The unholy trinity: collectivism, sovereignty, corruption

Neil Lock

















































The unholy trinity










The devilhead













  • “They don’t acknowledge that human beings are naturally good and honest”

    I must say that I am truly astonished that anyone could believe that liberal optimist delusion. Homo homini lupus is a much more realistic view. Sad but true. It does not cease to be true merely by wishing that it were not.

    • I always find it strange that so many seem inclined to think of the species they belong to as naturally bad. When they look inside themselves, what do they see? A human being or, as you suggest, a ravening wolf? Because of this, my usual answer to your point is “Speak for yourself!”

      I’m not, by the way, disputing the obvious fact that, in current societies, many people behave badly. But a corrupt society, which offers perverse incentives, will tend to corrupt the individuals in it, starting with the ethically weakest. A corrupt political system leads to a corrupt society, and a corrupt society leads to corrupt individuals. But that says nothing about human nature.

      The question to me is whether human beings living in an honest society, not subjected to perverse incentives, would become corrupt or not. I think the answer is that most would not. A few of the worst scum would, of course; but they are aberrations. That’s why I say “naturally good and honest”.

      • You first have to define what you mean by good and evil.

        Let us start by suggesting that that which is good is that which will gain the approval of the individual’s peer community, and that which is evil is that which will gain the condemnation of the individual’s peer community. If we then make a reasonable assumption that the majority of people seek the approval of their peer community, then it will mean that most people are good.

        • That isn’t the way I look at it, Ian.

          I start from a supposition of moral equality – the kind of equality on which the “rule of law” is based. From that, I derive the idea that what is right and what is wrong in a particular set of circumstances are the same for every individual. And thus, that there exists a moral code of right and wrong, which is the same for everyone.

          And a “good” individual, for me, is someone who strives to discover that code, to understand it and to keep to it. It has nothing to do with peer groups. Indeed, good people in bad societies tend to stand out from their peer group, and often suffer for it.

          You could say that I’m coming from a “natural law” position, and you’d be right – though I don’t greatly like that phrase, as it’s too easy for religionists to pervert into “Gahd’s law.”

          Libertarianism itself can be seen as an attempt to define this code, and to keep it simple (in my view, over-simple) by reducing it to: “Thou shalt not commit aggressions.”

        • Of course good and evil are subjective terms that have varied from culture to culture over the ages. Though it is possible to build a secular morality based on universality…

          If I can’t individually force a neighbour to pay for my medical care, then achieving the same result collectively through the state must also be wrong… Likewise, rape/theft/murder is ‘wrong’ because the victim does not want it to happen to them (if they do then it’s not rape/theft/murder etc.), and also the perpetrator will see little point in performing these actions whilst potentially being simultaneously raped/robbed/murdered themselves… For if rape/theft/murder/taxation/QE/coercion etc. is deemed universally ‘good’, then everyone has to be allowed to do these things without breaking the law, but I think most people would agree that the resulting chaos would be detrimental to life and prosperity.

          A good definition of ‘evil’ would then be those who absolve themselves from the very same standards they impose on everyone else, i.e.; the politician and their many clients who attempt to legitimise their own private activities through laws and legislation (whilst denying them to everyone else), or even the sociopath and narcissist who use a warped sense of morality to justify their own brand of anti-social behaviour.

  • Jolly good Neil. Yards and more learned (often correct) yards of the problem. I would have thought that the sort of collectivism the English once had, a common belief in certain principles and way of living which they sort of exported to the world was actually rather good. As for sovereigns I thought that if they were under the rule of law just like the commoner then all was well. In the Middle Ages England was called “Merrie England”. She must have been doing something right then? The clever trick our enemies have constructed is to replace the once-tyranny of a king without the law by a tyranny under the law – thanks to the “democratic” party system and its mechanisms and nothing else!!!!

    Can’t wait for your cure; please hurry. Then we can really start talking and above all take action?
    I’m fed up with all this talk.

    • You are right about the tyranny of a king being replaced by the tyranny of democracy. The error that revolutionaries (including the early democrats) have made time and time again, is that they seek to bring down a king or a ruling class, but they don’t seek at the same time to bring down the ideological base that supports those rulers – that is, the idea of sovereignty. That’s why revolutions so often produce governments even worse than what they replaced.

      As to talk versus action, there are two ways (and, as far as I know, only two ways) to bring down a ruling class. One is by force of arms. The other is by de-legitimizing its ideological and moral base. Being what I am, I prefer the second way. And in such a war, well chosen words are the only effective weapons.

    • I’m right there with you, Martin. Whilst Neil’s article is another, brilliant description and expose of what I call the “anticivilization”, it leaves one hanging as to what to DO about it (I know you later commented Neil that you were aware of only two ways to bring down a ruling class — force of arms and de-legitimizing its ideological and moral base).

      May I suggest a possible third way? (Which I think incorporates the preferable option of delegitimization)

      You/We outcompete them!

      • Thanks for your kind comment James. Now, I do not know what you mean by outcompete them? I doubt it. you can’t compete against huge amounts of money. you can if you have a better idea that money cannot control. As Moral Re-Armament stated “ideas have legs”.

        I am not sure I know the answer but the following is a possibility “the battle consists not only of opposing but EXPOSING and offering a full consistent and radical alternative” (Ayn Rand). Expose the party system for all you are worth. My website has done the spade work and I can offer more, with help from others. If the LA, using it charitable status, would help us to educate the others why the system is so bad, that would be a start. If you look at my website you will see that the adjustments which our enemies have made to our constitution are very minor but effective so that they have been able to keep the “monarchy show”show on the road while drastically altering its function.

        In my opinion that alternative is to restore the monarchy ( see my website for the following reason: money manipulates and uses the party system to keep control of elections and the media (tools of the present system)and big money was behind the revolution against the monarchy (as in other cases like 1917) because a monarchy steeped in tradition and law is not easily bought, a monarch brought up over decades with a sense of duty,a monarch which is once again empowered to listen to the people and respond (petition) is an anti-dote to the crooks who run the show now. A monarch who does not HAVE to act on the advice of Ministers(as the “democratic” system demands ) A monarch who can choose the Ministers of the Crown from the best brains in the country and not have them parachuted in by this dubious system called “democracy” is infinitely better than what we have now and if WE the ordinary people demand the restoration of the Crown so that He/She can do these things while regulated by the law that, in my opinion is a step forward.

        The other part of this same equation is field Independent candidates(see my website) If you put them up against parties you will fail (money and media against you) but if you stop the parties functioning by running electoral colleges in each constituencies so that any candidate who puts him/herself forward to represent the local people only comes as an individual not as a PARTY representative, that, in my opinion might be a totally different story. you see, you need a free Parliament as the check on the Executive/Crown, but one which agrees with the division of powers which a restored monarchy would bring. YES/NO?

        • Yes, “I” do have a better “idea” that money cannot control (“I” is in quotes because the “idea” isn’t strictly mine, and “idea” is in quotes because it isn’t a singular idea but more an integration of multiple ideas, systems and structures).

          I’ve just read Nick Capaldi’s comment below which actually hints at what I’m talking about:

          “Salvation could come in the form of cutting-edge technologies which bypass the traditional systems and control at a faster rate than bureaucracies can negate them. Failing that, we’re all in big trouble.”

          I’m compiling a “Manifesto” (of sorts) that speaks to my interpretation of this approach, but I’m sorry Martin, a return to monocracy/monarchy, “checked” or otherwise, is not a part of it.

          • James. Have you looked at my proposals or do you just expect other people to look at your proposals and ignore theirs? The changes needed to readjust the present system are very small to put it back into working order. My question is:do you propose to sweep it all away or just leave this very expense anomaly without any real purpose other than show for the tourists?

  • When people immigrate to the UK, they join the state’s collective, which Neil dislikes so much. Therefore we must have open borders! How else will the liberty of “the individual” be increased?!

    Neil you have the same problem as so many libertarians – you never state in what order events must take place to secure liberty. If the government decided that from now on, Virgin Atlantic will have to pay NO tax whatsoever, presumably as a libertarian you support this. After all, that money does not belong to the state.

    You could call this action “an increase in liberty” or you could call it “corporate capitalism” or “cronyism” or “favouritism”. Corporatism is libertarianism-for-some, socialism-for-others. Without specifying the proper sequence of events, you end up defending random things at random points in the name of libertarianism e.g mass immigration. Where in your libertarianism does it explain why UK borders should be opened before VAT is abolished, for example? Why do some issues jump to the head of the queue?

  • Some good analysis here.

    Countries are essentially tax farms for the predatory class, with any consent being bred out of the gene pool. This process has been going on for centuries… Academics are the priests and state apologists. Activists are the useful idiots. Social engineering via social/economic policies are technically the equivalent of genetic engineering… A strong cow can be incapacitated by burdening him with the welfare of all the weak, insecure cows; and easily shamed as a ‘meanie’ should he have the audacity to complain about his predicament. An independent cow is made to be seen as a freak and shunned by all.

    The antithesis of the ‘unholy trinity’ would be ‘honesty’, ‘reason’ and ‘consistency’, but personally I feel we’ve gone way beyond that phase – with deranged feminists getting OBEs and all that; whilst society gradually becomes governed by superstition and mass hysteria. Salvation could come in the form of cutting-edge technologies which bypass the traditional systems and control at a faster rate than bureaucracies can negate them. Failing that, we’re all in big trouble.


  • Pingback: Anarchism, justice and a vision for the future | The Libertarian Alliance Blog

  • Pingback: Good Governance – Part 1: The functions of good governance | The Libertarian Alliance Blog

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s