Socrates

The argument for a principled approach

Editor’s note: This article is also available in Romanian.

Ever since coming to the conclusion that my free time would be best spent working as an MRA, I have seen some amazing things happen.  The introduction of AVFM Radio, the creation of Register-Her.com, the release of the AO files, the increase in the number and quality of contributors across several forms of media, and the (un)fortunate backlash against our rise as a Human Right’s Group by misandrist media have provided me with hope that our message is getting out there to a broader public.  We have come very far in a very short period of time.

There are some questions that lie ahead of us that may seem easy to answer at first, but we need to understand the implications of everything we have done so far and what it has already spelled out for our future.  Turning this behemoth of misandrist culture around is not going to be easy, I dare say not even possible without the type of wanton destruction it will cause itself as it collapses under its own weight.  The fact of the matter is that every culture in every time has depended on the idea of male disposability for the “greater good”……and that “greater good” has often destroyed itself in the process of demanding too much from the individual to sustain the greater whole.  It is a cyclical event, and the rise and fall of nation-states, or at least the bloody and horrific revolutions that occasionally visit them happen with such regularity that we barely bat an eyelid anymore.

The fact that these cyclical events can be evidenced over a period of 5000 years of human history does not mean that our futures have to remain so however.  Within the Men’s Right’s Movement, I recognize the seeds of something far greater than anything that has come previously.  I see a New Renaissance, a revitalization of individual freedoms and liberties, an unshackling of the chains of the destructive cycles of humanity, and the movement of humans toward a New Age.

Do not take the above paragraph for the idea that I envision some Utopian world.  I see something far from it.  Our struggles define who we are, but the question remains whether or not we should be struggling with ourselves, or with new innovations and becoming masters of the universe around us.  I see all the wasted effort of hundreds of millions of lives in a struggle to control groups of humans, most of whom simply want peaceful lives for their loved ones.  I am talking about changing the scope of our struggle from the predominantly Human Vs. Human paradigm we now have to a new one:  Human vs. Environment.

 “James, you are jumping the gun on this!”….and yes, I know that I am, and have done so with a purpose.  The artist unveils the painting before explaining the creative process that brought him to it and the meaning behind it.  Tis the “What the fuck is that?” moment when looking at the canvas that unlocks something in the human psyche and the artist can then explain the meaning as clear as fresh air.

Now pay attention to this next part.

Most humans are blinded by all the extraneous thought placed within political group-think.  The moral questions of the day are framed in simple matters of right and wrong when dealing with the individual, but seem ever so complicated when applied to the needs of a group of people, or how one group of people interact with another group of people.  We get bogged down in old prejudice, financial matters, and resource allocation and everyone wants a slice of whatever is being served up next from their political masters. 

Group W supports Politician X because they get Product Y, never mind that Group Z over there was forced at the point of a gun to give up their Product Y by Politician X.  Besides, that Group Z has plenty of Product Y, and not sharing it – never mind they were actually robbed of it – would be morally reprehensible.  This type of thing happens every day, all day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. 

Meanwhile, all those from Group Z see that all their Product Y is being liberated – I mean taken- from them so they naturally say “Why the fuck should we produce any more Product Y if the guys holding all the guns are just going to take it from us and give it to a Group W, who can go get it themselves.  If they want it that bad, then they should get it on their own merit.”  This inevitably leads to bad feelings all around as Group W feels slighted because they have just been called lazy and have heard for years that having as much Product Y as they want is a Right.  Of course they heard that from Politician X, who promises them as much Product Y as they need – I mean want – as long as they support him. 

Eventually some people in Group Z feel as if they should be in Group W, and stop producing product Y. Some people in  Group Z don’t want to be in Group W because they don’t want to be seen as the lazy layabouts they think Group W is, so they form a new group called  Group A and decide to produce Product R, which is intentionally of no value to Group W.  This new product serves Group A’s and Group Z’s purposes just fine.  This pisses off Group W, who now get less Product Y because there are not enough people making it, and they demand from Politician X that Group A be disbanded because the production of product R threatens their free access to product Y. 

Meanwhile those remaining in Group Z feel disenfranchised by the whole affair and decrease production of Product Y even further to the point where they can only sustain themselves, keeping Group W from getting hardly any Product Y at all!  Some of Group W decide to get some Product Y for themselves by working for it, but the majority of Group W have been told it is their Right to have Product Y on demand so they stay within the group and threaten Politician X that if more Product Y is not forthcoming, that Politician X will quickly find votes against him in favor of Politician B – who promises to not only make sure plenty of Product Y is forthcoming, but a new and improved Product Y+ as well!

Politician X, not wanting to sign books on the failure of his policies for the rest of his life eventually tells everyone in Group Z that if they do not begin producing Product Y at once, and make some new and improved Product Y+ as well, that he will be forced to bring people with guns to make sure they do it.  The story is old…timeless even.  We have the current atmosphere, or blank canvas if you will, and a couple of colors of paint to choose from.  We can make new colors from those we have, but we have to think outside the palette.

As we can see, the simplified problem above can contain ever so much more complexity, and the arguments can even be turned on their heads entirely (just turn the canvas upside down).  Maybe Group Z really is full of mean spirited asses that put Politician X in power to create a dependent Group W just to keep their economic power.  Maybe Group W has become lazy layabouts because the idea of Rights as espoused by Politician X was hopelessly flawed and Politician X was just looking for easy votes – or at least a stifling of revolutionaries by controlling Group W with empty promises.  Maybe…just maybe….Group A really did say “fuck-it-all”, we are going to make everyone suffer with an overproduction of Product R, which could supply Groups A and Z, but would, like, totally screw over all those ass-hats in Group W and make them crawl on their knees and beg for the  production of Product Y again.  “That would teach Group W to think so high and mighty of themselves!”

This simply proves the point of how hopeless political ideologies are today, and so too the base individuals that drive those ideologies off the cliff of human reason and straight into bloody conflicts, ruined lives, suffering children, and inter-species relationships between cats and dogs.  Those cat-dogs are the true abominations  most politicians tell us

We need to regulate how cats and dogs love each other because the children of those unions are actually the cause of all those bloody conflicts, ruined lives, and suffering children.  Never mind the fact we hold guns to peoples’ heads to enact our failed policies to begin with.

Obfuscation of the real reasons as to why the State continually fails on every level is the order of the day….I mean of the decade….I mean of the century….fuck it.  What I really mean to say is the phrase “Throughout All of the History of Every State.”

Now we can add our paint to this canvas we have been provided.   That paint takes the form not of a new political ideology or religion, or anything most people are really familiar with.  That paint is a moral philosophy called First Principles, and its practice and application to every human being (Universality) is known as Universally Preferred Behavior.  This is not a totalitarian approach from some top down power but an approach from the individual to the outside world.

 

          The Five Principles:

1) Personal Accountability

2) Personal Responsibility

3) Characterization by Merit

4) Non-Aggression, Non-Violence

5) Respect for Personal Property

 These are the colors we want to work with.  There are several reasons why.

Almost all of the social issues we deal with every day can be broken down by using the First Principles Approach.  Affirmative Action fails Number One and Number Three.  Alimony fails Number Four and Number Five from the perspective of the courts, and Numbers One and Two from the perspective of the ex-“insert spousal type” receiving the alimony.  Quotas for boardrooms fail Numbers One, Two, and Three from the perspective of the company, and Numbers Four and Five from the perspective of the government enforcement of these laws.  These are just a few ideas of how we can break these issues down and argue them.  This is how we attack misandry no matter where it is in our society.  Any refutation of a single portion of the five principles also results in the entirety of the First Principles collapsing.

1) Personal Accountability – An internal measurement of Merit.  This is defined through self-sufficiency without resorting to violence and coercion, and the willingness to face natural consequences for your decisions. It is primarily used as an honest form of self-assessment.  It keeps unrealistic expectations and narcissism in check.

2) Personal Responsibility – The measure of external actions that can also be seen and judged by others..  This one has a twofold process, one of which is redundant to personal accountability, but creates a tie between the self and the world outside of the self.  This is the physical manifestation of personal accountability as judged by others in both deed and word, and the barometer of basic relationships with other people.

3) Characterization by Merit–The ability to judge others based upon their personal responsibility.  This means other people should be judged by whether or not they are moving toward self-sufficiency without resorting to violence and coercion and whether they demonstrate a measure of personal accountability by facing the natural consequences of their actions.  This is true regardless of external features of the individual being judged.

4) Non-Aggression/Non Violence – Simply put……  Thou shalt not enforce thy will upon others through the use of threat of the loss of life or liberty, or by injury, or through the threat of loss of personal property (or by making good on said threats and simply taking what you want).  This can be altered only in the scope of upholding contractual law in which consequences for breaking the contract are fully understood between both parties, or in defense of personal property rights.

5) Respect for Personal Property Rights – By which the fruits of all time and labor by an individual gained through self-sufficiency in any environment, or property gained through contractual agreements with other individuals is solely the possession of that individual and is not to be removed by any form of force or coercion.  Another way to put it is the actual body of the individual and anything created by the body (the tool of consciousness) is the exclusive property of that individual unless contractual agreements are signed between parties for the exchange of goods and services.

 The key to understanding how to deconstruct all of our issues rests upon these five principles.  It nullifies the idea of a social (socialized and statist) contract because contracts must be recognized and entered into by individuals, creates Universality of expectations of behavior between individuals, destroys cronyism in all its forms by creating a meritocracy, creates competition based upon true supply and demand, generally allows self-interest and personal liberties to be followed without infringing upon the life and property of others, removes violence and coercion from a society that teaches these principles to their youngest, and increases the level of volunteerism in society to correct problems that cannot be solved through contractual agreements.

Apply these principles to individual MRAs, and allow the influence of those principles to be seen in the MRM, and you have a powerful force that is capable of pointing out misandry, true inequality of opportunity, and actual infringements upon individual rights no matter where it rests.  This also becomes our most powerful tool on positing solutions to the myriad problems that boys and men face in today’s society.  No doubt these principles can be carried into every sphere of human interaction…but to the MRM….these ideas….these principles….and my hopes that they be adopted in order to paint a brighter future are for you.

About James Huff

James is a veteran of the U.S. Army, pursuing his own business and personal ambitions. Since taking the red pill, he has been constantly seeking and enacting new ways to alter the status quo.

View All Posts
  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! A Voice for Men and WikiMANNia are working to increase knowledge of men's issues through two wikis: the AVfM Reference Wiki for scholarly references, and WikiMANNia for general-interest men's issues. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please write to editorial_team@wikimannia.org...

  • http://marktrueblood.posterous.com/ Mark Trueblood

    I can dig it. Very nice.

  • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

    Yeah man, that’s what I’M talkin’ ’bout!

    Let’s hear it for Third Way Thinking!

    Yeeee-haaaaaaw!

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      Indeed. I think I will be calling the staff together to see how we can integrate this magnificent piece into our editorial position.

      It is the closest thing to a political stance we will ever need around here.

      Great work, James. Just magnificent.

      • Stu

        Yes, but I think we need to provide a simplified, in laymens terms type of text on these things. Perhaps a special section on the site that deals with First Principals. Perhaps with examples of First Principals in action, in real world situations. An educational course if you like.

        Perhaps First Principals can become the moral compass for your Zeta Philosophy Paul. The philosophy together with First Principals could form the framework, the road map, the guidelines, for a way of life that has the most beneficial balance of rights, and responsibilities between individuals and groups.

        The Dawn of Zeta begins.

        You heard it from Stu first :)

        • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

          Ayup. :)

      • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

        First Principles are for everyone, really, and that includes people we don’t like. If you catch my drift. . . . .

  • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

    LOVE this article.

    In reference to the artistic imagery on the nature of the state throughout history I have a question:

    Do we use a new canvas, if we can; or merely commit pentimento (when an artist changes their mind, painting over or changing the shape) over what is already there maintaining the best of all we have? It seems to me that government is something more like a tattoo than an oil painting.

    Also, can we really create something new? I refuse to believe that a Democratic Republic hybrid which is what our Constitution represents is the final say in the technological advance of human thought on government and contract law. Can we trust what anyone comes up with enough and follow without human nature fooling us to kill each other to enforce our will again?

    A very intriguing read.

    • James Huff

      We are stuck with the canvas we have, unfortunately. This is why I have posited this as a moral philosophy. It has to be adopted by much of the population to truly be effective. The principles by definition cannot be enforced through the power of the state, and the state will fight the implementation of this philosophy to the bitter end.

      Understand that this requires a generational effect and a slow dismantling of our current paradigm. Not fast enough? Well…there is no other way to introduce the principles without violating them. Besides….the principles always start with the Self, and then the Self influences others. That kind of change cannot be forced.

      As to the Tatoo problem. Consider the application of first principles a coat of paint for now that if applied long enough will eventually sink into the skin and displace the old. Or…..consider it a very slow form of laser surgery. In any case…contractual agreements using the first principles will be left in the realm of free markets, and arbiters that are paid and recognized by a society following first principles.

      • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

        I guess. I tried thinking about it once and could not come up with an effective solution to our current slate of government choices at the buffet of political a-holes posing as our leaders.

        Our form of government is great; but even our hybrid model seems destined for failure ultimately. All forms of Socialist governments from communism to nationalism seem hopelessly flawed from any of their first inceptions. The last major one as been brutally intellectualized ad infinitum.

        Despotism seems great sometimes because it promises freedom on the individual level; but ends in a brutal catastrophe. African nations dictators are an example of despots claiming one form of government or the other. Yet, as the old adage says “the brains of the many out way the brain of the lone genius.” Sadly, most dictators are not a genius; the one who might have been was the monster mentioned above.

        Feudalism seems to be the fallback position after a major dark age begins; I hope we don’t get one of those. If we do enter a dark age after the information age; it might be the metaphorical hybrid of government like the hybrid of the predator and alien. Brutal, efficient, and out to kill everyone.

        As you can tell; my tin foil hat and I don’t trust anyone with power!

        If you have seen the movie the watchmen; Dr Manhattan was an insane character every one wishes they were. Invincible; like God Himself!

        The problem with humanity in my eyes is we are finite creatures who appear infinitely insecure. We are too afraid to step out into the unknown and be vulnerable. Indeed, our experience of one another teaches us so.

      • Francis Roy

        Thanks for this excellent article. This too, would make a good T-shirt.

  • Steve_85

    This is very good. I have a question though.

    With regards to number 4; Non-aggression/non-violence, how would this apply to government laws, which are entirely “do what we say or else” and enforced (usually) through proxy (threat of, or actual) violence?

    • James Huff

      The answer is found within the Principles themselves. The principles taken to their ultimate ends creates a society that does not use this type of violence (proxy or otherwise).

      • Steve_85

        As the Montreal Police strike shows, people don’t do things just because they should. Without the great security camera in the sky (god) or a police force to impose limits on human behaviour I just don’t see how this society would stop itself from dissolving into anarchy.

        Or did I misread your principles? Because it sounds like what you’re saying is that people wont just take what they want because everyone has decided that they wont.

        This sounds very much like the same problem communism has. It works great in theory, but then you add people to it and it all goes to shit. Similar to Pacifism, it only works if everyone is on the same page and doing the same thing. If even one person decides they might like what you have and they’re going to take it, then it doesn’t work anymore.

        • James Huff

          People won’t just take what they want because there are very real consequences to those actions. In a society that has informed individuals who conduct transactions through contractual agreements, wherein is contained the stipulations and consequences of reneging on the contract, there will be private entities that will be employed to enforce those contracts on hire. This will naturally be detailed in the nature of the contract itself……the fact remains it is a VOLUNTARY agreement, unlike the laws and courts we have now in which a bunch of uninformed asshats have a popularity contest once every so often for whoever can throw them the most scraps of what was taken from them by the threat of point of a sword or the flash of a gun barrel in the first place. The fact that the very legislative branch creates regulations for entities in order to stifle future competition sets the lie to the idea that we have anything like a free market right now. Get rid of Politicians X and B and force these entities to deal with future innovation coming from start-up competitors and you will see a huge boost R&D across the board. Said technology will then be used to solve issues of food, shelter, and clothing more efficiently by a public that (without a daddy government to hold their hand), will be much more inclined to actually receive an education in the world around them.

          With information technology also comes ruination of the merit of an individual. If a girl stiffs a dealer out of her car payments….who is going to want to sign a contract with her in the future? If the pattern is repeated, then where will she get employment? Housing? Utilities? Transportation? Get the picture? There is incentive to work together without turning to violence to get it.

          Take E-bay for instance. A nearly unregulated marketplace that in the beginning had a bad reputation for scam artists. They produced (without the need of statist intervention) private means of keeping those scammers to a extraordinarily low percentage of the total business that they do. Not only that, but in all cases the transactions are open and voluntary. Would you buy Product Y at $5.00 from a girl who has a rating of two stars and a couple of bad reviews or would you buy Product Y from a guy who has a rating of four stars and nothing but positive reviews for $7.50?

          See….the individual is the final arbiter of the assumption of risk, and a society practicing first principles keeps that type of information.

          For purposes of violence, violence is justified in defense of Number Five. This means gasp no gun laws. Think an armed local population who is being victimized by the local burglar will stand for it for long? Think again.

          As far as police forces go……..Whenever the police fail in their duties to protect citizenry or property from predation they usually whine and moan and say “We need more money in order to do our job!!!” Said money is usually dispensed forthwith from local officials off the backs of the labor of the local population….sometimes with a helpful sum of money from some bureaucratic asshat farther up the governmental food chain from the backs of everyone else in the country. This does absolutely nothing to ensure the quality of the work.

          When a private security firm fails to perform those same duties, the response is to fire the fuck out of them and find someone who CAN do the damned job at competitive wages compared to the other security firms out there. The only reason why we still rely on government sanctioned people in costumes to do our killing for us is because the same government refuses to allow most private security firms to conduct the type of training needed in order to deter real criminals (unless that firm is hired by the government itself and is actively working for said government)…..in other words…it’s a monopoly of force.

          In a society that uses first principles, the private security forces hired to protect property and people would be something to be reckoned with because not only would there be no regulations on the training, but they would actually RISK losing their jobs for fucking up.

          • Steve_85

            Well answered. Still not sure if it is entirely a good idea, but I can see you’ve put a lot of thought into this.

      • DeltaHotel

        Now you got me. :) Men do not bully to get their way regardless of justification. There are two methods of interaction between humans: Force and Reason. We are complaining about the Feminists relying on force to get their will. What needs to separate us from them is reason.

        This in itself would be more inclusive than any other principle. It would include tabling the pigeonholing labels used in the comments.

  • Keith

    This is a brilliant approach, and well thought out and presented. But are you saying in number 5 that children are the property of women or that men surrender paternity by lack of contract. Just asking, just curious.

    • James Huff

      Children should be defined as individuals, too. This is very important in the MRM, because it rules out the parents’ ability to modify the child’s body unless it is strictly to keep them alive (no genital mutilation). As for the case of paternal surrender…..that is entirely up for discussion, and there will be plenty of room for that debate on later articles.

      Because the nature of the parent-child relationship is not a voluntary one, parents following first principles should act as if the relationship IS a voluntary one and minimize violence and coercion.

      • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

        I am conflicted on your statement about making kids their own individuals, and the ability of the state to enforce a parent not to be able to circumcise their child.

        Before everyone chews me out; please understand that I have a point.

        Feminism has grounded the ability of government to enforce male rights, and children’s rights to their fathers outside of the judge’s ability for discretion; either outright, or on the down low (read FBI women’s office training for judges). I feel that allowing the state “more” interference capability by allowing our movement to grant the “beast” the ability to tell parents what to do with their own kids is no different, ultimately, then feminist’s craziness allowing kids to sue their parents for the kid disliking the discipline they received.

        Even against the face of your hatred for circumcision; we either completely forgo the Constitutional protection of Freedom of Self Expression, and Religious Liberty, which is what the feminists and their other Marxist compatriots want anyways. Or we may have to temporarily live with circumcision until the popularity of the movement entices people to choose against it of their own volition; without state coercion!

        Your POV is very well thought out, and”well intentioned!”

        Yet, that is how it starts. An NGO, or government branch conveniently (intentional or otherwise) identifies a fear, or need of redress by government, and then government writes legislation granting itself more powers over our lives.

        Even MHRAs are going to allow circumcision based on religious belief; or the rare case where one believes the hype; yet still supports the movement.

        I think we need to become purists on Constitutional thought, where we value the individuals educated ability to make decisions for themselves without allowing the government inquisitor powers outside of court room evidence; say beyond reasonable doubt, and purely after the fact as a disinterested third party. If we allow government first strike inquisitor properties; should be surprised when they use it for something other than what we intended?

        • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

          Also, before I leave and forget; granting minors the status of making their own decisions is something I don’t agree with yet either.

          We don’t allow people the right to vote, choose to have sex (at least that we know of), drink, or buy cigarettes for a reason. We feel that they are too young. And they will most likely abuse it anyways.

          Eventially, they prove themselves. Yet they are getting free education, protection from their parents (or should be at least), and are treated a s a minor in court when they mess up so as not to destroy their lives when they make an occasional dumb choice.

          We grant them these exceptions for a reason! Therefore, we allow parents the natural liberty rights to choose on their own volition what to do with “their kids.”

          I don’t think you mean harm, I am not saying that. Yet even the most well intentioned person who comes to my house to “inform me” what I can and cannot do with my kids may face the constitutionally protected hole of the barrel of my shotgun! LOL

          Even though all of those

          • James Huff

            Who says the government would have anything to do with circumcision? The practice of first principles on an individual level simply makes the practice of genital mutilation unconscionable.

            Once again….those following FP simply do not require state intervention in these decisions….and no one forces anyone to follow FP because it violates the those principles in the first place. the driving force of FP is not state intervention, but the Self.

            Also…as children must be taught…..we teach them. it is not a violation of FP to keep them from harming themselves or others, or the property of others. It becomes a violation when we use force or coercion for any other reason reason, however….and the determination of discipline must always be followed by reinforcement of how an action violates FP.

            Once again…this has nothing to with a social contract or statist power (which I specifically said is denied through a first principles approach), and no one can force you do anything as concerns your children.

            however, those following FP quickly see the value of minimizing force and coercion and treating the relationship as if it IS voluntary in practice for the child becoming an adult….in which almost all interactions with other humans become voluntary in a free society.

            IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT IMMEDIATELY BELOW THIS ONE WRITTEN BY JJ:

            And this is why I must gladly open the debate in future articles and even move debates like this to live venues and speak with others. You have perfectly encapsulated the historical context of similar visions, and have essentially asked the question of “what will make it any different this time around?” I cannot applaud you more for asking the defining question of this entire endeavor in such a succinct and gracious manner. Thank you.

            Fortunately, you have hit the nail directly on the head when it comes to multiple minds hashing this out, and many of those minds have already come and gone throughout history. This is the nature of all moral philosophy, and not an easy hurdle to get over because of the linguistics involved.

            Would you be willing to work with me on this and try to discover the answers to our problems together? If you can agree to the premise of the First Principles, would you be willing to bend your mind toward the culmination of a body of knowledge and wisdom that might solve the questions you ask?

            Insofar as what who we are and what we do here as MRAs, do we not see the pursuit of this vision as a worthy goal?

            I would gladly take the extra hard push from my fellow rugby player if that’s what is needed to move closer to the goal. I need people to challenge this, turn it, play devil’s advocate, and even come up with solutions on their own using it. It will require that team effort that I have been espousing privately to dozens of MRAs all over the world for the past year. I do not fear intense scrutiny, nor will I shrink like some small violet in the face of opposition to the idea. Rather, I applaud those efforts as an opportunity to refine my ideas and make them stronger.

            It took me almost a year and literally hundreds of hours of study and discussion with MRAs and free-thinkers planet-wide to come up with this article. I hardly call it wasted time and effort if it gets even ONE person to step up to the plate like you just did.

            Besides…..I do not see this as James’ vision of the way things should be. I have consistently played the Merlin this entire time and have no problem whatsoever actually continuing to do so.

            So let there PLEASE be a greater mind than mine to take this idea and push it farther than what I can do.

          • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

            I like that that. Very first century Christian of you.

            Please forgive my lack of faith in government minding its own business. If what you are saying is merely the individual, regardless of the actions of government, did not seem clear to me when you said this:

            This is very important in the MRM, because it rules out the parents’ ability to modify the child’s body unless it is strictly to keep them alive (no genital mutilation)-JH

            Essentially, it sounds like you will be forced to woo the governments help into enforcing said principles. I agree with your principles; and I feel that is very much in line with the founding fathers intent when they finalized the document that declared our independence. Essentially, a free, democratically voted Republic; made of intelligently educated citizens leading the way by proxy of highly intelligent leaders held accountable to the voters.

            However, even that document was used to found government. Essentially, for me at least, it is the thought that other people have to agree mutually to any situational conduct as a group. Hence a social contract seems inevitable. Be it a Bible of a religion (early Christians, and the traditions they passed down for example), the founding fathers declaration of independence, or any form of self government; something gets written down. So that something encourages others to follow, and “ensure” others follow it too! For example, you said:

            2) Personal Responsibility – The measure of external actions that can also be seen and judged by others.. This one has a twofold process, one of which is redundant to personal accountability, but creates a tie between the self and the world outside of the self. This is the physical manifestation of personal accountability as judged by others in both deed and word, and the barometer of basic relationships with other people.JH

            Now I agree with this; yet it implies the Greek notion of “ostracize.” As I suspect you may be aware, when the voting elite of Athens did not care for someone; they grabbed “Ostraka” shards, and voted them out like on survivor. Those shards, with the name of the “ostracized” individual is where we get the word from.

            Granted, our feet marching away from one person, or a group, en mass can be the metaphorical shard of disapproval; yet the concept does not change. Others will get involved, and hence I agree with Steve_85 above. Like him, I agree with your premise; but fear human nature will ultimately make it unpractical as we are naturally self centered.

            My comment here is not to argue, or one up; I am truly intrigued by this. Yet I know it took the founders, all renowned for their intelligence, something like 56 days to come to an agreement. These were passionate warriors, businessmen, inventors, statesmen, etc. I imagine there conversations did not go well a lot. Many of them lost everything in the process of formulating our nation as it is.

            The Christians of early antiquity lost their lives for their faith. Still do, even today; look at Africa. Just another brutal example of human nature combating a concept like yours out of greed, and personal avarice.

            What I am getting at is that even though I love what you are getting at; I have to poke holes because I truly want to see you succeed. For when we can no longer prove your failure (I am not saying you have failed, just trying to prove you wrong); then like the founders we truly have something!

            I want to see this site succeed. Yet it will take all of us to come up with alternatives, or effective patches for the issues we face. For when we are tested in the public eye; I for one feel we should have a valid, largely fool proof argument that can withstand effective scrutiny for when we are asked why we are different!

            I am merely like your fellow rugby player trying to help you gain those impossible few inches; not trying to get up your ass.

            I hope you can see what I mean?

            Watch this from 1998, IDEO:

            http://youtu.be/M66ZU2PCIcM

            This is what I mean.

          • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

            @JH

            I will help as I am able.

            Perhaps a forum topic on this would be in order?

            Theological, metaphorical, and philosophical debates are something I suspect I am good at?

            My military training keeps me grounded. LOL

            However, I prefer math over philosophy even though I am better at the latter then the former. I feel any law we come up with should be practical; and strongly based in math and practical reasoning. Too much verbal haranguing about moral conundrums few face; and even less will ever bother to deal with is the sort of head spinning that makes me lose interest.

            Ideally, I would prefer a bunch of lawyers with PHDs to do the thinking on this. Yet who knows, maybe we will start something? At least we could grasp some heavy topics.

            Not just birth control and feminism; yet practical solutions to pose in actually written legislation that we could give to politicians with the prior knowledge of those writing it that they will most likely be giving their intellectual prowess to a spineless politician who will steal all the credit.

            If we can keep whatever we write to less than the hundred pages; and be civil in our intellectual mistreatment of each other then SOLD; I’m all in. LOL

  • externalangst

    Great stuff James. Thankyou.

    ‘every culture in every time has depended on the idea of male disposability for the “greater good”’

    John Ashfield in the ‘New Male Studies’ journal describes his thesis that the most successful societies have been those that have used their men for what they require regardless of the harm done or danger to the men.

    In this way, there has been competition between societies with the winners being those most willing to ruthlessly exploit their men. This, and James’ insight gives a new dimension to the issues of class, colonialism and warfare.

  • http://beijaflorbeyondthesunset.wordpress.com Rick Westlake

    Words to live by. Principles to live by.

    One might point out that James declared these “an approach from the individual to the outside world” – in my interpretation, that means it’s a way for me to live, to conduct my life, whether or not Society at large conducts itself this way. It’s also a touchstone for me to determine the merit of others around me, and a weighting system to decide whether or not I want to associate with them.

    It is thought like this, discourse like this, that makes me feel honored indeed to associate with A Voice For Men.

  • Stu

    You know, most peoples morality is drifting more and more to a model of, what is good for me, is right and justified, and what is bad for me, is wrong, and morally bad.

    I’ll just waffle for a while about this. Years ago, I remember sitting in a lounge room with a group of people, watching one of the SAW movies. In this particular scene, a women is chained up in a chair, with a device fitted over her head, that in a certain time, which is counting down, will be activated and rip her head apart. In order to survive, she must perform several things resulting in gross damage and mutilation of her own body to get free, and then she must cut an unconscious man’s guts open, and fish around inside for the key, killing him in the process. The key, which is in his guts somewhere, is the only way she can unlock the device on her head before it activates and tears her skull and face to pieces.

    After the movie, I decided to find out what the other persons thoughts were on this question.

    Did the women, who would almost certainly die if she did not opt to cut the guts open and kill the innocent man, who was himself a victim, laying unconscious and helpless at her complete mercy, did she have a moral right to kill him, to save herself?

    To my disappointment, not one other person in the room thought she done anything wrong. They all thought she had the moral right to take this action. Their reasoning was that, it was him or her, and when faced with death, she has the right to take action that will kill another, to save herself. That is just normal, and therefore justifiable. I asked them if they thought she would have the right, if it was them laying there unconscious and helpless, or their son, or their daughter.

    My take on the situation was this. NO, she had no right at all….none whatsoever. To say otherwise is the say that if you find yourself in an unfortunate situation, that it is perfectly acceptable for you to escape that situation by dumping the situation onto somebody else, anybody, as long as you escape, that is all the counts.

    Under their moral compass, if I have a bad heart, and will die without a transplant, it is perfectly acceptable for me to kidnap somebody and kill them to obtain their heart, transferring my problem, onto another. Making my unfortunate situation, their problem, and their obligation to give up their rights to solve.

    Lets look at another situation. Lets say I am lost in a forest and starving and freezing. I come across a shack in the forest. Nobody is home. Do I have the right to break in, given that I am starving, and in very real danger of freezing to death if I fall asleep outside. In this situation, I would say yes, I do have the right, because it is a greater evil that I should starve or freeze to death, then it is to cause some damage to some property, and deprive the owner, temporarily of some of their food. In this case I would say it is not a criminal act, but I should still be required to make remuneration for any losses suffered by the owner. It is also perfectly reasonable for me to assume, that a person would render this assistance to me if they were home, and would not let a stranger starve and freeze to death on their doorstep.

    Let’s say my neighbor has a Lamborghini and I only have a Ford. Is it acceptable for me to deprive him of his car, because I can not obtain one of equal status LOL.

    Some moral questions are easy to answer, and some are not. Some seem to have no way of answering without someone getting screwed over. Maybe we should develop the Zeta Philosophy and First Principals as compass that directs the actions of people for the least amount of screwing over, and maximum amount of personal freedom and rights, along with personal responsibility and accountability while encouraging a humane and just way of living and treating other people

    • Steve_85

      The first one in your list of ‘moral’ choices is the only one that I’m a bit iffy about. I’ve never killed anyone, and hope not to ever have to make the choice. Sitting in the safety of my study in my nice comfortable leather chair, I can say that I would probably kill the unconscious person to save myself. Actually doing it however is another question.

      Killing someone in a fight because they will kill me if I don’t? No problem.

      Killing someone who is completely defenceless though? I think I would find that quite hard.

      I think I would feel terrible about it afterwards, but I also think I would kill that person to save myself. I’d rather be alive and traumatized, than dead and morally superior.

      • Stu

        So you think it’s ok of people kidnap other people off the street to kill them and sell their organs lol. The person that gets the organ says yes, the person that gets killed says no.

        The point is not what you feel like doing, or your instincts for self preservation. If you claim the right to kill others, not in self defense from them, not because of wrongs they have committed against you, but just to save your own arse, then you have just sanctioned everything from cannibalism and organ thefts to world war.

        This is exactly the same mentality that is behind most of feminism’s innovations. Why can they dump their husbands and keep the house, the money, and the assets. Because it is good for them, that’s why. All the other bullshit is just the rationalization hamster spinning, looking for a way out of admitting, and telling the truth………..”because we are greedy selfish corrupt bitches, who care nothing for anybody else, and just want to get as much as we can, anyway we can”

        The thing is, do we want a society where anything you do is ok, on the basis of you were benefiting yourself by doing it, where that is the justification and no penalty will be imposed upon you as long as you can prove that your actions were to benefit yourself, no matter how much the expense to others.

        Ok, you’ve said you would opt for the killing of the other guy to save your arse. And what would your feeling be towards someone that done that if it was your son, or other loved one. I know what mine would be, if the law didn’t punish them…….I would. This is also what eventually happens when you go down that road. You end up with no law. This is also how it is with female violence, and even murder. We started out justifying a women killing her husband because he beat her up. Now we are at the stage where she not only doesn’t have to prove he beat her up, she doesn’t have to prove he even yelled at her. She wants him dead, that’s fine, any reason will do. This is where this slippery slope heads……every time, without fail.

        That’s why I say, you have a law that says, you can not take another person life……period. Except in self defense of course. And self defense should mean, that person is attacking you, right now, at this time, and you are forced to defend yourself. If you deliberately kill someone outside of that situation, you are guilty, and you go to jail……period. No ifs, no buts, and anything they done previously is disregarded. As soon as you start making exceptions, you end up where we are now, and worse.

        • Steve_85

          Logically I know that they are both me killing someone to save my own life. The first one I don’t like, but I would probably do what I needed to do to survive. Situation 2 (the heart surgery one) though I would not do.

          Interesting that they produce very different reactions.

          This is all just conjecture though. I dare say the majority of people, and probably even yourself would have a different reaction than you think upon actually being in that situation. It’s one thing to say you’re willing to die for someone you don’t know to live… it’s quite another thing to actually do it.

        • Keith

          Stu its an interesting outlook…..I have often struggled with the simple question “does might give us the right” especially when it comes to the state and economic power. I’ve always believed that in court equality should be established between the state and anyone bargaining with the state. But thats not the way it is. Them with the bucks wins. Those without bucks are left with the currency of violence. The premise is similiar to your saw analogy. My impression is the higher up the food chain you go in this society the more you will find them feeding on those beneath. Morality becomes more subjective and less universal.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          Very thought provoking, Stu.

          In China, organs of prisoners are harvested for transplanting, “voluntarily” they claim.

          I often read people advocating that prisoners here be forced into medical experiments or “donating” their organs for the “good” folks.

          As someone who has lived through a false accusation resulting in an innocent person going to prison such proposals stand my hair on end with fear.

          I don’t believe for one moment those prisoners in China “volunteer” their organs, nor do I believe they are all guilty of crimes.

          People who have never experienced that form of injustice and blithely believe it never really happens to “good” folks such as themselves are very apt to support such a proposal.

          I know it’s just a matter of time before it begins here – IF it isn’t happening secretly already.

          Desperate times provoke desperate measures.

          People have abandoned or prostituted their own children for survival during war, famine and plagues. They have turned to prostitution themselves, or even murder for reasons of survival – or trivial reason, such as getting a buzz or robbing someone of their tennis shoes.

          Maybe there is no “moral compass” – just the law of circumstance.

          • Stu

            Oh they volunteer their organs. How it used to work is, they get a quick death and their families get some money if they sign the form donating their organs. If not, well……things can go badly for them, in the months leading up to their execution, and during their execution. I believe they took the organs anyway even without the signed form. I understand they send the family an invoice for the cost of the bullet they put through their head too. Sometimes their executions are brought forward because somebody needs their heart and they are compatible. Appeals are cancelled the person is taken out and shot straight away.

            You should see what the Japanese system was like. They never used to set a date for execution. The condemned would get up everyday wondering if today was the day. They would come for you at any time. Sometimes prisoners were on death row for ten years, and gone completely insane from the constant anxiety and fear every time footsteps came near their cell.

            I’m apposed to harvesting executed prisoners organs under any circumstances. You are killing them without their permission, so claiming to have permission to harvest their organs is just bullshit. It’s advanced cannibalism really isn’t it?

            The way we are heading, I’ll be wishing the Chinese come and take over so we can have some human rights for a change. lol. It’ll happen

  • knightrunner

    W,X,Y,Z etc. I was never good at algebra.

    IMO we as a movement, have defined the problems, labeled the problems, and offered solutions to the problems, but we have yet to look past the resolution of said problems. A examination of the “we have fixed the problems, now what” scenario should be examined.

    James, this article is the frame work for those discussions. I dare say that this article is the back bone or core of our movement. You have written the constitution for our movement and a new world. Well done.

    • James Huff

      I cannot take credit for this idea. We owe much of this to that man up there in the picture who is about to die.

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    “That paint is a moral philosophy called First Principles, and its practice and application to every human being (Universality) is known as Universally Preferred Behavior. This is not a totalitarian approach from some top down power but an approach from the individual to the outside world.

    The Five Principles:

    1) Personal Accountability

    2) Personal Responsibility

    3) Characterization by Merit

    4) Non-Aggression, Non-Violence

    5) Respect for Personal Property”

    It all sounds good, until I consider that we are living in a selfish (not selfless) age , where most often personal needs are given priority over the needs of others. Yes, it’s probably largely been that way all along, but the personal needs today of “WE the people” are greater than ever, IMO, and the resources to satisfy them less than ever. Other countrymen & women, please forgive my American perspective here. It’s pretty much all I’ve known. It was America’s 2nd president, John Adams, who said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    Of course, that begs the question, “Who’s morality, the religious person’s or the humanist’s, the abortionist’s or the pro-lifer’s, the gender feminist’s or the MHRA’s, etc., etc.? What about the very young, the very old, the disabled, etc. who are less able to be responsible, etc.?

    Don’t get me wrong, I like the overall tone of what this article has presented, but the devil is in the “details and definitions,” IMO. Even given the best of intentions, “details and definitions” often come down to whose wheel is squeaking the loudest, whose special interest group has the best PR firm, etc., etc.

    General laws and guidelines often sound good like stopping violence against women, but as we’ve all seen, laws like VAWA have glaringly shown that corrupt special interests will often control the process beyond need (merit), fairness, accountability, responsibility, personal property rights, non-aggression/non-violence. How do we truly ensure that all are treated fairly and equitably, especially little children who almost never carry protest signs, or petition their government regarding any list of their grievances?

    Where is the shinning example of an all encompassing morality and goodness that government should follow in governing all its people according to those principals?

    I do thank you for your efforts Mr. Huff and have no doubts you’re a sincere, good person, inclined to just solutions for all – as are the vast majority of folks at AVfM.

    • James Huff

      Who said a society that adopts first principles even requires a government?

      In every case, the government is the middle man in extorting the fruits of labor from one group of people to the other to serve their own interests…….and they are very good as disguising this “for the best interests of insert special interest or demographic here“. Given this climate…….i would say that we must apply the same solution to the State as many MGTOW do to relationships. Just DON’T do it.

      • Stu

        I believe we need the state. But the state should have to operate on First Principals lol. The state should have a constitution, as the US does, but it should not be a living document. It should be not be amendable. It should concern itself with primarily with security of the land which the society resides on. Protecting that land from invasion etc.

        Laws should be simple and should be primarily involved with protecting people from violence and fraud and theft and vandalism and upholding property rights.

        If you are not committing violence against someone, or fraud, or theft, or vandalism, the state should have extremely restricted ability to harass you. Violence should one be applicable to causing, or real threat of causing physical harm only.

        Of course there should be rules for things like, noise pollution and environmental damage, but these things should be dealt with outside of the criminal system, and have no place within them unless there is a criminal element to them, like poisoning a water supply etc.

        The constitution should restrict state intervention into peoples personal lives to the highest degree possible. And furthermore, any political office holder, employee of the state must swear to uphold the constitution, and any suggestion by them thereafter, to overturn, or ammend it, results in dismissal, and banning from all further political involvement. They don’t even get to vote anymore. Judges are instantly removed for attempting to circumnavigate the provisions of the constitution, lawyers are disbarred, citizens are banned from voting or participating in the political system.

        It would be every military persons duty to refuse to partake in any war apart from war instigated by an attack from others on us.

        Taxes could only be appropriated and spent on services that everybody could use, no special interest groups allowed.

        The military, and the police, and all other government services would be considered to be working for the public, not the government. The government would have no power to make laws outside of the constitutional requirements, or to take action against others outside of those requirements, and it would be the obligation of all military and police to arrest and detain any government official that attempted to do so.

        Since their jobs would be much simplified, I would cap government salaries at the average income, plus 20%, and these would rise and fall with average income levels, so they would have incentive to boost the standard of living of the population via good economics because it would be the only way to get a pay rise.

        • James Huff

          Ah! Trust me…while I am a purist at heart, actually seeing something like this put into place and actually manage to stay that way would be nice! Fortunately, a state would simply be redundant to a society that has adopted first principles.

          I can however, understand this form of government for the purposes of drawing down state power as first principles begins to rise in prevalence. We cannot hope to make this change all at once. Millions would die. People have to come to this moral philosophy by their own free will and teach it to others peacefully…..a process that could take a couple generations at least.

          For now though…we have to start here. The beginning is where every story starts, and if the beginning is not good, then many people will not bother reading the rest of the book.

          And for the record…..I think we need women, too. Not a whole lot can be done without them in ensuring the survival of the human race. The state? Not so much…I chalk that up to a particularly human invention that may have served as a tool at one time, but has become poorly outdated since the advent of greater technologies.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          What you just described is the Constitution of the United States.

          …which only works if each and every one of us insists upon upholding it, even if the outcome is not to our immediate advantage….which is why it isn’t working.

          • Stu

            Well, I’d make it a little different to the US constitution, for a start, amendments would not be allowed.

            But you are right. Most people with noisy neighbors would sign a law that says noisy neighbors can be shot on sight. lol.

            I really do wonder if you had a really good constitution, if maybe you don’t even need a vote. After all, if all your basic rights and freedoms are guaranteed under that constitution, and that is enforced, what is there to vote on. If every party, had to obey it to the letter, and could not amend it, then it really wouldn’t make any difference which party was in power would it lol

            Technically the US was not founded as a democracy you know, it was, and supposedly still is, a constitutional republic. And you can be a constitutional republic without democracy. And as pointed out on avfm many times, in the times when women couldn’t vote, neither could most men. So voting was only done by a very small fraction of men. I often wonder what would the US be like today if it had of stayed that way.

            I guess what I wonder about is if democracy is doomed to failure because the selfish short sighted people (majority) just vote away everyone’s rights in the end. The tyranny of the majority.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            The Constitution was set up to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

            When OJ Simpson was aquitted, by rights, every patriotic American SHOULD have been cheering. Instead, every white person was snarling “he got away with it” and every black person was hooray-ing an innocent black man “won”.

            Two wrongs never make a right.

            Every American Citizen should be demanding Sandusky be given a retrial – instead of admitting his trial was not fair, but that’s OK, he didn’t “deserve” a fair trial anyway.

            That is right up to the day each and every one gets a dirty cop planting evidence to convict them, or they are not afforded a fair trial.

            You can ask 500 men who served in the military what the oath of enlistment was, and 492 of them will say “I took an oath to defend my country”. Even career guys who have taken that oath a half dozen times.

            The fact is, not a single one of them was ever asked to defend his/her country – they swore to defend the Constitution and obey the Commander In Chief. No more, no less.

            Every politician has taken that oath as well…I’d bet 499 out of 500 have no clue what it said.

            If every person was diligently doing their PEACEFUL obligation by defending that “piece of paper”(GWB, you listening, buddy?) we would be voting for building bridges, education, and selling liquor on Sunday – not building more prisons.

            It’s a great concept…”all men(as in human) are created equal…”

            ….sad shame, really….

      • Legion

        Humans do not adopt philosophical ideas en masse, as the historical record shows.

        • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

          Correct. Thus enter a vehicle for adoption- religion. Yuck

    • Wendy

      I was just about to say something like this (though I would never be so eloquent). My concern with this would be for the elderly, disabled, mentally ill, etcetera. I think some small caveat or extra phrase would be helpful, but then, we all know how caveats and extra phrases are latched onto when it comes to laws and philosophies.

      Also, talking about what the government should and should not be responsible for, I’ve been learning about governmental accounting and it never hit home before that our money flows in the completely wrong direction. We give our money in taxes to the federal government, who gives grants to states, who gives it to counties, so on and so forth, until we get money or services from programs. I strongly believe it should be the other way around. We should give money to our city to run a library, school(s), the city hall, utilities, maybe a public urgent care or full hospital, depending on the size of the city, and other programs, then our city gives money to the county for things like county infrastructure and fire department, then to the state for state infrastructure and parks, and then finally to the government. The federal government should be maintaining the military and the highways. End of story.

  • keyster

    Stop the presses!
    Do you not know that you just plagiarized Ayn Rand?

    Objectivism is not fair because it leaves the weak behind and oppresses them. It creates a system of winners and losers, when we yearn for social and economic justice for all.

    This is a dark turn I’m not sure I’m entirely comfortable with. Judging people as sovereign individuals rather than members of aggrieved identifiable groups is racist and sexist on so many levels.

    • James Huff

      Oh gosh….you really scared the crap out me for a second. Then I saw who wrote it. Yeah…but the idea predates even Rand, and it is not entirely Objectivist in nature. For instance, the debate is still had on the idea of Intellectual property and whether it falls under the same protections as Physical Property. What I have here is just the start of a new way looking at things in the MRM….and how we can apply these ideas as a creative force to deconstruct and solve social issues without relying on bullshit politicized rhetoric that never addresses the core issues.

      • keyster

        Do you actually mean relying on facts and proven empirical evidence rather than strict ideology James? That’s enough to make everyone uncomfortable.

        There is a growing youth movement of Libertarians on college campuses, mostly white guys – but more young women every day and a smattering of minorities. They’re deconstructing “The Establishment”, if ya know what I mean.

        For more on MRM tactics/approach read Breitbart protege Ben Shapiro’s “Bullies”.

        http://www.amazon.com/Bullies-ebook/dp/B008GULMDK

      • http://patricestanton.com/ Patrice Stanton

        James: First, fabulous work.

        But am I’m misunderstanding you on “Intellectual Property?” You have written sufficiently; I fail to understand how you don’t see the blood/sweat/tears that goes into producing your articles has resulted in actual, personal-property. To claim “writings” are a form of something alien, something unworthy of the identical protections from theft, non-agreed-upon personal duplication &/or public distribution, etc. is so, so wrong IMO.

        For example I have worked countless hours/weeks/months to complete what I’m confident is a salable novel and so I’m actively seeking an agent. I shudder to think there’s a legion of otherwise thoughtful folks outside the walls of my (humble) castle who’d claim all that work – which is now an actual 90,000 word entertainment “product” – is not really mine to sell, or rent out, or perhaps (as Stefan Molyneux routinely does) to ultimately give away under terms I concoct.

        • James Huff

          To tell you the truth Patrice, I am inclined to think as you do when it comes to the idea of Intellectual Property Rights. However I am simply pointing out that there is the ongoing debate concerning it. I would love to see this hashed out myself or even sit down with you and try to follow through the various arguments that would lead to one way or the other. I don’t fully understand this aspect of the situation myself.

          There is much I am ignorant on……

          It has become a sticking point for some reason….and as you know, there will always be that bit of wiggle room for these types of differences in every philosophy.

        • Shortcircuit

          “identical protections from theft, non-agreed-upon personal duplication &/or public distribution”

          If intellectual property had the protections of physical property you would not be able to say who can copy it. Rather, someone else would only be disallowed from removing the idea from your own head such that it was no longer there . That would in practice leave the IP holder with no protection at all.

          Intellectual property has a different system where the ability to enforce monopolies is granted, rather than protection from theft wherein someone is deprived of something rendering them unable to access it as desired.

          To clarify: I am talking about the right to produce/express (aka intellectual property) vs physical possession (aka physical property). And my argument is against the “identical” part, not “protections”. The same object can fall under both if it is physical and a monopoly has been granted.

          Whenever I see the conflict, it seems to revolve around anxiety over the control over human expression/behavior vs anxiety over whether some people remain able to get compensated for their labor. The unwillingness of government to properly maintain the law and focus on real issues has created a lot of anxiety all around. Discussion about many topics should become a lot easier if laws are made sane again so anxiety levels can go down. Wishful thinking, I know.

    • Legion

      Objectivism is idiocy because it removes the government from making positive economic contributions, and is based on the principle of “the free market can do all”. It is absolutist thinking at it’s worst – government bad, free market good.

      • James Huff

        “Abolitionism is idiocy because it removes slavemasters from making positive economic contributions, and is based on the principle of “free people can do all”. It is absolutist thinking at it’s worst – slavemasters bad, free people good.”

        Arguing for government when they have the monopoly of force and violence, regularly break their own laws, and remove property by imminent domain sounds a lot like arguing for slavery.

        A lot of peoples’ arguments in the South was based off of economic reasons reasons as well! “Who’s gonna pick the cotton if we don’t have slaves to do it?”

        Well, the fact of the mater is that it doesn’t matter, because slavery is simply wrong. A few people recognized this problem and….Holy cow!….new inventions and methods for growing and picking that did not require slaves were created!

        So arguing for an institution that regularly creates more problems than it solves because some of the time it can solve the very problems it creates is a valid argument?

      • keyster

        Legion – I think you meant the government making positive economic DISTRIBUTIONS…for at least as long as other people’s money lasts.

        Feminists support big government because it takes money from men and gives it to them in the form of entitlements and security that they otherwise might have to depend on an individual man for, heaven forbid.

  • Steveyp333

    The only thing I don’t like in here is where you started talking about a man owning the ‘products of his body’. The only thing our bodies really produce is shit… and even that we must use the raw materials of our environment for. If I am a wealthy businessman, and I cut down a section of the Amazon rainforest to make furniture (or whatever), do I have some moral right to the proceeds? What if I was only wealthy to begin with because I was left a large inheritance?

    The philosophy that asks “is a man non entitled to the sweat of his own brow?” is abject nonsense. The human body and mind alone are nothing – only by working with our peers and supported by our ecosystem do we obtain property and sustenance.

    • James Huff

      Why don’t you look up the stats of voluntary replacement of tree farms owned by private businesses and get back to me on that. I think you will be surprised. Also……who is doing the sanctioning and subsidizing of the easy way out when it comes to wholesale destruction of the environment? AND…who says you have to buy anything from anyone who is involved in such in a free society of educated individuals? And who says that it is in the best interests of all businesses to kill the goose that lays the golden egg? And if private funds are granted by private individuals to whomever they may under a contract signed by willing parties, who are you to tell them otherwise? And how do yo propose to strip me of what I own, especially when those things ensure the livelihood of my family…..kill me? Kill my progeny? Threaten to kill me? Or perhaps the simple threat of the loss of liberty if I don’t share with some lazy asshat who is perfectly capable of cutting down his own damn tree and replanting it? Would you be amenable to everyone being equally poor under a very powerful system of government who decides how little you get to keep?

      Do you realize that the sale or lease of property through contractual agreements can contain stipulations on the use of that property and its resources? Are you also aware that polluting individuals can still be economically sanctioned by free market forces by those who refuse to do business with them, including insurance companies?

      Or do you automatically assume people are so stupid that they need an ivory tower to tell them how to live every aspect of their lives when it comes to their consumption? If they are that stupid, whose fault is it? Wouldn’t the blame be placed on the very education system that mandates sensitivity training over critical thinking…..the State run education system…the same state that actually subsidizes the overproduction and sometimes wholesale destruction of forests, wheat, cattle, and fish…..even to the point of placing artificial market controls that demand farmers destroy portions of their own product rather than take it to market…..that State….you know…the one with all the powers of enforcement and absolutely no fucking accountability?

      • Steveyp333

        “a free society of educated individuals” oh wouldn’t that be nice… as much as you tout that individuals can refuse to do business with unethical firms, corporations go to ENORMOUS lengths to spread disinformation about what they do, and who the real owners are behind famous brands. Prime example – McDonalds sell processed shit, yet they sponsor the olympics. Most people are too daft to apply critical thinking so the connection gets made in theeir brains: sports… mcdonalds… hurrrrrr. And even amongst the intelligent and educated, it is a huge effort to try and keep track of where your money actually ends up as so many companies operate with labyrinthine networks of supply chains

        and how exactly does one legitimately obtain the right to buy and sell natural resources anyway?

        I also lol hard at your schtick about companies “voluntarily” undoing the harm they cause. Fox guarding the chickens much? What about all the financial criminals that cratered the economy but still took bonuses that are orders of magnitude above what any normal man would earn in a thousand lifetimes? So much for hard work and success earning rewards

        • James Huff

          You mean those subprime mortgages that had the hand of politicians and regulators ensuring the private investors that it would not go bellyup instead of allowing markets to self-regulate? You mean those same financial institutions and companies that lobbied the legislators voted in by the same people educated by the system the legislators have propagandized with “king and country” and male disposability? Those companies? The ones I already said in my article needed to go….because I think I specifically stated destroys cronyism in all its forms by creating a meritocracy? You mean those? Because obviously if you had read the article you would realize that your argument is a complete non-sequitur in relation to the idea of freedom……because the markets have NEVER been free to begin with. Not with special interests pushing crony-crapitalism and fucking corporations being given the rights of an individual, instead of making the individuals who own the company take accountability for their actions.

          Ah! So you do put the blame squarely on daft people! You mean those same daft people that go to all those daft schools I mentioned above?

          I see we are at least in agreement so far, other than where we are not, which concerns most of the subject presented in a very simple article located near the top of the page. It’s chock full of ideas that just might allow people to stop being so daft that they need all those Rulers you seem to be keen on having enforce through monopoly of force and violence the acquisition of their hard earned property. Or….how else do you suppose to work against human nature? Do you really think they will do a damned thing anyone says without some kind of reward? Oh…..well that reward should be what…a hero complex for being so chivalric to their fellow human beings that they are willing to forgo the sense of property rights and ownership of goods…..wait a minute….that already happens….welcome to the MRM! Have you heard about Marriage and Alimony 2.0.? How about that wonderful piece of legislation that gets a portion of the money confiscated from me every year called VAWA? Holy hell! I forgot about the publicly funded judges that get to take feminist run courses on how to handle domestic violence cases!

          Hot damn…if I didn’t know better, I’d say that it’s the concept of NOT having private ownership that has caused the need for the MRM, not the other way around!

          • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

            Exquisite.

  • All Contraire

    Regarding your State Socialism example lead-in:

    James, in economics I believe this is an example of the *Law of the Commons* which is as certain as the far better known and understood ‘Law of Supply and Demand’. The LoC essentially says that individuals and groups acting only in their narrowly perceived selfish interests (in this case Feminists) can end up harming themselves and the larger economy and society, even to the point of destruction.

    Would Feminists actually destroy the entire economy and everything else in pursuit of their mad objectives? Of course! They are already doing it. After all (1), they didn’t work and sacrifice to build it. And (2), if it all does come crashing down, the smugly deceitful ladies know they can always paint on an innocent “who ME?” face and put on modest dress and sweetly demure “You know this is all teh men’s fault … Now, please, I just want to go back home to my children while you guys go off to work and fix this big mess YOU made … ” and stupid ‘nice-guy’ jerks that we always are, we’ll probably let them…

    As to women demanding quotas to be chivalrously escorted through the ‘glass ceiling’ and into the boardrooms of ongoing businesses which men have fought and sacrificed to build, you are so right that this is an example where Feminism dangerously fails all *Five* Principles.

    We need to realize that Elite women seeking Power are not at all like the ordinary women you and I know in our daily lives. Once in control these lofty and aloof Elite Women –– who are all Marxist-Feminist ideologues and credit Feminism and the State for their success –– fully intend to deform all institutions, whole societies, nations and the world to their advantage and liking . . . and, at the same time, lie and lie about what they’re up to, even as they’re doing it.

    Powerful Elite Women demand State hegemony and confiscation on their behalf, and seek to establish a worldwide tyranny of mind-control by force, education, culture and image over men and boys-who-will-become-men, the ‘dangerous’ gender that has always fought and died for freedom. Thus, on this basis alone, freedom-loving free-thinking MHRAs should vehemently oppose Feminists gaining more power in business or any other institution and actively seek to dislodge them from the territories they have already, by deception and extortion, conquered.

    Kudos on ‘The Five Great Principles’ … Would it balance ‘Principle No. (2)’ to add “Individual Freedom and…” to “…Personal Responsibility”?

    Also, might I suggest an experiment? First ask MHRAs in Toronto to publicly post the ‘Principles’ as is. I doubt the Feminazis will tear them down; though they are sure to object to libertarian ‘Principle No. (5)’ if they read that far and understand the anti-Statist implications. Then after a time repost them under the Heading “MRA Proposed Universal Rights” and see how quickly they get angrily snatched down and torn to shreds, no reading past the Heading needed.

    • James Huff

      Individual freedom is a not a principle…it is an outcome of the practice of these principals….all of which must be practiced in order to obtain said freedom.

      • http://www.youtube.com/user/Razlo5000?feature=mhum Raz

        Well, I would argue James, you already have freedom given to you by god or nature, these principles protect that freedom.

  • http://www.hermitparkclinic.com.au Greg Canning

    thank you James, for your work on this , have been looking forward to it since the concept was floated last year and its been worth wait waiting for ! They are five principles that I can aspire toward.

  • napocapo69

    Nice piece but IMHO:
    “Respect for Personal Property Rights” is redundant because is a direct consequence of “Non-Aggression/Non Violence”.

    I think, maybe a 5th amendment could be “self-determination” from which you can stem other principle such as:
    “my body my choice” = do not touch my penis without my consent, “reproductive rights”…etc

    • James Huff

      The idea of personal property rights actually starts with the body of the individual. This would make modification of infants unconscionable excepting in the requirements needed to keep the child alive. Once the child becomes an adult then they can decide for themselves what to do with their body.

      Unfortunately there is a secondary reason for number 5 that requires it to stand alone. Please read my exchange with Steveyp333 above.

  • Codebuster

    James, I applaud your appreciation of the need for a principles-based approach as something that I’ve also been advocating. But there are a couple of issues that need to be factored in, the main one being that the US already has a principles-based system, but it’s no longer working. Of course I’m talking about the US Constitution, which is not doing any good if judges and magistrates don’t bother to comply with its principles. The whole Mary Kellett thing, pretty much everything that is wrong with men’s rights in the US relates to judges, magistrates and lawmakers pissing on the principles of the contitution. VAWA and affirmative action are brazen breaches of an existing principles-based system. Where was the outrage when VAWA was first introduced in 1994? Heck, I recognized it back then as unconstitutional, though I was not as aware then as I am now of the significance of trashing the constitution. Americans should have risen up against VAWA in 1994, but they didn’t, because after all, no-one wanted to be seen as anti-woman. Of course we can laugh at this now, now that we realize the horror of what feminism stands for and the stupidity of gynocentric chivalry.

    My own preference would be to first focus on reviving the US Constitution and giving it some real teeth. Now that we fully realize the horror of what breaching its principles implies, we can address fine-tuning those principles for later. If you can’t make your existing constitution work, then you’ll have even more trouble trying to introduce a new one. The only thing that has been missing from the US constitution in the past 20+ years is the men and women prepared to back it up. How did Americans let your feminist lobby groups foist their garbage in over your constitutional principles? Easy to say in hindsight, I guess.

    Of course it may well be too late… too many lines have been crossed, too many revised precedents set. This is the era of cowards, there is too little of the blood of patriots with which to water the tree of liberty… there is only the blood of tyrants, and they aren’t interested in liberty.

    • James Huff

      And this is why the MRM deserves first principles. I think the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution today has irrevocably altered the way things work, and there is too much money invested in the status quo to hope for any real change.

      The change has to start at the individual level and slowly move outward. Why do you think the indoctrination in political correctness and group-think starts at such a young age? Because our detractors also know that the only way to permanently alter the meaning of the Constitution is to alter the minds of those reading it.

      What I have presented here is the method by which we can begin to remove all the extraneous bullshit.

    • keyster

      One of the tenets of Libaralism in America is that the Constitution was written by a bunch of old white guys and needs to be torn up and re-written to be more “inclusive” of the identifiable oppressed classes.

      The Left wing of the Supreme Court, led by Ruth Bader-Ginsberg has said as much. In the meantime she uses legal double-speak in her rulings or “interpretations”.

      It’s time we “progress” past that racist and sexist moldy parchment. It’s so limiting, and doesn’t suit the times.

  • keyster

    Some how I knew you would.

    Grouping men into yet another aggrieved victim class is a zero sum approach. It’ll never have broad enough appeal. It’s perceived as the slave owners marching for rights against the slaves. The opposing force is political correctness, allowing men to be heard in the media and college campuses. Defeat that first and the movement moves.

  • Aimee McGee

    I can completely agree this approach. With teaching/learning the first two, mentoring & Eldering is essential as most of us have huge blind spots. Learning to give and receive constructive criticism is going to be a vital step.
    One big challenge is going to be to raise daughters who understand these first two in a society where there is so few female role models

    • James Huff

      The approach begins with the current generation slowly integrating the principles the hard way by making the best attempt to live by them in their daily lives. It’s a tall order, but this is where it starts. The next step is providing that example to the progeny that comes from these people working towards a lifestyle that incorporates the first principles. The children, having grown up with examples of this will try to perfect it. By the time these principles have reached the third and fourth generations, and have answered many of the questions as a natural outgrowth of seeing these principles in action and creating new ways dealing with social issues without violence/ coercion/ and theft, the more they will reduce the existing structures that keep those things in place.

      It is a slow transformation that must start on the individual level.

      • Aimee McGee

        Us Quakers have been trying to live to our testimonies for 400 years – yep, change takes time :)

  • Diogenes

    I would like to point out the basis for the idea of ‘Universally Preferable Behavior’ comes from Stefan Molyneux of freedomainradio.com and has written a book with the same name. If anyone wishes to take it further, the basis for UPB can be traced from the ideas of ‘Natural Law’.

    I’m not trying to blame OP but I wonder why this wasn’t mentioned as surely he was aware of it?

    • James Huff

      Because the idea of UPB has been spread pretty far in many circles. That’s like me placing the context of all intellectual thought with the name of the original thinker.

      Interesting, considering Stephan’s argument for the negation of Intellectual Property Rights for similar reasons.

      • Diogenes

        I’m not suggesting an appeal to authority, it just seems useful to examine source material. If I were to write about the virtues of the Socratic method, wouldn’t it be useful to reveal the source of it? I can explain it to people and even give examples but I doubt I could write a book like ‘The Republic’.

        If I were to tell you about the MRM for the first time, wouldn’t it be useful to know about AVfM or other sources?

        • James Huff

          Ah! I stand corrected! I will definitely be sure to cite some research in follow up articles. I would also recommend to anyone out there that reads this that they perform independent research as well.

  • http://none universe

    Good show, ol’ chap.
    “I see all the wasted effort of hundreds of millions of lives in a struggle to control groups of humans, most of whom simply want peaceful lives for their loved ones.”
    – Ya, from the municipal to the international levels, politics appears to be about competing interests with X Y Z, and more, influencing what becomes a momentary dominant feature that drags all others into the fray. This exhibited from within the passing of by-laws to armed multi-national conflict over commerce. And yes, it is the common man who pays the blood price.

    Regarding the five principles.
    I do not wish to make boastful devotional thoughts toward my sex yet at the same time these principles appear to me as that elusive definition of what a man truly is or have exemplified.
    As we are yet human, living 100% to these ideas is not possible but many have lived in near simultaneous proximity to all. I’ll guess that this is why our culture is still here.
    This contemporary politically expediant madness will too soon pass. (Just gotta get through it).
    Good will to all.

    (Sorry if I’ve repeated what others may have written, of which I haven’t yet read. These were my first thoughts from the essay’s first reading).

  • Raven01

    ***Slow golf clap***
    Great job, James.
    Anyone that cannot accept those principals is not someone I would choose to associate with in any manner.

  • Robert Sides

    Oy.

    Okay.

    Dunno.

    Whatever.

    What to say…?

    Don’t mean to be mean but godalmighty.

    Most men live in their left-linear-logical brains…to the detriment of their right-intuitive-poetic-emotional one. Ergo, there’s a tendency to overstate the obvious, especially when direct action is needed.

    There’s a sense of overkill about the essay. I mean, do we REALLY need another treatise to know the right thing to do? If so, can’t it be said in 500-800 words instead of 2400? It seems excessively “wordy” to me for some reason.

    It also reminds me (true story, apparently) of the Nazi guard who kept pulling a yeshiva student out of a gas chamber line to “bone up” on the former’s looming exam. To wit: philosophy is no guarantor of wisdom. In fact, academics are often the first to support fascist takeovers. Why? Because they deal more in abstractions than concrete reality. Like on Swift’s “floating island” where philosophers spend their days trying to change manure into meals.

    The Good Samaritan was considered “good” (by others!) because he defied his own tribe’s selfish credo and cared for a stranger. That is, sometimes you don’t need to be a meteorologist to know which way the wind blows.

    Plus words can complicate. Being “responsible,” for example, means one is “able to respond.” Who determines if someone is or not? Cupcake can say she is blameless because the Patriarchy took away her agency.

    Being “accountable”? To whom? For what? Who assigns the role? Who monitors it?

    At this late date do we really need to spend time MORE time creating “guidelines” before entering battlefields and commencing to kick ass?

    We’ve had 50 years to do that.

    It’s like we’re on the cusp of marching and suddenly we’re told to sit down in circles to study the arcane origins of “combat boots.”

    A young boy instinctively knows when things are unfair. He doesn’t need to write or read a lengthy exegesis.

    Do we?

    IMHO, we need to start acting and learn by doing. Besides, “documents” are easy to misinterpret. They can confound just as handily as clarify. Feminism, after all, swears it’s about “equality.” What can be wrong about that….right?

    Maybe it’s just me. I’ve been at this a long, long time. I’ve been waiting to see masses of men champing at bits, ready to fight. Alas, too many times I’ve seen guys “hamletize.” That is, start doubting themselves, succumbing to the “paralysis of analysis.”

    It’s like MRM guys finally form a firing line, bracing for a charge by feminist regulars. Suddenly, one MRA farts. The guy next to him drops his gun, trying to catch the emission with his helmet for analysis. Another dude puts down his gun and picks up a thesaurus, seeking synonyms for flatulence. A third fighter-wannabe joins his mates to brainstorm future uses of methane. On and on it goes: feminists getting closer, MRAs distracting themselves.

    Masculinist books have been written and read. Lectures defending maleness have been given and attended. Etc. The one thing there has been precious little of is EFFECTIVE ACTION.

    We’re like McClellan’s army during the American civil war: endlessly drilling, never fighting.

    Instead of “principles,” I’d like to see a list of 5 practical actions we can take NOW to put AVFM more on the map, attracting new members and mass media.

    • James Huff

      You keep stressing the word “we”. The focus of FP is to place the stress on the word “I”.

      The action is in the principles themselves. Live by them.

    • http://patricestanton.com/ Patrice Stanton

      O.K. First, I believe there are an awful lot of role models here as to the practical side, the “activism” side.

      Second, I was going to suggest in my comment above that there’s a way for James to boil his “5” down but I’ll do that in a personal e-mail to him. So I guess my point is, even Shakespeare had to start Hamlet somewhere. If and when folks who’ve now read these 5 Principles (in their Shakespearean-form) begin to put real-world “stuff” up against them, begin to talk with people at work, in their families, etc. about just where a new law or someone’s recent behavior or similar goes off the (5 Principles’) track, and they come back with concrete suggestions to improve them then fine. Improve/Edit them.

      But there are folks who never really thought of “the world and its power-structure” in these sorts of ways before. Sometimes more (of an explanation) is better.

      I guess you can see I’m the “wordy” sort. However I’m not a hypocrite, so I’ll add here that my desire to suggest a <5 form of the Principles comes from having learned it through home-schooling and then (lived it,) taught it, and pondered it for many years.

