52 KiB
Cory Doctorow: Cold Equations and Moral Hazard
-
Author: u/None *
-
URL:
-
Score: 12
-
Created: 2014-03-06T15:34:13
Post:
Comments:
u/p_prometheus [+8] These are not sins of omission but signs of preoccupation. (10 hours later)
He writes as if the cold equations themselves, and the series of events that lead to a situation that cold equations are needed are the same thing. Since the series of events that lead to the situation is bad, he says cold equations are bad too. That's an unfair attack on cold equations.
‘‘The Cold Equations’’ is moral hazard in action. It is a story designed to excuse the ship’s operators...
Nonsense. Cold equations just tell you what to do when the mistakes have been made in order to avoid further mistakes. Ship's operators should still be punished for negligence.
Secondly, it's not only mistakes that lead to situations where cold equations are needed. What can an insurance company do other than using cold equations? Steal money from mafia bosses so they can pay for everyone? No, sometimes we have to use cold equations even when we've done everything right.
u/embrodski [+8] (a day later)
He's speaking as an author. Everything within a story happens at an author's discretion, and so he's attacking authors who seem to get off on writing situations which force "good" characters to do terrible things. See Ender's Game, which is entirely a set-up to make sure Ender can commit genocide and still be innocent of doing so. Cory argues this creates in the readership an attitude more likely to excuse such actions in the real world. (The "moral hazard" part of the article) I think the effects of Atlas Shrugged show that he's got a heck of a point. (For a great portrayal of "necessary" mass murder that doesn't leave you rooting for the mass-murderer, I recommend Chasm City )
u/loonyphoenix [+1] (24 days later)
Hm. I read that Ender's Game essay... and while I agree with it in the context of this discussion (railroading characters with good intentions through contrived set-ups into doing bad things does not a good story make), the conclusion seems as much of a set up as the book itself. Sure, Ender and the officers might not be as rational in their judgments as OSC would like to present, but if they believe they are, and they are honestly pursuing the greater good to the best of their ability, the end result, whatever it is, doesn't make them immoral. Though it doesn't mean they aren't dangerously insane, either.
OSC might have failed to paint a sufficiently believable universe, but the questions it raises are very interesting to ponder, so I don't share the article author's apparent dislike for Ender's Game, even if I don't think it's as much of a masterpiece as /r/books seem to believe. I don't regret having read the book. Though I do see how some impressionable teenagers might get entirely the wrong things out of it...
u/p_prometheus [+1] These are not sins of omission but signs of preoccupation. (a day later)
If Ender was a real character, who unknowingly committed genocide, yes I would think he's innocent (whether he should be punished for that or not is a different question). If reading Ender's Game creates in the readership an attitude more likely to excuse a person who unknowingly committed genocide, I see nothing wrong with that. If readers are stupid and come to think that this means genocide is okay, or people who commit genocide shouldn't be punished, that's their fault, not the writer's fault, or a fault of cold equations. From the linked article:
But Ender’s Game clearly conveys a “crush anything that threatens you” mindset.
I never got that impression. The whole thing was a mistake. There never was a necessity for genocide. The aliens were never going to attack us. They thought there was a cold equation to deal with when there was none. Just think about the money this ridiculous enterprise had cost them. In the movie they say 50 billion dollars. So they spent 50 billion dollars for nothing. It's a total waste. At the top of it they mass murdered a sentient race. How exactly did that story managed to convey the idea that you should crush anything that threatens you?
What's wrong with Atlas Shrugged is that it is just bad philosophy and even worse writing.
u/rictic [+2] (3 days later)
The point is that the situation as constructed in the book is incredibly contrived and unlikely in precisely such a way as to make Ender's actions both sympathetic and excusable.
To take a more relatable example, portraying scenarios in which applying cold logic dictates that you should torture someone in order to stop a ticking bomb a la 24 is dangerous. The events of this show are salient and come quickly to mind when we think about the use of torture, but they're also describing a situation that's incredibly rare. It repeatedly sets up incredibly unlikely situations to make the inexcusable excusable. I believe that this has materially affected the torture debate in America.
