Sep 14, 2007

I actually went ahead and ate the shrooms and I’d like to try and describe the experience for the sake of remembering this special occasion in the future.
Its a very psychological confrontation I think, between the Ego and the ID and if they are in conflict your experience will be affected negatively. For a person like myself, comfortable with his own personal identity, this is nothing short of experiencing nirvana. I’m not going to declare it the best experience of my life, because the experience seems more of a wind-down, a fantasy, recreation, unreal maybe, or surreal at least. It was difficult to stop smiling and laughing because for about 4/5 hours I felt the joy of thought.

It’s like when your dreaming and when you’ve crossed over into REM sleep, during the night you have several simultaneous dreams and in the morning you can remember one of them if you’re lucky… this experience is like having thoughts simultaneously overlapping themselves in the same manner and experiencing, them, remembering them, reflecting on them, at the same time. Everything felt great and I was just sitting in my computer chair listening to Bach.  It was a non-stop progression of one feeling of Eureka to the next moments later. Every thought would explode with wonder and I was in a constant state of being flabbergasted in amazement at how much I was thinking and how easy it was… like all psychological walls that normally constrict thoughts were gone… and you can infinitely contemplate the meaning and the impact of single notions, single words, single thoughts or something as broad as you can think of.

The intellectual experience is definitely enough motivation for me at least, but the physical experience was also a really great side bonus. About an hour in I decided I needed to take a shower because I was having an allergic reaction (not surprisingly because I’m allergic to everything) and I was sweating a lot and my bronchial tubes were constricting and producing a lot of phlegm which I was trying to cough up, it was easy to do but I was afraid that my body was so numb that I wouldn’t be able to sense the phlegm build up and thought about possibly drowning because of it. I knew a steamy shower would clear me up. So I got into the shower and it was really bizarre. The semi-clear shower doors had hard water stains on them dried to look like water droplets. Combined with the large dimpled surface of the doors, and the water splashing off of me and onto the door created a very curious wall flowing or “melting” affect. None of this was scary because I was expecting it to happen at some point, so I was following the wall down kneeling slowly as it melted in front of me laughing as quietly as I could because I was actually seeing it and it looked completely real.   My own home was suddenly an amusement park.  Everything I looked at, the mundane household items, we’re new and exciting.  The water on my skin and the sound of a shower were also amazing.  I got out of the shower to dry off and looked at myself in the mirror. It’s very easy to focus on very small portions of your face to just examine yourself. I was expecting my face to look weird like some kinda devil or horse or something but it didn’t morph or anything, just me. 

When I got back into my room I could see the refresh rate on my computer screen, the letters were hard to focus on and moving a little. The sides of the screen were jagged.  If you’ve ever seen a very low refresh rate on a screen you’ll know what I mean… but I could see it without anything being wrong with the screen.   It resembled a less intense version of a scrambled channel on cable television, the HBO specials that are wavy and blurry until you buy them.

I could also make out distinctly the path my vision traveled as it went to the screen, passing through my glasses, through the computer screen, and onto the actual surface of the screen. All of the weird video’s and weird images people told me would look even more weird weren’t.  None of that affected me at all, none of it bothered me, but I generally expect other people to be full of shit, so perhaps my bias pushed me into a state where I wasn’t prepared to allow those things affect me. I was completely alright and satisfied sitting there listening to music and thinking. Bach is amazing. I had the lights off in my room and the glow from the computer screen was casting a very soft blue onto the whole room. I was leaning back in my chair with my hands above my head orchestrating Bach and doing a kind of puppet show of the music for myself. My hands were dark black with that blue tint lining from the computer screen. A lot of your experience will be based on your atmosphere, and I believe a soft blue is very soothing, and the glare cast on my white walls created a very gentle ambiance.

The album I was listening to for most of the night was “Bach and the Sea” which was very soothing. I tried to switch from that to Nine Inch Nails at one point, but found it to be too abrasive.   Music will affect your mood immensely, so I had to turn that off pretty quickly.  Your mood can swing in any direction seemingly instantly and you will have little control over it. Towards the end I finished off with “The Baroque Tribute to Tool” which I also recommend for a smooth ride.

The feeling of weightlessness was reoccurring, numbness came and went, hyper sensitivity did as well. When people tell you they can “feel” the music, I understand what that means now, and it’s very hard to explain.  Imagine every crashendo and decrashendo effecting your overall emotional state instantaneously based on the music and you will at least understand abstractly how it works.

Thinking inherently crazy thoughts is also very pleasureful, when something incoherent makes complete and total sense it gives you a good sense of humility, because after all we are just human beings.  Some of the crazy shit I thought up that night follows, and I quote:

“When you take a drink, you’re making out with yourself.” Referencing my reflection in the tea that I was sipping.  The point at which your reflection touches yourself in the water is where you’re drinking, the mouth.
“I just itched the toe with itself.” Because referring to my toe in the third person was really funny.
“about to happen like my limbs feel limp but just not limp enough” No reason thats funny, but it was at the time.. kind of a tongue twister.
“It might not be at all like that then” same reason for being funny.  “like that then”
“Helium: you don’t have to pay attention to it for it to rise” I developed a respect for helium, even though I had none.   For some reason I was thinking about how attention whores should adopt helium as a role model.
“The sight of this SITE makes we sweat slimy smiles” because I was sweating and I thought the sight of a web site might be causing it.
“this is what eastern religions are BASED on its so fucking obvious they’re just ashamed to show it because the christians will make fun of them”  If you every get a chance to study any eastern religions, specifically Buddhism and Hinduism, you will see a lot of connections to this type of experience, where as Christians are more ascetic.
“My friends are SO left wing, they fly in perfect circles” Kinda obvious why thats funny to picture.   Literally having wings, and having nothing to do with one of your wings while completely preferring the other… and if you’ve ever seen a seed fall from a Maple tree that is where I pulled the inspiration for this statement.

Most of the night I wasn’t that coherent, but I managed to put some sentences together here and there. It is very difficult to be coherent during and around the peak. I freaked my dog out talking to her.

Other good shit I did was flexing.  Flexing your muscles feels really good, and I became a lot more limber. Also feeling things is as great as people make it out to be, not because of any particular fabric but because of ones ability to focus on it.

/rant off.

Drugs are not inherently the creation of fraudulent realities into which we escape as most anti-drug people would have you think. I’ll explain…

I appreciated the experience of Psilocybe Cubensis. A lot of problems often attributed to drug use that are often mentioned I don’t think apply to responsible users. I also think people are quick to generalize and exaggerate the harm they want to perceive from drug use. Different drugs do different things, and affect you in different ways.

I don’t use them with the delusion that I’m going to create a shortcut to gaining knowledge through divine revelation, and I don’t think any reality oriented individual could. I’ve never defended their use appealing to revelation because it’s actually just an emotional indulgence, a form of recreation. I don’t use it as an evasive form of flight from reality, or to run from my problems. It’s a -tickle your fancy- form of leisurely activity that I think must be handled responsibly without question.

I’ll preface my explanation of the value I find in them by explaining something similar.

In intellectual pursuits when one finally makes a kind of breakthrough in a field of study or overcomes a hurdle and finally grasps something one’s been attempting to grasp for a while, one experiences a very inspiring form of eureka. “I’ve found it!” This provides psychological reinforcement for an individual and builds confidence in one’s belief that one’s own mind is capable of grasping and understanding the facts of reality. I’ll not go into attempting to describe the feeling because I know you’ve all experienced it. The act and pleasure of understanding. I find that the very actions of thinking, pondering, studying are a wonderful feeling because of the positive reinforcement I’ve received when I do experience intellectual breakthroughs (I call it the experience of eureka) and the impact implementing that knowledge has on my life. The object of fixation is the emotion itself, eureka, euphoria… etc… because this represents psychological accomplishment metaphorically, an increase in self-esteem etc… the achievement of a infinitely valuable piece of knowledge, or “teaching the man to fish” because the knowledge will benefit you for a lifetime. It gives you a picture of the end result of your striving for you to experience immediately in the present, that provides incentive for you to continue in whatever successes you’re after.

Because using the drug is a form of leisurely activity, approached as such under no false pretenses, the time available for doing it is limited to leisure (which takes a level of responsibility an individual ought to have before getting involved with substances)… We all either schedule time for leisure… or end up coming to it through exhaustion. If you find yourself making leisure time because you know that’s your gateway to accessing any drug, you’ve obviously got an addiction problem. However one often schedules certain leisurely activities months in advance, vacations, cruse ships, road trips… or whatever… so planning leisure is not necessarily bad if the action in leisure is the consumption of a drug just because you planned ahead for it. So the point is that leisurely activity is not wrong because it is leisure, nor is it wrong if the activity is the consumption of a drug.

Tying the two together, I don’t believe a person can experience eureka “too much” in their lifetime to ever become “tired of it” because intellectual pursuits and the rewards they yield are continuous throughout one’s life. The motivation is always going to be there and the results will always be the object of value. The achievement itself, not the illusion of the achievement. This assumes that the individual explicitly acknowledges that the pursuit of knowledge is to achieve the benefit it brings in reality, and recognizes that the consumption of drugs bring no immediate concrete benefits in reality – thus differentiating the intentions between drug use and intellectual pursuits.

So, I use cubensis sometimes when planning vacations because I enjoy the feeling and the meaning of eureka. On a trip the most mundane of ideas seem like epiphanies to the person experiencing them… it FEELS like you’ve just had one of those intellectual breakthroughs and everything seems so clear, the sense that another piece of human existence makes sense, even though such is not the case in reality… the feeling of eureka remains as well as it’s meaning… and as fast as your mind can race, by the millisecond wave after wave of the most intense eureka sweeps over you.

I describe it as achieving the rewards of rigorous intellectual pursuits (eureka), without having to go through the discipline of working toward gaining actual knowledge (study, pondering, research, learning etc…). And, as justice has it, you don’t achieve any new actual knowledge with the consumption of cubensis or a heavy dose of marijuana, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I find it one excellent alternative, among millions of other excellent alternatives, in planning leisurely activity because this (to me) allows a veneration for my respect for my intellectual pursuits when I’m not intellectually pursuing them. It allows me to celebrate in explicit terms, how much I enjoy the [u]feeling of thinking[/u] by exalting it’s object (eureka) to the forefront of my consciousness, and relishing it. If I had to hypothetically theorize a real-world benefit for this, it would be providing myself with motivation for intellectual pursuits by bringing the sense of accomplishment into my immediate grasp… reinforcing how much I enjoy achieving it.

Consider it the same as an inspiring painting that you are attempting to relate to. You pull from the painting an piece of inspiration and apply it to your life, it becomes reality for you in the moment and you place yourself imaginatively in the settings and surroundings of the painting to experience [u]what it would be like[/u] if your life was in similar conditions. Now consider the painting as a depiction of where you would like to take your life in the future long term. You are staring at the end result you covet, and are working toward. This intensifies your ability to relate, and validates for you in the present moment by reaffirming your decision to pursue the goal you’re working toward. For me, Drugs are no different.

To qualify my advocacy, I don’t think anyone should experiment with these substances without first educating yourself about their consequences and effects even though I find no fault with the people who choose to be spontaneous and just go for it. I personally studied cubensis (not exclusively) for five solid months before I decided to go for it.

One should not confuse the feeling of enlightened insights through the distortion of your frame of reference, with the value of actually intellectual pursuits. You couldn’t really call that responsible use if you’re irrationally equating an emotional experience with the tangible fruits of labor, because they are far from the same thing. The benefit of productive work goes beyond the emotional experience of eureka, which is why one must not confuse a simulated emotional experience with actual benefits. It’s an emotional reward only, it will not fill your wallet or your stomach and it will rarely if ever lead you to any real world knowledge. Just like when daydreaming, when you envision the long term plans you’ve made for your future having been accomplished… you experience a simulated feeling of accomplishment in envisioning the attainment of a goal, the feeling of, “MAN! this is going to be fantastic when this project is complete!” this doesn’t discourage you from continuing to pursue the end… it encourages you by reinforcing your belief that the payoff will be worth it. The moment that responsible use turns into irresponsible use is when that lines becomes blurred and one fools oneself into thinking this is the immediate emotion is the actual payoff. Daydreams are not payoffs, but daydreams are immensely valuable, as well as the inspiration one can draw from psychoactive drug use.

Some ask, “How much is too much?” Defining responsible use in terms of quantity won’t get you a universal amount that you can sweep across the board for all drugs, and defining it per drug won’t give you an amount which you can apply consistently from one individual to the next because too many variables exist. So the question “How Much?” is inapplicable to the question of responsible use. Responsible use has very little to do with quantity and much more to do with the [u]expectations the individual has of the drugs function.[/u] Insofar as quantity is concerned, Obviously if you’re consuming so much of the drug that you put your health at severe risk, you’ve gone too far. If you become physically addicted you’ve got a big problem. Marijuana and Cubensis are not physically addictive, and you cannot overdose on either. I think this is what separates a good drug from a bad drug, it’s ability to be physically addicting. Psychological addictions also exist however, and in all aspects of life. If you’re the kind of person that becomes psychologically addicted to things (tv shows! – gambling – online forums) it might not be a good idea for you to branch into something that could seriously put your life at risk if abused. Point is that the potential for a psychological addiction (which marijuana and cubensis probably can become) is an invalid index because that potential exists all across the spectrum of experience… it’s the individuals choice to confront that kind of addiction not the fault of the drug.

Insofar as the expectations of the individual go, if you’re using the drug as an evasive flight from reality or to run away from your problems you’ve got a problem, and denying it only prolongs your suffering. If you expect the drug to create a shortcut to knowledge, all you’ve really done is short circuit your efforts at gaining knowledge (it’s as destructive as faith). If you believe that the drugs make you more creative, I can think of no problem with that unless one believes his creative potential is entirely dependent upon the influence of the drug. All human beings have a creative potential, some of them just become psychologically accustomed to tapping into it different ways.

The biggest problem in defining proper use exists in asking for a definition that is heavily dependent on the individual in question, and thus inherently subjective or interpretive.

Ex: How many Boat Rides should an individual take per year? How many vacations, percentage wise, should a person dedicated to riding his boat around a lake? Some people are boating enthusiasts, some people hate the water. Are the people who hate the water prepared to ask the boating enthusiasts for a “definition of responsible recreational boating.” I think you get the picture…

What we can say, is that responsible recreational boating does not include skipping school or work in order to go boating (sacrificing a higher value for a lesser value). It does not include skipping marriage counseling in order to go boating (running from your problems). It does not include forfeiting priorities for leisure. Essentially, it does not involve sacrificing reality to imaginative non-existence. Only the correct orientation to reality, philosophically, can ensure one’s ability to manage responsible recreational boating to make it an enjoyable, relaxing, and beneficial experience.

(v1.1)

It is becoming more frequent that I repeat the same arguments for different people on a daily basis, and very seldomly does this dialog progress. There is such a broad misunderstanding of Atheism and I see the conversation going nowhere because many Atheists I know cannot rigorously define their own position. They make concessions without realizing it about the contents of their beliefs.Common discussions between Atheists and Theists involve trying to undo all of the misconceptions about Atheism in the Theists mind because one cannot have any rational discouse with someone of an Abrahamic god without being stereotyped or strawmanned. An Atheist will ultimately either avoiding the conversation entirely or the conversation will consist entirely of the Atheist laboriously attempting to educate the Theist about what Atheism is and what it is not. I’ve had it put to me regularly by Theists that all forms of Atheism entail a direct disbelief in god(s), or a positive belief in the non-existence of god, rather than simply a designation of a mere absence of belief. I, as an Atheist, have attempted in the past to correct this misunderstanding and explain why it exists with little success at revising the misconceptions of Theists. More frequently now I run across this same misconception in the minds of Atheists who do not have a properly formed concept (meaning without contradiction) of Atheism and how it operates.

To begin I think it would be instructive for everyone to understand the fallacy in question. The Etymological Fallacy is the formal logical fallacy that this discussion is actually about, although seldom do the participants name it explicitly it is what they are arguing when arguing the meaning of Atheism.
Fallacy Files
“The etymological fallacy as a semantic error is the mistake of confusing the current meaning of a word with the meaning of one of its etymons, or of considering the meaning of the etymon to be the “real” or “true” meaning of the current word. If one’s goal is to communicate, then the “real” or “true” meaning of a word is its current meaning. Since the meanings of words change over time, often considerably, the meaning of an etymon may be very different from the current meaning of the word derived from it. The fact that a word historically derives from an etymon may be interesting, but it cannot tell us the current meaning of the word.”

To summarize my position, I don’t believe that the Etymon of the word Atheism is correct simply because it is the Etymon, but because it is the only logically defensible understanding of the concept. I also maintain that if we surrender the meaning of the word Atheism it will then, by definition, be an indefensible position. I’ll explain more on that later.

To summarize the flow of this argument, if I base my understanding of the word “Atheism” on a logically consistent argument then The Etymological Fallacy does not apply and the only standard which we then need be concerned about is its validity. If I base the concept of Atheism on a logically consistent argument, and point out the logical shortcomings of the common usage definition we should revise our conception of Atheism accordingly. The fallacy is only applicable if you appeal to the Etymon because you believe the Etymon itself is “more correct” than common usage definitions as a principle of definition, i.e., simply because it is the Etymon.

Atheism: Etymon vs. Common Usage (Teach the Controversy!)

To understand the Etymon of “Atheism” you have to understand a little bit about language and how it evolves. Atheism is derived from the root word “Theism.” Theism is derived from the Greek word theos (θεóς), which also means “god.” The suffix “ism” is used to signify a larger conceptual “organizational unit” which can represent a general belief or an entire belief system as applied in this example, and be subdivided into smaller units (sometimes other “isms”). Theism thus becomes a broad conceptual catchall categorization for “the belief in god or gods.” It isn’t in reference to one The’ist’, but to the belief of The’ism’. I draw a comparison between the linguistic function of ‘Theism’ and ‘Atheism’ because they are actually the same word (two sides of the same coin), one is merely modified with the prefix ‘A’ which means, “without.” Naturally, doing a little conceptual arithmatic you would add the two, “without” and “the belief in god or gods” to derrive the meaning of the word “Atheism.”

This contrasts sharply with the common usage of the word. It truly is the dominant usage because you can go right now (I encourage every reader to verify this for yourself) and find any dictionary you would like and confirm this. For an experiment I will do a simple Google search, for convenience, using the phrase “online dictionary” and post the results below for the term “Atheism.”

Dictionary.com
“The doctrine or belief that there is no God.”
“Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.”

Merriam Webster
“A disbelief in the existence of a deity.”
“The doctrine that there is no deity.”

YourDictionary.com
“The belief that there is no god.”
“The denial that god or gods exist.”

TheFreeDictionary.com
“Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God or gods.”
“The doctrine that there is no God or gods.”

Those are only the results of the first four (most popular) links on Google. You can see a few common threads between these definitions already and you should compare these to any examples you chose to look up on your own. Describing Atheism as a “Doctrine” was mentioned in three of the four. Active disbelief, or positive beliefs in the non-existence of god, or active denials of the existence of god were common throughout. Describing the position as “The Denial” assumes that Theism is true. According to these definitions it would be necessary for a person to actively hold some positive beliefs and concepts about ”god” or “theism” before they can actively disbelieve in god. This is the crucial difference between the two meanings. Is Atheism necessarily a positive statement? This is the crucial mistake that invalidates the common usage, and if accepted, condemns Atheism.

If Atheism is necessarily burdened with proving the positive claim that an abstract undefined entity doesn’t exist, then it is burdened with the impossible task of disproving a negative. You can’t prove or disprove a negative. That is another reason referring to Atheism as “The Denial,” and assuming the correctness of Theism is improper, because it is implicitly claiming to have proven this negative, performing a logically impossible feat, and affirming the truth of Theism. It should be widely understood, although it isn’t, that it is not possible to prove or disprove a negative like “god” or “unicorns” or “goblins” or “The Flying Spaghettim0nst3r” or “A celestial teapot.” The common usage definition, by definition, burdens the concept of Atheism with so much to prove that it collapses under the weight of its own identity, rendering it an untenable position.

There is no formal argument for the common usage definition, other than that it is commonly used, i.e., reached through democratic (or dogmatic) vote. An implicit argument we could extrapolate from the position would be something like, “If the majority of people believe a word means X, then this definition is valid,” maybe even something like, “Might makes Right!” because what is this appeal to common usage if not an appeal to a majority with the power to enforce its definition by force?

We might revisit a few of those websites for another quick revelation about how this approach leads to obviously false misconceptions. Webster defines Atheism as a synonym for “Wickedness.” The FreeDictionary defines Atheism as a synonym for “Immorality.” These are common charges against Atheists. I’ve defended myself against these misconceptions in the past and will again in the future. The common argument goes something like this, “Without God, there is no reason to be Moral!” That is a separate argument entirely though, and beyond the scope of this paper. As an example, The Main Stream Media (the Republican portion anyway) is currently in the process of demonizing the wickedness of the “secular progressive movement.” “Secular” is just another way to say non-religious (or non-Christian), and is used as a politically correct sanitized smear word for Atheists. It is commonly said that The Founding Fathers of America were “secularists” because they didn’t want to mix religion with government or visa versa. This was a non-religious approach, or a “secular” approach to the construction of government.

Another common criticism of Atheism is that it has nothing to offer in the field of Ethics and is necessarily a morally destitute position (which is understandable, and almost valid, because Atheism has nothing to do with Ethics). Ethics is beyond the scope of Atheism, and in that respect I can agree with this criticism, but I would quickly point out that Atheists don’t “believe in” Atheism like some philosophy or doctrine becaues of its narrow scope, it’s usually one very small component in their overall worldview, like Buddhists for example. Keep in mind the definitions from the four most popular online dictionaries. Atheists, by common definition, are Immoral or Wicked or in some sense evil. It is obviously true that Atheists can lead a life that is ethical, or at least as ethical as any Christian. Should “Immorality” be a valid synonym, or ‘essential defining characteristic’ of “Atheism?” It should not, and is not a valid synonym. Why is it in the dictionary then?

Atheism: Understanding the Hierarchical Nature of Concepts

To review, ‘A-theism” is derived from the root word “Theism,” with a one letter modifier as a prefix. The entire Atheist position is completely contingent upon the existence of the Theist position. You cannot designate an absence of something before someone asserts the existence of that something. To illustrate with a fictitious parallel concept I will introduce the notion of “Chrolianism” right now.

I have created the designation for an absence before its presence exists. I would get some strange looks of bewilderment if asked about my belief, because no one has any idea what I’m talking about. Suppose that after I labeled myself an “Achrolian,” in a hundred or so years “Chrolians” begin emerging to disprove my absence of belief in “Chrolia.” Even though before the notion of Chrolia arose, everyone (by default) would have necessarily been “Without” Chrolianism, defining a position based on that absence would be as absurd as this example shows if done before it’s actual existence. However, once the Chrolians arise, forming their little early cults to spread Chrolianism… Achrolians would exist from that point on because a meaningful distinction now exists. To put it another way, It is only in the midst of positive beliefs, that a lack in those beliefs carries any significance. Atheists did not exist, and could not exist before Theists because the designation would have been so insignificant that no essential qualifiers, no characteristics, presented themselves that needed identified (defined). It would have been the equivalent of defining “Achrolianism.”

The concepts are opposites of one another (Theism and Atheism) (Chrolianism and Achrolianism), their broadness and descriptiveness correlate with the other because they are “talking on the same level” with one another and not past one another, or about different things. In the initial position we have a presence of a positive belief (Chrolianism and Theism) and in the opposite position we have an absence of that positive belief, it says nothing about additional positive beliefs. Being “Without Chrolianism” is “Achrolianism.” Being “Without Theism” is “Atheism.”

If the broadness of these two concepts correlate, each ought to have some kind of substructure. To expand on ones understanding of the conceptual structure of Atheism, one must understand that which its existence is contingent upon, Theism. Hierarchically these would be higher-level conceptual “organizational units” than something like “Christianity,” i.e., “Christianity is a form of Theism.” The specialized subcategories are to be considered lower-level conceptual “organizational units.” They are “lower” in that the foundation for a conceptual hierarchy is reality and perception and expands away from it while remain dependant upon it. So the more abstract we become the “higher” the level is that we are communicating on conceptually. If we were having a conversation about Theism, it would be a much Broader and Inclusive conversation than a conversation about Christianity. The transition from bottom to top can be illustrated in the following example. Entity (perception/reality) Chair (level 1) Furniture (level 2) Home Décor (level 3) Style (level 4) etc… the higher we move up the more abstract we become.

There is really no limit on our ability to abstract further and further upward. To demonstrate the broadness of Theism, it is not specifically belief in a “personal god” or even in a single god. Theism is a general category under which more specific variations and specialized forms of Theism fall. Consider the common element among different types of Theism and you’ll quickly see the hierarchy in which a more specialized concept is classified under a broader less descriptive concept.

Theism – (General) – “the belief in god or gods”

• Deism – “the belief in god or gods” and…
  The belief that a god(s) does not interact with the universe.

• Monotheism – “the belief in god or gods” and…
  The belief in, and worship of, a single god.

• Polytheism – “the belief in god or gods” and…
  The belief in, and worship of, many gods.

• Pantheism – “the belief in god or gods” and…
  The belief that God and the universe are equivalent, or belief that acknowledges other gods.

Suppose we wanted to ascribe an additional characteristic beyond the general to “Theism.” Then It would no longer apply to all of the Theisms that there are, and a new name for the “organizational unit” would be required if one wanted to refer to all of them at once. If ‘Theism’ specifically implied “the belief in one god”… you could not call “Polytheism” a subset of ‘Theism’ because it would by definition contradict the contents of the higher conceptual Organizational Unit. It would be like calling a “babies rattle” something like a piece of “furniture.” The achievement of this form of non-contradictory hierarchy of conceptual organizational units is what makes them a valid representation of our understanding. It is how we classify and identify our world to make it knowable. That is why these concepts occupy the conceptual positions they do, instead of elsewhere.

Is Atheism equally as divisible as Theism? You betcha! Be careful not to forget here that we are talking about ways in which to believe in god or gods, or not. We are not talking about the tens of thousands of religions that exist which all have difference conceptions of god and comparing that to Atheism because Atheism has nothing to do with religion. You’ll notice the same structure within different forms of Atheism. Atheism is as broad a concept as Theism is, and there are subcategories of Atheism just as there are subcategories of Theism. Just as one could accurately state, “Not all Theists are the same,” the same would apply in that, “Not all Atheists are the same.”

Atheism – (General) – “without (or, lack of) belief in god or gods”

• Agnosticism – “without (or, lack of) the belief in god or gods” and…
  The belief that one cannot know, or doesn’t know enough to decide.

• Ignorance – “without (or, lack of) belief in god or gods” and…
  “The condition of being uninformed or unaware of any conception or notion of god.”

• Nontheism – “without (or, lack of) the belief in god or gods” and…
  “The belief that Theism is wrong.”

• Antitheism – “without (or, lack of) the belief in god or gods” and…
  “The state of being opposition to Theism.”

• Humanism – “without (or, lack of) the belief in god or gods” and …
  ”Whatever humanists believe.”

Even if we leave out Agnosticism and Humanism we still have three or more valid differences between subsets of Atheism that exist which require their own word (Organizational Unit) that captures and signifies the difference. This makes Atheism a necessarily broad term if it is to be the hierarchical opposite of Theism and as non-descriptive a classification as Theism is. It also must be broad if it is to refer to all of the subsets which exist.

Using the term “organizational unit,” as it is used in Information Technology, I believe assists in what I’m trying to communicate about the hierarchy of the structure of these concepts. You can easily see the same structure described above in a hierarchical fashion below in a file structure. While I think this file structure is inadequate because it is two-dimensional, you will understand enough to get the meaning. I am also unconcerned with the actual conceptual structure of Atheistic positions (they could be argued differently than I am presenting here), all that I am interested in is communicating that some heirarchy does exist and that the concepts of “Atheism” and “Theism” are heirarchically on the same teir of abstraction.

Atheism: Common Usage as a Misidentification of Essential Characteristics

The conflict between the common usage and the argued meaning I am putting forth is a product of the misidentification of the essential defining characteristics of Atheism and historical enertia. The only difference between the two concepts is the modifier “A” meaning “without.” It’s understandable that one might commonsensically claim that the opposite of a positive belief in a god, is the positve disbelief in a god. That at least sounds superficially reasonable, although misguided. The difference isn’t between which positive belief one chooses, but whether or not one accepts a positive belief at all in the first place.

Theism makes the claim that “God Exists!” and one can choose whether or not to accept that, and then choose the manner in which one goes about believing it. If one chooses to accept it, one is a Theist, if one chooses not to accept it that doesn’t imply a positive disbelief in Theism. Theists have no way to escape the burden of proving the claim they make, “God Exists!” and because they have realized this vulnerability they level the charge that Atheism is equally burdened with disproving their positive claim in order to be correct. This is called the Fallacy of Shifting the Burden of proof. Theism existed before Atheism. Theism made a positive claim long before anyone questioned it. The positive claim of Theism has never been proven, the burden remains on theism to give anyone a good reason to take it seriously. When you make a positive claim to knowledge, you don’t ask someone else to disprove you and assume you are correct until that happens… you give evidence to support your claims. If a man walks into a restaurant and exclaims that he was just kidnapped by Aliens, we don’t assume he is telling the truth simply because no one is capable of disproving his claim. We would ask the man making the positive claim to tell us about it and prove to us that it actually happened. Until that happens no one need exert any effort in making positive claims disbelieving in his story, because he has put forth no effort to prove himself correct. He would just be disregarded, as most people would be ultimately unconcerned.

That lack of concern is the absence of a positive belief either way, that is the comparison to Atheism that can apply in a valid understanding (again, valid meaning non-contradictory). Atheism need not object to Theism in order to be “without” it, as the prefix indicates. The essential defining characteristic of Atheism therefor is not a positive belief.

Atheism: Common Usage is Self-Contradictory

To demonstrate another contradiction… there is a stark contrast between how common usage is employed and what those who commonly employ it mean when they say it. How they, who advocate that it is a positive belief, apply the concept is the proof that the current definition is the wrong one. The scope doesn’t apply to all Atheists when the current definition is used because some atheists simply lack belief, while the current definition implies a positive belief. It doesn’t apply because some atheists are very interested in leading ethical lives. The way in which the word is used is to refer to a large general group, yet what the word means as they define it limits the group of people it refers to by including a positive belief in the non-existence of god. It attempts to be broad and refer to all Atheists, while its contents are specific to only those Atheists who affirm an active disbelief in Theism. This doesn’t stop those who misunderstand the word from misapplying it. It’s a simple attempt to have ones cake and eat it too. Common usage is used broadly to be inclusive, and generally to refer to a group of vastly different people, (this clues us in on its position in the hierarchy being equally as broad in scope as Theism) while its meaning renders it inapplicable to most of whom it is applied. It is as if I were to refer to all Theists as “MonoTheists” and use the word in a way as to include all Deists, Pantheists, and Polytheists as well. I am actually only refering to a specific “sect” of Theists, but I am using the word broadly and improperly, mislabeling some Theists. The common usage meaning of Atheism doesn’t apply to Agnostics, the ignorant, or Nontheists. The definition I am defending is adequately descriptive to include all of these positions with respect to Theism.

Atheism: How the Position Actually Works

Given the above presentation and clarification many should be wondering how the position actually works… since the common understanding is wrong… and many current Atheists don’t understand their own position I’ll elaborate at length here. It is fundamental to understand that Atheism exists with respect to Theism at all times, which is why I view the Atheist position with fluidity because there are many Theisms and thus many different conceptions of god. If a Christian were to walk up and ask me what my position is, I would respond that I am a Strong Atheist (to be general) with respect to the concept of the Christian God and probably Anti-theist with respect to how he goes about believing it. What we have here with the Christian god is a working Concept of what god’s identity might be, and we can analyze what Christianity believes god is and logically invalidate it with a few arguments based on their positive claims. The Omni-God argument is especially susceptible, just to name one for any Christians who might be reading this. The Problem of Evil also demolishes it. So, using those two arguments and many more, we can make a claim of 100% absolute certainty that the Christian god does not… and cannot possibly exist. This level of certainty about the incorrectness of this particular concept of god would classify one as a Non-Theist. If I were to move from the acknowledgment of the incorrectness of Christianity into the active opposition to Christianity I would then be an Antitheist with respect to that specific sect of Theism. That level of certainty is not, and need not be, always available to an Atheist.

In the case of Deists and Panetheists who believe in a very abstract impersonal generic god we have really nothing to work with conceptually like we would an Omni-God with the commonly accepted characteristics of the Christian god. So at best an Atheist can ‘lack belief in god’ where active opposition would be as much of an irrational claim as Theism is. With respect to Pantheists who believe that “god is nature” we really have nothing to evaluate either. We might ask why in the hell someone would seek to replace the valid concept of “nature” or “reality” with “god,” but we would not be able to disprove that notion based on his or her own Concept of god. We would just treat these people like the man in the restaurant who is claiming to have been abducted by aliens, with a lack of concern or disregard. We choose not to affirm their belief, and at the same time find no reason to disbelieve what they are saying because no consideration of an illdefined concept is possible. By default I describe myself as an Atheist in the general sense because I’m not even concerned with the incorrectness of the panetheist position, I just lack belief in it.

The point is that depending on the concept of god I am presented with I may shift between different types of Atheism keeping in mind my transition is constantly with respect to the particular conception of god.

Most of the time I end up as either a Nontheist or an Antitheist. This requires that I clarify the difference between Non-Theists and Anti-Theists. The prefix “anti” means “Against” whatever noun it is modifying. Anti-Theism would be “Against Theism.” Antitheism represents the positive opposition on an intellectual level (but is not limited to an intellectual activity) to the existence of some kind of Theism. This subgroup of Atheism is actually who those ascribe to common usage are referring to when they say “Atheist.” Not all Atheists oppose theism, or even care about it at all. The classification of Antitheists takes an aggressive position. The prefix “non” means “Not” whatever noun it is modifying, it is a negation of what is being modified. Nontheism means “Not Theism” and designates a concern with the incorrectness of Theism, but not necessarily any opposition to Theism. A Nontheist could be someone, for example, who has no belief in god but who may defend theism because of perceived social benefits (maybe Daniel Dennett would qualify, as he believes we just ought to rework religion instead of just dump it). While an AntiTheist would be someone who would make no such allowance for it. I think Christopher Hitchens is the best example of a well known Antitheist, as he believes that “religion poisons everything.” Richard Dawkins seems more interested in the incorrectness of theism, because he does use jargon like “I’m a cultural Christian” implying that he does perceive some social benefit to the organizational power of religious control. He wouldn’t phrase it like that though I’m sure. In a dispute between Science and Religion he will negate the validity of religion and assert the correctness of Science, while remaining a “Cultural Christian.” I agree with Hitchen’s viewpoint the most out of all of the Four Horsemen. For another example, Karl Marx would classify as a Nontheist because he believed that “religion is the opium of the masses” but didn’t believe the masses need not be drugged. Nietzsche and Lucretius would qualify as Antitheists as well because they perceived that religion was a great force of evil, or that it was interfering in the natural evolution of man.

I think one could classify Antitheism as a specialized form of Nontheism, or a cousin of some kind at least, but a problem comes about because you really have nothing to differentiate it with inside the Organization Unit of “NonTheism.” Without differentiation within that context there can be no concept formation in that context, so I think they must remain on the same conceptual teir. In other words, there would need to be at least two categories under “Nontheism” in order for any distinction to be necessary. Where no distinctions exist, no concepts are needed for referencing that distinction. For example, the concept of “Color” wouldn’t exist if there were only one color. They both share the common trait “The belief that Theism is wrong” certainly.

Semantical arguments like mine are primarily concerned with the validity of a particular concept. In evaluating conceptual validity, the more positive claims that are contained within a concept, the more essential characteristics are available for logical falsification. Logically valid conceptions of god, and general or vague concepts, are immune from logical criticism. One can still be “Without Belief” in the metaphysical existence of a god described by a logically coherent concept without positively rejecting the notion. This ‘demographic’ is brushed over in the common usage. The reason may be because it is Christians who are the majority who are determining what the common usage is. Christians make up a third of the U.S. population. Theists probably comprise a much larger percentage of the world population. This historical enertia of misusage is what needs to be changed in the same way the misconceptions of homosexuality changed. It could be a simple byproduct of a centrism in which Christians disregard the fact that their mythology is simply one among many… and that because it is a logically invalid mythology they are most often exposed to claims of positive disbelief. Encountering active opposition, being the majority, would certainly affect what the common usage definition is. I am suggesting that this is exactly how it happened.

Edmund Morgan<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[1]<!–[endif]–> insists that slavery has been a fascinating paradox throughout American history because of how immigrants so dedicated to human liberty and dignity “at the same time developed and maintained a system of labor that denied human liberty and dignity every hour of the day.” <!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[2]<!–[endif]–> It’s true. Throughout the 17^th century slavery in the New World slowly became established as the primary source of labor. Virginia held the highest concentration of slave labor in the south throughout the 17^th century; and by the 18^th century the first census in 1790 reported it contained 40% of the total U.S. slave population.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[3]<!–[endif]–> This change can be accounted for by looking at changes in various aspects of life in 17^th century. Slavery increased because of the increased agricultural demand for large pools of cheap labor. This demand was affected by the decline in indentured servant immigration and the rise of an independent landless class of rebellious ‘freemen’; the decrease in the price of purchasing slaves; and a decrease in mortality rates both in England and America.

Agricultural demand for large labor pools significantly increased in the years after John Rolfe, in Jamestown Virginia, discovered how to successfully grow tobacco in 1612.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[4]<!–[endif]–> This cash crop would prove to be the most important export and source of wealth for American planters in Virginia. Indentured servants from England initially provided this labor pool. The Virginia Company basically purchased poor English peasants for a term of seven years as payment for passage to the New World. The promise of receiving “headrights” served to draw sufficient interest in immigration for a while.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[5]<!–[endif]–> “Male Indentures were supposed to receive clothing, tools, and occasionally land upon completion of their service,” but this often didn’t happened and they would end their service with nothing. A good deal ended up with no land, no employment, no family, and no prospects.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[6]<!–[endif]–> This was a dynamic unstable workforce of coming and going that heavily depended on immigration. Planters wanted the immigrants who kept pouring in every year. But as more and more turned free each year upon completion of their term of servitude, Virginia seemed to have inherited the problem that she was helping England solve in ridding itself of it’s large landless surplus laborers.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[7]<!–[endif]–> This slowly created a large population of landless, wandering, young, and rebellious laborers.

The impact of this growing landless population was stifled to a slow quiet swell because of the extremely high mortality rates. Encounters with natives combined with disease were the two primary causes for the high mortality rate. Between 1625 and 1640 more than 15,000 immigrants entered the Virginia colony and resulted in only a population increase of fewer than 7,000.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[8]<!–[endif]–> This worked in the favor of planters because immigrants would only serve a short period of time and then leave, removing the responsibility of maintaining a healthy workforce from the planters and enabling them to simply cycle through fresh indentures. At this point maintaining the health of an expensive slave was very difficult and costly, so planters preferred indentured servants and slavery was rare and highly isolated to the Caribbean.

Through a combination of knowing one stood little chance of actually gaining land upon completion of an indenture period, and knowing that threats from disease, Indians, and even Pirates increased the likelihood one wouldn’t survive long enough to enjoy headrights anyway; the flow of indentured servants declined, producing a demand for a new kind of labor in Virginia.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[9]<!–[endif]–> The incentive to migrate would again reduce around 1670 because of a decrease in the birth rate in England, as well as improved economic conditions.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[10]<!–[endif]–> This decrease in incentive and consequent lack of fresh laborers in Virginia would compound with other changes that made owning slaves more feasible.

The transition in economic feasibility of owning slaves occurred slowly between 1640 and 1697. Before 1640 the mortality rates for inhabitants of Virginia was too high to invest in vulnerable slaves who would likely die just as most of the immigrants from England did. After 1640 the mortality rate decreased in Virginia and the population naturally increased. This presented a problem for the landless freed indentures because now more competition would exist among them and the likelihood that one would be able to rise up and become his own planter decreased.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[11]<!–[endif]–> Although immigration was slowing, the cost of purchasing slaves in the quantity needed to support the agriculture economy wasn’t largely available until after 1660 when the Royal African Company of England established a monopoly over slave imports and began shipping more and more to the Caribbean.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[12]<!–[endif]–> Most of the slaves that were imported to Virginia did not arrive straight from Africa, but usually after serving a period in the Caribbean sugar farms The Caribbean.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[13]<!–[endif]–> Eventually the Royal African Company of England would lose its monopoly in 1697 to rival traders and the price of purchasing a slave would drop significantly. Although this made owning slaves much more economically feasible, at that point the rebellious freemen and shortage of indenture immigrants had already made slave labor the most reliable kind of labor source.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[14]<!–[endif]–>

The rebellious actions of the landless “freemen” against the elite in Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676 served to promote an attitude between land owning elites alerting them of the dangers the freeman posed. The elites rationalized slavery as a good alternative to avoid conflicts like Bacon’s Rebellion because they did not have to be released after a fixed term and hence, did not threaten to become an unstable, landless class.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[15]<!–[endif]–> Their instability would further be demonstrated in 1682 during the “tobacco-cutting riots” in which freemen went from farm to farm destroying crops in the field. This was a desperate attempt to drive the price of tobacco up by creating a shortage in supply.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[16]<!–[endif]–>

Though the dominant notion among the majority of Englishmen was that Negroes were “intended to be ruled,” as Plato described, and as “an animate article of property,” this racism does not account for the entire motivation behind the shift from indentured servant labor to the system of slavery.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[17]<!–[endif]–> It certainly made the transition easier for English immigrants to think of Africans as a “species in which a distinction is already marked, immediately at birth” that signified it was intended to be ruled.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[18]<!–[endif]–> However aside from the racism a sharp distinction between a slave and an indenture wouldn’t come about until very late in the 17^th century. Even as late as 1668 in North Ampton, at least ten free Negro households certainly existed.<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[19]<!–[endif]–> So the shift from a primarily indentured servant workforce to a primarily slave based workforce is attributed largely to the fact that slaves represented a more stable and reliable labor source.

James Madison, in an attempt to promote the ratification of the American Constitution, pointed out that the country was at a cross roads in terms of where the government could go and how it could function. It could either be democratic or republican, and either large or small. The central theme of James Madison’s Federalist Number 10, written in 1787, was to outline what a government ought to achieve, how it ought to achieve it, and demonstrate that the American Constitution has taken measures to achieve them.

Madison charged that the capacity for the government to become capable of dissolving the “violence of faction” deserved great attention.[1] It should be the “first object of government.”[2] This would be truly the most important component of erecting a country where the amount of liberty was greatest, and the amount of coercion, factions, and “interests” where least. Throughout the Federalist Number 10 Madison uses probabilistic language because he admits, “it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected” because eliminating something that, he later argues, is a part of human nature is impossible but can be minimized if it’s dangers are recognized.[3]

Factions are very abstract for Madison, and could apply to a wide variety of groups of people. One group would not necessarily need to be directly interested in subverting the rights of another group to be a faction that could overtly be accomplishing just that. All factions do share a common characteristic in that they are all composed of a group of like-minded and goal directed individuals set out to influence government. They set out to accomplish something specific that will benefit their group. Consequences of this could be non-existent in terms of how other citizens and communities are affected, but Madison argues that in all cases this has been the undoing of governments.[4]

Madison outlines the cause of factions having its origin in the nature of man. Individuals with different experiences will form different opinions, and these points of view will be the driving force behind the formation of factions. When individuals in a community with similar points of view join under the banner of common interest, opposed to other interests, out to achieve a common end the faction is formed. When dealing with government, the power of influence and force exists inherently; so a struggle thus begins between whose influence will be unjustly exerted over the whole. Madison called this “contending for pre-eminence and power.”[5] Once the ball is rolling so to speak, and these contradicting common interests find themselves adverse to one another the amount of “frivolous and fanciful distinctions” that crop up between them will multiply.

The example Madison gives for the most common source of factions, landowners versus the landless, is traceable back to the roaming landless majority throughout the colonies and the headright system. This population was influential throughout colonial life, providing its initial labor pool as indentured servants and later in some cases as rebellious violent factions.[6] This example is something specific to the time period. The fundamental idea being expressed by Madison is that factions become a problem and “grow up of necessity in civilized nations.”[7] He uses this example to relate to his readers because this is a widespread problem that continues to create factions. He wants to simply point out how easily these factions can become a big problem.

Madison points out the two non-cures for removing the causes of faction. The first is to snuff them out where they begin; the second is to control the effects that factions have.[8] The first course of action would be outright hypocrisy because factions come about because they are free to do so, and in removing the liberty of individuals to form factions you subvert freedom itself and not just factions. The solution becomes self-defeating if the object of government is to preserve those liberties. The second course of action is impracticable according to Madison because of how diverse opinions are among people. As long as opinions are so diverse among the people, and as long as they are free to act upon their beliefs, then the effects will determine themselves and no manipulation or control on them is possible. The second non-cure is reminiscent of Roger Williams’ expulsion from colonial Puritan Massachusetts where John Winthrop’s prescription for communal like-mindedness was found to be an impossible prerequisite for his utopian vision. [9] Similarly, no such communal like-mindedness is possible in Madison’s present day and it was wise of him to recognize this.

Because Madison accurately views pure democracy as majority mob rule and would invariably lead to a sacrifice of the liberty of most to the privilege of the few, he concluded that such a government has no cure for the “mischiefs of faction.”[10] The factions Madison discusses throughout can be either a majority or a minority in popular government. When such a faction becomes a majority is where the biggest problem arises because then the government is doomed to the fate of a pure democracy. A very famous quote here about the fate of democracy, which I’ve heard more times than I can count without ever knowing it, came from the Federalist Number 10. “[Democracies] have in general, been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.”[11]

Madison argues that increasing the size of the territory a government represents to make it not too large, but not too small, the existence of minority factions will effectively keep one another at bay because there will be so many of them all competing with one another for the same influence and power. The greater the population under a government, the less likely any single faction will be able to elect special interest representatives into office. In a larger Republic any such politician would not be able to practice “vicious arts” for very long because the “suffrages of the people” or the right to vote being extended to non-land owners would increase the likelihood that the politician elected would be the best choice.[12]

The premise for this thinking rests along the lines that “while you may be able to fool some of the people some of the time, you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” If you increase that number of voices who have a say by increasing the “suffrages of the people” then you increase the likelihood that the people will not be fooled into electing a representative with poor character.[13]

Conveniently it just so happens that the obvious superiority of a republican over a democratic government should also conveniently be enjoyed by the largest population of people instead of being confined geographically to a small region. The entire country will reap the benefits.[14] Madison then wraps up the Federalist Number 10 by pointing out that all of these big problems have been accounted for in the American Constitution and that although there was no way to absolutely eliminate factions, this form of government function best to minimize them.

With the 2008 Presidential Election coming closer I want to respond to something I see that I consider to be a very serious error on the part of some “anarcho-capitalists” (AnCaps). I’m addressing the position that “not voting is the principled position.”

First off I want to state something that all anarcho-capitalists agree on, that “the American Political structure is a problem”, and also state that I agree them about why. This does not change the fact that you (speaking to American AnCaps who do not vote) are directly and indirectly linked to that problem whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. To answer the question “Who’s problem is it?” I would respond, it is the problem of the American Citizens… that means you and I alike… voters and non-voters. We all suffer equally under the Government, no matter which direction it moves in politically.

Acknowledging the problem is important, and most people do at least implicitly when they complain about the way things are. Once the problem has been identified, the next logical step is evaluating possible ways in which to deal with that problem unless you choose to ignore it’s existence… but because most of the AnCaps I know acknowledge the Primacy of Existence they understand that a problem of this magnitude cannot simply be ignored into non-existence and that it can and will in most cases become much worse if simply ignored.

I argue that in this particular election cycle, not voting is exactly that kind of “simply ignoring it” because of unique circumstances, and a unique candidate. So if we’re going to talk about principles we should start there, acknowledging the problem and that you’re responsible for doing something about it (an implicit confirmation of the primacy of existence). A core principle.

To stress again, analyzing the campaign reveals that the problem is such that this unavoidably affects you, both directly through forceful taxation, and indirectly through making your home (America) an object of hatred and disgust throughout the (fast becoming nuclear) world. These are only two examples because I know that all of you are fully aware of how unjust the government is to you, and won’t go into detail about it.

Your range of possible choices has already been limited because you have been confronted quite abruptly with this problem. It’s an unjust problem to confront because you are not the cause of the problem, you didn’t set up the government. No, in fact all you did was inherit its problems from your ancestors. This problem has been wrongfully shoved onto you and you can either do what you can to keep from passing the problem along to your children, doing them the same injustice your fathers have done to you, or not. I consider the “or not” option to be a violation of an individuals Honesty, if you’ve acknowledge the two previous points. It represents an attempt to fake existence, to pretend that you aren’t confronted with this problem, however unjust, when you clearly are.

A principled approach to dealing with the problem begins by acknowledging that some positive action is required on your part if you are to solve the problem. The alternative to some positive action would be no action, i.e., ignoring it and pretending it will go away. Maybe that act is choosing not to vote and encouraging others not to, I maintain that it is not the proper action. The main point I want to make is that irrevocably once the problem has been identified and it’s weight rightfully assumed, one cannot avoid positive action in solving it. Even speaking negatively about how “unprincipled voting” is in reply to this blog is a positive action and an investment in time.

The second logical action in dealing with a problem is attempting to construct the most likely outcome for a given choice, and gauging it’s ability to accomplish the most preferable solution by anticipating the consequences. This situation is different in that the problem isn’t an earned problem, but it is a problem that is immediate and damaging, which makes this a forced decision. You can’t escape not choosing, it’s been shoved on you, and you will suffer (or reap the benefits) of that choice no matter what it is. This is a situation in which no complete win is possible immediately, that is the nature of the problem and it again is a matter of honesty to acknowledge it as such. So, an attempt to gauge the results of this choice against the “ideal results” is an act of violating the primacy of existence, wishful thinking, because ideal situations are not what exist… what instead exists is a highly complex problem that you must accept on it’s own terms, which has been forcefully thrust upon the whole of the American population, a problem that every individual must deal with… including non-voting AnCaps.

This is incredibly taxing in the current discussion because gaining a substantial understanding of what you’re forced to deal with (the problem itself) and the underlying philosophic principles and tools you can utilize in solving it, and justifying that solution, are all applicable and necessary. AnCaps I speak with about this imply that gaining an understanding of politics is entirely unimportant, and an unecessary burden at best. The underlying premise was something similar to, “why does it matter it’s all wrong anyway and you should be focusing on ways in which you can further the right ideas!”

I strongly disagree with the notion that it is unnecessary to understand a problem you intend to solve, but AnCaps posture as though remaining willfully ignorant offers a potential solution to the problem. That seems, on the face of it, an act of explicit evasion… an attempt to ignore what currently IS and instead slink back into an imaginary ideal that doesn’t exist. I do however agree that we should be doing what we can to further the right ideas. I intend to answer the question of how we promote those ideas much differently (that is the purpose of this writing, justifying myself in voting for Ron Paul and persuading the protest voting AnCaps to do the same).

I choose to analyze and become knowledgeable of the problem, because I’ve accepted that it affects me and some positive action is required on my part in solving it. I don’t think it’s very rational to maintain one can solve problems one refuses to become knowledgeable of. If you disagree, I’d like to know why.

To limit the scope of the current discussion I’m going to consider the relevant options for dealing with the problem. First what a vote for the front-runners for each party would entail, then what not voting entails, and then what a vote for Ron Paul entails.

First I will summarize Hillary Clinton’s position because she might as well already have the nomination… The race is incredibly lopsided and nothing short of a miracle could hand Obama the nomination. Oprah’s endorsement might just be that miracle, but I still see him fighting an uphill battle. Hillary’s campaign consists of perpetuating more of the same thing, more government obligations/power, higher taxes, and continuing the war on poverty, drugs and terror. Liberal philosophy is fairly straightforward, higher taxes and more/bigger government spreading out the wealth. AnCaps all fully agree that all of the new obligations she plans on piling on the government could very likely be the straw that breaks the camels back so to speak, sending the country into an economic collapse the likes of which we can’t fathom.

Shouldn’t we attempt to fathom it though, simply because we consider it to be a real possibility? Would a principled approach at solving a problem entail ignoring consequences we acknowledge are very real possibilities? No, this again would be another instance of explicit evasion. That being said I’ll allow your own imaginations to do the dirty work of exploring what such a collapse would be like for America. Think about the great depression, think about how much more direct a failed government will be towards its citizens in an attempt at maintaining it’s stranglehold of power.

The important realization to come to is that under no circumstances is the anarcho-capitalistic philosophy in the “front runners” of possible solutions that will dig us out of this trench once we’re in it. The current mentality pervading popular American culture, is anti-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is in last place in the realm of possible solutions because of this widespread mentality.

If our intention is to promote and spread anarcho-capitalistic ideas, and we are considering a vote for Hillary to hasten the destruction of the current system, shouldn’t we also acknowledge that this (campaign or collapse) will not, absolutely not, be the way in which anarcho-capitalism reaches the spotlight? Yes, we must if we are consistent in our thinking and honest with ourselves. It’s too radical of a change too soon.

What about Rudy Giuliani?
I’ll just directly quote from his campaign website, because it’s damning enough… (my comments in parenthesis)

1) I will keep America on offense in the terrorist’s war on us.
(maintain and expand the police state military empire that has already reached 130 countries in the world)
2) I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
(Through RFID chipped cards tax payers will fund, we’re next btw – see… Real ID Act)
3) I will restore fiscal discipline (as if it ever existed) and cut wasteful Washington spending.
(1,2, already prove this a blatant lie)
4) I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
(at the same time expanding immigration control and the war on terror, a blatant contradiction)
5) I will impose accountability on Washington.
(Clearly a filler statement to boost his “pledge count” for some reason, maybe he just likes the number 12 better than the number 11)
6) I will lead America towards energy independence.
(It’s now a matter of “national security” apparently, as everything else is justified – but seriously this man is not going to lead us to energy independence, research and innovation by individuals in a free market will)
7) I will give Americans more control over and access to health care with affordable and portable free-market solutions. (Free market solutions imposed by government, that’s not a direct contradiction)
I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
(Who wants the quality of life merely “protected”? I want to be free to increase my own quality of life. This is just more Neo-con “everything is about security” rhetoric. It’s brainwashing for when Orwell’s 1984 becomes the reality in it’s fullest sense.)
9) I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
(8 Proves this to be a complete lie on it’s face, because the only way to “decrease abortions” is to make them illegal or interfere in the sexual practices of private citizens like most Christians want to do anyway, which would require reinterpreting the Constitution to define a fetus as a citizen or individual.)
10) I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
(This is where the gestapo sets up a local precinct in your “community.” Also think about the premise behind these goals.)
11) I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
(Government schools are all equally terrible, and parents already have the choice to home school, government education isn’t going to change. Our test scores around the world won’t increase by allowing parents to choose between equally terrible public schools. The relocation of miseducation won’t increase education.)
12) I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.
(1 proves that our reputation is only bound to go downward. Participation in the global economy is spooky language for sending our jobs overseas so that they can remain competitive… this ignores the entire state of economic frailty at the moment. Under Rudy Giuliani our economy is going to increase the amount we already “piggy back” off of China and the real authorities will become world government bodies like the U.N.)

It’s not possible to maintain a spreading military empire, increase border security, fund the branding of illegals, and lower taxes at the same time. Rudy Giuliani is a different breed than Hillary Clinton, but they both want to have their cake and eat it too.

Is economic downturn or collapse a possibility under Giuliani?
I think so absolutely, and maybe even more so than under Hillary because all of these schemes under Giuliani will be justified as matters of national security. The public will demand them. Giuliani represents a substantial increase in the police powers of the government which is the exact aspect that needs decreased the most, and it’s in some ways even more threatening directly than Hillary’s nonsense… because he’s not shy about telling you that he wants you in a database… and chipped… and tracked… all in the name of “not lettin the terrorists win.” Insofar as economic collapse is possible under either of these candidates, the same dooms day scenario described earlier for Hillary applies and because anti-capitalism is rampant, an AnCap solution in the wake of economic catastrophes remains implausible.

How about not voting period?
The problem here lies is having already acknowledged the problem, and where it’s heading (assuming you are knowledgeable about it). You’ve committed a positive action in committing to choose not to vote, making you just as responsible for the outcome of the election and direction of our government as someone who positively voted for a specific candidate. Their campaign time was spent on street corners waving signs, meeting in rallies and yours was spent in discussions in online blogs such as this, and investments educating yourself enough to attempt to justify your position. You’ve equally acknowledged the problem, and equally made a choice. What investment you’ve made in stressing the importance of not voting, others have invested in voting… so the difference in amount of effort input is very little, if any at all.

In most presidential elections, people will tell you that it doesn’t matter who you vote for because the candidates are so much alike. This is a half truth, because in most presidential elections the candidates are a lot alike, representing only slight nudges in a similar different direction… for democrats its socialism, and for republicans its fascism (not exactly of course, but the point is they’re only slight variations of the same evil in the same direction). Every vote nudges the direction seemingly insignificantly down the same road, while the candidates pay lip service to the countries core values (reason, science, life, liberty, and property) and at the same time subvert and undermine all of them. I can completely understand this insofar as you don’t believe voting will change the direction of a counties path, I think it’s rational to abstain and not waste your time in most elections. However…

What if the candidates aren’t all the same? What if a growingly popular candidate is significantly different, and represents a radical shift in direction? I think one’s choice not to vote must change or at least be put into question if one agrees with the direction.

The classic anarcho-capitalist approach to dealing with voting is to present the argument that will render it “unprincipled” and then as a matter of moral consistency condemn voting.
…………………But………………..
–If you acknowledge that the American government is a problem…
—-And you agree that problems must be dealt with…
—-And you agree that you must be knowledgeable of a problem in order to most effectively deal with it…
—-And you agree that the front-runners are vile “nudges” that will in no way further your ideas…
—-And you agree that the likelihood that a collapse will NOT result in the promotion of your ideas…
—-And you acknowledge that if you don’t choose to endorse any candidate you will suffer the consequences just the same as if you did…
—-And you acknowledge that this radically different popular candidate represents a strong shift in direction toward the ideas you promote…
–Then on principle you must endorse the radically different popular candidate in order to most effectively promote your ideas and “nudge” the direction of politics in the proper direction, helping to solve the problem.

Who could this radically different popular candidate be?
Perhaps it is Ron Paul…

What makes Ron Paul so radically different?
First, I want to preface by stating that solving this problem of government cannot happen over night, that is why the entire “vote for Hillary so that economic collapse ensues” is an utterly irrational, unreasonable, and unprincipled viewpoint if your goal is to actually spread anarcho-capitalistic ideas. You don’t get to choose how easily the problem is solved, that’s not up to you, what is up to you is committing to solve it.

We are currently in the “dig ourselves out of this mess” mode and a lot of these policies are geared with that premise in mind. Think “fundamental change of philosophy first” and not “short term quick fix”, because that is what the Ron Paul candidacy is about… and he’s said so.

Unlike Giuliani and Hillary, Ron Paul will cut taxes and bureaucracy and spending instead of attempting to maintain the contradiction of pretending you can actually have one without the other. The only way you can conceivably cut taxes and remain economically sound is if you plan on performing fewer services, i.e., limiting the size and involvement of government. Not limiting the size of government… except for all of our national security “needs” as Giuliani would disguise it… but limiting it period.

So what’s Ron Paul all about, what does he propose, represent, and how does he plan on doing it?

–Ending foreign engagements immediately, while adopting a philosophy shift back to what the founders advised in avoiding Entangling Engagements. Non-Interventionism. Whoever it was in another thread talking about “Ron Paul will initiate the use of force” would need to contend with this.

—-This will result in a cut of approximately 500 billion dollars a year. Our national dept (last I checked) was just over 9 trillion. If this were the only cut made, it would only take 18 years to make up the entire difference. But we’re not going to completely cut this money and use it to pay off the national dept of course, we can’t, it will be rerouted to solve other problems. What little of the military does remain will be redirected to border security. Ron Paul does not plan on implementing RFID tracking for immigrants (and eventually US citizens), but does plan on eliminating the incentive to want to enter the United States by eliminating birthright citizenship, and welfare for illegals, at the same time deporting illegal immigrant law breakers.

—-This increased savings will also allow fulfilling the government’s current obligations of welfare, social security, Medicare etc… but at the same time Ron Paul will initiate plans to allow young folks like myself and you, reader, to stop having to pay in to those scams. He will also prevent the government from taxing the Social security benefits of seniors when they receive them (that’s your inheritance from grandma btw!). Young people would not choose to pay into these if given the choice, and this will effectively end these forms of socialism over the coarse of time. No other candidate has a plan for bringing these programs to an end, or even believes that they need to be ended. Voting for Ron Paul sends a message that the American people want these programs ended.

—-Unlike Giuliani who would contribute to the steady march toward one world government by signing over governmental power to organizations filled with unelected officials like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, UN, and CAFTA, Ron Paul would prevent such undermining by withdrawing from these world government bodies. No other candidate is directly opposed to involvement in these bodies, or acknowledges the threat of one world government enslavement. If anarcho-capitalists think the American government is oppressive (which it completely is) wait until you’re confronted with a world government. Scared? Good… you should be.

—-Other areas of spending cuts Ron Paul will work to make are things like the Dept. of (mis)Education, the Dept. of Homeland Security (the Gustapo), The IRS. No other candidate plans to eliminate the IRS because they don’t really plan on limiting he amount they tax you. They have to keep the IRS because they need to make sure they are able to suck you dry at the point of a gun, the IRS is that gun. Pretty simple when you look at it that way isn’t it, and what a radical shift… “no government bully capable of seizing your property” because you didn’t pay it off in taxes like a street gang (MS13 does this all over the world). That’s REAL tax reform ladies and gents, removing the power of the government to tax you by force. Ron Paul also wants to eliminate the FDA because they are driving up the cost of medicines, intervention which is crippling the health care industry, in their attempt to “comply” with their international masters like the Food Code (CODEX), NAFTA, and CAFTA. He also opposes Forced Vaccination, which on the face looks like it might have some value… but then you think about what they could potentially decide to vaccinate you with… and it becomes horrifying.

—-REPEALING THE PATIOT ACT –no one else will
—-ENDING THE WAR ON DRUGS –no one else will

—-Ending the war on drugs alone will empty our prisons of 50% of its population, mostly minor first time drug offenders for mostly marijuana consumption. With half of our prisons empty, that’s a lot of the workforce back in action! No other candidate will end the war on drugs, and the government will continue using this as a weapon in it’s arsenal to deprive you of the right to live your life the way you see fit.

—-Ending the Federal Reserve. This is really brilliant I think. Move away from Fiat Currency Central Banking, which is nothing more than the confiscation of wealth through inflation (Greenspan what happened!!)… by allowing gold and silver currency (coined by the Congress as authorized by the Constitution) to compete along side the monopoly money. Serbia, Montenegro, and other countries already have more than one currency running side by side, so this is not a new idea… but a return back to hard money is absolutely necessary if we are going to eliminate the governments ability to keep it’s citizens weak through the confiscation of their wealth. The standard of living is going down and Ron Paul is the only candidate that has the balls to point it out, and point out why… and at the same time gives a strong solution for fixing it. Under Giuliani and Hillary, you’re going to see the Amero introduced in 2010, this will function as the Euro does once America is neutralized as a country and merged into the North American Union… our constitution will be meaningless (as if it weren’t already) and we will be subject to rule by unelected foreign officials. One world government is what we want to prevent!

—-Ending Imminent Domain property seizures, and denying NAFTA the ability to confiscate enough property in America to build a multinational highway from Canada into Mexico. A vote for other candidates, and the choice not to vote, is a choice for centralized one world government authority. This is a direct quote from Ron Paul, “The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.” Confiscations are the “nudge” we want to move the government away from, Ron Paul is the only candidate that represents that nudge.

Why does it matter so much at this point?
There are a lot of circumstantial factors that make this election a very important opportunity to shift that zeitgeist by giving it a nudge in the right direction.

1) Libertarians rarely run on the Republican Ticket. Because Ron Paul is running on the Republican ticket he is getting a lot more exposure to the main stream than independents ever do… this presents a rare opportunity to further good ideas. Even if you disagree (wwhich most of you do) ith libertarianism, this is much closer to anarcho-capitalism than socialism is.
2) The possibility exists that a successful Ron Paul presidency could reshape the fundamental philosophy in America, by allowing free market economics, and limited government to prove their worth in explicit terms (even though they have already in creating the wealthiest nation on Earth)… once this has been established the suggestion could be strongly considered whether or not to adopt a strictly anarcho-capitalistic society. No such alternative exists in any other choice, including the choice not to vote.
3)Popularity: Ron Paul is growing so fast in popularity; he is really redefining “grass roots” campaigning. In the Third Quarter Ron Paul raise over 5 million dollars, as of this writing (December 24) he’s already raise another 18 million for the final quarter. This topped John McCain in the third quarter. Ron Paul has won the text message vote every single GOP debate (with the suspicious exception of the following poll where Romney won). Here’s a good link at how badly “Insanity and Clone” manipulate people into thinking Ron Paul is really a trailing candidate. (you can’t vote more than once btw the support is REAL.)
4) Why are GOP cell phone polls so important? The National Polling is conducted over land line phones, and an increasing number of the younger population is adopting their cell phone as their primary (and most of the time ONLY) household phone because it’s not economically reasonable to have both. My parents (45-50 ish) also no longer have a home land line, it’s become dinosaur technology. A lot of my friends and friends parents (I’ve asked) no longer have land line telephone anymore either. So the landline polling is excluding an ever growing percentage of the population, this percentage as demonstrated in the GOP polls is heavily in support of Ron Paul. Because the news outlets of this country are biased and controlled, the neo-conservative fascist ideology is promoted, and real reform is squelched and made to look insignificant. IT’S NOT. As evidence, drive around town and count supporters of Ron Paul (look at signs in yards, bumper stickers, etc…) and contrast that with the support you see for other candidates. How many conversations do you have per week about Ron Paul vs. Other candidates?
5) Ron Paul pools a lot of different interests into one basket. Liberals like him because of his stance on ending the war as soon as he’s elected. Christians like him because he’s for overturning Roe v. Wade (one of his biggest downfalls imo). Republicans like him because he’s really about limited government. Eliminating a large portion of taxation is beneficial to everyone equally. Libertarians completely back him for obvious reasons. This crossroad of common interests is another rarity that needs to be capitalized on.
6) This does need to be capitalized on NOW because it’s unlikely the opportunity will present itself again for many years, and we will be stuck suffering through lame candidates who mirror one another again… and we will continue our march toward economic collapse and one world government.

So I think the notion that “not voting is a matter of principle” to be a completely unprincipled and unjustifiable approach to American politics (but of course you’re free to do what you want). I equate it to a childish tantrum that represents a wish for existence to be different than what it is. I think it’s contradictory to consider “not voting” as an alternative to endorsing a candidate because your impact on American politics can be even more damaging if you abstain from voting, and allow the worst to flourish by default.

I find an Ayn Rand quote most applicable here, “The Spread of Evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.”

The basic principle that the anarcho-capitalist approach compromises is intimately related to acknowledging the primacy of existence, in that a problem must be confronted on it’s own terms if you are to handle it appropriately. I think this contradiction manifests itself in the expressed opinion that following politics is a waste of time, because this represents acknowledgment of the problem and at the same time evading the knowledge necessary to solve it. I believe it is this contradiction that has enabled well meaning anarcho-capitalists to end up believing, however wrongly, that “not voting is a matter of principle” when in reality I believe it to be more along the lines of rationalized laziness, intellectual laxness, and an attempt to evade the attachment that cause has with it’s effect.

So as I said before, If you’re interested in furthering your ideas and recognize that economic collapse can never be the answer (and would instead be a great source of increased suffering for a lot of people), that things as they are haven’t been the answer and that your lack of participation only allows what isn’t working to continue not working, then you should vote for Ron Paul in 2008 and seize the opportunity to make a real change.

I personally believe this presidential run COULD spark an economic enlightenment because of how charged the supporters of this campaign are.