[ExI] elections again

[Samantha Atkins]

On Dec 29, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> On Saturday 29 December 2007 14:28, Mirco Romanato wrote:
>> Harvey Newstrom ha scritto:
>>> We have to be careful to create technologies that do not impose  
>>> our will
>>> on others, or they will rebel.
>>
>> From a libertarian point-of-view, I find this notion confuse and  
>> blurry.
>> My freedom stop where someone else freedom begin in equal terms, it
>> doesn't stop where the feeling of someone else start.
>> Because it could not be technologies but lifestyle or religious  
>> believes
>> or others.
>
> I didn't mention feelings of others.  I said not impose our will on  
> others.  I
> think most libertarians would agree that nobody should have somebody  
> else's
> will imposed upon them.

The phrase "impose our will" is rather imprecise.  At any rate a lot  
less precise than abstaining from introducing physical force or fraud.

>
> But in general, I agree that the concept becomes blurry.  Say you  
> claim the
> right to carry a gun.  Fine.  Say you want to shoot me.  Not fine.

Shooting you would be an initiation of force totally against  
libertarian first principles.   What someone may merely want to do but  
not actually attempt to do (due to principles, the likelihood of being  
punished or shot back at, etc.) is not actually a problem.

>  Say you
> want to sit on your property with your gun aimed at me while I move  
> around on
> my property.

That would be a pretty direct threat of physical force so again not  
allowed.

> Blurry.  I would find this intolerable.

You would be quite right to find that intolerable.  But it is a first  
principle of sane gun ownership that you don't point a gun at anyone  
you don't intend to shoot.

>  But you might argue it
> is your right to point your gun anywhere you want on your property.

Silly hypothetical that in practice is not likely.

> The
> tragedy of the commons is where your rights could suddenly disrupt  
> my rights.

I have not right to threaten you with physical force.

>
> I feel like there must be away to protect all rights, but it is not  
> always
> clearly possible.

You are proposing rights that I and most libertarians do not claim as  
such.

>
>
>>> For example:
>>> How can someone create a super-AI without threatening the people who
>>> don't want the possibility of an AI dictator?
>>
>> Doing it in secret?
>
> This doesn't solve the problem for those who fear an AI dictator.   
> It merely
> forces them to become more invasive and suspicious in routing out  
> the AIs
> being developed.  I think this approach, while seemingly obvious and
> straightforward, actually compounds the problem and makes it worse.
>

Again you are confusing hypotheticals and possible dangers with actual  
aggression.   There is no way to avoid all possibility of harm and the  
Precautionaly Principle would have us do.  That is not a question of  
rights at all.   Being invasive of others property and space because  
they might do something or have done something that might harm you is  
utterly unjustified and an obvious initiation of force.



>>> How can someone carry guns without
>>> threatening people who don't want the possibility of being shot?
>>
>> Concealed carry?
>
> Same problem as above.
>

Baloney.  That someone has the means to harm you does not mean they  
will.  You cannot punish them or by force render them completely  
harmless.


>>> How can
>>> someone get an abortion without threatening people who think all  
>>> abortion
>>> is murder?
>>
>> This is the most confusing.
>> How is that they feel threatened when they are not in danger or  
>> menaced?
>
> They believe that babies are being murdered and must be protected.

Then this is a notion totally in their heads that they would by force  
impose on others.  So they are the aggressors.

> In their
> world-view this is an obvious danger and menace.  Asking your  
> question is the
> same as asking why people would need to stop child abuse or murders of
> strangers.

Hardly as this ignores the obvious point that no one can conclusively  
show that a fetus, especially in early pregnancy, is a human being to  
be protected.  That is a central issue in contention.   Those who  
believe that a fetus is a child etc. cannot legitimately imposed their  
opinion on those who do not who are unhappy to be carrying said fetus.


>  To someone who believe that life begins at conception, not birth,
> abortion is the same as murdering babies.  I don't know how to  
> resolve this,
> but explaining that we think it's OK to do this doesn't resolve the  
> issue.
>

But this is an arbitrary opinion they have no right to impose on others.


>>> How can someone build robot workers without threatening people who
>>> don't want to lose their jobs?
>>
>> They are not interested in the job, but in the income derived by the
>> job. But do they have any entitlement to it?
>
> I don't know.  Many people in this country object to humans coming  
> from other
> countries to take jobs away.

