Molyneux' FDR controversy is going too far

[TackleTheWorld]

FOO = family of origin
To Defoo is to realize your parents don't care about you and break off contact with them.

[memenode]

I don't think ostrification is successful when you're on the other side of the current moral zeitgeist. If people believe in aggression, you're potentially just making a hermit out of yourself, giving them reason to think you 'wrong'. Instead, interact and win them over using good old fashioned human communication skills.

I tend to agree with that, though Stefan makes some points which can be hard to ignore sometimes. For example in this video he suggests voluntaryists to ask their friends, family members etc. a crucial question: "Do you support initiation of violence against me. This way you make it personal and real. It ceases to be just a debate on some distant matters for the sake of debate itself. It becomes a question on which the further course of a given relationship will depend.

If someone says yes, that he or she does support violence against me then the argument is that how can I possibly treat that relationship in the same light, as if everything was OK. The line that stuck with me is where he said, if a friend tells you yes, he supports initiation of violence against me, am I gonna just say "ok fine, let's go play basketball now"? Like nothing happened?

That made me think (and I actually posted about this on FDR)... I live in the same apartment with my sister. She applied and got in the police academy and is about to move to the academy campus in march. From the beginning I voiced my disapproval. I said police is about coercion, but every time I'd start explaining myself tensions would rise. She didn't seem quite interested. She expected support or.. well, just avoiding the topic. Recently though we somehow got to that subject and for the first time had a serious and deep discussion. I explained to her a whole lot of things, from clarifying my belief in non-initiation of violence, arms as means for self-defense to the nature of public property and how it decreases order and security among people today. She seemed to understand everything. The final point it came to is where she asked "ok so what am I supposed to do, just agree, what will that change" and I suggested "well you know one thing you can do, give up on the police academy, find a job which doesn't involve coercion of any kind".

That's where she turned to saying how it's impossible for just so few of us to change the world, but I explained that this is not what I'm asking for. Maybe she can't change the world, but she can change her mind and that's how, slowly perhaps, any kind of evolution towards good happens.

Unfortunately, she was ultimately caught in a self-contradiction where she pretty much tried to express the inexpressible to me.. that she does not believe in violence and does believe in violence at the same time. She wont give up on police, but she wants to claim to not support violence, despite knowing now that by accepting the police job she also accepts that she will sometimes have to coerce as part of enforcing the law of the state. Classic case of doublethink!

I concluded that she's basically lying to herself, something I cannot do, and left it at that. We didn't speak about that since, and went back to our "good relations" routine. I never actually faced her with that "against me" question though, but I have a feeling that while she understood rationally where I am coming from as a voluntaryist, she simply isn't there emotionally. The whole world saying something I consider as immoral is OK bears too much meaning to her, emotionally, to have that little rational fact that she may know, that it actually is immoral, change her decision. Understanding this I'm not quite sure she could with full honesty answer an "against me" question - she can't even be honest with herself with regards to that.

So I didn't ostracize. I didn't say I don't want anything to do with her again.  And perhaps I value at least having good relations and some contact with her more than the actual effects of completely ostracizing, and that's my justification (if one is even needed) for not doing it... I say to myself, if I start going against my own values (things I value in life, like relationships) in the name of some voluntaryist agenda, I might actually be in a self-contradiction too. I say I'm an individual who should act like one and then disobey myself by ostracizing someone despite not actually wanting to, in the name of some "higher moral" or "higher cause". If I'm right though.. voluntaryists actually have NO higher cause or higher moral. They are simply people who recognize that they're free and should let others be free too. Spreading the idea and trying to convince people to make the same realization is not necessarily a full time job, but just something that comes naturally. It shouldn't be a task that overrides our other values. Right?

Hmm.. another long post, sorry, couldn't resist. 

[Russell Kanning]

FOO = family of origin
To Defoo is to realize your parents don't care about you and break off contact with them.

I am lucky I didn't have to do that.

[BillKauffman]

I don't think ostrification is successful when you're on the other side of the current moral zeitgeist. If people believe in aggression, you're potentially just making a hermit out of yourself, giving them reason to think you 'wrong'. Instead, interact and win them over using good old fashioned human communication skills.

I tend to agree with that, though Stefan makes some points which can be hard to ignore sometimes. For example in this video he suggests voluntaryists to ask their friends, family members etc. a crucial question: "Do you support initiation of violence against me. This way you make it personal and real. It ceases to be just a debate on some distant matters for the sake of debate itself. It becomes a question on which the further course of a given relationship will depend.

If someone says yes, that he or she does support violence against me then the argument is that how can I possibly treat that relationship in the same light, as if everything was OK. The line that stuck with me is where he said, if a friend tells you yes, he supports initiation of violence against me, am I gonna just say "ok fine, let's go play basketball now"? Like nothing happened?

That made me think (and I actually posted about this on FDR)... I live in the same apartment with my sister. She applied and got in the police academy and is about to move to the academy campus in march. From the beginning I voiced my disapproval. I said police is about coercion, but every time I'd start explaining myself tensions would rise. She didn't seem quite interested. She expected support or.. well, just avoiding the topic. Recently though we somehow got to that subject and for the first time had a serious and deep discussion. I explained to her a whole lot of things, from clarifying my belief in non-initiation of violence, arms as means for self-defense to the nature of public property and how it decreases order and security among people today. She seemed to understand everything. The final point it came to is where she asked "ok so what am I supposed to do, just agree, what will that change" and I suggested "well you know one thing you can do, give up on the police academy, find a job which doesn't involve coercion of any kind".

That's where she turned to saying how it's impossible for just so few of us to change the world, but I explained that this is not what I'm asking for. Maybe she can't change the world, but she can change her mind and that's how, slowly perhaps, any kind of evolution towards good happens.

Unfortunately, she was ultimately caught in a self-contradiction where she pretty much tried to express the inexpressible to me.. that she does not believe in violence and does believe in violence at the same time. She wont give up on police, but she wants to claim to not support violence, despite knowing now that by accepting the police job she also accepts that she will sometimes have to coerce as part of enforcing the law of the state. Classic case of doublethink!

I concluded that she's basically lying to herself, something I cannot do, and left it at that. We didn't speak about that since, and went back to our "good relations" routine. I never actually faced her with that "against me" question though, but I have a feeling that while she understood rationally where I am coming from as a voluntaryist, she simply isn't there emotionally. The whole world saying something I consider as immoral is OK bears too much meaning to her, emotionally, to have that little rational fact that she may know, that it actually is immoral, change her decision. Understanding this I'm not quite sure she could with full honesty answer an "against me" question - she can't even be honest with herself with regards to that.

So I didn't ostracize. I didn't say I don't want anything to do with her again.  And perhaps I value at least having good relations and some contact with her more than the actual effects of completely ostracizing, and that's my justification (if one is even needed) for not doing it... I say to myself, if I start going against my own values (things I value in life, like relationships) in the name of some voluntaryist agenda, I might actually be in a self-contradiction too. I say I'm an individual who should act like one and then disobey myself by ostracizing someone despite not actually wanting to, in the name of some "higher moral" or "higher cause". If I'm right though.. voluntaryists actually have NO higher cause or higher moral. They are simply people who recognize that they're free and should let others be free too. Spreading the idea and trying to convince people to make the same realization is not necessarily a full time job, but just something that comes naturally. It shouldn't be a task that overrides our other values. Right?

Hmm.. another long post, sorry, couldn't resist. 

For what it is worth, this was one of the best posts I have ever read here...and I have read several hundred maybe even a thousand.

[John Edward Mercier]

I don't think ostrification is successful when you're on the other side of the current moral zeitgeist. If people believe in aggression, you're potentially just making a hermit out of yourself, giving them reason to think you 'wrong'. Instead, interact and win them over using good old fashioned human communication skills.

I tend to agree with that, though Stefan makes some points which can be hard to ignore sometimes. For example in this video he suggests voluntaryists to ask their friends, family members etc. a crucial question: "Do you support initiation of violence against me. This way you make it personal and real. It ceases to be just a debate on some distant matters for the sake of debate itself. It becomes a question on which the further course of a given relationship will depend.

If someone says yes, that he or she does support violence against me then the argument is that how can I possibly treat that relationship in the same light, as if everything was OK. The line that stuck with me is where he said, if a friend tells you yes, he supports initiation of violence against me, am I gonna just say "ok fine, let's go play basketball now"? Like nothing happened?

That made me think (and I actually posted about this on FDR)... I live in the same apartment with my sister. She applied and got in the police academy and is about to move to the academy campus in march. From the beginning I voiced my disapproval. I said police is about coercion, but every time I'd start explaining myself tensions would rise. She didn't seem quite interested. She expected support or.. well, just avoiding the topic. Recently though we somehow got to that subject and for the first time had a serious and deep discussion. I explained to her a whole lot of things, from clarifying my belief in non-initiation of violence, arms as means for self-defense to the nature of public property and how it decreases order and security among people today. She seemed to understand everything. The final point it came to is where she asked "ok so what am I supposed to do, just agree, what will that change" and I suggested "well you know one thing you can do, give up on the police academy, find a job which doesn't involve coercion of any kind".

That's where she turned to saying how it's impossible for just so few of us to change the world, but I explained that this is not what I'm asking for. Maybe she can't change the world, but she can change her mind and that's how, slowly perhaps, any kind of evolution towards good happens.

Unfortunately, she was ultimately caught in a self-contradiction where she pretty much tried to express the inexpressible to me.. that she does not believe in violence and does believe in violence at the same time. She wont give up on police, but she wants to claim to not support violence, despite knowing now that by accepting the police job she also accepts that she will sometimes have to coerce as part of enforcing the law of the state. Classic case of doublethink!

I concluded that she's basically lying to herself, something I cannot do, and left it at that. We didn't speak about that since, and went back to our "good relations" routine. I never actually faced her with that "against me" question though, but I have a feeling that while she understood rationally where I am coming from as a voluntaryist, she simply isn't there emotionally. The whole world saying something I consider as immoral is OK bears too much meaning to her, emotionally, to have that little rational fact that she may know, that it actually is immoral, change her decision. Understanding this I'm not quite sure she could with full honesty answer an "against me" question - she can't even be honest with herself with regards to that.

So I didn't ostracize. I didn't say I don't want anything to do with her again.  And perhaps I value at least having good relations and some contact with her more than the actual effects of completely ostracizing, and that's my justification (if one is even needed) for not doing it... I say to myself, if I start going against my own values (things I value in life, like relationships) in the name of some voluntaryist agenda, I might actually be in a self-contradiction too. I say I'm an individual who should act like one and then disobey myself by ostracizing someone despite not actually wanting to, in the name of some "higher moral" or "higher cause". If I'm right though.. voluntaryists actually have NO higher cause or higher moral. They are simply people who recognize that they're free and should let others be free too. Spreading the idea and trying to convince people to make the same realization is not necessarily a full time job, but just something that comes naturally. It shouldn't be a task that overrides our other values. Right?

Hmm.. another long post, sorry, couldn't resist. 

For what it is worth, this was one of the best posts I have ever read here...and I have read several hundred maybe even a thousand.

But is it the police that are the central evil... or the groups, and people that support those groups, that actively support laws to supress others?

Obviously I can see the police as part of the system (Joseph Priestly), but without the underlying laws created by the groups and the people that support such groups... the policing function wouldn't even exist.

[Caleb]

Yeah, the police are definitely only part of the system of oppression. Tolstoy talks about this, though, in his book. The oppression is divided up into small pieces, and no one ends up feeling responsible. The judge goes home saying, "I wish I could have let that guy off." The policeman goes home thinking, "That guy didn't need to go to jail, I don't agree with that law ..." the jailer thinks, "I'm already way over capacity, and they're sending me THIS guy? He shouldn't be in here."  The legislator hears about the case and thinks, "That's not right. I didn't vote for that law; maybe I'll try next year to get it repealed."  But the legislator doesn't resign in protest, the policeman still makes the arrest, the judge still sentences, and the jailer still jails. The problem is that each man sees himself as a legislator, a judge, a policeman, or a jailer, and thinks that "office" takes precedence over his office of human being.

That having been said ... the "violent" aspect of the law is only part of the system of oppression. The Fed works more economic violence on humanity than any policeman could even think of doing, and those bankers do it without ever lifting their hand against anyone. The NAP is only a very incomplete way of looking at systems of oppression.

[Giggan]

What book is that from, Caleb?

Gu3st, interesting story. I myself was looking to become a cop or something of the sort, and when I got into the liberty movement, I figured I could be the one who's not just playing his part...then I realized that's the guy who gets fired early on.

I of course don't know the extent of your relationship with your sister, but I don't see ostrifying her as something that would cause her to have a voluntaryist epiphany and quit her job. It may just cause her to think you're an 'idealogue', (basically just someone with ideals yet negatively connotated) which would be a psychological reaction, a way of displacing cognitive dissonance and laying the blame on something wrong with you. That hurts everyone and helps no one.

[BillKauffman]

I think one of the biggest problems is that people are completely unaware of the difference between "judge-made" and "legislation" (ruler based laws) and "common law" (rules from customs) decided by juries of commoners.

Anarchism is about "rules" but no rulers who make rules (rulership) like judges and legislators.

[Caleb]

It's probably in most of his nonfiction work, but really clearly explained in The Kingdom of God is Within You.

[Caleb]

I think one of the biggest problems is that people are completely unaware of the difference between "judge-made" and "legislation" (ruler based laws) and "common law" (rules from customs) decided by juries of commoners.

Anarchism is about "rules" but no rulers who make rules (rulership) like judges and legislators.

Tah MAY to
Tah MAH to

Our society is subjected to so much propaganda that the will of the people automatically becomes whatever the rulers decide to foist on us.

[Giggan]

K, asking cause I read KGWY, but don't remember that particular piece. Interesting concept.

[Jacobus]

Tolstoy talks about this, though, in his book.

Tolstoy wrote a book?








Sorry, couldn't resist. 

[Caleb]

 

Well, I couldn't remember exactly which one, Jacobus...but yes, it is a little vague to refer to Tolstoy's "book".    I guess you'll have to read all of them to find out.

[Caleb]

K, asking cause I read KGWY, but don't remember that particular piece. Interesting concept.

It's in the last chapter, 12 I think.  Here's the relevant excerpt.  I've edited for length.

It is the custom among assassins to oblige all the witnesses of a murder to strike the murdered victim, that the responsibility may be divided among as large a number of people as possible. The same principle in different forms is applied under the government organization in the perpetration of the crimes, without which no government organization could exist. Rulers always try to implicate as many citizens as possible in all the crimes committed in their support.

Of late this tendency has been expressed in a very obvious manner by the obligation of all citizens to take part in legal processes as jurors, in the army as soldiers, in the local government, or legislative assembly, as electors or members.

In ancient times tyrants got credit for the crimes they committed, but in our day the most atrocious infamies, inconceivable under the Neros, are perpetrated and no one gets blamed for them.

One set of people have suggested, another set have proposed, a third have reported, a fourth have decided, a fifth have confirmed, a sixth have given the order, and a seventh set of men have carried it out. They hang, they flog to death women, old men, and innocent people, as was done recently among us in Russia at the Yuzovsky factory, and is always being done everywhere in Europe and America in the struggle with the anarchists and all other rebels against the existing order; they shoot and hang men by hundreds and thousands, or massacre millions in war, or break men's hearts in solitary confinement, and ruin their souls in the corruption of a soldier's life, and no one is responsible.

At the bottom of the social scale soldiers, armed with guns, pistols, and sabers, injure and murder people, and compel men through these means to enter the army, and are absolutely convinced that the responsibility for the actions rests solely on the officers who command them.

At the top of the scale--the Tzars, presidents, ministers, and parliaments decree these tortures and murders and military conscription, and are fully convinced that since they are either placed in authority by the grace of God or by the society they govern, which demands such decrees from them, they cannot be held responsible. Between these two extremes are the intermediary personages who superintend the murders and other acts of violence, and are fully convinced that the responsibility is taken off their shoulders partly by their superiors who have given the order, partly by the fact that such orders are expected from them by all who are at the bottom of the scale.

The authority who gives the orders and the authority who executes them at the two extreme ends of the state organization, meet together like the two ends of a ring; they support and rest on one another and inclose all that lies within the ring.

Without the conviction that there is a person or persons who will take the whole responsibility of his acts, not one soldier would ever lift a hand to commit a murder or other deed of violence.

Without the conviction that it is expected by the whole people not a single king, emperor, president, or parliament would order murders or acts of violence.

Without the conviction that there are persons of a higher grade who will take the responsibility, and people of a lower grade who require such acts for their welfare, not one of the intermediate class would superintend such deeds.

The state is so organized that wherever a man is placed in the social scale, his irresponsibility is the same. The higher his grade the more he is under the influence of demands from below, and the less he is controlled by orders from above, and VICE VERSA.

