I'm sure it's been said before, but the Political Technology seems to trend toward legitimizing theft, violence and destruction of wealth (The Gun) because it's a quick way to a solution. Kind of like beating your child. Yeah, he shut up, and he's more afraid, so he's going to listen more.
A mature mind, prefers sustainable solutions, the Plowshare. "Give a man a fish..., teach a man to fish..."
Drop food from the air vs. build infrastructure and capital investment in a community to enable it to engage in production and accumulate wealth.
etc., etc.
There's a passage from a Taoist interpretation of Tao Te Ching that I read when I was in the military. "The Tao of Leadershp"
"Making people do what you think they ought to do does not lead to clarity and consciousness. While they may do what you tell them to do at the time, they will cringe inwardly, grown confused, and plot revenge.
This is why your victory is actually a failure."
Another interpretations says:
Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.
Weapons are the tools of fear; a decent man will avoid them except in the direst necessity and, if compelled, will use them only with the utmost restraint. Peace is his highest value. If the peace has been shattered, how can he be content? His enemies are not demons, but human beings like himself. He doesn't wish them personal harm. Nor does he rejoice in victory. How could he rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men? He enters a battle gravely, with sorrow and with great compassion, as if he were attending a funeral.
I would argue all political action should be entered into with such soberness of thought and humility.
Malachi:Thats a good post. As an aside, do you realize that the effectiveness of a weapon (in terms of its effect on changing human behavior) is roughly inversely proportionate to the weapon's frequency of use? That's an interesting comment, I hate to do this, but I'm guessing it's anecdotal from it's form, not analytic or empirical. Even so, part of the reason for my post, is that I think the libertarian position on government is simpler to sell when one recasts arguments in this way. Effective rhetorical framing of discussions and arguments is a huge part of the social dialog. Point out the guns and how their used, demonstrate how it turns production into slaves and thus destroys the options available for consumers. The Plowshare instead results in more of the goods available for consumption, reducing the marginal costs. | Post Points: 20
Guns dont kill people,
people kill people.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
So in reality...
Should we all fear ourselves???
Malachi, you're full of crap. Who in their right mind uses a gun to break stuff? We have perfectly acceptable bombs for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211
Its used to blow up stuff like radios, computers, antennas, vehicles etc. because sometimes its easier, faster, and cheaper for a highly skilled infantryman to destroy equipment, or at least make it stop working, from half a mile or more maybe. Thats the funny thing about these technology-driven militaries, the technology necessary to counter the advanced stuff is oftentimes much simpler and cheaper. The age of the private air force is at hand, diydrones.com
Or an artillery shell. Which is just a huge gun.
Now that i think about it, a hollow point .50 cal...... that would be a killer right there.
Not everyone's reaction to the "gun" seems to be the same.
I don't detest the government for taxing me.
I don't secretly plot revenge or seek freedom.
I simply want to wield that power myself.
The problem, from my point of view, with being too concerned with sustainability is that life itself is (at least at present) unsustainable.
One way or another we're all going to die. And while some percentage of our genes may come to live on in our grandchildren or great-grandchildren, our individual genetic profiles will be diluted through reproduction and the neural processes known as "David B" or "Bloom" or whoever might just end when our brains stop working. Memories are not passed on genetically.
So while it may be more sustainable to teach a man to fish, who really cares? You're not going to live forever and neither is he. Wouldn't you rather just take a percentage of the fish from him and call it a day?
I think I would. And frankly I think the fisherman might want that too (or at least be willing to tolerate it) if he knew that in return for a percentage of his fish he could partake in a percentage of some banker's salary. Or if he knew that in return for his loyalty and deference to authority his children might be assured work or whatever.
This is the world I see and while I may not approach politics from as humble a place as you do I do feel sober.
Memories are not passed on genetically.
Malachi: thatsfunny, it seems like life could be defined as a process of continuous sustainment. You appear to be defining "sustainment" as opposition to change of any sort.
I think of the long term sustainment of human life as the sustainment of the basest replicators, not the vessels of the replicators themselves.
The vessel, as you and I both know, has a shelf life.
