How to Say Nothing in 10 Words or More
Since only 2 of you seem have the nerve to respond to my outbursts, let me start by saying “Hi Dave and Dae.”
You will have noticed a deafening silence from these parts the last few days or even weeks. That is because I try to keep this blog within the bounds of rationality and, it is increasingly hard to make a rational comment on the irrational behavior of our country. However, I am learning some new ideas. Such as:
- There is no problem so off-the-wall, so stupid, or so obviously self-inflicted that it cannot be solved by blasting it with reams of federal dollars.
- Every business seems to want into the act, including many I once respected. Such is the power of dependency.
- As a people, it seems we are now devoid of any semblance of honor, integrity, pride, or sense of responsibility.
Try as I may, I simply cannot understand how so few among us seem to have even a clue as to the non-sustainability of our current situation. (In case there are any products of modern government schools reading this, non-sustainable means “this crap can’t go on much longer”.)
However (you knew this was coming, didn’t you?)… several thoughts have occurred to me lately.
The first is that the notion of a large percentage of our populace being ignorant, uninformed and uninterested is nothing new. I have been reading a bit about the founding era, in addition to watching the HBO series on John Adams. Was a large percentage of the population, at that time, ignorant? Beyond doubt. How did they handle the great unwashed and uninformed? Simple, they ignored them, assuming it only natural that such people depended on their betters to think for them. And, while they made much of the notion of universal equality before the law, they harbored no illusions about equality of outcome. Indeed, the original concept of American self governance was that it would be designed and administered by those of property. The notion of property indicating some degree of success in life. Even though said success may have been that of an ancestor, it was assumed that the mere possession of property gave one a stake in the outcome of governance, much different from that of those without. As other of my contributions have indicated, I see nothing whatever wrong with this attitude. Indeed, as stated before, letting the “takers” decide how to manage the pubic treasury is a form of insanity. If the orgy of greed driving the current (IMHO fatal) assault on the treasury does not prove this, nothing ever will. Yet, even those who know better continue to loudly exclaim the fact of our democracy, even though the closer we get to that sad condition (democracy), to more we become like moths circling ever closer to a flame. In both cases, the outcome can be well known in advance.
The next thing I have been pondering is the “herd effect”. The obvious fact that most humans are content, even eager, to be part of a herd, despite their capacity for independent thought. Imagine a herd of asses. Let one ass in the herd bray with conviction and all the others react emotionally, even though they probably haven’t a clue what the braying is all about. Ditto the bleating sheep, the mooing cow or neighing horse.
Why ever would a creature capable of independent thought want to join a society of brayers, bleaters, etc? Consider this… in a truly wild herd, a member of the herd gets to be the leader. Usually this is the one who has demonstrated the best ability to kill or injure its peers. Humans were once like that, in fact, are still like that in many primitive societies. But, with more advanced societies (more domesticated herds), A herdsman is called for. We call these by various names: shepherd, cowherd, etc. In the case of human herds, we use terms like king, feudal lord, dictator. But, is this what we really want? For many, the apparent answer is “yes”. Does it not follow that those who are capable of self government and who understand the fatal flaws of dictatorship have some responsibility to organize a governing structure for the herd, if only in self defense? I say yes, because, otherwise, the kings, lords and dictators will use the herds against the rest of us.
The last of my mental wandering about is why humans seem so intent on behaving in a self-destructive manner. It is obviously driven by some very powerful inner urge that we all have, to some extent or other.
Some of the sciences attribute it to the mindless urge to spread our genes through breeding. In other words, the sex urge. Powerful, for sure, but not totally convincing.
Many religions attribute it to greed, to the lust for treasure. Again, powerful but even less convincing.
So, what is it then? Well, I have found an answer that I, for one, find convincing. The overwhelming urge, common to all humanity, is the urge to control the other fellow’s behavior. Just that simple.
Not only simple, but, it explains the motivation behind so many human actions. Dictatorship, religion, democracy.
Yet this still does not explain why. Do we somehow validate ourselves by making others appear to be like us? Are we so sure we have it all figured out that we wish to share our conclusions with others, even if it injures them?
I sense a slim possibility here, even though I haven’t a clue how to implement it. How can we somehow teach humans to channel that need for control into a compulsion to control the only human any of us can ever really control? That, of course, being ourselves. Just think how empowering that would be to all of humanity. For each of us to be the king/queen of ourselves. To accept both the power to do what we will, but the responsibility that comes with doing it.
