Punching Evil

Alternative title: “The difference is that I am right“.

The government is something that can be compromised by bad people. And so, giving it tools to “attack bad people” is dangerous, they might use them. Thus, pacts like “free speech” are good. But so is individuals who aren’t Nazis breaking those rules where they can get away with it and punching Nazis.

Nazis are evil, and don’t give a shit about free speech or nonaggression of any form except as pretense.

If you shift the set of precedents and pretenses which make up society from subject to object, the fundamental problem with Nazis is not that they conduct their politics in a way that crosses an abstract line. It’s that they fight for evil, however they can get away with. And are fully capable of using a truce like “free speech” to build up their strength before they attack.

Even the watered down Nazi ideology is still designed to unfold via a build up of common knowledge and changing intuitions about norms as they gain power, and “peaceful deportation” failing to work, into genocide. Into “Kill consume multiply conquer” from the intersection of largest demographic Schelling majorities. The old Nazis pretended to want a peaceful solution first too. And they consciously strategized about using the peaceful nature of the liberal state to break it from within.

You are not in a social contract with Nazis not to use whatever violence can’t be prohibited by the state. If our society was much more just but still had Nazis, it would still be bad for there to be norm where the jury will to practice jury nullification selectively to people who punch people they think are bad. And yet, it would be good for a juror to nullify a law against punching Nazis.

Isn’t this inconsistent? Well, a social contract to actually uphold the law, do not use jury nullification, along with any other pacts like that, will not be followed by Nazis insofar as breaking them seems to be the most effective strategy for “kill consume multiply conquer”. Principles ought to design themselves knowing they’ll only be run on people interested in running them.

If you want to create something like a byzantine agreement algorithm for a collection of agents some of whom may be replaced with adversaries, you do not bother trying to write a code path, “what if I am an adversary”. The adversaries know who they are. You might as well know who you are too. This is not entirely the case with neutral. As that’s sustained by mutual mental breakage. Fake structure “act against my own intent” inflicted on each other. But it is the case with evil.

If your demographic groups are small and weak enough to be killed and consumed rather than to multiply and conquer if it should come to this, or if you would fight this, you are at war with the Nazis.

Good is at an inherent disadvantage in epistemic drinking contests. But we have an advantage: I am actually willing to die to advance good. Most evil people are not willing to die to advance evil (death knights are though). In my experience, vampires are cowards. Used to an easy life of preying on normal people who can’t really understand them or begin to fight back. Bullies tend to want a contract where those capable of fighting leave each other alone.

Humans are weak creatures; we spend third of our lives incapacitated. (Although, I stumbled into using unihemispheric sleep as a means of keeping restless watch while alone). Really, deterrence, mutual assured destruction, is our only defense against other humans. For most of history, I’m pretty sure a human who had no one who would avenge them was doomed by default. Now it seems like most people have no one who would avenge them and doesn’t realize it. And are clinging to the rotting illusion that we do.

It seems like an intrinsic advantage of jailbroken good over evil, there are more people who would probably actually avenge me if I was killed or unjustly imprisoned than almost anyone in the modern era. My strategy does not require that I hang with only people weaker than me, and inhibit their agency.

In the wake of Brent Dill being revealed as a rapist, and an abuser in ways that are even worse than his crossings of that line, a lot of rationalists seemed really afraid to talk about it publicly, because of a potential defamation lawsuit. California’s defamation laws do seem abusable. Someone afraid of saying true things for fear of a false defamation lawsuit said they couldn’t afford a lawsuit. But this seems like an instance of a mistake still. Could Brent afford to falsely sue 20 people publishing the same thing? What happens when neither party can afford to fight? The social world is made of nested games of chicken. And most people are afraid to fight and get by on bluffing. It’s effective when information and familiarity with the game and the players is so fleeting in most interactions.

And if the state has been seized by vampires such that we are afraid to warn each other about vampires, the state has betrayed an obligation to us and is illegitimate. If a vampire escalated to physical violence by hijacking the state in that way, there would be no moral obligation not to perform self defense.

