Anyone can make a dictionary (at least I think so, maybe I am wrong, but I think anyone can write their own dictionary) . This means a group of evil people who want to corrupt the language can write up their own dictionary. They can define certain words in an unfair way. Or they can define words in a completely wrong way to confuse people. What incentive do they have? I have no idea, but let us just assume that there is such an evil group of people. But what is very interesting is that I never heard anyone in my life being fearful of such people. I never heard anyone propose to have state regulators control the dictionaries. Why not? Because we already live in a world where pretty much anyone can write a dictionary and put it on the market. Since we live in such a world people are not scared of the thought that some evil people will destroy all language by writing up fake dictionaries. They never even consider this possibility because this is the world they are used to, and in this world this problem never happens.
Wikipedia is not regulated by the state. It is a free encyclopedia that anyone can write on. I even made a few contributions to it myself and they still are up there. This does not mean that anyone can post anything they please on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does have people in charge to recheck the information so that no silly person can post anything he wants to. Wikipedia is the best encylopedia ever. I know there are some haters who like to say that Wikipedia is not reliable. But I have no idea what they are talking about. So far all I used it for it was reliable. I use it mainly for mathematics. And the mathematical articles there are superb, usually written by professional mathematicians. But other information that I found on it was useful also. I am sure there are a errors, but that is excusable, it have over 3 million articles, Britanica does not come anywhere close. However, perhaps Wikipedia somehow decides to post all wrong information. Or consider for instance a "Falsepedia" that becomes a competitor for Wikipedia. But Falsepedia contains a lot of false information, purposely. Why are there no people crying out for state regulations to control internet encyclopedias because perhaps some encyclopedia can purposely put false information and trick the pubic into believing something which is false? The answer is simple. Because unregulated encyclopedias is the world in which we live. This is the world we are used to. And because of this people are generally not afraid of living in an unregulated world of encyclopedias. It probably never even comes to anyone's mind to want to regulate encyclopedias to make sure they do not contain false information.
People can walk in the street with knight armor and swords. I know a guy who dressed up for Purim as a knight and had a sword on him. There is no law against wearing knight armor and having a sword on you. There are sometimes special events in the City when medieval lovers dress up in armor and come with their swords. They are not stopped. And I do not think outsiders are scared by knights in the street. If you saw a knight in the street you would probably be amused, not scared. But consider the following argument against the right to be a knight: "if people were able to dress as knights and have swords they would run through the streets and murder everyone, there would be an all out brutal fight, and what about the children, the children will be killed". But does any person today take this argument seriously? If I told an average citizen this argument he would probably find it stupid. Why? Because this is how the world is today. There are no laws stopping knights. And because this is how things are people are comfortable with the current state of the world and are not bothered by unregulated knights.
Gas oven stoves are dangerous. They can be used as a miniature explosive. The danger is magnified by much in places like New York City were people mostly live in apartments and not houses. I am sure gas oven stoves are regulated (just about everything else today) for safety standards, but it does not prevent some crazy person from deciding to abuse the gas stove and cause a dangerous fire or a miniature explosion. So perhaps gas stoves should be banned and replaced by electrical stoves? Electrical stoves are much safer. But where is the fear of gas stoves? It is absent for the same reason. People already live in a world which consists of gas stoves. So people are comfortable with such a world. Let us say that it can empirically be shown that electric stoves save more lives than gas stoves. Do you really think people will catch on to this new regulation? I doubt it. A Google search on "ban gas stoves" does not even give any helpful suggestions. This is not a fear on people's mind. This is the world we live in, so we are naturally comfortable with it.
But now consider the reverse situation. Consider laws that are in place today but would seem funny to an outside observer. The best example I can think of is fire exit signs. Buildings are required to have signs that point to an exit, in case there is a fire. You need to try to be a little imaginative here. But try to imagine living in a world which had no fire exit signs? What would be the difference between this world and our current world? Hardly anything, except maybe a few more saved people from exit signs (though I even doubt this). But imagine further that you were to walk over to a random citizen from this parallel world and ask him, "I propose for all buildings to have fire exist signs". Would he really care? No. Fire exit signs would be a laughable issue for him. Just like unregulated dictionaries, encyclopedias, knights, and gas stoves are to us. Because in his world no fire exit signs are the way things are. People are used to this kind of world, and so they are unbothered with its current state. But what is really funny to watch is that some people get so defense about fire exist signs. You tell them that you are against a mandate for buildings to install fire exit signs and they get angry, "you only care about money, you would rather save $10 then save people".
But where does this fear come from? People in our current world are not afraid of an evil group of people taking over the dictionaries or making a Falsepedia. But why are many people afraid of living in a world without fire exit signs? I think the answer is because there is a fear of the unknown. People cannot imagine a world without exit signs, so they get scared. They immediately assume the worst. And become defensive against people who want to get rid of laws for fire exit signs.
Statism lives off fear, not rationality. Statists are not statists because of some rational reason that they have developed on their own to be statists (a few are, but those are exceptions). Rather statism is the mainstream idea that lives off people's ignorance and fear. The state does not justify itself rationally, not really. It scares people into thinking what would be otherwise. In a world they cannot imagine. Statists are afraid of the unknown, and the state is a means for them to escape from this fear.
Freedom scares statists. Because freedom is not controlled. Freedom cannot be calculated. Freedom is an unknown world. I have no idea that a free world is like. But it does not scare me. It does however scare statists. Because central planning and central calculation is part of statism. If I was able to know what a free world would be like, or how it should be managed, then that would actually be a pretty good argument in favor of me being a dictator. Rather I do not know. I have no idea what will be in place in the free world. This is what scares statists. For them a comfortable life is filled with knowing the future and being (or more precisely "thinking that they are") able to predict the future.
Knights do not scare people. It is not an unknown world. But if instead of swords and knights you mention guns then it scares people. Well, not here in the US, the US is rather gun-friendly. But in most places in Europe. Tell a European about being pro-guns and he would be scared by you. Because he is a statist. He cannot imagine a world with guns. He will immediately assume the worst. He will assume a world in which people run around and shoot each other. He is a statist, he is afraid of the unknown. But strangely he does not have the same attitude about people owning swords, even though he can make the same argument and say if people owned swords they would run around and kill each other.
Unregulated dictionaries and encyclopedias do not scare people. This is the world as it is. But unregulated (unlicensed) doctors do. I have a Jewish friend who is in law school. I once told him that I am against licensing of doctors, and think that any doctor can enter the market. He is a statist. What does he do? The obvious. He assumes the worst. He tells me that if doctors were unlicensed then there would be evil doctors who would lie and cheat and kill people. In such a world lots of people would be dying all because they are unlicensed. I was not surprised. I tried to convince him otherwise, but he was just as fearful. He was fearful because he cannot imagine a world with unlicensed doctors. And is scared. Though strangely there are unlicensed computer repairmen who walk into your house to fix computers - nobody seems to be scared by this as it is the current state of the world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1) If doctors were unlicensed, you'd get a bunch of moron homeopathics and faith healers posing as "real" doctors.
ReplyDelete2) I'm mostly pro-gun rights, but people DO run around killing each other with them. That's just a fact.
3) Wikipedia is regulated -- it has its own government, basically.
You should change your name to Pollyanna. Talk about utopian thought. No inspection of meat...no problem...let the market sort it out. Driving drunk...no problem...Darwin will weed out the drunks. Everyone should just do whatever they want. Hmmm...we tried that and Thomas Hobbes described it as a time when life was Nasty Brutish and Short. A couple of weeks ago, a private fire company allowed someones house to burn down because they did not pay the insurance. This is the world you want? You can have it immediately in Antarctica or de facto in a favella in Brazil. By all means go.
ReplyDeleteJewish Atheist, you can read this here: http://skepticbutjewish.blogspot.com/2010/08/defending-wicked-part-11-unlicensed.html . I am not going to repeat the arguments again. About guns, yes they do, so do people kill others with knifes also. Wikipedia has no state law controlling it, does it?
ReplyDelete"You should change your name to Pollyanna. Talk about utopian thought. No inspection of meat...no problem...let the market sort it out. Driving drunk...no problem...Darwin will weed out the drunks. Everyone should just do whatever they want. Hmmm...we tried that and Thomas Hobbes described it as a time when life was Nasty Brutish and Short. A couple of weeks ago, a private fire company allowed someones house to burn down because they did not pay the insurance. This is the world you want? You can have it immediately in Antarctica or de facto in a favella in Brazil. By all means go.":
You nicely confirm everything that I said in my post about fear in statism. Moment I suggest a different world you need to assume the worst. And you get defensive. You make statements that are not applicable to me such as, "let people do whatever they want". A common mischarachterization of my position. How about you also add that I support child molestation also, that seems to be missing from your condemnation of me.
Utopian? What is there Utopian about what I said? I think I am one among one of the most anti-utopian people that I know of.
And besides, do you not think I never heard those arguments before. I heard the exact same points you say like at least 25 times in my conversations with people. They are getting boring. As a statist you can try to be more creative and say things which I never heard before.
Fear has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I personally believe that the outcomes for human beings are better when its not a free for all. The question is where to draw the line.
ReplyDeleteYou believe somehow that if you leave people to their own devices that things will work out well. To believe that you must have an abiding faith in the goodness of human nature. I would say that is pretty darn utopian.
"Fear has nothing whatsoever to do with it.":
ReplyDeleteFear is a component for you. You are afraid of what would happen if a different world was to hold. You demonstrated this when you responded to me, look at how defensive and fearful you were. This does not mean to say you are wrong it just means to say that fear is part of your reason for being a statist.
"I personally believe that the outcomes for human beings are better when its not a free for all.":
So do I. What does this have to do with me? I am not anti-human interaction and working together.
"You believe somehow that if you leave people to their own devices that things will work out well.":
Not necessarily. Sometimes bad things would happy. But having a state will not prevent this from happening. If people are racists then the country they live in would be racist. If there is a state over this country then the state would be racist over it. A nice summary of my position can be summarized by Ludwig von Mises, "if one objects to laissez-faire on the account on the weakness and moral fallibility of man, then one, for the exact same reason, must reject every single kind of government action".
"To believe that you must have an abiding faith in the goodness of human nature.":
I do not have any faith in the goodness of people. People suck. Which is precisely why any state will also suck. States can only be just if people were unbelievably good. Now I do not think people are bad, they lean on the side of good, but they are not good enough to have a just state. It is rather my more negative view of people that makes me more anti-statist.
"I would say that is pretty darn utopian.":
Statism is more utopian than I am. Because I do not promise anything. Statism is based on the assumption that the state actually cares for the people. That is more utopian than I will ever be. As Milton Friedman said in an interview one time, "arguments for collectivism have always been easy, it is the argument for indivudalism that have been hard, because the individualist is willing to put up with temporary evils ... ", this is anti-utopian. I make no false promises (like politicians have been doing since the beginning of statism) of a great world, I am just against this idea of people believing it can be perfected through legislation.
"Fear is a component for you."
ReplyDeleteBullshit.
"Look at how defensive and fearful you were."
No, I just have read a number of your written articles and think you are kind of self righteous and annoying without writing anything original. Frankly, you can get these pamphlets at tea party rallies. In particular your tough guy "I beat up everybody I fought with when I was a kid article" clinched it for me.
"I do not have any faith in the goodness of people. People suck. Which is precisely why any state will also suck. "
You make the statement that Statism sucks without proving that it would be worse than if individuals were allowed to do whatever they want. You simply make the statement without making any argument as if it is self evidently true. It is not.
You don't promise anything? Of course you do. You suggest that unfettered freedom is better than having a state that is involved in protecting its citizens. You believe that individual liberty will lead to a better outcome than a nanny state. By what metric? You don't really say beyond personal preference.
"Bullshit.":
ReplyDeleteThen let me repeat what you said.
1)"No inspection of meat...no problem...let the market sort it out."
2)"Driving drunk...no problem...Darwin will weed out the drunks."
3)"Everyone should just do whatever they want."
As for #1. Yes, that is exactly what I believe, that meat not be inspected, and that people should just eat and die because of it. Ignoring the fact that this is not my actual position, what you wrote is not fearful?
As for #2. Yes, you got me, I really think that people should just drive around in the street without traffic laws. But seriously now, this is blowing my position way out of proportion. This is not fearful and a mischarachterization?
As for #3. Again, do you not this this is not blowing what I say out of proportion?
"No, I just have read a number of your written articles and think you are kind of self righteous and annoying without writing anything original.":
I am self righteous to an extent. I believe I am fit to judge. I believe I am capable of more independent thought than others. And I do think that I am better, at least intellectually, than most people. You call this is a flaw in me, but I do not think so. I think there is virtue to arrogance. Just like I do not think there is nothing wrong for atheists to say "we are better than theists" so do I think there is nothing wrong for me to say "I am better than statists and parents who spank their kids".
As for orginality. You can read my Defending the Wicked series. That was in a way a little original. My views on beauty and relationships (which I want to write more about) are not really so original but I do not hear them said so much. I have a few other ones. My favorite one, to me, that I wrote was on the denial of self-interest, I never saw anyone look at it that way before in a Nietzschean manner.
Maybe my ideas are non-sense, but that is okay, at least I am trying to think. I am not like many other bloggers out there that talk about their personal lives and stories (not that there is anything wrong with that, they have their own style). It is no sin to fail to be make mistake and fail to sometimes be original, with that kind of attitude you will never get anywhere.
"You simply make the statement without making any argument as if it is self evidently true. It is not.":
I do have arguments regarding freedom vs statism on this blog. And there are many numerous, much smarter, people on this topic that wrote a lot about it. I am still learning, it is a fun topic. I obviously cannot repeat all those same arguments here again.
"You don't promise anything? Of course you do. You suggest that unfettered freedom is better than having a state that is involved in protecting its citizens.":
ReplyDeleteThat is not exactly utopian. Utopian would be to say that without a state the world would be happy and magical and everyone would get along, or at least a lot more happier. I do not make that statement. But I do believe there would be a lot less wars in the world. Less people would die.
By the way, "state protecting the citizens". The state does not protect the citizens. The state does not exist for you. It does protect you, not directly, only indirectly. It protects itself first and foremost. It cares about power first and foremost. Besides it is rather funny for the state to say: "pay us money or else we kill you". I would not call that exactly "protecting the citizens" as you do.
"You believe that individual liberty will lead to a better outcome than a nanny state.":
Not always. Seat belt laws save lives. But I still do not believe in seat belt laws. I just do not believe that a state actually cares for the people. And no person can claim ownership over another person. That is why I oppose the state. At least you are honest here, you believe in a nanny state. Most people are not comfortable admitting this but at least you do. Basically my opposition to the nanny state can be summarized in a quotation that is often mistaken for Thomas Jefferson, "a government big enough to give you what you want is big enough to take away what you need".
And I know you are going to tell me that quotations do not prove anything. Just because some people, possibly great, said them does not mean that what they say is true. You are correct. But I like quotations because they beautifully summarize my thoughts in a single poetic sentence.
"Frankly, you can get these pamphlets at tea party rallies.":
Poisoning the well? Come on, how boring. Yes the tea party has something in common with me. But so do white nationalists and KKK members. Some of what I say would be strongly supported by nationalists and klansmen too. But guess what, it does not bother me. Because this is nothing but poisoning the well.
"In particular your tough guy "I beat up everybody I fought with when I was a kid article" clinched it for me.":
It was obviously intentional. I wanted to present myself as a tough guy. I wanted to say what I really dislike about so many adults. So I figured I might say a personal story. It is true that I could have written that story a little more humbly. But does it really matter? Was I unvirtuous? This criticism of me, by you, is probably your strongest and most relevent to me. Perhaps you can tell me what I did wrong in that.
The problem for statists like the above is that, indeed, it is always a free for all. Becoming big and powerful enough to bully most others doesn't remove you from the "state of nature." It's a component of the state of nature. The question to be asked is only - did it become morally legitimate for you to treat others in this way, simply because you grew so powerful? If not, then the argument for statism falls. If so - the arguments against freedom fall.
ReplyDelete