Enclavismo (ayn-clah-vees-mow) is a Spanish word because most of the friends with whom I share the concept speak Spanish, I'm used to calling it that, and I can't easily pronounce the English equivalent, enclavism. An enclave is a niche occupied by something isolated by a surrounding milieu full of something else. Enclavismo here refers to a perception of reality from within an enclave of a few civilized realists surrounded by a huge population of largely uncivilized unrealistic others.
Speaking for myself, if the
political economic social chaos of the existing general human encampment
occupied only half the world, I'd rather live alone or as nearly alone
as possible on the other half. Denied that option because the misconceived
contraptions called countries literally cover up all the available
world land-mass, I and a few friends nevertheless reject state and
society and the authority of state and society and, to different extents depending on our individual personalities and work situations, the company of state and society, and form a loose
enclave of our own, not a hippie commune in the woods, but just a social, philosophical alliance
of uniquely sane friends, which we metaphorically call an enclave.
We casually call ourselves
enclavistas and our casual social concept enclavismo.
As a natural enclavista, having turned up on Planet Earth by accident, somewhat like a crash-landed
space traveler, I have no reason to be saluting the flags and singing
the anthems of any of the battling tribes I find here. Though forced
to do some reluctant compromising by my fear of the apes who control
the planet (and by my sympathy with the few bearable Earthlings I
meet), I'm most logically concerned about the fix I'm personally in,
and countries (which can't be escaped because they fill all the space
there is) are part of that fix.
As a realist, I'm necessarily an existentialist,
knowing I have the existential right to do whatever I'm physically
able to do and to live as I want and am able to live. But history
preceded me here and I find my rights tightly hemmed in by the closeness
of way too many other humans and their intrusive and pervasive countries,
which they've made worse by foolishly turning them into religions.
I'm not an anarchist. As just one of the blips flitting across a tiny segment of the
eternal scroll and infinite screen of time and space, but being here plenty
long enough to suffer, I'd be all for organizing with other transitory
blips I encounter on this particular planet into a brief but sensibly
expedient and civilized civil state for our mutual and equal benefit and self protection.
I'm even willing to surrender some of my existential rights (though no more than necessary) to help
such a state work, certainly willing to respect the brief illusions
of other blips that they own their houses and yards and refrain from
stepping on their grass or barging through their doors without an
invitation - and also willing to participate in an intelligently
expedient and intelligently limited social and economic contract between
socially and economically equal blips to organize and maintain without prejudice or privilege
a system of equally shared responsibility for production and scrupulously
fair distribution of life enhancing goods and services among the participants.
But the actually existing absurdity of arrogant single blips and small
groups of arrogant blips, no less transitory than I, claiming to own
vast tracts of the world we all briefly flit through and claiming
jurisdiction over all other blips flitting through what they've designated
(for purposes I don't share) as private property and countries which
are actually private business domains is unacceptable. I say it's
unacceptable, because it is unacceptable. But that's what has
happened. It's an infuriating nuisance, but dumb blips with guns have
been conned into supporting and guarding it, and I find myself and some of the
existential rights I don't want to surrender threatened by it.
a realist, I still claim an existential right to exercise every personal
freedom I can exercise that I haven't voluntarily agreed to forfeit
as part of my commitment to participate in a state. And since I have
never voluntarily agreed to participate in any state, because no sensibly
formulated civilized state exists, I claim that all my existential rights remain
intact. However, also as a realist, I see that I am circumstantially
caught by uncontrollable historical forces under the heel of an existing
state I have not volunteered myself into but whose power I can't easily
Naturally, I simply avoid that power when I can and exercise
my rights in quiet defiance. And when I can't do that, I naturally
look within that state's own laws for clauses that spare the existential
rights I refuse to give up. Of course, I find in the 9th and 10th
Amendments to the Constitution of the country/contraption that most
directly oppresses me an actually realistic but rusty concession that
the country/contraption's powers are not all inclusive but only include
a limited range of powers "delegated" by "the people." The people
being what they are and not what leftists like to kid themselves they
are, that doesn't help stir up the kind of regular rebellion Jefferson
vainly promoted. But I also find that the 9th Amendment verifies that
"the people" (with no uncharacteristically sensible effort on their
part needed) automatically "retain" (simply by not overtly delegating
them) all the rights they should retain, which rights (according to
its own rules) the country/contraption called America can't mess
with. Some of these rights are specifically listed in other sections
of the Bill of Rights, and the 9th Amendment implies there are more.
Unfortunately, the 9th Amendment isn't well written. In fact, the
entire Constitution, along with the library sized rat's nest of largely
incoherent verbiage that has resulted from trying to explain it, needs
to be burned and replaced by a more compact and coherent document.
But, since that won't happen, due to a cynical lawyers' preference
for a profitable mess and the irrational belief of "the people" that
their constitution is holy, I take advantage of the law's occasional
coherence and, giving the writers the credit I hope they deserved,
assume that the unlisted 9th Amendment rights "retained" by the people
were understood and must still be understood to include all rights
the exercise of which doesn't impair what little useful functioning
the country does and which I'm damned if I'll give up.
to go to court on those grounds if necessary, still not actually considering
myself a citizen of the country (the distorted state which is actually
a private business domain) - sort of like Maugham's "old Cronshaw"
(but with more love for soap and water), I unilaterally opt to live
my life in accordance with all sensible, social-contract based law, treating all other individuals as civilized people until they prove they're not, and
otherwise living as I want to, "with due regard for the (cop) around
the corner." And that's what I and my friends who agree with me call