I did a couple interviews in the past two weeks, both with new college graduates, touching on issues ranging from the career choices they’re facing in our present economy to my book’s themes to whether Youporn beats Porntube. In the first, I answered the questions. In the second, which will be up in the coming week or so, I did the questioning and answered some follow-ups, not unlike the Sex Drugs and Death (A Trifecta of American Hangups) and A Running Conversation on the Intersection of Work and Life pieces I did with Dr. Rob of Shrinktalk a few months back.*
The first was for a writer calling himself the Velveteen Lust Catcher. Yes, the name caught my interest. Here are a couple excerpts and the link:
It seems that we have at least one thing in common when it comes to a Libertarian viewpoint, and you’ve mentioned in a past exchange that this sentiment is probably more widespread than it seems. I agree with you. The lack of cohesion among free thinkers most likely results from the absence of an appropriate atmosphere to express thought. What do you think the answer to that is? Can the mighty internets save us all? Or do you think we’ll see the same degradation that we have with most mainstream media platforms?
I don’t think individual thinkers will get together en masse because, by definition, they don’t easily congeal behind any movement. Most rational people – and I think there are a lot of them out there – compile bits and pieces of various ideologies to form their views. The Internet’s a wonderful device for creating independent thinkers because of the number of different viewpoints competing on it. But I don’t think it will create a wave of independent thinkers arguing for logical, sensible policies. Those people tend to look at the broader systems, recognize them as hopelessly flawed and corrupt and focus on taking care of themselves.
[Do] you think that your criticisms of human behavior in the legal profession are specific only to that, or can it be applied on a more general scale? Is there something about human nature that allows individuals to fall so easily into the power structure of social and “corporate” hierarchy? Do you think it’s just easier for people in general to buy into the illusion that they’re important, or is there something about the Legal field in particular?
I guess we’re just pack animals, and you have to play the game to compete for resources in this regulated jungle of ours. Regarding law, I think it attracts a lot of people – men, mostly – who are making up for shortcomings elsewhere. The title, the “prestige” it used to confer. The male ego’s a ridiculously fragile thing, and nowhere is its weakness more on display than in law. Wall Street, sales, entertainment… People say professionals in those fields are driven by ego. I think they’re driven more by money. Law’s different. It’s not a direct path to big money. I think the real currency a lot of lawyers are seeking is respect.
Along with most of my friends, I’ve just graduated from college. No one can find a job in this shit-storm. Any advice for the class of 2009?
I’m actually doing a long interview on that shortly. Should be on the site next week or the week after. Short answer? Don’t stress. You won’t have to explain the resume gaps for the next five years. Employers will understand why you were not working. And start looking for a career doing what you like. The luxury of having limited options is you might as well try to succeed at what you love. There’s no “Plan B” for you to follow just for the money.
___________________________________
* For people who asked in the past when Dr. Rob and I would do another piece, hopefully soon. We’ve discussed doing one about dicks – what environmental factors make a person a dick, why some people seem predisposed to the condition, etc.
Haha if you and Rob to a piece debating the differences between dicks, douchebags, and assholes – how each tends to arise in nature, the expression of said dickery or douchebaggery, and how to deal with them, I would lose my shit. No joke – a tag team of a respected psychiatrist and a… uh, PhilaLawyer, could seriously turn that into a whole book. Definitely looking forward to that piece.
PL: Look up “Sudden Asshole Syndrome” in the book. Or are you fucking with me here? If so, you’re damn dry… Good on you.
Didn’t even read the interview because I am too tired and pissed off from a long day of boring retail work. Yes, I am still in college but I have a general question for you. I highly admire work by both you and Tucker but I relate to both your stories and philosophical principles much more than Tuckers. My question is, is this really all that is out there? Is life just an act as an escape artist? It seems nothing changes with age, sure the jobs pay more, but the misery is still the same. You and Tucker seem to always suggest that there is another way, and while I am a talented writer I don’t think that is the alternative route for me. Where and how do you go about looking for this “alternative”?
PL: I was listening to Woody Allen on NPR the other morning and he said something about working on his movies being a diversion from the inescapable fact that life’s pretty much random, chaotic and lacking in design or purpose (save the biological ones we’re aware of). Now, you could take that as a really negative view of life. Or, one could say that it’s healthy, and that the real path through this life is try to do what you want – something that excites you and you live to do. But a lot of us can’t do that, for a variety of reasons. So what do you do? I’d say, as I did in the “Commencement” pieces, that rather than grind five days then escape on the weekend, make every day a vacation. Don’t put yourself in debt using money to make up for the absence of fulfillment at work like 80% of this country does. Stay in a posture where you’re economically strong enough to absorb a layoff or termination here and there and make your job – whatever it is – an amusement. Play the game. Bet big and be prepared to shrug it off when you lose. The job only controls people who let it control them – people who saddle themselves with consumption-related debt. If you never let them put the fish-hook in your mouth, you’ll never feel stressed going to work. You won’t obsess about failure. You won’t be afraid of your boss. And you know what’s odd about people who don’t give a shit? They tend to get ahead. They get respect. Grinders and paranoid perfectionists? They get ahead too, sometimes, but you don’t want to be them.
In sum – stay out of debt. That’s how they trap you. And never, ever, take any of it seriously. Unless you’re a heart surgeon or head of state, most of the jobs in this country are artificial, pointless administrative tasks. Treat the office like a McLife. Game it, get what you can from it and who knows? Maybe you’ll wind up running the place, and actually have fun at it. I’m not sure this is an ultimately healthy way for everyone to think, but since you asked this question, I’ve a feeling it might work for you.
As to finding the “alternative”… I’m still looking. I’ll look until I die because I can’t help wondering what doing something else – learning something else – might be like. As to Tucker, I can’t speak for him, but my guess is he will always be throwing himself into new ventures. I think he has one of those minds that needs to always be building something. As to you, it’s subjective. You’ve got to look until you find it, or make the act of looking your thing. I’m sorry I can’t help more, but I’m me, not you.
What’s with people skipping your posts and heading straight to the comments?
The problem being a libertarian is that it’s not really a political philosophy at all in the traditional sense. It’s sort of like how atheism isn’t a set of religious beliefs. Libertarians (little “L”) are such a disparate group (and not disparate as in a “large umbrella” the political parties always talk about) that you could never really form a cohesive group. The Libertarian Party is almost a misnomer. Maybe all this is just semantics, but I tend to think of libertarianism as more of a life philosophy than political beliefs.
Maybe that’s why people who describe themselves as libertarians split left and right on election day. That or maybe our two-party political system sucks.
PL: I think he was saying he didn’t want to know what the interview said because it would only make him more disillusioned. Why I’m not sure. It’s actually neutral.
I see your point on Libertarianism and I agree. It’s the cult of thinking for yourself. And it can’t be openly embraced frequently because its silliest adherents have framed it in the public eye as something ridiculous and filled with fringe elements. I’m Libertarian, but with caveats. I realize we need certain, minimal safety nets because politically, humanely, we can’t have a complete live and let die society.
The problem is the left’s and right’s orthodoxies are, as you note, “packages of values” people can “believe” in and “identify” with, whereas my favored approach is ripped as “moral relativism.” That the word “relative” has become synonymous with “bad” or “evil” in this country indicates how moronically polarized political debate in this country has become.
Most of your comment responses (Dan’s in particular) could be posts on their own….I love it.
But why do you gotta hate on the short guy in your interview? Is taking orders from a 6’2″ lawyer any less soul-crushing?
PL: Thanks. No, no less soul crushing. That’s just how it went. The ones I worked with who were most obnoxious and irritating were little. It’s not a rule, of course, but that was my experience. I have to no issue with those of shorter stature generally.
I agree with the idea that libertarianism is more of a personal philosophy–not to steal, not to depend on others, not to impede the freedom of others, etc.–not some ideology that is to be taken as dogma or to become a movement.
I went to a very hardcore libertarian college in Guatemala for a semester and HATED it, though I do lean toward these beliefs. People who disagreed or saw something off with the place and way it propagated ideas pretty much could be broken down into 2 camps: 1) those that become social democrats and rant all day about how Mises didn’t believe that everybody should be educated 2) Those that decided what you say–that every one of these systems is actually flawed and become less partisan.
I became the latter. I hated the way people were so smug, acting as if they had the answers to everything. They had memorized the words of Hayek, and yet had a very shocking lack of understanding or compassion for the 60% of the population that is living on a few dollars a day, among other things. It’s a very intellectually vacant environment, more about being right than doing anything, more about justification than a self-examination.
I do like what Ron Paul says but I have this reaction against him because of his followers and this mindset about the whole movement. It’s the same thing I saw in college–seeming indoctrination (it’s the reaction/absorption to/of facts I mean, not their veracity) and a willingness to listen to criticism but never to take it seriously.
So, in comparison with these ways of looking at politics, I don’t see anything wrong with a certain level of incoherency when it comes to personal beliefs. Life isn’t so black and white as to be able to delineate definite rules of action. All of these systems don’t really allow for such a wide variation in human nature and certainly are not a panacea.
Sometimes this has to be learned the hard way, though.
PL: Emerson has my proxy on consistency in anything. Show me a man who’s proud of that above all else and I’ll show you a profound bore.
My views are perpetually in flux, but generally mimic yours. I can’t abide strident libertarianism because its inhumane. We need some baseline safety nets. That said, I’m just as appalled by bleeding heart economic liberals. A society isn’t judged by how it treats its weakest, in my opinion. It’s judged on how well it allows individual freedom to flourish while keeping order. I don’t support any “leveling of the playing field,” of any kind. You’re born where you are and you play the cards you’re dealt.
I heard recently that you can get a master’s degree in Beatles Studies at some college in Liverpool. Does one of your current projects involve convincing the bastards at Penn to start a Department of AC/DC Studies?
PL: It’d be a half hour long:
Play these 3 chords
Play a standard rock beat, a tad bit slow
Play a flat, repeating bassline
Scream like a motherfucker
Insert solo somewhere
That’s all you need to be one of the greatest rock and roll bands in history. Well, that and an excellent pile of amazingly catchy tunes. They’re one of the few hard rock outfits that are infectiously danceable. Sadly, as I’ve noted elsewhere, the only thing you can’t do to AC/DC is fuck.