The Negation of The Mind | Libertarian Society Singapore

There have been many attempts to fix the problem of what our papers call “political apathy”. There are people who claim that such apathy is intrinsic in the youths that exhibit it; they lament it as the curse of a generation, and that nothing can be done to change it. There are also people who claim, quite accurately, that this alleged apathy is caused by the government – though one would wonder why their accusations are so feeble; gently blaming the policies of the “nanny state” instead of condemning the totalitarian monstrosity which it is.
Such is the importance of “political correctness” that even the main critics of the State seek to adhere to.
Consider a person, who, in a freak airplane accident, lands on a deserted island. The only manner in which he can survive would be to make decisions and to trust in the ability of his mind. Any default would hamper his chances of survival. Such a man surrenders nothing to beyond the facts of the situation; he knows that if he is to live, he has to think, he has to judge, and that he cannot act on whim nor arbitrary notions.
If it’s not already eminently clear, a person in nature has only his sovereign mind as a tool of survival.
But what occurs if such a man allows his mind to be impeached? That instead of allowing reality to be the court of final appeal, he is “not to judge”, that he is to nullify his mind to conform and to submit, to obey and to “serve the nation”?
The destruction starts at the notion of compulsory public education. A child may not automatically choose education as a value – someone else (the State, his family) chose it as a value for him. Can you then blame our children for resenting school? Can you blame them for rebelling blindly, without identifying the implicit philosophical principles, the unwritten absolute which “it iss so, because I say so”? Most adolescents I see now do not think of education as a joyous pursuit of knowledge, but rather a meaningless chore to be get over and done with. Yet we have people like Kishore Mahbubani who openly wonder why “our education system is clearly one of the best in the world, but it has not yet produced world-class minds who win Nobel Prizes.”
The blight goes on with the a person’s obligation to serve in National Service. Our political leaders claim that conscription is necessary because of our country’s need to defend itself – completely evading the fact that should men value something above their lives, it is not propaganda or a slave-whip that will make people voluntarily defend the country. Whether a court agrees or not, it is an infringement of a person’s right to his own life. Instead of protecting the individual rights of men from the dictator and the robber, the state chooses to act as the dictator and robber – as if the force can be justified simply by a legal decree. The case of Dominque Sarron Lee is the absolute embodiment of our default; that reality is not stretchable to a bureaucrat’s whims, that man is not a tool to someone else’s ends.
A state who justifies slavery to “defend the nation”, would similarly justify slavery to “build the pyramids”, or to “build roads”, or “for their own good”.
There are other examples of such monstrous and ugly acts by the state, such as the pseudo-Prohibition timings, the “luxury” taxes imposed, the CPF, the Uber fiasco, but for the purpose of this article, I will not digress that far. A person’s life is his inalienable right, not a permission he seeks from the government.
What then would happen, if a person’s choices were constantly undercut by the fact that no matter what he thinks or believes in, he is to be coerced into submission – that he is not to think and to act upon it, but rather to obey and to negate his mind?
What happens if a person is forced to accept a “value”, not because he personally wants it, but rather because “society” desires it, or because “my parents” want it?
What if the man in the story above, decided to ignore his reason and the knowledge he possesses, and decided to stab himself with a sharp rock in a sacrificial bid to get rain from a malevolent God? What then, if he was forced to do that against his will, at the point of a spear by a mystic brute that breaks into his make-shift abode?
Whatever the intrinsicists might say, apathy, especially political apathy, is not the norm but a disease. A disease brought forth only by the negation of one’s mind and/or of the need to value. What Singapore suffers from is a chronic disavowal of knowledge.
When one constantly denies his own judgement, and learns instead to blindly follow, what we get is learned apathy – an apathy learned from the futile rebellion of his mind.
A person like that reverses what is caused by man and treats it as a force of nature – to him, a law or edict is something that is an absolute, but the metaphysical identity of a human being is something that can be melded to his whims.
It’s all in the mind, he tells himself, so he then proceeds to deny himself of his happiness, for the alleged happiness of his family, for the greater good in which he is not a part of.
But yet the critics have never identified this – and instead grope around with pleas to emotions, and the notion that men won’t be apathetic if they FELT otherwise.
The culmination of their efforts is exemplified with this video.
Divian Nair takes apathy as a cause, instead of a consequence. With regard to his needless and pointless emotional rhetoric, I will say that I will not die for Singapore.
Hell, I will not even live for it.
It is much more moral, and much more important, that I live for myself.
  “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

Libertarian Society Singapore

We believe that freedom and liberty is a moral right. The role of the Singapore government is not to run the economy and run our lives, but simply to protect the rights of Singaporeans. Find out more on various social media avenues!

Post A Comment: