Some thoughts/clarifications

[ALawPoker]

First of all, I'd like to say that I don't mean to appear "overly critical" of AC, as if I have some sort of agenda against it or whatnot. I don't. I like AC, and some of the AC posters here are very, very, smart, and I can honestly say I have a world view I'm more comfortable with because of reading what you say.

This post might start off slow, but hear me out.

I had never been all that into politics until maybe a year or two ago (and still am basically only interested for entertainment's/discussion's sake). I wouldn't say I've "changed" much, but a lot of the assumptions I had about what was good and what was bad are ones that make more intellectual sense to me now. From reading this forum.

I make occasional posts that tend to disagree with AC, and I think people assume (reasonably so) that I have some agenda against it. Really it's just that most other stuff that could be talked about on here doesn't interest me. Whether or not Rudy Giuliani is rising in the polls doesn't interest me (at least not as fodder for discussion). Whether or not socialism can be logically defended doesn't interest me (cause it's so obvious to me that it can't be).

So all I have worth talking about is my mild disagreement with (maybe lack of understanding of) AC and how exactly you guys view the world.

Granted, this is a politics forum, so I guess the entire point is to convince people that your way is best. I guess maybe it's understood that you have some "agenda" when you open your mouth. So maybe that's what throws me off. If we're just talking about "Theoretically what's the best system" with the assumption that there is an answer, then I agree AC is the best answer. But, I don't see breaking the biases that would practically allow us to act on that as necessarily good.

Presently, most human beings are not comfortable with AC. It makes erroneous sense that they need to form a state. Is it good to try to persuade them until they agree, sure, if that's what you consider a good use of your time. But if I had a switch that could somehow make states disappear, while keeping our condition exactly the same, I wouldn't flip it (in the same vein that I wouldn't have my dog sleep on a clear glass floor, even if it was where I preferred him).

So to me, what I "stand for" is not anarchism. What I stand for is people (and by extension myself) being better off. And having a comfortable environment that makes sense contributes to that. So what I stand for is "Anarchy when it follows suit of a sentiment that believes anarchy is good." Or in other words, simply "people acting based on what they believe is best."

If you believe in AC in the sense that you believe it's best philosophically, then I don't disagree. But the practical effects of the application are a different issue. People talk about it as if ridding the biases that would allow for it does not happen without a cost.

So philosophically would it be best for the world in the long-run to flip the switch, sure. But it wouldn't be best *for me*. To me, myself, my friends, and my family are a higher value than the wellbeing of future generations whom I don't care about.

So for me to be comfortable "supporting" AC (which is essentially "flipping the switch" divided by a huge number) I would have to believe that ridding bias is without cost, or at least that it's always worth it. And I don't believe that.

I honestly laughed a little when I read Nielsio's reply in the other thread about how he would handle the rape hypothetical. Like, it really made me smile. Even though I philosophically agree that the freedom to carry guns as you wish is good for all the reasons you guys say it's good, having grown up in Joeshmoeville, Massachusetts, real world, 1983-present AD, I admit that a culture without gun laws (while objectively better) is not an idea I like.

So it seems silly to "support" something that I myself am not comfortable with and maybe never could be comfortable with. I admit the discomfort is a result of culturally indoctrinated bias. But that bias is not without significance to me. It's a part of me. And I'm comfortable with nature, rather than change of sentiment, correcting whatever burden the bias brings. Correcting it myself feels like a waste of life to me.

You can say I "should" learn about guns and become comfortable with them, since I realize that philosophically that's a "better" way to live. But basically, I don't think I should have to. If I feel like the good of breaking the bias doesn't outweigh the cost, then to me, a world that forces me to break the bias is not one I "support."

Why should I martyr myself to be an objectively good person when I can't be sure everyone else will do the same? Is that actually good? It seems destructive. Maybe I'll spend a lot of time, money, and effort breaking my biased aversion to guns, but what makes me think the progressive [censored] from Berkley California isn't working to break his bias that tells him taxation is effective?

So basically, if I can't guarantee you're not gonna be a dick to me, then I reserve the right to be a dick to you. Hence, the state.

