[ This post was originally intended to be nothing more than a reply to post "It Has Begun (http://freemarketthought.blogspot.com/2008/12/it-has-begun.html)," but ultimately I felt that these ideas deserved some objective attention; a chance in the infinitely populated world of thought. The action of the poster in posting the post that this argument was originally a response to is precisely proof of the argument itself, and it is because it is proof of this argument that the argument I attempt to make is, I believe, relevant.

It is my hope here that the ideas that I present, those that I am accountable for, foster, in the very least an uncertain but positive, purpose for others. In some sense this particular mode of sharing thought enables full, unrestricted participation and response-ability (for obvious reasons, here we should not focus our explicit attention on the sense that doesn't. However, I do not wish to do any injustice to any and all individuals by disregarding a sense of interaction and response-ability that is arguably necessary to the (non)being of each and every individual, which is apparently lacking in this particular form of communication).

In the light that this form of "discussion" enables a certain sense of an unrestricted ability to respond, I invite you to respond with your own account not necessarily of the accounts described and borne within this text specifically, but of any other account as it relates to liberty and freedom for both the individual and the group. I believe that through discussion (as positive interaction) we can, as ourselves, as individuals, and as a whole, formulate a working ideology of progressive, and positive change for ourselves, for individuals, and for a whole. In this instance I do not mean to presuppose change as necessary, but rather hope to invite and encourage the possibility of active and engaging definition of change itself.

Please excuse (and therefore be forewarned) any aspect of my writing that serves to mystify rather than clarify. In some sense, my analytical tendency always poses the threat of presenting seemingly pointless digressions. But as long as one can establish from these “thoughts-as-they-are” some meaningful relation of ideas, then a positive purpose is served (even if the relation that is made is itself perceived as negative).

If anything, respond. The very heart of this particular smattering of thought beats through the processed breath of an atmosphere that is formed by the ability to respond. I am that which breathes. There is no issue without response. Responsibility – conscious recognition and interpretation of response-ability – determines the issue, not the opposite.

Without further digression, my response to the article posted is as follows: ]





Shit. Soon we'll be housing the (our) oppressors - a modern-day Quartering Act - as if we hadn't been already.

Currently, as victims of the search for unattainable satisfaction, as objects of the distancing of (un)satisfaction so as to avoid its acknowledgment, at least 130 nations have come to bear an imposed military presence that is manifest of this unattainable satisfaction. At present, billions of dollars (and most importantly life and freedom) are being spent by a government, obviously disconnected from those it governs, towards a [personally defined] means to an end that has proved itself, what appears to be, so far unattainable.

The common conception of government held by the “general public” is no doubt comfortably resting somewhere in the realms of magical, removed. Almost an enigma, government is perceived as necessary in some certain sense, but without the need or room for the habitual, natural analysis and consideration of its end and function by those that are supposedly meant to give it meaning and purpose.

In some sense it is understandable how the citizens of a governing "body" that legislates militaristic command and action at its own discretion, in a nation that supposedly stands for and represents the very opposite, would not be aware of, and therefore, not feel responsible for this annihilation of liberty of those "others" who inhabit a nation with borders that exist outside the realm of their own, the others whose borders come to signify and mark the location of the unapproved, and in an important sense unacknowledged, action of individuals under the guise of “government” as being a fact to all others as illusory. In some way its okay to say here that there’s no permission without asking and that the government did not, in fact, ask. But the government shouldn’t have to ask. There should be no question of asking. Not in the sense that “government” dominates individuals and is the arbiter in all matters, but on the contrary, in the sense that government (albeit possibly only ideally) is the product that, because it works both for, and on behalf of the citizens which define it, is directly representative of each and all those individuals that are affected by its definition.

This of course draws a discussion about the role and purpose of the citizen in interaction with his government (ultimately himself in a sense). In remembering the structure of the constitutional republic after which we have originally intended our country to be modeled, the interaction described above necessitates a sense in which the individual citizen is responsible for himself, his fellow citizens, and his government.

Naturally, the citizens who posit and understand what is their government as some uninterpretable but necessary fact concede that they have no effect on their government, but only that government has an effect on them. Government becomes representation alienated. In this case it is the citizen that does give government its power, but it is not through manipulation (in a positive sense that it denotes an understanding of, for the protection of freedom and liberty and progress towards those ends) that the power is given, but rather through submission.

This inescapable individual responsibility of the citizen who is a necessary part of a nation that is in its foundation the supposition that it was directly modeled on (and still is accountable for) aspects of a representative government that exists and functions under the interpretation of representation, not as an alienation, but a unification, certainly implies also in all citizens (thus, in each citizen) a type of responsibility for the mode of his government’s action.

What I mean is that, simply and ultimately, this responsibility on the subjective level requires active participation. Through interaction a “temporary ethics” can be derived, generally agreed upon, usually unique to a particular epoch (do the ethics define the epoch, or does the epoch define the ethics?), but never a concrete, determinate (if you will) ethics that is either always or instantly universally applicable. Again, here I do not wish to digress into, or instigate a discussion on the nature of ethics beyond which the term directly (and admittedly, vaguely) applies to this particular discussion.

The individual who experiences a wanting, a longing even, for participation without responsibility in a system that in itself depends on both is sure to achieve at best a false sense of participation. This false participation cannot ever satisfy simply because it is false. It never serves to demystify that which it is participant of. Rather, it is a crucial part of the mystification itself. It serves only to ensure the inevitable presence of the mystical. False participation will not cease to haunt the individual who lives it. He is reminded of it in his every day actions. Even those aspects of life that are least influenced by this mystified government always remind him of it. It is necessary in one sense to his particular mode of “participation” in that it defines the ways in which he can participate but constantly reminding him through this participation that he really cannot participate. Any possible upsurge of questioning is stifled in false participation. For questioning requires a sturdy foundation on which to question: responsibility. This foundation of questioning in responsibility requires that before the questioning of any empirical knowledge can begin, one must accept the pretences on which empirical knowledge can be questioned. .....

The acceptance of responsibility is the crux of an individual who exists amongst a world of social interaction (which is what makes “government” is necessary). This is simply because that individual becomes accountable. His views, his choices, they define him. He recognizes this fact in others. The responsible individual, or citizen, does not experience government as mystification the way that one who lives under the premise of false participation inevitably does. The individual who accepts responsibility feels a sense in which his participation means everything precisely because he is consciously participating. Participating in the sense that he attempts to consider all aspects of an act, posited or factual, past, present, or future and its relationships to freedom. All actions ultimately have inexhaustible implications. What is significant of responsibility is not the quantity of effects considered, but the facticity of consideration above all else.

False participation is not distinguished from genuine participation based simply on a certain level of empirical knowledge of government. In fact, as has been established above, empirical knowledge cannot be considered in absence of some type of participation. Government knowledge and socio-political awareness are ultimately notions derived from subjective interpretation of empirical knowledge. As there must occur an instance in everyone’s life where at least some (if not all) objects of consciousness are at some point “mystified,” or made “unclear,” in ways not by any means unfamiliar to the apparent “mystification” of government in public conception. That is, generally speaking, the majority of the population has a conception and perception of “government” that is more mystified than solidified. In a sense, everything needs solid ground upon which to build; a point of evolution, an end towards which one can project action. From conceptualizing government as mystical, all thought of or about that government is also in some sense mystical. It possess a mystical quality simply because it never fails to remind of the mystery. As established above, any act of false participation is consumed by the mystery, thus can never elude it. But that is not entirely true. One can choose how they will participate. False participation does not deny all forms of reflection.

Falling closer back to Earth, this mystification of government by the false participant - the constant recognition through daily action and interaction of alienation from a necessary “structure” that contains and enforces “law” that governs, and also that the structure necessarily alienates; a realization of irrelevance for government that results in irrelevance for self – are precisely the terms in which the individual can find motivation and accept responsibility, become a participant, become accountable. It is precisely from this standpoint that one can recognize a situation in which one is, in terms of freedom, importantly related to government. This realized situation forever gives birth to choice. Through scrutinizing the positing of this alternative situation the individual is sometimes given a glimpse responsibility – not meaning that one is irresponsible for failing to reach that particular end, rather that one at all times has a choice to act in accordance with that particular goal as an end. At any given instant the possibility of facticity of that particular goal’s achievement at some point in the future is in a way meaningless. It is the choice of action in the present that reflects the particular end, regardless of the achievement of that end. This does not intend to ignore the undeniable positivities that result from achievement, especially, and certainly, when that achievement is reached by a responsible project. But achievement, no matter what kind is ultimately always unsatisfactory. However, taking responsibility for the approach to (un)satisfaction can be arguably stated as achieving the closest state to “true” satisfaction.

Assuming responsibility can be considered a task that is both “easy” and “hard” depending on the perspective of which it is assumed. However, it is certainly clear how false participation can be observed as the “easier” approach of the two. This is because the false participant can still exist alongside the responsible, must exist alongside the responsible by virtue of participation – that is the common denominator here – so in an external sense does not feel, at least in terms of government, any more limited than the responsible individual in the ability to respond. However, from the perspective of the responsible individual there exists an apparent limit to the ability in which the false participant truly responds. But the responsible one can never impose that trait on another individual. That would be against its very nature. An individual has to choose, in this case, and if not in all cases, responsibility. And with responsibility comes realization of choice, or responsible choice. But again freedom, participation, and accountability are not qualities that once adopted or represented in action are established indefinitely, they must constantly be reaffirmed. And that is ultimate responsibility.

So to reiterate, in some way it is understandable the instance of “self-governed government” springing forth from the very same identity that was originally supposed as an example for freedom and liberty and representative government in its purest sense. It is these particular values – freedom, liberty, and government by the people, for the people – on which this country was founded almost 300 years ago. We seem to forget that this association can be made only with the conception of our country as it was in its infancy. To describe the country as it is today in the same light and manner one does when conceptualizing it as it originally were is a distinct act of false participation. It’s evidently quite arguable based on empirical fact that our country has deviated significantly in ideology and practice from that of our country’s founders. We’ve trained ourselves, just as much as we have been trained, to not genuinely participate. To become both temporarily and permanently satisfied with pseudo-participation within a matrix. We must accept responsibility. We are human beings. Likewise, so are all those who keep government “alive” through thinking it, being it, participating in it. We make it. Why do we as human beings seem disposed in some way to thickening the fogs of mystery for ourselves?

The negative presence of our military is lived directly by millions of individuals each day. Still one rarely, it seems, ever attempts to see from the perspective of those other civilians, other citizens. They pose no threat to us, the way our government wants us to believe, those citizens of other nations but of our same status as human. But false participation accounts for their lack of consideration by the very community they are a part of. It’s of no direct concern to any one of us.

Not until we’ve got those who are determined to enforce a certain concept freedom, distinguishable as such simply because it was in the past, enforcing on those of its own country who are supposed to be free! We can and must acknowledge, without also bearing a shame that is discouraging to action, the inherent selfishness implied in not recognizing the freedoms of others become jeopardized by an entity that we are associated with until that entity (that is in some sense ours) poses the very same threat to our own freedom. We can realize now a situation in which freedom is equivalent in its meaning for all humans. We can as a people reconcile the necessity of this freedom and the eternal importance of establishing it as fact for all individuals.

We must act now. If at this moment we recognize such limitations on responsibility, one can also imagine the limits a total military state could impose. Though, what if it takes a scenario such as the one forewarned in the news article? Are we consumed by materialism, 21st century distractions, or by mystification, alienation, and fear? Materialism is in effect an excuse for false participation. Involvement and consideration don’t imply abandoning a convenience, even in a material sense. In fact, involvement ultimately creates a sense of convenience. There is absolutely no reason to have faith in the individual who acts under the pretenses of false participation, just as there is no reason to have faith in one who is at this moment responsible. That is the nature of the definition of responsibility.

It’s not a question of teaching responsibility directly, of being able to change the outlook or perspective of the individual. Only the individual can change himself. Those responsible can adopt the task of creating situations for those who participate falsely that serve to demystify concepts such as government and freedom through enabling the ability of response. The effort must necessarily be grassroots, all the way down to the single root that is the individual. Humans must encourage responsibility in every, and all other human.

Without adoption of responsibility we will continue as people, as humans, to be stomped on, crushed, annihilated, by those other humans who live falsely in power with the guise of language and its resulting concepts, such as “government.” We will be denied all forms of response. We will be denied. Our individual cessation is of no concern to its cause, for that cause in its very nature denies responsibility for any of its ends.

Please respond.

Reproduced here for potential discussion. I really hope that discussion will not alienate. Criticism and critique are crucial, but they do not have to imply alienation or the inability to respond.