tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post8185329027701819658..comments2024-03-28T21:41:32.110-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: What Do You Want?Grimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-75338149888864280962012-10-15T20:14:44.477-04:002012-10-15T20:14:44.477-04:00Well, I'm happy for the system to prove unwork...Well, I'm happy for the system to prove unworkable, because it leaves us in a (2) situation -- which is where my intuition says we ought to be. It shouldn't be possible to pursue peace in this kind of way, because peace isn't the kind of thing that cuts across compartments. So it seems to me: it's desirable, but as a kind of negative good, that is, it's desirable so long as positive goods aren't undercut by the pursuit of it. We are nearly always ready to set it aside in pursuit of some positive good from one of the compartments.<br /><br />And if that is really how human beings think about it, well, peace can't be had economically at all. We get it when we get it, and it's great that we do: but it's almost an accident, because it's not how we are wired.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-18436286651724262652012-10-15T20:00:31.182-04:002012-10-15T20:00:31.182-04:00But that's economics, isn't it? You're...<i>But that's economics, isn't it? You're the one who wants us to take the deal; naturally you should be the one paying the freight.</i> <br /><br />Economics isn't about "should" in this respect -- it's about how people "do" respond to incentives like that. <br /><br />And in fact, your scenario gives everyone the incentive to declare himself an extremist for liberty, and demand the largest bribes possible in exchange for not rebelling. "No justice, no peace" writ large. This is part of what makes the thing unworkable. <br /><br />What you've set up is like a familiar problem in corporate governance - if your charter requires a unanimous vote (or a supermajority) to carry out a very desirable policy, that means one obnoxious stockholder with a small share can hold the whole thing hostage 'til he gets bought out at an outrageous price. In the <i>Federalist</i>, one of the authors explains why certain federal measures should not require <i>unanimous</i> consent of the states (as some propose) - and it's basically the same thing; because one state could hold the whole thing hostage. (This is also a problem with giving vetoes to all the permanent members of the UNSC.) Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-7175415897510154052012-10-15T19:51:22.207-04:002012-10-15T19:51:22.207-04:00I never read that story, as it happens. But there...I never read that story, as it happens. But there are counterexamples: Nathan Hale is one. <br /><br />I'm willing to entertain the idea that I might accept conditions of Aristotelian natural slavery if they represented a trivial imposition -- that is, in the example, that I would not only suffer very little by way of interference, but in fact would be subsidized in doing the things I actually cared about. That might be worth setting aside the fight I would otherwise feel obligated to have. <br /><br />I wouldn't like to think that was true of me, but maybe it is. Maybe if the cost were low and the price were high, it would become a trivial trade to do it your way. Trivial for me; the cost to you would be higher.<br /><br />But that's economics, isn't it? You're the one who wants us to take the deal; naturally you should be the one paying the freight. I tend to oppose it; naturally I should be compensated for yielding on my opposition. You get what you want, in return for paying a cost; I accept yielding what I want, in return for some other benefit.<br /><br />Maybe. Or maybe I couldn't do it, in the end. Maybe, at last, that kind of freedom is too sacred for me to sell.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-80470308903093012602012-10-15T19:40:23.611-04:002012-10-15T19:40:23.611-04:00I don't think you've exhausted the possibi...I don't think you've exhausted the possibilities there...(1) is not my view of the real world, only of the fantasy world created by this hypothetical - and even then, only with sufficient constraints on what it means to be "really wild." <br /><br /><i>(2) No such mechanism can exist, because the mind compartmentalizes things like the sacred (including values like Freedom of Expression, as well as religiously-sacred ideas) such that a trade across compartments will not work... (for at least some large subset of people).</i><br /><br />I suspect that, like me, you enjoyed John Robinson's <i>Dungeon, Fire, and Sword</i>. There's a part where an Egyptian princeling has fled to the Crusader states and been taken in by the Templars, and converted to Christianity; but when his enemies offered them 60,000 gold bezants, they ransomed him back cheerfully (and promptly executed him). The Hospitallers complained and compared the Templars to Judas. The Templars responded that they were sure his conversion was a sham. And the author comments, approximately, thus: "Plus, any fool should be able to see there is a world of difference between thirty pieces of silver and sixty thousand pieces of gold..." <br /><br />Leaving that aside, I have often noted that "sacred" things, religious doctrines, have proven extremely flexible over time -- to superior force or sufficient self-interest. Which is why the Maccabees found they could flex the business of "not working on the Sabbath" enough to defend themselves on that day. People who're sure they would <i>never</i> compromise on sacred things prove otherwise with the right inducement, 'least over time they do. <br /><br />At the same time, I don't actually believe there is a simple price in peaceful goods that could be paid to create a lasting worldwide peace. It <i>might</i> exist, but I can't see how that would work - or how it could be paid without defeating itself - and I suspect it is prohibitively high. But at the same time I don't think it'd have to be "trivial" before civilized men would pay. Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-9766896306787134632012-10-15T18:16:42.497-04:002012-10-15T18:16:42.497-04:00I think I part company with Aristotle on this to s...I think I part company with Aristotle on this to some extent (there's a first...). Aristotle's natural slave, and your more modern examples, strike me more as men who are, or need to be, wards of some institution (perhaps even the state), rather than slaves. I don't see this as a small distinction.<br /><br />Freedom, it seems to me, needs free will, needs a capacity for reason (beyond a child's glimmering beginnings of an ability to recognize some right from some wrong), a capability to act on those. Your examples lack that, as do, in fact, children--it's why we draw a line, however arbitrarily, between the status of "adult" and the status of "not legally capable."<br /><br />So I don't think the subordination of our selves to this algorithm is Aristotelian slavery; we have those capacities of free will, reason, capability to act on those. That we have trouble achieving peace does not contradict that; it merely shows the difficulty we have achieving that. After all, being <i>very bad at it</i> does not mean anything more than that. It certainly does not mean <i>cannot do it</i>.<br /><br />Our subordination of our selves to this algorithm is plain, raw slavery. At least when we subordinated ourselves into indentured servitude, there always was, at least nominally, a way to regain our freedom. We have no need of others to do for us.<br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-65958237840226318402012-10-15T17:55:44.682-04:002012-10-15T17:55:44.682-04:00Mr. Hines:
Is it a human construct? I suppose it...Mr. Hines:<br /><br />Is it a human construct? I suppose it is. It's an algorithm, so it's not a genuine artificial intelligence. A genuine intelligence cannot be an algorithm because an algorithm has no free will: inputs determine outputs according to program, whereas a free being's will influences his own outputs.<br /><br />Still, judged as a <i>rational</i> being, it may be less flawed than its creators. Even if it is not free, and indeed not conscious, it may be more rational. And this brings us to a point that interests me.<br /><br />All along you've been calling this "slavery," and I think you're right to do so. But it's not just any sort of slavery: it's Aristotelian 'natural slavery.' As you remember, Aristotle argues in the <i>Politics</i> that slavery is only justifiable in certain cases when a man -- for whatever reason -- is deficient in reason. He has enough reason to know what is best for him, but not enough reason to structure his life to make it happen. Thus, he can see that it is best for him to be owned by a more rational force that can direct him toward the better life that his own reason is too weak to ensure.<br /><br />We might take a drug addict to be a good example of this kind of man. He knows his life would improve if he gave up the drug, but he isn't able to arrange his life according to that reason. So, if we arrange things for him so that he cannot have the drug, he is better off (even though less free, and perhaps unfree if that is what it takes).<br /><br />This is a case of all of humanity surrendering their freedom and becoming Aristotelian natural slaves. The goal pursued (peace) is rational; the problem is that we aren't rational enough to get there. I wonder what Aristotle himself would have thought of this. It poses some genuine problems.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-13476778559162421922012-10-15T17:22:16.841-04:002012-10-15T17:22:16.841-04:00Grim, I think that's the general thrust. Howe...Grim, I think that's the general thrust. However, case (3) seems...unlikely. We haven't even agreed on what constitutes "world peace," the stated goal of the trade. <br /><br />If my view of (world) peace is accurate, then (3) is not possible.<br /><br />It may be, too, that either the scenario, or our arguments, or I am muddled. I've also held that conflict is not antithetical to (world) peace, yet it seems that the scenario wants to eliminate conflict in order to get peace.<br /><br />If conflict is permitted, <b>and</b> a consensual government is constituted to manage the algorithm, such that the Sovereign people can alter or abolish that government and/or that algorithm, then the trade becomes much more bargainable.<br /><br />One thing that has been elided, but now comes up because it tacitly underlies some of my argument, is that this computer algorithm seems a human construct. As such, no matter the extent of its testing, it's flawed, and so it cannot be given absolute control, nor any control in perpetuity, except at the cost of eliminating justice, liberty, reason--peace.<br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-40572676647756942702012-10-15T16:11:55.736-04:002012-10-15T16:11:55.736-04:00You and I, Mr. Hines, tend to find that our intuit...You and I, Mr. Hines, tend to find that our intuitions point to answer (2) on the possibility question. JW's intuitions point to (1), except that he regards it as a kind of magical improbability (so maybe he's really a (2) as well!). I am nevertheless willing to consider, counter my intuitions, that case (3) is possible.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-5349984686629768822012-10-15T16:01:50.042-04:002012-10-15T16:01:50.042-04:00In which case I would question their contextual de...<i>In which case I would question their contextual definition of peace....</i><br /><br />Well, I've been arguing all along whether peace, bought with the price demanded, even exists.<br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-64157711453634403602012-10-15T15:53:25.539-04:002012-10-15T15:53:25.539-04:00'Killing Grim' may or may not prove to be ...'Killing Grim' may or may not prove to be a trivial problem, depending on whether I am a complete outlier. I think you might find it nontrivial based on the example of, say, Afghanistan. <br /><br />Regarding economics, JW, I think the assumption lies too close to the core of the model to give it the out you are giving it. It is a rule that holds <i>ceteris paribus</i>, so providing a case outside those parameters doesn't derail the rule. I might myself be an example of exception within the <i>ceteris paribus</i> standard even though Palestine is not.<br /><br />Although, as I stated above, it's not impossible to imagine a case that might work even for Palestine: and the algorithm actually solves the problem of humiliation that you're raising. Nobody is told <i>why</i> the Palestinians are being given things, they just are. The Palestinians aren't being asked to make a <i>choice</i> any more than you are. The algorithm has simply calculated that if they are made sufficiently comfortable and well-off, they will stop fighting; and if their descendants are comfortably integrated into the global population over a sufficient period of time, peace will hold. This is never explained to anyone. Nobody makes any choices. They just do what they are told, without knowing why. Thus there is no humiliation: some are just asked to give, and others receive, for reasons we do not know but are told to accept.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-74819084404290765712012-10-15T15:45:06.528-04:002012-10-15T15:45:06.528-04:00It can simply kill Grim, and the rest of us like h...<i>It can simply kill Grim, and the rest of us like him, exterminate Hamas, and wipe away the problem. whether it makes sense to [us] or not.</i><br /><br />In which case I would question their <a href="http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2001-12-14" rel="nofollow">contextual definition of peace</a> - and the hypothetical is broken again. <br /><br />Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-22936933053976685592012-10-15T15:42:14.732-04:002012-10-15T15:42:14.732-04:00The assumption is the one that Dr. Mead is bringin...<i>The assumption is the one that Dr. Mead is bringing to the table: that world peace is actually one thing we value, presumably very highly, but that we haven't found the right exchange mechanism to actualize. The question at issue is whether such a mechanism really exists...</i><br /><br />He's also assuming the "exchanges" can be done peacefully; that there aren't conflicts out there that require someone to be defeated or humiliated before they can be resolved. <br /><br />In your specific version - where the "irrational acts" involve bribes paid to the aggressors -- there are some additional assumptions - for example, that future aggressors who know the current aggressors were rewarded with bribes won't take that into account in raising their own demands to the limit. This creates a world that isn't, and can't possibly be, like ours at all. <br /><br />(But in a world like that, appeasement would carry a different moral value than it does in ours; and Kipling's poem about Dane-geld would not ring so true.) Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-11807978738020644952012-10-15T15:41:54.592-04:002012-10-15T15:41:54.592-04:00"You can't deny Jupter's existence, b...<i> "You can't deny Jupter's existence, because he'll thunderbolt the city if you do....</i><br /><br />One more shot at this, while accepting your underlying argument as what you meant, with this analogy: the Klingons showed the way with uppity gods.<br /><br /><i> Effectively, it has to compromise with us by offering us greater latitude elsewhere, and perhaps by making fewer demands of us (and thus more of you, since you have also to bear the weight of mollifying the people I might anger.</i><br /><br />But there's nothing in the scenario that specifies the means of world peace achievement. It does not at all have to compromise. It can simply kill Grim, and the rest of us like him, exterminate Hamas, and wipe away the problem. <i>whether it makes sense to [us] or not.</i><br /><br />And <i>So, you get peace. ... You don't get justice: you've talked about sacrificing liberty (some) or sacrificing reason (maybe)....</i><br /><br />I argue that without justice, without liberty, without reason--without each of these--there might be a lack of conflict, but there will be, there can be, no peace. Look in any slave pen.<br /><br />Nor can we agree with the deal that takes us, in Joseph's terms, out of our present world. Our individual liberties, and the individual duties associated with them, are endowed in us. We cannot sign any part of them away; they are not ours to rid. They are innate in our existence; we cannot sign any part of them away without signing away our lives. See above about simply killing us for our troubles.<br /><br />Finally, <i>1) Such a mechanism exists, and an algorithm that produces it would be highly attractive because world peace really is something we value and will trade for....</i><br /><br />And so the algorithm, to pound on a horse for a bit, accepts our trade and kills us for the good of others. Men have made that sacrifice throughout human history.<br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-16772844732885448142012-10-15T15:33:48.457-04:002012-10-15T15:33:48.457-04:00If not, then there's a problem with the assump...<i>If not, then there's a problem with the assumptions of both economics and this school of epistemology, as well as with the assumptions of the diplomats engaged in negotiations.</i><br /><br />No, ?, and yes. Since economics does not depend on the assumption that either (1) a UN-welfare population full of <a href="http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2007/04/frustrated-young-men.html" rel="nofollow">frustrated young men</a> raised on historical grievances and religious fanaticism will take a certain amount of peaceful goods and services to give up their vengeful ideas forever, or (2) that such an amount of goods and services is actually available in the world we inhabit, let alone (3) that paying such a tribute would not encourage more and further aggression, leading to quite the opposite of peace...<br /><br />...this isn't a problem with economics at all. There certainly would be a problem with any school of economics that <i>assumed</i> these things - though if someone had evidence for them I'd love to see that evidence. As you note, the history of diplomacy in the region is not encouraging on this point. Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-90889462975247193362012-10-15T15:19:54.775-04:002012-10-15T15:19:54.775-04:00The reason for omitting a Leviathan is that is a s...The reason for omitting a Leviathan is that is a separate hypothesis about the conditions for peace. There, it doesn't matter if we value peace or not: the thought is that we can be MADE to be peaceful by a strong enough force. This is about the question of whether we really value "world peace" enough that a trade mechanism could achieve it.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-32008535315249882892012-10-15T15:17:42.108-04:002012-10-15T15:17:42.108-04:00The one thing that the Senate treaty doesn't d...The one thing that the Senate treaty doesn't do, by the way, is provide a Leviathan mechanism of the sort you're assuming. There will be no divine thunderbolts. The assumption is the one that Dr. Mead is bringing to the table: that world peace is actually one thing we value, presumably very highly, but that we haven't found the right exchange mechanism to actualize. The question at issue is whether such a mechanism really exists: and it strikes me that there are three possibilities.<br /><br />1) Such a mechanism exists, and an algorithm that produces it would be highly attractive because world peace really is something we value and will trade for if we can be sure of getting the good.<br /><br />2) No such mechanism can exist, because the mind compartmentalizes things like the sacred (including values like Freedom of Expression, as well as religiously-sacred ideas) such that a trade across compartments will not work (for at least some large subset of people).<br /><br />3) Such a mechanism could exist, because we will trade X for Y, but it turns out we don't really value X as much as we claim to do. Thus, the only way we would come to achieve X ('world peace') is if the price became low enough that it was trivial to achieve it.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-10020388521897299242012-10-15T15:13:58.675-04:002012-10-15T15:13:58.675-04:00Right, mostly. There are several things at issue....Right, mostly. There are several things at issue. One is whether people really do make trades of this kind. It might finally prove to be incoherent to ask if there is something you would trade for "world peace," because different compartments of the mind handle X ('the desire for world peace') and Y ('that which must be sacrificed to achieve world peace'). <br /><br />Or it might be the case that, if the price is high enough, people will make a rational trade. The price just might have to be a lot higher for those disinclined to make the trade (i.e., those who don't especially value peace) than for those who are inclined to it (i.e., those for whom peace has a high value). To take your example of Palestine, it might be the case that there is some set of goods and services that, provided for free to the Palestinians, would make the trade of Israel acceptable. Alternatively, there might be some similar set that would make it acceptable to the Israelis to move. For this to be true, though, the sacred has to be negotiable on something like even terms with material goods and services -- even if it is weighted as quite expensive.<br /><br />Before we laugh that off, though, it is the premise not just of the experiment but of the "Land for Peace" negotiation scheme. What if it weren't just land? What if every Palestinian were promised free health care of high quality, a generous lifetime pension for themselves and their descendants for three generations, education to bring their descendants up over those generations so that they could compete on easy terms with the rest of the world, and anything else that was necessary to make it good. There's a question here -- I take it to be a serious question -- about whether such a deal is possible or not. Is there a price that is high enough to break the compartments?<br /><br />If not, then there's a problem with the assumptions of both economics and this school of epistemology, as well as with the assumptions of the diplomats engaged in negotiations. That's one of the questions the experiment is testing. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-61636582669335824182012-10-15T15:01:50.893-04:002012-10-15T15:01:50.893-04:00I know - my gods example was about "free exer...I know - my gods example was about "free exercise of religion," not "peace" - my point being that opinions about natural rights from this world (such as, that free exercise is one of them) -- don't apply, and would not arise, in a world that worked so differently from our own. <br /><br /><i>No, that's the thing: it does work. It is able to sort out what it would take to prevent conflict, including conflict arising from people who have natural objections to the program itself. Effectively, it has to compromise with us by offering us greater latitude elsewhere...</i><br /><br />If <i>that's</i> what this hypothetical is about...then the underlying assumptions are different than I thought. Basically, the hypothetical is assuming that we're quite close to world peace already - for example, that there's a way of convincing Hamas not to treat "Palestine" as <i>waqf</i> land. (But if they're forced to be so non-recalcitrant in the hypothetical, how come you get to be uber-recalcitrant, and demand massive bribes to go along?) It's assuming, basically, that all the conflicts around the world are things that can be bloodlessly resolved, and the only problem is sorting out the transactions costs by means of the program. <br /><br />Real-world economics does not, of course, assume any such silly thing; but economic analysis could certainly be done in a world like that. And the right answer would still depend on - how wild is wild, and how high is the cost? Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-28779600682995318562012-10-15T14:22:44.330-04:002012-10-15T14:22:44.330-04:00As for the old gods showing up, I don't recall...As for the old gods showing up, I don't recall them preventing conflict. My sense is that they tended to provoke conflict, because they were bored and it was exciting to watch (Homer), or as a way of training us to help them out with fights of their own (Valhalla).Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-35109306396393300452012-10-15T14:15:55.732-04:002012-10-15T14:15:55.732-04:00No, that's the thing: it does work. It is ab...No, that's the thing: it <i>does</i> work. It is able to sort out what it would take to prevent conflict, including conflict arising from people who have natural objections to the program itself. Effectively, it has to compromise with us by offering us greater latitude elsewhere, and perhaps by making fewer demands of us (and thus more of you, since you have also to bear the weight of mollifying the people I might anger. The machine can't ask me to do it, because the requests annoy me and push me toward conflict, which it is the function of the machine to avoid).<br /><br />So, you get peace. You get it even though there are people like me out there. You don't get justice: you've talked about sacrificing liberty (some) or sacrificing reason (maybe), but there's also a price in justice. I get better treatment precisely because I'm against it. It has to pay me off more to make the game worth my while.<br /><br />That's an assumption from economics, right? Nothing shocking there.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-64783290304160135692012-10-15T14:10:55.842-04:002012-10-15T14:10:55.842-04:00Reflect, though, that your opinions from the "...Reflect, though, that your opinions from the "better dead than red" era (which I, too, also remember) -- and the natural rights to free expression and free exercise -- are based on the world we have, and not on the world of this hypothetical. In which magic works, at least if enough people participate in the ritual; and the magic can actually accomplish the goal of perpetual peace. In such a world as that, I suggest our notions of good policy, the proper scope of government power, and even natural rights would be <i>considerably</i> changed. That's why I don't port all my beliefs from this real world into the world of these hypotheticals. <br /><br />As an example - one reason free exercise of religion is so important to us is the way religion works in the world we know. God's messages always seem to come through human beings, who violently disagree about what he has to say, so that empowering God's word always means empowering fallible human beings...<br /><br />But what if the gods showed up on Olympus and gave TV appearances and press conferences, and demonstrated beyond all doubt who they were and what they wanted? And were prone to punitive strikes when their displeasure was aroused? Laws against blasphemy and established religions would make much more sense then. "You can't deny Jupter's existence, because he'll thunderbolt the city if you do, and we can't fight him...You've got to pay taxes for sacrifices to Poseidon, because we can't fight <i>him</i> either and we don't want to drown." I doubt the notion of free exercise would ever arise in a world like that, and it wouldn't seem <i>natural</i>, in any sense, at all. <br /><br />P.S. - If you're free to rebel and start the fighting again, then the program <i>doesn't</i> work and the hypothetical is broken. If it requires "unanimous agreement" to work then it's nothing special. (Which is why the U.N. Charter, by which all the world's countries have <i>already</i> agreed to stop attacking each other, hasn't exactly had that effect...) Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-24659141828339479122012-10-15T13:25:38.914-04:002012-10-15T13:25:38.914-04:00But it has that authority by coonstruction.
I thi...<i>But it has that authority by coonstruction.</i><br /><br />I think Mr. Hines is right that it has that authority potentially, in the way that the state currently has the authority to draft you for your entire life potentially. I wouldn't expect it to be exercised actually, however. It should only come up when there are conflicts that need resolution to which you are proximate enough that your efforts will help resolve them.<br /><br />There's a problem with people like me in the example, actually. If the Senate were to ratify a treaty that obligated me (and all my descendants) to subordinate our reason to an algorithm of this type, I would probably regard it as a voiding of natural rights of free expression and free exercise, and thus an occasion for starting a new war. The computer would need to mollify me (and people like me) in strong enough terms that I found the bargain acceptable. Thus, you might find yourselves turning over a large part of your paycheck to me every month forever (or for as long as it took) without being told why, or without me knowing why -- all I know is that lots of money shows up at my door ever since this new bargain took place. I'm being given instructions 'to spend it on whatever I like, or save it as I prefer,' i.e., a sop to my free will that might sway me to buying into the contract.<br /><br />So you're subsidizing me taking long vacations and drinking expensive beer, because I have a sort of native resistance to being pushed around. Your willingness to be pushed around for a good cause is going to prove expensive, which is sort of interesting.<br /><br />But we get the peace, at least, we do if the deal proves to be so richly rewarding for me that I finally decide not to fight it as long as the benefits continue. (And assuming I can be bought.)Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-89076860559445520742012-10-15T12:47:46.176-04:002012-10-15T12:47:46.176-04:00I'm not agreeing with Grim's swipe at econ...<i>I'm not agreeing with Grim's swipe at economics, but that is not central to the question he's posed...</i><br /><br />Did I take a swipe at economics? I didn't mean to do. All I know that I said was that some of its assumptions about the nature of what is sometimes called 'economic man' are bad. But that remark was in the context of a critique of the assumptions of both economics and the school of epistemology I was citing.<br /><br />What I meant there is that often people really do want X, but also Y. Compartmentalization can make it impossible to reason in a straightforward way about which is more desirable, so that it turns out to be impossible to conduct a trade of the type suggested.<br /><br />Thus, you could really believe that the world was ending Thursday, which would make going to work this week pointless compared to things like (say) prayer or partying. But you could also hold, with another part of your mind, that your duty to show up at work as usual and fulfill the contracts you've signed was a core and important part of who you are.<br /><br />So it really turns out that the assumption -- here of epistemology, though economics makes a similar one -- isn't reliable.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-20490614265855736152012-10-15T07:37:14.096-04:002012-10-15T07:37:14.096-04:00But it has that authority by coonstruction.
If th...<i><b>But it has that authority by coonstruction.</b><br /><br />If that's what it means</i><br /><br />That was my interpretation. Of course it's Grim's construction; he's free to clarify. Our interpretations aren't both correct. It was against the possibility that my interpretation might be wrong that I moved to the limited scope part.<br /><br />To extend my reaction to a limited scope: <i>"Five minutes of slavery per week" is way different from "slavery night and day"....</i><br /><br />Not in the present case, for the reasons I've laid out: I have no control over the government or its rules--it's raw tyranny, no matter how gussied up it might be with pancake makeup. This is a trade I would seriously consider--which principle (if we do argue over which small parts of our freedom to trade and in return for what) we all have already accepted under our social compact--were I able to retain my sovereignty over the government.<br /><br />Apart form the temporal "limits:" trade a piece of freedom to a slave master for security? It's still slavery, as Benjamin Franklin well understood. So I say, "No deal," to such an entity. "You can't have any part of my freedom, ever, no matter what bribe you offer."<br /><br /><i>....even to save these lads and lasses.</i><br /><br />From what does this save them? Death or a life as slaves is their choice. Death is not the escape alternative I would choose, except as a last resort, but death at least releases them from their slavery. More importantly, as Grim intimated somewhat earlier in this thread, that choice is theirs and their parents' to make; I cannot impose the choice on them. <br /><br />I lived through the "better dead than Red" era, and I still strongly believe it.<br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-54309542173848144082012-10-14T23:52:05.160-04:002012-10-14T23:52:05.160-04:00But it has that authority by coonstruction.
If th...<i>But it has that authority by coonstruction.</i><br /><br />If that's what it means - then my answer changes - because now the offer becomes "all the war in the world" versus "all the freedom in the world." Whereas, read my way, it opposes "all the war in the world" with "a small amount of freedom lost." Which is, as you can readily see, why I framed my answer the way I did. There is a point beyond which the trade is no longer good. <br /><br />I didn't want to assume the extreme case, because I believed the question was designed to see if we'd run to extremes - "never give up <i>any</i> freedom, even to save <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=child+soldiers+images&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=tYJ7UID3EIjB0QHvy4DQDg&ved=0CB0QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=617" rel="nofollow">these lads and lasses.</a>" Which is a proposition I do not accept, at least not under the artificial conditions of this question (e.g., that we know this weird magic works). <br /><br /><i>"Would I accept the deal if the device's authority were only imposed sometimes?" my answer remains an unequivocal "No." That's still slavery.</i><br /><br />"Five minutes of slavery per week" is way different from "slavery night and day" - in terms of the amount of human misery it creates, and therefore its moral impact. (We don't have a separate word for it because, of course, it doesn't exist outside this problem. But even covered with the same word - they are still way different.) <br /><br />I don't say it's something to accede to <i>lightly</i> - but in the hypothetical Grim's given us, the price is not light. <br /><br />(btw, I'm not agreeing with Grim's swipe at economics, but that is not central to the question he's posed, so I'll stick with this business for now)Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.com