Topic: Should Majorities Decide Everything? (Read 3503 times)

And when our tissues, organs or cells start hurting other cells, organs or tissues, we call that "disease." We don't ask if those cells or organs are justified in doing so, we simply remove them.

"Individual" is just a label we apply to the aggregate actions of individual organs.

"Organ" is just a label we apply to the aggregate actions of individual tissues.

"Tissue" is just a label we apply to the aggregate actions of individual cells.

...

You can expand this trivial semantic discussion in either direction for as long as you please. There is nothing special or sacred about "an individual" and the associated perspective.

Now, the issue of "majority" implies that we segregate the system into arbitrary units so we can count them and let them cast the vote. In present-day democracies, these units are "individuals."  In other societies, it may be families. Also, we pretend to assign equal weight to the vote of each individual, but in reality we behave differently (for example, corporate money shapes political decisions of "representatives").

I'd like to stop pretending. Ultimately, the power decides everything, not the majority. The power of persuasion, of violence, of cunningness, of numbers, of sneakiness, of togetherness, of surprise - of any form, expressed at any hierachical level (cancerous tissue, immune cells, individuals, corporations, societies, bacteria, bee hives). It's a complex game, and we are part of it. You may try desperately to define rules (majority decides, the king decides, I decide) - but life will prove you a fool.

A rather hypocritical statement.

Bitware, the conversation's been over, time to lock the thread. FirstAscent's just using it to troll now.

Not one to try a film revered as avant-garde existentialism or a morality play stylized as a noir? Transformers more your style?

Again, I don't trust your judgment. You've not shown yourself capable of enough rational thought for me to accept your recommendations in so much as my choice of dinner.

Definitely not. You're attempt at humor is odd. I suggest you watch one of my film recommendations instead as a substitute for your yearnings.

...so you don't want my address?

I know about it because I was one of the persons arguing against you. How could one forget the absurdity and stupidity of your position?

A skilled juggler is no danger to the boat. I'm humbled though, that you went that far back in my history. You must have some serious stalker-jones for me. If you're that in love with me, I could PM you my address.

Wasn't it you who was in support of defending the rights of the knife juggler aboard the inflatable raft in the middle of the sea surrounded by sharks while the majority wanted to subdue him and tie him up? Wasn't it you who gave credibility to the idea that the Colorado shooting was faked while the majority accepted it as real?

So, on one hand we have you arguing that consensus about deforestation being A-OK is inevitable, and on the other hand we have hunterbunter arguing that consensus is impossible about anything, even rape and murder.

I'm so confused! Who should I believe?

I know. How about I listen to logic and reason? Since murder has been illegal in every society ever, I'm going to wager that consensus on that is much more likely than deforestation being considered OK by everyone... especially since you yourself are arguing against it.

We were talking about deforestation on your property. It certainly is an option in AnCap that nobody will do anything. We just went over this.

In a regulated society, people can sway a politician to not be regulated. It happens all the time. That is not an option in an AnCap society. If you have damaged someone's property, you either go to arbitration and pay restitution, or void your contract with the society, becoming an outlaw in the original sense of the word.

Oh. You're a global warming denier. I didn't know.

No. It is simple and it is justified. Its been discussed many times on this forum. You chose not to believe the evidence presented to you, and your "evidence" is insufficient to prove man is doing it. What you want is the Precautionary Rule where we are guilty until proven innocent.

Whats is beyond the realm of anyones knowledge is the supposition and conjecture you post and claim is fact because a couple scientists paid for by elites convinces politicians through the lobbying effors of foreign policy think tanks and intenational globalist organizations, that the average home/land owner is doing ANYTHING to harm this planet.

Bottom line, unless you own it, its none of your business unless you have proof it or its owner is hurting you.

And if you think man is hurting the earth go look at the ice and sediment core samples again to see the real NATURAL fluctuatiosn that have been going onb for millions of years (thats before man btw).

That said, Corporations are a different thing. They are Chartered by The State. They need regulation, restriction, and taxation. Not to mention they also need the status of a real human being removed, but thats another kettle of fish.

Your statement is meaningless. Consider:

Your rational expectation to pay back damages factors in whether you think you can get away with it. If your neighbors look the other way, then the environment suffers. If they do not look the other way, then it must be some threat which coerces you to behave differently. In a regulated society, the threat that coerces is uniform and omnipresent. In your AnCap world, the threat is randomly applied.

Ahh! So you resort back to your original simplified and unjustified claims when you realize the complex underlying scenarios are beyond the realm of your knowledge.

To get your way requires forcing your will on other people and stealing their land, wealth, and liberty.

There is no justification for that.

All one has to do is research the history of the people, families, businesses, and governments connected to the people putting out the global emergency agendas.

These are the worlds richest people (that we know of), the epitome of destruction and excess, telling the rest of us to live frugally.

Oh wait... its because they care about you and me... right?

Hunterbunter, you're going to need to explain the logic behind your points if you want to continue our conversation, I don't think we're using the same reality as basis for our assumptions.

So you know for a fact that a rapist knows that the person they are raping doesn't want to be raped because they themselves would want it? I know common sense would suggest that, but there is nothing common about sense. It only takes one crazy person to break unilateral consensus.

Euthanasia and rape fantasies are well documented, and while they're not technically murder and rape (in some places), some people feel quite strongly that even voluntary mercy killings are a form of murder - unlawful killing of another human being. Where is there unilateral consensus? What scope are we talking about? A man in the US has a brother in NL who takes advantage of it. The US man thinks the doctor has murdered his brother...a destructive act, but both the doctor and patient acted with NL laws. Is the US brother a neighbour to his dead brother? Should the doctor compensate the US brother?

Unilateral consensus is indeed necessary to generalize that something is "actually non-destructive", but even in extreme things like rape and murder there is contention. Even if one were to accept the three things you mentioned as exceptions, that's all they are. For everything else, there is contention. Instead of deforestation, if we used "remove all hydrogen cyanide" do we have a different picture? That's an extremely poisonous gas which most people would say "yay" to removing from the planet, but is removing it non-destructive? Everyone is happy, we know it will no longer kill us, but of course it's destructive...to the people who use it to kill rodents. They can find something else, they can do a million other things, and those are all irrelevant to the fact that nothing is non-destructive.


Umm. Every transformation by definition requires the destruction of a state. You are calling this "non-destructive" because the people affected are "happy" with the result. You're making a very strong case that destructiveness is a matter of opinion. Who are your neighbours, again? I'm still not clear on this. Anyone that is affected by an act? or anyone that is affected and can prove it?


So society cares. What if it doesn't know about it?


Is your ability to read minds a transferable skill?


I see, so they'll be forced to accept majority (or at least the strongest) rule either way.

No, by killing, raping, or robbing, they are not saying that they would like to be killed, raped, or robbed, but that they would like to do those actions to you. They still would not like to be raped, robbed, or killed, they just don't care about your opinion in the matter.

No, I mean actually non-destructive, possibly even creative. The examples above are transformations. Whether those transformations are constructive, destructive, or neutral is entirely in the minds of those affected by the transformation of their property. If someone transforms my property against my will, It is within my rights to require him to compensate me for that. Of course, I may choose not to, if I prefer the new form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild

Tell you what. If you can find a single action for which this is even possible, I'll let you know.


Well, in our current society, I would seek damages via the courts system. In an AnCap society, I would seek damages through arbitration, and should they refuse arbitration, they would be in violation of several of their contracts, resulting in far harsher consequences than I could ever levy.

The people performing those actions are disagreeing with you.


I see, so when you say "actually non-destructive", you mean "destructive but meaningless if compensated", and I can accept that.

I don't know how one would repay a life to someone who has lost it due to imperfect knowledge, but according to your rules, it's only meaningful if they (from the grave) or anyone who cares about them have the power to claim it.

