cross-posted from: https://kbin.earth/m/[email protected]/t/2771990
As data centers are shut down by angry mobs and AI surveillance cameras are ripped from their poles, the world’s tech billionaires and CEOs are waking up to the reality that the masses are, broadly speaking, not on board with their plan to automate the world with AI.
It was a long, elaborate attempt to say that, wherever you go, you will be affected by those around and coerced to accommodate the majority of them in one way or another. That’s how societies work. Lamenting that you have no recourse is a waste of time.
Also, if 99% of them are in agreement about how things should be done and you are the remaining 1% there is a good chance that you are the problem and not the 99%.
Now, I’ve not denied that things are bad and that things need to change. We don’t disagree on that point. I just think your logic is fucked and leads to worse things in the end.
Wherever you go there will be child abusers. So therefore we shouldn’t lament it or try to improve things?
99% was just an exaggerated figure for a hypothetical that could be raised against my view. The point is that minorities don’t cease to have a right to autonomy just because they’re in the minority. The 99% could also have a strong vested interest to abuse the 1%.
I agree that minorities shouldn’t inherently have their rights forfeit to the majority. I agree that, in most cases, the majority should protect the rights of minorities and that doing so is often in their own best interests. You fail to miss an enormous caveat - this is not an absolute.
Should those child abusers, as a minority group within the population, have their right to abuse children protected from the rule of the majority? Is it the tyranny of the majority to constrain/limit the actions of that minority just because they are in the minority? Should they have a place where they can go to be free of majority rule and live only by the constraints that they themselves feel are appropriate?
This is why governance is not a simple thing. There are variations, spectrums, and extremes within the population. Ultimately, the majority must, to some degree, have rule over minorities. We should do our best to determine which “freedoms/rights” should be protected and which can, and in some cases, must be infringed upon.
Obviously, I’m not advocating that any particular minority, particularly when it comes to ethnicity or nation of origin, is inferior or deserves to be ruled over. However, due to the nature of the system, it unfortunately can and does happen. It’s a constant struggle.
I do note you use the word “autonomy”. Due to the varied interpretation of that word, it means nothing to me in this argument. If you want to be more specific, feel free, but it is just a word. What it means and what should be covered by any rules that use the word will, ultimately, be determined by… the majority.
Of course I don’t think anybody has the right to abuse others, but that’s true whether the majority favor it or not. Sometimes the majority favors it, so majority rule is not a solution in that case.
Anyway my problem is not with rules being decided by the majority - although I think a supermajority would be better. (Thanks for graciously asking what I am actually proposing, which I will now explain). My problem is that different people have different ideas on how things should be and so far they have been forced to come to some impossible compromise (which usually ends up forcing good people to violate their consciences) because they are not allowed to do what is natural and associate with those they prefer and form harmonious societies. The availability of this option is necessary for any government to have the consent of its people, which is in turn necessary for a government to be legitimate. This also goes a long way to solving the problem of unjust laws, as every law that applies to a person would do so because they consented to be under those laws by entering that country.
It’s not something that somebody who has broken the law can use to avoid consequences because once the law was broken on the land to which it applies then nothing can undo that. Nor can somebody make their own country as a shield for immoral activity unless those activities can somehow be committed entirely within that person’s own land. There are still very immoral things that people can do in the privacy of their own homes, but most immoral activities involve harming other people, which usually requires leaving home or tricking people to cross the border and enter that person’s home, which would need to be clearly marked as a separate country in order for its laws to have legitimacy upon visitors. The remaining immoral activities would either be of a self-harming nature, damaging to their own environment, preventing competent adults from leaving the country or neglecting duties over children or non-competent adults. The first two are less concerning, naturally self-punishing and will incur hostility from neighboring countries once the effects spill over into them. The third makes the country illegitimate because it means the population are being held against their will and the fourth if particularly egregious makes the country morally bankrupt, so in either case the population and foreign countries are justified in overthrowing that government and punishing those who behaved unconscionably.
