From the latest president, all the
way back to the Constitution, the ubiquitous “we” is felt within the language
of government, but what is the meaning of this word? It is all encompassing in both uses, meaning all that reside
within the plot of land known as the United States of America, but it is more
far reaching in its modern use.
Where the founding collective of the USA was, ideally, more concerned
with “we” as individuals and with “we” being born with certain rights (unless
of course you were black, a woman, or a child), the current “we” is a
one-size-fits-all democracy where a program that may be good for my neighbor
had better be good for me, because I really don’t have a choice. And that is the problem with the modern
conception of ‘we”, where in reality I have choices and you have a choices born
out of our own free will to decide for ourselves, lumped together as “we”,
choice becomes rather dwindling.
It’s
not “us” who lumps one another into the backwards simplicity of programs that
treat the individuals of this land mass as though “we” were basically the same
people living basically the same lives, it’s “them.” And there is a definite collective of “them” who rate “us” as second-class
citizens that can have our individual lives molded into one. When a person goes to the grocery
store, they know whether they want an apple or an orange, but the choice in
today’s market extends far beyond that and one can choose a kiwi, a pineapple,
a banana, a grapefruit, and so on.
If our food can be marketed toward the individual, then why would this
choice not exist with everything?
Why are the complicated systems and differences of “we” the individuals
instead lumped together as a single, simple unit with no defining character?
“We”
as one mass of people don’t seem like a force for good. This collective of America has failed
in that it only seeks power and control over masses of people. There could be no other way for
government. The empowered
individual would have no use for the crimes of the collective in his or her
life. Can a collective that claims
to support freedom take over other collectives and occupy their land? The collective “we” uses words such as
justice, yet hand out money to the richest and support those that don’t wish to
support themselves. The collective
of America steals the labor of working adults, throws their neighbors into
cages, and assures that the worst of the worst keep their grip on power and
money. Doing the wrong thing gets
you a pat on the back. “They” will
tell you that “we” are exceptional, but that mythology is only floated to keep
“them” above the law. It keeps
“them” knocking down doors, burning people alive, and dropping bombs on
innocents. Categorizing a mass of
350 million people as one, as “we”, keeps their power centralized and keeps
“us” asking permission for freedom.
“We”
as individuals bring about a very different story. How do you interact everyday with the people around
you? When you buy groceries, you
pull the money out of your wallet and place it in the hands of the person who
has been assigned to collect it.
What you don’t do is place a gun to their temple and threaten to murder
them unless they give you the food for free. You don’t threaten to lock them in a cage for twenty years
because they didn’t hand over a certain percentage of the store’s goods for
nothing simply because you say so.
This is the voluntary world of the individual, where the majority are
good people that don’t use aggression to get their way. Compromise, not force, is used to place
food on your dinner table. The
majority of individual’s wants nothing but the best for everyone, but can only
know how to get the best for themselves.
Working for you is usually categorized as selfishness, but the
individual can only know his or her self, and therefore can only know their
needs. That doesn’t mean their
needs don’t involve helping others, but that charity or business can only be
legitimate when it’s voluntary. In
the ‘we” as a collective, a person can only be helped by others being harmed,
but when “we” are individuals and “we” choose to open our hands then “we” are
deciding to help two individuals:
the one you extend your free open hand to, and yourself. There is a moral benefit for the
individual when helping somebody who needs it. There is absolutely no moral benefit in your labor being
forced from you and given freely away by the decision of another.
“We”
as a collective is a bedtime story.
It is a creation. It is a
narrative. The
“we” of the collective is owned and operated by the
politician. “We” are seen as
cattle, herded left and right, with the only outcome of all our woes and all
that is fought for being a couple of politician’s names remembered or a couple
of fat paychecks being handed out.
It is a lifetime of money being showered upon a person if they made the
correct, corrupt decisions for their career while in government. The “we” of the politician is the “we”
of division. The separation of
party or team is a separation not made of many ideas or even simple philosophy;
it is the separation of set packages made up of mandates and force. It is the “we” of one way or the
other. The “we” of the politician
is one of segregation. It is the
“we” of separate rights between blacks, gays, woman, etc., and never the rights
of the individual. “We” are on
nation, united, unless of course we’re not.
There is no law in the world of the
collective “we.” Constitutions are
just words on paper to throw around so that by the time they hit the ears of the
collective, they have lost all meaning.
There are no rules here, only rulers with special powers. The “we” is “them,” not “us.” The law is their protection because it
is there for them to manipulate.
The real divide that exists is not between you and your neighbor; it is
between them and us, rulers and ruled.
They are not here to free you.
They are not here to protect you.
They are not here to save you.
They are here to protect the narrative. As long as they do, the bad ending that comes with every
story they create will mean absolutely nothing, because the narrative has
already been set in place.
“We” will always win no matter how
much we actually lose.
No comments:
Post a Comment