[From Bruce Gregory (990223.1000 EST)]
Mike Acree (990222.1417 PST)
Anarchists want anarchy for themselves, which is only to say that they
don't want to be forcibly controlled by others, and in particular they
don't want to set up an agency for the purpose of doing just
that.
Sounds good to me. I hereby declare myself to be an anarchist. Is there
anything else I need to do?
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (990223.0820)]
Mike Acree (990222.1417 PST)--
I'm satisfied with your formulation that
> anarchy may be the state to which a society moves when the
> individual "doers" (control systems) that make up that society
> figure out how to minimize the use of coercion as the means of
> controlling the variables they want to control.
Great. So you are satisfied that "anarchy" (to the extent that
it is observed) is just a _side-effect_ of people controlling
various perceptual variables. So there is no reason to advocate
anarchy; anarchy will emerge out of the interactions of
cooperative people.
Bill has written, I believe, as though they [governments] were
[control systems], and that treatment made sense to me.
I doubt that Bill ever spoke as though governments were control
systems. If he did, he was wrong. People are control systems.
People can (and do) control for relationships, rules, principles
and system concepts that specify ways to perceive themselves acting
in concert with other people. When people control these perceptions
at certain levels (such as when they control for the perceptions
of themselves as a law enforcement officer) we see this controlling
as an aspect of our perception of government.
Me:
I'm not for or against anarchy.
Mike:
This is disingenuous. At various points you've stated your
support for taxation, (forcible) redistribution of income, and
minimum wage laws, all of which I think you (correctly) perceive
as impossible under anarchy.
Being for or against these things is orthogonal to being for or
against anarchy. I do support all these things but I don't
believe I ever advocated the use of force to implement them. In
my anarchy, people happily pay (very progressive) taxes and a
living wage because they understand (based on a PCT analysis
of the macro economy; this is a well educated group) the value
of doing so (increased productivity and a higher standard of
living for all). No one in my anarchy carries guns (except when
hunting) because they know (again based on a PCT understanding
of conflict) the danger of doing so. There would be rich people
(but no poor people) in my anarchy but the rich would not be
admired or despised; they would simply be seen as selfish
horders who are stupidly (and unintentionally) depriving others
of the ability to buy the fruits of their own labor.
Me:
"Anarchy" is just a state of a controlled perceptual variable.
Unless everyone wants this perceptual variable in exactly the
same state -- the state you call "anarchy", say -- then there
will be conflict because people will be acting to bring this
perception to the state _they_ prefer.
Mike:
This sounds like an uninteresting tautology (there's nothing
else but controlled variables)
I guess one man's uninteresting tautology is another man's model
of human nature;-)
but, depending on what you meant, is either false or misleading.
There is no single perceptual variable for the society which
anarchists and government advocates are jointly trying to control.
Maybe. Maybe not. It's an empirical question.
Anarchists want anarchy for themselves, which is only to say
that they don't want to be forcibly controlled by others
I think this is true of _everyone_. Anarchists may just be a bit
higher gain about it.
But, as far as anarchists are concerned, everybody else is free
to choose whatever system they want. Anarchists, virtually by
definition, are _not_ seeking to coerce others.
But everybody else (the non-anarchists) would _not_ be free to
choose a system that interferes with the anarchists' system,
would they? If nearly all the societies in the world were anarchies
(instead of non-anarchies, as they are now) then the non-anarchists
would have to find a place where _they_ could have their government
and not interfere with the anarchist societies. But this is the
same problem that confronts anarchists today; anarchists are not
free to choose a system that interferes with the non-anarchist
systems. If present day anarchists could find a place where they
would not interfere with the non-anarchist societies then I'm
sure that the non-anarchists would have as little problem with
you anarchists as you say anarchists would have with non-
anarchists.
Government, however, being a game that requires everybody to play,
its advocates must coerce any unwilling persons who remain within
the territory.
Do you think that people in an anarchy _would not_ coerce unwilling
non-anarchists who remain in the territory? I still don't
understand why you think an anarchist would not push back against
non-anarchists who oppose the anarchy. Aren't anarchists control
systems too?
When anarchists seek to avoid coercion by others, you see
them (if I read you correctly) as coercing all those others
who want to coerce them.
Yes. If anarchists are the majority and, therefore, the stronger
controllers, then they are coercing the non-anarchist minority
who would try to impose non-anarchy, just as the non-anarchists
are now coercing the anarchist minority who try to impose anarchy.
In this sense you are coercing all the robbers who want to
rip you off, and women are coercing all the men to whom they
are denying access to their bodies.
Yes. The robber is unquestionably being coerced; the men are
being coerced if the women they want are stronger.
Logically, a social system could be set up to embody such a
concept, granting equal consideration to your wish not to
be raped and to all the men who think you're good-looking.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Logic has nothing
to do with it. Coercion occurs when a stronger control system
controls the behavior of a weaker one. Our social system is
set up to coerce certain behaviors: paying taxes, not stealing,
killing, or taking illegal drugs, having a license if you want
to carry a gun, etc. Whether you think certain behaviors should
be coerced or not is irrelevant; the fact is that certain behaviors
are coerced.
your concept of coercion will be a vastly harder sell, for those of
practically any political persuasion, than a concept which treats
rapists and victims, robbers and homeowners, as asymmetrically
coercive.
I think you're missing the point. My concept of coercion has nothing
to do with the occupation of the coercer and coercee (whether they
are rapists, victims, robbers or homeowners). Coercion is _control
of the behavior of a weaker by a stronger control system_. If the
rapist is stronger than the victim, then the rapist is the coercer;
if the victim is stronger than the rapist, then the victim is
the coercer. I despise coercion when it is exerted by the rapist
and celebrate coercion when it is exerted by the victim; but it's
coercion in both cases.
Tellingly, Chapter 17 speaks of giving up the desire to control
others but not of giving up the desire not to be controlled by
others.
This is the problem with slogans. I think the "desire to control
others" refers to the desire we have to see people behaving in
a particular way, even though those people are not trying to
get us to behave in a particular way. The problem with controlling
others is that doing it arbitrarily is likely to create conflict --
which means that the controllee pushes back (exerting his desire
"not to be controlled"). The controllee in this situation can eliminate
the conflict by giving up the desire _not_ to be
controlled; this is the "turn the other cheek" approach that
Jesus suggested and that no one ever really bought. This is
because it's virtually impossible to _not_ push back against
efforts to control one's behavior.
But if, as the controllee, you could reduce the gain of your
desire to _not_ be controlled, you would reduce conflict with
those who want to control you; this would make negotiation
easier. I think this is what happens in the RTP program, for
example. A disruptive child is trying to control the teacher's
teaching behavior by limiting the time the teacher can spend
teaching in the classroom. Rather than push back hard against
the kid's attempts to control their behavior, RTP wisely counsels
the teacher to push back _very_ gently -- by asking some questions
and, if necessary, gently persuading the child to go to another
room. The teacher still controls for not being controlled --
but she does so with very low gain. So here is a case where
the controllee (the teacher), by giving up some of her desire
to _not_ be controlled, can actually eliminate conflict.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Bruce Gregory (990223.1142 EST)]
Rick Marken (990223.0820)
I guess one man's uninteresting tautology is another man's model
of human nature;-)
That has a nice ring.
But if, as the controllee, you could reduce the gain of your
desire to _not_ be controlled, you would reduce conflict with
those who want to control you; this would make negotiation
easier. I think this is what happens in the RTP program, for
example. A disruptive child is trying to control the teacher's
teaching behavior by limiting the time the teacher can spend
teaching in the classroom.
I suspect that a disruption is often an unintended effect of the child
doing what it wants to do--talking with a buddy in class, for example.
You seem to be predicting that if the teacher stopped teaching the
student would stop his or her "disruptive behavior".
Rather than push back hard against
the kid's attempts to control their behavior, RTP wisely counsels
the teacher to push back _very_ gently -- by asking some questions
and, if necessary, gently persuading the child to go to another
room. The teacher still controls for not being controlled --
but she does so with very low gain. So here is a case where
the controllee (the teacher), by giving up some of her desire
to _not_ be controlled, can actually eliminate conflict.
If the student were placed in a sound-roofed closet and conflict was
thereby eliminated, would the teacher's goal be satisfied? I suspect
that the teacher is controlling for the student's remaining in the
classroom, paying attention, and not disrupting.
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (990223.0910)]
Bruce Gregory (990223.1142 EST)--
I suspect that a disruption is often an unintended effect of
the child doing what it wants to do
I agree.
You seem to be predicting that if the teacher stopped teaching
the student would stop his or her "disruptive behavior".
I was _assuming_ a child who is trying to control the teacher's
teaching behavior. If a child _is_ trying to control for the
teacher not teaching then I would, indeed, predict, that the
student would stop his disruptive behavior (the means he is
using to achieve his goal) as soon as the teacher stopped
teaching. If the child does _not_ stop disrupting then
the assumption about the child's controlled variable (the
teacher's teaching behavior) is clearly wrong.
If the student were placed in a sound-roofed closet and conflict
was thereby eliminated, would the teacher's goal be satisfied?
If the teacher's goal is to teach without disruption, then that
goal will be satisfied, yes. If the teacher also has the goal of
treating others with respect than that goal will not be satisfied,
I presume.
I suspect that the teacher is controlling for the student's
remaining in the classroom, paying attention, and not disrupting.
I think the genius of RTP was the realization that a teacher
who controls for these variables is just asking for conflict.
When a teacher controls for a student remaining in class,
paying attention, and not disrupting the teacher is controlling
for aspects of the student's behavior. As I understand it,
RTP reduces conflict in schools by helping teachers understand
that their job is _not_ to control aspects of the student's
behavior; their job is to _teach_.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Bruce Gregory (990223.1220 EST)]
Rick Marken (990223.0910)
I think the genius of RTP was the realization that a teacher
who controls for these variables is just asking for conflict.
When a teacher controls for a student remaining in class,
paying attention, and not disrupting the teacher is controlling
for aspects of the student's behavior. As I understand it,
RTP reduces conflict in schools by helping teachers understand
that their job is _not_ to control aspects of the student's
behavior; their job is to _teach_.
I think the genius of RTP is the realization that a mechanism can be
implemented that allows the teacher to control for the student remaining
in class and paying attention by having the student leave the class and
develop a plan that will minimize disruption in the future.
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (990223.0950)]
Bruce Gregory (990223.1220 EST)--
I think the genius of RTP is the realization that a mechanism
can be implemented that allows the teacher to control for the
student remaining in class and paying attention by having the
student leave the class and develop a plan that will minimize
disruption in the future.
I know. You put it very clearly here: RTP is great because
it provides a mechanism that allows teachers to control
student behavior. I guess there's nothing wrong with
thinking of RTP this way (as long as you carry out the program
properly -- i.e.., don't try to control the students). Describing
RTP as you do is probably a better way to sell the program
since teachers and administrators are certainly unlikely to
buy a program that doesn't promise to give them control over
the students.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Bruce Gregory (990223.1255 EST)]
Rick Marken (990223.0950)
I know. You put it very clearly here: RTP is great because
it provides a mechanism that allows teachers to control
student behavior. I guess there's nothing wrong with
thinking of RTP this way (as long as you carry out the program
properly -- i.e.., don't try to control the students). Describing
RTP as you do is probably a better way to sell the program
since teachers and administrators are certainly unlikely to
buy a program that doesn't promise to give them control over
the students.
The biggest difference between us is that you insist on resisting the
fact that you are a control system and I don't resist the fact that I am
a control system. Why would think that anyone would buy a program that
promises to reduce their ability to exercise control?
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (990223.1050)]
Bruce Gregory (990223.1255 EST)--
The biggest difference between us is that you insist on
resisting the fact that you are a control system and I don't
resist the fact that I am a control system.
I try (usually unsuccessfully -- just ask my wife and kids) to
resist controlling other people. But I don't resist the fact
that I am a control system. I know and accept the fact that I am.
But I also know that this creates problems (conflict) when dealing
with other control systems (like wives and kids). So I do try
as best I can to resist controlling other control systems.
Why would think that anyone would buy a program that
promises to reduce their ability to exercise control?
I don't think anyone would buy a program that promises to
reduce their ability to exercise control. When I said
"Describing RTP as you do is probably a better way to sell
the program..." I was not being facetious. The fact is that
teachers do want kids to stay in class and pay attention.
It's hard to convince teachers that the best way to achieve
this goal is by _not_ trying to achieve this goal. When
teachers are dealing with students, the best way to get the
students to "behave" is by _not_ trying to control their
behavior. I think RTP teaches teachers how to get a perception
they want (kids in class, paying attention) by _not_ controlling
for this perception. When RTP is properly implemented I
think it gives teachers the illusion of control because the
teachers get the perception that they want so they figure that
they must have _done something_ to get it. The fact that the
teachers are getting this perception by _not_ doing something
to get it (by not controlling for it) may be a level of
understanding of the program that is best left for later, after
the teachers have seen that the program is successful.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Bruce Gregory (990223.1400 EST)]
Rick Marken (990223.1050)
Bruce Gregory (990223.1255 EST)--
> The biggest difference between us is that you insist on
> resisting the fact that you are a control system and I don't
> resist the fact that I am a control system.I try (usually unsuccessfully -- just ask my wife and kids) to
resist controlling other people. But I don't resist the fact
that I am a control system. I know and accept the fact that I am.
But I also know that this creates problems (conflict) when dealing
with other control systems (like wives and kids). So I do try
as best I can to resist controlling other control systems.
In other words, you control for not controlling other systems. You are
not resisting controlling. You have simply changed your reference level.
(Although you apparently are not too successful at controlling for this
new reference level. I'm familiar with the problem...)
I don't think anyone would buy a program that promises to
reduce their ability to exercise control. When I said
"Describing RTP as you do is probably a better way to sell
the program..." I was not being facetious. The fact is that
teachers do want kids to stay in class and pay attention.
It's hard to convince teachers that the best way to achieve
this goal is by _not_ trying to achieve this goal.
I think the situation resembles judo. You don't give up the desire to
throw your opponent, you find a better way to accomplish this end.
Teachers find that the way to achieve what they want is not to impose it
on the students, but to allow the students to come up with a way to meet
their goals and the teacher's.
When RTP is properly implemented I
think it gives teachers the illusion of control because the
teachers get the perception that they want so they figure that
they must have _done something_ to get it.
Again, like judo, you exercise control by appearing to give it up. It
remains control, not the illusion of control. Or so it seems to me.
Bruce Gregory
[From Mike Acree (990225.0945 PST)]
[From Bruce Gregory (990223.0928 EST)]
I could say that PCT is a theory of how human beings work and
anarchy is
a theory of how societies work, but that may be dignifying the latter
usage of the word _theory_ a bit too much.So anarchy is a theory of how societies work. I must admit I'm lost.
Is
the claim that societies are anarchic even though they do not appear
to
be? Or are you claiming something else? I thought anarchy was a
proposed
model of how a society _might_ work (much as communism is a model of
how
a society might work). What am I missing?
I can't tell that you're missing anything here; your wording was simply
better than mine.
Differences
between the two
"theories" are what's irrelevant in any case. The only similarities
I
was claiming are newness and radicalness (understood in the sense of
profoundly different from the prevailing theories), and both of these
are relevant, I still contend, to the slowness of their acceptance.I am not sure what is to be accepted. That an anarchic society is not
impossible?
That's basically how I understood your original challenge: If anarchy
works so well, where are all the anarchic societies?
Anarchists want anarchy for themselves, which is only to say that
they
don't want to be forcibly controlled by others, and in particular
they
don't want to set up an agency for the purpose of doing just
that.Sounds good to me. I hereby declare myself to be an anarchist. Is
there
anything else I need to do?
That's the easy part, for practically everybody. The important part is
relinquishing the intention of forcibly controlling others (or having
agents, i.e. government, do it for you) (except for resisting their
efforts at forcibly controlling you). That stance is virtually
definitive of libertarianism; members of the Libertarian Party sign a
pledge avowing that they do not advocate the initiation of physical
force as a means of achieving personal or social goals. Most
libertarians, of course, still want a government to protect
them--presumably because anarchy is still a radical new idea to them,
too, and they still haven't figured out why the police and courts are
about as effective as government schools. The hard-core anarchists
actually tend to eschew the Party and trying to change the system by
political means, in favor of simply withdrawing from the system, "flying
below government radar" to the extent feasible. (See my following post
to Rick.)
Mike
[From Mike Acree (990225.0946 PST)]
Rick Marken (990223.0820)--
I'm satisfied with your formulation that
anarchy may be the state to which a society moves when the
individual "doers" (control systems) that make up that society
figure out how to minimize the use of coercion as the means of
controlling the variables they want to control.Great. So you are satisfied that "anarchy" (to the extent that
it is observed) is just a _side-effect_ of people controlling
various perceptual variables. So there is no reason to advocate
anarchy; anarchy will emerge out of the interactions of
cooperative people.
If all the interactions were cooperative--or even just noncoerced--we
would already have anarchy. Those who currently benefit, directly or
indirectly, from coercion by government, however, will not readily give
it up. So advocacy of anarchy still has a function. No argument is
likely to persuade teachers unions or postal unions to allow any
competition, but their customers may come to see how much better
services could be provided under such an arrangement. It takes a long
time even so for their voices to be heard through elections, but some
shifts are already visible. At the same time that government power is
rapidly increasing (thanks especially to the war on drugs), ideas like
vouchers and tax credits for education are no longer lunatic fringe, and
those who insist on legal protection for their government monopolies are
increasingly on the defensive. Achievement of anarchy through such a
gradual process of privatization is thus a possibility, and it might
eventually evolve even in a prelinguistic society (i.e., with no
possible advocacy); but in reality the "figuring out" that you refer to
will surely include some specific arguments about the benefits of
different outcomes.
In general, what we see happening in the U.S. over recent decades is two
parallel, accelerating trends. One is the growth of government
regulation and taxation. The other, in response, is evasion of the
regulations and taxes, including the growth of the underground, cash
(and now electronic) economy. The famous "Nanny problem" is only one
example. (The White House actually had difficulty a couple of years ago
staffing a task force on ethics, because it was hard to find prominent
people who didn't have some sort of nanny problem.) In response to laws
regulating private sexual behavior, people commonly perjure themselves,
and perjury itself comes to be widely accepted. It is, of course, the
rich and powerful who are best positioned to evade laws and taxes, and
politicians are literally the first to evade their own rules. Congress
employs a staff of thousands, but has exempted itself from all the major
social legislation of the last 70 years, from Social Security to the
Civil Rights Act to the Americans with Disabilities Act. President
Kennedy, before imposing the embargo on Cuba, ordered 1000 Cuban cigars
for his own personal stash. All this fits well, I think, Bill's
predictions in Chapter 17. Perhaps the emergence of these two classes,
those that have to live by the rules and those that don't, wouldn't have
to end in a violent revolution, but we're still moving in that
direction.
Bill has written, I believe, as though they [governments] were
[control systems], and that treatment made sense to me.I doubt that Bill ever spoke as though governments were control
systems. If he did, he was wrong.
I was speaking from memory of his "CT Psychology and Social
Organizations" (LCS II), without having checked it. It's true that he
nowhere says, "Social organizations are control systems" (nor, for that
matter, deny that they are). His treatment is more metaphorical: He
says, for example, "The coordinator [of a social hierarchy] is thus
acting as a control system, using the workers as part of his output
equipment" (p. 106). (I take it he is not making the uninteresting
statement that the coordinator is a control system merely by virtue of
being human.) But he goes on to say: "This familiar result cannot be
carried out literally as just described." Hence I think my "as though"
language was not so far off. The issue is not one, in any case, of
relevance to any argument I was making.
You:
I'm not for or against anarchy.
Me:
This is disingenuous. At various points you've stated your
support for taxation, (forcible) redistribution of income, and
minimum wage laws, all of which I think you (correctly) perceive
as impossible under anarchy.
You:
Being for or against these things is orthogonal to being for or
against anarchy.
Coercion and no coercion, taxation and no taxation, are not orthogonal.
I do support all these things but I don't
believe I ever advocated the use of force to implement them.
If a minimum-wage law (or any other law) isn't backed up by the threat
of force, it isn't a law. If you advocate taxation, separate advocacy
of collecting taxes by force is gratuitous. If force is not involved,
they are called donations.
In
my anarchy, people happily pay (very progressive) taxes and a
living wage because they understand (based on a PCT analysis
of the macro economy; this is a well educated group) the value
of doing so (increased productivity and a higher standard of
living for all).
And everybody plays the harp and espouses PCT.
There would be rich people
(but no poor people) in my anarchy but the rich would not be
admired or despised; they would simply be seen as selfish
horders who are stupidly (and unintentionally) depriving others
of the ability to buy the fruits of their own labor.
You are using "selfish" and "stupid," in other words, as neutral, purely
descriptive terms.
Me:
There is no single perceptual variable for the society which
anarchists and government advocates are jointly trying to control.
You:
Maybe. Maybe not. It's an empirical question.
Yes, an empirical question which I had just answered.
Me:
Anarchists want anarchy for themselves, which is only to say
that they don't want to be forcibly controlled by others
You:
I think this is true of _everyone_. Anarchists may just be a bit
higher gain about it.
Yes.
Me:
But, as far as anarchists are concerned, everybody else is free
to choose whatever system they want. Anarchists, virtually by
definition, are _not_ seeking to coerce others.
You:
But everybody else (the non-anarchists) would _not_ be free to
choose a system that interferes with the anarchists' system,
would they? If nearly all the societies in the world were anarchies
(instead of non-anarchies, as they are now) then the non-anarchists
would have to find a place where _they_ could have their government
and not interfere with the anarchist societies. But this is the
same problem that confronts anarchists today; anarchists are not
free to choose a system that interferes with the non-anarchist
systems.
My previous post addressed this issue at some length, in response to
your having said essentially the same thing before.
If present day anarchists could find a place where they
would not interfere with the non-anarchist societies then I'm
sure that the non-anarchists would have as little problem with
you anarchists as you say anarchists would have with non-
anarchists.
If only that were true. But governments have a poor track record of
allowing any group to secede, regardless of what sort of society they
want to form. I previously gave our own Civil War as an example.
Do you think that people in an anarchy _would not_ coerce unwilling
non-anarchists who remain in the territory?
Coerce them to what?
I still don't
understand why you think an anarchist would not push back against
non-anarchists who oppose the anarchy. Aren't anarchists control
systems too?
Anarchists will push back against people who try forcibly to control
them (to subjugate them to a government), if that's what you meant by
opposing anarchy. But being a control system--it looks as though this
may come as a revelation--doesn't entail controlling others, or trying
to.
