Echoing Rick Falkvinge, Vitalik Buterin claims that legalising possession of child pornography is a natural step in a libertarian society. He claimed in his later deleted tweet, that the legalisation of drugs like heroin caused more harm to more people than the possession of child pornography.
I have taken a full 48 hours to digest this shocking claim so that I can formulate a proper and balanced response.
Whilst analysing his statement, I can only come to two possible conclusions.
Firstly Vitalik Buterin enjoys looking at children getting abused, and he is trying to use his influence to normalise the viewing of vile and disgusting images.
Or what I feel is probably more likely, that he has taken his libertarian/anarchistic beliefs way too far. Which got me thinking again about how the subscribing to one political belief or another is damaging to your mental health and ability to look at things objectively.
I really don't think the first scenario is likely, mainly because people who abuse children, don't tend to broadcast it to the world.
So what on earth could have caused Vitalik to attempt to defend the indefensible? Well I noticed that he mentioned Rick F in the tweet timeline, so I did a bit of digging and found that @falkvinge, had made a statement on his personal blog that Vitalik was commenting about.
Political Confirmation Bias Gone Mad
Imagine you have been put on an island as part of a reality show whereby you can win ten million dollars.
You have been told that in order to win the money and ultimately leave the island. You must cooperate with varying groups of people.
Most of the people you're playing with are also playing the same game. You are told that there is more than just one prize and some people have already won the ten million and are back at home living it up.
This makes you very happy, you are determined to win and you say to yourself that you will not rest until you do.
So now you go out onto the vast island and start to search for clues and people who can help you get the prize money.
After spending a few weeks there, you sit down one day and assess who you've met and how they can help you become rich.
You have met the Purple team, you like them, they seem to say things you like and you feel a kind of affinity for them.
Then you met the Green team, they seem OK, but they don't really resonate with you and are quite a boring bunch of people, so you don't hang out with them so much.
Lastly, you have met the Aquamarine team, you absolutely cannot stand those Aqua scum. Who do they think they are? why can't they just be blue?! On top of all that, the views they hold are just abhorrent, you cannot bear to be within 100 feet of them.
So as far as playing the game is concerned, you voluntarily restrict yourself and decide to throw your lot in with the Purple team.
As far as you're concerned, you'll be able to get all the clues you need by just listening to and hanging out with them.
Unfortunately you forget that the Games Master has told you that there are vital clues in all of the zones, and that everybody, no matter what team they're on may have vital clues for you.
Instead you decide to play the game the Purple way, you cut yourself off from any non-Purple thinking and laugh and scoff at the thought of the Greens or the Aquamarines being able to help you in any way, shape, or form. As a result you are stuck on the island for years and you never ever win the money.
Neither Left Wing Nor Right Wing Be The Whole Damn Bird
Clearly my analogy above, is referring to how we as human beings, tend to affiliate ourselves with one political belief or another, and then stick to it, no matter what.
By doing this we often completely disregard any other political viewpoint, and by doing this we also tend to reject people who subscribe to a different viewpoint than ourselves.
If you think about it, that situation is just as ridiculous as not wanting to accept help while trying to win ten million dollars, just because somebody is wearing a different colour T-shirt from you.
However that is what we do on a daily basis, our news feeds are full of content created by people that we feel that we fundamentally agree with.
If we vote, we only vote for people who are in the same party that believe in the same kind of things that we believe in. Simply because they belong to that party, not necessarily because they are good people.
Ridiculous ! ! !
The nature of human beings is such that unless you are an extreme individual. You will hold a variety of beliefs, those beliefs when politically analysed will fall on both sides of the line.
As the comedian Chris Rock once said; There are somethings I'm really conservative about; like rape or murder. Others I'm pretty liberal about, like drugs and prostitution!
So if we have this internal kaleidoscope of belief. Why then in reality do we publicly subscribe to one way of thinking or another?
Just like the contestants on our imaginary game show, only listening to people who wear a particular colour T-shirt is not only shortsighted, but can be dangerous as well.
Natural Progression Does Not Mean Correct Progression
Back to Vitalik:
I can easily argue that (i) doing heroin imposes risks on others, or (ii) simple possession of child porn does not.
Establishing a general norm that "a person's laptop is >an extension of their mind, and is inviolate" can IMO >have social benefits.
That's where I see Rick F coming from.
The quotes above are taken from Vitalik Buterin's Twitter feed, and appear to be answering a comment made by Rick F; which I'm assuming is Rick Falkvinge, though I may be wrong.
After reading the conversation a few times, I have come to the conclusion that Vitalik, like so many others on planet earth, is only listening to purple T-shirt wearers.
He is a libertarian/anarchist, and therefore feels that he has to apply the philosophies of libertarianism to every single part of life.
I don't see Vitalik as unique in this; there are many people who do this whatever their political beliefs are. He certainly isn't the first anarchist to say something stupid, the difference of course is that he has a huge following and his words will be taken heed of.
