Government.


It is good that most governments are losing respect.

It is right and natural that humans would evolve to have more and more knowledge and ability. Evolution (even in the life of an individual) increases our ability to transform intent into reality. Evolution also means better intuition, a clearer view of reality. So it makes sense that the more evolved a man is, the less likely he is to believe that so called authorities have any legitimate (natural) right to run his life.

It is a good sign that the man in the street now routinely considers his own judgment and conscience to be better guides (to him) than anyone else's laws. This does not mean that any choice an individual makes is just or right. If he initiates violence or threats against others, he is committing the same evils that most governments commit.

Tragically, governments lay ultimate claim to our property (one fruit of our labors), criminalize numerous types of consensual, private experience, and sometimes enslave our bodies (the draft, jury duty, even filling out tax forms). Even governments which allow a bit of business freedom, frequently pursue intrusive, aggressive, and diplomatically foolish foreign policies which not only waste money, but which even endanger their own citizens. The U.S. government's foreign policy has made it dangerous to travel with a U.S. passport, has probably lowered living standards significantly (as do most tax and spend programs), and has put us all at risk for more terrorist attacks.

Any government which tries to protect individuals from themselves becomes an obnoxious and unnecessary intrusion. A government which imprisons people merely for enjoying altered states of consciousness is capable of any travesty. The witch burning hysteria of a few centuries ago never really ended. Governments today still fear the unknown, and still resort to torture (prison), body cavity work, property seizures, and who knows what else, just as the Inquisition did, in counter-progressive and futile attempts to restrict lifestyles to some political idea of normality. I guarantee you, people and societies will change over time, and never be static. Thus, to attempt to impose stasis at any point is to impede the natural order.

Since we live in a transitional age of philosophical searching, it is perhaps inevitable that politics today make little sense. In the United States there are two dominant political parties, both of which lay almost identical claims over us. One lets us keep a tiny bit more of our money, the other lets us be a tiny bit freer in our personal lives. Few meaningful differences exist between them.

Some things to keep in mind when thinking about government are:

  • Most governments basically operate to serve their employees. Think about this, it explains much.

  • The absence of intrusive, self-perpetuating governments is not necessarily chaos.

  • Much anger surrounds and is associated with the government. This is one indication that government is a low-level influence in our lives. To live sanely, it is probably best to make government as little a part of one's life as possible.

  • Since becoming totally free is the same thing as awakening, a true seeker might experience ANY constraints as unnatural and arbitrary.

  • I suspect that only by evolving ourselves as individuals will meaningful atrophy of government occur.

    What might be a saner perspective on government?
    A man might as well take the practical view that throughout human history there were individuals and groups attempting to enslave us in various ways, and that the best one could do was to achieve ones goals, and live ones life, in spite of these obstacles. If you meet a tiger in the jungle, try to avoid it, don't try to take it on directly.

    What about helping improve the world, and social movements?
    Ramana Maharshi says that a man can only help the world by evolving himself. I take this to mean that only one-on-one interactions between people, and improvements in individual character, change things. I also take it to mean that the "individual" creates his reality MUCH more than he imagines. I suspect that most mass political movements which seemed to change culture, were in the air anyway, and that the individuals involved were largely puppets in the process.

    What could replace governments?
    Associations (on ANY scale) of individuals voluntarily banding together for one or more purposes (goals, intents) is nobler than probably any existing government today. Since the noblest human interactions are voluntary, then lack of coercive force or threats must be an attribute of ANY such association of people. Anyway, mutual aid societies, to the extent that they were formed of conscious types, would never assume that they would or should exist forever, and would constantly reevaluate their need to exist.



    Back to Philosophy Home