Hempfest 2013: An over-analytical review

The first time I heard of Hempfest was last summer, and that was because Judge Jim Gray was going to speak there, and every libertarian in WA was telling me to go. Unfortunately, I had to be in San Antonio during that time (at least I met Gary Johnson for a second time). For quite a while, I really thought Hempfest had to do everything with industrial hemp. How adorable of me.

I would think about this year's Hempfest randomly during the school year. Then I somehow almost forgot about it over the summer until I was randomly reminded of it. Unfortunately, I was really low on money, but with a loan from a friend (thankyousoverymuch!), I was able to attend. I took a couple of buses from Bellingham ($5.50 in total). I lucked out and was able to find a cheap hotel for both nights (great service at the Ace Hotel). I came into Seattle not knowing if I was going to be able to find a place to stay or find a way back to Bellingham (fortunately, I didn't have to stress too much).

A few days prior, I spent $200 to become a VIP. Why did I do this? Not only am I, in reality, a very important person, but I figured it would be useful for even more networking. It's something I recommend. If you don't want to spend that much money, consider becoming a supporter for $30, or a member for $60. Plus it was nice skipping the huge line...also it boosted my ego when people asked me about my VIP card.

Advertisement

Right as I went in, I visited booth after booth handing out my business card. After a couple of hours, my phone ran out of battery and I was feeling very exhausted from my early morning trip that I went back to my hotel room to charge my phone and take a nap. Refreshed after a couple of hours of sleep, I went back to Hempfest and continued with my networking. I kept the WWU SSDP page somewhat up-to-date. There was a couple of jerky booths, and I tried gator jerky. It was very good.

One of the booths I visited was the one set up for the children's book "If a Peacock Finds a Pot Leaf", which I had read about in Northwest Leaf. I will do a review on the book later, but it is a book to explain medical marijuana to children. Morgan, the author, had to experience her mother (Geneva, the illustrator)  telling her not to tell anyone that she did this, and, from the other side, hear her friends and school talking about how bad marijuana is. I feel that this is a good tool to help explain the subject of drugs to kids, without having to rely on the programs, like D.A.R.E., that teach in a biased, one-sided way. I asked how much the book cost, and Geneva replied, "For you, it's free," and wrote a note. She then proceeded to draw, and said, "I don't do this for everyone." Both she and her daughter signed.

I was able to visit all the booths in that one say. Well, I mean the ones I was interested in. It made me wonder if I had to stay until Sunday like I had planned. After the normal festivities of the first day, I attended the VIP after-party. I am so glad I went. Free food and wine. I guess even more networking was a plus. Free vaporizers were given out. One of the many free items from attending Hempfest I won't really be using. I took a cab to my hotel afterwards - the first time doing so by myself. That weekend made me feel like more of an adult.

That night I had very strange dreams. When I woke up, I was glad to learn that another room in the hotel had opened up, meaning I could spend another night. At noon, I headed to Hempfest again. I mostly spent the first couple of hours listening to bands and guest speakers, including Senator Mike Gravel.

Rant Alert

By the time some of the guest speakers were onstage, including the Senator, my friend and his brother had joined me. One of the speakers...boy, was he loud. The only good thing about his speech is that he caught people's attention. Let's just say by the time he was finished, I said to my friend, "Now I know what it's like to listen to Hitler."

Really, some of these motherfuckin' guest speakers...the ones who yell into the microphones without any real substance in their speeches are the people who get the best reactions from the audience. On the other hand, the worthwhile speakers who talk sense, while they may or may not speak charismatically, get only polite applause from the non-stoners. Don't even get me started on those who brought in unrelated issues to the podium. Oh wait, I will get started - THIS IS MY RANTING TIME!

Let me see what issues unrelated to marijuana or hemp were mentioned in some of the guest speakers' talks: gay rights, global warming, abortion, etc. People, this is Hempfest. Okay, maybe I can see where global warming ties in (hemp is a much more sustainable product than trees and other raw materials), but bad things happen when a sensible issue gets jumbled up with other issues. Here is my favorite example, because it is actually the one that made me decide to dump my Republican identity and switch over to the porcupine side (and, of course, I will tell my story in a later post):

We all know what anthropogenic global climate change is. Maybe not. It just means global warming...for those of you who couldn't figure it out. Even though the science behind it is pretty solid, there are plenty of naysayers, thanks to the fact that the issue has become unnecessarily politicized. Republican organization and politicians would talk about the usual things, which I mostly agreed with, but refuse to accept the possibility of global warming, and even outright bash environmentalists, and that is just not cool. Then of course the environmental groups would talk about other issues that were not related to healthcare (women's "rights," universal healthcare, etc.) as if just because I was (well, and still am) an environmentalist. I got mail from the Democratic Party because, I guess, they thought I was one of them.

You want to know a reason why Republicans won't be accepting the existence of global warming, want to be environmentalists, or end the War on Drugs any time soon? It is because of people like some of these guest speakers who take an issue you can relate to and then compare it to "problems" you either do not care about or are actually against. If you are participating in a rally declaring that the US military should pull out of every country we are occupied in, do not bring in other issues by saying things like, "We should be spending those wasted dollars on healthcare and our kids' education instead" or carrying signs that say, "Free healthcare, not free markets" (I seriously saw that once...yes, at a pro-peace rally). Ya know, I will definitely rant about this more in a later post.

To continue with my ranting, I hate how Hempfest is endorsing Michael McGinn for mayor of Seattle. At least they allowed his opponent, Ed Murray, to have a booth there too (and speak on the main stage). This does not even have to do with the fact that I would vote Murray over McGinn any day, although I do not like either of them. My first taste of McGinn was when I was driving to Tacoma to see Gary Johnson at the Rainiers game last summer with the guy I was dating, and, of course, we got stuck in Seattle traffic. He then started to complain about the mayor and how he halted road construction products (I think to expand lanes or something) to get people to use public transportation, bike, etc. instead. As my friend's brother put it, "to annoy people" to use those things instead of driving in their cars.

Advertisement

Anywho, the reason why I do not like Hempfest endorsing him is because I don't like single-issue organizations endorsing anybody. Why are single-issue political parties not popular? It is because there are so many other things out there that people are worrying about. Sure, I care for the environment, but I am not just going to vote for a politician because he or she has the exact plan that I think will be the best for everyone. Actually, I stopped supporting the Sierra Club because they sent me a letter telling me which politicians to vote for. I was so angry that not only did I write them back expressing my outrage, but I hand-wrote a letter. That is how mad I was. Sure, I support a lot of the things they do, but it does not sit correctly knowing if I supported them, that I was also supporting these politicians. It also ties in with people trying to lead issues into other issues.

If Hempfest is supporting (in this case, endorsing) a certain politician or political party, let us suppose the Democrats, then of course that is going to turn off Republicans! Also, what makes McGinn so much better than Murray? I am pretty sure both believe in the same thing when it comes to legalizing marijuana. I mean, I know they are both for it, maybe it's just the way they are going about it. Seriously, I have no idea. I was told that Hempfest likes how McGinn has been dealing with it so far. Whatever. Just to be clear, I have no problem at all that politicians are speaking on the stages, or that political parties and candidates have booths. I just do not want them endorsing anyone.

So why am I still supporting Hempfest but not the Sierra Club? I guess I was so fed up with the flame war between the Sierra Club and the Republicans (and everyone else who thinks that the government shouldn't get involved with environmental issues), that that was the last straw. I suppose that the positive really outweighs the negative in the case of Hempfest, and it's not like they were really pushy when it came to endorsing McGinn - I only found that out because I walked by the booth, versus with the Sierra Club, they were totally being all up in my face about it (I mean it was totally one-sided, and they were supporting Obama - WHO ENDORSES "CLEAN" COAL!!).

Last topic to rant on: when I first visited the Murray booth, two girls were manning it. I asked about him because even though I am not a voter in Seattle (or in Washington...I am sent absentee ballots from Texas), I wanted to learn a little about what he wants to do for the city. They were telling me all the "good" things about him, and then one girl says, "One thing that he believes in doing is giving Planned Parenthood more money," and she looked at me as if what she said was the gold mine of whatever in the history of my life has ever appealed to me. I probably replied with something like, "Umm, great...I'll check him out."

I just love that because I am a woman that people think I automatically support Planned Parenthood, or that I am even pro-choice. One of the only reasons I am pro-choice is because of the drawbacks of prohibition. I hate saying I am pro-choice because I don't even really feel that way. Abortion is an issue that libertarians definitely cannot seem to agree upon, either because they feel that it is the mother's choice, or that it is the murder of a human who does not have say over what is happening. What pretty much all libertarians agree on is that the government should not put (taxpayer money) into Planned Parenthood, namely abortions.

Just think of it this way, would you want to force someone to pay for a procedure that kills something that they believe to be very precious? Would you want to collect money from a vegan in order to kill a cow? It is disturbing to me to use other people's money to do something with it that they cannot endorse ethically.

/endrant

My poor friend (and his brother) had to endure this for hours. Be glad it wasn't you. I was like, "I am going to write about this for my blog! I have so much to say about what is all going on here!" As you can see, I do.

Something interesting that had been on my mind, and that I talked to them about, was the idea of "Crackfest." Sure, that would probably be pretty sketchy, but how do we get people behind the idea of legalizing other drugs? I guess there is the whole personal freedom thing. Marijuana has the benefit of being its own culture, and it has other uses than just making you high for funsies - medical, nutritional, and industrial hemp.

I spent the rest of the day trying to fill out a scavenger hunt in Dope magazine. There were several vendors, and then I would have to go find them, would get something from that booth, they would check it off in the magazine, and then at the end, I had to visit the magazine booth. I wasn't able to find three vendors, but I learned, the next day, it was because they ended up not making it, so I still got my prizes which was pretty dope. That scavenger hunt added things to my "I have no idea what it is (I know it is used for something marijuana-related), but, hey, it's free" collection.

Advertisement

On Sunday, the last day of Hempfest, I spent most of my time in the Hemposium listening to panels. So totally my kind of thing - a lot of policy-related stuff.

One quote I really took away from it was, "Take what you can get and fight for more," referring to the initiatives. Even though marijuana is now "legal" in Washington, it doesn't mean we just stop fighting for more legalization. I-502 passed last year, and this year we have I-584. I will be talking about this in a later post.

When the panels were over, I went around and listened to bands and guest speakers. One of the speakers talked about how he had a shop in D.C. (forgot what kind it was), and that people from the military and police force would go there asking if they had a certain substance, which turned out to be a synthetic form of marijuana that was legal. Their shop sold it for a while and were reaping hundreds of dollars a day, but finally, they decided it went against their morals and stopped selling it, just a few months before it became illegal. The speaker told us that that drug probably wouldn't have existed if it weren't for the laws restricting marijuana. It reminded of what Milton Friedman had to say on crack cocaine. A possible danger of the War on Drugs is that people will always come up with alternatives, and that may be even more dangerous because they are unregulated and/or don't have private institutions checking for its safety.

At the end of the day, I went from the third stage to the second. When I arrived there, I was like, "Whoa...and I thought people at the third stage were stoned." When guest speakers went up to the podium at the stage and say what they had to say, people were too stoned to applaud. Only about five people ever clapped at a given moment.

Final rant...

A theme that came up during a lot of speeches is that some people would ask the activists and politicians whether Hempfest was important anymore since marijuana is now legal ("legal") in Washington. The answers varied, with the most common reply being along the lines of, "No, the fight is not over! We are going to continue Hempfest until hemp and marijuana are made legal by the federal government!" Another response was, "There are beerfests, and beer is perfectly legal, so why not marijuana?"

What do I think?

I agree with both. The urgency of Hempfest should continue as long as marijuana and hemp are viewed illegal by the federal government (and maybe other states too). Also, I see no problem with it going on even if it is made 100% legal everywhere. You can't deny that there is a weed culture.

By just listening to these talks, you get the idea that Hempfest is about doing what is right - making marijuana legal so that there are less victimless crimes in the US. Isn't that what it's all about?

Wrong.

That is, if you ask (my friends and) most people who attend. I am poked fun at because I don't smoke weed, and people were telling me before I went that "that's what it's almost about there. You go to get high."

I am disgruntled at how oblivious and disrespectful a lot of people there were. Last year, the cleanup fee was high because the place was vandalized. Is that what people go to Hempfest for? To just smoke, buy (or steal) some things, and destroy property at the expense of the organization that lets them in for free? I really wonder what the victims of the nonviolent marijuana-related crimes think of the behavior of the people there. How about the medical marijuana patients? Of course, I am neither, and who knows, maybe they like it. However, I don't appreciate it at all. Sure, it's a fun atmosphere, but people completely miss the point of why this event is held every year. I feel like most people who attend (or the stereotypical ones) perverse the meaning of Hempfest.

Advertisement

The Hemp Revolution The Hemp Revolution - Culture & Society

The workers there kept reminding us that last year, they raised (I think) about 25 cents for every person who attended. That is ridiculous. There has been the ever-looming threat of Hempfest becoming extinct because it gets more expensive every year. I actually wondered if maybe the higher costs of maintenance and regulation had anything to do with McGinn. Of course, I am not talking about him intentionally trying to make Hempfest more expensive, but usually those kinds of rules affect businesses. More procedures are usually added to how to run certain events, businesses, etc. mostly to make it "safer" or more "convenient." Bureaucracy be bureaucracy. I would find it hilarious if he was responsible for any of the rising costs - just because they endorsed him. It would be great if someone could follow up on this and do some research, or maybe clear it up and say that he wasn't involved with any of those decisions. I don't care enough to actually look it up.

Ed Murray, Washington State Senator and candidate for Seattle mayor 

Hemposium - where I spent most of my Sunday

Me with the guys from CannaMLS

Stephen DeAngelo - Executive Director of Harborside Health Center (Oakland, CA) and star of "Weed Wars" (Discovery Channel)

Inside cover of "If a Peacock Finds a Potleaf" - "We hope you like our new book! Cannabis saves lives - Hemp could save the world"

The line on the first day - because I was VIP, I got to cut in front of everybody

Me with Senator Mike Gravel (left) and C. Michael Pickens (right), Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Washington at the VIP after-party

You can also view the pictures (and more captioning) here.

I apologize for my delay on getting this up. Hopefully, you will get something out of those. As always, I encourage you to participate in discussion. Au revoir!

EDIT: Check out my speech from the 2014 Seattle Hempfest.

If you like weed, follow and give money to someone who doesn't care about it, but will sacrifice her own time and money to ensure the rights of others to use it.

Become a Patron!

My 2 cents on the the Miley Cyrus outrage

I tried to ignore the whole "Miley Cyrus twerking" thing. I really did. Then I discovered brief analyses describing the impact of that performance on feminism and racism. Because I belief racial and gender discrimination and societal portrayals make up a huge part of politics, I'll talk about it some.

It would have been nicer if people focused on Syria. A lot of people I talked to didn't even know what was going on. When seeing my Facebook libertarian friends complaining how people are more focused on Miley than on Syria, it seemed like they were exaggerating. When I actually went onto non-libertarian forums...it was all about her.

Anyways, back on track...(ironically)

The biggest complaint is that her performance was lewd and offensive to females.

When I finally got around to watching her performance, I had no problem with most of it. However, when she slapped that woman's butt, grabbed her own crotch, etc., that was too much for me. I seriously had no problem with her outfit and most of her dancing. Nevertheless, it was overall a bit tasteless and excessive.

Here, a sexologist writes an interesting take on it, and I have to agree. Both parties (and MTV and whoever else was involved with this) are at fault.

In this article, a woman complains about the racial implications of Miley's performance - treating black women as objects, "black" singing, twerking, etc. I think this is a bit of an overreaction, but since I am not a black woman, I can't feel much personal offense and therefore can't speak for any who were offended. I did not feel like, while watching, that Miley treated the black women as "objects," but I did notice that she was a white girl in a crowd of black people. When she spanked that woman, I didn't think "oh, she smacked a black person's ass," I thought, "wow, was spanking that woman's butt really necessary...?" You see, I tend to notice gender first (or so I think, my subconscious may differ), not race. The whole thing about Miley wanting "a black sound" for her new album is just a very ignorant thing to say.

Advertisement

Feminism and 'Race' Feminism and Race brings together a wide range of writings on 'race', racism, and feminism that have been published in the past two decades. It aims to provide readers with an overview of the history of these debates as well as to suggest future directions for feminist scholarship and practice in this field.

I am not disagreeing with the author of the article when she says that the performance was racist, but I feel that it was more oblivious to the perpetuating of negative stereotypes of black culture and female identity than it was to the outright objectifying of (female) blacks.

What I am even more worried about is that Miley Cyrus has made twerking and other overblown interpretations of what is associated with black culture seem unacceptable. Even where twerking might be tolerable and commonplace, what she has done may have entirely ruined people's perceptions of it. Only time will tell.

Finally, not really related to race or gender in any way, but to clear up a mistake. The picture of the Smith family reacting to Miley's performance isn't really them reacting to her performance, it's actually to Lady Gaga's. I had been suspicious of that screenshot ever since it surfaced, since things can easily be taken out of context. Blame it on my untrusting nature of the media.

In the meantime, use this to capture people's attention in order to get them to see what important stuff is actually going on in the world.

Whether you like Miley Cyrus or not, I know you like me.

Become a Patron!

Advertisement

Feminism and Science (Series copy) The new Oxford Readings in Feminism series maps the dramatic influence of feminist theory on every branch of academic knowledge. Offering feminist perspectives on disciplines from history to science, each book assembles the most important articles written on its field in the last ten to fifteen years. Old stereotypes are challenged and traditional attitudes upset in these lively-- and sometimes controversial--volumes, all of which are edited by feminists prominent in their particular field. Comprehensive, accessible, and intellectually daring, the Oxford Readings in Feminism series is vital reading for anyone interested in the effects of feminist ideas within the academy. Can science be gender-neutral? In recent years, feminist critics have raised troubling questions about the practice and goals of traditional science, demonstrating the existence of a pervasive bias in the ways in which scientists conduct and discuss their work. This exciting volume gathers seventeen essays--by sociologists, scientists, historians, and philosophers--of seminal significance in the emerging field of feminist science studies. Analyzing topics from the stereotype of the "Man of Reason" to the "romantic" language of reproductive biology, these fascinating essays challenge readers to take a fresh look at the limitations--and possibilities--of scientific knowledge.

Sign waving in downtown Bellingham

Learning about what is going on with Syria upset me this morning. It was even more aggravating to see people more caught up with Ben Affleck and Miley Cyrus. I was so angry that I decided I would go downtown and do a bit of sign waving, to at least let people become aware of what was going on (even though I could barely walk today because of my legs being super-sore). I got so distracted with these thoughts that I almost forgot to eat...and that is saying a lot.

I picked up a large permanent marker and a poster and made this sign.

While waiting for the bus to take me downtown, a homeless man asked me about it. He told me he was a veteran and that he is absolutely tired of our country getting involved with other countries' businesses, and wished me luck.

Downtown, I received quite a decent amount of honks and thumbs-ups.

Whenever I go sign waving, I like to be silent. I only talk to people when they approach me first, mainly because I don't want to annoy them. They (I would think for the most part) can read, and therefore trying to tell them things unprovoked may be unnecessary and will sometimes be counterproductive.

A couple of people asked me what was going on and were supportive, some thanked me for doing it. Only one person was critical. It wasn't even that bad. He was comparing it to Al-Qaeda and 9/11, saying that if we don't do about what is going on in Syria, something like 9/11 could happen again, but he admitted that he didn't know much about the current situation in Syria. He compared it to if someone was beating him up, shouldn't the police come and help him out? It was a friendly and peaceful debate.

I had been thinking of organizing a rally in Bellingham on Saturday. Coincidentally, tonight, I saw that there were going to be country-wide rallies on Saturday, so I went to look up to see if one was already made for Bellingham (I doubted it so I was thinking of making one myself). There already is one.

To find one in your city, look up "No War With Syria Rally (your city)" on Facebook - if there isn't one, organize one yourself.

Advertisement

War and Peace in the Ancient World This book is the first to focus on war and peace in the ancient world from a global perspective. The first book to focus on war and peace in the ancient world Takes a global perspective, covering a large number of early civilizations, from China, India and West Asia, through the Mediterranean to the Americas Features contributions from nineteen distinguished scholars, all of whom are experts in their fields Offers remarkable insights into the different ways in which ancient societies dealt with a common human challenge Requires no prior historical knowledge, making it suitable for non-specialists

Ultimately, the reason why I believe we shouldn't go to war there is because the US has no right to act as the police of the world. By doing so, we spend billions of dollars, put our citizens (and sometimes theirs) in danger, and make a lot of countries hate us by trying to tell them what they should and should not do. I don't just ignore the facts of what is going on and blindly say "war is bad" for everything that goes on though (well, war is bad...), so here's a quick, little compilation that Reason has put up on why we shouldn't go to war in Syria.

Help me sign wave more often (and with more people) by helping me acquire groupies and making me $$$$.

Become a Patron!

Famous people who hurt the liberty movement

This post is very interactive, so please comment.

Who do y'all think hurts the liberty movement/gives libertarians a bad name? That could mean anything from publicly endorsing a non-liberty candidate to spreading misinformation - giving people the wrong idea of libertarianism and/or giving libertarians a bad name.

Please tell which people and why you think so.

Advertisement

I'm not famous and am not hurting the liberty movement - follow me on Facebook and give me money.

Become a Patron!

A little important note

I have been having a lot of interesting conversations with people over Facebook about my last post. I usually (mostly) agree with what they have to say in the first half, but then they get talking in a very Americanized/western point of view during the second half.

I was happily surprised by how many libertarians agree with me (to an extent). I will cover a "libertarian way of collectivism" on a later date since that seems to interest people. That post will be very interactive, so be prepared to comment your input.

  

In order to understand what exactly I was talking about, and to get the most out of my blog, you need to study up a bit on (mainly) cultural anthropology. Other subfields (linguistic, archaeology, and biological), psychology, and sociology will help too, but to a lesser extent.

People are reading and comprehending it based on how we live life today. I am talking about how we evolved as a species, which we haven't really grown out of...unless you want to argue that, which you can, logically, to a certain point.

Advertisement

Cultural Anthropology Using a cultural materialist approach, the seventh edition of "Cultural Anthropology" provides a framework for explaining how the parts of sociocultural systems are interrelated and how they change over time. "Marvin Harris' lifelong commitment to a scientific anthropology shines through in this comprehensive and well-written textbook," praises one reviewer. Described as accessible, engaging, well-illustrated, and comprehensive, this text covers a wide range of Western and non-Western cultures for analysis and comparison. "Marvin Harris can continue to bring new insights to the field of anthropology and provide ways to inspire students new to this discipline," writes a long-time user. ""Cultural Anthropology" excels in making anthropology accessible and relevant to today's students. The authors succeed in showing not only what the current status of anthropology is but also the potential of anthropology to explain human culture in all of its diversity and magnificence," writes another. For the seventh edition, rReadings from Spradley/McCurdy, Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology, 12/e have been integrated with wherever possible through emic and etic interpretations within the levels of infrastructure, structure and superstructure. Chapter 9, "Descent, Locality, and Kinship," has been rewritten to provide more streamlined coverage. Increased use of the universal pattern model through graphics and new content throughout each chapter. The universal pattern model is introduced in Chapter 2 and applied throughout the text to reinforce how differences in civilization impact infrastructure and adaptive patterns. Enhanced problem-orientation in the new edition capitalizeson this growing trend through interim questions after each section in each chapter.

Biggest reply to what most people have said about that last post: Yes, people look most after themselves - survival instinct. However, individuals wouldn't have "personal rights" in their tribe. Individualism and property rights are relatively new concepts (as in compared to how long we have been existing as a species). Each member contributes to survival of the tribe. Individuals depend on the tribe for survival, and the tribe depends on each useful individual. If an individual is stubborn and isn't playing his or her part - they were disposed of, killed or abandoned. No person wants that because if they weren't killed and, instead, were deserted, that means almost certain doom. If a tribe loses a member, the role either has to be replaced, or they all suffer. An individual and the tribe are, in a way, indistinguishable (of course not if the people personally know each other).

Again, study anthropology. If I post links to videos and articles, it is probably best if you view them. Summarizing only does so well.

Thank you for being such good readers!

If you want to support a human, support me.

Become a Patron!

The problem with the libertarian's emphasis on individualism

This post is inspired by this video, although I would have eventually written about it:

As an anthropology major thinking of minoring in psychology (and having an interest in all things human), I can't help but notice that humans are social creatures. Of course pretty much everyone reading this knows that already, but I don't think to the extent they should.

Watch this video:

And that video, for some reason, reminds me of the first episode of "The Twilight Zone."

From that (and I mean the video, not my associating it with "The Twilight Zone"), we gather that humans are highly social immediately from birth and that social connection impacts every aspect of how we live our lives.

Humans in the past were a part of tribes containing 150 to 300 people. Thanks to technology, population increase, and high population densities, we have doubled, tripled, or even more than quadrupled the number of people we associate with. I don't believe that it is necessarily a bad thing, it is especially a good thing to know when it comes to networking (which I will discuss on a later date).

I have been called a "collectivist" by some libertarians, as if it was a derogatory word. I will admit: I am a collectivist.

Advertisement

Self and Society: Narcissism, Collectivism, and the Development of Morals The relation between individual and collective processes is central to the social sciences, yet difficult to conceptualize because of the necessity of crossing disciplinary boundaries. The result is that researchers in different disciplines construct their own implicit, and often unsatisfactory, models of either individual or collective phenomena, which in turn influence their theoretical and empirical work. In this book, Drew Westen attempts to cross these boundaries, proposing an interdisciplinary approach to personality, to culture, and to the relation between the two. Part I of the book sets forth a model of personality that integrates psychodynamic analysis with an understanding of cognitively mediated conditioning and social learning. In Part II, Westen offers a view of culture that blends symbolic and materialist modes of discourse, examining the role of both ideals and 'material' needs in motivating symbolic as well as concrete social structural processes. In Part III, he combines these models of personality and culture through an examination of cultural evolution and stasis, identity and historical change, and the impact of technological development on personality. Throughout the book, Westen provides reviews of the state of the art in a variety of fields, including personality theory, moral development, ego development, and culture theory. He also addresses and recasts central issues in psychology, sociology, anthropology, and social theory, such as the relations between emotion and cognition; social learning and psychodynamics; ideals and material forces; and individual and collective action. His book will appeal to students and scholars in all the social sciences, as well as to any reader concerned with understanding the relation between individuals and the world in which they live.

So many times have I seen libertarians bashing collectivism and embracing individualism - identifying with being a part of a group is "bad" (hmmm, how about libertarianism?). Why is that? How is being a part of a group a bad thing? And why do libertarians place an emphasis on the individual?

First off, libertarians tend to have an infatuation (that is pretty sensible, in my opinion) with the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. There go dat word.

Both of these documents reiterate the importance of individualism, based on the teachings of John Locke and other philosophers.

I have found that the more well-off a society becomes, the more they will rely less on each other (and become vegetarians). This may or may not have a negative impact.

Some societies are very grounded in a collectivist and familial way of life, such as China and Japan. Both countries have been negatively affected by the western world because their traditional background differs very much from how most modern people there are starting to live their lives. I read about a study (not sure how long it will take, but I will find where I read this and put it here) where they found that Japanese exchange students have a more profound sense of individualism after living in America for some months.

Humans are naturally collectivists. Without being so, we would not be living today. However, some of us are evolving (a teensy bit) out of it.

If it's natural...then why is it a bad thing?

Tobacco is also natural.

For the most part, I think collectivism is a good thing. However, as anyone will learn in their psychology 101 class, being in groups can negatively affect your thoughts and behavior.

While collectivism has made the human species even exist, it also has its consequences:

1) Groupthink

2) Racism

These are 2 among many other problems. This stuff is bad today, but back then, this way of thinking saved our butts. We haven't evolved from it.

What problem, then, do I have with libertarians flaunting individualism? It's excessive. It is not how we evolved as a species. Don't get me going on whether or not I think it's something we should try to evolve out of. People today suffer from depression and loneliness because of our obsession with standing out. Not to mention each family in America only usually consists of the parents and their children in their little box tucked away from society, and in our ideal world, each family member (maybe except for the parents) would want even more exclusion with a room that belongs all to his or herself - hence, that will make the person secluded from the family, the family secluded from the neighborhood, the neighborhood secluded from the other neighborhoods, etc.

While on this sour note, here is what I think is probably the loneliest-sounding songs from all time:

By talking about humans naturally being collectivists, I am not saying we should all be talkative, social butterflies. I am an introvert. I also am a bit (and by "a bit," I mean very much so) anti-social. Nevertheless, some people are surprised because they find me to be very extroverted (I mean, others also find me the "most quiet person they have ever met"). One friend called me a "social introvert" - meaning that I realize the importance of being social. Trust me, that took years for me to do. I'm still working on it. Was this nurture or nature? My parents tell me that this part of my personality reminds me of my mom's father, a retired US Navy electrician from the Philippines. My parents and older sister are very outgoing. My little sister and I tend to be more quiet, although she definitely makes friends more easily than I do. Either way, I like being by myself most of the time, but that doesn't mean I forget to work on my relationships with other people.

Advertisement

Am I for totally blocking out the idea of individualism? Of course not. In my mind, collectivism is necessary because it is how we survive as human beings, and how we will continue to survive for the next thousands of years...of course that is if we even survive. I always have this lingering feeling of the destruction of the human race from a meteor or something hitting the Earth...or the sun dying...or something else that happens in space.

What do I like about individualism? When not viewed in a self-centered way, it's what makes us who we are as people. As individuals, we contribute our own unique talents to how we function as a society. That is why I, a libertarian, consider myself to be a collectivist.

Wowee, this was supposed to be a short note.

If you want to support an individual, support me.

Become a Patron!

Book review: Libertarianism in One Lesson

I just finished reading a book called Libertarianism in One Lesson by David Bergland - "Why libertarianism is the best hope for America's future" oh myyyyyyyyy god, I am so excited! Nah, I'm actually sitting in the computer lab, maybe seemingly glaring at the computer screen. Apparently I look very serious when I'm on the computer, no matter what I am doing (on Facebook, etc.).

Overall, I find it to be a very good book - easy to read, simple, and to the point. It probably is too basic for most well-versed libertarians (and political aficionados in general) . There are eighteen chapters, and in each one, the author explains the libertarian reasoning for why we believe in handling the topic of that chapter (e.g. education) in a certain way. Chapters one through six are more introductory in nature because, ya know, when trying to explain to some people for the first time what exactly libertarianism is, they sometimes are like, "That sounds like feudalism."

Or their reaction is similar to this.

Face it, libertarianism is kind of hard to explain without sounding like a nut - most people have been raised to believe that government is virtuous, efficient, and all-powerful. Any problems? Then bring it up to the government! They can fix anything! Aw hell, if that was the case, I would not be a libertarian. Just look around you, people believe only government can "end" poverty or do deep-space exploration. For the less naive, they might think government does a better job than the private sector. The rest of the chapters actually cover different topics: the problem, (if applicable) what may have caused it, and a libertarian solution. Chapter eighteen is an exception, and instead, answers different problems from a conservative, liberal, and libertarian point of view.

Look how shiny AND AMERICAN this is!

Even though this is a very simple read, you might learn something new or from a different viewpoint. This is a very nice book to give to your friends who want to learn more about libertarianism.

First off, I will get the bad things I have to say about this book off my chest...Luckily, there is only one, and it is not even that bad. Some of the things Bergland claims are a bit sketchy, but I am pretty sure (and hope) they are mentioned in more detail in his "Suggested Reading" section in the back.

The biggest revelation I got from reading this was actually from nearly the very beginning of the book.

"People frequently say, "There ought to be a law," or "The government ought to take action." What they are really saying is that legislators should make certain rules, attach penalties to them, and send out men with guns to enforce those rules. They are also saying that people who disagree with their proposed rules should be punished - by fines, jail time, or death - if they violate them. People rarely talk about laws in such grim, stark terms. But behind, every law laws the treat of force. That's what makes it a law (Bergland, 19)."

That really got to me. Who, in passing, ever thinks of laws in that way? I certainly never thought that consciously about it before. Every law your government passes is a threat against you. Now that doesn't sound so cheerful. I think writing that down just ruined my entire day. Thanks a lot, reader. It only makes sense to blame you because if it weren't for you, I wouldn't even have an incentive to create a blog.

If you read this book, you will discover that Bergland seems to have a favorite catchphrase: "Utopia is not an option." He explains certain fallacies that anti-libertarians commit, one of them being the Utopian Fallacy - no matter what form of government we are under or which party is in control, we are never going to experience a perfect world. Meaning that if someone tries to disprove your political beliefs by saying, "But that means there will still be people who are struggling to afford food!", then that's not a very good way of invalidating whatever you just said.

Do y'all know of any other good introductory libertarian books?

My blog may not be a book, but I nevertheless enjoy passive income all the same.

Become a Patron!

name="submit" src="https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif" type="image" />

Introduction

From this day forth, you shall know me by the name Katrina Haffner. It definitely helps since this is my real name. Neither am I a political analyst nor did I major in political science. Politics is not my forte, and forgive me if I come off as dumb. I assure you I am trying my best. Don't judge. I got my BA in anthropology and theater at Western Washington University in my little town of Bellingham (or to be more accurate, the twelfth-largest city in Washington, or fifth-largest by metropolitan area). Writing this blog is my attempt to stay up-to-date with current events, and share my rather unconventional opinions about political happenings in the local, national, and international realms. Alongside my studies, I was the president of four school clubs: 1) Western Libertarians, 2) None of the Above Club, 3) WWU's chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and finally, the nonpolitical one, 4) Raw Milk Club. Yes, I am a Libertarian. I consider myself to be both a "Libertarian" (as in the Libertarian Party) and a little "l" libertarian, but I will usually say "Libertarian" when referring to myself because my ego is big like that.

Hiiiii

Even though I am a Libertarian, I am not a conspiracy theorist or a watered-down Republican. You will never see me use the word “liberal” or "socialist" as if it was an insult, nor will you ever witness me say “sheeple,” and I will keep "statist" down to a minimum. However, do not think that I will never blame something on aliens. I am not on here to insult or offend people or to make anyone feel bad. I try not to get too emotional when voicing my disapproval of certain things, and instead, strive to lay out my opinions factually. If you know you will get easily rubbed the wrong way from my posts, go visit other blogs. There must be millions out there that are pansy-friendly. I apologize in advance if, at any time, I come across as cold. I reassure you that I do not mean to make you feel bad or offend you. I am like a sexy snail – rough exterior, gushy interior, and if you ever gave me the chance, I could possibly be the best lover you ever had. If you come across something I have written that you want me to expand on, please tell me, and do the same if you want me to cover a certain topic. Enjoy reading, and please be an active participant – comment and share!

You like me now, don't you?

Become a Patron!

Advertisement

The Libertarian Reader The first collection of seminal writings on a movement that is rapidly changing the face of American politics, The Libertarian Reader links some of the most fertile minds of our time to a centuries-old commitment to freedom, self-determination, and opposition to intrusive government. A movement that today counts among its supporters Steve Forbes, Nat Hentoff, and P.J. O'Rourke, libertarianism joins a continuous thread of political reason running throughout history. Writing in 1995 about the large numbers of Americans who say they'd welcome a third party, David Broder of The Washington Post commented, "The distinguishing characteristic of these potential independent voters—aside from their disillusionment with Washington politicians of both parties—is their libertarian streak. They are skeptical of the Democrats because they identify them with big government. They are wary of the Republicans because of the growing influence within the GOP of the religious right." In The Libertarian Reader, David Boaz has gathered the writers and works that represent the building blocks of libertarianism. These individuals have spoken out for the basic freedoms that have made possible the flowering of spiritual, moral, and economic life. For all independent thinkers, this unique sourcebook will stand as a classic reference for years to come, and a reminder that libertarianism is one of our oldest and most venerable American traditions.