Libertarianism

[Jason]

Clearly we need to develop FTL travel and spread out to the stars. Cut the population on earth down to maybe 500 million and keep it as a garden planet. Industrialize some dustballs with rich resources but little or no indigenous life. Terraform new planets. Build enormous space stations with populations of a few million. Stuff like that.

And keep our technological base always improving by engaging in a war to the death with giant, evil insectoid aliens...

I was downplaying that part.. but yes a galactic war would certainly be in order.

[Drewish]

If we program sentient robots, would it be better for them to be libertarians or socialists? I mean if they're libertarians they'll be selfish and may not value human life, but if they're socialists, that increases their likelyhood to unite with their fellow robots to overthrow humanity...

[JimC]

If we program sentient robots, would it be better for them to be libertarians or socialists? I mean if they're libertarians they'll be selfish and may not value human life, but if they're socialists, that increases their likelyhood to unite with their fellow robots to overthrow humanity...

They must be programmed as wishy-washy centrists!

[Drewish]

If we program sentient robots, would it be better for them to be libertarians or socialists? I mean if they're libertarians they'll be selfish and may not value human life, but if they're socialists, that increases their likelyhood to unite with their fellow robots to overthrow humanity...

They must be programmed as wishy-washy centrists!

Forever changing their views relative to the humans around them! Brilliant!

[JimC]

If we program sentient robots, would it be better for them to be libertarians or socialists? I mean if they're libertarians they'll be selfish and may not value human life, but if they're socialists, that increases their likelyhood to unite with their fellow robots to overthrow humanity...

They must be programmed as wishy-washy centrists!

Forever changing their views relative to the humans around them! Brilliant!

Exactly! No problem with rebelling, they'll never agree to work together in time...

[pErvinalia]

Rationality has a pretty narrow definition. There are whole divisions of Psychology that study this phenomenon. It is absolutely testable by science, and the results are overwhelmingly in support of the case that humans aren't wholly rational.

So what? Humans don't have to be "wholly rational" to still be rational actors.

The point is that we are not particularly rational at all.

As for "natural rights," why shouldn't one hold that position? It's perfectly rational, as I have discussed in detail, if one eschews theism. Just because you don't accept the Organic Rights argument doesn't mean it's unscientific or false. It's entirely scientific in fact because it relies only upon observable natural behavior of living creatures and derives the principles from those observations. You may feel that government grants you rights, which is fine with me, but I don't. Government can't grant something it never had to begin with. Government is not a "thing" it's an activity of human beings (and some other creatures in fact), and as such "government" cannot have "rights" any more than it can have legs or eyes. All government has is powers and authorities granted to it by the human beings who comprise and authorize it to act on their behalf.

I don't have a problem with some of the "principles" you draw from your Organic Rights stuff. I just happen to be of the view that morals really are a "might is right" thing. If a strong society says that 'x' is good and 'y' is bad, then that's the way it is for that time and place.

Situational ethics and moral relativism make it so easy to justify any sort of horror don't they?

Perhaps. But that isn't an argument against the reality of morality.

I wondered in some thread somewhere a couple of days ago whether you had read Sam Harris' Moral Landscape and what you thought of it. I'd be interested to know.

I have not, but if I run across it I'll give it a look.

He's a liberal (aka Marxist) so you probably won't like what you read.

So no, "natural rights" are not in the least unscientific, and are far more grounded in science than your assertion that government "creates" rights out of thin air.

It comes down to how we define "rights'. If rights are nothing more than a logically defensible statement of a state of being, then "rights' is a functionally useless concept. If "rights" are defined as something that can be defended (and may or may not be logically defensible), then that makes much more sense in the context of societies.

You're correct. My construction is an attempt to define rights in a more scientifically supportable manner than the abstract philosophical notion that "rights" are what somebody else says they are. That makes little sense and seems to be quite illogical.

If a "right" is some sort of guarantee of a freedom of action by one person, it makes no logical sense to say that this "right" is the product of what someone OTHER than the person exercising it says it is. That's just tautological because if a "right" can be redefined at will by others, then in what way is it a "right" to begin with?

This is why I derive the Organic Rights from nature, because the laws of nature that control the Organic Rights are immutable characteristics of every living organism and that's the only way that they can be called "rights" in the first place, because the only logical definition of a "right" is that it's a freedom of action that can be defended against intrusion by others.

But what I meant above with "defended" is that it can be literally defended with force (whether physical or psychological). An individual, or a small collection of them, could never literally defend against the rest of society if society decided to take those rights/properties.

Anything else, particularly Jonno's concept of "rights" is meaningless twaddle because in his "society grants rights" construct nothing may be asserted as a "right" because everything is subject to the tyranny of the majority and the decision about what freedoms of action are allowed or forbidden has no firm foundation but is entirely subjective, which makes calling it a "right" superfluous and erroneous.

I just don't think "rights" make sense in any other context. As shit as the tyranny of the majority concept is, it still is the reality of the world. That's why I do favour an American style constitution so that legal/ideological boundaries can be set, and when they are crossed, people are legally/morally entitled to act to reassert that boundary. Now, Jonno is going to come in here and blurt his favourite stuff about constitutions being worthless, and in one sense he is right. But I think it's important for society to have the legal/moral confidence that they can act in certain situations.

A better description of his (and your) construct is that no such thing as "rights" exist, and that the individual may not assert or engage in any freedom of action that is not approved of by the collective. ("All that is not expressly permitted is forbidden.")

Essentially, yes. But as I said (and this is where Jonno and I would differ), is that I like the idea of an enlightened constitution.

[pErvinalia]

If we program sentient robots, would it be better for them to be libertarians or socialists? I mean if they're libertarians they'll be selfish and may not value human life, but if they're socialists, that increases their likelyhood to unite with their fellow robots to overthrow humanity...

They must be programmed as wishy-washy centrists!

[MrJonno]

I just don't think "rights" make sense in any other context. As shit as the tyranny of the majority concept is, it still is the reality of the world. That's why I do favour an American style constitution so that legal/ideological boundaries can be set, and when they are crossed, people are legally/morally entitled to act to reassert that boundary. Now, Jonno is going to come in here and blurt his favourite stuff about constitutions being worthless, and in one sense he is right. But I think it's important for society to have the legal/moral confidence that they can act in certain situations.

Constitutions that deal with vague terms that can only be defined by the people not individual judges are worthless. If a constitution requires a judge to interpret then its rule by judge not by constitution. Basically judges in the UK are probably the single profession that has less respect from the public than politicans who you can at least sack

Don't have a problem with constitutions setting out electoral systems, ie a government must resign every 4/5 years and call an election

[Coito ergo sum]

I just don't think "rights" make sense in any other context. As shit as the tyranny of the majority concept is, it still is the reality of the world. That's why I do favour an American style constitution so that legal/ideological boundaries can be set, and when they are crossed, people are legally/morally entitled to act to reassert that boundary. Now, Jonno is going to come in here and blurt his favourite stuff about constitutions being worthless, and in one sense he is right. But I think it's important for society to have the legal/moral confidence that they can act in certain situations.

Constitutions that deal with vague terms that can only be defined by the people not individual judges are worthless. If a constitution requires a judge to interpret then its rule by judge not by constitution. Basically judges in the UK are probably the single profession that has less respect from the public than politicans who you can at least sack

Don't have a problem with constitutions setting out electoral systems, ie a government must resign every 4/5 years and call an election

Any written document requires interpretation. If your view of it is accepted, then the law in general is worthless, because the law must be interpreted also. If you have some sort of hidden talent for writing legal documents that don't require interpretation, then you ought to use that talent to make yourself a fortune. Some laws are not subject to as many interpretations as others, but all laws require interpretation. Where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation, we have judges. That doesn't make documents worthless.

[Coito ergo sum]

If we program sentient robots, would it be better for them to be libertarians or socialists? I mean if they're libertarians they'll be selfish and may not value human life, but if they're socialists, that increases their likelyhood to unite with their fellow robots to overthrow humanity...

Where does this idea come from that libertarians are more selfish than socialists? Never ceases to amaze me -- the most selfish people I encounter are socialists. They think they're generous, but they are only generous with other people's money. As soon as it comes to their own money, then there's a problem.

[MrJonno]

Any written document requires interpretation. If your view of it is accepted, then the law in general is worthless, because the law must be interpreted also. If you have some sort of hidden talent for writing legal documents that don't require interpretation, then you ought to use that talent to make yourself a fortune. Some laws are not subject to as many interpretations as others, but all laws require interpretation. Where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation, we have judges. That doesn't make documents worthless.

Laws that are interpreted in a way that politicans don't like in the UK get changed and if they consider this to be important in a few weeks to months. I don't mind judges if interpret laws if there is a relatively easy way for politicans to overrule them basically judges are inferior to the view of an elected politicans

[Coito ergo sum]

Clearly we need to develop FTL travel and spread out to the stars. Cut the population on earth down to maybe 500 million and keep it as a garden planet. Industrialize some dustballs with rich resources but little or no indigenous life. Terraform new planets. Build enormous space stations with populations of a few million. Stuff like that.

Don't bite off more than we can chew. The first step is to build a moon base and then get to trodding around on Mars. Then we can figure out how to harness some local solar system resources and build permanent colonies on the Moon and Mars. Traveling to another solar system is a long ways away, but couple advances in space technology with advances in biotechnology and genetics, and we may be able to extend the human lifespan as well as develop craft that can travel to other solar systems.

The one thing is for sure. We are near-term extinct if we stay on Earth. That's not an argument or a debatable point. It may be in five to 50 years due to self-inflicted nuclear holocausts, 50-200 years due to self-inflicted climate destruction, or 1 to several thousands of years due to global catastrophes, like the Yellowstone Caldera or an asteroid impact, but we will be history. Not in millions of years, but in thousands. That likelihood is very high. We cannot sustain our usage of natural resources on this planet for even hundreds of years - so our society is against a ticking clock.

We have the ability to go to space. We ought to go. It's a long process, if indeed it is even possible. One thing is for sure, we can't do it by not trying. We have a chance by trying.

The dinosaurs went extinct because they did not have a space program. - Larry Niven.

[Coito ergo sum]

Any written document requires interpretation. If your view of it is accepted, then the law in general is worthless, because the law must be interpreted also. If you have some sort of hidden talent for writing legal documents that don't require interpretation, then you ought to use that talent to make yourself a fortune. Some laws are not subject to as many interpretations as others, but all laws require interpretation. Where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation, we have judges. That doesn't make documents worthless.

Laws that are interpreted in a way that politicans don't like in the UK get changed and if they consider this to be important in a few weeks to months. I don't mind judges if interpret laws if there is a relatively easy way for politicans to overrule them basically judges are inferior to the view of an elected politicans

In some respects yes -- checks and balances are necessary to both, though. Judges have a role; elected politicians have a role. The concept of a judge is an educated man or woman of the law who applies legal principles and logic to soberly apply the law to the facts of a given situation - a decision is rendered. Elected officials have an incentive to render decisions based on what is best for them politically.

Obviously, a judge may foul up or be corrupt, etc, and the elected politicians may overrule the judge by passing a law -- for example, if judges make decisions the politicians don't like, here in the US the legislature has removed entire areas of the law out of the hands of judges completely, saying that there is no judicial review of a particular kind of law. That can be done. The legislature can repeal laws, and change the laws. That is the check on the judicial power. The judge's, however, provide a check on "executive" power, by being able to apply the law as they interpret it and not as the cops would interpret it, and they have the power to apply the law irrespective of the political mob with pitchforks and torches. They apply a check and balance.

It's not mathematics, but to say that "a" politician is always superior to the view of a judge is just plain wrong. They have their places. They have their roles. The concept is to distribute power across a broad spectrum, such that any one politician, judge, the majority will, or police officer, or President, is limited in their power and authority, and that one part of the government can operate to put the brakes on another part of the government.

[JimC]

CES wrote:

It's not mathematics, but to say that "a" politician is always superior to the view of a judge is just plain wrong. They have their places. They have their roles. The concept is to distribute power across a broad spectrum, such that any one politician, judge, the majority will, or police officer, or President, is limited in their power and authority, and that one part of the government can operate to put the brakes on another part of the government.

I agree with that in principle, but there are factors in current western societies which reduce the effectiveness of this system. Wealthy and powerful men and women have the ability to significantly influence decision making processes, typically in a way that fosters their narrow interests. Whether it's by ownership of mass media, lobbying or massive political donations, they can and do wield excessive power, and the checks and balances you describe, although valuable, cannot prevent this imbalance.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES wrote:

It's not mathematics, but to say that "a" politician is always superior to the view of a judge is just plain wrong. They have their places. They have their roles. The concept is to distribute power across a broad spectrum, such that any one politician, judge, the majority will, or police officer, or President, is limited in their power and authority, and that one part of the government can operate to put the brakes on another part of the government.

I agree with that in principle, but there are factors in current western societies which reduce the effectiveness of this system. Wealthy and powerful men and women have the ability to significantly influence decision making processes, typically in a way that fosters their narrow interests. Whether it's by ownership of mass media, lobbying or massive political donations, they can and do wield excessive power, and the checks and balances you describe, although valuable, cannot prevent this imbalance.

Sure, but the answer to that is not to lessen those checks and balances and consolidate power. The answer is to take steps to further distribute power, such that the wealthy and powerful men and women have less of an ability in that regard. One of the things that I think needs to be strengthened is antitrust and anticompetition law -- some of the mergers that have been allowed are, in my view, part of the core of the problem. The whole concept of "too big to fail" should not be allowed -- if a company is "too big to fail" then it is probably too big to remain one company, and -- like Standard Oil or AT&T -- should be broken up. If, in 2007, the companies at issue were smaller and more numerous, then we would have just let the weak ones fail and their bones would have been picked over by other companies.

Thus, there are other checks and balances which can be imposed, which WOULD prevent or minimize the imbalances that you cite. I agree with you. The problem is that when you have a strong Executive branch that is making broad policies for the nation through regulatory agencies, they prefer to deal with one or a just a few large actors. That makes it easier for the centralized control to be managed. So, the government itself had an incentive to allow huge banking and oil mergers. If there is one thing I would like to do is break up banks like Bank of America and such. I would far prefer thousands of smaller banks to several gigunda banks. The problem with that idea, though, is that there are foreign gigunda banks that aren't going to be broken up. So, somehow in the age of international commerce, we need an international solution. The problem there is that, again, governments want to deal with just a few power brokers, rather than manage a widespread, diverse and free industry, which is more like herding cats.