-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.22/pageone.html <A HREF="http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.22/pageone.html">Laissez Faire City Times - Volume 3 Issue 22 </A> ----- Laissez Faire City Times May 31, 1999 - Volume 3, Issue 22 Editor & Chief: Emile Zola ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ditching the Hangman by Sunni Maravillosa Recently I wrote about the various groups of freedom lovers and the in-fighting that seems to be rather common among us. While we allow—or participate in—the bickering, statism and the liberty-destroying efforts of government continue to grow and to take lives. The problem is clear: we’re contributing to the gobbling up of freedom by our choice to fight amongst ourselves. Solutions, however, seem not so clear, yet they’re what is most needed. How do we overcome such deep-seated habits? Is it even possible for all kinds of freedom lovers to cooperate, or is that a dream that will never happen? Changing Human Nature? In describing the origins of this in-fighting, I stated that categorizing or labeling individuals is virtually universal—each person does it to some degree, as a way to create a more ordered, understandable world. It’s part of human nature to categorize. So, does that mean we’re "doomed" to narrow-minded thinking, because of the pattern of categorizing? I don’t think so. Categorizing is very helpful to us, else we would not have evolved with that way of thinking. The challenge seems to lie in recognizing when it is helpful, and when it is potentially limiting or dangerous. Categorizing is most helpful when a person encounters a situation about which she knows very little, or must rely on information from others. For example, when we enter a new restaurant, we know that it’s very likely that the bill-paying will go one of a few ways: we order the food and pay when we receive it; after the meal, the waitstaff brings the check and settles the bill for us; or we pay on our way out. Most individuals watch others as they leave, in order to know what’s appropriate. When a person interacts with someone of an unfamiliar background or occupation, she generally acts on what she thinks such individuals might be interested in—say, a statistician is probably interested in numbers, and therefore might enjoy gambling. Going with such hunches is typically a safe strategy at first, but as she comes to know the person better, it becomes smarter to base her interaction on the information she learns about the person, rather than the group-based generalities. Indeed, an individual is likely to get upset if he thinks he’s being treated as a stereotype instead of a person. Part of human nature is also to break beyond categories and traditional ways of seeing things, to create new perspectives and revolutionary approaches to problems. This unbridled creativity is the hallmark of human advancement. Yet many of us tend to view creativity as something only inventors and those who like puzzles need. Creativity is a valuable asset in any situation, by design—it shakes up the routine and forces us out of our mental patterns. Many people seem to think of themselves as not creative, in part because of the fairly strict way of looking at the phenomenon already mentioned. However, psychological research has shown that individuals can increase their creativity simply by pretending to be creative. In doing so, a person frees his mind from the routine, and disables the "self-censoring" that often goes on. Without those limits, possibilities open up, and many people are surprised at the things they think of. If that happens just by pretending, consider the power that would be unleashed if an individual were to choose to deliberately exercise his creativity every day. Although it is part of human nature to categorize, it is important to learn when to rely on it, and when to move beyond it. Exercising one’s creativity more is also a skill that can be developed, and can help a person move beyond relying upon labels. As I pointed out in a previous article, freedom lovers pride themselves on being more intelligent than the general population. If that opinion is based on fact, it shouldn’t take too much effort to develop creative responses to those categorizing impulses when they arise. Rather than allowing the labeling aspect of our nature to dominate, we can choose to exercise a different aspect of human nature. Thus, we can see that it isn’t necessary to change human nature, just to change which aspect of our nature we respond to fellow travelers with—by doing so, the task becomes less Herculean. Breaking the Bonds of the Group Even individualists have the need to feel valued, to be part of something meaningful. Yet thinking in terms of belonging to a group encourages the tendency to categorize. One way to overcome that unfortunate tendency is to remember that groups as such have no concrete existence. Every group is composed of individuals who do exist in the physical world, and only individuals have the power to think and act. If individuals perpetuate the tendency to categorize, then the group will demonstrate that tendency as a matter of course, and the pattern will tend to continue in new members. It becomes part of the group tradition. This dynamic is evident in Objectivists who continue to denounce libertarians simply because Ayn Rand did, without looking into her reasons and their soundness. Being the first person to break from what a valued group has done can be difficult; it may even result in the loss of affiliation with the group. But which is more important: being part of a positive change in perspective, or simply following along because "that’s the way it’s been done"? Individualists are not immune to that kind of thinking. However, we cannot afford to be sanguine about its consequences. If one is "excommunicated" from a group for daring to challenge the prevailing tendencies, that shows that it was time to leave anyway. There are many other pro-freedom groups to support. Choosing to be one who dares to be a little different may also help open channels of communication among the in-fighting groups. Action Over Analysis Most freedom lovers seem to derive great pleasure from debate, discussion, and even argument as to the finer points of the freedom philosophy. Such endless analysis can contribute to the problem, however, by highlighting differences among various pro-liberty groups. Keeping the focus on talking therefore keeps the focus on areas of disagreement; it isn’t surprising that in-fighting continues. While there’s no easy way to stop conversation (not that it all should be stopped), it is possible to keep it at the individual level, rather than drawing group names—and therefore the categories—into the fray. By examining differences in terms of individual disagreements rather than Libertarian versus Objectivist disagreements, it’s more likely that people in both groups can find some positive aspects in individuals in the other group. Working on projects that have pro-freedom themes removes the focus from debating the finer points of anarchy versus minarchy, for example, and shifts it into taking action. The benefits are greater than just stopping the in-fighting: the project may offer a means of outreach to others who haven’t heard our ideas previously; it advances the cause of liberty; and it shows everyone that voluntary cooperation can in fact succeed. Projects which are most successful at obtaining these benefits are those which take aim at statism on a broad level. Laissez Faire City is one example of such a project; its goal is to offer a virtual and physical community where one can truly be free from the coercive, life-draining aspects of the nation-state and other unhealthy systems of government. To the extent that LFC succeeds, their work will be of tremendous potential value to all freedom lovers. For those who participate, the philosophical differences will likely become less important than the community they share. At a different level, the Liberty Round Table is another example. This group organizes projects that are designed to do and teach freedom; all participation on every project is purely voluntary. There are no membership requirements or dues, nor do other participants ask what flavor of freedom-lover others are—interested individuals simply come together to work on projects. There is a lot of discussion about issues and ideas, but because the conversation is focused on doing, differences between participants is downplayed. As a result, Objectivists, Libertarian Party officials, and anarchists have successfully worked together on various LRT projects. Are any of my suggestions a magic bullet for overcoming the in-fighting that threatens our chance of success in winning freedom? No. Taken as a group, do they ensure peace and harmony will reign in Liberty-Land? No. Individuals who love freedom are as human as everyone else, and can be every bit as stubborn or shortsighted. I suspect that some group members rather enjoy perpetuating the in-fighting, because it offers a way for those involved to feel superior. However, I remain optimistic that the higher-than-average intelligence among freedom lovers will eventually prevail, and that these ideas will be given a chance. If enough individuals choose to do so, the squabbling will dwindle down to the few who seem to have nothing more productive to do. At that point, their choice won’t matter much, for they’ll have been left behind. The issue at the root of the fighting isn’t complex. Groups choose to squabble because the individuals in them continue to focus on differences, rather than acting to promote common interests. It comes down to a matter of choice: do you want to make enemies amongst the people who could be your most powerful allies, or do you want to kick some statist butt? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sunni Maravillosa is a psychologist, writer, and web mistress for the Liberty Round Table (URL http://home.lrt.org/ ). -30- from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 3, No 22, May 31, 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Published by Laissez Faire City Netcasting Group, Inc. Copyright 1998 - Trademark Registered with LFC Public Registrar All Rights Reserved ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
