No turning back, no turning back
If you look down to the previous post, you'll see that almost two years has passed since I've written anything here. No point in going over everything that has happened in the interim, but strange to say, it can more or less be summarized as "We left one Presbyterian church and joined another. Again. And I finally got out of consulting, and into a stable job with a 'blue chip' software company (Oracle) where my maximum commute is 30 minutes each way. Oh, and I totally love my wife and daughter!"
So... what has brought me out of blog retirement, you ask? Something quite new, something quite unexpected. It all began like this: On March 30, Marshall Mitchell, a fellow member of the 247th Class (aka Class of 1988) of Central High School, posted the following as his Facebook status:
"Marshall Mitchell thinks that if citizens took on crime, poor education, and drugs like people in Fargo are taking on the floods, we would have a different urban America in less than a year! Change I can believe in...and it costs a lot less too!"
The very first comment on this, a mere three minutes later, was from George Donnelly (who I now know/remember is a member of the 248th Class at Central):
"Good point. The solution is through voluntary action by people working together. Not government force."
So, ok-- total honesty time: my first thought was, "Ah! That wack-a-doodle right wingnut who hates public education and doesn't think all citizens have a right to minimal health care. How nice for him to chime in here, with-- hey, surprise! 'government shouldn't be involved in dealing with urban social ills'!" Re-reading this stream now, I am embarrassed to see how wacky my own response to his statement was. (Something about how involved governments in America were in upholding slavery and Jim Crow, via force. Never mind.) It was wacky because I totally, utterly misunderstood what his intention was in alluding to "government force". In my defense, I think that most if not all of the people who read Marshall's statement, also had no clue what he was talking about, not really.
Remember that incredible moment in The Matrix where Neo is talking to Morpheus in this weird antique sort of room, and Morpheus offers him a choice of two pills to take? I can't remember much of the actual lines that led up to it, but it was basically something like:
Morpheus: So weird things have been happening to you lately.
Neo: Yeah.
Morpheus: Well, reality is not really what you thought it was. If you'd like to go back to your old life, without weirdness, take this pill. But if you'd like to really find out what's going on, take this other one. There will be no return, however, from the rabbit hole you will go down.
And Neo took the "other one" (red?) And the rest is history. (Yeah, I know, pretend history. And it's a little unfortunate that I apparently find myself in the company of the Neoconservatives, who it's been sneeringly said about, in one or more high-profile Op-Eds, that they "believe the Matrix is real". Oh well.)
To try and summarize what ensued after that first exchange with George: The "government force" he was talking about, was NOT really government poverty or community development programs themselves, but taxation. He was talking about the fact that all governments, everywhere, at all levels (i.e. local, state, federal), extract taxes from their citizens under threat of force against any noncompliant individual. And, furthermore, no government can exist without taxation, because if it doesn't tax, it's not a government. (Not a "state", strictly speaking.) And taking something from someone with the threat of force is what is commonly called "stealing". Or "theft". Which is immoral.
Ergo... the only truly consistently moral stance that one can take is... to oppose the very idea of, and existence of, the State. You know-- the government.
Wow. So, um... can I change my mind, and take that other pill now?
Anyway, in case this all seems overly cryptic to you, here's another way of saying it. I have embraced a political view that can be variously called libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist, agorist. It is the most radical stance that I've ever encountered, and so far I have exactly one other acquaintance who embraces it. (That would be George.)
Gee, Joel, what are you smoking? Why take up wack-a-doodle ideas about the illegimitacy of all governments, at this late stage in the game (class of 1988-- I ain't in my twenties anymore)? Where is this coming from? Well, from the basically anarchist practice of the early Christians, before they became so "acceptable" to Romans and before Constantine coopted them to help unify the empire (gah!). From the Levellers during the upheaval in England during the 1600s. From some of the great thinkers on liberty around the time of our "revolution".
And from the Hebrew bible, in the passage in I Samuel where the Israelites demand that Samuel give them a king, so they won't feel so different from other nations, and God tells Samuel to tell them in precise terms how they will be oppressed by their king if they get one. (Hint: they'll have their property taken for the king's purposes, and they'll be pressed into his military, and into tending his vineyards and flocks, etc. etc.) And God says (paraphrasing): "Don't worry, Samuel, they're not rejecting you, they're rejecting me. But go ahead, anoint a king for them. When they cry out from his oppression later, I'll ignore them." Seriously-- it says that in the bible. That God considered the Israelites' desire to be governed "properly", to be a rejection of God.
And how about the First Commandment? And how about Nebuchadnezzar and his compulsory worship of the great statue (which was not about religion, but about government)? So, ok, I'm getting a little obscure with these last two, but I'm serious.
