Every champion of the free market, from Ludwig von Mises to Ron Paul, held the position that the battle for freedom is an intellectual endeavor - a contest of ideas. They all advocated educational activism to change people's minds on how society should be governed. All of them rejected violence, which was not only necessary to lend credibility to their positions, but also to avoid prosecution for "anti-government conspiracy" and similar charges. However, it seems to me that every major political change in human history came about as a result of forceful imposition. In fact, I challenge you to name one political paradigm shift that succeeded by convincing the population of its merits as opposed to a group of true believers taking control and abusing the inertia of the common populace to push their agenda. You can split hairs and say that popular consent through education was necessary to legitimize revolutionary changes, but I don't buy it. Did Russian peasants really root for communism? Did the French understand the workings of democracy when some of them stormed the Bastille? They may have been fed up with their former systems, but very few were gung-ho revolutionaries. So libertarian purists look down upon those that get involved in unsatisfactory compromises and the dirty business of politics, but where is the empirical evidence that supports their method? How can we change the world for the better when action, not lecturing has been the driving force of human development?
We can't. Start drinking whiskey. It helps, trust me.
It is not what people want, it is how people act. For instance, a prisoner may want to escape, but he won't act on it unless he finds some means that he finds preferential to being passive. Instructing the masses in the only option open to us. Though it is possible, and Mises spoke openly of this, that a liberal minority could take power by force, a reign not supported by the majority would be short lived. Thus you must win the hearts and minds of the people. It has been our main problem. I have personally felt that all of the money being funneled into Campaign for Liberty right now would be better, subjectively speaking of course, to be spent on the production of a film that could explain our most essential principles and lessons in economics within 2 hours. Preferably a comedy. You could get Drew Carey, Penn and Teller, etc. for sure.
- A large number of the Soviet Population were not supportive of the Bolsheviks during the first few years of their regime. In the end, Lenin's new economic policy ended up allowing a great deal of private property and trade in order to save their regime from collapse.
- The storming of the Bastille was a local concern. The rural population was generally in favor of merely clamping down on the monarchy. The nobility was in favor. Jacobin elements took power during the period of the Terror and the Counter revolution, but were later shoo'd out by mass protest.
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
I would say that forceful imposition usually is a result of a shifting intellectual climate. In the end it's not just about having more guns, but about people actually supporting your rule. It's about ideas. When people finally get together and overthrow the old order, it merely signifies the change of ideas that has been taking place.
You're right though that libertarianism tries a different approach in that it actually reasons with people with logic, it does not manipulate people with emotion, which is what the other successful movements did. Maybe it's for the better that libertarianism is honest, and maybe a more dumbed down populist wing would be a good idea. I think though that what we call libertarianism is an outgrowth of rational thought, so with improved education humanity is bound to become more libertarian. In a way libertarianism is just a manifestation of humanity finally wising up. It isn't like the other political movements, so it shouldn't use the same tactics.
Also I don't really think libertarians decide not to resort to violence as a tactic, they just have a nonviolent mentality. There has just never really been any violence from the libertarian camp, ever. So the violent path isn't really an option, because that's just not what we do.
Societal change has as much to do with ideas as does the working of a market economy with philanthropy. Its ideas that chase systems, not the other way around. Why is it that we see clearly that a market economy works regardless of one’s preferences and yet a free society is suddenly hanging on ideas? I was never convinced by this story.
Why is it that we see clearly that a market economy works regardless of one’s preferences and yet a free society is suddenly hanging on ideas?
Because if you displace the existing state by force, the guys with the most appealing ideas will lead the mob (and the most popular ideas so far are to establish a new state).
I think Andris has hit the nail on the head.
Another problem with direct action is visible if you take a look at the Seasteading Institute discussion forums. The idea of Seasteading is to have a large number of "competing governments" that, over time, become more and more libertarian just by virtue of market forces. But most of the people on the SSI forums are not in it because they believe in liberty. Rather, they believe in that old quote, "It's good to be the King." What they really want is their own kingdom where they can lord it over people just as they're being lorded over today. They have no real commitment to seeing a more just or moral social order brought about.
And it is precisely this moral fiber that is the precondition for a revolutionary change in the social order which has been a long time in coming and may yet be some time off. But if all we're interested in is creating our own little Rothbardistan where we can lord over people according to nominally "Rothbardian" ideas, we're not really offering anything different than the thousands of other would-be petty tyrants lined up to carve out their own little feifdom the minute the existing political order begins cracking at the seams.
If I had to choose one thing in Misesean thought that is the most important, I would say it is the idea that truth will win in the long run. I used to believe this when I was a fundamentalist conservative, as well, but the problem was that I wasn't being true to myself, I was lying to myself on many levels. When I started to sweep away the lies I told myself to harmonize my religious beliefs with the real world, I realized that the truth is more powerful than any lie told for political gain. It doesn't matter how many more decades the Keynesians succeed in their job as the intellectual bodyguards of central banking. Sooner or later, truth will out and the whole Ponzi scheme will be a discredited pile of shit, plain for everyone to see. By being honest with myself and practicing the discipline of cleansing the corrupting influence of political propaganda from my mind while seeking the truth, I am able to be an example to others who want to shake off the shackles of postmodernism and motivated reasoning. If you sit down to think with an endpoint already in mind, you are not really thinking, you're just rationalizing someone else's political structure (however indirectly).
Clayton -
Andris Birkmanis: Because if you displace the existing state by force, the guys with the most appealing ideas will lead the mob (and the most popular ideas so far are to establish a new state).
Leading the mob is not the same as establishing a society. i.e. Kerensky led the mob yet failed to establish himself. Or the Bavarian commies, or the Hungarian commies, or the Austrian commies. Saying that ideas make societies it to completely disregard the very laws that we seek to expound.
Perhaps this is related: Although there are major food, water, and fuel shortages in Japan right now, I can hardly find any instances of people jacking up prices, even though this seems to be the economically advisable thing to do. Instead stores try limiting the number of bottles of water you can purchase. Why not raise prices? I think because of reputation, and it wouldn't be neighborly or something. There are a few random scalpers, but in general prices are only rising slowly. As a result, companies are relatively unmotivated to get supplies to disaster areas, and people are suffering (and in some cases dying) because of it.
In a society where a large number of people have an irrational bias against certain natural market mechanisms (such as "price gouging"), perhaps the market will not work so well, in those aspects at least. If most of the people irrationally love the state and hate competition, love central planning and hate emergent order, then there might be chaos in absence of the state. If this admittedly cursory line of thinking is correct, it suggests strongly that it is a matter of ideas, or at least that the prevailing attitudes in a society must be at least somewhat non-hostile to capitalism and all its trappings. This in turn suggests that having an "opinion-molding class" that understands economics is pivotal.
Why anarchy fails
Clayton: Another problem with direct action is visible if you take a look at the Seasteading Institute discussion forums. The idea of Seasteading is to have a large number of "competing governments" that, over time, become more and more libertarian just by virtue of market forces. But most of the people on the SSI forums are not in it because they believe in liberty. Rather, they believe in that old quote, "It's good to be the King." What they really want is their own kingdom where they can lord it over people just as they're being lorded over today. They have no real commitment to seeing a more just or moral social order brought about.
Very good example! Now, how does what you’re saying here differ from: “the entrepreneur is only interested in his own wellbeing, not in helping. Thus, any betterment of the welfare of all under capitalism is ephemeral and accidental, for the guys working for capitalism are selfish”.
If there is no difference, why don’t we speak just the same in terms of societal change, i.e. try to work out laws instead of just going back to “whatever the people intend to happen will happen”. Whatever happened to the ever-present law of unintended consequences?
Clayton:If I had to choose one thing in Misesean thought that is the most important, I would say it is the idea that truth will win in the long run.
Yes, as long as communication and thinking get clearer and clearer, whatever ideas are most useful will win out eventually. It seems to me, then, that a major goal is clarity in thinking and communication. That is why I would like to see a better method for communicating than just these darn flimsy words.
Merlin:Very good example! Now, how does what you’re saying here differ from: “the entrepreneur is only interested in his own wellbeing, not in helping. Thus, any betterment of the welfare of all under capitalism is ephemeral and accidental, for the guys working for capitalism are selfish”.
Tangentially, this suggests an interesting hypothesis: hierarchical companies and corporations (and for that matter, sports teams and other things leftists rail against) are an outgrowth of the natural desire for some people to be leaders, even though most of them can't be politicians. The leftist urge to ban all hierarchical structures (and greed, etc.) seems to go against human nature, whereas capitalism seems to channel it into productive uses.
Saying that ideas make societies it to completely disregard the very laws that we seek to expound.
Austrian notion of rationality is different from being omniscient or having infinite reasoning capacity. In non-austrian terms (game theory/mechanism design/agent-based modelling), people have bounded rationality, thus to really make some choices in their life they resort to heuristics, instead of trying to infer their decision from basic principles every time. The set of heuristics is different for different persons, and also changes with time. Some people call these heuristics memes, some call them ideas. These ideas influence the vast majority of human choices, and only rarely a person stops and rethinks whether an idea he believes in actually makes sense (is useful for optimizing his choices). I just cannot see how you can think ideas are irrelevant to human behavior.
Andris Birkmanis: Saying that ideas make societies it to completely disregard the very laws that we seek to expound. Austrian notion of rationality is different from being omniscient or having infinite reasoning capacity. In non-austrian terms (game theory/mechanism design/agent-based modelling), people have bounded rationality, thus to really make some choices in their life they resort to heuristics, instead of trying to infer their decision from basic principles every time. The set of heuristics is different for different persons, and also changes with time. Some people call these heuristics memes, some call them ideas. These ideas influence the vast majority of human choices, and only rarely a person stops and rethinks whether an idea he believes in actually makes sense (is useful for optimizing his choices). I just cannot see how you can think ideas are irrelevant to human behavior.
Agreed. When it comes to determining the choices of the individual his preferences are all we need to know. But what I’m trying to say is that societal order is more than the sum of individual choices. There are unintended consequences that drive societal structures. Thus, merely changing minds (even if possible) would not work, I’m afraid. There is a deeper set of laws that mock what our efforts to mold our society.
Very good example! Now, how does what you’re saying here differ from: “the entrepreneur is only interested in his own wellbeing, not in helping. Thus, any betterment of the welfare of all under capitalism is ephemeral and accidental, for the guys working for capitalism are selfish”. If there is no difference, why don’t we speak just the same in terms of societal change, i.e. try to work out laws instead of just going back to “whatever the people intend to happen will happen”. Whatever happened to the ever-present law of unintended consequences?
If you mean that we should give specific recommendations on what steps can be realistically taken to improve society, I whole-heartedly agree. I posted a while back on some steps that I think are within the realm of political feasibility in terms of Social Security reform. It is possible to disavow the entire system of coercion while at the same time saying, "Well, as long as we're stuck with it, then we should at least do things in this way rather than that way." For now, I think that's as much as we can hope for. The rest is just a waiting game - waiting for Nature to take its course. But I'm an optimist and I believe we are heading toward greater freedom in the long-run.
Don't mean to burst your bubble but natural language is as good as it gets. Cf Godel, Turing, Chaitin (incompleteness). I'll provide more details if you're interested.
There is a deeper set of laws that mock what our efforts to mold our society.
This is clearly the case and I think it is the relatively young field of evolutionary psychology that is the first science to really investigate these "deeper laws."
Clayton: Yes, as long as communication and thinking get clearer and clearer, whatever ideas are most useful will win out eventually. It seems to me, then, that a major goal is clarity in thinking and communication. That is why I would like to see a better method for communicating than just these darn flimsy words. Don't mean to burst your bubble but natural language is as good as it gets. Cf Godel, Turing, Chaitin (incompleteness). I'll provide more details if you're interested.
I'm sure you already agree with me that striving to use more precise English phrasing helps clarify communication. I suspect you also also agree that coining new words, defining your terms up front, and using diagrams can help even more.
If you are just saying that it is theoretically possible to explain everything in natural English words, I might agree, but as a practical matter this is simply infeasible without inventing a new specialized language or set of jargon for each specific communication task and without having near-infinite memory and concentration ability. Like trying to explain to someone on the telephone how to reproduce a painting they have never seen. I could say more, but I suspect I would be talking past you, because I cannot imagine someone entertaining the point I am trying to argue against right now.
I'm sure you already agree with me that striving to use more precise English phrasing helps clarify communication. I suspect you also also agree that coining new words, defining your terms up front, and using diagrams can help even more. If you are just saying that it is theoretically possible to explain everything in natural English words, I might agree, but as a practical matter this is simply infeasible without inventing a new specialized language or set of jargon for each specific communication task and without having near-infinite memory and concentration ability. Like trying to explain to someone on the telephone how to reproduce a painting they have never seen. I could say more, but I suspect I would be talking past you, because I cannot imagine someone entertaining the point I am trying to argue against right now.
Yes, precision is essential but I think the subtlety of natural language is vastly underestimated by modernists. Just watch any lecture by Steven Pinker and you will have a new respect for the incredible subtlety and sophistication of natural language. There is no doubt that language itself can be a barrier to thought but it's usually wrong for very good reasons (good reasons from the point of view of Nature) when you think about it more deeply.
The tendency of modernists to think that language will be improved by being sterilized is, I believe, a symptom of their failure to really understand just how subtle natural language really is. I am highly skeptical of claims that natural language can be improved upon by alien devices (such as restricted vocabulary, simplified syntax or, especially, wooden formalism and elimination of grammatical ambiguity). This is not to say that there is no room for innovation in communication technologies. Math symbolism or musical notation are excellent examples of just such innovation that makes genuinely new activities possible that would otherwise have been impossible for the unaided human brain. Yes, both math and music can, in principle, be communciated using only ordinary vocabulary but such communication is so unwieldy and bulky as to be essentially unintelligible... try reading an ancient math manuscript... "the half of the triple of a quantity is the quantity by six and quartered."
OK I think we agree then. I am similarly skeptical of "sterilizing" natural language via a planned design that hasn't passed any kind of "market test" (even if that just means personal use).
What I was thinking of was to make a visual form of 2D communication, sort of a full-on development of things resembling the visual tropes used in TV, ads, cartoons, movies (cinematography devices), NLP, introspected visual thought processes, etc., and a whole lot more. Preferably it would be "farmed" so that it would develop through some kind of natural process (that is, through proven utility via trial and error).
I have no idea how to do that, though, other than creating some kind of a random net chat site where you are only allowed to use some kind of Paint-like visual input tool, and text is forbidden/moderated away. Or just by incorporating a whole lot more and better diagrams into my posts and encouraging others to do the same. But making diagrams takes a long time right now. Maybe I will get faster at it.
Sphairon:However, it seems to me that every major political change in human history came about as a result of forceful imposition.
I can't speak to how things were, but in my life, ideas have made the difference, and last time I checked, I was human, which means it may be possible for other humans as well.
It's important to remember that the battle of ideas is about the sustainability of positive change as much as the creation of change itself.
Twenty years ago, this conversation could only take place in person at a cafe or something or possibly as pen pals. Clearly, we're already doing precisely what you're talking about. Look at Flash animation, for example. Complain about the technical problems with it all you like, it's an amazingly flexible medium and individual people are doing things with it that would have required big-budget teams of animators and other talent just twenty years ago. Consider this xtranormal animation, for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cFXRFlvE3s
The easiest and most powerful reform that could be undertaken now with the least opposition is abolishing the zoning system. It is extremely poorly understood, which is what makes oppposition to changes weak at the moment. I've already pushed this publicly; but, my coverage is not broad enough and I haven't gotten the chance to properly explain the reason.
Clayton: Just watch any lecture by Steven Pinker and you will have a new respect for the incredible subtlety and sophistication of natural language.
Just watch any lecture by Steven Pinker and you will have a new respect for the incredible subtlety and sophistication of natural language.
Are you sure that it's not just a bunch of unneccesary complexity?
Clayton: There is no doubt that language itself can be a barrier to thought but it's usually wrong for very good reasons (good reasons from the point of view of Nature) when you think about it more deeply.
There is no doubt that language itself can be a barrier to thought but it's usually wrong for very good reasons (good reasons from the point of view of Nature) when you think about it more deeply.
Could you elaborate?
Clayton: The tendency of modernists
The tendency of modernists
Who exactly are the modernists?
Clayton: to think that language will be improved by being sterilized is, I believe, a symptom of their failure to really understand just how subtle natural language really is.
to think that language will be improved by being sterilized is, I believe, a symptom of their failure to really understand just how subtle natural language really is.
"Sterilized"?
Clayton: I am highly skeptical of claims that natural language can be improved upon by alien devices (such as restricted vocabulary, simplified syntax or, especially, wooden formalism and elimination of grammatical ambiguity).
I am highly skeptical of claims that natural language can be improved upon by alien devices (such as restricted vocabulary, simplified syntax or, especially, wooden formalism and elimination of grammatical ambiguity).
Who exactly made those claims, and why are you highly skeptical of them?
Clayton: This is not to say that there is no room for innovation in communication technologies.
This is not to say that there is no room for innovation in communication technologies.
Just as long as they're still "natural" languages?
Clayton: Math symbolism or musical notation are excellent examples of just such innovation that makes genuinely new activities possible that would otherwise have been impossible for the unaided human brain.
Math symbolism or musical notation are excellent examples of just such innovation that makes genuinely new activities possible that would otherwise have been impossible for the unaided human brain.
Are math symbolism and musical notation "natural" languages?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Clayton: Just watch any lecture by Steven Pinker and you will have a new respect for the incredible subtlety and sophistication of natural language. Are you sure that it's not just a bunch of unneccesary complexity?
You're alive and breathing, aren't you? Your ancestors back hundreds of generations spoke natural language. Evolution is a merciless economizer, how could that all be "unnecessary complexity"??
Clayton: There is no doubt that language itself can be a barrier to thought but it's usually wrong for very good reasons (good reasons from the point of view of Nature) when you think about it more deeply. Could you elaborate?
Watch this lecture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBpetDxIEMU&playnext=1&list=PLAAD760E2C6B8DE8E
If you don't come away with a new appreciation of natural language, then there's nothing more I can say.
Clayton: The tendency of modernists Who exactly are the modernists?
Russell, Wittgenstein and the like. Basically, the whole gang of late 19th/early 20th century philosophers who imagined that we could transcend human language with something more powerful (i.e. pure logic/pure formal language).
Clayton: to think that language will be improved by being sterilized is, I believe, a symptom of their failure to really understand just how subtle natural language really is. "Sterilized"?
By "sterilized" I mean "cleansed of attachment to the messiness of real human language evolution".
Clayton: I am highly skeptical of claims that natural language can be improved upon by alien devices (such as restricted vocabulary, simplified syntax or, especially, wooden formalism and elimination of grammatical ambiguity). Who exactly made those claims, and why are you highly skeptical of them?
Many thinkers have proposed searching for an "alphabet of human thought", starting at least with Leibniz. I'm not opposed to such a search but any formal language by its very nature consists of a restricted vocabulary and fixed syntax. A frequent goal of such formal languages is to eliminate grammatical ambiguity or enforce type associations (only this verb can be applied to that noun by virtue of their construction and the rules of the language). The number of artificial formal languages in existence is impossible to count.
Clayton: Math symbolism or musical notation are excellent examples of just such innovation that makes genuinely new activities possible that would otherwise have been impossible for the unaided human brain. Are math symbolism and musical notation "natural" languages?
In the all-encompassing sense of "natural", yes, but in the sense of having arisen through day-to-day speech communication between non-specialist persons, no.
Clayton: You're alive and breathing, aren't you?
You're alive and breathing, aren't you?
Of course.
Clayton: Your ancestors back hundreds of generations spoke natural language.
Your ancestors back hundreds of generations spoke natural language.
Okay.
Clayton: Evolution is a merciless economizer, how could that all be "unnecessary complexity"??
Evolution is a merciless economizer, how could that all be "unnecessary complexity"??
People make mistakes all the time. Sometimes they make them systematically. Think statism.
Clayton: Watch this lecture. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBpetDxIEMU&playnext=1&list=PLAAD760E2C6B8DE8E If you don't come away with a new appreciation of natural language, then there's nothing more I can say.
I watched that a few months ago, but I don't remember coming away with any sort of new appreciation.
Clayton: By "sterilized" I mean "cleansed of attachment to the messiness of real human language evolution".
Clayton: Many thinkers have proposed searching for an "alphabet of human thought", starting at least with Leibniz. I'm not opposed to such a search but any formal language by its very nature consists of a restricted vocabulary and fixed syntax. A frequent goal of such formal languages is to eliminate grammatical ambiguity or enforce type associations (only this verb can be applied to that noun by virtue of their construction and the rules of the language). The number of artificial formal languages in existence is impossible to count.
Why does any of that make you highly skeptical of it?
Clayton: In the all-encompassing sense of "natural", yes, but in the sense of having arisen through day-to-day speech communication between non-specialist persons, no.
Which sense was this point in?
whiskey helps. it really does. build a still. ive got good recipies for all.
Every champion of the free market, from Ludwig von Mises to Ron Paul, held the position that the battle for freedom is an intellectual endeavor - a contest of ideas. So libertarian purists look down upon those that get involved in unsatisfactory compromises and the dirty business of politics, but where is the empirical evidence that supports their method? How can we change the world for the better when action, not lecturing has been the driving force of human development?
So libertarian purists look down upon those that get involved in unsatisfactory compromises and the dirty business of politics, but where is the empirical evidence that supports their method? How can we change the world for the better when action, not lecturing has been the driving force of human development?
I sure as hell would like to know where the evidence is.
Maybe the great Austrian library could use a set of these:
When things get bad people will not be looking for new ways that involve voluntary cooperation and the removal of coercion as a justifiable element in human interaction. They're going to be looking for people to blame and throw off cliffs. People are usually more persuaded by a gun to their heads than ideas. I wish I could believe in the constant progress of ideas, or that people will be convinced... but I´m not.
It is a contest of ideas; but it is false to assume that peoples ideas can be shaped to fit libertarianism. People do what they do because of ideas, but they're not going to drastically change their outlook or piss-poor critical thinking no matter how much we harp on them.
You're fighting biology; which is pretty hopeless. I wish libertarians would just accept that. I find their street preaching annoying.
Yes, it is a contest of ideas.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Ricky James Moore II:It is a contest of ideas; but it is false to assume that peoples ideas can be shaped to fit libertarianism. People do what they do because of ideas, but they're not going to drastically change their outlook or piss-poor critical thinking no matter how much we harp on them. You're fighting biology; which is pretty hopeless. I wish libertarians would just accept that. I find their street preaching annoying.
I don't know, we're fighting biology, but is it really hopeless? Humanity learned other counter-intuitive concepts, like heliocentrism or evolution, it just takes time to seep in. And why couldn't we turn that weakness into a strength? The main lesson of libertarianism seems to be that we want people to grasp that it's not 100.000 BC any more, that the world is not what our evolutionary hardcoding tells us it is. If we're fighting evolutionary prejudges, that makes us modern and scientific. We should be making that argument more. A lot of ideologies are successful because they managed to present themselves as the antidote for superstition. Yet libertarians never make that appeal.
I don't know, we're fighting biology, but is it really hopeless? Humanity learned other counter-intuitive concepts, like heliocentrism or evolution, it just takes time to seep in.
Did they, really? Or do they just parrot the prevailing dogma? Many people deny human evolution, and the liberals who argue for it often deny its consequences; like genotypical variations in human beings. Stephen Jay Gould was openly dogmatic that he would not even consider human biodiversity because it contradicted his political prejudices. Further, these things are far less in tension with their prejudices than a mysterious indirect coordination of production; or minding their own goddamn business.
And why couldn't we turn that weakness into a strength? The main lesson of libertarianism seems to be that we want people to grasp that it's not 100.000 BC any more, that the world is not what our evolutionary hardcoding tells us it is. If we're fighting evolutionary prejudges, that makes us modern and scientific. We should be making that argument more. A lot of ideologies are successful because they managed to present themselves as the antidote for superstition. Yet libertarians never make that appeal.
That they lie to themselves is precisely what people don't want to hear. To accept these views they would have to accept that so much of what they do is just social signaling and herd mentality; yet their brains are constructed precisely to not let them see that because it undermines the whole system.
You're absolutely right, they only parrot the prevailing dogma. But why did it become the prevailing dogma? Why don't people still think it's unavoidable to have slavery, look into the sky and think it's "obvious" that the sun goes around the earth or think that central planning is clearly more efficient than a private enterprise system? All these cultural changes happened somehow. Even though it may only be a tiny elite that actually understands them, and most people just parrot whatever sounds enlightened at the moment, I see no reason why this wouldn't continue to a point where free market economics is generally accepted. Maybe not libertarian philosophy in all it's facets, but the support of statism is largely based on economic ignorance. To have a pretty libertarian world, it would be enough for basic economic literacy to become generally accepted. I do know that libertarianism wins in the end, because the prevailing dogmas in 2011 are vastly more libertarian than those of 100 or 200 years ago. I agree with what you say in the other thread, that libertarian preaching is largely useless. Rather this progress happens spontaneously. But if there was no social evolution towards a more individualist order, humans wouldn't have better technology than chimpanzees. I just thought I'd counter your pessimism.
The meme 'evangelical atheism' seems to do fine with one of it's main messages being that people lie to themselves. People want to feel elitist and tell others that they lie to themselves. Elitist self-congratulation seems to be part of any successful modern ideology, and I think a sense of superiority is part of the appeal of libertarianism. They should try to market that more. Libertarians are just bad at appealing to heard-mentality because they are the individualist fringe.
I'm with EmperorNero on this one, I think that we can adapt because we have a prefrontal cortex, that is, humans have a means of adapting much more rapidly than their genome changes. This is why rape is uncommon despite the fact that rape is an excellent reproductive strategy and common in other species. However, the trouble with changes to humanity through social evolution (by this I mean evolution in the "social landscape" that pushes and pulls our mental levers forcing us to behave this or that way, irrespective of our genetic wiring) is susceptible to sabotage in a way that our genes are not*. And I think that the long struggle of the State to battle social developments that threaten its status quo is evidence that such sabotage works and matters.
However, I think the evolutionary pressure towards greater rationality in social structures will, over time, keep bulldozing the attempts of the State and its ilk to sabotage social evolution. Each new measure works for a while then is eclipsed by bigger social changes that swamp out the effects of the old system. Consider the cartelization of broadcast media in the US. It definitely worked and the US government scored several major successes in propaganda, simply consider the effectiveness of WWII propaganda, for exmaple. But like a drug, the effect wears off with repeated use and a resistance is built up. Then larger changes come along (e.g. the Internet) and make the whole thing obsolete. News rags and broadcast news stations are going belly up left and right.
*Though, with the development of genomic technologies, even our biology is now becoming susceptible to sabotage
This may be the appropriate time to ask everyone here to have more children than his/her national average. In Western Europe it should be easy
This may be the appropriate time to ask everyone here to have more children than his/her national average.
Do you mean genetic children, or memetic ones?
look into the sky and think it's "obvious" that the sun goes around the earth
I will reply in full later, but I just wanted to respond to this because it's a pet peeve:
Sol DOES orbit the Earth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this statement. Likewise, the Earth IS the center of the Universe. Both of these are utterly correct from the viewpoint of our relative frame of motion. People often mention these ideas as though they had been refuted or were silly, but no, they are in fact correct. Relativity refuted heliocentrism; your real 'center' is your reference point. There is no absolute center or absolute motion.
Also, the ether was never refuted. It is just impossible to detect for relativistic reasons, and therefor useless in our present SMPP framework, but there is no reason it couldn't exist.
Lastly, it was mainly Mesopotamians who thought the Earth was flat. A goodly number of educated Greeks, Indians and Chinese have known for millenia that the Earth is round for a variety of reasons.
Andris Birkmanis: This may be the appropriate time to ask everyone here to have more children than his/her national average. Do you mean genetic children, or memetic ones?
I mean genetic. Libertarians are, at least to some extent, born, not made.