(Next guest appearances on Evident Footprints on 12th and 25th of March at

10:00 PM – 11:00 PM (PST)
1:00 AM – 2:00 AM (EST)
6:00 AM – 7.00 AM (CET – the 13th and 26th of March)

The shows can be listened to for free from BBS Radio at the above stated times and they will also be later available as recordings.)

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?

A breach of this right we call a theft or stealing. We say it is immoral to take from another person what that person has earned by his own effort and action without violating other persons’ rights (i.e. not gained by force from someone else). We do not consider it fair to steal from one person and give it to the other even though the person who carried out the theft did not benefit himself by the action and it was done only for the purpose of helping someone else in a great ‘need’. A theft is a theft, full stop.

Our society has assumed a system where people have voluntarily given up some of their individual rights and granted a monopoly of those rights for a structure called government. The government is entitled to use physical violence and force against its people. This legalised right of violence (or a threat of it) has been given up by the people and granted for the government. Thus individuals have no right to use force against each other and all interaction between people are based on negotiations and voluntary agreements. The government is assumed the role of an arbitrator who is commissioned to make sure that each individuals’ personal rights are not violated by any other private entity (i.e. person or institution).

But because everything is done by us, the people, the government as well is nothing but a few persons acting on behalf of every individual with their mandate (i.e. with their permission by recognising the authority). So simply the government is only an abstract concept that we are accustomed to have in our everyday life. In other words the government is the total sum of all the individuals in its sphere of influence. In itself it is nothing—it has no opinions or values. It only acts by some people who are presenting the rest of the population. Therefore words like ‘public good, public opinion, moral right and so on’ are just plain meaningless and hollow without any substance. Public opinion or good by whose standards, values and decided by whom?

Our current society uses this concept called government as a vehicle to gain special rights and privileges by the cost of everyone else. The government’s authorised status as a monopolised violence machine makes its position entirely different to any other entity or person in our society. No one else can force people to obey under its will. It doesn’t really matter whether this is done by taxation, legislation or any other means as long as individuals have no negative rights (i.e. to say no and refuse to cooperate).

So, where is this double standard? Just look around you, and in the news. Every day media is full of persons, interest groups, and institutions that are asking for some favours, subsides, more money, restrictions etc. from the government in the name of the public good or whatever the ‘great cause’. They claim to get something they have not earned themselves from the government. In another words they are after violating someone else’s rights and using them for a particular purpose either directly benefiting themselves or some other third parties. Unearned gains from the ‘society’ and at the cost of someone else.

How does the government deal with these wishes and needs? Itself it does not produce anything. It is entirely useless. It can only redistribute and take from someone who has produced something already. In another words it uses its monopoly of violence to obtain what it wants. It steals by force. Keep that in mind when you hear next time that someone has a right for something; by violating who’s rights and at who’s expense?

“If you could write one law that would help the country the most what would that be?” asked Walter Williams some decades ago from Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek over dinner. Hayek replied: “Very simple: You should have a law that Congress cannot do for one American what it does not do for all Americans.” And continued by explaining that if Congress pays some people not to raise pigs or grow wheat, they ought to pay every American not to raise pigs or grow wheat.

I heard this somewhere and I think it puts nicely the point which we seldom stop to think. If we look into past we can feel superiority to past centuries and generations. They were not as advanced in technology and wisdom and they had more struggle with everyday life as we do today. Still putting into aside the material side of living— are we more developed and better human beings after all?

The outset is different. We look more nicely dressed and cleaner. We have better houses and means of transportation. More knowledge and better working conditions. Sure things are better now than in the past. More drugs, better healthcare and education system, less tyranny and so on. But are we more than a primitive civilization who thinks too high of oneself?

Despite all the great knowledge and wisdom we are still killing people. Others are starving to death and most of the human population on earth is barely coping with the ordinary life. A great minority of people is ruling and possessing most of the power and richness in the world. Most of the wealth seems to be distributed purely by chance. Some happen to live in an area of natural resources or has born to a country with great wealth. Personal talents or own hard work do not guarantee success in live. It is not what you know but who you know, still.

Today people are after beauty, wealth, power and possessions. They get kicks by consuming and thinking about their own happiness and pleasures. The society is build in a way that supports and sometimes encourages individualism and egoism. We encourage and sustain behaviour that can even harm other human beings and more importantly our nature. How many animals are making a mess in their own nest and destroying their own surroundings?

What could be the characteristics of a developed civilization? My answers are as good as yours. Here are some for a starters:

First of all they would not kill each other. Also they would appreciate the environment from which their existence is dependent on. They would try to improve the surroundings and hence leave it in a better shape than they got it from the previous generation. Individuals would not focus on their own good but for the well-being of others. The greatest heroes would be those who help and encourage others to success and achieve in life. Everyone would be recognised by their talents and capabilities and supported in developing those. One would not need to be supervised by a government or collegial entity— everyone would understand the common good and behave accordingly. The focus would be in the positive development of individuals and would concentrate on progress and not on failures and set backs. A behaviour based on pure power or submission in any form would not be tolerated (against animals as well).

The above items have nothing to do with our knowledge, technology or wisdom. They are more related to the very existence and life itself. More information does not necessarily mean that we are developing to the right direction. Or even mean that we are developing at all. More data and details of more issues do not necessarily mean that we have progressed in thinking and in the basic fundamentals. It almost seems that less people are considerate and firmly having their feet on the ground. More accurate description of the surroundings do not count as creative thinking, and that’s what most of our sciences are about. In the school we are taught pieces of information, descriptive details. Seldom anyone is encouraged to raise question and develop own thinking. Our children are not taught anything really useful— how to live and become better as human beings. How could they because their parents don’t know anything better: “Panem et Circenses”.