by Jim Robertson
© Copyright 1993 Build Freedom Holdings ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
NOTE: For a most powerful technique to deal with bureaucrats, see #TL10C: Bureaucrats, Boxes, and Power.
THE FLAW OF BUREAUCRACY and THE POWER OF TERRA LIBRA
by Jim Robertson
We received a phone call the other morning from a post office bureaucrat: "It's illegal to mail more than one foot of mail at the same time!" The afternoon before we had mailed about 1,400 letters. What thought patterns caused the bureaucrat to call us? What normal business would make such a statement as part of a customer service call to a big customer? For clearly lawful services that are advertised by the business itself?
In a normal business, price x quantity = gross revenue. Increased quantity would be eagerly welcomed since gross revenue would increase. Any normal business would be scrambling to handle simultaneous sales volume from a big customer. This bureaucrat, through words and actions, implied he didn't want those sales all at once, or even at all in that volume. A normal business owner probably would have fired him for his attitude!
The most important consideration to this bureaucrat was that the regulations be followed! The post office is not a normal business; its organizational structure is fundamentally flawed. The bureaucratic organizational structure is based on following rules and obedience. If you have obeyed the rules you have done a good job. Very little else matters. Bureaucratic organizations tend to attract workers who obey orders and follow rules, as well as those with the psychological defect of needing to control others.
Bureaucracies compulsively create more rules. There is little incentive to improve efficiency. They create more and more jobs for rule-creators, rule-enforcers, and rule interpreters. This is how they grow and expand their influence.
The major growth of bureaucratic influence occurs, however, by the influence rule-creators have on other bureaucratic organizations. Entire industries are created to obey the rules. To the extent that these bureaucratic rule-makers can convince others to obey and accept not just the rules themselves, but the bureaucratic, rule-obeying, hierarchical structures themselves, these bureaucrats become the greatest Value Destroyers in history.
When the primary objective of human interaction becomes obeying rules (especially those imposed by force), value is destroyed in at least four ways. First, little attention is paid to efficiency. Second, the products or services the customer wants to voluntarily purchase receive little attention compared to other organizational goals. Third, individual initiative is thwarted and innovation stagnates. Fourth, when bureaucrats enforce rules by force they trample upon the rights of individuals to engage in peaceful, voluntary exchange -- as illustrated by the letter we've just received:
"Dear Friends,
My name is David Lavender [name changed]. I just heard that someone was able to get back their computers, files, and money which was seized by presenting that they are sovereign individuals not subject to the jurisdiction of the government.
I was raided by the SEC and federal and state police and everything was seized! Vehicles, land, buildings, bank accounts, equipment, records -- everything! And I'm being "detained" against my will.
I was promoting and actively participating in a business enterprise where several people "pool" their resources. We bought a run-down motel (32 units) cheap by getting it at a "delinquent tax auction." We repaired it (restored it). We then had rent-free living and rented twenty-two units. By continuing to pool our money and with the extra income we began buying real-estate. Income producing properties! We expanded and became financially comfortable, but the SEC claims we owe them. Because we pooled our money!
I was questioned and I asked to call my attorney. They allowed me -- I called one of my partners and told them to delete the computer after printing it and hiding the printed info. The raid occurred after the computer was deleted but before the papers were hidden so they set them on fire. Most were destroyed but they were able to follow bank transactions to seize all assets.
I'm detained until I tell who my partners are. I won't tell! I won't even call anyone because the telephone is monitored. I cannot pay for your information, but I implore you to provide me with it, so I too may establish myself as sovereign and not under their jurisdiction!"
(Editor: Welcome to Nazi America! The bureaucrat-bullies don't care about Value Producers boosting the economy. All they care about is that some silly rule about not "pooling money" was supposedly broken. So they seize all the assets of their victim so he can't afford to defend himself. The above saga also indicates why it may be prudent to organize your affairs for privacy and asset protection, for example by using trusts. Such organization should be done well in advance.)
If any of our readers are interested in helping Mr. David Lavender, please inform Build Freedom News. We'll help you make contact with Mr. Lavender. Meanwhile we're also passing Mr. Lavender's letter on to our paralegal network to see if anyone is interested in helping.
Readers should note that trying to do business in America without applying Freedom Technology can be dangerous.
Please observe your emotional reaction to the above letter -- dismay?, anger?, disgust?, depression? Acknowledge your reaction. Whatever your reaction, transform it into determination to do something positive about expanding freedom. Just like in the Hitler era, it's an "us-or-them" situation. I urge you to take positive steps to increase your personal freedom and to help others expand theirs. If you don't know what to do, contact us for some guidelines.)
Value Creation occurs when individuals interact on a mutually-beneficial, voluntary-exchange basis with other individuals in an organizational structure that promotes concentration upon the wants and needs of customers in the marketplace. By applying Freedom Technology, you can increase the scope of your voluntary, value-creating transactions.
The Power of Build Freedom
Where does the power of Build Freedom lie? In many areas, but largely in the
organizational structure. Build Freedom is different because, among other things, we have an
organizational structure fundamentally different from the bureaucratic model.
Build Freedom approaches the world in primarily a positive way. The viewpoint is not imposed on those not ready to give up the bureaucratic model. We simply create our own alternatives, now and on a continuing basis, as we see fit. Individual by individual.
For those ready to increase their personal freedom, we provide theories and methodologies to accomplish this. Let bureaucrats rant and rave and do all the "controlling" they want. Build Freedomns pay attention only to the minimal extent necessary for practical survival.
In Build Freedom, we recognize that personal power originates in each individual. To the extent that you obey bureaucrats you surrender some degree of your personal power. (If you recognize this principle, there are perhaps two reasons you might still obey bureaucrats from time to time: (1) You do so voluntarily, because you expect to gain some benefit; (2) You do so that a thug won't shoot you or steal your property.)
Generally, conscious individuals engaging in voluntary, mutually-beneficial relationships do not need to resort to the obedience model. Interactions occur on a truly voluntary mutually-agreed basis.
Build Freedom organizational structure begins with each individual and makes use of networking. This networking organizational structure has enabled us to have Build Freedom Distributors and Customers in about 20 countries around the world in about a year.
The decentralized organizational structure is very important in terms of long-term influence. With proper implementation Build Freedom is unlikely to be stopped. Bureaucrats may temporarily impede some individuals, but not the non-coercive organizational structure itself -- and certainly not most of the individuals involved for any significant amount of time. Build Freedom is about the ideas, thinking skills, and organizational structures necessary for the immediate and continuing implementation of alternative organizations.
Build Freedom is organized to proceed by a series of very doable small steps to reach much larger goals. We don't bite off more than we can chew at one time. No massive grants are needed. No giant benefactor is needed. We try to make each step profitable as we go along. We have a set of goals, but our flexible organizational structure allows us to adjust each action with updated information. This flexibility also makes it so that we don't really care precisely in which order the various aspects of Build Freedom proceed. We analyze, but place heavy emphasis on effective action. This is within the classic definition of entrepreneurship: "Dreamers who do!"
Build Freedom organizational structure is also about personal relationships. The style can be said to be primarily collegial. You are interacting with your personal and business peers. Some individuals may have more or less skill and experience in specific areas, but the basic principle is mutual respect for other highly conscious individuals. Decisions are made between organizations and within organizations primarily on a basis of value-for-value and mutual gain. We don't give orders to slaves or take orders from masters. We are responsible adults, and peers.
How does the organizational structure of Build Freedom relate to personal power? Because Build Freedom is a free voluntary association of individuals, we encourage the development of the personal power of each Build Freedomn. We encourage self-reliance, in all respects. The organizational structure itself promotes this.
There is a powerful motivational factor at work here. Because the exercise of personal power tends to be energizing and invigorating, Build Freedomns initiate and follow through on various projects related to Build Freedom. "Headquarters" is only there as a guide. No bureaucratic organization can match that!
The exercise of individual personal power means that coercion is not involved. No bureaucratic organization has this attribute. To the extent that you choose to contribute to the growth of the Build Freedom type of organizational structure, you are contributing to an expansion of the consciousness and thinking capacity of a vast number of individuals in a way that no bureaucracy can.
To the extent that Build Freedom can influence others to expand their personal power and move away from bureaucratic structures, we will change the world. This applies especially if "Headquarters" encourages the development of major Build Freedom projects across different markets, geographic areas, professions, and so on. In other words, "Headquarters" in this context acts as a guide for other Build Freedom organizations to create value and increase freedom. Build Freedom maximizes its leverage in this manner, by encouraging key individuals to encourage other individuals to increase their personal power.
To the extent that you exercise your personal power with fellow Build Freedomns, and influence Build Freedomns and others to expand their personal power using the Build Freedomn organizational structure, you will change the world! In this way, you have maximum leverage of your personal power. You maximize your influence as a Value Creator! Join us -- as we expand personal power, freedom, and wealth.
HOW BUREAUCRATS THINK
by Jim Robertson
You, as a freedom-oriented individual, have certain attitudes and ways of looking at the world that affect how you interact with other individuals. Bureaucrats have a fundamentally different orientation that affects how they view you. You probably believe in conducting your affairs in any way you choose -- privately if you wish -- so long as you don't trample on the rights of others. Bureaucrats usually don't think like this. Some bureaucrats give lip-service to freedom, but in practice will do everything they can ("just doing my job" is a typical excuse) to thwart your freedom.
One principle we emphasize in Build Freedom in the Power Message Principle described in 'Report #TL10: How to Achieve and Increase Personal Power.' This approach centers on what words and actions to use to accomplish your goals. When you deal with other freedom-oriented individuals, your words and actions can reflect what their attitudes are in terms of viewing the world. Likewise, to deal effectively with bureaucrats you should tailor your words and actions to reflect how bureaucrats typically view the world.
The most important keys to increasing your personal power are indeed within you, such as fully realizing that you are free by nature (simple proposition, but very difficult for most people to grasp at first). But to fully exercise personal power you do need to take into account the attitudes of individuals who may move against you if you don't approach them with appropriate insights.
Categories of the Attitudes Individuals Have -- Freedom-oriented individuals are with us in significant numbers. You may feel alone sometimes -- but the number of Build Freedomns for you to network with is growing rapidly.
The vast majority of individuals are probably neither particularly freedom-oriented nor particularly bureaucratically-oriented -- though their lives are probably mostly non-free because they have fallen victim to the brainwashing of the bureaucrats.
A third major category of individuals consists of bureaucrats. These people can be dangerous to your well-being if you are freedom-oriented. Some insight into how these people think is instrumental in avoiding the surrender of your personal power to them.
What are Some of the Attitudes of Bureaucrats? Bureaucrats tend to think that following the rules, at any cost and using whatever force or coercion necessary for enforcement, is one of the most important aspects of their jobs. In their view, their jobs and lives are given meaning when they can convince or force as many people as possible to follow their rules. What purpose lies behind the rules means little. Much more important to them is that the rules be written and enforced for their own sake. In other words, the rules themselves and the procedures for creating and changing those rules are of paramount importance. Of only secondary or tertiary importance are: (1) what happens as a result of their rule-creation and rule-enforcement (by force); (2) what is the underlying purpose of those rules in the first place; and (3) what methods are used to enforce those rules and the consequences of using those methods.
Who are Bureaucrats? Bureaucrats in their most pernicious form are those who directly make their living from the compulsive creation and enforcement of rules by force.
Are Rules Bad Per Se? Of course not. Some rules -- such as those expressed in the Build Freedom Code ('Report #TL01 -- Behold Build Freedom!') are necessary for harmonious human interaction. Rules should continuously be reevaluated, updated, and improved. Rules should be guidelines, not ends in and of themselves. Rules should be viewed as paradigms or models to guide decision-making.
Entire systems for making these models should be continuously reevaluated, updated, and improved. No system of rules should ever become a be-all and end-all in itself.
What is the View of the Average Higher-Level Bureaucrat? For higher-level bureaucrats, it is very important to make sure that systems implementing the bureaucratic way of viewing the world proliferate. This includes both the creation and enforcement of rules for their own sake as well as the proliferation of bureaucratic organizations and systems (see my column from last month for more on this). This expands the power and influence of higher-level bureaucrats. They maximize their power in a world which emphasizes their view of the world. They create more jobs for their fellow bureaucrats. They gain more money and prestige. They gain power by getting other bureaucrats -- and you! -- to follow their orders. They gain power to the extent they can convince and force you to surrender your personal power.
What is the View of the Average Lower-Level Bureaucrat? For lower-level bureaucrats, the main focus is on trudging through the day to get to the weekend. They mostly just want to pass the time without getting into trouble. In general, they have low self-esteem and can be particularly vicious to those who give them anything they perceive as a hassle in the day-to-day functions of their little domains. Most of them would have a difficult time functioning personally or professionally outside of their bureaucratic jobs, so they exercise a perverted form of personal power in their little domains by arbitrarily interpreting and enforcing by force or threat of force the rules they think should apply. See my column from last month for some observations on the type of person who becomes a bureaucrat. Since they have low self-esteem, they tend to view as a threat anyone who ridicules or questions their ability, intelligence, morality, or judgment.
The average lower-level bureaucrat views conformity to his/her interpretation of the rules as a virtue. Anyone different is a troublemaker. Such lower-level bureaucrats give lip-service to being tolerant, but in saying this they are usually lying. From a practical standpoint this is important for you -- as a freedom-oriented individual -- to recognize. To accomplish your goals you should present a facade of conformity to lower-level bureaucrats. Do not tell them your true freedom-oriented viewpoints. You won't convert them anyway. Plus, when they hear your views on freedom and diversity they normally become quite resentful, bitter, angry, and may even become resolute in trying to take away your personal power. Generally, they cannot tolerate a freedom-oriented view of the world (they could not look at themselves in the bathroom mirror before work if they tried to). Since most people would like to believe they are doing their job reasonably well, a person in a lower-level bureaucratic job simply cannot tolerate non-conformity with the rules in his/her little domain.
The average lower-level bureaucrat compulsively believes in following and giving orders for their own sake. The reason behind an order matters little; what is important to these people is that the order be obeyed. Disobedience of the order of a superior-ranked bureaucrat is a very serious transgression -- a sin against the code of obedience! A bureaucrat fears losing his/her job more than almost anything else; disobedience by itself is often grounds for the fire and brimstone of termination. As to the few lower-level bureaucrats who might occasionally think about the morality of their actions -- well, the mere fact that an ORDER was given by a superior-ranked bureaucrat is morality enough! (Hitler's henchmen were "just following orders and doing their jobs.")
How Does the Average Lower-Level Bureaucrat View You? Probably with a great deal of contempt. Bureaucrats don't like freedom-oriented individuals. You need to take this into account when you deal with them (which I hope isn't too often!).
The average lower-level bureaucrat views your time with contempt, and cares little (or not at all) about the demands on your time and resources that may result from his/her orders. As a practical matter, you should never tell or imply to a bureaucrat that what they are doing in interacting with you is a waste of time. Why? The fact that they're wasting your time and effort is of no consequence because to them you are a slave whose function in life is to follow their orders. If you question the use of their time, that's even worse. If you do that, you will certainly get a negative result because then you are calling into question the very existence of their job function and usefulness in life. You are right, of course: generally, their job is Value Destruction which should be eliminated. Since bureaucrats fear job loss above almost anything else, it makes sense not to tell them that what they are doing is valueless and a complete waste of time.
Just as an order from a superior-ranked bureaucrat is morality and reason enough to do about anything on the job, so they feel about orders they give to you. Some of them may couch the order in nice language, but at root they perceive themselves as an order-giver and you as the obedient slave of that order. This insight is critical for you to apply the Power Message Principle of 'Report #TL10: How to Achieve and Increase Personal Power' in any dealings you might have with these people. Of course, they don't specifically think of you as a "slave" and would deny that vehemently. They think that way because they believe that because a superior-ranked bureaucrat gave an order for them to order you to do something, they must therefore do that to perform their jobs. Furthermore, the source of their authority to do so emanates from the ORDER of the superior-ranked bureaucrat ITSELF. You must obey because you are subject to that order.
Now, you as a freedom-oriented individual recognize that you are a Sovereign Individual. Your personal power emanates from your individual consciousness, thinking ability, and control of the energy that animates your body. But, reasoning with these lower-level bureaucrats is generally fruitless and could get you into a lot of unnecessary difficulty. They easily become quite resentful, bitter, angry, and may even become resolute to make your life difficult.
From a practical standpoint, you're usually best off pretending to be their obedient slave. Now, whether you actually are their obedient slave will vary with the specific circumstance. You can manifest obedience sometimes because you wish to concentrate on more important aspects of your personal freedom. To what degree you actually obey is of secondary concern; the main focus is on what the lower-level bureaucrat THINKS you are saying or doing.
The small personal power surrender called for here will frequently allow you to implement major increases in your practical personal freedom in other areas of your life. Let's call this the "optimization of practical freedom in your life." I think this is a fine application of Freedom Technology. For example, while deciding you won't exceed the posted speed limit you may simultaneously be rearranging your affairs so that you get expert advice and study materials such that you reach the good-faith belief that you may not be personally liable for some kinds of statutory taxes. You may make your assets judgment-proof (i.e., no thieves of any kind can steal your property).
(Editor: You may sometimes find yourself in a situation where you can refuse to obey a bureaucrat, or ridicule or embarrass a bureaucrat, with little risk to yourself. Deep down, some bureaucrats are disgusted with their jobs. By confronting them and demonstrating your disgust -- particularly in public -- you may just help induce them to quit their jobs and become useful human beings.)
How Does This Relate to Options? By increasing your the range and number of options you increase your personal power.
Bureaucrats try to stifle you by making only one option available to you (the current order from a superior-ranked bureaucrat they are following that day). You can keep your options open by keeping that bureaucrat happy by appearing to be obedient to that order to the extent that is practical for you. Then, you have options open to you that are outside of the little domain of that average lower-level bureaucrat.
Are There Any Other Approaches? There are almost always other approaches (options!) available to you. One key paradigm is going outside of the bureaucrat's specific domain.
Bureaucrats are actually quite limited in the ways in which they believe they can give orders to you. Because in their world-view their authority emanates only from the orders of higher-ranked bureaucrats, they must obey the rules of this way of looking at things. Such orders from higher-ranked bureaucrats usually cover limited geographic domains and limited subject-matter domains. Simply arrange your personal and business affairs across the domains of many different bureaucrats! Now, this will take some time and effort on your part. But you can exercise your personal power and freedom much more effectively with this paradigm.
The beauty of this paradigm is that even if a bureaucrat would be unhappy and try to impede you if your thought or activity were in his/her little domain, by his/her own standards the bureaucrat doesn't care much (or at all) about similar thoughts or activities in other domains. So the bureaucrat leaves you alone to practice your personal freedom! Diversity of your domains is a key aspect of implementing Freedom Technology.
MORE ON HOW BUREAUCRATS THINK
by Jim Robertson
Why Do Bureaucrats Compulsively Create Rules? When bureaucrats perceive some problem exists, they think that more rules must be created and enforced and obeyed to solve the problem. One difference between a freedom-oriented individual and a bureaucrat in this regard is in the use rules are put to. Rules as guidelines (heuristic rules-of-thumb) for decision-making can be very helpful in solving problems. Bureaucrats think that creating and enforcing MORE rules in and of itself "solves any perceived problem." For them, the important consideration about any problem they perceive is that "we DO something about it by creating and enforcing more rules about it."
What really matters little to a bureaucrat is: (1) Does a problem exist at all, apart from the bureaucratic mentality that such a problem exists? (2) Assuming there really is a problem, will the creation and enforcement of more rules effectively solve the problem? Or will the creation and enforcement of more rules make the problem worse? (3) What is the morality of creating and enforcing rules at gun point?
When bureaucrats create and enforce more rules, they feel a satisfaction in their job performance. "At least we've DONE something about it!" They feel good. Even on the rare occasions when they admit that their rule creation and rule enforcement caused more problems than they solved, they still feel they have done their jobs well because they have obeyed the system of rules that is the essence of their jobs. They feel no one can blame them -- and in fact they should be given lots of credit for a job well done! -- when they use their system of rules to create and enforce more rules specific to a given domain or situation. The good feeling about their job performance arises because: (1) Bureaucrats believe in the cult of following orders for their own sake, so they self-perpetuate this cult by creating and enforcing more rules -- and feel good when they obey their own system; (2) Among the few bureaucrats that care about the morality of their jobs: these few believe that part of the moral good they are doing on the job arises from convincing or forcing as many individuals as possible in their domain to obey the rules they have created.
Given these attitudes, it's not surprising that bureaucrats feel a psychological need to create and enforce more rules, just for the sake of creating and enforcing more rules. They feel a compulsion to do so. (Sarcastic thought: Could a 12-step program help them solve the problem: "Hello. My name is Joe. I'm a compulsive rule-maker. I am powerless to avoid this compulsion to make and enforce rules. I turn my will and my power over to a Higher Power greater than me. I relinquish my individuality and will to the Higher Power of my Superior Bureaucrat. If my Superior orders me to not create and enforce more rules, only then will I stop doing so.")
In Particular, Why Do Higher-Level Bureaucrats Compulsively Create Rules? Many higher-level bureaucrats are clever enough to realize that rule creation and rule enforcement form the very reason they have the job they have. This is the raison d'être (reason for the existence) of their jobs and the system they have organized for rule creation and enforcement. The very essence of the bureaucratic format for organizing human interaction calls for increasing the number of rules, types of rules, and enforcement of those rules. For most of even higher-level bureaucrats, it's probably compulsive. But such behavior benefits them, so it's very self-serving as well.
When Do Bureaucrats Rate You (Their "Subject") as Successful? Bureaucrats rate you, a freedom-oriented individual, successful to the degree you conform to their orders and their rules. When bureaucrats say a person is successful, they mean: (1) Is that person conforming to our rules as we order? (2) Is that person paying our salaries according to our rules? (They often call that "paying your fair share for the benefit of society." What they really mean is: Will there be a continuing trough to feed from to pay the salaries of bureaucrats?)
Bureaucrats rate you successful when you surrender your individual diversity and personal power to them. When you obey their orders. Most especially, bureaucrats rate you as successful when they can convince you to admit to them that you needed their help. That indeed they knew better than you what you need in your life, and that their rule creation and rule enforcement was indeed what you needed to make your life successful. And that you followed their orders voluntarily. When they hear this from you, you can be sure they'll be smiling from ear to ear. (They must be convinced about the sincerity of your comments, however. Unless you can be convincing about "sincerely appreciating their help," it's best to avoid the topic with them. Many bureaucrats undergo considerable training and experience in detecting lack of sincerity.)
Why Do Bureaucrats Have A Different Definition of Success from You, and Why Do Bureaucrats Hate Success as You Define It? You, as a freedom-oriented individual, probably have a very different set of standards for your personal success than bureaucrats have for you. Probably there are many facets by which you might define your own personal success. Some of them might be:
(1) Financial freedom. Enough money to meet your basic living expenses. Enough money to enjoy some of the material pleasures of life. Enough money for emergencies. Ultimately, enough money such that you could consider yourself independently rich.
(2) Work-life freedom and enjoyment. Working at occupation(s) which interest you. Feeling you are making a meaningful contribution to your professional self-development and to the profession(s) you choose.
(3) Leisure-time freedom and enjoyment.
(4) Family and friends freedom and enjoyment.
This is a small sample list; pages and pages could be written on how you might term yourself successful. Some common elements of success in various areas if you are freedom-oriented is that:
(1) You probably value domains in which your individual diversity is recognized and appreciated.
(2) You probably value independence very highly.
(3) You probably value being treated as being equal as a decision-maker most of the time. You have the ability to make and to listen to proposals in your professional and personal lives. You may accept, reject, or make counteroffers in these matters -- and others respect your right to do so. You defer to the judgment of others many times when another person has more expertise in some matter; however, doing so is done freely and voluntarily.
(4) You probably value creativity and spontaneity.
Bureaucrats hate individuals who consider themselves successful by these sorts of criteria (freedom-oriented). Why?
Diversity vs. conformity -- Bureaucrats believe in ordering as many people as possible to conform to their rules. The diversity inherent in human beings makes it more difficult for them to execute their jobs. Their jobs are easier for them when people conform to their rules. Bureaucrats hate diversity.
Independence vs. dependence -- Bureaucrats believe in forcing you to accept their "help." Even if you don't want it or need it. They keep their jobs -- and create more jobs for bureaucrats -- by convincing as many people as possible to become dependent upon them. Independent individuals are much harder to control than dependent people. Bureaucrats like to feel in control of other people.
Entire professions exist largely to create dependencies (with the strong support of the bureaucrats). Is it any wonder, for example, why 12-step programs are so popular with many bureaucrats? The dependencies (and surrender of individual will) created form powerful psychological barriers to increasing independence among those who fall prey to them. Bureaucrats believe that most people are like children, who need to be told what to do and punished for showing too much independence. Independent individuals set their own standards and details. They don't need the rules of the bureaucrats to lead productive and meaningful lives. Bureaucrats hate independence.
Co-equal decision-making vs. following orders and submission -- Bureaucrats follow orders. They believe in giving orders to other bureaucrats. If you are not a fellow bureaucrat, you are even lower in status in their eyes. You need to be told what to do, how to earn your money, how to spend your money, what is safe for you, and so on. Bureaucrats believe that most people are like children, who need to be told what to do and punished for not following orders. You respect the viewpoint of others, and their freedom to hold other viewpoints. Bureaucrats believe only their viewpoint is relevant, and that their viewpoint is an order that you must follow. You regard no person as your slave, nor any person as your master. Bureaucrats believe that they have authority to give you orders, and that you must be punished if you disagree. They believe your life, money, and body are theirs to regulate and use as they decide. Bureaucrats hate those who respect the viewpoints and decisions of others in a meaningful way.
Spontaneity and creativity vs. rote repetition and rule-following -- Bureaucrats want you to follow the rules they make, without questioning them or their rules. They want you to do repetitive tasks in following their rules because then you won't think too hard or analytically about the rules; you'll just obey them without thinking about it. You value new ideas, and creative solutions to matters that arise in life. Bureaucrats don't care about the creative processes necessary for human advancement. Bureaucrats just want to see their rules obeyed, at whatever cost to human creativity and progress. Bureaucrats hate spontaneity and creativity.
LEAPING OUTSIDE BUREAUCRATS
by Jim Robertson
Leaping outside the little domains ("worlds") of different bureaucrats is both possible and challenging. Most of us who are freedom-oriented can even derive a bit of pleasure from beating them at their own game. We don't want to devote too much of our lives to doing so, but when necessary we get a certain satisfaction from successfully doing so. We also learn a lot for future applications of Freedom Technology in our personal and professional lives. We might also call this approach "diversifying your domains." Why does it work?
The reason that "leaping" or "diversifying" domains works, arises from the way bureaucrats think about THEIR world. In their world-view, their authority (and they will act only on such external authority) emanates only from the orders of higher-ranked bureaucrats. Furthermore, they must (in their minds) obey the rules of this way of looking at things.
Such orders from higher-ranked bureaucrats usually cover limited geographic domains and limited subject-matter domains. So you, as a practitioner of Freedom Technology, can leapfrog or diversify your activities across the boundaries of many different bureaucrats. The beauty of this paradigm is that even if a bureaucrat would be unhappy and try to impede you if your thought or activity were to occur within his/her little domain, by his/her own standards the bureaucrat DOESN'T CARE much (or at all) about similar thoughts and activities in other domains. Therefore, the bureaucrat leaves you alone to practice your personal freedom!
What are some examples of leaping or diversifying? Someone we know of not too long ago was attempting to register a motor vehicle in mostly conventional fashion. (More aggressive Sovereign approaches for dealing with this issue are available, but this person wanted a less time-consuming, lower-profile answer to this area of his life at that time.) The car was an older car, with some problems developing in the exhaust control system. In prior years the car had passed the vehicle emission (smog) test with flying colors but now was over the bureaucratic limit upon testing. About 20 hours and $300 in expenses went into trying to get the car registered by conventional ("obey all the orders") methods. A total of about 5 or 6 trips to various inspection and exemption stations staffed by bureaucrats produced ineffective results. At the exemption station the bureaucrats were adamant about making more and more repairs even though the money spent at that point was over their bureaucratic limit (rule) for such spending requirement. They refused to grant the exemption required by their own rules!
The practical solution? Leapfrog! He simply used an address in a rural county in the same state where there exists no emissions test for registering cars. It worked perfectly. He reached his goal of getting the car registered.
Why did this work? The bureaucrats in the rural county did not care about the bureaucratic test requirement that fellow nearby urban bureaucrats were so adamant about. This pointedly illustrates that bureaucrats think differently about the very same activity, if it is outside their self-perceived jurisdiction or domain.
(A more radical, but still low-profile, approach to this problem he might have used would have been to have registered the vehicle out-of-state in a state with no emission (smog) tests. Several such states and rural areas exist, some even without mandatory auto insurance. In some counties a car can be registered on this basis by phone and mail. If this option is utilized, the car should be owned by an entity with a name like "Acme Leasing" -- according to bureaucrat systems it's "perfectly legal" for a leased car to be registered in one state and used by someone living in another state.)
Another principle at work here is that when working inside the "conventional" procedure proves ineffective, too time-consuming, or too risky/dangerous, you should be willing to step outside the system to produce effective results.
Another example: I once had to complete certain core course requirements in a university academic program. Some of the basic course material I had already done in prior years. I did not want to waste my time and effort repeating prior coursework, however, I would have had a difficult time proving the prior completion to some university bureaucrat because I didn't have textbooks and detailed course descriptions from prior years. What did I do?
I simply registered for, and completed with a good grade, the next course in that course sequence. I did not ask permission to do that (likely it would have been denied); I simply tried registering for the more advanced course and the university's computer system accepted it! Then, about a semester after completing the more advanced course (with the good grade), I simply applied for exemption from the basic course. Of course, my strongest evidence was successful completion of the advanced course. The university bureaucrat whose signature I needed did a double-take, saying "I remember you!" (I had him as a professor in a different class at a different time.) "We're trying to set up our system to stop people like you." But he still signed my exemption form, because how at that point could he insist I still take the basic course since I had already successfully completed the advanced course?
What happened here? I did not ask permission to do what I did; I recognized my own personal power. I leapfrogged outside of the normal system and interacted with the system in the way I chose. It worked! I saved a whole bunch of time. The bureaucrat was dismayed that this would work. I'm sure that in his mind this was someone "not obeying the rules" who should have been forced to take the extra course because "that's what the rules say." His comment also reflects the bureaucratic mentality: "Set up bureaucratic systems; if they prove too easy to defeat, make them harder to defeat, since we must maintain at almost any cost the following of all of the rules by everyone we believe is subject to our jurisdiction."
What about examples of more serious matters? One way to not run afoul of bureaucrats on more serious matters than vehicle registrations and university coursework is physical separation from their self-perceived area of jurisdiction (rule-applicability). That is, "physical leapfrogging/diversification."
For example, if you want to drive without being hassled by bureaucrats about some speed limit, physically go to Germany and drive on the Autobahn where there is no speed limit. If you want to smoke marijuana without being hassled by bureaucrats, go to Amsterdam where that is tolerated. If you want to have unmarried consensual sex with someone between the ages of 16 and 18, go to Canada where no bureaucrat will hassle you so long as it was consensual. If you want to sell investments that you openly declare are "securities" and not be hassled by bureaucrats, pick one of several countries other than the USA.
More practical means can be used to diversify across bureaucrats' domains than physical leaping. There are times and occasions for long-distance physical movements, but usually they're not necessary. Consider an important area such as your money: you can probably diversify across the domains of many bureaucrats with very little physical travel. You can use institutions (from a distance!) that any bureaucrats concerned about you will not know about (and/or won't care much about if they discover your arrangements). You can also use institutions such as the World Trade Clearinghouse which is a "foreign entity" not subject to certain statutory rules and reporting requirements in certain domains (while you get the 100% gold-backing and privacy that bureaucrats are so afraid of).
In general with Build Freedom you have many opportunities (Options!) to make private agreements with other private individuals. You can network by using 'Report TL02 -- Freedom Technology Resource Guide' and 'Report TL02A -- Build Freedom Organizational Design and Freedom Technology Directory' and the free listings therein. You can go outside the structures and domains of various bureaucrats with many aspects of Build Freedom.
[Editor: Once I traveled from Brussels, Belgium to Zurich, Switzerland
and back by train. The journey crosses France. I was supposed to have a visa to go through France, but didn't have one. On the way to
Zurich no one said anything about a visa, though my passport was
checked in the middle of the night.
On the way back from Zurich I had to stop at Basel on the French border to go through immigration. The bureaucrat said I couldn't go through France without a visa. So naturally I asked him to give me a visa. He said he couldn't do this; I had to get a visa the following day from the consulate. He wouldn't back down.
So I walked outside and alongside the station until I saw a number of trains all lined up, ready to go. There was just a 5-foot wall between me and the trains. I looked around carefully, didn't see anyone watching, climbed over the wall, found my train, and slept comfortably the rest of the night all the way to Brussels. A simple example of jumping across bureaucracy.
On another occasion. I flew from Copenhagen, Denmark to the Portuguese island of Madeira via Lisbon, Portugal. It hadn't even crossed my mind that I might need a visa. When I arrived in Lisbon, the immigration bureaucrat said I couldn't come into Portugal because I didn't have a visa. I put on a stupid act and said I didn't want to go to Portugal; I was going to Madeira. He said Madeira is part of Portugal and I had to go back to Copenhagen to get a visa. I said I wasn't going to Copenhagen because I had just come from Copenhagen and I was going to Madeira. I just repeated my stupid story until he didn't know what to do. He then took me to his superior's office, where we repeated the same stupid routine until the superior didn't know what to do. He then took me his superior, who must have been fairly senior because he had a big office with a huge desk. We went through the same routine. I noticed that the bureaucrat had a row of rubber stamps on his desk. I asked him to give me a visa. He said he couldn't; I had to go back to Copenhagen. I asked him how much a visa cost. He said 3,000 escudos -- about $5. So I pulled out 3,000 escudos and gave it to him. He stamped my passport (and most likely put the 3,000 escudos in his pocket as soon as I had left!) So I got to Madeira without further problems.
The principle of the path of least resistance worked here. For the bureaucrats to have sent me back to Copenhagen against my will would probably have been quite a hassle. They might even have needed a court order. So the path of least resistance was to take me to a superior and eventually issue me a visa.]
PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAINING & NEEDS OF BUREAUCRATS
by James Robertson
"React Without Thinking" -- To lower-level bureaucrats in physically dangerous jobs, you represent a particular threat if you don't immediately (meaning within approximately one and a half seconds or less) do what they order you to do. Partly this is due to their specific professional training, and partly this is due to the psychological characteristics of lower-level bureaucrats in general.
The specific professional training these types of bureaucrats undergo emphasizes to them that they must react instinctively -- without thinking about it -- to most situations in their job. Never mind that such behavior often promotes injury and death to some individuals whose actions aren't actually any threat to these bureaucrats. "Shoot first and ask questions later" seems to be the modus operandi (M.O.) of some of these types of bureaucrats. A lesser version of this mentality is "detain first, ask questions later." You have almost no time to form any meaningful response before their professional training kicks in and makes them act like automatons (i.e., no thinking; lack of conscious thought).
The typical psychological characteristics of this type of bureaucrat are similar to those characteristics discussed earlier. They typically have low self-esteem. Their job often involves genuine physical danger. Thus, already existing psychological cravings to "feel in control of every situation" are magnified so that they often feel they must physically dominate every situation. Like mobsters, they'll "make you an offer you can't refuse" by making you their "client" whether you want to or not. (This happens to be a very obvious type of physical coercion or force used against you in an immoral and unjustified way.)
Beware also of a particular mean streak in some of these types of bureaucrats when they "detain first and ask questions later." Many of them must derive some sort of psychological satisfaction from showing how big and bad they are by inflicting physical pain. In this regard, not much has changed over the centuries concerning some of the more primitive and savage manifestations of human behavior.
What can you do to protect yourself, when dealing with bureaucrats trained to act like goons? Regarding the answering of questions, you should formulate a strategy in advance. Even if you are not going to do anything more than politely refuse to answer the substantive (content) portions of any questions, you still need to give some answer within the requisite one-and-a-half seconds or you may fall victim to the "shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later" mentality or the "detain-first-and-ask-questions-later" mentality. It's highly advisable to very carefully plan for this in your life (requires strategic thinking).
If in a particular type of situation you plan to answer the content portion of most or all of the questions, you need to do so within the requisite one-and-a-half seconds. You may, in some situations, desire to "cooperate fully" with the bureaucrat in question (when it is to your advantage to do so). However, if you are not fast enough to do this (within one-and-a-half seconds), you may fall victim to the goon mentality before you even have a chance to act!
"Being (and Feeling) in Control of the Situation" -- To lower-level bureaucrats in physically dangerous jobs, you represent a particular threat if as a result of dealing with you they feel "not in control of the situation." Partly this is due to their specific professional training, and partly this is due to the psychological characteristics of lower-level bureaucrats in general.
The specific professional training these types of bureaucrats undergo emphasizes to them that they must "be in control of every situation." This means that they are told that to do their jobs well they must do almost anything necessary to "be in control of the situation." Most people, I think, like to do their jobs well if possible. So they must "feel they are in control of you" to give meaning to their jobs and lives.
The typical psychological characteristics of this type of bureaucrat are similar to those characteristics discussed earlier. They typically have low self-esteem. Their job often involves genuine physical danger. Thus, already existing psychological cravings to "feel in control of every situation" are magnified so that they often feel they must physically dominate every situation.
This type of bureaucrat feels particularly threatened by the "breakdown of social order" now happening in many Western countries. Many of these lower-level bureaucrats probably don't think about it at this level of abstraction. But they certainly can tell there is increasingly less respect for their type of "authority" and order-giving during the interactions they have on their jobs with their involuntary "clients!"
They're "on edge" about this. Not being "in control of those we have authority to give orders to" strikes at the very core of their jobs and their reason for living. They resent it. They believe their purpose in life is to smash an iron fist in the face of anyone who they perceive is "infringing on their right to control you."
What can you do to protect yourself, when dealing with bureaucrats trained to act like goons? Regarding dealing with those who (erroneously) believe they have jurisdiction to control you, you do need to exercise prudent strategic planning.
The most important practical consideration also happens to be the best "general" or "overall" strategy: Most of the time, MAKE SURE THEY "FEEL" LIKE THEY ARE IN CONTROL OF THE SITUATION. Whether they are actually in control of the situation is of secondary importance to you. Their PERCEPTION of who is in control is your most important consideration.
As an example of an "operating strategy" within this "overall strategy" you may wish to: Consider always being polite to this type of bureaucrat. You may not want to, but you can vent whatever psychological frustrations you have to your friends at a later time. Right now, you are dealing with your enemy. Do what works! Let that bureaucrat feel "in control" of a polite (and respectful-acting) "client." Even if your strategy is to "not cave-in completely," you should still be polite about it. This type of bureaucrat (in particular) often interprets politeness as a sign of respect for their "authority." If they PERCEIVE you have respect for their "authority," they feel in control of the situation and you maximize your effectiveness in dealing with the situation.
Keep in mind also that you can "lose" (kowtow to the bureaucrat) in some particular single incidents, but still be winning against bureaucrats overall in your life as you strive to increase your freedom.
"Justifying (Not Apologizing for) Actions" -- To lower-level bureaucrats in physically dangerous jobs, you represent a particular threat if as a result of dealing with you they feel you think their actions and words are unjustified. This is partly due to their specific professional training, and partly to the psychological characteristics of lower-level bureaucrats in general.
The specific professional training this type of bureaucrat undergoes emphasizes to them that they are "on a mission." "People not in our profession don't understand what we're up against." "We've got to take back the streets!" "It's a war out there!" With the military model drilled into them in most of their professional training, it's not surprising they feel a moral imperative to approach their job with zeal and fervor and determination -- gritting their teeth!
The typical psychological characteristics of this type of bureaucrat are similar to those characteristics discussed earlier. Their job often involves genuine physical danger. Most people, I think, like to feel that what they do in their jobs/professional lives serves a moral and useful purpose. Thus, it's predictable that this type of bureaucrat will respond with psychological fervor to the "we're on a mission! imperative" and feel absolutely justified in their actions and words. They feel indignation and anger against you if they PERCEIVE you are in any way calling these motives into question.
What can you do to protect yourself, when dealing with bureaucrats trained to self-righteously enforce their "mission" against you? Regarding dealing with these lower-level bureaucrats who believe they are on a "sacred mission," you should formulate a strategy. Probably the best "general" or "overall" strategy is to never let them think you question the morality or effectiveness of their "mission," unless it is to your advantage to do so.
As an example of an "operating strategy" within this "overall strategy" you may wish to: Consider being a very good listener. Let this bureaucrat do most of the talking. Appear considerate and (perhaps) sympathetic to the rigors of his job. "You guys must have rough going sometimes!" Appear earnest. You can save your true viewpoints for when your encounter with the enemy is done and you are among friends.
You may have to tolerate something of a lecture sometimes, but that's okay. As a conscious, thinking individual you realize some times are suitable for expressing your viewpoint, and other times are not. In a sense, this is an "extension of the Power-Message Principle" (see 'Report #TL10: How to Achieve and Increase Personal Power.' ). In a sense, your "lack of expressing a message" is in itself a message. It is a message of appearing considerate of your enemy. By doing this, you can avoid difficulties when the time isn't right. You can be effective in your viewpoints when the time is right.
MORE ON HOW BUREAUCRATS THINK
by James Robertson
When you communicate a message, the perceptions you generate in your various audiences can vary immensely. Who your audiences are should be a prime consideration for you in what you communicate and how you communicate it.
When you communicate with other freedom-oriented individuals, you intend to convey certain meanings. Since such individuals "think the way you think" regarding many aspects of fundamental assumptions and analytical procedures, usually the framework in which you communicate is relatively easy for you to interact within. The topic of that particular conversation may be a complex one, but at least the basic orientations are no impediment to effective communication.
When you communicate with non-freedom-oriented, non-bureaucrats, you usually need to tailor both the content and delivery method to a sort of "average person audience." (Clearly this is an oversimplification, but the main thrust of this article is dealing with bureaucrats.)
When you communicate with a bureaucrat, you almost always need to adjust your message to a set of perceptions (those of the bureaucrat) radically different from your own. Applying the "Power Message Principle" discussed in 'Report #TL10: How to Achieve and Increase Personal Power' requires carefully considering "how bureaucrats think," as discussed earlier.
One example: In a small city in Arizona for the last few years, I know of a person who has been fighting zoning ordinances for his residence/small business. This is something for which most Build Freedomns probably have a lot of sympathy.
He has plastered his home/business buildings with signs saying the city officials are "Nazis" and "storm troopers." This is something for which most Build Freedomns probably have a lot of sympathy.
As a Build Freedomn, it's likely you understand several of the reasons for the man's comparison of the city bureaucrats to Nazis. One of them is probably the use of brute force inherent in the use of zoning ordinances and the enforcement thereof. Another reason for the comparison is probably that "Nazis used 'just following orders' and 'just doing my job' as excuses for unspeakable behavior." The comparison, of course, aptly applies to this example. Consider, though, what the effects are on the various bureaucrats he must deal with.
Higher-level bureaucrats in the city probably figure they need to do whatever is needed to win in court or otherwise get compliance. They possibly understand the comparison (probably they don't); however, they don't really care what their involuntary "client" thinks. All they care about is that their rules are being obeyed.
Lower-level bureaucrats "on the street beat" almost certainly don't have any idea why the man is comparing them to Nazis. They probably figure he's nuts.
If the man wants to gather sympathy and maybe support from freedom-oriented individuals, the message content and delivery of plastering such words on his exterior walls probably has the intended effect.
If, however, the man wants to deal effectively with bureaucrats, the Nazi message content and delivery likely won't achieve any successful result. In fact, it's likely that it makes him LESS effective in dealing with the city bureaucrats (after all, most people probably would have a negative emotional reaction to being called Nazis!). The words and actions -- which aren't necessary in this instance -- might in fact make him a tempting target of the city bureaucrats, and other bureaucrats.
I have a lot of sympathy for this individual. I believe, however, he could deal with the situation in a more effective manner. Some of his possible options are discussed in the following article.
MORE ON LEAPING OUTSIDE BUREAUCRATS
by James Robertson
Earlier I gave some theory and examples on effectively "Leaping Outside Bureaucrats." Above, I gave an example of a person in Arizona who has had a long fight with "city hall" over some zoning regulations -- and that while most Build Freedomns would have sympathy for him, probably he could have dealt with the matter more effectively. Now let's look further into effectively dealing with bureaucrats by "going around them."
Key Principle #1: Bureaucrats Think Differently About the Very Same Activity, If It is Outside Their Self-Perceived Jurisdiction or Domain.
Part A: What does a bureaucrat perceive as his/her jurisdiction or domain?
First, of course, the perceived jurisdiction must come from obeying the order of a perceived higher-ranked bureaucrat. If perceived higher-ranked bureaucrats change those orders from time to time, the bureaucrat "in good standing" will follow the new orders and only pursue jurisdiction resulting from the latest "order from higher authority." Since the bureaucrat believes he/she is doing a proper job by following orders, whether it makes sense to assert jurisdiction over a matter, whether it benefits anyone other than him/her in "doing my job," whether it in fact harms anyone, whether such assertion is an efficient use of time, and whether such assertion is really important compared to other things, are only minor considerations (if they're considered by the bureaucrat at all). Obeying orders is the paramount concern. Foremost, the bureaucrat bases perceived jurisdiction on the orders of others.
Second, the perceived jurisdiction must contain appropriate geographic location. A bureaucrat enforcing "speed limits" on a freeway in Los Angeles does not believe he/she has jurisdiction over "speeders" in New York. A bureaucrat enforcing "zoning ordinances" in Arizona does not believe he/she has jurisdiction over how people conduct their business or use their private property in Texas. A university professor acting as a bureaucrat in making a course-exemption decision at the University of California does not perceive jurisdiction over such course material at the University of Florida. Bureaucrats in general treat "international boundaries" as substantial limits to their domain.
Third, the perceived jurisdiction must contain appropriate subject matter. A bureaucrat enforcing "speed limits" on a freeway in Los Angeles does not believe he/she has jurisdiction over "zoning ordinances" in Los Angeles. A bureaucrat enforcing "zoning ordinances" in Arizona does not believe he/she has domain over "speeders" in Arizona. A university professor acting as a bureaucrat in making a course-exemption decision at the University of California does not perceive domain over medical personnel decisions at the University of California.
Fourth, the perceived domain must be the concern of the particular individual bureaucrat in question (or at least his/her particular bureaucratic office). If "nearby fellow bureaucrats" (as to subject matter, geography, and so on) are "supposed to take care of the matter," the bureaucrat may not bother to pursue a matter any further -- although sometimes the bureaucrat may follow-up to be sure.
Fifth, the perceived jurisdiction must fall under the general bureaucratic organizational category the bureaucratic rules call for. Bureaucrats at "city hall" won't perceive they have jurisdiction over a "Federal tax question," even when the "client" (victim) is local to them and the subject matter concerns taxes. Bureaucrats at "EPA" won't perceive a dispute concerning "local zoning ordinances" to be within their domain, even though the "client" (victim) is in their geographic area and the subject matter concerns land use.
Sixth, the perceived jurisdiction must fall under the "bureaucratic whim" of the moment. If all of the other requirements for perceived bureaucratic jurisdiction are met (order following, geographic location, subject matter, and so on), the bureaucrat may still not attack you because it doesn't meet the whim of the moment. For example, the whim of the moment (or time period) might be to "go after adulterers" and use existing statutes to jail people who have affairs with persons other than their spouses; if such a fad is not the "whim of the moment," bureaucrats may not attack you in this manner even if they perceive all the other jurisdictional requirements have been met in your case. If "collecting unpaid parking fines" is the bureaucratic whim of the moment, you may find your car booted for unpaid tickets; the next month this whim can "change with the wind" even though the appropriate bureaucrat still perceives possible jurisdiction over you on the matter. A bureaucrat may not perceive "relevant actionable jurisdiction" over you even if he/she perceives all the other jurisdictional requirements are met; in other words, the "bureaucratic whim of the moment" may effectively eliminate, in the bureaucrat's mind, any relevant domain he/she might otherwise have perceived over you in any particular circumstance.
[This article is limited to the bureaucrat's perceived jurisdiction. Sometimes what you think is a bureaucrat's jurisdiction is different from what the bureaucrat sees as his/her jurisdiction. For example, you may in good faith believe you are not subject to certain statutes -- you don't challenge the existence of the statutes, only whether a particular statute applies to you personally. Some bureaucrat may disagree with you. Such situations will be covered later. The scope of this article is limited to what the bureaucrat perceives as his/her jurisdiction, as opposed to what you think is the bureaucrat's domain.]
Part B: How could the very same activity be perceived differently by different bureaucrats?
The key here is: Does the bureaucrat consider the matter to be within his/her jurisdiction?
To answer this question "yes," the bureaucrat usually is going to have to answer "yes" to all (or almost all) of the points in Part A, above. Therefore, all you have to do is induce in a bureaucrat the perception that "it's not in my domain" due to any of the Part A reasons! This applies to almost any matter. (About the only other concern is making sure he/she doesn't feel obliged to "pass you along" to some fellow bureaucrat in a different domain -- a subject for a future article.)
Earlier, I gave several examples of "leaping outside bureaucrats":
(1) Why did the solution to the vehicle emission (smog) test dilemma work? Because the rural bureaucrats did not perceive geographical jurisdiction (or any concern at all) over the matter.
(2) Why did the solution to the course prerequisite requirement work? This one's a little different. Here, there's a timing of events principle at work. The university bureaucrat had no perceived choice at the point in time his decision had to be made, except to grant the request.
(3) Why does driving very fast on the Autobahn work, without hassle from bureaucrats? (a) Local bureaucrats don't perceive any subject matter domain over "speeders" on the Autobahn; (b) Bureaucrats elsewhere don't perceive geographical jurisdiction over "speeders" on the Autobahn.
(4) Why does smoking marijuana in Amsterdam work? (a) Local bureaucrats don't perceive heavy-handed bureaucratic control over personal users in Amsterdam; (b) Bureaucrats elsewhere don't perceive geographical jurisdiction over personal users in Amsterdam.
(5) Why does unmarried consensual sex with someone ages 16 to 18 in Canada not result in confrontations with bureaucrats? (a) Local bureaucrats don't perceive anything wrong has occurred by this event; (b) Bureaucrats elsewhere don't perceive geographical jurisdiction over this subject matter in Canada.
(6) Why is there no problem with bureaucrats over "selling unregistered securities" in many countries other than the USA? (a) Bureaucrats in those countries don't perceive anything is wrong with honest business dealings and that no "registration" is necessary; (b) Bureaucrats elsewhere don't perceive geographical jurisdiction over "securities" sold outside their geographical boundaries.
Earlier, I described the Arizona man who has had all sorts of trouble with local "zoning ordinances."
(7) The Arizona man could have: (a) Not publicly and loudly challenged the local bureaucrats initially. (b) Moved his business activities to a nearby -- but different -- location. Such a tactic would probably not have involved undue time and expense. The local bureaucrats would then have dropped the matter because they would not have perceived geographical jurisdiction. (c) Told them truthfully only a portion of what he was doing in his business activities. Without lying, he then would have induced in the bureaucrats a reaction of "no jurisdiction" for lack of subject matter.
Key Principle #2: What a Bureaucrat Doesn't Know About, You Won't be Attacked On.
Low-profile is preferable to high-profile.
One way to combine the two is to begin with low-profile, and only progress to high-profile interactions with bureaucrats if and when absolutely necessary.
Be low-profile when possible. If attacked, you may need to switch to higher-profile methods.
How Can You Be Low-Profile? One way to be low profile is to obey all bureaucratic orders all the time no matter what (sometimes those orders conflict with each other, so you might have a difficult time with this -- but that's still another matter). Often it's prudent to obey the orders exactly. Most freedom-oriented individuals, however, probably resent acting like slaves unless absolutely necessary. There is a certain challenge to being freer than this. There's also the moral satisfaction that comes when you don't have to always live like a slave. (Keep in mind also that sometimes it's actually higher profile to always obey. Sometimes "out of sight, out of mind" is actually lower profile.)
KEY LOW PROFILE METHODOLOGY: You can be low profile by minimizing the amount of information about you that falls into the hands of bureaucrats, to the extent that such information can be linked to you and might cause bureaucrats to try to harm you. This includes many types of information: financial data, information about who you associate with, large purchases, travel information, political affiliations, unusual occupations, unusual personal habits, and so on.
You may do well to "compartmentalize" your life. If you have income or accomplishments from an unusual occupation, you may not want to flaunt it. Flashy displays of wealth or accomplishment should be only to those who are your friends, not to bureaucrats or other enemies.
Harmless information you don't need to be concerned about. Of course, you need to make prudent judgments about what constitutes harmless information. Such judgments usually are situation-specific -- the same information (in the hands of bureaucrats or other enemies) that can gravely injure you in one situation may be completely harmless in other situations.
Information must be linked to you to cause you harm from bureaucrats and other enemies. You can use many techniques to minimize the links between information and you: Pure Contract Trusts (consider our Pure Trust Package, Offshore Trusts (such as P.I.L.L.), mail receiving/forwarding services, pseudonyms, trusted friends, Build Freedom documentation (free info available upon request to us), and so on. You could consider prudent use of some of the information from such controversial publishers as Eden Press and Loompanics Unlimited. You can consider methods involving international jurisdictions such as the privacy techniques explained by Scope International in England.
The Morality of Being Low-Profile: Some people equate being low-profile with being sneaky. Other people say that to morally engage in political protest, you must openly declare to all of your enemies all of the time your full and true political opinions. I disagree.
I respect those who very openly, all of the time and to all who ask (and even to those who don't ask!), state radical opinions and radical actions. I think the problem here is that martyrs often achieve ineffective results.
If a private thief wants information about you so the thief can rob you or mug you, you probably don't think twice about giving less than full and complete information to the thief so you can avoid being harmed and so you can live your life effectively. Is there any moral difference if the thief is a public thief? In fact, I think there's a strong argument that you have an even greater moral obligation to protect yourself from public thieves, with regard to confidentiality of information (being low-profile). Most public thieves earn their living by committing immoral acts against human beings as a matter of routine; is it moral for you to make it easier for them to do this? Perhaps even more important: to what extent do you exercise your personal power? Why would you surrender your personal power (control of information about you) by routinely letting important information about you fall into the hands of your enemies?
What a Bureaucrat Doesn't Know About, You Won't be Attacked On. Unless some specific bureaucrat knows some specific information about you, that can be linked to you and is harmful (in that situation) to you, you won't be attacked! This sounds simple enough, but most people fail to apply this principle properly.
Above, I described the Arizona man who has had all sorts of trouble with local "zoning ordinances." He could have very quietly -- low-profile - gone about his business activities inside his property. Apparently he chose to be high-profile right from the start, at the first hint of being wronged by the bureaucrats. Then, he compounded the problem by calling them "Nazis" verbally and painting words to that effect all over the exterior walls of the building he was in. At that point, the bureaucrats had no choice but to accelerate the attack on him because they would lose face and credibility if they allowed his outburst to go unpunished. The problem was actually much worse at that point for the man, because now not only did the man and the bureaucrats know about the matter but many people in the state did. The bureaucrats now had a lot at stake and dug in much harder for a full-fledged attack. If no specific bureaucrat had ever known about his private business activities inside his property, he would never have been attacked in the first place! Clearly low-profile is most often the best path.]
The specific information may come about because of computers, some paperwork reporting, and other nonhuman methods. But a human being (or a computer programmed and operated by a human being) must become aware of the harmful information about you, link the information to you, and decide to take action against you. Unless all of these events occur, you won't be attacked!
You can't be attacked by an abstraction. An attack against you must come from individual bureaucrats (though of course they will probably work together much of the time, and often use computers). Many people have an irrational fear of some huge bureaucratic monolith. Certainly rational consideration of genuine threats to you merit your careful consideration. But consider this: unless specific bureaucrats know specific information about you, that can be linked to you and is harmful (in that situation) to you, you won't be attacked! When you are able to fully integrate this concept into your life, you will be much freer and have a much higher degree of personal power.
[Editor: A stratagem related to "leaping outside bureaucrats" is the "trial run." While living in Brussels, Belgium, I needed a visa to a particular country, whose bureaucrats are known to be reluctant to issue visas. Had I gone direct to the particular Consulate in Brussels, I would have been refused a visa, and that would have been on record, making future visas more difficult to get.
So I drove to The Hague, Netherlands to the Consulate of the same country. I asked them if I qualified for a visa. They gave me an application form which I quickly scanned. Then I told them I didn't yet want to apply for a visa, but I wanted to know if I qualified. They asked me some questions which I answered, and I asked them some questions which they answered. After about five minutes they told me I didn't qualify for a visa.
But I found out exactly what was necessary to qualify. So I obtained all the proper paperwork and applied for a visa in Brussels. I was interviewed, and of course, prepared for every question. Every time I answered, I pointed to where that issue was covered in the paperwork.
This is very important: To the bureaucrat the paperwork is far more important than the person. It's almost an automatic assumption with practically all bureaucrats that if the paperwork is OK, then everything is OK. So in a situation like my interview, I want the bureaucrat's attention constantly shifted away from me toward the paperwork, which he can see is OK.
Needless to say, I got my visa!]
WHY BUREAUCRATS LOVE 12-STEP PROGRAMS
by James Robertson
Twelve-step programs have in recent years become very popular with bureaucrats. Well-developed infrastructures for such institutions abound, and normally bureaucrats who compel people to participate in them don't have to budget any portion of their department expense account because 12-step programs are "self-funding" (by small contributions at each daily or weekly meeting by the participants).
Why It's a Mistake Right from the Start for Bureaucrats to "Use 12-Step Programs on People": One large mistake bureaucrats make in "using 12-step programs on people" is that the original intention of the developers of such programs (Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), Overeaters Anonymous, and so on) was that the programs depend on a desire to refrain from some activity on the part of the participant. In AA, it's often said that "the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking."
While AA and other 12-step programs primarily focus on dependence on people outside (i.e., other than) the individual participant as the major ingredient for success, even still their most basic tenet is that the MOST important step for success arises from a desire within the person (to stop drinking, smoking, or whatever). When a bureaucrat makes a decision for a person (external) to join a 12-step program, rather than having that decision come from the person themselves (internal), the bureaucrat is violating the most fundamental tenet of 12-step programs.
I've heard comments from various AA members regarding, for example, DWI/DUI people being "sentenced" to AA (that is, compelled by bureaucratic court order to attend AA or be thrown in jail). There's a bit of resentment (although seldom is such resentment stated publicly). People who have voluntarily made the decision (internal) to address their perceived drinking problem through AA sense "there's something different about these people sentenced for DWI/DUI," even if they can't quite put their finger on why they're different. Why, in fact, are they different? Because someone else (an external bureaucrat) has made the original decision for them about attending AA. The initial decision does not arise from within such people themselves. There is no sincere desire to stop drinking. Therefore, the most important requirement for AA membership has not been met. AA (and similar 12-step groups) were not designed to work this way. Is it any wonder there's only limited success with such an approach by bureaucrats?
[Deep down, many bureaucrats must realize (although they seldom admit) that their job security depends on having "a revolving door of 'clients' to 'help.' " More jobs and work-hours are created for bureaucrats when they (bureaucrats) use 12-step programs erroneously (as described above). The more "recidivism" (repeat "undesirable" behavior -- undesirable in the eyes of the bureaucrat, anyway) that occurs, the more clients, jobs, and work-hours are created for the bureaucrats.]
Why the Appeal of 12-step Programs to Bureaucrats Actually Runs Much Deeper Than Merely Using the Programs Erroneously: Bureaucrats thrive when they can create perceived psychological dependence on them. Why? Such "dependence": (1) creates a moral justification for the bureaucrat's job (at least through the eyes of the bureaucrat); (2) often makes the involuntary participants actually feel grateful for the intrusion into their lives; (3) ensures a steady stream of "clients" for the bureaucrats, so lots of work-hours and jobs continue to be available to them; (4) fosters the development and growth of entire "cottage industries" for bureaucrats to provide their "clients" with "assistance." ("Cottage industries," in this case, means other organizations dedicated to the same cause as the bureaucrat: ensuring compliance with the 12-step program on the part of the "clients.")
Some People Might Actually Benefit from 12-Step Programs. What's Wrong with that? Nothing at all -- if such individuals reach that decision of their own freewill. Remember, that's one of the most fundamental tenets of 12-step programs: an internal desire to stop (drinking, smoking, or whatever). Even though 12-step programs generally involve drastic amounts of surrender of individual freewill, by the 12-step program design itself the initial decision to participate honestly and fully involves a significant act of freewill and individual choice.
In very recent years, Rational Recovery and related groups have been formed as non-dependence-creating alternatives to 12-step programs. People not able to deal with certain problems in their life on their own or with close friends could consider Rational Recovery and related groups as a possible alternative source of help. At least with Rational Recovery, you aren't asked to "surrender your Will to other people." You retain your individual choice and don't create a "lifelong dependence on your 12-step program" as you do with AA and other 12-step groups.
Bureaucrats at Their Core Love to Compel Individuals to Accept their "Help" and to Compel Such Individuals to Turn Their Lives, Their Money, Their Body, and Their Will Over to Them. Of course, this is anathema to freedom-oriented individuals.
How is the Code of the Bureaucrats Incorporated into the 12 Steps of 12-Step Programs? Bureaucrats, by the way they view the world, cannot help but be fond of each of the typical 12 steps (which vary slightly between different 12-step programs). Here are some of the typical 12 steps:
Step 1 -- "We admitted we were powerless over... (alcohol, food, or whatever) -- that our lives had become unmanageable." To admit you are "powerless" over something means you surrender all of your Personal Power and Freedom regarding that item! You give up your freewill, freedom of choice, and ability to solve the problem on your own before you even begin. I'd call that an act of self-abasement. It's submitting to what Robert Fritz calls the "reactive-responsive orientation" -- circumstances and events have power, not you.
Your Personal Power emanates from your individual consciousness, thinking ability, and control of the energy that animates your body. If something is important enough to you, you can develop the skill required to take control of your own Personal Power.
Bureaucrats cannot help but smile at Step 1. Step 1 sets the foundation for all of the surrender of Personal Power that follows.
Step 1 also leaves a void that must be filled. After all, one's life has to be managed by someone. Almost everyone experiences difficulties in managing certain affairs of one's life from time to time. The key question is: who are you going to make the "manager" of the solution at such occasions -- you, or some bureaucrat? Who is the likely candidate to fill this void for someone who has surrendered their Personal Power -- why, it's the bureaucrat, of course! Or, at least someone whose way of thinking the bureaucrat approves of (such as a member of the bureaucrat-supporting "cottage industries" mentioned above).
Another more insidious aspect of Step 1 is that it results in the participant making a "confession": "We ADMITTED we were powerless..." What a scary combination! What's implied here is that you're supposed to feel guilty about having thought you might actually possess personal power.
Perhaps we might rewrite Step 1 like this:
"We confess we have no Personal Power to solve this problem in our life. We fill this void with Bureaucrat Power in our life. We need a bureaucrat to tell us how to manage our affairs."
Step 2 -- "Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity."
Fits the goals of the bureaucrats perfectly! Participants in step 2 have convinced themselves that they are insane. Sanity can only be restored by looking outside themselves. You must surrender your Personal Power. Individual choice is given to someone else. Furthermore, participants acknowledge that this other "being" has greater power than themselves.
I think that some other person or entity outside of you, has greater power than you over your personal habits and attitudes, only if YOU THINK this is so! If you truly believe this, I suppose it is so.
Perhaps we might rewrite Step 2 like this:
"Came to believe we are insane. The only way we can become sane again is to confess that someone outside ourselves is more powerful than us over our personal habits and attitudes. We surrender our Personal Power and control to the bureaucrat (or the bureaucrat's approved helper) such that we can be sane again. Amen."
Step 3 -- "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him."
