Conversation
Notices
-
t "[t]he anarchists did not [...] identify freedom with the right of everybody to do exactly what one pleased but with a social order in which collective effort and responsibilities—that is to say, obligations—would provide the material basis and social nexus in which individual freedom could exist." Oh ok
-
@lain @georgia "someone owns the mountain and the river and the little clearing over there, and i am free to sit on this 1m² patch of dirt and never move again"
-
@georgia sounds like a sound bite to me. Not being aggressed upon is not oppression.
-
@lain one mans freedom from exploitation is another's oppression. communes are creepy to me but so is ancapistan. i like the idea of anarchosyndicalism.
-
@lain @georgia maybe they don't want to; particular reason isn't what matters for gedanking
-
@shmibs @georgia why should they not let you anywhere? Are you that stinky?
-
@lain @georgia mmm. the point was rather reinforcing georgia says, that there's no "positive and negative freedoms" distinction to be made, because actions always can be reframed
-
@shmibs @georgia then we are where we are now. State has a monopoly on force and can keep in your room (not Gedanken phantasy, actually happened last year)
-
@lain @georgia "i didn't kill him. i simply chose not to allow him access to the water when he was dying of thirst"
-
@shmibs @georgia that's nonsense, if you sit on your 1sqm plot and everybody hates you and don't let you play with them, they might be assholes but they are not aggressing against you. If police puts me into jail for going outside they are aggressing against me, even if they are not assholes.
-
@lain @georgia it's not an alternative to violence, though, but a way for the person acting to feel distanced from the violence. more people pull the trolley lever than push the guy on the tracks because of that feeling. when you (the actor) know "if i do X this person will be gravely injured. if i do Y (where Y == ~X) then the person will not be gravely injured" and then choose to do X you have gravely injured the person. the ceremony is only a way to not feel guilty about it
-
@shmibs @georgia voluntarism isn't an utopian ethics that gives everyone the best result every time. It's an alternative to violence. The case you are talking about did actually happen in the us during the New Deal times, it was the government doing it, ordering crops and meat to be destroyed.
-
@lain @georgia not sure what you're asking? (sorry)but i'm not arguing for any "X is better social ordering method than Y" type thing, only that the "non-aggression" categorisation doesn't work
-
@shmibs @georgia so in your example, 3 people hate you and don't want to let you use their land even for passing though. What do you expect when you let them and you vote for passage rights.
-
@lain @georgia i can distinguish, but it's a distinction of probabilities rather than absolute categories. "prevent house entry" will probably not result in the person being hurt (barring exceptional circumstances, like "person is bleeding to death" or "i am the only water source for nkm and the person has none" etc).
-
@shmibs @georgia if you can't distinguish between someone punching you in the face or putting a gun in your face and putting you in a box versus someone telling you "don't come into my house", then it's not abstract philosophy what's at fault.
-
@lain @georgia i think in those long-distance actions it's more difficult for a single person to judge probable outcomes, given doubts about how charities spend money or feelings of wanting to support a local business or whatever else
-
@shmibs @georgia do you think we're all ethically failing because we buy a drink at a bar instead of sending the money to doctors without borders?
-
@lain @georgia mmm, and saying here is that there are actions and consequences, and the whole "positive and negative" thing has to do only with human emotions of viscerality/immediacy (the reason you put more members on the firing squad
-
@georgia @shmibs the idea in question is positive Vs negative rights, I agree that it's more nuanced than it can seem at first, but you shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwaterg
-
@lain @shmibs the same argument can be made about freedom to say vs freedom to be heard, no?
-
@pernia @lain @georgia (it actually is a requirement here arizona, desert
-
@shmibs @lain @georgia it'd be nice if you could help a thirsty, dying person, but it would probably be less nice if it was a requirement
-
@pernia @lain @georgia have never actually seen it enforced, yeh; maybe it has a hand in restaurants giving free water or so
-
@shmibs @lain @georgia how effectively is it enforced? i might be naive but i'd think most people wouldn't need to be coerced to give a dying person water
-
@pernia @georgia @lain (hmmm, looking now i guess that's actually not law; everyone was taught so though ????
-
@shmibs @lain @georgia lying on the internet is punishable by death
-
@lain @georgia what does "leave me alone" mean? am i being left alone if prevented from walking across a certain patch of land or manipulating a certain object? etc
-
@georgia @shmibs you also have to be really sophisticated to come up with an ethics that makes "leave me alone shall be the only rule of the law" aggressive. The beauty of voluntarist/ancap philosophy is that it starts with non-aggression and deduces from it lots of nice properties (keyword: praxeology). So generally you don't have to compromise and say "well this result is bad, and I want a good result, but my ethics lead to this".
-
@lain @shmibs a drink is personal property though private property is different at least in theory. i think where all anarchy has trouble is how is one supposed arbitrate what even constitutes the higher social good or following the NAP or whatever is law in absence of the state? ought power be diverted to such a body intended to arbitrate this? it seems the only given is that power ought be distributed so one can least harm his fellow but who is to ensure an unequal distribution falls within acceptable difference or is unacceptable? all proposed systems of human organization are just that, systems... meant to guide people towards the most desirable way of living, meant to mollify mans base instincts. what does it rectify? can a system alone create a culture? i think if the culture changes radically towards one of empathy the best system for human organization would occur naturally. but perhaps hoping for such a development is even more hopelessly sanguine than hoping for your preferred boogaloo or revolution or whatever. it would have to occur post disaster i think that is without question.
-
@lain @georgia why?if there's some additional personal property assumption there, then have to ask what makes one person the owner of something rather than another person etc
-
@shmibs @georgia yes, if it's not yours, preventing you from eating my salami is not aggressive
-
@lain @georgia "it's mine because i'm strong and will beat you up if you try to take it" sounds like aggression"it's mine because we have a contract" no we don't; i've never met you before; that's a paper you signed with someone else"well, we all agree that you shouldn't have it and will beat you up if you try to take it" sounds like aggression again?
-
@shmibs @georgia that's true, it's leave me alone + private property, and there are a few ways to gain it. But I don't think you'd dispute the usual ones (e.g. I bought this salami)
-
@lain @georgia (ought to have said "physically prevent you from using / taking / walking on it" rather than "beat up", but yeh, point is (back to thread's first post) that "aggression is in the eye of the aggressed" and that whatever actions in social environments have consequences for others and so on
-
@Moon @lain @georgia mmm, kinda, or would hope at least more doubt about foundations. in social situations the "two people push each other down when trying not to drown; now who is the aggressor?" prompt is not a facetious one
-
@shmibs @lain @georgia I feel like this line of reasoning would just lead to moral paralysis
-
@lain @georgia @hakui the same applies to "pre-state" tribes and to the baboon troop who kill the bully
-
@hakui @georgia @shmibs always (since the birth of the nation state quite recently)
-
@lain @shmibs @georgia maybe there's a reason why it always ends up with a state
-
@shmibs @georgia indeed, you're describing the current relationship with the state
-
@lain @georgia @Moon it's a thing happening every day here at country border, is why i used it, with patrol guys choosing not to let dying people have water
-
@shmibs @Moon @georgia I'd appreciate more everyday scenarios. That in a desert one guy wouldn't give another water to drink is indeed horrific, but it's not a result of NAP ethics, it's just one (ridiculously rare) possiblity. You are still free to condemn it, and I would.
-
@Moon @lain @georgia "this is my country, and this bit of land was entrusted to me for protection. i am in control of the region and its contents. i choose not to let people enter or to access resources on it"
-
@shmibs @lain @georgia they are actively destroying water bottles meant for crossers, it's not really inaction even if it's not strictly aggression.
lain
バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
Infected Moomin
御園はくい
All senooken JP Social content and data are available under the