That word? I do not think it means, what you think it means...

 "Oh those RINOs and NEO-CONS won't do anything... we have to purge the party of these spineless unprincipled traitors"

It's kinda funny... I generally find most who use the terms neo-con or RINO, except ironically or as a joke, to be unable to define either in a meaningful way.

Much as George Orwell wrote about the term "fascism" in "Politics and the English Language",   for almost everyone using the terms, "RINO" and "NEO-CON", are just signifiers for "things and people I don't like".

Thing is... The only current Republican members of congress (both house and senate) who can fairly be called "RINO", are Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Brian Fitzpatrick, Chris Smith, John Katko, and Jeff VanDrew (who actually was a democrat until last year).

Everyone else, is absolutely within the "normal spread" of positions for Republicans... That includes Ben Sasse, Pat Toomey, Fred Upton, Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, and most of the other congresscritters (not on the RINO list above) that voted to impeach Trump.

In fact, several of those that voted for impeachment, are notably far MORE conservative than Trump... The first couple I mentioned above have lifetime ratings over 90%  from the American conservative union, and almost always vote with the party (they're available online from  http://acuratings.conservative.org/acu-federal-legislative-ratings/ )

The first major mistake many make, is in thinking that loyalty to, or agreement with, Donald Trump; is any kind of criteria for being a Republican, or a conservative... Since Trump was and is, neither of those things. Trump is an ACTUAL Republican in name only, and always has been... He was officially a democrat, until he needed to be a Republican, at which point he officially signed up to be a republican... but he never actually changed anything other than the initial beside his name. 

The second, and fundamental mistake however, is in thinking the republican party is actually conservative, or in fact has EVER been conservative, by any meaningful definition of the term (except perhaps, relative to the actual left). 

The Republican party is, and since reconstruction mostly has been, a moderate centrist party about MOST things... Generally averse to change and risk, and generally collegial in reality, regardless of the rhetoric fed to the base for fundraising purposes. 

Even Reagan wasn't ACTUALLY conservative... He talked a good game, but in reality, he was as much a "neo-con" as Bill Kristol.

Barry Goldwater was the closest thing to an actual conservative in the post war Republican party... and he was really more libertarian than conservative by modern sensibilities (though he of course considered himself to be conservative, and was mostly thought of as such in his time). Before Goldwater, you need to go back to Coolidge to get an actual conservative.... and before that... Ummm... 

.... Yeah... Look at the history... The Republican party is NOT conservative, and never really has been. 

Historically speaking, post reconstruction, the majority of the republican party, has been in the mold of Bush the elder, Nelson Rockefeller, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower, and Herbert Hoover... RELATIVELY conservative compared to "progressive" leftists in the democratic party, they're still for Big Government, just not AS big as Democrats. They're still just as paternalist as Dems, only about different things in different ways. They're in favor of plenty of control, intervention, and regulation, on both social and economic issues... because everyone has their "special" cases, and those "special pleadings" add up. 

Reagan was a near literal revolution in the party, and he wasn't even actually that conservative... He was RHETORICALLY conservative, but in fact he governed as what most who identify as "conservative" today (who, mostly, are very definitely NOT conservative in any meaningful way), would call a RINO... Or if they actually knew what the term means, pretty close to a neo-con. He was a free spending, massive debt accumulating, heavily interventionist in domestic affairs, heavily interventionist in foreign affairs, massively intrusive, NON-conservative; by anything like a reasonable definition of the term. He just TALKED about being otherwise... and how that was better.

... Which it IS... but he didn't even try to actually govern that way...

In fact, the Reagan administration and Republican congressional leadership, essentially made what some might consider a "corrupt bargain" with the Democratic senate majority leader Robert Byrd (for the first and last years of his term... the Republicans had a narrow senate majority for 6 of Reagans 8 years) and Democratic speaker of the house during his presidency Tip O'neil (all but the last few months anyway); wherein the Republicans got most of THEIR spending priorities passed through congress and signed by the president, and in exchange, so did the Democrats... and both knew that was happening, so they were able to freely posture, to raise money off "fighting for their constituency", while in reality, there was always a deal to be made.

Which ACTUALLY meant that the government was doing FAR MORE than it had ever done since WW2... And not coincidentally SPENDING far more than it had since WW2, and accumulating FAR MORE DEBT than it had since WW2. 

The fact is, Goldwater and Coolidge were major outliers, and exceptions to the general run of Republican candidates and presidents... and were largely unpopular within the party because of it. 

For that matter, Reagan was also unpopular within the party, until he placated the southern religious social conservatives after his brokered convention loss in '76 (which happened in the first place, because he offended said southern religious social conservatives, in an attempt to gain broad centrist appeal, by selecting a more liberal Republican running mate, and saying a few things the leaders of that block didn't care for...   Had he not pissed off the southern faction of the leadership, Reagan would have won the nomination in '76... but probably lost the presidency).

The social conservatives have never actually been a majority in the party... Only a plurality... A little less than 40% at peak... but they're a very LOUD plurality minority... and those opposed to them are very LOUD too, about how big and bad the social conservatives are; making them seem like they were and are much more powerful and consequential than they actually are... or for that matter, much more conservative, and much more principled and consistent than they actually are. 

... But every national candidate in the Republican party has to make the southern religious social conservatives at least tolerate them, because said southern social conservatives have enough power and mass to BLOCK someone. They can't actually MAKE the king... as I said, they're less than 40%... but they can keep someone from being crowned, and no other single block is able to do so, because no other single block is more than about 25% of the party... Nor is any other single block motivated and organized enough to do so. 

But that doesn't make the party actually conservative, or actually socially conservative, at the national level (local is an entirely different story... State and local level politics are a totally different beast). 

One other thing the party has very firmly NOT been, along with "actually conservative" is POPULIST... In fact, they've GENERALLY been rather the opposite, at least when it comes to national and international issues and policies (local is a different matter entirely). 

Until Trump that is... 

Or at least the Republican party hasn't been populist since the FIRST Roosevelt... who was VERY firmly a populist progressive (Hoover wasn't a populist by nature, but he took some seemingly populist... and quite harmful... actions based on some truly epically bad advice from his cabinet and congressional caucus)... 

Actually, TR would have been a quite "progressive" democrat in the post WW2 period up through the late 60s or so, and he had a disturbing tendency towards fascism (seems to have run in the family).

Hell... TR could easily have been LBJ, or his cousin Franklin...

...He wanted strong social safety nets set up and paid for by government, with socialized pensions and healthcare. He was for strong protectionist tariffs and strongly against free trade. He was pro-union and anti-corporation to a shocking degree, and he was pro-government regulation of almost everything. Read "The New Nationalism", and it's like postwar democrats fantasy platform...

...except that TR was personally moral and ethical, unlike the thoroughly unethical, amoral, and frankly evil, racist rapist that LBJ was.

So... if you're an actual conservative or libertarian or "conservatarian", guess what... YOU are the one who is a Republican in name only.

If you're one of those who is using RINO as an insult to describe Republican party members who aren't at all conservative, you've got the perspective reversed, because THEY ARE THE PARTY; not the conservatives and libertarians, who generally VOTE republican, because they are less awful than the realistic alternatives.

... If you think about what the party actually is, as opposed to what you think it SHOULD BE... Well... RINO... isn't an insult, or at least it shouldn't be. It's kinda like that line "Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer". 

Friction

It seems the older I get, the less tolerance I have for what user experience (UX) professionals call "Friction".

Friction, is simply anything that reduces the efficiency, effectiveness, or pleasantness of the user experience, as compared to the optimal possible, or intended experience.

When I was in my teens and twenties, I had seemingly infinite tolerance for things that were inconvenient, or difficult, or fiddly, or unpleasant; if doing so got me some kind of performance gain, or even an extra "cool factor"... Or just because I wanted something interesting or different.

I would put up with machines and systems that broke down frequently, only worked if you played with them just right, or took MANY hours of work to set up properly... In fact not just put up with them, but enthusiastically extolled their virtues and recommended them to others... Sometimes even passionately defending them when others complained about the inconvenience and irritation. 

...Frankly, I just don't have the time, energy, and patience for that anymore, unless theres some HUGE advantage to doing so, that makes the pain in the ass worth it...

...Some examples...

I haven't bought a pre-built desktop for use as my personal primary machine in... Literally decades. The last time was while I was in college, and my computer broke, and I had a project I absolutely needed to finish that weekend, and it was my only option.... I could fail that critical project and have to repeat the class, or I could buy a system from Sears (a packaged hell no less... but I was smart and bought the extended warranty, so they fixed it for free for 3 years... in fact they actually replaced it completely... twice... upgrading it to a higher model each time). 

I always build my own PCs, because even if someone else can build something for me to the standard I want, they charge a lot more for it than if I built it myself... Because of course they do. Skilled labor costs money. Integration costs money. Support costs money. Testing costs money. Warranties cost money. 

...But right now... I'm looking at some of the very high end prebuilt systems from specialty vendors, and thinking "Damn... that's really good. It's exactly what I would do"... and some of them have specialized cooling systems and cases that I literally could not buy and build with myself. In terms of system integration and industrial design, they're actually just plain better than what I can build myself. They're a few hundred dollars more than what I could build myself with the same basic specs... and they may be worth it... For the first time ever. I'm seriously considering just buying off the shelf, and thinking it may actually be better, not just more convenient or easier (though I'd still put more RAM and a bigger SSD in the machine after the fact... Because NO-ONE ever includes as much ram or storage as I want). 

Using Macs for work is another example... They're just very well integrated, well tested, polished solutions that significantly reduce friction. They give me the power of a real UNIX, while giving me great UI/UX, and physically excellent hardware and industrial design.

I'm still not at the point where a Bose or Bang and Olufsen stereo appeals to me... Or any kind of "home theater in a box" for that matter.  The performance you can get assembling your own properly matched components, for MUCH less money, is so much higher, and the inconvenience and friction of doing so is so relatively low, that the minimalist hyperintegrated hyperdesigned systems hold little appeal to me... But I can understand why someone might feelthe other way.... they just don't want to bother with it, and they want good sound, and don't care shout getting great sound. 

...And... dirty little secret? Just for watching TV, I am actually a fan of the better soundbars, which have satelite speakers and subwoofers (some even have wireless connections tot he tv, subwoofer, and surround speakers). They're simple, they're cheaper than a full stereo, and they actually sound pretty good, for most movies and tv shows. I still prefer to have a full home theater for my main TV, and for the best music experience... but I recommend soundbars to other people all the time, and for a secondary tv, I TOTALLY go for the soundbar.

Even with guns... and I'm an experienced gunsmith who builds long range precision rifles for fun... Some of the out of the box solutions available today for long range precision rifles from Ruger, Sako/Tikka, Savage, AI, and others, have real appeal to me. Well integrated, well tested, well designed systems that give better than 90% of the performance of a full custom solution, often for a lot less money.

That doesn't mean I don't still want to build the full custom rifles, to get the most possible performance and have the features and configuration EXACTLY as I want... But I also want to buy one of the standard offerings, to get back into things faster, and for practice, and to help get others into the pursuit of long range precision shooting etc...

This applies to almost every area of my life... I love building and modifying cars, and motorcycles... but buying a well designed, well tested, well integrated car, now has as much appeal to me as building my own hyper customized optimized car. 

I really wish I could find good commercial desks and workbenches that would actually work for me. I still build my own desks and workbenches and beds, and toolstands, because I just can't find what I want commercially... I want specific sizes and specific strength, and rigidity and features... But I wish I COULD just buy them off the shelf. 

...I still want to do the custom builds... but I find great appeal in buying the well integrated commercial solutions  first, just to have something that is 80% or 90% as good, so I can take my time and so the rest absolutely perfectly the way I want.

Patriotism, Criticalism, and the Left

You dont have to be conservative or libertarian to be a patriot... You don't have to be "rah rah everything my country does and is is always great", and still love this country, and what it stands for.

John Fogerty... without doubt writing from a left perspective...  wrote "Fortunate Son", about people who use false patriotism as a cover for their hypocrisy, while abusing and exploiting others..  I actually think it's a very patriotic song.

Its holding America to the standard of what we are supposed to be, and saying "we arent doing what we are supposed to do... we aren't being what we are supposed to be, and we need to fix that, and we can and will fix that".

Unfortunately, I no longer believe that is the spirit that animates most of the american left... Their motivating thoughts about America seem to be more like...  "Everything you are supposed to be is fake and evil and we need to destroy you and build something better".

...And some of them may even honestly believe that's patriotism... But it isnt. Not even close...

What it is, is criticalism... Gramscian criticalism in particular; the philosophy that says if something isn't unfailing perfect then it is irredeemably corrupt and wrong, and must be destroyed and replaced with perfection.

A philosophy that caused the deaths of at least 100 million people over the last 120 years....For that matter, the earlier basis for it, is what killed a few million from 1789 to 1799.

What we are seeing in our streets right now...  some of it is motivated by genuine grievance... But some of it is that same philosophy and spirit that created the rein of terror, and the killing fields... And that, is something we can never allow to take hold.

Callahan's Law

Callahan's Crosstime Saloon", the first collected volume of Spider Robinsons Callahan's stories... 

...My absolute favorite series of stories and novels; which, in all honesty and seriousness, and without any hyperbole at all, I fully credit with saving my sanity, and my soul; more than a couple times... 

...Was actually published on the exact day of my birth.

Thank God for that... because it, and the other two collected volumes of stories in the series, "Time Travellers Strictly Cash"  and "Callahan's Secret" (all three are now collected in a single volume "The Callahan Chronicles"), were all in paperback a dozen someodd years later, the first time I really needed them. 

... There have been many other times I have needed them since... 

And the six more novels to follow, between 1989 and 2003, which were also there when I needed them... As was Spider himself once... though only by email, no less a help for it. 

I haven't had the pleasure of meeting him in person, but my friends who have, and particularly those...more than a couple... who also call him friend; have told me he's just what I would expect him to be, from my experience with him, and his writing, and his music. He is a man who must, by nature, because of his intellect, his empathy, his sincerity, his force of will, his sheer heart... reveal himself in all he does. 

I will say without a shadow of a doubt... I would not be alive, or remotely sane today, if it weren't for Spider Robinson, and Callahans... Or if by some awful curse or terrible miracle I was, I would be in prison... or very much worse. 

You see.. Callahans law states: 

"Just as there are Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy, so there are in fact Laws of Conservation of Pain and Joy. Neither can ever be created or destroyed. But one can be converted into the other. Shared pain is lessened;  shared joy is increased - thus do we refute entropy"

If you think you might need Callahans too... I'm happy to help you out as I can. For that matter, theres at least a few thousand people just like me, all around the world, who also know they wouldn't be here, or sane, without Callahans... and without exception, they will help anyone who needs it, if they can.

Shared pain is lessened; shared joy is increased - Thus do we refute entropy.

An Important Question About Guns

I was asked why I love guns, by someone who has an instinctive revulsion towards them.

That's a rather important question.

Aside from the fact that they are by far the most effective means of self defense, and defense of others, and that I have used them for such purposes multiple times?

Aside from the fact that they are used for such purposes millions of times every year?

Aside from the fact that it is enormously fun and satisfying, to develop skill in using them, and in competing with them?

They are one of the finest examples of both human mechanical craft, arts, and precision... and in their use, of our martial arts.

They're very interesting pieces of machinery. Moreso, they embody a fascinating set of interactions between machinery, chemistry, physics, and human performance.

Aside from what I love about them as objects, and as tools...

... There's the inescapable fact that, before guns, most of humanity, throughout most of history; were ruled by hereditary warlords and despots; trained from birth in, and oppressing the people by, main force; which they maintained a monopoly on (no matter how you might want to pretty them up, calling them nobility and royalty, lords and kings and emperors).

... and if by some means we returned to a world without guns, we would be so ruled once again...

Without guns to secure and protect them... there is no freedom, there is no justice, there is no liberty, there are no individual rights...

...There is only slavery, and the tyranny of the strong over the weak, and the many over the few.

I would love it to be otherwise, but history has proven over and over again, that it is not.

Throughout all of history, the only thing that has ever successfully prevented, resisted, or overthrown tyranny; without immediately replacing it with a different tyranny.... has been an armed, educated, and free populace.

Guns are literally the only reason why modern relatively stable and nontyrannical governments can exist at all.

They are the ultimate protection for the weak, and the minority, against the strong, and the majority.

The gun IS modern civilization.

What the heck is a Muscular Minarchist?

I am a Muscular Minarchist.

What does that mean?

Well, the way I've introduced the concept for the past 20 or so years is:

I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist. 

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn't paying extra

That’s a bit of “ha ha only serious” there… and really does fairly encapsulate my personal moral and ethical position… it’s the “elevator pitch” version as it were.

The next sentence of the elevator pitch is:

I believe in an absolutely minimalist government that provides a strong defense. I want a government that stays out of my wallet, out of my bedroom, and out of my business.

I realize that’s a lot to ask, but I don’t believe it should be.

I write, because from time to time I must express my anger, frustration, ire, pique, and general cussedness in a format that is unlikely to result in my imprisonment.

I can just see it now “Radical right wing gun nut takes out entire joint session of congress”…

Hey a guy can dream can’t he?

Of course I’m not a radical right wing anything; I’m a radical about liberty.

 I make careful note that I am a philosophical libertarian (note the small “L”) and I take those principles seriously. It’s not just a question of politics, it’s a matter of morals and ethics.

Since I hold all involuntary collectivism as an inherent evil; that, by the very definition used by modern media ...and for that matter most who consider themselves "left" or "progressive" or "liberal"... is radical right wing.

The thing is, my opposition to involuntary collectivism is from all sides. I reject collectivist government, as much as I reject collectivist social policy, as much as I reject collectivist moral policy, or religion (not all religion, just the promulgation of involuntary collectivism through religion), or any other concentration of the power to coercively limit liberty.

I believe in Liberty, Responsibility, Service, and Honor… I guess I’m just funny that way.

Okay so who am I?

Personally, I’m a husband, a father of three, a son, and a friend. I am a sincere and faithful, but dissenting and schismatic, Catholic. I am a cancer warrior, because I didn't just survive cancer, I kicked its ass.

Professionally, I’m a veteran of the United States Air Force, an Aerospace Engineer and Computer Scientist by education; and an enterprise, infrastructure, systems, and security, architect and educator; by way of employment.

Passionately, I am a shooter, a singer, a guitar and bass player, a driver, a rider, a sailor, a pilot, a builder, a craftsman, a hunter, an outdoorsman, a reader, a writer, a poet, a cook and brewer, and a lover of fine food, and spirituous beverages.

Finally, by fundamental nature, I’m a hard core geek, about all of those things above, and more. I am by my nature compelled to learn, and love, and know, and understand, everything I care about; as fully and deeply as I possibly can.

I revel in my geekitude.

I work, play, game, read, speak, think, drink, and live, geek.

NOTE: This profile was originally published in 2005. The author was lazy and didn’t get around to updating it until October 16th 2014… when it was pointed out that in the intervening almost decade, he had somehow managed to acquire a wife and children (he met his wife shortly after the founding of the site), which he had neglected to mention.

What I Know About Teaching

About a year ago, a friend of mine was preparing to teach a class that he'd never taught before... He's done a lot of one on one education and training, but I he had never taught a group class, and he was looking for some advice. 

I thought I'd offer him what advice I could, and so I wrote (most of) what became this piece down. I thought I had posted it to the blog at the time, but when I searched for it to reference it earlier today, I couldn't find it. 

I decide to post it now, revising it with the new bits and pieces I was writing today. 

Remember, this is about teaching a class, not giving a lecture or a presentation, or a demonstration or conducting a forum... those are all different environments, with different priorities and different techniques.

Here's what I know about teaching, from my own personal experiences, in more than 15 years as a professional educator and trainer (and they are two different but related disciplines), and as a training and courseware developer.

The Big Picture Stuff

Style and Philosophy

I have almost entirely moved away from traditional lecture classes (unless the courseware vendor or certification authorities require specific curricula and delivery).

I find that my students learn better, and that I teach better, in an interactive and participatory environment. An extended and guided conversation, with open digressions and contextual questions, answers, and explanations.

I believe in instructor lead, but participant driven, training and education.

As such, I tend to use a modified Socratic method to lead my classes into participation. I use a lot of leading questions, and logic and reasoning problems. I try to get my students to extend and generalize from examples and principles we've covered before, and then apply them to new situations.

I also encourage students to (civilly and constructively) argue and debate, both myself and each other.

When I think it'll be responded to well, I'll often deliberately misstate or poorly state or frame an idea, or deliberately misapply a principle or not fully extend a thought etc... in order to prompt my students into exploring the correct or complete thought. If they don't speak up on their own or catch me in it, I'll straight out ask them as I go "So, am I using this properly? Is there a better way? What if I did this... Was that earlier example wrong?"

Importantly, I always encourage... in fact, right up front I tell my students that I require them... to speak up if they think I'm wrong, or they have a different idea or different perspective, or a different experience.

HOWEVER... that doesn't work for all courses, or all students.

Different materials and subject matters lend themselves to different styles of instruction and presentation; and most critically, different students learn better with different styles and methods.

You MUST tailor your material, and your style, to your students, and the environment and requirements of that specific class.  

The Classroom Environment

Obviously, I work in non-traditional educational environments. I am not generally (though I have) teaching classes full of 10th graders.

My students are generally adults, who have at the very least, taken a lot of time out of their life to attend my class. Often, they have paid (or their employers have paid) several thousand dollars to attend. They tend to have an entirely different level of motivation and a different set of incentives, than other instruction environments.

Also, I tend to have my students for a minimum of two straight hours (for short talks given at conferences, demos at group events etc...), and frequently for 6-8 hours a day (sometimes even 10 or more hours per day), for two to five days (for professional education and training).

In this kind of environment, we get to go as broad and deep on the subject matter, as our time, and the amount of material we have to cover, allow; and what we cover is largely dictated by the desires and needs of the students.

In general, I like to start a bit later... I find that anything I teach before about 9:30am doesn't actually stick... so I keep the first part of each morning light, or I make it review and freeform Q&A from the day before... or introductions and personal stories on the first day.

We get up and move around at least once an hour, for enough time to go to the bathroom, and get a drink, have a snack... then, refreshed, we get back down to the material with renewed focus.

The same for lunch, particularly if I can get it catered in. We get up, move around, eat, talk to each other, get to know each other and share experiences... and we relax, and try to enjoy our time.

It's critical for both you, AND your students, to take time to relax, and decompress, and get comfortable, throughout the day. Stay hydrated, keep your blood sugar right, and your electrolytes right. Avoid getting stiff, and avoid strain headaches. You will be more efficient and more effective, covering more material with greater comprehension and retention, if you are relaxed and comfortable.

Then, at the end of the day, I don't like to try to teach the material up to the bell. I always like to give at LEAST the last half hour as a freeform Q&A and review of anything the students want.

So yes... it's a different environment than a typical secondary education classroom...

That said, I think that professional trainers and educators, have some valuable insights and experiences to offer in improving secondary and university education.

The Detail Stuff... Technique and Technicalities

Preparation

The most important thing, is to be prepared. You don't have to be a total expert on the material to teach a class in it, but you do have to know it, understand it, and prepare yourself with it (and with additional supporting material).

When I'm fully prepared for a class, I can be much more comfortable, extemporaneous, I can explain things better in a more engaging way, and I can change things up when it is necessary to, or when the class feels like that's where it's going etc...

Preparation allows me to be flexible, to be interesting, to be funny, to be personal, to be engaging; and lack of it, prevents these things... or makes them much harder...

...Or worst of all, makes them all there is, and no-one learns anything; except how good you are at vamping, or how well you can monologue at them off the printed materials.

Know not just the material you're teaching, but the history of it, the reasons and motivations behind it... how it got to be the way it is now. Understand the context of it, and how it will impact your students.

Even if all of this is not part of the class, people may ask questions about it, and again, knowing this stuff, and being prepared for it, will help you explain things better.

Personality

It's important to allow yourself to show through in the material. Be flexible. Use humor. Be personal. Change it up. Use personal examples and personal stories (when appropriate). If you don't have personal stories, use anecdotes from others, but make them real, personal, relatable...

It doesn't have to be directly personal, what it has to be is RELATABLE.

Be open... but don't make it about you, make it about the material USING yourself as the example, or as a pivot point around which your students can see and experience the material.

Repetition

You need to repeat yourself.

Anything important you say, you need to say it at least three times; and if it's REALLY important, it's preferable to say something three times three...

That's three times at once, then three times again a little later, then three more times again near the end.

You can, and often should, say it in different ways, so long as it's absolutely clear that you're really saying the same thing. You don't have to say it three times over and over again in a row, but the repetitions should be close enough together to be clearly reinforcing.

Some folks don't need or want repetition, and almost everyone is bored or irritated by it eventually, which we certainly want to avoid.

However, so long as the repetition isn't excessive (more than four or five times -or more than four or five cycles of three repetitions- in a single lesson, unless each repetition is reinforced organically as a subpart of the lesson), even if the repetition bugs them a bit, they'll RETAIN it better.

... so long as you maintain...

Engagement

Engage everyone, both as a group, but also individually. When you engage individually, so long as you do so in a way that everyone can see and hear, and isn't too specific to the individual, the audience can relate, and it's almost as good as engaging each of them individually.

Stop regularly and ask for questions; and make it clear when it's possible, that they can ask questions any time. If there's a point where you feel like you know there are questions, but no-one is coming forth, ask the question yourself, or ask leading questions of your students.

Engage your students with problems, exercises... bring them up to the whiteboard or chalkboard... Capture their attention fully, AND capture their intellect fully, AND engage their EMOTIONS... get them analyzing, and relating what you are doing, to themselves, their own knowledge and needs.

Use game design theory, and psychology, to your advantage.  A while back I wrote a piece on game design theory and engagement in sports, that I think has parallels and value to education as well.

Although it may not be immediately obvious exactly how this applies to education and training, I think you'll see the value, and I'm going to insert an extended quotation (feel free to skip ahead if you like):

"...Acquisition and retention are particularly critical to these games; and retention is achieved through engagement. 

The way game designers accomplish these missions are with spectacle, and reward psychology (positive and negative reinforcement through anticipation, reward and penalty; with a very strong bias towards reward, leavened by the occasional penalty), particularly competitive reward psychology. 

Something spectacular engages you for the duration of the spectacle. You are a passive participant. It attracts you, and fascinates you, but only for that moment. Retention requires maintaining engagement over time... becoming an active participant, either directly or as a metaparticipant. 

So... what does that have to do with sports? Or with spectator sports fans in particular?
Simple... Sports fans are players in a metagame. 

Spectator sport fandom, although passively received (the fan isn't an active participant in the games they are watching); isn't a passive, receptive, entertainment experience (like a movie or television). 

However, much as television shows retain viewers by emotional engagement in the story (thus making them metaparticipants in the narrative); spectator sports retain fans by persistent emotional engagement with the sport, and particularly with their team (making them metaplayers in the game). 

Sports fandom, is a kind of play by proxy; much as horse racing, and other betting games (roulette for example) where the players interaction with the game is not part of the gameplay. This makes it a metagame. 

And metagames have the same success vectors as any other game. 

One of the things that makes Boston sports fandom so... passionate and crazy I guess is the best way to put it... is that a Boston fan is being fed with a near perfect reward psychology cycle. 

Boston teams win often enough (and often quite excitingly) to attract attention and generate spectacle. This  acquires new fans (or brings back those whose engagement has weakened); and it presses the "happy button" in existing fans, engaging their reward pleasure mechanism. 

Importantly though, Boston teams don't win so often that fans get victory fatigue, and need reward escalation to maintain engagement. 

When they're NOT winning, Boston teams are rarely just mediocre... they tend to alternate between "oh God so close..." and "total abject failure" (at least psychologically if not objectively). It may seem counterintuitive, but this is actually far more engaging than consistent high performance or even consistent victory. 

In terms of gaming theory, this 3 point cycle (victory, near victory, failure) helps create spectacle to attract and acquire participants; and helps create, reinforce, and increase engagement. 

Very importantly, it also helps maintain engagement (and thus retention) by reducing victory fatigue, anticipation fatigue, and expectation escalation. 

So... getting into that second and third part... 

Retention is achieved through continued engagement. When engagement is weakened or broken, you lose participants (gamers, fans). 

Engagement is created, reinforced, and increased; with spectacle, novelty, fascination, and competitive reward psychology as described above. 

Engagement is weakened or broken and you lose participants (gamers, fans) through frustration, demoralization, boredom, and fatigue. 

So, the challenge is to maintain or increase engagement over time.

In general, you deal with boredom and fatigue, through novelty. Change things up, so that a participants experience, expectations, and emotional engagement with the game are maintained, and thus they are retained. 

I mentioned victory fatigue above, but didn't define it, I should probably define the three elements of "game fatigue" now. 

Victory fatigue is what happens when a player receives too many rewards, or wins too much too easily. This tends to cause boredom, and frustration; because the rewards no longer feel like rewards. This weakens or breaks engagement. 

In an interactive game you can deal with victory fatigue (and to a lesser extent anticipation fatigue) by varying gameplay (introducing new and different ways of earning rewards) increasing challenge (NOT just increasing difficulty, though that is one way of doing so), increasing penalty for failure (though you can't do that too much or you break engagement through frustration and demoralization), varying rewards (making the rewards new, interesting, and different), or by increasing intensity or spectacle (making the rewards bigger or more desirable). These mechanisms keep the players anticipation and pre-reward engagement high, and their reward pleasure mechanisms responding strongly to the rewards. 

In most spectator sports however, you don't have those mechanisms available to you (or they are severely limited). The difficulty and rewards do escalate somewhat over the course of a season, but are basically fixed year to year (win a game, win a conference, win a division, win a playoff game, win a championship game). So, frequent and consistent victories, particularly championships, result in expectation escalation. 

The three major exceptions to this issue of fixed challenge and fixed rewards by the way, are motor racing, premiership style football (soccer), and NCAA football and basketball. Not surprisingly, the first two are the two most popular spectator sports in the world; and the third creates a degree of unreasoning passion far greater than any other sports in America. 

Anticipation fatigue is a more interesting issue. When you get that "so close" feeling too much, it actually tends to discourage and disappoint you, which increases frustration and breaks engagement i.e. "they get our hopes up every time then disappoint us every time... what's the point". 

Expectation escalation, is what happens when performance or rewards consistently exceed expectations (or consistently exceed the mean performance of a peer group).This causes people to "reset" their emotional expectation of what poor, acceptable, and excellent are, such that their median level of performance, even if it is objectively far better than average, is simply "expected". 

So, a team that wins 80% of the time, year after year, will eventually be expected to do so. If that team starts to win consistently less than 80%, even if they are still better than most teams and win 60% of the time; the emotional reaction of their fans will be the same as if they had objectively poor performance, rather than simply "less good". 

Lesser success can feel like failure, when you're used to greater success. 

Cycling between "not quite great", and "really bad" (even if "really bad" is actually mediocre statistically, the victories and near victories redefine emotional expectations such that mediocre FEELS like abject failure), actually creates and reinforces engagement, and passion; far more, and far more intensely, than consistently high performance. 

This by the way, is the exact same reinforcement cycle that creates and reinforces addiction. Reward (the high), anticipation (the process up to the high), and penalty (the come down and the jones). 

So... for Boston fans, it's like vegas slot machine designers were controlling things for optimum fan acquisition, engagement, and retention. 

It's an almost perfect metagame... arising without design... which is kinda neat.

I realize that was an extended, and somewhat esoteric digression, but I think it provides real value, and direct parallels with education and training. If nothing else, let me pull out a small subsection and slightly modify it:

• Retention is achieved through continued engagement. When engagement is weakened or broken, you lose participants (or at least you lose their interest and attention)
  
• Engagement is created, reinforced, and increased; with direct participation or metaparticipation, spectacle, novelty, fascination, and competitive reward psychology
  
• Engagement is weakened or broken and you lose participants, through frustration, demoralization, boredom, and fatigue
  

It should be clear how those directly relate to engaging students attention and helping them learn.

Mirroring

After you've explained something important, ask particular participants to explain the point you've made, in their own words. If they don't get it quite right, lead them through figuring it out and explaining it properly.

Then ask THEM questions.

Then do it again with a different person, and ask them to explain it in a different way, or to come up with an example, or a scenario etc...

This is called mirroring. It's a communications exercise, that helps people understand what other people are saying, and how what they say is being perceived and understood by other people.

When you apply this to instruction, it serves those purposes, but it's also about making your students think through the problem or example or principle, and figure out how to relate to it, and relate it to others; rather than simply to repeat and regurgitate what they've been told.

It helps the student to truly understand and contextualize what they've learned, and to really show that they have done so.

It also helps you as an instructor, to be a better communicator, and to better understand how others communicate.

Comprehension and Retention

Finally... there is a basic instructional concept called the comprehension and retention cycle

• See

• Hear

• Read

• Show

• Do

• Repeat

To most effectively teach something, with the highest level of retention, your students should in some way:

• See the material (with handouts, whiteboard/blackboard, slides etc...)
• Hear the material explained (and remember the repetition above)
• Read the material, both silently and aloud (or aloud to themselves in their own head, which is different from silently... it sounds silly, but there really is a difference. Try it)
• Show them the material directly, in demonstration, preferably 3 different ways
• Do what it is they have read, heard, and been shown, applying it and solving it or using it themselves; preferably in 3 different ways
• Repeat it all again, preferably three times (or three times three for critical things); varying each time to explore the subject more fully, to maintain and increase engagement, and to allow the students different perspectives and examples to relate better to the material.

So... that's what I know about teaching and training... hope it helps.

Oh and one more thing...

Teaching is one of the greatest satisfactions, joys, and pleasures in my life. It helps me fulfill who and what I am... what I want and need to be.

I have learned far more from teaching, than I ever did from being taught... and perhaps separate from that... perhaps not... I have gained more insight and wisdom, about myself, and about the world, in so doing.

Take that as you will...

Reframing the hierarchy of false dichotomies

This image is one way of reframing the common conception of the left/right false dichotomy... and it's an important first step of reconceptualizing the false dichotomy to reveal the true dichotomy... but if you stop there, you have failed, and will continue to fail.

Reframe the statement further...

Neither work for the corporations.

"Both" work in furtherance of their own power over the people. They do so through the same types of tactics and manipulations, largely paid for by the same corporations (or similar if theoretically oppositional positioned interests), presenting a hierarchy of false dichotomies.

The true dichotomy is control over others, vs. liberty.

It's a rather important distinction, with difference... because the core issue and the motivation behind it are both different, the potential solution sets are different.

Both potential solution sets include the "get corporate money out of politics" point within them...

...but for one way of framing the issue, it's the primary... even the only meaningful point in that potential solution set (thus dooming it to inevitable failure, as doing so is functionally impossible without a complete transformation in the nature and structure of our politics).

For the other, it's just one of the many possible points within the potentially viable solution set or sets, and importantly is recognized as neither necessary nor sufficient.

One cannot proceed to successful resolution of complex issues, without understanding the second and third order issues which underly them. This increases complexity and multiplies the problems of imperfect information, imperfect reason, and unintended consequences... again, dooming such efforts to failure by their nature.

Only by reducing the problems to first principles, and their associated core motivations, can true dichotomies be resolved.

There can be no other explanation...

I got a comment on my post "Why I am NOT a libertarian", which amused me to no end:

"If you are stupid and uneducated, who is writing your posts? 

False humility is not a virtue."

Yeah...

Somehow, the notion that someone could be obviously highly intelligent, and yet still have humility about their intellect...

...Or rather, perhaps to be more precise, lack the hubris necessary to believe that I could possibly EVER be intelligent enough, that I can make decisions for anyone else...

... is utterly inconceivable.

Someone with the I.Q. and education I have, COULDN'T POSSIBLY be sincere, and actually mean that I was not, and could not possibly be, smart enough.

I MUST be lying for rhetorical effect, or being ironically self aggrandizing.

There can be no other explanation...

Perhaps my long term history of passionately expressing this idea both personally, and as a libertarian activist and writer; with for example, pieces like this:

"It's Not About Elites or Idiots"

... could "prove" that I actually believe in what I have said.

Perhaps...

But, for those possessed of the authoritarian or paternalistic worldview...

...probably not.

There are more reasons than can be counted, why hubris, is the greatest, and most dangerous, sin (be it spiritual, intellectual, or both).

Why I am NOT a libertarian...

I am not a libertarian because I think I'm smarter than you.

I am not a libertarian because I think I'm better educated than you.

I am not a libertarian because I think I'm morally or ethically superior to you.

I am not a libertarian because I think I have better ideas about running things than you.

I am a libertarian, because I recognize that no matter how smart, educated, experienced, informed, and competent I THINK I am...

...I KNOW that I am ALSO stupid, uneducated, inexperienced, ignorant, incompetent, and fallible...

...just like everyone else.

I am a libertarian, because I recognize that I do not have all of the information, knowledge, education, experience, judgement, and wisdom; to always make good decisions about MY OWN life, business, or circumstances.

I am a libertarian, because I understand that in fact, it is impossible for me to do so.

I am a libertarian, because if that's true of my OWN life... Then I absolutely and certainly do not, and can not; have the information, knowledge, education, experience, judgement, and wisdom; about YOUR, or ANYONE ELSES life, business, or circumstances, to make anyone elses decisions for them.

And neither do you...

And neither does the government...

Faith, and Schism

In matters of faith, I identify myself as a schismatic catholic, or a catholic in schism with my church.

Several people have asked me what I mean by that. I have explained it before as part of larger discussions, but it came up again today, so I thought I would clarify it here.

I used to call myself a "recovering catholic"...

Then I "recovered" about as much as I was going to, and in my own exploration of self, faith, and the ACTUAL tenets of catholicism (as opposed to what people THINK they are, even people who should know better... even other catholics), I discovered that I was in fact, very much still a catholic. I was just in schism with my church.

There are many things the church does or says, that I disagree with: either because I think they are unrelated to the teachings of god through christ and the mission and purpose of the church (ceasar what is ceasars, god what is gods etc...), or because I believe as a matter of conscience that the current teaching as currently expressed, is incorrect, misguided, or without foundation in the teachings of God through Christ.

My differences with the church are in matters of politics and policy (and sometimes in how these are reflected in current guidance and teachings), and in some semantical issues (disagreements in definition or interpretation)... not in matters of faith.

This does not make me heretical or apostate, nor does it excommunicate me, because of the doctrine of informed conscience (sometimes called enlightened conscience). I am still in communion and fellowship with the universal church.

What it does, is place me in schism.

Arguing From a Position of Ignorance

Atheists without any theological background, education, or training...

Please, stop trying to speak authoritatively on this subject, of which you know little or nothing.

You cannot teach, that which you do not know.

By doing so, you are spreading ignorance and misinformation throughout the universe... Something you generally claim to oppose.

You don't have to be faithful to talk about my faith... or even to teach about it. You DO have to be knowledgeable of it, and understand it's basic precepts, to speak about it with any accuracy or relevance.

Corollary to that: Please do not assume that what applies to one sect or denomination applies to all, or any, other sect or denomination within what is nominally the same faith (this applies to adherents to one sect or denomination when speaking of a different sect or denomination as well... a problem that comes up frequently).

HINT: If you haven't done the homework... here's an easy shortcut... Ask someone who is both faithful, and knowledgeable about their faith (which, admittedly, can sometimes be hard to find). Most of us are happy to help explain our faith to you...

...In fact doing so WHEN ASKED, is often one of the tenets of our faith. I know it is a duty and commandment of mine to bear witness to others.

Second Corollary to that: This advice applies to just about ANY SUBJECT, not just faith.

Two completely different things...

...only connected by both being talks@google, that if you like my blog, you MUST watch:

The first is a google talk by Joe Hall, chief technologist for the Center for Democracy and Technology, basically about how they work with regulators to stop bad laws (sorry, embedding was disabled):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4KQPsrVNv4&feature=share

The second is a talk with man I consider a true genius of common sense and basic wisdom, Nick Offerman:


Trust me on the second... it starts slow, but it's entirely worth it.

Because they think funding is "doing something"

One of my favorite television shows of all time is "the west wing". I like it for the writing and the characterization, not so much for the political viewpoints... But those viewpoints are illuminating.

One thing which libertarians and conservatives scoff at, is the language that liberals use when it comes to government programs...  "this is a victory in fighting poverty" etc...

Fighting poverty, racism, AIDS... these things are all INCREDIBLY hard. They're so hard that there's very little any one of us can do about it. 

Conservatives and libertarians solution to that, is the power of voluntary charity, volunteer work... and accepting that we won't fix these problems. That eventually, over the long term, they will get better... but we aren't going to win them ourselves. 

Poverty for example... Poverty isn't a disease, it's not an inevitable mass condition, it's not like Old age. The solution to poverty is more, higher paying jobs. You get more jobs, with more businesses, and more activity in each business. You get more jobs with lower regulation, and a freer market and freer competition, and by making it cost less to employ people.

But that's diffuse... it's not DIRECTLY acting to "solve" the problem. There's no "program" for it, that they can provide funding for. 

The problem is that liberals morals and ethics won't allow them to accept this. They believe that they... and all of us, as a nation in fact... have a moral obligation to "do something". Even if it doesn't work, we have to at least "do something". 

Unfortunately, reality is what it is...

So, their substitute for actually doing something about the problem is "government funding to solve the problem".

This let's them fulfill what they feel to be their moral obligation, because they are able to deceive themselves into believing that funding the government really is "doing something". 

They get to blame the failure on not trying hard enough, or not getting enough funding... though that's pretty much ridiculous. 

They then believe that everyone who opposes their "moral" imperatives is either stupid or evil. 

Some of us are just... practical, logical... 

We spend enough in the "war on poverty" every year (to almost no effect) to actually give everyone below the poverty line, enough money to be well above it. We could literally just send them a check every month.

I'd rather do THAT, than what we do now... It wouldn't be any more expensive, and it would have the added benefit of ACTUALLY WORKING.

Not Proven

There's an interesting practice in Scottish law, which isn't a part of either English or Northern Irish law... or for that matter, to my knowledge, any other code of laws in the world.

It comes from a particular concept of Presbyterianism (and Calvinism as a whole), in that one must not utter a false statement in Gods name (to do so is bearing false witness).

This has a particular effect on court proceedings, as the Presbyterian Kirk of Scotland, is the official (but not established) church of Scotland. Courts and juries are (or at least were... not sure if it's still done) sworn to deliver their verdicts in Gods name, and trials are conducted under and by the grace of God.

Because of this, in Scotland, as in no other nation on earth, there are in fact three possibly final verdicts for a completed case:

Not Guilty - The accused did not commit the crime, and is not legally responsible for it.

Guilty - The accused committed the crime and is legally responsible for it.

Not Proven - The accused likely committed the crime, but there is insufficient evidence to prove this beyond reasonable doubt.

Note: In fact, although Calvinism as a whole is Swiss in origin, the Presbyterian movement and church (technically churches, as they are individual and separate churches in each nation, under the auspices of the general assembly of the Presbyterian Polity), was founded in Scotland. I can't find if "not proven" was ever an element of Swiss law, but I know that it is not now.

The verdict of "not proven" is still an acquittal... it's just an honest one "We think you did it, but we can't prove it, so we're not sending you to jail... but we still think you did it".

The only reason this third verdict exists, is because of this precept that finding someone not guilty, when you know them to be guilty but cannot prove it, is an offense against God. It's uttering a false statement in Gods name.

I really think it's a useful concept though, even without the idea of God being involved.

Oh and the right of juries to bring in a "not guilty" verdict for a charge which is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but for which the jury believes the accused holds no guilt, or that there was no true crime (malum prohibitum vs. malum in se; or crimes where mens rea and negligence were absent); is an explicit, and sacred, assumption of Scottish Law.

Again, because if you truly believe no crime was committed, then it would be an offense against God to declare a man guilty of one.

...And again... I think this is a very useful concept.

Here we call it Jury Nullification, and it's generally frowned upon. In Scotland, it's just "the way it is and should be".

Unfortunately, the parliamentary commission reviewing Scottish law and practices is trying to get rid of these; to bring Scotland in line with law around the U.K. and the EU.

Actually, they've more or less officially got rid of the latter... but Scottish juries still regularly return "not guilty" verdicts, for charges that are fully proven, but which they believe are not crimes, or for which there is no "guilt".

After all, you can't be guilty of something that wasn't wrong in the first place can you.

Something I think our own courts might be better off taking into account...

This I know, for the bible tells me so... except that it says the opposite actually...

Earlier this evening, I got into a long discussion about faith and theology with a new friend (the new girlfriend of an old friend. Very cool person... and he's a very lucky guy).

One of the things we talked about was the nature of sin, and in particular the prohibition of homosexuality, fornication, promiscuity etc...

Then, I get back to my PC and scroll through facebook, and see that one of my conservative evangelical friends was denouncing the Pope (shocking news that), because he was "pro-gay".

Well... no... Not really...

The Pope said that you could be gay and still go to heaven. He also said that so long as one remained celibate, as straight priests are required to, that gays could be priests (this was reversing a declaration of the previous Pope)

This is not "pro-gay", it is entirely in accordance with the theology of the Catholic church; as well as that of the episcopal, anglican, lutheran, presbyterian, and methodist churches actually (though in practice, some lutheran, presbyterian, and methodist churches do it anyway).

Neither Catholic theology, nor doctrine, actually condemn homosexuality, or consider it an "abomination", or "anathema".

Not to say the church is saying "hey, gay is totally OK"...

The church considers promiscuity and fornication sins. All sex outside the confines of a solemnized marriage is considered fornication (though one may solemnize ones own marriage if no priest is available who will do so, and it is not otherwise forbidden. little known piece of doctrine). Since the church will only solemnize marriages between men and women, all homosexual sex acts are therefore considered fornication.

But let's face it... there's an awful lot of fornicating Christians out there... Like... most of them these days.

So... why exactly is the Pope's position good solid theology?

Because Jesus said so.

See... here's the thing...

Jesus never preached against homosexuality.

Jesus never said that being gay was to be condemned, or an abomination, or anathema.

The Levitican law does, and that's where most Christians who condemn homosexuality believe they derive their authority from.

Thing is... what Jesus actually DID say, is that the Levitican law has been fulfilled (meaning that it no longer applies).

Matthew 5:17-18:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

This is generally understood to mean something like:

"By the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished"

This is the core of the passage in Jeremiah (an old testament prophet)  which declares that God shall make a new covenant, which shall not be a covenant of the old laws, but will be a covenant of the enlightened conscience (God would put the knowledge of what was right and wrong in the minds of men):

"“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
    “when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
    and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
    though I was a husband to them”
declares the Lord.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
    after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
    and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
    and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
    or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
    from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
    and will remember their sins no more.”"

The new covenant redeems man through Christ, NOT through adherence to the strict code of hundreds of judaic laws.

We are redeemed through Christ's sacrifice, to forge the new covenant, and the law of Christ.

This is the core of the concept of Christ the redeemer. If you believe in Christ the redeemer (which is a core element of Christianity itself... really, THE core element) then you MUST believe that the Levitican law no longer applies.

Funny thing though... 

...Almost all evangelical churches, which are the majority of those that DO officially condemn homosexuality, and which cite the Levitican law as their authority to do so...

... accept that (in fact, it's the absolute core of their theology) in the new covenant of Christ, the Levitican law is superseded, by the new law of Christ...

...EXCEPT for the two passages about homosexuality.

Hundreds of laws, and none of them apply anymore, except for some reason, those two...

For example, they do not say that leviticus says we can't eat shellfish and therefore shellfish must be condemned; or that because Leviticus says you must not weave a fabric from two different types of threads, we must condemn the inventor of poly/cotton blends (though... really we should, just for taste... but that's another thing entirely).

I should note here, the only major Christian church in the United States that does not believe that the Levitican law was replaced by the law of christ, is the LDS church (among their many other disagreements with conventional Christian theology).

The Levitican law is the ONLY documented teaching of God that condemns homosexuality.

There are other passages which disparage homosexuality, and of course fornication (and all homosexual acts are fornication in the eyes of the church), and which preach against it... but none that actually say that God condemns it, or that it is an abomination.

There is NO documented teaching of Christ himself, which prohibits or condemns homosexuality (again, except that homosexual acts are considered fornication).

There are passages that warn against "unnatural acts" and "sexual perversion", but that isn't specifically, or necessarily, about homosexuality. Actually, most biblical scholars believe it refers to incest and bestiality.

Promiscuity, adultery, sexual hedonism (indulgence in sexual lust to the point of negating your morals and conscience), yes, all preached against... Though only adultery is actually banned outright (as it is one of the 10 big ones). The others are just things which coarsen a person, taking them further from grace (along with about a million other things). You shouldn't do them, they are sinful, but they are not condemnation worthy. At least not in isolation (as part of overall moral failure... sure).

... but Jesus never preached against homosexuality.

And if Jesus didn't either preach it himself, or state that it still applied from the old law (for example, he specifically stated that the ten commandments, and the golden rule still applied); then it is NOT part of Christs law.

In fact... if they were otherwise moral, Jesus seemed to be OK with gay guys (Matthew 8:5-13, and Luke 7:1-10).

You know what Jesus DID condemn? Hubris, pride, arrogance; particularly the hubris of any man who presumed to know Gods mind so much as to believe he should condemn his fellow man on Gods behalf.

A Christians spiritual duty to others is not to condemn them for their sins, but to love them as we love ourselves, and to witness to them.

PAUL actually did preach against homosexuality. Paul hated all "sexual unseemliness", "perversion" and "unnatural acts" in fact... Really, it seems he hated all sex but for procreation.

He also preached against associating with immoral people, and unrepentant sinners.

... And when Paul preached against it, he did it as advice for living a moral life, not as relating the word of God.

There is this unfortunate tendency some Christians have, to take the word of Paul, speaking of his own mind, as the word of God.

Paul didn't think much of women either. He's one of the main reasons for so much anti-female rhetoric in Christian writings. Again, the word of Paul, not the word of God.

So... is this Christ's church, or is it Pauls?


A pre-emptive bit for snarky atheists, antitheists etc...

"Actually, there is no documented evidence of Christ at all, never mind his teachings. Christ, if he existed wasn't the son of God, he was just a man. The Bible is nothing but propaganda and a mechanism for controlling the weak minded"...

... or somesuch silly crap...

Ok, fine, if you want to work the epistemology that way...

We are working within the framework of those who purport to believe that Christ is the son of God and savior of man, and that the new testament of the Bible presents a true record of Gods teachings through Christ.

It is by the writings in this book that SOME of those who profess Christianity claim their authority to condemn homosexuality. This assumed authority comes from the Levitican law of the old testament.

Within the framework of their own professed religion, and the teachings in this book, there is, in fact NO SUCH AUTHORITY.

In fact, their savior and teacher Christ, specifically preached that the Levitican laws were no longer valid. He also specifically preached against the condemnation of others, because it was prideful and arrogant, and against Gods teaching.

So... whether you believe in God, or Christ, or not; or that scripture is a valid source of the teaching of God or not; there is no scriptural authority for any Christian to condemn homosexuality as an abomination before God.

Out of sync...

There seem to be some things that I am out of sync with our culture on...

The first...

Something I don't get... never have, probably never will...

Why is it so many people feel they were "forced", "pressured", "oppressed" whatever... into doing things they didn't want to do, or being things they didn't want to be...

When no-one every ACTUALLY forced them...

Others just expected they would be or do something, and didn't like it if they didn't.

That's not oppression... that's just life.

If being what you want to be, or doing what you want to do is important to you, then maybe it should be more important to you than the approval of others.

If it isn't... maybe it isn't really what you want to do or be...

The second...

I've come to believe that in our overly emotionalized, self esteem oriented, naval gazing, culture as it is now...

The combination of intelligence, knowledge, competence, valuing results over efforts and intentions; valuing what is real, or true, or what works, over what is theoretical, philosophical, emotional, or desirable; and possessing a drive to excellence, and intolerance for mediocrity, incompetence, and apathy...

... makes up a particular form of sociopathy...

Those that possess (or aspire to) these traits, simply do not have the same responses to the world, the same emotional patterns, the same communication... as those who do not. So much so, that it's as if they were living in two different worlds, or they were two different species.

They certainly seem to speak two different languages, and derive two entirely different sets of meaning from everything they see.

The language of the former seems to mightily offend the latter... even when it is meant to be complimentary. The basic facts and realities of life that are acknowledged by the former also seem to offend the latter.

In order to deal with those who do not possess these traits; those who do, need to learn how to deal with, and often mask themselves with, the "normal" reactions. It becomes an extra layer of abstraction for them... a translation from their basic natures, by which they are slightly (or greatly) handicapped in their interaction with the "normal".

5 Second Philosophy

A capsule definition of the differences between liberals, conservatives, and libertarians:

Liberals believe that sex is a good proxy for freedom.

Conservatives believe that guns are a good proxy for freedom.

Libertarians believe that sex AND guns are good proxies for freedom.

History, Moral Philosophy, and Libertarianism

So...

Just a warning...

This is going to be a long, obscure, and contentious one. If you aren't into philosophical arguments, epistemeology etc... you will almost certainly be bored by this.

Okay, down to business...

I've written fairly extensively about the philosophy behind my particularly type of libertarianism... and how there are a LOT of different schools of libertarian thought... and a lot of pointless, anal, wonky, yet often completely epically vicious... argument and disagreement between them.

A selective overview of these pieces can be found here: A Refresher on Philosophy

Being a libertarian, I do love to argue philosophy... and I do so on several other blogs, and libertarian subforums of various other web sites not dedicated to politics or libertarianism (most actual libertarian forums are... impossible to tolerate... unless you ENJOY drinking bilious idiocy from a firehose ).

In a "neverending thread that will not die"™  about the oxymoronic concept of "libertarian socialism" (in actuality a deliberate socialist linguistic distortion to further a fraudulent concept), a commenter asserted:

Libertarianism is the belief in the non-aggression principle. That's it. Everything else follows from that. 

--IgnorantCommenter

Now, I disagree entirely with such a blanket statement... It's simply untrue, and in fact ignorant.

I mean that literally by the way, not as a characterizing statement. Someone who believes such a thing must be ignorant of the much larger sphere of libertarian history and philosophy.

My response:

Actually the non-agression principle is only one school (actually several related schools) of libertarianism. There are others that are not based on non-agression/non-initiation. 

--AnarchAngel

Our correspondent countered with:

If there were a form of libertarianism not based on the non-aggression principle, wouldn't you have been able to name it? 

In fact, since the founding of the Libertarian Party in the 1970s--which was the start of the modern libertarian movement-- until recently they required all members to sign a pledge promising to uphold the non-aggression principle. 

In my experience, those who say they are libertarians but don't support the NAP, are usually not libertarians at all, and are simply trying to coopt the word... but hey, please feel free to show me some examples of genuine libertarians who don't support the NAP. 

--IgnorantCommenter

Well now...

Again, I have to say that this viewpoint, while not uncommon, is incorrect; and in some very significant ways, ignorant of history and philosophy.

While the Libertarian Party was founded as a non-aggressionist organization; non-aggression is neither necessary, nor sufficient, for a libertarian philosophy.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea; it's not... in fact it's generally a very good idea. But the concept that libertarian philosophies MUST, ALL, ALWAYS, be predicated on non-aggression; and that anything which isn't, is not actually libertarian...

...That's just plain wrong.

...As for that matter, is the suggestion that the Libertarian Party is the authority, or even a reasonable exemplar, of what libertarianism is.

The LP is simply a collective of theoretically libertarian individuals who have been able to agree sufficiently on goals and process to form an organization (sometimes... barely... ).

Again, I don't think the libertarian party is a bad idea, or that they aren't actually libertarian; just that they are not an organization encompassing all libertarian philosophy, or systematology.

...or that there even COULD be such an organization...

Now...

The reason I didn't name specifics in my initial response to our correspondent, was because to do so would require a HUGE, long, detailed, and wonky explanation of the history and moral philosophy of libertarianism, and the nature of rights.

Several thousand words worth, and several hours writing, at a minimum

I wasn't going to bother... and then I decided that if I didn't the pointless tangenital arguments and arguing around each other would just go on and on...

Basically, it would become more irritating to me, than actually writing this damn piece.

So I wrote the damn piece... all... 3000 or so words I guess?

note: I've expanded and clarified somewhat here from the reply I posted in the other thread

Let's start with the historical question

since the founding of the Libertarian Party in the 1970s--which was the start of the modern libertarian movement-- until recently they required all members to sign a pledge promising to uphold the non-aggression principle. 

--IgnorantCommenter

Libertarianism, *including the modern libertarian movement*, has been around a lot longer than either the libertarian party (1971), or the formal codification of the non-aggression/non-initiation principle as a foundational libertarian principle by Murray Rothbard (1963).

There is no clear date for the modern libertarian movements "founding", but it was clearly in existence by the time of Nock's "Our Enemy, the State" (1935), Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" (1943), Von Mises "Omnipotent Government" (1944) and "Human Action" (1949), etc...

Hayek and Von Mises were clearly libertarian in their philosophy, though primarily (but not entirely) of the consequentialist/utilitarian school (as is typical of economic philosophers).

Then there's the objectivists, both pre and post Randian; including both those that self identify as libertarian objectivists, and those who claim to be opposed to libertarianism (but who mostly are opposed to Rothbardianism, and strict non-aggressionism; as reducing maximum utility).

There was a pre-Rand objectivist/utilitiarian movement, primarily based in the rule utilitiarianism school, proceeding from John Stuart Mills book "Utilitarianism" (1861), Henry Sidgwicks "The Methods of Ethics" (1876), and the various works of David Hume (published 1734-1779). This movement was well established in moral philosophy by the interwar period.

Randian objectivism (which you may or may not call libertarian) has existed in an organized way since the late 1950s.

There was a reasonably coherent self identified libertarian movement by the time of Rothbard, Tullock, Block et al (the late '50s and early '60s)

Clearly, the "Modern Libertarian Movement" is neither bounded, nor defined, by the Libertarian Party.

Now, the question of moral and political philosophy

Libertarianism is the believe in the non-aggression principle. That's it. Everything else follows from that. 

...snip... 

In my experience, those who say they are libertarians but don't support the NAP, are usually not libertarians at all, and are simply trying to coopt the word... but hey, please feel free to show me some examples of genuine libertarians who don't support the NAP. 

--IgnorantCommenter

This comes down to the question, what exactly IS libertarianism?

That is, what would be a single, entirely inclusive definition of all things which may be reasonably and properly considered libertarianism?

Frankly, I don't believe that there IS such a single definition; nor CAN there be.

There are schools of libertarian thought that have conflicting... in fact mutually exclusive... core principles, which cannot be reconciled philosophically (though they may be reconcilable practically or pragmatically; focusing on outcome not rationale for example).

Using the non-aggression principle as a sole determinator... Libertarianism's John 3:16, or Shibboleth as it were...

... It's simply insufficient.

The non-aggression principle is neither necessary, nor sufficient, for libertarianism.

Libertarianism is a set of moral, political, and ethical philosophies intended to preserve, promote, and expand, human liberty (under whatever rationale). The non-aggression principle is a moral concept that is generally associated with those philosophies.

In fact, simply declaring it as the "non-aggression" principle is incorrect. There are five closely related principles, which serve the same essential function but which are different in detail (which differences can have important consequences):

• Non-Aggression
• Non-Initiation
• Non-Intervention
• Non-Interference
• Anti-Coercion

Going into the differences between those principles can (and has) take its own book(s), never mind a (comparatively) short piece here. Even within the specifics of each term, there are disagreements as to their definition and meaning (both semantic and philosophical).

For convenience and a (nearly futile) attempt at clarity, I will refer to these various principles as "non-agression" for the remainder of this piece

Normally I don't like using wikipedia as an authoritative source, but I don't happen to have a copy of the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" handy, and wikipedia cites it directly:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. 

--Wikipedia

That isn't actually an inclusive definition of libertarian philosophies, because it  describes the root of propertarian principles; and there are schools of liberty which do not include the propertarian principle as a first principle (for example, "endowed rights" based philosophies).

That said, in general, much of the wikpedia page on libertarianism is decent. For example, it includes discussion of propertarian vs. non-propertarian, and consequentialism vs. natural rights.

These are all fundamental or primary principles on which a libertarian philosophy may be based.

So, "the" fundamental principle of libertarianism is NOT non-aggression.

The non-aggression principle IS fundamental to many schools of libertarianism; but not to all of them.

What our correspondent is declaring to be the only "true" libertarian philosophy (arguing from both a "no true scotsman" fallacy, and an "appeal to authority" fallacy in the process) is essentially Rothbardian libertarianism.

Rothbard and Block argue textually, that non-aggression/non-initiation/non-coercion is an irreducible first principle; but contextually (even in their own writings) it is clearly a derived principle (it is reducible). Essentially, they declare it irreducible as a fundamental moral precept a priori. Therefore it should be taken as a primary principle (for those schools of libertarianism which subscribe to it), but not a first principle (which are irreducible).

I am not a Rothbardian, but I am very definitely a libertarian.

I am a propertarian, natural rights, minarchist, libertarian (and to an extent non-aggressionist, but not strictly so... depending on definitions).

This is a combination of moral and ethical philosophies, and a school of government (though not a specific system of government).

Rothbardian libertarianism is itself a propertarian, natural rights (depending on your definitions), essentially minarchist (depending on your definitions), non-aggressionist, libertarian school; and in part a specific system of government...

..It's just a slightly different one from that which I subscribe to.

Minarchism is a pragmatic, utilititarian, and consequentialist school of government (NOT a political or moral philosophy) with a few basic principles (all of which are derived principles, proceeding both from political and moral philosophy, AND from the practical and pragmatic reality of human society):

• The only legitimate purpose and function of government, is to provide for organized collective action to maximize human liberty; by resolving disputes between individuals as a disinterested arbiter, and by protecting the rights, liberties, and physical persons and property, of a polity
  
• Government, by its nature, must have a monopoly of initiation of legitimate collective coercive force. All else is tyranny or anarchy.
  
• Therefore all government must engage in the coercive restraint of human liberty as part of its function.
  
• Therefore, all government is an evil (greater or lesser)
  
• Anarchy however is not a stable order respecting of liberty. All anarchy will eventually result in the tyranny of the strong over the weak, and the many over the few.
  
• Therefore, although all government is an evil; government is necessary to protect the rights of the few and the weak against the will of the many and the strong, and must exist
  
• Given that government must exist, but is an evil; human liberty must be protected from that evil to the greatest extent that is practical
  
• Given that liberty must be protected from the inherent evil of government; the optimal government, is the smallest, least intrusive, least pervasive, most limited government; that is practical, functional, effective' and can protect the rights, principles, and physical persons and property, of a polity.

In propertarian/natural rights libertarianism, the first principles are that of private property and of natural rights (both of which are irreducible); the synthesis of which is the principle of self ownership.

The natural rights principle is that sentient beings have certain rights, which are not contingent on any other individual or collective (except where they are limited by conflict with the natural rights of others); and which are those principles or components of the state of being, which cannot be limited or abrogated but by force, fraud, or willing consent (exact lists and definitions thereof vary and conflict widely)

The propertarian principle is that the right to private property exists, and that you have the rights of exclusion, protection, determination, and product; for your own legitimately held private property.

The intersection of these principles is the principle of Self Ownership. You own yourself, in the entirety, including all rights of property.

Essentially, the first principle of this moral philosophy, is that the right of private property is the ultimate fundamental right, from which all other rights are derived; and beginning with the ownership of self.

This is also called the principle of "the sovereign man" (though technically, there are multiple interpretations of what that means as well).

In this interpretation of moral and ethical philosophy, non-aggression isn't even a first principle; it is one of a set of derived principles, which are internally justified and consistent (without endowment, appeal to authority, or a priori assertion of second order principle).

This set of principles can be described thusly:

• You own your entire self (body, mind, and soul).
  
• Because you own yourself in the entire, you have the absolute right to:

1.  Self determination
2.  Freedom of conscience
3.  Your own property legitimately acquired and held (which includes your entire self)
4.  The efforts, products, outputs, and rights inherent to or proceeding from all the above

• You have the absolute right to defend those things, and the product or output of them; up to and including lethal force (except where limited by conflict with the rights of others).
  
• There are no other rights. All other privileges, powers, and immunities, are less than rights; and are either derived from, or in opposition to them.
  
• You may not initiate force or fraud against any other to abrogate their rights; or for any reason other than the defense of those rights; but including defending those rights for others who either cannot defend themselves, or those who delegate that defense to you.
  
• None may initiate force or fraud against you to abrogate those rights, or for any reason other than the defense of those rights; including defending others rights from you.
  
• There are no rights, privileges, powers, or immunities which are not derived from the rights of the individual.
  
• A collective cannot arrogate rights, privileges, powers, or immunities on itself which are not delegated to it by individuals; therefore no collective may exercise more or different rights, privileges, powers, or immunities than any individual, nor may it exercise those things which have not been explicitly delegated to it.
  
• You have absolute responsibility for all of the above. All consequences are yours, good or bad.

Only ONE of those core principles (expressed as two entries in this list, describing the principle and its reciprocal) is non-aggression.

There are many other schools of libertarian moral and political philosophy, some of which don't include the non-aggression principle at all (or do so in a significantly different, or  nearly unrecognizable form).

I make no judgement here as to what the "best" form of libertarian moral, ethical, or political philosophy, or school of government, might be.

I have a system which is internally consistent, and works for me. You may disagree with it; in fact, your beliefs may directly conflict with or contradict mine. They may even be mutually exclusive.

So long as I don't attempt to use coercive force on you to make you believe in or follow my system, and you don't attempt use coercive force on me likewise; we may both be "true" libertarians (or maybe not, depending on what else we may believe).

On first glance, you might say "well, that's just the non-aggression principle again"... but if you think about it for a minute you should realize that it isnt.

The statement is not exclusionary or deterministic. In either of our belief systems, there may be circumstances under which the initiation of coercive force on another is acceptable, or even required. Or, both of our belief systems may allow for a disinterested arbiter to resolve disputes (mine certainly does).

So... Non-aggression is a generally good principle... but it isn't absolute, it isn't deterministic, and it isn't universal.