second hand electronics... Not sure how that's going to pan out over time. — Benkei

Completely off topic I know, but... The failure rate for electronic items is huge, well over 3%, sometimes as high as 15%. So buying new only gives you an 85-97% chance of a lasting device. Second hand (couple of years old) you've eliminated all those. All that's left in the market are the one's which were not factory duds. So yeah, you're taking a risk on ones which have acquired defects in the years they've been owned, but you're eliminating those which came off the factory floor with defects to start with. Second-hand is not necessarily a less robust option.

I think the things we have discussed are all fundamentally a part of government structures. — Tzeentch

Really? You think it's a structural issue that governments show "corruption, propaganda, shameless disregard for individual (and sometimes human) rights". That seems like an odd conclusion. How do you see that working. Like it's impossible for a government not to do those things?

I see absolutely no argument for giving governments and individuals within governments the power over millions of citizens. We know where it leads. — Tzeentch

I provided one earlier. The alternative is warring city states and we know where that leads too. We've been there.

The argument for decentralizing power, is that ultimately it makes dysfunctional power structures escapable. The question may become, how do we keep decentralized power from centralizing itself? Perhaps it requires a continuous effort. — Tzeentch

Effort of what? This is just a hand-waiving cop out. The whole raison d'être of centralised government is to prevent a repeat of the very bloody process of centralisation happening all over again. It's monumentally reckless to advocate abandoning this project and then hand-waive the possibly devastating consequences with "Oh I'm sure we'll work it out nearer the time..." If you haven't got a very clear and well evidenced method of avoiding bloody civil war and degradation of shared resources between decentralized states then my assessment of you seems not so far off. You're basically willing to risk mass warfare and global environmental crisis just so that a government can't use your taxes to support gay marriage (or whatever progressive government scheme it is you disapprove of).

The only reason one even needs to worry about these types of companies, is because they try to control people by trying to control powerful governments who have the mandate to violence and coercion. Powerful government is the enabler here, not the remedy. — Tzeentch

Nonsense. Amazon provides appalling working conditions, comes close to breaching human rights in developing world sources and pollutes common resources. None of this is done by appropriating government coercion. It's done because the laws allow it. Worse is not done because governments prevent it. Without centralised government, what is to stop Amazon from removing even further worker's rights, from ignoring sustainable resource limits in their supply chain, from driving developing world workers into slavery? How do you propose to prevent these things without centralised government?

I don’t there is a conceptual niche for ‘the unmanifest, unmade, unnamed’ in modern thought. — Wayfarer

Not all all.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2017.0792

We're not doing "the field" of neuroscience, we're doing philosophy. You might recall that the original point of our disagreement was whether or not subjectivity is private. — Luke

The field is immaterial, the point is that if the way things seem to you is a sacrosanct model of the way things actually are then there's there's nothing to discuss. It would be no different in pure philosophy. If we were discussing universals and you said "It seems to me that there are universals and so therefore there are universals" that would be the end of that discussion too.

During our discussion we have worked from the assumption that governments produce mostly positive outcomes, to counterbalance their usage of unjust means. — Tzeentch

I don't think we have. In some ways, that's the point I'm trying to draw out. That you criticise government structures simply because you don't like some of the things your current government is doing. That's not a sound argument.

In reality, we see corruption, propaganda, shameless disregard for individual (and sometimes human) rights. We see governments that with every attempt to solve a problem create a dozen new ones. What we see is governments playing political games with often war as a result. Wars that have only increased in scale since history has been recorded, that have killed hundreds of millions in the last century, and that during the Cold War were literally on the verge of wiping out humanity. — Tzeentch

All of which are perpetrated by democratically elected governments. The people of your country elected these spineless morons to run things. So what on earth makes you think that putting decisions back into the hands of these very people is going to improve things? again, you're using the same tactic you used with tax specifically, now with government in general. That one situation is bad does not constitute an argument in favour of any alternative you care to offer. That a ship is sinking does not mean jumping into icy water becomes a good alternative.

I do not need more proof that governments cannot be trusted with power, and that everything must be done to curb what little power they should be allowed to hold. — Tzeentch

Someone will hold power - the strong, the majority, the wealthy, the best connected... You can't just point to any one group and say that because they've done bad things the power ought to be taken from them and given to one of the others. You have to also demonstrate that one of the other would handle it better. If you want power returned to provincial governments, you have to show that provincial governments, collectively, make less of a mess than federated governments do, otherwise you're just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. You've yet to make such an argument.

history shows what power does to individuals. It inevitably corrupts. First it attempts to consolidate, then it attempts to grow. Corruption is a process that simply cannot be avoided, and it ultimately secures the fate of a nation, just like is now visibly happening in the United States. — Tzeentch

Yes. And political power is not the only form of power. so you make your small government... whose then to stop Google, Amazon and Facebook from accumulating vast power? Once more, your failure to detail the alternative makes your argument weak. Yes governments give power to individuals and that leads to corruption - no argument from me there. Without government restraint, monopolised companies give power to their CEOs and that leads to corruption. So where's the improvement made by restricting the power of government, all you've done is transfer it to someone else?

The point isn’t whether they do or don’t, but whether it is right or wrong to do so, something you’ve consistently avoided. — NOS4A2

I haven't avoided it, you never asked what I thought a fair payment in return for labour would be. It's incoherent for you to berate determining ownership by law when the the only issue you're raising against the current system of remuneration is the tax element. all the rest of it is still determined by law. So the fickleness of law isn't your issue.

The point is, as @Benkei is also saying, you've provided us with no means other than law, to determine fair payment for work done, and the law includes taxes. Market valuation includes taxes. Personal agreements as to who should get what include taxes.

What you'd need to provide to support your case is some means of determining how much a person should be paid for the work they do which just happens to arrive at the exact pre-tax wage worked out using our current system, which, on the face of it, is ludicrous.

The government, on the other hand, confiscates and distributes wealth based on amoral factors, such as income. — NOS4A2

How is income an amoral factor. All income is generated at least in part by taking from common resources. If you take something that isn't yours without payment, that's immoral, right? That's the exact definition of immoral you're using. So anyone not voluntarily giving a fair portion of their income to support those common resources is acting immorally. The government is therefore right to confiscate some of their property. Either you pay the tax voluntarily (in which case it's not confiscation), or you try to keep profit which is not your to keep (an immoral act and so deserving of the confiscation of those profits).

I have two different sales taxes on general goods and services, the provincial sales tax (5%) and the general sales tax (7%). Everyone has to pay them, rich and poor, young and old, with zero valuation of moral or even financial worth. Considering these I would argue the opposite. It is the government that is incapable of taking moral issues into account. — NOS4A2

You've just argued yourself that it is immoral to take something which isn't yours. 5% of any product's price pays for the common resources which went into making it, to try and take that product without paying for the use of those resources is theft, an immoral act. The government is acting perfectly morally by ensuring those common resources are well-managed and requiring payment for that service.

The underlying moral principle is that it is wrong to confiscate and plunder the earnings of someone else. — NOS4A2

For fuck sake. It's not your earnings, we've been through this. You can't just make things the case by ignoring all contradiction.

Your earnings do not belong to you. Some portion of them belongs to the government.

A small government that protects those individual rights that we deem important enough to accept the necessary evil of coercion. — Tzeentch

Yep. Completely agree with you.

Shall we? — Tzeentch

Why not?

I don’t beg the blacksmith for a hammer. We agree to a price and I purchase his services. This is free exchange. It would be comparable to government only if I had already payed the blacksmith and now had to beg to receive a hammer. — NOS4A2

I didn't ask about your personal preferences for how you like to get stuff done. You're simply manifestly wrong about 'begging the government' being different to taking on the task oneself.

At least I can refuse to work with or purchase the services of the mercantilist, while I have no such choice under state power. — NOS4A2

You can not vote for them.

we have to beg our governments to address these concerns instead of taking on the task ourselves — NOS4A2

Begging government is taking on the task. If you want a hammer do you attempt to make one yourself, or do you ask the blacksmith?

Your solution is more violent because the most violent elements in society are unrestrained. — Isaac


Incorrect. I am not an anarchist. — Tzeentch

Then by what means do you restrain them?

if you cannot convince them and they win, let them "win". If the only alternative is violence or coercion, I am in this case more than content with non-action, and I consider moral conduct a victory in itself. — Tzeentch

So if someone were attacking you, you wouldn't fight back, you'd just let them kill you because if you cannot convince them and they win, let them "win"? I'm guessing you'd answer no, and I'm guessing you'd justify that answer with some mumbled caveat about violent force being an exception without ever giving any account of why, as if that were the only force that mattered for some unexplained reason.

Name a few. Lets see if we agree. — Tzeentch

Take a look at 's post, there's no need for me to repeat what he's written.

I don't have an answer for that. — Tzeentch

Evidently you do, otherwise you could not conclude that the taxed portion of any transaction was not the rightful property of the government.

I don't think the state holds any moral right to take through violence what it believes to be hers. — Tzeentch

It doesn't. Generally it takes it through the tax code. You've had a seriously unlucky experience with some very overzealous tax collectors if that's your impression. The overwhelming majority of tax is collected peacefully.

Nor do I think the state holds any stronger claim to property than the individual does. — Tzeentch

We agree there. I think the state has exactly the same claim to property as individuals have.

Yes, it is. One big mess of self-perpetuating violence fought with more violence. Bravo. — Tzeentch

Well no. State-on-state violence is decreasing and has been for many years, mainly because of the diplomatic efforts of democratic governments. My complaint was with regard to you wanting to send us back to warring city-states.

And the solution was never, more violence. — Tzeentch

Agreed. The solution is less violence. Peace enforced by threat of violence is less violent than a lack of such enforcement. Your solution is more violent because the most violent elements in society are unrestrained.

If you believe you have won and I am simply dodging your superior points, then what are you still doing here?

Why waste your time with such a simpleton as I? — Tzeentch

So that your charade of moral concern is never seen as viable by those who seek to use it as a mask for basic greed and bigotry.

I've yet to encounter a single 'small government' enthusiast who isn't also a big industry supporter, opposed to progressive action toward minorities... It's always the same. They bleat about 'small government' but basically they just want some way, any way, of pushing their neoliberal agenda.

If a parent wants to take their own life, it becomes different, because they've made the voluntary choice to have children and that does become a matter of moral responsibility. — Tzeentch

Right. So unless you're a hermit, you will have undertaken hundreds of such decisions which then entail moral responsibilities, so I don't see how you can get out of social responsibility that way.

I don't think any of these form a definitive basis for moral conduct. — Tzeentch

I didn't say anything about moral conduct, we were talking about how you establish what is our property. an again, you've just told me what isn't and not what is. How do you establish that your gross wage is your property?

I would consider it unjust even if one were to reclaim through violence or threat thereof their "rightful property" (whatever that may mean and to whoever it may belong). — Tzeentch

Then the strong get whatever they want, which you expressly said you were opposed to.

The remedy is to decentralize power, in other words, small government. This way, whoever counts as "the strongest", is as weak as possible. — Tzeentch

So how do they defend themselves against the neighbouring 'small government' who are just that little bit stronger. They'd just be defeated gradually until the strongest took over more land than they could administer, at which point they'd retreat to a scale of governance just below that... Oh wait, all that actually happened, it's called history.

How do you feel, for example, about the fact your government may use the money it takes from you, to wage war, the necessity of which, I hope we can agree, I highly debatable? — Tzeentch

It's not about the problem, it's about the solution. Just because you can identify a problem, doesn't mean your chosen solution suddenly become viable. If I disliked junk mail then taping my letterbox shut would solve the problem, but that doesn't make it any less stupid a solution.

Perhaps your conclusion that I am not, is one you are drawing too swiftly. — Tzeentch

You're consistent dodging, and changing the subject when your position is shown to be untenable is strongly suggesting otherwise.

let us not through coercion force upon others what we believe to be reasonable. — Tzeentch

I am highly sceptical of those who would try to force them upon others. — Tzeentch

attempting to force subjective views onto others through whatever violent means is contrary to that understanding. — Tzeentch

These are all just meaningless platitudes without any alternatives.

Let's take a simple case. I believe that excessive carbon emission is immoral (excessive to the point the most scientists in the field think it will negatively impact future generations). Others may think it moral. what do you suggest we do about that?

We can't just each do what we think - that way those who see it as moral will simply get their way, the atmosphere we both share will be polluted to the degree they're comfortable with.

I can't move - we've only one atmosphere.

We could negotiate, but all the while we're negotiating they're polluting the atmosphere to whatever extent they see fit ie they're getting their way. It's a de facto win for them.

We can't make different decisions for each small community - again, we all share the same atmosphere.

So how do we resolve this without democracy and government coercion?

The only meaningful underlying ethical discussion in my view is therefore: what should be the function of the State? — Benkei

Just to underline this with regards to the misunderstandings above. I think most people agree with the principle that we should allow people the maximum freedom which does not in turn impose on the freedom of others to a greater degree. That last necessitates that we restrict some freedoms. So long as there exist people who would exercise those freedoms even at the expense of the freedom of others then restricting them will require coercive force of some definition.

We end up with no coherent position other than an acceptance of coercive force, or a claim that no such people exist (we're all saints).

So, just as with the specific case of tax, government intervention in general is not a question which is resolvable using binary notions. The only relevant question is exactly what freedoms must be restrained to protect the freedoms of others, and what form that coercion takes. The mere need for it is not even in question.

As such some metric is needed to accompany any claim of excessive (or even insufficient) coercive force. It's an incomplete argument to simply say that coercive force is bad or, unjust or whatever. The use of such force is not in question. The matter to which it is applied is what's in question.

So to say a government should not do X is only reasonable when accompanied by evidence that the freedoms X is intended to constrain do not, in fact, constrain the freedoms of others to a greater degree. (or, of course, some other moral framework entirely).

What's interesting is, given the obvious dissolution of such claims to this metric (for most secular ethics), why there's such a move to avoid talking about it in favour of polemics like "coercion is bad", as if they addressed anything at all relevant to the issue.

What you think is reasonable in that regard may not be what others think is reasonable — Isaac


A perfect argument for small government. — Tzeentch

How so?

Indeed, but individuals do not partake in this system voluntarily, so I don't agree that one shares any responsibility for injustices perpetuated by said system. Perhaps more importantly, I don't see how one could hold a moral responsibility for something one has no power over. — Tzeentch

Really? So you've no moral responsibility for anything then, since all of life is something you've been involuntarily thrown into with rules that you've no power over?

The point is that the money you get in return for your labour includes tax that belongs to the government. — Isaac


Based on what? — Tzeentch

The law. The contract you signed. The market value. Take your pick, all of them knowingly include the fact that some of the transactional amount is the property of the government. This is why the concept of 'property' which you keep sidestepping is fundamental to your position. If you want 'rightful property' to be based on something other than these factors you need to spell out what that something is.

A social contract can exist, but only on the basis of mutual voluntariness, not threats of violence. Obviously such a contract would have no moral weight. — Tzeentch

So morality is optional? Depends on whether you agree or not? I think you're confusing morality with personal preference.

The only options are collective agreement and enforcement — Isaac


A contradiction in terms. — Tzeentch

True. I should have said a method of collective decision-making and enforcement. It doesn't alter the point. It's either that or the strongest get their way.

Well then the matter of the justness or unjustness of an action has absolutely no consequence — Isaac

You believe the fact that our system is fundamentally based on injustice, namely coercion and violence, has no consequences? — Tzeentch

Yes. that obviously have no consequences the way you've defined them. You've described them a necessary evils. Are you having trouble with the definition of necessary?

What do you think the consequences are?

I'll let you figure out how it relates to adult behavior. — Tzeentch

That fact that it's possible for people to reach very different conclusion with integrity does not prove that any given person is doing so does it? So I don't see how it's relevant. Unless you're arguing that it's somehow impossible for someone to hold a position that's dishonest, insincere or unintelligent.

They are not my actions, and I am not so sure there exists any moral responsibility to rely on unjust means to attain what one considers desirable results. — Tzeentch

They are your actions. You take actions which affect others and which use common resources. What you think is reasonable in that regard may not be what others think is reasonable and if you recourse to government to solve that then you undermine your own argument. If you don't then you have some other means. You cannot walk away. Even so much as buying a loaf of bread involves the use of common resources with which other might disagree. You don't have the "Not my problem" option.

Unless you want to claim that the exact recompense for labour, to the penny, is somehow a common feeling we all share? — Isaac


No, I don't. Are your views based on such feelings, you think? — Tzeentch

That's not the point. The point is that the money you get in return for your labour includes tax that belongs to the government. Your use of shared resources like air and water includes a social contract with other users to contribute to the shared maintenance costs. You can't opt out and there is no 'default' value. The only options are collective agreement and enforcement, or no agreement and the strongest do whatever they will with those shared resources.

Well they're absolutely evidently not are they? — Isaac


I think they are, to anyone who understands the subjectivity our existence is subject to (on a philosophy forum, I assumed there would be many!). — Tzeentch

This doesn't seem to follow at all. You seem to be saying that the only people who 'understand' some matter are those who agree with you on it.

So it's unjust to use coercion to prevent a shooter from gunning down a dozen children. — Isaac


Yes. But as stated before, some injustice can be accepted as a necessary evil in view of the imperfect nature of man. It doesn't make it just. That would be absurd. — Tzeentch

Well then the matter of the justness or unjustness of an action has absolutely no consequence, so I don't see the point in discussing it. Let's instead discuss whether we should or should not do some action. We'll call those actions we should do 'just-x' and those actions we should not do 'unjust-x'. So is taxation just-x? That's all that matters here, because all we have to decide is whether to do it or not. What to call it is a pointless and irrelevant discussion. We might as well call it 'bob' for all the name matters.

If you want to hear more about my ideas, then engage with them like an adult. If you do not, then what are you doing here other than trying to extinguish your own doubts? — Tzeentch

Adult behaviour is not circumscribed by polite language.

If we accept that violence and coercion can be just means to what we believe to be a just end, then all that is stopping one from enforcing their views of justice on others is whether they have the power to do so. — Tzeentch

Nonsense. I've bolded the relevant part, see if you can work it out from there.

Then there shall be no solution that I am willing to be a part of. — Tzeentch

That's "might makes right" by negligence. You don't get to absolve yourself of moral responsibility for the consequences of your actions by saying "I didn't agree to this" if you didn't offer an alternative either. If we don't govern such cases using collective action then the strongest will just get their way, those are the only two options and refusing to support the former is tacit support for the latter.

I think it's a common feeling we share so no real need to 'derive' it, it's a fundamental precept. — Isaac


How does this relate to your earlier statement that accused me of relying on "mystical" means? — Tzeentch

It doesn't. Unless you want to claim that the exact recompense for labour, to the penny, is somehow a common feeling we all share?

