Enjoyed this very much (in fact it's one of the only pieces I've read of late, since I became immersed in my research on the US 4th Cavalry's 24th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron, who liberated my town). As a onetime leftie who believed that we have a duty to shape society in our image (dressed up, obviously, as the Right Way Society Should Be) the arrogance of such control disgusts me. I think you would enjoy the writing of British Academic David McGrogan who writes News From Uncibal. He analyses the creep of the State into every aspect of life in the most compelling way I've seen.
Thanks man. I am curious as to why some people manage to get out of that mental trap, the hubris of control, while others get mired or fall into it later in life. In my case I think it was largely a function of growing up in a conservative household that wasn't religious, surrounded by either religious people that didn't make sense (or even internal coherence) and lefties (sometimes the same people) that made less sense, along with an early realization that I was smarter than many of my teachers and thus developing a strong distaste for authority. Still, there are lots of other people with the permanent outsider feeling that don't seem to make the leap, and it took me a little while to get there myself I am sure (hard to remember when) so it is still a mystery.
I will have to check out David McGrogan, thanks! I have worked a fair bit with the governmentalizing of life, and I think it really is a serious problem, possibly the biggest problem of creating sustainable social orders.
In my case it was realising that self-determination is within reach, personally and probably for most people. And that left-leaning idéologues appear to often be more interested in controlling people and things rather than helping them to be what they can be. I came to doubt that they even 'mean well'.
That’s a really good point. Meaning we’ll is usually just the excuse for most of the meddlers of the world, as usually evidenced by their indifference to how things turned out. It brings to mind Robin Hanson’s explanation for why prediction markets don’t see use in business: most managers want evidence that supports what they want to do, not what is actually likely to be true. I have seen quite a bit of evidence that that is true over the years.
That's an interesting point re prediction markets. The 'mean well' thing drives me nuts, as much more of a consequentialist than a moral realist. I mean, it may be tiresome to always invoke Stalin, Mao, Hitler & others, but they obviously believed that they meant well.
Yea, some people might be honest enough with themselves that they are not interested in doing good for others but just in benefitting themselves and screw everyone else, but those people don't get far and usually occupy the sort of just about entry level jobs (or just career criminal) that don't offer much power. Seemingly that is because they don't keep up the pretense of being a decent person, as someone with a secret who doesn't really want to keep it a secret, and other humans catch on quickly.
Those that are farther thinking learn pretty quickly that people do not trust or want to interact with those who act as though other people don't matter, and so learn to hide their indifference behind excuses. If they are clever that sort of camouflage can get them quite far since past a point most people have trouble detecting the reality behind the façade, especially if they don't interact over long periods of time. The excuse of meaning well fools most everyone, including the person using it, particularly if they don't necessarily mean ill but are merely indifferent to whether the outcome will be good for them or them and other people. And of course it is very difficult on one off events to divine whether the actor meant well but failed, meant ill and succeeded, or was indifferent to the effect on others and just did what they wanted to.
I've always used the term "worldview" to describe one's view of what is right and what is wrong. When this view is particularly rigid, it creates enormous strain on all relationships. I recall a marriage counseling session in which my wife said "everybody I grew up with did it that way," to which the counselor replied, "But honey, Bill didn't grow up with you."
I like worldview, although it doesn't carry the gravitas of the idea well; maybe a regional use thing.
That's a good line from the counselor, though :D A really good example too, as people always warn that daughters/sons turn into their mothers/fathers, and I think that the base expectations of how people act with family is a strong part of that. You really see it, even with people who don't like their parents who never the less fall right into those same patterns.
"Romans on the other hand turned basically everyone in the European part of the empire a flavor of Roman early on, then became a lot more Greek after they brought them into the fold, then became Christian much later despite their tiny initial population. This can happen slowly as in the Roman/Christianity case, or very quickly as in the case of Alexander the Great adopting very Persian tendencies as he was conquering them."
This is a pattern I've also noticed. Some of it could be described by the so-called "going native" effect, also highly visible by bello civili era Egypt (and the American West, too). The conqueror begins to adopt the customs of the conquered, and to identify with them in ever deeper ways. Maybe this local mimesis is priced into large, polyglot empires, where the indivudual governors, pashas and bureaucrats feel both the anxiety of aliens and a growing need to distinguish themselves as some more than functionaries.
Thanks man. Been a very rough couple of months, so haven't really had the time and priority to focus on writing things. This has been rolling around the back of my head for a bit, and crystalized over that weekend.
Going native is an interesting example, too. I often wonder how much of it is recognizing, or at least adopting, the behaviors that are functional for the area. Kind of a form following function idea. Along side that, though, I suspect going native does also highlight how serious differences can exist within a society, such that say the soldiers of a country might actually sympathize more fully with the virtues of natives of a conquered country than with their own upper class and elites. "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din". I imagine with the warrior class especially that tends to be true, as they often never quite fit in with the peace time civilian culture, and might find they relate better to their enemies than their countrymen in many cases.
„… most people don’t recognize that their own sense of what is most important changes over time, and thus was different in the past and will be different in the future.“
Yep. Also you’d have to be plain nuts to agree to five wives.
Yea, multiple wives seems like a punishment to me. If they don't get along it will be nothing but arguments all damned day, and demands that you arbitrate and punishment for not doing so to everyone's happiness. If they do get along you get more peace, but might as well get your own apartment somewhere else, because it will no longer be your house to make any decisions about. I rather suspect the first case is the most common one...
You know, I am subscribed to Ed, but I don't remember that one. Was it behind a paywall till recently? Although maybe I wasn't reading him this time last year when he wrote it.
That is a pretty good example though of accidental local empire. In a way the UK gave up its empire but ended up bringing enough of it home that they created a new one in a much smaller space. If Churchill were to write History of the British Peoples today that would involve a lot of rather disparate histories across the world to really collect all of them going back. "In 1066 the Normans invade and conquer England. Meanwhile, in what would be called Pakistan today..."
1. As a religious person, I consider it odd that people interpret the New Testament as a manual for good governance/arranging society. As I read it, it's a manual for individual behavior and salvation. There is no warrant in the NT, that I can see, for forcing people who don't adhere to its tenets to....adhere to its tenets (in order to achieve a better society).
2. One reason society is bad is that people are bad. But a bigger reason that society is bad is because government has power, and it is controlled by people, and people are...bad.
3. I find that in politics, as in life, it's always a good idea to ask "who is we?" It can clarify lots of things.
4. Your conclusion about limited government + freedom seems correct to me, but I always find it hard to explain why I come to the same conclusion. You do a much better job of it. Nice article.
1: Yes indeed. I am not blessed with religiosity, but I don't see a good way of going from New Testament rules for behavior to enforcable laws that work for everyone; whether they believe or not. I might be a little more optimistic if there were not a few dozen different major interpretations of what the rules actually were, but even still, it would be awkward for the vast majority of humans who are not Christians of one sort or another.
2: Winner winner, chicken dinner. :) Any government powerful enough to protect you from people stealing your stuff is powerful enough to steal your stuff, and might not even bother to protect your stuff after they decide they can just take what they want. Striking the right balance is very tricky, and the gap must be jealously guarded.
3: I like to append "...pale face." to that, although I should probably stop since that Far Side comic is getting to be 30+ years old, and references a show that was off the air by the time I was 10. :D
4: Thank you sir!
I find having worked in large companies, where at least notionally all the departments and groups have the same overall goal, yet fight like cats and can't agree on how to do anything while back biting and blaming everyone else really helps bring the main problems into focus. Corporations are probably the most authoritarian organizations we would willingly accept without significant repression, yet even they can't reliably get everyone moving in the same direction. Partially for lack of being able to decide upon and articulate a direction, but also because everyone tends to disagree on how to get there, if only because of where they sit.
Enjoyed this very much (in fact it's one of the only pieces I've read of late, since I became immersed in my research on the US 4th Cavalry's 24th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron, who liberated my town). As a onetime leftie who believed that we have a duty to shape society in our image (dressed up, obviously, as the Right Way Society Should Be) the arrogance of such control disgusts me. I think you would enjoy the writing of British Academic David McGrogan who writes News From Uncibal. He analyses the creep of the State into every aspect of life in the most compelling way I've seen.
Thanks man. I am curious as to why some people manage to get out of that mental trap, the hubris of control, while others get mired or fall into it later in life. In my case I think it was largely a function of growing up in a conservative household that wasn't religious, surrounded by either religious people that didn't make sense (or even internal coherence) and lefties (sometimes the same people) that made less sense, along with an early realization that I was smarter than many of my teachers and thus developing a strong distaste for authority. Still, there are lots of other people with the permanent outsider feeling that don't seem to make the leap, and it took me a little while to get there myself I am sure (hard to remember when) so it is still a mystery.
I will have to check out David McGrogan, thanks! I have worked a fair bit with the governmentalizing of life, and I think it really is a serious problem, possibly the biggest problem of creating sustainable social orders.
In my case it was realising that self-determination is within reach, personally and probably for most people. And that left-leaning idéologues appear to often be more interested in controlling people and things rather than helping them to be what they can be. I came to doubt that they even 'mean well'.
That’s a really good point. Meaning we’ll is usually just the excuse for most of the meddlers of the world, as usually evidenced by their indifference to how things turned out. It brings to mind Robin Hanson’s explanation for why prediction markets don’t see use in business: most managers want evidence that supports what they want to do, not what is actually likely to be true. I have seen quite a bit of evidence that that is true over the years.
That's an interesting point re prediction markets. The 'mean well' thing drives me nuts, as much more of a consequentialist than a moral realist. I mean, it may be tiresome to always invoke Stalin, Mao, Hitler & others, but they obviously believed that they meant well.
Yea, some people might be honest enough with themselves that they are not interested in doing good for others but just in benefitting themselves and screw everyone else, but those people don't get far and usually occupy the sort of just about entry level jobs (or just career criminal) that don't offer much power. Seemingly that is because they don't keep up the pretense of being a decent person, as someone with a secret who doesn't really want to keep it a secret, and other humans catch on quickly.
Those that are farther thinking learn pretty quickly that people do not trust or want to interact with those who act as though other people don't matter, and so learn to hide their indifference behind excuses. If they are clever that sort of camouflage can get them quite far since past a point most people have trouble detecting the reality behind the façade, especially if they don't interact over long periods of time. The excuse of meaning well fools most everyone, including the person using it, particularly if they don't necessarily mean ill but are merely indifferent to whether the outcome will be good for them or them and other people. And of course it is very difficult on one off events to divine whether the actor meant well but failed, meant ill and succeeded, or was indifferent to the effect on others and just did what they wanted to.
Amen to that
I've always used the term "worldview" to describe one's view of what is right and what is wrong. When this view is particularly rigid, it creates enormous strain on all relationships. I recall a marriage counseling session in which my wife said "everybody I grew up with did it that way," to which the counselor replied, "But honey, Bill didn't grow up with you."
I like worldview, although it doesn't carry the gravitas of the idea well; maybe a regional use thing.
That's a good line from the counselor, though :D A really good example too, as people always warn that daughters/sons turn into their mothers/fathers, and I think that the base expectations of how people act with family is a strong part of that. You really see it, even with people who don't like their parents who never the less fall right into those same patterns.
Glad to see you back at the presses, Doc.
"Romans on the other hand turned basically everyone in the European part of the empire a flavor of Roman early on, then became a lot more Greek after they brought them into the fold, then became Christian much later despite their tiny initial population. This can happen slowly as in the Roman/Christianity case, or very quickly as in the case of Alexander the Great adopting very Persian tendencies as he was conquering them."
This is a pattern I've also noticed. Some of it could be described by the so-called "going native" effect, also highly visible by bello civili era Egypt (and the American West, too). The conqueror begins to adopt the customs of the conquered, and to identify with them in ever deeper ways. Maybe this local mimesis is priced into large, polyglot empires, where the indivudual governors, pashas and bureaucrats feel both the anxiety of aliens and a growing need to distinguish themselves as some more than functionaries.
Thanks man. Been a very rough couple of months, so haven't really had the time and priority to focus on writing things. This has been rolling around the back of my head for a bit, and crystalized over that weekend.
Going native is an interesting example, too. I often wonder how much of it is recognizing, or at least adopting, the behaviors that are functional for the area. Kind of a form following function idea. Along side that, though, I suspect going native does also highlight how serious differences can exist within a society, such that say the soldiers of a country might actually sympathize more fully with the virtues of natives of a conquered country than with their own upper class and elites. "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din". I imagine with the warrior class especially that tends to be true, as they often never quite fit in with the peace time civilian culture, and might find they relate better to their enemies than their countrymen in many cases.
„… most people don’t recognize that their own sense of what is most important changes over time, and thus was different in the past and will be different in the future.“
Yep. Also you’d have to be plain nuts to agree to five wives.
Yea, multiple wives seems like a punishment to me. If they don't get along it will be nothing but arguments all damned day, and demands that you arbitrate and punishment for not doing so to everyone's happiness. If they do get along you get more peace, but might as well get your own apartment somewhere else, because it will no longer be your house to make any decisions about. I rather suspect the first case is the most common one...
I don't know if you already subscribed to Ed West, but he makes similar points to you about nations versus empires
https://www.edwest.co.uk/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-good-british
You know, I am subscribed to Ed, but I don't remember that one. Was it behind a paywall till recently? Although maybe I wasn't reading him this time last year when he wrote it.
That is a pretty good example though of accidental local empire. In a way the UK gave up its empire but ended up bringing enough of it home that they created a new one in a much smaller space. If Churchill were to write History of the British Peoples today that would involve a lot of rather disparate histories across the world to really collect all of them going back. "In 1066 the Normans invade and conquer England. Meanwhile, in what would be called Pakistan today..."
1. As a religious person, I consider it odd that people interpret the New Testament as a manual for good governance/arranging society. As I read it, it's a manual for individual behavior and salvation. There is no warrant in the NT, that I can see, for forcing people who don't adhere to its tenets to....adhere to its tenets (in order to achieve a better society).
2. One reason society is bad is that people are bad. But a bigger reason that society is bad is because government has power, and it is controlled by people, and people are...bad.
3. I find that in politics, as in life, it's always a good idea to ask "who is we?" It can clarify lots of things.
4. Your conclusion about limited government + freedom seems correct to me, but I always find it hard to explain why I come to the same conclusion. You do a much better job of it. Nice article.
1: Yes indeed. I am not blessed with religiosity, but I don't see a good way of going from New Testament rules for behavior to enforcable laws that work for everyone; whether they believe or not. I might be a little more optimistic if there were not a few dozen different major interpretations of what the rules actually were, but even still, it would be awkward for the vast majority of humans who are not Christians of one sort or another.
2: Winner winner, chicken dinner. :) Any government powerful enough to protect you from people stealing your stuff is powerful enough to steal your stuff, and might not even bother to protect your stuff after they decide they can just take what they want. Striking the right balance is very tricky, and the gap must be jealously guarded.
3: I like to append "...pale face." to that, although I should probably stop since that Far Side comic is getting to be 30+ years old, and references a show that was off the air by the time I was 10. :D
4: Thank you sir!
I find having worked in large companies, where at least notionally all the departments and groups have the same overall goal, yet fight like cats and can't agree on how to do anything while back biting and blaming everyone else really helps bring the main problems into focus. Corporations are probably the most authoritarian organizations we would willingly accept without significant repression, yet even they can't reliably get everyone moving in the same direction. Partially for lack of being able to decide upon and articulate a direction, but also because everyone tends to disagree on how to get there, if only because of where they sit.