November 9, 2012

• My Political Orientation/Philosophy

  I have had some questions about my political orientation and where exactly I stand, so I have decided to explain where I am coming from, and I am going to do it in as civilized a fashion as possible.  I may be 100% civilized and polite this time.  Let’s see.

  Parties:

   

  I prefer to self identify as conservative, which is a statement of values and hints of economic implications, vs. “Republican” which is just a political party.  I have not self identified as Republican since I was a teenager, and I have never been a registered Republican.  I do not particularly like the Republican party, and neither do I get excited about them, because they do not accurately represent my views.  I vote Republican simply as a means to keep the Democrats out of office as much as possible.  To me the Republicans encompass a range of politicians that goes from slightly conservative to socialist, and the Democrats encompass a range that runs from slightly socialist to hardcore commie. Neither group represents my views, but one is more antithetical towards them than the other, so naturally I want to keep that group out as much as possible.

  Politicians:

   

  I am naturally suspicious of politicians, because rathar than earning a living through a job where they get paid for performing a service, they live off of tax money harvested from citizens, and, they are in positions of power.  Since I am not personally interested in occupying a position of power (more on that shortly), I can only conclude that they are attracted to power as a means of personal security or as a means of exerting control over others.  Since they live off of tax money and are well paid it seems unlikely that their motives would be purely altruistic.  The best case scenario is that they want to do something positive so that they can be remembered by history and bask in fame, which can be achieved by doing something memorable regardless of whether or not it is popular, case in point Obamacare.

  So when a politician says anything, I do not focus so much on how they look or the way that they said it, but I focus directly on what they said and what the implications of that policy or statement are.  If a politician makes a statement about his motives I do not take it at face value, unless it is something that sounds particularly terrible, because in order to get elected these people have to portray themselves as being something better than they really are.  I tend to have less negative views of politicians who advocate policies that are either hands off (diminishes the control aspect regarding motives), or will create a better socio-economic climate which will provide better opportunities for everyone.  I tend to more strongly distrust politicians who offer favors to special groups and claim it as altruism, especially if we are talking about monetary favors that involve taking money from one group and giving it to another.  That behavior is the very opposite of altruism, and is nothing more than buying the favor of one group at the expense of another. 

  First of all, one cannot be altruistic with another person’s belongings, and aside from that, a thief with a cause is no less a thief.  Either theft is objectively wrong or it is not.  I believe that theft is wrong.  Theft is something that I find truly repellant, no matter who does it.  The self righteous thief is the thief that I find most repellant, and to me it makes no difference whether it’s a godless heathen liberal, or an overzealous church goer.  I cannot, and will never under any circumstances sympathize with a thief.

  My Background:

   

  I have always been a loner with minimal social needs, I have always had difficulty with concepts like group identity, collective ownership, and collective guilt.  Either something concerns me, or it doesn’t, either something has the potential to affect me, or it does not.  Either something is mine, or it is not.   I have been staunchly individualistic going back to my earliest years. When I was very little there were a few occasions at social gatherings or at church where an adult would chew out or yell at an entire group of children, in which I was included.  They would say, “You all did this, you all did that. Now you all sit here and do this or that,” or, “You all are like this, you all are like that,” etc. etc. Regardless of what they said or how heated they got, I never cared, because they were not addressing me specifically. It had absolutely zero emotional or behavior changing impact on me, because they were not talking to me they were talking to a group. To me that sort of thing was thoroughly meaningless, because a group is not a person, and it is not me either. If they addressed me personally I would take it personally, but otherwise I had no reason to care. I still have that mentality. It is ridiculous to condemn someone based on a group affiliation, unless there are ideological aspects which define that group and one is condemning those aspects.

  But I digress, my point is I saw myself as an individual first, and rejected any concept of collective guilt at an early age. 

  Another concept I have never been able to identify with is artificial/manufactored enthusiasm.  Over the course of my young life I participated in various groups for church and school, where the adult supervisors required a certain display of excitement expressed as noise in some form or another.  I never understood how people could yell and cheer for such things.  My emotions are not so easily accessable, and there is very little that makes me exhuberant although there are a fair amount of things which can elicit an anger reaction from me.  For example, during 11th and 12th grade I was in band, in Texas (where it gets above 100 for extended periods of time during the summer), and after each outdoor rehersal/practice in the sweltering heat and blazing light the teachers insisted that we engage in an enthusiastic display beneath the watch tower.  Many of the other students seemed to genuinely feel some sort of exuberance, but it was a feeling I could never identify with.  It seemed to me that in order to become excited something unexpected and highly pleasent, or at least long anticipated and highly pleasant must occur, and in those cases the feeling is a short lived reaction, just as the initial rush of adrenaline when experiencing something unexpected and alarming passes swiftly.

  So another concept I have never been able to understand or identify with is hype.

  Democracy:

   

  People have accused me of being anti-Democratic, or not being in favor of Democracy, and they are correct.  Why?  Because, as one of my college professors so aptly put it, I don’t want all the idiots having a say in what gets done with my money. Democracy is simply a tyranny of the majority.  People on both sides of the fence talk about Democracy as if it were a value, but in their heart of hearts most people don’t want a Democracy.  They only want a Democracy as long as the majority goes along with their needs and wants, but as soon as something is passed into law by them sits ill with certain people, they immediately take it to court to have it overturned.  They use an undemocratic process presided over by un-elected officials to overturn a democratically established law. People on both sides of the political spectrum do this.

  Democracy only works under limited circumstances. It works when dealing with small like minded populations which share a common set of beliefs and values, and it sometimes works when participation has to be earned.

  Democracy does not work in Empires, because Empires are composed of different people groups.  That is why the Romans switched from Democracy to Monarchy early on.  A people group is not the same thing as a group of people. People groups are defined based upon shared characteristics, such as culture, language, religion, or race.  A group of people consists of whatever people happen to be present within an arbitrarily chosen set of geographic bounds, and need not have anything in common with one another.  Groups of people cannot always be turned into a people group, and certainly not simply because of geographic proximity or because one administrative body governs both. 

  Different people groups have different ideas about how things should be run, as they often have different values and ideas about the role of government.  Under those circumstances Democracy creates division, and the various groups direct their enmity towards one another.  Therefore, under such circumstances governments have historically removed Democracy and replaced it with Oligarchy or Monarchy.  Once that occurs the various factions tend to focus their disagreements and hostility toward the government rather than each other, primarily at least.  If one faction becomes strong enough it may overthrow the government, and the different factions which are out of power will focus their hostility towards the new power more than toward the other factions with are also out of power. 

  Empires are marked by civil war, and inevitably they break up, regardless of whether they are Democratic or ruled by an Emperor.

  The US is an empire.  The American colonies came to diverge from the English over time, and once they saw themselves as a separate people they decided to break with England and determine their own fate.  The same thing has happened again between liberals and conservatives.  We are different peoples with different sets of beliefs and values, and in some cases even cultural differences.  In addition, there are other people groups which have come to exist here due to immigration. 

   

  Now I am not preaching racial segregation, but I do believe in ideological segregation (more on that shortly).  If we are going to have Democracy in the US, we must have either secession, or we must place limits on who can vote.

  Regarding limits, I would allow access to voting based on one of either of the two following conditions being met.

  1) Military service:  Anyone who has served in the military and fought to defend the country will most likely cultivate a vested interest in seeing it prosper.  Therefore, I am more likely to trust their decisions in choosing our rulers than I will the decision making process of the average citizen, and especially more than those who have not contributed anything on any level.

  2) Land ownership:  If someone actually owns land, then they probably had to work for it, which means that not only do they understand the value of hard work, but also the importance of opportunity for upward mobility, and they are more likely to make sound financial decisions.  A person who is more likely to make sound financial decisions is more qualified to select leaders who are capable of doing the same.

  Theocracy:

   

  I have been accused of advocating a theocracy, even though I have never once advocated any such thing.  The only type of theocracy that would be viable is if God himself literally and blatantly came down to Earth, stayed here permanently, and ruled from his molten lava looking throne.  If he leaves then people are going to rebel again in a few generations.  If God comes down to stay and rule I’m fine with that, but I’m not fine with human led theocracies.

  First of all, typically when people claim to speak for God I don’t believe them.  I believe that many, if not most, of those people are either delusional or attention seekers, perhaps both.  Now, that is not to say that I believe that there is no God, or that he cannot communicate with humans, or that he does not communicate with humans.  But my nature is not to trust people I don’t know until I have some reason to trust them, especially not people who are seeking political power.  I don’t have a concrete objective basis for determining if any particular “word” is actually from God when dealing with people I don’t know.  If something clashes with the Bible I can assume that it’s not from God, but on the other hand I have no concrete objective basis, which I could apply to any scenario, for determining that it is.

  Another problem with human led theocracies is that some people have a tendency to impose their own doctrine on scripture (case in point, the medieval Catholic church), and then to turn around and impose that same doctrine on everyone else. 

  For example, when I was in 8th or 9th grade (can’t remember exactly) I had a very bad experience in a church.  For a year or so my dad compelled both my brother and I to attend a church youth service every Wednesday night. I did not want to go for a variety of reasons.  I did not like going out on school nights because I always found it difficult to get up early in the morning, and I preferred to have control over what time was left for me after homework.  That was typically when I did most of my drawing and reading.  I also wanted to catch the new episode of Voyager each Wednesday, and I was unaccostomed to going to church on Wednesday nights.  But I digress, the main point is that I did not want to be there and I did not find that service particularly stimulating, and I had no interest in the other people who were mostly in their late teens and early 20′s.  One night however, I did manage to connect with a kindrid spirit.  The guy was older than I was, but he was interested in fantasy literature.  He was a table top RPG gamer, and he asked my brother and I if we could draw some concept art of goblins for him.  We said yes, so we proceeded to draw and we stopped to show him our designs once or twice before resuming work. 

  Since we were sitting towards the back of the room and this rather large guy was in front of us I assumed that we would go unnoticed, but without warning one of the huge 20+ year old men walked by and abruptly snatched both of our drawings away from us.  His upper arms were nearly as big around as my head at the time.  It happened so fast that I could do nothing, but even if it happened slowly at the time I was only 135 pounds and 5 ft. 2 in.  I had not yet begun my Kung Fu training or weight training, and although I typically won physical confrontations with peers there was very little I could have done to thwart the onslought of that individual who was both physically superior and who was trained in martial arts.  As he took my art he said, “If you guys are going to draw then church is over for you.” 

   

  I was terribly confused and offended.  Of course I did not particularly care what those people thought of me, but I was irritated that someone would have the unmitigated gall to steal my property.  When my dad arrived he proceeded to upbraid me on the way home about drawing evil things in church, and that the men at the “youth” service were very concerned and praying for us.  They should have been praying that God would forgive them for being thieves, and that I would find it in my heart to forgive them.  My dad tried to accuse me of drawing something evil and causing a problem at the church, but at the time I could not have cared less about what they thought or said because they violated Deuteronomy 5:8; “Thou shalt not steal.”  To me it seemed hypocritical for them to be concerned about my spirituality just because I was drawing something wierd in church, when they were in blatant violation of the 10 commandments. 

  I have no level of sympathy or respect for people who steal, no matter what sort of fake righteousness it’s clothed in.  Theft is theft, and no thief will ever be my friend or have my respect, especially if they steal from me. 

  I did not share this story to gain sympathy, or to stir up ire towards my co-religionists.  I just mentioned this to show where I am coming from so that people will understand why I do not advocate a theocracy.  Theft and power tripping can occur in the name of righteousness even as they can occur in the name of unabashed wickedness.

  On the other hand, I have no objection to societies and governments being formed based on Biblical principles and values, or on the principle of intelligent design, which carries with it inalienable natural rights.  I just don’t want people power tripping or forming thought police.  I hate both of those things.

  Anarchy:

  Contrary to popular belief, pure anarchy is not on the far left, it is on the far right. Anarchy is the ultimate freeing of the individual from the restraint of other people and institutions. I have argued with communists before who insisted that communism is anarchy, but in truth communism is statism and a command economy. Suppose there is no government, just private individuals each forming their own autonomous nation. If the communists come to my house and ask me to give them all of my things so that they can redistribute all of my property to their friend. I tell them no. Now what are they going to do? They can either go away, or they can try to take it by force. If they try to take it by force there is nothing to stop me from killing them. So much for communism. Communism is collectivism, and collectivism and individualism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

  On a personal level I am somewhat of an anarchist, but not on a social level. I do not need laws to make me behave.  Mainly what I want is to be left alone by other people.   I do not wish other people harm, or to exert power over them.  I just want to have my own space, let other people have their space, and if they don’t do anything to me or try to take my stuff then I won’t do anything to them. I respect natural rights which come from God. I am a highly civilized individual, and if I have any sort of dispute with someone else I prefer to settle it with them directly rather than going to the authorities, which is also a Biblical teaching.  To me, people in government are not sacred, they are just people with no one governing them. They are not superior beings with superior intellect or superior virtue, and I do not behave in a civilized fashion out of fear or respect for them. Someone like me does not need government. HOWEVER, that is not true of everyone.

  When I visited India I got to see one scenario of how anarchy plays out.  I went to India to visit the girl who would become my fiance, and while there I got to travel through parts of India by plane and by car.  I am fairly well read, and know a good deal more about other cultures than the average person, so I knew that India would be a wantonly impoverished place, but there were still some things there that surprised me.  The average person from the US could not handle being there, even for a visit. 

  The government of India does very little, as do the cops, so for the most part the people are left ungoverned.  Garbage was literally everywhere, it was non-stop, and much if not most of it was non-biodegradable materials, such as plastic.  All along the sides of the road and in the fields there was garbage.  In the cities it was much worse, and there were piles of garbage.  There were lots of people, and no garbage service, so when they wanted to throw something away they literally threw it away, as in away from themselves.  There are vast hordes of poor people who lived in such destitute conditions that they make the poor of the 1st world look wealthy by comparison.  Squatting in India is epidemic.  The poor people literally settle wherever there is an open patch of land, regardless of who owns it, and they construct a ramshackle house out of solidified mud.  People who own large tracts of land will often build a large concrete fence with sharp objects along the top around their property to keep the poor people out because the government does not do jack. 

  People who have small houses (not the poor with the mud huts but actual houses with facilities) must also surround their homes with concrete fences that have sharp objects imbedded in the top, otherwise their furniture and regrigerators might get stolen, and the cops will do nothing.

  There is no traffic regulation.  You drive wherever you can on the road, and sometimes off if there is room, and traffic comes at you from both sides.

  I saw no graffiti, at least, not the sorts that you see in the ghetto areas of the US, but I did see advertisements painted on the concrete walls and walls of houses.  There were so many advertisements.  I saw no billboards when I was there, so I assumed that the painted adds were what India had in place of billboards.  But, when I asked my host how much people got paid for allowing the signs to be painted, he said that no one allowed anything.  He said that people painted whatever they wanted wherever they wanted, and no one tried to do anything about it.  He said that if you want to paint something on anything you just go out and paint it.  I kept hearing that the problem with India is that “people can do whatever they want.” 

  So not everyone is cut out for anarchy.  Not everyone respects the natural rights of others.  Maybe most people can get along without killing and raping their neighbors, but when it comes to property rights then recognition and respect become more dubious.  Of course, different cultures will handle anarchy at a different level.  Muslims will seize any lack of law enforcement to kill all the religious minorities that are around them.  Ghetto urbanites in the US will riot and break their own stuff. 

  But my point is, the reason that we have laws and religion is to regulate those people who are either too immoral or too ignorant to respect the natural rights of others.

  So I do not support anarchy because I have seen it empirically demonstrated that not everyone can handle it. 

  Authoritarianism/totalitarianism:

   

  I do not support totalitarianism any more than I support anarchy.  In fact, if I had to choose between totalitarianism and anarchy I would choose anarchy, because at least in anarchy I can deal with any problem I might have directly.  Yes the neighbors might decide to do something crazy, but I can deal with it myself, or at least try to.  Under a totalitarian type society the government can do whatever it wants to me and I can’t do anything about it.  The worst case scenario of anarchy is still better than the worst case scenario of totalitarianism or authoritarianism.  I absolutely hate thought police, speech laws, and institutionalized theft.  I hate these things.  I would rather have my patch of land with a concrete wall that I’m responsible for defending myself than live in a Big Brother type society.

  Nationalism:

   

  Nationalism is the belief that different peoples have a right to self determinism, which means autonomy and self government.  Nationalism exists in opposition to Imperialism and multiculturalism.  Nationalism is natural, because people who are the same or at least similar have a natural tendency to group together.  Multiculturalism involves forcing disparate and sometimes antithetical cultures and peoples together under one roof.  Multiculturalism must be facilitated and maintained by government action, while Nationalism occurs naturally as like seeks out like.

  I tend to support nationalism.  I support Israel because the Jewish people have a right to exist autonomously and govern themselves if they wish it, and especially if they wish to do so in their homeland.  I support Native American nationalism, because the different Native American people groups are have a right to control their own destiny and be governed by their own people if they wish.  I also support Kurdish nationalism, Tuareg separatism, and I especially support the right of my people to secede from the and form their own autonomous country if they wish.

  How small of pieces should the US, or any country, break up into and when will it stop?  I don’t know how small of pieces it should break into, however small is necessary to make everyone satisfied, and it will stop when it needs to stop.  The oldest most traditional form of human organization among civilized man is the city state, and even today it is the people at the community level who best understand the needs and temperaments of their community.  I’m not saying that we should return to city states, but if some people want to do then I don’t really care to stop them. 

  For the record, I am not a racial segregationist.  I do actually believe that people of different races can get along, if they have shared values, beliefs, priorities, and cultures which are either identical or closely similar.  Sometimes new cultures are created by merging two different people groups.  Sometimes it turns out well, and sometimes it doesn’t.  If there is going to be immigration then it needs to be regulated.  I don’t want people coming into my country who either do not share my values, or who see themselves as being in opposition to me.

  To Sum it Up:

   

  As I stated before, I am a loner type of guy, but in nature lone wolves tend to get killed.  That is why when I must interact with others I prefer to interact with individuals who are as likeminded with me as possible, or who at least share my respect for property rights.

  I don’t like people taking my stuff.  I don’t like thieves, and I don’t like people who don’t respect property rights.

  I hope that this makes my position nice and clear to everyone, so that everyone will know where I am coming from.

  • 11:09 pm
  • 4 Comments