He seems to be talking about the continuation of human life over successive generations which is what our genes do, not what the genetic vessels do.
EDIT: As an aside, our individual bodies (the genetic vessels) are highly resistant to change. The word I'm thinking of is "homeostasis." I remember reading in your post about failure modes (i think?) all the different ways that homeostasis can be interrupted. I learned a lot from that post, very informative.
Malachi: I guess I would like you to explain the migration patterns of monarch butterflies then
I suppose I should have said "Autobiographical memories are not passed on genetically in humans." I just assumed that since we were talking about human affairs, everyone would know I was talking about human memory and autobiographical memory in particular. But I should've been more specific.
I don't know anything about monarch butterflies, but I'm pretty sure I'm not a monarch butterfly and I don't think you're one either and I don't think the OP was talking about the politics of monarch butterflies in his post.
I'm sure that whatever biological mechanism evolution has crafted to guide butterflies through their migration cycles is quite amazing but human brains don't come prepackaged with autobiographical memories of their genetic forebears. I cannot recall a single experiential first person recollection of living through my grandparent's eyes, my parent's eyes or, for that matter, of my great-grandparent's eyes. Can you?
This is not to say that I don't think we pass on genetic hardwiring by the way. I am not an advocate of what Steven Pinker would call the 'blank slate' it just doesn't appear to be the case that autobiographical memory comes pre-packaged. Autobiographical memory does seem to be written over a lifetime for each particular lifetime.
The point of me even saying what I said was to point out that I perceive a space between where I end and everyone else begins even those I'm related to. This distance is punctuated by my own mortality and my awareness of it. I know that I will only be around for just so long. While I suppose at some level I'm programmed to think about my progeny, I can't help but also consider myself in a more immediate timeframe.
bloomj31: Not everyone's reaction to the "gun" seems to be the same. I don't detest the government for taxing me. I don't secretly plot revenge or seek freedom. I simply want to wield that power myself.
Excellent, my vocational analysis of your skills, talents, and desires is that a life in Politics would be a good career move for you. I'd work on your rhetorical skills, and get a Public Relations advisor, but seems like you're on your way. (sarcasm intended).
bloomj31:The problem, from my point of view, with being too concerned with sustainability is that life itself is (at least at present) unsustainable.
I'd focus on the "at present" part of that statement. All action of men, is aimed at removing scarcity, and yes the limit of a man's lifespan is one of the scarce means we have at our disposal. Do you have a desire one way or another about whether you would prefer a longer lifespan or a shorter one?
bloomj31:One way or another we're all going to die. And while some percentage of our genes may come to live on in our grandchildren or great-grandchildren, our individual genetic profiles will be diluted through reproduction and the neural processes known as "David B" or "Bloom" or whoever might just end when our brains stop working. Memories are not passed on genetically.
You are right, our specific memories don't pass on, but our theory and technology do. Our culture, knowledge, institutions, our techniques and specific technological devices pass on to our children. Unless we don't pass them on. In which case their ongoing battle to achieve for themselves happiness is set back behind our own. Which is what's happening btw.
bloomj31:So while it may be more sustainable to teach a man to fish, who really cares? You're not going to live forever and neither is he. Wouldn't you rather just take a percentage of the fish from him and call it a day?
It depends, do I want to get fish from him tomorrow?
bloomj31:I think I would. And frankly I think the fisherman might want that too (or at least be willing to tolerate it) if he knew that in return for a percentage of his fish he could partake in a percentage of some banker's salary. Or if he knew that in return for his loyalty and deference to authority his children might be assured work or whatever.
We have a way for that to happen, the banker gives the fisherman money in return for a portion of his fish. That's just as easy, in fact, easier than using a gun to take it.
bloomj31:This is the world I see and while I may not approach politics from as humble a place as you do I do feel sober.
I see how you see the world, it's a bit depressing. I'd struggle to want to survive if this was the only world available to me. Humility can in fact be honest assessment of the world as it is. I think you've done this, but only on one side of the balance sheet. In your analysis you are honestly appraising part of the reality as we encounter and experience it, but you leave out any reference to the cases where two men willingly and cooperatively exchange wealth to the betterment of each. Those social phenomena count too, and they vastly outnumber the other class of property appropriation.
That would be my humble suggestion, think equally soberly about the nature of voluntary exchanges as well as government redistribution (or theft).
David B: Excellent, my vocational analysis of your skills, talents, and desires is that a life in Politics would be a good career move for you. I'd work on your rhetorical skills, and get a Public Relations advisor, but seems like you're on your way.
Lol. Somehow I don't think I have much of a future in getting elected anywhere. But thankfully there are other ways to work for the government.
David B: Do you have a desire one way or another about whether you would prefer a longer lifespan or a shorter one?
Longer or shorter than what?
David B: It depends, do I want to get fish from him tomorrow?
I think he might keep producing fish as long as we don't tax him too hard. If he won't do it odds are another fisherman will. That's the art of taxation really. Taking as much as possible while getting as little complaint as possible. It is ofcourse a delicate balance. Some people seem to have a higher tolerance for taxation than others. For my part I can tolerate my current level of taxation, I feel I get plenty in return. I'm sure you feel differently.
David B: We have a way for that to happen, the banker gives the fisherman money in return for a portion of his fish. That's just as easy, in fact, easier than using a gun to take it.
But then the fisherman can only get as much as his fish are worth to the banker. With the gun he can theoretically get much much more and the banker will only be able to give just so much protest as long as the current social order is willing to tolerate or basically go along with the aggressiveness of the fisherman. The aggressive fisherman's strategy is particularly effective because the fisherman himself may never have to lift a finger he just has to watch someone else do the taxing for him and not complain too much.
David B: I see how you see the world, it's a bit depressing.
Perhaps. I actually find it...highly intriguing.
David B: I'd struggle to want to survive if this was the only world available to me.
Available when?
David B: In your analysis you are honestly appraising part of the reality as we encounter and experience it, but you leave out any reference to the cases where two men willingly and cooperatively exchange wealth to the betterment of each. Those social phenomena count too, and they vastly outnumber the other class of property appropriation.
The social phenomena of cooperation counts to you and it counts to me too. But I find the exercise of power much more fascinating if I'm to be honest. People basically are naturally cooperative and they generally avoid conflict. But not everyone. Some people are willing to use force and coercion to attain things. They're usually the people who end up in charge. Why? My hypothesis is that the natural docileness of most humans (let's call them the sheep) makes them all the more vulnerable to the more aggressive varieties (I like to think of them as the wolves.) I think there's also a natural deference to authority. I know I find myself awed by people in power and I don't think I'm the only one.
David B: think equally soberly about the nature of voluntary exchanges as well as government redistribution (or theft).
I feel like I have.
I just really struggle with the idea that somehow I own stuff just because I got to it first.
Doesn't really seem to be how things actually work in real life.
bloomj31: But then the fisherman can only get as much as his fish are worth to the banker. With the gun he can theoretically get much much more and the banker will only be able to give just so much protest as long as the current social order is willing to tolerate or basically go along with the aggressiveness of the fisherman. The aggressive fisherman's strategy is particularly effective because the fisherman himself may never have to lift a finger he just has to watch someone else do the taxing for him and not complain too much. David B: I see how you see the world, it's a bit depressing. Perhaps. I actually find it...highly intriguing. David B: In your analysis you are honestly appraising part of the reality as we encounter and experience it, but you leave out any reference to the cases where two men willingly and cooperatively exchange wealth to the betterment of each. Those social phenomena count too, and they vastly outnumber the other class of property appropriation. The social phenomena of cooperation counts to you and it counts to me too. But I find the exercise of power much more fascinating if I'm to be honest. People basically are naturally cooperative and they generally avoid conflict. But not everyone. Some people are willing to use force and coercion to attain things. They're usually the people who end up in charge. Why? My hypothesis is that the natural docileness of most humans (let's call them the sheep) makes them all the more vulnerable to the more aggressive varieties (I like to think of them as the wolves.) I'm a sheep who knows he's a sheep and dreams of being a wolf. My natural docileness is why I've been so easily taken from by the people who are willing to use aggression to acquire things. David B: think equally soberly about the nature of voluntary exchanges as well as government redistribution (or theft). I feel like I have. I just really struggle with the idea that somehow I own stuff just because I got to it first.Doesn't really seem to be how things actually work in real life.
