link to original reddit post by /u/ihaphleas
This are just some thoughts about the different ways of thinking between socialists and the like and us.
A socialist on Reddit pointed out to me that most socialists are concerned with "the system" rather than "atomic" interpersonal relations. This seems kinda obvious, but they pointed it out in a way that actually made me think a bit ... particularly since I had recently had a discussion with a generic leftist in which they kept bringing up "the system" as a sort of talisman.
First, let's admit that "systems" exist. That is to say, given some simple rules about interactions between individuals, large collections can exhibit emergent properties which are different or surprising or even perverse.
Probably most of you can come up with examples of this, but I'll give a few. Consider H2O. We can look at a single molecule of water and describe its chemical properties. We can even describe how it might interact with a small number of other molecules. But would this tell us much about the properties of large quantities of H2O? Could we deduce its properties as a fluid? Perhaps we could actually deduce its crystal structure in the solid form ... but would we know the phase diagram? Would would know when the individuals are able to freely move and when they are locked into a rigid structure?
Further, basically all other substances form fluids or solids as well ... the point being that fluids are emergent from the individual interactions (in this case, dependent on temperature, of course).
Back to the socialist. The socialist is concerned with the collective good ... so, of course, they are going to consider the collective properties as primary, that is, the system. They have less care about the individual interactions, as long as the system as a whole is close to what they want.
Meanwhile, we are concerned with having the freedom to pursue our own good. I don't know what the good is for others, let them pursue theirs and I'll pursue mine. But then, to me, to the libertarian, the collective "system" is of less importance than the rules of individual interactions.
A typical example of the interaction of these two ways of thinking is the socialist argument that voluntaryism (i.e. ancapistan) would lead to feudalism. We describe rules of interpersonal conduct which we think are reasonable: voluntary interaction and private property. The socialists' argument against this is not to say that these rules are wrong, in fact, in principle they agree with voluntary interaction. But to say that such rules, particularly unlimited private property, will lead to a system that they consider undesirable.
Now, having admitted that "systems" do exist and that the emergent properties of "atomic" rules can be surprising or even perverse, what can we say?
First, how does the argument to the devolution to feudalism proceed? If the emergent properties are hard to predict, how can the socialist claim to predict how they will turn out?
Does the argument rely on particular circumstances? For example, the monopoly of a particularly important (unsubstitutable perhaps) resource?
If so, perhaps this "seed" provides a surface on which a large mass of the collective can solidify ... and, perhaps it's not wrong. Of course, a monopoly is very rare, and one that cannot be substituted in some way almost impossible.
Still, should we not seek more of an answer? Of course, if nothing else, we might point out that feudalism, with some human rights, is still better that a dictatorship, with none ... which, for all their foresight into "systems," socialists have yet to avoid.
There is another thing, regarding liberty and power. I think most of us understand the distinction between the freedom to do something and the power to do it ... something that is not really widely understood. My typical example is that a turtle is free to fly. Note, also that man has always been free to fly, and now we have the power to.
To us, we tend to think of freedom as a right. While power is not. That is, we maximize freedom for all, it is evenly distributed ... while power, not being a right, is unevenly distributed.
The socialist views some amount of power as a right as well. Why? They see the concentration of power leading to a system which restricts the "freedom" of those with little power. How can this be mitigated?