Why I am a Voluntaryist

Voluntaryists see all the stupidity of politics on both right and left, but they don't feel the need to hate their neighbors and family for their political beliefs. We see the deeper roots of the problem, embedded in world-wide cultural memes. That doesn't absolve anyone of blame for supporting the blood-bath of statism, but we're not interested in assigning guilt to individuals. We're interested in finding solutions we can implement within our circle of influence (not in Lansing or D.C.) In short, "we have met the enemy, and he is us". We can't change the problems of religion and politics without realizing that those things are just effects caused by much more deeply-rooted causes within human culture itself. Culture transmits many truths and falsehoods to each successive generation. The core problem is that culture transmits big ugly lies disguised as sacred unquestionable truths. We are taught by culture that we cannot question anyone's culture. How convenient.

You can't change the memes of culture by waving signs in the street, putting bumper stickers on your car, or writing your congressman. It's much more difficult and intimate than that; you have to change yourself and your small circle of friends who have ears to hear and eyes to see. It's like turning an ocean liner; a small turn of the wheel does a lot in the long run, but yanking the wheel does nothing but cause damage and lock things up. People's opinions are not changed by throwing tons of facts at them. I'm sure you've seen that. Throwing up mountains of facts to oppose someone's political or religious belief system often polarizes and strengthens that person's resolve to hold fast to their assumptions.
Voluntaryists see a day when the social safety net will be vastly improved by getting it out of the hands of politicians who suffer almost no consequences for their stupidity and greed. Voluntaryists also work for the day when there can be no 1% hoarding wealth, because only the state allows this hoarding to go on. It is the politically well-connected who can hoard wealth because their profits are protected from the consequences of stupid and greedy decisions.

For example; Voluntaryists oppose government-enforced copyright and patent laws. Shocking, I know, ... but there are good arguments. We oppose trademark or packaging fraud, and that would surely be prevented much more effectively in non-political courts. But it's no crime to take someone's idea and improve on it. Ideas are not property. Most of the biggest advances in humankind have occurred in times and places where there were no such laws protecting amorphous "intellectual property". (As a result, you can get all kinds of great Voluntaryist literature online for free.)

Profits are neither a good thing or a bad thing. Just as greed is neither a good or bad thing. They are only bad when "corporate law" protects them from liability and loss for doing stupid and evil things. Profits and greed shielded by gov't laws are what drive the US wars which have killed 30 million people since WWII ended. Profits and greed shielded by gov't laws are what cause the bulk of environmental damage. Profits shielded by gov't laws are what cause the super rich to get richer and the middle class to get poorer. Not that there would be no rich people without gov't; it would just be a lot more challenging to be super rich in a free society. Because you would have to compete to provide actual goods and services to the public; there would be no cushy government contracts for military adventurism overseas and political pork-barrel programs at home.

The big mistake of those on the Political Left is that they think profits are evil in and of themselves, and that is proved wrong by our daily experience. It isn't profits that cause evil, what enables evil is profits tied to gov't immunity from loss or prosecution. Corporations are evil only because gov't fiat makes the owners, management, and stockholders NOT liable for damages and losses. They reap profits when all goes well, but only the corporation loses money when things go bad. No politician or corporate stockholder loses his house when he hurts people with his mistakes or greed. They are protected from losing personal assets, and that's what is wrong with politics and greed getting in bed together.

You see the most radical example of this when Lockheed Martin stockholders and management enjoy huge profits while 20-year-olds get maimed and killed overseas. And there you have the problem with those on the Political Right; they claim to be all about families and morality, but they support the military-industrial complex which rips families apart and makes morality impossible. And they complain about gay marriage "wrecking the family". They are knee-deep in the blood of innocents. Although, Obama has also overseen the death of innocent people every day since he was in office, all to support the corporations and bankers who helped put him in office.

If We Get Rid of Government, Will Something More Evil Arise? Pt 1

My son asked me this question, so I tried to answer as briefly as I could. So much for brevity.

You asked one of the ultimate questions about a stateless society. I'm impressed that you didn't go to the more mundane fears that come up when someone brings up the possibility of running society without top-down government; Who would make the roads? Who would take care of the poor? Who would force kids to go to school? What if a foreign army attacks us? Who will protect us from big rich greedy corporations? How could there ever be big cool projects like the International Space Station? What about old people who didn't save for their retirement? How would our property be protected from criminals? What about people without health insurance? Who would run the court system? What about the criminally insane or complete sociopaths?

The easy answer to all those questions is "these things are done by working and caring people, and they will be done with or without government to supposedly organize us". But, more details answers are at websites like The Anarchist Alternative and Libertarianism. My favorite come-back to those questions is, "so, you are assuming that these problems are already being solved as best they can by today's government"?

So kudos to you for asking a most intelligent question. The answer needs a bit of introduction, because you can approach the argument from various logical angles. Most break-room blather probably doesn't care much for the rules of logic, so I'd suggest avoiding that venue for asking questions or giving opinions.

Here's my introduction:
About 6 years ago, I stopped sending out e-mails every day to whoever I thought might be interested in the philosophy of freedom; how to make a better world for our kids and grandkids. I finally realized that people have their life attitude set pretty much in stone by the time they are in their early twenties. Despite all the fantasy stories in movies and books where some evil Scrooge has a life-altering event, that type of personality change is very rare. If someone is not asking skeptical questions about the state-run society already, no amount of e-mails from me are gonna get that person to become curious. People don't usually change their personality or basic attitude toward life because of what happens to them or what facts are presented to them. People only change if they already have an inner skepticism and curiosity.

Curiosity and skepticism are qualities that you are born with, but our culture does its best to trample down child-like curiosity which demands "why"? And "says who"? Parents kill children's curiosity every time they say, "because I said so" or "because God made it that way". In school, kids are taught to memorized the "correct" answers. They are taught What to think, not How to think. Memorization is rewarded, not creativity.

It is not in our culture's best interest to have lots of skeptical questions flying around, demanding proof of society's dictated moral laws; "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society". "Honor your father and mother". "The policeman is your friend". "We can agree to disagree". "Follow the chain of command". "Politicians are servants of the people". "Voting is a duty and a privilege". "Everyone has a right to their opinion". "We all have an evil side to us". "Government is a necessary evil". "Everything happens for a reason". "There's a thin line between love and hate". "If God did not exist, we would have to invent him". "Many have died so that we can be free". "Ethics are different in different cultures and countries". "Respect your elders".

Some of our cultural dictates are wearing thin; "Children should be seen and not heard". "A woman's place is in the home". "Spare the rod, spoil the child". "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord". "Without religion, there can be no morality". "Slaves, obey your masters".

So there is hope. We can change the world for our great-grandchildren and their families. But, it's like steering an ocean liner. You can reef on the steering wheel and it seems like you're getting nowhere. But the change will happen - very slowly. So, we do the right thing. Not for us, but for the future. We point out the made-up answers and dare to call them "ridiculous".

The biggest thing we can do to make the future world a little happier for our kids and grandkids is to teach them to question everything. The more hard-wired the "truth" seems, the more it needs to be questioned with a careful and skeptical eye. We spend too much time feeding facts to our kids, and not enough time encouraging them to say, "why is that like that?" What causes that"? "Who discovered that fact, and how did they figure that out?"

And, another good point to teach our kids (and remind ourselves and our friends) is that "emotions are important, but emotions are not arguments". Another good starting point is to keep in mind what the 9/11 Truthers, UFOlogists, and Psychic Believers never acknowledge: Evidence is not Proof. One or two strange and suspicious pieces of evidence do not prove anything. Evidence has to be rigorous, and must be high in quantity and quality. Evidence has to be examined and accumulated before it can be said to support "proof". Proof is based on evidence, but that evidence has to be "Good and Plenty".

One more thing that makes for idiotic arguments in the break room; people don't define their words. So, they end up arguing past each other. They are talking about two different things. Any talk about religion or politics is subject to this pitfall. If we talk politics or religion, let's define "god" or "spirit". Let's define "government" or "representative". Let's define "good" and "evil".

So, to sum up part one of my answer to your simple question:

1. I no longer think I can change the world by presenting people with the facts of the matter as I see them.

2. There is a tendency for cultures to resist questions about teachings that are handed down from generation to generation.

3. We are born with curiosity, and we can make the world better by sheltering our children from the social pressure to muffle their inner curiosity, and by reawakening our own curiosity. Curiosity means "no made-up answers like religion and politics gives us".

4. We can and do affect cultural change, but it is very very slow. It's a multi-generational project. The "majority" is never where creative new ideas come from. Cultural and scientific revolutions always are started by very small but dedicated minorities.

5. We can't find the truth of anything by thinking with our emotions. Very few people recognize that their thinking is blocked by emotional baggage from the years of repetitive lessons our culture slams into our brains as we grow up. (In stories and movies, we always know who the bad and good guys are; in real life it's not so easy to recognize good and evil. But it's ideas that count, not who is the villain of the week.)

Spanking Controversy Pt III - The Research Is In

Twenty years ago, there might have still been grounds for debating the pros and cons of spanking. Now the research is in, the brain scans of adults who were spanked can be compared to brain scans of those who were not spanked. You can find all of this stuff online. It's pretty amazing.

The main arguments against these findings can be found on religious forums, where people always bring up the bible quote, "spare the rod, spoil the child". I wonder why they don't use the bible quote that says, "If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, ... then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders ... They shall say to the elders of his town, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us.' Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death."

We see what the Old Testament says, now let's see what research and observation says:

"Brain scans show structural and biochemical changes that affect social behavior:

• Cell death in the anterior cingulate gyrus affects a child's ability to moderate fear and to empathise. Changes in the brain's pathways affect a child's ability to manage stress and being more prone to being impulsive, aggressive and/or anxious. Long term changes to the adrenaline systems in the brain affect the ability to think clearly. Impairment in the brain stem has been linked to ADHD, depression and impaired attention. It also leads to more aggression and irritability. 

• decrease in size of the corpus callosum causing manic shifts in mood states

• reduced amygdala and hippocampus resulting in depression, irritability and hostility; and poor memory function

• affects the GABA system making a child feel unsafe and constantly living in a state of alarm"

Spanking inflicts damage that causes precisely what spanking claims to prevent.

"I was raised with spanking, and I turned out fine". So everyone says flippantly.

But, I sometimes wonder if I might have been an even better person without that spanking and dominance.

What if I was treated in childhood as the rational, curious, and peaceful human being I've always been?

The main thing I recall about getting spanked is my bitterness about the unfairness of being spanked.

I most vividly recall the few times when I was spanked or punished unfairly. That made the biggest impression on me.

The unfairness of lashing out. The meaninglessness of it. The loss of respect it gave me for adults in general.

"Violence (abusive words, threats of violence, or even withdrawal of affection in the form of "time outs") inflicted by their closest relatives and caretakers has a long-lasting and horrifying effect. These children grow up with the idea that, when another person's behavior is displeasing to them, violent acts or words against that person are appropriate ways to deal with feelings of displeasure. In short, members of each adult generation tend to reproduce in their interpersonal relationships, the violence which they experienced in their childhood."

"Aggressive children often become aggressive adults, who often produce more aggressive children, in a cycle that endures generation after generation.

Corporal punishment always figures prominently in the roots of adolescent and adult aggressiveness, especially in those manifestations that take anti-social form, such as delinquency and criminality."

"Mistreatment of children, beginning at infancy, perpetrated by parents and other primary caregivers, is what infects children with the virus of violence.

In much the same way that it interferes with the bonding between child and parent, it stunts the child's ability to become socially integrated with the larger law-abiding community. It handicaps the child with a lifetime supply of anger. It makes every future irritation seem a mortal attack,

every delay of gratification a personal insult. It models for the child no essential problem-solving skills, but instead, selfishness, aggression, rage, tyranny. It makes escape by means of alcohol and drugs appear an option irresistible to many. The worse, and the earlier the mistreatment, the more severe the outcome."

These are all quotes from psychologists who have done work researching the roots of criminal violent behavior.

The complaint will be that these doctors are mostly talking about severely abused children, and that "light spanking" is not the same thing. 

