Posts Tagged ‘freedom of association’

Ecosystems, Societies and Human Conflict

Monday, March 13th, 2017

Biology informs our perspective on a number of our societal problems. One thing that it tells us a lot about is the curse of enforced diversity. We here at Amerika champion the old maxim that diversity does not work. But so far we have cited this as a given, not subjected it to probative analysis. This post seeks to draw upon our background knowledge of Deep Ecology and provide the analytical prop to support the maxim with appropriate rigor.

We know from basic biology that an ecosystem consists of the environment that surrounds a community of species and comprises the region within which these species tend to competitively react. Within said environment each living organism requires four things to do well: food, shelter, water, and space. If there isn’t enough for everybody to get a pony, then one or more of these resources is a limiting factor that is by definition scarce. Once we have scarce resources, competition ensues. Some win, some dirt-nap, some head straight for the exit.

We can then compare our society to said ecosystem by analogy. The different sub-cultures such as religions, races, and social classes are all populations attempting to lay hands on what they need. When times are good and easy, you will get more of them. Absent limiting factors, the different groups will tend to coexist. But when one of the big four requirements runs scarce….Some win, some dirt-nap, some head straight for the exit.

Biologists define diversity as the variety of differing species that exist within the confines of an ecosystem. By analogy, we can describe cultural diversity as the number of different subcultures that compete for resources and status within the society. A biologist will define an ecosystem as robust when it contains significantly large amounts of diversity. A simple extension dictates that a diverse society should also be robust.

However, we now reach a contradiction. Diversity equals conflict, or diversity is our strength. Can it be both, could it be neither or is it forced to be one or the other? This requires an analysis of our appetite for conflict and tendency toward destruction. In competition, some win, some lose and some retreat for the hills. We can referee this competition, or we can let it go full-metal Darwin. We can let iron sharpen iron, or we can make certain competitors pad their blades and use whiffle bats, not war clubs. Finally, and most importantly, we can allow for the graceful exit of those hors de combat or just sadistically kick ’em back into the field of play.

When the competition is refereed, we need to feel confident the referee is just. We have so badly sunk into Post-Modernism and incorrectly applied Nihilism, we can’t even define the term just. Equality of result becomes an ideal held by most who fail to get results any other way. Like the whinging, flop-artist soccer player these people constantly work the ref rather than working on leveling up their game. When this works to the extent that Asian-Americans with an ACT score of X1 have less than half the likelihood of getting into Harvard of a Hispanic-American with a similar score, the impartiality of the referee can only be called into question.

It also calls into question what we define as a strength. Let’s say Harvard University has the best Applied Mathematics Department in America. Let’s also assume it takes a hundred new majors per year. If diversity is truly intended to produce social robustness and iron really sharpens iron, then we ultimately would have to steel ourselves for an outcome where all hundred members of the next Applied Math major cohort at Harvard were all Vietnamese Americans. If that group of individuals happened to be the top hundred, and if diversity is our strength — as opposed to being our slogan — we’ve got to be totally cool with that. Even if we are either Caucasian or African-American. If we really believe Vietnamese lives matter, what else could we conclude? If the referee forces any other outcome, than obviously we have some sort of unjust and implicit hierarchy of which lives really matter more.

So if the game isn’t fair, should everybody have to play? Now there used to be an implicit right in America known as Freedom of Association that dictated the extent to which you were forced to experience diversity. People could live, work and do business with those they trusted and felt a level of comfort with. Now you will bake their wedding cakes even if you find them utterly detestable and would forego the income that produces with pleasure. You literally can’t escape, and if you compete too hard and too well, the referee will intervene and prevent you from winning to the extent to which you deserve.

Imagine an NBA game where Steph Curry has to crank his threes wearing a pair of five pound ankle weights. Imagine we just tech him up and give the other team free throws if he turns around and gripes. That’s the diversity culture of Modern America. It is not our strength. It is often a laughable rendition of Kurt Vonnegut’s classic Harrison Bergeron. Iron is not sharpening iron. The resources are not accurately valued and a predictable Tragedy of The Commons settles upon us as a pestilence. The different cultures forced into this revolting petri dish of dysfunction hate one another with the blistering fire of a thousand suns.

