Re: in which brute says things about libertarianism
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:51 pm
@jacob - Could you recommend some further reading on this wrt geopolitics and energy ? Your post is interesting and raises lots more questions for me.
--- The smartest, deepest, and most resilient rabbit hole of FIRE
The oceans help a great deal, but with technological advances, the world is getting smaller. Being a hedgehog in the mountains of Switzerland is a great defense against horsemen and archers, but less so against intercontinental missles.BRUTE wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:59 pmit could be said that the US has never been conquered because there is a bunch of water in front of it. even if an enemy army landed, it would be impossible to control a population with 300 million guns. that the US also had a military might not make such a big difference for defense.
the next thing is economics.
This is my sense of humor. What I typically see is persons who are living a perfectly comfortable existence suggesting ridiculously oversimplified solutions to the world’s problems. “Abolish the military, the FBI, ICE, confiscate the unlawful wealth of the rich and feed the world’s poor!” Such messages are typically posted by persons wearing designer clothes manufactured in an Indian sweat shop on a smartphone that was manufactured by some poor bastard in China who is about to hurl himself into a suicide net. Very easy to enjoy the fruits of the system but then out of “empathy” suggest that everything be burned down. Try living in the state of nature first. I am really enjoying my air conditioner today.
If the world consisted of all or mostly JLF and BRUTE types that lived within their means and were not burdens to society, this would work, because of reliable counter-parties.BRUTE wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:59 pmas mentioned by DLj, economic interdependence or trade leads to peace. this is because trade is a positive-sum game. both parties of a voluntary transaction benefit from it, otherwise it would not happen. it is thus in both parties' egoistic interest not to start a war with the other side.
JLF and BRUTE are both men. Men can't have babies. Yet.Mister Imperceptible wrote:***I was perusing the “Can permaculture feed 7.5 billion humans” thread, and I wondered, if we are already well beyond the planet’s optimal carrying capacity, how many humans will volunteer themselves to not have children? Sure, the rational JLF and BRUTE types, but not the proliferating morons that are driving down the collective IQ of society.
brute agrees - hive mind aka new world order is not something brute is fond of.
while brute is no fan of procuring oil by means of war, he does agree that being left behind economically will eventually lead to losing military power. luckily, the US still seems to be one of the more economically advanced nations.Mister Imperceptible wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:30 pmIt may happen slowly enough that a generation or two may not notice, but over time, the US can be weakened through bad economics, to the point that it cannot finance a military sufficient for defense. And when I say defense, I include US aggressions overseas that procure resources like oil.
again, the conflation between trade/commerce/civilization and government. governments did not invent nor build air conditioners. private individuals did, motivated by greed and hot summers.
it feels like Mister Imperceptible is slightly talking past brute here. there are assumptions in here that brute does not make, but he has seen many humans assume that brute makes these assumptions.Mister Imperceptible wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:30 pmIf the world consisted of all or mostly JLF and BRUTE types that lived within their means and were not burdens to society, this would work, because of reliable counter-parties.
However, most people live beyond their means and outbreed their resources. In the past, this was perfectly fine. The tribe on the north side of the river hoped to outbreed the tribe on the south side of the river, so the river could be crossed, the other tribe overwhelmed and annihilated, and their land and resources usurped. “Be fruitful and multiply.”
Now, resources are becoming increasingly scarce***, but most people aren’t looking at life consciously and dispassionately, “like a crossword puzzle to be solved.” They live mostly unconsciously, they waste their resources, they overbreed (see my contemptuous remarks in the UBI thread). Then, they look about frantically, in dire straits, and are ripe to be politicized. “Sure, I can solve your problems!” says Opportunist Politican. “It’s all the fault of Group X!” And then you have tribalism again, and your zero-sum game.
So I am not arguing against libertarianism in favor of another system. I am just saying because the way people are, that tribalism, and coalitions, and the Great Game, seem inevitable to me. “If everyone were rational and logical and personally responsible!” But they aren’t.
maybe this is the fundamental misunderstanding. what brute meant is not "libertarianism should be plausible now". in fact, libertarianism is implausible right now to the degree that non-libertarianism exists.
This series of volleys began with my assertion that non-interventionism is impractical. @daylen said he saw my suggestion of the world as one nation-state as very far off, to which I responded that I agreed and therefore support the military in the meantime so I can enjoy Netflix and air conditioning while war rages around us but we sit in our relatively safe bubble. The shrieking and bleeding hearts dressed in Indian-manufactured designer clothes that want the military to be defunded do not realize that the only reason they can type their socialist manifestos on Chinese-manufactured smartphones is because the military is keeping us safe.BRUTE wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:31 pmagain, the conflation between trade/commerce/civilization and government. governments did not invent nor build air conditioners. private individuals did, motivated by greed and hot summers.
maybe Mister Imperceptible is arguing that only the existence of government could have led to the conditions necessary for inventing and building air conditioners, with which brute would disagree. but then that would be the whole point of the discussion.
But have humans come a long way? Or have we merely seen great technological progress? Customs might change as a result of technological pressures, but I do not equivocate that to progress. With the printing press we had the democratization of knowledge, but remove the knowledge and men will be (more) ignorant again. As Jordan Peterson says, the humanities are dead. If the humanities are going under, what does that signal for civilization?
Michael T Klare and Georg Friedman.
I also want to say I am not trying to talk past you. I agree with your rephrasing of my argument, and interpreting it with the principle of charity. So it comes down to optimism or pessimism about the ability of society to develop the social capital for libertarianism. Surprisingly, it is BRUTE the Nihilist and not Mister Imperceptible the Hot-Headed Logician that is optimistic about this.BRUTE wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:31 pmit feels like Mister Imperceptible is slightly talking past brute here. there are assumptions in here that brute does not make, but he has seen many humans assume that brute makes these assumptions.
the argument "humans are irrational => libertarianism doesn't work" does not actually counter any arguments libertarians make. the whole point of libertarianism is closer to "humans are irrational => only libertarianism will work".
brute will try to rephrase Mister Imperceptible's argument in a way that he hopes will still hold the same meaning, but not lead to "libertarianism is in principle impossible".
"human societies currently lack the mindsets, ideologies, and social capital to recognize that they could be acting in more positive-sum games => libertarianism currently only exists in certain policy regards within non-libertarian societies"
brute is saying: "humans could build more social and ideological capital to gain the foresight that more positive-sum games would be better for them => some time in the future, human societies could approach libertarianism"
it may be true. but most evidence points brute to liberty benefitting society.Mister Imperceptible wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:41 amt may be true that personal liberty/responsibility carried to its furthest extremes would not benefit society. I think that in the mind of BRUTE, two different things “libertarianism” and “positive-sum game culture” have been synthesized into a higher ideal.