Forget the ‘Public Good’
I wouldnÂ’t
have any issue with Clovers (see here for samples) if they were
wiling to live their Cloverish lives as they see fit – and
willing to leave the rest of us free to live ours as we see fit.
But of course, Clovers – by definition – cannot
abide that. The quality – the personality defect – that
makes a Clover a Clover is his relentless unwillingness to live
– and let live. He – or she – is the sort of person
you canÂ’t just walk away from. Because they will follow
you.
Everywhere.
Relentlessly.
Though you
may want nothing more than to go about your business, Clover considers
everything you do – anything you might do – his
business.
If, say, you
have a club and donÂ’t want him as a member, he will try to
force his way in (using “the law,” of course). It would
never occur to him to start his own club, amenable to himself
and those like-minded.
Clover canÂ’t
just build his house the way he wants his house to be built. He
insists you build yours the way he wants it to be built.
If Clover decides
he needs an air bag, then you must have one also. If Clover “buckles
up,” then you’d better buckle-up, too.
If Clover wants
a 35.5 MPG car – then you will have a 35.5 MPG car.
If Clover doesnÂ’t
trust himself to own a gun responsibly, then clearly no one
else can be allowed to own a gun – since Clover assumes everyone
else is as irresponsible as he is.
The same goes
for “speeding” (as he arbitrarily defines it) as well
as swimming – without a lifeguard on duty.
If Clover only
feels “safe” when random and arbitrary searches are the
order of the day, then random and arbitrary searches will become
the order of the day.
When Clover
decides some “public good” or other deserves to be funded,
he will lobby and legislate and vote to make sure others
are forced to fund it.
And so it goes.
You know the drill.
For Clover,
it is never sufficient to do what he wants, purchase what he wishes
– and leave it at that. Much less leave others free to do as
they wish (and purchase what they wish). Every Clover is
a little Stalin at heart. Collectivizing his life brings
no joy. He must collectivize the lives of others. Only then
is he truly happy. This is the essence of Clover.
How to deal
with such a creature?
Within
the matrix – that is, society as currently constituted –
it is virtually impossible. Because most people have been so effectively
conditioned (by having had their cognitive faculties crippled or
merely never awakened – mostly via government schools) to accept
or at least, never to question Cloverite bromides such as “the
public good.” This Clover deftly manipulates to achieve and
then enforce his good. Get most people to acquiesce to the
idea that there is such a thing as “the public good” –
in other than purely metaphorical terms – and you can get them
to accept being lorded over in the name of a CloverÂ’s very
specific ideas about what constitutes that “good.”
His good.
Make sure that
most people never question the idea of “democracy” (and
its political synonyms, “society” and “we”)
and you have the green light not merely to tyrannize millions of
individuals – but to get them to accept being tyrannized,
by using morality against them.
People –
most people – naturally want to be good and do good. Let Clover
define “good” in his terms – in terms of the
collective – and he is unbeatable. If it is accepted
that good is necessarily a collective thing – and the collective
is defined by Clovers – then no individual stands a
chance. He is “selfish.” He is unconcerned about “the
children” – or “the future.” You name it. Clover
has an endless supply of proxy euphemisms for himself.
Clover also
has back-up.
The state.
It can be and
historically has been overtly authoritarian (less successful, as
history has shown us) or subtly and much more cleverly authoritarian,
such as the modern “democratic” state – and so far,
much more successful. Quite possibly, longer lived, too. Chiefly
because the average person labors under the delusion that his freedom
remains intact, that he is governed by representatives freely chosen
and so with his consent. All of which makes him quiescent –
even if he grumbles every now and then about the ever-tightening
invisible straight jacket he wears. Even if he is opposed to this
or that new law. The person who would never tolerate a king or Duce
or Fuhrer will almost always tolerate – even respect
– a president. So long as he is permitted every so often to
choose a new one, he does not notice that he is never offered the
choice to be free of them all. (See here
for more on the “democratic” con.)
October
19, 2012
Eric Peters
[send him mail] is an
automotive columnist and author of Automotive
Atrocities and Road Hogs (2011). Visit his
website.
Copyright
© 2012 Eric Peters