[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.16.2015 CDT)]
Rick,
Not having looked at all of this, I can only say that we can describe
Libertarianism through PCT because it is an easy to describe position: Each
person pitted against all the others. Single Living Control System =
hyper-individual responsibility.
So what? We know how simple living control systems work in the environment. And
we can, through the simplistic approach of Libertarianism, emulate that
primitive desire to control one's perceptions. Again I say, so what?
We are human beings, which from our beginnings as primates, gave us different
challenges and abilities. We are generally tribal, and often familial (but don't
let that distract from the point here). We are not solitary beings such as
cougars or sea turtles. We survive by being together.
Hence work groups, teams, villages, towns, cities, nations and super-large
organizations such as criminal multi-nationals. When a solitary individual
attempts to finesse these groups, sooner or later, that individual is found out,
restrained, and, if necessary, killed (not that I like that, but we are talking
about natural occurances).
So, while I am a fan of McClelland and McPhail, I can't articulate as well as
someone who really knows the stuff. But I think that we are wasting our time
trying to explain Libertarians, since they are no different than primitive
living control systems. What is really of interest is how people come together
to create more than they would have if they were apart, individually trying to
do the same thing.
I can only comment thus far, the math makes me tired right now, not that there
is anything wrong with the math.
And frankly, I am getting tired of this pitched battle between the libertarians
and communitarians. Libertarians arguing to have their selfish, 9-year old ways,
it is too much.
We will have to stick together in the future if this oil, energy, land, water,
food and other shortages catch up with us. Also, we will all have to voluntarily
stop having families beyond the 1.4 replacement rate (I think that is it?).
But gee whiz, if we try to solve these problems by objecting to social
structures (calling it "being forced" and all that nine-year old tripe), we WILL
achieve the Tragedy of the Commons that Hardin prophesied.
I am sick of Libertarians, christo-corporates, neocons, theocons, and
neo-fascists. They, by their sworn allegiance to the self, ensure that the next
100 years will be hell.
--Bryan
Quoting Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM>:
···
[From Rick Marken (2007.08.16.1540)]
> Martin Taylor (2007.08.16.16.34) --
> From my point of view, the discussion started with my set of
> questions to Richard Kennaway. Those questions were based on what I
> saw as his failure to take into account the ways that side-effects of
> actions involved in a transaction between A and B might alter the
> ability of X, Y, and Z to control their perceptions, because of
> changes the transaction actions had made in the environment within
> which X, Y and Z live. That failure seemed to me to make it difficult
> to use PCT to argue for a Libertarian political system, at least not
> without a much deeper analysis.
I haven't been following this discussion very closely (too many
words;-)) but it seems to me that Bill Powers already gave what I
thought was a nice analysis of a Libertarian political system from a
PCT point of view. I think his conclusion was: we already have such a
system. The world as it exists everywhere is already Libertarian
because everyone is doing the best they can to control for what they
want. So those who like society the way are doing nothing to change it
and by doing so they are acting in a way that is consistent with
Libertarianism because they are letting others act freely to do what
they want. Those who don't like society the way it is are acting to
change things, and when they do so they are also acting in a way that
is consistent with Libertarianism because they are acting freely to
try to change things. And the people who don't want things changed by
the people who do are acting (as best as they can) to prevent those
people from changing things.
I think Bill's point is that the only way to make society better than
it is (if it's not not the way you like it) is to try to get your own
and others' system concepts to change and converge on one such concept
that results in a social system that is more consistent with your (and
everyone's) taste. PCT is not that system concept because it is not a
system concept; it's a theory of behavior. What would be nice is to
come up with a system concept that everyone can sign up to and that
produces nice results. I think Europe, Canada and Japan are moving
towards a system concept I like; the US is moving away from it. But
maybe that can be changed, when (if?) we get this horrible Bush
administration out of power. The one good thing one can say about Bush
and his neoconservative buddies is that they are a model of possibly
the worst system concepts one can imagine that doesn't explicitly
include mass murder as one of its tenets.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com