CDR: Re: Shunning, lesbians and liberty

[Sampo A Syreeni]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Gil Hamilton wrote:

>>And if your neighbours are simply malignant? Since when did people need a
>>reason to harm each other?
>
>Then, too bad.  They haven't *done* anything to you.

A distinction without a difference, I say.

>>Yep. That would be my point. This sounds deceptively like holding someone 
>>at
>>a gunpoint. It has little to do with liberty.
>
>It has everything to do with liberty.  The kind of society you
>envision is nightmarish: where everyone is required by law to act
>in certain defined ways (not merely to refrain from acts which harm
>others).

I think it is a workable argument that it is better to have such social
rules encoded in law instead of having people come up with them at will and
imposing them on others through shunning, lynching or whatever. In theory at
least you will then know in advance whether something you have done will be
'illegal'. Besides, current law in most countries holds precisely that sort
of stuff. Probably the best Finnish example is conscript duty. (No, I'm not
saying that isn't nightmarish.)

>>Well, just debunk it. The point was, really, that even while I do have 
>>great reservations about treating shunning and physical violence as
>>equivalent, I do not accept the notion of specific liberties being
>>absolute, either.
>
>Indeed, you seem to be quite comfortable with police-state tactics so
>long as the particular set of rules being enforced are those that you
>approve of.

anarchy, injustice and immorality as long as the particular set of rules
leading to them is the one you approve of. This doesn't lead anywhere.

>>There is no essential reason why those freedoms couldn't be defined in some
>>more limited form. It's not like these concepts are black and white.
>
>Go to a dictionary and look up the several meanings of "freedom".
>Then come back and tell me which one of those squares with your
>notion of people being forced to do things they don't wish to do.

The dictionary definition is simply one end of a whole spectrum. Besides, if
I wanted to nitpick, the Webster definition, 'Exempt from subjection to the
will of others' strictly interpreted sort of rules out shunning and other
forms of extortion.

>>Look at it this way: if for some reason the survival of each and every 
>>human being is conditioned on some part of the population doing thing x,
>>wouldn't you say it is fair to demand that x be done even if the
>>individuals would not want to? It's not a huge leap from this to limiting
>>such 'inalienable' rights as the right to property.
>
>I reject the premise as ridiculous and contrived.

Let the part of population be those that own farming land. Let x be farming
it.

>But in a word, no, I wouldn't say it is fair. (Nor am I interested in
>striving for "fairness", about which more below.)

You agree, then?

>It's quite apparent you have no trouble giving up your freedoms. Worse, you
>have no trouble giving up mine too.

Who said you had any in the first place? That is something you have to
justify separately.

>>If we, for some reason, have an (in)action, some damage and a strong proof
>>of causality, it is difficult to justify differential treatment based on
>>whether the damage comes from action or inaction.
>
>Absent a clearly established obligation or responsibility to perform
>some action, it is quite easy to justify differential treatment.

Do the honors.

>And our legal system at least has always done so.

Which some people could consider odd in the extreme. I do not take such
things for granted.

>I don't consider the radio spectrum to be particularly scarce,

If we look at specific applications (like mobile data transfer), we would
like to use bands which are below 1-2 GHz because line-of-sight
communications limit the usability of any equipment. We would like to get by
with a minimum investment of physical resources, implying large coverage for
a single antenna installation. In metropolitan areas, this hardly suffices
for high bandwidth applications alone - nothing left over. This is what a
sane person would do provided no scarcity exists. Now consider what happens
when two independent parties do this in the same city. A mess. There is
considerable scarcity.

>Nonetheless, such a shared resource is not at all the subject that
>was being discussed.

But if you acknowledge the existence of shared resources, you will have to
explain why, for instance, food, services, whatever really, aren't shared
but private.

>>Some of the above, perhaps. If people are indeed dependent on shopping for
>>their survival, I do think their right to live sort of preempts the shop
>>owner's property rights.
>
>In other words, the shop owner *has* no rights.

Explain. This simply does not follow from the above. In the above situation
the existence of a right demands less than in your ideal universe.

>"Er, I really don't like to get too specific."

No. I mean what I say - the specific set of behaviors which have to be
tolerated even though they infringe on your rights is to a degree arbitrary 
and subject to change. It's a gray area and should be left as such. There
will always be such a gray area, though. E.g. you cannot expect to shut
people up based on the acoustics of their speech violating your right to be
left alone. Not even when you have no way to escape the sound.

>"Oppress"?  Where did that come from?  Again, your words are slippery
>and seem to mean whatever you want them to mean from moment to moment.
>I don't consider my failure to do as you wish I would "oppression".

A hypothetical: I own everything around you for some 100 miles. Let's say
that 100 miles happens to be desert. Your failure to comply with my wish of
transportation the hell out of there or sustain me is equivalent to killing
me. I call such incompliance oppression. Webster for oppression: 'To impose
excessive burdens upon; to overload; hence, to treat with unjust rigor or
with cruelty'.

>First "oppress", now "exploit".  You've been reading your Marx again,
>haven't you?  Again, my failure to satisfy your every whim does not
>constitute "exploitation".

Webster for 'exploit': 'To utilize; to make available; to get the value or
usefulness out of; as, to exploit a mine or agricultural lands; to exploit
public opinion'. I'm not talking about satisfying whims, but basic needs. If
you have in your power to fulfill such a need, I cannot myself, and I will
be rid of a fundamental right (like the right to life) otherwise, you should
satisfy the need. If you take this as a premise, as I try to, not complying
fits the above description.

>>Could you explain how this differs from fascism?
>
>Fascism?  I don't see the relationship.  Indeed, it is your notion
>that people must be forced to act in certain ways by an all-powerful
>government, not mine.

Who said anything about a government. Or all-powerful. Who said anything
about forcing (persuasion can have equivalent results, as the Drug War
demonstrates). What I'm talking about is oppression by majorities, which can
very well happen with or without a government.

>Certainly not I.  Liberty is another word you could stand to look up.

Webster: 'The state of a free person; exemption from subjection to the
will of another claiming ownership of the person or services; freedom; --
opposed to slavery, serfdom, bondage, or subjection.' Nothing here to
suggest certain limitations cannot be made.

>Liberty does not equal equality.  Nor is equality a goal I would
>espouse for the kind of society I believe in, since that inevitably
>means taking from those who have more and giving to those who have
>less (without regard to whether they "deserve" it or not).

In my books, freedom/liberty also does not equal the right to limit other's
respective freedoms/liberties. Both words are defined as the absence of a
condition which in all practical situations to so degree applies. They
cannot be interpreted absolutely.

You will also have a lot of explaining to do if you assume that those who
have automatically deserve to. I'm not going to turn Marxist on you, here,
but I consider inequality something that should be limited (though not
abolished).

Sampo Syreeni <decoy at iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university