Sunday, September 25, 2011

HEADS vs. FEDS



Recently I had the opportunity to attend the Heads vs. Feds debate held at York College of Pennsylvania. It is a debate that has been running for over ten years, between a retired DEA agent Robert Stutman (left) and High Times Editor Steve Hager. They even began the debate stating that they had been very close personal friends for ten years. 


Both sides started off strong and listed their points well, however; the principles behind both positions were never discussed. Mr. Hager, gave his five points why marijuana should be legalized: because it's good medicine, hemp is good for the environment, prison-industrial complex, to stop funding corruption, and because it's part of the culture. While Hager was able to focus on most points fairly well, I think the point that would have given him the most backing and support was that of the prison-industrial complex.


In touching on the prison-industrial complex it would have been a great segway into the PRINCIPLES behind his position. Legislation and changing the political approach was the main topic of the night, and while those issues must be discussed. I'm sure it would have benefitted the audience to see the common thread between the reasons to legalize, why they are consistent, and why it must be done now. 


Mr. Stutman gave one reason why it should not be legalized, he insisted that there would be "far more users." Under that point he said there would be consequences, two to three times more users behind the wheel and that it "may cause dependence."


While overall it was a great debate and an event that I'm glad a conservative private college, like York held. I still wish that the speakers would have focused on the underlying principles which ultimately determine an individuals stance on legislation and issues like drug policy.  

Monday, May 16, 2011

The American Dream



"You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it." 

"The only way we'll get freedom for ourselves is to identify ourselves with every oppressed people in the world. We are blood brothers to the people of Brazil, Venezuela, Haiti, Cuba -- yes Cuba too."

"I see America through the eyes of the victim. I don't see any American dream--I see an American nightmare."

As I get older, although I'm not old at all, I see my peers graduating. Getting corporate jobs, settling down, paying taxes, raising 2.5 children, getting a lab and an SUV. "The American dream"; or, what people think is the american dream. Word of advice to my peers and the 20-somethings, I'm not speaking from experience but pleading with you to not loose your drive, passion, honesty and loyalty to the freedom movement. Don't fall into the trap of foregoing your "youthful" and "utopian" ideas. Don't begin voting for Republican and Democrat, don't forget your philosophy of freedom for the illusion of security from the latest boogeyman. Don't shoo off incriminating facts of the U.S. international deeds. Don't forget the blood, sweat and tears we have all put into this. Don't let it all be for naught.


All quotes contributed to Malcolm X.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Anarchist Theorist - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (January 15, 1809 - January 19, 1865)

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

  • French Politician
  • Mutualist philosopher
  • Socialist
  • Member of the French Parliament
  • First person to call himself an Anarchist
  • Best known theory "Property is Theft!" contained in "What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and Government"
  • After this work was published it garnered the attention of Karl Marx, they began a correspondence. After Marx responded to Proudhon's "The Philosophy of Poverty" with the "The Poverty of Philosophy" it led to a split of the International Working Men's Association. 
  • He favored workers' associations or corporate possession over private ownership or nationalization of land.
  • He believed that social revolution could be achieved peacefully.
  • In his work "The Confessions of a Revolutionary" he stated that "Anarchy is Order" a phrase still uttered today in modern anarchist circles. 
Proudhon was born in a rural area and as a boy he herded cows and other animals. He was mostly self-educated until age sixteen when he entered his town's college. Although his family was too poor to buy his school books he was able to borrow them from fellow schoolmates. At age nineteen he became a compositor, which is a writer and one who settles disputes.  He rose as a corrector for his local press, proofreading Biblical works. By doing this he learned Hebrew, Greek, Latin and French. His interests in politics began when he wrote a treatise L'Utilité de la célébration du dimanche which was the beginning of his revolutionary ideas. After this he moved to France where he lived poorly and studied with most of his time. He published another work while there "What is Property". After living through several revolutions and violent uprisings and the violence shocked him, furthering his beliefs of peaceful mediation. Proudhon died and is buried in Paris. 


"Whoever lays his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and tyrant, and I declare him my enemy."

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.
—P.-J. Proudhon, "What Is Government?",

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

No Such Thing as Society





"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbor. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987

The word "society" is used often: in classes, in politics, in the news, in movies; in just about everything: "A nation as a society forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society (Thomas Jefferson)" "Our modern society is engaged in polishing and decorating the cage in which man is kept imprisoned (Swami Nirmalananda)"  "Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness (Thomas Paine)".

