Author: Stephen DeVoy<\/i><\/p>\r\n
From October, 2001<\/i><\/p>\r\n \r\n Causes\r\n <\/i>\r\n
Missing from the “war on terror” is an analysis of the causes of\r\nterrorism. Without an analysis of the causes of terrorism, the drive to commit\r\nterrorist acts will continue. In this essay, we explore why defensive methods\r\nagainst terrorism are doomed to failure. We propose that the only practical method of reducing\r\nthe frequency of terrorist acts is to address the material and mental\r\nenvironment from which the drive to terror arises.<\/p>\r\n \r\n Powerlessness\r\n \r\n
Our contemporary world is a world of imbalance. While some nations wield\r\ngreat power, others do not. While some nations systematically\r\nreorder the world to the needs of their own security, the consequence is less\r\nsecurity for others. While some\r\nnations respond with various degree of fidelity to the needs of their people,\r\nothers respond only to the needs of their ruling class, government, despotic\r\nleadership, or corporate class. For those who live within societies where government exercises a degree of democratic concern for the well being of\r\ntheir people, it is difficult to imagine how the security they enjoy is often\r\ncreated at the expense of the security and well being of less democratic\r\nsocieties. For those who live within societies whose conditions are driven not\r\nby the needs of their people, but by the needs of other more privileged peoples, a profound and realistic sense of powerless and injustice\r\nsaturates their existence.<\/p>\r\n
Through the eyes of the world's average citizen, the distinction between a\r\ngovernment and its people is often\r\nblurred by ignorance. While states are difficult to attack, individuals are not.\r\nThose wishing to lash out at or to take a stand against those states which\r\ndistort, in their own selfish interest, the governance of a people, find it\r\neasy and justifiable to attack the citizens of the oppressing state. While this\r\nsense of justification is purely subjective, those who make such judgments often believe that their interpretations\r\nare valid. Consequently, it is not irrational that such individuals take action\r\nagainst the citizens of an enemy government when attacking the government itself\r\nis implausible or difficult.<\/p>\r\n \r\n The Practice of Irrational Self Interest\r\n \r\n
Likewise, citizens of nations, with the capacity and will to exercise great power and\r\ninfluence in order to coerce weaker states into arrangements that benefit the\r\nsecurity and well being of wealthy nations at the expense of poor and less\r\ninfluential nations, are subject to their own subjective interpretation\r\nof the world about them. This is most true when the citizens of such nations live isolated lives, sequester their minds to the universe of concepts\r\npromulgated by their elitist media and government, and live in ignorance of\r\ntheir own nation's misdeeds.<\/p>\r\n
When accustomed to few deviations in the standard of living, a people\r\nbecome more sensitive to small deviations than those individuals who\r\nlive in societies where great fluctuations exist. The threshold of irritation\r\nand despair is much lower in rich nations than in poor nations. The citizens of\r\nwealthy nations, with higher standards of living, willingly support the exercise\r\nof terrific power to preserve their standard of living against the slightest\r\nfluctuations, even if this translates, in practice, to the horrible deaths of\r\ninnocent individuals abroad. To the citizens of these wealthy nations, the\r\nsuffering of foreign peoples in the name of resistance to small inconveniences\r\nis perceived through the distorted lens of media outlets that support the use of\r\nforce against others in the name of convenience. The flat and edited images of\r\nsuffering peoples are viewed from afar through the same medium that daily\r\npresents endless fantasies. Things need not be this way.<\/p>\r\n
It is possible to act in self interest rationally. A rational approach to\r\nself interest takes into account the many variables which include the self\r\ninterest of others. No unbalanced system can be preserved without the exertion\r\nof force. The greater the imbalance the greater the expenditure of force\r\nnecessary to preserve the imbalance. Expenditure of force is expensive and often\r\nentails the creation of a counter force that responds with an effort to restore\r\nbalance. If a government is unwilling to restore balance, the irresistible drive\r\nto rectify the imbalance is transferred to the people themselves. As we have\r\ndiscussed above, individuals are subjective and do not distinguish well between\r\ndistant states and the people of those states. Individuals are easier targets\r\nthan states. Thus, terrorism is the inevitable product of imbalance maintained\r\nby force.<\/p>\r\n \r\n Terrorism as a Mental Virus\r\n \r\n
Too few governmental leaders understand the power of the memeplex. A memeplex is a\r\nself sustaining network of memes. A meme is the mental analog of a gene. A meme\r\nis an idea or mental procedure that is copied from the mind of one individual to\r\nanother through imitation. People learn, among other ways, from copying each\r\nother. Each person or state, through its behavior, teaches others to imitate.\r\nOur every public action forms a lesson for those who chose, consciously or\r\nunconsciously, to imitate us. When memes assemble into a mutually supportive\r\nnetwork, they become resistant to displacement by other memes. The behavior of\r\nnations and those who resist them has given rise to the memeplex of terrorism.<\/p>\r\n
When powerful states support the repression of the people of other states\r\nthrough force, they teach, by example, an indifference to the lives of\r\nindividuals in the face of nebulous goals. When individual acts of terror\r\nagainst the people of a state cause a state to change its policy, individuals\r\nlearn the power of terrorism. The memeplex of terrorism has been very successful\r\nover the last century. Nations have been formed through acts of terror (e.g.\r\nIsrael). Relations between nations have been formed through acts of terror (e.g.\r\nAmerican recognition of Palestine). Clearly, the memeplex of terror is one that\r\npays. With evidence in its favor, the powerless of many nations have become\r\nhosts to this memeplex. As hosts of this memeplex, they have become successful\r\nin increasing their collective power. Thus, we can expect the terrorist memeplex\r\nto continue to spread, like a virus or cancer, through societies of the\r\npowerless, much like Marxist theory spread through similar societies in the\r\ncentury before.<\/p>\r\n \r\n The Ascent of Man\r\n <\/i><\/b>\r\n Technology and the Democratization of Destructive Power\r\n \r\n
The ability of the individual human to destroy has grown geometrically over\r\ntime. There was a time when an individual, set upon murder, killed one at a\r\ntime. Often, this resulted in the murderer’s own death. With the dawn of\r\ntools, such as fire and the spear, killing became more efficient, but was\r\ngenerally limited to a low kill rate. The initial leverage provided by primitive\r\ntools in the art of killing was small.<\/p>\r\n
With the rise of government, single individuals were able to muster the\r\nkilling power of many individuals in the form of armies. While the individual\r\nwarlord, king, or ruler could wield the power of many individuals, few\r\nindividuals had the power to assemble armies and put them at their personal\r\ndisposal. Thus, while a small few individuals could leverage the killing\r\npotential of many, the average individual could not.<\/p>\r\n
As technology advanced, the effective potential for murder on the part of\r\neach individual increased. Weapons, such as guns and cannons, enabled\r\nindividuals to kill more efficiently. However, these instruments were expensive\r\nand more often than not were the possessions of governments who allocated them\r\nto soldiers whose killing potential the could coordinate. The ultimate decision\r\nto utilize armies and whom to utilize them against, still rested with\r\nrepresentatives of the government. Consequently, the average kill power of the\r\nindividual remained low.<\/p>\r\n
As society changed from monarchism to the republicanism, a consequence of the\r\nrise of capitalism, economic power shifted from the exclusive province of the\r\nstate to a growing class of private citizens who owned and directed industry.\r\nWith access to capital, these individuals could purchase their own weapons at a\r\nhigher level of technology than in previous times. The number of individuals\r\nwith access to efficient instruments of death increased. For the first time, the\r\nkilling power of the average individual began to rise.<\/p>\r\n
Capitalism produced a middle class. Industrialization decreased the cost of\r\nweapons. Advances in science increased the killing leverage of weapons. During\r\nthe last two centuries, it became common for a large percentage of the\r\npopulation to own guns. With an increase in information available through mass\r\nproduction of books, as well as a rising level of education for the common\r\nindividual, more and more individuals could obtain the information necessary to\r\neducate themselves in the art of killing. Most individuals chose not to do so.\r\nHowever, the means became available for non-state entities to wage asymmetric\r\nwarfare against states.<\/p>\r\n
In contemporary times, the Internet has made information on methods of\r\ndestruction available to anyone with the means to access a networked computer.\r\nScientific information, intended for peaceful use, has become more widely\r\navailable. Often this same information can be used to harm as well as good. In\r\nan effort to make access to government more efficient, more and more information\r\nabout national infrastructures has found its way into cyberspace via the\r\nInternet.<\/p>\r\n
We now stand at a time when the powerful leverage of science, the increased\r\naverage education of the common individual, the low cost of technology, and the\r\navailability of information about vital infrastructure has converged to form a\r\ncritical mass. This critical mass enables the average individual, sufficiently\r\ndriven to amass the tools he or she needs, to conduct acts of mass destruction.\r\nOnce the domain of states and powerful leaders only, the individual now\r\npossesses the means to wage asymmetric warfare against the state and against the\r\npeople of any state.<\/p>\r\n \r\n The Individual as God\r\n \r\n
At the dawn of the twenty first century, the individual’s ability to create\r\nor destroy is taking on the proportions of what was considered the realm of\r\ngods. We can expect this state of affairs to accelerate. The time is coming when\r\nany single individual of average means will be able to destroy on a massive\r\nscale. The release of biological agents, the use of poisons, the corruption of\r\nnetworks, and the use of brute force all share the common property that they\r\ncontinue to become cheaper, more efficient, and easier to perpetrate.<\/p>\r\n
Our future is a future where the individual will have the power of a god. At\r\nfirst, the power of the individual will be much like the simple demigods of the\r\nancients. However, there is little evidence that individual humans will not one\r\nday possess the means to create and destroy on a scale reserved by the ancients\r\nfor the most powerful of deities. Few contemporaries acknowledge this fact.\r\nHowever, an examination of the trends of human history make this conclusion all\r\nbut irrefutable.<\/p>\r\n \r\n Why Force is only a Temporary Solution\r\n <\/i><\/b>\r\n The Power of Asymmetry\r\n \r\n
Calls to combat terrorism often involve the deployment of massive force. The\r\nutility of massive force, however, is exaggerated. Along with the possession of\r\nmassive force comes the massive responsibility of wielding it within the\r\nconstraints of civilized society. Possessing force is one thing, but using it is\r\nanother. Nations, no matter how powerful, must weigh the consequence of the\r\nimposition of massive force. To not consider the negative consequences of\r\nmassive force is to imperil one’s own power with the possible retaliation of\r\nother nations that possess the sufficient means to annihilate nations. It does\r\nnot matter how many times over one nation can destroy another, provided the\r\nnumber of times is one or greater. Additionally, in a world of increasing\r\nglobalization of trade, no nation can ignore the consequences of alienating the\r\nother nations of Earth. States, therefore, are constrained by political reality\r\nfrom using massive force.<\/p>\r\n
Should a state choose to use massive force, the porous nature of national\r\nborders combined with the ever expanding infection of the terrorist mental\r\nvirus, guaranties that any state that destroys with wanton abandon will, itself,\r\nattract an ever increasing exercise of asymmetric warfare against itself. It is\r\none thing to use massive force against a foreign target. However, the awesome\r\npower of the modern nation state applied within its own borders would be an act\r\nof suicide.<\/p>\r\n
Individuals and organizations that choose to engage in asymmetric warfare do\r\nnot need to consider the constraints under which the state exists. If the goal\r\nof an individual or organization is to kill as many nationals of a given state\r\nas is possible, massive retaliation is of little concern. This is especially\r\ntrue in the case where the individual or organization positions itself within\r\nthe borders of the state it seeks to destroy. Once infected with individuals\r\nbent upon committing massive acts of terrorism, the state's response becomes\r\nakin to the body of an animal suffering an autoimmune disease. It’s own war on\r\nterrorism destroys itself. Even if an organization has not successfully\r\ninfiltrated a state, it is likely that there will exist within the borders of\r\nany state sufficiently many discontented individuals who will mimic the attacks\r\nof the foreign terrorists within their own borders; such is the power of the\r\nmental virus that motivates individuals to terrorist acts.<\/p>\r\n \r\n Force as the Basis for Teaching Terrorism\r\n \r\n
Humans learn by imitation of others. Use of force to solve problems teaches\r\nothers to use force to solve their own problems. Nations that rationalize the\r\nuse of force as a means to their political ends set a standard that others will\r\nuse as a justification for their own use of force as a means to an end. These\r\nlessons are not lost on the increasingly large number of individuals capable of\r\ncommitting acts of mass terror and in possession of sufficient motivation to\r\nattempt the same. Nations that resort to force as their modus operandi<\/i>\r\ncan expect force to be used in return. Thus, any attempt to stop terrorism\r\nthrough the use of force alone or in conjunction with other strategies that do\r\nnot address the root causes of terrorism are bound to increase terrorism over\r\nthe extended future.<\/p>\r\n \r\n Why Surveillance is not an Option\r\n <\/i><\/b>\r\n Law Enforcement Supports Surveillance\r\n \r\n
The U.S. Government has increased its calls for more surveillance. For some,\r\nit would appear that increased surveillance could give forewarning of terrorist\r\nattacks or, at the very least, uncover activities that signal planning or\r\npreparation for attacks. From a law enforcement point of view, increased\r\nsurveillance is an attractive option. Surveillance not only may detect illegal\r\nactivity, but it makes illegal activity easier to prove. As well, surveillance\r\nincreases the scope of law enforcement by placing the police in the role of baby\r\nsitter. Thus, surveillance makes the job of police easier and increases their\r\nrole in society. This second consequent increases their power.<\/p>\r\n
Most Americans are entirely ignorant of nature of surveillance tools\r\ncurrently under development or how they will be used. The new dimensions of\r\nsurveillance are entirely alien to our expectations. Let’s examine the near\r\nfuture of surveillance.<\/p>\r\n \r\n The Nature of New Surveillance Tools\r\n \r\n
The technological revolution in the area of information processing has\r\nchanged our lives substantially. We now live in a world where international\r\ncommunications is virtually free. We can purchase software and computers, at low\r\ncost, that make us more productive and highly interconnected. We can make\r\npurchases, read thousands of newspapers, do our banking, send and receive\r\nimages, check on the weather, and do countless other things without leaving our\r\nchairs.<\/p>\r\n
Of course, you and I are not the only entities in possession of computers.\r\nVirtually every business, bank, government office, hospital, doctor’s office,\r\nterrorist cell, prison, and police station is networked together through the\r\nInternet. Information reflecting your interests, purchases, conversations,\r\nfamily photos, health problems, bank accounts, business relationships, travel\r\nplans, opinions, book selections, and sexual interests rushes across a large and\r\nchaotic network where endless possibilities for interception exist. Despite the\r\navailability of encryption tools, most people do not use them. Additionally,\r\ngovernment agencies are advocating that such tools include backdoor keys so that\r\nthey can peruse your life at will.<\/p>\r\n
While you may believe that the endless streams of information that pass\r\nthrough the net are so large and diverse that they could not be cross referenced\r\nand linked into a comprehensive and searchable distributed database, where\r\npersonal information on all Netizens could be accessed at will, you could not be\r\nmore wrong. Not only is it possible to string together this information, there\r\nare projects to do this. In the name of defending ourselves from terror, great\r\neffort is being expended to make sense of the cacophony of information coursing\r\nthrough the veins of the millions of machines that make up the net. They wish to\r\ndiscern your intentions and plans from your electronically traceable activities.<\/p>\r\n
Government agencies have access to more than the Internet. They have access\r\nto criminal records, financial transactions, back account information, hospital\r\nrecords, and, increasingly, to the records of airline reservation systems and\r\nother purveyors of transport. Using this plethora of information about each and\r\nevery electronically monitored individual, super computers will be employed,\r\ntwenty four hours per day, seven days per week, to model each and every existing\r\nhuman being. These models will include your ideological beliefs, your interests,\r\nyour skills, your health, your purchases, your communications, your\r\nrelationships, your education, and so on. Repeatedly, your behavior and profile\r\nwill be compared to that of those who commit acts of terror as well as other\r\ncrimes. It does not stop there.<\/p>\r\n
