Conserving the good…

Posted on

Hey terrans. Greetings from Oz. Only not though. It's nothing like Oz here, and I'm pretty sure the dwarves wouldn't like being compared to munchkins. Also, there's no emerald city. One thing we do have is manure. Everything poops. And you think you know that, but no one knows it as well as those who've put in hours at the menagerie. It's a poop factory, I tell you. Glad that's not my job.

My job gives me time for the dumpster fire known as twitter. I saw that your Musk figure bought most of it up, and things already seem to be improving. For example, someone (@takethewhitepil) even tweeted, “After becoming an anarchist I've somehow become more conservative.” See?

Well, I kid. One tweet is not necessarily part of a trend. (But maybe?) The tweet did remind me of an article I read long ago (Why True Conservatism Means Anarchy by Alexander William Salter). The article ended with this line: “[T]he state is constitutionally hostile to conservatism. For the sake of preserving ordered liberty and protecting inherited faith and folkways, conservatives should reject the state’s legitimacy. Failure to do so is fighting a war on the enemy’s terms.” Just where is this Salter guy coming from? Glad you asked.

First, Salter sees conservativeness as more of a preservation orientation than a creed. This frees him up to sort inherited wheat from chaff. Secondly, he makes two points regarding the modern state: (1) that it is relatively new and (2) that conservatives, in defending the state, concede something to the left of yore- something that they should instead be drawing from. He explains: “The polylegal system of the High Middle Ages, in which the authority of kings, local nobility, trade guilds, free cities, and the Roman Catholic Church competed and often checked the abuses of each other, is an important example and one that should be of obvious interest to conservatives.”

So, to Salter, institutions of governance need not include a monopoly of so-called legitimate force. He argues convincingly that such a monopoly makes the state particularly useful to anti-conservatives. If a small group of people different from the whole found persuasive influence too difficult, they might prefer the state for forcing their influence. And, well, there's more in the article: Why True Conservatism Means Anarchy over at theamericanconservative.com.

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm pretty tired. It's been a long day. I visited another realm, and the local bard (much better than the one here) wasn't feeling too well. He's on the mend though. After his situation improves, maybe an apprenticeship between the two can be worked out. Hmm.

Well, thanks for reading. Take care, terrans.

-Pen

Making coffee not war…

Posted on

Hello from far far away. I'm keeping company with an under-sweetened cup of coffee and a view of the inn that's- similarly not the best but reliably not bad. Anyway, I'd rather write from here than some terran hotel window overlooking a wet grey interstate. (Yes, I'm sure not all your vistas flood their window panes with tones of cement.)

Anyway, now that I've upset you, let me catch you up on things. The agitators I mentioned before seem to have gotten bored and moved on to something else. A few people will still approach me with the admonition that I should just “put it down”. I smile and nod vaguely. The status quo serves me fine for now.

I mention it though because all this recent non-violence thought has me wondering about the matter. As I said before, these folk just assume the beast is not sentient. If that were the case, then maybe release or put-down would be my only options. If not, then since I can't release a violent beast upon the townsfolk, maybe neither would be an option.

Now, I’ve slain thousands of monsters, including hundreds of dragons (just over two-hundred to be precise but it sounds better to just say “hundreds”). I’ve never felt bad about the slayings. It was always self-defense or in defense of others, well as far as I can recall anyway. I’m no expert on the philosophy of violence, but my conscience remains pretty clear on those cases. Mostly. Actually, when I learned of talking animals, that may have changed something. I haven’t even tried to slay a dragon since, so I have to wonder if, on some level, the dry spell is more than coincidence. I could stand to explore your realm's thought on non-violence. It might help me sort this out.

But not yet. My coffee is empty, and I need a refill. Feel free to buy me a cup.

-Pen

Driving out hate…

Posted on

Hey terrans, writing again from the same ol’ table here in The Inn, Far far away. Things are going well here. Everything steady and as expected. There’s more to say about the mob I was anticipating, but I have something else on my mind.

The last time I wrote, there was… an unplanned event at an awards show. I wanted to add that I found it interesting that Smith summoned principles of love to explain his actions. I get it. He is claiming protective/avenging mode. Maybe that’s true, and if so it’s respectable. But in so-doing his language used a lot of love talk: “I’m being called on in my life to love people . . . I want to be a vessel for love . . . I want to be an ambassador for that kind of love and care and concern . . . Love makes you do crazy things.”

The love-talk reminded me of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. with his love-talk like: “I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality,” and, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” The irony is that, Smith was speaking of love to explain, and maybe defend, his violence (like with “Love makes you do crazy things”). But King's love-talk denounced it:

“At the center of non-violence stands the principle of love.”

“Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love.”

Now, Smith's apology to Rock did have a subtle change of tune: “I would like to publicly apologize to you, Chris. I was out of line and I was wrong. I am embarrassed and my actions were not indicative of the man I want to be. There is no place for violence in a world of love and kindness.” It was more love-talk but denouncing rather than explaining. It’s almost like someone tapped him on the shoulder and said, “Ya can’t channel Dr. King in defense of violence.”

This all has me more interested in non-violence. I’ve noticed a twitter mutual is committed to it. Maybe I’ll ask him about it, but right now I should probably get back to my doings here in the realm. Although demand for extra help has really lightened up of late. Maybe I can take a day off!

-Pen

P.S. I found those particular King quotes here: azquotes.com/author/8044-Martin_Luther_King_Jr/tag/love. They're often cited there too.

“Meeting hate with love”

Posted on

Hello again and best wishes to you from the realm. I hope it has been a good week. As for me, I caught wind of the slap heard round the world. No one cares much over here. Here such things are pretty straight-forward: Teases are ok. Harmless playful ones between friends: no problem… Uninvited and in public though, well, that's inappropriate but not necessarily an offense. It's a tease.

Insults are a different matter. Say it in private and even the cutting and ill-tempered insults can end up appreciated, eventually. Saying it in public though, that can be bad for your health and much more so if directed against a man’s wife instead of against him.

Rock's remark was an inappropriate tease. Or so it seems to me. It was public and uninvited. It was not personal though, and there was nothing bad about the person said. It was among other jokes as an expected part of the gathering all of which were made at the expense of those in a position to afford the humility and maybe in need of some too. As the custom coarsens, it needs rethought, but the joke was not really an insult, per se.

The only *insult* there was against Rock, and it's Rock's retaliation that would be… maybe not best but understandable. There are elves that would have reacted similarly, at the time, but for whom things would be scary far from over. Not good.

Perhaps, Smith let the drink dull his senses and animate a heart already upset by other matters. If so, it might help to mention it. Personally, I am more impressed at the magnanimity of Rock. To great men, more wrongs are trifles.

That reminds me about– nope. It can wait. I just noticed some dame drinking heavily. We don’t need another one drunk and talking up my cardboard cut-out. I’m going to point it out to the man in charge. Take care, terrans.

-Pen

Anticipating the mob…

Posted on

Greetings from far far away. I hope this finds you well. I am in the inn, in between doings, and it occurred to me that I hadn’t really filled you all in on the whole monster situation, so I’m taking a quick moment to remedy that.

I don’t know how much you remember from my last note, but a few townsfolk were wagging their tongues ignorantly, and about me. Two poorly bandied accounts stood out. The first had me running silly from a beast that I ended up capturing accidentally. Ridiculous. When I run it is awesome, and when I capture, it is epic, not haphazardly. Now, the second account had me just discovering the beast, and- well I’m ok with that image. Anyway, I’m not confirming either. I only mention it to contextualize the following:

The townsfolk may decide that they need to trespass in order to kill the beast. All based on hearsay! No! It ain’t right!!! I know. Maybe I needn’t worry since it would be dumb of them to think that I have a mighty beast handy and then to come looking for trouble. But then again, I can’t count on people acting smart, especially in groups. That would be dumb of me. (It would also be democracy… but I digress.)

As for killing the alleged beast, I think the first account/rumor affords them a better case. One could try to say that since the beast was trapped, there’s an obligation to either free it or put it out of its misery and that since freeing it would endanger others…. well you can connect the dots. But this forgets that the collapse was not my doing! And it assumes the beast is not sentient. That brings up questions about its rights and ultimately makes the right course less clear. (Again, I’m not granting that there is any truth to the story. at all.) This all looks more like an attempt for prying eyes to break into my land under the guise of justice… I guess you find out who your friends are.

One other thing that troubles me in all of this… Actually, next time. I have to get back to the daily grind. Literally. The mill stopped, and I have to investigate.

-Pen