🚀 go-pugleaf

coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) writes:
> > I think the distinction is clear.  Laws are only supportable when they
> > protect people.  When a 30 story building goes up beside your house,
> > you are losing the sunshine that you once had.
> 
> And when a company locates in my community and lacks a daycare
> facility I am losing the sort of community that I would like to live
> in.  I fail to see a substantive difference.

You did not have the daycare to begin with - you have lost nothing.  And what
makes you think that your "sort of community" is the same "sort of community"
that other people want?

> > If you do not like the sociological environment in which you exist,
> > you can always find another.  And what makes you think that your
> > social vision is the best one?  As a parent, I for one think that
> > daycares are horrible places to put a child.
> 
> And if you do not like the quantity of sunshine that your property is
> receiving you can always find another.

True if you are seeking to *purchase* a home.  But if you have purchased
a home under a given set of conditions (lots of sunshine), and then that
is, at some later date, taken away, you have suffered a loss.

> And I don't recall pre-supposing that my visision was best.  I do recall
> stating that if the COMMUNITY felt that daycare in a given business
> establishment was desirable, then the community should have means to
> express/enforce that desire.

Exactly.  What or who is the "community"?  The majority?  Those with
"sensitive views"?  Those who are involved in the political process?  Those
with the right connections?  We can't say exactly who the community is, but
you can be damn sure it won't include everybody.

And just how many people does it take before it is okay to override the
desires of a single individual?  If everybody in a community decides that 
one guy (who maybe owns a company) must use his resources to build a daycare,
does that make it okay?  What if they decide that his property should be
stripped from him?  Or what if they decide, for some arbitrary reason, that
he should be killed?  Can all of these things be justified because the
"community" has decided them?  Or only the "reasonable" ones?  And who is
deciding what is reasonable?  The "community"?

Justifying actions because they are being made on behalf of the "community"
incorporates all of the mysticism and manipulation of actions that used to be
made, in previous times, on behalf of God.  Neither God nor the "community"
can be defined, everybody is behoven to them, no individual has the "insight"
necessary to question them, and their needs seem to be endless.  (Although it
often turns out that a few select individuals happen to profit at the same
time as God, or the "community", does.)

It is time to move away from this sort of thinking.  Individuals, in all their
variety, should be left alone to behave as they see fit, and to apply their
resources how they see fit.  To allow this we must protect people from each
other - prevent people from intruding on the freedoms of others.  When you
sweep all the other crap away, "community" concerns, God's will, and all that,
you are left with the lowest common denominator: human rights.

"Express/enforce that desire".  You are a funny guy Terry - you make me laugh
(if Matrix were here, he'd laugh too).

> > Blocked sunlight is a physically demonstratable loss.  "Community
> > deterioration" is a perception that is completely arbitrary.
> 
> Nonsense.  If the community perceives ``deterioration'' then that
> loss is just as real and just as demonstrable as the loss of
> sunshine.

Give me a break.  "Community deterioration" is real and demonstrable?  Not!
"Community deterioration" is a subjective judgement (made by your hazily
defined "community").  You have placed yourself firmly in the same camp, in
terms of patterns of thinking, as those who believe that having ethnic
minorities move into the community represents "deterioration".

> > They must be ignored, because causality cannot be demonstrated, and
> > thus responsibility cannot be determined.  If these nebulous "effects"
> > are used as justifications, arbitrary decisions will be rule of the
> > day.
> 
> Wrong again.  Absolute certainty regarding causality is NOT possible
> (as an aside, all scientists and engineers should be forced to
> take a course in the philosophy of science so as not to fall into
> the error of treating science as a religion).  Demonstration of
> causlity is not a boolean function, but a continuous one.  Indirect
> or delayed effects may reduce the certainty with which causality 
> can be determined, but this is NOT a reason to ignore such effects.

I agree that nothing is black and white.  Using Existentialist arguments you
can readily destroy any statement which is put forth, or any decision which
is rendered.  Leftist groups have spent most of this century using
Existentialist arguments to erode all standards (some of which deserved to
be eroded).  But these people would, at the same time they were eroding old
standards, install new ones as if they were inherent.  Society was not
allowed to consider, for example, whether a live-in boyfriend changed a
woman's eligibility for welfare, but the premise that she should get welfare
at all went without saying.

Some standards deserve protection - ones like, "don't kill people".  And
although we can agree that there is no absolute support for these standards,
I'm sure that we can also agree that they are necessary and good (the value
of "good" is completely arbitrary, but let's just go with it).  So, if we are
to maintain some standards, let's go with the minimum possible set to avoid
offending as many people as possible: human rights.  Nothing more.

> > If a company does not build a daycare they have not harmed you, they
> > have simply denied you something that you would "like".
> 
> And that 30 story high-rise hasn't harmed me either -- it just took
> away the sunshine that I happened to ``like''.

Denied (or "did not give") is substantially different from "took away".

> > Mine.  I want people to stay out of my way.  Would you suggest that I
> > not be allowed that?  I am not proposing a fundamental axiom for
> > society, I am proposing a fundamental axiom for me.  Everyone else can
> > pick their own (as long as they don't violate mine); I am sure that
> > most will choose something similar to mine
> 
> And you are welcome to abide by it as long as you live in a society
> composed soley of yourself and other who similarly have decided
> that such an axiom is to their liking.  But if you belong to a larger
> pluralistic society you have implicitly entered into an agreement
> to abide by that society's axioms -- not yours.

My being born in the city of Vancouver in 1963 made me behoven to no one.
Not then.  Not now.  As long as I do not harm others, there is no compelling
reason why I should be forced to go along with the collective opinion of a
group of other people.  

But since we are talking about societies, consider this:  You can have a
community of socialists existing within the boundaries of a libertarian
nation, but you cannot have a community of libertarians existing within the
boundaries of a socialist nation.  Need I say more?  Clearly a libertarian
nation provides a quantum leap in personal freedom (it allows some), yet you
can still be a socialist within it if you are so inclined.  For the rest of
us: "We do not wish to participate."

> > I agree with your reasoning, and I will take it to it's full extent.
> > Since the sort of society each of us wishes to see is purely a matter
> > of taste, the only way we can possibly come to a broad general
> > agreement is if we reduce it down to the lowest common denominator:
> > leave each other alone.  Anything else is presumptuous and intrusive.
> 
> If you happen to live in isolation you can manage to avoid intruding
> on other people's lives.  If you live in a typical modern society
> you cannot.  

You are claiming that high population density justifies interference.  And
just what density level does the turning point occur at?  I think that
interfering actions based on "community" needs can be "justified" at any
density level.  It's really just up to the imaginations of those who wish 
to interfere.

Switzerland has a much higher population density than Canada, yet there is
significantly less interference there.

> [...] When I say that I want you to ``leave me alone'' I mean...
> ``Don't construct large business enterprises
> in my community which don't have daycares.''  

Wow.  That's rock solid. 

> If you go ahead and
> ignore this, then you have manifestly NOT left me alone.  You ARE
> intruding on my life.

A continuing example of fine logic.

> You define non-interference in essentially physical terms.  Why?
> Why should I accept that definition?  If me and every other
> citizen of the community believe that non-interference also
> includes issues such as effects on the development of the community,
> why should you be permitted a definition of non-interference
> which differs?

So I should bow to the will of the majority?  But why should you wait for
me to do that?  Why don't you all just club me to death?

> Do you have some form of ``objective' support
> that your definition is better?

Protecting people from other people is the minimalist solution that leads to
the least interference.  Do you disagree with this?  Or do you think that
interference in other peoples' lives is okay?

> > To begin with, ethics (morals) are those rules which guide how we
> > behave when the actions generated by our self-interest cause us to
> > collide with others.  They deal exclusively with how we interact with
> > other people.  When you are completely alone in the middle of a forest
> > which belongs to you, you cannot, try as you might, do anything
> > amoral.  You can do stupid things, but someone else has to be there
> > before you can do immoral things.  What we are after then is a basis
> > for moral behavior (towards others) which has a rational foundation.
> 
> I agree with this entirely.  The key is the phrase ``actions generated
> by our self-interest cause us to collide with others.''  I interpret
> ``collide'' in the broadest possible sense.

Of course you do.  Doing so gives you and your "community" the broadest
possible license to interfere with other peoples' lives.

> Physical and non-physical
> effects, while not equivalent, are both valid concerns when 
> analyzing the effects of such ``collisions''.  Your presumption that
> non-physical effects can simply be ignored is NOT rational.  

"Non-physical effects"?  There's that mysticism I was talking about.

> I agree
> that direct physical effects are of primary importance.  However,
> if we stop now, then the task is incomplete.  We have NOT developed
> ``rules which guide us'' because there is a huge class of ``collisions''
> where there are, in effect, no rules.  Granted that this domain
> of interaction is not as straightforward to analyze.  Your comments
> regarding causality are well-taken, but your underlying assumption
> that causality is either present or absent is not.  Although it
> would be highly spiffy (from a rule-making point of view) if the
> world came in just black and white, the reality is that is does not.
> If we are to have a truly useful set of rules for guiding our
> interactions, then we MUST recognize and accept the full range
> of interactions that are possible and we must set to create
> rules which are adequate to the task.

I have no problem with this logic.  When pulpmills dump dioxins into Howe
Sound, the effects of that action are hard to determine.  Maybe the dioxins
get into certain parts of the food chain, maybe they don't.  Maybe the cancer
suffered by people eating that food was due to the food itself, maybe it
wasn't.  It's all statistics really.  But I think we can all agree that there
is some negative effect - some harm.  So I agree that, "we MUST recognize and
accept the full range of interactions that are possible..."  My underlying
motivation is different from yours though.  I am seeking to prevent
interference - especially harm.  You are seeking to fulfill "community"
needs, where such needs are ill-defined, and extractive in nature.  You are
after the opposite of me: you support interference.

> > In general, there are any number of ways in which people are
> > identified as "sleazes".  It is certainly in the best interests of
> > society to make these identifications.  When sleazes have been
> > identified, they are no longer able to interact in the cooperative
> > system - much to their own loss.
> 
> Sadly this is not true.  In a modern society the mechanisms for
> identifying ``sleaze'' do not function well.  Society is too large
> to have a useful ``collective consciousness''.  Sleaze continues
> to be able to interact in the coperative system because the system
> cannot adequately inform itself of the problem.  All sleaze has to
> do is move around enough, and if its clever enough it will accumulate
> enough power that its sleazy nature is of no consequence.

A man after my own heart!  Where is sleaze most likely to find safe haven?
Big, interfering government!  We must therefore smash such government.

> The libertarian ideal (which is what this strikes me as) is fine
> for small societies.  Indeed, many small communities have functioned
> in more or less this manner in the past.  However, the approach
> does not scale well.

I disagree entirely.  Protecting people from each other scales without limit.
It works on a island with only two people.  It works in a city of 10 million.
Your ideas about "community" need do not scale well at all though.  They can
only work when you have a small, absolutely homogeneous community that is in
full agreement about what its needs are.  Enter the 20th century!

A further point; Gwynn Dyer has argued that the explosion of democracy in the
latter half of this century is due to improved communications allowing large
populations to make consensus decisions that were not previously possible.  I
would say that a libertarian ideal is also more possible for the same reason.
Both democracy and the expansion of libertarian ideals lead to movement in
the same direction: increased human freedom.

> And while there is always an attraction to
> return to the simpler solutions which are known to have been effective,
> we have to remember that the PROBLEM is different.

It's the *same* problem: people getting in other peoples' way.  And if we
don't return to "simpler solutions" what should we do instead?  Continue on
as we are with overblown, interfering governments?  In case you hadn't
noticed, this is failing miserably.

Ken Buckland                     Freedom.
kenb@ee.ubc.ca