On Loving the Enemy

In the wake of tragedy, in the wake of hateful actions, it is easy to turn to anger and thoughts of violent retaliation. It is easy to say that ‘love won’t win this battle’ as many have said. It is easy to fall prey to that human, all too human desire to enact justice through strength. It is easy to think that now, uniquely, is the time to use force against hatred – easier still to draw simple comparisons between the current day and a past era when force seemed to work to bring about justice. Finally, it is easy to hate those that committed the crimes, the injustices, and the hate. But what is easy is not always the correct course of action. The heat of the moment quickens the emotions but misleads them, we must stop and feel; we must stop and think.

In the wake of recent events, there are calls for an aggressive reaction and the aggressive is always the hateful; one does not ‘aggressively’ fight cancer out of love for the disease but out of hate for it. It is striking to find comments “reminding” people that “love did not defeat Hitler;” thus, we are told, “love” won’t defeat this fresh threat. Yet, here is the trap of the easy; it is easy to think that loving the enemy is inaction, easy to think that love is passivity, easy to think that only hatred and aggression are active; easy but false. To misunderstand loving the enemy as passive acceptance is to misunderstand the purpose and method of love.

To love the person is not to love their misdeeds; in fact, loving makes the hatred of misdeeds all the stronger. To love the person is not to overlook their actions but to examine their actions, understand their motives, and empathize with their emotions; all the while despising their hateful actions. This may seem a bit paradoxical, for how can one empathize while simultaneously despising? In the same way that one loves the person while simultaneously hating their actions. To give a concrete example, one must love the murderer, understand their motives, and empathize with those factors (moral, psychological, environmental, and social) that contributed to their choice of action, but maintain a hatred of the action. To love the person is to hold the person in the holistic view humanity demands; this holism of love is one of the reasons that it is so hard and why it is much easier to hate the person and hate their misdeeds.

In holding everyone in the holistic view, in seeing them as whole people, as complex products of ever more complex situations, there is an uncomfortable necessity. A necessity to examine those complex factors that contributed to the hateful action; to consider the moral and social environments giving rise to such thoughts and deeds, to examine the psychological underpins that may have played a part, in short, to look at the variety of causes that resulted in the hateful action. Rather like the chemist may examine those chemicals that played a part in a violent reaction; we must examine those factors that lead to hate and hateful actions. This is deeply uncomfortable for in examination of these factors, one might find unsettling conditions that one has been complicit either in maintaining, supporting, or writing off as just part of the system. This is not to blame any individual or group of individuals; indeed, perhaps, most unsettlingly, everyone is to blame, because everyone is, in at least some small way, complicit in some hateful action or another. For hate and transgression are spiraling things; one action of hate leads to another, abyssus abyssum invocat [1].

For this reason alone, one is compelled to love one’s enemy; perhaps, in loving one’s enemy one can quell the spiral of hatred; in dwelling in the light of love one might be able to drive out the darkness of hatred. Yet, there is not only this reason to love one’s enemy. For loving one’s enemy is not only, not even primarily, about this fleshy experience termed human life. It is not a tactic to win battles; it is not a banner for the new revolution; loving one’s enemy is, in fact, about souls. Perhaps, this is why the idea is so sneered at today, in the increasingly secular world that rejects the “silly” notion of the soul (a different discussion for a different time). Maybe there is something here, maybe talking of souls is too grand, call it the heart or the mind or whatever else one wishes; the principle remains the same. Hatred degrades and ultimately destroys the soul. This is why, hatred spirals, the degraded soul seeks to degrade, and in degrading is yet more degraded. It might be said that the task of loving one’s enemy is as much about oneself as about one’s enemy. Indeed, hateful actions are designed to generate hate, thus in responding with love the hateful act is sapped of some of its power. However, there is a mistaken interpretation of this that must not be made.

Loving one’s enemy is not excusing one’s enemy. Loving one’s enemy is not always pacifistic appeasement. At times, a violent response to violence is justified, perhaps necessary (though this is a thorny claim); actions have logical consequences. However, rather like the good parent, who in punishing their rebellious children does not cease loving them, one must not, in violently responding to violent action, stop loving their enemy. We must love but we must condemn; we must understand but we must never excuse. We must neither stop loving and understanding our fellow humans, yet we must, in no uncertain terms, denounce injustice and hatred. To do either is to do precisely what we decry. The former is to hate the criminal; the latter is to hate the victim. We must do neither. Ἒνθεν μὲν Σκύλλη ἑτέρωθι δὲ δῖα Χάρυβδις [2]. Here, again, is a reason that the task of love is so difficult. Compounding this is that love must constrain our actions; we must, in accordance with love, only ever use defensive violence, and never aggressive violence; for, again, aggression necessitates hatred of those aggressed against. To beat this path is hard, at times painfully hard, for it is natural to want to enact harsh punishments against unjust, but it is necessary to beat this path, we can do no other.

In the wake of injustice there are easy choices and there are good choices. The choice to hate those that enact injustice, ultimately, only leads to more hatred. Degradation leads to degradation. To love the person is not to love their actions, but to hate their actions. To comprehend the origins of the hatred is not to excuse the hatred; to love our enemy is not to spite their victims; indeed, loving our enemy is the same as loving their victims. To love is to oppose hatred and in opposing to turn the tides. To love is to understand the whole human and, in understanding, never to excuse transgression but evermore to despise it. To love is never passive, but always active. To love is never to refuse to punish but to limit our harshness, to avoid aggression. In all this, we mustn’t fall prey to false self-righteousness that in loving we are better than those who hate. We are all human, yoked together whether we like it or not [3]. To be self-righteous is to fail to see that we are all damaged, this is another reason that hatred comes so easily in response to injustice. In hating we are allowed to feel that those enactors of injustice are somehow separate from us; but, disturbingly, evil actions remind us that within humanity there is a capability to do both good and evil; within this thing called human life there are options to hate or to love. To hate and divide is easy; to love and unite is hard. Indeed, as Plato wrote: “χαλεπὰ τὰ καλά.” [4].


[1]: One misstep leads to another; or literally: hell calls to hell

[2]: On the one side, Scylla, on the other divine Charybdis (Homer); ‘between a rock and a hard place’

[3]: For those hardcore individualists tempted to deny that all people are inexorably linked to each other, may I say that such a position ignores human reality. It is one thing to advocate methodological individualism for analysis (indeed this is a useful method) and/or to advocate for individual agency and autonomy over and against collective authority; but it is an entirely different thing to deny that everyone is bound up together as fellow human beings and that the actions and words of one person affect another, and that this effect has a chain reaction. If one is tempt to quote that famous line of Genesis 4:9: “Am I my brother’s keeper;” one may well wish to recall that this is said by a man that has freshly murdered his brother, thus, clearly, God’s answer (if one is so inclined to belief), is that yes, you are your brother’s keeper.

[4] “The fine (or good) things are difficult.” [Republic; Hippias Major]

The Problem of Opinions

Stating one’s opinion on any subject, from the most mundane to the most profound issues, is a risky business; whether in speaking or writing any method of putting forth one’s thoughts into the world involves taking deep and grave risks. Beyond the obvious danger of finding oneself in deep disagreement with one’s fellows, be they colleagues, friends, relatives, lovers, or mere fellow interlocutors; there is a graver risk. For while disagreement can sometimes lead to unpleasantness, if handled correctly it can also lead to mutual learning, understanding, and interesting discussion; whereas, the graver risk of stating opinions has no real potential for benefit, at least at first brush.

