For A New Tolerance
Some things in life are just disturbing. For instance, did you ever notice that although you can agree with people on a given issue, when you actually come together with them you also discover that many of them are downright frightening? This probably first struck me back in about 1992 when I was still a political activist, but it struck me again after visiting the website of the Middlebury Institute.
In a nutshell, the Institute is an intellectual gathering point for people who advocate the peaceful secession of their states or regions from the Empire of the Imperial Federal Government. All things being equal, I would prefer to deal with a local tyrant rather than a national one, and I do think that an honest review of American history in general (not to mention Constitutional history) shows that the founders of this nation understood that secession was a natural right. Granted, the cult of Lincoln has worked hard to pretend that none of this is true (just as Lincoln was happy to kill anyone who disagreed with his interpretation), but I invite you to actually look at the source documents yourself (and if you want a quick summary, get yourself a copy of Thomas DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln).
But my sympathy for and support of the right of states to secede from the union in no way prepared me for actually listening to the ideological underpinnings of the secessionists. What a colorful collection of interesting people! One little video laid out the following points of view:
And I'm listening to this thinking to myself "What a bunch of loonies!"
However, upon further reflection, it struck me that they had, in a way, hit on the true meaning of tolerance. Unlike the commonly understood meaning of the word (i.e. "tolerance" = letting people do whatever they want at public expense and sentencing critics to diversity or sensitivity training), these guys -- nuts though they may be -- get it. Tolerance actually means respecting each other's space. As Mr. Garrison pointed out on an episode of South Park, if you tolerate something "it can still piss you off", you just grit your teeth and bear it.
With that thought in mind, I must confess that a north American continent consisting of 50 independent states (or however many confederacies, unions or collectives things eventually shook out into) might not be such a bad thing -- as long as the individual entities respected the rights of the other ones, and people were free to move between them. Of course, this assumption is predicated on the hope that trade would continue between each group -- we'd just choose to live with people who were more or less on the same page as we are (which means, for instance, that I won't be going anywhere close to South Carolina should the "paleo-conservative Christians" get their way).
Do I really think this will ever happen? Nope. Not in a million years. Unlike my friend Neal, I have absolute faith that the Imperial Federal Government would in fact roll in tanks and physically occupy any state or group of states that attempted to succeed. The folks in Washington DC aren't pikers: they're out to maintain and expand their power, and will use whatever means are necessary to "preserve the Union" (gee ... haven't we seen this already as a matter of fact?).
But, in the true spirit of guerilla libertarianism (and as a professional linguist with an axe to grind), I think we need to take back the word "tolerance". We need to show, through our actions, that we can disagree with someone (intensely, in many cases) but respect their right to be an idiot as long as they are willing to grant the same right to us. No nonsense about "mutual respect" -- just tolerance of the other person's right to be an ignorant fool.
Before we can even begin a meaningful political discussion of many important issues, we first have to stop giving in to the compassion fascists and language Nazis and sensitivity trainers. We need to establish again that tolerance means neither approval, nor any willingness to subsidize another's silliness. It just means that we all agree that First Amendment is a good thing, but it doesn't protect you from being offended.
That would be a step - albeit a small one - on the road to making 1000 flowers bloom.
In a nutshell, the Institute is an intellectual gathering point for people who advocate the peaceful secession of their states or regions from the Empire of the Imperial Federal Government. All things being equal, I would prefer to deal with a local tyrant rather than a national one, and I do think that an honest review of American history in general (not to mention Constitutional history) shows that the founders of this nation understood that secession was a natural right. Granted, the cult of Lincoln has worked hard to pretend that none of this is true (just as Lincoln was happy to kill anyone who disagreed with his interpretation), but I invite you to actually look at the source documents yourself (and if you want a quick summary, get yourself a copy of Thomas DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln).
But my sympathy for and support of the right of states to secede from the union in no way prepared me for actually listening to the ideological underpinnings of the secessionists. What a colorful collection of interesting people! One little video laid out the following points of view:
- There's a bunch of christo-fascist wingnuts who want to make South Carolina into a place where "paleo-conservatives" can do their thing (which probably means they would institute an Iranian or Saudi form of government -- the only difference being that Jesus would get the credit for their 14th-century worldview rather than Mohammed)
- There's the League of the South, who according to their website aren't a "Christian organization" but nonetheless "...recognise (sic) the legacy of Christianity and the universal sovereignty of the triune God. Most League members are Christians, and we base our movement on Christian principles. Trinitarian Christianity can not be separated or removed from Southern society or culture without both ceasing to be Southern."
- A couple of guys who, respectively, claim that Hawaii and Alaska aren't really states (guess they were kidnapped or something??)
- Several more people who sound a lot like tree-hugging moonbats -- going on about creating a "sustainable economic future" or "direct democracy" or "social justice" or some other such commie-sounding collectivist ramblings
And I'm listening to this thinking to myself "What a bunch of loonies!"
However, upon further reflection, it struck me that they had, in a way, hit on the true meaning of tolerance. Unlike the commonly understood meaning of the word (i.e. "tolerance" = letting people do whatever they want at public expense and sentencing critics to diversity or sensitivity training), these guys -- nuts though they may be -- get it. Tolerance actually means respecting each other's space. As Mr. Garrison pointed out on an episode of South Park, if you tolerate something "it can still piss you off", you just grit your teeth and bear it.
With that thought in mind, I must confess that a north American continent consisting of 50 independent states (or however many confederacies, unions or collectives things eventually shook out into) might not be such a bad thing -- as long as the individual entities respected the rights of the other ones, and people were free to move between them. Of course, this assumption is predicated on the hope that trade would continue between each group -- we'd just choose to live with people who were more or less on the same page as we are (which means, for instance, that I won't be going anywhere close to South Carolina should the "paleo-conservative Christians" get their way).
Do I really think this will ever happen? Nope. Not in a million years. Unlike my friend Neal, I have absolute faith that the Imperial Federal Government would in fact roll in tanks and physically occupy any state or group of states that attempted to succeed. The folks in Washington DC aren't pikers: they're out to maintain and expand their power, and will use whatever means are necessary to "preserve the Union" (gee ... haven't we seen this already as a matter of fact?).
But, in the true spirit of guerilla libertarianism (and as a professional linguist with an axe to grind), I think we need to take back the word "tolerance". We need to show, through our actions, that we can disagree with someone (intensely, in many cases) but respect their right to be an idiot as long as they are willing to grant the same right to us. No nonsense about "mutual respect" -- just tolerance of the other person's right to be an ignorant fool.
Before we can even begin a meaningful political discussion of many important issues, we first have to stop giving in to the compassion fascists and language Nazis and sensitivity trainers. We need to establish again that tolerance means neither approval, nor any willingness to subsidize another's silliness. It just means that we all agree that First Amendment is a good thing, but it doesn't protect you from being offended.
That would be a step - albeit a small one - on the road to making 1000 flowers bloom.
posted by DrJDG @ 23:27
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home