Libertarianism, Christianity and Gay Marriage

The whole gay marriage push is historically interesting since 30 years ago most of the homosexual movement were and probably still are, bohemians who rather than get married would rather liberate heterosexuals from the bourgeois constraints of marriage. For an excellent discussion of this, listen to this podcast.

Given a libertarian society, i.e. no taxation, there would be no immediate financial for being married, although in the UK these days it actually pays to be unmarried in some cases due to the welfare system. So why would anyone get married? On the finance front the most obvious reason is children- if one party abandons the other then without a marriage contract the abandoned would be burdened with the costs of raising the children; it also helps in determining inheritance of property. Now for obvious biological reasons consistent homosexuals cannot reproduce. The homosexual libertarian Justin Raimondo makes a case against gay marriage mainly in regards the lack of children here.

Another reason would be love as such they want to objectify their life long love and relationship, which would include some homosexuals. The problem with this as it presently legally stands, at least in the UK, is that marriage is no longer for life. At a marriage ceremony there is no declaration of lifelong commitment, nor a vow of faithfulness.

However one of the major reasons for marriage, in the West, is the legacy, or belief, of the Christian doctrine that marriage is ordained by God between a man and women. It holds that men and women are equal in dignity, but different and complementary and that the proper place for sexual activity is in a life long marriage. Now since sex implies children this is all wrapped up together with God's command to Adam and Eve to multiply and subdue the Earth. Lest anyone argue that the Bible is anti-sex this quote from Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 will be of interest:

³ The husband must ^[a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. ⁴ The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. ⁵  Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a

time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and ^[b]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

The underlying problem of the whole gay marriage movement is its egalitarianism - men and women are essentially interchangeable. There's no need for fathers and mothers, or husbands and wives but of loving carers and life partners. This attitude reminds me of the male member of the People's Front Judea (I think) in The Life of Brian who wanted to bear children. Other members argued for his right to bear children when John Cleese's character responds something like he needs to sort his problems with reality. In a way it is directly related to the tabula rasa, nature vs nurture threads that have appeared recently: mankind is not infinitely malleable, he has a nature. It is obvious for anyone that men and women are different and that biological differences are an obvious pointer to that. In a way egalitarianism rejects the comparative advantages of the sexes and as such is destructive to civilisation. The present lack of specialsation of roles especially relating to children is due to the welfare system which encourages mothers to work outside the home; note also though the schooling system is one massive and expensive babysitting service.

Now given the reason of children and the innate differences between men and women the incidence of gay marriage, in a libertarian society would be rather low and as such the big push for it seems somewhat odd. There may be some genuine support for it but it seems as though it is a symbol of a liberal's purity at present. Further though it is being co-opted by the ruling class as a further means of egalitarian leveling which will make we the ruled easier to exploit when our natural allegiances have been weakened.

Now clearly gay marriage should not be illegal but it should not be promoted. Libertarians and conservatives should, rather than oppose the gay marriage, support and advocate parallel marriage contracts. In particular allowing Churches the power to make those, men and women, who marry in their buildings sign a weightier, more traditional contract which can be enforced in the courts. This essentially means divorce is harder and the obligations placed on both parties is higher- it would again be a serious commitment rather than the fleeting one it is increasingly becoming; this would require Christians to again look at what are legitimate grounds for divorce and remarriage which many thought we could forget after the controversies of the 80s and 90s.  If this is seen to be successful, which I expect it would given man's nature, then it would then displace the statist marriage we have at present. and result in a more stable and prosperous society.

The Creation Museum in Kentucky

On my recent road trip around the USA I visited the Creation Musuem and here are my thoughts.

Firstly it is technically impressive. The animatronic exhibits are excellent and the feel of the entire place is one of quality; they’ve clearly spent a lot of money on the place. They also have many audio visual exhibits which cuts down on the amount of reading required; I really dislike museums that have walls and walls of text to read. The videos they play are normally rather short so you are constantly moving rather than stuck watching a video for half an hour. As an aside the more explicitly sciencey short videos were the most interesting item there. They also had some lovely gardens and a zoo but we didn’t see much of them due to time constraints.

The aim, as I understood it, was to show that everyone looks at the world with a particular lense which is non-neutral- the examples used were atheism and Christian theism- but with a greater emphasis on the Biblical narrative making sense of the universe particularly 6 Day Creation, Fall, the Flood, Babel and finally Christ. Consequently the amount of science content was proportional low; most of it was focused around geology which was quite informative.

It did not though succeed even on its own terms: the worldview analysis was rather shallow and misleading at times- it was hardly assumption quaking; the Biblical narrative exposition was good although it felt as it was focused towards Christians rather convincing others of it i.e. far too little of actual creation evolution debate (and anthropology). It took me a while to figure out the purpose of the museum.

If you are a Creationist or an Evolutionist of any stripe it doesn’t provide enough science to get your teeth into. If you are a non-Christian it won’t convince you of the Biblical narrative since it doesn’t adequately engage with non-Christian narratives.

All in all, a missed opportunity and an expensive one at that- not cheap especially if you took a family (it’s deliberately kid friendly but there are clearly adult exhibits). So if you are a Creationist or an Evolutionist I’d say go to some botanic gardens and read some books on the subjects.

Libertarianism and the Arts

The arts are one area in which I think libertarians need to engage in more. Firstly we need to appreciate there importance, especially narrative art (stories in any form) which I will be focusing on.

When we look at book sales it is clear that fiction far out sells non-fiction, but why? My contention is that stories are far more akin to real life human experience than non-fiction: they have a real sequential element. All humans exist and act in time and thus a story being a condensed version of human life is far more appealing than non-fiction which in essence is timeless: empirical science, economics, philosophy et al; history would be an exception but a lot of that is done rather impersonally and you really need a pre-existing interest in the period itself to read it. One of the great strengths of narrative is that you can create emotions and realistic characters which you can’t do timelessly. Herein lies the appeal and the power of narrative.

With stories you can create ideals to aspire for and systems to denigrate. This can be powerfully demonstrated by human cost or achievement to a character you already have an emotionally investment. We therefore need a libertarian saga, or meta-narrative, which libertarian novelists and filmmakers can feed from. A saga which shows the world before the state to the descent to it and finally its obliteration, whilst demonstrating the dignity of the individual person and the virtue of liberty. So essentially we need our own version of the Marxist theory of history. Now one of the main obstacles to this raises its ugly head which is due to libertarianism being such a broad church (here a libertarian is defined as one who adheres to the NAP): we all agree on the pre and post statist world but disagree on how the state came into being and how it will collapse. For example I see the state as the ultimate rejection of God since becoming a state is the closest thing to God you can get. Thus it fits in well with my Christian meta-narrative of creation, fall and redemption. Others would see it as the outworking of an authority based life view and that a non-statist world would be rather egalitarian. I do not intend to discuss the validity of these competing views here but to illustrate their existence.

Consequently more work needs to be done on the origin and rise of the state. Even though some sides are unlikely to come to agreement this it will help to articulate more precisely different libertarians sagas. From this framework the evils of statism can be exposed and the virtue of freedom lauded. However it needs to be understood however that stories do not convince people of certain ideologies: they merely sensitise people towards them. To use stories as propaganda is hokey and makes for bad stories. At present statist films sensitise people to the idea that business is sleazy and evil so they want to here logical arguments as to why it is and the state is better (having said that a lot of films essentially are propaganda but we shouldn’t stoop that low). This is why we always get the question: what should the government do? One of the main tasks for the libertarian story teller is to sensitise people to the goodness of liberty. Today most people want a cushy life without responsibility. We need to change that.

So the task for the libertarian story teller is to create stories with real characters, we should not do the opposite of the socialists and make every government official a bogeyman, and compelling plots within a libertarian meta-narrative.

As an addendum can any body recommend any decent libertarian films or literature? I obviously know of Rand but I get the impression her work tends towards propaganda. I’ve read the first of the Sword of Truth series, the Wizard’s First Rule, by the Objectivist Terry Goodkind which was actually very good but I hear the rest of the books get worse. As for my own recommendations I can go no further than recommend the TV series the Prisoner starring Patrick McGoohan. I’m not sure the show is a show case for libertarianism as Chris Tame argued but for a show championing the individual it’s brilliant.

Why isn't the Truth More Mainstream

Following the Why isn't Austrian School of Economics more mainstream? thread it got me thinking why are the most widely held doctrines fly in the face of reality: from economics, to climate change and as far as literary theory the accepted "truth" is as far from itself as east is from west.

The question is why? All of you who have read Hayek may blame the intellectuals which of course are a major factor though isn't fundamental. I believe the two major factors are the formal education system and societal nihilism.

The current formal education system has no compass. Nobody knows what its purpose is. Is it to cultivate virtue? Is it to aid the examined life? We have the deafening sound of silence (I'm going through a Simon and Garfunkel phase). To hear this, just listen to political debates and inane public contributions. All it boils down to is we can do it better than the other party and the public saying the old days never aged. What one means by better is never discussed. Now you may argue that may be what the comprehensive (public for you over the pond) schools are like but in the hallowed cloisters of the university truth seeking is the sole quest. In fact universities are some of the most debauched institutions around. Both in my economics degree and my brother's Theoretical Physics masters the sole aim was to churn you through the mill to receive a piece of paper. And this was at a true red brick university. But why? The unuttered, though sometimes occasionally, ad hoc justification is the Marxian idea that education is to develop men for industry: otherwise known as to get a job.

The state funding of the educational institutions fosters this mentality. The incentive for the schools is to get as many children through their books as possible to learn and regurgitate the state's curriculum since that's what they call the piper’s successful "knowledge economy" tune; in fact it’s one of the few tune’s he can call with such a centralised system and an incredibly qualitative area. Attempting cultivation of the person for the examined life is neither possible nor desirable as it would lead to the State’s delegitimisation; similar problems exist with the universities. Further the free at the point of incarceration nature of schools, parents are encouraged to abandon their natural nurture and care of their children and leave it to the professionals. With children abandoned to the state their minds are rendered indolent; the exception being the children of the ruling class who enrol in elite private academies.

In the more academic environment it encourages scientism of the highest order since nothing else will get that grant money. The state can only be a pragmatic institution otherwise it would have died a death long ago. The success in the 19th/20th advances in the empirical sciences all disciplines attempted to ape this by making their studies "scientific" one because it was fashionable but also since it produces “results” which is the only thing the state deals in. This led to emasculation of the social sciences and the arts. Why fund some one to read when you can do on experiment which produces numbers?! It also harmed the hard sciences as well: not once was the nature or appropriate method discussed in the Theoretical Physics masters. All they were concerned with was throwing maths at everything so they could test it irrespective of whether the maths actually makes any sense in reality.

This is not to say that in a purely private formal educational system that pragmatism would be the name of the game however I think it would be tempered. With the hard sciences research would either be directed towards developing useful technologies which could involve arbitrary reasoning or could follow the Baconian idea that technological advancement comes as an offshoot of pure science. The current statist system and the prevailing scientism conflate the two resulting in today’s system.

The more fundamental reason though is the prevailing societal view is nihilistic. There is no truth, no laws and no God. We came from nothing and are going to nothing (I’m not saying no God implies nihilism but you can see why most nihilists are atheists since if there’s an overarching designer it would mean presence rather than absence) A slightly more nuanced view is that truth could exist but it is unknowable however it makes little practical difference. Consequently society as a whole is underpinned by the intensity over profundity principle (Don’t think I’m so profound as to come up with that- I stole it from this clever chap’s lecture- The Self at the End of the 20th Century Part 3 ) Since there is no telos to discover the only way to feel truly alive is through intense physical experience. Now since the same level of thrill has diminishing returns the incentive is to turn things up to 11.

This can be seen in many elements in modern society. The increase in drug use and self harming are most immediate examples of this phenomenon. A less direct effect but nonetheless evident is the representation of acts of violence and sex in the arts; they are realised to create an intense experience rather than left to the imagination. The area with which I’m most familiar in this regard is film. Take the film The Shawshank Redemption and compare the level of graphic violence with say No Country for Old Men: both were rated 15 in the UK (second only to an 18) yet the latter is light years ahead in the violence stakes. If No Country had have been made when Shawshank had been, 15 years or so ago, it certainly would have received 18 certificate. No Country may be actually making point with the violence and may not be entirely artless but it shows the intensity progression. Maybe the best (sic) example of brainless violence are the so called “torture porn” genre exemplified by the Saw (the 1st could be an exception) and Hostel franchise which are just sadistic because they can- the violence is the entertainment.

Interestingly one of the most nihilistic blockbusters of modern times, the Dark Knight actually eschewed realisation in favour of imagination and was far more affecting for it, although the main reason was probably so they could do the deal with Burger King. For an in depth review of the Dark Knight see here but the main points are man is depraved and “Chance is the only reality in this cruel world. Unprejudiced. Unbiased. Fair.” Two Face.

The increase in graphic nudity and sex for pure titillation value is also pervasive in films. For no logical reason scenes are shot in pole dancing clubs or female “characters” will walk across their bedroom topless. In the Lars von Trier film Antichrist the actors actually have sex on screen to further the realisation process. Further most of life is becoming fetishised, even food- the Marks and Spencer food adverts are more erotic than Channel 5’s straight to video sleazefests. This is unsurprising when sex is viewed purely in materialistic terms and is no different than slugs copulating; since there is only the hormonal kick, why not get it anywhere, anytime?

Now I’m not decrying the use of nudity/sex and violence on screen but just how and why it is used. The sex scene in Nicholas Roag’s Don’t Look Now is graphic but is an incredibly intimate and tasteful scene. Further Shakespeare and the Bible have quite a bit of it in too. Obviously there has always been a tendency to put the intense before the profound: Aristotle said that man is most often closer to the beasts than the spirit. And yes we don’t have Gladiators yet. The point stands however we are certainly heading further into the pit of intensity and the prevailing worldview encourages it.

In conclusion the formal education system isn’t set up to search for the truth but merely in producing compliant AI (Artificial Ignorance); and society thinks only sexy needles “exist”.

Toy Story 3: An Anti-Communist Film (warning spoilers)

(Penned a while ago)

After being stuck in horrendous traffic last night we missed Inception, although will catch it next week, so my wife and I watched Toy Story 3 in 2D (because 3D is overated and more expensive). It is a really great film and possibly even better than the first although I haven't seen it for a while. Funny, poignant and exciting: this is far more than a kid's film.

The premise is that Andy ages to become 17 and will leave for college on Friday, and the question arises what will he do with his old toys- we learn that a lot of his toys have been sold or donated. He decides to take Woody with him to college and to put the rest in the attic. His mum mistakes them for the rubbish and puts them outside. Thinking they were to be thrown away they jump into Andy's mum's car to be donated to Sunnyside day care centre along with some of Molly's toys. And then the story really begins.

At Sunnyside we learn that after an initial glorious preview that it is run by a tyrannical bear called Lotso who assigns the room with the older, gentler children, to those who have proved their loyalty to him and puts the rest of the toys with the toddlers who abuse the toys. Of particular note he attempts to break up Andy's family of toys to re-allign their allegience to him. Further he utters the line, no owners means no heart break. His paradise is seemingly a psudeo communist one at day care where the children come and go but the toys remains forever, albeit under his control.

This is contrasted with a new family of toys owned by a girl from the day centre (I can't remember her name) who have a wonderful life in her bedroom where they are loved and cared for by her owner. To reinforce this point at the end Andy decides, with a little help from Woody, to donate them not to daycare but to the girl.

So it seems clear that one of the main points is that ownership is better than non-ownership; the toddlers display the tragedy of the commons. Further that ownership is related to being a family which is seen as natural rather than the imposed communist regime. Also if you see the child toy owners as God you could view the film in a sort of feudalist film as whenever the toys deviate from God's appointed king Woody's orders they stray from their masters will and are thus not where they will flourish. Now since there are many child owners it's a sort of polytheistic feudalism.

There are a few points that could be made against this reading. The first arises from the original in which Sid could be seen as a devil vs god (Andy) and as such not all child owners are benevolent. Having said that it could just be an attack on the abuse of power. Secondly and more pertinently, Barbie, in the latest film, spouts that power only derives from the consent of the governed. Now it supposed to be an amusing line but it's backed up later when the Aliens from Pizza Planet eventually control the claw at the end and become co-equals; throughout they reverence the claw- "the claw is our master, he decides who will go and who will stay". And finally in the credits we see Sunnyside as a paradise run by Barbie and Ken showing that if you get the right leader daycare can be really great.

However the main thrust of the film is that ownership is superior to none ownership even if neo-fedualist elements are balanced out by democratic arguments.

Why I am not Necessarily Wrong

An argument for free will (or more precisely libertarian free will)

Libertarian free will (as opposed to compatibilism) is defined as the ability to choose A or non-A.

Is libertarian free will (LFW) true?

It is necessarily true since otherwise one couldn't evaluate the truth value of the question "Is LFW true?" because you could only conclude what you were determined to do which gives no foundation for truth

There is one exception which would be if one were epistemologically infallible. This would then give a solid foundation for truth under determinism.

Yet this is obviously false since it is possible for me to argue, and believe to be true, that 2+2=3 which demonstrates that I must have varying degrees of determined fallibility (assuming determinism). And since fallible determinism gives no foundation for truth we must again reject determinism.

Therefore LFW is true.

What does this imply? (Or how can we metaphysically justify the existence of LFW)

We cannot be purely material beings since we would be determined by our neurological pathways or other laws of nature.

If we were then you are either stuck with cast iron laws of nature which results in cast ironly determined "choices", or accept quantum randomness which implies a complete scatter gun type "choice".

And as above this gives no foundation for truth and therefore must be rejected.

This implies then a substance dualism (trichotomy or more) of man since can provide a foundation for real choices as it can be neither random nor subject cast iron laws. At present I can't elaborate on what this non-material substance is apart from the fact it provides the necessary metaphysical foundation for LFW.

Finally it implies that the will is basic and as such causes itself.

How Children Learn In Bite Size Pieces (1/6)

First up in my Educating Education project is John Holt's 1967 work, How Children Learn.

Foreword

Holt sets out his thesis clearly: young children tend to learn better than adults (and they themselves when they are older) since they use their minds in a special way. Holt’s contention is that most parenting and schooling trains out this natural method. The results are only a few become good at learning, but most are humiliated and discouraged; the children are more limited than what they could have become. If we better understand how children really learn then school may become a place where all children can grow.

This book attempts to chart how children do learn rather than analysing the brain to create a child psychology theory; the children contained herein are mostly of pre-school age. The human mind is a mystery and as such should be modest and tentative about any conclusions drawn. That said teachers and learners have known for some time that vivid and pleasurable experiences are easiest to remember and memory works best when unforced.

Chapter 1: Games and Experiments

One of the themes is that children love to create, for example their own songs: they are normally a mix of sense and nonsense, but creating new variations of words and music is a strain on an adult’s imagination so much so their efforts are rarely better than a child’s. Yet most schools concentrate on teaching songs for children to get “right” rather than creating anything, it’s merely compulsory fun, thus alienates many children and they become non-singers. Carl Orff’s method suggests that when a child is given many opportunities to make up their own chants and tunes their musical and verbal growth can be very rapid.

Further they have an “Instinct of Workmanship”. Lisa, two years old, started to copy Holt’s clapping in time with the music and then his more complex movements such as tapping his hand with one hand and his stomach with the other. She didn’t get it right first time, and note well she felt she didn’t need to, but was always checking back and forth to improve until it was a pretty accurate copy (Holt muses that children would learn a great deal by asking questions and imitating real people doing real work such as craftsmen). She started by doing something and thinking how to fix it. We often miss this because children are unskilful and use crude materials; watch the loving care with which a child smoothes off a sandcastle. They want to make it as well as they can, not to please someone else, but to satisfy themselves.

Another example was when Lisa found a ballpoint and took it apart. Holt started to put it together but she said no and began to put its four pieces together. She took twenty minutes to reassemble the pen; she came close but didn’t have the dexterity to achieve it, but she never became angry or discouraged. Holt then reflected on why so many four year olds in nursery schools become tearful or angry when the couldn’t complete a puzzle; he suspects that it’s because they are in a status-conscious situation all struggling for the approval of the teacher or each other. Lisa though is only putting the pen together as an end in itself.

Holt also believes that children are natural learners. They though learn not like scientists, asking a question then cutting out all unnecessary data, but by amassing as much data as possible until they know which questions to ask- they grown up in a strange world and understand a tiny amount of what happens. This explains why children are more likely to try new things, such as play a cello, than would an adult; the latter find it difficult to work in the noise. Furthermore the child is much less likely to draw hard and fast conclusions than an adult from little data. These vital skills of thought, which in our hurry to get him thinking, may very well stunt or destroy in the process of “educating” him.

An interesting example is a little boy who is “noticing (and) quick” yet hates to be taught. He loves though to learn and stores objects up for future use; he also uses his spade and hammer with great care and loves helping his parents in the garden. However when we try to teach the ABCs he becomes furious and frustrated probably because he sees no meaning in it, states Holt. Lisa, now five, on the other hand is a serious student and worries about her grades despite receiving straight As yet she deeply dislikes school.

Children can learn some cause-and-effect games when they are very young. Holt accidentally bumped heads with a girl no more than 7 months old gently whilst carrying her. He said, “Bump”. She seemed to enjoy it so I said “Bump” again and bumped his forehead against hers. After a few goes she soon learnt the game and when I said “Bump” she would “Bump” her head against mine. Sometimes however it takes a while for a child to learn that a particular event A will lead to another event B with regularity. In general acquainting a child with a mechanical device that he can work and fix, aids the understanding of causal laws since he learns that not only do many actions have predictable effects but also that the world is a sensible and trustworthy place.

The best games with little children, though, flow naturally from the situation of the moment. However if the child isn’t enjoying the game, it’s tempting think that if we just play it a little more he will enjoy it but he won’t, and we won’t.

Another major idea is the intrinsic independence of the child. Lisa finds it impossible to see why she should not touch items that everyone else does. Every day she hears, “Don’t touch that, it’s too hot, too sharp etc” and each time she feels that we are attacking her right to investigate the world around her which is how she makes sense of it. This can destroy a child’s curiosity and make her feel that the world is full of hidden danger and ways of getting in trouble rather than being somewhere to explore and think about. Holt argues that we should keep every object that we do not want a child to touch out of reach and even out of sight. At the same time we should keep many cheap durable objects around that they could use, for example an eggbeater and a torch.

Danny whilst being very good at jigsaw puzzles would sometimes deliberately do them wrong just because it was funny. Further when looking at a book he would say “Tractor” when he knew it was a combine. Holt pondered this and concluded that symbols are ours to use as we wish. We can use them correctly or use them incorrectly as a joke. We are in charge, not symbols.

Children instinctively only fear a few things such as loud noises and loss of support. It looks like children catch most of their fears from their elders. Lisa was never afraid of any bugs, in fact she wanted to pick them up and look at them. However one day a twelve year-old girl, friend of her older sister, saw a spider in a room in which Lisa was residing and screamed hysterically until someone killed the spider. Thenceforth Lisa has been scared of all bugs. A part of her curiosity about the world has been shut off and who can tell when it will turn on again?

Lisa went to an amusement park and saw a little train. She looked interested but also a little frightened. Perhaps it was too big and too noisy. She said, “I can’t go train, I can’t go train”. After going on some different rides she declared, “I need to ride that train right now”. Holt thought she should have a chance to conquer her fear. However when she saw it just as big as before she said, “I can’t go train, I can’t go train”. It is easy to say why we fear things but not so easy to say where the drive comes from to overcome them particularly in a little child. Some kinds of courage are learned, but there is surely also an instinct of courage which we should nurture as best we can.

Holt was round at a house where he knew the children very well and he entered into an argument about politics. Whilst the argument was friendly it was too much for the children who circled around and moved in a conciliatory fashion to take the adults' minds off it and restore the cheerful and happy atmosphere. They are no doubt cruel to each other but near a child who is badly hurt or very unhappy children soon become distressed. It is a rare a child is capable of the sustained deliberate cruelty so often shown by adults. Sometimes though children hit each other not out of malice but what can only be described as an overwhelming urge to see what would happen. Holt was playing in the park with a friend, they were both aged three, and out of the blue he hit Holt with his toy shovel. They had been playing peacefully and Holt never understood why he did it.

In conclusion Holt argues that children are natural learners but rather than starting with an abstract concept their natural method is trial and error to comprehend the empirical world. They are also creative, independent, brave and persistent.