Tuesday 23 April 2024

People versus Power

Humanity is  subject to two great imperatives - the power of love, and the love of power. These are the bookends of our brief earthly existence. This essay explores the nature of power.

Power has many manifestations but  always the same motive - to ensure the will of the powerful prevails. The quest for power is the energy that drives society, but often threatens to destroy it. History is shaped by powerful men, but rarely improved by them. To navigate the treacherous waters of our existence it is important to understand the forces that shape the river in which we float.

Political

The contest for political power is the predominant narrative in the “democratic” west, and in many semi-democratic countries elsewhere. Every 4 years or so these countries hold a hotly contested beauty contest  in which the powerless hordes cast a mostly meaningless vote. Thereafter a small number of power-hungry individuals and groups enjoy a fleeting mantle of legitimacy, until the next charade. Having once gained power, no matter how slim the majority, the winners can (and often do) behave as badly as any tyrant victorious in a war.


Taxation is state sanctioned theft. The state derives its power from taxation. Politicians derive their power from the state. 


Once in power the victors quickly claim the spoils, through corruption, special privileges, nepotism, and so forth. Regulations to favour cronies are passed. Opponents are victimised and prosecuted, Programs favouring the politicians’ particular worldview get implemented. Spending is lavish, moderation despised. And that’s just in the USA, the “home” of democracy.


Political power is wielded by politicians, one of the most despised professions. The only requirement to be a politician is an ability to lie convincingly in public. There are usually no other qualifications required. They may be judged on their record, but the harm is usually done by then.


As  P.J. O’Rourke said, giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and carkeys to teenagers.

Bureaucracy

Bureaucrats are the unelected minions of the political class, rude, arrogant and ignorant. They are as hard to eradicate as cockroaches, and as useful. Their job is to apply the reams of rules and regulations excreted by senates and parliaments. They make individual lives a misery, applying the letter of the law to minor infractions, destroying enterprise, above question and beyond recall. Almost all their jobs could be done better privately, including important ones like policing and nursing.

Financial

Ambitious individuals too intelligent for politics go into finance. The rewards are better, and the ethics less disturbing. Money is power. Everything has a price if you have the means. The power of money arises from greed rather than violence. Surprisingly, it turns out that you can bend people to your will by giving them stuff, as opposed to taking it from them, while making a profit.  While politicians provide the illusion of choice, businessmen actually offer individual consumers a choice, however constrained. And they rely on persuasion rather than force to do this, in a free market.


Stupid people are happy to be told what to do by politicians. Smarter people spend their money to give themselves choices. The smartest people take your  money to avoid having to make choices.


It is widely agreed that the real power in the modern world resides with the banks and investment companies like Black Rock and Vanguard. National governments are beholden to these companies for re-election funding, investment, survival.  


Some billionaires use their funds to influence local politics, like George Soros. And some just seem to come from a different planet, or hope to get to one. 

Religion

Faith means not wanting to know what the truth is. Friedrich Nietzsche.

 

Although their power in the modern world seems to be waning, religions use their power to own both your body and your soul. For 2000 years they have been the seat of both heavenly and worldly power.  They influence the thoughts and behaviour of billions, own vast palaces and real estate, pronounce on all manner of worldly issues, sponsor wars, terrorism and genocide, while serving no obvious useful purpose. Their arrogance is exceeded only by their ignorance. Thank the gods they are optional.

Intellectuals and Professionals

The power of life and death is the ultimate power. Since the decline of tyrants, at least in our western realm, who comes closest to wielding that power nowadays? The scientific experts who proclaim the nature of our world - what we should eat, what we should know, what we should think, what medicines we take, how we travel, how we exist, what gender we should be. Never in history has this protected priestly class wielded such influence over every aspect of the daily life of the masses. These “experts” have brought us Covid, its fatal “cure”, the crazy climate myth, endless wars and their weapons, deadly foods and drinks, universal ill health, trillions in debt, and an absurd woke ideology.


Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts - Richard Feynman

Military

Military power is the most familiar deployment of power. It is also the most honest. Soldiers are very open about the fact that they expect to impose their will upon you by force. No lying words, no appeal to ideologies, no suggestion that this is for your own good. Surrender or die. They expect to be resisted. They expect to inflict harm and suffer losses. Often they are just doing the bidding of some other power broker, obeying evil orders without question, from some misplaced sense of honour and duty.  

The military are more to be pitied than prosecuted.

Fanatics

As Churchill remarked “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” 


They have wielded great power in history, from the crusades and witch trials, to starting the first and second world wars. In our current time they advocate and execute hugely destructive policies such as global warming, covid restrictions, animal rights, peak oil, woke policies. They leverage the other forms of power for their supposedly noble and humanitarian causes, oblivious to the harms that result. They claim political support, scientific expertise, huge funding, and armies of misguided supporters. 


“The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, and wiser people are so full of doubts” - Bertrand Russell

Persuasion

One of the most insidious forms of power is persuasion, because it pretends not to be a power. As with all forms of power, persuaders intend to impose their will on others, but not using physical force. Advertisers, women, “nudge“ units, peer pressure, propaganda, all use words and fear and moral posturing to herd us in a desired direction. 

Persuasion often employs appeals to morality, compassion, pity. It is often on behalf of innocent victims, rarely for direct profit. 


When power is not possible, persuasion will be employed.

Individual

No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. Friedrich Nietzsche.


What power does an individual exercise? 

Theoretically individuals should have power over themselves, their lives, their property. They should be free to do as they wish while respecting the equal right of others to do the same. Individuals should not expect or desire power over others.

Ultimately, all power is exercised by some individuals over other individuals. How do individuals protect themselves from the power of others?


  1. By running away

  2. By joining a group for protection

  3. By becoming powerful themselves

  4. By agreeing on a contract with other individuals to define and protect their mutual rights


 It is only in the last 250 years that option 4 has arisen as a viable mechanism, in the Bill of Rights of the United States constitution. In this admirable document the terms of agreement are spelt out clearly as a series of amendments. While there are flaws, this document is the best antidote to the many powers listed above. But it is quite long, subject to endless re-interpretation, and often ignored by the power-hungry.  


It is essential that our western civilised society defines its priorities in a straightforward and simple way accessible to the masses. Is the priority safety, defense, growth, or freedom? What can be best understood and defended and implemented? I believe the number one priority must be the freedom of the individual to live life as desired. I have developed a statement of this priority that is short but powerful.  I call it the Harm-Consent Rule (HCR).


Render no harm without consent, except in self-defense


If such a rule can be agreed and enforced, all of the many power plays listed above would have no justification.  No taxation, no conscription, no corruption, no enforcement of expert opinions. 

Individuals must give their consent to anything that may harm them, or it cannot be done.


This  is how we give power to the people.

Saturday 23 March 2024

What is the GOOD?

 Trevor Watkins 23/3/24

What defines a GOOD life? 

There are many good answers.

The answers are different for everyone.

The answers change with time and circumstances.

Some answers are “gooder” than others.

But, Is there an absolute good?

Definitions

Here are some words that some people apply to a good life (you'll find many of these in facebook posts from your laid back friends)

Love, pleasure, courage, wisdom, knowledge, free time, truth, humility, chastity, wealth, health,happiness, freedom, common interest, family, survival, genes, species, reproduction, challenge, power, success, opinion of others, security, long life, eternal life, friends, companionship,comfort, order, chaos, pride, honour, purpose, legacy, religion, planet, beauty, justice, novelty, well-being, surfing, god


We can simplify the list by dividing it into categories:

  • Feelings

    • Love, pleasure, happiness, security, comfort, family, beauty, well-being

  • Virtues

    • Courage, wisdom, truth, humility, chastity, honour, purpose, justice, authenticity

  • Survival

    • Family, reproduction, genes, long life, eternal life, health, legacy

  • Success

    • Wealth, power, challenge, opinion of others, pride

  • Intellect

    • Wisdom, knowledge, truth, challenge, order, purpose, novelty

  • Existence

    • Freedom, free time, life, self actualisation, surfing

  • Service

    • Family, common interest, friends, companionship, religion, justice, god

  • Nature

    • Chaos, ecology, species, planet, animals


Is there some minimum standard of good?

  • Planetary survival

  • Species survival

  • Personal survival


Is there some common standard of good?

  • Food

  • Water

  • Sleep

  • Sex


Most should agree that

  • Family & friends & freedom are good

  • Love, pleasure, happiness, beauty, wisdom, well-being are good


But amazingly, some don’t… such as 

  • Christians 

  • Muslims

  • Nationalists

  • Nazis,

  • Nosey parkers & know-it-alls


Not all agree on the importance of 

  • Security

    • Never more alive than when faced with the prospect of death

  • Health

    • Smokers, drinkers, drug takers

  • Safety

    • Extreme sports, surfing, rugby, boxing


Some believe that there should be no suffering, no pain, no conflict, no fear.

We should have peace, tranquility, harmony and order.

And this should be unchanging and eternal, and the same for everyone.

However, this describes death, which not all believe is good.


Lets look at the bigger picture. What is Nature's plan for the universe?

  • Increasing chaos (entropy)

  • Probably followed by contraction and compression of everything

  • Finally resulting in a very unstable marble


So much for the big picture …

Historic views

Plato

The highest form of knowledge is the Idea of the Good

Humans have a duty to pursue the good, through philosophical reasoning

Epicurus, father of hedonism

All we need for happiness is food, shelter, clothes, friends, freedom, thought

Believed that physical pleasure (bliss, contentment, relief) is the ultimate good.

