Hey perverts…welcome to my blog.  The time is currently 1:15AM.

Lori, Laurie, Douglas, Pictures, Photos, Download, Nude, Bondage, Naked, Toys, Oral

Really, get a life.

Since I posted that bit about 9/11 conspiracies being a lot of hooey and here say, my in box stopped beepin’ n’ boopin’ at me with very much regularity.  I mean shucks, as far as blog traffic goes, this ain’t no grand central station.  I do however get a gem from time to time that starts an interesting exchange or just incites a chuckle from yours truly but this one I thought was actually quite an interesting and earnest kind of e-mail and with the permission of the e-mailer, I’ve decided to post it here and my thoughts following.

Not that I would normally ask permission.  Whatever lands in my inbox is mine but yeah, I figured I would be polite on this one.  as follows, this email message from Barry.

Hi Zach.

I came across your blog on Google and started reading through some of your previous posts.  At first, I thought maybe you were a big C conservative but looking further, I think it’s pretty clear that you’re actually an anarchist or purist libertarian.

I’m wondering how your views are formed because they seem pretty unrealistic.  Anarchy is lawlessness and chaos.  That’s far from anything that could be described as a paradise.  Is Somalia really where we want to end up?

Firstly Barry, thanks for the e-mail.

What strikes me first off is that you mention Somalia and despite it having been described as an anarchic “state” of some sort, it’s actually anything but.  Somalia is run by warlords who exert coercive power and abuse those they lord over.  Anarchy is simply society without leaders.  While anarchy may include localized structures of law, the principles of anarchy generally preach that violence and coercion are antitheses to the notion of a working society devoid of coercive or centralized leadership.

A popular misconception of anarchy is that a lot of Molotov Cocktails are involved and that generally, anarchists want to simply run around causing damage to property because property is somehow evil.  Well, depending on what type of anarchist you talk to, property may actually be held in the highest regard and damaging what is not yours is generally looked down upon by most rational types anyhow.

This bring me to another point.  Anarchists are in fact so organized in principle that they even have a number of different sub-groups.  Not all anarchists are the same.  While I’m not sure exactly what label applies to me, (it’s probably a mix) I suppose anarcho-capitalist would be close.  I like the idea of commerce and the free flow of business but as well, I like the cooperative principles of anarcho-syndicalists.  As an anarcho-capitalist, I see value in businesses profiting and anarcho-syndicalists see value (as I do) in eliminating a top down management structure opting instead for consensus based management where all workers have an equal voice and vote.  I could get into this much more but suffice it to say, anarchy is not simply about casting aside the notion of organized society; rather, it’s generally about casting aside the notions of coercive central leadership and violent enforcement of laws.  Anarchy is the epitome of self reliance, responsibility to yourself and others, ethical living and freedom of the individual.

I might be one of the first to acknowledge that anarchy really isn’t realistic today.  On that count, you’re likely right but my ideals are not to simply convert society tomorrow.  It’s my hope that when these ideas are discussed and if people can be convinced that they are rational ideas, some day, an anarchic society may in fact be formed and if it were, I would seek to take up residence there as soon as I possibly could.  Canada could not be converted tomorrow to anarchy for instance.  It would be as foolish to think that as it would be to think that communist China could drop its bureaucracy in favour of a leaderless society.  No, the population at large first needs to understand anarchy, understand its value and then make a conscious social move toward it.  Anarchy is not a change that can be “instituted” in any way, it’s simply a social development that can’t be forced.  heck, if it were forced, it wouldn’t actually be anarchy.

How are these views formed?  Honestly, I think it’s just a natural progression for myself.  I bounced about from calling myself a conservative or a socialist…and I just wasn’t sure.  When I figured I was a small L libertarian, a discussion about the role of the state had be blurt out that “the fool” I was debating with “was just preaching rank anarchy!”  His response was that absolutely yes he was and he then reiterated his argument as to why.  For me, this was a real turning point.  I had constantly tried to figure out how to draw a line as a libertarian in regard to how big the state should be allowed to grow.  I was of the opinion that of course, the role should be minimal but I couldn’t get rid of the nagging thought that if the state is given any monopoly on power, even the power to make laws, then it could grow and grow until it became as large and overbearing as anything we have today.  I eventually saw that the problem was not the state itself but rather people like me who bought into the idea that indeed, we really do need a government.

I am firmly of the view that in fact we don’t need a government, we simply need to be an intellectually honest and ethical society.  Are we such a thing today?  No, I don’t think we’re even close but can we get there?  I think that if we survive as a species over the long term, it’s all but inevitable.

Thanks for the e-mail Barry.  I really enjoy getting this type of correspondence in my inbox and I do wish I got it more often.  For anyone else, you can always e-mail me via the address posted on my contact page.

RRRGH!  I keep getting this question asked at least daily in my e-mail ever since I posted those anti-cop posts I’m so fond of.  It seems that because I’m anti-government and have a certain intense distrust of police or other government agents, I must also think that 9/11 was an inside job.  Rather than a group of insane people using a religious motivation to justify their inhuman world view, because I don’t get along with cops, I must think that 9/11 was in fact an inside job so secret that it puts the Manhattan project to shame.

So let me post here for posterity, my thoughts on the matter.

No, I do not currently believe that 9/11 was an inside job but indeed, if factual and incontrovertible evidence came to light that revealed such to be the case, I would absolutely be willing to reform my view point on this matter.  It is my opinion that currently, none of you nut jobs actually have hard factual evidence.  Rather, you have a great number of questions that have been as yet, not addressed to your satisfaction.  Nor in some cases, my own satisfaction.

There are compelling reasons for investigation.  I do agree that building Seven in the World Trade Centre destruction event is something about which I would like more information.  The asymmetrical collapse of the two towers was an incredible coincidence of physics on their own; the addition of building seven to that physical improbability makes it even more compelling.  I should mention however that currently, I don’t find this to be anything more than something that piques my interest in regard to physics and probabilities.  To me, this is not damning evidence of a conspiracy.

In fact, so far as I see it, all the “truthers” out there who espouse this notion that 9/11 was an inside job have nothing more than a propensity for pointing at coincidences and calling those coincidences, evidence of a conspiracy.  I think that what truthers have, on the whole, is indeed cause for more and more in depth investigation.  I too for example would like to know more about what led to so many war games scheduled for that day and why American government bodies failed so miserably to protect the lives of their own and so many from abroad who were killed in those attacks.  I’d like to know more but I’m not here to pretend I know more than I do and I think that’s what truthers are best at.

To conclude this thought, let me explain why I don’t buy into compelling coincidences being cause to condemn a government.  I understand that people in power are capable of terrible things.  when I posted a quick review of the movie “Conspiracy” here, I made note that while it’s easy to see the Nazis who discussed logistical issues regarding the mass murder of Jews as heartless monsters and unimaginable phantoms of history, it is important to remember that in fact, these were human beings with their own lives who were just as capable as any human today of being contemptible and flatly evil.  I do not think that mass murder is beyond any one, really.

The problem with 9/11 conspiracy theories in that they rely on coincidence and a “connect the dots” type of attitude toward analyzing events.  Because coincidences of an incredible degree are observable in the world, I don’t think this is enough to make a solid case of any sort for the “truther” who advocates that 9/11 was an inside job.

Lets consider for a moment a widely reported coincidental pair of deaths…well one fictional and the other quite real.  Edgar Allen Poe wrote a book entitled The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket which included a plot about four survivors of a shipwreck who ended up eating the cabin boy who was named Richard Parker.  Not many years later, four survivors of a shipwreck ended up in an open boat (a lifeboat) and eventually ate the cabin boy to survive,  The cabin boy’s name was Richard Parker.  Now, this is an incredible coincidence but that’s all it is.  Using “truther” logic, it might be quite reasonable to say that Poe perhaps had something to do with the death or that he had inside knowledge of the events that were to transpire years after his writing of his book and that he had been trying to warn the world of Parker’s inevitable demise.

Coincidence can be compelling and indeed, a good reason to investigate but it’s not something that can make a rock solid case upon which to bash some one’s character…as if there wasn’t enough material already to do that with George W Bush.  So no, I’m not about to buy into the notion that 9/11 was an inside job but just as anyone else, I want answers to a lot of questions that conspiracy nuts do have.  But please, just because I’m anti-government and don’t get along with cops doesn’t mean I think 9/11 was an inside job.

You know…you have to wonder if you’ve failed as a blogger when all you get in your e-mail for a straight month are questions about 9/11.  I mean…can no one send me a fluffy puppy dog pic or something?

John has posted an excellent write up that serves to help us understand what a prairie liberal really is and why they likely are not at all a federal liberal party supporter.  Check it out here.

Yeah it’s true, twitter has finally sucked me in.  I have no one to follow at the moment and no one following me…so…I guess there’s not a lot of point at the moment but as evidence by the side bar, I’m really finally connected to other twits like me.

Really, it’s just because I wanted some kind of vent for a simple exclamation of anger, shock and horror after seeing some of that Psychic Kids show.

So yeah.  Follow me or something and I’ll follow you back.  I have no idea where we’ll end up but what an adventure we’ll have!  Honest!