I can look at the state and agree "Ya, that sucks, we're all dicks." But having these biases that are instilled in me at no fault of my own, it doesn't make sense to me to say "Now I don't want the state." That seems like destruction.

And like I said, the wellbeing of infinite future generations (while objectively more important than me and my people) is not something I value as much as being comfortable right now.


But in any event, I plan to put my disagreements with AC to rest, both because it is exhausting and because my "disagreement" is so semantical that it's very hard to discuss without exaggerating why exactly I disagree (and thus I end up implying support for something that I don't actually support, which is a bad thing to me).

Since this thread stands a reasonable shot of being moved to SMP, I'll conclude by stating that I posted this in politics, if you're not sure which "other thread" I was referring to. EDIT: Or if you weren't sure why I boldly declared "this is a politics forum."

[Nielsio]

Haven't read the rest yet, just a short reply to this.

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly laughed a little when I read Nielsio's reply in the other thread about how he would handle the rape hypothetical. Like, it really made me smile.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't understand. I won't hesitate for a second before shooting you in the knees if you are in the act of raping someone (if that's what it takes). What is there to smile about?

[ALawPoker]

The fact that your first instinct to stop the rape of a stranger is to use a gun, rather than call the police. It demonstrates an enormous lack of bias to act that way. It made me smile because that's so very different than what my first instinct would be.

But in any event, I'd prefer if you read the whole post before we discuss fairly insignificant parts of it.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
So all I have worth talking about is my mild disagreement with (maybe lack of understanding of) AC and how exactly you guys view the world.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think most the best debaters against AC here are minarchists. This board is predominantly pro free market.

[tomdemaine]

Honestly your position is fine. I have absolutly no problem with AC isn't in my direct interest today and spending time finding out about it and pushing it forward isn't going to be profitable for me, you do'nt have to play the game but get off the field. Being disinterested isn't evil is isn't even bad but please don't try to trip up or tie up in minutia those of us who are trying (futily perhaps) to change some things. If I'm genuinly trying to convince people to live better and freer lives dealing with tortuous hypotheticals probably isn't the best use of my time. Do you agree? THis is n't antagonistic but if you've expressed a preference to be disinterested be disinterested.

[ALawPoker]

Fair enough, but it's not so much that I'm disinterested in the philosophical aspects of it. It's just that my philosophy is one that makes me disinterested to change people's minds (but still enjoy discussing it).

But basically I agree that I see you as the "good guys," and that it might be harmful in a way to nit points just for the sake of something to talk about.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I'd like to say that I don't mean to appear "overly critical" of AC, as if I have some sort of agenda against it or whatnot.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense taken. It's pretty clear that you are hungry for clarity of thought/worldview and that you're going through a storm lately.


You may like this:

Jonah and the Whale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtuinWQkTfY


[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not socialism can be logically defended doesn't interest me (cause it's so obvious to me that it can't be).

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice.



[ QUOTE ]
So all I have worth talking about is my mild disagreement with (maybe lack of understanding of) AC and how exactly you guys view the world.

Granted, this is a politics forum, so I guess the entire point is to convince people that your way is best. I guess maybe it's understood that you have some "agenda" when you open your mouth. So maybe that's what throws me off. If we're just talking about "Theoretically what's the best system" with the assumption that there is an answer, then I agree AC is the best answer. But, I don't see breaking the biases that would practically allow us to act on that as necessarily good.

Presently, most human beings are not comfortable with AC. It makes erroneous sense that they need to form a state. Is it good to try to persuade them until they agree, sure, if that's what you consider a good use of your time. But if I had a switch that could somehow make states disappear, while keeping our condition exactly the same, I wouldn't flip it (in the same vein that I wouldn't have my dog sleep on a clear glass floor, even if it was where I preferred him).

So to me, what I "stand for" is not anarchism. What I stand for is people (and by extension myself) being better off. And having a comfortable environment that makes sense contributes to that. So what I stand for is "Anarchy when it follows suit of a sentiment that believes anarchy is good." Or in other words, simply "people acting based on what they believe is best."