The social phenomena of cooperation counts to you and it counts to me too. But I find the exercise of power much more fascinating if I'm to be honest. People basically are naturally cooperative and they generally avoid conflict. But not everyone. Some people are willing to use force and coercion to attain things. They're usually the people who end up in charge. Why? My hypothesis is that the natural docileness of most humans (let's call them the sheep) makes them all the more vulnerable to the more aggressive varieties (I like to think of them as the wolves.) I'm a sheep who knows he's a sheep and dreams of being a wolf. My natural docileness is why I've been so easily taken from by the people who are willing to use aggression to acquire things.
I just really struggle with the idea that somehow I own stuff just because I got to it first.Doesn't really seem to be how things actually work in real life.
I don't think we're very far away from each other. I agree at a theoretical level with pretty much all you've said. The Docileness you refer to would be IMO a risk aversion metric. The ideas you're talking about are ones that you find in books like The 48 Laws of Power and The Art of Seduction. My only problem in reading books like them is in being very careful to not fall prey to the techniques themselves, because while they are effective, they are also destructive. The refreshing part of your comments is the frank openness about the nature of the use of power, intimdation, theft, etc. in ways which the victim chooses not to fight back. This type of discussion is extremely valuable IMO.
Btw, in your fisherman, banker example, the uneven distribution of power is actually weighted to the banker. Thus it's the banker who can in fact steal more effectively (and invisibly) from the fisherman. If I think of using the tools and techniques of power, then my goal would be to use specific events to wrest power from the banker via a different vector, information, disinformation, etc.
Yes Praxeology has things to say in this realm of human action also. I think it's long past time for it to fill this gap in it's coverage of human action.
As an aside, taking over the education of children in the US has allowed those in power to propogate sterile knowledge.
Understanding the Political and Economic forces in society is a vital tool for any child. However, if we make sure that what they actually get when we teach them is effectively memorization of propoganda then they are more easily lead around by the ring through their noses.
I'm making the point, not quite explicitly, in another thread that Marxism is a mechanism for reordering the balance of political power. But in the end, the "laws of power" will still result in a class of citizens that lives off of the productive endeavors of the rest without actually producing anything of value themselves. Marxism results in the same structure. Just with different names, and a shorter lifespan for the social institutions that implement the political policies of that doctrine.
A well educated polity, given tools with which to accurately comprehend the political combat (struggle for power) would be better prepared, to engage in such combat themselves. This would lead, I imagine to a greater level of decentralization of power. The same is true for better educated consumers, they would in fact be better prepared to engage in negatiation for goods and services, and in evaluating them.
David B: Btw, in your fisherman, banker example, the uneven distribution of power is actually weighted to the banker. Thus it's the banker who can in fact steal more effectively (and invisibly) from the fisherman.
Things do seem to generally end up that way. Perhaps not for every banker but definitely for the ones with money enough to buy influence.
David B: A well educated polity, given tools with which to accurately comprehend the political combat (struggle for power) would be better prepared, to engage in such combat themselves. This would lead, I imagine to a greater level of decentralization of power. The same is true for better educated consumers, they would in fact be better prepared to engage in negatiation for goods and services, and in evaluating them.
Perhaps. But wouldn't that also mean that government just has to maintain a monopoly on education or at least what's taught in schools to maintain power?
So then the question for each man who would embrace the logically necessary conclusions implicit in conflict (and the sources of power when thus engaged) would be, 1) how can I avoid being the victim and then secondly 2) How can I in fact become the victimizer.
If a theory of conflict, is present to allow effective analysis, my guess is victim's would decrease, and victimizing would be come more difficult and the scale or scope of "exploitation" would shrink.
Yes, but can they maintain such a monopoly? That's a fruitful battleground. They've been rapidly losing the battle.
There's a shift in power coming, the ideology of those who gain the reins is going to dictate whether the global economic life ascends through production or collapses under the ineffective solutions enacted by sterile theory.
I think of the long term sustainment of human life as the sustainment of the basest replicators, not the vessels of the replicators themselves. The vessel, as you and I both know, has a shelf life. He seems to be talking about the continuation of human life over successive generations which is what our genes do, not what the genetic vessels do.
Malachi, as much fun as it is to play the lawyer's game and open up a semantics war over what exactly constitutes "memory", "life", "change" etc, I will simply amend my statement in the hopes that I will more effectively communicate the concepts underlying the words.
I can give you or anyone else all sorts of reasons for why worrying about the future of human life and human posterity makes no sense to me but ultimately those reasons are just attempts at explaining the feeling I have when I think of this world after I'm dead. Basically the feeling I usually have is what I would call "indifference." I don't care much either way. I won't be here to enjoy it or suffer it so it matters not to me.
I don't really know why I experience indifference I just do. I have experienced it for quite a long time. A "long time" to me is 5-10 years. It may be 15 years I don't know. Perhaps it's this indifference that primarily influences my political leanings, perhaps not. I don't know. What I do know is that I'm more than willing to support a system that takes from some to give to others. I do not hate it. I do not feel resentment towards it. I simply want to use it to achieve my own ends. I want to control Leviathan or if that fails, simply become a part of it. But to even be a part of Leviathan one must also be damaged by it. So I pay my taxes.
I hope I've avoided the drudgery of semantics this time and conveyed conceptually what I'm thinking and feeling about this subject.
Would like to reply to this by suggesting, and perhaps illustrating, that even given your attitude, you benefit more from a free society than from a coercive society. First I want to point something out that we all missed in your earlier example:
one of the austrian insights that I personally think is most important is the specific concept of profit. Profit only comes as a result of voluntary actions, because profit represents and increase in wealth, which is the representation of the satisfaction of human wants. If the increase in goods came as a result of plunder, then some parties to the event did not have their wants satisfied, so it cannot be considered profit. I hope I explained that well enough
now I imagine yor answer to that is something akin to "I dont care about any of that, I just want to satisfy my wants." which, in human society, involves some measure of cooperation because you dont have all the skills necessary to satisfy your wants. Unlike freedom4me, heh. So you must use a combination of techniques to elicit cooperation from other people, even if you live as a cat burglar you need to look like you are a regular dude so you dont get hooked up. You need to employ some social engineering to get the goods from other people. Well, we know the easiest way to get people to cooperate is find people who already want to cooperate, or convince them that cooperation with you is what they want to do. For the moment, lets ignore cat burglary and concentrate on a continuum of interaction. At the left-hand extreme, is murderous pillage, where the actor kills people who prevent his posession and use of goods he desires. One notch to the right is injurious pillage, and right of that is coercive pillage, where the murder or injury is threatened as an alternative to relinquishing the goods. The fourth notch is gunboat diplomacy, where coercion is used to influence the terms of an exchange, where the victim party would rather not exchange, but receives some nominal value in return. Five notches rightward is catallacty (mutual voluntary exchange) and our continuum is complete. So you can see that murderous and injurious pillage arent going to be very sustainable over a human lifespan. The damage to the means of production is too great. Coercive pillage is also bad because your continued success makes you notorious and people, when faced with losses, will attempt to limit future losses so you have to find new victims. Meanwhile people spend more money on security and less money on consumption items, therefore there is less for you to steal. Clearly the superior solution is to convince people to give up the goods with an ideology. I was gonna write more but I think I'm done. This is all covered in detail in some book written a hundred years ago by some austrian, I just know it.
A point to echo yours Malachi, is that the end result of all human production is ever cheaper servcies and products, specifically in terms of human labor in time and effort -> quantity of goods.
Human labor will approach 0 and quality of goods in the attainment of ends will approach infinity.
Hmmm....
I can see practical holes but that's how the trends work with freedom working with production to increase the velocity of those two curves.
So, I'm not saying to increase velocity, I'm asking for each of us to ask ourselves if we want to increase that velocity.
bloomj31 may respond, seriously I just don't give a shit.
Well, whether we want to or not, any of us may end up in a place like that, and even if we don't we will have to deal with people who do feel that way.
Malachi: But it is good to see such honesty, which is rare and probaly wont get you that well-paying bureaucratic job that you think might satisfy you.
I honestly have no idea. I'm not really in a position to apply for those sorts of jobs anyways because at present I'm underqualified. I have no idea if my future employers will even want to know about my political philosophy before hiring me. If they do then I will have to tailor my response to be something like what I expect them to want to hear. Maybe that approach will work maybe it won't.
Malachi: How does this guy have fish for us to take, if we are contemplating whether to teach him to fish or not? Either he has a supply of fish that we can appropriate, or he does not. Things have to be produced before they can be consumed.
A good point. I suppose in my head I just imagined a man who already knew how to fish. I don't know why.
Once he does know and once he's getting fish then his labors would become subject to taxation. I guess I jumped to that point in my head.
Malachi: If the increase in goods came as a result of plunder, then some parties to the event did not have their wants satisfied, so it cannot be considered profit. I hope I explained that well enough
Alright.
Malachi: which, in human society, involves some measure of cooperation because you dont have all the skills necessary to satisfy your wants.
True enough.
There are many many people who view government as cooperative. I have never been chastised by anyone I know in real life for supporting taxation and/or the state. Not a friend, family member, professor or employer. I do not stand out for advocating taxation.
The state may be losing the education battle but I've yet to find myself ostracized for being a statist.
Perhaps the day will come and if it comes I suppose I'll just be executed for crimes against humanity by the new free society. Or perhaps I'll just die during the transition. Or maybe just crossing the street tomorrow, who knows?
Malachi: So you must use a combination of techniques to elicit cooperation from other people
Well I just have to get and keep a job working for the state, someone else has to convince people to part with their stuff and I don't intend to work for the IRS. I'm terrible at math.
Malachi: Clearly the superior solution is to convince people to give up the goods with an ideology.
I suppose so. But I don't really see my place in all this as an ideologue. I'll leave that sort of job to the politicians. I actually see myself working for the executive branch. I'm thinking of going back to school for a degree in criminal justice.
David B: Human labor will approach 0 and quality of goods in the attainment of ends will approach infinity.
How long do you think it will take? Because I have things I want now as well as in the future and I, like everyone else, have a scarce amount of time in which to acquire them.
EDIT: I guess this is sort of a weird discussion because in my head I took the thread to be talking about present conditions and the idea of the gun and plowshare as metaphors for different approaches for dealing with other people at any place and/or time.
I thought the excerpt from the Tao te Ching was a sort of proverb meant to drive that metaphor home so to speak.
I didn't think we were literally talking about teaching a man to fish. How did you intend this thread to be read David? Metaphorically or literally?
oops,
I said : "bloomj31 may respond, seriously I just don't give a shit. "
I meant,
bloomj31 may respond, "Seriously. I just don't give a shit..."
I didn't mean that I didn't care if he responded :)
Hahaha, second reading made that jump out at me.
bloomj31: David B: Human labor will approach 0 and quality of goods in the attainment of ends will approach infinity. How long do you think it will take? Because I have things I want now as well as in the future and I, like everyone else, have a scarce amount of time in which to acquire them. EDIT: I guess this is sort of a weird discussion because in my head I took the thread to be talking about present conditions and the idea of the gun and plowshare as metaphors for different approaches for dealing with other people at any place and/or time. I thought the excerpt from the Tao te Ching was a sort of proverb meant to drive that metaphor home so to speak. I didn't think we were literally talking about teaching a man to fish. How did you intend this thread to be read David? Metaphorically or literally?
It's gotten a bit contentious.
I meant it metaphorically of course. We did end up talking about fishing specifically. I don't plan on opening a fishing school, for sure.
However, of course, the conversation I intend to have, and that one that actually happens don't necessarily have any relationship with each other. Uncertainty :) Yet another given from reality that man is combatting.