Stop Taking Ownership!

[FormerlyBrainwashed]

Stop Taking Ownership!

Something that seems to continue even after many begin to embrace individualism is that though they begin to think more rationally, in terms of what is really going on, they fail to grasp how important it is to fully divorce themselves from speaking as though they accept [or take] ownership of, that which they declare to despise.

Think about it for a minute - How often do you hear people who claim to have an understanding of true liberty, yet as they speak, they use terms such as: "Our" government, "our" representatives, "our" country, "support" with "our" tax dollars, "we" bailed them out, "we" invade other countries, "we" help other countries...

.... us, we, ours, country, citizen, blah, blah, blah. The list goes on and on!

I made it a point to cease to speak as though I take ownership of anything that has to do with their scheme quite some time ago. While I sometimes still slip, it has opened the door to MANY discussions that I otherwise believe that I wouldn't have had the opportunity to engage in. Heck, even the doggone census guys that have been sent to my home (so far) don't know what to do with it when I tell them that I am not answering anything and that I do not recognize "their" alleged authority nor the rest of "their" scheme.

Even during discussions in "libertarian" forums and/or chat rooms, such statist-type banter is rampant!

I challenge anyone who reads this to really start to pay attention to how they say things. Besides working towards full consistency in thought and action, our words also carry serious weight in terms of our message. And as I already stated... nothing beats opening the door to a potentially life changing conversation (of those we encounter) for those of us who are passionate about sharing the true message of individualism.

I have personally found this sort of deliberate exercise to be quite liberating.

[Seth King]

About six months ago I was desperately trying to get my own sister to read a short chapter on education from the book For A New Liberty by Murray Rothbard. She wouldn't do it. She's always been nearly impossible to get to read something that may challenge her current way of thinking. At that point I knew that I could no longer wait for the rest of the world to figure out what freedom was all about before I lived like a free human being.

I knew that civil disobedience and my own actions were the only thing I have control over in life, that I cannot control others, nor do I want to. I knew that a true individualist would make sure the buck stopped with him and not collectivize his own responsibility by claiming that there weren't enough of "us."

[FormerlyBrainwashed]

What you said is key. The very essence of individualism is so basic but far too often our invidividualist brothers and sisters seem to have some burning desire to impose their world-view on others. This is why I prefer to be as diligent as I can be in remaining consistent in communicating with language that is consistent with my stated world-view.

You said:

"I knew that civil disobedience and my own actions were the only thing I have control over in life, that I cannot control others, nor do I want to."

BINGO!

I have been told so many times how "unrealistic" our goals are in the grand scheme of things. My response is that when people say such a thing, they obviously have no knowledge of what my goals are. I certainly would enjoy the benefits of a society that enjoys true liberty; but even as you said, "my" individual goal is to learn how to live as an individual as consistently as possible for me, then, if my example and participation in open and unadulterated liberty is contageous, then I obviously would enjoy that as well via voluntary association with other like-minded individuals.

However, a serious error that I percieve to be common in a lot of what I see (or, read), is that people set their aim unrealistically high. That is, for those who live in the geographical area commonly referred to as America (for example); they seek to "convert" the 300+ million people that mostly do NOT agree with them for various reasons. Why? Why would many self-proclaimed "individualists" think it to be consistent or reasonable to pursue such a thing, given their stated world-view? I would maintain that if that is to remain their pursuit, they will ultimately be sorely disappointed. In that type of scenario, the means contradict the purported end. A consistently individualist approach would therefore be to stop focusing on conversion of the world, and to instead focus on ones own person. I would also submit that the lofty goal I just described is also a common assumption on the part of minarchists. This contributes to why they oftentimes reject true liberty as unrealistic and instead offer their support for limiting the State in some sort of vain hope at achieving incremental gain via the reduction of abuses. Again, this is because they assume that their individual goal must necessarily be everyone else's goal if it is ever to succeed. 

When opportunities arise wherein people are able to progress their personal individualism into voluntary associations, then and only then, will they realize any incremental gain in the area of a broader impact on society at large.

Back to my original post on this thread... Until an individual is able to effectively communicate their thoughts in representative spoken word form, they hinder their effectiveness when dealing with others as well as hindering their own maturity in terms of refining their own growth as a consistent individualist. Effectively - When an individuals spoken word doesn't match their stated world-view, what is manifested is an inconsistency somewhere in their perspective. Inconsistency results in contradictions, mis-representation, and ultimately - irrationality. It is obvious that non-contradiction is of vital importance to maintain in thought, language, and action. I am NOT saying that this is easy, but I firmly believe in the principle of the argument nonetheless.

Some will chalk all this up as mere semantics. I respectfully disagree.