“So if you now number yourself among the disenchanted, then you have no choice but to accept things as they are, or to seriously seek something else. But beware of looking for goals: look for a way of life. Decide how you want to live and then see what you can do to make a living WITHIN that way of life.” Hunter S Thompson

Rothbard mentioned “Button Pushers” in his work “Do you Hate the State?” If there were and “abolish all government” button, I would push it with such fervor and force I would likely injure myself and those around me. I believe, with a fair degree of certainty, that what would follow would be a relatively peaceful and gradual shift in peoples' behavior and attitudes such that a culture of responsibility and respect would slowly grow out of our current slavery. However, even if I knew that the result would be an immediate collapse into “the Purge” or “Mad Max”, I would still push the button without hesitation.

You see, I'm a deontologist of sorts. It's no mistake that my last post was about ethics. Deontology, at least my particular brand of it, is an ethical framework centered on moral absolutes and individual action. In other words, I believe that, regardless of circumstance or outcome, murder, coercion, and theft are categorically immoral. I believe that the ends never justify the means and that ethical reasoning applies exclusively to the decision at hand and not the past or the future. Considerations of goals, intentions, consequences, etc. only enter the picture after the moral absolutes sort out the morally justified and the unjust actions available. Alternatively, after one determines the most desirable course of action based on such considerations, one must verify that it does not violate moral absolutes. This is all a direct result of my broader philosophy, but that discussion is best left to another place and time.

If Deontology Man were a superhero (he'd be Rorschach), he would need an arch-nemesis. This arch-nemesis would be (Ozymandias) The Utilitarian and his sidekick/son, Consequentialist. Utilitarianism is a sterile, mathematical approach to life and ethics. Its goal is to maximize quantifiable pleasure for the maximum number of people. Imagine giving Spock or the T-800 the keys to the kingdom and the directive of maximizing everyone's pleasure. Best case scenario, you'll find yourself in a Peter Singer (advocate of murdering retarded kids and granting whales constitutional rights) book; worst case, scenario, you get “The Matrix”, but with more robot sex slaves and limitless cocaine.

What does deontology and utilitarianism have to do with LibPar and utopia? You'll see, but we mustn't forget Consequentialist. Consequentialism is a form of utilitarianism which uses the results of an action to retroactively determine whether or not it was a morally good or bad action. In the example of the miraculous “abolish government” button: if my guess were correct, it would be good to push the button and if we wound up with Mad Max, it would have been bad. A lot of people are sympathetic to this line of reasoning; a law can be called a good law or a bad law based on whether we think it improved or detracted from people's quality of life... but, by that logic, if someone were to have brutally murdered Maria Schicklgruber in the 1700s, it would have been a morally good act, by way of preventing Hitler from ever existing: ignoring, of course, the impossibility of knowing about the possibility of Hitler in a world where his grandmother was murdered. As a matter of fact, I will milk Godwin's law even further: modern medicine and space travel, invented by Nazis, have saved and improved more lives than those lost or ruined in the Holocaust, so Hitler was a good guy.

Now we have arrived at anarchy and LibPar. I tend to avoid discussions about Liberty Paradise, except behind closed doors with close friends. People like to (incorrectly) brand anarchism as a utopian philosophy and ridicule it as such. Way back in “Towards a Definition of Anarchy”, I explained that anarchism is not a positive, goal-oriented philosophy but instead is a proscriptive moral claim against criminal institutions. Due to the nature of anarchism and my deontological leanings, discussions as to “the ends in mind” when discussing anarchism vs. statism is inappropriate; such discussions distract from the importance of the issue at hand, namely, “How ought I conduct my affairs in this moment?”

That said, I can engage in a discussion of what I expect LibPar to look like, so long as we keep in mind this important principle: the rest of this post is not a discussion of the necessary result of people behaving in accordance with the principles of anarchy, it is an assessment of a likely possibility, based on my understanding of the human condition and experience. LibPar is a fairy tale that, like the utopian visions of democracy, have no influence on the daily actions of anarchists.

LibPar:
In an ideal state of affairs, I would have the “abolish government” button handed to me from on high and I would make every institution proscribed against in “Towards a Definition of Anarchy” vanish overnight. Yes, the world may be rendered chaotic and in a state of violent upheaval. Some, less domesticated, places would likely continue operations as if nothing had changed, while others may burn to the ground... Of course, that's what’s happening right now, just on a longer timetable. In a less ideal, but more realistic, state of affairs, the message of freedom and responsibility may reach a sufficient number of people and technology may progress to a point so as to enable the widespread adoption of these beliefs in action. Regardless of the specific events which would lead to the formation of LibPar, what would it look like?

Markets:
Firstly, unlike utopian outlooks, I have no specific design for how the entire world ought to work. I expect, in the open market of ideas and philosophies, that a plethora of societies will form worldwide, each with their own distinct features; some will be better suited for perpetuity while others will not. Such is the way of things; without governments to artificially sustain bad ideas, some societies will collapse under their own weight, while others will flourish if genuinely allowed to compete.

This will likely result in different economic models, such as pure capitalism and pure socialism (think first century Catholics, not USSR or USA), being granted opportunities to succeed without the interference of government guns. So will various alternative markets: gift economies, barter and service, token economies, “smart” economies (think blockchains), honor markets... the theoretical options are limitless. Without global market manipulations and capture, we would actually get a chance to see if any of them work in practice. I have a couple that I'm rooting for, but that's unimportant.

Dunbar Number:
The human condition is such that we have the capacity for a limited number of meaningful human relationships that one person can maintain at any given time. Anarchist societies will have to reflect this reality in some way. I expect the most likely way the Dunbar Number will be expressed is that such societies will consist of a few hundred or a maximum of one or two thousand. Such a small population also helps prevent the rise of criminal institutions and most considerations delegated to the state in slave societies will simply not be present in a small enough population. Additionally, genuine human interaction becomes essentially unavoidable, the inverse case of urban environments. The essential quality of the Dunbar Number is that, in a community of appropriate size and density so as to promote human flourishing, you would know everyone by name.

Recently, a friend asked me how a small community marketplace could solve moral issues that people generally turn to law to rectify. The example in question was that of strip clubs, which we both find morally objectionable, but not criminal. The Dunbar number, and small community is the way I think the issue naturally gets solved. Stripper Stacy becomes a lot less fun when you know her parents, she lives down the street, and she knows you and the three other dudes that visit the strip club outside of the club. Also, statistically speaking, Stacy is likely to be the only one in the community that would be willing to be a stripper, which would make it more of a small-business-out-of-your-basement kind of operation, which resembles a strip club solely by way of the vicious nature of the specific service. It does not necessarily mean that the service goes away, but it certainly mitigates the impact on the community as well as making a coercive and violent law regarding it superfluous.

Intentionality:
With a population so small, such a community can be centered around a common goal or ideal. Closely tied to the market of markets, there is an infinite number of possible intentional communities: Catholic parishes, hippie communes, AnCap fiefdoms and marketplaces, farming co-ops, tech outfits, brony conventions, and Amish fellowships all come to mind as possibilities. Some may last longer than others, but as long as people are wiling to experiment there will always be a diversity of intentional communities. These societies already exist around the globe, they land all along the anarchist/statist scale, but as a proof-of-concept, they have demonstrated that such a community can flourish over an extended period of time. Ideally, I would like to live in a familial tribe centered around a certain philosophical bent, pursuit of virtue, and self-sufficiency, but that is neither here nor there.


Mobility and Intercommunication:
Simply put, communities of such small populations and of diverse ideas could only be sustainable themselves if mobility from one community to another and the ability to form new ones is a possibility. Additionally, if a community consists of only a few hundred people, the gene pool may get a little shallow without exchange of populations between different communities. Of course, such migration is inevitable if people trade with, communicate with, and travel to other communities. This will rely on technologies similar to the internet, if not the internet itself and technologies like trucks and boats and such... but we've had such technologies for a while now. It's not too much a concern. Really, freedom needs to be open-source, which would allow for exchanging good ideas between communities and the opportunity to copy what works and improve on what is available.


Security:
There are a multitude of ways that an individual can render themselves "secure". One such manner is with the proper tools and training (AKA guns and the ability to shoot them), another would be a nomadic lifestyle, another would be remoteness (if no one can be bothered to seek you out, they can't bother you), another would be to position your hippie commune such that it is surrounded by radically isolationist militia-type communities... the list of possibilities is longer than I can come up with on my own. What is important is the ability for individuals within an intentional community to defend themselves from others in their community and those around them.

Sustainability:
I don't mean the liberal socialist environmental bullshit, but instead focusing on options which are either cost-neutral or renewable. An example would be making sure one does not deplete the surrounding ecosystem or raw materials (growing hemp permaculture rather than resorting to deforestation and mass agriculture for paper, textiles, construction materials, etc.) or carefully managed hatcheries separate from the native population of fish, or nuclear/passive power generation as opposed to fossil fuels. Not for any pie-in-the-sky theories about preventing global warming or whatever, but because reliance on sustainable resources and infrastructures eliminates the spectre of “the tragedy of the commons” as well as eliminating the need for state institutions built for subsidizing irresponsible industrial practices.

Remember, anarchism is a philosophy of moral action and personal responsibility, not some utopian attempt at a global Galt's Gulch.  If you think it is, you've confused anarchy with the Libertarian Party.  The point of this post is to assuage those who find anarchy to be too short-sighted and not utilitarian enough, to tell them that there is consideration applied to an ultimate goal, even if it is secondary to simply doing the right thing.  The goal isn't to eliminate struggle or conflict, but to mitigate the damage that the human condition can do to human flourishing at large.

 As is always the case with procedural philosophy, some homework is in order. If you want to get the most out of this post, you should read or listen to the post about “Paradigmatic Awareness”. Today, we are talking about ethics directly, as opposed to the usual posts about how ethics impacts our relationships. Ethics, like all terms, requires a shared definition in order to be useful.

Ethics is the study of principles which dictate the actions of rational actors. Some will note that this closely parallels some people's definition of economics. This is not an accident, but this phenomenon will have to be addressed later. There is a glut of ethical theories which assume different premises and result in wildly different prescriptions. This is a problem for an individual who is genuinely concerned with pursuing an absolute truth by which to live. Being one such person, I must admit I'm still searching; but I can help others make it as far as I have and ask others to do the same for me.

“But wait, ain't you one o' dem Catholic fellers?” Yes, I am. The Church has a pretty solid grasp on it's doctrine and dogma (of which there is surprisingly little) and has built an ethics on top of that, something akin to a divine-law-meets-metaphysical-utilitarianism to which it appeals in every ethical discussion. One will notice that I do not advocate a moral stance which violates the doctrinal positions of the Church. I am fortunate that my quest for the truth has not yet forced me to choose between my own faculty of reason and the divine law of my faith. One will also notice that I staunchly oppose certain modern positions of the Church, especially in cases surrounding “divine right of kings” and compromise with injustice, such as “You have to pay taxes, because of the politically expedient manner in which we interpret 'Epistle to Diognetus', a letter written thousands of years ago.” (CCC-2240) What I am trying to say here is that “God said so” is never sufficient justification for one's actions, but what “God said so” may nonetheless be rationally justifiable.

That tangent segues nicely to where we are going today. Ethics operates identically to the method outlined in “Paradigmatic Awareness” in many ways, with some variation. As the numerous postmodern moral nihilists are wont to point out, ethics faces an important problem: the is/ought divide. This problem, popularized by Hume, essentially points out that objective material knowledge of what is does not give rise to ethical prescription without first approaching what is with a subjective value assessment, an ought. This is where the procedure outlined in “Paradigmatic Awareness” becomes crucial.

Simply put, I must determine by way of intuition and abduction from what is to what I (should) value. Ultimately, anything could conceivably be the basis of ethical reasoning; hedonism, consequentialism, stoicism, legalism, virtue ethics, divine law, statism, nihilism, and anarchism are all predicated on different values and represent a fraction of existing ethical frameworks. Many are compatible with each other; as a matter of fact, most ethical frameworks are ultimately either nihilist or teleological in nature and tend to compliment others of the same nature.

Ethics, really, is the ultimate product of philosophy. Philosophy can answer any question, “How did the universe come to be?” “What is it made of?” “How can we know anything?”, but without answering “Why should I care?” it has no real utility. I propose that the best answer to “Why should I care?” is “because, if this worldview is factually true, you ought to do X and here is why.”

Of course, an ethics which is too esoteric or complex for common application and immediate results is as equally useless as a philosophy with no ethics whatsoever. This is where rules become attractive; “thou shalt not” and “always do” are certainly the result of most or all ethics. For instance, if I were a Kantian (I am NOT), I would value the rationality and identity of individuals, which results in the mandate that people be ever treated as ends only and never means; followed to its logical conclusion, one could say, “Thou shalt not enslave others.” Those that lack the faculties or resources to consider the corpus of Kant (a waste of time, really) can simply rely on the rules which fall out of his work. Without an understanding for the cause of these rules, though, one cannot reliably improvise in a circumstance not outlined in the rules, nor can they discuss ethical matters in an intelligible way. “You can't do that, because this book said so” is a laughable claim, regardless of the book in question.

Everyone considers themselves to be an intelligent person and feel themselves to be very ethically-minded. They are correct in thinking and feeling so. Even psychopaths have a set of motivating factors for behaving in the way that they do. However, such a set of motivations, even in the form of a rule-set, does not qualify as an ethical framework. As a matter of fact, if one does not pursue the full rational grounding of one's motivations, they will likely adopt a heterogeneous hodgepodge of contradicting rules from various sources. Any ethical claim which feels intuitive or justifies an action one desires can be easily adopted and, with a little mental gymnastics, can be incorporated into one's rule set without too much apparent contradiction.

This results in an emotional minefield scattered with beliefs such as, “I value property rights above all else, so we have to steal from people to prevent theft.” All one needs to do is go on the internet and read the intellectually toxic political arguments found in nearly every comments section and they will see what I am talking about. The problem is not the argument or even the belief held (though, by definition, nearly every political belief is wrong), but instead the lack of paradigmatic awareness. If someone lacks the foundational knowledge of what is, a clear definition of one's values, or a grasp of logic sufficient to put it all together, it is impossible to assess others' claims or to sufficiently convey one's own belief. Instead, such people (regardless of whether one's claim is factual or not) are forced to resort to dismissive name-calling and an arsenal of rhetorical and formal fallacies.

So, then, the same prescription in “Paradigmatic Awareness” applies in ethics as well. When encountered with a radical and apparently nonsensical claim such as, “You have a duty to vote, even if it is merely a choice between two evils,” it is important to inquire as to the value and basis for such a claim. Conversely, when meeting resistance to a personally forwarded claim, it is crucial to present the premises and method used to reach the contested claim, lest one look no different than a generic social justice warrior or fundamentalist republican.

Also, just like with paradigmatic awareness, if someone is not willing or able to have a calm rational discourse, they are not providing an opportunity for critical thought. They are wasting everyone's time. One's time is better spent writing blog posts no one will read, reading books, or smashing one's face in with a hammer rather than getting into a shouting match with a morally illiterate person. The goal, as is the case with all of philosophy, is pursuing truth; one cannot do so while stooping to the level of the ignorant. However, if one pursuing truth happens to bring others along, all the better.

Ultimately, my motivation for writing this post is twofold. I want to invite people to critically assess this approach and help me do a better job of understanding how I ought to live my life. I also want to find someone, anyone, who can play by the rules I've outlined and believe to be absolutely crucial to communication and progress. I honestly desire for someone to prove me wrong. The ethic that I have managed to cobble together over the last twenty years is incredibly taxing. I would love to (re)apply for welfare, to stop going to church, to stop trying and start partying... but I can't. My rationality and what little virtue I do possess prevent me from doing so. I think I could do well as a Fascist (which I believe to be the only logically consistent alternative to anarchy), but no one has proven me wrong yest, so as to grant me the opportunity to try my hand at it.

Remember, despite the immense and demonstrable utility that it provides, anarchism is a moral philosophy. It holds the utmost value for human rights and, as a result, human flourishing. When an anarchist says “you shouldn't do that,” they aren't forcing someone else to behave in a manner consistent with their opinion. Anarchists cannot point a gun at someone and demand that they refrain from doing so, nor can they vote and delegate that task to someone else.


TL:DR; If someone wants the privilege of being able to criticize the actions and ethics of others, they ought to put in the work of critically assessing one's own position and actions. If people cannot communicate the reasons for the rules they are so wont to broadcast, they are wasting everyone's time.

I am in no way sponsored by Existential Comics, but their webcomic is amazing.  To someone with even a loose grasp of philosophy, it is hilarious.  For those that are lacking in philosophical education, this comic provides an excellent "starting place" for learning more.  With explanations of the jokes  and rich philosophical discourse, it will undoubtedly enrich the lives of those attempting to improve their mental faculties.
I very much appreciated this one in particular, as the next procedural philosophical post was going to be one about Russels's problems with causality and the problem of free will and determinism.  For now, I'm gonna be lazy and piggy back off of the work of others, in true philosophical fashion.

Please, donate to their patreon, because the work they do really does make the world a better place.  
https://www.patreon.com/ExistentialComics


http://existentialcomics.com/comic/70

The State IS War.

A few months ago, I briefly described a “state of war”. The main focus was on the state of war as pertains to interactions between individuals, but it could be considered a prerequisite to this post on the nature of the state of war as pertains to states. You can read that post here: madphilosopher.weebly.com/blog/what-is-the-state-of-war

Hearkening back to “Towards a Definition of Anarchy”, I denounce any institution predicated on or constructed for the sake of coercion, murder, or theft. For now, we will simply define “government” as the very same. Between laws enforced by men with guns threatening murder or imprisonment and theft in the form of taxes, fines, and regulations, it is clear that the common conception of government fits the bill. What are the differences between an individual criminal engaging his victim in a state of war and an institution of thousands of individuals doing so?

The first difference, as will be apparent from readers' gut reaction to the above statement, is one of public opinion. A random individual pointing a gun in someone's face because “Smoking is bad for you” would be publicly reviled and may even be stopped by a third party. However, a man in a blue shirt and a shiny badge pointing a gun at someone for smoking is hailed as a hero and many would likely come to his aid if the victim were to defend himself. Admittedly, public opinions on weed are shifting (and the opinion on tobacco is shifting the opposite direction), but public opinion on law enforcement is not. The same holds true for taxation (because you live within an arbitrary cartographic boundary, the state owns your property), laws (those within said boundary are subject to the opinion of the state with regards to morality), standing militaries, etc. So, where one could easily find support in protecting oneself from an individual criminal, the same is not true with institutionalized crime.

Secondly, due to the nature of institutions and collectivist ideologies, the guilt of the crime is distributed across a great many people. For example, one's intuition is typically such that the grouchy lady making $10 behind the counter at the DMV is not guilty of theft or murder due to her job. Many people, even, do not find the soldiers stationed around the globe or the local cops who are shooting children to be guilty of murder. This intuition can find its root in many claims; “It's just self-defense”, “it's for the greater good”, “they're just doing their job”, and “if you just follow the law, nobody gets hurt”, come to mind. At the end of the day, though, by participating in an institution, one is de-facto endorsing the core beliefs and activities of that institution. If I work for planned parenthood, I endorse eugenics and infanticide. If I work for Starbucks I endorse pseudo-socialist fair trade coffee. If I join the Boy Scouts or the Knights of Columbus, I am endorsing a pseudo-paramilitary organization dedicated to nationalism.

The aforementioned grouchy lady at the DMV, many cops, soldiers, and politicians, etc. are not murdering children or stealing property with their own hands and I am not about to advocate the wholesale slaughter of social workers... but the guilt of these crimes rests more heavily on their heads than the average voter (see more on the ethics of voting: http://madphilosopher.weebly.com/blog/on-the-ethics-of-voting-a-dialogue-between-george-and-robert) or on those that do not execute their duty outlined in “What is the State of War?”.

Thirdly, related to the first two differences, is the efficacy or success rate of institutional states of war. Between public support, the apparently clean hands of the individuals operating on behalf of the institution, and the sheer difference in tactical assets available to the state versus the individual, the odds are forever in favor of the state. The tragedy of the commons rears its ugly head when MLK and Eric Frein are murdered by the state, the Confederacy is invaded by the United States, the government massacres native Americans and innocent citizens at Ruby Ridge, Waco, Kent State, the list goes on and on. This ignores, of course, the firebombing, drone striking, and nuclear annihilation of civilian targets on the other side of the world and imperial occupation of the globe.

Closer to home, though, one-third of my wages are stolen from my paycheck before it is even printed, due to the institutional efficiency of compliant victims. Across the continent, arbitrary laws and fines are written, levied, and enforced by a legion of bureaucrats and armed enforcers with the public support and consent of their subjects. Driving 76 on the “free”way is a deadly prospect, not because of mechanical or skill limitations, but because doing so legally grants authority to state enforcers to explicitly engage the driver in a state of war between individuals.

So, what is the cash value of these differences? Well, with regards to “What Is the State of War?” not much. If someone, anyone, attempts to force someone else into a state of war, the victim has a moral obligation to kill or permanently incapacitate them. It matters not whether they are a back-alley crackhead, a law enforcer, a mob racketeer (but, I repeat myself), a Nazi, or a Marine. Does this mean we should all start crucifying social workers or killing cops sitting in a Dunkin' Donuts? Not necessarily. The difference between individual states of war and institutional ones hinges on the difference between individual interactions and institutional interactions; I will write more about this distinction later, but for now I will simply show the result of this difference as applies here.

As is the case for an individual state of war, institutional war ought to be avoided if possible. If one finds themselves living in an institutionalized state of war, whether by way of accident of birth, invasion, or an aristocracy signing some document in a nearby colony at the behest of the French monarch, one ought to take all reasonable action to avoid and opt-out of the state and its inherent war. Anonymity, disruptive technologies, the agora, and perceived compliance are all options which do not require one to abandon their right to live where they may. An option which has greater cost and risk associated with it but with tremendously greater payout is to simply move away. Not to Somalia, of course, but to a more free place; as compared to North America and a majority of Europe, a great many exist. One does not have a moral obligation to leave, but the ought to do what they can to cease support and compliance with regards to the state while also avoiding individual states of war. One such method is to simply leave.

As is the case with individual state of war, one ought to properly equip themselves and conduct themselves so as to be prepared to defend oneself. This requires the formation of a geographically local community centered on the principles of anarchy, with equipment designed to obtain a tactical advantage, an environment of self-sufficiency, and outside the purview of the law. Insofar as these attributes are lacking, such a community must make it as costly and dangerous as possible for the state to operate in said locality, thus discouraging direct acts of war.

One also must try to de-escalate the state of war they find themselves in. This may sound contrary to the preceding prescription, but it is not. In the case of institutionalized war, it is closely tied to the second method of avoidance. If one is self-sufficient and living outside the purview of the state, the state will have little public support in engaging one in a state of war. Additionally, in disseminating the truth of the state and its inherently misanthropic nature, one can garner additional public support, thereby starving the state of its authority. As MLK and Malcolm X's cultural revolution demonstrates, good PR is key.

Ultimately, when individual agents of the state engage one in a state of war, they are no different than any other man, morally speaking. When a master is beating his slave or a rapist is raping or a murderer is murdering, they ought to be stopped at any cost. What about the interim? When a slave owner is drinking tea, a rapist is at Starbucks, or a murderer is at church, ought one stop them from being able to continue such crimes? In 1940's Paris, could a citizen of France be justified in shooting a man in an SS uniform who is simply drinking wine? I do not have an answer as of yet.

I do know, however, that that is the basis on which police arrest people after a crime is committed. In which case, if one supports arresting criminals after the fact, they must also support the execution of professional criminals after the fact as well. Additionally, if you believe that, for any reason whatsoever, that the US soldiers shooting SS officers across the European countryside were justified, then the french resistance is as well and those that wish to kill cops in the name of freedom most certainly are as well. If any war in known history (identified by numbers of individuals in uniform killing numbers of other individuals in uniform) can be justified, a freedom-minded individual is equally justified in killing individuals wearing the uniform of their oppressor.


TL;DR: The state, as an institution predicated on the crimes of coercion, theft, and murder, is itself a state of war. This raises serious moral concerns with regards to the relationship between a free individual and individual members of the state. Much discussion is required, especially taking into account statist justifications for war and how they apply to such relationships. A further investigation into the tragedy of enforcement is also required. (madphilosopher.weebly.com/blog/a-preface-to-the-tragedy-of-enforcement)

Also, for your viewing pleasure:

This article, by Murray Rothbard, was originally published in the Libertarian Forum, Vol. 10, No. 7, July 1977.

I have been ruminating recently on what are the crucial questions that divide libertarians. Some that have received a lot of attention in the last few years are: anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government, abolitionism vs. gradualism, natural rights vs. utilitarianism, and war vs. peace. But I have concluded that as important as these questions are, they don't really cut to the nub of the issue, of the crucial dividing line between us.

Let us take, for example, two of the leading anarcho-capitalist works of the last few years: my own For a New Liberty and David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom. Superficially, the major differences between them are my own stand for natural rights and for a rational libertarian law code, in contrast to Friedman's amoralist utilitarianism and call for logrolling and trade-offs between nonlibertarian private police agencies. But the difference really cuts far deeper. There runs through For a New Liberty (and most of the rest of my work as well) a deep and pervasive hatred of the State and all of its works, based on the conviction that the State is the enemy of mankind. In contrast, it is evident that David does not hate the State at all; that he has merely arrived at the conviction that anarchism and competing private police forces are a better social and economic system than any other alternative. Or, more fully, that anarchism would be better than laissez-faire, which in turn is better than the current system. Amidst the entire spectrum of political alternatives, David Friedman has decided that anarcho-capitalism is superior. But superior to an existing political structure which is pretty good too. In short, there is no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers. No, there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism would be the best of all possible worlds, but that our current set-up is pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in Friedman that the State — any State — is a predatory gang of criminals.

The same impression shines through the writing, say, of political philosopher Eric Mack. Mack is an anarcho-capitalist who believes in individual rights; but there is no sense in his writings of any passionate hatred of the State, or, a fortiori, of any sense that the State is a plundering and bestial enemy.

Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is "radical." Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and antistatism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.

Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don't have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical — a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical-liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine's radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.

And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H.L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of "Our Enemy, the State" (Nock's title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.

Where are the Paines and Cobdens and Nocks of today? Why are almost all of our laissez-faire limited governmentalists, plonky conservatives, and patriots? If the opposite of "radical" is "conservative," where are our radical laissez-fairists? If our limited statists were truly radical, there would be virtually no splits between us. What divides the movement now, the true division, is not anarchist vs. minarchist, but radical vs. conservative. Lord, give us radicals, be they anarchists or no.

To carry our analysis further, radical anti-statists are extremely valuable even if they could scarcely be considered libertarians in any comprehensive sense. Thus, many people admire the work of columnists Mike Royko and Nick von Hoffman because they consider these men libertarian sympathizers and fellow-travelers. That they are, but this does not begin to comprehend their true importance. For throughout the writings of Royko and von Hoffman, as inconsistent as they undoubtedly are, there runs an all-pervasive hatred of the State, of all politicians, bureaucrats, and their clients which, in its genuine radicalism, is far truer to the underlying spirit of liberty than someone who will coolly go along with the letter of every syllogism and every lemma down to the "model" of competing courts.

Taking the concept of radical vs. conservative in our new sense, let us analyze the now famous "abolitionism" vs. "gradualism" debate. The latter jab comes in the August issue of Reason (a magazine every fiber of whose being exudes "conservatism"), in which editor Bob Poole asks Milton Friedman where he stands on this debate. Freidman takes the opportunity of denouncing the "intellectual cowardice" of failing to set forth "feasible" methods of getting "from here to there." Poole and Friedman have between them managed to obfuscate the true issues. There is not a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a gradual gain, if it came his way. The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary — while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.

It should be noted here that many of Milton's most famous "gradual" programs such as the voucher plan, the negative income tax, the withholding tax, fiat paper money — are gradual (or even not so gradual) steps in thewrong direction, away from liberty, and hence the militance of much libertarian opposition to these schemes.

His button-pushing position stems from the abolitionist's deep and abiding hatred of the State and its vast engine of crime and oppression. With such an integrated worldview, the radical libertarian could never dream of confronting either a magic button or any real-life problem with some arid cost-benefit calculation. He knows that the State must be diminished as fast and as completely as possible. Period.

And that is why the radical libertarian is not only an abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four Year Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for reducing the State. The radical — whether he be anarchist or laissez-faire — cannot think in such terms as, e.g., "Well, the first year, we'll cut the income tax by 2 percent, abolish the ICC, and cut the minimum wage; the second year we'll abolish the minimum wage, cut the income tax by another 2 percent, and reduce welfare payments by 3 percent, etc." The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it's to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or — for minarchists — dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.

Many people have wondered: Why should there be any important political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists now? In this world of statism, where there is so much common ground, why can't the two groups work in complete harmony until we shall have reached a Cobdenite world, after which we can air our disagreements? Why quarrel over courts, etc. now? The answer to this excellent question is that we could and would march hand-in-hand in this way if the minarchists were radicals, as they were from the birth of classical liberalism down to the 1940s. Give us back the antistatist radicals, and harmony would indeed reign triumphant within the movement.

Today, we explore the dark side of humanity: crime, vice, and sin.

As readers of previous posts and my facebook page are well aware, I use these terms quite frequently. I have come to realize that, despite my best efforts to contextualize the use of these terms, many people are either unable or unwilling to understand what I mean by crime, vice, and sin. Today, I plan on setting things straight such that I don't have to explain it quite as frequently.

As can easily be guessed, being a philosopher and an anarchist, I do not believe the contemporary and common use of the term “crime” is valid. As I have expressed already, the laws of man are inherently unjust; as such, the term “criminal” cannot apply to an identical class of things as the term “illegal”, as is commonly assumed in our culture. Instead, I define a crime as any action intentionally or negligently directed at the invasion or destruction of another's life, liberty, or property. In other words, it is an action which violates someone's rights or duties.

Easy examples consist of incidents of murder, coercion, and theft. Some such instances of these crimes are difficult to discern outright, as would be the case of unreasonable bank fees, protection rackets, systematic coercion, or deprivation of life essentials. There exist any number of examples that could be presented. It is crucial to have a clearly defined set of necessary and sufficient conditions for what is to be considered a crime for reference in these more veiled instances of crime, given the dire consequences. (see “What is the State of War?” http://madphilosopher.weebly.com/blog/what-is-the-state-of-war).

I doubt anyone is reading this, let alone anyone accepts or wishes to help me refine these conditions, but I am compelled to attempt a definition. The result should be intuitive, but still analytically sound such as to justify one's response. I believe that if one demonstrates resolve with regards to performing an action, has a demonstrable ability to perform such an action, and the action in question is an immediate or direct and demonstrable causal violation of someone else's life, liberty or property, the action in question is a crime. In this way, holding a gun to someone's head and demanding a particular behavior or taking someone else's property without consent is a crime. Conversely, making idle threats, wishing cancer at people, and using incandescent light bulbs are not crimes as they do not meet the conditions I have outlined to be necessary and sufficient.

Now is a good time to point out why my definition of a crime possesses more utility than the non-aggression principle (NAP). The most commonly accepted iteration of the NAP can be and is used to justify coercing, stealing from, and even murdering people for things like using incandescent light bulbs, belonging to a different community, smoking tobacco, driving a car, refusing vaccines, and just about any other non-criminal action that could be considered a nuisance by some. These justifications are logically consistent when using the NAP as one's initial premise. Of course, attempting to do such things to someone for using the wrong light bulb is, itself, aggression. The issue hinges on people's definition of “aggression”, and any definition which does not result in counter-intuitive or absurd claims will be equivalent to my definition of crime. A similar issue arises with the less popular objectivist “non-initiation of force” principle.

If I were to simply claim that my definition of crime and prescription as to how to handle it were the extent of moral and ethical reasoning required, we may very well witness a conservative's nightmare: legions of communist, polygamist, sodomites freebasing coke and praying to Allah simply because it isn't a crime to do so. Of course, it's equally likely that we would see a liberal's nightmare emerge: mobs of tobacco-chewing, corporatist, racist, fundamentalist Christians chugging liters of soda while deforesting the amazon. What I am alluding to, obviously, is that there are courses of action which are not crimes but are not conducive to human flourishing. The main focus of this portion of the post is vice. A vice is any non-criminal activity which would prevent or inhibit the participant from pursuing their telos.

Again, I am guilty of referencing my still-unfinished book. A quick primer is in order. “Telos”, a Greek term which has been at the center of philosophical discourse since Aristotle, essentially means “end” or “purpose”. I argue that any individual is beholden to a certain hierarchy of teloi (plural of “telos”), but that is a discussion best left to my book or later posts. For now, we can simply say that eudaimonia is any individual's ultimate goal. Another Greek word: “eudaimonia” is a very technical and precise term which, for our current uses, can be reduced to “free and productive flourishing”.

Any activity which would limit one's freedom, productivity, or well-being can be considered a vice. Addiction, mind-altering substances, dependency, time-wasting activities, body-harming practices, character-undermining activities, prophylactics... essentially the traditional list of vices are good examples of what can be considered a vice.  Now, am I a tee-totaling puritan hellbent on avoiding anything fun? I play video games, drink alcohol, smoke cigars, stay up late, work a 40-hour wage-slave job, and so much more. I am still dependent on others' skills and resources. I still rely on less-than-perfect activities to sublimate my aggression and discomfort. I still use Google, Facebook, and Windows. In other words, I still have my vices.

As I will likely discuss in an upcoming post, the virtues of prudence and temperance are paramount in flourishing. With regards to handling vice, prudence and temperance are also key. While it would be ideal for people to simply commit to being a taoist or stoic sage, an ascetic monk, or whatever and eschew all vice outright, it is not entirely possible and may, itself, be a vice of sorts. Instead of abandoning the real world for some gnostic exercise in death, most people may flourish best by approaching their own vice from the perspective of a responsible cost/benefit analysis. There is a reason I smoke cigars rarely as opposed to mainlining heroin daily.

Whereas “How do I deal with criminals?” warrants a near-infinite number of discussions, “How do I deal with a vicious person?” is pretty straightforward. If one's vices are, in fact, vices and not crimes, they ought to be free from coercion, murder, or theft, like any other human being. If their vices are beyond the realm of tolerance, such as someone vigorously masturbating in public, they can be refused service, reprimanded, shunned, etc. The social norm can be enforced without resorting to criminal actions against someone. Social norms, tolerance, and exile are ideas that will be more thoroughly explored when I get around to talking about cities, the Dunbar number, and intentional communities.

If any of my nine readers are Christians, they are likely pulling out their hair and screaming, “SMOKING WEED WILL LAND YOU IN HELL!” I jest. In all seriousness, though, a great many vices and all crimes are sins. If a crime is someone violating another's rights and a vice is someone preventing their own flourishing, where is sin in this whole mess? I'm going to try to keep this short and sweet. So far, I've written very little on relationships. There are a handful of reasons this is the case, but now I'm compelled to do so.

Sin is relational. I can pretend that I have a relationship with you, my anonymous, silent reader. If I start hiding pictures of my manhood in my posts or if every post were to gradually devolve into senseless diatribes against Ronald McDonald and the lizard Jews, I would be damaging my relationship with those of you who expect philosophy from me. I would be sinning against you.

If I am in relationship with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnivalent, omnibenevolent, omni-omni, being... especially one that created me personally for the sake of us coming into full communion with each other... any action which would make me less omni-omni and therefore less able to come into communion with Him would be a sin against Him. The same applies to any action which would otherwise damage our relationship.


TL;DR: If someone is intentionally and willfully acting in direct violation of another's rights, they are committing a crime. If someone is doing something which prevents or inhibits human flourishing but isn't a crime, they are committing a vicious act. Sin is any activity which damages a relationship. In this way, sins against God would be actions which damage one's relationship with God. As always: you ought to defend yourself from criminals, reprimand and ignore vicious people, and avoid sin.

I am really fed up with my friends and family quoting scripture piecemeal and appealing to Catholic Social Teaching with a superior tone, especially when doing the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and walking away.  By what authority do you dare to interpret Scripture at me?  Where is your Collar?  Your Holy Orders?  When half of the priests in this country can't decide of Jesus was some flimsy hippie or a genocidal maniac, you think that you can somehow do a better job than they?

Very few of you, despite your years, have read more of the Scriptural Commentarries, Church Fathers, or Talmud than I.  In having read such things, I have found myself recalcitrant in taking the Divine and wrapping it up in my agenda.  When I was a child, I could find justification for all things in my benighted self-catechesis and sunday school preachers.  In my youth, I found a great confusion in the ways man can so horribly misinterpret Revelation and sacrifice their very relationship with God to fight an intellectually dishonest war with their fellow man.  How many saints are there who actively rebelled against their sunday school teachers?  Their priests?  The very Pope himself?  In every instance, it was due to a man overstepping his bounds, attempting to take the divine and make it a mere possession, a tool in a sorcerer's bag of tricks.  You think you can do better than a Pope?  I challenge you.

I can take the Word of God, wrap it up in bullshit and throw it at you disdainfully.  I used to do it quite frequently.  It was probably one of the single most soul-rending behaviors I have ever engaged in, but it's a skill that once-learned, never rusts or dulls.  Unless God Himself sends the Ophanim, with a golden scroll bearing the seal of the Tetgrammaton, carried by the cherubs and escorted by all the principalities and angels to tell you that you have his Divine mandate to carry out your deeds and preach what you preach, you had better make damned well sure that your heart, mind, and soul, are in the right place and are living in His heart.  For, if they are not, you blaspheme and sully His name, a sin that in earlier ages would wipe you from existence.
Humility may be a virtue that does not come to me easily, but do not mistake what little vestiges of humility, awe, and shame I bear with regards to His Word for ignorance or apathy.  I merely believe that it would be imprudent to claim I know His will with certainty when I am still fallible and sinful.  I urge you, my friends and family, out of my care for you to consider the same.

 Why can't we all Just Get along? When it comes to discussion, why can't we seem to understand what each other are saying?

 As is outlined extensively in my yet-unfinished book, epistemology (how we know what we know) is a field of intense and voluminous study. I will do my utmost to remain concise and direct today, but we will see if I can manage to get my point across.
Among thinking people, there is a disturbing trend of people missing each others' points and progressively resorting to name-calling and physical altercation. Friendships end, wars erupt, libraries are burned... all over a misunderstanding as to whether Star Trek ToS is better or worse than J.J. Abrams' reboot. This phenomenon is easy to see every four years in America, when just under half of the population suddenly erupts in closed-minded and aggressive rhetoric over which master we should be owned by and what behaviors we ought to compel with the violence of the state. For many people, this argument continues on a daily basis (Thanks, Obama).

Very, very rarely does one actually change their mind or realize that oneself was wrong. On the occasion that one does so, it is rarely a result of dialogue, but instead a result of a personal and concrete experience of their worldview and reality not comporting. This sort of event is at the heart of every popular feel-good drama about a grouchy old person overcoming his racism. My purely subjective standard by which I choose to judge a philosopher's ability to philosophize is their willingness and ability to change their mind and admit error by way of dialogue as opposed to concrete experience.

While very few people my be called to be a philosopher, everyone ought to be capable and willing to do philosophy, lest they be vulnerable to misanthropy, self-dehumanization, and falling for vicious and criminal ideologies. What is required in order to do philosophy? There is a multitude of tools required and yet another multitude of tools that are merely useful. The first two, the most fundamental and primary, of these tools are logic and paradigmatic awareness. Of course, one is a prerequisite for the other.

What is logic? Logic, contrary to popular belief, does not refer to “all of the not-emotional things that happen in my brain”. Logic is a science and an art as old as man's pursuit of knowledge. As a science, the body of theories and research has been steadily growing through the generations. As an art, the technique and skill of those who wield it waxes and wanes with times and cultures. Logic is the place where language, reason, and objective observation meet. Logic, in its purest form, is the exploration of the principle of non-contradiction and its application to our experience of reality. The quest for knowledge requires a reliable and finely-tunes toolset. The study of logic, epistemology, and phenomenology, has been directed towards the development of these tools since their inception.

Even though some high schools teach introductory classes on deductive symbolic logic and may touch on inductive reasoning, logic has been widely abandoned by our education system and, by extension, society at large. Without a working knowledge of and praxis concerning deduction, induction, abduction, and the interrelationship of the three, one cannot be expected to be consistent in their beliefs, claims, and behaviors. Unfortunately, a blogcast of this length and quality is insufficient to teach such a skill. Fortunately, there is a vast body of material available on the internet for those that wish to be rational.

A grossly oversimplified and brief introduction of the three is required, though, before I can address paradigmatic awareness. Deduction, then, is described as “arguing from the general to the specific”. A classic, if not entirely reliable, example is the famous “all men are mortal” syllogism.
“All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. ∴ Socrates is mortal.”
In this case, it assumes general premises such as “all men are mortal” and uses the principle of non-contradiction to reach the conclusion, “Socrates is mortal.” So long as the premises are factual and there is no error in the logic, the conclusion must be true.
Induction, in simple formulation, is arguing from specifics to the general. An example frequently addressed in modern philosophy is the claim, “the sun will rise tomorrow.” This claim is made based in the consistency of such an occurrence in the past as well as an absence of any predictors which indicate that such an occurrence would cease (for example, the sun vanishing would leave some pretty significant clues). Induction does not produce certainty in the same way that deduction may, but instead some well-reasoned and reliable guesses which have a particular utility about them.

Abduction can be considered “making the strongest case”. If the circumstance arises such that a question presents itself which requires an answer and neither a deductive nor an inductive argument is possible, one can produce an answer which does not contradict accepted deductive and inductive claims and is, itself, self-consistent. Using tools such as observation, occam's razor, intuition, and a detailed understanding of one's paradigm (we'll address this is a minute), one can make a compelling case as to why their chosen belief is true.

This brings us to the interrelation of the three. Due to the certainty produced by valid deductive reasoning, one's inductive claims cannot come into contradiction with such claims. If one is committed to a particular inductive claim which is found in contradiction with deductive claims, they must first demonstrate a flaw in the premises or logic of the existing deductive claim. This same priority is given induction over abduction for the same reasons.

Of course, this description ignores the source of our general premises that this whole process began with. In all reality, premises are produced by abductive reasoning and ratified by the simple Popperian principle of trial and error. This means that, per Gödel, any complete philosophical worldview cannot prove itself to be factual. Only by way of comparing a worldview's predictions and claims against one's experience of reality or confirming the strength of the premises' defense can one ultimately justify any particular worldview.

This finally brings us to paradigmatic awareness. Those that have read this far, I salute you. Using a modified version of Thomas Kuhn's definition of “paradigm”, a paradigm is the set of established or assumed claims which take priority before the claim in question based on the rubric I briefly described when addressing logic. Why does something so simple-yet-esoteric matter? It may sound intuitive once described, but despite its intuitive qualities, very few (if any) people truly possess paradigmatic awareness

For instance, when faced with a claim one may find absurd, such as “We need to tax every transaction possible in order to pay for government guns,” it is possible that the (clearly incorrect) individual may have a valid logical argument to reach that conclusion. More likely they hold, either implicitly or explicitly, flawed premises from which they derived an absurd conclusion. There is really no point in discussing the conclusion itself so long as the premises are left unacknowledged and unaddressed. Communication simply isn't possible without commonly accepted paradigms between communicants.

This is where the standard of being able to change one's mind comes into play; in the process of exploring the premises held by someone else which resulted in an apparently absurd claim, three beneficial results may arise. In exploring the paradigm of someone else, you may bring to light counter-intuitive or implicit premises that your conversant may never have previously critically assessed. Additionally, it will give you the opportunity to cast doubt on another's premises, allowing them the otherwise impossible moment of self-reflection. Lastly, of course, by holding a counter-factual presented by someone else, there is always a chance (however slim) that you may realize that you, yourself, are wrong.

Now, one cannot always explore others' worldviews without expecting the same intellectual courtesy in return. By following the advice given above and explaining what you are doing along the way, you can effectively provide an education in communication skills and logic that far exceeds what meager offerings most people are exposed to. This will give them a greater chance to entertain your correct but unpopular claims like, “Taxation is theft.” Additionally, anyone unwilling to explore their own premises or yours are clearly not interested in intellectually honest dialogue directed at obtaining truth and, therefore, are not worth your time or energy; a handy resource management tool, if you ask me.

So, why can't we get along? Because no one is given the tools required to even consider getting along. Why can't we understand what each other are saying? Because we don't try hard enough. Remember, no unwilling student can learn, this includes yourself.


TL;DR: Listen to what people claim. Ask, “How did you reach that conclusion?” Make it a point to maintain an awareness of your opponent's paradigm. Genuinely search for the truth in their words. Expect and demand that they reciprocate the effort, lest you waste both parties' time and energy.
As I said on facebook the other day (while re-realizing some flaws in the AnCap worldview):
I love being a philosopher. My worldview is constantly shifting and undulating... but always gradually comporting itself more closely to reality. Where fleeting moments of intuition can, decades later, be given meaning and purpose and carefully constructed arguments and justifications can crumble, there is where humility and virtue can grow. The fires of truth and the crucible of reason can lay bare natural and artificial landscapes of mind alike, and enrich the soil for new growth and the return of the most robust ideas to carry on their existence.

 A coworker of mine and I had an interesting conversation while preparing the sanctuary for Christmas a couple weeks ago. He's been a friend of mine on Facebook for about a decade or so, but probably hasn't seen many of my posts until recently. That is, until I began posting hundreds of statuses, articles, and memes daily. A while back, it would have likely been concerning evil democrats ruining our country... nowadays, it's more about evil statists ruining everyone's lives; a small but important broadening of perspective. Anyway, I had mentioned that I hate Christmas music, to which he replied, “Not as much as you hate cops.” A very interesting discussion ensued. I decided that a discussion which touches on the same points would serve as a nice blog post preceding the one on institutionalized states of war.

A different coworker jokingly followed up that conversation with a comment, “People might think you're a Muslim, you hate pigs so much.” Which, while hilarious, was cause for contemplation. Do I hate cops? I mean, I'm an anarchist, so clearly the idea of laws and enforcers raises my hackles. But do I hate cops? Cops, like everyone else, are individuals living out their lives... so, as people, I would have to get to know each one individually before determining whether or not I hate them as a person.

Looking at the psychology of what would entice one into becoming a cop would likely illuminate the situation. In the interest of determining the truth of the matter, I will try to give everyone the benefit of a doubt. From people I know and stories I've read, many people who become cops do so “for the right reasons”. They want to protect the weak from criminals, want to protect society from the chaos of lawlessness, they want to carry on the family tradition, and they want to help those that can't help themselves. It seems that the origin of these desires would be the warrior spirit and inculturation. The warrior spirit drives men to pursue virtue, lead others, and protect one's community. The state has, in a history of calculated genius, always attempted to monopolize the ability to fulfill that telos. Within the confines of the state, in order to pursue the warrior's path, one must become a soldier in service of the state. All other options are either outlawed or regulated out of existence. Before you tell yourself, “Wait, I thought he was talking about cops, not the military,” the only categorical distinction betwixt the two (and now, even a superficial one, given the equipment and “authority” they employ) is who they are aimed at. Military for citizens of other nations, cops for citizens of the same nation. When a young man has the warrior spirit burning within his chest and a DARE officer comes to his class and he watches G.I Joe on TV, it is only natural that they would pursue such a career; all other options for fulfilling that telos have been eliminated by the state.

These intelligent, driven, and virtuous men become cops. Unfortunately, helping protect the weak from the strong, protecting the community, and generally doing the warrior thing are not the only items in the job description. To be honest, I don't even think that these are in the handbook, let alone the job description. These good people are trained, take an oath, put on a badge, and set out to do good. Their intention does not match their actions. The moral reality is such that one cannot both be a good person and be a good cop: one is a good cop at the expense of being a good person and vice versa.

What makes a cop a cop? A cop is a law enforcement officer. Contained within that statement is all of the material I have and likely ever will write about anarchy. Fore example, it contains the question “what is a law?” amongst many others. This question, though, is one that needs to be addressed in part, right here. Many of my friends have brought up laws of physics (aka: natural law) in discussions with regards to the tragedy of enforcement. There is little that can be said to deny that the universe has a natural order to it; gravity works, things live and die, the universal speed limit is 299,792,458 meters per second, and the lowest thermostat setting is 0° K. All in all, it seems logically consistent and can easily encompass the metaphysical. We call this whole of natural order “natural law”.

Of course, even the most staunchly Thomist theologian will deny a claim that God just sat in the clouds and wrote: “Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 1: No particle shall travel at a velocity exceeding 299,792,458 meters per second. Any particle found exceeding such a velocity shall be charged with a misdemeanor...” In all reality, natural law is either a brute fact or an expression of the logically consistent nature of the divine. We use the phrase “natural law” allegorically, applying our common experience of the irresistible and pervasive desires of a king to our common experience of the irresistible and pervasive pull of gravity. This allegorical use of language is one-way. One can say that the natural order of things is similar to the laws of man, but the laws of man bear only a superficial resemblance to the natural order.

This one-way comparison is such due to one simple element: enforcement. Jesus and/or Carl Sagan don't sit in a heavenly courtroom, sentencing those pesky neutrinos for speeding and anti-gravitons for obstructing the law. The natural order simply is. Every aspect of the material world simply behaves in a consistent manner, despite how much one may wish it to be otherwise. The laws of man, on the other hand, only exist insofar as there is a man willing to enforce it. One can argue that moral maxims are a part of the natural order. I do. For example, “Thou shalt not murder,” seems to naturally fall out of a rational understanding of the nature of the human person. For one to recognize and pronounce such a truth is to do a service to all men. However, to say, “Thou shalt not murder, or a man funded by public theft will hunt you down and lock you in a theft-funded cage for the rest of your theft-funded life (or, just kill you if he's having a bad day)” is a crime. As will be addressed in future posts, the law of man is nothing more than an opinion backed by a gun.

Unfortunately for the good people who become cops, a law enforcement officer is that gun backing the opinion. Rather than protecting the weak from the strong, in becoming a cop one makes the strong stronger and the weak weaker. Whether it be a king demanding taxes, a representative setting an arbitrary speed limit, the democrats demanding Socrates' death, or a mafioso selling “insurance”, the only way such a goal is accomplished is by way of armed enforcers. One who has internalized slave morality in its totality may say, “I pay my taxes voluntarily, I follow laws to uphold the social contract, and when a cop pulls me over I comply because I clearly fucked up.” The stark reality, though, is one of armed coercion. What happens if one chooses to disregard the opinion being enforced? If one fails to pay their property tax, will not cops come and tell him to leave their own property? If one refuses to have their land stolen, will he not be locked in a cage or shot? If one disregards the opinion that he has to drive 65 MPH on the open road or that he must stop for a car with flashing plastic lights, will he not wind up dead on the side of the road?

The truth of the matter is that every interaction one has with the law is one of coercion. If you don't do as you are told, regardless of the moral quality of your actions, a cop can kill or cage you. This reveals one more reason why one could make a rational choice to become a cop. If one is intelligent enough to discover this truth, but lack the moral compass that many posses, they may want to become a cop. If one has few marketable skills, self-esteem issues, violent tendencies, and no scruples being paid with stolen money, there is a particular form of welfare available to these people, called law enforcement. One doesn't need to look far to see evidence to bolster this claim.

I've brought up stolen money twice now. All I mean by it is that all forms of government payroll and protection are welfare, including police “authority” and paychecks. Welfare is stealing from those deemed “too well off” in order to give it to those who have been deemed unable to care for themselves.

So, do I hate cops? Yes, but only in the same way I hate all criminals. That is to say, all of the rules outlined in the post titled “What is the State of War?” apply no more or less to cops than any other person (http://madphilosopher.weebly.com/blog/what-is-the-state-of-war). I don't hate them as people, I'm sure they're generally nice, good natured, and virtuous people... when they aren't committing crimes in the name of the king. It's simply tragic that they find themselves daily caught in the balance between paying the bills and being a good person.


TL;DR: A man cannot both be a good person and a good cop. Insofar as he is one, it is at the expense of the other. Every action a cop takes is done in a manner that is backed by the threat of death or imprisonment. This makes all cops criminals. I have already made my opinions on criminals clear.

There is no prison
more secure
with walls so high
and bars so strong
as one's own mind

A solipsistic masochistic
cell in the dark
alone with only dreams
thoughts and pain

Occasional flashes of light
from orbiting spheres
in the night
hinting I am not alone
and always a voice
from across the
infinite void
“I am here, come to me”

To experience life secondhand
telling myself a tale
of what I think I saw
and feeling what I think I felt
changing every moment
yet every day the same

Each moment a memory of the last
grasping at grains of the past
building a self on dunes
shifting and wandering
lost in time, on the wind
I wish to leave
lest I be doomed

A nameless faceless self
I must keep reaching
through the bars
in hope that those
distant stars hold others like me
and fear they may wink out
if I let them go


Of course
does it matter
do I matter
nihilism is so much easier


Image credit goes to:
http://kelseyvance.com/blog/tag/photography/page/2

What is war? Can war ever be justified? So many questions and so many emotionally charged readers... lets see how rationally we can navigate this terrain and, consequently, how many people I can piss off in this post.

War, by the broadest definition, is man killing man. One can argue for qualifiers in order to narrow the application of the term, something like “large numbers of men killing large numbers of men” or “the institutionalized or systematic state of men killing men” or “states fighting states”, etc. While I am sympathetic to the desire to make “war” a technical and precise term, the manner in which the term has been used historically has been intentionally broad and inclusive, with a few exceptions. Instead, qualifiers are typically assigned on top of the term to better explain the circumstance: “civil war”, “guerrilla warfare”, “world war”, “war of X”, “war on X”, etc. It is even said when small numbers of men are involved; when two tribes or gangs consisting of a few dozen engage in killing each other , it is called tribal or gang warfare.

Thomas Hobbes, the architect of contemporary views on the human condition, aptly used the term “state of war” to describe two closely related states of affairs. The first being any situation in which a man attempts to deprive another of their life. The second is an environment or state of affairs in which there is a known disposition for such an occasion. Hobbes then equivocates this second form of a “state of war” with what he calls the “state of nature”: that is, his impoverished view of anarchy. Of course, I disagree with his false dichotomy of either sacrificing any and all rights to a tyrant or living in a perpetual solitary state of war, but his definition of war seems solid enough.

What does a state of war look like, then? Some examples are easy to point out: Nazis marching into Poland, remote-controlled planes dropping “ordinance” on children, and gangs executing people wearing the wrong color, (or an environment where such things are common) for example. There are far less obvious examples to draw on as well, but these tend to be more controversial due to their more discreet nature. I will save those for later.

For now, let's see whether war is ever justified. As I mentioned very briefly in “Towards a Definition of Anarchy” (http://madphilosopher.weebly.com/blog/towards-a-definition-of-anarchy) and hope to addressing detail later, one has a duty to life and a moral obligation to acknowledge and respect others' duty to the same. It's a very short axiomatic step to then say war (and the state of war) is categorically unjust. Simple and straightforward, right? Well, yes... but with a qualifier.

I have a duty to live and flourish, and by extension must not inhibit others from doing the same. In a purely rational and robotic world, this would mean that mankind would never encounter or even conceive of a state of war. Of course, experience tells us a very different, more Hobbesian, story. What happens when someone violates their obligation to allow another to live and flourish? What happens when there is a gun in my face? Does one have a duty to live or an obligation to let live? There is only one rationally consistent answer: the would-be-victim has a duty to stop the aggressor from taking the victim's life. If this means the death of the aggressor, so be it.

It is always tragic when someone is killed; again, in a world of purely rational actors, such an event would not occur. However, it is infinitely more tragic when an innocent person is killed by a criminal rather than the other way around. Why is this the case? When one is innocent of a crime (using Spooner's definition of a crime), the are to some degree fulfilling their duty to live and flourish. Conversely a criminal is not only acting in direct violation of their duty to live and flourish (from the virtue ethics perspective) which is a vice, but also depriving others of their ability to do so. The engagement in a criminal act is to enter into a state of war, and a systematic criminal rings a state of war with him wheresoever he may go.

We have touched on how one instigates war (by attempting to coerce, rob, or murder someone), but not what the target of said instigator ought to do in concrete terms. Firstly, of course, one ought to take all reasonable precautions to avoid such an occasion: moving to a safer region, locking doors, demonstrating a secure posture in both person and property, and behaving in a virtuous and amiable manner are all good examples. Secondly, one ought to be prepared for such an occasion. Both mental and physical preparedness are required; being able to tactically assess one's environment at all times, to have the tools needed for security on-hand, and the mental and physical ability to use said tools are a requirement for preparedness.

Thirdly, if or when the first two steps prove to be insufficient, one will find themselves faced with the immediate threat of war. In such a situation, it would seem that there are a series of morally acceptable courses of action. If possible, one must try to defuse the situation before it escalates to violence. One such option would be to simply “talk down” their aggressor... to say something to the effect of “I know you don't want to do this, let's work through this together” another option would be to warn the aggressor that if he does not stand down, he will, in fact, be executed on the spot. Diffusing the situation is not always possible, as sometimes war sets in unexpectedly and with great intensity. Easy examples would be when a gang randomly assaults a bystander or when the SWAT team performs a no-knock raid, but I repeat myself. In the event such an action is impossible or fails, there remains the most primordial of dichotomies: fight or flight. If one can successfully flee with one's life, liberty, and property intact one would be justified in doing so (as long as one later performs one's due diligence in raising awareness of the instigator's behavior). However, if any one of the three cannot successfully be secured and one parts with any of the three to any degree (even in the de-escalation phase), one is complicit in the crimes committed against oneself. In the act of turning over possessions or liberties demanded of oneself unjustly, one is enabling and condoning the theft and coercion occurring. Additionally, a compliant victim allows a criminal to pursue theft from others and such a criminal will likely become a repeat customer with regards to a compliant victim. Such is the case with murder as well, excepting the “repeat customer” portion of course.

The remaining and most unfortunately likely course of action available to one forced into a state of war is to fight. In the case of war, the victim of the instigator is thrust into an unjust situation by an unjust actor. How ought one conduct oneself in the state of war? Ultimately, there is only one acceptable answer: with all the fury, power, ferocity, and coldly calculated intent to kill that one can muster. Anything less would be, itself, a criminal and vicious act.

How could pulling punches of “showing mercy” be a crime and a vice? Well, it is quite simple, really. Once every option to avoid a state of war has been exhausted, the intent of the aggressor to commit a criminal act against the victim at any cost has been established. Any degree in which one is derelict in commitment to stopping an aggressor in the most efficacious and efficient manner possible is a degree to which one is complicit in an aggressor's crime. In this degree one is derelict in combating the aggressor is a degree in which one is willing to allow the aggressor to commit a crime against oneself What's more, not only a crime against oneself but the aggressor has effectively established the nature of his character to be a criminal one; therefore, allowing the criminal to commit a crime against oneself is to encourage him to commit crimes against others.

Remember, anarchy is a philosophy of personal responsibility, not winner-take-all violence. Those who believe it is their right or ability to act out a Hobbesian liberty (the ability to do literally whatever one wants with no regard to the rights of others) will not live long in truly anarchist society. An easy explanation as to why this is the case is to simply imagine a society in which a majority of people live by the standard outlined here and how such a society would respond to a Hobbesian.

I will follow-up on this post in the near future with regards to how one ought to conduct their affairs when living in an institutionalized state of war.


TL;DR: The state of war is is a state of affairs in which one or more individuals cannot be dissuaded from committing a crime. When one is faced with the prospect of war, one ought to do what one can to avoid it. If one is forced into a state of war, one ought to pursue the most effective and expedient method by which to halt said criminal. Namely, they must kill their aggressor.


There is a further discussion of this topic at about the 1:19:00 mark of Sovryh Tech Ep. 108:

Is Anarchy a Bad Word? 

More and more frequently these days, it seems that when meeting people for the first or second time, I am outed as an anarchist. Usually, it is a mutual friend of my acquaintance and myself that does so (sometimes, I think they get some sadistic pleasure from doing so), but sometimes I am compelled to out myself, especially when so many people ask, “What's your take on such-and-such political issue?” More often than not, the statement I am an anarchist” is met with incredulity and disbelief. It's as if I had said, “I'm a racist,” or “I'm a rapist,” or “I shot JFK.” Often, the first thing I'm asked after a moment of stunned silence is, “So, you want an-eye-for-an-eye/Mad Max/The Purge or something?” Sometimes, the more intelligent will ask, “Didn't anarchists kill Franz Ferdinand and start the World War?” or “But who will build the roads?” Very rarely, someone will say, “I think you mean Libertarian...” or will genuinely attempt to explore the idea with an open mind.

Modern media and education definitely do what they can to tarnish the name of a long-standing and rich philosophical tradition. This isn't limited solely to anarchy, many concepts necessary to optimal human flourishing have found themselves ridiculed and marginalized by the agents of the state. Today, though, I want to focus on anarchy (as is the case most days). Easy examples of such “brainwashing” is simply the manner in which the term is used in both “informative” and and entertainment realms of media. The word “anarchy” is rarely uttered, which is not itself indicative of any agenda... but when it is spoken, it is without exception, a pejorative term meant to evoke or describe images of violence, destruction, and criminality. A current example would be the way the media describes the Ferguson riots as “anarchy” while flashing scenes of hundreds of grown men looting a dollar store. In entertainment, only the villain can speak the word without spitting it as if it were a profane and venomous curse. The worst culprits are the news agencies and procedural crime dramas; the news agencies reserve the term for radical combatants or rioters in the third-world or the inner cities of America (but I repeat myself), and the self-described anarchists in the procedurals are always the object of ridicule and often depicted as a villainous caricature of sociopathy.

In education, at least K-12, one is likely to hear the dreaded “A-word” once in all 13 years. That one time is the point when the World War, the result of states' military posturing and nationalistic furor and one of the most devastating events in recorded history, is blamed on the Black Hand, a group of anarchists who killed a politically insignificant duke. The total ignorance of the ways anarchy as a philosophy influenced the American war of independence, the secession of the Confederacy, and the economy of 19th century America, not to mention the history of a greater number of American states is a clear sign that either the history curricula are useless or part of a conspiracy to tell a very specific and pro-state narrative to America's youth. The recent controversies in Jefferson County, CO are actually hinged on this very issue. It is easy to dismiss such a claim as a conspiracy theory and to say I sound just like that crazy guy you saw on Law and Order, CSI, Bones, Criminal Minds, Blue Blood, Cops, America's Most Wanted... but one has to admit that the education system definitely assumes the necessity of institutionalized coercion (laws), theft (taxes), and murder (war, police, etc).

The responses I receive upon coming out of the anarchy closet clearly indicates a cultural reverence for the state. This is puzzling to me, as our government has a 12% approval rating from it's own citizens. I would expect that more people would be open to the suggestion that “maybe the idea of government is inherently flawed” if 82% of Americans disapprove of our particular instance. Especially when taking into account that they simultaneously believe “we are the best nation on earth.” Admittedly, there are a near-infinite number of ways you can structure a government... but the one feature they all have in common is the institutional threat of imprisonment or death to those that do not allow themselves to be robbed or controlled by way of taxation and law enforcement. At the end of the day, all statists agree, whether communist, fascist, republican, democrat, monarchist, or Libertarian, society only flourishes at the business end of a gun. For this reason, the real bad word, which ought to be said with great infrequency and shame is “government”.

How is it that the uptake of freedom-oriented philosophies and movements has not resulted in the reclamation of the word “anarchy”? Well, these philosophies have their own names. With so many agorists, voluntarists, libertarians, capitalists, egoists, and more running around, little attention is paid to anarchy itself anymore. It's a name that has been left for statists to use as a totem for the evils of freedom to ridicule and revile. Besides, doesn't “voluntarism” sound so much more pleasant than “anarchy”? The only problem in thinking such things is, admittedly, a philosophical and intellectual one as opposed to a practical or immediate one.

In order to make a compelling and categorical case for any or all of these ideas, though, one has to understand their philosophical underpinnings. The reality of the matter, in all of its complexity can be glossed in one simple explanation. As I addressed in the last post, anarchy is predicated on a negative philosophical claim: namely the rejection of coercion, theft, and murder as well as institutions which perpetrate such behaviors. These other, nicer sounding, philosophies are predicated on a anarchy first and build a positive claim on top of it. Voluntarism, for example, establishes voluntary association as fundamental to the philosophy.

This may seem like semantic nit-picking, but it is an important distinction to make when trying to establish a strong identity in an inhospitable environment such as that found in the first world. The importance isn't because all the “t”s must be crossed and “i”s dotted, but because all of these positive philosophies of freedom are actually anarchy at their heart, despite their positivist differences. These philosophies, like agorism, are positive assertions built off of the underlying premise of the anarchist principle. So, voluntarism is anarchy + voluntary interaction, or egoism is anarchy + the primacy of the self, or capitalism is anarchy + basic economics, et cetera. In order to best protect ourselves from the war machine of the state, we must learn to get along and collaborate. Doing so is easy if we all realize that we are all anarchists simply building different castles on the same bedrock foundation.


TL; DR: Anarchy isn't a bad word, government is. Freedom-oriented philosophies need to embrace their roots in freedom, rather than obscuring the fact that they are indeed anarchists.

From the Greek: “A/An” = “not” + “Archon” =King/ruler”

Throughout Athenian history, the form and function of an “archon” changed in various ways, but all of the meanings and applications of the term shared three things in common:

• Reverence of the position held, regardless of the actions of the individual holding the position
• Authority to dictate the actions of others
• A support structure or institution designed to grant that authority
  

Because of the close relationship between mythology and political life in ancient cultures, the term archon was used to both describe human actors and intermediary deities/angels/spirits. Excepting instances wherein poetic license was used heavily, the term clearly applied to one or the other type of being; much like our use of the term “love” being applied to loving pie and loving your wife (with the only grey area being “American Pie”). Because of this distinction, I am comfortable in focusing primarily on the word as applies to human archons as apposed to divine archons.

However, it is interesting to note the mythological use of the term, and it does inform the use of the term as applies to humans. In many ancient religions, “archon” was the word applied to spiritual beings responsible for acts of widespread destruction. They typically targeted non-believers. The gnostics, especially, interpreted archons to be any being which acted in such a manner so as to prevent human beings from pursuing individuality, excellence, eudaimonia, or from taking responsibility, but this use was fairly widespread when translating other religious texts into Greek as well.

So, in the interest of crafting a concise, simple, and categorical etymology of the Greek word “archon”, I assert the definition of “archon”is as follows:
“An individual who claims the authority to coercively dictate the behavior of other individuals, especially in cases which cause destruction or prevent other individuals from pursuing individuality, acquiring excellence or eudaemonia, or taking responsibility.”
Of course, a Philosophy is always more complex than an etymological definition of its moniker. I like to make the arbitrary claim that the best philosophies closely match their moniker and I believe anarchy to be an example of this claim. Being an ontologically negative term, “no-archon” can be taken at face value to be a form of either rejecting a claim or to be an enumeration of negative claims. In this case, it is both.

Firstly, it is the rejection of the claim that one has the right or ability to be an archon. Where one may claim to be a monarch, oligarch, tetrarch, etc. they may as well be claiming to be the Messiah or Darth Vader. The same applies to terms which are not explicitly descended from the term “archon”; a republican, democrat, theocrat, etc. is an equally fictitious position to be held. I will address this rejection of belief in archons later.

Secondly, anarchy as a philosophy is an enumeration of negative claims, many of which are ontological in nature. Many times, the dramatic claim of an individual anarchist is, “No gods, No masters”. This claim, while effective and concise is overly simplistic and vague. I contend that the attitude of the motto is accurate, being derived loosely from the etymology of the name and philosophy. A less dramatic but more accurate version would be “no slaves, no masters” or “Man holds no authority over man.” The reasons I wish to avoid “no gods, no masters” is probably fairly apparent; I believe that belief in certain deities is compatible with the tenets of anarchy (that is a matter for later blog posts), and the term “master” has multiple meanings and applications, many of which are not related to slavery; by putting “slaves” alongside “masters”, it demonstrates the particular application of the term “master” which one ought to assume.

So, what does anarchy mean as a philosophy? Clearly, the first negative ontological claim would be that no man has the right to coerce others to behave in a particular fashion and any institution designed for the sake of coercion or predicated upon such actions ought to be done away with. Coercion is a term with many feelings and intuitions surrounding it; many of which, if inaccurate, touch on key elements of it. However, to an analytic such as myself, a clear definition or at least description of the term is required in order to flesh out a legitimate philosophical stance. In the case of coercion, I imagine the definition is something akin to “an action or threat of action which intentionally removes one's means of achieving flourishing with the intent to compel a particular action.” For example, saying “Do X or I will kill you,” is clearly coercion. A less obvious example would be saying, “Don't do X (especially where X is a component necessary or beneficial to one's flourishing) or you will be put in a cage and I will steal your property.” When phrased this way, it is obviously coercion... but it can be less obvious when each piece of that statement is multiplied a thousandfold and spread between millions of pages of legal code. The fallout of such forms of coercion is readily apparent to anyone who looks at certain parts of the public record (or my facebook page).

Equally damaging to human flourishing are the issues of murder and theft. These are both closely related to coercion, but the full relationship between the three is so complex and rich that I do not have the time and space to fully address it in this post, but I will explicitly address it later. For now, I will have to content myself and any would-be readers with a brief examination of the issue as pertains to the definition of anarchy. The root desire which leads to the need to be free from coercion cannot be fulfilled if one is subject to the threat of murder, especially when institutionalized, for the same reasons that one must be free from coercion. Also, by definition, murder is unjustified and an immediate stop on one's ability to flourish by any defensible standard.

Theft is often the most veiled and insidious of the three issues at hand. Where murder is fairly cut and dried as far as identification is concerned and coercion is infrequently undetectable, theft is more difficult to define and can often go unnoticed indefinitely. However, if one is exposed to institutionalized theft, even indirect and unnoticed theft, they are subject to an institutionalized inhibitor of their freedom and flourishing.

So, then, anarchy is ultimately the rejection of any institution predicated on or designed for the sake of coercion, theft, or murder. There is a multitude of reasons why one would come to embrace such a philosophy and worldview, some of which I will address in later posts. One thing is certain, though: no one who embraces anarchy as defined above does so out of naivete or a desire to perpetuate the same crimes which such a philosophy decries. Anarchy is not a guarantee that people will not commit the crimes of coercion, theft, and murder; the idea that such a thing is possible is utopic and therefore absurd. However, any worldview that does not fundamentally incorporate the anarchist position is a guarantee that people and institutions will commit these crimes. Those that wish to commit these crimes have far easier and safer means by which to accomplish their goals than anarchy. For example, they can become politicians, cops, soldiers, democrats, or middle and upper management at a corporation, thereby granting themselves a secure position which allows them to commit the very crimes they wish to pursue while remaining above social reproach, as opposed to taking on the risk associated with the moniker of freedom from such crimes. That is not to say that all people who choose such careers do so out of the desire to commit crimes with impunity, but these positions certainly encourage such activities and some are predicated directly on these crimes. Before I ramble too far beyond the topic at hand, I should save such ideas for later posts.


TL;DR: In conclusion, I propose the starting place for formulating a categorical definition of anarchy would be “The rejection of any institution predicated on coercion, theft, or murder”. This definition is subject to critique and revision, but so far has served me well.

Feel free to comment below or email me at [email protected] if you desire to be a part of this conversation.

A very intelligent and good friend of mine recently mailed me a card (an important and lost art) containing a newspaper article (and equally important and lost art, journalism). The headline read “The Pope and the Precipice”, by Ross Douthat. Full disclosure: my friend is a devout protestant philosopher and I am a devout Catholic philosopher wannabe. I felt this was a good opportunity to show my appreciation for his card and address an issue in the Church at the same time.

Firstly, it was an excellent reminder as to why I no longer read the paper; anymore, it's all bad news written by bad people. Secondly, though, it reminded me of a phenomenon I encounter at least once a month (usually in the church I work at). Someone (Catholic or not, this is an equal-opportunity encounter) will express that they firmly believe that Pope Francis is some sort of reformer, cutting through 2000 years of Tradition and “modernizing” or “liberalizing” the Church. Sometimes, they are happy about this belief and sometimes they aren't so happy.

The source of this belief is not hard to determine. Since the first moments the white smoke issued from the Sistine Chapel, the media in America have been preaching the good news of the new Pope, the first American Pope, the first Jesuit Pope, the first Pope to fall into a number of categories... clearly, this will be the first Pope to allow gay, married women priests and sell the Vatican in order to be the first Pope to carry out Christs message of charity, and oh-my-god isn't he so cool and rebellious, it's no wonder these enlightened liberal millenials in America love him. Of course, this depiction sounds like facetious mockery... but it is only barely an exaggeration. I hear someone parrot these talking points from the Huffington Post at least once a month.

The amusing part of this hubhub is that this is merely the latest sequel in one of the media's most boring franchises. I have heard and read firsthand accounts of life before, during, and after the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Despite what so many people seem to think, Vatican II was actually a very minor event, both in the Church and its relationship to the world. Whereas previous Ecumenical Councils resulted in such incredible things as canonizing the Scriptures, building the fundamental doctrines of the Faith, and structurally overhauling the magisterium of the Church, Vatican II resulted in a mere decision to allow adoption of the vernacular, integrating modern technologies into mundane church features such as architecture, and better defining and encouraging lay involvement in Church faculties.

Western society, composed primarily of under-educated, lukewarm Christians and secularists, however, were ecstatic with the results of Vatican II. The media produced a narrative throughout this event that was comically divergent from what actually occurred. Even a very brief comparison of of Lumen Gentium and the newspaper clippings reveal a tale of two Councils. However, because Catholics in the western world received their news and education from the mainstream media, they seemed to think that Vatican II was an endorsement of tambourine-waving belly-dancers wielding snakes and doing bodyshots with the Blood of Christ (way to go, Germany). Even priests and bishops found themselves falling for the state fairy tales rather than simply reading a book issued by the Vatican.

Today is no different. As Francis uttered his first papal words, he could barely be heard over the media ecstatically shouting, “Women Priests! Gay Marriage! Married Priests! Pedophile Witch Hunt!” This, of course, made the more Catholic members of the church very skeptical towards the Pope. I, with my apocalyptic personality, was one of these people. Making a conscious effort to maintain stoic silence and apatheia; I managed to have no comment on Francis until he began speaking, writing, and generally pope-ing. Listening to what he says, reading what he writes, and hearing from friends in the Vatican, I quickly realized that Francis truly is a Pope, like any other.

He preaches the message of Christ, in the same words and the same philosophy as Benedict XVI and John Paul the Great before him. Evangelii Gaudium reads similarly to “Love and Responsibility”, Deus Caritas Est, and “Humanae Vitae” (not from Benedict or JPII, but still important) and, rather than undermining or overthrowing them, simply affirms what they have already stated. There exists two popes today as there exist two Vatican IIs: there is the liberal Jesus who is trying to reform a stale old Church, protestant-style, to change every area of doctrine to match the clearly superior opinions of millenials in the western world, and there is a Catholic pope who preaches love, responsibility, and the infallible and unchanging doctrines of the Church.

This particular article finally inspired me to write about this phenomenon for one particular reason (besides giving my friend a shout-out); There was a clever and vague attempt hidden in the article to undermine the doctrine of infallibility. The article frames infallibility in the context of politics and personal interests as opposed to the realm of philosophy and faith. There does exist certain philosophical issues concerning infallibility, but politics is not one of them. The most central of these issues is the one alluded to in the article and has ties to the philosophy of science. What does infallibility mean and how can one prove it?

Taking the philosophical route, I will attempt to categorically define infallibility. Infallibility is a state of epistemic affairs in which one's knowledge claims necessarily comport to reality. In the case of the doctrine of infallibility, this state of affairs is limited to the pope's definitions of doctrine with regards to faith or ethics to be applied universally. As for what infallibility looks like, we are presented a certain epistemic issue alluded to in the article. Infallibility, as indicated in the First Vatican Council (1869-1870), would be fairly easy to identify... at least, to a believer. Every utterance of the pope that is supposed to be infallible, if logically consistent with all other infallible claims and not clearly a violation of natural law would be identifiable as infallible. Of course, until such a time that a supposedly infallible claim violates existing infallible claims, this instance of infallibility would be indistinguishable from a tradition of very, very careful and academic politicking. In philosophy, it is often referred to as the inductive problem of grue and bleen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_riddle_of_induction). As a popperian, I claim we can assume that the doctrine of infallibility obtains and blue is blue until such a time that the claim is falsified... so long as we are aware of and open to the possibility that it is simply careful politicking and blue is actually bleen.

How do these two ideas come together and how can I tie this to my anarchist principles? Media pope vs. the Pope's words and actions and the doctrine of infallibility meets anarchy. This is my chance to give a peek behind the curtain of my private life and show that I am not just some naive cradle Catholic that imagines the Church to be some inviolate mother who never misbehaves; I readily admit to a great many faults of the people withing the magisterium. The way the western world responded to Vatican II and Pope Francis and outright denies the the teachings contained in Church documents like “Humanae Vitae” is almost entirely the fault of bishops and priests (and to a lesser degree the lay ministers) in the church. The Church has abdicated a great many of it's duties and functions to the state, one of which is exemplified here; Catholics, “good” and “bad”, learn what it means to be Catholic and what the Church teaches from the state and media instead of from the pulpit and parish. I have a lot to say about separation of church and state and how an anarchist could be Catholic (hint: one is a prerequisite for the other), but as pertains to the tale of two popes, this is all I have time for today.




TL;DR: If you think Pope Francis is any different from our last two popes, you need to read what they say, write, and do, instead of listening to MSNBC and Fox (just turn that shit off). Either the doctrine of infallibility obtains or we have a 2000 year old tradition of a most impressive degree of diligence. The confusion concerning the Church and “politics” within the Church is the Church's fault, as it has allowed its flock to become statists at the expense of being Catholic. And lastly, you ought to listen to this podcast on the Synod on the Family: http://catholicstuffpodcast.com/?p=906

UPDATE 2015-5: Brian Sovryn had some excellent points to make on the subject of voting, and I thought they were worth adding to this discussion:

So, this was supposed to be a higher-quality production, but there were scheduling issues and time constrains such that we had to settle on the demo recording as our final recording.  We were planning on having a celebrity guest, but we couldn't get everything worked out in time.  Hopefully, in the future, we will be able to revisit this script and get a better rendition recorded.

Still, all of the material and substance is here, just not as polished and palatable as I had hoped.  Above is the audio version, and below is the script.  Enjoy.

Introduction

George: Oh, hi, Rob... I didn't expect to see you here on a day like today.

Robert: What's going on here? Handing out free books at the library or something?

George: >sigh< Rob... it's election day. And no, I don't have time for your Socratic bullshit; I just gotta get my ballot in the box and get back to work.

Robert: Socrates was an asshole, that hurt my feelings; but I can see where you're coming from. I used to really, really get involved in elections... reading all of the amendments and referendums in their entirety, looking at voting histories and financial backers... It was exhausting, but I felt it was rewarding, even though I only ever voted on the winning side once. But It was rewarding, doing my civic duty and upholding the political system that kept us from destroying ourselves.

George: Yeah, but I follow your social media now-a-days. I guess I have time to talk for a little bit... I am just waiting in line for about an hour or so. You do know that if you don't vote, you can't complain, right?

Robert: It was a very smart and grouchy old man that once said, “If you vote you have no right to complain.” I don't always agree with him, but he was on top of his game for a good portion of his life. So, now, I have to decide whether this one smart guy was right, or the general consensus of the masses is right. >chuckle< You know...

George: Yes, I know... “republic versus democracy”... Your sense of humor has declined over the years. I also think your philosopher is wrong. I mean, if there's a guy that is running for president or congress or something that is vehemently in favor of infanticide and you don't vote against him, you've essentially allowed him to pursue an evil course of action with your tax dollars. You could have done something to stop him, but you didn't. You have no right to complain.

Robert: So, I have to choose a lesser evil?

George: If there is no good candidate, yes... but every so often, Abraham Lincoln or Ronald Reagan runs for office.

Robert: “I sought for great men, but all I found were apes of their ideal...”

George: What was that?

Robert: Nothing, just something a philosopher said... if we are going to get into the “lesser evil” debate again, I would suggest we should lay some ground rules. we've gotta be operating in the same paradigm, with the same premises, or we'll just keep talking past each other.

George: Yeah, I remember your philosophy club; ground rules are fine. What do you propose?

The Anarchist Position

Robert: Well given how the environment we are in is quite adversarial towards my position and we are limited in time, may I suggest we start by assuming the anarchist position today?

George: You'll have to define it for me, because when you say “anarchist” I still only see white utopians complaining on social media and black kids throwing Molotov cocktails at gas stations .

Robert: We'll go with the easy definition, then. We'll just say that anarchy is “the rejection of any institution predicated on coercion, theft, or murder”.

George: I'm not sure what that has to do with voting, but I'm sure you'll tell me all about it. Are you going to tell me that voting is murder?

Robert: Well, I think that we can just confine ourselves to voting like we are here. I wouldn't say that all voting is evil... If we had a group of friends trying to decide where we should go for lunch, for example, we could vote on where we are going as a group. Anyone who doesn't want to go to the selected restaurant doesn't have to go or pay for anything.

George: Isn't that exactly what's going on right now?

Robert: Well, ignoring representatives for a moment, let's take a look at your ballot. Let's see, here I see a handful of amendments, propositions, and issues that are not opt-in like our example. You see, “raise taxes”, “forced labeling”, “more taxes”, “banning pets” “raise taxes”... Regardless of whether or not I vote, or how I vote if I were to do so, I will still be forced to abide by these rules. In effect, my friends are telling me “You HAVE to go to Chuck 'e Cheese's, and you WILL pay a percentage of the bill,” which is coercion and theft. An anarchist wouldn't allow for that.

George: So, you should vote against those things, disallow them from happening, Mr. Anarchist. I think you have a difficult uphill struggle to make a compelling argument from what you just said to reach “I don't vote”.

Robert: Oh, it's even harder than you think. I'm not saying “I don't vote,” but rather, “Everyone ought not to vote as participation in any system that is predicated on coercion, theft, or murder.”

George: Wait wait wait... I see where this is going. We've had these discussions about anarchy before, and we don't have time to do that... last time, we talked for six hours and still had ground to cover when I went home. So for rule number two: let us, to the best of our ability, confine the discussion solely to voting (arguing from the anarchist's position) without getting sidetracked on other pedantic issues about anarchy.

Robert: Fair enough, as long as you let me include this discussion in a book I'm writing on this very subject. Or, at least, use this discussion for inspiration. You may actually help me figure out, once and for all, what my stance is on voting and have sufficient justification for both myself and my critics.

George: That's fine. So, what's your big hangup?

Justifications for and condemnations against voting

Robert: Well, I would say my big hangup is established in the anarchist position itself: I disbelieve in the authority of the government, so why would I vote? Rather than just diving right in, though, I think it may work better if you tell me why you're voting right now. You've already agreed with me that a government such as ours is broken in past discussions, let's start there.

George: Well, that's precisely why I'm voting. Unlike you, I'm not committed to the idea that social order is inherently evil, only that this particular government is not doing it's best at upholding social order and freedom. I'm committed to changing what we've got into something better. It's this commitment to change that brings me here: the action of voting is the most effective and easiest way to enact that change.

Robert: So what are you here voting for? To eliminate taxes, defund the enforcement of unjust laws, and end government-funded murder? I didn't see those options on the ballot; let me see it again.

George: That's not fair, and you know it. It took a long time to get into this mess, and it will take a long time to get out of it. Yes, all I can do this election is choose who is best suited to the political positions available and vote against levying new taxes. In the future, the politicians we elect may put taxation reducing and freedom promoting bills on the congressional floor or on the ballot for popular vote.

Robert: It may not be fair, but it is true. Even if you are assuming government is somehow justified, voting was either the direct cause for this mess or was insufficient to prevent or even mitigate the creation of this mess. To take it from our current specific instance to the categorical realm: I argue that voting in government, when "done right", is the means by which the majority can take advantage of the minority through coercion, theft, and murder and, when "done improperly", is the means by which the ruling class can appease the masses desire for freedom while disallowing the ability to truly influence governance... notice the absence of any good option on your ballot, representative or otherwise.

George: You're mistaken. Voting is the method by which a society of free people agrees on how their particular society ought to be run. We got into this mess because there are too many uneducated, disengaged people voting themselves benefits.

Robert: So, because in the past we have had a majority of fools in society, all of them voting to steal people's property and force them to make bad decisions, we are in this mess? I'm not sure I believe that, but even if it were true I have to ask how you aren't condoning that theft and coercion by continuing to participate in the system which institutionalizes such behaviors.

George: There may have been more people voting for bad representatives and presidents before, but now that people have seen that the old way of doing things it isn't working, we will soon have a majority ready to enact real change.

Robert: That didn't answer my question: "If your political system explicitly allows a mass of individuals to vote in such a manner to steal your property and coerce you to make bad decisions, how do you not support those very actions when you vote?"

George: Oh, that's easy, I simply vote against those choices.

Robert: You may be able to vote against this amendment here that says "Should we raise taxes?", but what about your representatives? You don't get to vote against people, only for them. Even if you could, they can still do whatever they want once they are in office.

George: If you don't vote for someone you're voting against them. And besides, when someone is elected, they are kept in check by the checks and balances of the system as well as the threat of not getting re-elected.

Robert: Wow. 'If you don't vote for someone, you're voting against them." I rest my case.

George: I suppose I wasn't clear enough: if you vote for someone's opponent, you are voting against them.

Robert: It sounds to me like a vote for something is a vote for something, and a vote against something is a vote against it... and paying attention to words and what they actually mean is important if we want to be honest to ourselves. So, say I "vote against" some evil politician or another and vote for some less-evil guy instead; regardless of who wins, then, am I not condoning the actions of the victor simply by participation in such a system and my agreement to abide by the rules of the game?

George: Not if I vote against the guy, or elect someone into the other branches of the government to check their poor decisions.

Robert: I level the same accusation against the "checks and balances" as I do voting in general: either the checks and balances are insufficient or have expressly allowed us to vote our way into this mess.

George: Again, it's the surplus of stupid people that have caused this... that's the risk of a free society. Besides, if you don't like the options, you can always run for office.

Robert: Free society... ha. So, anyone can just show up and say "I want to be president" and have even a remote chance of winning? I think not; show me one candidate in the last century that wasn't carefully selected by the republicans or democrats and got even ten percent of the votes... or even got a spot in the debates before election... but that's beside the point. If I did win, I would be paid money which was stolen from people with the express intent of giving it to me. And, what's more, how are you free if your behavior and rights are dictated by the will of the majority?

George: I'm free because we've voted to prevent my actions and rights from being dictated by the will of any random aggressor. Besides, freedom doesn't mean doing whatever you want, but I've already explained this to you.

Robert: You have attempted to, yes, but I'm going to inquire as to how you expect those laws to be enforced.

George: The threat and reality of imprisonment or death seems to work well enough.

Robert: So, if you're a minority, men with guns will make you do what they want? Well, that explains the environment in the inner cities and prisons... but you can't simply legislate morality and force people to be good.

George: The law IS morality. Voting is the method by which a society ensures just laws.

Robert: Say what, now?

George: Without laws (and their enforcement) against behaviors such as murder, coercion, and theft, those behaviors will run rampant. Voting is the method by which society agrees on what is immoral. The term for it is "illegal".

Robert: With all due respect, that is just patently absurd. If the law derives it's authority from the opinion of the majority, it's no different than justice being the will of the strongest or a direct attack on ideological pluralism. If the majority or their representative decides to round up all the Jews, gays, Blacks, Catholics, Japanese, or whatever minority you choose, and put them in labor camps or gas chambers, that's what is considered just and moral... If the law, however, derives it's authority from some objective matter or truth, then voting is clearly one of the worst ways to determine what a just law is. We would rather go to a theocracy or Plato's Republic.

George: Well, we have representatives, as opposed to a direct democracy, which we elect based on how closely their opinions match ours.

Robert: That still leaves the problems that theocracy or Republic are supposed to account for. I see one of two possibilities. One, there is no objective morality from which the law is derived: your opinion is merely that and you are delegating the actual task on oppressing an ideological minority to your representative. Or the other option is that there is an objective moral good from which laws derive their justification and that the democratic process of voting is actually contrary to allowing that to happen; elected representatives who are elected by ignorant masses are merely representatives of that ignorance.

George: You didn't let me finish. The purpose of the representatives are to be exemplar instances of the population they represent. They are given the task of discussing the issues at hand in order to vote on their peoples' behalf. In this way, our model reflects the ideas in your Plato's Republic: politicians are philosopher kings.

Robert: Exemplar of what, exactly? Clearly, you don't believe this... you wouldn't simultaneously claim "our voting system is just, the only reason we have this mess is because too many people are ignorant people” and also hold the belief that "our system of voting is an acceptable method of electing philosopher kings that can determine the truth of things". They fundamentally contradict themselves, and I know you're smarter than that.

George: Well, if you put it that way, they do. I'll get back to you on that one. Besides, it sounds to me like you're arguing things you don't believe either: "your options are humanistic subjectivism or theocracy.'" Hardly sounds like an anarchist argument.

Robert: Close. I was pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. Your excuse for voting doesn't hold water; it merely justifies non-representative governments, which like anarchy is opposed to voting. Here, let's take a different approach which may represent our actual positions a bit more closely.

George: Good, we've already wasted twenty-odd minutes already. So, now it's your turn: what's your big hang up with democracy?

Robert: Ok, sounds fair. Earlier, you mentioned that law protects you from a random aggressor coercing, raping, or murdering you. I imagine you believe that this random aggressor has no right to do so, hence your law preventing it?

George: It's my turn to examine you, so you have to answer the question for yourself.

Robert: Fair enough. I claim that I, like every other human being, have no right to coerce someone else to do something, steal from them, or murder them. These are the three aspects of the golden rule, or the three violations of the right to liberty. The important part right now is the simple truth that I have no right to violate your liberty by way of coercion, theft, or murder. So, even if I believe you should or should not behave in a particular manner, I have no right to force you to act accordingly. If I lack the authority to do so, how can I delegate this authority to a representative, law enforcement officer, judge, et cetera? Additionally, if I lack the capacity to discern what each individual ought to do, how could I possibly determine who is best suited to do so?

George: Enough with all this conceptual "morals" bullshit. Voting is merely an attempt at maximizing the pleasure of the largest number of people. So long as most of the citizens are able to defend their quality of life from the enemies at the gates, that goal is met. Besides, some people tend to be incapable of responsibly managing their affairs, we need laws and voting and such to protect consumers from making bad choices and evil people from hurting others and themselves.

Robert: What you just described is the oft-referred to adage that, "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". If you are not ok with that image, I rest my case... If you are ok with it, well... I'm sorry.

George: You're sorry? What for? Don't take this pious attitude with me, this really is what I believe.

Robert: You misunderstand me. I'm sorry for what comes next. You've hit the crux of the issue: Leviathan.

George: The big fish in the Bible?

Robert: America may have inherited its character and constitution from John Locke (eternal optimist that he was), but it inherited its worldview from his predecessor, Thomas Hobbes (the pessimistic monarchist). Your position is precisely that which Hobbes outlines in his appropriately titled Leviathan. He claims that without law, absolute and relentless law, we exist in a world of "every man against every man in a life that is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." He then claims that by putting on the airs of civility and monarchy, we can escape that reality. Those that came after him thought that constitutions, elections, pluralism, welfare, and the like would do a better job than monarchy. At the end of the day, though we continue to exist in a world of every man for himself, only one guy or group of guys maintains a monopoly on force, infringing on the freedoms of everybody and convince them that it is for their own good. Why else would one vote, except to impose their will on others by means of participating in an institution built with the express purpose of making people behave in a particular way, steal the fruits of their labor, and kill those that resist the first two functions?

George: Dude, you've gotta calm down... we're gonna get kicked out... people are looking at us. Besides, I still say you should vote to opt-out, move to Somalia, or run for office yourself if you don't like it.

Robert: Even voting to be free from oppression is suspect behavior! You were right in one regard; there really are people who are so ignorant and incapable of managing their own affairs that they volunteer for servitude. I have no right to force someone to leave an abusive relationship, I cannot point a gun at someone's head and tell them to quit doing drugs or else, and I cannot prevent someone from making deals with the devil. In this way, even if there were a referendum to disband the government in it's entirety, the first and only true vote for freedom, I could not with clean conscience go to the ballot box.

George: Then, you aren't committed to change. All this grandstanding is for naught, if you won't vote even to mitigate what you see as the greatest of evil.

Conclusion and Challenge

Robert: The ends do not justify the means. Even if it is so tempting to compromise my morals for the sake of progress, “For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul?” If, due to the widespread obsoletion of the government, masses of non-compliant free individuals, and possibly even the threat of war, by people doing what it takes to be free, the government simply starves into nonexistence, my conscience would be clean.

George: Splitting hairs. You refuse to vote because you don't want to do what it takes to be free, and you refuse to put your money where your mouth is and just move to Somalia. You need to calm down, too... I think those cops in the back of the room are talking about us.

Robert: Let them talk. Let me talk. They may just prove my point. Voting, as it exists in this building, is an institution predicated on coercion, theft, and murder. It is tantamount, at a minimum, to condoning these evils. We, as the governed, are all authoritarians, rapists, and murderers by our willful participation in this governance. We may not be in a position to be held accountable for these sins, these actions of slaves against fellow slaves. But, now that my eyes are open, and all you present here who have heard my case, the burden rests on your conscience.

George: You're over-thinking it. All this abstract and convoluted lines of thought are just an excuse to wash your hands of your responsibility to commit a mere hour of your year to your own freedom which you ignore. Your arguments are not compelling, I think you're just too lazy to commit a mere hour of your time, even if you think it is a waste of time. It's almost my turn to go exercise that freedom. Last chance.

Robert: It may not be a perfect argument, especially given how it fits into a much broader discussion. It's amusing to me that people think I believe participating in politics is a waste of time (calling congressmen, voting, etc.). If it were merely a waste of time, I would continue to do it out of the vain hope that something would come of it. I pray almost constantly. Take that to mean what you will. I don't think it's just a waste of time to participate in government, but that those that participate in government are, purposely or not, marching lock-step with the master of misanthropy himself, and I for love of my immortal soul will have no part in it. Be forewarned: if you walk in that box without first discovering a compelling counter argument, you are signing away not only your rights to the king of the Leviathan, but also your soul to a very particular prince with his own personal kingdom... and I doubt they hold elections there.

 On rare occasion, I am surprised. Sometimes, it is something as mild as hearing a decent song on the radio. Other times it is something as extreme as finding scorpions in my hair. Yesterday, I was surprised to be inspired by an atheist podcast I listen to... so here's what I was inspired to write about. Surprise can be unpleasant, hilarious, or any blend of the sensations in-between. What, exactly, is surprise? A neurobiologist with a higher IQ and worse social life than mine own may be able to answer this question better, but I thought it was worth exploring.

I contend that surprise occurs when someone experiences a state of affairs contrary to their noetic framework. An easy example would be when evil clown appears before you and you shit your pants in surprise.

The cause for surprise is not the clown itself, it is the experiential contradiction to one's noetic framework. In this example, it is the implicit (or explicit) belief that one holds which states, “I live in a world in which evil clowns do not appear before me without warning,” being violated which causes surprise. Other common beliefs which are frequently upset could be, “this is the last step in a flight of stairs”, “you'll love this joke”, or “my bed isn't full of spiders”. That gut-wrenching shock occurs simply because those beliefs were incontrovertibly disproven.

A great many of our entertainment dramas play off of this reality. Coming-of-age flicks like “My Girl”, feel-good dramas like “Gran Torino”, horror films like “Alien”, etc. all demonstrate or a assume the audience or protagonist's belief structure and proceed to to surprise the audience and protagonist over the course of two-ish hours. Showing the protagonist and audience that the world (either the real one, or the fictional one which is the center of attention) doesn't work the way they thought it does is pretty much the singular impetus of the plot.

But, why should someone care about surprise? Well, as it turns out, it took me about two years to come up with an answer to that question. I was surprised when presenting this idea to my wife... she got mad at me, which was unexpected. It turns out, two years ago she brought this idea to my attention, but I couldn't find a place in my worldview that could be enriched by such a line of questioning... and so I forgot the conversation altogether. </anecdote>
You may laugh, but my newly-realized reason for caring about surprise is an ethical one. As any poor soul still reading this post ought to know, I am a virtue ethicist. What does surprise have to do with human flourishing, though? Well the connections are twofold.

Firstly, Surprise is an opportunity for discipline. When one is surprised, as I already explained, it's because they are faced with a reality that is distinct from the one in their head. In science, this is called a “discovery” or “falsification” (in my under-caffeinated state, I can't remember what exactly the rubric is for declaring something a “discovery”). In a horror movie, it's called “being dead”. What it really is, though, is an opportunity to correct one's beliefs and resultant behavior.

For example, if one consistently wins at a competition of skill (ie. chess, first person shooters, martial arts, etc.) and is surprised by a loss, it is an opportunity for them to fill whatever blind spot they had. With a demonstrably superior physique or mind, there must be a blind-spot in their knowledge of their particular sport. After a surprise loss, they can survey the playing field and actions of their opponent with a new perspective, analyzing which implicit beliefs they held which resulted in their loss. Another example would be if one is surprised by a bed full of spiders, they are given the opportunity to incorporate that knowledge and develop the habit of checking their bed before staggering in and collapsing in a drunken heap. Maybe, they could even discern the cause for a bed full of spiders and develop habits which prevent such a possibility in the first place.

I used to be surprised quite frequently in my younger years, probably due to the fact tat I was an immature insufferable know-it-all. Nowadays, I am pleasantly surprised at the rare occasion of surprise in my life. This brings me to the second reason a virtue ethicist would be concerned about the nature of surprise; surprise can serve as an excellent self-diagnostic tool. The frequency and trends of a person's surprise can express to the surprisee their general attitudes and their epistemic strengths and weaknesses. This, again is divided in two ways: determining the cause for one's lack of surprises and revealing epistemic blind-spots. In the case of lack of surprise, I can think of three reasons one would be infrequently surprised:

1. They have an unusually accurate worldview, resulting in few instances where they would be surprised by inaccuracies
   
   
2. They are a Taoist sage, with a certain expectation of epistemic inaccuracy built into their worldview, “It's not surprising that I was wrong, as I am always wrong” or, alternatively, “I hold no beliefs... so none of my beliefs can be shown false.”
   
   
3. Or, this person could just be a total jerk. “I knew that all along”, “Did I just think of that? I had to have... because I am the greatest”, “That can't be an evil clown standing in front of me... because I didn't predict that it was possible.”
   
   

While it is the case that a virtue ethicist such as myself would insist that one strive for omniscience, resulting in a total lack of surprise due to cause #1, I am aware that such an achievement is impossible for a human being qua the human condition. Therefore, the most practical solution to the question of surprise would be one of fine-tuning. Finding the appropriate blend of omniscience, Taoist apathy, jerkiness, and surprise-ability is likely to be the most direct path to flourishing with regards to surprise. Despite the credit I would like to give myself, I don't think I've yet found the appropriate balance of the four... I'm likely less surprised simply because I'm now a mature insufferable know-it-all.

The second useful diagnostic tool that surprise provides us with is one of trends. If someone is frequently surprised by similar things, for instance that people around them are smarter than one thinks, they are likely to have an implicit belief that everyone around them is an idiot. Alternatively, if one is consistently surprised that the guy they are dating is a jerk, maybe they have an implicit set of beliefs that gives them a poor taste in men. These can also be positive surprises. An example would be if a shy person with low self-esteem presents a rare idea to a group and the idea is surprisingly well-received, then there is likely a set of implicit beliefs that leads the shy individual to underestimate their own intelligence.

By keeping a record of one's surprises, they are more likely to find the appropriate fine-tuning of their behaviors and worldview in order to flourish. As always, knowing oneself is most of the battle when virtue is concerned, and surprise can be a valuable asset in the discovery of oneself.

This is something my wife cooked up to pick on me.  I thought it was too funny to not share, so I created a blog to share it with the world.


1)  When he (or anyone in his presence) brings up the roads (again):

2:  When you lose your husband for the night so he can watch infighting on the internet:

3:  It's the end of a long day with the children acting out and your husband (jokingly) calls you a Statist for sending a disobedient child to their room:

4:  When you suddenly see someone called him a libertarian or utopian on Facebook:

5:  When anyone asks him why he is an Anarchist...

6:  ...And about halfway through his explanation you feel like...this:

7:  He tells you he is done discussing anarchy for the night, at first you are like:

...Then when you realize it's so he can discuss Bitcoin (again):

8:  When a family member asks why you haven’t changed your husband's mind about anarchy yet:

9:  When he tells you we should “encourage Anarchy when raising the children.”

10:  But then you decide to enforce a strict and early bedtime, because by now you really need some chocolate or wine: