[extropy-chat] Authenticity, extropy, libertarianism, and history

[Max More]

[Sorry for reposting this--there's nothing different about it, except that 
last time Eudora sent it as HTML-only. That means it gets excluded from the 
list archive. I've reset the settings and given Eudora a spanking. I hope 
it doesn't retaliate by doing anything weird with this text.]


I address this message primarily to Perry Metzger, but also to Anton and 
other interested parties.

I want to explore the obvious differences in our perceptions of my past and 
present political views, and my statements about them, as well as our 
differences over what "extropy" means or implies. Most of all, I'm 
perturbed by your comments about authenticity and I want to see if we can 
resolve our differences. I know that you have strong, well-considered 
views. I respect those views and your intelligence, which is why I want us 
to work together to resolve this disagreement.

Perry, you are obviously upset that a term you were using was, as you see 
it, redefined in a way you dislike. You despise what you regard as 
inauthentic statements and attempts to rewrite the past. Perhaps you are 
also disappointed in what you see as the abandonment of a 
political-philosophical viewpoint by someone who was a public champion of 
that viewpoint. You seem to feel some outrage or disgust at what you see as 
support for coercive practices.

Let me repeat some things that you have said, Perry, some of them publicly:
    "Perhaps you and Max pretend, even to yourselves, that he never wrote 
lovingly of anarchism"
    "I also know that Max now denies in public that Extropianism ever had 
anything to do with libertarianism, let alone anarchocapitalism"
    "you and Max happily hang out with folks who favor coercive means"
    "denying that he's changed position is disingenuous"
    "I don't try to pretend that the socialists I hung out with when I was 
in college weren't socialists. I don't retroactively claim that, in fact, 
they were something else entirely, and that our gatherings and publications 
and such were something other than they were."
    "pretending you are something you aren't"
    You also used the terms "tricky" "coy" and "deception"

Before I address the specifics I want to say that your statements perturb 
me because I hold authenticity as a core value. I have always strived to 
act and speak authentically, even when it made me very unpopular. To be 
accused of pretending to be other than who I am, to be called coy, 
deceptive, disingenuous, and so on, is shocking to me. It is certainly not 
something I take lightly, especially when the accusation comes not from 
some random ignoramus, but from someone such as yourself.

When I was just a young lad and stood up in front of most of my school to 
tell the local campaigning MP (Paddy Ashdown) that his government salary 
and his job amounted to theft, I had no support and no approval. My 
politics teacher, who was moderating the questions, tried to discourage me 
from further comments, but I went ahead. My political views have NEVER 
earned me any points throughout my years in an academia thoroughly 
dominated by "liberals", i.e. heavy duty statists. When I was 15 or 16, I 
knew that my advocacy of nuclear power would be extremely unpopular with 
fellow members of Friends of the Earth, but didn't let that quiet me. (It 
did soon lead me to realize that F.O.E. was not an organization I could 
support.)

At Oxford, when I stood up during debates in the Junior Common Room 
(biweekly meeting of all undergraduates in the college to vote on various 
proposals), I was often the ONLY person taking a stand on one side of an 
issue. On the occasional issue, I might be joined by an ultraconservative 
fellow, which probably only made me more unpopular. I vividly remember 
being derided for stating my views that socialism was bad for Tanzania and 
that what it needed were markets. Each meeting was an exercise in standing 
in isolation, enduring heckling and ridicule. I never allowed that to cause 
me to mask my views.

When I went as a graduate student to USC in Los Angeles, from the start I 
was completely open about my libertarian views, as well as about my 
involvement in cryonics. My dissertation adviser referred to my "crazy" 
views on these subjects. I continued to firmly express my views even during 
the distorted news reporting on the Dora Kent suspension (in which I was 
directly involved). More recently, I disputed the popular criticism of 
cryonics and Alcor's handling of the Ted Williams case on Crossfire. I knew 
that I would be in the firing line, and wasn't at all surprised that the 
moronic hosts joined the other party in piling on. I have NEVER hidden my 
views on anything, and have gone to great trouble to live authentically. To 
be presented otherwise therefore deeply perturbs me, though not as much as 
it would if I gave those claims any credence.


My specific responses to these statements:
"You and Max happily hang out with folks who favor coercive means."
         How do you know whether -- if those folks *do* coercive means -- 
that we hang out with them *happily*? Rather than with, say, discomfort, 
reluctance, out of a sense of responsibility for blunting their effect, 
etc.? This also seems like an unfair comment because I find it hard to 
believe that you, or anyone who shares your perception, don't "hang out 
with", i.e. work with, talk with, anyone who "favors coercive means." We 
don't have the luxury of interacting only with those who we think have the 
right approaches to everything. I find it more useful to engage, rather 
than avoid, those whose policies I regard as mistaken, dangerous, or merely 
sub-optimal.

On the specific matter of the Geoethics seminar: You don't know what I'm 
going to say about the "global regulatory framework". (Nor do I know what 
the organizer means by that.) Why assume I will favor lots of government 
regulation? Why characterize my participation in such terms?

In reality, I will be arguing as a rule *against* regulation by government 
agencies, and in favor of self-regulation and transparency. Since some form 
of state regulation is likely, regardless of what we would prefer, I will 
also be promoting use of the Proactionary Principle to replace the 
precautionary principle. Success in this would greatly reduce the likely 
harm of regulation.

"Perhaps you and Max pretend, even to yourselves, that he never wrote 
lovingly of anarchism"
    I do not pretend that, and never have, neither to others nor to myself. 
On what basis do you suggest otherwise? Perhaps a statement by someone 
other than me has led to that impression. If what you were saying were 
true, why would I leave on my own website a reference to my 1990 "Deep 
Anarchy" article? < http://www.maxmore.com/writing.htm> Also, why would we 
leave in the history of ExI the following text: "Extropy #7 focused on 
emergent order, including Prof. Tom Bell's "Privately Produced Law", and 
Max More's "Order Without Orderers""? < http://www.extropy.org/history.htm>

The only thing I can think of that might give you that impression was part 
of what I said in the NeoFiles interview last year. I said: "Even the 
earliest version of the Principles did not, in fact, "enclose a strong 
belief in a libertarian pro-free enterprise politics." I stand by what I 
said there. You may be mixing up the views that appeared in Extropy 
magazine (including my own views) with the essential ideas that were 
expressed in the Extropian Principles.

The Principles never did require a strong belief in libertarianism as a 
particular political philosophy. They were all about removing limits and 
barriers and enhancing capabilities. Version 1.0 of the Extropian 
Principles listed the following four principles: Boundless Expansion, 
Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, and Intelligent Technology. The 
second of those principles is the relevant one:

Self-Transformation: "Self-responsibility and self-determination are 
incompatible with centralized control, with its stifling of the free 
choices and spontaneous ordering of autonomous persons, and requires the 
fewest restrictions compatible with maintaining the conditions of freedom. 
Beyond agreement on these principles extropianism places no limits on the 
paths one takes in the pursuit of self-transformation."

Note the last clause. Now, clearly I was a libertarian when I wrote the 
above. I believe (and STILL believe) that libertarianism is highly 
compatible with that principle. At the time, I strongly doubted that any 
non-libertarian (in a strict sense) view could fully accord with the 
principle. Fortunately, I was thinking at a higher level of abstraction 
than that of a particular viewpoint in political philosophy. My primary 
concern was with removing barriers and enhancing capabilities, not with 
promoting one view of exactly how to do that. Note the non-absolutist 
nature of the clause, "the fewest restrictions compatible with maintaining 
the conditions of freedom." There is NO WAY that the principle is 
compatible with big government, but it DOES NOT specify libertarianism, 
whether anarchocapitalism or minarchism.

By version 2.0, the Principles had already further disengaged from 
appearing to endorse the specific libertarian view. The relevant new 
principle was Spontaneous Order.
"SPONTANEOUS ORDER - Promotion of decentralized, voluntaristic social 
coordination mechanisms.  Fostering of tolerance, diversity, long-term 
planning, individual incentives and personal liberties."
         The other relevant new principle was Open Society: "Supporting 
social orders that foster freedom of speech, freedom of action, and 
experimentation. Opposing authoritarian social control and favoring the 
rule of law and decentralization of power. Preferring bargaining over 
battling, and exchange over compulsion. Openness to improvement rather than 
a static utopia."

Part of the disagreement may be that, in your mind, "extropy" *essentially* 
implied libertarianism, even anarchocapitalism, whereas in my mind it 
essentially embodied the freedom and ability to change, to improve, and to 
work freely with others for these goals. It implied libertarianism only 
*contingently*. A close reading of the Principles (what was said and what 
was not said) should make it clear that this was how I thought then. It's 
also how I think now.

In the NeoFiles interview, immediately after the above quote, I went on to 
say: "Granted, the early principles and the tone of our first publications 
certainly favored a strongly libertarian approach." How does this square 
with your claim that, "I also know that Max now denies in public that 
Extropianism ever had anything to do with libertarianism, let alone 
anarchocapitalism"? Both my quoted words, and my explanation of why I *no 
longer* called myself a libertarian, make it abundantly clear that I *used 
to* call myself such.

The same comments apply to statements that: "denying that he's changed 
position is disingenuous"; "pretending you are something you aren't"; "I 
don't try to pretend that the socialists I hung out with when I was in 
college weren't socialists. I don't retroactively claim that, in fact, they 
were something else entirely, and that our gatherings and publications and 
such were something other than they were."
         I would add that your inferences will seem even less plausible 
when we put out the announced book, "Best of the List." We have every 
intention of including some of the excellent discussions of economic and 
political futures from the early days of the list, including clearly 
anarchistic and libertarian discussions (quite possibly including my own 
contributions). [Inclusion in the book is subject to the permission of each 
author.]

Perry, what are your intentions in making the claims that you've made? Are 
you trying to damage my reputation? Simply set the facts straight? Express 
your feelings? Something else?

Does my account make sense to you? Does anything seem to be missing? If so, 
what would it take to convince you that I am not deceptive or inauthentic? 
You don't have to like my (rather modest) change in views, but it is 
important to me to resolve these conflicting perceptions.

Max




_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max at maxmore.com or max at extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
Chairman, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org
_______________________________________________________