4 ms·

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 d

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.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  > I appreciate your willingness to elaborate on your points in detail. And that you focus on asking questions rather than proselytizing. Likewise =) > 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. I don't think it would matter to a slave being whipped on a plantation that the person doing the whipping was elected by a narrow majority of his fellow slaves. Nor would it matter that he could leave to another plantation with a different master whose whip stings just the same. Slaves who elect their masters are still slaves, are they not? Only people without masters are free. If you would allow me to proselytize a little, how would you know you are free? Is there a test? I think there is. It's the same test you'd use to tell if you are being raped or having sex. Does your consent matter? Will revoking your consent be respected by other parties involved? If you're having sex with someone whom you yourself chose, and you suddenly and vocally revoke your consent (ie. say "stop"), will they stop? or will they use violence to force you to continue? If they choose the latter option, in that moment they have, in a very literal sense, become your master and you their slave. I think the same test can be applied to any human relationship, interaction or form of cooperation, would you agree? If not, which relationships does this test not apply to? Why not? > You could go to another society if they are willing to have you. But then you'll be governed by their rules. Yes indeed, you could move to a society which practices child cannibalism if you are willing to be governed by their rules. I'm asking whether you think there should be limits on the kinds of rules that people can enforce on each other with an involuntary agreement. If there aren't, then is all that's stopping us from reinstating slavery or organizing a holocaust a democratic majority? I also think telling someone whose rights your violating "well, you can always move somewhere else" doesn't hold any water. People have rights where they are. > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These are the axioms I'm starting from. If we're all created equal, and we are all entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in that order), does everything else not follow? You'll also note that "a baseline quality of life" is not present in this list. > Assume you're on your condo balcony on the 20th floor but trip and fall ... 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 agree wholeheartedly. I also think each individual has a right to make this choice for themselves. Many people would prefer to starve than beg. Many others have chosen to commit suicide rather than burden their families with their care. Whichever moral code you live by, and whichever ways you are willing to bend or break it in dire circumstances; these are deeply personal choices. In regards to the legal aspects of your example, there are several layers of due process that are in place exactly to prevent punitive action for reasonable violations of the law as-written. Namely policing discretion, prosecutorial discretion and trial by jury. These are clearly imperfect, but I don't see them convicting the trespasser in your example. > 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. I'm not sure that's true - some of the most complex things we do and build are overwhelmingly voluntary and cooperative in nature. The tens of thousands of people collaborating at Airbus to build an A380 are cooperating splendidly without being forced to, as are the employees of every major company which has contributed so much to the advancements in our quality of life. > I also don't think I'd agree on your assumption that safety and flourishing are zero sum; I think you misread what I wrote: > And a confederacy of individuals does not equate to freedom, safety and flourishing being zero-sum. However I might say that flourishing, based on the hierarchical nature of our social psychology, might be zero-sum. Only so many people can be at the top of the social pyramid, regardless of wealth. Most of everyone else seems to be wired to derive misery from the fact they do not occupy such a place. It does seem possible to overcome these instincts with practice however. > 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. I agree! The Jeffersonian homestead is the perfect example of functional liberty. I was going to cite it in my last post. Don't you think it could have been maintained with the political will and/or stronger constitutional protection? The US may not have become the global superpower it is today, but I don't see that as all together terrible, given all the awful things we have done to people in order to achieve and maintain this status.

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.

thegrimmest 5y ago
> I appreciate your willingness to elaborate on your points in detail. And that you focus on asking questions rather than proselytizing. Likewise =) > 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. I don't think it would matter to a slave being whipped on a plantation that the person doing the whipping was elected by a narrow majority of his fellow slaves. Nor would it matter that he could leave to another plantation with a different master whose whip stings just the same. Slaves who elect their masters are still slaves, are they not? Only people without masters are free. If you would allow me to proselytize a little, how would you know you are free? Is there a test? I think there is. It's the same test you'd use to tell if you are being raped or having sex. Does your consent matter? Will revoking your consent be respected by other parties involved? If you're having sex with someone whom you yourself chose, and you suddenly and vocally revoke your consent (ie. say "stop"), will they stop? or will they use violence to force you to continue? If they choose the latter option, in that moment they have, in a very literal sense, become your master and you their slave. I think the same test can be applied to any human relationship, interaction or form of cooperation, would you agree? If not, which relationships does this test not apply to? Why not? > You could go to another society if they are willing to have you. But then you'll be governed by their rules. Yes indeed, you could move to a society which practices child cannibalism if you are willing to be governed by their rules. I'm asking whether you think there should be limits on the kinds of rules that people can enforce on each other with an involuntary agreement. If there aren't, then is all that's stopping us from reinstating slavery or organizing a holocaust a democratic majority? I also think telling someone whose rights your violating "well, you can always move somewhere else" doesn't hold any water. People have rights where they are. > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These are the axioms I'm starting from. If we're all created equal, and we are all entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in that order), does everything else not follow? You'll also note that "a baseline quality of life" is not present in this list. > Assume you're on your condo balcony on the 20th floor but trip and fall ... 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 agree wholeheartedly. I also think each individual has a right to make this choice for themselves. Many people would prefer to starve than beg. Many others have chosen to commit suicide rather than burden their families with their care. Whichever moral code you live by, and whichever ways you are willing to bend or break it in dire circumstances; these are deeply personal choices. In regards to the legal aspects of your example, there are several layers of due process that are in place exactly to prevent punitive action for reasonable violations of the law as-written. Namely policing discretion, prosecutorial discretion and trial by jury. These are clearly imperfect, but I don't see them convicting the trespasser in your example. > 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. I'm not sure that's true - some of the most complex things we do and build are overwhelmingly voluntary and cooperative in nature. The tens of thousands of people collaborating at Airbus to build an A380 are cooperating splendidly without being forced to, as are the employees of every major company which has contributed so much to the advancements in our quality of life. > I also don't think I'd agree on your assumption that safety and flourishing are zero sum; I think you misread what I wrote: > And a confederacy of individuals does not equate to freedom, safety and flourishing being zero-sum. However I might say that flourishing, based on the hierarchical nature of our social psychology, might be zero-sum. Only so many people can be at the top of the social pyramid, regardless of wealth. Most of everyone else seems to be wired to derive misery from the fact they do not occupy such a place. It does seem possible to overcome these instincts with practice however. > 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. I agree! The Jeffersonian homestead is the perfect example of functional liberty. I was going to cite it in my last post. Don't you think it could have been maintained with the political will and/or stronger constitutional protection? The US may not have become the global superpower it is today, but I don't see that as all together terrible, given all the awful things we have done to people in order to achieve and maintain this status.