Stop Caring What Other People Think

Walk away from violence and misery! (DN 4.10)

Someone recently asked me, "How did we ever get to this place?"

It's a nearly universal cri de cœur, and there are myriad ways to answer. But I find that one answer encompasses many of the others.

How did we ever get to this place?

Through the widespread assumption that it cannot be any other way.

Big changes

We are creatures of habit. We are prone to inertia. Most of us are so occupied with the business of our daily lives—with surviving and planning, with joy and sadness—that we never give thought to the possibility of large, systemic changes.

Sure, we contemplate—and may even work towards achieving—changes on the margins. But big, paradigmatic shifts seem impossible, inconceivable, or outside the window of allowable discussion. Things are what they are.

Major systemic changes are rare in human history. They tend to take generations. Sometimes, they take millennia.

In many cases, this is good. As G.K. Chesterton rightly noted, we should not go tearing down fences willy-nilly. Some things exist for a reason.

But other things exist because of inertia. Because certain interests want them that way. Because the longer a system is in place, and the longer the rulers are in power, the more difficult it becomes to dislodge them…even when they are utterly inimical to the interests of humanity.

Some fences need to be torn down.

Toxic collectivism

So, how do we tell the difference? For this, I will borrow a formulation from Max Borders:

The degree of reform required is proportional to the degree of pathology in a system.

As we have discussed, one of the most pathological manifestations of our nature as an ultra-social species is the phenomenon of single-solution systems. It is an outcome of the broader phenomenon of toxic collectivism—the dark side of our social nature.

The only way for people to live together, it is presumed, is for one socio-political system to be imposed upon everyone in a given territory. Indeed, this notion is so entrenched in the human experience that many of you reading these words are thinking, Well yeah…how could it possibly be any other way?

Panarchy

We do not have time, in this space, to rehash the concept of panarchy and how it would work. Simply put, people can live side by side and choose from jurisdictionally coterminous providers of governance or governance-like services. Or they can gather together and form consensual and membership-based polities on whatever terms they wish.

We figured it out with religion. It took a while, but we did eventually realize that it is not necessary to force everyone in a given area to be Catholic or Protestant. A Methodist can live side by side with a Buddhist and attend different places of worship without any problems. Obviously, not everyone on Earth has grasped the concept of religious tolerance yet, but the model is there and proven to work.

The same thing can work for political systems. For a primer or refresher, see DN 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.7, with a special focus on 2.3. See also Four Definitions of the Word 'Anarchy', From Panarchy to Programmable Social Orders, de Puydt's original essay, and any search you'd like to do on the subject. Panarchy is not only viable, it is very likely the wave of the future.

The current way of doing things—forcing a single system down everyone’s throat whether they want it or not—is a recipe for violence and misery. If it ever was necessary, it certainly isn’t any longer.

So, how does this relate to not concerning oneself with what other people think?

The Parable of the Parks

Let us imagine two populations of people…

Population A have all been forced to live under a single system.

We can even assume, here in the modern era, that the system has democratic aspects. This means that people can gather with others to form political tribes—interest groups that try to gather enough power to change the system in their favor.

Using votes, money, and other machinations, they attempt to impose their vision on the system. Perhaps they want to extract money from others. Perhaps they want more control. Perhaps they want the whole society to conform to their vision of the “one true way” of life. The more political power they accumulate, the more they can impose their will on the system and use that system to impose their will upon others.

Even people who don't really want to be involved in this game are compelled to participate. What choice do they have? The system puts a gun in the hands of anyone who wants one: Here, use the power of the ballot box to get what you want.

It's not exactly kill or be killed, but it's close enough. Vote or become a victim of the votes of others. Nice.

So people vote, lobby, and use their wealth to manipulate the political process rather than for productive purposes or to enhance their own happiness. Yay.

Population B live in a condition of panarchy.

They have come to understand that it is not necessary to impose one system upon everyone within a given area. Just as people can live side by side and attend different churches, those same people can live side by side and subscribe to different modes of governance.

Some may contract with agencies that offer security and justice services to willing customers. Some may gather with others and experiment with different ways of life. Amish farms. Free cities. For-profit micro-nations. Whatever you like, so long as it's consensual.

Of these two populations, who has greater incentive to concern themselves with what their fellows think and believe?

Population A, obviously.

In Population A, every disagreement is high-stakes. If the people who believe in higher taxes gain control, certain cohorts will have more money extracted from them. If the people who want school vouchers win, then the teachers unions will lose a source of revenue. If the hawks get their way, many people’s sons will die in war. If the doves do, then the military contractors’ stock prices will fall.

What other people think and believe is turned into a source of great concern in any such system. It may mean a change in how one runs one’s business. It may result in a loss of money. It may be a matter of life and death.

We may no longer worry about whether we’re going to get a Catholic queen or a Protestant one, but what has changed, really? Only the type of thing that will be forced on everyone. Same dance, different tune.

This is not the case for people in Population B. What other people think and believe may be a curiosity or an oddity. Some prickly types may even find the beliefs of others annoying. But no one feels compelled to care what other people think. The stakes are just not as high.

Whether or not Joe Smith believes in higher taxes makes no difference to me. I subscribe to the Acme Protection and Assurance Agency. He has chosen to live in a property association with its own micro-government. He can impact the fees paid by those who have chosen to live in that same association. He cannot impact me. So I have no reason to give a crap what he believes.

Now, imagine two identical parks or town squares—one occupied by the people of Population A and the other by Population B.

Which one is more harmonious? Which one has more squabbling?

In which one are people drowning out the pleasant buzz of bees with the rancor of protest chants?

In which park are people happier?

Escaping the violence of single-solution systems

We do not yet have a modern example of a panarchic, consent-respecting society operating at scale. You no doubt have questions, as do we all. But we can also see the obvious truth here. If our only way of living is for everyone in a given area to be subjected to the same system, then we are doomed to a life of violence forever…

• The violence of a system that is forcibly imposed without anyone’s actual consent.

• The violence of an endless fight for control of the levers of power—individuals and interest groups duking it out to impose their will upon and extract resources from each other.

• The violence of the occasional bloody revolution, as some group or other seeks to impose its blueprint upon everyone.

All of this is why you are forced to care what others think and believe.

And all of this is why you should STOP caring.

But Chris, we have to. If you don’t, then the other guys win.

Uh-huh. And how long do we continue saying that without changing it? Another hundred years? Another thousand?

If you say, I am going to vote to buy us time, but my ultimate goal is to end this violence once and for all, I can respect that. If your organization works within the system, but somewhere in there is the objective to someday move on to a system that genuinely respects human consent, I can respect that.

But that is not usually what happens. Individuals and organizations—even those who are freedom-loving and do good work—typically have no vision beyond the current system. It’s just one more day in an endless slog in the mud.

Statists gain a little ground, and then we do. Back and forth. Forever. Force them to live under our way before they force us to live under theirs. Forever. And when your shield arm tires, you pass the task onto your children and their children.

Forever.

Because few people have the vision to see beyond what is. Because we have to find ways to live together, dontcha know.

Except this isn’t living together. This is living in constant conflict, forced upon us by our systems of government, and perpetuated by the widespread assumption that it cannot be any other way.

Is this how we want to live, forever?

And remember—though we are victims of this system, we are also victimizers.So long as we perpetuate the system, we are perpetuating our role as people who impose our vision on others. We have to keep fighting, so our side prevails.

Is that who we are—the people who seek to prevail? Is that who we want to be?

Or would we rather be people with the vision to see beyond?

In the short run, we are not going to be able to change or escape this system. Technically, what others think will still impact us. Technically, the system still requires us to care.

To hell with the system.

A consciousness shift requires that people shift their consciousness. A paradigm shift requires that people change their paradigm. You cannot walk away from the system so long as you keep turning around and walking back into it.

Evolution begins when you stop caring about what others think. Oh, and as a bonus…

You will also become a lot happier when you do.

---

---

Cover page | Preface | Introduction 1 | Introduction 2 | Introduction 3 |

(Part I) Why: 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.10 | 1.11 | 1.12 | 1.13 | 1.14 | 1.15 | 1.16 | 1.17 | 1.18 | 1.19 | 1.20 | 1.21 |1.22

(Part II) What: 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.10 I 2.11 | 2.12 | 2.13 | 2.14 | 2.15 | 2.16 | 2.17 | 2.XX | 2.18 | 2.19 | 2.20 | 2.21 | | Where: 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 3.10 | 3.11 | 3.12 | 3.13 || Who: 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.XX | 4.XY | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.8 | 4.9 | 4.10 |