The psychological effects of anarchist thought [Archive]

hmkpoker

02-08-2006, 05:12 PM

The human mind can be very irrational, and poker is a perfect example. Everyone is familiar with the example of an otherwise intelligent human being, maybe even one who has an understanding of basic poker strategy, play every hand with a seven in it because "sevens are lucky"; He's been so strongly conditioned by a few statistical anomalies that he now behaves in a manner that is, although very comforting, -$EV.

That being said...

I'm guilty of spending too much time in the politics forum, and now I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Thing is, I find anarcho-capitalism to be the perfect political philosophy to haunt a poker forum. Why? Because it is such an empowering thought! Anarcho-capitalism proposes to promote more success, prosperity and wealth to everyone in the system, and especially to everyone who has worked hard and smart and deserves it. It also makes very good mathematically based skeptical arguments for doing so. I personally find that when I discuss free market economics with my friends, I get a rushing sense of power, ego inflation, ambition and satisfaction that is not too dissimilar from winning a big pot, or the effects of cocaine.

This may explain why libertarians seem so pissed off all the time. Most of the libertarians I know in real life are very outspoken loudmouths (myself included), and many of the anarcho-capitalists in the politics forums are known for sharp, cutting sarcastic wit. These symptoms correlate highly with the abundant presence of dopamine and norepinephrine transmission.

They can also be grossly misunderstood. In Understand Power, Noam Chomsky has a brief passage on anarcho-capitalism in which he claims that the world Murray Rothbard writes about is "so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it." And I can see how he interprets that; what little I have read thus far from Rothbard takes place in a very aggressive, objective tone. However, this is by no means hateful; most of us would not be anarcho-capitalist if it weren't for the fact that we believe the system helps the most people, not just the rich. Helping the impoverished is a major factor.

Chomsky nevertheless got me interested in his version of anarchism (libertarian socialism). Anarchy, to me, had always meant anarcho-capitalism; my land, my body, my gun, I do what I want, I have a skill, I'll trade one-for-one, and that's it. The only difference between anarcho-capitalism and libertarian socialism, though, is that in a libertarian socialist society, no one recognizes property rights; everything is shared.

The practical implications of this present a lot of problems, of course. For example, with no property rights, there is no personal incentive to work; libertarian socialism assumes that people, if not socialised toward greed, will behave cooperatively and altruisically.

But practical implications aside, I thought this is a very interesting idea! I laid down for a while just thinking about this; a utopia where nothing is expected of you, and you don't need to worry about anything; everyone just pitches in and helps out.

In doing so, I had a feeling of contentment, peace, and comfort, not too dissimilar from the effects of an opiate. The thought of libertarian socialism, at least to me, brought a feeling of security and comfort, even though applying it on a large scale is impossible. I also noticed that I was less motivated to take measures toward getting a job, something I'm currently in the process of doing. To me, it now makes more sense why self-proclaimed anarchists strike me as poor, lazy teenagers pissing and moaning about the evils of capitalism, citing economically erroneous reasons for why capitalism is evil, and proposing impossible rhetoric as the solution: the thought of a shared, communal utopia may be comforting enough to override logic.

I wonder to what degree this can occur. If this thought indeed does trigger the release of endorphins, can it become an addictive thought? Would the resultant laziness and increased need for comfort present a greater demand to the brain for endorphin release, causing a mild cycle of addiction? Can this emotionally based irrationality be powerful enough to inspire political movements that cannot work?

Isn't that what has already happened?

Rduke55

02-08-2006, 05:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
many of the anarcho-capitalists in the politics forums are known for sharp, cutting sarcastic wit. These symptoms correlate highly with the abundant presence of dopamine and norepinephrine transmission.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where'd you get this?

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder to what degree this can occur. If this thought indeed does trigger the release of endorphins, can it become an addictive thought? Would the resultant laziness and increased need for comfort present a greater demand to the brain for endorphin release, causing a mild cycle of addiction? Can this emotionally based irrationality be powerful enough to inspire political movements that cannot work?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there might be something to this thought if you got rid of the endorphins part.

AvivaSimplex

02-08-2006, 05:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Can this emotionally based irrationality be powerful enough to inspire political movements that cannot work?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and it happens to everyone who thinks about politics. People choose their fantasy land based on their personality. Poor people who do a lot of psychedelics like communal anarchy. People who don't really care about other people choose libertarianism. Highly religious people want the state to enforce their political beliefs on everyone.

