On The Psychology and Language of Power

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: On The Psychology and Language of Power

eliotn — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:33:00 GMT

Very good article.

It would be interesting to add some refrence to a book like "The Giver" or "1984". In it, terms are distorted to control the people. For example, people use the term "release" to mean "death", and certain language is restricted, like "love", to prevent people from knowing about it.

re: On The Psychology and Language of Power

nirgrahamUK — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:00:02 GMT

earlier on thats what you were being.

hoisted on your own petard?

re: On The Psychology and Language of Power

Brainpolice — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:45:06 GMT

Now you're simply being a ridiculous antagonist.

re: On The Psychology and Language of Power

nirgrahamUK — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:50:17 GMT

wait, you just used 'libertarianism' without defining hundreds of interrelated terms and presenting a thorough context for me to understand it. so im going to need to deride and ignore your last comment post.

thats the way brainpolice told me to do things.

re: On The Psychology and Language of Power

Brainpolice — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 02:57:05 GMT

There's nothing annoying and ridiculous about this, it's about fleshing out a rational elaboration on libertarianism that is consistant and specific.

re: On The Psychology and Language of Power

nirgrahamUK — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 02:05:45 GMT

one could argue that without appropriate definitions of rationality, genetics, animals, etc. one cant bandy about the word 'human being'. but one would be annoying and ridiculous.

re: On The Psychology and Language of Power

Brainpolice — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:58:39 GMT

In a sense, the all-powerful communist state is the ultimate end of the path of state-capitalism. Initially, state-capitalism might be something comparatively benign, like minarchism (as defined by either Rand or Mises, or in more moderate form as defined by Constitutionalists and many earlier classical liberals). But as the general trend of power to consolodate continues, buisiness and state tend to slowly begin to merge, and the state itself begins to expand its legal domain (based on territorial monopoly) and the powers that this legal domain entails. When we get to the point when business and state have merged to the point where they are hardly distinguishable, we've reached the point of state-communism.

re: On The Psychology and Language of Power

Brainpolice — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:51:10 GMT

The process or category of state-socialism is what occurs when, from such a point onwards, the state's own property claims expand. Fascism is what occurs when state and corporate power merge from that power onwards. State-communism is what occurs when this goes to the extreme, with defacto state ownership over virtually everything.

Most western nations are either state-capitalist/state-socialist hybrids (centrist statism or interventionism, often with a fascistic element) or fairly state-socialist but not communist.

re: On The Psychology and Language of Power

Brainpolice — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:37:15 GMT

In other words, without a sufficient libertarian social theory and definition of one's terms, the vague phrase "private property" or "private ownership of the means of production" can imply or be used to mean a whole slew of things that involve statism. The state could define "private property" and legally construct the distribution of "private property" titles, and hence we'd have state-capitalism. Or, alternatively, the state itself could be constructed on the basis of a "private property" claim, which is really just inherited stolen property, and hence we'd have monarchy.

re: On The Psychology and Language of Power

Brainpolice — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:22:38 GMT

"you must admit it cant protect some property claims without riding roughshod over others, be it through taxation to fund its activity, or the prohibiting of other firms from providing justice services."

I never argued otherwise. But you're missing the point, which is that the general and vague notion of "private ownership of the means of production" or "private property" (as a mere descriptor in particular) does not inherently contradict the Weberian definition of a state.

re: On The Psychology and Language of Power

nirgrahamUK — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:18:25 GMT

you must admit it cant protect some property claims without riding roughshod over others, be it through taxation to fund its activity, or the prohibiting of other firms from providing justice services.

re: On The Psychology and Language of Power

Brainpolice — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:16:35 GMT

There is nothing intrinsic to the fact that a given example of property is "private" that necessarily means that it is consistant with more specific and relevant libertarian concepts such as the non-aggression principle and personal sovereignty.

There is nothing intrinsic to the fact that a given individual is a "private owner" that their behavior with that property and their methods of obtaining and maintaining that property is consistant with a specifically libertarian concept of justice.

Oversimplifying things to a mere vague reverance for "private property", without much in the way of a context, is to obfuscate some more precise and complex issues involved in a libertarian social theory.

re: On The Psychology and Language of Power

Brainpolice — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:08:14 GMT

"no state-capitalism can be ejected as an oxymoron, as the state necessarily contradicts the ethic of private property and imposes a deadweight loss"

This is the exact same line of argument that communists use to say that state-communism is an oxymoron, since it doesn't represent their ideal of a stateless classless society. Rothbard himself used the term state-capitalism, btw, to distinguish a corporate state from a genuine free market.

You need to define things more specifically. "Private ownership of the means of production", as a standalone statement, says nothing about concepts like free competition, it says nothing about the criterion for just ownership, it says nothing about the relation of the state to private property. It says zilch about the specifics of property theory.

I disagree with the statement that the state necessarily contradicts private property. The state can be used as an instrument to uphold particular private property claims. In fact, this is the default of what actually existing "capitalism" has always been, with a state in place to legally define private property titles. You can also have a private state, I.E. monarchy.

re: On The Psychology and Language of Power

nirgrahamUK — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:40:57 GMT

no state-capitalism can be ejected as an oxymoron, as the state necessarily contradicts the ethic of private property and imposes a deadweight loss