But what does the word really mean? How is it used to further the agenda of politicians, social activists and other individuals? In this essay I will be arguing that the term "society" is used, specifically in political rhetoric, to further the rights of the group in a collectivist fashion. The outcome of this is ultimately a generous sacrifice of individual rights. This outcome is an offense, because it assumes that the individual is born to sacrifice it's individual rights, likes and dislikes, and tendencies in order to serve the community, the society, and ultimately the government. The first prong of my argument that's presented in this essay is that people do not have a responsibility, morally or otherwise, to cooperatively work together, in a society and in a community. If individuals work together voluntarily that is encouraged and applauded, but this working together must not be forced or coerced this compromises the outcome and the process of working together. To cooperatively work together is a great tool to accomplish many things, the church or organizations of common interest, is an example of this, notice that both are voluntary. The general thrust of my argument is that we must not allow the concept and the action of individuals working together, cooperatively (i.e. society), to override the more fundamental and important rights of the individual. Especially without giving him, the individual, an opportunity to opt-out of the cooperative movement that he is engaged in. To violently or coercively keep the individual confined in the group or society i.e. government is also an override of the fundamental rights of the individual. An example is, but certainly not limited to, government. What I am suggesting is that the theory of society, the term society, is used to support collectivism and ultimately to erode our rights as individuals. To give up those all-important fundamental, PERSONAL and INDIVIDUAL rights for those MORE important rights of the group, collectively, is an affront to libertarianism, to limited government, to anarchism and to freedom.

To begin with we must solidify the definitions I will be using. Collectivism, Society, Community, Greater good (asserts that the good of the community is more important than the good of the individual), Coercion, cooperation, individual rights. Collectivism while associated with socialism can be applied to all forms of government, if you view collectivism in a negative light in reference to socialism you must do the same in reference to all forms of government in order to be consistent in your views. Collectivism is defined as ": a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also: a system marked by such control" Collective being defined as ": denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole, involving all members of a group as distinct from its individuals" 
Society is defined as "a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; especially: an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession, an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another, a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests" 
Community is defined as ": an interacting population of various kinds of individuals (as species) in a common location" Greater good is a synonyms with utilitarianism which defines itself as "to achieve the greater good for the most amount of people." 
Coercion is defined as, "the act, process, or power of coercing" coercing is defined as " to restrain or dominate by force. to compel to an act or choice: to achieve by force or threat" 
Cooperation is defined, ": association of persons for common benefit, or common effort". 
Individual Rights is defined by theclassicalliberal.com is "In a free society, where individual rights are held as the highest law of the land, there is also the rejection of the initiation of force against the individual, because initiating force is a violation of a persons natural rights.  This is true whether an individual, a group, or the State initiated the force.  The only legitimate use of violence is that which is in self-defense." The article also references the Declaration of Independence as the complete volume on Individual Rights. All definitions come from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, except Individual Rights.

Let's apply these definitions to the theory of society and it's applications in real life. The word “society” as well as “common good” or “greater good” are often used in political rhetoric and in socio-political organizations to push for change. This change is usually legislative in nature, not always, but usually. This is the only option most people see in which they can socially change things, why is that? Legislation is usually the fastest way for change; it limits the work of the group and allows no room for discourse. Legislation is the act of force on other individuals to force them to commit to social change at the barrel of a gun. A large group that wants their social agenda pushed on others, mob rule, is the hand at the grip of the gun. Why is this bad? Legislation that confronts victim-less crimes or personal behavior is fundamentally wrong because it forces violence on another individual, while the individual is committing no wrong or violent act. The individual is merely living his or her life in a way that they see fit but in contrast of the large group. Even though the individual is not becoming violent or coercive with another person, the group sees their actions as immoral and must be stopped. Therein lives the crux of most “social” problems; individuals seek to live their lives as they wish, without violence being inflicted on them by the government or other individuals or groups. That is a reasonable expectation, why should another’s religious or moral views be inflicted upon me by force if I am not becoming violent with another person? Legally and philosophically I should not have violence initiated upon me when I have not injured or become violent with someone else. That initiation of violence except in self-defense is immoral. That is the difference in a just and moral system of living and chaotic existence. The outcome that the group pushing for change wishes to see is a better and more moral “society”. The outcome, quite oblivious to them, is also an extreme sacrifice of individual rights. Not only is the initiation of violence, by the group through the state, an abridgement of rights, but also so is the restriction of the individuals right to make choices concerning their private behavior. This outcome sacrifices the individuals likes and dislikes for the “betterment” of the community and of the “society”. But who decides the definition of betterment, the group with the biggest club? They disregard the individuals’ tendencies and behaviors so that they may serve the government, so that they may have a better “society”. That is neither moral nor the foundation of a free community.
Asserting this we can see that people do not have an obligation to follow these suggestions, backed by state violence, for a more moral life that is defined by the group that is the largest. Why is that? Because this ultimately erodes the individuals FUNDAMENTAL rights, choices, tendencies, and behaviors. According to any free group or country that has ever been founded, the individual’s rights are above all and reign supreme. They reign supreme above everything, but the initiation of violence; this includes murder, coercion, kidnapping, theft etc. We must not let the idea of “society” erode the individual’s rights, at least not without giving them an opportunity to opt-out of the “society”. The government however, is a “society” such as this; the state is violence and imposes the “society” or the masses views onto all by the use of violence. Government is an idea that says that because I was born on a piece of land, this thrusts me into a mass community of individuals based, ruled and governed by violence and with no option of opting out. The only option to opt out would be to move to another continent, where it is ruled by either more violence or less violence to the individual. The individual has no option of living in a group, voluntarily of no violence. That idea is not only preposterous but also repugnant to the very notion of freedom. Because of this closed community, and the use of violence even as a basic function of government, it shows that it is in direct violation of our fundamental rights as individuals.
The term “society” also supports collectivism, which, as a very definition, erodes an individual’s freedom. Again, the definition of society is, “a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; especially: an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession, an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another, a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests". While the definition states that it is voluntary, that is clearly not true. While one can physically move to the wilderness that still does not extract them from the rule of that society through force of the government. Thus, it forces them to be part of the “society” or at least the society’s values are forced on them and they have no way of opting out or refusing to be a part of it. That, by very definition, puts the individuals rights at the bottom of the totem pole, certainly not supporting a free society. The definition then states “grouping of people having common traditions, institutions and interests” but when this grouping is forced by the government, (the planet is covered in governments with no way to remove oneself) there is no way that they will have “common traditions, institutions and interests” especially in America, the so-called “melting pot”. This directly correlates with the definition of collective, ": denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole, involving all members of a group as distinct from its individuals". Society and government, both of those institutions denote the individual and their rights into one mass group that looks, talks, and believes all the same thing. This idea, considers all persons or things as one group, this is not only false but it is in direct contradiction of the ideal of freedom.

If you consider collective a negative term, and even if you do not and are swayed by my argument you must see that all of these ideas, fundamentally, erode the individuals’ rights in behavior and everyday choices; believing that the person is only born to serve the government and the “society”. This is not the basis of a free community or system, many times the rhetoric stating for the “betterment of society” and “for progress” is to blame for the atrocities committed against peoples. A prime example is the indigenous peoples of the U.S. There is absolutely nothing wrong with bettering yourself or attempting to advocate your ideals to others, as well as nothing wrong with progress. But in that search for progress the choices and changes to the community must be done voluntarily and through education not through force or violence. All that will do will force an unwanted change that is neither sincere nor wanted. It will corrupt the outcome, and the process of working together. We must face the future as well as progress and change as individuals. We must move forward towards a better tomorrow as individuals sure of ourselves and our ideals. Question our thinking continuously, to arrive at better ideas and better progress. We can move forward as individuals and as voluntary communities. But not as forceful and violent societiesI have shown though many examples that the use of the word "society" promotes not only a negative connotation but that it's definition is downright false, I'm sure many of us in the freedom community would be better off without it's use in our espousement of ideas.  I will leave you with a quote from Oscar Wilde, "Society exists only as a mental concept; in the real world there are only individuals".



Saturday, April 2, 2011

Anarchist Theorist - Voltairine de Cleyre (November 17, 1866 – June 20, 1912)


Recently I have begun looking at historical Anarchist Theorists and I decided to write a succession of posts about them; first up, Voltairine de Cleyre! 

