in

Freedomain Radio

Latest post 09-11-2008 9:22 AM by Dave Bockman. 9 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (10 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 09-06-2008 6:22 AM

    Hello All.

    I've listened to a half dozen podcasts a week for about the past several months and listened to all of the Best Of series. I've also read several of Stef's books.

    With no disrespect intended to Stef I don't believe all parents are evil. My own parents occasionally used their power to control me. However, they were never abusive in their use of power. Instead, they, for the most part, explained why I should do things rather than telling me what I had to do. They also encouraged me to think for myself and told me when I was about 13 that I was old enough to run my own life. They assured me they would always be available to discuss anything I wanted their input on. They also told me that if I ever got into a situation of extreme peer pressure I could always say "My parents won't let me do that." My wife and I told our sons the same when they entered their teenage years.

    I studied a bit of psychology in university (I majored in Mathematical Physics) and read as much as I could on good parenting as our first son came along. My wife and I avoided power confrontations with our children, using reasoning instead. As a result, our sons never went through the normal teenage rebellion phase. Our youngest son attempted to do so once. My response was to explain my reasoning and to tell him to make up his own mind while reminding him that he had to live with the consequences of his decision not me. Another time when one of our sons got in with what we thought was a bad group, we kept our opinion to ourselves and a few months later he decided on his own that he no longer wanted to associate with them.

    I have alway been very interested in learning more about how parents should treat their children and still am. I'm talking about practical advice, not vague generalities. My wife and I currently look after our granddaughter 3 days a week and I'd like our treatment of her to be even better than our treatment of our sons. I'd also like to be able to give my sons and their wives as much information as I can on how to be exceptional parents. As an example, a few months ago, I purchased a book on using sign language with babies and learned some basic signs that our granddaughter has used for the past several months to help her tell her parents and us what she wants.

    The bottom line is that I've always been too busy working at living a good life to have time to run anyone else's life. I've also been far more focused on having good times with my wife and children, and the rest of my family, to want to waste time fighting with them.

    I started my adult life believing that no matter what the question, government was always the answer. After a decade or so, it became apparent to me that politicians lied about almost everything. (I would now delete the almost.) It also became apparent that much of what government did had negative side effects and often did more harm than good. (I would now change much to all and often to always.) I switched from voting for one of the two major parties to voting for the essentially anti-government Rhinoceros Party. By my late 40s I'd learned a bit about the Libertarian Party and although they never had a candidate in my district, I began writing Libertarian across the ballet. I read very little about politics over the years as I was very busy with a wife and 3 sons along with my consulting and later my manufacturing businesses. Instead I spent most of my leisure hours reading about business-related or parenting topics (or science fiction for relaxation).

    After I retired some 4 years ago, I read some Ayn Rand as well as some Murray Rothbard and a number of other Libertarian writers. I very quickly concluded that Rothbard's message made more sense than Rand's - it was more consistent. I also learned more about the LP and became a candidate in the provincial (state) election last fall. Although the party supports limited government, I ran on a platform of anarchy. (I presented moral arguments as well as arguments about effectiveness.) I was involved in several public debates and noticed that most of the people in the audience rejected my message outright. A few cocked their heads in thought for a second or two then shook their heads in rejection of my ideas. Over the past year, I've been involved in several discussions with LP members about the inconsistency of their principles of non-aggression and private property under a limited government. For the most part, they just don't see the hypocrisy and all my arguments bead up and run off them like water off a duck's back. They feel they can control government although they are fully aware that all past attempts to do so have failed.

    For the past couple of years, I've been on a "quest" to uncover the myths that people in our society believe. Many of these relate to government as I'm sure most of you know.

    Earlier this year, I got onto Facebook to join the LP of Canada group there. I also started listening to podcasts and when I came across a mention of Free Domain Radio in the Voluntary group on Facebook I decided to give Stef a listen.

    That tells you a little (too much?) about who I am and how I got here. Now I'd like to say a bit about where I now feel I am. To start with, the fact that I'm writing this says I agree with most of what Stef says. Other than few minor issues, I can say that I most definitely agree with and fully support his ideas on personal freedom and anarchy. (After listening to one of his podcasts, I often feel like Newton standing on the shoulders of a giant. It's really great to be able to benefit from what Stef has worked out over the decades.) I have not deFOOed (I actually enjoy being with the members of my FOO.) I have just begun I confront my family and friends as to whether they would support my being shot for disagreeing with their favorite government program.

    I look forward to interacting with many of you over the coming years as we pursue the goal of greater personal freedom.

  • 09-06-2008 6:49 AM In reply to

    Re: Hello All.

    With no disrespect intended to Stef I don't believe all parents are evil.

    Could I trouble you to let me know where in the half-dozen or so podcasts you've listened to so far, as well as the Best Of feed, Stef makes the assertion that all parents are evil? Thanks,

    Dave

    "As a vivid, living value, the nation-state as an object of worship and a source of practical and moral solutions is as dead as King Tutankhamun."-- S. Molyneux

  • 09-07-2008 7:43 AM In reply to

    Re: Hello All.

    Hello Dave.

    bockman:

    With no disrespect intended to Stef I don't believe all parents are evil.

    Could I trouble you to let me know where in the half-dozen or so podcasts you've listened to so far, as well as the Best Of feed, Stef makes the assertion that all parents are evil? Thanks,

    I did not, I repeat NOT, say that "Stef makes the assertion that all parents are evil". He does, however, imply that they are.

    I, unfortunately, cannot quote chapter and verse of every podcast in which I have heard this implication. I can, however, quote one instance from his book On Truth - The Tyranny of Illusion. On page 20 Stef wrote: "... your parents ... - only used morality to control you, to subjugate you - as a tool of abuse ..." I admit that I have taken this quote out of context. However, I have not left out important qualifiers like "some of" before "your parents". From this statement, I take it that Stef believes parents abuse their children. In other words, that parents (not some, but all parents) are evil.

    Perhaps, Stef was just being dramatic in his writing. I can understand that. It is often necessary to be dramatic in order to get people to pay attention to your message. (I obviously do it myself.) I also understand Stef's intention in getting people to pay attention to and to understand his message is to help them free themselves of the many myths that control their lives and limit their freedom.

    Unfortunately, by giving the impression that all parents are corrupted by the power they have over their children, Stef's message may have an unintended consequence. He may convince the people he helps to refrain from having children for fear of being corrupted by that power. In my opinion, this would be a horrible. These are the people who should be having children - the people who recognize the dangers such power holds - the people who also recognize the myths associated with parenthood - the people who have become free.

    Larry

  • 09-07-2008 8:40 AM In reply to

    Re: Hello All.

    Welcome, great to have you with us!

    I think that the quote in question is:

    The moment you realize that your parents, priests, teachers, politicians – your elders in general – only used morality to control you, to subjugate you – as a tool of abuse – your life will never be the same again.

    If you had parents who did not use false moral arguments to restrain or control your behavior, I think that is just wonderful! Certainly, those parents who do not use morality to control and subjugate their children do not fall into the above category.

    I'm interested to hear more about your parents, who sound like singularly wonderful people -- how do you think they would have reacted to your growing knowledge about voluntarism, given that they seemed to be fans of state solutions?


    All Free! - Audio, PDF. Print starting @ $9.99+
    Freedomain Radio Needs Your Support! Easily send podcasts, videos, books and feeds to your friends with FDR Referrals.

     


     

  • 09-08-2008 4:59 AM In reply to

    Re: Hello All.

    Hello Stef.

    If I have misunderstood and you do not in fact feel that all parents are evil people who "use false moral arguments to restrain or control" their children's behavior, I most sincerely apologize.

    Stefan Molyneux:

    I'm interested to hear more about your parents, who sound like singularly wonderful people -- how do you think they would have reacted to your growing knowledge about voluntarism, given that they seemed to be fans of state solutions?

    I'm not sure what gave you to the impression that my parents "seem to be fans of state solutions". I don't recall giving that impression in my original post or in my reply to Dave and on rereading them I can find nothing that would I feel would give that impression. I did say: "I started my adult life believing that no matter what the question, government was always the answer." I did not say my parents shared that belief.

    As to how "they would have reacted to [my] growing knowledge about voluntarism". I think my father would have supported me in my search for answers to these important questions. I know my mother does although she is not as yet as convinced about the merits of anarchy as I am.

    Larry.

  • 09-08-2008 6:19 AM In reply to

    Re: Hello All.

    I mentioned this in the Sunday call in show (September 7, 2008) - for me, the word "evil" is very specific to the initiation of force; I use the term "corruption" to refer to the (so far) universal reaction of parents who tell their children not to steal and lie to the argument that taxation is force, which is evasion or attack.

     

    Certainly, those parents who tell their children not to steal and lie face a moral contradiction when their children bring to them the arguments against taxation, which is that they told the children not to steal and use force, but have supported a statist system based on theft and force. This is a perilous moral swinging bridge that no parent that I have ever heard of has crossed with grace and integrity. (This is not to say that it is theoretically impossible of course!) I do apologize for "jumping the gun" as it were and assuming that your parents were statists. I simply cannot conceive of a situation where a child brought up by anarchists ends up with no doubts whatsoever about the virtue of state solutions, and no knowledge of anarchism... If I was unfair, please let me know. Smile


    All Free! - Audio, PDF. Print starting @ $9.99+
    Freedomain Radio Needs Your Support! Easily send podcasts, videos, books and feeds to your friends with FDR Referrals.

