No, you did not explain why it ‘does not make sense,’ you posited some objections that I answered. You have no ‘violated its understanding of unified agents,’ given I answered your supposed objections each time. You have NOT pointed out how it does not logically follow, you’ve merely said it doesn’t. The fact that minds ‘precede’ ownership isn’t even relevant, and so on.
Well, let’s see your derivation for self-ownership, then. Explain how it logically follows.
If anon’s explanation of that “Benedict option”as Catholics retreating into catholic-only communities is accurate, it operates under the serious fallacy that a hostile government won’t utilize forced integration and diversity against such a thing.
Freedom of association doesn’t apply to cash cow and designated ‘oppressor’ groups. See also: the town of Oranje in South Africa.
Why Left/Libs can’t demobilize the new increase in White Nationalism, part 86.
Anonymous asked:
argumate answered:
That recent essay went over this, the fact that if you freeze property rights in their current state you may be condoning stolen property, yet Libertarians typically shrink from a large-scale one-off redistribution that would cancel out earlier thefts and allow everyone to start fresh.
Ultimately much of the Libertarian concept is based on an aesthetic of a small landholding being worked by a rugged freeman mixing his labour with the soil (but like, not in a kinky way).
In practice this falls apart: the rugged freeman is either standing over the body of the guy he just killed to take the land in the New World or is bound by a complex web of mutual obligations and tradition and common law in the Old World, both of which are far removed from Libertarian paradise.
The world is already ludicrously morally impure on property terms, so why not abandon the purity of property in favor of something that values peoples’ wellbeing instead?
I’ve already explained why your axiom does not make sense, I have violated its understanding of unified agents in several ways, I have repeatedly pointed out that “self-ownership” does not logically follow from its premises, I have pointed out that minds themselves precede ownership because ownership isn’t even meaningful in one-agent systems while the borders of minds still are, it’s just -
- ach, I was going to just leave the post and not read it because I know this discussion is pointless, but I wanted to see how you’d respond to the Delegate Organization Republic so I read it anyway. Or enough of it.
I’m never going to be convinced by your premises, because aside from the general worldview, intuition, and so on, for me, a morality system is about good things happening and bad things not happening, and any moral system that isn’t about that is, to me, pointless. As far as I am concerned, there is no other possible root, and it is bizarre that people say “no, these rules being followed is more important than outcomes” because why would you even bother having rules if not to seek outcomes. (So, logically, the ultimate system is the one that seeks the ultimate outcome.)
And as for your part, you seek a different kind of control that you don’t have. You want a system in which morality is far more fixed and far less dynamic, incapable of being redefined in its broad details according to who actually exists within the system, at a much more concrete/intermediate level than under a Consequentialist system, which the fixed core is at a higher level of abstraction.
You want a system in which a consent violation is always wrong, no matter what. That’s what makes you feel like you’re valued. Not having it makes you feel like you’re not in control. If a consent violation happens to you, it’s important that it be deemed wrong, no matter if it reduces consent violations elsewhere or prevents someone from involuntarily ceasing to exist.
But that dooms you into a framework in which terrible things can happen without even being considered regrettable/immoral by the system because it has no language to mark them as bad.
K comments on a slate star codex post about the curious way people react to failing rebreathers. Deep divers use a rebreather rather than just an oxygen tank, because it decouples length of dive from amount you have to carry. Rebreathers can fail; that’s okay, you bring an emergency oxygen tank with you, enough to get back to the surface. The problem is noticing; oxygen deprivation is hard to notice because noticing requires oxygen. So they put a monitor in that beeps at you if the oxygen content of the air gets low and you need to switch to your emergency tank.
All your incentives are aligned here. You want oxygen. You have a source of oxygen. You have a clear signal as to when you need to switch. Switching is not hard, you just need to swap your mouth pieces. And yet, people are horrible at this. They panic and in their panic they can’t detach from the thing that has been your source of air, even if intellectually they know it is no longer a good source of air.
Some people do this even when they are on land in a room full of normal air when they knew they’s need to switch at some point. It is just too hard.
This is a great metaphor for anxiety. Even if you intellectually know the cause of your stress it can feel too dangerous to separate from it long enough to introduce a healthier replacement. You have to get the rebreather working first, and then you can switch sources. It is related to but not quite the same as a sick system, although I can’t quite articulate the difference.
So “clinging to the rebreather” is a thing now, please introduce it to your lexicon
Actually Frankenstein is the name of the doctor, not the book.
“Actually Argustein is the name of the psychiatrist, not the author.”
AnCaps acting as if we forgot about workers locked into burning factories, rivers so polluted they became fire hazards, meat packing plants so vile they contributed to more deaths of soldiers than enemy action, women licking radium paint, dumping PFOA in the water supply, and every other abuse by business. They would have us believe voluntary consumer action is sufficient to address all these and other problems, when it already isn’t sufficient now. They say that “well that isn’t worse than what states have done”, but that’s mostly because these companies do not have freely-operating military arms and are instead militarily subordinate to states. Even abolishing LLCs does not actually solve it, since it’s possible to set up alternate webs to escape liability, and it’s far easier and cheaper to cause damage than to fix it. People cheated at Commie rules. No reason they wouldn’t cheat at AnCap rules, too.
Probably, digging up old discourse here, but I really really really do not trust any QALY measurement that doesn’t allow for negative values. If you’re rating a year of depression at 0.6 times the value of a non-depressed year, something in your model has probably gone off the rails. I mean seriously, even if a person spends an entire year in a nursing home in constant pain, barely able to sit up, and isolated from all the friends and family they used to see every day, the people claiming to be making rigorous utilitarian calculations will STILL insist on expressing that as a non-negative percentage value relative to a year of health, no matter how much the patient insists that they would rather be dead.
I wish this was just an isolated methodological error, but sadly this seems to be the norm for everything when we talk about happiness economics, life satisfaction, and healthcare.
They want to avoid going Full Hitler.
@remedialaction Although I guess I will add on one more thing, regarding my policy proposals not being “innovative” enough -
I’m an edgy centrist, not a far-right reactionary, extropian, or Anarcho-Lumberjack. My idea of a “cool authoritarian regime” is Singapore, which is noted for being successful, safe, fairly open, and wealthy.
I tend to favor incremental policy rolled out experimentally, which won’t break the economy or be non-reversible. I’m proposing things that I think are likely to actually work, which in some ways means they won’t be so different in kind from existing programs. Revolution is, after all, overrated.
It’s true that in the space of all possible political policies, “ease up on zoning laws, end rent control and issue housing vouchers instead, throw on a tax based on expected new infrastructure required, then let the new housing stock roll in” is not particularly radical or revolutionary, but it’s likely to work and if it fails it isn’t likely to fail catastrophically.
It’s still innovative relative to typical American and European politics, but my goal isn’t to be an innovation-maximizer within the absolute space of all political ideas.