All men, then, bound together by state organization, throw the responsibility of their acts on one another, the peasant soldier on the nobleman or merchant who is his officer, and the officer on the nobleman who has been appointed governor, the governor on the nobleman or son of an official who is minister, the minister on the member of the royal family who occupies the post of Tzar, and the Tzar again on all these officials, noblemen, merchants, and peasants. But that is not all. Besides the fact that men get rid of the sense of responsibility for their actions in this way, they lose their moral sense of responsibility also, by the fact that in forming themselves into a state organization they persuade themselves and each other so continually, and so indefatigably, that they are not all equal, but "as the stars apart," that they come to believe it genuinely themselves. Thus some are persuaded that they are not simple people like everyone else, but special people who are to be specially honored. It is instilled into another set of men by every possible means that they are inferior to others, and therefore must submit without a murmur to every order given them by their superiors.

Thus the landowner, who claimed the forest, acted as he did only because he fancied himself not a simple man, having the same rights to life as the peasants living beside him and everyone else, but a great landowner, a member of the nobility, and under the influence of the intoxication of power he felt his dignity offended by the peasants' claims. It was only through this feeling that, without considering the consequences that might follow, he sent in a claim to be reinstated in his pretended rights.

In the same way the judges, who wrongfully adjudged the forest to the proprietor, did so simply because they fancied themselves not simply men like everyone else, and so bound to be guided in everything only by what they consider right, but, under the intoxicating influence of power, imagined themselves the representatives of the justice which cannot err; while under the intoxicating influence of servility they imagined themselves bound to carry out to the letter the instructions inscribed in a certain book, the so-called law. In the same way all who take part in such an affair, from the highest representative of authority who signs his assent to the report, from the superintendent presiding at the recruiting sessions, and the priest who deludes the recruits, to the lowest soldier who is ready now to fire on his own brothers, imagine, in the intoxication of power or of servility, that they are some conventional characters. They do not face the question that is presented to them, whether or not they ought to take part in what their conscience judges an evil act, but fancy themselves various conventional personages--one as the Tzar, God's anointed, an exceptional being, called to watch over the happiness of one hundred millions of men; another as the representative of nobility; another as a priest, who has received special grace by his ordination; another as a soldier, bound by his military oath to carry out all he is commanded without reflection.

Thus we see a man of perfect sanity and ripe age, simply because he is decked out with some fringe, or embroidered keys on his coat tails, or a colored ribbon only fit for some gayly dressed girl, and is told that he is a general, a chamberlain, a knight of the order of St. Andrew, or some similar nonsense, suddenly become self-important, proud, and even happy, or, on the contrary, grow melancholy and unhappy to the point of falling ill, because he has failed to obtain the expected decoration or title. Or what is still more striking, a young man, perfectly sane in every other matter, independent and beyond the fear of want, simply because he has been appointed judicial prosecutor or district commander, separates a poor widow from her little children, and shuts her up in prison, leaving her children uncared for, all because the unhappy woman carried on a secret trade in spirits, and so deprived the revenue of twenty-five rubles, and he does not feel the least pang of remorse. Or what is still more amazing; a man, otherwise sensible and good-hearted, simply because he is given a badge or a uniform to wear, and told that he is a guard or customs officer, is ready to fire on people, and neither he nor those around him regard him as to blame for it, but, on the contrary, would regard him as to blame if he did not fire. To say nothing of judges and juries who condemn men to death, and soldiers who kill men by thousands without the slightest scruple merely because it has been instilled into them that they are not simply men, but jurors, judges, generals, and soldiers.

This strange and abnormal condition of men under state organization is usually expressed in the following words: "As a man, I pity him; but as guard, judge, general, governor, tzar, or soldier, it is my duty to kill or torture him." Just as though there were some positions conferred and recognized, which would exonerate us from the obligations laid on each of us by the fact of our common humanity.

[dalebert]

Rulers always try to implicate as many citizens as possible in all the crimes committed in their support.

Of late this tendency has been expressed in a very obvious manner by the obligation of all citizens to take part in legal processes as jurors, in the army as soldiers, in the local government, or legislative assembly, as electors or members.

In ancient times tyrants got credit for the crimes they committed, but in our day the most atrocious infamies, inconceivable under the Neros, are perpetrated and no one gets blamed for them.

You mean something sorta like this?