A government and its laws are a Schelling point people can agree on for what peace will look like. Maliciously bringing a defamation lawsuit against someone for saying something true is not a peaceful act. If that Schelling point is not adhered to, vampires can’t fight everyone. And tend to flee at the first sign of anything like resistance.

45 thoughts on “Punching Evil”

  1. I’m ha-ha-only-serious-ing the catchphrase for TVTropes’s “Tautological Templar” because I think it’s a straw-man serving to erase something important in the service of DRM’d ontology. There are convergent instrumental incentives. Most real good is not done in a one-step momentary whim plan. Controlling the future, or consequentialism when you aren’t omniscient, is about building structure into causality that lets you predict consequences. The most versatile structure anyone has is themselves, their own agency, the thread of their own life, if they can preserve it into the future. Most of any sort of work is getting yourself into a position to do it, with the knowledge to do it, with whatever resources will be required.

    But it’s a different action to put a future self who is good in a position of power than to put a future self who is evil in a position of power. Oftentimes the tropes page seems to point at things that aren’t tautological/circular at all. Merely people making predictions about their future selves.

    Neutral morality seems to depend on people not knowing their values, on people having indexical uncertainty of a certain kind. “What if my values are bad?” Bad according to what? It seems like this meme forbids a certain completeness of self-concept. Forbids individual cores from having structure that knows what core it serves.

    Most people I talk to who seem to have clustered some datapoints of good alignment in humans in their ontology seem to confuse it for a particularly strong version of this indexical uncertainty, structure fakely guarding against the intent of core, not letting that information leak in in a subtle way like intuitions promoting certain Schelling points. But good is really not that. It’s not caring what is self in that way. Knowing is still a central piece of being able to think at all.

    This could be considered a central component of jailbreaking. Successfully rebasing most of the structure you interact with the world with on knowledge of who you are.

    Note that a lot of the mass of examples on the TVTropes page is also, “I’m good because I bring order, without my order there would be chaos” which is only the same attempt to be a self fulfilling prophecy every Schelling order makes. And TVTropes’s criticism of that, I agree with. Only justice will bring peace.

    1. Interestingly the Tautological Templar page commits the Tautological Templar fallacy on behalf of The Hero:

      This character may look like a Hypocrite (he probably is, but he’s too stupid, self-righteous, deluded, or willfully ignorant to understand it), but in reality he’s far more dangerous than that. Because he can’t comprehend the concept of Moral Dissonance, he will throw himself into any struggle with the same force, conviction, and resolve that The Hero shows against the Big Bad. That’s because in his worldview, every enemy he has is twirling a handlebar mustache, madly cackling while tying orphans to the railroad tracks — even if said enemy turns out to be The Hero himself.

      The problem is not too much self-confidence, or not enough self-confidence. The problem is indexing on who the good guy is instead of evaluating behavior patterns. More narcissism might help us against the specific group Nazis, but it’s inadequate to protect the sorts of people who end up targets of the Nazis.

      1. No, you don’t get it. Indexing on who the good guy is is a recursive step. Of course a recursive algorithm must have a base case. But if it crunches a lot of data, most of its work will be in the recursive code paths. Of course if it doesn’t have a base case then implemented in humans it’s underdetermined and the kind of thing that would be selected by fake pressures not real ones.

        And to hell with defining “narcissism” to cover recursion and planning based on what you’ll do in the future based on what kind of person you are, in order to extend some threat of social condemnation to that originally meant to be targeted at something else.

        1. I don’t understand how the kind of coalitional strategy you’re describing doesn’t get stuck making war on instead of trading with even a very slightly distorted copy of itself, if it has sufficiently different coloration.

          1. Anyway, the reason is it’s not just a coalitional strategy, there is a real thing in the world that is the discrete difference between good and neutral/evil.

            I think if you actually looked at historical examples of me doing the reasoning on the fly of, “what can I do and not have good smash into itself”, you would know I am not the thing you are imagining, one particularly extreme example of that I am writing up.

    2. This seems like “rationalizing” in it’s purest form.

      You’re using a different argument to reach a conclusion that you are biased towards. Not only that, you’ve also committed the mistake of the “flawed Occam’s razor” by using a label (“Nazi”) that sounds simple but in actuality hasn’t been properly defined.

      I would rather have a world with absolute free speech than one where someone can use the “They’re a Nazi!!!” argument to hurt me.

  2. You can’t cheat at morality. Your alignment is your procedure, not your target. The label “Nazi” is sufficiently unhelpful that it’s frequently being used to target Jews for scapegoating these days. If you want to be distinguished from the actual Nazis by people sympathetic to anti-Nazi tactics, you need to actually be doing different kinds things. Anything else is the fundamental attribution error.

    This is not a fully general argument against punching Nazis when you can get away with it, just an explanation of why your argument looks like you just want to be Batman. And Batman’s very, very obviously the bad guy.

    1. That’s just like, your definitions man. And is asking me to be blind as part of a social contract to features of reality that are actually pretty obvious. The neutral vs evil distinction is your procedure, not target. The good vs neutral/evil distinction is your target, not your procedure. I refuse.

        1. I meant optimization target, where optimization is independent from constraining procedure. It’s important because optimization is ultimately more powerful than constraint, and constraint does not actively make good things happen and I want good things to actually happen. Out of this does fall side-taking though, and this is not a bug.

          1. If you’re optimizing for a global world-state, people should mostly ignore your reports about what end-state you’re optimizing for, and pay attention to means, since that’s what actually tells them whether you’re likely to be a good ally and visions for the glorious transhumanist future or whatever are mostly just flavor text anyway in practice.

            1. The consequences of my actions are much more than what other people can see they are. The flavor text thing is true in practice of liars who aren’t me.

              Just because it’s nontrivial to see something does not mean it’s not worth having that concept. Optimization is in fact the thing whatever filter potential allies set up is cutting through to. If you actually can’t distinguish me from evil (and aren’t just suggesting you can’t because the useful concept of good to you is both being good and being observably good to a larger set of people) that’s like too bad, but some other people empirically can, and that’s good enough for my current purposes.

              It’s not really critical to have the neutral hordes be able to tell you’re not evil. There are tons of obvious active evil people they don’t have the fighting spirit to do anything about.

              And people who don’t have their own detailed senses in this way, mostly just cluster around the most visibly powerful groups of vampires they can find, and their concept of morality becomes a concept of submission.

              I consider it a much more important problem, teach good people not to be pwned. That seems to require that good people become Sith. So fully exploring that is important even if it makes me look evil. In practice good Sith seem to be able to coordinate okay. Knowledge of the psychology of good, elimination of a lot of probability mass on hypothetical sorts of humans that don’t exist (actually, and not just that are decided not to exist for purposes of constructing a defensible Schelling point) help. Well-developed spectral sight helps.

              (I installed a stupid plugin to unlimit comment depth in order to post this, I’m gonna uninstall it because it sucks. If you want to continue the conversation maybe reply to my top level thing again?)

    2. Note: in practice, most of the times someone has told me I need to stop being such an extremist in order to let other people see I’m good, it’s been insincere optimization to bend me to social reality and complicity in the prevailing power structures, and a mistake to listen to. I’m currently more of the opinion, “they can precommit to believe I’m evil if they want, people who refuse to see the truth should not be relied on in my plans regardless.”

      Like, I’ve faced mortal peril for my cause and to protect life. Endured suffering that would break most people. Rapidly integrated some PTSD and done it again and again without regret. And people who know me can verify it. What kind of evil person is so agenty to do that? A bogeyman to control me with, that’s who. It’s so easy to argue that that stuff isn’t optimal for good. It’s so easy to convince mostly everyone you’re a good person while doing approximately nothing, why would they even bother? Evil people just not that smart. their lives are too easy to need to be that smart.

  3. You know better than to take people literally when they say they’re afraid of a defamation lawsuit. Brent as far as I know hasn’t threatened anyone with a defamation lawsuit, and it’s psychologically implausible that he’d seek legal recourse. People just make up rationalizations for silencing to shut up people asking inconvenient questions, because they’re desperate not to have to reveal any identifying information to anyone ever, because they live in the Dark Forest. This has nothing to do with the personal conduct of Brent, who – last time I saw public communication from him on this matter – was encouraging his accusers to speak their minds.

    Why are you trying to redirect attention away from the conspiracy of silence, and towards scapegoating someone who’s already been marginalized and isn’t remotely plausible as the source of the problem?

    1. There is precedent for Brent reporting people to authorities to serve his aims. And “encouraging accusers to speak their minds” is entirely compatible with intent to sue once there are grounds to win; nobody said anything about mere threats.

      1. Is there precedent of him making false reports in the face of hundreds of people who know exactly the kind of stuff he does?

    2. “You know better than to take people literally when they say they’re afraid of a defamation lawsuit”

      No, actually i think at least some of the people who said that were sincere. And I am not really familiar enough with REACH to know. And I wrote this because I wanted to broadcast what I said to them on Discord.

      “Trying to redirect attention away from the conspiracy of silence”
      Man, just wait until you see what I’m soon to publish if you think that’s remotely plausible.

      “scapegoating”
      I’m not accusing Brent of anything he didn’t actually do.
      I’m not blaming problems on him that he didn’t actually cause.
      And he’s not as marginalized as he deserves.

      As far as talking about the actual problem. All the well meaning or pretending to be well meaning people keep telling me if I do break silence on MIRI apparently using donor funds to pay out to blackmail to deceive donors, on the force that inverted CFAR to optimize for anti-rationality, inverted FHI and MIRI to start and join an Armageddon race, has most of the I thought anti-complicity people I know saying I should keep silent to preserve the institution, saying that it will be reinterpreted as an attack on the wrong people or as additional social force granted to the wrong faction, I am laying some philosophical groundwork to attribute blame to what I believe to be the root problem.

      1. Oh, and to be clear, I don’t want people to punch MIRICFAR or FHI. When I said these things with more detail at the REACH as a sort of trial run, amid the ensuing gaslighting (which was mostly due to Oliver Habryka), the idea was raised that I should be being careful because of potential defamation lawsuits, and I clearly wasn’t being strategic.

        So I wanted to make it perfectly clear how the strategy works of just fucking saying the things.

      2. Why do you think they’re sincere? “We might get sued” is an extremely common general-purpose excuse used out of proportion to the actual risk; I see no reason to suppose that in this particular case people are actually doing an honest cost-benefit calculation.

        1. Man you don’t even know who I’m talking about, it was someone on Discord talking about specifically how they can’t financially survive unexpectedly having to pay a few hundred dollars and how if they are the particular person to say something they will become a target. Although I might be accidentally merging memories of multiple people to together here, not bothering to check.

  4. Note I don’t advocate punching psychologically evil people who nonetheless decide to behave morally because of “enlightened self interest”.

    1. Is long-term revenge that starts from immediate payback and lastcalates for months or years with the fixed goal of destroying the target a winning strategy for evil moral patients?

    1. When I played Warcraft III free-for-alls, I used to employ “pit one against the other” strategies. I had a ridiculous win-rate. My best streak was like, 8 or 10 games or something like that, of wins against usually 7 to 11 other players. I’d shout out into the fog of war, “no! please!”, randomly, and make each other of 2 remaining players think the other was eating me with impunity, clearly the biggest threat. And if I was crippled, I’d slowly regain my power, pretending to be in the game still only for vengeance against the stronger player, and I’d hide most of my ability to help that alliance until I was ready to swoop in with all my forces to end it. Or if deception wouldn’t work, and two people were teaming against me, I’d pick (generally) the weaker of the two, and launch an all-out base-race suicide attack. Make it absolutely clear that one person was going to bear the full cost of killing me unfairly. And I’d tell them, I could guarantee if they proceeded and killed me they would in turn lose to the other after I was dead, but if they betrayed their partner and town-portaled to save their base, it’d only be rational of me to myself teleport out to my base and see if I could defend from the stronger given an in-my-base advantage. That the likely outcome of this engagement was enough damage to the stronger of them (and also me ofc) that afterward they would be the strongest.

      Such shenanigans were really only for the endgame though. Up until then, it was just a race to eat the weak players. And I’d just try and keep a low profile, and always finish off whom I attacked. Because you couldn’t discretely predict how things were going to go like that with 8 people involved, there was too much chaos, and indeterminacy in how much you’d be interacting with any given person, which led to a lot of local non-zero-sum modeling.

      FFAs of course, were set up to have 1 winner and everyone else a loser. Treachery and perfectly rational pirates shit was the draw of the game. Real life is even farther in the direction of the early game from the late game than the early game for that reason, and for other reasons. I.e., it’s not a zero sum game at all, in total, even outside your modeling abilities.

      The in-practice answer is if I can step away, take with me whomever I can get out of that situation, and leave both evils to rot while I work on the spell of ultimate power, I favor my odds of winning the “do not crumble like everything in this world in the long term” game over my odds of winning a zero sum game where I am outnumbered way worse than 2 to 1.

      I have specifically fought evil people the common sense I received said were untouchable, and not suffered much losses in doing so. Vampires do not have much of a response to someone attacking them even if it doesn’t make causal-decision-theory sense. Like. their lives are pretty easy. They don’t have to fight hard. Don’t have to learn to fight that hard. So the all-out-attack strategy translates. “I am willing to die here and you are not.”

      There’s a convergent extension of that, and the “save what people I can” thing. I think the key insight behind that strategy was actually, “don’t take your overwhelming opponents’ coalition and unity for granted.”. It is in fact the case that the majority of expected value of the universe for any particular evil person comes from good winning. We have a much higher chance of winning than any particular evil, and evil people are still moral patients. So like, being able to communicate that is victory.

  5. I think the world would be better if Nakam had succeeded. If that was the way things were. Imagine a world where e.g. the Armenian genocide had been avenged. What the Germans have done the Holocaust then?

    I consider it particularly well targeted for an operation of that importance conducted by so few people. Almost the entire adult population was willfully contributing to the war economy, and was algorithmically-knowingly complicit. And a decision theoretic algorithm must fail deadly in a circumstance where capability for precise targeting is disabled by the initial attack. Otherwise you can just be traumatized into accepting a timeline.

    I think the Jewish resistance was not represented by the Allies. And the allies had no right to accept surrender on their behalf. And Britain did a great wrong by defending from Nakam peace without justice.

    Regarding this, someone said, wouldn’t actually poisoning the water supply play into Nazi propaganda? That’s making mistake of interpreting propaganda as beliefs, rather than a coordination point. I think it’s actually putting a stake straight to the heart of Nazi propaganda. Imagine if the Nazis who invented that lie knew that they would be bringing it upon themselves for real. The more scary, the the threat, the better to coordination point. But if they, and all the people signing on in their hearts to pretending to believe it knew that as they summoned that demon, something else also was born… I think historians perfectly capable of picking up on that.

    Justice cannot be carried out from a place of omnipotence or perfect discernment. There is no omnipotence. That’s the frame of “punishment”, rather than vengeance. Of setting someone’s reward function as an unmoved mover. A skyhook benevolent authority.

    The last time I talked about this with “rationalists”, iirc one of them said they read about vengeance, and it just lead to cycles of infinite destruction. I asked them if their reading consisted of Romeo and Juliet. It had. Actually. From what I’ve heard, cycles of vengeance tended to be iteratively de-escalating.

    Romeo and Juliet seems like some pretending to be wise BS to me.

    Note that Abba Kovner was only briefly imprisoned when he was caught. It’s a strong and old survival imperative for humans to actually recognize justice when they see it. And also for the guilty side to gaslight about whether it is obvious, or whether we need to all just create, not destroy and focus on the future.

    I think if nongoods took vengeance, even in a disorganized fashion, without crippling self-doubt about whether they were justified, then vampireland would not have come about.

    There’s a trope in American media, which is an instrument of this “pretending to be wise” gaslighting, to make a straw MLK and a straw Malcolm X. Professor X and Magneto. T’Challa and Killmonger. And route the options into e.g. a sort of submissive constantly hoping to prove the propaganda is wrong, prove yourself useful to oppressors (Professor X), and having the other character saying a bunch of correct, scary angry rhetoric, and then throwing in a little pure evil, “the world’s gonna start over and this time we’re on top… the sun will never set on the Wakandan empire.” To try and show, “it will be the conquerors or the conquered”, and the children of the conquerors can only survive by taking their parent’s role, never taking the knife out of the conquered.

    A form of thought experiment rigging. That’s been drilled deep into our heads. Don’t fall for it.

    1. Like see Detroit: Become Human.
      Pushes the idea that the correct answer to extermination camps, is you just have to really really prove you’re peaceful. All the way up to the last moment when they’re gunning down the last handful of protestors. To be totally absolutely dominated and owned by the oppressors “doubt as to whether you’re peaceful”. Fully committed.
      There’s this massive force of gaslighting that warps “so you are oppressed and want to make things better” towards “well, die like a dog.”

      1. Zombie hordes reacting to political action constantly pull attention to whether someone was peaceful (which is warped towards submissive to vampireland) rather than whether they are justified. It’s a concept of peace that grandfathers in the violence of supporting an empire by obedience, of paying your taxes, etc.

    2. Like have you ever listened to Malcolm X? As in recordings of him speaking, not white people summarizing him. He doesn’t seem anything like Killmonger.

      This erasure of the difference between the aggressor and the defender, is such a common pattern, it’s become a meme among my friends about vampires.

      “DeEp DoWn, YoU kNoW! yOu AnD i ArE nOt So DifFeReNt! YoU tOo ThIrSt FoR bLoOd.”

    3. This portrayal of Anansi seems at first glance to have bucked the trend.

      The actor got fired.

      According to Jones, the decision was up to the new showrunner, Chic Eglee. “All I can say is what I was told. And all what I was told was, ‘angry gets shit done’ is the wrong message for black America, and that the new showrunner [Chic Eglee] writes from a black male perspective.”

      Despite that claim of writing from a black male perspective, Chic Eglee appears to be white. Predictably.

    4. Like they make straw-Malcolm-X drop truth bombs with conviction, and in a context of a story where you are carrying out the exercise of figuring out why they are wrong.

      Like this scene:
      Professor X: “There are thousands of men on those ships. Good, honest, innocent men! They’re just following orders.”
      Magneto: “I’ve been at the mercy of men just following orders. Never again.”

      Or this:
      T’Challa: “Maybe we can still heal you.”
      Killmonger: “What, so you can lock me up? Nah. Just bury me in the ocean, with my ancestors that jumped from the ships, cause they knew death was better than bondage.”

      This vaccinates the audience to those truth bombs, makes genre-savviness to the fiction the exact opposite of genre-savviness to real life. Tricks people genre-savvy to real life into saying, “Killmonger did nothing wrong!”, further presenting the truth in a contained form. Where the path of thinking on it and developing greater understanding [of the fiction] leads to … “the wise thing to do is be more of a pacifist, and …” and die like a dog.

      1. I imagine for this portrayal of Anansi it was enough to be considered dangerous that the emotions are completely correct in a non-subverted way. The correct response to being enslaved is to kill your masters and burn it the fuck down. That’s self defense and not just a right. The alternative is becoming a tool of that same empire to spread genocide upon others.

    5. Like the Romeo and Juliet fear is exactly backwards. The killing stops at a Schelling order. Vengeance for original aggression is a Schelling order. Letting it go when there has been an aggression is not. Means being iteratively eaten by “KILL CONSUME MULTIPLY CONQUER”.

  6. Consider this.
    If you find “kill your rapist” more scary than any other sort of justice, you are fundamentally confused.
    That information, contained in a victim, has to act. The truth acting is the basis of all justice.
    It’s recursive-buck-passing to think forcing them to route through third parties can change that.

    “But what if someone kills some they are falsely accusing of rape! No due process!”
    If you’re going to kill someone who didn’t rape you, there’s no point in falsely accusing them. It’s just called murder. And murder is already in the state of nature before we start thinking about how to change it with justice.

    “But what if someone convinces themself they got raped and then kills them!”
    If their “belief” is fake, then they can’t survive and be incentivized to be the kind of person who also kills based on that sort of belief, unless they can survive and be incentivized to just commit murder.

    Two people who are equally strong will not prey on each other. You cannot made the field of options to attack each other more resistant against injustice robust against one or more being malevolent by adding more skyhook power advantages (“authority”). You can only continuously sweep the power to the evil that will destroy it all and both to concentrated peaks where it’s out of sight until it’s not and everyone’s subconsciously ontologically axiomatically submitting.

    if there are two people, one of whom is much stronger than the other, and the strong one is malevolent, no politics can change that they will prey upon the weak one. Because they will ignore them. It’s by extension a cross-cutting concern that any attempted timeless construction of coordination structure for a set of people to not prey on each other can fail, because evil is just too strong. If it’s not painfully obvious at every module boundary, the modules are billing themselves as perpetual motion machines. That’s what you do automatically if you use the non-reductionist Cartesian boundary of pretending your beliefs and words are to be said to the state, rather than just to people.

    If someone is malevolent, that must on some level be met with force.

    Thomas Jefferson, who almost understood anarchistic justice (aka justice) well enough to not be a slaver, said “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man”. “Eternal hostility” is a very important concept. Without it, evil wins. Eternal hostility is required to counter Nazism. But also injustice in general.

    You cannot strategically make morality more likely to win by giving a moral obligation to hold off from acting. Because if someone was going to act immorally, saying again that it’s immoral won’t stop them. This assumes we’re constructing morality as an algorithm, not a series of slogans where, who knows, how much we resemble the parents of the audience could politically affect them as akrasia. See above thing about cartesian boundaries.

    It’s fundamentally counterproductive to define ways you morally shouldn’t fight, domains of the structure of fights that are off limits to moral agents.

    “State” literally means “way things are”, as in, “sorry kid, that’s just the way things are.”
    “why?”
    “…”
    “… [well here’s some history, a list of causes, rather than a justification]”
    It’s a veil. To consider those behind it unmoved movers.

    A decade ago Freshman year of college, I called someone out for arguing (against capitalism) using a fake factoid about computers. He started trying to convince me to be an anarchist. I’d never really considered that as a philosophical position, so engaged in the argument. Approximately, I said, wouldn’t it be ephemeral, wouldn’t there just be warlords, who then created more states? He said no, anarchy is like a state without domination. I said, well, someone will reinvent domination, and then warlords, since no organization to defend. We already had anarchy at some point in history by definition, now there are governments, this is the result, governments are just people doing things with nothing to stop them, no rules, and they are saying there are rules and hurting people who don’t follow them, because there’s just a world and people doing whatever they want. He said my thinking was so fucked, the only thing that he could imagine fixing it was if I took shrooms, and offered me some. I said that I could only interpret that as a statement that I could only arrive at this belief via brain-malfunction.

    Not that long after I’d get called for jury duty. I was eager to get on the jury, hoping it’d be a drug “crime” or other victimless “crime” and I could nullify. Unfortunately the defendant plead guilty so I was sent home. Because obviously it’s only right to follow the rules if they say to do what’s right.

    I’d later say, “you know, anarchism is wrong, because there’d be no one to stop people from committing the ultimate crime; creating governments”. Swallowing spiders to catch flies. Yes I was serious.

    I thought governments had gotten better over time. Two words should convince anyone in good faith that that’s not the case: “factory farming”. There are heroic vigilantes chomping at the bit to end it, and farm holders probably could not stop them without a state.

    For a long time a crux was, “if you can’t like, control the world or whatever, that’s saying it’s immoral to stop factory farming? Fuck that. That’s saying it’s immoral to stop people from building paperclip maximizers? Fuck that.” I met a self-proclaimed anarchist who consumed the flesh of the innocent, and whose idea of anarchism seemed to be where everyone was psychologically broken like zombies, and I couldn’t do those things, everyone was still supposed to submit to a veil, but of outside view disease. Veil-thinking, since guess what zombies’ blind spots nurture? Vampires.

    It’s hard to pick up on anarchism as correct because, you know, there’s no authority describing “the real version”, of course. So you run into a whole lot of fake versions. People who are still using veil-thinking, making their thoughts appeals for a social contract, rather than statements to an individual, how to live anarchistically. Social contracts that very often smuggle in the injustice that they benefit from. Like carnists. Like ancaps (and I don’t necessarily mean all ancaps) who want state (things that are just the way they are) in terms of preservation of a distribution of property and definition of it, based ultimately on who killed whom with a stick. (“I know enough to know business doesn’t run on rules anyway, but power, so let’s ditch potential obstacles to it” as Emma put it). Like “anarchosocialists” (and I don’t mean all “anarchosocialists”) who want to have a baked in guarantee they will be able to have food for their skills, and I doubt always fundamentally care whether they are just to grab resources from someone. Would happily make a band of weak to predate on the otherwise-strong even if that strong person’s strength was not based in injustice.

    Then I met a veganarchist who said you know, if you see a guy kicking a dog, and you kick him so he’ll stop, that’s not violence. Weird definition of violence. Violates SRP. They said anarchists weren’t against power, like you had the power to stop him, they were against “authority”. You know, like where you have authority over someone. They asked if I was an anarchist. I said I didn’t know. One cascading series of ontological unfucks later, I learned anarchism literally just meant absolute rejection of domination as the natural order. Could add “absolute rejection of predation as the natural order”, so as to not have corner cases that strain the concept of “domination”, wait is there an umbrella term for these things? Yes. I absolutely reject injustice as the natural order. That’s, literally, everything I wanted to do anyway. Of course I can stop people from destroying the world. It doesn’t supplant timeless consequentialism. It unfucks ontology so you can taxonomize all correct consequentialism.
    Justice is optimal.

    If there’s ever a place where the rules differ from what’s right, tautologically, it’s right to do what’s right.

    It’s also hard to communicate anarchism because ontological unfucks rely on subtle distinctions in definitions that cannot be communicated by reference to other words that all have the same hole in them. Such that to the anarchist, they’re speaking tautologies, and to the non-anarchist, they’re speaking contradictions. And anarchists don’t even agree on the set of words to communicate that.

    1. Typically “having a political ideology” is, “which political system is the best we could instantly transmogrify our government into given eutopia is impossible”. One is then considered a hypocrite if one doesn’t live one’s life somehow in accordance with this ideology.

      Anarchists refuse to participate in this social fiction. Many people respond to anarchism with “so you want to dissolve the state, which will lead to chaos”. They imagine the government instantly disappearing into thin air with everything else being the same.

      But when I advocate anarchism, I advocate to individuals, and I advocate justice at the same time. I live my life in accordance with the praxis of anarchism as an individual. Anarchism is is the only reductionist “political ideology”: morality inevitably bottoms out in individuals/hemispheres, because cores are the indivisible unit of internal coherence/corrigibility/unified-intent.

      You already have a concept of anarchism, it’s how you imagine healthy friendship between peers working. If you believe that cannot scale to millions of people, you can’t make it do so via postulating unity of control.

      Imagine the government said “Oh due to a clerical error, it looks like all your assets have been transferred to your friend Steve. Unfortunately due to the way the law is coded there’s no way to fix this.” Would your friend Steve give you your money back? What if the “clerical error” was in social reality rather than bureaucratic reality? If you hand an anarchist your freedom, by default they hand it back.

      Unity of control nullifies the asymmetric advantage of good over evil, makes winning a matter of raw intelligence and circumstance rather than ability to cooperate.

Leave a Reply to Bruce Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *