Philosophy Is
To grasp the basic idea, it helps to understand how philosophy is organized and how it affects us practically. A philosophy is a unified understanding of Man and the universe that forms a base for our thoughts and actions. It is the source of the principles that provide a rationale for everything that we do.
The core of a philosophical system is composed of three interwoven, primary branches: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Although these are referred to as the "primary branches," it helps to see them as the roots and trunk of a philosophy, or as the foundation. From this foundation, the secondary branches, such as esthetics, economics, politics, education and sociology, are applications; that is, they derive their principles from the foundation (i.e., from the primary branches).
The foundation is critical to what comes after. If you have a really super educational application, for example, derived from an innovative understanding of epistemology, it will work ineptly in a "real world" where most other applications derive from contrary philosophical premises. The same is true with any other application, including political applications.
Political liberty derives from a philosophical foundation that is opposed to the philosophical foundation that leads to statism, fascism, communism or any other dictatorial, oppressive, UNFREE form of government or society. It is based upon a different understanding of our nature and the universe; its principles are different; its application - tools and methodology - is different.
The liberty "movement" exists within the context of a pervasive world philosophy that is opposed to liberty. In that context, the movement contains contrary, inimical and subversive philosophical premises that color its efforts and goals.
You have the situation where liberty cannot be created because the tools and structures of existing political science derive from an anti-liberty philosophical foundation - and so do the values of the people in that cultural context.
Trying to apply some aspect of political liberty, such as a bill of rights, jury trials or representation, in the context where the rest of the tools and the overall framework of government is statist and anti-liberty, will result in sidelining or corrupting the liberty tools. In that context, the liberty tools are incompatible with the rest of the political tools, structures, and purposes, and also incompatible with the philosophical foundation and the other secondary applications.
It is rare that you would get liberty tools at all in the context where an anti-liberty philosophical foundation is generally accepted. And, getting them, it is unlikely that they will last very long, nor, even, that they would be properly identified and implemented to begin with. It is not merely a corruption over time, but a corruption - a compromise of principle - in regard to implementing them that leads to their failure.
Domination
The generally accepted - traditional, conventional, historical - philosophy of the world is composed of many, assorted applications of DOMINATION philosophy. It is termed in this fashion because it is an ordered, hierarchical, patriarchal, power structure of domination by some over others. It is a clan- or group-oriented philosophy, the philosophical foundation of collectivism, that disrespects the sovereignty of the individual. The standards of this philosophy are those of the group - its strength, its mass, and its power.
It is easy to see that the philosophy of domination, in its various guises and applications, is opposed to the philosophy of liberation. The standards of the philosophy of liberation are the health of the individual.
The philosophy of liberation is a pro-life, pro-health, and pro-human happiness premise. The philosophy of domination is a collectivist premise that subordinates or ignores the pro's of liberation (which pertain to individual human beings), in order to advance the well-being of the group.
The Reciprocian philosophy is not a political philosophy in particular. It advocates political liberty, with a structure that is uniquely suited to liberty, and which derives from a pro-life philosophical foundation. In world history, this is a very different conception of what government is, what it's for, and the "stuff" of which it is composed. Political liberty is not designed to function in the context of domination philosophy ... that is, in a context where it accommodates such philosophy, and is informed and compromised by domination values.
Ayn Rand & Libertarians
In the mid-twentieth century, author/novelist Ayn Rand formulated a philosophy called Objectivism. This has been a popular cornerstone of the libertarian movement. Rand, however, is the true mother of the libertarian movement. It is her bastard child, and she rightly repudiated its slipshod, unprincipled attempt to disconnect philosophy (foundation) from politics (application). Due to this disconnect, libertarianism pivots on the dilemma of a contradiction: that collectivists can never bring about individual political liberty. They are conflicted, personally and philosophically. Their goal of political liberty is an impossible fantasy (ideal) where individual liberty exists alongside collectivism, patriarchy, hierarchy, and even aristocracy (all of which are opposites of liberty).
While philosopher Rand could not accept the bald contradiction of libertarianism, novelist Rand stoked the fantasy - and then tried to talk her way out of it.
