Selfish, Close minded, and Judgmental

I have been called these three words repeatedly, and what it always boils down to is “do what I want”, “don’t disagree with me”, and “don’t hold me responsible for my actions and beliefs”.

If by selfish you mean hedonistic, with no capacity for empathy, then no I am not selfish. However, if by selfish you mean I have self respect, and I don’t owe you anything simply because you exist, then yes I am selfish

If by close minded you mean that I am not open to new ideas or evidence, that I hold my beliefs despite well reason arguments, then I wouldn’t consider myself close minded, I try to be reasonable and self honest. However if what you mean by close minded is that I take the truth seriously, then yes I am close minded.

If by judgmental, you mean I hold people up to unrealistic standards, and throw irrational judgments, then no I would not consider my self judgmental (correct me if I am wrong of course). However if by judgmental you mean I believe that respect is not something to be given to someone simply because they breath, and that people are responsible for their actions, then yes I am judgmental.

I am not here to agree with everyone, and respect them no matter what it is they say or do. Yes, I could be wrong, but that is a risk we all have to take, and that is why we need to be as self honest and responsible as we can.

Am I calling you selfish because you want me to do something I don’t want do? No. Am I calling you close minded because you disagree with me? No. Am I calling you judgmental because you are judging me for being “judgmental”.  I could use every single one of these “arguments” against you simply for using them on me, but I do not because these are not arguments, they are circular, simple minded insults.

Lets stick to arguments rather then adjectives.

The Radical vs. The Nonconformist

Blind anger and passion do nothing to threaten establishment and authority but rather validate it. Those such as Nietzsche who by default rejected anything accepted by culture norms or those that accept nonconformity for the simple sake of nonconformity, only confirm authority and the status quo. The oppressors simply state “ You see! the opposite of obedience is insanity!” It simply confirms the age old lie that the only alternative to masochism is sadism.

The issue is not conformity vs. nonconformity but rather conformity vs. integrity, conformity vs. self respect, conformity vs. the truth.  If your “nonconformity” is held simply by default of what most people currently believe because of some unnamed and unexamined contempt for the status quo then your beliefs are just as subjective and unfounded as those you passionately oppose.

The true radical’s hatred of the status quo is rooted in his/her love of the truth, not some mindless nonconformity. Mindless anger, passion and contempt achieve nothing but your own frustration and tint the reputation of those that actually have something to say. But when our beliefs are rooted in first principles, when passion is put along side of cool logical consistency it is then unstoppable.

We hate the ugly because we love the beautiful, we hate the state because we love freedom, we hate authority because we love ourselves, we reject falsehood because we love the truth. Don’t let your passion be driven by simple minded contempt, but rather a deep love of everything that makes like beautiful and honest.

Sober (why I am)

Considering that I am an anarchist and an atheist its interesting that my most controversial subjects that I deal with are drugs and animal rights (I am opposed to both). Many of my friends have decided to regularly use drugs or alcohol and I suppose its time to further clarity my position.

If the point of philosophy is to develop a healthy relationship with the truth, then what is its opposite? Self induced insanity

Man is a rational being that achieves happiness by means of reason, creativity, productivity, and friendship, in short happiness is achieved by using your brain and sharing your time with those that do that same. Drugs achieve the exact opposite of all these things. The faculty of reason is destroyed, creativity is reduced to mindless (for those of you that claim drugs increase creativity, I would suggest writing something as beautiful as The Fountainhead while on acid), friendship is reduced to incoherent ramblings (as for those that claim that alcohol as a social lubricant, I am only forced to ask why your friendships require lubrication). As a result: a brainless pleasure that comes form a complete evasion of reality. A self induced insanity.

Happiness is not suddenly achieved as soon as pleasure reaches a certain standard. Happiness is not a simple sensation. It is a long term state of mind. It is non-contradictory joy as a result of livings ones values consistently.

