08
Mar
2019
Potpourri
==> This guy Scott Alexander is very very clever and creative. And along those lines, check out this one.
==> Oh man I had to lay the smack-down.
==> I am included in this collection from FEE.
==> I really liked this Caitlin Johnstone article on narrative.
==> Perhaps I already linked to this, but if not: This Jacobin article from a Marxist (I think?) on MMT is the single best one I’ve seen.
Those Scott Alexander links were great. When I first saw The Proverbial Murder Mystery on SSC, I thought “fiction, meh,” and passed it over. But after seeing your link to it, I decided to give it a chance. (I respect your taste Bob.) And yeah, that was really clever and enjoyable. Thanks for posting the link.
I also found the Caitlin Johnstone article to be very thought provoking, even though I don’t completely endorse it. It sort of sums up my formerly-libertarian mindset of about a decade ago. Since then, I’ve come to see some of the things that I had previously considered to be narrative, in the denigrating sense that Caitlin uses, to actually be valuable insights passed down through the generations.
I think it is important to attack the destructive narratives that pull people towards evil. But if we tore down every narrative, then we would lose civilization altogether. I’ve come to believe that the complete absence of narrative is just as damaging as a wrongheaded narrative.
“But if we tore down every narrative, then we would lose civilization altogether.”
As she points out, we also lose ourselves.
I am happy enough to entertain the notion that identity is an illusion, but it is one we must accept if we are to function at all. She is offering to replace one set of narratives with another.
But if identity is an illusion, then who or what would ever say so and who or what would ever listen?
If it it truly an illusion, then we’ve wasted our time pressing the buttons with squiggly lines to make them appear on the glowing rectangle. But, of course, this assumes that there is such a thing as time or pressing or buttons or squiggly lines or glowing rectangles in any meaningful sense, which isn’t a safe assumption.
Surely “we” must also acknowledge that the illusions are themselves illusions, which might create a problem of infinite recursion if such a concept could be considered meaningful. What, then, might lie at the bottom of all of these illusions? “Ha,” a disembodied meaningless sound went unheard unsaying, “It’s illusions all the way down!”
The idea that there is no “you” or no “I” are very old in Buddhism.
I don’t fully buy into this, as many of the concepts are slippery, which is why I say I am prepared to entertain the notion rather than that I fully accept it.
My approach is that it makes no difference – I have to act as though I have an identity if I am to do anything at all.
We generally have a time preference, which acknowledges that we don’t fully identify with our future selves. Not all of the lower valuing of future events is because they may not happen.
A theory that does not work in practice should be considered debunked.
This would be true if we had an infinite amount of time on this earth, but we do not. Would you rather have something you want now or in five years when you’ll be five years older and have five less years left in your life to enjoy it? I can say that my personal time preference has never been informed by a lack of identification with my future self.
“A theory that does not work in practice should be considered debunked.”
Are you in the matrix? Are you a brain in a jar? You have no way of knowing for sure. A theory is not debunked if there is no way to test it. You can consider it debunked for practical purposes, that is pretty much what I do. However, I recognise that it has not been actually debunked and so remains a possibility.
“This would be true if we had an infinite amount of time on this earth,”
That doesn’t work because almost everything we obtain does not last for the remainder of our lives.
“I can say that my personal time preference has never been informed by a lack of identification with my future self.”
This paper discusses this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3764505/
They say “According to this view, espoused by Parfit39,40 and Strotz,41 among others, the self is a collection of distinct identities that overlap with each other over time. ”
“What matters, for long-term planning, however, is that one person has but one identity, and it is with this link that the assets of the present and future selves are tied together…Recent research has demonstrated that, in important ways, people often treat the future self as if it is in fact another person. ”
This is not just speculation – they have done MRI studies:
“On a general level, then, neural activation associated with thinking about the future self showed a similar pattern to activation associated with thinking about another person.”
They did find variation – some people responded to their future selves almost the same as their current self. You may be one of these, but don’t assume it is the case generally. These people found it easier to postpone gratification. This deals only with how people identify with future selves, not the deeper philosophical question of whether that identity exists.
“then who or what would ever say so and who or what would ever listen?” That, as they say, is the question.
A theory that cannot be tested is not debunked but a theory that, when implemented, produces results contra the theory is debunked.
That things don’t always last for the rest of our lives does not diminish what I said. With the exception of retirement, people generally don’t plan to go backwards in life. (And that people plan for retirement, works against your argument.) For example, if you’d like to get a bigger TV, that it will eventually wear out doesn’t impact your time preference because you expect you’ll be able to replace it by then.
I don’t doubt that different people have all manner of strange ideas about their future and past selves and that those conceptions feed, as one variable among many, into their time preference. But that time preference exists does not imply that we don’t fully identify with ourselves. And that some people have different concepts of self identity does not imply that all people share that concept.
“A theory that cannot be tested is not debunked but a theory that, when implemented, produces results contra the theory is debunked.”
Yes, I think that is about right, subject to confirmation. I don’t see how this fits in here.
I’m curious what you mean about your previous libertarian mindset. I don’t really see it as a mindset, but a theory on property rights and when the use of aggression is justified. Your mindset or narratives, IMO, at least how I’d use those words seem irrelevant to libertarianism. For example, I think you could have a narrative about any particular group, positive or negative, and as long as you opposed the initiation of aggression against them then you’d still be a libertarian.
I mean that I used to be very deep into libertarianism. I read multiple books by each of Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, and Ayn Rand. I read the LRC articles and blog every day. If I got into a political conversation, I was going to approach it from a strictly libertarian vantage point.
Back then I felt, like you appear to now, that libertarianism (especially, Rothbard / AnCap) was more than just a set of political opinions, but that it was a coherent philosophy and science that exceeded every competitor in its goals, its rigorousness, and its truth.
But I’ve softened in that opinion and I no longer consider myself a libertarian. I still greatly respect libertarianism and believe that it is very rigorous and would, if it could be implemented, achieve its goals. What changed is that I no longer hold the aims of libertarianism to be paramount. And I don’t believe that it could ever be implemented and sustained on earth.
What really broke for me is that I stopped believing that piecemeal implementation of libertarian prescriptions necessarily create good people or societies. That’s the political argument, right? On every policy, we should decide which proposal is the most libertarian and support that one. I’ve watched the results come in and they look like a disaster to me. We’re getting “libertarianism” on international trade and drugs and pornography and prostitution and every kind of perversion, but real libertarianism on war or money or taxes are nowhere in sight.
You say that libertarianism is “a theory on property rights.” I think that’s only one aspect of it. I don’t dispute this theory, in fact I believe it to be completely accurate. I just don’t believe that maximizing personal liberty and material prosperity create good people and good societies. Not only did I not believe that before, I didn’t even think in those terms before. As a libertarian, I didn’t care what other people did with their lives as long as they weren’t harming anyone other than themselves. And I defined harm narrowly according to the NAP. I no longer think that way. Now I think that good people have a responsibility to stop others from engaging is self-destruction and from benefiting from the “voluntary” destruction of their neighbors.
Sorry for the long and rambling response. Hopefully I’ve illuminated what I meant by “my libertarian mindset” for you. I feel that the way that I used to view the world was typical of a lot of people who are drawn to libertarianism and I don’t view the world that way anymore.
“You say that libertarianism is “a theory on property rights.” I think that’s only one aspect of it. I don’t dispute this theory, in fact I believe it to be completely accurate. I just don’t believe that maximizing personal liberty and material prosperity create good people and good societies.”
I don’t think it is sufficient to create good people or good societies either. In fact, I rail on left libertarians for trying to make libertarianism more than it is in actuality. Too many libertarians want to make it a catch-all for everything in life. They try to make it about morality, economics, history, etc. I align with so-called right libertarians that believe it is nothing more than a theory on property rights, and that morality, economics, history, etc are completely separate fields. It is one thing to think people have the right to be a prostitute, and quite another to think it is a moral or good life. Yet, I also don’t believe that the initiation of violence will bring us closer to becoming a good people or good society. Although, I’m not a Christian, I believe that doing our best to emulate Jesus is the path towards being better than what we are, and not initiating violence is part of that path forward.
So in my book, if you oppose the initiation of violence then you’re a libertarian, and if you believe being a libertarian is insufficient to being a good person then you are one of the smart ones.
I think that it’s insufficient, inessential, and, under certain conditions, counterproductive. I don’t always oppose “the initiation of violence” in the way that libertarians define the phrase, but I generally do.
Although, I’m not a Christian, I believe that doing our best to emulate Jesus is the path towards being better than what we are, and not initiating violence is part of that path forward.
I don’t think that I’ve ever specifically said, “I’m not a Christian,” but this is very close to “my formerly-libertarian mindset.” I respected Christianity, but I identified more strongly with libertarianism than with Christianity. Now that’s flipped to the point where I don’t want to call myself a libertarian anymore. I believe that Christ left room for “the initiation of violence” when done in rebuke of the wicked. Part of what allowed me to become so enamored by libertarianism was my lack of belief in “the wicked.” Now that I recognize them, I believe that libertarianism provides them leeway that Christ would not.
That second paragraph was meant to be a quote from Dan’s comment.
“I believe that Christ left room for “the initiation of violence” when done in rebuke of the wicked.”
Hmm… That’d significantly reduce my opinion of Jesus if I believed that to be true. To me, He goes much further than libertarians on the issue of violence. I see Him as a pacifist. Perhaps this is a semantic difference. Can you give me an example when you believe Jesus would support initiating aggression?
“Part of what allowed me to become so enamored by libertarianism was my lack of belief in “the wicked.” Now that I recognize them, I believe that libertarianism provides them leeway that Christ would not.”
Yeah, I’ve never had a lack of belief in the wicked. The entirety of human history is replete with stories of unbelievable wickedness. But I don’t even think libertarianism has anything to do with morality. It’s a completely separate subject, IMO. I only see it as a theory on property rights. And everyone has a theory on that, even if it is just a bunch of incoherent beliefs all cobbled together. I simply believe libertarianism is the only consistent and just theory on property rights.
Earth is a Sphere, Prove Me Wrong — Ahhh, pretty sure spheres don’t have mountains. If it was a sphere everything would be covered in ocean.
Well, that was easy!