For sale: My unpublished works and notes of 30 years


Recommended Posts

This is going to be a long and bumpy post, so fasten your seatbelts.

I shall be 62 on Feb. 10. and I still have a couple good books left in me before my mind turns to mush. But I'm sick to death of jingling my cup before foundations and rich control freaks in order to secure financing. So I'm going to attempt to finance myself with one or two projects. Here is the first:

I have mentioned before that I have an enormous amount of unpublished material. Well, I'm going to sell that material on CD-Rs as is from my files. This will include everything from some transcripts of Knowledge Products tapes (e.g., on the American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution) and the manuscripts I wrote for Cato University back in the 1990s (e.g., "The Ideas of Liberty," a manuscript of around 80 pages). I will also be including raw drafts, notes, thoughts to self, wild speculations, and even the transcript of my side of a debate I had with our own Phil Coates on the subject of anarchism -- in short, everything I have. And it is a shitload of material. I have thousands of such files. These include several hundred pages of finished chapters that I wrote for the never-to-published Disciplines of Liberty, not to mention zillions of notes and brainstorming. Some files run 30, even 50 pages, or more, whereas some are merely a page or two. And it's all there -- all the revisions, false starts, files titled "fuck" when I got frustrated and needed to start over, extensive notes on a planned book titled "Sovereign State, Sovereign Self," the complete text of Why Atheism, along with early drafts and deleted sections -- the list goes on and on. I don't even recall what is in a lot of this stuff.

I will even include the material I still have from "The Great Plagiarism Scandal" of 1998, when I alleged that Wendy McElroy massively plagiarized from a rough draft of a book I had been working on titled The Fundamentals of Reasoning. I still have that 200 page manuscript, and I will be making it available for the first time,along with my public postings on this matter and private thoughts to friends. No one's privacy will be violated, however. The only editing I may do in any file is to delete the names of people to whom I was addressing my email. All the rest will be raw and unvarnished, including some choice emails I wrote to one Stephan Kinsella -- you know, the guy who opposes libel and defamation laws -- when I, along with Sharon Presley, Tim Starr, and one or two others who had the temerity to forward my emails about this scandal --received Fed-X envelopes with long winded threats of legal action if we did not cease and desist from libeling and defaming one Wendy McElroy (who also doesn't' believe in libel and defamation laws, but who seems to have had no problem enlisting Kinsella's help.) I still have the original document, and I may include a copy as a bonus for subscribers.

Now, on to a few examples of things you will find. Here in an excerpt from a five page open letter I wrote to Mr. Kinsella:

The Sun-King Kinsella has also threatened legal action against Sharon Presley, Tim Starr, Laura Kroutil and other third parties who might have the temerity to forward my postings to various lists. (See Sharon Presley’s letter, Addendum II below.)

McElroy’s lawsuit, should it occur, promises to be an important challenge to freedom of speech on the Internet. I encourage every libertarian out there to become a participant in this historic event. Here’s how. Simply forward one or more of my postings to someone else. This, according to McElroy’s attorney – who apparently received his law degree through an Iraqi correspondence course– will make you guilty of libel and defamation of character. Thus you need only confess your crime to this intrepid enemy of the First Amendment to earn your place among the future champions of free speech.

I encourage libertarians (especially attorneys) to defy the imperious edict of Wendy McElroy and her ventriloquist’s dummy, the Sun-King Kinsella. Wear your little fingers to the bone by hitting that “send” icon on your computer screens, thereby striking a blow for freedom of speech and press. As for the Sun-King Kinsella, I responded (in part) as follows:

“SUBJECT: Idiot lawyers.

Dear Mr. Kinsella:

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Yours truly,

George H. Smith”

You can confess your crime to the Sun-King Kinsella at: <NSKinsella@compuserve.com.>

Or confess directly to Wendy McElroy, Court Censor, at:

<mac@zetetics.com>

Why was I so pissed? Well, here is an except from the first open letter I circulated, when I just touched the tip of the iceberg of the hundreds of "parallel passages" between my FOR manuscript and TRW. (WM initially claimed that, yes, she had a copy of my manuscript on her hard drive, but that she erased it before beginning work on TRW. She explained that she had an excellent memory and may have inadvertently used some passages from FOR. Her explanation changed after she read the following:

Smith, Chapter 8, p.4, line 3:“Subjectivists are made, not born.”

McElroy, p. 295:“Subjectivists are made, not born.”

Smith, Chapter 8, page19, lines 10-20: “But the most important and most comprehensive variety of skepticism is what I call epistemological skepticism: that is, skepticism with regard to the possibility of human knowledge….But all skeptics share the common premise that reality lies beyond the scope of human reason.”

McElroy, p289: “Philosophically, the most common sort of skepticism is epistemological skepticism, that is, a skepticism that denies the possibility of human knowledge. Epistemological skeptics share the common belief that reality lies beyond the scope of human perception and reason.”

Smith, Chapter 7, p. 4, lines 51-3: “Consider this fact: for this being, there would be no distinction between what it believes to be true and what actually is true.”

McElroy, p. 293: “Consider this fact alone: For an omniscient being there is no distinction between what it believes is true and what actually is true.”

Smith: Chapter 7., p.4, , lines 41-54: “Ask yourself: If there were an infallible being, how would its reasoning processes differ from ours. What would reasoning mean to a being who was incapable of reaching a wrong conclusion? It might have to go through some sort of process of thinking, but would it be a human process?

McElroy, p. 293:“Ask yourself a question: If you were an infallible, omniscient being, how would your reasoning process differ from what they are now? If you knew everything immediately and simultaneously, what would thinking out a problem entail? You might go through a series of mental processes, but how closely would they resemble the human process of reasoning?”

Smith, Ch.7, p. 5, lines 12-24:“After all, there would be nothing it did not already know, nothing for its mind to discover. Such a creature would not even think in any manner that makes sense to human beings. To human beings, thinking means moving from ignorance toward knowledge. It is goal directed. But an omniscient being would not require human thought at all. It would be pure knowledge.”

McElroy, p. 293: “Since there is nothing it did not already know, there would be nothing for its mind to discover, and no need to compare its beliefs against reality to ascertain their validity. For this one fact alone, it is clear that an omniscient being would not “think” in any manner remotely resembling human thought, which is a process of mentally moving from ignorance toward knowledge. An omniscient being would already be entirely knowledgeable.”

Smith, p. 5, lines 26-32:“The point being made here is that all of our standards of knowledge, and most of the words we use to deal with knowledge – terms like “truth,” “falsehood,” “probability,” “evidence” – exist in the context of fallible, non-omniscient human beings.”

McElroy, p. 293:“The crucial point is: all the standards of knowledge that human beings apply to themselves are firmly based on the assumption that we are fallible human beings. The very words we use to describe our standards of knowledge exist in this context of fallibility. The words “certainty,” “truth,” “falsehood,” “probability,” and “possibility” make no sense whatsoever except when referring to fallible human beings.”

Smith, p.5, line 44-p. 6, line 5:“Otherwise stated: the word “certainty” itself makes sense only in the context of fallible beings. If you were infallible or omniscient, then thinking would be irrelevant or impossible. First of all, there would be no need for the discussion in which your certainty is being questioned. Why would you engage in discussion [sic] of truth, when everything is known and everything known is true. Second, if you were infallible, the terms “evidence,” “certainty,” and “true” or “false” would not even make sense.

McElroy, p. 293:“In other words, if people were infallible, then the concepts of truth and falsehood, and all the shades of intellectual likelihood in between, would not exist. Truth – a term which is meant to distinguish a belief or statement as being “not false” – would have no significance. Every belief of an infallible being would be automatically true. The concepts of possibility, probability, and certainty, would never have evolved because there would be no need of cognitive yardsticks against which to measure the likelihood of our “knowledge” as being true.”

Smith, page 9, line 42- page 19, line 3:“There is an interesting and very useful technique to use with people who attack the possibility of certainty. Whenever anyone says to you, “You can’t be certain about that,” you should ask him, “precisely what have we not got?” After all, the person is using the word certainty and saying that you don’t have it, so he obviously knows what it is. Ask him to define what he means by certainty. Ask him to describe the criteria or standards by which certainty in this instance would be recognized. Ask him, what does certainty require?”

McElroy, p. 294:“There is an interesting technique you can use with anyone who attacks the possibility of your knowing anything. When someone tells you, “You can’t be certain about that,” ask her what she means by the word “certainty.” (You might even ask if she is “certain” that “certainty” doesn’t exist.” Ask her to define the standards by which certainty could be established.”

Smith, Chapter 8, p.5, line 37- page 6, line 2 “The word “skepticism” is used in a variety of ways and some are not objectionable. For example, we sometimes use the word “skeptical” to refer to mental attitude of cautiousness. A skeptic in this case is one who refuses to believe a proposition until sufficient evidence is presented in its favor…The desirability of skepticism depends on the context in which it is applied..”

McElroy, p. 289: “The word “skepticism is used in many ways and some are not objectionable. For example, it can refer to an attitude of intellectual cautiousness. That is, a skeptic may be simply someone who refuses to believe anything without sufficient evidence. The desirability of skepticism depends on how the word is being used.”

Smith, Chapter 10, page 3, lines 12-22 (under sub-heading, THE FALSIFICATION OF THEORIES): “There was a British philosopher named Karl Popper, who developed a very useful theory regarding scientific discovery. Popper disputed the common notion that scientists form hypothesis [sic] and then go out and try to verify the hypothesis. He claimed that what scientists do, and what they should be doing, is trying not to verify hypothesis [sic], but to falsify them.”

McElroy, 211, (under sub-heading, THE FALSIFICATION PRINCIPLE):“The most useful principle I have found is called falsification, so named by the philosopher Karl Popper Popper developed an intriguing approach by which to evaluate scientific claims. He disputed the notion that scientists should form a hypothesis…and then, go out and try to verify it. He claimed that scientists should go out and try to falsify a hypothesis rather than to verify it.”

Smith, Chapter 10, page 3, lines24- :”Popper observed that you could never conclusively verify a scientific theory, no matter how many cases you observe, because there was this problem of affirming the consequent. In other words, scientists were trapped in the invalid form of: If P, then Q: Q, therefore P. To translate this into common terms, scientists were arguing:

“If my theory is correct, swans are black.

Here is a black swan.

Therefore, my theory is correct.”

McElroy, p. 211: He observed that you could never conclusively verify a scientific theory, no matter how many confirming cases you observe. To speak in terms of logic, you would be running up against a fallacy known as affirming the consequent. In other words, you would be trapped in an invalid form of syllogism that would run as follows: If P, then Q; Q, therefore, P. To translate this into common English, you would be arguing along the lines of:

If my theory is correct, then all swans are black.

Here is a black swan.

Therefore my theory is correct.”

Smith (cont., lines 42-46): “This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. And no matter how many black swans (Qs) you observe, you cannot derive the truth of the theory ( P) from that process.”

McElroy, p. 211: “This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. And no matter how many black swans (Qs) you observe, you cannot derive the truth of the theory “swans are black birds” (P) from that process, because there might be a swan out of view that is not black.”

Smith, (cont., p. 3, line 48-page 4, line 1): “But!, Popper pointed out, you can disprove a theory by observing one single white swan. Therefore a theory which cannot be verified, can be disproven. All it takes is one counterinstance, one counter factual condition and the theory is proven false.”

McElroy, p. 211: “But! Popper pointed out, you can disprove the theory by observing one single white swan. Therefore, a theory that cannot be conclusively verified can be absolutely disproven. All it takes to falsify a theory, such as “Swans are black birds,” is the presence of one swan that is not black.”

Smith (cont., p. 4, lines 3-9 ) “Popper concluded that scientific investigation was a process of what he called conjecture and refutation. In other words, scientists were confronted with a problem, and they offered a conjecture of what they thought the solution might be., Then they searched for ways of falsifying that possible solution.”

McElroy, p. 211: “Popper concluded that scientific investigation is a process of conjecture and refutation. When scientists are confronted with a question, they offer a conjecture – that is, an opinion without sufficient evidence for proof – about what they think the solution might be. Then they searched for ways to refute or falsify the very solution they have suggested.”

Smith (cont., lines 11-17): “As theories held up over long periods of time – as they resisted strenuous attempts to falsify them – they became refined and assumed to be true.”:

McElroy, p. 212: “Of course, as a theory resists falsification over years and years of being tested, it becomes more likely to be a correct theory….”

Smith, page 4, lines 25-29: “My point here is that one very important tool in the discovery of truth and knowledge is this process of falsification.”

McElroy, p.212, “Falsification is a powerful tool in evaluating facts and theories.”

Smith, page 4, lines 37-41: “Too often, people look only to confirming cases. They only look for those things that will support what they want to be true.”

McElroy p. 212: “People commonly look only for confirming cases….and take notice only of the evidence supporting what they believe to be true. Or what they want to be true.”

Smith (cont., lines 41-47): “But as you can see, disconfirming cases can be a powerful intellectual tool, because they can tell you right away if there is something wrong with your theory.”

McElroy, p. 212: “Yet seeking out such disconfirming cases can be a powerful intellectual tool because they tell you right away if there is something wrong with a theory.”

Smith (page 4, lines 55-p. 5, line 4): “Another avenue of ignoring, or shutting out, disconfirming cases, is by presenting arguments which, in principle cannot be refuted.”

McElroy, p. 212: “Another way of shutting out disconfirming cases is by presenting arguments which, by their very nature, cannot be refuted.”

Smith (cont., lines 4-22): “For example, there is an old joke in philosophy about a man who runs to the doctor and says “doctor, doctor I’m dead.” The doctor looks at him and says, “no, you are not.” The man replies, “yes, I am; I am dead.” The doctor thinks of how to convince the man that he isn’t dead. Finally he says to the guy, “would you agree with me that dead men don’t bleed?” The guy agreed. The doctor pricks the man’s [sic] and he bleeds. “Aha,” the doctor proclaims, “see, dead men don’t bleed and you bleed; therefore you are alive.” The man reflects on this and replies, “I was obviously wrong. Dead men do bleed afterall [sic].””

McElroy, p. 212: “There’s an old joke in philosophy about a man who says to his doctor, “Doctor, doctor, I’m dead.” The doctor replies, “No you are not.” The man persists. “Yes, I am; I am dead.” The doctor argues with the fellow, “Would you agree with me that dead men don’t bleed?” The man agrees. The doctor then pricks his patient’s finger and he bleeds. “Aha,” the doctor proclaims, “See, dead men don’t bleed and here is blood, therefore, you are alive.” The man reflects on this and concludes, “I was obviously wrong. Dead men do bleed.”

Smith (cont., lines 24-32): “The moral of this joke is that, too often, when people do not want to have a theory refuted, they construct their arguments in such a way that the arguments cannot be falsified. The construct a theory in such a way that there is nothing that will disconfirm it.”

McElroy, p. 212: “The moral is: when people do not want to have a theory refuted, they often construct their arguments in such a manner as to make them unfalsifiable. They construct arguments in such a way that no amount of evidence will disconfirm them.”

Smith, under the heading THEORY AS A RISK TAKING VENTURE: Chapter 10, p. 5, lines 35-54: “To put this a different way – advancing a theory is an intellectual risk. If you are attempting to reach out into the real world and prove, then you are making yourself vulnerable. Because whenever there is a possibility of verification, there is a possibility of falsification.”

McElroy, p. 213 (under the heading THEORY IS A RISKY BUSINESS), p. 213: “To advance a theory is to take a risk that the real-world evidence might prove you wrong…. [W]herever there is the possibility of verification, there is also the possibility of falsification.”

Smith, page 6, lines 1-9: “When you say, “If my theory is correct, all swans are black,” you are running the risk of seeing a non-black swan, and losing your theory. Only by an intellectual slight [sic]-of-hand, such as labelling [sic] an[sic] non-black swan to be a goose, can you avoid this risk.”

McElroy, p. 213: “For example, when you way, “If my theory is correct, all swans are black,” and wander down to the local pond to check the evidence, you risk seeing a white swan and disproving your theory. Only by an intellectual sleight of hand, can you eschew the risk.”

Smith (cont., lines 11-15): “A person who claims to want his theory verified, but doesn’t want to take the corresponding risk of possibly falsifying it, is not being intellectually honest.”

McElroy, p. 213: “A person who claims to respect evidence, but doesn’t want to take the risk of being proven wrong, is not being intellectually honest.”

Smith, p. 6, lines 34-p. 7, line 2): “Let me give you two examples of theories, which place themselves beyond the possibility of falsification. When Karl Popper was going to school in Vienna, he noticed two very popular movements, or schools of thought, which were both claiming to be scientific: Freudianism and Marxism. Popper was very interested in the scientific method, but whenever he would get into an argument with either a Freudian or a Marxism [sic], he encountered insurmountable obstacles. Namely, they were immune to refutation. Note: this is quite different from saying that they could not be refuted because they were correct. Instead, the theories were constructed in such a manner as to eliminate any possibility of disconfirming cases.”

McElroy, p. 214: “When he was a student in Vienna, Karl Popper took special note of a school of thought that was popular in his day: Freudianism. In analyzing Freudian theory, Popper encountered a strange and insurmountable obstacle. Namely, it seemed immune to refutation. It was not that Freudian theory could not be refuted because it was correct, but that the system of theory was constructed in such a manner as to eliminate the very possibility of disconfirming cases.”

Smith, page 7, lines 4-22: “For example, in discussing the psychological condition which Freud called the oedipal (elektra) complex, the Freudian would claim it was “universal” – that is, everyone had this complex. Popper would point out that a lot of people have no memory, no feeling, no indication whatever of this desire. Such evidence would seem to be disconfirming. To put it in logical terms, Popper was saying to the Freudian:

“If you correct [sic], then all men have an oedipal complex:

But there are men without such a complex.

Therefore you are not correct.”

McElroy, page 214: “Consider the Freudian psychological phenomenon called the Oedipal (Electra) complex – the sexual attachment that every child is alleged to fee4l toward a parent of the opposite sex. Freud claimed this phenomenon was “universal.” It was a stage of development that everyone went through. Popper would point out that a great many well-adjusted people, who had happy and happy and apparently unrepressed childhoods, have no memory, no feeling, no indication whatsoever of every having had such a desire. Surely such recurring evidence seems to disconfirm the claim that the Oedipal complex is universal.

“To put Popper’s objection in more logical terms:

If Freudian theory is correct, all people have experienced an Oedipal complex.

But many people claim not to have had such an experience.

Therefore, the theory is not correct.”

Smith, (cont., lines 24-40): “But the Freudians, faced with disconfirming cases of their theory, simply defined those cases out of existence. They said, “men you don’t manifest any sign whatsoever of an oedipal complex are merely repressing it.” In other words, Freudians simply produced another, companion theory to define out of existence any counter evidence. No matter how Popper argued with them, they [sic] was always another theory – or an unstated aspect of the original theory – which made is impossible for them to be refuted.”

McElroy, p. 214: “Yet when the Freudians were confronted with cases that falsified their theory, they simply defined those cases out of existence, rather as the white swan was redefined as a duck. They said: “People who don’t manifest any sign whatsoever of an Oedipal complex are merely repressing it.” In other words, Freudians produced a companion theory to define out of existence any counterevidence. …The position was so constructed as to preclude falsification.”

Smith, Chapter 10, p. 10, line39-40. “To rephrase this point: whenever someone attempts to prove something, he must assume the risk of his claim being disproven.”

McElroy, p. 216: To rephrase this point, whenever you attempt to prove something, you must assume the risk of your claim being disproven.”

Smith, p. 15, line 54: “Theories should be dealt with on a theoretical level.”

McElroy, p. 216: “Theories must be dealt with on a theoretical level.”

I AM TOO WEARY AND TOO SICK OF HEART TO TYPE ANY MORE OF THIS, WHICH CONSTITUTES (AS A CONSERVATIVE GUESS) AT LEAST 75 PAGES OF MCELROY’S BOOK.

GEORGE H. SMITH

My first guess was indeed conservative. The final talley was 200-300 pages.

This controversy is effectively over. Since I really don't believe in copyright laws, I took my case to the court of public opinion. But this was one hell of a delicious scandal -- two lovers for ten years locked in a major plagiarism scandal. Wendy has her tale to tell, of course, and I encourage everyone to read it. But from my side you will get everything from letters to Prometheus Books to my mocking of WM's explanations in various open letters (e.g., "The Ligher Side of Plagiarism" and "Little Mac in Fibberland")to a little ditty that I delivered at one of JR's infamous beer busts in SF ("The Top Ten Reasons Why WM Should Commit Sucide" to my orginal 200 page manucript on the Fundamental of Reasoning (mostly written c. 1986), around 12 years before the publication of TRW.

So why am I harping on this speculular scadal? Because this shit sells, that's why. And if I am not going to make any money from over six years of work (I taught FOR classes from 1975-1981), I will make it some other way.

But back to the more serious stuff. I spent a couple hours looking through my files, and I found tons of stuff that I don't even remember. An entire folder titled "JARS article" with extensive notes on an article I planned to write on Ayn Rand's theory of war. This includes correpondence I wrote to friend, e.g.:

“This is Ayn Hobbes Speaking”

Ross,

You remarked that my Hobbesian interpretation of the Randian state of nature is probably unoriginal. I replied that I had something more general in mind. I will now explain what that “something” is.

This situation is ironic in a way, since I had originally assigned the Hobbesian theme a key role in the JARS article. Indeed, the conclusion of the original version is more interesting, and certainly more controversial, than the conclusion I sent to you earlier today. I would gladly go back to my original plan, provided I could justify it adequately. But lack of sufficient evidence at this stage of my research required that I abandon it -- for the time being, at least.

Let me first sketch the original plan.

There is a gap between Rand’s ARA’s statements about war and her philosophical premises. (I dub this The ARA Problem) This gap consists of a lack of argument. Rand’s ARA remarks may be justifiable, but we don’t have enough information to determine how Rand would have gone about providing this justification.

This means that we need to reconstruct Rand’s arguments, based on what we do know about her moral and political theory. But there are also gaps in these areas -- philosophic “blanks,” if you will, that need to be filled in.

So how do we go about filling in these philosophic blanks? Well, since our goal is accuracy and coherence, we could imagine Ayn Rand filling in the blanks. Suppose we want to know how Rand would have responded to a question about the status of individual rights in a state of nature. We would simply imagine, based on our knowledge of Rand’s writing, her most probable response.

This much is simple and uncontroversial; the worst that can be said about my proposal thus far is that explains in many words what could be explained in a few. But the uncontroversial stage of my original proposal is about to end….

I have pointed out the obvious Hobbesian elements in Rand’s state of nature; there seem to be Lockean elements as well, e.g., in her account of natural rights in a state of nature. If we take the basic theories of Hobbes and Locke, and transform them into Weberian “ideal types” (i.e., abstract mental constructs used to analyze complex particulars), then we can view Rand’s political theory in a historical context by breaking it into its Hobbesian and Lockean elements.

But how do we know which element to use? More specifically, how do we know whether the blanks should be filled in by Ayn Locke or Ayn Hobbes?

Okay, here’s where things get really interesting. (I would say “really exciting,” but I’m peculiar in this area.)

Recall the “ARA Problem”(i.e., the apparent inconsistencies between Rand’s basic principles and her statements about war in Ayn Rand Answers). Recall further the presumption of coherence. When we approach the ARA Problem with the presumption of coherence, we arrive at a specific methodology by which to decide whether we should use Ayn Hobbes or Ayn Locke to solve the ARA Problem.

The methodology is as follows: Which hypothetical Rand -- Ayn Hobbes or Ayn Locke -- will impart the greatest degree of coherence to her philosophical system by rendering her war statements in ARA internally consistent and logically intertwined with her moral and political philosophy?

Skipping a few steps, my penultimate conclusion would have been as follows: Only if we let Ayn Hobbes fill in the blanks will we get the philosophical coherence that our presumption demands. Only Ayn Hobbes can view the basic premises in such a way that they will “justify” the conclusions in ARA. If, in the other hand, we were to turn Ayn Locke loose and let her fill in the blanks, we would not end up with coherence at all; we would end up instead with a mass of contradictions.

This would have led to my ultimate conclusion, namely, that a good deal of Ayn Hobbes has been lurking in the political shadows of Objectivism all along. As libertarians we vastly prefer John Locke over Thomas Hobbes, and we admire Ayn Rand so much that our prejudice has caused us to see Ayn Locke where in fact we were looking at Ayn Hobbes.

This thesis led me to hunt for passages written by Ayn Hobbes in the political theory of Objectivism. Although I found what I believe are very interesting indicators, these are not sufficient to merit embracing the above as the thesis of my JARS article. I can send you some of these Hobbesian indicators, if you like, some of which are provided by Peikoff rather than by Rand herself.

It’s a nifty little plan, don’t you think? -- using a Hobbesian interpretation of Rand as the only thing that will justify the presumption of coherence in regard to her remarks in ARA. It is smart, clean, and original. Too bad I cannot justify this method to the extent required to make it credible, even as a speculative hypothesis.

To paraphrase Herbert Spencer: Another grand theory destroyed by a nasty little fact!

George

There are hundreds upon hundreds of little sidebars like this, in additon to major articles, unpublished book chapters, outlines for books, freewheeling speculations about theory, etc.

So what's the bottom line here? Well, I'm not sure yet. I will need at least 10 CD-Rs, probably more, and they will not be cheap. I will probably charge around $200 per CD-R, perhaps more depending on the content, and I will probably issue one CD per month. As they say, everything must go -- and everything will go, except for personal info involving other people; no emails will be included. And I will probably offer a substantial discount for people who subscribe to the entire set.

There will be nothing fancy about this -- no annotations or corrections. You will get everything directly as it appears on my hard drive -- almost everything I have written, except for my first two books on atheism, over the past three decades. You will find some crap, of course, but you will also some very good stuff. Moreover, by indulging your vouyeristic fantasies, you will also be helping me to write another book or two. The first will probably be a popular treatment titled Where Our Freedom Came From and How We Lost It.This is just a preliminary notice -- thinking aloud, in effect. I will provide more details a little later.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be very strange encountering material that one has completely forgotten about. I just found a detailed five-part summary, in outline form, of a Devil's Advocate argument against anarchism. Titled "Critique of Anarchism," it was commissioned when I was doing tutorials some years ago at the rate of $50 per hour. A very interesting fellow asked if I would write the most compelling case against anarchism that I could possibly think of. I agreed, and, judging from my time notations, the guy forked out around $500 for the project. There is also my lengthy response to his comments.

Here is a teaser, the first part of Part 1:

Problems with Anarchism: Possible Themes

George H. Smith

12/13/03

I. Methodology

A. The winner in the Minarchist/Anarchist Debate (MAD) is the side which can demonstrate that its socio-political system does not violate the shared moral premise of individual rights. The validity of this premise is assumed throughout the following analysis.

B. There are four possibilities and four corresponding outcomes, when assessing anarchism and minarchism solely by the rights standard:

1. Anarchism violates rights; minarchism does not. Minarchism wins.

2. Minarchism violates rights; anarchism does not. Anarchism wins.

3. Neither anarchism nor minarchism violates rights. A draw. The contest must be judged by a secondary criterion or criteria, if available.

4. Both anarchism and minarchism violate rights. Outcome uncertain. I shall now expand on this possibility.

II. Analysis of I.B.4.

A. Suppose both systems violate rights in some way. We have the following possibilities. (Henceforth I shall often refer to anarchism and minarchism as systems. The terms fail or failure will signify a violation of rights within that system)

1.Both systems will violate rights in the same way. For example, if it should turn out that punishment per se is inconsistent with the rights principle, then both systems will fail, since both propose institutions for this purpose.

a. By punishment, I mean any coercion used in response to the violation of rights, except that employed for immediate self-defense. In this generic sense, punishment subsumes restitution, along with retribution, etc.

b. If both systems violate rights in the same way, then the outcome might be decided by determining the relative degrees of their respective violations. How might this be measured? I’m not sure, and since I don’t plan to pursue this option at present, I don’t care all that much.

2. Each system will violate rights in a different way. This creates a hornet’s nest of possibilities. I wish to focus on one of these.

a. The rights violation of one system might be genetic. By this I mean a violation arising from the structure of the system and inherent in it, one that is necessary, and therefore predictable, so long as the system exists.

Pause: 7.46

Resume: 8.33.

b. The rights violation of the other system might be contingent. In this context, this means “something that is dependent on an uncertain event or condition.” (Use the Right Word, ed. S.I Hayakawa, Funk and Wagnalls, 1968.

c. So why use the term “genetic,” in contrast to “contingent”? Would it not be better to say “necessary” versus “contingent” instead, since I specified that “genetic” entails necessity anyway?

No, I don’t think so, for the following reasons:

And on it goes for many more pages.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

See this thread: Barbara Branden, Robert Hessen and the 1998 Rand Auction.

You might get a few ideas. Those auction people (or competitors) might be interested in making a project out of this.

Michael

Thanks, but I want to keep this as simple as possible, and I want to get moving on it immediately so I can get started on some other things.

The major project will require that I purchase video and audio equipment, so I will raise capital by offering a special deal: The whole shebang of my files for $1000, whether it takes 10 discs or many more - which is a discount of at least 50 percent. This offer will be limited to ten people, however. All the discs in this special offer will be numbered by me and signed. I already have two offers from some emails I sent out last night, both from freethinkers, not libertarians, so when you throw libertarians in the mix, I expect those first ten sets to move fairly quickly. I will then get myself out of this intellectual hell-hole of a city and go to where the intellectual grass is greener. And that's when my documentary film project, "Seriously Suicidal," will begin. (This is a very modest project, not some grand unattainable goal.)

I typically take a long time to figure things out, but when I start to move, I move very quickly. I have the same kind of confidence and enthusiasm for future projects that I had for Knowledge Products, when I designed those tapes from the ground up. And KP made a ton of money.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

See this thread: Barbara Branden, Robert Hessen and the 1998 Rand Auction.

You might get a few ideas. Those auction people (or competitors) might be interested in making a project out of this.

Michael

Thanks, but I want to keep this as simple as possible, and I want to get moving on it immediately so I can get started on some other things.

The major project will require that I purchase video and audio equipment, so I will raise capital by offering a special deal: The whole shebang of my files for $1000, whether it takes 10 discs or many more - which is a discount of at least 50 percent. This offer will be limited to ten people, however. All the discs in this special offer will be numbered by me and signed. I already have two offers from some emails I sent out last night, both from freethinkers, not libertarians, so when you throw libertarians in the mix, I expect those first ten sets to move fairly quickly. I will then get myself out of this intellectual hell-hole of a city and go to where the intellectual grass is greener. And that's when my documentary film project, "Seriously Suicidal," will begin. (This is a very modest project, not some grand unattainable goal.)

I typically take a long time to figure things out, but when I start to move, I move very quickly. I have the same kind of confidence and enthusiasm for future projects that I had for Knowledge Products, when I designed those tapes from the ground up. And KP made a ton of money.

Ghs

I may be interested in the 1k proposal. It's about time somebody did a biography of you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize for all the typos and dropped words in this post, but I have been up all night working, and I wrote this at breakneck speed. I caught some of the errors, but more doubtless remain

I will then get myself out of this intellectual hell-hole of a city and go to where the intellectual grass is greener.

So, you're moving to Peoria?

J

No, to Decatur. Bright lights, big city.

Actually, I am thinking about moving to Nashville. I spent a lot of time there during my KP years, and I fell in love with the place. Plus, I might be able to convince Roger Bissell to help with some production issues, and perhaps even serve as an interviewer and voice-over for the video documentary "Seriously Suicidal." And some original theme and background music would be nice as well. In addition, Roger and I can discuss free will until the cows come home; we are really in sync on this issue.

I can see the Nashville headlines now: Local Musician Clubbed to Death with His Own Trombone. Police Have Named Famous Atheist as a Person of Interest. <_<

Roger, if you are reading this, I don't expect you to work for nothing. I do hope you love peanuts, however. :lol:

My second choice would be Phoenix. I have a lot of friends there, and it is a hotbed of libertarian types. I love Arizona, but the problem with Phoenix is that it has become a dangerous place.

I will be setting up an elaborate website, one that offers hands-on online tutorials on a variety of topics. One will be on chess, conducted by Colley Kitson --the proprietor of Colley's Chess Cafe and a superb instructor who teaches hundreds of children every week in the Bloomington/Normal area. He also has access to a player in his twenties (rated around 2200 )who also teaches but who really wants to become a professional writer. We have have become good friends, and I frequently receive emails from him asking advice about writing.

