Closure

[Daktoria]

I've been meditating on this for a few years now, and I think the best way a justice system can be designed is with regards towards preserving and protecting cultures that cultivate closure. If you think about it, a government, by definition, should subscribe to subsidiarity in order to behave as efficiently as possible in order to accomplish the most tasks with the least amount of resources. It just isn't responsible to require taxpayers to supply excess resources or to be satisfied with insufficient performance, sufficiency which should be defined by the taxpayers themselves at and individual basis since the mind function on an individual basis.

Therefore, in order to ensure that the mind is respected, closure should be the ultimate theme in order to prevent charismatic ambition from manipulating government by encouraging cognitive dissonance. Put more simply, the government shouldn't be a catalyst by which smart asses can embed headaches in the minds of others since duress is a form of extortion (as well as provocation, but that's another story). A fortiori, the most explicit form of inhumane behavior is that which desired attention for no other purpose than to have attention, so if nothing else, the government should be structured in a way such that attention seekers cannot utilize the law in order to dominate citizens.

It's common sense really, but the deeper point is that the only ones who should oppose this are the smart asses who would be directly targeted by this kind of policy since individuals should be able to interact without relying on the government for initiative. Instead, individuals should be able to rely on the government to ensure that agreements are upheld and that autonomy is respected. Put more simply, that contracts and property are preserved no matter what.

Note how this is not a utilitarian argument because it tolerates (inefficient) monopolies. The decree against monopolies not existing is a subjective value judgment dependent upon the goals which pragmatism lays upon. However, different people will have different goals, so the establishment of a national interest is inherently coercive, no matter how "commonsensical" such a national interest might be.

For example, let's consider freedom of speech as an alternative to property and contracts.

In our current world, we take communication for granted because the physical resources required to provide for communication are in tremendous abundance whether it's via soundwaves or bandwidth or whathaveyou. However, not only is it feasible for such abundance to be sabotaged whether by population accumulation or dispersion, but it's also feasible for noise to exist while abundance is around. In fact, many wise guys utilize noise in order to inhibit closure and become popular in order to advance ulterior motives which sheep adhere to because it makes them feel good in the moment. Coincidentally, this very process relies on appealing to closure on the margin because those good feelings result from not having to process information and instead, sweep long term problems under the rug.

Another example, let's consider due process as an alternative.

Due process is a concept that depends upon the opinions of citizenry for determining how much attention individuals deserve for their cases to be listened to. However (particularly in a common law system), we again come across the obstacle of noise because individuals will be able to construct and refine the judicial system to cater to methods which their personalities can feel comfortable in. As such, we see a national interest being established from the very structure of the judicial system since the law's administration will be biased to the protection of certain lifestyles and paradigms over others. An appeal to closure is made, but long term hypocrisy still takes place.

[Michael]

I've been meditating on this for a few years now, and I think the best way a justice system can be designed is with regards towards preserving and protecting cultures that cultivate closure.
Can you define "closure" in precisely the context you are using the term here please?

I'm quite unfamiliar with the use of this term for anything outside of material engineering (ie. a zipper performs 'closure'), pop-psychology or computer-mathematics. :shrug:

[Daktoria]

That's weird. I didn't realize I got that term from pop psychology, but yea, peace of mind, resolve, confidence, certainty. Those are other ways to describe what I'm talking about.

Regardless, the denotation of closure fits well because it implies how whenever a person engages a problem, a wound is formed, so closure is the recuperation of that wound. On the flip side, a government which impedes closure or increases the need for closure should be deemed irresponsible because the embedding of wounds is the baseline of violence, violence being antithetical to justice.

However, a government should not assist in realizing closure except in cases of rectification because undue assistance is the equivalent of spoiling the citizenry from maturing over the long run. Rectification here applies to instances where some citizens impede, or increase the baseline demand for, closure. For example, if a venture capitalist takes over a company, arbitrages a market, and other stakeholders in that market have old wounds reopened, the government should not interfere because that healing should not be taken for granted unless an explicit contract binds that company to obligations. Implicit contracts are only tolerable when a government offers licensing such that licensed merchants are obligated to uphold certain codes of conduct, but governments should not prevent unlicensed practitioners from working even if it's likely that a market wide downgrade in service will result.

Governments typically don't allow unlicensed practitioners to work, but this is because of a national interest which is coercive as previously described.

[Michael]

That's weird. I didn't realize I got that term from pop psychology, but yea, peace of mind, resolve, confidence, certainty. Those are other ways to describe what I'm talking about.
I was afraid of that. I have a VERY low opinion of closure in the pop-psychology sense.

I suppose my critique of 'closure' parallels my critique of Freudian psychology. That is to say, that which is useful for treating 'mentally ill' people is not a good guide for dealing with non-mentally ill people.

Indeed, I'd consider an expressed need for closure to be a pathology. The only 'closure' a human has any right to expect is death. :shrug:

Regardless, the denotation of closure fits well because it implies how whenever a person engages a problem, a wound is formed, so closure is the recuperation of that wound. On the flip side, a government which impedes closure or increases the need for closure should be deemed irresponsible because the embedding of wounds is the baseline of violence, violence being antithetical to justice.
I strongly disagree. If a 'psychic wound' is formed, life is all about dealing with it. The demand for closure doesn't solve any such 'psychic wounds' - it only offers flattery, vindication and/or official sanction of one's 'psychic wound' - though admittedly, that's likely the real goal of desiring 'closure' in the first place, and often as not, the source of the 'psychic wound' to begin with. :shrug:

And I certainly don't see how anyone has (or should have) any obligation towards the issue of anyone else's 'psychic wound'. That strikes me as very odd and/or authoritarian.

However, a government should not assist in realizing closure except in cases of rectification because undue assistance is the equivalent of spoiling the citizenry from maturing over the long run.
Yes, I'll agree with this. Except I'd go much further and assert that assisting 'closure' will always foster immaturity in every case. Now it is true that many humans never do actually mature and in those cases, offering closure might be a cheaper solution than dealing with the fallout from wounded egos of immature humans. That can be very expensive to society (indeed it certainly is!).

Rectification here applies to instances where some citizens impede, or increase the baseline demand for, closure. For example, if a venture capitalist takes over a company, arbitrages a market, and other stakeholders in that market have old wounds reopened, the government should not interfere because that healing should not be taken for granted unless an explicit contract binds that company to obligations. Implicit contracts are only tolerable when a government offers licensing such that licensed merchants are obligated to uphold certain codes of conduct, but governments should not prevent unlicensed practitioners from working even if it's likely that a market wide downgrade in service will result.
:ummm:

I'm really not sure where you are going here. I think it has been already established that I'm rather pro-market on economic issues and I abhore government interference in the market under most circumstances, regardless of any pyschic wounds or not!

And governments generally do not license merchants or issue 'codes of conduct'.

I certainly don't need a government license to lease a storefront and start selling widgets. And doctors, lawyers and accountants (for example) who do have 'codes of conduct' are all self-regulating professions. So I don't see what your point is here either.

Governments typically don't allow unlicensed practitioners to work, but this is because of a national interest which is coercive as previously described.
What practitioners are not permitted to work? What are you talking about and what does this have to do with closure?

[Donkey]

I'm not comfortable equating closure and peace of mind.

[Daktoria]

I was afraid of that. I have a VERY low opinion of closure in the pop-psychology sense.

I suppose my critique of 'closure' parallels my critique of Freudian psychology. That is to say, that which is useful for treating 'mentally ill' people is not a good guide for dealing with non-mentally ill people.

Indeed, I'd consider an expressed need for closure to be a pathology. The only 'closure' a human has any right to expect is death.

As a moral universal, I'm skeptical of any action being possible without closure being considered. Heck, no action should ever be taken at all if closure is already realized, something I expect you to agree with from your last statement.

I strongly disagree. If a 'psychic wound' is formed, life is all about dealing with it. The demand for closure doesn't solve any such 'psychic wounds' - it only offers flattery, vindication and/or official sanction of one's 'psychic wound' - though admittedly, that's likely the real goal of desiring 'closure' in the first place, and often as not, the source of the 'psychic wound' to begin with.

And I certainly don't see how anyone has (or should have) any obligation towards the issue of anyone else's 'psychic wound'. That strikes me as very odd and/or authoritarian....

...Yes, I'll agree with this. Except I'd go much further and assert that assisting 'closure' will always foster immaturity in every case. Now it is true that many humans never do actually mature and in those cases, offering closure might be a cheaper solution than dealing with the fallout from wounded egos of immature humans. That can be very expensive to society (indeed it certainly is!).

I don't believe people have a right to government as a cost-minimizer, but do you? I want to believe you don't because of your agreement regarding immaturity, but I'm not entirely sure because of how you brought up expensiveness.

I'm really not sure where you are going here. I think it has been already established that I'm rather pro-market on economic issues and I abhore government interference in the market under most circumstances, regardless of any pyschic wounds or not!

And governments generally do not license merchants or issue 'codes of conduct'.

I certainly don't need a government license to lease a storefront and start selling widgets. And doctors, lawyers and accountants (for example) who do have 'codes of conduct' are all self-regulating professions. So I don't see what your point is here either....

...What practitioners are not permitted to work? What are you talking about and what does this have to do with closure

Licensing is a pretty regular concept used by governments to facilitate the communication involved with implied warranties and implied contracts to ensure quality control and prevent all out buyer's beware. What I'm saying here is that merchants shouldn't be required to engage in such communication.

This thread's ultimate point though is about how civil rights ultimately cannot be expressed in any alternative to property and contracts due to dilemmas (such as those described before regarding freedom of speech and due process). Dissociating between society and economy is a disaster waiting to happen.

[Michael]

I've been meditating on this for a few years now, and I think the best way a justice system can be designed is with regards towards preserving and protecting cultures that cultivate closure.

I can't imagine anything more scary or radical than this! :eek:

If you think about it, a government, by definition, should subscribe to subsidiarity in order to behave as efficiently as possible in order to accomplish the most tasks with the least amount of resources.
Yes, I'll certainly agree with this particular point. I have certainly always favored the 'federalist' design in political institutions.

It just isn't responsible to require taxpayers to supply excess resources or to be satisfied with insufficient performance, sufficiency which should be defined by the taxpayers themselves at and individual basis since the mind function on an individual basis.
This is a loaded sentence. I agree with the first half that it isn't responsible of government to waste the taxpayer's resources, but I question the second half. I can't agree with that terminology or that required justification.

Therefore, in order to ensure that the mind is respected, closure should be the ultimate theme in order to prevent charismatic ambition from manipulating government by encouraging cognitive dissonance. Put more simply, the government shouldn't be a catalyst by which smart asses can embed headaches in the minds of others since duress is a form of extortion (as well as provocation, but that's another story). A fortiori, the most explicit form of inhumane behavior is that which desired attention for no other purpose than to have attention, so if nothing else, the government should be structured in a way such that attention seekers cannot utilize the law in order to dominate citizens.

1. Mind is not respected - nor are individuals. They are merely useful.
(my statement here is political, not philosophical) :)

2. Fostering 'closure' would likely only create an epidemic of cognitive dissonance the way I see things! :lol:

That being said, I'm very willing to explore the idea of using 'closure' as a useful tool to address certain types of ego-driven social behavior problems. And in respect of the justice system specifically, I think this might have some good potential. But I can't see this as anything but a tool to use with a particular and specific type of social behavior problems. As the guiding principle of justice, I would be horrified at the endorsement and indulgence of irrational subjectivity.

It's common sense really, but the deeper point is that the only ones who should oppose this are the smart asses who would be directly targeted by this kind of policy since individuals should be able to interact without relying on the government for initiative.
:ummm:

Where does this "relying on the government for initiative" stuff come from? What does that mean specifically? Who is relying? And what are they relying on for government initiative?

And I certainly do "oppose this". Am I the target of this kind of policy?

Instead, individuals should be able to rely on the government to ensure that agreements are upheld and that autonomy is respected. Put more simply, that contracts and property are preserved no matter what.
Well, I think this throws your libertarian credentials out the window! :lol:

To be honest, I do lean towards the view that contract law is private/civil law, not necessarily the proper domain of government.

As for property law, that certainly does fall within the domain of government since property law defines the elite class and the elite class rules the government. Thus, property law lies at the root of all modern legal and governmental systems.

A well-armed government exercising a territorial monopoly is a necessary precondition for the existence of private property. That's what Magna Carta really is all about.

Note how this is not a utilitarian argument because it tolerates (inefficient) monopolies. The decree against monopolies not existing is a subjective value judgment dependent upon the goals which pragmatism lays upon. However, different people will have different goals, so the establishment of a national interest is inherently coercive, no matter how "commonsensical" such a national interest might be.
I don't care if 'this' is utilitarian or not, or if monopolies are tolerated! What does that have to do with establishing 'closure' as the defining principle of the justice system?

Closure is about addressing psychic wounds. The justice system is all about dealing with [alleged] criminals. I agree that these two ideas may go together reasonably well given that they are both meant to be theraputic in dealing with 'problems'.

How that connects with contract law and/or property law is beyond me. :shrug:

For example, let's consider freedom of speech as an alternative to property and contracts.
But why bother?

What's wrong with present property law and/or contract law? It has already evolved over 1000 years of actual application and adjudication. One would think that although the present system might not be perfect or ideal, it does seem to work reasonably well, given the massive scale and the complexity of the world's private enterprises. Surely the present system must be acknowledged as highly functional at the very least.

In our current world, we take communication for granted because the physical resources required to provide for communication are in tremendous abundance whether it's via soundwaves or bandwidth or whathaveyou. However, not only is it feasible for such abundance to be sabotaged whether by population accumulation or dispersion, but it's also feasible for noise to exist while abundance is around. In fact, many wise guys utilize noise in order to inhibit closure and become popular in order to advance ulterior motives which sheep adhere to because it makes them feel good in the moment. Coincidentally, this very process relies on appealing to closure on the margin because those good feelings result from not having to process information and instead, sweep long term problems under the rug.
Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck do seem to fit your definition of "wise guys" but isn't it rather ironic that they do in fact specifically sell closure? They offer closure to their audience - they offer support, validation, recognition, reinforcement of those who feel generally aggrieved by the existence of a 'post civil rights' society.

I agree that this isn't pretty and is in fact potentially dangerous to society, but I will appeal to the liberal principle of the value of free speech here, even for these rude and dangerous hatemongers of the airwaves. As I like to say, 'here I stand, I can do no other'. ;)

Another example, let's consider due process as an alternative.

Due process is a concept that depends upon the opinions of citizenry for determining how much attention individuals deserve for their cases to be listened to. However (particularly in a common law system), we again come across the obstacle of noise because individuals will be able to construct and refine the judicial system to cater to methods which their personalities can feel comfortable in. As such, we see a national interest being established from the very structure of the judicial system since the law's administration will be biased to the protection of certain lifestyles and paradigms over others. An appeal to closure is made, but long term hypocrisy still takes place.
Again, I must ask why are we exploring alternatives to a highly functional system that has evolved over 1000 years?

And how is "due process" an alternative to the present manner of adjudicating contract law and/or property law?

Due process is the process created by the common law for the proper adjudication of contract and property law.

And I disagree that the general opinions of the citizenry matter much in determination of official 'attention' for due process. Sure the media can throw occasional 'temper tantrums' or the people can have public demonstrations (or riots), but it is only the plutocrat who is guarenteed at least due process (or better) in any modern governmental system.

[Daktoria]

I'm not sure why you believe property rights are antithetical to libertarianism since the body can be acknowledged as inviolable from being inseparable to the person behind it (premised on how if the person is only a physical construct, then all actions are materially predetermined), but yea, I've had a lot of trouble resolving the deconstruction problem of people saying, "I have cognitive dissonance!" whenever it's most convenient for a headache to strike.

Where does this "relying on the government for initiative" stuff come from? What does that mean specifically? Who is relying? And what are they relying on for government initiative?

And I certainly do "oppose this". Am I the target of this kind of policy?

This is my opposition to positive liberalism, but I don't think you should oppose it anymore than to check prisoner dilemmas.

That's the problem of course, everyone wants government when it's on their side, yet the implementation of a balance of powers to provide dynamic equilibrium results in undue sacrifices being made due to noise. As I said before, some will make noise just to get attention and manipulate the system into incriminating those who become provoked.

That's what convinced me to ponder this for so long. An appeal to pragmatism is made by encouraging closure to be approached in an indirect examination of actions and the results therein rather than a direct examination of intentions. The mere proscription of guilt in a court of law seems to contradict this pragmatism by confirming the connection between the political and the psychological.

I'm not sure if it's possible to really transform the war of all against all into something else without cultural sophistication, yet that very sophistication seems dishonest since it spouts pragmatism on one hand but idealism on the other. The implied balance seems aesthetic at best, ulteriorly biased at worst.

The reason I'm considering alternatives to the current proscription of rights is in how people make careers out of politics from the belief that peace out of unity is justifiable. I don't see how that makes sense anymore from how sheep enjoy being in a herd, how misery loves company, etc. The fact of the matter is that political systems become inefficient when discourse becomes too noisy, so there comes a point where disintegration is preferable over integration. It isn't feasible to expect a government to be able to support a potentially endlessly growing community or bureaucratic network, potential which has to be accommodated due to population ethics.

However, population ethics expect a decent standard of living, and I don't know what's more irrationally subjective that a universal definition and enforcement of decency.

[Michael]

I'm not sure why you believe property rights are antithetical to libertarianism since the body can be acknowledged as inviolable from being inseparable to the person behind it (premised on how if the person is only a physical construct, then all actions are materially predetermined), but yea, I've had a lot of trouble resolving the deconstruction problem of people saying, "I have cognitive dissonance!" whenever it's most convenient for a headache to strike.
As I've said many times, I am contemptuous of the libertarian view of property rights for the simple reason that property rights are always dependent upon a state apparatus for establishment and enforcement - which is something the libertarians always need to deny, which makes their policy position regarding private property just plain nonsense.

Indeed, it would appear that 'cognitive dissonance' about state authority is a necessary precondition for supporting rightwing libertarianism. :shrug:

However, I must ask you not to take my dismissal of the libertarian nonsense about property rights to mean that I dismiss the idea of property rights, because I haven't and I don't. :)

This is my opposition to positive liberalism, but I don't think you should oppose it anymore than to check prisoner dilemmas.
But I said I certainly do oppose it and I still do. That makes me some kind of enemy in your schemata of justice. :shrug:

That's the problem of course, everyone wants government when it's on their side, yet the implementation of a balance of powers to provide dynamic equilibrium results in undue sacrifices being made due to noise. As I said before, some will make noise just to get attention and manipulate the system into incriminating those who become provoked.
So what? There are always going to be freeriders, deadbeats, cheats and frauds? Always have been and always will be. The existence of some self-serving and manipulative noisemakers doesn't justify a rejection of the whole systemic model.

And any model that is entirely designed to address the small number of egotistic noisemakers is just going to be an authoritarian nightmare for everyone else.

Indeed, if you claim to be a libertarian, why are you so concerned about the morality of people you don't know and don't directly affect you? From a libertarian perspective, they ought to be no concern of yours.

That's what convinced me to ponder this for so long. An appeal to pragmatism is made by encouraging closure to be approached in an indirect examination of actions and the results therein rather than a direct examination of intentions. The mere proscription of guilt in a court of law seems to contradict this pragmatism by confirming the connection between the political and the psychological.

Dude, if you are under 25-30 years old, you haven't pondered this for very long at all. :lol:

Alas, I'm not young enough anymore to know the answer to everything! :D

As to your point, any examination of intentions can never be substantial or authorative. It will always be subjective, biased or relative by definition.

So how can justice be improved by pandering to everyone's subectivity? I just don't see how that's possible to expect justice to be the end result from that process of pandering to pure subjectivity.

One man's justice is another man's hell. How do we tell which is which if all we have to go on is their own assertions about their own subjective state of mind? That strikes me as impossible. Might as well flip a coin.


I'm not sure if it's possible to really transform the war of all against all into something else without cultural sophistication, yet that very sophistication seems dishonest since it spouts pragmatism on one hand but idealism on the other. The implied balance seems aesthetic at best, ulteriorly biased at worst.
I'm not a Hobbesian and I reject the premise of social contract theory.

Ergo, I don't perceive human existence as a 'war of all against all'.

I certainly do recognize that a rather large number of people desperately want that 'war' to be real, but I respectfully submit that it is just another piece of ideology.

As for dishonest sophistications, imbalanced aesthetics and ulterior biases, I respectfully submit that those naturally follow from the ideological artifice of social contract theory and the social constructs and institutions that follow from that theory. :D

The reason I'm considering alternatives to the current proscription of rights is in how people make careers out of politics from the belief that peace out of unity is justifiable. I don't see how that makes sense anymore from how sheep enjoy being in a herd, how misery loves company, etc. The fact of the matter is that political systems become inefficient when discourse becomes too noisy, so there comes a point where disintegration is preferable over integration. It isn't feasible to expect a government to be able to support a potentially endlessly growing community or bureaucratic network, potential which has to be accommodated due to population ethics.
But people don't really make careers out of politics from the belief that peace out of unity is justifiable. I really don't see how you can make pronouncements like this that are completely unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable, yet taken as absolute statements of fact.

Indeed, I'll bet we could do a survey of all the politicians on the whole planet and not one will give that answer in reply to the question of, "why do you make a career out of politics?" Heck, I'd bet that half the English speaking politicians would have a hard time figuring out the meaning of your statement, let alone agreeing with it! ;)

As for "sheep enjoy being in a herd", that's nonsense. The fundamental definition of 'sheep' is that they don't realize that they are a herd! That is to say, if the sheep were smart enough to conceptualize that kind of concept, they wouldn't be sheep.

And misery doesn't really love company, in reality, misery loves only itself.

All that being said, I definitely agree that political systems generally do become inefficient if they grow to be too large - though it is blasted difficult to try to define what is 'too large' or 'inefficient' when it comes to the institution of government.

As an aside, I do think that the US federal government is 'too large' and that the EU is doomed to be weak because it too will be 'too large'. France and UK governments don't yet seem to be 'too large', though I'm just going on my 'gut' feeling here with pure speculation. I will suggest that geography seems very important here. Russia, China and Inda are all probably too big to have an efficient government, though again, I'm just speculating here without a formal theory or data.

However, population ethics expect a decent standard of living, and I don't know what's more irrationally subjective that a universal definition and enforcement of decency.
You are always full of surprises! :lol:

Strip away the extra words from your sentence and see what's left: 'universal definitions are irrationally subjective'.

And in that form, that sure looks like something I'd say! :lol:

But I do object to the assertion of 'decency'. That's only the label applied, not the reality. The universal definitions and enforcements are always those of the bourgeoisie and it is just part of the definition that the bourgeoisie defines 'decency'. There's nothing particularly decent about hypocrisy, capitalism or strip-mining mountains - it just depends on how you look at it.

[Daktoria]

As I've said many times, I am contemptuous of the libertarian view of property rights for the simple reason that property rights are always dependent upon a state apparatus for establishment and enforcement - which is something the libertarians always need to deny, which makes their policy position regarding private property just plain nonsense.

Indeed, it would appear that 'cognitive dissonance' about state authority is a necessary precondition for supporting rightwing libertarianism.

However, I must ask you not to take my dismissal of the libertarian nonsense about property rights to mean that I dismiss the idea of property rights, because I haven't and I don't.

Rights are justified independently of enforcement; the proposition you're putting forward here wouldn't just apply to property rights, but all rights since it's possible for all rights to be violated. The same goes for how cognitive dissonance isn't exclusive to "rightwing libertartanism" as you put it since individuals believe in, and advocate for, policies which organize the world according to preferred paradigms; unresolved obstacles invoke more headaches.

But I said I certainly do oppose it and I still do. That makes me some kind of enemy in your schemata of justice.

I'm not going to continue to debate this point, but from my personal perspective, the emphasis is on the word "should" because I don't believe you would be targeted by the system I'm proposing here.

There is a possibility that everyone would be targeted by this system because nobody fits the system's model citizen, but I don't see how that's different from any other judicial system that aims to maintain law and order. Like I said, cognitive dissonance is a universal. The only difference is whether or not the system explicitly and directly addresses it or not.

So what? There are always going to be freeriders, deadbeats, cheats and frauds? Always have been and always will be. The existence of some self-serving and manipulative noisemakers doesn't justify a rejection of the whole systemic model.

Yes it does, and I'm surprised to hear you say otherwise considering the realpolitik nature of your past two comments. As a matter of propaganda, a politician (or citizen) would argue that compromise is necessary, but as a matter of strategy, a politician would try to refine a system as much as possible to prevent loopholes and negligence.

Of course, a politician could tolerate loopholes and negligence over the short term to gather political capital via appeasement, but tolerance is not a preferred action. Rather it's a fallback option.

And any model that is entirely designed to address the small number of egotistic noisemakers is just going to be an authoritarian nightmare for everyone else.

Indeed, if you claim to be a libertarian, why are you so concerned about the morality of people you don't know and don't directly affect you? From a libertarian perspective, they ought to be no concern of yours.

As a matter of rights, the worst violators are the ones you don't see who subvert the system for ulterior motives. However, I do agree (as a matter of methodological individualism) that the government shouldn't be fine tuned. Ultimately, policy is procured by bureaucrats, and to say that the rules by themselves will procure peace is ridiculous.

The point of emphasizing cognitive dissonance via property rights and contracts, however, is to minimize government, not expand it. How this would translate into an authoritarian nightmare I'm not entirely sure because the government would have no potential for controlling the lives of citizens.

Dude, if you are under 25-30 years old, you haven't pondered this for very long at all.

Alas, I'm not young enough anymore to know the answer to everything!

Heh. Everyone thinks about this all our lives on an unconscious, implicit, intuitive level because we all have moments when we feel violated. The difference is when (and whether) we explicitly recognize and focus on it.

As to your point, any examination of intentions can never be substantial or authorative. It will always be subjective, biased or relative by definition.

So how can justice be improved by pandering to everyone's subectivity? I just don't see how that's possible to expect justice to be the end result from that process of pandering to pure subjectivity.

One man's justice is another man's hell. How do we tell which is which if all we have to go on is their own assertions about their own subjective state of mind? That strikes me as impossible. Might as well flip a coin.

In this section, I'm criticizing the current common law system for appealing to the balance of powers in order to tolerate long term uncertainty. It isn't justifiable to obligate citizens to provide for other citizens who insist on living on the dark by hiding in tradition, the status quo, what feels good, or the crowd since these are all arbitrary sanctuaries. If anything, the current system panders to subjectivity, and the current system is an authoritarian nightmare because it extrapolates these arbitrary sanctuaries into entitlements that the government is supposed to support.

That's why I said an appeal to pragmatism is made. Pragmatism depends on the goals being considered, so while some may claim that these sanctuaries generate and preserve utility, utility is a subjective notion. In contrast, a judicial system that emphasizes property rights and contracts doesn't appeal to (subjective) pragmatism because it isn't blinded by claims to utility. For example, neither eminent domain nor squatting would be valid justifications for requiring someone to forfeit property.

I'm not a Hobbesian and I reject the premise of social contract theory.

Ergo, I don't perceive human existence as a 'war of all against all'.

At this point, I was only reflecting and asking for help on how to get through a paradox, yet again, I'm surprised because of your willingness to compromise made in your previous comments. Why else would you be willing to compromise if you don't recognize a war of all against all? What else does moderation serve other than to keep the peace (over the short term for as long as possible)?

I certainly do recognize that a rather large number of people desperately want that 'war' to be real, but I respectfully submit that it is just another piece of ideology.

As for dishonest sophistications, imbalanced aesthetics and ulterior biases, I respectfully submit that those naturally follow from the ideological artifice of social contract theory and the social constructs and institutions that follow from that theory.

OK, but on both points, why? There are multiple lines of thought I can imagine from these points, but I don't know which one(s) you're taking (even given what I know about your inclinations).

But people don't really make careers out of politics from the belief that peace out of unity is justifiable. I really don't see how you can make pronouncements like this that are completely unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable, yet taken as absolute statements of fact.

Indeed, I'll bet we could do a survey of all the politicians on the whole planet and not one will give that answer in reply to the question of, "why do you make a career out of politics?" Heck, I'd bet that half the English speaking politicians would have a hard time figuring out the meaning of your statement, let alone agreeing with it!

No, I disagree with this because there are plenty of politicians out there who claim personal humanitarian (back)grounds for their platforms no matter what those platforms are.

As for "sheep enjoy being in a herd", that's nonsense. The fundamental definition of 'sheep' is that they don't realize that they are a herd! That is to say, if the sheep were smart enough to conceptualize that kind of concept, they wouldn't be sheep.

And misery doesn't really love company, in reality, misery loves only itself.

All that being said, I definitely agree that political systems generally do become inefficient if they grow to be too large - though it is blasted difficult to try to define what is 'too large' or 'inefficient' when it comes to the institution of government.

As an aside, I do think that the US federal government is 'too large' and that the EU is doomed to be weak because it too will be 'too large'. France and UK governments don't yet seem to be 'too large', though I'm just going on my 'gut' feeling here with pure speculation. I will suggest that geography seems very important here. Russia, China and Inda are all probably too big to have an efficient government, though again, I'm just speculating here without a formal theory or data.

As a matter of public choice, this just isn't true. Sheep enjoy being in the herd because the herd inductively "confirms" that they're making the right decisions; if other people are alive and breathing around them, they assume that something's being done right (as is the character of dialectics).

Some sheep might be sheep because they're blinded, but I don't see how that's a universal since plenty of sheep with open eyes stay in the herd.

I agree with the second half of what you wrote because it confirms the essence of population ethics. How (and/or why) you don't recognize the mere addition paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox)'s connection to sheep behavior though, I don't understand.

You are always full of surprises!

Strip away the extra words from your sentence and see what's left: 'universal definitions are irrationally subjective'.

And in that form, that sure looks like something I'd say!

I was trying to be nice and speak your mental language, but in any case, I can't tell if you're teasing or deconstructing me (on purpose or accident).

But I do object to the assertion of 'decency'. That's only the label applied, not the reality. The universal definitions and enforcements are always those of the bourgeoisie and it is just part of the definition that the bourgeoisie defines 'decency'. There's nothing particularly decent about hypocrisy, capitalism or strip-mining mountains - it just depends on how you look at it.

OK, but now I really don't have a clue how you've made any of your earlier positions in this thread because I don't know what alternatives to property rights and contracts you believe are useful for administering justice. The purpose of emphasizing property rights and contracts is that they're flexible and would be respected out of principle, yet they can be engaged at will by transactors and contract makers. There is no relationship to decency in the administration here. Rigorousness, yes, but not decency.

[Michael]

Rights are justified independently of enforcement; the proposition you're putting forward here wouldn't just apply to property rights, but all rights since it's possible for all rights to be violated. The same goes for how cognitive dissonance isn't exclusive to "rightwing libertartanism" as you put it since individuals believe in, and advocate for, policies which organize the world according to preferred paradigms; unresolved obstacles invoke more headaches.
Strike enforcement from my statement - it is irrelevant in that context.

Property rights require 'establishment' by state authority. That's it, that's all.

And it is precisely this reason that I can't take libertarians seriously about property rights.

I'm not going to continue to debate this point, but from my personal perspective, the emphasis is on the word "should" because I don't believe you would be targeted by the system I'm proposing here.

There is a possibility that everyone would be targeted by this system because nobody fits the system's model citizen, but I don't see how that's different from any other judicial system that aims to maintain law and order. Like I said, cognitive dissonance is a universal. The only difference is whether or not the system explicitly and directly addresses it or not.
Law and order isn't "maintained". It is "imposed" by the state. Big difference.

(even though saying this will likely confuse you when I argue against the ideal of a "war of all against all").

Yes it does, and I'm surprised to hear you say otherwise considering the realpolitik nature of your past two comments. As a matter of propaganda, a politician (or citizen) would argue that compromise is necessary, but as a matter of strategy, a politician would try to refine a system as much as possible to prevent loopholes and negligence.

Of course, a politician could tolerate loopholes and negligence over the short term to gather political capital via appeasement, but tolerance is not a preferred action. Rather it's a fallback option.
So a rate of 0.5% fraud in the administration of welfare, unemployment benefits, Social Security or Medicare programs would be considered sufficient to justify the cancellation of these programs? I think not - unless one favors the cancellation of these programs regardless of the measured rate of fraud within the programs.

Realpolitique suggests that one has to tolerate bumps in the road if one wants to drive down the street.

And realpolitique never issues ultimatums based on purity of motive or demands a uniformity of result.

Realpolitique always tries to work around the bumps in the road and/or any ideological or motive fanatics.

So I don't see how you can accuse me of abandoning realpolitique while claiming that ground for yourself.

And I definitely don't see how my position on this issue here is inconsistent with any other of my stated political views. :confused:

As a matter of rights, the worst violators are the ones you don't see who subvert the system for ulterior motives. However, I do agree (as a matter of methodological individualism) that the government shouldn't be fine tuned. Ultimately, policy is procured by bureaucrats, and to say that the rules by themselves will procure peace is ridiculous.
I strongly disagree on all accounts here.

I don't agree that the worst violators are the invisible ones with ulterior motives. That's nonsense, since one can't know the motive of any given invisible subversive. I would suggest that it is irrational to make such emphatic assertions that cannot be observed, justified, proven or supported in any way at all except by your own emphatic assertion!

And I certainly didn't say (or even suggest) that "the government shouldn't be fine tuned"! My whole political philosophy is built on the fact that I believe that government can be rationally improved in efficiency and/or effectiveness. I'm a freakin' policy wonk for gawdsakes! :lol:

And I think your characterization of 'policy' and 'procedure' of bureaucracy seems a might bit simplistic - particularly given that bureaucracy is the most efficient and effective form of human organization ever invented. And the fundamental principle of bureaucracies is that they do NOT make policy. Bureaucracies are only functional insofar as policy is clear and understood by all. Policy is formally adjudicated outside of the bureaucracy itself - handed down from the 'executive leadership' (political, corporate, military or religious leadership, doesn't really matter because bureaucracies are always the same obsession with process).

I certainly admit that there is a 'grey-area' or cross-over point where policy meets process in the application of any process, especially in the introductory phase of a 'new policy'. But this just underscores the point that adjudicating policy is outside the normal bounds of bureaucratic process.

The point of emphasizing cognitive dissonance via property rights and contracts, however, is to minimize government, not expand it. How this would translate into an authoritarian nightmare I'm not entirely sure because the government would have no potential for controlling the lives of citizens.
It is dangerous because encouraging the habit of 'minimizing' the apparent functioning of government is to encourage the habit of 'minimizing' the monitoring of the actual functioning of government. This allows the government the opportunity to degrade into servants of the plutocracy. Due diligence is always necessary where government is concerned. The public teat (and public power) is always attractive to private profiteers.

Besides, one should always be suspicious of mythology because myths are always designed to serve the interest of the mythmaker.

Btw, your point about mythology makes me think that 'cognitive dissonance' might - as often as not - be driven by some article of faith based on myth!

The term 'cognitive dissonance' is morally neutral. It is a polite way of saying the person is 'ignorant' of some obvious fact. But if such dissonance is being driven by faith in some myth, then I don't think the term 'cognitive' dissonance is quite accurate - perhaps subconscious dissonance or willful dissonance might be at play here as well.

Heh. Everyone thinks about this all our lives on an unconscious, implicit, intuitive level because we all have moments when we feel violated. The difference is when (and whether) we explicitly recognize and focus on it.
Or create whole systemic changes to the justice system in order to address them?

Btw, I didn't realize that humans had a right to subjective mental tranquility. That's a new one to me. :shrug:

Likewise with mental violations. Learning to successfully deal with those issues is all about 'maturity' or the journey of life - not re-designing the justice system to pander to them!

It would be nice to redesign society to suit one's self, but I think that the effort is wasted, even if it is only liesure mental effort, as it is ultimately delusional and that is as potentially dangerous to the psyche as any addictive narcotic.

In this section, I'm criticizing the current common law system for appealing to the balance of powers in order to tolerate long term uncertainty. It isn't justifiable to obligate citizens to provide for other citizens who insist on living on the dark by hiding in tradition, the status quo, what feels good, or the crowd since these are all arbitrary sanctuaries. If anything, the current system panders to subjectivity, and the current system is an authoritarian nightmare because it extrapolates these arbitrary sanctuaries into entitlements that the government is supposed to support.

That's why I said an appeal to pragmatism is made. Pragmatism depends on the goals being considered, so while some may claim that these sanctuaries generate and preserve utility, utility is a subjective notion. In contrast, a judicial system that emphasizes property rights and contracts doesn't appeal to (subjective) pragmatism because it isn't blinded by claims to utility. For example, neither eminent domain nor squatting would be valid justifications for requiring someone to forfeit property.
It is difficult to address this point given that you seem to arbitrarily jump back and forth between calling our system of goverment a "democracy" and yet other times - like the first paragraph above - where you pander to my assertion that we are governed by elites.

Whichever way I 'frame' my reply to this, I expect you will accuse me of some inconsistency to the other 'frame'. In order to prevent this, I'll give you both answers. :D

1. The current common law system exists because it serves the interests of our ruling elites. That is why it is obsessive about 'property' and 'contracts'. And our elites certainly do cultivate and tolerate longterm uncertainty for you, because it is politically profitable for them to do so. And they also pander to subjectivity for the same reason (and also because this helps with the electoral fiction of the 'consent of the governed').

All of this facilitates government sanctuaries for the elites - and authoritarian nightmares for everyone else. This is a feature, not a bug.

As such, eminent domain (legal and growing) and squatting (illegal) are highly predictable features of our elite-ruled political system.

2. The principle of democracy is based on rule by the people. Not some people, not just clever people, not just thoughtful and educated people - all of the people. Thus, it is a point of principle that arbitrary subjectivities must be tolerated as individual human beings have nothing but this. That is realpolitique.

As for longterm uncertainty, I'm afraid that is part of the human condition, once one puts aside the certainty of 'death and taxes'. As such, I think it is quite reasonable and rational to expect some measure of longterm uncertainty to co-exist with any system of democratic rule.

And it hardly needs to be pointed out that with 'real' democracy, I'd expect that squatting would likely be quite legal (under certain terms and conditions) and that eminent domain would become quite restrictive - though on the latter point, that's a tough call.

At this point, I was only reflecting and asking for help on how to get through a paradox, yet again, I'm surprised because of your willingness to compromise made in your previous comments. Why else would you be willing to compromise if you don't recognize a war of all against all? What else does moderation serve other than to keep the peace (over the short term for as long as possible)?
Perhaps because I'm not intellectually motivated by my own subjective needs?

I honestly am most interested in 'the best' public policy for the sake of the best public policy - even if that is not in my own immediate or direct personal interest (or even against it).

Indeed, given my age, economic status and physical condition, to best represent my own direct interests, I should be strongly rightwing demanding endless tax cuts and cuts to all social programs. Stick the next generation with the bill because I don't have any kids and I don't need any of this socialist crap like welfare, unemployment insurance, medicare or social security. Eliminating those programs wouldn't hurt me directly at all (and I'd get a huge tax cut that really would benefit me big-time).

But I don't think like that at all. :shrug:

But if I was ONLY concerned about my immediate direct self-interest, that's what I should do.

Besides, moderation serves a goal higher than salving the egos of the warmongers. It serves the purpose of advancing good policy. It is a very useful tool and that's the highest praise I can give to anything.

OK, but on both points, why? There are multiple lines of thought I can imagine from these points, but I don't know which one(s) you're taking (even given what I know about your inclinations).
My point is all about the 'purpose' of society.

We clearly have a disagreement about social contract theory. You are using your interpretation of it to justify your position. I disagree with the baseline theory, so that throws your justification based on it out the window.

I have a different view of the nature of society. Following that view, some things make sense to me, but seem perhaps bizarre to you.

You have stated that something is necessary because of the 'war of all against all'. I'm saying the 'war of all against all' is just artifice used to justify authoritarian policies like your necessity.

No, I disagree with this because there are plenty of politicians out there who claim personal humanitarian (back)grounds for their platforms no matter what those platforms are.
Yes, that's true. There are lots of politicians who claim personal humanitarian (back)grounds for their platforms.

But I still say that not one of them is going to make claims about 'the belief that peace out of unity is justifiable'. That's the point I was making. Humanitarianism yes, justifying peace with unity, no.

As a matter of public choice, this just isn't true. Sheep enjoy being in the herd because the herd inductively "confirms" that they're making the right decisions; if other people are alive and breathing around them, they assume that something's being done right (as is the character of dialectics).

Some sheep might be sheep because they're blinded, but I don't see how that's a universal since plenty of sheep with open eyes stay in the herd.
You are missing or denying my point. I said sheep are sheep because they ARE herd-animals. That's what they are by definition. They don't choose to be sheep - they ARE sheep.

Thus it is nonsense to speak of sheep choosing to be sheep. Either one is a sheep or one is not. One doesn't get to choose one's condition.

Even if you are using "sheep" as an analogy for some humans, you still have to maintain the integrity of the meaning of "sheep" with the analogy. You can't just create a new type of human-sheep with unique responses for the purposes of analogy. If a human being is 'sheep-like' then that human being is incapable of thinking independently. To assert that this human being chose to be this way is absurd.

I agree with the second half of what you wrote because it confirms the essence of population ethics. How (and/or why) you don't recognize the mere addition paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox)'s connection to sheep behavior though, I don't understand.
I definitely don't accept the kind of reasoning used in that 'thought experiment'. I would also assert that the model is so far outside the realm of reality that it becomes meaningless except in tightly controled conditions that do not exist - except in thought experiements. Now if such a thought experiment was being used to counter the findings of another thought experiment, I have no objections, since nothing cancels nothing.


I was trying to be nice and speak your mental language, but in any case, I can't tell if you're teasing or deconstructing me (on purpose or accident).
Neither. I'm not into playing personal games at all. I'm only interested in the ideas you express.

And I am genuinely surprised when you make statements that mirror my own after arguing vehmently against them when I make them the first time. :shrug:

In other words, I'm not sure where your polemics begin or end, whether you are trying to advance an argument or whether you are trying to counter my arguments. Especially when you do one of those positional backflips and mirror one of my statements. :shrug:

As such, my replies are neither mocking nor meant to be deconstructive. That would be 'personal' and entirely out of my style.

OK, but now I really don't have a clue how you've made any of your earlier positions in this thread because I don't know what alternatives to property rights and contracts you believe are useful for administering justice. The purpose of emphasizing property rights and contracts is that they're flexible and would be respected out of principle, yet they can be engaged at will by transactors and contract makers. There is no relationship to decency in the administration here. Rigorousness, yes, but not decency.
I have never suggested that property rights and contracts aren't useful for administering justice. I think, overall, all things considered, that the Common Law system has done pretty damn good at administering justice over the last few centuries - given that justice has historically been nothing more than a bad joke. Our present system of justice isn't much to admire, as it is much like democracy - its only real quality of praise is that is less bad than all other options.

And we agree that there is no decency in the administration of justice. Decency be damned. A sense of decency is only ever used to hide something much worse. The Victorians who authorized colonial 'rape' placed a very high value on 'decency'. Enough said.

[Daktoria]

Strike enforcement from my statement - it is irrelevant in that context.

Property rights require 'establishment' by state authority. That's it, that's all.

And it is precisely this reason that I can't take libertarians seriously about property rights.

Do tell. A right is a right regardless of "establishment" as you're putting it. Why property rights deserve to be singled out here hasn't been described.

So a rate of 0.5% fraud in the administration of welfare, unemployment benefits, Social Security or Medicare programs would be considered sufficient to justify the cancellation of these programs? I think not - unless one favors the cancellation of these programs regardless of the measured rate of fraud within the programs.Appeal to pragmatism. Nobody should be forced to comply with someone else's tolerance for corruption, incompetence, inefficiency, etc.

Realpolitique suggests that one has to tolerate bumps in the road if one wants to drive down the street.No. Realpolitik (it's German, not French, based heh) is about power being the bottom line in advancing a national interest. One man's bumps are another man's mountains, so the flattening or bulldozing of bumps depends on those interests and the strategy carried out to pursue them.

That's the point I'm making here. Nobody should be forced to adhere to someone else's strategy or interests.

And realpolitique never issues ultimatums based on purity of motive or demands a uniformity of result. Yes, it does that all the time! Ultimatums are a quintessential realpolitik diplomatic tool, particularly for the purpose you just described!

Realpolitique always tries to work around the bumps in the road and/or any ideological or motive fanatics.No, realpolitik eagerly embraces violence. The only times it prefers peaceful conflict resolution are when the otherwise embracer believes a secondary interest is endangered or defeat is on the horizon. In fact, ideological fanatics can often give a "casus belli" for garnishing popular appeal to pursue violence, so cultivating them can reap long term benefits.

So I don't see how you can accuse me of abandoning realpolitique while claiming that ground for yourself.

And I definitely don't see how my position on this issue here is inconsistent with any other of my stated political views.I think the problem you're having is you're displacing realism with pragmatism. Hopefully, this is now cleared up.

I strongly disagree on all accounts here.

I don't agree that the worst violators are the invisible ones with ulterior motives. That's nonsense, since one can't know the motive of any given invisible subversive. I would suggest that it is irrational to make such emphatic assertions that cannot be observed, justified, proven or supported in any way at all except by your own emphatic assertion!Well now you're dismissing the value of intuition in intelligence gathering which is employed all the time for this very purpose, extrapolating beyond what's apparent by preparing for worst case espionage and locking down all alternatives by the most resource efficient means possible.

I mean it doesn't take much to understand that if you want to succeed in converting an organization, the best way to go about it is to go unnoticed since sensory based security measures won't be able to prepare and respond. Not only that, but the targets could actually approve of being subverted in order to be witty, keep up with the Joneses, spite their previous leadership, relieve anxiety (a la cognitive dissonance!), resolve a self-fulfilled prophecy (such as for the sake of taking pride in false egotistical wisdom that is actually luck), etc.

And I certainly didn't say (or even suggest) that "the government shouldn't be fine tuned"! My whole political philosophy is built on the fact that I believe that government can be rationally improved in efficiency and/or effectiveness. I'm a freakin' policy wonk for gawdsakes!You're just picking at words now:...any model that is entirely designed to address the small number of egotistic noisemakers is just going to be an authoritarian nightmare for everyone else....but if what you just recently said is the case, then you're admitting to social engineering which is completely antithetical to liberty.

And I think your characterization of 'policy' and 'procedure' of bureaucracy seems a might bit simplistic - particularly given that bureaucracy is the most efficient and effective form of human organization ever invented. And the fundamental principle of bureaucracies is that they do NOT make policy. Bureaucracies are only functional insofar as policy is clear and understood by all. Policy is formally adjudicated outside of the bureaucracy itself - handed down from the 'executive leadership' (political, corporate, military or religious leadership, doesn't really matter because bureaucracies are always the same obsession with process).

I certainly admit that there is a 'grey-area' or cross-over point where policy meets process in the application of any process, especially in the introductory phase of a 'new policy'. But this just underscores the point that adjudicating policy is outside the normal bounds of bureaucratic process.This is an extremely naive take on bureaucracy because it completely dismisses the essence of corruption and how bureaucrats will challenge constituents or clients to complain to internal affairs or human resources because they know that IA or HR just won't care. Maybe it's because IA is lazy. Maybe it's because IA is swamped with other work. Maybe it's because IA is understaffed. Maybe it's because IA has past experience or precedent to use as an excuse for dismissing a valid case. Maybe it's because there's an inside informal relationship that protects incompetence or a hidden agenda. In any case, the function of the organization ultimately comes down to the character of individuals (whether it's through hierarchic or freelanced assignment).

I mean there's a reason why some people want to be in government even if they're not elected. Aspirers want political influence, so by becoming operators, they understand that they are in control of policy being enacted. Once they establish connections, they can remain confident that it won't matter what policies get formally passed because the bureaucratic organization can always shapeshift to accommodate for new checks and balances.

Then and again, some end up in government work who don't want to be there, so manipulation is a natural arbitrage opportunity for these people.

Maybe you're a benevolent government employee who works with benevolent coworkers, but I don't see why the benefit of the doubt should be granted to everyone who works in government.

It is dangerous because encouraging the habit of 'minimizing' the apparent functioning of government is to encourage the habit of 'minimizing' the monitoring of the actual functioning of government. This allows the government the opportunity to degrade into servants of the plutocracy. Due diligence is always necessary where government is concerned. The public teat (and public power) is always attractive to private profiteers.Why is this a bad thing? I don't see why it's preferable to have a big brother over a night watchman's state, nor do I see why people should be able to take refuge in government intelligence for private enterprise. If anything, that would represent corporatism and it would excuse organic dissociation. For example, a statist quality control system would excuse consumers from exercising consumer sovereignty and organizing their own consumer advocates, and it would require taxpayers who don't consume certain products to pay for the monitoring of those products. Perhaps there is an externality at stake, but if a person doesn't create an externality, then that person shouldn't have to rectify it.

Besides, one should always be suspicious of mythology because myths are always designed to serve the interest of the mythmaker.

Btw, your point about mythology makes me think that 'cognitive dissonance' might - as often as not - be driven by some article of faith based on myth!

The term 'cognitive dissonance' is morally neutral. It is a polite way of saying the person is 'ignorant' of some obvious fact. But if such dissonance is being driven by faith in some myth, then I don't think the term 'cognitive' dissonance is quite accurate - perhaps subconscious dissonance or willful dissonance might be at play here as well.It's nice to see we're on the same page regarding ideological fanatics then.

However, I used ctrl+f on the previous page for "myth" and nothing came up, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Cognitive dissonance, though, is a phrase used in place of headache, so while it might occur sometimes because of ignorance, it isn't always the case not to mention that obviousness is a subjective term. Furthermore, cognition includes the unconscious and the conscious, so a distinction really isn't necessary.

Or create whole systemic changes to the justice system in order to address them?

Btw, I didn't realize that humans had a right to subjective mental tranquility. That's a new one to me. :shrug:

Likewise with mental violations. Learning to successfully deal with those issues is all about 'maturity' or the journey of life - not re-designing the justice system to pander to them!

It would be nice to redesign society to suit one's self, but I think that the effort is wasted, even if it is only liesure mental effort, as it is ultimately delusional and that is as potentially dangerous to the psyche as any addictive narcotic.Right, and that's the problem with redistributive justice, it assigns a universal psychological profile to everyone such that the more you deviate, the more handicapped you are via the equation of normalcy to health. The purpose of relying on property rights and contracts is to prevent politicians (and bureaucrats) from utilizing redistributive justice in order to interfere in the marketplace (therefore preventing organic societal construction and evolution). Expanding from the previous notions of externalities, minimizing government, and preempting espionage, government can only respond to what was previously apparent, and that assumes that government is competent to do it's job since it's not competing with anyone. Within that capacity is a national interest that's dominated by politicians and bureaucrats, so responsibilities will get ignored that aren't appreciated because of political agendas.

Further expanding from your original notion of tolerating 0.5% of fraud, that percentage is an arbitrary slippery slope, and it is a chink in the armor that the political environment inherently corrodes more and more over time. Rather a qualitative instead of a quantitative benchmark should be applied, yet those qualities will differ between taxpayers.

1. The current common law system exists because it serves the interests of our ruling elites. That is why it is obsessive about 'property' and 'contracts'. And our elites certainly do cultivate and tolerate longterm uncertainty for you, because it is politically profitable for them to do so. And they also pander to subjectivity for the same reason (and also because this helps with the electoral fiction of the 'consent of the governed').

All of this facilitates government sanctuaries for the elites - and authoritarian nightmares for everyone else. This is a feature, not a bug.

As such, eminent domain (legal and growing) and squatting (illegal) are highly predictable features of our elite-ruled political system.How does this justify the common law system? Political profits are inherently coercive because it implies that taxpayers are paying more than they need in order to get the products they're entitled to, electoral fiction is coercive from being deceptive, and sanctuaries (such as eminent domain and squatting) are similar to profits in that taxpayers are being stolen from.

2. The principle of democracy is based on rule by the people. Not some people, not just clever people, not just thoughtful and educated people - all of the people. Thus, it is a point of principle that arbitrary subjectivities must be tolerated as individual human beings have nothing but this. That is realpolitique.

As for longterm uncertainty, I'm afraid that is part of the human condition, once one puts aside the certainty of 'death and taxes'. As such, I think it is quite reasonable and rational to expect some measure of longterm uncertainty to co-exist with any system of democratic rule.

And it hardly needs to be pointed out that with 'real' democracy, I'd expect that squatting would likely be quite legal (under certain terms and conditions) and that eminent domain would become quite restrictive - though on the latter point, that's a tough call.How does this justify democracy? It's coercive to allow some taxpayers to conduct social experiments at the cost of others, and if social uncertainty is going to remain regardless, then there isn't even any hope for those experiments to improve the long term standards of living of taxpayers, cost-bearing and non. Even a relative reduction of uncertainty again requires an appeal to pragmatism.

Perhaps because I'm not intellectually motivated by my own subjective needs?

I honestly am most interested in 'the best' public policy for the sake of the best public policy - even if that is not in my own immediate or direct personal interest (or even against it).

Indeed, given my age, economic status and physical condition, to best represent my own direct interests, I should be strongly rightwing demanding endless tax cuts and cuts to all social programs. Stick the next generation with the bill because I don't have any kids and I don't need any of this socialist crap like welfare, unemployment insurance, medicare or social security. Eliminating those programs wouldn't hurt me directly at all (and I'd get a huge tax cut that really would benefit me big-time).

But I don't think like that at all. :shrug:

But if I was ONLY concerned about my immediate direct self-interest, that's what I should do.

Besides, moderation serves a goal higher than salving the egos of the warmongers. It serves the purpose of advancing good policy. It is a very useful tool and that's the highest praise I can give to anything.This thread is more philosophic than economic, so I'm not going to discuss the validity of supply side economics.

However, your response doesn't really address the essence of compromise or moderation. Before, you claimed that some things I've said are only valid by my own assertion, yet (for example) by saying:...moderation serves a goal higher than salving the egos of the warmongers. It serves the purpose of advancing good policy.
...you're not explaining how moderation "advances" "good" policy beyond your own assertion.

Actually, I've been reading another thinker's work, Antony de Jasay's The State, and there's a section in it that challenges Egalitarianism as Prudence (http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Jasay/jsyStt17.html#3.4%20Egalitarianism%20as%20Prudence ) which I believe would fit in quite nicely here. Of particular note regarding de Jasay is how he refutes contractarianism in general, so it doesn't really matter what your opinion on social contract theory is in order to appreciate what he's saying.

My point is all about the 'purpose' of society.

We clearly have a disagreement about social contract theory. You are using your interpretation of it to justify your position. I disagree with the baseline theory, so that throws your justification based on it out the window.

I have a different view of the nature of society. Following that view, some things make sense to me, but seem perhaps bizarre to you.

You have stated that something is necessary because of the 'war of all against all'. I'm saying the 'war of all against all' is just artifice used to justify authoritarian policies like your necessity.Again, do tell. How do you view society's "purpose" and what is your view on social contract theory? Bizarre or not, I can only criticize what's being shown, and I only have so much time in the day to dedicate towards being insightful to fill in the missing pieces of what's not shown.

Yes, that's true. There are lots of politicians who claim personal humanitarian (back)grounds for their platforms.

But I still say that not one of them is going to make claims about 'the belief that peace out of unity is justifiable'. That's the point I was making. Humanitarianism yes, justifying peace with unity, no.Heh, talk about the source of the word "realpolitik" for an example! Bismarck was an adamant pacifist who supported German unification as a pillar to avoid future wars. In fact, he felt betrayed when Britain switched sides in the Congress of Berlin and predicted (with overwhelming accuracy!) that a devastating continent wide conflict would result because of the Congress' failure to appropriately address Ottoman concerns.

On the other hand, if you're not satisfied with Bismarck's usage of war to generate unification, look at Gandhi's call for Indian independence from Britain, the Kelmar Union among Scandinavian nations, or even the Treaty of Union of Britain itself more than half a century after the English Civil War.

You are missing or denying my point. I said sheep are sheep because they ARE herd-animals. That's what they are by definition. They don't choose to be sheep - they ARE sheep.

Thus it is nonsense to speak of sheep choosing to be sheep. Either one is a sheep or one is not. One doesn't get to choose one's condition.

Even if you are using "sheep" as an analogy for some humans, you still have to maintain the integrity of the meaning of "sheep" with the analogy. You can't just create a new type of human-sheep with unique responses for the purposes of analogy. If a human being is 'sheep-like' then that human being is incapable of thinking independently. To assert that this human being chose to be this way is absurd.When I say people choose to be sheep, I mean they're employing a defense mechanism in order to deal with reality. It's a way of coping with the symptoms of cognitive dissonance while sweeping the underlying problems under the rug.

As such, I'm finding your point here intellectually dishonest since it conflicts with your previous notions of democracy as an electoral fiction and politicians not claiming peace out of unity being justifiable. Furthermore, you admitted that democracy is a realpolitik practice, so that implies that you understand how people are choosing to behave like sheep in order to hedge uncertainty.

(No offense, but I think this is also why you approve of moderation, compromise, etc. The difference is that rather than behaving as a sheep, you're exhibiting independence in order to show that responsible governance is possible without conformity, kinda like the Swedish third way dance.)

I definitely don't accept the kind of reasoning used in that 'thought experiment'. I would also assert that the model is so far outside the realm of reality that it becomes meaningless except in tightly controled conditions that do not exist - except in thought experiements. Now if such a thought experiment was being used to counter the findings of another thought experiment, I have no objections, since nothing cancels nothing.To the bolded, why? What's wrong with the thought experiment?

To the unbolded, it sounds like you're using dialectics now. :erm:

I have never suggested that property rights and contracts aren't useful for administering justice. I think, overall, all things considered, that the Common Law system has done pretty damn good at administering justice over the last few centuries - given that justice has historically been nothing more than a bad joke. Our present system of justice isn't much to admire, as it is much like democracy - its only real quality of praise is that is less bad than all other options.

And we agree that there is no decency in the administration of justice. Decency be damned. A sense of decency is only ever used to hide something much worse. The Victorians who authorized colonial 'rape' placed a very high value on 'decency'. Enough said.

What do you believe is the core of common law success then (and as a matter of principle, why do you believe that core is superior to property and contracts being the bottomline of the rule of law)?

[Michael]

Do tell. A right is a right regardless of "establishment" as you're putting it. Why property rights deserve to be singled out here hasn't been described.
We've been over this ground before.

I'm not singling out 'property rights' for anything special here. I reject the idea that 'rights' exist as universals. As far as I'm concerned, rights only exist in so far as they are established in law and actively enforced. Without establishment and enforcement, rights are only aspirational. With establishment and enforcement, rights are identical to laws. Ergo, rights are rights only when they are laws.

Furthermore, I will also assert that any argument that claims that rights are universal must give a rational account for the origin or source of that universality. Without that account, all claims of universality are to be assumed to originate with the supreme will of some supernatural being that cannot be rationally defined or proven - which is defined as a matter of faith alone.

On this basis, I reject the idea that 'rights exist' in any form other than as an expression of human aspiration or as a specific human-created law.

Appeal to pragmatism. Nobody should be forced to comply with someone else's tolerance for corruption, incompetence, inefficiency, etc.
No, it was merely a statement of fact. Corruption, incompetence, inefficiency are all endemic to the human enterprise. One cannot will these things away by purity of faith alone. In the realm of human enterprise, these things can only be managed, minimized or mitigated against - never eliminated entirely.

My point is that the mere existence of 'some' corruption, incompetence and inefficiency in the delivery or enactment of public policy is not sufficient to justify the elimination of any given public policy.

Of course, the definition of how much of this can be tolerated by any given policy (or any given society) is a matter for politics to decide. But it is important to recognize that the choice is between 'some' and 'lots', not between 'none' or 'all'.

No. Realpolitik (it's German, not French, based heh) is about power being the bottom line in advancing a national interest. One man's bumps are another man's mountains, so the flattening or bulldozing of bumps depends on those interests and the strategy carried out to pursue them.

That's the point I'm making here. Nobody should be forced to adhere to someone else's strategy or interests.
I'm quite aware of the fact that the word has multiple origins and that you are correct that the word in English is derived from the German. However, I specifically derive my inspiration (and definition) of realpolitique from the example of Catherine de Medici, the 16th century Queen of France - as well as Machiavelli, and thus I prefer to use the foreign-French spelling to denote that line of thinking rather than the Germanic one. There does seem to be some difference of meaning between the French and German here.

As for not being 'forced to adhere to someone else's strategy and interests', I don't see how that's possible with the idea of government and rule of law. The rule of law is a product of human strategy and interest. All citizens must, by definition, be coerced to follow the law.

Ergo, one cannot accept your point without rejecting the supremacy of the rule of law. On that basis, I reject your point as rationally untenable - or pure anarchism which I dismiss as utopian.

Yes, it does that all the time! Ultimatums are a quintessential realpolitik diplomatic tool, particularly for the purpose you just described!
Sure, but bluffing or fraud, is only a particular strategy or technique.

In terms of realpolitique, they are only tools, not principles. Realpolitique is not married to any principle at all, by definition. An ultimatum issued has no function other than its intended threat-effect. Ultimatums themselves have no intrinsic moral standing other than utility.

No, realpolitik eagerly embraces violence. The only times it prefers peaceful conflict resolution are when the otherwise embracer believes a secondary interest is endangered or defeat is on the horizon. In fact, ideological fanatics can often give a "casus belli" for garnishing popular appeal to pursue violence, so cultivating them can reap long term benefits.
I think you are trying to peg realpolitique into a tightly fitting straight-jacket. I don't dispute that your example of violence is one position that can sometimes be described as realpolitique, but I consider it absurd to assume it is the only one. Flexibility or mutability of policy is the penultimate definition of realpolitique.

I think the problem you're having is you're displacing realism with pragmatism. Hopefully, this is now cleared up.
I think you are the one who is displacing your own topic.

The term 'realism' is always loaded since one can claim to be using the term in a particular and specific technical sense (or not, depending on whim if challenged). If you notice, I very much try to avoid using the term "realism" as much as possible for that reason. I tend to use the term 'realistic' or 'reality' instead as these are less loaded/controversial terms.

Seriously, I do get tired of defending points I didn't make.

We're not discussing foreign policy here. We are talking about the legal system - or at least, that's what you said the OP is all about and that's the point I'm arguing about. I use the terms of pragmatism and realpolitique in exactly the same manner and form regardless if the topic is foreign policy or domestic politics. Indeed, that is yet another reason that don't use the term of 'realpolitik' since that seems be a 'foreign policy' specific term - just like 'realism'. And we're not talking about foreign policy here.

This discussion is supposed to be about your assertion that closure ought to be the guiding principle of our legal system. I think that's horrific and highly destructive of human society as it can only be achieved by placing human emotional subjectivity above the rational rule of law.

Well now you're dismissing the value of intuition in intelligence gathering which is employed all the time for this very purpose, extrapolating beyond what's apparent by preparing for worst case espionage and locking down all alternatives by the most resource efficient means possible.

I mean it doesn't take much to understand that if you want to succeed in converting an organization, the best way to go about it is to go unnoticed since sensory based security measures won't be able to prepare and respond. Not only that, but the targets could actually approve of being subverted in order to be witty, keep up with the Joneses, spite their previous leadership, relieve anxiety (a la cognitive dissonance!), resolve a self-fulfilled prophecy (such as for the sake of taking pride in false egotistical wisdom that is actually luck), etc.
I don't see any point to arguing with every digression you make since it just scatters the discussion in a hundred directions.

You're just picking at words now:...any model that is entirely designed to address the small number of egotistic noisemakers is just going to be an authoritarian nightmare for everyone else....but if what you just recently said is the case, then you're admitting to social engineering which is completely antithetical to liberty.

I'm getting really frustrated here.

I have NEVER advocated SOCIAL ENGINEERING. That's your term, not mine. I have never used it or acknowledged it in any way ever. I can only imagine what definition you apply to that term.

You put words into my mouth that I never said and then argue against them. How many times have I pointed this out?

I will not defend arguments and admissions I didn't make. That's absurd.

This is an extremely naive take on bureaucracy because it completely dismisses the essence of corruption and how bureaucrats will challenge constituents or clients to complain to internal affairs or human resources because they know that IA or HR just won't care. Maybe it's because IA is lazy. Maybe it's because IA is swamped with other work. Maybe it's because IA is understaffed. Maybe it's because IA has past experience or precedent to use as an excuse for dismissing a valid case. Maybe it's because there's an inside informal relationship that protects incompetence or a hidden agenda. In any case, the function of the organization ultimately comes down to the character of individuals (whether it's through hierarchic or freelanced assignment).

I mean there's a reason why some people want to be in government even if they're not elected. Aspirers want political influence, so by becoming operators, they understand that they are in control of policy being enacted. Once they establish connections, they can remain confident that it won't matter what policies get formally passed because the bureaucratic organization can always shapeshift to accommodate for new checks and balances.

Then and again, some end up in government work who don't want to be there, so manipulation is a natural arbitrage opportunity for these people.

Maybe you're a benevolent government employee who works with benevolent coworkers, but I don't see why the benefit of the doubt should be granted to everyone who works in government.
You seem to be under the delusion that bureaucracy only applies to the government apparatus. Fact is, private corporations are built on the same bureaucratic principles. Bureaucracy is a form or technique of organization not a word synonymous with 'government'.

And it is a well studied phenomena how employees seek to manipulate organizations that employ them to serve their own particular needs. This is as common in private corporations as it is with any government corporation (or the military or the church or any other organization). Again, as I noted above, corruption and inefficiency are endemic to the human enterprise, not limited to the bureaucratic form of organization. Indeed, bureaucracy was invented as a method to reduce corruption and inefficiency and in that respect, it has been spectacularly successful. Non-bureaucratic government forms are spectacularly corrupt and inefficient. Bureaucratic government forms are much less corrupt and inefficient.

Why is this a bad thing? I don't see why it's preferable to have a big brother over a night watchman's state, nor do I see why people should be able to take refuge in government intelligence for private enterprise. If anything, that would represent corporatism and it would excuse organic dissociation. For example, a statist quality control system would excuse consumers from exercising consumer sovereignty and organizing their own consumer advocates, and it would require taxpayers who don't consume certain products to pay for the monitoring of those products. Perhaps there is an externality at stake, but if a person doesn't create an externality, then that person shouldn't have to rectify it.

The 'night watchman's state' will be owned entirely by, and will serve the interests of, one limited segment of society - the plutocrats.

That's why we don't use that model. The track record is pretty convincing on that score.

It's nice to see we're on the same page regarding ideological fanatics then.

However, I used ctrl+f on the previous page for "myth" and nothing came up, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Cognitive dissonance, though, is a phrase used in place of headache, so while it might occur sometimes because of ignorance, it isn't always the case not to mention that obviousness is a subjective term. Furthermore, cognition includes the unconscious and the conscious, so a distinction really isn't necessary.
You have many times defended or invoked the utility of the 'noble lie' as good public policy.

Right, and that's the problem with redistributive justice, it assigns a universal psychological profile to everyone such that the more you deviate, the more handicapped you are via the equation of normalcy to health. The purpose of relying on property rights and contracts is to prevent politicians (and bureaucrats) from utilizing redistributive justice in order to interfere in the marketplace (therefore preventing organic societal construction and evolution). Expanding from the previous notions of externalities, minimizing government, and preempting espionage, government can only respond to what was previously apparent, and that assumes that government is competent to do it's job since it's not competing with anyone. Within that capacity is a national interest that's dominated by politicians and bureaucrats, so responsibilities will get ignored that aren't appreciated because of political agendas.
I don't know what or why you are talking about "redistributive justice".

I didn't raise that issue.

Further expanding from your original notion of tolerating 0.5% of fraud, that percentage is an arbitrary slippery slope, and it is a chink in the armor that the political environment inherently corrodes more and more over time. Rather a qualitative instead of a quantitative benchmark should be applied, yet those qualities will differ between taxpayers.
Yes, it is arbitrary and such a formal target would be a slippery slope. But I didn't assert it as a formal benchmark, I only used that figure as a quasi-realistic representative symbol (since most studies indicate that systemic and private frauds in large social programs represent only fractions of 1% of the funds administered).

And as I noted above, the amount to be tolerated is a matter for politics to address. The answer is likely to vary from place to place, or from time to time.

How does this justify the common law system? Political profits are inherently coercive because it implies that taxpayers are paying more than they need in order to get the products they're entitled to, electoral fiction is coercive from being deceptive, and sanctuaries (such as eminent domain and squatting) are similar to profits in that taxpayers are being stolen from.
It doesn't justify the common law system. It purports to explain its origin and function.

Or put another way, justified to whom?

How does this justify democracy? It's coercive to allow some taxpayers to conduct social experiments at the cost of others, and if social uncertainty is going to remain regardless, then there isn't even any hope for those experiments to improve the long term standards of living of taxpayers, cost-bearing and non. Even a relative reduction of uncertainty again requires an appeal to pragmatism.
It doesn't justify democracy. It purports to explain its origin and function.

Or put another way, justified to whom?

This thread is more philosophic than economic, so I'm not going to discuss the validity of supply side economics.

However, your response doesn't really address the essence of compromise or moderation. Before, you claimed that some things I've said are only valid by my own assertion, yet (for example) by saying:...moderation serves a goal higher than salving the egos of the warmongers. It serves the purpose of advancing good policy.
...you're not explaining how moderation "advances" "good" policy beyond your own assertion.
You cut off the last part of my words in that quote. I praised moderation as a useful tool. I didn't assert that moderation advances good policy of and in itself (as that would be untenable).

Actually, I've been reading another thinker's work, Antony de Jasay's The State, and there's a section in it that challenges Egalitarianism as Prudence (http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Jasay/jsyStt17.html#3.4%20Egalitarianism%20as%20Prudence ) which I believe would fit in quite nicely here. Of particular note regarding de Jasay is how he refutes contractarianism in general, so it doesn't really matter what your opinion on social contract theory is in order to appreciate what he's saying.
When I say I reject 'social contract' theory, that does not mean that I reject 'contracts' or 'contract law'.

My rejection of social contract theory is based on the fact that social contract theory is based on an unproven assumption that humans are inherent individuals that are capable of making a choice to join society or not. I consider that assertion to be nonsense that can only be rationally traced to belief in the mythical story of Adam & Eve.

Again, do tell. How do you view society's "purpose" and what is your view on social contract theory? Bizarre or not, I can only criticize what's being shown, and I only have so much time in the day to dedicate towards being insightful to fill in the missing pieces of what's not shown.
I don't accept that society must have a purpose. That is to say, it has many purposes and none. Society just is, the way humans just are.

I consider it absurd to assume that society is a choice. Humans are a social animal and always have been. Human society is part of the human condition. They are intimately and integrally connected with one another. Society was never 'invented'.

Heh, talk about the source of the word "realpolitik" for an example! Bismarck was an adamant pacifist who supported German unification as a pillar to avoid future wars. In fact, he felt betrayed when Britain switched sides in the Congress of Berlin and predicted (with overwhelming accuracy!) that a devastating continent wide conflict would result because of the Congress' failure to appropriately address Ottoman concerns.

On the other hand, if you're not satisfied with Bismarck's usage of war to generate unification, look at Gandhi's call for Indian independence from Britain, the Kelmar Union among Scandinavian nations, or even the Treaty of Union of Britain itself more than half a century after the English Civil War.

This is going around and around in circles.

I've asserted that your specific statement that "belief that peace out of unity is justifiable" is nonsense as the goal of political leaders.

The statement sounds like nonsense. You might have some specific idea or definition for that statement that appeals to you, but that statement on its own terms is entirely authoritarian and I totally reject it.

Going on about Bismark isn't going to rescue that particular formulation of words. It is the precise formation of the statement that I object to. I fear that the statement doesn't mean what you believe it means. I consider it the very definition of authoritarian/totalitarianism. And I'm not talking about or disputing Bismark's words, actions or deeds. I'm talking about YOUR statement and your assertion.

When I say people choose to be sheep, I mean they're employing a defense mechanism in order to deal with reality. It's a way of coping with the symptoms of cognitive dissonance while sweeping the underlying problems under the rug.

As such, I'm finding your point here intellectually dishonest since it conflicts with your previous notions of democracy as an electoral fiction and politicians not claiming peace out of unity being justifiable. Furthermore, you admitted that democracy is a realpolitik practice, so that implies that you understand how people are choosing to behave like sheep in order to hedge uncertainty.
In order to make this point you have to play games with the word democracy and pretend to ignore everything I've ever said about the difference between actual democracy and the modern system of government that pretends to be democratic.

If I critique modern government (that uses the label of democracy) that doesn't mean the critique applies to the principles or ideas of actual democracy. Our modern government is not a democracy. Actual democracy means 'rule by the people' and we don't have that.

Repeating this point over and over again is getting really tiresome and repetitious.

(No offense, but I think this is also why you approve of moderation, compromise, etc. The difference is that rather than behaving as a sheep, you're exhibiting independence in order to show that responsible governance is possible without conformity, kinda like the Swedish third way dance.)
I consider this certainly to be offensive. I always consider it offensive when you impart to me some wild and absurd motive to my reasonings.

To the bolded, why? What's wrong with the thought experiment?
Same thing that's always wrong with such experiments. Schrodinger's cat is just imagined to be alive or dead as it is convenient to do so. The thought experiement is only meaningful if all of its fanciful exclusions are real, which they never are.

To the unbolded, it sounds like you're using dialectics now. :erm:
No, not at all. I'm just being flippant and dismissive about the value of thought experiments.

If the value, purpose or function of any given thought experiment is only in reference or reply to another thought experiment, then it is of no concern to me.

What do you believe is the core of common law success then (and as a matter of principle, why do you believe that core is superior to property and contracts being the bottomline of the rule of law)?
I have never asserted that the common law isn't based on ideas of property and contracts. Indeed, I don't know how it can be described otherwise.

I reject natural law theory on the same grounds I reject faith arguments generally or theological arguments specifically.

[Daktoria]

We've been over this ground before.

I'm not singling out 'property rights' for anything special here. I reject the idea that 'rights' exist as universals. As far as I'm concerned, rights only exist in so far as they are established in law and actively enforced. Without establishment and enforcement, rights are only aspirational. With establishment and enforcement, rights are identical to laws. Ergo, rights are rights only when they are laws.

Furthermore, I will also assert that any argument that claims that rights are universal must give a rational account for the origin or source of that universality. Without that account, all claims of universality are to be assumed to originate with the supreme will of some supernatural being that cannot be rationally defined or proven - which is defined as a matter of faith alone.

On this basis, I reject the idea that 'rights exist' in any form other than as an expression of human aspiration or as a specific human-created law.

Then you believe in privileges, not rights, because rights don't require power in order to exist. Even when disrespected, those rights still exist; even if civilization (and life) no longer existed (because of natural or artificial extermination), those rights still exist.

No, it was merely a statement of fact. Corruption, incompetence, inefficiency are all endemic to the human enterprise. One cannot will these things away by purity of faith alone. In the realm of human enterprise, these things can only be managed, minimized or mitigated against - never eliminated entirely.

My point is that the mere existence of 'some' corruption, incompetence and inefficiency in the delivery or enactment of public policy is not sufficient to justify the elimination of any given public policy.

Of course, the definition of how much of this can be tolerated by any given policy (or any given society) is a matter for politics to decide. But it is important to recognize that the choice is between 'some' and 'lots', not between 'none' or 'all'.Yes, I understand your point, but the reason I'm disagreeing with it is because the mere existence of public policy forces members of society to accept degrees of corruption they're not satisfied with. In contrast, if a principal-agent problem exists in a private enterprise, investors have direct control over whether or not it will be addressed. If it's desired to be addressed, the agents can be replaced or the equity in the enterprise can be liquidated.

Public corruption has no such options, so forcing citizens to deal with it is coercive.

I'm quite aware of the fact that the word has multiple origins and that you are correct that the word in English is derived from the German. However, I specifically derive my inspiration (and definition) of realpolitique from the example of Catherine de Medici, the 16th century Queen of France - as well as Machiavelli, and thus I prefer to use the foreign-French spelling to denote that line of thinking rather than the Germanic one. There does seem to be some difference of meaning between the French and German here.

As for not being 'forced to adhere to someone else's strategy and interests', I don't see how that's possible with the idea of government and rule of law. The rule of law is a product of human strategy and interest. All citizens must, by definition, be coerced to follow the law.

Ergo, one cannot accept your point without rejecting the supremacy of the rule of law. On that basis, I reject your point as rationally untenable - or pure anarchism which I dismiss as utopian.Again, I find your statement intellectually dishonest because Machiavellian politics recognize the anarchic essence of international relations (because of how the rule of law depends upon interests). Therefore, rejecting anarchy (as utopian) doesn't make sense because Machiavellian "real politique" recognizes anarchy as the only possible political condition. Liberalism is just the result of politicians employing good graces to appease civil dissent.

(To avoid going around in circles, I'm going to put aside the next few points you made after this.)

You seem to be under the delusion that bureaucracy only applies to the government apparatus. Fact is, private corporations are built on the same bureaucratic principles. Bureaucracy is a form or technique of organization not a word synonymous with 'government'.

And it is a well studied phenomena how employees seek to manipulate organizations that employ them to serve their own particular needs. This is as common in private corporations as it is with any government corporation (or the military or the church or any other organization). Again, as I noted above, corruption and inefficiency are endemic to the human enterprise, not limited to the bureaucratic form of organization. Indeed, bureaucracy was invented as a method to reduce corruption and inefficiency and in that respect, it has been spectacularly successful. Non-bureaucratic government forms are spectacularly corrupt and inefficient. Bureaucratic government forms are much less corrupt and inefficient.Yes, and this is the difference between private enterprise and public policy. In private enterprise, hierarchy can be engaged and rectified directly since equity is straightforward. In public policy, hierarchy becomes a mess because parties are forced to deal with each other. Equity cannot be divided, and there is no market to provide compensation if an investor decides that an investment should be liquidated. It isn't justified to force citizens to take risks they don't approve of.

The 'night watchman's state' will be owned entirely by, and will serve the interests of, one limited segment of society - the plutocrats.

That's why we don't use that model. The track record is pretty convincing on that score....

...I don't know what or why you are talking about "redistributive justice".

I didn't raise that issue.Extreme concentrations of power density are not automatically bad, even if they do not sustain strategic standards of living. The problem arrives when the people forsaken their moral character by exchanging justice for standards of living.

That is why property and contracts are the end all of justice. The people should be able to exchange justice for standards of living such that they have to live with the consequences of their decisions and learn to not be stubborn. Likewise, public policy cannot be the end all of justice because individuals should not be able to exchange the justice of other individuals for standards of living (whether it's their own standards of living, the standards of living of whose justice it was originally, or third parties' standards of living).

You have many times defended or invoked the utility of the 'noble lie' as good public policy....

...Yes, it is arbitrary and such a formal target would be a slippery slope. But I didn't assert it as a formal benchmark, I only used that figure as a quasi-realistic representative symbol (since most studies indicate that systemic and private frauds in large social programs represent only fractions of 1% of the funds administered).

And as I noted above, the amount to be tolerated is a matter for politics to address. The answer is likely to vary from place to place, or from time to time.To the best of my knowledge, I always reject the noble lie in our discussions. We don't discuss normativism here much (if ever), so I can't remember accepting the noble lie as permissible here either. The reason for that is exactly what you're saying here - I don't believe politics is a valid arena in itself. If anything, human aspirations should aim to minimize demand for politics because communication should already be clear, interests should already be aligned, and rights should already be respected. Without politics, the noble lie will never have a possible niche to fill.

Hence another reason why public policy is inherently wrong, it survives upon miscommunication, misalignment, and disrespect in order to give politicians niches in society to be employed in so they can put bread on the table and roofs over their heads.

It doesn't justify the common law system. It purports to explain its origin and function.

Or put another way, justified to whom?...

...It doesn't justify democracy. It purports to explain its origin and function.

Or put another way, justified to whom?I think my original statement though (quoted by you (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=24718#post24718)) explained how the purpose of this train of thought was about justification (to benefactor citizens):In this section, I'm criticizing the current common law system for appealing to the balance of powers in order to tolerate long term uncertainty. It isn't justifiable to obligate citizens to provide for other citizens who insist on living on the dark by hiding in tradition, the status quo, what feels good, or the crowd since these are all arbitrary sanctuaries.
You cut off the last part of my words in that quote. I praised moderation as a useful tool. I didn't assert that moderation advances good policy of and in itself (as that would be untenable)....

...When I say I reject 'social contract' theory, that does not mean that I reject 'contracts' or 'contract law'.

My rejection of social contract theory is based on the fact that social contract theory is based on an unproven assumption that humans are inherent individuals that are capable of making a choice to join society or not. I consider that assertion to be nonsense that can only be rationally traced to belief in the mythical story of Adam & Eve.OK, so about your entire quote (which was originally quoted in full):...Besides, moderation serves a goal higher than salving the egos of the warmongers. It serves the purpose of advancing good policy. It is a very useful tool and that's the highest praise I can give to anything.
...how is moderation a useful tool for the purpose of "good policy", and how is that purpose "good"?

That is why I referred you to de Jasay. Contractarianism doesn't deal with the proper value of private contracts, only social contracts.

I don't accept that society must have a purpose. That is to say, it has many purposes and none. Society just is, the way humans just are.

I consider it absurd to assume that society is a choice. Humans are a social animal and always have been. Human society is part of the human condition. They are intimately and integrally connected with one another. Society was never 'invented'.OK, I think we're (FINALLY) starting to get somewhere with normativism now because this sounds like holism. :thanks:

I'm going to take a break and finish this later.

[Daktoria]

This is going around and around in circles.

I've asserted that your specific statement that "belief that peace out of unity is justifiable" is nonsense as the goal of political leaders.

The statement sounds like nonsense. You might have some specific idea or definition for that statement that appeals to you, but that statement on its own terms is entirely authoritarian and I totally reject it.

Going on about Bismark isn't going to rescue that particular formulation of words. It is the precise formation of the statement that I object to. I fear that the statement doesn't mean what you believe it means. I consider it the very definition of authoritarian/totalitarianism. And I'm not talking about or disputing Bismark's words, actions or deeds. I'm talking about YOUR statement and your assertion.

Look. My point here is against realpolitik, particularly against realpolitik used for the sake of a humanitarian noble lie. You were skeptical of my claim of politicians using peace through unity as a career building platform, but I gave examples.

What more do you want?

Same thing that's always wrong with such experiments. Schrodinger's cat is just imagined to be alive or dead as it is convenient to do so. The thought experiement is only meaningful if all of its fanciful exclusions are real, which they never are....

...No, not at all. I'm just being flippant and dismissive about the value of thought experiments.

If the value, purpose or function of any given thought experiment is only in reference or reply to another thought experiment, then it is of no concern to me.

Give me a break now, will you? I just provided empirical evidence and you're not happy. Here, I provided a rational argument yet you're still not happy.

What is your benchmark for justification?

I have never asserted that the common law isn't based on ideas of property and contracts. Indeed, I don't know how it can be described otherwise.

I reject natural law theory on the same grounds I reject faith arguments generally or theological arguments specifically.

Pragmatism, prudence, general welfare, national interest, etc.

The position I'm proposing doesn't rely on faith because merely being sentient shows that cognitive dissonance is an obstacle to be overcome. Where the line should be drawn on tolerable versus intolerable dissonance depends upon compatible communication for agreement making; the very actions (and intentions) of deception, breach of contract, and coercion undermine the values of compatibility, communication, and agreement.

Before, when we were talking about rationality, you insisted on rationality not being equivalent to optimization. The best alternative I can come up with to that is satisficing because the role of satisficing is to ensure that something is upheld while adding certainty at the cost of surplus. I mean you would have to be totally alien to real life in order to demand a positive explanation for this. Haven't you ever been betrayed, or at least don't you understand why certainty is valued?

BTW, some wiki pages you might be interested in (about satisficing and why satisficing is a form of optimization in itself):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_premium_puzzle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Info-gap_decision_theory