Naw. Far easier to believe in Santa Claus, in Jesus Christ, in Mohammad, in the Tooth Fairy, in advanced beings from space that will bring us all the answers, in an all-powerful government.
So, Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night. (Yes, we atheists say that. After all, it was OUR holiday first! Ah for the smell of roasting beasts and the sound of young virgins being sacrificed!!)

◄Dave► Said,
December 11, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
Hi Troy,
Great post, as usual. I know for a fact that more people are reading your stuff than are commenting on it.
Looking around and participating on other blogs (where I get to leave breadcrumbs leading back to mine), I notice that very few require preregistration before posting a comment. This puts an extra burden on the blogger, because he has to delete spam more often; but I think it does encourage more comments. I may modify mine to allow for instant comment access and see if more discussions ensue.
As to your hypothesis regarding control issues, I am not so sure that most sheeple are demonstrating an offensive (as opposed to defensive) trait. I have identified the cancer on our body politic as the righteous moral code battle between the Politically Correct moralists on the Left, and the Piously Correct moralists on the Right. Since ours is meant to be a secular government, these two religious camps ought not be allowed to wage their morality campaigns in our electoral politics arena.
The interesting thing is that, while they both have their preachers goading their flocks, I think most of their followers are playing defense. Remember Sally? She took the field on both teams, and in each case she was paranoid that the other side was bent on destroying her world. If both sides think they are on defense, perhaps there is hope.
One of the more interesting questions I like to pose, when on occasion I have a conversation with someone who actually has the ability to think, is, “Would you be willing to give up your need to control others, if they agreed to leave you alone to live your life as you choose to live it.” After reflection and maybe some discussion for clarity, the answer is usually, “Yes.”
So, it is the shamans we need to throttle; and then somehow to get back to secular government, where forcing moral litmus tests on our candidates is verboten. I am not sure how to do that; but I do think it is the correct prescription. ◄Dave►
Daedalus Said,
December 20, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
I have just returned from an area of little Net availability.
On the issue of control of others, perhaps it goes further than that. Is it not so that all living organisms respond to their environment, that if their responses are life sustaining they tend to survive if not they tend to perish. One method of responding to an environmental stimulus is to seek to control it. To enhance the stimulus if it is pleasant and to suppress it if unpleasant. To shortcut the logical train of reasoning here, it does not appear to be irrational for one person to control another as long as Force or fraud are not involved. If we reward a person for behaviour which enhances our relationship and discourage behaviour which we find unpleasant as long as the relationship remains voluntary I don’t see the control issue as irrational. It can of course be irrational if the means of control involves the afore mentioned force or fraud. If our efforts to control a relationship are irrational they will tend to distance the realtions, if they are rational they will tend to enhance the relationship.
Just a thought.
Troy Said,
December 21, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
Dae,
Let me start my rebuttal by stating that I agree with the essence of everything you said,
For sure, there are people who either cannot or will not accept the responsibility that comes with true freedom.
Then there are others who refuse to use freedom responsibily, preferring instead to view their fellow humans as a sort of prey.
It is surely in the self interest of the capable to provide these people with a system that affords them all the freedom they can responsibly handle, while withholding that which they cannot handle.
And, I make no secret of the fact that I do not think such people should have the privilege of the vote.
It is obvious that each of us tends to act in our own self interest. We not only want to be free, safe and secure, we want comfort and entertainment, we want to enjoy life to the fullest. This is as it should be.
And, I think that the best approach to achieving this should also be the most economical. Economical in terms of effort, resources, risk, etc.
Therefore, I propose that the best approach is that of ENLIGHTENED self interest. That is, devising and participating in a system where we get what we want while giving other participants what they want in the process. This way, they should actually want to do it our way, based on their own enlightened self interest. This must, be definition, also offer the most economy.
I further propose that a free and open marketplace, unencumbered by government “assistance” offers the best mechanism for achieving this – at least the best humans have devised so far.
In other words, I am preaching Objectivism without really saying so.
Thanks for commenting and keep it coming!
Meridia. Said,
April 29, 2010 @ 11:34 am
Meridia venezuela….
Meridia. Meridia coupon. Buy meridia. Meridia no persciption….