Current Events

Re: My hunch about libertarianism and AnCap

Neodoxy — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 07:38:06 GMT

Re: My hunch about libertarianism and AnCap

Clayton — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 06:02:59 GMT

@hashem: As always, the only thing that will change human drives is genetics, and no, I don't think that genetic engineering of humans can address this, being as it is the most dangerous and unpredictable sort of central-planning. Other than that, we should deal with this drive in the same way as we deal with any other anti-social drive... by allowing the costs to be rationalized onto the responsible individual. When the costs of aggressing against others in order to subjugate are borne by the aggressor, the benefit of such aggression is drastically reduced.

I don't think that even technology in the capitalist economy mitigates the problem, either, because a catacylsm can be social, as well as natural... riots, revolutions, market crashes, wars, and so on. We all want to be safe, and the human brain is wired (and the wiring is probably more correct than we are comfortable acknowledging) to believe that being high on the social ladder is the best and surest safety of all.

Clayton -

Re: My hunch about libertarianism and AnCap

Jargon — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 05:38:22 GMT

Re: My hunch about libertarianism and AnCap

Neodoxy — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 05:27:21 GMT

Ah, nihilism and secular agnosticism. Nietzsche would be very disappointed in you Hashem, but at least your complete lack of real advocacy is internally consistent.

Re: My hunch about libertarianism and AnCap

hashem — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 05:09:28 GMT

Clayton:
I think that one of the chief pleasures that is sought by the Elites is security... not only in the sense of protection from martial threats but also in the insurance sense of protection in the event of catastrophe. They want the feeling that they are "the last in line to die" should some cataclysmic event occur or whatever. To maintain this kind of security requires the subjugation of all others and to remain "king of the hill", so to speak. So the drive to hierarchy is built in to the human psyche and when unshackled from the constraints of scarcity (by the use of political means), it expresses itself in subjugation and domination.

A clever response... Ok but you'll at least concede that, therefore, as the expectation of catasrophy is minimized, the incentive to subjugate others in order to "maintain the hill" is marginalized? Or alternatively, as humanity is increasingly interconnected, then the way to minimize the possibility of/damage from catastrophe is explicitly to avoid harming others based on the concept that in a unified body what's good for the body is good for its parts?

Re: the drive to hierarchy; Of course you know by now I'm solid believer in the reality of this drive. But can you fathom scenarios where the drive is minimized or marginalized? Alternatively it can obviously be eliminated through bioengineering, but can you imagine scenarios where elites would no longer have the incentive to oppose that progress?

Neodoxy:
But that ideology is evil if you actually try to prevent people from enacting evil ideologies.

I agree. I'm not opposed to evil, certainly not on some superstitious mystical "rights" ground. What I mean is, I don't claim that to be evil is synonymous with "morally wrong". Further, I acknowledge that the world is unfair, and that staggering amounts of suffering will happen for the forseeable future, based solely on the human genome (aka human nature). As a member of the species homo sapiens, I am affected by the suffering of myself to the greatest degree, my family and friends to a lesser degree, and various other people to lesser degrees. So I'm not opposed to various degrees of violence being used to prevent the suffering of those people, but neither do I actively advocate that these people use violence. I simply acknowledge that people will act based on what their brain tells them to do, so if they use violence that's their choice, and if they don't then so be it. As for myself, I may or may not use violence to defend myself, I really can't say because I haven't needed to. But if I do use violence, I won't claim that I had some magical "right" to do so, I'll just be a man and acknowledge reality and accept that my brain calculated a decision based on information it's been processing since before I—my consciousness—ever showed up on the scene.

Neodoxy:
Well what ideology do you advocate that isn't evil, exactly?

I don't. I feel pacifism as the least-evil ideology, and the inevitable trend given so many factors about human nature (mainly the tendency to build technology to expand our sphere of control over natural factors, and also the tendency toward social networks) but I'm also realistic enough to acknowledge that given the current state of affairs in the history of humanity such an ideology is begging to be exploited. Really, I just advocate that people learn as much as they can and act in their best interest—and if you end up using violence, reflect on the experiences in your life, and the facts of reality beyond and within your control which resulted in you making that decision, and learn from that reflection to act in your best interest more effectively in the future. I'm living this life absolutely for me, fuck the world, the world is going to do what it's going to do regardless of my life—it just so happens that I don't feel motivated to cause others to suffer, and right now I'm gonna roll with that.

But I don't judge people who do feel motivated to cause others to suffer. I realize they have human brains and I try to empathize with what factors in their life caused them to be motivated that way; and I have various degrees of motivation to do something about it depending on the degree to which I feel connected to those suffering. I can imagine that if I was a super-elite, I'd minimize feelings for people who's suffering I gained by through working to be as abstracted and dissociated from thoughts of their suffering as possible.

Re: My hunch about libertarianism and AnCap

Neodoxy — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 22:54:11 GMT

"I tend to use it in reference to causing people to suffer who don't want to suffer. Closer to the third definition here than to the first or second. I wouldn't say I do a lot of evil, and I'd say the suffering that others experience if I do evil is probably minimal, and I'd say that I actively try to avoid doing evil, and I tend to oppose evil ideologies."

But that ideology is evil if you actually try to prevent people from enacting evil ideologies.

"So if evil can be thought of in terms of the severity of its effects, and the intent of the actor, I'd say some people are less evil than others."

Well what ideology do you advocate that isn't evil, exactly?

Re: My hunch about libertarianism and AnCap

Clayton — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 22:51:31 GMT

@hashem: Hmm, I agree to an extent that technology relieves us of some of the burdens the Elites used to saddle us with... for example, the automobile performs the work once performed by slaves hand-carrying the ruler. However, I think that one of the chief pleasures that is sought by the Elites is security... not only in the sense of protection from martial threats but also in the insurance sense of protection in the event of catastrophe. They want the feeling that they are "the last in line to die" should some cataclysmic event occur or whatever. To maintain this kind of security requires the subjugation of all others and to remain "king of the hill", so to speak. So the drive to hierarchy is built in to the human psyche and when unshackled from the constraints of scarcity (by the use of political means), it expresses itself in subjugation and domination.

Clayton -

Re: My hunch about libertarianism and AnCap

hashem — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:54:51 GMT

Neodoxy:
So everyone is evil? And what is evil anyway?

I tend to use it in reference to causing people to suffer who don't want to suffer. Closer to the third definition here than to the first or second. I wouldn't say I do a lot of evil, and I'd say the suffering that others experience if I do evil is probably minimal, and I'd say that I actively try to avoid doing evil, and I tend to oppose evil ideologies. So if evil can be thought of in terms of the severity of its effects, and the intent of the actor, I'd say some people are less evil than others.

z1235:
I assume he's talking about exercising power/force over others.

I thought so too, but I didn't want to put words in his mouth; and without meaning to put words in his mouth, I still feel that way after his explanation. In other words, power is may be used to restrict liberty, but it's always necessary for liberty (either to acquire liberty, or to exercise present liberty).

Also, re: psychopaths, I don't tend to think the power elite necessarily want to see people suffer. They really probably have better things to do. In my estimation they want pleasure, and in line with human nature they want at least what they're accustomed to and preferably more. So given technology in its current and historical state, elites have tended to exhibit psychopathic characteristics—but they probably aren't purely psychopathic, and they would probably be quite satisfied to acquire even more power and pleasure without having to make others suffer (especially as they're more and more convinced that the masses aren't a threat, which in turn will be a result of an increasingly unified humanity).

Re: evil and psychopaths, most things can be thought of in terms of varying degrees, and there's always the incentives to consider. Many "psychopaths" probably aren't purely psychopathic, and incentives probably exhibit strong pressure on determining the extent to which their psychopathic urges manifest.

@ Clayton

The reason I see a sort of "trade off" as you call it is based on my subsidiary assertions. Humanity, including the elites, don't tend to want to see others suffer for the sake of seeing others suffer; rather they want pleasure, and causing the suffering of others has been a necessary means to that end thus far in history. Why? Because of lack of technology. People can't just be in a state of maximum and growing pleasure all the time, because we haven't had the appropriate technology to facilitate that.

Re: My hunch about libertarianism and AnCap

Neodoxy — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 03:19:27 GMT

"People don't defend it with moral justification. When confronted, statists invoke a utilitarian defense, making it apparent that it's just institutionalized violence regardless of how immoral.

Worse is minarchism because its insidiously evil, invoking (pointless, invalid, et al.) moral rationalization for institutionalized violence.

And even worse is ancapism, having a seemingly thorough and consistent (but ultimately pointless, irrational) moral rationalization for institutionalized violence."

So everyone is evil? And what is evil anyway?

Re: My hunch about libertarianism and AnCap

Clayton — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 01:54:44 GMT

Precisely, that's what I'm getting at also. To maximize pleasure, the state of technology has required them to subjugate the masses. So the incentive toward violence will diminish as technology replaces violence as the primary means to the end of pleasure. This compounded by an increasingly interconnected humanity tending toward...whatever the term is in biology when the different organisms are connected to such a point that they form (or effectively form, as in a symbiotic relationship) a single being/body, and therefore what's best for one is best for all, producing the incentive to work together and eliminating the incentive to violently subjugate each other. Think of social networking as the nervous system of the future interconnected humanity, whereby the individual parts are aware of how to maximize their pleasure by maximizing the pleasure of the other parts.

I don't see an a priori trade-off between technology and violence and I think history bears it out well that technology of any kind serves the ends of the political class just fine.

I have to ask though, why do you make a dichotomy between power and liberty? It seems that power is a prerequisite for liberty, and power by no means implies violence... Power permits liberty (and/or the exercise of present liberty), which permits pleasure. If you want to fly, then having the power to do so permits you to be at liberty (or to exercise your present liberty) to do so, which pleases you.

Well, the word power is not strictly necessary to the analysis. But the usage of the phrase "has power over" denotes a domination over someone, to have them at your beck and call, to impose your will upon them in the broadest possible sense. In order to distinguish between, say, Rasputin's "power" over the Tsar's family versus the Tsar's power over his vassals requires that we talk about human nature, something I think you and I have disagreed over. So, if you think the mind is a blank slate, you're going to have difficulty seeing any meaningful distinction between voluntary and involuntary power.

Clayton -

Re: My hunch about libertarianism and AnCap

z1235 — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 22:07:11 GMT

Malachi:
Z, do you think that a prerequisite for a free society would be the conscious willingness of all individuals to take active mental responsibility for their own security?

Security/defense is merely one of the goods/services demanded (subjectively valued) by humans. I think a prerequisite for a free society is "the conscious willingness of all individuals to take active mental responsibility for" anything they subjectively value (demand). However, this by no means precludes attaining those goods/services via division of labor and voluntary market exchange.

Re: My hunch about libertarianism and AnCap

Malachi — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:14:59 GMT

Z, do you think that a prerequisite for a free society would be the conscious willingness of all individuals to take active mental responsibility for their own security?

Re: My hunch about libertarianism and AnCap

z1235 — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:55:20 GMT

hashem:
Precisely, that's what I'm getting at also. To maximize pleasure, the state of technology has required them to subjugate the masses. So the incentive toward violence will diminish as technology replaces violence as the primary means to the end of pleasure.

You forget that, to a psychopath, one of the main sources of pleasure is the excercise of power over others. A psychopath cannot attain his ends (pleasure) without using other humans as means. IMO, the path to a free society is not by changing the psychopatic minority be it through argumentation (sure), genetic engineering, or technology, but through educating the productive majority about the manipulation methods of the psychopaths and persuading them that submitting to a psychopathic minority is not only not necessary but counter-productive as means towards the end of a flourishing society. Technology (internet, networks, access to information) helps with this process of education and persuasion.

I have to ask though, why do you make a dichotomy between power and liberty? It seems that power is a prerequisite for liberty, and power by no means implies violence... Power permits liberty (and/or the exercise of present liberty), which permits pleasure. If you want to fly, then having the power to do so permits you to be at liberty (or to exercise your present liberty) to do so, which pleases you.

I assume he's talking about exercising power/force over others.

Re: My hunch about libertarianism and AnCap

z1235 — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:44:02 GMT

myhumangetsme:

And as long as I'm shilling for Childs, Libertarianism.org recently released a very nicely priced collection of Childs' essays for the Kindle which I highly recommend. It enthusiastically covers most of his writings before he turned to the dark side. It's one of those collections that's so far outside of what you normally expect from Cato-think, it makes you wonder...

Thx for the heads up. Just downloaded it. Especially curious about his "...late-in-life repudiation of anarchy."

Re: My hunch about libertarianism and AnCap

hashem — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:29:39 GMT

Clayton:
I would cut this down to just pleasure. Power is actually a means, it is not an end in itself.

Fair enough.

Clayton:
Elites can actually be thought of as...simply want[ing] to maximize their own liberty and if the masses do a bad job of defending their liberties, well, that's too bad for them.

Precisely, that's what I'm getting at also. To maximize pleasure, the state of technology has required them to subjugate the masses. So the incentive toward violence will diminish as technology replaces violence as the primary means to the end of pleasure. This compounded by an increasingly interconnected humanity tending toward...whatever the term is in biology when the different organisms are connected to such a point that they form (or effectively form, as in a symbiotic relationship) a single being/body, and therefore what's best for one is best for all, producing the incentive to work together and eliminating the incentive to violently subjugate each other. Think of social networking as the nervous system of the future interconnected humanity, whereby the individual parts are aware of how to maximize their pleasure by maximizing the pleasure of the other parts.

I have to ask though, why do you make a dichotomy between power and liberty? It seems that power is a prerequisite for liberty, and power by no means implies violence... Power permits liberty (and/or the exercise of present liberty), which permits pleasure. If you want to fly, then having the power to do so permits you to be at liberty (or to exercise your present liberty) to do so, which pleases you.