...that we all speak different languages. These people are welcome to try and make a profit off these inefficiencies. But the fact that this market exists (or, perhaps, the fact that these txteagle people might be able to convince some VCs it does) says to me that we should be trying to teach these people a more global language, so they can participate on equal footing rather than being marginalized.
Self-indulgence has always been Neal Stephenson's curse. Cryptonomicon could've been half the length. The Diamond Age got lost in several places.
I think his best work (from an entertainment perspective) is Zodiac. It presents the tightest narrative, without all the unfocused wandering that he often falls into.
The difference between an MMO and a locked-down game is your expectation of value. When you buy a single-player (or small-scale multi-player) game, you are putting down your money to play the game whenever you want, and it's reasonable to expect those terms continue without being sabotaged. When you subscribe to an MMO, it's a completely different outlay. You're making a recurring payment to be part of a world that has hundreds or thousands of other people simultaneously interacting.
Would you really want to play World of Warcraft single player?
There have been Lego knockoffs for years. But they're just not as high quality. Lego blocks are expensive because they are made to exacting tolerances, and last for a long time.
Don't expect that off-brand statue to stand on its own, Rob.
That would only be true if evolution worked perfectly and produced optimal brains for reproduction. As it does not, our brains have plenty of cruftiness and dark corners that lead to other desires.
All perfectly true, but you are discounting the harm caused by the prevention itself.
I am doing no such thing. As I said before "we can argue about the practicalities of particular measures, as to whether or not they cause greater harm then they prevent". I am simply saying that society can have a legitimate moral interest regarding what goes into someone's body.
If this subjective valuation can be used to justify the use of force against a non-aggressor then any other subjective valuation can as well. The law must be impartial and objective to be meaningful; the only alternative under a universal ethic is everyone legally employing force against anyone else whenever they feel like it.
Bollocks. I think you'll find that the only impartial and objective laws on the books are the ones you'd hate most (compare murder/self defense statutes with trade regulation). I dislike your convenient use of "non-aggressor" to discount those who threaten you. Well, Let us simply say I might have a different definition of what is aggressive (with the understanding that neither of us has a "correct" one).
Just answer this: why shouldn't I consider you just another common criminal? How are your actions any different from theirs?
How is a military action different from a mugging? There exists no objective moral law. Neither is there a universal definition for "criminal". Your definitions and mine seem to be disparate.
Along the same lines, what is the "objective" principle that justifies force to defend property? From whence does it come, and why is it universal?
You claim that some individuals under the influence of certain drugs are statistically likely to commit unspecified crimes; for the sake of argument I will assume that this is true, and that the likelihood is 100%. To prevent the possibility of such crimes you propose to prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, and/or use of such drugs.
This is a straw man, and the remainder of your post comprises an assault against it. What I am saying, and all I am saying, is that in cases when certain drugs present a significant threat to future safety, society may be justified in taking certain actions. Not all actions. Not
all drugs.
I don't have all the answers. I might find some actions justified, and I'd be open to reasonable proposals regarding what might be done (defaulting, of course, to nothing).
I wouldn't make this argument in a less intellectual community. Slashdot has its fair share of trolls and flamebaiters, but I think there are some thoughtful people here who can be swayed by reasoned arguments (or simply benefit from an alternative viewpoint). And some of those people, be they scientists, engineers or administrators, might someday be positively affected by some of the thoughts I've brought to the table. Which might, in turn, positively affect my own life and society at large.
I understand your desire for cognitive freedom, and I appreciate its importance to society. No doubt my own creativity has been positively altered by the thoughts and experiences that drug-users have introduced into our artistic commons.
However, I still feel that in the case of drugs that cause negative behavior, it is reasonable for societal action to be taken to lessen those effects. With stronger actions depending on how often and how severely negative that action is.
By token of "biochemical freedom", could I not take action that would alter my body into a viral threat? Would society be justified in preventing such actions? I think so. Drugs should not be viewed differently; they should be weighed based on (a frank assessment of) danger they pose.
While one could argue that such assessments could be ill-done, leading to the sort of situation we have now, I would say that sort of malfeasance cannot be eliminated from any legal system. And that does not categorically preclude any legal system at all.
That was exactly my point; evolution does nothing to provide long-term survival. As such, believing in natural selection as a way to improve society is foolish. Every species in history has been evolving right until it went extinct.
Punishing someone after the fact doesn't erase the harm their crime may have caused. This isn't a problem of holding people accountable for their negative actions, it's for preventing those actions in the first place.
I am aware of the very large kettle of fish that "precrime" opens. In this single case, I happen to think that certain drugs break the human model of free will hard enough that they simply should not be permitted.
You and I will not see eye-to-eye on this. It seems that you will only accept "direct, guaranteed cause of harm" as a standard that allows society to punish an action. I find it moral to allow proportionately different punishments for actions that offer statistical likelihood of harm. Those are personal values. I happen to believe mine can produce a more vital society. As is typical for anarcho-capitalists (guessing based on your sig), you probably believe your values are in accordance with a certain moral standard. In both cases, they are unlikely to change in the scope of this discussion.
You see, evolution allows the bad or unprofitable mutations to die off of their own doing. When we protect those mutations from the natural course of things, we choose to alter the course of evolution in a manner that may not be so good for us in the long term. When the chemical nature and food supply of a closed water system changes... the fish that are not smart enough, or able to adapt simply die off.
You've got that backward. Evolution is never long term. The only things that survive are those that survive right now. The cockroach about to get stepped on doesn't get to say "Hold on, your species will probably destroy itself in a nuclear holocaust, leaving us to survive. So we're clearly the better species and you shouldn't kill me". The optimum you're seeking is not a product of natural selection, but of reasoned choice of direction. Evolution says "the stupid, breeding ones win; they're the ones that are propagating into the future". Reason says "Wait a second..."
Nobody has a right to decide what does and doesn't go into my body except for me.
I disagree. Human will can be swayed or subverted by chemical substances. All things are statistical, but a particular drug driving almost all of the people that use it to crime (excluding simply the act of drug use, of course) could well have a moral basis to be banned.
Now, we can argue about the practicalities of particular measures, as to whether or not they cause greater harm then they prevent, but that's a different discussion (and one where I would oppose almost all of the current "drug war"). Framing the debate as "It's my body, my decision" may jive well with the legal fiction of free will, but you cannot ignore how that will can be deeply swayed by substances. When that sway turns negative, society can see a compelling interest to prevent it.
No! The only way you could have the antithesis of evolution is if the rules of the universe were changed such that the things more likely to survive became less numerous over time.
What you are doing is projecting some kind of value judgment onto a natural process, which should be rejected by the logical mind. If you're so concerned about the unintelligent procreating over the more intellectual people in an overthrow of evolution, perhaps you should consider what larger, smarter species various insects might have driven to destruction over the last 400 million years.
That said, human society is about more than just natural selection; we have the reasoned ability to choose what is better long-term, rather than simply allowing immediate survival to determine everything.
Sorry for the rant, but if you let these ideas stick, they tend to spread.
Faced with cuts in military funding by the upcoming Obama administration, this is deigned to convince people that the defense department comes up with a lot of gee-whiz things they really shouldn't let their representatives eliminate.
Slashdot Mirror
...that we all speak different languages. These people are welcome to try and make a profit off these inefficiencies. But the fact that this market exists (or, perhaps, the fact that these txteagle people might be able to convince some VCs it does) says to me that we should be trying to teach these people a more global language, so they can participate on equal footing rather than being marginalized.
Not quite all, I imagine.
Self-indulgence has always been Neal Stephenson's curse. Cryptonomicon could've been half the length. The Diamond Age got lost in several places.
I think his best work (from an entertainment perspective) is Zodiac. It presents the tightest narrative, without all the unfocused wandering that he often falls into.
The difference between an MMO and a locked-down game is your expectation of value. When you buy a single-player (or small-scale multi-player) game, you are putting down your money to play the game whenever you want, and it's reasonable to expect those terms continue without being sabotaged. When you subscribe to an MMO, it's a completely different outlay. You're making a recurring payment to be part of a world that has hundreds or thousands of other people simultaneously interacting.
Would you really want to play World of Warcraft single player?
There have been Lego knockoffs for years. But they're just not as high quality. Lego blocks are expensive because they are made to exacting tolerances, and last for a long time.
Don't expect that off-brand statue to stand on its own, Rob.
That would only be true if evolution worked perfectly and produced optimal brains for reproduction. As it does not, our brains have plenty of cruftiness and dark corners that lead to other desires.
The context of the term (selection and reproduction) and subsequent discussion suggest otherwise.
I am doing no such thing. As I said before "we can argue about the practicalities of particular measures, as to whether or not they cause greater harm then they prevent". I am simply saying that society can have a legitimate moral interest regarding what goes into someone's body.
Bollocks. I think you'll find that the only impartial and objective laws on the books are the ones you'd hate most (compare murder/self defense statutes with trade regulation). I dislike your convenient use of "non-aggressor" to discount those who threaten you. Well, Let us simply say I might have a different definition of what is aggressive (with the understanding that neither of us has a "correct" one).
How is a military action different from a mugging? There exists no objective moral law. Neither is there a universal definition for "criminal". Your definitions and mine seem to be disparate.
Along the same lines, what is the "objective" principle that justifies force to defend property? From whence does it come, and why is it universal?
This is a straw man, and the remainder of your post comprises an assault against it. What I am saying, and all I am saying, is that in cases when certain drugs present a significant threat to future safety, society may be justified in taking certain actions. Not all actions. Not all drugs.
I don't have all the answers. I might find some actions justified, and I'd be open to reasonable proposals regarding what might be done (defaulting, of course, to nothing).
I wouldn't make this argument in a less intellectual community. Slashdot has its fair share of trolls and flamebaiters, but I think there are some thoughtful people here who can be swayed by reasoned arguments (or simply benefit from an alternative viewpoint). And some of those people, be they scientists, engineers or administrators, might someday be positively affected by some of the thoughts I've brought to the table. Which might, in turn, positively affect my own life and society at large.
I understand your desire for cognitive freedom, and I appreciate its importance to society. No doubt my own creativity has been positively altered by the thoughts and experiences that drug-users have introduced into our artistic commons.
However, I still feel that in the case of drugs that cause negative behavior, it is reasonable for societal action to be taken to lessen those effects. With stronger actions depending on how often and how severely negative that action is.
By token of "biochemical freedom", could I not take action that would alter my body into a viral threat? Would society be justified in preventing such actions? I think so. Drugs should not be viewed differently; they should be weighed based on (a frank assessment of) danger they pose.
While one could argue that such assessments could be ill-done, leading to the sort of situation we have now, I would say that sort of malfeasance cannot be eliminated from any legal system. And that does not categorically preclude any legal system at all.
That was exactly my point; evolution does nothing to provide long-term survival. As such, believing in natural selection as a way to improve society is foolish. Every species in history has been evolving right until it went extinct.
A good point; depending on the circumstances, ham-fisted prohibition may well not be the answer. Let me change the word "banned" to "controlled".
Punishing someone after the fact doesn't erase the harm their crime may have caused. This isn't a problem of holding people accountable for their negative actions, it's for preventing those actions in the first place.
I am aware of the very large kettle of fish that "precrime" opens. In this single case, I happen to think that certain drugs break the human model of free will hard enough that they simply should not be permitted.
You and I will not see eye-to-eye on this. It seems that you will only accept "direct, guaranteed cause of harm" as a standard that allows society to punish an action. I find it moral to allow proportionately different punishments for actions that offer statistical likelihood of harm. Those are personal values. I happen to believe mine can produce a more vital society. As is typical for anarcho-capitalists (guessing based on your sig), you probably believe your values are in accordance with a certain moral standard. In both cases, they are unlikely to change in the scope of this discussion.
Stupidity doesn't always need protection to thrive. As I said before, plenty of insects have out-survived smarter species.
You've got that backward. Evolution is never long term. The only things that survive are those that survive right now. The cockroach about to get stepped on doesn't get to say "Hold on, your species will probably destroy itself in a nuclear holocaust, leaving us to survive. So we're clearly the better species and you shouldn't kill me". The optimum you're seeking is not a product of natural selection, but of reasoned choice of direction. Evolution says "the stupid, breeding ones win; they're the ones that are propagating into the future". Reason says "Wait a second..."
I disagree. Human will can be swayed or subverted by chemical substances. All things are statistical, but a particular drug driving almost all of the people that use it to crime (excluding simply the act of drug use, of course) could well have a moral basis to be banned.
Now, we can argue about the practicalities of particular measures, as to whether or not they cause greater harm then they prevent, but that's a different discussion (and one where I would oppose almost all of the current "drug war"). Framing the debate as "It's my body, my decision" may jive well with the legal fiction of free will, but you cannot ignore how that will can be deeply swayed by substances. When that sway turns negative, society can see a compelling interest to prevent it.
No! The only way you could have the antithesis of evolution is if the rules of the universe were changed such that the things more likely to survive became less numerous over time.
What you are doing is projecting some kind of value judgment onto a natural process, which should be rejected by the logical mind. If you're so concerned about the unintelligent procreating over the more intellectual people in an overthrow of evolution, perhaps you should consider what larger, smarter species various insects might have driven to destruction over the last 400 million years.
That said, human society is about more than just natural selection; we have the reasoned ability to choose what is better long-term, rather than simply allowing immediate survival to determine everything.
Sorry for the rant, but if you let these ideas stick, they tend to spread.
Ray, When are you going to get an Amazon wishlist and cash in on all this slashlove you're getting?
...and I've already gotten through half of my 20-page "(Useful) Stupid Emacs Tricks" post.
Faced with cuts in military funding by the upcoming Obama administration, this is deigned to convince people that the defense department comes up with a lot of gee-whiz things they really shouldn't let their representatives eliminate.
The election means nothing. We have to wait for January for the interesting times to begin.
But in the genre of cruel dungeon-crawls, I prefer Iter Vehemens Ad Necem.
There's nothing like bludgeoning a zombie to death with your own severed arm, then being forced to eat the arm to stave off hunger.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say... yes, someone probably does.
Because NASA doesn't want to go to the trouble of scraping your corpse off it during the salvage mission.