Often we hear things like “Obamacare has torn us apart.” Or perhaps, “Such and such leader is divisive.” The alleged solution is to pass a health care law that is more “unifying,” or to elect a different politician (suspiciously from the same party as the complainant) that brings the people together. But I think that unification is bad if it is a political goal. At the very least, we must point out that using politics to bring people together necessarily infers that we are bringing people together in a way that they would have not done naturally.
This forced “togetherness” is the goal of politics because a people likeminded behind their ruler, no matter how bad he is, leads to incomparable power. There is power in numbers, so of course the power parties in America want to “bring people together.” But what is never questioned is why we need to use the State to accomplish this. For in a environment of freedom, either the people will come together or they will not. If they will, then the politician is proven unnecessary after all. And if they will not, then why should the coercion required to bring them together be praised at all?
More importantly, we should point out that politics, the PR branch of the criminal gang called the State, will always be divisive. Of course people won’t agree on how to spend other people’s money! Of course people won’t agree on how the ruler should organize the masses! Contrary to this, we have the free market in which participation comes voluntarily. Is this not the most natural and important, that is, authentic, “togetherness?” Of course, the politicians and their respective gangs hate the thought of people coming together on their own initiative.
But next time you hear all this hoopla about unification and divisiveness in the political arena, separate yourself from such crony talk and ask yourself, do either the status quo or its suggestive alternative seek to limit the role of the State? The answer is usually no. And since the answer is no, we must ask, “who cares?” Who wants to be united around something immoral and unproductive? Perhaps, when there is great evil stirring, divisiveness is key. Divisiveness is the solution. Long live divisiveness.
Now, I do not want to give the impression that I hold divisiveness as the good. But togetherness around evil is wrong, is it not? Good or bad, not unification and division, should be our standard.
Generally speaking, for example, the two parties in Washington get along just fine. Once in a while though, and always in front of the cameras, they will express disagreement. And of course the media line is that they ought to “compromise and work together.” No! Their disagreements and inefficiencies are to our benefit! Have they taken a recess because they just can’t make any progress? Fantastic! Let’s hope the recess last months. As soon as they compromise they are coming for you and your wallet.
Recently, the majority of “conservatives” have been angry about Obama’s failure to produce a working website. But isn’t this a glorious development? Why lobby to fix the means by which the poison is delivered?