On May 15, 10:46 pm, "Publius"
nospam.comcast.net> wrote:> "Econ_Amateur"
yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179263706.466090.51530@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> (1) > The points I made are that freedom is a negative concept,defined by>> what it is not, namely interference.
> (2) > Life is defined as a process that shapes nature to its
> gratification,
>> interference is a degradation of that process.
> (3) > Harm is interefernce.
>
>> These words I have already called synonymous,
>> and just shifted to the word harm because its used a lot and shorter.
>
>> 1. and 2. ,what you speciouslly call circular, are actually a
>> tautology.
>
> Ok, you've introduced a new term, "life," so let's work that into the
> definitions.
>
> Freedom DEF: Lack of interference in ones's life activities.
>
> Harm DEF: Interference in one's life activities.
>
> You glide over the circularity by failing to specify, in your formula (3)
> above, interference with *what*.
This is your third howler, how many times are you going to want to
look that way? If your aim is prove to me how little there is to
gain in conversing, you are approaching success. It wont be an
honest victory. My goal is liberty and short of any one else here
asking for more, I do have other places where people do know how to
listen.
You ask what harm is? Perhaps calling it a synonym with interference
through you. What is intereference?
A degradation of ones will to shape nature to ones gratification. So
interference is deffined both in terms of personal will, and later a
test is described which you rudely compleatly overlooked before
responding. Your personal failings here in the dedication to liberty
are painting a pciture of worthlessness.
> And it is the same thing (life
> activities) which you use to define "freedom." Thus the two terms are
> defined in terms of the same thing, namely, interference in one's life
> activities.
> That will be OK if you then define "interference with one's
> life activities" in terms that do not include either "freedom" or "harm."
> If those terms appear in the latter definition, you are back to
> circularity.
This in fact makes sense, but your interpretation missed the subtle
outside qualifier, which was ones personal gratification. What
decides harm? Gratification. More on that just below.
So again freedom and harm are the tautology. Freedom is the negative
concept of Harm. Harm defines entirely by degradation in the process
of shaping nature to ones gratification. Shaping nature to ones
gratification, is simply an observation on what we as people do.
There are a few outside qualifiers that are desirable in the search
for freedom.
1) That the definition of life be as encompassing as possible so that
no activity goes uncovered in the derived definition of harm. I
think thats fully encompassing. Others may argue that life is really
deploying gods will, but then they get stuck defining god and his
will.
2) By exclusively focusing on manipulations of the natural world for
freedom/harm manipulations of other people are excluded from
consideration.
3) THE definition of harm is deffined at an individual level. Ie
people get to say what harms them. Any exteriour definition would be
an imposition of values, and thus in conflict with the goal of not
using each other as resources.
So the whole ball gets rolling on the simple definition of life, and
that was an observation. I could have observed that in reality
people do use each other as resources, and then a whole different
criteria for harm emerges. Notably a whole lot more harm, which I
think if all the same methods of harm minization are followed boil all
the extra harm away and still lead to the same result. But using
each other as a resource leads to some paradoxes, such as a man alone
on a planet is not free because he has no one to manipulate. Also
life is not served by intraspecies parasitizing. Its just wasted
energy that makes the species more vulenrable to competition. So not
using each other as a resource is called for by natural law.
So the initial observation establishes many concepts. Life is a
process. The process manipulates nature. Gratification directs that
manipulation. And the infered gratification evaluation can detect
interference. So although the question of "interfernce" is plainly
obvious to all but the most stuburn sophists, and would not normally
need any elaboration, it is here in fact derived again from the
original observation on life. So the charge of circularity is again
refuted. But to salvage some value from the challenge, the concept
of harm will always be related to the judgement of the harmed, as is
required by the derivation from the original principle. That this
tidbit is integral to the word interference, means its specific
deliniation is redundant.
Since my observation of life is an observation and thus possibly
arbitrary, there is possible arguement there.
I am thinking any differences would be quite revealing to a personal
agenda. So much so that I might as well call it THE definition of
life.
> Is that clear so far?
There is clarity, but its not very flattering.
>
> All definitions set up tautologies. E.g., if "triangle" is defined as a
> "3-sided plane figure," then "Triangles are 3-sided plane figures" is a
> tautology.
Yes they do.
>
> Unfortunately, a tautology cannot serve as the crux of any argument. You
> need a middle term, one that is not included in the tautology, to make any
> arguments.
>
> For the definitions you give above, that would be a definition of
> "interference with life activities."
>
Naaa, thats again just tautological from the opening observation.
The comibined thought here from which to derive even more views is
that harm under the assumptions needed for equality can be minimized,
despite the individual judgements that direct its definition.
> But in social settings, almost anything one agent does can interfere with
> some life activity of others. So now, in order to know what we are free to
> do, and which kinds of "harms" we are permitted to inflict, we need some
> means of distinguishing *acceptable* interferences from *unacceptable* ones.
>
This does not establish rights as the only framework, only that a
frame work of rights must in some way be equivalent. Which is already
granted ground.
But again you infer an overly broad assumption. You infer that
"acceptable" and "unacceptable", proceed all else in the derivation of
social freedom. Knowing what is acceptable and unacceptable under
social freedom, will be a tautology with its definition. So either
one can be defined first and the second follows implicently. The
essence of this foolishness is to presume that since I am driving to
social freedom from another route then the one you select, that there
is no road that way. When rights and social justice ARE the same
destination (tautology) its illlogical to presume that one is a forced
route. Not resting on any logic, such a presumption is more a
critter of arrogance, or ignorance. Either of which could be fixed
by a more concerted effort at listening.
> Also unfortunately, by defining "harm" the way you do, you eliminate one
> means of making that distinction.
Nothing is eliminated. The arguement has already called out three
broad catagories of non interfering acts. Since these are shown
harmless, they fall outside of any regimine to minimize harm, and
become some of the "rights" you are looking for.
1) Personal property in ones creations.
2) Personal allocations to non-scarce resources.
3) Free trade and association.
> Per the ordinary definition of "harm," not
> all interferences are harmful. So we could use "harm" for making the
> distinction we need. But since you have co-opted that term and given it a
> new definition, you'll need another one to make the distinction.
>
Yeah, but thats a wimpy deffinition of harm to try and excuse the two
corpses of liberty and equality. Real lovers of freedom take the
broadest version of harm possible. So that the maximum amount of
freedom is preserved. And I am quite proud to retake the meaning of
freedom and harm all the way back to Jefferson, Paine, and the
Physiocrats, from the co-opters.
>> That is what is do disapointing about the current level of so called
>> scholarship in the pursuit of freedom. That some simple steps taken
>> from a mere tautology yields so much.
>
> Well, Econ, you need to study some logic. Tautologies yield no information
> beyond themselves. No conclusions can be drawn from them. "All apples are
> apples" tells us nothing. "Maximising freedom is minimizing harm" likewise
> tells us nothing, if "freedom" and "harm" are defined in terms of each
> other. It tells us absolutely nothing about what anyone is free to do, or
> what constitutes a harm.
Ok then, : " That is what is so disapointing about the current level
of so called
scholarship in the pursuit of freedom. That some simple steps taken
from the existential definition of life, with the mere tautology of
freedom yields so much.
<>
>> And here is another place you are not keeping up. The application of
>> THE definition of harm was shown to be the scientific method of
>> control and experiment, with appropriate rules against conflating
>> people and resources. Many examples were offered.
>
> Er, where did all these "showings" and "examples" appear? I've seen no such
> post from you.
>
> ??
This is extremely disapointing. So much so that I actually went back
to the post, and tried the link within to see if it would work. The
link that was given under those words. And it did work. I tried to
make it easy, and I did make it easy. This is a terrible terrible
one way flow of respect. I did more work checking on how little you
did, then you were even called on to do. Your pretence falls utterly
away here, your goal is not liberty. Shame. Shame. Shame.
>>> Likewise if you pick the apple; then I am denied. So which of us is
>>> free to pick the apple --- either of us?
>
>> Neither of us is free, when the other takes it unlitateraly. There
>> are other ways to resolve the question.
>
> Can you spell those out?
>
Lets get some criteria first.
>> Life has this way of being a lot broader then little contrived
>> examples. My own instinct on this is that on seeing someone sleeping
>> there, I would not take from his labor of setting a bed. But offer to
>> him the next day that in the interests of equality every other night
>> would be mine. And if the cave was espicially important to him that
>> some other compromise where he does not give up his highly valued cave
>> time, but that he does give up something else I value as much. Since
>> we each have different valuations on many many resources there is
>> likely to be an effective trade, where both parties gain, and neither
>> loses freedom. But in more realistic situations markets exist for
>> resources, and problems of valuation and equality are efficiently
>> handled there.
>
> You are missing the point, which was that *every action either agent may
> take*, including all those you mention, amount to interferences by one agent
> with the freedom of another. I don't want to share the cave with you. Nor do
> I want to trade you anything for the cave, or give you anything. What I want
> is for you to go away and quit bothering me.
>
And that would be a unilateral harm. And certainly those interested
in perpetrations against freedom are going to want that "right" and so
complain when the words freedom and liberty are rightfully excluded
from their supremacist rhetoric. In this example the supremacist
claim is that the first guy has superiour rights. But the real logic
of freedom shows that either is equally harmed by the insistance of
the other "to go away and quit bothering".
Supremacists who attempt to use either "freedom" or "equality" have to
on the way to their supremacist ends murder both. And the black box
test reveals any supremacist appeal. Because the supremacists claim
must come exteriour to the freedom problem space. Those words are
important tools if a system of exploitation can be hidden under them,
so naturally there is a picket line by the supremacists to protect
them. But its not important to make the self appointed members of
the picket see the error of their ways or call them all kinds of
names. Its only neccesary to discredit them, which they do themselves
by their very petulance. In this reguard the use of names and
insults is counter productive. By my experiance the picket members
are always a lost cause. Fear is thier only reference, and any
sophistry no matter how small will be clung to. Their self image as
"faithful deffender" is the shield they use to block out their own
self loathing. The courage to take down that shield and forgive
oneself is not always forced.
Honest and open contemplation, have to occur far away from passions.
So what of those whose passion is
What motivates a supremacist? Fear. Its always fear. They fear
other people, and wish to control/subjegate or even murder them. But
along with that fear is self loathing for feeling that one is not
independently adequate. Fear is revealed as arrogance, and
disrespect. Fear is a natural reaction to a society that induces
constant harm and exploitation. If its open season on the tribe
itself, then best be hunter then prey. Instinctively the cue to this
canabalism is stress and envy. And a tribe has to quickly rout the
parasites, before its strength is all gone. The French were not the
last or first to do this. The dominance of supremacist claims ends
with either equality and courage taking over, or violent revolution
with another set of supremacist claims.
The lovers of liberty must then prove themselves by showing respect.
>
> Ah, so you do assume another criterion is in play, namely, equality --- that
> interferences by one agent with the life activities of another is acceptable
> if it aims to equalize their welfare. I.e., that your interference with me
> is acceptable if it leads to each of us sharing equally the cave and the
> misery of sleeping in the rain on alternate nights. Or your interference is
> acceptable if it leads to each of us going half-hungry by eating only half
> the apple. Correct?
Welfare? Ha! I never used that word. No, lets not conflate the
communist equal welfare with equal freedom. What a dirty dirty trick.
>
> You are quite right that I am willing to "murder equality," in the sense you
> apparently understand it, which is the sense of "material equality," i.e.,
> equality of welfare. Material equality can be dismissed from moral arguments
> because it has no moral basis.
>
More on the same trick.
> Nozick once remarked, "While there is no shortage of presumptions in favor
> of equality, there is a surprising dearth of arguments in support of that
> presumption."
Yeah, got that right!
> There are no moral arguments that I know of for material
> equality, for regarding it as a moral goal. Nor is there any rational basis
> for an expectation of material equality in social settings. That means that
> no agent has any duty to permit others to "equalize" their welfare at his
> expense, or any moral pretext for "equalizing" his welfare with others' by
> taking goods from them for his own use.
All true and irrelevent.
>
> Unless you have some arguments for adopting material equality as a moral
> goal, and for why any agent should consider himself bound by such a goal,
> then we can set it aside as arbitrary.
>
Material equality? I make no such claim or ever will. This is just
more feeble stawman stuff. I focus on only freedom. In some
narrowly concocted example there may be an irrelevent concordance of
equal freedom with material equality, but nothing can be infered,
except perhaps some sneaky straw man.
I may or may not reply. This well has been dug quite deep, with only
sand for the trouble. If there are interested minds reading along,
then now would be a good time to evidence some reason for me to
continue.
If you come by much later, then post any questions at the Economic
Justice Discussion Board.
http://www.progress.org/cgi/webbbs/config.pl
