From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Jan 10 2003 - 19:35:49 MST
Eliezer wrote
> > Firstly, however, I note that your paragraph mentions nothing about
> > the law---it's as if we are in some lawless space colonies, and we
> > are only interested in examining what we *approve* of. But intervention
> > is often an entirely different matter!
>
> The law is an abstraction built up from the approvals and disapprovals of
> individuals, including approval and disapproval of the particular class of
> actions known as interventions.
Actually, no. The law for the most part is not built up in
this way. It arises evolutionarily over the course of a
civilization's existence. Often laws will arise that can't
be easily explained except as "this is how it has always
been done", or "stupid law, but unfortunately it's rather
built-in now". Sometimes these laws indeed have outlived
their purpose, but often they work in a subtle way that is
not obvious to anyone, even though people will, of course,
fabricate rationalizations.
> >>Even if "Is it my business?" and "Is it BAD?" are different
> >>intuitions, what is it that makes one more interesting than
> >>the other?
> >
> > Simply put, it's all about intervention, as you say.
> > Specifically, intervening in cases where it is none
> > of the law's business. For example, were they brought
> > back to life suddenly, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams
> > would look at you incredulously were one to suggest
> > that the government regulate whether you could burn
> > a flag or a cross on your own premises.
>
> Um... nice recursion there, but you still haven't answered why your own
> "intervening in this case is none of the law's business" is in any wise
> more interesting than a libertarian's "intervening in this case is BAD",
> nor indeed why they are not equivalent viewpoints.
Amazing that we are not communicating better here ;-)
Now you are specifying that it is a *libertarian's*
judgment about intervention. Indeed, for a libertarian
to make such a judgment does happen to coincide a lot
with what is or is not someone's business. But you
began by asking how people answer their own question
when they say "Is it BAD?". Such a question brings
into immediate play what one approves of and what one
does not.
There are millions of examples where something is none
of my business, and interference inconceivable, which
are nonetheless very BAD in my opinion. Abortion and
infanticide are two such examples, but even such mundane
cases as adultery and lying come to mind.
> > I suspect that whenever acting "just for someone's own good,
> > whether they realize it or not", gets problematical beyond belief.
>
> Yes, it gets very problematical very fast. It is still a problem that I
> cannot avoid confronting where babies are involved. Perhaps you confuse
> "acting for the good of an incomplete mind which lacks the cognitive
> capability to realize X" with "claiming to act 'for the good of' a fully
> adult entity who is actively objecting to it".
Well, I admit that the answer, to me, is the same, but not
just because it becomes so problematical. The babushkas
still stop you on the streets of Moscow, I take it, if you
don't have your baby properly bundled up by their standards.
But that's probably just a part of Russian culture by now ;-)
It's very easy in most cases to determine whether or
not something is my affair. It's harder when as a
legislator---or as a citizen giving advice to legislators
or propping up memes I favor---to try to draw the correct
bounds of modularity. For some purposes, the apparent
modular unit is the family; sometimes it's "woman with
child" (a sort of family). At other times the efficient
way to draw boundaries between modules is at the community
level, e.g., whose business is it if some small town
somewhere wishes to outlaw prostitution? Only the citizens,
say I. (I hope that at this point no one says, "Oh yeah?
What if they decide to suspend habeas corpus or deny
religious freedom?") <lecture on success of nations
supporting constitutional rights suppressed for brevity>
> > No. How the laws are written, and hence who the police
> > will side with, cannot be settled by moral argument.
> > The far less idealistic approach, which has been shown
> > to be vastly more workable, has been to observe in what
> > ways successful societies seem to maximize benefit and
> > prosperity by having enormous regard for individual
> > citizen legal rights, and enormous regard for private
> > property. To be sure, as Hayek explains, we need to
> > be open to new experiments and ideas, however.
>
> Maximize benefit and prosperity for what class of entities? If you aren't
> counting babies and simulations in the tally, then your assessment of what
> "works" is based on a quite different metric for workingness. I'm sure
> that if you don't count slaves as people, then slaveowning societies can
> be shown to maximize benefit and prosperity (for slaveowners) by having
> enormous regard for "private property".
Good question! Now it so happens that slave-owning societies
are not competitive, but let's consider a more challenging
example to my (and maybe your) world-view. In the 1950s, 1960s,
and 1970s, a lot of great economists, like Samuelson, believed
that the Soviet economic model was more productive than Western
capitalism. In retrospect, this seems very foolish, but for
those of us alive then it appeared plausible. The question then
could become---say if indeed the Soviet Union had truly begun to
supersede the West---might we not have to adopt some of their
totalitarian methods if we want to remain competitive? The answer
could well have been "yes".
But that just makes my point! Non-functioning societies or uncompetitive
ones aren't admissible to the discussion.
So historically we are brought to this: extreme regard for
private property and individual legal rights works, and not
coincidentally provides the said entities of the time with
maximal benefit and prosperity. But the challenging question
is about the future, which I know concerns you and should
concern all of us.
What are we to do? Re-design everything from scratch? Sit
back and consult our infallible intuitions and reasoning
ability the way Lenin did? Or are we to tread gingerly and
try to carefully extend what works?
Incidentally, I happen to believe---in case you are wondering---
that continuing to provide the greatest respect for private
property and individual legal rights benefits the greatest
possible number of future sentients, whether we are talking
about babies or simulations. So when I write "individual
rights", I am right back to the question you asked above:
> Maximize benefit and prosperity for what class of entities?
In our evolutionary approach, I suggest that we begin with
what we have. So right now, I can legally write any kind of
screen-saver I want provided that it does not threaten anyone
else. (YOUR big screen-saver, the SysOp, is much more of a
threat to others than mine! ;-) But I still wish you the
greatest possible speed and success, because I am afraid of
the alternatives.)
> >>I am just as much against ownership of a simulation as I would be
> >>against the claim that you "owned" the proteins making up a sentient
> >>you claimed was your "slave".
> >
> > And one can see how it comes down to a difference in how societies
> > of equals should function.
>
> No, it comes down to a difference in who we consider an "equal".
That's exactly right.
Don't you feel lucky that there is such a clear distinction between
humans and other primates, and other mammals? As much as PETA might
want to award citizenship to numerous other classes of creatures, it's
not practical. So we allow humans to own other animals (and children,
up to a point).
So this is where we are, as we march into the unknown. I'll discuss
the problem---practical for you, but not for me yet---of simulatees
in another post.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST