5 ms·

> “I don’t even think stasis is compatible with liberty,” he told the Washington audience. - Bezos Suppose one were to attempt to steelman Jeff’s statement. Is

> “I don’t even think stasis is compatible with liberty,” he told the Washington audience. - Bezos Suppose one were to attempt to steelman Jeff’s statement. Is there any credible basis for this statement? Or is it just one of those things that powerful people say because it makes them sound profound and they don’t have to follow it up with substantive supporting evidence.

vectorEQ 8y ago
it's an opinion, that's why he says ' i don't even -think-'. it carries no value or credibility than that of his opinions- which you can choose to value or not. besides that what liberty is is also opinion.
- fcarraldo 8y ago
  It's valid to ask whether there is any credible theory or evidence that he is basing his opinion on. I'm also interested in hearing whether there is.
  - perfmode 8y ago
    indeed. i’m not interested in merely tearing him down. i want to understand where he’s coming from, as it’s a statement I haven’t heard before.
- perfmode 8y ago
  i’m more interested in steelmanning the argument than adopting a dismissive stance, which still would be absolutely warranted as you have rightly pointed out. also, just because liberty itself must be defined, doesn’t mean that we cannot identify common interpretations and analyze the possibilities. i’d be careful not to view relativism as a dealbreaker to fruitful discussion.
swebs 8y ago
Here's his full speech with context if that helps. The quote in question is on page 25. https://www.economicclub.org/sites/default/files/transcripts/Jeff_Bezos_Edited_Transcript.pdf https://www.economicclub.org/sites/default/files/transcripts...
- dsjoerg 8y ago
  Thanks. Reading all of page 25, the quote makes more sense. It's a throwaway remark, the discussion is about the implications of energy use, and how capping our energy use ("stasis") would be a big change for all of us.
zwkrt 8y ago
I'll play: So if our governance became static it would be safe to assume that it would be unable to adapt to changing culture. For that government to be continually effective it would then need to enforce that it's constituents' values and lifestyles are unchanging, which seems antithetical to the concept of liberty. In practice we see this since totalitarian regimes work to suppress and homogenize their populations.
entropicdrifter 8y ago
If he's talking about economic stasis, let's give it a go: 1) Economics are the monetary interactions of a given society, subgroup, population, etc 2) stasis refers to not just stagnation, but a complete lack of change 3) total lack of change at a meta-scale like a society only exists in totalitarian societies 4) in the case of total economic stasis, you would need a command economy/controlled economy 5) in the scenario of a command economy, some of the people involved in the economy would fundamentally need to be oppressed 6) therefore, regardless of any moral or ethical judgements, a totally static economy would be inhibiting of the liberty of any given individual participating in it Now, that said, there are many things to be gained by limiting what people are allowed to do. By the same course of logic you could argue that all laws are incompatible with liberty, since technically the government is trying to force you not to kill people, for instance. Obviously that is still to the benefit of society even if you personally have one fewer option. At this point it comes down to the fact that laws and regulations, when done correctly, can increase the number of practical/feasible options available to a populace, even though they technically restrict some of the options that would cause a society to fall apart. People can accomplish more in groups than they could on their own due to the options of specialization and parallelizing work becoming viable when they have restrictive agreements to cooperate. That's the whole point of companies. So this is IMO a case of him being technically correct while still not making a very deep or substantial point in the overall context.
- abfan1127 8y ago
  Laws against murder don't violate Liberty assuming private property rights which include ownership of self. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  I think your post hides a few ideological conveniences which you've used to bolster your argument, or at least make it suond convincing. For instance, >total lack of change at a meta-scale like a society only exists in totalitarian societies Does it? Why? >in the scenario of a command economy, some of the people involved in the economy would fundamentally need to be oppressed Why? Where does the oppression come in? If it is being told what to produce then doesn't capitalism do the same, though through a distributed model of command? Isn't it true that under capitalism, one must work by someone else's instructions, by the duration dictated by this other, in the method prescribed by this other, in exchange for compensation often only negotiated by a group of these 'others' (save the power of unions intervening)? >regardless of any moral or ethical judgements, a totally static economy would be inhibiting of the liberty of any given individual participating in it According to what definition of liberty? Here's what Marx talked about[0]: communism comes in the form of a stateless society, its conception of liberty is radically different to the English liberal tradition's, which places liberty negatively defined as freedom from interference from others. So it seems like you need to preface "liberty" with "bourgeois liberty", or if you prefer, "classical libertarian definitions of liberty". You cannot take them for given. >laws and regulations, when done correctly, can increase the number of practical/feasible options available to a populace, even though they technically restrict some of the options that would cause a society to fall apart Under this schema, a hypothetical restriction on employing labour could do the same - people have more options on how to spend their time and to what end. But it's worth nothing that Marx (or any traditional socialist) never argued for imposing laws and regulations, they spoke about changing society, the whole framework of it. Consider that in Hegel, freedom is defined as the negation of necessity. [0] https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/r.htm https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/r.htm
davidivadavid 8y ago
On the face of it the statement looks like one of those things that is either a tautology, or false. If society is in a state of stasis, that means no one is allowed to do things that go beyond what society is doing in the present. That means you don't have the right to innovate, to try new things, and so on, which seems integral to individual liberty. So his statement is obviously true. However, if you consider liberty as a social construct that means you're allowed to do things as defined by society, then whether that society is static or not is immaterial. So the statement isn't necessarily true. And that's what you get when you make arguments about the definition of words.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  However, if you consider liberty as a social construct that means you're allowed to do things as defined by society In fact, you have just demonstrated that liberty can't exist permanently as a social construct. Therefore, liberty needs to be based on something apart from and beyond society. For example, we could have a society which is based on universal and inviolate principles of personal liberty. (The United States gets laudably close to it.) There are things which are beyond social constructs, like math, science, and nature. People who claim otherwise are just trying to use a social construct to get you to act as if all those other things are ours to define arbitrarily, because ultimately they want to have power over you and other people. (EDIT: The fact that the US and Britain have had something like universal principles of individual rights is precisely what allowed societies to eventually reject their socially constructed acceptability of slavery. So also beware of people who advocate reducing or infringing on individual rights. We know that things like freedom of speech, property rights, and judicial due process are important for liberty, precisely because in the historical record, authoritarians have suppressed speech, taken property, and manipulated judicial processes to squash political opposition.)
- nine_k 8y ago
  > if you consider liberty as a social construct If you consider prosperity as a social construct, you'll find out that many societies have self-reportedly achieved it, even if you would find them oppressive and dirt-poor by your own standards. BTW moving key notions from the realm of somehow reality-testable to the realm of purely denotational and conventional was the way how the Party in "1984" ruled the minds of people. War is peace, freedom is slavery, etc.

vectorEQ 8y ago

it's an opinion, that's why he says ' i don't even -think-'. it carries no value or credibility than that of his opinions- which you can choose to value or not. besides that what liberty is is also opinion.

fcarraldo 8y ago
It's valid to ask whether there is any credible theory or evidence that he is basing his opinion on. I'm also interested in hearing whether there is.
- perfmode 8y ago
  indeed. i’m not interested in merely tearing him down. i want to understand where he’s coming from, as it’s a statement I haven’t heard before.
perfmode 8y ago
i’m more interested in steelmanning the argument than adopting a dismissive stance, which still would be absolutely warranted as you have rightly pointed out. also, just because liberty itself must be defined, doesn’t mean that we cannot identify common interpretations and analyze the possibilities. i’d be careful not to view relativism as a dealbreaker to fruitful discussion.

swebs 8y ago

Here's his full speech with context if that helps. The quote in question is on page 25. https://www.economicclub.org/sites/default/files/transcripts/Jeff_Bezos_Edited_Transcript.pdf https://www.economicclub.org/sites/default/files/transcripts...

dsjoerg 8y ago
Thanks. Reading all of page 25, the quote makes more sense. It's a throwaway remark, the discussion is about the implications of energy use, and how capping our energy use ("stasis") would be a big change for all of us.

zwkrt 8y ago

I'll play: So if our governance became static it would be safe to assume that it would be unable to adapt to changing culture. For that government to be continually effective it would then need to enforce that it's constituents' values and lifestyles are unchanging, which seems antithetical to the concept of liberty. In practice we see this since totalitarian regimes work to suppress and homogenize their populations.

