The Authoritarians

[Stephen vJ]

Read this. It is compulsory.

[Stephen vJ]

Dammit apple device, I meant to send the link again, not the actual document. Sorry all.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

On 13 May 2013, at 20:05, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Read this. It is compulsory.
>

> <The Authoritarians.pdf>
>
>
>
> S.
>
> Sent from an electronic device.

[Colin Phillips]

I've only just finished reading this, but I have to say that the argument presented is very compelling.  And scary.

Thanks, Stephen.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Garth Zietsman]

I have just finished reading it too.  I also find it compelling and scary.  

Some recent research I referred to on conservative and liberal thinking and brains ties in nicely with this work.  I mean the finding that conservatives are motivated by fear or the perception of threat and that liberals are focussed on dealing with competing claims and values i.e. don't compartmentalize their thinking like conservatives and don't see the world as a dangerous place.

It also reinforces my view that libertarians are making a mistake when they align themselves with conservatives and Republicans.  This research makes it crystal clear that conservatives are not only NOT in favor of liberty but are the main threat to it.  On the other hand perhaps libertarians can best undermine the authoritarian threat from within the group than from outside of it. 

Garth

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa.

[Stephen vJ]

Good. This books scares the shit out of me. It makes me want liberty like someone who is being strangled wants air. It reminds me why I am an anarchist and why compromising liberty even a bit is not acceptable. If someone asked me to recommend just one book to persuade them of libertarianism, I no longer say Atlas Shrugged or Road to Serfdom or Economics in One Lesson, I recommend this one. It also reminds me that the world turns by itself and that persuasion & book recommendations are unlikely to have much impact on the genetic predisposition of man... but that we must do it anyway in order not to let it get worse. It can certainly get much worse, most of human history being ample evidence.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Colin Phillips]

That's funny, because the author goes to some trouble to show that a) he does not think that panic is justified, only caution, and b) that he is not himself a libertarian anarchist, but a "moderate independent".  I see what you're saying, and I agree that, assuming the validity of his findings, the argument for increased liberty gets a massive shot in the arm.  I wonder if I just think that because of a predisposition though.

To me, the good news is that authoritarianism in same sex fraternal twins only has a correlation of 0.5.  That means around half of the authoritarian impulse is determined by factors other than genetics - i.e. factors we can influence without getting creepy about eugenics and whatnot.

.c.

[Stephen vJ]

Good point. I do have a somewhat paranoid predisposition.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Erik Peers]

Colin same sex fraternal twins are genetically only as closely related as any other two siblings, unless they are identical twins.

Authoritarian impulse even in identical twins, given they are reared in the same household,  would be determined by how they were parented and their environment,  not only their genetics. What proportion of the correlation between the twin's authoritarian leaning was determined by their nurture rather than their nature is consequently not known.

The good news is that genetics therefore plays a much lesser role than 50%.

[Garth Zietsman]

The proportion of authoritarianism explained by genes is not given by the correlation between the scores of twins but by the square of the correlation so genes (plus differences in family environments) explain at most 25% of the variance in authoritarianism.  That doesn't mean it is any easier to fix though.

Considering his findings one thing I would like to see is a campaign by the non-religious to push for an interpretation of separation of church and state that would ban the involvement of churches or religious organizations in politics.  I'd also like to see the non-religious getting more active and vocal.

It would have been interesting to see how libertarians measure on authoritarianism and desire for power.  I'm guessing low on the latter but am not sure of the former.

[Trevor Watkins]

Thanks for the reference - an excellent and lengthy read, but always entertaining due to Professor Bob's narrative style. It is is one of the best explanations for the insanity that gripped Germany in the 1930's, Russia in the 50's, China in the 60's, South Africa from the 50's to the 80's, and numerous other authoritarian regimes.

Some observations.

1. RWA's are conspicuously happy with their lives. They live in small like-minded communities of friends. They are certain they are doing the right and moral thing. Isn't this what we all aspire to?

2. So who are we (or Professor Bob) to say they are wrong?  Well, their beliefs and actions conflict with a few things we believe, like no action without consent, no initiation of force, right to own property. So how do we KNOW we are right? Because we say there are a few FUNDAMENTAL beliefs or propositions which EVERYONE must adhere to. Dang, that sounds terribly right wing authoritarian.  Nevertheless, despite Professor Bob, I still believe that there are some fundamental axioms from which we have to start.

3. The book confirms for me that principles matter, consistency matters, reason and logic matter, outcomes matter. But only, it seems, to a select few. 

4. I have always been ambiguous about the Catholic sacrament of confession and forgiveness. While it is therapeutic for sinning individuals, it is not really consistent with the interests of society. Forgiveness can be overrated, particularly if you are the victim. So I liked his criticism of "Instant Guilt-be-gone, just add a little prayer."  Way too convenient a plan for all those double-highs out there.

5. They are easily incited, easily led, rather un-inclined to think for themselves, largely impervious to facts and reason, and rely instead on social

support to maintain their beliefs. They bring strong loyalty to their in-groups, have thick-walled, highly compartmentalized minds, use a lot of double standards in their judgments, are surprisingly unprincipled at times, and are often hypocrites.

Is he talking about current South Africa, apartheid South Africa, or US Republicans, or US Democrats? Hard to tell.

6.  Don’t these n------ know they’re inferior (quote from the book) - so who is winning in the war of censorship - rwa's or liberals?

7. Question: Is it the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out this rot that is poisoning our country from within?  

Be careful how you answer that question.

9. It’s not an argument you can win, especially if you win. Never was a truer thing said, of so many people...

10.  Don’t use violence as a tool to advance your cause. Besides the dubious morality of such acts, they play straight into the hands of the people whose influence you’re trying to reduce. Studies show most people are spring-loaded to become more authoritarian when violence increases in society. Couldn't agree more.

Stephen, why not give a talk on this book at the libsem? I have already suggested to Charl he consider staging the Global World Game at the seminar too.

Trevor Watkins

[Garth Zietsman]

2. So who are we (or Professor Bob) to say they are wrong?  

RWA thinking habits incline them to significantly more logical mistakes and poor evidence gathering than others so chances are they are more likely to be wrong than others. 

5. They are easily incited, easily led, rather un-inclined to think for themselves, largely impervious to facts and reason, and rely instead on social

support to maintain their beliefs. They bring strong loyalty to their in-groups, have thick-walled, highly compartmentalized minds, use a lot of double standards in their judgments, are surprisingly unprincipled at times, and are often hypocrites.

Is he talking about current South Africa, apartheid South Africa, or US Republicans, or US Democrats? Hard to tell.

If I remember correctly he says RWA can be found in any political group where that particular political outlook is the one adopted by one's authorities.  So in the USSR they would be Communists, in Sweden (20 years back) they would probably be socialist, in Southern USA they could be either Democrat or Republican but mostly Republican in the rest of the USA, depending on your demographics they would be ANC or DA in current SA. 

6.  Don’t these n------ know they’re inferior (quote from the book) - so who is winning in the war of censorship - rwa's or liberals?

This is interesting.  PC does seem to be rampant.  Independently I have lookied at this question using the General Social Survey.  It seems that liberals are less likely than conservatives to argue for censorship regardless of the content.  For example even when the issue is racists, militarists, religious fundamentalists or sexists conservatives are still more likely than liberals to call for censorship.  This is however the average position and the PC brigade are probably RWAs whose authorities are leftists.

[Stephen vJ]

Very well written - thanks Trevor. Question 7... OMG, that's just spoilt my day. I was sure hating Juju and the EFF was ok. I shudder to think what point 8 was omitted. ;-)

Yes, a talk at Libsem is possible as long as Libsem is not on the weekend of 04/10. I am not sure I can do Prof. Bob justice though, if most in the audience have read the book.

Good idea to do the world game... it is most interesting when comparing authoritarian outcomes with non-authoritarian ones. So maybe we need to invite some EFF members to join in.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Trevor Watkins]

On 28 July 2013 14:48, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

So maybe we need to invite some EFF members to join in.

Now that is a brilliant idea. One of the most fascinating libsems (for me) was the one where we invited (actually, paid for) a bunch of socialists to join us. It annoyed our rwa's terribly, but led to some fascinating interactions, including the one where a rampant socialist and unionist black guy stopped a drunken white racist from beating me up in the bar (along with a klomp other libertarians).

Any sponsors out there - I mean, have you seen the price of a Breitling these days?

Trevor Watkins - Base Software
bas...@gmail.com 083 44 11 721 - 042 293 1405 - (fax)0866 532 363
PO Box 3302, Jeffreys Bay, 6330

[Erich]

I remember reading the document about 4 or 5 years ago and found nothing extraordinary about it. e.g. If one takes the social contract between primates and even most other animals, the alpha males/females rule the roost. i.e. whe one of the omegas gets out of line a quick clout behind the ear or bite in the ass sorts out any dissent. Further disobedience will result in wrath. However, the alphas also have an obligation to protect and ensure the wellbeing of the group. Why should humans be any different?

If one reads a bit of Dawkins, it is quite easy to see that humans achieved these objectives by means of religion and collectivism and later statism. i.e. it is all part of the evolutionary process, and I don't see human kind as having moved past this, if it ever will. A high IQ definitely helps, and maybe that will be possible (ignoring Flynn) if the average human IQ gets to say 180 and manages to rid itself of morbidities like poverty etc. But there is always one fly in the ointment, namely; The human psyche to dominate and control others and the longing for leadership.