A Stanford University Debate: Transhumanism vs. Anarcho-Primitivism

[MachineGhost]

I didn't even know there was such a regressive ideology known as anarcho-primitivism!

Unfortunately, the main video camera recording the event failed. Luckily, a second recording exists from laptops that captured the entire debate, but the quality is mediocre at best. Additionally, the footage misses the most exciting parts of the event, such as loud anti-civilization hecklers or the anarchist-dominated 140-person audience. The vibe in the auditorium was quite tense, and some transhumanists were worried about safety issues because no university security was present. In the very back stood people who some suggested were black bloc participants: individuals who dress in black, wear face-concealing masks and gear, and cause civil unrest. Many of them came to meet John Zerzan, who is well known as a past confidant of the Unabomber and has also had associations with many anarchist-type groups.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-is ... 86982.html

[moda0306]

Not that I'd prefer it, but IMO based on the name alone, anarcho-primitivism sounds probably like the most intellectually honest form of anarchism.

Anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism have too many internal logical contradictions for me.

But don't worry... I'm a good statist. Not causing unrest.

[moda0306]

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/So+two ... 245567.png

Simon,

Your gun is pointed at my head, too, brother.  Don't get too high on your moral perch.

i am a bit confused by the picture? ..wouldn't a libertarian society give you the option of... not buying stuff in cans that you have to deal with later?... being self employed so your pay couldn't be docked?... create a value for cans so they will not be discarded or will be picked up by people who want that value?.. create value for dropping the can in the right place rewarding people for doing it?.. or any possible combination of the above
the whole message is a bit muddled... "libertarianism just don't call it government" doesn't make sense libertarianism is about limited government, why would a libertarian not call that government?

[MachineGhost]

Anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism have too many internal logical contradictions for me.

They don't have too many.  They have one.  They presuppose in the moral goodness of humanity, especially those black males with "The Warrior Gene".  But its a long way from "having a monopoly of violence over a given territory" ala Tombstone, AZ (Hollywood's revisionism) to the juggernaut behemoth we have today.

[Benko]

But don't worry... I'm a good statist. Not causing unrest.

Love the picture.  Thanks for making my morning.

[moda0306]

Simon,

For now we can skip the debate over the can of soda.

But regarding libertarians wanting "limited" government, please tell me how an entity that collects taxes to do ANYTHING doesn't have to point a gun to my head to do so.  There's nothing very "limited" about pointing a gun at someone to get what you want.  Even if all you want is 4% of their income in tax, or .2% of the value of their property in tax, or 1% of the sale price of a car in tax.

Obviously, when discussing the utilitarian aspects of reality, we can have debates about different government functions, but it's all at the point of a gun, so I respectfully request that libertarians get off their ridiculous high moral horse and join the rest of us gun-pointers down in the gutter.

[Pointedstick]

Libertarianism is not anarchism. Libertarianism says less government, not no government; it says "point fewer guns," and "point guns only in a very small number of very carefully controlled manners," and "the currently-pointed guns are totally inappropriate and counterproductive," not "point no guns."

You're confusing the two. Anarchism is certainly the more intellectually consistent philosophy, but it is if anything far less achievable. The "less government" urge runs strong in the American populace; the "no government" urge is practically nonexistent.

this... well said +1

[moda0306]

PS,

I'm not confusing the two.  I fully understand libertarianism is different than anarchism.  In fact, that is precisely my point.  That meme (and the libertarian attitudes that go with it) imply a certain activity that "statists" engage in that they do not.  As you said yourself, this is a false claim.  "Less guns?"  A gun to my head is almost as dangerous as 10.  "Point them carefully?"  Well if the attitude is to coerce, what's careful about it?  That is the point of the gun, is to induce behavior that otherwise wouldn't have been engaged in.  "Counterproductive?" To what end?  Your subjective preferences (that you are willing to use guns to defend) or my subjective preferences (that I am willing to use guns to defend)?

Libertarianism has a TON of worthwhile ideas/traits that I really like.  What I don't like is libertarians who use the whole "I didn't sign a social contract," or "you're pointing a gun at me" or "taxation is theft" against their opposition, which applies equally (or in some cases, more-so) to the things they want government doing (usually military being on of them).

You don't get to hop on and off your moral high ground at your convenience (I'm not saying "you," but people in general).  You don't get to trot out moral arguments against others if you're not willing to shine those same lights on your own opinions.  You don't get to shoot down one person's idea about a government policy on the basis that it requires pointing a gun to someone's head, and then advocate a government that requires pointing a gun to someone's head.  Especially when a lot of what libertarians want to protect with the riches earned from pointing that gun to my head is "their property," which consists a host of property claims that include a lot of theft that has been dressed up to look like earned wealth.



It's as simple as this... if we're going to have a discussion of policy preferences, resorting to these moral high ground fallacies is 1) disrespectful, 2) hypocritical, and 3) unproductive from the standpoint of identifying valid arguments for our preferred policies from a utilitarian standpoint (or even a rights-based standpoint).

If popularity (and the implied pragmatism) is the source of one's love for libertarianism (sure doesn't seem that way with Benk & l82start... they seem to actually want government, but just to point guns in their favorite directions), then what you are making is a utilitarian positioning from a pragmatist standpoint, which is fully understandable in the right discussion.  However, when you imply that anyone who ISN'T a libertarian, or wants smaller government (in their preferred categories), is essentially pointing a gun to peaceful people's heads, you're 1) applying inconsistent moral logic only to your enemies (easy to do!), and 2) pretty much stopped the conversation... how pragmatic is that?  It's not.  It's tribalist bullsh!t to get the troops rallied up and appeal to people's emotions based on shining a light on the opponents fatal flaw, which is essentially the fatal flaw of any philosophy that doesn't resemble that of a Buddhist monk.


I'm actually in favor of lessening the size of government overall in various areas.  I just don't fool myself into thinking that I'm somehow special and moral, and anyone who disagrees me is pointing guns.  It's childish.  Libertarians are better than that. 

[Pointedstick]

Moda, you're splitting hairs! One doesn't need to reject coercive force in its entirety to believe that it is used too often or against the wrong people. There is nothing morally bankrupt or intellectually weak about this position. When libertarians talk about statists and pointing guns at people, they are not saying that the principle of coercive gun-pointing is morally indefensible. They are saying that statist gun-pointing is morally indefensible. They may fully believe that coercive gun-pointing can be morally acceptable in certain cases, but they will certainly take the position that the list of those cases will be far smaller than statist-minded people believe.

And that's really what it's all about when it comes to libertarianism: the amount of coercive gun-pointing. Whether or not the final amount is zero, libertarians universally want less of it. Statists generally don't, and dither around this by wanting to examine everything on a case-by-case basis and almost always conclude that coercive gun-pointing is just fine. That, I would say, is the difference between the two.

[moda0306]

PS,

Let's not obfuscate the facts around when libertarians want guns pointed, here.

For instance, if either of us were able to stop our home from being invaded, both of us would do so by "pointing a gun" at the invaders, and probably shoot.  This is morally defensible under the premise that while initiation of force is bad, defending yourself and your home is morally defensible, and many times morally obligatory if you have a family.

Agreement here... I would assume.

What a libertarian wants is not just for them to have the moral right to defend their body/home/family, but for the government to point guns to levy taxes to pay for courts, police, military, perhaps some level of infrastructure, etc.

Can I assume we still agree?

Libertarians could survive without those support functions, but because they believe it will lower the risk and raise quality in THEIR lives (and those they care about) as opposed to living in a hut and tending to a small garden, they advocate and support the use of armed force to take from all citizens (even those who disagree with having any government, or think that less military and more infrastructure is ideal, or anyone else who disagrees).  They will have you KILLED if you disagree, don't want to pay taxes, and revolt... at some level, anyway, otherwise the arrangement doesn't work!  And then you have anarchy.

This could very well be a more ideal form of government than one that does more, or does it at a more centralized level.  However, trying to make that argument from the standpoint of RIGHTS that you have just advocated violating is a joke.  And to the degree you can make a meme trying to illustrate the situation, perhaps one that has a statist holding two guns to your head, and a libertarian holding another.

If we want to have a debate about growing or shrinking different levels or functions of goverment, trying to do so on the principle of wanting "less guns pointed" will ALWAYS leave you with advocating less government, until you get to none.  So that means that wanting "less guns pointed" isn't really a principle at all... or at least not one that doesn't have some contradicting limiting principle to it. 

The big question is, then, what is that competing limiting principle?  Security?  Economic Stability?  Economic growth?  Some other "right" that we didn't measure yet?  Some other subjective utilitarian preference?

If our collective individual actions don't result in a maximum of overall happiness, then that means we've failed to analyze things, and have fallen into the fallacy of composition.  This might mean we have to go back to the drawing board of what will inputs will create the best outcome for the most amount of people... and like you, most statists are trying to find that balance between our individual rights and the need to weight certain utilitarian preferences or some other principle.



And truly, how do we really measure who is pointing "more guns?"  Spending/GDP?  People in prison? Especially if one of the favorite roles of government by libertarians is defending illegitimate property claims?

Further, I'd assert that the number of guns is irrelevent, and the REASON for pointing them is a relatively subjective preference.  If I had 100 guns pointed at me saying "we'll shoot if you don't take at least one breath every 5 minutes," I care a lot less about those guns than the one gun-holder that tells me "if you don't get off 'my land' in the next 5 seconds, I'll shoot."

So, once again, the whole libertarian moral high ground position is a weak one.  It's not a misunerstanding, but in fact a highlighting, of the difference between libertarianism and anarchism.  It's not "splitting hairs" when guns are getting pointed with the intent to shoot if you don't comply to call out the hypocrisy of libertarians.



This isn't to say conservatives, liberals, or even myself aren't inconsistent at times.  But it's libertarians that pride themselves so much on their logical consistency and moral position that gets so nausiating.  Hell, most of them can't even work through a thorough moral defense of what they consider to be "their property."  They usually just resort to utilitarian arguments for property, after they've shaken a bit in the idea that they can really "own" 10,000 acres of land.

[Pointedstick]

The uh limiting principle in the USA would be the constitution.

This stuff really isn't that hard... I feel like you're trying to deploy a veritable mountain of verbiage to draw a moral equivalency between the desire to adhere to limits on government power while preserving some of it, and the blanket authorization of government power over potentially anything and everything. It is utilitarianism... but then again, so is every moral philosophy ever, pretty much. If it burns you up to hear libertarians making moral arguments when their philosophy ultimately boils down to utilitarianism, it should burn you up as much to hear the same from liberals and conservatives.

[moda0306]

PS,

It wouldn't burn me up if they would argue based on utilitarianism and leave it there. Utilitarianism can be a useful moral philosophy. It's when they try to make ridiculous rights-based observations when they've lost the utilitarian argument (or just want to land a snarky blow) that I get annoyed.

And I'm not arguing for a totalitarian state. I'd prefer much less. However, I'm not going to resort to unfair accusations of violations of rights that I advocate as well, but on a lesser scale. I'm going to argue for balance and pose the different factors to be considered. Part of those factors is that we need to be careful with such a coercive, powerful entity.

And yes liberals and conservatives do this too... In fact they do it more, but libertarians are more pure so it's more appealing to try to debate them... Until they pull this gun-to-head meme shit and reveal their utter hypocrisy.


And lastly, who is to say that a government like Canada has "more guns" pointed than the U.S.?  Who says a government that forces people to fund war and defending potentially invalid property claims has "less guns" pointed than ones that procures resources for social security and universal healthcare?

Depending on your perspective on where power and influence should naturally be held, you could have a vastly different perspective on what are essentially "more guns" in terms of government power.

[moda0306]

Guys... it may be hard to believe, but my personal preference overal is what I see as a "smaller" government.

I want to lower taxes, have a hell of a lot less labor industry regulations, have simpler healthcare & financial industry regulations, and far more directed and simple education systems that focus on math, english, and science (though I'd also have strict philosophy and personal finance courses).  I'm not a huge fan of having such an abundant military.

I call myself a statist, but I say it more as an acknowledgement of my overall preference for some government rather than where I think the government should go from a "size" standpoint.

I hope this clarifies things.  Not trying to make mountains out of molehills.... just remove bad arguments.

[Pointedstick]

If you're in favor of lower taxes, fewer labor regulations, simpler industry regulations, a simpler education system, and far less military interventionism, than I'm sorry, but saying you're a statist is just pointlessly confusing.

Trying to "reclaim" terms because you don't like their current meaning is always a failure. You saying you're a statist because you believe in some government is an effort as doomed as the poor Hindus trying to use their traditional swastika symbols outside of the context of Nazism. It means what it means; waging a one-man war to get the rest of the world to acknowledge that your nuanced view of state action fits into the term "statism" is only succeeding at confusing and alienating people you claim are your political allies.

Think about HIFFIAUW; what would Harry Browne say? You want less government actions. "Statism" is a term conventionally used to describe people who want more government actions. Does it make sense to bang your head against the wall of insisting you're a statist who nonetheless wants less government action?

[Benko]

And I'm not arguing for a totalitarian state. I'd prefer much less.

Much less that totalitarian state (but still more than now) or less than now?

[moda0306]

If you're in favor of lower taxes, fewer labor regulations, simpler industry regulations, a simpler education system, and far less military interventionism, than I'm sorry, but saying you're a statist is just pointlessly confusing.

Trying to "reclaim" terms because you don't like their current meaning is always a failure. You saying you're a statist because you believe in some government is an effort as doomed as the poor Hindus trying to use their traditional swastika symbols outside of the context of Nazism. It means what it means; waging a one-man war to get the rest of the world to acknowledge that your nuanced view of state action fits into the term "statism" is only succeeding at confusing and alienating people you claim are your political allies.

Think about HIFFIAUW; what would Harry Browne say? You want less government actions. "Statism" is a term conventionally used to describe people who want more government actions. Does it make sense to bang your head against the wall of insisting you're a statist who nonetheless wants less government action?

There's a few reasons I keep hitting on this distinction...

1) I am for expanding government in certain areas.  Certain infrastructure, healthcare, and environmental laws, for instance.  Does this make me a "statist" for wanting "more guns pointed" in certain areas but less in others?

2) If posed as a matter of principle, rather than a matter of degree (which a lot of poor, snarky arguments from libertarians do), then it's complete bs to focus on the gun pointing argument.  They don't pose it as a matter of degree.  When they lose the utilitarian argument for a given policy debate, they often reliably trot out the "well I don't people should be forced at the point of a gun" to wrap things up with a moral high ground fallacy.  And to that I say, "Yes you do!  You just want people to be forced in a certain set of ways that please you."

3) One could argue that the whole "less guns" argument is a garbage one.  Why is pointing guns for judges, military, and road infrastructure "less guns" than pointing guns for universal healthcare, public education, and public transit?  Please lay out  your argument that shows how "less guns" is involved.  How do you measure that?  Public expenditure divided by GDP?  Well that certainly can't be it, unless you think the current German government has far "more guns" pointed at its public than Nazi Germany.


It's just a shitty argument.  Libertarians are usually good at avoiding bad arguments, but they stick to this one like the plague.

So in one breath you are saying that "statist" simply describes what direction you want the size of government to go, but in another you (as in libertarians in general) use condescending remarks over certain violated "principles" that they, themselves, violate as well.


All in all, I hate bad facts, loaded definitions being used in debate, and bad arguments.  I don't care if it's a liberal, conservative, or libertarian using them.  To the degree that we can, we should use the most useful terms to describe a scenario, without attaching a bunch of pajorative bullshit along-side of it.  Libertarians want jack-booted thugs to protect their oft-ill-gotten gains of claiming generally public resources as property of their own.  Liberals and conservatives want a more centralized, broad system at force that protects those property interests to some degree, but engages in other activities as well that require funding and enforcement.

If a preference for not threatening a use of force is done on principle without competing considerations, you are an anarchist.

If a preference for not threatening a use of force is either done with utilitarian outcome or has competing principles to balance against, there's nothing fundamentally different between a libertarian and a liberal or conservative.  Just a matter of degree in how they balance the different competing principles that they value.  It's time libertarians get off their high horse.  It takes a big logical shit on what could be a more effective debate process that doesn't conveniently pull out a logical fallacy whenever its side has lost.

[moda0306]

And I'm not arguing for a totalitarian state. I'd prefer much less.

Much less that totalitarian state (but still more than now) or less than now?

If we are measuring the "size of government" by expenditure-to-GDP ratio, I'd probably have a government that is smaller in size, but mainly due to cutting military expenditure by 1/3 or more.  Most safety net programs (except for non-Medicare healthcare) would stay the same or decrease slightly if I were king for a day. 

Taxes would be lower and simpler, though.

So obviously far less than what most would consider a totalitarian state, but I can't say with 100% confidence that my expenditure/GDP ratio would be lower when all is said and done.

A lot less stringent labor laws, drug laws, and AML laws, to boot!

[moda0306]

i don't think i have ever heard a libertarian here make the types of argument you are talking about, and are constantly trying to change the meaning of statist to include, i have heard our resident anarchists make them though.

personally i see the "more government equals statist" point as being mostly accurate, but i am a philosophical anarchist and practical libertarian/conservative, i see a lot of "more government" causing a need for "even more government" then that result being used as proof for the idea that humanity needs "more government".. (the essence of statisim)
A utilitarian acceptance of limited government is fine and not in conflict with saying "guns to the head is bad" but every instance of government we do accept should be working us towards achieving a society that needs less government and guns, not resulting in one that ends up needing more (perhaps that is a broader utilitarian argument), in addition to what ever other utilitarian reasons used to justify it Even if an enlightened anarchist society is an impossibility the philosophy and application of limited government should strive to move us towards it.

i always did think the TEA in tea party should stand for... Towards Enlightened Anarchy.

Simon,

I can appreciate the separation of what we would do if we were king for eternity vs what we would present as a pragmatic solution, but if your libertarian/conservative solutions are far more conservative thant he populace would ever accept, is that really pragmatism?


This whole torture thing is perhaps one of the best reasons to really question what the hell "big government" even is?  Is it a spending-to-GDP ratio?  Is it the number of people imprisoned in a year?

Is a government that spends $100,000 to bomb a city in its borders really a "smaller government" than the one that uses $10 Mil to establish a limited military for defense?

There has to be some way of establishing what "small-government" really is... and when I see some of my "conservative-bordering-libertarian" friends defending torture with the news that is out now, my bullshit meter starts going off real fast.

a lot of what big government "is" seems to be a cop out to scary group think, justifying things we would never do our selfs, torture being one.
limited government should be about limiting not just size and expense in general but also the immoral, unenlightened and anti-liberty (Jim crow and any time and money spent on enforcing them would be a good example) as well as limiting unintended consequences, many of which as i mentioned above are used to justify further expansion of government.

[MachineGhost]

  the whole message is a bit muddled... "libertarianism just don't call it government" doesn't make sense  libertarianism is about limited government, why would a libertarian not call that government? 

Yes, I was initially confused too but realized its a false Hegelian dialectic.  It's actually Socialism vs Fascism aka Fabian socialism that all the super-rich elites support because they profit either way (similar to PS's immigration breakthrough).  But you can't expect deep thoughts from a trendy "latte-drinking liberal elite" that undoubtedly created that image.

We're a looong ways off from liberatarianism in reality.  Nevermind anarcho-capitalism.  I don't believe humanity will ever come to the realization of either; but it will be forced upon them by technology due to people like me.

[MachineGhost]

But regarding libertarians wanting "limited" government, please tell me how an entity that collects taxes to do ANYTHING doesn't have to point a gun to my head to do so.  There's nothing very "limited" about pointing a gun at someone to get what you want.  Even if all you want is 4% of their income in tax, or .2% of the value of their property in tax, or 1% of the sale price of a car in tax.

Obviously, when discussing the utilitarian aspects of reality, we can have debates about different government functions, but it's all at the point of a gun, so I respectfully request that libertarians get off their ridiculous high moral horse and join the rest of us gun-pointers down in the gutter.

