Shit it's been months, guess i really have problems with consistency, nevertheless, here comes the final part of my stupid posts about anarcho libertarianism. I don't know why but i find it very hard to properly construct this post, been rereading it for tens of times and still can't find a single good structurization. It's not that i'm saying my previous writings are in good structure, it's just very hard to actually get good coherent connections for the points of this post. Fuck it aight.
So most part of this post, for instance the materials, the bottom lines, the main ideas, have already been on the draft since the next 2 weeks after i publish the last part. Yet how come it took months to finish this one? It was of course a matter of will and enthusiasm and chips and masturbations, but most important of all, i was thinking very carefully about the potential inconsistencies regarding the arguments i built in the previous posts (i was just trying to be consistent, even on my fallacies).
So, the consistency that i was trying to keep on building the understandings and arguments upon the solution of anarcho libertarianism is about the statement that i threw on the last post, which is the notion of liberty and not taking it to the philosophical level since it will all become much too absurd. On the other hand, in this post, i'm striking the solution of 'educated society', which of course is intertwined with liberty, in the philosophical fashion. But now i'm pretty sure that this post is not entirely about taking the semantics of liberty to the contexts of absurd conceptions, that means, it's fairly okay to take the notion of liberty to some certain philosophical level to elaborate my arguments only in this regard, though it may, one way or another, be fallacious to my own train of thoughts.
Well whatever, i played too much dota and chess, that's why it took months, but yes i really thought deeply about the inconsistency, and second guessing myself that this philosophical argument about education is a MacGuffin of my perspective on decoding austrian school. I FEEL CHEAP.
Okay now, from the last post, i believed that i agreed at least with myself: the problem of implementing anarcho libertarianism lies in the social dimension, since other systems (economy and politics) pretty much depend on the prevailing conscience within the society.
Thus, we need education to practice the utopian libertarianism. Why? Because fuck you that's why.
Here's why. Before we get straight into the education notion, let's get back to the basic premise of consumption disposition in capitalism emphasis, in order to get competition to actually get its job done. So in an ideally capitalistic competitive market, consumers are always informed and rational in respect of consumption. Yet as i have wrote in the previous posts, observing the current market, many people are not very much representing the sort of 'rational' consumer, though the demarcating line of the definition itself is always debatable. But just admit it, some markets are plowing their most revenue on shallow consumerism.
Now the question is, how much informed is 'informed'? How rational is 'rational'? Yes that's materialistically or statistically very hard to say. In a sense, the way to comprehend the notion is through the conduct of consumption. Consumers are hoped to be very critical and methodological in consuming, they are hoped to do thorough research before they ever decide to buy or to sell. This behavior is of course already applied to a lot of layers in some societies, but then again, i don't think i need to mention anything about consumerism in a major scale for one more time.
To some certain degree, there's no such thing as subliminal buyers in the utopian capitalism. There's no such thing as advertising industry. There's no such thing as celebrity endorsement. There's no such thing as psychoanalytic approach to marketing. Cause it's all principally stupid. No no wait, it's genius, it makes stupid people comfortable with stupidity.
It's stupid for in the competition doctrine, people cannot be tricked into buying, since they already recognised the true value of what they want and what they need.
What does capitalism propose in order to reach that point? Education. Sounds pretty impossible? No it's not plainly impossible. In the age where someone can easily express 'i found your childhood photo on Facebook and you were even uglier,' it is attainable. With the internet, consumers can pretty much do research concerning their consumptions within a click of a button. With the development of e-commerce and interconnectivity, consumers can be provided with vast options of markets, products, informations and porns. Consumer-based market is a step closer to the ideal capitalism. The means is ready to run, the next problem now lies in the consumers themselves.
For now, let's just assume that we need education to posit the ideal competition and free market doctrine since that argument is utopian capitalism's ultimate solution, upon which i have my doubts. It's time to wrap up the 'why education' part and move on to an imagined state of future humanity.
Now, let's assume that at one point in the future, we got a society that is fairly educated, say our level of literacy is supposedly adequate to run the whole shit. Everyone is taught about the concept of individual liberty and rights. Other than that, the society is also taught the concept of free market and competition, and the concept of production and consumption as well.
