Thursday, February 25, 2016

Utopia - Where It's All About Me and Nothing Really Matters

Others, many others, have set out the numerous differences between liberals and conservatives, and their systems, socialism and capitalism (or statism and individualism). So it is with some trepidation that I will add my two cents worth to the discussion.

There are those, including moi, who make endless fun of liberals because...EASY! But making fun of something isn't always convincing. Especially within the canon of liberalism which gains its great power by appealing to a peculiar kind of religious certainty, even as they typically dismiss religion as mere superstition.

This is not hard to understand. As humans, we are wired to be religious. Being able to understand the finality of death, we are unavoidably faced with the questions its inevitably raises. Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where will I go? These questions, and their answers, lie at the heart of any religion. Ultimately, and this is why there are so many religions, these are not easy questions with concrete answers. They are questions that must be faced and then reconciled with the fact that no one really knows. This leaves one with either fear or faith; many of us resign ourselves to a little bit of both. The degree to which these questions propel us between fear and faith has, in my opinion, a great deal to do with how humble we are. To be faced with one's mortality and to choose humility is the beginning of faith. Alternatively, when one chooses, instead, the force of one's ego to address these eternal questions, one is left helpless and fearful -- because the ego has no answers at all.

Liberalism is a philosophy of arrogance and ego. It does not question itself or its actions. I see no humility in liberalism. Even when I can clearly see compassion or concern for others, there is no humility in their ideas. There cannot be in a system that presumes that some men are sufficiently superior to direct the lives of others.

But such a delicious distraction it is for those who presume to know! To be busily directing the lives and fortunes of others due to the urgency of present need! Who can be expected to care where one came from or where one is going when so many need so much right now? The fear of uncertainty is avoided by simply refusing to ask the questions. Only the second question, why am I here? remains valid. And having banished humility along with the more fearful questions, they then set about answering the second question with iron-fisted ferocity. This is the real lure of liberalism. It sets the religious impulse free from the restraints of humility.
Once this is done the ego of man is entirely in charge and assumes the role with the absolute conviction of moral good. This releases the more deadly aspect of the ego: to want without any effort, to lust and to covet and desire. It is no coincidence that of the Ten Commandments, God felt it necessary to have FIVE of them deal with keeping your hands, eyes, words, and thoughts inside the ride at all times.

See? What did I tell you?

This dark and constant part of humanity is what liberalism appeals to and what it gleefully unleashes. Fear and a lack of humility drive those who would organize the system. Greed and avarice drive those who would be slaves to the system. And this is why the poison of liberalism will always be with us. It is inside us, fed by fear and buoyed by ego. God saw this. He knew it. He commanded us to resist it.

Another Bible saying is "It is better to give than to receive." This always struck me as nonsensical as a kid, because if everyone was giving, than everyone was also receiving. Which was actually better, therefore, became a moot point. However, in my old age, I've realized that if you take away the GIVE part, you destroy the RECEIVE part and the whole idea collapses. This is at the heart of why conservatism (capitalism) creates wealth and prosperity, while liberalism (socialism) creates need and poverty. In capitalism, in order for me to be successful and attain my own dreams, I have to somehow find a way to meet another's needs, dreams, desires. I must think of what I can GIVE. Of course, they, then, must give me an equal exchange in value, whether it is money or everyone is giving and everyone is receiving. The saying holds up, and prosperity and advancement are the results. But in socialism, I no longer am required to care what your needs are; giving to you is not necessary, receiving from you is the order of the day. Free education. Free healthcare. Free Obama phones. The GIVE part breaks down because no one is particularly concerned with that. They don't need to be. The RECEIVE part quickly dries up, however, because there is nothing to receive. This breakdown takes a little longer to materialize in real life because there we also have the ability to MAKE people give through the power of the state. Of course, it's just "their fair share.

Giving is an expression of who you are and what you can do; receiving is simply the satisfying of desires and needs. In balance, they create a perfect synergy. Out of balance, the whole thing breaks. Giving makes you a good person. Receiving doesn't. But liberals care not about what makes men good; in fact, they would be horrified at the suggestion that they should. They place all their moral impulse on meeting the physical needs of others, without understanding that receiving without giving creates fear, greed, despair, and unhappiness.

So let's imagine, for a moment, if the ideas of liberals actually took us to the promised land of Utopia. It would be a world, I imagine, where everything was taken care of for you, where all your needs were met -- a world of only receiving. A world where giving would have no purpose because no one would have any need of anything you had to give. 

This would be a world where no one had any value to any other person. Oh, there would be those who would be nice to each other, people would have friends, many would marry, as is always the case in any society. But in each person's heart there would be the knowledge that if they died, it would not matter, because their life didn't really matter. And in each heart would remain those eternal questions, only now, no one would have any way to address them. Where did we come from? It doesn't matter. Why are we here? It doesn't matter. Where will we go? It doesn't matter.

What we do matters. What we are able to do for others matters. Doing these things in a world where the outcome is uncertain matters. Rising about difficulties matters. Becoming someone stronger, better, wiser, more talented, more able to give matters. It all matters.

In a perfect Utopia, nothing would matter. It would be all about you...and you would find that you don't matter.


  1. "In a perfect Utopia, nothing would matter. It would be all about you...and you would find that you don't matter."

    True, and that's the living hell the liberals want to lead us into.

    At the risk of embarrassing you, this whole article is very good and right on the money.

    God *did* say "It's more blessed to give than receive" We were made to be happier giving than receiving.

    1. Liberalism tempts us with the promises of security and safety, but this also removes all opportunity to be of value, to matter and to grow as humans. Giving proves our value. God was right. Smart guy.

      I had time to write today because I was home all day trying to air out my house from skunk smell only to finally learn after hours of smelling it that a young skunk had found a sleeping spot right by my foundation and the smell was wafting up through my heating ducts. ARRRRGGGGGH! I squirted it with a hose and set out a Bluetooth boom box to make it go away. Now I have candles burning in every room. And I am watching the GOP debate. I can't tell what stinks worse.

    2. Yes, very good. She went and got all deep and I'm too rusty to think of anything to add.

  2. Replies
    1. I've decided I'm not going to worry about primary season. I live in CT, and by the time we get our say, the decision is already made for both parties.

      I'd rather not Trump, but he's not stupid, and if it's him vs an ancient socialist/communist or a not-quite-so-ancient criminal.....

    2. I know...I know...But I just can't wrap my head around the obvious fact that our side has lost its mind! WTF?

  3. Hi, I found this blog by the power of Google; this blog has some interesting insight and grains of truth coming from its standpoint don't you think it's brush strokes are a little broad? There's a lot I don't agree on. I find it hard to imagine what a working Utopia or progress towards that would look like amongst the buzz of this world, but in the Revelation vision the lion sits and rests next to the lamb; I guess you wouldn't see that as an end to the supply and demand form of capitalism, rather than something about the two natures of Jesus; but surely you have to admit that there's something of a food chain in capitalism. It's not sheer cooperation -cooperation is a form of socialist movement towards meeting each other's needs by coordination of effort peer to peer - but nor is it sheer survival and competition. Nor feudalism!? Both capitalism and state socialism in practice have tended to push towards a plutocratic hero worship with a mixture of antagonism, abuse, appeasement and genuine spiritual paternalism albeit grandiose and undone by other factors. Feelings that others are lesser beings or that others are greater are human and feature in both; education, advantage and capital, all forms, feed into the privileges of the few and the opinions that others are less than us. Long before today's political landscape, if you demeaned someone in a common tongue, ra├ža, you would be in danger of swear-law court hearings,if you said "fool" in koine Greek - you had other things to worry about. Be that revolt or God's ordained authority being taken away, or judgment of other kinds. We all can do foolish things, the concept can be difficult though, because we're none of us worth less then other people.

