Andersonian ideology flows through Broderson.
Broderson:
Easy interstellar travel via many T machines will generate massive profits;
therefore, economic power will shift away from Earth, governments, unions and corporations "'...toward small outfits and individuals.'" (p. 189);
that will end the welfare state;
Joelle thinks that, if the need for welfare ends, then so should the welfare state;
Broderson replies that any state is "'...the way for the few to impose their will on the many.'" (ibid.);
he lists six Empires.
Slow down there, Broderson! Surely the earliest states were an instrument to control slaves or serfs? Priests controlled granaries and needed to enforce social order so that the granaries would continue to be filled. It was not just that a few wanted to impose their will and found a way to do this! Are the Mongol Empire, which he cites, and a modern welfare state just two ways for the few to impose their will? That and nothing else?
All individuals cannot and will not become entrepreneurs travelling through the star gates. Presumably there will still be a Terrestrial population, some of whose members will continue to need welfare provision which can easily be funded out of those massive interstellar profits?
Broderson is right that politicians like Ira Quick and many trade union bureaucrats want to preserve the status quo together with their own positions and roles within it. So I am with Broderson to that extent.
16 comments:
The essential feature of the State, which I think Poul was referring to, is the control of the violence function -- armies and law enforcement.
On the one hand, Poul knew that this massively reduced violence between individuals and families, blood-feuds, etc. On the other hand, he just didn't like it.
For example, Poul admired the Icelandic Republic... but acknowledged that it eventually asked the Norwegian crown to step in because it had devolved into a welter of blood feuds.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely! Much as I revere Anderson I can't agree with him when he goes too unrealistically far in a libertarian direction. I discussed this in one of my letters to him, with him admitting the State was necessary to keep people from killing each other and controlling crime.
I dismiss Utopian fantasies of stateless societies!
Ad astra! Sean
They are not Utopian fantasies. People will not continue to kill each other or to commit crimes in just any conditions or into an indefinite future. I am not trying to kill my neighbour now and the conditions in which he and I live CAN (not necessarily WILL) be reproduced across the Earth.
I keep trying to get a better set of parameters for a discussion. If I were to write, e.g., "I dismiss all reactionary militarists," and were then to state a view to which you had previously replied but were to make no acknowledgement of the reply that you had made, then (I hope) you would object to that approach! Each of us has to recognize that our views are not simple indisputable empirical facts but highly controversial and disputable interpretations of such facts. On the basis of that common understanding, it will be possible to start a discussion as opposed to an endless series of assertions, repetitions, denials and "dismissals." That, and not agreement, is my only hope.
Kaor, Paul!
There are so many errors in your hopes and beliefs that I hardly know where to start, trying to explain where you are wrong. I'll start with the easiest one--yourself. You are committing the fallacy of projecting yourself onto others. You cannot guarantee that anyone else will be as mild and gentle as you are. You cannot guarantee that any of your neighbors won't become killers if the opportunity ever arises. "Trust but verify," is a sound principle. Another is "Praise the Lord and keep your powder dry." A third is "In God we trust, all others pay cash."
As for your second comment my view remains that many of the things you object to in my comments are empirical facts, such as how the entire human race is prone to folly, error, sin, and downright wickedness. Meaning I cannot agree to speculations/hopes contradicted by hard facts.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There are so many errors in your comments that I do not know where to start. I am not projecting myself onto others. I have previously described conditions in which there will be no longer be any reason or motivation to attack or kill anyone else. People do not have to be mild or gentle to have no reason to fight each other. Of course I cannot guarantee that any of my neighbours will not become killers if the opportunity ever arises. I have the opportunity to attack my neighbour now but I have no reason to. There can be conditions in which there is no longer any reason for anyone to do that whether or not there is an opportunity.
It is not an empirical fact that the entire human race is prone to folly, error, sin and downright wickedness. Surely you know many people who are morally incapable of downright wickedness? My hopes do not contradict hard facts but are based on the hard fact that violence occurs in some conditions but not in others.
But again you are merely prosecuting the argument, to which I always reply, instead of accepting my invitation to stand back from the whole argument and look at it from the outside. If you think that, in advance of any argument, your one-sided opinions about dynamic human beings are "empirical facts," then you are really in denial of the facts. Many people disagree with you. That does not automatically mean that they are right and you are wrong. It does mean that you have to do more than dismiss as "error" opinions that differ from yours.
Why does this argument keep coming up at such a fundamental level? I don't want it to. I think that you have identified yourself with a particular set of philosophical, religious and political beliefs. On the one hand, you know, as a matter of "hard fact," that many people do not share those beliefs. On the other hand, when you encounter a particular one-to-one disagreement (as here), you must repetitively argue the case over and over as if it were a matter of life and death. It is not. We will continue to live with our different beliefs - and in fact benefit from that diversity if only we can see it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We are going to have to agree to disagree. Yes, many people are "good," but that does not mean they are not flawed and imperfect. I know very well that is true of me.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We keep saying agree to disagree, then continuing to repeat the disagreements. A very different upbringing can have remarkable effects. I have also seen that.
Paul.
Paul: don't project yourself onto others.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Precious few of us are saints like John Paul II and he too would agree with us on how flawed we all are.
As for our states and societies, not too terribly bad is the best we can realistically hope for. Which is what you often show us in your stories.
Ad astra! Sean
Technology is advancing and affects society. Present society is very different from primitive society and even from a few centuries ago. Life WILL be very different in future and the differences CAN be for the better.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course technological advances can have beneficial results. But I do not believe such things will somehow remove from inside us whatever it is that makes us so prone to bollixing up anything and everything we do.
I believe people who think as I do, allowing for contingency, human foolishness, malice, etc., are more realistic than those who think as you do.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Technological advances will not somehow remove inner problems but they will obviously help to remove many causes and occasions of conflict. We have a responsibility to do the rest of the work ourselves. We are not prone to mess up everything. That is a completely one-sided view.
I believe that people who think as I do are more realistic than those who think as you do. There are many conditions and circumstances in which there is no malice and those conditions can be extended.
We have said all this before, of course.
Paul.
Paul: "better" is a matter of opinion.... 8-).
"Better" a matter of opinion, sure. All we can do is say what we think would be better and why we think that.
Post a Comment