RS: Would you mind if I queried
you a little bit about argumentation ethics? I must confess I’m very enamoured with it; I
think it’s fascinating, especially having a legal background. I’m very
interested in Stephan Kinsella, who has developed this in terms of its application to jurisprudence. I’ve also written on the subject of holding state judicial powers accountable under a private law system and how the state can never lawfully be a judge and could be taken to court for aggressively establishing a judicial monopoly. What are your thoughts on argumentation
ethics?
DG: I’m afraid I’m going to be
disappointing, I think there’s something to it but I have difficulty seeing
exactly what. One of the points is: suppose I were to say, I don’t own myself.
I would be involved in some sort of contradiction because in order to say, 'I
don’t own myself,' I show that, in fact, I did own myself. Suppose I
say in English, 'I’ve never spoken an English sentence in my life'; my saying
just that shows that my statement is false. Therefore, the claim is that it’s a similar type of profound contradiction. The problem is: I just do not see what the
contradiction is supposed to be. If I can tell you a funny story, I was talking to
Rothbard and I said, 'What if someone just said “I just can’t see what the
contradiction is?” and he said, ‘Ah, f**k ‘em!’There may be something to it and maybe I’m just failing to see it.
I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Michael Edelstein whose mentor was the great psychologist, Albert Ellis, creator of the original form of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy - Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT). He explained that this became the dominant school of therapy by dispelling the false beliefs people have about themselves, others and the world we find ourselves in. Ellis was influenced by the ancient Greek Stoics to peel away all the musts, shoulds and oughts we invent in our minds and are taught by our families and cultures. He explained how he, Eliis, Walter Block and Murray Rothbard would discuss libertarianism over dinner in Brooklyn; what I would give to have been a fly on the wall!
The most significant thing I learned is that a libertarian outlook on society is directly related to therapy. Instead of the socialistic idea that some people must do something for celooks at rtain others or the conservative idea that some people must not be allowed to engage activities which harm no one, the libertarian doesn't invent an ought from an is, but simply looks empirically at his choices and acts on his preference. If things don't work out as we anticipated, we're not immune from requiring therapy to reassess our expectations and unwanted emotions. For a simple but powerful form of therapy anyone can do themselves at any time, please read Dr. Edelstein's Three Minute Therapy: Change your thinking, change your life (purchase here).
In my interview with Professor James Fallon, we discuss the similarities of the psychopathic brain and that of libertarians. He explains that 'psychopath' is a broad description of various combinations of characteristics which are, in turn, dependent on the interaction of 15 different genes. As such, those we describe as psychopathic are not necessarily sociopathic and dangerous; for example, they could simply be charming, charismatic and witty, like Jim. He describes the way he empathizes with others as being dependent solely on a part of the top of the brain which is involved in cold, rational thought, thus 'cognitive empathy'. A 'normal person' would use a combination of this with a part of the underside of the brain which produces emotional empathy. However, most would predominantly use this emotional side of the brain, genuinely feeling the pain of others. For someone like Jim, however, he can only ever understand someone else's pain but never 'feels' it himself; his brain comprehends rather than exactly mirrors the emotions of another. In this way, most people are socialistic to a degree; their emotional thought dominates their rational thought, if their rational brain is engaged significantly at all. As Jim explains, the 10% of people who are intuitive and highly rational, predominantly use their cognitive brain and tend to be libertarian.
Moreover, the West owes its existence to the higher average levels of psychopathy and testosterone of European peoples. Jim describes his research on the Indo-Europeans and how these higher levels produced a larger number of 'big men' - the more predatory and dominant wolves amongst the feeble sheep. As well as a greater focus on individualism, such genes also produced the higher degree of rationalism which Weber described as the unique feature of the western civilization. This produced the libertarian aristocracies of ancient Europe in which there was no one despot, as developed everwhere else in the world. Where there was one main leader, he was always a first among equals. He welcomed competition because he wanted the companionship of other strong men, the prestige and respect he desired more than the control of others. (See my interview with Ricardo Duchesne on the Indo-European origins of the Faustian spirit of the West) The oriental despot sought to eradicate all competition and sociopathically control others, producing collectivist tyranny. However, classical liberal principles, such as the rule of law, have continued to be held up as ideals in the West despite the development of proper states in the form of mediaeval constitutional monarchs.
Jim concludes, sadly, a libertarian society could not be readily achieved, even in the West, because of the socio-biological obstacle of the irrational thinking of the masses of...well...sheep. Although, perhaps, as Walter Block suggested, a concentration of intuitive, rational thinkers in one area might allow for the secession of a free, or at least freer, society. In any case, understanding the genetic factors involved is an important first step. Simply ignoring the influence of genes and focussing solely on environmental factors, as the environmental determinists do, is dangerous and is only designed to further leftist ideology. But I'll let Jim explain all that:
The brilliant, influential anthropologist, Henry Harpending, sadly died yesterday after being unable to recover from a recent stroke. He was co-author of the important book,The 10,000 Year Explosion. with the humorous and equally brilliant Gregory Cochran. Together, they have stood against the goliath of leftist ideology which insists no evolution has occurred in human groups over the past 10,000 years. Showing that the radical changes in lifestyle brought about by the Neolithic Revolution, particularly by agriculture and state monopolization of violence and domestication of the populace, they have enabled us to answer questions relating to differences in IQ, time preference and other socio-biological differences which create major differences in culture. Yes, geography is a factor, but Henry described a beautiful dance in which genes, geography and all other significant factors influenced one another. How sad that those who build on his work are shunned, such as Nicholas Wade's controversial A Troublesome Inheritance, which detonated the foundation of the mainstream and saw that he lost his job as science editor of the New York Times.
These men are no racists. Henry Harpending was a scientist and cared too much about others and, especially about empirical facts, to let baseless accusations from the magisterium stop him. He described himself as a bleeding heart libertarian to me and you can still hear him describe both his journey to libertarian thinking and the importance of genetic realism in his talk at the H.L. Mencken Club. The facts are not to be feared, as they inform our decisions. Truth and freedom are the friends of peace; its enemies are ignorance and coercion.
RIP Henry. You were a gent and knightly scientist in an era of PC tenure-seeking.
