One of the
most destructive influences of “the State” upon society,
is the way it subverts responsibility.

In order
to understand the nature of this subversion, one has to understand
what “the State” really is, and the irrational paradigm
in the minds of its subjects which its agents rely upon to sustain
their diabolical power to rule over others without individual
consent.

“The
State” is in fact a non-entity that exists only in the imaginations
of individuals caught in the trance-like collectivist paradigm.
When one breaks free of this paradigm, it becomes clear what a
farce the notion of “the State” is, along with equally
farcical notions such as the idea that “groups” are
entities, or that there exists a “greater whole” of
mankind, or that there is a greater “We”. None of these
imagined “realities” hold up under close examination;
for the only human entity is the individual. Put another way,
the individual comprises the “greatest whole” of humanity.
There is no über-entity with an über-mind who is capable
of thinking and acting – only individuals, who are by nature
separate, and independently functioning, entities.

[Please note:
There are two distinct definitions of the term “collectivism”,
and by default, the term “collectivist”. For the purposes
of this article, the second definition is applied exclusively.
Here are the two definitions, from Merriam-Webster online:

col·lec·tiv·ism

1
: a political or economic theory advocating collective
control especially over production and distribution; also
: a system marked by such control

2
: emphasis on collective rather than individual
action or identity

– col·lec·tiv·ist  -vist
adjective or noun ]

This irrational,
group-oriented collectivist paradigm is what fosters externally
guided actions. When orders are received from those individuals
commonly accepted as the “authorities” of “the
group”, and as long as the orders fit nominally within the
collective values projected by “the group”, it is perfectly
“normal” from a collectivist’s point of view to
follow those orders – even when they are orders to aggress
against someone, whether someone inside or outside of the group.
Additionally, those who are trapped in the collectivist trance
(virtually all human beings presently, with only very few exceptions),
are themselves vulnerable to group-sanctioned aggression, for
their loyalty is to the group.

By contrast,
a rational individualist rejects, in principle, aggression from
anyone by any means, and will seek to block aggression out of
his life regardless of who “sanctions” it. An individual
who has broken out of the collectivist paradigm does not automatically
take orders from anyone. A rational individualist’s loyalty
is to himself, or herself. Such an individual does not toe the
collectivist line or chant the collectivist mantra. He or she
associates with others not by random interrelation within
the confines of a group, but by carefully groomed, value-reciprocating
one-on-one relationships with others, while keeping herself
at the center of, and in full control of, her own network. (Note
that being in control of one’s network does not involve controlling
the people in one’s network.)

The group
model of human association subordinates the individual; by contrast,
the network model of human association exalts the individual.
The group model is supported by the near universal “collectivist”
paradigm; the network model is supported by the more evolved and
emergent “rational individualist” paradigm.

The network
model of human association is virtually impossible to corrupt,
or to use to commit aggression – for in a network, no one
is bound by any group allegiance. Besides, each action a rational
individualist undertakes is inwardly arrived at and inwardly driven.
It would be colossally stupid and self-destructive to make a conscious
choice to commit aggression against those one has worked hard
to build positive, value-reciprocating one-on-one relationships
with. Not so within a group: Group administrators set policy and
issue orders. Group dynamics demand that the individual reflect
the values of the group, and that one-on-one relationships –
even those between oneself and other “group members”
– be generally treated as secondary to one’s fantasy
“relationship” with the non-entity of “the group”.

To anyone
who has completely broken free of the collectivist paradigm, it
is clear that the collectivist paradigm – the mindset that
relates to others by group association and submits to group dynamics
– is the very bedrock of the State. The collectivist paradigm
compels the individual to subordinate his mind, his very power
to think and to discern, and thus his choices and actions, to
the tenets of the collective. Yet, those tenets evolve to reflect
the desires of a minority of individuals; namely, the “administrators”,
a.k.a. central planners, that the mutually held “group”
fantasy spawns out of necessity – precisely because there
is no actual “group entity”, with its own über-mind,
capable of administering itself. Thus, the illusory “collective”
functions as a disguise for the master-slave relationship between
a minority of dominant individuals, and a majority of submissive
individuals.

This
is why groups, especially political and religious groups, inevitably
become dominated by the brightest narcissistic sociopaths participating
in “the group”: Only a sociopath would have any desire
to rule, bully, or dictate to others. The group model of human
association, supported by the collectivist paradigm, is what makes
it possible for these sociopaths (who are very much a minority)
to rise to positions of dominance from which to disingenuously
impose their sick fantasies upon their fellow human beings. The
bigger the group, the bigger the pool that these sociopaths arise
from, ultimately producing more extreme tyrants.