Iwein Fuld Wiki

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
Since my childhood, I've been struggling with an authority problem. I've learned that I'm far from alone in this. I'm among that group of humans that feel strongly that everything that happens with my mind and body should be based on my choices. There's a lot of philosophical and ethical stuff to unpack here, and I don't expect to fully get to the bottom of it ever, especially in this article. But here's the brain dump anyway.

The key concept in this context is **consent**.

According to wikipedia consent is based in "the idea in social philosophy that individuals primarily make decisions as free agents entering into consensual relationships with other free agents". I think you don't need to read the full definition to get it, but feel free of course.

According to the [[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anarchism/|stanford article on anarchism]], my views in this make me an anarchist. That seems about right, as long as you don't define anarchism as violent, which imo is utterly incorrect anyway.

====== Why is consent so important ======
The first time I bumped into the concept of consent it was related to sex. "Consensual sex" ultimately is the opposite of abuse, and there are many kinds of abuse. Abuse also exists outside of the realm of sex of course. Abuse doesn't have to be physical, and it is always wrong. Consent is the key to avoiding abuse.

Later in life I found out that most traumatic experiences are directly caused by lack of consent in some form. To avoid suffering, consent is essential.

Let me give some example.

A friend with a set of amazing skills was down on his luck and needed income, so he decided he should become a deliveryperson to make a buck. This was completely outside of his talents, and would in my view be a waste. I suggested that we would start a business: I'd fund his initial salary for a year, he'd work and eventually we'd split the profits. We make a contract, think it through for a week or so, sign, and get going. After one year the struggling business can barely afford the salary, and this stays like that for another few years. The friend becomes demotivated and starts to work less and less, the business makes less and less profit. The friend borrows some money for food, asks for help getting around, and the relationship becomes less and less beneficial to me. I tell him to stop asking for money, because I can't help that way anymore. I ask him to refund the borrowed money, instead of using it for a holiday. The friend decides, without my approval, to stop working for the business, and to not repay the loan. This feels like abuse (of the trust), and in my mind it clearly is because I did not consent to the loan being turned into a gift. 

On the other hand, the friend states that he did not consent to the contract. One can say that he clearly did, because his signature is on it, but that's a bit too easy. It is possible for someone to sign something without consenting to it. There's even a legal term for this: duress. The crux here is threat, or the use of force. In my mind, in the specific example, there was absolutely no duress involved, but in the precarious situation this friend has manoeuvred himself, I can imagine it feels like he's no longer a free agent in this matter. Legally I could compel him to repay the loan and/or pay for the damages caused by his failure to uphold his end of the deal. He wouldn't consent to that of course. 

The real pickle is that he's clearly being unethical (by mine and popular standards) by consenting to a promise, but not consenting to making good on the promise. But he has not consented to fall under the laws and ethics that I think he should conform to. There might be a social system where it's functional and OK to make a promise and then simply break it later. This is not fundamentally bad, just something I would not prefer to operate in.

====== Imbalances of power ======


This brings us to a fundamental imbalance in power, and hopefully back on the main topic. A person that is well established in a certain legal+social+economic context, has power over those that are less established there in that context. I have enough means to run the lawsuit and probably win it. This friend can only run or hide. I can afford to lose the lawsuit without any effect on my freedoms, he will likely be severely limited in his freedoms for years if he loses. This is a good example of an unfair distribution of power. The only ethical move here is to let him get away with his unethical behavior, and this is exceptionally hard to do for someone with a high sense of justice, like myself. 

Another example is between a child and a parent. The parent is stronger, and has more information than the child. It is possible to make your child do almost anything, if you are prepared to use manipulation, threats, or force. Power is only dangerous if abused, and luckily most parents are not very abusive. Most parents (including myself at times in the past) are somewhat abusive. I'm talking usually benign forms of abuse, like carrying a child somewhere they didn't want to go (sometimes kicking and screaming). 

Power imbalances are everywhere. Not all these power imbalances are unethical. The person with a chainsaw has the power of life and death over the tree. The doctor has power of life and death over the patient. It's the ethics of the powerful that decide wether the imbalance is acceptable in many cases. And luckily we have ways to take such powers away from the unethical… usually. Some power imbalances are harder to keep in check.

====== Evil power ======

There are certain power imbalances that are unethical in and of themselves. No human being ever should have a button that can kill thousands of people for example. The unethical power imbalances in my mind have these characteristics:

  * they are unnecessary / can be avoided,
  * when abused they cause significant suffering

Some of these imbalances exist and are accepted generally by society. Almost all forms of centralised control by states fall into this category. Also centralised control by powerful companies almost always meets the criteria. We can do our bit to fix this. It's emotionally hard perhaps, but rationally easy.

====== Things to do to avoid evil power ======


Do these things whenever you can:
  - Use power you have only with consent of those impacted by your actions.
  - Share power with those impacted by it.
  - Decentralise power structures.
  - Undermine centralised power structures.

The first two are dead easy, rationally. But if you're raised in a paternalistic neo-colonial culture, like me, you'll constantly bump into conflicts with your sense of justice (like the example above). For example, if a refugee steals your food, you should not call the cops on them, I think.

The last two are a bit harder, but still you can make small dents. 

In all organisations where I am involved in organisation design and decision making, I try to introduce sociocracy. This is a good way to decentralize power. There's also some crypto stuff called DAO that claims to do this, but in my experience a decent culture is much more useful than a decent tool. Use the tool only if the culture needs it.

Undermining centralised power is a lot of fun actually. You can buy at small local businesses, instead of online or from big chains. You'll make more friends, and probably have better customer experiences around the products as well. You can also avoid paying taxes by lowering your income, for example by bartering with locals instead of using financial transactions for everything. It takes a bit more courage, but one very powerful thing we should try to do is simply not take orders from powerful people. Ignore them, go against them, because this will erode the power itself quite effectively if enough people do this. Of course you should keep yourself safe if you can. If someone puts a gun to your head, survival is more commendable than principles in most cases.