fayfreethinkers.com

Greetings,

I have really enjoyed the content of your website. In fact, in no small measure it inspired my own. My more traditional values and libertarian political views would make my participation hereabouts painful for both of us, so I have not posted here before. I just posted a new essay on my website that I thought I would share with you. If you are ever pestered by other libertarian atheists, feel free to send them to me and I will endeavor to keep them out of your hair.

In my website Thoughts Aloud you will find the link to the essay [FREETHINKERS?], on the right-hand side of the page. In it, I define what "freethinker" means to me:

Freethinker (n.) one who forms opinions as a result of thoughtful independent inquiry, rather than unquestioned acceptance of established views or teachings of others.

I discuss how my atheism plays a much less central role in my life than some I have met while exploring the atheistic 'Freethinker Movement.' I challenge some usages of the term, and discuss how my inability to suppress my anti-Marxist libertarianism, and my politically incorrect respect for traditional American values (by which I mean nothing religious), made me a square peg in a sea of round holes.

There is some risk many will disapprove of my critique of the Freethinker Movement, but please don't leave unhappy. You will also find a link there to a delightful little skit I penned called simply [The Skit] that I guarantee will make you smile. Comments welcome. -Dave

.

Welcome, Dave. I'm the resident libertarian here at Fayetteville Freethinkers. If you peruse the discussions, you see "me vs. the world" on subjects ranging from the right of self-defense, taxation qua robbery, global warming alarmism, free market security/law, minimum productivity ("wage") laws, and so on. Like you, I'm strongly inflenced by Ayn Rand, but have graduated to Murray Rothbard. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and author of the world famous Anarcho-capitalist FAQ. Here's my main anarchism page: Hogeye Bill's Anarchism Page. You may be interested in my recently completed booklet, Against Authority, an introduction and short history of anarchism.

In the great minds think alike department: I notice we have a very similar model of the political spectrum.

I read your essay "What is a Freethinker." Before I comment, you probably want to know about a technical HTML glitch: In my browser (Safari on iMac) your menu "[HOME]  [BLOG]  [FORUM]  [TERMS]  [MISSION]" appears twice on every page. The top one is okay, but second one covers the writing in your article pane. E.g. I can't read the first line of your definition of "freethinker."

Your criticism that many freethinkers seem to limit the definition to religion only is apt. E.g. on the FayFreethinkers main page, it gives, "A freethinker is someone who forms beliefs about religion and the supernatural through conscientious reflection and rational inquiry and not based upon authority or tradition." I think that would be a great definition if they dropped the two words "about religion." That would be pretty much equivalent to the definition you use in the essay.

I, too, have noticed that most self-labelled "freethinkers" are overwrought about religion, while ignoring more pressing forms of "authority over the mind of man." I think that the battle over religion was more or less won by the end of the 19th century. No longer do we have witch-burnings; atheists, agnostics, and deists are allowed to hold jobs and function pretty much unmolested in society. Game over, man! But people still treat the State as Lord, and treat rulers as legitimate authorities over their minds. Most people, even freethinkers, hold the State as a holy entity above normal morality. E.g. Most see nothing wrong with robbery by State (taxation), decrees, orders, and regulation over their lives, and so on. Blind faith and subservience to the Church has simply been replace by blind faith in, and subservience, to the State. That is, IMO, the main battle for freethinkers in the 21st century.

In your essay, you portray the main enemy as Marxism; I would generalize that. The main enemy is statism. Marxism is but one particular form of statism, and to a great extent has been discredited, its fall starting with Böhm-Bawerk's devastating critique in the late 1800s, and toppling with the breakup of the USSR. Even Red China is going capitalist! Granted, vestiges of statist socialism are still with us, but newer excuses for statism have arisen, e.g. environmental alarmism is the main rationalization for statist authority you hear about in the US nowadays. And braindead flaghumping nationalism is alive and well; the aggressions and foreign occuptions of the USEmpire bear witness to that.

Besides this Fayetteville freethinkers forum, sometimes I post on Anti-state.com and Stike-the-root.com. I'll check out your new forum and post this message there, too.

It's always nice to find another member of the remnant.

Carpe Libertatem,
Hogeye Bill

Dave wrote:If you are ever pestered by other libertarian atheists, feel free to send them to me and I will endeavor to keep them out of your hair.

DAR
Hello Dave. I have long considered myself agreeable with libertarian positions. I subscribed to Reason magazine for awhile. I took their little multiple choice test once (carefully worded no doubt) and scored solidly in the libertarian corner. I have been drifting away from this now because of coming across some of libertarian atheists types you refer to above.

I think participation from a more mainstream libertarian like yourself, or any on the political right amenable to reason (unlike some of the religious right) would be good thing (not to suggest that the religious right aren't welcome too).

P.J. O'Rorke said he tried to be a libertarian but was turned off by the extremists that wanted to privatize sidewalks etc. Libertarians have some really good ideas and principles but I think a lot of potential joiners get turned off by the radical and vocal representatives who use it as a springboard to add a lot of really untenable junk on to it.

D.

Dave's site wrote:Just as I assumed my science teacher knew what he was talking about when he taught me that electricity flows from the positive post of a battery to the negative post. Years later, oops… no, it is the other way round.

I see only a limited number of possibilities:
1) You're incredibly old.
2) Your science teacher was an idiot.
3) You didn't understand the lesson; in physics, the math appears to treat the positive charge as the moving charge, but physicists have known for a long time that it is the electron that moves (at least, in most situations).
Regardless of which (if any) of the above possibilities is true, to present scientists (or science in general) as bumbling idiots is disingenuous if not downright slanderous. Science may be tenuous, but it is tenuous in the sense of anti-dogmatism, not the sense of cluelessness.

Dave's site wrote:Archeologists speculate, and I have no reason to doubt it, that the age of the Earth is about 4 ½ billion years old.

This only shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Archaeologists study various aspects of human culture and history, and no archaeologist on the planet would claim that his field extends back a few million years or that it involves the age of the earth. Geologists, on the other hand, via numerous independent but agreeing tests, have concluded that the earth is about four and a half billion years old. There is no "speculation." Please see Brent Dalrymple's Age of the Earth for more information.

Dave's site wrote:The guest for the evening was renowned comic book author Neil Adams.

Notice that this is comic book author Neal Adams. First, you're listening to a comic book guy fill you full of bullshit about geology; second, you can't even take the time to spell his name correctly. Why is Adams a more reliable source than, oh, any degreed geologist? Would you like me to get you in touch with one or two? (The last guy that approached the one I have in mind right now trying to support EE "theory" ran away with his tail between his legs.)

Dave's site wrote:Further, he discussed how a smaller planet would have had a weaker gravity...

And yet, there's the moon, ever-so-slowly receding. Would you please provide either the calculations or the link to calculations showing that this small Earth could maintain an orbiting satellite (i.e. without requiring it to be within the Roche limit, or the mass of the satellite severely altering the orbit)? Could you also show how the smaller (i.e. less massive) Earth maintained the same orbital radius range as its mass increased drastically?

Dave's site wrote:and the design of the T-Rex is such that it could not have moved at the speeds it is assumed to have done to be a successful carnivore, with such a large head in our gravity of today without it snapping off in a sudden turn.

"Design"? Poor choice of words, at best. Complete bullshit at worst. Please provide a source who isn't a professional storyteller. (Notably, there is suspicion now that the T. rex was as much a scavenger as a predator.)

Dave's site wrote:And, I would turn the tables on them and ask them to explain the mechanism they posit that would cause the purported subduction in order to keep our globe exactly the same size in perpetuity, and why that is so important.

Are you really this disconnected from reality? What do you think is the cause of the subduction? Could it be the creation of crust elsewhere pushing that portion away? The size of the earth doesn't significantly change because the mass of it isn't changing. You're not "turning the tables," you're just blowing smoke.

----

I took the liberty of reading a few blurbs that Adams has posted around the internet. The "pair production" thing is hilarious. (If you think that "Pangeaeists" have a problem with a too-warm Earth, how do you think that sucking out gobs of energy to create mass helps?) In fact, the entire explanation on his site reads like... a sci-fi comic book bit. There are so many fantastic (i.e. based only on fantasy) or blatantly incorrect (but fun-sounding) claims that I have a hard time taking this seriously instead of expecting to turn the page to see the newest caped superhero. ["Introducting: Tectonic Man! Available nationwide Apr 1."] I can't tell if Adams really believes it or if he's just playing the nutjob card for laughs.
I can't view the videos at my present location; since Adams doesn't support any of his claims with links to evidence or any calculations whatsoever, how about you provide some for us?

DOUG writes:
Neal Adams: I really like his Batman and Conan stuff. The "Crazyman" was a complete bust. (I know a guy who bought 100 Crazyman #1 just because he thought it would be worth something later on because of its embossed cover. It's worthless.)

But his science stuff? As Darrel wondered, why should we think that he knows more than professionals who study this sort of thing for a living?

Please cite the name (and link, if you want to be real nice) of the article you are referring to. Sav was commenting on the Sacred Cow Science essay. I'm not sure where Batman comes from.

Hogeye wrote:I'm not sure where Batman comes from.

DOUG
Gotham City. Sheesh.

Savonarola wrote:I see only a limited number of possibilities:

Perhaps all three. I am over 60, was probably designing computers before you were born, and distinctly remember my consternation when it came up.

Geologists, on the other hand, via numerous independent but agreeing tests, have concluded that the earth is about four and a half billion years old.

Thanks for catching that. I do know the difference and, of course, use geologists elsewhere. I will edit the article forthwith.

…you can't even take the time to spell his name correctly.

This too. One of my protagonists on another forum is named Niel, and it just slipped out of my fingers.

"Design"? Poor choice of words, at best.

Yeah, sorry, I thought about that as I used it; but couldn't think of a replacement that would convey my meaning.

I can't view the videos at my present location

When you get the chance, you might find them fascinating. Particularly, the one of Europa. I would have thought one would want to at least look at Adams' unique contribution to this venerable debate, before ranting about his disqualifications to participate in it.

Further, had you followed the link to the discussion of my challenge on the forum provided, you could have saved yourself the trouble of most of the other things you said here; that is if they were really meant for me. It looks like you had fun doing it, but I take pains to note that the science of the debate is not the point of my article.

I also make it clear that this is not Adam's hypothesis; but one developed by Samuel Warren Carey back in the '50s, who even published a book entitled 'The Expanding Earth' in 1976. It has been the subject of serious debate between geologists ever since.

Adams simply stumbled onto the debate, got interested in it, applied his considerable graphic arts talents to the question, and came up with some remarkable animated clips. As I suggested in my article, if you have an open mind at all, go view them for yourself and use Google to explore the subject as far as your interest might take you.

I wasn't trying to prove anything beyond that learned scientists don't always agree with conventional wisdom, and sacred cows have no business taking up residence in a freethinking rational mind, no matter the subject. I try to keep them shooed out of mine anyway. -Dave

Thanks for the response Hogeye. I look forward to perusing your website. I have considered myself only a hair's breadth away from being an anarchist for so long, there is some risk you will convince me I already am one. Sometimes referring to oneself as a libertarian is a little like claiming to be an agnostic, sort of a socially acceptable way to say you don't believe in the validity of their government without unduly alarming the listener.

Hogeye wrote:Like you, I'm strongly inflenced by Ayn Rand, but have graduated to Murray Rothbard.

Hmmm… I thought of Rothbard as a Ludwig von Mises devotee economist, who was a mover and shaker in the early Libertarian Party, before becoming a Buchananite. I have not explored anarcho-capitalism yet, but it does sound like a term an idealist contumacious economist might coin. I try to be careful not to use the capital L when referring to myself as a libertarian. Trying to organize sturdy individualists is akin to herding cats, and the Libertarian Party hasn't a prayer of ever becoming a serious player in the political arena unless they learn to become a bit more pragmatic, which is unlikely.

I read your essay "What is a Freethinker." Before I comment, you probably want to know about a technical HTML glitch: In my browser (Safari on iMac) your menu "[HOME] [BLOG] [FORUM] [TERMS] [MISSION]" appears twice on every page. The top one is okay, but second one covers the writing in your article pane. E.g. I can't read the first line of your definition of "freethinker."

Thanks, I'll try to look into that. The second row appears at the bottom of the content pane on other browsers so one doesn't have to scroll back to the top to move on.

I think that the battle over religion was more or less won by the end of the 19th century. No longer do we have witch-burnings; atheists, agnostics, and deists are allowed to hold jobs and function pretty much unmolested in society. Game over, man!

Well said, regarding the here and now. Harris et al do make a compelling case for the ultimate danger of religion. On the other hand, as I posit in my DARK AGES II essay, we are all spinning our wheels in a purely intellectual exercise. We have already lost WWIV, for there is absolutely nothing we could do, that the antiwar idealists would allow us to do, to prevent Islam from taking over the world during the next century and burning the libraries again. Most don't realize it yet, but that too is already "Game over."

In your essay, you portray the main enemy as Marxism; I would generalize that. The main enemy is statism…

Fair point. I could use another word occasionally. Whatever the rationale and new terms invented to obscure it, however, it is the dreams of Marx that are behind it. See my TERMS page. Marxism may have failed everywhere it has been tried, but the Marxists in academia have by no means capitulated.

It's always nice to find another member of the remnant.

Ditto. -Dave

Darrel wrote:Libertarians have some really good ideas and principles but I think a lot of potential joiners get turned off by the radical and vocal representatives who use it as a springboard to add a lot of really untenable junk on to it.

Darrel, it took me a few days, but I see what you mean. -Dave

.

It took a week to get banned from Thoughts Aloud. (Even quicker than Capitalism.org.) I pride myself on getting kicked off of intolerant forums. I've been banned from the "best" of 'em!

It turns out that Dave is no libertarian at all - he's an anti-immigration, warmonger paleo-liberventionist. Oh, well.