Humility. Such a clichéd saying, yet not a clichéd sighting. I could be wrong, I’m open to the possibility that my thoughts expressed in this article are wrong; however, I wouldn’t be writing it if I didn’t think they’re right. It is on this basis of humility I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not my place in this world to construct a society in my image, a society with the ‘correct’ characteristics, with the ‘correct’ actions, with the ‘correct’ lifestyles. After all, it would be a shame to set up society on one of my ‘correct’ ways of doing things if I was wrong.
There’s a notable exception, though. I shouldn’t be determining what this society consists of, but I have decided there should be a society. In support of this decision I will prevent a murder, a theft, a rape. These fundamental rights to life, property, and person are the foundation of there being a society. If I’m wrong about this, we’re all screwed anyways (maybe literally).
There are those who would like the government to be our outlet for shaping each other’s lifestyles and personal decisions. Without failure, every single person who thinks the government should intrude on us all like this would like to see the government do it by their standards. This shows their real goal: to impose their own lifestyles and personal decisions on the rest of us. The tough pill that they haven’t swallowed yet is that they don’t get to determine the metrics. If we yield to government our natural rights in order for the government to ‘make us better’, then the majority will incessantly impose whatever choices they think are right onto everyone else.
Consider this: we set an official state religion of Catholicism. A few decades later the majority could decide it should be Scientology (yes, people can be that stupid). Respecting a new government power, in any variation of democracy, is giving that power – over the minority – to any majority, not just the one you prefer.
Perhaps, then, in regard to lifestyles and personal choices – those that affect only the one doing them – we should find some other avenue of support than the lasting institution of government. Also, how do we enforce people to make the ‘correct’ choices? The only option is violence. If someone makes an ‘incorrect’ choice that only affects them, and it violates law, it will be met with an enforcer who enacts a form of violence upon the subject. Is not this violence from one human to another worse than the ‘incorrect’ decision?
I invite you to look back on your life at all the mistakes you’ve made. We’ve all made them. Wouldn’t it seem highly unnecessary to be met with government condoned violence as a result of every mistake? It wouldn’t correct the mistake, that comes from within. It would likely only cause contempt for the perpetrator of the violence, at least that’s what psychology teaches us. However, this contempt for government and its enforcement is already found in those who would rape, steal, or murder; it is only a contribution of detriment to the minds of those who are met with enforcement that know they aren’t harming anyone.
To those who would have the government punishing the people who make the ‘wrong’ choices, I ask: Are you so confident in the how bad the choice is that it’s worth harming the chooser’s psychology, enacting physical violence on them, and expanding government power to be used in any manner? I think Degenerates aren’t all that bad.