Maybe setting up a guilt by association? The wealthy pay the piper and he plays their tune. So the poet is just a tool.

Or undermining any claims to authority with respect to wealthy men and poets alike.

Other than that, I've got nothing.

Whether there was damage is irrelevant. You do not use the money of clients of another company, that you are holding on behalf of that other company to pay of your loans. You do not invest with money of clients of another company that you are holding on behalf of that other company. He invested with money that wasn't his which is only permitted with the appropriate licenses and meeting certain capital requirements. The company had neither the license or came remotely close to the capital requirements needed if he would've had such license. That Solana bounced back was pure luck, it really could've been a huge loss.

What I'm more baffled about is what SBF's role was at Alameda Research. How come the CEO gets away with this shit - she's the one presumably running the company! Is that just because she put SBF out to dry? And if SBF was just a shareholder then he again fucked up by trying to direct the company, which wasn't his role as a shareholder.

And Michael Lewis has a tendency to withhold pertinent facts. How many of those billions were paid out from the FTX holdings SBF and Ellison forfeited? Not clear to me. If they were funded from the FTX holdings then "depositors" had a loss, they just managed to cover it with other gains.

This comes from Tolstoy's observation about it in War & Peace?

It's simply about power. If you're powerful enough, humanitarian considerations don't matter because it's not beneficial to restrain yourself. Exercising power at its maximum yields the greatest rewards. But this is short-term thinking, assuming you'll be powerful forever or cynical if you realise you won't be but do it any way and let later generations deal with the fall out.

Work gobbled up all my free time for the immediate future. Hope to get back to this at some point... :-(

But it does if employers act as you state here: — I like sushi

Let's pretend that because it sometimes happens it isn't an issue? Really?

The market doesn't operate that way. There's no price mechanism through which such information is communicated so even if you would want to, you can't.

"haha, I'll keep acting unethically and reap the benefits of unethical behaviour".

Thank you for your irrelevant opinion.

:rofl:

That you didn't like how it worked in practice doesn't resolve the underlying issue that disenfranchised people are confronted with systemic barriers. Come up with something better then.

By Nozick? I have read Chapters 1 & 2 so I am unsure why you are suggesting these standards are largely unexamined? Also in Chapter 10 (which I have also read fairly thoroughly) how and why society adopt certain standards are looked at here too. For instance, in the three utopian positions: 'Imperialistic,' 'Missionary,' and 'Existential'.

Maybe Chapter 3 does not cover what bothers you thoroughly enough. It woudl be helpful if you can pinpoint where in the Chapter he falls short. I will read that Chapter now. I have been meaning to get back to the book and read every page so this is a good enough excuse to do so now :) Thanks — I like sushi

No, I meant not examined by larger society. Nozick obviously did examine it, although as you've surmised I think he misses the point. But some ideas are so entrenched in society; deregulation is better for markets, privatisation is better, companies are more efficient than governments etc., that they aren't really examined anymore even when there's plenty of historic data disproving a lot these assumptions. I think the automatic reflex assuming what we earn through labour is morally ours is such an unexamined idea. Which is weird, because there's plenty of criticsm of Nozick's idea but they don't really get the attention they deserve outside of philosophy.

Historically, criticisms of Nozick's idea can be categorised as follows: it fails to account for historical injustices, the social nature of labor, the complexities of inequalities, and the moral dimensions of desert and justice.

By the way, I read Nozick 20 years ago along with Rawls "A Theory of Justice". So when you've read it, you'll be more knowledgeable than me for sure.

What I think I'm trying to add to existing criticisms is the following:

By framing "worth" as central to justice in labor and distribution, I emphasize the importance of evaluating individuals' contributions beyond mere economic output. This perspective can be seen as an re-emphasis of theAristotlean idea of justice as giving people what they deserve based on their virtues or contributions, especially when we connect it to modern concerns about meritocracy, inequality, and ethical labor practices.

Positioning need as a central ethical criterion in hiring and labor contracts adds a layer of moral responsibility that goes beyond traditional economic considerations. This can be seen as a contribution if it’s used to advocate for specific policies or business practices that prioritize those most in need but of course Marx and Rawls both addressed need as well.

Combining just production with worth and need might create an ethical framework that could be used to critique current market practices. And I think in a sense I'm still stuck in the individual objective here but including the social justice aspect @T Clark mentioned might enrich it further. Which I was thinking about since his post and I'm going to have a stab at.

Social Justice and Worth
To address this, we could broaden the concept of worth to include potential worth. This means recognizing that individuals from socially disadvantaged groups may not have had the same opportunities to demonstrate their worth due to systemic barriers. Therefore, affirmative action or equal opportunity initiatives would be justified to help these individuals reach their potential. This adjustment reframes worth not just as a reflection of past contributions but as a recognition of untapped potential, especially in underrepresented groups.

Social Justice and Need
Need can be expanded to include contextual need—the recognition that social disadvantages often create long-term, less visible needs. For example, a person from a marginalized community may not appear to be in acute need but may suffer from a lack of educational opportunities, social capital, or access to networks. Addressing these deeper, systemic needs through targeted interventions (such as scholarships, mentorship programs, or community-based initiatives) ensures that the framework is sensitive to the hidden dimensions of social disadvantage.

Social Justice and Just Production
Just production can be expanded to include inclusive production, which explicitly aims to involve and empower socially disadvantaged groups. This could mean adopting hiring practices that prioritize diversity, ensuring that supply chains are free from discrimination, and promoting workplace cultures that are inclusive and supportive of all employees. Inclusive production ensures that social justice is embedded in the very process of creating goods and services, not just in their distribution.

Or something like that but this deviates from the original point of the OP: a rebuttal of the entitlement theory.

The Muslims didn't agree with it. Not the people; the muslims - their political leadership. — BitconnectCarlos

Their religious persuasion is irrelevant. They were forced to accept a division of land after decades of colonisation without any say as to how this should be done. And it wasn't as if Jews were unwelcome before that.

And that's what it comes down to. Apparently for some people, Jewish self-determination is dependent on getting permission from the Muslims. Jews want to rule over themselves? Better get the Muslims to sign off on that. Specifically the Mufti of Jerusalem at that time, Amin al-Husseini, who supported the dhimmi system and was a friend of Hitler's. The Jews need his permission. — BitconnectCarlos

No, what it comes down to is that you cannot exercise self-determination by displacing other natives (and it's not as if Jews were natives themselves, given the diaspora). That's been the issue that was and is resisted and it has nothing to do with being Jewish.

But please pretend to be the victim when you steal someone else's land.

There was no absolute moral factor invoked. — jgill

True but Nozick does invoke morals and it underpins beliefs held in wider society that to most are a self-evident truth. Nobody questions if they have a right to their income, it is sufficient that they did the work. There's a contract after all. Etc. Etc. "The standards society adopted" are largely unexamined. It is a card house of assumptions and I'm challenging a specific one.

Question: can there be a right that is not either directly or indirectly a moral right? It seems to me that all rights are at least in some part moral. — tim wood

A license to sell drugs, financial products or therapy seem to be rights that are independent of moral rights but instead agreement on how things should be regulated in order to protect higher norms (consumer protection for instance).

And you appear to hold them as somehow an optional add-on. As if morality stored in that tent over there, and maybe we go get some and maybe we don't and just pass on by. — tim wood

What part of what I wrote makes you say this when I'm only discussing one specific presumed moral right?

My argument, then, is that I have a moral right to possession of what I earn, both for the immediate good, to me and mine, and also for the greater good of all enjoying the same right. This not an absolute claim to all and everything I earn, because there are conflicting obligations we all have as members of communities that also have to be met. — tim wood

I don't think you have such a moral right for the reasons I set out. All things being equal, except you are not homeless and starving, should you get the job or a homeless person? The market doesn't care, which is why you have homeless and starving people in all market-driven economies even when there's more than enough wealth available for this not to be the case.

Where is morality found when societies accept ludicrous riches and abject poverty at the same time?