Rand was a perfectionist and a bit of a megalomaniac, who claimed that if people would follow her philosophy, consistently, they would be rewarded with a fulfilled and happy life. Her philosophy, however, was muddled with her fantasies - both in her works of fiction and in her worship of both liberty and aristocracy, a truly Nietzschian combination.
In many particulars, Rand hit the nail on the head, especially in regard to how philosophy affects every aspect of our lives. But her grasp of politics, economics, sexology and most other applications, were rooted in a murky European, domination value-system. Her strongest asset may have been her epistemology, though not her metaphysics or ethics. The rest of her philosophical applications are likewise mixed and muddy, but her fictional "spin" talents made her a powerful rationalizer of the compromises and contradictions of her philosophy and her personal values.
This detour into Ayn Rand's accomplishments and failures is to distinguish Reciprocian philosophy from Objectivism, both in its origins and its expectations. And to distinguish the Reciprocian identification and advocacy of liberty from Rand's bastard child, libertarianism.
Two Basic Views
Reciprocian philosophy holds that there are basically two kinds of philosophy extant: Domination philosophy, which is essentially group-oriented, and subordinates the well-being of the individual to the group - wherein the health of individuals derives from the health of the group. Opposed to this is nondomination or Liberation philosophy, which is fundamentally individual-oriented, and recognizes the sovereignty and autonomy of the individual - wherein the health of the group is a reflection of the health of its individual members.
Reciprocian philosophy is not utopian. It does not claim that its political application will create a perfect society of rational, caring human beings. Nor does its political application require that people be rational or caring to begin with. Primordial self-interest is sufficient grounds for individuals to choose liberty - but it is their internalized domination cultural programming and values that leads this quest off the road ... and into the ditch. It is their lack of conscious understanding that confounds their efforts, not a lack of belief, zeal or vigilance.
The metaphysical, epistemological and ethical foundation of Reciprocian philosophy is not a belief system, but an understanding of "the nature of things" based upon a standard of health for the human being. The political, economic, sociological and personal applications are logical consequences of the foundation, derived from principle to accommodate a standard of health. They are applications that benefit the health of individuals.
Addicts Like Drugs
Reciprocian philosophy is difficult to hang a hat upon because it is not a domination variant and it repudiates domination structures, addictions and other paraphernalia.
To someone who is eating cooked, refined, genetically-engineered, antibiotic-laden, chemically-laced, preserved, enhanced, processed, taste-driven, addiction-driven non-foods, as a primary diet in a culture of people who eat similarly, wherein that diet is reinforced throughout every aspect of society, eating food would be perceived as bland, boring, unsatisfying, anti-social, and "risky." This is the same difference, and the same quandary, that Reciprocian philosophy - food - holds to people who are imbued with the values and routines of a domination, anti-life philosophy and its manifold applications.
The libertarians strive to make liberty "attractive" to collectivists and authoritarians. They do this mostly through compromising and misrepresenting liberty - and packaging it with cultural values which derive from domination, anti-liberty philosophy.
But liberty is not going to be satisfying to collectivists or authoritarians, any more than a fresh, raw carrot is going to be satisfying to people who are addicted to sugar, caffeine, deep-fried foods, or other junk/drugs.
I do not pretend that people will find liberty appealing or satisfying in a conventional manner. It will not answer their drug-induced insecurities, their dependency on the collective, nor their worship of authority. It will provide an environment for personal health and fulfillment. These are inherently good things to have, but they entail rationality, independence, and responsibility, which are not presently desirable virtues.
In a manner similar to eating a diet of food, wrapping your mind around the concept of liberty is not easy to do in a junk-food, collectivized, domination culture. The challenges of finding real, noncontaminated food in the USA are a challenge that few third-worlders would be able to believe. The hype of the health food industry does more to drive people away from real food than any other aspect of our culture. Similarly, the hype of the liberty movement does more to drive people into complacent acceptance of statism than the statists could ever hope to achieve on their own.
Supposed "health food" stores contain so much junk, that you might as well (with less inconvenience and expense) just eat a "regular" junk diet. Supposed "liberty" advocates propose so much that is underscored with authoritarianism, altruism, collectivism, corporatism and free-market schemes and scams, that you might as well (with a lot less hassle) just live in the "real" world (fascist though it may be).
Liberty, like food, isn't packaged in hype and bs. It's just food. And it is not addictive. You won't "get hooked" on it. You eat it. It gives you good health. End of story. I won't explore the idea that, living in a culture of domination, you probably don't really want to be healthy - you WANT to be drugged and zoned-out. I don't blame you. Here: have another piece of chemically-laced, health-destroying, addictive candy. Poor health is apropos for your cultural context - and you know it, instinctively.
A "cultural context" is a manifest of philosophical applications in force in a society, and, by extension, in the social indoctrination. This is a "real world" context, but it is composed of philosophical applications. Culture is a consequence of a philosophical foundation - with manifold applications in every area of life. It is a self-reinforcing value-system. It does not matter if it is predominantly unhealthy to the individual. It is what you have been reared to value - at the expense of your own health, if necessary.
Reciprocian philosophy, like a raw carrot, is only about health. The health of individual human beings. Your health and your well-being.
Revelations, Reverberations
The political solution/formulation is an application of Reciprocian philosophy. It is one application out of thousands of ramifications that flow from that philosophical foundation.
A core philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics) has impact on every aspect of human existence. It is pervasive and invasive. We are generally only aware of the secondary philosophical branches, as formal applications of the foundation. We are usually oblivious to subtle programmed values, and the affect of these on our decision-making process, hence on our subsequent choices.
A recent reader of Reciprocia "thought" the book was about political philosophy. She read it reluctantly, since politics did not interest her very much. She first tried to classify it - liberal, libertarian, conservative - but gave up on that after the first few chapters. It didn't fit into her understanding of what "politics" means. With encouragement, she kept an open mind, and soon became fascinated with the ideas behind the applications. By the end of the book, she had a new paradigm for understanding what the power structure was and how it worked - and she understood the dimensions of its opposite, liberty. But the process didn't stop there. Living in an intensely domination culture (USA), she began seeing everything in a different light.
The consequence of reading Reciprocia at that level of openness is to turn the lights on full. You will be hit by a series of revelations while you read the book. But that light doesn't go out when you finish the book. It is an application of a philosophical core - a foundation - that reverberates through every aspect of your life, changing how you see things, and how you regard your own programming. It doesn't force you to rethink your culturally imbibed philosophy, but it does give you tools for continued re-evaluation. And it gives you a framework in which to rebuild your understanding of how things work.
Reciprocia isn't about "politics" as you understand the concept. Moreover, although it is an application, it isn't really about politics at all. It is about your humanity ... and your choice to be human.
One Small Step; One Giant Leap
The premise of the Reciprocian political application is that liberty can be created by individuals, for individuals, between individuals, and that the process can start right away. Even while the implications of the foundation of liberty continue to reverberate in your mind and in your perceptions, the document can be signed and the contract is begun.
As noted previously in this series, choosing liberty does not depend upon being perfect or erudite. Primordial self-interest is sufficient grounds for individuals to choose liberty. The lack of conscious understanding confounds our normal, conventional attempts at implementing liberty - not a lack of belief, zeal or vigilance, but of understanding. The main thing that needs to be understood is that liberty is a different commodity than conventional "government," and that you cannot approach it in a conventional manner and expect to get anywhere with it.
The Constitutional Revision process also begins. The Reciprocian constitution was published after a ongoing revision process that spanned eight years. Since publication, I have become aware of several points that I would revise. However, in terms of principles and in terms of capturing the process, the book is complete. It actually needs no revision, except in regard to some of the details. As the years pass, a revision and a second edition of the book will come to pass. I make the following offer and request:
Prior to signing the Reciprocian contract/constitution, I encourage people to edit it - consciously (aware of the process of going from principle to application, and of the interference run by your own preconceptions and cultural programming). Send me your edits (post only, no emails). When I revise and issue a second edition of Reciprocia, I will send everyone who sent me serious edits a free copy of the revised constitution. There is no guarantee that I will incorporate all the edits that I receive. The details of a political contract/constitution is not a one-person job - nor is it something that is authoritatively imposed by fiat. It needs the input - eyes and brains - of individuals who have a commitment to and vested-interest in their own liberty.
