[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

Humans are defined by our ability to control. All our technology is a way of bending our environment or our bodies to our own will. Even animals seek to control their habitat and food supply, dig shelters, and limit the access of other animals to their territory. So control is not an unnatural thing. I have a two year old nephew, and he knows how to get people to do what he wants. He will show you where he wants you to be, and what he wants you to do. If you don' do it quick enough, he'll physically push you over there. Even newborn babies cry to control their mothers.

Perhaps I was unclear. The context in which I mean 'control', is when a human tries to control another human, through various forms. Of course, there's some form of 'control' everywhere, and that is entirely unavoidable. My point is that it is wrong to try and control other human beings. Controlling an in-animate object is patently irrelevant to my point. This has to do with psychology, hence, human psychology.

And, I don't think species are 'defined' by anything. We have no stated purpose on this Earth. That is perhaps the quintessential question that has been philosophized since the beginning of time. Why are we here? I think it's an open book.

Controlling science and technology is, again, irrelevant. Using technology to advance ourselves is natural. Our intelligence gave us the capability to use tools to make our lives easier. This type of 'control' is completely different than me trying to shame someone into fitting my idea of what an individual SHOULD be.

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

Part of raising a kid is drawing the line of when they can exert control over people and when they have to accept things as they are. The trick is to teach them empathy. They know how it feels to be controlled, they just have to make the epiphany that other people feel those frustrations, too.

I agree that empathy is a huge part in the equation, but I don't think an overwhelming majority of parents know how to raise their children. To them, it's perfectly fine to shame their kids, because they want them to stop a certain behavior. My contention is that, parents don't address the root cause of the problem when their kids act out. In an attempt to make them act 'normal', they shame them, rather than address the cause. In my alcohol example, I provided evidence that people think the best way to solve a behavioral problem is to attack the substance that's being abused. It could be alcohol, drugs, food, video games, anything. The problem is not the substance being abused... there's something wrong inside the abuser's mind. That is my point. Parents don't know how to correct their kid's behavior in a proper manner, and instead shame/punish them, and these kids end up learning from this shaming/punishing behavior that their desires are wrong.

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

As a parent, of course there is a desire to protect and teach a child about how to live. If you don't spend time around small children it's easy to forget how much they have to learn. They will do dangerous stuff like stick their fingers in a spinning fan, just out of curiosity. You have a choice of whether to tell the child that it's wrong, or to let them do it and find out for themselves. You are the more knowledgeable, and the more able, so you have been in control of the situation from the start. The choice is, which is the better learning experience? Control may lead to self-loathing, but trial and error may lead to fear of new experiences, and the feeling that there is no one to trust.

I think you're proposing a false-dichotomy. I don't think self-loathing and 'fear of new experiences' are the only choices. I know, personally, I was raised relatively free of being 'controlled', and while I did make mistakes, once I grew up, I think I'm entirely more suited for adulthood than most people I know. I think it's possible to raise a kid without him being fearful of new obstacles, and without him hating himself (and projecting that onto others).

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

There's this staggering anarchic conceit that the system will work because everybody will suddenly start acting perfectly and rationally. People don't do that. In a system based on trust, it only takes one selfish individual to ruin it. In fact, the rewards become greater for the selfish person.

Perhaps I'm being blinded by my enthusiasm for this concept, but I do think life would be far greater if everyone realized that trying to control each other was counter-produce to human progress.

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

There have been mathematical models done showing that the most stable and successful populations is a mix of selfish individuals, selfless individuals, and cautious individuals. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins illustrates this in great detail.

No offense, but 'mathematical models' aren't exactly the be-all, end-all. This is my biggest contention with the 'social sciences'. A mathematical equation cannot account for the endless complexity and it cannot account for the trillions of interactions that go on in a society. Not to mention, those mathematical models probably are already compensating for the irrational behavior that is perpetuated in our current society.

I tend to agree that moderation is one of the keys to life, and having a majority or plurality is never a good thing, I'm kind of torn when it comes to the ideas I'm proposing in this thread.

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

On traffic: the control systems we have in place on roads are mainly concerned with making traffic go faster.In the video, we see people stopping regularly. And could you imagine that intersection if everyone had a car? In London they've been taking out some street signs in an effort to slow traffic, and it works. Ambulance drivers have been complaining that they can't get to emergencies on time.

I'd be interested in reading a study about this, if it were true, and what went in to determining these outcomes, but my point was more about spontaneous order than anything else. It's hard to deny the beauty of spontaneous order and emergence.

Originally Posted by uBeR

While you bash community college psychology, this seems like community college psychology more than anything else (if I'm going to be nice about it). I doubt even this would get much attention in a community college.

Starting off your post with an ad hom, I see this going places.

Originally Posted by uBeR

You say humans will believe anything another human being tells them. I call that nonsense. Case in point: I believe virtually nothing you wrote in this post. What if I called you an imbecile? Would you believe you were one? By your own theory, you'd have to. But at the same time, if you mother ever called you smart, you'd have to simultaneously have to hold that incongruous belief. That's quite some theory.

I thought it would have been obvious, given the multiple contextual clues. What I meant, more specifically, was that when a human receives criticism, they almost invariably either a) believe it, or b) begin to question if perhaps the person has a point--in other words, they doubt themselves. The rest of my thread relied on this premise, seeing as how the crux of my argument was children being criticized by their parents through the shaming process, and them learning that their natural desires are bad, which leads to self-loathing later in life.

Originally Posted by uBeR

You also say children shouldn't be told not to do things.

No, I said that children shouldn't be shamed into thinking their desires are wrong. Of course bad behavior should be fixed, but (for the 100th time) my contention is that parents don't know how to properly fix bad behavior. They think shaming their kids into behaving normal will 'fix' their bad behavior. I contend that this damages them. Most, if not, all, human behavior has an underlying motivation. Whether it's a physical need, or psychological. If a kid is acting out, it's likely that he either wants attention from his parents, or it could be something as harmless as being hyper because he ate some candy. In the process of trying to correct this behavior, a parent could shame their kid into behaving, meanwhile ignoring the fact that he needs attention.

Originally Posted by uBeR

But you also believe this will lead to a crimeless world, where police are no longer needed. Sounds like more rubbish to me.

As I said above, perhaps I was bit enthused when writing this thread, and I took that a bit over the top, however, I do feel that life would be dramatically better.

Originally Posted by uBeR

A child, for example, might not realize it's not okay to hit his or her sibling if it's never taught to him or her. He or she might grow to realize it over time, but he or she won't know it at that instance because it's well understood that children lack the cognitive and empathetic abilities of adults. The same might be true if a child were to steal from a store, which is fairly common.

The two behaviors you listed above are behaviors exhibited by kids who lack attention (and are seeking it, by acting out). A lot of the negative behaviors that children pick up, are (again proving my point that parents don't address the ROOT of the problem) because they want attention from their parents. To a child who wants attention, doing something bad, and being punished, is the only attention they get from their parents, so they act out. They aren't bad kids, they just want attention. Their parents are bad, because they only give their kids the proper amount of attention when they punish them.

This is common with kids who live in single parent homes, with a working parent. They become thieves, or develop a substance abuse problem.

Originally Posted by uBeR

My belief is opposite of yours: Kids need to be taught that their actions are wrong.

I know, you didn't need to tell me. I read people like you like a book.

Originally Posted by uBeR

Even you admit some actions are "objectively wrong."

Yes, murder is 'objectively wrong', but last I checked, toddlers don't indiscriminately murder people. Toddlers do steal, but as I pointed out earlier, it's often an attention-getting behavior.

Originally Posted by uBeR

But you believe a child's fragile ego will be harmed if they're told that their objectively wrong behavior is wrong.

No. I believe a child will grow up with insecurities if they are SHAMED by their parents. Parents don't properly correct bad behavior from children, and it leads to messed up kids. I don't think telling PROPERLY correcting bad behavior is a bad thing.

........before you even reply to this post (I'm assuming you won't) please, please, PLEASE, read the thread again if you don't understand what I'm getting at.

Originally Posted by uBeR

You then believe this telling of children that their wrong behavior is wrong will lead to politicians making laws that outlaw bad things like, say, murder.

x1,000,000

Originally Posted by uBeR

So your contention is that laws against things like murder and theft are wrong, because this constitutes "control" and is an abridgment of the freedom of people who wish to follow "their natural desires."

Nice strawman, bro. No. I don't think laws against murder and theft are wrong. My point, is that if kids are raised without being controlled to an excess, they'll learn for themselves that murder and theft are wrong. Because, if you understood psychology, you'd realize that poor parenting and excessive control often times is what makes kids thieves.

You'll notice how, my OP was mostly about children, and I did not advocate any laws in society. Context, bro, context.

Originally Posted by uBeR

Your contention is that if we just let people adhere to "their natural desires" rather than create laws (or forms of control) that outlaw (or limit) "objectively wrong" things, that the world would be such a wonderful and beautiful place, based on "spontaneous order" and "self-organization."

Once again, you have grossly misrepresented my position. My entire post was about CHILD PSYCHOLOGY. I was primarily talking about the psychology of children, and how control fucks them up. CrazyCarl understood my point (regardless of whether he agreed or not), why do you have such a hard time understanding this fact? This is probably the fourth time you've restated my position to me, but instead you pulled a Kafka and fucked it all up beyond recognition.

Read my OP a second and third time if you really have that hard of a time understanding it.

Originally Posted by uBeR

Of course, it doesn't take a whole lot of insight to see this is plainly absurd. We know, for example, that things like murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, and warfare exist even in stateless societies.

Of course, your entire analysis of my idea is based on entirely false platitudes, because it's clear you don't even fundamentally understand what I'm getting at--as evidenced by the fact that you've grossly misrepresented what I've said numerous times now.

Again, this is just one of a multitude of non-sequiturs you've posted already. Try harder.

Originally Posted by uBeR

You use examples from "two majority schools of thought," i.e. liberalism and conservatism (though these "schools of thought," which are virtually the same belief systems in every respect, are minority views outside of the United States).

I (again) should have been more precise in my wording (it was 3am when I wrote this thread), however, when I meant two main schools of thought, I was referring more to the philosophical underpinnings of each system. For example, conservatism is guided by an ethical negativism axiom, whereas liberalism is guided by ethical positivism. And, as I said, sure, there are sub-sects to these main pillars of an ideology, but they all encompass the same fundamental ideological underpinnings, and they arrive at their ends through the same reasoning.

Originally Posted by uBeR

For example, you say the liberal tendency to check economic imprudence is based on a politician's learning as a child that "objectively wrong" things like theft and murder are wrong.

I never said (or implied) whether it was a politician or not, who was learning these shaming lessons from birth. Politicians have nothing to do with my thread--politicians merely pander to their constituents, and do not deserve a serious mention in a psychological/philosophical debate.

Originally Posted by uBeR

It's not because some politician was told not to do something as a child.

You're grossly misrepresenting what I've said. Either that, or you just plain don't understand it.

My point, is that children grow up learning to hate themselves. They are systematically taught that their desires and behaviors are wrong. This creates insecurity in their minds. Insecure minds always project their insecurities. So, if you grow up learning that your behaviors and desires are wrong, and this creates instability in your mind, guess what, you're going to project that outwards, on everyone else. This is why the two majority schools of thought out there, both think humans are fundamentally flawed, and must be 'fixed' to become good.

Read the OP a second time over if you don't get it.

Originally Posted by uBeR

To be clear though, I'm not here to legitimatize state power, authoritarian tendencies, or other control and power structures. If you look at the leftist tradition, which is rich and robust, there has always been an inherent distrust and criticism of illegitimate power and control systems. It is essentially the libertarian tradition.

You're right, there has been distrust from leftists of authoritarian bodies. That's why modern leftists almost invariably support growing the welfare state through coercion. That's why modern leftists are skeptical of Barack Obama, who is a huge departure from Bush era pro-war, pro-torture, pro-Patriot Act, pro-Predator Drones, pro-Secret Prisons, etc.



I think more accurately, what you're trying to say is, modern leftists distrust authoritarian structures when someone who thinks like them is not the authority. Point-in-case, Barack Obama.

Originally Posted by uBeR

Libertarianism, remember, was born out of the leftist imagination and Enlightenment thinking. (The word "libertarian" of course has taken on a very corrupt and perverse meaning today, particularly within the United States, where its meaning has come to signify the very opposite of what it has always meant.)

That's patently wrong, and quite summarily is revisionist history. Classical liberalism is based around ethical negativism (negative rights) whereas traditional leftism is based on ethical positivism (positive rights). I'm sorry, but this is nothing short of a bold face lie.

Also, you seem to be trying to claim libertarianism for yourself, when you and I both know that there's left and right libertarians, and moreover, there's sects that aren't even distinguishable. I'm sorry, but you should you shouldn't be so confident when spreading patently false information.

Originally Posted by uBeR

These early thinkers, who are sometimes referred to as classical liberals, people like Smith, Humboldt, Mill, and Jefferson, railed against the free market system.

I know what classical liberalism is, and moreover, why are you bringing into the discussion the economic views of people who lived nearly 300 years ago? You're trying to make an appeal to tradition and a spurious authority.

Let's see what John Stuart Mill had to say about appealing to tradition, shall we?

The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement, being in unceasing antagonism to that disposition to aim at something better than the customary, which is called, according to circumstances, the spirit of liberty, or that of progress or improvement.... Custom is there, in all things, the final appeal; justice and right mean conformity to custom.... All deviations ... come to be considered impious, immoral, even monstrous and contrary to nature.

I don't think he'd like your use of an appeal to tradition

Also, Jefferson and Mill were primarily concerned with the rights of man, economics back in 1776 wasn't organized. There were no 'Economists' as we know them today.

Jefferson himself even admitted his own ignorance, when Congress tried to establish a Central Bank.

Also, when you mean Smith, are you talking about... Adam Smith?

Originally Posted by uBeR

They did so not because they loved control, but rather because they recognized the illegitimacy and corruption of free markets, which resulted in very coercive and authoritarian structures.

Baseless speculation. Market economics was a brand new concept, and Wealth of Nations was published around the time our country declared our independence. Again, you're appealing to a spurious authority. How could they have rejected free market economics, when Wealth of Nations was published just (5) months before the signing the Declaration?

Care to explain that one?

Originally Posted by uBeR

That tradition has continued through today, particularly in left libertarian and anarchistic currents. If you look at modern libertarians (real libertarians, that is), for example in anarcho-syndicalism, they seek to dismantle the current capitalistic system due to its authoritarian structure, and replace it with a freer system, for example one based on workers rights, freedom, and the common good.

Confirmation bias!

It's funny, in your little tirade here about the greatness of left-libertarianism, you seem to have left out the various other flavors of libertarianism, that operate on the same foundations... Oh, but according to you, they're not legitimate.

What you are failing to realize here, is that many left-libertarian movements are inherently hypocritical. For example, one of the main tenets of libertarianism is the NAP. The Non-aggression principal (or axiom). I'm sure you know what that is, considering you're the resident expert on libertarianism. So educate a lowly libertarian newbie such as myself, how left-libertarians are going to go about enforcing their desires (workers rights, for example) without using coercion? How are you going to maintain pareto-optimality without using coercion?

Originally Posted by uBeR

One method some theorist have advocated is placing checks on the capitalist regime, for example through laws (until it can be fully dismantled and replaced).

Further re-inforcing my assertion that left-libertarians are hypocritical. You wish to abolish a system, using coercion (and breaking with the NAP, the core of your philosophy) to establish your more perfect union. Do you not see the hypocrisy, or are you going to try and re-define the terms again?

Originally Posted by uBeR

To the rightist (e.g. you), this might look like someone who's just looking to control, but in reality its a means to achieve the end of the dismantling what is seen as a very illegitimate power structure that is antithetical to human liberty, even more so than the state or laws it creates.

First of all, I'm not a 'rightist'. Second of all, you're taking a massive leap in logic when you suggest changing the definition of 'control' and 'authority' when you suggest implementing a a law to 'dismantle' something. As Robert Higgs astutely asserts, Government power never rolls back. It's called the 'ratchet effect'. That's pretty funny, if you think about it. Use a law to abolish a system until it's phased out, so you can establish a new society with purportedly no laws.

Originally Posted by uBeR

So when you actually bother to look at the leftist tradition, it's very much based on abolishing authoritarianism structures, creation of self-organization, and a fulfillment of human liberty. This might mean dismantling authoritarian economic systems, e.g. capitalism, and replacing them with freer or more democratic economic systems, e.g. in syndicalism or socialism (real socialism, that is). But it is not just on the economic front.

They seek also to dismantle all illegitimate power, whether it be in familial relationships, cultural norms, societal practices, traditions, or other institutionalized structures and conventions, i.e. beyond just the authority of the state. That is the heart of true libertarianism.

*more leftist hooplah, ignoring our own hypocrisy, etc.*

As for your juvenile economic views, I'll carry them over to another thread, where they can be discussed in full, seeing as how this thread is not about a concise view on economics, but rather about philosophy/psychology.