The Purpose of a System

1,400 words

A bandit hides a sack of gold by burying it in an orchard. Centuries pass. A farmer planting a tree discovers the bandit’s gold. Was this meant to happen? It seems not. The bandit’s purpose was to hide the gold. The farmer’s purpose was to plant a tree. When their purposes crossed, the gold was discovered. But it was neither man’s intention. It just turned out that way. We call such an event an “accident.”

If you find this argument unconvincing, the proper response is to offer evidence that the discovery was no accident. At this point, however, many people will dismiss the requirement to supply empirical evidence. Instead, they will declare a general metaphysical axiom: “There are no accidents.”

You might have a shot proving that a particular incident was no accident. But good luck in your battle with the great metaphysicians.

One summer day, a woman leaves her child in his car seat while she gets her nails done, picks up a lotto ticket, and buys some smokes and a twelve-pack of beer. When she returns to the car, her child is dead. To all appearances, it looks like stupidity and neglect.

But you feel sorry for the woman and wish to excuse her. (For some reason, you feel nothing for the child.) You are certain that some socioeconomic factors must have been at work here. But when challenged to supply empirical evidence, you make a sweeping metaphysical claim: “Nothing is what it seems.”

Again, you might have been able to explain how this particular incident is more complex than it seems. But instead, you have decided to take sides in a metaphysical debate raging since antiquity. Good luck on that.

You are relaxing in your backyard, watching sparrows at a birdbath. Suddenly, a shadow appears. A hawk swoops down on the birdbath, sending the sparrows fleeing. Later you learn that across town at the same time, a brown delivery truck has crashed into a schoolbus filled with children. You are convinced that the events are connected, and not just in your mind. You believe the hawk was an omen. But when challenged to give evidence, you instead make a metaphysical claim: “Everything is connected.”

Once again, you are far more likely to establish that these two events are connected than to settle an ancient metaphysical debate.

Arguing from metaphysical axioms rather than empirical facts is very common in political commentary:

• Somalians loot social welfare programs.

• Killers are turned loose to kill again.

• Illegal aliens roam the country raping and killing.

Perhaps you believe that this is all intentional:

• The programs were created in order to be looted.

• The killers were turned loose in order to kill again.

• The borders were opened in order to unleash rapists and murderers.

This is a twofold thesis. First, you are arguing that certain bad outcomes are intentional. Second, you are arguing that the people responsible for them are evil.

When asked for evidence for these extraordinary claims, you offer a metaphysical axiom: “The purpose of a system is what it does.” If something happens, it was meant to happen. There are no accidents. If there seem to be accidents, well, nothing is as it seems.

Again, this seems to be an easy out, but in fact it is very difficult to prove that everything that happens, happens intentionally. Obviously, some things don’t seem that way. Thus to make your point, you must convince me to trust you, not my lying eyes.

All these metaphysical axioms have something in common:

• There are no accidents.

• Nothing is what it seems.

• Everything is connected.

• Everything is intentional.

They are the axioms of a conspiratorial approach to politics.

It is politically expedient to claim that all problems are intentional and one’s opponents are evil, because that implies that everything can be fixed when the right people are put in charge. Presumably, that would be you. If the problems aren’t fixed, there’s a simple explanation: the right guys don’t have enough power. Give them more power, and things will be fine.

Conspiracies are real. They happen all the time. Not a day goes by when I am not plotting and scheming with others. Why, then, am I not ruling the world? That’s because more powerful people have other plans. Why aren’t they ruling the world, then? Well, some of them are.

But aside from that, everybody’s plans conflict, so if you want to make a sweeping metaphysical claim, it might be safer to say that “Nothing happens exactly as intended” rather than “Everything that happens was intended to happen that way.”

Since conspiracies are real and happen all the time, there are rules of evidence for establishing whether they take place. Quite a few legal cases, for instance, involve conspiracies. And believe me, if you sit down in court and argue that the Joker conspired with the Riddler based on nothing more than metaphysical axioms, you will be laughed out of court.

Sadly, the standards on the internet are much looser. There, you can make factual claims without any empirical evidence at all, just by deducing them from metaphysical axioms . . . all to thunderous applause.

How do evil things happen without being intended by diabolically evil agents?

An older single woman with not much going on in her life begins adopting stray cats. Feeding them makes her feel powerful and kind. Thus she adopts more and more cats. Eventually, she has too many cats to take care of. Her house becomes filthy. Her cats go hungry and thirsty. Sick cats are left to slink off somewhere and die. Finally, animal control is called in. A hundred miserable cats and kittens are rescued, and the corpses of a dozen others are hauled away. The woman is arrested. As she is led away, she protests that she was just being kind to animals.

Was all this suffering the woman’s purpose? Was she simply evil? Obviously, she ended up torturing a lot of animals. But that’s not what she set out to do. At a certain point, however, it should have become clear to her that she wasn’t being kind to animals at all. But if her real purpose was not to do evil, then what was it?

Pet hoarders are a variety of what are called “co-dependent enablers.” The classic example of an enabler is someone who “helps” an alcoholic by cleaning up his messes and bailing him out of trouble, thus enabling him to keep drinking. They harm people by helping them maintain self-destructive lifestyles.

What is their motive? Enablers think they are being altruistic. But at a certain point, it should become clear that they are actually doing harm. At that point, a rational and responsible person would stop.

Enablers continue, however, because in reality something is much more important to them than helping others, namely, feeling good about themselves. Enabling makes them feel moral and powerful. In short, they are on an ego trip, and the pleasure they derive from it is so powerful that they are capable of deluding themselves into thinking they are good people even as they create misery.

If you want to understand what makes liberals tick, just replace the cats with Somalians or criminals or illegal aliens. This is how nice people create world-destroying evil.

Does this mean that there are no evil people in politics? Does this mean that white genocide is just a ghastly misunderstanding?

Not at all. There are plenty of diabolically evil people in politics. But they wouldn’t be able to accomplish very much without legions of well-meaning, vain, and self-indulgent fools.

Why does this matter?

If you believe that every evil is intentional, you are magnifying both the efficacy and the malevolence of your enemies. At a certain point, however, this becomes demoralizing. There’s a certain genre of conspiratorial commentary that I call “Elders of Zion fan fiction.” No matter what happens, the fix is always in. Such people wallow in complete impotence yet feel smugly superior to those who think they can actually do something.

But sometimes the man behind the curtain is just a cat lady on an ego trip.

How do you tell them apart? One way is to confront them with the evil they are doing, then see if they persist.