Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 09:50 -0700, Thaths wrote: I was pointing out that the argument that conflict leads to progress is only a few steps away from the invisible hand argument of the Libertarianism. hm? as opposed to the visible hand argument of stalinism? i think you've stepped into the Abyss of Strawmanism there, thaths :-) -r
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 12:29:28PM -0700, Danese Cooper wrote: Libertarians are often accused of being anarchists or asked what the difference is between a libertarian and an anarchist. The popular image of anarchy is unrestrained violence and looting. Libertarians Translation: anarchy just has a worse press than Libertarianism. Top-down or bottom-up organisation forms are completely orthogonal to initiation of force. -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
[silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
Hello! Here's a thought: Is conflict necessary for progress? Or is it an impediment? Would individuals be able to reach their fullest levels of potential in the absence of conflict or is conflict necessary to maximise potential, individual and social? I'm tending towards conflict as a requirement for change, growth and potential optimisation. As an aside, I heard a great line - It's not the environment that needs to be saved, it's us. I suppose that's true. The environment, in some way or form will survive, it's us and our lifestyle that's endangered. Is humanity a virus? -Gautam -- Please read our new blog at: http://blog.prathambooks.org/
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
If you think of the status quo as inertia, then physics tells us a force (which I'm gonna call conflict) is required to create change. In my work career I've seen this over and over. Those who are guarding the status quo do not go gently in a new direction, even if that direction is clearly better. I remember how legal secretaries at the law firm I worked for early in my career fought the advent of desktop PCs (they knew how to be productive with IBM Selectric typewriters and the Wang word processor down the hall was a specialized piece of equipment). Time and again I've seen there's always *somebody* profiting from the status quo who believes they have to guard against changes. Of course I won't even start commenting about Sun and Java ;-). Danese On Jun 22, 2008, at 5:47 AM, Gautam John wrote: Hello! Here's a thought: Is conflict necessary for progress? Or is it an impediment? Would individuals be able to reach their fullest levels of potential in the absence of conflict or is conflict necessary to maximise potential, individual and social? I'm tending towards conflict as a requirement for change, growth and potential optimisation. As an aside, I heard a great line - It's not the environment that needs to be saved, it's us. I suppose that's true. The environment, in some way or form will survive, it's us and our lifestyle that's endangered. Is humanity a virus? -Gautam -- Please read our new blog at: http://blog.prathambooks.org/
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Gautam John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is conflict necessary for progress? Or is it an impediment? Would individuals be able to reach their fullest levels of potential in the absence of conflict or is conflict necessary to maximise potential, individual and social? You make an assumption that there is a well known, and widely accepted, objective definition of progress. Tell me, what is the progress being achieved in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Northern Uganda with the LRA? Colombia with FARC? Are these conflicts maximizing individual or societal potentials? What about the conflict that is typical to Indian homes: one between a mother-in-law and a daughter-in-law? What individual or societal potential does it maximize? I'm tending towards conflict as a requirement for change, growth and potential optimisation. I tend to the view that change, growth, potential optimization, stagnation, peace AND conflict are all part of human nature. The first thing that your question brought to mind was Harry Lime's words (written by Graham Greene) from the film _The Third Man_: Harry Lime: Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. BTW, it seems to me that you are staring into the Libertarian abyss [ :-) ]. Step back! Thaths -- Bart: We were just planning the father-son river rafting trip. Homer: Hehe. You don't have a son. Sudhakar Chandra Slacker Without Borders
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Thaths [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Congo? Northern Uganda with the LRA? Colombia with FARC? Are these conflicts maximizing individual or societal potentials? Well, perhaps it's a question of being on a time-line. That all conflicts tend to progress but not necessarily while the conflict is ongoing. There's something about systems in chaos tend to order or some such? BTW, it seems to me that you are staring into the Libertarian abyss [ :-) ]. Step back! Please explain? -- Please read our new blog at: http://blog.prathambooks.org/
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
Thaths wrote: BTW, it seems to me that you are staring into the Libertarian abyss [ :-) ]. Step back! WTF? -- * Madhu Menon Shiok Far-eastern Cuisine Indiranagar, Bangalore Visit us @ http://www.shiokfood.com Shiok on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bangalore-India/Shiok/7498426855
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
You make an assumption that there is a well known, and widely accepted, objective definition of progress. Tell me, what is the progress being achieved in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Northern Uganda with the LRA? Colombia with FARC? Are these conflicts maximizing individual or societal potentials? I think you've misunderstood Gautam's question. He does not claim that all conflict leads to progress (whatever it may be), nor does he claim that said conflict is violent/insurgent/anti-government. Conflict can simply be a disconnect or misalignment of ideas, processes or technology. As Danese mentions, this form of conflict is quite common in business, especially in India, when it comes to computers; we are reluctant to let go of our multitudinous workforce, even if it leads to a more efficient organisation. Similarly, my mother refuses to believe that people will buy her furniture on eBay (she'd give it away for free before she sells it online, I think). Yes, it is very difficult to imagine a scenario where everybody will be comfortable with change. As much as they would be amenable to it, they will face some discomfort during the transition. Ideally, such a conflict would be made painless if they were made to understand the inadequacies of their current behaviours before any change is inflicted upon them. It is possible that they will eventually grow to appreciate the benefits of the change, but they won't go without a fight. Newton's Laws of Motion are applicable here as well. -- Sumant Srivathsan sumants.blogspot.com
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Gautam John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Thaths [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Congo? Northern Uganda with the LRA? Colombia with FARC? Are these conflicts maximizing individual or societal potentials? Well, perhaps it's a question of being on a time-line. That all conflicts tend to progress but not necessarily while the conflict is ongoing. There's something about systems in chaos tend to order or some such? Of what comfort is this to the populations stuck in the middle of these conflicts? If conflict is a precondition to Progress, one should consider the question if amputations, rape, murder, mutilations, torture and worse are acceptable prices to pay for said Progress. Also, I do not buy the time-line argument. Give any situation enough time and it is bound to change. In some cases, it changes for the better, and in some it changes for the worse (and possibly for the better at a later date). To assume that the change for the better happened because of the conflict itself is to ignore the cases where the change happens for the worse. BTW, it seems to me that you are staring into the Libertarian abyss [ :-) ]. Step back! Please explain? I was pointing out that the argument that conflict leads to progress is only a few steps away from the invisible hand argument of the Libertarianism. I jokingly (see the smiley?) characterized Libertarianism as an abyss and pleaded for you to step back from it. S. -- Bart: We were just planning the father-son river rafting trip. Homer: Hehe. You don't have a son. Sudhakar Chandra Slacker Without Borders
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
You make an assumption that there is a well known, and widely accepted, objective definition of progress. Tell me, what is the progress being achieved in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Northern Uganda with the LRA? Colombia with FARC? Are these conflicts maximizing individual or societal potentials? While I hate falling into the trap of quoting management jargon, I think you're confusing underlying conflict with the medium through which said conflict expresses itself. The examples which you cited are all examples of conflict leading to war. You can also have conflict resolution through a civil/ criminal justice process, conflict between companies expressing itself in marketplace competition, (peaceful) conflict over resources resolving itself through technological development to spur productivity. This does not do anything to answer Gautam's original question. As you've pointed out, the expression of conflict can lead to war or any other sort of destructive power struggle - meaning that conflict is not sufficient to achieve progress (by any common-sensical definition of the word). Also, if you hold truck with Heroic / Great Leader theories of innovation (Mozart would have been a musical genius and written marvelous symphonies with or without facing any conflict), or Random Walk theories of history (things just happen. What the heck.), then conflict is not necessary for progress either. -- Aadisht Khanna Address for mailing lists: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
I suppose the question then is, what metric does one use to measure progress? I was pointing out that the argument that conflict leads to progress is only a few steps away from the invisible hand argument of the Libertarianism. I jokingly (see the smiley?) characterized Bear with my ignorance, how is Libertarianism different from Anarchism? -- Please read our new blog at: http://blog.prathambooks.org
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
I was pointing out that the argument that conflict leads to progress is only a few steps away from the invisible hand argument of the Libertarianism. I jokingly (see the smiley?) characterized Libertarianism as an abyss and pleaded for you to step back from it. Given that the more free societies are the most prosperous, some abyss it is! -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Amit Varma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that the more free societies are the most prosperous, some abyss it is! Free as in personal freedom? What of the Nordic countries and their social security nets? Would that not impinge on personal freedoms? -- Please read our new blog at: http://blog.prathambooks.org/
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
Free as in personal freedom? What of the Nordic countries and their social security nets? Would that not impinge on personal freedoms? Look back on European history and see how they attained their current prosperity. -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Amit Varma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Look back on European history and see how they attained their current prosperity. That's a rather broad swathe of history to read. Short version please? As a starting point for my reading, of course.. ;) -- Please read our new blog at: http://blog.prathambooks.org/
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Gautam John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a starting point for my reading, of course.. ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_welfare#History Seems to suggest that ...certain cultural norms dating back to the small agrarian villages... asserted conformity and egalitarianism over individualism [and] the welfare state was built much thanks to the ruling party being the Swedish Social Democratic Party, the large unions that encompassed almost the entire population, and the industries that were similarly almost all unionized. -- Please read our new blog at: http://blog.prathambooks.org/
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Gautam John wrote: Is conflict necessary for progress? Or is it an impediment? Would individuals be able to reach their fullest levels of potential in the absence of conflict or is conflict necessary to maximise potential, individual and social? Isnt it the other way round... progress causing conflict ? most conflicts have been about competing for resources, the more scarce the resource (diamonds, oil, precious metals, land) , the greater the conflict. the only potential maximised is that of the winner.
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Amit Varma wrote: I was pointing out that the argument that conflict leads to progress is only a few steps away from the invisible hand argument of the Libertarianism. I jokingly (see the smiley?) characterized Libertarianism as an abyss and pleaded for you to step back from it. Given that the more free societies are the most prosperous, some abyss it is! Isnt it a bit silly to talk about free societies == prosperity in blanket terms, when many of those free societies became prosperous out of international inequities and one sided conflicts ?
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
Isnt it a bit silly to talk about free societies == prosperity in blanket terms, when many of those free societies became prosperous out of international inequities and one sided conflicts ? Right. And calling belief in freedom an abyss is not silly? If there is one single cause for human progress, it is our propensity to trade with each other for personal profit. (Indeed, that's exactly what we do at Silk-list as well, trading our time and insights, such as they are, for the far greater insight we get from others.) Yet somehow clamping down on this propensity is considered 'progressive' and people who support the freedom to trade, along with all others, are disparaged. I don't get it. -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
2008/6/23 Amit Varma [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://www.mises.org/story/2259 http://mises.org/story/2190 Thank you for these. It's an interesting counter-point to the Wiki page. However, they don't fully explain why the country stood by and allowed such change to occur. If individual liberty is as prized as the articles state, it should be relatively more immune to vagaries of the economy, yes? A more basic social norm. That doesn't seem to have been the case. They didn't wake up to find a socialist government in place. They voted them into power. -- Please read our new blog at: http://blog.prathambooks.org/
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Gautam John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose the question then is, what metric does one use to measure progress? Correct. Also, I prefer separating a happy/peaceful life (a goal) from definitions of progress (a process). I was pointing out that the argument that conflict leads to progress is only a few steps away from the invisible hand argument of the Libertarianism. I jokingly (see the smiley?) characterized Bear with my ignorance, how is Libertarianism different from Anarchism? I have heard it said that Anarchism is the ideal of the Left and Libertarianism of the Right. :-) I personally do not know where the boundary lies. Thaths -- Bart: We were just planning the father-son river rafting trip. Homer: Hehe. You don't have a son. Sudhakar Chandra Slacker Without Borders
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Amit Varma wrote: Right. And calling belief in freedom an abyss is not silly? If there is one single cause for human progress, it is our propensity to trade with each other for personal profit. (Indeed, that's exactly what we do at Silk-list as well, trading our time and insights, such as they are, for the far greater insight we get from others.) Yet somehow clamping down on this propensity is considered 'progressive' and people who support the freedom to trade, along with all others, are disparaged. I don't get it. I did my fair bit of reading on various colonial histories. back then it used to be called free trade too and was done with a gun and a bible. there were people back then too spouting mantras about free trade and how the opponents were impeding progress. political correctness has changed since then, its more sugar coated now (the gun and the bible still hold good in many instances... ). my point is, what you call free trade isnt free for everyone. its way cheaper to buy timber from the sudan than from japan on the free trade market because sudanese timber comes from a conflict zone. it might be progressive to buy sudanese timber, but its making them poorer.
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
Gotta love Google: from http://www.chaospark.com/politics/reid12.htm Libertarian or Anarchist? Libertarians are often accused of being anarchists or asked what the difference is between a libertarian and an anarchist. The popular image of anarchy is unrestrained violence and looting. Libertarians take a stronger stand against violence and looting than any other political group including republicans and democrats. The early history of the United States with its severely limited government was strongly libertarian and completely different from this image of anarchy. The misunderstanding on this issue comes from the ideal state of peace and productivity with no government interference imagined by many libertarians who forget that we are the only ones who can imagine it. In a libertarian society the evolution of voluntary institutions providing the few remaining government services might lead to the gradual elimination of government but this scenario is completely beyond the imagination of the general public and it harms our cause to confront them with such a startling vision. Here is a menu of answers to the question: What's the difference between libertarians and anarchists? The traditional answer Libertarians want severely limited government and anarchists want none. The humanist answer Libertarians are nonviolent; some anarchists are violent. The funny answer Libertarians are to anarchists as nudists are to naked people.They're just middle class organized so they appear less crazy. The Party answer (from Andre Marrou) An anarchist is an extreme libertarian, like a socialist is an extreme democrat, and a fascist is an extreme republican. The graphic answer It's like the difference between a lover and a rapist.They're both in the same place but one uses violence to get there. The straight answer Libertarians believe in free markets, private property, and capitalism. Anarchists who believe in these things usually call themselves libertarians. On Jun 22, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Thaths wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Gautam John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose the question then is, what metric does one use to measure progress? Correct. Also, I prefer separating a happy/peaceful life (a goal) from definitions of progress (a process). I was pointing out that the argument that conflict leads to progress is only a few steps away from the invisible hand argument of the Libertarianism. I jokingly (see the smiley?) characterized Bear with my ignorance, how is Libertarianism different from Anarchism? I have heard it said that Anarchism is the ideal of the Left and Libertarianism of the Right. :-) I personally do not know where the boundary lies. Thaths -- Bart: We were just planning the father-son river rafting trip. Homer: Hehe. You don't have a son. Sudhakar Chandra Slacker Without Borders
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
However, they don't fully explain why the country stood by and allowed such change to occur. If individual liberty is as prized as the articles state, it should be relatively more immune to vagaries of the economy, yes? A more basic social norm. That doesn't seem to have been the case. They didn't wake up to find a socialist government in place. They voted them into power. That's because: a] The benefits of economic freedom are counterintuitive. The workings of the invisible hand, spontaneous order etc are all harder to comprehend by the average guy than a government planning things and allocating resources and taking care of everything. b] The incentives of anybody in politics are aligned towards increasing his own power and the resources available to him, which is why liberty is always under threat and eternal vigilance, as Jefferson put it, is called for. -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:59 AM, Danese Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gotta love Google: from http://www.chaospark.com/politics/reid12.htm Heh, thanks Danese. But honestly, such a question is hard to answer because the term 'anarchist' is so corrupted, and has so many shades of meaning, much like 'liberal'. Wikipedia has a decent summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism Anarcho-libertarians are virually on the opposite end of the spectrum from the Leftist anarchists. And anarcho-libertarians differ from other libertarians, such as the minarchists, in that they favour no government at all, while minarchists, like myself, see a necessary role for government in maintaining the rule of law, defending individual rights and so on. That's putting it simply... -- Amit Varma http://www.indiauncut.com
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
Gautam John [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bear with my ignorance, how is Libertarianism different from Anarchism? Some libertarians are minarchists, and believe the state exists to provide a court system and policing -- a so-called night watchman state. Other libertarians are indeed anarchists, though a particular form known as propertarian anarchists or anarchocapitalists, and believe that it should be possible to completely privatize all government functions including courts and police. There are good wikipedia articles on these topics. I now return you to the unrelated argument on conflict and progress, which has very little to do with libertarianism. Perry
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
Amit Varma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anarcho-libertarians are virually on the opposite end of the spectrum from the Leftist anarchists. And anarcho-libertarians differ from other libertarians, such as the minarchists, in that they favour no government at all, while minarchists, like myself, see a necessary role for government in maintaining the rule of law, defending individual rights and so on. That's putting it simply... That is indeed a very short summary of an extraordinarily large topic. There was an interesting Liberty Magazine editor's conference on minarchism vs anarchism in the libertarian movement a few years ago. A transcript is on line and rather worth reading... -- Perry E. Metzger[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [silk] Is conflict necessary for progress?
Gautam John wrote: Is conflict necessary for progress? It's inevitable. Two good books on this subject: From science, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn, and from business, The Innovator's Dilemma, by Clayton Christensen. There are many others, but these are my favs. Bottom like: existing structures or paradigms rarely change. Instead, they are replaced. It's clear /conflict/ pervades the replacing process, but I'm more interested in exploring the more subtle links of /cooperation/ across paradigms. They are most certainly there, but I think they are overwhelmed by all the shouting. Would individuals be able to reach their fullest levels of potential in the absence of conflict or is conflict necessary to maximise potential, individual and social? I don't think so. Just look at some common personal experiences. Someone wants to grow in some way -- new job, new degree, get in shape, stop smoking, move to a new location, buy a house, whatever -- and that will cause a great deal of internal conflict. Conflict /can/ be good if it gets you off the couch. It has to be managed properly and then let go after an appropriate time, though. I think too many people unconsciously focus on the conflict when it would be better to focus on actually doing the work necessary to change. You can change or you can be changed, but staying the same is rarely an option for very long. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
