I’ve just read a very short book, only 22 pages long, called “As a Man Thinketh” by James Allen which almost seems like a condensed inspirational version of “Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill which is actually given through AsAManThinketh.net.
It is an excellent book and considering how short it is I’d mark it as a must read. It’s not much longer than some longer articles found commonly on the web. The only criticisms I have for the book is that the author sometimes seems to imply or is at least unclear about the existence of absolute “right” and “wrong”, or “good” or “bad” and thus judges certain thoughts as good or bad, pure or impure etc.
I believe that such valuations are really in the eyes of the beholder because reality outside of thinking and feeling beings does not think and feel and therefore cannot perceive nor contain inherent “good” or “bad”. It is only an individual human which asigns such values to things. That said, however, all sentences in the book which encourage “good” thoughts against “bad” thoughts can be read as suggesting you to nourish what you believe to be good thoughts.
Another critique I would add is against his use of words such as “selfish” in a negative way even while describing a philosophy which is essentially about pursuing ones own dreams and desires (which is essentially selfish). But this may merely be my misunderstanding of the context from which he was writing or a flaw of english language where even words like “selfish” can have dual and contradictory meanings. For instance “selfish” could at the same time describe “individual pursuit of happiness and self-responsibility” and “pursuit of power over others out of lack of self-responsibility”.
That said, the book is a jewel. It artfully expresses the idea that an individual’s character is a sum of his thoughts, that thoughts lead to acts which shape our circumstances and therefore our entire destiny. It certainly fits well with the belief I’ve already been developing. Every act is met by a reaction from the reality around us. We then judge this reaction, this consequence, as either good or bad for us and based on that, if we are thinking and keeping ourselves aware, we can adjust our acts to get better consequences. And to do that we have to adjust our thoughts and by that our character.
So indeed, what we think is what we are. Our thoughts and ideas are the sum of who we are. And this largely affects our circumstances in life. This is why there is nobody but yourself to blame if your circumstances are bad to you and why there is much less of such things people call “bad luck” or “good luck” than is commonly thought.
Here is a quote that particularly stuck with me:
“It has been usual for men to think and to say, “Many men are slaves because one is an oppressor; let us hate the oppressor!” But there is amongst an increasing few a tendency to reverse this judgment and to say, “One man is an oppressor because many are slaves; let us despise the slaves.”
The truth is that oppressor and slaves are cooperators in ignorance, and, while
seeming to afflict each other, are in reality, afflicting themselves. “
This actually reminded me of a thought I had after watching “V for Vendetta” movie, that rulers in seeking power over others lose power over themselves whereas those being ruled let themselves to be ruled only because they could not rule themselves. Essentially, both the rulers and the ruled are playing the same exact game and inflicting on themselves the same exact poison, and all end up losers. And they are both consumed by fear.
So what can the few of people who know and understand this do in face of the masses who administer this poison to themselves? Should we despair as we see them wallowing in the pain and chaos (endless war, between governments and between rulers and ruled) they created for themselves fearing that we will be caught in their cross fires?
It wont do us any good, obviously. The best thing we can do is live free and be an example while conveying our ideas to those who are actually willing to listen. We can’t hope to send a more powerful message and more greatly influence the world any other way.
And in line with that, here is another quote:
“Dream lofty dreams, and as you dream, so shall you become. Your vision is the promise of what you shall one day be; your ideal is the prophecy of what you shall at last unveil.
The greatest achievement was at first and for a time a dream. The oak sleeps in the acorn; the bird waits in the egg. And in the highest vision of a soul a waking angle stirs. Dreams are the seedlings of realities.
Your circumstances may be uncongenial, but they shall not remain so if you only perceive an ideal and strive to reach it. You can’t travel within and stand still without.”




August 10th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
[...] for yourself and face the consequences of your choice, because you are what you think and you can’t escape [...]
August 13th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Interesting booklet. My opinion about it differs at one point, though: I think it’s WAY too optimistic. Lots and lots and lots of people are born into or otherwise accidentally get into circumstances they can never truly conquer. Tell “your circumstances are mostly your own fault” to the unregistered 4th child of a poor farmer in China, or the victim of a xenophobic mob who could only become that because he was trying to improve his life by moving abroad, or one of the countless other examples.
But I can forgive that positive attitude of the book - without it, it would inspire people to just give up on their ambitions, rather than to pursue them.
I do have a question concerning this fragment:
A man only begins to be a man when he ceases to whine and revile, and commences to search for the hidden justice which regulates his life. And as he adapts his mind to that regulating factor, he ceases to accuse others as the cause of his condition, and builds himself up in strong and noble thoughts; ceases to kick against circumstances, but begins to _use_ them as aids to his more rapid progress, and as a means of discovering the hidden powers and possibilities within himself.
The question is: in what year do you plan to run in the elections?
I expect your first response will be “Huh?”, and the second will be “But I don’t want to participate in oppression!”. But consider this: the existence of the government is a circumstance, and one you arguably “whine and revile” about. What you want is maximal freedom for everyone, which in my opinion is not achievable within your lifetime. A more realistic goal is a smaller government, which is a good step for future voluntaryists to build upon (or should I say delete upon?) towards having no government at all. What circumstance is obviously available for you to work towards that goal? To create or join a political party, of course! Or did you have any other ideas that put you in a position where you can shrink the government?
Ah yes, you could try the Free State Project first. Problematic circumstance: getting through the immigration bureaucracy. Do you have any skills that are especially wanted in the USA? Or an American girl who wants to marry you? Another difficulty: how will the rest of the US respond when one state declares independence? I expect it will more likely be with tanks than with a shrug…
This is of course only my opinion, but I think the best chances for reaching your “more freedom” goal are through getting into Croatian politics. Like the book suggests, you should make use of circumstances rather than complain about them or merely try to avoid them.
So I ask again: what year?
August 13th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Hey,
> Lots and lots and lots of people are born into or otherwise accidentally get into circumstances they can never truly conquer.
One thing that’s absolutely under your control is your mind - your thoughts and feelings. You can color the situation with positive or negative thoughts and feelings and thereby decide your fate. If there is even a slightest chance of improving your situation even a little, a positive attitude will find it. A negative attitude, on the other hand, will not only make you blind to it, but will make everything seem increasingly worse and thus BE increasingly worse.
So I agree, circumstances can be tough, but there’s only two directions in which you can go from there, and it largely depends on you which direction you’ll go in.
> What you want is maximal freedom for everyone, which in my opinion is not achievable within your lifetime.
More than anything else I want maximal freedom for myself, the only one to which I can guarantee it, because freedom is a state of mind. I now believe that this is the best way to pursue freedom for others as well. “Be the change you want to see in the world.”
A lot of people don’t really want more freedom. And so I can’t do anything about them nor should I. This is the reason why I wont go into politics.
> A more realistic goal is a smaller government, which is a good step for future voluntaryists to build upon (or should I say delete upon?) towards having no government at all.
Agreed. This is why I support Ron Paul’s Revolution movement which is merely a matter of pragmatism since his message is bringing people so much closer to the insights I believe in. But that is Ron Paul, a statesman, probably a minarchist, someone who still believes in a coercive monopoly, only one that does less.
To become “him”, which is what you essentially suggest, is to either reject my voluntaryist beliefs or contradict them (live a lie). I can’t do that.
Also, to go into politics would mean trying to force my way upon the minority who doesn’t really want to go that way. As I said, some people don’t want more freedom. Some people value the illusion of security more that the reality of freedom. Who am I to force them to choose their health insurance instead of just getting a poor one “for free” from the state for having their tax removed from their salary? It’s convenient. They don’t have to think about it. They feel safe. They like their ignorance. To become someone who would legislate and therefore force such a system away from them without their consent would mean going against everything I believe in.
“Live and let live” goes both ways.
> Like the book suggests, you should make use of circumstances rather than complain about them or merely try to avoid them.
Who am I? That is the question I have to ask before asking “What are my circumstances?” and “Am I satisfied with them?”. This is because who I am affects how am I going to view the circumstances.
In other words, if I should attempt to force my way on to others by the “democratic process” (which is still force, at least on the minority), I would be creating a circumstance I actually consider negative.
I am a voluntaryist and I am free not because someone else says I am or because someone doesn’t threaten force against me for being who I am, because neither is true, but because I control my own mind no matter what and I am building a mentality which breeds no fear and other destructive emotions.
I’d rather die as who I am than live a lie. Maybe I am finally grasping the idea behind: “Live free or die.”
> So I ask again: what year?
If I continue being who I am, never.
August 15th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Yes, “live and let live” goes both ways, but wouldn’t you agree that if the majority wanted a smaller or no government, you making the government smaller would mean less force when you add all together? So, by your inaction, you’re contributing to the continued existence of a too large amount of force. In other words, by not joining the government in order to work towards removing it, the existence of the government becomes partially your fault.
My conclusion is that you really believe the “minority that doesn’t want to go that way” is the majority. Which is of course fine, except that by calling the disagreeing majority a minority you’re pretending to have support that you don’t.
I’m expecting the “inaction isn’t force” argument now, so I ask you this: if a deaf man were standing on a road, a car was approaching very fast from behind him, and you decided not to make gestures, wouldn’t that be an initiation of force?
I know it’s not an equivalent situation. It’s meant as a clear example.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
> Yes, “live and let live” goes both ways, but wouldn’t you agree that if the majority wanted a smaller or no government, you making the government smaller would mean less force when you add all together?
I suppose so.
> So, by your inaction, you’re contributing to the continued existence of a too large amount of force. In other words, by not joining the government in order to work towards removing it, the existence of the government becomes partially your fault.
But it is not inaction. Joining or forming a political party and running for the office is not the only way to act on this.
I am and will continue to influence people and spread the idea which may ultimately make them withdraw their support for the whole system altogether or just make it irrelevant.
A strategy which I find most compelling involves simply starting companies which compete with the government in the markets which government coercively monopolizes, growing them to a point at which the government is not able to destroy this competition without also severely hurting their own “business”.
That’s all government is, after all. It is just a business which uses force to compell people to be their customers and to force the competition out of their markets. If, however, despite all their force, they fail to make competition go away, the obvious outcome is that their force becomes irrelevant. People choose to buy services from someone else anyway, their funding goes to trash and they can’t even afford to war against everyone anymore.
This strategy is called “agorism”. I could also sum it up as “drown the coercive monopolist with competition - the one thing it wanst to avoid at all cost”.
And if and when government finally gives up the business of coercion, it simply turns itself into one of the companies competing like the rest in the free market.
If I were to join the government, however, I would just be joining this one coercive monopolist to make it stay, but just pick less markets to initiate this force in - like I would just make it get out of the health and pension insurance market and have it stay only in the defense market (police) because that’s what the majority wanted (in the hypothetical scenario you seem to describe).
It’s akin to joining Microsoft to make it less of a monopoly on operating systems instead of pushing competition.
> if a deaf man were standing on a road, a car was approaching very fast from behind him, and you decided not to make gestures, wouldn’t that be an initiation of force?
It wouldn’t be an initiation of force, but I would feel very very VERY bad about myself if I didn’t force him off the cars way, which is why I’d probably do that and then hope that the old man forgives my life saving intrusion and doesn’t press charges for reparations.
Which is, obviously, very likely what he would do, unless he actually wanted that car to hit him.
But you’re right, it’s not an equivalent situation at all.
Cheers
August 16th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Interesting. You do realize that people have to pay for government services anyway, and that makes your product more expensive in practice, no matter how little you charge? You will be able to create a market for the rich people, not for everyone. Consider for example private clinics: they aren’t truly competing with hospitals.
As for the deaf man: what if you disliked him, or he owned a company that competes with yours - still not an initiation of force? It’s my opinion that someone who doesn’t do the cost-free and risk-free minimum to save another person is guilty as hell. You’re of course welcome to have a different opinion.
But, you’re right, you’re not inactive towards the government “problem”, but trying to solve it in a different way. You’re working against the circumstances instead of using them for your own goals, though, which from my perspective is a bit silly.
In the end it all comes down to it that you’re a man of principles, and I’m more interested in results.
Random thought: if someone tried to bribe you, you would give back the money, whereas (depending on whether it could harm my position or cause unacceptable risks) I might accept it and then ignore what they asked me to do. Why? Because then I will have money, and they won’t be able to use the same to bribe a more corrupt person
!
August 16th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
> You do realize that people have to pay for government services anyway, and that makes your product more expensive in practice, no matter how little you charge?
Yes, if they have fear.
> You will be able to create a market for the rich people, not for everyone.
Not just rich people, but you’re right not everyone either. It is for anyyone who has no fear and actually believes the competing service to be better and worth it.
No competition is for everyone after all nor does it have to be, so long as it’s enough to be serious competition.
> As for the deaf man: what if you disliked him, or he owned a company that competes with yours - still not an initiation of force?
No. I didn’t do anything to him so of course it’s not. I’m not, however disagreeing with you that initiating a life saving force in that instance wouldn’t be the right thing to do. I’m just saying that pushing him would be initiation of force and not pushing him wouldn’t - that’s all.
> It’s my opinion that someone who doesn’t do the cost-free and risk-free minimum to save another person is guilty as hell.
Well I wouldn’t say he is guilty of that persons death. I would say, however, that he is guilty of not taking the initiative when the opportunity to save a life presented itself.
An easily misunderstood aspect of the non-initiation of force is that it is not just about not initiating force, but that it is also about being responsible for the consequences when you do. This means that if my gut and ethics tell me that I have to initiate force on someone for his own good and I do it, I don’t somehow expect my initiation of force to be justified by the good I perceived I was doing. It is up to the person who has been forced to decide if he should forgive my intrusion or seek reparations. And I have to accept his judgment, because it is his space I invaded.
The problem today is that people not only willingly initiate force, but are suffering absolutely no consequences of doing so nor paying any reparations. I’m talking about politicians mostly of course.
So, you’re asking me to become a politician and to therefore inevitably use force on a number of people without paying any reparations for it. This is not only unprincipled. It is actually bad for the health of my mentality - power corrupts as you know - I will get used to forcing my will on those people without any reparations until I start feeling like that’s OK. Do you really think that after years in politics I would not become that corrupt?
> You’re working against the circumstances instead of using them for your own goals, though, which from my perspective is a bit silly.
I suppose I see different circumstances than you do. What you call using the circumstances for my own goals I see as perpetuating them.
Besides, do you really think that I have a realistic chance of succeeding at what you’re proposing me to do? The process could take a decade or more and within this decade those in power may only make it harder for my message to get through and for me to ever win any elections. So chances are great that when I look back at what I was doing I would find myself participating in the system I hate in order to fight it, yet made no real progress - a waste of time and energy.
No. I should do it the right way. Then even if I fail, at least I will know that I didn’t betray myself, that I didn’t fail ME. Even if I fail, I would still be a winner.
> In the end it all comes down to it that you’re a man of principles, and I’m more interested in results.
I’m looking for both. But I think you’re misunderstanding my results.
I am a single person. I have lots of ambitious goals, and they’re not all about changing the world. If I don’t take care of myself I wont be able to take care of anybody else. I first have to prove myself a success before I can bring it to someone else.
> Random thought: if someone tried to bribe you, you would give back the money, whereas (depending on whether it could harm my position or cause unacceptable risks) I might accept it and then ignore what they asked me to do. Why? Because then I will have money, and they won’t be able to use the same to bribe a more corrupt person
!
That made me smiley too.
But if you look a few steps further doing that might not end up so well for you. You’re hurting your credibility to a point at which not only nobody who knows about what you did would ever want to bribe you again (thus giving you no chances to pull that feat again), but those who would pay you to do something that doesn’t involve any sort of a fraud might think twice.
They might worry that you will just take their money too and decide not to do what you’re paid for them either, because you think doing that would be wrong. Do you see where I’m getting at? Instead of using your personal ethics to refuse the payment in the first place, you’re using it not to do what you’re paid for and since nobody can know for sure what your personal ethics are, even those who want to do something you might consider legitimate, might have a hard time trusting you.
Principle sometimes pays. Just don’t do it and find another way to stop the fraud, like.. reporting him to the press.
Cheers
August 17th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
… fear …
What are you going on about there? Maybe I was a bit unclear about what I meant. The state can always outcompete you by offering an identical product at a lower price, and filling the losses with money from taxes. Where does fear come into the picture?
By the way, the state participating in a market CAN be a good thing, if it’s benevolent. It prevents price agreements between companies in difficult to enter markets.
> It is up to the person who has been forced to decide if he should forgive my intrusion or seek reparations.
Do you think many people would be willing to save others if they could be sued for doing that? (Actually, such things already happen sometimes. Some people are incredibly ungrateful.)
Anyway, I wasn’t talking about pushing the deaf guy, I was talking about gesturing, which is not an initiation of force (although still risky in the above way: mean money-loving people could claim you caused the accident by distracting the guy).
> Even if I fail, I would still be a winner.
You mean that if you fail, you could still feel good about it. Fair enough, and of course there are plenty of things that I just won’t do even though they would open lots of possibilities for me. I guess I just don’t see government as it is here and now as a fundamentally evil thing.
> They might worry that you will just take their money too and decide not to do what you’re paid for them either, because you think doing that would be wrong.
So they would make me sign contracts.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
> The state can always outcompete you by offering an identical product at a lower price, and filling the losses with money from taxes. Where does fear come into the picture?
Who pays taxes and why? People who fear the retribution if they don’t.
I’m not saying there are some who genuinely don’t mind them and think it’s a good thing, but I wouldn’t bet that if they didn’t “have to”, that they would actually do it. They’d probably just give a bit more to charities instead.
> By the way, the state participating in a market CAN be a good thing, if it’s benevolent.
Again, the state is a business. If I can’t force you to pay for my advertising spots they shouldn’t force anyone to pay taxes or impose any sort of rules on how others do business.
There’s nothing benevolent about that.
> It prevents price agreements between companies in difficult to enter markets.
Yet it itself participates in price manipulation by a breadth of laws and regulations or even directly.
> Do you think many people would be willing to save others if they could be sued for doing that?
You could be fisted in your face when you save others as well. Would you still do it? Do you actually expect them to face fist you? I guess not. So what’s the problem?
> Anyway, I wasn’t talking about pushing the deaf guy, I was talking about gesturing, which is not an initiation of force
Oh, I agree there. But if you don’t gesture, clearly, you don’t initiate force either.
> You mean that if you fail, you could still feel good about it.
I guess that’s one fair way of putting it, but I am sticking with the word “winner”. Every failure is nothing more than a piece of information. It is our feelings which add a negative value to it. Without them, all failure tells you is that you didn’t get what you were trying to achieve and that you may have made a mistake. You can then use it to ultimately succeed.
But if you don’t stay true to yourself then you’re not listening to the only one you can count on to make best use of this information.
> I guess I just don’t see government as it is here and now as a fundamentally evil thing.
The only thing I see as “evil” about it is their use of force as legitimate means of doing business. I don’t believe in governments for the exact same reason I don’t believe in armed gangs running neighborhoods. There’s really no difference fundamentally.
> So they would make me sign contracts.
Right, but don’t assume they need to be enforced by a one single business (AKA government) without being able to choose someone else. It seems that’s what you’re implying, and I reject it.
Cheers