4 ms·

If this is reasonable justification to forcibly distribute people's capital, than why not to force everyone into a wheelchair to give the disabled more happines

by ancap 11y ago

If this is reasonable justification to forcibly distribute people's capital, than why not to force everyone into a wheelchair to give the disabled more happiness? Or force everyone to shave their head to make the bald more happy? Or force everyone to lob off a limb for the "benefit" of the maimed? EDIT: to the silent down-voters might I suggest you more equally distribute your down-votes to increase HN happiness.

asgard1024 11y ago
I think the above explanation I made with ultimatum game may provide some insight. People have a notion of fairness, which is more subtle; they don't just want to force everyone on the same level.
pron 11y ago
I'd like to challenge your assumptions a little (although I agree with the other commenter that the reality is more nuanced): why do you think that distributing capital is forceful while it fairly belongs to some people to begin with? You seem to assume that private property is the natural state of affairs, while in reality it is a social construct that started with the agricultural revolution, when people could start accumulating wealth. It is society (which preceded property) which allowed people to own property to begin with. Private property (as a value) is a social invention. Hence, it could just as well be argued that society forcefully de-distributes property and entrusts it in the hands of a few individuals.
- ancap 11y ago
  If private property is nothing more than a "social construct" surely the concept of "society" is nothing more. What is society other than a collection of individuals? And if the individuals cannot own property then what gives society that right?
  - pron 11y ago
    Society is not an invention. It is the name we give the emergent dynamics among a group of interacting individuals. It can be said to exist objectively (and is not present when describing a collection of individuals that do not interact). Also, note that I didn't say that private property is "nothing more" than a social construct. I said it is a social construct, and as a social construct it's a lot, because that's all there is for most if not all our values, and that's plenty. But, being a social construct, it cannot apriori take precedence over other social constructs (like the value of fairness). Now, in general, the question of "rights" is a hard one, because obviously there is nothing to give anything a right. A right is a common (perhaps universal) shared value, sometimes with extrinsic justifications but most of the time without (in the end, it's hard to ascribe a truly objective value to anything in the universe, as you quickly get to circular dependencies of values). But, it is not a bad starting point to assume that all rights originate in social convention, and those conventions, in turn, are based on human psychology and circumstance. This too is an incomplete description, because we haven't established the boundaries of the fixed/universal portion of human psychology, and much of it is well known to be a product (through a feedback loop) of social convention...
    - ancap 11y ago
      You seem to be saying a lot but not really addressing any of the questions I raised. The following being a prime example: > Also, note that I didn't say that private property is "nothing more" than a social construct. I said it is a social construct, and as a social construct it's a lot I'm really confused at what you find controversial about what I said or how it is relevant. Regardless of whether private property is "constructed", the reality is we do have property rights. If you are going to distribute that property there is only one way to accomplish that: by force.
      - pron 11y ago
        > The following being a prime example... Oh, I simply meant that most or all values are built around social constructs, so they all have similar validity. > If you are going to distribute that property there is only one way to accomplish that: by force. And my point was that preserving that private property is also accomplished by force. The question is, what do you mean when you say "force". If you mean coercion, then many things in society are achieved through coercion. That is pretty much the essence of civilization (see Freud's Civilization and its Discontents). Coercion and freedom will always live side by side. Most values conflict with one another at some point and need to be prioritized, but freedom is rather unique in that it conflicts with itself. If you have a society (i.e. two people or more interacting), then an individual is either free to restrict the freedom of another or she is not. In either case, someone's freedom is restricted -- through coercion. And it turns out that surprisingly many of the things we do in our interactions can restrict the freedom of others, which is why freedom (without qualification) is a self-conflicting value and therefore not a well-defined one, as different kinds of freedom then need to be prioritized and balanced; that also means that coercion, or "force" (without qualification) is not a negative value by itself. So the question is, what kind of force? So when you say that distribution of property is done coercively, then there's nothing really special about it.

by ancap 11y ago

asgard1024 11y ago

I think the above explanation I made with ultimatum game may provide some insight. People have a notion of fairness, which is more subtle; they don't just want to force everyone on the same level.

pron 11y ago

I'd like to challenge your assumptions a little (although I agree with the other commenter that the reality is more nuanced): why do you think that distributing capital is forceful while it fairly belongs to some people to begin with? You seem to assume that private property is the natural state of affairs, while in reality it is a social construct that started with the agricultural revolution, when people could start accumulating wealth. It is society (which preceded property) which allowed people to own property to begin with. Private property (as a value) is a social invention. Hence, it could just as well be argued that society forcefully de-distributes property and entrusts it in the hands of a few individuals.

ancap 11y ago
If private property is nothing more than a "social construct" surely the concept of "society" is nothing more. What is society other than a collection of individuals? And if the individuals cannot own property then what gives society that right?
- pron 11y ago
  Society is not an invention. It is the name we give the emergent dynamics among a group of interacting individuals. It can be said to exist objectively (and is not present when describing a collection of individuals that do not interact). Also, note that I didn't say that private property is "nothing more" than a social construct. I said it is a social construct, and as a social construct it's a lot, because that's all there is for most if not all our values, and that's plenty. But, being a social construct, it cannot apriori take precedence over other social constructs (like the value of fairness). Now, in general, the question of "rights" is a hard one, because obviously there is nothing to give anything a right. A right is a common (perhaps universal) shared value, sometimes with extrinsic justifications but most of the time without (in the end, it's hard to ascribe a truly objective value to anything in the universe, as you quickly get to circular dependencies of values). But, it is not a bad starting point to assume that all rights originate in social convention, and those conventions, in turn, are based on human psychology and circumstance. This too is an incomplete description, because we haven't established the boundaries of the fixed/universal portion of human psychology, and much of it is well known to be a product (through a feedback loop) of social convention...
  - ancap 11y ago
    You seem to be saying a lot but not really addressing any of the questions I raised. The following being a prime example: > Also, note that I didn't say that private property is "nothing more" than a social construct. I said it is a social construct, and as a social construct it's a lot I'm really confused at what you find controversial about what I said or how it is relevant. Regardless of whether private property is "constructed", the reality is we do have property rights. If you are going to distribute that property there is only one way to accomplish that: by force.
    - pron 11y ago
      > The following being a prime example... Oh, I simply meant that most or all values are built around social constructs, so they all have similar validity. > If you are going to distribute that property there is only one way to accomplish that: by force. And my point was that preserving that private property is also accomplished by force. The question is, what do you mean when you say "force". If you mean coercion, then many things in society are achieved through coercion. That is pretty much the essence of civilization (see Freud's Civilization and its Discontents). Coercion and freedom will always live side by side. Most values conflict with one another at some point and need to be prioritized, but freedom is rather unique in that it conflicts with itself. If you have a society (i.e. two people or more interacting), then an individual is either free to restrict the freedom of another or she is not. In either case, someone's freedom is restricted -- through coercion. And it turns out that surprisingly many of the things we do in our interactions can restrict the freedom of others, which is why freedom (without qualification) is a self-conflicting value and therefore not a well-defined one, as different kinds of freedom then need to be prioritized and balanced; that also means that coercion, or "force" (without qualification) is not a negative value by itself. So the question is, what kind of force? So when you say that distribution of property is done coercively, then there's nothing really special about it.