There are basically two ways to get people to do something: persuasion and compulsion. The key difference is that persuasion can take "no" for an answer. This is by definition. If I can refuse, you must persuade me to agree.
This seems like a very simple observation, but it's crucial to understanding the difference between free societies and authoritarian states. Authoritarianism LOVES to masquerade as democracy and cloak itself in the language of persuasion and freedom, but it's a lie.
An early example of this bait and switch was when the Left started referring to taxes as "investments," stealing the language of free-market capitalism to conceal its authoritarian greed. Investments are discretionary. I can refuse to invest. You must persuade me to buy in.
It follows that if the key element of persuasion is the right to refuse - which places ultimate power in the hands of the person being persuaded - then if you want to be free and individually powerful, you want to live in a land where persuasion is more common than compulsion.
You should be constantly asking: Can I say "no" to this plan or proposal? Can I walk away from it? Can I terminate the arrangement if it doesn't live up to its promises? Do I have recourse if I was defrauded? Will my ONGOING consent be required and respected?
That's an important authoritarian trick, one of the ways they hide their lust for power and camouflage it as "democracy" - one man, one vote, one time. They pretend you had a choice, but once they seize power, you discover you're trapped in a bad deal forever, without recourse.
Collectivism is naturally hostile to the concept of individual consent and genuine persuasion. That's the lesson of the old saw about how pure democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat. There is no need to persuade the sheep or worry about his ongoing consent.
As the level of centralized power in society grows, it becomes less necessary to persuade individuals or worry about their consent. Politics masquerades as persuasion, but in truth it's mostly about lining up powerful blocs until the unpersuaded are overwhelmed and subdued.
The "Great Reset," the mad dash to use the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic as leverage to reboot democracy with a hard authoritarian core, is all about declaring persuasion unnecessary for a growing list of key issues. You will be compelled to accept elite "consensus."
One of the ugliest aspects of modern politics is the tendency to declare that certain hated groups no longer need to be persuaded, because they have lost the power to refuse. Persuasion is hard work. Elites are insulted at the thought of wasting effort on persuading deplorables.
True persuasion, in pursuit of voluntary cooperation, is one of the greatest gestures of sincere respect people can make to one another. We are properly humbled before each other's sovereign right to refuse. We lean toward politeness because rudeness would end the conversation.
Consider that one reason our culture has become so venomous is because people are less interested in offering that courtesy to each other, respecting each other's right to refuse. We fight over scraps of power now, in a society where compulsion is far more valuable than consent.
When the central State grows all-powerful, there is no reason to do the hard work of persuasion or humbly respect the "right to refuse" because it no longer exists. We should reclaim that which separates slaves and serfs from free men and women. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
