David McElroy

making sense of a dysfunctional culture

statism

Do you obey petty rules? Or do you fight The Man in hopes of change?

By ·

It’s an age-old question for people who face authority they don’t want to obey: Is it better to quietly follow orders to avoid punishment or is it better to defy authority and fight for change?

The answer isn’t as clear-cut as it might first appear. What’s more, there’s no one correct answer. But I want to tell you the conclusion I’ve come to for myself.

Many of my friends are committed activists for freedom. Because of that, some of them attend various protests and engage in provocative acts of civil disobedience. I have a lot of respect for people who take this route, and I understand why the make the choice they do. There have been times in history when such attempts have brought about change, such as during the U.S. civil rights movement of the ’50s and ’60s. I don’t happen to believe it’s the right approach today, though, so it’s not my way. However, I’m not going to tell other people what’s right for them, because a) it’s their choice and b) I might be wrong.

If the only way — or even the best way — of achieving a more free society was to get the state’s co-operation in modifying its rules, I might possibly choose their way. But I think it’s ultimately smarter and more useful to find solutions outside the state entirely.

Keep Reading

Related Posts

Listen to Samuel’s ancient warning to Israel about anointing a ruler: ‘…you shall be his slaves’

By ·

In the Book of I Samuel, the prophet warned the people against their demand for a king. The Hebrews were unhappy with having Samuel’s sons to judge them, because the sons were corrupt. Instead of seeking freedom from corrupt men, the people asked for a king.

According to I Samuel 8:11-18, the prophet warned the people with these words: “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

The people got what they asked for. Saul became the first king of Israel. If you know the story, you know things didn’t end well. The practices of kings haven’t changed much from Saul’s day, even if we call them something other than kings now. We need to look past the day of allowing a king to rule over us, even if that’s what the majority want.

Related Posts

Does the delusion that most people agree with us explain the appeal of majoritarian systems?

By ·

I frequently hear people trying to support their opinions by claiming that “everybody” thinks the same thing they do about some issue. It doesn’t matter much what the issue is, because most people seem to believe that how they see the world is typical of how other normal, mainstream people see the same world.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the psychology behind this — and I’m trying to track down research that might address it — but right now, I’m thinking about the implications of it. If most people honestly believe that others share their general views, could this help explain why people are so supportive of majoritarian systems? Could it be that they have an unconscious belief that an honest vote will produce a result they’re going to like?

In 1969, U.S. President Richard Nixon was faced with very vocal and growing opposition to the war in Vietnam. He gave a famous speech in which he asked for support from the “great silent majority” who he thought agreed with him. Nixon’s approval rating had been hovering around 50 percent (and was 56 percent at the time of the speech) but after invoking the notion that most people agreed with him, his support immediately jumped to 68 percent. Since nothing else happened to explain the change, it seems reasonable to believe that people have a need to identify with the majority if a politician claiming something to be the majority position increases his approval rating by 12 points almost overnight.
Keep Reading

Related Posts