Showing posts with label Tenets of Common Wealth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tenets of Common Wealth. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Entry 88. Unlikely brothers
I consider one of the greatest proofs of the Tenets of Common Wealth to be my friendship today with Fred Masterson. By trying to reason with him instead of cowering in fear, by settling for disarming him after he took the shot instead of returning kill force with kill force, I reached something inside him.
“I thought you were a dangerous lunatic,” Fred told me some time later, an ironic statement if I ever heard one. “A world with no government, sovereign individuals working out their differences without the force of law to compel them – it sounded like an false idea of a utopia just waiting for a strong dictator to swoop in and convince people otherwise. In fact, I was pretty sure you expected to become that dictator.”
“Me?” I said, and apologized immediately for laughing at him.
“Sure. Who better, if anarkhia didn’t work, to be the benevolent dictator who would step in and make it work? You were telling us and showing us how it could work anyway, so you knew we’d turn to you and beg you to become the leader and force us to behave. And if I was wrong, if you weren’t planning to set yourself up, someone else could come forward and say he was taking over because the commonwealth wasn’t working.”
“If I was dead, maybe the consensus would be that we need a government after all.”
“Exactly.”
“What changed your mind, my friend?”
“You called me your friend.”
“Of course, that’s what you are,” I said, confused.
“No. That’s what changed my mind: You took me as your friend, after I tried to kill you and put a hole in your shoulder. I saw no ambition for power in you. You really believe those tenets you talk about all the time.”
“I do,” I admitted. “And if I didn’t treat you with love, if I didn’t respond to your violence with love, if I didn’t give you more than you were willing to give me, we wouldn’t be friends, would we? I believe in those tenets because I’ve seen them work time and again.”
“As have I – now,” Fred Masterson said.
One night not long afterward, I walked the beach near sunset looking across the harbor at the oxygen-nitrogen generator and hearing the distant hum of its machinery, my arm around a beautiful red-haired woman, both her arms around me, and I felt a sudden throb where the slug had gone through my left shoulder. My cry of pain ended with a joyful peal of laughter, knowing I would always carry a reminder of my deep friendship with Fred Masterson – a friendship forged by an errant bullet.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Entry 87. The third time
“Oh! It’s you.”
If Fred Masterson had pulled the trigger at that moment, those would be remembered as my last words, and the historical conversation would be ablaze with speculation about what I meant. Did I know Fred before that moment? Was I aware that an assassin was afoot? Why didn’t I act more surprised? Conspiracy theorists would seize upon it as evidence I knew all about the plot and perhaps even faked my own death, choosing to live out my remaining days in peaceful obscurity.
But somehow, my lack of surprise and seeming acceptance of the moment made Fred Masterson pause, and those would not prove to be my final words.
If my calm kept me alive for a few seconds, I would strive to stay calm until we could get the barrel of the fun pointing somewhere other than the center of my chest.
“Here’s the thing, sir,” I said as cheerfully as I could – which was more cheery than I ever imagined I could be in those circumstances. “You can’t kill an idea. In fact, if you martyr a man who has an idea, you make the idea stronger. If you kill me here, the nonviolent revolution will continue. The commonwealth will go on.”
The assassin hesitated for only a moment. I saw his eyes glaze over with confusion, but they sharpened again almost at once.
“You may be right,” he said with conviction, “but they’ll have to go on without you.”
I had to admit, he had a point. I prepared to die.
Fortunately, John Hemlock and Buffalo Springsteen realized what his answer would be, and they had already sprung when he fired.
They barreled into his body together just as the weapon went off, knocking his aim aside so that instead of blasting a hole in my heart, he blasted a hole through my left shoulder. John Hemlock had saved my life for the third time, this time with the help of my beloved.
I had barely an instant to stare stupidly at the jumble of bodies in front of me, and then the pain receptors in my shoulder connected with my brain.
I have to say, I do not wish to be shot again. Ever.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Entry 83. And afterward
Editor's note: As with all of these posts, this is from the upcoming publication The Imaginary Revolution: Memoirs of Raymond Douglas Kaliber, Founder of the Commonwealth of Sirius 4. This excerpt was chosen in observance of Election Day 2012. The book is scheduled for release Dec. 15, 2012.
With the toppling of Badiah Sinclair and the reigning council, the question – seemingly inevitably – became: What sort of government will we have now?
I hoped my grin did not look too mischievous as I answered the question with my own question.
“Why do we need a government at all?”
With the toppling of Badiah Sinclair and the reigning council, the question – seemingly inevitably – became: What sort of government will we have now?
I hoped my grin did not look too mischievous as I answered the question with my own question.
“Why do we need a government at all?”
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Entry 75. Interact with love (The second tenet)
It is something I believe so strongly that I made it the second essential tenet of my world view: Interact with love, not force or violence.
You make no friends using force or violence; coercion can only silence your enemies, it will not convert them.
Through the years this has not stopped people who have set themselves above the rest of us from using force to impose their will. But while they may have changed the behavior of their subjects by using violence – or a very real threat of violence – they did not affect what was inside those beaten subjects.
All they created were dead enemies – or defeated enemies who avenged violence with violence at the first opportunity. And so the cycle has continued for centuries.
Only love can make a friend; it is that much more powerful than hate. Deploying love takes patience, forgiveness and a discipline that feels counterintuitive and defies human nature at times. But it is the only sure way to resolve a conflict. People respond in kind: Force your will on them, and they will eventually respond with force. Treat people with love and respect – even (or perhaps especially) those who wish you harm – and they will eventually respond with love and respect.
Early on I adopted what a long-ago philosopher called the Zero Aggression Principle – no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor should anyone advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.
I have always believed that a society based on that principle likely would not even need a government to keep the peace or secure liberty. I must confess I never expected I’d have the opportunity in my lifetime to test that theory.
Entry 76
You make no friends using force or violence; coercion can only silence your enemies, it will not convert them.
Through the years this has not stopped people who have set themselves above the rest of us from using force to impose their will. But while they may have changed the behavior of their subjects by using violence – or a very real threat of violence – they did not affect what was inside those beaten subjects.
All they created were dead enemies – or defeated enemies who avenged violence with violence at the first opportunity. And so the cycle has continued for centuries.
Only love can make a friend; it is that much more powerful than hate. Deploying love takes patience, forgiveness and a discipline that feels counterintuitive and defies human nature at times. But it is the only sure way to resolve a conflict. People respond in kind: Force your will on them, and they will eventually respond with force. Treat people with love and respect – even (or perhaps especially) those who wish you harm – and they will eventually respond with love and respect.
Early on I adopted what a long-ago philosopher called the Zero Aggression Principle – no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor should anyone advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.
I have always believed that a society based on that principle likely would not even need a government to keep the peace or secure liberty. I must confess I never expected I’d have the opportunity in my lifetime to test that theory.
Entry 76
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Entry 61. Hot coals of forgiveness
John Hemlock, more perhaps than any other living soul, understood that removing violence as an option didn’t mean surrendering.
“I get that you’re angry, I get that you want to lash out,” Johnny would tell our audiences. “But you got to get past that, you have to forgive your enemies – that’s the one path to true peace. I don’t mean what they used to call a kumbya peace, a false peace, I mean when you don’t stay up at night with a tummy ache because you hate your enemies so much.”
“What if they’ve killed your brother?” the skeptical would ask, and before the question could even echo off the wall, John would bark back: “Every man is your brother. It’s a family dispute.”
But then that huge face would soften into a whimsical smile. “If you’re having trouble with the forgiveness part, think of this: If you return hate and violence with love and generosity, it’ll drive them nuts. It’ll make them crazy if they think they can’t make you angry. It’ll be as good as dumping hot coals on their head, their brains will explode.” That would usually get people laughing a little, and then he’d add: “The really sweet part is that if you do that often enough and long enough, there really will come a day when they can’t make you angry. It’ll be second nature for you to give love and generosity to everyone, even the people who think they’re your enemies. You’re not treating them with love because it drives them crazy, you’re treating them with love because you love them. At first forgiveness doesn’t change anything except what’s inside you – but if you can stick it out and forgive and forgive and respond with love every time, eventually no one will even want to be your enemy in the first place.”
We made a good one-two punch, John and I, if I may make an analogy that involves a fighting image. He would come on and talk about loving your neighbors in a practical but theoretical sense, and I would extend the theory to the realities of the present day. I knew if we could convince people that nonviolence is the core of a stable but dynamic way of life, we could change the world.
That was why Buffalo’s choice to wage the war in the old-fashioned way – killing Earthians – shook me to the core: Because nonviolence is my core. If I couldn’t convince the woman closest to me that my tenets of common wealth would lead us to a better place, literally a common wealth, how would I convince anyone? I knew the question was silly, I knew my ideas were catching on with people, but I wanted more than anything for her to embrace the concept.
“You’re the one who says we’re each and every one of us unique, and that means we’re not going to see everything the same,” John reminded me. “She’ll come around in her own way, her own time. You guys are soulmates. Half of a soul can’t go one way and the other half completely the other forever.”
“I’m talking about realizing that even Earthians are our neighbors, and she’s off to kill them. That’s pretty much opposite directions,” I said.
“She’ll come around,” he repeated. “You both have this passion for freedom. You’re both absolutely real and unique – like everyone else is, that’s what you say, right? The passion’s taking you different ways now, but you’re going to end up on the same page, I know that. You need to be together, there’s like an aura that surrounds the two of you when you’re together.”
“An aura.”
“Don’t you give me that look, Raymond, I’m telling you I see an aura. It lights you both up. You’re what you call ‘made for each other.’”
“That won’t help much if she gets herself killed,” I said ruefully.
“Hey, seems to me you’re both committed to dying for this cause if that’s what it takes,” John Hemlock said with a big smile. “Buffalo will take care of herself, and I’m here to take care of you.”
Entry 62
“I get that you’re angry, I get that you want to lash out,” Johnny would tell our audiences. “But you got to get past that, you have to forgive your enemies – that’s the one path to true peace. I don’t mean what they used to call a kumbya peace, a false peace, I mean when you don’t stay up at night with a tummy ache because you hate your enemies so much.”
“What if they’ve killed your brother?” the skeptical would ask, and before the question could even echo off the wall, John would bark back: “Every man is your brother. It’s a family dispute.”
But then that huge face would soften into a whimsical smile. “If you’re having trouble with the forgiveness part, think of this: If you return hate and violence with love and generosity, it’ll drive them nuts. It’ll make them crazy if they think they can’t make you angry. It’ll be as good as dumping hot coals on their head, their brains will explode.” That would usually get people laughing a little, and then he’d add: “The really sweet part is that if you do that often enough and long enough, there really will come a day when they can’t make you angry. It’ll be second nature for you to give love and generosity to everyone, even the people who think they’re your enemies. You’re not treating them with love because it drives them crazy, you’re treating them with love because you love them. At first forgiveness doesn’t change anything except what’s inside you – but if you can stick it out and forgive and forgive and respond with love every time, eventually no one will even want to be your enemy in the first place.”
We made a good one-two punch, John and I, if I may make an analogy that involves a fighting image. He would come on and talk about loving your neighbors in a practical but theoretical sense, and I would extend the theory to the realities of the present day. I knew if we could convince people that nonviolence is the core of a stable but dynamic way of life, we could change the world.
That was why Buffalo’s choice to wage the war in the old-fashioned way – killing Earthians – shook me to the core: Because nonviolence is my core. If I couldn’t convince the woman closest to me that my tenets of common wealth would lead us to a better place, literally a common wealth, how would I convince anyone? I knew the question was silly, I knew my ideas were catching on with people, but I wanted more than anything for her to embrace the concept.
“You’re the one who says we’re each and every one of us unique, and that means we’re not going to see everything the same,” John reminded me. “She’ll come around in her own way, her own time. You guys are soulmates. Half of a soul can’t go one way and the other half completely the other forever.”
“I’m talking about realizing that even Earthians are our neighbors, and she’s off to kill them. That’s pretty much opposite directions,” I said.
“She’ll come around,” he repeated. “You both have this passion for freedom. You’re both absolutely real and unique – like everyone else is, that’s what you say, right? The passion’s taking you different ways now, but you’re going to end up on the same page, I know that. You need to be together, there’s like an aura that surrounds the two of you when you’re together.”
“An aura.”
“Don’t you give me that look, Raymond, I’m telling you I see an aura. It lights you both up. You’re what you call ‘made for each other.’”
“That won’t help much if she gets herself killed,” I said ruefully.
“Hey, seems to me you’re both committed to dying for this cause if that’s what it takes,” John Hemlock said with a big smile. “Buffalo will take care of herself, and I’m here to take care of you.”
Entry 62
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Entry 53. The exception or the rule
Freedom not being a topic the Earthian government has much use for, I imagine those last three entries did not go over well on our beloved “home planet.”
Let me be clear: There’s a good reason I put “home planet” between quotation marks. I was born on Sirius 4 and consider this my home planet. I owe Earth no allegiance, nor do I expect anything of Earth except that you let me go my way unimpeded. And more important, if Earthians are content with their system, it is none of my business as long as they no longer attempt to impose it on our planet.
Back to the story of my life.
I suspect those who view Sirius 4 as a special case may have a good point. The independent pioneer spirit of so many of our planet’s people may not be unique in the universe, but it certainly is unusual.
The mentality that drove thousands to emigrate from Earth and seek a place where you can make your own decisions and take responsibility for your own life takes a special kind of person. Such people chafe among those comfortable with being told how to behave and expecting that government meet their every need.
By the time I was born, a number of generations had passed, but they had passed the value of independence and autonomy to their children, along with the sense that we are responsible for our own lives and choices. The planet remained largely untamed, as well, in the sense that people had to build their own lives to be secure. As much as some in government and other far-away venues might want to believe otherwise, if we wanted a certain life we had to make it ourselves, with the help of family, neighbors and friends. By the time we severed our formal ties to the Earthian rulers’ whims, we were quite ready to make our own lives with neither help nor interference from “above.”
The first century and a quarter before the key events of my lifetime, then, were a setting of the stage. In another land, in another world, with another set of pioneers, perhaps our commonwealth might be impossible. Perhaps.
But you will likely never convince me that the instinct to be free, the heady thrill of living the life you created out of your own passion, is not a universal instinct. As I said yesterday and the day before, Sirians and Earthians have the same root genes. We can’t be so very different.
Entry 54
Let me be clear: There’s a good reason I put “home planet” between quotation marks. I was born on Sirius 4 and consider this my home planet. I owe Earth no allegiance, nor do I expect anything of Earth except that you let me go my way unimpeded. And more important, if Earthians are content with their system, it is none of my business as long as they no longer attempt to impose it on our planet.
Back to the story of my life.
I suspect those who view Sirius 4 as a special case may have a good point. The independent pioneer spirit of so many of our planet’s people may not be unique in the universe, but it certainly is unusual.
The mentality that drove thousands to emigrate from Earth and seek a place where you can make your own decisions and take responsibility for your own life takes a special kind of person. Such people chafe among those comfortable with being told how to behave and expecting that government meet their every need.
By the time I was born, a number of generations had passed, but they had passed the value of independence and autonomy to their children, along with the sense that we are responsible for our own lives and choices. The planet remained largely untamed, as well, in the sense that people had to build their own lives to be secure. As much as some in government and other far-away venues might want to believe otherwise, if we wanted a certain life we had to make it ourselves, with the help of family, neighbors and friends. By the time we severed our formal ties to the Earthian rulers’ whims, we were quite ready to make our own lives with neither help nor interference from “above.”
The first century and a quarter before the key events of my lifetime, then, were a setting of the stage. In another land, in another world, with another set of pioneers, perhaps our commonwealth might be impossible. Perhaps.
But you will likely never convince me that the instinct to be free, the heady thrill of living the life you created out of your own passion, is not a universal instinct. As I said yesterday and the day before, Sirians and Earthians have the same root genes. We can’t be so very different.
Entry 54
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Entry 48. Dinner and premonitions
“So how goes the historic independence talks?” I asked Senator Badiah Sinclair as I poured myself another glass of water. The restaurant had the best panned-fried marleye anywhere, captured fresh from Lake Ptolemy, and a good seafood meal always left me relaxed and satisfied.
From the look on Badi’s face I could tell my question was not unexpected but also not terribly welcome. I saw a mixture of frustration and annoyance and even a little embarrassment.
“I’m not sure anymore that these negotiations will bring us independence in our lifetime,” he said bitterly. “The Earthians are playing games with us. They like collecting our taxes enough to placate us with nice words about freedom, but they don’t actually trust us with the tools of freedom and self-determination.”
“That’s what all governments are about in the end, treading that fine line between making people feel free enough but not so free that they actually have control of their own lives,” I suggested.
“Oh, you’ll always need governments to achieve justice and keep the peace,” Badi said. “But Sirius 4 needs to have our own government. I’m beginning to despair we’ll get that without guns and lasers and bombs, though.”
I let him stew a moment to make sure I phrased my response precisely.
“Badi,” I said, “In the end a just society can only be built on voluntary interactions between peaceful people.”
I didn’t think the statement was particularly funny or ignorant, but Badiah snorted dismissively.
“Come on, Ray,” he said. “while we’re at it let’s purge humanity of greed and ambition and, I don’t know, pure evil. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Earthians conjure up some sort of phony incident as an excuse to kill someone, punish us for daring to think we could survive without them.”
“I think almost everyone’s primary motivation is to lead the best life possible and be left alone,” I insisted.
“Almost everyone, that’s right,” Badi said. “You’re always going to need a government for no other reason than to keep the greedy and the selfish from preying on the rest of us.”
“You might be right,” I said, “but wouldn’t it be fun to try? And who better to try it than the pioneer stock we have here on Sirius 4?”
He looked at me as if he had accidentally stumbled into a psychiatric ward occupied by the harmless but completely daft.
“Nice dream, professor,” he said. “But it’s not a theory that would get very far in the real world.”
“Assistant professor,” I said with a grin, and we moved on to less weighty subjects, unaware that we had just roughly outlined the next nine years of our lives.
Entry 49. Like hell
From the look on Badi’s face I could tell my question was not unexpected but also not terribly welcome. I saw a mixture of frustration and annoyance and even a little embarrassment.
“I’m not sure anymore that these negotiations will bring us independence in our lifetime,” he said bitterly. “The Earthians are playing games with us. They like collecting our taxes enough to placate us with nice words about freedom, but they don’t actually trust us with the tools of freedom and self-determination.”
“That’s what all governments are about in the end, treading that fine line between making people feel free enough but not so free that they actually have control of their own lives,” I suggested.
“Oh, you’ll always need governments to achieve justice and keep the peace,” Badi said. “But Sirius 4 needs to have our own government. I’m beginning to despair we’ll get that without guns and lasers and bombs, though.”
I let him stew a moment to make sure I phrased my response precisely.
“Badi,” I said, “In the end a just society can only be built on voluntary interactions between peaceful people.”
I didn’t think the statement was particularly funny or ignorant, but Badiah snorted dismissively.
“Come on, Ray,” he said. “while we’re at it let’s purge humanity of greed and ambition and, I don’t know, pure evil. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Earthians conjure up some sort of phony incident as an excuse to kill someone, punish us for daring to think we could survive without them.”
“I think almost everyone’s primary motivation is to lead the best life possible and be left alone,” I insisted.
“Almost everyone, that’s right,” Badi said. “You’re always going to need a government for no other reason than to keep the greedy and the selfish from preying on the rest of us.”
“You might be right,” I said, “but wouldn’t it be fun to try? And who better to try it than the pioneer stock we have here on Sirius 4?”
He looked at me as if he had accidentally stumbled into a psychiatric ward occupied by the harmless but completely daft.
“Nice dream, professor,” he said. “But it’s not a theory that would get very far in the real world.”
“Assistant professor,” I said with a grin, and we moved on to less weighty subjects, unaware that we had just roughly outlined the next nine years of our lives.
Entry 49. Like hell
Monday, July 16, 2012
Entry 39. Give more than you receive
This is a big universe, and there are essentially two views of it – either it’s growing or shrinking. Newton and the imaginary physicists confused the issue with their statement that matter can’t be created or destroyed, because they overlooked the creative nature of human beings.
A fellow named Wallace D. Wattles shook up the issue in the early Earthian 20th century with a little book called The Science of Growing Rich. He confounded the physicists by claiming there is some kind of creative stuff in the universe, and that by digging your hands into this stuff you could have whatever you want. The problem with saying such stuff exists is that no one has ever seen or handled this stuff.
But metaphorically speaking Wattles had an intriguing thought. Each of us is a new and unique individual with an innate creativity, and so we are creating anew and expanding the universe every day just by being – whether we’re making new thoughts or building new civilizations. In Wattles’ vision of the universe, life is not a zero-sum game because we are each adding our new creations minute by minute to the wealth that has come before.
He wrote:
Give more than you receive.
We are all creative persons, and we each make art every day – whether our art is making furniture or stringing words together or processing waste. Our every action adds value to the universe. If each act is focused on giving, we each receive what we need – and Wattles would say we each receive what we want. Another 20th-Earth-century philosopher put it this way: “You can have anything you want if you help enough other people get what they want.”
Imagine a world with this view of the universe as one of its central tenets, where taking and confiscating and redistribution is not part of the equation because our intentions are all about giving. Perhaps you begin to see why we decided to abandon the old forms.
Entry 40. Conflict of interest
A fellow named Wallace D. Wattles shook up the issue in the early Earthian 20th century with a little book called The Science of Growing Rich. He confounded the physicists by claiming there is some kind of creative stuff in the universe, and that by digging your hands into this stuff you could have whatever you want. The problem with saying such stuff exists is that no one has ever seen or handled this stuff.
But metaphorically speaking Wattles had an intriguing thought. Each of us is a new and unique individual with an innate creativity, and so we are creating anew and expanding the universe every day just by being – whether we’re making new thoughts or building new civilizations. In Wattles’ vision of the universe, life is not a zero-sum game because we are each adding our new creations minute by minute to the wealth that has come before.
He wrote:
You must get rid of the thought of competition. You are to create, not to compete for what is already created.
You do not have to take anything away from any one.
You do not have to drive sharp bargains.
You do not have to cheat, or to take advantage. You do not need to let any man work for you for less than he earns.
You do not have to covet the property of others, or to look at it with wishful eyes; no man has anything of which you cannot have the like, and that without taking what he has away from him.
You are to become a creator, not a competitor; you are going to get what you want, but in such a way that when you get it every other man will have more than he has now.Or, to put it in fewer words, as I did in the third of my Tenets of Common Wealth:
Give more than you receive.
We are all creative persons, and we each make art every day – whether our art is making furniture or stringing words together or processing waste. Our every action adds value to the universe. If each act is focused on giving, we each receive what we need – and Wattles would say we each receive what we want. Another 20th-Earth-century philosopher put it this way: “You can have anything you want if you help enough other people get what they want.”
Imagine a world with this view of the universe as one of its central tenets, where taking and confiscating and redistribution is not part of the equation because our intentions are all about giving. Perhaps you begin to see why we decided to abandon the old forms.
Entry 40. Conflict of interest
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Entry 38. The Nazarene
John Hemlock had a somewhat non-evangelistic approach to evangelical Christianity: He wasn’t as concerned about convincing you to accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior as he was about recommending the resulting lifestyle.
And by lifestyle, he didn’t mean the traditional taboos like not getting drunk or not cheating on your spouse or not using colorful language – he was more focused on the idea of “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
John also completely ignored the stuff about “I am the way and the truth and the light – no one can come to the Father except through me.”
“Hey look, this what works for me; you can go ahead and try any other way of getting to the Father if you’d like, or no way at all if that’s your choice,” Hemlock said. “I’m just tellin’ ya that this seems to be the only one that really works in my life. And the most important thing is dealing with each other with an attitude of love.”
His best example of that attitude was the life of Jesus – a guy who was held up as the savior who was going to lead the revolution that freed his hometown of Nazareth and the surrounding countryside from an empire based 1,400 miles away. They wanted him to be some sort of military hero, but he had something else in mind: “Love your neighbor.”
When the empire came to arrest Jesus, his buddies grabbed their swords and went after the officers – lopped off an ear or two – but he told them to stop and went quietly.
Then he went through a kangaroo court and was executed brutally, all the while talking about forgiveness. There’s some disagreement about what happened after the execution (John insists in literally believing the resurrection story – “otherwise he’s just some historical guy and not still alive, which of course he is”), but there’s no question that he started a movement that’s still going strong two and a half millennia later.
Had he led a military coup and forced his way to freedom, he would have just been another long-forgotten imaginary revolutionist. By concentrating on an internal revolution, Jesus made a lasting change.
“A lot of people have been killed over the years in the name of Christ,” I said to John Hemlock one day.
“Oh, don’t get me started,” he laughed. “The guy laid down a pretty tough foundation when he said ‘Love your enemies.’ A lot of people decided he couldn’t have been serious about that. But he was. And if the guy in front of you is not some damn Earthian who’d just as soon kill ya – if he’s an individual just as deserving of your love as the guy in the mirror – that kind of changes your attitude.”
That internal attitude struck me as a much better – and effective – way to regulate my behavior than an external government. I began to believe a peaceful everyday life could exist without the amorphous, threatening entity we call The State, if we were just willing to try treating each other with love and respect. “Love your neighbor as yourself” became the first of my three Tenets of Common Wealth and the basis of the “real” revolution on Sirius 4.
Entry 39. Give more than you receive
And by lifestyle, he didn’t mean the traditional taboos like not getting drunk or not cheating on your spouse or not using colorful language – he was more focused on the idea of “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
John also completely ignored the stuff about “I am the way and the truth and the light – no one can come to the Father except through me.”
“Hey look, this what works for me; you can go ahead and try any other way of getting to the Father if you’d like, or no way at all if that’s your choice,” Hemlock said. “I’m just tellin’ ya that this seems to be the only one that really works in my life. And the most important thing is dealing with each other with an attitude of love.”
His best example of that attitude was the life of Jesus – a guy who was held up as the savior who was going to lead the revolution that freed his hometown of Nazareth and the surrounding countryside from an empire based 1,400 miles away. They wanted him to be some sort of military hero, but he had something else in mind: “Love your neighbor.”
When the empire came to arrest Jesus, his buddies grabbed their swords and went after the officers – lopped off an ear or two – but he told them to stop and went quietly.
Then he went through a kangaroo court and was executed brutally, all the while talking about forgiveness. There’s some disagreement about what happened after the execution (John insists in literally believing the resurrection story – “otherwise he’s just some historical guy and not still alive, which of course he is”), but there’s no question that he started a movement that’s still going strong two and a half millennia later.
Had he led a military coup and forced his way to freedom, he would have just been another long-forgotten imaginary revolutionist. By concentrating on an internal revolution, Jesus made a lasting change.
“A lot of people have been killed over the years in the name of Christ,” I said to John Hemlock one day.
“Oh, don’t get me started,” he laughed. “The guy laid down a pretty tough foundation when he said ‘Love your enemies.’ A lot of people decided he couldn’t have been serious about that. But he was. And if the guy in front of you is not some damn Earthian who’d just as soon kill ya – if he’s an individual just as deserving of your love as the guy in the mirror – that kind of changes your attitude.”
That internal attitude struck me as a much better – and effective – way to regulate my behavior than an external government. I began to believe a peaceful everyday life could exist without the amorphous, threatening entity we call The State, if we were just willing to try treating each other with love and respect. “Love your neighbor as yourself” became the first of my three Tenets of Common Wealth and the basis of the “real” revolution on Sirius 4.
Entry 39. Give more than you receive
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Entry 31
Neighbors turn up at the widow’s door each with a meal and a hug. A barn burns down, and friends help build a new one. Food pantries are filled, shelter is offered for the homeless, clothing for the naked and shivering.
Neighbors do this, in love and caring. No law was passed, no tax was collected, no agency was created, to force them to help the grieving, the poor, the hungry, the homeless. The need was there, and so they filled it.
We didn’t even need to call it the Commonwealth of Sirius 4, but people wanted to call it something. All it took was people noticing that we got along fine without someone telling us to get along fine.
Entry 32. Hard choices
Neighbors do this, in love and caring. No law was passed, no tax was collected, no agency was created, to force them to help the grieving, the poor, the hungry, the homeless. The need was there, and so they filled it.
We didn’t even need to call it the Commonwealth of Sirius 4, but people wanted to call it something. All it took was people noticing that we got along fine without someone telling us to get along fine.
Entry 32. Hard choices
Friday, July 6, 2012
Entry 29. Change the question
Talking out how the Commonwealth of Sirius 4 could operate was a very interesting exercise – although not as interesting as living it out has proven to be.
We changed the question. No longer did we debate “Is this a proper function of government?” It became “Do you even need to establish a government to perform that function?” The more we talked, the more it became clear that in every case, every function, the answer was no.
With a general agreement in the Zero Aggression Principle, even keeping the peace did not require hiring a security force. Nor did it entail wild shootouts and what used to be called “lawlessness.” Informed and educated adults, it seems, have the ability to police themselves – a concept that defenders of the concept of government found astonishing.
One of the deepest and longest conversations we had was about having a “transition period.” Several respected senators argued that before you can reach the ideal of a society based on liberty and mutual respect, there must be a period of transformation where we are slowly weaned from the coercive government state to a condition of freedom.
“The inequitable advantage the haves gained over the have-nots through the years by the use of government force requires an in-between time where justice is done to these economic criminals,” Senator Gaylord McBride said, and with many eloquent words and arguments.
On the other side there was the matter of the tenets that I proposed we use as a supplement to the concept of zero aggression, starting with “Love your neighbor as yourself.” There was much resistance to the thought that our neighbors include our one-time enemies and oppressors. How can we forgive these people? I made a breakthrough when I pointed out that forgiveness carries no obligation to continue to do business with these people. No one is forced to buy their products or services anymore – the coercion is lifted.
In the end there was mutual agreement – we could not have proceeded without mutual agreement, of course, that was the whole idea – that the “haves” who gamed the coercive system had already received justice through the violent, imaginary revolution and the actual revolution that followed, and the “haves” who earned what they had by selling quality products and services to the rest of us had received justice by becoming wealthy.
This turned out to be an incentive for quite a number of people, who once manipulated the laws for their own purposes, to start making an honest living.
The “transition period” lasted a matter of days, if that. I was able to use the circumstances of my arrest and trial as a perfect example of what I was advocating.
My editors have intervened at this point. They have been patient as I jump back and forth in time writing this memoir, but they argue that expanding on my point about the trial would constitute a “spoiler,” giving away an essential detail about my life before the reader knows many other essential foundational and background details. I have argued that no one will be interested in reading my memoir who is not already familiar with my life, but I yield to their concern.
Entry 30. After winter
We changed the question. No longer did we debate “Is this a proper function of government?” It became “Do you even need to establish a government to perform that function?” The more we talked, the more it became clear that in every case, every function, the answer was no.
With a general agreement in the Zero Aggression Principle, even keeping the peace did not require hiring a security force. Nor did it entail wild shootouts and what used to be called “lawlessness.” Informed and educated adults, it seems, have the ability to police themselves – a concept that defenders of the concept of government found astonishing.
One of the deepest and longest conversations we had was about having a “transition period.” Several respected senators argued that before you can reach the ideal of a society based on liberty and mutual respect, there must be a period of transformation where we are slowly weaned from the coercive government state to a condition of freedom.
“The inequitable advantage the haves gained over the have-nots through the years by the use of government force requires an in-between time where justice is done to these economic criminals,” Senator Gaylord McBride said, and with many eloquent words and arguments.
On the other side there was the matter of the tenets that I proposed we use as a supplement to the concept of zero aggression, starting with “Love your neighbor as yourself.” There was much resistance to the thought that our neighbors include our one-time enemies and oppressors. How can we forgive these people? I made a breakthrough when I pointed out that forgiveness carries no obligation to continue to do business with these people. No one is forced to buy their products or services anymore – the coercion is lifted.
In the end there was mutual agreement – we could not have proceeded without mutual agreement, of course, that was the whole idea – that the “haves” who gamed the coercive system had already received justice through the violent, imaginary revolution and the actual revolution that followed, and the “haves” who earned what they had by selling quality products and services to the rest of us had received justice by becoming wealthy.
This turned out to be an incentive for quite a number of people, who once manipulated the laws for their own purposes, to start making an honest living.
The “transition period” lasted a matter of days, if that. I was able to use the circumstances of my arrest and trial as a perfect example of what I was advocating.
My editors have intervened at this point. They have been patient as I jump back and forth in time writing this memoir, but they argue that expanding on my point about the trial would constitute a “spoiler,” giving away an essential detail about my life before the reader knows many other essential foundational and background details. I have argued that no one will be interested in reading my memoir who is not already familiar with my life, but I yield to their concern.
Entry 30. After winter
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Special entry: Independence Day
EDITOR’S NOTE: On this anniversary of an important Earthian event involving liberty, we present Ray Kaliber’s most famous speech, delivered in S4Y 147 on the occasion of the formal dissolution of the Sirian government and the establishment of the Commonwealth of Sirius 4. Kaliber’s memoirs, presented in the order in which he wrote them, will resume Thursday.
It is customary on giving a speech to open by listing all of the titles in the audience. You know, “Friends, Romans, countrymen,” or “members of Congress, senators, Supreme Court justices, distinguished guests and last but not least, citizens of this great nation.” Or some such.
And so let me begin with the only title that makes sense in this new commonwealth adventure that we embark upon today:
Friends.
Our planet has been through a few changes since it was first colonized these 147 years ago. The encampment became a settlement, and the settlement became an important base of operations for humanity’s exploration of the stars.
With the importance of the colony came a certain desire to control the colonists. But colonists by nature contain a certain will and independence, and we strained at the bit of governance. Just shy of a decade ago, long after the control became a tyranny too much to bear, the free and independent state of Sirius IV was declared, and we were forced into a revolution of blood to secure that freedom. My lifelong friend Badiah Sinclair was the leader of that revolution, and he was the natural choice to lead our new civilization.
However. A wise and ancient song about revolution concludes with the ominous words, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” As glorious and welcome as our newfound freedom was, the truth about violence is that it can only beget violence. Badi Sinclair led our new government the only way he understood how to govern: by force. An all-too-familiar pattern emerged: For the greater good, liberty had to be restrained. Somehow the fruits of those who rule for the greater good are not always, well, very good.
It was an imaginary revolution. All we had succeeded in doing was to install a new boss who was, in too many ways, the same as the old boss. We soon needed a new revolution, a revolution befitting the reality of Sirius IV: We are 8.6 light years away from the governments that rule Earth, and we need to be light years away from the violent tyrannies that have dominated over the centuries 8.6 light years away.
We had a chance to re-establish the ways that human beings interact, reflecting the independent and pioneering spirit that brought us here. We depend upon each other, but we respect and trust each other, too. The creed that I suggested has served us well so far — it led us to this moment, today — although I must concede that we have only just begun.
But let us embark on a bold experiment in humanity based on these tenets: Love your neighbor as yourself. Interact with love, not force or violence. Give more than you receive.
Love your neighbor. A simple concept that somehow remains revolutionary millenia after it was first said. Perhaps it’s because of the first corrolary of that concept: The person you consider your enemy is also your neighbor.
Way back on planet Earth, in the year 1886, a very wise man named Benjamin Tucker put it this way: “It is because peaceful agitation and passive resistance are, in Liberty’s hands, weapons more deadly to tyranny than any others that I uphold them, and it is because brute force strengthens tyranny that I condemn it. War and authority are companions; peace and liberty are companions. The methods and necessities of war involve arbitrary discipline and dictatorship. So-called ‘war measures’ are almost always violations of rights. Even war for liberty is sure to breed the spirit of authority, with aftereffects unforeseen and incalculable.” And we saw that barely a year after our imaginary revolution was won.
So I suggest, in our new world, we throw off the shackles of war and authority over our neighbors. I propose we offer each other only love, peace and the liberty to be different from one another — making this offer even to our adversaries, even to those we have considered or may still consider to be our enemies.
If returning hatred with kindness still makes you uneasy even after the victory we won with our nonviolent revolution, think of what an ancient writer suggested: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals [of shame] on his head.” Your love will pain him more than your hatred ever would.
Don’t waste time rewarding hate with hate. If someone wants to hate you, well, fine, you have no control over that anyway — but you do have control over how you react to that hate. If you choose love, you shame your enemy and perhaps, perhaps, you turn an enemy into a friend someday.
Interact with love, not force or violence. You make no friends by force or violence; coercion can only silence your enemies, it will not convert them. A dead enemy, or a vanquished enemy staring at you with pure hatred and waiting for a chance to return violence with violence, is still an enemy. Only love can make a friend; it is that much more powerful than hate.
Give more than you receive. Bakers have always understood this. When someone asks for a dozen, the baker gives 13. When someone asks you for a favor, give two. The more you give, the more you will receive back, because it’s basic to our nature to want to return a kindness. But don’t give more because you expect something back; give more than you receive because you love your neighbor.
Love your neighbor as yourself. Interact with love, not force or violence. Give more than you receive.
I’m not telling you to do this. If I force you to abide by these tenets but you don’t believe them, it is just another imaginary revolution. I propose no new government to enforce these principles, because government is an instrument of force (the word is “enforce,” after all, isn’t it?)
Let’s build a world on these principles. I firmly believe this is the best and most proper way to ensure our common wealth in this incredible place where our great-grandparents sought to start a new corner of civilization in the universe.
This is the place where the great political orators would say something like “History will say this is the day when the Commonwealth of Sirius 4 took its first great step forward.” But although I am a historian by profession, I’m not terribly interested in history except not repeat its worst mistakes. I know I can’t control what future historians will say about this day, although I do hope they take note that it was a beautiful day filled with sunshine.
All that I can control are my own actions right here, and right now. And right here and now, I pledge that I will continue to live by these tenets. As sure as the three tenets of imaginary physics enabled us to travel vast distances faster than we ever believed possible, I think these three tenets will enable us to live and thrive more quickly than we imagined.
So I pledge I will love my neighbor as myself. I will interact with love. And I will give more than I receive. Let’s make that the foundation of our commonwealth.
Entry 28. Licenses and fees
It is customary on giving a speech to open by listing all of the titles in the audience. You know, “Friends, Romans, countrymen,” or “members of Congress, senators, Supreme Court justices, distinguished guests and last but not least, citizens of this great nation.” Or some such.
And so let me begin with the only title that makes sense in this new commonwealth adventure that we embark upon today:
Friends.
Our planet has been through a few changes since it was first colonized these 147 years ago. The encampment became a settlement, and the settlement became an important base of operations for humanity’s exploration of the stars.
With the importance of the colony came a certain desire to control the colonists. But colonists by nature contain a certain will and independence, and we strained at the bit of governance. Just shy of a decade ago, long after the control became a tyranny too much to bear, the free and independent state of Sirius IV was declared, and we were forced into a revolution of blood to secure that freedom. My lifelong friend Badiah Sinclair was the leader of that revolution, and he was the natural choice to lead our new civilization.
However. A wise and ancient song about revolution concludes with the ominous words, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” As glorious and welcome as our newfound freedom was, the truth about violence is that it can only beget violence. Badi Sinclair led our new government the only way he understood how to govern: by force. An all-too-familiar pattern emerged: For the greater good, liberty had to be restrained. Somehow the fruits of those who rule for the greater good are not always, well, very good.
It was an imaginary revolution. All we had succeeded in doing was to install a new boss who was, in too many ways, the same as the old boss. We soon needed a new revolution, a revolution befitting the reality of Sirius IV: We are 8.6 light years away from the governments that rule Earth, and we need to be light years away from the violent tyrannies that have dominated over the centuries 8.6 light years away.
We had a chance to re-establish the ways that human beings interact, reflecting the independent and pioneering spirit that brought us here. We depend upon each other, but we respect and trust each other, too. The creed that I suggested has served us well so far — it led us to this moment, today — although I must concede that we have only just begun.
But let us embark on a bold experiment in humanity based on these tenets: Love your neighbor as yourself. Interact with love, not force or violence. Give more than you receive.
Love your neighbor. A simple concept that somehow remains revolutionary millenia after it was first said. Perhaps it’s because of the first corrolary of that concept: The person you consider your enemy is also your neighbor.
Way back on planet Earth, in the year 1886, a very wise man named Benjamin Tucker put it this way: “It is because peaceful agitation and passive resistance are, in Liberty’s hands, weapons more deadly to tyranny than any others that I uphold them, and it is because brute force strengthens tyranny that I condemn it. War and authority are companions; peace and liberty are companions. The methods and necessities of war involve arbitrary discipline and dictatorship. So-called ‘war measures’ are almost always violations of rights. Even war for liberty is sure to breed the spirit of authority, with aftereffects unforeseen and incalculable.” And we saw that barely a year after our imaginary revolution was won.
So I suggest, in our new world, we throw off the shackles of war and authority over our neighbors. I propose we offer each other only love, peace and the liberty to be different from one another — making this offer even to our adversaries, even to those we have considered or may still consider to be our enemies.
If returning hatred with kindness still makes you uneasy even after the victory we won with our nonviolent revolution, think of what an ancient writer suggested: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals [of shame] on his head.” Your love will pain him more than your hatred ever would.
Don’t waste time rewarding hate with hate. If someone wants to hate you, well, fine, you have no control over that anyway — but you do have control over how you react to that hate. If you choose love, you shame your enemy and perhaps, perhaps, you turn an enemy into a friend someday.
Interact with love, not force or violence. You make no friends by force or violence; coercion can only silence your enemies, it will not convert them. A dead enemy, or a vanquished enemy staring at you with pure hatred and waiting for a chance to return violence with violence, is still an enemy. Only love can make a friend; it is that much more powerful than hate.
Give more than you receive. Bakers have always understood this. When someone asks for a dozen, the baker gives 13. When someone asks you for a favor, give two. The more you give, the more you will receive back, because it’s basic to our nature to want to return a kindness. But don’t give more because you expect something back; give more than you receive because you love your neighbor.
Love your neighbor as yourself. Interact with love, not force or violence. Give more than you receive.
I’m not telling you to do this. If I force you to abide by these tenets but you don’t believe them, it is just another imaginary revolution. I propose no new government to enforce these principles, because government is an instrument of force (the word is “enforce,” after all, isn’t it?)
Let’s build a world on these principles. I firmly believe this is the best and most proper way to ensure our common wealth in this incredible place where our great-grandparents sought to start a new corner of civilization in the universe.
This is the place where the great political orators would say something like “History will say this is the day when the Commonwealth of Sirius 4 took its first great step forward.” But although I am a historian by profession, I’m not terribly interested in history except not repeat its worst mistakes. I know I can’t control what future historians will say about this day, although I do hope they take note that it was a beautiful day filled with sunshine.
All that I can control are my own actions right here, and right now. And right here and now, I pledge that I will continue to live by these tenets. As sure as the three tenets of imaginary physics enabled us to travel vast distances faster than we ever believed possible, I think these three tenets will enable us to live and thrive more quickly than we imagined.
So I pledge I will love my neighbor as myself. I will interact with love. And I will give more than I receive. Let’s make that the foundation of our commonwealth.
Entry 28. Licenses and fees
Friday, June 29, 2012
Entry 23
A few mornings after Buffalo challenged my reluctance to use lethal force against any human being – even someone with no compunction about using lethal force against me – I walked that beach and found myself overwhelmed by the beauty of the water, the orange mist hanging over the generator in the distance, the birds and other animals enjoying a warm, comfortable day.
I was filled with the simple joy of being alive and reflected on all the years I have lived so far, and all the years that could lie ahead – the thousands of days, countless experiences that shape a single man.
I imagined those countless experiences multiplied by billions of human beings on a half-dozen planets, each of them unique and irreplaceable.
Who am I to steal those years, all that life, from another?
No, I have no right to deprive anyone of that precious gift, not even someone who hates me so much they would steal it from me.
 |
| The author's note that grew into this entry |
I missed her. I realized how important it had become that she understand. And that made me feel even more alive.
Entry 24. Hemlock's offer
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Entry 14
Thirty-five dead. Thirty-five lives. Thirty-five varied collections of hopes, dreams, triumphs, disappointments. Thirty-five stories. Countless grieving friends and family members.
And I understood the power of rage. Nearly my entire being wanted to find a weapon – any weapon, a stick or a rock would do fine – find my oldest and dearest friend, good old Badi, strike him in the head, again and again, keep striking until there was nothing left but a bloody, dead mass.
Somewhere, deep down, I knew that if I did that, 35 lives would be wasted. And Badiah would die knowing that he had won.
My only choice was to forgive the unforgiveable, to fight through the rage and give more than I receive. Not give back more death than I received – give more of what I fight with than any purveyor of death can possibly resist.
The time when loving your neighbor is most important is when there is every reason not to love.
Entry 15. A man and a thinker
And I understood the power of rage. Nearly my entire being wanted to find a weapon – any weapon, a stick or a rock would do fine – find my oldest and dearest friend, good old Badi, strike him in the head, again and again, keep striking until there was nothing left but a bloody, dead mass.
Somewhere, deep down, I knew that if I did that, 35 lives would be wasted. And Badiah would die knowing that he had won.
My only choice was to forgive the unforgiveable, to fight through the rage and give more than I receive. Not give back more death than I received – give more of what I fight with than any purveyor of death can possibly resist.
The time when loving your neighbor is most important is when there is every reason not to love.
Entry 15. A man and a thinker
Friday, June 15, 2012
Entry 9. Tenets
As long as we’re getting the basics out of the way, let’s talk about my Tenets of Common Wealth. Truth be known, I based them on the Tenets of Imaginary Physics – three short statements that sum up all you need to know about the way the universe works.
1. The power of the imagination is unlimited.
2. Matter still can’t be created or destroyed.
3. What’s done is done.
In my studies of history and nonviolent cooperation, I boiled down my philosophy into three short statements that sum up all you need to know about a successful peace. To make the analogy downright obvious, I named them the Tenets of Common Wealth.
1. Love your neighbor as yourself.
2. Interact with love — not force or violence.
3. Give more than you receive.
We’ll get into more detail as we go along, but everything I have said and done, and everything that led to this experiment that became the Commonwealth of Sirius 4, pretty much boils down to those three tenets.
Entry 10
1. The power of the imagination is unlimited.
2. Matter still can’t be created or destroyed.
3. What’s done is done.
In my studies of history and nonviolent cooperation, I boiled down my philosophy into three short statements that sum up all you need to know about a successful peace. To make the analogy downright obvious, I named them the Tenets of Common Wealth.
1. Love your neighbor as yourself.
2. Interact with love — not force or violence.
3. Give more than you receive.
We’ll get into more detail as we go along, but everything I have said and done, and everything that led to this experiment that became the Commonwealth of Sirius 4, pretty much boils down to those three tenets.
Entry 10
Monday, June 11, 2012
Entry 5. That word ‘commonwealth’
Words are tricky. When I tried to describe how I believed we should progress moving forward, people kept trying to apply words that had centuries of baggage attached. They asked: Will this be a democracy? A republic? What do we call this? And all of the words we've used before seemed inadequate.
The word anarchy, especially, was adopted from the beginning by assassins and the like, people who used violence to attempt to overturn or otherwise throw a monkey wrench into the works of government.
In its original sense, of course, the word was perfect, rooted in the Greek anarkhia, which means “lack of a leader, the state of people without a government.” It need not take violence to convince people to live together, as we proved. In its most basic sense, a government is an instrument of force, and in its original sense the word anarchy means the absence of that force.
But after all these years, declaring that Sirius 4 would be an anarchy would have suggested to many people that we were writing the description of our new society in blood, even after all that happened to reach this point. And in any case we needed to find a word that meant more than the lack of something, even as positive a development as building a world without the tyranny that inevitably is government.
Most likely the best result would have been coining a new word, but when embarking on new paths people take some comfort in an echo of the familiar. And so I landed on “commonwealth.” Yes, many governments have assumed that title over the years, but I meant the word in a different sense.
A free world is a wealthy world, and we have a common access to that wealth, guided by the principle that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate the initiation of force. Thus, “the common wealth of Sirius 4.”
Of course, commonwealth is still imprecise because of the baggage attached to that word “common.” Someone no doubt will eventually argue that for the “common good,” we all must be forced to take some action. No: The person who is coerced to do something remains unconvinced.
In turning down a title or an office – and in pointing out that no one need hold a title or an office for this to work – I tried to clarify that this commonwealth is not a state, and that anyone may take a leadership role for any project so long as its implementation doesn’t involve coercion.
Humans have been accomplishing great things over the years by convincing each other to do great things together. I proposed that we leave each other alone to do great things without forcing anyone to follow our path, each of us free to live our lives as long as we don’t infringe on our neighbors’ freedom.
It’s an easy concept that takes some getting used to, after centuries of the other. But it’s working out so far.
Entry 6. Buffalo Springsteen
The word anarchy, especially, was adopted from the beginning by assassins and the like, people who used violence to attempt to overturn or otherwise throw a monkey wrench into the works of government.
In its original sense, of course, the word was perfect, rooted in the Greek anarkhia, which means “lack of a leader, the state of people without a government.” It need not take violence to convince people to live together, as we proved. In its most basic sense, a government is an instrument of force, and in its original sense the word anarchy means the absence of that force.
But after all these years, declaring that Sirius 4 would be an anarchy would have suggested to many people that we were writing the description of our new society in blood, even after all that happened to reach this point. And in any case we needed to find a word that meant more than the lack of something, even as positive a development as building a world without the tyranny that inevitably is government.
Most likely the best result would have been coining a new word, but when embarking on new paths people take some comfort in an echo of the familiar. And so I landed on “commonwealth.” Yes, many governments have assumed that title over the years, but I meant the word in a different sense.
A free world is a wealthy world, and we have a common access to that wealth, guided by the principle that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate the initiation of force. Thus, “the common wealth of Sirius 4.”
Of course, commonwealth is still imprecise because of the baggage attached to that word “common.” Someone no doubt will eventually argue that for the “common good,” we all must be forced to take some action. No: The person who is coerced to do something remains unconvinced.
In turning down a title or an office – and in pointing out that no one need hold a title or an office for this to work – I tried to clarify that this commonwealth is not a state, and that anyone may take a leadership role for any project so long as its implementation doesn’t involve coercion.
Humans have been accomplishing great things over the years by convincing each other to do great things together. I proposed that we leave each other alone to do great things without forcing anyone to follow our path, each of us free to live our lives as long as we don’t infringe on our neighbors’ freedom.
It’s an easy concept that takes some getting used to, after centuries of the other. But it’s working out so far.
Entry 6. Buffalo Springsteen
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Entry 4
Somewhere near our core is a violent impulse, and so there will always be men and women who choose force to get their way.
But at our very deepest place, we mean no harm to others. Our deepest and highest impulse is to peace – to leave others alone and to be left alone to enjoy this life, this world, this universe.
Perhaps here, perhaps now, we may build on this world a commonwealth where all have so much plenty that none have the urge to take lives and property by violence.
Entry 5. That word 'commonwealth'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)