Artificially intelligent systems will read and understand your electronic\r\nmail. They will listen to your telephone calls. Your plans and statements will\r\nbe linked with the large collection of ever growing information that constitutes\r\nyour electronic identity. Systems will examine not only what you have and may\r\nhave done. They will not examine only what you are currently doing. No. They\r\nwill combine what you have and may do with what your contacts have and may do.\r\nHypothetical plans, in which you are the actor in a crime, will be generated and\r\nreasoned about. You may become a target of suspicion simply because you disagree\r\nwith the government’s actions, have access to components that could be used to\r\nconstruct a terrorist device, and have made contact with individuals who could\r\nplay a part in such a hypothetical plan. It will not matter whether you actually\r\nintend to do something. It will not matter that you have never even thought\r\nabout how the things you own and have access to could be used to create a\r\nterrorist device, what will matter is that some system, some where, has computed\r\nthat you are able to create such a device and that you may have the motive to do\r\nso.<\/p>\r\n
Of course, it does not stop there. New technologies that can measure your\r\nbiometrics, whether the shape of your face, the sound of your voice, the way you\r\nwalk, or the smell you give off, will soon be posted, secretly, in public\r\nplaces. Your mobile telephone will be used to track your movements. As you go\r\nabout your daily business, information about whose time space paths your travels\r\nhave intersected, where you have been, and what you have done will be collected.\r\nYour life will be an open book. Your comfort that no-one would be interested in\r\nfocusing on your life will be a delusion rising from your technological\r\nignorance. That someone watching, following, and monitoring you will not be a\r\nhuman. It will be any combination of many machines that will collectively watch,\r\nfollow, monitor, and speculate about every single individual in our society.<\/p>\r\n \r\n The Negative Effects of Surveillance on Civil Rights\r\n \r\n
As the issue of greater surveillance emerged in the wake of the 9\/11\r\nterrorist attack, there have been knee jerk pronouncements to the effect that\r\n“the Constitution is not a suicide pact” and that “if you have nothing to\r\nhide, then you should not be concerned about increased surveillance.” These\r\npronouncements share the common thread of extreme ignorance.<\/p>\r\n
The Constitution<\/u> contains the Bill of Rights<\/u>. The Bill of\r\nRights<\/u> is a declaration of protections against government intrusion. The\r\nphilosophy of rights upon which the Bill of Rights<\/u> stands attributes\r\nhuman rights to the nature of man. Inseparable from our existence, these rights\r\nare not the product of a pact. They are a product of what it means to exist.\r\nDenial of these rights is denial of existence. Those who choose to deny their\r\nown existence choose suicide. To subvert the Bill of Rights<\/u> for the needs\r\nof the moment is to commit suicide. Those who choose their security over their\r\nfreedom choose non existence.<\/p>\r\n
Surveillance imposed with consent is a violation of our fundamental right to\r\nlive freely. Those who justify this violation as the cost of freedom, justify\r\nthe destruction of freedom in the name of freedom. Even an individual with “nothing\r\nto hide” will find herself unable to freely pursue her happiness. Under the\r\nwatchful eye of the state, each individual will chose not only to avoid any\r\naction that they may need to hide, but to avoid, as well, any action that may be\r\ninterpreted as something other than what it is. Without access to the mind of\r\nthe individual, innocent actions often appear to imply unintended intent. Under\r\nsuch circumstances many actions that would otherwise be chosen will be avoided.\r\nSuch modification of behavior is exactly what the absence of freedom reaps.\r\nCuriosity and experimentation will be destroyed by the ever present need to\r\nmaintain the appearance of “innocent” intent.<\/p>\r\n
These constraints on freedom generated by surveillance devastate political\r\nfreedom as well. In a world where each word or action is examined under the\r\nmicroscope for signs of subversive intent, only the most eloquent and courageous\r\nwill dare to question the state - and then only with a full explanation and\r\nclarification of any ambiguities that might imply, under false interpretation,\r\nsome subversive intent. This need to eliminate ambiguity and enumerate all\r\nassumptions that would normally be left unstated, creates a burden to\r\nintellectual discourse that will wear down even the most determined of thinkers.\r\nIt will be as if one cannot refer to the room of a house without explaining how\r\nit was constructed, upon what platform it rests, and how the platform was\r\nconstructed. Complex thought will be weighed down by all of its antecedents, the\r\nabsence of which spell peril to those who fail to enumerate them.<\/p>\r\n
A life under surveillance is no life. Human life is only a shell without the\r\nliberty that is its essence. Remove the liberty and you deny life.<\/p>\r\n \r\n The Importance of Civil Rights to Progress\r\n \r\n
A decrease in civil rights due to an increase in surveillance would have a\r\nprofoundly negative effect upon the progress of technology and upon the economy.\r\nHistory reveals many examples of nations plunged into stagnation under the heavy\r\nboot of the state. The difference in progress between the former Union of Soviet\r\nSocialist Republics and the United States of America is a classic example.\r\nWithout an open society where individuals are free to pursue their own goals,\r\nexperiment freely with new ideas, and exchange these ideas freely with others,\r\nthe impulse towards progress is crushed.<\/p>\r\n
In the current period, following the attack of September 11, with the urging\r\nof the state and corporatist media, many individuals are weighing the value of\r\nfreedom against the perceived security of a society where individual rights are\r\ntempered by the call for protection of life over liberty. Perhaps it is not\r\nabsurd that such a topic would enter our discourse at this time. A terrible\r\nsequence of events has occurred which many believe could have been avoided.\r\nHowever, even if we accept the proposition that a discussion of security over\r\nliberty has a basis in the best interests of the population, we cannot accept\r\nthe fact that despite the great and possibly irrevocable price that may be paid\r\nfor this discussion, the discussion has remained shallow. Nowhere have we heard\r\na discussion of the ultimate effects of such a move towards less freedom. Let’s\r\ndiscuss the reason for this and then consider the effects that this turn away\r\nfrom freedom will have on the progress of society.<\/p>\r\n
Representative and direct democracy each suffer from a fatal flaw. This flaw\r\nis rooted in the belief that it is ethically just for the majority to rule over\r\nthe individual. If individual freedom is the root of our ethics, then any system\r\nthat forces the individual against his or her will to conform to the will of\r\nanother, even when that other is the majority, is a violation of individual\r\nliberty. Even a utilitarian analysis of the benefit of democracy fails. If the\r\npurpose of majoritarian rule is to benefit the majority, then one would need to\r\nprove that the majority are capable of making all decisions, collectively, that\r\nwould lead to the greater satisfaction of the largest number of individuals in\r\nsociety. Since it is the minority of individuals who possess the imagination,\r\nintelligence, and drive to bring advances to society, the majority will\r\nnecessarily not choose the path that benefits society the most. Additionally,\r\nobservation of political dissent within human society leads one to believe that\r\nthe majority of individuals will conform to the ethics, philosophy, and laws of\r\nany kind of society. Consequently, the majority is never threatened by society\r\nitself. This is true whether a society is communist, capitalist, dictatorial, or\r\ndemocratic.<\/p>\r\n
From the above, it should be obvious that freedom has little significance to\r\nthe majority of individuals. So long as one is redundant, freedom has no\r\nmeaning. The only members in any society for which freedom matters are those\r\nindividuals that are not part of the majority. The majority, due to its\r\ninability to value freedom and the inability of its members to conceive of\r\nbehavior outside the redundant, is always willing to sacrifice the freedom of\r\nthe minority if it believes that some benefit will accrue for the redundant. Not\r\nvaluing freedom, the only thing a member of the majority truly values is his or\r\nher own life. It is not difficult to convince the majority that life is more\r\nimportant than liberty.<\/p>\r\n
