ism, schmism

I know it's important to have a clear sense of what I believe, but I don't believe exactly what anyone else believes. And neither do you.

I wrote about this once before, and the money line was: "All this talk about liberalism and conservatism and libertarianism and statists and individualists and anarchism and agorists and Randism and Rothbardists and Istism is kind of interesting - but in the end we are 6 billion people who view life 6 billion different ways."

Each of us is exposed to the various "isms" in different ways and by different paths, and we adapt what aspects of each ism are comfortable to us. No one is a "pure" anything-ist, and maintaining a foolish consistency within a supposedly one-size-fits-all philosophy seems a bit hobgobliny to me.

If we are to celebrate the individual and abhor the state, we must be prepared to accept an infinite variety of individuals. It may be helpful shorthand to say "I am a Randian" or "I am a conservative on fiscal issues and a liberal on social issues," but such labels do not substitute for understanding that particular individual's stance on anything in particular. If you are comfortable in the company of people who call themselves anarcho-capitalists, fine - just don't expect unanimity among the group on any single subject.

Don't be surprised or hurt or even offended if one of these anarcho-capitalists says or does something that strikes you as especially not an anarcho-capitalist thing to do or say - because that person's anarcho-capitalism is not yours. Each of us comes to the table with a different set of experiences, exposure to a different set of individuals from the billions who have lived, and each of us is comfortable with a different set of beliefs. We are snowflakes, not stamped and pressed machines.

I am more comfortable with the opposing labels individualist and statist rather than liberal and conservative - but that doesn't mean I'm right or wrong. Those labels just help me best understand the interplay that I observe daily, and I try to be constantly aware that I may encounter some amazingly statist behavior in an individual, and some astonishingly individual behavior in a statist.

Yes, this is a response to recent conversations here and there about whether anti-statists should vote and, specifically, whether to vote for Ron Paul. I'm among those who have lost faith in the system of voting and don't expect that I will trudge to the polls like a good little slave - and Paul is the only name I can imagine putting a mark next to - but why waste energy being dismayed by those who do make that trudge? At the very least it will be a measurement of how laissez-faire our society is willing to be - not the be-all and end-all measurement, mind you, just a measurement.

I could probably help people understand me better by declaring myself a member of the Alliance for the Libertarian Left, or a Rothbardian or a Congerian or a Maravillosite or some such, but the truth is always that my philosophy is an amalgamation and sifting of all the thought I have been exposed to, and I agree with much of some and disagree with much of others, and agree and disagree with some of all of them.

To me, it's enough to say "I'm B.W." and let you figure it all out from there. Even to say I'm an anarcho-capitalist puts me in company with SOME stuff I don't necessarily embrace - just as your saying "I agree with B.W." tends to commit you to a whole lot of stuff that may drive you crazy. Such labels are another way of putting us into cubbyholes and groups - and lumping people together philosophically, spiritually and politically is what got us into this mess to begin with.