The wit and wisdom of Obama on: equality and freedom

Ladies and gents, let us gaze in amazement upon the naked ideology of the new ruler of the unfree world.

We also understand that a declaration is not a government; a creed is not enough. The Founders recognized that there were seeds of anarchy in the idea of individual freedom, an intoxicating danger in the idea of equality, for if everyone is truly free, without the constraints of birth or rank or an inherited social order – if my notion of faith is no better or worse than yours, and my notions of truth and goodness and beauty are as true and good and beautiful as yours – then how can we ever hope to form a society that coheres? Enlightenment thinkers like Hobbes and Locke suggested that free men would form governments as a bargain to ensure that one man’s freedom did not become another man’s tyranny; that they would sacrifice individual license to better preserve their liberty. And building on this concept, political theorists writing before the American Revolution concluded that only a democracy could fulfill the need for both freedom and order – a form of government in which those who are governed grant their consent, and the laws constraining liberty are uniform, predictable, and transparent, applying equally to the rulers and the ruled.

Barrack Obama, The Audacity of Hope, pp. 86-87

I personally think that is a very interesting set of statements. It’s very frequent for a politician to lie, but it’s so infrequent for a politician to get something so fundamental so wrong. This passage is beautifully, profoundly wrong.

“We also understand that a declaration is not a government; a creed is not enough.”

So, if we transpose this to the American government, we could say that a Constitution, which is a declaration, a creed, a piece of paper, is “not enough” to conserve a way of life. This is very true, and American history has proven this to be a fact. The rights and freedoms promised by the Constitution by and large no longer exist, because a declaration, a creed, a piece of paper, cannot enforce anything, and cannot stop exploiters like Barrack Obama from seizing power and using it for their own class interests.

“The Founders recognized that there were seeds of anarchy in the idea of individual freedom, an intoxicating danger in the idea of equality, for if everyone is truly free, without the constraints of birth or rank or an inherited social order – if my notion of faith is no better or worse than yours, and my notions of truth and goodness and beauty are as true and good and beautiful as yours – then how can we ever hope to form a society that coheres?”

This is the most beautifully anti-modern, anti-American, anti-freedom statement I have ever read. Here Barrack Obama sounds like an aristocrat straight from a Middle Age King’s court. Has any modern politician’s nonsense ever been more absurd than this sentence? Does Barrack Obama long for the days of curtsies, the Plague, and the idea of people being locked in an economic and social class for their whole lives?

His ghostwriters probably did not put any thought into it apart from a stepping stone in the argument (although he does endorse it, so we can’t declare him innocent of all charges), but in and of itself the statement betrays an at least somewhat disturbed or obsessed mind.

If we look beyond this, all we see is a reworked, wordy version of the argument “without rulers, we’d be in total chaos!” The length of the sentence doesn’t make this a more sophisticated argument. The Anarchist reply is that human beings have generally harmonious social goals: people don’t want to be murdered or stolen from, they don’t want crime in the streets, they don’t want to be destitute, they don’t want tremendous economic disparity, they don’t want to destroy the environment, they want to live in a society where there is fairness and justice. While people will naturally disagree on how to bring these about, I think these desires will be found in pretty much every individual, or at least most individuals, in our society.

If we look at the real-life results, we observe two things. Anarchist societies and organizations tend to foster coherency and responsibility. Democratic societies and organizations tend to foster conflict and irresponsibility (and this is seen nowhere better than in America, the country with the great political divide). I have already discussed why democracy is a source of conflict: because people with differing values and differing opinions as to the method to achieve a better society have to fight each other to have those value effected into society, instead of cooperating with people of like mind and organizing society from the bottom-up.

“Enlightenment thinkers like Hobbes and Locke suggested that free men would form governments as a bargain to ensure that one man’s freedom did not become another man’s tyranny; that they would sacrifice individual license to better preserve their liberty.”

This of course is a complete lie, as no government in the history of mankind has been formed in this manner. They have either been formed as a result of conquest, or as in the case of modern countries like the United States, the use of force, fear and cupidity by prominent exploiters as motivators for the population to accept new rulers. Free men have no interest in forming a government, and have historically not desired such.

Either way, the statement is inconsistent: the process by which “one man’s freedom becomes another man’s tyranny” is a pretty accurate description of government, not of Anarchy. In Anarchy, equality ensures that one man’s freedom does not put other people’s freedom in jeopardy. In statist systems, drastic inequalities of wealth and power ensures the subsistence of economic and social tyranny.

“And building on this concept, political theorists writing before the American Revolution concluded that only a democracy could fulfill the need for both freedom and order – a form of government in which those who are governed grant their consent, and the laws constraining liberty are uniform, predictable, and transparent, applying equally to the rulers and the ruled.”

A government based on consent, with uniform, predictable and transparent laws, which apply equally to the rulers and the ruled: no such government has ever existed in the history of the world, or could possibly exist.

As for the idea that freedom and order must be mediated by such an impossible government, Proudhon said, “freedom is the mother, not the daughter, of order,” and I for one believe that more than I do the lies of politicians. Democracy does not give people freedom or order. Only a system actually based on consent (not a system based on force and indoctrinated acceptance coupled with lack of alternatives), based on people’s values, and based on truth, can bring about freedom and order.