I recommend you go and read his blog and show your support in the comment section but I also recommend you take a critical eye to some of his allusions.
I've spoken before (here, here, here, and here) about how I take a libertarian view of Behaviourism and society in general. Although I consider myself to be left of centre on many social issues I would be very averse to calling myself "left wing" in the modern, progressive sense. Anthony points out many wonderful innovations currently taking place in behavioural science but discusses them as though they were bandages one can simply place over the current wounds of society.
Skinner, in his multitudes of publications spoke about Radical Behaviourism as a force for cultural change right to the core (cf. About Behaviourism, Beyond Freedom and Dignity) including completely rethinking the way we devise systems of governance, economics and social hierarchies. In fact his novel describing a fictionalised behavioural community (Walden Two) presents a view of a society wherein individuals co-operate and live together relatively harmoniously without the need for the use of force or aversive conditions.
Whilst Anthony would undoubtedly agree to this sentiment his call to increase the involvement of governments in forcibly redistributing resources to achieve a reduction in income inequality and poverty is telling of a position that assumes we must retain systems like forcible taxation, redistribution of resources and aversive win-lose social orders in order to achieve positive social change.
I do not wish to imply a lack of positive intention on Anthony's side, but merely wish to point out that in my humble opinion the idea of swinging Leviathan Government around trying to knock over every problem is anachronistic, inefficient and ultimately immoral. The interested reader is pointed towards online communities such as liberty.me to see how individuals are solving the problem of co-operation and voluntary action without a third party intermediary such as the state. If you truly understand the capacity for individuals to work together without the threat of violence hanging over their heads, then you will understand why I agree with Anthony in the sense that Behavioural Science is undoubtedly the most important science we have, and also disagree with his suggestion that just because we know how to change peoples behaviour doesn't mean we have the right to force them to do so.
I do not wish to imply a lack of positive intention on Anthony's side, but merely wish to point out that in my humble opinion the idea of swinging Leviathan Government around trying to knock over every problem is anachronistic, inefficient and ultimately immoral. The interested reader is pointed towards online communities such as liberty.me to see how individuals are solving the problem of co-operation and voluntary action without a third party intermediary such as the state. If you truly understand the capacity for individuals to work together without the threat of violence hanging over their heads, then you will understand why I agree with Anthony in the sense that Behavioural Science is undoubtedly the most important science we have, and also disagree with his suggestion that just because we know how to change peoples behaviour doesn't mean we have the right to force them to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment