Skip to main content

Weathering With You: An Agorist Perspective

If someone asked you what your favorite emotion was, how do you think you’d answer? For many people, I suspect they would answer “Happiness”, “Joy'', or some variant of exclusively positive emotion. Someone may think more meticulously and answer with “Contentment”, which while a positive emotion has a lot of nuance attached to it. However my answer to that question is what I feel others would consider more orthodox: Bittersweet. Pleasure accompanied by suffering, not exactly most people’s first pick but from my perspective pain is necessary in order to enjoy the pleasure that life gives you. Perhaps I'm over-romanticizing but there’s something to desire from looking back fondly at times where you were hurting and seeing yourself in a better place in the present. Perhaps you finally have moved on from “The one who got away” and can look back on those times with fondness. Perhaps you are sharing stories of a friend or family member at their funeral and though they may never w

Thinly veiled Tyranny


The sheep in the herd, the voters, are more than willing to hand out whips to anyone "in charge." Nobody is free from sin in a democratic environment and that kind of structure teaches participants to punish behavior you oppose by appealing to the structure itself. It is a weird practice. You can stick your nose in anyone's business without having to actually do much more than writing an e-mail or gather with like-minded around a digital campfire somewhere and hope some of it will reach the political class. 


"There should be a law!" Heard that one before?

The right-wing part of Swedish Twitter built a dog-pile over an article that a local Green Party politician wrote. An article where he had the audacity to suggest that parents rule over their children.[1]

When you hear it like that it doesn't make sense, right? Why would right-wingers be against that? Don't they understand parenting and parental rights in the Swedish conservative movement? Ah, but I intentionally left out the full range of the topic by choice. I only revealed the part I cared about. Here is the rest: It was about the be or not to be of veils (hijabs) on kids.

Once you see the full picture you get the outrage.

It is a lot easier to express "I don't like this, I want it gone!" through a proxy structure that does all the hard work for you than having to take the hard road of change through interacting with real human beings. Once the chain of command of the Government gets ahold of the idea and transforms it into a public prohibition that is supported by force and an unsympathetic system.

"We did it! We outlawed hijabs! We freed the children!"

You also made ski masks, diver suits, traditional folk dresses, bandanas and everything else you can think of that a kid could cover her hair with illegal, genius.


"Oh, snap. Ok, we can fix that with some revision. After all, there should be a law!"

And that is how a detail-controlling silly law meant to prevent behavior X is born and mutated into a monster of a law text. Linguistical experts sit down and try to write down magic and get nothing but tragedy. Or tyranny, if you will.

It is not what is on the head of children that is the issue. The issue is how it got there. Was it placed with force?

We already have a law against that. Even if you are not a fan of state-monopolist law, I am sure you can agree on that forcing someone (kid or not) to do something against their will is bad. I don't know a single person that would be okay with that, at face value. Granted, it is a lot harder to punish bad behavior through social means, but it is necessary to keep freedom as a concept living.

And then we have those that turn into little tyrants as soon as they see something they don't like and as a rule of thumb, I let those people play Stalin all by themselves.

- Alex Utopium.
Anti-Establishment blogger at Utopium. Living on a steady diet of coffee and whiskey. Want to lend a hand in the coffee department? Click here to send coffee money. Click here to send curse words.

-------------------------------
[1] You can read the article in question here - Text in Swedish.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Weathering With You: An Agorist Perspective

If someone asked you what your favorite emotion was, how do you think you’d answer? For many people, I suspect they would answer “Happiness”, “Joy'', or some variant of exclusively positive emotion. Someone may think more meticulously and answer with “Contentment”, which while a positive emotion has a lot of nuance attached to it. However my answer to that question is what I feel others would consider more orthodox: Bittersweet. Pleasure accompanied by suffering, not exactly most people’s first pick but from my perspective pain is necessary in order to enjoy the pleasure that life gives you. Perhaps I'm over-romanticizing but there’s something to desire from looking back fondly at times where you were hurting and seeing yourself in a better place in the present. Perhaps you finally have moved on from “The one who got away” and can look back on those times with fondness. Perhaps you are sharing stories of a friend or family member at their funeral and though they may never w

The Economics of BTC Maximalism

BTC maximalism is a flawed doctrine, fallacious in numerous respects.  First, if you'd prefer to hear these arguments in audio, check out this recent episode of ABNP , where @mrpseu & I discused these same topics.  Also, a qualifier: I'm not capable of making, defending or refuting technical arguments. I'll leave that aspect of the debate to others. My concerns with BTC maximalism are entirely economic and can be divided into four areas.  Based on the criteria for saleability as laid out by the austrian school, BTC is not the most marketable digital commodity. A lack of portability relative to other cryptocurrencies implies BTC isn't as sound of a commodity.  Value storage is a secondary function of money and cannot satisfy the use-value requirement of regression theorem.  BTC maximalism lays waste to the Hayekian notion of competition as a discovery procedure. This final point was addressed in detail on episode 50 of The Agora, Crypto-Economics

The Truth About Global Warming

Libertarians who deny the existence of global warming run the risk of making us all look like a bunch of illiterate fools. Much like economics, being ignorant of planetology or climate science isn't a crime, but having a "loud and vociferous" opinion on the subject while remaining in a state of ignorance can be a dangerous thing. And frankly, the science behind climate change is elementary. Sunlight enters our atmosphere and warms our planet. Earth then gives off that heat in the form of infrared radiation. However, and this is a crucial point - the CO₂ molecules in our atmosphere do not allow IR to easily escape back into space. This is known as the greenhouse effect. As the temperature of the planet increases, polar ice caps melt and eventually surface water will begin to evaporate. Since H₂0 also prevents IR from escaping our atmosphere, the additional water vapor only compounds the problem. This is known as the runaway greenhouse effect. This is what happened