Brainpolice - All Comments

re: In Defense of "Radical Politics"

Rick Dutkiewicz — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:27:25 GMT

Just this morning, my wife and I were trying to get the local weather forecast. Switching the TV from channel to channel, we took in snippets of the overblown coverage of the white supremacist oldster gunning people down in D.C. Before I could speak my mind, my wife said what I was thinking; "they're going to take this and make it look as if anyone who thinks outside the status quo is a violent insane creep like this guy".

It's so common to see this, it almost goes without saying, but let's NOT let it go without comment. It's important to speak up, not so much amongst ourselves, but among friends and family. It's up to us to counter the fear-mongering lies of pop-political media. No one else will do it for us.

re: Radicalism and Moderation

Adam — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:38:49 GMT

"The actual content of that independant standard is beside the point in terms of the general meaning of radicalism, although incredibly worthy of debate."

EXACTLY. People are too concerned with the status quo (e.g. traditions that have been going on for longer than they are alive) so , any other viewpoint is a bad one.

like "we've been doing that forever , man, why should we change it?" ... because you've been doing it forever.

re: The Anarchism and Minarchism Blur

Vichy — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:13:31 GMT

Always enjoy reading your posts, Brainpolice, but it seems to me this whole anarchism/minarchism issue (much like the anarchy/state issue) is a false dichotomy, since the vast majority of historical organizations under which humans lived could not be accurately called a 'state' and certainly could not be called 'anarchy'. While these may contain elements of 'coercion' which you object to, they nonetheless seem to be the more interesting and functional alternatives to statism, as well as the more realistic outcomes - since, for anarchism to work, it is highly likely that people would all have to adopt certain normative standards which they never have and are likely dispositionally inclined to reject.

re: Transcending Anarcho-Semantics

Ahueytlatoani — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:34:17 GMT

Great work! I happen to believe all Anarchists could live peacefully among one another.

I see that an Anarchist society would be a merging of Laisse-Faire Capitalism and Classical Socialism, with people free to trade or give as they see fit. This is the idea of a Free Market. In all, a society Free of Government coercion would contain similar elements of both Free Market Anarchism and Anarcho-Socialism.

Just because I like seemingly contradictary terms, I consider myself a "Free Market Marxist," in that I believe a Marxist-like Utopia can be achieved ONLY through a totally Free Market.

re: The Anarchism and Minarchism Blur

eric — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:50:51 GMT

made me think of mr1001nights, hes a closet statist for sure. lol. An anarchist for universal healthcare?

re: Children and The Family

Truth and Liberty — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:53:52 GMT

Great post - I agree that Rothbard's view on this issue is faulty.

You say that children cannot be owned, and the parents are mere caretakers. But what is a caretaker? Consider the case of a baby being kidnapped? The legal case will proceed considering the baby as the parents' property.

So caretakership in the case of a baby is similar to property ownership. But for grown up children, there is no similarity at all. So the question is when does this change in status occur? Rothbard says when the child wishes to leave home. This criterion has problems, but it is difficult to see any other non-arbitrary answer.

Caretakership needs to be defined much more clearly. Murdering children is not a right that a caretaker has. But what about grounding a child, or taking away a favorite toy for misbehaving? Your view is that aggressions against life (smacking) are not permitted. But what forms of aggression against liberty and property are within the rights of a caretaker, if any?

re: Anarchism and Atheism, Theism and Statism

Mikey Granule — Mon, 04 May 2009 19:39:45 GMT

Atheism is a far superior philosophy to anarchism. Atheism undermines the basis of patriarchy. Anarchism merely undermines the idea of government; without atheism, anarchism is doomed.

If there were such a word as apatriarchal, you could have written a more encompassing article. Even so, I believe that patriarchy depends on theism to create the illusion of cross-generational authority.

Personally, I follow through my atheism with a philosophy of apatriarchalism. Patriarchy is the basis of most hierarchies: churches definitely, government departments, but also the structure of private enterprises.

Patriarchy also thrives on placing women in patriarchal positions of authority. I know many organisations (including atheist campaigning groups!) which have a woman at the helm who has taken the role of the patriarch. Infact the Margaret Thatcher / Queen Elizabeth I / Joan of Arc figure is a profound necessity of all patriarchies from time to time. They're usually not subject to election and if they are, it's only when the electorate has been sufficiently intimidated to guarantee the right result.

It's important to understand the techniques and structures of patriarchy, because even though an organisation may no longer worship a god, they can and do still worship patriarchy, its forms and methods, without necessarily calling it worship or recognising any deity.

There are a number of characteristics of patriarchal organisations which I often use to spot them.

1) An absence of any electoral process or democratic processes

2) A predominance of men in the main body of the organisation

3) A tendency to exclude (i.e. excommunicate) members who question things or state alternative opinions

4) A tendency towards nationalism and distrust, suspicion and rejection of foreign cultures in preference to the home culture

5) A tendency to deal with disputes through authoritarian edict rather than due process

6) A culture of loyalty to the patriarchal (male or female) figure

Putting these things right doesn't automatically stop an organisation being patriarchal, however it does tend to start turning the organisation into a tolerable alternative to the rigid structures of our intensively patriarchal society.

Many thanks for the article, it has sparked off some really good ideas for me.

re: The Anarchism and Minarchism Blur

Truth and Liberty — Fri, 01 May 2009 10:39:08 GMT

What is the "Hoppe cult"?

re: "Private" and "Public" are Misleading Terms

James — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:10:09 GMT

A good site, good short contents of the good work. Congratulations !, ,

re: "Private" and "Public" are Misleading Terms

Sarah — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:35:32 GMT

As with everyone else here, we want, nay, demand more! more of your thoughts, more history and more ,,

Buy viagra.

Viagra. — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:33:11 GMT

Viagra. Viagra affects on women. Buy viagra.

re: The Distribution of Power

Odin — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:31:40 GMT

I think that the process of concentration of power is indeed natural, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be prevented. All we need to do is learn from history, learn from a state which was best in suppressing the creation of oligarchy, a state which was (or more precisely allegedly was) a precursor to modern political systems.

Athens. If the old Athenians looked at today's states, they would consider them undemocratic. If you think about it, most people today equal democracy with free elections, when in fact nothing could be further from truth. Elections were considered undemocratic, because they naturally supported oligarchy, and in fact proposal to change the political system in Athens to include elections were always struck down as undemocratic.

I think we have much to learn from old Athens ...

For more information please see

libertariannation.org/.../f41l1.html

re: Judeo-Christian Morality vs. The Free Society

Sringtime916 — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:14:00 GMT

Good thoughts Brainpolice2...

let me add that Sloth can be both good and bad... not simply laziness and natural desire for rest. Our desire to do things in ways that take less time and effort is basically the desire for efficiency... Why use a hoe when you can have a horse pull a plow? why have a horse pull a plow when you can use a tractor? Why use Cow Manure when you can use genetic modification of plant life. The Laziness humans have... the desire to escape work by physical effort, is that has given humanity the ability to live to the ripe old age of 78 (on average, usually higher sometimes) However note that this sloth is sloth of the body

I know you have a dislike of objectivists... I have to agree with Rand that the ultimate evil any person or society can commit is sloth of the mind... the refusal to think or the refusal to exert your OWN effort in the process of thinking and problem solving. Is probably at the root of humanities Mooching and true laziness.

Another way of putting it is this. If you're too lazy to walk or ride a bike to work, there's no sin in driving a car. But there can be no moral justification for demanding someone provide you with the technology of that Car for nothing in return but... say.. a federal law backed by a death ultimatum.

re: On The Psychology and Language of Power

Voluminous Xylophones — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:11:43 GMT

Brainpolice, have you heard of "English-Prime" (E-Prime)? I just recently discovered it, and it has already caused a bit of a revolution in my thinking. I urge you (and anyone reading this) to give it an honest try. I think it will do wonders to clarify not only your writing, but (perhaps more importantly), your thinking. It has caused me to rethink not only my communication style, but my very beliefs (for the better, I think).

You'll probably want to start with the Wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.org/.../E-Prime

But PLEASE also read the following: www.xenodochy.org/.../e-prime.html

I quickly noticed, as you may, that the ability to "cheat" by adhering to the E-Prime "rules" while ignoring their intent could render the whole thing pointless. So pay particularly close attention to the second link, and refer back to it often.

I think you would benefit from E-Prime. I don't mean that as criticism; I think your writing would really shine through the E-Prime lens. Even if you think it sounds hokey, give it a shot. Try it for a day, then if it hasn't killed you, try a week, then a month. I bet you'll find it so beneficial that you'll adopt it permanently, at least in writing if not everyday speech (I find the latter a bit too much, personally).

The following tool might help you get a feel for rewording things (but remember that it checks only the letter, not the spirit of the "laws"): www.manifestation.com/.../eprime.pl

If you find that you love E-Prime and want to hone your writing even more, then "P-Prime" might also interest you (I haven't tackled it yet; I've only just got started with E-Prime!): www.lhup.edu/.../pprime.htm

re: The Myth of "The Rule of Law"

Old_Curmudgeon — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:19:12 GMT

Legal Positivism says that a Law is ultimately: "Whatever the state says it is."