LIFE

De Cleyre was an Anarchist as well as a sexual equality activist, we will be focusing on her theory's and work in Anarchy. She was an unrelenting anarchist revolutionary, opposing the state. Initially an individualist anarchist, she later referred to herself as "only an anarchist". A proponent of the Freethought movement, which is a "philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of sciencelogic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authoritytradition, or dogma." also related to the Irreligion movement and humanism. Voltairine, was raised in abject poverty, and sent very young by her father to a Catholic Convent to be educated. This move by her father moved her away from Christianity to atheism, she hated the institution so much that she swam to Port Huron, Michigan from Ontario, and hiked 17 miles meeting her family friends who contacted her father and he sent her back. 

With her family ties to the abolitionist movement, and being named after Voltaire it was only a short time before Voltairine came up with her own radical ideas. After her convent schooling was over she began putting her full energy's into the Freethought movement. "After the hanging of the Haymarket protesters in 1887, however, she became an anarchist. "Till then I believed in the essential justice of the American law of trial by jury," she wrote in an autobiographical essay, "After that I never could". The Haymarket affair was a riot that originally started out as a protest, bombs were thrown and police began firing. Ultimately, it resulted in the death of eight police man, most likely from friendly fire, and an unknown amount of civilians. The trial resulted in four men being convicted and prosecuted, and one committing suicide in prison. Even though the prosecution admitted none of the defendants threw the bomb. 

Her zeal and flair for writing and speaking is one of the best known in anarchist circles. Voltairine lived in Philadelphia, among the poorest sections with Jewish Immigrants. Her life, despite her active pursuing of freedom was plagued by depression and illness, attempting suicide twice. Even surviving an assassination attempt on her life. She died in a hospital in Chicago from Septic Meningitis, she was buried near her dear friend Emma Goldman, the Haymarket defendants, and other social activists. 


WORK

Although early on Voltairine was an advocate of "anarchism without adjectives" - that is, without any labels and tolerates the existence of anarchist schools of thought - she was also a staunch advocate of Individualism and property rights. By 1908 however, de Cleyre had moved onto "produce together, co-operatively rather than as employer and employed." more Collectivism, than Individualism. she did state though that she was and had never been a Communist. She also opposed a standing army, she argued that its existence made wars more likely. In the essay, Anarchism and American Traditions, she argued that the only method to achieve peace was, "all peaceful persons should withdraw their support from the army, and require that all who wish to make war do so at their own cost and risk; that neither pay nor pensions are to be provided for those who choose to make man-killing a trade."



Voltairine left a wonderful legacy of anarchist thought and theory. While all her ideas may not be relevant to my way of thinking, the idea of "anarchism without adjectives" that she advocated was one I believe we all can take notes from.   




http://voltairine.org/



Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Sociology and Extra Credit

I have a hard time writing in certain disciplines of academics. Namely; philosophy, psychology, and I figured sociology would be the same way. It's hard in my view because everything is so involved with theory's and your own opinion (which I never have a hard time giving) and while there is evidence in the essay it's not the central aspect. So with some negativity on my part I began my extra-credit essay and with a little help from Carina Botterbusch I was able to complete the assignment. I'll admit, I enjoyed it, once I figured out where I was going and figured out the sociological aspects and theory's it was a whole lot easier....Enjoy!!


In a diverse country such as the U.S. there are many social groups; however, they can be divided into two separate distinct groups: fringe and mainstream. In my essay I will be comparing the two opposite groups using Karl Marx’s conflict theory, discussing how the mainstream group uses the conflict, specifically war and the use of fear to stay in power. I will be illustrating these using quotes from famous, and learned individuals.  
The definition that Merriam-Webster gives for fringe is, “a group with marginal or extremist views” examples for fringe can be any group that holds strong views that the mainstream view as extreme. This will differ and change from decade to decade, even year to year and month to month. In the U.S., Communism and Socialism are viewed as fringe groups both because they are marginal as well as held to be extreme by most ‘democracy’ loving American citizens. While in other countries where those are a popular political philosophy, Democracy is viewed as marginal and extreme. The definition held by Merriam-Webster for mainstream is, “a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence” as indicated for fringe, examples can vary and change almost day to day, it can include any topic or physical thing that is directing activity or holding influence over the masses, both of these definitions will be the ones used in my paper.
Karl Marx’s’ conflict theory includes two major social groups: a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling class gains all of it’s power from the subject class which it owns, exploits and controls by way of capitalism and the “forces of production” Analyzing at their relationship one can see that there will be a natural conflict arising between the two classes. Marx also shows that the political and social systems are put in place, ruled, and manipulated by the ruling class, leaving no options for the working class to use in order to prosecute or to overthrow the ruling class. Marx then believed the only option left was for revolution.
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.” (Marx, Communist Manifesto)
Looking at modern day situations how do we observe and apply the conflict theory, fringe groups, and mainstream groups? Do mainstream groups, use the fringe group to stay in power? Do they use fear of the fringe to manipulate and retain power? If we look at modern-day politics this gives a very clear example of the mainstream using the conflict between them and the fringe as well as fear of the fringe to hold and retain power, this will be illustrated by a series of quotes. The most clear example of this in the political realm is war, when war comes it does not come suddenly as many citizens think. All at once, rushing towards them at a frightening speed, fear clutches the middle working class. There is something overseas, or sometimes here at home, that is trying desperately to take their freedoms, and democracy away. War instead comes slowly engineered by the elite class, the ones who hold high and far away positions on the Council of Foreign Relations or perhaps a member of the Bilderberg Conferences. 
      In the culture of war, the mainstream can be considered the pro-war individuals. They see war as a necessary evil, but necessary nonetheless. War is pushed by the elite onto the citizens, it is on the news, it is in magazines, articles, and popular culture. It may even appear that an open discussion is taking place, but in fact all that is happening is that the ruling class is grooming the middle class for war. In this aspect the anti-war movements would be the fringe groups, they would be marginal and recognized as extreme by the mainstream. They would be spit on and ridiculed for not protecting “freedom” and “democracy” two words that the mainstream hold secret. That does not discount that some of the anti-war individuals may in fact be great lovers of democracy and freedom, in fact I believe it would insinuate just that. The individuals that try to protect foreign individuals from foreign interventionism, death, war crimes, colonization, and a degradation of their culture is the epitome of freedom and democracy.  Turning back to war we see that it can only be explained as the elite class trying to acquire money, land, or power out of a population either their own or a foreign one. The most popular mechanism that the political elite use to convince the middle working class, and the canon fodder, into thinking that this a noble war for freedom and democracy is fear. Writers, generals, and founding fathers have all seen fear as a popular device for the elite to use on the citizens, George Orwell stated, “Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” In this quote Orwell shows that one of the top aides that the warmongers use is fear, he uses the words “every war” which may seem extreme to some. Looking at history, even just of the U.S., it is clear that he is correct, every war was started to promote democracy and freedom from a long list of horrific ills: communism, socialism, terrorism, puppet-dictators. All on that list the United States elite either directly, or indirectly put into power themselves. We engage in wars on “terrorism” which is an idea, impossible to predict, and crosses ideological boundaries, David Cross illustrates this, “You cannot win a War on Terrorism. It’s like having a war on jealousy.” General Douglas MacArthur also illustrated that fear is the most used instrument in coercing the public into war, “Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it.”
         Two more quotes show a different aspect of Karl Marx’s theory, “Fear is the passion of slaves.” Is a statement attributed to Patrick Henry. We can apply this to his theory by looking at two key words, “fear” and “slaves”. By using fear to further coerce the lower classes they are reinstituting the mind set and mind imprisonment of slavery, further repressing the poor. By using the word “passion” Henry shows how the fear gripes the “slaves”, it shows the utter insanity and terror that the masses go into when the politicians talk about the current boogeyman that threatens our shores, freedoms, and democracy. Another aspect is shown again by George Orwell, “War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.” This shows Marx’s view of evils that he blamed on “forces of production” and “capitalism”, instead of seeing aspects of human character as the problem, Marx saw production and capitalism as the problem. In the quote Orwell shows that most if not all wars are for profit only, and for the elite to profit not the “slaves”.
         While many years have passed since Karl Marx forged his social conflict theory, it still has applications in our current and modern world. It can be used to dismantle the fear that the political “moneyed-classes” force on us, it can be used to put a veil of transparency on their speeches and to search for truth. It can be used to forge a new freedom, for all citizens.