Glibertarians.com 2018 Archive

Author: Bob Boberson

Bob Boberson tries to sound intellectual about Envy

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. -Exodus 20:17

It is interesting to note that the Tenth Commandment and final commandment is the only statute of the Decalogue that is concerned with an internal desire as opposed to an outward action. (Arguably you could claim the first is as well but that is a discussion for another forum) The author of the Ten Commandments, whether you believe it to be God or Moses or someone else entirely, thought purging envy from ones inner being to be a moral imperative worthy to be listed alongside prohibitions on murder, theft and bearing false witness. The reason, I believe, is because envy is a destructive force that left unchecked destroys the envious and wreaks havoc on those around them.

Winston Churchill famously said:

“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”

We Glibs repeat this creed daily in various ways as we comment on the avarice, greed and base human instincts that drive all things political and particularly as we see those vices on full display in the antics of the progressive/socialist left. Envy’s various manifestations can accurately be assumed to be the underpinning passion that motivates left-wing ideology.

But what is envy? I think Kant’s definition is probably the most precise:

“Envy is a propensity to view the well-being of others with distress, even though it does not detract from one’s own. [It is] a reluctance to see our own well-being overshadowed by another’s because the standard we use to see how well off we are is not the intrinsic worth of our own well-being but how it compares with that of others. [Envy] aims, at least in terms of one’s wishes, at destroying others’ good fortune.” (The Metaphysics of Morals 6:459)

It is necessary at this point to distinguish between envy and jealousy as the terms are often confused in common usage. Viewed through the lens of the Stoic passions; delight, lust, fear, and distress; jealousy differs from envy in that jealousy is rooted in fear whereas envy is rooted in distress. Jealousy requires three parties; the subject, the rival and the beloved. Jealousy is the fear of the subject losing the affections of the beloved to the rival. More simply put, it is the fear of losing what we have, or what is within our power to possess, to another. Using the word strictly within the confines of its definition would relegate its application almost entirely to interpersonal relationships. Envy, on the other hand, is a two-party relation consisting only of the subject and the rival. This distress is an irrational contraction on the part of the subject toward the rival. At its core it is the belief that one is inadequate in comparison to another. It is a self-applied judgement. While it could certainly be argued that jealousy has as many roots in distress as it does in fear, it is quite clear that envy is not fear-based as the subject stands to lose nothing to the rival because they do not possess the object in question. It is an irrationality arising solely from comparison. We may say “I’m jealous of my neighbor’s car” but in reality, unless he somehow outcompeted you for it, we are envious rather than jealous as we never were in a position to possess that particular car in the first place.

So we see manifestations of envy everywhere and indeed deal with our own irrational envious impulses hundreds of times daily. Some psychologists differentiate ‘good envy’ (I want my neighbors car so I’ll emulate my neighbors actions in order to obtain one of my own) from ‘bad envy’(I want his specific car or, short of that, I don’t want him to have it). I reject the notion of ‘good envy’ on the grounds that aspiration and emulation are perfectly consistent with rational self-interest and it does not seek to deprive the rival of anything. It is a concept in need of a term of its own. Envy, as I see it, is entirely negative and harmful. It is the irrational impulse to deprive someone else of something they have to thus alleviate one’s own sense of inferiority.

A tranquil heart gives life to the flesh, but envy makes the bones rot. Ps 14:30

I think the analogy of envy as rot is accurate. Once the irrational belief that another needs to be deprived to satisfy our own insecurity manifests itself, it becomes all-consuming, spawning all kinds of other soul-destroying passions. As Walker Percy said, “it consumes and twists our logic until nothing but itself makes sense.” In an attempt to rationalize our irrational passion we must justify our base desire to deprive others in order to feel adequate. We must convince ourselves that the rival somehow deprived us of what is rightfully ours. From this twisted logic we see all the other negative passions grow from the seed of envy; hatred, enmity, greed, anger, malice, vexation, depression, sadness, despondency, and on and on…

Eric Hoffer identified in his seminal work True Believer who is most susceptible to the ravages of envy;

“The weak are not a noble breed. Their sublime deeds of faith, daring, and self-sacrifice usually spring from questionable motives. The weak hate not wickedness but weakness; and one instance of their hatred of weakness is hatred of self. All the passionate pursuits of the weak are in some degree a striving to escape, blur, or disguise an unwanted self.”

Those consumed by envy have somewhere buried deep in their psyche a profound sense of inadequacy. Rather than aspiring to gain through emulation those things they do not possess, whether they be material, relational or moral, they seek to climb above their station on the backs of others, or at the very least drag them down into the mire with them. This sense of inferiority is so profound that the subject must alter their world-view to satisfy it. Sadly these altered world-views have given rise to ideologies which give shelter and comfort to the envious (I’m looking at you Karl Marx).

Again I’ll quote Hoffer;

“A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self.”

So we see myriad praises and excuses for envy dressed up in intellectual and garrulous finery. The subject is constantly reassured that their sense of inadequacy is natural, if not righteous. The moral obligation to combat their own passions is instead transferred to the rival who must be made to pay for their perceived superiority. Put even more simply, the rival is now responsible for the way the subject feels. The implications are terrifying when you couple a doctrine of envy with collectivism. The only acceptable outcome for the collective envious subjects is to see their collective superior rivals brought low and punished for the self-hatred the subject feels. Debasement or annihilation are the only thing that can satisfy the irrational contraction that spawned the ideology.

So what is to be done?

In regard to social-political movements, I have no idea. Envy is a part of the human condition and will rear its ugly head wherever human action transpires. I have little power to change anything other than myself.

I refer once again to the first part of the Psalm above;

“A tranquil heart gives life to the flesh, but envy makes the bones rot.” Ps 14:30

We cannot control what is in the heart of others, only what is in our own. I believe this concept is one shared by any worthwhile religion or philosophy. We subdue our passions through logic and morality. We recognize that the inadequacy we feel relative to the rival’s superiority is a logical fallacy. One can only aspire to be the ideal version of themselves and cannot possess the personage of another. We must recognize that envy is a purely destructive force and the first to be destroyed by it is the envious. Beyond logic, we have a moral duty to recognize that envy seeks to justify violations of the natural rights of others:

For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. James 3:16

If the source of envy is not recognized for what it is, we find ourselves going down the primrose path from envy to resentment, resentment to hostility and from hostility to action. The end result of unchecked envy is the violation of first principles if not the outright abandonment of them.

In my opinion, the opposite of envy is gratitude. This is no profound revelation yet the application is a constant challenge. When one takes stock of the blessings in their life and values them in the right order, contentedness takes the place of envy.

I write these articles to be instructed more so than to instruct, so perhaps some of you fine Glibs can propose how we might organize (or disorganize) society to combat collective envy?

“Don’t set your mind on things you don’t possess…but count the blessings you actually possess and think how much you would desire them if they weren’t already yours.” –Marcus Aurelius

December 27, 2018
Bob Boberson Ruminates on Voting

Recently I got into an interesting OT discussion here at Glibs regarding voting. The subject in question was, as best I can capture it, what is the best demographic criteria for voting to assure libertarian outcomes? This is a subject that could easily turn into a treatise which I am neither qualified or inclined to write (I’m lazy). Instead I’d rather quote some other people and allow you fine people to weigh in and/or get on with your OT links.

According to Wikipedia:

“Voting is a method for a group, such as, a meeting or an electorate to make a collective decision or express an opinion, usually following discussions, debates or election campaigns. Democracies elect holders of high office by voting. Residents of a place represented by an elected official are called “constituents”, and those constituents who cast a ballot for their chosen candidate are called “voters”. There are different systems for collecting votes.”

If you accept the proposed definition one must concede that voting by its very nature is a collectivist pursuit. Lysander Spooner, as most of you well know, makes a pretty solid argument that voting is bullshit.

“As we can have no legal knowledge as to who votes from choice, and who from the necessity thus forced upon him, we can have no legal knowledge, as to any particular individual, that he voted from choice; or, consequently, that by voting, he consented, or pledged himself, to support the government. Legally speaking, therefore, the act of voting utterly fails to pledge any one to support the government. It utterly fails to prove that the government rests upon the voluntary support of anybody. On general principles of law and reason, it cannot be said that the government has any voluntary supporters at all, until it can be distinctly shown who its voluntary supporters are.”

He later concludes:

“The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in
the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes – a large class, no doubt – each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is “a free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth,”2 and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.”

I am reasonably confident that I (and probably the lion’s share of you fine people) fall into the third category. I’d love to do the work of “making a change” but lack the imagination to put forward a better system and cannot in good faith promote an alternative that is much more than wild speculation.

So, for lack of a better system than a constitutional republic, I believe we for the foreseeable future stuck with electing slimy sociopaths to ostensibly represent our interests in the body politic. Most, I dare say, if not all of us agree with Alexander de tocqueville’s prophetic observation:

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

We see this play out year after year, election after election. I’ll go out on another limb and dare suppose that many of us agree that the appeal of “free shit” will be popular in any race and among all demographics. That being said if Bernie and She Guevera of have shown us anything it’s that young people and recent immigrants are, at least at present, very susceptible to the politics envy and the appeal of hand-outs. Eager to capitalize on this phenomena, the political left seems to be eager to expand voting rights to non-citizens and 16 year olds. I’ll again speculate that if they got their way it would only be a few years until they were making appeals that it is a great injustice non-resident/non-citizens and 14 year- olds are being denied their right to vote. The question I’d like to have answered is; is there a just rationale for limiting voting to certain demographics? Many of our founding fathers favored restricting the vote to not only property owners but specifically white property owners. While my intent is not to disparage our founding fathers one doesn’t have to think very hard as to why this criteria is ‘problematic,’ if I may borrow a common phrase from our left-leaning friends. Setting aside the racial overtones it still was a less than perfect protection against the appeal of legal plunder. In the discussion Suthenboy astutely pointed out:

“With that rule the wealthier property owners jack up taxes to price everyone out of ownership, then buy up everything. As I said, around the last turn of the century only timber companies, railroads and insurance companies would have been able to vote. It is a disaster.”

So we see that limiting voting rights to property owners has it’s own pitfalls. Heroic Mulatto proposed:

“The pre-frontal cortex doesn’t finish development until around 32 years of age. If we define adulthood as the completion of maturation, then it should start at 30 (to give it a nice round number). Likewise, voting and other adult rights and responsibilities should be delayed until then. I am serious.”

While upping the age limit for voters would appear to have it’s merits, I think it would also have it’s unintended consequences. What of young property owners and their interests? What gives a middle-aged failure more right to a ballot box that a young and successful entrepreneur? If the issue of social security has shown us anything it is that the old are not immune to voting themselves plunder from the public treasury either.

I have no proposed solutions and this article has already run on longer than I intended and touched on more freshmen-level civics topics than I meant to. I earnestly look forward to the lesson I’m about to receive from the Glibertariat.

September 6, 2018
CrossFit: The Libertarian Exercise Cult

[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.3.1″]

CrossFit. For some the word conjures up visions of guys with man-buns doing an impossible gymnastic feat over and over again on a set of rings, or a girl in a sports bra who is THICC in all the right (or perhaps wrong) places blasting out heavy Olympic lifts in rapid succession. To many it’s a weird and masochistic form of exercising with a cultish following whose adherents refuse to shut up about it.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_image admin_label=”Image2″ _builder_version=”3.3.1″ src=”https://glibertarians.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Image-2.jpg” module_alignment=”left” /][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_image admin_label=”Image3″ _builder_version=”3.3.1″ src=”https://glibertarians.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Image-3.jpg” /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.3.1″]

“A CrossFitter, a vegan, and an atheist walk into a bar. I know because they told me when they walked in.” H/T Dr. Fronkensteen

Stereotypes exist for a reason and far be it from me to defend how some CrossFitters act (much less what they choose to post on social media). That being said, I myself am an adherent to this weird libertarian workout cult and can say that, while I will not claim it is the end-all-be-all form of exercise, it does offer something that most conventional gyms and exercise programs do not.

Part I: A short and incomplete history

CrossFit methodology was developed in the early 2000’s by self-proclaimed “Rabid Libertarian” Greg Glassman. Appropriately for a libertarian, his physical appearance resembles a construction worker on the tail end of a three day bender rather than the founder of an internationally successful fitness movement.

Glassman was a gymnast in high-school who sought to get stronger than the competition by incorporating barbell lifting into his training regimen. He quickly realized that while training specialization might make his friends and competitors better in one particular activity, it often came at the expense of skill or strength in another and that when competing in varied activities and competitions he was often far better equipped than those who focused solely on their event or sport.

Fast forward to 2000 and he’s codified his “jack-of-all-trades” approach into the term known as “CrossFit” and is poised to unleash a fitness phenomenon on the world, complete with head bands, compression socks, copious amounts of loose chalk and pretentious FB posts. The fancy description of the goal of CrossFit goes something like this:

“greater work capacity across broad time and modal domains”

and

“Adherents train to enhance 10 key physical qualities: cardiovascular/respiratory endurance, stamina, strength, flexibility, power, speed, coordination, agility, balance and accuracy.”

Put more simply, the goal is to be “fit.” Strong? Yes. Endurance? You bet. Flexible? Yup. Fast? Uh-huh….. You get the idea.

Unlike many other popular forms of exercising CrossFit eschews specializing in one particular area and seeks to train an individual in all dimensions of fitness simultaneously. An avid marathon runner may have incredible cardiovascular/respiratory endurance but this often comes at the expense of muscular strength. A body builder may be incredibly strong but they are rarely flexible or possess the stamina for prolonged energy expenditure, and so on.

While this may have been a revelation in the fitness world circa 2000, it was by no means a “new” idea. In fact, 20th century fitness was founded on this approach. The CrossFit brand may be relatively new, the methodology however bears a striking resemblance to Georges Hébert’s “Natural Method” of the early 20th Century.

“A (Natural Method) session is composed of exercises belonging to the ten fundamental groups: walking, running, jumping, quadrupedal movement, climbing, equilibrium (balancing), throwing, lifting, defending and swimming.”

While their definitions of the dimensions of fitness do not perfectly align, their similarity is undeniable. The underlying belief is the same: being all-around fit makes you better equipped not only for survival, but life in general.

The 1970s gave us two trends that would turn the idea of what fitness is on its ear. The running boom and Arnold Schwarzenegger. These two divergent phenomena pushed people away from pursuing fitness itself as a goal and toward physical specialization. New marathons, half-marathons, 10Ks and 5Ks began to pop up across the country, not as a spectacle for the super athlete to compete in, but as something for the average person to aspire to do; participation levels spiked as never before. Soon you had a sizable portion of the population pursuing running only (or at least endurance sports only) and neglecting strength training almost entirely under the false assumption that it makes you “bulky” and “slow.”

One the other end of the spectrum you have Arnold Schwarzenegger, a physical specimen the likes of which the world has never seen. His muscles had muscles. His physique made Michelangelo’s David look like a pajama boy and his popularity redefined the international conception of what it meant to be “strong.” So begins the “gym rat” phenomenon of [mostly] men pumping themselves up in the gym, trying to look like Arnold, moving away from some of the old-fashioned barbell power lifting movements in favor or isolating muscle groups with exercises like curls, flys, bench press, military press, leg extensions, etc. The gym rats were almost as disdainful of cardio/endurance training as the marathoners were of strength training; “it makes you skinny” and “it kills muscle.” “Cardio” if done at all, was confined to a separate workout to be done one or two days a week for most gym rats.

Thus over the last forty years we see the average person faced with a false dichotomy; pursue endurance specialization or strength specialization, when in fact both approaches neglect at least half of what being “fit” is all about.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_image admin_label=”Image4″ _builder_version=”3.3.1″ src=”https://glibertarians.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Image-4.jpg” module_alignment=”left” align=”right” /][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_image admin_label=”Image5″ _builder_version=”3.3.1″ src=”https://glibertarians.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Image-5.jpg” module_alignment=”left” /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.3.1″]

Fast forward back to the mid-2000s and enter Greg Glassman. New guy peddling an old idea. For the average person, “fitness” is the goal of exercise. Your average person does not exercise to compete in a specialized sport but to have a healthy and functional body. As A Leap at the Wheel put it in GlibFit 2.0, Son of Glibfit:

Fitness is the process of picking things up and putting them down, using excess energy in your diet to improve your heart, lungs, and muscles.

I would add that training your muscles and your heart and lungs need not be, and perhaps should not be, mutually exclusive; fitness is your body’s ability to perform work and that work must be done at the pace that the situation and environment demand.

Will your average person ever “need” to run 26.2 miles? Is there any point to being able to bench 400 lbs beyond being able to claim you can bench 400 lbs? Neither goal is a bad thing in and of itself, yet, hitting a certain run time or weight on a particular lift is often an arbitrary standard to judge one’s fitness. For the average person who is not a competitive athlete training for a specific event, the better standard may be to ask yourself:

Can I lift the heavy object off a child?
Can I climb out the window of a burning building, hang from the ledge and drop to the ground?
Can I pull myself back in that window if need be?
Can I sprint a half-mile down the road to get help?
If I’m in a situation where I need to defend myself or others with my body do I have the stamina to keep fighting for several minutes after the initial assault?

CrossFit came about to supply a demand in the fitness market for those who prioritize function over form and utility over aesthetic. It’s not the only way, much less the perfect way, it’s just a really good, and increasingly available way, to achieve physical utility. While a person’s individual physiology certainly plays no small part, committed CrossFitters often end up with a body type that resembles someone whom works hard outdoors for a living. For those of us attached to keyboards and chairs all day, that’s not a bad thing.

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”Image6″ _builder_version=”3.3.1″]

A little something for Jesse.

[/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.3.1″]

Some of you are asking by now “So what the hell is it exactly? What makes it so libertarian?” Good questions that will be answered in Part 2. Please let me reiterate this disclaimer; I do not claim CrossFit is the perfect form of exercise. While I believe in the methodology, its execution often falls victim to human nature and I intend to distinguish between good and bad trends within CrossFit in Part 3.

For now let me close by saying that its appeal, for me, is rooted in the libertarian virtue of self-reliance. Sure it’s nice to look good naked and know that I’m doing something good for my body, but below that at the core it’s about capitalizing on the body I’ve been given.

In a world that is increasingly dismissive and hostile to the idea of self-reliance, I sleep better at night knowing I am physically able to come to the aid of a family member or neighbor in a time of crisis. It’s about being confident that I’m at least somewhat prepared physically to respond to the unforeseen. The best analogy I can come up with: it’s akin to owning a firearm or a tool; my body does me little good if it’s neglected and rusty.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

June 5, 2018