“I, REPRESENT, YOU.”

On Sun, July 14, 2013 at 22:54 PM, Martin Law <martin.rainbowmaker@gmail.com> wrote:

“I, REPRESENT, YOU.”

 

Strictly speaking, 'government', to be legitimate, should first put it to the vote as to whether anyone in their right mind would consent or even wish to be 'governed'. Or would prefer to organise their own affairs between themselves. Even the construction of roads and sewers for example which is already carried out by the people themselves anyway.

Otherwise, government, by not representing the wishes of the people first as to how things should be organized is by definition a self legitimized public nuisance purporting to be a public convenience.

Self legitimization otherwise being a parasitic intrusion into the freedom of everybody who they then refer to as 'the public', which is a self declaration of separateness with personal agendas first. Which is said to be in 'the best interests of the public.'

A public what? Are you a public? What would you say to someone who called you ' nothing but a part of the public'? Would you agree? Would you allow yourself to be treated as such for your whole existence? If so, why?

What is a public anyway? Have you ever met such a thing and do you know one personally? Being a collective term used primarily by those who consider themselves hierarchically separate from the collective, 'the general public' is a generalized abstraction, which no individuals can embody as truly representative.

It's worse than just being told what to do and what not to do. It's being told what you are, and how would anybody who doesn't know you and has not even met or heard of you know who you are , better than you who have always lived with yourself?

Given the freedom (as if freedom could be given) to be as you know and wish yourself to be, or conversely, to be coerced by threat and conditional reward, which would you choose, and why? (Please tick whichever box represents you.)

Or would you choose to let someone you'll never meet or know, decide whether you even have a choice or not? Someone whose life is dedicated to establishing conditions which are contrary to your best wishes for yourself and who tells you it's for the good of everybody. How would they know, when they don't know everybody, and only mingle with their hierarchical circle?

They give you a choice (they say) between two people saying basically the same thing: “Allow me to tell you what you are and who you can and can't be.”

What sort of choice is that?! How can a permanent stranger give you a choice to be what you already are? You.

Sure, this permanent stranger will tell you who 'they' are, and that they passionately care about you. How can you possibly believe them when they are too busy describing their agenda for you to get to know you personally? Preferring at best to send representatives of their agenda to knock on your door.

How can anyone represent you better than you yourself can? Even a mirror can't do that. They merely 're-present' you, without your presence which is the only so called 'thing' which could be referred to as being you. They do that behind somebody elses' closed doors, the last thing they're interested in is you.

If i totally entrusted someone to represent me fully, i wouldn't have a fully authentic and lifeful existence. I'd be redundant. Likewise, you'd do a better job of just representing you than i would because i'm not you. Nobody is just anybody. Just anybody, is nobody.

Who would trust somebody who goes around proclaiming to know what it's like to be somebody else. Such a person is either a stand up chamelion or an 'empathological' con artist of the worst kind.

While the plunderous powers that persist in aggressively striving to be, plainly don't represent anybody, whether human, animal, or plant. They may well be fairly representative of a parasitic virus from the void with a few captive cells in tow.

But representing somebody else, how is that even possible? You can't imitate freedom without being a fake. Authentic being is too subtle and unpredictable for that. Besides, it's presumptuous, disrespectful, antisocial, intrusive, and plain delusional. Why do public nuisances need bodyguards? To prevent anybody stopping them from being what they are.

What about the people with no voice, don't they need a representative? Why don't they have a voice? They just need to be seen to be present and given a space to speak for themselves.

If somebody represents me in any form, including forms you fill in, they are presenting an abstraction which bears no resemblance to me. I'm not my name, my name is just a sound symbol. Neither am i a few so called 'facts' considered to relate to me, the majority of which no longer exist in my presence, being of 'the past' which means non-existent.

Even my parents didn't represent me, any more than their parents represented them, i was just suddenly present, and that's as familial as it gets. My teachers didn't represent me, they just told me what to do and what not to do, as if i wouldn't find out pretty quick by myself.

Some people, (not to mention 'society in general') have zero trust in nature, which includes human nature. In fact the whole thing seems to be about zero trust.

Didn't i learn how to speak a language fluently in no time, just by listening? That is; just being present.

Leave people alone and they will be natural. They may go off the rails especially if they were previously oppressed. The people who fear that most are oppressors. They fear the oppressed so they oppress them more. They also fear ceasing to oppress, as they'd have nowhere to stand. It helps to know your neighbours, it also helps if they 'are' your neighbours, regardless of where they live.

If you knock on my door saying you represent me, i can only assume i'm talking to someone with a mirror complex who doesn't know who he's talking to.

Otherwise you'd have to relive your life over again devoted to art, music, beauty and truth and it still wouldn't resemble me in any way.

Notice i haven't used the word 'anarchy'. It's not about 'anarchy'. It's just, not about 'archy.' The term 'archy' signifies domination, and i'm not an archy- type, and a type is not an individual.

Archy is something 'overarching'. As in hierarchy, patriarchy, oligarchy, lostyourcarkey. When i need somebody to represent me i promise to be in touch with myself.~

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Rainbowmaker~

Earthwatch 'Who, Me', martin law, 1987

Tank and Zap Flag digital Collage, martin law art
art-work : digital danplay, AUG13 - wfp for moo