I had forgotten this (it's from a FB post I made in 2019, sharing quotes from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein).
"Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone?"
"Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone?"
"'I'm a rational anarchist.''I don't know that brand. Anarchist individualist, anarchist Communist, Christian anarchist, philosophical anarchist, syndicalist, libertarian--those I know. But what's this? Randite?''
'I can get along with a Randite. A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. ...
He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame... as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world...
aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.'
'Professor, your words sound good but there is something slippery about them. Too much power in the hands of individuals-—surely you would not want... well, H-missiles for example—to be controlled by one irresponsible person?''
My point is that one person is responsible. Always. If H-bombs existand they dosome man controls them. In tern of morals there is no such thing as 'state.' Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts.'
"Wyoh plowed doggedly into Prof, certain she had all answers. But Prof was interested in questions rather than answers, which baffled her.
Finally she said, 'Professor, I can't understand you. I don't insist that you call it 'government'--I just want you to state what rules you think are necessary to insure equal freedom for all.'
Finally she said, 'Professor, I can't understand you. I don't insist that you call it 'government'--I just want you to state what rules you think are necessary to insure equal freedom for all.'
'Dear lady, I'll happily accept your rules.'
'But you don't seem to want any rules!'
'But you don't seem to want any rules!'
'True. But I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.'
'You would not abide by a law that the majority felt was necessary?'
'Tell me what law, dear lady, and I will tell you whether I will obey it.'"
'Tell me what law, dear lady, and I will tell you whether I will obey it.'"
That is really good. It's real. It's true.
Groups erase so many barriers you wouldn't cross when you're alone.
love heinlein’s stuff
reminiscent of the samurai tail where the samurai’s’ master is killed
they seek to avenge their master’s death knowing they will be put to death if they succeed
they are responsible for their actions and accept the consequences
reminiscent of the samurai tail where the samurai’s’ master is killed
they seek to avenge their master’s death knowing they will be put to death if they succeed
they are responsible for their actions and accept the consequences
also the anecdote about smart men and idiots
smart men can do far more damage because idiots aren’t trusted with things that have far reaching consequences
smart men can do far more damage because idiots aren’t trusted with things that have far reaching consequences