But, "light spanking" or "heavy spanking" is only a difference in degree, not a difference in type. Like, we're not talking about full-blown cancer, it's okay to have just a little bit of cancer. A little bit of cancer doesn't really hurt that much.

My question is, "why not try love and reasoning"? 

There are all kinds of websites online that are dedicated to raising children without ANY violence or threats.

Peace & Love,

Rick

PS - There is a growing mountain of scientific evidence for avoiding all spanking, even so-called "paddling" or "swatting".

Lots of non-violent parenting groups out there.

Parent Effectiveness Training

Spanking Controversy Pt II

A pat on the butt is at least 4 things to a child;

1. Most importantly, it is a withdrawal of love or at least a threat of such withdrawal. 

That's a scary thing to a child whose life literally depends on primary care givers.

2. It is a threat of greater violence to come, if they don't blindly (obediently) follow the adult's wishes and whims.

3. It is a shutting down and discouragement of rational discussion. A lesson that frustration justifies force. A lesson that rational discourse and search for compromise is only useful up to the point when impatience calls for forceful "action".

4. It is a lesson that they don't need to learn their boundaries, because someone else will always be there to swat them when they go too far. They learn the opposite of self-control and empathy for others. By stopping wild behavior with irrational hitting, future wild behavior is reinforced. And they learn to self-attack instead of self-control. The seeds of self-hatred are sown.

Children should be taught to control their behavior using their own intelligence and judgment. Children should not be taught to "be obedient".  Obedience is a large part of what is wrong with the world.

I'd rather err on the side of being "too gentle" and "too reasonable" than making the mistake of teaching children that force and threats of force are acceptable options for settling disputes and misunderstandings.

I know the argument, "children are hard to reason with, so you have to use a bit of force for their own good and safety". Then why don't we give a little whack to a retarded person to get them to respond to our wishes or reasoning? For his own good. Why don't we use a little whack for grandma when she is acting a little crazy? For her own good. How about a little whack from your boss when you resist or hesitate to follow his confusing orders?

If it's proper and useful for you to swat a child to "get his attention", why don't we encourage kids to swat us when they want something and we won't listen? Why is it okay for us, but wrong for them? Kids get the message that we don't know we're sending: It's right for us because we're bigger, smarter, stronger, and richer than them. So, because kids get this lesson, they grow up and start to use force and manipulative bullying behavior as soon as they get bigger, smarter, stronger, and richer. 

Why, when kids are expressing frustration, anger, impatience, or disrespect - why is it okay for us to swat them instead of spending time figuring out the causes of their negative feelings? Why can't they "paddle" us when we are angry, frustrated, etc? If the argument is that we are responsible for the children and they are not responsible for us, that is so very correct. And that responsibility dictates that we act with all the intelligence, love, and respect we can muster. And when we are at our wits end we ought to blame ourselves, not the child. 

Children do not choose to have you as a parent, you are the one who chose to have a child. There is absolutely no ground to stand on when culture says, "children should honor and love their parents". Baloney. You can't command true love and respect. Like anyone else, parents have to earn love and respect. The reasonable and moral rule is the exact opposite of what is commonly taught. Parents have an obligation to love, respect, and care for their children until the age when they can take care of themselves. Because the parents chose the child, the child did not choose the parents. Parents have no excuse that they are "too tired" or "too busy" to learn how to give proper care and love to their children. Kids are busy too. They are busy learning about life. What's more important, your trip to the grocery store, your phone call conversation, ... or your child's healthy mental development? You owe your child your time and patience, not the other way around. I repeat; you chose them, they didn't choose you.

"I don't have time to use logic and love, it's easier to give a quick little swat". This is weird reasoning. If you get to have the excuse that you are too busy, too tired, too distracted, etc., to take time to carefully figure out the root of a child's bad behavior, then you have no right blaming a child for anything they do. They also are tired, busy, distracted, ... If it's a good excuse for you, then why not for them? AND it's not their fault; it's your fault if they never were given the tools and training and EXAMPLE of how to act differently. 

It's barbaric to blame children for their lack of understanding and patience. You are responsible for everything they have learned, for better or worse (even if they learned it from cartoons, movies, daycare, school, or "popular culture").

Popular Culture is the last place to go for this kind of knowledge. Popular Culture is a purveyor of mistakes, lies, and made-up crap. (The biggest lie is that we ought to revere culture and never question the "wisdom" it passes down.) You have to see what actual evidence has been found and studied.

Emotional Physical Development Of Children Who Get Paddled

The ideas that I am encouraging here are inspired by Stefan Molyneux at FreeDomainRadio.com

Spanking Controversy Pt I

A friend of mine defended spanking on her Facebook page, so I had to reply.

She wrote back to me after I said, "all spanking is wrong, period".

okay I can tell your really serious about this and....maybe I shouldn't have said the word spanking, is swatting on the butt a spanking??guess it depends on one's definition..I think a swat when all else fails doesn't hurt and it gets my grandson's attention...

I replied:

Yes, I am serious about this. I doubt if any other topic is more serious. Wars, depressions, murders, rapes, all criminal behavior and social problems in the "adult" world stem from negative experiences in childhood. You look at a jerk in the bar or an idiot co-worker, you are seeing the scars of childhood. You look at wars and corporate greed, you are seeing the effect of a long causal chain that starts with the evils inflicted on children who grow up with dark shadows in their brains. 

When we look at ourselves and the times we disappoint ourselves, we are looking at our own scars from things we learned in childhood. NOT just things consciously taught and not just from parents, but from peers, teachers, baby-sitters, books, movies, and TV. It's a cultural meme that we are up against, and it's permanently etched on our brains. We need to raise a new generation that is free of the "might makes right" meme.

The Institute for Psychohistory

http://www.psychohistory.com/

The Psychohistory website examines the childhood experiences of evil tyrants and war-mongers throughout history. Guess what? From Stalin to Hitler to Pol Pot to Saddam Hussein, from the World Wars to the modern-day Mid-East wars, ... all have deep roots traced back to culturally-approved aggression towards children. We need to evolve beyond this horror.

I have no argument with the short-term "usefulness" of using a swat to get a kid's attention. We know that this works in the short run. But what are the long-term consequences? Are we teaching the child to be even more sneaky and evil? 

Are we teaching the child to swat other children who don't fill their desires? 

Are we teaching children that utility (convenience and usefulness) trumps morality?

Utilitarian arguments replacing moral arguments is how we get all kind of horrors and atrocities throughout history and throughout our present world.

If you read up on this, you'll find that the research numbers on adult violence rooted in childhood trauma DOES NOT find a distinct line between actual "beating" and "light paddling". The line is blurry. You're making a huge presumption to declare that light paddling doesn't hurt, when the research actually points in the other direction. Yes, children are more likely to grow into violent criminals if they experience more violent abuse at a younger age, but there is a fuzzy line dividing "light paddling" and "violent abuse".

If a swat doesn't hurt, why don't we use swats on our husbands, wives, friends, and co-workers? Is it because we can reason with adults? So, if a living creature has a problem with reasoning, we need to resort to swats? What do animal trainers say about swats? What about dealing with brain-damaged adults, or demented and forgetful oldsters? Should we hit them to "guide them" or "get their attention" when they are disobedient or troublesome?

You and I are in no position to have an opinion on this until we study into it quite deeply. I'm just getting started myself. I suggest that you read up on this, and trace the roots of this cultural attitude that says "swatting children is harmless". We also need to track down some good research that has studied into the long term effects of using force on children.

These same arguments have been going on for centuries. It used to be okay to slap or do whatever to someone of lower class. Slowly, we started to recognize that no person has any right to use any aggression against others, except when lives and property are directly threatened. First the lower classes had their rights recognized, then slaves, then women, and now we're working on recognizing children's rights. Funny "strange" that the most helpless humans are the last to be liberated and have culture recognize their right to be respected not threatened. "The husband by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction . . . in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children."

Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural Norm

10 Reasons Not to Hit Your Child | Ask Dr. Sears

Cities are Cesspools of Socialism?

I got a fiery reply to my offhand Facebook comment that "Cities are cesspools of socialism". I thought I would share my rejoinder.