  • Lordmep

    Wonderful

  • JohnNewton

    Wait… what?

    This is just the basics of libertarianism/anarchism without the label. Why is everybody pretending that this is some brilliant new concept that was just invented yesterday?

    It’s not my website and I don’t contribute to it with more than the occasional comment, so I don’t really have any say in the matter, but if the owner(s) of this website and leader(s) of this community are going to formally align them with a specific political philosophy, the least they can do is be honest about it rather than just taking ordinary libertarianism, ripping off the label, and pretending that it’s something new and inclusive.

    While changing the name to something like “A Libertarian Voice for Men” obviously isn’t practical at this point, you should at least make it clear that this is a community of libertarians and anarchists opposing discrimination against men.

    • James Huff

      My question is this….can you disagree with these principles, and if so on what basis? Don’t play the label game with me. Look at the argument and argue this based on it’s merits instead of going “Left…Right…Libertarian!!!”

      • JohnNewton

        Before I wrote my first comment I made the decision not to get into yet another internet debate about the merits of libertarianism. Whether libertarianism is a good idea or not is besides the point.

        Labels, whether “Contains: 100 shirts, cotton, blue” or “libertarianism” exist for a reason. To quickly and efficiently explain the nature of that which it is affixed to. Your principles sync up close to perfectly with those of an individualist anarchist. I would no sooner hesitate to call you that than I would hesitate to call you “human”, “sentient”, or “sapient”. I don’t see why anyone would want to avoid a neutral label that sums up their beliefs so succinctly.

        The fact is that if AVfM (the website or the community) adopts those principles as their official stance, anyone who is not an individualist anarchist will not belong there. If that’s what the people in charge want to do, that’s up to them.

        • James Huff

          Interesting. That’s not so much different than the rote Feminist response of “It’s not my job to try and explain things to you!”, followed immediately by further calls of mee-saa-jin-nee!

          Follow with the standard fare of political rhetoric, and the normal speech patterns showing clear indoctrination by a poor education system lacking in critical thinking classes.

          In response to JohnNewton’s comment below

          I apologize. That was rude of me and frankly out of line…and I have no excuse for it whatsoever. I leave the original comment intact as an example of what NOT to do.

          You ask a viable question in terms of quantifying a moral philosophy within the context of your labels, and I look forward to future and more civilized debate on the subject.

          • JohnNewton

            I was hoping we could do this without resorting to childish name-calling, but if you are not willing to do that, I don’t see much point in continuing this conversation, lest you “drag me down to your level and beat me with experience”, as the saying goes. Nevertheless, I’ll try to extract something to respond to from your obnoxious ad hominem.

            “Interesting. That’s not so much different than the rote Feminist response of “It’s not my job to try and explain things to you!””
            The reason I actively refused to discuss my views on anarchism is because they are completely irrelevant and would only lead to pointless tangents.
            Basic reading skills would have told you that much (see “Whether libertarianism is a good idea or not is besides the point.”). Are you really unable to understand the difference between “I want to talk about X, but won’t tell you anything about it.” and “X is not relevant to this discussion.”?

            “Follow with the standard fare of political rhetoric”
            Could you be a bit more specific, or was that just another attempt to insult and dismiss me without actually providing any reasoned criticism?

            “and the normal speech patterns showing clear indoctrination by a poor education system lacking in critical thinking classes.”
            So, basically: “You’re stupid”.
            Ouch, my feelings.

            As I stated in my first post, it all comes down to this (and I’m asking everyone who wants to answer, by the way):
            Do you believe that being an individualist anarchist, as detailed in James Huffs article above, is a fundamental aspect of being a member of the AVfM community?

        • keyster

          There has always been a decided “Occupy” strain running through the Manosphere community. It’s why the movement doesn’t move. They’re too proud and self-righteous to associate themselves with petty “labels” like the “left/right paradigm”.

          If nobody knows what to call you, you’ll be relegated to the dust bin of fringe social groups and avant-garde rock bands. IOW I agree with your sentiment John.

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)

    A fine set of principles, James. Its refreshing to see political ideals proposed and discussed without the tired and divisive partisanship we occasionally see.

    These guiding principles will serve the MRM/MHRM very well indeed.

  • Robert Sides

    > “You keep stressing the word ‘we’. The focus of FP is to place the stress on the word ‘I’.

    Of course. Because misandry goes only after individuals. Joe, living his perfectly poised first-principle’d life, will never be snared in feminism’s net…right?

    There is no need for men to unite and fight. All they need to do is live their lives as “principled” islands. Surely they will be as immune to feminist invasion as, say, the British Channel islands were in WWII.

  • Robert Sides

    > “my point is, even Shakespeare had to start Hamlet somewhere.”

    You make my point. Men (and female MRAs) forever talk about “starting.” I heard the same talk 30 years ago. And what I learned was that folks who “begin” by endlessly talking about “beginning” rarely get past it. Because their focus is on talking and thinking, not doing.

    THAT was the point of my comment.

    The reason guys today know so little about their condition is because men’s groups four decades ago were content to “begin” and “take time” and “whittle while jawboning over cracker barrels.”

    Feminists saw how averse men were to opposing them and thus kept marching…and taking things over. Now men complain that legislatures the world over are passing ever-more misandric laws. Why complain? You loaded a gun and handed it to feminists to point at your head.

    So, sure. Let those silly wimmin have their VAWA and so on. We men will form philosophy clubs and stage debates. That’ll show them Dworkinites. Because in another 50 years we will finally be ready to deal with bills from the 1970s.

    What, you mean those bills passed, are now laws, and there’s no time machine? Outrageous! Unfair! Misandric! I refuse to accept that. In fact, tonight at our sweat lodge I’m going to wait for the Talking Stick and propose we discuss the meaning, origin, and variablility of the word “time.”

    Watching the MRM is like watching a guy stare at a candle that just tipped over in his bedroom. The dog starts barking as a curtain catches fire. Neighbors start knocking on windows. The guys decides to go back to sleep, thinking “there’s still time.”

    Now he huddles under a blanket next to the cold fireplace, the house in rubbles around him. And he curses, “Damn the luck! Why do I suffer so?”

    > ” folks …begin …begin… never really thought”

    Exactamundo!

    Like I said, guys are way too willing to wait-wait-wait, begin-begin-begin. They forfeit the right to complain about the feminist takeover they’ve allowed.

    Just sayin’.

    • James Huff

      Well then! Since you make a strong case for direct activism, which I applaud and wholeheartedly agree with, let’s get some ideas on the table. First, may I direct your attention to http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/the-voices-of-men/. Over the last several months several initiatives have started in relation to direct activism. As well we have a radio show….AVFM News and Activism, focusing on Activist efforts and current news, including interviews with activists.

      There are individual and group activists out there. Check out MensrightsEdmonton, John’s Vancouver group, the work of SeattleMRA, the work of MRALondon, and several groups located in India.

      We also have groups such as the National Coalition for Men, S.A.V.E. Services, and others who are beginning to really challenge the status quo.

      I would argue in fact that we are starting to scare the fuck out of our enemies, considering that the National Organization for Women clearly ttok notice of the changes in laws that are slowly occurring in various states due to the work of the MRM and related movements. See here: http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/family/FamilyLawNewsletter-Fall2012.pdf .

      I would also argue that recent events in Toronto would not have occurred if not for the growing body of people turning against feminism and related ideologies. You think that happened in a vacuum?

      So I guess I would have to ask…..what are YOU going to do?

      Because while i certainly encourage activism, and I must say have played a pivotal role in a few events myself as an ACTIVIST, this is the first way to encourage it…by choosing to do it on an individual level instead of being part of a herd. And First Principles is the first step towards it.

      Now…if you don’t mind, I’ll get back to my theorizing on behalf of men and boys in between my opportunities to Fuck Their Shit Up.

  • Scott Stevens

    Great article, James.

    These principles are the building blocks of a stable society. It would be great if our nations could one day return to them. But in a system where the ones with all the power – the political parties – have to appeal to voters to stay in power, and the majority of those voters have been conditioned to suck on the government teat, I don’t see that happening anytime soon, regardless how many people adopt these principles – unless a new system is set-up outside of the current one, for those that want to exit – founded on these principles.

    If the abundance of YT channels, blogs, FB pages, Tweeters, etc. is anything to go by, there are enough people alive across the globe, that have had enough with the current system, and would be willing to do something about it – something peaceful. But they would have to meet together, understand that they have differing ideals, but that they agree on the most important thing: that today’s system is unsustainable, unstable, breeds resentment and heading for something bad. Perhaps we’d need to have lawyers within our group, so we’d know the best, strategic way to exit. And then we organise our non-violent opt-out.

    My concerns are that we’d have to all relocate to the same geographic area, as it would be easier to defend ourselves. If we’re all spread out across the country (any country), it’s easier for the govt to send their infinite resources of armed agents to each ‘opt-out’s’ property, one-by-one, and arrest him. But if we all live in the same geographic area, we have strength in numbers. So do we all secretly move to the same area, one-by-one, arm ourselves, and then one day declare it a non-government zone, or whatever?

    My final thought, is that would this have to be done internationally at the same time, on the same day? If the first, armed ‘opt-out’ community was set-up in the US, for example, what’s to stop the US govt calling for international aid to ‘fight the rebellion’? But if these ‘opt-out’ communities went live on the same day internationally, then all national governments would have their hands tied-up in their own back yards, so to speak. Also, would the government simply cut off power, Internet, etc., in these communities? How would we source and utilise energy to maintain our current lives?

    I’ve no doubt that our species has the ability to do something about our decline. But it would take time to strategically plan everything to the tiniest detail, before exit. And I believe ‘exit’ is the way to go. These’s no way those sucking daddy government’s teats are going to collectively say, “No more – I shall look after myself, please! No hand-outs!”. That’s why, although positive to see, libertarian political parties today rising in popularity to become the ‘third party’ is about as much as can be hoped for, in this climate, in terms of collective voting power. Those, like us, who are completely disenfranchised with the current system, are a tiny minority, and need to keep this in mind.

    But who says it can’t be done?

    Good stuff, James.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    As guiding principles to how to live one’s own life, I see no problem really. Putting them into action on a personal level, OK.

    As a broad philosophy, it is libertarianism. And as a former libertarian–i.e. one who embraced that philosophy, voted for Andre Marrou, read Hayek, Von Mises, Harry Brown, Ayn Rand, etc.–I must reveal that I walked away from it, consciously and with volition, because I ceased to believe in it as anything but a nice set of ideas, some practical and some not.

    I believe that, just like Marxism, libertarianism is an ideology that presents a very pretty vision that is not and cannot ever describe the real world or be truly compatible with natural human behavior. I believe it is impractical and doomed to failure.

    I reject all ideologies. When it comes to my interpersonal dealings, I can embrace these values; it pretty much describes how I try to live my life, although like most people I would think I cannot be 100% faithful to all my principles all the time. When it comes to the political, on the other hand, I embrace pragmatism: that which will advance an achievable set of goals. None of these principles is goals, although they might be things that help us think through how to accomplish some things. Although taken to their extreme, they could make any progress impossible. For example:

    At the moment I’m looking to embark on a campaign to help a man whose ex-wife has kidnapped his children. State and local officials are not following the law and helping him. I want to embarrass them into action. If I took these principles as absolute, I would not do that, because I would say “that’s getting state officials to do something, the state is force, I therefore will not try to help this man to get the cops to do their job. I’ll just hire security forces to go kidnap the kids back, I guess I’ll have to pass a money jar around to do that.”

    Um, no, what I want to do is embarrass public officials into doing the goddamned motherfucking job they are paid for and enforce the fucking law.

    I believe in the rule of law. This also means, by the way, that I don’t agree that “The State” is a failure on every level. Indeed, I’m pretty well convinced that the exact opposite is true, that it works astonishingly well much if not most of the time, and we’re only so used to all the things it does right that we take those for granted and see only its failures. I don’t believe there is any genius, any artist, any philosopher, any scientist, any inventor, any industrialist, that we can name from all of human history (including Socrates himself) who would have succeeded were it not for the manifest and overwhelming success of the concept of a governing state.

    As Jerry Pournelle once observed, the rule of law wasn’t what bound men, it is what made them free.

    As a set of guidelines for how to live your personal life I can embrace these principles. As a philosophy that must undergird everything at all times? I can’t. Maybe in some distant future it can happen, but I prefer to think about what can be accomplished today, this week, this month, this year.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      To give an example of why, for example, treating the concept of owning your own body as absolute is problematic:

      Should I be allowed to sell myself into slavery to Paul Elam? A lifetime of servitude, in exchange for whatever we agree upon. Why would I do that? Why is it any of your business? Maybe I get a sexual turnon from it. Maybe I need money for my kid’s heart surgery. Whatever, it’s none of your business, Elam offers me a contract and for the agreed-upon price, I am now his servant for life.

      What First Principle would that violate?

      I’ll give another one, the right to property:

      Let’s say I buy all the land on both sides of a river, then I decide to divert all the water of that river to a new location of my choosing, based on contractual arrangements I have with someone else. What? You say there are people downriver who depend on that river to grow their crops, to travel, to continue their peaceful way of life? Tough shit suger, I want that river, it’s my fucking river, I’ll do what I want with it. Sure, I may be destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, but it’s totally nonviolent and it’s completely in keeping with First Principles, so what’s your objection?

      You laugh? William Mulholland did that very thing with the Colorado River. It’s why there’s a City of Los Angeles today.

      Am I picking extreme examples? Well, yes, but that is the point: any set of principles can be abused if taken as absolutes. Any set of principles can also reduce one to totally helpless inaction in many situations. People should be able to raise their children as they see fit? Well all right then, let’s have no more laws that say your children will be removed from you if you starve them.

      Principles can turn into frightening ideology if you let them. That’s all I’m saying.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    I will within the next week or so release a copy of a document of broad goals that almost 50 MRAs and MRA sympathizers gave input into. What was remarkable is that despite knowing almost none of these people, there was almost no friction in the creation of that document, most disagreement would be what I would call quibbling. It was an astonishing level of consensus, more than I had even thought possible.

    I had hoped to release it here. Perhaps after I release it it will generate further discussion, and we can see if it is compatible with these principles. I think that may be possible. I need another week or two though, with help of a couple of others who are helping finalize it.

    • James Huff

      I have no problem with people dealing with the immediacy of the political situations worldwide in whatever manner they choose. I do not pretend to have all the answers myself either. However…#1 clearly states that unrealistic expectations can be kept in check.

      I have repeatedly said under what conditions this moral philosophy would work society wide throughout the comments section of this piece, and have even noted that future generations will certainly have more answers on it’s application than we ever will. However, it must be practiced and taught on an individual level to begin with.

      I DO NOT advocate the immediate expulsion of all government entities worldwide though my distrust of statist power along with my reasons why are clearly written in various parts of the comments here. I absolutely know that doing so is an immoral act that will cause millions of deaths worldwide, total financial collapse, warlords and dictators to snatch the pieces, and statists of all stripes to simply begin the whole sordid fucking mess all over again at the expense of the farmed human population.

      Nor have I once advocated breaking the law in any way in pursuit of these principles. You have to stay alive and free to teach others in order to propagate the ideas. The propagation of these ideas is enough to rile the SPLC to label you as part of a hate group and keep a file on you, the FBI to open cases looking into you, the IRS to start keeping a closer eye on your taxes, and even local police to view you with a wary eye.

      The fact of the matter is that the powers that be HATE the idea of these principles really working…..and with good reason, not the least is the dissolution of their authority.

      I have extrapolated a MINIMUM of two generations after MOST of the people have adopted FP society wide before we can even reach something as simple as relegating the government to two things: Up holding contractual law and common defense.

      However….and I will say this yet again in these comments section. The First Principles must be adopted individually as a result of free will without threat of violence and coercion in order to work.

      • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

        These principles are in my view a magnificent set of values and guidelines from which to base one’s individual life and I could never fault anyone for embracing them.

        I have seen how some people take very similar principles and then start demanding impractical and immediate changes to pretty much everything overnight, and have even gotten into scaldingly heated arguments with people who’ve held up action for various reasons saying things like “use of the state is force, we will never use the state for anything,” even going to far as to say that using the police to do anything–today, right now, for any purpose–is immoral and must therefore be avoided. Even a few who say things like “voting is immoral” which in my view is enormously counterproductive as it takes your way to persuade government officials to change anything. And the notion that we’re going to abolish government overnight–well I’ve met guys who think we can do that very thing, and should do everything possible to implement that immediately.

        So, like, dude, you wouldn’t call the cops if you witness a murder?

        Part of this concern may stem from the time I spent deeply steeped in the fringes of the most extreme parts of the libertarian movement, who want everything their way immediately, right now, and become rigid, ideological, and inflexible the minute you suggest doing anything that isn’t 100% in keeping with that philosophy RIGHT NOW. It is like arguing with a Fundamentalist Christian: it becomes pointless after a while as they will not bend no matter how impractical whatever they’re proposing is.

        I frankly think that’s exactly the problem we’re seeing with a couple of ideological libertarians on YouTube right now: the presumption that everyone who does not instantly sign on to all their values unquestionably and in the way they want you to is a “socialist” and/or a “traitor” or has sinister evil motives, and I would just be very worried about us trending in such a direction.

        The realism that says these are values we can work toward over multiple generations, solving problems one at a time as we come to them: this I can appreciate a great deal.

        • DeltaHotel

          You can take a shoe and beat the child for running in the street, or you can guard the street while teaching the child. The former is expedient, the later takes more work, comes with respect and makes it easier for other lessons in the future.

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      Dean, I often find the way you frame things compelling, so I’m interested in seeing that document of ‘broad goals’ shared on AVfM to generate further discussion and to see if they are reasonably compatible with James’ proposed principles.

      One thing is for certain – AVfM has always maintained a relatively broad church when it comes to sexuality, religion, politics etc. Thats what makes it great and sets it apart from the one-dogma partisans.

      If we are to have a set of guiding principles here it seems only fitting it take into account a variety of contributors who are working toward compatable goals.

  • Christian “xXToYeDXx” Chiasson

    This needs to be in the “Introductory Articles” section and labelled as “Required Reading”. Brilliantly written piece that speaks to the very core foundation of all basic human rights. I think a “First Principles” approach like this is vital, not only for the MHRM, but humanity as a whole.

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/Razlo5000?feature=mhum Raz

      I came here again, & logged in, just to say what you said here.

      This brilliant article should be in the introductory articles section.

  • Enrique The Terrible

    well done. i like the fact that you can take the politics out of this.

  • http://patricestanton.com/ Patrice Stanton

    [For me "Politics" = Life," so I honestly can't understand the desire to take-politics-out of any discussion.]

    I believe James’ whole vision of the “two generations” of individuals ultimately being imbued with such downright rational life-governing principles is precisely to avoid the shock an all of a sudden move to such a world with its need for less and less formal Government. Otherwise it be like pulling the rug out from under countless folks – with an outbreak of cognitive dissonance to follow.

    Dean: I’m wondering what you mean when you say you can’t always follow your own principles? Of course I understand the hypothetical: I’m hiding Jews in the walls of my house, so gee, should I lie to the Nazi who’ve come hunting – cuz lying would be acting without Integrity? And of course I will lie, because in fact to do so is protecting the innocent vs. lying to the scoundrel. Same reason I’d lie and say I have no money in my wallet, etc. If I am being violated in any way/shape/form the “Human Contract” has been broken between me and the other who’s breaking it.

    Is this the sort of thing you mean? If not, I think I’d question whether you honestly “held” the Principle you say you sometimes break.

  • Robert Sides

    > “There are individual and group activists out there.”

    Yeppers. They’ve done much during the past half century. NOW was founded 47 years ago. Man landed on the moon 3 years after that. So surely guys must have put the kabosh to crazy-as-a-moonbat feminism in the interim…right?

    Feminism does things en masse using mass media. As a result, they’re now funded by governments, foundations, and wealthy private donors. They certainly didn’t amass their clout by emulating the MRM.

    Ergo, they continue to bomb the shite out of us while we form Great Books discussion groups.

    > “beginning to really challenge the status quo.”

    I’m sure feminists quake in their combat boots.

    > choosing to do it on an individual level…

    Perfect! Can’t fail. Bound to succeed…and soon.

    ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    Live feed from a VAWA hearing:

    “Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that this Act will be defeated. Sure, it may take centuries, but trust me: the MRM (consisting of individual initiatives, most limited to keyboards) is on the move.

    Sorta.

    While we devise new ways to increase damage via this latest iteration of VAWA (putting more real men in real jails), our opponents host Socratic parleys in cyberspace.

    Be afraid. Be veeeeerrrrrry afraid.

    MRAs figure it’s time to continue doing what they’ve always done: talk. In fact, their never-forming army has issued new medals, like ‘Superior Hair-Splitting’ and ‘Courageous Counting of Angels on Pinheads.’ It’s truly scary.

    They finally figured out the way to stop the massed and massive women’s movement is to act… individually. No, really. So we must rethink our strategy. And quickly. For what does it matter that 100 senators are eager to pass this bill, making it the law of the land, cloned across the world? One MRA complaining to his regional newspaper can undo us (even if his letter is never published)!

    How?

    Because the guy mastered THE mightiest weapon of all: First Principles!’

    Sure, the after-effects take a while to show up. The current generation must slowly integrate the principles the hard way, then their progeny, then the third and fourth and maybe even 500th generation of their progeny must ponder-palaver-pontificate in perpetuity. But eventually (maybe) the men’s movement will figure out where real, blood-curdling power resides: in the COMMENTS section of websites!”

    Politicians, hearing that, run screaming from buildings, begging Godzilla to protect them.

    ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    > I’ll get back to my theorizing…

    Puhleez. Don’t let ME stop you. Pondering is important, a needed break from all the laws and customs and so on the MRM created over the past 4-5 decades.

    > It is a slow transformation that must start on the individual level.

    I agree. The only thing that’s held back the MRM has been the absence of ponderous exegeses on first priniciples. So I’m setting things right, mending my ways. Henceforth, I shall fight feminists by myself, individually. I’m going to google, print, and place on the floor faces of prominent feminists. Then I’m going to “think good thoughts” while doing the Mexican Hat Dance, blind-folded.

    That’ll show ‘em what-for!

    Man, I really HEART this first-principle individual action stuff!

    • James Huff

      So….You still did not answer the question…what are YOU going to do? What ideas do you have that we can use? If you have ideas to put out then go for it. Name a specific objective.

      • STONE

        How might one go about resolving the conflicts between the first two principles?
        What are some good examples of failing to characterize based on merit? What are the most commonly adopted alternatives to characterization based on merit?

  • Shortcircuit

    I wanted to be ethical, but could not figure out how to calibrate my moral compass. The TV did not help, nor did church. Torture was said to be ethical. Wanting people to suffer based on what they called God was said to be ethical. Collective punishment was said to be ethical.

    This place contrasts with a culture that holds immaturity as enlightenment. Before reading this article I had already picked up these principles from this website and formulated my own foundation of ethics in real world terms from them. Mere exposure to an environment where they are dominant had helped tremendously.

  • guber

    Agreed.