We’ve Come This Far… by Scott Thompson

Publisher Note: On occasion I will publish something like this that I don’t completely agree with but it knocks the intellectual cobwebs about in the tiny corner of abolitionist intellectual circles that pepper the global commentariat. The abolitionist punditorcracy tends to be a small microscopic sliver of the human conversation. I count Scott as a personal friend and he have pretty much journeyed down the path to statelessness together. This flirts with the undercurrent of the thick versus thin libertarian debate raging in those circles; I have yet to come to a solid conclusion of what camp I may be in philosophically. -BB

Dear Abolitionists, Voluntaryists, and Anarchists,

I want you all to look down into the “Rabbit Hole” and think about the journey you’ve made thus far. Are you staring into a dark abyss or are you standing at the bottom with your feet held firmly to the ground? For many it’s easy to settle your feet on some firm footing because it seems reliable, stable, and logical. That may mean you have found that the great evils of the world are monopolized by the government and you’re preparing for the Great War that lies inevitably ahead. I want to offer another opportunity to descend further into the abyss and discover another face of the enemy below, a much more sinister and frightening one that enslaves our very being. The good news is, I believe this Behemoth can be slain with our love, emotions, and empathy, something that costs us all nothing except time.

The Behemoth has a name, it’s Kyriarchy. Kyriarchy is the social system that holds all oppressive systems in place: government, religion, racism, sexism, etc.¹ Most individuals discount the very existence of this beast, but pretending the beast isn’t there does not mean you aren’t perpetuating its goals, feeding its ego, and aiding its success. It’s actually almost unavoidable that you are aiding and abetting the great beast every day. Once you are bitten by the beast, its toxins bury deep in your cells, your behaviors, and your neurons.

Enough metaphors now though, let’s systematically and concisely descend into the details and discover:

1.  Egocentric vs. Sociocentric

Pure egocentricity offers an individualistic approach to problem-solving behaviors, but it lacks the acknowledgement of the sociocentric elements of society that also guide our behaviors and desires. The terms individualistic and collectivist may come to mind here and I know that one is much more digestible than the other for most of you, but do not discount the powers of both. To live a purely egocentristic lifestyle is to forget that your fellow humans, animals, and Earth have great bearing on your motivations. To live a purely sociocentric lifestyle is to forget that your fellow humans are all different. The secret here is balance; you need to know that you need others and others need you and that is OK. This concept is relatively easy to comprehend and accept for most, but the next step of understanding is where most people lose their ability to accept connections and accept responsibility. Remember, a balance of egocentric and sociocentric views will serve you best in abolishing slavery.

2.  Feminine and Masculine

This is one of the great Instillusions of all time and it is baked into our very being, coded into our evolving brains, and buried deep into our history and cultures worldwide. The concepts of Feminine and Masculine destroy our very identities when we accept them as credence. They represent a fable given to our previous generations that have been passed on to destroy our spirit and set the foundation for control. Masculine is a term that is associated with being male, having strength, anger, power, and logic. Feminine is a term that we associate with Women; it is associated with vulnerability, acceptance, and emotions. We tend to exhibit both of these qualities whether we exist as males, females, or pan-genders. Men talk to their children and mates with affection, emotion, and vulnerability and Women can assert themselves with anger and logic just as well as Men can. The point here is to understand that by adhering to these Instillusions you are perpetuating a form of gender slavery that is damaging to yourself, your children, your mates, and to all those around you. It is slavery for the mind and it leads to slavery of the body. The next section will discuss how the social uses of masculine and feminine terms enslave the body…

3.  Men vs. Others

This is probably the deepest and darkest part of the “Rabbit Hole” that I have found yet because it is so pervasive and the consequences are so damaging. If you are a man and you look around you’ll see the world catering to you. The world is built in your eye and for your pleasure. Contrarily, the world is made up of “others” who are not Men and must struggle to gain resources that Men are able to obtain with must greater ease. This does not necessarily mean that Men are stealing from others, attempting to monopolize resources, or trying to make life harder for “others”, but this is where Men must accept the idea. All resources are finite; therefore, if Men have greater access to resources because of their social standing, they inherently have privilege. That same privilege is borne out of historical privilege, which allowed Men to own property long before any of the “others.” To say that the small victories of “others” mean that they are suddenly on equal footing as Men is to believe in naivety as a means of understanding reality. You start life above and they start life below. It is a difficult concept to swallow, but until you do, you will not understand the levels of slavery that exist around you. It is not the path of least resistance to fully understand.

If I have asked you to swallow some serious red horse pills already, then this one may choke you up: Women are not property. Women do not exist to serve you, your pleasures, or your shortcomings. Open our eyes to the world that Women see. Women see oppression way beyond what you see from the government. Most Women still feel as objects owned by the world around them. They see a world that objectifies them to pieces and parts meant to serve your pleasure. Asses, boobs, legs, and whatever other parts have been thrown in your face to remind you that Women are your playground. A pair of Underwear that my wife just purchased the other day touted the slogan, “His style, your fit.” The local Target Women’s underwear department had pictures of half-naked Women in their bra and underwear sets, while the Men’s section had just a few pictures of some fully-clothed Men. Over 25% of Women have been a victim of sexual assault today.² We still find the existence of dowries that make young Women an economic liability for families, so Female infanticide is still a common practice worldwide.³ Sex trade is the second largest industry in the world, next to the drug trade. Although these are only a few examples, there is a strong trend here that I wish was more difficult to ignore than it seems. Objectification is a dark and dangerous facet of Kyriarchy that Men most often choose to ignore, but it is the primary source of the most grotesque and terrible slavery we witness today. Objectification removes the human element of Women and “Others,” allowing Men to hold the Power of ownership over them without the responsibility of emotions, empathy, and love.

Emotions are the great enemy of our time it seems; logic prevails and emotions are cast aside. The more we discard emotion; however, the greater the empathy-gap becomes. Our Men are limited to emotions of anger and sometimes sadness. We tell our sons to “Buck up and be a man!” We might even tell them, “Stop being a pussy or I’ll give you something to cry about.” The truth is, these kinds of phrases and advice emotionally constipate our boys and allow them only a small spectrum of their emotions and feelings. They stunt their emotional growth and understanding of their selves. What else besides the societal norms do they have to determine their own identities? How do we expect to help our children find harmony, happiness, and peace when we don’t allow them the capacity to feel outside a small spectrum of emotions?

What did your father tell you to do with your emotions? How old were you? What did you do with them and where did they go?

If your commitment to abolishing slavery is true and honest, then stop desperately hacking at the branches. It doesn’t discount the terror that government causes, but it gets you closer to the roots. If you have doubts about the validity of these concepts, I invite you to remember how others fight you against informing them of the evils of government. Do they fight your theories because they don’t exist or because they refuse to accept that they exist?

We’ve come this far, let’s not allow ourselves the comfort of stagnation. I love each and every one of you for the battles you wage on slavery; you are true heroes. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Scott Thompson

References and Links

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy

² http://www.ncadv.org/files/Domestic%20Violence%20StylizedGS%20edits.pdf ³ http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html

Digg thisShare on YummlyShare on TumblrPrint this pageEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookFlattr the authorShare on Google+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on VKBuffer this page

64 thoughts on “We’ve Come This Far… by Scott Thompson

  1. Not cool with the femenist propaganda Take the 25% crap, that has already been proven as outright false. In the US alone men out number women in being raped. How is that possible….prison. Men being raped gets laughed at ignored. The fact that whoever wrote this piece with nearly all the same terms/code of propaganda is telling. Men are near equal victims of DV as women, so shame on the person putting this rubbish.

  2. Men raping men in prison is further proof that the pervasive social problem of objectification is real. Please provide more usable feedback so that I may help you understand the subject with greater accuracy.

    • Scott, I doubt that men getting raped in prison is an example of “objectification”. Sounds more like plain old rape to me.

      • Chris,

        Rape is an action of power, aggression, and control. These things are considered masculine traits, not a coincidence.

        • Objectification can also be attributed to dehumanization. It takes little restraint to rape when you do not see the victim as a human.

        • Scott, that’s an argument for what Chris is saying, not you. I can guaran-fuckin-tee that virtually every rapist in prison sees his victim as another male prisoner, not some inhuman object. That’s a reason WHY they do it—to forcefully subjugate another person as they themselves are forcefully subjugated. In common parlance, “justice.”

          Dehumanization happens alright, like in wars and such—the enemy is proposed to be other than human. But in prison, I’m confident there is no such illusion.

          I’d say that in this instance, this is an example of how this whacked-out philosophy is leading you to wild conclusions. Think about it—do you REALLY think the rapist in prison is going through the mental and moral contortions of convincing himself that his victim is somehow, even morally, “subhuman”? That’s prima facie absurd because it IS absurd. The rapist is a simple thug acting as a simple thug—he doesn’t need all that rationalization, nor does he engage it.

        • I will refrain from subjecting you to any further insights into my “Whacked-out philosophy.” Your cognitive dissonance is evidence of your Kyriarchal indoctrination. You are rising to a level of hostility that I’m not interested in entertaining any further and as such, will not engage you any more until that hostility subsides.

        • Darn, I missed this; sorry. What, you want me to not use caps or something?

          You might want to consider why you believe my usage of “whacked-out philosophy” is hostility IYO, but charges of “cognitive dissonance” and “Kyiarchal indoctrination” are not.

          And you might want to pay attention to ML. That shit will kill you well before your time, and make you ill even sooner. Anyway, no offense was intended.

        • Scott, that’s a non-sequitur. Just because someone is over-powering someone, it does not follow from that that the trait is “masculine”. It is just like Jim said, it’s just thuggery. IMO, you’re putting WAY too much thought into it.

          Are you really arguing that every time someone is aggressive that it’s a masculine trait that can be traced back to your theories?

  3. Scott, you’re perpetuating a terrible myth with your egocentric/sociocentric dichotomy. That’s not what it’s about at all. Neither Egoism nor Individualism translate to “egocentric” and this is very important to understand.

    We are organisms and the function of our organs is to pursue our survival and, in many cases, our reproduction. Being creatures of the mind, which other organisms are not, we have the ability to abstractly identify things around us–and ourselves, of course–to further that fundamental physical goal of survival, and the fundamental abstract/ethical/emotional goal of happiness.

    Egoism is built of the FACT that we are individual creatures of free will. Our volition controls–i.e. governs–nothing but ourselves. Individualism is the recognition that this is the only way we function…I’d say “proper way,” but that’s almost superfluous as “proper” here just means “consistent with the facts.”

    Among the facts we can identify is that we live among other human beings. Individualism doesn’t try to deny that, and Egoism doesn’t imply that we improve our own lives at the expense, or suffering, of others. Quite the opposite…since happiness is the MORAL goal of our own lives, we recognize that others can be BENEFICIAL in that respect, for all parties involved. This is the foundation of “genuine Capitalism,” the idea of MUTUALLY beneficial interaction.

    Submission and domination are the ways of brute animals, not animals who seek to further their own lives and happiness in voluntary trade with others. For that sort of creature, “All men are created equal,” and they are. They’re not equal in talent or production, but they’re equal with regard to their moral standing among each other…at least until they abdicate their nature as rational beings, at which point they must be dealt with as the thuggish sub-rational-humans that they are. None of that has anything to do with “egocentric” or “sociocentric,” both of which serve to distract from the focal principle, that we ARE individuals and that we DO live among others.

    I’d like to say that at least I agree with your other two sections, but I don’t. I’d suggest you not be pigeonholed into some two-bit philosophy coined by a two-bit collectivist/feminist a mere 23 years ago. Maybe start with Epicurus, a RATIONAL hedonist (not egocentrist) whose philosophy has stood the test of time over more than 2,000 years. Or, absent the motivation to do that, just have some longer discussions with Bill.

    • Thank you for your feedback, Jim.

      Merriam-Webster defines the word Dichotomy as ” a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities.” I do not believe that these two terms are separate from one another, I stated “The secret here is balance; you need to know that you need others and others need you and that is OK.” Balance is where you find harmony. Harmony is not survival, it is the ability to thrive amongst others. To have empathy for others is to understand that your personal pleasures, material possessions, and status should be second to the suffering of others. I do not condone the theft of our properties to be redistributed by others, but I do condone the voluntary offering of aid to provide harmony. This is the balance where we find the absence of slavery and the place where Epicurus understood quite well:

      “It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life. Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefulness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another.”

      Many are not living a pleasant life right now because of the Kyriarchy. We are all equal, but we are not all equally oppressed.

      I’m not sure how to help you understand the last two sections, without a bit more feedback than “You don’t agree.”

      • Thanks for the clarification, Scott; very sensible. My gripe still stands though, and here’s why.

        On the practical “to do” level, harmony and balance are great things. Obviously our actions should be both “egocentric” and “sociocentric” in that respect, and I don’t mean to imply otherwise.

        Thing is, that’s not really the proposition that’s being offered. It’s more of a philosophical one, where the claim is that there should be “balance” in one’s philosophy with regard to whether one’s own self should be the goal, or others should be. In this, there can be no compromise…not because of my opinion on the matter, but because of the FACT of the matter. To pretend that others can be the focus of our volition is a straight-out denial of reality. We CAN believe it of course, since we CAN believe anything…but reality is still as it is. We control one person only, at least volitionally, and ANY denial of that fact will necessarily lead to trouble down the road. As we see.

        The relevant metaphor–not even a metaphor technically–would be ownership. If I own my house and you live next door, it would be WRONG for me to (uninvited) come over and improve your house in a manner you didn’t wish. That house is YOURS and it’s ALL yours.

        In no way does this imply that I shouldn’t want to help you as a neighbor and offer whatever assistance I could. Well, it’s the same with our selves. I OWN me and me alone, and it’s the same for everyone else. Until YOU wish me to help you with something, it’s violative of that ownership to do anything else.

        That’s why this sentence in your clarification is FALSE–“To have empathy for others is to understand that your personal pleasures, material possessions, and status should be second to the suffering of others.”

        No, they shouldn’t be. NOTHING should be second to one’s own thriving and THIS is the error which has brought us to where we are.

        In no way do I mean to imply that one should be egocentric to the point of evading whatever suffering others are going through. Nor am I implying that one shouldn’t seek to help others; I’m a fairly charitable guy myself. Nor am I implying that the moral is different from the practical. I’m implying what I’m saying…that as a matter of principle (philosophy if you prefer) our foundational motivation should be our own flourishing and happiness. And since I don’t believe in evading ANY facts, the suffering of others and the alleviation of that suffering, can have plenty to do with the furtherance of that goal. I’m not better off if you suffer; I’m better off if you don’t suffer and we can gain values from each other.

        I’m ripping this off in a rush; I hope it’s clear anyway. While it’s not totally wrong to say, “Many are not living a pleasant life right now because of the Kyriarchy,” it’s still basically false. That assertion says that it’s our nature to live as dominant and submissive and that we must find balance between the two to achieve what we seek. False…it is NOT in our nature to act in such a way. It is simply what people have chosen, and IMO they have chosen that because they have fallen for some off-the-mark philosophy.

        That’s why Bill and others here have the right answer to what ails our societies. We don’t need “balance” between domination and submission—we need abolition of both.

  4. I believe Scott’s point about how slavery permeates us all as a society and culture is what is so important. How we got there and where we are today in this pathos is not really important.

    It is where we go with it which if we are to be free of tyranny and slavery of the state we must begin with ourselves. To rid ourselves of such things is to rid ourselves of the state and its slavery. If we are slaves to our own forms of subtle slavery how can we ever be free from the beast?

    We must live what we preach to be truly free. To be sensitive to these things Scott thoughtfully put forth in his essay doesn’t cost us anything, unless, we are no different, only in degree, to those who we abhor who would place us in chains in subservience to their will.

    I admire what Scott wrote here, and to be honest I have to examine myself in the light given by Scott to understand its complexity, and to accept or not the things he contends, but that doesn’t matter in the larger scope as much as Scott’s is a cautionary tale we would be unwise to discount even if we don’t agree with it in entirety.

    There are some inherent truths here, truth, regardless if it is unpalatable, is always a good thing.

    It sets you free.

    • I appreciate your openness to discussion about these things. I am happy to answer any questions that anyone has.

    • “…and to be honest I have to examine myself in the light given by Scott to understand its complexity.”

      Not in my opinion, you don’t. You’re Carroll Shelby on this stuff and that two-bit feminist is trying to be Henry Ford again. No need for reinvention, even as the machine can always be improved.

      Did you change your email? I got something kicked back.

        • I’m all ears. Believe it or not, my main purpose in writing is to check my own premises, not to prove others wrong. Hey, it’s not my fault that they so often are!

          Besides, it probably happens less than 1% of the time that others realize they’re wrong…bad return IMO. So I’m very interested in hearing how this was a “Kyriarchical bait and switch.” Maybe that’ll give me a better grasp on the concept in the first place.

        • MtTopPatriot is attempting to understand something about himself and the world around him that is important to him, which is not in alignment with your doctrine. The bait is in the praise for him being an intelligent individual who does not need to further examine his philosophy. The switch is that you are telling him he does not need to examine his philosophy and to just accept what is already known. This is how the Kyriarchy maintains itself: by creating paths of least resistance it maintains order and support for those who benefit from the system. It’s not a difficult tactic to see.

        • Oh, please. You really need to learn what rationalization is all about. And be careful of hypocrisy as you charge me with being doctrinaire. I am anything BUT doctrinaire and your usage of that charge is based on being exactly that, doctrinaire.

          I didn’t just run into MTP on this post, you know. And about the last move I’d try to pull on him is false praise. Shit, he’d probably kick my ass for that! MTP is a fairly prolific writer and I’m quite familiar with both his philosophy and how it’s changed over the past few years. I’m not a “stroker”…that much should be obvious to you.

          One of the ways you can tell someone has bullshit premises is when they twist things to suit their purposes. I didn’t tell him that “he does not need to examine his philosophy and to just accept what is already known.” I told him that IN MY OPINION he doesn’t need to give this collectivist hooey any consideration. That’s my opinion and I expressed it. I specifically DID NOT say ANYTHING even remotely like, “Just accept what is already known.” You will never hear “Just accept…” from me, except maybe for some super-obvious facts, such as the ones you are denying below.

          Besides…if MTP did ANYTHING just on my say-so, then I very well might try to kick his ass!

          But thanks for clarifying anyway; I do appreciate that much.

    • Or I’ll try it like this. About the last thing you need is to come out with half a whip, and accept half a whip on yourself. Talk about mucking things up!

  5. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the content of Scott’s missive aside. It takes “stones” to write an article which goes against the grain of Bill’s blog. “Stones” is a clearly male attribute as far as I am concerned. My wife has “Guts” not stones. Ergo, her nickname Ruby provided by Bill during a gathering of friends around the firepit. I commend Scott for putting it out there. Having written a few articles here and there and getting flamed myself I would suggest some others do the same. Write your thoughts and hang them out there for others to trounce. Commenters who substantiate their differences are greatly appreciated but simply flaming someone is not a fair response.

    Phillip

    • I strongly agree with that sentiment and I hope I don’t sound like I’m knocking Scott for offering what he’s offering. I’m knocking WHAT he’s offering, not that he’s offering it.

      The truth will out, but only in the light of day.

  6. The past few thousand years of history have provided all the evidence necessary to understand that there is something terribly destructive in our behaviors. I don’t claim to understand it all, but I do know that the views I propose do not harm others; there is no victim, intended or unintended.

    • You have to really marvel how we as a species keep repeating the same forms of slavery and tyranny through history.

      Every once in an age we do deviate from the norm and get liberty right. Andrew Skouson’s definition of that departure as the 5000 Year Meal is an understatement. The mistakes made and the nefarious motives of the statists of that paradigm not withstanding, the collective idea among a culture that rightful liberty and abolition was not just an idea, but possible, and to this day lives on is no small matter. That at least some in the session movement understand Kyriarchy to some extent even if they don’t grok its definitions, left handed proof of validity of what you contend Scott.

      Tyranny, slavery, what have you, liberty too, it is possible because of who and what we are. To refuse to examine the truths of us with honesty and faith makes us our own worst slave masters.

      It is said something is not so bad it isn’t good for something. Indeed.

      So Scott, is it possible to break the chains of Kyriarchy, where a plurality who gets it right this time?

      I’m saying is a second 5000 year leap of enlightenment possible where we get it right this time? Your out there, have obviously given this condition Kyriarchy quite a bit of thought, Bill thinks highly enough of you to hawk your insights.

      Erick Frank Russell’s masterpiece “Then There Were None” gets to the heart of our individual slavery verses liberty.

      What is the key to that plurality? How is a cascade of preference for breaking those chains possible?

      I know it is possible. But it is terribly illusive, untill it isn’t.

      • “What is the key to that plurality? How is a cascade of preference for breaking those chains possible?”

        IMO only one thing…separating the true from the false. Of course, that takes a desire to do that and the courage to stand against thousands of years of “experts” telling us that the false is the true and vice versa. And even worse, philosophers telling us that the truth doesn’t even exist in the first place.

        That’s a mighty tall mountain to climb, especially with all the incentives directed towards not climbing it. That’s why it’s possible that the only motivation sufficient to cause people to climb it, will be pure physical survival.

      • You have posed some really excellent questions here and I will try to tackle them with as much accuracy, objectivity, and conciseness as possible.

        The chains of Kyriarchy weaken right now. You have already begun that effort by asking the question. Jim is correct in his statement below that finding truth is the most important step in continuing that effort. My hope in discussing these concepts is that we can all find truth together by discussing it, feeling it, and destroying the behaviors that perpetuate it. We need to break away from the behaviors that create isolation because of the differences in our biology and/or experiences. Although we are all individuals, we all have some consistent needs as human beings as well. We all react similarly to stress, trauma, and abuse. We are biologically wired, unless there are biological disorders involved, to create coping mechanisms for the trauma we endure. We need to trust our senses and discard the abusive behaviors that affect others. We all should try to develop a sense of empathy, while also understanding our own individual needs. This is a balance that can be found, but we must first learn to embrace our inherent emotional abilities and regain that balance. We need to feel feelings again and society doesn’t want that. It scares most people because feeling again means going back to the traumas and dealing with them. We are our own worst slave masters, you’re right.

        So how do we move forward and gain plurality? We heal ourselves as individuals while helping others to heal. We talk about it and keep discovering more about it scientifically, philosophically, and morally. Plus we talk about it!

        • Buddy you have a tiger by the tail now!

          Seriously Scott, I think your premise of Kyriarchy is important in its connection to the difficulty in not only defining what a plurality is in the context of freedom, not only in a plurality becoming a plurality, because I believe a plurality exists, but it doesn’t know it is a plurality, yet, but what is the catalysts which make a plurality. (I know that is a pretty convoluted statement, my apologies, there is something really important I am struggling with mightily here).

          Or maybe, it is more accurate to ask what are the cultural obstructions to a plurality.

          I know one is simply how we think, specifically the difficulties involved in changing ones accepted norms in thinking and our accepted perceptions good or bad of our place in society.

          After all, culture is an upstream thing, even upstream of our perceptions in a fashion.

          Because without a plurality, abolition, freedom, liberty, session, what have you is not possible, and we remain an indentured fractured species.

          I have to make my point here in no uncertain terms, that a plurality in liberty is the most undeniable force on God’s green Earth, that nothing or no one can withstand its legitimacy.

          And that is the secret, which isn’t a secret really, but it might as well be one, because it seems to me so few grasp this essential primal fact about our nature, that we are free by nature and God’s grace, but we choose not to be, and not the other way around. And some how there is a connection to that defect in us as a species we have such a difficult time knowing so.

          Is it this self imposed Kyriarchy, and self imposed propensity to be slaves to the myriad of forms of Kyriarchy, as you propose?

          After all, why is it so hard to be free, but so easy to be a slave?

          The tendency in the vast majority to be ruled by others and entities is so prevalent, so common place, but to live in liberty is akin to herding fucking cats with rabies.

          Maybe on that premise alone your onto something here, Scott.

          Frankly, I could care less about the details and symptoms of this condition, in fact as I learn more I wish to less and less a part of the insanity and drama of the world, and more and more a part of the tiny plurality, which knows it is one, because my intuition and my instincts tell me that is where sanity and serenity and morality and salvation lays.

          So again, my open mind thinks there is a validity in what your saying and practical information which is very important to changing the world. Which begins with each of us.

          Does that make sense to you Scott?

          And Jim, my regards, I’m not ignoring you, I’m trying to follow this thread in my head.

          PS: Don’t worry, I’m too much of a freeman to get sucked into anything but the truth. But thanks for looking out for me.

        • I know what you’re seeking MTP, and Scott’s seeking exactly the same thing, though he’s putting in terms of behavior and you’re putting it in terms of the cognitive action underlying and causing the behavior.

          IMO you’re both severely overthinking the point. It’s simple—it’s what we’re TAUGHT. Forever and ever. There’s just nothing else to it. That’s how a cognitive mind gains a lot of its information, by communication from others. And too many of those others have historically been motivated to teach us FALSEHOODS. That’s all; c’est tout. ALL of the rest is just the rationalization of those falsehoods and the behavior that goes along with the belief in those falsehoods.

          You, MTP, give the perfect evidence of this, except that you sort of worded it backwards. I know you wonder what makes you different on this point than others around you, when those others plainly have the same basic values that you do. So why do you see it and they don’t? You gave the answer when you wrote this—“I’m too much of a freeman to get sucked into anything but the truth.”

          Yes, that’s it, but it works the other way around. Your devotion and commitment is actually to the truth, and it’s THAT which makes you recognize yourself as a freeman. That’s the whole “trick” to the whole thing and is why when folk are willing, for whatever motivation, to see the TRUTH, that they will recognize themselves as free. Then, and only then, will they behave accordingly.

          Think about it; you’ll see it. And then at least, you’ll understand why I’m so focused on epistemology. It’s bad epistemology that has made men and women so open to the lies and the scams that somehow, they’re not able to survive by relying on their own minds. The truth, as you well know, is that they are.

          The irony of the whole thing is that the scam was pulled off by using the very minds that supposedly they can’t rely on in the first place. But that just makes it like a sick joke, and no less a fraud.

        • MtTopPatriot,

          Yes, we are free by nature, but some of us have more privilege than others by way of our environment. Being born a white male in the US presents many more opportunities than a female in rural Guatemala, for instance. The obtuse visions of the freedom movement do not often take into account that collective and individual solutions work, even though they do not work for them as individuals. An example of this is presented by a community of rural Guatemalan families who do not have adequate resources available for their “big ticket” items, like a stove. Collectively, these families are able to each voluntarily contribute a small amount to a “pot of money” that builds over a month time span. Each month a new family reaps the benefits of the collective savings and is able to do something like send their sons and daughters to school. The key here is that it’s voluntary and collective. What I’ve attempted to illustrate by providing this example is that things aren’t as black and white as many would have you believe. I’ve been through the liberty movement with Bill and Skip and others, but it doesn’t and isn’t solving the problems it was set out to. It offers an excellent means of understanding individualism, what it means to be free, and living without government, but it is not a holistic approach to the problems of the world. It seems we need a balance between individualism and collectivism, but with complete voluntaryism at the core. We need to use what works for each situation and that is where I begin to answer your questions:

          It sounds like you are looking for the answer to the question of, “How do we break the illusive cycles that are destroying peoples’ lives without them ever even noticing it?” My answer, which I am working at getting closer to everyday, is that our capacity to use the natural tools that are given to us is diminishing. We are trading our emotional intelligences for our cognitive ones. With anger as our only socially acceptable emotion as men in society, where do we have to go? Your voice in this forum has proven that the cycle can be broken, the cycle of anger. This forum has so much anger. You have decided to ignore the path of least resistance and that is how the cycles are broken. We need to show everyone that they can break those cycles as well and they have nothing to lose by doing so. We need to reach across the lines we’ve created between Us and Them. We need to learn to use our innate abilities to feel, express emotion, and develop our empathy, instead of ignoring those faculties. Freedom will not be won without empathy.

          Here is an example of why empathy, emotions, and feelings are so important:

          PTSD, or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, is something that recent neuroscientists and psychologists are finding as a ubiquitous problem, because they are realizing that it extends way beyond soldiers. It is affecting children and adults alike because our society is forgetting the importance of the feelings of others. We are quick, as a society, to project our anger at others for their inefficiencies, mistakes, or differences because we are losing our ability to empathize and develop our emotional intelligence alongside our cognitive intelligence. You may already be seeing the connections between my essay above and this example. The PTSD we give others through our maltreatment violates the NAP, because we don’t directly see the evidence of its damage. There is physical damage though. The brain, as a survival mechanism, shuts down into fight, flight, or freeze during “trigger” moments. That can be seen here. When we express an abnormal and inappropriate level of anger at an individual they can experience trauma or even PTSD. It may be that our anger is “triggering” a previous event in their lives, but we would not normally know without seeing a brain scan. A human with this issue cannot function normally, especially in a society that does not accept the importance of feelings and emotions.

          I have a mild form of trauma, maybe even some PTSD, from traumatic childhood abuses and neglect. It is really difficult for me to come to a group like this and express my research, thoughts, and feelings, because I know the anger that will be projected at me because of it. I get the feeling in my stomach that my brain sends via the Vagus Nerve to let me know that there is danger here due to my past trauma. My heart rate accelerates, palms sweat, and I feel like running away. I stay though, because of your genuine interest and open mind MtTopPatriot. Bill even congratulated me in an email that I “Weathered the storm well,” in reference to this essay post, but I am not interested in weathering a storm; I’m interested in preventing it.”

          I hope that frames things a little better. 🙂

  7. Pingback: RRND -- 01/21/15 |

  8. I’ve got a bit of time now, Scott, so I’ll address the next section, at least generally. I know you’re looking to your mind to resolve this stuff and IMO that’s a very, very right thing to do. If everyone would do that, all the serious problems would disappear. That’s because we ARE creatures of the mind, and reality does a fine job of separating the true from the false, and hence the rational from the irrational. What’s happened over 5,000 years or so, is that some smart whippersnappers who understand the nature of the mind, have filled it with so much bunk and falsehoods, that people don’t know up from down, or freedom from slavery. To put it bluntly, you have fallen for precisely such a scam; I’ll do what I can to expose it.

    On feminine versus masculine, your theory has it EXACTLY backwards, and it relates directly to the domination/submission thing. Here’s what’s false and it happens to be your founding principle—“The concepts of Feminine and Masculine destroy our very identities when we accept them as credence. They represent a fable given to our previous generations that have been passed on to destroy our spirit and set the foundation for control.”

    Uh, no. Male and female are direct outgrowths of the evolutionary process. They are PHYSICAL manifestations, precisely the opposite of volitional choices, which is what the assertion states. That’s why all advanced organisms manifest as such, and even have similar manifestations in behavior, with the male being the protector and the female being the protected. Any evolutionary biologist can give you the reasons for this, and they are part of our genetic heritage. These are the facts of life, and go back to the very origins of life, which itself is built of chemical processes driven by the ultra-complex nature of the chemicals that function toward their replication. DNA doesn’t replicate because it’s “directed” to or anything like that. It replicates because of its chemical nature. As to why molecular structures developed in that fashion—well, that would be a question for physicists and concerns entropy and extropy and stuff like that.

    So that’s our nature, our PHYSICAL nature. In the case of humans, this process has advanced so far that we’re able to conceptualize abstractly and with that comes the ability to abstract counterfactuals, imaginations, and ultimately alternatives from which we choose a course of action. This is unique on Earth, allowing for some possible exceptions like apes or dolphins who maybe conceptualize themselves. Personally I doubt it, but I don’t pretend to know for sure. Otherwise, we’re the only creatures on Earth who engage the subjunctive–the internal storage of that which is not and never has been in evidence–toward the formation of alternatives and ultimately the CHOICE of action from among those alternatives.

    So no, the concepts of masculine and feminine are NOT mere fables. They are direct identifications of a basic difference between members of the species. What IS a fable, is what we decide to do with it. For simplicity, let’s just deal with reproduction generally. That is THE essential attribute of life; it’s WHAT makes life different from non-life…that the chemical processes drive internal functions and cause the relevant genetic material to replicate. Physically, there’s nothing else to it and the details are just the details.

    So we may say that our nature is to reproduce—this is basic to all life forms and indeed, all life forms do it. But because we have the ability to CHOOSE our actions, we can overrule our nature. Notice that good and bad doesn’t enter into any of this…yet. These are just simple facts.

    Good and bad arise BECAUSE we can choose. It’s only THAT which gives morality any meaning at all. A wild animal NEVER does good or bad; it takes a conceptualizing being–an animal that can abstractly consider possibilities and outcomes–to attach any morality to an act.

    Y’know, this is getting too long already, and that’s enough to start. You’re obviously a bright chap who can maybe figure out where this goes. Begin at the beginning—you are accepting as “fable” that which is not, and you are offering as fact that which is fable…and all because some two-bit feminist with her own agenda was able to put together some conceptual strings that seem to make sense on their face. Well yeah, they might make sense just like all the collectivist tripe that everyone swallows, but that doesn’t make them true. And in fact, they’re false.

    If you believe I have ANY facts wrong in ANY of this, please set ’em out and I’ll either correct my errors, or try to explain why they’re not really errors at all.

    • Thank you Jim,

      The myth isn’t whether masculine and feminine traits exist; the myth is that they exist as specific requirements for defining gender roles. There is a minute genetic transformation that occurs in utero that differentiates our evolutionary pieces and parts, thus defining us as male and female and pangender. That is the only physical evidence for defining gender. Every other traits are created by us and our environment. The traits that an individual exhibits are not a result of the physical parts they manifest in utero, but instead are survival mechanisms that arise from our adaptation to our environment. It is exactly these adopted social traits that lead to the alienation from our true selves and the birth of enslavement. If we can shame others for their lack of gender identification, then we can begin to control them. If it is too difficult to fathom that gender roles are environmentally created then remember that we should be “human beings first, and men and women second,” coined by Allan Johnson who wrote, The Gender Knot. There is a lot to learn about Feminism, as well. What you see as a “two-bit movement” I see as the voice of many women who haven’t succumbed to the pressures of these gender roles, we should try listening. I don’t agree with the use of government powers to achieve their goals, but what other choices are available to them? There is a reason why the Anarchist, Minarchist, Libertarian, Voluntaryist movement is largely devoid of women; it is because they have a difficult time identifying with it. It still serves Kyriarchal goals and, therefore, leads to slavery. It doesn’t have to though. We can be more inclusive if we listen to the needs of others and not be so quick to discount their voices. Imagine the numbers this movement would hold if we were more inclusive.

      • I don’t see how the Golden Rule, or its negative form isn’t inclusive.

        So, there’s very little difference between men and women, as you explained, but you think there’s something to be learned from feminism? Do you see the contradiction?

        If there’s very little difference, why the label of “feminist”?

        • The Golden Rule is egocentric and does not include the feelings of others. The “Platinum Rule” is a more inclusive one that states that we should treat others as they want to be treated.

          Of course, there’s something to be learned from everything. Feminism isn’t the exception. The feminist label is in regards to the feminine attributes that had been ostracized for thousands of years, but I’m really not interested in the semantics to tell you the truth. I don’t feel that leads to progress. If you’re interested I can suggest some great references to study more on the subject, though.

        • FWIW Scott, I prefer your Platinum Rule to the Golden Rule–makes a ton of sense to me–and I too don’t give a whit about semantics. I care only about that to which the words refer.

        • Oops… “treat others as they want to be treated” ??? Really? Depends on what they want. If what they want is to control my life, I won’t play the game.

          Treat others as you would like to be treated? Depends on what you want! You might want things nobody else would value – or which they might find intolerable.

          No indeed. That sounds like a very bad idea to me. Maybe it’s better just to live and let live, eh? Association and cooperation can be negotiated from there.

          No human being has legitimate authority to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate the initiation of force. Every human being has the inalienable authority to defend him/herself and others from aggression.

          That’s were it works for everyone.

        • Okay, okay…I sort of thought “depends on what they want” sort of went without saying, at least here. Obviously, “assuming non-coercive action.:”

          I still think it makes sense with that understanding. If you prefer chocolate and I prefer vanilla, I should give you chocolate and not vanilla. That’s all I was saying.

        • Of course, but I don’t think we can ever just assume that others are non aggressors. I’m going to be very careful who I trade with, let alone my charity recipients. If someone wants to trade my chocolate for his vanilla, we’ll negotiate. The thing is that I am not obligated to satisfy his needs or wants, except in the sense of the free market. If I’m giving charity, he’d do best to be grateful for whatever he gets.

          Otherwise, we’re right back with the entitlement mentality.

        • Sheesh, nothing gets by you. If I ever see you again, I’m buying you chocolate whether you want it or not!

      • Scott, you had a drop of truth in there, and I hope I remember to point it out. But I gotta lay it on thick here, cuz you’re off in the weeds, big-time. I’m assuming you WANT to understand, so that’s why I bother. If you don’t, then just say so and I’ll be done.

        First, you are COMPLETELY off-base on the genetic stuff, though I admit that’s the least important aspect. The difference between male and female is FAR more than a single action in utero, forming a penis or vagina. It’s HUGE, even just considering the endocrine system…and no doubt plenty that happens in the brain itself. To be downright blunt, “on the rag” alone points to MAJOR differences between men and women. This isn’t to imply that men don’t get crazy or upset, but it is to imply that the causal factors involved are hugely different. There are tons of other differences too. This is all just too obvious to bother dissecting any further, so I’ll stop.

        So those claims (“minute genetic transformation” and “only physical evidence for defining gender”) being false renders almost everything after false as well. Sorry, but that’s what happens when you use a false foundational premise.

        I think maybe instead of trying to tear your premises and beliefs to shreds on a factual basis–believe me, I could–I’ll try to address the principles more generally. I don’t know your personal reasons for holding these beliefs, nor do I care. I also don’t care how you live your life or the choices you make—those are all yours and yours alone. You said it earlier—” I do know that the views I propose do not harm others; there is no victim, intended or unintended.” That’s right and socially, that’s the end of it. I don’t want you to think I disagree with that at all. I even agree with the general goals that you state, such as, “We need to break away from the behaviors that create isolation because of the differences in our biology and/or experiences.”

        That’s right. The only way we’ll ever have rational interaction is by understanding what we all DO share and that reduces to one thing—free will, or volition. That’s why the NAP is quite sufficient as a social principle. You can’t abridge volition except through physical force and the only way that’ll ever be removed from our interactions is the same way that anything happens in the human realm—by choice.

        The thing you had right in this last comment–the only thing, maybe!–is this…”The traits that an individual exhibits are not a result of the physical parts they manifest in utero, but instead are survival mechanisms that arise from our adaptation to our environment.” I’d charge that as even a bit misleading, since it improperly (IMO) reduces our physical nature to nothingness, which is false. Also, “survival” there renders it technically false as well. Still, it’s tantamount to saying that volition trumps our physical nature, and that’s correct. Yes, we can be whomever we choose and act however we choose. This is axiomatic in the moral realm, and foundational in the social realm.

        So you have that much down right, and it is indeed very important. The rest amounts, generally anyway., to collectivist and progressive claptrap that has no connection to reality whatsoever. I don’t even want to get into the details right now, or this comment will go on forever.

        Here’s the point, I guess. Yes, your own fulfillment and your own happiness is the ONLY rational goal for yourself. Humans do that by valuing and you are free to value whatever you choose, as long as it doesn’t infringe on someone else’s freedom to do likewise. That’s Jefferson’s Rightful Liberty and it’s critical. And it’s more than obvious that you don’t wish to infringe on anyone else. So socially, as far as you and I may interact, say. that’s ALL that matters. I don’t want you to think that I believe otherwise. You are free to value as you wish, believe as you wish, and rationalize and justify as you wish. That too is a FACT, and I try never to deny facts.

        OTOH, if you genuinely want to understand reality–both reality and your internal self–as it IS, then you’re simply going to have to carefully look through this hooey that you’ve bought into. The purpose isn’t to change your values. Quite the opposite, the purpose is to AFFIRM your values and KNOW that they are consistent with the reality in which you find yourself. The feminism stuff is mostly–not all, but mostly–complete bullshit, invented as a rotten false-to-fact justification for people to be who they aren’t…to appeal to the basest emotions within us, the emotions that trace all the way back to brute animals.

        That’s all any of this is about—the denial of humans as creatures of the mind. The contradictions and false premises are so numerous that they simply can’t be handled in a comment section. So if you’d like to get further into this, I’d suggest the forum as a more appropriate place. As it is, I’m sorry I’ve gone this long and I wish there were a way to express this stuff less bluntly. But style never was my strong suit; I care only about the substance of these matters. So just as you choose to be who you wish to be, that’s how I choose to be who I wish to be.

        In the meanwhile, I am anxious to hear how I pulled a “bait and switch” on MTP. That’s the sort of error I would never intentionally commit, so hopefully at least in this thread, we can address that.

  9. “I have yet to come to a solid conclusion of what camp I may be in philosophically. -BB”

    Bill, this surprises me. Is the NAP sufficient in a social context or not? The distinction is really that simple. It may not be sufficient in a familial context, as you have raised your sons to be men, in every aspect of that word (which I do not think is a bad thing at all, despite what OP says). BUT, in a social context, who gives a good god damn what others think? Let them be racists, homophobes, etc.

    • I am solid on the NAP but I just want to make sure I have honed my philosophical foundations correct to my own satisfaction. If I stick to a position out of pride or stubborness, that speaks ill of me as a man. My biggest brief against the thickists is that they tend to be political libertarians while I am a philosophical libertarian. The difference is not insubstantial, they accept that political action can be salutary and I do not. So, like Tom Woods, I remain the thinnest of the thin in this current tempest in a teapot.

      I just want to ensure I have plumbed these variants to their conclusions.

      A NAP is a powerful thing, it may be the fundamental force for peace on Earth.

      • After reading Scott’s essay you so kindly posted Bill, I have a better appreciation for your motto about “total abolition of slavery and the state”.

        Isn’t that what it is all about?

        How no matter our differences, we can never lose sight of that which matters most?

        There are some keen insights into the dynamics involved in Scott’s observations. Dynamics which play a pivotal role in slavery of the state.

        One of those dynamics sheds light on why there is a never ending supply of Marx’s useful dupes and sycophants, lambs to the slaughter.

        Even the hierarchical system of the amerikan nomenklatura is fabricated upon a system of slavery within a system of slavery evolved to enslave entire society for the benefit of a few.
        A shakedown system reliant upon violence and fear to belong to or be enslaved.

        So where in all this, does the system of slavery Scott explains to us not exist?

        Maybe only in our own hearts, those of us who choose to be free, and no where else?

    • I think that’s very right. I forget the exact saying, but if it doesn’t break your leg or pick your pocket, who gives a shit? Really the question is, “WHY give a shit,” and it’s THAT question which will have no rational answer.

      Of course the Pragmatist will retort that this assumes a context of freedom–free association and non-association–and this planet doesn’t come with one of those currently. I get that, but I also get that there will NEVER be one of those if we keep being driven by that sort of Pragmatism.

      In the end, I figure that we build what we choose, and I believe we should approach such matters hierarchically. Hence I find such excuses weak at best.

  10. I completely reject what you have offered here, Scott. I will not stay silent as masculinity is equated with the actions of rapists and thugs. Quite frankly, it’s an insult, and disgusting. Any gentleman should be offended by your comments.

    You and I have a very different perspectives on the attributes of masculinity. That’s very obvious.

    I still hold the door for women. Should that be socially ostracized too?

    What masculine traits do you think ought to be salvaged in this New Man you’d like to see?

  11. I’m sorry Chris. I did not mean to offend you. Your response does prove my point though.

    No, holding the door for women should not be ostracized. Holding the door for someone is not a masculine trait, it’s a gesture of good will. Good will is the will of the good.

    All masculine traits are necessary; they cannot be denied, but they should only be applied when necessary. The problem lies when men today are only expected to act within their prescribed roles, which allows for emotions like anger and sometimes sadness to be the only socially acceptable ones. Sadness is barely excused, so what does that leave?

    • “No, holding the door for women should not be ostracized. Holding the door for someone is not a masculine trait, it’s a gesture of good will.”

      You can tell a person is “doctrinaire” when that person starts tailoring the facts to fit the doctrine. That’s what “doctrinaire” MEANS.

      I’m a person of good will and I’ll hold a door for both men and women. But to pretend there’s no difference…well, that’s just plain evasion. Nearly every man of the sort we’re speaking, will go to greater lengths to hold a door open for a woman, than a man. Do I really need to spell this out in detail for you? Do you deny that this is the case? Do you think there’s a single man who doesn’t know what I’m talking about?

      So Chris’s question stands—do you think THAT should be ostracized? Why or why not? I don’t care what your answer is, Scott, but I will not accept evasion of facts as a response. If you think about it, you’ll see that this is precisely what you’re fighting against, and so it does you no good–and in fact literally does you ill–by pretending that the facts are not the facts.

      • Yes, Bill Nye is a collectivist but I thought this was scintillating:

        Is there any particular methodology you have for distilling complex concepts into easily understandable explanations?

        Discuss, argue, analyze, think through, exactly what it is you want the listener, viewer, or student to get.

        Then, be very disciplined in the words you use to tell the story. I have met dozens of people, maybe hundreds, who do not connect the word “fracking” with the word “fracturing,” for example. Poisonous frogs and venomous snakes use toxins for very different reasons. But if you, as the student, don’t know the word “venomous,” well, I’ve blown it as an educator.

    • Where did you get that stereotype, Scott? The movies?

      I’ve known nearly every kind of man and woman in my long life. Some strive to be stoic and and not show their feelings. Some make every move and choice based on loosy goosy “feelings” without any rational input at all. 99% of the rest of the human race falls somewhere on the spectrum between those two, often slide back and forth, and no two are alike.

      Everyone has a choice whether or not to allow “socially acceptable” demands to control their lives and “feelings.”

      Perhaps you need to live longer and observe people better, rather than rely on obscure philosophy.

    • I hope you go to the forum, Scott. Just today, Mama Liberty–she’s the Queen of all that is good both philosophically and physically–was addressing this very point, that you can literally make yourself ill with conceptual incongruity. Save your mind; save yourself.

  12. “Dear Abolitionists, Voluntaryists, and Anarchists,”

    “If I have asked you to swallow some serious red horse pills already, then this one may choke you up: Women are not property. Women do not exist to serve you, your pleasures, or your shortcomings. “

    I’m taking a guess here Scott, but I’m pretty sure if you’re addressing abolitionists, voluntaryists, and anarchists, they already know that. That’s basically the foundation of abolitionism, ain’t it?

    “Most Women still feel as objects owned by the world around them.”

    I’m sure most of the bullet-catching conscripts felt the same way, unfortunately they didn’t live to share their feelings.

    “A pair of Underwear that my wife just purchased the other day touted the slogan, ‘His style, your fit.'”

    I have to ask; why did you purchase those underwear? Don’t you think you just participated in the perpetuation of your wife’s enslavement? I struggle to see how someone so principled would give opposing philosophy any market share at all.

    “The local Target Women’s underwear department had pictures of half-naked Women in their bra and underwear sets, while the Men’s section had just a few pictures of some fully-clothed Men.”

    You see what you want to see. I see the “objectification” of men and women all over the place. I guarantee if I walked into that same Target I would see quite a few pics of half naked men and boys.

    • Thank you, Mama. I wasn’t going to write a word here and just send Bill an email. Like you, these happen to be topics I know plenty about. I wish I knew a ton less. That was some of the most heaping pile of BS I’ve ever read, at least in a sane environment.

      Here’s the one thing you’ve got right, Scott…anger sucks and it can be deadly to the person who has it. The ONLY exception IMO is when it comes to literal, physical battle. Others disagree with me, but I think that other than that, it’s ALWAYS self-destructive. “Righteous anger” is bullshit…it may be righteous, but the anger is necessarily bad.

      I mention it so that maybe you’ll recognize that you’re seeing disagreement as anger. It’s just another way you twist the facts of reality to fit the doctrine. I haven’t the slightest drop of anger toward you.

      Look, you can believe what you wish and you can put the emotionalism of this hogwash over the rationality of identification. That’s your choice, duh, but IMO in the end you will suffer far more for that choice than if you go to your rational mind.

      I know directly of what I speak, though the anger thing is just a theory of mine. And the day you catch Mama wrong about something like this…well, IMO that day will never come. Scott, you’re a friend of Bill’s and that’s quite enough for me; if I can assist you in any way, just get in touch.

  13. Oh Jim, you give me far too much credit. I’ve learned these things the hard way, by making the mistakes. If only I could repair all the damage done by my past “righteous anger,” years of incongruity that nearly killed me.

    Most good judgment is the product of survivng plenty of bad judgment. And learning from it.

  14. Hello all, I’m a bit late to the party, but my mind encourages me that comments can be timeless, and as the new guy I hope I am not too long winded, so here goes nothing.

    I think I understand the point of origin in which Scott brings his argument, although it seems highly over thought and based upon dangerous modes of thought and thus incorrect conclusions made.

    It is true, that women have been and/are still subjugated in our society. This vestige still remains as part of the over all divide and conquer strategy of our intended rulers.

    I can also see Scott’s point about starting life from different points of resource acquisition of which he liberally coins “privilege”. I will agree that those who start life in a household that has, in the past accumulated more resources, generally has an easier go at life. But be not confused as to this privilege being constructed on material wealth or skin pigment as he contends (although I am willing to bet he can include others). The privilege is mental capacitance and access to knowledge and nothing more. Many men and women have started with nothing and ended up with greatness, this cannot be denied, so “privilege” of wealth, gender or pigment means nothing in the world of absolutes.

    From that starting point, may I address gender roles.

    First what ever happened to willful adaptation of those roles? Can it be denied that women are GENERALLY of a more nurturing and emotional nature then men? Its not a role that some caveman invented and all other women since the genesis have been forced to adopt throughout the history of mankind. It is naturally imprinted into their DNA, just as men have a natural tendency to be more curious, more rational and prone to take risks. These are attributes that have helped our specie survive this far, and one need only to look at the natural world around us to see proof of this fact.

    But what of the choice of the individual regardless of sex? Can one not assume those roles willfully in a free society?

    I have two beautiful daughters. Both of them have been raised the same in regards to their own independence, but both of them desire different modes in which to go about life. I have made it my duty to raise both of my daughters to never have to depend upon a man (specifically, or anyone in general) for anything. I have never told them they cannot do anything that are “for boys”, I never even entertain the idea that there is such a difference. Yet my oldest daughter is brilliant in her application of logic and is very conscience of her emotional being, but she CHOOSES not to act in the realm of emotion and instead CHOOSES to apply logic and reason above her emotions. She desires not to assume the role of mother and homemaker. Is this wrong? Is she any less feminine? I think not. While my other daughter is perfectly content to be “girlie”. She is nurturing and emotional. She wants to be a mother and a homemaker. She is all the things that a collectivist would label as feminine, and this her choice. I know many women who choose to be mothers and home makers. They choose to assume the role of “second” in the home, of the protected, of the nurturer. This isn’t objectification or even subjugation, this is their choice, and feminism demonizes these very same women. This is where feminism proves that it is a mere attempt to further sub divide women and to pit them against men. Feminism is exactly what you purport to be against in this regard.

    the path of their lives will and has little to do in the way of privilege, beyond the access to the resource of their mother’s and father’s intellect. I empowered them both to be individuals, complete individuals, and the choice they choose is their choice. They self assign how they want to be and act accordingly, for they are free women, who are free to subjugate themselves to themselves and even others if they feel so inclined.

    So even though I see some of Scotts point I think he speaks in too broad a brush stroke for the whole. This is a collectivist trap that muddies the waters of the problem (IMO).

    Honestly, I think Scott’s intentions are true here. I believe that he wishes all of us to evaluate how we treat others of the opposite sex. Unfortunately I think he himself falls into a collectivist trap, because he himself sees sub groups of the whole. He inadvertently divides the species in half, which is detrimental to the cause in the end.

    Liberty comes from seeing ones “self” first, as the most important part of the whole. Too often we tend to view the world from the “whole” of society being our point of origin. Reversing this trend is what freed my mind and made the picture of society and how I think it should be arranged more prescient. Start from the self and work towards the collective, not from the collective and work backwards to the self.

    I am an individual, I am a man, I am a son and a brother, I am a father, I am a neighbor, I am a Tennessean, I am an American and lastly I am a citizen of this planet. All of these are labels, in order, that are placed upon me, not only by others but by myself. I fully understand that very few men are capable of living a peaceful, comfortable life all of their own accord and making. I not only need, but desire the help and company of others. Its a simple matter of the division of labor and our social nature. This I understand. But one cannot have a peaceful and just society, without first become peaceful and just yourself. There is no “Balance” to work towards in regards to the individual and the collective. All that any man or woman can do is to perfect themselves as individuals. Once that labor towards perfection of the self is undertaken, then, and only then will society, by the phenomena of spontaneous order, start to perfect itself.

    So what do I mean by all this befuddled ranting? Simply this. Stop seeing people in regards to their sex, stop seeing them in regards to their pigment, stop categorizing them based upon their religion or socio-economic status, etc and start seeing them as you see yourself, as an individual. Once you view every other being as you view yourself, as an individual, then you drop all the sub group labels that are meant to divide all of us from the herd as a whole.
    No longer then will it be the heteros versus the homos, the rich versus the poor, the black versus the white and/or women versus men. There is no longer a need for rules made of whatever specie of metal you choose to moniker. For once we view all peoples as we view ourselves we immediately gain empathy. It is absurd to aggress upon myself, for I immediately know how that feels or would feel and abstain from it. There will no longer a need for isms, which will relegate conflicts to the smallest level, that of mere individuals. Its that simple.

    Peace

Let us know what you think...