Idle musing

[bunny]

This should perhaps go in the politics forum, but they scare me. You guys just call me an irrational mystic - there I'm a jackbooted, coercive thug. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

A question arose after pondering the oft-heard AC comment that a collective cant act - individuals act. I expect it's important to moral justifications for AC, though I havent really looked into it...

Anyhow it prompted me to consider a silly thought experiment:

Suppose there is an innocent victim, trapped on a rocky outcropping, tenuously holding onto the cliff and about to fall to their death. Two people see this situation, though are unaware of each other. They both rush to help the victim, unfortunately the combined weight causes the cliff to give way and they all plunge to their deaths - something which wouldnt have happened if only one person had gone to the victim's aid. Isnt it right to say that a collection of individuals has acted in this case? Neither of them could do it on their own and neither knew of the other's existence (assume there was no reason to think going out there alone would cause any disaster).

Basically, I dont see any problem with claiming a corporation acted, or a government, or a group of people in general. I am curious whether the "only individuals act" position is held due to desirable moral consequences or whether an alternative explanation to the above scenario is available other than a group of individuals acting. (I of course offer the usual thought experiment caveats about unreal situations, acknowledged oversimplifications, etc etc)

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
A question arose after pondering the oft-heard AC comment that a collective cant act - individuals act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there's nothing to concern us until they come up with some evidence that their premise is true. Until then, pooh-pooh should suffice.

luckyme

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I am curious whether the "only individuals act" position is held due to desirable moral consequences


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to get into all the metaphysical and definitional aspects, but briefly, from the moral and legal aspect, the concept of agency should address that issue.

[Zeno]

There are other and better things to muse about. Or even more useful, read a interesting book. Treatise on the Gods by H. L. Mencken for example.

-Zeno, The Antipope

[Phil153]

It's an insane argument - the solipsism of politics. It's similar to:

- There are true ant colonies
- There are no such things as microprocessors, only individual diodes
- There is no such thing as the brain, only neurons

Collectives do indeed exist because people can interact and form agreements to achieve things that are otherwise impossible. Just like neurons and ants and microprocessors. It's called Emergence

[ QUOTE ]
I expect it's important to moral justifications for AC

[/ QUOTE ]
I think AC is based on the idea that it's not valid to contain the freedom of the individual in any way. It's a nice idea but hopelessly impractical. More importantly, it falls flat philosophically when you have finite resources (such as land). To believe that AC is the only moral system, you have to believe that: "Existing property divisions (regardless of how they came about) are more valid than all other human rights or goals."

I think this is ridiculous. I agree that human freedoms are everything, but I think the current system maximizes those. In AC world, it's not acceptable for someone to be required to give a percentage of their socially-earned income back to society, but it is acceptable to require a newborn to accept all existing property divisions and pay to access any part of the planet. Seems rather odd to me.

[KipBond]

I would like to see an anarcho-capitalist respond to this thread.

[chezlaw]

Not sure what the point is, its still the individuals that acted based on the decisions they individually made. AC doesn't deny that the actions of individuals interfer with each other.

Saying they didn't know about each other is a mistake (not sure its an important one) as even if they had no specific knowledge they would still have the general knowledge that others could be about and might also act.

chez

[Phil153]

Chez,

Why is it wrong when one man kills another? It's just one lump of atoms bumping into another one, and atoms don't have morality! There are no true people, just collections of atoms. Ergo, there is no morality.

Tell me what's wrong with that argument and I'll tell you what wrong with the AC one.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Chez,

Why is it wrong when one man kills another? It's just one lump of atoms bumping into another one, and atoms don't have morality! There are no true people, just collections of atoms. Ergo, there is no morality.

Tell me what's wrong with that argument and I'll tell you what wrong with the AC one.

[/ QUOTE ]
its wrong because its not what we want, atoms don't care.

chez

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it wrong when one man kills another? It's just one lump of atoms bumping into another one, and atoms don't have morality! There are no true people, just collections of atoms. Ergo, there is no morality.

Tell me what's wrong with that argument and I'll tell you what wrong with the AC one.

[/ QUOTE ]
its wrong because its not what we want, atoms don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

This implies that you aren't AC, right? Either way, for the record, are you AC? Do you subscribe to AC doctrines/ideas? Do you think it is good? Can you (& are you willing to) defend it?