It's just a matter of semantics.  In reality, we all agree to give up our personal use of violence to the groupthink known as "government" which has a monopoly on its use over a physical territory.  Would it really make any practical difference if we resorted to using liturgy to fund the Federal government instead of the U.S. Treasury using a collection agency known as the IRS?  The majority of people don't care about the metaphysical foundations for what they perceive and experience in reality, they just want a "just" end result.

[MachineGhost]

And that's really what it's all about when it comes to libertarianism: the amount of coercive gun-pointing. Whether or not the final amount is zero, libertarians universally want less of it. Statists generally don't, and dither around this by wanting to examine everything on a case-by-case basis and almost always conclude that coercive gun-pointing is just fine. That, I would say, is the difference between the two.

Libertarians are statists.  They're not minarchists or anarchists.  Y'all need to stop conflating the three with each other!

The rightwing Republican-In-the-Closet kooks that take refuge in Libertarianism is to be expected in any ideology.  All ideologies are illogical, inconsistent and attract psychiatric-episode spewing nutjobs.  Everyone just wants to belong.  That's an emotional need, not a rational outcome.

While I believe its is an is oxymoron to use governmnet coercion to restrain itself, that is the Libertarianism position and in the real world, the more you approach perfection, the better off everyone is, even if it is never fully reached.

[MachineGhost]

It wouldn't burn me up if they would argue based on utilitarianism and leave it there. Utilitarianism can be a useful moral philosophy. It's when they try to make ridiculous rights-based observations when they've lost the utilitarian argument (or just want to land a snarky blow) that I get annoyed.

Well, the problem is a pure utilitarian ideology is anti-humanity so some kind of morality-based or natural rights ("property rights" which is also semi-utilitarnian) needs to be interjected into the Libertarianism ideology to prevent another "Final Solution" from occuring.  Recall that the vast majority of German civilian population were rather ignorant and naive to a certain extent about the cold-hearted, unemotional, dehumanized solution to the "problem".  It's not as if there were highly emotional riots to tyranny being ruthlessly gunned down in broad daylight.  Evil is more insidious in that; it lives in ignorance and lack of awareness.  So the logical outcome of utilitarniasm is a Logan's Run or a Soylet Green or a Terminator-style world.  I'm perfectly fine with utilitarniasm so long as it stops at property rights, until pro-human transhumanism becomes an formal political party.  In the menatime, we don't have any other efficient and just mechanisms to allocate scarce resources until we have that Universal Big Brother AI.  Post-scarcity may actually make a pro-human ideology more practical.

[MachineGhost]

I hope this clarifies things.  Not trying to make mountains out of molehills.... just remove bad arguments.

You are a libertarian then, but I think you just don't identify with Libertarianism as a political party.  There is a difference.  One is bottoms-up pragmatism, the other is top-down coercive ideology.  I'm not of the latter but definitely the former.  Unfortunately, when you break with Libertarianism you resort to using "treasonous" statism in their eyes, but that is the world we live in, not as wish it to be.

[MachineGhost]

1) I am for expanding government in certain areas.  Certain infrastructure, healthcare, and environmental laws, for instance.  Does this make me a "statist" for wanting "more guns pointed" in certain areas but less in others?

It makes you a Democrat to a Republican, a statist to a Libertarian but a pragmatist to a realist.  Quit worrying about the labels.  Who gets things done in the real world?  It's not rank and file ideologies; its the pragmatists.

[MachineGhost]

There has to be some way of establishing what "small-government" really is... and when I see some of my "conservative-bordering-libertarian" friends defending torture with the news that is out now, my bullshit meter starts going off real fast.

That's easy, but you have to use efficiency metrics in terms of outcomes, instead of morality or ideological metrics.  Minarchism is a good starting point.  "Government" is a failure because it consistently ignores the results of its own actions given its costs because the people invovled don't give a shit; they're all there for self-preservation not cost effectiveness or profit.  Even Libertarianis are not quite at that level ideologically; they're overworried about coercion.