I think those two things are intimately linked, though.
Look man, if you want a cynical explanation, might I suggest that clearly from my expectations I expect to suffer and maybe die under Anarcho-Capitalism, and that at some point I might need state assistance. Not guaranteed, but it’s been mentioned in various places that I don’t have perfect executive functioning.
What does that even mean though? That doesn’t mean it is innate or that anyone else has to share it, any more than they share your thoughts. It’s still just personal preference.
Positive experience is literally directly experienced. And saying others don’t experience it is solipsism at the strong position, or P-zombies at the weaker one.
A fun way to twist the words sure, but it’s still admitting it’s just your subjective experience.
Your preference for Anarcho-Capitalism, property, and autonomy is a subjective preference, ergo invalid under your own conception.
Yes, because you have no moral spine, I’m aware. Your position has no actual foundation. The irony being that you dislike my conception of not essentially discarding property in the face of people (as would be the necessary end of your statement,) yet then turn around and discuss not liking the concept of population controls being seen as fundamentally immoral and tyrannical.
It is founded, in something I have direct immediate access to at the same level as “I think, therefore I am”, which would hold even if this entire world were a simulation. Yours is founded in an arbitrary axiom which does not actually make sense.
As for population controls being seen as tyrannical, it’s actually convenient that people are not super-hyped about them instinctively because, even if they become necessary, it isn’t something to be done lightly. It is likely that the necessary political will would materialize once the conditions demanding it prevailed. Similarly, while at some points killing people is necessary, and thus cannot be taken off the table, having people generally be hesitant to kill other people is a net good.
Additionally, might I suggest that “do things that are expected to be on net beneficial” is not “spineless” but practical. Spines themselves are flexible things, and must be in order to interface with the world, but that’s admittedly getting carried away with the metaphor.
Moreover, this disregards entirely the actual point, which is the morality of doing so. The point isn’t even if planning is possible (which I largely don’t think it is,) but if it is morally permissible to do so at all. Which it flatly isn’t.
You have certainly not proven that it is categorically not morally permissible to engage in planning.
You say that, but then act in the contrary given your entire position seems to be empowering the same sort of historical horrors you denounce.
Less-than-Stalin consequentialist thought happens all the time, if Stalin can even remotely be considered Utilitarian. Often it occurs at the informal level. It’s also often used implicitly when debating between moral systems, which is how I came to it in the first place. You deliberately exclude anything outside of what you consider to be these great failures of Consequentialism, or perhaps not deliberately but accidentally.
That also isn’t imaginative, it’s just the same shtick, because you seem to miss that even the ‘just pull yourself up by your bootstraps’ folks tend to think there are innate, genetic differences between people and predispositions to certain behaviors and thus ends. Your solution is nothing but another form of welfare, honestly, it’s not imaginative simply because it integrates advancing technology.
I’ve seen your posts about the concepts though, in discussions with other individuals. Again, none of this is innovative, it’s literally just perpetuating the same system. It isn’t actually changing things. At most, I give you the idea of genetic subsidies being an attempt at a fundamental alteration of the population, but for someone who speaks of incentives you seem to be ignoring the massive ones your proposals create.
“Let’s have the Market do everything!” is not daring innovative freethinking, it’s just Capitalism squared. You are not actually innovative. As such this criticism of yours is irrelevant.
Likewise, you would no doubt consider having delegated voting think tanks that bet on the outcomes of their legislation control the legislature “not innovative”, since it’s “just democracy but with more bureaucracy” or something along those lines.
Further still, your entire premise is, of course, the idea that the state is a method of solving coordination problems. Which it, of course, isn’t.
No, it actually is, and is solving coordination problems such as pollution even as we speak.
Even one formed to be that will inevitably either a. transform into something else entirely or
Anarcho-Capitalism’s enforcer companies will inevitably transform into something other than Anarcho-Capitalist, something more like mafias. In fact, they will be worse. No advantage. Dismissed.
b. fail utterly at actually solving the problem it was meant to. If we want to talk about history, that is one I think we should point out.
Actually, pollution levels aren’t actually that bad in a number of countries and crime levels in many countries aren’t that bad either. Why yes, there is still crime, and yes, there is still pollution, but AnCapism would not actually perfectly solve this because it isn’t magic. Dismissed.
I’m aware you don’t consider using states to solve coordination problems inherently immoral, because you have no coherent moral framework in the first place.
Your moral framework is based on a false axiom that happens you be ~your subjective preference~, and therefore does not have the standing to make that criticism.
I’m not even going to actual get into this word soup because it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you failed to say how your example reasons weren’t any less arbitrary than simply because the person did not want to do it.
Property is a tool which is only instrumentally valuable. People are a source of value. Wealthy people are not actually utility monsters. Therefore survival of one person (certain conditions excepted etc) outweighs the negligible value of the loaf of bread. Because people are real and property is an entirely unfeeling construct, survival is less arbitrary than property.
That is irrational and solipsistic. You don’t ‘experience value’ in that way, you merely feel you have it. You think you have it, personally, in your subjective view. It doesn’t mean you actually HAVE value, or rather that value is actually a thing that can be even asserted to actually exist. Which it doesn’t, value is entirely subjective to the individual.
You’re not getting it. It’s impossible for me to think and feel without existing on some level of reality. Positive subjective experience is that source of value, but it is as real as my mind is, and my mind definitely exists.
You would, of course, denounce this as subjective. But it’s there regardless of your feelings on the matter, much like my mind is there, regardless of your feelings on the matter.
You can’t assert your subjective view of what you, or anything else, value has any real weight, because that implies you’ve somehow the authority to dictate to them, that what you value is superior to what they value.
Exactly how it would be weighted is a matter for debate, but pretty much most Utilitarianisms propose that good/bad or better/worse events are determined by their effects on all people that are affected, in the aggregate.
Oddly enough, even preferences for things like property get weighted in according to how people in the system have them.
Of course, according to the moral relativism you’re claiming as a counter-argument here, that moral relativism also lacks the authority to say a subjective value isn’t superior, as that would itself be a value and self-contradicting.
Also under your own objections, once we account for the fact that your axiom is false, it’s just a subjective preference would not, according to you, have moral weight.
It is based on things that are truth, even though you don’t like it.
Your axiom is false, not a truth, even if you don’t like that.
I never claimed to escape emotionality, though? Hell, I just got into an argument with my best friend and significant other over the topic of intellectual property and had one hell of a conflict between the emotional and the rational parts of me. However, your argument doesn’t imply that the ‘property instinct’ being ‘emotional’ means that the concept of property, as an extension of self, is invalid or even really relate at all. Humans are emotional beings; of course there are emotions tied up in the handling and concept of property, but that is irrelevant to the actual existence OF property and how it can be defined and so on.
Your criticism was that I was objecting to AnCap out of emotions. I’m saying that you like AnCap out of emotions, so you don’t actually have more standing even if I were to accept that my opposition were rooted in emotions.
In fact, humans whose ability to process emotions has been damaged have trouble reasoning. After all, one must have something to reason towards.
However, you say I think a given industrial accident or event was ‘justified’ but what does that really mean? Define justified, really. More to the point, though, the problem is your system cannot really define it as immoral or unjustified, because your system is not rationally coherent. It has enough holes to drive a whole freighter through, because it fundamentally breaks down into nothing but subjective sensibilities.
Under Anarcho-Capitalism, if terrible things happen, but everyone followed the Rules, it isn’t even considered wrong, and the rules aren’t considered wrong no matter how many terrible things happen.
Also, your objection fails because your axiom is nonsense, and therefore does not rise above a subjective preference, and is therefore, by your logic, not binding.
I don’t think any given accident is ‘justified,’ I just think they are. They are a thing that happened. I wish they would not have, but I wish a lot of things.
Accidents are bad. They do not stop being bad just because the Rules were followed. Your framework is unable to morally condemn them, because it cares about rule-following, not about good or bad outcomes.
The State stepping in and saying “no, you can’t padlock the doors of your own factory shut while there are people inside, and we’ll back our demands on this with force” can prevent such matters for only a negligible loss. And of course, the workers ‘agreed’ (in whatever sense) to work under such conditions (never mind the alternative - the threat of death/starvation in AnCap only matters when another agent does it, not when they cynically exploit it - NOTHING QUESTIONABLE THERE, NO WAY!).
Under Anarcho-Capitalism, locking the workers in the factory even under such conditions is morally permissible, and violating property to ensure basic safety standards is impermissible.
Oddly enough, this state interference against locking exits to factories is an “evil” under AnCap, but even though you suggest people don’t like evil and have to be bamboozled into it, this is one of those ones that’s tolerated quite easily by most people.
Of course communists don’t act like consequentialists, the point is that you’re being, to adopt the term, a Useful Idiot of another category. I see the error in my syntax that messed up my intended statement, which was not that communists are consequentialists, but rather you and folk with your like sensibilities are the sort of people who were preyed upon by communists and other authoritarians to create the horrors. Because you think, or demand even, that something be done. That there be some control, some way to ‘solve’ the ‘problem.’
“Product safety laws and not locking people in factories to burn to death will inevitably lead to a totalitarian dictatorship to rival Soviet Russia. There is no in-between possible. - Why no, there is no possibility that my fatalism and obsession with property might lead to unnecessary suffering.”
The typical modern state is not, in fact, Soviet Russia. The typical Bland Liberal Democratic State is typically even less Soviet Russia than the typical state.
On top of that, boring Welfare Capitalism is a reasonably effective way to avoid Communist Revolution - but oops, it requires state interference that hyper-Capitalist types don’t want!
You want control. Not necessarily your control, but just for control to exist. It’s the same reason you assert that your view of value somehow means something. That’s the entire point of your wanting to ‘solve’ the coordination problem by there being some sort of actual, centrally organized response. But that doesn’t work. It can’t work, because humans are too large, too diverse, there is too much to process for any person or group of persons to actually plan or coordinate that. And technology is no real help, because the better technology gets, necessarily the more complex the human element also gets in response, by utilizing and (eventually) likely the genetic and technological improvement on the human frame.
If this were true, it would be impossible for states to have built functioning road networks, rail networks, healthcare systems, court systems, and so on.
States have in fact built functioning road networks, rail networks, healthcare systems, court systems, and so on, and deregulation has not always and everywhere made things better, but its success often depends on the characteristics of the industry or sector in question.
You have to let go.
Get a grip.
