Right, but it's a political level discussion. In most cases when people argue for a political level option in policy, they will argue that Policy A is good becasue it causes X and Y and Policy B or not having policy A is bad because it causes Z and Ä. But for you, given your very strict sense of what can be called a cause, such things are very hard to demonstrate. IOW I was raising the issue of whether it is good or better to have few laws to see if you would justify this in terms of causes and effects. — Coben

No. It's purely a matter of a lot of laws being about stuff that I think government has no business intruding on. For example, "saggy pants laws," or laws about whether you can sublet a property you own, or whether you can operate it as an Airbnb.

Sorry, I overlooked your second-to-last post and I'm just seeing the new one. I'm looking at them now.

We can't say, without making un-agreed upon commitments, that such a situation can exist, hence we must proceed in the absence of such certainty. We have to act despite it. That's what I'm questioning, how we do that. Why presume a genuine free choice can be made when there is zero evidence to support that view? — Isaac

So again, you don't buy free will? Just be upfront about that if so. There are a lot of people on this board who'd agree with that.

Yes, but we might not know the truth of that fact, hence "appears". — Isaac

What I'm talking about is the ontological situation where there's a choice.

your understanding of the meaning that is wrong? — Isaac

That has wrong what meaning and understanding are.

If in your view influences are causes, and you want me to accept that, then you need to present an argument that there's no distinction.

No. If they had what appears to be a choice, — Isaac

Why are you introducing "appear"? Either it's an ontological fact that they had a choice or it is not.

And I'd not making any influencing illegal.

Decisions are influenced causally by a wide range of factors. — S

For the 100th time, influences are not causes.

Better for people in general? and/or 'is having less laws better in the sense that more laws cause a net gain in worse effects?' — Coben

Better is always in someone's opinion. "Better for people in general" is ambiguous because of that. I think it's better with respect to people in general. People in general might not have that opinion (as a consensus or whatever).

Less laws is better because most laws, in my opinion, infringe upon behavior they shouldn't infringe on.

Who said anything about "didn't have a choice in how they acted", — Isaac

If they had a choice, then the speech wasn't the cause. Their decision was.

I made this clear from the very start.

Why, do you think that most experts would not agree? — Isaac

I can't recall ever seeing any psychologist claiming that speech is causal to others' subsequent actions, where the others did not have any choice in the matter. That would be positing something like the Manchurian Candidate, hence the joke about that earlier.

As for neuroscientists, I can't recall ever seeing anything even approaching what would be a discussion about this.

What is odd about causal and influence being conjoined? — Isaac

Influences are not the same thing as causes.

How about if I paypal you, say, $100 if you can find a psychologist or neuroscientist clearly saying that speech is causal to others' subsequent behavior?

They have to use the word "causal" (or say something like "It's a cause"), where it's at least suggested that the others, those being caused to act, didn't have a choice in how they acted.

It has to be someone whose credentials are verifiable, and we need to be able to confirm that they wrote this prior to today (to prevent you from simply having someone you know write it for this purpose).

No debate about it--just find anyone saying something like that and I'll paypal you the money.

I'm not about to waste my time linking papers by authorities you fully intend to reject. — Isaac

Okay. I can't say I'm at all surprised.

"And that would rather amount to there being a negative correlation between the utterance and the action in question. Most people exposed to the utterance did not act violently. "

The point being that the argument that there's even a positive correlation would be false.

Then you may be getting less from your reading (watching too?) than others do? — Pattern-chaser

Well, or something different. I just enjoy fantasizing/imagining things. Other people are somehow thinking they're true and not fantasy/imagination, which is different.

No, I can't be bothered. You know as as I well how such inquiries are carried out. — Pattern-chaser

Okay . . but without some examples, I don't at all believe that there's any example of looking at this where it would turn out that most people exposed to an utterance reacted violently.

And that would rather amount to there being a negative correlation between the utterance and the action in question. Most people exposed to the utterance did not act violently.

To believe something is to accept it as true. — Pattern-chaser

But I wouldn't say I ever do that with fictions.

That actions are taken free from causal influence from the environment. — Isaac

I said nothing like that. Not the least reason for which is the odd conjunction of "causal" and "influence."

