Never mind thought experiments. People hold all sorts of highly disreputable ideas.

What should be done about it? Nothing. No doxxing, no cancelling, no marches around the block objecting to the offenders ideas. In other words, don't escalate a disreputable, objectionable OPINIONS into an even more disruptive, divisive behavior (on their part or yours).

I am not against demonstrations, heated debates, and so on. There are plenty of ACTIONS that are disreputable and objectionable which can and should be resisted. — Bitter Crank

Woah, you're coming down to the right of me here - how about that for a change of pace? You're usually to the left of me.

I understand wanting to take the high road here, but are you telling me that you're not going to talk about it to your other neighbors? Once that ball gets rolling good luck getting it to stop.

If you want to be cheeky I suppose you could casually bring it up around mixed company and see what the response is on a level playing field. Of course, that's not quite being the bigger person. — Outlander

You're telling me that "being the bigger person" means not sharing this knowledge with the rest of the neighborhood?

So, if he's not breaking any laws or creating any problems, and neither are you, why create one? — Outlander

This is an interesting perspective to have. So by not acting, we don't "create" a problem and in turn help keep the peace? That's the high road to take? The neighbor is polite by the way and gives common courtesy, do you return those courtesies? Would you be creating a problem if you didn't return those courtesies?

Of course. I still think that normally, the community will, in effect, side with the racist and expel the target of racism (as long as the target is in the minority). Again, the community needn't be racist, they're simply driven by not wanting trouble in the neighborhood. And the source of the trouble is the target of racism, not the racist. — baker

I'm not referencing some real event here - my situation is entirely hypothetical and in the situation that I envisioned the community is not racist or sympathetic to racism, the community is mostly just composed of relatively isolated individuals who are not racist.

I don't think he should be expelled. A guilty mind absent a guilty act doesn't equal a violation. — Hanover

I think a formal expulsion would set a dangerous precedent, but I was more concerned here with softer measures like doxxing or social shunning.

These kinds of racists are rare. — ssu

Yeah, these types of racists are definitely rare. I don't think I've ever actually met one. I'm just envisioning a thought experiment here and this is in no way a real situation that I'm involved with. I think you're right that "thought crimes" shouldn't be prosecuted or met with any type of legal penalty, but I'm more talking about soft power measures like doxxing or something along those lines. I would start to wonder whether drastic action is needed if more racists like the aforementioned one were to move in. That would seem to be a very interesting question.

Sorry, but for $100mm the guy on the tracks is toast. With $100mm you could save countless lives and leverage that money in enormous ways to make real, lasting changes in communities that can last for generations.

I'm not sure we understand eachother.
I'm saying that if you're black in a white neighborhood and a white supremacist moves in and tells you that you don't deserve to live, but that he will not take action against you, then, if this becomes known to the other neighbors, chances are that _you_ will be the one to get expelled. Not the new racist neighbor. — baker

In my imagined scenario, the community as a whole is not racist. The racist is in the minority with his views. I also purposefully didn't specify which race/ethnic group was being targeted and what the race/ethnic group of the bigot was. In doing so, I seek to make this a more abstract question about how a community ought to deal with this type of matter.

What do antinatalists get if other people aren't born at all, ever?


This is about absolute antinatalists, the kind who believe that producing any child is immoral.
It's not about selective antinatalists, the kind who believe that only some people should not have children. — baker

They get bragging rights to a non-existent audience.

If we're going by the cockroach example, I wouldn't want them around my house whether I saw them or not. I just wouldn't want any cockroaches near my place of dwelling ever.

The trick is, when is it time to go hunting? — James Riley

I'm happy going hunting if by hunting we mean doxxing - revealing the neighbor's beliefs to an employer or other members of the community. I'd imagine if the scenario described in the OP were to exist it would be like a min-Cold war in the community where there is clear conflict and hatred, but none of it being open hostility.

The chances seem to be that this new neighbor will inspire the community to expel the minority. — baker

Fair enough - what belief are we expelling him for exactly? Could the neighbor retract that belief but still hang onto other offensive ones?

Ignore them. Yes, this is easy to say, but could be difficult to do. It depends on how attenuated the community is regarding ethnic issues. Remember, "Why can't we all just get along?" — jgill

The community ought to leave them alone and afford them the right to believe what they want. Expelling them is to rob the community, and the believer, of any chance of reconciliation, redemption and compromise. — NOS4A2

Fair enough and credit to you if you can ignore him. I would have a hard time and it would be on my mind anytime I saw the neighbor or passed the neighbor's house. How would you deal with other neighbors who engaged with the bigot in conversation? You see what I mean when I said earlier that there's now possibly something resembling a mini-Cold war in the community.

To some degree or other the neighbor is all of us - or must of us, or me anyway. I am quite sure I am better than many of my neighbors, and can supply and satisfy myself with proofs both at need and as entertainment. — tim wood

Ok, but do you believe that you're better than your neighbors because of your ethnic groups or just because your neighbors suck? One of these might make sense, the other does not make sense under any context.

I've been thinking about these sayings relative to philosophy (and religion, and even science), and I come to a truism: it really doesn't matter what you think or believe or profess if your actions are awful. — Xtrix

:100:

I mention this only because I get caught up in abstract problems, philosophical or political or historical, and often ignore what should be mattering most to me: what I actually do: how I treat my body, how I interact with others, the kind of work I produce, the quality of my thinking, my attention and concentration, my discipline, the quality of my habits and routines, regulating of emotions, and so forth. — Xtrix

This is more or less the ancient Greek approach to things - it's a little more practical in contrast to later philosophy, especially 19th century philosophy which tended to concern itself more with abstract systems and questions. A lot of philosophy today is also more abstract and less concerned with daily life.

Using only personal experience, I am much more likely to seek out and listen to someone mature, well-mannered, disciplined, attentive, and patient over someone with high credentials, wealth, fame, long experience, or knowledge and expertise in some domain (be it "philosophy" or anything else) -- at least when it comes to the most important questions of all (in my opinion): how do I live? What do I do? What is a good life? — Xtrix

Yeah this makes sense. What you might want to do is talk to an expert in ancient Greek philosophy or maybe stoicism is ever get the chance because those two areas hit on your areas of interest exactly and the expert in ancient Greek philosophy will be able to distill how the Greeks approached these essential questions very clearly.

I mention this only because I get caught up in abstract problems, philosophical or political or historical, and often ignore what should be mattering most to me: what I actually do: how I treat my body, how I interact with others, the kind of work I produce, the quality of my thinking, my attention and concentration, my discipline, the quality of my habits and routines, regulating of emotions, and so forth. — Xtrix

:100:

This is largely why I've been posting here less. I'm actually doing work to better myself as opposed to spending all day arguing with internet strangers about some irrelevant topic or asking someone whether colors are real.

In conclusion, the point is a simple one: shouldn't getting your life in order come before more philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing? — Xtrix

It should and when people put philosophy first I hate to generalize but they end up bitter intellectuals who get upset that others don't recognize their greatness or brilliance. Sounds like a great life to live.

Oh nice I use Nexo too. I haven't heard of anyone having problems with Nexo, but you always gotta be on your toes because custodial risk is definitely a thing and we have seen crypto exchanges go under.

I take it you own NEXO token to get those 8% rates?

Centralized exchanges are great tools and I do use them, but if you've got a bit of ETH go and install metamask and there'll be a whole other world of financial applications you can interact with without losing custody of your crypto.

For the purposes of argument, let's say it has. Let's also admit that, other things being equal, wealth is preferable to poverty. Still one might prefer poverty in a healthy environment to wealth in a toxic environment, or poverty in freedom to wealth under coercion, and so on. This is not a notion invented by postmodern far left politically correct weirdos, it dates back 2000 years or so.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his soul?
— Mark 8:36 — unenlightened

This is true. Capitalism or wealth is not a sufficient condition for a good or healthy society.

I think the profit motives drives a lot of human behavior, and especially economic activity, but it's not everything. There's nothing wrong with seeking profit, and nobody is saying it is the highest virtue out there, but I do think it's a basic one. By "profit motive" I'm really just talking about gain or one's ability to be compensated in a general sense for what one is doing. The ability to better one's condition and keep one's earnings.

Capitalism is value-neutral - it doesn't tell you to maximize profit at all costs. Capitalism doesn't dictate that you need to be an a**hole. Just play within the rules of the game and we're all good.

Hasn't capitalism brought more humans out of poverty than any other system? I'm not defending the late-stage capitalism we have today. I mean in the 20th century. Compared to, say, the massive impoverishment and death caused by socialist movements in the USSR and China. — fishfry

:100: Capitalism is by far the best system out there. It's only a question of how much we regulate it. There's no serious discussion nowadays about reverting back to socialism. It's a question today of whether we introduce a UBI, which has been advocated by prominent laissez-faire capitalists like M. Friedman. What are you specifically talking about in reference to late-stage capitalism that you don't like?

I think it's not just Judeo-Christian, but a sort of attitude most people generally hold. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, true. The root is Judeo-Christian, but society just largely takes it for granted today and if you ask people why they hold that view a lot of them won't know. Our foundations as a culture are J-C but this is slowly changing and the base is being eroded. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but in some cases it certainly can be.

It is unjust to cause negative states to others when there is no mitigating factors (to make that person better, to get them to a better place.. obviously they don't exist to need a better place). — schopenhauer1

Where is this coming from? Why are you so opposed to harm? Or is it just unnecessary harm? Who are you to decide what is necessary and what is not? Maybe I just randomly beat up a man on the street but that man ends up turning around his life and becomes a better father and man.

Your insistence that all harm ought to be eliminated is nothing more than a personal psychological quirk that you're seeking to universalize.

This is probably going to be my last post on the subject; we've gone over this before and tbh I just have better things to do with my time. Maybe try focus on finding meaning in your own life rather than railing against any possible perceived deficit in the nature of life itself. Sorry, but this just isn't worth my time - but I would respond to any points you have in regard to my first stanza about the Judeo-Christian roots of US/western culture.

You just assume the already-in-place default, and because it is the default, you assume you don't need any justification. — schopenhauer1

Hey man, you don't need to believe what I'm saying here and I'm not even sure that I do. Sure, you can question the grounding of it, just as I or anyone can question the grounding of your idea that suffering ought to be completely eliminated in all its forms.

When it comes to justification there's always a point where the justification needs to end and it just comes down to a statement.

So what is suffering bad? Why does all suffering need to be eliminated in all of its forms?

No one chose that the initial conditions of how life works (like producing something for someone to survive), yet we assume that it is good that people must endure. Why? How is this not immoral/evil and at the least exploitative of people? — schopenhauer1

Because "being" - including human "being" - being good is a fundamental premise of western/Judeo-Christian society that takes it root in the bible.

“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’”

But if you want to scratch that and question the justice in birthing people who will inevitably have to deal with the annoyance of walking to the bathroom or post-masturbation fatigue then be my guest.

Porn is causing untold problems in modern culture, but liberalism has to defend porn as 'freedom of expression' - you barely hear a word of criticism about in the media. There's no greater insult in Australian popular culture than being labelled a 'wowser' (puritanical or censorious). Porn is freedom, and censorship is Hitler. That's the message. — Wayfarer

Interesting you say that - I feel this is where American culture was maybe....10-15 years ago? You know, around the time of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, etc.

Anti-porn is still largely associated with the right here in the US, but you can also sometimes see it in feminist circles, but I don't think it's the prevailing feminist view. I think for the time being in the US racial issues and trans issues are front and center and porn has taken kind of a back seat. I wouldn't be surprised to see a strong anti-porn movement gain traction here in the US in the next 5-10 years. It would see support from mainstream right-leaning movements like the Joe Rogan crowd as well as some chunk of the feminist movement.

For me personally I'm trying to take a break from it but it's not easy.

"believe only that which empowers you most, everything else is used to instill fear in you and doesn't serve you in any way, even if it is true." — Thinking

This is a terrible way of thinking.

Imagine you wanted to try MMA or Judo. It might "empower" you the most to think that you're the greatest Judoka or MMA fighter who ever existed, but this belief is going to be extremely detrimental to your development in that area.

See reality as it is, not according what empowers you the most.

This is hubris and it'll come back to bite you.

The question is: why is one good and the other bad? — SophistiCat

I don't think anyone is saying that nationalism is always good, only that it can be good. Racism is always bad and stupid. American nationalism can be associated with one's values which one can choose to an extent.

As an American, I can consider other US citizens either "good" or "bad" Americans and this isn't an inherently problematic practice. A fascist, for instance, is definitely not a good American. Nor is a 'burn it all down and start from year 0' anarchist. A good American is tolerant but strong.

I think a healthy form of nationalism or national identity can emerge from common values; an unhealthy form would be reflexively demonizing outsiders.

On what basis are you separating out the national identity stuff from the racial, ethnic and ideological stuff? What makes national identity less suspicious and dangerous than those? — fdrake

I'm only talking about American identity here, but in any case I think it's helpful in a society to have a common set of values. When we get fractured off into our own racial or ethnic identities there can certainly be conflict between groups and that conflict can turn much, much more vicious without that backdrop of a broader identity that ties us all in.

I think what you're not prepared to cede is the "good heart" of protectionist policies; which ultimately is taking care of a community and protecting it from predators. That's orthogonal to nationalism, which is a way of deciding -usually based on sentiment- who the predators are. — fdrake

I'm actually not much of a protectionist. I more support free trade. What I am keeping an eye on is the fracturing of a common American identity and a progression towards a society where identity is more based along racial, ethnic, or ideological lines and conflict is not so much perceived as acceptable disagreement and instead more perceived as war.

Your framing makes it look like that is all nationalism tends to be. I think you know it's not! — fdrake

Yeah, I'm not here to defend every iteration of nationalism. I have mixed feelings towards it. The moment nationalism turns into xenophobia I'm out; in the US I think our nationalism is actually rightfully predicated on a certain tolerance and adaptability given that we are a nation of immigrants. I'm not prepared to just cede nationalism to the far right.

Yes, logically this makes no sense if nationalism is a (more or less) disguised in-group favouritism narrative - which it is -, but you can't tell that to people and expect them to believe it just because it's true. — fdrake

Nationalism is in-group favoritism, but that in-group favoritism isn't (and definitely shouldn't be) overriding. If I were to travel to the UK and spot someone with a Boston Red Sox hat in a bar that would make me more likely to try to establish rapport with them, but it doesn't make us best friends. It's really just a jumping off point, nothing else.

There's a distinction between being a proud black man wanting to advance his interests and accomplishments and one declaring racial superiority and wanting to crush those unlike himself. — Hanover

What do you think about the recent push to promote black-owned products and businesses? Does that blur the distinction at all? What do you make of a proud black man who strives to support his "people?"

It makes no sense to have allegiance or affinity to a race, which is devoid of such content. — NOS4A2

This is true, but it might make sense to have a sense of allegiance to a nationality/ethnic group like German or French or Lithuanian due someone's family heritage.

This, imo, is where it gets interesting and lines start getting blurred a bit: What exactly does this allegiance mean to them? How do they process negative historical events committed by these groups? "White pride" has never made any sense to me; "Russian pride" or "Italian pride" do.

A lot of "racist" statements that emphasize supporting or advancing the interests of a certain race aren't even deemed racist today, so lets just start with that. "Make black people great again" or "make hispanic great again" or "make french people great again" aren't really considered offensive or racist, it's really just when applied to certain groups like white people or Germans or maybe the English that it becomes offensive.

Why is it that nationality talk and Nationalism in particular is so easily acceptable, and race talk and Racism is so difficult and unacceptable? — unenlightened

Because nationalism can unite people across a number of different boundaries like race or class. Humans naturally form into groups often based on residency; before there was a unified America people just flew and identified with their state flags: Virginia, Massachusetts, Maryland, etc.

"Make white people great again" is a ridiculous statement, but if someone were to say. e.g. "Make France great again" I don't see what's offensive about that.

I'd reckon COVID plays a role, and I'd be interested to see how the statistics compare before/after. In any case, nothing wrong with being out of work and receiving bennies today due to the pandemic. If the economy is basically shut down and everyone's been afraid to leave their homes for the past year I don't see the harm in young people moving back with their parents for the time being as long as this trend reverses when COVID rates drop off.

Even so, part of what is considered moral is also cultural so different societies would reach different conclusions. — Benkei

I agree with that, and in doing so acknowledge that it can be tough to truly conceive ourselves as truly independent, disembodied minds pondering this type of thought experiment.

I gotta say, I wonder though in a game theory sense whether it might ever make sense to just completely gut one group (say, 5% of the population) for the benefit of the other 95%. There's only a small chance after all that you were the "negotiator" for that 5% and in favoring the 95% you probably advanced the interests of your group.

The idea of advocating on behalf of an unknown group is a little strange to me. I feel like we should reformulate this for better clarity.

EDIT: One more question, must we advocate for groups like "pedophiles" and "people who are capable and able to work, but refuse to do so and instead claim benefits."

Really? I thought he brought it down to earth quite well. You're one of the negotiators at a table, each of them represent a group of people (age groups or physical characteristics, whatever) but they don't know which group they are representing but they are still to get the best deal possible for whoever they're representing. — Benkei

Couldn't we just simplify this and say everyone's just looking for the best all around deal that's nicest to all the groups? Tying this back to taxation, what's the implication? Is it that government ought to tax and redistribute heavily to ensure all groups are fairly compensated and that no one group gets to keep too much?

That's also, in my view, the main ethical discussion. What's the role of government? I'm partial to John Rawls approach with the veil of ignorance and reflexivity. — Benkei

The thing I kind of struggle with with Rawls is that he basically asks us to be non-situated, i.e. pretend that we're a mind floating up in the ethereal and go from there in terms of designing society.

I just don't know the extent to which people can do this. Then again I haven't touched Rawls since undergrad so feel free to correct my ignorance on this one if there's something I'm missing.

EDIT: It's like if two non-disabled people were to ask how they'd want severely disabled people to be treated in this society how would they have any idea? Would they want to just be euthanized shortly after birth? Would they want state care or to be left with their families? Who knows.

For taxation to be theft, there must be a right to pre-tax income. Legally, this is clearly not the case.

A moral right to pre-tax can only be said to exist if earned income results in a fair and equitable payment for labour rendered. This too is false. Market circumstances are not concerned with the moral worth of labour or who needs the job the most or who is most deserving of fulfilling the assignment. So a moral right to pre-tax income is incoherent.

Since no rights are infringed, there's no theft. — Benkei

Maybe it goes back then to what we understand as the proper role of government. Is the overarching goal of government to provide everyone a level playing field or is it something else like to try to ensure the population life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

I do believe in taxes, by the way, but when people push the argument that citizens have zero rightful claim to their income it should set off a few alarm bells unless we believe the main goal of government is some type of large scale social engineering that is to be achieved through massive wealth confiscation and redistribution.

But what about you? Don't you live somewhere where the conditions I refer to apply? Are you one of those Libertarians that have no idea about where they are and why they receive whatever the universe offers to them? — Valentinus

No I believe there is plenty of unfairness surrounding wealth inequality, but that the fault lies elsewhere. There are absolutely rules in the system that favor the rich and penalize the poor, but the fault doesn't lie with capitalism inherently.

What I am saying is that the inequality is necessary for certain business models to work. — Valentinus

Which ones?

Ok so you're saying something like "When there are wealth disparities, that must involve exploiting that wealth difference as a means of accruing wealth."

I don't really agree with that. I don't think the wealthy preying on the poor is an inevitability. I certainly don't see exploitation of the poor as an inherent part of wealth.

EDIT: Bad timing. This was my response to your previous post, not the one above.

Could you just explain what exactly you mean when you say "When the means of exchange in a system are vastly different from each other, it involves using the inequality as a fulcrum of wealth."

Oh are you talking about differences in foreign currency value? I could agree with you there, but I was talking about domestic economics with tim and initially addressing the OP.

I don't understand what you're saying and I would like a more concrete example. I understand the first sentence.

I'm familiar with wealth inequality, but that shouldn't be our main concern here. If your main concern is equality, the best way to do what would be to crash the stock market. Everyone would suffer, but we'd all be more equal. If a nuclear war broke out we'd all be much more equal.

There's also more to say about these statistics like that there's more people in the top 20% than in the bottom 20% and also that as people get richer they move quintiles so it's not like these quintiles are static. You need to track individuals over time, not portray the country as 5 static quintiles when people move through those quintiles throughout their lives.

Sweet Jesus! You really don't know! Sure, your pipsqueak capitalist saves a hundred, maybe even a thousand dollars. But he or she is an infant playing on a financial highway. While he's saving chump-change, the rich are absorbing the country. — tim wood

So what about the "capitalists" who are saving 5k? 10k? 100k? 500k? At what point does it become a big deal to you? You seem to be treating it like everyone is either saving $100 or $10 million and there's no in between.

The only time most US folks encounter any issue with capital gains taxes is with the sale of a principle residence, usually held for a period of years. That gain, for most folks, can be rolled into a new home, or the gain itself is subject to an substantial deduction, the practical result being for most folks little or no tax. Rich and richer folks, on the other hand, stand to make a tremendous gain if they're not taxed. The rich would be glad to support you in eliminating that tax. — tim wood

Or if they're selling stock, or cryptocurrency, or collectables like comic books or baseball cards. In other words, people who invest, and in those cases in the US many will be taxed twice: both on the state and federal level. Simply trading cryptocurrencies is a taxable event, as is using cryptocurrency to buy something. Does that really make any sense? Capital gains laws extend far beyond simply taxing the capital gain when people decide to sell. Lets just start there: Just tax us once and do it only when we cash out.

You do understand that capital gains are a kind of income, yes? You do understand that infrastructure and services cost money, yes? And you do understand that taxes, however structured, are simply an attempt at an equitable distribution of cost? Except in the US, and resurgent with Reagan and since, that strategies to enact laws to enrich the rich and make them richer have been the business of the rich at which they've been successful to a degree that Louis XIV would envy. But (if I've got my Louis right) they are close to his fate. Though they may not ride the tumbril, their excesses may yet encompass their entire destruction. Those rich who are smart say, "We should pay more taxes." The likes of Buffet and Gates already self-tax in their forms of charity. But too many of the rest possess no such wisdom or civic good sense. For them, wealth tax, as much as necessary. And capital gains and inheritance as well. No reasonable person could object, and the unreasonable have held sway for too long, and at a cost too great. — tim wood

I'm not sure how to respond to this, Tim. You make like 10 different points and all I was talking about was at the very least reforming if not cancelling capital gains tax, a tax which affects everyone who has a capital gain regardless of income level or wealth. This isn't about keeping the rich in check and preventing social upheaval, this is about reforming our tax structure in a way that's remotely sensible where people aren't sending in hundreds of pages of taxes where everyone of their transactions is documented... it's just a very outdated system and we should find a better way to tax, like how the Swiss system does it.

This isn't about Reagan, this isn't about King Louis, this is about making things simpler and enacted smarter regulation.

This sounds like a good system. Capital gains tax is terrible and disincentivizes investing and also makes taxes extremely, extremely cumbersome here in the US. Here in the US I don't think a wealth tax is too popular, but if it meant no capital gains tax then I'd probably be for that arrangement. I'd be curious to know at what wealth level that tax starts though and how high it is.

I agree that traders make money either way, but this is why I think more money is made for them on the down swing. The first premise is that the money is actually received from the sale. The second is that the trader will most likely continue in the occupation of trading, so there will always be the need for a purchase after a sale. So if the market is in a generalized upswing, the purchase after the sale will likely be higher relative to the sale price, then if the market is in a generalized downswing, thus more money is actually pocketed in the downswing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I get what you're saying here. However, we need to keep in mind that markets over time trend upwards, so if you're going to be a bear you need to time it well and know when to close your shorts before the reversal (this is nearly impossible in practice.) Being a bear and repeatedly shorting is one of the few ways to lose money in a bull market. Even if you do happen to time it correctly, you can certainly do well as a trader but your long-term holdings whether in stocks or commodities will suffer which could easily offset your trading wins with capital losses elsewhere. I guess the way to avoid this is to just sell everything prior to the crash and go full on short which is either genius or insanity at the peak of a bull market.