"There are two kinds of people in the world, my friend -- Those with a rope around their neck and the people who have the job of doing the cutting." - the Rat, from The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly.

I once tried to warn others about theze socialist-like programs being implemented. The reply was something along the lines of, "what are the colors of the uniforms?" in mocking tone, as though without concrete evidence and methods of such groups they could not possibly be in effect now.

Now that there is a proposal passed in the U.S. House of Representatives to actually rebirth the German WWII Youth Corps. along with (safety orange?) uniforms, that person might be going, "Hmmm" about now.

Should I continue to try to educate people to this type of stuff or should I just shut up and row?

P.S.
I wrote this before seeing this blog entry - a bit bizzar.

P.S.S.
I was a partial ditto head from around 1991 - 2000.
 

Mr. Murphy, the error in that question is that it accepts the epistemological relativism of the world.

Some carpers may object that everyone thinks they have the truth, but the difference is that they can't rationally demonstrate that truth. And in actuality, most people's Weltanschauung is a mush-headed hodgepodge of inchoate ideas drawn from etatist schooling and television.

Just because much of the world is in a state of intentionally-induced idiocy doesn't mean that you should reject the notion of absolute truth.

There is such a thing as truth and falsehood (indeed, all of technology and computer-programing is based upon this unalterable fact).

It is vitally important for governments to inculcate in their subjects from birth a commitment to epistemological relativism (particularly in relation to government actions, since it is only via a mass acceptance of logical contradictions whereby governments can exist).

The axioms that the Austrian School use are apodictically true (as one would have to use said axioms in any denial), and insofar as the chain of deductive reasoning is valid, then the conclusions of the Austrian School are so also apodictictly true.

Teach your child these things, and, by God, please, please teach him higher mathematics (i.e., calculus, enough to understand the known laws of physics). Most mathematicians are useless, but we need serious mathematicians to help bring about the world to come--or ease our entry into it, as the case may be. If you have time left over, then teach him Python--or even better, Haskell--programming.

##########

Basic A Priori Axioms (That is, True Synthetic A Priori Propositions; or, That Which Cannot be Denied without Necessitating Its Use in the Denial)

1.) I think, therefore I am. (René Descartes' proof of the existential reality of one's own existence.)

If one did not exist in some form then one would not be able to even think "I do not exist."

2.) Truth, and knowledge of truth, exists.

Whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist. Yet, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is true. And if there is anything true, then truth exists.

3.) Conscious humans act. (Ludwig von Mises's Axiom of Action.)

It cannot be coherently denied that this proposition is true, since the denial would have to be categorized as an action.

As well, there are logically necessary implications of this axiom:

A.) With every action an actor pursues a goal; and that whatever the goal may be, the fact that it is pursued by an actor reveals that he places a relatively higher value on it than on any other goal of action he could conceive of at the start of his action.

B.) In order to achieve his most highly valued goal an actor must interfere or decide not to interfere (which, of course, is also an interference) at an earlier point in time to produce some later result; such interferences invariably imply the employment of some scarce means (at least those of the actor's body, its standing room and the time absorbed by the interference).

C.) These means must also have value for an actor--a value derived from that of the goal--because the actor must regard their employment as necessary in order to effectively achieve the goal; and that actions can only be performed sequentially, always involving the making of a choice, i.e., taking up that one course of action which at some given point in time promises the most highly valued result to the actor and excluding at the same time the pursuit of other, less highly valued goals.

D.) As a consequence of having to choose and give preference to one goal over another--of not being able to realize all goals simultaneously--each and every action implies the incurrence of costs. For example, forsaking the value attached to the most highly valued alternative goal that cannot be realized or whose realization must be deferred because the means necessary to effect it are bound up in the production of another, even more highly valued goal.

E.) At its starting point every goal of action must be considered worth more to the actor than its cost and capable of yielding a profit, i.e., a result whose value is ranked higher than that of the foregone opportunities. And yet, every action is also invariably threatened by the possibility of a loss if an actor finds, in retrospect, that the result actually achieved--contrary to previous expectations--has a lower value than the relinquished alternative would have had.

All of these categories--values, ends, means, choice, preference, cost, profit and loss, as well as time and causality--are implied in the axiom of action. The attempt to disprove the action-axiom would itself be an action aimed at a goal, requiring means, excluding other courses of action, incurring costs, subjecting the actor to the possibility of achieving or not achieving the desired goal and so leading to a profit or a loss. Thus, it is manifestly impossible to ever dispute or falsify the validity of Mises's insights. As a matter of fact, a situation in which these categories of action would cease to have a real existence could itself never be observed, for making an observation, too, is an action.

4.) Humans are capable of argumentation and hence know the meaning of truth and validity. The so-called "A Priori of Argumentation." (This axiom relates strongly to axioms No. 2 and 3.)

It is impossible to coherently deny that one can argue, as the very denial would itself be an argument. In fact, one could not even silently say to oneself "I cannot argue" without thereby contradicting oneself. One cannot coherently argue that one cannot argue. Nor can one coherently dispute knowing what it means to make a truth or validity claim without implicitly claiming the negation of this proposition to be true (see axiom No. 2).

See:

Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1995) http://www.mises.org/esandtam.asp

René Descartes, Meditations on the First Philosophy, Meditation 2.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 2, Article 1, Objection 3.

##########

The logically unavoidable truth of the correctness of the Nonaggression Axiom is given below. Rothbard, Hoppe and Kinsella have written on this matter, but my derivation of it is far more rigorous, in the sense of being logically unavoidable.

They (particulary the latter two authors, Kinsella in particular) have come close to providing the apodictic basis of libertarianism, but they fell short. They had in mind what I here provide, but they fell short of the goal.

Granted, much of the phrasing below derives from Hoppe's introduction to Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty, but the difference is that it extends it and makes it precise.

The key insight which I provide is that veridical ethics involve deriving an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it. This is the fundamental basis of any genuine ethics, and hence also libertarianism.

1.) One cannot deny the principle of rightful self-ownership without committing a performative contradiction. For one must, at the very least, presuppose one's own rightful self-ownership in order to be able to argue against the principle. As it may well be asked: How can one give such an argument if one does not even believe onself to be the sole rightful owner of one's very own body (and vocal chords)? Thus, it is for this reason that the principle of rightful self-ownership rises to the level of an inescapable axiom--i.e., that which cannot be denied without necessitating its use in the denial. Thus also, it could never be argued that argument is impossible without thereby committing a performative contradiction. As well, this logically means that the principle of rightful self-ownership is only valid as a per se universal human principle. For A cannot coherently argue that only he is a proper natural self-owner whereas others are not. For then B could "steal" A's argument and use it against him--i.e., if it is valid for A then it must be valid for B as well. For as Abraham Lincoln pointed out (if only it had been that Lincoln himself had bothered to follow the logic of his below argument!):

""
If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.--why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?--

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly? You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest; you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.
""

From Abraham Lincoln, "Fragment on Slavery" (circa 1854), in The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by John G. Nicolay and John Hay, Vol. 2 (New York: Francis D. Tandy Company, 1894).

In addition we would not then have a universal ethic for mankind as such, but instead an arbitrary ethic--i.e., we would have to posit an unnecessary and arbitrary additional ethical rationale as to why rightful self-ownership is not universalizable, and would thus be violating Ockham's Razor.

It is for this reason and others that the libertarian concept of self-ownership is apodictically true. Nor, it should be mentioned in passing, does it derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it.

2.) This same logical principle also applies to external property (i.e., external from one's body). Since all virgin land had to be at some point homesteaded by a first user, one cannot coherently argue against the properness of this principle for then the human race could not even exist (and hence the arguer could not even exist). Thus, to argue against the homesteading principle would be to necessarily argue against one's own existence, but the very act of arguing presupposes one's own right to argue and hence right to exist (as one cannot argue without existing). Thus, one arguing against the homsteading principle would be committing a performative contradiction.

It is for this reason and others that the libertarian concept of righful ownership of homesteaded resources is also apodictically true. Nor, it should also be mentioned in passing, does it derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it.
 

Bob,

it's either you or somebody else. Propaganda is education we disagree with, and ideology are beliefs we hold in contempt (i am referring to the common use of these words, not their proper usage). Children have no choice but be socialized, one way or the other. And who has a greater moral right to socialize them than their parents? If you bring them up in opposition to mainstream society, there is only one thing you should strive to accomplish: create a home environment build on trust and without fear. The world is fearsome enough as it is, children should not fear their parents - because if they do, who will they trust, since the need to trust is a basic psychological need of most people.
Being a poet or restaurant owner or mathematician or even street busker are perfectly moral professions by and of themselves. Come to think of it, beggars lead more moral lives than many 'good people' (government employees, police, soldiers)....
 

Bob,

It depends on how you define "Propaganda". I am reading Jacques Ellul's "Propaganda", and I don't think that your definition jives with his. He defines it (and I paraphrase) as persuasion that exploits psychological tendencies where the hearer is unaware of the intent.

If you simply mean to teach them what you believe is true, then I don't see that as propaganda. This behavior by a parent is inescapable to an extent. Better to teach them your well thought out ideas than to let them drown in the cesspool of our nihilistic world.

Have no fear. They will rebel to some extent to whatever you teach them. Even with your best efforts you can not create mindless drones.

@ James Redford

Great comment, but I glazed over after about 6 or 7 paragraphs.
 

Brian,

thanks for bringing up Jacques Ellul, whose thoughts on propaganda are possibly the best on the issue. And, yes, from that point of view, parental education is not propaganda, but the content of parental education can very easily be determined by propaganda - and thus make parents unwitting propagators of propagandistic content.

The problem with Ellul's analysis is that it really offers little escape, short of cutting off completely from all mass media.
 

I may have phrased it poorly, but surely you guys can appreciate that my son would have a lot of expectations placed on him. I am not kidding, I feel bad for David Friedman because of his dad.* So I don't want my son to feel pressured to go into a particular career because of my outspokenness.


* I am not saying I am as big as Milton Friedman (yet).
 

Bob - here's an ambitious expectation to put on any kid: don't give in to evil, be peaceable, be honest, be kind to others. Everything else is gravy.

I'm not sure many parents succeed in this.
 

Should I be saying right back at ya?

Did I just get slammed?

Trust? You cannot trust anyone, not one person, in this world. It might be better that your child does not have blind trust, and learns such early. And fear is the only thing that stops people from doing things they shouldn’t be doing. I cannot count the number of times I did not follow my buddies into some strange unsure adventure for fear of my parents response.

The world is a vampire.

I still don’t understand how a person is supposed to love a vampire. Pray for them sure, but love them? That is difficult next to impossible.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

To paraphrase Murray Rothbard, only decisions taken freely can be moral. If the only reason your children resist evil is that they fear physical violence from their parents, I think the parents have failed as educators and human beings.

If they resist evil out of fear their parents may disapprove morally, the parents are both quite successful as educators and as human beings.

If they resist evil out of their own volition based on their desire to live a moral live, this would be the greatest achievement of their parents as educators and human beings.

Keeping people from committing evil through the threat of violence is easy. Nazi Germany was remarkably free of petty crime. So are (old style) mafia controlled city blocks. I cannot see how any Libertarian could possibly advocate the threat of violence as the glue that keeps society together.

To be blunt: I would not trust a Libertarian who uses deliberate violence in the education of their children (restraining toddlers who have not yet reached the ability to reason is, of course, legitimate).
 

Bob,

my apologies for using a wrong first name. It's James, of course. Not David. I get my pen names mixed up. Bad.
 

I think weather libertarianism or Christianity, it is important to teach your children what you believe and why you believe it. But it is extremely important not to teach them that anyone who thinks different is an idiot or is evil. And more importantly than teaching your children any specific beliefs is teaching them how to think and come to their own beliefs.
 

Who said anything about fearing physical violence? I simply said fearing my parents reactions - a sad look can be enough to do it. Although sometimes that *is* the only thing children understand - I don't recall ever seeing kids act up in public when I was growing up like I have seen in the last decade or two. Children do not always have the capacity to resist some of life's temptations - or to use reason- without fear, especially of violence, or at least the possiblility of such. The family unit is not the same as society as a whole. When it is, I think they call that socialism or some such. Ever see a pre-teen with money that is not theirs when nobody is watching?

How to think - critical thinking... yeah, that is it. But even learning our now dead letter constitution, expectiong it to be followed, and expressing such ideas can get a kid in a lot of trouble. I think that is where Libertarianism begins for a great many.

Did I get slammed again and miss it? Heh. As long as they don't smash my windows and trash my cars again I could care less, and any more, even then.
 

I agree that some people seem to act in an apparent moral manner only under the threat of violence. Such people are clearly to be feared - and in a libertarian world would probably find themselves very quickly pushed towards the extreme fringes of civilization.

However, the vast majority of people are inclined to act in a cooperative manner - based on the examples they encounter early on.

However, even within the family context, humans are still first and foremost acting individuals, and as such should be accorded the same status as other individuals.

Parents may have extra responsibilities due to their role, but they do not have extra rights, while children do not have fewer rights.

Basic morality is universal, and does not depend on 'social context'.

If you want to change the world, begin at home.
 

I still think the family unit is different than society as a whole. And, if a person wants to go all religion on the issue: I haven’t read the passage, but I have heard it many times, ‘Spare the rod, spoil the child.” It could be that is not in the good book? In society there is no escaping the force of the state, but with a family there is turning 14 -18 years of age to reach emancipation to be free from the force that is meant to produce positive learning rather than the pure punishment that results from state force.

I was raised by a full time keysneyan who supported the Constitution and believed [trusted] the gov’t agents to follow the meaning of the document and he taught me this as well. So imagine my shock to discover no one gave a rats you-know-what about the Constitution. Now imagine I was raised by a Libertarian who knew what we knew yet said next to nothing about libertarianism, how would I have reacted to finding this out? I would feel betrayed & trust would evaporate. So it would seem that not propagandizing a child your beliefs would be like a Christian murdering for joy & telling their kids, who knew, it is ok, then packing off to attend church. What are those, Imperial Christians?

Imagine an indian chief of the 1700-1800’s instructing his child to not pay attention to the actions of the Great Forked-tounge Man’s Gov’t, but to only trust the words, look where that got them.

JMHO.


Re: expanding The Drug War to include other legal items & substances.

“Under the measure, customers are limited to purchasing 3,600 milligrams of pseudoephedrine in a 24-hour period. They also must sign an electronic log that records the purchase, a move aimed at building a registry where authorities can keep track who is buying the drug. Customers now must sign a paper log.”
http://www.kcci.com/politics/18947791/detail.html

Are they trying to run these companies out of business? We simply refuse to buy them and suffer, so be it.
Guilty, even If proven innocent, for a period of ten years?

Paraphrasing from the movie, The Good The Bad And The Ugly again: The Rat is talking to his brother the priest saying, “In our village you only had two choices. You either became a priest or a bandit.”
 

Anon,

I have no idea how much of what you say relates to what I say. Your reference to the bible, first of all, carries no weight with me. I don't follow the Book of Mormon, the Torah, the Evangelion, the Baghva-Gita, or any other religious text. I'm as religious as Dawkins and as socialist as Rothbard.

The Bible mandates the killing of disobedient children (notably sons who contradict their parents). So, if you base your life on a non-hermeneutic reading of the bible, you better get some stones ready.

Bringing up your child to be non-violent, to be honest, to be compassionate, and to be generous does not also mean bringing your child up naive.

The mandate not to give in to evil presupposes the existence of evil, and more importantly: the recognition of evil.

Where did I say not to pay attention to the actions of evil people? I said nothing of the sort.

I simply recommend that if you want to change the world for the better, you have to start at home. Aggression cannot be used to promote non-aggression, rape does not promote fidelity, theft does not promote property rights.

Beating your children to settle an argument does not teach them the principle of non-aggression.


Beating a child is easy, reasoning with a child is not. It is difficult to use non-violent means for education - true. However, whoever said that resisting evil is easy? If being good were easier than being evil, there would be no evil.

A Libertarian who uses deliberate violence in the raising of his child is simply a hypocrite. If he does not have the capacity to raise the child in accordance with his beliefs, he should give up on being a parent and let somebody else do the job - after all, he is obviously unfit for the task. (Obviously, that other person should not be the state, but ideally an/several adult/s with the capacity for libertarian child rearing.

The child did not ask to be born to his parents - the relationship is involuntary. The greater therefore the obligation on the parent to respect the child's rights.
 

Oh dear. Poor Clark. (The one I gave birth to, not the one leaving comments.)