CDR: Re: Shunning, lesbians and liberty

Riad S. Wahby rsw at MIT.EDU
Wed Sep 27 17:01:04 PDT 2000


Sampo A Syreeni <ssyreeni at cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> >Then, too bad.  They haven't *done* anything to you.
> 
> A distinction without a difference, I say.

Not at all.  The distinction is in the same vein as the distinction
between talking about something and actually doing it.

> 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.

You can't draw this parallel, though.  You see, he is only proposing
the _lack_ of certain forces compelling you to do something.  This is
not advocating "anarchy, injustice, and immorality," but simply
rejecting regulations on how one should associate with the rest of
society.

Further, setting a precedent whereby it is acceptable to legislate
"proper behavior" is obviously flawed, because you can't provide a
valid distinction between nice fuzzy laws compelling you to behave in
a certain way and the laws of an Orwellian nightmare as you'd
certainly like to.  On the other hand, making a distinction between
laws that compel behavior of one sort and laws that simply prevent
certain behaviors is perfectly acceptable, and necessary.  The
argument is really, I think, about laws which limit positive actions
(shooting someone) versus laws which limit negative actions (not
associating with someone).  The latter are, for Gil, for me, and for
most people on this list, unacceptable.

> 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.

Please admit that you just used a squirrel definition so we can kill
the worms in this can quickly.  Restrictions on the negative liberty
in question (that is, _not_ to associate with someone) are obviously
more intrusive than laws that limit positive liberties (e.g. the
liberty to kill your neighbor).

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

This statement tells me that there is no common ground between you and
Gil, or between you and me.  Gil and I start from the assumption that
you have liberties that the government cannot take away, while you
seem to be coming from the perspective that the government gives its
people certain liberties, but that liberty comes from nowhere else but
government.  Perhaps it's not even worth it to argue any more.

> 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.

I put forth this explanation: shared resources are those resources to
which it is impossible to restrict access.  A lighthouse built on the
coast and the radio spectrum are both examples of shared resources.
Food is not.  I can keep you from eating my food without too much
trouble--I can lock it in a safe or I can eat it.  I can discriminate
as to whom I will provide services, et cetera.

> 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.

No, not at all.  A shopkeeper who owns a private shop has the right to
sell only to certain people and not to others, and the distinction the
shop owner makes between those he will sell to and those he will not
is his alone to make.

> 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.

But why not?  Why is this different from forcing a shop owner to sell
to people he would not otherwise serve?  It seems that if I cannot
limit your right to speak, even if I can't escape the sound of your
voice, you can't limit my right not to sell food to you even if it
means you will starve.

> 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'.

Neither Gil nor anyone else is your caretaker; thus, you are imposing
upon him by asking him to transport you out of there.  This is again a
distinction between positive and negative action.  You say his
_in_action is an undue burden on you.  I say that your request for his
action is an undue burden on him.

> 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.

You have a right to life.  You do not have the right not to die.
There is a difference.  Neither I nor anyone else have to sustain your
life; all that is required of our respecting your right not to die is
that we don't kill you.

--
Riad Wahby
rsw at mit.edu
MIT VI-2/A 2002

5105
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 4124 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks-legacy/attachments/20000927/f05ecd31/attachment.sig>


More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list