Is There a Psychology of Liberty?

[George H. Smith]

http://mises.org/daily/5460/Is-There-a-Psychology-of-Liberty

In his latest blog, Jeff Riggenbach discusses the work of Nathaniel Branden and Sharon Presley.

I will have more to say on this later.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

http://mises.org/dai...logy-of-Liberty

In his latest blog, Jeff Riggenbach discusses the work of Nathaniel Branden and Sharon Presley.

I will have more to say on this later.

Ghs

I have just ordered Sharon's book. I know how to stand up to experts and authority figures but it took a long time to get there. I'm interested in how she systematized it.

Anybody live in or near Houston? Drive over to Jeff's house and hit him up alongside his head every time he says he thinks his stuff is "worthless."

--Brant

that's what friends are for

[sjw]

I have just ordered Sharon's book. I know how to stand up to experts and authority figures but it took a long time to get there. I'm interested in how she systematized it.

Step 1: Know.

I think anarchists generally have enough "trust my own conclusions" psychology, what they generally seem lacking in is the thing that yields correct conclusions: a healthy epistemology. A healthy psychology is conducive to liberty, but Reason is a non-negotiable requirement. Do anarchists generally need more lecturing about how they should trust themselves more, or is it perhaps the case that they tend to worship the authority of their own whims more, and therefore should be taught to regard reason as the only absolute (and not authority figures, not their own emotions).

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I have just ordered Sharon's book. I know how to stand up to experts and authority figures but it took a long time to get there. I'm interested in how she systematized it.

Step 1: Know.

I think anarchists generally have enough "trust my own conclusions" psychology, what they generally seem lacking in is the thing that yields correct conclusions: a healthy epistemology. A healthy psychology is conducive to liberty, but Reason is a non-negotiable requirement. Do anarchists generally need more lecturing about how they should trust themselves more, or is it perhaps the case that they tend to worship the authority of their own whims more, and therefore should be taught to regard reason as the only absolute (and not authority figures, not their own emotions).

Shayne

Do we have to put up with more of your childish crap? Please stop.

Sharon is an anarchist, btw. If you disagree with her, then criticize her in a reasonable fashion. But I would strongly recommend that you not lecture Sharon about a "healthy epistemology." She will cut you to ribbons.

Ghs

[sjw]

Do we have to put up with more of your childish crap? Please stop.

A call for censorship from George? Wow.

Sharon is an anarchist, btw. If you disagree with her, then criticize her in a reasonable fashion. But I would strongly recommend that you not lecture Sharon about a "healthy epistemology." She will cut you to ribbons.

I didn't criticize Sharon. I merely observe that anarchists generally have plenty in the category of having a high regard for their own opinions, and that the last thing they need, generally, is something that would further encourage that aspect of their mentality. What I have observed that they are weak in is in the area of epistemology, not psychology -- unless we are talking about the anarchist's tendency to have an overly high regard for his own opinions. Does she talk about that in the book? If so then I'm all for it.

Incidentally, I think this is an area where the Randian/Peikovian tradition deserves compliments. In their tradition, they focus not only on psychological issues, but on epistemological ones, even to the point of being self-critical of harmful epistemological trends they noticed within their own movement (e.g. the Peikoff lecture on rationalism).

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Do we have to put up with more of your childish crap? Please stop.

A call for censorship from George? Wow.

Sharon is an anarchist, btw. If you disagree with her, then criticize her in a reasonable fashion. But I would strongly recommend that you not lecture Sharon about a "healthy epistemology." She will cut you to ribbons.

I didn't criticize Sharon. I merely observe that anarchists generally have plenty in the category of having a high regard for their own opinions, and that the last thing they need, generally, is something that would further encourage that aspect of their mentality. What I have observed that they are weak in is in the area of epistemology, not psychology -- unless we are talking about the anarchist's tendency to have an overly high regard for his own opinions. Does she talk about that in the book? If so then I'm all for it.

Incidentally, I think this is an area where the Randian/Peikovian tradition deserves compliments. In their tradition, they focus not only on psychological issues, but on epistemological ones, even to the point of being self-critical of harmful epistemological trends they noticed within their own movement (e.g. the Peikoff lecture on rationalism).

Shayne

Since when is the request "Please stop" a "call for censorship"? You need to invest a lot of work in your epistemology, given your inability to differentiate between distinctly different concepts. which is the ultimate source of all your errors and delusions.

I could, of course, elaborate on the psychological insecurities that make you to cling to government -- in name, if not in substance -- like Linus to his blanket. Your irrational obsession with government is obviously rooted in the infantile longing for a father figure, i.e., an authority you can trust to keep you in line, lest you run wild like a savage beast. But I will leave further analysis to Lucy the psychiatrist.

Ghs

[sjw]

Since when is the request "Please stop" a "call for censorship"?

"Do we have to put up with [your thoughts]" is a call for censorship of one kind or another.

I could, of course, elaborate on the psychological insecurities that make you to cling to government -- in name, if not in substance -- like Linus to his blanket. Your irrational obsession with government is obviously rooted in the infantile longing for a father figure, i.e., an authority you can trust to keep you in line, lest you run wild like a savage beast. But I will leave further analysis to Lucy the psychiatrist.

Ghs

When a group of people decide to assert a given rule of law in a given jurisdiction, I call that government. Your argument here that I'm doing this for psychological rather than epistemological reasons is, on its face, strained. Why are you so obsessed with the term "government" that you can't recognize the validity of my use of the term? Perhaps its the authority of the anarchist herd. You wouldn't want to look bad by recognizing that my terminology is just fine.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Since when is the request "Please stop" a "call for censorship"?

"Do we have to put up with [your thoughts]" is a call for censorship of one kind or another.

I could, of course, elaborate on the psychological insecurities that make you to cling to government -- in name, if not in substance -- like Linus to his blanket. Your irrational obsession with government is obviously rooted in the infantile longing for a father figure, i.e., an authority you can trust to keep you in line, lest you run wild like a savage beast. But I will leave further analysis to Lucy the psychiatrist.

Ghs

When a group of people decide to assert a given rule of law in a given jurisdiction, I call that government. Your argument here that I'm doing this for psychological rather than epistemological reasons is, on its face, strained. Why are you so obsessed with the term "government" that you can't recognize the validity of my use of the term? Perhaps its the authority of the anarchist herd. You wouldn't want to look bad by recognizing that my terminology is just fine.

Shayne

I won't get involved in another discussion about government and anarchism with you, given your resolute determination to make up what you think anarchists have said rather than actually read what they have said. Your fantasies have no epistemological merit and don't interest me in the least.

You have apparently never read Rand's discussion of the meaning of "censorship." I agree with Rand.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I have just ordered Sharon's book. I know how to stand up to experts and authority figures but it took a long time to get there. I'm interested in how she systematized it.

Step 1: Know.

I think anarchists generally have enough "trust my own conclusions" psychology, what they generally seem lacking in is the thing that yields correct conclusions: a healthy epistemology. A healthy psychology is conducive to liberty, but Reason is a non-negotiable requirement. Do anarchists generally need more lecturing about how they should trust themselves more, or is it perhaps the case that they tend to worship the authority of their own whims more, and therefore should be taught to regard reason as the only absolute (and not authority figures, not their own emotions).

Shayne

It's not that people who disagree with you tend to eschew reason, unless they're talking their religion, it's that their use of reason results in different conclusions than yours. Whether those are irrational or mistaken or what have you is another matter. Saying that an intellectual opponent isn't using reason may seem from your perspective to cut them off at the knees, but all you are doing is failing around in the dark as far as anyone you are addressing is concerned.

--Brant

[sjw]

It's not that people who disagree with you tend to eschew reason, unless they're talking their religion, it's that their use of reason results in different conclusions than yours. Whether those are irrational or mistaken or what have you is another matter. Saying that an intellectual opponent isn't using reason may seem from your perspective to cut them off at the knees, but all you are doing is failing around in the dark as far as anyone you are addressing is concerned.

--Brant

Why do you feel the need to try to poke holes in my response to George's ad hominem attacks, as opposed to calling out George for his ad hominem attacks? Seems biased and hypocritical to me. Perhaps you could elaborate on the psychological motive behind it and bring back some relevance to this thread.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

It's not that people who disagree with you tend to eschew reason, unless they're talking their religion, it's that their use of reason results in different conclusions than yours. Whether those are irrational or mistaken or what have you is another matter. Saying that an intellectual opponent isn't using reason may seem from your perspective to cut them off at the knees, but all you are doing is failing around in the dark as far as anyone you are addressing is concerned.

--Brant

Why do you feel the need to try to poke holes in my response to George's ad hominem attacks, as opposed to calling out George for his ad hominem attacks? Seems biased and hypocritical to me. Perhaps you could elaborate on the psychological motive behind it and bring back some relevance to this thread.

Shayne

I haven't yet read what George said to you.

edit: I see no reason to get involved in your and George's standard disputations--you obviously can take care of yourself.

--Brant

Edited July 22, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[caroljane]

I merely observe that anarchists generally have plenty in the category of having a high regard for their own opinions..

Shayne

My observations of anarchists have not been extensive but I have to say I agree, Shayne. Of course, everybody regards his own opinions highly, but anarchists do seem to bring that extra special something to that regard.(I'm not thinking of Ghs or Sharon here btw..they seem less dogmatic than many socialists I know)

Outta this thread,

Carol

[George H. Smith]

I merely observe that anarchists generally have plenty in the category of having a high regard for their own opinions..

Shayne

My observations of anarchists have not been extensive but I have to say I agree, Shayne. Of course, everybody regards his own opinions highly, but anarchists do seem to bring that extra special something to that regard.(I'm not thinking of Ghs or Sharon here btw..they seem less dogmatic than many socialists I know)

Outta this thread,

Carol

I am not dogmatic on anarchism except when I am discussing the issue with some minarchist who knows less than zero about the position he rejects.

My position was illustrated when I debated John Hospers on anarchism versus minarchism in 1975. John presented a number of reasonable objections, and I identified them as such. For example, when John argued for the necessity of a final judge in legal matters, I conceded that this was a serious problem indeed, but it was a problem inherent in all political systems, not merely anarchism. I then cited the specific example of the U.S. Supreme Court, which John had used, and pointed out that though this institution was indeed a final legal arbiter within its jurisdiction, this arbitrary cutoff point was no guarantee that the decisions of SCOTUS would be just. On the contrary, many of its decisions have seriously harmed the cause of individual freedom; and, to make matters worse, once these unjust decisions were finalized, the chances of ever reversing them were virtually nil.

John conceded the point of my "tu quoque" objection, because he knew a lot about political theory and understood the difficult problems that confront every political theory. He also understood that Rothbard, Barnett and other serious thinkers were well aware of the problems confronting anarchism. No political system ever was, or ever can be, "perfect." All systems ultimately depend on the "civic virtues" -- a high regard for individual freedom, in the case of any libertarian system -- of most of its citizens. Without such virtues, every libertarian system, whether minarchist or anarchist, will soon degenerate into a statist system of some kind.

To put it another way: I would rather live in a minarchist system in which the majority of citizens are sincere libertarians rather than in an anarchist system in which only a minority are sincere libertarians. The theoretical defense of anarchism rests on this crucial ceteris paribus condition, an implicit presupposition that is rarely mentioned or understood by minarchists.

It is impossible to explore the controversy this deeply so long as one's adversary insists on remaining ignorant. And that is when I get "dogmatic." To paraphrase Thomas Paine, there is no point in offering medicine to the dead. I have studied and thought about minarchism far more than virtually any minarchist you will ever meet, and I have searched assiduously for its strong points as well as its weak points. I don't need some ignorant punk lecturing me about such matters, especially one who suffers from an acute and apparently incurable case of the Columbus Complex.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To put it another way: I would rather live in a minarchist system in which the majority of citizens are sincere libertarians rather than in an anarchist system in which only a minority are sincere libertarians.

George,

This is basically where I'm at.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. If we could eradicate power-lust and bullying from human nature, I would be an anarchist.

However, you and I might disagree on the plausibility of there ever being a society where there is an anarchist system in which the majority of citizens are sincere libertarians.

From what I have studied of human nature so far, I don't see this becoming likely. Not without a major evolutionary change in the human psyche. The short-term temptations and payoffs of bullying or being a control freak are just too great for too much of humanity. And the ups and downs in human behavior within the same person. And normal minds that get clouded by strong emotions like blood revenge. And so on.

So for now, I prefer to keep to an individual rights-based governing "power" document (i.e., not a contract) that sets rules on power, slices it up and lets different folks who meet the conditions have a little.

The next problem is how to contain the gradual power growth of the system as a whole. I admit I don't have an answer for that. (Yet... )

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I believe the worst Supreme Court decision was Dred-Scott because it had so much to do with bringing on the Civil War. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

I think the anarchist critique of minarchism is best for illustrating the inherent problem of any kind of governance: the wrong people come to govern and things go downhill--the corruption of power. In my experience, most people accept slavery and I think this has so much to do with public education. I was so much looking forward as a six year-old to second grade and beyond because I thought they would teach me about thinking and I thought I had a big head start, which I did. I took 1st grade at the Tucson Community School which my Mother started, for me, still going strong, which was pre-school plus first grade, but the emphasis was on "socialization" and still is. I thought I'd get away from that in the second grade and that must have been the year I spent with my grand-parents in Columbus, Ohio. That was my first airplane ride, 1951. It was on a Lockheed Constellation, by my seven yo self, to Chicago then a DC-3 to Columbus. They gave me soup which spilt onto my lap. There was always something special about flying in an airplane with reciprocating engines. With jets all you get is speed and safety. Watch The High and the Mighty with John Wayne.

I still can't grok Ayn Rand taking her first airplane ride when she was 58. WTF? At least go up for fun! Once around the patch. When I was 15 I was getting flight instruction in San Jose.

--Brant

oh yes, thinking--I used to do that, but I was ruined by public education--being a victim can be sweet too, oh so sweet!

Edited July 23, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

To put it another way: I would rather live in a minarchist system in which the majority of citizens are sincere libertarians rather than in an anarchist system in which only a minority are sincere libertarians.

George,

This is basically where I'm at.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. If we could eradicate power-lust and bullying from human nature, I would be an anarchist.

However, you and I might disagree on the plausibility of there ever being a society where there is an anarchist system in which the majority of citizens are sincere libertarians.

From what I have studied of human nature so far, I don't see this becoming likely. Not without a major evolutionary change in the human psyche. The short-term temptations and payoffs of bullying or being a control freak are just too great for too much of humanity. And the ups and downs in human behavior within the same person. And normal minds that get clouded by strong emotions like blood revenge. And so on.

So for now, I prefer to keep to an individual rights-based governing "power" document (i.e., not a contract) that sets rules on power, slices it up and lets different folks who meet the conditions have a little.

The next problem is how to contain the gradual power growth of the system as a whole. I admit I don't have an answer for that. (Yet... )

Michael

I would argue the same point about the likelihood of ever achieving an ideal Randian system of government, especially in a territory as large and diverse as the United States. I am thinking specifically about the problematic element of no coercive taxation whatsoever.

