Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 494







Post#12326 at 02-17-2009 08:47 AM by Skabungus [at West Michigan joined Jun 2007 #posts 1,027]
---
02-17-2009, 08:47 AM #12326
Join Date
Jun 2007
Location
West Michigan
Posts
1,027

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
The libertarian hypocrisy thread features quite a bit of ideology, though it is more about 'rights' than 'values.' There seem to be more libertarians at it than conservatives, though.
Given the lack of first-hand experience in the practice of "libertarianism" by the voiciferous libertarians on that thread, it amounts to much navel gazing.







Post#12327 at 02-17-2009 09:32 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
02-17-2009, 09:32 AM #12327
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Skabungus View Post
Given the lack of first-hand experience in the practice of "libertarianism" by the voiciferous libertarians on that thread, it amounts to much navel gazing.
See now, that's just plain silly. We all (even you, though you may choose not to recognize it as such) 'practice libertarianism' on a daily basis. We every day deal with all the people around us to discover, establish, and maintain common terms of interaction for as long as we and they find it mutually satisfactory.

We do this without being prodded by anything other than our own desires and our recognition of the reality of the others around us as people (the fundamental core of libertarianism). We do this without anyone supervising or directing us. This is libertarian. No more, no less.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#12328 at 02-17-2009 09:44 AM by Skabungus [at West Michigan joined Jun 2007 #posts 1,027]
---
02-17-2009, 09:44 AM #12328
Join Date
Jun 2007
Location
West Michigan
Posts
1,027

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
See now, that's just plain silly. We all (even you, though you may choose not to recognize it as such) 'practice libertarianism' on a daily basis. We every day deal with all the people around us to discover, establish, and maintain common terms of interaction for as long as we and they find it mutually satisfactory.

We do this without being prodded by anything other than our own desires and our recognition of the reality of the others around us as people (the fundamental core of libertarianism). We do this without anyone supervising or directing us. This is libertarian. No more, no less.
The same could be said of breathing air............oh wait you said that once as well

That and one hour's wages makes you an anarchist, no wait, a democrat, no wait a socialist, no wait a free market capitalsit, no wait a monarchist, no wait.........this is boring. If your political ideals are that mundane, they are no better than a preference for orange over tomato juice.







Post#12329 at 02-17-2009 10:05 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
02-17-2009, 10:05 AM #12329
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Skabungus View Post
The same could be said of breathing air.
Actually, no it couldn't. Breathing air (insofar as air is a nonscarce thing) is not a social action. As such it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was talking about.

If your political ideals are that mundane, they are no better than a preference for orange over tomato juice.
You say 'mundane' like it is a thing to be avoided. What it is, rather, is life in the real world. Not all of us envision ourselves as Emperors. But then again, Emperors don't really have much of a future, anyway.
Last edited by Justin '77; 02-17-2009 at 10:16 AM.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#12330 at 02-17-2009 02:15 PM by Skabungus [at West Michigan joined Jun 2007 #posts 1,027]
---
02-17-2009, 02:15 PM #12330
Join Date
Jun 2007
Location
West Michigan
Posts
1,027

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Actually, no it couldn't. Breathing air (insofar as air is a nonscarce thing) is not a social action. As such it has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was talking about.
Au contraire mon frere it has most everything to do with what we're talking about. Your style of debate is to take anything another says, and simply halfing it, ignoring the person's point, and then focusing in on one word or phrase they've used as if it were the crux of their point, rather than observing how it is used in context. This is how you came not long ago to describing that breathing oxegen was a choice, rather than a biological function...........as a defense of libertarianism.

You say 'mundane' like it is a thing to be avoided.
No, you gave it those trappings. I said 'mundane' like, well, mundane!

What it is, rather, is life in the real world.
Yes, you're right. What you described is rather common, run of the mill, human interaction (read: mundane) and is the basis of the study of sociology. It's not libertarianism, unless of course, you are saying that the study of human social interaction is Libertarianism? If so, Erving Goffman should know about this!!!

Not all of us envision ourselves as Emperors. But then again, Emperors don't really have much of a future, anyway.
A notably obtuse example of how you inject presupposotional speech and inuendo into debate. There was never any reference in this discussion by me or others about "emperors" until you stuck it in. Clearly a childish effort, on your part,at discrediting what you can not otherwise answer.







Post#12331 at 02-18-2009 04:07 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
02-18-2009, 04:07 AM #12331
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Skabungus View Post
This is how you came not long ago to describing that breathing oxegen was a choice, rather than a biological function...........as a defense of libertarianism.
You apparently weren't paying attention then, either. For a conscious human being, breathing is a choice. Oxygen (more properly, a nitro-oxy-CO2-trace mix) is what our biology relies on to continue functioning. Which means that continuing to live is also a choice.
However, this also has nothing to do with the current discussion. We were talking abou choices made in a social context. Breathing itself, as it does not rely on scarce resources, is not a social act. The fact that it is a chosen act does not mean that it is a social one. You are trying to equate apples with lawn darts.

As for the issue of you calling the fundaments of libertarianism -- and it is, at root, a philosophy which revolves around the behavior of people in society; so it shouldn't diverge too much from the insights of the study of human behavior -- mundane. If I read distaste into your use of that word incorrectly, I apologize. In what sense did you intend the word if not distaste?
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#12332 at 02-18-2009 12:17 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
02-18-2009, 12:17 PM #12332
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
[Libertarianism] is, at root, a philosophy which revolves around the behavior of people in society; so it shouldn't diverge too much from the insights of the study of human behavior
First, I should point out once more that as a political philosophy, libertarianism is necessarily concerned with the behavior of groups, not individuals, and the behavior of groups is not simply the behavior of individuals multiplied but exhibits emergent properties.

Secondly, even with that caveat, libertarianism would accord closely with insights from the study of human group behavior only if it were realistic and not pie-in-the-sky idealism.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#12333 at 02-18-2009 02:57 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
02-18-2009, 02:57 PM #12333
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
First, I should point out once more that as a political philosophy, libertarianism is necessarily concerned with the behavior of groups, not individuals, and the behavior of groups is not simply the behavior of individuals multiplied but exhibits emergent properties.
Actually, if you read what you quoted me as saying, "libetarianism is a philosophy which revolves around the behavior of people in society".

That is, in the emergent group. The actions we take are -- must be, since we are each of us actors -- individual, but libertarianism has its roots in recognizing the individuals as components of a group. "Person" (as any libertarian could tell you) is meaningless wihtout the context of his natural environment -- society.

Secondly, even with that caveat, libertarianism would accord closely with insights from the study of human group behavior only if it were realistic and not pie-in-the-sky idealism.
I really start to think that you are arguing against the 2T-3T thing the Boomers invented and called "libertarianism". Prophet's aren't really known for being grounded in things as they are (but you're just so cute when you act like the world revolves around you). I wonder what specifically you would identify as pie-in-the-sky idealism; particularly interesting would be if you are identifying something that libertarian thought itself recognized as faulty some time ago and moved to correct.
Nomads, you know, have always been comfortable taking the world on its own terms, and making changes as they are justified -- and the state of libertarian thought today reflects that.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#12334 at 02-18-2009 03:19 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
02-18-2009, 03:19 PM #12334
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Actually, if you read what you quoted me as saying, "libetarianism is a philosophy which revolves around the behavior of people in society".
Right, but the implication is that you are discussing the behavior of individuals in the context of society, not of society as a whole. My experience of libertarians (and anarchists) leads me to expect them to deny the meaningful existence of society as a whole as an actor, although I would not wish to put words in your mouth.

Political philosophies, including libertarianism, are always concerned with the actions of society as a whole, not of individuals within society.

I really start to think that you are arguing against the 2T-3T thing the Boomers invented and called "libertarianism".
That you think Boomers invented libertarianism is, perhaps, a tribute to the powerful psychic influence my generation exerts, but I cannot, in all honesty, accept the accolade, which is quite undeserved. I refer you to messrs. Locke, John; Mill, John Stuart; Smith, Adam; and Jefferson, Thomas; none of whom were Boomers.

I wonder what specifically you would identify as pie-in-the-sky idealism; particularly interesting would be if you are identifying something that libertarian thought itself recognized as faulty some time ago and moved to correct.
There may be some examples that meet that description. Certainly libertarians are not the only pie-in-the-sky idealists in the world. A classic example is Marx' idea that the state could wither away in the context of socialism, leaving a stateless, communist utopia. The end result is anarchistic, but the road to that achievement can hardly be called libertarian, as it goes through a socialist state.

Be that as it may, I was talking about libertarian unreality not anyone else's. This encompasses the idea that we can have a high-tech, complex, urban society with a minimalist government; subsets thereof include the idea that the free market can police itself in a completely benign manner without oversight, and that parents can assume full responsibility for their children's behavior without assistance from government, and that a nation-state can afford to completely mind its own business without any foreign adventurism.

It's interesting that some of these may be antipodes of certain other forms of unrealistic thinking which have prevailed in non-libertarian thought in the recent past, e.g. the folly of drug warriors who think that drug use can be eradicated by government force, or that of Neocons who think we can impose our will on the rest of the world. However, the antipode of unrealistic thought is itself often equally unrealistic, and that is so in these cases.

Nomads, you know, have always been comfortable taking the world on its own terms, and making changes as they are justified -- and the state of libertarian thought today reflects that.
I would, of course, completely disagree with the second statement, and this provides evidence against the first as well.

Or rather, let me put it this way. What you say may be true of the majority of Nomads. However, it is also true that the majority of Xers are not libertarians. And every generation has its misfits.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#12335 at 02-18-2009 09:19 PM by Arkham '80 [at joined Oct 2003 #posts 1,402]
---
02-18-2009, 09:19 PM #12335
Join Date
Oct 2003
Posts
1,402

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
First, I should point out once more that as a political philosophy, libertarianism is necessarily concerned with the behavior of groups, not individuals, and the behavior of groups is not simply the behavior of individuals multiplied but exhibits emergent properties.

Secondly, even with that caveat, libertarianism would accord closely with insights from the study of human group behavior only if it were realistic and not pie-in-the-sky idealism.
Your use of emergence is disingenuous. Emergent behavior is by definition unpredictable: One cannot know, from initial conditions, how a complex system will evolve in the long-term. Order emerges spontaneously from the simple behaviors of a myriad individual actors; there is no central authority guiding their actions. If anything, this is an argument against top-down command and control systems. Centralized, hierarchical institutions are like machines: they are very good at repetitive tasks governed by a set of well-defined procedures. When conditions deviate too much from known parameters, however, parts begin to strain and break and the machine eventually seizes. Governments and corporations are machines, and they are breaking down because the global environment is changing faster than they can retool to meet the new conditions.
You cannot step twice into the same river, for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you. -- Heraclitus

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. -- Jiddu Krishnamurti

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large; I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman

Arkham's Asylum







Post#12336 at 02-19-2009 05:28 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
02-19-2009, 05:28 AM #12336
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Right, but the implication is that you are discussing the behavior of individuals in the context of society, not of society as a whole. My experience of libertarians (and anarchists) leads me to expect them to deny the meaningful existence of society as a whole as an actor, although I would not wish to put words in your mouth.
It's good that you don't want to. The words you would put don't go there. Society might not be an actor as such, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a system worth consideration. Particularly so, since (as I mentioned above) 'Person' only exists in the context of that very system.

That you think Boomers invented libertarianism is, perhaps, a tribute to the powerful psychic influence my generation exerts, but I cannot, in all honesty, accept the accolade, which is quite undeserved. I refer you to messrs. Locke, John; Mill, John Stuart; Smith, Adam; and Jefferson, Thomas; none of whom were Boomers.
I didn't say that Boomers invented libertarianism -- just that Boomers invented something and started calling it libertarianism. What they invented is as far from what those historical worthies held to as it is from the current status of the school of thought going by that name. In fact, I doubt that Jefferson or Locke would have been very comfortable with the Boomer formulation.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#12337 at 02-19-2009 08:41 AM by Skabungus [at West Michigan joined Jun 2007 #posts 1,027]
---
02-19-2009, 08:41 AM #12337
Join Date
Jun 2007
Location
West Michigan
Posts
1,027

Quote Originally Posted by Arkham '80 View Post
Your use of emergence is disingenuous. Emergent behavior is by definition unpredictable: One cannot know, from initial conditions, how a complex system will evolve in the long-term. Order emerges spontaneously from the simple behaviors of a myriad individual actors; there is no central authority guiding their actions. If anything, this is an argument against top-down command and control systems. Centralized, hierarchical institutions are like machines: they are very good at repetitive tasks governed by a set of well-defined procedures. When conditions deviate too much from known parameters, however, parts begin to strain and break and the machine eventually seizes. Governments and corporations are machines, and they are breaking down because the global environment is changing faster than they can retool to meet the new conditions.

BUAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!







Post#12338 at 02-19-2009 10:20 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
02-19-2009, 10:20 AM #12338
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Arkham '80 View Post
Your use of emergence is disingenuous. Emergent behavior is by definition unpredictable: One cannot know, from initial conditions, how a complex system will evolve in the long-term. Order emerges spontaneously from the simple behaviors of a myriad individual actors; there is no central authority guiding their actions. If anything, this is an argument against top-down command and control systems. Centralized, hierarchical institutions are like machines: they are very good at repetitive tasks governed by a set of well-defined procedures. When conditions deviate too much from known parameters, however, parts begin to strain and break and the machine eventually seizes. Governments and corporations are machines, and they are breaking down because the global environment is changing faster than they can retool to meet the new conditions.
That's an argument to update or replace the machine, not abolish it. That is what 4Ts are all about, essentially. My argument is that such "social machinery" (to use a term used brilliantly by Popper in his defense of the center-left welfare state and Liberal Democracy against the far left and also in the context of the workings of institutions and traditions in a society) is an emergent feature of complex societies, the result of the interplay between the need to adapt to changing times and the desire for stability. The fact that such institutions are top-down does not mean that they are not the result of bottom-up forces. This is the origin of the saeculum more generally and the Schlesinger political cycle more specifically.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#12339 at 02-19-2009 10:22 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
02-19-2009, 10:22 AM #12339
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
It's good that you don't want to. The words you would put don't go there. Society might not be an actor as such, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a system worth consideration. Particularly so, since (as I mentioned above) 'Person' only exists in the context of that very system.

I didn't say that Boomers invented libertarianism -- just that Boomers invented something and started calling it libertarianism. What they invented is as far from what those historical worthies held to as it is from the current status of the school of thought going by that name. In fact, I doubt that Jefferson or Locke would have been very comfortable with the Boomer formulation.
I thought the Lost and GIs invented Libertarianism in it's modern form?
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#12340 at 02-19-2009 12:50 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
02-19-2009, 12:50 PM #12340
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
I thought the Lost and GIs invented Libertarianism in it's modern form?
Not hardly. Maybe they came up with one of the forms that was, at the time, modern. But one of the wonderful things about the libertarian philosophy is its internal and external consistency. If recognizes the need for a plurality of approaches to maximize the opportunity for people to achieve the best possible outcomes for themselves in the context of their society. As such, it is constantly absorbing new information and self-criticizing both on the basis of the new information as well as on more fundamental levels.
That kind of feature is not characteristic of any of the generations preceding mine. We are the ones who came up with open source as a workable model, after all..
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#12341 at 02-19-2009 12:54 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
02-19-2009, 12:54 PM #12341
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
That's an argument to update or replace the machine, not abolish it.
Fair enough. But you need to understand, what is the machine you are trying to update or replace? Is it this specific gear over here? Or that belt-and-pulley setup over there? Or the hydraulic system?

Or is it much more fundamentally simply "the system we use to associate our society to its members and vice versa"?

Because if you make the mistake of taking the parts for the machine you get confused and start to see a revision such as libertarianism represents as an abolition. Taking out the internal combustion engine doesn't necessarily mean your car won't work anymore; there are all manner of non-IC-engine things you could use to move yourself along...

(forgive the stretched metaphor if it disturbs you)
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#12342 at 02-19-2009 01:52 PM by Skabungus [at West Michigan joined Jun 2007 #posts 1,027]
---
02-19-2009, 01:52 PM #12342
Join Date
Jun 2007
Location
West Michigan
Posts
1,027

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Fair enough. But you need to understand, what is the machine you are trying to update or replace? Is it this specific gear over here? Or that belt-and-pulley setup over there? Or the hydraulic system?

Or is it much more fundamentally simply "the system we use to associate our society to its members and vice versa"?

Because if you make the mistake of taking the parts for the machine you get confused and start to see a revision such as libertarianism represents as an abolition. Taking out the internal combustion engine doesn't necessarily mean your car won't work anymore; there are all manner of non-IC-engine things you could use to move yourself along...

(forgive the stretched metaphor if it disturbs you)
Rather than stretch that metaphor, try looking at a system's approach which is much less mechanistic and therefore more appropriate for this discussion.

A systems approach leaves you open to self-organizing and consensus-based models..........something more fitting a libertarian, or anarchist, etc.

The mechanistic approach is well, as current as, well, the internal combustion engine?







Post#12343 at 02-19-2009 01:59 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
02-19-2009, 01:59 PM #12343
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Skabungus View Post
Rather than stretch that metaphor, try looking at a system's approach which is much less mechanistic and therefore more appropriate for this discussion.
Yeah, yeah. I studied engineering in school, and have been my entire professional life in and around factories that build trucks. I'm perfectly aware of my limitations and how they bias me.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#12344 at 02-19-2009 04:22 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
02-19-2009, 04:22 PM #12344
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Because if you make the mistake of taking the parts for the machine you get confused and start to see a revision such as libertarianism represents as an abolition. Taking out the internal combustion engine doesn't necessarily mean your car won't work anymore; there are all manner of non-IC-engine things you could use to move yourself along...

(forgive the stretched metaphor if it disturbs you)
Oh, I agree. It's just that we have different opinions about what new engine to put in (to extend your metaphor).
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#12345 at 02-19-2009 04:30 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
02-19-2009, 04:30 PM #12345
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Skabungus View Post
Rather than stretch that metaphor, try looking at a system's approach which is much less mechanistic and therefore more appropriate for this discussion.

A systems approach leaves you open to self-organizing and consensus-based models..........something more fitting a libertarian, or anarchist, etc.

The mechanistic approach is well, as current as, well, the internal combustion engine?
IMO the two approaches compliment each other and each have their place. There is also a personality aspect here, an ISTJ is not going to do well in such self-organizing situations in which an ENFP would thrive.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#12346 at 02-19-2009 10:24 PM by Arkham '80 [at joined Oct 2003 #posts 1,402]
---
02-19-2009, 10:24 PM #12346
Join Date
Oct 2003
Posts
1,402

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
That's an argument to update or replace the machine, not abolish it. That is what 4Ts are all about, essentially. My argument is that such "social machinery" (to use a term used brilliantly by Popper in his defense of the center-left welfare state and Liberal Democracy against the far left and also in the context of the workings of institutions and traditions in a society) is an emergent feature of complex societies, the result of the interplay between the need to adapt to changing times and the desire for stability. The fact that such institutions are top-down does not mean that they are not the result of bottom-up forces. This is the origin of the saeculum more generally and the Schlesinger political cycle more specifically.
No, that is an argument for replacing the machines with organic systems that grow and evolve like living creatures, that don't require periodic retooling to avert global disaster. Wetware vs. hardware, if you will.
Last edited by Arkham '80; 02-19-2009 at 10:26 PM.
You cannot step twice into the same river, for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you. -- Heraclitus

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. -- Jiddu Krishnamurti

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large; I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman

Arkham's Asylum







Post#12347 at 02-20-2009 08:43 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
02-20-2009, 08:43 PM #12347
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Arkham '80 View Post
No, that is an argument for replacing the machines with organic systems that grow and evolve like living creatures, that don't require periodic retooling to avert global disaster. Wetware vs. hardware, if you will.
Easily done. Just return to the material conditions for which the wetware we have evolved. In the case of human behavior, that would be a foraging/hunting economy. Once 99% of the current population had perished of starvation, the remainder could operate once more in the natural way that our distant ancestors did. They could hunt, fish, and forage for food, make tools and clothing by hand, live in small extended family bands whose members all knew each other. They could operate just fine with informal group decision-making, no formal government, no organized religion, no banks, no money, none of the complicating artificial factors that make artificial regulatory mechanisms necessary for life in a modern civilization.

Either that, or we could learn to engineer our own genes so that we are naturally suited to life in a complex, multifaceted civilization in which nobody knows most of their co-citizens. If we could greatly reduce individualism and increase communal motivations, make it so that nobody wanted to exploit or take advantage of anyone else, and vastly increase our instincts for cooperation while reducing our instincts to compete. That would also remove the necessity for a lot of the artificial laws and rules and governing institutions we have today. Of course, it's beyond our current technical capability.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#12348 at 02-21-2009 12:46 AM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
02-21-2009, 12:46 AM #12348
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Easily done. Just return to the material conditions for which the wetware we have evolved. In the case of human behavior, that would be a foraging/hunting economy. Once 99% of the current population had perished of starvation, the remainder could operate once more in the natural way that our distant ancestors did. They could hunt, fish, and forage for food, make tools and clothing by hand, live in small extended family bands whose members all knew each other. They could operate just fine with informal group decision-making, no formal government, no organized religion, no banks, no money, none of the complicating artificial factors that make artificial regulatory mechanisms necessary for life in a modern civilization.

Either that, or we could learn to engineer our own genes so that we are naturally suited to life in a complex, multifaceted civilization in which nobody knows most of their co-citizens. If we could greatly reduce individualism and increase communal motivations, make it so that nobody wanted to exploit or take advantage of anyone else, and vastly increase our instincts for cooperation while reducing our instincts to compete. That would also remove the necessity for a lot of the artificial laws and rules and governing institutions we have today. Of course, it's beyond our current technical capability.
Would we have a warrior caste? or just workers and a handful of drones?
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.







Post#12349 at 02-21-2009 01:28 AM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
02-21-2009, 01:28 AM #12349
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018








Post#12350 at 02-21-2009 02:29 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
02-21-2009, 02:29 AM #12350
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Arkham '80 View Post
Your use of emergence is disingenuous. Emergent behavior is by definition unpredictable: One cannot know, from initial conditions, how a complex system will evolve in the long-term.
No, but once it has done so, you can observe how it DID evolve in the long term.

Order emerges spontaneously from the simple behaviors of a myriad individual actors; there is no central authority guiding their actions. If anything, this is an argument against top-down command and control systems.
As a means of guiding evolution into emergent properties, yes. Of course, that's not at all why I believe we need such systems; the causality runs the other direction. That is, properties emerged with civilization which require them.

Centralized, hierarchical institutions are like machines: they are very good at repetitive tasks governed by a set of well-defined procedures. When conditions deviate too much from known parameters, however, parts begin to strain and break and the machine eventually seizes. Governments and corporations are machines, and they are breaking down because the global environment is changing faster than they can retool to meet the new conditions.
Say rather, that the environment is changing and, until things reach the point where it is no longer an option, people resist changing institutions to meet the new challenges. The conservative motto (and up to a point we are all conservatives) is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," so things have to get bad enough that they are obviously broken, and enough people are ready to fix them.

It's called a Fourth Turning, I believe. I'm almost certain I've heard that phrase somewhere before.

Justin: If you are talking only about the very specific version of libertarianism that characterizes this saeculum and is given voice by the Libertarian Party, then you are still wrong about it being a Boomer invention. Like Rock 'n' Roll, it was the creation of the Silent generation, for which Boomers sometimes get the credit (or blame). I think it was Bill Strauss on this forum who said that in this saeculum, the Heros get credit but no blame, the Nomads get blame but no credit, the Prophets get both, and the Artists get neither.

But in fact I think that this saeculum's libertarianism is functionally almost identical to that of Locke, Mill, Smith, and Jefferson, which is the problem. When Mr. Jefferson was writing the Declaration of Independence, and to a lesser degree even when he was president, minimal government served the interests of liberty. There were no big corporations then, no powerful industries, and the only great blot on the land of the free was the institution of slavery, which arguably was a result of too much government -- or at any rate, government of the wrong kind.

So libertarianism in the time of the thinkers who really invented it was not unrealistic. What is unrealistic is thinking that in a completely changed material environment, the same ends can be met by the same means.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903
-----------------------------------------