“No leaders wanted, no followers sought.”

Relationships are ever-shifting things, and although I think most adults know this it can still come as a surprise when a relationship that was considered steady comes undone.

Part of my recent bout of quietness here stems from various relationships being in a fairly obvious state of flux. Some of those changes are obviously to the good; others aren’t, and a couple others are being deliberately tended, to see how they might grow. An online acquaintance from some years ago has recently popped back into my life, and in so doing has got my brain buzzing with ideas and contexts I’ve not considered much, if at all. A major theme in our explorations is relationships. I expect to say much more on that here as the conversations spool out, but for now I’ll toss out this little thought–grenade: he is, without deliberately trying to (so it appears to me), slowly persuading me that the family metaphor is not the best one for the pro-freedom community. Sorry, Kirsten.

Part of the reason is because so many of us (myself included more frequently than I care to consider) seem to let our egos do too much of the driving. How that plays out can vary, of course; we’ve all probably encountered at least one would–be freedom guru who insists that to be truly free we must follow his plan in its entirety—and his plan includes such tangentials as what soap to use, and what food to eat and in what quantity or ratios. More common are those of us who so want to be right, or be liked by a certain group (or maybe even one person), that anything that may carry a whiff of criticism can provoke a sharp response.

Instead of being open to others’ perspectives or ideas that may challenge us, too often we lash out in ridicule or subtle condemnation, instead of asking, “How might he be right about this?” Of course, it could well turn out that he isn’t right, but does it hurt us so much to get into the habit of asking that question and considering its answers? Seems to me if we could accomplish that, we’d make a lot of progress in shifting away from the ego-driving that often takes relationships into blackberry brambles—or worse, off a cliff—and toward more honest, idea– or concept–driven exchanges. In short, the ties of true family hold despite disagreements, despite periods of ego inflation or celebrity. Maybe I’ve fallen in with a more cantankerous lot than is usual, but I haven’t seen a lot of that happening among pro-freedom individuals.

My friend recently shared a quote on friendship that I think worth passing along. It comes from Etienne de la Boetie’s Discourse on Voluntary Servitude:

Friendship is a sacred word, a holy thing; it is never developed except between persons of character, and never takes root except through mutual respect; it flourishes not so much by kindnesses as by sincerity. What makes one friend sure of another is the knowledge of his integrity: as guarantees he has his friend’s fine nature, his honor, and his constancy.

This struck me as true, but not necessarily in keeping with a more American perspective of friendship. I’ve heard it said that we are quicker to label someone a friend, where others could call the relationship “acquaintance”. Anyway, sincerity and constancy are deeply important to me; without them I don’t think I can respect another very much. According to the family stories about me, I’ve never had an abundance of tact ... but I don’t see any value in dissembling. If someone asks me if I like a new haircut, I assume they want an honest opinion. Similarly, if they ask me how I feel about them, I can’t think of anything good that would come from inflating (or deflating) the current situation. That has led to problems sometimes (to put it mildly). But I see honest communication as speaking to sincerity, and more imporantly, to honor. It’s partly from that context that a recent statement at Wirkman Netizen resonated with me:

I worship no one, and never will. I shall continue to believe things that make sense, and question opinions of all stripes. I do not consider this stance heroic or anything. It is just simple intellectual duty. Since no one pays me to lie, or to take positions I might otherwise resist, I have little incentive to be led by anything other than evidence, logic, and my own proclivities . . . and my understanding of evidence, logic, and (perhaps) even my own proclivities.

To which I add, I can’t even worship myself most of the time (my ego can run away with itself, but those flights are usually brief, as the balloon is quickly punctured either by a snolf or my own revealed ineptitude).

No one has all the answers. No such fixed set exists. Each of us has our own set of answers awaiting discovery, but as the equations change throughout our lives, so do the answers. I’ve found others to be an enormously valuable resource for helping me with my set of equations, especially in a context as generally described above. In turn, I’m willing to offer any freedom-loving, liberty-seeking individual my good will, my bluntly-expressed ideas and thoughts and opinions—and my friendship, in an environment of mutual respect and exploration. No leaders wanted, no followers sought.



[Apparently, timely email conversation would not be in the set of things I can offer as a friend. I think I am behind with everyone. My deep apologies; I hope to start digging out this weekend, after tending to some Salon work—but we have a weekend guest arriving today and I don’t know how that will affect my schedule.]