You – the New Monarch

In previous posts, I’ve explored the topic of politics, the governing of a society. Politics is one of the major branches of philosophy, one in which few of us are properly educated. Looking at politics and government as its basic purpose, it’s all about deciding the rules by which our society is governed and who enforces the rules. In one of my earliest posts,  A Code of Obedience I put forward the idea of ending the bullying derived from following such a code. Before I get in to elaborating on that, let’s review our current system of governing as seen through the metaphor of The Game of Thrones, the one depicted in the TV series of that title. Early in the series, there’s a scene in which two of the rulers, Cersei Lannister and Eddard Stark, are engaging in a conversation about their world. “When you play the game of thrones you win or you die. There is no middle ground.”

For the rulers, it’s win or lose, but for the rest of us, it’s lose or lose. Meekly obey or die. As we live our lives, we seldom see this side of our society. More accurately, we seldom look at what’s going on. We engage in the day-to-day activities that make up our lives; we get up each morning, make breakfast, go to work, talk with our workmates, have lunch, come home, eat dinner, watch some tv. Where’s the obedience in all that? We’re doing what we want – right?

But what if we look at what we do and don’t do through the rules imposed upon us by our rulers? Suddenly we find a collection of mind-boggling arbitrary set of things we’re permitted to do and things we are not, and the possible consequences of defying that. Let’s look at one story, that of Eric Garner, approached by New York policemen for selling single cigarettes. Eric didn’t meekly obey. You can take in the details of his story with this link from the Sydney Morning Herald or this link to the video of the gang of cops beating up on him. Why was he confronted in the first place? Possibly selling cigarettes illegally.

Or this one of Walter Scott being shot in the back as he runs away. His crime was driving with a defective brake light. Here is wiki on the incident.

Or one closer to home, this Melbourne story of police shooting at a curfew breacher. This scofflaw was lucky and lived to break another law another day.

Selling single cigarettes, driving with a defective brake light, disobeying curfew. The list of silly and arbitrary laws is endless. What we don’t stop to consider is that each one comes with a possible death penalty for disobedience. From this point of view, who would want to play the game of life in a society such as that? Not I.

Now let’s imagine the game of life played in A World of Honour – A Game of Honour. A Game of Honour is represented best as a playing field, like that of a soccer, baseball or cricket field. It’s level and equal for all players. It’s got one rule – do no harm, and every player in the game has agreed to it. I don’t think that most of us think of life as a game. A game is for fun. Most games we play we try to win, but most of us don’t take losing too seriously. Does it take much to look at life as a game, playing to win but not taking losing too serious? Isn’t most of each day spent in just such a game? Don’t we go through each day as a player making up the target we’re striving for on our own, without a policeman looking over our shoulder each moment? Perhaps we’re already playing A Game of Honour but not aware of it?

Think for a minute. Some of the common games that all of us play in life could be simply career, friends, hobbies, home, special someone, family and so on. Don’t each of us play these games now calling the shots, already being the monarch of those calls, not looking over our shoulder for some bossy meddler telling us how to live?

If I look back over my life I can see that I’ve chosen my major decisions without the need to submit a form to some overseer for approval. When I was 21 I chose to work for IBM and agreed to move to Ottawa where the job was. Later I moved to Toronto, then quit my job with IBM and moved to Vancouver, met and married Heather, had two children, left Canada and moved to Australia. Except for the move to Australia, all the decisions were made with only the approval and consent of those involved in the decisions. I didn’t go to Mum or Dad to ask permission to work for IBM. That was a decision for only IBM and me to make. Isn’t that how you play your life, how most people everywhere, even those living under a harsh dictator, live their lives?

Yes there were moments when one of the rulers of my country interfered with my choices. Each of my paycheques had a withholding tax included, money taken from me without my consent. I’m forbidden from having a glass of wine or bottle of beer while on a picnic in a public park, and sometimes it’s ok, but it’s never up to me. When I go back and forth between Canada and Australia, I can’t freely take numerous products without declaring them to some official. I’ve had numerous moments similar to that of Walter Scott mentioned before, but wisely chose to go along with the demands of the officer rather than go to war. It wasn’t until 1971 in Toronto when conversations with fellow IBMer, Reg Jacklin, lead me to begin questioning the necessity to have a ruler. I had never thought of the prime minister of Canada as being my ruler. After all, we lived in a democracy and we are all equal. Sure we are. But as I discovered over the years since, we are not. Those in positions of power have different rules as to how they are to be treated. See this for what’s going on in the U.S. re the president being immune from civil liabilities.

For me it begs the question, who would ever play a game in which some of the players had an advantage, not because of being better at the game, but because the rules dictated it? Yet that’s what we have with every and any system of government ever. And think about it, why would you or anyone want a monarch? A king? A czar? A president? A master?

For over 50 years I have lived knowing that I am my own ruler, that I call the shots in my life. I’m aware that I live in a society in which governments think that governing means telling me what to do with my life and should I attempt to contradict their rulings, they will use whatever force is necessary to demand my compliance. I choose to avoid dealing with such people as much as I can.

If you haven’t already done so, I invite you to take on the position of monarch in your life. Live your life as King Charles of England does today, without a ruler. Dare I say it, as an anarchist, someone without a ruler. It’s your life, isn’t it?