If not the tyranny of the majority, then what? — Isaac


Does a scientist who debunks a certain scientific theory only become valid once he offers an alternative? I think not. — Tzeentch

No. Because we do not have to have a theory on certain scientific matters. We do have to have a means of dealing with intractable moral conflicts.

If it's not capable of forcing it's will on others then how does it ensure that it's choice is enacted — Isaac


Likely, it often cannot, which is precisely the point. — Tzeentch

So the strongest win instead.

these boundaries are pretty universal, as far as I am concerned. The thinkers of the 17th and the 18th century were thinking about the same fundamental problems with government as we are today. — Tzeentch

Well they're absolutely evidently not are they? Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion, and you wouldn't be in a minority.

There is none. Coercion is an unjust means all by itself. — Tzeentch

That's absurd. So it's unjust to use coercion to prevent a shooter from gunning down a dozen children. What bullshit.

I'm used to this sort of kneejerk reaction on this forum, sadly. — Tzeentch

Yeah, so am I. Your "I just have an alternative view, why can't we discuss this calmly" is just as much of a kneejerk reaction to strong criticism as the criticism itself. Your 'alternative view' leads to some horrific consequences and you don't seem to even care. What else am I to make of that?

Most scientists don't try and think too hard, in my experience. Glorified lab technicians. A lot of them have no clue why they do what they do. They just go along with the motion and get the paycheck. — Olivier5

Whatever.

We're going round in circles here. You seem to want to insist on only using a language which makes mental functions as they seem to you the same as mental functions as they are. I you cannot find any language tools to differentiate then there's no point in discussing mental functions with other people at all, you already have 100% exhaustive and accurate knowledge of everything in the field, as do I. What possible benefit could us talking to each other about it possibly yield?

I'm trying to find a mutually acceptable language in which to differentiate what seems to you to be the case, from what seems to others to be the case about your mental processes. It seems to you that you're aware of the location of your arm, but it seems to others (who can see your actual arm) that you're not. They want to be able to describe the disconnect somehow. Your actual arm is in location X you report is as being in location Y so the signals leaving your actual arm are not accurately being represented to your conscious awareness. I'm using 'aware of.../not aware of...' here to represent that distinction. Rather than selecting another term more preferable to you, you seem to be just refusing to talk about the distinction at all in terms of your mental processes - rather there's only one mental process and that's awareness of your arm and it's just what, randomly right or wrong sometimes? I don't know what language you want to use to describe the steps in the process where errors can occur and how.

I can't see much value in continuing a discussion in a field where, on every point, you simply must be right by definition because matters as they seem to you are exactly how matters are.

What I am disputing is the underlying ethics of paying taxes. — NOS4A2

You haven't said anything about ethics. You've just lied about it being theft, because you know full well it's not your property that's being taken.

the government confiscates a share of my earnings — NOS4A2

No they do not. A part of your wage packet is tax. It's the government's money, always was and everyone involved in the entire price-setting contract knew that. So on what grounds was it ever your property?

I’m not doubting the fact that taxes exist and that we have to pay them. What I doubt is the underlying ethics of taxes. — NOS4A2

That's not what I asked you. I said that a proportion of the money you earn from a contract is not your property. Both contractees knew this when they sign, so tax cannot be theft, the property taken is not yours, never was and everyone knew that when setting the price.

My question is, why do you want to steal money that isn't yours?

Good old Romans disagreed, and routinely abandoned their unwanted newborns on trash dumps, as not yet human anyway. I suppose one could argue the case either way. There is no empirical evidence that one should care for babies. It's a social construct. At best a feeling, right?... — Olivier5

You seem to be arguing against your own point here as you clearly consider our modern ideas of the sanctity of life better, that the Roman idea should be discarded.

Some models are rubbish.

I could model the mirage as an oasis or as an effect of heat on reflected light. One yields a nasty surprise when I rely on it for water, the other helps me to move on in favour of more satisfying sources of water.

Can you think of any examples where models are not improved by increasing their consistency with observed effects?

If I sign a contract for a certain wage in exchange for my labor, I would expect the full amount to be paid. — NOS4A2

Why on earth would you expect that. The other contractee knows full well what tax is and fully expects the appropriate percentage of whatever they agree to go the government. Why would you assume they would want you to have all of it?

That is the first option: the attempt to makes sense of social constructs (or mental processes) is potentially useful because social constructs (or mental processes) are sometimes reasonable, useful and improvable. — Olivier5

The first option as written was

the study of social constructs concludes that social constructs are possible, reasonable, useful and improvable — Olivier5

...you missed the option that some might not be even improvable (ie be irredeemable nonsense). I suppose you could stretch the meaning of 'improvable' to include changing almost every single aspect but...

The point is, models are not neatly defined, they're fuzzy and nested within one another. Models like 'consciousness' are nested within broader models of 'self', and so on. So I don't think you can make the omelette of this particular improvement without breaking some eggs.

Common courtesy mandates a response, so......Thanks. — Mww

I can actually hear your teeth grinding!

That was never the question, to my knowledge. The question was: do philosophers influence scientists. — Olivier5

No, the question was whether scientists with Kant-like ideas were influenced by Kant. My point was that scientists are just as capable of arriving at ideas like those of Kant as Kant was, so there's no justification at all for assuming that, where we see similarities, the former must have been influenced by the latter, they're just as likely to have got there themselves.

I call it theft and use strong language because my property is confiscated without my permission. — NOS4A2

It's not your property. Flat out and simple. It is the property of the government, by law. The same law by which anything is the property of anyone.

You've yet to give an account of why the 'rightful' amount you're owed in return for your labour is exactly your gross wage and not exactly your net wage. Would this mean if you got a pay rise you'd give the extra money back?

1.) The mental model of the brain.....

that determines brain workings.....
which determines mental models to be illusory....

....must therefore be illusory. — Mww

Not true at all. It's only true if it determines mental models to be illusory because they're mental models. It can quite coherently determine them to be illusory for other reasons.

IF the study of social constructs concludes that social constructs are possible, reasonable, useful and improvable (the Collingwood project if I understand well), then there is no problem, but IF one concludes from the study of social constructs that they are on the whole unreasonable fancies, then one has a problem of self-contradiction. — Olivier5

Why must those be the only two options? By far the majority of work is in deciding which models are useful, coherent and which aren't.

Likewise, "all metaphysics is nonsense" is reflexive, and thus it is a self-contradictory statement. — Olivier5

Indeed, but "all metaphysics except this is nonsense" is not, which is more the equivalent we have here.

We have some really good neurological models. To discard them would require we discard some fairly fundamental models of the physical world and how we interact with it.

The problem is those models don't match with the models of our own mental processes we developed prior to being able to examine the workings of their physical substrate. So the job is to make a better set.

It's not about saying things are 'illusions' because they're models. It's about saying things are illusions because they're bad models.

There is a difference between historicism (the idea that history follows determinist laws à la Marx) and recognizing established historical facts. — Olivier5

I know. That's why I'm accusing you of historicism and not of pointing out historical facts.

You've just repeated more historical facts, none of which have any bearing on the matter of whether science is necessarily dependant on philosophy. The question is not whether it just so happened to have emerged from it.

Notwithstanding that, if you want to oppose 'might makes right' you need to supply an alternative, something which you've manifestly failed to do. — Isaac


Voluntary interaction and association, of course. — Tzeentch

The solution was to moral conflicts where the parties cannot reach a mutually agreed solution - so voluntary interaction and association doesn't answer the question.

You must have an answer because you confidently say that taxes are not the rightful property of the government. — Isaac


That is not something I have said. — Tzeentch

My mistake. So are they?

Yes. that is generally enshrined in most law. I think it's 'right' that we get to decide what we do with our own bodies insofar as it doesn't interfere with the decision of others what to do with theirs. — Isaac


And where is that right derived from? — Tzeentch

I think it's a common feeling we share so no real need to 'derive' it, it's a fundamental precept. If I was pushed I'd say point to the incoherence of a position which has any concept of property at all without having an entity to which that property belongs who themselves has some control over that.

If the people agree, they get to enforce it. — Isaac


If some people agree, they get to enforce it onto everyone.

A sad state of affairs. The tyranny of the majority, they call it. And majorities can be wrong both morally and factually. — Tzeentch

again, just whinging without alternative. If not the tyranny of the majority, then what? Remember these are cases which cannot be resolved by any voluntary means, cases for which such avenues have been tried and failed. What then?

I thought you were opposed to 'might makes right'? Who do you think is going to get their way in the case of a conflict if you do nothing? The one with the nicest hair? — Isaac


A body of power that is much smaller than government, and therefore much less capable of enforcing its will on others. — Tzeentch

If it's not capable of forcing it's will on others then how does it ensure that it's choice is enacted and not that of the one with more enforcing power?

As for the constitution... if you're seriously suggesting that the only way this question can be answered is by reference to what a handful of men from the eighteenth century thought, then we really have left the realm of sensible discussion. — Isaac


The United States isn't the only nation with a constitution. — Tzeentch

Whatever century then. It doesn't make the idea any less ludicrous. What magical ability did those people have to decide such matters that we lack?

No.

"Might makes right" and "the ends justify the means" are not suitable principles to base one's actions upon. — Tzeentch

I didn't say the ends justifies the means, I said a course of action cannot be immoral when the end is moral and there's no alternative. that's not the same as "the ends justifies the means" where a choice of 'means' is implied.

What use is it saying that it's 'wrong, but necessary', where does that get us? — Isaac


It stops us from regarding it as a just means to an end. — Tzeentch

Where does that get us?

It's really tiresome you keep telling us what is not acceptable and yet refusing to answer questions about what is. — Isaac


Why does it bother you so? A just alternative is not required to acknowledge something as unjust. — Tzeentch

As above, I can't see how it isn't required. If there's no choice then the idea of moral responsibility, fairness and justice are all irrelevant. Morality is a means by which the right course of action is chosen, a motive to do it. It's not an arbitrary and meaningless label to just assign to things.

The question of what is "rightful property" was never a part of my argument. — Tzeentch

I know. I'm trying to draw out the implicit reliance on it. as you said

If you truly believe this, then I think further discussion on this subject will be fruitless. Governments don't have a right to anything, other than what they themselves appropriated through force. — Tzeentch

Who has a right to property and by what means is absolutely fundamental to your position.

I was enjoying our discussion, but the tone seems to be turning somewhat sour. Can we not? — Tzeentch

There are two types of people who promote small government. Those who value autonomy and those who value selfishness. Obviously the latter are people I do not well tolerate and the more ludicrous your counter arguments sound the less tolerant I become of them. These things have real consequences, If we were discussing the merits of Star Wars, I'd hold myself to a level of moderation, but you're suggesting the poor should starve, that children should go un-housed, that medical care be withheld from those too poor to afford it, that the wealthy should be allowed to steal common resources without bar. These are not morally neutral position we can discuss as if it were a game of cricket.

What I am arguing is that threatening people with violence is undesirable, in most cases immoral, never a just means to an end and in some cases a necessary evil. — Tzeentch

A morally justifiable 'evil' is an oxymoron. If it is necessary to achieve a moral end then it is, by definition, the morally right course of action. Just because an isolated example of it out of context would be immoral, doesn't somehow make it immoral in context. Or at least that's a rather silly and unhelpful way of defining actions.

If taxation and government intervention in moral conflicts is a necessary method of achieving right goals, then it is the right thing to do. No more need be said of it. What use is it saying that it's 'wrong, but necessary', where does that get us?

It is a bit backwards to have someone be born into a country involuntarily and then ask them what right they have for living there. From where would a state derive the right to remove individuals from what it no doubt considers as "the state's property"? Who gave it to the state? — Tzeentch

It's really tiresome you keep telling us what is not acceptable and yet refusing to answer questions about what is. I asked you exactly the same type of question about private property and you didn't answer, so why should anyone provide you with an answer with regards state property?

From where would a private individual derive the right to remove individuals from what it no doubt considers as "the individual's property"? Who gave it to the individual?

one cannot access the actual electric currents inside the CPU that produce these data sets, as they happen. — Olivier5

So? I don't see the relevance. No-one here is suggesting that the neuroscientific data gathered is interpreted in real time as it's being generated.

our consciousness cannot access the physical, neuronal processes underlying it; it can only access periodic reports from such neuronal processes. Eg visual, audio or pain reports. — Olivier5

Exactly what I've been arguing with Luke.

You wish to make a case for "might makes right", which is fine. But I don't think you would like the implications. — Tzeentch

Not at all. There are many ways of thinking about what is 'right' that would lead to taxes being the 'rightful' property of the government. I think, for example, it is 'right' that everyone should share in the wealth generated from the use of their common resources - that seems fair to me. So some portion of everyone's wealth is the rightful property of each and every person who shares in the common resources that went into generating it.

Notwithstanding that, if you want to oppose 'might makes right' you need to supply an alternative, something which you've manifestly failed to do. It's a simple question - how do you establish what is the rightful property of a person? You must have an answer because you confidently say that taxes are not the rightful property of the government.

Do you think your body is your rightful property? — Tzeentch

Yes. that is generally enshrined in most law. I think it's 'right' that we get to decide what we do with our own bodies insofar as it doesn't interfere with the decision of others what to do with theirs.

And where do such legal claims stem from, if not states simply appropriating to themselves "rights" that they enforce through power? — Tzeentch

You do know states are democratically elected? I do hope that hasn't passed you by all these years. Every few years a tentative 'state' asks the population if they can have, and enforce the having of, a certain proportion of income to pay for a set list of services. If the people agree, they get to enforce it. If the people do not agree, they don't. so it's simply false to claim that the legal claims stem from 'the state' as if it were some monolith. the legal claims stem from proto-states suggesting such claims to the populace, who then agree to them.

If a moral conflict is not resolveable, within the timescale required, to the satisfaction of both parties, what do you do? — Isaac


Me, personally? Nothing. — Tzeentch

I thought you were opposed to 'might makes right'? Who do you think is going to get their way in the case of a conflict if you do nothing? The one with the nicest hair?

The constitution determines what moral conflicts are severe enough to be arbitrated by a government (and we can have a discussion about what those could be), and the rest is left for people to deal with on their own, like adults, I'd almost add. — Tzeentch

A trivial truth with which everyone would agree. the point is entirely about which are which. Not simply that there are two such categories. No-one is advocating that the government intervene in the case of siblings squabbling over who should have the last biscuit, and no-one is suggesting that there should be no government at all, so pointing out that there are two categories of moral conflict is irrelevant. The issue is how we decide which falls into which group. As for the constitution... if you're seriously suggesting that the only way this question can be answered is by reference to what a handful of men from the eighteenth century thought, then we really have left the realm of sensible discussion.

You've said that taxation is theft (to an extent) yet you've not given a single reason why that moral conflict is one which the government should not solve, yet threat of violence is one which the government should solve. What is your method of establishing which moral conflicts a government should step in to resolve - and I don't mean for you to provide me with a list, I mean for you to outline the reasons why some things are on that list and others not - the rationale.

How are you concluding that? What method of establishing who has a right to what are you applying? — Isaac


I could ask the same of you, no? — Tzeentch

You could, but I'm not the one implying that some things are 'rightful property' and others aren't by some mystical external means. Property is defined by law. Some portion of your wages are, by law, the property of the government, to do with whatever they see fit (within the law).

If you want to invoke some other means of establishing rightful property, such that the government might still 'steal' it, despite having a legal claim to it, then I don't think its an unreasonable expectation of mine that you might have worked that out prior to making an assertion based on it.

I don't think all moral conflicts need a solution. And when they do, I don't think government (aka, threatening violence) is a desirable way to go about solving them. Two wrongs don't make a right. — Tzeentch

That doesn't answer the question. If a moral conflict is not resolveable, within the timescale required, to the satisfaction of both parties, what do you do?

Government is most people's answer to that question. If you want to reject government action in these situations you need to supply an alternative.

Governments don't have a right to anything, other than what they themselves appropriated through force. — Tzeentch

How are you concluding that? What method of establishing who has a right to what are you applying?

Even democratically elected governments don't decide for themselves, they decide for others also, and reinforce those decisions through threats of violence. — Tzeentch

Your original suggestion was in the context of...

the arbitration of moral conflicts. — Tzeentch

Are you suggesting that all moral conflicts can be resolved in a timely fashion without imposing a solution on either party. Do you have anything but wildly unsupported optimism to back this up?

The state taking money under threat of force from private individuals for its own benefit is clearly theft, unless you want to argue that the state really rightfully owns everyone and everything. — Pfhorrest

You don't need to argue that the state "rightfully owns everyone and everything" to support that it can rightfully take money for its own benefit. Do you not take money for your own benefit, from your boss or clients, for example.

It's only necessary to argue that the money concerned rightfully belongs to the government.

As I said, the difference is between coercion (forcing someone to do something by threatening with violence) and deterrence (stopping someone from doing something through threatening with violence).

Both are undesirable, because ideally we would not threaten with violence at all, but the former is a graver injustice than the latter. — Tzeentch

The government doesn't coerce with the threat of violence in the case of taxes though. It deters. The money rightly belongs to the government. It is using threat of violence to deter you from stealing it, just like with the car.

What you're pointing out is that people got together and decided not to let people figure it out amongst themselves anymore.

And yes, I think that is wrong. — Tzeentch

So you think it's wrong for people to get together and decide for themselves then. Because you're opposing the result of that process.

Empiricism insists that what is proposed must be able to be validated by sense data, including data acquired by instruments. — Wayfarer

Yep. And?

I'm not sure what point you're making here. It's still the case that science is based on a corpus of such data.

It's still the case that such data cannot be acquired by any other means than direct technical experiment or reading of such.

Whatever non-empirical data you want to include as 'knowledge' it is acquired with a mind, something we all have access to.

It's a historical fact. — Olivier5

Hence my accusation of historicism. That science did develop from philosophy tells us nothing at all about the necessary relationship between the two.

That a sequence of events happened to take place is not evidence that they are causally connected even, let alone necessarily so.

When should you favor the utility/aesthetic value over the social value? — khaled

I actually think most people do not choose. Take religion as an example (I know it's not exactly a theory of utility, but it is in the 'get to heaven' sense, so...). A priest may talk about his religion, use his knowledge of it for the social value that knowledge brings. But that same priest might well steal, abuse, misbehave... If he really believed that an eternity of torture faced him should he have sex with that hooker (or whatever), then would he do so anyway? To my understanding, the answer is a resounding no. He doesn't believe it insofar as it affects his actions at that time, he does believe it insofar as it affects his speech later to his congregation.

We can believe different things in different behavioural contexts even if, as a world-view, the two would be contradictory.

Doing so is not without its pain, but it's often a pain lesser than the alternative in either case.