Ritzon

I am an Abolitionist  ( abolitionist)

I am an Egalitarian

“The entanglements of bondage and liberty shaped the liberal imagination of freedom, fueled the emergence and expansion of capitalism, and spawned proprietorial conceptions of the self. This vexed genealogy of freedom plagued the great” Saidiya Hartman

The longstanding and intimate affiliation of liberty and bondage made it impossible to envision freedom independent of constraint or personhood and autonomy that was/is separate from the sanctity of property and proprietorial notions of the self. 

I believe that equality is more important than (and comes before) freedom (including intrinsic freedom)

I support the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in our society in order to increase the distribution of skills, capacities and productive endowments . I support my combined economic systems (which naturally acheive income equality) as the means to achieve this.

On lifestyle choices, I take no stand on the personal, social, or cultural preferences of individuals or groups except in ways that align with my political views in this blog. 

A person’s lifestyle is just an extension of their property rights. I assert simply that each and every lifestyle choice should not violate the Non-Aggression Principle.

I oppose the view that the number of adherents drawn to a cause, idea or program is what determines the strength of the struggle, rather than the qualitative value of the practice of struggle as an attack against the domination institutions and as a life reappropriation 

My partial, or at times rejection or my wariness of every institutionalization or formalization of decision making, and indeed of every conception of decision making as a moment separated from life and practice. 

This partial, or at times rejection or my wariness , as well, of the evangelistic method that strives to win over the masses. 

Such a method assumes that the theoretical exploration is at an end, that a person has the answer to which all are to adhere to and that therefore every method is acceptable for getting the message out even if that method contradicts what the people are saying. 

This leads a person to seek followers who accept their position rather than comrades and accomplices with which to carry on that person’s explorations. 

The practice instead of striving to carry out a person’s projects, as best a person can, in a way that is consistent with one’s ideas, dreams and desires, by extension attracting potential accomplices with whom to develop affinity relationships and to expand the revolt practice.

I am Anti Statist which can be seen throughout this blog. I am generally against centralized state power. At absolute minimum, I am against government bureaucracy especially inefficient government bureaucracy 

I am opposed to the state - as an enforcer of institutions, submission, and force. 

“Whoever lays his /her hand on me to govern me is a usurper and tyrant, and I declare him/her my enemy.” Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

I am neutral in the Culture Wars in ways that align with my political views like in this blog (and I echo Ryan Grim's view this post and this video titled "Ryan Grim: The Culture War Is Not A Proxy For Race, It’s A Proxy For Class"). Also see this which I sort of am supportive of

I believe that political freedom is sadly sustained by a deeper unfreedom, at least under Liberal Capitalism. I echo Vladimir Lenin's distinction that he made between formal and actual freedom, in that liberal society only contains formal freedom, which is “freedom of choice within the coordinates of the existing power relations", while it prohibits actual freedom, which is "the site of an intervention that undermines these very coordinates”

In these modern conditions of Liberal 2.0 censorship, we 'feel free' because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom

Karl Marx made a valuable point with his argument that the market economy, in a unique way combines political and personal freedom with social unfreedom: personal freedom (like freely selling oneself on the market) is the very form of my unfreedom

I reject the Marxist full derision of 'formal freedom', since it is necessary for critique. When we are formally free, only then can we become aware just how limited this freedom actually is. This type of thought plays into my views on Afro Pessimism, anti statism, Libertarianism, Marxism and related views

I am Anti Authoritarian. I have disdain for authoritarian authority (and some other forms of authority) and hierarchies

I fight against the will of the authoritative state apparatus majority. See this for more (I echo that Tweet)

I get triggered by Authoritarian Right ideologies

I fight for people not to assimilate into the authoritative state apparatus or authoritative right’s majority’s hive mind

However the anti authoritarian movement is so over the top and goes too far at times, it makes anti authoritarianism seem like reverse fascism to me. Freedom of assembly isn’t infinite

In some ways I feel (from a far left Tankie perspective) that anti authoritarianism is fascist (or at least the type directed at the USSR, China in the last half century, and similar Tankie countries)

I also believe that equality (equality is my guiding light and equality is more important than liberty, equality comes before liberty),  justice (based on the enlightenment egalitarianism) and solidarity (based on a fusion of pathological altruism with effective altruism and Golden rule solidarity) should be added as human rights. So I defend human rights

Just go be clear, I am not anyone’s ally . I can be your comrade, but I will never claim to be your ally. I’m in this for my own material gains, which just so happen to coalesce with those of 99 percent of Americans. I am Marxian and I am not a Liberal 2.0er.

In *reality I don’t really care about human rights since human rights are a *bourgeois concept that at times are used to defend the right (*see here)

Personally and legality wise, I am morally apolitically progressive on human rights (as noted below in my Mark Twain moral evolution quote and this meme) . We are all born with natural rights

I support grass-roots empowerment and e-democracy, and direct democracy. The more hands on Americans are with politics, the more this idea from Mark Twain can be realized:  

“Moral evolution can happen many times apart of the government/state and relations between people can emerge with freedom from the government/state. Most relationships in life should not be characterized as conflict as the left and right might have it. It's good to have mutual and humane respect for others as individuals.   It's also good to do positive and unselfish things without having to grapple with the political ramifications of doing those positive things.  “

It's a known concept that society moves generally left and more accepting over time as people realize other groups are also... Just people.

Human rights/God-given rights/natural rights are an intellectually vacuous concept, and borderline religious in presentation in spite of rights being championed by the in theory but not in practice secular liberal tradition. 

What we refer to as 'rights' are just highly valued and legally privileged liberties doled out by the state. Anything could become a right, or lose its status as a right, if the collective nation or an adequate authoritarian government so desires it. It's not that I believe that these 'rights' shouldn't be valued, its just that I am opposed to the concept that such rights exist outside of the state and civilization.

Human rights can be seen as per Karl Marx in a negative light “the rights of egoistic man, of man as a member of bourgeois society, that is to say an individual separated from his community and solely concerned with his self-interest”

These alleged universal rights of the abstract individual would in reality promote the interests of one particular social type; the possessive individual of capitalism. 

Not only due to the context in which these rights emerged, but also in their very form, these rights would be linked to bourgeois ideology – the ideology which the Communist Manifesto described as having drowned all emotion “in the icy water of egotistical calculation” and having ripped apart all feudal ties, leaving behind “no other nexus between people than naked self-interest”

In some ways, human rights could be seen assumed to translate the ethos of “social atomism” – an ethos which is which is blind to the class divisions that are its very social conditions for existence. 

However this article shows that Marxism finds a way to rightfully support human rights while acknowledging the early Karl Marx way of thinking on these matters

I support equality but being OCD about having everyone and their dog be 110 percent equalequitable rubs me the wrong way

“Equality isn't possible because it's not built into nature. Every form of equality we enforce is man-made, therefore every attempt is a failure to force nature to be unnatural. Our 'theories' are damaging us and we should return to celebrated individualism.”

“ Equality doesn't exist in nature and therefore can be established only by force. He who wants geographic equality has to dynamite mountains and fill up the valleys.” See here for more

Authority may (and may not) make all people equally rich in purse; it certainly will make them equally poor in all that makes life best worth living". Keep in mind I incorporate egalitarianism into my views but Tucker’s view above does factor into my views

On ethical issues, my views tend to be left or lean left, with socialist roots even the radical component. I respect politicians freedom of conscience

However to quote Vladimir Lenin “ Democracy is a form of the state, it represents, on the one hand, the organized, systematic use of force against persons; but, on the other hand, it signifies the formal recognition of equality of citizens, the equal right of all to determine the structure of, and to administer, the state.”. and expand or go beyond that line of thinking

I see Progressive originalism as Ketanji Brown Jackson mentioned according to this article , as positive in some ways. Progressive originalism means that the Fourth Political theory and Common good constitutionalism can adopt certain progressive ideas due to Progressive originalism giving them an. excuse to do so. This means that progressivism has a timeless value to it, which a positive attribute to have 

The a-temporal structure of principles and values is one of the core tenants of the Fourth Political theory  and Common good constitutionalism similarly upholds timeless values written ‘on the hearts of men/women’.

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Progressive originalism may further be good by putting us on a collision course with the correct knowledge that many of the US’s founding fathers themselves were favorable to abolitionism, with some of our founding fathers being actual abolitionists themselves. 

That would prove to them the US’s Founders were not racists.

I am against deprivation. Ignoring deprivation is morally objectionable. Is is fine NOT to identify any particular solution for deprivation as morally required or permitted since that’s a separate question. It is fine to defend a wide range of responses to said deprivation consistent with justice/prudence (as long as those responses are effective)

I am against subordination and I support using force against physical, economical and psychological threats (within reason). Once we get rid of subordination, all our issues as a society will be fixed

A case can be made that having too much freedom is not a good thing .There must be a limit to freedom somewhere.

I support the inalienable right of self preservation of Americans against punitive and unsanctioned control

Some right side talk here