Reflective
Things happen, shit happens, from time to time anything can happen. How random is that, can that, will that happen? Apparently, if you toss a coin 100 times, it is expected that you will get 50 Heads and 50 tails. Not so though, as the variances of "flick" or "toss" will have an impact on the percentage returns of expectation. So it is, I think, with life in general.
I do not do "determinism" in any of its variations or forms; but have an inherent belief in the randomness, perhaps chaotic, theory of "free will", or to lovers of silliness, "free willy". We are totally free to choose, select, opt in and out of or for; indulge or un-indulge with or without consequence. Thecuriousness of our opportunity is not necessarily dependant on our faith structure - do we, or don't we believe in a God - and is totally open to our human condition. I was once told that my ideal in freedom of choice was like playing Russian Roulette. Not so, that is and has a predetermination based on the number of empty chambers in the barrel. My concept of free will is based on an infinite number of chambers.
There is a weird predilection of some who value their own variety of free will. Yes we are free to do what we want within reason. Not so, we are free, we must be free to do what we want regardless. To restrict our freedom to choose and to do is not just an imposition against our human rights to "do" but is a clear attack on our unique humanness to "be". Any attempt to restrict is a an act of determinism, bullying and enforced anti human activity.
There are people on this Earth who play this game with others. They deceive, bully, and cowardly disrupt another persons life to such an extent that the oppressed becomes devoid of choice and has to respond in a particular way. Women are good at this - misogynistic and sexists as it may seem (tough shit if you don't like that) it is something women tend to gloat over, how they can manipulate their man, wind him up and down at will. Well fuck em - literally and metaphorically speaking - fuck em! Indeed fuck all of those who want to manipulate, deceive, cheat, lie and manipulate another for the permanent removal of their rights or ideas or work. This is theft on a grand scale and we approve it?
Allow others the freedom to be, allow me the freedom to be and I will allow you the freedom to be in return. Harm me and I will destroy you - shimples! Is this not a fair and reasonable compromise, arrangement or deal? Leave me and I will allow others the freedom to be free to be left too. Too many frees, No, we have to be free to allow freedom. The simple anarchistic, laissez fairargument of the Libertarian.
Be free, do not determine others and do not allow others to determine you.
Life Moves.........
It has been sometime since I was moved to reflect on my thoughts in written form. I have had too much time to speak; and as I do not know what I think until I hear myself say it, I cannot possibly be accused of going off half cocked or of being tardy in my reflections. It is just that my blog has been less than informed or informative if you like.
Consequences are less talked about today than perhaps when I was younger. What I mean by that is the inevitability of a reaction following some sort of action. For example, if I push some half witted troll from the backwoods of Pennington off of the kerb and in front of an oncoming 56A Bus going to Beaulieu then the result of my action, the reaction that is, is a squashed troll and huge savings by the Government from the demise of the scrounging little shit. Net benefit from my action. So the consequences I refer to are the results, direct or indirect, that occur as a reaction to my action. Why do we fail to recognise that there are consequences?
Much has been posted here and elsewhere on the consequences of debt, greed and the failings of capitalism - most of it bollocks as I blame pluralism and not extremism. If left to its own devices Capitalism will always succeed as will Communism and Fascism......just as long as they do not exist in the same world or universe at the same time! But pluralism, the woolly minded liberal attempt at keeping everyone happy at the same time will never work. Compromise is a failed concept, always was and always will be. But I digress. As I said, much has been written about greed and debt and capitalism and markets and laissez faire being the roots of all evils and being the causes of our current folly and failure of the world economies. As I said...bollocks, but it has at least reintroduced the notion of cause and effect and the effects or consequences of actions into a world, a culture that was beginning to get too carried away with its own importance. Up until now, many of us had begun to believe we are fire proof. Nothing can touch us. Our actions had somehow become consequence free.
For me at least, I have never doubted that there would one day be a reckoning, a balance sheet opportunity to map out the consequences of my actions or inactions. There are many who, like me, share a desire to see the "come upp'ance" of a certain Magistrate in Southampton who appears to get away with outrageous behaviour and be "consequence free". Well soon dear lady, soon. But for the rest of us mere mortals who live in the shadow of "getting caught" or "catching it" or running out of money" or even......"death" ; we, those of us who play by the rules and get pissed on, will one day rise up and ensure that those who do not believe in consequences, and I do not mean in the divination of punishment, be nailing their colours to the mast and ensuring that the consequences will be meted out.
People cannot be allowed to get away with things. As a Libertarian I believe firmly in chaos and anarchy. But that does not mean in the freedom to hurt others! No, No, No; anarchy is the freedom to be, to do, to exist in any way just so long as it does not have a consequence on others. If I hurt others then I have become a brute, a bully. People cannot be allowed to get away with hurting others, with bullying others, with damaging others without recognition that there is a consequence.
Now if all this sounds like I have become a revolutionary and born again vigilante ...........well I have never not been so, so I cannot, unable to be identified as thus; born again.
There is nothing wrong with taking the law into ones own hands, just as long as one realises that the consequences of doing so might not be a pain free future. With that in mind, let us bring back testicle crushing for rapists and dunking in hot oil for thieves! Any problems please write to my lawyers.....
But what of life and death and love? The consequences of falling in love seem to me, to be representative of loosing all forms of personal choice and opportunity. The moment the penny drops, the gong sounds, the heart leaps; that's it, all over, no more freedom. Why is that? The consequence for me at the moment is measured by falling in love. Not the idea of being in love but the notion of being in love. Something I actively pursued not to do, something I was duped into being by a momentary lapse of sanity. How did I manage this? God knows, because I do jot. And the cost of love?
Can I imagine life without her...............? NO!
The Whole Issue Of Loyalty
It does appear that there is today far less of an understanding of what it is to be loyal than when I was a child. Basic protection of one's friends and neighbours, a loyalty and defence of family, friends, teams, class, clubs and thoughts. All things I took for granted but now, sadly not the case any more. Loyalty, it seems, is a not something that one can expect from an one. It is not a prerequisite of any relationship. It is not something that goes with the territory of, say, friendship, family or even lovers. Loyalty has now become something at odds with the modern freedoms won so popularly through emancipation and sharing the franchise.
Today, loyalty; the concept, the ideal and even the very notion of trust and togetherness, has been replaced by something far more socially valuable: Equality.
Equality is the new black. Equality is the new social measuring stick as to whether or not someone is OK or not. OK as in acceptable at North London dinner parties. Yet I would suggest that this very new populist paragon has created far more inequality as a direct result of its implementation into the new middle class value system. The term, you see, is all embracing. Equality - it sounds so dogmatic and without charm. It is a word of edict and control. It is an imposition and therefore implies a right to be equal regardless. This therefore means that the village idiot, while harmless and valuable in the community; now has equal rights afforded him in everything. Now what a jolly good thing it is too, some say; but not all. Because some of us have realised that in order for this dimwit to be afforded say, equality in a classroom, less time is offered by a finite resource to quick witted children who will go on and prosper through learning and education. Equality, in this respect, has reduced achievement in some to mediocrity and raised an unrealistic expectation to achieve in the dimwit. Both have been patronised by an adherence to the notion of equality.
Now this sounds all rather right wing, and I suppose it is; but lets look at how perhaps the ideal could have been better employed. Rather than equality, lets use the term egalitarian. That looks the same and sounds similar but if offers a deeper perception of the notion of equality. Egalitarianism affords the opportunity equally, but based upon our ability take that opportunity. Terms of relevance are realised and the realistic approach to achievement and goal setting are clearly stated. Nobody has a right to be anything, but they do have the right to find the opportunity to achieve to become whatever they wish.
The so called equality lobby has had its day. The ideal of creating a classless society where we would all be equal has failed terribly. It has created more classes and more division. The woolly liberals have created a worse hell hole than we have ever had in a class driven society. The trouble is now, nobody understands the pecking order; who is on top: the Meritocracy? The Aristocracy? The Bureaucracy? The Polyglots? or dare I say the journalists? Who and where in our liberal democracy has equality in our class ridden society now? And once we have discovered that, should we be loyal to them or should we, out of a sense of equality, be loyal to everyone regardless?
Objectivism.....my view
I was asked this morning to explain what I understood by Objectivism. Well it would be simpler for me to drop a link to the Ayn Rand Institute's web site, but failing that I need some cerebral exercise to take my mind of this bloody headache.
So first then...........;
My philosophy, Objectivism, argues that there are three supreme values which govern a person's life:
Reason, Purpose, and Self-esteem.
Reason, Purpose, and Self-esteem.
Reason, is the only tool of knowledge; it encompases perceived and learnt knowledge. It is the ability to think freely without governance and control.
Purpose, is the choice of happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve. Each person has the right to purpose, personal defined self purpose not imposed or proscribed.
Self-esteem, this inviolate certainty that the mind is competent to think and the person is worthy of happiness, which means the person is worthy of living and value. This certainty gives us the ability to understand the needs of others and be of use in our society to the needs of others (not to be confused with ultruism this certainty is the only tool which enables us to assist others in their personal journeys and we do so out of sense of purpose)
These three values imply and require all virtues and all virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness and pride.
Further, there is more to explore. Reality, for example, only exists as an objective absolute — facts are facts, after all and while facts can be challenged, they remain absolute until dis proven and replaced with other absolutes. So, reality is an absolute that is not dependent on a man or woman's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. We cannot control or tamper with reality, because even if reality changes we have no control over the change or over the reality of the facts as they are and as they are perceived by the individual. Man can only perceive reality throughReason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) which his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man and woman—is an end in him or herself. Men or woamn, the individual is not the means to the ends of others. Men and women do not exist in order to allow others to exist. He or she must exist for his or her own sake, neithersacrificing him or herself to others nor sacrificing others to him or herself. The pursuit of personal rational self-interest and of personal happinessis the highest moral purpose of his or her life.
For an Objectivist, the only political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system which is totally egalitarian. It is a system wherby real equality exists. Men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but astraders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of .
Libertarian's view of government is finely dran against an Objectivist view. The Libertarian would prefer no government and a pure form of anarchy to exist. For an Objectivist, if government is necessary then government must only act as a policeman that protects the rightsof man - as outlined above. Government can onlyuse physical force in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders.
In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics. It is not the role of government to interfere in economics or the market. There is no middle ground. Either governments have total control of the economic state, as in some sort of Stalinist model, or none at all. Any intrusion, any attempt at pluralism will lead to a complete breakdown of the market. I propose that the intrusions made by global governments into the activities of global capitalism have in themselves been responsible for the failure of the global economic system. It is not capitalisms fault but the intrusions of governments into how capitalism works. Free Markets - laissez-faire - means free markets, not almost free, or regulated but totally free. This is as true for the economic-political model as it is for the relationship between state and church. The Church is supposed to be a free thinking group of independent believers. If there is attachment to the State then this freedom disappears and the Church becomes a tool, a moral mouthpiece for the State. Likewise, for a pluralist economy, one where state and capitalism are combined in any way; there can only be a manipulated market created by a manipulated capitalism. There will be no free market.
So, that summarises my position. If you want more.......
