Freedom Of Association?

[bonker]

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.

So, to clarify your rambling reply:

Black panthers and Klansmen beating each other in the street due to a race-baiting restaurant:
1) Is a conflict
2) Can be resolved through, negotiation, mediation and arbitration. i.e the three methods you proposed.

So basically, you think Libertarianiam can work because you can talk your way out of any conflict such as a race war? Am I correct
or can you clarify further?

[1714192710]

1714192710

[1714192710]

1714192710

[myrkul]

So, to clarify your rambling reply:

Black panthers and Klansmen beating each other in the street due to a race-baiting restaurant:
1) Is a conflict
2) Can be resolved through, negotiation, mediation and arbitration. i.e the three methods you proposed.

So basically, you think Libertarianiam can work because you can talk your way out of any conflict such as a race war? Am I correct
or can you clarify further?

Those are not the three methods I suggested, Go back and read all three wikipedia links. Note that the third one isn't so much a method, but a demonstration of how it's enacted today.

And though it may be difficult for such a conflict-driven mind such as yourself, Yes, I do believe that most situations can indeed be solved by talking to the other person.

[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.

What are you referring to? Bergers paper?

In a Bayesian context, Occam's razor corresponds to the selection of the minimal marginal likelihood of a set of models over their parameters. In a complex model, lower likelihood due to
the integration over more parameters will be offset by higher likelihood due to lower variance. This quantifies Occam's Razor, giving the most probable model
to be the simplest (that still fits the data).

As I mentioned, my original comparison was only casual.

[bonker]

So, to clarify your rambling reply:

Black panthers and Klansmen beating each other in the street due to a race-baiting restaurant:
1) Is a conflict
2) Can be resolved through, negotiation, mediation and arbitration. i.e the three methods you proposed.

So basically, you think Libertarianiam can work because you can talk your way out of any conflict such as a race war? Am I correct
or can you clarify further?

Those are not the three methods I suggested, Go back and read all three wikipedia links. Note that the third one isn't so much a method, but a demonstration of how it's enacted today.

And though it may be difficult for such a conflict-driven mind such as yourself, Yes, I do believe that most situations can indeed be solved by talking to the other person.

Can you please state your three methods. These are the key to your entire argument.

We may soon reach or final point of opinion. Yours being the opinion that all conflicts can be resolved by negotiation.

COnflicts such as Race hate, religious rivalry, domestic violence, pagan ritual sacrifice etc.

[myrkul]

Can you please state your three methods. These are the key to your entire argument.

We may soon reach or final point of opinion. Yours being the opinion that all conflicts can be resolved by negotiation.

COnflicts such as Race hate, religious rivalry, domestic violence, pagan ritual sacrifice etc.

I did already, you quoted them, I assumed you read them. I guess I was wrong. Go back and read them now. I'll wait...


Done? Good. So now you should have seen that no, not all conflicts can be solved by negotiations.

If you insist that your right to swing your fist does not end at my face, well, I'm just going to have to defend myself, aren't I? Let me list the things you have lumped together up there into their proper categories:
Not conflict:
Race hate, religious rivalry. (these only become conflict when violence is attempted)

Conflict:
domestic violence, pagan ritual sacrifice.

Conflict occurs when violence happens. Anything less is a disagreement, and people are allowed to disagree.

[jgraham]

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.

Ok then what you said earlier needs some clarification or you need to define some terms.

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.

For example oppression is defined as the unjust use of power.  If the wealthy landowner is unjust in segregating his community then how is he not also oppressing people?  Is it okay to force him to stop?  If it isn't then how are people not reasonable in responding violently? 

Personally I think the whole thing is a weak argument.  As a person I'm willing to bet that the oppressed cares very,very,very little if the person oppressing them is 'free' to do so or not.  So the many/few argument doesn't wash.

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.

You mean if 60% of your country believes that washrooms should be ethnically segregated.   Then laws can and will be passed to demand it?   That seems unlikely.  However if 60% of your country's land is owned by people who believe that.  Isn't that de facto segregation?

[ascent]

Consider a neighborhood composed of various races. There is one majority and a few minorities. The major road in and out is owned by XYZ company. All seems well. ABC company buys the road from XYZ company. Then, over the course of the next year or so, ABC company begins to change the rules of access, based on skin color.

[myrkul]

Consider a neighborhood composed of various races. There is one majority and a few minorities. The major road in and out is owned by XYZ company. All seems well. ABC company buys the road from XYZ company. Then, over the course of the next year or so, ABC company begins to change the rules of access, based on skin color.

Each restriction will create a competitor.

First, BLK company, them MEX, then AZN, each with their own roads, open to the affected group, and everyone else. Pretty soon, the restricted road gets no business, while it's competitors are booming. Or much more likely, the first split creates a competitor, which the original road drives business to by restricting it's customers, eventually starving itself out, or finding a mid ground, which will still be lower than the wide open road.

[ascent]

Consider a neighborhood composed of various races. There is one majority and a few minorities. The major road in and out is owned by XYZ company. All seems well. ABC company buys the road from XYZ company. Then, over the course of the next year or so, ABC company begins to change the rules of access, based on skin color.

Each restriction will create a competitor.

First, BLK company, them MEX, then AZN, each with their own roads, open to the affected group, and everyone else. Pretty soon, the restricted road gets no business, while it's competitors are booming. Or much more likely, the first split creates a competitor, which the original road drives business to by restricting it's customers, eventually starving itself out, or finding a mid ground, which will still be lower than the wide open road.

I guess the key point you missed (which is your debating style) is the phrase 'major road'.

[myrkul]

Consider a neighborhood composed of various races. There is one majority and a few minorities. The major road in and out is owned by XYZ company. All seems well. ABC company buys the road from XYZ company. Then, over the course of the next year or so, ABC company begins to change the rules of access, based on skin color.

Each restriction will create a competitor.

First, BLK company, them MEX, then AZN, each with their own roads, open to the affected group, and everyone else. Pretty soon, the restricted road gets no business, while it's competitors are booming. Or much more likely, the first split creates a competitor, which the original road drives business to by restricting it's customers, eventually starving itself out, or finding a mid ground, which will still be lower than the wide open road.

I guess the key point you missed (which is your debating style) is the phrase 'major road'.

And what stops a competitor, exactly? What is it about the width or length of a road that makes competing impossible?

[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?

In a Bayesian context, Occam's razor corresponds to the selection of the minimal marginal likelihood of a set of models over their parameters. In a complex model, lower likelihood due to the integration over more parameters will be offset by higher likelihood due to lower variance. This quantifies Occam's Razor, giving the most probable model
to be the simplest (that still fits the data).

What you're talking about still isn't very clear. Given some dataset X and some group of models M.  P(X|M) will absolutely NOT award the highest posterior probability to the simplest model in any and all cases.  What you're talking about sounds sort of like the bias-variance dilemma which I generally assume you don't worry about when you're taking a Bayesian approach.

Edit:Perhaps a clearer way of putting this is that the marginal likelihood penalizes complex models however that's not the same as saying that the simpliest solution is the most likely (by which I assume you mean has the highest posterior probability) not to mention that who was it...Murray? States that the relationship between complexity and number of parameters isn't exactly as simple as you seem to imply.

[ascent]

And what stops a competitor, exactly? What is it about the width or length of a road that makes competing impossible?

Where does the competitor get the land to make the alternative road? Why do you think this alternative road magically appears within a day of the rule changes enacted by ABC company? Even if alternative roads are built, what happens in the interim? Furthermore, there's already a road going from A to B. Why do we want three more roads right next to it or nearly next to it also going from A to B?

[myrkul]

And what stops a competitor, exactly? What is it about the width or length of a road that makes competing impossible?

Where does the competitor get the land to make the alternative road? Why do you think this alternative road magically appears within a day of the rule changes enacted by ABC company? Even if alternative roads are built, what happens in the interim? Furthermore, there's already a road going from A to B. Why do we want three more roads right next to it or nearly next to it also going from A to B?

All of these things are questions asked by the new owners of the road before they make these changes, I'm sure...

If not, then Perhaps they shouldn't be making these sorts of silly decisions? They know that restrictions create competition. They know that they are only going to enrich their neighbors (Who will either sell to, or become, the new road) at the expense of themselves, not to mention generate tons of ill will and bad press. Companies, at least, we can be sure will act relatively rational, if for no other reason, their greater inertia.

[jgraham]

And what stops a competitor, exactly? What is it about the width or length of a road that makes competing impossible?

Where does the competitor get the land to make the alternative road? Why do you think this alternative road magically appears within a day of the rule changes enacted by ABC company? Even if alternative roads are built, what happens in the interim? Furthermore, there's already a road going from A to B. Why do we want three more roads right next to it or nearly next to it also going from A to B?

...and while the road is being built why not economically sabotage it?  As soon as these folk break ground they have investors, a budget, a board of directors and profitability projections.  Which could take years to get lined up I might add.  Especially since there's no right to annex.  So you are now negotiating with every two-bit landowner.

As for the racist (or whatever restrictive) landowner I would assume they can still be clever about things.  Why can't I start getting everyone on my road with reduced rates and a contract which just happens to overlap within the first few operating years of the new road?  Profitability projections would have to be altered.  Could easily get the board to cancel the project and the racist doesn't have to let people of ethnicity X back on their road once their contract is up.  They might even be able to buy the unfinished new road cheap.  If the board does go through with the project they will be running at a disadvantage.

If they do quit next time you try to build a competing road, you have less land and your investors are more reluctant.

This also doesn't include some of the "dirty" but probably legal things I could do in that world.

[myrkul]

As for the racist (or whatever restrictive) landowner I would assume they can still be clever about things.  Why can't I start getting everyone on my road with reduced rates and a contract which just happens to overlap within the first few operating years of the new road?  Profitability projections would have to be altered.  Could easily get the board to cancel the project and the racist doesn't have to let people of ethnicity X back on their road once their contract is up.  They might even be able to buy the unfinished new road cheap.  If the board does go through with the project they will be running at a disadvantage.

See previous refutation of predatory business practices. True, you can't stockpile a road, but you can easily project out past those first few years.

[jgraham]

As for the racist (or whatever restrictive) landowner I would assume they can still be clever about things.  Why can't I start getting everyone on my road with reduced rates and a contract which just happens to overlap within the first few operating years of the new road?  Profitability projections would have to be altered.  Could easily get the board to cancel the project and the racist doesn't have to let people of ethnicity X back on their road once their contract is up.  They might even be able to buy the unfinished new road cheap.  If the board does go through with the project they will be running at a disadvantage.

See previous refutation of predatory business practices. True, you can't stockpile a road, but you can easily project out past those first few years.

However your assertion was that it was solely due to the restriction that demand was created.  So there was no market need for a new road.
What stops the racist from keeping their customers happy just until they bankrupt the project?

[myrkul]

As for the racist (or whatever restrictive) landowner I would assume they can still be clever about things.  Why can't I start getting everyone on my road with reduced rates and a contract which just happens to overlap within the first few operating years of the new road?  Profitability projections would have to be altered.  Could easily get the board to cancel the project and the racist doesn't have to let people of ethnicity X back on their road once their contract is up.  They might even be able to buy the unfinished new road cheap.  If the board does go through with the project they will be running at a disadvantage.

See previous refutation of predatory business practices. True, you can't stockpile a road, but you can easily project out past those first few years.

However your assertion was that it was solely due to the restriction that demand was created.  So there was no market need for a new road.
What stops the racist from keeping their customers happy just until they bankrupt the project?

Nothing. Nothing stops the competing road from only operating when the first one is being a dick about who can drive on it, either.

[JoelKatz]

For example oppression is defined as the unjust use of power.  If the wealthy landowner is unjust in segregating his community then how is he not also oppressing people?  Is it okay to force him to stop?  If it isn't then how are people not reasonable in responding violently?

He is metaphorically oppressing people, but he is not actually oppressing people. A refusal to interact with someone is not oppressing them. I don't oppress McDonald's if I choose to eat at Burger King, even if my reasons are bizarre or irrational (that Hamburgler always seemed creepy to me).

The equation of isolation with oppression is a bogus argument, akin to equating bullets with words. It is one I entirely reject.

Yes, being a racist in your own endeavors is an evil. But it is an evil of a qualitatively different sort than shooting people or stealing from them.

If there is going to be freedom, people will have to accept that other people may do things we really don't like. And we cannot respond with force.

Personally I think the whole thing is a weak argument.  As a person I'm willing to bet that the oppressed cares very,very,very little if the person oppressing them is 'free' to do so or not.  So the many/few argument doesn't wash.

So long as you use the word "oppressed" to include both using force to restrain people and refusing to do business with them because you don't like them, your arguments aren't going to make any sense.

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.

You mean if 60% of your country believes that washrooms should be ethnically segregated.   Then laws can and will be passed to demand it?   That seems unlikely.

Since that's exactly what happened, I'm not sure why you think it's unlikely.

However if 60% of your country's land is owned by people who believe that.  Isn't that de facto segregation?

Yes, it is. However, at least they won't be able to use force to segregate those who don't wish to be segregated. So we're a bit better off if force is off the table.

But in practice, if 60% of the people (or 60% of the wealth, or 60% of the power, or whatever) is willing to use force to compel segregation, no system will be able to avoid segregation. That's just a fact. The best we can do is set up a system that encourages people to value freedom and makes it as hard as possible to use force for applications other than legitimate defense.

[FredericBastiat]

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.

I have no idea what exactly you were talking about. You responded to my comment first if I recall, not the other way around. I've never read your laws. Every statement I wrote about what Law is, was as precise as it will ever get. I'd like to see you do better.

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.

I wasn't describing a legal system, I was creating definitions that anybody could utilize in whatever legal "system" they were willing to concoct. I'm personally not interested in responding to the # of loophole response or definition thereof. It will likely go nowhere. Let it go. If you can't get the gist of it, does that mean your going to "go off the deep end" and start hurting people? If not, then I'm sure we have a pretty good understanding.

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?

Exactly who cares. I'm sure you got it. Again this is sounding like a debate about a debate about a debate, not an obvious clarification about a clarification about a clarification (don't even go there). You're the one keeping the bad argument around it seems. Again, let it go. It's going nowhere.

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 figured you find something to annoy with. Let's see here. Your words didn't beat me up physically, so no. Does this help your fragile mind games about some off-handed rhetorical rant about a rant? Again, let it go. It's going nowhere.

""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.

Get over yourself, I'm sure you'll survive. Undeserved accusation? Boo hoo, cry me a river. On the other hand, lemme think about this one. Hmmm, what's the definition of deserved? Shall we try to mathematically, probablistically, or statistically derive this one? Or maybe we should talk to an ecclesiastical leader and get a poll going. Or if you're really bored, we can read all of human history and decipher through some filter equation so's we can see who wins the "most undeserved accused" award. <<Puke>> Again, let it go. It's going nowhere.

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.

You seem clueless and informed at the same time. The sardonic irony in here is thick. And your right, they are all "apparent" contradictions (for you). I don't have to do anything for you at all. Either you get it or you don't, I'm not your wet nurse. I'm not going to argue about an argument any more than I'm going to define a definition. It's called circular. You'll end up going nowhere.

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?

Not interested in making more examples than I've already compiled. I've thought them thru just fine (let's see you do better). I invite you to sit down and write a set of laws. We'll compare notes. Notwithstanding, it seems that if I did, you'd nit pick thru every word I wrote with the intent of finding contradictions that don't exist. I never implied you'd be responsible for my words or make my arguments make sense. You're assuming, I thought you didn't do that.

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".

Read the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" by Ludvig Wittgenstein. I imagine you two would get along just dandy. Go begging.

[jgraham]

As for the racist (or whatever restrictive) landowner I would assume they can still be clever about things.  Why can't I start getting everyone on my road with reduced rates and a contract which just happens to overlap within the first few operating years of the new road?  Profitability projections would have to be altered.  Could easily get the board to cancel the project and the racist doesn't have to let people of ethnicity X back on their road once their contract is up.  They might even be able to buy the unfinished new road cheap.  If the board does go through with the project they will be running at a disadvantage.

See previous refutation of predatory business practices. True, you can't stockpile a road, but you can easily project out past those first few years.

However your assertion was that it was solely due to the restriction that demand was created.  So there was no market need for a new road.
What stops the racist from keeping their customers happy just until they bankrupt the project?

Nothing. Nothing stops the competing road from only operating when the first one is being a dick about who can drive on it, either.

Beside the point.   In order for the road to operate it needs to be built.   In order for the road to be built it needs investors.  Investors will want to know at what point their money gets returned to them (or unless you are counting on a "equal and opposite" bigot) before the road begins construction.  Breaking these provokes a response from your investors - at least in the world around me - perhaps it's different in your area.  This can be anything from invoking penalty clauses to pulling out (due to your breach of contract). 

As the racist controls the circumstances for your profitability they can force your project to be unprofitable until it dies.  Thus no road to operate.  Not only that but this is an extreme example the racist can simply make life more expensive for the group he/she is oppressing.   You can always make that just under the price it takes for a road to be profitable for investors.