Some reflections on politics and selfhood

Nowadays it seems senseless to hold beliefs or values of any kind. Beliefs, values and two quarters will get you a Sam's Choice Cola. But, I've chosen to hold onto some, unfashionable though they might be. These values are beliefs in the importance of love, sound ethics and personal freedoms. In a 21st century where God seems to have faded into the scenery, to have melted into another patch of blue or another passing cloud, ethics seem all but antiquated. How can we judge good or evil? How can we choose how to and if we should execute our personal freedoms when each day they slide down the gullets of artistic autocrats and political zealots? I have chosen to be an anarchist because I feel I can make these judgments responsibly for myself and chosen to continue writing politically and ethically motivated fiction because I hope others can see this capacity in themselves. People put more stock in bumper stickers and slogans than in their own intuitions, which shows me more and more that the time has come for today's intellectuals to be responsible, motivated anarchists.
"Really?" you say, "our economy is down the toilet, we're stuck in a war we don't want to be in and our president has revealed himself to be a pathological liar and you're telling us that the answer to all of this is getting high on cooked banana peels and stealing long distance?" Here we confront one of the most dominant prejudices about anarchy. The anarchist, the phreaker and the hacker are different entities. Phreakers practice anarchy to directly combat the establishment and sew chaos. Hackers usually combat the establishment because it does not appreciate their talent and won't admit to needing them. But, a responsible anarchist is neither of these entities. They are more John Locke than Tyler Durden, more William Blake than Anton La Vey. A true anarchist understands that the highest form of evil is taking from people their capacity to be exercise moral freedoms. I do not believe our capacity to exercise moral freedoms is merely our capacity to sin, as sin is often an exercise in absurd freedom. Our freedom to hurt others deprives them of their freedom to live a life without pain. If our freedom to live as ethical people who desire to give and understand others is compromised, the state is committing the highest sin. It forces us to exist without our humanity, without our empathy. We must not seek to become bestial when our personal morals transcend the ethics of the state, we must seek to become pure.
Does a pure being do drugs? Possibly. Ideally, life should be stimulating enough that we don't need narcotic assistance. But if it is not, and it is rendered intolerable by the social climate, we will do them. The fault lies not just with the decision to escape reality, but with those who made reality unlivable for many. A lawless, pure creature of moral intuition may still seek the succor of narcotics if they seek to explore themselves and to reexamine the nuances of their reality. Does a pure being indulge in carnality? Yes, yes and triple yes. It is not ethically wrong on any level to have sex. The sex itself isn't wrong, but sometimes the context can be and sometimes it can be a form of absurd freedom. Destroying relationships is an example of this. Adultery is not wrong because it is sex, it's wrong because it hurts people and decreases their ability to connect. Don't blame the sex, blame the situations and the interaction. Carnality is good, pure and decent, as long as it is consensual and as long as you're not hurting anyone. Will a pure, morally transcendent person exercise violence? Only if violences are exercised against them. Gangs are built on foundations of poverty, abuse and social paralysis. These are forms of violence worse than any drive by. The drive by deprives a single victim of their right to live. Social oppression deprives millions. The freedom to be kind and decent disappears. By using moral intuitions and understanding that harming others, exploiting the weak and depriving people of freedom are wrong, we can exist outside of our political tenets.
Does this mean that the anarchist should not participate in voting because their beliefs stem from ethics instead of law and government? No. This will likely be a bone of contention from many who seek to live without leaders. How can people who want to live without leadership participate in the process of selecting a leader? My question is, how can they not? We cannot just gain a society that can live on moral intuitions over night. The fact is, right now this country WILL have leaders and if all of us don't choose the ones that will grant us ethical freedoms and will grant other freedoms (such as freedom from poverty, ignorance and violence) we will continue to live in a society where our hearts, minds and souls will continue to seem more ineffectual and will not be listened to. Love, decency and personal power must govern us, if we let these things govern ourselves, it doesn't matter who governs us, but it matters if these things are being combatted. Sid Vicious, Rousseau, Sacco and Venzetti, Blake and Gandhi believed these things and we need to stand up for them.