I. A Personal Evolution of Change
Over the last several months, I have tried to become more of an observer regarding hotbed political discussion, rather than my usual role of opinionated blabbermouth. What I have noticed is a consistent hypocrisy across the entire political spectrum that says "I require tolerance for my lifestyle and my lifestyle only". Generally I like to think that this applies to the louder participants, but my experience is that it is fairly endemic to anyone that has any kind of strong opinion. What is most interesting is that these people are quite adept at spotting the hypocrisy in others, but quite blind to their own (I am sure there are plenty of hypocrisy skeletons in my own closet). The fact of the matter is, however, that the vast majority of people who talk about politics seem quite content to actively restrict the lifestyles of anyone who is not like them.
The hypocrisy of the right is pretty obvious within the circles I associate with, and there has been much spilled ink about theocracies, gay rights, women's rights, marijuana legalization, and the overall theme that non-fundamentalist Christians should not be forced to be held fundamentalist ideals through theocratic law making. Not as much is written about the hypocrisy of the left, but rest assured, it is there, and oftentimes it is present in the very same issues where the right is criticized. I first observed it among the atheist communities; whereas the hatred for religion is so strong that they would happily violate basic freedoms of the religious (probably surprising to hear given that I am atheist that hates religion).
It's not just religion, either. The gun control debate is a prime example of hypocrisy on the left. Just like hard liners on the right, the argument basically boils down to "if I don't understand it or don't like it, it should be illegal", and just like the right, the left is happy to resort to emotional appeals to try and justify criminalizing behavior that is not inherently immoral. Both sides feel somehow justified acting as arbiters for what is deemed acceptable culture, and both sides attempt to use legislative hammers to beat each other over the head into compliance.
I understand it. I was once one of them, first on the right, then somewhere not-quite-left. It's empowering to think that you have all of the answers, and if you could just force those other idiots to live and think the way you do, well, then wouldn't the world just be a better place? But they don't. And they never will. And frankly, I like it that way.
One thing I have learned on my journey is, that just because someone agrees with me, that does not mean that I will actually like them. I would much rather talk to someone that can intelligently, respectfully, and effectively disagree with me much more than I tend to like those that share the same views, but do not understand the views they have. What talking to people has taught me is, being an honest thinker is more important than what you actually think.
II. The Importance of Being Wrong
There is an important opportunity that is lost when our population is primarily focused on swinging those legislative hammers upon the heathens to their cause; by not actually understanding what the believe or what they oppose, they fail to see the inherent complexities that arise when you mix 300 million people from cultures that come from all over the world. By artificially assigning simplistic definitions and characteristics to these diverse groups, it becomes far easier to dismiss what you do not already believe in and dismiss them out of hand. The lost opportunity is two-fold; the opportunity to learn from those who disagree with you, and the opportunity to let everyone live their own lives and make their own mistakes. Which is why both the ideologies of the left and the right, (and really, any ideology that requires compliance from an opposing faction) are ideologies of tyranny, because they attempt to demonize and criminalize behaviors that they do not agree with.
Even if a particular view or ideology could be shown to be universally better than others, I do not think it makes for good legislative policy. Even if you could effectively protect people from ever making their own bad decisions, you rob them of the ability to learn from them, and potentially become better, wiser, smarter people. Even worse, by criminalizing non-immoral behavior, you only ensure that people suffer perpetually for their bad decisions, rather than letting them profit from them. Even outside of legislative action, just culturally stigmatizing behaviors has a chilling effect on allowing people to discuss them openly, and thus, keeps all of us from learning the lessons that can be obtained by them.
This is where the hypocrisy is equal across the entire right-left political structure; that whatever you are against should be legislated against. Let's take marriage for example. It's no secret that many conservatives support actions like DOMA that effectively codify into law only monogamous heterosexual unions as federally recognized marriages (even though most Democratic congresspersons voted in favor of it at the time, and was signed into law by a Democratic president), while the recent movement to allow for gay marriage is largely one driven from the democratic left. Here the supporters of gay marriage get to proclaim about how tolerant they are, but in reality, while they are slightly more tolerant, the hypocrisy still exists in that both the left and right believe that a centralized state authority still should be able to define what marriage is and what marriage isn't, and then confer rights and benefits around that definition. We, as citizens, are then corralled into fitting into that pre-defined template of marriage in order to retain those benefits.
This is where the tyranny comes into play. I, as an able bodied and sound minded person, should be the person who decides what kind of family arrangement is appropriate for me, and as such, I should be the one making the choice about who should receive what benefits based on my relationship with said person(s), however, the tyranny of the current system dictates those rights and benefits for me, based on how I fit into their definition of "married". While widening the definition to be more inclusive is indeed an improvement (and the definition has widened considerably since the origin of marriage licenses were to primarily prevent race-mixing), it is still a feeble attempt to adjust to the growing public acceptance of homosexuality while completely brushing off the idea that government should have no authority to determine these things in the first place.
And thus, comes the point. Live your own damn life, and let me live mine. Let me decide if I want to be abstinent or promiscuous. Let me decide if drugs will enhance my life or not. Let me decide what the terms of my relationships will be, whether they be monogamous or non-monogamous, hetero- or homosexual, or somewhere in between. Let me decide who my next of kin should be. Let me decide if I want to be in a religion, whereas I can then follow that religion's teachings, or to not be in one, and not have to follow in any teachings at all. Let me decide if I should possess firearms or not. Let me make my own decisions, whether they are good or bad, because I will get the opportunity to learn from them. And then let's talk about them. I do not aim to be a social isolationist libertarian, where we all do what we want and forget about what anyone else thinks. I would rather be a socially inclusive libertarian, where we do what we want, but let's encourage a rich, vibrant social discourse so that we can all learn from each other, and be satisfied that people are different, and are free to live the lives they want. Just put down the legislative hammers and and forget trying to define marriage, sexuality, what drugs are acceptable and which are not, what guns are acceptable and which are not, and let the citizens figure that out for themselves.
This is where the hypocrisy is equal across the entire right-left political structure; that whatever you are against should be legislated against. Let's take marriage for example. It's no secret that many conservatives support actions like DOMA that effectively codify into law only monogamous heterosexual unions as federally recognized marriages (even though most Democratic congresspersons voted in favor of it at the time, and was signed into law by a Democratic president), while the recent movement to allow for gay marriage is largely one driven from the democratic left. Here the supporters of gay marriage get to proclaim about how tolerant they are, but in reality, while they are slightly more tolerant, the hypocrisy still exists in that both the left and right believe that a centralized state authority still should be able to define what marriage is and what marriage isn't, and then confer rights and benefits around that definition. We, as citizens, are then corralled into fitting into that pre-defined template of marriage in order to retain those benefits.
This is where the tyranny comes into play. I, as an able bodied and sound minded person, should be the person who decides what kind of family arrangement is appropriate for me, and as such, I should be the one making the choice about who should receive what benefits based on my relationship with said person(s), however, the tyranny of the current system dictates those rights and benefits for me, based on how I fit into their definition of "married". While widening the definition to be more inclusive is indeed an improvement (and the definition has widened considerably since the origin of marriage licenses were to primarily prevent race-mixing), it is still a feeble attempt to adjust to the growing public acceptance of homosexuality while completely brushing off the idea that government should have no authority to determine these things in the first place.
And thus, comes the point. Live your own damn life, and let me live mine. Let me decide if I want to be abstinent or promiscuous. Let me decide if drugs will enhance my life or not. Let me decide what the terms of my relationships will be, whether they be monogamous or non-monogamous, hetero- or homosexual, or somewhere in between. Let me decide who my next of kin should be. Let me decide if I want to be in a religion, whereas I can then follow that religion's teachings, or to not be in one, and not have to follow in any teachings at all. Let me decide if I should possess firearms or not. Let me make my own decisions, whether they are good or bad, because I will get the opportunity to learn from them. And then let's talk about them. I do not aim to be a social isolationist libertarian, where we all do what we want and forget about what anyone else thinks. I would rather be a socially inclusive libertarian, where we do what we want, but let's encourage a rich, vibrant social discourse so that we can all learn from each other, and be satisfied that people are different, and are free to live the lives they want. Just put down the legislative hammers and and forget trying to define marriage, sexuality, what drugs are acceptable and which are not, what guns are acceptable and which are not, and let the citizens figure that out for themselves.
III. Let Me Live So That I Can Learn To Live
"Learning to live" seems to be a consistent theme of this blog, and today's entry is no different. Today is special however, as Patty and I are officially casting off one of the last vestiges of our old life, and truly embracing the spirit of living the life we want to live: we are replacing our wedding rings with tattoos. While this decision has little bearing on our every day life, and one that has no legal or religious effect on our marital status, it is something we decided needed to happen. We have come to the realization that it is better to be together because we want to be, not because we need to be, and our marriage exists because we desire it to exist only as two consenting adults who care about each other. Our marriage is what we want it to be today, and if we want it to be something different tomorrow, then we will change it. There is no social, religious, or governmental affiliation or expectation that can any longer have any affect on us; this is truly our journey to do as we please.
As for why we are ditching the rings, well, honestly, they have become distasteful to me. When Patty and I were in pre-marital counseling, the priest told us that the rings were a symbol of slavery, and that wearing them meant we were slaves to each other. I no longer feel that slavery is a good way to manage a relationship. I don't desire to be Patty's slave, and I don't desire for her to be mine. What I want is to be a strong, independent, caring person who happens to share my experiences with an equally strong, independent, caring person. The tattoos represent our commitment to each other, that we are important parts of each others lives, but we are not slaves. Even if our marriage ended tomorrow, we recognize that we have been so integral to each other's well-being. Years ago, we cast off the chains of slavery to religion, now it is time to cast off the chains of slavery to each other.
We no longer need religion to define morality, and we no longer need government to define marriage. We define these things for ourselves, and we are happy to do it.
We no longer need religion to define morality, and we no longer need government to define marriage. We define these things for ourselves, and we are happy to do it.
