Discussion of FDR at LiMi: Isolationism in the Freedom Camp?

24Jan08

From: Liberating Minds, where I post regularly…

Laird wrote:
I’m not sure if all the folks on the board agree with me on this, but I don’t like his whole business of being anti-social towards people with wrong or confused political views (you know, statists). Instead of showing them towards the light, we should shun them? Hmm, I guess if you believe that people can never change their political views, you can adhere to this philosophy.

It really burns my bacon when Stef says you can’t be a libertarian if you hang out with statists (podcast 927), since there is nothing in the non-aggression principle that says you can’t hang with with those who advocate the use of force (against you or anyone else).

My reply:

Yes, it does seem on the surface that Stef preaches empathy for understanding others, but this gets second priority when he needs to justify isolationism.

He makes many good arguments about things like ‘not-arguing-with-the-irrational’ (which is irrational), but I don’t think he really wants to understand how people get deluded into their mistaken beliefs about power, authority, the state, and the family. If he did understand how people get themselves broken, I don’t think he’d be so quick to judge others in such absolutist ways as “don’t hang out with statists at all”.

He does seem to run into his own contradictions in these kinds of areas a lot: “We can change the world” vs. “Nobody ever changes” + “You can’t change others”, for instance.

Maybe sometimes we can’t change others, but surely we can try to understand them. When we do, we can connect, and that is a prerequisite to any real change in the first place. So the proposition of “reduce all comms with statists” is pretty numbskulled, especially coming from someone who in some areas knows better.

What is so bad about FDR?.


Filed under: AnCap, Libertarian, Philosophy, Psychology   |  3 Comments
Tags: , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Discussion of FDR at LiMi: Isolationism in the Freedom Camp?”  

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
  1. 1 Stefan Molyneux on February 7, 2008 said:

    I certainly do believe that we should put as much effort as possible into helping people to rationally understand the evils of statism, and the violence it requires.

    However, after you have stated and proved your position, there does come a point when someone you know may look you in the eye and say: “I still support the use of violence against you.”

    If you consider somebody a friend who is willing to advocate the use of violence against you, then I would seriously question that definition of “friendship.”

  2. 2 growingfreedom on February 9, 2008 said:

    Thanks for your comment Stef.

    And I agree with your statement here. We each must take the measure of each other in our own way, and some are more willing than others to spend time or energy connecting even with those who would do us harm (out of ignorance or corruption or malevolence). Whether or not this is worthwhile or irrational is another question.

    There certainly is an irrational or self-destructive element to claiming friendship with someone who would do us harm. However, a distinction can and must be made between friendship and connection in general. Like yourself, I would not call a statist a friend in the true sense, for I could not trust that he would not betray me for poor reasons. However, I would not exclude myself from attempting rapport and mutual empathy or compassion because I cannot at the moment claim true friendship.

    I accept and respect your position on the matter. It is logical. But for myself I do think that beyond building our base of like-minded free-thinkers we will have to stretch our ability to connect even with those who would do us harm. You’ve demonstrated a great ability to get inside the minds of the corrupt, but often leave off at the level of condemnation. True, some persons may be beyond any of our individual abilities to build bridges away from violence and coercion and other soul-destroying habits towards freedom and mental health. And also true that condemnation or avoidance is often the healthy response to what would otherwise be personally destructive relationships. But I do not think it is true that we can extract and apply general rules to everyone such that we can assert: “Statists are irrecoverably corrupt. Avoid at all costs”.

    To do so is to universalize a personal rule of thumb that works in keeping one (you in this case) safe and productive. But it is not universally true, and heavily conflicts with the idea of personal growth and change. Many of those at FDR, including you, were once statists of one sort or another, and to throw out the baby with the bathwater here looks and seems overly defensive, naive, and rather arrogantly myopic. I do believe we can weave our mutual support for freethinkers and ancaps without this kind of isolationism. Indeed, I think it will only be possible to grow the freedom movement to the extent to which we can remain border-less, but not boundary-less.


  1. 1 More on “Isolation in the Freedom Camp”: Stef Stops in to Comment « Towards Growing Freedom

Leave a Reply