pull down to refresh
At this point you're gonna think I'm copying you lol. I don't think your characterization is accurate. Controversial political leaders are also often banned because they proclaim ideas that resonated with a lot of people and that's what created their movement in the first place. That doesn't make them right, but it does make those ideas worthy of exploration to at the very least be able to recognize them, challenge them, etc. The US president book (Hoover) I'm referring to was actually a revisionist objection to aspects of false history advertised as truth regarding FDR's presidency specifically his actions in WWII and how he botched it. WWII, The American Civil War, the Civil Rights Act and Jesus are the founding myths of our civilization. They're also all heavily filled with lies and bullshit and logical fallacies and even the most cursory examination of actually dissenting revisionist history undermines them completely. Basically progressivism and all of its core beliefs is a complete lie often derived from Christianity (although it had some non-Christian enlightenment influence) which is based on a figure that was actually mythical and not historical.
Honestly, I have no desire to read Lolita. Sounds like it would make my fucking skin crawl and make me want to start a fire.
I agree that something being banned doesn't inherently make it valuable. I'm generally inclined to say we shouldn't ban books and material like Lolita that way we can identify and "admonish" the people who consume such material enthusiastically (without using the state of course). Those people should be "admonished" until there aren't any left. Note I'm not saying anyone who read it, just the people that found the male's mate selection age particularly appealing.
ideas that resonated with a lot of people and that's what created their movement in the first place
It’s not "ideas" (plural). Throughout history it has mostly been ONE recurring idea: too many poor people relative to what the system can absorb -> violent redistribution of limited economic resources (aka "wealth redistribution").
The only real difference is the target:
- inside the society: socialist/populist movements and revolutions
- outside the group: nationalisms, revisionisms, other -isms, theocracies/cults, conquests
All of them are just forms of collectivism/centralization with a violent redistributionist social agenda.
I think your framing misses a couple key points:
There are societies who have relatively extreme resource scarcity that don't produce significant revolution/societal change.
People are motivated by factors other than resource scarcity (desire for cultural/racial/theological homogeneity/change, desire for a perceived better world for their children, principals of fairness, principals of justice, response to perceived humiliation or insult to honor). These often (nearly always actually even if the change is organic and driven less by resource competition factors since opportunists always exist) also have a resource competition aspect to them, but it's not just that component.
I think you're also undervaluing the real differences between groups. Even in an anarchist society, there would be maintenance of societal and cultural standards. There's no future where everybody accepts everybody as the same as them and holds hands and sings kumbaya. There will ALWAYS be conflict. There are real differences between peoples via theology, race, culture, genetics more broadly, ideology more broadly. I think there is an undercurrent where there are similarities like a least common denominator amongst all humans, but that doesn't mean the differences are small or insignificant. Many conflicts have been motivated by racial tensions and theological tensions that don't easily map to resource competition. I think libertarian/anarchists often just dismiss these things as "they don't matter" because of the overarching issue of the state (which I agree is a substantial issue and the most important one and I favor decentralization over centralization the overwhelming majority of the time unless the centralization is truly voluntary). Being libertarian/anarchist often allows for a "do whatever you want as long as it's voluntary", but I don't think this actually applies in any real society. Societies have standards that can and must be enforced. That doesn't have to mean a state, but it does mean conflict (even solely rhetorical or social conflict). Libertarianism/anarchism often by default accepts and internalizes the belief that "we are all the same" or "we are all equal". These things are not true and have never been true and the nature aspect of the nurture nature debate is significantly undervalued in modern society. My maximum capacity for achievement for cognitive and athletic ability was determined at birth via genetics. Many personality traits and behaviors are determined genetically. Peoples are not the same. We are not all equal. That does not mean I advocate using a state to sort out society, I believe the opposite. A natural elite exists within society, but it requires market forces to determine them and even then there remains a subjective component. I would argue the state has been the largest driving factor against human evolution because it creates negative artificial selections of humans that optimize for short term thinking, net negative opportunism, moral bankruptcy, and compliance to authority.
The history of society is not solely a story of the conquest of bread.
That all being said, I broadly agree with your point. I think it's necessary, but not sufficient in understanding the world. Also, I think you may have missed my point about the importance of understanding, recognizing, and being able to challenge the beliefs and ideologies of others. Being able to undercut positions as illogical and incoherent and to be able to effectively articulate against them is a significant boon for our side. I believe pro-anarchism/libertarianism is correct, but we have to argue effectively for our ideas and a large part of that is understanding what others believe. If we can't effectively advocate for ourselves then we can't effectively grow the movement or undercut the growth of other competing harmful movements. I would also argue that the constant fence sitting of libertarians/anarchists on cultural/social issue that are voluntary is a big part of what turns people away from the ideology. That's not the only problem with them, but it's a big one.
I posted this a while back:
https://stasher.news/uploads/519
After seeing your list, one correction to that rule of thumb: the heuristic only holds when a book is suppressed for its ideas, the kind of thinking that actually threatens the current arrangement of power. Hoppe belongs in that category. He was already on my reading list; your post just moved him to the top :)
If a book is banned mainly because of who the author was (e.g. uber-totalitarian figures who sincerely believed they were gods on earth and therefore entitled to rule and decide over others (Gaddafi and his kind), I personally treat it as any other politics: a waste of time and a distraction. Their writings are usually just the aftertaste of power and extreme centralization (centralization = bad. Always.), not an independent challenge to it.
I did read Lolita. Nabokov is an exceptionally talented writer and I remember enjoying the experience. Yet, given my pathological memory, I remember nothing from it: no arguments, no durable quotes. That told me it was pure entertainment: writing about a taboo topic and getting banned for it does not, by itself, make a book valuable (for me). I try not to spend scarce time on those either.
Thank you for the post. I had already heard good things about Hoppe: your recommendation was the thing that decided it :)