Friday, August 17, 2012
Imaginative Anarchy Under The Guise of Conservativism
I posted this as a commentary for the following article on The Imaginative Conservative blog here. It was mainly meant to critique on the opposite of a bloated big government, which would be anarchy - though apparently aligns in the article more with wanting bring about a monarchy and new serfdom. I figured I might as well post my comment here on my own blog, for anyone interested.
Monarchies fought monarchies for power and to grab land from defeated foes. How is this any different from conservative corporatism, where companies with the most amount of goods fight other companies for power and to grab the property of the companies that they run down and take over? If anything, the sort of conservatism proposed here just plays into the hand of the corporations, making them the new monarchies, while the rest of us become their serfs to no longer be controlled passively by commercial incentive and free market to persuade us of how good they are, but more directly because they privatized the world and put us all on 'term life policies'.
Plus, true democracy is not majority rule. Populist democracy allows for another check and balance where, if our representatives are misrepresenting us, we can recall them, or put up initiatives to vote on in order to challenge the current policies made by representatives. Being that it is in the constitution for states and local communities to have their own constitutions and charters, we do have freedom to shape our communities. If you don't like a community, you can live on your own, or participate as little as possible in community involvement. Self autonomy is simply self governing. And if you can't govern yourself, then you ought not have right to govern others, regardless of how long or short you're in an office to do so.
As it is, regardless of all this 'anacrhy conservatism', you still have your own community rules here, such as this:
"Please demonstrate a generous spirit in all comments. Comments deemed to violate a high standard of civility or which do not enhance discussion within the Imaginative Conservative community will not be published. Publishing of comments occurs after a brief delay while they await approval of the moderator."
How do you define a 'generous spirit'? What is the 'high standard of civility' and who makes that judgement on the standard, not to mention whether or not a comment 'enhances discussion'? The same old "who watches the watchmen" to which comes down regarding any form of government can also be applied here, in this Imaginative Conservative Community.
Obviously there is someone, or a group of someone's in charge here. Do they follow a monarchy, a democracy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy? If an anarchy, then how so, especially if any sort of governing system of policy is considered tyranny? People either agree or disagree to participate in the Imaginative Conservative community, so how could it be anarchic when it compromises individual liberty to give a certain amount of control to the moderator(s) of this community?
I'm trying to be generous, and feel this is a written comment and critique made in the spirit of honesty and generosity. People are entitled to their beliefs, and I can agree with some aspects of libertarian, but will not forsake a populist, constitutional democracy and be thrown in the chains of a monarchy because people have abused the system. Neither will I give up my Christian beliefs and become an atheist just because of church and laity abuses. This is the problem of anarchy in general - that all it seems to be about is giving up, and pretending to be independent while being enslaved by one's own selfishness.