Glad you liked it! To be honest, it's been awhile since I've really put an effort in something other than current politics. Actual philosophy takes time.

How much of the answer to this question depends on the existence of income as money rather than what is produced - material or agricultural? Money separates and abstracts the labor from the product. Of course, a sharecropper or slave gives some or all of what is produced to the landowner and even farmers who are landowners themselves pay taxes. — T Clark

I don't think it is dependent on it. Cash is what we know so easiest to imagine. Also why for brevity's sake I moved from "fruits of labour" to income but I'm talking about any "fruit" really.

Although there is need to address the fact that CEOs often have an income that is hundreds of times what their workers make, there is also the issue of risk. The willingness to take on risk has value that has to be compensated. Beyond willingness, there also has to be ability, which often depends more on wealth than income. — T Clark

Fair point. I assume you mean shareholders then, since the CEO usually isn't invested until after his golden parachute and bonuses. :wink: I think risk is secondary though. In an ideal, ethical world, a shareholder will only invest in ethical business. When that is clear, we can value risk.

On a tangential but related point, the perpetual gains of a shareholder is another process I'm not ethically comfortable with. Capital markets primarily put borrowers and lenders together, and while the interest is "variable", shareholders don't take additional risk compared to a bank providing a private loan. In fact, I think it's lower because selling shares is a whole lot easier than selling private loans to a third party thereby having additional options available to reduce losses. But in return, he gets perpetual rights to dividend and the value of his "property" increases as value is added through the "fruits of labour" of employees. It feels like double-dipping if you compare it with a regular loan; which just gives right to the notional amount and whatever interest was agreed for a specified time frame (or if perpetual with an option to repay the notional amount). Put differently, shareholder returns are much higher and persist for longer than they should if we consider the basic function of capital is just another type of loan. But I digress; just take away that I'm not a fan of the perpetual nature of companies.

I see this as a fraught issue. It makes sense that more trained, experienced, and competent people should be paid more than people who are less so, but so called "meritocracy" without more or less rigid job definition will generally lead to socially disadvantaged people, e.g. racial minorities and women, being paid less. Beyond that, it leads directly to those from historically privileged groups becoming even more privileged, but I guess that is outside the scope of this discussion. — T Clark

A good addition! I'm not sure how this could be added because it's a further moral argument why some people have no moral claim to their income. I think it's suggestive of social justice and the way I set up my criticism is that is at this point blind to such considerations.

This makes sense from an ethical perspective. As I see it, a good society should ensure a decent life to all it's members willing to participate. I think that would be hard to implement. I guess minimum wages are an attempt to get at the issue. Beyond that, the only practical solution I can think of is a universal basic income, which can separate work from income completely. I guess that's also outside the scope of this discussion. — T Clark

It's not out of scope but yes, I haven't gotten as far to think about actual policy implementations. I merely want to waylay a foundational point of Nozick's entitlement theory which is widely shared in broader society as a given. Disproving it, should open up different avenues of discussion instead of acceptance of a status quo that doesn't give us moral outcomes.

The problem is enforcement. There have to be legal rights to enforce moral ones. — T Clark

Don't be so practical man! First things first. :yum:

Your remarks remain vague so perhaps I'm not simply understanding you properly.

Nozick's idea is a basic and usually unchallenged assumption for many economic pundits that argue in favour of specific policies, which are often expressed through law. If the assumption is incorrect, many of those specific policies lack a rational basis. This changes the discussion because it's mostly argued along the lines of collectivism vs. individualism, which resemble more political intiutions. At least, I've not really seen collectivists and individualism meet in some kind of Aufhebung. As far as I know, this specific line of criticism has not been previously expressed.

Different issue I think. Let's assume both had a right to their income and this is the end result then this is not a matter of a moral right to income but a question perhaps of solidarity.

And yet many think people have a moral right to all their income and wealth and some even go so far as to say taxation is theft but when it isn't then what does that say about tax, redistribution, compensation, indemnities etc. and many other rights that people currently hold inviolable?

Again, I'm not offering a practical moral theory here, I'm arguing some basic assumptions that are shared widely, also outside of libertarian thought, with regards to some legal rights are wrong.

I've considered it but probably not. At least, not because you produced it but if you produce ethically and nobody has greater need (a starving child perhaps?), then yes.

Just to point out, I'm not aiming necessarily to have a functional and practical rule how to make these choices, merely to waylay the notion of moral entitlement to income merely because you did the work (moral right would require additional justification).

I'm suggesting laws can change. The larger political point probabyl is that we have a lot more political room to decide what we should do with income and other means of wealth production.

I think all social media is a blight on information sharing. Bullshit certainty exceeds truth and thoughtful doubt by a factor 1,000. As far as I'm concerned everybody should be deplatformed, Facebook, Instagram, X; the whole lot should be burned to the ground.

I had expected to find Rawls in there too.

Jesus. Which is why I'm never on Twitter/X/Elon's propaganda toy.

A claim nobody ever has made.

Judd said the timeline should serve as a wake-up call. Even under the worst-case scenarios, human-caused warming will not push the Earth beyond the bounds of habitability. But it will create conditions unlike anything seen in the 300,000 years our species has existed — conditions that could wreak havoc through ecosystems and communities.

We're talking about mass displacement due to flooding and droughts, food shortages due to failed crops, more violent weather, supply chain disruptions, fresh water shortages, increased likelihood of wars for scarce resources etc.

As introduction I have this:

AI systems must adhere to the following principles:

Respect for Human Rights and Dignity
AI systems must respect the fundamental rights as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including privacy, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, and access to justice.

Fairness and Non-discrimination
AI systems must not lead to discriminatory outcomes. Measures should be in place to prevent, monitor, and mitigate bias in AI models.

Transparency and Explainability
AI systems must be designed and deployed with a high level of transparency, providing clear information about how they operate and their decision-making processes. Users should understand how AI influences outcomes that affect them.

Accountability
Ohpen is accountable for the AI systems it designs, deploys, or manages. Clear governance structures should be in place to assign responsibility for compliance with this Code and the EU AI Act.

Safety and Risk Management
AI systems must be designed with the safety of individuals and society as a priority. This includes risk assessment and mitigation strategies to prevent harmful impacts or unintended consequences.

But translating this to conduct is another matter. I developed an AI self-assessment form in JIRA so that at least people can figure out if what they want to use, implement or develop is an unacceptable (prohibited), high or limited risk. For high risk there's quite a few things to adhere to, which I set out, but that's not the extent of relevant "conduct" you want a code of conduct to cover. The only thing useful I've found so far is a description of a method of testing to avoid bias and discrimination.

Yes, it has come about due to the EU AI Act, which recommends writing a code of conduct for developers and "users" (or providers and deployers). We developed our first AI tool, estimating resolution time of tickets based on type which was a limited risk tool (no personal data, no decision making).

How to develop and use AI systems, what you shouldn't do, what you ought to do, etc.

EDIT: the how obviously doesn't pertain to the technical part but what types of AI system are allowed, what needs to be in place to ensure the end result would be ethical, that sort of "how".

Spain has good standing with other EU countries, so it's not a waste of time. Having relatively recently managed to free itself from fascism, political engagement and thinking in the Spanish population is both higher and more mature than the complacency seen in most other countries.

WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN FOR YOU TO ADVOCATE/SUPPORT PALESTINIAN/HAMAS ARMED RESISTANCE AGAINST A NAZI GENOCIDAL APARTHEID COLONIALIST ISRAEL THAN IT HASN’T HAPPENED ALREADY ?! — neomac

I wouldn't advocate violent support even though I recognise the Palestinian right to self-defence until other methods are exhausted. Stopping support of Israel, diplomatic pressure on it etc. are much more logical steps than simply starting to arm the other side.

Does anybody have any experience with drafting an AI Code of Conduct?

Maybe read and try to understand the context in which those Nazi comparisons were made. Hint: I didn't start WWII comparisons.

Ignored for the childish strawmen you expect me to defend and proving my previous point.

Chaos is an emergent property of any complex system and we're already complex at an individual level (consistency is impossible and we barely cling onto rationality) let alone when interacting with each other. Even where 95% of people are fundamentally decent people, it will still descent into chaos as a result with certain people only to keen to capitalise on it.

"All is chaos under the heavens - times are excellent." - Mao

No, even the partition plan is invalid because this was never agreed with the people who actually lived there. That was an act of theft itself. My view is Israel must sit down with Palestinians to negotiate borders, who have repeatedly signalled that peace along the 1967 borders is possible. Anyone on the wrong side of those borders until a ceasefire is agreed before entering the larger negotiations is fair game (with the exception of anyone who settled there peacefully before the declaration of the Israeli state). And a ceasefire must necessarily include a stop to colonisation efforts since that's the very act of aggression that makes almost everything Israel does unethical and illegal.

Israel from then on is to manage the occupied territories in accordance with the Geneva Conventions it signed up to. Since Likud has actively undermined the two state solution by turning the West Bank into Swiss cheese, this needs to be resolved and the most likely solutions are land swaps or simply concluding those Jewish colonists now live in Palestine in combination with reparations for displaced Palestinians. Israel has no rights here so the basic position is all of it is returned but negotiations can be held to get to different results.

Then there's the right to return and again without negotiation the right will just persist so the only way for Palestinians to give up those rights is to offer something in return. What that something would be is an important subject for negotiations.

And can you see how if, say, only one side were pressured relentlessly to make concessions how this could engender ill-will? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, I can totally see why Palestinians hate Israel. The idea that in the pursuit of justice the loss of unjust benefits of the oppressor are "concessions" is of course ludicrous.

Do you believe that the Arab countries ought to provide reparations to the millions of Jews who were expelled and had their property seized? — BitconnectCarlos

It wasn't even a million and not all of those were expelled and expropriated but obviously when I'm arguing for a principle based approach, the answer is yes. However, it's unrelated because not caused by the Palestinians so should be dealt with separately.

Most people cannot escape tribalism, which all this is.

As a moderator of a philosophy forum you should be able to understand that if insulting political adversaries and thumb suck one another with your pro-Palestinian fellows are the better things you have to do in this thread to support the Palestinian cause, yet this is way too far from a honest and humble critical investigation of your own political views or whatever related moral point of principle (like human rights or the right to self-determination) you claim as obvious . — neomac

As a moderator I know exactly the type of poster you are and you're not interested in an actual discussion, just ranting. Which is why I ignore most of what you write as the reactionary diatribes they are.

Well, you'll like FTM then which is fully funded by subscriptions and gifts and under complete direction of two journalists.

Theft is wrong in all societies, but territorial boundaries change as a result of war all the time. — BitconnectCarlos

Which has been considered illegal under customary law for more than a century as an extrapolation of theft but even more, aside from the border shift, which was historically done more often than not without displacement of the local population. That only started after the rise of nationalism.

And even killing a thief can be criminal. — BitconnectCarlos

Not in self defence of your own property especially when the theft is ongoing and accompanied by wanton destruction and murder. For decades.

Edit: more problematic is actually the whole tu quoque fallacy again. "Others did it too! So don't complain we're committing crimes."

There's plenty of right wing news in NL. Telegraaf, geenstijl, nieuw rechts, FD, dagelijkse standaard and AD. Parool and NRC are relatively conservative and I suppose Volkskrant and Trouw are a bit more leftist. But from where I'm standing most of it is pretty centrist and conforming to economic truisms and political safety.

We also have decent investigative journalism with the Correspondent, Follow the Money, Nieuwsuur and Investico.

More all caps please. As much as I enjoy getting a rise out of you without even trying, I've got better things to do.

Is there any meaningful difference between the two? Israel's goals are twofold regardless: Rescue hostages, destroy Hamas. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, self defence presumes a just cause, which Israel doesn't have because it's the aggressor in this conflict.

Through the act of colonisation they are aggressors, not civilians. My highest source of authority is any law since Hammurabi that condemns theft. You pretend this is just international law but it's longstanding legal principles that exist in every culture.

Accurate? He misses a stationary target more often than not.