That's the article that got this started in my brain. Well, that's not quite true, it wasn't the article itself, it was the comments section.
Oh wait. Before I go any further:
Oh wait. Before I go any further:
DISCLAIMER! I typify myself as a classical anarchist. I could give a shit about right and left, conservative and liberal and so forth. I have my ethical standards and my economic standards and no one tends to agree with them, so if I offend you...I expected to.
Alright, so the article was pretty emotionally charged and such, ho hum. That's the sort of shit we deal with when talking politics. It happens. But I noticed something strange as I perused the comments section as I am want to do, maybe I'm a mental masochist but it's occasionally fun to watch people argue fruitlessly. What I noticed though is that if you step back, WAY back, you can actually see something fairly interesting and slightly amusing.
Both sides agree on something! Holy shit! This is completely unprecedented in the entire time I've been watching and dabbling in politics. Both of them strongly dislike Obama, if the comments are anything to judge by. Now, this is hardly scientific in any way, the sample size is too small but damn it, they agree! If only we had known that it would take two absolutely shitty leaders in a row to actually bring this fucking country together, we'd have done this a hell of a long time ago.
Yes, I'm being hyperbolic and outlandish, but it's making me chuckle. No side in any political argument will ever agree with the other, it's just not in their nature. One side is always convinced they are right and that everyone else is a complete moron. The most messed up part of this is that no one is right. The really fucked up part is that no one is wrong either. There's no such thing as a right or wrong answer in politics.
Lemme repeat that. There is no such thing as right or wrong in politics. There, now I feel better. The complete and honest truth is no one actually works for the 'greater good', no one. They work for political expedience because having and keeping power is the entire point of any political office. Sure, someone may do something outstanding for their constituents, and hell, they may even do so consistently, but they're doing it because it keeps them popular, and thus keeps them in their positions. You can fuck people 99 ways behind closed doors, but 1 public bit of grandstanding will always ensure that they vote for you in the next election. Quid pro quo.
The other part of this is that none of the political parties are working towards what people want, truthfully. They take the stand opposite their opponents, that's all. Political ideology is a complete and utter joke, truth be told, and no one is ever going with what's good for the people, or what they earnestly believe in. They're all going with the "No, you're wrong!" approach, much like children arguing in the playground. Is it any wonder I find amusement in this?
Environmentalism, capitalism, prolife, prochoice, conservative, liberal, republican, democrat, libertarian, tea party, so on and so on and so on. If you stop and think for half a second, how many labels do we apply to ourselves or our opinions in a political sense? Seriously, think about it. I'll give you a few minutes. Got it? Now, how many did you create? How many of the common buzzwords apply to you completely and fully? These are serious questions. It always seems to me that when politics come in to play, people turn off the logic brain and turn on the emo brain, and the emo brain will never, ever stop and rationalize.
"Oh but what about your label?!" Yeah yeah. I can hear you. Happy to say, I made it up myself. Want the definition? Classical anarchist means observing the principals of anarchy from their original view. Anarchy does not mean chaos, simply 'without leaders'. I believe each and every person is capable of self governance but we decide to give up the rights and responsibilities to do so because it's more convenient to let someone else write the rules while we sit around and whinge about it. Anarchy is the strongest stance that one can make in saying that they believe not only in personal freedom but in the abilities of every other human around them. That's right, you cannot be an anarchist and antisocial in the same moment because for it to succeed you have to have faith in the morals and ethics of those around you, balanced by a healthy amount of skepticism. Don't think it could work? Look at a microcosm of social interaction, Eve Online.
Yes, I mention a video game. "It's not real!" No shit, but the interactions on the social level are very much real. Within the context of a game that is nearly completely anarchistic in it's own right, there are social programs to help people out, as well as asshats looking to blow things up. But there are also those who want to counter the asshats, and ultimately it's created a fairly stable social structure. Is it perfect? No, nothing is. You'll have to let that notion go, but if you're dabbling in politics, the likelihood is that you've already long forgotten the definition of perfection, if you ever knew it.
Ultimately, is their any point to any of this? Not really, but that's the whole point of a blog, isn't it? To spill forth thoughts from your brow in to the ether just to see if anything sticks? I think so. Oh, and I'm still giggling at the thought of two parties agreeing on something. Too funny.
No comments:
Post a Comment