welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The Conscientious Sadist
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19, 20  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2466

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snorri wrote:
Your counter-argument doesn't work when you look at it from a societal overlook. If they live in the US, they are part of society and they can not disentangle from it
. . .
They can't exclude themselves from society not because they don't want to, but because it is impossible.

We are talking about government, not society. One can be disentangled from the government without being geographically removed. There are plenty of people in the United States who are not citizens of the United States. I live in Australia without being an Australian citizen. Two people do not have to be ruled by the same government to interact with one another.

Snorri wrote:
The renovation directly and clearly benefits Peter. He has not asked for it and wouldn't have paid for it, but that does not mean he does not benefit or likes it. (if he does not want it then he is acting against the very beliefs Libertarianism is based on and any further discussion is pointless)

What beliefs of Libertarianism is Peter acting against? I seriously don't have any idea what you mean.

Snorri wrote:
Now Paul and Mary confront Peter with the choice to either move or pay up. That is fair. The appartment next door costs the same and does not require him to pay for things he does not want. Why would it be unjust to require him to leave?

If there is literally no difference in the apartments, and the inconvenience of moving for Peter is nonexistent, then it doesn't really matter. If, on the other hand, one cannot find identical residence, or if moving is inconvenient, then Paul and Mary are imposing a loss on Peter. That's unjust.

But why didn't Paul and Mary just move next door and then upgrade that apartment, instead of fucking with Peter? It would have served their purposes just as effectively, and they wouldn't have had to be total assholes about it.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2466

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Usagi Miyamoto wrote:
While I wouldn't presume to speak for them, I'm guessing that Andrew and Sojobo would not, arguing that the minority faces a false choice in that they are faced with an imposed loss regardless.

You represent me correctly. =)
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2466

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nathan wrote:
I'm suggesting that the "bargaining" power you're asking for (that of unanimous consent) is completely unrelated to the concept of justice, because "a limited capability for dissent" is a necessary precondition for the existence of a social group, full stop.

Justice operates within society, so the preconditions of social order lie outside the scope of its authority.

I agree that governance by unanimous consent is impossible. I'm not asking for it. I also agree that the preconditions of social order lie outside the scope of the authority of justice, although I have to be tentative about it, because it's not perfectly clear to me what that means. =)

I don't think either of those things make the idea of unanimous consent unrelated to the concept of justice, though.

You mentioned before that talk beyond the rights one is capable of asserting is potentially wonderful, though fictive. Doesn't that halfway suggest that we should push to have as many rights as possible? We can't get more rights than we can get (sorry for being so taut), but surely we should get as many as we can?

The unanimous consent thing, then, is outside the scope of possibility, but related to justice by pointing out a valuable direction to move in, or at least that a particular pressure should be taken into account when making a decision.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2466

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CTrees wrote:
Unfortunately, paper mills stink, and since Paul and Mary are in close proximity to it, their once fresh air is now less pleasant (their corners have effectively lost value, because of Peter's actions), though they are free to sell off their corners, and move to a different sandbox, should they so wish. Is this fair? If not, how should this have been handled in their giant, Libertarian sandbox?

It is not fair. Peter has indeed been unjust to Paul and Mary. Parallel to other comments I've been making, Peter should have moved to another sandbox and built his paper mill there.

If you are asking how Libertarians would handle the situation after it developed as it did, though, I have no way to answer. Ideal looks like compensating for the lost value of their corners, but I wouldn't be able to guess the value of lost fresh air to Paul and Mary. Additionally, even offering compensation doesn't change the fact of his imposition on them. He still shouldn't have done it, even if he was willing to offer reasonable compensation.

I have to point out, not necessarily to you, that this is exactly the same kind of injustice as the umbrella version, excepting only that it is a minority imposing on a majority. Anyone who finds one hypothetical unjust should find the other the same.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2466

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam the Eagle wrote:
That's a rich man stand. Those folks suffering from larger problems suffers too suffering from lesser ones.

What?

Sam the Eagle wrote:
Without derailing to ways of fixing this situation, and implying that you agree with that stand.

What?

Sam the Eagle wrote:
This is almost verbatim one of the most often used argument from people who didn't want to accomodate, or even care about, other's basic needs until their own, not basic anymore, needs were satisfied.

Saying we should fix small problems as well as large problems is an indicator that I don't care about others' basic needs?

I'm asking because, while that sentence doesn't seem too complex, I didn't understand the first half of your post, so maybe you really didn't intend to be so thoughtlessly insulting.

Sam the Eagle wrote:
I agree this example is lacking to represent even a basic society.

It's not a representation. It's trying to narrow focus to a single issue, so it can be examined in isolation.

When game theorists encounter a game too complex to solve, they begin with very simplified partial games to help make hypotheses about the larger game. This is similar.

Sam the Eagle wrote:
In my book, that's called syllogism.

What's wrong with syllogism?
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
CTrees wrote:
Unfortunately, paper mills stink, and since Paul and Mary are in close proximity to it, their once fresh air is now less pleasant (their corners have effectively lost value, because of Peter's actions), though they are free to sell off their corners, and move to a different sandbox, should they so wish. Is this fair? If not, how should this have been handled in their giant, Libertarian sandbox?

It is not fair. Peter has indeed been unjust to Paul and Mary. Parallel to other comments I've been making, Peter should have moved to another sandbox and built his paper mill there.


So what you're saying is... because his actions are against the will of the majority (even though their base agreement only covered the sandbox itself (the original hypothetical being simply constructed), not the surrounding environs), Peter's freedom to do with his corner as he wishes should be abridged, and if he doesn't like it, he can simply move?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2466

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CTrees wrote:
So what you're saying is... because his actions are against the will of the majority, Peter's freedom to do with his corner as he wishes should be abridged, and if he doesn't like it, he can simply move?

Cute, but no.

Because his action would impose on the freedoms of others, Peter doesn't have the right to do that specific action in his corner.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
Sam the Eagle wrote:
In my book, that's called syllogism.

What's wrong with syllogism?


Absolutely nothing as far as I know (as long as they are validly constructed)... Also, I'm not sure that Sam the Eagle's definition of "syllogism" is quite... correct...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
CTrees wrote:
So what you're saying is... because his actions are against the will of the majority, Peter's freedom to do with his corner as he wishes should be abridged, and if he doesn't like it, he can simply move?

Cute, but no.

Because his action would impose on the freedoms of others, Peter doesn't have the right to do that specific action in his corner.


So the Libertarian solution is regulation in the form of zoning limitations?

Follow up: say this sandbox has fifty people, and Peter is willing to give a payout to compensate for the loss, but one of those forty-nine others has, say, bad asthma (if asthma wouldn't be a problem, I don't care; sub in some other condition), which would make it impossible for that one person to stay, regardless of the level of payout. Is it fair for that one person out of fifty to impede what everyone else thinks is a good deal and wants? For that one person to impinge on the freedom of the others to make an agreement as to their environment? What is the procedure there; require unanimous consent for anything with a negative externality, or... what?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2466

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CTrees wrote:
So what you're saying is the Libertarian solution is regulation in the form of zoning limitations?

I'm saying that Peter's action would be unjust according to Libertarian ideals. I'm not saying what form the Libertarian solution would take.

CTrees wrote:
Is it fair for that one person out of fifty to impede what everyone else thinks is a good deal and wants? For that one person to impinge on the freedom of the others to make an agreement as to their environment?

Yes. It is not unjust to nix a freedom which imposes loss on others unjustly.

CTrees wrote:
What is the procedure there; require unanimous consent for anything with a negative externality, or... what?

It sets an unfair tone to repeat it at you within one post, but again, all I've been talking about is things that are just and unjust. I don't know what form Libertarian procedure would take.

I suppose it would set levels of consent and externality, just like current governments, but higher and less severe, respectively. Obviously the levels could not be literally unanimous and any externality, but Libertarians would want to push as far as they could.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I actually am (honestly!) interested in what form the solution would take, as I never seem to see that addressed, only handwaved. My apologies for attempting to get at those sort of issues, I guess.

Quote:
I suppose it would set levels of consent and externality, just like current governments, but higher and less severe, respectively. Obviously the levels could not be literally unanimous and any externality, but Libertarians would want to push as far as they could.


It seems to me as though this merely substitutes the tyranny of the supermajority for the tyranny of the majority. Am I reading that wrong?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam the Eagle



Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 2275
Location: 192.168.0.1

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
Sam the Eagle wrote:
That's a rich man stand. Those folks suffering from larger problems suffers too suffering from lesser ones.

What?

Sam the Eagle wrote:
Without derailing to ways of fixing this situation, and implying that you agree with that stand.

What?

Sam the Eagle wrote:
This is almost verbatim one of the most often used argument from people who didn't want to accomodate, or even care about, other's basic needs until their own, not basic anymore, needs were satisfied.

Saying we should fix small problems as well as large problems is an indicator that I don't care about others' basic needs?

I'm asking because, while that sentence doesn't seem too complex, I didn't understand the first half of your post, so maybe you really didn't intend to be so thoughtlessly insulting.


- Second paragraph meaning is obvious: It means that I'm not passing moral judgment or even simply imply you agree with those persons mentionned in the third paragraph nor that I wish to derail this thread talking about that.

You should take a deep breath.

- If you do not understand the first part this one and the third, then let's not get into it for now, or bring it into pm, there is enough to chew elsewhere.

Sojobo wrote:

Sam the Eagle wrote:
I agree this example is lacking to represent even a basic society.

It's not a representation. It's trying to narrow focus to a single issue, so it can be examined in isolation.

When game theorists encounter a game too complex to solve, they begin with very simplified partial games to help make hypotheses about the larger game. This is similar.


That's exactly the point I'm making. You don't go from top to bottom, you work from bottom to top and apply conclusions based on unrelated but similar facts (see my syllogism example below). What you're speaking about is used in many fields, but nowhere will this wxork unless you keep it within the broader context. Separating one issue from another is all well and fine if you keep the background in check or easy for all to see.

This is not what you did here, there are enough holes, questions or assumed behaviour we have ground to disagree with your basis.

Maybe another example would help?.

Sojobo wrote:

Sam the Eagle wrote:
In my book, that's called syllogism.

What's wrong with syllogism?


As a rethoric form it can justify almost any statement with or without backing it up. Extreme example:

- Humans are mortals
- Cats are mortals
Therefore Humans are Cats.

I know many cats who would find that insulting.
_________________
Meu aerobarca esta cheoi de enguias
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And... that's obviously not a valid syllogism. Is your bias against all syllogisms, or just the ones that are invalid? (hint: we're all against invalid ones, which is why we try not to use them)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam the Eagle



Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 2275
Location: 192.168.0.1

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CTrees wrote:
Sojobo wrote:
Sam the Eagle wrote:
In my book, that's called syllogism.

What's wrong with syllogism?


Absolutely nothing as far as I know (as long as they are validly constructed)... Also, I'm not sure that Sam the Eagle's definition of "syllogism" is quite... correct...


My bad, I should have said faulty syllogism, one unvalidly contsructed.

I often do that mistake. Sorry.
_________________
Meu aerobarca esta cheoi de enguias
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam the Eagle wrote:
CTrees wrote:
Sojobo wrote:
Sam the Eagle wrote:
In my book, that's called syllogism.

What's wrong with syllogism?


Absolutely nothing as far as I know (as long as they are validly constructed)... Also, I'm not sure that Sam the Eagle's definition of "syllogism" is quite... correct...


My bad, I should have said faulty syllogism, one unvalidly contsructed.

I often do that mistake. Sorry.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 18 of 20

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group