The Family

Well, Joey has offered his final thoughts in our conversation, at least for now. I for one feel some sense of relief, because the thing had started to sprawl across several blogs as well as subjects, and it was getting too large for me to keep track of it all! A few pointers to some of the participants (links are to their latest contributions to the discussion, as of this writing): FSK’s Guide to Reality; David Gross at The Picket Line; and Kent McManigal. While I have much to say on each of the topics we’ve tossed around, I have neither the time nor the inclination to try to do them all justice in this sitting. Instead, I will mention that a primary raison d’être for my part of this blog is to explore these issues; and I encourage any interested invididuals to explore the archives here and elsewhere for previous ramblings on the subjects. All I’ll offer today are some general observations in response to what I perceive to be Joey’s central themes.

I have long been squirming in my seat, waiting for this day ... and in fact, I thought I’d be on the other side of this post, so to speak—in the reading audience instead of writing it. But this is good news I’ve already been waiting too long to share; and now that I’ve obtained permission to share it, I shall delightedly do so.

I didn’t know Vince Miller very well on a personal level, despite working fairly closely with him at Free-Market.Net. But that experience—along with others, of course—truly revealed the measure of the man. It’s still very difficult to try to put all my rambling thoughts together, particularly since front and center is my keen pain at not having let Vince know what I think of him ... but it’s important to me to try.

I’ve been thinking about Joey’s response in our ongoing conversation about getting free and personal freedom, but have been too busy and/or distracted to write a proper response. As a placeholder—and foreshadowing—I will quote from The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. The context is Prof. Bernardo de la Paz speaking to Wyoming Knott [emphasis in original]:

“... I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”

Any товарищи got a problem with that? ;-)

From “cls” via email:

Vince Miller died this morning at approximately 8:15. Per his instructions he will be cremated. Vince asked that no formal funeral be held. A celebration of his life will be held at a future date. In lieu of cards or flowers those wishing to honor him are asked to contribute to Vince's life cause, the International Society for Individual Liberty. The most appropriate way to show appreciation for Vince is to do something for liberty. It was his passion and his great love.

I expected this very sad news, but even so, can’t collect my thoughts to say something more personal now. Cls has a fitting but brief tribute up.

The doctors have finally determined the cause of Vince’s problems: valley fever. It’s a fungal infection that can range from benign in some individuals to lethal in others. Sadly, it appears that Vince may be nearer the “lethal” end of the spectrum; despite switching antibiotics to target the fungus once the diagnosis was made, his condition has not improved. Vince’s condition has actually worsened, and the next couple of days will be critical in making some very difficult decisions regarding his care.

Contributions to help cover the costs of Vince’s care are still being accepted; the best means of contributing, if one desires, is to call Jim Elwood at 800-326-0996.

Right now, I am more concerned about Vince’s health, and the very difficult situation his friends are in. Vince has not regained consciousness since being placed on a ventilator, and I know firsthand how stressful it is to make decisions on behalf of someone who cannot communicate with you. Please keep them in your thoughts and prayers, if you’re the praying sort.

A while back, I posted a semi-rant on folks in The Family who seem to have their lives on hold until after “the revolution”. Joey at The Freedom Symposium followed up with some observations of his own, and we started a conversation which was interrupted by his taking some time off. Now that he’s back, I’ll revisit the subject and perhaps even include what I’d thought was the main point of my first post, but which got left out entirely!

Yes, I continue to dwell on the “Is all fun profitable?” idea. It occurs to me that part of the reason I have difficulty with responses like Brad Spangler’s is that it’s based on something that may be ineffable for as long as humans exist: a way to objectively define, quantify, and calculate relationships among concepts including “profit”, “fun”, “cost”, “risk”, and “happiness”. I could go off on many tangents from that observation—and I may still, in future ramblings—but for today, I will simply say that I am unconvinced that an economics-based analysis is always the best course.

My silence has been due to FAPpage again, rather than anything else. But enough about my silly problems—I’m here on behalf of a dear friend, longtime family member, and activist extroardinaire.

Vince Miller is one of the founders of the International Society for Individual Liberty, a great organization which has advanced the freedom philosophy worldwide in numerous ways over the past few decades. Some of you may recall that when Free-Market.Net was in danger of disappearing, ISIL stepped in and kept the organization going. ISIL has also been a big supporter of another project near and dear to me, the Liberty English Camps. They recently bought Laissez Faire Books as well, and have been offering terrific, really pro-freedom books primarily online while they get all the details of reopening the shop ironed out. This is a small sampling of the work Vince has been involved in, so that you grok what I meant when I called him “tireless” and an activist extroardinaire. He has done all this and more, with a cheerful mien and a can-do attitude, no matter what challenges he faced. Despite the various stresses upon Lobo and myself during the FMN/ISIL transition, working with Vince was always a bright spot throughout that time.

As “cls” recounts in his entry titled A chance to do something good, Vince recently contracted pneumonia, which was serious enough to require hospitalization. He is recovering, but remains in the hospital, with no clear timeline on when he’s likely to be released. Like me, Vince does not have health insurance. He intends to pay the bill himself, of course, but he has poured much of his life’s energy into the freedom movement instead of more monetarily profitable ventures; it will be a hard go of it for him.

