Yes. Even if you do come up with a definitive proof of something you still have the problem of some geezer with a shotgun ignoring all of your logic.
I might have missed the post? That happens.
Yeah, sometimes it does.
And Utilitarianism is always ‘doing it wrong.’
You say that, yet you follow a philosophy which, when combined with artificial intelligence, will almost inevitably result in human extinction and the replacement of everything we hold dear with economium - the most economically efficient form of matter, which necessarily is unfeeling, because any resources spent on emotions could instead be spent on competition.
You turned the social fiction of “property” into an axiom which exceeds the value of humanity - all of humanity - in your system.
Anarcho-Capitalism and other such property-obsessed systems are always ‘doing it wrong’.
I mean, I reject the entire premise that somehow AI will lead to human extinction, with or without my philosophy of individual rights and voluntaryism, but then again I mostly reject any doomsaying. I also reject the idea that somehow the idea that property is a ‘social fiction,’ and also find it odd to appeal to some therefor equally fictitious idea such as a value for humanity, either as a concept or a whole.
Because if we’re going to say property is just a social fiction, than so would every other concept, certainly one as subjective as ‘value.’
Anarcho-capitalism is not ‘property obsessed,’ that’s just what everyone seems to keep fighting us on. If you keep trying to smack someones face and they keep blocking, they’re not ‘face obsessed,’ it’s just what keeps being attacked. Anarcho-capitalism is individualist obsessed. That it manifests in property discussions is merely due to how others approach it.
I’ll be clear though: I’d sooner let all of humanity pass into ash and dust than hinge its survival upon the subjugation of even one individual. I’d never push the trolley lever, and to do so is immoral.
1. Quite frankly you don’t understand the true potential of AI if you think it’s impossible for it to lead to human extinction. It’s hardly gauranteed, and longer development time at the civilization level makes doom less likely, but humans are only a small slice of the possible mindspace, so AI can have totally alien values relative to ours. Believing AI cannot cause human extinction is like believing some of the upper end of theorized nuclear war scenarios couldn’t cause human extinction or come damn close.
2. They keep hammering property because that’s what makes your system de facto Neo-Feudalist if it were attempted for real, and because property is a license to do violence. It is property-obsessed relative to other frameworks, as “self-ownership”/property are used to frame all the other rights.
3. If you would sacrifice all of humanity rather than let your honor be stained even one little bit in a world where we evolved from animals, then quite frankly I can’t see your stance as moral, since it concludes that your personal honor is more important than the lives of the entire species.
1. Oh I understand the potential. I think it’s incredible, honestly, to see what they already can do, and the rapid advances in neural nets both amaze and terrify me in equal measure. Nor do I think it’s impossible that it would lead to human extinction, per se, I just don’t see it as likely. However, most of all, I think attempting to say anything to my philosophy would have any effect on this is foolhardy. AI is inevitable, and they’re going to murder us all and replace us, it won’t be because of F.A. Hayek or Murray Rothbard. I simply question why you bring them up as related.
2. Throwing around ‘neo-feudalist’ as an attempt as a jab fails because I frankly could not care less if that’s what you want to call it. You cannot object to the idea somehow that property is a ‘license to do violence’ (leaving out the “in response” part) while advocating a system that is implicitly violent yourself. That the system establishes objective rights in contrast to essentially any other system is notable, because you can provide no alternative system that would recognize objective human rights that isn’t fundamentally arbitrary or irrational.
Property is a consequence of the system, not the focus, that is the failure of attacks against it that focus on property.
3. The only way “For Honor” has any association with me is that I’m a prolific gamer and rather enjoy that title. It isn’t about honor, it’s about principles and morality. Your argument amounts to ‘if you won’t be immoral to save people, you can’t be moral’ and at that point we might as well just go full decadence and make ourselves Melnibone.
1. Because of the Capitalism. The competition for scarce resources with massive incentive to defect except if a state-like agreement is created. But fortunately, your ideology probably won’t catch on hard enough to be the principle cause if this happens.
2. Of course you don’t care if it’s called Neo-Feudalist, you don’t care if it even becomes Neo-Feudalism because, having abandoned all Consequentialism, no amount of unnecessary human suffering would convince you your system is a bad idea.
3. The effective preference of your system (as people are fond of throwing out terms like “revealed preferences”) is that your “honor” in the sense of “no moral violations” is worth more than all of humanity put together. That is what you value. That is what your principles value. Quite frankly such a result is horrifying.