The argument for a principled approach

Mens Rights Alberta  > AVFM, Men's Rights News >  The argument for a principled approach
David The Death Of Socrates 1

Author: James Huff

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. the 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. It is 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 D, never mind that Group M was forced at the point of a gun to give up their Product D by Politician X. Besides, that Group M has plenty of Product D, 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 M see that all their Product D is being “liberated” – I mean taken– from them so they naturally say “Why the fuck should we produce any more Product D if the guys holding all the guns are just going to take it from us and give it to a Group W, who can 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 D as they want is a Right. Of course, they heard that from Politician X, who promises them as much Product D as they need – I mean want – as long as they support him.

Eventually some people in Group M feel as if they should be in Group W, and stop producing Product D. Some people in Group M 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 M’s purposes just fine. This pisses off Group W, who now get less Product D 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 D.

Meanwhile, those remaining in Group M feel disenfranchised by the whole affair and decrease the production of Product D even further to the point where they can only sustain themselves, keeping Group W from getting hardly any Product D at all! Some of Group W decide to get some Product D for themselves by working for it, but the majority of Group W have been told it is their Right to have Product D on demand so they stay within the group and threaten Politician X that if more Product D 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 D is forthcoming but a New and Improved Product D+ as well!

Politician X, not wanting to sign books on the failure of his policies for the rest of his life forces Group A to disband on the threat of imprisonment or death and eventually tells everyone in Group M that if they do not begin producing Product D in surplus at once, and make some new and improved Product D+ 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 M 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 from an overproduction of Product R, which could supply Groups A and M but would totally screw over all those ass-hats in Group W and make them crawl on their knees and beg for the production of Product D 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 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 on 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 individuals, and allow the influence of those principles to be seen in society, 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.  My hope is that these ideas – these principles – are adopted by individuals in the MRM in order to paint a brighter future for you.

Featured Image By Jacques-Louis David –, Public Domain,

Original Story on AVFM
These stories are from
(Changing the cultural narrative)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *