Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

I'm not sure it's very wise of you to look at this debate in terms of two discrete "intuitions". Either of these "intuitions" could be taken to a point of absurdity, i.e. having laws governing people's eating and exercise habits "for their own good" vs. having no government at all in order to "respect people's autonomy". I think "autonomy vs. welfare" (or whatever you want to label it) is more of a spectrum on which a person's views can fall at any point, so unless you really are all the way at the end of the "autonomy" side (which I seriously doubt you are), then I would say the considerations you consider irrelevant actually are relevant, because the whole issue works in degrees.

I think that you keep wanting to have this argument within a practical framework, Grant (as you said to one of my responses in the Libertarianism thread); but the problem is, arguing for an ideal such as individualism requires that one set aside those pragmatic and practical restrictions. You want to find a middle ground for political and social prosperity; but a philosophical institution such as individual autonomy doesn't have room for concessions. There is no fault with libertarianism. There is fault with human beings.

You have two points on a spectrum: autonomy on one end and complete governmental control on the other. Now, it's true that adopting a form of government that adheres strictly to an extreme of this spectrum will likely have more cons than pros, whereas a middle ground stance will likely be more beneficial to everyone. However, those for whom one extreme works will never concede to a middle ground stance because the ideals by which they have affirmed themselves don't allow it. In the eyes of an extreme individualist (which, I'm willing to bet, Cythraul is, although I don't presume to know his agenda completely), personal autonomy is the most logical form of existence, and no middle ground will suffice purely because it is inherently anathema to his or her beliefs.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

*clap clap clap*

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think that you keep wanting to have this argument within a practical framework, Grant (as you said to one of my responses in the Libertarianism thread); but the problem is, arguing for an ideal such as individualism requires that one set aside those pragmatic and practical restrictions. You want to find a middle ground for political and social prosperity; but a philosophical institution such as individual autonomy doesn't have room for concessions. There is no fault with libertarianism. There is fault with human beings.

You have two points on a spectrum: autonomy on one end and complete governmental control on the other. Now, it's true that adopting a form of government that adheres strictly to an extreme of this spectrum will likely have more cons than pros, whereas a middle ground stance will likely be more beneficial to everyone. However, those for whom one extreme works will never concede to a middle ground stance because the ideals by which they have affirmed themselves don't allow it. In the eyes of an extreme individualist (which, I'm willing to bet, Cythraul is, although I don't presume to know his agenda completely), personal autonomy is the most logical form of existence, and no middle ground will suffice purely because it is inherently anathema to his or her beliefs.

Mind explaining to me what on earth the point of an ideal is if it has no practical applications?

The only reason it even occurs to us to debate this aspect of social/political philosophy is because it arises from a problem humans experience in reality. There are many such problems arising from the interactions of human beings in society, and each has to be considered as a factor in the grand equation if the philosophical process is to be at all relevant to its source. If you remove any of these factors from consideration, you are no longer discussing a human matter - you are discussing a matter of some non-human entity whose nature is a truncation of real human nature. Again, what on earth is the point of doing that?

 

[unknown]

from: http://rawstory.com/2010/01/grayson/
WASHINGTON -- Responding to the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday to overturn corporate spending limits in federal elections, progressive firebrand Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) immediately highlighted a series of moves to "avoid the terrible consequences of the decision."

"If we do nothing then I think you can kiss your country goodbye," Grayson told Raw Story in an interview just hours after the decision was announced.

"You won't have any more senators from Kansas or Oregon, you'll have senators from Cheekies and Exxon. Maybe we'll have to wear corporate logos like Nascar drivers."

Grayson said the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling -- which removes decades of campaign spending limits on corporations -- "opens the floodgates for the purchases and sale of the law."

"It allows corporations to spend all the money they want to buy and sell elected officials through the campaign process," he said. "It allows them to reward political sellouts, and it allows them to punish elected officials who actually try to do what's right for the people."

Fearing this decision before it became official, Grayson last week filed five campaign finance bills and a sixth one on Thursday. Grayson said the bills are important to securing the people's "right to clean government."

The bills have names like the Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act and the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act. The first slaps a 500 percent excise tax on corporate spending on elections, and the second mandates businesses to disclose their attempts to influence elections. More details are available on the congressman's Web site.

"These bills will save us from drowning in corporate money and special interest money," Grayson said. "They should have been passed a long time ago but after the Supreme Court opened those floodgates, I think it's imperative we get these things done."....

Alan Grayson, the more I see and hear from him, the more he seems to be like a decent-ish person

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Yeah Grayson is awesome, thank god there's someone like him in Congress. He, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the only decent Congressmen I can think of.

 

[unknown]

^^pretty much

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Edit: He's a politician, I'm forcing myself not to trust any of these motherfuckers anymore.

 

[Cythraul]

I like that you allegedly have no idea what either intuition means.

When I said "whatever that means" I was referring to the concepts of people's well-being and their own good. Those are notoriously hard to define precisely, and you could frame the whole debate such that the issue turns on what counts as somebody's well-being or their own good. The difficulty of deciding what falls under those categories makes it difficult to adjudicate the dispute if you frame it in the way I mentioned.

I'm not sure it's very wise of you to look at this debate in terms of two discrete "intuitions". Either of these "intuitions" could be taken to a point of absurdity, i.e. having laws governing people's eating and exercise habits "for their own good" vs. having no government at all in order to "respect people's autonomy". I think "autonomy vs. welfare" (or whatever you want to label it) is more of a spectrum on which a person's views can fall at any point, so unless you really are all the way at the end of the "autonomy" side (which I seriously doubt you are), then I would say the considerations you consider irrelevant actually are relevant, because the whole issue works in degrees.

I framed it as an either/or issue because the two intuitions seem to me hard to reconcile in a non-arbitrary way. The two intuitions roughly track the distinction between consequentialism and deontology, I think. Those two forms of ethical reasoning seem to me incommensurable. So, for instance, if I employ deontological reasoning in my ethical thinking, it is hard to see how I could also allow consequentialistic reasoning into my ethical thinking in a non-arbitrary, principled way. Of course, you could just take a view that focuses solely on well-being (which is a consequentialistic view) and put autonomy under the category of that which constitutes or contributes to well-being. That seems perfectly intelligible to me, and I think that is probably your view, but the problem that remains is that you need to find a non-arbitrary, principled way of assigning weights to autonomy and other kinds of well-being in specific cases. I don't see an obvious way to do that.

I think that you may very well hold the view that on one side there is this impractical libertarianism which does not tend to contribute to human well-being and on the other side there is this non-libertarianism which is pragmatic and focuses on what is good for people. I honestly think that is a false dichotomy. I actually think there are good reasons for thinking that adopting a broadly libertarian framework in matters of policy would contribute optimally to human well-being over time. It goes well beyond pure philosophy and involves lots of economics and social theorizing. A nice book on the subject you might want to take a look at is Social Welfare and Individual Responsibility by David Schmidtz and Robert Goodin (David Schmidtz actually taught at my alma mater and is a fucking smart dude.) Schmidtz defends a broadly libertarian view whereas Goodin defends a non-libertarian view supportive of the welfare state. Check it out.

Oh, and why are you bullshitting around here instead of posting in the Libertarianism thread?

I got busy with things (girlfriend, life in general) and sort of forgot about that thread. Maybe I'll take another look at it. There was a period there where I lost my passion for debate. The passion has returned after I got into an argument with my girlfriend last night about product safety regulations in China (a subject about which I've formulated an elaborate theory of my own supportive of my political views ).

 

[Einherjar86]

Mind explaining to me what on earth the point of an ideal is if it has no practical applications?

The only reason it even occurs to us to debate this aspect of social/political philosophy is because it arises from a problem humans experience in reality. There are many such problems arising from the interactions of human beings in society, and each has to be considered as a factor in the grand equation if the philosophical process is to be at all relevant to its source. If you remove any of these factors from consideration, you are no longer discussing a human matter - you are discussing a matter of some non-human entity whose nature is a truncation of real human nature. Again, what on earth is the point of doing that?

I've never honestly thought of ideals as being practical. They're specific, concrete systems of belief that people can adhere to unconditionally and affirm their identity with, and it's safe for them because these beliefs are unyielding. People take comfort in them because they don't have to worry about degrees.

I'm not saying we shouldn't argue; I'm saying we shouldn't argue about ideals. There's no point in trying to prove libertarianism as being flawed, because it isn't (any more than socialism is flawed). Human beings are extremely defensive individuals, and some of the many things we feel the need to defend are our ideals, because through these we can attribute meaning to the world. If our ideals are attacked, then that means our method of discovering meaning is in danger, and that frightens people. Even people who support completely socialistic systems adhere to such beliefs as a means to identify themselves. Belief in an ideal is an extremely individual action, which is why arguing sociably about ideals never really accomplishes anything. Our conception of being is so grounded in western individualism that debate is futile. Even if people trade one belief system for another, they are doing so because they feel an individual attachment to said belief system. They adopt it because it reaffirms their identity. Rather than existing as a holistic cooperative civilization, we exist as several dissident and opposing pockets of understanding. In such a reality, ideals can serve no practical purpose; rather, they exist merely to offer us consolation.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Holy shit that's a lot of text directed at me at once. I'll try to get back to that tomorrow/Sunday gents.

I will respond to this though:

Edit: He's a politician, I'm forcing myself not to trust any of these motherfuckers anymore.

You don't have to trust Grayson, but to dismiss one of the few hopes we have in Congress out of ignorance is pretty irresponsible. You should at least do some research on the guy, because he's seriously one of a tiny handful of politicians who actually takes on tough issues and takes a stand against the massive shitpile of corruption that is going on in the government.

 

[Matt]

Yeah Grayson is awesome, thank god there's someone like him in Congress. He, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the only decent Congressmen I can think of.

People like Ben Nelson need to be crucified and burned alive. Him and Martha Coakley

 

[Matt]

*clap clap clap*

You seriously have to see what's wrong with the SC's decision.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

what???

 

[Blind Guardian]

And I thought American elections were populistic enough already as they were, I'll hold my thumbs for this Grayson guy.

 

[Dak]

Uncertainty on Bernanke

100% bullshit by FOX economics. Bernanke is one of the causes of this economic disaster, keeping him in position is not going to assist it. Besides, the whole Fed needs to be dismantled.

I find it infuriating to see the constant mentions in economic coverage about how "investors are afraid of Congressional intrusion into monetary policy". THAT'S WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE SETTING THE FUCKING MONETARY POLICY!

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Yeah, that's quite an insidious bit of rhetoric they've developed there. Clearly we're better off with some random shady corporate-ish entity setting our monetary policy for us behind closed doors, amirite?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Cythraul's post looks like it'll take a good deal of time on my part to respond to, so I'll start with Einherjer:

I've never honestly thought of ideals as being practical. They're specific, concrete systems of belief that people can adhere to unconditionally and affirm their identity with, and it's safe for them because these beliefs are unyielding. People take comfort in them because they don't have to worry about degrees.

I'm not saying we shouldn't argue; I'm saying we shouldn't argue about ideals. There's no point in trying to prove libertarianism as being flawed, because it isn't (any more than socialism is flawed). Human beings are extremely defensive individuals, and some of the many things we feel the need to defend are our ideals, because through these we can attribute meaning to the world. If our ideals are attacked, then that means our method of discovering meaning is in danger, and that frightens people. Even people who support completely socialistic systems adhere to such beliefs as a means to identify themselves. Belief in an ideal is an extremely individual action, which is why arguing sociably about ideals never really accomplishes anything. Our conception of being is so grounded in western individualism that debate is futile. Even if people trade one belief system for another, they are doing so because they feel an individual attachment to said belief system. They adopt it because it reaffirms their identity. Rather than existing as a holistic cooperative civilization, we exist as several dissident and opposing pockets of understanding. In such a reality, ideals can serve no practical purpose; rather, they exist merely to offer us consolation.

I find this post a little confusing, but I'll do my best to address your points:

I think I understand what you're talking about regarding people and their ideals, but just because we would prefer to see the world a certain way doesn't mean we are justified in holding completely delusional fantasies about how the world works "on paper". This is where idealism becomes, well, stupidity frankly. I would say that any mature human being can recognise that there are merits to others' worldviews in addition to their own, and that there is often room for compromise that can bring together the best (or better) of both worlds, even if there will always be subjective disagreement over where to draw the line between one side and the other. I already gave an example of this when I talked about coming up with a set of standard criteria for which activities society considers 'too dangerous' to be legal.

At any rate, I don't think I have to remind you that virtually every law that exists today is the product of an ideal or some compromise of multiple ideals, so there are clearly practical applications of ideals. There is no need for you, Cythraul or any of us to be abandoning the prospect of a sound and pragmatic code of law just because not everyone in the society bound by that law shares the exact same worldview.

 

[Dak]

On a side note, did you get around to reading any of the stuff I linked to you?

Edit: Also:

UK police to use spy drones

But the UK is one of the freest countries on earth.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

On a side note, did you get around to reading any of the stuff I linked to you?

No, sorry. I probably gave a misleading impression of the likelihood that I would get to that soon, as there's really a fuckton of stuff occupying my spare time these days that is crowding on that item for the moment. Bug me periodically I guess.

 

[Matt]

Uncertainty on Bernanke

100% bullshit by FOX economics. Bernanke is one of the causes of this economic disaster, keeping him in position is not going to assist it. Besides, the whole Fed needs to be dismantled.

I find it infuriating to see the constant mentions in economic coverage about how "investors are afraid of Congressional intrusion into monetary policy". THAT'S WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE SETTING THE FUCKING MONETARY POLICY!

I would love to see as much congressional intervention in monetary policy as possible. The Republican theory of "hands off the financial system" has never fucking worked. Not one time.

Also, I find it funny that they would love to let big business do whatever they want, but they just can't allow women to control their own shit or gays to marry. No civil rights allowed.

It's also amusing that for every technological advancement made in the past 2000 years, our minds seem haven't seemed to evolve.