entropicdrifter 8y ago

If he's talking about economic stasis, let's give it a go: 1) Economics are the monetary interactions of a given society, subgroup, population, etc 2) stasis refers to not just stagnation, but a complete lack of change 3) total lack of change at a meta-scale like a society only exists in totalitarian societies 4) in the case of total economic stasis, you would need a command economy/controlled economy 5) in the scenario of a command economy, some of the people involved in the economy would fundamentally need to be oppressed 6) therefore, regardless of any moral or ethical judgements, a totally static economy would be inhibiting of the liberty of any given individual participating in it Now, that said, there are many things to be gained by limiting what people are allowed to do. By the same course of logic you could argue that all laws are incompatible with liberty, since technically the government is trying to force you not to kill people, for instance. Obviously that is still to the benefit of society even if you personally have one fewer option. At this point it comes down to the fact that laws and regulations, when done correctly, can increase the number of practical/feasible options available to a populace, even though they technically restrict some of the options that would cause a society to fall apart. People can accomplish more in groups than they could on their own due to the options of specialization and parallelizing work becoming viable when they have restrictive agreements to cooperate. That's the whole point of companies. So this is IMO a case of him being technically correct while still not making a very deep or substantial point in the overall context.

abfan1127 8y ago
Laws against murder don't violate Liberty assuming private property rights which include ownership of self. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
claudiawerner 8y ago
I think your post hides a few ideological conveniences which you've used to bolster your argument, or at least make it suond convincing. For instance, >total lack of change at a meta-scale like a society only exists in totalitarian societies Does it? Why? >in the scenario of a command economy, some of the people involved in the economy would fundamentally need to be oppressed Why? Where does the oppression come in? If it is being told what to produce then doesn't capitalism do the same, though through a distributed model of command? Isn't it true that under capitalism, one must work by someone else's instructions, by the duration dictated by this other, in the method prescribed by this other, in exchange for compensation often only negotiated by a group of these 'others' (save the power of unions intervening)? >regardless of any moral or ethical judgements, a totally static economy would be inhibiting of the liberty of any given individual participating in it According to what definition of liberty? Here's what Marx talked about[0]: communism comes in the form of a stateless society, its conception of liberty is radically different to the English liberal tradition's, which places liberty negatively defined as freedom from interference from others. So it seems like you need to preface "liberty" with "bourgeois liberty", or if you prefer, "classical libertarian definitions of liberty". You cannot take them for given. >laws and regulations, when done correctly, can increase the number of practical/feasible options available to a populace, even though they technically restrict some of the options that would cause a society to fall apart Under this schema, a hypothetical restriction on employing labour could do the same - people have more options on how to spend their time and to what end. But it's worth nothing that Marx (or any traditional socialist) never argued for imposing laws and regulations, they spoke about changing society, the whole framework of it. Consider that in Hegel, freedom is defined as the negation of necessity. [0] https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/r.htm https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/r.htm

davidivadavid 8y ago

On the face of it the statement looks like one of those things that is either a tautology, or false. If society is in a state of stasis, that means no one is allowed to do things that go beyond what society is doing in the present. That means you don't have the right to innovate, to try new things, and so on, which seems integral to individual liberty. So his statement is obviously true. However, if you consider liberty as a social construct that means you're allowed to do things as defined by society, then whether that society is static or not is immaterial. So the statement isn't necessarily true. And that's what you get when you make arguments about the definition of words.

stcredzero 8y ago
However, if you consider liberty as a social construct that means you're allowed to do things as defined by society In fact, you have just demonstrated that liberty can't exist permanently as a social construct. Therefore, liberty needs to be based on something apart from and beyond society. For example, we could have a society which is based on universal and inviolate principles of personal liberty. (The United States gets laudably close to it.) There are things which are beyond social constructs, like math, science, and nature. People who claim otherwise are just trying to use a social construct to get you to act as if all those other things are ours to define arbitrarily, because ultimately they want to have power over you and other people. (EDIT: The fact that the US and Britain have had something like universal principles of individual rights is precisely what allowed societies to eventually reject their socially constructed acceptability of slavery. So also beware of people who advocate reducing or infringing on individual rights. We know that things like freedom of speech, property rights, and judicial due process are important for liberty, precisely because in the historical record, authoritarians have suppressed speech, taken property, and manipulated judicial processes to squash political opposition.)
nine_k 8y ago
> if you consider liberty as a social construct If you consider prosperity as a social construct, you'll find out that many societies have self-reportedly achieved it, even if you would find them oppressive and dirt-poor by your own standards. BTW moving key notions from the realm of somehow reality-testable to the realm of purely denotational and conventional was the way how the Party in "1984" ruled the minds of people. War is peace, freedom is slavery, etc.