So in this way people with very different views have the freedom to go their own ways and pursue their own little utopias as long as they aren’t forcing themselves on others or doing very heinous things to their own people. This should lead to stronger communities, happier day-to-day lives and - most importantly - it is a just system because it is based on consent. Even if our current system led to great outcomes, it would still be unjust because it is forced upon us and that alone is enough reason to abandon it and seek a just alternative.
That’s where I see the problem as well.
But… what if they are born in that land?
Here is my problem. Your proposition is prescriptive. It is what you believe would lead to the best outcome. You make subjective, moral judgements and state that those actions justify overthrowing a country or “punishing those who behave unconscionably”. How have you determined those judgements to justify such actions? The entire system is your ideal, not necessarily the ideal of everyone. It would have to be enforced to be feasible but what if not everyone consented to be in that system?
You also seem to think that people can live in their own isolated societies that they consent to be ruled under, completely ignoring the unavoidable reality that everyone can impact everyone, regardless of whether they are neighbors or live in another country. Am I free to hoard rare resources other desperately need because my country sits on them? Am I free to utilize cuthroat practices to gain power for my country over yours? Who decides how these things are resolved and what is ok and what is not? If countries are working together to compromise, now both countrys’ citizens are forced to compromise on their utopia or forced to endure whatever neighboring countries might do to them.
I’m not proposing a solution to all conflict. There would still be tensions between countries just like there are today, and some of them will try to do bad things like they already do. Children would also be under the authority of their parents/guardians just like they already are, which leads to problems if the parents/guardians are bad. I can’t control how countries or parents will behave, I can only offer suggestions on how those situations might be handled. It is of course subjective whether a government has lost its legitimacy by harming other countries, harming its own people, or enabling evil within its borders. Country A may see country B as evil and illegitimate because it aborts babies and decide to wage war. Other countries might see this as unjustified aggression and help defend B. But this isn’t really any different to what happens already. Only currently the wars are waged by unaccountable governments who often have very different views from the population and the wars aren’t usually about ideology but power. Wars for power should be less frequent if an individual right to secession is widely accepted because any people or lands that are captured must have a right to break away or the government will look illegitimate.
I’m not saying the system I propose will lead to the best outcome. I’m saying it’s more just and I think it will lead to better outcomes than current systems. But the emphasis is on being more just. Trying to get the best outcome is impossible because people don’t agree on what that is, and the utilitarian pursuit of better outcomes could enable all kinds of atrocities as an alleged means to that end. Giving people more freedom can lead to bad outcomes because they might use that freedom to self-harm, but it’s far more just than restricting everyone’s freedom and in any case it probably will lead to better outcomes too because the power to restrict freedoms tends to be abused.
I’m saying people can form any kind of society they want. It can be communist, fascist, open borders, closed borders, just don’t expect to be treated nicely by neighboring countries if you’re harming them or they think you’re doing heinous things within your own borders. And I think not allowing people to leave your country should be seen as a heinous restriction on freedom. Is it possible that some people will want a system of government that doesn’t let people leave? I suppose a retarded or malevolent majority could want that, but the minority who don’t want that should be allowed to leave and the fact that they aren’t would make the government illegitimate to my mind.
I feel like I’m failing to communicate the issues I’m seeing here.
You are proposing that anyone should be able to simply associate with who they want and then, with those people, form harmonious societies/countries/states. Am I misunderstanding this?
Lets say my parents were in such a society. In this society, they are theocratic and Christian. They punish anyone caught committing a “homosexual act”. Now imagine I am caught kissing someone of my own gender in, I don’t know, middle school, and I’m punished harshly. How is this society any more just for me just because my parents were able to consent to it? I am born into this society - I did not choose it or consent to its governance. Can I, as a middle school kid, just… go to another society before I’m able to explore who I am? Where do the resources come from? Who cares for me while I travel and after I get there?
Now imagine I’m someone else. I join that same theocratic society and later realize I’m bisexual and want to leave for a different society that is more accepting and tolerant of my sexuality. Am I guaranteed the resources to find that new society?
But you are proposing a more “just” starting point (inside each society) which, within a generation, may be almost indistinguishable from our current situation. How does the previous generation having consented make it a more legitimate government for the following generation?
