Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Small exposition of my political thoughts and leanings

Just decided I might elucidate for the world, as at least a disclaimer, some of my current leanings and thoughts on the nature of politics, religion, life, the universe, everything.

I believe it is a mistake to qualify myself into strict labels, both because I think labels are largely meaningless and misleading, and because I think you stultify your own mind once you define yourself as a "conservative" or "liberal" or what-have-you. But, I will give near an estimate toward describing my thoughts, to the categories people are mostly familiar with pigeonholing others into.

I suppose, firstly I'll start with religion. I myself, am entirely non-inclined to believe in any diety or form of diety. That is, not only do I see no evidence, and think it highly unlikely, I don't believe any human conception of a diety would even be able to come close to approaching the concept of god or creator. That is, I think religion is bunk. Bunk with a seriously powerful social effect (For good or ill), but bunk none the less. That being said, the closest idea that I can approach with a semi-religious ardor would be the concept of Freedom (and secondarily, liberty, which is a slightly different concept.) Toward that end, assuming that a god or creator does exist (which I presume unlikely), I would be inclined to liken it to Nietzsche's concept of God: "Companions the creator seeks, not herds, nor followers, nor corpses, other creators the creator seeks." Or perhaps, on a more cynical note, H.P. Lovecraft. But, primarily I would agree with Bakunin's rebuttle to Voltaire: "If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." That is, the mental concept of some allknowing, allpowerful, omnipresent thing should set any intelligent mind alight with revulsion and defiance. Beyond that, it seems entirely tiresome to me, that people would accept the ideas of others, concerning the unknowable, moreso than their own thoughts, and would actively exclude, deride, or persecute those who do exercise their own thoughts.

That is, the first evil, which would become the state, found its prototype in the priest. The state merely defines those outside of civility, the priest decides who is indeed, outside of even humanity. "We the great religions, shall all feast on eachother's heathens." Which is still the truth, despite the rosy colorizations that seemingly every world religion gets by whatever press or public oppinion these days. That one religion might be behaving mostly civily for the time being, means merely that it is resting, it's stomach satiated for the time being, by the blood of martyrs or heathens past.

So, now that my tirade against religion is complete: On to my philosophy of life. I tend to stick to simple axioms, or aphorisms, and shy away from complex ontologies, dialectics, or other metaphysical classifications. So it roughly follows as such: Break every chain, use your mind, exercise compassion, refrain from harming others, and sic semper tyrannus.

Fairly short and simple philosophy, I think that life, having no inherent meaning allows you to define your own meanings, and so in order to avoid dogmatism or limitations, I choose a few good baselines, and devise situational ethics based off of those for the rest. Most of my ethical theory revolves around Aristotle's mean, and a variation on Kant's: In your actions, presuppose that the entire world would allready know what you had done. (Tip: The latter one will drive you nuts if you use it too often.) And also Nietzsche's concept of personal virtue.

Next: Politics. In this matter I suppose people would generally consider me "Left", and the best theoretical model which approaches my own is anarcho-syndicalism, or libertarian-socialism. Though I differ fundamentally in several aspects. Mainly on my own mental wrangling about practicality (that is, the practicalities of ensuring maximum freedom.) As far as the socialism aspect, I suppose that I endorse some sort of mixed economy socialism, devoid of parasitical ownership. Until a time where something such as universal construction nano-technology or cheap clean ubiquitous energy, makes even commodity disparity between various peoples obsolete there will allways be some relative inequality. The importance however, lies in the minimalization of this equality, the dissolution of structural inequality of class, and the destruction of inequality of the type which deserves no other word than horrendous. That is, one where not even the necessities of life can be met. That is, I can be fine with relatively small amounts of "floating" inequality, due to production or distribution circumstance, or simply a historical edge (which of course, should be eliminated, but even should it be so, there is likely to remain for at least a relative amount of time, some small degree of historical economic "edge".), but cannot stomach large inequitable disparities based on the illogic of our system as currently constituted. That being said, I propose no specific system (as of yet), and endorse no burocracies, politburo's, or other pretenders. Some of my positions on social and personal issues would fall right in line with the american right-libertarian philosophy (For instance: Guns), so I decline to be categorically trampled into some idiotic category such as "liberal" or "leftist".

That's enough for now,

Laters folks.


Post a Comment

<< Home