How Should We Treat Our
Neighbor ? Episode 5 : Listener comments and questions, part A
Listener Bob from Connecticut sent me several insightful comments and questions pertaining to episodes one, two and three. In this and forthcoming episodes, I will respond to his questions. Hopefully, these questions and answers will be of interest to the general audience.
First question –
I find confusing the title of your podcast series – “How Should We Treat Our Neighbor ?”. Isn’t your goal to promote individual behavior that creates a society that deals with its members in a non-coercive manner ?
Yes, that is my goal. To achieve it, we must refrain from the use of coercion against our neighbors on a personal basis, which is generally understood. But we must also refrain from the use of coercion against our neighbors on a political basis, that is, via government. Unfortunately, that point is not well understood.
Here I quote the home page of the website for this podcast –
In the Gettysburg Address, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln stated that ours is a "government of the people, by the people, for the people". If this is true, then each citizen's choice in voting and choices in supporting or opposing government policies influences how our neighbors are treated by that government.
Like all man-made institutions, a government may be used for morally good or evil purposes. Unique among all those institutions, a government is allowed to use coercion against us – threats of violence, actual violence, fines, imprisonment or even death.
In this context, I ask "How should we treat our neighbor ?". That is, what is the morally proper use of the coercive power of government towards our neighbors ?
Adding to that – I am trying to make clear to the audience that what you ask your government to do to your neighbors must respect their rights. Just as you cannot violate their rights on your own, you cannot expect the government to violate their rights for you. The will of the majority is irrelevant in this regard. The rights of an individual may not be violated, even if all other citizens vote in favor of such a violation.
When “we the people” chose to constitute a government, we surrendered certain powers to that government. For example, in a society with no government, an individual may use force against a person she believes has stolen her property. However, in a society with a government, she must summon an agent of the government, such as a police officer, to deal with the alleged thief. By consenting to create a government, she gave up the power to use private coercion to enforce her property rights.
The powers of government were delegated to it by the people who wrote the constitution that created it. They can only delegate powers that each individual legitimately possessed before the government was created. For example, it is not morally legitimate for your neighbor to extort wealth from you, even when there is no government. The creation of a government does not endow it with such a power. And government does not acquire such a power just because a majority of people voted for political candidates who promised to create a coercive system of wealth transfer. Social Security or welfare programs are examples of such systems which are not morally legitimate because they violate the rights of some citizens to benefit others.
This limitation on the powers of government is fundamental to the libertarian perspective. And my hope is that people remember and respect that limitation when I ask them “How Should We Treat Our Neighbor ?”.
Here is a related quote from Auberon Herbert, a nineteenth-century English writer and member of Parliament –
We hold that what one man cannot morally do, a million
men cannot morally do, and government, representing many millions of men,
cannot do.
[ Note 1 ]
Next question –
The libertarian approach seems
to require a well-educated, intellectually-disciplined “elite” capable of
reasoned analysis and actions. Is this
approach realistic or just an ideal to which we should aspire ?
I agree that education is required, which is why I produce this podcast series. Understanding the nature of government, individual freedom, responsibility for one’s own life and individual rights are the basic concepts. I don’t think that these concepts are difficult to understand. I don’t think these concepts are well-understood by the general population, nor are they well-taught in the government-run schools. I’ve already covered the first three and will soon produce episodes covering individual rights.
Also, I agree that people must think and act rationally. However, I don’t think that libertarians have to be an “intellectually-disciplined elite”. In my view, the intellectual and moral requirements of libertarianism are not so demanding that only a small group of people are competent to achieve them.
Beyond that, it seems reasonable to think there are psychological requirements for the libertarian lifestyle. I had not planned to say anything in this podcast series about psychology due to my lack of knowledge of the subject. But I now think this is an opportune occasion to include such content.
The late Edith Packer had a Ph.D. in clinical psychology and practiced as a psychotherapist. In 1983, she delivered a lecture titled “The Psychological Requirements of a Free Society”. I will briefly summarize that lecture here, in her own words, using a computer-generated voice. All of the following quotes are taken from a compilation of her lectures in a book titled “Lectures on Psychology – A Guide to Understanding Your Emotions”. [ Note 2 ]
Her main point is –
[T]he essential psychological requirement of a free
society is the willingness on the part of the individual to accept
responsibility for his life 2.1
Her lecture focused on one requirement underlying self-responsibility, which is –
[A] strong sense of personal identity leads to the
individual becoming self-responsible, and that in turn increases the likelihood
that he will want to live in a free society
2.2
She then identifies “five general prerequisites for the development of a strong sense of identity” 2.3. The first is one’s “attitude toward oneself ” 2.4 –
I am worthy of happiness. I am worth all the trouble to find out what
makes me happy and then to go achieve it
2.5
The second is one’s “attitude toward reality” 2.6 –
A person has to be convinced that reality is
comprehensible, that his mind can understand it, that life is not something to
be feared and avoided, but rather something to be explored, understood, and
conquered 2.7
The third is an attitude of benevolence towards others –
A person has to recognize that other people are not
demons or some malevolent force out to destroy him, that the world is not
filled with crooks and cheats who prey upon him. A benevolent attitude toward people involves
respect for other people’s rationality and decency 2.8
The fourth is one’s feeling of being in control of his life –
A person must regard the locus of control over his
life as being internal, not external. He must feel that he is basically in
control of the course of his life 2.9
The final requirement is –
[S]elf-acceptance of one’s uniqueness. One’s attitude
on this issue is perhaps most directly connected to one’s sense of identity 2.10
Later in the lecture, Edith Packer makes this observation –
The pursuit of safety and security are traits of
dependent personalities, people without values and without a strong sense of identity.
That kind of person is a perfect candidate for socialism. He does not want to
take care of himself, or he feels that he cannot do so. He will give all kinds
of reasons as to why he wants socialism, but the real reason is that he fears
self-responsibility. In return for protection, for being taken care of, he will
gladly obey 2.11
She goes on to say –
[W]e are speaking about
individuals who have never developed a strong sense of identity, who instead
pursue their infantile needs consistently throughout their lives. Eventually
when they have grown up and their parents are no longer there to take care of
them, they have to find a substitute. Their solution is to transfer their
desire to be taken care of from their parents to the government. 2.12
Edith Packer’s theory seems reasonable to me, as I talked about accepting responsibility for one’s own life in episodes two and three, which were written before I had read or even knew of her lecture. Assuming that she is correct, it seems that if a majority of people in a society are unwilling to accept responsibility for their lives, that society will be unable to achieve the goals of libertarians. As she points out, such people are drawn to socialism with the expectation of being taken care of. To overcome that condition, the individual would probably require some type of psychological counseling. I don’t have the knowledge to assist anyone with that challenge, so I will not address it in this podcast series. I can only hope that such people do not constitute a majority here in America.
Edith Packer’s full lecture occupies 18 pages in the paperback version of the book, so there is much more than I have included here and I encourage listeners to read her entire presentation of “The Psychological Requirements of a Free Society”. The transcript contains links to websites where the book can be purchased. [ Note 3 ]
Next question –
A well-educated population and electorate are key to the libertarian viewpoint and the dissemination and implementation of its ideas. Is our educational system up to it ?
My short answer is “No”. I am planning to produce episodes of this podcast to discuss “our educational system”, where I will consider in detail the problems with the government-run schools. Here, I will just provide a brief response to this question.
It seems to me that the most basic skill that must be taught is reading. Once a person knows how to read, all of the world’s knowledge is available to them, if they are motivated to pursue it. It is sometimes said that a person must learn to read so that she may then read to learn. A non-reader cannot even understand a road sign, a restaurant menu or a cereal box.
With this in mind, I looked at the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress reading achievement levels for 2019. I chose that year to avoid the effects of widespread school closures during the coronavirus pandemic.
Looking at 2019 data for twelfth-grade students reading at or above the proficient level, we find 32% of males and 42% of females. If we reduce the standard to reading at or above the basic level, we find 65% of males and 76% of females [ Note 4 ]. These results imply that about 35% of male and 24% of female twelfth-grade students could not even read at the basic level in 2019. I don’t believe those students were prepared to pursue greater knowledge through reading. I’m not sure that they could even get a job to support themselves.
Looking at more recent evidence, in a 2020 article in National Review by Baker Mitchell, he reports that –
55.7 percent of public-school students in grades three
through eight fail North Carolina’s end-of-grade reading test
He attributes this to the rejection of the phonics method of reading instruction by the education establishment in North Carolina. [ Note 5 ]
Baker Mitchell runs a firm that manages four charter schools in North Carolina. He tells a story of 24 second-grade students that transferred from traditional government-run schools to one of those charter schools. Not one of those students was able to pass a test of their ability to understand spoken language at a level needed to begin Kindergarten reading instruction. That is, those second-grade students needed remedial instruction just to understand a teacher’s spoken words before they could begin Kindergarten-level education. One certainly wonders what those students were learning for two years in the traditional government-run schools. [ Note 5 ]
An article by Reagan Reese in the Daily Caller reports that in 2021, only 23.1% of all students in the Chicago Public School system were proficient in English language arts. Ms. Reagan points out that in the same year, 100% of teachers were rated as proficient or excellent by the system’s administrators. I don’t understand how teachers can be rated so highly when the overwhelming majority of their students are not even proficient in English. [ Note 6 ]
Another article by Reagan Reese in the Daily Caller reports that in 2022, the state of Illinois operated 622 schools. Among those were 30 schools that had not one student that could read at their grade level. State-wide, only about 10% of students can read proficiently. I am focusing here on reading, but I will mention that the statistics for proficiency in math are even worse. [ Note 7 ]
Since we cannot rely on the government-run schools to teach reading to young people, there is little hope for those schools to properly teach civics or history. And it seems hopeless to think they could teach more challenging topics like individual freedom and rights or the ideas contained in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
It’s not surprising that libertarians see the solution in the form of liberty. That is, liberate students from the failing government-run schools via programs like school choice vouchers, educational savings accounts or tax credits for educational expenses. As more states implement these policies, more students will attend private schools that educate much better and cost much less than the government-run schools. Only then will there be a hope of educating more students who will be ready to take responsibility for their own lives as libertarians propose. As I mentioned, the topic of education will be considered in detail in forthcoming episodes of this podcast.
