Original Office Wall Art Piece – Pipe/Wood/Steel – Album on Imgur


An interesting example of how creative dream states can be. This fellow woke up at 2:25AM and drew an idea from his dream. Later, he was able to turn that sketch into a wall decoration.

It’s amazing what we miss out through our striving for sleep. Speaking from experience, a good idea is always worth writing down, especially if it’s good enough to wake you up.

Original Office Wall Art Piece – Pipe/Wood/Steel – Album on Imgur.

University, the Last Bastion of the Middle Ages

 The Degradation of the Academic Dogma


TIL Robert Nisbet, founder of Berkeley’s Sociology dept., believed believed that the university is the last vestige of Medieval society and that it has been under attack for the since 1945 by something called The Last Reformation.

The core value that has been under attack? That “Knowledge is important”, in the Aristotelian sense of the word. The university was meant, according to Nisbet, to stand apart from society and discover knowledge that could then be used by others. This Ivory Tower of separation is what actually kept the University autonomous as their purpose was only to discover and document, rather than become involved in social matters.

Social Change

Exhibit A, a masters degree in Women’s Studies.
Exhibit B, a Credited course on Male Privilege.

These classes are courses in Dogma, meant to change and lead people’s thinking. Of course there ought not to be solely One Truth, yet these fields of study are not intended to bring about knowledge. Instead,  the new philosophy of Universities is to bring about social change. This change of objective creates a sense of dependency and interconnection that compromises the University’s ability to objectively seek out and communicate knowledge.

In essence, Nisbet was observing the transition of Universities from reservoirs of knowledge to Institutions of  Social Change via the mechanisms that F.A. Hayek wrote about in his essay The Intellectuals and Socialism. Universities today are training camps of social dogma, wherein the average student will walk away a less competent and independent thinker.

We see this in the double standard language of campuses for example: advocating equality and freedom while at the same time denying open debates and shutting down Free Speech. The modern day University has the intended goal of reeducating people to think and believe certain things, instead of just teaching people knowledge.

Read More

Researching this essay led to the following Essay, Blending Social Theory with Effective Actions for Change

Hayek’s Theory of Social Change

Social Change

In Hayek’s essay Intellectuals and Socialism, Hayek laid out a novel theory as to how society is changed. Rather than assuming that the social powers are what influence and change society, it is the novel thinkers and prolific writers that draft the beliefs of our society.

The Four Levels of Social Change

Pyramid of Social Change, Hayek
Pyramid of Social Change, Hayek
  1. Scholars develop ideas and theories.
  2. Intellectuals take these ideas and spread them through the populace.
  3. The populace adopts these ideas over time and assumes the values are natural and common sense.
  4. Politicians use these ideas as the shared values and canvas upon which to enact their agendas.


Theory Applied

Communism and Marx

The Scholar Karl Marx,  crafted new ideas and theories.  The Scholar’s role is to create a novel theory and provide core values.

The Intellectual is represented by teachers, public figures, or populist artists.  Their role is that they communicate the Scholars’ ideas to the general populace.

The Populace adopt the ideas and incorporate them into their general beliefs. This is a crucial step as it represents more than straightforward, platonic adoption of the ideas.  Instead, it requires the people incorporating  these values into their personal worldview.

The Politician base their agendas around the social landscape of preexisting values and ideas established by the intellectuals and scholars. Rather than being the initiators of change, the politician is a reactionary manipulator who must meet both the desires of the populace as well as push forward their own goals.


The language has been updated, for instance an intellectual seems to cover both the scholar and the Bill Mahers out there, yet the ideas how up.

Like any essay, Hayek’s basic theory is too simple and easy to side step.  Hayek fails to  point out the the interplay between these groups and how they operate with the others levels, As an example, a politician can over time influence his constituency and intellectuals can become composite messengers of their combined learning meaning that there is no one single scholar informing the intellectual of what message to share. In addition,  Hayek fails to recognize that the intellectual will inevitably inject his own opinion and thereby warp, adjust, and modify the scholar’s concepts. As examples of these two points, let’s look at Ron Paul and Stalin.

The Good and the Bad and Ugly

Ron Paul was technically a politician, and so should be the lowest level in the order. However Dr. Paul’s character and adamant commitment to free market values made him the first glimpse into libertarianism for many people. Ron Paul was thus a lousy politician, but an excellent intellectual.

Joseph Stalin on the other-hand is an excellent example of an Intellectual perverting the Scholar’s message. Karl Marx had a simple belief that everyone could live intellectually and socially fulfilling lives while  at the same time engaging in manual labor. (A fisher and painter in the morning, and a factory worker in the evening).

Stalin took Marx’s message of equality to create a social conviction in shared suffering and collective prosperity, meaning that the poor were truly destitute and that the rich were merely more “Equal”.  As Orwell noted, some are just more Equal than others.


If you want to make a difference in the world, focus on what works rather than tradition. Socialism became dominant not because it was a better idea but because it was taught to younger generations.



Or why I know more than everyone and obviously should be Lord Imperious of the Free World and also France.


From my two and a half years involvement with the libertarian movement, I have pulled together a personal theory of the ideal society and methods for crafting said society. Like any good libertarian, I have a funny name that no one will recognize.

I am a pragmatic Communitarian Agorist. In short, I believe in people helping people.  So, let me get started and lay it out.


Pragmatism is taking the best course of action without bias as to methodology or philosophy. It is a fluid methodology of getting to the desired result. So long as the values are not violated, feel free
adapt to situations.

Primary Values

Pragmatism without values leads to ruthless evil. Values guide the pragmatism and give it sight and goals. The values are as follows:

  1. That people be free to live their lives.
  2. That people be free to help one another.
  3. That no one harms another without just cause.

Chicago School of Economics

The Chicago School of Economics is simply a pragmatic approach to economics. The question is not based on principles, it is on end results. The conclusion is simply that all systems will make mistakes, both governments and free markets. The difference is that governments have a well-established history of making bigger messes than free markets. Therefore, free market solutions are
preferable to government solutions, whenever possible.

What is Agorism?

Agorism* is the strategy of starving the government of its justifications by meeting the needs of the people. By helping people, the government is not needed, and so will have minimal to non-existent influence over the community.

What is Communitarianism?

Communitarianism is the social theory that freedom and liberty is not ensured by the individual but by the community. An individual given freedom does not ensure freedom for his fellow human beings, but a community that values freedom given liberty ensures liberty for everyone.

Communitarian Agorist

The Communitarian Agorist then is a community that values freedom and works to meet the needs of the people in and around the community. The individual is empowered by and through the community to do maximum good. In essence, libertarians desire communities comprised of libertarians, yet by putting communities as the focused structure, individual liberty is given greater structure and long term viability than if the focus were placed on individuals.

  • The liberty value helps keep the community from being insular as well as placing priority on the individual.
  • Rule of Law will work to ensure people’s rights and freedom.

Done as Done

So, I hope that helps explain my overall idea. I am a devout follower of brevity, but I’ll follow up with actual explanations of how this all comes together.



Respect Through Offense


Respect through Offense

I adhere to the concept of respect through offense. Now, to explain this idea, I am going to paint a picture for you. Imagine a Christian is walking by and sees a gay couple on the street. Now, the Christian and the gay couple give each other a nice long stair. Neither likes what they see. The Christian has a big King James Bible, and the gay couple have cut off shorts with the pockets going past where the jeans have been cut off.

Now, arguably we’re all offended by the cut off jeans, but let us move one. Who is at fault here? The Christian or the gay couple? My vote, neither is guilty. They both offended each other and both deserve to be offended. Offense is not a crime. Not only is offense not a crime, it is a sign of respect.

Weaker Brothers

When you self censor yourself or allow others to make you do that,
out of fear of offending someone else because “they’re weaker
brothers” or such like, You are asserting yourself over them as their
betters or superior. Hiding your opinions from them because you don’t believe they can’t take it. mark-twain-censorship-quote1
Instead, people should expect to be offended now and again. When you respect a person enough to give them your actual opinion, offensiveness and all, you’re giving them a compliment. They may even learn something or have their views broadened.

PC or Opie & Anthony

People can be insensitive, they can forget to think about everyone else in a room and say something rude. There are two ways we can deal with this, either we say nothing which could potentially offend someone (Which is everything) or we expect ourselves to grow up.

Now, I am not talking about going up to people and trying to make them cry. There is a definitive difference between offending someone and harming them.

Harm Versus Offense

To harm someone with your words is to use a connection that bypasses a person’s defenses and hurts them personally. To offend someone is to say something that agitates them. If a person starts a fight over something said, that is offense and not harm. The distinction between the two is when there is a known emotional hurt or vulnerability for a given topic or issue. Harm is done when someone deliberately hits on those topics to cause emotional distress and pain in another person.

Now, let us say a person is lording over a rape victim, making jokes about it, such a person is not just being offensive. He or she is inflicting actual, emotional harm. While there is no law against such behavior per se, it would take a special kind of piece of crap to do that. Anyone and everyone would and should be completely justified in not speaking to such a person.

White Knights

The other issues to consider is when someone takes offense on someone else’s behalf.
Taking on other people’s offenses is a terrible breach of
communication. To be offended on another person’s behalf is
detrimental because there are no limits on what that person may do, especially if the victim is a hypothetical. If someone in the room is not being harmed, there is no foul.

Final Thought

This idea is not a full expression or guide for social behavior. There are times when being confrontational or offensive are neither beneficial, kind, nor constructive. Not everyone is well suited to being offensive either, some folks are just too darn nice!
That said, people do need to try and grow up a little.

Dislocated Hipster

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAMost hipsters brag about liking things way before you ever did. Not me, I like stuff after it’s way out of fashion. Razr phone? Just got mine. Breaking Bad? Just started (Skyler should be more supportive). Car? Buick, 1999 Cruise Control is really handy! I hear they’re working on these things called Ipads. Sounds a little pod people to me, but hey what do I know?

Be a dislocated hipster and celebrate how old and not in style you are.

Quotes by Viktor Frankl

Viktor Frankl, a neurologist and psychiatrist,  believed that between stimuli and response, there is a personal volition and will.  From his experiences in Nazi death camps, Frankl came to believe that people cannot avoid pain, however they can choose how to respond to that pain. His theory of logotherapy is that man, rather than being motivated by pleasure, is the pursuit of meaning. Further, Frankl believed that man is not wholly dependent on the circumstances for his or her actions, instead having a choice. “Man is not fully conditioned and determined but rather he determines himself whether he give in to conditions or stands up to them. In other words, man is self-determining. Man does not simply exist but always decides what his existence will be, what he will become in the next moment.” (Man’s Search for Meaning, p. 131 to 134)


1fb967d0e1003f3980f59f8145bb5347 26-mar-2014-Viktor-Frankl Continue reading Quotes by Viktor Frankl