More on “Isolation in the Freedom Camp”: Stef Stops in to Comment

09Feb08

I thought I’d repost the comment Stefan Molyneux made a few days ago here, and post my reply. The comments in this particular template can be hard to notice, and I think this deserves its own post:

Stefan Molyneux writes:

“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.””

My reply:

“Thanks for your comment Stef.

And I totally 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 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.”

PS: Apparently I am banned at FDR. I tried to check the top referrer to the thread: http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/thread/115192.aspx and I cannot log in. Maybe my account just expired? I never recieved a notice about being banned.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Discussion of FDR at LiMi: Isolationism in the Freedom Camp?
• Thinking about this discussion between BFP and Anxious Black Woman
• “Freedom to Choose”??
• Discussion Post

Filed under: AnCap, Guest, Libertarian, Philosophy   |  Leave a Comment
Tags: compassion, empathy, FDR, freedom movement, isolationism, Molyneux, statism