What is Rational Dissent? - And What That Means to Me

I'm going to diverge from the comic-book plan again, and we're going to discuss some topics that any-old blog would discuss, but in yours truly's unique, radical, and probably either irritating or outright enraging fashion. Almost every blog on the 'Net discusses politics, and then mixes it by telling everyone how politics and religion are common bed-fellows. At one time, I would have said that I'm not politico, because I consider most people's views on politics downright imbecilic, and that would the definition of "politico," to me. To be more detailed, "Politico: A person with an opinion about politics that a lot of other people have, and nothing to say about politics that someone else hasn't repeatedly stated elsewhere."

Now, maybe being in agreement with other people isn't all so bad, although it's an uncommon experience on this side of the network, but to just say what everyone else says about that agreement, usually in some condemning and worthless fashion, is good for imbeciles, and not for thoughtful people - like me. Another interesting thought, "The unexamined life is not worth living, but it is a great deal like vagrancy, so don't quit your day job!" Proof positive would be what we know of the historical figure of Socrates himself, don't you think?

I guess the reality is that I am really incredibly politico, except that I'm just not bedfellows with any other politico. Probably my main political hero is Thomas Jefferson. I do on some level believe in the American ideal. I'm willing to even call myself a "patriot," when I know a scourge will appear. Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat among the Founding Fathers of the U.S. Constitution, and in his time, he was too radical for the Democrats, and I would argue that it remains the very same way today.

There are a couple of things that appeal to me about Jefferson, the first being what is generally referred to as "agrarian socialism," and the second being his late teachings on tyranny. What Thomas Jefferson envisioned was an entire world of small farm-collectives, that lived by and large on their own agriculture and by bartering with other small farm-collectives for other goods they needed. Not content to be scourged as much as I have been, I would argue that it might be possible to achieve something that Jefferson, living in the time he did, could never have envisioned, which to make a simple label for, might be "small technology decentralized socialism."

The first idea would be that technology be refined and minaturized to the point of being non-invasive. Invasive being defined as, "great tyrannies of black asphalt and filthy cars made by stockholder equity and the lowest-possible bidder." The second would be that this society with its integrated and non-invasive technology be run as small decentralized collectives that operate by the more widely known idea behind "social agrarianism."

The second idea that Jefferson stated is problematic because it's incredibly radical, and the simple reason is that people don't reject tyranny, they are obsessed with it. They fornicate with it repeatedly, and are doing so right at this moment. If people can control it, they do, and if they can't, they scourge it and nail it to a post, throw it off a high cliff, or perhaps feed it a toxic dose of hemlock essence. Jefferson believed in the U.S. Constitution, but what he saw was that as soon as there was an orderly government establishied in America, it began tyrannizing thhe American people, which was supposed to be antithetical to the American ideal.

So Jefferson remarked sadly at the end of his life, but also with a great deal of brutality, "Perhaps freedom can only be renewed, REPEATEDLY, [caps are mine] in the blood of revolution." In other words, someone will have to kill a bunch of people to try for freedom again, but it won't stop there. This is no Marxist Utopia, but a history of tyranny and bloody revolution that will never end. Period. That is how brilliant Thomas Jefferson actually was as a man, whether you are inclined to agree with these ideas of his, or whether you'd like to repeatedly scourge and poison anyone who mentions them.

So we move on to the point of dissent. Let me give two stories, and put up those hate-sites quick folks or your pay-offs may stop arriving: I was raised Catholic, and had a good Catholic education, and was actually quite devoted to religion as a little boy. As a teenager, I rebelled, which is natural for a teenagers, and I realize looking back that I despised Catholicism simply because it made for good talk. So, with two points in mind, I went back to the Catholic Church and lived as much of Catholic life as I could live. The first point, "It could be real." The second point, "It would at least help me to understand what I've made a lot of good talk about and rebelled against if I gave it a try."

So I lived as a single Catholic for a time, made frequent confessions, talked with a vocations director at the local Archdiocese, went to daily Mass when I could and punched my Sunday obligation. As an unusual young man, I experienced what this meant in a pretty unusual way, but what I saw is, "A great deal of this is not just mystico-religious, it is actually sense." After a little over two years, I made some considerations, did some of my introspection, and decided, as an adult this time, "I dissent. I cannot be a man who lives without dissenting from the Vatican." So I re-entered Catholic apostasy as a mature adult, and left the consideration of eternal perdition writhing in a black doom of flames and gnashing my teeth up to my nightmares, and still give it little thought outside of these terrors of the night.

I figured something out though from the experience and it was this, "If you have ideas that others don't have, make sure to say them the exact same way someone else has said them repeatedly elsewhere." In other words, name a group, and dissent is against the code. Thomas Jefferson figured that out when a Constitution intended to install rational order in a newly conceived country WITHOUT tyranny, installed tyrannical order instead almost immediately within his own short lifetime. For myself, I understood that if I was not one with doctrine, or at least didn't pretend to be, I was apostate, and that I might as well be an apostate Democrat or an apostate atheist as an apostate Catholic. There was no difference. Nothing ever was, anyway. And so it has been, ever since.

A second story: I had a friend, and at the time I was practicing Catholicism I had been talking to him infrequently. He was one of the strongest atheists I've known, of the type that feels that anything mystico-religious is utter nonsense. He asked me to see Mel Gibson's Passion movie, and I'll tell you, I think the movie went too far, but the impact of a very realistic visualization of what the Passion of Christ in the Bible describes was incredibly powerful. So, we both toddle off to the bathroom, and I want to tell him, flat out, "I disagree with you on so many things, but don't change your mind about the world because of a movie that was almost 50 minutes too long, and was powerful in part because it was so incredibly explicit. Figure it out yourself. People don't just have a right to be right about things, they actually have a right to be wrong." Or as "neo-conservative," economics professor from University of Chicago School of Economics rather unnoticeably stated, "People have a right to fail, as well as succeed." I don't know how you can call Milton Friedman, who was a more moral individual (whoops! mentioned morals! must be a neo-con!) than my hero Jefferson, and who was also what you might call a radical conservative. Me, I'm your whipping boy world. I guess I should stop playing the martyr.

However, control freaks in the world are inclined to disagree. I'm not an utter anarchist, but this world is ugly, and this world is not free, and the world should not be ugly or tyrannized. Further, imagine a benevolent creator, whether that is nonsense to you or not. Would such a being, even hypothetically, want a world of Isaac Asimovian-robototons? Wouldn't making a few mistakes and even disagreeing with him on a few points be sort of a requirement for benevolence? Wouldn't we cease being human if we didn't make a few mistakes and even disagree with him?

A theological argument for dissent. Only here on this side of the 'Net, and not on your side in my own belief. Period. It may not be true, but I am telling you exactly what I believe to be true, and no person in my life, in my "perception," has ever done that for me, once. Nothing ever was anyway. And so it has been, ever since.