From: Greg Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 25 2003 - 09:52:56 MST
On 24 Mar 2003, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> Let me just make a few general remarks: I objected to your
> classification of "economic force" as "violence" for very practical
> reasons. I judge all actions by their long-term outcomes. To reliably
> achieve desired outcomes in interactions involving large numbers of
> participants, simple rules and clear-cut definitions are paramount
> (although not sufficient). For practical purposes, conflating violence
> (as I previously defined it) with non-violent exchanges, in the attempt
> to include all of the world's complexity in the decision-making, leads
> to discretion, arbitrariness and confusion, rather than improved
> outcomes.
I thought you objected to the concept of economic forces altogether. I am
not sure myself whether I would consider some economic activities
"violent" - our language tends to depersonalize economic forces, so that
they cannot, according to that model, themselves commit acts (violent or
otherwise: we could equally not speak of "benevolent economic
forces").
Let's take "non-violent" exchanges - is there such a thing as an "unforced
exchange"? An exchange in which no forces are operating on any of the
participants to affect the exchange behavior - the decision to exchange,
the form and manner of the exchange, etc.? I would argue: no. Some of
those forces can even be volitional - a consciously decided behavior by
one of the parties.
In the contemporary world, we don't need simple definitions and simple
rules - we need complex definitions and complex rules to cover the
complexity of the world we can now discern. What we have now are medieval legal
systems, backed up by judges using folk-models of reality.
> ### These are "deception" and "physical threats" - concepts separate
> from "violence", although related in being in most cases undesirable.
Well then why don't we include them. Deception is used all the time in
economics. Physical threats can be.
> ### I disagree here explicitly. For the practical purposes of devising a
> legal system, simplicity is of the utmost importance. The basic
> concepts, like "violence", must be clearly defined, so that unequivocal
> decisions can be made in most cases, with minimal discretion. Allowing
> an infinite number of "interacting forces" to enter into the analysis is
> highly counterproductive. Since "economic forces" are not violent, the
> legal apparatus designed to deal with violence (criminal law) should not
> be used in the areas best left to civil law, non-violent interactions
> between people.
People have blindly, gropingly constructed legal systems that regulate the
economy because of their grasp that unfairness and unfortunate states
of affairs can be caused and perpetuated by economic forces. Thus we have
industry regulations, protections of competition, laws of commerce,
etc. If the economy were utterly innocuous, none of these would be
necessary. You may argue that they are not necessary, but my view at the
moment is that these rules are, in general, a good idea, but that they
need to be improved and increased in complexity to match the complexity of
the analysis we can make of the entire economy and how it is embedded in
all other factors that influence the circumstances of human beings.
> ### Again, for the sake of practical workability, only the final
> outcomes of cognitive acts can usefully be subject matter of
> distinctions between consensual and non-consensual acts (aside from
> direct neural control), since only this focus allows appropriate, simple
> rules for behavior modification. The history of being exposed to some
> nebulous forces, purportedly removing one's ability to make independent
> decisions, cannot be used in a workable legal system as an extenuating
> circumstance.
If behavior modification were easy and simple, it would already be being
done, and there would be no suicide bombers. My goal is not for
one human party to develop omnipotent ability to affect others' behavior-
a sad, reduced state of affairs IMO. My goal would be for all human beings
to come into greater power over all the factors that are influencing
them. Working from an unanalyzed model of choice or consent that
conceptualizes a perfectly free inner "chooser" that is insulated from
being formed or affected by external factors does NOT IMO help us to
acquire this power. Because it is not realistic, in the fine degree of
precision - it does include all the relevant factors.
> ### You made a decision not to seek more enlightenment. You are not a
> suicide bomber by your own will.
Think about this a minute - how is he supposed to know there is more
"enlightenment" somewhere else? How is he supposed to access it? How does
he extricate himself from the influence of the memes of a philosophy
which he has acquired that explicitly leads him NOT to seek other
philosophies or trust them? How does he compensate for the factors that
may make his present philosophy seem more appealing than the
"enlightenment"? Does he have the IQ or imagination or learning to
even grasp "enlightenment" philosophy if he were exposed to it? That is,
would the enlightenment meme have any tools to enter and anchor in his
mind in full symbiosis.
> > Explain. You mean I get to determine every company's product line?
>
> ### Yes, partially.
I don't remember being consulted.
> ### Allowing the claim that "Twinkies made me do it" would lead to
> undesirable social outcomes, so it must be rejected.
If twinkies *could* make people do things, how could people be empowered
by denying that reality and fact?
> ### With the exception of billboards, you do. Remember, you don't need
> to see the ads or even watch TV.
You're right - I don't need to see the ads. Sometimes I might need to
watch TV, say, to get crucial emergency information. But why is this just
about needs? Why can't I choose to drive along the familiar highways of my
neighborhood without seeing billboards, or even particular billboards?
> ### Some people do not. Can you plausibly call a chocolate vendor
> "violent" for catering to this taste?
The chocolate vendor is exercising a force that leads susceptible
individuals to purchase the chocolate - where the force meets its
appropriate context, the result is automatic, the purchase happens. If the
susceptibility were strong and widespread, and the effect of eating the
chocolate were considered undesirable by people, those people would be
very upset about the chocolate vending.
> > Ethics is a branch of aesthetics.
>
> ### ? According to all the dictionaries I consulted, these are separate
> domains of inquiry.
Aesthetics deals with judgments of value and desirability etc. Ethics
applies these to human behavior.
> But - using violence to prevent
> > violence? is an oxymoron.
>
> ### Not an oxymoron - reciprocity.
If violence is deployed, violence is not prevented. It is an oxymoron.
gej
resourcesoftheworld.org
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 25 2003 - 10:00:14 MST