So, to sum up: I need to oppose the government, I don't know exactly where to start taking actual practical steps (e.g., there's no way I can keep the Feds from sucking mucho thousands from my pay each year, and still work for Oracle), I'm reading a lot about it, I'll probably be writing a good bit more about it, and trying to get more of y'all to take the red pill, and join this scary, but (I believe) real, life.
So... what has brought me out of blog retirement, you ask? Something quite new, something quite unexpected. It all began like this: On March 30, Marshall Mitchell, a fellow member of the 247th Class (aka Class of 1988) of Central High School, posted the following as his Facebook status:
"Marshall Mitchell thinks that if citizens took on crime, poor education, and drugs like people in Fargo are taking on the floods, we would have a different urban America in less than a year! Change I can believe in...and it costs a lot less too!"
The very first comment on this, a mere three minutes later, was from George Donnelly (who I now know/remember is a member of the 248th Class at Central):
"Good point. The solution is through voluntary action by people working together. Not government force."
So, ok-- total honesty time: my first thought was, "Ah! That wack-a-doodle right wingnut who hates public education and doesn't think all citizens have a right to minimal health care. How nice for him to chime in here, with-- hey, surprise! 'government shouldn't be involved in dealing with urban social ills'!" Re-reading this stream now, I am embarrassed to see how wacky my own response to his statement was. (Something about how involved governments in America were in upholding slavery and Jim Crow, via force. Never mind.) It was wacky because I totally, utterly misunderstood what his intention was in alluding to "government force". In my defense, I think that most if not all of the people who read Marshall's statement, also had no clue what he was talking about, not really.
Remember that incredible moment in The Matrix where Neo is talking to Morpheus in this weird antique sort of room, and Morpheus offers him a choice of two pills to take? I can't remember much of the actual lines that led up to it, but it was basically something like:
Morpheus: So weird things have been happening to you lately.
Neo: Yeah.
Morpheus: Well, reality is not really what you thought it was. If you'd like to go back to your old life, without weirdness, take this pill. But if you'd like to really find out what's going on, take this other one. There will be no return, however, from the rabbit hole you will go down.
And Neo took the "other one" (red?) And the rest is history. (Yeah, I know, pretend history. And it's a little unfortunate that I apparently find myself in the company of the Neoconservatives, who it's been sneeringly said about, in one or more high-profile Op-Eds, that they "believe the Matrix is real". Oh well.)
To try and summarize what ensued after that first exchange with George: The "government force" he was talking about, was NOT really government poverty or community development programs themselves, but taxation. He was talking about the fact that all governments, everywhere, at all levels (i.e. local, state, federal), extract taxes from their citizens under threat of force against any noncompliant individual. And, furthermore, no government can exist without taxation, because if it doesn't tax, it's not a government. (Not a "state", strictly speaking.) And taking something from someone with the threat of force is what is commonly called "stealing". Or "theft". Which is immoral.
Ergo... the only truly consistently moral stance that one can take is... to oppose the very idea of, and existence of, the State. You know-- the government.
Wow. So, um... can I change my mind, and take that other pill now?
Anyway, in case this all seems overly cryptic to you, here's another way of saying it. I have embraced a political view that can be variously called libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist, agorist. It is the most radical stance that I've ever encountered, and so far I have exactly one other acquaintance who embraces it. (That would be George.)
Gee, Joel, what are you smoking? Why take up wack-a-doodle ideas about the illegimitacy of all governments, at this late stage in the game (class of 1988-- I ain't in my twenties anymore)? Where is this coming from? Well, from the basically anarchist practice of the early Christians, before they became so "acceptable" to Romans and before Constantine coopted them to help unify the empire (gah!). From the Levellers during the upheaval in England during the 1600s. From some of the great thinkers on liberty around the time of our "revolution".
And from the Hebrew bible, in the passage in I Samuel where the Israelites demand that Samuel give them a king, so they won't feel so different from other nations, and God tells Samuel to tell them in precise terms how they will be oppressed by their king if they get one. (Hint: they'll have their property taken for the king's purposes, and they'll be pressed into his military, and into tending his vineyards and flocks, etc. etc.) And God says (paraphrasing): "Don't worry, Samuel, they're not rejecting you, they're rejecting me. But go ahead, anoint a king for them. When they cry out from his oppression later, I'll ignore them." Seriously-- it says that in the bible. That God considered the Israelites' desire to be governed "properly", to be a rejection of God.
And how about the First Commandment? And how about Nebuchadnezzar and his compulsory worship of the great statue (which was not about religion, but about government)? So, ok, I'm getting a little obscure with these last two, but I'm serious.
So, to sum up: I need to oppose the government, I don't know exactly where to start taking actual practical steps (e.g., there's no way I can keep the Feds from sucking mucho thousands from my pay each year, and still work for Oracle), I'm reading a lot about it, I'll probably be writing a good bit more about it, and trying to get more of y'all to take the red pill, and join this scary, but (I believe) real, life.