Which leads on to the problem of:
If you are powerful enough to incapacitate all those who would seek to claim damages from your actions, have you actually done anything destructive?


If I understand you correctly, your answer is "My neighbours are any human who might be affected by said deforestation and can prove it"?

While I respect your desire to take such responsibility, how will you seek damages from someone who has destroyed something of yours, and refuses to accept responsibility?

Sure. Nobody likes to get murdered. Or raped. Or robbed. There. That's three.

"create irreparable harm or damage" is relative to the people and things involved. In your forest fire, for instance, the forest is renewed, and some trees will only release seeds after a fire. Fires are a natural part of the forest ecosystem. Sometimes things need to be cleared away so that new life can spread. It's also relative to time. After a long enough time has passed, you will be completely unable to tell there was a fire there.

Also, while it's not possible to precisely replace atoms, even in, say, a cracked plate, one of equal or greater value can be substituted, and the victim is made whole. Alternatively, perhaps the pieces of that plate are used in a mosaic, tiling the bottom of someone's pool. So yes, there was destruction, but if the owner of the plate considers the mosaic to be of greater value than the plate, then nothing is lost, and in fact there was a gain.


I believe you'll find my answer to this above, here.

Interesting. I would appreciate it if you could name for me one item of human action or knowledge that has unilateral consensus. Or do you agree that destructiveness is a matter of opinion?

I would also appreciate it if you could define non-destructive. "Destructive" as I understand it means to "create irreparable harm or damage", which could very well be applied to every action one could think of, if one were so inclined (think Newton's third law of motion). If, then, it is a matter of opinion whether something is trivially destructive or actually destructive, how does one resolve this? Is non-destructive to create repairable harm and damage? If that's the case, I'd like to know how atoms can be replaced exactly how they were after a bush fire (to "fully compensate destruction").

Lastly: If you and all your neighbours are "into" deforestation such that removing the trees is not considered destructive, an important question begs to be asked: Who are your neighbours? Those literally surrounding your land? Those in your society across the country? Future humans that will occupy the land (neighbours in time)? Anyone who might be affected by deforestation somehow? What scale is it ok to decide non-destructiveness on?

I acknowledge that you wish to take responsibility for those harmed by your imperfect knowledge, but how will you resolve issues where you believe you are not responsible but others believe that you are? A 3rd party might attempt to mediate and reach a conclusive balance of responsibility, and in the case that you are the plaintiff, what will you do if the defendant simply lols @ you and tells you they don't accept the 3rd party's right to discern?


What if others do not share your rationality?

As for the thread: I don't believe a majority ever does actually decide anything...except maybe when it comes to net force.

So, you accept violence before the crime, but not after? FirstAscent, you truly are an odd duck.

If I were "coerced" not to damage the ecosystem, then I would have someone pointing a gun at my head forcing me not to do things. Instead, I have my rational expectation of being required to pay back any damages I've caused preventing me from taking actions which would cause damages.

If you cared about the environment, and not your precious regulation and taxation (coercion and theft), you would be happy however the decision not to cause harm to the environment came about. But since you're not, I must assume you desire power over others, and feel threatened that a system might arise where you have none.

So you're arguing that you can be coerced to not damage the ecosystem? And if you refuse, that level of coercion can be raised to violence? Your system is coercion by violence but called 'lawsuits and mercenary thugs'. More accepted systems are called regulation and taxation.

Why do you bring your libertarian mantras into a pontification regarding the science behind ecology? Your speculations about the subject only show your ignorance.


Actually, it has its roots in the studies of island biogeography, as started by Edward O. Wilson and furthered by John Terborgh. Your notion of it as a control mechanism for wealth, etc. is in fact something that has been drilled into your head by whatever propaganda you're soaking up. I'm willing to educate you on this matter by citing white papers and academic material by scientists who couldn't give a shit about wealth. I will give you a severe education relentlessly until you are fully clear on that matter.


If you wish to discuss extinction rates, let's get into it. We can start with your usage of the term 'over time' and what that qualifies as, and how it differs with your historical understanding of it and how that compares with recent examples that you're justifying.


Actually, if you want to discuss the meaning of artificial with regard to ecology, I can do that. After that future conversation, I think you will be severely corrected with regard to species extinction rates, and which was artificial, and which wasn't.


Wow. You're a real expert, aren't you? Actually, it's very clear how uneducated you are. When you want to have a discussion about trophic cascades and ecosystem services, let me know. As it stands, breeding in captivity has nothing to do with the valid reasons for species preservation. The key term 'umbrella species' kind of flew right by you, didn't it?

Here's something I wrote a little while back. Read it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1073879

The endangered species act is a control mechanism and a wealth, land and resource grab.

Species of life become extinct over time. Plain and simple fact of life. If nature selects a species for extinction, who are we to argue? Its mad scientists artificially supporting a species of life that was meant to die off. IF the species is important enough to sustain human life or markedly improve it, someone will collect them and breed them voluntarily (you know like they do anyways before the government steps in wasting our money and driving roughshod over our citizens rights).

...unless you would prefer to contend with 500 ton prehistoric creatures using you as their main meal ticket.

I have no desire to increase my wealth. I have a desire to survive and flourish. Some have chosen to make a debt based fiat currency the only means by which that is possible... for now. So be it. It is need not desire.

No one has the right to force their will on another in an offensive manner, not under penalty of death should they resist or defend themselves, and especially not groups or collectives.

The reasons simply do not matter. All of your excuses, rationale and attempted justifications are a facade.

The answer is no, and here is why: You consider that to be damaging, yes? Do you believe yourself to be alone in this opinion? Can you show that it damages property far afield from the deforested region? If you can, and I would wager that you can indeed, then should I deforest some land, I would likely have to recompense the damages thus incurred. That would cut into my profit, and indeed may well make the project a loss. So it does not "automatically grant me the right" to destroy the ecosystem.

So the primary reason for declaring the Spotted Owl an umbrella species was to terrorize, assault, murder, engage in thievery and enslave others? Answer yes or no.


To summarize your views then:

Rendering services for a company in, say, Alabama, grants you the right to destroy a much appreciated and loved resource on the opposite side of the country if you sign contracts with an individual who will no longer have an interest in the said resource, and your new neighbors look the other way, and your agenda is to make money.

Or, by virtue of being born with a silver spoon in your mouth, you are granted the same.

So many assumptions in your statement, all hammered into your head by your favorite libertarian speakers. Your views definitely lean in a way that conveniently overlooks a greater system that is perhaps a little too complex for you to see.

Let's focus specifically on deforestation. Answer the following:

In your view, your goals, agendas, and assuming you have money in your pocket, whether gained through work anywhere in the world, or by inheritance, automatically grant you the right to lessen certain biological systems (old growth forests) on planet Earth, especially because your goals and agendas are motivated by your desire to increase your wealth.

Answer yes or no.

QFT.

As I already told you, I do not care why you (or any group) believe what you do as its irrelevant and only serves to attempt to justify forcing a groups' will upon the individual. Its terroristic threats, assault, murder, theft, and enslavement.



I have every right to destroy my property if I so choose, but a good steward of their property wont be doing that, because his property is an invesment that he values. This is something you might not understand, so pay close attention. When a man works, he transfers time and sweat for money (sometimes blood too).  The compensation and everything purchased with said compensation means a great deal to the man because of that transfer. This type of value can not be appreciated by someone who did not gain their entitlements in such a manner.

Corporations are different. They are chartered by the state. They need restricted, regulated and taxed.

If you harm someone, then you shouldn't get away with it. it's not "acceptable." "Destruction and irresponsible behavior" are their own punishments, either by directly reducing the value of your property, or increasing the risk you will have to pay restitution, which, if you have insurance, will increase your premiums.

Unfortunately your belief system compromises the accuracy of your assessments, as you've demonstrated. The motivations of organizations, entities, and various people labeled as one thing or another do not necessarily organize for the reasons you're likely to project onto them. Your belief system is skewed, and dare I say, a little frightful.


So we're in agreement then that you believe destruction and irresponsible behavior is acceptable if you can get away with it?

Incorrect. I know what you believe because you share it frequently. I do not care why you believe what you do as its irrelevant and only serves to attempt to justify forcing a groups' will upon the individual.

I agree with the quote you posted by Myrkul.

You're sadly deluded as to what exactly I believe and why I believe what I do. As soon as you stop deciding those things for me, and instead objectively look at what is being said by me, myrkul, or others, the better off you'd be.

Let's try this again. Read very closely what myrkul said (quoted below), and tell me if you see any room for improvement in his beliefs, what he's saying, or how he views things. Analyze it closely, sentence by sentence, word by word.

You believe in groups, and the groups "right" to force their will upon others under penalty of death should the others resist (think: Divine Right of Priests and Kings), and irrational ad-hominem attacks.

I believe in the individual. I believe in liberty. I believe in rights by birth. I believe in you and my fellow citizens. And I believe in my family and I.

I have hopes for you, that you can get past the manipulative propaganda and indoctrination that has conditioned you to be the way you are.

I guess I am saying that I truly pity you.

If you can't see the obvious problems with myrkul's response, then I pity you. Are you that stupid, deluded, and brainwashed by your own fervent beliefs? And I mean that seriously. I think it's time you reflected on the nature of your world view and sources of education.

see what I mean

No. I just don't want to argue with stupidity. There comes a point where I know my failure to address your stupidity will be answered with something like "See! I beat you! You can't address that!". Oh well.

I hope FirstAccent obtains some skillsets, gets a job, saves some money, buys some land, works that land, improves that land, & builds on that land, for 20-30 years or so. Then I want to travel there and film the interaction he has when others comes onto his land presuming authority over him, his family, his land, and his resources, restricting his land and resource use, telling him what he can, cant, and must do under penalty of death should he resist.

Rich greedy people of privelege trying to tell everyone else what to do. They make it legal by "convincing" legislators to make laws. Then funneling tons of money to states and municipalities, then giving them lots of rules, then after they are addicted to and reliant upon those funds, cut off those fund if they dont do as they are told... Stealing their way through life the easy way. The immoral way.

Does not matter what some self important controlled scientific assholes agree to under consensus concerning land they do not own, after being well-funded by the very people and groups advancing this agenda.

Thats why First Accent and friends always revert to silence or the ad-hominem attacks when contronted with the truth and the plain basic facts, for which they have absolutely no counter to.

>50% does indeed include the subset of "all". But <100% does not. From >50% to <100%, there is a majority, but not consensus.

And while I cannot perceive all ends, I must make the effort to perceive, and prepare for, as many as possible, and accept that if, in my imperfect knowledge, I cause someone harm, I must recompense them for that harm.

Just so I am clear on the subject, are opinions now to be taken as absolute? I'm pretty sure >50% also includes the set of "all".

Can you perceive all ends?

Everyone, this is FirstAscent-speak for "You've beaten me. I give up"

Usually, he just fails to respond. I'm proud of him for taking this opportunity to fess up.

Lots of uneducated and presumptuous rambling there. It's not even worth addressing.

If both I, and all my neighbors were "into" deforestation, then removing the trees would not be destructive. It would improve the value of the land in mine and their eyes. Of course, that deforestation would not have only localized effects. I'd have to take into account the wide-ranging effects of my clearcutting my land, as well, and if someone is damaged by those effects, that would be my responsibility.

Going back to the broken glass in my back yard, If I fail to tell any future owners of the broken glass, and someone gets hurt, again, that's on me - my actions, and my failure to act (inform the owner of the danger) have caused damages, and I need to pay restitution. Wildlife and stray animals, however, are not my concern. They came onto my property. If they are someone's property, care should be taken not to let them wander where they might get hurt.

What about future owners of your land who aren't aware of all the broken glass that hides underneath the leaves until something happens to one of their children? Or a stray dog that wanders through? Or wolves, coyotes, rabbits, etc?

That's an excellent example, if a little offbeat. Let's try another one: deforestation. We'll assume that your neighbors are also into deforestation as well, thus they don't have any issues with it.

Here's a real example: removal of oak trees in California.

Well, that depends on how you define "destructive"

I can smash glass bottles all day in my back yard, and my neighbors won't care. While that's certainly destructive, it's destructive of only my own property. Now, If I were to start burning tires, that would be a different matter entirely.

Arguing with you (from over a year's experience) is like talking into the wind. And your answers are like smug statements that aren't thought out very well. Once again, you can't see the picture because you're blindsided by your own ideology. I sincerely wish you were simultaneously a little bit smarter, and a little less blind. It would save us both a lot of time and words.

When there is not a unified law, then anything goes as long as those who see the offending action don't care (due to similar beliefs or ignorance, or both), even when that action is destructive, either short term or long term. But when there is a unified law, there is generally a more unified effort to uphold that law (or regulation). Can you think of anything that could be destructive, but which your neighbors might look the other way?

No. If they did then I would never get to use the bathroom when I wanted to.

Deeerp.... No.

One's individual actions are to be interpreted as non-destructive if they are actually non-destructive.

That is to be applied regardless of the costume one wears, or whether or not >50% of the people think it's OK.

The majority decides everything now - majority of wealth, not population.  They can purchase the best/most lobbyists, lawyers, accountants, votes, etc.  And there really is no way around it.  The most you could do is attempt to lower the barriers to build wealth so wealth is more evenly spread out.  And pure capitalism is by far a greater tool to decentralize wealth than socialism.  I always find it amusing when people suggest voting to fight corruption with more legislation when legislation is the wealthy's greatest tool to increase the income gap.  If I had a billion dollars, why wouldn't I eliminate the competition by getting the government to use my company and ban all others?  Now I have a monopoly & can charge whatever I want.  Yes, you have the power to vote in/out 550 in congress, but I have the ability to pamper enough of them to get laws passed that benefit me.  Don't blame the rich, blame your government's lack of a direct democracy so laws stop getting passed that only benefit the rich.

Your problem is because obviously morally repugnant things have occurred in the past and can exist in the future within the context of a society, you erroneously jump to the conclusion that one individual's actions are to be interpreted as non destructive merely by the fact that he can get away with it.

"Society" is just a label we apply to the aggregate actions of individual people.

"Society" once endorced chattel slavery. In an example of one of the slow, infrequent steps forwards the species has made in terms of moral progress the practice is now considered nearly universally unjustifiable. What was once done openly and proudly is now recognized even by the few people who still practice it as a crime that must be hidden from public scrutiny.

So it will go eventually with statism. It's defenders will be regarded by future historians the same way we now perceive the slaver owners and traders of earlier centuries.

I suggest you reread my post. You're the one who needs to reflect on the nature of society.

Drop the whole "existence is coercion" thing.  It makes you look like an idiot because anyone familiar with the question sees it for the retarded nihilist irrational nonsense that it is.

How naive.

Society doesn't work like that. Look at animal societies to begin with. Then realize that what one does affects everyone else. Once you move from thoughts to actions (affecting the world physically), you've crossed over the line that divides doing what you want and doing things which society will naturally guide and coerce.

Drop the whole 'coercion through violence' mantra.

How about we use ethics instead? Nobody is justified in using threats or actual violence to compel anyone to do anything.

People will still do it, of course, since the world contains many unethical people but the problem would be enormously reduced if otherwise good people would stop making excuses for predatory behavior by cloaking it in euphamisms like "social contract", "good of society", "will of the majority", "price we pay for civilization", etc. The cost of preying upon other people is greatly reduced when the predators can convince their victims not to defend themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpeTd2xII7A