It has been a really long time since I played the piano. I’ve been feeling the urge lately, so this morning I finally cleared stuff out of the way and sat down on the bench to tickle the ivories.

I am so out of shape, it’s not even funny… but even before I felt tired at all, my inspiration ran dry.

I mean, I only twiddled for about a half hour before I had to give up.

I found that I was tapping into some emotion while twiddling around, however, because I got up from the keyboard with my eyes being rather moist.

As a matter of fact, the songs that were coming out were very simple, and very sad… and very repetitive.

It’s actually kind of interesting. There are never any words that come to mind when I do that, just a stream of emotional consciousness. Today it was a simple, direct sadness that flowed forth. I’ll have to try again sometime soon. Perhaps I’ll record it then (I considered recording it today but felt it was a bit too much effort).

From Lew Rockwell: None Dare Call It Genocide

The conclusion called “anarchism” effectively says, “I don’t know the answer, and neither do you.”

When somebody asks the question, “How will Problem X be solved without a government?” the only honest answer I can give is, “I don’t know.” I can make a guess at a possibility, but nobody has to listen to what I say, and if I’m wrong, so what? If I’m wrong making a guess at what a potential industry will turn out to be but I’ve put no money into it, then it’s just an opinion that didn’t go anywhere.

But it’s more than “I don’t know.” I don’t know the answer, and it’s not up to me to give it. It goes beyond my admission of ignorance and responsibility and imputes it upon you. Can you come up with a solution to Problem X that doesn’t involve forcing people to comply? If you are totally honest with yourself, you cannot! Perhaps you have an idea that will provide part of the system, but it’s improbable to the point of impossibility that you will be able to gather all of the information and make a calculation that provides the answer you seek.

It’s the theory of evolution as applied to politics and social organization (NB: not “Social Darwinism,” which is a misapplication of evolutionary theory). Just as neither you nor I could possibly predict exactly what the next species of frog or bacteria will look like “in the wild,” neither you nor I could possibly predict what form a non-coercive system will take place “in the wild.” It’s possible to make general predictions, but that will always be as far as you can go.

For more information, check out Freedomain Radio for a plethora of podcasts, articles, and forum discussions on this topic and more!

While child abuse most certainly begins in the home, it does not remain locked up in a secret room. If physical or emotional abuse is not addressed, it will find its expression in other areas of life.

For those who do not face the abuse they endured, they will become vectors of abuse themselves. If they endured sexual abuse or humiliation, they will inflict it upon their children. If they were hit as children, they will hit their own. If they were belittled or ignored, they will do the same to their kids.

But it does not stop with one’s children. The failure to address one’s own suffering can also cause one to seek abuse at the hands of others. Hence, one goes through life with the belief that an abstract “greater power” is necessary for existence. For a particular majority, this is called “God.” For another majority that does not necessarily intersect, but largely does so, this is called “Government.” These two entities are merely the adult mappings of the category known as Parents.

When one is a child, one’s parents are much larger, much more powerful, and much more knowledgeable than the child, in many ways. However, as a child’s mind develops, he begins to ask questions of his parents that are not met with honesty, but are met with hostility. The child interprets this hostility as a failing on his part, as some innate wrongness that must be corrected… if this illusion is never addressed, this child will grow up and turn to Gods and Governments to be corrected.

The biggest problem here is that despite the fact that Gods and Governments do not exist, they are represented by individuals who themselves are operating under illusions. There is nothing that separates a priest or a politician from a parishioner or a plebian biologically or morally, yet the former participate in the greater illusions in order to survive at the expense of the latter.

If one continues to think that Gods and Governments are so different, consider the following parallel: in the Roman Catholic church, many priests take advantage of their power to molest young boys. This has always been something of an open secret, but it blew up in the media only recently. What was seen as scandalous by many was the fact that the Roman Catholic church did not fire these priests, but transferred them and protected them from criminal prosecution!

In state-run educational systems–especially in some (if not most or all) areas of the United States–it is very difficult to fire an underperforming or even a dangerous teacher. Those that are underperforming may very well be shuffled around, while those that are dangerous may be paid to sit in a room. They are being protected from the consequences of their actions and, in the case of the latter, from criminal prosecution!

In any other scenario, an individual that is a danger to children that is placed in charge of children would be removed from that position and charged with criminal misconduct! In an ideal world, whatever organization pursuing justice would realize this individual was deeply disturbed and would offer treatment and counseling as it would be incredibly likely that this person was abused as a child in some way.

If we start working to get people to wake up, to stop abusing their children, then it’s possible that these illusions will begin to disappear, because they will not be needed. In that time, we (or our descendants) will be able to live as entirely voluntary beings, coerced by no one because no coercion is needed in order to accomplish the various things that need to be done.

The Rule of Law without the State

I personally don’t think I’d want to transplant myself into such a society, but then, they’re not asking me to do so!

Given the way in which the clans police each other, I wonder if violence between parents and children exists to a significant extent? I find it hard to believe that it would, but it would be interesting if somebody did such a study.

Bill O’Reilly Weighs In On Terrorism

Clicky

I’ve found that there are few areas of discussion more controversial than parenting, and that, within that area, there are few topics that generate more heat than spanking children (circumcision is another “topper” on that list).

I sort of went into the lion’s den earlier today on the subject of spanking, so I’m sort of retreating back to my blog to give some air to the subject as well as to expand on my thoughts.

There have been numerous psychologists weighing in on both sides of the “spanking” issue, some saying that it’s essential for discipline, others recoiling at the horror of it. I only know a bit about the psychology, but I know enough to say that the vast majority of people will bend over backwards, sideways, and into pretzel knots in order to justify how their parents treated them.

The question of spanking is pretty simple for me: in its most simple and direct form, it involves the parent hitting the child with the open hand on the buttocks. The key word is “hitting.” No matter what anybody says, you cannot get around the fact that the adult is causing their hand to move towards the child in such a way so as to startle or cause pain.

The fact that spanking necessarily involves hitting is inarguable. Obviously, if we can’t even agree on a simple definition (and it’s amazing how many people try to contort the argument at this stage), then we can’t go any further.

The question for me, then, is: is hitting a child ever appropriate?

My history may or may not be of relevance, but it may be of interest: I was hit as a child, and far more than simple spanking took place. Not only were implements other than the hand used, but I can remember seeing… feeling their rage as they did no less than beat me.

So, you might say that this is a bit of a sore subject for me.

In any case, my personal feelings aside, I have to wonder, what drives an adult to hit a child? Adults will almost always tell a child that has hit another child that hitting is wrong. That same adult, however, may turn around and hit that child for any number of reasons.

Not only is this incredibly hypocritical, but consider what else is going on in this moment: the adult is many times the size and has many times the strength of the child. Children–small ones, especially–are entirely unable to resist and must eventually endure the hitting. If we have been hit as children, we may lose that sense of perspective. It is quite instructive to imagine yourself as you are now, being approached by somebody four or five times your height and having many times more your strength, and that person immobilizing you and hitting you for whatever reason they may have.

As an adult, we can clearly see that such a person is a horrible monster who is taking gross advantage of their size and power over another human being in order to inflict physical punishment upon them. As adults, we have the ability to reason in this way. However, when a child is thus accosted by his parents, he has the innate ability to reason this out, but the conclusion is too terrifying to behold. His parents? Bad people? Evil people? Horrible people? Monsters? No, that cannot be the case… it must be the child, therefore, that is bad, evil, horrible, and monstrous. Otherwise, why would the child suffer to endure such punishment from his parents, the very people who are supposed to nurture and protect him?

The reasons given for hitting children are manifold; one person even put forward that the intent was to humiliate the child. Humiliation! Parents say that they love their children, and then they turn around and begin hitting the child with the intent to humiliate them? Such people should never have children!

Children come into this world totally defenseless and dependent upon their parents. They do not choose to be born. They do not choose to be kept by their parents. It is the responsibility of the parents to raise the child, to nurture the child, to ensure that the child grow up to be a healthy, functioning adult.

You don’t get healthy, functioning adults when children are humiliated, when children are frightened, when children are hit by their parents.

So why would an adult hit a child? The child has no way of fighting back–he is oftentimes entirely under the adult’s power. There is no greater power disparity than that between adults and children–none. Thus, it is a most egregious abuse of power for an adult to hit a child, for the adult holds all of the power and the child holds none. The adult has the ability to refrain from hitting the child, to seek another avenue for their aggression, but they choose to hit the child.

This is the central problem: the adult who is a parent has said “yes” to having that child born, has said “yes” to taking care of the child, has said “yes” to raising that child to be a healthy adult… and then turns around and uses that power–that responsibility–to inflict lasting psychological trauma onto the child.

If you listen to the justifications put forward by people for the reasons they were hit as children, you’ll get stuff like, “I was spanked, but I deserved it,” “My mother spanked me, but I learned my lesson,” “My parents did more than spanking, but the times they spanked me, it was appropriate.” Those justifications are the justifications of the parents that the children believe for themselves. They believe that they deserved it, they believe they had a lesson to learn (what lesson could that possibly be, incidentally–don’t cross your parents?), they believe that, even though worse physical abuse took place, somehow less severe abuse was appropriate.

All of these beliefs, they do not speak to the child’s experience of being hit. They short-circuit any memories they might have in order to stop the conversation. The fact that people say this while becoming increasingly upset is telling, though it doesn’t prove anything by itself. It does indicate that the conversation is cutting very closely. It is as if they are shouting at a doctor that points out that a limb that they broke long ago did not heal correctly and, thus, their limb is deformed, causing them to contort themselves and possibly causing pain. Not only do they tell the doctor that there is no problem, that their arm is normal, but they may even go so far as to imply that the doctor, with straight and undeformed limbs, is crippled and deformed himself!

Now, I’m no doctor… I’m more like the guy who’s walking along the street, watching all of these people hobble along, and decides to say something.

The reaction isn’t exactly unexpected, of course, though I will admit that the ferocity I faced earlier today did hurt. But they were mere slings; I will continue along unabated. In any case, the way to fix the problem is to break the limb again–to re-experience the pain and fear and anger at their parents for mistreating them so egregiously! I don’t necessarily blame people for not wanting to go through that, but I would only ask that if they do not want to do it for themselves, that they stop telling me that I am crippled and that they do not go forward and cripple their own children.

Not likely, not unless they actually go through the process of uncrippling themselves first.

Finally, I get a lot of people throwing stuff at me like, “Oh, so you want to try to reason with a child?? Good luck!!” I suspect that these people never had an adult try to reason with them when they were kids. I would further suspect that people do not try to reason with them now… there was certainly no reasoning going on in the “discussion” I had earlier today. I mean… nobody even bothered to address the blatant hypocrisy behind: “adults hitting adults is wrong, children hitting children is wrong, but adults hitting children is OK?”

[Edit] – Here are some external references so it doesn’t look like I’m totally talking out of my ass:
www.alice-miller.com
Traumatized Children: How Childhood Trauma Influences Brain Development

When people put forward the question, “What do you want to do with your life?” the answer that comes forward is almost invariably career-related, or relating to family, or something. But… is that really what people want to do?

I can only speak from my own experience and thoughts here, but… I know that I want to do more than that. I’ve always wanted to do more than that.

I mean, sure, I want to have children someday (now more than ever, actually), and I’d like to have a fulfilling career, but I want something more… something greater.

Really, truly? I want to change the world.

I’ve wanted this for a very long time… and it’s most definitely a long-term goal. It is something that requires a daily grind, a routine, almost. It requires one to pursue specific things at the cost of other things. It is much more like being physically healthy or financially secure.

I think that I’ve approached “changing the world” as something like winning the lottery. It can really only happen by blind luck, but if it happens, it’ll be big! Huge!

But personal health doesn’t work like that; going on a crash diet to lose fat often causes more trouble in the end. Financial security doesn’t work like that, either; you get more use out of your money if you burn it for fuel than if you play the lottery.

You can only attain personal health by pursuing daily habits that promote health. You can only attain financial security by pursuing daily habits that promote financial security. Likewise, I will only change the world by pursing daily habits that promote changing the world.

First, let’s identify what is actually wrong with the world as that might give a clue as to what needs to be changed! Certainly, governments commit evils in the world, ranging from killing people outright by shooting them to stealing from and torturing their own citizens… but thinking I can change the government by getting elected and… doing whatever is like thinking I can attain financial security by winning the lottery. The problem is that even if I did get elected, I would have had to compromise my position on violence by saying that it is OK for me to use it to get what I want, but I eventually want to stop using it altogether. I’m not going to change people’s minds by getting myself elected and using my position as a bully pulpit–people are hardly going to take me seriously if I start preaching about how government is evil and violent if I am personally benefiting from the very thing I decry.

I think that violence is certainly key to what is wrong in the world, but the larger question is, why does it persist? Why do people put up with threats and pay off the thugs through taxation and such?

Consider the example of the Quakers in the early American colonial days. These guys were pacifists that ended up participating in an anarchy for a number of years in Pennsylvania. They had been left alone, essentially, and a free market had spontaneously emerged. There was little need for governance, and when the political representative came back after having left, people just laughed at him when he asked for taxes. These people had, at the very least, the strength within to realize that they simply did not need imposed governance. Now, to be true, this guy didn’t have any muscle to back up his claims. However, eventually, as we can all see, the anarchy eventually was subsumed by an influx of people who were used to coercive governance.

So part of it is that people are used to being threatened and caving to pressure. But where do people get this from?

The answer that Stefan Molyneux provides in his articles and (many) podcasts on Freedomain Radio is that it starts in the family. I invite you to explore his arguments, see where he’s coming from… I think it’s fairly compelling, but it’s really something you have to see for yourself.

I cannot possibly change all of the families in the world. To do that, I would need a magical power (which would only be slightly less probable than winning the lottery).

What needs to change? Parents need to stop lying to their children. Obviously, they also need to stop physically abusing their children, but fundamentally, they need to admit to themselves and to their children that they don’t have a clue when it comes to morality. They need to realize that they’re taking the worst advantage of their children by not even trying to be good people, but instead relying on the biological and psychological dependence the child has on them to warp the child into believing that he has an obligation to them.

So, that’s what my voice post early last week was about. I want to change the world, but I can only do that for my own world. Unlike my own physical health or financial security, however, my world influences the worlds of others around me.

I can begin to live in the world I want to live in right now. I can’t change the politics, I can’t change my relatives, I can’t change anybody else, but I can change myself.

And this is a step-by-step process… a daily climb. This is a way of life. This is, fundamentally, about my psychological health. Much like my physical health might inspire others to live as I do by my example and financial security might do the same, having a high degree of psychological health (evidenced by, at least, a deep-rooted overall happiness) will attract those who are healthy or those who desire health, but it will also repel those who are unhealthy and do not desire health.

So… that’s really want I want. I want to change the world… my world… and it is possible, because I am doing it.

Older Posts »