We survive yard furniture assembly

It’s great to have newly landscaped, drought-resistant front and back yards. It’s fantastic that our new drip system works properly. But please oh please, save me from yard furniture assembly!

This past weekend, Deb and I spent almost five hours piecing together two glider chairs and a small attached table. I knew there’d be hundreds of parts, some of them teeny-tiny, by the size of the box the item came packaged in. But even after decades of miserably building furniture and bicycles and shelving from Japanese instructions with poor diagrams, we began this project, as always, optimistic that this time, everything would snap together without a hitch. Well, as I said before, it took five goddamn hours, and none of them particularly strengthened our marriage. But now we have a nice, comfortable “Glider Tete-a-Tete” tucked into a cozy, shaded corner of our back yard — a wonderful spot for book-reading, beer-guzzling, and ceegar-smoking.

Then, this morning, a delivery truck pulled up to drop off our new backyard dining set — one round table with a glass top and four swivel rockers, all disassembled. After pulling all the pieces out of two massive boxes, Deb and I looked at each other and shook our heads simultaneously. Not today.

We displease a neighbor

Deb and I spotted our neighbor Linda studying our front yard on Saturday.

“You guys have been busy,” she said. She didn’t look overly pleased.

“Yeah, and you should see the back yard,” I said. “It’s even nicer.”

Five weeks ago, we began a systematic demolition and reconstruction of our yards, front and back. We tore out trees, bushes, and hedges, then mulched them up with a wood-chipper. Then we replaced everything with plant life indigenous to the area — drought-resistant, low-maintenance stuff. We added a creek bed in the front yard that will siphon the rainwater from our gutters to the new trees we’ve planted. We created natural pathways through both yards. We placed flagstone in a few areas to create quiet spots for reading, meditation, wine drinking, and (for me) cigar smoking.

I’m sure Linda has no problem with any of that.

I suspect what’s suppressing her enthusiasm for our yards, particularly our front yard, is what’s missing.

What’s missing is lawn. You know, the stuff that every California homeowner is expected to have, the lush expanses of thick green carpet that provide a playground for giggling children and bouncing dogs.

We’ve got none of that now. Oh, we did have lawns, until five weeks ago. But our lawns were seldom green. Instead, they sported gopher holes, brown patches where our dog Cheyenne peed, and badass little mites that darted around your bare ankles during summer.

And we were forever watering the goddamn lawns. “Give them at least 45 minutes of water, every other day,” a friend once advised me. “That’ll keep ’em nice and green.” So I did that, diligently. But dead patches still cropped up, and the water bill skyrocketed. “These lawns need to be properly aerated,” my friend told me then. “If you’ve got some old golf shoes, ones with metal cleats, put those on and walk all over the lawns. They’ll love you for it. And you might want to buy some lawn fertilizer, too.” Screw all that. After ten years — ten friggin’ years — I was done.

So our new yard construction has, from the get-go, been built around a “no lawns” rule. In another week or so, our yards won’t look anything like any other in our neighborhood. While Ed, and Tom, and Jerry, and, yes, Linda either mow their own grass or pay someone to mow it for them, Deb and I will sit meditatively on one of our patios, nursing glasses of merlot.

So what if we don’t fit in with the rest of the neighbors?

Traveling further along freedom's path

Claire Wolfe is moving on, and I’ll miss her. Wolfesblog is gone. The Claire’s Files Forum is gone. Writes Claire:

“After a whole lifetime of being ‘political,’ I’m just not anymore — as I think has been apparent for quite a while.

“I’ve always stressed that freedom begins with mindset. Now I see a deeper aspect of mindset: freedom is spiritual. I may write about that. In some other forum. Maybe even under some other name. But it’s kinda hard to blog newsy, sound-bitey little updates on spirituality — even if anybody cared (which I believe few would). So Wolfesblog goes.

“I cheer the increasing number of bold freedom-seekers, each fighting for freedom in their own unique, unpredictable ways. … We’re all at our own places, all have our own things to do, all have our own styles, whether Mole, Ghost, or Agitator. …

“I’m not ‘disappearing.’ Just traveling further along my path.”

Bye-bye, Claire. Love ya. Keep shiny.

Surmounting barriers to freedom (3)

Here’s the conclusion of El Ray’s “Surmounting Barriers to Freedom,” from the August 1969 issue of Innovator.

Change your interrelations, not your values. Avoid psychotherapy, group therapy, dianetics, and the other kinds of “treatment” which focus on YOUR neuroses, seeking to change your drives and attitudes — to “adjust” YOU to “society.” Instead, “adjust” SOCIETY to you, by changing your pattern of interactions with it. While you may have hang-ups which reduce your effectiveness (most people do), these are predominantly secondary — the result of living in a very sick culture. Once you are free, most of your neuroses will go away. And you can better handle any which remain. By analogy: if you wake up in a house on fire, don’t stop to put salve on your burns; get out! The only hang-ups to concern yourself with immediately are any which keep you from becoming free.

Seek associates going your way. Cultivate long-term relations only with libertarians achieving compatible objectives. Cut your ties with tied people, be they long-time friends, relatives, husband, wife, or whoever. Some libertarians are held by a mistaken sense of contractual obligation. I consider a State marriage contract to be morally invalid on several grounds: it is entered under duress; its terms are not objective; a criminal organization is a third-party to it and abrogates to itself the resolution of any disputes. But even if a traditional marriage is considered valid, it doesn’t give someone moral license to hold you in servitude. Since you cannot properly care for a spouse and children within THAT society, obligation, if any, is not for you to remain with them, but for them to accompany you.

Emphasize the positive — enjoyment of freedom living, rather than survival of some future catastrophe. While coercive States always have been and continue to be prone to wars, depressions, plagues, witch-hunts, and other “emergencies,” the time, place, and circumstances are not so predictable that you can afford to wait until just before a disaster occurs. And there may not be a single apocalypse but, as in the Roman Empire, stagnation and decay lasting for centuries, punctuated by various calamities and partial recoveries. Someone who hopes to get out of that society just before a disaster will tend to spend much time keeping posted on “affairs of State,” which is psychologically destructive. He will be reacting to the statists instead of taking the initiative. Some have decided that “things aren’t bad enough yet” to opt out, but they are apt to find that if/when conditions get worse, their resources will be correspondingly less and freedom options within their means not so attractive. This is not to deny the value of “survival insurance” — preparation for some of the more likely dangers, but this should be in addition to, not in place of freedom now.

Look before you leap. Especially if you are new to the freedom scene, be sure you understand what you need freedom FROM before you commit yourself. Some young people — without benefit of experience, capital, or philosophy courses — have dropped out and STAYED OUT, building free lives. But many more drop out only to drip back in. Don’t react, for example, merely to the superficial ills of megapolis, such as smog and congestion, and invest much time and money in a conventional farm, only to discover later that you have less real liberty than ever. If your humanities studies have been limited to courses in State schools plus “left-wing” and “right-wing” political tracts, spend a few months broadening them. Read some books on libertarian philosophy, free-market economics, and revisionist history. With the last, include some horror stories on the American government’s treatment of Indians in the 19th century, incarceration of Japanese-Americans in the ’40s, incineration of innocent civilians in enemy-controlled cities during World War II and since, and forced repatriation of refugees from communist countries after World War II. When you no longer dislike just the draft, taxes, “welfare” programs, Vietnam War, anti-psychedelic laws or other specific depredations, but detest coercive government per se; when you realize that the American Empire and other major powers are utterly without redeeming social value, you are ready to become free.

Surmounting barriers to freedom (2)

Here’s part two of El Ray’s “Surmounting Barriers to Freedom,” from the August 1969 issue of Innovator.

Think of yourself as a pioneer as you achieve freedom; you are. Synthesizing a new way of life is what any pioneer does. (Rarely does anyone truly settle new land; European migrants to America, for example, developed new lifestyles in an already-inhabited land.) As a pioneer, you must learn new approaches and skills — sometimes you must invent them. If you prefer the routine, self-liberation is not for you.

Honestly recognize your servile traits and treat these as bad habits to be broken. Don’t alibi. As Dr. George Boardman has said: “The most emphatic problem facing people who are trying to find the road to freedom, today, involves habits created by too many years of donothingness. Except for a few persons who have been in business for themselves, most of the people dissatisfied with the status quo have spent most of their time taking orders. The remarkable hesitancy displayed is only mildly disguised by jumping up and down, rather wildly, in one place, proclaiming, waving arms, arguing and generally wasting time.” For overcoming servilism, different techniques work for different individuals: writing personal “scenarios,” long meditations, solitary wilderness trips, or psychedelics may help.

Be confident, don’t overestimate difficulties. Many stories of wilderness and ocean, written for the titillation of armchair adventurers, exaggerate the dangers. In reality, almost any liberated lifestyle is safer than existence within the Grave Society. Of course, ignorance or carelessness can be fatal in the wilderness, but no more so than on a freeway. The biggest hazard for most people is not storms, wild animals, nor even the predators of the State, but, as mentioned before, their psychological dependence on others — their inability to direct their own lives — to motivate and entertain themselves.

To be continued.

Surmounting barriers to freedom (1)

Here’s part one of "Surmounting Barriers to Freedom," another terrific article on self-liberation by the mysterious El Ray, from the August 1969 issue of Innovator. Many of Rayo’s suggestions for “opting out” may strike some modern libertarians as too fringe and too retreatist. But I think what’s most important here is attitude, and the truth in what he says about our shackles being as much psychological as political.

The continuation and growth of any authoritarian State depends far less on overt coercion than on the credulity, inertia, short-sightedness, and capacity for rationalization of its victims. Even many of those who criticize the State remain caged by their habits and continue to be bled. If you have been a libertarian for several years and still aren’t free, unless you reside in a maximum-security prison or are bed-ridden, your shackles are not political-economic so much as psychologic. How can you smash your chains? Here are some tips:

Liberate your home first, then work for vocational freedom, rather than trying for financial independence before opting out. You might, for example, move into a camper and squat away from the subpeople, while commuting weekly to your present employment. Since only a fraction of time is spent at work (about one-quarter for a single person; one-sixteenth for a family of four with one member employed), away-from-work living logically has priority. And a liberated home should be much less expensive, bringing financial independence that much closer. Also, with less vulnerability to the extorters, you can use tax-cutting tricks you would otherwise fear to employ. And coming-of-school-age children are removed from populated areas before the real-life bogeymen get them. Finally, actually living in freedom, you may discover alternatives to the eight-to-five regime which might never occur to you in suburbia.

Distinguish comforts and conveniences from status games. Some claim they enjoy the “comforts of civilization” too much to opt out. But almost all the free men of whom I have knowledge — land nomads, yachtsmen, and backwoodsmen — have shelter from the rain and cold, nutricious and tasty food, bathing facilities, comfortable bed, books and records, and leisure to enjoy these. Some chores may take more time; cooking with wood instead of gas, for example, but time saved on outside employment more than compensates. What a free man probably DOESN’T have is a house which would impress non-libertarian relatives.

Take pride in your ability to live free, not in your productiveness as a semi-slave. If your present occupation depends on the Servile State, avoid ego involvement. Instead, base your self-esteem on active interests which can accompany you wherever and however you go.

Judge success by your enjoyment of life as a whole, not by the money you earn. In the irrational-coercivist society, there is less and less correlation between income and happiness; there are “impoverished rich” as well as “affluent poor.” Many an “upper-middle-classer” not only spends a substantial part of his waking life at tasks he detests, but finds that most of his supposedly-high income (what is left after taxes) goes for ostentatious home, “nice” car, dress clothes and other prestige expenses needed for “getting ahead” in his occupation. He may envy not only the “poor” free man’s lifestyle but his camper, boat, or wilderness cabin as well; things many a “salary-slave” literally can’t afford. I’m not urging avoidance of money altogether; with a financial reserve or income more freedom life-ways are available. But money is only a useful tool, not an end in itself.

Estimate low on your money requirements. Most not-yet-liberated libertarians, extrapolating from present expenses, over-estimate liberated-living costs. The free man not only avoids status games and cuts down on marginal luxuries, but saves on necessities. Time and energy formerly expended earning money for Big Brother and to salve his work-induced neuroses can now be applied learning to live better and better on less and less. ...

Maximize your per-hour income, but not to the point of reducing your freedom. If you must “export” labor, sell at that price which minimizes TOTAL time spent in the Servile Society. If your lifestyle is nomadic or remote, seek temporary jobs rather than institutionalized employment. If you are presently a student or changing occupations, stay out of professions which involve years of “career building.” ...

To be continued.

In defense of "opting out" (2)

El Ray further defends those activists who’d rather focus their efforts on personal freedom than pursue libertarian ends by political means. This short piece, “Objections to Self-Liberation,” is pulled from a larger article titled “SELF-LIBERATION WAYS: A Compilation and Evaluation,” which appeared in Innovator, Spring 1969:

Any self-liberation method (like anything else) has potential problems; there can be grounds for honest reservations. But most of the more vehement opposition stems not from real obstacles but from ignorance or psychological blocks of one kind or another. These include:

Belief in the omnipotence of evil: “There is no way to hide. With satellites, radar and computers (etc.) they will find you no matter where you go and what you do.” This objection ignores: (1) the limited resources of any State; (2) the much greater concern of rulers with rival power-seekers than with opt-outs; (3) available techniques for frustrating detection and identification — technology is a two-edged sword. Such remarks are usually a confession of inferiority feelings and envy; in essence one is saying, “I’m afraid to become free so I refuse to believe that it is possible.”

Appeal to collective duty: “Instead of ‘copping-out,’ you should join my crusade and help achieve freedom for everyone.” Besides presuming altruism, this ignores the really horrendous problems in reforming a large, far-gone State, and the poor record of previous collective endeavors. A free society probably must begin with free individuals.

Dichotomy between expression and conduct: “Statism is basically an intellectual problem and requires an intellectual solution. The way to gain liberty is not by ‘opting out’ but by disseminating rational ideas.” Not only is this only a partial truth (see my editorial in Winter 69 INNOVATOR) but unnecessarily either-or. Some opt-outs are among the most effective communicators — Dr. George Boardman, for example.

Equation of self-liberation with technical retrogression: “You are abandoning thousands of years of civilization with all the benefits of the market to slink off someplace and live like a savage.” Such an objection ignores what can be AND HAS BEEN accomplished. A modern remote homesteader who may have electric plant, freezer, power tools, stereo, jeep, and perhaps even amphibious airplane need not live like the pilgrims. Nor does the neo-nomad with “self-contained” motorhome live like the plains Indians. Products of “civilization” are used when appropriate; what the self-liberator probably does avoid is complete DEPENDENCE on these.

Utopian notions of liberty: “‘Self-liberation’ does not provide real liberty, freedom exists only when one can act without need to defy or evade coercion.” But the latter kind of freedom has never existed on earth. The American Frontier, one of the freest societies known, included bandits and protection racketeers eager to prey on cowards and fools. Even in a new laissez-faire country with (hypothetically) non-coercive government, there might be attack by private criminals and foreign States.

Low valuation of freedom: “For me, self-liberation would be more trouble than it is worth.” This is an honest objection and is probably the real objection of many persons who offer other excuses. Their ancestors in spirit were Europeans of a century or two ago who became very interested in the New World and did much talking about it — but remained where they were!

Liberty is the heritage of men with the will to be free.

In defense of "opting out"

Back in the early 1970s, when I was still a baby libertarian, El Ray, later Rayo, was a widely published activist who represented what was often called disparagingly the “retreatist fringe” of the movement. While others pursued electoral politics to further liberty, El Ray explored more radical avenues to expand personal freedom and actually live a free life. He was a great theorist and, in a way, a forefather to Samuel Edward Konkin III’s “counter-economic” Movement of the Libertarian Left. For a decade, from his camper and campsites socked away in the mountains and woods, he wrote pieces on freedom theory and strategy for little publications like Innovator, Free Trade, Libertarian Connection, and Vonu Life. Then, in 1974, whoosh, he was gone. Not dead-gone. Gone-gone. Rayo disappeared.

For all anyone knows, he was eaten by savage warthogs. He might even have slipped quietly into a conventional suit-and-tie lifestyle. Who knows? I like to think that, 33 years later, El Ray’s still hunkered down in his own Galt’s Gulch somewhere, far away from prying eyes.

What follows is a short essay El Ray wrote for the Winter 1969 issue of Innovator, titled “On Strategy of Cultural Change.” It’s a fantastic repudiation of the “retreatist” charge made against anti-politics and, in turn, agorism.

Libertarians who choose to secure their own liberty often find themselves accused of “anti-intellectualism” by other freedom advocates. The charge goes:

“Statism is basically an intellectual problem and requires an intellectual solution; liberty cannot be achieved until popular attitudes become compatible with liberty. The way to gain liberty is not by ‘opting out’ of society but by disseminating rational ideas within the society.”

This criticism is rather beguiling because it is half true: statism is indeed an intellectual problem and requires an intellectual solution. But statism is not EXCLUSIVELY intellectual; it is a SYMBIOSIS of philosophical deceit and institutionalized violence, each sustaining the other. Neither is alone the cause; each is both cause and effect.

Coercivist governments largely control the mass communication media; directly through administration of “public schools,” indirectly through licensing of radio/TV stations and intimidation of publishers under tax and regulatory laws. And the controlled communication media in turn inculcate attitudes and misinformation in support of institutionalized coercion.

Equally important but not so well recognized: Most people accept statist propaganda not merely because they are brainwashed but because they WANT to believe. They feel powerless to change the society or to liberate themselves from it (“You can’t fight City Hall.”) and therefore prefer to believe that somehow it is all for the best. And the more despotic the system, the greater their credulity. Most inmates of German concentration camps were pathetically eager to believe the “explanations” of Nazi administrators, against all evidence to the contrary. Most Russians, even more than most Americans, believe that infringements of their liberty are necessary; opposition, if any, is reserved for details of implementation where change appears possible. One can observe this for himself; most people encountered are not merely deceived; they WANT to be deceived and bitterly resent any attempt to demolish their rationalizations of The Way Things Are.

Certainly liberty cannot be achieved society-wide until popular attitudes become compatible with liberty. But the inverse is equally true; changing popular attitudes is impossible until liberty is realized or at least appears imminent. Together, these lead to the conclusion: a coercivist philosophic/politico-economic system cannot be radically changed BY ANY MEANS from within. Establishments can and do evolve, but mostly in response to developments external to the system.

I suggest that liberation is possible only on the individual level and only by changing attitudes and living-patterns together. Refutation of statist propaganda and opting out must go hand-in-hand. To seek self-liberation is not to be “anti-intellectual”; it is to integrate intellect with reality — to follow thought with action.