Do they take jobs away?   I am not so sure.  How many jobs of what  
kinds?   Why do the workers have more rights to those jobs than the  
employer has to hire whoever can do the work at the least cost?  Why  
do the would be workers have the right to impose extra cost on the  
employer?  How would such an imposition against the employer's wishes  
be done except through the initiation or threat of force?

>  They feel like citizens are more entitled to
> these jobs then foreigners.

Feelings are not facts and do not confer rights.

> Imagine how much more adamant they would be that
> humans deserve these jobs more than machines.

Tough cookies.

>  It doesn't even matter if they
> believe in entitlements or not.

Your right it does not matter because such entitlements are bogus.

>  They have to work to feed their families,
> and these machines are threatening their families.
>

No they are not.  Working is not necessarily the only way to have  
enough to feed your family.  I do not know what other arrangements  
will be worked out but it is pretty certain that sooner or later we  
will have such an abundance economy and few enough people will be  
qualified for the jobs that are not yet automated that it will not  
make a lot of sense to insist that you have to have a j-o-b to partake  
of the abundance.


>> You missed a few question:
>> 1) How can someone leave Islam, when so many Muslims feel  
>> threatened by
>> this simply act?

In some Muslim countries it is quite physically dangerous to attempt  
to leave the faith on even be known to question it.

>>
>> This simply act threaten the Ummah itself that have not the same  
>> belief
>> system like other kaffir (impure) groups
>
> This is a very good example of the problem.  Freedom of religion is  
> fine where
> one can choose one's own religion.  But the problem comes in where  
> religions
> believe that they must be the only religion allowed.  Then we have a  
> problem.

They can believe whatever they wish.   We only have a problem when  
they initiate force.

>
>
>> 2) How can someone be atheist....?
>> 3) How can someone be homosexual...?
>
> Same issues.  I don't know how to resolve these to everyone's  
> satisfaction.
> Forbidding the atheists and homosexuals their existence is not a  
> possible
> answer.

Of course not!  Again no one has a right to force others to adhere to  
their arbitrary beliefs.

>  But many religions will not tolerate their existence either.  How
> can we coexist with intolerance?
>

We don't care about intolerance.  We only care about outlawing and  
resisting initiation of force.  Trying to force change of beliefs is a  
losing game.

>> The problem is not with freedom technologies, but with freedom  
>> itself.
>> Any free act will, in a way or another, conflict with the direct or
>> indirect, immediate or delayed interests of someone else.
>>

This is a "problem" only  if you claim that the "interests" of others  
must be catered to regardless of their nature.  Only the interest in  
being free from initiation of force and thus free to lead one's own  
life unmolested is an interest that all must abide by.

>> Do you prefer suppress freedom or suppress conflicts?
>
> I prefer that we suppress conflicts.  There must be some win-win  
> scenarios.

What kind of conflict?  All conflict?  Then only the grave will do I'm  
afraid.    Suppression of freedom is conflict!   Do not suppress  
freedom and much worrisome real conflict dissolves.

>
> It should be possible to build an AI without threatening to overthrow
> humanity's governments.

Getting rid of governments is a fine idea since they are the primary  
initiators of force!


> It should be possible for everyone to practice their
> own religions without forbidding anybody else's.

It depends on what the "practice" consists of.  Practice of any aspect  
that consists of initiation of force much be prohibited.

> It should be possible to
> end one pregnancy while maintaining the fetus' viability elsewhere.

Not unless it is your wish to do so as the person carrying that fetus  
that carries your genes.   Third parties cannot possibly have as much  
of a legitimate say.

> There
> should be an answer to most conflicts.

Compromise no matter what is no answer at all.  The relatively evil or  
at least "less good" always wins in such compromise for compromise  
sake.  Conflict per se is not evil, especially conflict of mere beliefs.

> Simply having one side override the
> other side is usually not the answer.

It is if one side doesn't really have much of a leg to stand on.   It  
is when all true rights are on one side.

>  (Sometimes it is when one side is just
> unreasonable.)

Yep.


> But often, there are legitimate concerns that should be
> addressed rather than ignored when developing new disruptive  
> technologies.

We deal with these one by one without throwing away freedom from  
initiation of force.

>
> But it is much more complicated and messy than people like to imagine.
>

It surely is if you start pretty much with no real guiding principles  
and just attempt to make everyone as happy as possible.

- samantha