subscribe or follow us:                    

Which Virtues will Flourish in a Free World?

7 comments

Posted by PunkJohnnyCash on Mar 31, 2011 in Anarchism, Libertarianism | 7 comments

Cross posted at jVerse with podcast

A gross misconception exists about the nature of a free world. Actually, a large number of misconceptions exist, and usually I find myself talking to people who believe that a free world would be swarming with Roving Bands of Armed Thugs who will systematically and perpetually victimize everyone else[1].

Lately, I’ve begun to sense another hypothesis in the ether, this from the libertarian camp itself. I haven’t heard anyone come right out with it, so this is kind of a patchwork of implied narratives.

Download the podcast at jVerse episode 53 of the Bikecast

The world envisioned is mostly peaceful sparsely populated by wise, intelligent and strong men around whom industry and civil society forms. These men are not to be trifled with and disputes among them, if they can’t be settled by peaceful means can sometimes involve the judicious use of arms–perhaps modeled after the gentlemans’ duels of ages past.

These occasional clashes, though, needn’t be common because of the nobility and virtue of these men of merit. They don’t pursue selfish ends nor those destructive to others, so there’s no reason to challenge their will–which is a good thing because they are strong, quick, and well armed.

These men (both those of the imagined future and those that imagine them) could be described as consumate “porcupine pacifists”–the analogy speaks for itself–because they want to be sure that it’s understood that, although they won’t attack anyone, they will kick (or kill) your ass if you mess with them. They will also let you know about all the other people whose asses they will kick or kill if those people mess with them–the list is often long.

I have a couple of issues with this narrative–a couple posts worth at least. One related to the above bikecast is around my strongly held opinion that in a free world the virtues that will thrive and reproduce are mostly the opposite of those held by the honorable men in the above narrative.

To caveat: it’s of course impossible to predict the future with much reliability. It’s quite possible that, in the future, humanity abandons the standard of living produced by a thriving and tightly interwoven network of market relationships in favor of more isolation and simplicity. It’s possible that somehow that the armed and vigilant men never cross a line and threaten or bully a weaker person. I don’t know what long and transformative path would have to be tread for humanity to find itself in such a place, but as I say, the future is unknowable and this particular libertarian fantasy might play out somewhere down the line.

That said, I think a far more likely scenario is a society founded on something similar to the day-to-day relationships most of us enjoy now. These relationships aren’t based on fear of reprisal from some third party authority, but rather on trust, respect, empathy, and reciprocity. Flourishing in this possible future depends on skill at maintaining peer-to-peer relationships and a reputation for fair dealings instead of a strong right hook and good aim.

In this imagined libertarian world, understanding and anticipating the motivation and needs of others will be a highly valued and much sought after skill. Cooperating, negotiating and nurturing long term, win-win partnerships will be foundational to accumulating the social and physical capital to be a leader whose judgement others will voluntarily trust and defer to (without dueling).

In the fast paced and constantly adjusting economy that will be the engine of a global society that allows billions of people to thrive and prosper, guns will, I forecast, almost never be brandished. This is not to say that people won’t carry firearms for personal safety. I assume they will as they do now–sociopaths will always be with us, I fear. They will be used for this purpose very rarely. Even now, many people go a lifetime without needing to use lethal force to defend themselves (at least from strangers, assaults by spouses and family members remains very common).

That the very idea that empathy, cooperation, and relating to others as peers strikes some libertarians as weak, feminine and maybe sorta pinko (if you’re old enough) gets to the heart of the issue.

The virtues that will provide value to the future are frequently denigrated by self-labelled liberty lovers. Those that are antithetical to a free and prosperous world–primarily centered around the prominence of defensive or redemptive violence–are simultaneously given much attention.

There are universally positive qualities around independence, free thought, determination and other traits expressed historically in “free men” because their position in the social hierarchy allowed them to express these traits and society rewarded their expression. It’s an error to blend in physical size, strength, and martial ability–the traits that kept men atop the hierarchy–with the others and label these as masculine virtues.

In the same way, there are universally positive qualities around cooperation, empathy, ability to communicate and to maintain a complex web of social relationships–the traits expressed historically by slave classes, primarily women. It’s an error to blend submissiveness, humility, and self-deprication–the traits that kept the slave alive–with these others and label them feminine.

The future belongs to the courageous and independent free thinker, the empathetic communicator and the social negotiator. These characteristics have no gender or race and are the cornerstone of a free and prosperous society. The martial virtues, physical strength (beyond what improves health and vitality), and a belief in redemptive violence have very little use in any popularly desirable free future world and yet they seem to play such an core role in the current libertarian movement. I believe that, going forward, it will be increasingly important to examine and question this tendency and those who hold it.

Federal Employee And Three Others Charged In $500,000 Mortgage Scheme web site employment verification letter

The Culvert Chronicles November 29, 2007 | Anonymous On November 27, Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown, joined by Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, Special Agent in Charge of the United States Social Security Administration’s Office of Inspector General Edward J. Ryan and New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Commissioner David J. Swarts, announced that a federal employee was charged with tampering with government computers to unlawfully create a social security account for an individual in the country illegally as part of a mortgage fraud scheme in which the employee and three other individuals artificially inflated the price of a Queens house by “flipping” the property before stealing the personal identity of a dead Queens woman to fraudulently take out nearly $500,000 in mortgage loans on the property.

District Attorney Brown said, “Mortgage fraud and identity fraud are two of the fastest-growing white-collar crimes in the country today, costing billions of dollars in losses to consumers, businesses and financial institutions. In this particular case, the defendants are accused of sucking hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity out of a Queens house through financial chicanery before walking away and allowing the property to fall into foreclosure.” The District Attorney identified the defendants as Seerojnie Mohan, 40, of 10 Bass Pond Drive in Roslyn, Long Island , and Carolyn Dixon, 49, of 110-18 153rd Street, Doodnath Siewsanker, 48, of 94-18 114th Street and Ramesh Hardial, 43, of 196-21 90th Avenue, all of Queens. The four defendants were arraigned today before Queens Criminal Court Judge Ira Margulies on charges of second-degree grand larceny, second-degree forgery, first-degree tampering with public records, first-degree identity theft, computer trespass, first-degree falsifying business records and first-degree offering a false instrument for filing. The defendants Dixon and Mohan were ordered held on $50,000 bail, and the defendants Siewsanker and Hardial were released on their own recognizance. The defendants, who each face up to fifteen years in prison if convicted, were ordered to return to court on November 30, 2007.

District Attorney Brown said that, according to the criminal complaint, Carolyn Dixon, who was employed by the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) at its Jamaica, Queens, office, accessed the SSA database on August 11, 1999, and unlawfully generated a social security card for Travis Stephens, who was born in Trinidad and had illegally entered the United States. On July 19, 2002, Stephens allegedly used the social security number to purchase and secure a mortgage for a house located at 110-45 156th Street in Jamaica, Queens. The following year, Dixon allegedly approached Balkarran Singh and asked him to purchase the 156th Street house, advising him that she lived at the address and that the property was in foreclosure. Mr. Singh allegedly agreed to purchase the property for Dixon, who would continue to reside at the property and pay the monthly mortgage payments.

The District Attorney said that the complaint further alleges that Mr. Singh appeared on November 26, 2003, at a Queens realty office, at which Dixon and Stephens – whom Dixon introduced as her nephew – were also present. Dixon allegedly produced a social security card and driver’s license for Stephens, after which Mr. Singh purchased the 156th Street property with a $360,000 mortgage he had secured through First National Bank of Arizona. Later, an examination of the bank records by investigators allegedly revealed that the driver’s license produced by Dixon for Stephens was forged – in that the client ID did not match the name. here employment verification letter

According to the complaint, when Dixon began to default on the mortgage payments and ruin Mr. Singh’s credit, Mr. Singh repeatedly asked Dixon to transfer the property out of his name. Thereafter, in May 2006, Dixon allegedly advised Mr. Singh that she had a buyer for the house. On May 25, 2006, Mr. Singh met Dixon and co-defendant Mohan at a reality office, located at 122-01 Liberty Avenue in Queens, at which time the 156th Street property was transferred from Mr. Singh’s name to that of Marleen Manragh, who was not present at the closing. A subsequent examination of the business records of Fremont Investment and Loan indicated that two mortgages had been secured in the name of Marleen Manragh for $445,000 and that the records included a forged New Jersey driver’s license in Ms. Manragh name, an employment verification letter from co-defendant Siewsankar at A-1 Cleaning and a residency verification letter from co-defendant Hardial. In fact, Ms. Manragh had died on April 30, 2006, had never been employed by A-1 Cleaning, nor had she ever rented property from Hardial – Mohan’s brother.

It is further alleged that Siewsankar admitted to signing the employment verification letter at the behest of co-defendant Mohan – who is a broker and the owner of Elegant Funding, located at 122-01 Liberty Avenue – who told him that a friend of hers by the name of Marleen Manragh wanted to purchase a house and needed employment verification.

According to Fremont Investment and Loan, the outstanding mortgage on the 156th Street property are valued at $500,886.

Anonymous

Comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

  • Anonymous

    one question.Who holds the position you criticize?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1341640832 Jad Davis

      It’s more of an amalgam of positions. I’ve been interested for a couple months in the inconsistencies between attitudes about public (state) vs. private (patriarchal) violence (http://bit.ly/en05S8). It kind of shadows the vulgar/establishment libertarian vs. anarchist libertarian distinction.

      The recent anarcho-misogynist comment-a-thon started me thinking about the supposed masculine traits of independence and ambition and their intertwining with actual masculine traits of physical size and strength. The anti-feminist comments also hit repeatedly on the idea that women are deviously scheming and coordinating the subordination of men to some matriarchal control mechanism. This may be a stretch, but it’s the same sort of argument that’s always brought against the physically and politically powerless: that they’re using less than honorable tactics to secretly control the people who, by all visible means, are at the top of the hierarchy in a dominance-based society.

      Lastly, I finished reading “Alongside Night” by J. Neil Schulman (minor spoiler alert). My opinions about it are mixed–there ain’t alot of stateless fiction out there–but one prominent feature was the necessity of martial training for self-defense. At the climax, a 17 year old goes into a “precisely correct Weaver stance” and shoots a would be assassin in the head, thereby saving his father.

      I don’t have a problem with that. The book is less about living in a stateless world and more about the transition. If I was to argue the position of the 2nd amendment libertarians, I’d say that being consistently and heavily armed is in anticipation of the transitional period to a more peaceful, less trigger-happy world. Nevertheless, it seems like there’s a real emphasis on being well armed and trained and prepared to kill the inevitable hordes of statist zombies that will be after you in the post-apocalypse. To reiterate, I’m not against being armed/prepared. I just don’t foresee it being all that useful compared to being integrated into a (perhaps micro) economic community of avowedly non-violent or at least non-aggressive producers and consumers–people who could be accused of adopting/over-emphasizing “feminine” virtues.

      To answer your question more directly, I wove this narrative around anarchists who really emphasize being armed; men who regurgitate evo-psych nonsense about how great masculine traits are and how clingly and limiting female traits are; and around those who foresee statelessness as some kind of return to/achieving of a benevolent patriarchy. If you’re interested, we can keep an eye out for these tendencies and analyze them further. I admit it’s largely something in my head more than something I’ve compiled a list of examples for. Thanks for the question, I perhaps didn’t emphasize enough what this quasi-strawman was being built of.

      • Anonymous

        Thanks for the explanation I see what you mean to some extent.This links with PJC’s article a while back on being an anti-gun libertarian in the sense of not glorifying guns to the point of fetish.And I’ve definately seen this tendency among libertarians especially Paleo-libertarians.

      • Anonymous

        People assume violence accompanies anarchy because all of our histories of comparatively stateless periods focus on the villainy and heroism of raiders rather than those building, growing, and innovating. No one knows who invented the pulley nor the pointed arch, but we do know that in 1456 then Cardinal Borgia switched mistresses from mother to daughter mid stroke.

  • Anonymous

    Bravo.

  • Anonymous

    Bravo.

  • Anonymous

    No ,It wasn’t meant as sarcasm or an attack.I just meant who says exactly or approximately this?