ILL-Usions 2022

One person acting alone will not be enough.

As a child I blamed every bad thing (that I got caught for) on someone else or tried to talk my way out of it. When I started climbing the consequences of physical dishonesty taught me to change my behavior, and those sharp edges, combined with gravity, shaped my relationship to the world long after I quit the mountains. Risk and danger are extraordinary teachers, and historically so, which makes me wonder why the illusion of safety and the abdication of personal responsibility are so attractive to so many right now.

Granted, we all have our heads down, "grinding" or "hustling", but focusing so tightly on improving our circumstances can blind us to the potential negative downstream effects. Getting our slice of pie, without safeguarding the rights, laws, and means that allow us to act independently robs future generations of the opportunity to determine their own course in life, to assume individual sovereignty. It took me a couple of decades to acknowledge the social- and infra-structure that allowed me to do what I wanted. Until then I just took, and took more. Protecting the personal autonomy we have inherited should be paramount. And yet ...

To make our lives easier we avoid public and private discourse on the difficult topics of human existence. Refusing such conversation guarantees that we are talked "to" by un/elected politicians and in/experts instead of being talked "with". Accepting the veracity of self-serving truths that are enforced by the threat of violence leads down an ever-narrowing path where individual choice becomes less available. We obeyed when they said, "Lock yourselves down or we will lock you up." If it takes a threat to assure compliance it is likely that the measures or concepts being imposed either infringe or do not make sense. Some part deep within understands this.

Human beings possess common sense. Our intuitive capacities would inform decisions and actions if we prevented our supposedly-logical minds from countermanding the feelings and information provided by sensory mechanisms that are natural within us. I consider it both right and responsibility to study, to read and discuss, and to make informed decisions for myself and my loved ones. The ignorant are easily manipulated hence education is a declaration of independence. In this era, knowledge is not enough; many are intelligent, able to examine and parse the issues, yet we still obey edicts that are based in power rather than knowledge. We bow, and suffer unintended consequences ... of course, the government is here to help.

As I look back on two years of restricted freedom, suppressed speech, and mythical medical revolution all promising certainty of safety and a return to normal, I question my behavior. And I wonder, do you review your own acquiescence, your tweets and posts and ask yourself whose narratives you parroted and whether those declarations and mandates and rulings were true? Do you still trust the motives and words coming down from on high now that they are trying to cover the tracks of their own decisions and actions?

We accept the transgressions against our personal agency because the transgressors promise prosperity (only theirs to give if they steal it from others), safety (which they can never guarantee but the words sound nice), freedom (which they misunderstand and fear), and democracy (the current definition of which appears to be mob rule). The increasingly intolerant and restrictive cultural norms imposed by the left and right wing — both of which wish to exercise ever more control over individuals' behavior — are not levied to improve the quality of life but to override the rights and abilities of individuals to decide what is correct for themselves. If the government's thesis is predicated on distrust of the governed, on their belief that citizens can't make decisions without oversight and influence, well, it's a bad thesis that shunts human potential to the margins.

I've never appreciated being told what to do by people who I believe are less intelligent, with less experience, who rarely confront the consequences of their decisions and whose "telling" doesn't consider my own interests. If government won't accept responsibility, i.e. I can't hold them accountable, then they can't tell me what I can't do (for narrow context check out Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A2d 1306 D.C. App. 1983). I quite understand the social contract of a greater good and, of course, I make concessions regarding personal autonomy when what I want to do may cause harm to others. However, when what I choose to do does not immediately affect or harm others, now or in the future I consider it my right to "follow my bliss". Obviously, the consumptive nature of my existence means there will be fewer resources for others in the future but the solution to that was only attractive when I was young and full of existential anxiety.

Does quality of life improve when draconian, religiously-based laws are imposed across all of our society? Perhaps I don't worship the same god. Does it improve when special interests — either businesses or social groups — manage to cement their self-serving legislation across all of our society? Maybe I believe in greater freedom. Do our lives improve when — either by action or inaction — we allow government and its corporate partners at all levels to assume a monopoly on expertise, and violence?

When we hand over such monopoly we presume wisdom and competence as well as strict and respectful standards of behavior. We all have witnessed the error of such presumption. And while some straighten their spines to confront violent expression of authority, too few of us have pointed out or attempted to elect out the incompetence that goes hand-in-hand with the popularity contests, nepotism, and favoritism that constitute our current elections. I wonder what it would take to make me (again) believe that my vote and my words matter.

I dearly wish that education — and perhaps the study of history and human nature — was of greater interest. Words have meaning, and they may carry weight. "We the People ... do ordain and establish this Constitution," suggests that it was not those in power who issued an edict, rather they submitted themselves to, and included themselves among The People. Maybe we should remember who gives the consent in this relationship.

It appears to me that, much of what the Founding Fathers sought to protect themselves and future citizens from has come to pass, i.e. infringements on certain rights but more importantly the growth in size and power of an unelected, appointed and hired bureaucracy that has become the real seat of federal power and answers to no constituents. That such individuals are employed by the government makes them no more expert or sensitive than you or I, but, to those who believe in the sanctity of the State, their positions do make it appear so.

In our training practice over the years we have often heard, "I want someone else to handle that for me," or, "I just want to be told what to do." These words are spoken by those who desire the result, promise to do the work (which they only sometimes do), but don't want to examine their motivation, self-knowledge, or their own process. They imagine that the result of simple obedience is the same as self-determined, mindful striving. This small world, "artificial" version of the conversation has meaning outside of the four walls of the gym. Whenever you ask someone else to handle it you presume that the handling or telling will offer an outcome that you would have chosen had you the courage or strength to make that choice yourself. It is also the one time the power-hungry will do what you ask.

May we protect ourselves from their so-called good intentions.