Sam Harris - Ask Me Anything #1

[m.j.]

 

Sam Harris has published a new podcast "Ask Me Anything #1".

You can find it here:

 

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/ask-me-anything-1

The question on anarchy starts at 20 min 12 sec on the SoundCloud.

 

When I find some time i will put the entire transcript, but here are just the pills in his style.

Which makes me think, again, there are very slim chances of a debate ever between Molyneux and Harris.

 

Here are some fragments from Sam's podcast:

 

- "This whole business about statism, I find profoundly uninteresting, ..."

- "To compare a powerful state per se with the problem of religion is just to make a hash of everything that is important to talk about here. And the idea that we can do without a powerful state at this point is just preposterous, so if you are an anarchist, you are either 50 or 100 years before your time or you are an imbecil. We need a police, we need a fire department, we need people to pave our roads, we can't privatize all this stuff, and privatizing will get us other problems, ...."

[st434u]

Here I posted about my thoughts about him

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42279-good-debate-between-sam-harris-and-cenk-uygur/

[NotDarkYet]

"preposterous" isn't an argument.

 

Translation:

 

- "This whole business about religion, I find profoundly uninteresting, ..."

- "To compare a powerful religion per se with the problem of logic is just to make a hash of everything that is important to talk about here.

 

-  "And the idea that we can do without a powerful religion at this point is just preposterous, so if you are an atheist , you are either 50 or 100 years before your time or you are an imbecil. We need a god, we need a church, we need people to teach morality, we can't delete all this stuff, and becoming atheists will get us other problems, ...." 

[percentient]

He accepts statism because *anything* is allowed in the maximization of well-being. Otherwise consequentialism wouldn't be an ethical principle for him, if it was subject to other constraints. What could be a higher governing standard than ethics?

 

Like he states ad nauseam, it matters which ideas people believe in. He believes that humans are an engineering problem, just short of an algorithm to figure out the utility peaks in the landscape of human behavior. Never mind that such algorithm is impossible, just the idea that all ethical reasoning must have a goal of maximal well-being lets him use any macro-statistics about wealth inequality or happiness to justify any tool of influencing behavior, including fudging property rights through institutional coercion.

 

Of course, he allows for the feeling of security, provided by predictable property law, to influence this imaginary optimization scheme too. But nowhere to my knowledge does he prove that *muh firemen, muh paved roads* beats practical libertarianism (and how could he?).

 

In that context, his blog post "How Rich is Too Rich?" (linked by st) makes sense. At least he's defending the objectivity of ethics from the cultural relativist crowd.

[tasmlab]

so if you are an anarchist, you are either 50 or 100 years before your time or you are an imbecil. 

 

50 or 100 years before your time is probably accurate.  Probably the same timeline, at best, for achieving Harris' own vision for an "End of Faith".

[Jer]

We need a police, we need a fire department, we need people to pave our roads, we can't privatize all this stuff, and privatizing will get us other problems, ...."

Is this the height of mainstream secular philosophy? Muh roaaaaaads??!!!

[J. D. Stembal]

Fuck, what will we do without roads? Harris has me at a loss, I have to admit.

 

(Of course, what he's really asking is who will pay for the roads and how? He likes how it is now where even people that do not drive are forced to pay for them.)

 

Oh, wait...

 

What are these two long appendages growing out of my ass? I seem to be able to move them in an alternating fashion, thus creating biological locomotion. Zounds, I've invented a new form of transportation!

 

Take that, Harris! My ass just pulled a free market solution to your statist problem out of itself.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

Imbecile is it? Killer arguments not. And what happened to his moral objectivism?

[NotDarkYet]

Translation in terms Sam can appreciate:

 

- "This whole business about religion, I find profoundly uninteresting, ..."
- "To compare a powerful religion per se with the problem of science is just to make a hash of everything that is important to talk about here.

- "And the idea that we can do without a powerful god at this point is just preposterous, so if you are an atheist, you are either 50 or 100 years before your time or you are an imbecil."

- "We need a god, we need a church, we need people to interpret the bible, we can't eliminate all this stuff, and eliminating religion will get us other problems, ...." 

[aaaaa11]

Sam Harris is like philosophy-light. What he says is just interesting and controversial enough to pique people's interest. But falls short. 

 

If Sam is punk rock, Stefan is death metal. 

 

I'd love to see Stefan and Sam debate. 

[WasatchMan]

- "And the idea that we can do without a powerful state at this point is just preposterous, so if you are an anarchist, you are either 50 or 100 years before your time or you are an imbecil. We need a police, we need a fire department, we need people to pave our roads, we can't privatize all this stuff, and privatizing will get us other problems, ...."

 

This statement is true.  Just like Stef, if someone gave me the button to end the state overnight, I would not press it.

[J. D. Stembal]

This statement is true.  Just like Stef, if someone gave me the button to end the state overnight, I would not press it.

 

What about another option instead of looking at voluntarism and presenting it as a false dichotomy?

 

We are considering almost a two generation time span. A lot can happen between tomorrow, and fifty years from now.

[Anuojat]

We need a police, we need a fire department, we need people to pave our roads, we can't privatize all this stuff, and privatizing will get us other problems, ...."

 

Ah i figured it out!

 

He replaces "people generally want" and "I WANT" with "NEED". No same you want roads and security ect. People want healthcare and firemen.

 

People need food to live for more than 7 days. And those are already private matters. If essential parts of our existance and survival (relationships, food, water and having children) is already private (along with information online) then i fail to see how putting tarmac and Asfalt or people taking insurances (without government burdensome regulation) would be such a huge colossal problem for society.

 

This NEED arguement statist have seems to be very close to many of theyre hearts. It is as if people need everything and want almost nothing of importance which in twisted sense turns statist into little helpless children.

[m.j.]

 

I'd love to see Stefan and Sam debate. 

 

I just found the news on Twitter that Sam Harris is seeking Chomsky for a debate:

 

Sam Harris @SamHarrisOrg

 · 

Apr 23

I'm trying to arrange a debate with Noam Chomsky on foreign policy, terrorism, religion, etc. Please RT if you want that to happen.

 

It is very interesting the triangle Chomsky - Harris - Molyneux. 

Chomsky had 2 podcasts with Molyneux, but there was no confrontation, so it was quite boring.

I find very important to face all 3 of them, separately or together, as long as they talk.

 

Now, I understand why this is not so easy to happen, Harris explained how  he was disappointed after a 3 hours debate with Cenk Uygur, that he was treating him badly, if not worse, after their debate. So, when Harris is saying 'statism is uninteresting' he means that it is not even worth talking about it. Does not mean he is right, but this is his mind state. 

 

So, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, push Harris as much you can, by writing to him, twitting to him that we want this debate. 

 

For Chomsky - Molyneux, i would still quote Chomsky on his position on anarcho-capitalism from his interview you can find here:

 

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm

 

5. Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others. Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.

I asked myself several times why do I care so much about seeing a debate with 3 of them. Apparently, sounds like i am looking for the opinion of the authority to comply with, like the arguments given so far were not enough etc.. But the situation is more complex than this.

 

First of all, all these things are far from simple, and as Molyneux said in one of the recent podcasts (29xx) it is very wise to challenge the new ideas, because socialists and communists were also promising the paradise on Earth, and we ended up with hundreds of millions of killed people. So, is anarco capitalism really going to be the next good thing we all need? I still do not know. 

Now, none of the 3 is stupid, the triangle C - H - M is composed of 3 extraordinarily brilliant people, and may be there is some argument that one had that the other one missed. Changing societies is the most important thing in the world, we can not easily accept this. I feel quite frustrated how come 3 so intelligent people, without some apparent agenda, can be so diametrically opposed. I ask myself, what didn't i get if so smart brains are not able to grasp. 

 

Neither Chomsky, nor Harris, apparently had bad childhoods. They do not seem to be the victims of some early trauma, so why do they think what they think? I mean, they are not just mildly in disagreement with anarco-capitalism, one is using words like 'preposterous and imbecil', the other one is using the word 'worst possible tyranny'. 

[WasatchMan]

What about another option instead of looking at voluntarism and presenting it as a false dichotomy?

 

We are considering almost a two generation time span. A lot can happen between tomorrow, and fifty years from now.

 

You are right.  I just find it important for anarchists to be clear that our end isn't to destroy the state, our end is for the state to become irrelevant.  We are aiming at a moral ideal, not a pragmatic resolution.

[cager]

Sam Harris: "if you are an anarchist, you are either 50 or 100 years before your time or you are an imbecil."

 

Sam then proceeds to talk to Joe Rogan for 2 hours about the ethical, political, and economic implications of creating conscious machines that will take over the world--and the possibility of uploading human consciousness into them.

[labmath2]

I think the logic behind Chomsky's position has to do with the meaning of voluntary interaction. Is someone who is starving or just needs to stay afloat another day rational enough to enter into contracts. Just think about people who go to loan sharks. The problem is that we don't know why people make bad decisions. It could be bad parenting or lack of self knowledge. All we know is that it has a negative impact on our lives if enough people support irrationality.

[PatrickC]

I think if they were to have a discussion, it wouldn't be around anarchism, because as people have already mentioned they would probably be in agreement. At least regarding the statement the OP cited.

 

Any interesting discussion would be more focused around values and ethics I think. I could probably see Harris being interested in the peaceful parenting argument too.

[Mister Mister]

I posted a response on his forum, hope I get a few bites.

[m.j.]

NEWS, NEWS, NEWS!!!

 

Harris and Chomsky failed to organize a debate, but at least, Harris published a private email exchange between the two attempting to explain why they can not engage in any rational public discussion. 

 

You can find it here:

 

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse

[Better Future]

Neither Chomsky, nor Harris, apparently had bad childhoods. They do not seem to be the victims of some early trauma, so why do they think what they think?

 

The answer is simple. Life experiences have created the brain structures that they currently have. For most people the subject of statism just doesn't come up. If it does come up, most people conclude, "It's working fine, statism is good". Only a few live a life that leads them to research deeply and realise the truth.

 

I'm sure many Greeks are questioning statism at the current time.

[m.j.]

Well, both Chomsky and Harris are far away from the 'regular people'. They are both deeply educated and they are researching all their lives. 

I mean, it could be possible that the Jewish aspect in both of them plays a role like Molyneux explained in a podcast from many year ago, where he offered a possibility that their judgments are a consequence of a Jewish model of taking care about the members of the tribe and he also mentioned that many Soviet intellectuals were Jews as well. If that's the case, their thinking is unimportant because it is biased by the local cultures, but if it is not, if there is some argument that Molyneux lost, it would be very important to have this debate. 

 

But, if you read the email chain i linked 2 posts ago between Chomsky and Harris, it seems they are still in the phase where monkeys shout at each other before the fight. It is sad how we can not make, sometimes, smart people talk and collaborate. 

[Frosty]

I agreed with the sentiment that anarchists are basically 50 to 100 years ahead of our time, the world at large simply isn't well educated enough to accept and understand the arguments for anarchism and libertarianism, this is why being a libertarian is so frustrating because you know we'll never get it in our lifetime and you know that it's a huge amount of effort to educate and raise the consciousness of billions of people about peace and the NAP.

[andkon]

As with many, he's confusing the means and the ends. We need security, we need someone to put out fires, and we need paved roads. But how they're funded, that's the question.

[LovePrevails]

intelligent people can say profoundly stupid things about politics because they think they know stuff just because they are intelligent

well they don't