Peter Joseph's Hidden Argument

[StylesGrant]

Here is an insight into structural violence. http://prn.fm/2013/09/progressive-commentary-hour-093013/

 

More on this later. I want to point out how I agree with part of PJ argument and disagree with other parts.

[kalmia]

I think it is useful to look at Peter Joseph and his followers as well as many who lean toward the commie side from the perspective of what was lacking in child development. When it comes to the refusal to accept personal responsibility for changing things and desiring some magical system change from the top, all they are saying is that they refuse to accept that their didn't take proper responsibility when they should have been carefree as a child. Much of the desire of adults to behave in irresponsible ways comes out of this piece of carefree childhood missing.

 

Recognizing that those who rule us do so because there are people with a masochistic streak seeking to be ruled is a bit disturbing for many to accept. Rulers have no power unless there is a demand for domination. Structural violence persists because people seek violence. I think most refuse to accept this basic reality because they would have to give up many of their excuses on why they should not be the ones to actually change themselves and their immediate world. It allows them to linger in this desire for carefree childhood with a responsible and benevolent parent taking care of them.

 

PJ mentions the violence that children endure because of parents who are bullied at work who then go on to bully their children at home. Looking back on my childhood, I am sure this is often what was going on with my dad's behavior that I hated so much. He always played the beta throughout his life. And playing the beta does not eliminate the desire for control, it only shifts the control onto someone weaker. Betas play that game because they refuse to look inward at the games they are playing. Rather than recognize the past abuses that they endured, they seek out new abusers to validate it and then complain about the situation they are in. 

 

The solution is self knowledge where people recognize that they are playing these games. Those who become conscious of these games will not raise children who fear assertiveness and negotiation as so many blue collar betas do. It's much easier to blame the system than it is to recognize that the system does not exist outside of our heads. And if we believe in the system, we perpetuate the system.

I also found it interesting that his example of the flaws in the market were his experience in a business that could not stay in business. Any business that stays in business without coercive privilege is one that is always looking at its actions from the perspective of it's customers and and suppliers (including suppliers of labor, meaning employees).

 

There also seems to be a bit of confusion based on the Out of Eden myth which is common in many confused ideologies. It bases a view of the world around a myth that things were idyllic in the past, and the world has moved perpetually toward evil and destruction. Like so many myths, this is just a telling of ones personal history. We all start out idyllic and pure and recognize the evil that exists in the world as we become more aware. Human history is a history of moving away from widespread mass murder and open theft to one of co-operation and the resulting civilization. When basic survival resources were more scarce, violence was a more useful strategy in accumulating resources. The market is a recognition that mutually beneficial exchange is more productive. The free market is, by definition, mutually beneficial co-operation. Since we still are in this transition period, it is difficult for many to see that it is a move from brutality toward market co-operation, and the market is not the producer of this brutality. Since there is such widespread acceptance of both market and hidden violence now, even successful capital accumulators advocate for violent means to accumulate capital. This does not negate the fact that the violence is a remnant of a primitive violent past. The ability to produce surplus has allowed the ability to trade and the ability of a parasite class to grow without as much visible violence. We must clear up this Out of Eden myth to move forward toward a free society.

Another claim made by Peter Joseph is that the government is an owner and a business, and is a sense this is true. Those who are part of this organization are owners in a sense, although they aren't in any way legitimate owners. Government is a business that supplies domination and destruction because there is still a demand by masochistic people for a dominator. These people have not given up a desire for control so they want to see others destroyed, and so they desire for certain classes of people to face death and destruction. Currently it is certain foreigners, drug addicts and certain ethnic groups since there is a desire to hide much of the violence.

[StylesGrant]

I do believe people overly glorify the "noble savage" yes. In a sense. But, it is like trading the witch for the devil. And I have made this argument with people so many times. The relative amount of killing in 20th century civilization has gone down, Loyd Demause talks about this. The rate of tribal death in indigenous tribes was however about 10 to 60% through violence in some areas. But you can still rest assured, the level of manic frantic modern style mental insanity does not significantly exist in the relatively stable community, tribal based society. The threat of external economic factors tearing apart your extended family or degenerating your tribal culture does not exist in the large civilized sense. What did exist, was the possibility or being raided and enslaved by other tribes. Generally speaking, I recommend someone read Chinua' Achebe's book Things Fall Apart, to understand this issue.

 

I have been studying to origins of facsicm. I think that one of the main drivers of war in the 20th century, and the 21st century has been a constant ethno-cultural divide caused and perpetually agitated by technological progress, migration, and economic change. When the German's felt that their traditional way of life, culture, family integrity, and means of living were being thoroughly attacked and broken down, they resorted to increased authoritarianism. Loyd Demaus talks about this also. Whenever you attack the family and community structure and its values, and the inherent ethno-cultural values, you get unrest, political vitriol, and the authoritarians come in to feed upon it. The exact same issues are occurring now in the middle east. 

 

However, as I stated, this is only half the issue. The other half are the external, foreign economic changes affecting migration, job availability, quality of life, and so on. These are fundamental subjects in foreign studies, developmental studies, cultural anthropology, and environmental studies. 

 

I think blue collar beta male is an interesting term, so let's break that down. Same with the the desire to be a master and a slave concept, something I am also studying. I think the majority of the right wingers in America right now, have the desire to be both a master and a slave. While the hipsters, the pseudo-liberals, and socialists are more concerned with being slaves, who are largely complicit. The people running international, state backed, plutocratic capitalism, whom are also maintaining a revolving door with bureaucracies, are at the highest positions masters, sociopaths. But you have to look carefully at the hierarchy to disseminate which people are left brained masters, and which are these sort of people who want to be in power, yet worship power, as a secondary sociopath. The secondary sociopath, is an issue I wish Stefan would cover. 

 

You could break down the childhood of the average environmentalist (in the general sense), the average socialist, the average religious adherent, and the typical irresponsible post-modern liberal bourgeois, or hipster, or new-ager, and they all represent people who absolutely have no desire to assert, so they almost instinctively seek out control by left brained primary sociopaths, who effectively run the military industrial complex, the highest positions of multi-natational corporations, think tanks, the majority of the federal government, and a large part of diplomacy. They are the statist and scientific technological elite. 

 

The blue collar beta male, and the majority of right wing America, being childlike in mind, are more likely to seek to assert, but only in the beta sense, they want to support statism more openly than say, the liberal or socialist admits (simply they only do so inherently, complicitly, passively). The tea party member supports statism actively. The German people in interwar Germany, supported statism actively. 

 

I believe it is true, that the liberal bourgeois was indeed a legitimate reason for the German people to become irate at political and economic issues. If you understand what a thoroughly statist, technocratic, nihilistic, materialistic, capitalistic culture does to family and community structure and values. In this position, and again in America today, you see the insanity of right wing religion being the only real halter against the cultural degeneracy of statist liberalism. If your best chance to preserve individual, community, and family stability, and fundamentally constitutional rights, private property, or at least the concept of individual basic human rights enumerated, with a society that allows the freedom of the individual to develop free of coercion by external autocratic means be it capitalistic or socialistic, is ONLY the desperate attempts of a right wing christian constituency, which supports foreign imperialism and authoritarianism actively- you are in deep water.

 

The dominant western culture, is not certainly one of highly motivated, purposeful, action taking, left/right/center secular anarchist. 

 

Once again, if you do like Loyd Demaus, I would employ people to listen to the Gary Null podcast link I posted above. At this point, I would best describe Null as a libertarian democratic socialist. He is not an anarchist, but his analysis is really, really crucial to understanding what situation we are in during these times.

 

 What we have, as was during the days of interwar Germany, is a society of liberals who think they are free, or want to be free, but have a nihilistic propensity towards being complicit slaves to primary sociopaths. This is further agitated by the child like impure ignorance and master-slave complex of right wing blue collar men who are not only unwilling to challenge the primary sociopaths, but willingly urge them on through neocon and neoliberal imperatives, and are also too stupid to challenge them intellectually (though certainly not too powerless to undermine them culturally and economically if they were taught anarchy). Sadly, as Null points out, and many others, intellectual liberals have been barred out of all media outlets. As have intellectual conservatives. All you will see, are a see of right wing propaganda spewing ideologues, and pseudo-liberals. The pseudo-liberals like Piers Morgan, urge on a class of little Eichmann, while the Glenn Beck's perpetuate the beta tendencies of blue collar men. It occurred to me, how much they peddle to basic fear and helpless dependency, when I listen to the advertisements on Rush Limbaugh. It is a constant torrent of loan rehabilitation, consolidation, and get out of debt schemes, and of course Viagra alternatives. Pure predatory economic tendencies to get people to support the grand arching schemes of the financial sector, which fuels the fiat petrol dollar and the military industrial complex, and our many wars. The beta male is insecure.

 

I still believe structural violence is an issue. What is at debate is what the cause of structural violence is, but not the existence of it. You would have to be a sociopath to deny structural violence's existence. To debate whether it is the cause of power hierarchy, culture, human psychology, child hood experience, marxism, austrian theories, resource scarcity, pre-existing poverty- these things are all open for debate.

 

What I am concerned about the anarcho-capitilism crowd, is your overly-abounding trust of high, complex, large corporate institutions, as though if you develop yourself, your private property, and walk into this framework, you are somehow going to be a fully voluntary peaceful person. The outright behavior of many of these institutions is to cause "structural violence". Once again, I am not saying this is BECAUSE of free trade as a basic fundamental principle. This could be because... they are huge state backed institutions controlled by an international class of plutocrats, who are sociopaths, who put their little Eichmann in regulatory positions to wash the other hand, and funnel money into elections, the hands of lobbyist, and buy their policy, diplomacy, legislation, and regulations. You must also realize the secondary psychopath is the most abundant yes man, the American version of the SS, the proto-typical upper middle class technocrat.

 

I have met some of these. Even a private consultant, and there are countless, in a high position, is effectively captured and complicit to the industry they work in, these people cannot be successful in their positions without corrupting into technocratic yes men. In the upper strata of financial institutions, energy, regulations, pharmaceuticals, chemical manufacturing, agri-business, medical research, higher education, law firms, there are agendas set forth. This is highly apparent in Atlas Shrugged. You might even be damn well surprised to find that Atlas Shrugged defends the notions of things like alternative health or sustainable agriculture or sustainable finance, things that are highly corrupted by autocracy and government. 

 

It is these little-Eichmann who allowed the first two world wars to happen, and they are largely responsible for the corruption of capitalism and American society today also. They are without a doubt a huge reason for "structural violence". They are potentially what would destroy the concept of a Zeitgeist. And I see that they could also destroy the concept of a DRO system.

 

These are fundamentally psychological arguments. Which is not fun, considering, the resource scarcity and environmental degradation are still a driving force of macro-economic statist intervention, which creates the ignorant masses and sociopathic autocracies repeatedly without fail. For the anarchist perspective, I have to argue that if the average common man does not become pro-active towards solving the technological and social problems that resource scarcity provides, then we are doomed to being ruled by technocrats. Zeitgeist is a tool, that could go either way, depending on how the cultural dictates and sets the imperative of my generation to develop their intellectual skills and do things, as opposed to playing GTA V all day and watching porn all night, while the baby boomers bitch and run the world off the side of a cliff.

[kalmia]

We are all playing games, or other behavior patterns aka memes. Any system is a collection of behavior patterns people play out. Few are aware of these behavior patterns of theirs. Self knowledge allows us to see where we are supporting the systems we claim to be against and shift toward something else. If we are going to build a free society, we must develop the memes that comprise a free society. Replace the destructive memes in yourself with memes of a free society. Necessary to this is building community with others who reinforce these memes.

[MarkIX]

 

  And in order to achieve that, we need to work those stages of conquest backwards.  A free market is part of that -- which we currently DO NOT have.  

 

But, there are many people who benefit from this centralization of what are essentially sovereign powers.  To claim that this de facto market system you see today is the product of a voluntary society is grossly inaccurate.   There is NO reason for anyone to "trade" over his/her sovereign powers for a benefit.  That is not an act of trade!  That is an act of surrender!  But, most people do not know what it means to be a sui juris, i.e. a man of his own law. 

 

People are indoctrinaed into believing that there are supposed to be poeple of authority, i.e. rulers.  So, no!  What you see today is not a voluntary society.  The market you see today is an artificial economy, not an organic one  (if you permit such terms to make the distinction).

 

Now, I will agree that this threat of conquest will always exist, but that risk is inherent to any and all economic systems because we can choose whether we, as an individual, participates in conquest over others (i.e. adhere to the principles of conquest) or engage in mutual beneficial relationships where the non-aggression principle is upheld as well as the principle of equal consideration -- these are principles of cooperation (or peace).  

 

 

You seem to know exactly how how people should behave. So tell me why they aren't behaving as you think they should?

 

MarkIX,

 

What do you think of the chicken/egg issue I raised here?

 

I think we may be pointing out something similar and, if so, I'd love to see Stefan and PJ discuss that point more openly in another talk.

 

Actually the more I think about this, the more it seems like a "first mover" kind of issue. I think Peter is trying - poorly, in my view - to point out that we have to go back to where the state came from. If Stefan says the state emerges from poor parenting, then where did the poor parenting come from? If it's in human nature to be voluntary and peaceful, why did parents start abusing their children, thus setting them up psychologically to support the emergence of states? Stefan never gets to the root cause. Peter is trying to get to the root cause underneath all this. I'm not sure if he succeeds, but it's something we really do need to consider.

I think we are at least on the same page.It seemed to me that Stefan was arguing with some random communist and wasn't paying attention to how close Peter Joseph's starting points were to his. I was very frustrated by the debate and more so by the responses I have been getting, it seems people regard the "market" as some sort of magical entity completely devoid of the foibles of humanity, let alone the the serious structural problems that are so clearly evidenced by the current predicament. I'm also frustrated by my clear inability to explain my points.

Yes the Statist claims principles, but upon examining those principles, they are not Universally consistent. For example, one argument you get is the Social Contract, meaning it is okay for government to tax you and to enforce laws against you because you "implicitly agree" to live under their protection, drive on their roads, go to their schools, etc. But if I provide "services" to people and claim a right to be paid according to a non-existent contract which they never agreed to, they would get that I was scamming them. Again you could go down the list, but essentially Statism makes exception to principles for people under the conceptual label of "government" which is just arbitrary. As a result, petty, manipulative, dominating, parasitic people of all kinds seek political power, so they can wear this label which turns their evil actions to good in the eyes of the society.

 

My question was, are there situations where you would claim violence or crime is being committed by the exercise of property, which voluntarism overlooks or defends?

 

So if I understand correctly you are trying to get a principle about when violence is justified in self-defense or defense of property. I will address this, but first I want to make a point - I don't think the best way to establish property rights is simply by threatening violence, neither is "justifying violence" the purpose of property rights. It's very important to understand this. People are not just sitting in their cabin waiting for someone to put a toe on their land so they can blow them away, people want to avoid conflict. This is the function of property claims, to avoid conflict, not to start it. A woman has a right to self-defense if she thinks she will be raped, but she would rather take steps to avoid such a situation. In the same way, there are many ways in which conflicts over property can be avoided.  If someone doesn't want to avoid conflict, it suggests that someone have a desire to hurt people, which I don't think is caused by philosophy. No one reads a book by Murray Rothbard and then goes looking to shoot trespassers.  This is the psychological element that most political philosophy ignores and overlooks in my opinion.  The point is that, people want to have a system of property that minimizes conflict over property.  They imagine that the State provides this, which of course it doesn't.  If you think that greater conflict can be avoided by collectivizing everything or some things, then I am interested to hear more, but historicaly this hasn't worked.

 

When someone is assaulted or threatened, morality is no longer in question. If someone tries to mug you, and you have pepper spray, should you try to spray them and get away? If a man holds a couple at gunpoint and rapes the woman in front of the man, should he try to intervene and save her at the risk of his own life? When a child is forced to shoot his relatives by some paramilitary group, should he refuse, or shoot the terrorists? I don't know if you have ever been in a threatening situation, but your state of mind changes completely. There is no moral action in these kinds of situations.  Your brain activity recedes to your hypothalamus, and you act, without thinking about consequences or moral reasoning.  Traumatized people tend to be stuck in that threatened mindset, and have a great deal of difficulty making moral choices, so they will choose to dominate the weak, or accept the domination of those they perceive as "other", or submit to domination of the strong.

 

This is where the right of self-defense comes in - when people are no longer in a voluntary situation, they do what they can. Freedom is fundamentally a) a state of mind and b) a condition of interaction between people. When that condition no longer exists, we don't fault people for reacting in the moment. In the case of the campers on private property, communication and negotiation is still possible. Free, compassionate, people will choose this way.  Traumatized people will seek conflict regardless of the economic system.

 

I still don't quite understand why you are hung up on this though. Perhaps you are leading to something? Is the structural violence which is a result of the market, somehow caused by people's willingness and belief in using violence to defend property? Do you have some reason to believe that in a stateless society, where market interaction is accepted, violence against trespassers would become a significant problem?

I wasn't arguing about the social contract  or how it could be derived I was arguing against the concept of cognitive dissonance. I can frame it this way The state exists because people accept the legitimacy of aggression, They don't say "I don't use violence so they shouldn't " they say "if I was in that position I would use violence differently". As to the point of scamming If someone uses services I provide then claims that we didn't have a contract and they had no choice but to use my services. Then am I then to regard these as legitimate reasons for them not to pay for those services?

"Is the structural violence which is a result of the market, somehow caused by people's willingness and belief in using violence to defend property?"

It doesn't matter what they are claiming to do with it just that they are willing to use it. My point about property is that Libertarians use the magic of homesteading derived from a misquote of Locke to justify aggression to any degree that pleases them. That is I feel Stefan's point, we can't have a free society today because _everybody_ is wedded to aggression.

Neither Stefan nor Peter make the argument you are: family violence leads to market violence leads to state violence. This is the last time I'll sum this up. Peter tried to argue that structural violence includes the events that take place in, and must take place in, the market system due to its inherent characteristics, such as competition. These events, such as lay-offs in the name of cost-cutting, lead to some humans not being able to acquire their basic needs. This, in turn, causes stress and psychosis which lead to behavioral violence, such as spousal abuse. So Peter says the market causes both state violence and family violence. Stefan argued that the market is voluntary and peaceful when not corrupted by the State which is an outgrowth of child abuse in its various forms. So Stefan says the mistreatment of children leads to an acceptance of the State which taints the market.

 

In addition to putting the cart before the horse, you also attribute structural violence to the famliy, because (from one of your previous posts) you think it is a distinction from random violence. Where did you get that idea? What is random violence? Outside of TV and film, is there any violent act that is truly random? There might be random victims, but the violence itself is not without cause. But even if there were random violence, structural violence would not be its opposite. Structural violence is meant to denote the human suffering caused by social structures. This suffering is largely indirect and unavoidable while the structure exists. The structure Peter harps on is the market. Others might harp on patriarchy, while others on communism. They all claim that the institution they are opposed to is, at its root, violent. When you talk about the "structural violence of the family", you are essentially claiming that the structure we call "family" is, at its root, violent. Please, tell me this is not what you meant. A family can clearly exist without violence.

It's inherent characteristics it composed of people who are aggressive due to family violence, I've proposed a mechanism whereby the State an be generated from a market that accepts the legitimacy of violence, in fact it's pretty much inevitable if the violence is legitimate. its one of my earlier posts.

No Stefan argues that the market "will" be peaceful when the legitimacy of violence is removed via peaceful parenting, Therefore it obviously isn't now , otherwise no need for peaceful parenting.

Violence in the family is a tool to maintain the structure of the family, children on the bottom parents on top. It is not random in its implementation but done with purpose. Yes a family can exist without violence but the vast majority do not which is why the vast majority of people accept the legitimacy of aggression.

Here is an insight into structural violence. http://prn.fm/2013/09/progressive-commentary-hour-093013/

 

More on this later. I want to point out how I agree with part of PJ argument and disagree with other parts.

I agree with his argument but disagree with his conclusions

[Guest darkskyabove]

Peter Joseph's "hidden argument" is: "I hate money!" http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/podcast-173-peter-joseph-brian-redban (26:16).

 

Not to go all ad hominem, but just for background, Peter Joseph worked in advertising, and was a "Private Equities Trader". I believe it was also refered to in Joe's podcast with Stefan Molyneux that Joseph is, still, a "day-trader". Trying to research him results in finding that he does not reveal what his "full" occupation is; it would be incompatible, at the least, to be a functional member of the Wall Street cronyism, while claiming some empathy for the plight of others; at worst, it would be a blatant contradiction, and put his sincerity to extreme questioning (of which, it is quite evident he would fail to answer).

 

Now, to go full-bore ad hominem, the man is an arrogant, pseudo-intellectual, piece of fungoid excrement.

[STer]

Stefan argued that the market is voluntary and peaceful when not corrupted by the State which is an outgrowth of child abuse in its various forms. So Stefan says the mistreatment of children leads to an acceptance of the State which taints the market.

But what is child abuse and mistreatment of children an outgrowth of?

 

Any responses to this? I think it goes to the heart of the matter.

[EmperorNero]

He misunderstands scarcity. In day-to-day language, it means, "non-abundance". So everything that doesn't exist in super-abundance, is scarce. His argument is, that the fact that scarcity exists, combined with the natural incentives in the market system (which he doesn't seem to understand, neither in theory nor in practice - his own business for example) creates the structurally violent outcomes we call a "state".

 

Here's why this is all a bunch of nonsense.

 

In economics, scarcity simply means rivalrousness. A resource is rivalrous, when its usage by one person conflicts with usage by another person. It has nothing to do with the total amount of how much of a resource is available. In other words, even if I can have as much chicken wings as I would possibly want, chicken wings are super-abundant, the chicken on my plate, the one I'm eating right now, remains mine, not yours. The car I'm using to drive north can not at the same time be used by you to drive south.That means, you still need property rights even if goods are abundant, because you still need to be able to tell who gets to eat a specific chicken wing at a specific time, who the rightful owner is. Even if organs can be replicated for next to no money, the kidney I'm using right now, is mine. To deny the necessity of all property rights implies denial of ownership of the body.

 

In an economic sense of the word - there is no post-scarcity scenario. Except when people are fundamentally changed at their core - I think Peter would agree. I only disagree that it is possible to change human nature. Humans react to incentives. The end.

 

If a hundred self-driving cars are available, then why would I care that you want to drive one north while I want to go south? If there are enough, it doesn't matter who get which one. Rivalrousness does not imply a need for market allocation. Are you really saying that we need property rights in a post-scarcity scenario because it would be impossible for a government computer to allocate who gets which box of super-abundant chicken wings? Yes, there would be a need for some form of use-rights, e.g. of your body parts, but not of actual property rights. Neither is there be any reason why this couldn't be organized by some authoritarian nationstate.

 

As for the incentive argument, magical assumed super-abundance solves that one too. Just imagine flying robots doing all the unpleasant work. Or assume away human nature and imagine people will work for fulfillment or the betterment of society. If you let the communists get away with assuming they can create superabundance, they will always win the argument. I understand why they would want to ignore the calculation problem, I don't understand why you would concede to that.

[Ray H.]

But what is child abuse and mistreatment of children an outgrowth of?

 

Humans use violence, in whatever context, for the same reason that any animal might use violence. It's an easy way to control the behavior of others. It's not "human nature", it's just nature. Easy doesn't mean best, though. It's also shortsighted. Violence often leads to unintended consequences, such as psychological issues in the victim or retaliatory violence. Negotiation takes more effort, but results in little, if any, damage. This is as true of family matters as it is of trade in a market.

 

There is no systemic answer to this. A social structure (the market OR the state) cannot be eliminated with the expectation that human violence will end. Those structures are not the source of violence. The source is the choice that individuals have to use violence or not, and their judgment as to whether to exercise that option. This choice will always and forever be present whether or not any particular social structure exists. Blaming a social structure is a collectivist cop-out. It's determinism at its worst. This view sees individuals as helpless in the face of an overwhelming system of corruption and violence. Only an organized group of intellectuals can engineer the ordered, equitable, peaceful future that humans deserve. Well, that hasn't worked yet via the State. I'm not sure how eliminating a system that humans use to freely associate with one another (the market) can lead to anything other than disaster.

[STer]

Humans use violence, in whatever context, for the same reason that any animal might use violence. It's an easy way to control the behavior of others. It's not "human nature", it's just nature. Easy doesn't mean best, though. It's also shortsighted. Violence often leads to unintended consequences, such as psychological issues in the victim or retaliatory violence. Negotiation takes more effort, but results in little, if any, damage. This is as true of family matters as it is of trade in a market.

 

There is no systemic answer to this. A social structure (the market OR the state) cannot be eliminated with the expectation that human violence will end. Those structures are not the source of violence. The source is the choice that individuals have to use violence or not, and their judgment as to whether to exercise that option. This choice will always and forever be present whether or not any particular social structure exists. Blaming a social structure is a collectivist cop-out. It's determinism at its worst. This view sees individuals as helpless in the face of an overwhelming system of corruption and violence. Only an organized group of intellectuals can engineer the ordered, equitable, peaceful future that humans deserve. Well, that hasn't worked yet via the State. I'm not sure how eliminating a system that humans use to freely associate with one another (the market) can lead to anything other than disaster.

My interpretation of what Peter Joseph is really trying to get at is that the state is not the root of the problem but a symptom of the fact that there are underlying incentives to use force and violence to gain competitive advantage. The problem is that he keeps saying this comes from "the market," seemingly referring to the economic free market, which doesn't even exist today in most places. In my view, he should be saying it comes simply from evolutionary pressures. In a sense, evolutionary pressures are the ultimate unfettered, anything-goes "market." 

 

With that correction, his main point becomes more important though, I think. We have to address the underlying incentives that drive the choices people make about using force and so on. And my take on what he is trying to achieve is to change the nature of the schema of incentives. For instance, if we somehow made sure everyone had the basics to support life, it would be a radical end-around on removing a huge source of incentive for violence and coercion. Simply removing the state does not change the underlying incentive system from which it originally sprang.

 

I would really like to see Stefan and Peter talk again, but with someone else there to help focus them effectively on issues like this. Forget the "free market" talk. The key issue is this: "What is the ultimate root of our unsustainable activity?" Stefan thinks it's how we raise our children. But, as you point out, Ray H., parents treat children this way because there are incentives to do so (as well as disincentives. It's a negotiation they make within their own minds). What Peter is getting at, I think, is that we need to go even deeper and do things that change the nature of those incentives in order to change the ethic that emerges to predominate.

[Ray H.]

In my view, he should be saying it comes simply from evolutionary pressures. In a sense, evolutionary pressures are the ultimate unfettered, anything-goes "market."  

 

Redefining market doesn't make this theory work. Evolutionary pressures may favor violence in some instances, but violence isn't the only conduit to reproductive success. Cooperation comes to mind. Evolution assumes that different strategies have the possibility of success in different environments.

 

 

For instance, if we somehow made sure everyone had the basics to support life, it would be a radical end-around on removing a huge source of incentive for violence and coercion. Simply removing the state does not change the underlying incentive system from which it originally sprang.

 

As Stefan points out in his latest video, the market doesn't prevent anyone from pursuing Zeitgeistiness. Interestingly though, Peter would like to prevent free trade in his pursuit of Zetgeistiness. A significant contradiction.

 

I'm not aware of anyone who expects removal of the State to happen through anything other than a slow generational change involving individuals changing their behavior, thus taking the teeth out of the State. If no one wants to join the military, because they are repulsed by aggression, then the military will cease to exist. If no one supports taxation, because they view it as theft, then they will elect representatives that will eliminate taxes. These things are far off. You and I will not see their full realization, but we may see progress, if we change our own behavior, and raise our children peacefully. We can choose to do that. Right now.

 

 

But, as you point out, Ray H., parents treat children this way because there are incentives to do so (as well as disincentives. It's a negotiation they make within their own minds). What Peter is getting at, I think, is that we need to go even deeper and do things that change the nature of those incentives in order to change the ethic that emerges to predominate.

 

I said parents mistreat children, because they are making a convenient and unwise choice based on their immediate desires. The free market has no influence on this as it only involves non-aggression and property rights. The State, as Stefan points out in his latest, has influenced family life through various policies such as welfare and the drug war. But this isn't to say that the State is now responsible for the problem of child abuse. It cannot be. Only individuals can be responsible for anything. The truth will set you free. Pursue self-knowledge; reject appeals to authority as a basis for personal behavior; seek happiness without hurting others. These things are possible now, regardless of the conditions the State has set up. That doesn't mean they are easy. Someone in a war or famine-stricken country will have different challenges than someone in a more prosperous country, but they can still choose non-aggression towards their children.

[powder]

What does it matter what the cause of 'structural violence' is?  People simply have to say 'no thanks' to their overlords and any control system that would seek to steer society and human behavior.  I think everyone agrees that no one has power over anyone that is not given to them by the one willing to being controlled.  

 

Sure, it will take time to retrain the brains of the masses to accept the NAP.  

 

Can someone explain to me how structural violence and the pyscho-biological need to acquire stuff to survive (competition for resources), which PJ says it at the root of all that is bad with the world, be a significant factor for people that live in a voluntary non-coercive society?   

[JohnnyFree83]

It seems to me like Peter Joseph does not understand how to differentiate between where the government has influence and the free market begins. It's understandable, we have been taught a lot of incorrect definitions for terms throughout our lives in public school and through the media. He attributes the poor business decisions that have plagued his life with how the world would work when there is personal responsibility. His story about staying for 5 weeks in a job that did not pay him is a perfect example of this. If it were me I would have been looking for another job the day after they withheld the first paycheck. 

 

His movement is pretty scary too. His movies on Netflix were some of the first things I saw that exposed me to a lot of the true nature of the world we currently live in. It was a real wake up call but I'm glad to say that I only used them as a tool. Watching them now and listening to them describe this perfect society that they envision has some seriously familiar fascist overtones. If his movement ever takes hold I think he will end up being remembered in history as another Karl Marx, Lennon or Stalin. The market is there in America right now on the far left, the ones who see money as the root of all evil. The ones who are angry at the corporations and scream for more government protection and more laws. Those people see the symptoms of the broken system as the causes. That group is growing every day in America and those are the people that his system will appeal to.

[kalmia]

What does it matter what the cause of 'structural violence' is?  People simply have to say 'no thanks' to their overlords and any control system that would seek to steer society and human behavior.  I think everyone agrees that no one has power over anyone that is not given to them by the one willing to being controlled.  

 

Sure, it will take time to retrain the brains of the masses to accept the NAP.  

 

Can someone explain to me how structural violence and the pyscho-biological need to acquire stuff to survive (competition for resources), which PJ says it at the root of all that is bad with the world, be a significant factor for people that live in a voluntary non-coercive society?   

 

 

It does matter, but yes, rulers being powerless without a demand to be controlled is an extremely neglected point. Children don't have the opportunity to refuse this domination, but adults do, and nearly all plans to rework society neglect this very basic and necessary fact. The reason it is neglected is that it draws attention to the fact that children did not have this option. Believing that it is the system that is some other entity is much easier for those who are afraid of assigning responsibility where it is deserved.

 

The system, including the state do not exist outside of the minds of those who believe in it. I think this was neglected or misunderstood by both Stefan and Peter. There is no state if businessmen do not believe in it. When they seek political power, they are reinforcing the violent state and keep it in place. I think Stefan lets businessmen off sometimes on this fact. Saying that the state must be removed so businesses won't use it is putting the cart before the horse. I think Peter may have been trying to make a similar point even if he was misrepresenting the term "market".

 

I do not understand hoe Peter intends for his system to be implemented. How does he intend to impose it onto people? If he does not intend to impose it, is he planning to sell it to them, meaning he hopes there is a MARKET for his idea? ::shudder::

[powder]

It does matter, but yes, rulers being powerless without a demand to be controlled is an extremely neglected point. Children don't have the opportunity to refuse this domination, but adults do, and nearly all plans to rework society neglect this very basic and necessary fact. The reason it is neglected is that it draws attention to the fact that children did not have this option. Believing that it is the system that is some other entity is much easier for those who are afraid of assigning responsibility where it is deserved.

 

The system, including the state do not exist outside of the minds of those who believe in it. I think this was neglected or misunderstood by both Stefan and Peter. There is no state if businessmen do not believe in it. When they seek political power, they are reinforcing the violent state and keep it in place. I think Stefan lets businessmen off sometimes on this fact. Saying that the state must be removed so businesses won't use it is putting the cart before the horse. I think Peter may have been trying to make a similar point even if he was misrepresenting the term "market".

 

I do not understand hoe Peter intends for his system to be implemented. How does he intend to impose it onto people? If he does not intend to impose it, is he planning to sell it to them, meaning he hopes there is a MARKET for his idea? ::shudder::

 

 

 

thanks kalmia, good points.  

 

you say yes it matters but you did not say how or why does it matter or how structural violence would be a factor in a volunteer society?  what kind of 'structural violence' would you expect to see in a 'free' society?  

 

good question about the RBE system.  how in the world would you implement it voluntarily, though that may not be the intent, and how could it possibly function if absolutely everyone, on the planet really, was not on board because the system relies on accurate assessment of available resources.

[kalmia]

 

thanks kalmia, good points.  

 

you say yes it matters but you did not say how or why does it matter or how structural violence would be a factor in a volunteer society?  what kind of 'structural violence' would you expect to see in a 'free' society?  

 

good question about the RBE system.  how in the world would you implement it voluntarily, though that may not be the intent, and how could it possibly function if absolutely everyone, on the planet really, was not on board because the system relies on accurate assessment of available resources.

 

 

I would not expect any, but it matters because the structures only exist in our heads. If we find the source of them getting into our heads, we can put a stop to it or rid ourselves of these memes.

[STer]

Redefining market doesn't make this theory work. Evolutionary pressures may favor violence in some instances, but violence isn't the only conduit to reproductive success. Cooperation comes to mind. Evolution assumes that different strategies have the possibility of success in different environments.

 

I didn't say to redefine market. I said he should be referring to evolutionary game theory, rather than the market economy at all.

 

You just made my point. Evolutionary pressures determine whether aggression or cooperation is more likely to pay off in certain situations. This, to me, is Peter's point. As you say "Evolution assumes that different strategies have the possibility of success in different environments." So Peter is asking "What kind of environment must we create in order to make it so cooperation pays off the most?" This very question is dealt with in a marvelous way in the book The Evolution of Cooperation.

 

As Stefan points out in his latest video, the market doesn't prevent anyone from pursuing Zeitgeistiness. Interestingly though, Peter would like to prevent free trade in his pursuit of Zetgeistiness. A significant contradiction.

This is one of those discussions I would like to see had more clearly. You might be right, but the conversation was never had cleanly enough to really get Peter to provide his stance on this, at least in this discussion. 

I'm not aware of anyone who expects removal of the State to happen through anything other than a slow generational change involving individuals changing their behavior, thus taking the teeth out of the State. If no one wants to join the military, because they are repulsed by aggression, then the military will cease to exist. If no one supports taxation, because they view it as theft, then they will elect representatives that will eliminate taxes. These things are far off. You and I will not see their full realization, but we may see progress, if we change our own behavior, and raise our children peacefully. We can choose to do that. Right now.

I think Peter's point was that even if people DO see certain things as immoral and undesirable, if the game theory involved incentivizes it, they are forced into a choice between doing the thing anyway or suffering greatly for not doing it. There are some people with incredible integrity who will stick to their principles despite such incentives. But I don't think - and Peter seems to agree - that it is very wise to count on a massive swell of individual integrity to get people to stop doing things that all of the game theory incentives urge them to do. This is especially true when those incentives affect not only them, but their children. Also if the incentives go against it, then those people who stand up for principle may be noble, but will be selected against so their views become unsustainable anyway (a matter discussed wonderfully in The Evolution of Cooperation).

 

Another way to frame the Stefan vs. Peter difference is that Stefan counts on individual integrity to trickle into large-scale change. Peter sees how large-scale structural incentives generally override individual integrity for all but the very very most principled people and that it is unwise to expect change without changing the structural incentives. I think that both sides have merit, but again they didn't really talk clearly about this. It's like they were talking about it in the subtext of a bunch of other distracted discussions. 

I said parents mistreat children, because they are making a convenient and unwise choice based on their immediate desires. The free market has no influence on this as it only involves non-aggression and property rights. The State, as Stefan points out in his latest, has influenced family life through various policies such as welfare and the drug war. But this isn't to say that the State is now responsible for the problem of child abuse. It cannot be. Only individuals can be responsible for anything. The truth will set you free. Pursue self-knowledge; reject appeals to authority as a basis for personal behavior; seek happiness without hurting others. These things are possible now, regardless of the conditions the State has set up. That doesn't mean they are easy. Someone in a war or famine-stricken country will have different challenges than someone in a more prosperous country, but they can still choose non-aggression towards their children.

It is a contradiction on one hand to admit that certain systems incentivize a certain type of parenting and then label that type of parenting as "convenient and unwise based on immediate desires." There are plenty of systems that incentivize fulfilling those immediate desires so strongly that it becomes almost suicidal not to. There is a built-in bias for the short-term over the long-term because if you don't survive the short-term, you don't even get to the long-term. You can't blame parents, in general, for taking shortcuts in a system that is built around short-term incentives everywhere you turn. You can certainly applaud the nobility of those who sacrifice to do what is not incentivized on moral grounds. But counting on this as a strategy for change, without addressing the incentive system itself, is not necessarily optimal.

 

What I see going on here in your answer too is the same conflict between "Individuals make choices" vs. "Structure creates behavior" which is a tenet of systems thinking. Both have merit. And when I see someone trying to focus on one and ignore the other I think it is misguided. There is a paradox here. Individuals do make choices. And yet, at the very same time, we can predict a number of things on large-scales because there are structures and incentive systems in place that make certain choices both likely and understandable. There are emergent properties in systems that are not predictable from the sum of the individual decisions that make them up, but are more predictable from larger scale structures. I think Stefan generally represents the first view and Peter represents the second. Stefan says "violence happens due to an individual choosing to do a violent act." Peter says "Violence often happens because of structural incentives that provide a context in which most people are barely even making a genuine choice because the options have been so limited and the stakes raised so high." I really hope people can get to the point where they see that these two views are both part of what is going on and we really need solutions that address both.

What does it matter what the cause of 'structural violence' is?  People simply have to say 'no thanks' to their overlords and any control system that would seek to steer society and human behavior.  I think everyone agrees that no one has power over anyone that is not given to them by the one willing to being controlled.  

 

Sure, it will take time to retrain the brains of the masses to accept the NAP.  

 

Can someone explain to me how structural violence and the pyscho-biological need to acquire stuff to survive (competition for resources), which PJ says it at the root of all that is bad with the world, be a significant factor for people that live in a voluntary non-coercive society?   

it's not true that no one has power over anyone that is not given to them by the one willing to be controlled. The power often reveals itself through a clever means - reduction of options. A person who has power can leave someone with a choice, but only with a few options that they approve of. They can then say "See you are still in control since you're choosing." But it isn't a free choice among all the possible alternatives. It is a choice among only options pre-approved by the one in power.

 

Funny enough, this is a trick parents use with their kids as part of peaceful parenting. Instead of ordering them to do things, parents will think of a few options that are all acceptable and let the child choose. The reason it is sometimes a useful strategy is that the child has the feeling of power due to making a choice, but the parent actually has the power still since they pre-approve all the choices. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad idea to use with a kid. But you see how it's a trick right? The parent really does still have the power.

 

As I've said many times, I would really like to see Stefan and Peter talk again in the context of NAP as a moral philosophy vs. resource-based economy as an economic system and see if they each think these things can be compatible or not.

It does matter, but yes, rulers being powerless without a demand to be controlled is an extremely neglected point. Children don't have the opportunity to refuse this domination, but adults do, and nearly all plans to rework society neglect this very basic and necessary fact. The reason it is neglected is that it draws attention to the fact that children did not have this option. Believing that it is the system that is some other entity is much easier for those who are afraid of assigning responsibility where it is deserved.

 

The system, including the state do not exist outside of the minds of those who believe in it. I think this was neglected or misunderstood by both Stefan and Peter. There is no state if businessmen do not believe in it. When they seek political power, they are reinforcing the violent state and keep it in place. I think Stefan lets businessmen off sometimes on this fact. Saying that the state must be removed so businesses won't use it is putting the cart before the horse. I think Peter may have been trying to make a similar point even if he was misrepresenting the term "market".

 

I do not understand hoe Peter intends for his system to be implemented. How does he intend to impose it onto people? If he does not intend to impose it, is he planning to sell it to them, meaning he hopes there is a MARKET for his idea? ::shudder::

I'd very much like to hear Peter's answers regarding your last paragraph.

 

As for this "Believing that it is the system that is some other entity is much easier for those who are afraid of assigning responsibility where it is deserved...The system, including the state do not exist outside of the minds of those who believe in it."

 

I think this is another example of how often "emergent properties" are given short shrift on this board. It is like saying that the climate is nothing but an aggregation of each tiny weather phenomenon. That's technically true. But the overall climate is larger than the sum of its parts and cannot be predicted from those parts. It's true that if you took away - one by one - each smaller weather phenomenon, then you would get rid of the climate. And yet that doesn't play out to mean that the climate is reducible.

 

There are many examples like this in the world - systems that emerge from parts, but that are more than the sum of those parts and take on a life of their own. It isn't enough to point out that they are just made up of those parts because their being made up of those parts doesn't tell the whole story about the larger system.

 

A human being is made up of a bunch of cells. If you took away every cell, there would be no person. Yet when you want to work with them, do you address them on a cellular level? No. Because the person as a whole has emergent properties and you deal with them - in most cases in your day to day life - as an emergent system, not as a bunch of cells.

 

We need to look at things like the government, corporations, etc. the same way. These things cannot just be dismissed as "only existing in the minds of each individual that believes in them" as if this solves the problem because it doesn't address the emergent properties at all.

[powder]

Ster, your point about parents having control and tricking their children is not the same as adult interactions in my view - children cannot choose their situation.  Adults cannot dominate, or have authority over other adults, unless it is given to them.  I could be wrong but you will have to give me better and more precise example of how it happens in the adult world.  

[STer]

Ster, your point about parents having control and tricking their children is not the same as adult interactions in my view - children cannot choose their situation.  Adults cannot dominate, or have authority over other adults, unless it is given to them.  I could be wrong but you will have to give me better and more precise example of how it happens in the adult world.  

Happens every day. One of the more common examples on this board would be taxes. You are told you have the choice - pay your taxes or go to jail. You can say that isn't being dominated because it's your choice. But the issue is not whether you're choosing but what your options are. Someone has narrowed your choices to those two and removed other choices. If you choose not to pay them you may be put in jail without ever consenting to any of it. So how is that not being dominated without consenting to it, which you claim cannot happen?

 

The point here is that power is exercised not only in removing choice but in determining the options available to choose from.

[powder]

Happens every day. One of the more common examples on this board would be taxes. You are told you have the choice - pay your taxes or go to jail. You can say that isn't being dominated because it's your choice. But the issue is not whether you're choosing but what your options are. Someone has narrowed your choices to those two and removed other choices. If you choose not to pay them you may be put in jail without ever consenting to any of it. So how is that not being dominated without consenting to it, which you claim cannot happen?

 

The point here is that power is exercised not only in removing choice but in determining the options available to choose from.

 

 

 

Of course this kind of coercion and domination happens everyday in a system founded on the myth of authority, the 'divine right of kings', the legitimacy of the state - this is an illusion that we collectively support with our belief that it is legitimate.  I should have made myself clear that I am not talking about how things work in the past and present system, but with respect to the NAP.  

[Ray H.]

 

I didn't say to redefine market. I said he should be referring to evolutionary game theory, rather than the market economy at all.

 

You just made my point. Evolutionary pressures determine whether aggression or cooperation is more likely to pay off in certain situations. This, to me, is Peter's point. As you say "Evolution assumes that different strategies have the possibility of success in different environments." So Peter is asking "What kind of environment must we create in order to make it so cooperation pays off the most?" This very question is dealt with in a marvelous way in the book The Evolution of Cooperation.

 

Maybe he should, in your opinion, but he doesn't. The one thing that Peter made clear was that he sees the market, specifically, as the source of human suffering. He does a better job in his newest commentary on Stefan's commentary of explaining and expanding his position, but it's only less cloudy, still not much sun shining through.

 

 

It is a contradiction on one hand to admit that certain systems incentivize a certain type of parenting and then label that type of parenting as "convenient and unwise based on immediate desires." There are plenty of systems that incentivize fulfilling those immediate desires so strongly that it becomes almost suicidal not to. There is a built-in bias for the short-term over the long-term because if you don't survive the short-term, you don't even get to the long-term. You can't blame parents, in general, for taking shortcuts in a system that is built around short-term incentives everywhere you turn. You can certainly applaud the nobility of those who sacrifice to do what is not incentivized on moral grounds. But counting on this as a strategy for change, without addressing the incentive system itself, is not necessarily optimal.

 

When I said, "immediate desires" I was strictly addressing the desire by parents to control their childrens' behavior, and the "convenient and unwise" decision to abuse them to accomplish this control. I was not talking about the desire for food and shelter. There are no social systems that make child abuse necessary. I can blame parents for abusing their children (a shortcut) instead of either negotiating with them or preventing the unwanted behavior to begin with in one way or another. The only sacrifice involved is convenience.

 

Do you believe that providing every human with the necessities of life (under any system) ends child abuse?

[STer]

Of course this kind of coercion and domination happens everyday in a system founded on the myth of authority, the 'divine right of kings', the legitimacy of the state - this is an illusion that we collectively support with our belief that it is legitimate.  I should have made myself clear that I am not talking about how things work in the past and present system, but with respect to the NAP.  

So you agree an individual can be dominated even if they don't consent to it. You just mean if an entire society refuses to consent to it then it becomes impossible? That makes more sense.

Maybe he should, in your opinion, but he doesn't. The one thing that Peter made clear was that he sees the market, specifically, as the source of human suffering. He does a better job in his newest commentary on Stefan's commentary of explaining and expanding his position, but it's only less cloudy, still not much sun shining through.

 

 

 

When I said, "immediate desires" I was strictly addressing the desire by parents to control their childrens' behavior, and the "convenient and unwise" decision to abuse them to accomplish this control. I was not talking about the desire for food and shelter. There are no social systems that make child abuse necessary. I can blame parents for abusing their children (a shortcut) instead of either negotiating with them or preventing the unwanted behavior to begin with in one way or another. The only sacrifice involved is convenience.

 

Do you believe that providing every human with the necessities of life (under any system) ends child abuse?

I agree that Peter should stop claiming the market is the cause of things that actually emerge from evolutionary game theory in general, not modern economic market game theory. I don't know why he says the first instead of the second. It's frustrating because that error ends up constantly distracting from what is a very worthwhile strategic discussion.

 

When a system incentivizes things like obedience, lack of critical questioning and so on, parents do have an incentive to treat their children in ways that create these traits "for their own good." I don't even know if parents are conscious of this, but I think they are often driven, in a dominating system, to turn their children into good "dominees" because that is safer for them. In a system that punishes individuality and speaking out, when a parent sees a child questioning authority or challenging things, on a visceral level they may connect this behavior with a very dangerous path for the child and want to curb it. This is the kind of thing I mean about incentives driving behavior and needing to be taken into account. You can preach the immorality of subduing your children all day but if the family is in a system that puts people in danger if they become too "uppity" parents may continue to subdue them and feel they're doing the right thing - even if they couldn't explain to you consciously why it's the right thing.

 

It goes back to deontology vs. consequentialism - principle vs. "pragmatism." Stefan preaches deontology focused on an ethic based on the non-aggression principle. Peter looks at consequences in the real world and wants to strategize how to fix them on the ground. It isn't a clash of two ethical theories or two methodologies. It's an ethical theory on one side and a methodology on the other. And I think viewing it like that would lead to a more fruitful dialogue.

 

Would providing every human the necessities of life end child abuse? No I don't think so. I think it would end some proportion of it. But I also think it would mitigate some of the ill effects if, when a child is abused, they grew up in a world that had that level of security. Even if you couldn't stop every bad event, I think recovery would be a lot easier in such a situation.

[kalmia]

 

...

 

I'd very much like to hear Peter's answers regarding your last paragraph.

 

As for this "Believing that it is the system that is some other entity is much easier for those who are afraid of assigning responsibility where it is deserved...The system, including the state do not exist outside of the minds of those who believe in it."

 

I think this is another example of how often "emergent properties" are given short shrift on this board. It is like saying that the climate is nothing but an aggregation of each tiny weather phenomenon. That's technically true. But the overall climate is larger than the sum of its parts and cannot be predicted from those parts. It's true that if you took away - one by one - each smaller weather phenomenon, then you would get rid of the climate. And yet that doesn't play out to mean that the climate is reducible.

 

There are many examples like this in the world - systems that emerge from parts, but that are more than the sum of those parts and take on a life of their own. It isn't enough to point out that they are just made up of those parts because their being made up of those parts doesn't tell the whole story about the larger system.

 

A human being is made up of a bunch of cells. If you took away every cell, there would be no person. Yet when you want to work with them, do you address them on a cellular level? No. Because the person as a whole has emergent properties and you deal with them - in most cases in your day to day life - as an emergent system, not as a bunch of cells.

 

We need to look at things like the government, corporations, etc. the same way. These things cannot just be dismissed as "only existing in the minds of each individual that believes in them" as if this solves the problem because it doesn't address the emergent properties at all.

 

 

We cannot ignore the characteristics of an emergent property, but focusing on that as an entity will only lead to frustration due to an inability to affect any real change. We cannot deal with government or any other system without dealing with the specific actors in a system. We cannot deal with the actors in a system without dealing with the delusions that enable that system to persist.

Happens every day. One of the more common examples on this board would be taxes. You are told you have the choice - pay your taxes or go to jail. You can say that isn't being dominated because it's your choice. But the issue is not whether you're choosing but what your options are. Someone has narrowed your choices to those two and removed other choices. If you choose not to pay them you may be put in jail without ever consenting to any of it. So how is that not being dominated without consenting to it, which you claim cannot happen?

 

The point here is that power is exercised not only in removing choice but in determining the options available to choose from.

 

We are currently surrounded by societies of people who will attack us for not paying taxes. They will support the armed criminals who come to carry us off to a cage for not paying. Society has become the overwhelming power of the parent. But I would maintain that we do give up power over ourselves in ways that we don't have to. The fact is that the state enforcers are not always there to stop our behavior and compel us to do things. We also have the ability to form societies of people who will not attack us for failing to pay for criminal behavior. If we do not begin forming these societies, we have consented to be dominated. If you want a free society, always look for the areas where you can deny consent and get away with it.

[STer]

We cannot ignore the characteristics of an emergent property, but focusing on that as an entity will only lead to frustration due to an inability to affect any real change. We cannot deal with government or any other system without dealing with the specific actors in a system. We cannot deal with the actors in a system without dealing with the delusions that enable that system to persist.

 

We are currently surrounded by societies of people who will attack us for not paying taxes. They will support the armed criminals who come to carry us off to a cage for not paying. Society has become the overwhelming power of the parent. But I would maintain that we do give up power over ourselves in ways that we don't have to. The fact is that the state enforcers are not always there to stop our behavior and compel us to do things. We also have the ability to form societies of people who will not attack us for failing to pay for criminal behavior. If we do not begin forming these societies, we have consented to be dominated. If you want a free society, always look for the areas where you can deny consent and get away with it.

To me, your first paragraph is similar to saying that we can only deal with humans at the cellular or even atomic level. It's just not true. Some situations require us to act at the cellular level in a bottom up approach. Others work quite well via a top-down approach, like when we use the larger-scale digestive system to get medication into the body which then trickles down to the individual cells.

 

I'm not sure why people here have this idea that systems made up of sub-systems, each involving many levels of emergent properties, can only be addressed bottom-up and not top-down or both. It is oversimplified to declare bottom-up approaches are always the only useful response. Real strategizing requires us to really consider which situations call for intervention at which level.

 

Ironically, that concept - that we have to be wise about which level is best to intervene at in each case and that that varies in different cases, sometimes top-down, sometimes bottom-up, sometimes a mix, sometimes intervening at a middle level - is one of Richard Schwartz's big ideas in Internal Family Systems which so many people on FDR like.

 

You may be right that people give away more than they need to. That's different than saying nobody can be dominated without consent at all. As for forming societies that can resist domination, failing to do so is only a sign of consent if they don't have a legitimate reason not to do it, such as that it appears to them objectively doomed to failure.

[Ray H.]

I agree that Peter should stop claiming the market is the cause of things that actually emerge from evolutionary game theory in general, not modern economic market game theory. I don't know why he says the first instead of the second. It's frustrating because that error ends up constantly distracting from what is a very worthwhile strategic discussion.

 

Since you agree that the market is not the source of human suffering, we can dispose of Peter's theory that eliminating the market is the way to ending suffering. You think it's evolutionary game theory. So what's the solution? You keep saying to address the system as a whole. How do we address evolutionary game theory at any level? I'm not saying we can't, but spell it out for me. What can an indivudual do towards this end? What policy can the government enact? How do we get at evolutionary game theory in practice?

 

 

When a system incentivizes things like obedience, lack of critical questioning and so on, parents do have an incentive to treat their children in ways that create these traits "for their own good." I don't even know if parents are conscious of this, but I think they are often driven, in a dominating system, to turn their children into good "dominees" because that is safer for them. In a system that punishes individuality and speaking out, when a parent sees a child questioning authority or challenging things, on a visceral level they may connect this behavior with a very dangerous path for the child and want to curb it. This is the kind of thing I mean about incentives driving behavior and needing to be taken into account. You can preach the immorality of subduing your children all day but if the family is in a system that puts people in danger if they become too "uppity" parents may continue to subdue them and feel they're doing the right thing - even if they couldn't explain to you consciously why it's the right thing.

 

These examples are not necessary products of evolutionary game theory (EGT). In fact, EGT has been used to explain altrusim. The system (the market or EGT) is not deciding the results. Individuals are the only true actors in any system. Yes, humans over time act in ways that can be described as systems (religion, government, agriculture, etc) and the resulting environment created then feeds back into the system, certainly affecting behavior in ways seen and unseen. But this is just a way of saying "shit happens." Some of it's good shit, some of it's bad shit. But shit HAS TO HAPPEN. I'm saying, "Choose to do good shit." You CAN do that. You seem to be saying, "EGT causes people to do bad shit and they are both unaware of it, and unable to control it themselves." Now what?

[kalmia]

To me, your first paragraph is similar to saying that we can only deal with humans at the cellular or even atomic level. It's just not true. Some situations require us to act at the cellular level in a bottom up approach. Others work quite well via a top-down approach, like when we use the larger-scale digestive system to get medication into the body which then trickles down to the individual cells.

 

I'm not sure why people here have this idea that systems made up of sub-systems, each involving many levels of emergent properties, can only be addressed bottom-up and not top-down or both. It is oversimplified to declare bottom-up approaches are always the only useful response. Real strategizing requires us to really consider which situations call for intervention at which level.

 

Ironically, that concept - that we have to be wise about which level is best to intervene at in each case and that that varies in different cases, sometimes top-down, sometimes bottom-up, sometimes a mix, sometimes intervening at a middle level - is one of Richard Schwartz's big ideas in Internal Family Systems which so many people on FDR like.

 

You may be right that people give away more than they need to. That's different than saying nobody can be dominated without consent at all. As for forming societies that can resist domination, failing to do so is only a sign of consent if they don't have a legitimate reason not to do it, such as that it appears to them objectively doomed to failure.

 

 

Where to focus may be more a strategy decision. Focussing on rebuilding a system from the top down by someone who is not at the top becomes a mental masturbation exercise at some point. I like form a system structure in the abstract and then finding the concrete steps to build it, but focussing on individual change is one of those very early steps.

 

I'm not sure where you believe in focussing on changing a system in some way other than individuals. 

[STer]

Since you agree that the market is not the source of human suffering, we can dispose of Peter's theory that eliminating the market is the way to ending suffering. You think it's evolutionary game theory. So what's the solution? You keep saying to address the system as a whole. How do we address evolutionary game theory at any level? I'm not saying we can't, but spell it out for me. What can an indivudual do towards this end? What policy can the government enact? How do we get at evolutionary game theory in practice?

 

 

 

These examples are not necessary products of evolutionary game theory (EGT). In fact, EGT has been used to explain altrusim. The system (the market or EGT) is not deciding the results. Individuals are the only true actors in any system. Yes, humans over time act in ways that can be described as systems (religion, government, agriculture, etc) and the resulting environment created then feeds back into the system, certainly affecting behavior in ways seen and unseen. But this is just a way of saying "shit happens." Some of it's good shit, some of it's bad shit. But shit HAS TO HAPPEN. I'm saying, "Choose to do good shit." You CAN do that. You seem to be saying, "EGT causes people to do bad shit and they are both unaware of it, and unable to control it themselves." Now what?

Frankly I don't even know what Peter means by "eliminating the market" if he uses that phrase, which I'm not sure he quite does. To me "the market" is something that exists inherently. You can change the way the market works, you can change the rules of the market. You can even to some extent put a stop to flow within the market. But how can "the market" in the larger sense - not a market for a particular product or service, but the market in the larger sense - be made non-existent? I don't even relate to that phrasing of things.

 

You also can't eliminate evolutionary incentives. It is a nonsensical thought. The question, as I stated before, is "How can we develop a situation in which what we want is most incentivized?" If what we want most is public health, how do we develop a situation that maximizes incentives for health? If what we want most is non-aggression, how do we develop a situation that maximizes incentives for non-aggression?

 

I'm not claiming to have the answers. I could venture my best educated guesses. But my interest is more in framing the questions in a useful way so this discussion can be fruitful. I think the way the whole thing was framed in Stefan and Peter's talk was highly non-constructive. Do Stefan and Peter simply have two different highest values as to what we want most? Peter most wants security for more people and Stefan most wants adherence to non-aggression? If so, they may as well make that difference conscious. Or do they value the same highest things, but differ on strategy to develop a system that maximally incentivizes it? I would just like to see their disagreements organized around a couple clear, well-articulated core differences that can then be honed in on.

 

I say it's highly oversimplified to say "Individuals can make choices and any given individual, no matter the systems in which they are embedded, can choose to go against the incentives on principle" and then extrapolate that to say "Therefore we just need to multiply how many individuals choose that way and soon everything changes." Sometimes that happens. But many times it doesn't. That's what it means when we say emergent systems are more than the sum of their parts and NOT reducible to them, even though that seems hard to grasp. How can a system be more than the sum of its parts and irreducible to them? And yet it's the case.

 

It's kind of a paradox. It seems like that logic of multiplying individual choice leading to large-scale change would always be true. Yet we see time and again that it isn't true in many situations. Many times, even though individuals are making choices, we can predict the large-scale outcomes without even considering those individuals. There is nothing inherently sacred about the individual level when it comes to predicting behavior. In some situations, looking at the individual level is most useful. In others, it doesn't seem very useful at all and our best predictions come from looking at large-scale crowd activity.

Where to focus may be more a strategy decision. Focussing on rebuilding a system from the top down by someone who is not at the top becomes a mental masturbation exercise at some point. I like form a system structure in the abstract and then finding the concrete steps to build it, but focussing on individual change is one of those very early steps.

 

I'm not sure where you believe in focussing on changing a system in some way other than individuals. 

Why is it not family change or community change? For example, studies have shown that people are far more likely to do some things, including healthy beneficial things, if they think neighbors are doing it too or are noticing if they are or are not doing it. I've also seen studies on something as individual as weight loss that it's much more effective if done as a group with others who are also doing it. You could say "The group is made up of the individuals so they should be able to make the same choice individually that they make as part of a group." but that doesn't seem to be the case. If you just focus on the individual in cases like that, you lose the social incentives that drive change more on a group or community level.

 

So again this sort of fetish for the individual level doesn't make sense to me. Some things are better incentivized on a family level or group level or neighborhood level. Some are best incentivized on a global scale.

 

Psychologists know this well. Every day they have to decide if a particular situation is best dealt with in individual therapy or family system therapy. Some things are actually incredibly difficult to help someone with as an individual, but much more treatable with family therapy since the person has a very hard time changing if the family system is incentivizing opposite behavior. And note that treating the family together as a system does things that couldn't be done even if every member of the family was in individual treatment separately. We need to bring more of the system into the process. Other times, it's the exact opposite and bringing the family in would sabotage things and it has to be done in a more private individual setting.

 

I don't think this is any less true with activism. Certain issues require intervention at different levels of systems.