INDE-POL

FIND THESE ESSAYS BELOW

Libertarians Be Damned – The libertarian has freed society to indulge in whatever it likes. Taboos are gone. Exhibitionism rules. Morals are thought old hat. But what has all this done to living? Do libertarians know what fun or happiness really is?

Dark Times – Modern life is thought to be the apex of social evolution, but is this the case, or do we stew in a conflicting sea of individuality? Even more worrying, what will our society leave behind for future societies to remember us by? Maybe nothing.

I Gotta Right – The new, rights-based culture is said to be of benefit to everyone, but what is the true reality of absolute rights? Is it a good idea, or do the liberals who devised it have no idea about how society really works?

WANT MORE?

You can find more essays on politics and society on the Eye Blog, North’s Review, Eye On the World and Beyond the Blog. See Links on Home page.

———————————————————————————

LIBERTARIANS BE DAMNED

Anthony North

Libertarians just don’t know how to have fun. They should know. After all, being a libertarian is all about freeing oneself in order to indulge in happiness. That’s why all the taboos have been taken away; why moral codes are shunned; why life has become an amoral free for all. But libertarians just don’t know how to have fun.
Let’s look at the evidence. In their relentless assault on old values, they have placed political correctness as the new amoral arbiter. What is allowed is what passes its test of the inane. Hence, harmless jokes are seen as offensive, and harmless fun is decreed bad as it could lead to injury or lack of self worth in those who do not thrive.
Once upon a time, those who didn’t seem to thrive found their niche in life, regardless. Now, they are allowed to stew and feel their self worth is taken away. Often, it was the unfairness of life that forced people to thrive. Now, they don’t have to. They just stew and cry ‘victim’. So much for the libertarian being about happiness.
Liberty, you see, is boring. When Eve got the apple, she realised the most important thing about having fun. It is always better behind closed doors. Libertarians shun such an idea. Fun should be in your face, regardless of what people think, because they have the right to do as they please. Hence, exhibitionism becomes the order of happiness. Sexuality is on open display, with nothing left to the imagination. Yet the vital element of sex appeal is the hint of what is under that dress. It creates expectation – a thing a libertarian would no longer understand.
This element of being behind a closed door, or the enticement of sexuality covered up, was an essential element of what allowed life to be exciting. For true fun does not come from a particular act. The fun comes from the sense of secret rebellion in doing the act. And to allow it to be a rebellion, it has to be something that is seen as wrong. And that can only occur with a social sense of morality.
This is the beauty of the taboo. We all know we shouldn’t, but we always did; and 19th century Victorian London had more morals than any other city, and also more brothels than anywhere else in the world.
The libertarians have destroyed the beauty – the fun – of living. For living is to secretly rebel against morality and taboo. Take that taboo away, and we’re free only to be endlessly liberal without the buzz. And without the buzz, life becomes banal. And the only thing we have to rebel against is life itself.

© Anthony North, October 2004

———————————————————————

DARK TIMES

Anthony North

We like to think we live at the apex of social evolution. Today, we have supposed freedoms to be who we want to be, living in a liberal society that glories the individual and human rights above all else. Yet, every society that has ever been has applauded itself as the apex of advancement; and universal human rights and individuality have a habit of encroaching on other’s human rights and individuality. Is our freedom really here, or do we live in a state of anarchy where individualism is simply an excuse to ruin things for others?
These are important considerations. For rather than suggesting we live in a free society, we really exist in the worst possible of worlds. Our present society lacks order. But if a proper society needs anything, it is orderliness. Such order used to be used to support the strong. It would be the apex of social living to provide an order to support the weak.
Liberals would say this is precisely what they have done, putting down majority views in favour of minorities. But is this really so? Consider gay rights. The in-your-face gays are clearly liberated today, pouring scorn on the majority and seeming to get away with anything. So what happens? The majority of gays, who attempt to live normal lives without crass statements could well be finding themselves vilified by the majority because the majority’s anger cannot be vented against the stronger gays. Hence, gay rights have liberated the strong, but might have made things far worse for the weaker gays. Indeed, they can’t win, being lambasted by the strong gays for being weak.
This is not liberation, but a licence for anarchy in the hands of those who wish to make a statement. It is a stitch-up designed only for the sensational, for the fanatical. And the only way to protect against such fanaticism is to have a co-ordinated society with a definite majority ethos, which allows minorities to thrive under its flag. It is the challenge of society to make such a world free for gays and any other minority which demands the right to live as they like. We can, however, only live how we like under a system of consent, and realisation of duties to others, whatever their persuasion. Liberals thus become a contradiction. Their liberalism is really imprisonment for all but the strong.
The society this liberal contradiction has produced is not a society at all. It is simply a melting pot of individuals, bent on their own self-interest, and ripping down all elements of an over-culture which they see as repressive. In truth, it is not repressive at all; it was simply an attempt to keep conflicting interests in perspective. But how will this ‘free’ society the liberal created be remembered?
We remember past ages by their art, splendour and permanence. But where is our art? It has been wiped out by a new form of conceptual art, where a dirty bed or pile of bricks, and an animal split in half, can be seen as ‘art’.
 Where is our splendour? It is vilified, liberal ideals centreing rather on the bad elements on life, such as rampant abuse, offering excuses to the criminal or censuring anyone with optimism as a deluded fool. Where is our permanence? It is decimated in a sea of individuality, where history is the history of a person, where permanent exhibitions of a culture are seen as repressive authoritarianism.
We remember past ages by their philosophy. But where is our philosophy? It is shunned as unnecessary intellectualism. How can we have people more bright than others in a culture of human rights? Hence, philosophy is disallowed in a sea of personal opinion, each as valid whether backed up by knowledge or not. Rather than philosophy, dumbing down is the ethos, with nobody more intelligent than anyone else. And in such a sea of ignorance, we cannot be allowed to be brighter than the thickest.
We remember past ages, but will anyone remember ours? Will anything of this society be left for our descendants to understand? Our art is temporary, our view of history is temporary, our society is faddish, with nothing lasting for long. So how much of this will be remembered by our descendants?
In actual fact, we will be remembered as a chilling time indeed. Our present history books record such a time that seemed to leave nothing for our descendants to remember. It was that period from the fall of Rome to the advent of the Middle Ages. And we called it a Dark Age.

© Anthony North, July 2004

————————————————————————

I GOTTA RIGHT
 
Anthony North
 
We’ve all got rights. And very good, too. We have the right to life, to liberty, to freedom of speech, of association, of religion. We also have the right to own property …
Property? Hold on. Some say property is theft. And it’s relevant today, because in a rights-based, super-liberal, goody-goody society, everyone should be equal. So if someone owns more property than another, isn’t that theft against the other?
Of course, I don’t believe that for one minute. But if we’re going to have a rights-based, super-liberal, goody-goody society, let’s be consistent, rather than hypocritical. And how far should those rights go? How about everyone having the right to be Prime Minister? Now that would be fun, wouldn’t it?
For some, though, not much is fun. Take the rights of the disabled, and the difficulty they have getting around. The rights-based, super-liberal, goody-goody society do, of course, say every disabled person should be able to travel as easily as the able-bodied. But how practical is such a proposal?
Take, for instance, a small, rural bus, subsidised by the local council, and barely making a profit. If such a bus had to be disabled-friendly, the bus service would most likely go under, and yes, that would mean the disabled had the same rights as the rest. Basically, none of them would be travelling at all. But maybe, in understanding this, we can understand what the rights-based, super-liberal, goody-goody society really is.
As in so many situations like the above, the imposition of rights for a minority destroys the convenience of the majority. Now, whilst I am all for minority rights, such rights must always be weighed against what damage they would do to a majority. But in a rights-based, super-liberal, goody-goody society, a majority is not even identified as existing. Hence, we are all minorities and stuff the rest.
Rather than being rights-based, super-liberal or goody­goody, such a society is actually a form of anarchy. And this is so because the rights-infatuated, super-liberal, do-gooder doesn’t actually have the faintest clue how society works. Usually brought up in a comfortable middleclass home by doting parents who pamper their every whim, they grow up with a fairy-tale view of society, in which good always conquers over bad. But in reality it don’t work like that.
Life is a bitch, with the law and how people live being two completely different things. The day middleclass liberals realise this, and accept they live in an unreality, they will stop messing society about and let real people try to sort out our problems properly.
 
(c) Anthony North, March 2004

——————————————————————–

Find more essays in this category on the Eye Blog and North’s Review.