Replies

By "fighting anarchy" I mean organizing and working out interpersonal agreements... head off tyranny...

People are surprisingly able to work out their own agreements.

As for tyranny, humans will always wish to lord it over others, and they will always recognize the personal benefit in falling in with a warlord on the rise. Your proposal is to select a ruler, in hopes of avoiding a worse ruler, whom you call a "tyrant". The problem is that whatever ruler you pick will see the personal benefit in advancing his power, and will without fail work toward creating the very tyranny you fear. The United States government isn't yet a "tyranny", compared to others, but it's heading straight in that direction, and well on its way.

The only effective way to head off tyranny is for a critical mass of people to resolve never to yield to tyrants, and to be armed. They will resist the imposition of a warlord until the last man falls. But they will also resist what you call "organizing". Suppose someone comes along and says, "I'll work out your interpersonal agreements! It's like this: you tell me your problems, and I tell you my decision. Then, my decision is law!" He would be ignored. If he attempted to enforce his "rulings", his victim would kill him in self defense.

Which brings us back to my assertion that humans aren't ready. A critical mass must believe in freedom. Today, most people would pick a warlord, get behind him, and attack his rivals. Too many people are still slaves to their tribal instinct. That's why I can't make the leap today from minarchist to anarchist--even though I recognize that every minarchy will always evolve toward tyranny.

some group of people is very free (and a few people oppressed? not clear on your reason for "a large majority")

The ruling class is always free, in addition to having the license to oppress. A senator can do anything he wants with his property, and can also expect immunity from prosecution for victimless crimes. None of government's infringements affect him personally. Taxes? He's paying himself. Airport security? He can fly privately, or in military transport, if he wishes. Water conservation laws? The congress building has vacuum toilets that work on the first flush. Speeding? "Here's your license back--have a great day, Senator! Believe me, I'll recognize you on sight next time!"

Freedom for a few is no feat. Freedom for a vast majority would be a landmark achievement.

absolute freedom (that would technically include the freedom for you to steal my car without punishment)

No, that isn't what "freedom" means. It means that anything goes, as long as all interactions between more than one human are fully consensual for all parties. The only fixed rule of society is the golden rule.

Within that, consensual structures can be formed. I can hire you, if I agree to and you consent to work for me. I can fire you, if you don't fulfill the terms of your contract. I can start a club, as long as every member joins of his own free will. We can kick people out of our club, if they break the rules they agreed to when they joined. You can form a "Fight Club", in which every member consents to have the snot kicked out of him. You can even form a club that plays "paintball" using live ammo--as long as everyone consents to being shot at, and no third parties are exposed to danger.

But all of that's secondary; as long as the golden rule is followed, no explicit social ogranization needs to take place.

the strength of the US conservative movement since the 1980s, even despite its flaws

If you followed FReepers reaction to Katrina, you'd notice that these hard-core "conservatives" were extremely supportive of Bush promising more than $200 billion of our tax dollars to rebuild New Orleans. Bush is the biggest spender in the history of the solar system. I'm not so sure conservatives will stave off tyranny. If that's the plan, then I wish they'd stop using tyranny to fight tyranny.

I don't think it is a cinch to come to interpersonal agreements that do everything well, let alone perfectly.

Actually, it is. I leave you alone, and you leave me alone. See how simple it is? If you got something I want, and I got something you want, we'll trade. Voila! Free market. Civilization ensues.

The reason it doesn't work is that unevolved humans are uncomfortable when they don't know who's the chief of their tribe, and they don't really believe in the golden rule either. So when someone says, "I'm your chief!" they feel genuine relief. Then, when the chief says, "He's our enemy!" they willingly attack him. Other humans, afraid of this new warlord, will ask, "Where's OUR chief?" Government ensues.

Humans will be ready for civilization when they are truly shocked, horrified and amused by that latter scenario.

"'By "fighting anarchy" I mean organizing and working out interpersonal agreements... head off tyranny...'

People are surprisingly able to work out their own agreements."

I am aware of this, it is what I was getting at. The difference seems to be that I don't think it is off limits to think about it.

"Your proposal is to select a ruler, in hopes of avoiding a worse ruler, whom you call a "tyrant"."

No, in fact, my proposal is to recognize that the types of agreements people come to on their own volition (which is an integration of biological inheritance, cultural inheritance, and personal thought, all ultimately, though indirectly, checked by reality) are a sort of structure, and thus, not anarchy, but constitutionalism.

Once one admits to oneself that this is in fact constitutionalism, one becomes much less interested in anarchy. The only way you get anarchy is to vaporize people. Then what was people will move nice and randomly, because it will be gaseous. Any other option is either constitutionalism of some sort, or "arbitrary" rule by a tyrant (really directed by his personal will), or some combination of the two. Note that any of these three non-vaporization options will still involve some element of randomness, because randomness is build into the fabric of the world.

There is no "critical mass" to anarchist utopia. There are degrees of kind to better and better forms of constitutionalism. You'll still always get some mistakes involving "whoops, I thought it was you who stole my car".

"The ruling class is always free, in addition to having the license to oppress. A senator can do anything he wants with his property, and can also expect immunity from prosecution for victimless crimes."

Yeah, so, a type of constitutionalism that doesn't involve this sort of garbage, and that doesn't degenerate into tyranny, is better than a type that does. That doesn't mean that better constitutionalism equals anarchy.

"'absolute freedom (that would technically include the freedom for you to steal my car without punishment)'

No, that isn't what "freedom" means. It means that anything goes, as long as all interactions between more than one human are fully consensual for all parties. The only fixed rule of society is the golden rule."

Yes, what I said *is* what absolute freedom for an individual means - freedom for him to steal my car and go unpunished. *Just* freedom, on the other hand, is what you have when the 'freedom to oppress' is checked by the 'freedom to punish rights infringement'. This overall maximizes human freedom and overall minimizes human oppression (the punishment of the car thief is still a sort of oppression, but it is a *just* sort, because it is necessary for maximizing individual freedom for all individuals, which ultimately is necessary for the flourishing of human potential and life, and for individual happiness).

This is what you get people have it in their heads that it is wrong to steal cars and right to punish car thieves - and the vast majority of people have this, and other similar principles, in their heads. Today. They've usually just got other weird stuff interfering, and your confounded use of the word 'freedom' doesn't help clarify much anything for honest, curious, thinking people. It just makes them cognitively dissonant if they swallow it.

"Within that, consensual structures can be formed. [...]"

I quite agree with this section, although your weird use of the term 'freedom' makes it quite difficult to back this up clearly.

"But all of that's secondary; as long as the golden rule is followed, no explicit social ogranization needs to take place."

First:
Once you get one single curious person willing to violate the golden rule for some reason, you need someone else to violate the golden rule. So, if you have one person stealing a car, you have to have another person treating him in a way that is *NOT* as this second person would like to be treated if he were in the first's position (the second person would probably like to be let off scot-free if he were caught stealing a car), but as he *should* be treated.

This is where you flirt with utopianism and tyranny. For your system to work, there can't be any curious or opportunistic people wanting to see if they can get away with car theft. Curiosity and opportunism cannot be eliminated in this world without wiping out a great deal of good. Car thieves cannot be let off scot-free without encouraging a great deal of evil.

Second:
Non-explicit social organization is still social organization! It is still a form of constitutionalism, whether people talk about it or not! Your fear is not constitutionalism, it is talking about it. You dress up your ideas about constitutionalism as "anarchy" in an effort to prevent conversation. Your ideas about constitutionalism may be very well and good, but (1) they are not anarchy, and (2) evil does not result from thinking or talking about things.

"If you followed FReepers reaction to Katrina, you'd notice that these hard-core "conservatives" were extremely supportive of Bush promising more than $200 billion of our tax dollars to rebuild New Orleans."

This is a good point.

I tend to think I can make my case against garbage like this better if I don't use terms like 'freedom' in a confounded manner. And, also, if instead of railing about a confounded use of the term 'freedom', I point out that garbage like government funded natural disaster recovery actually ends up killing more people an wasting more hard-created wealth in the long term, because it discourages people from taking care when deciding whether to build in a natural disaster zone, and if so, how robustly to design the buildings. Instead of thinking carefully about risk, people are encouraged to figure that Big Brother will just clean up after their decisions. Very like what you would get if you replaced the drug war with government funded drug treatment.

FYI, I'm OK with private charity to help people in both situations (natural disaster and drug recovery), because charity doesn't involve entitlement, and it can be given with privately-determined constraints ("you can take this if you sign a contract not to build in a disaster area again unless the buildings are designed to withstand such-and-such"), and all of the tyrannic corruption and carelessness entitlement breeds. I would explain my position giving this context, and (because I am not cognitively dissonant) by relating this context to 'freedom' with the definitions I gave in the preceding section. I would not expect a confounded definition of freedom, just it on its own, to convince anyone but the psychologically weak and easily bullied. There's a reason people don't listen to your confounded arguments, and it's not because you're better than they are.

"Actually, it is. I leave you alone, and you leave me alone. See how simple it is? If you got something I want, and I got something you want, we'll trade. Voila! Free market. Civilization ensues."

Golly gee, so if no one ever steals a car, or does anything else bad ever, everything will be perfect!

I kind of like this. If I never slip on the wet pavement, I'll never break my hip from having slipped on the wet pavement! Paradise, here we come!

The problem with this is that if we, dazed by utopianism, pretend we can rely on it alone, we will figure there will be no need for anything that can help mend hips. Yet, there *will* be strong demand for something (folk knowledge, private-board certified doctors, fair-trade cotton bandages and plaster, first aid manuals, something) that can mend hips, because this is not a perfect world. Demand will be met. And if it is urgent, and that which can meet it is in short supply (perhaps because people have been conned into refraining from thinking about what to do in such a situation), it will not be met well (think: charlatan phony "doctors").

The analogy between this hip utopia turned hip dystopia and your social utopia (or "true civilization") is this. If there is no structure for dealing with the rights-infringing opportunists who will eventually crop up, because opportunism is not something that can be wiped out in humans without turning them into dead things (and your "do unto others" bit ensures that you will have no such structure), there will be HUGE incentive to rights-infringing opportunities, and thus HUGE and URGENT demand for someone to take care of the evil doers. HUGE. URGENT. You know who will satisfy that demand on the quick? A cheap, two-bit, third-world-style, tyrant.

That's why it is no cinch. 'Perfection' is 'finished' is death, period. You do not wipe out opportunism without starving or otherwise wiping out humans. And you do not ignore the fact that there will always be some incentive to people for rights-infringing opportunism, and you do not treat rights-infringing opportunists the way you would like to be treated if you were in their position, without creating huge and urgent demand for tyrants.

Even people who have been through Armageddon-like hellishness will be pissed when someone steals their cars or rapes their daughters or whatnot (if they weren't, any social mutant who decided to rape all the daughters and steal all the wealth would go unpunished and, in doing so, disproportionally exert influence on the next generation), and if there aren't some organizing principles in place that function decently when these evils happen, there will be demand that will be satisfied very quickly by a tyrant.

"We can kick people out of our club, if they break the rules they agreed to when they joined. You can form a "Fight Club", in which every member consents to have the snot kicked out of him. You can even form a club that plays "paintball" using live ammo--as long as everyone consents to being shot at, and no third parties are exposed to danger."

It took me a while and some time outdoors after reading to realize what you are getting at with this.

You are trying to say that freedom supersedes life and human potential, as evidenced by the fight club or shooting people club. In your mind these freedoms contradict my position on freedom, and force the logically confounded and/or mystical reading.

I disagree, and not because I'm cognitively dissonant; it's actually because I'm *not* cognitively dissonant.

I disagree because I think that for any individual to avoid being a tool of petty fools and posturing tyrants, he (or she) must - MUST - deal with the fact that he (or she) CAN, and absolutely HAS the freedom RIGHT NOW, to be Mr. Self-Destruct, fuck the laws.

YOU can stop eating. You can kill yourself by doing so, or come damn near close to it, just to try.

YOU can go lay on the train tracks at night.

YOU can hang out with junkies and buy shit that will fuck you up FOR EVER.

That is YOUR fucking power. Deal with it. YOU can say, screw it all, I am taking a gun and driving to the forest and bringing my buddies and we are going to play "paint" ball. With goddamned real bullets. Go fucking do it. You think forest ranger man is going to find you?

Senator Kennedy cannot freaking stop that without putting you in a cage. He CAN NOT stop you if you want to do it RIGHT NOW. And if he puts you in a cage? You've got a three pound universe in your skull he can never control without YOUR permission. He can stick ice picks in it, he can destroy it, HE CANNOT CONTORL IT WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION. DON'T FUCKING GIVE THEM THAT PERMISSION. You give them that permission, 1984's boot stamps on a human face. For-fucking-EVER. Is this clear?

This was the ONLY thing that could have saved Winston Smith. Gandhi knew it. Someone can torture me, and I'll feel pain. Boo-freakin-hoo. Someone can kill me; he'll get a goddamned pile of bones. Someone hijacks my brain and my potency ONLY with MY permission. Fucking period.

This is the source of real freedom. This is the source of individual power. This is the source of anything that differentiates an individual human being from a stick used by a chimp to pick at grubs.

You will be NOTHING other than a stick for a chimp in a suit, or pile of bones, if you don't deal with this. Take the fucking gun, go to the fucking forest, load the damn thing, Ted Kennedy WILL NOT stop you, this is NOT about Senator Kennedy, he is beside the point, he is a chimp in a suit, put the damn thing to you head, and make it all YOUR decision.

The first amendment comes before the second for a damned good reason. A man with a gun and a hijacked brain is someone else's tool. A man with own damn brain is the source of any freedom, power, or human life that can last more than two minutes.

It is like we're living in a book. You get that three pound page in your head. You write that page. The book starts with the big bang, it ends with entropy. But that is YOUR page - and your culture and your inheritance are your ink. Everything more than chimps starts from fucking THERE. OWN THAT. Before you give half a care about property rights or even gun rights, OWN THAT PAGE. For the rest of the time, this moment on, that that page always *will have* existed, WRITE IT YOURSELF.

Or don't. You're free not to. Take your brain-breaking, irrational, confounded definition of freedom, that says the word 'freedom' in "freedom to kill yourself" is somehow, magically, inherently fundamentally different from 'freedom' in "freedom to kill someone else and go unpunished" and let nuts use fear to break your brain into shards. That's your choice; scream 2+2=5 at the top of your lungs for all I care, while cowering in the corner from big bad forest ranger guy, who might interfere with your "paint" ball. Just don't confuse my 2+2=4 for an infringement on your property.

Chapter 1, THE EPISTLE TO THE PARANOIDS

--Lord Omar

1. Ye have locked yerselves up in cages of fear--and, behold, do ye now complain that ye lack FREEDOM!

2. Ye have cast out yer brothers for devils and now complain ye, lamenting that ye've been left to fight alone.

3. All Chaos was once yer kingdom; verily, held ye dominion over the entire Pentaverse, but today ye was sore afraid in dark corners, nooks, and sink holes.

4. O how the darknesses do crowd up, one against the other, in ye hearts! What fear ye more that what ye have wroughten?

5. Verily, verily I say unto you, not all the Sinister Ministers of the Bavarian Illuminati, working together in multitudes, could so entwine the land with tribulation as have yer baseless warnings.