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."

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.

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....

A legitimate area of intellectual discourse. However, I'm not sure you realize that nobody needs you to finish these cogitations of yours before they proceed to make their own agreements with their neighbors. You appear to believe that this needs to be "thought about" so that it can be organized in the best way. The only way to "organize" is by force, so it appears that your ponderings keep leading back to the belief that someone out there needs to enforce "the rules" for society to function.

The reality is that anyone who wants to enforce "the rules" is himself the problem. He can be well-meaning; he can be wise as a prophet, honest as a saint, innocent as a baby and sincere as anything, but he's still the problem: he still believes that initiation of force against others is called for.

There is no "critical mass" to anarchist utopia.

Temporary anarchist societies have existed before. For a good few years, the Pennsylvania colony was one. A "critical mass" is necessary to prevent that from collapsing back into archy of some sort--exactly as happened with Pennsylvania.

Yeah, so, a type of constitutionalism that doesn't involve this sort of garbage....

There is no form of "constitutionalism" that is without (1) legislators, (2) enforcers, or (3) both. Those legislators and/or enforces are the privileged class, so constitutionalism always involves this sort of garbage! It's not an abuse of constitutionalism; it's an essential part of what constitutionalism is.

As long as humans are humans, cops will not give tickets to cops. Once you fully appreciate that, you'll realize that the police force itself can't exist, because inherent in its nature is a class of people for whom the rules don't work the same way.

Yes, what I said *is* what absolute freedom for an individual means...

The "freedom to murder" is a contradiction in terms. If you believe otherwise, you need to fix your notion of "freedom".

*Just* freedom, on the other hand, is what you have when the 'freedom to oppress' is checked by the 'freedom to punish rights infringement'.

That's why you need to fix up your understanding of freedom: your misunderstanding involves you in all sorts of logical contradictions. For example, you believe that freedom has limits--other than the inherent limitation, that freedom doesn't include the power to take others' freedom. From this I can easily see that you believe, for example, that the right of free speecahs limits. You are wrong.

BTW, I'm absolutely begging you to quote Holmes, that we "have no right to shout fire in a movie theater." If that wasn't your first reaction, I'll be disappointed. I'm hoping you throw it at me. This paragraph is a friendly warning, so when you walk right into my trap, you can't say I wasn't fair about it.

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.

Dead wrong: self-defense doesn't violate the golden rule. IF you decide to come kill me with a pistol, you will indeed lose your life. But only one of us will have broken the golden rule.

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....

I agree with you that it does--but the utilitarian argument misses the point. Even if the government program worked exactly as advertised, and did all the wonderful things they claimed it would, it would still be immoral. Stealing is immoral, even if you do proceed to do lots of praiseworthy things with the stolen property.

I'm OK with private charity to help people in both situations (natural disaster and drug recovery), because charity doesn't involve entitlement...

100% agree, except that I'd say that charity doesn't involve theft. The welfare queens, with their sense of entitlement, aren't nearly as guilty as the thieves that write their welfare checks.

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

That's true, but I didn't assume such a thing. You seem to have amnesia. I still believe people will steal cars. Many of them will be shot dead in the attempt. Result: there will be fewer car thieves than there are today, when they can be quite sure they won't lose their lives, and will usually suffer no consequences at all. But I never suggested that theft would completely disappear.

...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.

You say "organizing principle," but you really mean "police force". In other words, you refuse to defend yourself, and then whine that someone else should come along and defend you. As a FReeper, you should already know that defending you isn't even the job of the police, so of course they aren't going to do it...

I really fail to see how society is improved by your hand-wringing refusal to look after your own defense. But what makes it morally reprehensible, is that you cheerfully accept the only alternative: someone takes over your defense, and with it assumes the unquestioned authority to invade my property, or arrest me, or even shoot me. Frankly, my dear, I'd rather see those who refuse to defend themselves simply perish, than see them get their wished for slavery--and entrap me in it in the process.