Lobo and I have already pledged to help with Vince’s medical expenses. I hope that all of you reading will consider doing likewise if you’re able. Contributions can be made via ISIL’s online donation form—be sure to select “general donation”, otherwise the funds won’t be put to this purpose. If you prefer, you can call Jim Elwood at 800-326-0996 to discuss other contribution options.

Vince is not asking for charity, and he certainly isn’t going to allow himself to be bailed out by the state. But this is a perfect opportunity for us in the family to put our voluntaryist principles into action, and show that we aren’t hard-hearted bastards as we’re too frequently depicted by the mainstream media and politicians.

Thank you for whatever you contribute to help my friend and an inspiring family member. If you’re interested in following Vince’s recovery, I recommend you check out Classically Liberal blog, as that’s where news will probably be posted first.

As I recently was, I just learned that J. Orlin Grabbe passed away a couple of months ago. I don’t know much about the inside goings-on of the Costa Rica group of which Laissez Faire City Times was part, but Orlin always seemed straightforward with Lobo and me. And his web site was eclectic, even for an Erisian individualist! Orlin will be missed.

I am soooo tired of reading pro-freedom commentary that begins, “After the revolution, I’ll [insert idea/plan here]”. Seems to me that kind of attitude is a perfect recipe for a lot of talking, and little, if any, actual doing.

[Note: This "story" has been slightly modified from its original form, as an essay published in Free-Market.Net's FMNews.]

Yes, I know -- I've cribbed my title from Douglas Adams. But it's appropriate, given the subject of this essay and my continuing struggles to find my voice after the Supreme Court's ruling in the Hiibel case. And, unlike the Harvard professor, I'm admitting it freely, so it shouldn't come back to haunt me. ;-)

After Jorge’s gentle nudge, I’ve returned to the project of updating the old Greymatter posts. Mostly I’m just adding tags to them and reassigning appropriate authorship where necessary ... but for some reason those old posts aren’t included in searches until I add tags. Weird.

Anyway, the travels down memory lane have left me missing several people this morning ... most notably, Ian (of the lost and lamented Ianism), Morpheus of The Statrix, freeman, and formerly regular commenters “Laura” and “Herself”. I also miss Kirsten’s Poddy Talk podcasts ... She shared some schemes she’s plotting with me a while back, so I can patiently wait to see what hatches there.

There are more, of course ... this isn’t an exhaustive list. If any of you drop by here from time to time still, I hope you’re doing well, and I hope you know you’re missed.

I am all kinds of pleased to announce that my dear friend Polka—a longtime commenter at this place—has graciously accepted my invitation to join the conspiratorial band here! Like all the conspirators, she’s a busy person, so I’m not sure what her schedule will permit in the way of blogging ... but I am confident that her contributions will be stimulating to many regular readers.

Here’s Polka’s profile, for anyone interested in learning more about her. Witamy, Polka!

I’ve been thinking a lot about power lately—who has it, who’s perceived to have it, how individuals get it and lose it—and it seems to me that our society in general is missing a few crucially important ideas with respect to the concept. Even worse, many libertarians may be among the most blind to these nuances. I present as evidence some quotations commonly found on freedom-oriented web sites:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Those who have been once intoxicated with power . . . can never willingly abandon it.
All men having power ought to be mistrusted.

With quotations like that to light the way, it’s no surprise that many individuals who hold freedom-affirming principles have an almost automatic aversion to power. In one sense, this is appropriate. But in a broader context, it creates a means of enabling greater problems for (and among) ourselves, as well as difficulties in accurately communicating the value of liberty to others.

My Webster’s dictionary has several definitions of power; the first one is, simply, “ability to do, act, or produce”. The fourth definition is where things start to get dicey; it is “the ability to control others; authority; sway; influence”. I doubt that any reasonable individual would have problems with the first definition; it's that “ability to control others” that creates problems, and thus earns libertarian disdain. But that’s a fairly narrow definition of power—one that could properly be labeled political power (keeping in mind that politics is a much broader concept than the electoral and legislative processes that most often come to mind).

The first—and most important—definition is really defining personal power. While there’s a lot of overlap between personal and political power, especially under the boots of a state that attempts to act as individuals’ parents, personal power is much too important to leave as an afterthought. That’s precisely what I think many libertarian thinkers have done. Each fairly mature individual has a wealth of personal power at his command, both in handling himself and his interactions with others. (Personal power also influences political power, of course, but that’s a topic I’ll save for later.)

Power over yourself

Each person has personal power to exert over him– or herself. While that’s obvious, I think many people fail to see the depths of power inherent in that truth. Beyond choosing the clothes one wears, the food one eats, and other fairly mundane things, this sort of power is about making important choices. Choices about how to be, as a person. Choices about how to think, what to feel and value, how to act. It’s also about the choice to accept or reject the consequences of those choices.