And then there is my old friend from high school and college, Dr. David ******* (I don't want to use his complete name without his permission) who has a PhD in physics and another PhD in applied mathematics. After David left teaching in the early 1980s, he made millions by designing computer software and running his own company, but things fell apart after the dot.com crash made it impossible for his creditors to pay him. He has since returned to teaching physics.

David is a true phenom, one of the few authentic geniuses I have ever known. He was a year behind me in high school, but by the time I entered college, he had already earned a degree in physics. In addition he was an all-star basketball player, played on the UA team for a while, played semi-pro ball for a few years (I went to several of the games in 1974; we used to play basketball together nearly every day at Rincon high school in Tucson), and then played in the NBA for a year (mainly as a bench warmer.)

David also worked with NASA on the space shuttle, went through the Navy Seal program as a civilian consultant, and did a number of black-op missions, such as smuggling a Russian physicist from behind the Iron Curtain. Then there are those black belts in the martial arts....Fuck, the guy makes me feel like I have been goofing off for my entire life. The last I heard David is nearing completion of a text on physics and is due to have an article published in Scientific American on a new theory of gravity. He sent me a copy of the article, but I couldn't follow it after the introduction. He has also published quite a bit in other professional journals.

Two more brief stories about David. While in high school he was walking to a Seven-Eleven (where he worked part time to support his family)when he was accosted by a guy with a gun. So what did David do with a gun pointed directly at him? He took the guy out with one vicious punch to the face. The guy's face was a bloody mess and he didn't revive until hours later. When I said to David that he was taking an awful chance, he said, "No, not really. The guy didn't know what he was doing. I could see it in his eyes. There was no way he could pull the trigger before I clocked him. He was standing too close"

Around 20 years ago in NYC, as David was in the parking lot of an upscale restaurant, a guy approached him with a knife and demanded money. In a matter of seconds, David had fractured the thief's arm in two places, one of which was a compound fracture. While David was in the police car on the way to file a report, one of the cops said to him, "You've had some professional training, haven't you?" David replied, "Well, yes, Navy Seals and some black belts." The cop said, "I thought so. That asshole picked the wrong guy to fuck with."

David has approached me many times about doing some projects together, and if I can't figure out a way to market him....Oh yeah, I forgot about that Arizona State Championship in body building, but that's a minor acheivement by David's standards. Honesty, I have never heard of anything like this. It is absolutely amazing.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an odd tidbit that I found in my files. It was obviously misplaced in my "Plagiarism" folder. I of course have no recollection of what this is about, and I have no idea what I had in mind when I wrote it. One of life's little mysteries, it seems. Make of if what you will.

THE FORTUNES OF HAM AND DEE

A MEANINGLESS FABLE TALE TOLD BY AN UNKNOWN AUTHOR

Once upon a time in a land called Weirdwood, a boy named Ham met a girl named Dee and they fell in love, more or less. Theirs was an electric relationship, full of sparks and fire to keep them warm. They soon discovered a common interest in playing unusual games. These games were very unusual because they had few rules and no purpose, except having fun. But Ham and Dee didn't care; in fact, they often spoke of these games to their friends and sometimes invited them to join in. Dee was very pretty and very inventive and she soon became legendary throughout Weirdwood for her extraordinary skills.

Ham and Dee played these games for years and years, until one day something strange happened. Ham discovered, quite by accident, that Dee had been playing a game with a fine young fellow named Huh??? No one exactly knew why he was called Huh???, but they supposed it had something to do with the fact that he was so innocent. .

Poor Huh??? had no idea of whom he was dealing with. Dee was so cute and clever that no boy not versed in the black arts would suspect that Dee was a master of games. Huh??? was a very decent fellow; unlike Dee and Ham, he would never deceive anyone, especially a friend like Ham. So Dee devised another clever game. She would tell Huh??? that Ham knew all about her separate game with Huh??? and had no problem with it, because otherwise Huh??? would get very, very angry and refuse to play their game any longer. So neither Ham nor Huh??? knew the real game. Only Dee, a very clever girl, did.

When Ham found out about the game with Huh???, he got a little upset but not very angry, because he knew that Dee, a complicated girl, could sometimes be too clever for her own good. When Dee told Ham that she did not want to stop her games with him, he said that would be okay, but she must tell Huh??? that he (Ham), knew nothing about the situation. For you see, Ham, like Huh???, had a sense of honor. He felt that Dee was not being fair to Huh??? He also didn't like the idea that Huh??? would casually chat with him at parties, even cutting up vegetables together at a party in the kitchen, while thinking that Ham knew the real situation. This made Ham appear very, very silly.

Dee, Ham, and Huh??? were now in a maze, but only Dee and Ham knew they were in a maze. Poor innocent Huh??? had no idea he was in maze. But things got even more complicated as layer after layer were added to the maze, making it a three dimensional puzzle. Many things then transpired between Dee and Ham that are best not talked about, but Ham quickly learned that Dee had no intention of telling Huh??? the truth, despite her many promises that she would.

So Dee and Ham locked horns. Dee decided that life with Ham was too complicated, and that she wanted to play a very simple game with Huh??? from now on. She longed for the simple, pastoral life where she would be looked after. (Huh??? was a good provider with excellent prospects,) and worshiped as a goddess. When, at their last meeting in Pie Wonderland, Dee informed Ham that she would be moving to a faraway land called Ada, Ham wished her well and told her that he had no hard feelings. He would not tell Huh??? about the maze, because he wouldn't understand and would refuse to play with Dee any longer. For Huh??? was a very decent fellow, and Ham had no wish to cause problems.

But there was a storm ahead. Although Huh??? knew something about Dee's previous years of playing unusual games, she had told him a version that was very, very mild. And since the unusual games of Dee and Ham were widely known in Weirdwood, Dee feared that Huh??? might eventually stumble upon the truth. A journey to the faraway land of Ada therefore seemed like a good idea.

Ham was very concerned. He told Dee that she should tell Huh??? about her games, because she shouldn't live the rest of her life creeping around on all fours. If Huh??? truly loved Dee, he would understand. Ham even offered to talk to Huh??? if that would help, but she cried out, NO, NO, YOU MUSTN'T SAY A WORD!!! , For Huh???, a very decent fellow, would surely leave her. Ham agreed, and they parted with a hug.

It seemed all would turn out well. Ham soon found another pretty and clever girl to play unusual games with, and Dee retired to the blank bliss of Ada.

But then very strange things began to happen, and within a few years Dee and Ham were at war. But Huh???, bless his pure heart and empty head, stood by Dee. He never had a clue what was going on.

We now turn to the details of the twisted tale that led to war between the forces of Ham and the forces of Dee, as their games became even more complicated.

Here endeth Chapter One of The Fortunes of Ham and Dee. Stayed Tuned for Chapter Two, "Someone Calls Dee a Bad Name at a Party, and All Hell Breaks Loose."

I found some other strange files similar to this, including a silly little fable titled Popsicle. God only knows what that is about. I also found Chapter Two of The Fortunes of Ham and Dee, but it makes no more sense that what I have posted here. Why anyone would pay money to read this nonsense is beyond me.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> even the transcript of my side of a debate I had with our own Phil Coates on the subject of anarchism

George, do you have a problem with presenting my words, my side of the debate?

(By the way, we had two debates on this subject. Is this the one we had at The Atlas Society summer conference or the one at Laissez-Faire Books?)

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be interested in the 1k proposal. It's about time somebody did a biography of you...

A bio would not be complete without an account of how, in 1994, I was kidnapped, beaten nearly unconscious, bound and gagged, wrapped tightly in a tarp, thrown in the back of a pickup truck (while being told I would be shot if I cried out), driven miles to somewhere in the Oklahoma countryside, dragged out, tied to a tree, and repeatedly had a gun pointed at my head. I remained tied to that tree for over six hours until daybreak.

This actually happened, seriously, and quite a few people, including JR, know about it. This horrific event happened the same day I got out of rehab. The chief culprit was Robert Murphy, who was well known in LP circles at the time. Robert, whom I considered a good friend, believed that I had somehow lured his daughter-in-law into a life of drugs -- which was pure bullshit. Annie was into drugs long before I met her; indeed, this was a major reason we lived together for over 8 years.

(JR has often kidded me about my Rasputin-like power over women. It seems that whenever something goes seriously wrong in a woman's life with whom I was involved, it was all my fault. I would like to say that I possess remarkable sexual prowess, but the truth is unfortunately much more mundane.)

Robert and his wife, Agnes Regier, whom I regarded as an especially close friend but who was also in on the plan, had invited me to stay in their home with Annie for a few months until I got back on my feet. I had plunked down nearly 5000 bucks to get Annie and myself into a highly rated rehab clinic in New Mexico, but those two somehow managed to convince themselves that I had a nefarious plan. The nearly eight hours of sheer terror was supposed to dissuade me from ever seeing Annie again. The most lasting effect was this: I still have virtually no feeling in one finger, because the rope around my wrists was bound so tight for so long.

The details are even more terrifying -- for example, the fear that I would be dumped, bound and gagged, into a lake. I can still feel the terror when, after being bound in ropes and that coffin of a tarp and bouncing around in the pickup bed for an hour, hearing the truck stop, turn onto a dirt road, then stopping again, backing up, and hearing the sloshing of water. The truck stayed there for at least ten minutes, moving around now and again to what was apparently a deeper part of the lake, as the sloshing got louder. It seemed clear that Robert was positioning the truck into a suitable dump site.

Unfortunately perhaps, I don't think you will find an account of this in my files. It was contained in various emails, which I will not include.

I have told people that I have lived an interesting life. And you haven't heard but a fraction of it. Even a good fiction writer couldn't come up with this stuff. The most interesting part of that experience was what went through my mind during that hour journey (it seemed like an eternity) to what I was absolutely certain would be a miserable death. I made peace with myself on the way, and God didn't enter my thoughts at all. Remarkable things happen when you believe you are about to be killed.

Of course, none of my humdrum experiences can possibly rival Neil Schulman's mind-melding with God, but I will rest content with second best.

Btw, my documentary film project, Seriously Suicidal, will consist of the best parts of extensive interviews with me about this experience, drugs, sex, philosophy, the libertarian and freethought movements, and so forth. If done properly, with a good interviewer, producer, and editor -- not to mention a sense of humor -- it could prove of interest to HBO, PBS, etc. I plan on starting out with a 10-15 minute segment and then shopping around for serious funding. The title is based on my resolution, formed at age 19, to kill myself when the minuses of life outweigh the pluses. The problem is knowing when this point has arrived. I have no desire of what Voltaire called "dying in detail," and I was profoundly influenced by Nietzsche's point that we have no choice as to when and how we entered this world, but we do have a choice when and how to leave it. Ironically, Nietzsche went insane from syphilis before finding that not-so-bright line, and lived out his remaining years under the control of his nutty sister.

One reason I have been going on about stories is to test possible material for Seriously Suicidal. Great title, if I do say so myself.

If anyone has the skill and desire to participate in this project, please contact me. I'm determined to get this thing going, and I am confident that I will succeed, whatever it takes.

And you thought that documentary on Robert Crumb was weirdly different....

Ghs

Addemdum: I got very defiant after being tied to a tree. By then I was convinced that I would not be killed, so I repeatedly said things like, "Go ahead and shoot me, you piece of shit. It would be worth it for me to die knowing that you will be repeatedly butt-fucked in prison for the rest of your life. They will love your cute ass."

I even managed to crack some jokes. When Robert explained that I was undergoing "Indian Therapy," I immediately said, "How!" That moron didn't even get the joke, but instead started to explain how Indian Therapy is supposed to work.

Believe it or not, Robert actually tape recorded the whole "Indian Therapy" part (while I was tied to a tree), so he could later play the tapes for Agnes. I should have immediately gone to the police and nailed their asses to the wall -- my many cuts and abrasions were evidence that someting had happened -- but for reasons that are difficult to explain (mainly my concern for Annie, who was still in rehab), I didn't. Annie, a beautiful and intelligent blonde who is considerably younger than I, is a very decent person, and had nowhere else to turn except her family, since we had ironically resolved in rehab to part ways, owing to the unhealthy synergy of two drug users living togeher.

I often think of Annie. If she should happen to be lurking on OL or if someone knows where she is, I would like her to know that I think of her often and miss her still. Sorry things didn't work out, Annie, but boy what a journey through the bright lights and dark recesses of the mind we had during our years together. I wouldn't trade those years for anything, despite the tragic ending. You're the best.

Shit, I'm starting to cry for the first time in years...

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> even the transcript of my side of a debate I had with our own Phil Coates on the subject of anarchism

George, do you have a problem with presenting my words, my side of the debate?

(By the way, we had two debates on this subject. Is this the one we had at The Atlas Society summer conference or the one at Laissez-Faire Books?)

I am referring to the LF debate. I just happen to have written out my initial part of that debate. I have no interest in summarizing or transcribing my rebuttals or including your presentation. (I winged the AS debate, since it was so sudden.) With these Cds, what I have is what people will get. I am not going to starting monkeying around with things. Some kind of presentation of the entire debate would be an entirely different project, one that doesn't interest me now. You are of course free to present your side in any manner you wish. For that matter, if you want to transcribe my part as part of a package, that's fine with me, but I should be included in any profits.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much for the dirty stuff? You know, like that thing with the donkey and the leather strap.

I think your idea is really bold and interesting. I hope that people take advantage of your offer. Good idea!

Oh, and that set of black and whites with the birdcage and the monkey, I would be interested in that; it would look great in the guest bedroom.

Regards,

rde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, this account is fascinating and horrifying at the same time. I'm literally stunned. You've already been to hell and back.

Tim

> even the transcript of my side of a debate I had with our own Phil Coates on the subject of anarchism

George, do you have a problem with presenting my words, my side of the debate?

(By the way, we had two debates on this subject. Is this the one we had at The Atlas Society summer conference or the one at Laissez-Faire Books?)

I am referring to the LF debate. I just happen to have written out my initial part of that debate. I have no interest in summarizing or transcribing my rebuttals or including your presentation. (I winged the AS debate, since it was so sudden.) With these Cds, what I have is what people will get. I am not going to starting monkeying around with things. Some kind of presentation of the entire debate would be an entirely different project, one that doesn't interest me now. You are of course free to present your side in any manner you wish. For that matter, if you want to transcribe my part as part of a package, that's fine with me, but I should be included in any profits.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, but I want to keep this as simple as possible, and I want to get moving on it immediately so I can get started on some other things.

The major project will require that I purchase video and audio equipment, so I will raise capital by offering a special deal: The whole shebang of my files for $1000, whether it takes 10 discs or many more - which is a discount of at least 50 percent. This offer will be limited to ten people, however...

George,

I want to introduce you to an Internet marketing concept. In the case you describe above, it looks to me like it will be wedding hunger to wanting to eat (that's a Brazilian expression meaning a perfect fit).

The concept is called Crowdfunding. This is a recent thing that grew out of social networking.

Basically, it is a money control system that you can use for finding and managing donors to fund a project you want to do. The sites themselves have their own public, but you can also use their setup as a place to send your own people to (say, from forums, your email contacts, the email contacts of your friends, blogs, etc.). You can also write a press release about it and distribute it to a bunch of free press release sites. And make a video, of course, explaining what you want to do and why--and what the benefits for donating (or buying your notes) are--and most of all, where to go donate! :)

Here is a list of some crowdfunding sites and links I have come across in my studies. I am including my overall impression of each site and the Quantcast demographic data when available.

Kapipal

This is great for getting a conceptual referent of what crowdfunding is. You get to see actual money amounts on the screen right at the start. No Quantcast demographic data available, but it looks very interesting.

ChipIn

Very, very simple. See Quantcast data here. Looks like a great option for you. The majority of the visitors earn less than 30k a year or more than 100k.

PledgeBank

Not everything on this site is financial, but it might be a great option because it gets people motivated around a cause. The slogan is "I'll do it, but only if you'll help." No Quantcast demographic data available.

RocketHub

No Quantcast demographic data available, but from the homepage, this looks like a yournger crowd. Still, look around. Who knows?

Senzoo

This is relatively new and it's a little clunky at the start. But it might be great from the appearence and technical aspect. No Quantcast demographic data available.

CreateFund

No Quantcast demographic data available, but it has a page rank of 4, which means a lot of sites link to it. That's a good sign.

Go Fund Me

No Quantcast demographic data available, but Quantcast does show a huge steady spike in traffic since last October, which means this is becoming a hot site. It might be too touchy-feely for you--very family oriented. But look at it. Who knows?

WorkBook Project

See Quantcast data here. This looks like another good option, but it seems a bit clunky on first blush. Still, people are using it, so they must be doing something effective.

I also found this site:

Crowdfunding at Trampoline Systems

This is where you can learn a lot about crowdfunding, including lots of links to other places.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to undertake this myself without abandoning the things I already have in the works, but if you decide to go this route and/or have someone interested in helping you, someone with a minimum amount of gumption, I will be glad to give more advice to that person on how to promote the project.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bio would not be complete without an account of how, in 1994, I was kidnapped, beaten nearly unconscious, bound and gagged, wrapped tightly in a tarp, thrown in the back of a pickup truck (while being told I would be shot if I cried out), driven miles to somewhere in the Oklahoma countryside, dragged out, tied to a tree, and repeatedly had a gun pointed at my head. I remained tied to that tree for over six hours until daybreak.

Ghs

How harrowingly horrific. I had an entirely different could-have-died experience in that same year! I set myself on fire (not on purpose). I was stirring oatmeal on the stove, wearing a genuine Japanese cotton kimono which obviously had no fire retardants, and my whole left sleeve was instantly on fire. I stuck the arm instantly into the sink, which was full of dishes as usual, but could not get enough water on it so ran into the shower and got the fire out. Two interesting things I remeber:

1. I distinctly saw myself, as if from the ceiling, running ablaze from the kitchen to the bathroom. Somehow, simultaneously, I saw myself rolling on the floor, also ablaze.

2. The clinical shock afterwards. I could do nothing but apologize, to the 911 operator, to the EMTs, to the receptionist at my husband's work, for being so stupid as to have tried to incinerate myself. I also felt overwhelming relief, not that I was alive but that I had been alone in the house, and my family did not have to see what happened.

I don't remember feeling any other emotions at all. It all happened in seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to introduce you to an Internet marketing concept. In the case you describe above, it looks to me like it will be wedding hunger to wanting to eat (that's a Brazilian expression meaning a perfect fit).

The concept is called Crowdfunding. This is a recent thing that grew out of social networking.

Michael,

First let me say that I value your advice a great deal, and that I will read all the links you provide with great care. Thanks.

Here is the basic problem as things now stand. I would like to generate enough working capital within the next six months to get some projects rolling, such as the website and documentary that I discussed previously.

This is the purpose of what I shall call the Files Project (FP), i.e., selling all my unpublished material, including unpolished and final drafts, notes, transcripts of lectures and tapes, stream-of-consciousness brainstorming, etc., etc.

I do not view FP as a long-term project, but merely as a means to raise capital. This is not because I could not possibly turn FP into a long-term project, but because I have little desire to do so. 30 years of my work easily runs into many thousands of pages. I have no idea of the exact number, but I just ran a file/folder count of my Master Documents Folder, which is where most of the material will come from, and the total is 6202 files in 592 folders.

When you consider that many of the files contain 20 to 30 pages of material, and some even more, we are talking about a lot of pages. And if I were to rate the intellectual value of this material on a scale of 1 to 10, I would estimate that 50 percent rates 7 or higher, 25 percent rates 5 or higher, and the remaining 25 percent rates 4 or lower. I tend to be very critical of my own stuff, so this is probably a realistic estimate. It is certainly an honest one.

Moreover, many of the files contain extensive notes about social theory and history, including attempts to arrive at rigorous definitions of concepts like society, state, institution, self-interest, coercion, spontaneous order, etc. etc. Hundreds of pages of polished and footnoted material discuss in considerable detail the nature and development of the disciplines of philosophy, economics, social psychology, history, and sociology -- with a special emphasis on explaining how these disciplines contributed to the growth of libertarian theory. And there is a lot of material on the methodologies of these disciplines and how they can be merged so as to generate an interdisciplinary study of freedom. I even coined the somewhat awkward label Liberology (i.e., the "science," or systematic study, of liberty) as a way of conceptualizing this interdisciplinary approach. The interdisciplinary study of freedom has been a major interest of mine for decades. And since almost no work on this topic has been done by other libertarians, I pretty much had to start from scratch.

And there is a lot of stuff on the significance of major thinkers such as John Locke, Adam Smith, and Herbert Spencer, as well as some lesser known but very important figures, such as Thomas Hodgskin. Some years ago I was commissioned by the publishing branch of Laissez-Faire Books to write an Introduction for a reprint of Hodgskin's great work, The Natural and Artificial Right of Property Contrasted (1832). (Hodgskin, a radical individualist and a mentor to Spencer, was chief editor of The Economist during the 1840s and early 1850s). The result of my efforts was a 50-page detailed and footnoted analysis not only of this book but of others books by Hodgskin as well, and his significance for free-market classical liberalism. To my knowledge, no comparable article about Hodgskin has ever been written. Another result was that LFB closed down their publishing branch before the book was published, so my article has remained hidden in my files for around 8 years.

Okay, I know I am rambling on, but I want to be clear about what we are talking about here. I am not enthusiastic about selling what is essentially my life's work, including candid notes in which I discuss the difficulties of certain enterprises and whether I may be on the wrong track, to any person who has an extra thousand bucks, or whatever. (I can be brutally frank with myself. In notes, I will sometimes make comments like, This is crap. What the fuck do you think you are doing? Trying to impress people with senseless jargon? Close down this file. Erase it. Do anything, but get the hell out of here. Start over....

At times the prospect of revealing all this makes me feel like a circus freak. Come one, come all! Come see the labyrinthine corridors of the mind of Ghs. Watch him as he twists and turns hoping to escape the dreaded Minotaur of his Mind. Will he make it? Or will be be consumed by that dreaded beast? This is the best show in town, and it only costs a dime. Go away, kid, you bother me.

Let me be clear. I do think there is a value in releasing this material, especially if some of the untapped ideas for articles and books inspire some young libertarians to develop those ideas further. But I don't want to have the material out there forever. I am seriously considering issuing a limited edition of 500 sets at $1000 each, perhaps with a printed booklet of 50 pages in which I discuss the material, how it might be used by others, etc. And if all the sets don't sell within a year, I would take them off them off the market. They would never be available again. Again, the point here is to raise some start-up capital for other projects.

Of course, there is the problem of copy protection, but that is a different issue, and there are ways of dealing with it.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

Crowdfunding is for short-term projects.

That's the main reason it came into being.

In fact, I suggest you do your thing differently if 1,000 bucks is all you need. Just set up the project on one of those sites, lay it out in terms attractive to the public and tell everyone who contributes that they will get their name in your book as a Patron of Great Literature.

Then promote the hell out of the project in Objectivist/libertarian circles, or even mainstream if you can get someone's attention. (It does make for a good story, you being you and all, so why not?)

I'm serious.

You don't need to sell your notes.

How about this? You could offer a limited CD set along the lines you are thinking--in addition to the mention in your book--for people who donate over a certain amount. Everybody else just gets the mention, which is a good thing all by itself. Hell, make up a Benefactor Deed or Angel Liberator of Genius Certificate or whatever to go with it, signed personally by you.

I bet a thing like that--something you might think of as hokey--would become a collector's item later. (btw - That's a selling point, too.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How harrowingly horrific. I had an entirely different could-have-died experience in that same year! I set myself on fire (not on purpose). I was stirring oatmeal on the stove, wearing a genuine Japanese cotton kimono which obviously had no fire retardants, and my whole left sleeve was instantly on fire. I stuck the arm instantly into the sink, which was full of dishes as usual, but could not get enough water on it so ran into the shower and got the fire out. Two interesting things I remember:

1. I distinctly saw myself, as if from the ceiling, running ablaze from the kitchen to the bathroom. Somehow, simultaneously, I saw myself rolling on the floor, also ablaze.

2. The clinical shock afterwards. I could do nothing but apologize, to the 911 operator, to the EMTs, to the receptionist at my husband's work, for being so stupid as to have tried to incinerate myself. I also felt overwhelming relief, not that I was alive but that I had been alone in the house, and my family did not have to see what happened.

I don't remember feeling any other emotions at all. It all happened in seconds.