    God is the singularity that gave birth to the great widths of the universe with his integral generosity. God is love but he is also the great I am. To be and sit in an active way, enjoying company and unity and togetherness rather than transaction of repelling or taking is something that liberals and lefties greatly value, that sometimes busy bodied dogmatic conservatism misses out on. The freedom to just sit. To be. And yes, there is a kind of conservatism that can go with trying to protect everyone's peace however they are, but at best it's a mutual responsibility. Just like the best of capitalist conservatism. As an ideal. And that is the balance of freedom and social responsibility.

    Do you think you might have drawn to great a distinction between the sides you see, and snapped them to grid, as it were, to your model, as you see them. Made a kind of straw man with a few grains of truth about grandiosity and saviour fantasy and interference, but which entrepreneurs and right wing politics is not immune to. We're all just people.

    I see an image of unity and of supply and demand and meaning and paradise in a covalent bond; actively shared electrons, stability.

    There's something, a time and a place for free radicals and harsher (industrial/volcanic/awesome) chemical processes. And they affect us all. But when you buffer for "the least"!?

  4. First, welcome. I appreciate your willingness to take the time to reply in such depth. However, I don't agree with your basic premise that I have drawn my argument too broadly. All true wisdom is found in broad brush strokes. Knowledge -- because it can range from the general to the specific -- can be found anywhere, but WISDOM is found in the sweeping generalities of human experience. It isn't found where one's argument is reduced to the peculiarities and particulars of the individual's life.

    I also disagree with your contention that "cooperation is a form of socialist movement towards meeting each other's needs by coordination of effort peer to peer". This is capitalism, not socialism. All social arrangements must have an agreed upon economic system; capitalism is the only one where men are FREE to act as they chose, entering into dealings based entirely on their own "pursuit of happiness" in a spirit of complete and unforced cooperation peer to peer, while socialism is rooted and given its structure through the power of the state (coercion, force) compelling individuals to act - often directly against their own interests. This is NOT, under any proper definition cooperation. Socialism is coercive, organized force. Pure and simple.

    You are quite right that people always and inevitably judge themselves against others, finding some wanting and others enviable. Social status, financial weight, even beauty or physical prowess all signal to others our "place" in the hierarchy. Is this God's ideal for us? Surely not. Does this change its intractable influence on our social structures? No. Not one whit.

    I do find it amusing that you characterize the right as "busy body dogmatic conservatism". I uncertain to whom you are referring? If there is any movement more defined by being busy bodies and dogmatic, it is the left. This is inarguable because they are inextricably wed to the the power of the state. EVERYTHING they seek is expressed through the force of power. As they say, "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun." And they mean it. They may not seem to be in your bedroom (although they do concern themselves inordinately with sexual matters, largely to remove all barriers to any sexual desire), but they are for damn sure in every other room in your house. And dogma is the left's middle name. Without dogma, they would be a lot easier to get along with.

    Politically I have NO social responsibility. None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Zip. I do have social accountability in that I can't lie, cheat, steal, or harm another. But help? Nope. I have no social responsibility whatsoever. That's the very essence of freedom. The freedom to do whatever I damn well please. America wasn't created so men could be good. American was created so men could be whatever they damn well wanted to be. If, as I sincerely believe, men will seek the good and act on it willingly under the guidance of their own conscience, then society benefits enormously. First, because their actions will actually do good. And second, because their actions were entirely and wholly voluntary. When the state enters the arena of moral good and social responsibility, enforcing behavior it deems appropriate, all actual good is destroyed and removed without fail. Force destroys moral action. You can't have both. That's why socialist systems are inherently immoral even as they tout their love for others. It's at the end of a gun, pointed at you by someone who is far more interested in consolidating their political power than in helping anyone.

    That's my two cents. Buttercup