Gorram It. Why’d You Have to Prove Butler (and Me) Right?

If I don’t get this out of my system [I tried taking it out on the tomatoes, and I tried exercise, but I don’t think all of the pounding in my veins was from the workout] I am going to pop a new hole in my head, and that I don’t need. Lest you think this is going to be an “I told you so” rant, put that out of your head. It’s an “Are you people totally fucking insane??” rant.

Oh, and there just might be some strong language along the way.

Back story first. I took a fair amount of shit over Of Castles, Dreams, and Liberty. Even MAL gave me a good dollop or two, and then gave me even more (as did other individuals) when he read “At Last You Know the Truth”. All the substantive objections took issue, it seems, with my rejection of the very concepts of “sustainable freedom” and “freedom systems”. To quote what I wrote in the latter essay [all links and emphasis in the originals]:

Little did I know that one idea I focused on in my review [of Calculated Chaos] would resonate so deeply with me—an idea that ultimately speaks to my issues with the concepts of “sustainable freedom” and “freedom systems”.

Those terms suggest to me a top-down model of creation, by which I mean that a system is visualized, and individuals’ actions are expected to conform to that visualization. One would hope that pro-freedom systems wouldn’t rely heavily on that model, but it remains a disturbing possibility. More importantly, they also imply some inherent worth in the system qua system. That I most emphatically reject, because it seems to me, despite Wolfe’s assertions otherwise, to be the first step in institutionalizing a system. And that just rubs this anarchist and individualist the wrong way.

A system is just a fairly predictable way of doing things. “Where’s the harm in that?”, you might ask. I realized that I see potential harm in the comfort and opportunity for habit formation that systems offer their users. To whatever degree a system stifles or slows creative thought, because individuals think something like, “That’s the way it’s always been done”, it impedes progress. It presupposes that we, today, know what will be best for those living in the future. We don’t. Per Bylund expressed similar ideas quite eloquently (all emphasis in original):

But to be comfortable as anarchist, you need to identify there is no fixed point and there are no guarantees. Every argument you make is pro-choice and pro-freedom, it is not pro-system. You cannot ever say what will be, only what you think could be. At first, it seems you are pushed in the corner in each and every argument — how do you defend not knowing? How can you proudly claim you don’t know when everybody is ultimately out to get a detailed and warranted answer?

The problem, until you realize it, is of course that there are no answers about the future. You simply cannot tell. No one on earth or anywhere can tell.

Or, we can return to Shaffer’s excellent formulation of anarchy:

Anarchy is an expression of social behavior that reflects the individualized nature of life. Only as living beings are free to pursue their particular interests in the unique circumstances in which they find themselves, can conditions for the well-being of all be attained. Anarchy presumes decentralized and cooperative systems that serve the mutual interests of the individuals comprising them, without the systems ever becoming their own reasons for being. It is this thinking, and the practices that result therefrom, that is alone responsible for whatever peace and order exists in society.

I am not pro-system, no matter what the system. I have little confidence that individuals can totally avoid “the systems ever becoming their own reasons for being”. Sustainability seems to me to be the first step down that path; thus I’m skeptical of its value, no matter where one attempts to apply it. I am part of various systems, as I already acknowledged: there’s no getting around that, if one isn’t an entirely self-sufficient hermit. (And even then, one is still part of many natural systems.) I’m a Discordian—which also means I’m a pope; cool! Throughout my life, I have danced closer to and farther from this realization; now, at last, I embrace chaos and drink deeply. For, even though its taste is sometimes unexpectedly unpleasant, it is from the instability and uncertainty chaos holds that humans often find the drive to bring out the best in themselves.

Where Butler Shaffer appears to be right is this: the “institution” of The Claire Files forum has apparently become more important to some in the pro-freedom family than the individuals who were (or still are) part of that online community.

Further back story: I left TCF some years ago, largely because of differences between Claire’s and my views on intellectual property, but also because of another, more personal difference of opinion that I will not discuss publicly. At that time, the increasing efforts (or so it felt to me) of some to try to get everybody there to agree on certain things, or to focus our attention on “the mission” were really chafing me; and since I was getting busy with other stuff, it seemed best to drop out. I did inquire about rejoining, but when the response to that idea was tepid at best, I—thankfully!—did not.

Apparently what I felt back then that led me to leave has continued—and escalated. I know very little about that, besides what I’ve read on some blogs and a little in private email. I honestly thought that all that shit was behind me—and I really wanted it to be; it’s taken me a good deal of time and energy to gain some perspective on what was a painful time for me. But today I was stunned to receive two pieces of news regarding TCF fallout. First was that George Potter had left the forum; one of his reasons given to my inquiry was that “if I had remained then flamewars were going to break out”. Now, it is true that George has been treated differently than other participants there—but that isn’t new. After all this time, and it’s still a source of contention? I just don’t get that. But then I learned something worse: in trying to coordinate a possible meetup, I discovered that some individuals I’d really like to see are no longer speaking to each other because of the ongoing problems at TCF. I was shocked by that, because they had seemed good friends when I first met them. Then I began to consider how this development (and possibly similar wrinkles I don’t yet know about) would complicate my planning; and then I started to get steamed. A once-solid friendship is damaged—possibly irrevocably—because of squabbles over a fucking forum!

The institution of TCF has become more important to some participants than the people who breathed life into it. (And I’m not referring to Claire, or the owner, or tech guys and moderators: I mean the regular posters who joined up, shared their ideas, offered their advice, and celebrated and argued and grieved together—in short, did all the things that people in a community do. The contributors are the ones who make places like that worthwhile; the other people make it easy or hard for them to pour their bits of life out for others to see.) Freedom is being eroded every day, and snits over in-jokes, whether a post or thread is mission-relevant, or moderation policy gets the bulk of the energy. If it wasn’t so fucking pathetic I’d be laughing my ass off.

Look, I understand that people go to forums with differing goals and visions in mind. And I understand that those things change over time, and thus cause the community to change too. But what some individuals seem to have failed to realize is that they are now trying to create (or maintain or regain, I’m not exactly sure which) something that never really existed. From the time Debra shared her idea of TCF with the first person she told about it, the monolithic vision vanished. Each person sees the place a little differently, values the members differently, would like it to go in differing directions. In trying to keep a thread on topic, for example, one person is trying to wield influence—and his or her own personal vision of what “on topic” means—with another. That some people are trying to have a high level of control over a forum ostensibly devoted to freedom is the height of absurdity and contradiction. That it is destroying relationships is tragic.

And that’s what’s really important; that individuals are apparently separating themselves over such absolutely ridiculous shit. It’s just a fucking forum!!! Is your vision of it—or the master plan that you’re trying to get everyone to march along with—really more important than a flesh-and-blood friend? More valuable than someone who’ll watch your back or help you out when the shit hits the fan? Those web pages of pontificating and bugger-all else aren’t going to lock and load when it’s your property that the feds want to steal. Only individuals can do that. Is protecting a chimera really worth pushing them away?

I thought we in the pro-freedom family grokked tolerance. I thought we were supposed to live and let live, as long as no one’s real property is being abused. I am certainly no paragon of virtue here, but somehow I find a way to extract value where I find it and leave all the rest behind. I’ve liked Strike the Root for a long time, but most of the editors (and some of the writers) seem to have wandered away from the roots and up into the branches ... so I haven’t sent anything to them for their consideration, nor contributed money; nor do I tell the crew what they’re doing “wrong”. I look at what interests me and leave the rest behind. Same way with Lew Rockwell, especially with the nonstop Ron Paul worship of late; while I’m not as critical as Wendy McElroy (perhaps because I haven’t dug around as much as she), I don’t see how it profits me to whine and complain and threaten to hold my breath until they tone it down. I have said good things and critical things about the Free State Project, because there are things about it I like and others I don’t. But I respect every person I’ve had direct contact with from the group in some way or other. I’ve had challenges with several projects too ... LRT and Doing Freedom! come to mind, and certainly being an owner at The Boondocks forum has its frustrating moments. But I sure wasn’t offended that some former TCFers didn’t seem interested in participating there when I suggested it; instead I joined their new place, Get Your Hands Dirty. My point is, if someone as hot-headed as I can be can learn to let go of the little stuff, anyone can.

Can we get some perspective here, please?? In six months, will it really be important that someone slid an allusion you didn’t get into a thread? If it won’t be then, when will it stop being important? Do you really want something like that sucking up your time and energy at all? Or are things going to keep getting worse? Will there be Randian Inquisitions, with people pressured to choose sides? If so, how far are they going to reach? Am I going to be expected at some point to purge my blogroll of “undesirables” in order to try to stay in your good graces? How does this course sustain freedom? How far will you try to take it, your blanketing of the institution over all the individuals who helped make it? How can fucking electrons bouncing through cables and wires and computers be more important than real individuals???

Every link in my right column is there because I want it to be there. Each one is there because I value something that an individual is doing there—and yes, I have deliberately and consciously thought about the individual(s) behind each link. Those people are the reality, not the web sites. You may think that your side is better, more right, or superior in whatever way, but I don’t give a shit about any “side”. I care about the people, and about freedom. I will not venerate your empty institution. I will not choose a side. Hell, I’m not even going to stop valuing your real contributions to the freedom movement, even though I may be having a real hard time seeing them right now, and even though I am sad, and pissed as hell that my enthusiasm for getting together with some like-minded friends has totally evaporated. You still matter to me.

Fuck the institutions. There’s too much negative, life-draining energy in them. There’s way too many enemies of liberty without us adding to the count via Orwellian attempts to coerce individuals to do things they don’t want to do, or in ways they don’t prefer. Especially not over an ephemeral bit of cyberspace. And if my words fail to move you, please consider another quote from Butler Shaffer. I have slightly modified it to drive home my point, but you can find his original words easily enough—it’s the last two paragraphs of his What Is Anarchy? essay:

Institutional thinking presumes the supremacy of the systems and reduces individuals to the status of resources for the accomplishment of their ends. Such systems are grounded in the mass-minded conditioning and behavior that has produced the deadly wars, economic dislocations, hatred, and oppressions that comprise the essence of political history.

Men and women need nothing so much right now as to rediscover and reenergize their own souls. They will never be able to accomplish such purposes in any dehumanizing and dispirited system that insists upon controlling their lives and property.