9 ms·

"Should we outlaw this" vs "freedom" is an interesting and hard problem especially if you are generally inclined to mistrust the state and not see it as a great

by kriro 11y ago

"Should we outlaw this" vs "freedom" is an interesting and hard problem especially if you are generally inclined to mistrust the state and not see it as a great benefactor of humankind by default. I live in a country that is quicker to outlaw certain things which in the US would be considered a breach of freedom of speech (or religion). Nazi symbols is one example but 1%er symbols were also outlawed for a while until it got overturned. I'm favoring the "don't outlaw" stance but the other side has sensible arguments as well. Scientology is another good example. I can see the argument for "freedom of religion" but depending on your views about the state it has a certain obligation to protect citizens from their own idiocy. The borders in the sand are hard to draw. A very common case is that people who vehemently disagree with outlawing Scientology also strongly believe vaccination is a good idea. I think that's a fairly inconsistent stance but it is also completely reasonable (as in it protects the person and also others like their family in both cases). Political parties are also a good example. I think the stance of "never outlaw, society has to handle that and let the idiots be idiots" is perfectly reasonable but parties get tax money for various things and I can see how people have a problem with their tax money funding neo-nazi organizations. I used to be more radically pro freedom no questions asked but these days my stance is pro freedom by default but some deep thinking and gut check for individual cases. It bothers me a lot that I'm fairly inconsistent (since I am against maximum freedom in quite a few cases) but it's the most reasonable course of action for my value system.

mlonkibjuyhv 11y ago
The ability to entertain conflicting views is the mark of wisdom. - someone, somewhere
- ckozlowski 11y ago
  Here ya go: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle
- zo1 11y ago
  If you have conflicting views on a single-topic, then your philosophy is not universal because you're contradicting yourself or making exceptions. If more people learnt to rectify those inconsistencies and clarify their primitive beliefs (in reference to primitive types), we'd definitely live in a wonderful world (whatever that may be).
  - delinka 11y ago
    "Entertaining" conflicting views and holding them are different things. If you can't "entertain" conflicting views, you can't properly weigh the arguments and come to an informed decision. However, people hold contradictory views all the time. Religion is a fine example.
    - saint_fiasco 11y ago
      Entertaining views without holding them is much more difficult than it seems. The question of whether it's possible to understand a proposition without believing it at least provisionally used to be hotly debated by philosophers. The experimental evidence suggests that it's not possible http://lesswrong.com/lw/k4/do_we_believe_everything_were_told/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k4/do_we_believe_everything_were_tol... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8366418 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8366418
      - zo1 11y ago
        Nice finds, reading through them now.
  - bmelton 11y ago
    As a card-carrying libertarian, I'll have to agree and disagree, which I suppose fits the spirit of the thread. I arrived at libertarianism through study of the Constitution. I wouldn't consider myself an expert, but compared to the average American, I don't think a comparatively expert status is that hard to come by. Regardless, reading through the constitution time and again has led me to believe that its founding principle, above all else, is that people ought to be free. The first principle of the constitution is to enshrine the primacy of individual liberty. Knowing that, as a matter of ideology (with all its associated ills), I prefer policies that seek to promote individual liberty vs. curtailing it, wherever possible. Beyond that, if one is a Constitutionalist, then I believe it gets grayer. I consider myself a big L Libertarian when talking about policy matters at the federal level, but I consider myself more of a democrat when dealing with policy matters at state and local levels, which is (I believe) what the Constitution prescribes. On the whole, this leads to a general dissatisfaction with everything, because even good policies tend to be applied at the wrong level. As such, I have many "conflicting views" in the broad strokes idea level -- which is to say that I'm against the idea of Obamacare as a matter of principle, but I'd be perfectly fine with 50 Romneycares, even acknowledging that 1 Obamacare would likely be far more cost effective, efficient, and practical than 50 Romneycares. Having a first principle to rely upon definitely allows for more internal consistency, but it definitely doesn't solve for every x. There are really good arguments for and against abortion, for example, and while I definitely lean pro-choice personally, I couldn't make a case that proved why my belief is superior to somebody else's.
delinka 11y ago
Summary: can't outlaw Scientology, can't legally compel vaccinations. I'm against Scientology, I'm for vaccination. Neither of the opinions should ever be codified into law. I'm pretty certain vaccination isn't "the law." The only thing compelling anyone to have their children vaccinated are the rules (not laws) for public education (keep in mind: I'm in the US and public school systems differ from county to county in my own state.) You're not required to send your children to public school; they can allow vaccination exceptions on a case-by-case basis ... there's a good amount of freedom here. That said, I want my children vaccinated. And in the rare medical cases where they can't be vaccinated, I want to know they're safe from people who might carry a life-threatening disease (i.e. others who aren't vaccinated.) It's a tough balance, but the socially responsible thing is to vaccinate, or avoid diverse social contact (such as ... public school.)
- Retra 11y ago
  There's a reason these freedoms are protected. They're not just axioms of a society. Most of them stem from one very strong principle: if you don't have and extremely good reason to know something, then you can't prohibit the alternatives, because you may be prohibiting improvements. And in the long run, it's better to have 9 people fail and one succeed than to have 10 people do nothing new. But you can have laws that guide behavior. Those 9 people who will fail? You can learn the lesson about that failure and make it illegal to fail in the same way. For instance, at one time, you were free to beat your children, because nobody really knew that it wasn't the most effective way to teach them. But if you have overwhelming evidence that it doesn't work, then you can make it illegal. You still have the freedom to choose how to raise your children, you just can't do it in obviously failure-prone ways. So yeah, you can outlaw (parts of) scientology and legally compel vaccinations when those actions are shown to definitively run counter to the justification of those freedoms in the first place. You are not free to make clear and obvious mistakes. Take any safety law as an example. The only thing you really need is proof.
  - nine_k 11y ago
    A nitpick: you are of course free to make any costly mistake if it only affects you and no one else. Various safety laws protect innocent bystanders from mistakes other people make, e.g. losing control of a car due to excessive speed or alcohol intake, or spreading a virus. The fact that tax money is spent on various social protection things, like health care, allows to legally limit one's apparently personal choices, like smoking, that increase the tax money spending due to those choices. Such is the nature of most, if not any, tax-funded welfare features.
PopeOfNope 11y ago
> the state it has a certain obligation to protect citizens from their own idiocy. And who makes that decision? If you look at the track record of the American Government over the past few decades, you'll see it's not them (Yes, you mentioned you're not American. My forthcoming point still applies). What happens when you entertain an idea that the government considers harmful to yourself and others, despite the fact that you have proof you're right and the government is wrong? Specifically, the FDA still prints and distributes and decrees that public schools teach the food pyramid. The food pyramid is 100% wrong, top to bottom. Saturated fat is good for you as has been proven by dozens of studies and the fact I'm still alive. But, prior to 5 years ago, if you entertained that notion and fed your family a high fat diet, you'd be considered as mentally deranged as the strange, home schooling prepper family who keep to themselves. I see the stance on saturated fat as no different than the current stance on Vaccination. Whatever you think on the subject, one way or the other, you should be free to do so. Governments aren't nannies. They're more like an abusive nurse who tortures inmates in the mental ward.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > What happens when you entertain an idea that the government considers harmful to yourself and others, despite the fact that you have proof you're right and the government is wrong? There are many channels through which you could submit your proof in order to change government's stance on the topic. They don't work flawlessly (some would say they don't work well at all), but it beats everyone doing whatever they think is right and everyone else having to deal with collateral damage. > I see the stance on saturated fat as no different than the current stance on Vaccination. I disagree, if only because figuring out metabolism is hard, while the way diseases spread much less so. > Whatever you think on the subject, one way or the other, you should be free to do so. That's a recipe for disaster and you must know it. Otherwise, you might not be happy to hear that I think that a nuclear warhead would be a great gnome for my garden. > Governments aren't nannies. They're more like an abusive nurse who tortures inmates in the mental ward. You must be joking. If anything, governments are like abusive officers in jail full of mentally ill criminals. Their torture is nothing compared to what the inmates would do to one another in their absence, whether through stupidity or ill will. The very reason you can go out and buy quality food and tools without risking your health, life and money in the process is that the governments regulated the shit out of commerce and manufacturing AND have a system to enforce those regulations. Like it or not, a government is the best way to account for externalities and solve coordination problems at scale that we've figured out so far. It grows naturally in pretty much every society. And no, you shouldn't be doing anything you like wrt. vaccines. They make sense only when applied at scale, hence mandatory vaccinations.
bad_user 11y ago
I don't get the link between not wanting to outlaw Scientology and believing vaccination is a good idea. And I don't get how that stance is inconsistent. Care to explain? I'm not familiar with the practices of scientologists, but the line is usually pretty clear for me. Are scientologists hurting other people? Are they guilty of hate crimes? Do my taxes pay for their beliefs? If yes, then it should be outlawed, if not then they should get their freedom of religion. And any middle ground should be treated by education. We often forget that a lack of education is what makes stupid people stupid and outlawing things won't make them any less stupid. But then again, even stupid people should own their body and mind, as long as they aren't hurting me or my family through their actions of course. And on neo-nazi organizations, they are usually in the business of organized crime, or are guilty of hate speech. Once their actions are hurting other people, yes, they should be outlawed. On the other hand outlawing the Nazi symbols or the Nazi propaganda, as it happens in Europe, is pretty stupid and indeed inconsistent, without also outlawing communism and its symbols and propaganda. But you see, China happened, being now a valuable western partner, so we prefer to be hypocritical instead.
- baconner 11y ago
  I realize debating Scientology is not really the focus of this thread but the answer to these two questions is yes and yes. > Are scientologists hurting other people? > Do my taxes pay for their beliefs? If you are interested in learning about that there are lots of resources. Going Clear is a recent one that is quite good.
LordKano 11y ago
A very common case is that people who vehemently disagree with outlawing Scientology also strongly believe vaccination is a good idea. I disagree with outlawing Scientology or any other religion and I think that vaccination is a good idea. I am opposed to using the threat of force to compel people to take vaccines but they're still a very good idea. Philosophically, I believe that governments should have minimal involvement with people's day to day lives. Therein the details can be convoluted and seemingly contradictory but I'm talking about philosophy and not the minutia of policy. Not that I think it's perfect but I prefer the US's system of dealing with objectionable speech to that of most of Germany. For example, if someone wants to deny that the holocaust occurred, in Germany it's a crime but in the US, it's merely an etiquette faux pas. There, the authorities will be involved but here, the person's statements will be challenged and contradicted. Want to walk around wearing a swastika tee shirt? That's perfectly legal but don't be surprised if people refuse to interact with you. You may be asked to leave any establishments you enter and things of that nature.

by kriro 11y ago

mlonkibjuyhv 11y ago

The ability to entertain conflicting views is the mark of wisdom. - someone, somewhere

ckozlowski 11y ago
Here ya go: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle
zo1 11y ago
If you have conflicting views on a single-topic, then your philosophy is not universal because you're contradicting yourself or making exceptions. If more people learnt to rectify those inconsistencies and clarify their primitive beliefs (in reference to primitive types), we'd definitely live in a wonderful world (whatever that may be).
- delinka 11y ago
  "Entertaining" conflicting views and holding them are different things. If you can't "entertain" conflicting views, you can't properly weigh the arguments and come to an informed decision. However, people hold contradictory views all the time. Religion is a fine example.
  - saint_fiasco 11y ago
    Entertaining views without holding them is much more difficult than it seems. The question of whether it's possible to understand a proposition without believing it at least provisionally used to be hotly debated by philosophers. The experimental evidence suggests that it's not possible http://lesswrong.com/lw/k4/do_we_believe_everything_were_told/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k4/do_we_believe_everything_were_tol... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8366418 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8366418
    - zo1 11y ago
      Nice finds, reading through them now.
- bmelton 11y ago
  As a card-carrying libertarian, I'll have to agree and disagree, which I suppose fits the spirit of the thread. I arrived at libertarianism through study of the Constitution. I wouldn't consider myself an expert, but compared to the average American, I don't think a comparatively expert status is that hard to come by. Regardless, reading through the constitution time and again has led me to believe that its founding principle, above all else, is that people ought to be free. The first principle of the constitution is to enshrine the primacy of individual liberty. Knowing that, as a matter of ideology (with all its associated ills), I prefer policies that seek to promote individual liberty vs. curtailing it, wherever possible. Beyond that, if one is a Constitutionalist, then I believe it gets grayer. I consider myself a big L Libertarian when talking about policy matters at the federal level, but I consider myself more of a democrat when dealing with policy matters at state and local levels, which is (I believe) what the Constitution prescribes. On the whole, this leads to a general dissatisfaction with everything, because even good policies tend to be applied at the wrong level. As such, I have many "conflicting views" in the broad strokes idea level -- which is to say that I'm against the idea of Obamacare as a matter of principle, but I'd be perfectly fine with 50 Romneycares, even acknowledging that 1 Obamacare would likely be far more cost effective, efficient, and practical than 50 Romneycares. Having a first principle to rely upon definitely allows for more internal consistency, but it definitely doesn't solve for every x. There are really good arguments for and against abortion, for example, and while I definitely lean pro-choice personally, I couldn't make a case that proved why my belief is superior to somebody else's.

delinka 11y ago

Summary: can't outlaw Scientology, can't legally compel vaccinations. I'm against Scientology, I'm for vaccination. Neither of the opinions should ever be codified into law. I'm pretty certain vaccination isn't "the law." The only thing compelling anyone to have their children vaccinated are the rules (not laws) for public education (keep in mind: I'm in the US and public school systems differ from county to county in my own state.) You're not required to send your children to public school; they can allow vaccination exceptions on a case-by-case basis ... there's a good amount of freedom here. That said, I want my children vaccinated. And in the rare medical cases where they can't be vaccinated, I want to know they're safe from people who might carry a life-threatening disease (i.e. others who aren't vaccinated.) It's a tough balance, but the socially responsible thing is to vaccinate, or avoid diverse social contact (such as ... public school.)

Retra 11y ago
There's a reason these freedoms are protected. They're not just axioms of a society. Most of them stem from one very strong principle: if you don't have and extremely good reason to know something, then you can't prohibit the alternatives, because you may be prohibiting improvements. And in the long run, it's better to have 9 people fail and one succeed than to have 10 people do nothing new. But you can have laws that guide behavior. Those 9 people who will fail? You can learn the lesson about that failure and make it illegal to fail in the same way. For instance, at one time, you were free to beat your children, because nobody really knew that it wasn't the most effective way to teach them. But if you have overwhelming evidence that it doesn't work, then you can make it illegal. You still have the freedom to choose how to raise your children, you just can't do it in obviously failure-prone ways. So yeah, you can outlaw (parts of) scientology and legally compel vaccinations when those actions are shown to definitively run counter to the justification of those freedoms in the first place. You are not free to make clear and obvious mistakes. Take any safety law as an example. The only thing you really need is proof.
- nine_k 11y ago
  A nitpick: you are of course free to make any costly mistake if it only affects you and no one else. Various safety laws protect innocent bystanders from mistakes other people make, e.g. losing control of a car due to excessive speed or alcohol intake, or spreading a virus. The fact that tax money is spent on various social protection things, like health care, allows to legally limit one's apparently personal choices, like smoking, that increase the tax money spending due to those choices. Such is the nature of most, if not any, tax-funded welfare features.

PopeOfNope 11y ago

> the state it has a certain obligation to protect citizens from their own idiocy. And who makes that decision? If you look at the track record of the American Government over the past few decades, you'll see it's not them (Yes, you mentioned you're not American. My forthcoming point still applies). What happens when you entertain an idea that the government considers harmful to yourself and others, despite the fact that you have proof you're right and the government is wrong? Specifically, the FDA still prints and distributes and decrees that public schools teach the food pyramid. The food pyramid is 100% wrong, top to bottom. Saturated fat is good for you as has been proven by dozens of studies and the fact I'm still alive. But, prior to 5 years ago, if you entertained that notion and fed your family a high fat diet, you'd be considered as mentally deranged as the strange, home schooling prepper family who keep to themselves. I see the stance on saturated fat as no different than the current stance on Vaccination. Whatever you think on the subject, one way or the other, you should be free to do so. Governments aren't nannies. They're more like an abusive nurse who tortures inmates in the mental ward.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
> What happens when you entertain an idea that the government considers harmful to yourself and others, despite the fact that you have proof you're right and the government is wrong? There are many channels through which you could submit your proof in order to change government's stance on the topic. They don't work flawlessly (some would say they don't work well at all), but it beats everyone doing whatever they think is right and everyone else having to deal with collateral damage. > I see the stance on saturated fat as no different than the current stance on Vaccination. I disagree, if only because figuring out metabolism is hard, while the way diseases spread much less so. > Whatever you think on the subject, one way or the other, you should be free to do so. That's a recipe for disaster and you must know it. Otherwise, you might not be happy to hear that I think that a nuclear warhead would be a great gnome for my garden. > Governments aren't nannies. They're more like an abusive nurse who tortures inmates in the mental ward. You must be joking. If anything, governments are like abusive officers in jail full of mentally ill criminals. Their torture is nothing compared to what the inmates would do to one another in their absence, whether through stupidity or ill will. The very reason you can go out and buy quality food and tools without risking your health, life and money in the process is that the governments regulated the shit out of commerce and manufacturing AND have a system to enforce those regulations. Like it or not, a government is the best way to account for externalities and solve coordination problems at scale that we've figured out so far. It grows naturally in pretty much every society. And no, you shouldn't be doing anything you like wrt. vaccines. They make sense only when applied at scale, hence mandatory vaccinations.

bad_user 11y ago

I don't get the link between not wanting to outlaw Scientology and believing vaccination is a good idea. And I don't get how that stance is inconsistent. Care to explain? I'm not familiar with the practices of scientologists, but the line is usually pretty clear for me. Are scientologists hurting other people? Are they guilty of hate crimes? Do my taxes pay for their beliefs? If yes, then it should be outlawed, if not then they should get their freedom of religion. And any middle ground should be treated by education. We often forget that a lack of education is what makes stupid people stupid and outlawing things won't make them any less stupid. But then again, even stupid people should own their body and mind, as long as they aren't hurting me or my family through their actions of course. And on neo-nazi organizations, they are usually in the business of organized crime, or are guilty of hate speech. Once their actions are hurting other people, yes, they should be outlawed. On the other hand outlawing the Nazi symbols or the Nazi propaganda, as it happens in Europe, is pretty stupid and indeed inconsistent, without also outlawing communism and its symbols and propaganda. But you see, China happened, being now a valuable western partner, so we prefer to be hypocritical instead.

baconner 11y ago
I realize debating Scientology is not really the focus of this thread but the answer to these two questions is yes and yes. > Are scientologists hurting other people? > Do my taxes pay for their beliefs? If you are interested in learning about that there are lots of resources. Going Clear is a recent one that is quite good.

LordKano 11y ago

A very common case is that people who vehemently disagree with outlawing Scientology also strongly believe vaccination is a good idea. I disagree with outlawing Scientology or any other religion and I think that vaccination is a good idea. I am opposed to using the threat of force to compel people to take vaccines but they're still a very good idea. Philosophically, I believe that governments should have minimal involvement with people's day to day lives. Therein the details can be convoluted and seemingly contradictory but I'm talking about philosophy and not the minutia of policy. Not that I think it's perfect but I prefer the US's system of dealing with objectionable speech to that of most of Germany. For example, if someone wants to deny that the holocaust occurred, in Germany it's a crime but in the US, it's merely an etiquette faux pas. There, the authorities will be involved but here, the person's statements will be challenged and contradicted. Want to walk around wearing a swastika tee shirt? That's perfectly legal but don't be surprised if people refuse to interact with you. You may be asked to leave any establishments you enter and things of that nature.