How Would X or Y Form of Social Organization Work?Submitted by His American Majesty on Sun, 05/18/2014 - 06:22
Let's start with something libertarians, conservatives, anarchists, constitutionalists, and limited statists all agree.
Premise: Public schools indoctrinate.
In order to accept it is true kids can trained as obedient little state drones, this must also be true:
Premise: Human nature is malleable.
Just because there is agreement public schools indoctrinate doesn't really make that premise objectively true. Nor does it wholly represent what is meant by human nature is malleable. When I say human nature is malleable I do not mean I can create a new man from scratch with a human devised will. What is meant is for every action the reaction is influenced by ones environment. Humans are in control of action. Action effects environment.
Premise: Human nature is malleable by an environment including social institutions, hierarchies, and cultures.
What is the number one argument anarchists have heard from limited statists? Society will devolve into gang warfare. It is their entire case and the case is argued on the basis of human nature. Yet these same exact limited statists would acknowledge the malleability of human nature by public schools. A logical contradiction to be sure.
If libertarians establish an environment based on the Non-Aggression Principle how can it be said people will not react to that environment? In that environment initiation of aggression is illegitimate. It is just like being in a public school where non-compliance is illegitimate. It is just like being in the United States where not obeying a police officer is illegitimate.
How many people reading this post have a different view of police today than in 2007 after exposure to stories of police abuse? Who even said something like do not call 911 or call 911 at your own risk in 2007? In 2007 many people would have thought what a stupid and crazy idea to not call 911. Probably not as stupid or crazy of an idea today. Discretion using 911 would probably be considered wise in these parts of the internet. How come your opinion was different previously? It is due to an environment you grew up in.
Because of the environment in America, people in the United States react differently than say, indigenous people. Think of indigenous culture for a moment. Could it be said such an environment creates a more collective decision making atmosphere? Could you imagine your typical American showing up for Indian hunting?
Indian: We go hunt now.
American: Who is in charge?
Indian: What does it mean in charge? We go hunt now, hunt!
What would happen if this or that is how a typical American might think. The very idea of going hunting with no one in charge is foreign to Americans because of an authority environment. Indians would not even be thinking like that because of their culture and environment. This is the problem with limited statists claiming people would just devolve. It is an unrealistic argument to the malleability of human nature by an environment and culture of illegitimate aggression.
If you put a mouse, ape, or man in a cage can you discover their nature? No, you can only discover how they react to being in a cage. What if you put a man's mind in an invisible cage of authority? Does such a man question the legitimacy of an authority he can not taste, touch, smell, hear, or see? It seems most don't but at a minimum INTx personality types sometimes do or none of use would likely be here at Daily Paul.
What if you put a man's mind in an invisible cage aggression is illegitimate? This question right here is what limited statists need to address in the contradiction people will devolve into gang warfare because of human nature yet kids are indoctrinated in public schools because of human nature.