6 added 793 characters in body
source | link

Likewise, most of our criminal laws exist primarily because the victim "might have been me". Libertarians are not idiots -- they can do math. It is not, in general, worth paying for most laws in a strictly person-to-person economic computation. But we

But there is more data. We do not want to deal with the fear that we might end up in the victim's place, so we establish authorities to keep us safe.

Dispelling Dispelling that fear increases the efficiency of the whole system enough that it offsets the expenditures. But The return on investment is so great that most of economic history has been a succession of protection rackets. Insurance has a huge profit margin.

Still, we would never have discovered that, if our thinking were primarily utilitarian by nature. Each cave-man would think (rightly) that he was best off keeping his own kill and defending his own cave, or maybe stealing what he needed. Instead, he looked at the things happening to others, saw that he was not so special, and agreed that it would be better if none of the worst ones were allowed.

Likewise, most of our criminal laws exist primarily because the victim "might have been me". It is not, in general, worth paying for laws in a strictly person-to-person economic computation. But we do not want to deal with the fear that we might end up in the victim's place, so we establish authorities to keep us safe.

Dispelling that fear increases the efficiency of the whole system enough that it offsets the expenditures. But we would never have discovered that, if our thinking were primarily utilitarian. Each cave-man would think (rightly) that he was best off keeping his own kill and defending his own cave. Instead, he looked at the things happening to others, saw that he was not so special, and agreed that it would be better if none of the worst ones were allowed.

Likewise, most of our criminal laws exist primarily because the victim "might have been me". Libertarians are not idiots -- they can do math. It is not, in general, worth paying for most laws in a strictly person-to-person economic computation.

But there is more data. We do not want to deal with the fear that we might end up in the victim's place, so we establish authorities to keep us safe. Dispelling that fear increases the efficiency of the whole system enough that it offsets the expenditures. The return on investment is so great that most of economic history has been a succession of protection rackets. Insurance has a huge profit margin.

Still, we would never have discovered that, if our thinking were primarily utilitarian by nature. Each cave-man would think (rightly) that he was best off keeping his own kill and defending his own cave, or maybe stealing what he needed. Instead, he looked at the things happening to others, saw that he was not so special, and agreed that it would be better if none of the worst ones were allowed.

5 added 793 characters in body
source | link

From Kant.

Humans have an innate sense of their own limited interchangeability.

  • It is consonant with our genetic nature, to encourage genes similar to, but not among, our own, in order to have an adequate variety to breed together.
  • It is consonant with our dependence upon intellectual stability, in that it encourages us to help those that may not share our genes, but speak from similar experience and may preserve our "memes".
  • It is a direct survival trait, in that it vouches for our individual social value in cases of disaster and excessive consequence (which may impair our utility, but may leave genetic and memetic value).
  • It grows out of our social conscience, which may be partially inborn.

So one can consider it totally natural.

It is in fact so natural to so many of us that it is reasonable to follow that impulse into a moral system, via the Golden Rule, or its mostly-debugged rewrite, which is Kant's Categorical Imperative. What flies directly in the face of this notion of "There but for the grace of God, go I." is inherently wrong.

It provides an anodyne to runaway Utilitarian thinking. We know, regardless of its utility, murder is wrong, as we would not accept being killed for utilitarian reasons, unless they were exceptionally strong. Therefore one must allocate a much higher utility than would naturally balance a killing, in order to justify it. I would let myself die to protect my husband, but not just because I am taking up space someone else wants. So you may feel free to kill me in a war for survival of my people or my culture, but not to kill me just because you want my land, whatever the utility my land might provide you.

This does not do away with the reference to utility entirely. But it makes it a secondary consideration under the principle of fairness, and it so outweighs measured utility that it shortcuts the computation completely in a lot of cases.

For instance: It provides U.S. society very little added utility to arrange its social institutions around the possibility of people being gay. And there is a lot of utility to spend in making those arrangements.

