Freedom Of Association?

[jgraham]

I actually do prefer fewer laws. There's less to mess with. There is a reason for the preference. I think when you have many laws you introduce the possibility of loopholes. Those tend to be exploited by lawyers allowing real criminals to use them to excuse themselves from the accountability of their actions.

This is Occam's Razor.

The problem is that human nature will lead to conflicts that Libertarianism does not have the mechanisms to resolve.

A couple of notes.   It's not Ockhams Razor per se.  As big Bill actually cautioned against using unnecessary entities to explain phenomena.  He certainly did not say that simple systems are correct or preferable.  While that is a common phrasing of the idiom it is also demonstrably false.   In some cases in ballistics one can ignore wind resistance. This is a "simpler" model according to Occam but it is also less correct (as a model of ballistics).

Personally I think that rather than use labels like "Libertarian" it's better to simply assert that complex systems are - as I mentioned earlier - best approximated by complex models.  However like any approximation function one must weigh other factors.  While I don't pretend to know what Libertarianism entails to a terrible degree of detail.  Some form of government which loosely fits under that label may in fact be optimal.   However I will say that nobody here has, from where I sit made a very good argument to that end.

[1713500588]

1713500588

[1713500588]

1713500588

[FredericBastiat]

 
While the idea that laws should be based on statistics and outcomes I find intriguing.  Have you considered turning the same lens on your ideas about property rights?

Read here, and get back with me:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18489.msg351447#msg351447

Then we don't have to fall over our words again, and again. I have a feeling you like to beat people up over the precise meaning of a word or combination of words. I don't find pedantry fun in the least. Words have meaning, but they can be misconstrued just for the sake of argument. Using a loosely defined language (i.e. any spoken language such as English, Spanish, French, Chinese, etc.) as opposed to a more strictly defined one (mathematics) would avert some problems in what I said versus what you think I intended to say.

The Laws of Men aren't rocket science (as in difficult), at least for the most part (I'm just waiting for you to jump on this one). They're quite simple, prevent injustice without causing it. I can come to your aid, but don't force me. As it has already been said many a time in this forum and others, I owe you nothing more than inaction. To wit, I can bring no harm, nor effectuate change in you or your property. If I do, there can be consequences.

[Sovereign]

...

Freedom of association is a legitimate freedom that inevitably restricts the liberty of others, usually based upon the
sacred cow delineations of race, gender and orientation.

...

Rofl?


War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength

[billyjoeallen]

Law is complicated because life is, in part because life today is complicated.

Hmmm, yes. I think this is the key point. Libertarianism cannot accommodate the complexities of
human nature.
 

Compared to what? Are you saying that another system/ideology can accommodate the complexities of human nature better? Which one?

Human nature is complicated, which is why praxeology was invented.

 

[bonker]

A couple of notes.   It's not Ockhams Razor per se.  As big Bill actually cautioned against using unnecessary entities to explain phenomena.  He certainly did not say that simple systems are correct or preferable.  While that is a common phrasing of the idiom it is also demonstrably false.   In some cases in ballistics one can ignore wind resistance. This is a "simpler" model according to Occam but it is also less correct (as a model of ballistics).

Personally I think that rather than use labels like "Libertarian" it's better to simply assert that complex systems are - as I mentioned earlier - best approximated by complex models.  However like any approximation function one must weigh other factors.  While I don't pretend to know what Libertarianism entails to a terrible degree of detail.  Some form of government which loosely fits under that label may in fact be optimal.   However I will say that nobody here has, from where I sit made a very good argument to that end.

Occam's razor is a concept concerning probability - the simplest solution is the most probable. My original statement was just a casual comparison.   

Beyond this I am sympathetic to you position. I quite like the Libertarian idea, I mean who doesn't like the idea more personal freedom? I also agree that
the arguments presented so far in the thread are naive and inadequate.

If Libertarianism does arrive, I suspect it will be with authoritarianism hidden deep out of sight.

[bonker]

Law is complicated because life is, in part because life today is complicated.

Hmmm, yes. I think this is the key point. Libertarianism cannot accommodate the complexities of
human nature.
 

Compared to what? Are you saying that another system/ideology can accommodate the complexities of human nature better? Which one?

Human nature is complicated, which is why praxeology was invented.

 

Yes, most other systems of governance deal with complexities such as conflicts of interest. They judge and enforce a resolution. Yes, they are authoritarian and
restrict individual liberty to do this.

Libertarianism has no mechanism to resolve conflict and is hence unstable. In fact, naive and childish.

[myrkul]

Libertarianism has no mechanism to resolve conflict and is hence unstable. In fact, naive and childish.

You keep saying this, in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Therefore you are either terminally stupid, or the most transparent troll on the internet.

[bonker]

Libertarianism has no mechanism to resolve conflict and is hence unstable. In fact, naive and childish.

You keep saying this, in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Therefore you are either terminally stupid, or the most transparent troll on the internet.

Can you please cite and justify this evidence? Given that negotiation and arbitration can't solve all conflicts.

[jgraham]

A couple of notes.   It's not Ockhams Razor per se.  As big Bill actually cautioned against using unnecessary entities to explain phenomena.  He certainly did not say that simple systems are correct or preferable.  While that is a common phrasing of the idiom it is also demonstrably false.   In some cases in ballistics one can ignore wind resistance. This is a "simpler" model according to Occam but it is also less correct (as a model of ballistics).

Personally I think that rather than use labels like "Libertarian" it's better to simply assert that complex systems are - as I mentioned earlier - best approximated by complex models.  However like any approximation function one must weigh other factors.  While I don't pretend to know what Libertarianism entails to a terrible degree of detail.  Some form of government which loosely fits under that label may in fact be optimal.   However I will say that nobody here has, from where I sit made a very good argument to that end.

Occam's razor is a concept concerning probability - the simplest solution is the most probable. My original statement was just a casual comparison.   

If by "Ockham's Razor" you mean what Ockham actually said...or Betrand Russel's formulation of the idiom.  Then no, it's not.
If by "Ockham's Razor" you mean what people commonly refer to by the idiom then yes you are correct.  However that sense is very likely false.

[myrkul]

Libertarianism has no mechanism to resolve conflict and is hence unstable. In fact, naive and childish.

You keep saying this, in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Therefore you are either terminally stupid, or the most transparent troll on the internet.

Can you please cite and justify this evidence? Given that negotiation and arbitration can't solve all conflicts.

Still waiting on you to cite conflicts that negotiation can't solve.

Whites-only restaurants are not a conflict. Let me learn you why:
I own a building. I can exclude anyone I want from my building.
By extension, I can choose to allow anyone I want access to my building.
I own food, And I can choose to give, or not give, that food to anyone I want.
I can also set conditions upon which I will or will not give that food to someone. (for instance, paying $13.95 per plate)
It is not a violation of anyone's rights to tell them, "No."

[jgraham]

 
While the idea that laws should be based on statistics and outcomes I find intriguing.  Have you considered turning the same lens on your ideas about property rights?

Read here, and get back with me:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18489.msg351447#msg351447

That's actually the opposite of what I was talking about.  This is not an empirical derivation of law from some generally agreed upon concept of Justice.   It's actually much closer to the way you described my laws.  A set of mores or guiding principles.  Virtually every statement is way, way, way, way too poorly defined to be a law.

Also I'd appreciate a response to the bulk of this discussion which has been about your particular justification for your ideas as to what makes an optimal legal system. NOT primarily what your alleged optimal system consists of.   In that vein, any chance you can tell me what this has to do with your argument concerning your ideas concerning "number of laws" or your definition of "loophole" or "law".  After all I've been consistent in responding to your questions.
 

Then we don't have to fall over our words again, and again.

How about, instead you just be honest about it?  i.e. " 'Mental crime' wasn't what I meant" or "My loophole/number of laws argument doesn't really hold water".   I mean who cares?  I would guess that wouldn't affect your position anyway.   Why keep a bad argument around?

I have a feeling you like to beat people up over the precise meaning of a word or combination of words.

Are you implying that a pretty mild examination of your logic is somehow "beating you up"?  Wait until the lawyers from your preferred system get their hands on your "simple" laws.  I think you are in greater danger from getting "beat up" from the repeated back-patting in that other thread than anything from me. 

I don't find pedantry fun in the least.

I've already argued that that is an undeserved accusation.  Please back up your claim or stop accusing.

Words have meaning, but they can be misconstrued just for the sake of argument.

I can't deliberately misconstrue if I don't know what you're saying.  You made statements with apparent contradictions.  It's up to you, not me to clear those up.

Using a loosely defined language (i.e. any spoken language such as English, Spanish, French, Chinese, etc.) as opposed to a more strictly defined one (mathematics) would avert some problems in what I said versus what you think I intended to say.

Please cite a specific example of what you are talking about here.  From here it appears that your loose usage of language is the problem.   It makes your ideas appear as not being thought through.  You also seem to be saying that it's my responsibility to make your arguments make sense.  Why is that exactly?  I thought all I owed you was inaction?

The Laws of Men aren't rocket science (as in difficult), at least for the most part (I'm just waiting for you to jump on this one).

No jumping necessary.  You have just made a change of subject fallacy.  Instead of giving an argument as to why "laws" need to be simple you are now just assuming it.  This is what logicians call "begging the question".

[bonker]

Still waiting on you to cite conflicts that negotiation can't solve.

Whites-only restaurants are not a conflict. Let me learn you why:
I own a building. I can exclude anyone I want from my building.
By extension, I can choose to allow anyone I want access to my building.
I own food, And I can choose to give, or not give, that food to anyone I want.
I can also set conditions upon which I will or will not give that food to someone. (for instance, paying $13.95 per plate)
It is not a violation of anyone's rights to tell them, "No."

Hmm, I suppose we could possibly make progress here.

I would counter your assertion above. I propose that a white-only restaurant in the middle
of a black district will cause conflict. Do you seriously think that it wouldn't piss people off?

What about when some Klansmen walk along the street to go there, perhaps with a noose and burning cross?
Don't you think that would almost certainly cause conflict?

You inept system must be able to cope with conflict, not pretend it won't exist.

[bonker]

If by "Ockham's Razor" you mean what Ockham actually said...or Betrand Russel's formulation of the idiom.  Then no, it's not.
If by "Ockham's Razor" you mean what people commonly refer to by the idiom then yes you are correct.  However that sense is very likely false.

I'm referring to it's application in Bayesian statistics. This is the only interpretation that matters.

[jgraham]

If a bunch of racist people want to live together and be racists, that's fine. I'm willing to live and let live. I will despise them, refuse to deal with them, and refuse to deal with those who deal with them.

How about people who enable them?

At least the racists can't use the machinery of government to enforce segregation or discrimination, as has happened in pretty much every Democracy.

So contracts aren't part of the machinery of government as you are using the term?  Because as a wealthy landowner it appears that I can enforce segregation and discrimination on my property.  Right?  The only difference here is, correct me if I'm wrong that I can't enforce that statewide or further and you can boycott me but you can't regulate my actions.

[jgraham]

If by "Ockham's Razor" you mean what Ockham actually said...or Betrand Russel's formulation of the idiom.  Then no, it's not.
If by "Ockham's Razor" you mean what people commonly refer to by the idiom then yes you are correct.  However that sense is very likely false.

I'm referring to it's application in Bayesian statistics. This is the only interpretation that matters.

What are you referring to? Bergers paper?

[myrkul]

Hmm, I suppose we could possibly make progress here.

I would counter your assertion above. I propose that a white-only restaurant in the middle
of a black district will cause conflict. Do you seriously think that it wouldn't piss people off?

What about when some Klansmen walk along the street to go there, perhaps with a noose and burning cross?
Don't you think that would almost certainly cause conflict?

To avoid any stereotypes, let's invert, and thus possibly subvert, your scenario:

"I propose that a black-only restaurant in the middle of a white district will cause conflict. Do you seriously think that it wouldn't piss people off?

What about when some Panthers walk along the street to go there, perhaps with brass knuckles and shotguns?
Don't you think that would almost certainly cause conflict? "

Hmm. In either situation, the problem can be completely avoided by not selling to the white/black person in the first place, but let's assume that the previous property owner was a moron, and didn't ask what the property was going to be used for.

Assuming that, and the business does indeed get started, remember that all the other property surrounding it, including the road up to it, is private as well. The road can, and indeed should, exclude troublemakers from traveling it. Simple things, like requiring any fires in the vehicle to be extinguished, etc, should do it. Come down to it, the street owner can just shut down access to the restaurant completely, if the place is causing that much trouble for the neighborhood.

But let's assume the road owner is a neutral party, far removed from, and thus uncaring about, the 'conflict' brewing. You're assuming that people have the right to not be offended. You're wrong. A white man, carrying a cross and wearing a hood is harming no one, just as a black man wearing a leather jacket and carrying a lead pipe ain't hurtin' nobody. As long as those things are true, there is no conflict. The minute that black man swings the lead pipe at someone though, or the white guy grabs someone to string up, then there's a conflict. A conflict that can be resolved using one of the three methods I presented in my previous post.

But really, your whole scenario is stupid. Who would go into Harlem and open a Whites-only restaurant? You'd get no business. You need to cater to the clientele most likely to come to your store. In Harlem, that's gonna be blacks. And as for racial tension in general, Talking (ie negotiation) has proved to be the best way to defuse it, every damn time.

[JoelKatz]

I would counter your assertion above. I propose that a white-only restaurant in the middle
of a black district will cause conflict. Do you seriously think that it wouldn't piss people off?

What about when some Klansmen walk along the street to go there, perhaps with a noose and burning cross?
Don't you think that would almost certainly cause conflict?

You inept system must be able to cope with conflict, not pretend it won't exist.

You don't think people are capable of being free. You think that if people are free, some people will get so unhappy at what other people choose to do that they'll riot. And yet our society has most of these same freedoms and we don't have many riots at all. People say things every day that anger other people. But there's no blood in the streets. You must be completely mystified as to how this can be.

And the answer really is simple -- the majority of people understand that if they want to have freedom, they have to similarly extend freedom to other people. This will mean that other people will be free to do things that they really and truly despise. And they're perfectly willing to get over it. For the minority of people who can't over it -- we have police, courts, and jails. If you can't accept that your neighbor wants to pray to Allah or not pray at all, and your only recourse is violence, then you have no place in civil society.

Many people will respond violently to oppression. But only a small number of people will respond violently to other people's freedom. For that small number of people, they should be violently suppressed. They certainly should not ever get what they want.

[jgraham]

Many people will respond violently to oppression. But only a small number of people will respond violently to other people's freedom. For that small number of people, they should be violently suppressed. They certainly should not ever get what they want.

So to you is justice defined as having little meaning outside of respecting property rights?   So something like racial segregation - the act of allowing people of one ethnicity or ancestry access to some areas of land and not others is not intrinsically unjust if it's done by a landowner.  However it is unjust if it's done by a government.  Right?

[myrkul]

Many people will respond violently to oppression. But only a small number of people will respond violently to other people's freedom. For that small number of people, they should be violently suppressed. They certainly should not ever get what they want.

So to you is justice defined as having little meaning outside of respecting property rights?   So something like racial segregation - the act of allowing people of one ethnicity or ancestry access to some areas of land and not others is not intrinsically unjust if it's done by a landowner.  However it is unjust if it's done by a government.  Right?

The nature of government is such that everything it does is unjust, even its good acts. Any benefit government gives to someone, comes at the cost of harm to someone else.

[JoelKatz]

So to you is justice defined as having little meaning outside of respecting property rights?   So something like racial segregation - the act of allowing people of one ethnicity or ancestry access to some areas of land and not others is not intrinsically unjust if it's done by a landowner.

No, not at all. But I draw a distinction between those unjust acts that justify a response with force and those that don't. That doesn't mean I don't despise those acts and consider them just as unjust as you do. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fully accept other actions aimed at punishing the injustice -- just not the use of force. Not every injustice justifies the use of force to correct it.

If the majority of people want to be bigots, then we definitely don't want force available, because they'll use force to do things like segregate society and oppress minorities. If the majority of people don't want to be bigots, we don't need to use force against the minority. We can simply ostracize them and punish them in non-coercive ways. If they want to form their own minority enclave in which they are bigots, I see no reason not to let them. We can continue to consider them unjust and deserving of our hate. But we can also live and let live.

However it is unjust if it's done by a government.  Right?

It is unjust if done by anyone.

Freedom includes the freedom to be unjust with what is yours.