This is Essay Six in the series Lighten the Load, a re-think of government. What should a government be and do? What should it definitely NOT be and do? Is it even necessary at all? If so, how much and why? How do we decide, against what criteria?
by Steve Cook
Where aligned, the aggregate forward thrust of such activities (see previous essay)will push the abundance of those factors that assist survival to ever-higher levels.
However, some groups produce an end product detrimental to survival or which is less able to contribute to survival, or which makes it harder for others to assist survival.
The survival potential of the community of groups is repressed in direct ratio to the amount of counter-survival activity that is introduced.
What each group, or indeed individual, does, either in a pro- or counter-survival direction, impinges upon and affects the wider community of which it is a part and with which it exchanges, communicates and interacts.
A shoe-maker for example produces shoes that are worn by many people; school and family between them produce the educated and socially-skilled adults of tomorrow; a scientist produces knowledge that others can use; an artist puts forward new realities that may inspire new goals.
But what of the shoemaker who makes bad shoes; the turbulent or immoral family environment, the school that badly trains and permits a lowering of literacy levels; the scientist who introduces a new method of mass destruction or tinkers recklessly with the food chain or an artist who puts forth the dream of self-destruction?
Their output, to one degree or another, suppresses the survival of the wider community upon which they or their products impinge.
The potential for harm of one group that begins to pursue counter survival purposes may be greater or less than another. The shoemaker, for example, can do less harm with shoddily made shoes than a school system such as ours which raises illiteracy levels, or a scientist who takes risks with the food chain.
The actual harm done by some groups that are at this time operating upon counter-survival goals is immense.
Modern banking, for example, is systematically corrupting the money system and stands poised to bring down the entire global economy.
Psychiatry has for many decades has been wrecking the fields of mental health, law and order, education, criminal reform, moral sense and religion with observable, devastating consequences.
What one group does affects the survival potential of the whole community of which it is a part and upon which its activities directly or indirectly impinge.
The more counter-survival activities are introduced and remain uncorrected, the greater the harm.
The degree of harm any one such group can do to the whole depends upon its position within the community and how wide is the sphere upon which its actions can impinge.
A gang of muggers, for example, will have a less destructive impact upon the community as a whole than a government that raises income tax to punitive levels.
A counterfeiter running off bogus banknotes in a basement does far less harm than a bank counterfeiting billions of the nation’s currency daily through mortgage “lending.”
An axe murderer has far less scope to kill people than some “leader” who mobilizes an army and on some pretext or other attacks a neighboring country, or the drugging, brain-damaging psychiatrist who manufactures rampaging killers right under the noses of a bewildered police.
A society can increase its survival potential by maximizing the rights, liberties and freedom from impediment of the honest producer, while minimizing (to zero) the freedoms of destructive groups to commit destructive acts.
The decline of our modern civilization derives from our failure to be unequivocal in that regard.
To the degree that any destructive person or group of persons with a broad impingement upon the community around them is permitted, uncorrected, to operate in a counter-survival direction, the survival potential of the entire human community is impeded and suppressed.
Nations never have a vested interest in impeding or thwarting the survival goals of other nations.
The advantage perceived by one nation in harming another is entirely illusory and derives from a failure to understand and take into account the interdependency of groups in the business of survival.
Any nation that seeks to introduce counter-survival factors into another nation is actually pursuing the inhibition of its own survival: it is seeking to lower the survival potential of the human community of which it itself is a part and with which it co-depends.
A lowering of its own survival potential will always result from such an endeavor on the part of a nation – or more accurately those groups that control national policies.
Great Britain, France, Spain, and Germany are examples of nations that at one time or another have adopted the policy of thwarting the survival goals of other nations and their peoples.
All now subsist at a very low survival potential.
Like any group large or small, a nation has a vested interest in the success in a survival direction of any nation or group with which it interacts. As they are all stuck on the same small planet, nations cannot help but interact.
All groups have a vested interest in enhancing, not impeding, the survival potential of all other groups because all groups are contributors to, for good or ill, the larger group, humanity, of which they are all members.
When a group has begun to impede or oppose survival or lose its ability to assist survival, other groups have a vested interest not in its continued or exacerbated failure, but in helping it recover. If they do not so help, they become the effect of the turbulence and destructive actions put out by the decaying group.
Security and peace for one nation therefore cannot be found in fostering or tolerating the disintegration, decay or enslavement of other nations: that is the direction of chaos and folly.
Security and peace can be found in helping the good people of other nations flourish and prosper: that is, the creation of survival factors in their internal and external activities.
Any point of “attack” on the part of one nation wishing to protect itself from the counter-survival conduct of some neighbor should be limited only to any groups or persons engaged in activities that impede that other nation’s ability to cohere and align in the pursuit of survival goals.
And by “attack” is meant only the exposure and removal from influence of such persons and groups; and that, as we shall
discuss later, means assisting the good people of the neighboring nation to apply justice internally.
The effort to weaken, subvert or damage another nation or group is always a counter-survival act because it involves the deliberate introduction into the human community of powerful counter-survival influences.
Just as we would observe it to be foolish for a man to seek to drive his neighbor into turmoil, irrationality and ill-will, rather than to help him find security and peace of mind, this is no less foolish when expressed on the international scale.
The single most potent impediment to Man’s myriad survival endeavors is war.
In war good, productive people are killed by the million; routine productive activity is disrupted; roads, bridges, factories, crops, you name it, are destroyed.
The skills, time and efforts of Man are diverted from the creation of factors that assist survival, to the creation of factors that impede or utterly block the pursuit of survival.
War always suppresses human survival potential on a massive scale. Its origination is never a move in the direction of enhanced survival. There is never a rational argument to justify “let’s have a war.”
This may not appear to be the case in the instance of a nation attacked by some aggressor and which must defend itself from invasion. However, the decision, “let’s have a war” is made by the aggressor on the utterly false premise that its survival can in some way be enhanced by such an act.
Similarly, it may not appear to be the case in the instance of free nations deciding to wage war against an insane nation such as Germany in World War Two.
The premise that we “had no choice,” is always put forward as the clinching argument in favour of an embarkation upon war. As no other rational argument holds water except the notion that “factors beyond our control” have “left us no other option,” this is the one that is always run on populations.
It can be pretty convincing.
It is, however, illusory and false. Nations gone insane do need to be dealt with just as one must deal with any danger and the perpetrators of genocide do need to be removed from power (preferably long before they slaughter millions of innocent people) but, as will become clearer as we proceed, there is a far better way of going about things than mass slaughter.
The fact remains that the activity of World War Two in terms of destruction, disruption and death, was a severe suppression of human survival on all sides and across the human community as a whole that came close to wiping out civilization.
Of course, civilization survived the destruction and disruption it sustained and recovered from its wounds but the fact that wounds are not always fatal is no argument for repeatedly inviting the sustaining of them.
It can also be argued, and I would agree, that civilization has on many fronts not recovered from its wounds and has been slowly dying since it sustained them.
Any promotion of war, any portrayal of it as a “good idea,” any attempt to get good men to fight it are simply efforts to get human beings to agree to massively repress their own ability to survive.
About the Author: Steve Cook is an avid researcher, a concerned Citizen and one hell of a writer. He just also happens to be the Director of the TLB Project website UK Reloaded (home based in England, UK) where the article above originated.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.