Balkanization / Patchwork Accelerates With Calls For “Bluexit”

Thursday, March 9th, 2017

Leftism fragments societies like all forms of individualism because it acts against order, which includes hierarchy, and therefore creates internal competition for power in those societies, causing themselves to tear themselves apart with infighting. This results in a “flat hierarchy” with a few leaders ruling over a raging mob.

When societies fragment, the first act is to try to guarantee the ability to exist apart from the insanity through “cultural libertarianism” or “freedom of association” or some other similar idea. These, like the American Constitution, consist of allowing some to break away from the rest through rule of law, which fails because the mob then just changes the law:

In a prior age, this problem was mostly solved through free association, home owner associations and covenants. People in that neighborhood would have prevented the threat to their property values by prohibiting the sale of houses to people who did not belong. It was not entirely fair, of course, but it allowed people to protect their property rights without having to resort to lying. As is always the case, there were trade-offs, but at least their was a natural way for people to guard their rights as property owners and citizens.

…Free association is illegal now. If a real estate agent is too obvious in how they handle these things, they face disciplinary action from the real estate board. A homeowner, who refuses to sell or rent to whoever shows up, can easily find themselves in front of a judge. Freedom of association is no longer a right in America. Everyone has to seek permission from the state before they can make these decisions. That means finding a place to live has become a game of cat and mouse for middle-class families.

Nice, decent, friendly people think they can write laws and that these words then have magical properties such that they cannot be violated. In reality, either the terms, the interpretations or the laws are changed to be inverted, or to do exactly the opposite of what they originally were intended to do.

As a result, the cultural libertarian / freedom of association types find themselves unable to break away from the mob, which was their intent in the first place. Anyone with experience in this world knows that most people are disasters caused by their own poor decision-making. As a result, groups always demand free stuff and the right to be included everywhere.

The next attempt by the functional people is to try to escape the dysfunctional masses by creating separate states. In this way, they think, they will be safe from the insanity and free to pursue their own path. As the Confederacy found out, however, this merely incenses the mob, which then attacks en masse.

However, a better way for this to happen is to encourage the dysfunctional mob to break away and then to isolate them economically, politically and culturally:

[I]t’s time for blue states and cities to effectively abandon the American national enterprise, as it is currently constituted. Call it the New Federalism. Or Virtual Secession. Or Conscious Uncoupling—though that’s already been used. Or maybe Bluexit.

…We won’t formally secede, in the Civil War sense of the word. We’ll still be a part of the United States, at least on paper. But we’ll turn our back on the federal government in every way we can, just like you’ve been urging everyone to do for years, and devote our hard-earned resources to building up our own cities and states.

…For starters, we now endorse cutting the federal income tax to the bone—maybe even doing the full Wesley Snipes and abolishing it altogether. We will raise our state and local taxes accordingly to pay for anything we might need or want. We ask nothing more from you and your federal government. Nothing for infrastructure, or housing, or the care of the poor and sick—not that you gave us much, anyway. All we want is our money, and you can keep yours, dollar for dollar.

In other words, go back to the Constitutional Confederation and un-do what has happened under the Constitution, and make America into a confederation — that tricky word, again — of states, not a unified country. The article claims some dubious things, such as how blue states fund red states, which is nonsense when you consider that blue state funding goes toward federally-mandated programs in those red states, which are otherwise just fine without blue state money.

This type of balkanization is the first step toward actual nation breakup. It will probably not work the way that Bluexit supporters hope, because eventually the nation will have to decide on things like foreign policy, and the two will be at odds. This means red staters fighting for blue state ideology or vice-versa, and that will provoke national collapse.

However, it has a positive side: it will remove the power of the federal government and allow the states to again be “laboratories” where different policies are tested. This will in turn concentrate all of the social decay in some areas, and let the other areas thrive by being family-centric and culturally-centric. The Right always wins under these conditions.

But, much like freedom of association, it will not stand. As the collapse happens, the various balkanized groups will begin forming alliances such that they can control the North American landmass. At that point, it will become clear that one can never run away from civilization decay: the only solution is to stop the bad leadership and relocate those that do not fit in the traditional civilization.

In Praise of Devolution

Saturday, July 23rd, 2016

trump_for_president

So I’ve got this minor nit to pick with GOP Nominee Donald Trump’s Acceptance Speech at the GOP Convention. It was extreme, it was like radical. It didn’t go far enough, so I come this fine morning to bring you the rest of the kwazy. The Donald, you see, got into a really nice riff slamming NAFTA, TPP and the rest of the free trade arrangements. He suggested stepping things down from the multi-national level to face-to-face negotiations among nations. Devolution he argued would allow us to negotiate more successfully in our nation’s interest.

It’s a really smart concept and it left me thinking what else we could devolve and how far down the chain of command that empowerment could go. You see I like the basic concept of devolving power to the operational level. The United States has an excellent history of using this concept well. You almost can’t read American Military History without coming across a riveting story of how small unit commanders made great decisions in a pinch to salvage a Fubared OPPLAN. Why not apply a similar concept when we aren’t dodging the bullets as they whiz past our very ears?

So rather than merely devolving decisions from arbitrary, unelected globalist organizations to our arbitrary unelected Federal bureaucracy, we should perhaps extend this concept a little further down the org chart. This would provide us two advantages. One, the people making the decisions would be closer to the street level reality lived by the people impacted. Two, if the decisions was botched, it would impose negative externalities on a smaller population. So by devolving power to lower levels of decision making, we improve precision and limit downside risk.

Federalism was a key concept to the American Republic. Back before we became Amerika, we gave states greater latitude and expected them to be different from one another in fundamental ways. We specifically protected this principle with the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

Totalists successfully made state’s rights synonymous with racial oppression in the minds of the voting public. This led to centralization so that one bad decision by a Federal Judge could screw up the school systems in an entire city or state.

Going one step further, we could even devolve decision power further in our society. In keeping with that last little clause in the forgotten 10th Amendment, we could devolve power to actual human people. What a concept! The name of this concept is Freedom of Association. To properly empower the people, Freedom of Association has to have both a positive and a negative component.

The positive component of Freedom of Association is generally seen as implicitly protected by the 1st Amendment. Freedom of Assembly as spelled out in the amendment is seen to include the right to invite or tolerate anyone you want to have present at said assembly. This is necessary, but not sufficient to empower individuals and restrict the state from enforcing unwanted and unrequired (((Diversity))).

A person or organization has to have the power to shun and exile as well. Withholding association is a vital right and a necessary defense. Perhaps the lamentable absence of a pedophiliac, skinhead with a Yarmaluke fetish from the $PLC Board of Directors explains why this right isn’t being allowed for. Instead, The USSC seems to cram people into places where they are not wanted or even remotely desired. In the case of BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA AND MONMOUTH COUNCIL, ET AL. v. JAMES DALE the USSC intervened in the local lives of Monmouth residents to a point of ridiculous self-parody. Here is where Justice Rehnquist informs us we will be made to care…

Petitioners are the Boy Scouts of America and the Monmouth Council, a division of the Boy Scouts of America (collectively, Boy Scouts). The Boy Scouts is a private, not-for-profit organization engaged in instilling its system of values in young people. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill. Respondent is James Dale, a former Eagle Scout whose adult membership in the Boy Scouts was revoked when the Boy Scouts learned that he is an avowed homosexual and gay rights activist. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that New Jersey’s public accommodations law requires that the Boy Scouts admit Dale. This case presents the question whether applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law in this way violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association. We hold that it does.

So our free country tells us that our government can force you into community with any individual it wants to even if said individual makes you feel like upchucking. Memo to Nominee Trump: If you really want to make America great again, you need to make the American people truly sovereign over their own lives. A major step in that direction involves giving them the power to voluntarily dissociate. If Sartre is correct, and hell is indeed other people; then the negative component to Freedom of Association is the way in which we all can put the devil back down in the hole. Give it a thought Mr. Trump. Finish the job.

Freedom of association

Monday, September 2nd, 2013

freedom_to_fly_above_the_nanny_stateMost people approach life as a bulk labor question. They are not looking for a hierarchy in which to fit details, each with its own unique role; rather, they want an assembly line so they can go down it and apply the same process to each thing.

As a result, when it comes to political thinking, they don’t look too deeply into origins of events. They look at the events themselves, fit them to an archetype, and conclude this is their origin. Easy enough.

When an event happens, and they can’t explain it, they are if nothing else diligent about going on down the line and editing every detail they find to fit into this vision. That is, to explain the anomalous in terms of the average.

We get into trouble with this when we look backward in history, because these people who go down the line and tick every box with a known standard have gotten into our historical records and changed them. They have made them convenient.

What these box-tickers don’t understand is that if you don’t understand the underlying effect, or the effect before the effect a.k.a. its cause, you will end up repeating the same pattern.

This happened by the way during the two world wars. These were basically the same war, interrupted by a short break to re-arm and rebuild industry. These pathological fratricides involved a fundamental question, but not the question the box-tickers think it was.

That question was: do we liberalize?

The former monarchies were falling one by one, which forced them to join together in larger groups to defend their power and to have allies when wars raged across the continent as they had done so non-stop since the French Revolution, which introduced liberalism.

Once so joined, they had to find a way to liberalize enough to avoid being overthrown but not so much that they would self-destruct. This led to the concept of limited monarchy, which caused these nations to be ruled by the passions of the crowd with the monarch forced to go along with it for public image’s sake.

The history books don’t reflect this. They talk about abstractions “causing” the war, when really what caused the war was a power vacuum. This vacuum began when the monarchies were deposed in 1789. After that, the mob ruled.

Once those wars ended disastrously in 1945 of course the box-tickers were finally happy. They could declare all pre-French Revolution order dead, and liberalism could reign, which made them happy because it made them feel that they as individuals were important.

Never mind that declaring yourself important and then going back to your job filing insurance documents will drive you utterly mad. It’s a neurotic disconnect between reality and ego. Yes, you’re equal… equal as a functionary and nothing else.

But after 1945, the liberal rhetoric really kicked into high gear. After all, it was all that we had to unite the Allies during World War II. “We’re good, they’re bad, so kill them,” was essentially our cry. Why were we good? Freedom, equality, goodwill — all French Revolutionary values.

And yet the war didn’t end. Partially this was because it left everyone stunned and crushed like the first world war. But a bigger part was that this huge propaganda machine we had created had become depended on by our fellow citizens. People required the dogma of liberalism to tell them that their empty functionary lives had meaning and value, even when they were wholly expendable.

Thus the next generation in the 1960s took off running with liberal ideas which, as in the French Revolution, were basically a step away from Marxism. The French declared equality; the Marxists would enforce it. That’s about the only difference.

Consequently the entire West shifted left and government, always beholden to votes for its own success, followed.

***

Since that time, you, dear citizen of the West, have probably noticed an increase in the Nanny State. The Nanny State is everything that wants to manage your life toward “progress,” which is some moral-political-economic ideal state where everyone is equal.

Naturally, this is like proclaiming hurricanes illegal and causes constant clashes with nature, which makes everyone even more neurotic. That in turn makes them more dependent on the dogma to give their shell-shocked and hollow lives some meaning.

The upshot of this change is that no matter what you do, now, it needs to work toward what is essentially a Marxist goal. Want to hire people? Equality is enforced. Rent? Equality. Sell? Equality. Take photos? Gay marriage and minorities must be OK or we’ll destroy you.

The Nanny State extends itself anywhere it can find power, which it does by finding a something it can claim is an evil. Cigarettes make cancer, so we’ll tax those out of existence. Never mind that most who smoke would rather have shorter happy lives than cancer-free longer ones. That’s more insurance documents to alphabetize, and without tasty smoke breaks.

What does the Nanny State fear? It is an experiment in social engineering. It believes we can create a top-down Utopian order, impose it on everyone, and achieve that order.

Organicists like myself realize that in order to achieve any result, you have to hit the step before the one you want in a logical chain. We call this cause-effect logic and the Nanny State progressives hate us for it.

The Nanny State loathes and fears this kind of thinking because it invalidates the Nanny State. And this leads me to the point of this article, which is why conservatives talk about liberty, and freedom, when these things are dangerously close to liberal values.

The truth of the matter is that liberals and conservatives mean different things by these words.

For liberals, equality and freedom mean that everyone is forced to be the same, living in identical circumstances and with identical opportunities measured by their willingness to sit through state-sponsored education and memorize details.

For conservatives, liberty and freedom mean one thing… freedom of association. It means we can choose who to live with, whom to sell and rent to, and what local area we want to live in and the rules it can have.

It’s a direct refutation of the one-size-fits-all Nanny State. If we want to be white heterosexual Christian traditionalists, we can be.

The Nanny State fears us because if we do better than others, then the ideals of equality and of the Nanny State itself come tumbling down.

As we enter this next round of political madness, remember the joy of freedom of association. The right to determine your destiny, and to have others join you.

It’s everything a liberal fears and it brings on a great gnashing of teeth and rending of clothing. Use it, if nothing else to torment them into self-destruction.