The danger of stating opinions is that once stated there are two option one has, either to become rooted in this position, or one day to admit one was incorrect and state one’s new opinion. The first option leads on into a deep and unsettling intellectual position of either refusing to accept new information an arguments that go against one’s previously stated opinion (stagnation of opinion, obstinateness) or performing twists in thinking to make new arguments fit old positions (mental gymnastics). In short, this is intellectual dishonesty and a refusal of growth. Let me be clear, it is perfectly acceptable and intellectually honest to have strong opinions that one defends in the face of all new arguments; however, this is only commendable to the point that well principle stand firm there is still change. Having firm principles is honest and commendably, being an obstinate dogmatist that refuses to engage with other, different arguments is neither commendable or decent, intellectual behavior. Again, to be clear, I want to point out that there will be times that even the best will fail to not slip into heatedness, unnecessary fervor, and/or inflective dogmatism; however, I cannot stress enough, it is out of these failures that we must arise, do better, and be better, though we will fail time and time again, each failure must serve as a reminder to do and be better.

The other path in this option is no less odious and no less common. It is often called “mental gymnastics,” a term which though tending to be used negatively, gives a fairly accurate idea of what goes on. A new argument presents itself, one that would seem to require a change in opinion, but instead one just works around it, in a dishonest way. Often this takes the form of accepting premises but reforming conclusion by sneaking in new premises. This is dishonest; the honest answer to new arguments is either to find a reasonable challenge and critique of them, or let the new arguments shape one’s opinion. I want to be clear, one should not change their opinion based off the last argument they have heard, this is as dishonest as dogmatism; however, one must open their beliefs to round criticism and robust counterarguments, not necessarily accepting or rejecting criticisms; but countering with reformed, better-honed, more robust arguments. In creating more robust arguments one’s opinions necessarily change, if only slightly, for it is impossible to robustly respond to counterarguments from a place of mere dogmatism and poorly thought out principles. This is why every ‘school of thought,’ in any field, is a place to start, never a place to end.

In all this the second option for action after stating an opinion has shown through, namely to admit one was incorrect and state one’s new opinion. This is difficult and rare, for it is much easier, much more comfortable to remain stagnate, to stop at the point of first thinking and never push forward. At least in that case one runs no risk of people finding old statements of opinions and taking that as current statements of opinions. This is a real danger, especially of stating opinions in the public form; however, this should not prevent one from either stating one’s opinions publicly or changing one’s opinions publicly. For as Cicero wrote: “if we are not ashamed to think it, we should not be ashamed to say it.” Furthermore, any honest person will admit that continued thinking about any subject will often lead to some changes in opinions, slight to major; there is one simple illustration of this: since all thinking on subjects is essentially a conversation (cf. Richard Rorty; this is why, for example, the Platonic dialogues are dialogues), it is understandable that as one hears more voices in the conversation, one’s opinions will change; it is also understandable that one has not, at any one time, heard all the voices that have spoken, are speaking, on a subject. For example, if opinions were formed purely from reading, it would be nearly impossible to never be encouraging new voices with new arguments, given that millions of books are published, have been published, since the advent of printing. Thus, though it is dangerous to share one’s opinions at one time, it is worthwhile; it is also worthwhile, in fact, perhaps noble in some cases, to publicly changes one’s opinions based on new arguments, so long as one is always changing their opinions (this is empty-mindedness, not thinking). It is difficult to place oneself in this uncomfortable position, but as Spinoza says at the end of Ethics: “Everything excellent is as difficult as it is rare.”

Random Thoughts on Politics

This is another collection of short pieces on my random thoughts, this one happens to be political in nature. I understand if you dislike politics and don’t want to read this, I swear that I will be returning to languages soon and then some philosophy stuff. Anyways here are some random thoughts on politics.

Immigration and Refugees

This is a big topic in light of recent events and yet I can only bring myself to barely care. That probably makes me a terrible person, oh well. The reason I barely care is that in my ideal world neither of these things would be issues, but this isn’t my ideal world so they are. I’m for free and open immigration, I’m for letting refugees enter the United States; however, I’m against all forms of the government getting involved in either of these matters. There are ways of privately helping refugees and those are what we should be engaged in. No immigrant should receive government money, not because they’re immigrants but because governments and by extension government money shouldn’t exist.

I know I’ll be criticized, if only silently, by many. One criticism is “what about national borders, national sovereignty, or national culture.” Granted the last one usually doesn’t have the word national tacked on the front but it is certainly implied. Well, I don’t care about national anything because I don’t believe nations should exist, not in some weird one-world government meaning of the phrase but in a localist way that everything should be run locally. Simply put, I don’t think governments, certainly not national governments, should exist and therefore I don’t believe in the nation-state as a justification of anything. Oh and on the culture thing, people seemed worried about “losing their culture.” I’m really not sure what that means. Culture is not a stagnant thing, it is a constantly changing process, a negotiation made each and everyday by each person. Another criticism is that “we don’t want violent people coming into this country.” On some level I agree, I mean no-one should be violent period. That actually leads me to disagree on a much deeper level with this sentiment. First, there are already violent people here, I doubt it will be that much worse if some people come into the country. Second, as I stated above I don’t believe in the whole nation-state thing so there is no “our country,” there is a piece of geographically territory that is ruled by an entity founded on force that for some reason everyone insists on asserting is “one and unified.”

Maybe you can see why I am basically apathetic on this issue. People seem to want everyone to adopt a pro-immigrant/refugee policy stance of an anti-immigrant/refugee policy stance, but either way they want you to have a (governmental) policy stance. That makes it tough for me, because both sides are wrong due to the fact they both of them believe that government must be involved; whereas, I don’t.

Hate Speech and Free Speech

I have declared before that I am a free speech absolutist and I am. In my opinion all speech should be free including what is commonly labelled “hate speech.” This is not a generally accepted or even tolerated position, which to my mind shows the lack of nuance in people’s thinking. Let me explain. To begin with let me state plainly: I despise bigotry and despise bigoted and hateful speech. However, that does not mean I think it should be banned or in any way silenced. This is where people seem to lack nuance; many seem to believe that if something is terrible, evil, or vile that it ought to be banned or silenced. However, this creates more problems than it solves.

When speech is open and free there is more responsibility. Silencing speech removes responsibility for that speech, the speaker of hateful words goes into hiding, makes all their comment anonymously, and never takes responsibility for their speech. Furthermore, silencing removes the possibility of openly combating the ideologies that lead to hateful speech. Moveover, silencing does not kill hatred, it grows it.

Let me be clear: I understand the psycho-emotional damage of hateful and derogatory speech. Hateful speech is despicable; however, that doesn’t mean it should  be silenced. No, it should be made openly and combatted openly and decisively. Moreover, it must be combatted with respect if for no other reason than to be unlike the bigot. As Marcus Aurelius wrote: “The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury.” Hate speech is disgusting but it is free speech and thus must be allowed. By the same token, it must also be decry and freely combated at every injunction without silencing or disrespect. If allowed to be openly express it is unlikely to last long in the market of ideas, as Louis Brandeis said: “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”

Note: Hateful action is not speech. Violent must never be allowed. It must always be denounced.

