Sometimes you have to resist your better instincts.
The latest allegations of pervasive spying by the US Government have led to a spike in sales of George Orwell’s famous dystopian novel, ‘1984’. In ‘1984’ Big Brother was always watching.
Another insightful aspect of Orwell’s prescient novel was the concept of ‘doublethink’. Doublethink is defined as simultaneously holding two mutually contradictory ideas in your mind and believing both of them.
One very common real-world example of doublethink has puzzled me for some time:
You can get almost unanimous agreement that ‘Thou Shalt Not Steal’ is a basic moral value that should apply to all people. Yet when Government, which is an organization made up of people, involuntarily takes people’s money (i.e. steals), almost no one declares it immoral.
People taking your money is immoral, but people from the Government taking your money is not immoral? Doublethink.
Creating and maintaining such a pervasive case of doublethink is an amazing accomplishment for the Government.
And even more amazing, they do it by appealing to your better instincts.
By appealing to your better instincts, they get you to accept immoral actions? Sounds like more doublethink, doesn’t it?
Here’s how it works…
Recent psychological research has identified sixteen core instinctive drives shared by most people.
‘Drives’ refers to non-conscious desires that cannot be permanently satisfied. Any time they are satiated they soon reassert themselves. These common drives range from basic survival goals like food, safety, and ‘amorousness’ to more civilized goals like social interaction, honor, and idealism.
It is important to distinguish that these drives are not the same as emotions. Drives are more like routines hardwired into the brain to ensure that you are constantly driven to attain these goals.
Even though we all share the same drives, we don’t all act the same because for each person the strength and priority of each drive is different.
And here’s an interesting twist…
Because we directly experience only the conscious part of our minds, we believe that we make all of our decisions consciously . But, it turns out that these non-conscious ‘drives’ drive our behavior much more powerfully than whatever we’re thinking consciously. And once any of the sixteen drives gets activated, it tends to stay active, non-consciously driving our behavior, until it reaches its immediate goal.
Here’s a problem: The list of powerful non-conscious drives does not include ‘not stealing’.
Mothers do teach us not to take the other kids’ toys. And pretty much all religions teach some version of Thou Shalt Not Steal. But it’s not hardwired in. We learn it and may fully accept it as valid, but only consciously, and that is what leaves it open to doublethink.
The hardwired non-conscious drives are focused on goals (ends).
Our consciously learned moral philosophy is focused on behavior (means).
When a drive is active, the desired end is what is important to the drive, not the means.
This sets you up for a battle between powerful, instinctive non-conscious drives focused only on ends, and consciously learned moral philosophies vainly attempting to control the means.
So, even though Mom also taught us that ‘the ends don’t justify the means’, meaning moral behavior should not be abandoned even for good goals, again, that’s a learned conscious concept. And from a practical standpoint, if the ends are tied to instinctive drives and the means are tied to learned philosophy, the ends may simply overpower and drive the means.
So, here’s the secret. Government triggers, and ties itself to, as many of the core drives as possible. Once a Government program is embraced as important to a core non-conscious goal, people become suddenly much more flexible on allowable behaviors.
(At this point, I was going to give examples for a couple of drives, but obvious examples leaped out for so many, that I ended up including 12 of the 16 drives without much effort.)
Let’s take a quick look at some of the common drives the US Government attaches itself to. You can start with our most basic drives like eating, and work your way all the way up to the our higher instincts like idealism.
Note: The statements below don’t reflect what Government actually does. These are just illustrations of how Government instills in you that it is critical to your drives.
Eating (goal: acquiring food)
- Without Government Subsidies basic foods would be unaffordable
- Without Government Regulations and Inspectors foods would be unsafe
Tranquility (goal: avoiding fear, anxiety, pain)
- Without the Police the criminals will get you
- Without the Military foreign powers will invade and take over
- Without the NSA the terrorists will make you live in fear
Family (goal: good parenting)
- Without the Department of Education and Public School Systems, only the rich would be able to afford good schools for their children
- Federal Student Loan Programs ensure that every child can have a college education
Saving (goal: preparing for future needs)
- Without Social Security old people, and eventually you, too, will starve
- Without Medicare, medical care will bankrupt you as you age
Acceptance (goal: avoiding criticism or rejection)
- (Think about what would happen to any child that didn’t stand and recite The Pledge of Allegiance)
- (Think about the reaction you’d get if you remained seated during the National Anthem at any large event)
Independence (goal: personal freedom)
- The Constitution makes us free
- Voting controls the Government
Power (goal: control over others)
- As an American, you can claim you saved Europe from the Nazis and then saved the whole world from the Soviet Union
- As an American, you are now the Hegemon, the greatest power the world has ever known
Status (goal: social standing, superiority)
- America has the greatest form of Government in all of history, making Americans the best people ever
Vengeance (goal: revenge)
- The Government has avenged 9/11 by killing the evil-doers in Afghanistan and Iraq
Order (goal: structure, rules)
- The Congress represents the will of the people in creating Law and Order
- The Justice Department and the State and Federal Courts ensure that all Americans are treated equally under The Law
Honor (goal: loyalty, tradition)
- It is important to be a loyal American to honor all Those Who’ve Sacrificed to preserve the Freedom we enjoy today
Idealism (goal: improve social conditions)
- The Government takes care of all those in need in America with Entitlement Programs so that none will go hungry or be excluded from all the benefits of being an American
- American Foreign Aid prevents mass starvation around the world
So, even if you walk someone through an irrefutable logical argument proving that taxes amount to theft, they still won’t condemn taxes as immoral, because that would logically mean that Government, as the thief, is immoral. And that logical conclusion would be too emotionally unsettling, as it threatens the ‘government-linked’ attainment of so many of their core drive goals.
Thus, doublethink must be maintained.
Now, you would think that maintaining doublethink would lead to ‘cognitive dissonance’…
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions.
But perhaps another keen insight from ‘1984’ – Newspeak – helps explain how the Government prevents cognitive dissonance from interfering with its achievement of pervasive doublethink.
According to George Orwell,
“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc [The State], but to make all other modes of thought impossible.”
So taxation is never referred to with any words related to confiscation or theft. In fact, the word ‘tax’ is even avoided as much as possible. Instead we get Newspeak words like ‘revenues’ (hence IRS), ‘fees’, ‘assessments’, ‘withholding’, etc., etc.
Taken all together, this explains why, and how, people can so obstinately hold on to the doublethink necessary to believe in ‘good Government’.
This also helps us to see why we struggle to gain traction for our Voluntaryist message.
Perhaps our most brilliant arguments against the State have minimal impact because we’re aiming at the wrong targets. We’ve been blasting away at consciously held constructs like logic and morality, but that isn’t where the love of Government lies.
Government has burrowed deep into people’s unconscious and entwined itself within their most basic instinctive drives.
So to overcome people’s attachment to Government, I believe we need to re-target our efforts.
If attacking the logic or morality of Government makes people unconsciously uncomfortable with our message, perhaps we would accomplish more by simply sowing seeds of doubt – illustrating Government’s actual record of failure relative to achieving the goals of our common drives.
And, finally, to affect real change, we must begin to consistently tie Voluntaryism into people’s visions of satisfying their core drives. Rather than discussing the mechanics of providing roads, we need to convince them that in a voluntary society they will have better food, and safer communities, and more opportunities for their children.