Political Theory

Re: Government Explained (video)

AJ — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:20:08 GMT

Having considered this more, I also think the curiosity of the alien was key.

It's like he's watching you pull on a loose thread in your sock as it goes around and around, the sock getting ever shorter, but all along - instead of criticizing or pointing out what we here see as obvious - he's assuming there must be a rational explanation for it all, and he's simply fascinated as to what it might be. The viewer gets fascinated right along with him, never on the defensive, ready to make a new discovery about what they think they already know, even if they think it will only be that vicarious feeling of discovery you get when you see someone else make a discovery that you already knew about.

Along the way they realize that they themselves may not even know the answer, and strangely have never even pondered these [now fascinating] questions. This is a uniquely amenable state to get the viewer into, especially when questioning their deep-seated views.

Perhaps the alien could continue in that state of fascinated bewilderment, asking innocently about more things, all along trusting that there must be a good explanation for everything, which itself makes him even more fascinated as to what it might be. Meanwhile the viewer can't help but notice the sock of government gradually unraveling, despite no one attacking it.

Re: Government Explained (video)

PeaceRequiresAnarchy — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 00:49:27 GMT

Maybe rather than make not wearing a hat a crime, you could do the video on making wearing a hat a crime:
(Note: All there is to see is in the first two minutes of the video)

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Government Explained (video)

PeaceRequiresAnarchy — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:23:47 GMT

My thoughts now are to go back to the alien and human for another 'subtle' or 'neutral' video, and save the whole hat scenario for a later video which will be blatant about being anti-democracy and pro-secession.

:-) Right now I am (hand-)writing a script between Alien and RedHat based off just the first part of your script, not including the secessionism part.

"they probably assumed that there were no nasty or greedy aliens, so an anarchic 'utopia' is possible for the aliens but not for humans. This was their "easy rationalization", the way they were not offended by the video. They wouldn't have this rationalization available if the character asking questions was a human."

Definitely.

"Perhaps it could be that the aliens are not corrupted by power, making democracy unnecessary for them, so the alien asks questions from a context of 'if some of my kind were corruptible, what system would be most sensible?'"

That's a really great idea.

Re: Government Explained (video)

Graham Wright — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:13:58 GMT

@AJ, thanks for that insight, I agree completely.

@PRA, absolutely, draft a script and post here, I'd love to read it.

My thoughts now are to go back to the alien and human for another 'subtle' or 'neutral' video, and save the whole hat scenario for a later video which will be blatant about being anti-democracy and pro-secession. I think the first script I posted (other than the last few lines) could form the basis of a script for the alien and human if it was re-worked a bit.

Judging by the comments, the audience understood that the alien came from a planet with no government, but I think a big reason why they were not offended was because it was an alien. If they are statists, and think anarchy means chaos because some humans are nasty or greedy or something, they probably assumed that there were no nasty or greedy aliens, so an anarchic 'utopia' is possible for the aliens but not for humans. This was their "easy rationalization", the way they were not offended by the video. They wouldn't have this rationalization available if the character asking questions was a human.

Maybe I need a similar kind of "easy rationalization" for the sequel. Perhaps it could be that the aliens are not corrupted by power, making democracy unnecessary for them, so the alien asks questions from a context of 'if some of my kind were corruptible, what system would be most sensible?' in the same way that he asked questions (or so the audience believed) from a context of 'if some of my kind were nasty, what system would be most sensible?'.

Re: Government Explained (video)

PeaceRequiresAnarchy — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:19:25 GMT

I agree with AJ's point too. Graham, I like your script, but it certainly wouldn't get nearly as many views as your last video exactly because it is clear that the video is trying to advance the view that democratic decision-making is bad. On the other hand, Government Explained wasn't "espousing" the view that governments are bad, it was just calmy suggesting it by questioning the assumption that they are good in a manner that any person supportive of skepticism would support.

Assuming you want to try to make this video have the same effect as Government Explained*, I thus think that you should find a way to make the democracy script less obviously supportive of completely voluntary, market decision-making, but more like Government Explained by asking less demanding questions about why RedHat supports voting on hats. As AJ says, it is't too clear how to masterfully achieve this like you did in the last video, but I think it can be done with some work. You don't want to put the audience on the defensive. If it becomes clear that Charlie is trying to change RedHat's view to support market decision-making instead of voting decision-making then the audience will be turned off by the message

So instead we want Charlie to act more like the alien by acting ignorant of how the voting system works and by not suggesting alternatives. Note how you never had the alien in Government Explained say, "Why don't you just get rid of government?" This question would have been too demanding. It would have turned off the audience as it would have been clear that the video was espousing anarchy. Government Explained was successful because the human answered the question of why he thought we shouldn't get rid of government, but not because he was asked that question. He answered it just in normal coversation because the belief that the alien was quitely suggesting was that the reasonable thing to do was to get rid of this horrible government.

So to apply this to the democracy script, I now see that there is a lot that needs changing.

For example, get rid of "Charlie: But why are hats something you vote on?" This is equivalent to the alien asking, "But why do you have government?" The video won't maintain that wonderful neutral feeling if you have Charlie ask such demanding questions. So instead, we need to find a way to work in RedHat's answer to this question without the question ever being asked. So at some point RedHat should say why they vote on hats, but not after being directly asked.

Is it alright with you Graham if I try to write a draft of the script myself based off the version you posted, and then post it here? It might be a more effective way for me to share my ideas for it.

*which you may not necessarily want to make it appeal to a large audience like Government Explained. Making it more blatantly anti-democratic-decision-making would mean fewer views, but you would have the upside of being able to question exactly what you think needs to be questioned. The people who would still care to watch the video knowing that they are being presented with an argument would be able to learn something from it. It just wouldn't reach as large an audience.

Re: Government Explained (video)

Wibee — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 01:49:42 GMT

Was Rothbard wrong about gingers?

Re: Government Explained (video)

Clayton — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:43:10 GMT

+1 AJ

Re: Government Explained (video)

AJ — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:19:53 GMT

The original video was excellent, and I like this last version, but I think the critical thing that made the first video work (i.e., garner many views) is that the viewer cannot tell what view is being "espoused," whose side you're on, what agenda you're pushing, or whatever you want to call it. It walks that line very well, such that for the duration of the presentation the viewer is unable to slot it into any political box.

During that time, the viewer is magically open to new ideas. If somehow you can manage to call government into question while maintaining that neutrality, you can have a large effect on people and get many views. The first video succeeded at that, perhaps because of the alien-visiting-earth trope and that down-to-earth apolitical chap and avoidance of any buzzwords of any ideology (e.g., "free market").

I wish I knew how you could pull off the same trick again with this new video.

Re: Government Explained (video)

Graham Wright — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:55:28 GMT

OK, I've had a rethink, and this is what I came up with. I postpone all of the script I haven't posted yet (about localism, secession, etc) for a sequel. And I add another couple of minutes onto the end to address your point about applicability. I just wrote this, and I'm not sure if I like it yet, but here it is:

Charlie: But why are hats something you vote on?

RedHat: Because some things, like socks, are best left up to individuals to make decisions about for themselves. Sock-makers compete to satisfy people’s preferences for socks, and so the free market determines what kinds of socks get produced, by who, where and how. That system works well for things like socks. But there are other things, like hats, that we make collective decisions about through voting. It’s more efficient to produce only one colour of hat at a time.

Charlie: Why not just let people decide for themselves what hat to wear? Why not have allow the free market to determine what kinds of hats get produced?

RedHat: No, that would never work! There would be hat chaos! Greedy hat makers would take advantage of everyone. They would form a hat cartel, and then hats would be too expensive for poor people. And who would protect the people from a nasty hat maker who makes poor quality or dangerous hats? It would be a disaster if the hat industry was left to the free market rather than controlled democratically by everyone.

Charlie: What is the relevant difference between socks and hats? Why does a free market in socks work well, while a free market in hats would be a disaster?

RedHat: I don’t know. But where you live, aren’t there some things that are left up to free markets, and other things that are decided by voting?

Charlie: Yes, like police, roads, schools, healthcare, postal services, and so on, which are controlled by government. Our government’s policies are decided by voters. In theory, anyway.

RedHat: Why do you decide about these things democratically?

Charlie: Well it would never work having those things left up to the free market. Imagine a free market in schools! There would be chaos! Greedy school owners would take advantage of everyone. They would form a school cartel, and then kids from poor families would not be able to afford schooling. And who would protect the kids and parents from nasty schools who deliver poor quality schooling or teach the kids dangerous ideas and values? It would be a disaster if the school industry was left to the free market! Schools, roads, post offices, healthcare and police need to be controlled democratically by everyone.

RedHat: Who decided that schooling is something you decide about democratically?

Charlie: I don’t know exactly. In some countries, where they don’t have voting, there are school dictators who indoctrinate kids by forcing them to learn whatever the dictator wants them to learn. We’re much better off in countries where we get to vote, because we’re free to choose which politician is going to make the ultimate decisions about what our kids are going to be forced to learn.

RedHat: What happens to someone who refuses to pay taxes to pay for schools?

Charlie: Anyone who gets caught underpaying taxes is in trouble.

RedHat: He could be shot?

Charlie: If he resisted arrest, sure.

RedHat: So then I suppose the question for you is: What is the difference between hats and socks and all the other things that you leave to the free market, and schools, roads, post offices, healthcare and police, which you decide about by voting?

Re: Government Explained (video)

PeaceRequiresAnarchy — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:09:47 GMT

Unless they support global government, they must have some reason to limit the scope of the voting.

That is definitely something that I would try to fit into the video. Perhaps use reverse psychology on the audience by having someone propose that hats be voted on at a more global level so that the voters in each hat election include not only the inhabitants of Demville, but the citizens of surrounding societies as well.

So the first part of your video will make the audience ask the important question: why is X an issue that should be voted on at all? And the second part will show that the more local the level that issues are voted on the better the results. This will hopefully trigger some people in the audience to push the better results of more local level elections all the way to the level of the individual. This second part of the video thus makes the “short-cut” argument for anarchical decision-making on those issues that the majoritarian still believes are issues that should be voted on for whatever reason.

What I am unsure about is how the video will make sure that everyone in the audience understands that the localism argument is applicable to all issues. I am worried that many people might just watch the video and say, “Yes, voting on hats at a more local level is better than a more global level and the extreme localization—‘hat anarchy’—is the best option, but the same is not true of other issues that I currently believe should be voted on, such as roads, police, healthcare, armies, charity, etc.”

In order for the video to be effective it must get the audience to see that the argument for hat anarchy and for localizing hat voting is applicable to other issues as well and currently I do not see how it does that.

A few years later, he returned, and found that a radical transformation had taken place.

That is evidence that hat localism is preferred. The statist can just say that hats are not analogous to other issues and then fail to learn anything from the whole second half of the video.

In fact, the same is true of the first half of the video as well. Why shouldn’t we expect that people will answer the first question (Why is X an issue that should be voted on?) with “It’s not” for issues like hats, but then continue to believe that it is for other issues such as roads, police, healthcare, armies, charity, etc.

It is thus crucial both to the first and second half of the the video that the video provides a counter-argument to the cheap objection that “some issues (e.g. roads, police, etc) are different than hats.” It needs to give a reason why the arguments for hat anarchy and hat localism presented in the video are applicable to other issues as well or else the audience might fail to even question why they believe that other issues should be voted on.

Re: Government Explained (video)

Graham Wright — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:00:29 GMT

PeaceRequiresAnarchy:

The questions I want to put in people's minds are "Why is X something that we decide about by voting at all?" and "Why are elections about X held out at national level, rather than at a local level or global level?".

The first question is a great one. The second is definitely important too, but it seems secondary, like it is a follow up question to the first to further point out how odd it is that some arbitrary things are decided on by elections. The fact that X is decided by a voting process at all rather than by the usual voluntary market processes is the main thing that is arbitrary. The fact that this vote is taken at a national level as opposed to a local or global level is also arbitrary, but is secondary to the fact that the voting process exists at all.

You finished the first half of your script with:

"Narrator: At that, Charlie left Demville, confused. A few years later, he returned, and found that a radical transformation had taken place…."

In light of the second question that you said you wanted your video to present, my guess is that the second half of your script is about a "radical transformation" in which the voting process to decide what color hats people wear changes to a more local level. So now in Demville people wear different color hats because there are multiple districts that engage in hat voting that come to different conclusions. Perhaps some districts even decide that people don't wear hats. This could then cause the viewer to wonder why the people don't just localize the voting process all the way to the individual so that each person can decide for himself which color hat he wishes to wear or whether he wishes not to wear a hat at all.

The audience would reason that people have different preferences on things and so the voting process should be localized all the way to the individual so that they can all have what they want rather than force others to do things against their will or be forced to do things themselves by others that they don't want.

When you rephrase your second question to "Why are elections about X held out at national level, rather than at a global level or local level or "extreme localized" individual level?" it actually becomes the same as the first question, so in a way it isn't a "secondary" question as I said before.

I agree, and you've guessed exactly what I have in mind. I agree that the first question is more fundamental and direct, but that in some sense they are the same question. When trying to answer the first question, you basically have two approaches: ethical or economic. Either way, I find that people have difficulty applying the principles in general. I'm sure I could convince someone that hats should not be put to a vote, but then they'll still believe that roads should be put to a vote, because it's hard to imagine a free market in roads and the arguments don't carry over so easily. And once roads are dealt with, they will move on to something else, like money or security, and each one requires altered arguments, because the particular concern is different in each case.

The second question I believe is a very effective short-cut. Once pointed out to them, most people can see that it is rather arbitrary that some things are voted on at the local level, others national, others international. Why? Who decided that? How do we know that's optimal? Unless they support global government, they must have some reason to limit the scope of the voting. They must support secession to some extent. If you work out what that reason is, you then just extend that principle all the way down to the individual. We need a free market (which in this context means ultimated right to secession) in order to know the appropriate 'level' on which decisions should be taken, i.e. what firm size is optimal. Here is an old post of mine describing how I use this technique: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/13748.aspx

What I want to do in this video is show that the people of Demville never were convinced that hats should be a matter of individual choice rather than being put to a vote. But they did come to believe in the principle of secession and localism, without realising that these are (when fully extended) exactly the same thing. In the same way, instead of arguing that drugs should be legalised, I'd like to see more people (non-libertarians, even) arguing that drug laws should be decided at an increasingly local level. Because that line of thinking leads to full legalisation and individual decisionmaking.

Re morality, do you think people who support drug prohibition would say that drug prohibition is immoral, but they support it anyway for some other reason (perhaps they think legalisation would have bad consequences) or do they actually think drug prohibition is the moral position? I think it's probably a mixture, but the second notion is so easily dispelled that I prefer to focus on the people who agree that it's immoral but just see no other way, e.g. "OK, taxation is theft (and theft is immoral) but we HAVE to have government because anarchy is chaos". I think this is the more common position than someone who actually thinks taxation is not theft (e.g. social contract theorists). As I said before, I think George Ought To Help and The Philosophy Of Liberty make that point more effectively than I ever could, so I'm more interested in addressing more practical concerns. Besides, I think the immorality of forcing someone to wear a hat of a particular color is so obvious that it hardly needs stating, and is implied anyway when RedHat says that killing someone over socks is immoral.

Re: Government Explained (video)

PeaceRequiresAnarchy — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:27:45 GMT

The questions I want to put in people's minds are "Why is X something that we decide about by voting at all?" and "Why are elections about X held out at national level, rather than at a local level or global level?".

The first question is a great one. The second is definitely important too, but it seems secondary, like it is a follow up question to the first to further point out how odd it is that some arbitrary things are decided on by elections. The fact that X is decided by a voting process at all rather than by the usual voluntary market processes is the main thing that is arbitrary. The fact that this vote is taken at a national level as opposed to a local or global level is also arbitrary, but is secondary to the fact that the voting process exists at all.

You finished the first half of your script with:

"Narrator: At that, Charlie left Demville, confused. A few years later, he returned, and found that a radical transformation had taken place…."

In light of the second question that you said you wanted your video to present, my guess is that the second half of your script is about a "radical transformation" in which the voting process to decide what color hats people wear changes to a more local level. So now in Demville people wear different color hats because there are multiple districts that engage in hat voting that come to different conclusions. Perhaps some districts even decide that people don't wear hats. This could then cause the viewer to wonder why the people don't just localize the voting process all the way to the individual so that each person can decide for himself which color hat he wishes to wear or whether he wishes not to wear a hat at all.

The audience would reason that people have different preferences on things and so the voting process should be localized all the way to the individual so that they can all have what they want rather than force others to do things against their will or be forced to do things themselves by others that they don't want.

When you rephrase your second question to "Why are elections about X held out at national level, rather than at a global level or local level or "extreme localized" individual level?" it actually becomes the same as the first question, so in a way it isn't a "secondary" question as I said before.

My favorite line of the script is:

"Charlie: Who decided that hats are an issue that needs to be voted on?"

It is my favorite line because this is when people just assume that things that are voted on should be voted on rather than be decided on by individuals like most things (like whether to wear socks or not and what kind of hat to wear if you choose to wear one, etc).

Actually, the subject of healthcare here in the US comes to mind. A substantial number of Republicans think that individuals should be able to decide for themselves which healthcare services they wish to purchase and do not think that it should be something that is voted on and forced on everyone. In effect, the Republicans vote that we shouldn't be forced to wear certain color hats. Some even say that "Obamacare" is unconstitutional meaning that they think health care is an issue that should not be voted on, but instead should be left to individuals to make their own choices. Of course, I don't think that this is an answer to Charlie's question. I doubt many Republicans would answer Charlie that "If the Constitution permits that an issue can be voted on then we should vote on it rather than let individuals make their own decisions."

Yet, it is interesting to note that the Republicans' way of saying that they don't think that healthcare is an issue that should voted on is by voting against government healthcare and by saying that it is unconstitutional. Further, it should be noted that despite how these Republicans express their opinion that healthcare is not something to be voted on, healthcare is indeed something that is voted on.

Analgously, even if RedHat thought that everyone should be free to wear or not wear whatever color hats he wants, he would still go along with his government's enforcement of the red hat rule pretending that it is moral because it was democratically voted on despite how he personally believes that everyone should be free to decide on hats as individuals. As an anarchist I would say that it is morally wrong to force people to wear red hats, despite the government ruling, but as a believer in democracy RedHat would simply say that he disagrees with the government's rule. He would not go so far as to call it immoral, despite how it clearly is immoral, because of his belief in democracy. omehow you, Graham, should figure out how to draw attention to this fact. Perhaps begin the video by having someone who isn't wearing a red hat get arrested so that the audience responds, "Of course it's morally wrong to force people to wear red hats!" In this way they aren't just saying "I disagree that it should be illegal for people to not wear red hats," but instead are saying that it would be morally wrong to make it illegal for people to not wear red hats. Perhaps this would get Republicans to say that it is wrong to force people to buy healthcare against their will rather than just say that they don't agree with government healthcare, as if it were fine for people to take the other opinion and say that people should be forced to buy healthcare against their will. So you could cast a moral light on decisions reached by democratic voting processes in this way to show that just because it was voted on doesn't make it any less immoral.

Re: Government Explained (video)

Clayton — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:42:57 GMT

I think I do need to follow the logic all the way to the gun, to show there is ultimately a threat of killing behind even "light punishments". Bitbutter is doing a similar thing in the first half of Give Me Your Ball. The gun is the crucial difference between a coercive and a voluntary exchange.

Fair enough - it's definitely an extremely difficult issue to tackle because there are so many interlocking bad rationalizations. It's a bit like that old saying... we can change it to "democracy wasn't built in a day."

I don't really understand your last point. Jaywalking is not illegal here in the UK. Why don't people have sympathy for people caught jaywalking?

I know you have laws against littering. If you think about it, on a grand scale, common littering is not that big a deal, "regular" folks do it all the time, and yet anyone who gets caught littering is not only ticketed but gets plenty of nasty looks from self-righteous passers-by who almost certainly have themselves littered. I'm just pointing out that human nature is ... quirky.

Clayton -

Re: Government Explained (video)

Autolykos — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:28:50 GMT

I'm sorry, Clayton, but I still disagree. A couple of quick points:

First, I think the video can reach more people if they find something in it to relate to. The scenario has something ridiculous (everyone having to wear a single kind of hat) that nevertheless carries potentially deadly consequences for disobedience. Furthermore, it carries those potentially deadly consequences in spite of the disobedience not harming anyone. (Yes, I know that relies on a particular definition of "harm", but I think the vast majority of people will agree with that definition.)

Second, I think you might overstate people's lack of sympathy for obstinacy. I think there are many times where people have a lot of sympathy for it. It depends upon the reason(s) given for it. Do they make sense to people? A lot of times people don't consider the obstinacy worth the effort, and that's why they lose sympathy. "Some battles are worth picking, and some aren't," they say. Honestly, I think all too many people give up all too easily these days, and that's an attitude that I'd certainly like to see questioned and challenged. IMHO, Graham's video presents such a challenge.

Re: Government Explained (video)

Graham Wright — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:15:03 GMT

Clayton:
By choosing "funny hats" instead of an extreme case such as killing, you're weakening your ability to make the moral case since the listener can simply dismiss it as "well, we don't have laws about funny hats, now do we?" (Actually, we do, it's illegal to impersonate certain uniforms, etc.)

The viewer can dismiss any unrealistic law the same way. "Well, we don't have laws about self-flaggelation / putting redheads to death, now do we?". So I don't see how having a more extreme example avoids that problem. You could make it a realistic example, like laws about what plants can be owned, but that would distract the viewer. I think if you make it hats you don't spark any emotion, and the viewer easily gets the point that it's not a video about a particular law, but the system of law itself that is being questioned.

When I bring up socks, the viewer will notice the inconsistency in RedHat straight away, and then perhaps they will see the inconsistency in themselves, saying that X (e.g. roads) should be decided about democratically while Y (e.g. food) should be decided about through the market process. At least it will get them thinking about what makes roads different from food, and whether the difference is more relevant than the difference between hats and socks.

Clayton:
This is fine since you are making up for it by using wit to appeal to the listener to think about the issue for himself. However, I question whether you really need to follow out the logic all the way to the policeman shooting you, because the listener will not sympathise with someone who is just being obstinate over an inconsequential point of public order (wearing the funny hat). People have little sympathy for jaywalkers who get caught and fined even though they themselves jaywalk all the time. It's a quirk of human nature, I guess.

I think I do need to follow the logic all the way to the gun, to show there is ultimately a threat of killing behind even "light punishments". Bitbutter is doing a similar thing in the first half of Give Me Your Ball. The gun is the crucial difference between a coercive and a voluntary exchange.

I don't really understand your last point. Jaywalking is not illegal here in the UK. Why don't people have sympathy for people caught jaywalking?