Para-Realism: A Primer

After looking over all kinds of political views over the years, I realized than none of them totally fit me. I am not a follower, so I never looked for something to follow. I was looking for something that satisfied my views of the world. There are many things that came close but not enough for me to say that’s what I am. For a while I called myself a libertarian, but I don’t agree with everything that party believes either. Though I think the classical liberal view is closest to what I subscribe to. And libertarians are the closest political party to classical liberalism. They are the “true” liberals these days.

The short answer for me is I believe in limited government. The reason for this is simple, it’s the only kind that seems to work well. I explained my reasoning here.

Human nature prevents a Utopian society. Those who believe in big government always see it fail because the bigger a government gets, the more corrupt it gets. And that is because there are more people with power and power is a corrupting force. Limited government keeps leaders in check and prevents them from doing things that are damaging to everyone else’s freedoms and liberties. Big government always leads to some form of tyranny, and eventual economic collapse. History has shown that time and time again.

It may take hundreds of years, as in the case of the Roman Empire. But it falls. And in the process a lot of people endure all kinds of trials and misery.

I call my philosophy para-realism because it seeks to see beyond the reality that human beings perceive. Para-Realism means “beyond realism”. Everyone’s reality is subjective, not objective. How we see the world is largely based on our own personal experiences, prejudices and emotions. That is how our brains are wired. But true reality stands apart from what we see. It doesn’t matter what we want it to be, or what we think it should be. It is what it is. So it’s important that we deal with it rather than pretend it’s something it’s not.

In order to do that we need to be able to step outside ourselves and look at things dispassionately. That’s what I have always sought to do. I have not always succeeded, but that is the process I seek when dealing with the state of things.

As a result, I don’t care about political parties or partisan politics because that is all an invention of people with agendas. I only care about what is or isn’t true, from what I can tell. I always question the information I get and check it for veracity. I am willing to admit I am wrong when it’s proved that I am. By the same token, I am not swayed by group think of any kind. I am opposed to ideology and reject any notion that starts with the fallacy that “everyone believes”. It doesn’t matter what people believe. It only matters what’s real. What’s true. The axiom.

So how do you do that? Well, this is one of the fundamental features of my philosophy. I will explain it in the next post. I call it the “Layers of Reality”. Once you know what they are it’s easier to work with them.

What people need to understand about me and my views is that I am not an ideologue. I am an anti-ideologue. I am not interested in what people think I should believe. I am constantly searching for the truth. The truth is the only thing that really matters in my world. The truth will set you free. Those who try to obscure it are not on your side.

The reason I do my political cartoons is to point that out.

Loading Facebook Comments ...

3 Comments

  1. Hud, I’m pretty sure you have stolen my brain. Keep pissing people off with those comics, giving me a reason to turn on my computer (besides my livelihood).

  2. Good stuff.

    While you argue most succinctly for limited government, free markets and all the great things that classical liberalism stands for, the chief principle of any libertarian perspective is the non-aggression axiom.

    Elitism and corruption is bred by big government, but also by an ever expanding military. When a nation’s “defence” is spending more time policing the world than protecting its own borders, then surely you can see the economic-military interventionism analogy. The effects might not be seen at home, but they certainly are abroad.

    Bush used the threat of terrorism to launch two wars, and Obama used the GFC as an excuse for massive government intervention in the economy. In both cases, the problems were created by the very entities wanting to provide the solution.

    I’ve never once read on your blog any criticism of any form on US foreign policy. Nothing could stand in more opposition to the non-aggression axiom. I know you have a background in the military, and perhaps it is hard to look at some ideas from a different perspective.

    I think it is our ability to identify and reject our own indoctrination before we can have any hope of changing this place for the better.

  3. I intend to get into that very subject later. My short answer is all wars are started by a small group of people, who commit everyone else’s fate to the winds because wars are largely unpredictable. They’re like lawsuits. You can’t know exactly how it will shake out. That’s why most people settle.

    But, as a realist, I can’t bitch about a war after it’s already started. Because pulling out also has major repercussions. I remember Vietnam well and what followed when we withdrew.

    Of course, there is a lot more to this which I will get into eventually.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *