godwin_anarchism

It's obvious that the State would be a natural magnet for sociopaths who seek power and control over others. So are many professions and institutions, including the family unit! Are we going to get rid of those too? It's the exploiters that need to be understood and neutralized somehow. Calling for elimination of the State so exploiters won't use it doesn't make sense to me, not that I am a fan of the State or anything.

Personally, I believe a lot of successful people are sociopaths and it gives them an edge in life. That goes against the UPB argument, I know. Amazon also recommended another book of hers "Pathological Altruism" with this. I'm going to look into that too, since I think that behavior ties into people wanting ineffective, unaffordable government programs, and our giant welfare State.

I want to make sure I understand your statement: Are you saying that people who hold the belief that there may be a genetic predisposition to violence are: 1) child abusers who are excusing their own violent behavior as a genetic predisposition, and/or people who excuse child abusers as such. meaning the abusers abuse because they believe its their nature and can't help it. 2) child abusers because they don't know the abuse might turn their children into violent monsters or state drones, and if they could be convinced by the nurture argument - that the environment is what determines whether their child becomes violent, they might stop abusing their child. the decision to stop abusing children is predicated on believing in the nurture argument, so the main motivation is fearing their child will become violent rather than not wanting to use violence themselves. Is it possible to pursue the idea that there may be a genetic predisposition to violence and sociopathy as a scientific inquiry, and not for the reasons above? I think there is so much resistance on this subject because people like Stefan have successfully used the nurture argument to persuade parents not to abuse their children, which is a good thing. but then, challenging the nurture argument gets interpreted as encouragement to abuse children. If you truly believe in non aggression or promoting it, you'd be able to convince people not to abuse children by saying they are not behaving ethically using violence and aggression on their children, rather than scaring them using the nuture argument about how their kid might not turn out well.

That connection (in #1) is the majority of FDR content. It's also what makes Stefan's analysis stand out from the other political commentary out there. I find it very strange that people could listen to FDR or have an interest in anti-statist theories, and not see this topic as relevant.

I've noticed this inconsistency too. I feel he credits those events (and their non reversal) to improved morality. However, I believe changes in technology and science play a much bigger role.

he's said many times that being raised by a single parent (mother) was the worst thing that could happen and the most important risk factor in a person's upbringing. with the boomers, there was unprecedented stability in home life - job stability for the father, little divorce, no major wars, no scarcity. He went on on quite a bit about how great they had it compared to any other time in history, very emphatically, so I believe it is significant. In many podcasts, he's stressed how crucial it is to have a parent at home. ... and somehow this produced the "most morally challenged" generation? that contradicts his whole thesis. the only explanation he offers is lack of religion (!), when religiosity is something he's faulted for traumatizing children. ... and if he believes the above is true, wouldn't the single most important factor then be religion/ lack of ... because he says it produced the "most morally challenged" generation.

Very true. I'm sure UPB could be used to manipulate others, if someone is more clever than the other. Logic isn't a strength for many people, and requires discipline and time. If that is the basis of making moral rules for a society, then those people who don't or can't master that skill would be at a disadvantage and easily deceived. A society devoted to sitting around and thinking about this stuff would be extremely unproductive.

Stefan does point out that concept when he says that the thief wants to be the only thief and have everyone think thieves don't exist, but he uses it to support his anti-state message. When the question is what other ways the thief can exploit if the state isn't there for him to manipulate, he goes into the message that the thief won't exist once the state and bad parenting are eliminated. That's not a very satisfying answer. Since I am very interested in this subject, I will look into The Evolution of Cooperation. Thanks!

It's at the very beginning. starting 02:00 ok, he says they became the most "morally challenged" he blamed it on lack of religion. (?)

That has always been something I've thought about. I wonder so often if the focus on statism is really missing the point for the reason you mentioned. If it's possible to make people virtuous, then governments, even if they did form, would be virtuous. I find it more useful to focus on exploitation itself, recognizing some governments as examples of that, just as there are countless others. The focus on one form of exploitive structure, to me, can be worthwhile, but not as the fundamental issue. I get the general feeling that Stefan puts too much faith in logic. I don't believe you can conquer irrationality with reason and logic with everyone, let alone a majority of people, and it isn't just because their brains have been damaged by trauma.

Excellent episode. Stefan says the boomers got the best bag of goodies any generation has had, and enjoyed the most comfortable, peaceful, stable upbringing compared to other generations. So, shouldn't that generation have grown up to have the least amount of "issues" that would be projected onto the State? Yet, Stefan faults them for growing the State the most. How does he reconcile this observation with his theory that improved childhoods = smaller state ? Why did they end up lazy, greedy, and entitled?

You can't have it both ways. If UPB can create a population that stays completely virtuous, any government can work because no one will exploit any mismatches, even if allowed for in the system. The type of government (or lack thereof) would be irrelevant if everyone can be made virtuous "somehow". If half the people are corrupt, Stefan's theory suggests that they would feel psychologically compelled to organize and create a state using violent methods. They would also be aggressive, because that's how they're emotionally wired. This would require the other half to defend themselves somehow. The only enforcement mechanism for NAP is social ostracism and peer pressure. This won't work on the corrupt half who'll find like-minded allies to conspire with and won't care anyway. Let's look at the other claim and pretend for some reason there isn't a state to manipulate (which I doubt when half the people corrupt), corrupt people will exploit other inequalities and attempt to manipulate and con others using UPB arguments on those less competent. Thanks for clarifying. The U.S. small government design was a moral revolution against tyrannical, overbearing government and unjust taxation, taxation without representation), yet Americans are on a large scale trying to convince everyone to do the opposite. They complain while demanding big government policies. They advocate deferring taxation to dump on the unborn, who aren't represented. Also, the right for citizens to arm themselves was another moral revolution ... now people want gun control.

The only proposed society which IS based on moral principles is AnCap, so you really can't say the same about "any society" imo. To answer another thing, the reason why states can't stay small is the mismatch of incentives to make it larger. One guy can make millions by stealing one cent from everyone through a new regulation/tax, so he has an incentive to work, say 1000 hours till he gets it, but all the people who would lose the cent, don't really have an icnentive to work 1000 hours in protest just to not lose that one cent. That's the reason why governments never stay small. Yes, Stefan's economic argument is that those incentive mismatches are such that corrupt people won't be able to resist. small government = wealth creation; wealth creation = more taxes; more taxes = big government big government = bigger government; bigger government = parasite that kills host Therefore, he concludes, small governments, as we know them, are self defeating, drawing in corrupt people who will inevitably game the system. But when he switches to supporting anarchy, he argues that corrupt people are a product of upbringing and preventable. FDR proposes that government is an effect of the family, a projection of the unresolved BS retained from coersive childhood relationships. But wouldn't any kind of government work if you're saying corruption can be eliminated by everyone adhering to (insert a moral code like UPB), and behaving virtuously, consistently? Troncat also noticed this. I am not understanding this statement. Please define the terms "moral revolution" and "reversed itself", or use some examples of the terms.

I have a mom that will slap children, and verbally put them down and call it playful teasing. She is now doing this with her grandchildren. During a family gathering (annual), I was teaching my niece(9) to hulahoop, and she was showing off how she could do it, saying "hey look!". My mom then swooped in and slapped her behind, making her lose her concentration and causing the hoop to fall. Then my mom started laughing at her. I told her to stop it. She said she's just playing with her, and why can't I ever understand that? Then she started criticizing me with the same old crap ... I'm over-sensistive, my siblings didn't complain, not everyone takes everything so seriously... I should add that my niece's father (my brother) is typing away at his laptop across the room and doesn't move or look up. It's creepy. I believe my mom doesn't like to see children happy. I remember that whenever I (or my siblings) was happy for some reason, she'd interrupt with a physical slap or put down, or snatch away the toy, laughing like it is funny. Whenever I complained about it, she would launch into a lengthy criticism of me, so it was useless. She doesn't really pay attention to us otherwise. We just learned to play secretly. She's not actually interested in playing with children in a normal way. When I took my niece out for ice cream later, she asked me "um, why did gramma hit me on my butt?" I told her it's nothing she did, that gramma grew up in a different time and place, and doesn't know how strange she is. Then I told her not to feel an obligation to please adults. Is there a way to get through to my mom? I think at this age, there is not much hope. She gets so defensive. Was my explanation to my niece sufficient? My brother is a weird one too. I could be murdered and raped in front of him and he probably wouldn't even look up from whatever he's doing. He'd probably say later on that he didn't notice anything.

succeed at staying small, functional and efficient. I am not saying that I would know how. I am only saying he can't prove something cannot exist in the future by pointing to the fact that past attempts haven't succeeded in the past. Technology certainly doesn't work that way.

Agreed, and the failure of small governments to stay small, in the sample size that's provided by history, isn't proof that some other design cannot succeed in the future.

I've noticed that argument made many times in the podcasts too and was thinking of asking about the same thing. It's stressed that the internal consistency in UPB will make society stable in a way that statism can't, but I'm not sure I agree. Humans are very capable of prefering self serving inconsistencies, biases and contradictions over reason and consistency.

I would argue that "a low budget documentary" made these stupid "rules", and not "those who own the most".

My original topic ... I am trying to make my way through the vast past material on FDR. I only found Stefan videos accidentally in December on Youtube, so I am trying to catch up. So far, I hear a lot of his analysis of abuse (and how it relates to the State and violent society), and he frequently encourages people to discuss it in their relationships. He'll then say it is taboo, and talking about it will cause all sorts of problems, and end there. Why doesn't he go on to describe what kinds of reactions to expect, and how to prepare for them. Also, discuss why people will react the way they do. Otherwise, he is just pushing people into a situation they might not be ready to confront. Once you put the information out there, you can't take it back, and you're making yourself vulnerable in new ways. He should go into detail in warning about that, and urge caution.

I think in that ACE test, people would tend to score on the extremes, low or high. Dysfunctional people tend to attract other crazies, as well as opportunist sociopaths who find them easier to manipulate. Functional people would have low tolerance for disorder and violence, and avoid those people. So, abuse would multiply if it existed at all in an environment. Judging from the number of people who've told me about their childhood traumas, it is a minority that experience happy, carefree childhoods. I was extremely lucky to have friends in early childhood with loving families that would allow me to participate in their family functions. I was able to see the enormous contrast. My mother exhibited that sort of dissociative behaviour. She'd complain incessantly about my father (who abandoned her while she was pregnant with me, and I found out myself when I met him much later, was a sociopath). As soon as I tried to be supportive of her, she'd flip and defend him as if I attacked him, and will yell at me, how dare I think anything bad about my father. She's a big maze of contradictions, denials, and alternate realities. Abusers always make the victims feel like they were bad and deserved their punishment. It's their fault, they are the one to blame for the abuser's suffering. Even if we try to reject that as adults through logic, it's still ingrained in our brains from repetition and emotions. My theory is that my "friends" probably saw me as a good person up until they found out I was also abused, and because in their brain still exists the programming that an abused person is a bad person, they then saw me as someone to punish and blame. I am just guessing now. I hope I am not falling in the trap of creating an alternate reality. I know my anger and guilt went away when I fully believed it was not my fault. It was only after I knew the details of my parents' and abusers' lives and childhoods (through the bios at funerals, and stored documents), that I could understand their behaviors and know where they were coming from. Their childhoods were extremely violent ... total abandonment, infanticide of siblings, child slavery, years of civil war and foreign occupation. Of course, they never talked about it themselves. I just saw and felt the effects. FDR explained some of these horrors in the pre-Nazi Germany child rearing series.

Thanks, bbeljefe, for your understanding. It was much tougher as a kid because there was no way to make any sense of the random madness. As an adult, I was able to find out much more about my parents' childhoods and make some sense of their behavior, which helps a lot. Some psychotherapy, and the FDR videos also help. I'm so puzzled by how taboo the subject is and why it causes such inappropriate reactions. Especially the third reaction, since those people (four different serial serious boyfriends) had horrible childhoods that they confided in me about, and I would listen to them with compassion and try to make them feel better. Yet when I shared my backstory, they turned cruel and verbally abusive. I thought they should be able to sympathize and reciprocate, but they (all) did the opposite! I'd end the relationships pretty quickly. I realized I was in a bad pattern, and went into therapy. The second reaction was from good friends & colleagues of mine. They had doctorates in psychology from a prestigious institution. One told me about his horrible parents that he avoided any contact with as an adult. Their reactions made no sense to me.

Stefan: I haven't heard about this topic in your videos much, except for the part in "why you are so alone" around the taboo of discussing this subject. I'm curious what your analysis is of common responses when the topic of childhood is brought up and one discloses an abusive childhood to a friend. I am sure you have heard these. I will start with the most common ones I've experienced. I don't want to get into the details of the actual trauma in this first post ... let's just say I scored 8 out of 10 in the Kaiser online study you talked about in one episode. I'm more interested in your analysis of what's behind why people respond the ways they do. 1) The most common response is "but you seem so normal" along with confused, astonished expressions on their face. Then some try to minimize it "you must be exagerrating", "you're being dramatic", disbelief "you're kidding". Some try to turn it into something good, saying it benefitted me, made me smarter, tougher. Look at how good my life is, so I should be grateful for having hardships that challenged me and made me who I am. 2) One I hate the most is immediate empathy and sympathy for abusers, but none for me, and instructing me to feel bad for the abusers, and make excuses for their behavior. examples: "You must have been very difficult!" "Gosh what did you do to them." "Imagine what kind of horrible childhood they must have had." "Imagine if you had to schlepp around kids all the time right now" "Well, why should your older sibling like the responsibility of looking after you?" 3) The ones that seem like okay friends who afterwards treat me with disgust and lose respect for me. They act like there's an axe murder in me waiting to come out at any time with the proper trigger. These reactions made me avoid the topic for many years, or lie that my childhood was happy and wonderful. I didn't want people suspecting on some level that I was a horribly deranged, damaged, or unworthy person that's going to turn into Norman Bates. Some would joke about it, start talking to me in harsh, abusive, or condescending manner that they did not before. If I call them on it, they'd sneer and say something like "I'd think you should be used to that by now" or "that's because you are messed up". There are more but I'm stopping at 3.