Cybernethics / Cybernéthique

In a bus to NYC early in January 2005, I met this gorgeous girl who was reading a course in Economics. The textbook was open on a praise of the Fed and its role in regulating the National Economy, with an opposing page in a special color denoting higher science, that justified this role based on one macroeconomic equation by Keynes. It was too tempting, so I started a conversation.

Jeudi 20 janvier 2005, j'étais de par ma réputation de libertarien invité de Henri de Lesquen dans son émission Le Libre Journal des idées politiques sur Radio-Courtoisie, face à André Bonnet dans le rôle du catholique-traditionnaliste et à Henri de Lesquen lui-même (en l'absence du troisième invité initialement prévu) dans le rôle du libéral-conservateur. Henri de Lesquen avait articulé son émission en trois partie, définies par les questions suivantes: Un état laïque peut-il avoir une morale?, les droits de l'homme peuvent-ils tenir lieu de morale?, Faut-il avoir peur de l'ordre moral?. J'ai été je l'avoue très mauvais: j'ai tenté sans cesse et trop rigidement de revenir au plan que j'avais établi, au lieu de m'adapter aux interruptions et digressions de l'animateur; aussi, j'ai trouvé les bonnes répliques après l'émission plutôt que pendant, et c'est vous qui devez subir maintenant ce que je n'ai pas su dire alors.

I am François-René Rideau, a one-man think tank from France, and the webmaster of Bastiat.org. Since I realized tonight that time is expensive, I will be short. Iris asked me to answer the question: What is the reaction in France to Ayn Rand's ideas? Well, the answer is quite short actually: <french accent>The reaction to what???</french accent> In France, Ayn Rand is even less known that in America. The difference is that in France, academics don't even have to find a pretense so as to dismiss the significance of Ayn Rand, that is hardly ever brought about.

But the problem with the silencing of libertarian ideas goes much further. Consider that free trade was relatively popular in 1776 after Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations. At the same time, socialism was mostly unheard of. Nowadays, free trade goes mostly undefended, while socialism is the semi-official religion of the day. So this is not just a matter of new ideas that haven't had the time to spread.

Ayn Rand insisted that the superiority of objectivist ideas resides in their rationality. Well, for an argument to be accepted, there are four steps which must be overcome: the argument must be heard; it must be listened to; it must vanquish prejudices; it must be understood. Only on the last step does rationality matter. For the rest, we must develop our skills at rhetoric if we want our ideas to compete on par with those of our opponents.

Having fun together is nice and well, and we're enjoying tonight (at least, I hope); but it only goes so far in terms of advancing Liberty. To advance Liberty is to convince other people of the nature, validity and importance of human rights. And convincing other people is a long and difficult task. It is an Enterprise of its own, to be approached as such. We have limited resources; we must manage them properly. With these resources, we must develop and market our ideas and arguments. Usual marketing techniques and pitfalls apply. We must define our targets, and cater to their needs. Most importantly, so as to survive and to extend, we must follow the bottom line: the self interest of the participating individuals, the sustainability, hence profitability, of the structuring institutions through which we advance Liberty.

Liberty will not prevail by chance. It will prevail because some people will have taken its success seriously, and will have undertaken the task of heralding it rationally. You can be among these people. You can become an activist. Or you can fund activism by people who specialize in the field. You may decide to fund my think tank, or another libertarian organization. In any case, it is your responsibility to entrust proper resources to people who will advance the cause of Liberty. Because you are the ones who know better.

Thank you for your attention.

Dans une discussion rationnelle, chacun explore la structure conceptuelle de l'autre -- mais aussi la sienne propre, qui restait souvent implicite jusqu'à être révélée par la confrontation. Cette structure est caractérisée par ses distinctions et ses identifications, c'est-à-dire par la façon dont on distingue ou identifie les situations en leur appliquant le même concept ou un concept différent. L'interlocuteur rationnel tente de comprendre ces distinctions et identifications, avant de pouvoir juger si oui ou non elles lui sont pertinentes -- c'est-à-dire propres à faciliter et améliorer le processus de décision et d'action humaines.

You are an Anarchist. You think that capitalism is evil, that the "market" is a subtle dictatorship, that wage labor is but hidden (or softened) slavery, that consumership is an illusion to manipulate minds, that the State is the institution of this system of exploitation. You want to promote human life, natural beauty, liberty, and things well and good. That's why you oppose all the above evil things. OK.

Now you face wierd people who say they are anarchists, yet who promote those evil things you associate to the State you hate. How can that be? Are they hypocrites? Spies paid by big corporations to instill confusion? Are they crazy people incapable of coherent thinking? No, we're people just as sincere as you are; we also despise the current state of affairs and hate dictatorship, slavery and mind manipulation; and we're also motivated by our love of human life, natural beauty, liberty, and all things well and good. But we just have a different interpretation of what is evil.

How slight or how big is this difference? How much of it is a matter of a cultural gap in terminology and how much of it is actual irreconcilable ideas? Can we find a common pattern by which both of our groups may legitimately claim to be anarchist? Can we identify and circumscribe the root of our disagreements? Is it possible to find a peaceful way to resolve our disagreements, or will we have to kill each other before either or us may have his way? Well, if you'll allow me to argue my case, we can enter a sincere debate. And maybe we can find a resolution to settle our conflict in the anarchist way: through peaceful discussion.

Ideas matter. There are correct ideas, and wrong ideas. This is the agreement implicit in any sincere debate. Without this agreement, the content of any debate is irrelevant. (Of course, there are also social interactions where content doesn't matter -- but they are not debates, precisely.) Of course, the debate itself is only considered useful if there is a mismatch of knowledge between participants. If they think the same, they have nothing to learn but the fact that they think the same. And if they think differently, it means that at least one has something to teach to the other, that the other doesn't know, or currently disagrees with.

Sometimes I indulge in political discussion with socialists, and after a lot of heat, I realize that the discussion isn't going anywhere because each participant has a different base approach to thinking at all. Notably, I'm a "rational" (NT) on the MBTI, whereas most other people are not, and are thus not prone to being receptive at all to the rough logical reasoning that comes to me naturally. The most important thing to me is the truth of statements and logical rigor of arguments. That's why you see me insist on ideas being "correct" or "false", and nitpicking on what looks as boring details to you, yet are crucial turn to me. That's why you'll find blunt insulting or shocking things I'd see as concise and precise rational statements, whereas I'll find moronic or dishonest things that to you are obvious sincere casual statements. Because we have the same temperament. Now, I can't change you by mere wishful thinking. But I can improve myself by some strainous effort. So I've decided to improve.

mood: calm

Mon ami David Madore m'écrit une lettre fort pertinente au sujet de mon blog, avec comme à son habitude cette pénétration exceptionnelle qui est la sienne. Il met le doigt sur certains points essentiels qui ne vous ont je l'espère pas échappé, en tout cas qui méritaient d'être discutés. Voici le texte complet de sa lettre, et ma réponse incise. Merci donc à David.

The Democrats cry, "The emperor should subsidize the poor!", Republicans argue, "No, the emperor should subsidize the rich!", Libertarians respond, "The emperor wears no clothes", while Terra Librans ask, "Why do they call that naked man emperor?"

Googling my way and chasing links to find stuff related to my article on Government and Black Magic, I had already discovered this excellent article on the Nature of Government by Frederick Mann (well, actually, I had found an older version on the site of the APFN -- see my post below about the hallowcinotion that is government). Well, it's only one in a vast body of interesting documents from Terra Libra (the homepage of which I located thanks to the links from libertocracy). There seems to be a gold-mine of documents to Clear Your Mind from the statist pollution. As for the quote above, it's from an article named the Terra Libra Shift. Another site I found along the way is Revolution, ammo for freedom fighters, but I much prefer the name of the site Build Freedom -- because it makes it obvious that Liberty is a paradigm of creation and harmony, whereas talking about fight is already buying into the paradigm of destruction and conflict of the enslavers.