2 ms·

That's because you have a peculiar (and I think) false view of psychology. Any person can be made into a slave through "abusive freedom": overwhelming financia

That's because you have a peculiar (and I think) false view of psychology. Any person can be made into a slave through "abusive freedom": overwhelming financial incentives (eg., blow up this building and ill give your very poor family $1mil); overwhelming social incentives (eg., take drugs or you wont be our friend); overwhelming constraints; ... A person is a deeply malleable thing and circumstances change people, they traumatise and abuse them. A person can be arbitrarily reduced to an arbitrarily murderous/desperate/slavish state. The libertarian notion of freedom mystifies this and prevents us from recognising it. We need to distinguish between those cases where people change through learning, growth, development (ie., value their X differently due to learning more); and those cases were people are caused to abandon freedom-preserving, dignity-preserving, life-preserving values. We oughtnt regard all behaviour as "expression of true desire", and all changes to what we desire as being of the same kind. When the very poor are provided with an overwhelming incentive to abandon their dignity (ie., here, essnetially free housing) we should regard the effects of these incentives as harming those people. And that harm isn't theoretical: it is abusive to live without privacy; it is traumatising. That people do it does not mean they desire to, it does not mean they want to. This is a vicious misunderstanding of human psychology. People are trapped in circumstances of abuse "freely" and routinely. So much for that notion of freedom.

harryh 7y ago
If society feels that people below a certain level of income don't have enough freedom, the correct solution to this problem is to give them more money. Further constraining their freedom by forbidding them from making their own decisions about what is most important to them will only make their lives worse. They know more about what tradoffs (even difficult ones!) are worth doing in their own lives than you do.
- mjburgess 7y ago
  No one is talking about forbidding people from deciding something. Regulation prevents the circumstances of that decision arising. > They know more about what tradoffs This just seems like an ideological presumption. Empirically it is obviously, routinely, false. There are very many cases where people make self-injurious decisions that post-decision they wish they would not have made; and were obvious to everyone they shouldn't have made it. The relevant political question is: in what cases should "society" regulate to prevent those cases arising? If we say "every case" then we end up in a tyranny, and a very terrible one, because "society" is unlikely to get every case right. If we say "no cases" then we permit widespread abuse and manipulation. A modern casino is a skinner-box designed by psychologists to maximize your merely impulsive behaviour (ie., non-free behaviour). Should we regulate to prevent people from ever entering? I'd say so. A human being is not 'master of their own house'; they are not 'acting under their own will' much of the time. We are pigeons whose animal nature is easy to exploit: society should act to preserve our willful capacity to act under reason and preference. Not action under impulse, desperation, etc.
  - harryh 7y ago
    I love casinos. I went to Vegas all the time when I lived on the west coast. Sadly, not so much since I moved east and had a kid, but what are you gonna do? I'm a grown man with my own money who has always been responsible with it. Spending a few hours playing cards isn't merely impulsive behavior, it's something I find entertaining. I know more about my own money and my own desires then you do.
    - mjburgess 7y ago
      Yes, because you have a greater capacity to retain your values despite overwhelming incentives not to do so. Gambling in this way destroys people and their families, much like drug addiction. You might say those people are "vulnerable" in some special inherent way, but really, they just happen to be in different circumstances than you. My view is that your enjoyment here has a cost: it preserves environments we know cause human animals to change for the worse. I don't see that as, empirically, a controversial point. Casinos take a healthy rat in, and frequently, an unhealthy rat leaves. Behind all this "decision making" is the reality of human psychology, and of abuse, trauma, and health. And it is no hidden thing that gambling, opioid over-prescription, prostitution... as environments take in healthy desperate animals and exist deeply unhealthy ones. This transition preserves "freedom" in the libertarian sense -- and it is my view therefore that this sense is pathological and misunderstands people. What you are saying is that pre-post casino you retain your freedom (in the intuitive, healthy sense). Alas very many people do not. When environments cause people to give up on values that keep them healthy, those environments are sick and make people sick. Humans are not blank slate masters of everything: we're animals. And what we need isnt arbitrary and different and unique and special. There are some values so essential that when we see people giving them up, we ought regard the perpetrators of that changes as abusive manipulators; or at least, naively engaging in abuse.

harryh 7y ago

If society feels that people below a certain level of income don't have enough freedom, the correct solution to this problem is to give them more money. Further constraining their freedom by forbidding them from making their own decisions about what is most important to them will only make their lives worse. They know more about what tradoffs (even difficult ones!) are worth doing in their own lives than you do.

mjburgess 7y ago
No one is talking about forbidding people from deciding something. Regulation prevents the circumstances of that decision arising. > They know more about what tradoffs This just seems like an ideological presumption. Empirically it is obviously, routinely, false. There are very many cases where people make self-injurious decisions that post-decision they wish they would not have made; and were obvious to everyone they shouldn't have made it. The relevant political question is: in what cases should "society" regulate to prevent those cases arising? If we say "every case" then we end up in a tyranny, and a very terrible one, because "society" is unlikely to get every case right. If we say "no cases" then we permit widespread abuse and manipulation. A modern casino is a skinner-box designed by psychologists to maximize your merely impulsive behaviour (ie., non-free behaviour). Should we regulate to prevent people from ever entering? I'd say so. A human being is not 'master of their own house'; they are not 'acting under their own will' much of the time. We are pigeons whose animal nature is easy to exploit: society should act to preserve our willful capacity to act under reason and preference. Not action under impulse, desperation, etc.
- harryh 7y ago
  I love casinos. I went to Vegas all the time when I lived on the west coast. Sadly, not so much since I moved east and had a kid, but what are you gonna do? I'm a grown man with my own money who has always been responsible with it. Spending a few hours playing cards isn't merely impulsive behavior, it's something I find entertaining. I know more about my own money and my own desires then you do.
  - mjburgess 7y ago
    Yes, because you have a greater capacity to retain your values despite overwhelming incentives not to do so. Gambling in this way destroys people and their families, much like drug addiction. You might say those people are "vulnerable" in some special inherent way, but really, they just happen to be in different circumstances than you. My view is that your enjoyment here has a cost: it preserves environments we know cause human animals to change for the worse. I don't see that as, empirically, a controversial point. Casinos take a healthy rat in, and frequently, an unhealthy rat leaves. Behind all this "decision making" is the reality of human psychology, and of abuse, trauma, and health. And it is no hidden thing that gambling, opioid over-prescription, prostitution... as environments take in healthy desperate animals and exist deeply unhealthy ones. This transition preserves "freedom" in the libertarian sense -- and it is my view therefore that this sense is pathological and misunderstands people. What you are saying is that pre-post casino you retain your freedom (in the intuitive, healthy sense). Alas very many people do not. When environments cause people to give up on values that keep them healthy, those environments are sick and make people sick. Humans are not blank slate masters of everything: we're animals. And what we need isnt arbitrary and different and unique and special. There are some values so essential that when we see people giving them up, we ought regard the perpetrators of that changes as abusive manipulators; or at least, naively engaging in abuse.