Anarchic Politics on Facebook
Monday February 1: My Facebook Page provided a link to the article — Are All Your Opponents Stupid or Evil? — How politics blinds our judgment of each other. It concludes that, Unfortunately, too much of what passes for moral judgment is just a feather-ruffling means to inoculate one’s ill-considered beliefs against reasonable criticism. The line between the two can be difficult — and personally painful — to draw, but it’s safe to say that most of what passes for morality in political discourse falls on the wrong side of it.
Does the author (Aaron Ross Powell) fall on the wrong side of it when he refers to the immorality of collectivism and nationalism? In the following video he states that libertarians could coexist with a socialist state if that state were entered into voluntarily, only applying its norms to those who volunteered to live by them and, presumably, allowed people to voluntarily leave such a society. I have to wonder,‘Who or what determines the limit and application of voluntary boundaries?’
Tuesday February 2: In Jane Mayer Condemns the Koch Brothers for Not Being Progressive, I liked the sarcastic comment, . . . , only Hollywood, college professors and administrators, the ACLU, People for the American Way, the Human Rights Campaign, NARAL, Emily’s List, the Ford Foundation, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, MoveOn.org, the NAACP, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, Steven Spielberg and, of course, publications such as the New York Times, The New Republic, The Nation and Mayer’s own The New Yorker are allowed to try to change conversations and argue for people to vote differently.
I infer from the article that it objects to the morality taken by the radical left in their pursuit of the radical right. Unfortunately the radical left frame themselves as the most compassionate to exclusion of all others, never taking an holistic view on their ability to deliver their promises and framing anyone who disagrees with their liberal narrative as a radical right-winger.
Wednesday February 3: I reprised Hooray for Anarchism, perhaps having decided that anarchism is the best philosophy in today’s political environment. Democracy as we understand it, maintains the existence of the state and mitigates against an individual taking responsibility and control over the affairs of a government administration. Chomsky argues that Anarchism is based on the assumption that any structure of authority and domination has to justify itself and so anarchism completely opposes any form of government.
Thursday February 4: ‘Framing’ is the theme of Divide and rule, smears and smugs, rubbish & Rachman. A term used politically to force-fit someone into a frame, thus, a believer in the Freedom Of Information Act becomes a killer of US agents in the field. A community mutualist becomes a tree-hugger. A supporter of the NHS is “a Leftie”. Someone keen to leave the EU is “a swivel-eyed little Englander”. Today, it’s more commonly referred to simply as a smear when an intended insult becomes an inferred accusation.
Friday February 5: Two Flavors of Tyranny discusses what is probably a truism for all states where democratic power sharing has become buggins’ turn and political parties with records of failure scrabble for power, each promising the undeliverable from an ever bloating public sector bureaucracy. If most vote for a Buggins seen to be as the lesser of two — flavoured — tyrannies, it’s because they don’t have Jeffrey A. Tucker’s privilege of Menckenism. Instead they find themselves in thrall to Huxley’s¹ controlling oligarchy.
Saturday February 6: In an old article from 2012 — Superstate socialists and neocon elites — author John Ward concluded, I am hopeful that increasingly desperate families and communities will refuse to engage with these headcases, looking instead to build life fulfilment from local rather than global: from responsibility and cooperation, rather than dog-eat-dog division. This sounds like anarchism in a world where we find ourselves even more in thrall to superstate socialists and neocon elites.
Sunday February 7: As the article Don’t Do Politics? Think Again points out, politics is omnipresent in all of our lives. Even in assuming an anarchistic position, at some point I will have negotiate, decide and inevitably, accept the consensus on an issue that affects me. Perhaps the world envisaged in the previous article can only come about when we acknowledge our political engagement, challenging the idea that electoral politics is all that matters and any perceptions that we don’t care about improving the world.
@ A.P. Herbert Albert Haddock Banks Benjamin Rush blog book books budget budget deficit C.S. Lewis censorship City Journal constitution Crime CRT CWG debt deficit democracy education ethics EU euro fiat money Film finance France freedom of expression free trade gdp government history human-rights Inspector Gadget internet J.R.R. Tolkien J M Keynes language Law Ludwig Von Mises Magna Carta Margaret Thatcher morality music Musical MyT national debt New Labour NHS opinion parody PFI police Police & Crime Commissioners politics Quantitative Easing research school Screwtape Sir Ethelred Rutt K.C. social-media Social Welfare statistics T.E. Utley taxation terrorism Thatcher The Telegraph UK Unemployment USA war war on terror WWI
© Peter Barnett and Aasof’s Relections. Unauthorised use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Aasof and Aasof’s reflections with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.