The "crush anything that threatens you" is totally a theme of Ender's Game. He kills every person he fights, and though he is never the aggressor, the explicit reasoning he gives for the ferocity of his violence is that he must be certain that the enemy not be able to retaliate.
u/embrodski [+1] (4 days later)
It wasn't necessary for Ender the murder his bullies either. The bully incidents were just the alien incidents writ small. The point was that the bullies/aliens COULD hurt humans. Murder/Genocide isn't necessary or even very good ways to solve that. However they do guarantee that that particular threat will never be a threat again. And when the opportunity presented itself, those making the decisions decided that permanently neutralizing that threat took priority over any other concern.
u/None [+1] (12 days later)
50 billion dollars seems absurdly low for that many spaceships.
And in the books, Ender buys a spaceship for a billion dollars 3000 years in the future, when you would think they'd be cheaper.
Granted, it was short notice on the only spaceship available at that time, but still...
u/TastyBrainMeats [+2] (2 hours later)
This really knocked it out of the park. Saving the link so I can read it again once I've mentally digested it a bit.
u/trifith [+5] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (54 minutes later)
The goal of moral studies should not be "what to do in lifeboats" but rather "how not to end up in lifeboats to begin with."
u/None [-1] (an hour later)
I'll be using this as my answer when given trolley dilemmas in the future.
"You can kill one fat man to stop the runaway trolley, or refuse and let the people on the trolley die but not stain your own hands with blood."
"Why doesn't the trolley have basic safety measures? You're trying to bisect my decision into either deontology, virtue ethics, or utilitarianism, and I'm trying to avoid situations in which anyone dies at all. You are beyond cruel to your imaginary study participants. What must they think of you?"
u/None [+12] (3 hours later)
There are four tactics I can take as the experimenter.
First: "All right, you've sacked the city council and the safety commission and the managers at Thought Robotics who decided to cut the safety features, and you've installed solid, trustworthy people in their place. How are you dealing with the effects of their blatant negligence vis the trolley that is even now bearing down on several innocent people?"
Second: "What steps are you currently taking to ensure safety and survival for all other humans? They must be pretty stupendous to give you no opportunity to experience a situation with suboptimal safety measures."
Third: "Safety measures sufficient to prevent this situation have been proposed and analyzed. They proved too expensive to justify their cost. We put our limited funds into more efficient life-saving measures. This analysis is unchanged considering the current situation."
The final one would be to construct a thought experiment that can't be countered by better safety features -- maybe a freak landslide in an area that had never experienced them before, where you can block one path to divert the flow from a house occupied by several people to a house occupied by only one.
u/p_prometheus [+4] These are not sins of omission but signs of preoccupation. (an hour later)
What? Are you turning Objectivist? That's exactly what Objectivists do with thought experiments.
u/trifith [+3] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (an hour later)
What? Are you turning [disliked group?] That's what [disliked group] does with [situation]
The fact that some group behaves in a certain way is not evidence that the method is incorrect, even if the group is generally incorrect.
u/None [+10] (an hour later)
Hold on. We're about to stop having a real discussion.
Yes, being a spiteful asshole to a philosopher who's trying to conduct a thought experiment is jerkish. The problem is, real people's answers in these thought experiments are often inconsistent not only because of personal irrationality but because the bisected options of the dilemmas often represent mere fractions of a real person's moral system. All kinds of matters of context can play into whether a given real person's "should function" says to act utilitarian, or deontological, or virtuous, or Kantian, or even (yes) sociopathically selfish in a particular situation.
Framing effects and priming can bias us one way or the other, of course, but the issue remains that none of these "fractional" ethical codes can form a consistent and complete moral system without at least partially encoding the others. The thought experiment is cleaving at the wrong joint, IMO.
u/trifith [+2] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (an hour later)
Yes, being a spiteful asshole is bad, but informing the person conducting the experiment that you're aware of what is being studied alerts him that your input is less relevant to finding what the average person would do in a lifeboat/trolley situation, because if you can recognize the nature of the experiment, you likely have already considered the usual situations and determined your answer, rather than making a decision in the moment.
u/p_prometheus [+2] These are not sins of omission but signs of preoccupation. (6 hours later)
Of course no. I read the sequences too. I was just making a remark, not an argument. No offence, but I'm not going to argue with an Objectivist about Objectivism. I've tried that before.
u/trifith [+1] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (6 hours later)
Just to clarify, I'm not an Objectivist. I self-identified as such for a few months some years ago, but have since changed my views.
u/None [+1] (an hour later)
That's exactly what Objectivists do with thought experiments.
I didn't know that.
Are you turning Objectivist?
Two words: fuck no.
u/trifith [+1] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (2 hours later)
Having passed through Objetivism briefly on my way to where I am today, I must admit I'm curious why you're so vehemently anti-objectivist.
u/None [+5] (2 hours later)
Because I'm a socialist.
u/trifith [+1] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (2 hours later)
A good answer. But a word with multiple definitions depending on whom is using or hearing it. Care to expand? What do you mean when you say socialist?
I ask because I have found you to be generally to be a rational person in prior comments, and I wonder if we use different terms for the same things, or if we have a genuine conflict in beliefs, indicating at least one of us is wrong.
u/None [+7] (2 hours later)
Ok, let's unpack.
I believe the Marxian analysis of the behavior of capitalism is basically (if sometimes only partially) correct, based on the evidence I can see.
Because of this, when objectivists pass from basic humanism ("people are ends-in-themselves and can exercise rational thought if they work hard at it") to forming a deontological code of socioeconomic ethics ("private property is absolute, altruism is evil"), on one level I reject their ideology on value-diversity grounds ("objectivist deontology fails to capture all my values in its ruleset"), and on another I reject it on consequentialist grounds ("actual, factual capitalism has nasty consequences"). The latter is informed by my socialist beliefs, and the former by my reading of the Objectivist ideology.
u/trifith [+2] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (3 hours later)
Well, it sounds like we agree on a lot. Marx' analysis of the behavior of markets is fairly sound, but in my opinion misses the confounder that is the state operating on the behalf of established market entities against upcoming market entities. This state action would tend to concentrate market power in the hands of first movers, because they aren't subjected to the competition of the new entrants to the market. This power disparity causes many of the ills of capitalism as practiced today.
Property is also problematic, as different people grant title in different ways. I tend toward a Lockeian/Rothbardian method whereby those who first claim and use a property are its rightful owners, but that is backed up with the expectation that the property will be used. If a property is left abandoned it will revert to an unowned state, allowing new owners to claim it in the same manner as it should have been originally claimed.
A quick example. Suppose a factory closes down, but the facility is not sold. After some years, squatters move in and begin using the equipment and space for their own purposes. After a few more years, the original factory owner appears and demands the removal of the squatters. I would side with the squatters, as the property had been abandoned, and the squatters have laid claim to it through work and improvement
I disagree with the Objectivist "altruism is evil" stance, but would say that few, if any people act in a purely altruistic manner. If I give to the poor it is because I want the satisfaction of helping others, and doing so gives me that satisfaction. I think the altruism that actually is evil is not the giving of charity to others, but the taking of resources from one and giving to another under the guise of altruism. Government welfare, for example, is the taking of money mostly from middle class people, and giving it to poor people. Rich people are mostly unaffected by government action because they have already purchased the politicians, or can hire the correct lawyers and accountants to get around the rules.
u/None [+4] (3 hours later)
Two other things:
Sometimes disagreements really are value disagreements between rational individuals. So we shouldn't think we need to agree or one of us is being irrational, or something like that.
Does that flair stand for who I think it stands for? The Lord of Chaos whose symphony can play a terrible catastrophe, a terrifying work of art?
u/trifith [+2] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (3 hours later)
We don't need to agree, we may have different values. I don't think we do. I think we have similar terminal goals in terms of societal operation, but conflicting means, or maybe just different terms for the same ideas
My dear eaturbrainz, I have no idea what you're on about. I'm quite reformed these days.
u/None [+2] (3 hours later)
My dear eaturbrainz, I have no idea what you're on about. I'm quite reformed these days.
You sure you couldn't give one last go at turning a Germanic-designed Middle American small town into a playground for the Eldritch-aligned? You know your daughter always loved that stuff. What happened to her, anyway?
u/trifith [+1] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (4 hours later)
You sure you couldn't give one last go at turning a Germanic-designed Middle American small town into a playground for the Eldritch-aligned?
Have you ever spent a millennium as a statue? It's dreadfully boring. I don't recommend it.
You know your daughter always loved that stuff. What happened to her, anyway?
My what now?
u/None [+2] (4 hours later)
Have you ever spent a millennium as a statue? It's dreadfully boring. I don't recommend it.
Oh come on, you know they can't do that to you again. You saw them give up those absurd MacGuffins.
Also, I haven't spent a millenium as anything. It does sound like the shittiest form of immortality available, though.
My what now?
You really didn't notice when she popped out of the ether? Well then, MAZAL TOV, because you're a father!
u/trifith [+1] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (4 hours later)
Oh come on, you know they can't do that to you again. You saw them give up those absurd MacGuffins.
True, true, but there's always The Stare. I think it might be worse than the statue.
Also, I haven't spent a millenium as anything. It does sound like the shittiest form of immortality available, though.
Really? Not even one little millennium? Something must be done about that. I don't recommend the statue though.
Well then, MAZAL TOV, because you're a father!
You have me confused with something else. I must say, all these different realities can get confusing sometimes.
u/None [+1] (4 hours later)
You have me confused with something else.[1] I must say, all these different realities can get confusing sometimes.
Wait... that makes you sound like a bit of a Card-Carrying Villain. Bloody hell, you're not Eldritch at all!
u/trifith [+1] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (4 hours later)
Wait... that makes you sound like a bit of a Card-Carrying Villain.
I told you, I'm reformed these days
Bloody hell, you're not Eldritch at all!
Oh, the body is not. The mind/sprit/soul/whatever the old man used on the other hand...
u/None [+2] (12 hours later)
To clarify, disagreements about what actions to take are expected. Disagreements about reality are indicative of problems as per the Aumann Agreement Theorem.
u/DaystarEld [+5] Pokémon Professor (3 hours later)
Jumping in to point out an inconsistency:
I think the altruism that actually is evil is not the giving of charity to others, but the taking of resources from one and giving to another under the guise of altruism.
Sure, unless those resources were unfairly distributed in the first place, right? This of course brings the discussion into a wider one of what "fair distribution of resources" looks like, but the point is it's far less simple than equating taxes with theft: if I make millions of dollars a year in large part because of an existing infrastructure that turned my unique skills and hard work into profit, then I owe quite a lot to that infrastructure: far more than someone who merely makes a few hundred thousand, who in turn owes far more than someone who makes a few tens of thousands.
Government welfare, for example, is the taking of money mostly from middle class people, and giving it to poor people. Rich people are mostly unaffected by government action because they have already purchased the politicians, or can hire the correct lawyers and accountants to get around the rules.
So you would support the welfare more if corruption was combated more heavily and the taxes to pay for it came more from the rich? Because I think most people who understand the fallacy of supply-side-economics would agree with you that it's better that the rich shoulder a heavier tax burden than the middle class, and that our goal therefor should be to remove corruption, not end taxation/welfare.
u/trifith [+1] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (3 hours later)
Sure, unless those resources were unfairly distributed in the first place, right? This of course brings the discussion into a wider one of what "fair distribution of resources" looks like, but the point is it's far less simple than equating taxes with theft: if I make millions of dollars a year in large part because of an existing infrastructure that turned my unique skills and hard work into profit, then I owe quite a lot to that infrastructure: far more than someone who merely makes a few hundred thousand, who in turn owes far more than someone who makes a few tens of thousands.
Oh, resources are vastly unfairly distributed. In some ways, life is like that, in others, it was done quite on purpose. Fixing that is too large of a problem for a merely human intelligence, at least if you want it done quickly.
So you would support the welfare more if corruption was combated more heavily and the taxes to pay for it came more from the rich? Because I think most people who understand the fallacy of supply-side-economics would agree with you that it's better that the rich shoulder a heavier tax burden than the middle class, and that our goal therefor should be to remove corruption, not end taxation/welfare.
I don't think any system whereby one group can collect tax (take from others without their consent without penalty) can be freed of corruption. I want to eliminate the privileged group. That takes out both the taxes, and the corruption.
u/DaystarEld [+3] Pokémon Professor (4 hours later)
Oh, resources are vastly unfairly distributed. In some ways, life is like that, in others, it was done quite on purpose. Fixing that is too large of a problem for a merely human intelligence, at least if you want it done quickly.
And where it was done on purpose is what we should be uniting on and combating. Ending gerrymandering, campaign finance reform, stricter lobbying laws... there are a number of ways the system can be reformed. If I have a brain tumor, I'm going to try to find a doctor who can cut it out, not ask someone to cut my head off.
I don't think any system whereby one group can collect tax (take from others without their consent without penalty) can be freed of corruption. I want to eliminate the privileged group. That takes out both the taxes, and the corruption.
"Without their consent?" I'm pretty sure that by continuing to live in and benefit from infrastructure and citizenship in a country that explicitly states its tax laws, the consent is there. I've never understood the perspective that rejects the social contract: would they prefer a government agent knock on their door at the age of 18 and ask them to sign an agreement to pay taxes or forfeit citizenship? Because claiming that people don't consent to pay taxes is pretty silly when they're more than happy to reap all the benefits those taxes go to pay for, but just object to a few that they can't immediately recognize as benefiting them (less people starving on the streets = less crime and disease = less overworked hospitals and police, etc).
u/trifith [+1] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (4 hours later)
All those things (infrastructure, charity, police) can be provided on a competitive basis. There's no need for the privileged group that can command payment for them. I want security from thieves, so I will pay for protection (hire security guards, insure my belongings). I want to travel places, so I will pay for roads that go to those places. I want the poor to have better chances in life, so I will contribute to charity. But because all those things are currently handled by a single entity, that entity cannot respond quickly to new market demands (like any monopoly), and provides a single point of failure for the corrupt to attack or infiltrate. Remove the monopoly and the incentives start to favor pleasing the public (customer) rather than the special interest (lobbyist).
u/DaystarEld [+4] Pokémon Professor (5 hours later)
All those things (infrastructure, charity, police) can be provided on a competitive basis.
I'm sorry, but there's really no evidence for your beliefs here. It's as ideologically blind as communists who think that everything would just be honkey-dory if a centralized organization controlled EVERYTHING.
I want security from thieves, so I will pay for protection (hire security guards, insure my belongings)
Consigning the poor to living in ghettos of unprotected anarchy? You might joke it's already like that, but I hope you're smart enough to recognize what a massive oversimplification that is.
Not to mention making security and protection about who has the most resources, rather than even the pretense of justice. Sorry, not values I share.
And if you're extending your idea to a private justice system, please do some research on the myriad criticisms and flaws such an idea has :) I promise you, it's there. Remember: always search the falsifying data for your hypothesis.
I want to travel places, so I will pay for roads that go to those places.
It's rather convenient for you to say this in a world where roads already connect every house and store on a continent to one-another, but let's say you just mean money to maintain the roads you use: over time, what happens when everyone does this? Roads highly traveled are maintained, roads that aren't fall to decay, and now isolated towns and locations become even harder to travel to and get resources to or from. And that's just the beginning: do some research on what a privatized highway system would actually look like to understand just how massively unwieldy the idea is in practice.
I want the poor to have better chances in life, so I will contribute to charity.
Good for you. Most people won't. Most people don't. You think they suddenly will if the government steps out of it? History doesn't support your belief, nor do studies of areas with less public charity. This is another idealized fantasy of libertarians: once again, relying on the goodness of mankind, while criticizing communists for making the same fallacy.
But because all those things are currently handled by a single entity, that entity cannot respond quickly to new market demands (like any monopoly), and provides a single point of failure for the corrupt to attack or infiltrate. Remove the monopoly and the incentives start to favor pleasing the public (customer) rather than the special interest (lobbyist).
Alternatively, study other systems and governments that are far more agile and adapt to different circumstances. The idea that "America hasnt' done it yet, therefor it can't be done" is pretty amusing to people who live in other countries that have already found a better balance of socialism and capitalism :)
u/trifith [+1] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (7 hours later)
I'm sorry, but there's really no evidence for your beliefs here. It's as ideologically blind as communists who think that everything would just be honkey-dory if a centralized organization controlled EVERYTHING.
Evidence, huh?
Infrastructure:
Roads: The First New Hampshire Turnpike built by private corporations. Now part of NH route 4
Dams: Hells Canyon Dam the worlds largest privately built dam.
Charity:
There are innumerable private charitable organizations, I'll not list them here.
Police: Google search results for private security companies. Looks like quite a few to chose from.
So these things can be provided competitively/privately.
Consigning the poor to living in ghettos of unprotected anarchy? You might joke it's already like that, but I hope you're smart enough to recognize what a massive oversimplification that is.
Actually, if I want real security for my property, the best thing I can do is remove poverty. Crime is an effect of poverty. So any organization competing for my money to prevent crime is going to have to address poverty as part of its plan. This may mean either making significant monetary contributions to alleviate poverty, or providing low cost patrols in impoverished areas.
Not to mention making security and protection about who has the most resources, rather than even the pretense of justice. Sorry, not values I share.
Not values I share either. Yet another thing a justice provider is going to have to do to get my business is prove that they aren't favoring the wealthy over the poor. This means third party audits and a focus on a reputation for justice.
And if you're extending your idea to a private justice system, please do some research on the myriad criticisms and flaws such an idea has :) I promise you, it's there. Remember: always search the falsifying data for your hypothesis.
I've been an anarchist a while now, I've seen many flaws of such a system, and adequate addressing of each for me. If you care to cite specifics, I'll be happy to address them myself for you.
It's rather convenient for you to say this in a world where roads already connect every house and store on a continent to one-another, but let's say you just mean money to maintain the roads you use: over time, what happens when everyone does this? Roads highly traveled are maintained, roads that aren't fall to decay, and now isolated towns and locations become even harder to travel to and get resources to or from. And that's just the beginning: do some research on what a privatized highway system would actually look like to understand just how massively unwieldy the idea is in practice.
I've already address roads above, but I'll ask you this, if nobody is going to these "isolated towns and locations" then why would roads be needed to go there?
Good for you. Most people won't. Most people don't. You think they suddenly will if the government steps out of it? History doesn't support your belief, nor do studies of areas with less public charity. This is another idealized fantasy of libertarians: once again, relying on the goodness of mankind, while criticizing communists for making the same fallacy.
On average Americans give about 5% $135.8 billion of their household income to charity, after paying an average of 17% federal, 2009 in taxes. I'd be willing to bet the charity rate increases when people are not taxed, and thus have more disposable income.
Alternatively, study other systems and governments that are far more agile and adapt to different circumstances. The idea that "America hasnt' done it yet, therefor it can't be done" is pretty amusing to people who live in other countries that have already found a better balance of socialism and capitalism :)
Other countries do things differently, and I don't know them as well as I know how the United States government does things, but that doesn't change the nature of government. It is a privileged group of people who are able to enact violence on others. Since a large part of my morality states that it is never appropriate to initiate violence against another sentient being, I view government as immoral at its foundation, so how the violence is arranged is of little consequence to me.
u/DaystarEld [+1] Pokémon Professor (9 hours later)
So these things can be provided competitively/privately.
The question wasn't whether a private interest can supply them: it as whether they can be provided on a competitive basis. If you don't like one private interest's road, the tolls they set or the level of quality they keep, it's not exactly a low barrier of entry to make your own road.
And that privately constructed dam doesn't exist in a purely free-market environment: it follows regulations, it complies with government standards. The environmental impacts of the dam weren't even understood when it was built: put all such constructions in the hands of competing private interests and the resulting cascade of effects is even harder to account for.
Actually, if I want real security for my property, the best thing I can do is remove poverty. Crime is an effect of poverty. So any organization competing for my money to prevent crime is going to have to address poverty as part of its plan. This may mean either making significant monetary contributions to alleviate poverty, or providing low cost patrols in impoverished areas.
Once again, congratulations in realizing this: the vast majority of people take the "screw you, I got mine" approach and simply buy big walls and lots of guards. If that were the predominant form of security enforcement, we'd basically be reverting back to the age of fiefdoms and castles.
Not values I share either. Yet another thing a justice provider is going to have to do to get my business is prove that they aren't favoring the wealthy over the poor. This means third party audits and a focus on a reputation for justice.
Third party auditors that are funded how, exactly?
I've been an anarchist a while now, I've seen many flaws of such a system, and adequate addressing of each for me. If you care to cite specifics, I'll be happy to address them myself for you.
Ah shit, I was hoping you were just a form of libertarian. Nothing personal, but I've long since tired of arguing such matters with anarchists: there's a chance you're more logical and evidence-based in your ideology than they all were, but a very small one, and it's just not worth the time investment for me to find out : /
As shown in your posts so far, the results seem predictably the same as past experiences: you're satisfied with your ideology because you presume everyone is a virtuous, educated rational actor. They're not. So as noted, it's kind of like talking to a communist about how their theories don't quite work in the real world.
I'll give you a chance to change my mind though, as is only fair. How does your hypothetical system deal with environmental protection?
From what I've seen, this is an area libertarians consistently fail to address, and is one of the major things that eventually made me stop considering myself one.
The basic idea I have of how libertarians/anarchists deal with pollution is that, with strong private property laws, individuals or companies that damage the environment will respond to litigation, so this litigation should in theory make up for the damages the companies do and deter future incidents.
Unfortunately, ecology is such a fantastically complex system that proving simple cause-and-effect responsibility from a private interest to an environmental issue is often impossible in a realistic time-frame to halt or address the behavior. And that's assuming enough funding could be provided to even investigate the cause-and-effect of a particular natural disaster or damage of pollution, especially if those affected are too poor.
What's worse, no change in limits on retaliatory litigation could make up for permanent damages to health or ecology. In many cases, private interests simply don't have nearly enough money to make up for all the damage their actions might do, even assuming the problem can even be fixed by money, and that they're made to pay for it in the first place.
As an example, if I start a company whose actions begin poisoning a river or lake (on my property) that feeds an aquifer three towns over, but the effects of it aren't realized or traced back for decades after I've already made my money and liquidated the company, even if my middle-men get dragged to court and our army of lawyers fails to prevent a guilty verdict, all the millions we lose will not undo the damage to the children born with leukemia as a result of those chemicals.
I've already address roads above, but I'll ask you this, if nobody is going to these "isolated towns and locations" then why would roads be needed to go there?
"Few people" =/= "nobody." The value society gets from making sure the barrier of travel is as low as possible far exceeds the incredibly minor portion of its taxes that go to roads.
On average Americans give about 5% $135.8 billion of their household income to charity, after paying an average of 17% federal, 2009 in taxes. I'd be willing to bet the charity rate increases when people are not taxed, and thus have more disposable income.
In your magical scenario where people are suddenly free from the shackles of taxes, but aren't now having to pick up the slack of what those taxes used to pay for for their personal security, roads, fire stations, mail services, medical services, education, etc, etc, sure :) Too bad that's not how reality works.
Other countries do things differently, and I don't know them as well as I know how the United States government does things, but that doesn't change the nature of government.
You must recognize that this is a belief utterly lacking in massive amounts of data and alternate perspectives, as you yourself admit. May I humbly suggest you educate yourself, maybe even travel and talk with citizens of other nations, before jumping to such broad generalizations?
It is a privileged group of people who are able to enact violence on others.
Careful, your bias is showing. "Able to enact violence on others" implies no accountability or oversight or consequences. Your perspective of government is pretty skewed indeed if you're basing it entirely on all the worst case scenarios and practices, and ignoring all the cases in which centralized authority deters and prevents harm. There are a number of studies and books on this: may I recommend The Better Angels of Our Nature?
Since a large part of my morality states that it is never appropriate to initiate violence against another sentient being, I view government as immoral at its foundation, so how the violence is arranged is of little consequence to me.
And this is why I said above that I've tired of debate with anarchists: when so much of your worldview is based on black and whites, there's little room for reason, let alone honest debate.
u/trifith [+1] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (22 hours later)
Since you don't wish to argue, I'll just quickly address your points for any others reading.
The barrier to entry is far higher with an existing state, including not only the costs that would be required in a free market, but regulatory compliance, property taxes, and a business model that can compete with a perceived 'free' good.
No, it's not a fully free market, such a thing currently does not exist. That does not indicate such a thing is not possible.
Audits are funded by either business associations (BBB), or concerned third parties.
Pollution is dealt with though the mentioned liability, decreased firm size due to dis-economies of scale no longer being subsidized by the state, and private conservation groups such as the Sierra Club.
Police, fire, etc, are generally local maters, handled by local taxes. I only covered the federal portion, which pays for most entitlement programs and all warfare.
I'll examine the book when time presents itself.
Moral positions tend to be difficult to argue, and get simplified in discussions such as this. It can make it look black and white.
u/DaystarEld [+2] Pokémon Professor (a day later)
The barrier to entry is far higher with an existing state, including not only the costs that would be required in a free market, but regulatory compliance, property taxes, and a business model that can compete with a perceived 'free' good.
You're still ignoring that there is literally a limited amount of roads that can be constructed, even ignoring what a huge waste of real estate it would take to construct even TWO separate, parallel roads everywhere. It is the perfect example of a system that benefits from centralization, and that you cannot realize or admit this goes back to what I meant about ideology getting in the way of reason.
No, it's not a fully free market, such a thing currently does not exist. That does not indicate such a thing is not possible.
Whether it's possible or not isn't even the question: it's whether it's a net benefit to society to sacrifice some personal freedoms for optimization of health, safety and public freedoms.
And how our values are ranked are no doubt different, but if you believe that absolutely no diminishing of personal freedoms are acceptable, no matter the harm that results or tradeoff of benefits to other values, then see "absolutist ideology."
Audits are funded by either business associations (BBB), or concerned third parties.
So just as open and vulnerable to corruption as our current system, but without the added check of public pressure. No thanks :)
Pollution is dealt with though the mentioned liability
Which does not deal with it at all
decreased firm size due to dis-economies of scale no longer being subsidized by the state
Makes it even harder to track sources of pollution
and private conservation groups such as the Sierra Club.
What power do you imagine private conservation groups have over a company polluting on their own private land, exactly?
All of which, as I mentioned, fails to show an understanding of ecology and pollution, let alone address how they would be dealt with.
Seriously, look into criticisms of libertarian/anarchy responses to environmental issues: aside from things like the aforementioned road system, it's one of the biggest glaring weaknesses of the worldview, and if a thorough understanding of the issue doesn't shake you from your ideology, nothing will. I've met a handful of libertarians honest enough to admit this weakness, who lump environmental regulation in with military as one of the few acceptable things for centralized authority, and I have far more respect for them than I do most that have simple faith that "free market solves all."
Police, fire, etc, are generally local maters, handled by local taxes. I only covered the federal portion, which pays for most entitlement programs and all warfare.
"Generally" being the massive oversimplification there: without organizations like the FEMA or FBI to help deal with issues that localized groups can't, you'll see the return of things like massively organized crime syndicates. What libertarians so often forget is that these organizations didn't form out of a naked power grab for more central authority: they were formed to adapt to the shortcomings of too much localized authority.
u/None [+2] (3 hours later)
If I give to the poor it is because I want the satisfaction of helping others, and doing so gives me that satisfaction.
"I couldn't act on moral considerations if they lacked the power to move me!" Do you mean that you derive some nonmoral satisfaction from helping others which you are affected by more greatly than by the separate "purer" value of helping others?
I think the altruism that actually is evil is not the giving of charity to others, but the taking of resources from one and giving to another under the guise of altruism. Government welfare, for example, is the taking of money mostly from middle class people, and giving it to poor people. Rich people are mostly unaffected by government action because they have already purchased the politicians, or can hire the correct lawyers and accountants to get around the rules.
That's an Argument By Cynicism: "the government hasn't implemented social democracy properly, thus social democracy is evil."
u/trifith [+1] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (3 hours later)
Do you mean that you derive some nonmoral satisfaction from helping others which you are affected by more greatly than by the separate "purer" value of helping others?
I think we're confusing definitions. I was using the Objectivist (as I understand the philosophy) definition of altruism of acting in the interest of others without any kind of regard to the interests of the self. I help others because it satisfies my morality.
That's an Argument By Cynicism: "the government hasn't implemented social democracy properly, thus social democracy is evil."
My argument would be more "The government lacks the ability to implement social democracy, as it is oligarchical by design"
u/None [+1] (3 hours later)
I was using the Objectivist (as I understand the philosophy) definition of altruism of acting in the interest of others without any kind of regard to the interests of the self. I help others because it satisfies my morality.
In which case, since Objectivists are dissolving the distinction between morality and self-interest, they're making a non-statement by saying altruism is "wrong", because altruism is definitionally impossible -- you can't act without being moved by some concern of yours.
Mind, I'm sure the Objectivists would object (once again, no pun intended) that my tax-man's gun pointed at their head is a problematic concern for them to act on, but since they've already dissolved morality into self-interest I see no reason I shouldn't proceed to dissolve fear of superior military force into the same self-interest.
Or in other words, I question the coherency of a philosophy that collapses distinctions except when it doesn't. It appears rationalized to lead to certain policy conclusions.
My argument would be more "The government lacks the ability to implement social democracy, as it is oligarchical by design"
Have you looked into left-anarchism, then?
u/trifith [+1] Man plans, god laughs. Like the ant and the grasshopper. (4 hours later)
I question the coherency of a philosophy that collapses distinctions except when it doesn't. It appears rationalized to lead to certain policy conclusions.
One of the reasons I'm not an objectivist anymore.
Have you looked into left-anarchism, then?
That's about where I sit these days.
u/None [+2] (4 hours later)
That's about where I sit these days.
Oh. Umm... well then. I guess I would self-describe as "left-syndicalist, except that collective-action problems often require degrading to some form of social democracy, and you have to make allowance for real people being very messy, and anyway, everyone look away now while I WORLD DOMINATION METHODS REDACTED."
u/fetterkey [+0] (28 days later)
And yet Godwin and Heinlein ring through the ages, while Doctorow is a pissant.