Respect and Listening to Each Other

It seems as though no one can listen to each other any more, if they ever could. In all matters of disagreement people seem to only shout at each other and never engage in meaningful and free discourse. Moreover, not only can people not listen to other viewpoints, they feel compelled to constantly insult and belittle everyone that disagrees with them. There never seems to be respectful discussion instead it is merely insulting each other. All sides engage in this shameful practice and it works because it captures people’s emotions. However, at the end of the day respectful discussion and debate have better results than emotional appeals and insults. Not that this is anything new. Insulting opponents seem to have always been a tacit, but they’ve never been a tacit that should be accepted. Hopefully, we can all try to be better at listening and being respectful even of those we most disagree with (i.e. don’t call people names!).

Taxation and Federal Programs

I recently saw a post on a social media platform that asserted the minimal cost of certain “threatened” federal programs, including schools, museums, and arts funding. The post asserted that the cost to fund these various programs is only around 22 dollars per year for each taxpayer. It also asserts that the posters are happy to give up this money to keep these programs in operation. Interestingly, the post uses the correct terminology for taxation, saying “please take my $xx.xx;” take is the correct verb since taxation is theft. However, that is not the part of the post that made me want to write about it. I want to write about this post because it shows an odd twisting in logic. Imagine if someone said that these programs should be privatized, run not by government but by private means. There would be massive uproar, likely from that same people saying that they are happy to have their money taken to fund these federal programs. They would claim that if these things were privatized no one would give them money. However, they have asserted that they are happy to have their money taken to fund them, so by simple logic they should be happy to fund them privately. If you think that the government should fund something, then you should be able to see that it will be funded privately! If you are happy to have your money taken to fund a federal arts program then you should be equally happy to fund a private arts program. Unless of course, you just say that you’re happy to fund all these things because you think it makes you sound decent, civilized, or cultured, when in actual fact you don’t give a damn about whatever it is you believe the government should be funding.

The Federal Department of Education

Upon the confirmation of the Trumpian Secretary of Education there has been an outpouring of discontent. Justifiable or not, people dislike the new Secretary of Education for various reasons for her policy proposals, her lack of experience, or just the fact that she’s a Trumpian. Nonetheless, I don’t take issue with people that disapprove of her, nor for that matter people that approve of her. Either way, they’re wrong. I don’t care who’s in charge of the department, because the department shouldn’t exist. I’ve now uttered, actually written, the fatal words. How dare I claim that the Federal Department of Education not exist! Think of the children! Apparently, the Federal Department of Education is the only thing keeping children in the Bible Belt for being openly taught creationism in science class, ya know, because parents and teachers are too stupid to make decisions. That’s the point, I’m at most a localist, I believe things should be run locally, in fact, I would say we should run things at an even smaller level, but that’s a different comment for a different time. Schools should be run locally and by and large they already are. The Department of Education has rules and regulations, sure, but if you really have so little faith in the states (especially southern states) to educate without them, do you really believe they aren’t already ignoring as many rules as they can get away with? There are going to be bad schools with or without the Department of Education, and the benefit of not having it is that you wouldn’t have to worry about a Trumpian being in control of it.

Homosexuality and Abortion

I am a Christian. If one is tempted to stop reading at this sentence because one presumes from the title and the preceding sentence they know what I’m going to say, STOP. The point of this is not to expound on my own specific beliefs about these two subjects, but instead to decry that in the contemporary conversation in and around the Christian faith these two subjects have become possibly the biggest areas of debate. I feel that this is an abomination far worse than any other. These two issues have hijacked the faith and are doing a very good job of obliterating it. Ultimately the debate over these two issues within the Christian community and with the broader community is a distraction from the true message of the church.  

The message of the church is one of love and salvation, not hatred and damnation. When in the Gospel of Mark Jesus is asked “Which commandment is first of all?” his reply is “love the Lord with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” There is no other commandment greater than these” (Mark 12: 28-31; emphasis added). Notice that Jesus did not say, ‘the greatest commandment is the prohibition of homosexuality and the second of abortion,’ or, ‘love your neighbor, unless you have determined that you are the right judge and have determined them to be an unredeemable sinner.’ The point should be clear. The commandment of Jesus Christ, who Christians are supposed to follow, is one of love.

Furthermore, it is not the place of any individual however knowledgeable in the Bible or however self-righteous to judge their fellow humans. That job is reserved solely to God. But it seems because of homosexuality and abortion people conveniently forget about John 8: 1-11, the story about the adulterer about to be stoned to death for her crime. Do any of the most virulent haters of homosexuality and abortion recall verse 7? You know the one where Jesus says: “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” No? Funny, they must not have included that in the “I don’t want people to be Christians except if they parrot my every word” version of the Bible.

I could go on but I’ll cut to the chase. Whether or not homosexuality and/or abortion are sins in all cases doesn’t really matter. If they are and one subscribes to the view that all sins are equal before the eyes of the Lord, then why do these two things get discussed and decried more often than say disrespecting one’s parents. For that matter, if they are indisputably sins, then so is not loving your neighbor no matter what their sins are. Thus, if, as some that decry homosexuality and abortion so often imply, those living in sin are going to hell, I suppose they’ll have fun with the people they spent their lives hating. If these things aren’t sins then the issue is moot. Overall, they are just a cancer on the church that causes people to lose faith, to distrust the church, and to lose sight of what really matters. There are many other debates to be had that might actually matter than on things that in the scope of it all are trivial. I say they are trivial in the scope of things because if  they are indeed sins then they are no different from any other sin in that if one truly and completely repents one’s sins are forgive. That’s the message of the faith after all. And, again, if they are not sins, then they aren’t issues at all. Furthermore, the work of the church in the world is far more complicated than holding the “correct” position on certain issues. The work of the church is love for the world with the message of salvation. After all, love is the message of the faith, not hatred as it seems many are being lead to believe.

On 2016

As the year draws to a close, it is a perfect time to reflect on the year and look to the future.

According to some 2016 has been the “worst year” (e.g. here). Indeed, some very bad things did happen in 2016. Here’s a brief list: celebrities died, the United States continued to be a statist nation that elects presidents who have too many powers, there were diseases, there were wars, terrorism, other things anyone doesn’t like happened. How sad. I mean compared to 2016 all other years fail to even register as bad, for example: 1916 with the Battle of Somme; or the Plague years; or 1941-1945, with the Holocaust; or 1520-21 for the Aztec (fall of empire); or any of the years 1861-1865 in the United States.  I think my point is clear, 2016 wasn’t all that bad, it wasn’t great but there has never been a “great” year if you think about it.

Beyond the nostalgic view of some golden pass, every year looks pretty bad but also pretty good. Here’s the long and the short of it. People die; fight; make choices others think are wrong, stupid, dangerous, or whatever; bad, even terrible, things happen, often to good people; there are diseases and wars and potential despots and dictators. However, there are many positive things that make life worth living, for example (without getting religious): the sun continues to rise and give warmth; people fall in love, make friends, and build communities; cures for diseases are found; disasters are avoided; people innovate more and more every day. Indeed, it is true that there are many, many things that are terrible in the world, but there are just as many things that are wonderful. Certainly, some things are looking down, but just as many things, if not more, are looking up.

There is an important point here that is easy to miss. All of us are very good at projecting problems into the future, both our own problems and the world’s problems; but we are very bad at predicting the innovations, the solutions, and the ideas of the future. If you truly believe that 2016 was one of the worst years ever, than it should be a starting point to inspire new solutions. Indeed, that’s what has happened before. Many things have gotten better over the time. Disease, violence, war, and poverty have decreased over time; whereas, life expectancy, literacy rates, and standard of living have increased over that same time. Indeed, if you think about it, one of people’s biggest complaints about the year is that it “took” so many celebrities.

First of all, the year does not “take” any one, the year doesn’t do anything. People die during the year, not because of the year, but because of any number of things including: age, health conditions, lifestyle choices, accidents, or a combination of these things. More importantly, it shows how go things actually are that one of the biggest complaints about the year is that so many famous people have died this year. It is true that anyone’s death is a tragedy, but it hardly makes a 2016 any worse. I also understand that many people that bemoan this year aren’t complaining mainly about the death of celebrities but about war (a legitimate complaint, but overall this year was better than, say one hundred years ago – WWI), or, sadly much more likely, political votes not going how they would have liked.

First it was Brexit (a truly ridiculous word, but never mind) and then it was the election of Donald Trump. Let me be honest, I think the British vote to leave the European Union was a good thing (light your torches) and I am a harsh critic of Donald Trump and I voted against him (for Gary Johnson). Let’s talk Brexit for a moment, I believe that it was the best option not because I believe strong nationalism is necessarily a good thing, nor do I hate immigrants; furthermore, I think the average British person that voted in support of Brexit did not vote nationalistically or because of some deep and profound hatred of immigrants; I would hazard the guess that most of them were simply unhappy with the increasing power of the EU. I understand that one can think I am totally wrong and that’s perfectly okay and won’t ruin my year. Now onto Donald Trump; if his election actually ruined your year, I’m sorry. I really am. You see, if it truly ruined your year you obviously are under the twin delusions that (a) the US president is all powerful and (b) government and society are actually the same thing. Guess who also has these delusions: people that blindly support Donald Trump. Will he be a great president, no; a good president, maybe; a bad president, maybe; a terrible president, maybe; a dictator, no.  If you are honestly afraid of Donald Trump, you have a problem; there’s a difference between being literally afraid of him and thinking his policies will be bad.

The president is not all powerful, they cannot do anything they wish, the likelihood that one will become a death camp administering life-long dictator is low; not impossible, but very, very long while this country is at least somewhat stable. The likelihood that Donald Trump will become dictator for life is next to zero, as is the probability of him jailing those that dissent. There is a simple reason: everyone is on guard about his actions before he has actually assumed power. The moment he does something debatably unconstitutional he will have hundreds if not thousands of people fight him in the courts.

More deeply, politics is not life. Government is not society. At most it is a poor and distorted reflection of society. We must not allow government to replace society, the bullet to replace the book, or the black-and-white thinking to replace nuanced, gradated thinking. In the end, life will go on no matter what individual is the president of the United States.

2016 has been a mixed bag, but every year is. Think back to any other year and you’ll find that there were just as many negatives as 2016. Perhaps, the problem is looking for the negatives. If one looks to be saddened, outraged, or otherwise made upset, they have ample opportunities and outlets. 2017 is fast approaching and it will be just as much a mixed bag as 2016. Maybe, just maybe, if we all try not to find ever more things to be upset by and to divide ourselves over the world can continue to improve. I hope that 2017 will be a year of increased intellectual dialogue, informed and nuanced thinking, and ever more free discourse.

Pulling away from this wide view of the year and towards the personal, you are the only one that can determine how the year was for you and how the next year will be for you. In the words of Marcus Aurelius: “You have power over your mind – not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.”

On Voting

Today is the day of the general election in the United States of America. It is the most important election of our lifetimes! You must vote! If you don’t vote, you are in fact voting for the worst candidate in history! You have a duty and an obligation to vote! Furthermore, you have an obligation and duty to vote for one of the two major parties, because voting third party is in fact voting for the major candidate you like the least. Voting for the lesser of two evils is absolved from any moral implication of supporting evil. Of course, if you don’t vote you can’t complain, because as it says in my made-up copy of the Constitution: “All citizens shall have the right to complain if and only if they have voted.”  The take away: Vote or leave the country, you democracy hating, ignorant, stupid, terrible, anarchist – you know where you can move? Somalia, have fun there with no omniglorious democratically elected government.

Wait! None of that is true, except that today is the day of the general election. You do not have an obligation or duty to vote, much less to vote for only one of the two major parties. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil, and even if you choose not to vote you still have a right to complain. In fact, voting is a hard-won right and, therefore, it is ludicrous (and dangerous) to claim that people must vote. This may be an unpopular position, but it is far more reasonable and humane than claiming that people are required by some civic or moral bond to cast a ballot for a political leader once in a given number of years.

One reason why one has no obligation to vote is that in national (and, often, state) elections a single vote does not matter (break out your pitch-forks, torches, and slogans: “every vote matters!”). The economists, Casey B. Mulligan and Charles G. Hunter, assembled the data for 40,036 state and federal legislative elections and found only eight elections that were determined by a single vote, only one of which was a federal election. Thus, one the basis of purely individualistic mathematical analysis, a single vote does not matter. Only when many votes come together to achieve some real result (i.e. if you want to vote do not be deterred that your single vote will not really have tremendous impact). Some may claim that simply that it statistically does not matter, one still have a moral or civic duty to vote.

Is it a moral duty, or obligation to vote?  The simple answer is: no. It is hard to see how one can have a moral duty to vote for politicians that likely will enact or help enact immoral laws and advance immoral positions. Even if one believes that their favored politician truly is omniglorious and omnibenevolent, this hardly translates into a moral duty to vote in the abstract. There is no moral duty to participate in a system that one does not like, no moral duty to have a voice in a society’s governance, certainly no moral duty to check a small box on a ballot. Even if there were a moral duty to vote there would certainly not be a moral duty to vote for the “lesser-of-two-evils.” Indeed, that would seem to contradict most moral theories, as most moral theories tend to be against evil. It is hard to see why there would exist some moral duty to vote, but isn’t there a civic duty to vote?

The answer is no, there is no civic duty to vote. At least in the United States, there is no legal civic duty to vote, if there were it would be illegal not to vote. However, some would say that there is an extralegal civic duty to vote. A duty to pay alliance to the government that protects the citizens; a duty to honor those that fought for the right to vote; a duty, in short, to prove that you are a good and responsible citizen that cares about their country. There is no such duty, especially if you believe that the government does not protect or does not represent your interests. A civic duty to vote implies that to vote is to consent to the system.

This belief, closely tied for some to “if you don’t vote, you can’t complain,” is utterly wrongheaded and dangerous. What is strange is that many anarchist libertarians repeat the mantra that “voting is consenting to the system,” yet, also say that tacit consent does not really exist. They are absolutely correct that tacit consent to governance does not exist, but apparently they stop using logic when it comes to voting. Voting is nothing more, to quote the abolitionist, individualist anarchist, Constitutional lawyer Lysander Spooner, than replacing the “bullet” for the “ballot.” Indeed, Lysander Spooner makes a powerful case for voting, even though it is not an effective mechanism, a moral obligation, or a civic duty:

In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, renders service, and foregoes the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defense offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself that crushes them was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to.

Vote today, or don’t vote today: it’s your choice, it’s your right. Vote, or don’t vote, but, either way remember that this election doesn’t (really) matter.

















Also, thank God that this election is finally over (hopefully, I wrote this like two weeks ago, who knows what’ll happen tonight, Trump may legally contest the election, or something, but, at least it should be over now). Even as a political junkie this election has been a bit too much to handle, after this, I can go back to my regular arguments against the government without being associated with a political candidate.

The Presidential Election does not Matter

No matter how bad you think a candidate will be as president, they will not destroy those things that lie at the heart of life. This may seem na­­ïve, one may say that the presidential election is hugely important, that it will deeply impact society, that a certain presidential candidate would mean the doom of America and possibly the world.  However, even if the future president starts World War 3 (probably the most extreme claim see here and here), which is highly unlikely; they will not be able to destroy the human spirit. Indeed, no regime, no army, no weapon, can destroy the human spirit. No government can stomp out love and joy and resilience. They can try, some put on a mighty great effort but never to much avail.

Stalin’s USSR,  NAZI Germany, Franco’s Spain, etc. were all terrible places to live, the regimes created  widespread suffering. They made life difficult to live, but never could they completely destroy the human spirit. They may have suppressed it, pushed it out into hiding, but they never destroyed it. People still loved each other, they still had joy in their lives, even if this love and this joy were done in secret, hidden away, out of fear. Though fear is a great and terrible device in attempting to destroy the human spirit, it can never sap that last drop of resilience from the citizenry. The lesson of this should be clear: no matter how bad things get people will still push back, even if they push back in secret. Indeed, when a regime attempts to destroy the human spirit, to weed out love and joy, to obliterate resiliency; the very act of existing becomes a revolt, the act of love becomes a rebellion, the act of joy becomes a revolution; and there is something profoundly beautiful in that. There is a reason that no earthly power can destroy human spirit it is the same reason no earthly power can destroy planetary movement.

The reason is nature, in this case human nature. Human spirit is the wellspring of a great many of debates and ideological disagreement; many deny that it exists and even among those that say it does there is a disagreement as to what it is. For my part I believe that humans are be nature good but easily and everywhere corrupted. I am not deterministic, I do not believe that human nature preordains precise existence. Instead, I believe, that humans are by nature free (have free-will) and contain the innate capacities to do a great many things but only through training can they do many of these things. What I mean by humans are by nature good but easily and everywhere corrupted is that humans have the disposition toward love, justice, and liberty but that in many cases this disposition is corrupted by any number of sources (environment, attainment of power, etc.). Furthermore, one of humans’ chief predispositions of nature is to be able to reason and be guided by reason and therefore to be able to live the good life. Moreover, humans have the capacities to reason with hope and love. This is why no regime can ever destroy the human spirit, the natural outgrowth, or manifestation, of human nature.

No power, no matter how great and evil, can ever destroy human nature, nor can they fundamentally and widely change it. It is the conceit of many regimes, operating under a blank slate view of humanity, that they can craft humans as they wish them to be. This is a dangerous and wildly incorrect belief. The best they can do is murder (directly destroy human life) and corrupt (as I said human nature is good but easily and everywhere corrupted), they may blind people to this corruption but they will never destroy the essential character of humanity. This brings me back to the presidential election: no matter how bad you think a candidate would be as president remember that you have the power over your life, remember that they day after the election you will still be able to love and be loved, that you will still be able to have and create joy, that you will still be able to fight on, even if you do these things in secret. Take heart and remember that society and government are distinct. Trump or Clinton may decimate the government, the nation, or the politico-geography world, but they will not (cannot) decimate the society. If American society is destroyed it will not be the fault of any one person or any group of persons, it will be the fault of all the individuals that create and recreate the society everyday. Indeed, society does not have an existence outside of the individuals that create and recreate it.

I will end this musing by quoting a brilliant article by Mr. Joey Clark:

Life without reason, indeed, produces monsters, but reason without hope in ourselves and our character as a people, without a willingness to dream beyond the whims and ambitions of the political moment, produces an arid landscape for the mind. Little can grow in such a climate other than resentment, apathy, and conflict. And lo and behold, unrefined cynics are sprouting up left and right in this drought of 2016.


Do not fall into quietism or fatalism; seek happiness with a zeal – in friendships and long conversations, in the pleasures nature has provided us, in the fruits of our reason and imagination, and in the avoidance of vain ambitions for power over others.

Mr. Clark’s article can be found here: https://fee.org/articles/what-epicurus-can-teach-us-about-freedom-and-happiness/

Irrelevant Issues trump Policy Positions (pun intended) [NB strong language]

Apparently, new tapes of Donald Trump “bragging about kissing and groping women” have surfaced. Those that are against Trump are using the news to prove Trump’s “war on women,” etc. Trump supporters are retorting with talking about Bill Clinton’s record with women and Hillary Clinton’s involvement there. Both sides are acting as though this really matters, as they always do with this sort of thing. None of these sort of things actually matter, though people seem to believe that they do.

Apparently, people want a political leader that is a nice person with good progressive, modern, cosmopolitan personal views. Apparently, a candidate’s (or their spouses’) record with/ talk about women, is more important than their policy issues. People seem more concerned that Trump is a sexist pig than that his economic policies are ridiculous, or that he believes in Stop-and-Frisk. People seem to think that Hillary Clinton’s possible involvement in covering-up her husband’s indiscretions and possible crimes is more important than her equally terrible economic policies, or her hawkishness on war. Apparently, irrelevant personal issues trump policy positions (pun intended).

Does it affect the way he will govern that Trump is a personal sexist, that he mistreats the women in his life, etc.? Does it affect how Clinton will govern that her husband is unfaithful and possible a sex addict? Does any of this personal bullshit actually matter? Perhaps a moralist will say that all of this does matter. Well, if you’re a moralist you are completely screwed in this election since Trump has a terrible record with women, Hillary Clinton’s husband has a terrible record with women, Johnson is a former marijuana user (which assumingly a moralist will be against), and Stein has been in legal trouble (again assumingly a moralist will be against this). Perhaps, someone that is concerned about women’s rights and freedom will say it all matters as well. Well, unless being a sexist pig personally (or being married to one) automatically translates into having sexist policies, it does not matter. Trump has not said “I’m going to legalise being horrible to women.” No, all he has proven is that he’s a douchebag that women should avoid. His personal failings are not policy failings and it is these latter failings that should matter.

The point is that in elections what ought to matter is not a candidate’s personal issues or failings but their policy ideas. In the end I would rather have a completely unscrupulous, rude, bastard that won’t do anything with their government than have a nice person with a good record with women/men that is also cool that will put their boot on my throat and a gun to my head.  Unless a personal issues directly translates into a policy, I don’t care. Unless one’s personal issues with women, African-Americans, or other people directly translates into enacting policy against these groups, I fail to see why it matters. It matters much more to me that Trump’s economic proposals will be ruinous to the already falling economic prosperity and freedom of this country, than his “kissing and groping” of women. I apologize to all those that have some weird belief that this stuff matters, I completely disagree. Vote on policy not on personality, if you vote at all, which you have no obligation or imperative to do (I should come back to that).

Power and Privilege: A Freed-Market Anarchist Approach

Before discussing any sort of “answer” to the question of inequality often captured under the term “privilege,” it would be most useful to describe what the concept even means [1].  “Privilege refers to “unearned power conferred systematically” [2], most commonly to “male privilege,” “white privilege,” and “class privilege.” However, privilege is often expanded to include: “ability (health) privilege,” “linguistic privilege,” “educational privilege,” “religious privilege,” and various other forms of “privileges” [3]. Here there is a great deal of rather unproductive conflict between those that deny that privilege exists and those that affirm that it does.

One of the misinformed (and, therefore, unhelpful) criticisms of privilege theory, is to claim that it is a Marxist system. This claim is false. Privilege theory has its origins in Post-Marxist thought that explicitly diverged from the Classical Marxists [4]. Indeed, some socialists [5] oppose privilege theory because of its nature as a post-Marxist movement that they contend “is not a framework that can move the struggles forward” [ibid.].  A further, though distinct, claim against privilege theory is that it is “a shield against reason” [6]. This criticism is not without merit, at times a vulgar form of the privilege theory is used to shut down debate and silence opposition, this discredits the movement that may have good intentions at its core [7]. Furthermore, to correct this criticism one must change the way in which one thinks about privilege. If one thinks of it as a means to silence those that have been historically favored, one is engaged in a circumstantial ad hominem [8]. Whereas, if one thinks of privilege as something which creates psychological biases that can be overcome, one has the opportunity to move the conversation forward by helping clarify thinking. This is why to move forward with discourse in the modern age one must admit, or at least accept that many hold, that privilege does, indeed, exist. However, once people outside the political left admit that privilege exist, the entire conversation can change.

The issue with the intellectual monopoly by (a certain faction of) the left on the concept of privilege is that it becomes merely a political tool to further their own goals [9]. Furthermore, by possessing the total ownership on the concept they can dream up new forms of “privilege” by the day to suit their political needs (e.g. “homonormativity” [10]); often this sort of thing is used to “purge” the movement, once they people it targets have outlived their usefulness to the movement. Thus, it is imperative that other groups stop pretending privilege is entirely a myth and add their approach the concept. Luckily, some libertarians and anarchists have already begun this process; sadly they align themselves, at least in name, with the left (chiefly; Roderick Long, Sheldon Richman, Kevin Carson, and others with the Alliance for the Libertarian Left and the Center for a Stateless Society [11]). These thinkers have decided, rather unfortunately, to call their beliefs “left libertarianism,” or “left-wing market anarchism,” because they oppose things like privilege, imposed hierarchies, and the capitalistic system [12]. This is unfortunate on two counts: (1) it buys into the left’s intellectual monopoly on the concept of privilege and the struggle against imposed power, (2) it explicit claims that market anarchism and libertarianism are functions of either the left or the right (see note 1). However, despite their unfortunate name, many of their insights are interesting [13].

If the definition of privilege is “unearned power conferred systematically” [2] it seems clear that a freed-market anarchist would have a deep interest in the concept [14]. “Unearned power” is always suspect and can often lead to oppression and “conferred systematically” seems to refer to (a) governmental systems (which are suspect), or (b) cultural systems. Given these conditions the answer to the problems of privilege and power seem obvious. However, one most establish that there are problems stemming from privilege and power. Unless this is established in a rational framework, it is impossible to defeat. Often times without establish that the supposed problems do in fact exist; one is left with mere empathy for those they feel have been dealt a bad hand (i.e. the under-privileged). Though empathy is important, in the end reason (and not empathy) will do far more to solve problems [15].

It is difficult under the leftist monopoly on the concept to establish a reasonable basis that affirms that problems stemming from privilege and power exist. This is likely do to the search for evidence is seen as a threat to the concept. However, it is not; nor, do I necessarily demand empirical evidence. Society cannot be reduced to a mathematical formula like some physical reaction, it is constantly changing. Thus, if the definition or premises of the privilege theory offer deductible conclusion that would be enough to at least satisfy the rationalists. Of course there is at least some empirical evidence that privileges exist in all manners [16]. Furthermore, it is clear that the premises that (a) privilege is unearned power conferred systemically, (b) power, especially unearned, power tends to be corrupting, and (c) systemic conference requires a conferrer (namely, government, or society); leads to the conclusion that privilege is a corruption force conferred onto people by some outside force. It is, therefore, changeable. This is one of the areas where most privilege theorists are incorrect: they seem to hold “a very pessimistic and disarming theory—seeing individuals as unable to escape their prejudices or their role in the oppression of others” [5].

Approach from a different way the problems of privilege do not seem as daunting as the “pessimistic” “theory” of inescapable oppression. If, instead of seeing privilege as any inescapable consequence of uncontrolled circumstances (skin-pigmentation, sex, etc.), one views privilege as a mere cultural artifact emboldened by governmental systems and leading to ingrained (but challengeable) cognitive biases, one can see that the problems of privilege can be dealt with. First, one must realize that since the government is systemizing (or at least helping systematize) privilege, it can hardly be expected to end or even help end the problems of privilege power. There are two reasons for this: (1) societal class does exist, but Marx was incorrect in labeling them as he did, instead there exist three main classes in society: the politically elite (those in power), the strong but disconnected (this class threatens those in power, as they are hard to control, they must either be eliminated or incorporated in one of the other classes), and the weak and disconnected (this class is easy to control with the promise of a better life through political solutions  [17]) [18]; and two, as I have previously written:

The issue comes down to this: political solutions to social problems do not work. They replace education with legislation, the book with the bullet, the free mind with the shackled mind. The only way to solve any social issue is to change hearts and minds. Legislation, guns, and silence cannot do this. Force does not win arguments. Might does not make right. [19].

Therefore, the only solutions to the problems of privilege power are social solutions, social meaning non-governmental, educational, and free-speech embracing solutions. To weed out prejudice from the barrel of a gun is not a just solution. However, changing people’s hearts and minds is a (I would add, the only) just and moral solution.

One of the best social solutions to destroy the power of privilege is to put an end to the current neo-Mercantilist system by embracing the freed-market. The free-market is founded primarily upon the principle of private ownership (beginning with ownership of the self), this can take multiple forms under a decentralized system, it may be single individual ownership, partner owner, communal ownership, etc. The point is not the type of private ownership, but that it is completely decentralized and discourages violence. This leads to four more principles. The principle is that of voluntary exchange, this is the principle that people may voluntarily exchange mutually beneficial goods and services without outside interference. The next principles are free competition of firms (this would help decrease and decentralize firm size, thus decreasing hierarchical relationships), and entrepreneurial discovery to compete in the market but also to benefit society through new opportunities both social and economic. The fifth principle is that of spontaneous order, the idea that order emerges out of chaos without a central planning board directing things [20]. The nature of the freed-market is decentralized and non-violent; it is marked by voluntary interaction and social cooperation.  Thus, it would tend to prevent privilege power in a variety of ways.

First, it would disincentivize social bias on the part of both firms and consumers. On the part of the firms, under the condition of decentralized free competition, it would be not be advantageous to systemically discriminate either in employment (it would lead to more economic losses and lower productivity) or in sales (it would lead to less profit and possible social consequences, i.e. boycotts). On the part of consumers, discrimination would lead to less choice and having to pay higher prices for the same goods (or even going without). Second, by its highly decentralized nature the freed-market favors voluntary interaction based on the innate integrity of each person (i.e. on the basis of individual self-ownership); this would lead to limitation of the power of privilege by challenging the paradigms of unearned powers. Indeed, this was the sort of thing the classical liberals fought against: “the inequality of privileged lords and priests who were seen as better than peasants and shopkeepers” [21]. However, under the freed-market there might still be some social privilege and prejudice.

Human differences are a fact of life. Though people are more alike (biologically and genetically) than they are different [22]; everyone is different and that’s a good thing. Biases and prejudices are likely to persist no-matter the prevailing governmental, economic, or societal system. However, a decentralized freed-market anarchism guided by a moral presumption against aggression and injustice (unfairness), would lead to the most amiable society to fairness, openness, and toleration this was the goal of the classical liberals and ought to be the goal of the modern freed-market anarchists. By adapting and (slightly) modifying the theory privilege, freed-market anarchism can offer a solution to the issues of injustice and unfairness, by affirming individual integrity (self-ownership), peaceful exchange, and equality in liberty.


[1] There are two risks in writing this article, insofar as being politically slurred can be considered a risk; the first is that people on the political right may accuse me of having taking a “left-turn” or of being a leftists; the second, is that people on the political left may accuse me of being a right-winger. Of course, as these would be political slurs it would be far more likely for someone on the right to call me a “commie,” or a “SJW;” and for someone on the left to call me a “fascist,” or a “bigot.” In the end any such criticism as these would be completely inconsequential to me; however, I will address them by saying this: I believe that what I am here calling “freed-market anarchism” is neither right nor left [1.1]. Indeed, it might be better to term it more fully as “ideological mixed freed-market anarchism,” as this would make clear that this system takes reasonable ideas and insights from a variety of sources, not merely supposed leftist or rightist sources.

[1.1] Chiefly: Block, W. (2010). “Libertarianism is Unique and Belongs Neither to the Right nor Left” in The Journal of Libertarian Studies 22: 127-70. Retrieved from https://mises.org/system/tdf/22_1_8.pdf?file=1&type=document. Though Block uses the term “libertarian” (in my opinion, a less precise term, thus I tend not to use it when trying to be precise), I believe that his arguments in this paper apply equally well to “freed-market anarchism.”

[2] McIntosh, P. (1988). “White Privilege and Male Privilege.” Retrieved from http://www.collegeart.org/pdf/diversity/white-privilege-and-male-privilege.pdf .

[3] Media Smarts (n.d.). Forms of Privilege. Retrieved from http://mediasmarts.ca/diversity-media/privilege-media/forms-privilege. Also: Subtirelu, N. (2013). “Language Privilege: What it is and Why it Matters” on Linguistic Pulse. Retrieved from: https://linguisticpulse.com/2013/06/26/language-privilege-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters/.

[4] Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Retrieved from http://v3.ellieharrison.com/money/hegemony.pdf.  I feel that it must be made clear that though many post-Marxist leaders still used the term “socialist” and much of the Marxist terminology, they represent a significant philosophical break with traditional Marxism (which might be thought of as modernist Marxism). The Post-Marxist were (are) also, by and large, post-modernists and, therefore, rejected “totalizing” world views [5].

[5] Choonara, E. and Prasad, Y. (2014). “What’s wrong with privilege theory?” in International Socialist. Retrieved from http://isj.org.uk/whats-wrong-with-privilege-theory/#esmeyuri142_11. This is a highly interesting article, though written by socialist and towards a socialist audience it remains a valuable piece for anyone (socialist or not) interested in the history of privilege theory, a left-wing critique of privilege theory, and privilege theory more general.

[6] Campbell, D. G. (2010). “‘White Privilege:’ A Shield Against Reason,” in Academic Questions 23: 497 – 504. DOI: 10.1007/s12129-010-9188-5. Mr. Campbell makes a rather compelling case against privilege analysis and for a return to reason, viz. “We must  speak the truth: that true intellectual diversity within an academic department or any organization cannot be attained by focusing on or exploiting skin color, family origin, or sex.”

[7] Galles, G. (2015). “The Intellectual Intolerance of Behind ‘Check Your Privilege’” in the Mises Daily. Retrieved from https://mises.org/library/intellectual-intolerance-behind-%E2%80%9Ccheck-your-privilege%E2%80%9D. Galles makes a highly useful point about the manner in which productive dialogue happens:

It would start by precisely specifying what faulty premises, assumptions, or arguments someone supposedly holds, either included or excluded inappropriately. Then it would explain why it is inappropriate for the issue being considered. It would lay out the correct or appropriate premise that would take its place and articulate the reasons why. Building on that foundation, it would show how the “new and improved” premises would change one’s conclusions. Consequently, it would lay out the appropriate remedy based on the alternative analysis.

Indeed, checking one’s “faulty premise,” especially if they are founded on a psychological bias, is one of the most important tasks in any debate or pursuit of knowledge.

[8] Copi, I. and Cohen, C. (1994). Introduction to Logic (ed. 9).  Macmillan, Inc.: New York.   The circumstantial ad hominem is a logical fallacy whereby one discounts another’s argument on the basis of the other’s circumstances. From Copi and Cohen:

When a circumstantial ad hominem argument explicitly or implicitly charges the opponents with inconsistency … that is clearly one kind of abuse. When a circumstantial ad hominem argument charges the opponent with lack of trustworthiness by virtue of group membership or conviction, that is an accusation of prejudice in defense of self-interest and is clearly also an abuse.

It seems odd that the group general most concerned about group power and dynamics is so wont to use abusive ad hominem attacks, which are tantamount to the very type of prejudice they declare to decry.

[9] Daum, M. (2014). “Using ‘Privilege’ as a weapon” in Las Angles Time. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-daum-privilege-shaming-internet-20141016-column.html. The article is well worth a read, though one line will illustrate the danger of the left’s intellectual monopoly on privilege, viz. “Now what was once a legitimate tool for self-examination is an insufferably smug platform for self-righteousness.”

[10] Kacere, L. (2015). “Homonormativity 101: What It Is and How It’s Hurting Our Movement” in Everyday Feminism. Retrieved from http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/homonormativity-101/.

[11] Alliance of the Libertarian Left website: http://praxeology.net/all-left.htm; Center for a Stateless Society website:  https://c4ss.org/.

[12] It would be apt at this point to example the terms “capitalism,” and “freed-market.” The word capitalism is often used by libertarians, conservatives, conservo-libertarians, and (“right-wing”) market anarchists, in an approving manner that affirms it as a name for the free(d) market. However, there is a deep issue in using the term in this way, namely, that for most people on the left the term has deep negative connotations. True, it is a pointless semantic battle (as Kinsella points out [12.1]), to attempt to stop people from using the term. However, it is far simpler to use the phrase “freed market” or “free market,” rather than “lassiez-faire capitalism” (which is unjustly tied to Hoover, cf. Rothbard, M. America’s Great Depression (ed. 5). Mises Institute: Auburn, Alabama.), or “capitalism, but not what we have today, which is crony-capitalism.” Indeed, there’s the rub: the word capitalism and to some extent the phrase free market have been associated with the Neo-Mercantilist crony capitalist economic system that being used today [12.2]. This is why I prefer to use the term “freed-market,” because (a) it disassociates it form the current economic system, (b) it makes clear that this is a goal not an actuality, and (c) it does not have negative connotations in a wide audience (though it may with certain libertarians and market anarchists).