Psychology deals with observed causes and effects and fits them to hypotheses on the basis of consistency. Neuroscience deals with cause and effect with observed brain activity and fits them to hypotheses on the basis of co-incident behaviours. — Isaac

Okay, so you're saying that psychology and neuroscience are the relevant fields.

What are a couple examples you have in mind of psychologists and/or neuroscientists claiming that speech is causal to subsequent actions in other people?

Just open a standard textbook on the subject. I guarantee you it will assume a causal link between environmental variables (such as the speech of others) and behaviour. — Isaac

You're making the claim. Hopefully you're not just making it up, betting on not being wrong. So just give a couple examples.

We need to apply sociology and statistics to clarify that hate speech often leads to violence. But if we do, the result is clear: hate speech leads to violence often enough to legislate against it. — Pattern-chaser

You'd be making a correlation, but correlation doesn't imply causation.

Even at that, though, what would be evidence that "hate speech" is often correlated with violence? Just what are we sampling, and how are we ensuring that it's effectively random? Can you give a couple examples of what you're sampling for a claim like that?

Of course it's belief. It's acceptance of the story, and the world wherein it takes place, for the duration of that story. This is NOT worth disputing to this degree. It's a side-point of a side-point. Let's leave it here. — Pattern-chaser

Again, I'm just curious about what you have in mind.

It seems like maybe we're using "belief" differently.

You're suggesting that the 'so called' experts are not to be trusted, — Isaac

To trust something merely because they're experts is the argument from authority fallacy.

It depends on what we're talking about. You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis, and you'd never buy something ONLY because experts agree.

Evidence to support my position? What factual claim do you think I'm making?

I don't buy "burden of proof" nonsense. But I'm not about to believe something without evidence of it, without good reasons to believe it.

Again, what field are you even talking about here, by the way?

"What field would we be talking about here, anyway?"

That's not just rhetorical, by the way. What field do you think is pertinent, and from where are we getting the notion that most experts in the field in question think that speech is causal to subsequent actions?

Is the field called Manchurian Candidatology?

We are able to show that it is a cause to the satisfaction of almost every expert in the field. — Isaac

I'm not about to hinge it on the mere fact that people are socially recognized as "experts in the field" (what field would we be talking about here, anyway?)

A field can have something wrong, so that all--or at least most--people recognized as experts are believing/forwarding wonky crap.

I'm not at all talking about proof. That we can't prove empiricals doesn't mean that we're off the hook re presenting evidence. No amount of evidence can be proof. So that's a red herring. But if we don't present any evidence, we have no good reason to believe something.

There's no good excuse for having homeless people (who don't want to be homeless), people who have to go without healthcare, people who have to go without food, people who have to go without whatever education they want, people who can't find work if they want it--and a variety to choose from, people who can't take whatever time off of work that they'd like to take off without having to worry about having a job afterwards, people who can't travel wherever they'd like to travel, etc. And there's no good excuse for centering competition on acquiring more money at all costs.

We could easily structure things differently. We just need to decide to do it.

I don't 'know' God doesn't exist, in the same way I don't 'know' square circles don't exist. Not because I'm ignorant about the 'existence' of square circles, but because the very idea is stupid to begin with. — StreetlightX

I often say that part of how I know that God doesn't exist is that the very idea is stupid to begin with. (I'm pretty sure I said this earlier in this thread, too.)

So far you are wonderfully consistent. most people like to be able to say their way is better, not as a preference. — Coben

Well, "better" is a statement of preference on my view.

I think it's better. Someone else might not.

No, not "stressing". That's what "passive belief" is intended to communicate. Something that happens in the background. Something that makes no significant contribution to the experience, which is the story, in this case. — Pattern-chaser

Stressing in that you're still saying that it's belief.

But it would be very hard to argue, for you I mean, that there is a problem with more laws. — Coben

I'm not sure what you're thinking here. People will have preferences for approaches to government. You can prefer fewer laws.

If you don't know how to 'suspend disbelief' and enjoy a good story, this is not the place to find out about it. — Pattern-chaser

As I noted, I love engaging with fiction, I love imagination, fantasy, etc.--and a lot of what I've done for work involves that, too. I just don't believe fantastic/imaginative things. In my view, "suspension of disbelief" amounts to not being a realism fetishist--you know, those folks who think that fiction is making an "error" if a film shows you Vancouver and says that it's New York for example. But you're stressing that you actually believe fictions, and maybe you do when you engage with fictions. So I'm curious about that and I'm trying to find out just what it amounts to for you.

In this context, rather than as a bold and universal (objective? :gasp: ) statement, I would say that passive belief remains in the background, largely ignored — Pattern-chaser

What does that refer to, though? You're saying a belief you're not aware of?

We've just agreed (I thought) that for a thing to be causal it only need to be one cause among others. — Isaac

Sure. And to know this, we need to be able to show that it's a cause.

You're on a philosophy board. You're familiar with epistemology, right?

Why is free speech an important human right, and above the right to life ? — Wittgenstein

I don't typically think about anything in "rights" terms, aside from what we've legally stipulated as rights. At any rate, speech has nothing to do with "the right to life." Speech can't kill anyone (well, aside from something like a device that's triggered by sound--"Alexa, fire the gun" or whatever).

It's hard for me to imagine this not leading to a lot more children who much later realize they were traumatized having sex 'willingly'. — Coben

From experience elsewhere, I'm not about to focus on the can of worms that's talking about sex in this regard. We can focus on a bunch of other stuff, like driving, drinking, signing contracts, etc.

I've thought for a bit of bringing up the issue somewhere implicit in this that you must have a parsimony position on laws. IOW if we can't decide if something is causal, then we don't make a law. We keep laws to a minimum. I say this because it would be hard for you to argue, given your ideas about cause, that for example a hate speech law would cause bad thing to happen.

But then it seems that even arguing in favor of parsimony would normally entail saying it's better that way, and that this would be justified using effects. The negative effects of not being parsimonius. — Coben

Yeah, that's all part of being a minarchist libertarian--we're characterized by wanting to minimize laws.

I've often said that politicians should be given bonuses for smartly eliminating laws, not creating more of them. The way things are set up now, there's an incentive for creating more and more laws--otherwise constituencies think that the people they elected are "not doing anything."

And not that this is characteristic of minarchist libertarianism, but I'm also very against our current prison culture. I think it's necessary to separate violent people, for example, from the main population, especially when there's good reason to believe that they'd be violent again, but I think that the way we do that via prisons, the way that prisons are typically managed, etc., is not justifiable in my view. The ideal would be to separate them geographically--like on an island or something, and let them manage themselves for the most part (not prohibiting assistance, trade, etc.), while simply prohibiting travel from the geographic area while they serve out their sentence.

That's not my experience. You do get to go up to five over on the highway, but above that, you can be driving just peachy and get pulled over. And I've been pulled over for things that don't affect safety like an outdated registration sticker. Heck, I've been pulled over for not looking right, which may have some correlation with driving poorly, but I wasn't exhibiting the latter. — Coben

I didn't mean people don't get pulled over for any other reason. I meant in my experience people tend to get pulled over for speeding, just for driving recklessly. The places where I drive, it's not unusual for almost everyone to be going 15-20 mph over the speed limit (when possible--sometimes it's not possible due to congestion).

This is just an aside, but an interesting thing about New York City (and the immediately surrounding areas) is that a lot of roads--not highways, but streets in the city, are really rough/uneven, and the city is in no hurry to fix most of them, I think because it provides a "natural deterrent" to racing down city streets--it will tear the shit out of your car. Kind of sucks for trying to bike on those streets, though.

So there would have to be some kind of psychological evaluation in cases where children were purported to have given consent to adults? — Coben

If there were a claim of a consent violation, part of what we'd investigate is whether the person was even capable of consenting. (And this goes for adults, too.)

Would you allow a speech act which states
" Let's ban free speech " — Wittgenstein

Yes, of course.

and if it gets implemented, you won't have free speech anymore.

"Getting implemented" isn't speech.

so are you in favor of eliminated speed limits?, perhaps leaving them as recommendations. — Coben

Yes. And while I'm not saying it's like this everywhere, in my experience this seems to be how police have treated speed limits for quite some time. People only seem to get pulled over if they're driving recklessly, not because they're speeding.

Does this extend to age restrictions? things like the age one can get a driver's licence - or, as I mull it over, getting rid of licences at all, since these are statistical protection - or buy a whisky shot at a bar or give consent to sex. — Coben

I'm in favor of basing that stuff on ability (to consent in a standard way), not age.