Just Another Friendly Argument 1: Dan

 

Discussing:

Water rights, the tragedy of the commons, cost-benefit analysis,(im)migration, how I may very well be incorrect, muh roads/highways, competition between railroads and highways, ethics vs economic utility and government vs individuals, cardinal vs ordinal values, ethics vs. morals and “thou shalt not murder”, evolutionary biology/psychology, Sustainability in human action, Zomia and the nature of History, Transgender restrooms and democracy, the psychology of voting, the housing crisis, Keynesian economics and my communist roots, Trump-flavored cancer, mass extinction, labor prices and economic growth, minimum wage and education.

This is an audio-only post, and I expect that (provided this becomes a recurring segment) it will remain audio-only.  It’s a little bit longer than most podcasts, but I hope you enjoy it.  As always, I crave feedback, so let me know what you think, so I can do a better job.

Carpe Veritas,

Mad Philosopher

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Just Another Friendly Argument 1: Dan

  1. Joel says:

    Kudos to Dan for having the wherewithal for that long of a discussion. Most people can’t do that.

    I don’t think people grasp that anarcho-capitalism isn’t really a vision for the best possible society. It is a baseline expectation of (lack of certain) behavior out of which good things may emerge. Dan’s objections kept swinging back and forth to “oughts” and the nature of humanity. It may be that humans are not capable of a very baseline of behavior with regard to others’ life, liberty, and property. It may also be that people ought to have a thousand other values beyond our baseline. That doesn’t deny that there is a certain baseline, nor does it agree on what people should do after achieving that baseline. Beyond that really isn’t our concern “politically” though it is absolutely important to us as individuals- because most of us want more of our lives and society than simple baseline morality.

    Re: Sustainability
    Don’t you just prefer more sustainable things to less sustainable? I don’t hear you saying that you must have permanently sustainable systems to get on board. I don’t think you need a teleological purpose to realize that sustainability is better (perhaps to give you time to find an even more sustainable solution) than a less sustainable situation.

    Why Mexico? Chile sounds much better than Mexico.

    • One of the reasons I picked Dan as a first conversant was because we would have these sorts of discussions all the time working at the summer camp… when you have to hike a mile to get anywhere, there’s plenty of time to talk. I cut my teeth long-form discussion at camp with him and a few other friends/coworkers.

      I totally agree about the category mistakes commonly made when discussing anarchism.

      I certainly just prefer sustainability, due to it’s aesthetic qualities and basic utility… just like everything else I prefer. However, I do think that there’s an objective set of properties that sustainable approaches have and less-sustainable approaches lack which generally make increased sustainability preferable. Ultimately, what that boils down to is preference in options; it’s one variable out of many considered when choosing investments of resources, not the end-all be-all of that decision process.

      Chile certainly has some advantages over Mexico with regards to “disappearing into the developing world”. The few advantages Mexico holds would be case-specific: I know the language and culture better, I know the laws (and how to get around them) better, and it’s more geographically proximate to my current location, making smuggling all my guns and other goods there a little easier.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.