If you believe in AC in the sense that you believe it's best philosophically, then I don't disagree. But the practical effects of the application are a different issue. People talk about it as if ridding the biases that would allow for it does not happen without a cost.

So philosophically would it be best for the world in the long-run to flip the switch, sure. But it wouldn't be best *for me*. To me, myself, my friends, and my family are a higher value than the wellbeing of future generations whom I don't care about.

So for me to be comfortable "supporting" AC (which is essentially "flipping the switch" divided by a huge number) I would have to believe that ridding bias is without cost, or at least that it's always worth it. And I don't believe that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I see what you're getting at.

Three points:

* 1. As I've said a number of times before in this forum: the strategy towards freedom is for the zeitgeist to change. As long as people believe in the state/domination then that's what is going to exist. What ACists try to do is transform people's eyes. It tries to show people what actually is good (voluntarism) and what actually is bad (coercion). It's really a red pill blue pill situation. We don't really want to 'flip the switch'. What we want is for The State Delusion to fly away as if it never existed. And as the ideas of people change, so will society. Just look at those polls lately. How many hundreds of millions of Americans now think Congress are a bunch of crooks? Do you see the change happening before your eyes?

* 2. What's 'best'. Talking about the problems of ridding the state is fine and all, but you must realize that you're talking about troubles with the radio adjustment while your car is heading for a cliff, and it's on fire, and the engine is about to explode, and ... I think you get it. The United States is heading straight for bankruptcy/fascism/WWIII.

* 3. Don't underestimate the people's natural ingenuity. You won't believe how quick people are going to come up with brilliant solutions for problems once they get the FREEDOM to do so. Also don't underestimate just how much people's ingenuity and freedom has been absolutely crushed. If you think Apple is a wonder of the free market then you ain't seen nothing yet.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly laughed a little when I read Nielsio's reply in the other thread about how he would handle the rape hypothetical. Like, it really made me smile. Even though I philosophically agree that the freedom to carry guns as you wish is good for all the reasons you guys say it's good, having grown up in Joeshmoeville, Massachusetts, real world, 1983-present AD, I admit that a culture without gun laws (while objectively better) is not an idea I like.

So it seems silly to "support" something that I myself am not comfortable with and maybe never could be comfortable with. I admit the discomfort is a result of culturally indoctrinated bias. But that bias is not without significance to me. It's a part of me. And I'm comfortable with nature, rather than change of sentiment, correcting whatever burden the bias brings. Correcting it myself feels like a waste of life to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say that you're comfortable with it, but all your posts lately say something different. I would encourage you to keep chugging at it until you finally have a peace of mind.



[ QUOTE ]
You can say I "should" learn about guns and become comfortable with them, since I realize that philosophically that's a "better" way to live. But basically, I don't think I should have to. If I feel like the good of breaking the bias doesn't outweigh the cost, then to me, a world that forces me to break the bias is not one I "support."

Why should I martyr myself to be an objectively good person when I can't be sure everyone else will do the same? Is that actually good? It seems destructive. Maybe I'll spend a lot of time, money, and effort breaking my biased aversion to guns, but what makes me think the progressive [censored] from Berkley California isn't working to break his bias that tells him taxation is effective?

So basically, if I can't guarantee you're not gonna be a dick to me, then I reserve the right to be a dick to you. Hence, the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is extremely honest of you. Well done. And yes, I completely feel your pain of waking up to a society that has betrayed you.



[ QUOTE ]
I can look at the state and agree "Ya, that sucks, we're all dicks." But having these biases that are instilled in me at no fault of my own, it doesn't make sense to me to say "Now I don't want the state." That seems like destruction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really hurts your identity doesn't it? But on the other hand you're finally starting to HAVE an identity. This is brilliant.


"[Neo] My eyes hurt. [Morpheus] That's because you've never used them before".
-The Matrix

[ALawPoker]

Nice hand, Nielsio. I'm honestly not really sure how to respond to you.

I mean, I tend to think there is a difference between intellectually removing bias (my posts lately), and then truly being comfortable with the change of environment. It is a good point that you shouldn't underestimate the way people will solve problems. So, the belief that my bias is such that the new environment would be uncomfortable is probably a biased assumption in its own right.