Thanks for this account. Getting set on fire has to be the worst.

My experience was all the more horrific by being planned and executed by people I trusted, considered close friends, and who had invited me into their home. The sense of betrayal was staggering. If they didn't want me around, why didn't they say so? I had other options, and I wouldn't have bothered them. I was lured in and set up.

I remember what I was thinking when all this started. Robert picked me up at the airport immediately after I finished rehab. I was pretty much in a daze, which is normal, but everything seemed okay. Robert was cordial as he drove me to his home, as we chatted about future plans, but I found it curious that Agnes was not around. (I learned later that she left so as not to have to watch what would follow.)

After arriving at his home, Robert and I went out for some of those tiny cheeseburgers -- White Castle, or something like that. Afterwards, I was very tired and decided to call it an early night. I was provided with a nice bedroom, but before retiring, I went back into the living room, dressed in underwear and a robe, to say goodnight. Robert, seated across the room, said nothing. He stood up, walked calmly across the room, and suddenly hit me as hard as he could in the pit of my stomach. I fell to my knees and gasped for air. I was too stunned at this point to even realize what was going on.

Then Robert twisted me around, pinned my wrists together, and started dragging me on my stomach across the living room floor. (He was heading for the garage, which was connected to the living room by a door.) As he did so, I couldn't believe what was happening. It made no sense. I said, Robert, what are you doing? What's going on?

Not a word in reply. He just keeping dragging me.

I managed to get to my knees and free one hand from his grip. Then as I tried to pull away completely, he punched me on the side of my head. I don't recall exactly how many times, but it was at least twice. (Robert, an ex-Marine -- I think; maybe he was army -- who served in Vietnam -- was not a big guy, but he kept in shape and obviously knew how to beat someone up. I, in contrast, had never been in a physical fight in my life. And even if I had, I was in no shape to put up a contest.)

After being punched in the head a few times, I fell over on my side. Then, while I was trying to get up, Robert got some kind of heavy metal plate -- I think it was one of those decorative pewter plates -- and hit me really hard on the top of my head. It didn't completely knock me out (or it might have for a few seconds), but it came awfully close. I was so stunned that I had no idea what was going on for the next minute or two.

The next thing I remember I was on the cold concrete floor of the garage, very near the washer and dryer. (My robe had come off in the struggle, along with my glasses, and I was now dressed only in jockey briefs) Robert had bound my feet with a rope, and as I started to scream Help, help! as loud as I could, hoping a neighbor would hear, he sat on my chest, put a serious stranglehold on me, forced my mouth open, and stuffed a filthy, oily rag into my mouth that made me gag and nearly vomit.

All this while Robert had a malicious grin on his face, while saying something like, Here! Like that? Taste good?

Robert was having the time of his life. I was clearly dealing with a sadist of the first rank.

There is a background story here: Robert had always resented the fact that I didn't take him seriously on an intellectual level. I was much more interested in what Agnes had to say, and, even though Robert he never said anything to me about this, it obviously it pissed the hell of him. And now was the time for revenge.

Then Robert tried to flip me over so he could tie my hands behind my back. Here something very curious occurred. I started telling myself Think! Think!. Don't panic! I understood that resistance would only make things worse, so I didn't struggle very much as Robert pinned my wrists together so he could bind them with a rope.

There is an old trick that I did many times during my amateur magician years. It consists of positioning your wrists so that when someone ties your hands together behind your back, no matter how tightly, in the usual way, you can slip out. I had done this trick for friends so many times that I instinctively followed the routine. Robert had bound my wrists so tight that it hurt, and I could only hope that an escape might later be possible.

Then came the scary part. Temporarily leaving me bound gagged on my stomach, Robert walked to another part of the garage to get large canvass tarp. He spread it out on the floor, rolled me over on it, wrapped it completely around me, and tied it off at both ends with more rope. I was encased in what seemed like a canvass tomb, with only a small opening at the top for air. Robert, being the considerate type, removed the oily rag before sealing me up.

Then Robert left. Even though the garage door was closed, I could hear him loading stuff into the bed of his pickup truck. I thought, Shit he's going to take me out and bury me somewhere. I'm dead of if I don't get help now.

I then went into my "escape" mode. My little rope trick worked, even though it took a while and rubbed a lot of skin off my wrists. I freed my hands inside the tarp, and then pulling my legs up I managed to free my feet. This took quite a while, but Robert was enjoying all this so much that he took his time with the truck.

Now I had to get out of that damned tarp. I had no special skills for this sort of thing, but I managed to force my right had through the space left at the top for air, and then untie a sloppy knot. Then I pulled the tarp open.

Here I took a deep breath and told myself to calm down and think things through. I could easily get out of the tarp now, but Robert was in the driveway with only the garage garage door separating us. The only way out was through the adjoining door to the living room -- the same way I was dragged in. If I walked out this door, the front door of the house would be immediately to my left, Unfortunately, this was adjacent to the driveway, where Robert was puttering around with his pickup, listening to music, and enjoying this wonderful experience to the max. (I even remember him whistling to one of the tunes. Very, very creepy.

I didn't think the house had a back door, or if it did I didn't know where it was, so I decided my best bet was to head for the phone in the living room, dial 911, and hope for the best. But being unfamiliar with the house, I didn't even know where the phone was. I assumed there would be one in the living room.

But there was a serious problem. Without my glasses, I was blind as fucking bat, and I no idea where my glasses were. I couldn't see clearly anything more than a few inches away from me. So how long would it take before I could locate the damned phone?

I told myself to calm down and not to panic at any stage of what I was about to do. If this didn't work, I was dead. I had no reason to think otherwise. Being unfamiliar with "Indian Therapy," I could not possibly make sense of any of this without supposing that Robert was going to bury me somewhere in the vast Oklahoma wilderness, where my body would never be found. And given his display of sadistic violence, I feared he would bury me alive.

I quickly got out of the tarp, but before proceeding, I groped around, hoping to find my glasses. That's when I spotted them: two large cans of Ronson lighter fluid sitting on the edge of the washer, just a few feet from the tarp. My heart really started to pound. Was this sadistic freak go to douse me with lighter fluid and then set me on fire? I thought this was very likely. All I could think to do was to quietly open the door of the dryer and hide the two cans inside. I had to get to the damned phone.

I stood at the door to the living room, squinting in an effort to see the phone. I finally spotted a blurred outline on the other side of the room. Bad luck, especially since Robert had left the main door to the house completely open, leaving only the screen door separating me from this maniac. I could see him to my left, not more than 20 feet away.

No other way out, so, still squinting, I waited until Robert's back was facing me, and I started to walk quickly and quietly to the phone. I didn't run because I was afraid I might trip.

I don't know whether Robert heard me or saw me, but my Great Escape had failed. I made it halfway across the room before Robert barged in. He didn't physically accost me at first. He just stood there and taunted me, almost daring me to make one last mad dash to the phone. While clapping his hands, he said, in a mocking tone, Very, good, George, very good. I underestimated you. But that won't happen again.

Then things got really ugly. No more Mister Nice Guy from Robert Murphy, former candidate for the LP presidential nomination.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> No more Mister Nice Guy from Robert Murphy, former candidate for the LP presidential nomination.

Your story is a perfect example of why anarcho-capitalism won't work.

If you actually stop and think it through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> No more Mister Nice Guy from Robert Murphy, former candidate for the LP presidential nomination.

Your story is a perfect example of why anarcho-capitalism won't work.

If you actually stop and think it through.

See George, see George think. See George think it through.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> No more Mister Nice Guy from Robert Murphy, former candidate for the LP presidential nomination.

Your story is a perfect example of why anarcho-capitalism won't work.

If you actually stop and think it through.

Phil,

I can't imagine how you drew such a conclusion from George's story. What happened to George has absolutely nothing to do with politics. George was the victim of a violent, deranged, psychotic nutcase who was looking for someone to blame for his daughter's problems. Such violent people will always exist in any society, no matter what its political system. Not surprisingly, despite the fearsome size and power of the multiple branches of our government, no government agents were there to protect George against the psycho who attacked him. Protecting people is not and never has been a priority of government police. For confirmation, just read the work of Radley Balko or "Radgeek" Charles Johnson. They have been meticulously documenting police abuses for many years.

Martin

Edited by Martin Radwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now