25 08 2010

I’m an eye guy.


Some might be a bit young, but that’s okay; you’re only looking at their eyes.

UPDATE: 2, 3, and 4 are all the same woman. I put them together on purpose because they look similar, but someone else had to point out that they are actually the same person.

Anarchy and Whatnot

22 08 2010

I’ve been a regular poster at anti-state.com for about five years, a forum for anarcho-capitalists or market anarchists. I’ve identified as such a person pretty much the whole time. Prior to that, I had been accused of being an anarcho-capitalist by other libertarians. One way to look at anarcho-capitalism is that it’s libertarianism taken to the extreme – if less government is better than no government is best. Of course, put so simply it probably sounds stupid. For a bit of an explanation, see what I wrote four years ago. Since I put that up there, dana of minarchyblog.wordpress.com added a comment:

who will enforce contracts? no enforceable contracts, no business–no entity vested with a mutually agreed upon monopoly on the legal use and threat of force–no business

This is why I don’t like to call myself an anarchist except around people who already agree with me about almost everything. I only know about 1.5 such people in real life. If I ever mention being a fan of statelessness, this new fact becomes more important to the other people in the conversation than whatever we were talking about and I’m suddenly expected to explain myself, to explain how a stateless society could possibly “work”, who would take care of the poor and elderly, who would build the roads, who would solve crimes and lock up the criminals, and so on. Some even ask about things that are already routinely done by for-profit non-government firms, like trash pick-up. The single unsatisfying answer is to first view everything we value as economic goods, and know that I maintain that all economic goods, including roads and justice (though perhaps excluding love) can be provided in a competitive marketplace. I know you’re not convinced, and I don’t feel like convincing you. Hell, I’m not sure that I’m convinced.

Lately, I’ve been very interested in human evolution, especially evolutionary psychology. An understanding of natural selection goes a long way toward understanding human behavior, and a lot of people, smart people and people who think they’re smart, have trouble grasping the mechanics of natural selection. For one, many people happily believe that humans are continually evolving to be more intelligent than before, yet there are many other traits that impact reproductive success, and our environment has changed drastically from that which we adapted to. Though we have the highest capacity for logical thinking of all the Earth’s creatures, irrational thinking and non-thinking behaviors can be and often are more important for survival and reproduction. I suspect that those who’ve spent a bit of time learning about human mate-selection might really get this. Ayn Rand did not, and I don’t think Mises and Rothbard did either. Having gotten into this, I’ve become very cynical about humans.

Having identified as an anarcho-capitalist for as long as I have, I recognize a somewhat familiar objective to an-cap theory developing in my head. Typically, the objection is that ordinary people aren’t good enough or smart enough to be left to their own, that they need to be led, perhaps that they need to be protected from themselves. I sort of agree with this, and I have particular objections for specific arguments that an-cap folks make. For example, medieval Iceland is probably the often cited example of a long-term peaceful stateless society, and it is a very good example, but it was different from modern societies in ways that might be important. It was a fairly small population of norther Europeans, lacking ethnic or cultural diversity. Greater size and diversity in a population do not seem to favor order and peace, and such a legal system might require intelligence and behavioral traits that other populations might not have. Yes, I’m one of those horrible people who doesn’t think all races are equally intelligent. Another great example of peaceful statelessness is that of the American West (long PDF), but again we have similar problems.

Bottom line? I don’t know, but I don’t really feel like trying to explain or defend the entirety of anarchism or anarcho-capitalism  to anyone. I can explain possible mechanics to a dispassionate listener, but I’m much more concerned with how the world is today and how it might be improved, especially for me and those I care about, but also for the billions of people I’ll never meet. If you’re curious, go read David Friedman or Roderick Long; or read LewRockwell.com, if nothing else. I’d rather talk about individual issues as the come up. In general, more government is bad and less government is good. I guess I don’t really have a point, except to let readers know where I’m at politically.


Dear Cycleboy

6 08 2010

An apparent Brit commented recently comment on my old post, We’re Different. I went back and read that and the two follow-ups, and I’m not so sure I managed to get my point across. Perhaps I should try again.

The problem with the “sexes are different” is that you cannot prove it one way or another.

I’m not so much interested in proving to the satisfaction of the scientific community. I’m interested in sharing the conclusions I’ve arrived at that help me deal with others, especially women. My main intent with that post was to point out what I see as a primary source of frustration between men and women – the unproven assumption that we are the same.

I lived for many years in Indonesia and saw things and behaviour that was considered completely ‘natural’ there, but which seemed odd to my European eyes.

You say this without giving a single example. I’m highly doubtful that anything you saw would contradict my way of thinking.

What part of our gender (as opposed to the obvious ‘sex’ differences) is culturally defined and what is biologically determined?

It’s not as simple as one or the other, as nurture versus nature. A person’s experience can determine which genetic behavioral traits are expressed, which are not, and which are perverted. Also, there are some differences between different groups of humans. Different environments result in different adaptations.

Armed with the experience in another culture, I reserve the right to be sceptical about those who point to commonly seen behaviours and claim them to be biologically determined. Where’s the proof? Where’s the control group?

Why is this important to you? It is ridiculous to demand that everything must be proven by scientists in laboratory conditions before one may believe it.

I’ve seen, heard and read enough examples of differences to conclude that much of what we regard as ‘normal’ are only normal in our time and culture.

I’m not concerned with what’s normal.

After all, there have even been studies to see if girls are more attracted to pink than boys. Yet, only 100 years ago pink was a boy’s colour. The idea that you might dress a girl in pink was considered as outrageous as dressing a boy in pink would be today (at least in ‘western’ cultures).

Yes, I’ve heard that. It’s amusing but of no consequence. Neither pink nor baby blue seem very masculine to me.