5 ms·

This is Tea-party-level argumentation, by recasting the argument in strawman terms. It is not the case that "I own therefore I am god". With power comes respon

This is Tea-party-level argumentation, by recasting the argument in strawman terms. It is not the case that "I own therefore I am god". With power comes responsibility, and here there are people looking for gain without the commensurate social responsibility.

sneak 13y ago
"Social responsibility" is imaginary, because society is imaginary. It can't be hurt, it doesn't have opinions, and we certainly don't have any responsibilities to it. It's an abstraction.
- triplesec 13y ago
  By this argument, from solipsism, I can kill you because you are imaginary to me. However -- your poor arguments notwithstanding -- I do not wish to, but instead try to understand how on earth you can think society is imaginary when it has constructed your roads, schools, constitution, social values. Yes, you have social values, even if they just consist in denying them. And, oh, language. You didn't make that up. Nor did your parents... but a whole huge historical arse of people conjoined, like it or not, into collaborating into creating (and often destroying) their common world and experience.
  - sneak 13y ago
    Men constructed those roads, buildings, and documents - not society. Or do you contend that "society" is exactly equal to the few dozen men who authored the US constitution? That simply doesn't make sense. You may want to consider the fact that this applies to "corporations" as well. They're legal fictions. They can't be prosecuted, because they can't break laws, because they can't act. Only individuals can break laws and face prosecution, because only individuals can actually _do_ things.
    - triplesec 13y ago
      Again you're going with the Strawman-ing. Without social compacts and agreements, and caring for neighbours none of these men would have acted together. Even in the constitution, that was a few people representing and being part of a greater polity and social scene. They were the agents of this society, from whose values they created the DEclaration of independence, Federalist Papers, constitution, etc. they didn't pluck it out of thin air! Just as the President and his administration are not acting alone. You seem to have problems with the idea of abstraction. Learn some maths perhaps? It's worth it. You're working on an abstaction right now, as someone has already kindly pointed out. I also recommend that you Google "theories of collective action", it's an interesting set of ideas which have had much intellectual currency for a long time, and still do. It is not the case that people are rational actors thinking and acting alone. To understand the world we sense, there has to be collaboration and sensemaking together. Corporations embody the values of the leaders and or founders and shareholders, and are held together byt the rituals and practices of the people there every day. What are Thanksgiving and Labor Day, if not embodiments of American society?
- Xylakant 13y ago
  Property is a right granted by society to use a resource just for yourself. If society is an abstraction, property is as well.
  - sneak 13y ago
    Rights are not granted. There are those that believe that they are inalienable.
    - Xylakant 13y ago
      Rights are rules in a society. By your argument, they are not inalienable but imaginary.
    - jasonwocky 13y ago
      i.e. "Made up stuff I like is inalienable. Made up stuff I dislike is imaginary."
- voyou 13y ago
  I love it when someone using a complicated network of computers acts as if something being an abstraction means that it doesn't have real effects.
- Fomite 13y ago
  An abstraction that can land you in jail ceases to be an abstraction.
- JackFr 13y ago
  "Social responsibility" is not imaginary, it's just not a useful term in policy debates, because it has no fixed objective meaning. It's like a "fair" tax policy -- 100% of people want a "fair" tax policy and yet can't agree on what that means. Similarly everyone considers themselves socially responsible.
- beedogs 13y ago
  Jesus fucking Christ. How do people like you even exist? Who thinks this way? Serial killers?
  - sneak 13y ago
    I think we have responsibilities to other people, individually. To construct a single entity out of millions, though, and then assign it rights and interpret obligations to it, makes no sense at all to me. It is impossible to harm a legal fiction because it is a fiction. It is indeed possible to harm humans and that, of course, must be avoided.
geebee 13y ago
There's an interesting type of reasoning I call "11:59-ing" the market. People find themselves in a position where they can profit, as long as the government suspends enforcement of a narrow band of laws. These folks often become very angry when the government interferes with the profitability of their government sponsored monopoly. The set up for this arbitrage opportunity requires government, but it's only profitable if the government stops enforcing it for the last minute of the day, often retroactively. As it stands, AirBnB is clearly illegal in many lucrative markets. Houses are not hotels, nor are they priced as hotels. You can buy a house, or rent one, for less than it would cost to buy a hotel, precisely because you're not allowed to use it as a hotel. So buy at that low price under one set of regulations and then demand to run a hotel under a different set of regulations, at a huge personal profit and damage to your neighbors.

sneak 13y ago

"Social responsibility" is imaginary, because society is imaginary. It can't be hurt, it doesn't have opinions, and we certainly don't have any responsibilities to it. It's an abstraction.

triplesec 13y ago
By this argument, from solipsism, I can kill you because you are imaginary to me. However -- your poor arguments notwithstanding -- I do not wish to, but instead try to understand how on earth you can think society is imaginary when it has constructed your roads, schools, constitution, social values. Yes, you have social values, even if they just consist in denying them. And, oh, language. You didn't make that up. Nor did your parents... but a whole huge historical arse of people conjoined, like it or not, into collaborating into creating (and often destroying) their common world and experience.
- sneak 13y ago
  Men constructed those roads, buildings, and documents - not society. Or do you contend that "society" is exactly equal to the few dozen men who authored the US constitution? That simply doesn't make sense. You may want to consider the fact that this applies to "corporations" as well. They're legal fictions. They can't be prosecuted, because they can't break laws, because they can't act. Only individuals can break laws and face prosecution, because only individuals can actually _do_ things.
  - triplesec 13y ago
    Again you're going with the Strawman-ing. Without social compacts and agreements, and caring for neighbours none of these men would have acted together. Even in the constitution, that was a few people representing and being part of a greater polity and social scene. They were the agents of this society, from whose values they created the DEclaration of independence, Federalist Papers, constitution, etc. they didn't pluck it out of thin air! Just as the President and his administration are not acting alone. You seem to have problems with the idea of abstraction. Learn some maths perhaps? It's worth it. You're working on an abstaction right now, as someone has already kindly pointed out. I also recommend that you Google "theories of collective action", it's an interesting set of ideas which have had much intellectual currency for a long time, and still do. It is not the case that people are rational actors thinking and acting alone. To understand the world we sense, there has to be collaboration and sensemaking together. Corporations embody the values of the leaders and or founders and shareholders, and are held together byt the rituals and practices of the people there every day. What are Thanksgiving and Labor Day, if not embodiments of American society?
Xylakant 13y ago
Property is a right granted by society to use a resource just for yourself. If society is an abstraction, property is as well.
- sneak 13y ago
  Rights are not granted. There are those that believe that they are inalienable.
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    Rights are rules in a society. By your argument, they are not inalienable but imaginary.
  - jasonwocky 13y ago
    i.e. "Made up stuff I like is inalienable. Made up stuff I dislike is imaginary."
voyou 13y ago
I love it when someone using a complicated network of computers acts as if something being an abstraction means that it doesn't have real effects.
Fomite 13y ago
An abstraction that can land you in jail ceases to be an abstraction.
JackFr 13y ago
"Social responsibility" is not imaginary, it's just not a useful term in policy debates, because it has no fixed objective meaning. It's like a "fair" tax policy -- 100% of people want a "fair" tax policy and yet can't agree on what that means. Similarly everyone considers themselves socially responsible.
beedogs 13y ago
Jesus fucking Christ. How do people like you even exist? Who thinks this way? Serial killers?
- sneak 13y ago
  I think we have responsibilities to other people, individually. To construct a single entity out of millions, though, and then assign it rights and interpret obligations to it, makes no sense at all to me. It is impossible to harm a legal fiction because it is a fiction. It is indeed possible to harm humans and that, of course, must be avoided.

geebee 13y ago

There's an interesting type of reasoning I call "11:59-ing" the market. People find themselves in a position where they can profit, as long as the government suspends enforcement of a narrow band of laws. These folks often become very angry when the government interferes with the profitability of their government sponsored monopoly. The set up for this arbitrage opportunity requires government, but it's only profitable if the government stops enforcing it for the last minute of the day, often retroactively. As it stands, AirBnB is clearly illegal in many lucrative markets. Houses are not hotels, nor are they priced as hotels. You can buy a house, or rent one, for less than it would cost to buy a hotel, precisely because you're not allowed to use it as a hotel. So buy at that low price under one set of regulations and then demand to run a hotel under a different set of regulations, at a huge personal profit and damage to your neighbors.