Our social system is
set up to coerce certain behaviors: paying taxes, not stealing,
killing, or taking illegal drugs, having a license if you want
to carry a gun, etc. Whether you think certain behaviors should
be coerced or not is irrelevant; the fact is that certain behaviors
are coerced.
You seem to be saying that the IRS and FDA are a law of nature. There's
no disputing that these agencies coerce, but there also isn't any
metaphysical necessity about it. These are, at least in principle,
mutable human institutions.
Me:
Tellingly, Chapter 17 speaks of giving up the desire to control
others but not of giving up the desire not to be controlled by
others.
You:
This is the problem with slogans.
It's sad to see this beautiful passage demeaned as sloganeering. That's
not only not Bill's style; I've also never heard the line quoted in my 3
years on the Net.
Bill's message here is somewhat idealistic, but not hopeless fantasy.
The Buddhists have had some success promoting a similar message over the
last 2500 years; and they are, significantly, the only world religion
which has never started a war. (Of course, it may take some of the
Berkeley Buddhists awhile to realize the inconsistency of using
coercion--legislation--to achieve their peaceful social goals.)
I think the "desire to control
others" refers to the desire we have to see people behaving in
a particular way, even though those people are not trying to
get us to behave in a particular way. The problem with controlling
others is that doing it arbitrarily is likely to create conflict --
which means that the controllee pushes back (exerting his desire
"not to be controlled"). The controllee in this situation can
eliminate
the conflict by giving up the desire _not_ to be
controlled; this is the "turn the other cheek" approach that
Jesus suggested and that no one ever really bought. This is
because it's virtually impossible to _not_ push back against
efforts to control one's behavior.
Exhortation to turn the other cheek is a message that can work when
coming from Jesus or Gandhi, but not from the master to the slave--nor
from the master's apologists.
But if, as the controllee, you could reduce the gain of your
desire to _not_ be controlled, you would reduce conflict with
those who want to control you; this would make negotiation
easier. I think this is what happens in the RTP program, for
example. A disruptive child is trying to control the teacher's
teaching behavior by limiting the time the teacher can spend
teaching in the classroom. Rather than push back hard against
the kid's attempts to control their behavior, RTP wisely counsels
the teacher to push back _very_ gently -- by asking some questions
and, if necessary, gently persuading the child to go to another
room. The teacher still controls for not being controlled --
but she does so with very low gain. So here is a case where
the controllee (the teacher), by giving up some of her desire
to _not_ be controlled, can actually eliminate conflict.
I can feel how gently you push back in all of your interactions.
I'm off-line until the 8th, so there's time, if you want, to think it
all over. On the other hand, this may be a good time, for several
reasons, to drop the thread.
Mike
[From Bruce Gregory (990225.1335 EST)]
Mike Acree (990225.0945 PST)
me:
> I am not sure what is to be accepted. That an anarchic society is not
> impossible?
thee:
That's basically how I understood your original challenge: If anarchy
works so well, where are all the anarchic societies?
I suspect that the problem is not unworkability, but rather instability. I
am thinking of some of Alexrod's studies in _The Complexity of Cooperation_.
One can start with an anarchic society, but small changes in the goals of a
few individuals can lead to the development of gross inequalities and the
development of structures to redress these inequalities. Integration, after
all, is perfectly possible, but it only takes a small preference no to be in
a minority to create large-scale segregation, even in more egalitarian
societies such as Sweden.
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (990225.1120)]
Mike Acree (990225.0946 PST)--
If all the interactions were cooperative--or even just
noncoerced--we would already have anarchy.
You got it!
Those who currently benefit, directly or indirectly, from
coercion by government, however, will not readily give
it up. So advocacy of anarchy still has a function.
Why? Advocacy is not really cooperation. To have anarchy you
have to become one of the cooperators and _hope_ that everyone
else becomes one too. You can't _make_ people cooperate. That
means that if everyone wants a government then you have to go
along to some extent -- or you are not cooperating. So
cooperation does not _necessarily_ result in what you would
see as anarchy.
If a minimum-wage law (or any other law) isn't backed up by
the threat of force, it isn't a law.
Right. As I said, in my anarchy everyone pays a living (greater
than a minimum) wage willingly.
If you advocate taxation, separate advocacy of collecting
taxes by force is gratuitous. If force is not involved,
they are called donations.
Fine. In my anarchy taxes are donations.
And everybody plays the harp and espouses PCT.
Everybody cooperates with everyone else. I'm just showing
how easy it is to make believe. I am imagining the cooperative
anarchy I like; you are imagining the one you like. They are
both just make believe.
Anarchists will push back against people who try forcibly to
control them (to subjugate them to a government), if that's
what you meant by opposing anarchy.
Thanks. Finally!
But being a control system--it looks as though this may come
as a revelation--doesn't entail controlling others, or trying
to.
No. It doesn't. But you are obviously controlling others if
you try to prevent them from achieving their goals. If their
goal is to subjugate you to a government then your attempts to
prevent them from achieving that goal represent attempts to
control _their_ behavior.
The only way to have a non-coercive anarchy is to _not_ try
to have a non-coercive anarchy. When all interactions between
people are cooperative you will have your anarchy. So maybe this
is a good time to stop this thread -- because there is really
nothing to talk about. Anarchy might happen, and it might not.
I hope, for your sake, that it does.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Bill Powers (2000.04.10.0414 MDT)]
Mike Acree (2000.04.09) --
It's good to be forced to think about these subjects again; it helps me to
pull together scattered thoughts about things I ceased to take seriously
long ago.
As an idealistic youngster in my 40s, I said that the only way for people
to learn to live together peaceably is to give up even the desire to
control other people. This is a wonderful idea, but the problem is who is
going to be the first to give up this desire? If we could say "One, two,
three, NOW" and all give it up at once, this idea might work -- but what
if, while we are all congratulating each other on having taken this step
toward maturity, we find that the people who got us to do this are now
standing around with guns and telling us what to do?
Like most idealists, I was not thinking of people as they are, but of
people as I would like them to be. If everyone subscribed to the idea of
self-control and could see why trying to control others led to conflict,
and if everyone were as sure as I that conflict is a waste of human
resources, then of course I would already have won my battle. But that is
not the case, and trying to rush ahead to the ultimate conclusion is not
going to succeed. You can't force something to be true by pretending very
hard that it is true.
The anarchist, of course, is in the same boat and for the same reason. As
matters stand now, civilization is run by a system of laws and law
enforcement. The enforcement part is necessary because not everyone would
voluntarily live under the specific laws in effect -- some laws, perhaps,
but not all of them. For anarchy to succeed, everyone would have to agree
to the rules of anarchy -- for example, "No banding together to make laws
for other people." But if you could persuade all people to live that way,
you wouldn't have to argue for anarchy; it would already exist. The mere
fact that you have to advocate anarchy and plot to bring it into existence
shows that the conditions under which it could work do not exist now. It's
just like love: if you have to plead for your lover to love you, it's too
late for love.
One of the tenets I seem to detect beneath the surface (though you have
only hinted at it) is that the strong should prevail over the weak. If one
company can drive another out of business, then the company driven out of
business must have been incompetent and we are better off without it. When
people argue against laws such as anti-trust laws, I always wonder what it
is that they want to do that such laws forbid. I guess that driving
companies out of business to eliminate competition is one of those things
you want to do, or see done. I could understand your reasoning, in that
case; it's pretty simple.
By that same reasoning, laws against robbing people prevent robbers from
doing what they please (or at least make it more risky), so the Robbist's
movement could argue for abolishing such laws. Since it sometimes becomes
inconvenient for one party to live up to the terms of a contract, the
Anti-Contractualists would lobby to repeal laws that create penalties for
breaking legal contracts. The Bullies' Consortium would seek to repeal laws
against doing Gross Bodily Harm to weaker people, and the Adult Freedom
Party would seek to eliminate legal requirements for feeding and clothing
anyone's children. Any law that protects the weak from the strong only
encourages and perpetuates weakness, goes the reasoning, and so all laws
ought to be eliminated. Let the fittest survive.
Such fantasies overlook one fact: the people, who are stronger than any of
these groups, have already spoken, and what the people have decided is that
there shall be laws and that they shall be enforced. The fittest have,
indeed, survived, and the strongest have prevailed, just as you would, I am
presuming, recommend. You have your wish -- but the people did not choose
anarchy. They chose to restrict the violent, to curb the greedy, to punish
the wicked, and to care for the weak to help them become stronger. And they
have almost always chosen to do this through representatives, through
delegation of authority, through hiring of professionals, rather than
piecemeal and individually. People all over the world have made this
choice; it is too late to wish for anarchy. What we have instead is
Civilization, groping its way into existence.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Mike Acree (2000.04.10.1132 PDT)]
Bill Powers (2000.04.10.0414 MDT)--
Thanks very much for singling out and responding to the most important issue
for me.
As an idealistic youngster in my 40s, I said that the only way for people
to learn to live together peaceably is to give up even the desire to
control other people. This is a wonderful idea, but the problem is who is
going to be the first to give up this desire? If we could say "One, two,
three, NOW" and all give it up at once, this idea might work -- but what
if, while we are all congratulating each other on having taken this step
toward maturity, we find that the people who got us to do this are now
standing around with guns and telling us what to do?
And here I am, an idealistic youngster in my 50s. No surprise if I'm a
slower learner than you, for sure. I'll grant you that the line about
giving up the desire for control is idealistic. I quoted that line because
you seemed hell-bent on all sorts of social control, and I naturally had
trouble reconciling those two attitudes. But I'm not convinced that giving
up the desire to control others is necessary for anarchy to work; if it
were, I'd agree that anarchy was unworkable. It's true that, to the extent
that we can genuinely relinquish the desire, we may make things easier both
for ourselves and for others; I think I've seen many examples among your
posts--rarely emulated--where winning the argument was not what you were
controlling for. I think, with you, that it's possible to move--however
slowly!--in the direction of relinquishing the need to control others, but
that there will always be those who are intent on controlling others, and
they will sometimes succeed. No conceivable social arrangement can
guarantee the elimination of violence; "utopia is not an option." The
question is what sort of system best promotes peaceful, negotiated
resolution of conflicts. In the first 6 months of 1998 I offered what
plausibility arguments I have for believing that a system of private
security, defense, and restitution-based justice offered the best hope, and
was workable. I don't think anyone is currently in a position to argue
conclusively that it would work--or that it wouldn't.
The transition to such a system is a separate, and perhaps more difficult,
question. Gibbons argues (along with others)that, whether we like it or
not, the growth of government is inexorable, up to a point where its control
becomes generally intolerable, and there will be a violent revolution. I
think that may be the most likely path, though I'm not quite so sold on its
inevitability. In any case, it looks to me as though whatever movement we
can manage in the opposite direction, of minimizing coercive interference in
our lives, is a good thing.
One of the tenets I seem to detect beneath the surface (though you have
only hinted at it) is that the strong should prevail over the weak. If one
company can drive another out of business, then the company driven out of
business must have been incompetent and we are better off without it. When
people argue against laws such as anti-trust laws, I always wonder what it
is that they want to do that such laws forbid. I guess that driving
companies out of business to eliminate competition is one of those things
you want to do, or see done. I could understand your reasoning, in that
case; it's pretty simple.
I can see how my remarks about antitrust may have made it look as though I
favored the strong over the weak, but that is not my actual view. My reason
for favoring anarchy is, after all, the diffusion rather than the
concentration of power. "Fitness," in an economic sense, refers to
efficiency in satisfying consumer wants. If, through antitrust legislation
or subsidies or other coercive means, we favor less fit producers, we are
guaranteeing less consumer satisfaction. You might want to be a ballet
dancer, but find that your performances didn't attract audiences large
enough to provide a viable income. You might succeed in getting a subsidy,
or in using antitrust legislation against more successful dance companies,
or invoking the Americans With Disabilities Act (it's been used for stranger
things), which would allow you to stay in business. But in each case the
Aggregate Consumer would be getting less of what it wanted, given how it
would otherwise have chosen to spend its money. The Aggregate Consumer
would rather have you do electronics consulting, and pursue ballet as a
hobby. Without all these laws, of course, you would still be free to offer
all the performances you wanted, whether there was anybody in the house or
not, but no one would be paying for the empty seats.
As for what the antitrust laws forbid, the answer is, nothing in particular,
and everything in general. That's a point I was making indirectly in a
previous post (2000.04.06.1304), in referring to "practices that are now
illegal, such as selling at the same price as their competitors ('price
fixing'), at lower prices ('intent to monopolize'), or at higher prices
('successful monopolizing')." Nonobjective law at its worst; means whatever
the prosecutors want it to mean.
Given the evident unresolvability of the anarchy question, I see our main
difference in your perception of political and economic power as similar
threats. That also appears to represent a shift from B:CP, where your
attitude seemed more benign: "Money ultimately means freedom, the freedom
to organize oneself so as to correct his own intrinsic errors when they hurt
and not when someone else gives him permission" (p. 271). I wonder about
the source of that disillusionment as well.
Best,
Mike
[from Norman Hovda (2000.04.10.2200 MST)]
[From Bill Powers (2000.04.10.0414 MDT)]
[snip]
Such fantasies overlook one fact: the people, who are stronger than any of
these groups, have already spoken, and what the people have decided is that
there shall be laws and that they shall be enforced. The fittest have,
indeed, survived, and the strongest have prevailed, just as you would, I am
presuming, recommend. You have your wish -- but the people did not choose
anarchy. They chose to restrict the violent, to curb the greedy, to punish
the wicked, and to care for the weak to help them become stronger. And they
have almost always chosen to do this through representatives, through
delegation of authority, through hiring of professionals, rather than
piecemeal and individually. People all over the world have made this
choice; it is too late to wish for anarchy. What we have instead is
Civilization, groping its way into existence.Best,
Bill P.
Anarchy as "leaderless" consumer-is-king society _is_ evolving.
The problem with the lord of the flies fantasy of which we now partake is
the illusion that we individually have the right to subsidized justice - the
hidden costs of which are coerced from all but the most perceptive.
Best,
nth
[From Bill Powers (2000.04.11.1255 MDT)]
Mike Acree (2000.04.10.1132 PDT)--
I'll grant you that the line about
giving up the desire for control is idealistic. I quoted that line because
you seemed hell-bent on all sorts of social control, and I naturally had
trouble reconciling those two attitudes.
Social control is what we have when not everyone is inclined to behave in
the way the majority of rational people would prefer. I see no alternative;
I don't prefer social control, I just admit that nothing else invented so
far will work. So if we're going to have social control, let's try to do it
in the way that conflicts the least with our conceptions of a good society.
But I'm not convinced that giving
up the desire to control others is necessary for anarchy to work; if it
were, I'd agree that anarchy was unworkable.
If we don't give up the desire to control others, then we must have a
system that relies, in the end, on the use of overwhelming physical force.
The majority will then prevail over the minority in the usual way. When
there is social conflict, you can't keep people from forming alliances in
the attempt to give their preferences the edge, which leads to exactly the
system we have now. All we can do about that, in our struggles to become
civilized, is try to make the system as fair as possible, as little
susceptible to unscrupulous leaders as possible, as distributed in the
power base as possible. Whatever we achieve along those lines, we must
achieve it starting from where we are, not by magically jumping into some
other social system that requires everyone to change themselves
simultaneously.
The question is what sort of system best promotes peaceful, negotiated
resolution of conflicts. In the first 6 months of 1998 I offered what
plausibility arguments I have for believing that a system of private
security, defense, and restitution-based justice offered the best hope, and
was workable. I don't think anyone is currently in a position to argue
conclusively that it would work--or that it wouldn't.
But you were presenting a system that represents a sharp and radical break
from the way people do things now -- a system which you say will
_logically_ offer the best hope, but which of course can't be put to the
test except by bringing it into being. So you are trying to persuade people
to try something that requires changing a whole society in major ways,
strictly on the basis of your "plausibility arguments." That will never be
enough to bring about the required changes. The only way to bring them
about in the face of human nature as it really is is to force the changes
at the point of a gun -- in other words, through violent revolution. You
say that isn't what you're advocating, but if you insist on anarchy, that's
the only way you're going to get it. So you end up in the paradoxical
position of advocating a system that "promotes peaceful, negotiated
resolution of conflicts" and being forced (or so it always seems to the
revolutionary) to bring it into being by means that are anything but
negotiated or peaceful.
The system we have now is supposed to promote peaceful, negotiated
resolution of conflicts, through representative government and the rule of
agreed-upon laws. If it fails to do that, it needs modification until it
succeeds; the aim is honorable, even if the execution is flawed. If you're
going to try to get people to do things differently, it's always easier to
get them to make small changes than big ones.
Furthermore, when you alter a system by making small changes in it, after
each change you will see the remaining problems a little differently. The
nature of the solution will change with each step that is taken. This means
that nobody can predict what the final system will be like. You can't sit
down and plot out a new social system; the only way that works is to fix
the problems as they become fixable, and then re-evaluate what the problems
are. If you are right, the final system will be an anarchy. But it will
also be a democracy, and a lawful society, and a communist society, and a
dictatorship of the proletariate, and a capitalist society, and a little of
everything else that has been tried, as well as things that haven't been
thought of yet. There's no telling how it will turn out. Nor should we
care, as long as every little step makes the total error a little smaller.
The transition to such a system is a separate, and perhaps more difficult,
question.
I think it's an integral part of the question. Any time you think you know
what the final form of a system should be, you're really guessing and
skipping over all the important details. When actually implemented, the
system will not work the way you imagine, in ways both small and large.
You'll have to re-evaluate then, anyway, so why not build in the
re-evaluation as part of the process of change right from the start? This
means giving up the conceit that you know how it will all turn out, but by
giving it up, you actually make it possible to come much closer to a
workable system.
Gibbons argues (along with others)that, whether we like it or
not, the growth of government is inexorable, up to a point where its control
becomes generally intolerable, and there will be a violent revolution.
He doesn't know that; he's just arguing that the future will be the same as
the past. It doesn't have to be. The future is created by human intentions.
If we change our intentions, we change the future.
In any case, it looks to me as though whatever movement we
can manage in the opposite direction, of minimizing coercive interference in
our lives, is a good thing.
Sure, and isn't that what lots of good people are already working for? But
we must always be aware that there are people who think coercive
interference is a good thing, especially when it is they who use it on
others, and to deal with them, we have to be prepared to become reproachful
victims, as Ghandi did, or use even more powerful coercive interference
than theirs.
If, through antitrust legislation
or subsidies or other coercive means, we favor less fit producers, we are
guaranteeing less consumer satisfaction.
It all hinges on what we mean by "less fit". I think Microsoft is an
excellent example of a company which, in terms of predation, is obviously
very fit, but the result is certainly not to maximize consumer
satisfaction. The Microsoft philosophy seems to be that the customers are
in the best position to debug the software, and that Microsoft is under no
obligation to fix all bugs. Also, if the customer doesn't want to do things
the Microsoft way, let him eat Unix. The problem is that power and monopoly
never make companies _more_ responsive to the customers.
You might want to be a ballet
dancer, but find that your performances didn't attract audiences large
enough to provide a viable income.
But if you had enough money, you could put Tanya Harding in charge of your
business affairs, so that if people wanted to see any non-crippled ballet
dancing, they would have to come to your performances. If you're the only
source, you don't have to be the best.
As for what the antitrust laws forbid, the answer is, nothing in particular,
and everything in general. That's a point I was making indirectly in a
previous post (2000.04.06.1304), in referring to "practices that are now
illegal, such as selling at the same price as their competitors ('price
fixing'), at lower prices ('intent to monopolize'), or at higher prices
('successful monopolizing')." Nonobjective law at its worst; means whatever
the prosecutors want it to mean.
That's an awfully simplistic way of putting it that ignores all the
differences that make a difference. It's not illegal to sell at the same
price as competitors, unless that price was set in collusion with the
competitors to prevent normal competition from lowering it. It's not
illegal to sell at a lower price, unless you're selling at a loss for the
purpose of driving out of business someone else whose pockets aren't as
deep. It's not illegal to sell at a higher price unless you have prepared
the way by eliminating all the competition through unscrupulous or criminal
practices. In each case, the antitrust laws are aimed at preventing
practices that distort or remove normal competition by means that verge on
fraud, deception, and plain crime. Of course the people that want to commit
such fraud, deception, or crime scream bloody murder when the Feds
interfere, but I am unmoved. All criminals complain when they are caught.
The peculiarity that makes them criminals is that they don't see anything
wrong in what they have done.
Given the evident unresolvability of the anarchy question, I see our main
difference in your perception of political and economic power as similar
threats.
Power over other people is the threat, wherever it comes from. Power means
being able to have things your way because you have control of other
people's necessities.
That also appears to represent a shift from B:CP, where your
attitude seemed more benign: "Money ultimately means freedom, the freedom
to organize oneself so as to correct his own intrinsic errors when they hurt
and not when someone else gives him permission" (p. 271). I wonder about
the source of that disillusionment as well.
What disillusionment? If I can control your money supply, then I can take
away your freedom and only offer it back to you when you do what I want. So
economic power is just as threatening as political power, and often amounts
to the same thing. Whether exercising that power comes down to the use of
deadly force depends on circumstances; those with economic power have not
historically hesitated to use whatever force is necessary to get their way.
And since they can shape the laws by bribing legislators, they can actually
use the deadly force behind the law to further their economic ambitions. If
you got rid of the laws, they would simply make their own and hire their
own private armed forces to enforce them. They have done so in the past. We
have more influence over public laws than private ones. I prefer to deal
with the public ones.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Mike Acree (2000.04.11.1453 PDT)]
Bill Powers (2000.04.11.1255 MDT)--
If we don't give up the desire to control others, then we must have a
system that relies, in the end, on the use of overwhelming physical force.
You're consistently assuming that overwhelming physical force is the only
thing that could keep people from acting on their desires, but there's
another major one: It's typically very expensive. We don't notice the
expense now because government subsidizes control of others (which means, as
with other subsidies, that we get lots of it). If those who oppose
marijuana use can get Congress to pass a law outlawing it, then everyone,
including marijuana users, ends up paying for its enforcement, and the cost
to proponents is negligible. If there were no government, however, these
people could still in principle pay their security agencies or whomever to
try to eradicate marijuana use, much as the government does now; but the
costs, including dealing with retaliation as well as surveillance, would
unquestionably be prohibitive. There are very few people whose desires to
control others are that important to them, even if they had the resources.
With civil disputes, we know that private arbitration works already. Its
use increases as dissatisfaction with the government court system increases.
It is possible to argue that private arbitration is parasitic on the
government, ultimately depending on it for enforcement in cases of
breakdowns. Without that backup, why would anyone ever comply with an
arbitration agreement? Because they wanted to preserve their capacity to
engage in future contracts. If they reneged on an agreement, who would
enter into a contract with them again? This consideration will be
especially important to business. We might expect a few breakdowns with
people with terminal illnesses, but that happens already; lots of people on
being diagnosed with AIDS in the 1980s charged their credit cards to the
limit on luxury vacations, only to find, to their embarrassment and dismay,
that they didn't die.
An interesting, if limited, example of such a system is the New York diamond
market, which is conducted without even any paper contracts. Millions of
dollars worth of diamonds change hands on the basis of no more than a
handshake. There was once a case of someone making off with the loot, but
no one would deal with him again.
Similar considerations would apply to a restitution-based criminal justice
system. So long as you were working off the debt, most people would be
willing to continue dealing with you. If you choose to live as an outlaw,
it will be open season on you--no one is bound to honor any contracts with
you--and you'll have a hard time buying insurance or protection. Living as
an outlaw will become feasible only if large numbers of you band together.
As a worst case we might get something like the Mafia. But the interesting
thing about that is that we already have a Mafia. How could this band of
criminals have thrived for 70 years in the country with the most powerful
government on earth? I assume there are at least two important parts to the
answer. Apart from buying off government officials, which we've discussed
before, the Mafia is filling a market need. It is providing protection to
large numbers of people who can't turn to the government for it. This large
population was first created by alcohol prohibition. My understanding is
that the Mafia existed before, but could not get a real foothold in this
country until a large portion of the population became criminals and could
not therefore turn to government for protection or redress of crimes against
them. The Mafia requires for its continued existence that very popular
activities, like drinking and gambling, be criminalized. Every time a
ballot proposition to legalize gambling appears on the ballot in Arkansas,
Baptist churches around the state sprout lavish additions and renovations.
I can't say for sure, of course, but it's not obvious that a society not
already criminalized by government would have a broad enough base to support
a Mafia-type organization.
But you were presenting a system that represents a sharp and radical break
from the way people do things now -- a system which you say will
_logically_ offer the best hope, but which of course can't be put to the
test except by bringing it into being. So you are trying to persuade people
to try something that requires changing a whole society in major ways,
strictly on the basis of your "plausibility arguments." That will never be
enough to bring about the required changes. The only way to bring them
about in the face of human nature as it really is is to force the changes
at the point of a gun -- in other words, through violent revolution. You
say that isn't what you're advocating, but if you insist on anarchy, that's
the only way you're going to get it.
The system I'm advocating is radically different from what we have now, just
as the system we have now is radically different from the one we started
with 200 years ago. No doubt that change in the direction of more powerful
government is vastly easier and more common historically; but I think we
agree that change in the opposite direction isn't impossible in principle.
There's a hint in your remarks again that I'm counting on a change in human
nature, so I repeat that I'm not counting on anybody to be any nicer than
they are now. (I think there's reason to believe that that would happen, to
some degree, but only as an effect, not a cause.)
Furthermore, when you alter a system by making small changes in it, after
each change you will see the remaining problems a little differently. The
nature of the solution will change with each step that is taken. This means
that nobody can predict what the final system will be like. You can't sit
down and plot out a new social system; the only way that works is to fix
the problems as they become fixable, and then re-evaluate what the problems
are. If you are right, the final system will be an anarchy. But it will
also be a democracy, and a lawful society, and a communist society, and a
dictatorship of the proletariate, and a capitalist society, and a little of
everything else that has been tried, as well as things that haven't been
thought of yet. There's no telling how it will turn out. Nor should we
care, as long as every little step makes the total error a little smaller.The transition to such a system is a separate, and perhaps more difficult,
question.I think it's an integral part of the question. Any time you think you know
what the final form of a system should be, you're really guessing and
skipping over all the important details. When actually implemented, the
system will not work the way you imagine, in ways both small and large.
You'll have to re-evaluate then, anyway, so why not build in the
re-evaluation as part of the process of change right from the start? This
means giving up the conceit that you know how it will all turn out, but by
giving it up, you actually make it possible to come much closer to a
workable system.
This is a very nice analysis, all the way through. I think you may have
convinced me that the question of the path is integral.
If you're the only
source, you don't have to be the best.
That depends on how you got to be the only source. More precisely, it
depends on whether you are the only _potential_ source. Those who achieve
such a position through the free market are necessarily the best, as judged
by consumers. (Diehard DOS fans like you and me are, as Kennaway points
out, too small a minority to count.) If competition is legally excluded,
the only supplier isn't necessarily the best. Compare Zamboni with the
NYPD.
As for what the antitrust laws forbid, the answer is, nothing in
particular,
and everything in general. That's a point I was making indirectly in a
previous post (2000.04.06.1304), in referring to "practices that are now
illegal, such as selling at the same price as their competitors ('price
fixing'), at lower prices ('intent to monopolize'), or at higher prices
('successful monopolizing')." Nonobjective law at its worst; means
whatever
the prosecutors want it to mean.
That's an awfully simplistic way of putting it that ignores all the
differences that make a difference. It's not illegal to sell at the same
price as competitors, unless that price was set in collusion with the
competitors to prevent normal competition from lowering it. It's not
illegal to sell at a lower price, unless you're selling at a loss for the
purpose of driving out of business someone else whose pockets aren't as
deep. It's not illegal to sell at a higher price unless you have prepared
the way by eliminating all the competition through unscrupulous or criminal
practices.
This, it's tempting to say, is the idealistic claptrap. If you look at the
way antitrust laws have actually been used, proof of motive or means hasn't
been considered necessary. The fact of similar prices, regardless of
whether competitors had ever discussed them, has been found in violation.
The same for the other price structures.
Power over other people is the threat, wherever it comes from. Power means
being able to have things your way because you have control of other
people's necessities.If I can control your money supply, then I can take
away your freedom and only offer it back to you when you do what I want. So
economic power is just as threatening as political power, and often amounts
to the same thing.
How is it, by purely economic means, that you came to have control of other
people's necessities, or their money supply? You have yet to give a single
actual example of pure economic power ("pure" meaning without government
help). I'm sympathetic with your complaints about Microsoft's products--I
like Word even less than WordStar, which Ted Nelson once described as "the
second hardest video game ever invented"--but you have yet to indicate a
single coercive act on the part of Microsoft. I notice, still with
surprise, that you (2000.04.11.1148) shrug off the difference between "the
conduct of business as usual" and "massive and sustained coercion"; and I
think there may be important information in that shrug. You tend to see
massive and sustained coercion going on all around you, in the conduct of
business, and perhaps to assume that it's going on even if you don't see it;
on that basis you would need the massive counterforce of government, and
would be relatively unconcerned about its power. But that position depends
crucially on being able to show that economic "power" can do what you fear
it can. Complaints that you can't find an operating system or a mousetrap
that you like won't do.
Best,
Mike
[From Bill Powers (2000.04.12.0340 MDT)]
Mike Acree (2000.04.11.1453 PDT)--
If we don't give up the desire to control others, then we must have a
system that relies, in the end, on the use of overwhelming physical force.You're consistently assuming that overwhelming physical force is the only
thing that could keep people from acting on their desires, but there's
another major one: It's typically very expensive.
Not if you don't pay up, or if you lie about how much it will cost, etc..
The overwhelming physical force comes in when you violate the underlying
tacit agreements and other people decide you're not going to get away with
it. Or of course it comes into play when you try to control others and they
simply refuse to be controlled. I hope you are noting that I have said that
the goal of controlling others is not, in the long run, practical. But not
because it's expensive. Nothing is expensive if you don't pay for it. One
reason people pay for things is the overwhelming physical force that awaits
them if they fail to pay. For some people, that's the _only_ reason. And
these people are the only ones we have any real problems with.
It's too easy to take for granted the underlying agreements that make
social life possible. I'm reminded of a sell-your-soul-to-the-Devil story.
James sells his soul to the Devil in return for immortality and a life of
endless pleasure, which he figures will prevent the Devil from ever
collecting. The Devil happily agrees and draws up a contract. As soon as
his blood is dry on the signature to the contract, James finds himself in
Hell being tormented, with the Devil looking on. James says, "But I didn't
get the immortality you promised me!" The Devil replies, with vast
amusement, "Unfair, isn't it?"
The very idea of selling your soul to the Devil in return for something
assumes that the Devil is bound by the social convention of living up to
agreements. If he did that, of course, then he wouldn't be Evil. What I
found chilling about this short story was that it so clearly revealed what
Evil is all about.
We don't notice the
expense now because government subsidizes control of others (which means, as
with other subsidies, that we get lots of it).
Who is this "government," anyhow? Doesn't it consist, at the top, of people
you and I elected to office? Or at least of people elected by those who
voted? If you don't like what your government is doing, what's to keep you
from working diligently to change it? Or are you too busy doing other
things to take all the time that would demand? The government did not land
in a UFO and take over the country. We put it there and we keep it there.
Your arguments are with everyone who voted, or at least with the majority
who won. Do you think they're been fooled? Then start educating them.
Complaining about what "the government" does as if it were some alien race
is simply ineffectual.
If those who oppose
marijuana use can get Congress to pass a law outlawing it, then everyone,
including marijuana users, ends up paying for its enforcement, and the cost
to proponents is negligible.
If the cost to proponents is negligible, then the cost to _any_ individual
is negligible. What's your problem with this? If all individuals decided
that the war against drugs is too expensive in some abstract sense, or even
personally, what's to keep them from complaining to their congressmen and
voting for someone else next time if the congressmen ignore them? Do you
disagree with the majority? Then you should be working on ways to persuade
them to your point of view.
If there were no government, however, these
people could still in principle pay their security agencies or whomever to
try to eradicate marijuana use, much as the government does now; but the
costs, including dealing with retaliation as well as surveillance, would
unquestionably be prohibitive. There are very few people whose desires to
control others are that important to them, even if they had the resources.
Sorry, there is no group other than the whole country I would trust with a
private security force answerable to no higher authority. I don't wholly
trust the present arrangement, but splitting the country up into fiefdoms
under independent warlords could only be worse.
So what can we change about the present system that is doable and that
would reduce your error signals by even a small amount? We're not going to
get rid of the government. We're not going to rely on private security
forces (shudder). We're not going to change anything very much today or
tomorrow or next year. So how can we establish a slope in the right
direction, assuming we can agree on what the right direction is? That's
what we ought to be concerned with. I see that later in your post you are
giving a more favorable hearing to this proposition. If that is true, then
aren't all these detailed horror stories sort of irrelevant?
Best,
Bill P.
[From Mike Acree (2000.04.12.1213 PDT)]
Bill Powers (2000.04.12.0340 MDT)
You're consistently assuming that overwhelming physical force is the only
thing that could keep people from acting on their desires, but there's
another major one: It's typically very expensive.Not if you don't pay up, or if you lie about how much it will cost, etc..
My example was preventing people from using marijuana. That will take many
thousands of people, as does the current War on Drugs, who will be placing
their lives at risk. How are you going to get them to do it for free? The
job will be ongoing, so they won't be willing to wait for payment until the
task is done.
One
reason people pay for things is the overwhelming physical force that awaits
them if they fail to pay. For some people, that's the _only_ reason. And
these people are the only ones we have any real problems with.
(What about all those evil businessmen?)
It's too easy to take for granted the underlying agreements that make
social life possible.
Maybe so, but _I_ wasn't taking them for granted. I considered a number of
times using them to support _my_ position about the workability of
anarchy--the idea that the threat of punishment isn't what keeps most of us
from assaulting or cheating our neighbors. But I didn't want to rest my
case too heavily on that.
We don't notice the
expense now because government subsidizes control of others (which means,
as
with other subsidies, that we get lots of it).
Who is this "government," anyhow? Doesn't it consist, at the top, of people
you and I elected to office? Or at least of people elected by those who
voted? If you don't like what your government is doing, what's to keep you
from working diligently to change it? Or are you too busy doing other
things to take all the time that would demand?
Those who are rich enough to afford private schools for their children, if
they are dissatisfied in any way with a given school, can simply put their
children in a different school. Those who are too poor to afford private
schools, if they are dissatisfied with the public school, have to lobby the
school board for change. It is possible for school boards to change, but
you will be exceptionally lucky if you succeed before your children have
graduated.
If all the people in Colorado were required to buy the same kind of car, to
be determined by vote, how much effort would you put into campaigning for
your preference? If you were consistently in the minority, would you even
bother voting? Why would you ever favor such a system over one where you
could simply choose what you wanted?
Complaining about what "the government" does as if it were some alien race
is simply ineffectual.
Unlike complaining about businessmen as though they were some alien race?
Do you
disagree with the majority? Then you should be working on ways to persuade
them to your point of view.
One of the interesting implications of this statement is that that's not
what I'm doing now. Or at least that I'm doing so ineffectually. No
argument in the latter case. The truth is that I have regarded these
exchanges as a uniquely valuable opportunity for dialog with someone who is
both brilliant and intellectually honest and who shares a tantalizingly
similar frame of reference, yet who holds some profoundly different views.
It's not easy to find people to engage in sustained dialog on political
theory across such differences. Your view may be that I'm wasting my time
because you're never going to change your mind, but I would be quite
satisfied with the more modest goal of simply understanding your position.
I'm still a good distance away from that, but these exchanges have been
helpful to me nevertheless. If my own views remain unchanged, I should
still be in a better position for relating to others.
So how can we establish a slope in the right
direction, assuming we can agree on what the right direction is? That's
what we ought to be concerned with. I see that later in your post you are
giving a more favorable hearing to this proposition.
I have always been concerned to try to establish a slope in the right
direction, by which I would mean less arbitrary, or coercive, interference
in our lives. I'm not sure why it would ever have looked otherwise, except
that our discussion has been focused more on the endpoint, where we clearly
diverged. You, if I understand, want also to minimize such arbitrary
control of others, but with a big exception made for businessmen.
If that is true, then
aren't all these detailed horror stories sort of irrelevant?
I don't see why they're less relevant than your horror stories about
business. I would take your horror stories as relevant if they were true,
but so far they've been either totally abstract ("People have done that") or
false (your specific accusations about Microsoft, which not even the
government has alleged). I certainly don't mean that businesspeople are
incapable of horrible things, but I haven't seen yet that they have the
power to do the things you fear. John Stossel used to do expos�s of shoddy
business practices; a famous example was a mail-order "solar-powered clothes
dryer" for $50 which turned out of course to be a clothesline. But he
himself admits now that such stunts are limited to fly-by-nighters who
rather quickly go out of business, without any government involvement. An
ad for an apartment in San Francisco advertised an "all-electric kitchen,"
which turned out to be a hotplate. But we all know we need to be careful
when dealing with unknown businesses, especially by mail; the classified
sections of magazines warn us about that. Established businesses can't
afford the risk to their reputation with such practices. But these are not
the sorts of things I think you are concerned about when you speak of
economic power.
Mike