Of course, this explains why the majority are easily led by the state and by\r\nthe media. It does not, however, explain why the state and the media lead them\r\nin the direction of security over liberty. For the state, the explanation is\r\nsimple. The state is, by nature, unproductive. The state can only justify its\r\nexistence through the false belief that it is necessary. As the recognized\r\nprovider of security, the state becomes more necessary, in the eyes of the\r\nmajority, when its function as policeman is perceived to be necessary.\r\nAdditionally, by portraying itself as hero and protector of the people, the\r\nindividuals who comprise the state attract to themselves undeserved respect and\r\nprivilege. In a sense, the prospect of earning respect and privilege is\r\nirresistible to those whose own character and talent is without merit and for\r\nwhom earning respect and privilege through productive or creative activity is\r\nimpossible.<\/p>\r\n
One needs to appreciate the power of the corporation and the American\r\nattribution of disproportionate respect to celebrity in order to understand why\r\nthe media would sell out the American people to the oppression of the state.\r\nThose who believe that American society is egalitarian are fools. Most of us\r\nhave shed this pretense long ago and recognize that the wealthy and famous of\r\nAmerica are neither subject to the same laws as other citizens, but are not\r\nsubject to the same ethics as well. The wealthy and famous believe that any\r\nchange in individual liberty will not effect their daily lives. As individuals\r\nwho feel threatened by the rights of the common man and woman, these individuals\r\nbelieve that they will benefit from any constraints that are placed upon the\r\ncommon people. They will benefit both from the increased differential in freedom\r\nbetween themselves and the commoners and by their increased ability to use the\r\nstate to suppress the danger of contact between themselves and the unclean. In a\r\nfew words, the wealthy and famous seek the creation of a caste system.<\/p>\r\n
The wealthy and famous, however, are fooling themselves. History has\r\ndemonstrated time and again that even the wealthy and the famous become victims\r\nof the state. The only who do well under the gaze of fascism are those who are\r\nwilling to play court jester.<\/p>\r\n
Now that we have laid out how and why the people are easily duped to stand\r\nand deliver, let’s explore what our society will become without liberty.<\/p>\r\n
As the state intrudes ever more upon our individual and personal lives, we\r\nwill find ourselves in need of constant explanation. Behavior outside of the\r\nredundant will attract attention from the redundant and from rivals. Since every\r\npurchase you make will be logged and shared with law enforcement, every\r\ntelephone call you make will be monitored, every electronic message you send\r\nwill be analyzed and saved; you will become very careful about what you buy, who\r\nyou telephone, with whom you correspond, and what you correspond about. You will\r\nbegin to look for possible patterns within your own behavior. In an effort to\r\nappear as normal as possible, you will go to great lengths. In some cases, you\r\nwill not buy a book that piques your curiosity due to the fear that your\r\ninterest in the topic of the book may be misinterpreted. You will drop some\r\nfriends. If you purchase a magazine that represents an extreme point of view,\r\nyou will likely feel obligated to purchase one that represents the opposite\r\npoint of view in an effort to assure those seeking patterns that you are not in\r\none group or the other, but are merely curious about the range of concepts\r\ndemarked by the two. In time your curiosity will become weighed down and tired.\r\nUnable to freely discuss your ideas with others, you will fail to make great\r\nstrides in your thinking. You will become one of many individuals who can no\r\nlonger leverage your intellect off of those around you. Society will lose out on\r\nmany great ideas.<\/p>\r\n
It does not stop there. We are already seeing calls from the federal\r\ngovernment for the limitation of information available to citizens. Under the\r\nshadow of security concerns, the government is attempting to make impotent the\r\ngrowing movement towards openness that recently was synonymous with the\r\nInternet. With less access to real information, you will have less ability to\r\nrationally analyze or question the decisions of your politicians. Politicians,\r\nas well, will have the same problem. Without access to information on the\r\ncountless agencies and activities of government, they too will not be able to\r\nthink objectively about the matters over which they make decisions. They will\r\nneed to take on faith, as you will as well, the veracity and accuracy of\r\ninformation provided through the filter of the security apparatus. In effect,\r\ninformation depravation will lead to dictatorship.<\/p>\r\n \r\n Ethics: The Only Solution\r\n <\/i><\/b>\r\n
There is a solution to this problem. The solution does not involve\r\nsurveillance or greater security. The only solution to this problem with any\r\nchance of success is to transfer the responsibility of control from the\r\ngovernment to the individual. This may seem to be a contradiction, but it is\r\nnot. Ultimately, each individual will have the power to exact great destruction\r\non many other individuals - whether the government is watching or not. The key\r\nto decentralized control is ideological. A society that functions through the\r\nindividual application of ethics is the only solution.<\/p>\r\n
The impulse to violence comes from the animal nature of the human animal. The\r\nimpulse to organize violence comes from ideology. What separates humanity from\r\nmore savage species is the individual application of beliefs to overcome animal\r\nimpulse. For the application of belief to succeed in controlling animal\r\nimpulses, within a society, two variables play a large role. The first variable\r\nconcerns the environment of the individual human organism. The second variable\r\nconcerns the ethical system that guides the individual human organism.\r\nMinimization of environmental factors that spur the impulse to do harm is an\r\nimportant requirement for the self control of individuals. Likewise,\r\nmaximization of the role of ethics in human decision making increases ethical\r\nbehavior.<\/p>\r\n
Ethics is the application of reason to values. Ethical decisions are based on\r\nethics. An environment conducive to greater human contentment permits the\r\ndomination of ethical decisions over behavior. When individuals fail to share a\r\ncommon ethical framework, an environment is created where behavior clashes.\r\nDivergent ethical systems inevitably produce a sense of injustice among\r\nindividuals. This sense of injustice is a factor within the environment that\r\nincreases the impulse to do harm. Consequently, only a society with a\r\nhomogeneous ethical system will sufficiently minimize the sense of injustice\r\nwithin a society to permit the successful self governance of individuals.<\/p>\r\n
Human nature, unlike the nature of most other animals, is highly diverse. Any\r\nuniversal system of ethics must be based on principles sufficiently fundamental\r\nto permit unhindered expression of self in a diversity of individuals. Thus, the\r\nprinciples should be sufficiently few and sufficiently clear that all\r\nindividuals would agree to their universal application to all individuals. Such\r\na system of ethics, composed of categorical\r\nimperatives, was first explored by Immanuel\r\nKant.<\/p>\r\n
A modern application of an ethics derived from categorical imperatives may be\r\nfound in the philosophy of rational anarchism. Rational anarchism encourages\r\nmutual cooperation between individuals based on mutual consent and mutual\r\nbenefit. Only a society that recognizes the sovereignty of the individual and\r\nencourages the ethical development of the individual can provide the necessary\r\nmechanism to guide individuals towards a world where the human individual is\r\ncompatible with his or her own destructive ability.<\/p>\r\n
As the individual human becomes ever more godlike, beliefs based upon\r\nexternal control mechanisms and simple obedience must be replaced. The survival\r\nof the human species depends both upon the advancement of technology and the\r\nreplacement of primitive beliefs. An advanced technical society cannot endure\r\nfor long in the shadow of primitive beliefs. Primitive beliefs, inadequate\r\nfor the lives of gods, must be eliminated.<\/p>\r\n
It has been said that one cannot kill an idea. I disagree. An\r\nidea is like a virus. A virus can be eradicated through a program of\r\nisolation and immunization. An idea can be eradicated through the same\r\nprocess. A scientific and rational approach to belief is the mind's analog\r\nof the anti-viral agent. A superior and well evolved system of beliefs can\r\nsupplant another belief system. Like a vaccination, one belief system can\r\nstimulate the mental \"anti-bodies\" (compelling arguments) to refute\r\nanother belief system. In sum, we need to engineer a belief system that\r\ncan supplant and repel the primitive belief systems which, combined with our\r\never growing powers, condemn us to self destruction. I believe that\r\nrational anarchism, alone, provides the starting point from which such a belief\r\nsystem can emerge.<\/p>\r\n\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"A right-on-target essay written in December, 2001. Five years later, it turns out to be 100% correct.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2006\/06\/163034.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}