You are also more or less hand waving the problem of international conflict by assuming it will be in most countries best interests to police each other… but only to the extent that it doesn’t disrupt each society’s ability to be what they want to be? Of course, there will be some clear line that most countries will recognize as the point at which it becomes justifiable to suppress that freedom should the citizens of another country cross it…yeah, again, this sounds more less like just hitting some magic reset button and watching everything go bad to what it is now but with all the assholes concentrated together and everyone else divided by nuanced opinions that they may or may not share with the younger generations…?
Look, I get it. Things suck and it would be great if people who be who they want to be, do what they want to do, and everyone would more or less get along. Unfortunately, we are stuck trying to collectively figure it out something that we hope works for as many people as possible and might suck for some other people. Part of that is taxes.
While everything is kind of fucked right now, I still don’t think it’s good to set the precedent of “If I don’t like what the government is doing I don’t have to pay my taxes.”
No that is correct.
This is my own opinion, but children (the specific age we’re talking about depends on the subject and the culture) aren’t generally competent enough to make important choices like moving to another country and therefore it’s usually in the child’s best interest to have their parents determine things for them like where they live. It also seems part of the natural order that the parents/guardians of a child get to determine how they are raised, including what moral values they are taught. While I may not agree with someone teaching their child to be Muslim, who am I to deprive them of the right to raise their children according to their values?
Some societies might decide to give children rights to autonomy, and I’m inclined to think that a society should be allowed to try that, although it will end in disaster sooner or later and other countries might in my opinion have a moral obligation to step in eventually.
No I’m not proposing a starting point. I’m proposing that at any time someone should be able to decide they don’t like the country they’re in and either move to another country that will accept them or take some land and secede to form a new country or join to an existing one that will accept them. So every competent person once they reach adulthood (however that is defined by the country of residence) will have the opportunity to leave their country, or do so later in life. This means at any point in time the country is comprised of people (and their children and mentally incompetent dependents) who consent to be under that system. That’s what makes the government legitimate at all times and not just for the first generation.
But why are we stuck in this situation? Why couldn’t we have people separate into groups that agree on things like they naturally want to? Why are we forced to make some compromise between the group A that wants X to be illegal and group B that wants X to be legal? And then either group A is forced to violate their consciences supporting and paying taxes for what they consider evil or group B is punished for what they think is fine or even a moral duty? That just makes groups A and B constantly fight each other and form cliques and the country is divided and inefficient. Why? I think the reason is obvious. Because those who rule the country do not want to give up their power, most of which they would do by allowing secession. But things don’t need to be this way. With enough public recognition of the right to individual secession it would have to be allowed. And once one country allows it many will want to move there and other countries would be pressured to uphold the right.
But how do can you deny the argument that taxation is theft to those who never consented to their government? It’s just taking people’s money under threat of force and using it however the illegitimate government wishes. Even if the money was only used for the most upright causes with maximal efficiency it would still be theft because it lacks consent. Charities can’t take my money unless I made an agreement with them, and in the same way governments can’t unless I made an agreement without coercion.
You ignored a massive point that i repeated in both my examples.
Relocating is not a trivial task and, to a degree and depending on where we are moving to, we have the freedom to do that already. The vast, vast majority of societies don’t forbid their citizens from leaving if they aren’t wanted for a crime… it’s the destination societies that place limitations on who they want to admit and how. Is that a right you want to deny to societies in this utopia? If you are free to associate with who you want, why can’t you limit who can associate with you?
It’s also not trivial to find land to start a new society. Most land is claimed at this point. If one society or another has already laid claim to every piece of land, what then? Do you propose that unutilized land is unable to be claimed? Can a society that values the natural environment not claim and limit how much of it can be utilized or claimed by its citizens?
This is what I’m saying - this society assumes unlimited resources for relocation and the formation of new societies. It grants rights that, ultimately, infringe on those same rights when they might be required by others.
Where does land for new societies come from? Where do the resources to freely relocate come from? How is this so drastically different from the forces that make it difficult to relocate in most existing societies?
When resources and land are unavailable for your utopia, the core premise is removed and we’re where we are right now.