Iconoclast

That's a nickname I received from a friend when I was 18 years old. I really respected this guy so when he said that to me, not knowing what the word meant, my only reaction was a slight tilt of the head much like a confused dog.

Of course I bolted headlong to the closest library (no google in those days) and looked it up. I like to keep things simple so the break down of the word iconoclast is nothing more than "breaker/destroyer of icons". Hmmm . . .. Interesting, I had never thought of myself on those terms before. When you are a child iconoclast you're really nothing more than a nightmare who would rather argue with his parents than obey them. Spend enough years having the fruitless power struggles with your parents and you learn that the best tactic is to "drop of the grid" so to speak. If they don't know what I am thinking or doing then there will be no confrontation unless I make a misstep and stumble into their focus.

Now I sit here almost 50 and have realized that my life is no different now than it was when I was a 14 year old burgeoning iconoclast. I mean, I have lot more experience at staying out of the limelight but I also have a LOT more parents to avoid. When you are an adult iconoclast, your parents are society itself.

Why have I never even considered dropping the iconoclast bit and just conforming to society? A truly pragmatic person would have given in decades ago. I just can't. I don't want to "obey" anyone. I also don't want anyone to obey me. I resent the idea that one human should have that kind of power over another. I resented it as a child too, but with children a certain power structure is necessary.

The other day I did a rant about DUI laws and the laws that make us safer. I have always detested these kinds of laws because the intent is to coerce your decisions into a certain shape even when those decisions have no direct impact on anyone but yourself. These are called "victimless" crimes. Even drunk driving is a victimless crime unless/until you threaten or harm someone else. When your choice to drink and drive results in a literal crime, reckless endangerment, involuntary manslaughter, what have you, your DUI charge is secondary because now you have committed an actual crime.

So what's the difference between crimes and victimless crimes? Well obviously in the case of an actual crime there is a victim. Furthermore there is rarely any doubt in your mind that you are risking your freedom when you commit an actual crime. It's obvious. But with victimless crimes it's not so obvious. Murder, rape, robbery, extortion, these are all obvious crimes and I know if I choose to commit one of these acts that I am breaking the rules and should be punished.

As an iconoclast, a destroyer of icons, I cannot simply conform to a set of rules that don't make sense. I have a hard enough time with rules that do make sense. But, no faster than a gay man could force himself to be straight as a practical decision to be more successful and accepted into society, can I just fold like a house of cards and allow myself to be ruled.
When an otherwise law abiding citizen is confronted with a criminal dimension of a choice he has made and the criminal aspect is surprising to him, that is when the alarm bells should start going off. "Why am I losing my freedom or actual life (if I resist) for doing something that doesn't not injure or damage another?" Well the answer is, because you are being disobedient. When society decides to vilify some activity that the great collective has deemed not in keeping with their vision of who you should be, that is when society has become your parent all over again.

Like I said in my other video, if we don't want people to drive drunk, then why are we allowing them to buy cars that can be driven drunk? If we don't want them to speed why aren't we using technology to create a system that either eliminates the danger of speeding or prohibits the cars themselves from speeding?

When we, as a society, confront logistical issues that can be completely solved with technology, why do we always choose to put the "children" in the corner instead? We want to punish you for being disobedient, that's why. "They" want to punish your behavior to discourage you from doing it again and to remind you who is the boss.

Well I am boss. ME. And I will NOT obey you just for the sake of keeping your hands from around my throat. I will not be managed by fear and intimidation, and no one else should either. I know what's right and wrong and in the highly unlikely event that I choose to commit an actual crime, make no mistake, I made the choice consciously and am willing to face the consequences.

Aristotle once said, "He who is unable to live in society, or has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must either be a beast or a god." Well, I don't know which one of those definitions fit me better, but I sure wish I could find more like me. Wouldn't that be something? A society of self sufficient beasts and gods free from the shadows of our parents at last.

We are no longer children and the fact we allow others to treat us that way, and jump at the opportunity to parent others, is, in my opinion, a symbol of our immaturity as a culture. Whenever anarchists or libertarians argue for a less powerful state or the elimination of the state all together, what comes out of your mouth is how utopian and unrealistic those ideas are. That's what comes out of your mouth but what you're really saying is "YOU WILL OBEY ME BECAUSE I SAID SO AND YOU HAVE TO RESPECT MY AUTHORITY".