So what am I?

(Note: I don't really know the point of this blog. It's a ramble.)

The subject line is not a question of you to answer. It's just the subject of the blog, so I'm not sure if it's rhetorical or not, technically; one of you professional rhetoriticians let me know. I pretty much know what I am, it's the language I'm wondering about.

It should be clear to those who read my blogs and comments that, despite the opinion of my dyed-in-the-wool Democrat family (which does not read my blogs and comments), I'm not a conservative. The classical definition of "conservative" means one who thinks there's a perfectly serviceable established way of doing things and that they should pretty much stay that way. I think it's pretty clear that the established norms, social classes, and power structures are not suitable. A lot of the tried-and-true ways of doing things are, in my experience, tried-and-demonstrably-flawed.

Given this, many people might call me liberal. Most such people are conservatives. (The inverse of my family and their opinion of me. Funny how that works.) But no. Liberalism tends to believe in grand solutions, usually involving lots of committees meeting around platters of pita and hummus. While I'm fond of hummus, I don't like committees. The fact is, I don't like new, public power structures any more than I like old, private ones. Grand solutions developed by committees are like the great ideas you get at the bar at 2 a.m., and look much different when seen through the throb of society's hangover the next day -- except that because it's a collective action, everyone involved has the excuse that everyone else was doing it, too. Which, now that I think of it, is probably a major reason people prefer to go drinking with friends.

So I reject collectivism; that leaves libertarian, right? Not quite. Libertarianism often justifies itself with the notion that a society of true individuals left to their own devices will naturally regulate themselves into an efficient and healthy society. I find such faith in humanity, when genuine, admirable. But the fact is, I have no faith in individuals to do any such thing; quite the contrary. I want people to be individuals despite my faith in individuals; at least it's more honest when they're not hiding their misdeeds behind some social construct.

I could be an anarchist, which is sort of like a libertarian on meth. But no, while I'm naturally chaotic, I don't like living in chaos. And anarchy actually pretty easily works out to the worst of despotism.

I might want to try the meth, though; been meaning to lose a few pounds.