Peace will come to earth when the people have more to do with each other and governments less.
I don't want to believe...
02
09
I don't want to believe...
...that our representatives are involved in some great conspiracy to create an environment in which we are all monitored from birth to death; in which our identities are only what the state declares them to be; in which we cannot "reinvent" ourselves when necessary as we go through our "seven ages" and perhaps regret or just resile from what we used to be, used to do; in which, if the state somehow thinks there's something suspicious about us, our innocent friends and family will be monitored just because they know us; in which hundreds of thousands of state functionaries will be able to access data about us; in which we may be stopped in the street and forced to prove who we are and justify our presence and be subjected to searches of our belongings.
I just don't. Want. To believe it.
I mean I know policemen; know MPs; I know councillors; I know council staff, and they don't appear, the ones I know anyway, to want all this. And they seem genuine when they tell me not to be paranoid; that none of this is on the agenda.
I just. Want. To believe them.
But the alternative is that they are collectively completely incompetent and blind to the fact that that appears to all the world to be what they are creating. And I'm scared. To believe that.
I don't want to believe that Leviathan is consciously controlled by particular maniacal individuals. I want to believe that most of the ideas start with a spark of ingenuity. A way to get the right benefits to the right recipients here. A convenient way for us to do business there. Maybe even an idea to save money, prevent waste, make sure no doctor ever gives us something we're allergic to.
But if our representatives do not understand Leviathan, and certainly cannot control it, then they must destroy it. Look for different ways. And oh, how many different ways there are! We are at the point where our government, the structures they have to create to maintain all the functions they think we find desirable, are bloated, inhuman in scale. And worse, that there are no alternatives. They must have pretty under-developed imaginations. And over-developed egos.
And I look around at the political alternatives, the parties who vie for our support, and I find not one, at least in the mainstream, who really accept this reality. For they all want to control it. They all want the power. They will tell us they want to downsize some of it with one speech and then propose something else as monstrous with the next. And even if they don't want to control it, if they don't make it their first priority to destroy it, it will not be destroyed.
What a sad vision of humanity such people must have. What pessimism about our ability to do the right things, for ourselves, without being told, or dragged, or pushed at the point of a gun. There can be no prescription for bringing about the "greatest happiness" because each of us has our own idea of our own "greatest happiness". As humans, rather than Borg, we are individuals and no one size fits all. Ever. That's what makes us humans. There can be no database that takes all these variables into account, so they will end up suppressing those variables.
I don't want to believe (this is the end).
Trackback URL for this post:
Brown Women Shoes
from Brown Women Shoes on April 8, 2009 - 08:33You know in this industry it gets kinda hard finding a site that has some great content, I run into a lot of "Trash" but this is a really good site, keep it going.
Relevant Content
Here are some stories that may be on related subjects, based on the tags used in this post:
- From here to Liberty
- If society is broken, it's only following its "leaders"
- Money secrecy: the last taboo?
- A few words for Gordon Brown
- Politicians: masters, or servants? And of whom?
- How should our details be protected?
- Hari's Game: not even in the right ballpark
- It depresses the hell out of me...
- Data protection and the inexorable march of the snooping state
- Why I became a libertarian - a personal statement.
Recent Popular content
|
Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Get Your Free Web Ring by Bravenet.com |
||||


















Comments
Its a difficult area. You risk sounding like a conspiracy nut when pointing out the myriad of ways the current system benefits those in power at the expense of others.
In reality I think is more a feature of the system - it encourages behaviour, which the actors may not think is a bad thing, but in aggregate leads to less freedom and more inequality of power.
I doubt even Blair, Brown or Blunkett have sat down to do all they've done, they probably sincerely believe that they are doing good, but their worldview, combined with the current poltical and economic systems, means that they are subject to pressures which lead to consolidation of power, reinforcement of their paternalism and the abuse of power to serve their friends and donors.
Just a little bit here, and a little bit there, but it all adds up.
Some things are problematic, ID cards - the government seriously do think that they are a good idea. It does seem to be something which various parts of the civil service and intelligence agencies have long wanted though, so they've been pushing it for years.
The state education system was also set up to create good citizens through indoctrination, but that's not necessarily with evil intent either - rather a misguided attempt to help people framed in the paternalist ideology of state socialists and radical Tories.
Individual people are rarely totally evil, but the social structures developed can become so.
When I find myself lapsing into conspiracy theory I stop, take a deep breath and remind myself that almost every conspiracy theory can be better explained by invoking the natural, ceaseless expansion of the bureaucracy.
They don't want ID cards. They want to be running a bigger department. The department in charge of ID cards will be really big.
Yes, I agree, but although I don't think our democratic system is the best way to deal with such an impersonal system, our representatives are there, if for nothing else, in order to stand between us and the bureaucracy. If they can't see the problem they are part of the problem.
I have this pet theory that the government is not actually in control of the bureaucracy (perhaps getting all conspiracy theorist again). There is probably some truth in it.
No - I don't think that is conspiratorial. It is mainstream understanding of the "impersonal state" as opposed to the "personal state". In the personal state, the monarchy or similar, the king is the country and his court lives and dies with him. In the impersonal state the (usually) elected politicians come and go, but the bulk of the bureaucracy, their aims and schemes, continue on. I think it is probably axiomatic that the elected politician cannot control such a structure. Which is why it is crucial that they grow some testicles and tear it down (if they haven't all smoked too much has and lost them prematurely). If they cannot control it whole, there is a slim chance that they could divide and rule - which is why "localism" is quite attractive.