Self determination: why is it important?

[Captain Chaos]

We have an instinct for self determination. It is within our nature to feel that we should have the right to determine what we do with our lives.

However, society impinges upon that right all the time. Thus, we seek to create laws that create a balance, in which self-determination is balanced by the fact that we are not supposed to impinge upon another's self determination: You do not have the right to kill and eat your neighbor, because he has the right to choose not to be killed and eaten.


Just because we have an instinctive drive towards self determination, does this mean that we have an inalienable right to self determination?

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaos said: We have an instinct for self determination. It is within our nature to feel that we should have the right to determine what we do with our lives.

I say:
Whose lives? Ahhh yes, ours. Hence the need for self-determination.

Chaos said: However, society impinges upon that right all the time.

I say:
Only if you partake of society, or consider yourself a part of society.

We have a right (by physical means) to be individuals, and partake of any free-will collective we wish to associate with. We also have a birth-right in some nations (such as the U.S.) that is recognized, not GRANTED, self-ownership.

This is the challenge of empire. Making or convincing an individual to donate/forsake/surrender labor in the name of a greater good(almost ALWAYS the pockets of the master in the slave/master relationship, whether they are pockets of wealth, intellectual ego stroking, or perceived benevolence).

No matter what, the idea of self-determination must deal with the issue of force since it is only force (man-made or natural) that impedes free-will.

Force is nature, force is man. Force is the universal limiter of mankind, and the origination of, strength of, and scope of force we accept or project is an individual decision.

Collectives are free-will associations of individuals who have common goals.

No society can be truly 100% free-will, hence, the greatest society would be one that has no force, due to a lack of need for force. A people with mutual respect of individual liberty to a point of absolute peaceful co-habitation. That would be utopic, and based on history and human err we often claim this vision of utopia to be "unrealistic", though its possibility is in my opinion the best we as mankind could attempt to strive toward.

Force is required to live, required to survive, required to exist in the physical world that we know. Where we draw the line of force however says a lot about who we are as people.

Today many claim we are "civillized", where as I claim it to be more along the lines of "domesticated". We still use force against other men, which means we are far from civillized, yet not far from barbarians, simply more sophisticated in the ways and methods of "acceptance" we apply to our force.

Once we all realize we are all equal in the EYES of nature, we will be on a much better foot-hold toward understanding our physical reality which we struggle still to understand through our "culturally limited" and "societal based" lens we view it. It is religion, culture and history, and the emotion we attach to change that limits mans next evolution.

That is all of course, in my opinion, using many basic facts with which to base it.

Chaos said: Thus, we seek to create laws that create a balance, in which self-determination is balanced by the fact that we are not supposed to impinge upon another's self determination: You do not have the right to kill and eat your neighbor, because he has the right to choose not to be killed and eaten.

I say:
That is not true, it varies per society. Are you speaking of ONLY the U.S.?

Chaos said: Just because we have an instinctive drive towards self determination, does this mean that we have an inalienable right to self determination?

I say:
Again, U.S. only, or the global individuals?

[Captain Chaos]

I am not speaking of any particular group - more of a metaphorical "we" than anything else.

Osborn, let me ask you a few annoying questions for a bit...

Why is it wrong for me to steal money from my neighbor?

[lsbskins1]

Theory is theory and what you say is all nice and neat in a theoretical world. The real world is another matter. First, human relationships and interactions are much more complicated than your theory seems to allow. There are both sins of ommission and sins of commission. In your world, it seems you only recognize harm can come from committed acts and do not account for the fact that ommitted acts can cause harm as well. This is plain fact, not my ego talking or any other such nonsense. You do not have to beat person to death to kill them. That flaw in your logic, and that flaw alone, renders your ideas unworkable.

[Captain Chaos]

Lsbskins1,

were you talking to me or to Osborn?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Lsbskins1, were you talking to me or to Osborn?

Osborn. I was addressing the fact that he seems to feel force is only justified in response to overt acts that can damage another. He does not allow that individuals can be damaged by the choice of another to NOT act. It is why I believe it is perfectly reasonable to allow government to compel in certain instances. He ignores this, or pretends that it is so minimal a danger as to be unworthy of consideration.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Theory is theory and what you say is all nice and neat in a theoretical world. The real world is another matter.

What is your proof that Osborn, or anyone else for that matter, is making a distinction between "the theoretical world" and "the real world"?

First, human relationships and interactions are much more complicated than your theory seems to allow.

Can you please elaborate? I'd like to know more.

There are both sins of ommission and sins of commission. In your world, it seems you only recognize harm can come from committed acts and do not account for the fact that ommitted acts can cause harm as well. This is plain fact, not my ego talking or any other such nonsense. You do not have to beat person to death to kill them. That flaw in your logic, and that flaw alone, renders your ideas unworkable.

"Ommitted acts can cause harm as well"? What exactly are you talking about, here? Are you simply rehashing the statement "All that it takes for evil men to prevail is for good men to do nothing"? Or what?

Finally, what does "unworkable" mean to you?

- Rob

[lsbskins1]

Rob-

Osborn may not see the distinction or even assert it, but it is there, just as the distinction between reality and the perceptions of a psychotic are not seen or acknowledged by the phychotic. I could stand on a cliff, believing if I flap my arms hard enough, I can cause enough lift to fly and if my theory was that with sufficient steroids, a man could create enough speed to generate the necessary lift, my theory is at odds with reality. It does not matter if I claim to be not speaking only theoretically, my idea still ONLY WORKS IN THEORY.

[Autolykos]

What about the rest of my post?

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Captain Chaos We have an instinct for self determination. It is within our nature to feel that we should have the right to determine what we do with our lives. However, society impinges upon that right all the time. Thus, we seek to create laws that create a balance, in which self-determination is balanced by the fact that we are not supposed to impinge upon another's self determination: You do not have the right to kill and eat your neighbor, because he has the right to choose not to be killed and eaten. Just because we have an instinctive drive towards self determination, does this mean that we have an inalienable right to self determination?

For the record, I do not believe in natural rights. To me, rights are always and everywhere human constructions. However, I do believe in natural laws. There are, furthermore, two types of natural laws. One type deals with inherent properties of nature, i.e. the laws of physics. The other type deals with axioms of human behavior. While I believe that this second type is derivable from the first, the details of the derivation(s) are much too great for human beings (in their current state, at least) to comprehend. Hence, it is expedient to speak, as I have, of two types of natural laws.

Now then, I would still like to understand what you mean by "society impinges upon [the alleged right to self-determination] all the time". How and where does it do so? Also, can you elaborate on this "balance" of which you speak?

I, for one, consider self-determination to be equivalent to free will. Furthermore, I consider free will to be part of natural law. In other words, it's an axiom of human behavior and is therefore inalienable. So, I cannot see how society (i.e. other people) can impinge upon one's free will. But that's just me.

- Rob

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: autolykos Now then, I would still like to understand what you mean by "society impinges upon [the alleged right to self-determination] all the time". How and where does it do so? Also, can you elaborate on this "balance" of which you speak?

It is illegal for me to kill you and eat your liver.

Furthermore, I consider free will to be part of natural law. In other words, it's an axiom of human behavior and is therefore inalienable.

The fact that humans have an innate desire for self determination does not mean that it is inalienable.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Autolykos What about the rest of my post? - Rob

He (Osborn) claims it is not legitimate for the government to compel, that it is a misapplication of force. I say that does not meet the reality test. It does not meet the test because you can harm another by making them carry your weight in societal matters. I have addressed this many times previously by explaining the free rider issue.

He then claims I (or someone) just made up the idea of free riders to justify force. I say he has it backwards. I say force is made necessary by the existence of free riders and he is making up the excuse that free riders are not real because it the existence of free riders puts the lie to his theory. If he wants to pretend that the only way you can harm someone is to apply physical force, then he is opperating in a non-reality based world.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Captain Chaos It is illegal for me to kill you and eat your liver.

And why do you think that is?

If it were legal (i.e. not prohibited by law), would you then do it?

The fact that humans have an innate desire for self determination does not mean that it is inalienable.

Can you disprove the inalienability?

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: lsbskins1 He (Osborn) claims it is not legitimate for the government to compel, that it is a misapplication of force. I say that does not meet the reality test. It does not meet the test because you can harm another by making them carry your weight in societal matters. I have addressed this many times previously by explaining the free rider issue.

"Making them carry your weight in societal matters"??? What on Earth does that mean? Can one even do such a thing? Is it even possible?

He then claims I (or someone) just made up the idea of free riders to justify force. I say he has it backwards. I say force is made necessary by the existence of free riders and he is making up the excuse that free riders are not real because it the existence of free riders puts the lie to his theory. If he wants to pretend that the only way you can harm someone is to apply physical force, then he is opperating in a non-reality based world.

Some of us have not had the privilege of seeing your free-rider argument. Perhaps you can elaborate?

- Rob

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Autolykos And why do you think that is? If it were legal (i.e. not prohibited by law), would you then do it? Can you disprove the inalienability? - Rob

Yes... I am hungry for you liver... must have food... must eat Rob's liver... harrhahh


Sorry - I channeling my inner zombie for a minute.


I can neither prove nor disprove the inalienability.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Yes... I am hungry for you liver... must have food... must eat Rob's liver... harrhahh Sorry - I channeling my inner zombie for a minute.

I thought zombies only ate brains.

I can neither prove nor disprove the inalienability.

Aw, my dear Captain, that's simply not true. Inalienability can be proven here. Free will is always a part of human beings because one cannot predict what someone else will do next.

- Rob

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Autolykos Aw, my dear Captain, that's simply not true. Inalienability can be proven here. Free will is always a part of human beings because one cannot predict what someone else will do next.

That does not prove that self determination is the highest moral, and that it must never be outweighed by another moral (such as a desire for physical security, or to protect the young of our species).

[lsbskins1]

Rob-

Free rider
A person who chooses to receive the benefits of a "public good" or a "positive externality" without contributing to paying the costs of producing those benefits.


Public goods
Also called collective goods. These are a very special class of goods which cannot practically be withheld from one individual consumer without withholding them from all (the “nonexcludability criterion”) and for which the marginal cost of an additional person consuming them, once they have been produced, is zero (the “nonrivalrous consumption” criterion). The classic example of a nearly pure public good is national defense: you cannot defend the vulnerable border regions of a country from the ravages of foreign invaders without also simultaneously defending everyone else who lives within the borders. The inability of potential providers to exclude people who refuse to pay from nevertheless consuming and benefitting from an expensive public good usually means that very many of the consumers of the good will act as free riders and choose not to help pay for its provision. Consequently private production of the good or service may prove unprofitable, and the good or service thus may not be provided at all by the free market — even though everyone might concede they would be better off with some positive level of production of the good in question.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Captain Chaos That does not prove that self determination is the highest moral, and that it must never be outweighed by another moral (such as a desire for physical security, or to protect the young of our species).

Yet that's beside the point about (dis)provability, isn't it? Are you admitting that I just proved the inalienability of self-determination/free will?

I readily agree that people have more instincts than they may like to think. Like you, I think many (if not most) of our behaviors have their ultimate bases in instincts. It's one thing to postulate their existence, though. Prioritizing them is another matter entirely.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

@Lsbskins

What if there were no public goods? Could there be any free riders then?

(Warning: This is a hypothetical scenario, and I would appreciate it if you did not call its "reality" into question. That will be taken as a red herring by the-one-and-only me. )

- Rob