A Real Solution: Expatriation

A close friend of mine and I have conversations about whether it is better to live within the system so as to reform it, or remove oneself from it so as to avoid being corrupted thereby. We've yet to come to a decision.

I've recently concluded that voting is futile, which leaves me in a precarious situation. On the surface, it would seem that if one cannot effect a change in the political system, one must remove oneself therefrom. Yet this assumes that the system of governance is the most important factor in determining how a person lives. While this is true for totalitarian societies, so long as a semblance of freedom remains, philsophy trumps politics. The state may determine whether or not abortion and gay marriage are allowed; but only the particular philosophies of the people therein determine which "freedoms" they will exercise as selected from the options which the government allows them.

This is somewhat encouraging to one who is caught in a state of political despair. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will increase the list of options which avail themselves to the public. Perhaps the Democrats will grant gays the right to marry, and keep abortion legal, but I rather doubt they will desist spying upon American citizens or keep the IRS out of our pocketbooks. Viewed as a whole, if present conditions are indicative of what awaits us, it is absurd to expect liberty to do anything but dwindle. Hope lies only with third party candidates--who cannot win.

Yet so long as a bastion of freedom remains, it is theoretically possible to instill within the public a philosophy which is conducive to the increase of liberty and the betterment of society at large. Unfortunately, there are problems with this noble proposition. First, this being a democracy--technically republic, bastardized at that--the philosophy of the people can be gleaned from a survey of the government. As liberty ever dwindles, it is obvious that if the people place a premium upon freedom, they are insufficiently intelligent to elect those who agree with them. More likely, the people presently do not want freedom, and instead prefer "bread and circuses" in the immortal words of Juvenal.

Now, as liberty is dwindling, and has been for some time, we can safely assume that in a previous period in American history, the citizens esteemed liberty more highly. The growth of government has been sanctioned by the people, who have seen a likewise degredation in personal philosophy--judged from the standpoint that a better philosophy is one in which freedom is preferred to slavery. If those who lived in freer times were not content to remain at such a state, and instead sacrificed sacred liberty for the facade of safety, can it be assumed that those who have less of a grasp on liberty would value it more? It is possible, but there seems to be no evidence of this. Notes Fred:

Finally, people do not want freedom. They want comfort, two hundred channels on the cable, sex, drugs, rock-and-roll, an easy job and an SUV. No country with really elaborate home-theater has ever risen in revolt. An awful lot of people secretly like being told what to do. We would probably be happier with a king.

Libertarians remain a bizarre group of malcontents, drawn to the conspiratorial and often filled with contempt for the rest of society which is viewed as clueless. The liberals who believe that humans should be free to do as they choose are the first ones to impose speech codes on those insufficiently enlightened; meanwhile they suffocate business by creating all kinds of fancy rules which are neither conducive to liberty, nor to decent Americans who only wish to run a simple business. Strangely this has had no ill effect upon the plutocracy. Conservatives are likewise inconsistent. They generally believe that business should be able to do what it wishes, but will hand over all kinds of freedoms to the government so we can stop the terrorists. So long as the dear leader is a Republican, he can govern like a Democrat.

All this has me thinking about expatriating. A bit rash, perhaps, but I'm not of the temperment that believes things often get better if left well enough alone. I could be--and hope that I am--dead wrong about our rush into "inevitable decline", but I frankly doubt it.

I have two years left of this college nonsense before I can get out and work on paying off my loans. I think a couple of years in a cube is all I'll be able to stomach, whereupon I might try to find a new home.

It might be nice to live somewhere else for awhile. All I need is a country. I've got a couple of years to think on it.