The argument "limited government has never stayed limited" doesn't work for Anarchism.

[TronCat]

Usually when arguing against Minarchists, or 'limited government' Libertarians on the sustainability of their preferred states, Stef and other Anarchists/Anti-Statists will sometimes say that "There has been no government in history that has stayed limited."

 

Well, to be fair, there has been no Anarchic society in history that has stayed Anarchic.

 

To critique Minarchism in this way would be to assert that if an Anarchist/Voluntaryist society were to ever be, it would not eventually become a state.

 

 

[godwin_anarchism]

 I've noticed that argument made many times in the podcasts too and was thinking of asking about the same thing.

It's stressed that the internal consistency in UPB will make society stable in a way that statism can't, but I'm not sure I agree.   Humans are very capable of prefering self serving inconsistencies, biases and contradictions over reason and consistency.

[TronCat]

 

It's stressed that the internal consistency in UPB will make society stable in a way that statism can't, but I'm not sure I agree.   Humans are very capable of prefering self serving inconsistencies, biases and contradictions over reason and consistency.

 

As an appeal to history, the argument doesn't work for anarchism.

I'm sure Stef and other anti-statists will suggest that in order for an Anarchist society to be 'stable', it must be of a moral people, but the same could be said for just about any proposed society.

[godwin_anarchism]

Agreed, and the failure of small governments to stay small, in the sample size that's provided by history, isn't proof that some other design cannot succeed in the future.

[TronCat]

 

Agreed, and the failure of small governments to stay small, in the sample size that's provided by history, isn't proof that some other design cannot succeed in the future.

 

But the question is; succeed at what? Purely functioning, or sustaining itself?

I think something like Anarcho-Capitalism could exist and function, but I do not believe it will ultimately sustain itself.

 

[godwin_anarchism]

succeed at staying small, functional and efficient.  I am not saying that I would know how.  I am only saying he can't prove something cannot exist in the future by pointing to the fact that past attempts haven't succeeded in the past.    Technology certainly doesn't work that way.

[TronCat]

I am only saying he can't prove something cannot exist in the future by pointing to the fact that past attempts haven't succeeded in the past.

But Stefan clearly does this with Minarchism.

[Jose Perez]

You are talking about anarchic society as a political model, implemented by people who do not exercise anarchy in their families and personal relationships. That would indeed not succeed.

The argument that past anarchic societies – as evaluated from the same abstract, political standpoint – have not survived is not an argument against anarchy itself, which keeps surviving and permeating the reality of successful social interaction.

I think this is a great point anyway, thanks for bringing it. I do believe there is a threshold of sustainability for total anarchy, but that lies with personal relationships and philosophy, not with politics.

[TheRobin]

 

As an appeal to history, the argument doesn't work for anarchism.

I'm sure Stef and other anti-statists will suggest that in order for an Anarchist society to be 'stable', it must be of a moral people, but the same could be said for just about any proposed society.

 

The only proposed society which IS based on moral principles is AnCap, so you really can't say the same about "any society" imo.

To answer another thing, the reason why states can't stay small is the mismatch of incentives to make it larger. One guy can make millions by stealing one cent from everyone through a new regulation/tax, so he has an incentive to work, say 1000 hours till he gets it, but all the people who would lose the cent, don't really have an icnentive to work 1000 hours in protest just to not lose that one cent.
That's the reason why governments never stay small.

Also I don't remember a point in history where a moral revolution has ever reversed itself (which seems to be an argument here), could you point to one?

[TronCat]

 

 

As an appeal to history, the argument doesn't work for anarchism.

I'm sure Stef and other anti-statists will suggest that in order for an Anarchist society to be 'stable', it must be of a moral people, but the same could be said for just about any proposed society.

 

The only proposed society which IS based on moral principles is AnCap, so you really can't say the same about "any society" imo.

What I meant was that a proponent for any kind of society will argue that their system can work if most everyone agrees to it and acts 'morally'; Marxists will argue that if everyone were 'altruists', then a Marxist society could work.

And this is more so about sustainability, not function.

 

To answer another thing, the reason why states can't stay small is the mismatch of incentives to make it larger. One guy can make millions by stealing one cent from everyone through a new regulation/tax, so he has an incentive to work, say 1000 hours till he gets it, but all the people who would lose the cent, don't really have an icnentive to work 1000 hours in protest just to not lose that one cent.
That's the reason why governments never stay small.

That's also the reason why government come to be in the first place.

 

Also I don't remember a point in history where a moral revolution has ever reversed itself (which seems to be an argument here), could you point to one?

Neither do I remember a point in history where violence and coercion were not used in some way, shape, or form. Pointing out that we have gotten rid of some 'immoral' institutions in the past does not mean the innate nature of our species will be overcome by an even grander "moral revolution".

 

[TheRobin]

there are so many implicit assumptions on those few sentences, could you make them all explicit and provide reasons for them being true? Cause it makes them hard to debate when they're all hidden and I honestly don't feel like doing much digging

[TronCat]

 

there are so many implicit assumptions on those few sentences, could you make them all explicit and provide reasons for them being true? Cause it makes them hard to debate when they're all hidden and I honestly don't feel like doing much digging

 

 

Okay, regarding the "moral revolution" argument that you guys tend to use to suggest that some day, Statism will be overcome by a "moral revolution", like how we got over slavery.

The problem with this is that it doesn't take into consideration that the more intelligent we become, the more intelligent functions of violence can be developed - we may 'get over' primitive forms of violence like slavery, but this does not mean a new form of violence cannot be created by an even more intelligent people. 

I do not believe as Stefan that humanity becomes more 'moral' over time, but rather humanity becomes more clever.

[godwin_anarchism]

 

 

As an appeal to history, the argument doesn't work for anarchism.

I'm sure Stef and other anti-statists will suggest that in order for an Anarchist society to be 'stable', it must be of a moral people, but the same could be said for just about any proposed society.

 

The only proposed society which IS based on moral principles is AnCap, so you really can't say the same about "any society" imo.

To answer another thing, the reason why states can't stay small is the mismatch of incentives to make it larger. One guy can make millions by stealing one cent from everyone through a new regulation/tax, so he has an incentive to work, say 1000 hours till he gets it, but all the people who would lose the cent, don't really have an icnentive to work 1000 hours in protest just to not lose that one cent.
That's the reason why governments never stay small.

 

Yes, Stefan's economic argument is that those incentive mismatches are such that corrupt people won't be able to resist.

small government = wealth creation; wealth creation = more taxes; more taxes = big government
big government = bigger government; bigger government = parasite that kills host

Therefore, he concludes, small governments, as we know them, are self defeating, drawing in corrupt people who will inevitably game the system.  But when he switches to supporting anarchy, he argues that corrupt people are a product of upbringing and preventable.  FDR proposes that government is an effect of the family, a projection of the unresolved BS retained from coersive childhood relationships.  But wouldn't any kind of government work if you're saying corruption can be eliminated by everyone adhering to (insert a moral code like UPB), and behaving virtuously, consistently? Troncat also noticed this.

Also I don't remember a point in history where a moral revolution has ever reversed itself (which seems to be an argument here), could you point to one?

 I am not understanding this statement.  Please define the terms "moral revolution" and "reversed itself", or use some examples of the terms.

[TheRobin]

 

Yes, Stefan's economic argument is that those incentive mismatches are such that corrupt people won't be able to resist.

small government = wealth creation; wealth creation = more taxes; more taxes = big government
big government = bigger government; bigger government = parasite that kills host

Therefore, he concludes, small governments, as we know them, are self defeating, drawing in corrupt people who will inevitably game the system.  But when he switches to supporting anarchy, he argues that corrupt people are a product of upbringing and preventable.  FDR proposes that government is an effect of the family, a projection of the unresolved BS retained from coersive childhood relationships.  But wouldn't any kind of government work if you're saying corruption can be eliminated by everyone adhering to (insert a moral code like UPB), and behaving virtuously, consistently? Troncat also noticed this.

Well first of all anarchy doesn't have an institution which artificially creates this mismatch of incentives, so even if half the people are corrupt there's no instiution that they could take advantage of. (Also since no one can openly state they advocate evil, all incentives of institutions that provide services must be tailored toward rewarding good and punishing evil, so you will inevidable have a society which is full of strong incentives to stay good, even if you're corrupt)

The other thing, where you're saying that one can have an active moral code that includes NAP AND have a government doesn't work logically, since government is always violating the NAP.

That would be like saying, we can have a society full of peopl who don't initiate force, and then use that as an argument to say that, sicne people don't use force, we can use that as the basis to make the us of force finally work in a way that is benefitial to all. Maybe I miss the logical link here, but currently this makes no sense to me in the way you formulated it (or the way I understand it).

Also I don't remember a point in history where a moral revolution has ever reversed itself (which seems to be an argument here), could you point to one?

 

I am not understanding this statement.  Please define the terms "moral revolution" and "reversed itself", or use some examples of the terms.

 

Meaning, that whenever people have accepted that a behvaiour which previously was called "good" "normal" "healthy" "moral" has stopped being called that and justified by most people, no one could ever go back on a large scale and convince people of the opposite.

Examples would be: Infanticide, slavery, beating of women, dictatorships, monarchies (divine right of kings), rule of aristocracy or church, forcibly marry people without their consent, forbiding divorce despite abuse, spousal abuse, giving women the right to vote.

Basically, when people see that government is immoral and evil (or basically,when they see that having a badge doesn't give anyone the right to kill you) then how on earth would anyone ever conceivable convince people back on a large scale?

[TronCat]

Well first of all anarchy doesn't have an institution which artificially creates this mismatch of incentives, so even if half the people are corrupt there's no instiution that they could take advantage of. (Also since no one can openly state they advocate evil, all incentives of institutions that provide services must be tailored toward rewarding good and punishing evil, so you will inevidable have a society which is full of strong incentives to stay good, even if you're corrupt)

You seem to be conflating "staying good" with 'not taking advantage'. In an AnCap society, there may be incentives to 'stay good', but there is no way of absolutely maintaining that institutions (or other states, people, etc) not eventually take advantage.

The other thing, where you're saying that one can have an active moral code that includes NAP AND have a government doesn't work logically, since government is always violating the NAP.

Communism as Marx established is stateless, and if the people were a 'moral' and 'altruistic' people, it could be argued by a Marxist that it could function and sustain itself.

 

Meaning, that whenever people have accepted that a behvaiour which previously was called "good" "normal" "healthy" "moral" has stopped being called that and justified by most people, no one could ever go back on a large scale and convince people of the opposite.

Examples would be: Infanticide, slavery, beating of women, dictatorships, monarchies (divine right of kings), rule of aristocracy or church, forcibly marry people without their consent, forbiding divorce despite abuse, spousal abuse, giving women the right to vote.

Basically, when people see that government is immoral and evil (or basically,when they see that having a badge doesn't give anyone the right to kill you) then how on earth would anyone ever conceivable convince people back on a large scale?

 

 

This assumes that people will ever see government as "immoral and evil" -  While we have disregarded numerous institutions and theories, our nature does cannot be disregarded, and statism itself has never been disregarded, so making the assumption that we can 'get over it' as those other theories is not certain; it is naive optimism.

[nathanm]

If only there was a website, or perhaps a forum, where people saw government as immoral and evil.  If you find one, post it here.

[TronCat]

 

If only there was a website, or perhaps a forum, where people saw government as immoral and evil.  If you find one, post it here.

 

I see what you did there...

Too bad this does not address the actual point of this thread.

[nathanm]

I believe in only having the smallest amount of relevance in a reply, to have full relevance would never work and there's been no example in history of it ever working, unless you count medieval Iceland.

[STer]

There is one fundamental difference in viewpoint between myself and Stefan that I think is relevant here to this thread.

I may be oversimplifying his view, but, it seems like Stefan views the harmful activity of humans as a consequence of things like poor parenting which, when improved, will lead to an overall improvement in the level of peacefulness of the species. With this improved version of humanity will come, organically, healthier, more sustainable systems.

I, on the other hand, view evolution as a timeless battle between forces of cooperation/peace and deception/exploitation. I don't expect this battle to ever stop. It is one of the driving engines of evolution.

So to me the question is not "How do we once and for all improve the species' level of morality" since I doubt this is possible (though perhaps I'm wrong). The question is, given the fact that this battle between cooperation/peace and deception/exploitation will inevitably continue, how do those of us who value the former best advocate for those conditions to prevail more often?

I address this issue somewhat in my piece:

Some Thoughts on Anarchism & Psychopathy

The one resource I really recommend for those interested in this is the book The Evolution of Cooperation, which really goes into detail about studies and simulations showing what conditions must hold for the cooperators to maintain greater influence than the exploiters.

I think, if I'm framing this correctly, this could delineate a couple fundamental categories among those of us who advocate for what we see as a better world. There are those whose strategy is based on something like improving the species in an overall way, whom we might call something like "The Human Improvement" crowd. And then there are those whose strategy is based on an acceptance that there will likely always be a dynamic evolutionary interplay between cooperation and exploitation and that we will always have to work to maintain an advantage for cooperation. Perhaps this latter crowd can be called something like "The Eternal Cooperation Maintenance" crowd. I think a better name could be given to these, but perhaps that's a start.

[nathanm]

Like TheRobin has already said, stuff like slavery and the divine right of kings etc.…all those bad old ideas have been surpassed and have not come back.  The idea that it's legit for some people to use force to get their way has not, unfortunately.  That's what the anarchist wants to push forward.  Statism isn't a fundamental part of a human being, it's just a bad idea like all those others that needs to be outgrown.

[STer]

 

Like TheRobin has already said, stuff like slavery and the divine right of kings etc.…all those bad old ideas have been surpassed and have not come back.  The idea that it's legit for some people to use force to get their way has not, unfortunately.  That's what the anarchist wants to push forward.  Statism isn't a fundamental part of a human being, it's just a bad idea like all those others that needs to be outgrown.

 

As you point out, the fundamental drive to exploit and dominate hasn't gone away. It has just been channeled from some strategies and structures to others. The key question is "Can that fundamental drive be reduced to the point of triviality?" Stef's theory seems to be that yes it can since it only comes about due to bad parenting and that, with healthy parenting, hardly anyone would have such a drive. My understanding is that such a drive is one of the main forces, along with cooperation, driving evolution and we'll always have to accede to its existence and develop structures that are inherently able to keep such forces in a healthy, sustainable balance.

[TronCat]

 

 

Like TheRobin has already said, stuff like slavery and the divine right of kings etc.…all those bad old ideas have been surpassed and have not come back.  The idea that it's legit for some people to use force to get their way has not, unfortunately.  That's what the anarchist wants to push forward.  Statism isn't a fundamental part of a human being, it's just a bad idea like all those others that needs to be outgrown.

 

As you point out, the fundamental drive to exploit and dominate hasn't gone away. It has just been channeled from some strategies and structures to others. The key question is "Can that fundamental drive be reduced to the point of triviality?" Stef's theory seems to be that yes it can since it only comes about due to bad parenting and that, with healthy parenting, hardly anyone would have such a drive. My understanding is that such a drive is one of the main forces, along with cooperation, driving evolution and we'll always have to accede to its existence and develop structures that are inherently able to keep such forces in a healthy, sustainable balance.

 

 

Exactly. Life is cyclical, and what has come to pass must come again. Fooling oneself into believing that history is linear with utopia at the end stems from cowardice and fear of nature and the inevitable future.

[godwin_anarchism]

Well first of all anarchy doesn't have an institution which artificially creates this mismatch of incentives, so even if half the people are corrupt there's no instiution that they could take advantage of. (Also since no one can openly state they advocate evil, all incentives of institutions that provide services must be tailored toward rewarding good and punishing evil, so you will inevidable have a society which is full of strong incentives to stay good, even if you're corrupt)

The other thing, where you're saying that one can have an active moral code that includes NAP AND have a government doesn't work logically, since government is always violating the NAP.

That would be like saying, we can have a society full of peopl who don't initiate force, and then use that as an argument to say that, sicne people don't use force, we can use that as the basis to make the us of force finally work in a way that is benefitial to all. Maybe I miss the logical link here, but currently this makes no sense to me in the way you formulated it (or the way I understand it).

You can't have it both ways.  If UPB can create a population that stays completely virtuous, any government can work because no one will exploit any mismatches, even if allowed for in the system.  The type of government (or lack thereof) would be irrelevant if everyone can be made virtuous "somehow".

If half the people are corrupt, Stefan's theory suggests that they would feel psychologically compelled to organize and create a state using violent methods.  They would also be aggressive, because that's how they're emotionally wired.  This would require the other half to defend themselves somehow. The only enforcement mechanism for NAP is social ostracism and peer pressure. This won't work on the corrupt half who'll find like-minded allies to conspire with and won't care anyway. 

Let's look at the other claim and pretend for some reason there isn't a state to manipulate (which I doubt when half the people corrupt), corrupt people will exploit other inequalities and attempt to manipulate and con others using UPB arguments on those less competent.

Meaning, that whenever people have accepted that a behvaiour which previously was called "good" "normal" "healthy" "moral" has stopped being called that and justified by most people, no one could ever go back on a large scale and convince people of the opposite.

Examples would be: Infanticide, slavery, beating of women, dictatorships, monarchies (divine right of kings), rule of aristocracy or church, forcibly marry people without their consent, forbiding divorce despite abuse, spousal abuse, giving women the right to vote.

Basically, when people see that government is immoral and evil (or basically,when they see that having a badge doesn't give anyone the right to kill you) then how on earth would anyone ever conceivable convince people back on a large scale?

 

 

 Thanks for clarifying.

The U.S. small government design was a moral revolution against tyrannical, overbearing government and unjust taxation, taxation without representation), yet Americans are on a large scale trying to convince everyone to do the opposite.  They complain while demanding big government policies.  They advocate deferring taxation to dump on the unborn, who aren't represented.  Also, the right for citizens to arm themselves was another moral revolution ... now people want gun control.

[STer]

 

You can't have it both ways.  If UPB can create a population that stays completely virtuous, any government can work because no one will exploit any mismatches, even if allowed for in the system.  The type of government (or lack thereof) would be irrelevant if everyone can be made virtuous "somehow".

 

That has always been something I've thought about. I wonder so often if the focus on statism is really missing the point for the reason you mentioned. If it's possible to make people virtuous, then governments, even if they did form, would be virtuous. I find it more useful to focus on exploitation itself, recognizing some governments as examples of that, just as there are countless others. The focus on one form of exploitive structure, to me, can be worthwhile, but not as the fundamental issue.

[TheRobin]

 

I believe in only having the smallest amount of relevance in a reply, to have full relevance would never work and there's been no example in history of it ever working, unless you count medieval Iceland.

 

It's 2am here and I'm afarid I might have woken up my neighbours with my loud uncontrolled laughter when I read this. Pure gold, thanks (I think I finally found some quote to put in my signature )

[TheRobin]

 

Well first of all anarchy doesn't have an institution which artificially creates this mismatch of incentives, so even if half the people are corrupt there's no instiution that they could take advantage of. (Also since no one can openly state they advocate evil, all incentives of institutions that provide services must be tailored toward rewarding good and punishing evil, so you will inevidable have a society which is full of strong incentives to stay good, even if you're corrupt)

The other thing, where you're saying that one can have an active moral code that includes NAP AND have a government doesn't work logically, since government is always violating the NAP.

That would be like saying, we can have a society full of peopl who don't initiate force, and then use that as an argument to say that, sicne people don't use force, we can use that as the basis to make the us of force finally work in a way that is benefitial to all. Maybe I miss the logical link here, but currently this makes no sense to me in the way you formulated it (or the way I understand it).

You can't have it both ways.  If UPB can create a population that stays completely virtuous, any government can work because no one will exploit any mismatches, even if allowed for in the system.  The type of government (or lack thereof) would be irrelevant if everyone can be made virtuous "somehow".

If half the people are corrupt, Stefan's theory suggests that they would feel psychologically compelled to organize and create a state using violent methods.  They would also be aggressive, because that's how they're emotionally wired.  This would require the other half to defend themselves somehow. The only enforcement mechanism for NAP is social ostracism and peer pressure. This won't work on the corrupt half who'll find like-minded allies to conspire with and won't care anyway. 

Let's look at the other claim and pretend for some reason there isn't a state to manipulate (which I doubt when half the people corrupt), corrupt people will exploit other inequalities and attempt to manipulate and con others using UPB arguments on those less competent.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean with "can't have it both ways", either people use force against each other or they don't.  If they dont' then whatever forms can't be called government since that term implies an initiation of force. And if they do use force, then you can't call them virtuous anymore. So the idea of "virtuous government" doesn't really add up.

About the incentive thing, well, realitstically, the 50% mark was probably pretty erm nonsensical, but for the sake of argument I still think it holds.

Since IF there are (financial) insetives in play, then whoever is corrupt will have less wealth than who isn't (on average), so even IF they'd try to take over, whoever defends will be able to afford the bigger army in that scenario. Also if they form a state full of corrupt people, what you're basically saying is that all the evil people spend their time fighting other evil people, so it's still not an issue for the non-corrupt.

Generally corruption is always less effective than honesty so it will generate less wealth thus leaving whoever is indulging in corrupt activities at a disadvantage, so even corrupt people wouldn't want to trade with only other corrupt people (precisle because they're exploitive), so the moment someone is known to be corrupt other people of all kinds will shy away (or charge more) to trade with him/her, so this mechanism will garantuee that no new monopolies on oppression can be formed.

[godwin_anarchism]

 

 

You can't have it both ways.  If UPB can create a population that stays completely virtuous, any government can work because no one will exploit any mismatches, even if allowed for in the system.  The type of government (or lack thereof) would be irrelevant if everyone can be made virtuous "somehow".

 

That has always been something I've thought about. I wonder so often if the focus on statism is really missing the point for the reason you mentioned. If it's possible to make people virtuous, then governments, even if they did form, would be virtuous. I find it more useful to focus on exploitation itself, recognizing some governments as examples of that, just as there are countless others. The focus on one form of exploitive structure, to me, can be worthwhile, but not as the fundamental issue.

 

 

 I get the general feeling that Stefan puts too much faith in logic.  I don't believe you can conquer irrationality with reason and logic with everyone, let alone a majority of people, and it isn't just because their brains have been damaged by trauma.

[STer]

 

Since IF there are (financial) insetives in play, then whoever is corrupt will have less wealth than who isn't (on average),

Generally corruption is always less effective than honesty so it will generate less wealth thus leaving whoever is indulging in corrupt activities at a disadvantage, so even corrupt people wouldn't want to trade with only other corrupt people (precisle because they're exploitive), so the moment someone is known to be corrupt other people of all kinds will shy away (or charge more) to trade with him/her, so this mechanism will garantuee that no new monopolies on oppression can be formed.

 

This is, from what I've read, an oversimplification. And this is why I so highly recommend The Evolution of Cooperation. It gets into the science behind the dynamics of these incentives. And it is simply not the case, at least according to that research, that corruption is always less effective than honesty. The book delinates exactly when corruption is and is not an advantage and what has to happen to make sure it is at a disadvantage.

[TheRobin]

 

The one resource I really recommend for those interested in this is the book The Evolution of Cooperation, which really goes into detail about studies and simulations showing what conditions must hold for the cooperators to maintain greater influence than the exploiters.

 

 

 

So you're theory is that whether or not people are cooporative or not depends whether the environment allows for it (to put it simply)? Okay, lt's take that for a spin then.

So obviously when you say that you're afraid that anarchy will result in another form of statism, you must assume that at some point anarchy has an abundance of recources else the cooporation wold have never taken place. So at that point in time (let's leave out some unexpected natural disaster that eliminates a lot of recources for the moment) the only way for people to be more aggressive/dominant again (and get through with it) wold be if recources would be scarce. Outside of natural causes this cold only happen if certain people would somehow make it so. For people to indulge in that activity they'd need an incentive to do so, something which promises them a return of their time-investment.
So would good people want to do that. Obivously not, nothing can be gained from destroying recources and since they are the cooporative ones they have an emotional incentive to not do destroy the future peoples wealth as well.

So would bad evil people do it? The same thought applies except minus the emotional incentive. If we assume that evil people are even more interested in their own benefit, then they will have even less incentive to create an environment where there are more evil people, since that would mean less good ones to exploit and more competition on their side. Aside from the utter waste of time destroying recources for everyone, from which they don't get immediate benefits.

So neither good nor evil people have an incentive or motivation to create an environment which would lead to another favouring of dominance over cooporation. Evil people because they're selfish and don't want more evil people to compete with them for the exploitation of the good and good people because they're also selfish and don't want to have their peaceful living ruined.

The only option that leaves us with is natural disaster of some sort, that can't be avoided or escaped and totally resets civilization back to, well, wherever. This doesn't prove though that it's not possible to have peaceful anarchy that isn't sustainable. It also doesn't prove that there's a constant struggle of the two forces of dominance vs. cooporation. It just means asteroids are kind of the asshole bullies of the universe who take away your hard earned lunch money if you don't defend yourself with a ray gun

[STer]

 

 

 

You can't have it both ways.  If UPB can create a population that stays completely virtuous, any government can work because no one will exploit any mismatches, even if allowed for in the system.  The type of government (or lack thereof) would be irrelevant if everyone can be made virtuous "somehow".

 

That has always been something I've thought about. I wonder so often if the focus on statism is really missing the point for the reason you mentioned. If it's possible to make people virtuous, then governments, even if they did form, would be virtuous. I find it more useful to focus on exploitation itself, recognizing some governments as examples of that, just as there are countless others. The focus on one form of exploitive structure, to me, can be worthwhile, but not as the fundamental issue.

 

 

 I get the general feeling that Stefan puts too much faith in logic.  I don't believe you can conquer irrationality with reason and logic with everyone, let alone a majority of people, and it isn't just because their brains have been damaged by trauma.

 

I frame it slightly differently. Stefan clearly realizes you can't logically change everyone or even most people. That's why he focuses so much on parenting. But my view is that corruption and exploitation exist in humans not just due to poor parenting, but because, in certain circumstances, they provide an evolutionary advantage. In fact, it is when things become most cooperative and peaceful that people may forget about the threat of deception and exploiters have the most incentive to reappear.

The solution I've seen offered is we need a cooperative peaceful society that is based firmly on an understanding of the principles required to maintain such cooperative peace and that builds those protections into the system. In my view it would have to be grounded in the type of research in The Evolution of Cooperation.

[TheRobin]

 

 I get the general feeling that Stefan puts too much faith in logic.  I don't believe you can conquer irrationality with reason and logic with everyone, let alone a majority of people, and it isn't just because their brains have been damaged by trauma.

 

Well, logic just means non-contradiction (overly simply put). you don't need faith in it, since contradictions don't exist. In the same way you don't need faith that there isn't a god who might end the world at some point.

But you're right, in that reason and evidence don't work with most people (you're incorrect insofar that this has been traced back to traumas though afaik). Which is exactly why it's most important to have a more peaceful child raising, so that the newer generations become more open to reason and logic (or don't have an automatic emotional flight or fight reaction whenever something they say is shown to be incorrect)

What other reasons do you think there are then for people not responding to logic outside of traumas?

[STer]

 

 

The one resource I really recommend for those interested in this is the book The Evolution of Cooperation, which really goes into detail about studies and simulations showing what conditions must hold for the cooperators to maintain greater influence than the exploiters.

 

 

 

So you're theory is that whether or not people are cooporative or not depends whether the environment allows for it (to put it simply)? Okay, lt's take that for a spin then.

So obviously when you say that you're afraid that anarchy will result in another form of statism, you must assume that at some point anarchy has an abundance of recources else the cooporation wold have never taken place. So at that point in time (let's leave out some unexpected natural disaster that eliminates a lot of recources for the moment) the only way for people to be more aggressive/dominant again (and get through with it) wold be if recources would be scarce. Outside of natural causes this cold only happen if certain people would somehow make it so. For people to indulge in that activity they'd need an incentive to do so, something which promises them a return of their time-investment.
So would good people want to do that. Obivously not, nothing can be gained from destroying recources and since they are the cooporative ones they have an emotional incentive to not do destroy the future peoples wealth as well.

So would bad evil people do it? The same thought applies except minus the emotional incentive. If we assume that evil people are even more interested in their own benefit, then they will have even less incentive to create an environment where there are more evil people, since that would mean less good ones to exploit and more competition on their side. Aside from the utter waste of time destroying recources for everyone, from which they don't get immediate benefits.

So neither good nor evil people have an incentive or motivation to create an environment which would lead to another favouring of dominance over cooporation. Evil people because they're selfish and don't want more evil people to compete with them for the exploitation of the good and good people because they're also selfish and don't want to have their peaceful living ruined.

The only option that leaves us with is natural disaster of some sort, that can't be avoided or escaped and totally resets civilization back to, well, wherever. This doesn't prove though that it's not possible to have peaceful anarchy that isn't sustainable. It also doesn't prove that there's a constant struggle of the two forces of dominance vs. cooporation. It just means asteroids are kind of the asshole bullies of the universe who take away your hard earned lunch money if you don't defend yourself with a ray gun

 

1) I recommend that book because they provide research and evidence, not just a made up theory. And I'm certainly not just promoting MY theory. I recommend people read the book and their work.

2) I didn't exactly say whether people (meaning any given person) are cooperative depends on the environment. I'm saying the incentives in the environment determine to what extent cooperation vs. exploitation are advantageous and which will flourish overall. Some people are extremely cooperative in any environment, some are almost total exploiters in any environment, and many have the capacity for both. It's a complex dynamic.

3) I'm not sure I'm understanding your argument. If you could simplify it down more concisely that might help me. But the more important point is this. You are simply reasoning things out in your head. Axelrod actually did research and countless simulations of different environments to find out what really happens, which of the many theories, which all can have arguments that sound good made for them, actually come to pass. And it's often counterintuitive. So my overall point isn't even to debate logically one theory vs. another. My point is that we should stop speculating and look at the research about what goes on in systems as cooperators and exploiters compete.

[STer]

 

 

 I get the general feeling that Stefan puts too much faith in logic.  I don't believe you can conquer irrationality with reason and logic with everyone, let alone a majority of people, and it isn't just because their brains have been damaged by trauma.

 

Well, logic just means non-contradiction (overly simply put). you don't need faith in it, since contradictions don't exist. In the same way you don't need faith that there isn't a god who might end the world at some point.

But you're right, in that reason and evidence don't work with most people (you're incorrect insofar that this has been traced back to traumas though afaik). Which is exactly why it's most important to have a more peaceful child raising, so that the newer generations become more open to reason and logic (or don't have an automatic emotional flight or fight reaction whenever something they say is shown to be incorrect)

What other reasons do you think there are then for people not responding to logic outside of traumas?

 

I go right back to evolution. Humans did not evolve to all make logic their only or even necessarily primary means of coming to conclusions. Even non-traumatized human beings don't all or even mostly work on logic. In fact, if you look at the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, it categorizes people, among other things, as Thinkers (who prefer to make decisions by logical pro/con processing) vs. Feelers (who prefer to make decisions based on their gut instinct). Whatever your beliefs about MBTI, there's no question that many people have a strong preference for one or the other. Why would it be that many people are F rather than T? Why did it evolve to be so?

You can imagine in a tribe, where humans evolved, not everyone would need to be logical because they worked as a team. It would make sense to have a certain percentage of Thinkers to help with those tasks that call for stricter logic and a certain percentage of Feelers to deal with emotional issues that are not easily turned into logical problems.

So again I don't see it as some evidence of dysfunction that many people don't prefer logic. It is entirely expected that that would be the case and many people, at their healthiest, are Feelers and not Thinkers.

[TheRobin]

ok, I just checked out the book, some lenghty cirtique (under the 3 star ratings) of his methodology kind of makes me not want to read through the whole book though.But I still don't get your point then, if it all depends on the circumstance, how do you think could things ever reverse back unless someone willingly and knowingly and over time changes the circumstances in a way to make a huge scale open exlpoitation possible again?Because once exploitation is obvious its kind of hard to continue doing it wouldn't you say?

[TronCat]

 

But my view is that corruption and exploitation exist in humans not just due to poor parenting, but because, in certain circumstances, they provide an evolutionary advantage. In fact, it is when things become most cooperative and peaceful that people may forget about the threat of deception and exploiters have the most incentive to reappear.

That is such an important point to make - thus why I am so unsure of Anti-statism/Voluntaryism - I think it is naive. In order to have freedom, we must fight for it, and protect it. Violence will be necessary in this battle, forever.