Sunday Rambling

I think my contention is that people are already living this way. I’m attempting to describe a philosophy that mirrors the way Americans actually live, and attempting to identify aspects of it that are contradictory. I’m trying to keep in mind, though, that people are going to contradict their beliefs by their actions, and that this is to be expected. What’s important, I think, is that people confront their contradictory beliefs, and attempt to reconcile them. As such, this exploration, the piracy exploration, is an attempt to describe the way some people might elect to order their beliefs, if they gave it sufficient thought.

Suppose the President of the United States, in his actions as President, did things that were different than what he claimed (during his campaign) he was going to attempt if elected. Certainly it’s no surprise that this possible contradiction could occur… in fact, I contend that people do in fact expect this, and that it doesn’t really matter. People that opposed the election of the man will point to this supposed hypocrisy and conclude that he’s a liar, not to be trusted, not to be re-elected, and so forth… the spotlighting of hypocrisy for the purpose of leverage. There are those that supported the candidate in his bid for the presidency, and those that will be privy to the aforementioned complaints and will systematically dismiss or ignore the claims of hypocrisy, or attempt to justify the supposedly hypocritical behavior in a way that the common speaker of the English language understands is disingenuous. The claims of hypocrisy are irrelevant because they are obvious and people generally aren’t concerned about it, and to the extent that people are, disingenuous justifications are to be expected and are expected to be sufficient to dismiss these fringe holdouts.

What we have, then, is a situation where a person ‘lied’ and it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what was said. It simply doesn’t relate to people’s expectations of what is happening.

What kind of a world is this, where people’s day-to-day expectations include the lies of others and their own lies? It’s a world in which what people say and what people think (insofar as it is revealed by their actions) aren’t expected to relate. Words have little meaning. Commitments are only as meaningful as the reputations of the people making them, and these reputations are in the eye of the beholder, and are not enforcable. The onus is thus on the person to whom a commitment is made, to believe or not to believe, to purchase or not, to vote or not, and the responsibility, the benefits or detriments, are solely the actor’s and no right to recompense, as facilitated by the government, is to be expected.

If justice is available, it is rarely to the average citizen, but rather something purchased with favor by the politically connected. The enforcement of intellectual property rights is, at best, arbitrary, and is invariably costly.

For the moment, I contend that this is the way of the world. We expect lies, and we expect theft. Is a piracy framework merely an honesty framework? Where lies and theft aren’t problematic because our expectations are made systematic?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: