|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The petty tyrannies of the high minded?
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
There are two threads running at the moment which are on the theme 'I think something is a bad thing; therefore other people should be stopped from doing it'. Both, I hope, are motivated not so much by the desire to interfere with other peoples' lives for its own sake as by 'this is the better way; so it is good for people to be made to follow it'. One is on what are called 'helicopter parents', who are told to 'stop it'. The other is on sex robots. 'should they be banned?'
There was another, a few weeks ago, on bottled water, should that be banned too?
A local MP (Member of Parliament, the UK legislature) here who has recently become Shadow Environment Secretary (an opposition role without actual responsibility) with an agriculture portfolio and is a vegan, has said that she would like eating meat to become as socially unacceptable as smoking.
As it happens, I don't think helicopter parenting is a good thing, and I think sex robots are grubby and rather disgusting. I don't buy bottled water but don't see this as an ethical issue. I've no intention of becoming a vegetarian, yet alone a vegan.
That though isn't my question. I'm much more concerned about the legitimacy or otherwise of 'banning', 'compulsion', 'stopping' etc.I've expressed my reservations on some of those threads, but no one has risen to them.
If we think something is a bad thing, does that mean we should want to stop other people doing it? Are we entitled to impose, or campaign to impose, our foibles on other people? Is it a sign that we lack conviction about our own opinions if we don't seek to make others follow them? When are we entitled to compel rather than seek to persuade? When are we entitled to reorganise other people's lives for their own good, against their will? When aren't we? Is there a presumption that it is our business or that it isn't?
The churches have had a bad reputation in the past for this sort of meddling. The temperance movement is the most obvious example, culminating in the US with what some people have called 'the noble experiment'. Until well within my lifetime, most people, whether churchgoers or otherwise accepted it as entirely appropriate that the state should prosecute those who indulged in certain carnal activities of a dead horse nature. It is still accepted that the state should prosecute those who do that sort of thing with a live horse!
Is there some qualitative difference that makes prohibiting some activities right and proper, and others an illegitimate intrusion. If so, what is it? Can that change over time? If so what criteria does one use for deciding this?
Shipmates can probably tell by the way I'm phrasing this, that my bias is against interfering, but that bias is not unlimited. What's your view?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
I think you've failed to note, here, the important distinction between "I think this is bad, and I'd prefer that people didn't do it" and "I think this is bad and therefore other people should be stopped from doing it." The helicopter parenting, thread, in particular, doesn't exactly call for people to be forced not to helicopter parent. The sex robots thread poses the question of whether they should be banned, but I don't think anyone has argued for this position (although I don't think I'm up to date on that thread, so someone might have pitched in).
So no, we don't really have threads that call for people to be stopped from doing what they want to do.
Obviously if you think something is bad or harmful you're probably going to prefer that other people don't do it.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That though isn't my question. I'm much more concerned about the legitimacy or otherwise of 'banning', 'compulsion', 'stopping' etc.I've expressed my reservations on some of those threads, but no one has risen to them.
If we think something is a bad thing, does that mean we should want to stop other people doing it? Are we entitled to impose, or campaign to impose, our foibles on other people? Is it a sign that we lack conviction about our own opinions if we don't seek to make others follow them? When are we entitled to compel rather than seek to persuade? When are we entitled to reorganise other people's lives for their own good, against their will? When aren't we? Is there a presumption that it is our business or that it isn't?
You missed one more thread along this line; the one about the prohibition against selling salmonella-tainted peanut products. I think this gets to one of the defining characteristics of which activities are amenable to legal sanction and which are not, namely the effect such activities have on unwilling and/or unknowing third parties. What economists refer to as "externalities".
Sexbots: Not seeing a lot of externalities here. The only parties involved are the end users and the sexbot manufacturers. There doesn't seem to be any need for regulation beyond the usual laws applied to manufacturing interests (e.g. don't dump toxic byproducts in the river, follow workplace safety codes, etc.)
Parenting: By definition parenting involves third parties. States have been reluctant to regulate parenting for fairly good practical and traditional reasons, but this reluctance is not unlimited. Parenting actions are typically regulated in situations where harm to the children involved is immediate and unambiguous (e.g. abuse, neglect, cruelty, etc.). Although "helicopter parenting" is viewed by some as harmful (see related thread title), the harm alleged is usually hypothetical rather than immediate.
Bottled Water: Like any business, this should be assessed according to its externalities. In this case, I suspect the the economics are mis-aligned to a degree that allows water bottling concern to offload a lot of the cost of their industry to the general public (particularly post-consumption pollution). Similarly, regulatory capture may prevent curtailment of such businesses during drought conditions, essentially privatizing what had previously been a public good (groundwater) during emergency conditions. I can see justification for an outright ban in some circumstances (like the aforementioned drought), or steep taxes to cover the externalities (like pollution clean up) foisted on the general public.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Bracketing out the sex robots question which I haven't thought about at all, and don't want to if I can avoid it, the other issues aren't just about quote:
'this is the better way; so it is good for people to be made to follow it'
or at least not only about that.
ISTM the argument about bottled water is that it is wasteful of the earth's resources for, in many cases, no real benefit. If everyone who could reasonably drink tap water did so there would be a huge saving on plastics and unnecessary water treatment costs/resource usage.
Similarly the argument about eating meat is not just about it being bad for the people who do it, or perhaps bad for the animals, but also about the fact that meat production as widely practised involves feeding human edible foodstuffs to creatures in red to produce less 'food value' than is in the original foodstuffs - leading to greater food shortage and/or higher food prices affecting those who can't even afford to eat meat in the first place.
Finally the argument about helicopter parenting is not just that it is foolish or bad behaviour, but that it is also harmful to the 'innocent' children, and thereby also damaging to society at large.
I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with/accept these arguments, but in each case it is argued that the behaviour criticised is harmful not just for the individuals involved, but also for wider society/ the wider world.
[ 28. September 2015, 16:10: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
ISTM the argument about bottled water is that it is wasteful of the earth's resources for, in many cases, no real benefit.
But that's the point. That thread was full of people saying "I use bottled water occasionally / sometimes / all the time for reasons X, Y and Z", other people saying "you should buy a water filter and some reusable bottles: it would be better for your use" and the first group saying "actually, I don't think so."
The second group here are basically arguing that they know better than a member of the first group what that person's needs and desires are. Which is pretty much the root of the petty tyranny mentality.
quote:
I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with/accept these arguments, but in each case it is argued that the behaviour criticised is harmful not just for the individuals involved, but also for wider society/ the wider world.
Well, of course it is. Even the most inveterate petty tyrant knows to make that case.
But the thing is, almost every activity that people undertake has an effect on wider society, because people are part of that society.
Want to have kids? Overpopulation is putting too much strain on our planet's limited resources.
Don't want kids? Who's going to look after us in our old age? You need to maintain the demographic balance.
Conform with some kind of expected behaviour? You're complicit in social tyranny.
Don't conform? You're causing unrest and upset in society.
In most cases, the "harm" to society / the world / whatever from the particular activity is no larger than the "harm" caused by a million other activities. In this case, singling out that particular harm as a reason for banning X is lying.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I actually find it interesting how people can read "I don't think it's a good idea to do X as "They want to stop me from doing X!"
[ 28. September 2015, 16:51: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I actually find it interesting how people can read "I don't think it's a good idea to do X as "They want to stop me from doing X!"
I agree and I sometimes see that as a problem toward free discussion here. For example I said I probably wouldn't vote for a Muslim and I was quickly told how it was unconstitutional to prohibit someone to run for president based on religion. Well, duh, who wanted to?
I wish we could discuss ethical dilemmas we have within ourselves, "Should I give up eating meat in response to the cruelty inherent in factory farming?" Without someone saying, "I eat meat and resent you trying to stop me!
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
As the originator of at least three of the threads in question (bottled water, sexbots, heli-parents), I meant with the titles to the threads to stimulate discussion of the issues because I think its important. We might have an unrelated discussion about the best ways to entitle threads?
FWIW, I am very much against authoritarian approaches to pretty near everything, and have marvelled that societal discussions have caused people to floss their teeth, eat less saturated fats, wear seatbelts, avoid driving when drunk, exercise more. Only the car driving ones have resulted in laws.
If people have information, I think more often than not they will make prudent decisions. On their own. I don't believe anyone really wants to harm their child via parenting style, likes the idea of pollution, or wants to date a human-sized smartphone with a silicone naughty part.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I wish we could discuss ethical dilemmas we have within ourselves, "Should I give up eating meat in response to the cruelty inherent in factory farming?" Without someone saying, "I eat meat and resent you trying to stop me!
I think we can and, for the most part, we do. Yes, there will always be those who are quick to go too far in the accusatory direction and those too quick to take offence.* But in large part, I think we are open to this.
What I think truly is a common fault is lumping people together. Someone who has a dilemma such as you mention can become grouped with those who might have a more militant stance and can feel trampled as a result. So, in the balance of a thread, the issue can be properly discussed, but individual encounters within might not be so balanced.