     


     

  • 09-11-2008 5:19 AM In reply to

    Re: Hello All.

    Stefan Molyneux:


    I mentioned this in the Sunday call in show (September 7, 2008) - for me, the word "evil" is very specific to the initiation of force; I use the term "corruption" to refer to the (so far) universal reaction of parents who tell their children not to steal and lie to the argument that taxation is force, which is evasion or attack.



    Okay, I have no problem with that definition. I should have said "I don't believe all parents are corrupt."

    Stefan Molyneux:


    Certainly, those parents who tell their children not to steal and lie face a moral contradiction when their children bring to them the arguments against taxation, which is that they told the children not to steal and use force, but have supported a statist system based on theft and force.



    I have two questions about this statement:

    1. What of parents whose children never "bring to them the arguments against taxation" - are they still corrupt, because of how they might have responded if such an argument had been brought to them? (I never brought up arguments against taxation with my parents nor have any of my children brought up such arguments with me. As to how I would have responded if they had, I suspect I would have said: "Wow, I never thought about that. Of course it's obvious that taxation is theft!" I say this because, the first time I read such arguments that was exactly what I thought. I was definitely a libertarian by that time, but I was far from being an anarchist.)

    2. How does one judge whether someone has "supported a statist system" - does paying taxes constitute support - does voting?

    As far as the question of whether my parents were statists or anarchists goes. Are these the only two possibilities or are we talking about a continuum here with black at one end of the scale, white at the other and a large area of gray in the middle? I would say I was very near the statist end of the scale when I was in my 20s, but am very near (if not at) the anarchist end of the scale now. In the intervening decades, I've slowly changed from one to the other. It was definitely not a flick of a switch type change, but a gradual transition.

    As to where my parents were on the scale between being statists and anarachists those many years ago, I cannot say. I suspect they were somewhere in the gray area. I can say that my own political beliefs had far more to do with the influence of my teachers than that of my parents. I had very little interest in politics when I was a teenager (My interests during my teenage years were physics, mathematics, music and girls although not necessarily in that order.) much less when I was a child, so I never discussed it with my parents. Nor, as far as I can recall, did they ever discuss it. If they did, I obviously wasn't interested enough in what they said to remember any of it.

  • 09-11-2008 8:44 AM In reply to

    Re: Hello All.

    I don't believe that people are morally responsible for their beliefs prior to gaining knowledge -- otherwise, we would be perfectly justified in calling babies "uneducated," which would be a little unfair, it is more accurate to call them "pre-educated." Smile

    I myself did not hold a philosophy that was truly consistent with the NAP until I was into my 30s -- I would not say that I was immoral or corrupt when I was younger, because I was striving towards the truth, and did not have a habit of rejecting the truth once I understood it. But of course you cannot know what you cannot know - especially when we are so buried under mountains of propaganda, particularly in state schools, when we are children. It just takes a while to dig yourself out...

    For me, "support of the state" is justifying the use of force against others who disagree with you -- supporting the initiation of use of force, once you understand the reality that taxation is forced, is corrupt.

    This also does not have to be an overnight process, or the result of a single debate, but as long as someone is honestly striving towards the truth, they certainly get my applause at least...Smile

     


    All Free! - Audio, PDF. Print starting @ $9.99+
    Freedomain Radio Needs Your Support! Easily send podcasts, videos, books and feeds to your friends with FDR Referrals.

     


     

  • 09-11-2008 9:15 AM In reply to

    Re: Hello All.

    Stefan Molyneux:

     have a habit of rejecting the truth once I understood it. 

     

    What would it mean to understand the truth and reject it ? I feel that this would be impossible, unless one were to be believe in absolute evil. Again for me this raises the uncomfortable issue of free will and determinism. If the ignorant are not responsible for their actions, how do we judge when someone is educated ? Do we empathise with Hitler ?

  • 09-11-2008 9:22 AM In reply to

    Re: Hello All.

    Scrat:
    What would it mean to understand the truth and reject it ?

    It would be highly likely that the person rejecting the truth is operating under defense mechanisms which were created as a reaction to childhood trauma.

    "As a vivid, living value, the nation-state as an object of worship and a source of practical and moral solutions is as dead as King Tutankhamun."-- S. Molyneux

Page 1 of 1 (10 items)
Copyright 2005-2008 By Stefan Molyneux
Powered by Community Server (Non-Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems