[Note from Matthew Gaylor: I've read nearly everything David Brin has
in print and I highly recommend him. Brin is a scientist and
bestselling novelist. His 1989 thriller Earth foresaw both global
warming and the World Wide Web. A movie with Kevin Costner was
loosely based on "The Postman". "Startide Rising" is in pre
production at Paramount Pictures. Brin's non-fiction book -- "The
Transparent Society: Will Technology Make Us Choose Between Freedom
and Privacy?" -- deals with threats to openness and liberty in the
new wired-age. His speculations on the future of the Internet appear
as the lead article in the latest issue of the American Bar
Association's Journal on Dispute Resolution. Please note that this
article is being sent to Freematt's Alerts with the permission of
David Brin. Please respect his intellectual property rights by
asking him for permission before you forward or post this essay. "The
Transparent Society" raised a ruckus among the cypherpunks and civil
libertarians that I associate with, so I won't be too surprised if
David's "confessions" don't raise the bristles of a few radicals,
such as myself. I have a short commentary on David's "confessions"
at the end of the article.]
[Some minor formatting changes where made to aid email distribution]
Draft run by Bill Stoddard in the Prometheus Libertarian Sf [Science
Fiction] newsletter 7/2000, whswhs@mindspring.com
[For information see The Libertarian Futurist Society http://www.lfs.org/ ]
Passed on to http://www.egroups.com/list/fa/ Matthew Gaylor
<freematt@coil.com> Freematt's Alerts 8/2000
=======================
CONFESSIONS OF A CHEERFUL LIBERTARIAN
(A pragmatic-philosophical draft in progress)
by David Brin, author of The Postman and The Transparent Society
I get confused looks from some of my libertarian pals, when I say I'm
one of them.
On the one hand, I send money to the LP every year and routinely vote
Libertarian in primary elections. I was even a keynote speaker at the
California LP Convention, last year.
On the other hand, I admit turning around and often voting for
Democrats in general elections. (I spoke on a privacy policy panel at
their 2000 convention, in Los Angeles.) I also send cash to
Greenpeace and the ACLU. So what the hell am I?
After serious thought, I can only conclude that I must be a...
(shudder)... pragmatist.
*
No word is better guaranteed to offend those who love the memic
pleasures of ideology. According to the deeply-rooted tradition of
Plato, the world is made up of essences. Some may be right and others
wrong, but any person worthy of respect must believe in some
essential "truth", some law or model of human nature, whether it's
the labor theory of value or an absolute right of property. Men of
the True Right and True Left often respect each other on principle
while disagreeing. Above all, they share contempt for wishy-washy
types who see partial truths coming from all directions.
Yep, those pure Platonic ideologies offer loads of satisfaction. But
sorry, I can't join in. I can't afford the luxury. I have too many
urgent needs for the present and goals for tomorrow. I want those
needs satisfied and those goals fulfilled, but the last century has
proved again and again that ideologies aren't especially helpful at
achieving practical goals.
Moreover, recent advances in anthropology, neuroscience and
complexity theory all converge toward one conclusion; even the most
compelling or beguiling ideological description can never encompass
the range of emergent and often contradictory qualities contained in
a single human being, let alone whole societies.
*
What do I need right now? Because I'm a brash eccentric, I need a
society that is open, tolerant, even welcoming of eccentricity. One
whose institutions are accountable enough to minimize the inevitable
capricious power abuses that fester in every human culture. One
where competition takes place under conditions that maximize fair
comparison of quality (in goods, services, and ideas) while
minimizing the destructive effects of our most loathsome human trait
-- our talent for rationalizing cheating and oppression.
What do I want for tomorrow? A world where coercion is minimized and
individuals are free to achieve the maximum they can by making fair
deals with each other, leveraging off others' talents and benefiting
from the mutual criticism that only true freedom engenders.
Now I concede -- heck, I avow! -- that these desiderata sound awfully
libertarian. But let's recall that, ironically, the same futurist
dream was shared by idealizing Marxists! They, too, envisioned a
final destination without states or any coercive institutions, only
human beings interacting autonomously. The chief difference was
always over the right path to achieve that envisioned paradise of
emancipated individuals. Marxists fantasized that it would emerge
semi-violently from some "final stage of industrial capitalization"
-- as if that ongoing task could ever be finished! Libertarians, on
the other hand, see the ultimate apotheosis of individualism coming
as a result of...
Well, here's where we have a problem, because there are some real
contradictions that I seldom hear my libertarian friends talk about.
Especially over the basic difference between evolution and revolution.
Revolution is far more gut-satisfying and romantic, but in order to
justify it, you must assume the worst. To hear some true-believers
rail against today's society, you'd think we live in a wretched
Orwellian dictatorship filled with bovine Democrats, porcine
Republicans, and sheeplike voters, all of them too stupid to perceive
the Truth.
*
I admit that I'm drawn to these characters, because of their
admirable passion. I find much that's appealing about their ardent
dream of a better world. Alas, their stern righteousness makes them
irresistible targets for playful teasing. For instance, I find that
nothing causes these delightfully articulate firebrands to go
tongue-locked more efficiently than asking the following question.
Can you name one human civilization, past or present, that was even
half as close to what you desire as contemporary America is today?
Like their spiritual cousins -- radical feminists -- these fellows
enjoy the indignant rush of knowing they are right. And like radical
feminists, they find it galling to be reminded how far freedom has
already come. Or how this culture seems almost designed to bring them
about. Or that their citizenship may have real value in a
civilization that -- while still flawed -- is nevertheless more
hope-filled and worthy of the name than any other. A civilization
that seems already to be moving in the direction they desire.
*
In light of where I'm first publishing this draft-in-progress -- in a
libertarian Science Fiction newsletter -- let's narrow the discussion
down to that very topicŠ portrayals of libertarianism in science
fiction.
I contend that most libertarian SF is similar, at heart, to
radical-feminist SF, sharing roots that run far deeper than their
superficially disparate political prescriptions. Both perceive a
desperate need to tear out a pervasive evil -- root and branch --
replacing it with something much more uncomplicated and, in the
author's view, more inherently 'natural.' It's all part of a grand
tradition of polemical, rather than exploratory science fiction.
Instead of suggesting realistic but tedious possibilities for gradual
reform, both libertarian and feminist SF often focus on
wish-fantasies portraying one paramount dream -- simplification
through revolution.
Take a glance at the most popular works in both sub-genres. Plot
scenarios nearly always revolve around chopping away society's
complex institutional structures, replacing them with a thumbnail
prescription simple enough to fit on a few pages and to be imposed by
a few super-competent, ubermensch protagonists -- heroes who can
dispense with accountability because their inherent virtues make it
unnecessary. Only instead of the 'kindly matriarchs' who take over
after some devastating war or disease (a chief cliche in feminist
novels), the most hackneyed archetype in libertarian Science Fiction
features rebellious space colonies, cutting their ties to decadent
old Earth and proclaiming some trimmed-down utopia in orbit, setting
themselves proudly aloof from the misguided and unredeemable masses
festering below.
(Of course, now that Earthers have been warned in advance by such
novels, citizens will act to prevent rebellion by ungrateful
astronauts. They'll accomplish this by the simple means of choosing
adults to crew space stations, instead of boys obsessed with
hotwiring mobile homes in space.)
Why do simplification-fantasies have such a powerful draw, sinking
their hooks into us again and again, no matter repetitiously or even
preposterously they are told? Pondering this subject, I realize I
have more questions than answers. (One true sign of an infuriating
pragmatist non-ideologue, I'm afraid!) So I did the obvious... I
wrote a questionnaire!
Drop by http://www.kithrup.com/brin/ (or http://www.davidbrin.com/ )
and see my "questionnaire on ideology". It was written to explore
some deep assumptions that run -- like underground rivers -- below
many political systems. For example: how did you arrive at your
beliefs? People tend to credit their own convictions to logical
appraisal of the facts, while blaming their opponents' obdurate
mistaken dogmas on intrinsic character flaws, or else conformity to
malignant propaganda. (Look it up, this tendency is ubiquitous! Your
foes are just as confident in their own logic - and your illogic - as
you are in reverse.)
Does the commonly held libertarian self-image - as a doctrine arising
solely from evidence and reason -- really hold? The answer may
embarrass you.
For example, do you want to talk about propaganda? I'll show you
propaganda! Modern western media messages -- e.g. in nearly every
Hollywood movie -- emphasize in-your-face individualism and suspicion
of authority, pounding these themes more relentlessly than any other
motif in human history. Never before has an idea been given such
play! So might our libertarian attitudes actually arise from this
everpresent indoctrination? From lessons we've imbibed since
childhood, suckling them from the teat of a society that is much less
conformist and more cherishing of individualism than we let ourselves
imagine?
When I mention this in public, some audience members greet the
apparent paradox with displeasure, even anger. It's discomfiting to
imagine that a proudly singular trait might have arisen from
relentless propaganda! How much more satisfying to say to yourself
-- "I invented individualism and rebellion!"
Others, faced with overpowering evidence -- their own memories of
every movie and novel they ever enjoyed -- abruptly break into
smiles, even chuckles, over the rich irony. These alphas, true
individualists, don't feel threatened or shamed by the insightŠ by
realizing that they were taught - even programmed - to be eccentrics
and rebels.
So society wants them to be unconventional and defy authority? Well,
then, so be it! So this civilization is healthier than they had
imagined. Fine. So what?
The past is over, as far as they are concerned. All that matters is
what's ahead.
*
Hence the name I give my own brand of libertarianism... Cheerful
Libertarianism!
Angry types tend to think that an individualist paradise has been
prevented. That we are kept away from some natural state of grace by
because a grievous sin (in this case, government) that can only be
overcome through revolution. They believe this, never noticing the
quasi-religiosity of their philosophy, or the old-fashioned righteous
satisfaction that it offers.
Cheerful Libertarianism takes a diametrically opposite view -- that
the natural human condition for thousands of years has been either
gruesomely oppressive feudalism or Lord-of-the-Flies chaos. Only
now, after a near-uniform worldwide tale of repression and woe,
things seem to be changing at last, in important ways!
Our present high levels of freedom, tolerance, individual
eccentricity and general rambunctiousness are unprecedented and
growing at incredible rates. Instead of being fallen creatures, we
seem to be riding a rapidly rising tide, aimed toward incredible
levels of self-actualization, individual achievement and liberty for
all people. Moreover, the society that got us this far -- though
fraught with troubles and occasional outrages -- just might be pretty
good compared to everything that came before, offering an excellent
platform to evolve toward better things.
Here's a thought that might revolutionize modern libertarianism:
perhaps our fellow citizens aren't insipid fools after all!
Maybe the bulky government that they've repeatedly voted for isn't
intrinsically vile, but rather an awkward, intermediate necessity. A
stage in a general evolutionary process, along the way from native
chaos-and-feudalism toward a world of genuinely open opportunity that
our brainy, hyper-educated grandchildren will take for granted.
Instead of railing about how stupid our fellow citizens have been,
Cheerful Libertarianism congratulates them on how far they managed to
come using such gross and crudely inefficient tools.
Only now (we add) it's time to outgrow those complicated and
coercive, bureaucracy-heavy tools! For example: universal education
in state schools helped uplift prior generations out of illiterate
class systems, resulting in unprecedented numbers of high school and
college graduates and a trained workforce capable of producing the
modern techno-corucopia; but now a lack of choice is preventing
further progress by stifling educational innovations that might arise
out of more sophisticated and agile competition.
Our point should be that simplistic "government-centered solutions"
that once worked, in a more primitive world, may now be obsolete and
holding us back. With rising sophistication, we can move on to more
mature synergies that make progressively less use of coercive state
power, leveraging against individual effort more and more as time
goes on.
People might actually vote for such a message! A message that
congratulates them for their past successes with crude implements,
while insisting that the future should be different, because we are
ready now to use the versatile toolkit of self-reliance. A message
filled with ideas that are pragmatic, incremental, perhaps even
accepting of compromise, yet always applying pressure in the
direction of less coercion, less bureaucracy and more reliance on the
creativity of autonomous human beings.
One thing is certain, the present approach of contemptuously railing
at voters isn't working. They do not -- and won't ever -- cast
ballots for candidates who call them fools (explicitly or
implicitly), relentlessly repeating the standard, self righteous
rant. A rant that says this gentle, prosperous, tolerant, improving
civilization is actually a cesspit of brutality and despair. Oh
please.
Yes, the rant feels good. But I want to see freedom-loving
candidates actually gain some power. So here's an idea. Let's
replace the failed harangue with a message offering our fellow
citizens both congratulations and new hope. Hope that we can rise
even faster toward a future of freedom and opportunity for all.
================= footnote ===================
* "...As a avowed libertarian, I am nevertheless very much a heretic
-- one who believes that a future of fully emancipated individualism
will be far better achieved through pragmatic evolution -- by
continuing the Periclean/Galilean traditions that were exemplified
and expanded-upon by the Scottish-English Enlightenment -- as opposed
to the far more common prescription of idealistic revolution touted
by French, German and Russian philosophers. In novels such as Earth
and The Postman, as well as non-fiction (The Transparent Society), I
tend to frown on the broadbrushed Platonic essences that enthrall Ayn
Rand's most ardent followers...." For more on this, see: "A
Subjective manifesto" LIBERTY MAGAZINE, September 2000.
=======================
David Brin is a scientist and bestselling novelist. His 1989
thriller Earth foresaw both global warming and the World Wide Web.
A movie with Kevin Costner was loosely based on The Postman. Startide
Rising is in pre production at Paramount Pictures.
Brin's non-fiction book -- The Transparent Society: Will
Technology Make Us Choose Between Freedom and Privacy? -- deals with
threats to openness and liberty in the new wired-age. His
speculations on the future of the Internet appear as the lead article
in the latest issue of the American Bar Association's Journal on
Dispute Resolution.
Brin's latest novel, Foundation's Triumph, brings to a grand
finale -- and ties up all the loose ends -- in Isaac Asimov's famed
Foundation Universe. He has won three Hugo Awards and has been
nominated more than a dozen times.
See: http://www.davidbrin.com/
###
[Matthew Gaylor's response to "Confessions of a Cheerful
Libertarian"- David Brin wrote: "To hear some true-believers rail
against today's society, you'd think we live in a wretched Orwellian
dictatorship filled with bovine Democrats, porcine Republicans, and
sheeplike voters, all of them too stupid to perceive the Truth." They
say confessions are good for the soul, but I'm not too sure after
reading David Brin's. "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by
him who resists it." -- John Hay, 1872. In my home town of Columbus,
Ohio there currently is a graffiti artist running loose writing the
slogan "No More Prisons" on freeway underpasses and other structures.
I happened to catch a TV news report detailing the activity. What
stuck me as absurd was the closing comment of the TV personality, who
said something to the effect "And nobody seems to know what "No More
Prisons" means. I think "too stupid to perceive the truth" sums up
what is wrong with Brin's cheerful outlook.
While I share much of his optimism and eager anticipation of
technology changing the world, I refuse to forget that the US
Corrections System currently has 458,000 Drug War Prisoners. Plus the
number of people under some form of correctional supervision -- jail,
prison, probation, or parole -- has reached a record 6.3 million. Go
to the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
semiannual report on corrections. That report, as well as a treasure
trove of related statistics is available online at
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm>.
This isn't a libertarian fantasy. This is reality. Smoke a joint
and go to jail, and expect the state to seize your children and place
them in a foster home. Or go ask Peter McWilliams if he thinks we
live in a Police State? You can't because he is dead, as he said
"They're just going to let me die," the New York Times best-selling
author said who used medical marijuana to alleviate the side effects
of the AIDS wasting syndrome and the nausea associated ...But who was
prevented by the state to alleviate his suffering and died as a
result (See http://www.mcwilliams.com/ ) Or go ask the thousands of
innocent gun owners robbed of their rights by legislative control
freaks. Or go ask the FBI why they pumped tear gas into the Branch
Davidian Church full of small children thus setting off a chain
reaction that ultimately incinerated them. If you're not satisfied
with their answer you might want to ask them about carnivore and
their plans to do wholesale spying on American citizens. I could go
on at length, but surely I'm not imagining this, am I?]
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month)
Matthew Gaylor, 1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd., PMB 176, Columbus, OH 43229
(614) 313-5722 Archived at http://www.egroups.com/list/fa/
**************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:32 MDT