*In fairness I must admit to being, at least, a temporary member of both these groups.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
LeRoc: quote:
I actually find it interesting how people can read "I don't think it's a good idea to do X as "They want to stop me from doing X!"
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.
If I followed all the (often contradictory) advice on how to be a good mother, my head would explode. Plus a lot of it is lazy rhetoric - eg 'helicopter parent' is a label frequently applied to parents with legitimate concerns about their offspring by people with a vested interest in getting them to back off, as several people have already pointed out.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
In most cases, the "harm" to society / the world / whatever from the particular activity is no larger than the "harm" caused by a million other activities. In this case, singling out that particular harm as a reason for banning X is lying.
Logical fallacy much?
Because there exist other things which harm is not a case for ignoring something which does.
Presenting a case for controlling that harm is not "petty tyranny". We are fucking over the planet. If we work out how to change this, people will be at minimum inconvenienced. "petty tyrant" is the label thrown around by those wishing to avoid said inconvenience.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I think you've failed to note, here, the important distinction between "I think this is bad, and I'd prefer that people didn't do it" and "I think this is bad and therefore other people should be stopped from doing it." The helicopter parenting, thread, in particular, doesn't exactly call for people to be forced not to helicopter parent. The sex robots thread poses the question of whether they should be banned, but I don't think anyone has argued for this position (although I don't think I'm up to date on that thread, so someone might have pitched in).
So no, we don't really have threads that call for people to be stopped from doing what they want to do.
Obviously if you think something is bad or harmful you're probably going to prefer that other people don't do it.
I'm quite aware of the distinction, but 'stop it!' with an exclamation mark and 'should they be banned?' both read to me as calls for action to intervene.
As Twylight has put it,
quote:
... I said I probably wouldn't vote for a Muslim and I was quickly told how it was unconstitutional to prohibit someone to run for president based on religion. Well, duh, who wanted to? ...
The questions I'm asking are to do with when are we - or society corporately - entitled to interfere with other people's freedom to make their own ethical or quasi-ethical decisions, when it is unwarranted interference, and how do we decide?
Even dragging in a concept such as 'externalities' doesn't actually solve the problem. It's a useful tool. It gives some guidance. But there has to be some sort of sense of proportion about this. Where does it lie?
Are there fundamental principles for working out this balance, or does it ultimately depend on whether one has an instinctive presumption in favour of trusting the state or against doing so?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
In a welfare state, nothing is your own private business anymore, if one of your fellow taxpayers can point out that your doing it will cost him money-- no matter how trivial or far-fetched his case might be. Except sexual conduct, of course. Regulating that by law is now frowned upon, the public expense of contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, and accidental pregnancies notwithstanding.
I'm not a meddler by nature, and IMHO a welfare state like Sweden is a heck of a lot better than the corporate welfare state the U.S. has become.
But the freedom-- increased freedom-- we now enjoy to have sex, contrasted with the decreased freedom for everything else, is curious, no?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But the freedom-- increased freedom-- we now enjoy to have sex, contrasted with the decreased freedom for everything else, is curious, no?
We are all libertarian in some areas, and insistent on state controls in others, and some of these attitudes are determined by fashion as much as principle and logic.
For example, like most people, I find the idea of a return to laws against adultery unthinkable, but considered objectively, it would be possible to make a strong argument for criminalising it, in view of the enormous misery, disruption and expense which it causes.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Indeed, Kaplan. The trendiness rather than the logic of these inconsistencies is what I had in mind. I'd lean towards libertarianism across the board as to the law and wish others would, as well.
Re adultery, agreed again. My old friend who is a Mr. Chips off the old block worked for a secular boys' school, but one that appreciated the importance of religious issues in education. Perhaps because the administration was aware of his fervent faith, he was called upon to teach about the Ten Commandments. He did so with his usual great depth and insight, spending well over an hour on the subject. After the instruction, he asked the students which of the Commandments they considered the most important. Their usual answer may be surprising, but heartbreakingly logical: the most important Commandment to them was "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Either first-hand or through friends, they were well aware of the consequences.
Incidentally, he would note that the Ten Commandments arose among a people who had just fled tyranny, and elucidate their role in promoting limited government. Too few Christians realize, for instance, that "taking the Lord's name in vain" means perjury. This Commandment calls for due process instead of "arbitrary" despotic edicts. ("Arbitrary" is one of the greatest oxymorons in the dictionary, the way we usually use it.) We can therefore see an argument, at least in theory, for posting the Ten Commandments in court houses. As long as we ask witnesses to swear to tell the truth "so help me God" with a hand on a Bible, it is quite in order to remind the public of the source of this obligation.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Because there exist other things which harm is not a case for ignoring something which does.
