Good post, Jeff, but I think you left out the one quote from Robert's post which helped explain his current position:
Anarchists may claim that they are actually advocating for a lack of system, but I argue it is just a system that looks different than the standard government system. It is the assumption that an ideology is the answer.
If he believes anarchy is a system because it's an ideology, then his desire to avoid ideological labels makes sense, from a certain point of view. If, for example, he embraced the tribal label of "anarchist", could he lose business or influence? Would that help him in his goals?
While I ultimately agree with your ideology, I'm trying to respect his perspective also. Maybe he can spend his life living by voluntaryist principles without joining a tribal label you and I agree with to "show you stand for what is right." In my opinion, tribalism is our shared enemy. I agree his response seemed ridiculous and probably has something to do with PTSD, as you said, but I also think we could all benefit from throwing off labels which divide us, even within the voluntaryist/anarchist/freedom community.
There is a disturbing trend that I've noted in the world of ideas, and it has to do with the part of our brain where religion lives.
Spirituality involves you and the world, you and reality, you coming to some sort of understanding about the nature of a system that is much greater than yourself. Religion is the formalization of this understanding, of turning what was a subjective thing into an objective thing, with dogma and doctrine and liturgy.
Spirituality has no rules. I can use totally different vocabulary than you do to describe something, but if we are both interested in this greater reality, we can both agree that what we are describing is similar even though the conceptions may be completely different. A spiritual person will see in the Hindu description of an expanding and contracting world, that lives and dies as it expands and contracts, todays scientific description of the big bang.
But a religious person will follow the rules and will try to impose these rules on others. A religious Hindu will insist that the big bang is a perversion of the "real" truth, which is that the forces described by scientists are really misconceptions about the greater truth, which is a cycle of Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva. And a devout scientist, a believer in the religion of naturalism, will insist that the personification the Hindus apply to the big bang is nothing more than quaint animism. The two will be at complete odds because they are not seeking greater truth but instead focused on religious adherence and getting converts.
Similarly, capitalists, who really just believe in economic freedom, are the natural partners of anarchists. They seek roughly the same thing. And if they approach it in a spiritual way, they can find much in common. But if they approach it from a religious perspective, a perspective of correcting others who are "wrong" and converting people to your specific religion, then they will always find themselves at odds with each other.
Anarchist "leaders" are a somewhat oxymoronic idea, are they not? ;-)
Very well said.
I'm okay with leadership and leaders as long as they are voluntary. I will regularly choose a leader to improve myself and those around me. What I'm not okay with is an involuntary ruler.
Yup -- essentially a variant of the monopoly idea. Earned monopolies that continue because they offer a better deal than anyone else are fine -- even though there is no barrier to entry they continue to earn monopoly status because of good performance. That's a win - win for everyone. It's the monopolies that are imposed with no possibility of getting around them that are toxic to society.
For sure. I use the term "natural monopolies" but I like "earned monopolies" even better.
I find the saccharine nature of Berwick's attempt to "help" him with "what you did in Vietnam, Robert" to be disgusting. This is extremely puerile and insensitive. I lose more and more respect for this Berwick character every day, and am tempted to flag this post for overpayment.
Man, you got some big words there. I had to look up "saccharine" and "puerile."
I think Jeff's heart is in the right place in that he genuinely wants to help people. If Kiyosaki is dealing with PTSD, Jeff's advice is accurate, even if it might be insensitive. That said, to truly help people, addressing differences head-on isn't always the best approach. I don't know Jeff personally, but I've gotten to know people who do and vouch for him. That's what I have to go on. I hope to get to know him more in the future to get a better understanding myself.
Voluntaryism and mutual consent are the answers though. Rulers are not needed. Robert is a smart guy, obviously, so what is the cause of his confusion? Perhaps he benefits from the rulers, or he doesn't want the danger that goes along with liberty.