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
Post a Comment

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.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 (this is the same principle behind those cool goggles our collapsitarian friends have). 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 compound
17 comments
Read more

The Counter-Economics of COVID

In March 2020 - some say earlier, but by March 2020 at latest - the banking had sector collapsed. In response, coronavirus was manufactured as a scapegoat to justify the liquidity injection necessary to keep the Federal Reserve’s ponzi scheme alive. The State’s narrative would henceforth be: ‘Since all businesses were shut down, an unprecedented amount of money must be printed and distributed to the public.’ Milton Friedman’s helicopter money had come to fruition. But like a junkie chasing his initial high, the Fed had become immune to the effects of monetary stimulus. Each injection requiring a stronger, more potent dose of cheap & easy money. Less than two years later, and the effects of that stimulus have now waned & the banksters are poised to pull off another heist. As the business cycle continues to ebb and flow until the day of final reckoning, the State can be expected to behave in an increasingly erratic fashion. Like a cornered cat, or a fish out of water, the State
Post a Comment
Read more

The Trouble With Dave Smith

  On the issues, Dave & most agorists can find agreement 99 out of 100 times, but as libertarians we have a habit, a pastime - a duty even, to seek out & argue over the 1% of things we don’t agree on. In keeping with that tradition friends, I've got to tell you, when it comes to strategy, Dave Smith seriously fumbles the ball. The fundamental issue is that @comicdavesmith is interested in creating libertarians, whereas agorists are interested in creating liberty. Dave has a classic case of @perbylund ’s Savior Complex - the irrational desire of individualists to save the collective whole of society. There are lots of problems with this, but even if creating libertarians is a worthy goal, does that mean the Libertarian Party is the best vehicle to accomplish this task? Has anything the Libertarian Party ever done caused even a slight retreat of statism? Dave rightly points to his own success at spreading the message of liberty. It's true, no one - save Ron Paul or Tom
1 comment
Read more