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

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

2011/5/15 Amon Zero <amon at doctrinezero.com>:

> Suffice to say, I disagree with your analysis on multiple levels. I have
> never seen anything approaching conclusive evidence that full-blown
> libertarianism would "produce good outcomes for the poor" (although of
> course I've heard a *lot* of assertions),

### Sure, before Edison nobody saw a light bulb, either.

---------------

 whereas I have seen plenty of
> examples of unrestrained economic and political behaviour causing great
> suffering to people unable to protect themselves from its effects.

### Well, yeah, infringement on property rights does frequently cause
suffering - and for some reason you adduce it as an argument *against*
libertarianism, a set of notions where protection of property (widely
defined) is paramount.

-----------------------------
> Also, I don't believe that I - let alone *everyone* who falls outside the
> set "fanatical libertarian" - spends more time thinking about how to present
> themselves as a caring person rather than thinking about the truth.

### Oh, no you are completely wrong here. I always had an inkling that
hypocrisy is a pretty powerful motivation but only once I started
reading Robin Hanson's posts did I realize that there is really not
much "goodness" in the world - most of it is just shameless pretense.
"Homo hypocritus" rules.

-------------

> Honestly, if that is your view of people, then I strongly suspect you to
> have poor observational skills, critical reason, and character.

### The kynikoi were reviled, too.

----------------

> It is not a matter of "moral posturing" that leads me to oppose avoidable
> suffering.

### You and the vast majority of people are refusing to think.
Claiming good intentions won't help those who suffer. But the sad fact
is, neither you nor I really feel their pain.

-------------

 It is a combination of principle and reason. On that basis, if
> you can provide conclusive or at least powerfully suggestive examples of the
> following, I will duly consider revision of my position:
> 1) A truly libertarian society, of the type you advocate, which produced
> good outcomes for the poor, or some equally compelling evidence that your
> own claim is something more than "moral posturing". If there has never been
> such a society, please do tell us how you are privy to the "truth" of an
> untested scenario?

### Let me restate what I am advocating: A computational system
relying on short-feedback, parallel calculations of cost and benefit.
The specific features of the system involve property, contracts,
polycentric generation of law, low-cost exit strategies.

This approach to computation has been tested over and over again
(compare, Hong Kong and Communist China, US and Russia, the
Netherlands and Ottoman Serbia), it worked every time, and human envy,
aggression and first and foremost, stupidity, always manages to
destroy or severely limit it. Humans evolved to be envious,
hypocritical, predatory creatures, and this skews the development of
societies towards hierarchical, long-feedback, locked-in, and
increasingly monopolistic ones.

Yes, I am using the computer metaphor very intentionally, since I do
believe that there are important parallels between the functioning of
computational networks on many scales, from the human brain, to
computers, the internet, and human societies. Short and strong
feedback loops *really* work, parallel computation is much more
powerful for many applications than sequential, etc.

I know it this form of argumentation is far from "caring about the
poor". It isn't showing I am on *your* side, that we are all buddies
in it together against the Man, or the Company. This is not moral
posturing. It might be a form of intellectual posturing. But this is
precisely what you need to build a system that works - you need to
think first, feel later.

------------------
> 2) Evidence that the type of strong libertarianism you advocate does not
> cause widespread suffering.

### Refusal to initiate violence does not cause widespread suffering.
You need evidence for *that*?

------------------

> You seem to be vacillating between claiming that your views, if put into
> practice, would (A) cause net good rather than net harm, and (B) declaring
> that we shouldn't care about others, and therefore presumably what the
> outcome of your freedom is for other people.

### Oh, it would be nice if more people genuinely cared about their
fellow humans but we don't (I don't, you don't, almost nobody does).
It's just I get the bad rap for not denying it.

-----------
 If you don't care what happens
> to others, then your worldview fails on axiomatic grounds as far as I'm
> concerned, in that it is not good, of net utility to society, or indeed
> Extropic (unless it is possible for someone to achieve an Extropy worthy of
> the name by the deliberate victimization of others).

### Yeah? Show me how much you really care. How many hundreds of hours
have you worked in soup kitchens last year, to feed the poor? Did you
give 90% of your income to the poor, only 70%?

Don't try to claim the moral high ground on me, unless you have
something to back it up.

Rafal