I had not thought of this idea before. That is, if I want material goods for myself, I can offer something in exchange. It can be win-win. But if you want me to obey a norm that I don't believe in, there is not a win-win solution.
Why do you use the word "norms" instead of, perhaps, "rules of coerced behavior"? I ask because behavioral norms are somewhat different than the rules enforced by legislation, the distinction (again in slightly different words) described by Hayek in Law, Legislation and Liberty. Social norms are generally negotiated among people, albeit not directly or explicitly in most cases, as individuals bicker and discuss and interact over them, as Hume points out. Legislation is also negotiated as you point out, and can lead to ridiculous "something for you, and something mutually exclusive for you..." situations. But legislation and social norms need not map to one another, and norms largely exist outside the realm of sending men with guns to your door to effect punishment for breaking them.
At any rate, I agree with your general point that compromise with "do what we say or we will kill you" generally is a bad idea. In fact Ayn Rand said that herself. I think that the use of the word norms here is misleading, as the problem is the "or we will kill you" part, not the norm part.
Or maybe norm is exactly what you mean, and we have a much deeper disagreement than I realize :D
That's a fair distinction to make. What I'm getting at here is that in many of these moral fights, its not only enough to make the other side give them something in the physical world, but they also want to control the other sides' thoughts. It's definitely imposed from the outside, but its not simply about the rule.
That's the thing though, trying to control other's thoughts and behavior is just normal human behavior. We all want people to behave more like we want them to behave. (I almost wrote "We all want people to behave more like us" but most humans don't want the normal rules to apply to themselves.) We constantly try to discuss and change peoples' minds about things. That in itself isn't really the problem if we aren't trying to force each other to behave how we like, merely withdrawing rewards if they don't. It is when we start actively harming people who don't follow our preferred norms that it starts to become a problem. That is where the politics, the war by other means, comes in. On the small scale burning down my shed because I don't have a "In this house we believe" sign in my front yard is a big problem because it is bringing violence and active harm into the negotiations over norms. On the big scale saying employing people who misuse pronouns is creating a hostile work environment and thus illegal is the same.
It is using violence in the negotiation that is the problem, not the negotiation over norms.
It seems like controlling thoughts is a shortcut to controlling behavior. If you can "incept" codes of conduct into people, you don't have to constantly monitor or harangue them about their behavior. But this is probably an obvious point.
Incept is a good way of describing it, exactly because trying to control thoughts gets really ugly, really fast. With behavior you can limit yourself to "Did you do the thing? If so, I punish you" ramping up the punishment until they won't do it again, possibly because they are beyond doing anything beyond decomposing again. With thoughts, now you have a perpetual hunt for heresy, because they say they think the right things, but how can you know? Maybe they are pretending to think the right things. Maybe they are pretending but secretly trying to subvert the beliefs. Who really is believing and who is pretending? Eventually the only answer becomes "Fuck it, just torture everyone to be sure." Even then, you have to wonder if your torturers are really on your side...
So while controlling thoughts can be a shortcut to controlling behavior, doing it completely is the long way around. They most you can hope for is some basic indoctrination and getting people to generally ignore things. Trying for much more tends to result in the subjects eating their controllers for being insufficiently on their own side.
Can you elaborate on the last sentence there ("Trying for much more tends to result in the subjects eating their controllers for being insufficiently on their own side.")?
I am thinking of the mobs of religious fanatics that kill their leaders for "corruption", or the students who get leftist professors fired despite them being ostensibly on their side. I suppose one solution to that problem is to indoctrinate people only into believing exactly what you, as the leader, intend to do yourself, but sooner or later the flock always seems to go past the limits of the shepherds and run them over on their way over the cliff. Sooner or later a crazier true believer always comes up to destroy their creators it seems.
If I have understood at all what you are getting at, it seems to me that what you are doing is critiquing modern Western 'democracy' (parliaments, majority voting etc). If so, I am with you..... because it seems to me (in my 73 year) that this version of democracy has run its course. Nice while it lasted, its inherent tendency to overreach its boundaries (bureaucratic overreach, mass/social media overreach, spoilt-brat intelligentsia overreach) Icarus-like, its end was in its beginning.
Personally I'd prefer to not have the views of extreme ideologues be lexicographically more important than the views of the general electorate, as is the case in with the existing system of party primaries and concentration of power in the hands of congressional leadership. These things exist in an ugly symbiotic relationship with partisan polarization, and I'd rather be rid of all of them.
I had not thought of this idea before. That is, if I want material goods for myself, I can offer something in exchange. It can be win-win. But if you want me to obey a norm that I don't believe in, there is not a win-win solution.
At least I think that is what you are saying.
I think that my norms should take precedence!
What a coincidence, I also think my norms should take precedence.
Why do you use the word "norms" instead of, perhaps, "rules of coerced behavior"? I ask because behavioral norms are somewhat different than the rules enforced by legislation, the distinction (again in slightly different words) described by Hayek in Law, Legislation and Liberty. Social norms are generally negotiated among people, albeit not directly or explicitly in most cases, as individuals bicker and discuss and interact over them, as Hume points out. Legislation is also negotiated as you point out, and can lead to ridiculous "something for you, and something mutually exclusive for you..." situations. But legislation and social norms need not map to one another, and norms largely exist outside the realm of sending men with guns to your door to effect punishment for breaking them.
At any rate, I agree with your general point that compromise with "do what we say or we will kill you" generally is a bad idea. In fact Ayn Rand said that herself. I think that the use of the word norms here is misleading, as the problem is the "or we will kill you" part, not the norm part.
Or maybe norm is exactly what you mean, and we have a much deeper disagreement than I realize :D
That's a fair distinction to make. What I'm getting at here is that in many of these moral fights, its not only enough to make the other side give them something in the physical world, but they also want to control the other sides' thoughts. It's definitely imposed from the outside, but its not simply about the rule.
That's the thing though, trying to control other's thoughts and behavior is just normal human behavior. We all want people to behave more like we want them to behave. (I almost wrote "We all want people to behave more like us" but most humans don't want the normal rules to apply to themselves.) We constantly try to discuss and change peoples' minds about things. That in itself isn't really the problem if we aren't trying to force each other to behave how we like, merely withdrawing rewards if they don't. It is when we start actively harming people who don't follow our preferred norms that it starts to become a problem. That is where the politics, the war by other means, comes in. On the small scale burning down my shed because I don't have a "In this house we believe" sign in my front yard is a big problem because it is bringing violence and active harm into the negotiations over norms. On the big scale saying employing people who misuse pronouns is creating a hostile work environment and thus illegal is the same.
It is using violence in the negotiation that is the problem, not the negotiation over norms.
It seems like controlling thoughts is a shortcut to controlling behavior. If you can "incept" codes of conduct into people, you don't have to constantly monitor or harangue them about their behavior. But this is probably an obvious point.
Incept is a good way of describing it, exactly because trying to control thoughts gets really ugly, really fast. With behavior you can limit yourself to "Did you do the thing? If so, I punish you" ramping up the punishment until they won't do it again, possibly because they are beyond doing anything beyond decomposing again. With thoughts, now you have a perpetual hunt for heresy, because they say they think the right things, but how can you know? Maybe they are pretending to think the right things. Maybe they are pretending but secretly trying to subvert the beliefs. Who really is believing and who is pretending? Eventually the only answer becomes "Fuck it, just torture everyone to be sure." Even then, you have to wonder if your torturers are really on your side...
So while controlling thoughts can be a shortcut to controlling behavior, doing it completely is the long way around. They most you can hope for is some basic indoctrination and getting people to generally ignore things. Trying for much more tends to result in the subjects eating their controllers for being insufficiently on their own side.
Can you elaborate on the last sentence there ("Trying for much more tends to result in the subjects eating their controllers for being insufficiently on their own side.")?
I am thinking of the mobs of religious fanatics that kill their leaders for "corruption", or the students who get leftist professors fired despite them being ostensibly on their side. I suppose one solution to that problem is to indoctrinate people only into believing exactly what you, as the leader, intend to do yourself, but sooner or later the flock always seems to go past the limits of the shepherds and run them over on their way over the cliff. Sooner or later a crazier true believer always comes up to destroy their creators it seems.
I’m pleased you found Substack without which I would not have found you. 👍
Glad to hear!
So in essence:
The arc of history bends towards emotional support machine guns.
But political polarisation might save us?
I'm not entirely sure I want to be saved.
If I have understood at all what you are getting at, it seems to me that what you are doing is critiquing modern Western 'democracy' (parliaments, majority voting etc). If so, I am with you..... because it seems to me (in my 73 year) that this version of democracy has run its course. Nice while it lasted, its inherent tendency to overreach its boundaries (bureaucratic overreach, mass/social media overreach, spoilt-brat intelligentsia overreach) Icarus-like, its end was in its beginning.
Personally I'd prefer to not have the views of extreme ideologues be lexicographically more important than the views of the general electorate, as is the case in with the existing system of party primaries and concentration of power in the hands of congressional leadership. These things exist in an ugly symbiotic relationship with partisan polarization, and I'd rather be rid of all of them.