Ultimate Authority
Life and Death

I was told by my neurologist if I “had thoughts or feelings of hurting oneself or others to go to the emergency room immediately,” that was during a period of time I was considering ending my life. Life just wasn’t worth living. Only now do I realize the meaning of his words. I don’t think even he understood the full implication of what he said.

The state has the power to effectively imprison you for wanting out, it is the ultimate coercive power, the state decides when you die, you don’t even have control over your own life or death, the state does. It can decide when, and if, to put you down, but Christ forbid that someone try to appropriate that power from the state, to achieve the ultimate bodily autonomy.

Throwing you inside a psychiatric ward just for wanting out, it is the ultimate coercive power, the ultimate example of the unjust authority the state wields. It can decide when you die, how you die, but you can’t. It is illegal for you to take your own life, but not for the state, for whom nothing is illegal, since it makes and enforces the law. Call it authoritarian, call it justified, whatever, don’t try to convince me of your moralistic hogwash, with your fallacious appeals to emotion.

I am not swayed, I am only swayed by cold, hard fact, and the fact of the matter is is that the state’s ability to decide whether you live or die is the ultimate example of authoritarianism there is to be found. I can be involuntarily committed to a psych ward for wanting out, the difference between being “lawfully” held captive and being “unlawfully” held captive is arbitrary, “unlawfully” holding someone captive deprives the state of the ability to “lawfully” hold someone captive.

What is the difference? I am still in chains, it doesn’t matter to me whether my captors are acting within the purview of the law or not, they are my oppressors. Tell me something, muse, why does the state get an exemption from criminality, but the people do not? Is the state above the law? “Nobody is above the law,” the liberal says. I say bollocks, someone has to enforce the law, and in order to enforce the law you have to be above it.

Liberalism is intellectually dishonest, inconsistent. Statist libertarianism is intellectually dishonest, inconsistent. Fascism of all things is more honest than liberalism, for at least the fascist will be plain with you what he wants, he doesn’t hold any pretenses to the contrary. The liberal does, however, for they believe it to be “for your own good,” but does my “own good” entail being held captive, imprisoned, for wanting to take control over my own life? Foucalt was right.