Intelligent people, opposite POV

[ausppc]

On facebook I have a friend from high school that I respect for the way he has succeeded in life but he often posts things that reveal an all too typically statist mindset.  The most recent example is a comment on the Amazon / codespaces hack:

 

Ouch. At least they didn't give in to the criminals. A good case for pervasive mass surveillance if I ever saw one - stories like this really do tickle my authoritarian instincts.

 

To which I somewhat churlishly replied:

 

Meaningful security is too hard so let's pre-emptively punish everyone at their own expense. Authority for the win.

 

His next:

 

Any notion that anarchy could last forever on the Internet is mistaken. Human nature dictates it. Absolute freedom always fails, because complete freedom permits the strong to deprive others of their freedom.

 

And my most recent...

 

Forgive me if I don't quite follow the extrapolation from internet anarchy to absolute freedom in every other aspect of life but, to me, the idea of absolute freedom resulting in denial of freedom presents the same logical problem as saying 1 = 0 The statement / equation is either wrong or incomplete and, if zero freedom is the result, it suggests there was no absolute freedom to begin with. The idea that freedoms can only ever be diminished also alludes to the conflation of anarchy with chaos. Those two things are not the same but taking them that way certainly plays into the hands of those that do the most to erode what few, small freedoms remain.

 

Feel free to comment!  I'll keep adding his posts and mine if there's any interest. 

[ParaSait]

The strong deprive others of their freedom, so let's allow a certain group of people to be really strong so they can deprive everyone of their freedom... hmm... yeah.

[ausppc]

Anarchy can be made to work, but it's massively inefficient. Who wants to live in a rural hamlet growing all their own food, and never being more than ten metres away from a firearm in case somebody else decides it's easier to steal? I'm not a farmer or a policeman. Consider for a second why true anarchism/socialism doesn't scale up much further than kibbutzim. If you could wave a magic wand, and dissolve all authority and all borders, it would be utter chaos, and billions would starve and die. I think I understand what true freedom means for me, and I don't want it.

Authority is order imposed on the people; and order is freedom to specialize and earn my living and do so comfortably, knowing I only have to be good at one thing to look after my family and stay alive long enough to reproduce.

 

Unfortunately, time differences are against me so I'll be sleeping on my response. 

[Magnus]

"Freedom" doesn't mean "able to so anything you feel like unimpeded." It doesn't mean "superabundant resources so everyone gets everything they want without cost."

 

"Freedom" means "freedom from aggression."

 

With that in mind, let's look at your friend's platitude about how the world supposedly works:

 

"Absolute freedom always fails, because complete freedom permits the strong to deprive others of their freedom."

 

When he says "the strong deprive others," he's talking about aggression.

 

So, if we translate his tortured, equivocating statement into honest, clear language, here's what he's saying:

 

"Absolute freedom from aggression always fails, because complete freedom from aggression permits the strong to commit aggression."

 

This is patent nonsense. Therefore, he's wrong.

[cynicist]

This guy makes my skin crawl. Why is he your friend again?

[ausppc]

He's clearly operating on different definitions of various words so that has to be cleared up before he and I can go any further on this topic.  re: Why are we friends?  As I see it, we have a common background, he's intelligent, talented and often posts interesting material on his areas of expertise.

 

btw I'll get right onto a reply to him just as soon as the No State Project ends. 

[ausppc]

I think it would help if we're both clear about the meanings of the words we're using.  First, I go out of my way to separate anarchy and socialism.  To me, anarchy is best understood by its root meaning: no ruler(s).  If it helps to equate that concept with something else, think about whether a particular interaction is voluntary.  

Perhaps you won't easily share this point of view but, to the extent that someone enjoys voluntary interaction and seeks to resist, reduce and / or remove involuntary interaction from their life, they are an anarchist.  

Again, the idea that true freedom means freedom for strong aggressors at the expense of all the freedom of weaker people is actually the opposite of freedom - it's oppression.  

I do agree with you about the imposition of order but I don't agree that it's the only way to achieve a stable, prosperous society.

[TheRobin]

 

I do agree with you about the imposition of order but I don't agree that it's the only way to achieve a stable, prosperous society.

 

Maybe I misunderstand you here, but are you saying that imposition of order lead to a stable and prosperous society? If so, when and where did that happen exactly?

[ausppc]

The key word there is imposition. 

[coldix]

I like to check out what Ayn Rand says on the subject.

"Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html

and

"The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.

Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia—or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.

The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure—terrifying, that is, if one’s motive is men’s welfare.

Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/socialism.html

In the early 90's I heard Keith Williams of Hamilton Island fame speak of belief in unfettered free enterprise, he thought government had 4 functions and should not do anything else, military external force, police internal force, lands recording ownership and courts, settling disputes. I still agree with this position, the trick is to keep it small and stop it expanding.

[MeGrownMind]

 The statement / equation is either wrong or incomplete and, if zero freedom is the result, it suggests there was no absolute freedom to begin with.

I liked this a lot 

[ausppc]

Well thank you very much! 

 

<minor winge>

That sure beats how I seem to be attracting negative reputation with no meaningful feedback in this thread - not sure what I'm supposed to learn from that... 

</minor winge>

 

btw Is 'theyounger' a RAW / The Illuminatus! reference? 

[TheRobin]

<minor winge>

That sure beats how I seem to be attracting negative reputation with no meaningful feedback in this thread - not sure what I'm supposed to learn from that... 

</minor winge>

 

Well, given that you got it when responding with ashort one-liner that didn't even adress the question, is it really that hard to figure out? (Also ironic to the degree that you don't like a lack of a meaningful feedback, but this is what got you the negative rep)Hope that helps

[ausppc]

ok.  This is where a little more feedback helps.  In what you quoted back to me, we're focused on two different things.  Please forgive me for not wanting to draw a line through the shades of grey that describe the various quantities and qualities of stability and prosperity.  Some people, like my facebook friend, will argue that society is stable and prosperous, others will take the opposite position.  But what I was focused on was the imposition of order and that my friend even recognised that it is imposed. 

 

Also, I may well be too concise for some on this forum but I much perfer that to being tl;dr. 

[TheRobin]

I don't see how this has to do with shades of grey. From what I got your argument was that imposition can lead to order and stability of some sort and I don't see how this is true in any way. Also I think once you accept that violent imposition can lead to order and stability you're gonna have a much more difficult time arguing for freedom, cause then people can just say, "well we know vioence can lead to order, so why should I want to take my chances" or something along those lines.Btw I like concise, just be sure that the content doesn't get lost, as that can be quite frustrating in a converastion (which is already a bit more difficult to have on a forum anyway).

[ausppc]

I think our little misunderstanding has come from an attempt at wordplay that I made in this facebook exchage.  When I was agreeing with my friend, I was only agreeing on the point about imposition.If this doesn't take us too far off point, I'd like to ask: If, in an instant, 100% of human interaction became 100% voluntary and nothing else changed, would you still characterise society as completely lacking stability and prosperity?

[TheRobin]

I don't even see how the question makes sense. It's like asking in the middle ages, "if the black plague was suddenly gone, but nothing else changed..." I mean by defininition it's such a huge intrusion into everything, so saying "if nothing else changed" doesn't make much sense to me. Can you elaborate a bit on that?

[LovePrevails]

he's already made up his mind he doesn't show any ccuriosity or desire for mutual education etc. no point