This works similarly in the collective level. Abstract words such as nation, community, political party, nationality, profession, or whatever imaginable descriptive term that combines several individuals by some common nominator(s) are used to simplify and polarise, categorise and divide. The idea is to unify and make individual units alike that can be counted like beans in a basket: they can be added or subtracted, multiplied or divided, even replaced if necessary. This ‘collective’ becomes a breathing unit that is responsible for its ‘actions’ and hence can be blamed for its outcomes. Collective punishments are justified in this manner.

Despite of the multitude of abstractions in use they do nothing in themselves. No country wages a war against any other country. No government confiscates private wealth. Similarly no political party gets anyone elected. The words we are commonly using have a life of their own. They are no more treated as pointers or descriptive terms that make communication of the underlying issues easier and more efficient but nothing more. Today the abstractions are more important than the individuals that are referred to by these terms. Abstractions are a way to camouflage and disassociate what is really meant by using the terminology.

Words do not hurt anyone. Nobody takes a mad man seriously no matter what comes out of his mouth. It is always the receiver, the listener, who interprets and makes the value judgement whether to react and how, if at all. Words become important and significant when they are taken seriously and considered to mean something. Still, we regard words as something very precise and accurate when in the most of the cases they are not. Even tangible objects cannot be communicated without ambiguity or a large margin of error—more words are required just to describe better the item in question in order to make sure that it is understood as intended by the sender.

Abstract ideas are even worse. Often they cannot be described in a way that is acceptable, understandable, or even comprehended by the listeners at all. It is simply assumed that everybody knows what the term means and it is perceived in a manner the sender intends it. Ideas are based on assumptions and certain beliefs, and they are typically built on top of a mental construct that is mostly not self-evident.
Someone using an abstract term does not necessarily mean that she has any idea what she is talking about. Often it is impossible to find even a handful of individuals who share the same definition of an idea or abstract concept. Nevertheless, they are used like precision tools that are razor sharp and exactly to the point. And they are taken seriously.

Still, abstractions are just a tool we use for something that has been deteriorating for a long time. The fundamental question is not so much what’s wrong with others but what’s wrong with us. “We” is always someone else’s “others” so altogether there is no one else to blame but us, the humans. Labels do not change the reality no matter how nice or bad words we use, neither they change the actions taken—they are still with the persons who carry them out and cannot be undone. Words and perceptions can be spun and distorted but they do not change the truth—it stays even when no one is ready to acknowledge it. Ultimately words are irrelevant and only the actions remain.

We have lost the substance, the actions, and are only interested of the words. This is reflected all around in every sector of our society. We use a concept called money but our central banks do not even provide a definition for something they have a sole monopoly. In the past there needed to be more than words in pieces of paper that were created at a whim of the producer—the paper itself was not of value like a valet coupon. Now we are happy to use colourful papers that are just that, mere words backed by nothing but the public’s trust on them and a threat of violence to protect the cartel. There is no more private property—only various degrees of control. Our legal system is a joke that does not protect each individual equally and fairly in front of the law. Justice is something that has lost its meaning. Laws are written and interpreted by those who are in power and dependent on or benefit from the system. Law enforcement favours the large interests and mainly protects the government from the people. Objectivity and fairness cannot be mentioned in the same sentence with equality when laws are written to benefit some persons at the expense of others.

The emperor has no clothes in so many fields that we don’t even recognise the ludicrousness of the situation anymore. It has become the status quo and accepted new normality. This deterioration happens gradually, over many decades and centuries. Without fundamental questions and strong individuals still believing in the power of their own mind and reasoning the downfall turns into a freefall that can be very shocking when the inevitable truth starts to loom behind the decorative words. The crash is harder the later the reality is acknowledged. Movement of time is no proof for advancement of any society. Higher sophistication in stupidity and brutality do not change their very basic nature even though they may be tolerated better thanks to over-extended exposure to them. Is there anything more arrogant than those who claim to be civilised?

We have lost our ethics and moral. They are not seen in our actions—we merely talk about them. Or should we define our ethics by our actions? Words are useless but our actions never lie. We support financially and by our every day actions killing, murdering, stealing, violence, and coercion. These activities are not just directed towards other species but most of all exercised against other human beings. They are always conducted by someone, an individual person, never by any abstraction or collective concept. Still, in most of the cases we don’t consider anything wrong or hypocritical in these actions and thus they are tolerated or even encouraged. Killing, murdering, stealing, violence, and coercion against individuals are acceptable when the scheme is large enough, for the greater good, or specially approved by an abstract body.

You are not allowed to steal from your neighbour except when using a taxman or legislation. Murdering people is wrong except when you have a strong economical interest or other justifiable cause backed by your government. Coercion is not acceptable unless you are a bureaucrat. In that case you are not responsible of your very actions as a human being—you turn into a mechanical robot without consciousness and moral. The list is almost endless and we all are part of these activities against each other.

This madness does not stop until we recognise and acknowledge each other as human beings. Currently we are waging war against everyone else financially, psychologically, socially, and physically. We use various tools and means for our bidding but it does not matter how much we spin the words the reality does not change—only individuals do the acts. Nothing will change unless we change ourselves. Our society and world is only the reflection of human consciousness and ethics. Any society that does not respect individuals and lay their foundation on individual freedom, respect, responsibility, and equality is doomed to fail in the long run. Only strong independent individuals can support each other and thus form a society. There is no society without persons. Externally imposed morality, rules, controls, and restrictions are doomed to achieve their purpose unless it is to suppress and subdue individuals as obedient servants that act like sheep ruled by a small elite. So far we have found many volunteers for both roles as victims and masters. The play will not change unless the individual actors start to act differently and stop blaming each other for the lousy script they have written themselves. There is nothing wrong with the world but maybe little something with our values?

Some rules and principals are necessary to coordinate and enable voluntary cooperation between people. Predefined terms direct what is tolerated and what is not. If everyone is aware of the rules later no one can get excused of ignorance. But this is only half of the issue. The rest is based on the fact that everybody is treated in a similar manner and according to those predetermined terms. Today our societies are not working this way.

We have created an artificial system that is above the level of individuals. In practise we have made people a sub-class to a system that everybody is forced to subdue. Sadly enough this system is run and abused by the very same people. There is no one to blame but us. Still we feel helpless and little against this monstrous structure. It is inhuman, not responsible to any single individual, and disregards any personal circumstances. We call it the common or public good. It goes over any person or group of people. Public good is more important than the individual members of the society that are supposed to be part of and create this concept called ‘greater good’.

When faced with this ‘public good’ an individual can be considered sacrificial or ‘a liability’ that can be destroyed mentally, financially, or even physically. Collateral damage is a term used in other ‘public good’ missions. Nevertheless they are similar situations were individuals are insignificant in respect to some greater thought-forms or concepts facilitated by some others members of the human family. In our age ideas and ideologies are used as vehicles to rule and manipulate other members of the society.

This conceptual structure we have created is above any individual. In practise it means that an individual is alienated from her rights to self-defence, freedom, and equality among other members of the society. How can you make sure that you are treated fairly if you don’t have any practical means to make sure and follow-up your case as well? A very simple example is taxation laws. Tax authorities are not accountable to people or any individual. They are part of the structure that is above the people. They get their power and force from the very persons that tolerate and maintain the organisation in existence. Still these authorities are not responsible of their actions. There is no objective third party that can assess and mediate the disputes or matters at hand. International and domestic voluntary cooperation sectors have found ways to handle and resolute dispute and argument situations in a fair and objective manner. Chambers of Commerce offer business mediation (arbitration) services that are swift, final, and respected by both parties. And most of all they are selected by the parties themselves and thus trusted as well. None of this is available for individual members of the society. We are forced to subdue to the rules and laws of the stronger party that is not accountable to any single individual or party.

To make matters even worse it is worthwhile to consider the amount of members of our societies that are directly dependent of these arbitrary structures in form of a salary or employment. How objective do you regard the people that are paid by the public sector? Do you think that they are making decisions that are against their own or the organisation’s survival instinct? Seldom you see public organisations admitting their wrongdoings or making exceptions for any individual. They are not countable for their ‘customers’—they do not need to be—they are getting paid by taxes that are collected by force. Only voluntary cooperation is dependent on the other party, otherwise there would be no cooperation. Coercion is one-way communication that is based on violence or a threat of violence. Just think about it—how objective is any party that is using force as the final (or even as the first) argument? And on top of this you don’t have any choice.

One person’s impossible is other person’s business as usual. What’s the difference? A point of view—the other person cannot imagine a solution based on his/her past experiences, knowledge and understanding while for the other there is no mystery because it is part of his/her everyday life (understanding). In other words the doer believes and the doubter does not.

Ask a successful entrepreneur how he managed to do it, and often you may not find specific answers. They will emphasise their vision, passion, and dedication—they believed 100 per cent what they we about to create. And more importantly, they had the strong will and confidence in themselves that they can make it to happen, no matter what. And after all, how could you know beforehand how to do things that you have not done before? If you were to do only those things that you have done earlier, you would repeat yourself. So, is there any other way to create something new?

Your thinking is based on your past knowledge. We only know what we know, and we see and hear only what we know. Worries are produced in our mind and only by our mind. It is a closed system that exists only when you are thinking (of it or something else). While you are in the middle of some intensive action, you do not have time to think. You have to act. Try to think while hitting the ball in the golf court and you certainly do not make a dream swing.

Often thinking substitutes the action, and makes the realisation of our goals more difficult. It is not that one does not need to define the goals and plan things in advance, but it is important to realise when it is the time to believe on what one is doing and start to walk the talk (or the thought). Mind can produce different scenarios endlessly. Those what-ifs and hows have only one problem–they do not match with the outside reality. Only by starting to move one can keep a bicycle stable–the same applies to our lives as well. Paralysis by analysis cumulates the worries but does not provide any remedy for the underlying issues.

A different matter is when it is a right time to consider the how-question. If you want to make something big and major, it is not very wise to start by thinking how you are going to realise it. This would only result that you are not going to vision such a grand ideas and objectives after all. The road looks very cumbersome and also the visibility is very poor. You start to doubt and very soon the great venture has been turned into a farce—and all this can happen just in your mind! A sailor does not know the weather conditions for his entire route before starting to cross the Atlantic. He certainly knows where he’s heading and why he is doing it. He even may have a clear vision how he is going to sail the route and how long it is going to take. He is confident on his skills and competences to make it to happen. The how-question does not come to halt the action. In a word he believes himself.

Many times not doing is worse than doing something. While you are not making any progress you are still doing something—being in the same spot. Circling around the same area certainly consumes lots of energy but the overall impact may not be exactly what you wanted to have. Taking the first step is often the hardest. The sooner you do it the easier the consequent paces are. And like always before in your life you will figure out how to do it after all. How you did it? -is the question you can try to answer—afterwards. Just do it!

Read an excerpt from Ludwig von Mises’ famous book that is still very much as valid as when it was first published in 1947.