Murphy’s Bye-Laws

I’ve been told more than once that my anarchism or atheism is a phase of youth.  I assume the reasoning – or rationalization – for this is an attribution to rebellion and the transition from the regimentation of childhood to the independence of adulthood.  In many cases this is probably true.  In so many others it is not.

As part of the maturation process, independence of thought is a major step.  When taking this step in a full stride a burgeoning adult will re-examine all of their inherited beliefs back to their basic principals, including their faith and mysticism, morals, lifestyle, politics, everything. There is more to this step (giant leap) than simply progressing from the known to the known in an intentional step; the full stride toward real independence is taking a step into darkness from the known to the unknown.  The insecurity of this step and the separation from the native herd or family sharing similar beliefs is akin to what I believe Erich Fromm was discussing when talking in Escape From Freedom about discarding independence and individuality for the security of belonging to a group.  To be accepted, which brings some privileges and, in some cases, access, one must usually hold a similar set of mores and basic beliefs.  In the case of anarchism, and to a lesser and lesser degree atheism, one’s beliefs are alien and radical to the point of bringing discomfort to others.  These others decide whether to hire for a job, issue a raise, and many other things that have real effects.

In between the extremes of temporary, shallow rebellion, as formulated against me on some occasions, and complete intellectual independence lie those who formulate thoughts contrary to prior belief taught them as children, temporarily, only to retreat to those beliefs in the name of pragmatism or security.  (Excluded from this spectrum are those who neither rebel to cut ties nor rethink anything they’ve been told, a.k.a. the electorate).  A half-step resulting in retreat or incomplete independence could result in a skeptic enmeshed in cognitive dissonance for the sake of peace of mind or an aware player of the system pragmatically employing the proper rhetoric to their own immoral gain.  Of course, greater risks involved in achieving intellectual independence pay dividends proportional to that risk.

In terms of the initial accusation of youthful rebellion, assuming the accusers have first-hand knowledge, I would like to add to their evaluation.  If, having rebelled to show those stupid adults, a person then reverts back to the same things they rebelled from, can it be called evolution back into naivety or simply giving up and retreating?

This weekend is Memorial Day, the federal adulteration of Decoration Day.  Decoration Day is thought to have started as the decoration of Union graves by freed slaves in Charleston after the Civil War, the graves of men perceived to have actually died for the freedom of the slaves.  Today the holiday is a day for picnics, pool openings, retail sales, and big auto races.  Lip service is paid with all the conviction of a forwarded email with waving flag gifs to the armed forces and pretty much anybody who wears an official-looking uniform from police officers to dog catchers.  Luckily the shorthand phrase of “heroes” has been created for all such folks, without whom we may have the liberty to destory our own lives in our “own particular um… idiom, sir?…yes, our own idiom” (hail to the Python).

Maybe it is just me with my highly-developed cynicism, but all of this homage and pageantry rings very empty.  If these hollow declarations from the milquetoast patriots were said with conviction by stalwarts, then I’d really worry.  As much as the patriots of the American Revolution are hailed and revered, they would be in danger of “preemptive detention” today.  These men were radicals.  The ideas they espoused and risked death for were revolutionary.  This weekend we should memorialize these ideas by reading the Voltairine de Cleyre essay Anarchism and American Traditions explaining what the “American Way” was and, consequently, how it died.

To the men of that time, who voiced the spirit of that time, the battles that they fought were the least of the Revolution Read the rest of this entry »

I first came across the writing of Christopher Hitchens in the forward of Choice: The Best of Reason. I recall him coming across as not particularly libertarian, though enough to qualify as a celebrity in libertarian circles at the time perhaps. It would be hard for me to gauge since I was rather new to the libertarian philosophy. What really grabbed my attention about Mr. Hitchens was his atheism. Since atheism was my channel into philosophy before I cared to engage in any thought about politics, this aspect of his writing stuck out.

Upon further reading of Mr. Hitchens I found him to be moderately libertarian and definitely passionate and outspoken. Then came 9/11 and Iraq and, like so many strong advocates for limited (or no) government, he was scared out of his wits and jumped on the war wagon. This hawkish shift was further emphasized by the fanatic religious nature of the “War on Terror.” Hitchens beat the anti-Muslim drum into battle sounding like a pro-government tyrant in the process.

So when I saw on Slate.com that he had a new book out, not about the wars but about religion in general, I was hopeful that he’d put down his drumsticks for a while. Based on the excerpts on Slate, there is some justification for that hope as he peels away the cake and icing of Islam and Mormonism to reveal the rancid creamy middle. For some reason I read those first and so didn’t notice the general essay on the evil of religion until after taking in a few specifics. Overall I can concur and agree with him on the vast majority of his points. In fact, I would only disagree on a matter of exclusion; an oversight maybe. Take this excerpt, for example, Read the rest of this entry »