As I have said many times, a citizenry that is virtuous enough to sustain the Randian ideal would also be virtuous enough to sustain the Rothbardian ideal. These are essentially the same in most respects. The only significant difference is that the Rothbardian system would be more decentralized than the Randian system. The former would constitute a kind of voluntary federalism, not the coercive nationalism established by the U.S. Constitution, and which is obvious, if implicit, in the Randian system.

I would further argue that the decentralized Rothbardian ideal would provide better security for individual liberty in the long run. My reasons for this are quite similar to the arguments given by many "Radical Whigs," such as Thomas Jefferson, for the advantages of states' rights over a centralized national government. I assume such arguments are well known to most OLers, so I won't explain them here.

Ghs

[studiodekadent]

I am not dogmatic on anarchism except when I am discussing the issue with some minarchist who knows less than zero about the position he rejects.

My position was illustrated when I debated John Hospers on anarchism versus minarchism in 1975. John presented a number of reasonable objections, and I identified them as such. For example, when John argued for the necessity of a final judge in legal matters, I conceded that this was a serious problem indeed, but it was a problem inherent in all political systems, not merely anarchism. I then cited the specific example of the U.S. Supreme Court, which John had used, and pointed out that though this institution was indeed a final legal arbiter within its jurisdiction, this arbitrary cutoff point was no guarantee that the decisions of SCOTUS would be just. On the contrary, many of its decisions have seriously harmed the cause of individual freedom; and, to make matters worse, once these unjust decisions were finalized, the chances of ever reversing them were virtually nil.

John conceded the point of my "tu quoque" objection, because he knew a lot about political theory and understood the difficult problems that confront every political theory. He also understood that Rothbard, Barnett and other serious thinkers were well aware of the problems confronting anarchism. No political system ever was, or ever can be, "perfect." All systems ultimately depend on the "civic virtues" -- a high regard for individual freedom, in the case of any libertarian system -- of most of its citizens. Without such virtues, every libertarian system, whether minarchist or anarchist, will soon degenerate into a statist system of some kind.

To put it another way: I would rather live in a minarchist system in which the majority of citizens are sincere libertarians rather than in an anarchist system in which only a minority are sincere libertarians. The theoretical defense of anarchism rests on this crucial ceteris paribus condition, an implicit presupposition that is rarely mentioned or understood by minarchists.

It is impossible to explore the controversy this deeply so long as one's adversary insists on remaining ignorant. And that is when I get "dogmatic." To paraphrase Thomas Paine, there is no point in offering medicine to the dead. I have studied and thought about minarchism far more than virtually any minarchist you will ever meet, and I have searched assiduously for its strong points as well as its weak points. I don't need some ignorant punk lecturing me about such matters, especially one who suffers from an acute and apparently incurable case of the Columbus Complex.

Ghs

George,

Whilst I am a minarchist rather than an anarchist, I have to agree with your assessment of sjw's argumentative technique.

And that's all I'll say on the topic (I'm endeavoring to be polite).

As for the overall topic about a psychology of liberty, I have to agree. A high regard for cognitive independence (thinking for oneself) is pretty much universal in libertarian thought... from Schumpeter's portrayals of entrepreneurship (which are startlingly Randian), Rand's own statements on the subject, and even Kant's position that one must formulate one's own maxims independently. Even the anti-Rationalist (and I'm talking about epistemological rationalism rather than reason as such) strain of libertarians (Hayek etc., but I think Rand's critique of rationalism puts her into this group at least implicitly) don't doubt human rationality at the level of individuals; they attack the idea of the Platonic Philosopher-King and its modern variants.

There are probably some religious libertarians that would diverge from this; proclaiming the authority of god and scripture over individual reason and then wrangling some rationalization for liberty out of their own personal theology. Such a philosophical enterprise is, in my judgment, a true monstrosity. But from my knowledge, people of that variety are relatively rare and relatively non-influential compared to the secular libertarians.

[Brant Gaede]

I think there is a fallacy about the law implicit in the U.S. Constitution even while it also contradicts the fallacy--that is, once the law is in place people can ignore it and go do their things in freedom. This worked for a while, because of inertia, but the law is not to take care of us, we are to take care of the law--always.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

To put it another way: I would rather live in a minarchist system in which the majority of citizens are sincere libertarians rather than in an anarchist system in which only a minority are sincere libertarians.

George,

This is basically where I'm at.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. If we could eradicate power-lust and bullying from human nature, I would be an anarchist.

However, you and I might disagree on the plausibility of there ever being a society where there is an anarchist system in which the majority of citizens are sincere libertarians.

From what I have studied of human nature so far, I don't see this becoming likely. Not without a major evolutionary change in the human psyche. The short-term temptations and payoffs of bullying or being a control freak are just too great for too much of humanity. And the ups and downs in human behavior within the same person. And normal minds that get clouded by strong emotions like blood revenge. And so on.

So for now, I prefer to keep to an individual rights-based governing "power" document (i.e., not a contract) that sets rules on power, slices it up and lets different folks who meet the conditions have a little.

The next problem is how to contain the gradual power growth of the system as a whole. I admit I don't have an answer for that. (Yet... )

Michael

No, no, no. You don't eliminate bullying from human nature, you teach kids how to deal with bullying. You hit the bully. He may be bigger and stronger than you, but you hit him. He may beat you up, which is doubtful, but next time--there likely won't be a next time--you kick him in the balls. He'll think you're going to hit him in the nose like the last time so you should be able to get him there. If you really want to hurt a bully, kick him in the knee. He'll be protecting his balls before he'll protect his knees. He'll probably need surgery. Unfortunately, I didn't know this shit growing up. If you are in public education you are in a denatured prison and in a prison, bullies rule. That is why I'll never go to prison. When the cops come for me, I'll die in the shootout. Not being that stupid, I won't be home. I'll be on my yacht sailing for the south seas.

--Brant

only good guys should come to my home; I'm capable; bring pizza and beer

Edited July 23, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

One of my favorite 18th century quotations was written by the Radical Whig James Burgh, and can be found in the third volume of his Political Disquisitions -- a very popular and infuential work in colonial America. This volume can be found on Google Books. and can be read or downloaded for free.

Burgh, like many of his contemporaries, wrote extensively on the "spirit of liberty," while insisting that this "spirit" (i.e., psychological attitude) is the indispensable foundation of a free society. Burgh summed up this idea in one wonderful line, as follows:

A slavish submission to the commands even of the lawful prince, is a mark of a decline of the spirit of liberty.

Vol. 3, p. 24

Great stuff! -- as Murray Rothbard used to say.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

No, no, no. You don't eliminate bullying from human nature, you teach kids how to deal with bullying. You hit the bully. He may be bigger and stronger than you, but you hit him. He may beat you up, which is doubtful, but next time--there likely won't be a next time--you kick him in the balls. He'll think you're going to hit him in the nose like the last time so you should be able to get him there. If you really want to hurt a bully, kick him in the knee. He'll be protecting his balls before he'll protect his knees. He'll probably need surgery. Unfortunately, I didn't know this shit growing up. If you are in public education you are in a denatured prison and in a prison, bullies rule. That is why I'll never go to prison. When the cops come for me, I'll die in the shootout. Not being that stupid, I won't be home. I'll be on my yacht sailing for the south seas.

--Brant

I have always preferred the Python Option, especially when dealing with bullying rabbits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StHwAffUNxo&feature=related

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

No, no, no. You don't eliminate bullying from human nature, you teach kids how to deal with bullying. You hit the bully. He may be bigger and stronger than you, but you hit him. He may beat you up, which is doubtful, but next time--there likely won't be a next time--you kick him in the balls. He'll think you're going to hit him in the nose like the last time so you should be able to get him there. If you really want to hurt a bully, kick him in the knee. He'll be protecting his balls before he'll protect his knees. He'll probably need surgery. Unfortunately, I didn't know this shit growing up. If you are in public education you are in a denatured prison and in a prison, bullies rule. That is why I'll never go to prison. When the cops come for me, I'll die in the shootout. Not being that stupid, I won't be home. I'll be on my yacht sailing for the south seas.

--Brant

I have previously mentioned an old friend of mine -- a physics professor with two PhDs, extensive training in martial arts, and who completed the full training for Navy Seals.

My friend is not an inherently violent person. In fact, he abhors violence, as evidenced by his refusal to play my favorite first person shooter video game during his last visit. But he has never been reluctant to use violence for defensive purposes, when necessary. On his last visit, my friend told me about an incident that had occurred a decade earlier, while he was leaving an upscale NY restaurant at around midnight.

While in the parking lot, my friend was accosted by a would-be mugger who waved a large knife in his face and said, "Give my your wallet, motherfucker, or I will kill you."

Immediately, as if by instinct, my friend grabbed the mugger's wrist, twisted his arm in some fashion, and thereby inflicted a serious compound fracture. The guy fell to the ground screaming in pain; he was still screaming when the cops showed up. The entire incident took only seconds. My friend never said a word and gave no indication of what he intended to do. The mugger never had a chance.

My friend had to go to a police station to file a report. On the way, one of the cops said to him, "You've had some serious training, haven't you?" When my friend explained his extensive background, the cop replied, "That asshole sure picked the wrong guy to fuck with!"

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

No, no, no. You don't eliminate bullying from human nature, you teach kids how to deal with bullying. You hit the bully. He may be bigger and stronger than you, but you hit him. He may beat you up, which is doubtful, but next time--there likely won't be a next time--you kick him in the balls. He'll think you're going to hit him in the nose like the last time so you should be able to get him there. If you really want to hurt a bully, kick him in the knee. He'll be protecting his balls before he'll protect his knees. He'll probably need surgery. Unfortunately, I didn't know this shit growing up. If you are in public education you are in a denatured prison and in a prison, bullies rule. That is why I'll never go to prison. When the cops come for me, I'll die in the shootout. Not being that stupid, I won't be home. I'll be on my yacht sailing for the south seas.

--Brant

I have previously mentioned an old friend of mine -- a physics professor with two PhDs, extensive training in martial arts, and who completed the full training for Navy Seals.

My friend is not an inherently violent person. In fact, he abhors violence, as evidenced by his refusal to play my favorite first person shooter video game during his last visit. But he has never been reluctant to use violence for defensive purposes, when necessary. On his last visit, my friend told me about an incident that had occurred a decade earlier, while he was leaving an upscale NY restaurant at around midnight.

While in the parking lot, my friend was accosted by a would-be mugger who waved a large knife in his face and said, "Give my your wallet, motherfucker, or I will kill you."

Immediately, as if by instinct, my friend grabbed the mugger's wrist, twisted his arm in some fashion, and thereby inflicted a serious compound fracture. The guy fell to the ground screaming in pain; he was still screaming when the cops showed up. The entire incident took only seconds. My friend never said a word and gave no indication of what he intended to do. The mugger never had a chance.

My friend had to go to a police station to file a report. On the way, one of the cops said to him, "You've had some serious training, haven't you?" When my friend explained his extensive background, the cop replied, "That asshole sure picked the wrong guy to fuck with!"

Ghs

Your friend's skills are way beyond mine. I wouldn't have the luxury of breaking someone's arm.

--Brant

[sjw]

I am not dogmatic on anarchism except when I am discussing the issue with some minarchist who knows less than zero about the position he rejects.

So you admit to your dogmatism. That's progress.

No political system ever was, or ever can be, "perfect."

This is false. Not in the sense you were talking about, but in the sense of whether the political system is honestly designed to respect the individual consent of each and every individual. It is true that "civic virtues" are of crucial import, but if the political system itself is by its very design lacking in civility, then no "civic virtues" exist in the first place, not predominantly anyway. Therefore, the architecture of the political system is of paramount importance, not because it causes civic virtue, but because it is the final political standard of it.

All systems ultimately depend on the "civic virtues" -- a high regard for individual freedom, in the case of any libertarian system -- of most of its citizens. Without such virtues, every libertarian system, whether minarchist or anarchist, will soon degenerate into a statist system of some kind.

This is true in spirit -- but again, a "minarchist" (i.e., a "friendly" kind of totalitarianism) setup can't actually exist with "civic virtues"; it flouts virtue at its very core by trashing the individual right of consent. Nor can an anarchist setup, because anarchism is dishonest at its very core. Both of these systems are degenerate from the start.

To put it another way: I would rather live in a minarchist system in which the majority of citizens are sincere libertarians rather than in an anarchist system in which only a minority are sincere libertarians. The theoretical defense of anarchism rests on this crucial ceteris paribus condition, an implicit presupposition that is rarely mentioned or understood by minarchists.

I'll take the devil I know to the one I don't, therefore I won't go along with the anarchist, nor necessarily even with the minarchist. Neither party here is completely honest nor virtuous, and therefore I am quite certain that if they got their way, some new kind of political evil would emerge, one that society might not be capable of countering.

I don't need some ignorant punk lecturing me about such matters, especially one who suffers from an acute and apparently incurable case of the Columbus Complex.

Pardon me for not asking your opinions on everything before I proceeded, but I'm quite certain that the kind of mentality you'd prefer in me would have led me nowhere.

I am fully concious that, not being a literary man, certain

presumptuous persons will think that they may reasonably blame me;

alleging that I am not a man of letters. Foolish folks! do they

not know that I might retort as Marius did to the Roman Patricians

by saying: That they, who deck themselves out in the labours of others

will not allow me my own.

...

Though I may not, like them, be able to quote other authors, I shall

rely on that which is much greater and more worthy:--on experience,

the mistress of their Masters. They go about puffed up and pompous,

dressed and decorated with [the fruits], not of their own labours,

but of those of others. And they will not allow me my own. They will

scorn me as an inventor; but how much more might they--who are not

inventors but vaunters and declaimers of the works of others--be

blamed.

And those men who are inventors and interpreters between Nature and

Man, as compared with boasters and declaimers of the works of

others, must be regarded and not otherwise esteemed than as the

object in front of a mirror, when compared with its image seen in

the mirror. For the first is something in itself, and the other

nothingness.--Folks little indebted to Nature, since it is only by

chance that they wear the human form and without it I might class

them with the herds of beasts.

...

--Leonard de Vinci

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I'll take the devil I know to the one I don't, therefore I won't go along with the anarchist, nor necessarily even with the minarchist. Neither party here is completely honest nor virtuous, and therefore I am quite certain that if they got their way, some new kind of political evil would emerge, one that society might not be capable of countering.

A "minarchist" is a person who advocates "minimal," or "limited," government, i.e., a government that is limited to the protection of individual rights.

An "anarchist" is a person who rejects all government, as this term has been traditionally understood, i.e,. an institution that claims a coercive monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given geographical area.

So are you now saying that you are neither a minarchist nor an anarchist? So what kind of government do you advocate? A government that does in fact violate individual rights?

I don't need some ignorant punk lecturing me about such matters, especially one who suffers from an acute and apparently incurable case of the Columbus Complex.

Pardon me for not asking your opinions on everything before I proceeded, but I'm quite certain that the kind of mentality you'd prefer in me would have led me nowhere.

All I have asked of you is that you read what anarchists have actually said and advocated, rather than making stuff up as you go along. If you refuse to do this, then your comments and criticisms are worthless on their face. And in such cases, yes, I will be "dogmatic." I will say that you are a fool who doesn't know a thing about anarchism, and I won't attempt to prove anything to you. I won't do this because I can lead a fool to ideas, but I cannot make him think.

Ghs