Here are some fundamental presuppositions about education system in an anarcho libertarian world that i can think of/that i know of:
1. Somewhat somehow, maybe the state, or any particular institution, educates the society (yet i don't specifically know which form of education that will fit).
2. There has been no detailed information on how much the authority (either institution or state or whatever there is) has right to intervene the market without violating liberty itself. And market in this sense is almost everything that's relevant to anyone, including anything regarding the educational process.
3. According to the austrian school concept that i understand, the institution that will constitute the entire education system is also private, holding on to the idea of free market and competition.
4. Then, the curriculum along with the tuition and/or mostly anything will be the private institutions' to decide, since for fuck's sake it's theirs.
Now, let's assume this utopian world has the right form of education being implemented, the institution is private, they have the proper curriculums (although they have their own characteristics as how commodities do), and the education market is set in a competitive environment. But all these conditions will at one point be irrelevant and unviable once i thought about the following ideas.
Where is the flaw in all that? It, i believe, is in the notion of making any sort of education system alongside the notion of implemented liberty, more specifically individual liberty.
How could that become a flaw? Now here comes THE stupid philosophical case.
What is liberty?
So let's be a bit textbooked on answering that question. According to the dictionary, liberty is a state of not being oppressed by authority on one's behavioral and political views. Let's hold on to that definition for a while. Now i have a couple of simple questions regarding liberty that i don't really know the answers to. Well let's try to guess and make up the conclusions later.
The first question is: who deserves liberty? Of course the answer is every single human being, both individually and collectively.
The second: when, exactly at what age, does human got their individual liberty? I really don't know the answer to this question. But since every single human being deserves liberty, then, in order to answer this question, we need to change the question to "when does a fetus become human?" Well yes of course i still couldn't surely answer that question, but i got a little perspective to try. Within all the arguments about the pros and cons of abortion (which are more associated to feminism than to liberalism, yet it's still one aftermath of those liberal discourse hysteria), what could be considered human is the fetus which successfully came out of their mother's womb, only by then could an individual fetus be considered as an objective entity. A fetus is a human once they are out and alive in this world.
So, that being said, every single human, regardless of where they are in their stages of life (infancy or childhood or adolescence or adulthood or old age), deserves liberty.
Now the next question arises, what is the status of school in this future libertarian society? Is it optional? Or is it obligatory? This shit is complicated as hell. The doctrine requires everyone to be educated to reach the ideal working system, but a sort of demand upon another entity is pretty much contrariwise to the idea of liberty itself. So yes, no one can ever oblige anyone to go to school since it is, radically speaking, an act of violating liberty.
Okay let's just assume that people in this future libertarian society know better, let's just assume that people will go to school merely because they know that it's good. But do children know? See what i mean? Will they also know better? Should the parents send their children to school, although the kids don't really want to? Don't children also deserve liberty? Well okay let's assume that somehow most children go to school because they want it, what about their cognitive perceptions in school? What would the school do once the children thought that what the school's telling is wrong? What if the children were wrong? Should the school right the wrong? Should the institution make an instructive gesture? Telling what?
How could you constitute an education system without an authority that's oppressive, without violating liberty and at the same time without resulting in chaos whatsoever?
Radically speaking, liberty in austrian school means one is allowed to do whatever one wishes as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. That also implies one is allowed to harm oneself, as long as one wishes to do so.
Imagine a case where there was a conscience of not willing to go to school, simply because it was an option. When it took effect only to some individuals, it won't drastically harm the system, but the case will be reciprocally chaotic once it was committed collectively.
And remember that i only mentioned a relatively trivial condition of not willing to go to school, imagine if the collective values were even more detrimental and even more plausible like, for instance, irresponsible drugs consumption.
I don't know why nor how that claim about education in order to get to a point is always the ultimate solution to almost everything in this world, as if everyone will get the very same idea about everything when they're educated.
That argument about education might work in some other ideologies, but in anarcho libertarianism? No way that's fucking ridiculous.
Education is always about discourse, it's always about dogma, it's always about authority and it will never be liberated.
This education notion will never work unless 'being stupid' is not an available option, unless 'being stupid' is not included into one of our rights.
Do i need to get into the semantics of the word stupid? I feel stupid.
Maybe all this time, maybe, the only problem is that i simply have been misinterpreting liberty.
Tell me that, i can accept that.
But before i can truly accept that, we need to talk about
my LIBERTY of defining liberty.
Okay it's getting absurd, should've stopped a few paragraphs ago.
Maybe it was right, maybe human is simply incapable of making a perfect system.
So most part of this post, for instance the materials, the bottom lines, the main ideas, have already been on the draft since the next 2 weeks after i publish the last part. Yet how come it took months to finish this one? It was of course a matter of will and enthusiasm and chips and masturbations, but most important of all, i was thinking very carefully about the potential inconsistencies regarding the arguments i built in the previous posts (i was just trying to be consistent, even on my fallacies).
So, the consistency that i was trying to keep on building the understandings and arguments upon the solution of anarcho libertarianism is about the statement that i threw on the last post, which is the notion of liberty and not taking it to the philosophical level since it will all become much too absurd. On the other hand, in this post, i'm striking the solution of 'educated society', which of course is intertwined with liberty, in the philosophical fashion. But now i'm pretty sure that this post is not entirely about taking the semantics of liberty to the contexts of absurd conceptions, that means, it's fairly okay to take the notion of liberty to some certain philosophical level to elaborate my arguments only in this regard, though it may, one way or another, be fallacious to my own train of thoughts.
Well whatever, i played too much dota and chess, that's why it took months, but yes i really thought deeply about the inconsistency, and second guessing myself that this philosophical argument about education is a MacGuffin of my perspective on decoding austrian school. I FEEL CHEAP.
Okay now, from the last post, i believed that i agreed at least with myself: the problem of implementing anarcho libertarianism lies in the social dimension, since other systems (economy and politics) pretty much depend on the prevailing conscience within the society.
Thus, we need education to practice the utopian libertarianism. Why? Because fuck you that's why.
Here's why. Before we get straight into the education notion, let's get back to the basic premise of consumption disposition in capitalism emphasis, in order to get competition to actually get its job done. So in an ideally capitalistic competitive market, consumers are always informed and rational in respect of consumption. Yet as i have wrote in the previous posts, observing the current market, many people are not very much representing the sort of 'rational' consumer, though the demarcating line of the definition itself is always debatable. But just admit it, some markets are plowing their most revenue on shallow consumerism.
Now the question is, how much informed is 'informed'? How rational is 'rational'? Yes that's materialistically or statistically very hard to say. In a sense, the way to comprehend the notion is through the conduct of consumption. Consumers are hoped to be very critical and methodological in consuming, they are hoped to do thorough research before they ever decide to buy or to sell. This behavior is of course already applied to a lot of layers in some societies, but then again, i don't think i need to mention anything about consumerism in a major scale for one more time.
To some certain degree, there's no such thing as subliminal buyers in the utopian capitalism. There's no such thing as advertising industry. There's no such thing as celebrity endorsement. There's no such thing as psychoanalytic approach to marketing. Cause it's all principally stupid. No no wait, it's genius, it makes stupid people comfortable with stupidity.
It's stupid for in the competition doctrine, people cannot be tricked into buying, since they already recognised the true value of what they want and what they need.
What does capitalism propose in order to reach that point? Education. Sounds pretty impossible? No it's not plainly impossible. In the age where someone can easily express 'i found your childhood photo on Facebook and you were even uglier,' it is attainable. With the internet, consumers can pretty much do research concerning their consumptions within a click of a button. With the development of e-commerce and interconnectivity, consumers can be provided with vast options of markets, products, informations and porns. Consumer-based market is a step closer to the ideal capitalism. The means is ready to run, the next problem now lies in the consumers themselves.
For now, let's just assume that we need education to posit the ideal competition and free market doctrine since that argument is utopian capitalism's ultimate solution, upon which i have my doubts. It's time to wrap up the 'why education' part and move on to an imagined state of future humanity.
Now, let's assume that at one point in the future, we got a society that is fairly educated, say our level of literacy is supposedly adequate to run the whole shit. Everyone is taught about the concept of individual liberty and rights. Other than that, the society is also taught the concept of free market and competition, and the concept of production and consumption as well.
Here are some fundamental presuppositions about education system in an anarcho libertarian world that i can think of/that i know of:
1. Somewhat somehow, maybe the state, or any particular institution, educates the society (yet i don't specifically know which form of education that will fit).
2. There has been no detailed information on how much the authority (either institution or state or whatever there is) has right to intervene the market without violating liberty itself. And market in this sense is almost everything that's relevant to anyone, including anything regarding the educational process.
3. According to the austrian school concept that i understand, the institution that will constitute the entire education system is also private, holding on to the idea of free market and competition.
4. Then, the curriculum along with the tuition and/or mostly anything will be the private institutions' to decide, since for fuck's sake it's theirs.
Now, let's assume this utopian world has the right form of education being implemented, the institution is private, they have the proper curriculums (although they have their own characteristics as how commodities do), and the education market is set in a competitive environment. But all these conditions will at one point be irrelevant and unviable once i thought about the following ideas.
Where is the flaw in all that? It, i believe, is in the notion of making any sort of education system alongside the notion of implemented liberty, more specifically individual liberty.
How could that become a flaw? Now here comes THE stupid philosophical case.
What is liberty?
So let's be a bit textbooked on answering that question. According to the dictionary, liberty is a state of not being oppressed by authority on one's behavioral and political views. Let's hold on to that definition for a while. Now i have a couple of simple questions regarding liberty that i don't really know the answers to. Well let's try to guess and make up the conclusions later.
The first question is: who deserves liberty? Of course the answer is every single human being, both individually and collectively.
The second: when, exactly at what age, does human got their individual liberty? I really don't know the answer to this question. But since every single human being deserves liberty, then, in order to answer this question, we need to change the question to "when does a fetus become human?" Well yes of course i still couldn't surely answer that question, but i got a little perspective to try. Within all the arguments about the pros and cons of abortion (which are more associated to feminism than to liberalism, yet it's still one aftermath of those liberal discourse hysteria), what could be considered human is the fetus which successfully came out of their mother's womb, only by then could an individual fetus be considered as an objective entity. A fetus is a human once they are out and alive in this world.
So, that being said, every single human, regardless of where they are in their stages of life (infancy or childhood or adolescence or adulthood or old age), deserves liberty.
Now the next question arises, what is the status of school in this future libertarian society? Is it optional? Or is it obligatory? This shit is complicated as hell. The doctrine requires everyone to be educated to reach the ideal working system, but a sort of demand upon another entity is pretty much contrariwise to the idea of liberty itself. So yes, no one can ever oblige anyone to go to school since it is, radically speaking, an act of violating liberty.
Okay let's just assume that people in this future libertarian society know better, let's just assume that people will go to school merely because they know that it's good. But do children know? See what i mean? Will they also know better? Should the parents send their children to school, although the kids don't really want to? Don't children also deserve liberty? Well okay let's assume that somehow most children go to school because they want it, what about their cognitive perceptions in school? What would the school do once the children thought that what the school's telling is wrong? What if the children were wrong? Should the school right the wrong? Should the institution make an instructive gesture? Telling what?
How could you constitute an education system without an authority that's oppressive, without violating liberty and at the same time without resulting in chaos whatsoever?
Radically speaking, liberty in austrian school means one is allowed to do whatever one wishes as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. That also implies one is allowed to harm oneself, as long as one wishes to do so.
Imagine a case where there was a conscience of not willing to go to school, simply because it was an option. When it took effect only to some individuals, it won't drastically harm the system, but the case will be reciprocally chaotic once it was committed collectively.
And remember that i only mentioned a relatively trivial condition of not willing to go to school, imagine if the collective values were even more detrimental and even more plausible like, for instance, irresponsible drugs consumption.
I don't know why nor how that claim about education in order to get to a point is always the ultimate solution to almost everything in this world, as if everyone will get the very same idea about everything when they're educated.
That argument about education might work in some other ideologies, but in anarcho libertarianism? No way that's fucking ridiculous.
Education is always about discourse, it's always about dogma, it's always about authority and it will never be liberated.
This education notion will never work unless 'being stupid' is not an available option, unless 'being stupid' is not included into one of our rights.
Do i need to get into the semantics of the word stupid? I feel stupid.
Maybe all this time, maybe, the only problem is that i simply have been misinterpreting liberty.
Tell me that, i can accept that.
But before i can truly accept that, we need to talk about
my LIBERTY of defining liberty.
Okay it's getting absurd, should've stopped a few paragraphs ago.
Maybe it was right, maybe human is simply incapable of making a perfect system.
0 comment(s):
Post a Comment