3 ms·

I don't deny group injustice. I don't believe injustice based on group membership is worse than any other kind - slavery is an injustice even if it's equal oppo

I don't deny group injustice. I don't believe injustice based on group membership is worse than any other kind - slavery is an injustice even if it's equal opportunity. Insofar as having bad schools or bad parents is not an injustice, it's also not an injustice if some group has more of them than another. And insofar as such a thing is an injustice, the fact that it's correlated with some group is irrelevant to me. If the only way power can be measured is via outcomes (in this case, I guess a high developer salary?), then I'm not sure why we need a new word to describe it. I also don't get what your point is. I guess you are arguing that smart people don't "deserve" the money/control that comes with a developer job any more than dumb people, and therefore starfighter is a bad thing?

pron 12y ago
Well, group injustice is just individual injustice done to many individuals. And, I think, you would not consider it unfair to demand a robber to pay back the money he's stolen. The problem with underprivileged groups is not the reality of the offense against them, nor the identity of the victim, but the identity of the perpetrator, and this is where study and of power comes in. Because the reality is that human society, like gas molecules, performs many acts not as individuals but as a group (even collective property preceded the invention the first private property), and therefore the perpetrator in the offenses of underprivilege is society as a whole. The actions under discussion are not as acts of nature but acts like for men, acting as a group (and collective action is a positive fact). Assigning individual responsibility is as futile as assigning individual responsibilty to specific gas molecules in expanding a balloon; doing so is just an ineffective model. And what society has stolen as a group (from individuals!) it must pay back as a group. Identifying the victims as a group is just a matter of statistical convenience as well as an aid in the description of the dynamics. That an electron is measured through its effect does not mean that we don't need to describe the electron itself. In fact, it is crucial that we do in order to understand its action. Same thing for power: you almost never observe it directly, but its study, and the term itself, are required in order to understand the workings of society. And as to this game, I don't think it's inherently bad at all, but if its role in society is not studied it might become an unwilling accomplice to injustice. And, if, one day it is somehow discovered that abilities that convey power are dominantly genetic, I do not think that we should give certain jobs to people unsuited to them, but our society is judged not by the achievements of those born to privilege, but by how it takes care of those who lack it. Exactly how this moral obligation should be carried out is a complex matter in itself, and far beyond what I can write here.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  That an electron is measured through its effect does not mean that we don't need to describe the electron itself. We certainly do. So look at what physicists did. First they came up with a clear definition - "a discrete and indivisible negatively charged particle". Second, they went out of their way to distinguish concepts like an electron from charge as a fluid and other models. They didn't simply declare "well, electric current proves electrons exist", they went to crazy lengths like Millikan's oil drops to distinguish these concepts. When they can't actually distinguish these concepts intrinsically (as was the case with Maxwell's equations vs Aether), they tend to drop the more complex theory. In contrast, you seem quite resistant to doing any of these things. I don't quite understand why.
  - pron 12y ago
    Resistant to what? I just gave you a clear and concise definition of power (the ability to bend others to your will). The social sciences did all of the required work as well, I'm just unable to write a whole sociology book in HN comments. There have been countless studies in sociology, history, anthropology and psychology examining the different forms of power and how it works. But bear in mind that these sciences are much more complicated than physics; in fact they're intractable. The simplest social mechanism is more complicated than the gravitational interactions of 1 million bodies. Actually the example I’ve give of the electron is a rather weak one, as the electron is a very specific thing, while power is the most fundamental concept in all the social sciences except psychology (i.e. history, sociology, anthropology and political science). A better example — the obvious one, in fact — is energy. Energy can also only be measured through its effects, and yet it is a very fundamental concept. Describing it not as one thing but as disparate manifestations would take away its explaining power and many of our most useful models (I should really write a book called “social science for physicists”). I’ve also given more thought to your focus on individual rights. Individual rights are an obvious “good thing”, but here’s where they get complicated: When I think of individual rights I imagine a universe composed of mass but no force. Such a universe will be no more than a cloud of plasma. But in our universe, mass gives rise to force, and force creates the interesting interactions that have, in turn, created our world. Likewise, human society is not made of humans, but of human interaction, interaction gives rise to power, and power, by definition, restricts freedom. Now, this is not a bad thing necessarily, as, if you think about it, all cooperation is basically the voluntary yielding of freedom in order to concentrate power for some common goal that wouldn’t have otherwise been achievable. But that doesn’t change the fact that whether they like it or not, just as mass-ful particles induce force, humans induce power, and both force and power take away freedom from others. So saying something like “everyone should be free” makes little sense, as that is only possible in a plasma cloud. In order to grant freedom, freedom has to be compromised — based on some values — and then managed somehow. Obviously, different people will prefer different compromises. Personally, I’d either like to see all power restricted and controlled, or all power unrestricted (including physical violence). This is why I think that American libertarianism is either hypocritical or ignorant. It is either ignorant of the fact that there is no freedom without power (and hence, coercion), or hypocritical in calling for unrestrained use of certain forms of power alone (money) and not others (physical violence, preferably mediated by a democratic government that restrains the use of money). I was therefore delighted (intellectually, that is) to learn recently of a fringe Silicon Valley movement called neoreactionism or “Dark Enlightenment”, funded by Peter Thiel. These guys (few women would join that openly sexist, openly autistic movement) are probably all former libertarians that have discovered that there is no such thing as freedom from power, and now openly call for a tyranny. As someone who’d studied medieval history in graduate school (though I have never obtained my doctorate) I was delighted to see the movement’s leader, a programmer by the name of Curtis Yarvin, analyze some historical document and call for the return of feudalism (he complains that those documents are not studied by historians, which is true for the simple reason that they are false accounts). The problem with the return to feudalism — even if you were to believe the false accounts of how life was good then (it by no means was) — is that the power structure back then was at least held in check by technology, that is, lack thereof. With the invention of mass media and fast transportation, power can be more concentrated than ever before, which is why the greatest invention of Western civilization was the central government, which rose to contain and manage power (of course, this only made conflicts among those governments more violent than ever before, but that fear of annihilation reduced the number of conflicts considerably). BTW, the modern academic definition of politics is, not surprisingly, the management of power in society. Feudalism combined with modern technology has only been tried — to the best of my knowledge — once, in nineteenth century America. The US at the time had a very weak federal government with almost no regulation. The result was a period of extremely fast economic expansion but at great social cost: a large portion of the American population was enslaved in all by name by a very small number of slave-owners-in-all-by-name known as the Robber Barons (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon, Stanford, JP Morgan, Frick, et al.). All options were taken from them — they couldn’t migrate (they were sometimes paid in company-issued currency, that was useless anywhere else) and couldn’t organize to concentrate power to improve their lot (in fact, they did organize, but the robber barons had private armies that killed the rabble rousers and intimidated everyone else). The people cried for help, and Theodore Roosevelt rescued them by creating federal regulation.

pron 12y ago

Well, group injustice is just individual injustice done to many individuals. And, I think, you would not consider it unfair to demand a robber to pay back the money he's stolen. The problem with underprivileged groups is not the reality of the offense against them, nor the identity of the victim, but the identity of the perpetrator, and this is where study and of power comes in. Because the reality is that human society, like gas molecules, performs many acts not as individuals but as a group (even collective property preceded the invention the first private property), and therefore the perpetrator in the offenses of underprivilege is society as a whole. The actions under discussion are not as acts of nature but acts like for men, acting as a group (and collective action is a positive fact). Assigning individual responsibility is as futile as assigning individual responsibilty to specific gas molecules in expanding a balloon; doing so is just an ineffective model. And what society has stolen as a group (from individuals!) it must pay back as a group. Identifying the victims as a group is just a matter of statistical convenience as well as an aid in the description of the dynamics. That an electron is measured through its effect does not mean that we don't need to describe the electron itself. In fact, it is crucial that we do in order to understand its action. Same thing for power: you almost never observe it directly, but its study, and the term itself, are required in order to understand the workings of society. And as to this game, I don't think it's inherently bad at all, but if its role in society is not studied it might become an unwilling accomplice to injustice. And, if, one day it is somehow discovered that abilities that convey power are dominantly genetic, I do not think that we should give certain jobs to people unsuited to them, but our society is judged not by the achievements of those born to privilege, but by how it takes care of those who lack it. Exactly how this moral obligation should be carried out is a complex matter in itself, and far beyond what I can write here.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
That an electron is measured through its effect does not mean that we don't need to describe the electron itself. We certainly do. So look at what physicists did. First they came up with a clear definition - "a discrete and indivisible negatively charged particle". Second, they went out of their way to distinguish concepts like an electron from charge as a fluid and other models. They didn't simply declare "well, electric current proves electrons exist", they went to crazy lengths like Millikan's oil drops to distinguish these concepts. When they can't actually distinguish these concepts intrinsically (as was the case with Maxwell's equations vs Aether), they tend to drop the more complex theory. In contrast, you seem quite resistant to doing any of these things. I don't quite understand why.
- pron 12y ago
  Resistant to what? I just gave you a clear and concise definition of power (the ability to bend others to your will). The social sciences did all of the required work as well, I'm just unable to write a whole sociology book in HN comments. There have been countless studies in sociology, history, anthropology and psychology examining the different forms of power and how it works. But bear in mind that these sciences are much more complicated than physics; in fact they're intractable. The simplest social mechanism is more complicated than the gravitational interactions of 1 million bodies. Actually the example I’ve give of the electron is a rather weak one, as the electron is a very specific thing, while power is the most fundamental concept in all the social sciences except psychology (i.e. history, sociology, anthropology and political science). A better example — the obvious one, in fact — is energy. Energy can also only be measured through its effects, and yet it is a very fundamental concept. Describing it not as one thing but as disparate manifestations would take away its explaining power and many of our most useful models (I should really write a book called “social science for physicists”). I’ve also given more thought to your focus on individual rights. Individual rights are an obvious “good thing”, but here’s where they get complicated: When I think of individual rights I imagine a universe composed of mass but no force. Such a universe will be no more than a cloud of plasma. But in our universe, mass gives rise to force, and force creates the interesting interactions that have, in turn, created our world. Likewise, human society is not made of humans, but of human interaction, interaction gives rise to power, and power, by definition, restricts freedom. Now, this is not a bad thing necessarily, as, if you think about it, all cooperation is basically the voluntary yielding of freedom in order to concentrate power for some common goal that wouldn’t have otherwise been achievable. But that doesn’t change the fact that whether they like it or not, just as mass-ful particles induce force, humans induce power, and both force and power take away freedom from others. So saying something like “everyone should be free” makes little sense, as that is only possible in a plasma cloud. In order to grant freedom, freedom has to be compromised — based on some values — and then managed somehow. Obviously, different people will prefer different compromises. Personally, I’d either like to see all power restricted and controlled, or all power unrestricted (including physical violence). This is why I think that American libertarianism is either hypocritical or ignorant. It is either ignorant of the fact that there is no freedom without power (and hence, coercion), or hypocritical in calling for unrestrained use of certain forms of power alone (money) and not others (physical violence, preferably mediated by a democratic government that restrains the use of money). I was therefore delighted (intellectually, that is) to learn recently of a fringe Silicon Valley movement called neoreactionism or “Dark Enlightenment”, funded by Peter Thiel. These guys (few women would join that openly sexist, openly autistic movement) are probably all former libertarians that have discovered that there is no such thing as freedom from power, and now openly call for a tyranny. As someone who’d studied medieval history in graduate school (though I have never obtained my doctorate) I was delighted to see the movement’s leader, a programmer by the name of Curtis Yarvin, analyze some historical document and call for the return of feudalism (he complains that those documents are not studied by historians, which is true for the simple reason that they are false accounts). The problem with the return to feudalism — even if you were to believe the false accounts of how life was good then (it by no means was) — is that the power structure back then was at least held in check by technology, that is, lack thereof. With the invention of mass media and fast transportation, power can be more concentrated than ever before, which is why the greatest invention of Western civilization was the central government, which rose to contain and manage power (of course, this only made conflicts among those governments more violent than ever before, but that fear of annihilation reduced the number of conflicts considerably). BTW, the modern academic definition of politics is, not surprisingly, the management of power in society. Feudalism combined with modern technology has only been tried — to the best of my knowledge — once, in nineteenth century America. The US at the time had a very weak federal government with almost no regulation. The result was a period of extremely fast economic expansion but at great social cost: a large portion of the American population was enslaved in all by name by a very small number of slave-owners-in-all-by-name known as the Robber Barons (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon, Stanford, JP Morgan, Frick, et al.). All options were taken from them — they couldn’t migrate (they were sometimes paid in company-issued currency, that was useless anywhere else) and couldn’t organize to concentrate power to improve their lot (in fact, they did organize, but the robber barons had private armies that killed the rabble rousers and intimidated everyone else). The people cried for help, and Theodore Roosevelt rescued them by creating federal regulation.