I wasn't judging city people, I was judging city government. I'm a happy anarchist, looking forward to the day when humans live in a voluntary society based on non-violence, creativity, and free association. (Not that I think I'll see it in my lifetime, but maybe my children's children's children.) I don't put all city people in one basket, and I don't put all small town people in the same basket. There are great people no matter where you go. There also are nasty, brutish, bitter people in every city and every small town. There are opportunities in big cities that are unavailable in small towns, but there are opportunities in small towns that aren't available in big cities.

The US dollar is on the verge of hyper-inflation and possible meltdown. And cities will quickly become disaster areas when food service, water, sewage, trash service, police, fire, and electricity become unreliable because the politics and money that keep all of that running become unstable. I study economics, history, science, politics, and philosophy enough to know that the US empire cannot continue. The more politicians keep propping it up with wars, taxes, laws, cops, jails, guns, bombs, and debt, the harder it will fall. And state and city governments will fall as well. We won't be immune out here in the woods, but we're not totally dependent on government largesse, the way a city is. That's all I was talking about.

"I would prefer a socialistic approach to a capitalistic one, don't you concur?"

I prefer a sociable approach. And socialism is anti-social and violent. I prefer freedom. I don't like politicians pointing guns at my head or threatening to do so.

"After all, if we lived in a communist or socialist country, all of its citizens would be provided for. All would have gainful employment, shelter, food and clothing."

That's what the promise says, but history, logic, and morality say otherwise. I don't mind you living in a socialist society if you choose, but please let me choose to opt out. Socialism and communism are no problem until they use guns to force everyone to conform to their system.

"Instead we live in a capitalistic Republic where profits are put ahead of people."

The "capitalist republic" we live in is a fiction. Both of those words are filled with false premises. The word "republic" is a fiction because I supposedly have "representatives" but they are under no legal or contractual obligation to actually represent my wishes or needs. All government is a fiction in that way; We are obligated to the state, but the state is not obligated to us. The word "capitalist" is also a fiction, because Karl Marx misused the word when he coined it. All "capital" refers to is the tools you use to provide your product or service. So "capitalism" refers to a business which puts money from profits back into its tools and buildings in order to improve products and services. We don't live in a "capitalist" system. The right word is "mercantilism". Mercantilism is a system where politicians take money by force from some of the people and give it to their preferred big donor corporations. A mercantilist system syphons money from the less politically-connected "little guys" in order to fund fat cat politically well-connected donors.

My Political Roots

My political roots are anti-intervention and anti-big-central-government.

My old-school conservative parents gave me that attitude. But I took it to its simple and logical conclusions.

In studying history and politics, I finally found that you can't draw a line and say "this part of government is okay to have intervention and big centralized power, and this other part is not okay." You pull the string, and the whole ball of yarn comes undone. The more you look into the history of political meddling, the more you find out that everything the government does is NOT good for morality and NOT good for business. Even so-called "just" wars. Even well-intentioned programs like welfare, the park service, anti-drug laws, consumer protection laws, and public utility monopolies.

Warfare: I was taught the old-school conservative idea that trade was the best way to exert influence on foreign countries. The US should be beacon of freedom and prosperity that leads other nations by shining example, and not by threats and intimidation.

War should be a last resort, and for defense only.

Welfare: Same with domestic government programs;

The more the government can keep it's hands off voluntary human associations,

the more we will have maximum prosperity and benevolent social arrangements.

Welfare should be a last resort, a safety net for those in most dire need.

I found out that the Warfare/Welfare State excuses for foreign and domestic intervention as a "last resort" could be stretched and stretched, until just about anything goes as far as domestic meddling and foreign meddling by the US government.

Everything I ever studied about the history of these "last resorts" led to the conclusion that the "problems" which necessitated more warfare and more welfare were problems created by past government warfare and welfare. The small interventions always created more and more conflict, until the government jumped in, claiming that it was intervening as a last resort. Government always claims that it has no other option but to jump in and interfere. For the good of "the people" of course.

This all boils down to my favorite quote from the beloved Harry Browne, master of the libertarian soundbite; "The government is good at one thing. It knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say, See, - if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk."