The Probability Broach

Oakes, great questions, I'll take a shot. Despite my criticisms, I did enjoy the book, appreciate the recommendation, and would certainly take another recommendaiton from you anytime.
1. I thought it was a good story.
Well written: In some ways it was well written - very good flow, no lulls in the action to speak of - but certainly didn't strike me as great literature of any sort.
Believable: not to me, although maybe being not a big sci-fi reader I didn't allow enough artistic license or whatever you'd call it? A lot of it felt quite contrived. (see 7)
Exciting: yes, I stayed interested throughout.
Fun: Pretty fun, too, it didn't take itself too seriously.
I didn't find that it tapered off at the end, no.
2. Reasonably, yes. I guess it goes without saying that a short novel can't completely flesh out a political system. Or, at least, this one didn't, for me.
3. By design, yes.
4. Some of each, I felt a little bit of contradiction in this area. He touched on the issue of whether all weapons should be treated the same, whether handguns or nuclear, but didn't really address it. Where *should* the line be drawn? Machine guns OK? Shoulder fired missiles? Nuclear weapons in the hands of any nutjobs that want them?
5. Tough question, even granting that compensation can be fairly determined.
6. "If a butterfly flaps its wings..." I personally subscribe to the idea that even small changes can potentially have drastic effects in complex systems. So, I found the different society believeable.
7. Too cute. Smith obviously kept similarities when convenient and made up the rest. To me, even a slight change in the course of history would end up with entirely different people, not the same people in different circumstances. He tried to explain why some people still existed in the alternate world, but in my mind didn't do a very good job.
8. Flippers up, the apes and dolphins kept things interesting.
9. Tongue in cheek. (Tongue and cheek? ;) He challenges quite a few of the libertarian positions through Win Bear, and although he obviously subscribes to libertarianism in general, I felt that he was genuinely questioning (as opposed to creating straw men). Examples would be the question of nuke preemption (as you cited), the minarchists vs. anarchocapitalists, the necessity of government to declare a state of emergency.
10. I could be wrong, but I didn't get the impression that he bought every idea put forth hook, line, and sinker - I detected a healthy skepicism. But, yes, the characters were indeed charicatures to illustrate the ideals he wanted to discuss.

My apologies to you both for taking so long. Now that I've crawled out from under a (small, personal) rock, I'm happy to think about this (and alternate) worlds, again.

Leaving aside your description of yourself, Oakes, I agree with turbosaab that the questions are excellent - and, frankly, rather fun.

1. Yes, it's a good story - and very definitely fun. It isn't great literature, agreed, but the writing is appropriate: I don't think L. Neil Smith was aiming for something he missed. Once in a while there were uneven patches, and one or two which felt more like the 'propaganda' he praised than not; but the overall interest and quality were high enough to compensate. It's definitely worth reading. Like turbosaab, I'd take a recommendation from you anytime, Oakes!

2. His view of libertarianism was fairly clear and consistent, with variations that kept it interesting, open, and not feeling constricted. There are things any given book may not touch on; but I thought he did a good job. My main expectations of The Probability Broach were an imaginative rendering of libertarianism, and an enjoyable story: I got both.

3. Yes. Quite. But he avoids or evades areas I'd need to see addressed before truly believing it could work.

4. Maybe a little of each. There's more I'd like to say, but it needs slightly longer to percolate. And yet I will offer this much: I hate weapons as toys. But in societies where they are NOT toys, and are legitimately used, you do learn young, and perhaps because there's no failsafe feeling of unreality, are - I suspect - less likely to use them wantonly. - To turn from competent possession to misuse. If you live in a culture where avoiding initiation of force is deeply ingrained, and consequences severe, it may work.

I'm also not sure about failing to deflect an imminent threat to massive numbers of people. If there's TIME to go the way of changing minds - by all means, please. But if there isn't, and the threat is certain, it's hard for me to see waiting. Particularly when that means obliteration.

5. I'm not sure. In some cases, restoring people to their previous state is a sheer impossibility. What do we do then?

There are a number of elements, despite the technological and urban surroundings, which remind me of a tribal code. - In courtesy, hospitality, and protective use of weapons; deadliness; shaming and exile as punishment; and deeply ingrained, but not government enforced, ideas of your own and others' rights - to name a few. While a tribal code of revenge, say, would be a disaster, Smith is closer to Biblical law in the area of restitution. If my memory of Leviticus, et al, is correct, restitution and a small percentage were required. Recognizing, in areas other than theft, what could and could not be 'repaired' is valuable. What do you do in cases of rape, or of injuries which CAN'T be healed? Technology isn't always so conveniently to hand. Then I think something more, to cover the unachievable restoration, should be required. Not, as now, a fine in the millions. Nothing impossible. But a signification that what is done cannot be (entirely) undone... or perhaps even atoned for.

