The first part of this paper is a description of the problem. The second is a formulation of solution, in two parts. Closing with the formation of a new political party.
Society is ultimately the ultimate form of tyranny. There is no escaping from a mature society, since all exits have been barred by the structure of society. This structure is created by its own self-interest, and is guided by its will to self-propagation, it is not in societies self-interest to allow escape. Society is subjugation. The ideal goal from societies point of views is the complete death of the individual, so the society can have ultimate control and power. This is not willful, as in the society is a conscious entity, but is a teleological result from the purpose of society.
Society exists purely as a means to limit individual freedom for its own protection. It is not in societies best interests to be weakened. Individual will is bad for society, and if possible it should be limited, and ultimately eliminated.
Society limits us, and creates us, it defines what it is to be a member of society, and thus human. This act of limitation and creation is always for the good of society, and not the individual.
There is no opting out from society. We are forced to live by its rules, and by its definitions of what we ought to be. Society defines labels for each of us, and we suffer if we deviate from these labels. While “white male in his late 20s” is only a physical description, it also contains meanings not contained in the phrase itself, what it means to be a white male in his late 20s. These ideas only exist within society, and would not exist if the individual was removed. If I were to, say, become gay right now, this would have consequences within society, it would effect more than the act of becoming gay would itself. If I were on a sojourn in the desert alone, for example, and came to the realization that I am gay, there would be no consequences outside of the personal realm, and the ultimate description of being. Everything else is superfluous elements added by society. Ditto goes for deciding that I would rather not be forced to wear clothing at all times, or have sex wherever the urge so took me, these are rather meaningless on their own, but they carry weight only because society attached a value to them.
The intrinsic value is only the act, or decision itself, and the only real consequences are a subjective state for the individual, and the individual alone.
This is different than deciding that I can fly, or that jumping off of buildings is a good idea, then the consequences are truly extrinsic, they are inflicted by a true state of the world, and not by the utterly arbitrary power structures of society. These arbitrary consequences are tyranny, in that they limit the actions of individuals for no ends but the strength of society in-itself.
The only protection against others that society should be allowed to enforce is for the protection of the self. And this protection in itself does not preclude law, or regulation (and subsequent regulators) but only individual action against those who earn it. If I threaten your well being, then you have a reason to protect it. Individuals may lash out freely, but when society does so, it limits the freedom of the individuals.
One can not opt out. The only way to opt out is to fix the problem, namely weaken society. There is no law that can be passed to promote freedom, any law itself would only serve to limit it. Laws limit action, by definition, and thus limit freedom. Its like protecting free speech by banning books that are against it. Society itself, as a whole, must be brought down, or at least weakened to the point where some small enclave of freedom is allowed, or at least can exist outside of the watchful tyranny of state and society.
Individual violence is not the answer, since violence can only be against individuals, who are just as subjugated as you, and is thus a limit to their freedom (the ultimate freedom is life). Individuals, while making society, do not control it, everyone (even those in power) are as controlled by it as anyone else, they too cannot escape, and thus hurting them would solve nothing. The only answer in weakening society is to always promote agendas that would ultimately hurt it. There are two courses of action, the first is to opt towards measures that would directly weaken it, repeal laws, spread the acceptance of what is now unacceptable social activities and stances, spread diversity, and importantly seak any way possible to escape the trap of definitions, never allow oneself to be boxed into a category. This one is slippery, since it leads to the advancement of tolerance legislation, which again limits the freedoms of all. This stance can also allow for the corruption of the infrastructure of oppression, such as consumer technology (computers, cell-phones, etc...), and media technology (television, agenda ridden newspapers), both of which serve to distract, and redirect attention away from the creeping limits inflicted on us.
The second, and more controversial stance would be to strive towards more extreme oppression, hoping that humans will realize that they are oppressed, and rebel. Always strive towards that which would bring more stress upon the delicate framework, strive to offend and oppress as many as possible, since it might ultimately lead to the downfall. If the system grows slowly the chances are that no one will ever notice it, until they are even less human than they are now, only through extreme and violent change can the light be seen, can the system be made to crack on its own. The more oppressed we are, the more disenfranchised, and the more openings for upheaval.
This second reason is why I propose a new civil organization aimed at promoting the downfall of society itself, a society set up for causing the ultimate death of society from its own weight of oppression. This organization will be a voting body aimed at coordinated legislative decisions that increase the iron grips of society, striving to rapidly maximize the mean amount of oppression and suffering in society, with the ends of ultimately crushing the tyranny of the masses, making an authentic human existence possible for all who opt-in (in a true freedom, one is free to choose to be oppressed). Society will no longer be impossible to opt out of, it will becomes strictly a convention of choice, those who want the comfortable tyranny are free to subjugate themselves to it, but this can only happen when the walls shatter under their own weight, when the lay citizen realizes that they are oppressed through a massive onslaught of societal limitation.
I would like to call this organization:
“Anarchists for Bush”
(this paper is a fallacy, and thus not justified)