[12.1] Kinsella, S. (2010). “Capitalism is Libertarian!” on StephanKinsella.com. Retrieved from http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/05/capitalism-is-libertarian/.

[12.2] Rothbard, M. (1999). “Neo-Mercantilism” in The Mises Daily. Retrieved from https://mises.org/library/neo-mercantilism.

[13] NB this article is not about the work of these scholars are any other, this article is purely my approach to the issue of power and privilege. This is why the title says “a freed-market anarchist approach,” and not “the freed-market anarchist approach.” To reiterate this article is purely my approach, any mistakes, ill formed ideas, etc. are purely mine. Furthermore, to be absolutely clear, though there may be similarity between my ideas and those of the left-wing market anarchists, I do not consider myself a “left-wing market anarchist” (see note 1).

[14] Though my interest in these issues also stems from my conviction as an Episcopalian Christian and Hazlittian cooperatist utilitarian.  I believe that it is a Christian duty to do justice in the world, viz. the Most Reverend Bishop Curry:

Crazy enough to love like Jesus, to give like Jesus, to forgive like Jesus, to do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with God — like Jesus.  Crazy enough to dare to change the world from the nightmare it often is into something close to the dream that God dreams for it. [14.1].

Therefore, I believe that is the duty of every person to attempt to achieve justice (i.e. anti-oppression) in the world. Furthermore, I can make this case not only on religious grounds, but on humanistic and utilitarian grounds. The humanistic grounds are that oppression is clearly against the goals of humanism (namely, human flourishing); the utilitarian grounds are that justice and anti-oppression  lead to the greatest long-run satisfaction of the greatest number of people [14.2].

[14.1] Curry, M. (2012). We Need Some Crazy Christians. Retrieved from http://www.episcopalchurch.org/posts/publicaffairs/general-convention-july-7-sermon-bishop-michael-curry.

[14.2] Hazlitt, H. (1998). The Foundations of Morality. Foundation for Economic Education: Irvington-on-Hudson, New York. Chiefly, page 354, point 2f.

[15] Bloom, P, (2013). “The Baby in the Well,” in The New Yorker. Retrieved from: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/20/the-baby-in-the-well.

[16] take the disparities in incarnation rates between African-Americans and whites: “Nationwide, African Americans were incarcerated in state prison at 6 times the rate for Whites and in local jails at almost 5 times the rate for Whites” as one example.  Hartney, C. and Vuong, L. (2009). Created Equal. Retrieved from http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/created-equal.pdf.

[17] There is an apt quote attributed to Machiavelli in the film, Poverty Inc.: “The reason there will be no change is that those that stand to gain from change have none of the power, while those that stand to loss for change have all of the power.”

[18] This class analysis is based on Hoppe, H. (1990). “Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis,” in The Journal of Libertarian Studies IX (2). Retrieved from https://mises.org/system/tdf/9_2_5_0.pdf?file=1&type=document.

[19] Heckner, R. (2016). “Society, Government, Rationality, and Emotion” on Cogita! Retrieved from https://rhecknerlanguageblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/society-government-rationality-and-emotion/.

[20] Chartier, G. and Johnson, C. (eds). (2012). Markets Not Capitalism. Retrieved from: http://www.libertarianismo.org/livros/gccjmnc.pdf

[21] Crider, P. (2016). “Libertarian Social Justice,” in Libertarianism.org. Retrieved from http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-social-justice.

[22] Highfield, R. (2002). “DNA survey finds all human are 99.99pc the same,” in The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1416706/DNA-survey-finds-all-humans-are-99.9pc-the-same.html.


Block, W. (2010). “Libertarianism is Unique and Belongs Neither to the Right nor Left” in The Journal of Libertarian Studies 22: 127-70. Retrieved from https://mises.org/system/tdf/22_1_8.pdf?file=1&type=document.

Bloom, P, (2013). “The Baby in the Well,” in The New Yorker. Retrieved from: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/20/the-baby-in-the-well

Campbell, D. G. (2010). “‘White Privilege:’ A Shield Against Reason,” in Academic Questions 23: 497 – 504. DOI: 10.1007/s12129-010-9188-5.

Chartier, G. and Johnson, C. (eds). (2012). Markets Not Capitalism. Retrieved from: http://www.libertarianismo.org/livros/gccjmnc.pdf

Choonara, E. and Prasad, Y. (2014). “What’s wrong with privilege theory?” in International Socialist. Retrieved from http://isj.org.uk/whats-wrong-with-privilege-theory/#esmeyuri142_11.

Copi, I. and Cohen, C. (1994). Introduction to Logic (ed. 9).  Macmillan, Inc.: New York.

Crider, P. (2016). “Libertarian Social Justice,” in Libertarianism.org. Retrieved from http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-social-justice.

Curry, M. (2012). We Need Some Crazy Christians. Retrieved from http://www.episcopalchurch.org/posts/publicaffairs/general-convention-july-7-sermon-bishop-michael-curry.

Daum, M. (2014). “Using ‘Privilege’ as a weapon” in Las Angles Time. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-daum-privilege-shaming-internet-20141016-column.html.

Galles, G. (2015). “The Intellectual Intolerance of Behind ‘Check Your Privilege’” in the Mises Daily. Retrieved from https://mises.org/library/intellectual-intolerance-behind-%E2%80%9Ccheck-your-privilege%E2%80%9D.

Hartney, C. and Vuong, L. (2009). Created Equal. Retrieved from http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/created-equal.pdf.

Hazlitt, H. (1998). The Foundations of Morality. Foundation for Economic Education: Irvington-on-Hudson, New York.

Highfield, R. (2002). “DNA survey finds all human are 99.99pc the same,” in The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1416706/DNA-survey-finds-all-humans-are-99.9pc-the-same.html.

Hoppe, H. (1990). “Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis,” in The Journal of Libertarian Studies IX (2). Retrieved from https://mises.org/system/tdf/9_2_5_0.pdf?file=1&type=document.
Heckner, R. (2016). “Society, Government, Rationality, and Emotion” on Cogita! Retrieved from https://rhecknerlanguageblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/society-government-rationality-and-emotion/.

Kacere, L. (2015). “Homonormativity 101: What It Is and How It’s Hurting Our Movement” in Everyday Feminism. Retrieved from http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/homonormativity-101/.

Kinsella, S. (2010). “Capitalism is Libertarian!” on StephanKinsella.com. Retrieved from http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/05/capitalism-is-libertarian/.

Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Retrieved from http://v3.ellieharrison.com/money/hegemony.pdf.

McIntosh, P. (1988). “White Privilege and Male Privilege.” Retrieved from http://www.collegeart.org/pdf/diversity/white-privilege-and-male-privilege.pdf .

Media Smarts (n.d.). Forms of Privilege. Retrieved from http://mediasmarts.ca/diversity-media/privilege-media/forms-privilege.

Rothbard, M. (1999). “Neo-Mercantilism” in The Mises Daily. Retrieved from https://mises.org/library/neo-mercantilism.

Subtirelu, N. (2013). “Language Privilege: What it is and Why it Matters” on Linguistic Pulse. Retrieved from: https://linguisticpulse.com/2013/06/26/language-privilege-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters/.