Free The Animal

What a bizarre time—when the two issues at the forefront of current events are gay marriage and a film that focuses in on the story of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Well, religion and hypocrisy have never made for particularly strange bedfellows, and in the case of gay marriage, this is no exception. Ask yourself: if the State were now proposing laws to limit marriage in ways that would affect traditional couples, would religious activists not be screaming invocations of the Constitution (“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…”)? In fact, you can’t get more fundamental, more basic, more to the essence of religion than the institution of marriage. As such, the State has no business whatever meddling with it, and the religionists of this country should not be so damned stupid (yes, damned stupid) as to have the State come in today and wield its power to fix their “problem” and not realize that tomorrow, that very same power will be used to fix someone else’s “problem” at their expense or pain. The issue of gay marriage is best left up to religious institutions. If some churches wish to recognize such unions, sanction them, and…

[Read more →]

I first saw that question posed by Billy Beck some years ago on Usenet, and have seen him pose it a few times since. I live in California, so there’s an election today. Just rounding the corner for the homestretch of my morning walk with Rotor, I happen upon my next-door neighbor, Brian. He’s on his way back from the elementary school the next block over where he had just cast his ballot. We exchange the standard set of pleasantries, and then he asks me if I’d voted yet. “Nope. Not going to.” “Oh yeah? How come?” “For one, it’s not worth my time. For another, I find it more than a bit pretentious that I should go and advocate a set of things I wish to be imposed upon others at the expense of others. I prefer to pay my own way.” “Hmm. Well, I don’t think you’re ever going to see that.” “Indeed. I’ll tell you this though. I might someday be persuaded to vote again if they ever put ‘none of the above’ as a choice on every office and issue.” “heh heh—I don’t think you’ll ever see that one either.” And then, after that whole exchange,…

[Read more →]

As an atheist, I often find it odd that two of my favorite “affirmations” are “God-dammit” and “Gee-Zus-Christ.” I guess it’s a sign of how deeply rooted and connected are some of our mythology. I had intended a post on something entirely different, but that will have to wait. I made the mistake of trying to catch up on reading some other blogs that I frequent, and something caught my eye. So, here I go: another post on religion. First, let me clarify what I mean by saying I’m an atheist. I abhor just about everything about the common, everyday “atheist activist” you hear about—whom I really see as “anti-value-ists.” These people have no values that I can detect. They are superficial at best, nihilists at worst. There can be no more malevolent way to spend one’s time than in lobbying against public displays of Nativity scenes, banning artistic displays of the Ten Commandments, or redacting the word “under God” from a national pledge (though I have deeper objections to The Pledge). By atheist, I simply mean that I reject all literal interpretations of all religions. I accept no religious explanation for our origin, and I leave it up to…

[Read more →]

Only a few days ago, when I signed up for inclusion on No Treason’s Metablog, I confessed to John T. Kennedy who runs the show over there: I’m a market anarchist, but my views and interests are varied. Worse, I wobble back-&-forth between a utilitarian (Friedman) and moral (Randian) basis for anarchy. Oh well. Then this from Greg Swann, and Billy Beck’s amen. These are two guys I’ve been reading for years, and my particular admiration of Beck is well established on this blog. I probably admire Swann just as much, only I’ve never established a private dialog with him. Now, for those unfamiliar with the background, both Swann and Beck are market anarchists, as is at least one of the economists (Friedman) writing in the article cited. The other economists, at minimum, advocate a tiny State. The implicit complaint being lodged by Swann and Beck (in my own view) is that these economists justify their anarchism (or “minarchism”), essentially, on doing the most good for the most people (maximum utility) and not on what they see as the underlying fact of man’s individual and unalienable right to his own life without any qualification. I have great sympathy for that…

[Read more →]

I left out some important context in my last post and so have added the following to the third paragraph: Now, for those unfamiliar with the background, both Swann and Beck are market anarchists, as is at least one of the economists (Friedman) writing in the article cited. The other economists, at minimum, advocate a tiny State. The implicit complaint being lodged by Swann and Beck (in my own view) is that these economists justify their anarchism (or “minarchism”), essentially, on doing the most good for the most people (maximum utility) and not on what they see as the underlying fact of man’s individual and unalienable right to his own life without any qualification. I have great sympathy for that complaint.

[Read more →]