[ExI] Strong libertarianism, societal good, & suffering (was: Cephalization, proles)

[Kelly Anderson]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Damien Sullivan
<phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 01:42:35PM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Damien Sullivan
>
>> > "libertarianism with free good land was good for some poor" does not
>> > generalize to "libertarianism is good for the poor".
>>
>> Let's try a different approach... would you agree with the following statement:
>> "The advance of technology, engineering and science has been good for
>> the poor (and even better for the rich)."
>
> Yes.

Then we have a basis for agreement. Let's see how far we can run with that.

>> If so, and I really do hope you believe that here of all places, then
>> it follows that:
>> "Whatever society does to promote the development of technology,
>> engineering and science promotes the well being of everyone, including
>> the poor (albeit in a delayed manner compared to the rich)."
>
> Wow, no, that *totally* does not follow.  "Tech is good" does not mean
> "whatever is done, no matter the cost, to advance tech, is good".
>
> If tech develops faster in one country, at the cost of straving
> children, that's not promoting the well-being of everyone.
>
> I trust you see your fallacy.

Technology at all costs could easily be evil. Technology created by
free people for individual reasons that does not impact negatively on
the liberties or environment of their neighbors is usually good for
both rich and poor.

> Your other fallacy is to implicitly assume that the advance of
> technology has been the *only* thing to benefit society, when in fact a
> strong service-minded government can benefit society, especially the
> poor, at even Stone Age tech levels.  The modern world has better tech,
> it also has better government.  And while there's some positive
> correlation between the two, it's far from absolute: the Indus Valley
> civilization and ancient Egypt seem to have been better run than roughly
> contemporaneous Babylonians and Assyrians.

Clearly there are good governments and bad governments, but what is
good and what is bad? Is a good government the one that creates the
greatest enduring works of architecture? Or the one that has happier
citizens? By that measure, perhaps Bhutan, with it's focus on "Gross
National Happiness" is the best nation on earth. Or perhaps it is
economic power and generosity, in which case the US is the best
nation. Or perhaps it is the nation with the most people, in which
case India and China are the best nations. Whenever you choose a basis
upon which to judge the greatness of a people or government, you
create an optimization function that leads to strange things
happening.

I personally judge that the nation that provides its citizenry with
the most individual and group (corporate) liberty, while maintaining
safety and quality of life through appropriate structure (military and
police, for example) is the greatest nation.

In this sense, then perhaps the greatest nation in history is the
Iroquois Confederacy. But they had no economic power, limited
population, limited technology, somewhat low life span, and probably
pretty high gross national happiness. They also did not build
pyramids.

Interesting semi-quote from a show on Egypt... "Egypt did not build
the pyramids, rather building the pyramids created Egypt." That is an
interesting idea. So today, as we build our technology here in the
west, what is our technology building us into?

Oh, and you could say that the best nation is the one that cares best
for the weakest members of it's society... who would win that? Sweden?
I dunno.

Or which country is the most sustainable? Sustainability is a good
goal too. I don't know of any current countries that would meet this
requirement... the ancient Egyptians were masters (comparatively) at
sustainability, perhaps the Chinese emperor system?

It's all goal directed. So to agree, we would have to agree on the
goals. To me, picking the right set of goals (or balance of a set of
goals) is critical to successful AGI, and the future of not only
humanity, but all intelligence and/or life on earth.

>> So the real answer to how to care for the poor is really:
>> "What is the best system for pushing science, engineering and
>> technology forward at the fastest possible pace."
>
> Nope.

Sigh.

>> You could answer this by saying, "Only government sponsored research
>> is far enough out to really push the envelope."
>> Or
>> You could say, "Capitalism is the best at promoting technology,
>> engineering and science."
>> Or perhaps some other governmental form would be better at promoting
>> these things.
>
> Or, y'know, both: government funding of the public good of basic
> research, plus companies in competitive markets competing to bring
> innovations to market, while paying taxes to pay for the basic research
> their profits rest on.

Ok, except that only ~0.001%(a made up number) of their taxes go to
basic research while ~55% (another made up number) go to social
programs designed to keep the lower segments of society from ever
becoming successful themselves, but also not dying. After all, a voter
is a voter, and we have to keep them able to vote, even if they are
incapable of feeding themselves.

Is it sustainable for a government to keep multi-generational families
alive when they can't feed themselves on their own? How is that a good
thing? This is the inevitable outcome of most of the social
engineering I see all around us.

>> If what we are truly after is the well being of mankind, then the
>> government that best serves mankind is the government that allows for
>> freedom in developing as much technology, science and engineering as
>> possible.
>
> Or the government that best serves mankind is one that allows ofr
> freedom in development while also making sure no one gets screwed over
> and that gains are distributed somewhat equitably.

I'm with you up to the point you say "gains are distributed somewhat
equitably"... Why is that the government's job?

>> Perhaps there are other ways of looking at the world, but progress in
>> the liberal arts has not helped today's poor to be ahead of their
>> brethren from 100 years ago.
>
> Progress in democracy has.

Yes! But why? Because it enables progress in capitalism,
infrastructure and technology. The poor are helped by indoor plumbing
and inoculations. They are helped by the practical outcome of
democracy. BTW, democracy is a very abused word. Precise definition of
democracy is requisite.

>> OK, so how does social democracy push forward technology, science and
>> engineering (by engineering I mean infrastructure) better than
>> libertarianism? (Real question)
>
> More reliably produces educated and healthy people and provides a safety
> net supporting risky innovation.  It's people who can afford to fail --
> or the completely desperate -- who take risks in life.  People on the
> edge who have something that barely works tend to be really
> conservative.

People who can afford to fail innovate for sure. One of the greatest
innovators of our time is Sir Richard Branson. He can afford to fail,
and he does (Virgin Condoms!) And people like Sir Richard are critical
to the healthy progress of our world. The completely desperate rarely
innovate in ways that are as exciting as the first kind of innovation.

What you may be failing to appreciate is that people like Sir Richard
will PAY conservative people to innovate within the safe confines of
the corporate womb. The iron rice bowl did not. Much of the real
innovation driving our world forward isn't death defying stuff, but
rather incremental, safe progress from within the corporate world.
Perhaps Steve Jobs is innovative in that death defying way, but most
of the folks working at apple are not, yet they produced the iPad,
iPhone, etc.

>> If you grant that slavery in the northern states was much less than
>> that in the south, and the economic power of the north exceeded that
>> of the south (leading to the historical outcome of the civil war),
>> then you might be inclined to believe that libertarian capitalism did
>> more to develop industry and technology because that's exactly what
>> happened in the north. Note that industrialization in the south lagged
>> considerably.
>
> True, except the North wasn't all that libertarian.  Public schooling,
> protective tariffs, "internal improvements" from the federal government,
> possibly various state laws and regulations that we'd have to be a more
> dedicated historian to have a good picture of.

I've seen the law books of the time. In sheer volume they were MUCH
smaller than similar legal books of our time. That is, there was much
less law then as there is today. It is a crude measuring stick, but by
some definition, and probably by most any definition, the pre civil
war north was more libertarian than any government in the world today.

More than three quarters of the things that will get you thrown in
jail now were not prohibited then (even throwing out cyber crime and
such that didn't apply). Today, I don't think many Americans go
through the day without breaking a law (intentionally or knowingly or
not). That is a recipe for totalitarianism.

-Kelly