Next question –
It seems that most of what is considered public education today, even at the college level, conforms to a culture of victimization and grievance on the part of various minority groups. What should be done about that ?
First, I will summarize the ideas supporting that culture, as I understand them. The so-called “post-modernist” thinkers of the 20th century concluded that Karl Marx’s economic theory of how society would evolve was another failed narrative whose predictions were shown to be wrong by empirical evidence.
But they retained two ideas from Marx. He divided society into the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, that is, workers and capitalists. He claimed that the capitalists oppressed the workers and also claimed that the two groups used their minds in different ways. The minds of the capitalists supposedly made use of “bourgeois logic” which differed from the logic used by workers.
The post-modernists generalized those ideas. As regards oppression, they expanded Marx’s simple classification scheme with many more categories. They claim that white-skinned people oppress dark-skinned people, males oppress females, heterosexuals oppress homosexuals and transsexuals, Christians and Jews oppress Muslims, non-disabled people oppress disabled people, the human species oppresses all other species, and so on.
To that, they added an idea called “intersectionality” which means that these types of oppression are additive. So, a dark-skinned female is more oppressed than a white-skinned female. And a dark-skinned homosexual female is more oppressed than a dark-skinned female. This creates a type of competition where these groups argue about which is more oppressed. For example, who is more oppressed – a dark-skinned homosexual female or a dark-skinned Muslim female ?
The post-modernist thinkers also generalized the Marxist theory of polylogism, which claims there are many logics, each of which is valid for a certain group. For example, there is “white-skinned logic”, “dark-skinned logic”, “male logic”, “female logic”, “heterosexual logic” and so forth. A man, using his male logic thinks differently from a woman using her female logic, and the two cannot fundamentally understand each other. Therefore, there is no such thing as objective truth, as all truth is subjectively determined by the type of logic each group uses.
A person who believes there is no objective truth will conclude that the only way to resolve disagreements is via the threat of coercion or actual use of coercion. Thus, resolution of most disagreements requires government, the societal tool of coercion. The individual who doesn’t like some situation in her life can use her group status to claim oppression that must be rectified through some form of government intervention. So, we would need government involvement to determine which individuals will be admitted to a college, which graduate, which get a job, which will be promoted, which will be awarded a contract, etcetera.
But we are told there is no objective truth to which the government can refer to resolve such conflicts. Somehow, the government will have to write laws or regulations to specify how it is to discriminate in favor of one group or another in every situation. Therefore, we see that the post-modern perspective becomes a justification for a regime of pervasive and perpetual discrimination.
In the transcript, I have included links for two videos of philosopher Stephen Hicks explaining post-modernism. Those videos are the source of my knowledge of this material. [ Note 8 ]
In terms of what should be done about this situation – as stated previously, libertarians want to free students from being forced into government-run schools. Parents will be free to choose schools that do not teach ideas that encourage irrational hatred and discrimination. At the college level, it is necessary to persuade students to avoid schools or classes that teach these ideas. But, to be clear, libertarians would not approve of the use of coercion to prevent the teaching of these ideas, as that is not an appropriate use of governmental power.
Here is a relevant quote by Sam Vaknin, a professor of clinical psychology in the United Kingdom –
[T]he potential for aggression and even violence in
victimhood movements is much larger than in the general population […] Anything that is grievance-based leads to
violence and death
[ Note 9 ]
This episode has reached a reasonable length. We will continue with more of listener Bob’s questions in the next episode.
A transcript of this episode is available on the “Podcasts” tab of the website “hswton.com”. The link may be found by expanding the plus sign next to the episode number and title. The transcript also contains supporting notes and links for quotes, definitions and other content contained in this episode.
Thank you for listening. I hope you will continue with the next episode of "How Should We Treat Our Neighbor ?".
Good day.
|
Note |
1 |
|
Author |
Auberon Herbert |
|
Author’s URL |
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/auberon-herbert-voluntaryist |
|
Quote |
“We
hold that what one man cannot morally do …” |
|
Quote URL |
|
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 December 10 |
|
Note |
2 |
||||||||||||||
|
Author |
Edith Packer |
||||||||||||||
|
Author’s URL |
https://georgereismansblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/eulogy-for-my-wife-edith-packer_12.html |
||||||||||||||
|
Title |
“Lectures on Psychology – A Guide to Understanding Your
Emotions” |
||||||||||||||
|
Publisher |
TJS Books |
||||||||||||||
|
Date published |
2019 January 26 |
||||||||||||||
|
ISBN |
978-1-931089-12-8 |
||||||||||||||
|
Pages for quotes used |
|
||||||||||||||
|
Comment |
Permission to quote was granted by Dr. George Reisman, the copyright holder, during a phone call on October 25th of 2024. |
||||||||||||||
|
Date URL accessed |
2024 December 10 |
|
Note |
3 |
|
Comment |
The following sources for “Lectures on Psychology – A Guide to Understanding Your Emotions” by Edith Packer were found via an Internet search conducted in October of 2024. All sellers offer a paperback version of the book. Only Amazon offers both a paperback and an electronic version of the book. |
|
Source 1 |
|
|
Source 2 |
|
|
Source 3 |
https://www.amazon.com/Lectures-Psychology-Guide-Understanding-Emotions/dp/1792700202 |
|
Source 4 |
https://booksrun.com/9781792700200-lectures-on-psychology-a-guide-to-understanding-your-emotions |
|
Source 5 |
|
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 December 10 |
|
4 |
|
|
Source |
National Center for Educational Statistics |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Content title |
“Table
221.20. Percentage of students at or
above selected National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading
achievement levels, by grade and selected student characteristics: Selected years,
2005 through 2022” |
|
Content URL |
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_221.20.asp?current=yes |
|
Date updated |
2022 October 31 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 December 10 |
|
Note |
5 |
|
Source |
National Review |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Author |
Baker A. Mitchell, Jr. |
|
Author's URL |
|
|
Content title |
“Why Johnny Still
Can’t Read” |
|
Content URL |
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/public-schools-passing-students-who-cant-read/ |
|
Date posted |
2020 October 10 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 December 10 |
|
Note |
6 |
|
Source |
Daily Caller News Foundation |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Author |
Reagan Reese |
|
Author's URL |
|
|
Content title |
“Chicago Educators
Get An ‘A+’ On Teaching While Their Students Get An ‘F’ On Reading” |
|
Content URL |
https://dailycaller.com/2022/10/05/chicago-educators-teaching-students-reading/ |
|
Date posted |
2022 October 05 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 December 10 |
|
Note |
7 |
|
Source |
Daily Caller News Foundation |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Author |
Reagan Reese |
|
Author's URL |
|
|
Content title |
“Not A Single
Student Is Proficient in Reading or Math At 55 Chicago Schools” |
|
Content URL |
https://dailycaller.com/2023/02/14/math-reading-chicago-schools-report/ |
|
Date posted |
2023 February 14 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 |
|
Note |
8 |
|
Speaker |
Dr. Stephen R. C. Hicks |
|
Speaker's URL |
|
|
Content 1 Source |
The Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship's page on
YouTube |
|
Content 1 Source URL |
|
|
Content 1 title |
“Education Theory:
Philosophy of Education Part 14: Postmodernism” |
|
Content 1 URL |
|
|
Content 1 comments |
This video is one of a 15-part series on Education Theory presented by Dr. Hicks. In this 2.5-hour lecture, the content that is relevant to this podcast episode may be found starting at 1 hour, 37 minutes, and 47 seconds from the beginning. |
|
Content 1 date posted |
2022 May 13 |
|
Content 2 Source |
Triggernometry page on YouTube |
|
Content 2 Source URL |
|
|
Content 2 title |
“Postmodernism Explained by Professor Stephen Hicks” |
|
Content 2 URL |
|
|
Content 2 comments |
This video is an interview of Dr. Hicks about the subject of Postmodernism by Francis Foster and Konstantin Kisin. |
|
Content 2 date posted |
2021 January 18 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 December 10 |
|
Note |
9 |
|
Source |
Sam (Shmuel) Vaknin’s page on YouTube |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Speaker |
Sam Vaknin |
|
Speaker's URL |
|
|
Content title |
“Narcissistic Abuse
and Victim Aggression (Interview in Bronson Men)” |
|
Content URL |
|
|
Date posted |
2022 October 21 |
|
Comments |
This video is an interview of Dr. Vaknin by Andras Lacfi. The first sentence I quoted can be found at 37 minutes and 42 seconds from the beginning. The second sentence I quoted can be found at 38 minutes and 29 seconds from the beginning. |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2024 December 10 |
Transcript and notes last updated – 2024 December 10
Copyright 2024, by James W. Troy. All rights reserved.