Among other things, the tax code is shaped to encourage a certain type of marriage, which has a certain biological role that gay folks will not generally fulfill. (It overtaxes couples with equally high incomes, to allow for non-working spouses and the experience gap temporary absence from the workforce causes.) Making that subsidy less efficient wastes utility.

But we are going to do all of that re-arranging, eventually, just because you might have been me. We do not need to do the math, because the math does not obviate that possibility. Utility would have to really mount up to matter, and the differences are not great enough.

Likewise, most of our criminal laws exist primarily because the victim "might have been me". It is not, in general, worth paying for laws in a strictly person-to-person economic computation. But we do not want to deal with the fear that we might end up in the victim's place, so we establish authorities to keep us safe.

Dispelling that fear increases the efficiency of the whole system enough that it offsets the expenditures. But we would never have discovered that, if our thinking were primarily utilitarian. Each cave-man would think (rightly) that he was best off keeping his own kill and defending his own cave. Instead, he looked at the things happening to others, saw that he was not so special, and agreed that it would be better if none of the worst ones were allowed.

From Kant.

Humans have an innate sense of their own limited interchangeability.

  • It is consonant with our genetic nature, to encourage genes similar to, but not among, our own, in order to have an adequate variety to breed together.
  • It is consonant with our dependence upon intellectual stability, in that it encourages us to help those that may not share our genes, but speak from similar experience and may preserve our "memes".
  • It is a direct survival trait, in that it vouches for our individual social value in cases of disaster and excessive consequence (which may impair our utility, but may leave genetic and memetic value).
  • It grows out of our social conscience, which may be partially inborn.

So one can consider it totally natural.

It is in fact so natural to so many of us that it is reasonable to follow that impulse into a moral system, via the Golden Rule, or its mostly-debugged rewrite, which is Kant's Categorical Imperative. What flies directly in the face of this notion of "There but for the grace of God, go I." is inherently wrong.

It provides an anodyne to runaway Utilitarian thinking. We know, regardless of its utility, murder is wrong, as we would not accept being killed for utilitarian reasons, unless they were exceptionally strong. Therefore one must allocate a much higher utility than would naturally balance a killing, in order to justify it. I would let myself die to protect my husband, but not just because I am taking up space someone else wants. So you may feel free to kill me in a war for survival of my people or my culture, but not to kill me just because you want my land, whatever the utility my land might provide you.

This does not do away with the reference to utility entirely. But it makes it a secondary consideration under the principle of fairness, and it so outweighs measured utility that it shortcuts the computation completely in a lot of cases.

For instance: It provides U.S. society very little added utility to arrange its social institutions around the possibility of people being gay. And there is a lot of utility to spend in making those arrangements.

Among other things, the tax code is shaped to encourage a certain type of marriage, which has a certain biological role that gay folks will not generally fulfill. (It overtaxes couples with equally high incomes, to allow for non-working spouses and the experience gap temporary absence from the workforce causes.) Making that subsidy less efficient wastes utility.

But we are going to do all of that re-arranging, eventually, just because you might have been me. We do not need to do the math, because the math does not obviate that possibility. Utility would have to really mount up to matter, and the differences are not great enough.

From Kant.

Humans have an innate sense of their own limited interchangeability.

  • It is consonant with our genetic nature, to encourage genes similar to, but not among, our own, in order to have an adequate variety to breed together.
  • It is consonant with our dependence upon intellectual stability, in that it encourages us to help those that may not share our genes, but speak from similar experience and may preserve our "memes".
  • It is a direct survival trait, in that it vouches for our individual social value in cases of disaster and excessive consequence (which may impair our utility, but may leave genetic and memetic value).
  • It grows out of our social conscience, which may be partially inborn.

So one can consider it totally natural.

It is in fact so natural to so many of us that it is reasonable to follow that impulse into a moral system, via the Golden Rule, or its mostly-debugged rewrite, which is Kant's Categorical Imperative. What flies directly in the face of this notion of "There but for the grace of God, go I." is inherently wrong.

It provides an anodyne to runaway Utilitarian thinking. We know, regardless of its utility, murder is wrong, as we would not accept being killed for utilitarian reasons, unless they were exceptionally strong. Therefore one must allocate a much higher utility than would naturally balance a killing, in order to justify it. I would let myself die to protect my husband, but not just because I am taking up space someone else wants. So you may feel free to kill me in a war for survival of my people or my culture, but not to kill me just because you want my land, whatever the utility my land might provide you.

This does not do away with the reference to utility entirely. But it makes it a secondary consideration under the principle of fairness, and it so outweighs measured utility that it shortcuts the computation completely in a lot of cases.

For instance: It provides U.S. society very little added utility to arrange its social institutions around the possibility of people being gay. And there is a lot of utility to spend in making those arrangements.

Among other things, the tax code is shaped to encourage a certain type of marriage, which has a certain biological role that gay folks will not generally fulfill. (It overtaxes couples with equally high incomes, to allow for non-working spouses and the experience gap temporary absence from the workforce causes.) Making that subsidy less efficient wastes utility.

But we are going to do all of that re-arranging, eventually, just because you might have been me. We do not need to do the math, because the math does not obviate that possibility. Utility would have to really mount up to matter, and the differences are not great enough.

Likewise, most of our criminal laws exist primarily because the victim "might have been me". It is not, in general, worth paying for laws in a strictly person-to-person economic computation. But we do not want to deal with the fear that we might end up in the victim's place, so we establish authorities to keep us safe.

Dispelling that fear increases the efficiency of the whole system enough that it offsets the expenditures. But we would never have discovered that, if our thinking were primarily utilitarian. Each cave-man would think (rightly) that he was best off keeping his own kill and defending his own cave. Instead, he looked at the things happening to others, saw that he was not so special, and agreed that it would be better if none of the worst ones were allowed.

4 deleted 1 character in body
source | link

From Kant.

Humans have an innate sense of their own limited interchangeability.

  • It is consonant with our genetic nature, to encourage genes similar to, but not among, our own, in order to have an adequate variety to breed together.
  • It is consonant with our dependence upon intellectual stability, in that it encourages us to help those that may not share our genes, but speak from similar experience and may preserve our "memes".
  • It is a direct survival trait, in that it vouches for our individual social value in cases of disaster and excessive consequence (which may impair our utility, but may leave genetic and memetic value).
  • It grows out of our social conscience, which may be partially inborn.

So one can consider it totally natural.

It is in fact so natural to so many of us that it is reasonable to follow that impulse into a moral system, via the Golden Rule, or its mostly-debugged rewrite, which is Kant's Categorical Imperative. What flies directly in the face of this notion of "There but for the grace of God, go I." is inherently wrong.

It provides an anodyne to runaway Utilitarian thinking. We know, regardless of its utility, murder is wrong, as we would not accept being killed for utilitarian reasons, unless they were exceptionally strong. Therefore one must allocate a much higher utility than would naturally balance a killing, in order to justify it. I would let myself die to protect my husband, but not just because I am taking up space someone else wants. So you may feel free to kill me in a war for survival of my people or my culture, but not to kill me just because you want my land, whatever the utility my land might provide you.

This does not do away with the reference to utility entirely. But it makes it a secondary consideration under the principle of fairness, and it so outweighs measured utility that it shortcuts the computation completely in a lot of cases.

For instance: It provides U.S. society very little added utility to arrange its social institutions around the possibility of people being gay. And there is a lot of utility to spend in making those arrangements.

Among other things, the tax code is shaped to encourage a certain type of marriage, which has a certain biological role that gay folks will not generally fulfill. (It overtaxes couples with equally high incomes, to allow for non-working spouses and the experience gap temporary absence from the workforce causes.) Making that subsidy less efficient wastes utility.

But we are going to do all of that re-arranging, eventually, just because you might have been me. Utility would have to really mount up to matter. And we We do not need to do the math, because the math does not obviate that possibility. Utility would have to really mount up to matter, and the differences are not great enough.

From Kant.

Humans have an innate sense of their own limited interchangeability.

  • It is consonant with our genetic nature, to encourage genes similar to, but not among, our own, in order to have an adequate variety to breed together.
  • It is consonant with our dependence upon intellectual stability, in that it encourages us to help those that may not share our genes, but speak from similar experience and may preserve our "memes".
  • It is a direct survival trait, in that it vouches for our individual social value in cases of disaster and excessive consequence (which may impair our utility, but may leave genetic and memetic value).
  • It grows out of our social conscience, which may be partially inborn.

So one can consider it totally natural.

It is in fact so natural to so many of us that it is reasonable to follow that impulse into a moral system, via the Golden Rule, or its mostly-debugged rewrite, which is Kant's Categorical Imperative. What flies directly in the face of this notion of "There but for the grace of God, go I." is inherently wrong.

It provides an anodyne to runaway Utilitarian thinking. We know, regardless of its utility, murder is wrong, as we would not accept being killed for utilitarian reasons, unless they were exceptionally strong. Therefore one must allocate a much higher utility than would naturally balance a killing, in order to justify it. I would let myself die to protect my husband, but not just because I am taking up space someone else wants. So you may feel free to kill me in a war for survival of my people or my culture, but not to kill me just because you want my land, whatever the utility my land might provide you.

This does not do away with the reference to utility entirely. But it makes it a secondary consideration under the principle of fairness, and it so outweighs measured utility that it shortcuts the computation completely in a lot of cases.

For instance: It provides U.S. society very little added utility to arrange its social institutions around the possibility of people being gay. And there is a lot of utility to spend in making those arrangements.

Among other things, the tax code is shaped to encourage a certain type of marriage, which has a certain biological role that gay folks will not generally fulfill. (It overtaxes couples with equally high incomes, to allow for non-working spouses and the experience gap temporary absence from the workforce causes.) Making that less efficient wastes utility.

But we are going to do all of that re-arranging, eventually, just because you might have been me. Utility would have to really mount up to matter. And we do not need to do the math, because the math does not obviate that possibility.

From Kant.

Humans have an innate sense of their own limited interchangeability.

  • It is consonant with our genetic nature, to encourage genes similar to, but not among, our own, in order to have an adequate variety to breed together.
  • It is consonant with our dependence upon intellectual stability, in that it encourages us to help those that may not share our genes, but speak from similar experience and may preserve our "memes".
  • It is a direct survival trait, in that it vouches for our individual social value in cases of disaster and excessive consequence (which may impair our utility, but may leave genetic and memetic value).
  • It grows out of our social conscience, which may be partially inborn.

So one can consider it totally natural.

It is in fact so natural to so many of us that it is reasonable to follow that impulse into a moral system, via the Golden Rule, or its mostly-debugged rewrite, which is Kant's Categorical Imperative. What flies directly in the face of this notion of "There but for the grace of God, go I." is inherently wrong.

It provides an anodyne to runaway Utilitarian thinking. We know, regardless of its utility, murder is wrong, as we would not accept being killed for utilitarian reasons, unless they were exceptionally strong. Therefore one must allocate a much higher utility than would naturally balance a killing, in order to justify it. I would let myself die to protect my husband, but not just because I am taking up space someone else wants. So you may feel free to kill me in a war for survival of my people or my culture, but not to kill me just because you want my land, whatever the utility my land might provide you.

This does not do away with the reference to utility entirely. But it makes it a secondary consideration under the principle of fairness, and it so outweighs measured utility that it shortcuts the computation completely in a lot of cases.

For instance: It provides U.S. society very little added utility to arrange its social institutions around the possibility of people being gay. And there is a lot of utility to spend in making those arrangements.

Among other things, the tax code is shaped to encourage a certain type of marriage, which has a certain biological role that gay folks will not generally fulfill. (It overtaxes couples with equally high incomes, to allow for non-working spouses and the experience gap temporary absence from the workforce causes.) Making that subsidy less efficient wastes utility.

But we are going to do all of that re-arranging, eventually, just because you might have been me. We do not need to do the math, because the math does not obviate that possibility. Utility would have to really mount up to matter, and the differences are not great enough.

3 deleted 1 character in body
source | link
2 added 203 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link