Per many comments against Politics the question is often posed “am I not political as well?” It is a fair howbeit misguided question, but “No!” to logically, respectively clarify. For it is not political and not forceful therefore quite ethical to support the restoration of liberty and responsibility to each individual by rescinding laws, policies, programs, regulations, taxes, etc. In contrast, it is quite political and quite forceful therefore not ethical to support the reduction of liberty and responsibility for each individual by legislating laws, policies, programs, regulations, taxes, etc.
Is this conveniently and arbitrarily playing with words? Allow this poet to answer with additional questions. Is it playing with words to consistently consider violence as any action exacted without the consent of all involved? Is it playing with words to consistently categorize and criticize all political and criminal forms of force as violence? On the other hand, perchance it is playing with words to inconsistently justify "this" action against the dissented as political however "that" action against the dissented as criminal, "this" confiscation as taxation although "that" confiscation as robbery, while "this" termination as mass murder yet "that" termination as collateral damage. Maybe it is playing with words when one partisan group planks together various means to use force as the Republican platform, in parallel to a second partisan group planking together various means to use force as the Democrat platform. And just perhaps it is playing with words to declare as honorable a preferred president or congress endowed with excessive powers consented at most by a majority, although decry as horrible another president or congress endowed with the same excessive powers also consented at most by a majority. Shall this poet go on, for examples and comparisons evidence incalculably many as the political abuses often distinctively deemed but quite logically similar it would seem.
To relate (or rant) thematically, it is astonishing at times appalling to observe. Societies have arrived to rightly understand the absolute necessity for mutual consent regarding sexual activity, yet toss the understanding aside for most (if not all) other aspects of life private, public, social, political, economic, religious and more. Worse, the disregard is embraced even esteemed as conservative, moderate, liberal, progressive, patriotic, moral, theological, while academically concocted then distilled into all sorts of contrivances shrewdly, tediously thus convolutedly arranged then referenced as indisputable moralities, ideologies, rights, isms, theories confounded by unquestionable insights, sentiments, mysteries and spiritualities if expedient.
---
Diminishing moral standing, whilst presumptuously ranting
Thereupon arrogantly jester’ing, along with the pestering
Foolishly festering, brutishly retorting thus resorting to wars
Owing to commodious addictions, liken junkies and whores
Talking heads on crack, walking dead choir-robed in black
Academes bulkhead’ing knowledge, dissing the logical flack
As marginal quacks (ah, the debris of colonial powers dying
Patriots of Dogma thus rushing, headlong to prolong the lying)
To sip from goblets the wine, the blood, strained from mud
Well fermented, swelled and scented, like virginity’s rosebud
Though quelled and resented, innocence compelled and sold
Into polity’s harlotry to burlesque arabesque naivety’s wold
