13 votes

Why Doesn't George Takei "Hate the State?"

“Be the change that you wish to see in the world.” - Mahatma Gandhi

In a recent TED talk, actor George Takei gave a speech recounting the tale of how, at the age of five, he and his family were taken to internment camp for Japanese Americans during World War II. While Takei's story is frightening from a historical perspective, his attitude that developed from this traumatizing experience is truly inspiring. I highly recommend watching the 15 minute or so talk, and we'll pick up down below.

By all rights, George Takei should have every reason to "hate the state" for what the U.S. government did to him and his family. Forcibly removing the Takei family from their property and placing them in detention is an absolute affront to every ideal America is supposed to value. It could have easily made George Takei into a jaded, bitter anarchist who wants to burn all of the world's governments to the ground.

And yet, as he grew up and had discussions with his father, he came to realize that hate was not the proper path, and that he could still stand up for the same ideals he believed in despite the tragic events that occurred to him. George says his father told him,"Our democracy is a people's democracy; it can be as great as people can be, and as fallible as people are."

Set aside any reservations about "democracy" as a form of government you might have for a moment; that is not important here. What's important is the attitude, and it pertains to any society or any government. Continue Reading

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Pavlovian money

and inverted logic

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

The State

Illegal immigration and gangs flowing across the borders. One day our cities will burn because we didn't protect our borders. Then we will have to fight for survival . Because our country became passive and singing kumbyaa. The world is a wicked place. always been and always will be. Strong individual and independents with common sense know the deal. and country boys and those who dared to prepare. Too many Americans became to passive. Must have been something in the water

Money talks and dogs bark

Maybe he blames the people

Maybe he blames the people who were using the government to push their beliefs?

The US government is not some kind of mysterious entity. They are not some non-tangible idea. They are composed of people. We can directly see what those people did, and can reason why they did it.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

edit

editing this, the comment is now in the reply below where it was meant to be.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Every principled human who

Every principled human who believes in law should hate the state and recognize it as nothing more than the sanction of the many for thugs to commit crime on their (supposed) behalf.

George Takei has shown nothing more than his willingness to bend over and take it even more than he already had too by claiming to accept the state's artificial authority over him or anyone.

"principled humans"

Principled Humans should realize "the State" is nothing more than a construct of men. It is not an outside force. It is created by men (and women!) and supported by men.

To simple-mindedly lash out at "the State" does not address principles, it does not address individual rights, and it does not address the attitudes of your fellow man.

This is an area where Takei excels (massive political disagreements put aside).

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

"Principled Humans should

"Principled Humans should realize "the State" is nothing more than a construct of men. It is not an outside force. It is created by men (and women!) and supported by men."

Until we are ruled by robotic task-masters, I like to think that this is self evident. If its not a construct of men, whose construct would it be?

"To simple-mindedly lash out at "the State" does not address principles"

To call the State immoral and criminal because it violates natural rights is to state clearly the principal to which I oppose the state on. In what way is this not a direct address to principals?

By saying the state is immoral and criminal because it deprives people of their right to life, liberty and property is directly stating that the governing and legal principal of the NAP based society IS natural rights.

I can't write a book every time I post something on a forum. I like to think that most people around here have at least an elementary grasp of the NAP. If I wanted to address the attitudes of the uniformed, I wouldn't be doing it here.

"the State"

"To call the State immoral and criminal because it violates natural rights is to state clearly the principal to which I oppose the state on. In what way is this not a direct address to principals?"

Calling out the violation of natural rights is clearly prudent, at all times, regardless of who is violating them. To merely point at "the State" acts like the state is a constant "thing" , that must always violate rights. But if a 'state" is a creation of men, then it is not a separate entity, it is merely an extension of the bad ideas of men.

If men have bad ideas, they will create bad institutions, whether they are "states", "gangs", "defense agencies" or what have you, and the reverse is true for when they have good ideas.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Only you can't have a State

Only you can't have a State using good ideas. It's not a State unless it taxes, and the allowance of legalized theft leads to a slave/master society which inevitably devours its people. Therefore the State could be the definition of evil as it has only one possible outcome if left to perpetuate. Death and misery.

State could be on par with any other title granted to criminal activity. Murder, Rape, Theft, Government. Just another kind of crime.

Well.

if you define a "state" as an organization that always violates rights, legalizes theft, etc,then no, you can't have a state using good ideas.

But that's not everyone's definition of a "state."

Regardless of whether one calls an organization created by men a "state", a "defense agency", a "homeowner's association", it is the nature of the organization that is paramount.

If the organization is created through coercion and not through consent, it is destined to violate rights. But organizations created through consent need not do so, and man will always create organizations of some kind, whatever we may call them.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

If its created by the consent

If its created by the consent of everyone who wants to be involved with it, it'd just be a company. If its created by dragging in unwilling participants, its a government.

You can choose to stop giving one your money. Good luck with the other.

consent cont'd

If a defense agency violates consent, is it now a government? If a government stops violating consent, is it now a defense agency?

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Says who?

So any organization created without consent is a government, and any organization created with consent isn't?

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

sweet man, but terrible deluded logic

Justice is forgiveness, not vengeance. He should read Tolstoy.

Christ told us not to go to war and look at us... just goes to show how far a false sense of justice is willing to go to trust the law.

Peace liberates creation, War destroys creation.

If you want to grow liberty, go to peace.
If you want to grow bondage, go to war.

Christians must unite on this issue before our good intentions can not be traced back to heaven for redemption.

We are starting to believe our own shadows again.

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

Wasn't the last line in Orwell's 1984

something like "He loved Big Brother?"

Full quote:
“He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother”

It looks like Takei has won the victory over himself.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

see, this is the problem

Basically, the message here is: don't focus on hating the State, focus on loving something. But, if your focus has been on the State, you only see the part of the message that says to change the hating to loving. Because you can't change your focus, you automatically assume this means changing hating the State to loving the State. Or changing your hate to loving everything. No, that's not the message. The message isn't even that you should stop hating the State. You can keep hating the State. But don't make it the focus of your life. Because then it will just eat you all up.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Wow! I never thought I'd agree with you on something.

Good stuff!

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Thank you :)

We probably agree on a lot more than we disagree. It's just that we tend to focus on the differences on here. Peace and love.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

^exactly

This sums up my thoughts precisely, Ed.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

It isn't an either or proposition.

There is a wide spectrum of emotions and attitudes one can have toward the state. It is not just restricted to hate and love. Not loving the state does not mean one hates it. I think the best approach is to try to understand the state like one does a rattlesnake.
The video caption says Takei loves the state. Some of the opinions he has voiced endorsing the state using force to suppress certain attitudes and beliefs indicate to me he sees it as a useful tool in pushing his agenda.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

I agree

And I am sure Marc would agree that Takei is mistaken in those beliefs. And thanks for pointing out the false dichotomy.

I am not sure a rattlesnake is the best analogy. I've had a pet rattlesnake that had its poison glands taken out and was harmless. Not sure we can do that with the State. Though who knows, may be we can. May be if there is enough awareness out there about the true nature of the State, it's like an anti-venom serum. And anyways, I love snakes :) The State is more like a tick, or a tapeworm.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Takei

I am obviously in disagreement with the majority of takei's political positions as I make clear. The point is not to say , "look at George Takei, he's got it all figured out", but rather to point out how one can turn their experiences into a positive mode of communicating to the world, as opposed to spending one's life simply hating the thing that have happened to you, blaming an abstract concept known as "the state", instead of positively trying to influence those around you.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

when did anarchists become

when did anarchists become bitter and jaded?

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

Bitter and jaded

I didn't mean to imply all anarchists are bitter and jaded, only that Takei could have spent his life bitter and jaded and become an anarchist due to what happened in his childhood. Though I would describe Cantwell as "bitter and jaded", so perhaps I had the comparison in mind already.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

You may be right on Cantwell

But he's hardly typical, of anything. And I think bitter and angry suit some people ok.

My problem with Takei is that he, as others have alluded, has come to love big brother.

It's fine not to walk around angry. It's best not to walk around angry, in my own opinion.

But Takei takes it to the extreme, he's essentially got Stockholm syndrome.

The myth we are supposed to believe of Gandhi doesn't have him capitulating to the empire; accepting it's authority and place in the world. He resists it, but with words and with peace and with calm.

It's one thing to understand that evil exists and it can't be changed quickly, maybe not ever, and make the best of your life.

It's another thing to simply put a happy face sticker on the evil and say "see, it's really good".

Mises and Mencken and Murray never accepted the evil. But they weren't bitter, they were mirthful and happy by all accounts.

Nock was apparently somewhat bitter, but so what?

I don't presume to tell people how to live their lives, happy or angry. Some people are happier being angry:)

Happy or angry, I am pleased we have so many people who are waking up.

Sadly Takei is not one of them.

While I know Takei is a nice person, he's not doing anything to help the world be a better place, and doing a lot to hurt it.

In rendering unto Caesar he's standing in the way of humanity.

Speaking of what his father said...

”Our democracy is a people’s democracy; it can be as great as people can be, and as fallible as people are.”

The Nazis also had public support. Is hate too strong a word to levy against the Nazi regime?

I'll be the first one to say that violence is futile, and the only way to conquer the world is with ideas. However, that doesn't reduce my disdain for the State.

I'm not looking to make the State better. On the note of Takei's father's quote, it is my firmly held opinion that the State will always tend to reflect the worst side of humanity and likely never the best.

Nazis and the State

"The Nazis also had public support. Is hate too strong a word to levy against the Nazi regime?"

Of course not, but spending the rest of one's life upon escaping a nazi death camp espousing nothing but hate for Germans, for example, could lead to a holocaust for Germans if enough people adopt that attitude.

"'m not looking to make the State better. On the note of Takei's father's quote, it is my firmly held opinion that the State will always tend to reflect the worst side of humanity and likely never the best."

This is viewing the State as a sort of "frozen abstraction", as if it were some omnipresent evil that men must spend their lives fearing. But "the State" is merely a creation of men, and many men initiate violence with and without the State. If we remove the State tomorrow but don't change the beliefs of the population, new institutions will emerge to pick up right where the rights violations of the State left off.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

If the state were gone tomorrow

One advantage would be that whatever new state that tried to infest us would not have the legacy of legitimacy.

But I do not propose this nor do I think it's possible.

The problem is that the state promotes belief in the state. This belief is illogical and religious and thus can be debunked, necessarily so because it's demise is contained in its own dogma.

The state uses an evil but superficially plausible ethical system.

What's plausible about it is that it condemns rights violations.

What's evil about it is that it excludes itself from the system.

It's simply an ethic designed to keep slaves in their place.

And it can be debunked as easily as asking, if hurting people is wrong, then why does the state insist on hurting people?

The problem is that this causes turmoil in the slave mind. After all the slave has accepted the abuse of the master as 'right' so as to be better able to cope with his status as slave.

So as not to be angry all the time:) An angry slave has a more difficult life.

But when you suggest that whatever morality is, that it must logically apply to all people, that it must biblically apply to all people, then they must face the reality of their station as livestock.

This is difficult and painful for many people.

That's why I said...

the world could only be conquered by ideas.

On my personal scale of dislike, I dislike the ever-murdering State the most.

Your suggestion, namely - "spending the rest of one's life upon escaping a nazi death camp espousing nothing but hate for Germans..." - you know is a common misconception. The People are not the State. Otherwise, I suppose those few million Jews just killed themselves.

The State is not some frozen abstraction. Seemingly - at least widely believed to be - harmless ones evolve into dirtier beasts day-by-day - always looking for the next opportunity to bend over the People.

As the State exists today, I strongly dislike it. I seriously doubt anyone will come up with a State I will say that I love.

The people

It's a common misconception that the coercive state represents the direct will of the people, but at the same time surely you agree a majority support the state and the way the methods by which it violated rights. Ultimately what we call the State is the result of an anti-intellectual, anti-reason population.

My only point is in the attitude one takes when communicating we others. If some think burning and shooting American flags advances liberty by all means go for it. Me, I think, a positive vision is a more helpful tact.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*