“There is NO HONOR in this shit!” . . .

“Let Your Life Be a Friction to Stop the Machine”:

A very worthwhile video I recommend to all, most especially my fellow Americans.

A comment was left on the video’s comment section if anyone cares for my elaboration on the topic.

Thanks to Janet (known on YT as Janet OntheSpot) for bringing this channel to my attention through her feed.

Why I’m not an anarchist and why libertarianism falls short (more thoughts on modern life)

Before I watched the video tonight by Justicar titled “Response to ThatGuyT’s Video: ‘The Justicar & Them Damn Libertarians’ I was starting to think the man had flown the coop based on a few videos that he made right after arguing with libertarians. But after viewing this one I’m better aware of where he’s coming from. And that’s the funny thing about him — why not instead of insulting people and labeling us a bunch of idiots does he not just post up relevant links to videos where he fleshes out his views in greater detail? That would be a lot more helpful than just resorting to snarky dismissals.

I used to refer to myself as a libertarian for a few short years, but by my early-to-mid 20s my views began to shift due to the arguments I kept hearing that left me quibbling over details. So I began referring to myself as “leaning libertarian,” meaning I share certain ideas in common with others who consider themselves libertarian, but not enough to where that label sufficiently describes my own viewpoints.

And before we go any further here, I think it’s important to draw a distinction between libertarians and anarchists. While overlap may occur between these two groups, they aren’t actually one and the same. An anarchist argues for a state-less society, and this is something I’ve never been able to wrap my mind around and have argued with anarchists about for many years. The way I see it is they’re advocating for a revolution but they don’t have a vision for where to go from there, to which I argue that another group will rise in power to fill that void out of necessity. This they always protest, but I see it as inevitable due to the complexities involved in managing any society and settling disputes (not to mention protecting property rights and persons where individuals prove unable to do so on their own). I concur that anarchists are envisioning cooperative utopias that are unrealistic and unsustainable, hence why I have never called myself an anarchist.

A libertarian, on the other hand, is a person who argues for a very limited government restricted from encroaching on matters best left to individuals, communities, and charities to tend to on their own. However, there are lots of disputes among libertarians over where to draw the lines. Some (if not many) are in favor of publicly funding the maintenance of public infrastructure. Some (if not most) recognize the value in funding a military and/or local militia. From there it gets trickier for folks to agree on much, especially considering how many have been indoctrinated into accepting neoconservatism and equating that with libertarianism, apparently not realizing they’d essentially be subject to a corporate state (i.e. corporatism). And that’s a big issue I personally take with libertarianism, dating back several years, hence why I am unable to fully embrace the label.

The way I see it is that an important role of government indeed must be to intelligently regulate businesses, which should have been more vigorously pursued throughout the last century though it was not. It appears that capitalism, if left unregulated (or poorly regulated), will eventually consume itself to where it ceases to be capitalism any longer and morphs into corporatism due to a number of major corporations gaining a stronghold across various sectors. This is accomplished by corporations growing in wealth to where they are able to buy out competitors or sell at a loss long enough to bankrupt competitors. We’ve also witnessed how major corporations have proven willing to collude with one another so as to promote their own interests, such as by agreeing not to undercut one another’s prices, thereby maintaining artificially higher prices than what one would expect in a truly competitive market. And with the wealth accumulated by major corporations, they’ve proven quite willing to bribe and thereby corrupt politicians via campaign contributions and intense lobbying pressure. This is a major problem since it places consumers/citizens at a severe disadvantage in competing for our own interests to be taken into account by our elected officials (and I’d also argue that plenty deserve to be impeached for this very reason, though many of my fellow Americans for whatever reason disagree). Average citizens don’t have the kind of money to throw around that major corporations do, especially when corporations make a concerted effort to sway legislation in their favor.

Furthermore, consumers/citizens haven’t collectively proven willing and/or able to police corporations through voting with our dollars or boycotting their services. Granted, some of the legislation passed has made it trickier for people to create small businesses capable of competing with corporate mammoths, but this is just as much the fault of consumers for choosing to support major corporations rather than spending their money at smaller businesses. And sometimes this is due to smaller businesses not having the funds needed to provide the level of service consumers have grown spoiled on and now regularly expect. We’ve shot our own selves in the foot here, by not supporting our local small businesses and by not demanding that our elected representatives protect our interests over corporate interests. This is largely due to widespread apathy where people give up on trying to discern what has long-term value and instead chase fads or go with what’s most convenient or readily accessible.

I personally don’t see living under corporatism as a better option than living under big government. Both concern me, though corporatism admittedly worries me a bit more due to it pushing arbitration clauses that circumvent our rights to a trial (both Wells Fargo and Netflix I’ve noticed have these clauses included in their small print, as do countless other corporations — even my landlord tried including an arbitration clause in my lease, which I had stricken from it). Because then we’d be at the mercy of arbitrators who I’m willing to bet would be even more easily swayed to upholding corporate interests than a judge might be, and that’s a serious concern. Especially if we’re envisioning a society with no State government capable of holding corporations liable for their shenanigans. Who in a stateless society would determine if there was a conflict in interest between arbitrators and the corporations who fund them, and even if they did, who would have the power to stop this from continuing on unchecked? The people?

People are already finding themselves more and more at the mercy of major corporations to provide what we need because no local alternatives exist (especially when it comes to supplying highly-specialized and technologically-complex goods and services). And no small number of people rely on corporations for their income as their employees. A conflict in interest is already sown into this situation, yet when I listen to anarchists and many libertarians speak on such matters, they talk as if we’re starting with a blank slate. We’re not. The game is already in motion and major powers already exist and have global reach and influence.

This is where it gets very sticky in these sorts of topics, and I feel frustrated that some folks like to bark at how dumb people are for simply having a more local frame of reference. It’s perfectly human for us to comprehend these matters in simpler local terms and to envision market exchanges on a one-to-one basis. Unfortunately though, we no longer live in that sort of world and everything’s become so much more complex, perhaps too complex for most of us to appreciably make sense of. I don’t find that funny so much as tragic, because, once again, this demonstrates how and why average people find themselves in a disadvantaged position in navigating within the current economic climate. We did not evolve to live within heavily-populated and complicated systems of this magnitude. The last century has set humans off into a new orbit never before experienced, totally unprecedented. And I, for one, am not convinced civilizations of this scale are compatible with our best interests, at least not as they’re structured and governed today.

For as much as we like to play confident about our ability to comprehend the marvels of modern life and the paramountcy of economics, it seems rather evident that we’re failing at our prescribed roles within this scheme precisely because of how foreign it is to us and how great the learning curve is to wrap our minds around it on every level. I am becoming convinced that this is asking too much of people, and though humanity has aspired to move into a whole new era filled with conveniences and scientific innovations and brand-new mediums for interaction and entertainment, it’s proving to be a double-edged sword as we individually and collectively lose power over our lives. So much is dictated to us, right off the bat, not much room for choice provided—because we’re groomed to participate in what’s developed over time. We consent because we can’t even take in enough of the picture to realize what’s going on and where we stand until we’re already several decades into living. That’s why it winds up feeling like a trap, because it’s not as if we came up fully informed about this reality or had any way of conceiving how it would eventually impact us on down the road.

It’s a tangled web humans have woven, and this web just gets trickier with each passing decade. We’re confronting not only massive governments but also a whole new economic paradigm at a point in history when fewer and fewer of us learn how or are able to provide for our own sustenance. This places us at the mercy of the “powers that be,” and I think concerns stemming from this is what underlies people’s anxiousness about the current situation despite it being common to zero in on one aspect while minimizing the importance of another that’s every bit as relevant and capable of being just as coercive and domineering.

It is true that people have lost a good bit of their freedom in exchange for living within rising civilizations. Everything in life is indeed a tradeoff, and one issue people are reckoning with today is the realization that what’s now in place might not permit people to return to simpler living that’s more suitable for human psychological health and social well-being. This is the predicament our entire species is being forced to confront in this day and age, and these changes are occurring all over the globe, whether people go along with it (as many Westerners have) or it’s imposed upon them. Power turns out to be one hell of a drug, and it’s centralizing in the hands of a relative few like never before. We may kid ourselves with dreams of direct trade and barter, but we’ve come to live in a whole new world with rules all of its own. I’m not endorsing this, just acknowledging it.

But perhaps these are trivial ponderings from a poorly-educated Southerner that don’t amount to squat. Either way, not all of us can or are willing to adapt to what’s unfolding around us. Many, if not most, will aim to and as a result will spend their entire lives disgruntled and complaining and dreaming of other designs for society. I say let dreamers dream…

The above piece recorded in video format:

Naomi Wolf, Karen Straughan & Antigone Darling discuss feminism (plus my personal thoughts)

This evening I’m watching:

Pausing at 11:30… I actually do like what Naomi Wolf said in that the feminist lens can serve as a useful tool for analysis. That’s true, it can. Theoretically, though acknowledging all analyses not being equal. The trouble is when someone winds up so limited by such a lens that their outlooks get skewed to the point of becoming unfairly biased. We all obviously have our biases and none of us can claim a fully objective perspective, but the stated aim in movements of this nature is to examine society through particular lenses in an effort to understand and perhaps work toward remedying social injustices. My own interest is in better understanding what’s going on without looking to be prescriptive, whereas many involved in these gender-bent movements are pushing for political change and select legal action, that being where I wind up in outfield in these sorts of discussions. But regardless, it’s good to see this panel come together to lay out their perspectives.

Anyway, carrying on…

Pausing at 20:22. Seriously wish Antigone Darling had held her microphone a little further away. Her voice comes across booming on my end and is most difficult to understand.

But I like what she’s saying about how the term “feminism” shouldn’t dominate the dialogue since it’s not supposed to be about either sex lording over the other. It does boil down to individuals ultimately, even as gendered perspectives can prove useful in examinations of social phenomena, just as racial and socioeconomic focuses add to our understanding as well. But, ultimately, these are human matters experienced in whatever which ways by us as individuals. That’s the fundamental starting point.

Pausing at 31:07… Back when I was a freshman and sophomore in college I too looked into the organization N.O.W. and actually donated a little, that being during my own first “wave” of interest in feminism, and I have to say that members within that organization did state some pretty hostile shit. It’s been a long time and I can’t recall anything clearly, just that the sentiment expressed seemed decisively hostile toward males, especially toward those males not closely associated with the feminist movement. That’s just the nature of that organization, and it wound up personally turning me off, for one. Even during a time when I felt pretty hostile about men my damn self, and justifiably so at that point in time IMO. Probably for me it came down to seeing N.O.W. representatives were acting rabid and figuring eventually they would wind up trampling on the rights of women too if given enough power. Just because an organization claims to advocate on behalf of women doesn’t make it any less vulnerable to corruption, most especially if it’s angling for political clout.

Pausing at 40:48… Gotta say it — I get where all of them are coming from. Both Naomi and Karen make good arguments, but what seems to be lacking from Karen’s analysis is just how much of a role Abrahamic religions have played over the last nearly 4,000 years and in how they absolutely have redefined many people’s gender roles accordingly (as determined by their interpretations of scriptures, which has, over time, divvied up in different ways). That’s no small matter. Because religions have been losing their stranglehold on humankind since the Enlightenment Era that still in no way eradicates prior history which, for several thousands of years, was patriarchal. Not everywhere on the globe necessarily, but notably where Abrahamic religions had influence. The documents themselves (e.g., the Bible and Torah) may be interpreted differently, but for the vast majority of people subjected to it it was taken as placing males in leadership roles in most (if not every) aspect of society. It cast the role of that which they call “God” as male in the image of male-dominated hierarchy structures that had arisen somewhere within the 3,000 years leading up to the formation of the major Abrahamic religions.

Humans are evolving, both socially and biologically, and the rise of domineering male-dominated hierarchies are a notable part of our not-so-distant history. It’s still close enough in the rear-view mirror that these religions continue to exert influence (though it’s morphed into a bastardized political power-grabbing vehicle since its inception, practically devoid of its spiritual content by this point), obviously, hence why there’s this big “war” being waged between atheists and various types of theists across societies nowadays. Those religions proved bigoted (particularly in practice) on every level and in one form or fashion against all groups of people, but so goes the evolution of social dynamics during the rise of civilizations. Economics were a major factor as well, and I’d argue men originally played into that scheme better than women did or could have, they being unshackled by the physical limitations imposed by pregnancies and child-rearing. Biology dictated so much until just a very short time ago when advanced technologies afforded women unprecedented control over our fertility (which then called for political action to get laws to recognize and protect access to). That was a significant game-changer.

As was the reign of patriarchal religions and their spread via imperialist endeavors. To acknowledge the gains achieved legally in modern times while saying nothing about the social setup (other than the purely biological component) that claimed dominance over many cultures dating back hundreds or thousands of years that had a profound influence on how roles divvied up and impacted human psychologies to the core is, I believe, disingenuous and just as biased as feminists who focus on history over a century ago and then skip back to talk of our primitive pasts without appreciating what political feats have been accomplished in most recent times. Both wind up being skewed perceptions because they’re geared toward standing in opposition to one another rather than assimilating data so as to form a more well-rounded comprehension of events leading up to where we stand today. Not all of us have come to stand in equal places, and I’ll argue class divisions remain extremely relevant, perhaps now more than ever as we’ve experienced power centralizing in organizations, businesses, and the State (welcome to the Heyday Age of Economics as ruler of all); and though I don’t personally subscribe to the notion that equal outcomes on all conceivable matters is the ideal, the level of disparities made possible in modern times is simply astounding (namely between the haves and have-much-fucking-less) and will prove to be unsustainable. Humans are too jealous to accept that outcome — blame evolution there too and look into literature on primate behavior to see relevant similarities.

This is why I say that what we call patriarchy isn’t so much about each individual man being invested with greater power over women and children (though that slant is most definitely central to Abrahamic religions, at least in terms of fathers and leaders), it’s about there being a shift toward more of a masculine-oriented style of organization of societies during the rise of civilizations. Likely because the masculine orientation could be harnessed and utilized to build up these civilizations at that stage in the game. Nowadays we’re confronted with different demands, namely conformity, and that’s where utilizing womankind (and feminine-oriented styles) generally proves more advantageous (at least for those standing to benefit from such a construct, depending on how we wish to look at this matter). From my own view, this is more a story of how power concentrates and culminates into making modernity possible, for better or worse, and both men and women, generally speaking, have been and will continue to be used along the way in satisfying these objectives.

At some point it almost seems irrelevant whether wealthy interests are steering this ship or if the hand of fate is doing so. In a real sense, it’s virtually all the same.

Pausing at 44:04… I didn’t find the audiobook Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus useful either.

Pausing at 48:12… I don’t like how the moderator cut that conversation off about rape, and I also don’t like how Naomi Wolf jumped to calling Karen a “rape apologist” without hearing out her assertion. The thing is that Karen’s right there: oftentimes rape does wind up coming down to a he said/she said matter so far as legality is concerned. There really is no crystal-clear, unambiguous definition of what might be considered “rape” today. It’s one of those subjective claims that can be very difficult for outsiders to assess given that we weren’t present for whatever transpired. False claims of rape can and do occur. Also, bonafide rapes can and frequently enough still do tend to go unreported (noting that reports of sexual attacks from complete strangers very often are reported to police, just not so much when between intimates and acquaintances). I personally blame (at least in part) the focus shifting to expecting legal measures alone to remedy these problems when it’s undeniably a moral and spiritual matter at its core. It’s a question of respect between individuals, whether male or female, flowing in both directions. The problem is with people using one another, either because they’re intoxicated and can’t put up effective resistance,  or because opportunity knocks, or because one wishes to extort money through chicanery, or whatever. All are examples of serious disrespect, and both males and females have proven willing and able to exploit one another. That’s the underlying concern here, so far as I see it.

Pausing at 50:00… Yes, I agree with Antigone there. Hormonal contraceptives are a serious issue impacting women specifically but also appears to be impacting society more generally too. We as Americans (and perhaps Canadians can relate too) are being over-saturated with hormones, from oral contraceptives to foods to plastics (and even marijuana as well, since weed contains phytoestrogens). That’s an important consideration, though I don’t think it needs to be addressed by feminists alone. Especially considering the impact such hormones appear to be having on offspring. Much more research needed there.

The concern about American people’s—and mostly especially women’s (since more females willingly go this route than males thus far)—reliance on anti-depressants/anti-anxiety prescription pills is pointing out a worrisome trend, I agree. And if people do their research and delve back into the history of the field of psychiatry, they will learn how women had been its preferred guinea pigs for many decades. That’s a major concern, and it impacts men too seeing as how they have to live with and/or around us (not to mention now many young boys are being targeted for psychiatric diagnoses; plus, returning soldiers are being increasingly medicated for PTSD). Men also work with us women. They must share a society with us. And we’re being fed a dangerous lie based on largely unsubstantiated quasi-scientific “theories” that are proving extremely profitable for those tied in with the fields of biochemistry/pharmacology and related marketing/advertising.

Strongly agreed that those are both serious issues begging to be reckoned with that potentially impact us all.

Finished viewing the video. On a final note, I agree that weapons deserve to be brought up on these topics if we’re going to focus on concerns about safety and protecting our rights and well-being. Feminists are especially prone toward dismissing that option, IME, which has for a long time blown my mind. Why wouldn’t women want to do what is in their ability to ensure that they don’t wind up victims of unwarranted violence? And nothing spells out equal quite as succinctly as an equalizer, which firearms indeed can indeed be. They (potentially, if successfully executed) bring stopping power to the situation, whether when defending against a bigger and stronger attacker(s) or one individual wielding a weapon himself/herself. There does come a time to take matters into our own hands instead of waiting for the State to fight our battles for us. Granted, it’s bullshit that opportunists try to take advantage of others, but that’s unfortunately an inescapable fact of life and it won’t be eradicated any time soon. Might help to curb that end of spectrum of the gene pool if it refuses to act respectfully. (But even there I realize it devolves down into a he said/she said dispute in the legal system in trying to prove one’s right to utilize lethal force allegedly in self-defense. If the supposed offending party is rendered dead and there were no other witnesses, who then really knows what was what?)

Anyway, very good video and discussion. Body language gave away that Naomi and Karen weren’t too fond of one another, but so be it. Still seemed productive that they all sat down and at least tried to broach these topics.

[Lightly edited once again 1/31/2015 for typos and greater clarity.]