Anarchic Discussions 1: Civil Servants - the Ultimate Oxymoron
Meme generated from images taken from BBC's "Yes Minister" & MemeGen
Content copied and revised from G+
I write today to discuss one of the most prolific forms of double speak in the media. It is, perhaps, the ultimate form of cognitive dissonance in play today. This is the concept of the public servant.
What are the Various Types of Public Servant?
There are two main classes of public servant - the "civil service" and the elected politicians. One purportedly serves us by defining what is right and wrong within our society, while the other serves the purpose of implementing those definitions to the best of their ability. However, the idea that either of these groups are actually servants of "the people" is both logically unfounded and empirically untrue.
Politicians - The Two Faced Representative Leech
First off, the political public servant only needs your direct support once every year or more. That means your control over them is tenuous and feeble at best. You can try to fire them by electing another, but if you are in the minority that is an unlikely event, and, again, your window to do so is seriously limited within the law. Their job is to tell us what to do in x, y, & z circumstances, what we can or cannot eat, how fast we can go, etc. Nothing about any of this set of activities fits with the term "servant".
I'd also argue they rarely work toward the benefit of the public. There are instances where a politician's personal interests are to the public benefit, but it isn't the public benefit the politician is most likely working to achieve. To assume anyone asking you to let them tell you what to do and *make you pay for that privilege*, is unlikely that interested in you as a person, and is looking to further their own lives, potentially at your expense. Remember the expenses scandals in the UK?
Civil Servants - Lackeys with Hidden Agendas
As for civil servants, these are closer to the definition in that they they serve the government, which is purportedly serving the people. However, servants classically do not get to rule over their masters, and theoretically the civil servants in government should not be telling us what actions we can or cannot take. In reality, the civil service are the ones telling us:
- What hoops to jump
- Which foods to eat
- What we can or cannot make & how we make it
- What we can or can't do to ourselves.
They also are the ones enforcing these rules. Servants? Perhaps, but not for the majority people within society. Hell knows and heaven suspects whom they actually work for.
The "Not All Civil Servants" Argument, Debunked
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are people in the civil service, and even in the political branch of servitude, who believe with all their heart they are working for their constituency, or their nation and all its citizens. I'm sure they take pride in what they do, and some of the services they currently provide under their monopoly are critical for social cohesion and the survival of a particular society & its way of life. I'm sure they believe that they can make a difference and change the world for the better of all.
Over time, however, their actions will veer from any principles they might have had. Cops will enforce all the laws, even those they know are unjust. Prosecutors will seek to get innocent people jailed to get cases closed and keep up appearances. DMV agents will make your life miserable to justify their existence within their jobs. You name it, if people how power over you, they will eventually abuse it.
They all will have control over how the world will work for you, and they will cover themselves as well as they can whenever they do wrong. Such is the nature of wielding power over others. Remember, politicians lie, and just laws do not need to be just to be enforced with aggression.
Conclusion
It's time we treat the term "public servant" as just a euphemism, or a form of Orwellian double-speak. It represents the opposite of what it literally should mean, which is "the servants of all the people". Instead, we pay them to order us about, whether we want it or them, or not. It's better to call them by their proper names - rulers and their retinue.
Sic semper tyrannis! ;-) Why is having rules without rulers such a difficult concept for people to grasp? I'll never know. We are surrounded by a small minority who wants to rule others and a vast majority who wants to be ruled. How do we find a way, as those who neither want to rule or be ruled, to coexist with the rest? I don't have the answer and wish I did.
The votes today helped your reputation a bit. I can't do more for now though, or my voting power will get too low. Again, welcome! I hope to see you in the discords and perhaps on steemit.chat too.
Thanks @finnian for your support mate!
I'm slowly going to start working these essays I wrote in G+ across to steemit, then will be taking a big leap into the Vlogging sector to give the world an Ancap POV on news and events, all while I'm on sabbatical to rebuild my home after the fire (starting next week).
I would save your longer content for when you have more followers. New accounts need to mostly engage others in replies. Ginabot will help with that since the built in search is awful. You can go through anarchy trending and similar as well to easily meet other liberty lovers.