Activity feed
20 unchanged lines collapsedFirst, picking crops is extremelyunfunnyunfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging. I love manual labor, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.18 unchanged lines collapsed
# Abolition + PickingCrops↵ ↵ *ThisCrops↵ ↵ This is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article [‘Unschooling + Math’](https://www.econlib.org/unschooling-math/). I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Imagine that a slaveholder from the early 1860s wrote thefollowing.*↵ ↵ Onefollowing.↵ ↵ ---↵ ↵ One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is that the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”23 unchanged lines collapsedWe should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is a deeply underrated thought. The value of picking crops, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear, I *don’t* mean that the government should force slaveholders to teach math. What I mean, rather, is that slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops.Guilt-free.↵ ↵ *IGuilt-free.↵ ↵ ---↵ ↵ I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to__grant__*grant* freedom on__his__ terms.*his* terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern for *parents’ guilt* rather than *children’s freedom* betrayshim.*↵ ↵ *Freedomhim.↵ ↵ Overriding a child’s preferences for his benefit is a contradiction in terms. If learning math is such a good idea, persuade your child. If you fail, then not learning math is his prerogative, just like it is yours not to pick crops, even though people in the 1860s considered it an extremely useful skill. Or learn math later in life. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, and the scope and timing is different for everyone.↵ ↵ Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that [even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a completesurrender.](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html).surrender](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html). An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” orwhatever.*whatever.
30 unchanged lines collapsed*I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to*grant*__grant__ freedom on*his*__his__ terms. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for usingcoercion.*↵ ↵ *Freedomcoercion. His concern betrays him.*↵ ↵ *Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that [even the smallest compromiseinon basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender.](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html). An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever.*
30 unchanged lines collapsed*I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to *grant* freedom on *his* terms. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion.* *Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that [even the smallest compromise in basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender.](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html). An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man.An honest manA free child whosteals once inhas to learn math 1-2 hours awhileday is notan honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. And so on.*a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or whatever.*
Draft of an upcoming blog post.
Abolition + Picking Crops
This is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Imagine that a slaveholder from the early 1860s wrote the following.
One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is that the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”
Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr Samuel A. Cartwright says slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves shake their heads at the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists defend the merits of freedom with great vigor and eloquence. According to advocates of freedom, the human slave is naturally curious. Given freedom, he won’t just learn basic skills; he’ll ultimately find a calling.
On the surface, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave loves to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And as a mortal enemy of Social Desirability Bias, my instinct is to dismiss freedom out of hand.
One thing I loathe more than Social Desirability Bias, however, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve personally met and conversed with dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some come across as flaky, but then again so do a lot of people. When you look closely, free people have only one obvious problem.
They suck at picking crops! In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone could do. And their knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques is sparser still.
Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? The honest answer though, is: Anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.
Won’t slaves who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to pick crops given the freedom to do so? The answer, I fear, is: Rarely. For two reasons:
First, picking crops is extremely unfunny for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging. I love manual labor, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.
Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. Each major stage of picking crops builds on the foundation of the previous stages. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you become free and then decide to learn how to pick crops to pursue a newly-discovered ambition, I wish you good luck, because you’ll need it.
What’s the best response? Mainstream critics of freedom will obviously use this criticism to dismiss the entire approach. And staunch advocates of freedom will no doubt stick to their guns. I, however, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.
What does Abolition + Picking Crops mean? Simple: Impose a single mandate on free men. Every day, like it or not, you have pick crops for 1-2 hours. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires picking crops. And if you postpone the study of crop picking for long, it will be too late to start later on.
While most people don’t wind up using much crop picking on the job, ignorance of basic crop-picking skills is still a severe handicap in life. And when smart free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.
We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is a deeply underrated thought. The value of picking crops, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear, I don’t mean that the government should force slaveholders to teach math. What I mean, rather, is that slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.
I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to *grant freedom on his terms. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion.*
Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that even the smallest compromise in basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender.. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. And so on.
This video says 30 seconds in that babies cry inside the womb at 15 weeks. Crying seems to be a uniquely human activity. Maybe this is evidence that babies are already people and sentient in the womb.
11 unchanged lines collapsedIn other words, Rand recognizes that across nations –meaning *across* jurisdictions,ie having no shared jurisdiction or government – there are still objective standards to determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong. If Rand candoidentify such standards without sharing ashared government,government with those countries, why could not others do this,too?too?↵ ↵ The working principle here is *supremacy of reason*, not the supremacy of government. See also #920, where I explain that certain rules of engagement exist *a priori* and need not be devised by humans before engaging.
> The anarchists do not object to retaliatory force, only to it being wielded by a government. Why? Because, they say, it excludes "competitors." It sure does: it excludes vigilantes, lynch mobs, terrorists, and anyone else wanting to use force *subjectively*. Competing arbitration agencies would develop *objective* (ie, non-arbitrary) laws and rules for coordination. And, just likegovernments,governments (should), they would defend their customers against anyone who wants to use force subjectively. That’s their value proposition; their income relies on it. See#3.#3.↵ ↵ Rand *herself* proposes a yardstick by which to determine whether one country has a right to invade another:↵ ↵ > % source: Ayn Rand. *The Virtue of Selfishness.* ‘Collectivized Rights.’↵ > Since there is no fully free country today, since the so-called “Free World” consists of various “mixed economies,” it might be asked whether every country on earth is morally open to invasion by every other. The answer is: No. There is a difference between a country that recognizes the principle of individual rights, but does not implement it fully in practice, and a country that denies and flouts it explicitly. All “mixed economies” are in a precarious state of transition which, ultimately, has to turn to freedom or collapse into dictatorship. There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw.↵ ↵ In other words, Rand recognizes that across nations – meaning *across* jurisdictions, ie having no shared jurisdiction or government – there are objective standards to determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong. If Rand can do identify such standards without a shared government, why could not others do this, too?
4 unchanged lines collapsedPeople want protection and justice. Retaliatory force does not merely eliminate a negative. Restoring and producing justice is avalue.↵ ↵ Retaliatingvalue, as is the peace of mind from knowing you have working defenses and someone who will seek justice on your behalf.↵ ↵ Retaliating against one burglar can scare off ten others. The value that’s created here far exceeds the negative which the burglar (might have) created.
6 unchanged lines collapsedI think Binswanger is invoking the fallacy of the stolen concept here: he claims libertarians logically rely on a concept they reject. Clearly, as international relations have shown time and again, that is not the case. There are certain mechanisms such as, again, the discipline of constant dealings, which exist independently of any particular association between people. When someone reneges on his word, he diminishes his ability to do business in the future. That’s inherent in the logic of the situation, without any definition or creation by people. *It is not necessary for people to create rules of engagement before engaging.* It’s helpful, sure, but certain rules of engagement exist *apriori*.priori*.↵ ↵ See also #16 and my application of Karl Popper’s *myth of the framework* to this issue: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/objectivism-vs-the-myth-of-the-framework
4 unchanged lines collapsedThe police force, prosecutors, judges, etc need resources and payment. Those resources don’t grow in nature. Scarcity and theeconomic calculationeconomic-calculation problem apply.4 unchanged lines collapsed
6 unchanged lines collapsedRetaliating against one burglar can scare off ten others. The value that’s created here far exceeds the negative which the burglar (might have) created.
6 unchanged lines collapsedI think Binswanger is invoking the fallacy of the stolen concept here: he claims libertarians logically rely on a concepton whichthey reject. Clearly, as international relations have shown time and again, that is not the case. There are certain mechanisms such as, again, the discipline of constant dealings, which exist independently of any particular association between people. When someone reneges on his word, he diminishes his ability to do business in the future. That’s inherent in the logic of the situation, without any definition or creation by people. *It is not necessary for people to create rules of engagement before engaging.* It’s helpful, sure, but certain rules of engagement exist *a priori*.
6 unchanged lines collapsedI think Binswanger is invoking the fallacy of the stolen concept here: he claims libertarians logically rely on a concept on which theylogically depend.reject. Clearly, as international relationsshowhave shown time and again, that is not the case. There are certain mechanisms such as, again, the discipline of constant dealings, which exist independently of any particular association between people. When someone reneges on his word, he diminishes his ability to do business in the future. That’s inherent in the logic of the situation, without any definition or creation by people. *It is not necessary for people to create rules of engagement before engaging.* It’s helpful, sure, but certain rules of engagement exist *a priori*.
#894 · Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months agoHarry Binswanger wrote a piece titled ‘Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government’ for Forbes, criticizing the libertarian position.
Economic competition presupposes a free market. A free market cannot exist until after force has been barred. That means objective law, backed up by a government. To say it can be backed up by "competing" force-wielders is circular. There is no competition until there is a free market, and some agency has to protect its condition as a free market by the use of retaliatory force.
The anarchist idea of putting law on "the market" cannot be applied even to a baseball game. It would mean that the rules of the game will be defined by whoever wins it.
Once again, supranational treaties refute this point. Germany and the US have no shared government or jurisdiction. (They each have separate governments, but together they have no common government above them.) Yet they have come up with rules of trade and justice and extradition and so on. Those are objective and evidently work really well since war between these two nations is unthinkable.
I think Binswanger is invoking the fallacy of the stolen concept here: he claims libertarians rely on a concept on which they logically depend. Clearly, as international relations show time and again, that is not the case.
#894 · Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months agoHarry Binswanger wrote a piece titled ‘Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government’ for Forbes, criticizing the libertarian position.
[T]here is no conflict between individual rights and outlawing private force: there is no right to the arbitrary use of force. No political or moral principle could require the police to stand by helplessly while others use force arbitrarily--i.e., according to whatever private notions of justice they happen to hold.
What a horrible straw man. No libertarian advocates this view.
Libertarians agree that laws should be objective, ie non-arbitrary. They have that in common with objectivists. Libertarians disagree that a monopoly is required to make laws objective. They think that a monopoly makes laws less objective.
#908 · Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months agoBut if anyone could make his own laws based on whim, that would be arbitrary, no?
Anyone who tried to make ‘laws’ based on whim which, say, allow him to rob his neighbor, would be immediately greeted by the machine guns of that neighbor’s private protection service and their objective rules for engagement.
#902 · Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months agoThe anarchists do not object to retaliatory force, only to it being wielded by a government. Why? Because, they say, it excludes "competitors." It sure does: it excludes vigilantes, lynch mobs, terrorists, and anyone else wanting to use force subjectively.
Competing arbitration agencies would develop objective (ie, non-arbitrary) laws and rules for coordination. And, just like governments, they would defend their customers against anyone who wants to use force subjectively. That’s their value proposition; their income relies on it.
But if anyone could make his own laws based on whim, that would be arbitrary, no?
> The anarchists do not object to retaliatory force, only to it being wielded by a government. Why? Because, they say, it excludes "competitors." It sure does: it excludes vigilantes, lynch mobs, terrorists, and anyone else wanting to use force *subjectively*. Competing arbitration agencies would develop *objective* (ie, non-arbitrary) laws and rules for coordination. And, just like governments, they would defend their customers against anyone who wants to use force subjectively. That’s their value proposition; their income relies onit.it.↵ ↵ See #3.
#903 · Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months agoCould conflict among "competing governments" be taken care of by treaties? Treaties?--enforced by whom? I once asked Ayn Rand about the feasibility of such treaties between sovereign "competing governments." She looked at me grimly and said, "You mean like at the U.N.?"
She looked at me grimly and said, "You mean like at the U.N.?"
Consider, instead, NATO – the ‘North Atlantic Treaty Organization’ – another supranational collaboration. It has been stable for decades and war amongst its members would be unthinkable.
Why does Rand choose a bad example that conveniently supports her case while ignoring a good one that doesn’t?
#903 · Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months agoCould conflict among "competing governments" be taken care of by treaties? Treaties?--enforced by whom? I once asked Ayn Rand about the feasibility of such treaties between sovereign "competing governments." She looked at me grimly and said, "You mean like at the U.N.?"
The part “enforced by whom?” is telling. There isn’t just ‘who’ but also ‘what’. For example, David Friedman refers to the discipline of constant dealings as an enforcement mechanism.
#899 · Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months agoAsk yourself what it means to have a "competition" in governmental services. It's a "competition" in wielding force, a "competition" in subjugating others, a "competition" in making people obey commands. That's not "competition," it's violent conflict. On a large scale, it's war.
Governments already compete on a global scale. So why isn’t the world in a perpetual state of war?
See #17.
Could conflict among "competing governments" be taken care of by treaties? Treaties?--enforced by whom? I once asked Ayn Rand about the feasibility of such treaties between sovereign "competing governments." She looked at me grimly and said, "You mean like at the U.N.?"
#894 · Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months agoHarry Binswanger wrote a piece titled ‘Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government’ for Forbes, criticizing the libertarian position.
The anarchists do not object to retaliatory force, only to it being wielded by a government. Why? Because, they say, it excludes "competitors." It sure does: it excludes vigilantes, lynch mobs, terrorists, and anyone else wanting to use force subjectively.
Competing arbitration agencies would develop objective (ie, non-arbitrary) laws and rules for coordination. And, just like governments, they would defend their customers against anyone who wants to use force subjectively. That’s their value proposition; their income relies on it.
#894 · Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months agoHarry Binswanger wrote a piece titled ‘Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government’ for Forbes, criticizing the libertarian position.
Tragically, the original American theory of [limited] government was breached, shelved, trashed long ago. But that's another story.
Convenient. Maybe if he investigated that story a bit more he’d realize that the government qua institution isn’t all that? The rampant failures of the American government to remain limited are something objectivists need to explain, not just gloss over!
#894 · Dennis HackethalOP, 8 months agoHarry Binswanger wrote a piece titled ‘Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government’ for Forbes, criticizing the libertarian position.
Ask yourself what it means to have a "competition" in governmental services. It's a "competition" in wielding force, a "competition" in subjugating others, a "competition" in making people obey commands. That's not "competition," it's violent conflict. On a large scale, it's war.
In reality, enforcement of laws would only be a small part of what competing arbitration services would have offer. They would come up with laws, revise, simplify, and otherwise improve laws, protect their customers, coordinate with each other, and more. Lots of value creation.