The individual is the atom of humanity.That's a well-crafted way of saying it. RTWT. And it's a nearly universally violated maxim. The expanded version of this is:
There is no we. For any given situation...there is me, you, and him. Almost all discussions of social situations rely on glossing over the essential individual/atomic analysis in order to reach preferred conclusions. We is a shortening that means me, you, and harry.
There is another standard human moral intuition: Bullies are bad. Just because you don't like it, doesn't give you the moral right to stop me from doing it. I have to actively be hurting you before you stop me.
"We should do X (erect tariffs)" should be understood to mean: "Me, you, bob, and harry" should do X. Of course...me, you, bob, and Harry have NO moral authority to prevent Steve from trading with the Chinese. However, if we couch it in terms of "us" or "we" or "The USA", we can pretend that there is some sane justification for the 4 of us trying to prevent Steve from trading with the Chinese....or taking 10% of his $ if he does trade with the Chinese. I can recognize that Bob the Baker is better off if he can use force to prevent Steve (and me, you, and Harry) from trading with the baker in the next village. Heck, Bob's better off if he can use force to make the next village's baker's products more expensive. Without addressing how much worse (in total) all of us are from the choice...it's very clear that Bob doesn't have ANY moral right to do so.
The essential libertarian insight is that there is NO number of bakers (Bob, Betty, Bertha, Benny, and Blaine -- that makes a majority of our fictional population -- 5/9) that makes it moral for them to use force to prevent me from buying my bread one village over. Anyone claiming the right to prevent me from trading with Chin, the baker in China is fundamentally, and deeply opposed to the 2 core moral principles:
- The individual is the only reasonable unit of analysis
- Initiation of violence is unacceptable.
Posts
15 comments:
Relevant: http://alrenous.blogspot.com/2011/09/blunt-object-smashes-mayor-dilemma.html
Core: Well tiff on a biscuit, I reconstructed democracy in contract law. (This is why these things enrage me - they could have asked my consent, they just didn't.) Ahem.
"The signee agrees to amend the contract regarding issues that affect all signees alike, (e.g. acceptable road maintenance noise levels) if the signee is presented with a petition signed by no less than every 6 in 10 fellow signees; amendments to be in accordance with procedures outlined above."
I believe democrats have an assumption that such a contract is in place. It may be named as "the social contract", or it may be an unspoken assumption, or even an unconscious one where the closest that the democrat comes to verbalizing it is "if you don't like it, you can leave". Whether or not any particular individual signed such a contract, it's a known fact that democratic governments do use force against their own people - and other people move to democratic countries anyway, which suggests some level of consent to a contract with provisions for violence.
The strongly complicating part, IMO, is the lack of alternatives. There are very limited options for anything resembling escape from government. Government-cartels such as the EU and the UN worsen the situation.
However, there's a line of legitimacy to "let's [let me] designate Sam to shoot people if they do what we [I] don't like", and it starts with things like "Sam, the two of us are quarrelsome, so please shoot whichever of us starts anything with the other guy".
Today, the most popular and influential economist in China is a professor from the University of Hong Kong, Steven Cheung.
His famous example is about a group of boat rowers who take people across a river. They all own the boat, but they hire people to whip them — because they fear that some of them might try not to row, to be a free rider. But if they all free ride,there will be no business, so they agree to hire someone to watch them and whip them for group benefit.
http://www.digitalnpq.org/global_services/global%20viewpoint/03-07-05.html
Initiation of violence is unacceptable.
I'd say there is some wiggle room here, such as L. Apple's enforcement of contracts. What if Aretae sells slightly poisonous bread? Is that in itself violence? What is he claims it is below mortal levels?
It comes down to what is reasonable, and that itself is something to fight about.
Aretae,
For what it's worth, you've been on a roll lately. Your short, pithy posts and links have been full of thoughtful substance and mind-bending political thought.
I am sympathetic to the idea that we don't like bullies, except that I think the line between "bully" and "representative democracy" is much harder to define than you let on. IOW, when you say "Just because you don't like it, doesn't give you the moral right to stop me from doing it." I could easily say in reply, "says who?"
Because, in fact, whenever we get together in society and agree to common rules, we begin to use "we" and stop thinking in terms of radical atomic individuals. You and your wife could decide to have sex on your front lawn at 4:00 PM today and that won't technically "hurt" anyone, but most people won't want to see it and won't like it so we'll lock you up if you try it. Is that moral? I say yes, because I define morality more broadly than you, as actions benefiting the common good, and the common good includes maintaining a public way free of lacivious conduct.
P.S. Speaking of your front lawn, are you still in Chicago? If yes, we should get together again for dinner...
Ahh but you see ALL government action is immoral. So of course tariffs are immoral, but then again so are any other taxes, fees, or levies.
So which is more immoral, tariffs or property taxes? Inheritance or income taxes?
99% of small and medium sized business do zero exports, thus any tariff-trade war falls squarely on the shoulders of the large mega-corporations. Since they own the politicians on both sides there is little danger of that happening.
LA,
Thoughtful response. Thanks. I do read Alrenous.
The Chinese economist is a great propagandist for government control... but there's a HUGE hole. Person A has goals. Person B has goals. IF the goals are the same, and there's a willpower failure, then agreeing to a system that is potentially painful but whic accomplishes A's and B's goals is potentially wise. However, the issue (as per my post) is that A's goals and B's goals usually don't line up. Agreeing that B will be whipped when he doesn't pursue A's goals is the issue. It is only the illusion of groupness that permits the position.
RSF,
All ideas have border cases. That doesn't detract from the fact that there's a central insight of looking at the issue from a "how does it affect individuals" PoV.
Mark,
I grant that's a useful question. Side issue regarding this post.
INH,
1. IOW, when you say "Just because you don't like it, doesn't give you the moral right to stop me from doing it." I could easily say in reply, "says who?"
Do you really think that, or is it just a rhetorical point? This is basic human go along get along ethics. If you are not my mother, and I pick my nose...and you don't like it...and you try to stop me forcibly...you're in the wrong, and you're in the wrong according to just about anyone. Basic human pre-ethics.
2. We begin to use "we"...and in doing so, we ignore the very different goods for different folks. The radical atomic perspective is essential because it prevents us from faking consensus when there isn't one. And there ain't consensus (or even close) on much.
IF there's 2 couples on an island...and one hates seeing outdoor sex, but the other likes having outdoor sex...it's pretty clear that couple 1 has no right to stop couple 2. There should be some sort of negotiation. Coase, etc. If there's 5 couples, and only one likes having sex outside, it's still rather morally suspicious to send sam the shooter to invite the sex-positive couple to stop.
(aside...new post idea...thanks)
But the key point...one you're NOT addressing is that there is NOT a common good. There MAY be an aggregate good...what is good for Abel,Baker,Charlie,and Dennis, but bad for Eddie and Frank may be worth "2 points" of good. And, if it's only 1 point of good each for ABCD, and 5 points of bad each for EF...that may not even be true. But it sure ain't in the "common good".
Aretae,
"says who" is a stronger point than I'd like, and your counterargument is unconvincing.
First, it doesn't even have to go all the way to differing ethics. If I'm also principally opposed to the initiation of violence, but I have a different threshhold than a given libertarian as to what constitutes initiation, then one of us is quickly likely to think that the other is initiating force and making a mockery of his own ethics.
Second, appealing to "just about anyone" and "basic human ethics" undercuts your original argument that there is no we. I don't see any good solutions here - argue that some community agrees on a principle and you're quickly back to democratic voting making it moral to use force, but assert your own principle whether or not "we" agree and you end up having a very unproductive argument with mister God-Told-Me-So who's asserting a different principle.
I agree with Lurking Apple's comments (and asked my provocative question because I really do think you gloss to quickly over how easy it might be to establish one agreed upon "non-violent" moral ethic.
More importantly, where our disagreement really is at its heart is this: "But the key point...one you're NOT addressing is that there is NOT a common good." The entire Western philosophical tradition (well, at least the Greeks and the Christians) basically argued that we could use our reason, despite our different preferences and desires, to come to some conclusions about the common good. There will always be folks who reject these conclusions, which is why you have the State enforcing rules via the use of force -- but this is no different than your utlitarian ethics enforcing your "do no harm" principle via the use of force.
So I think you have stumbled upon one, if not the ultimate, difference between a libertarian and a conservative -- whether or not he/she believes in the concept of the common good.
Can I/we substitute "aggregate good" for "common good" and then start making group rules?
RSF,
The primary issue on my side is that your "common good" is screwing some of the people that it's supposed to be common to. I don't actually think I have a lot of persuasion available after we acknowledge that.
If you're happy that your common good screws 1/3 (or 1/10) of the people in order to make the life happier for the others...then there's not much I can do. I just want you to be fully cognizant of that fact. Actually...then I want you to imagine that it's your sister/mother/daughter that's being screwed by the rule for the common good. If you're still happy to make the rule...no moral suasion on my part will do.
I think personally that using force to benefit the 60% at the expense of the 10% is immoral. But I don't expect to be able to persuade on that count. Usually just understanding that there's a 10% that is getting screwed by your common "good for some and bad for others" is as much as I can extract as a concession.
I'll concede the screwing, but I have a pessimistic outlook: pretty much every society is going to screw over someone.
Some variant of this position pops up at various places from Jehu to Yudkowsky.
I'm not happy that some get screwed in group action. The effort should be to minimize/eliminate such.
I appreciate your conclusion that fairness can only be achieved at the individual level, but the division of labor/synergy of group action so often trumps individual effort that one needs to be at the table.
I'm not happy that some get screwed in group action. The effort should be to minimize/eliminate such.
I appreciate your conclusion that fairness can only be achieved at the individual level, but the division of labor/synergy of group action so often trumps individual effort that one needs to be at the table.
Post a Comment