The Self-Limiting Effects of Free Societies.

[bankside]

Having grown up in a time with an unprecedented overthrowing of dictatorial regimes and watching in satisfied awe as countries have replaced them with open governments, I have been struck by one paradoxical effect of freedom:back in the days of apartheid or the iron curtain, if you were part of the resistance to those regimes, you had ideas worth dying for. That has a way of focussing the mind on producing good ideas. But in free societies, the cost of an opinion is exactly nothing. And I see that often you get what you pay for.

People come to think that if all opinions are equal, then their opinion must be right. Knowledge suffers. People stop looking for a better way or the best way; politics becomes a negotiation designed to give people as much of their own opinion as possible, and people lose the skill of argument as the relevance of changing one's mind approaches zero.

I think this is a self-limiting effect of freedom, and I wonder if there are others.

[Rolyo85]

Of course there are. And a similar thing could be said of LGBTs building a lot more backbone when they have to fight for coming out. But the price for those better qualities or in your case - those stronger ideas - is too steep.

[palbert]

@Bankside:

Isn't the fallacy/tragedy of the commons a result:

The "tragedy of the commons" is a situation where rational action by individuals to improve individual performance results in destroying the ability of the whole system to perform. And as system performance is degraded, it also degrades individual performance. When confronted with a situation that cannot be addressed at the individual level, but requires a collective solution, libertarians are in denial.

http://www.exponentialimprovement.co...sfallacy.shtml

Overfishing is a common example.

[zoltanspawn]

I don't think the fallacy of equal opinions originates with liberty, but with equality.

Repressive regimes like those under apartheid and behind the iron curtain aren't necessarily excellent producers of ideas; and when such societies revolt behind the banner of freedom, as in Iran or Egypt, sometimes its merely theocratic repression which follows on the heels of dictatorial repression.

The problem must rather come from a confusion that because we ought to be treated equally by the law, and because we cherish the dignity of individuals without regard to gender or race (for example), then that same essential respect for equality must also apply to our ideas.

[Kulindahr]

A similar argument has been made about the wealth of societies in relation to freedom: when people first have freedom, they produce wealth effectively, because they are free to enjoy the fruits of their own work. As time passes, and the standard of living becomes comfortable for nearly all, the incentive to work hard diminishes, and the country starts losing the production of wealth.

[palbert]

@ Kulindahr: You make a Dagny Taggart/Howard Roark argument for self-ownership but isn't the fallacy of the commons the natural result? Something needs to harness the horses.

[bankside]

The tragedy of the commons is more the triumph of selfishness isn't it?

[Centexfarmer]

Having grown up in a time with an unprecedented overthrowing of dictatorial regimes and watching in satisfied awe as countries have replaced them with open governments, I have been struck by one paradoxical effect of freedom:back in the days of apartheid or the iron curtain, if you were part of the resistance to those regimes, you had ideas worth dying for. That has a way of focussing the mind on producing good ideas. But in free societies, the cost of an opinion is exactly nothing. And I see that often you get what you pay for.

People come to think that if all opinions are equal, then their opinion must be right. Knowledge suffers. People stop looking for a better way or the best way; politics becomes a negotiation designed to give people as much of their own opinion as possible, and people lose the skill of argument as the relevance of changing one's mind approaches zero.

I think this is a self-limiting effect of freedom, and I wonder if there are others.

Hmmm..I've noticed that you left out what has been identified as "politically correct," or PC in our current vernacular.

Where every opinion, view, perspective, should be allowed a voice regardless of how ignert, repulsive, or retarded that it might come across with anyone with half a brain.

Now that's some "liberal schtick."

It seems to me that there was a point in time where "free societies" welcomed views, opinions, perspectives, and dissertations that "elevated" a question such as the one that you have posed here.

Instead it seams over the past 30 or so some odd years, especially here in America, not only can you be a MORON you can be a celebrity on a reality TV show. A celebrity without any known or discernible talent.

Would that be considered a "self-limiting effect" of a Free Society?

[palbert]

The tragedy of the commons is more the triumph of selfishness isn't it?

But isn't selfishness at the base of "self-ownership?" What use would philanthropy -- other than selfish -- have?

[palbert]

Hmmm..I've noticed that you left out what has been identified as "politically correct," or PC in our current vernacular. ....

I do not think PC would obtain in a self-ownership society.

[Kulindahr]

@ Kulindahr: You make a Dagny Taggart/Howard Roark argument for self-ownership but isn't the fallacy of the commons the natural result? Something needs to harness the horses.

Self-ownership is self-evident; that Rand sort of grasped it isn't pertinent.

Self-ownership is not, however, a foundation of any sort for the matter of property or ownership of resources, which is where the commons problem comes in. The problem of the commons is a problem of accountability, really, but it rests on the definition of property. Rand garbs onto the current view of private (real estate) property, which actually has no rational underpinnings; it depends on might-makes-right and nothing else (the business of making it one's property by making us of it works only when there is a limitless supply of real estate that anyone at all may go seize).

The only rational way to claim that a person may own real estate is if there is an inherent right to real estate. But no such right can be derived from self-ownership, which leads to the conclusion that there is no such inherent right; thus, any system of real estate must be conceded to be artificial, i.e. constructed for convenience (which tends to mean the convenience of the powers that be).

The question then is how to construct a system of ownership that recognizes the corollary of self-ownership we call "equality"; that is, one that treats everyone the same way. Since the entire notion of a person owning part of the earth is artificial, we can do this in almost any fashion, but if we want to do it in a way that recognizes that "all men are created equal", the simplest path is to say that all people actually own the entire planet not as individuals, but as a whole.

This points to the fact that our whole system of nation-states is in effect an attempt to resolve the issue of the tragedy of the commons by force. Unfortunately, until actual honoring of human rights is universal, we're sort of stuck with that approach -- but within it, we can attempt to adjust the system of property to a more sound philosophical basis by shifting to ownership-of-the-whole -- which can be simply enough done.

What is needed is a foundation which functions as the steward of all real estate and resources for all the citizens and legal residents of a country. All current property titles would become title-leases (TL), and all TL holders would begin paying an annual lease fee to the SF, the steward foundation. The practical expression of the right of ownership as actual ownership would be the quarterly payment to all citizens and legal residents of one share of the revenue from TLs. Note that government would also have to pay lease fees for all the offices, bases, and anything else (I imagine that parks might be held as a special set of property by the SF).

Thus the problem of the commons is ended, because everything is commons -- but cannot be used without paying for it.


This is actually more rational than what Rand does. She relies not on self-ownership, as is claimed, but on Nietzche's will to power, and giving approval to the exercise of power and whatever it may accomplish. To her people are decidedly not created equal, and those who are "more equal" have the right to seize power and dictate to others. Her system of property is that of plunder, and it is the love of plunder that makes the tragedy of the commons a reality. Replace the love of plunder with actual equality, and the problem goes away.

[Kulindahr]

The tragedy of the commons is more the triumph of selfishness isn't it?

Yes -- and Rand considers selfishness a virtue. It's what destroys her thinking.

[palbert]

@ Kulidahr

I appreciate the disquisition. I shall study it tp see how it comports.

[Kulindahr]

Hmmm..I've noticed that you left out what has been identified as "politically correct," or PC in our current vernacular.

Where every opinion, view, perspective, should be allowed a voice regardless of how ignert, repulsive, or retarded that it might come across with anyone with half a brain.

Now that's some "liberal schtick."

It seems to me that there was a point in time where "free societies" welcomed views, opinions, perspectives, and dissertations that "elevated" a question such as the one that you have posed here.

Instead it seams over the past 30 or so some odd years, especially here in America, not only can you be a MORON you can be a celebrity on a reality TV show. A celebrity without any known or discernible talent.

Would that be considered a "self-limiting effect" of a Free Society?

Political correctness is an interesting phenomenon, because on the one hand it rules out certain views, banning them from the realm of discussion, and then proceeds to decree that all remaining opinions are equal. It's in response to political correctness that we got the maxim "You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts". It was the PC attitude that allowed Mitt Romney to run a campaign built on lies -- i.e. on opinions contrary to fact.

We will not have a free society that "welcome[s] views, opinions, perspectives, and dissertations that 'elevated' a question such as the one that you have posed here" until demagogues such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are greeted with scoffing jeers as ninety percent of the population checks the facts and finds them repeatedly wrong.

That is to say, we will not have such a society again until we have people who prefer to actually think rather than to be told how or what to hold as opinion.

[Kulindahr]

But isn't selfishness at the base of "self-ownership?" What use would philanthropy -- other than selfish -- have?

Not at all. Self-ownership is an observable reality; selfishness is an attitude one chooses to have about that reality.

[Kulindahr]

@ Kulidahr

I appreciate the disquisition. I shall study it tp see how it comports.

It's not my clearest effort. Christmas munchies, bubbly beverages, and an entire day of Top Gear and spin-offs on the tube don't contribute to the best of cogitation.

[bankside]

Political correctness is an interesting phenomenon, because on the one hand it rules out certain views, banning them from the realm of discussion, and then proceeds to decree that all remaining opinions are equal. It's in response to political correctness that we got the maxim "You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts". It was the PC attitude that allowed Mitt Romney to run a campaign built on lies -- i.e. on opinions contrary to fact.

We will not have a free society that "welcome[s] views, opinions, perspectives, and dissertations that 'elevated' a question such as the one that you have posed here" until demagogues such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are greeted with scoffing jeers as ninety percent of the population checks the facts and finds them repeatedly wrong.

That is to say, we will not have such a society again until we have people who prefer to actually think rather than to be told how or what to hold as opinion.

Fact is, people don't check. I attribute it to the problem I raised above.

[palbert]

Not at all. Self-ownership is an observable reality; selfishness is an attitude one chooses to have about that reality.

Selfishness may be an attitude but it is one with consequences, and therefore real.

(I am a tyro "in a strange land.")

[Kulindahr]

Fact is, people don't check. I attribute it to the problem I raised above.

Not solely -- but cross it with the issue I posted, of wealth/comfort, and I think you've got it.

- - - Updated - - -

Selfishness may be an attitude but it is one with consequences, and therefore real.

(I am a tyro "in a strange land.")

Different level of reality.

[opinterph]

Selfishness is an attitude one chooses to have about [self-ownership].

[Ayn Rand] relies not on self-ownership, … but on Nietzche's will to power.

Do you think Nietzche regarded the “will to power” more as a pre-programmed genetic predisposition of some sort, or more as a conscious choice made by the individual?

[bankside]

Hmmm..I've noticed that you left out what has been identified as "politically correct," or PC in our current vernacular.

Where every opinion, view, perspective, should be allowed a voice regardless of how ignert, repulsive, or retarded that it might come across with anyone with half a brain.

Now that's some "liberal schtick."

It seems to me that there was a point in time where "free societies" welcomed views, opinions, perspectives, and dissertations that "elevated" a question such as the one that you have posed here.

Instead it seams over the past 30 or so some odd years, especially here in America, not only can you be a MORON you can be a celebrity on a reality TV show. A celebrity without any known or discernible talent.

Would that be considered a "self-limiting effect" of a Free Society?

Other than a bit of difficulty in sorting out which person has half a brain, I agree with this.

[bankside]

Yes, Sam Harris goes there with the idea that we should occupy ourselves with the welfare of conscious creatures. I'm not sure that's quite utilitarian, but there is a lot of functional overlap.

[Benvolio]

I think you guys are overlooking actual human experience. People have benefited from free enterprise/capitalism and the resulting democracy more than anything else in history--by far. In 1800, the vast majority of people lived in abject poverty, and even the very wealthy did not have many comforts that the first world poor have today. Capitalism and democracy harness the individuals desire to benefit himself and his family for the benefit of all. Your precious socialism/liberalism/communism destroys that incentive and the ability to innovate.

[Rolyo85]

Another one in a proud tradition of moronic statements. Saying "socialism/liberalism/communism" as if those are interchangeable, is so bumfucking ignorant, that I can't even fathom a reality in which someone says it seriously.

Anyway, a good society has socialist elements, as well as capitalist, in balance. Neither is good on its own, as both victims of Communism, and generations of sad little children in factories can attest...

- - - Updated - - -

Another one in a proud tradition of moronic statements. Saying "socialism/liberalism/communism" as if those are interchangeable, is so bumfucking ignorant, that I can't even fathom a reality in which someone says it seriously.

Anyway, a good society has socialist elements, as well as capitalist, in balance. Neither is good on its own, as both victims of Communism, and generations of sad little children in factories can attest...

[Benvolio]

Another one in a proud tradition of moronic statements. Saying "socialism/liberalism/communism" as if those are interchangeable, is so bumfucking ignorant, that I can't even fathom a reality in which someone says it seriously.

Anyway, a good society has socialist elements, as well as capitalist, in balance. Neither is good on its own, as both victims of Communism, and generations of sad little children in factories can attest...

- - - Updated - - -

Another one in a proud tradition of moronic statements. Saying "socialism/liberalism/communism" as if those are interchangeable, is so bumfucking ignorant, that I can't even fathom a reality in which someone says it seriously.

Anyway, a good society has socialist elements, as well as capitalist, in balance. Neither is good on its own, as both victims of Communism, and generations of sad little children in factories can attest...

They are not interchangeable but they have core beliefs in common: that economic inequality as such is very bad, an ultimate bad thing, that equality is more important than freedom, that therefore, governments should sacrifice economic freedom for equality, either at once or in gradual increments, and that government ownership or total control of business is preferable to economic freedom.

- - - Updated - - -

[QUOTE=Rolyo85;8597788]Another one in a proud tradition of moronic statements. Saying "socialism/liberalism/communism" as if those are interchangeable, is so bumfucking ignorant, that I can't even fathom a reality in which someone says it seriously.

Anyway, a good society has socialist elements, as well as capitalist, in balance. Neither is good on its own, as both victims of Communism, and generations of sad little children in factories can attest...

[Benvolio]

That's precisely the problem, salaries of the poor in the United States have not benefited from the industrial revolution. You can't afford even the cheapest apartment on $15000 a year while providing for a family. The condition of the first world poor is a result of social safety nets devised in the 20th century. Otherwise, we would have the sprawling shanty towns you see in Manila, Jakarta, Mumbai, and elsewhere.

Our poverty is largely the result of two policies. If I mention the "I" word they will erase the post. The other major reason is welfare dependency. We hire people to be poor so liberals can use them as talking points.
It is wrong to say our poor have not benefited. The have a life style undreamable in many parts of the world or in1800. Who is so poor they don't have a toilet, shower, electricty, Clean water, TV and the ubiquitous cell phone?

[xbuzzerx]

They are not interchangeable but they have core beliefs in common: that economic inequality as such is very bad, an ultimate bad thing, that equality is more important than freedom, that therefore, governments should sacrifice economic freedom for equality, either at once or in gradual increments, and that government ownership or total control of business is preferable to economic freedom.

Correct. Because we have actual, hard evidence of what happens when you allow pure economic freedom. We call it the Robber Baron period of our history. It wasn't a good thing and it's nothing anyone wants to return to.

[Benvolio]

Correct. Because we have actual, hard evidence of what happens when you allow pure economic freedom. We call it the Robber Baron period of our history. It wasn't a good thing and it's nothing anyone wants to return to.

We have had even more evidence of what happens when economic freedom is limited. Not just the USSR and all its subordinated, or Obama's beloved Maxism, but all those countries who stagnated when they experimented with socialism. No one wants the age of of robber barons, but no country in history has experienced such a period of innovation and economic expansion. The big problem is that the liberals do not see how much they have in common with the socialists and communists, and therefore will not be able to avoid those extremes.

[xbuzzerx]

We have had even more evidence of what happens when economic freedom is limited. Not just the USSR and all its subordinated, or Obama's beloved Maxism, but all those countries who stagnated when they experimented with socialism. No one wants the age of of barons, but no country in history has experienced such a period of innovation and economic expansion. The big problem is that the liberals do not see how much they have in common with the socialists and communists, and therefor will not be able to avoid those extremes.

Exactly what about the corporate profit margins of today and the gap between the highest and lowest income earners of today, which approaches feudalist levels, is "not free enough" for you exactly?

Oh not to mention some of the lowest tax rates in history.

Please, make up more about how economic freedom is more curtailed than ever before.

[Centexfarmer]

I'm partial to "nitty gritty."

Now comes the nitty gritty. The best way for humans to survive in an unnatural existence, i.e. a highly evolved society, is to formulate a philosophical approach to what is best for humans. I gravitate towards utilitarianism. The most optimal state of affairs is a result of actions aimed to produce the most tangibly pleasant experience for most people. Can everyone agree on what that is? Now we have a bit more insight into why nations are more unified in a time of existential crisis.

Why does it have to be "nations?"

Just look at Hurricane Sandy as a recent example of what could be described as an existential crisis.

The nation didn't collectively come together, but communities did, neighborhoods did, and neighbors did.

Often times completely overlooking any racial differences, or amount of income, but rather by need that someone within their geographic area had, that another could fill while having experienced the same crisis, but on a less traumatic level thus enabling all to survive to the best of their abilities.

As has been pointed out by another poster, I don't see must socialism/liberalism/communism taking place within that actual real world example.

Do you?

[palbert]

Our poverty is largely the result of two policies. If I mention the "I" word they will erase the post. The other major reason is welfare dependency. We hire people to be poor so liberals can use them as talking points.
It is wrong to say our poor have not benefited. The have a life style undreamable in many parts of the world or in1800. Who is so poor they don't have a toilet, shower, electricty, Clean water, TV and the ubiquitous cell phone?

Are you truly that ignorant? Wake up and visit the inner cities or parts of non-urban America.

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

no land of a any sign UN a free or a society a lot otnda words fa it fa eons
this a not news

thankyou

may death be mor kind ta them wot nose this fa eons ans do nothin