Never mind the healthy issues, that not the point, the point is that drugs are the exact opposite of everything that makes life beautiful, honesty, and authentic. Surely I could have a drink or two from time to time and live with my self in the same way I could steal from time to time and live with my self. But “living with yourself” is not the point to life now is it? Life is not the evasion of pain, life is not a giant hospital hiding from the facts of reality. No we are meant to achieve something, we are meant to make something beautiful. We are meant to become our own hero by embracing everything that makes life beautiful and rejecting everything that takes it away. And that is why I am opposed to drugs.

Limited Resources

If limited resources are the cause of poverty and starvation what exactly would we expect?

• Poverty and starvation would be independent of geography
• If there is a limited amount of people who have the vast majority of the resources there is no reason to assume that they would all be in one geographical location
• All or nearly all known resources are currently being exploited
• If limited are resources are the problem but there are still unused recourses then limited resources cannot possibly be the cause of poverty.

Considering that poverty is confined to geographical location and we are not even close to using all of the resources around us, limited resources cannot possibly the the explanation for poverty. Consider places like Africa, the land is abundant with natural resources and the possibly for farming yet the people are in poverty. This is the case with most of the 3rd world countries.

The better explanation is the policies of the government in the area cause poverty. This is the only explanation for why people in New Mexico are relatively wealthy compared to those just across the border. Limited resources cannot possibly explain why this happens all over the world. Why mass poverty and prosperity would change suddenly across borders.

False Dichotomy of Practicality and Idealism

As an anarchist it is generally assumed that I hold my beliefs as an impractical ideal with no relevance to human nature or reality. Nothing could be further from the truth. I hold my political beliefs (or rather anti-political beliefs) as thee most practical, realistic and relevant to human nature there are. Other wise I would not advocate them.

What is being inherently admitted by those that claim that capitalism is “merely practical” or that “socialism is a noble ideal” is that their ideals have no relevance to human nature. That what human beings should value is in direct contradiction with what human being are.

If an “ideal” is completely in contradiction with human nature then by what standard is it ideal? If a method is simply “practical” but the result is not desirable then by definition is it practical? Compared to what? If man and his nature is not considered the standard to base all ideals and what is considered practical to reach those ideals then what exactly is the standard?

Collectivism holds god or “society” (that is some how an entity entirely independent of the number of individuals that make it up) as the standard of value. The statement “what is good for society is the good” is not necessarily incorrect but backwards reasoning. Society has not goals, desires, or feelings, these are properties of the individual. The “good of society” is only a value because it is good for the individual because the individuals is the only thing capable of anything we can call “good”.

The collectivists have defined the “ultimate value” and what is worth striving for with no reference to the only entity capable of creating values: the individual. If you define what is desirable with out reference to the only being capable of desire then any correct conclusion you come to is simply a matter of coincidence. The collectivists name some random desire with no reference of a desire or how it is achieved. They may ask “isn’t it desirable to have no poor?” Surely that is desirable, but in the context of what? Treating man as an anti-rational, sick, and broken creature who cannot achieve his own goals, but must have a gun at his neck for his entire life? No, that is not desirable.  (As for the question of if capitalism is a system that can reach the standard of prosperity that is a topic for an other blog, but in short I will say that the evidence to support the claim that it is not is lacking to say the least).

Usually conservatives agree that socialism is ideal, but simply impractical. In the same manner as a lunatic who lives his life in sadness because he wishes he could grown wings and fly. If you hold that the practical is in direct contradiction to the ideal and desirable then you have are just as guilty as the socialists for damning human nature, and by definition anything that you desire is in fact impossible. This is why values must be chosen on a rational basis rooted in human nature. What is ideal and practical can only be made as a reference to human nature and its relationship with nature its self. The goal of philosophy should be to understand that relationship and make it a healthy one. At that point, what is practical and ideal can finally be defined.

As long as the premise is held that the practical and the ideal are two separate and incompatible concepts then it doesn’t matter what conclusion we come to, it will be neither practical nor ideal. Because the only standard by which we can judge those values has been rejected: human nature.

Man is a rational being, that survives and thrives by the use of his mind and ambitions. Is man a heroic being that should live passionately, free, and always challenging the world around him? Or is man a sick and broken animal that should live in submission?

One conclusion is freedom, the other is the gun. Make your judgment very carefully.