Unvarnished Truth #1: Communism, Libertarianism, and Rational Anarchy.

[Doktor Howl]

"Taking any false premise to its logical conclusion gives a good approximation of insanity."
- Albert Einstein.

The problem with most political theories is that they're composed mostly of wishful thinking, and a belief requirement that most organized religions would be envious of.  For example, talk a little smack about democracy, and you'll see fanaticism that was identical to the monarchists of old.  Divine Right used to be the rallying cry; now it's "50%+1".  We've all seen how well that works.

Communism, for example, requires that the majority of domesticated primates will do what's best for the group, rather than themselves.  Likewise, Libertarianism fails to acknowledge Finagle, and operates under the assumption that individuals will do what's in their own best interests, and disregards all evidence to the contrary.  Rational Anarchism assumes that monkeys won't form increasingly complex tribes.

Base your actions on a faulty premise, get a faulty result.  You can bank on this the way you can bank on the fact that the sun will come up in the morning.

However, good luck convincing anyone of this.  Political theories in general, and the above three in particular, are basically the religion of their adherents...Who WILL see things as they want them to be, not as they are.  All three of the above examples are utter failures, and always will be, but there is never any shortage of people determined to worship at their altars anyway, for the same reason people in Kansas refuse to believe that the world is older than 6000 years, isn't flat, and wasn't put here for us to rape like a passed out sorority girl at a Tailhook convention.

They will argue justice, or liberty, or equality...All noble concepts, to be sure, but they will then argue that their flawed reasoning will somehow bring about these things.   Antoine Lavoisier could tell you how these things usually work out.

Here's the deal:  Domesticated primates can't operate without a system of governance, and no system of governance is perfect.  As societies become more complex, the imperfections in any given system of governance become aggravated, until finally the system fails.  The following period of anarchy isn't pretty at all, contains no liberty, justice, or equality, and invariably is replaced by the monkeys left in the aftermath.  Minarchism/Libertarianism fails for the same reason...They are systems that cannot abide complexity.

As I have said before, any political theory that demands "purity" from monkeys is doomed.  The less purity required, the more robust the system (You can, of course, take this too far).

So what to do?  Few systems work, the ones that do don't work for long, and are invariably corrupted by the very societies they govern.  The answer, of course, is to let the monkeys have their systems, and figure out how to remain autonomous within that system.  I'm going to twist the meaning of the "Temporary Autonomous Zone" just a bit, and make it more resemble the Speakeasys of the prohibition era. 

Or:  Have your fun, just don't let the monkeys know about it.  Fact is, the very complexity that causes the monkey's systems to fail also allows you to operate under their radar.  I'll be talking more about this in installment #2.

Okay for now,
Dok

[Suu]

Everything looks good on paper.

[Doktor Howl]

Everything looks good on paper.

This.  And if you point out the flaws in their logic, you're a "reactionary" or a "shill".

[Suu]

The problem in all systems isn't the system, they can all "work". It's human nature that doesn't work.

[Doktor Howl]

The problem in all systems isn't the system, they can all "work". It's human nature that doesn't work.

Human nature works just fine.  It's when we try to ignore human nature to make a pretty ideal work that the problems start.  Pouring brake fluid into an engine's oil pan won't keep the engine running, no matter how much you'd like it to...likewise, expecting humans to change to fit a pet political theory is an excercise in futility.

[Iason Ouabache]

The problem I see with these three systems (and all forms of idealism, really) is that they completely misunderstand game theory. They assume that humans will always act in their long-term rational self-interest, which we all know never happens. Most people have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to politics. We don't care about making things better for our great-grandchildren. We want to know how we can make a buck in the next 15 minutes and fuck anyone that gets in our way. Sure all of those forms work on paper, but humans don't live on paper. We live in the jungle where humans are dumb, short-sighted, and lie constantly.

[Cain]

You have to start from where people are, if you want them to go anywhere else.  Any system which doesn't recognise that people will sometimes cooperate and sometimes be selfish, sometimes be victim to circumstances beyond their control, sometimes attempt to game the system etc etc and incorporate that into the changes they want to make isn't doing political theory - they're creating Mary Suetopias.

[Doktor Howl]

The problem I see with these three systems (and all forms of idealism, really) is that they completely misunderstand game theory. They assume that humans will always act in their long-term rational self-interest, which we all know never happens. Most people have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to politics. We don't care about making things better for our great-grandchildren. We want to know how we can make a buck in the next 15 minutes and fuck anyone that gets in our way. Sure all of those forms work on paper, but humans don't live on paper. We live in the jungle where humans are dumb, short-sighted, and lie constantly.

Precisely.  And this is why we should be looking at ways to survive - and maybe even have a good time - in their system, rather than wasting our time spinning our wheels with alternatives that cannot work, and would never be accepted even if they did.  The next portion I plan to write is intented to further this concept.

[Freeky]

I look forward to reading your next one, Dok.

[Doktor Howl]

You have to start from where people are, if you want them to go anywhere else.  Any system which doesn't recognise that people will sometimes cooperate and sometimes be selfish, sometimes be victim to circumstances beyond their control, sometimes attempt to game the system etc etc and incorporate that into the changes they want to make isn't doing political theory - they're creating Mary Suetopias.

Precisely.  And since most primate politics are driven by a horrible form of pragmatism, the Mary Suetopia is doomed from inception.

[Elder Iptuous]

Very good, Dok!

I've been figuring that's your take.  i had seen you bash all the political systems without professing what should be done, and it occurred to me that you likely seek the same thing I'm seeking when you cut to the chase: privilege.

When I talk about politics, it's usually from a libertarian type standpoint without all the bells and whistles.  Just sort of a don't tread on me perspective.  But I really can't do it with much conviction.  I don't really believe it's possible on any practical scale.  And if my ramblings actually stir something up and a big fish bites, I usually just cut the line, because I'm not really trying catch that fish....

Even though I realize that what I truly want is privilege, I haven't really done much in the way of achieving this.  It's a fear of.... something.  Perhaps being detected by the Machine as a Nobody seeking Something.  Or perhaps of what I might become if I abandon the notion of working within the system to make it more resemble a system that will still work while allowing the Slack that I seek.  The conflict there I guess is that the side of me that wants the system to give maximum freedom seems to be impeded by the over men with their privilege.  I don't want to be like them.  Or mebbee I do...

Heaven help me, I think I'm evil...

[Jenne]

It's tough having a conversation with said-purists.  I used to be one, after all.  The notion that government is not there to deal with what is but instead create what should be is a religious concept that many think they'd die for.

Well, they are certainly willing to ruin holidays and Gramma's Turkey Feast over it, anyway.

I get weary of said purists, sharing DNA with so many of them.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I like this, Dok. Mittens.

[Jasper]

This is pretty much true, I can't think of anything to add or subtract.  Still, posting to say I liked it.

[The Wizard]

Good work, Dok. Speaking as an anarchist, I agree with you on it's viability. Lovely ideal, but due to our immaturity as a species, impossible to implement. Anyway, can't wait for the next one.

Regardless, mate.