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.
I'm reminded of a quote by
I'm reminded of a quote by Hugh Prather, a new-agey writer: "Love the magician has this little trick whereby two people can walk in different directions yet always remain side-by-side."
2 cents and an empty bottle of kirschwasser (I didn't drink it!)
I'll just say what I said over at get your hands dirty, seeing this was enough to make me realize I wasn't welcome there. If the entire category of discussion and thought known as 'theory' was going to be dismissed as 'mental masturbation' and thus verboten while vacuous discussions about conspiracy theories would be tolerated in an act of remarkable inconsistency, I knew it wasn't my kind of town. But that's just it; I knew it wasn't my kind of place, and I stayed the hell away. You left when that became clear to you. If I understand the situation, those who were shoved out not only did what irritated their hosts and acted in a fashion that they might find undesirable, they also insisted that they be put up at the hosts' place, at the hosts' expense. The hosts had the right to eject the guests. They had the right, hell, they had the right whether the guests displeased them or not. That doesn't mean the decision wasn't puerile, or foolish, or arrogant. Nor does it mean that it wasn't inconsonant to the general attitudes, valuations and goals of libertarianism. It most certainly was all of those things. Perhaps I ought to go ahead and rewrite an old corollary of libertarian lore (I think Rothbard started it); The power to do a thing does not confer the right to do a thing, and, the right do a thing does not instruct the prudence of it.
More thoughts (after getting some sleep)
I appreciate all the comments that have been made thus far—but I want to be clear that I am not interested in rehashing what happened or should have happened or could have been done better. I don’t have nearly enough information to engage in any of that [and don’t want the information!], and besides, I don’t view it as a productive use of time. Our dear Mr. Nickerson sums the matter up very neatly for me, thus: The power to do a thing does not confer the right to do a thing, and, the right to do a thing does not instruct the prudence of it.
Perhaps it wasn’t prudent of me to post this ... believe me, I thought long and hard about it. But in the end, I think my points are worth whatever ill will I might generate from individuals who see themselves in some of my rantings [I know I’m well represented] and mistakenly think I am targeting them. Those are:
1. Institutions are not above individuals.
2. The real – the tangible – is ultimately more valuable (at least potentially) than what’s online. (I consider real-world relationships [which can and often do spring from online interactions] tangible, in the sense that the individuals have fuller-scale knowledge of each other, and from that can make investments—sometimes very deep ones—in others’ lives. That’s how families, and real communities, form.)
3. Just because we all are stupid sometimes doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to settle for being that way. We improve ourselves and the things we contribute to by acknowledging our mistakes, and striving to do better.
4. Things change, and we need to deal with that inevitability. Fnord!
Okay now, who’s got a full bottle of Kirschwasser? Sounds like damn fine stuff to me and I could use a good stiff shot.
Hugs. Part of the problem
Hugs. Part of the problem seems to be that communities and institutions have a shelf life - where the vibrancy of the operation expires and the same old becomes the same old. So we move on. The delay in making the decision to change allows the change to change us - and part of the process of living life is closing off parts so that other parts can flourish. The drive to live spreads us all a bit thin at times and so grounding becomes very important.
The dynamics of relationships between free people needs to be worked on before intentional communities can self-deploy successfully. The idea that individuals forming community could be project driven, with a finite time frame as a skill building cooperative has merit for self directed self associated groups of people. Stewardship programs can provide that form of work in some rural communities where forest management has turned into spraying money at fires and depleting the budget for necessary groundwork. Every community would form to address a need and expire when the need was met - not linger on as a forever. It is painful to watch long-term institutions falter - get ready for more pain.
Every closed door behind is a step to an open door that has a new future. Finding change that invigorates our neighbors to reward effort with effort is a goal for dealing with this rapidly shifting paradigm. Speaking relieves pressure, blowing off steam is a vent in a world where people are penalized for venting. Those of us who are not in the know will not hold it against you - as long as you pay your penance in hugs.
Only Human
Yes, people are f**king insane. I recently reread (for what has to be the 20th time) Gulliver's Travels. The war between Lilliput and Blefuscu over which end of the egg should be cracked was typical human behavior then and still is. Swift was satirizing the dispute between Protestants and Catholics of his day. A dispute which had already killed tens of thousands.
So it does not surprise me that otherwise sensible people do not speak to each other over some (what seems to us) silly misunderstanding on a faceless forum.
Shaffer analysis of institutions in Calculated Chaos is exactly correct. Once something becomes an institution it takes on a "life" beyond its original purpose, and then defence of the institution, or more accurately, a person's illusion of the institution, becomes the purpose. Hatred of the heretic is an important part of this defence. That this happened to TCF is not surprising.
Thoughts
It's unfortunate, too, because if you point out that it's just a forum, someone's bound to get huffy and start ranting about how even though it's the internet, just a bunch of bits flying around, it's still a reflection of the real world and needs to be taken just as seriously. Saying "it's just a forum" raises the ire of those who don't like to see something THEY take seriously trivialized in any manner. But it IS just a forum. It's just words on a screen... words you can read or ignore however you choose.
I also think someone else made a very good point: all those discussions on theory that are deemed "mental masturbation" are still a form of community-building in that you're testing the boundaries of folks who may or may not become your neighbors. It's one way of beginning to cull through and figure out who might be worth living near, and who, idealistically speaking, would mix with you as well as oil mixes with water. It's a relatively safe way to test the waters preceding any actual physical meeting away from the keyboard and monitor. And the topic on abortion over at GYHD is a good example--if you're pro-choice, would you want to live near someone who advocates stoning women to death or putting them in prison for 18 years and 9 months if they have one? And if you're anti-abortion, would you want to surround yourself with folks you see as immoral baby killers? To me, that's not mental masturbation at all.
"How can fucking electrons
"How can fucking electrons bouncing through cables and wires and computers be more important than real individuals???"
They are not the important part if the equation. The electrons are merely a vehicle for carrying information -- ideas and stories. You're comparing a simplistic reductionist view of electronic communication with an entire organism. If you don't see the problem then try this:
A living body and a dead one have the same number of particles.
So why prefer life over death?
In a body, it is not the partices alone but how they are organized that matter. Similarly, in your "fucking electron" question you are ignoring the information they carry.
As for the TCF versus GYHD versus ???. Just over twenty years of on line experience has taught me that loosely moderated forums all suffer a similar fate sooner or later. Some group will discover it as a platform for their particular bete noire and eventually the signal to noise ratio drops to where the original participants leave. It may be Creationists or Holocaust Deniers or Conspiracy Theorists or just a bunch of nihilists who enjoy being assholes when it's safe but, if you build it, they will come.
Maybe it's the result of being essentially welfare for the participants. Maybe it's just Stupid vs Evil. Maybe it's (insert long explanation of how self organization leads to large networks and instability). In any case, it's good evidence for the idea that freedom is not sustainable and contains the seeds of its own destruction.
OTOH, as Hellboy said, "Destiny is overrated!" (Blood and Iron)
Oh, I see the problem all right ...
Thanks for your thoughts, EooS. I know my framing of the question in that way is simplistic and somewhat reductionistic; but I chose it for a reason. We get and spread information via realtime connect and lots of lower-bandwidth means; currently, RTC is the fullest means we have of sharing—and even there, misunderstandings and all kinds of other problems can arise. For myself, I don’t understand how some individuals can appear to be choosing to prefer the lower-bandwidth signal over the higher—and potentially much more informative and valuable—one.
I find that hypothesis borderline offensive in this context. We aren’t talking about some vapid forum devoted to whoever today’s top celebrity icon is; we’re talking about a board where the individuals—at least the ones I know personally—grok the freedom philosophy. They weren’t looking for something to just take from the place—they understand the concept of exchanging value for value and invested their own time and energy into their contributions to TCF. From what little I know, it appears clear that some of those investments aren’t highly regarded by other participants, but that’s where personal choice should step in. For me at The Boondocks, I find the “ignore” feature and simply not going in to certain threads is wonderfully effective. And, for each individual at the board, including those who created it and are maintaining it, there is always the option to walk totally away if the situation becomes intolerable. Hard to contemplate? Yes. Difficult to do? Sure. Sunk costs are very hard to let go of.
I think this is the real crux of the matter. Entropy happens, even to the best of things. “Live, learn, and move on” is the best way to handle it, in my opinion.
I'm sorry you're offended.
I'm sorry you're offended. Substitute the word "charity" for "welfare" if you like but no matter how you parse it, few of the participants pay anything toward the support of the forums. Those participants may -- for a while -- practice a "common culture" of value for value but the forum itself is a commons in the sense its utility is limited by the amount of time the participants want to spend sifting thru the dross. Your tolerance may be higher than mine but I'll wager you have a limit too.
That isn’t what I said.
I said that I find that idea “borderline offensive”, which to me is very different from being offended by it.
I thought that several members donated money to help cover the forum costs. I remember one person telling me he did so, and then got “locked out”, apparently for some offense he didn’t know he’d committed. (This was some time ago.)
Besides, as I said in my original rant, there are a variety of different ways of paying for something, and sometimes money is the least important one. Every contributor with non-malicious intent “pays” in terms of the time, thought, and energy expended in contributing to the site.
Ah, there’s one of the big rubs, isn’t it? And, in all honesty, I wasn’t there when the inside jokes became such a contentious issue. For me, inside jokes or asides aren’t that big a deal. If someone provides little of anything I find worthwhile, there’s the “ignore” option. There was plenty of dross when I participated at TCF, but I generally tried to avoid it instead of complaining about it; I’m sure that what I viewed as dross was, to others, among the best threads there.
Anyway, reasonable individuals can differ, and we certainly aren’t going to arrive at a solution for TCF here. I just hope that other real-life friendships weren’t damaged or killed in all that has gone on there.
Indeed!
How interesting to find this entry, just after spending considerable time at a forum of great interest to me... We were discussing our next "Jamboree," which is our annual "face time" meeting of as many as can gather here in Wyoming. Our numbers are growing, all over the country, and the logistics are becoming more and more complex.
Some want to "preserve" the event as it is, even being willing to turn people away who want to come, just to maintain some supposed optimal number to retain the personal relationships that have been built in previous years.
Then this was suggested:
Dunbar's number, which is 150, represents a theoretical maximum number of individuals with whom a set of people can maintain a social relationship, the kind of relationship that goes with knowing who each person is and how each person relates socially to every other person.[1] Group sizes larger than this generally require more restricted rules, laws, and enforced policies and regulations to maintain a stable cohesion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
Of course, consider the source... but it was presented as at least partly a valid reason to limit attendance... not necessarily at 150, but at something.
My response, in part:
I'm not sure this is really relevant. For example, at the '06 "Jam," (90 to 100 present) I actually had previously met few of the people there. I talked to almost everyone, at one point or another, but only a few were added to the "known" folks. I can't remember most of the names, let alone "how each person relates socially to every other person!" Heck, I can't keep that straight with some of my family - and I've known them for up to 60 years.
Who among us remembers everyone we met at this last "Jam?" I don't remember many new names, off hand, and again couldn't say how they were related to everyone or anyone else there... Most of those I remember well are active on this forum, so the Jam didn't add many - though it added a depth to my understanding of some of those I knew. But that number falls far short of 150.
The "Jam-ness" that is important to me is just being there, meeting and talking to all kinds of people, from all over the country - sharing our common goals and ideals, while exploring those things that are different. The "Jam-ness" - to me - is the open, friendly atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect that seems to be almost universal, ESPECIALLY among relative strangers!! This very fact is what gives me hope for a society that can and will accept self-responsibility and non-aggression as their basic reality, regardless of whether or not they know each other well.
Perhaps the question really needs to be: Should the "Jam" stay static, as much the same as possible, or should it grow and change and evolve? Is a static ideal even possible? I don't think so. It will change and evolve no matter what anyone does - or die. The only thing that doesn't change is the fact that everything changes...
Let's not destroy what we have by clinging to any "tradition" - but rather leave ourselves open to growth and ever new adventures. The "Jam-ness" needs to be a dynamic thing, and a matter of the spirit, rather than something cast in stone.
We'll see what happens...
As for TCF, I have some good friends there, but don't visit at the forum much and don't know much about their politics - though I've gotten hints at times. It's too bad if they're working hard on a self-destruct... but sometimes that's just life.
That anyone lets that situation damage long term friendships otherwise, however, is really sad. I'm sorry for all of them. :(