Dear Friends,
It seems to me, there is little difference between rule by a god king, or rule by the administration of experts. In both cases, their edicts cannot be questioned, for in the first, you are questioning the will of the gods themselves, and in the second, you are questioning the supreme god… science. Both the god king and the administrator have subjects. While republics have citizens. Plus, while they are both capable of error, pointing it out is often a mortal mistake. Making them functionally no different. Both are tyrannies that beg the question why they should have unlimited rule. Why should they have unlimited say over the intricacies of our lives? Because they say so… and they are all knowing. If you question them, that proves you are not, and therefore, you need to be ruled.
It is immoral for anyone to take agency from another. If you saw a homeless man on the street. Shaking from withdrawals, filthy, and muttering to himself in an ongoing battle with whatever demon that possesses him… and you abduct him. Clean him up, give him medical treatment and house him. With bars on the windows and armed guards at the doors. Else he would leave. Would that be a moral act? No, it would be an immoral act done in the name of compassion. The definition of the ends justify the means. If that is immoral, how much more so, to take the agency from people who are capable of living productive lives… and are? What is immoral for the individual is immoral for the group, for the group derives its moral agency, from the individual. Which is not cumulative… but averaged.
How arrogant, narcissistic and self unaware to think oneself wiser than all the rest of humanity combined? To think oneself better than everyone else is the definition of arrogance. Only a self-important prick would try to lord over everyone else. Anyone with that level of hubris must have zero self awareness. Despite living in a house of mirrors they have no idea how they appear. The one who would be a god king, or those who would rule us by the righteous power and authority of their god… science, are narcissistic as well. Isn’t it odd how the “will of the gods,” or “science,” always follows the wants of their priests? Even when the present “will” conflicts with the past “will.” The present always takes precedence. Like a child playing the game of god, but in real life, leading inevitably to disaster.
Begging the question is not a strong base for an argument, let alone an argument why you should rule the world, with unlimited power and no oversight. “So, Eggbert, why should we let you rule the world with unlimited power?” Asked the victim. Eggbert the Expert Administrator replied, “Because I said so, and if you question me, you question the Science!” Such circular reasoning is worthy of any god king who has ever usurped the title. Then again… there is history. History doesn’t have much good to say about any system of government where there are rulers and the ruled. The results are uniformly poor. Moreover, there is no example of a people that abandoned their societal myth and prospered. Maybe this time will be different… and maybe bleach will not react with ammonia, this time.
Those who would submit us to unlimited rule by experts, and those who would that we be ruled by a god king, are cut from the same cloth. They have the same mindset, that someone should alleviate them of the burden of having to run their own lives. Making their own decisions is too hard for them, and since they see themselves as utterly incompetent, worthless and dependent, they project that pathology on the rest of us. While it isn’t politically correct to worship god kings, anymore, worshiping science is perfectly acceptable. So it is no step to go from god kings to administration by experts. The result is the same… tyranny and oligarchy, the perversions of monarchy and aristocracy. How do we know? Because history, a branch of the philosophy of science, teaches this to us, but not to the Fakirs of science.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
