Freedom

CSGnet Archive CSG1995
1

From Bruce Buchanan (950204.1245 EST)

Bill Powers (950203.0930 MST) writes:

We've been through this before. "Feeling free" has nothing to do with
it, . ... the feeling of freedom at one level disappears when you consider
higher levels of goals. Once you have decided what you want to happen,
the external world completely dictates your choices of actions (which
are really subgoals), and sometimes narrows them to a single choice.

Well, it still seems to me that "Feeling free", as a basic if subjective
aspect of experience, in which we are aware of possible choices and the
consequences of alternative commitments, is still a legitimate way to
describe one perspective. Admittedly it is not the whole story. But then
neither is any particular theoretical formulation of the situation,
including PCT.

There is freedom only in the sense that we have a hierarchy of goals,
and these determine the kinds of outcomes our behaviors will create.

I agree that, abstractly considered, this is the organization that makes
freedom possible.

But even there, if we choose to ignore the highest goals, we will simply
die and render the question moot. I suppose we _can_ ignore them: people
have been known to starve themselves, burn themselves to death . . ..
But to what extent do such acts represent true freedom. . .?

To choose to ignore the "highest" goal implies, I think, an overriding goal
or value. It may be a choice to end life in order to end pain and
suffering. The lives of the saints show that people may die willingly for
what they believe to be a higher value, perhaps represented by their god,
and also believe this is a true assertion of freedom. The Christians
confronting the lions in the arena, as the alternative to bowing to the
imposition of Roman rules, were choosing freedom in terms of their own
meanings and values. They wanted to feel free, and their reference
variables required these choices in their circumstances. I would not see
this as inconsistent with PCT.

. . . perhaps the ultimate freedom is the freedom to
become a fully-functioning member of your species. The present
environment may decide what you have to do in order to achieve that
goal, but it has no influence at all over the goal itself.

Agreed! This freedom remains problematical, of course, because the full
potential of any individual is unknown except in relation to challanges and
responses as these develop skills and character and greater potential.
Such freedom, and the growth and creativity it necessarily implies, seems
to epitomize the highest value we can know. Perhaps our assertion of this
freedom serves some higher evolutionary cause or purpose, but that we
cannot know, although this might still be a belief and value for many.

Cheers!

Bruce B.

2

[From Rick Marken (2010.04.25.0850)]

Much of our recent political dialog, such as it is, has revolved the
concept of "freedom". The Teabaggers say we're losing it; the American
Revolution was fought for it. What seems to be missing from all this
yelling about "freedom" and "liberty" is a definition of what it is.
What is this "freedom" thing that people are suddenly so concerned
about losing? I would especially like to hear from those who
sympathize with the Teabaggers and feel like they are suddenly losing
their freedom. What is "freedom" from your point of view?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

3

(Gavin Ritz 2010.04.26.10.26)
[From Rick Marken (2010.04.25.0850)]

So what is the controlled variable (s) for freedom?

What would a reference signal be then for such controlled variables?

Maybe you could explain what a reference level for this is then?

Gavin

Much of our recent political dialog, such as it is, has revolved the
concept of "freedom". The Teabaggers say we're losing it; the American
Revolution was fought for it. What seems to be missing from all this
yelling about "freedom" and "liberty" is a definition of what it is.
What is this "freedom" thing that people are suddenly so concerned
about losing? I would especially like to hear from those who
sympathize with the Teabaggers and feel like they are suddenly losing
their freedom. What is "freedom" from your point of view?

4

Freedom would be less coercive restriction on individual autonomy either by other individuals or by the state. Taxation, regulation and a general excess of laws would be examples of what are intrusive. I am particularly conscious of my chemo-electrical nature, and resent FDA restrictions on my access to chemicals and the paternalistic requirement that I have to go to a government licensed doctor for access even to those which the FDA approves. I must prefer the uses I would put my money to than those the government would put it to, especially when the government is putting to the use of oppressing me and others, so I naturally think taxation is excessive. The high prices for healthcare and automobiles are a result of excessive government regulation. The paperwork required for compliance with government regulation and taxation is unnecessarily time consuming and oppressive. The government is bloated and captive to special interests the bureaucracy and others.

-- Martin

···

On 4/25/2010 9:48 AM, Richard Marken wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2010.04.25.0850)]

Much of our recent political dialog, such as it is, has revolved the
concept of "freedom". The Teabaggers say we're losing it; the American
Revolution was fought for it. What seems to be missing from all this
yelling about "freedom" and "liberty" is a definition of what it is.
What is this "freedom" thing that people are suddenly so concerned
about losing? I would especially like to hear from those who
sympathize with the Teabaggers and feel like they are suddenly losing
their freedom. What is "freedom" from your point of view?

Best

Rick

5

Perhaps the control variable for freedom, is "control". Control over ones own life, made easier without government and other interference. Hmmm, is there a PCT road to libertarianism? -- Martin

···

On 4/25/2010 4:29 PM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

(Gavin Ritz 2010.04.26.10.26)
[From Rick Marken (2010.04.25.0850)]

So what is the controlled variable (s) for freedom?

What would a reference signal be then for such controlled variables?

Maybe you could explain what a reference level for this is then?

Gavin

Much of our recent political dialog, such as it is, has revolved the
concept of "freedom". The Teabaggers say we're losing it; the American
Revolution was fought for it. What seems to be missing from all this
yelling about "freedom" and "liberty" is a definition of what it is.
What is this "freedom" thing that people are suddenly so concerned
about losing? I would especially like to hear from those who
sympathize with the Teabaggers and feel like they are suddenly losing
their freedom. What is "freedom" from your point of view?

6

[Martin Taylor 2010.04.25.23.10]

[From Rick Marken (2010.04.25.0850)]

Much of our recent political dialog, such as it is, has revolved the
concept of "freedom". The Teabaggers say we're losing it; the American
Revolution was fought for it. What seems to be missing from all this
yelling about "freedom" and "liberty" is a definition of what it is.
What is this "freedom" thing that people are suddenly so concerned
about losing? I would especially like to hear from those who
sympathize with the Teabaggers and feel like they are suddenly losing
their freedom. What is "freedom" from your point of view?

You've had a reply from one Libertarian, but it didn't seem to have much to do with PCT. Here's my take on what "Freedom" means in PCT.

The essence of freedom is the ability to control what you want to control. The more different perceptions you are able to control, and the wider the range of permissible reference values, the greater freedom you have. That's the basic statement.

There are two kinds of reason why you might not be able to control some perception you want to control: internal and external. Internal reasons can be characterized as not knowing how or not having reorganized to allow successful control. External reasons come down to not having the necessary environmental affordances. I could put having inadequate physical/physiological resources (muscle strength, stamina, ...) in either of those categories.

A lack of environmental affordances probably could be characterized in many ways, but I think a major split is between social affordances (the kind Martin L listed in his response) and non-social affordances. The availability of money provides the opportunity to change and enhance environmental affordances. In other words, a rich person has a lot more freedom than does a pauper.

"Freedom" can be split in another dimension, "freedom to" and "freedom from". "Freedom to" do what you want implies the ability to satisfy your reference values for those perceptions you choose to control, whereas "Freedom from" interference implies that one's controlled perceptions are not subject to disturbances you have insufficient power to oppose.

So, as I see it, at the most fundamental level, "freedom" has a two level binary structure:

Internal abilities and restrictions:
           Reorganization suited/notsuited to the perceptions you want to control
           Physical and physiological resources and limitations

External environmental affordances and disturbances:
           Disturbances requiring active output or exceeding the limit of the available output resources.
           Social means of achieving control (often this means the availability of money, but it also includes taking advantage of useful social structures) or of being denied some potential environmental feedback paths (e.g. by lack of money or by socially imposed inhibitions on using physically possible environmental feedback paths).

Of these, the list presented by Martin L (appended) are generally of the kind "External:Social:restricted environmental affordance", and deal with possible reductions of freedom from some imagined ideal state. A more complete list should include the environmental affordances provided by the social structures he lists (e.g. taxation, FDA regulation...), and should include the freedoms augmented by effective education (class "Internal abilities:reorganization") and effective laws (class "Social:reduction of disturbance"). An analysis should balance how changes in the environment (legal, social, physical) might increase or decrease the level of freedom in all its classes.

That's a very crude first cut at what I think "freedom" means in PCT. I suspect we all would wish to maximize our ability to control such perceptions as we choose to control. Where I suspect we disagree is in whether we would like to extend this wish to other people.

Martin

----------------Martin L's list-------------
Taxation, regulation and a general excess of laws would be examples of what are intrusive. I am particularly conscious of my chemo-electrical nature, and resent FDA restrictions on my access to chemicals and the paternalistic requirement that I have to go to a government licensed doctor for access even to those which the FDA approves. I must prefer the uses I would put my money to than those the government would put it to, especially when the government is putting to the use of oppressing me and others, so I naturally think taxation is excessive. The high prices for healthcare and automobiles are a result of excessive government regulation. The paperwork required for compliance with government regulation and taxation is unnecessarily time consuming and oppressive.

7

Gavin Ritz
2010.04.26.15.55 NZT)

(Gavin Ritz 2010.04.26.10.26 NZT)

[From Rick Marken (2010.04.25.0850)]

Perhaps the control variable for freedom, is
“control”.

So what is the control variable then?

Control over

ones own life, made easier without government and
other interference.

Isn’t any control a restriction, and restriction
the opposite of freedom. How can control be a freedom then?

Hmmm, is there a PCT road to libertarianism? – Martin

So what is the controlled variable (s) for
freedom?

What would a reference signal be then for such
controlled variables?

Maybe you could explain what a reference level
for this is then?

Gavin

Much of our recent political dialog, such as it
is, has revolved the

concept of “freedom”. The Teabaggers
say we’re losing it; the American

Revolution was fought for it. What seems to be
missing from all this

yelling about “freedom” and “liberty”
is a definition of what it is.

What is this “freedom” thing that
people are suddenly so concerned

about losing? I would especially like to
hear from those who

sympathize with the Teabaggers and feel like they
are suddenly losing

their freedom. What is “freedom” from
your point of view?

···
8

[From Martin Lewitt 2010 4/25 2005 MDT]

Rich was asking for freedom from a teabagger perspective, not a PCT perspective, but I think your PCT framework has merit. There is good reason to be willing to extend negative freedom to others, if one believes the resulting free market economic system will result in greater wealth and opportunity creation. In your terms, "freedom from" is viewed as nonlinearly linked to and enhancing of "environmental affordances".

-- thanx,
         Martin L

···

[Martin Taylor 2010.04.25.23.10]

[From Rick Marken (2010.04.25.0850)]

Much of our recent political dialog, such as it is, has revolved the
concept of "freedom". The Teabaggers say we're losing it; the American
Revolution was fought for it. What seems to be missing from all this
yelling about "freedom" and "liberty" is a definition of what it is.
What is this "freedom" thing that people are suddenly so concerned
about losing? I would especially like to hear from those who
sympathize with the Teabaggers and feel like they are suddenly losing
their freedom. What is "freedom" from your point of view?

You've had a reply from one Libertarian, but it didn't seem to have much to do with PCT. Here's my take on what "Freedom" means in PCT.

The essence of freedom is the ability to control what you want to control. The more different perceptions you are able to control, and the wider the range of permissible reference values, the greater freedom you have. That's the basic statement.

There are two kinds of reason why you might not be able to control some perception you want to control: internal and external. Internal reasons can be characterized as not knowing how or not having reorganized to allow successful control. External reasons come down to not having the necessary environmental affordances. I could put having inadequate physical/physiological resources (muscle strength, stamina, ...) in either of those categories.

A lack of environmental affordances probably could be characterized in many ways, but I think a major split is between social affordances (the kind Martin L listed in his response) and non-social affordances. The availability of money provides the opportunity to change and enhance environmental affordances. In other words, a rich person has a lot more freedom than does a pauper.

"Freedom" can be split in another dimension, "freedom to" and "freedom from". "Freedom to" do what you want implies the ability to satisfy your reference values for those perceptions you choose to control, whereas "Freedom from" interference implies that one's controlled perceptions are not subject to disturbances you have insufficient power to oppose.

So, as I see it, at the most fundamental level, "freedom" has a two level binary structure:

Internal abilities and restrictions:
          Reorganization suited/notsuited to the perceptions you want to control
          Physical and physiological resources and limitations

External environmental affordances and disturbances:
          Disturbances requiring active output or exceeding the limit of the available output resources.
          Social means of achieving control (often this means the availability of money, but it also includes taking advantage of useful social structures) or of being denied some potential environmental feedback paths (e.g. by lack of money or by socially imposed inhibitions on using physically possible environmental feedback paths).

Of these, the list presented by Martin L (appended) are generally of the kind "External:Social:restricted environmental affordance", and deal with possible reductions of freedom from some imagined ideal state. A more complete list should include the environmental affordances provided by the social structures he lists (e.g. taxation, FDA regulation...), and should include the freedoms augmented by effective education (class "Internal abilities:reorganization") and effective laws (class "Social:reduction of disturbance"). An analysis should balance how changes in the environment (legal, social, physical) might increase or decrease the level of freedom in all its classes.

That's a very crude first cut at what I think "freedom" means in PCT. I suspect we all would wish to maximize our ability to control such perceptions as we choose to control. Where I suspect we disagree is in whether we would like to extend this wish to other people.

Martin

----------------Martin L's list-------------
Taxation, regulation and a general excess of laws would be examples of what are intrusive. I am particularly conscious of my chemo-electrical nature, and resent FDA restrictions on my access to chemicals and the paternalistic requirement that I have to go to a government licensed doctor for access even to those which the FDA approves. I must prefer the uses I would put my money to than those the government would put it to, especially when the government is putting to the use of oppressing me and others, so I naturally think taxation is excessive. The high prices for healthcare and automobiles are a result of excessive government regulation. The paperwork required for compliance with government regulation and taxation is unnecessarily time consuming and oppressive.

9

[From Rick Marken (2010.04.25.2310)]

Martin Taylor (2010.04.25.23.10)--

Rick Marken (2010.04.25.0850)--

What is "freedom" from your point of view?

The essence of freedom is the ability to control what you want to
control.

This is how I would define "freedom" as well. I am free to the extent
that I am in control of all the variables I want (and need) to
control. [NB. Martin Lewitt and Gavin Ritz: there is no such thing as
a "control variable" in control theory; there are _controlled
variables_, but that's a whole different thing.

The more different perceptions you are able to control, and the wider
the range of permissible reference values, the greater freedom you
have. That's the basic statement.

I agree completely!

There are two kinds of reason why you might not be able to control
some perception you want to control: internal and external. Internal
reasons can be characterized as not knowing how or not having
reorganized to allow successful control.

Yes, a control system has to learn to control. That is why education
is, I think, essential to a free society.

External reasons come down to not having the necessary
environmental affordances.

Oops. There is no such thing as an environmental affordance, according
to control theory. What there are are environmental _disturbances_.
These disturbances can become insuperable, making it impossible to
control. These can be insuperable physical disturbances (like
earthquakes) or human made ones (like dictatorial coercion and
poverty), as you note.

We can't eliminate the physical disturbances but we can do our best to
minimize their effects (by using the appropriate building materials
and structures in earthquake prone areas, for example). And we can
develop social structures that minimize the human made ones (like
organizing as a representative democracy -- coercion through consent
of the coerced? -- and implementing social programs -- like welfare
states -- that reduce or eliminate poverty).

So when we understand "Freedom" as the ability to control, we see that
the true enemies of freedom (as Dickens realized so long ago) are
ignorance (lack of education) and want (poverty).

A lack of environmental affordances probably could be characterized
in many ways, but I think a major split is between social affordances
(the kind Martin L listed in his response) and non-social affordances.

So even though we disagree about the existence of affordances we get
to the same place. Nice.

The availability of money provides the opportunity to change and
enhance environmental affordances. In other words, a rich person
has a lot more freedom than does a pauper.

Aside from the fact that I don't consider money an "affordance" (I
consider it an environmental variable that can be used as an output to
produce, via exchange, a desired input) I completely agree with you.
In a society where there is specialized production, money is the way
people control for all the other stuff they want besides what they
themselves produce. Or, in the words of the greatest balladeer of all
time: "when there's too much of nothing, no one's in control".

"Freedom" can be split in another dimension, "freedom to" and >"freedom from".

I think both are implied when we see freedom as a person being "in
control". "Freedom to" simply means the ability to bring a controlled
variable to it's reference state; "Freedom from" is the ability to do
this while protecting the variable from disturbance.

That's a very crude first cut at what I think "freedom" means in PCT.

And a very nice one at that.

I suspect we all would wish to maximize our ability to control such
perceptions as we choose to control. Where I suspect we disagree is
in whether we would like to extend this wish to other people.

I presume you are talking to Martin L. here. I think you know that
when I speak of "freedom" I'm talking about everyone, not just me. My
idea of a free society is one where everyone is in control (of what
they want and need to control).

If we can agree that the term "freedom" is equivalent to what we mean
by being "in control" in PCT, then maybe we can then deal with what
this means in the context of a society where each person's individual
ability to control depends on the controlling done by virtually
everyone else. I think this is where people like Martin L. start
feeling "oppressed" by government.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

10

(gavin Ritz 2010.04.26.23.31NZT)
[From Rick Marken (2010.04.25.2310)]

Martin Taylor (2010.04.25.23.10)--

Rick Marken (2010.04.25.0850)--

What is "freedom" from your point of view?

The essence of freedom is the ability to control what you want to
control.

This is how I would define "freedom" as well. I am free to the extent
that I am in control of all the variables I want (and need) to
control. [NB. Martin Lewitt and Gavin Ritz: there is no such thing as
a "control variable" in control theory; there are _controlled
variables_, but that's a whole different thing.

I think you know I meant controlled variable. You are also extremely sloppy
in using such terms. In one email dialogue you used at least three different
versions.

My idea of a free society is one where everyone is in control (of what
they want and need to control).

Be a bit more specific in terms of the controlled variable (s) of such a
society and specifically the references signals relating to such controlled
variables.

A serial killer also wants to control. So if the serial killer's controlled
variable is a "slit throat oozing blood all over a white satin shirt". And
has the freedom to do this in your society is this freedom.

···

If we can agree that the term "freedom" is equivalent to what we mean
by being "in control" in PCT, then maybe we can then deal with what
this means in the context of a society where each person's individual
ability to control depends on the controlling done by virtually
everyone else. I think this is where people like Martin L. start
feeling "oppressed" by government.

11

[From Rick Marken (2010.04.26.0840)]

(Gavin Ritz 2010.04.26.23.31NZT)

I think you know I meant controlled variable.

I really didn't.

You are also extremely sloppy in using such terms. In one email
dialogue you used at least three different versions.

Really? I'd like to see that. We can only learn from our errors if we
can perceive them.

Be a bit more specific in terms of the controlled variable (s) of such a
society and specifically the references signals relating to such
controlled variables.

I imagine there are hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of variables people
control for. When I say that freedom is the the ability to control I
am thinking in terms of the complete PCT hierarchical model of human
control. So the ability to control means, to me, the ability to keep
all variables in an individual's control hierarchy -- from the lowest
to the highest level variables, including intrinsic variables -- in
their reference states.

A serial killer also wants to control. So if the serial killer's controlled
variable is a "slit throat oozing blood all over a white satin shirt". And
has the freedom to do this in your society is this freedom.

This is an excellent point. I do tend to think that when people are in
control -- particularly when they are able to control their intrinsic
variables, the life necessities variables -- they won't develop
anti-social control systems like that. But whether that's true or
not, the fact is that people who control for hurting other people are
part of that coercive social environment that prevents other people
from controlling. I think the best way to deal with the existence of
this kind of social deviance -- control that interferes with the
controlling of others -- is to form well-regulated militias, ie.
police forces. And the regulating of this police force should be done
by people who constitute a government of the people, by the people and
for the people. Kind of like it's done in every Western democracy
today.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

12

[From Martin Lewitt 2010.04.26.0933 MDT]:

[From Rick Marken (2010.04.25.2310)]

Martin Taylor (2010.04.25.23.10)--

Rick Marken (2010.04.25.0850)--

What is "freedom" from your point of view?
       