He preferred pleasures of the mind to bodily pleasures

He advocated moderation as the surest path to happiness.

Utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill

Prioritized the good by considering pleasure, pain and consequences, based upon the maxim of utility; “That which is good is that which provides the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”

Popular even today, but deeply flawed.

Modern views

The ultimate good exists and is globally measurable

Economic Freedom of the World index

Gross National Happiness index

Genuine Progress Indicator

The good is "That which increases the quality and quantity of choices available overall."

Free time is the most fundamental good

The success of society as a whole

A single person's life is not important in itself

The flourishing of all sentient life - life itself is of intrinsic value


What is the greatest good?

God Knows.

As a disembodied spirit, separate from time, space and worldly concerns, I would guess the acquisition of perfect knowledge

As a living human being, here and now, Enjoy the ride!

My personal view

3F Principle

Family

Their love, safety and well-being

Freedom

Free time, free choices, free thoughts, free acts

Fun

Friends, sports, hobbies, travels, adventures, entertainments, achievements



Friday 22 March 2024

What is freedom?


Trevor Watkins 22/3/24

What is freedom for me? As a long time advocate of the freedom philosophy, it is important for me to have a clear and unambiguous answer.  

Freedom is the opportunity to think, talk and act on my choices in pursuit of the “good”, within certain constraints. Freedom is limited by harm or the threat of harm. Freedom without limits is Licence. Freedom without practical constraints is futile.


What is the “good” is a matter of extended philosophical debate, from Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Epicuris and many others, including me.  It is not necessarily that which benefits you, or pleases you or society. It varies widely from person to person. Most people can barely articulate it. But it is what gives your life meaning. It is your most important value.


Here is a partial list of what many describe as their “good”:


Love, pleasure, kindness, courage, wisdom, knowledge, free time, truth, humility, chastity, wealth, health, happiness, freedom, common interest, family, survival, genes, species, reproduction, challenge, power, success, opinion of others, security, long life, eternal life, friends, companionship, comfort, order, chaos, pride, honour, purpose, legacy, religion, planet, beauty, justice, novelty, well-being, surfing


For me, after long consideration, I decided that the “good” for me is the 3Fs, Family, freedom and fun.


Family

Their love, safety and well-being

Freedom

Free time, free choices, free thoughts, free acts

Fun

Friends, sports, hobbies, travels, adventures, entertainments, achievements



Sunday 25 February 2024

Manifest lies

Manifesto season is upon us. Every man and his dog has a heartfelt and lengthy manifesto, words filled with sound and fury, promising everything, delivering nothing. Not one is honest, Not one lists the things you can’t expect, the stuff you must do if you wish to succeed, the sacrifices this will involve. 

As a voter and citizen of South Africa, what should you be looking for in a political party and its manifesto?
How about a track record of delivering on promises? Fat chance.
Perhaps honesty? Do they promise stuff that everyone knows is unachievable, like free medical care for all, or free tertiary education, or land redistribution without compensation. Extravagant ideas, but not a snowball’s chance in hell of being implemented.
Do they skip over the nasty bits, like crime, unemployment, infrastructure collapse?
Do any of them promise to leave you alone? To let you keep your income. To raise your kids as you see fit. To protect you from the bad guys. To stop interfering in every aspect of your life. To do less, rather than more.


On 29th May I might vote for a party with the following manifesto. I just haven't found it yet.


We will not harm you.

We will not steal from you.

We will respect you.

We will not lie to you.


We will not solve all your problems, you must do that.

We will not give you special advantages, that is not fair.

We will not fix everything, because that is too hard.


oooOOOooo


The Individualist Movement is not a party, and it is not contesting the elections. It is a group of South Africans who believe in individual freedom. However, we do have a manifesto, which follows.


The Individualist Manifesto is short, less than a page. It consists of 4 short sentences, propositions that anyone can understand. Its aim is to provide words that will protect the rights of each individual within a society, without exceptions.  It uses profound but simple words, like harm, consent, respect, property, rule of law.

The Individualist Manifesto


Render no harm without consent, except in self-defense

Respect those who respect you

Recognise property rights

Resolve disputes by jury


Governments, businesses and other individuals would have to seek consent from each and every individual before causing them harm. They would have to respect the independence of their citizens and customers. They could not take their property without their consent. This manifesto would protect the integrity of every individual, poor, rich, powerful or weak.  


This is hopelessly utopian, many would say. Yet we live most of our lives within these rules. If you are not causing harm, you expect your neighbour to respect your privacy. You do not expect your neighbour to decide what you may eat, or say, or how you must behave, in public or in private. You do not expect to be robbed, or attacked, or held captive. If you or your neighbour behaves unreasonably, you expect  to be judged for this. 


For some reason this only becomes utopian when government gets involved.


The Individualist manifesto does not promise grants, or houses, or jobs paid for by some unspecified others. Mostly, it specifies what individuals or groups may not do. 


If you are averse to lies, if you do not seek to profit at the expense of others, if you simply wish to be left alone, then this is the manifesto for you.


For more information, or to become a member, visit the Individualist Movement website at www.individualist.one


Trevor Watkins is the founder of the Individualist Movement, the author of two books, and a contributing author for the Free Market Foundation. He publishes on a blog at libertarian.org.za.  The views expressed in the article are the author’s and not necessarily shared by the members of the Foundation.


Saturday 27 January 2024

Why do we take photos?

 Trevor Watkins 11/01/2024

We used to take photos for the same reason that the rich commissioned portraits. It was a narcissistic quest for immortality, a visual representation of our place in history,  no matter how ugly, or irrelevant. To remind subsequent generations that we existed,  that we looked like this, that we had some influence in our brief time.


Nowadays we take photos because we can. Endlessly. Mindlessly. Often pointlessly. The act of recording images has been trivialised.  The awkward, stilted selfie replaces the carefully constructed portrait. The carefully posed family photograph, with no one smiling and everyone dressed in their Sunday best,  is a relic of the past, an anachronism. Rather like our modern youth, who know everything and understand nothing, we record everything, but look at nothing.


Why should we take photos?  To remind ourselves of happy or interesting times, and to share these images with others. To remember friends and relatives, past and present, near and far. To record important events such as a wedding, or a sports competition, or an award.


Social media has turned photo taking into an insane effort to live in the public eye no matter how silly or boring. Instead of grand achievements we record and distribute what we had for breakfast. We update our many followers with the most minute and vacuous details of our lives.  This is overweening narcissism gone mad. It is a form of mental illness. 


When I toured  Europe as a youngster way back in 1972, cameras were clunky and film was expensive. I could afford only 36 exposures. I was extremely thoughtful about what I photographed and who.  No doubt I missed many great shots. But those 36 photographs are amongst my most treasured possessions.  I often take them out and look at them just for the sheer pleasure of it.

The modern photographer drowns in a sea of mediocre moments captured without consideration.  When you have 300 photographs of your trip to the beach last weekend,  how can you find the one or two decent ones?


Modern tools such as Google photos can do truly amazing things - scary facial recognition capabilities, unlimited albums, intuitive search, easy sharing. And like most Google software, some truly dumb holes.  So there is no hierarchical tree, just an endless list of albums.  No tagging facility. No process to identify and remove duplicates. A clunky process for adding descriptions. 

Nevertheless, it is free and generally better than all its competitors. I have used it for years and have maybe 10,000 photos (no easy way of counting). Being somewhat obsessive-compulsive, I recently decided to organise all my photos. 


After 3 weeks of duplicate removal, photo straightening, description adding, I finally asked myself WHY? Unless you have visuals of the Kennedy assassination, your photos are not that interesting to others. In the past your parent’s friends used to impose their  “Our trip to France” slideshow on you  in exchange for a nice dinner. But you  quickly tire of repetitive shots of Notre Dame cathedral from 20 angles. Nowadays you don’t even get the dinner.


All those photos I curated so carefully are mostly boring.

Who owns your photos?

The South African POPI act

  • Any person may photograph any other person without their permission, in public spaces.

Black and white

  • You, if they were taken on your device by you. You are the copyright owner.

  • You, if they are on a storage medium curated by you (hard drive, memory stick, Google photos, your cloud account)

Grey areas

  • Google claims the right to use your photos stored by them. (Just check the “Images” section of Google search.)

  • Someone else using your camera?

  • The subject(s) of the photo? With or without consent.

  • If consent to use specific photos of specific people has been given, can it later be withdrawn? Whose responsibility is it to locate and remove such photos?


  • The owner of the thing photographed? For example, a secret design.


  • The social media platform you display your photos on?

  • The state, for certain classes of photos (military installations, child porn, compromising pictures of politicians)

Mental photos

Years ago I developed a technique for taking “mental photos” which I use regularly and have passed on to my own children. When you are in a happy or profound moment, put aside your camera and make a conscious effort to record this moment in your mind’s eye. Observe the scene closely, the texture of the light, the small distinguishing features, details of the background. Snap your mental shutter, expose your living film, cement this specific memory with care and deliberation.  Like old-fashioned film, you can’t accommodate too many of these “photos”, so make them worthwhile. When you get this right you can bring those images back to life in an instant. 


You are your own camera.







People versus Power

Humanity is  subject to two great imperatives - the power of love, and the love of power. These are the bookends of our brief earthly existe...