Presenting a case for controlling that harm is not "petty tyranny".
Well, that depends. Are we talking about one of a few leading problems, or one of a hundred thousand? Because that's different. If whatever reduction in harm you're going for isn't actually going to make a significant change because there's some bigger source of the problem somewhere that you're ignoring, it is exactly "petty tyranny" to try to ban it.
Those proposing such bans would be well advised to address the beams in their own eyes first.
quote:
We are fucking over the planet. If we work out how to change this, people will be at minimum inconvenienced. "petty tyrant" is the label thrown around by those wishing to avoid said inconvenience.
No - "petty tyrant" is a label thrown at those whose first resort is banning things. Banning water bottles will make no difference at all to the level at which we are "fucking over the planet".
I have no problem with people attempting to account for the externalities - introducing a tax on plastic bottles to pay for their clear-up is reasonable (but should apply to all "portable" drinks - water, soda, small bottles of milk and juice as sold in vending machines, etc.)
Gallon-size plastic milk jugs are usually not discarded randomly around the place, but remain in kitchens, so they wouldn't attract a clean-up charge (but would attract any tax on the production of plastics).
All this stuff has uses associated with it, and it all has costs associated with it. My case is that incorporating the external costs into the price of the item will allow me to decide whether or not it's worth it for me.
Your case, if you choose to align yourself with this view, seems to be that you know better than me what my needs are, and you're just going to tell me that I don't need thing X, because you don't think it's that important.
The first is a liberal approach. The second is petty authoritarian tyranny.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Whenever I see someone on here proposing banning things the thought runs through my mind "Who died and left you in charge?" There seems no shortage of people who want to run other peoples lives.
So it may be a provocative thread title, but it really muddies the issue of what things one wants to discourage and what things you want to prohibit.
On the radio today, I heard a report from Oregon. The state has legalized the sale of recreational marijuana, but has allowed towns and cities to vote if they want to allow it. The result is reminiscent of local temperance option in parts of the South. You can't buy it in one town, but can across the street. They had an interview with someone who runs a medical marijuana store. They asked if people would go to the nearest big city and she pointed out that people will just continue to buy it on the street, where it is likely to be laced with much stronger drugs. Someone else predicted that these towns will eventually cave when they notice how much potential tax revenue is going to the next town.
Stupid laws weaken the laws as they are evaded. Don't ask me if I wash my recyclable plastic containers before throwing them out, as the city would like.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Banning water bottles will make no difference at all to the level at which we are "fucking over the planet".
Actually, it would. Including other plastic waste would further help.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I have no problem with people attempting to account for the externalities - introducing a tax on plastic bottles to pay for their clear-up is reasonable
It would be a hefty tax as the figure I have heard is 75 billion per year.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
(but should apply to all "portable" drinks - water, soda, small bottles of milk and juice as sold in vending machines, etc.)
It is not that simple. Water is a seperate case. As to the others; cost of manufacture and cost to the environment, recycling potential and recycling frequency affect material choice. The US is atrocious in its peoples participation in recycling.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Gallon-size plastic milk jugs are usually not discarded randomly around the place, but remain in kitchens,
Yeah, except they don't. They end up in landfills which contributed to a different problem.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
will allow me to decide whether or not it's worth it for me.
Your case, if you choose to align yourself with this view, seems to be that you know better than me what my needs are, and you're just going to tell me that I don't need thing X, because you don't think it's that important.
This is ludicrous. You are saying your comfort and convenience outweighs its effect on resources we all must share. That is much more tyrannical.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
There are groups of people who insist they need a large building that they only use once a week for a few hours. Does their comfort, convenience and enjoyment allow them to use "our" shared resources?
And then there's us selfish people who live in separate houses with more than one room...
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
School classrooms are full of petty tyrannies. Mainly, I think, because 36 people are stuck together in a small space with no choice but to get on with each other.
So a good teacher keeps the peace by being a strict yet benevolent dictator. Children who conform enjoy the experience. Non conformists (like me and both my sons) simply suffer and rebel or suffer and wait it out 'till they are 18 and free. (I rebelled, my sons waited it out).
Over crowding brings petty tyrannies imo. If you live out in the sticks with your own water and energy sources - like my brother does - you have much more freedom to do as you like. Not total freedom, obviously, but more than your average city dweller.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not that simple. Water is a seperate case.
No it bloody isn't.
If the problem is plastic bottles being thrown away, it is exactly as much of a problem for soda bottles, fancy flavoured vitamin water bottles, hipster single-orchard hand-pressed lemonade, and all the other single-serving bottles sold in vending machines and the like.
Trying to treat them differently because you don't think bottling water is defensible is exactly the problem I have with your petty authoritarianism.
quote:
This is ludicrous. You are saying your comfort and convenience outweighs its effect on resources we all must share. That is much more tyrannical.
I heat my house in the winter, and I cool it in the summer. I do this for my comfort and convenience, despite the fact that it consumes precious resources. Everything I consume uses "resources we all must share", and by virtue of the fact that I have consumed it, you can figure out that I decided that my comfort and convenience was more important. Everybody does this, all the time.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Fascinating discussion.
I ask myself whether or not I should be doing something all the time. Most of the time when I feel compelled to ask myself that question the answer is - NO. Otherwise the question would not come up.
Most of the time I ask myself that question involves me wanting someone else to behave in a way that I want that person to behave. At that point I try to step back from my feelings and ask myself why I want someone else to behave in a certain way. I try to think what is it about me that needs/wants that and what role I have in it.
If my answer is that it is about ego driven need to be the fairy king who makes the world just the way it is supposed to be I try to switch internal gears back to pretty much anything else. Let me confess right here and now that this is the case well over 90% of the time.
If my answer is that the want/need is general societal behavior like plastic/helicoptering, I try to act in a positive manner of not doing the behavior and supporting efforts to change attitudes. I say attitudes because unless attitudes change behavior will always seek a way around rules.
At the same time I recognize that I am just a fallible human being and that I am often wrong, so I try to minimize my interventions into other people's behaviors to situations where I have had help to understand what the next right thing is and where I can make an impact. It is my belief that spreading myself over too many issues dilutes my impact on any and all of the issues. So, I choose a few where I feel that I am called upon to act.
That being said, unless you voice your opinions about stuff on a discussion board, there is not going to be much going on in the discussion board. Keeping this a safe place to trot out our opinions while not taking our opinions, or the opinions of anyone else, too seriously seems to be a good idea. I myself treasure a place where I can (and do) make an ass of myself in front of my friends without fear of real consequence. So, thank you, all of you.
And, if it is any help, while I do not feel that I need to tell other people what to do with their robots, I neither own a robot, nor do I feel compelled to fuck a robot.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The questions I'm asking are to do with when are we - or society corporately - entitled to interfere with other people's freedom to make their own ethical or quasi-ethical decisions, when it is unwarranted interference, and how do we decide?
Even dragging in a concept such as 'externalities' doesn't actually solve the problem. It's a useful tool. It gives some guidance. But there has to be some sort of sense of proportion about this. Where does it lie?
Not just that, it's a useful corrective to those trying to pass off harmful activities as "freedom" or some kind of difference of opinion.
To take an extreme and unfair hypothetical, let's say you enjoy beating elderly women with a large stick. I find this morally reprehensible. Framing this as a question of "freedom", you might argue that you respect my opinion that beating old women with a large stick is immoral, while demanding that I extend you the same courtesy and recognize you find such actions both moral and fun. We should simply agree to disagree, so you can continue the beatings and I can continue to express my disapproval.
Of course, the "externality" in this case is the opinion (and physical safety) of the series of elderly women you've severely clubbed. The framing of their various beatings as a question of "freedom" disputed between two other parties seems an effort to deliberately conceal an important (one might say the most important) aspect of the activity involved.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I heat my house in the winter, and I cool it in the summer. I do this for my comfort and convenience, despite the fact that it consumes precious resources. Everything I consume uses "resources we all must share", and by virtue of the fact that I have consumed it, you can figure out that I decided that my comfort and convenience was more important. Everybody does this, all the time.
Yes, we are all consumers of the planet's finite resources. And we do consume mostly for comfort and convenience. Of course, the planet will be fine when the human race is long gone, just as it has with all other extinctions.
So the question should be "do we really want to make ourselves extinct?"
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So the question should be "do we really want to make ourselves extinct?"
We have finite resources and have to manage their use - I don't think anybody would argue with that. I don't think banning things that some people consider unnecessary is a sensible or particularly effective way of doing that.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
We have finite resources and have to manage their use - I don't think anybody would argue with that. I don't think banning things that some people consider unnecessary is a sensible or particularly effective way of doing that.
Plastic in the oceans is becoming an enormous problem. We need to deal with how plastic is disposed of. How do you suggest we do this.
I would use a carrot rather than a stick. I would set up plastic collection centres in every town and pay anyone who brings it in so much a kilo. That would gather most of the unwanted plastic in towns imo. There must be plenty of other carrots which could be used to stop industrial pollution.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think banning things that some people consider unnecessary is a sensible or particularly effective way of doing that.
I think the word you're looking for there is "harmful". Petty tyrants aren't banning manufacturers from dumping their industrial waste in the town water supply because they consider it "unnecessary", but because they consider it harmful.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Plastic in the oceans is becoming an enormous problem. We need to deal with how plastic is disposed of. How do you suggest we do this.
So the first question is "what is the plastic, and where does it come from?"
Is it bottles? bags? what else? Is it detritus that has been discarded on coastlines by people going about their daily business, is it lost from ships, or it it garbage dumped at sea by the unscrupulous?
For the sake of argument, let's assume that plastic bottles randomly discarded about the place are a significant component. The first thing to note is that this isn't a water-bottle-specific issue, so any "solution" that goes after water bottles but not other bottles is cherry-picking nonsense.
You suggest:
quote:
I would use a carrot rather than a stick. I would set up plastic collection centres in every town and pay anyone who brings it in so much a kilo.
Why not? I might suggest so much per single-serving size bottle (gallon milk jugs leave the house to go to the landfill or the recycling centre, but people don't tend to carry them around and toss them, so they're not a problem for this particular issue). Charge a 10 cent per bottle tax on single-serving plastic bottles, and pay 5 cents for each one turned in to a collection point.
This might or might not be the best idea in practice, but it's plausible, and doesn't contain petty cherry-picking tyranny.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Petty tyrants aren't banning manufacturers from dumping their industrial waste in the town water supply because they consider it "unnecessary", but because they consider it harmful.
No, I chose the word on purpose. Banning the dumping of toxic waste in the town's water supply isn't petty tyranny at all. The town requires a supply of decent drinking water. Possible solutions would include preventing people from contaminating a lake or reservoir, or installing sufficient filtering / processing to remove the heavy metals, PCBs and whatever else that the manufacturers are producing. The costs would be borne by the manufacturers, of course - they don't get to pass off their costs on everyone else.
The costs of filtering out toxic waste from the water supply are sufficiently large that the only thing that makes sense is not dumping the waste in the first place (also, filtering the water supply doesn't help the rivers full of dead fish etc.)
Banning plastic bottles of water whilst not banning very similar plastic bottles of non-water, on the other hand, is exactly the kind of petty tyranny that I'm talking about.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The first thing to note is that this isn't a water-bottle-specific issue, so any "solution" that goes after water bottles but not other bottles is cherry-picking nonsense.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Petty tyrants aren't banning manufacturers from dumping their industrial waste in the town water supply because they consider it "unnecessary", but because they consider it harmful.
No, I chose the word on purpose. Banning the dumping of toxic waste in the town's water supply isn't petty tyranny at all. The town requires a supply of decent drinking water.
Does a town need a supply of decent drinking water? You seem to regard all bottled liquids as inter-changeable, at least to an extent that private, for-profit plunder of a public good (like drinkable water) during a time of drought bears no influence on your calculus of what constitutes tyranny.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
This thread looks way too much like my day job.
When you've all worked out what laws are actually for and when it's okay to have them, when they become "tyranny", and when they're necessary to prevent anarchy, drop me a note.
Right now, it certainly looks like we have some irregular verbs: I support sensible regulation, you support a police state, they are petty tyrants.
[ 30. September 2015, 22:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Is banning smoking in cars a petty tyranny?
How about enforced seatbelt wearing?
No going topless on the beach? If men can then why can't women, breasts are not genitals after all.
Is it OK to enforce us not to damage the health of others/ourselves?
Is it right to make laws on 'decency'? Who decides what decent means?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Although I don't like smoking, on balance I think it probably is.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Does a town need a supply of decent drinking water? You seem to regard all bottled liquids as inter-changeable, at least to an extent that private, for-profit plunder of a public good (like drinkable water) during a time of drought bears no influence on your calculus of what constitutes tyranny.
But surely most bottled drinks - which I assume is what most of the other bottles were for - mostly contain water? It seems odd to argue that a bottle containing only water is a threat to the water table, whereas a bottle containing mostly water into which sugars, esters and E-numbers have been dissolved somehow isn't.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Oy. Water bottle are a focus because most people don't have juice, milk or soda plumbed into their homes.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Well yes, but taking a pint of water out of the tap is going to deplete the water table just as much as putting the same pint of water in a bottle with a fancy label on.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
That is a seperate issue. Disposable Plastic water bottles are a problem because they are unecessary. Users are adding to the polution and waste disposal issues with an unnecessary product.
Oh, missed time of drought. That is a problem in places like California because many of those bottles are shipped to ther states.
[ 01. October 2015, 14:10: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Yebbut, the issue for this thread isn't the details of which sort of bottles are OK. There is a thread for that. People who still want to argue about it should reactivate that thread. The question for this thread is, when are we collectively entitled to take decisions for other people that we regard as moral issues, but they don't?
To put it another way, is there a presumption that it is, or that it isn't, any of our business?
I happen to think that the urge to take other people's moral decisions for them is a much more serious question than how they bring up their semi-adult children or whether they use plastic bottle, smoke in cars, or eat meat.
[ 01. October 2015, 14:57: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Well, trying to drag it back to relevance. ... to my mind, I am indulging in petty tyranny if I want to ban something you do when my rationale for doing so should also require me to ban similar things that I do.
So singling out plastic bottles of water as a means of tackling plastic waste, or of mitigating water overuse, without applying equivalent measures to other plastic or water waste, is petty tyranny.
Taxing or banning all forms of unnecessary plastic or water use may or may not be excessive, but it would not be petty tyranny.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Moral. There's your problem.
Bottles water isn't a moral problem, it is a practical problem.
Eating meat is also a practical problem, though more complicated and very situation dependent.
Raising children is more complicated and problematic, but not without consequence to society as a whole.
Yes, they all can have moral components, but one needn't give a monkey's about that for an issue to still exist.
When one's pleasure, choice or convenience negatively affects other people, it is not a petty tyranny to voice complaint.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well, trying to drag it back to relevance. ... to my mind, I am indulging in petty tyranny if I want to ban something you do when my rationale for doing so should also require me to ban similar things that I do.
So singling out plastic bottles of water as a means of tackling plastic waste, or of mitigating water overuse, without applying equivalent measures to other plastic or water waste, is petty tyranny.
Taxing or banning all forms of unnecessary plastic or water use may or may not be excessive, but it would not be petty tyranny.
I do not completely agree.
First, Petty Tyranny
Second, banning or requiring a practice because I Don't Like It, fits the OP's premise. Regulating a practice because of demonstrable harm is not.
Third, water bottles are a quick, obvious and easy step in the process of reduction of the overall problem. It should be a no-brianer. Instead, it highlights why we have the ecological and resource disaster that we do. It is silly to posit that those who wish to reduce the consumption of reusable plastic water bottles think this is the only necessary step.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well yes, but taking a pint of water out of the tap is going to deplete the water table just as much as putting the same pint of water in a bottle with a fancy label on.
Nope. Water is also used in the production of bottled water, so a "pint of water in a bottle with a fancy label on" actually depletes the water table by 1.63 pints. (See myprevious link.)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
This is of course a very topical issue at the moment. Does the fact that some people have wanted to change the ancient definition of marriage mean that those who disagreed should be unable to express their opinion (such as in the baker case) or that those who express a conscientious objection should be jailed (the registrar case)? This seems to me an extraordinary incursion on liberty. A court can now change the law without the consent of the people and citizens can be jailed even though they had no opportunity to consent to that law. That is tyranny.
I also have a friend whose wife obtained an interim injunction based on no evidence whatsoever that was extremely oppressive. I was shocked I had no idea that the courts had the power to, albeit temporarily, restrict someone's liberty in this manner. This is a thorny one because I understand why the courts might want to avoid tragedies in domestic situations but doesn't treating someone like they are an animal often become a self fulfilling prophecy?
At the heart of liberty is trust. When a government ceases to trust its citizens it deprives them of liberty. It ceases to trust them when it stops communicating with them and tries to govern without their consent.
[ 01. October 2015, 20:56: Message edited by: Makepiece ]
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
This is of course a very topical issue at the moment. Does the fact that some people have wanted to change the ancient definition of marriage mean that those who disagreed should be unable to express their opinion (such as in the baker case) or that those who express a conscientious objection should be jailed (the registrar case)? This seems to me an extraordinary incursion on liberty.
"Express their opinion" is a pretty fancy term for discrimination. You could argue that refusing to serve inter-racial couples is just as extraordinary an incursion on liberty. Though I should point out that while Mr. Bardwell wasn't jailed, he did feel pressured to resign. In fact, giving a public official the power to exercise their personal prejudices about which members of the public are entitled to the services of his office actually seems like a much more problematic "incursion on liberty" than insisting the state treat all its citizens equally.
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I also have a friend whose wife obtained an interim injunction based on no evidence whatsoever that was extremely oppressive.
"No evidence whatsoever"? Not even testimony from his wife? I find that hard to believe. Did the court simply pick his name out of a hat or something? I find it easier to believe that for some reason you're discounting testimony by the (alleged) victim as counting as "evidence".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
There are behaviors/things that are (mostly) outlawed -- murder, theft, rape, running red lights on the highway, false witness against another person, failing to keep the sabbath holy -- with more or less success on actually affecting behavior.
There are things I would ban if it were possible -- nuclear weapons, for example, although some people would disagree with me.
There's an endless list of things some people insist should be forbidden/banned while others think desirable -- genetically modified foods, voluntary assisted suicide for the late stage terminally ill, watching porn, letting little kids stay up as late as they want, corporations pursuing short term profits, we could probably come up with a thousand common disagreements just among Shipmates.
I agree with the OP in the observation sometimes these beliefs come across as petty tyrannies. But which are the petty tyrannies - yours beliefs or mine? - and which ones are so important to the health of society they should be enforced, not just suggested?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
This is of course a very topical issue at the moment. Does the fact that some people have wanted to change the ancient definition of marriage mean that those who disagreed should be unable to express their opinion (such as in the baker case) or that those who express a conscientious objection should be jailed (the registrar case)? This seems to me an extraordinary incursion on liberty.
"Express their opinion" is a pretty fancy term for discrimination. You could argue that refusing to serve inter-racial couples is just as extraordinary an incursion on liberty. Though I should point out that while Mr. Bardwell wasn't jailed, he did feel pressured to resign. In fact, giving a public official the power to exercise their personal prejudices about which members of the public are entitled to the services of his office actually seems like a much more problematic "incursion on liberty" than insisting the state treat all its citizens equally.
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I also have a friend whose wife obtained an interim injunction based on no evidence whatsoever that was extremely oppressive.
"No evidence whatsoever"? Not even testimony from his wife? I find that hard to believe. Did the court simply pick his name out of a hat or something? I find it easier to believe that for some reason you're discounting testimony by the (alleged) victim as counting as "evidence".
There is certainly a tension between equality and liberty. At the moment there are some high minded people who believe that equality should override liberty where there is a conflict. I would tend to lean more towards liberty because I think that the state is too imperfect to exact these high moral standards on people. Of course there are cases where both equality and liberty need to be upheld as was the case with slavery and in such cases the position is unequivocal.
With regards to the injunction point, this was an 'interim' injunction. The Judge did not grant a permanent injunction due to the lack of evidence. The fact that the court has the power to take an interim measure without evidence causes me concern.
I do not only value liberty on conservative issues I also object to detaining suspects without evidence and Guantanomo Bay made the world wonder whether USA is still the land of the 'free'. Liberty can be attacked from either the right or the left but in any case, as asserted above, tyranny is caused by a breakdown of trust and communication.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
There is certainly a tension between equality and liberty. At the moment there are some high minded people who believe that equality should override liberty where there is a conflict. I would tend to lean more towards liberty because I think that the state is too imperfect to exact these high moral standards on people. Of course there are cases where both equality and liberty need to be upheld as was the case with slavery and in such cases the position is unequivocal.
How so? Isn't abolishing slavery an infringement on the liberty of slave owners and their liberty to profit from the labor of their human property? That was certainly an argument advanced by a great number of slaveholders. Why doesn't their liberty enter into your calculations?
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
With regards to the injunction point, this was an 'interim' injunction. The Judge did not grant a permanent injunction due to the lack of evidence. The fact that the court has the power to take an interim measure without evidence causes me concern.
Lack of sufficient evidence to sustain a permanent injunction is not the same as "no evidence whatsoever". And you still haven't explained how the court got your "friend's" name if no one accused him of anything.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
A lot of slave owners were paid large amounts of compensation for their loss of property.
Which is pretty much an affirmation that the slaves WERE property.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oy. Water bottle are a focus because most people don't have juice, milk or soda plumbed into their homes.
Doesn't matter at all. The damage caused by bottled soda is not smaller than the damage caused by bottled water. Bottled soda must take at least as much water to produce as bottled water. Any kind of tax to account for the environmental harm must apply equally to both.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Second, banning or requiring a practice because I Don't Like It, fits the OP's premise. Regulating a practice because of demonstrable harm is not.
We agree that bottled water causes non-zero harm. Plastic bottles are discarded in various places (harm), plastic itself is made from oil, used once and put in a landfill (harm), and water might be shipped form somewhere without much to somewhere with lots (harm).
It remains the case that other bottled drinks cause at least as much harm. You wish to discriminate against water (and in favour of soda etc.) in legislation. I claim that this discrimination puts you in the first category - you're banning something because you don't like it.
Treat water bottles on a par with bottles of juice, milk and soda, and I'll have no complaints.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