The essence of freedom is the ability to control what you want to
control.
     

This is how I would define "freedom" as well. I am free to the extent
that I am in control of all the variables I want (and need) to
control. [NB. Martin Lewitt and Gavin Ritz: there is no such thing as
a "control variable" in control theory; there are _controlled
variables_, but that's a whole different thing.
   
Would it be correct then to say that one of my controlled variables is the amount of control I have?

The more different perceptions you are able to control, and the wider
the range of permissible reference values, the greater freedom you
have. That's the basic statement.
     

I agree completely!

There are two kinds of reason why you might not be able to control
some perception you want to control: internal and external. Internal
reasons can be characterized as not knowing how or not having
reorganized to allow successful control.
     

Yes, a control system has to learn to control. That is why education
is, I think, essential to a free society.

People tend to underestimate the amount of intelligence that could be usefully employed in "primitive" hunter gatherer societies. Mammals of all kinds have to learn to control. Traditionally, however, some kind of formal or state education has been considered even more essential to a totalitarian society. In fact, "re-education" is often necessary.

External reasons come down to not having the necessary
environmental affordances.
     

Oops. There is no such thing as an environmental affordance, according
to control theory. What there are are environmental _disturbances_.
These disturbances can become insuperable, making it impossible to
control. These can be insuperable physical disturbances (like
earthquakes) or human made ones (like dictatorial coercion and
poverty), as you note.

We can't eliminate the physical disturbances but we can do our best to
minimize their effects (by using the appropriate building materials
and structures in earthquake prone areas, for example). And we can
develop social structures that minimize the human made ones (like
organizing as a representative democracy -- coercion through consent
of the coerced? -- and implementing social programs -- like welfare
states -- that reduce or eliminate poverty).
   
A "social program" like low taxation and free trade might eliminate poverty better than a welfare state. The hundreds of millions of people in China and India lifted out of poverty into the middle class are an example of that. I doubt PCT takes an position on which "social program" is better, or more free.

So when we understand "Freedom" as the ability to control, we see that
the true enemies of freedom (as Dickens realized so long ago) are
ignorance (lack of education) and want (poverty).

I think "we" are assuming that materialism is the standard. Deferring reproduction until after more extensive education, often doesn't win over greater fecundity in what passes for poverty in western states. The Darwinian standard is the more natural one. Some people may be in poverty because they have different controlled variables.

A lack of environmental affordances probably could be characterized
in many ways, but I think a major split is between social affordances
(the kind Martin L listed in his response) and non-social affordances.
     

So even though we disagree about the existence of affordances we get
to the same place. Nice.

The availability of money provides the opportunity to change and
enhance environmental affordances. In other words, a rich person
has a lot more freedom than does a pauper.
     

Aside from the fact that I don't consider money an "affordance" (I
consider it an environmental variable that can be used as an output to
produce, via exchange, a desired input) I completely agree with you.
In a society where there is specialized production, money is the way
people control for all the other stuff they want besides what they
themselves produce. Or, in the words of the greatest balladeer of all
time: "when there's too much of nothing, no one's in control".

"Freedom" can be split in another dimension, "freedom to" and>"freedom from".
     

I think both are implied when we see freedom as a person being "in
control". "Freedom to" simply means the ability to bring a controlled
variable to it's reference state; "Freedom from" is the ability to do
this while protecting the variable from disturbance.
   
And taxation and government regulation are disturbances.

That's a very crude first cut at what I think "freedom" means in PCT.
     

And a very nice one at that.

I suspect we all would wish to maximize our ability to control such
perceptions as we choose to control. Where I suspect we disagree is
in whether we would like to extend this wish to other people.
     

I presume you are talking to Martin L. here. I think you know that
when I speak of "freedom" I'm talking about everyone, not just me. My
idea of a free society is one where everyone is in control (of what
they want and need to control).
   
So does your society have national borders that delimit who "everyone" and "society" are? Is one of your controlled variables how much wealth is too much for some people and not enough for others, and the use of coercion to control others? Since you are unlikely to have affordances to enable you to do this on your own, is one of your controlled variables co-ordination with and perhaps re-education of others to achieve this goal?

If we can agree that the term "freedom" is equivalent to what we mean
by being "in control" in PCT, then maybe we can then deal with what
this means in the context of a society where each person's individual
ability to control depends on the controlling done by virtually
everyone else. I think this is where people like Martin L. start
feeling "oppressed" by government.
   
Market prices depend upon the controlling done by virtually everyone else. Perhaps you are overlooking the import of this emergent phenomena.

I start feeling oppressed at both taxation and government regulation. Chemical freedom and choice in education are two of my key concerns. Mammalian parents have education of their offspring as one of their controlled variables. Totalitarian and progressive societies tend to want to take control of those variables: Given the importance of offspring to parents, and the distress that they feel when those children no longer seem to be theirs, keeping control of that variable is a key component of freedom.

"Our problem is not merely to help the students to adjust themselves to world life ... [but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can." -- Woodrow Wilson

"When an opponent says 'I will not come over to your side', I calmly say 'Your child belongs to us already ...You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community." -- Adolf Hitler

You have a sweeping vision of "society" which requires a state less restrained by checks and balances to implement. I, on the other hand, consider it an understandable but unfortunate oversight, that the founding fathers did not include separation of school and state among our protections. As intelligent agents, we can also worry about controlling the risk of disturbances to our control in the future. Even if a government seems benign now, it is populated with humans who are corruptable by power and who will have their own controlled variables. Lest we forget, history teaches us it is not wise to yield too much power to governments.

-- Martin L

···

Best

Rick

13

[From Rick Marken (2010.04.26.1300)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.04.26.0933 MDT)--

Would it be correct then to say that one of my controlled variables is
the amount of control I have?

It's possible. Though in PCT control of the overall "amount of
control" you have -- as measured by the total amount of error in the
control hierarchy -- is controlled by the "uber" control system known
as the reorganization system.

A "social program" like low taxation and free trade might eliminate
poverty better than a welfare state.

It might, but in the US, at least, the data show clearly that it doesn't.

Some people may be in poverty
because they have different controlled variables.

Interesting. Why do you think there was such a large increase in the
number of kids who wanted to control for the variables that result in
poverty when Bush II came into office?

I start feeling oppressed at both taxation and government regulation.

Why?

You have a sweeping vision of "society" which requires a state less
restrained by checks and balances to implement.

Not at all. I think the difference between your vision of society and
mine is rather simple: you think the most important thing for a
successful society is individual initiative; I think the most
important thing for a successful society is cooperation. I think
individual initiative is important, too, but I take it for granted:
it's what I call control. But in a modern society like ours, the
success of any individual's initiative depends almost completely on
cooperation with others. Taxes are just part of that cooperation --
like condo fees that are used to take care of the common areas and
facilities. So are agreed on rules and regulations that apply to all
individuals in the "condo building". Governments are just the condo
board; and sometimes they do do stupid things. But that's no reason to
get rid of the condo board; just work on improving it. Then maybe
someday we'll have a quality of life equal to that in Western
Europe;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

14

[From Martin Lewitt (2010.04.26.1410 MDT)]

[From Rick Marken (2010.04.26.1300)]

Martin Lewitt (2010.04.26.0933 MDT)--
     
Would it be correct then to say that one of my controlled variables is
the amount of control I have?
     

It's possible. Though in PCT control of the overall "amount of
control" you have -- as measured by the total amount of error in the
control hierarchy -- is controlled by the "uber" control system known
as the reorganization system.

A "social program" like low taxation and free trade might eliminate
poverty better than a welfare state.
     

It might, but in the US, at least, the data show clearly that it doesn't.
   
With globalization the US is not a closed system. What conclusion do you reach when you compare what the welfare state has done for the poor in the US with what the market has done for the hundreds of millions of poor in India and China? What data do you have that compares the effectiveness of the market in eliminating poverty with the welfare state? Does the welfare state eliminate poverty or maintain it? Are those in poverty today being assisted by the welfare state, different from ones who were in poverty yesterday? If not has poverty been eliminated?

Some people may be in poverty
because they have different controlled variables.
     

Interesting. Why do you think there was such a large increase in the
number of kids who wanted to control for the variables that result in
poverty when Bush II came into office?
   
Culture can move pretty quickly. Have their attitudes towards education changed? Do the poor feel secure enough to have more children? What statistics are you referring to? Has the definition of "poverty" changed again?

I start feeling oppressed at both taxation and government regulation.
     

Why?
   
Because they are coercive disturbances that interfere with control. With less taxation, I would have more money to achieve my goals, and the government would have less resources with which to disturb my control. With less regulation, I could achieve my goals with less expense and more safety.

You have a sweeping vision of "society" which requires a state less
restrained by checks and balances to implement.
     

Not at all. I think the difference between your vision of society and
mine is rather simple: you think the most important thing for a
successful society is individual initiative; I think the most
important thing for a successful society is cooperation. I think
individual initiative is important, too, but I take it for granted:
it's what I call control. But in a modern society like ours, the
success of any individual's initiative depends almost completely on
cooperation with others. Taxes are just part of that cooperation --
like condo fees that are used to take care of the common areas and
facilities. So are agreed on rules and regulations that apply to all
individuals in the "condo building". Governments are just the condo
board; and sometimes they do do stupid things. But that's no reason to
get rid of the condo board; just work on improving it. Then maybe
someday we'll have a quality of life equal to that in Western
Europe;-)
   
But it is a good reason to get rid of home owners associations. Too much is shared in a condo to disentangle condos from the condo board, but even there the reform may be imposing checks, balances, owners rights and standards upon it. My experience with home owners associations is that enforcement of the provisions can be selective and draconian, with too much court deference to the arbitrary decisions of the elected board and too little to what the standards were promised to be when the rules were written into the deeds.

When you use "cooperation" is it a euphemism for a significant level of coercion that you currently like. The market achieves cooperation without coercion. When you sanction the relaxation of checks and balances on coercion, you should keep in mind that you may lose the next election, and wish for those checks and balances again.

-- Martin L

···

Best

Rick

15

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.04.26.1742)]

[From Martin Lewitt (2010.04.26.1410 MDT)]

Because they are coercive disturbances that interfere with control. With less taxation, I would have more money to achieve my goals, and the government would have less resources with which to disturb my control. With less regulation, I could achieve my goals with less expense and more safety.

If only you lived in the nineteenth century, all your prayers would be answered. (Some of my prayers, too.)

Bruce

16

(Gavin Ritz 2010.04.27.19.30NZT)

[From Rick Marken
(2010.04.26.0840)]

(Gavin Ritz 2010.04.26.23.31NZT)

A serial killer also wants to control. So if the
serial killer’s controlled

variable is a “slit throat oozing blood all
over a white satin shirt”. And

has the freedom to do this in your society is
this freedom.

This is an excellent point. I do tend to
think that when people are in

control – particularly when they are able
to control their intrinsic

variables, the life necessities variables
– they won’t develop

anti-social control systems like that.

Well this is something the
PCT needs to conquer.

But whether that’s true or

not, the fact is that people who control
for hurting other people are

part of that coercive social environment
that prevents other people

from controlling.

Then these controlled variables
need to found. I once read a book on (PINS) Pre- incident indicators for violence,
and it seems that there is clearly a set of controlled variables that indicate violence
but that’s another issue.

I think the best way to deal with the
existence of

this kind of social deviance – control
that interferes with the

controlling of others – is to form
well-regulated militias, ie.

police forces. And the regulating of this
police force should be done

by people who constitute a government of
the people, by the people and

for the people. Kind of like it’s done in
every Western democracy

today.

Our entire society is arrangements
between control systems whether they are human or economic or social so PCT has
a lot of work to do in this area.

Regards

Gavin

···
17

[Martin Taylor 2010.04.26.17.56]

[From Martin Lewitt (2010.04.26.1410 MDT)]

[From Rick Marken (2010.04.26.1300)]

With globalization the US is not a closed system. What conclusion do you reach when you compare what the welfare state has done for the poor in the US with what the market has done for the hundreds of millions of poor in India and China?

Interesting that you would call the US a welfare state, but the dirigist Communist China a market. Interesting also that you would mention the hundreds of millions of poor in India, for whom the market has done very little (except in Kerala, which has had a very popular communist government for much of the last several decades). The last I heard, the level of poverty had got worse in India over recent years. Anyway, to answer your question, I would say that none of the three countries you mention has done a very good job with reducing the range of income disparity, or with reducing the numbers who live in poverty (the two seem to be correlated). If you want to compare the US with countries that have done a good job in reducing poverty, you pretty much have to go to the high-tax "welfare states" in Scandinavia, all of which are among the top countries in quality of life indices.

I start feeling oppressed at both taxation and government regulation.

Why?

Because they are coercive disturbances that interfere with control. With less taxation, I would have more money to achieve my goals, and the government would have less resources with which to disturb my control. With less regulation, I could achieve my goals with less expense and more safety.

Have you considered that this would also be true of those with whom you might come into contact, and that some of their actions might restrict your ability to achieve your goals? For example, you might be a victim of a scam, reducing your supply of money and your ability to achieve some of your goals, just as easily as you could scam someone else out of theirs, increasing your ability to achieve your goals. Not everyone you encounter is as considerate of others as you might be. If you tried to set up a Mafia-like organization in which people willingly gave you authority to direct their coercion of others, might not there be other people with similar ideas, who might coerce you in rather drastic ways?

I rather think your freedom would be likely to be much less assured in such a society than it is now. But that's just my opinion, as the opposite is your opinion. There's very little evidence to support either opinion. The best analogy I can produce off the top of my head is the ease with which you can travel a kilometer on a network of two-lane roads on which drivers keep to the right, as opposed to travelling to the same destinations a kilometer across a huge parking lot on which cars are going every which way as the drivers please. I think your freedom to travel any path you wish between your start and your destination would be greater if instead of a network of roads there was just a big parking pad, but your freedom to get where you want easily and quickly would be greater on the network of roads. It's the same with good laws and regulations. They inhibit some possible actions, but generally help you control most perceptions more readily than you could in the absence of the rules and regulations.

Martin

18

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.04.27.1050 EDT)]

[Martin Taylor 2010.04.26.17.56]

I rather think your freedom would be likely to be much less assured in such a society than it is now. But that’s just my opinion, as the opposite is your opinion. There’s very little evidence to support either opinion. The best analogy I can produce off the top of my head is the ease with which you can travel a kilometer on a network of two-lane roads on which drivers keep to the right, as opposed to travelling to the same destinations a kilometer across a huge parking lot on which cars are going every which way as the drivers please. I think your freedom to travel any path you wish between your start and your destination would be greater if instead of a network of roads there was just a big parking pad, but your freedom to get where you want easily and quickly would be greater on the network of roads. It’s the same with good laws and regulations. They inhibit some possible actions, but generally help you control most perceptions more readily than you could in the absence of the rules and regulations.

