I Can’t Speak for the Rest of Us
Posted by PintofStout on February 1, 2008
It’s been a little over a week since we landed back in the country, and we hit the ground running. The journal I was trying to keep of the trip was left in the dust of our perpetual motion when in Ireland, and it has yet to catch up and be a complete telling of the trip. I’ll get to it before too long, I promise. A particular event from the trip, though, is the catalyst for this post, but it has very little, if anything, to do with the trip itself.
A running theme of a worrisome number of my posts center around me drinking then subsequently getting into debates about various tenets of anarchism versus the alternatives. After every such incident, I always look back and reflect how I could have made my points better or refuted points by the other parties. I don’t want to blame the alcohol solely, since I doubt I would fare much better stone sober, but I can say for certain that even the most minor inebriation doesn’t help. Such was the case one evening while we sat and chatted amongst ourselves after the pub closed around midnight.
A__ had dozed off in the chair and D__ and S__ and I were left to converse while the alcohol and general exhaustion slowly pulled us under the surface of good judgment. I don’t know how or why the subject was breeched, but it was laid upon me to present the blueprint of the anarchist society that I envisioned. Let me now refer the readers to two previous posts that, when parts of each are blended, resemble the conversation of this waning Irish evening. The first is The “What-About[s]” in which the typical pattern such discussions ultimately take is laid out. I followed the advice I included in the post to a point, but was unsuccessful in swaying the other party to my view. This often happens in debate, where the fundamental premises can be clarified and still found to disagree. This disagreement lied in one party’s belief in the sanctity of individuality and the other party’s insistence on collectivization usually for the sake of expediency and utility, similar to the observations put forth in Liberal Descent or Open-Minded Liberals Have No Room For Dissent.
Overall, I feel like my position was much clarified in their minds and I became more familiar with the details of a different “what-about.” Strangely, as happens frequently, A__ was hypothetically killed or maimed in order to try and sway me to a point, and failing yet again. The whole thing boiled down, in my mind, to trying to speak to what’s best for someone else – a must when fates and fortunes are collectively tied together. I still side with Dr. Szasz and say that I can’t possibly know better than the person themselves; and therefore, I won’t even try.