Annotator's Note

A Few General Things

Hello, everyone. This is going to be a brief note before the book begins. When I purchased the book, I
wasn't entirely sure it was going to cover the ideas I hoped it would cover. Too often you get a book
with a synopsis that sounds awesome and it ends up just being a polemic with little substance. So I
wanted to read the whole book before sharing it. (Un)Fortunately, that means the book is covered in my
highlighting and notes. [One other side note: You will notice when my highlighter starts to die and you
will notice when it's basically completely dead and I go get a new one.]

Now, my highlighting and notes are personal. I did not make them thinking "hmm, when I scan this
book in, what would readers like to see". I made them thinking "how do I make connections so I
comprehend and remember this stuff". And those are the kind of notes I made. You may not agree with
many of the connections. That's fine. But by making connections between my reading of the book and
my understanding of other concepts, I am better able to understand what Safranek is explaining.

Some people may find this bothersome. I hope not many, but of course, it is possible people don't
enjoy seeing other people's writing on their book. Especially considering I do make a lot of notes
(sometimes highlighting entire paragraphs…I know I'm not supposed to do that, leave me alone). But
the way I read and comprehend is to make connections, and the copious notes are ways for me to
make those connections. Some of those connections may refer to concepts or people you've never
heard of.

Before continuing, I would like to note that a few people and concepts pop up frequently in my notes:

1. Zippy. Zippy (blog: https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com) is a blogger who writes on a variety of

topics, many times with a traditional catholic bent. And while you most definitely do not have to
agree with him on everything (I certainly don't), his writings on Liberalism are quite fascinating
(especially considering he seemed to grasp many of the things Safranek grasped long before The
Myth of Liberalism was ever published). Zippy was the first thinker who began to open my eyes to
the idea that Liberalism was self-refuting and logically incoherent. Safranek takes these arguments
to a whole different level, but I am indebted to Zippy for "waking me from my slumber", so to
speak.
2. Solzhenitsyn. I have considered Solzhenitsyn to be a brilliant writer and man (I read The Gulag
Archipelago in High School and One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich in College, and loved both
of them). The specific writing that I reference when I mention Solzhenitsyn is his 1979
Commencement Address at Harvard University. While many expected the Soviet Dissident and
 Exile to praise the West, he instead attempted to illuminate the West's own deficiencies (while not
promoting Communism as an alternative at all). The speech itself is fantastic and I highly
recommend either watching it, or reading the transcript. Both can be found online.
3. Huxley. Huxley's Brave New World is, along with Orwell's 1984, one of the great dystopian novels
of the 20th century. And personally, I think Brave New World may in fact be more relevant to
today's world than 1984. Huxley's portrayal of a society of people controlled through decadence
and what can only be described as programming has profound implications for the world we live in,
inundated with entertainment and multiple ways to be instantly gratified. While I don't expect
everyone to read the entire novel, the foreword alone (printed in the second edition of BNW around
1946 or 1947, I can't remember which) is enough to begin to get you to think about the world we
have built. I recommend reading it.
4. The Submission Paradox. This is a paradox I formulated a few months ago. Rather than
reproducing it here, I will point out that what it demonstrates is that to protect autonomy, we
sometimes must infringe upon autonomy, and that the current theories that place autonomy (aka,
choice) as a good (notably preference utilitarianism) would end up refuting themselves in the
process of justifying such a decision. In other words, the pursuit of autonomy as a goal refutes
itself. Safranek goes into this most significantly on page 28.

So beyond those theorists, I think most of the notes are books or concepts that can be googled and
found on your own time (explaining them all here would take way too much space). So if you're curious
about anything, google it. And if you still can't find it, ask me.

VERY Short Review

This book was phenomenal. I cannot sing its praises enough. I don't believe a more thorough take
down of the actual logical problems of Liberalism is available in the world today (and if it is, please
send it my way). Slowly marching his way through the concepts of Liberty, Autonomy, Equality, Rights,
Privacy, and Dignity, Safranek demonstrates that none of them can actually defend what Liberals claim
they defend.

Now, the one major critique I have of the book is that Safranek does sometimes get a bit ideological.
You see this especially towards the end of the book (hell, the last chapter is literally called "The
Postmodern Alternative"). But throughout, Safranek sometimes skirts some questions and is also
sometimes too kind to conservatives. It's a shame this occurs, especially since a number of his
critiques are still applicable against the people he seems to defend. But it doesn't happen anywhere
near often enough (in fact it still rarely happens) for me to give this anything below 5/5 stars. The book
would have been absolutely perfect if Safranek hadn't had those few times where his ideology bled
through, but overall the book is so much more than I could have asked for. Kudos, Mr. Safranek.

My Approach to Annotating
As noted earlier, I use annotations (primarily) to make connections. This means that many of my
annotations will reference other ideas (some listed above), but also that many of them will make
references to other parts of this book itself. I also use brackets frequently to denote a set of sentences I
think make a coherent point.

And then finally, many of the annotations aren't that serious. You will likely see many repetitions of little
things like "lol", "THIS", "savage", or other seemingly dumb or useless phrases. This is one of the ways
I make reading at least somewhat entertaining and don't lose all motivation within the first 10 pages. I
hope that won't be too much of a problem for people.

Guide to Difficult-to-Understand Annotations

Finally, I want to make a list of annotations that are difficult to see, either due to the scanner or my own
atrocious handwriting. I think most of the annotations (while not being pretty) are decipherable. But
some are very difficult to see.

This list should be a reference point while reading. It's not gonna tell you much (if anything) if you read
these before you've read the book.

Here is the list:

1. Page 28 (at the bottom): "For Autonomy to be meaningful requires a kind of individualist
subjectivism".

2. Page 32 (On the side): "Liberalism is inherently amoral".

3. Page 39 (On the top): "Imp. Note (Can't prove something reflexively - circular argument)".

4. Page 41 (On the right side, second note): "Basically plays a bait and switch".

5. Page 47 (On the right side, first note): "hugely important to understand egalitarian mindset".

6. Page 55 (On the right side, second note): "Kind of like Mackie's 'field'" (this is in relation to
Mackie's causal field in the study of causation. I relate it to a kind of "justificatory field" to help me
better understand the argument Safranek puts forth. If that makes no sense to you, that's totally
fine).

7. Page 63 (On the right side): "Potential counterpoint to my argument - address this".

8. Page 63 (On the right page, near the middle crease): "Polygamy encompasses polygyny and
polyandry".

9. Page 66 (On the left side, first note): "Interesting point. Must find essence of marriage".

10. Page 72(On the left side, third note): "He is defending the reasoning behind claims gay marriage is
not equal to traditional marriage".

11. Page 84(On the left side, first note): "Explanation of Dworkin's Argument".
12. Page 92(On the left side): "This (for the most part). Rights do seem to be decoupled from
responsibility".

13. Page 94(On the left side): "Final point is arguing using a weird version (imo) of the Harm Principle".

14. Page 96(On the left side, second major note): "This vascillation undermines both and supports
neither".

15. Page 98(On the left side, first note): "Freedom is just invisible coercion".

16. Page 99(On the right side, first note): "VERY Important. Responsibility undermines autonomy.
Liberalism is opposed to responsibility."

17. Page 104(On the left side, first note): "One point is Safranek is likely too kind to conservatives".

18. Page 106(On the left side, first note): "As demonstrated, would have to prove singles and married
people were same situation".

19. Page 107(On the right side, first note): "More Liberals playing semantics for justification hooray".

20. Page 109(On the right side): "Important description of voluntarist defense of abortion".

21. Page 110(On the left side): The notes point out that the definitions of liberty, autonomy, and dignity
are indistinguishable (and therefore they are equivalent terms).

22. Page 111(On the right side):

1. "Definition of dignity"
2. "Circular Argument"
3. "Motte and Bailey argumentation"

23. Page 112(On the left side): "Notes once again the circular arguments used in cases".

24. Page 115(On the right side):

1. "Important note -> were they hostile to autonomy or abortion"

2. "Potential unintended consequences argument"

25. Page 124(On the left side, fourth note): "Modalities of empowerments and constraints".

26. Page 128(On the left side): "Appeal to popularity perhaps?".

27. Page 130(On the left side): "Is this not evidence of a lack of argument? If you had a moral defense,
you would posit it".

28. Page 131(On the right side): "And yet this argument by the S.C. leads to ->".

29. Page 137(On the right page, center crease): "Justificatory field" (this goes back to the point on
Mackie. Again, if you don't get it, that's fine. These notes were for my own understanding).

30. Page 137(On the right side): "A legitimate connection to victimhood culture? God damn".

31. Page 141(On the right side): "As in define 'liberty' as a good".

32. Page 146(On the left side):

1. There are two notes where I point out that Safranek might be begging the question, then
 realize he isn't when I read the next paragraph (I realized later when he discusses Natural Law
especially that he was not begging the question, but a mention of his arguments earlier might
have settled that problem before it ever arose).
2. Fourth note: "Doesn't seem very democratic lol"
3. Fifth(and final) note: "Similar to Fanatic discussion"

33. Page 150(On the left side, bottom of the page): "Important".

34. Page 151(On the right side): "demonstrates Liberal failures of justification".

35. Page 154(On the left side): "Savage. But still falls prey to majoritarian critique".

36. Page 156(On the left side, at the bottom): "Very true. There are ways around these critiques".

37. Page 157:

1. "And some may have no structural deficiencies(STV+Schulze)"

2. "Safranek's counter argument is not very compelling"

38. Page 158(On the left side, first note): "Pretty significnt point maybe against democracy as a whole".

39. Page 159(On the right page, center crease): "Against the Court".

40. Page 171(On the right side):

1. "Important as these examples can still fall prey to some critiques against Liberalism".
2. "Sounds simple but needs meat. Otherwise it is meaningless."
3. "This points out that the general principle could be used for voluntarism".

41. Page 175(On the right side): "Interesting when one considers dolphin 'rape'. Do dolphins have
reflective intent? -> Sign of a general ignorance to intent?"

42. Page 177(On the right side): "Lends credence to the argument that ontology is more fundamental
than epistemology" (this is a personal note, disregard it if you don't know what I'm talking about).

43. Page 178(On the left side): "Basically the foundationalist answer to the Munchaussen Trilemma".

44. Page 181(on the right side): "Moral coherence is prime".

45. Page 188(On the left side, bottom note): "This alone is sufficient to delegitimize much of
liberalism".

46. Page 189(At the top): "Doesn't seem very democratic -> almost like populism means 'a democratic
result I don't like'".

47. Page 195(On the right side): "Corrollary to submission paradox".

48. Page 198(On the left side): "This is potentially debatable".

49. Page 214(On the left side): "Very important".

50. Page 217(On the right side, second note): "Dogma".

51. Page 222(On the left side): "Again reminiscent of Solzhenitsyn".

52. Page 223

 1. (center crease): "Liberalism collapses into authoritarianism?"
2. "goddamnit Safranek you were so close"
3. "we traded one dogma for another"
4. (bottom)"good points on historical analysis"

53. Page 231(Bottom): "In other words, 'I am free to choose good or evil. I am not free to determine
what is good or evil.'"

54. Page 237(Right side): "Similar to CH Douglas' Views"

55. Page 245(Bottom): "Almost as if hedonism is a form of control? Brave New World anyone?"

56. Page 246(Left side, second note): "ethics of care for instance".

57. Page 251(Right side): "And those individuals are easier to control".

58. Page 253(top): "Almost like Hobbes didn't understand the hedonic treadmill".

59. Page 254:

1. "Brave New World, Society of the Spectacle, Bread and Circuses, etc."
2. "We have traded heros and role models for celebrities".

60. Page 256(Left side): "In fact ties into Marxist critiques of Capitalism".

Thank you, and enjoy the book.

-Apex