Comments on: Social Injustice as Emergent Property http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/05/social-injustice-as-emergent-property/ Free Markets and Social Justice Fri, 19 Jan 2018 19:02:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.2 By: Estupro, trabalho e o conceito de ordem espontânea de Hayek - Mercado PopularMercado Popular http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/05/social-injustice-as-emergent-property/#comment-54878 Sun, 09 Nov 2014 00:04:19 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5820#comment-54878 […] maneiras podem estar só tentando reduzir gastos. De fato, a injustiça social pode ser uma propriedade emergente. Mas a esquerda presume com frequência que esses males dispersos exigem uma solução […]

]]>
By: Jake Witmer http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/05/social-injustice-as-emergent-property/#comment-32622 Wed, 03 Jul 2013 02:18:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5820#comment-32622 To me, all of this seems well and good, but it’s also highly abstract bullshit that isn’t going to impact the emergent order of society, because it’s too abstract and too philosophical to have any political impact whatsoever. In order to have any political impact, ideas must be clearly-stated with as little sophistry and “narrow discipline” technical terms as possible. The “nattering nay-bobs of negativity” here who are “niggling over nitnoids” in Vallier’s essay are wasting their time. Vallier’s point is good, but it is not beyond the “libertarian” (contrarian) capacity for being made into a straw man, and vigorously beaten down.

Nothing is beyond that capacity, as that capacity is infinite.

At some point in an intellectual war, the philosopher must become the soldier. Sadly, the dog of libertarianism doesn’t hunt, and there are 10,000 chiefs for every 1 brave (if that). While real-world libertarianism is both theoretically possible and strategically-attainable, there are virtually no people working on any strategy that could possibly result in increased individual freedom.

I worked for a little while on expanding individual freedom, but have worked at it less and less the more I realized that the people I was working for do not want individual freedom. This is because they are very stupid, and continue to be very stupid, and it is impossible for me to raise their level of philosophical concern. They made their money by being very narrowly-focused (something I continually strive toward), and this means that when I speak to them about individual freedom, they have no comprehension of what I am talking about, until the 45 minute mark.

Then, they tell me I should “run for office,” indicating that they still don’t fully understand.

Perhaps the human race is just a bridge to a more legitimate and less destructive market-based cybernetic species, Homo economicus. It certainly seems to look that way from my perspective. The goal of the libertarian movement should be to become supermodified, and superhuman.

This is the only way libertarians will likely be able to have a meaningful impact on reality. They are simply too stupid to do anything else. So, engineers and “Aspergers” syndrome technology geeks, I laud your efforts at improving and deploying the optimal human-machine interface, and would love to work with you, at any stage of the coming progression.

For anything else, I’m just too tired, stupid, and human.

]]>
By: martinbrock http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/05/social-injustice-as-emergent-property/#comment-32079 Mon, 10 Jun 2013 02:37:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5820#comment-32079 A right to life is not natural or logically necessary or God’s will or anything similar in my way of thinking. A human right to life is no more fundamental than a dog right to life or an ant right to life. Human rights are artifacts. Human communities respect a right to life, because human beings don’t want to die and so will exchange respect for other people’s right to life for other people’s respect for their right to life.

If someone informs me of their intention to murder someone else, I might say, “People around here strongly respect a right to life and not a right to kill, so if you choose to kill this person, people around here will try very hard to make you regret it. That’s all I can tell you, because that’s all I know.”

]]>
By: martin http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/05/social-injustice-as-emergent-property/#comment-32074 Sun, 09 Jun 2013 22:23:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5820#comment-32074

I thought I did answer this question. In the state I imagine, I have an absolute right to life everywhere.

Maybe I should have been more clear, but I didn’t ask how things would be in your state, I asked in general.

Below the quote from you I was responding to, and my reply and the questions:

Yes. If you don’t want to be murdered, you need neighbors who will not murder you.

But that’s a practical thing. Do you have the right not to be murdered? Should they refrain from murdering you even if they could do so and get away with it? If they would inform you of their intent to murder someone, would you say “there’s no agreement with him not to murder him, so he has no right not to be murdered, so sure go ahead” or would you say “don’t do that, that’s wrong”.

]]>
By: martinbrock http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/05/social-injustice-as-emergent-property/#comment-31935 Thu, 06 Jun 2013 22:01:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5820#comment-31935

Should they refrain from murdering you even if they could do so and get away with it? If they would inform you of their intent to murder someone, would you say “there’s no agreement with him not to murder him, so he has no right not to be murdered, so sure go ahead” or would you say “don’t do that, that’s wrong”.

I thought I did answer this question. In the state I imagine, I have an absolute right to life everywhere. Not only may my neighbors in my community not lawfully kill me, because my community’s standards don’t permit it, the community itself may not kill me either under any circumstances.

And I have another question: since the Brockian minimal state and the Brockian communities don’t exist yet (or do they?), do any currently living people, or did any people living in the past, have rights?

Again, everyone always has the rights that their neighbors are willing to respect. You can talk all day about rights that your neighbors are not willing to respect, but these nominal “rights” exist in reality only if your neighbors will respect them.

The Brockian minimal state (that I’ll now call a “liberal archipelago”) only recognizes this reality while imposing a requirement that communities not war with each other and not kill their own members wishing no longer to associate with the community. You can have any rights you want in the archipelago, except a right to kill your neighbors, as long as you can find other people who agree that you and they should have these rights.

]]>
By: martin http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/05/social-injustice-as-emergent-property/#comment-31932 Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:56:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5820#comment-31932 An elaborate reply, but you didn’t answer these questions:

Should they refrain from murdering you even if they could do so and get away with it? If they would inform you of their intent to murder someone, would you say “there’s no agreement with him not to murder him, so he has no right not to be murdered, so sure go ahead” or would you say “don’t do that, that’s wrong”.

And I have another question: since the Brockian minimal state and the Brockian communities don’t exist yet (or do they?), do any currently living people, or did any people living in the past, have rights?

]]>
By: martinbrock http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/05/social-injustice-as-emergent-property/#comment-31847 Wed, 05 Jun 2013 11:57:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5820#comment-31847 If you have no neighbors or if you defend yourself entirely by your own force, you’re in the state of nature. Rights are artifacts in my way of thinking, so you have no rights in the state of nature. A gazelle has no right not to be eaten by a cheetah. It only has an opportunity to run faster. Rights exist only when humans follow rules that humans create.

I’m not an anarchist, and I imagine a state forbidding communities to kill members. I expect communities generally to forbid murder, and I further impose a rule against capital punishment. This right to be free of capital punishment is a product of my imagination. It’s not natural or logically necessary or anything similar. It’s just a fiction that I author. I imagine myself an authority, the monarch of a state. Subjects of my state are like actors in a play that I write.

A community does not murder a member in my way of thinking, because the community decides when a killing is murder and when it is not. People will kill one another accidentally and in self-defense, and I don’t imagine a state forbidding suicide, even assisted suicide. No state can prevent accidental killings by outlawing them, and I don’t imagine a state telling communities how to distinguish lawful killings from unlawful killings. I only imagine a state forbidding communities from killing or holding members against their will.

A state really cannot prevent a community from killing its members, any more than a community can prevent members from killing one another. The state that I imagine only forbids communities to kill members, so a community killing members offends the state, and the state overpowers it to disrupt it. The state revokes the community’s charter, so it’s not a lawful community anymore.

The state then somehow recognizes another lawful community governing the former community’s resources, and the former community’s members may join any other community of their choice. Maybe the state compels an election among the former community’s members or something, but community members may not elect to impose capital punishment for any offense.

]]>
By: martin http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/05/social-injustice-as-emergent-property/#comment-31837 Wed, 05 Jun 2013 08:34:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5820#comment-31837 Yes. If you don’t want to be murdered, you need neighbors who will not murder you.

If you have neighbors, and you’re not able to defend yourself – yes.

But that’s a practical thing. Do you have the right not to be murdered? Should they refrain from murdering you even if they could do so and get away with it? If they would inform you of their intent to murder someone, would you say “there’s no agreement with him not to murder him, so he has no right not to be murdered, so sure go ahead” or would you say “don’t do that, that’s wrong”.

I imagine a state preventing communities from killing people for violating community standards, but I don’t imagine this state preventing people killing you, because no state can prevent people from killing you.

How can they prevent communities killing people if they can’t prevent people killing people?

]]>
By: martinbrock http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/05/social-injustice-as-emergent-property/#comment-31821 Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:35:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5820#comment-31821 Yes. If you don’t want to be murdered, you need neighbors who will not murder you. I imagine a state preventing communities from killing people for violating community standards, but I don’t imagine this state preventing people killing you, because no state can prevent people from killing you.

]]>
By: martin http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/05/social-injustice-as-emergent-property/#comment-31816 Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:49:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5820#comment-31816 How about other rights? Like not being murdered, raped, robbed or defrauded? Do you need a community for those also?

]]>