BG: One characteristic I associate with libertarians is the ability to ignore arguments that do not mesh with their beliefs. They resemble other fundamentalists in this regard. I believe the expression is, “I’ve made up my mind, don’t annoy me with the facts.”

Bruce

19

[From Rick Marken (2010.04.27.0830)]

Martin Taylor (2010.04.26.17.56) to Martin Lewitt (2010.04.26.1410 MDT)

Interesting that you would call the US a welfare state

Actually it was me. I said it to get Martin L. all tied up in his
shorts and because the US is certainly more of a welfare state than
those "welfareless" paradises like Nicaragua. But the US has certainly
fallen well behind Western Europe (since our progressive heyday
starting with FDR), where poverty levels are a fraction of what they
are in the US.

The rest of your points to Martin L. are super-duper. I particularly
like your "deregulation" example:

I rather think your freedom would be likely to be much less assured
in such a [de-regulated] society than it is now. But that's just my
opinion, as the opposite is your opinion. There's very little evidence
to support either opinion. The best analogy I can produce off the top
of my head is the ease with which you can travel a kilometer on a
network of two-lane roads on which drivers keep to the right, as
opposed to traveling to the same destinations a kilometer across a
huge parking lot on which cars are going every which way as the
drivers please. I think your freedom to travel any path you wish
between your start and your destination would be greater if instead
of a network of roads there was just a big parking pad, but your
freedom to get where you want easily and quickly would be greater
on the network of roads. It's the same with good laws and regulations.
They inhibit some possible actions, but generally help you control
most perceptions more readily than you could in
the absence of the rules and regulations.

This is a wonderful example of the benefits of what I call
_cooperative control_. Cooperation requires that we voluntarily give
up control of some variables (give up some freedom) in order to get
better control of others. In your marvelous example, the drivers on
the two-lane roads are giving up their control of the side of the road
they drive on in order to gain better control of how efficiently they
themselves, as well as the other drivers who are going to the same
destination, can get to that destination.

Cooperative control (in the form of specialization, regulation,
investment in common infrastructure, etc) requires that individuals
give up some freedom (to control certain variables) in order to have
much better control of other, far more important variables.
Cooperation like this generally works out better for all individuals
in the collective (if its done right). But it requires trust. When an
individual feels like he or she doesn't want to voluntarily give up a
freedom -- for example, the driver on the two lane road who decides he
wants to drive in the on-coming traffic lane -- to cooperate you get
possible catastrophe. Ergo, "coercive" laws. (Of course, sometimes
these "cooperative" regulations are, indeed, bad--such as the Jim Crow
rules in the South-- and should be broken, preferably by non-violent
resistance).

Because cooperative control requires trust (but verify, with police),
I think it works best where a large proportion of the population
understands the benefits of cooperation. Clearly, far more people
understand this in some countries (like yours) than they do in the US.

One last note: I realized this morning that the term "free market" is
ideological propaganda, like the "Clean Skies Initiative". There is no
such thing as a free market, in the sense of a market without
regulation. Every market must have some basic regulations, like the
requirement that contracts be honored, that buyers pay sellers, that
buyers not simply take goods (no stealing), that sellers not lie about
the nature of the goods sold (no fraud), etc. Markets simply vary in
how regulated they are-- the amount of regulation (I'd say in their
"degrees of freedom" but that term is already taken;-). And I think
the evidence is that there is some "optimal" level of market
regulation -- about the level we had in the US from about 1934 until
about 1980.. Republicans always opt for too little regulatoin;
communists always opt for too much.

Great post Martin (Taylor, not Lewitt, of course)!

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

20

[From Bruce Gregory (2010.04.27.1155 EDT)]

[From Rick Marken (2010.04.27.0830)]

One last note: I realized this morning that the term “free market” is
ideological propaganda, like the “Clean Skies Initiative”. There is no
such thing as a free market, in the sense of a market without
regulation. Every market must have some basic regulations, like the
requirement that contracts be honored, that buyers pay sellers, that
buyers not simply take goods (no stealing), that sellers not lie about
the nature of the goods sold (no fraud), etc. Markets simply vary in
how regulated they are-- the amount of regulation (I’d say in their
“degrees of freedom” but that term is already taken;-). And I think
the evidence is that there is some “optimal” level of market
regulation – about the level we had in the US from about 1934 until
about 1980… Republicans always opt for too little regulatoin;
communists always opt for too much.

Great post Martin (Taylor, not Lewitt, of course)!

BG: The “free” in free market is an honorific. As far as I can tell it adds nothing of substance to the word “market.” I agree that it often seems to mean “unregulated,” but as you point out, there are no unregulated markets. We also agree on the merits of Martin Taylor’s post. Will wonders never cease?

Bruce