I mean, when I wrote the OP, that was as "comfortable" with my world view as I'd ever been. It was the reconciliation I was looking for. You make a convincing presentation though.

I think the biggest difference between "me" and "you" is that I know I could never act like an ACer, so I don't call myself that. And I guess maybe that's why I look for reasons to disagree. I want to find the intellectual justification to my actions. If there was theoretically a chance to vote for something that mattered to me, I'd vote. I mean I've never voted before but it's mostly out of laziness and disinterest. I can't honestly say I wouldn't if it was to my best interest. Treat others how you want to be treated. Oh? You're gonna go vote? OK, I will too. So I don't feel comfortable calling myself an "ACist" because it implies a degree of principle that I don't have. I don't care about the objectivity of what's best as much as I care about being comfortable right now. I'm a statist who agrees we are all [censored] each other over. I guess in a way, the state is a function of time preference.

But, intellectually I don't really disagree with anything you guys say. It's never made sense to me that government can make things better. And it wasn't like a political/moral thing, it was just a strictly logical thing. It's a barrier. How can that be better? How can your decision now to stereotype behavior and restrict decisions actually be better than another human being's decision based on his first hand analysis and unique judgment at a particular time? So if you asked me what was best, I'd always say less, less, less government.

I just, being so accepting of the reality where governments exist, never really considered the option of them not existing as a plausibility until I started reading this board. (I mean, I still don't consider it plausible in the sense that it might actually happen any time soon, but I never realized people actually stood for that and were pushing its cause.) And for a little while (I didn't include this in the OP but) I basically was an ACer. I didn't know all the fancy mumbo jumbo that you guys know, but it all basically hit me like a ton of bricks, and I started to see government's functions with moral disdain. Like I'd look at cops and growl, I even started looking at postmen and growled.

But then that just started to feel silly to me for no explicable reason. I guess like you say, it's part of my identity. And being emo is pretty lame. So I don't know. I guess I don't *want* to see the majority of the world around me as something I disagree with. It's just hard to disagree with everything. But at the same time... I do disagree!

So then where does that leave me. What I expressed in the OP is, I think, basically a reconciliation. It's one I'm comfortable with. It basically says to me, lack of government is objectively good, but removing the bias that would allow for it is not easy, and I do not fault myself or someone else for "playing along." A state police officer is also part hero. The things that drove him to be a cop in this society would often mean he'd be a full fledged hero in a free society. I do fault people (intellectually at least) if they don't admit that they're being dicks.

The way I see it, government's legs are a function of people who won't admit they're dicks, and not so much people like me who play along anyways. Cause I'm laying it on the table that "I'll stop if you do."

[ALawPoker]

Another hurdle that keeps me from "acting like an ACer" which I meant to add is that people will interpret what you stand for in a way that makes sense to them, and there's no changing that. And people's opinions matter to me, to some degree. Someone can say "The government needs to do more of [X]!" and I might agree that X is a good thing that socially I would approve of and encourage. But I just don't approve of the idea that the government should do it. But that's lost on them.

Moreover, let's say anarchy was an ideal that I had no doubts about. I want to help make it happen in every way possible. The ways you do this (not voting, not paying taxes, exposing the corruption, etc.), while objectively good, are things people will interpret as deviant and bad. And I don't want to be interpreted like that. The ideal is not as important to me as practical perception.

So I guess you could say that sort of leaves me with what I believe is borodog's position, that it's best to avoid talking about politics with anyone you care about. I'm just not entirely sure what I think of that. I enjoy talking about what I value with people I value. It's easy enough to avoid talking about "Who do you want to be President," but inevitably you'll want to talk about life, assumptions, etc., with people you care about. And to do this, for me, I prefer to adjust my language to reconcile with their reality.

So then what am I? Am I an ACer? I don't think so. Because like I said, I think it implies more dedication to the principle than I actually have.

But anyways, thanks for your reply Nielsio. If you have any more thoughts please share.


EDIT: I think an important question is "Does hypocrisy actually exist?" In the interest of not starving to death though, I must play poker now and may elaborate later.