-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.21/pageone.html <A HREF="http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.21/pageone.html">Laissez Faire City Times - Volume 3 Issue 21 </A> ----- Laissez Faire City Times May 24, 1999 - Volume 3, Issue 21 Editor & Chief: Emile Zola ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hanging Separately by Sunni Maravillosa Most individuals want to feel that they are understood and appreciated. To feel valued, even if by only one person, satisfies something very deep within human nature. Many individuals also define themselves in terms of the affiliations they form with others, typically by thinking of themselves as belonging to some group. The strength of that affiliation varies widely among individuals. The insecure typically cling most strongly to these ties—men acting overly macho to prove their masculinity, hyphenated Americans clinging to traditions from the old country, the social elite planning their guest lists by who’s listed in the Social Register. Part of increasing those feelings of security is categorizing people as belonging to our group (one of "us") or not belonging to our group ("them"). The tendency to categorize is so strong that secure individuals also do it to some degree: it helps create a more ordered, structured world within which we can operate and feel in control. These two psychological phenomena can be viewed as two sides of a coin: wanting to feel valued and accepted is normal, natural, and good; while categorizing, if carried too far, can lead to prejudicial ideas and acts. The two are also virtually universal. The universality of these phenomena explain a good deal of the behavior and choices among liberty lovers, and have particularly important implications for the freedom philosophy. What Flavor of Freedom-Lover Are You? A newcomer to the ideas of freedom might suppose that the freedom philosophy is relatively straightforward—one either values freedom, or one doesn’t. Imagine such a person’s surprise when asked if they’re a Randian; after answering affirmatively, the person is asked whether they’re an Objectivist, and if so, are they a Kelleyite, a Peikovian, or a general Objectivist. Irrespective of whether an individual has read Rand, he or she might also choose to identify with one or more of the following descriptors: libertarian; anarchist; anarcho-capitalist; patriot, Constitutionalist; Libertarian (a member of the Libertarian Party); libertarian Christian; free-marketeer; minarchist; sovereign individual; classical liberal; or conservative, to name a few of the possibilities. While these labels may seem to have a good deal of overlap, suggesting that feelings of understanding and valuing others should flow from that common ground, that unfortunately isn’t always the case. Obviously the Kelleyite and Peikovian Objectivists disagree with each other, else there would not be those camps. But the Peikovian Objectivists also tend to disvalue libertarians, particularly Libertarians, based on Rand’s denouncement of them. Anarchists and minarchists often disagree vehemently, based on their varying views of the proper amount of governance by others in an individual’s life. Atheists, who can be found amongst most of these groups, sometimes find it difficult, if not impossible, to work with Christians who choose the same descriptive labels, despite the huge amount of overlap in freedom-related areas. Many look upon patriot and militia groups with suspicion or downright hostility, labeling many of their interpretations of law and actions toward greater freedom "patriot mythology". Almost all libertarians tend to view the term "conservative" as describing part of our current political-party spectrum, and fail to look beyond that to recognize that some individuals who choose this label are actually more philosophically aligned with freedom than the libertarians realize. Although more rare, it’s possible for some liberals (meaning not classical liberals, but ‘liberal’ as it is normally used today) to embrace many of the values freedom lovers do. The primary result of all this labeling and subdividing among individuals who seem to have a good deal in common is a proliferation of targets and incentives for in-fighting. One of the things freedom lovers tend to point out with pride is the number of highly intelligent individuals the freedom philosophy attracts. Although I have no data to support that interpretation, the idea has face validity. To be able to recognize problems with the nation-state as a form of governance despite the unrelenting indoctrination to the contrary, and to move beyond that to free-market and self-governance ideas requires a fairly high capacity for abstract thought. To communicate those ideas effectively to others also requires abstract thinking, as well as creative thinking. This is as true of individuals like Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises as it is for the activist who thinks up clever slogans or jokes that penetrate other people’s minds to implant the memes of freedom. So, if we’re so smart, how come many of us are so blindingly stupid as to what we’re doing to each other—and to our chances for winning back our freedoms? By falling into the pattern of "us versus them" categorizing, by partisan bickering, we are acting as childishly as seven-year-old girls on the playground who won’t play with the boys because they have "cooties". In adults, though, the