Certainly you have a right to practice religious freedom for yourself as you see fit. But does dealing with some problem such as alcohol require you to surrender your Personal Power to any entity outside of yourself?
Another error in Step 3 is that Step 3 fails to consider and respect the wishes of those who are not particularly religious, or are atheists. Step 3 also fails to consider and respect the wishes of those whose religious beliefs might encompass radically different ideas than the "majority religions" in North America and Europe. Some Eastern religions do not subscribe to any concept of a separate being called "God." Step 3, therefore, contains a considerable degree of cultural bias.
The main point, though, remains the surrender of your Personal Power. And most people doing so probably aren't conscious of all that is implied by the action of accepting Step 3. Let's analyze what's happening here.
Step 3 really is a compound sentence structure composed of:
1. "Made a decision to turn our lives over to the care of [fill in the blank with any entity outside of yourself, such as bureaucrats] ... "
2. "Made a decision to turn our will over to the care of [fill in the blank with any entity outside of yourself, such as bureaucrats] ... "
Separating out the religious element allows us to really understand what's going on here.
From a viewpoint of those of us who value personal power and freedom, about the only positive thing about these two statements is that: at least a participant in Step 3 "made a decision" to implement Step 3. That's indeed an exercise of personal internal decision-making, at least if it's done voluntarily.
Problem is, what about when a bureaucrat such as a "court official" "sentences someone to attend A.A. meetings"? In this case, the decision for the participant to partake of Step 3 is not made by the participant, but is made by someone outside of the participant. In this case, the sentence should in fact read:
"The bureaucrat who I allow to control my life made a decision ... "
I wonder how many people who "make such a decision" realize what's really going on here?
Let's analyze the rest of Sentence 1, above: " ... to turn our lives over to the care of [fill in the blank with any entity outside of yourself, such as bureaucrats] ... "
Well, that's pretty easy to understand. The participant actually believes he/she can't care for his/her own life, so someone else must take control. Obviously this is a major surrender of the participant's Personal Power.
Let's analyze the rest of Sentence 2, above: " ... to turn our will over to the care of [fill in the blank with any entity outside of yourself, such as bureaucrats] ... "
This phrase contains implications more difficult to spot than the implications of Sentence 1. The matter is actually much more fundamental and serious. Why?
Sentence 2 addresses the topic of "will." "Will" constitutes the very essence of your personal drive, determination, and being. "Will" is at the core of your Personal Power. If you surrender your "Will" to an outside "force" such as a bureaucrat, you are engaging in about as vile an act of self-abasement as I can think of. This should never be done completely voluntarily. The only consideration for engaging in such self-abasement is that there's enough risk that force might be used against you if you don't appear to "cooperate and volunteer." In general in such a situation, your best course of action is to get yourself outside of the situation ("Leap Across the Situation") as soon as practicable. You, as a freedom-lover, cannot give up your "Will" for any extended period of time without surrendering most of what you strive for in your life.
Bureaucrats hate "Willful" individuals. They may not understand why, but they generally can notice it.
What is it the bureaucrats don't like about "Willful" individuals? "Willful" individuals, among other things, recognize the power of their Individual Will and how important that Will is in the control of their lives. Individuals who want to exercise fundamental control over their lives tend to have strong, well-developed Wills.
Perhaps we might rewrite Step 3 like this: "The bureaucrat who I allow to control my life made a decision for me. The bureaucrat's decision was that I should turn my life over to someone the bureaucrat approves of, such that my life will be managed by that person(s) rather than me. The bureaucrat's decision was also that I turn my Will over to someone the bureaucrat approves of; in doing so I reject fundamental control over my life by me, and instead I surrender my personal drive, determination, and essence of my Individual Being to the bureaucrat's approved helper."
Step 4 -- "Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves."
Actually, that's not a bad idea!
Have any bureaucrats ever done this? If so, the intelligent ones might actually have to admit to themselves that their self-serving grab for the minds and hearts of persons with "problems with alcohol" and other "problems," causes considerable harm in the world. But, as we know, bureaucrats don't care much about harm they cause in the world. Bureaucrats primarily care about "obeying orders and just doing my job." The less intelligent ones probably couldn't care less about an incisive analysis of their "moral inventory." To them, "obeying orders and just doing my job" is "moral inventory" enough. Further conscious thought and analysis is not even contemplated by them.
Anyway, the reason bureaucrats like Step 4 for their participants in 12-step programs is it gives the bureaucrats' approved helpers a chance to bamboozle vulnerable participants with a bureaucrat-type "moral inventory" the bureaucrats just love. Such as learned helplessness, dependence, and lack of self-control.
Perhaps we might rewrite Step 4 like this: "Made a shallow search into our Individual Being to try to invent a 'moral inventory' consistent with a moral inventory bureaucrats would approve of such as learning to be dependent on bureaucrats (and be helpless otherwise) and confessing to a lack of self-control. We pretended this shallow search of our moral inventory was fearless, but in reality we were frightened, perhaps literally almost to death, of the disapproval and anger of bureaucrats and bureaucrats' helpers should we not present to them a moral inventory they approved of. In reality, we made not a deep and probing analysis of the moral inventory of our Individual Being, but actually made our pretended moral inventory conform to what we thought would get the complete approval of the bureaucrats and their helpers."
Step 5 -- "Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being, the exact nature of our wrongs."
Goodness! Is it necessary for the solving of some perceived problem with alcohol or whatever, to say to all the world that for sure you've committed moral wrongs? Naturally a person can cause moral wrong in the world (such as initiating harm to others). But does it follow, that a person with a perceived drinking or whatever problem, necessarily and for sure has to make a confession to all the world about moral wrongs he or she committed before he or she can consider the problem (drinking or whatever) solved?
I'd say that's preposterous!
Is it morally wrong to drink alcohol or (do whatever behavior to ourselves) and/or to have some problem related to alcohol (or whatever)? That's what is (in part) implied here.
Again, let's pull apart this compound sentence into its component parts: 1. "Admitted to [God or some other Power outside of ourselves] ... the exact nature of our wrongs."
Before one can admit to anything, there must exist a need, reason, or purpose for making an admission. In addition, the admission/confession made here is supposed to be made to some outside Power.
If you perceive you must solve a certain problem concerning your personal behavior, it should be sufficient motivation that you are improving yourself. Furthermore, of what use is it to you to "confess" that you perceive you have some behavior problem to some magical Power, or "confess" to some bureaucrat or bureaucrat's helper?
2. "Admitted to ... ourselves ... the exact nature of our wrongs."
If you perceive you have a particular problem in some personal behavior aspect of your life, you indeed can take a significant step toward solving any such problem by recognizing it to yourself. You usually have to recognize a problem before solving it.
But the language and concepts are muddled and misplaced here. There's a big difference between: (1) recognition of a perceived personal behavior problem by you, as a part of a self-improvement and problem-solving methodology; and (2) "confessing" to yourself that a "moral wrong" has occurred -- and "you're to blame for that moral wrong" -- concerning some aspect of your personal behavior, toward yourself.
Now, it is of course possible to commit moral wrongs against others by initiating harm against them. But this doesn't apply to aspects of your personal behavior, that affect just you. Indeed, this is the case with most of the behavior problems associated with 12-step programs such as alcohol, tobacco, narcotics, overeating, and so on: harm done to your health or well-being.
To the extent that such personal behaviors affect other people (premature death caused by smoking, bar fights caused by being drunk, and so on) you do affect other people. But to put the "blame" on the "act of consuming alcohol" or "act of smoking" in and of itself is ridiculous, and very damaging to truly solving such behavior problems because it takes away focus from where the focus should be. You choose to put alcohol into your body (because only your brain can cause your hand to move, and lift the bottle to your mouth, and cause you to swallow). Since you chose to put the alcohol into your mouth and swallow it, you certainly are to blame for harm to others that might result -- but that culpability arises from the actions you take against others after consuming the alcohol, NOT from the "act of consuming the alcohol."
[You may indeed have a problem with alcohol, because to choose to lift the bottle and swallow the alcohol such that the result is you get into bar fights is probably causing significant dysfunction in your life and causing harm to others. Simply make the conscious decision not to lift the bottle to your mouth anymore! (Other "psychological insights" may help you implement this idea, but the basic idea remains the same.)]
3. "Admitted to ... another human being, the exact nature of our wrongs."
The analysis concerning "admissions and confessions" of Sentence 1, above, applies here as well. To solve an alcohol (or whatever personal behavior problem) you perceive you have, do you need to "confess" to a bureaucrat that you are "morally wrong and depraved" for drinking alcohol?
I'm sure this appeals to bureaucrats. After all, their job is to "help" you (against your Will). It's likely bureaucrats derive a great deal of job satisfaction by inducing you to confess to being morally depraved.
Perhaps we might rewrite Step 5 like this: "Confessed to bureaucrats and other magical Powers outside of ourselves, and to ourselves, that we are morally depraved, evil, despicable human beings for having a personal behavior problem. Such confession was explicit and detailed exactly why we are morally depraved, evil, despicable human beings who deserve to have to make such confessions."
Just for fun let's take a peek ahead at a portion of Step 12:
"Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to [others with the same personal behavior problem] and to practice these principles in all our affairs."
Try this for a rewrite: "I vow to spread the Gospel of Helplessness."
Step 6 -- "We're entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character."
Step 7 -- "Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings."
Let's consider these Steps together since they're related.
These Steps represent utter helplessness.
If you follow these Steps, your surrender of Personal Power is complete. You lie naked and exposed before bureaucrats, bureaucrats' approved helpers, and magical Powers outside of yourself. You are saying, "Do with me what you Will." Your Will has vanished. In its place, you have permitted the substitution of the Will of others.
Furthermore, these two Steps presuppose that you believe you have -- because of a perceived problem with alcohol, weight control, or whatever -- "defects of character" and "shortcomings."
I think the concept that a perceived problem with alcohol (or whatever) means you have defects of character is fundamentally dangerous to your self-esteem and to your general well-being. As we discussed last month, is it necessary for the solving of some perceived problem with alcohol (or whatever), to say to all the world that for sure you've committed moral wrongs? And then to ask bureaucrats, bureaucrats' approved helpers, and magical Powers outside of yourself for some sort of "absolution" or "redemption" for being such an evil person with sinful defects of character?
"Remove my Defects of Character, oh Noble Bureaucrats, for I have sinned."
Perhaps we might rewrite Steps 6 and 7 like this:
"We lay naked and totally exposed to the Will and Judgment of our Noble Bureaucrats, Bureaucrats' Approved Helpers, and Magical Powers outside of ourselves. We begged that these Noble Bureaucrats impose their Will on us. We realized that having a perceived problem with alcohol (or whatever) is, without doubt, a moral wrong, a shortcoming, and, most important, a fundamental defect of character. We were humbled by this Evil within us, and begged for Redemption for this Sin. Our mantra became: "Remove my Defects of Character, oh Noble Bureaucrats, for I have sinned."
Step 8 -- "Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all."
Step 9 -- "Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others."
The most fundamental question to ask here is: What if no harm to anyone else has occurred?
You, as a Sovereign Individual, have a right to harm yourself as you please. You have no right to initiate harm against others.
Some bureaucrats may feel you have harmed them because, for example, you didn't follow some bureaucratic rule. Such bureaucrats may feel you have to make amends to the bureaucrats (or the bureaucrats' approved helpers) by engaging in various kinds of busywork that waste your time. Examples: bureaucratic paperwork, "court-ordered service time." By the way, truly voluntary service work is fine; what's immoral here is your being forced to do busywork. In general, the bureaucratic solution for disobeying some bureaucratic rule is ordering you to obey more rules.
A specific example of how this might come about is: Imagine you need to rest for a while on a long drive in your car or truck. The rest occurs at a highway rest stop, in a shopping center, or other site clearly off of the road. You or a passenger has an open container of alcohol. It's especially cold or hot out so you keep the engine running to keep the temperature comfortable (or, in the case of a large diesel truck, because it takes so much effort and cost to get the engine running properly). A bureaucrat notices all of this. As a result, you are ordered to "attend AA meetings and do 300 hours of community service work."
What has happened here? You have harmed no one (except various bureaucrats' inflated feelings that "rules must be obeyed at all costs"). Most likely you don't have a problem with alcohol. What proper moral case can be made that you should be ordered by force to "make amends?"
I think there's no case at all that you owe "amends" to anyone!
Perhaps we might rewrite Steps 8 and 9 like this:
"Made a list of all bureaucratic egos we had bruised because we didn't obey every single rule, and became willing to make amends for these heinous transgressions. We agreed to make such amends by slavishly obeying any and all additional orders flowing from the mouths of these Noble Bureaucrats."
Step 10 -- "Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it."
Ongoing self-examination can help you a lot.
The problem with the part of Step 10 that says "and when we were wrong promptly admitted it" is the likely context most people will read this in, particularly with the dependencies and helplessness fostered by most of the other Steps.
Often you and I are incorrect about something. As part of our continuous process of learning and self-improvement, recognizing when we're incorrect normally can result in amplifying our learning process and improving our life performance. (Another point to note here is that thinking of points as "correct" and "incorrect" often oversimplifies complex matters with inappropriate "black or white," "yes or no" thinking that can lead to non-optimal decision-making. For many matters more complex than the very simplest, there exists a range of alternatives in most situations.)
I think most people reading Step 10 in conjunction with the other steps will react to the phrase "and when we were wrong promptly admitted it" as if moral wrong is being discussed. Indeed, there's a good chance that's what the author(s) of Step 10 intended as an audience reaction.
Going back to some of the discussion earlier in this article: Is it necessary, in order to solve a perceived problem with alcohol (or whatever), to admit or confess to committing moral wrongs? Again, I'd say that's preposterous.
Perhaps we might rewrite Step 10 like this:
"Continued to take personal inventory and when we thought the Bureaucrat we have turned our life over to would approve of it, we confessed to having committed all sorts of Moral Wrongs. Thus, we felt better and absolved ourselves of our sins of Moral Wrong by confessing to the Noble Bureaucrats and their approved helpers."
Step 11 -- "Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out."
Not wanting to infringe on some readers' religious sensitivities, I'll refrain from much comment on this Step -- since clearly this Step is mostly religious in nature.
In general, I think you're best off looking for solutions to the challenges of your life from inside of yourself.
Step 12 -- "Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to [others with the same personal behavior problem] and to practice these principles in all our affairs."
"Spiritual awakening" has religious overtones. Rather than bringing religion into the matter of solving your alcohol (or whatever) problem, why not speak of a self-awakening to important matters concerning your personal health? Surely if you care about your longevity and physical and mental well-being, you would benefit to such a self-awakening if indeed you have a problem with alcohol (or whatever).
Overall, the approach of these twelve steps fosters dependence and helplessness. Much stronger, and self-empowering for your personal development, is looking inside yourself for solutions to the challenges in your life. Solve your challenges, rather than create lifelong dependencies on the solutions themselves.
Most important, avoid creating dependencies upon sycophantic bureaucrats and their approved helpers. Avoid letting these parasites suck out the substance of your individual Will, whether by force or by your acquiescing acceptance.
Seek assistance in your life as needed, but make your own decisions.
For those who succumb to the lure of dependencies and bureaucrats, I offer the following rewrite of Step 12:
"Having decided that other people -- especially bureaucrats and their approved helpers -- can make decisions for me in my life better than I can, I think this is the best approach for everyone. Therefore, I vow to spread the Gospel of Helplessness."
So, Why Indeed Do Bureaucrats Love 12-Step Programs? As discussed earlier, bureaucrats thrive when they can create perceived psychological dependence on them.
(1) Twelve-step programs create a moral justification for the bureaucrat's job (at least in the eyes of the bureaucrat).
(2) Twelve-step programs ensure a steady stream of "clients" for the bureaucrats, so lots of work-hours and jobs continue to be available to them and to their approved helpers. Compulsory 12-step programs form a "full-service job creation plan for bureaucrats and their approved helpers."
(3) Bureaucrats generally have low levels of self-esteem. They feel powerless. They derive a perverse sense of pleasure from pulling 12-step program participants down to their level.
(4) Bureaucrats are not self-empowered. They also have "someone above them" (their perception of their circumstances). Since it's commonplace for human beings to "project" their view onto others, it's easy for bureaucrats to do the same. Bureaucrats perceive they always have "someone above them" so they think it's only proper and natural that everyone else always has "someone above them." They have no concept whatsoever that there might actually be individuals in the world who view themselves as Sovereign Individuals (who of course do not perceive that anyone is "above them," or perceive any need in their life for such a concept).
(5) Bureaucrats usually recognize (probably most often at an unconscious level) that many people have a psychological need to obey orders. Bureaucrats are very happy to fill this need! (In turn, bureaucrats also have a psychological need to obey orders -- which is fulfilled by their jobs in which someone is always "above them.") The "clients" who obey the "helping" orders of bureaucrats simply because those orders emanate from the mouths of bureaucrats, exhibit personal development skills still at a relatively unconscious level (see ideas of Julian Jaynes - 'Report #TL10: How to Achieve and Increase Personal Power').
(6) The reason bureaucrats encourage "confessions to moral wrongs" is to elicit submission to their judgment and orders.
(7) Whenever an external force causes an action (such as inducing a participant to take part in compulsory attendance at A.A. meetings), the action is likely to take place only as long as the force is present. (Of course, this is a completely separate matter from whether the action is effective or moral.)
Remove the external force, and the motivation for the action disappears. If a participant lacks internal desire to stop drinking (or smoking, or whatever), it's unlikely the participant will feel a need to continue to attend A.A. (or whatever similar meetings) once the external force is removed.
In fact, as discussed earlier, A.A. itself holds that the only requirement for membership is "a desire to stop drinking." Obviously A.A. means an internal desire, not an external force. By "imposing compulsory attendance at A.A. meetings," bureaucrats are condemning to failure the very participants they allegedly are trying to help! Reason: the stated A.A. requirement of motivation by internal desire is brazenly not being followed by the bureaucrats.
Could the bureaucrats be doing this intentionally? I think this is a plausible hypothesis. After all, such actions by the bureaucrats virtually assure them of a revolving door of "clients" to "help." The recurring failures ensure a fat supply of jobs, money, and clients for years and years to come for the bureaucrats -- and their approved helpers.
WHEN TO DROP A CONFRONTATION WITH BUREAUCRATS
by James Robertson
As Build Freedomns, we emphasize forming our own mutually-beneficial relationships -- both business and personal -- with like-minded, freedom-oriented individuals. Nonetheless, we as Build Freedomns also recognize that bureaucrats will occasionally attack us. We also normally regard bureaucrats as, at the very least, impediments to our productive, creative lives; at their worst, bureaucrats are enemies of our productive lives as well as Value Destroyers of the worst kind.
In general, bureaucrats should be avoided. I personally place a strong emphasis on low-profile with bureaucrats being best strategy most of the time. (Note: There's a big difference, of course, between avoidance of bureaucrats and capitulation to slavery! Do note the difference, and don't confuse one with the other.)
So, when is it worth it to take time and effort away from your positive, productive life to do battle with these low-lifes? I don't think there's a simple, all-encompassing answer to this question. Why no clear answer? One, a decision on when to pursue a battle and when to avoid a battle with bureaucrats is very much a matter of personal discretion and decision-making. Two, the world is a complex place and there are too many types of situations that can come up to find a rigid, always-correct way to decide how to answer this question. (And of course, we as Build Freedomns are definitely NOT bureaucratic-type people. We look for practical guidelines in our lives when deciding how to deal with bureaucrats. We don't want to be like the bureaucrats and be completely inflexible because our "rules of thumb" are too rigid.)
I would like to illustrate by specific example of the experience of one Build Freedomn. In this particular case, I think there is indeed a simple, clear-cut answer to the question: Should this person in this particular situation drop his confrontation with the bureaucrats, or continue to battle them?
This particular Build Freedomn wrote us a letter asking for help on how to proceed. He lives in a small town in the Southeastern United States.
This man agrees with the freedom-oriented views that we as Build Freedomns hold. He came to one of our Seminars. He posted the Build Freedom Code in public view on his property. He has a Build Freedom Vehicle Operator Certificate. Apparently he's also very concerned about corruption in the world of the bureaucrats. The manner in which he has expressed this concern apparently has very nearly gotten him killed.
[I now reproduce most of his letter to us. I have changed names, places, and dates. Let's call this fellow Build Freedomn "George."]
"Dear Friends of Freedom:
I need your help!
I live near a small town (Betaville population under 500) predominantly white residents. There is a nearby town (Alphaville population under 500) predominantly black residents.
January 5, 1995: I witnessed a resident from Alphaville shoplifting from a convenience store in Betaville. I said something to him as he was leaving the store. He came back in ranting and raving, cursing and swearing. Within a few minutes after he and his sidekick finally left, a carload of his associates from Alphaville came into the store chanting threatening parts from rap songs and saying they could take whatever they wanted. These people are known drug dealers and have gang affiliations.
January 8, 1995: An individual (James Noonan) who I had been talking to at the store on the 5th was cornered in the store by these "gangsters." He was beaten badly, sustaining a broken collar bone, broken jaw, fractured ribs and multiple bruises. Another local man came to his aid, saving his life, by getting his shotgun from his vehicle and coming into the store to get the attackers to quit.
The Betaville police officer was off duty and in the hospital for open heart surgery. The first officers on the scene were an officer from Alphaville and the local constable. The man with the shotgun (Todd Gerry) surrendered his shotgun to the Alphaville officer. The Alphaville officer then unloaded the shotgun and placed Mr. Gerry under arrest. During this entire event there was a mob of people from Alphaville outside of the store, numbers range from 25 to 70. The officers then went and locked themselves in their car waiting for backup, leaving Mr. Gerry in the store with the attackers with no means of defense. The attack ensued again and Mr. Gerry sustained a broken nose in two places, while under arrest. The attackers were allowed to escape the scene and were apprehended on a later date. Mr. Gerry was originally arrested on a felony; the charge has since been reduced to a misdemeanor.
Since this occurrence, there have been threats of violence and retaliation against Mr. Noonan, Mr. Gerry, and myself. I informed the Betaville officer of these threats and that I was now carrying a weapon. He told me to watch my back.
Mr. Gerry, Mr. Noonan, and myself have been doing some investigative work on our own. The information we have discovered leads to some very alarming evidence. It is our belief that these "gangsters" are working for the local police and possibly the county police. One of these "gangsters" works for the state penitentiary, and has been seen taking large sums of money to the local (Betaville) bank. This activity appears to be the laundering of drug money.
February 7, 1995: In the morning, the Alphaville chief of police followed me out of his jurisdiction to a county trash dump where I was dumping trash. He said I was speeding through his town. I asked why he was harassing decent citizens instead of taking care of the crack cocaine problem. He disregarded my Build Freedom vehicle operator certificate [Editor: we definitely recommended against using Build Freedom documents with bureaucrats outside of Build Freedom! George should not have used his Build Freedom documents in this situation.], called my name in and got my [Southern state this event occurred in] driver's license number. He then wrote me two tickets -- one for speeding, one for disregarding an officer -- and lectured me about his official duties and also scolded another citizen who came upon the scene to dump his trash.
That afternoon I saw the Alphaville chief in Betaville at a grocery store. He had taken the Alphaville city treasurer to get groceries. I asked him if that was part of his official duties. He began backing his police car out ignoring me. I then told him that he better be walking a straight line because I had people watching him. I then began walking back to my car. He put his car in drive and punched the accelerator. I stopped, looked over my shoulder, through up my hands and said "come on." He then accelerated again, striking my left leg as I jumped out of the way.
I went that night to file charges with the Betaville police. He went and conspired with the Alphaville officer before taking my report. He returned, stating that all he could do is take an incident report and turn it over to the state police to investigate. He then informed me that I would have to take my guns off. I asked why. He said it was against the law. I asked what law. He could not answer, because no such law exists. He then informed me that if that Alphaville officer stopped my with my guns I would be killed. I told him I believed that, since he had already tried to run me down with his police car in the middle of Betaville during the busiest part of the day in front of untold witnesses. I also told him that I didn't want to hurt anyone but would not be caught unarmed until this entire matter was resolved.
February 8, 1995: Mr. Noonan and my wife went with me to talk to the mayor of Alphaville. We were unable to talk to him but we did talk with his wife who is also the court clerk. I informed her of the incident and asked her to have the mayor call me. I know the mayor and have had business dealings with him in the past, I also consider him to be a friend. I was never called. However there was a special town meeting that night over the matter. They were afraid I was going to sue the city.
In mid-evening on February 8, my wife and I left Betaville after eating at a local restaurant. We noticed the Alphaville and Betaville officers were parked together talking. Two hours later that evening we were coming back home passing through Alphaville, when here came the blue lights. The Alphaville chief had notified the state police and had my name put on a "red list" and all troopers and surrounding county deputies had been notified. He had also checked out my [Southern state this event occurred in] driver's license and found out that it was now suspended (effective that same day February 8!!!). Well I was not about to stop for this "vigilante cop" to kill me. I kept driving into Betaville. The Betaville police attempted to set up a road block, I went around it and proceeded toward my home some three miles out of town. The Betaville police passed me and attempted another road block, again I went around it. I stopped in my front yard and ran toward my house. The neighbors were now looking, and if they shot me it was going to be in the back. They jumped me and in wrestling me to the ground the Betaville officer pushed my right hand toward my gun and said "he's going for his gun." It is painfully obvious that they had every intention of killing me but could not now that my neighbors were watching. They threatened me with three felonies, but only wrote me a hazardous driving ticket and confiscated four weapons valued at $1400 from me. They say I will not get my weapons back, that I have to forfeit them.
As you may now see, I have stirred their hornets nest. I will be grateful for any assistance in this matter.
Fellow Freedom Lover,
George"
Separately, George also sent us the following:
"Dear Friends of Freedom,
I would like your opinion on the following idea. I have posted the following notice on my property. In your opinion, would this constitute a legally binding contract upon people entering my property? Any comments on this matter will be appreciated."
The next page then says: "LEGAL NOTICE: This property is a Build Freedom territory; by entering upon this property you are hereby required to abide by the following code. Each violation of this code will require a payment of $100,000.00 (one hundred thousand U.S. dollars) to each inhabitant residing on this property. Payment will become due upon demand by the inhabitant(s). Failure to pay will result in a lien being placed upon your property, name, and hand signature. Your assets will be seized and wages garnished until such time as payment has been made in full." Then, George lists the Build Freedom Code.
I responded a short time later with the following letter to George:
"Dear George,
Thanks for sharing some of your trials and tribulations. I hope everything works out okay for you.
You asked for help.
May I suggest a different approach to your situation: "Leap Outside the Situation." Remember, in Build Freedom we emphasize creating our own voluntary alternatives, not changing the existing system -- however corrupt and criminal it may be.
In general, I would think your time would be best spent increasing your own abilities, and interacting with other freedom-lovers rather than "taking on the bad guys."
Your use of the Build Freedom Code is admirable. May I suggest you use it privately, and with friends? Your enemies are not a "target market" for that message anyway; it's unlikely you'll convince the "bad guys" about the virtues of the Build Freedom Code. Posting it publicly, where mostly "bad guys" see it, is an invitation to trouble. They're not interested, and may even kill you for it! Is it worth giving up or otherwise risking your Sovereign, productive life for a bunch of morons who won't listen anyway?
I recommend dropping the confrontation with the "bad guys." Interact with your fellow intelligent freedom-lovers. Why not consider attending one of our Seminars again?
Best regards,
Jim"
Reading George's story of what happened to him is enough to make your blood boil! I've heard stories of the bureaucrats and "gangsters" in small Southern towns making criminal deals such as the ones George describes.
But how should this be dealt with?
Leave it alone! Generally, bureaucrats WANT a confrontation because it gives them a chance to justify their existence and their jobs. When you confront them, it gives them a chance and excuse to intervene. It puts you in their minds. Out of sight, out of mind works most of the time with bureaucrats -- so be low-profile whenever possible.
I say again: Is it worth giving up or otherwise risking your Sovereign, productive life for a bunch of morons who won't listen anyway? I say not.
Live your life as free as possible, and do not capitulate by being a slave unless there are temporarily no other good alternatives. (Sometimes you may need to capitulate on some smaller issues, while you concentrate on the most important bureaucrat-involving issues in your life.)
The bureaucrat-infested system is corrupt through-and-through. It's not on you to change a sewer-system such as the roach-infested nest of bureaucratic vipers. Go with us, as we create our own systems and relationships. We as Build Freedomns can fully concentrate on Creating Value with like-minded individuals. What could be a more moral purpose for your life?
WHY BUREAUCRATS MAKE SO MANY REGULATIONS
by James Robertson
Why do bureaucrats make so many regulations?
One reason is it gives justification (in their minds, at least) for their jobs and their existence. In their warped way of thinking, they engage in Value Destruction while calling it "beneficial regulation." Leave it to bureaucrats to impede Human Progress, while calling such Value Destruction "beneficial." We, the true Value Creators, understand the true nature of Wealth Creation in business organizations and personal networks.
Another reason is that most bureaucrats would probably feel "lost" in a world with few regulations. They don't understand the true nature of what Creates Value; instead, they think that "regulation for the sake of regulation" is a moral and practical good. Obviously they have no understanding of what it means to engage in productive, voluntary, mutually-beneficial Value Creation without force or coercion. They feel "lost" if there aren't enough regulations. Their knee-jerk reaction is: "There ought to be a regulation against that!" Of course, you and I know that most often the human activity they impede results in a terrible Waste of your time and everyone's time. Even worse than the waste of time is the tremendous Value Destruction that occurs as bureaucrats seek to destroy business networks, personal relationships they don't approve of, financial arrangements, and other True Values. Not a surprising result at all, I suppose, coming from Criminal Minds!
Another reason is that most bureaucrats feel personally powerless. Lacking much personal power, bureaucrats exert their need for power in a warped way (i.e., using force or threat of force against others). As the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu noted, paradoxically this makes bureaucrats weak -- because using force, or threat of force, against others is not a valid or correct exercise of genuine personal power. Genuine personally-powerful people do not need to initiate force or threat of force to accomplish their creative life purposes. Making or enforcing "regulations for the sake of regulations" is one way that bureaucrats use force, and threaten to use force, against those they disapprove of.
Another reason is that most bureaucrats actually derive psychological pleasure from trying to control others by force or threat of force. Obviously they operate at a very low, animal-like mentality for this to be true. As they see it, the more regulations they make, the more they have a chance to control human beings by force or threat of force.
Which brings us to one of the most insightful passages I've ever read concerning the true nature of bureaucrats and their regulations. The author is Ayn Rand. These quotes are from page 411 of my edition of Atlas Shrugged. Basically, Value Creator Hank Rearden has been accused of breaking some regulations the bureaucrats have made about Rearden's steel business having to do with how much or little steel he may produce, when, and to whom he may sell or not sell.
Says the bureaucrat Floyd Ferris: "You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we knew you'd slip sooner or later ... [and break one of our regulations] ... this is just what we wanted."
Rearden: "You seem to be pleased about it."
Bureaucrat Ferris: "Don't I have good reason to be?"
Rearden: "But, after all, I did break one of your laws."
Bureaucrat Ferris: "Well, what do you think they're there for?"
Continues bureaucrat Ferris: "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against ...
We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted [Editor: Obfuscation of meaning is a key element of the con games bureaucrats and politicians play.] -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Ayn Rand here writes one of the most brilliant expositions I've ever seen about the core of the bureaucratic mentality.
Only if you feel GUILTY about your Value Creation can bureaucrats truly control you. When you admit and confess to yourself and to others that your Value Creation is morally wrong, you are psychologically defeated. This is precisely what they want. Only by making you yourself feel like a criminal about your Value Creation can they defeat you.
[Even if you yourself do not think you've done anything morally wrong in Creating Value and Maintaining Value (Maintaining Value includes protecting your assets), it's very important for the bureaucrats to maintain a Public Spectacle of guilty regulation-breakers. So, at the very least, the bureaucrats almost always try to obtain a "plea of guilty" so that they can control as many "self-confessed criminals" as possible. Another point is that such "self-confessed criminals" seem quite similar to the "self-confessed criminal witches" the Puritans conjured up in 17th-century Massachusetts.]
With bureaucratic regulations concerning taxes alone taking up entire rooms filled with regulation books, the bureaucrats feel pretty powerful when they can call anyone they wish a "criminal."
Indeed, Ayn Rand is correct when she implies that bureaucrats really don't particularly care what regulations are followed or not. Bureaucrats like to operate on "bureaucratic whim" and do what they like. You are morally justified in taking many, many steps to protect yourself and your assets from these vermin.
In Build Freedom, you are free. The bureaucrat-infested system is corrupt through-and-through. It's not on you to change a sewer-system such the roach-infested nest of bureaucratic vipers. Go with us, as we create our own systems and relationships. We as Build Freedomns can fully concentrate on Creating Value in business organizations and personal networks with like-minded individuals. The bureaucratic vermin are largely irrelevant to your most productive relationships. It isn't even necessary to go to a hidden valley as they did in Atlas Shrugged. Build Freedom exists -- in the real world -- right now! You are already a part of it -- in the real world!
It is a pleasure to deal with you, the true Value Creators!
BUREAUCRATIC COVER-UPS: A SYSTEMATIC PROBLEM?
by Russell Thomas
It took months of pushing, pulling screaming and pressuring by protesters, but it finally happened. "Investigations" were held on Ruby Ridge and Waco. To many, I among them, it is remarkable that such investigative hearings were held at all. The results thus far, or lack thereof, have been less than surprising, however.
Initially there seemed to be a widespread feeling among the public that both the Branch Davidians and Randy Weaver got what they deserved. As the truth (at least some of it) was revealed, however, many people began to realize the pervasive perversion of the so-called "government" and the oppressive nature of the aptly named "terrocrats." One alternate juror for the Weaver Trial summed up this feeling when she said, "I felt like a kid on Christmas morning who woke up to find out that there is no Santa and that my parents were responsible for lying to me." In fact, this realization or "awakening" of the public to the out-of-control destructiveness of government bureaucrats is accelerating at such a rate that even mainstream media has admitted the problem.
For example, The Arizona Republic of August 12, 1995 had an article from the Washington Post entitled, "FBI Brass Facing Criminal Probe," which reports that not only was the method used by the FBI and other bureaucrats at Ruby Ridge totally unjustifiable, they then "allegedly" proceeded to lie about it in court and destroy documents pertaining to it. According to the article: "[T]he Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation to determine whether high ranking officials lied or obstructed justice.." One so-called "Justice Department" official was quoted as saying the review had become "jolting and devastating in its potential in terms of the numbers (of FBI officials) who might be involved." (Note: Cover-ups and Conspiracies are the norm and are far more widespread and inclusive than any such official could imagine. For more info, see next month's article, "New World Order Or No (Imposed) World Order. Another official was quoted as saying that the original so-called "investigation" was "based on a wink and a nod. It was clear by the way they asked questions that they did not want any answers that did not comport with a predetermined point of view."
Cover-ups, such as "Watergate," "Iran-Contra," "Iraqgate," etc. have been going on for years, but it is just recently that the public has started to realize it. Since it appears that no "solution" has come about for such problems, could it be that these incidents have not occurred as a result of certain isolated bureaucrats abusing their power, but as a result of a systemic problem? In other words, was it necessarily the result of the individuals involved, or was it due to the very nature of "government" bureaucracies themselves? Would most anyone in the same system have done the same thing? On the surface it may appear that it is a function of "dirty scumball politicians," but there are several reasons why the systemic explanation is more likely the case.
The first could be attributed to what Frederich Nietzche called "the will to power." He writes, "My idea is that every specific body strives to be master over all space and to extend its force (i.e., its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: Thus they conspire together for power." Essentially, he is saying that people strive to feel their power, and they tend to join forces with others in order to further the realm of their power. This can be done in a destructive way or it can be done in a constructive way, depending on the purpose of the system involved. If this is the nature (or one of them) of humans, what better way for people to express their power than through the coercion of others through this thing called "government." People who tend to use this drive for power destructively tend to unconsciously choose "government" as a means of expressing it.
The second reason is what Stewart Emery called "ultimate weakness." It is not as accurate to say that these bureaucrats were corrupted by their power as it is to say that they were corrupted by the weakness of their own personality. Such bureaucrats normally do not express their will to power in a positive way, utilizing their personal power; they usually express it destructively through coercive power. Therefore, they normally feel weak and become intoxicated with the sudden feeling of power they achieve by coercing others.
A third reason that such problems arise is that in such bureaucracies the incentive is not toward honesty and quality of function, but toward dishonesty and dysfunction. In most traditional bureaucracies, if you screw up and are honest about it, you are punished; if you are dishonest, you get away with it. In an organization or system that has its incentives logically designed, honesty and constant improvement of function and quality would be promoted, as opposed to being punished, regardless of the circumstances. For example, successful businesses promote honesty among its employees so that when mistakes are made, they can easily be identified and corrected and improvements can be made to the system; no on is blamed or punished. In bureaucracies honesty is discouraged because the person responsible for the mistake is punished, rather than the problem being corrected and the system being improved -- as the results show.
An additional reason is the brainwashing employed upon government bureaucrats and the tremendous amount of obedience expected of them. In addition to the typical brainwashing received in "government schools," government employees are further inundated with propaganda that inhibits their thinking and decision-making abilities. The "enforcement branches" -- such as the FBI, BATF, IRS, etc. -- are especially bad in this respect, being not much different in their nature from military organizations. Bureaucrats in these agencies are typically little more than order-following robots. How could anyone expect such mindless automatons to do much more than they have been programmed to do: follow rules (orders, "authorities," etc.)?
One final reason that such atrocities occur is due to the complex nature of how systems function. In complex systems, such as those made up of government bureaucrats, the cumulative effect of actions taken by individuals can more easily lead to unintended consequences. Complex structures that are organized and function well, such as the healthy human body, can build upon itself in a positive and productive way. But complex structures that are organized and function poorly, such as those of government bureaucrats, usually lead to harmful and destructive results (either intentionally or unintentionally). Complex systems often have interactions that are unpredictable and unreliable and, if the system is set up improperly to begin with, it is far more likely to produce counterproductive results.
To summarize, one possible perspective of the Ruby Ridge, etc. incidents could be to say that the individual bureaucrats involved were less (although still somewhat) responsible for the results than the system of (so-called) "government" itself. I do not believe that the individuals involved should be absolved of all wrongdoing, as they most certainly should be held responsible for their own actions. But when in a system designed by Romans, it is much more difficult to act like anything but a Roman. The necessary solution, then, is to abdicate the use of well-designed, incentive-correct, and non-bureaucratic organizations (when organizations are necessary at all), such as those based on business dynamics.
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com