RE: [lpsf-discuss] self defense/anti-war/frustrations/concerns/un subscribing

Discussion
1

Dave:

Thanks for a very poignant note. It would be especially sad to see you leave just as you have put your finger on what I have also perceived as a major problem for the libertarian movement: our tendency to pounce, criticize, moralize. "What do you mean you don't agree with us 100%? Check your premises! You have an undistributed middle term! Checkmate!" It's very curious that a Party based on the nonaggression principle should be so suffused with combative, militaristic metaphors, attitudes, and practices. That was apparent at least as far back as the early '60s, when Ayn Rand's Objectivist Newsletter featured an Intellectual Ammunition Department. Hit them over the head with killer arguments--we all know by now how well that works, don't we? The only person I know to have commented on that phenomenon, just briefly, was Robert Nozick in _Philosophical Explanations_. He was naturally an exception. We have a few such exceptions ourselves, including Starchild (like Nozick, a vegetarian); however persistent he can be on some issues, he is also gentle in his style, and not inclined to drive people off with assaultive questions and challenges (which may have something to do with his recruiting success). This kind of behavior has actually been more embarrassing to me in DAFs than sparse attendance. It's not a very hospitable environment even for our own members who would just like an opportunity to explore some issues in a tentative fashion. Dilger has bravely put out some nice posts in that regard, but in his position I would have felt more attacked than supported by the responses he got. I suspect your experience may have been similar. As Nozick said, we "leave no room for words on subjects other than last words"; whatever we venture to say, we'd better be prepared to defend to the death or shut up.

There's material here for an article at some point. I assume the issue has something to do with the fact that libertarianism disproportionately attracts INTJs (to use the jargon of the Kiersey-Bates system in _Please Understand Me_, which David Bergland has urged us to master). They're about 5% of the general population, but at least 90% of libertarians, in my estimation. (Starchild is a very rare ENFP, as you may be also.)

Anyway, I'm sorry if we've let you down. I hope withdrawing from the list doesn't mean withdrawing any farther from us than that.

2

Dear Michael:
I open this letter with a question, what do the following anachronisms stand for? INTJ, DAF, ENFP. I also must add some clarification of my own. As part of the political process, I can attest that if you feel that the libertarians are combative, critical, etcetera, you should attend meetings of ANY of the other parties. You would find, (with the Democrats and Republicans in particular,) that our exchanges are mild and friendly in comparison. And those above mentioned groups seem to have little trouble attracting literal legions of devotees. For my own part, I was interested in the libertarian philosophy, and this is what attracted me. I was not recruited. If I had been approached by someone that was combative, etcetera, I would think that I have the strength of mind and conviction to decide for myself whether or not I was interested based on more than the "recruiters style" whatever that may have been. (If I was susceptible to such, I would have "jumped ship" straightaway when I
found that Howard Stern was/is a libertarian.) I personally, am not in the slightest bit put off by what to me is stimulating discussion. Nor do I have a problem (obviously,) speaking my mind which I thought we were free to do.
Leilani

"Acree, Michael" <acreem@...> wrote:
Dave:

Thanks for a very poignant note. It would be especially sad to see you leave just as you have put your finger on what I have also perceived as a major problem for the libertarian movement: our tendency to pounce, criticize, moralize. "What do you mean you don't agree with us 100%? Check your premises! You have an undistributed middle term! Checkmate!" It's very curious that a Party based on the nonaggression principle should be so suffused with combative, militaristic metaphors, attitudes, and practices. That was apparent at least as far back as the early '60s, when Ayn Rand's Objectivist Newsletter featured an Intellectual Ammunition Department. Hit them over the head with killer arguments--we all know by now how well that works, don't we? The only person I know to have commented on that phenomenon, just briefly, was Robert Nozick in _Philosophical Explanations_. He was naturally an exception. We have a few such exceptions ourselves, including Starchild (like Nozick, a
vegetarian); however persistent he can be on some issues, he is also gentle in his style, and not inclined to drive people off with assaultive questions and challenges (which may have something to do with his recruiting success). This kind of behavior has actually been more embarrassing to me in DAFs than sparse attendance. It's not a very hospitable environment even for our own members who would just like an opportunity to explore some issues in a tentative fashion. Dilger has bravely put out some nice posts in that regard, but in his position I would have felt more attacked than supported by the responses he got. I suspect your experience may have been similar. As Nozick said, we "leave no room for words on subjects other than last words"; whatever we venture to say, we'd better be prepared to defend to the death or shut up.

There's material here for an article at some point. I assume the issue has something to do with the fact that libertarianism disproportionately attracts INTJs (to use the jargon of the Kiersey-Bates system in _Please Understand Me_, which David Bergland has urged us to master). They're about 5% of the general population, but at least 90% of libertarians, in my estimation. (Starchild is a very rare ENFP, as you may be also.)

Anyway, I'm sorry if we've let you down. I hope withdrawing from the list doesn't mean withdrawing any farther from us than that.

3

Mike,

  Thanks for the kind words. However you may be giving me too much credit for not challenging non-libertarians with our ideas -- at the last Direct Action Forum, I was probably the one who was most confrontational with our guest Brian O'Flynn (trying to persuade him that eminent domain is wrong by its nature, not just in his particular case). However I maintain a good rapport with Brian, and had a sense that I could engage him in that manner without alienating him. Generally I think challenging non-libertarians intellectually can be OK as long as we make them feel welcome in other respects, but different people will react differently, so what works well in one context may work poorly in another.

  Sometimes speaking up strongly can embarrass others into being more accepting of your position than they might be if you took a more timid or less righteous approach. For example, at an ACT-UP meeting not too long ago, I challenged someone on the use of the phrase "people of color," which I see as racist, and someone else for using the term "yuppie" in a derogatory fashion. In both cases, I felt the individuals would be more likely to think twice before saying something similar in the future as a result of my intervention.

  On the other hand, I think I kind of blew it while speaking with a woman at the Matt Gonzalez headquarters yesterday who recognized me from the District 8 supervisor race. She came up and said she probably would have voted for me if she hadn't voted for Eileen Hansen. She even told me how much she'd liked my proposal to have police officers wear their badge numbers in big football jersey-style lettering on the backs of their jackets. I was pretty impressed that she correctly identified one of my issues a year later and tied it to the correct candidate.

  However when I confessed that I hadn't decided whether to support Gonzalez or Newsom, of course she wanted to know why. This led into a discussion of housing, and I think I may have alienated her by getting into an argument over the role of government regulation.

  Anyway, I'm encouraged by your comment that you're more embarrassed when confrontational dialogue with guests occurs at the Direct Action Forum than you are by sparse attendance at the events, as this tells me that you are able and willing to put the latter issue in perspective. As long as this doesn't mean you want a requirement for LP members to have their DAF comments cleared in advance! 8)

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

P.S. - Dave, are you still on the list? I'd say something in response to your comments here, but I may have waited too long to do so.