You're Not In Control

The modern world is full of communication channels and with everyone expressing their opinions it seems that everyone knows best. Along with their criticisms comes their prescriptions for others. So much of the internet is just people telling other people how to think, how to live and how to vote and I find it to be overwhelming pretentious, self-righteous and annoying.

I'm not sure why everyone wants to control everyone else. Ok, that's not true. I get that everyone is power hungry but why are they so confident? They speak with such certainty and aggression it is as if they think that if everyone just did as they said the world would be perfect. This sounds like an overbearing parent to me. Maybe those who demand subjugation are reenacting their perception of moral nurturing. In demanding others adhere to their ethical framework they are telling others they care and want the world to be better but since their only model for teaching such methods is through demands they bark orders instead of negotiating toward a solution.

This applies more obviously to those that lobby the state to enact their brand of justice. Many hold the government as the ultimate in paternal enforcement and moral justice and it is reasonable to think this way as the government does have the power to take, punish and demand but for those that do not accept that these means are justified, the government is merely a group of control freaks trying to tell us what to do. What is curious is how everyone seems to think that they are in control of others and while many comply with the will of others it is not because the demander is in control.

I think we are only as free as our ability to choose but we are not infinitely free. Nor are we infinitely oppressed. We long for freedom and find those that impede it an enemy. It seems that given enough time humans tend to rebel and fight oppression. I suppose that those that wish to fight the power structure require the means to fight and the alternative has to be worse than fighting so some choose comfort and stability over revolt. This seems true in North Korea, although I am not sure if a significant proportion of their population actually believes they are being oppressed. They might be brainwashed into thinking they are free or at least protected, loved or otherwise part of a meaningful group.

But if the people of North Korea decided to band together and fight their "Great Leader", Kim Jong Un would find that he is not in control anymore. And if someone from inside his own party decided to assassinate him he would find that he is not in control. If he were to get cancer and die he would find that he is not in control. We are not in control of much it seems.

We humans can barely take credit for controlling ourselves but somehow so many think they deserve to control others. We should not be so quick to offer our cure for the world's troubles. Instead, we should focus on our immediate environment, make that better and then work outward. This does not mean we should not act to help others or create change but it does mean we should not be attempting to control others through megalomaniacal demands, force, or shame. We should be humble and honest about our lack of understanding about humanity and about what is best.

I would prefer to think of the Freedom From perspective. This means that I want to be free from others' oppression and impediments. Freedom of association and participation means not being forced to be on someone's team or contribute to someone else's notion of morality. Freedom from laws that force me to go against my beliefs about what is right and wrong. It also means taking responsibility to deal with the consequences of my associations and actions that affect others. I don't believe we should be seeking Freedoms To do whatever it is we want or make others act in a way we want.

I realize that I am prescribing what people "should" do in this while criticising those who do the same but I think that what I want to do is highlight the difference between trying to influence thought and trying to control behavior. Those who try the quick route of influence via force and coercion are adding tyranny to the world while those that use words and ideas to influence are introducing alternatives that can be disregarded or adopted based on its value and accuracy.

Abstinence: Why I'm Not Voting

When it comes to the upcoming 2016 presidential election I can say that I am not planning on voting. I could argue that Hilary is a liar or that Trump is a joke but anyone who thinks these two are the best choice for the leader of anything are kidding themselves. These people are horrible and not worth the attention they are given. I wouldn't hire them if they were the only candidates and it seems that they are. Instead of going into tedious detail outlining the hypocrisy and corruption of two idiots, I will expound upon some common arguments against my position.

One inane argument I hear is that if someone doesn't vote they can't complain which is ridiculous. A person is born into a political system and if that system is corrupt, incompetent, or otherwise undesirable then that person has every right to both criticize that system and abstain from participating in elements of that system that they find morally reprehensible. If freedom is important then the freedom to abstain must be an option. When force is involved freedom is diminished and at the extremes, abolished altogether. Those who stifle free speech are purveyors of oppression.

“I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The shit they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a fucking thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.”   -George Carlin

Another argument is the "lesser of two evils" argument. This has some logic to it because if someone is inevitably going to become president then it makes sense to acquiesce to the system and make a small contribution to whom you think will cause the least amount of harm. This is a consequentialist position and might be the right way to go assuming the assessment of evil is correct. I do not believe that this position is morally superior to abstaining, especially if the system and candidates are so corrupt that voting for either candidate is siding with an evil. Just because someone says it is a lesser evil isn't much consolation. When it comes to putting my name behind a person that has power over others, I will not back someone whom I deem corrupt no matter the outcome. Sometimes doing the right thing means not doing anything at all.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke

I am not apathetic but I am pessimistic about the ability of politicians to do the right thing. While I care about the policies and power systems that affect the lives of the people I care about including myself I don't think that the government that I was born into is in any way rational, moral or effective. I think it is what it is made of; many self serving monsters.   

So, why not vote for a third party? To this I would say,"what's the point?" While it might be a way to skirt the social stigma of not voting at all, it is still adding credibility to the system as a whole. It says,"I want a president." And I don't want a president, especially one that says one thing before an election and then is woefully inept at enacting positive change due to the structure they would be in if they won, which they won't. No third party candidate will win so it is out of sheer optimism and self righteousness that one votes for a third party. 

Another thing. I reserve the right to change my mind. With more information, evidence and convincing arguments I may choose to alter my opinion on this matter and any other. Too many hold fast to bad ideas because of ignorance, corruption or cowardliness. We should all have the wisdom and humility to admit that we may not know or may be wrong and I may be wrong. But so might you. For me, the most important thing is freedom and the freedom to choose whom and what I put my name on defines my moral character. 

If you think it is moral to vote then you should vote but maybe your outrage should match the weight and consequence of your actual influence. One vote when filtered through the electoral college is diluted of nearly all it's power. The government is a massive power hungry machine and the president is only one part of the puzzle. If no one voted this year do you think there wouldn't be a president? I bet it would be business as usual at the White House. 

Thanks for reading!

P.S.

Great leadership doesn't need to force itself on you because it attracts those willing to follow. Great leaders seeks wisdom from those around them and admits fault when it is due. A great leader inspires respect because they give it to those that deserve it. The standard for those we put above ourselves should be high and our outrage should be at those that would impinge on our freedoms.


When was the last time a third part candidate won?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections

George Carlin on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxsQ7jJJcEA

Quote Sources:

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/i-don-t-vote-two-reasons-first-of-all-it-s/761194.html


http://www.openculture.com/2016/03/edmund-burkeon-in-action.html