While it’s true that our genes instruct us about how to be, they are best thought of as a blueprint that provides for a range of actual outcomes. To varying degrees those outcomes can be shifted, if a person exercises the power to do so. If a person doesn’t like being introverted, he can change that to some degree. Or, a person can choose to try to be more considerate of others—or not allow himself to be taken advantage of; the list is very long.

Exercising this power to change yourself necessarily involves changing your actions and thoughts. Doing so can be difficult, but the field of self-help psychology is a testament to individuals’ desires to do so (and amongst the heaps of sand therein one can find diamonds; those I consider diamonds include Wayne Dyer, Nathaniel Branden, and Albert Ellis). Like it or not, a person chooses to be positive or negative; to be “all talk” or to take action; to do another line of coke; or stay in an unfulfilling relationship.

Habits are nothing more than choices made so often they’ve become entrenched—chosen without thought. As such, they can be exceedingly difficult to change, but they can be changed. Even though drug use can have a strong physical pull (a good example being weekend caffeine withdrawal headaches), “addiction” is often nothing more than placing responsibility for one’s over-indulgence (meaning use that impedes one’s ability to function) on the drug, rather than oneself. Similarly, much of what we think of as someone’s personality is a complex interplay of patterns of choices; it’s therefore more malleable than many individuals like to think.

To the degree an individual sees himself as a victim—of another person, of “the system”, of forces outside his control—he has ceded some degree of his personal power and placed it in the hands of others, whether they’re real entities or imaginary constructs. In a recent essay on psychological marginalization I touched on some of the unhealthy aspects of victimhood. Even worse is placing one’s personal power in others’ hands—especially when those hands are those of an enemy, as the state’s agents so very often are.

Victimhood is just one way that personal power influences one’s interaction with others. Relationships necessarily involve a balance of power among the individuals comprising them. A refusal or inability to see that one has personal power over another can lead to misunderstandings, or worse. And that’s where personal power can get very sticky.

Power in relationships

Meaningful relationships with others are built on complex, sometimes delicate balances of power between individuals. Even casual friendships display this; when one values another’s thoughts and company, choices are made that take them into account. One may choose to see a movie one isn’t very interested in, because a friend’s company is more important than the film choice. Often when a balance of personal power in a friendship shifts toward one party, individuals may speak of a friend being manipulated, used, or taken advantage of.

The English language’s typical structure for expressing emotions very curiously places power over one’s emotions into another’s control. How many times have you heard, or even said, something like, “You make me _____” (happy, angry, sad—whatever)? It’s so entrenched in the way we think that many people—even individualists—have never thought about this, much less questioned it. While it will never be as catchy as singing, “You’ve made me so very happy”, it would be much more accurate to say, for example, “You enable a lot of joy in my life”. Abdicating responsibility for one’s emotions—giving that important personal power to others—not only allows victimhood, it drastically slims the likelihood of positive change taking place.

Parents obviously have power over their young children, but if they handle the responsibility to raise a child well, he or she will gradually take on more personal power, and wield it more effectively. That is a goal of parenting, although it seems to be rarely thought of in this way. (I have found myself wondering to what degree libertarians who eschew the use of force in their child-rearing methods mistake proper uses of their parental authority for coercion.) While it can be more subtle, it is nonetheless true that at the least from the moment of birth, a child has and exerts some degree of power over his parents. Loving parents therefore enter into what I’ve come to think of as a “dance of power” with their children. It’s a shifting style that may be equal parts flowing waltz and slam dance, but both are necessary for the emergence of a mature, responsible adult.

Even more complicated—if such a thing is possible—is the dance of personal power inherent in romantic relationships. By choosing to love another, one is voluntarily placing some personal power in the beloved’s hands. If the relationship is mutual and consists of psychologically healthy, mature adults, this is a reciprocal choice and is probably fairly well balanced. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that problems won’t arise. A simple misunderstanding, a careless remark, or more seriously, changes in goals or differences in needs or desires can create pain. It’s a paradoxical fact of love that being in love necessarily means experiencing pain at some point, because love requires the exchange of personal power. Adding a twist of irony to that paradox, it may be that one gets a true sense of the extent of his love for another in the depths of pain he feels at the possibility of losing that love.

To the degree that individuals don’t realize this and fail to treat that gift of personal power with the utmost respect and care it deserves—as well as uncritically accepting the “you make me” emotional power-shift English plays—our society will continue to produce individuals incapable of knowing genuine love, much less learning from failures. While I don’t have a comprehensive theory of “libertarian love” worked out, it seems to me that the blanket tendency to abhor power most clearly shows its negative repercussions here, as so many freedom-oriented individuals seem to have difficulty with the idea of giving up some control over one’s life—even though it’s voluntary, and is essential to love.

If freedom-loving individuals want to create a freer, healthier society, it is imperative that we rethink the reflexive tendency to dismiss power as inherently evil or corrupt. As Rush so aptly put it in their song Something for Nothing, “what you love is your own power”. Viewed in the context of personal power wielded in a responsible way, that love isn’t only healthy—it’s necessary.

Author's note: I would like to acknowledge the important contributions of a beloved friend who prefers to remain anonymous, whose challenging conversations with me on this and related subjects have greatly clarified my thinking.