Let's clear this up before we go any further. The possessing and distributing of child pornography is wrong. The reason it is wrong, is because it is promoting and endorsing the abuse, rape, and sometimes murder of little children.
There can be absolutely no defence of anybody who helps or endorses the abuse of any human being, especially when it is a child.
However if you apply libertarian thinking to the issue; which is what Vitalik was trying to do. Then things like child pornography on your computer are completely fine, as long as you didn't actually abuse anybody.
It is the same type of thinking that says we can do without government. Whilst we may need to restrict certain powers from certain governments, to think that we don't need some kind of formal administration, is as shortsighted as believing that it's OK to have whatever you want on your laptop.
This statement tells me a lot about Vitalik, it tells me that he has become a slave to his own thinking. Because on this subject, he should have rationalised that the abuse of children is outside the arena of political correctness.
As we progress as a society, certain things that were OK yesterday, are not OK today. This happens as we become more civilised.
For instance the word paedophilia is fairly new; in medieval times it was perfectly acceptable to marry and impregnate a 12 year old girl. As was slavery, child labour, spousal rape, imprisonment, torture, and/or murder for homosexuality, torture and murder via religious bigotry, along with a whole host of other horrors that we now deem to be unacceptable.
Whether it is the subject of breast feeding a baby in public, wearing flared jeans, or how we treat a particular group of people, everything is subject to change.
One thing can be sure though; when changes are made for the better, we tend not to go back to the old way of thinking.
Ergo it is safe to assume, that the wide-spread acceptance of sexual abuse of children is something that we can safely consign to the dustbin of history.
With that, I urge Vitalik and anyone who believes that the political beliefs they subscribe to, are the only answer, to think again. Speak to the Green shirts, and even on occasion the Aquamarine shirts.
Because just because somebody doesn't wear purple, doesn't mean they're all bad.
Disclaimer:
I am not claiming that Vitalik Buterin, or Rick Falkvinge carry out, or endorse any kind of sexual abuse of children. I am merely extrapolating from a (now deleted) Twitter conversation between Vitalik and some of his followers.
Vitalik's deleted child abuse tweets[archive]
WHAT DO YOU THINK; SHOULD LIBERTARIANISM BE SPREAD TO ALL CORNERS OF SOCIETY? OR IS SUGGESTING LENIENCY FOR POSSESSING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY A STEP TO FAR? AS EVER, LET ME KNOW BELOW.
Seeing as this is a serious subject, requiring serious debate ALL spam comments (Wow! Great post. You have taught me so much! etc.) will be flagged.
There has never been a day in humanity where child abuse was ever ok, what is this boy shooting up? Whatever the argument, there are certain lines you don't cross.
He's young, he's influential.............he's responsible for what he says. Time to donate millions of ether to funds that support children who have been abused.
I dunno man, you read the bible and historical stuff and children have been pretty badly treated for a lot of human history. Various kings and princes married children in order to cement their power.
One of the so-called 10 Commandments should be, though shalt not indulge in sexual congress with children, however it is not, because they did not consider it sinful. In the Quran Mohammed's bride Ayisha was 9, although he didn't have relations with her till she was 12; which apparently made it OK.
However today we have got past all of that, so it's very sad to hear Vitalik support @falkvinge's outdated views. What troubles me, is that so many people might agree with these two because of their societal positions :-(
Cg
I know what you mean. I'm not saying people didn't participate in the action, but I highly doubt that the general masses really took part. I mean in a lot of these books, they talk about beheading and some other really dark shit, but it didn't mean that everyone did it. People in positions of power and influence are more often than not, predators.
I think if some adult in a village back in the religiously old days, suddenly started something with I child, doubt the rest of the village was just like "oh it's alright". I would really really really like to think that as an adult human being, you inherently know that children are off limits.
I still say, he should be sacked / arrested and should donate all of his ether to childrens' charities. To all the hackers out there, you now have a target, go get em!!!!
Very true, most people would have found such acts abhorrent. However I'm a big believer in the maxim that states 'you can't police people without their consent'.
This was shown on a smaller level when Europe brought in the smoking ban. In England, the ban past off without so much as a hitch, simply because most people agreed that you shouldn't be able to smoke inside public spaces.
However if you look at Spain, it was as if the ban didn't exist. I remember going there shortly after the ban. People were still smoking inside of restaurants and bars, those establishments had tiny little signs in the window saying words to the effect of; 'there's a ban, however we like smoking here, if you don't, then don't come in.'
So we see how laws are upheld by the will of the people. Whilst I'm sure that in medieval times people still loved their kids. Certain practices where just accepted to be the norm. For instance a girl was not considered a child once it was physically possible for her to have a baby, so it would not have even been considered abuse, regardless of her age.
I watched a documentary once about a country (whose name I forget), whereby women were grabbed off the street and forced to marry. If that society was as outraged about it as the documentary makers were, something would have been done, laws passed etc.
However the law was that if you were grabbed and that person married you, it was not seen as kidnapping and/or rape, because they had done 'the right thing' by marrying you.
I think what Vitalik is doing here, is trying to take a libertarian view to its ultimate extreme and say if drugs are legalised, then so should everything be. However that misses the point that most people agree that the criminalisation of drug addicts, or people who just want to get a bit high, is silly. Whereas we now agree that children deserve the protection of adults.
As far as being sacked and/or arrested, I'm not so sure, I don't think you should arrest someone for saying what he said. Because then we go into a very murky realm of imprisoning people for holding certain views.
I do think a donation would be nice, however I feel that any donation he made would be to lift heat from him, and not because he has genuinely had a change of heart on the matter.
Bloody hell! Long answer, sorry! :-D
Cg
Long but good. It's another topic where we could go on and on =)
nice post dear
Sick Bastard.
I think there's more to it than that, I think it's being libertarian for being libertarian's sake. Do you think that perhaps others think like this?
Cg
Sick SOAB! Sorry but this alone must be enough to give punishment. He tries to legalise something he probably does, so i want him to be in jail. Or better, send him to a country where death penalty is legal.
I am shocked by this as a cyrptocurrency enthusiast and blockchain fan. If this is where we are all headed, i don't want to be this free, this libertarian!
I know, and that was my first thought, that he is defending it because he does it. However I thought about it and I genuinely don't believe he looks at this disgusting material.
I believe he is defending it because if you take libertarian views to their extreme, then this is the natural progression for those beliefs.
Which is my point exactly, it is dangerous to subscribe to any one view or belief, simply because you run the danger of your mind being manipulated by people who claim to share those beliefs. Or you end up applying them in places that are wholly inappropriate.
Cg
I am glad to likeminded people. I was afraid everybody would hop on his bandwagon just because he is a demigod in this cyrptocurrency realm! Thank you for you reply :)
No worries, however I think the main reason people may hop onto the bandwagon. Is because they too have decided that anarchy and libertarianisms have all the answers. Instead of realising that answers to complex problems are likely to come from a myriad of sources.
Thank you too for adding to the debate, I think it's an important one and I hope it sparks more articles and reasoning in this area.
Cg
Many things are being sorted ATM,
Everything is not always connected to everything else; it is possible for incidents to happen which have absolutely no relation to one another. This is one of those times when you should just look at the evidence in complete isolation from anything else you 'know'.
Cg
I agree re not always connected.
Finding 'links' is difficult when seeing isolated stuff / incidents.
vote
Very nice, some parts of your analysis remind of the spiral dynamics theory... pretty interesting
Not sure I've heard about spiral dynamics; what is that? Also what are your views on what Vitalik said?
Thanks for stopping by.
Cg
Pretty much the progression of the human race.... About the man and his comments I unfollowed him on twitter. Thank you
The thing is, I don't believe he actually wants to, or even advocates watching child porn, I think he has just taken libertarianism too far. He believes in absolute freedom in all walks of life, obviously we can't have that or we will have chaos and disorder.
Also it was @falkvinge who originally said it; Vitalik was showing his (misguided) support.
Cg
He should then have a live feed like he did Devcon and explain himself. I’m not thinking he does or does not but I would prefer to avoid notifications from someone who would even make that type of argument.
This is disappointing.
He has taken the word liberalism too far.
The is not acceptable,we have limitations at some points to avoid fights and maintain peace among ourselves.People have their own freedom but it doesn't mean that doing anything(wrong) won't make any difference.
Exactly, we all want to be free, however when that freedom causes suffering, harm and death, we need to reassess exactly what it means to be free.
Cg
Libertarianism (or any other isms) should never replace sensible morality.
To me, his post could read another way - in that he is (arrogantly?) boasting that he could easily play devil's advocate and argue (effectively, he thinks) for any topic; and he (badly) picked a distasteful one.
Exactly, but the problem is they often do, for me it is a malaise that affects not just political thinking but religious thinking as well. I believe at our base nature, we are good; however then some ism comes along and tell us how we should be good, and then all hell (pardon the pun) breaks loose.
I think you're right on the devil's advocate theory, and I believe he chose that particular subject because he feels an affinity with the rest of @falkvinge's philosophies so felt like he had to argue a reasonable case.
I'm imagining he's regretting that standpoint at the moment though.
Cg
Let's hope he is feeling a lot of regret over his poor choice/s. Perhaps he won't advocate for the devil again any time soon. :p
As always, your thinking captures the complexity of the issue and interestingly, in exactly they ways that Vitalik's did not. Political parties have in many ways become labels that encompass ways of living or value systems and you're right that most people can't fit the entirety of who they are within those labels nor should they. I think the essence of what's important here is to THINK. Think beyond systems, labels, identities and anything and everything else! If Vitalik was thinking even just for a minute about what he actually was implying there about child porn and a drop of imagination for someone else's experiences (children), I'm fairly sure he wouldn't have said it. He was probably reaching for an example and that one came to him, however he picked one of the true evils of the world and as you say, this does show a absence of empathy and in my opinion also a lack of intelligence. Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful post,
Solid blog.
Visit CoinCheckup.com | SteemIT - Daily Technical Analysis