I'm a scientist, so I support a technocracy where all but the biggest decisions are made by nonideological experts. (But that one's different because it would actually work /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

hmkpoker

02-08-2006, 05:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
many of the anarcho-capitalists in the politics forums are known for sharp, cutting sarcastic wit. These symptoms correlate highly with the abundant presence of dopamine and norepinephrine transmission.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where'd you get this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Aggressive, self-important behavior. Basic psychology.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder to what degree this can occur. If this thought indeed does trigger the release of endorphins, can it become an addictive thought? Would the resultant laziness and increased need for comfort present a greater demand to the brain for endorphin release, causing a mild cycle of addiction? Can this emotionally based irrationality be powerful enough to inspire political movements that cannot work?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there might be something to this thought if you got rid of the endorphins part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Addiction always has a biochemical element. The feeling reminded me of the sensation of smoking opium or using oxy (which I've never done of course), or even that good feeling you get after you eat spicy food, all of which are endorphin/opiate related. I have no empirical evidence to back this up of course, but to me this is highly suggestive of increased endorphin transmission.

hmkpoker

02-08-2006, 05:33 PM

OMG, you said "technocracy."

Do you play Mage: the Ascension? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Rduke55

02-08-2006, 05:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Aggressive, self-important behavior. Basic psychology.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean oversimplified psychology - then yes.
And I'm not sure you can equate "wit" with what you did.

[ QUOTE ]
Addiction always has a biochemical element.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that biochemical element is not always endorphins.

hmkpoker

02-08-2006, 05:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aggressive, self-important behavior. Basic psychology.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean oversimplified psychology - then yes.
And I'm not sure you can equate "wit" with what you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you think differently if you agree with them /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Addiction always has a biochemical element.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that biochemical element is not always endorphins.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very open to other possibilities.

madnak

02-08-2006, 05:51 PM

I don't think empowerment leads to anger. On the contrary, I think those confident in their views are more likely to be calm. I think libertarians are angry due to alienation and raw frustration. But I don't see them getting angry much more often than any other group. There are angry anarchists, but there are also angry authoritarians. And some people may choose "extreme" points of view in order to justify their anger or try to find a place in the world. This is especially true of young people.

I think we would have more peace under AC. Competition doesn't always mean hostility. I believe that fallacy is a source of quite a bit of discomfort. But even if you aren't a "competitive" person (I'm not), you can still find competition enjoyable. And competition doesn't indicate contrary interests, either. In fact, the most satisfying competition I have ever faced has been "against" allies or teammates.

And Chomsky gets a bit silly at times with his deconstruction. Particularly considering that his goals are essentially the same as the anarcho-capitalists'. In my experience anarcho-capitalists seem less divisive and more peaceful, but maybe that is just my experience.

Also I disagree with your psychology. I would like to see your source suggesting that sarcasm and irony indicate high levels of dopamine. If anything, I see them more commonly in people who seem to have a deficit. Also I don't feel the same way about AC. Figuring out something neat can give a real rush, but in my experience that rush rarely sustains itself for long.

hmkpoker

02-08-2006, 06:01 PM

Agreed, I don't think empowerment leads to anger. I don't think that anarcho-capitalism leads to anger. I just think that the confidence I claim it inspires results in a very assertive tone of communication which some people (like Chomsky) could interpret as angry or hateful.

madnak

02-08-2006, 06:04 PM

I agree with that. Some people are eager to read anger into comments. And many people like to demonize ACers, unfortunately.

Borodog

02-08-2006, 06:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
libertarian socialism assumes that people, if not socialised toward greed, will behave cooperatively and altruisically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Noam Chomsky is a nutcase. People have innate wants and needs. Even if you could brainwash away human nature so that nobody had any wants (and what a wonderful world that would be), they would still have needs. Mankind is constrained be self-interest. Chomsky and his ilk do not understand that it is exactly self-interest, individual wants, individual needs, that causes mankind to cooperate. Man prefers more goods to less because he can satisfy more wants and needs. Thus we have "greed." Period. Get over it. Mankind also has the capability to plan for the future and reason through the likely consequences of alternate plans. Thus he can reason that cooperation serves his self-interest (his "greed" if you must) better than alternate plans like theft or violence.

Noam Chomsky's plan is great . . . for ants. For human beings it sucks.

And "libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron, so stop using it.

AvivaSimplex

02-08-2006, 06:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
OMG, you said "technocracy."

Do you play Mage: the Ascension? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
lol, a fellow dork! Only as a side story in Vampire: the Masquerade. That's not how I meant "technocracy." I just meant that a lot of decisions which are now made on the basis of personal connections/lobbying/corruption/ideology (like the distribution of the frequency spectrum to broadcasters, or most budget earmarking, or the promotion of abstinence-only programs to solve Africa's AIDS problems) should instead be made by experts who are driven by pragmatism and smart utilitarianism rather than politics.

hmkpoker

02-08-2006, 06:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OMG, you said "technocracy."

Do you play Mage: the Ascension? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
lol, a fellow dork!

[/ QUOTE ]

I have, in the past, ordered dice by the pound /images/graemlins/smile.gif

And good for you. V:tM > M:tA

chezlaw

02-08-2006, 06:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Mankind is constrained be self-interest. Chomsky and his ilk do not understand that it is exactly self-interest, individual wants, individual needs, that causes mankind to cooperate. Man prefers more goods to less because he can satisfy more wants and needs. Thus we have "greed." Period. Get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some of things some want is the well-being of others, they are concerned with what others want. Miss that from your understanding of society and your model will be wrong.

chez

Nielsio

02-08-2006, 06:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
most of us would not be anarcho-capitalist if it weren't for the fact that we believe the system helps the most people, not just the rich. Helping the impoverished is a major factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Can this emotionally based irrationality be powerful enough to inspire political movements that cannot work?

[/ QUOTE ]

People do things because they think it's good, not because it's effective.

Borodog

02-08-2006, 06:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mankind is constrained be self-interest. Chomsky and his ilk do not understand that it is exactly self-interest, individual wants, individual needs, that causes mankind to cooperate. Man prefers more goods to less because he can satisfy more wants and needs. Thus we have "greed." Period. Get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some of things some want is the well-being of others, they are concerned with what others want. Miss that from your understanding of society and your model will be wrong.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't miss it at all. Every single action is taken in self interest. Even if you give your own life to save another's it is because you believe that it is more satisfactory that that person lives while you die than the reverse.

chezlaw

02-08-2006, 06:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mankind is constrained be self-interest. Chomsky and his ilk do not understand that it is exactly self-interest, individual wants, individual needs, that causes mankind to cooperate. Man prefers more goods to less because he can satisfy more wants and needs. Thus we have "greed." Period. Get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some of things some want is the well-being of others, they are concerned with what others want. Miss that from your understanding of society and your model will be wrong.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't miss it at all. Every single action is taken in self interest. Even if you give your own life to save another's it is because you believe that it is more satisfactory that that person lives while you die than the reverse.

[/ QUOTE ]
then it sometimes means man prefers less goods to more.

chez

hmkpoker

02-08-2006, 07:07 PM

yes, but very, very rarely so.

chezlaw

02-08-2006, 07:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
yes, but very, very rarely so.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. Not most of the time but much more than very very rarely.

chez

Borodog

02-08-2006, 07:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mankind is constrained be self-interest. Chomsky and his ilk do not understand that it is exactly self-interest, individual wants, individual needs, that causes mankind to cooperate. Man prefers more goods to less because he can satisfy more wants and needs. Thus we have "greed." Period. Get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some of things some want is the well-being of others, they are concerned with what others want. Miss that from your understanding of society and your model will be wrong.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't miss it at all. Every single action is taken in self interest. Even if you give your own life to save another's it is because you believe that it is more satisfactory that that person lives while you die than the reverse.

[/ QUOTE ]
then it sometimes means man prefers less goods to more.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it means he will not get to satisfy his less urgent needs. But that doesn't really matter, as long as he satisfies his most urgent need, which he always does.

chezlaw

02-08-2006, 07:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mankind is constrained be self-interest. Chomsky and his ilk do not understand that it is exactly self-interest, individual wants, individual needs, that causes mankind to cooperate. Man prefers more goods to less because he can satisfy more wants and needs. Thus we have "greed." Period. Get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some of things some want is the well-being of others, they are concerned with what others want. Miss that from your understanding of society and your model will be wrong.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't miss it at all. Every single action is taken in self interest. Even if you give your own life to save another's it is because you believe that it is more satisfactory that that person lives while you die than the reverse.

[/ QUOTE ]
then it sometimes means man prefers less goods to more.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it means he will not get to satisfy his less urgent needs. But that doesn't really matter, as long as he satisfies his most urgent need, which he always does.

[/ QUOTE ]
You say no but the rest doesn't disagree with what I said. Of course we do what we most want to, but that can mean acting in a way that can't be called greedy in any normal sense.

Saying someone is greedy or selfish is really a measure of how litle they care about the well-being of others. saying someone is unselfish means they care a lot about the well-being of others. Just saying its all selfish (which in a sense it is) is to miss a very important parameter.

chez

Borodog

02-08-2006, 07:37 PM

You're assigning a tone to my words that they do not have. I said "self-interest" not "selfishness", and I only said you could call it "greed" if you must, and "greed" in quotation marks. It's pretty obvious that I personally don't think that all self-interest is equivalent to greed. But greed is a part of human nature, and isn't even necessarily a bad thing if the way you "feed your greed" is through cooperation. The point is that self-interest encourages cooperation.

chezlaw

02-08-2006, 07:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You're assigning a tone to my words that they do not have. I said "self-interest" not "selfishness", and I only said you could call it "greed" if you must, and "greed" in quotation marks. It's pretty obvious that I personally don't think that all self-interest is equivalent to greed. But greed is a part of human nature, and isn't even necessarily a bad thing if the way you "feed your greed" is through cooperation. The point is that self-interest encourages cooperation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, sorry I took the tone from: [ QUOTE ]
Mankind is constrained be self-interest. Chomsky and his ilk do not understand that it is exactly self-interest, individual wants, individual needs, that causes mankind to cooperate. Man prefers more goods to less because he can satisfy more wants and needs. Thus we have "greed." Period. Get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]
which I think gives a misleading impression, at least it mislead me /images/graemlins/wink.gif One reason people cooperate is because they are evolved to want to, its easy to see why this makes evolutionary sense.

I haven't read much Chomsky but I suspect he is more misunderstood then misunderstanding about this.

chez

hmkpoker

02-08-2006, 07:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One reason people cooperate is because they are evolved to want to, its easy to see why this makes evolutionary sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but the structure that they evolved in rewards certain self-serving behaviors while equally benefitting others. Anarcho-capitalism benefits everyone even if everyone is in it for themself.

chezlaw

02-08-2006, 08:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One reason people cooperate is because they are evolved to want to, its easy to see why this makes evolutionary sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but the structure that they evolved in rewards certain self-serving behaviors while equally benefitting others. Anarcho-capitalism benefits everyone even if everyone is in it for themself.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not anti-AC although I've pointed out before that arguing that its stable because of incentives and competence isn't convincing, so stabilty concerns me.

but another problem with AC is that many people want others to be looked after (because they care about others) and many believe that requires government. Even if they are wrong, that doesn't help ACers because they will act in the manner they believe best delivers what they want.

chez

madnak

02-08-2006, 08:18 PM

If a large proportion of people want to help others, they will do so. Otherwise it's not what they want. Plain and simple.

Personally I do a reasonable amount to help others myself, and would do much more under AC (having more resources to devote). But if most people would prefer to hoard their wealth, the suffering of the less fortunate is the natural result of the collective decision of the people.

Democracy isn't always bright and fuzzy.

chezlaw

02-08-2006, 08:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If a large proportion of people want to help others, they will do so. Otherwise it's not what they want. Plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed but peole differ about the mechanism. In the UK there's overwhelming support for the national health service funded from taxation and organised by government.

[ QUOTE ]
Democracy isn't always bright and fuzzy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Democracy sucks, the question of interest to me is if there's anything that sucks less and is stable.

chez

tyrus72

02-08-2006, 08:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This may explain why libertarians seem so pissed off all the time. Most of the libertarians I know in real life are very outspoken loudmouths (myself included), and many of the anarcho-capitalists in the politics forums are known for sharp, cutting sarcastic wit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or. ... Sharp, cutting wit is a sign of intelligence, which correlates well with those of the libertarian persuasion? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Also, the bitterness of most political activists I have observed on the right and left dwarfs that of the more optimistic and "live and let live" mindset of many libertarians.

I think your whole thesis is a combination of misapplied cause & effect as well as selective memory.

hmkpoker

02-08-2006, 08:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Or. ... Sharp, cutting wit is a sign of intelligence, which correlates well with those of the libertarian persuasion?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experience, intelligence often correlates with big egos.

Edit: although, yes, I do agree with you /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I think your whole thesis is a combination of misapplied cause & effect as well as selective memory.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be true of what I said of the psychological effects of anarcho-capitalism. I didn't mean to focus on them because I really believe that my preference for it is logically deducted rather than irrationally motivated by emotion.

My focus was meant to be on the effects I observed from thinking about anarcho-socialism which, I think, are thoroughly irrational.

madnak

02-08-2006, 08:56 PM

A meritocracy, perhaps?

I think that actually gets close to the real issue. There's a common percpetion that smart, powerful people tend to be cruel and greedy (not in Borodog's sense of the term). That makes some sense I think, because our current system rewards corruption. But does power really corrupt? Are smart people usually mean people?

I don't think so.

Regardless, nobody gets too powerful in AC so there is always room for action. And fewer people will be in need, so less of an investment is necessary.

hmkpoker

02-08-2006, 09:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That makes some sense I think, because our current system rewards corruption. But does power really corrupt? Are smart people usually mean people?

[/ QUOTE ]

Power is able to corrupt in our current system because we have a medium of corruption (the state).

madnak

02-08-2006, 09:02 PM

Right, but I don't think that is true in general.

hmkpoker

02-08-2006, 09:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed but peole differ about the mechanism. In the UK there's overwhelming support for the national health service funded from taxation and organised by government.

[/ QUOTE ]

In New Jersey, the Democrat governor won by promising a huge state funded pension system to government workers. He won by a landslide. Now the state is bankrupt, taxes need to go up, and the pension is completely meaningless.

Some people are often too dumb to know what's best for them, and it's often in the best interest of the politicians trying to win their votes to keep them that way.

hmkpoker

02-08-2006, 09:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Right, but I don't think that is true in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that the state creates a move that's +EV to the individual (corporations that benefit from funding a war on forced infinite demand), and -EV to everyone else. That can't occur in AC.

chezlaw

02-08-2006, 09:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think that actually gets close to the real issue. There's a common percpetion that smart, powerful people tend to be cruel and greedy (not in Borodog's sense of the term). That makes some sense I think, because our current system rewards corruption. But does power really corrupt? Are smart people usually mean people?

[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of the people who have huge amounts of power tend to be greedy because non-greedy people have no interest in huge amounts of power. Smart people enjoy the fruits of enough power.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, nobody gets too powerful in AC so there is always room for action.

[/ QUOTE ] This is an article of faith that assumes stability of AC. I see no reason to believe its true.

chez

hmkpoker

02-08-2006, 09:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]

This is an article of faith that assumes stability of AC. I see no reason to believe its true.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4665983

chezlaw

02-08-2006, 09:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is an article of faith that assumes stability of AC. I see no reason to believe its true.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4665983

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

- privatizing social security, getting rid of medicare and medicaid
- deregulating gambling, recreational drugs, and prostitution
- deinstitutionalizing marriage
- deregulating second amendment rights
- disestablishing state-funded pensions

[/ QUOTE ]
These are not remotely plausible first steps in the UK. Might make some progress on gambling, drugs and prostitution.

chez

hmkpoker

02-08-2006, 09:27 PM

These were meant to be second steps in the USA. I'm not at all familiar with the political structure of the UK, although I believe it's more socialized than the USA(?) That would make it more difficult.

chezlaw

02-08-2006, 09:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
These were meant to be second steps in the USA. I'm not at all familiar with the political structure of the UK, although I believe it's more socialized than the USA(?) That would make it more difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]
yeah, I ignored returning to the gold standard. If you suggested that here they would cart you off to the funny farm /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Anyway your general point is political. This is SMP and whether AC is stable seems a legitimate concern.

chez

hmkpoker

02-08-2006, 10:55 PM

Hey, you said there was no reason to believe that the assumptions of anarcho-capitalism would hold true. I had to respond /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chezlaw

02-09-2006, 12:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, you said there was no reason to believe that the assumptions of anarcho-capitalism would hold true. I had to respond /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
but your response didn't address the issue of whether the assumption of AC being stable is true or not.

Your post simply says that the fact that AC might be unstable is no reason to oppose certain political moves favoured by ACers. That's true because these things are consistent with AC and not AC, therefore they rather miss the point.

Its also true that if AC is stable that's not sufficient reason to support any of these policy changes.

chez

Borodog

02-09-2006, 12:57 AM

I have explained in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=politics&Number=4596097&p age=4&fpart=all) how and why governments likely originated (the general lack of the advancement of the division of labor and the possibility of local monopolies because of technological limitations in early societies), and why those pathways are not applicable in a modern advanced technology/advanced division of labor based society. Hence if government can be privatized and/or seceded into oblivion while leaving the society's accumulated capital and technological base intact (and I personally am not convinced this can be done; government may be a terminal disease; it looks like it always kills the patient), then it would likely not get a foothold again.

chezlaw

02-09-2006, 01:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I have explained in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=politics&Number=4596097&p age=4&fpart=all) how and why governments likely originated (the general lack of the advancement of the division of labor and the possibility of local monopolies because of technological limitations in early societies), and why those pathways are not applicable in a modern advanced technology/advanced division of labor based society. Hence if government can be privatized and/or seceded into oblivion while leaving the society's accumulated capital and technological base intact (and I personally am not convinced this can be done; government may be a terminal disease; it looks like it always kills the patient), then it would likely not get a foothold again.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes but we never got past this:
[ QUOTE ]
Re: Which is Better, Democracy or Monarchy? [Re: Borodog]
#4603588 - 01/31/06 03:38 PM Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incentive arguments are extremely powerful. They do not assume competence in general, any more than evolutionary theory assumes an intention toward better design. Rather, all we need understand is that in a modern division-of-labor technologically advanced society firms that specialize their production will out-compete firms that do not, and that competent entrepreneurs will out-compete incompetent ones.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course but it doesn't stop there. Power/wealth once accumulated doesn't dissipate immediately when the competence is removed.

Also control of the power/wealth may well be in the hands of competent people who do not own it. What about their incentive?

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have not ignored it at all. Rather I have considered and dismissed it. It would be no more efficient or profitable in a modern division-of-labor technologically advanced society for Microsoft to insource their security than it would be for them to build their own buildings or manufacture their own desks and staplers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if it isn't efficient it doesn't mean someone wont do it, either because they are incompetently trying to be efficient or because they are competent and it makes sense for them.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
We never get past your (implicit) assumptions that:

those with power are always competent
those controlling power are those who own it

these assumptions are false.

It looks like your coming round to the other point we sort of disagreed about which is that government is evolutionary fit.

Edit: There's also the further assumption that someone who is competent and owns power wont want to rule the world.

chez

SNOWBALL

02-09-2006, 04:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Noam Chomsky is a nutcase.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you even want to be taken seriously?

[ QUOTE ]
People have innate wants and needs.

[/ QUOTE ]

False. There's nothing innate about my needs or wants. Their object and origin are products of my environment. I wasn't born with an extreme attachment to my beatiful red convertible.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you could brainwash away human nature so that nobody had any wants (and what a wonderful world that would be), they would still have needs.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you saying? If you brainwash people into not wanting to live in mansions they will still need to live in mansions?

Also, who are you arguing against? What are you refuting?

[ QUOTE ]
Chomsky and his ilk do not understand that it is exactly self-interest, individual wants, individual needs, that causes mankind to cooperate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd bet $1,000 that you know less about human nature than Noam Chomsky.

hmkpoker

02-09-2006, 04:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Noam Chomsky is a nutcase.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you even want to be taken seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there some reason why we all have to agree that Noam Chomsky is the greatest thing that ever happened to us? There are people who think he's a genius that haven't even read any of his stuff; everyone makes such a big deal about him, and I'm not convinced that his ideas are all that good.

Two of his refutations of anarchocapitalism of his that I have read, one from Understanding Power, the other from Chomsky on Anarchism (I assume, and hope, that there are more) have been nothing short of angry, dismissive rhetoric, not really much better than the "boro u r gay" rants that get presented here. I would really, really like to see a good refutation from his end; he is the most distinguished, educated representative of one of the most anti-AC political viewpoints.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People have innate wants and needs.

[/ QUOTE ]

False. There's nothing innate about my needs or wants. Their object and origin are products of my environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Food. Water. Clothing. Shelter. Were you "socialized" to want these?

[ QUOTE ]
I'd bet $1,000 that you know less about human nature than Noam Chomsky.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it?

Darryl_P

02-09-2006, 06:18 AM

The way to refute AC is to attack its basic assumptions about human nature, ie. that people will always prefer to gain rather than to lose wealth. I have said many times that I'm a counterexample. I'd gladly lose wealth under a number of circumstances like, say, if a number of specific people lose even more and I can gain control over them, or just to create general chaos for pure entertainment purposes.

Under AC assumptions, my behavior would be irrational and therefore wouldn't happen. Yet here I am. And I know I'm not alone.

The once and future king

02-09-2006, 09:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
libertarian socialism assumes that people, if not socialised toward greed, will behave cooperatively and altruisically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Noam Chomsky is a nutcase. People have innate wants and needs. Even if you could brainwash away human nature so that nobody had any wants (and what a wonderful world that would be), they would still have needs. Mankind is constrained be self-interest. Chomsky and his ilk do not understand that it is exactly self-interest, individual wants, individual needs, that causes mankind to cooperate. Man prefers more goods to less because he can satisfy more wants and needs. Thus we have "greed." Period. Get over it. Mankind also has the capability to plan for the future and reason through the likely consequences of alternate plans. Thus he can reason that cooperation serves his self-interest (his "greed" if you must) better than alternate plans like theft or violence.

Noam Chomsky's plan is great . . . for ants. For human beings it sucks.

And "libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron, so stop using it.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be more precise. A human will be socialised towards collective greed, e.g. We can all have more rather than individual greed e.g. I can have more.

The one thing that turns me off about ACs is that they allways aggresively mis represent the ideas they oppose. There is to much ideological violence and rigid partisanship to the cause in there outlook at present for me to take them very seriously.

Also if it was human "nature" to allways want more then we could surely quantify a link between wealth and happiness. Recent studies into this have failed to show a link above a degree of wealth. They show that in general once a human has satisifed certain needs the accumulation of more wealth does not lead to more happiness.

Rduke55

02-09-2006, 11:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Noam Chomsky is a nutcase.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you even want to be taken seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you seriously saying that someone loses credibility when they say Chomsky is a nutcase? He is. I don't know what I hate worse - his cocktail party science or his insane political ravings.

hmkpoker

02-09-2006, 01:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Recent studies into this have failed to show a link above a degree of wealth. They show that in general once a human has satisifed certain needs the accumulation of more wealth does not lead to more happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but the more wealth we have at the top, the more wealth we have at the bottom.

Also, some current disgusting spikes of wealth can't exist under anarcho-capitalism; with no state, the Fed can't earn huge sums of money from the government that it coerced into taking an enormous loan from.

hmkpoker

02-09-2006, 01:42 PM

Darryl_P

02-09-2006, 02:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Seems infrequent enough for us not to care about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure? Don't you think such a thing should be researched thoroughly before proclaiming the system a success?

Could you not imagine how much chaos could be caused if just 1% of the people thought like me? I gave an example in another thread about having the freedom to use my airspace as I please, including firing missiles vertically and having them land on my property just for the hell of it. If a few places had guys like that, it would make air travel pretty scary, wouldn't it?

Also, I'd be curious how I would be prevented from building a nuclear weapon, assuming I had enough land and resources to do it fairly discreetly.

Or are these things just "experimental error"? The theory works except for a few little "blips" that we'll just assume are insignificant because it feels good to do so.

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm rooting for you guys to succeed, but for very different reasons.

chezlaw

02-09-2006, 02:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The way to refute AC is to attack its basic assumptions about human nature, ie. that people will always prefer to gain rather than to lose wealth. I have said many times that I'm a counterexample. I'd gladly lose wealth under a number of circumstances like, say, if a number of specific people lose even more and I can gain control over them, or just to create general chaos for pure entertainment purposes.

Under AC assumptions, my behavior would be irrational and therefore wouldn't happen. Yet here I am. And I know I'm not alone.

[/ QUOTE ]
This sort of thing is definitey a problem and I think the dismissal of it as rare enough to be irrelevent is indicative of a lack of thinking it through. Trouble is the wealthier (more powerful) people are, the less the goals of AC matter to them and the more they are free to serve their ego's. Of course its these people who have a disproportionaly large say in how AC will turn out.

Without some sort of disproportionate negative feedback on the powerful that pulls them back to the 'normal' AC behavior the system looks horribly unstable.

chez

madnak

02-09-2006, 03:01 PM

But if they do crazy things the market will punish them. They can't be powerful enough to just unilaterally [censored] things up. The wealth disparity is less under AC, so Bill Gates examples are a bit unrealistic. And the less powerful are collectively more powerful than any individual powerful person. A group of people can outmatch the powerful person, so if he is doing something really disruptive he's in trouble.

AC rewards those who act rationally. The more rationally you act, the more power you will have. A person who spends his money unprofitably is never going to be very wealthy. As long as the basically rational people outnumber the basically irrational people, they can effectively keep them in check.

madnak

02-09-2006, 03:04 PM

Okay, but everyone's an anarchist, right? Let's not alienate one another just because our specific ideas about anarchy are different. I think everyone involved would like to see as little coercion as possible in society, the major disagreement is about how to accomplish that goal. But as long as we value freedom, I think we're on the same side.

And in terms of the current government situations, there are very many things that both "sides" agree on.

chezlaw

02-09-2006, 03:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But if they do crazy things the market will punish them. They can't be powerful enough to just unilaterally [censored] things up. The wealth disparity is less under AC, so Bill Gates examples are a bit unrealistic. And the less powerful are collectively more powerful than any individual powerful person. A group of people can outmatch the powerful person, so if he is doing something really disruptive he's in trouble.

AC rewards those who act rationally. The more rationally you act, the more power you will have. A person who spends his money unprofitably is never going to be very wealthy. As long as the basically rational people outnumber the basically irrational people, they can effectively keep them in check.

[/ QUOTE ]
You'll still assuming stability which is what you're trying to justify. The accumulation of power requires rationality but once accumulated it doesn't just vanish but sometimes passes into the hands of the mad and/or those who control it but dont own it.

Its also not inconsistent to be a power crazy ego driven loony and be extremely competent within any system.

chez

madnak

02-09-2006, 03:45 PM

I'm assuming a relatively stable distribution of wealth. Given that, I'm assuming some degree of social stability in general.

If someone gets a bunch of money and wants to do something crazy with it, they are free to do so. But then they will lose their money. If they aren't producing, then they can't consume. With government it may be possible to gain wealth even without producing anything. In which case the rich guy goes unchecked.

But Mr. Crazy has to contribute to society in proportion to what he's taking away. That's how he acquires the wealth. So such a person breaks even in terms of social welfare.

I don't mean to suggest it's bulletproof. But I think it is close assuming self-interest and cruelty. I think collaboration presents more of a threat to AC than self-interest.

Personally, the very biggest things that worry me about AC are cults, religions, and similar groups gathering popular support and income. I know the LDS Church makes its members pay 10% of their gross income in tithes. And I don't know that the service it provides is very useful - more like brainwashing. An organization like the LDS Church could do a lot of harm. They recently bought Main Street in Salt Lake City. They bought the street from the government. They could buy the whole city under a free market.

I think if AC is impractical it is most likely due to viral ideas that are appealing but harmful, rather than insane individuals wanting to spend their money destructively.

hmkpoker

02-09-2006, 04:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seems infrequent enough for us not to care about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure? Don't you think such a thing should be researched thoroughly before proclaiming the system a success?

[/ QUOTE ]

Somehow, I don't think they worry about the possibility of biochemistry grad students flipping out and making cyanide and burning everyone in the lab.

People intentionally ruining themselves economically for no reason is contrary to observable human nature. I don't see any reason to worry about it.

chezlaw

02-09-2006, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming a relatively stable distribution of wealth. Given that, I'm assuming some degree of social stability in general.

[/ QUOTE ]
The bit I'm questioning is what wil prevent a system that starts that way from diverging away from it. I've kept on about competence because the only argument I've seen so far is about incentives but its false because as the system diverges the incentives of those that accumulate/control the wealth depart from those required to keep the system stable.

I agree about viral ideas, maybe the biggest danger of all is when the viral idea gets hijacked by the powerful competent ego-maniac.

but its not really needed to demonstrate instability. Dynamical systems tend to be unstable unless negative feedback mechanisms keep them stable and its up to the ACer to demonstrate these mechanisms, so far its just been an article of faith that the system wont diverge far enough for it to become unstable.

chez

Riddick

02-09-2006, 04:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Dynamical systems tend to be unstable unless negative feedback mechanisms keep them stable and its up to the ACer to demonstrate these mechanisms,

[/ QUOTE ]

Human society is the dynamical system. The unstability and the unbelievable atrocities on mankind over the centuries are always perpetrated by governments (Nazis, Soviets, Khmer Rouge, etc) or under the protection of government (slavery).

The article of faith that human society is stable is not faith but rather it is proven by our existence and our survival up to this point, and it is something that has been in place long before governments. Society is simply how human beings survive. Coincidentally, it is governments and monopolies over territory that reign supremely and destructively unstable over the course of human history.

chezlaw

02-09-2006, 04:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dynamical systems tend to be unstable unless negative feedback mechanisms keep them stable and its up to the ACer to demonstrate these mechanisms,

[/ QUOTE ]

Human society is the dynamical system. The unstability and the unbelievable atrocities on mankind over the centuries are always perpetrated by governments (Nazis, Soviets, Khmer Rouge, etc) or under the protection of government (slavery).

The article of faith that human society is stable is not faith but rather it is proven by our existence and our survival up to this point, and it is something that has been in place long before governments. Society is simply how human beings survive. Coincidentally, it is governments and monopolies over territory that reign supremely and destructively unstable over the course of human history.

[/ QUOTE ]
The article of faith is not about human survival but whther an AC society can remain an AC society. No proof (or even good argument) has been given for this.

chez

Borodog

02-09-2006, 04:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Dynamical systems tend to be unstable unless negative feedback mechanisms keep them stable and its up to the ACer to demonstrate these mechanisms, so far its just been an article of faith that the system wont diverge far enough for it to become unstable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already done this in the time preference & civilization and Monarchy vs. Democracy threads. Low time preference leads to a stabilization of society (i.e. it increases the level of civilization) and still lower time preference. Hence there is a built in feedback system that stabilizes society, given a few cultural preconditions. There must be private property in the factors of production, freedom of exchange, and a medium of exchange (money). Without these things civilization cannot develop much past the stone age, which is why North American tribes, many native African tribes, and other groups never developed past the stone age. Even though all of these groups had the concept of private property, they did not have private property in the factors of production, there was no exchange possible in the factors of production (because they belonged to the group), they had no money (and instead had barter economies). Hence when a group became too large (and too large is less than 100 people), the number of reasonable alternative uses for these scarce factors of production becomes so large that values can no longer be directly imputed. They could not develop a price system for the factors of production and determine whether scarce resources were being wasted. Hence as a group becames larger and larger, more and more waste occurs and there is more and more conflict over the allocation of resources, until the group fractures and splits into two smaller tribes.

This is essentially what happened to the Jamestown and Plymouth colonies. They arrived and immediately instituted essentially a socialist, centrally planned economy, there were disincentives to work and the calculation problem lead to massive waste of resources. In the midst of an abundant paradise of game, fish, fowl, and fertile soil, most of the groups starved to death, until the size of the group was small enough that values of inputs and outputs could again be directly imputed.

During the period from 1917 to 1921, the so called "War Communism" period, Lenin decreed that there would be no economic calculation at all in the Soviet Union (in other words, no looking to the free markets of the world for prices to use in economic calculations). Rather everything would be centrally planned without reference to prices. By 1921 the Soviets were producing so little that people were tearing apart their homes for firewood and there was a mass exodus from the cities to the countryside. All of the machines and capital had been stripped and sold for food, there was mass famine, and roaming bands of bandits. In other words, socialism reduced the country to the stone age in roughly 4 years. Only when Lenin allowed reforms that provided for some private ownership of small plots of land and capital goods, and reinstituted economic calculation using external prices gathered from the free markets of the world was a complete collapse of their entire civilization averted.