the engaging process that allows each individual to refine and define their existence. That process requires people to cooperate together, to solve daily problems, to meet daily needs. Those processes depend upon free association and voluntary exchange, upon persuasion and cooperation. The time domain prevents people from returning to the past. All any individual has is today and, with fortune, tomorrow. Today and tomorrow, that is where solutions lie. Yet, people continue to argue, and argue, and argue; never once looking at the other side of the fence. Solutions exist. However, if one refuses to remain open-minded, one never will see those solutions. In fact, one will never see the problem either. Finis. Next: Statists Steal |
||