How remarkable, a 20 minute ritual can confer on me new moral rights,
You find such a thing strange? When I buy a coffee, the ritual of giving the coffee-shop owner a coin of specific worth confers on me the moral right to drink the coffee I just bought.
Do people who aren’t allowed to vote allowed to complain?
Yes.
Do I still get to complain about judicial decisions that aren’t influenced by votes?
Yes.
Do I get to complain about laws?
Only if you choose to vote against the laws you complain about, when given said chance.
You find such a thing strange? When I buy a coffee, the ritual of giving the coffee-shop owner a coin of specific worth confers on me the moral right to drink the coffee I just bought.
I don’t recall buying a cup of democracy. I don’t recall agreeing to this system of government at all, and darn it I can’t seem to find a party that wants to abolish it either.
The thing I was suggesting you were buying with your vote was the “moral right to complain”, not democracy. Democracy in this case is the established coffee-shop. You pay with your vote (or other attempts to influence the political outcome), you get the moral right to complain about the collective idiocy of others.
“I don’t recall agreeing to this system of government at all”
I don’t think that any of your preferred forms of government require many people’s “agreement”. And most of those would probably deprive you of the legal right to complain as well. (you would have already lost the moral right to complain by helping depriving the legal right to complain from others)
If you really really want the right to complain (whether legal or moral), it’s unlikely you’ll find a system more suited for it than democracy.
You pay with your vote (or other attempts to influence the political outcome), you get the moral right to complain about the collective idiocy of others.
I disagree. I’m having trouble understanding it, could you perhaps just stay away from metaphors and explain your moral reasoning here?
(you would have already lost the moral right to complain by helping depriving the legal right to complain from others)
First off I’m not sure which process you are using to make this moral judgement, so I’m unsure whether I grant your moral reasoning any weight or not. Secondly can you please make this for the sake of the debate a bit less personal? Considering the spirit of generosity we usually see on LW I’m quite shocked to see statements like this. You really won’t be changing minds with this, least of all mine. I find if funny that fewer unfavourable things where said about my morality when I was arguing in favour of infanticide in a different thread… Voting is probably sacred to some people.
Regardless, If you check out my comment history I’ve strongly favoured freedom of speech and freedom of conscience in nearly every discussion I’ve had. Doesn’t that buy me something in your moral system too?
If you really really want the right to complain (whether legal or moral), it’s unlikely you’ll find a system more suited for it than democracy.
I disagree here. Futarchy would provide at least as much and Neocameralism should in theory provide more freedom of speech than I currently have.
I’ll grant this, though I don’t know how existing rules about insider trading would conflict with beliefs about society itself becoming officially the object of trade and profit.
and Neocameralism should in theory provide more freedom of speech than I currently have.
If I understand Moldbug’s neocameralism, it would give the government the perfect right to behead you if it doesn’t like your taste in shoes—because in Moldbug’s view there’s no difference between the right to do something and the power to do something. And Moldbug advocates in favour the government having complete and total power over all its subjects.
He just argues that the government won’t bother exercising such power because it wouldn’t be profitable for them to do so. But unfortunately Moldbug’s view that a government totally in control wouldn’t bother to control people’s thoughts goes in contrast with pretty much everything we know about history. He arrives at a purely “logical” conclusion which just isn’t backed up by historical experience.
Not that I wouldn’t love cities that would be individually run as corporations—e.g. this . It’s the Neocameralist vision of them having absolute power of life and death over their subjects that scares the hell out of me.
I note that Moldbug’s example of Singapore as a well-run state which is run on non-Universalist and non-Democratic principles was hilariously backed by a Singapore resident’s letter which was so terrified of being seen to criticize Singapore, that even in his mostly-praiseful letter he felt he had to use the name “Narnia” instead of the name “Singapore”. Such freedom of speech in a well-run authoritarian state...
I’m having trouble understanding it, could you perhaps just stay away from metaphors and explain your moral reasoning here?
Okay,
“complaining about a person’s vote” can mean two things: Either that I believe “they should have voted differently” or that I believe “they should not have voted at all.”.
Therefore to have the moral right to honestly complain about their vote, I must either believe “everyone should have voted differently” or I must believe “everyone should not have voted at all.”
Since I don’t believe society would be better if nobody voted, then the only option I have if I want this moral right to complain is “they should have voted differently”.
And therefore it would be hypocrisy if I likewise hadn’t myself gone to vote differently.
Now, the thing you’re not getting is that I’m not really judging you. My first comment was about how it bought me the moral right to complain. Someone who really thinks the world would be better if nobody voted is exempt from this particular line of reasoning. Because as you said, non-voting can be a political act too.
You find such a thing strange? When I buy a coffee, the ritual of giving the coffee-shop owner a coin of specific worth confers on me the moral right to drink the coffee I just bought.
Yes.
Yes.
Only if you choose to vote against the laws you complain about, when given said chance.
I don’t recall buying a cup of democracy. I don’t recall agreeing to this system of government at all, and darn it I can’t seem to find a party that wants to abolish it either.
The thing I was suggesting you were buying with your vote was the “moral right to complain”, not democracy. Democracy in this case is the established coffee-shop. You pay with your vote (or other attempts to influence the political outcome), you get the moral right to complain about the collective idiocy of others.
I don’t think that any of your preferred forms of government require many people’s “agreement”. And most of those would probably deprive you of the legal right to complain as well. (you would have already lost the moral right to complain by helping depriving the legal right to complain from others)
If you really really want the right to complain (whether legal or moral), it’s unlikely you’ll find a system more suited for it than democracy.
I disagree. I’m having trouble understanding it, could you perhaps just stay away from metaphors and explain your moral reasoning here?
First off I’m not sure which process you are using to make this moral judgement, so I’m unsure whether I grant your moral reasoning any weight or not. Secondly can you please make this for the sake of the debate a bit less personal? Considering the spirit of generosity we usually see on LW I’m quite shocked to see statements like this. You really won’t be changing minds with this, least of all mine. I find if funny that fewer unfavourable things where said about my morality when I was arguing in favour of infanticide in a different thread… Voting is probably sacred to some people.
Regardless, If you check out my comment history I’ve strongly favoured freedom of speech and freedom of conscience in nearly every discussion I’ve had. Doesn’t that buy me something in your moral system too?
I disagree here. Futarchy would provide at least as much and Neocameralism should in theory provide more freedom of speech than I currently have.
I’ll grant this, though I don’t know how existing rules about insider trading would conflict with beliefs about society itself becoming officially the object of trade and profit.
If I understand Moldbug’s neocameralism, it would give the government the perfect right to behead you if it doesn’t like your taste in shoes—because in Moldbug’s view there’s no difference between the right to do something and the power to do something. And Moldbug advocates in favour the government having complete and total power over all its subjects.
He just argues that the government won’t bother exercising such power because it wouldn’t be profitable for them to do so. But unfortunately Moldbug’s view that a government totally in control wouldn’t bother to control people’s thoughts goes in contrast with pretty much everything we know about history. He arrives at a purely “logical” conclusion which just isn’t backed up by historical experience.
Not that I wouldn’t love cities that would be individually run as corporations—e.g. this . It’s the Neocameralist vision of them having absolute power of life and death over their subjects that scares the hell out of me.
I note that Moldbug’s example of Singapore as a well-run state which is run on non-Universalist and non-Democratic principles was hilariously backed by a Singapore resident’s letter which was so terrified of being seen to criticize Singapore, that even in his mostly-praiseful letter he felt he had to use the name “Narnia” instead of the name “Singapore”. Such freedom of speech in a well-run authoritarian state...
Okay,
“complaining about a person’s vote” can mean two things: Either that I believe “they should have voted differently” or that I believe “they should not have voted at all.”.
Therefore to have the moral right to honestly complain about their vote, I must either believe “everyone should have voted differently” or I must believe “everyone should not have voted at all.”
Since I don’t believe society would be better if nobody voted, then the only option I have if I want this moral right to complain is “they should have voted differently”.
And therefore it would be hypocrisy if I likewise hadn’t myself gone to vote differently.
Now, the thing you’re not getting is that I’m not really judging you. My first comment was about how it bought me the moral right to complain. Someone who really thinks the world would be better if nobody voted is exempt from this particular line of reasoning. Because as you said, non-voting can be a political act too.
Up voted for corresponding to my request for elaborating your argument.
Edit: Is it wrong to reward people elaborating their argument?
Since we just agreed rights are mostly incoherent, can you please restate the argument for voting without reference to them?
You’re confusing me with Athrelon.
Ah my apologies.