childishness can be much worse: it can lead to lethal consequences. Race riots and hate crimes in this country, rape, "ethnic cleansing" in other countries—these are but a few of the tragic results of such narrow-minded thinking in supposedly mature, reasoning people. Separatist thinking—another term for this kind of categorizing—is particularly embarrassing among those who claim to value tolerance. Any kind of stereotyping is contradictory in supposed individualists. I occasionally wonder if freedom-lovers sometimes claim to be tolerant simply because it’s fashionable. Has anyone else noticed that it seems to be very easy for a white male, non-drinker, non-smoker anarcho-capitalist to "accept" a Hispanic female who drinks, smokes cigars, and is an active Libertarian Party volunteer, while derisively rejecting another white, non-drinking and -smoking male who is a Christian anarcho-capitalist? This is an extreme example, of course, but it does happen. Not all "individualists" fall prey to such labeling, but it happens uncomfortably frequently. Unfortunately, freedom lovers seem to split not only along philosophical lines, but also along issues lines. Ever try to recruit for the right-to-keep-and-bear-arms (RKBA) support among say, a medical marijuana advocacy group? Often individuals get so caught up in a specific issue, they forget the larger goal, which is freedom. If We Do Not Hang Together… I’m not suggesting that individuals who value freedom have any obligation to support any specific cause or group, of course. But the current situation we’re in reminds me of what that old-time cartoon character Pogo said: "We have met the enemy, and he is us". In many cases, because of slight differences of interpretation of some word or concept, or a variation in what the ultimate goal is, a worthwhile but small project remains small, instead of attracting national attention to the cause. The duplication of effort among pro-freedom groups is enormous—just look at how many medical marijuana sites there are on the web, or RKBA ones. By choosing to exclude certain of those who are closely allied in some areas, we limit our own effectiveness. We squander money, time, and opportunities in our own short-sightedness. If the short-term goal is a shift in the momentum on RKBA, does it really matter if the person standing next to you in a protest line is a Christian libertarian and you are an atheist? Given the massive presence of Leviathan in all our lives, is it really so important that anarchists and minarchists agree on the end point before even beginning to try to scale back the intrusive cruelty of the IRS? Instead of choosing to highlight the differences between freedom lovers, why not focus on areas of similarity, and work within that context to bring about meaningful change? There’s much more at stake here than trying to end the in-fighting. Every minute that a Peikovian invests into arguing with a Libertarian, or a Patriot with an anarcho-capitalist, these things are also happening: the War on (Some) Drugs destroys more lives; another media talking head spouts bullshit about a "life-saving" bill that takes away more of our freedom; uneducated, well-intentioned citizens keep their firearms at home and become victims of a shooting rampage that is possible because so many of our public places have become "defenseless victim kill zones"; and another bright mind is lost to the siren song of statism, instead of getting an opportunity to learn about freedom and what it truly means. When examined in that context, the differences between us are surely small, our separatism and in-fighting truly small-minded. Yet we, the supposedly true intellectuals of America, continue in our stubborn, childish behavior. And just as surely as, say, the KKK killed blacks, our allies and friends are dying due to the consequences of our choices. Peter McWilliams is dying, one of many medical marijuana activists the Feds are hunting down and slowly, painfully killing. People like Suzanne Gratia lament their choices to obey laws restricting their right to carry firearms, because those choices led to their inability to return fire when a nice dinner at a restaurant turned into a storm of bullets and blood at the hands of a homicidal maniac. Babies with congenital heart defects die because the FDA, with its dictatorial grip on medicines and medical technology, refuses to grant permission for new devices to be used which have been shown to be safe and effective in Europe. By choosing to focus on our differences, and keeping those differences—no matter how slight—in the forefront of our decision-making, we are not only our own enemies, we allow our true enemy to continue winning. By choosing not to hang together on the larger issues and actions we can agree are crucially important, we are hanging separately. We can choose to bicker and squabble, while freedom continues to slowly die. Or we can recognize what we have in common, and choose to focus on freedom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sunni Maravillosa is a psychologist and web mistress for the Liberty Round Table (URL http://home.lrt.org/ ). -30- from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 3, No 21, May 24, 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Published by Laissez Faire City Netcasting Group, Inc. Copyright 1998 - Trademark Registered with LFC Public Registrar All Rights Reserved ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
