Anarchy

I am an anarchist.

Yes, I said it. I am one of those people. My ideals seem crazy and my anger is righteous.

Why am I an anarchist? I am so glad you didn't ask. Here is a question for you: why are you NOT an anarchist?

Is the natural state of nature not in anarchy? We are not born into a governmental and political society. Upon being expelled from our mothers' birth canals we are a part of a family. Politics and government arise only because we are a) social creatures and b) we are almighty pricks to each other.

What is the purpose of government? Of leadership?

Read some Locke. (His 2nd Treatise of Government in particular.) The only reason we give up personal and "unalienable" rights is to gain security. Governments exist to SERVE us. The citizenry of any given state, society, or nation is not there to serve the Government.

I know, I'm pissing all over John F. Kennedy here. Why should I ask what I can do for my country? Truth is: I Do. However, my definition of "my country" likely does not match up with most mainstream political views.

"My country" means the people, the citizenry of the land. I do not serve a government. I do not pledge allegiance to elected officials, symbols, or even the flag. I pledge allegiance to my fellow men and women and to the ideals I feel are worth my allegiance.

This means that, surprise surprise, "my country" is, first, this planet we call Earth. Why should I feel any pride in being born in a given nation/country? What the hell good does nationalism do? NONE.

When was the last time someone ever said something like "Gee, I'm sure glad I'm human" in public? Anyone ever feel proud of being something they've defined on their own? Try it. It is quite freeing.

I support my country only as much as it supports ME. At this point, that means I support it hardly at all. I honor and respect the armed forces, police, and other "public servants." Still, a servant is a servant and an elected official is an elected official.

Why should I be prideful that I happened to be born here? Our politicians are for sale. Bills and laws do not protect the common good anymore. Legislation in this shit country supports the status quo and those who seek to cement their influence.

Republican? Democrat? Nah, you're soulless and mindless sheep. Green Party? Weak-willed tree hugger. American Independent Party? Fuck that shit. TEA Party? Not even a party.

Liberal? Pussy. Conservative? Deluded fool.

Anarchist? I call you brother or sister.

Anarchy doesn't have to mean blowing shit up and killing needlessly. If you actual learn what true anarchy is...it doesn't mean no government. Anarchy is just a phase. Its a stage in the evolution of societal groups, not a permanent solution.

Still, its better than what we've got. Have some damn integrity and stand for something YOU actually want to be associated with. I am not defined by the labels others thrust upon me. I am Me and I Walk Like Thunder.

I will raise my fist in the streets and in the faces of those who would seek to dominate and oppress my fellows.

Up the Punks! Up with Humanity!

The revolution is now, don't miss your chance to make a change. Cast aside your vanity and moral pretensions with me. Clasp the hand of whoever is standing next to you and march as equals. We are all human. Black, white, Asian, Mexican, Gay, Straight, male, female, third gender, etc. etc. etc. Labels don't matter.

Reclaim what is YOUR BIRTHRIGHT. Don't sell yourself to the highest bidder. Money is worthless and you are worth more than any prize.

Why ACA is not socialist legislation

There has been much controversy surrounding the Affordable Care Act in the past three years. From conservatives denouncing it as the most evil thing since the Nazis to the liberals praising it as their safeguard against failure we're all talking or bitching about it. Many people decry ObamaCare as an attempt to make us a socialist country. This is bullshit.

ObamaCare does not provide for any subsidies or government paying of the premiums and other bills due health insurance providers. This is the main crux of the issue with the ACA. Socialist healthcare would include taxation to allow the government to pay for health services. There would be no premiums to pay in a socialist healthcare system.

It is ridiculous to even consider calling the ACA socialist. It has no features that are socialist outside the individual mandate, which is completely inconsistent with the rest of the massive bill.

I don't know why the left in the U.S. doesn't have the guts to just go socialist, as its obvious they want to do so. I guess they just don't want to lose power. In any case, I say Go socialist or stay free market. They cannot have it both ways.

"The Internationale, unites the human race!"

Socialist Apology

Note: I mean "apology" in the older sense of explanation and detailing. I am not saying "sorry" for being socialist.

Recently I've been thinking a lot about the utter vilification of socialism as a socio-economic system of government. In talks with my father and younger brother, I've started to understand why people harbor such hatred toward collectivism even to this day.

I hear a lot of Conservatives complaining about the evils of socialism. Both on TV and in the people around me, my father included, socialism is held in contempt. As I listen to my brother and dad debate these issues, usually as they relate to "ObamaCare" (which is a crock of shit on its own and is NOT socialist despite what many people may think), I hear a lot of guff about how socialists "don't want to work and want the Government to take care of them." I realize more and more one thing: people just do not understand what socialism actually is! Its really a misunderstanding perpetuated for decades by right-wing terror-mongers.

Here's what dictionary.com has to say about it.

so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uh m] Show IPA

—noun

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Its that simple and that innocuous. Obviously, a dictionary definition does not do many words justice, but we'll start from there.

"A system that advocates the vesting of the ownership...of the means of production...of capital...etc., in the community as a whole." Does that really sound so horrifying? What that means is not that the Government or some shadow agency that wants to take your rights away controls production. No, that isn't socialism at all! You're thinking of authoritarianism, which isn't the same thing. People still connect socialism and communism with the USSR and Cuba which had authoritarian/dictatorial governments. It doesn't have to be that way!

In socialism the People control the means of production, the capital, and the land. Isn't that really what most libertarians claim to desire wholeheartedly? This is where that ugly specter of economy comes in.

See, right libertarians believe in a free market system. There is a problem with that and it is the main reason I'm so liberal politically. The issue with a truly free market (which we haven't had since Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican and my favorite president I might add, began his campaign of "trustbusting" to avoid monopolies) is that it allows predatorial companies that use dishonest and destructive means to corner the capitalist market. We get corporations like Enron, Standard Oil, and other seriously polluting and/or monopolistic collections.

With regulation, we can still retain a relatively "free" market without allowing one company or two companies to control all the goods and services we receive. Could you imagine if Apple, Inc. also controlled the gasoline supply and a good portion of the food industry? There would be no competition. Products would likely lower in quality over time (or at least improve much more slowly), resources would be squandered, and it would be more difficult to maintain standards for wages and employee welfare.

Socialism offers an alternative to the extremes of capitalism and communism/Marxism. It allows us to take the middle road. We get to keep elements of our beloved capitalism while also increasing services for those that earn/need them and continue to ensure products improve. Socialism doesn't necessarily mean that the Government controls healthcare and oil (which it already regulates anyway) it means the public or the People control such things. People usually conflate "public" with "government" which isn't always the case. Still, in our country, when Government is PROPERLY implemented (which it is clearly not at the current time) the Government is "of the People, by the People, and for the People." This should mean that we keep our politicians on a tight leash and that the Government IS an extension of the People. Unfortunately, we are far too complacent to do our democratic duty these days.

Whatever you think about socialism, I think you can probably agree that things as they are just are not working. Our Government is corrupt, self-serving, and concerned more with money than the wellbeing of us, the People of these United States. Let's all stand up, reclaim our backbones, and say "NO MORE!" Even supposing we don't embrace socialism, I would be very happy just to see us reclaiming our rights as citizens and kicking those boneheads out of Congress and the Whitehouse.

As this is getting to be rather long, I'll skip a couple things I really wanted to get to for now. Namely, why "ObamaCare" is NOT a socialist idea but instead is a wishy washy wannabe socialist capitalist approach that attempts to please everyone and thus fails across the board. I will, hopefully, get there on my next post! Stay tuned and have an unbelievable day!

Oh, and please let me know what you think if you take the time to read some or all of this monstrosity! I want to hear your thoughts on anything I mentioned in here.

Left Libertarianism

This post, as my first, will be where I put my political views out there. If you don't like it, leave a comment saying why you disagree with me.

As the title suggests, I am a left libertarian. If you aren't sure what that means, I'll elucidate for you.

Left libertarianism is essentially a code term for "socialism." Since that word tends to be a kind of bogeyman in our society, even today, I say "left libertarian." Basically, I am liberal economically and fiscally, but socially a libertarian. I believe in the sanctity of the individual, but feel that our leaders still have an obligation to defend the right of each person to do with their own life/body as they so choose. Just to show you where I stand visually, I'll show my "Political Compass" test results. While the test is somewhat outdated maybe, and possibly a little skewed, I think its still fairly accurate.

Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.33

To give some context here, that falls significantly lower and farther left than famous Left Libertarians such as: Gahndi, the Dalai Lama, and Nelson Mandela. While I don't consider myself an extremist and certainly don't feel like one, there are many who would label me that way.

I remember calling into a local conservative talk radio station and identifying as a Liberal Libertarian. What did the host say? "See, that just baffles me." People don't get it. For me, TEA Partiers and other Right Libertarians are baffling. I guess its the "free market" appeal that draws them so far right. I agree with free market economy, to a degree, and yet I'm so far left due to my other ideologies. Still, I find that I agree a lot more with Libertarians of any left-right leaning than I do with the more "authoritarian" people.

So, that's where I stand. Let me know where you fall based on your own understanding of your political views. Better yet, just go take the test at http://www.politicalcompass.org/! I want to hear your thoughts.