6 ms·

While I appreciate your perspective, I don't think anyone has the moral authority to command that every family raise their children in manner that optimizes for

While I appreciate your perspective, I don't think anyone has the moral authority to command that every family raise their children in manner that optimizes for economic outcomes. Some people send their children to Forest School or Yeshiva, where they learn remarkably different things than are taught in public school. Are these children "disadvantaged" from your perspective? Perhaps, but how would you respond to a parent who suggests publicly-schooled children are far more disadvantaged in metrics important to them? From where do you derive the authority to say that "economic achievement" is the supreme value we should optimize for?

bumby 5y ago
>From where do you derive the authority I would say from the social contract of acknowledging that, as a part of a society, I have at least some duty to that society in exchange for what that society provides (whether that is just a functional judiciary, a stable economy, rule of law, infrastructure, collective defense etc). Its not me who has authority in a representative democracy but the people from whom the government derives power. So it’s not really if I think that’s the right metric but rather if society does. To a certain extent, they have already voted on this with the creation of a public school system. And it’s not to say there is a single “supreme value” to optimize for because society is too complex to have a single cost function and dangerous to pretend there is (which I worry your ‘paper clip’ comment alludes to), but we can still acknowledge there is an acceptable base level for specific metrics. I think the libertarian ideal is seductive because if there’s never an authority, you never have to be wrong. In the words of a philosopher, “ Perhaps this is why believing in absolute freedom is so tempting — if we follow that path, we are always “right,” which is easy.”[1] It’s an easy, but overly simplistic, framework. I tend to find the focus is disproportionately on what the government owes us without acknowledging that in exchange we have an obligation to society. I can understand why someone advocates for ultimate freedom because of that seductiveness but I can’t really understand how they can also claim it will create a meritocracy unless you reduce yourself to a myopic view. I can reduce my worldview all the way down to the single room from which I’m typing and proclaim I’m the most meritorious person, but that position gets harder to defend as I acknowledge I am part of a larger society. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/24/special-series/mike-schur-and-todd-may-what-we-believe-about-freedom.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/24/special-series/mike-schur...
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  How does the imposition of obligations to "society" through an involuntary social contract differ from slavery itself? Honest question. Is it just a matter of degrees? Does the will of the people entitle the government to enslave us in some limited capacity? If you have a master who can tell you what to do, compel your cooperation with the threat of violence, and from whom you have no legitimate recourse, are you free? Does it matter if that master is elected or not? I'm not saying that I'm "right". I'm simply saying no one is, and that words like "right" and "good" are human constructs, not factual observations. They vary from person to person, community to community and culture to culture. Given that we are all equal as people, it seems to follow that no one has the right to impose their ideas of "right" or "good" onto someone else, regardless of whether the imposition is democratic or authoritarian. > There is only Steve, Jamel, Selena and 332 million other siloed ego-states; a confederacy of individuals for whom freedom, safety and the ability to flourish are zero-sum competitions. This seems to be an accurate description of the real situation though, doesn't it? We're not ants. People fundamentally disagree on basic things. We lack an oracle to mediate these disagreements. One side forcing the other's cooperation is morally untenable. And a confederacy of individuals does not equate to freedom, safety and flourishing being zero-sum. Voluntary cooperation has and continues to achieve great things, why not let it be? Regarding meritocracy, what does one look like in your mind? What happens to individuals who lack merit in a meritocracy?
  - bumby 5y ago
    I appreciate your willingness to elaborate on your points in detail. And that you focus on asking questions rather than proselytizing. >How does the imposition of obligations to "society" through an involuntary social contract differ from slavery itself? There are a few distinctions that I don't think your analogy captures. It would be an apt analogy if 1) slaves got a chance to vote out their master at reasonable intervals and 2) you have the ability to go to different plantations. You could go to another society if they are willing to have you. But then you'll be governed by their rules. The only way out of this is to find a patch of land outside every other society's jurisdiction. So yes, we have to balance our own interests with that of the group we associate with. You've probably heard this before, but I'll take a chance at outlining a hypothetical: Assume you're on your condo balcony on the 20th floor but trip and fall. Luckily, the person directly below you on the 19th floor has installed a flag pole that you grab ahold of and you can slowly start walking yourself back hand-over-hand. But hearing the commotion, the neighbor comes out and proclaims you must get your hands off their flagpole. There's really only two possibilities if you believe in the sanctity of personal property rights: 1) you ignore your neighbors commands and walk yourself back to safety, meaning you are immoral or 2) You let go and plunge to your moral death. I think almost everyone picks scenario #1 because we implicitly understand that certain ideas like personal property rights are guiding principles and not dogmas. Meaning we understand they are not absolutes and can be modified when there is enough at stake. We may debate about what constitutes "enough at stake", but they are not meant to be a suicide pact. >This seems to be an accurate description of the real situation though, doesn't it? This may be getting to the heart of where we disagree. I don't think it's a particularly good representation of the real situation, mostly because society is too complex. I think there's a reason that most society's evolved toward nation-States. There are certain economies of scale that need to occur as society gets more complex. (This isn't to say it's the end-state of the way societies will be governed, either.) At a certain point, we no longer have the bandwidth to make all the decisions necessary for a completely individual decisions to truly be cooperative. We just didn't evolve to operate in systems that include millions of direct and indirect interactions. So we develop systems to mediate these interactions, like representative democracies and home owners associations and all kinds of other groups. And with this comes balancing some of those individual principles with the needs of the groups. I also don't think I'd agree on your assumption that safety and flourishing are zero sum; can you elaborate on what you mean? I think the libertarian principles are romantic notions that fits well under the Jeffersonian ideal of a yeoman farmer, but largely incompatible with the complexity of modernity. To that extent, I'm not 100% convinced that going to the extreme would increase flourishing writ large. >What happens to individuals who lack merit in a meritocracy? I don't think they flourish as well as meritorious individuals but I think a moral society has an obligation to provide some baseline level of quality of life. But this question is a bit of a digression from the original topic regarding whether or not society is structured to actually identify those with the most merit.

bumby 5y ago

>From where do you derive the authority I would say from the social contract of acknowledging that, as a part of a society, I have at least some duty to that society in exchange for what that society provides (whether that is just a functional judiciary, a stable economy, rule of law, infrastructure, collective defense etc). Its not me who has authority in a representative democracy but the people from whom the government derives power. So it’s not really if I think that’s the right metric but rather if society does. To a certain extent, they have already voted on this with the creation of a public school system. And it’s not to say there is a single “supreme value” to optimize for because society is too complex to have a single cost function and dangerous to pretend there is (which I worry your ‘paper clip’ comment alludes to), but we can still acknowledge there is an acceptable base level for specific metrics. I think the libertarian ideal is seductive because if there’s never an authority, you never have to be wrong. In the words of a philosopher, “ Perhaps this is why believing in absolute freedom is so tempting — if we follow that path, we are always “right,” which is easy.”[1] It’s an easy, but overly simplistic, framework. I tend to find the focus is disproportionately on what the government owes us without acknowledging that in exchange we have an obligation to society. I can understand why someone advocates for ultimate freedom because of that seductiveness but I can’t really understand how they can also claim it will create a meritocracy unless you reduce yourself to a myopic view. I can reduce my worldview all the way down to the single room from which I’m typing and proclaim I’m the most meritorious person, but that position gets harder to defend as I acknowledge I am part of a larger society. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/24/special-series/mike-schur-and-todd-may-what-we-believe-about-freedom.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/24/special-series/mike-schur...

thegrimmest 5y ago
How does the imposition of obligations to "society" through an involuntary social contract differ from slavery itself? Honest question. Is it just a matter of degrees? Does the will of the people entitle the government to enslave us in some limited capacity? If you have a master who can tell you what to do, compel your cooperation with the threat of violence, and from whom you have no legitimate recourse, are you free? Does it matter if that master is elected or not? I'm not saying that I'm "right". I'm simply saying no one is, and that words like "right" and "good" are human constructs, not factual observations. They vary from person to person, community to community and culture to culture. Given that we are all equal as people, it seems to follow that no one has the right to impose their ideas of "right" or "good" onto someone else, regardless of whether the imposition is democratic or authoritarian. > There is only Steve, Jamel, Selena and 332 million other siloed ego-states; a confederacy of individuals for whom freedom, safety and the ability to flourish are zero-sum competitions. This seems to be an accurate description of the real situation though, doesn't it? We're not ants. People fundamentally disagree on basic things. We lack an oracle to mediate these disagreements. One side forcing the other's cooperation is morally untenable. And a confederacy of individuals does not equate to freedom, safety and flourishing being zero-sum. Voluntary cooperation has and continues to achieve great things, why not let it be? Regarding meritocracy, what does one look like in your mind? What happens to individuals who lack merit in a meritocracy?
- bumby 5y ago
  I appreciate your willingness to elaborate on your points in detail. And that you focus on asking questions rather than proselytizing. >How does the imposition of obligations to "society" through an involuntary social contract differ from slavery itself? There are a few distinctions that I don't think your analogy captures. It would be an apt analogy if 1) slaves got a chance to vote out their master at reasonable intervals and 2) you have the ability to go to different plantations. You could go to another society if they are willing to have you. But then you'll be governed by their rules. The only way out of this is to find a patch of land outside every other society's jurisdiction. So yes, we have to balance our own interests with that of the group we associate with. You've probably heard this before, but I'll take a chance at outlining a hypothetical: Assume you're on your condo balcony on the 20th floor but trip and fall. Luckily, the person directly below you on the 19th floor has installed a flag pole that you grab ahold of and you can slowly start walking yourself back hand-over-hand. But hearing the commotion, the neighbor comes out and proclaims you must get your hands off their flagpole. There's really only two possibilities if you believe in the sanctity of personal property rights: 1) you ignore your neighbors commands and walk yourself back to safety, meaning you are immoral or 2) You let go and plunge to your moral death. I think almost everyone picks scenario #1 because we implicitly understand that certain ideas like personal property rights are guiding principles and not dogmas. Meaning we understand they are not absolutes and can be modified when there is enough at stake. We may debate about what constitutes "enough at stake", but they are not meant to be a suicide pact. >This seems to be an accurate description of the real situation though, doesn't it? This may be getting to the heart of where we disagree. I don't think it's a particularly good representation of the real situation, mostly because society is too complex. I think there's a reason that most society's evolved toward nation-States. There are certain economies of scale that need to occur as society gets more complex. (This isn't to say it's the end-state of the way societies will be governed, either.) At a certain point, we no longer have the bandwidth to make all the decisions necessary for a completely individual decisions to truly be cooperative. We just didn't evolve to operate in systems that include millions of direct and indirect interactions. So we develop systems to mediate these interactions, like representative democracies and home owners associations and all kinds of other groups. And with this comes balancing some of those individual principles with the needs of the groups. I also don't think I'd agree on your assumption that safety and flourishing are zero sum; can you elaborate on what you mean? I think the libertarian principles are romantic notions that fits well under the Jeffersonian ideal of a yeoman farmer, but largely incompatible with the complexity of modernity. To that extent, I'm not 100% convinced that going to the extreme would increase flourishing writ large. >What happens to individuals who lack merit in a meritocracy? I don't think they flourish as well as meritorious individuals but I think a moral society has an obligation to provide some baseline level of quality of life. But this question is a bit of a digression from the original topic regarding whether or not society is structured to actually identify those with the most merit.