Home » Liberty’s Friend » Way outside the box

Way outside the box

by Larken Rose

Let’s have a discussion about how far one has to sail out into the ocean before he falls off the edge of the earth. Is it 50 miles? Maybe 150? Or is it more? Wouldn’t that make for an informative, intellectually stimulating debate? Well, no. It would be a stupid waste of time. Why? Because (brace yourself if you haven’t heard this yet) the earth is spherical (more or less); it doesn’t have an edge. So discussing how far away the edge is would be pointless. A discussion based entirely upon a false premise isn’t likely to enlighten anyone. Notice that I describe this list as “anti-political.” If you’re expecting me to endorse a party, encourage voting in some particular way, or advocating some sort of legal reform, don’t hold your breath. Instead, on this list I will do something you will NEVER hear in any “normal” political debate: I will look at some of the underlying premises upon which ALL so-called “political” discussion is based. Be warned: I will get around to goring the political ox of almost everyone on this list, and people don’t like that. (I know I didn’t, back when I had a political ox to be gored. Thankfully, my ox has since died the death it so richly deserved.) I will dissect things we’ve all taken as self-evident, and address topics that proper, obedient peasants don’t like to think about. Unlike the 861 issue, however, the discussion here will not be so much about facts and evidence as it is about consistent, non- contradictory thinking. Put another way, I intend to expose the inherent contradictions which ALL mainstream political beliefs have. As an analogy, suppose that someone said to you, “I know the earth is spherical, but the edge is 200 miles off the coast of Florida.” The problem is not merely that he has his facts wrong (though he does); it’s that his own beliefs contradict THEMSELVES. As you’ll see, almost all so-called political philosophy does the same. Most political debate consists of two people flinging superficial assertions and beliefs at each other. “Your guy is a poopoohead!” “Oh yeah? Well your guy is a liar!” “Your guy wants the poor to starve!” “Well your guy would tax the economy to death!” The discussion never accomplishes much (or anything) and never gets anywhere near anything of real substance. That won’t be true of this list. Just for fun, I’ll start the next message by taking a swing at Republicans (since some people seem to have gotten the impression that I am one). But beware: people are so accustomed to thinking in terms of a two-sided political spectrum that if you bash “Team A,” they automatically think you support “Team B.” (Then there is the lukewarm “middle ground,” which has acquired the label “moderate,” which pretends to be an alternative to the two “sides.”) If it makes you feel better, rest assured that whoever your political opponents are, I’ll be lambasting their beliefs zealously and frequently. In fact, I expect to offend at least 95 percent of the people on this by the time I’m done. I guess that’s enough of an introduction. Let the extremism begin!   Find out more about Larken Rose at http://www.larkenrose.com.

Leave a Reply