This may be one of the ways the old branding came in, though by no means what I'm shooting for!

6. Possibly. To technological advancement, even probably, provided (as in this scenario) people felt safe enough to collaborate well. Whether it would really be so publicly beneficial or not, I'm not sure. I've a deeply ingrained distrust of wealth, and am not at all sure it and ethics make the best bedfellows (as, see, the very-attractive-if-possible organization mediating disputes and seeing to everyone's rights and care). This would only work assuming a) ethical people turned to it as the now might to a non-profit, and b) that respect for others' rights really was, overall, as deeply and uniformly ingrained as he suggests it could be. (Granting it doesn't have to be perfect to work.) As always, I feel great concern for the people who wouldn't succeed without help, who can't even scrape a living. If they don't possess beneficent family and friends, what then? We don't see any here, with the exception of one mention of a (theoretical) drunken bum.

7. Realism is overrated. ;) I found them very amusing. The explanation on how various people could exist in both worlds was weak, but the effect was fun. Partly, I suspect, because 1) it gives a sense of possibility to the reader, as well, and 2) because there's usually a great pleasure in re-imagining familiar characters.

8. Flippers up: especially for dolphins.

9. Oh, dear: a LOT of it is tongue-in-cheek, just as very often (and perhaps at the very same moments), he is, at bottom, fairly serious. He's having fun with and exploring something whose basic tenets he believes, which he does think important; but rarely lets stifle his enjoyment or creativity. It's a better book than it would have been if he were too earnest.

10. Biased, perhaps; as above, I think he's lighthearted enough not to class as fanatical. Though I do think there's a lot of room for shades of gray in the whole grimy world of politics. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) And likewise movements. There is black, there is white; but where there are humans, there is also a great deal of gray.

To you both: I've no doubt shown myself just as ignorant, prolix, and easily derailed from the point as I am. But I hope even that adds to conversation, and look forward to correcting my mistakes, tweaking my views, and hearing more of yours, soon.

Eurydice, thanks for adding to the conversation! I was hoping to hear other responses, especially yours (and Oakes', if he is willing to answer his own questions). Reflection and discussion is certainly making me appreciate the book more.

As to "ignorant, prolix, and easily derailed from the point" - I am easily derailed from the point as well, and speaking of ignorant I had to look up 'prolix' in the dictionary(.com). :)

In revisiting the questions and answers, I keep coming back to the weapons issue - specifically nuclear weapons, as brought up in the book, and more generally any WMD. Should people be free to develop WMD? If so, is the libertarian answer that everyone will act ethically in this free society? Or that free markets will be able to provide defense technology?

Turbosaab: Right, good questions - and thank you. Oakes, obviously, will know not only more about what Libertarians would answer, but something - which is more than I do. However, as always, I am more or less ready to jump in with thoughts.

Theoretically, I assume, one should be free to develop WMDs, though, in light of ethical considerations, not to use them; or not to use them ahead of such attack by someone else. (At least in L. Neil Smith's view; vide The Probability Broach.)

He seems to tend, in smaller areas, to a mix of ethical behavior, social restraints, and defense technologies. But with WMDs, the picture seems quite different. Frankly, developing them unnecessarily strikes me as highly uncivilised, in any culture. And on no account do I trust 'everyone' to act ethically, in any society; if there's a choice. As there necessarily is, here.

Who possesses WMDs, who creates them, with what objects and what safeguards applied, all matter in even a hypothetical discussion. Their deadliness spreads so far beyond individual defense. (And the individual, personal, application of justice and defense as in The Probability Broach has some appeal to it; especially in following a basic and more or less immutable code of ethics. Minimum legal and governmental machinery seems to enhance the personal, in a satisfactory way. What the drawbacks are, I'll get into another time.) To return: you can't use a WMD to stave off one attacker you know to be guilty. So it seems to me to pose huge ethical dilemmas for anyone who IS Libertarian. (It poses enough when you aren't one.) You can attack a hostile government, but you are almost assured of killing the innocent; and you may have to take the first step. (Obvious, I know...)

I suppose a stalemate, that good old standby, is one possibility? Free markets, availability, and we all hold off, as usual. Even taken, as Oakes mentions it being in another book, to the extreme of universal availability, it has at least fictional tenability.

Or the opposite, voluntary limitation: 'we're free to develop this, but will limit it to the necessary minimum for an effective, unused deterrent'. (Defending what or who - your company, your 'country', your family - I wonder?) Many people presumably then choosing, despite lucrative possibilities, to be honorable and forego developing, owning, or using WMDs.

I'm thinking out loud, for which I hope you'll forgive me. Some of this is painfully obvious, but in my sleepy state, refuses to be skipped over.

At any rate, it's a pleasure to be back in the discussion. :)

Uh oh, given the time elapsed I'm afraid Oakes is working on a 25 page essay that will put us all to shame!

Eurydice, thanks for the thoughts on WMDs, what you say makes sense - I guess there is no easy answer. :)

Anyway just thought I'd stop by, stir the pot, and share a chuckle from LewRockwell.com:

You might be a statist if...

Well, I've no doubt it will put ME to shame; but I am looking forward to it, all the same.

Thanks for the amusement turbosaab. :) Easy answers are rather scarce, to my mind; though perhaps Oakes will have a compelling one, however complex.

Trust you to make excellent points; willing as I am to grant The Probability Broach some indulgence! - Perhaps most strongly, I agree with what you said about people's flawed and variable greyness, and the distinction between people and movements or ideas, when it comes to labelling 'black' or 'white.' Also, of course, the destructiveness of it when it's unnecessary.

While the group dynamics may be funny, I have to admit I like them. It seems to me civil, honest, humorous, and willing - a fine atmosphere for consideration of any idea. :)

I look forward to items 7 - 1....

Good questions, Oakes. Although they likely fall in the day late, buck short category, here are my responses (written before I read anyone else's -- I am too easily swayed! -- so apologies for any inadvertant cribbing).

1. Is it a good story/well-written? The plot was initially quite compelling but tailed off. Smith isn't alone here; it's a habitual failing of genre fiction to run out of steam. It's easy to make initial uncertainty and mystery intriguing, and hard to make the payoff match the anticipation. Smith's prose style didn't do a lot for me: it wasn't an enormous detriment, but it certainly wasn't a draw. The noir-ish voice -- which faded in and out like Kevin Costner's accent in Robin Hood -- didn't help. The basic narrative engine, however, was pretty strong for the first 3/4 of the book: I wanted to know how it turned out, and read it quickly over two days. Unsurprisingly, the book turns out to translate well into comic book form (someone linked to this on the main thread), where the action can be moved along by the art, capturing the plot and the fun of the alternative history without the handicap of Smith's uneven style and speechifying.
2. Is the libertarianism clear/consistent? I thought so, although I can't say I went through with a fine-toothed comb. I understand from the appendix that Gallantinists oppose patent right as a government enforced monopoly, and I'm not sure that makes the most sense, but otherwise, I think I got it.
3. Is Smith's Libertarianism attractive? Meh. Thumbs up for lack of coercion, and the minimization of swarms of officers who harass our people and eat out their substance. Thumbs up also for the unabashed celebration of prosperity and technology. Naomi Klein, eat your heart out! Thumbs down for the conception of criminal justice, for the irritating assertion of 'do right though the world perish" rights of property that the heroes nonetheless constantly violate.
4. Smith's views on violence. Goofy, I think. And the goofiness is both philosophical (Libertarians needn't be so chary of preemption) and empirical (Actually, self-armed volunteers haven't historically been much use against an organized army -- that's why we have states). The principle that an armed society is a polite/responsible society, however, is a fine one.
5. Smith's view of punishment and compensation. A real problem. It obviously isn't enough to compensate someone for a crime. Also, how do we choose among private courts? Who forces me to submit to their judgment?
6. Is the history plausible, Would libertarianism be that beneficial? No, it would not. There's a stolen base in the history by which absence of government correlates with a) enlighted views on women's rights, racial equality, and animal rights, and b) scientific progress. These don't follow, and wouldn't even if absence of government did reduce the number of wars drastically.
7. What do we think of the alternative history? Fun! Indeed, it's one of the great charms of the book. President Frederick Douglass would have been so freaking awesome.
8. Apes and Dolphins: Thumbs (flippers?) up or thumbs down? Flippers up, but it has been done better.
9. Does Smith really BELIEVE all of it, or is some of it tongue and cheek? There's clearly a lot of whimsy in this book. And not just the section which trades entirely on puns on scientology. The book feels in many ways like a thought experiment along the lines of some of Heinlein. I would guess Smith is trying out ideas, having fun with them, and not completely committed to the unified system he's created, even though he is clearly sympathetic to almost all of it.
10. Is Smith just too fanatical and biased? Are people, movements, etc. sometimes more “gray” than he suggests? Yes, but it's a melodrama so we can cut him some slack.