quantifying moral responsibility

[C0ckney]

But everyone's opinion on every subject should be of equal worth! Otherwise, there has to be some system to decide on whose is of greater worth.

Assuming that most people will bow down to the opinion of those with more knowledge might be a safe thing to bet for epidemology, but there are a lot of fields in which this doesn't happen. Especially when there are religions and cultural traditions in the way.

i don't mean that it will be imposed, but rather, as you recognise in your second paragraph, that people will find the opinions of experts more convincing than the opinions of others. this is true for every day things, i will find the plumber's opinion on my sink more valuable than a dentists', whose opinion on my teeth i will find more valuable than a mechanics and so on. the same is true for things like public health, where expert opinion will be more valuable, in people's estimation, than the man on the street's.

i admit there will be, as there are today, situations where people's religious, social and cultural views will contradict expert advice, but i defend those people's right to choose.

and finally i'd like to deal with this false idea that we're somehow now ruled by an enlightened technocracy, as if we didn't hear all the time about experts criticising the government for 'meddling', 'interfering' and generally not knowing what they're doing in relation to that expert's particular area.

[kentonio]

N35t0r has made most of the points I was going to. Basically most of the issues where we need a larger entity like a state are the ones where you seem to fall back on 'well we'd talk about it, and work something out' C0ckney. That's what I find totally unrealistic. There's always going to be one group of people with better resources or a better situation than others, and the best overall outcome is usually going to involve those people being willing to contribute to helping those less well off in at least some situations. If all decision making is local, then assuming that those people will be willing to give up some of what they have just to benefit those outside their group is just asking for something that isn't going to happen. You need the larger entity to impose the control that allows decisions to genuinely be made for the greater good, and sometimes having those decisions made by people who aren't local allows for much fairer decisions that don't involve passions and prior biases that people directly involved have.

[C0ckney]

I'm not implying you advocate a return to a tribal society. You just used them as examples of alternative ways of organizing. I was just pointing out that these alternative ways, while 'nice' when viewed from inside, were anything but.

well no, that's what you assumed i meant, quite why i'm not sure. my ancestors (like yours - feel free to correct me if i'm wrong) were europeans and so were not living in a tribal society a few hundred years ago, but anyway...

I'm seriously at a loss as to what you espouse, other than 'decisions should be made by those that affect them', which is a wonderful idea but totally useless unless it's followed by a way to achieve this.

direct democracy in all aspects of our lives. no private property, and no state; no bosses, no borders. that's what i advocate more or less.

how to get there, well i think the best way would be for us to organise locally, in our workplaces and communities, to demand and take power from existing state and capitalist authorities (politicians, bosses, landlords etc.), to reject the production for profit system, and establish social control of resources on a local basis, to replace private ownership with worker's co-operatives. after that, who knows, i have my vision and everyone else has theirs, so let's get together and talk about it and we can create a better society from the ground up.

[C0ckney]

yes ken, underneath all the assumptions and assertions, it's clear that you prefer a top-down, deferential society, at bottom motivated by a liking for authority and a distrust of your fellow man and coated with a thin veneer of concern for the 'greater good', whatever that is.

i am though intrigued by why you think that decisions about people's lives are best made not by those involved or affected, but by those at a distance, and so i ask again, which decisions about your life do you feel are best made by others?

[kentonio]

yes ken, underneath all the assumptions and assertions, it's clear that you prefer a top-down, deferential society, at bottom motivated by a liking for authority and a distrust of your fellow man and coated with a thin veneer of concern for the 'greater good', whatever that is.

i am though intrigued by why you think that decisions about people's lives are best made not by those involved or affected, but by those at a distance, and so i ask again, which decisions about your life do you feel are best made by others?

It's not about what I 'prefer', it's about what actually works. If we could have a system where everyone had a say in every decision, everything was much fairer and we didn't need some inevitably corrupt political elite lording it over us, then I'd be an extremely happy man. The problem is those that it doesn't work like that. The kind of thing you're talking about though isn't even a reasonable possibility, it's just naive.

As for what decisions are best taken by others, say under your system you have two villages near each other. There's always been some local rivalry, as one has access to a local water source, which gives them much better farming than the other. For years the poorer village has been pushing for a water system that diverts some of the water giving a much fairer allocation between the two but would reduce the income of the richer village. Now which system do you think is likely to deliver a fairer more just outcome, the two villages deciding between themselves, or a larger state body making that decision?

[Sava]

God dammit. I can see kentonios avatar on my phone

[kentonio]

And you love it.

[Sava]

I blocked the image on my web browser. I want that guy to melt like raiders of the lost ark

[C0ckney]

It's not about what I 'prefer', it's about what actually works. If we could have a system where everyone had a say in every decision, everything was much fairer and we didn't need some inevitably corrupt political elite lording it over us, then I'd be an extremely happy man. The problem is those that it doesn't work like that. The kind of thing you're talking about though isn't even a reasonable possibility, it's just naive.

As for what decisions are best taken by others, say under your system you have two villages near each other. There's always been some local rivalry, as one has access to a local water source, which gives them much better farming than the other. For years the poorer village has been pushing for a water system that diverts some of the water giving a much fairer allocation between the two but would reduce the income of the richer village. Now which system do you think is likely to deliver a fairer more just outcome, the two villages deciding between themselves, or a larger state body making that decision?

the first paragraph 'it's like this because it must be' is precisely the sort of assertion that i reject and would once again point out that there are and have been diverse methods of organising society, and others will come in the future, if history is any guide.

as for the second, it's telling that you don't answer the question but rather invent some scenario. it comes back, once again, to "well i can handle my own affairs, but those others (in this case you choose two villages - and no doubt firmly believe that those ignorant peasants couldn't do anything without someone telling them to do it - unlike yourself) can't be trusted". you can't envisage a society without some hierarchy where everyone has their place and knows it; and people say you're not a conservative!

[kentonio]

the first paragraph 'it's like this because it must be' is precisely the sort of assertion that i reject and would once again point out that there are and have been diverse methods of organising society, and others will come in the future, if history is any guide.

I very much hope there will be a better system. I'm not arguing against the concept of change, simply of your version of it which I find unrealistic and naive. For me the obvious direction for societal structures goes in the exact opposite direction, towards larger entities not smaller ones. We're increasingly globalizing, and you can't just put that genie back in the bottle.

as for the second, it's telling that you don't answer the question but rather invent some scenario. it comes back, once again, to "well i can handle my own affairs, but those others (in this case you choose two villages - and no doubt firmly believe that those ignorant peasants couldn't do anything without someone telling them to do it - unlike yourself) can't be trusted". you can't envisage a society without some hierarchy where everyone has their place and knows it; and people say you're not a conservative!

You're being disingenous, and I hope it's not deliberate. The example I used was specifically to point at the largest gaping hole in youtr theories, which is that people act in their own best interests. In the scenario I gave it's not that 'peasants couldn't do anything without someone telling them to do it', it's that one group of people are extremely unlikely to give up material advantages to benefit an outside group when there is no reciprocity involved.

That of course is before we even get into subjects like transport infrastructure, civil rights protections, national defence, policing, currency and economic controls and the vast swathe of other issues that simply cannot be handled by thousands of tiny groups all making independent decisions about the issues that effect them.

[C0ckney]

I very much hope there will be a better system. I'm not arguing against the concept of change, simply of your version of it which I find unrealistic and naive. For me the obvious direction for societal structures goes in the exact opposite direction, towards larger entities not smaller ones. We're increasingly globalizing, and you can't just put that genie back in the bottle.

that isn't the impression that your other posts gave, but ok. i think you have something of a point when it comes to globalisation; it seems clear that autarky isn't going to work (except on a micro scale) in the 21st century. and it is true that some things can be done with internationally co-operation, the eradication of smallpox being a good example.

here though, i think you make the mistake of assuming that government = solutions. yet what solutions have been arrived at for the really big problems? global poverty or climate change for example; we get a lot of talk, but next to no action. with all the governance we have, all the states, all the international organisations, all the huge transnational corporations, and yet there are no serious efforts to redistribute wealth to the poor and precious little action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. i would of course go further and argue that it is precisely the capitalist system itself and the states that protect it, that prevents solutions to these problems from being found.

You're being disingenous, and I hope it's not deliberate. The example I used was specifically to point at the largest gaping hole in youtr theories, which is that people act in their own best interests. In the scenario I gave it's not that 'peasants couldn't do anything without someone telling them to do it', it's that one group of people are extremely unlikely to give up material advantages to benefit an outside group when there is no reciprocity involved.

That of course is before we even get into subjects like transport infrastructure, civil rights protections, national defence, policing, currency and economic controls and the vast swathe of other issues that simply cannot be handled by thousands of tiny groups all making independent decisions about the issues that effect them.

ah i see, so it wasn't you who said "a lot of people are stupid and easily led," "I [am] both more intelligent and more rational than the vast majority of other people" then? it is not disingenuous to ask why you refuse to answer a simple question. it's also not an argument to assert, as you have done:

1. some decisions are hard, or complex;
2. therefore other people, higher up in some hierarchy, should take them.

it's missing the why.

my reasoning, though you may disagree with it, is at least clear

1. decisions should be taken in an open and democratic way by those involved and affected by them, at the most local level possible;
2. because those involved will have the greatest knowledge of the particular circumstances of decision and its consequences;
3. which will lead to better outcomes.

That of course is before we even get into subjects like transport infrastructure, civil rights protections, national defence, policing, currency and economic controls and the vast swathe of other issues that simply cannot be handled by thousands of tiny groups all making independent decisions about the issues that effect them.

again why? why would many of those even be an issue; how could there be national defence with no countries; how could there be economic controls (in the way you imagine them), with popular control of resources (i.e. a totally different economic structure)?

if what you're saying is that it would be impossible for things to go on the way they do now, then yes that is not only true, but also rather the whole point of the exercise.

[kentonio]

that isn't the impression that your other posts gave, but ok. i think you have something of a point when it comes to globalisation; it seems clear that autarky isn't going to work (except on a micro scale) in the 21st century. and it is true that some things can be done with internationally co-operation, the eradication of smallpox being a good example.

here though, i think you make the mistake of assuming that government = solutions. yet what solutions have been arrived at for the really big problems? global poverty or climate change for example; we get a lot of talk, but next to no action. with all the governance we have, all the states, all the international organisations, all the huge transnational corporations, and yet there are no serious efforts to redistribute wealth to the poor and precious little action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. i would of course go further and argue that it is precisely the capitalist system itself and the states that protect it, that prevents solutions to these problems from being found.

It's certainly not a perfect system, but let's not pretend that it hasn't wildly increased living standards in the western world far beyond anything that could even have been imagined 150 years ago. The very poorest people in the UK now have full access to healthcare, free housing and welfare payments provided by the state and a host of other benefits. If you want to rage against the recent backwards moves such as zero contract hours and reduced labour rights (let alone any diluting of the NHS), then I'll probably stand right beside you waving that flag, but let's not forget that those things are only even possible because of the existence of a nation state.

ah i see, so it wasn't you who said "a lot of people are stupid and easily led," "I [am] both more intelligent and more rational than the vast majority of other people" then? it is not disingenuous to ask why you refuse to answer a simple question.

People being largely dumb and people acting in their own best interests are not mutually exclusive. As for your question, it was more than a little loaded but if you want a direct answer then we can start with healthcare. I have a broad position of supporting universal healthcare, but I have no training or experience with the setting up and running of healthcare systems. What possible benefit could I add to a vote on healthcare without first spending months researching the intricacies of the subject, unless I was just going to give an ill-educated and basically ignorant vote? The whole point of a representative system is that you vote for people who broadly support your ideology (and sometimes support specific positions of course) and trust in them to work towards those goals.

it's also not an argument to assert, as you have done:

1. some decisions are hard, or complex;
2. therefore other people, higher up in some hierarchy, should take them.

it's missing the why.

my reasoning, though you may disagree with it, is at least clear

1. decisions should be taken in an open and democratic way by those involved and affected by them, at the most local level possible;
2. because those involved will have the greatest knowledge of the particular circumstances of decision and its consequences;
3. which will lead to better outcomes.

How very typical that yet again you don't actually face up to the weight of the arguments against your position but just wave them off with a condescending shrug. You're supporting a system that would not lead to more educated and informed voting, but rather the opposite. People being asked to vote on individual aspects of issues that they don't (and can't) understand because no-one can be educated in every issue effecting a country. All that could do is just lead to people voting for whatever sounded more appealing at the time or whatever someone told them was best. Utterly insane, and a recipe for completely devastating a country.

We're not talking about votes like "Do you think healthcare should be free at the point of use?", we're talking about voting on intricacies of extremely complex interdependant systems. Have you actually read any parliamentary bills? Hundreds of lines of quite dense legal text often including quite complex terminology that requires deep knowledge of the subject matter. If you genuinely think that 99% of voters would read each of those that need to be voted on, then I'm going to have to assume you've never actually met a human being.

again why? why would many of those even be an issue; how could there be national defence with no countries; how could there be economic controls (in the way you imagine them), with popular control of resources (i.e. a totally different economic structure)?

So now you don't just want to remove nation states, but you're hoping for world peace too? Oh and what exactly is 'popular control of resources' supposed to mean? If you have one group of people with resources and another without, then that tends to lead to one group trying to take the resources from the other, or imposing their will on the other using the benefit of their greater resources. That's basic human nature, and the states you hate so much are one of the few mechanisms we have to actually try and rein those impulses in. You're just fantasizing about a utopia where people don't fight and kill each other, and where you can conveniently all just get together and agree on things in the common good. You're being a hippy basically.

[C0ckney]

It's certainly not a perfect system, but let's not pretend that it hasn't wildly increased living standards in the western world far beyond anything that could even have been imagined 150 years ago. The very poorest people in the UK now have full access to healthcare, free housing and welfare payments provided by the state and a host of other benefits. If you want to rage against the recent backwards moves such as zero contract hours and reduced labour rights (let alone any diluting of the NHS), then I'll probably stand right beside you waving that flag, but let's not forget that those things are only even possible because of the existence of a nation state.

why are these the result of the nation states? i presume you mean because states enacted them (see this is part that is missing from your posts, the why), but let's examine that. having a state does not guarantee any of those things, or else all states would have them; so there must be other causes. firstly, the possibility to provide this kind of thing comes from the wealth of society, this wealth coming from the production of the workers and the peasants. we then have the fact that the state of england, great britain, the UK (in order) has existed for a very long time, and yet these measures were only introduced recently, so attributing them to the nation state seems very weak. in fact of course they came about because of political pressure brought to bear on the state, and the class it represents, this pressure being applied by workers getting organised, forming unions, co-operatives and even their own political party to advance the interests of the working class.

People being largely dumb and people acting in their own best interests are not mutually exclusive. As for your question, it was more than a little loaded but if you want a direct answer then we can start with healthcare. I have a broad position of supporting universal healthcare, but I have no training or experience with the setting up and running of healthcare systems. What possible benefit could I add to a vote on healthcare without first spending months researching the intricacies of the subject, unless I was just going to give an ill-educated and basically ignorant vote? The whole point of a representative system is that you vote for people who broadly support your ideology (and sometimes support specific positions of course) and trust in them to work towards those goals.

right. but as a user of the health service, you presumably have some views on that service at a local level i.e. the one you use. everyone uses these kind of services at a local level, and will have opinions on that service, its good points, its problems, suggestions for improvement etc. this is one of the reasons that health boards often hold public consultations, because they recognise, however incompletely and imperfectly, that the opinions of those who actually use the service matter. so you know what you want, and the other people in your area know too, so you can get together and discuss it. presumably you, and the others, not knowing too much about the finer points of running a hospital, would seek the opinion of the health professionals for how to do it. or maybe not, it would be up to you how you do things after all.

and in fact you touch upon on important point here, just who do our 'representatives' represent? those with money, big corporations, the bankers, the capitalists, the landlords (i do not even mean corruption in the normal sense the word, though of course that exists, but rather that the system has been designed to serve these interests, and our politicians play their part, and receive their rewards for doing so). if you're looking for some specific examples in a UK context, a good place to start is george monbiot's "captive state".

How very typical that yet again you don't actually face up to the weight of the arguments against your position but just wave them off with a condescending shrug. You're supporting a system that would not lead to more educated and informed voting, but rather the opposite. People being asked to vote on individual aspects of issues that they don't (and can't) understand because no-one can be educated in every issue effecting a country. All that could do is just lead to people voting for whatever sounded more appealing at the time or whatever someone told them was best. Utterly insane, and a recipe for completely devastating a country.

We're not talking about votes like "Do you think healthcare should be free at the point of use?", we're talking about voting on intricacies of extremely complex interdependant systems. Have you actually read any parliamentary bills? Hundreds of lines of quite dense legal text often including quite complex terminology that requires deep knowledge of the subject matter. If you genuinely think that 99% of voters would read each of those that need to be voted on, then I'm going to have to assume you've never actually met a human being.

ken, at the risk of being rude, it's not the 'weight' of your 'arguments' that is the problem, but rather the fact you haven't made any; assertions not being arguments. the first paragraph is just guff (although amusingly this

people voting for whatever sounded more appealing at the time or whatever someone told them was best

is exactly what people do in our representative system)

and the second paragraph merely sets an impossible (and in the context of the debate, ridiculous) barrier, saying that individuals are not capable of managing a nation state; this being what i propose to abolish, thus making its management wholly a matter of historical interest.

So now you don't just want to remove nation states, but you're hoping for world peace too? Oh and what exactly is 'popular control of resources' supposed to mean? If you have one group of people with resources and another without, then that tends to lead to one group trying to take the resources from the other, or imposing their will on the other using the benefit of their greater resources. That's basic human nature, and the states you hate so much are one of the few mechanisms we have to actually try and rein those impulses in. You're just fantasizing about a utopia where people don't fight and kill each other, and where you can conveniently all just get together and agree on things in the common good. You're being a hippy basically.

popular control of resources means direct democratic control of society's resources, that is land and capital; or the means of production, to adopt marxist language.

again i see lots of assertions, and no arguments, or evidence. human nature is shaped by our environments. for example take an amish person, and compare them to a person who lives in 'normal' society a few miles away. their political outlooks, social relations and behaviour will be totally different. you say that what i propose is incompatible with human nature, but you ignore the fact that it is the system itself that creates this human nature, and that were the system to change, human nature would change with it; in the same way that it has changed throughout history, as the society around the humans concerned has changed.

your thinking reminds me of thinking that one encounters often here. brazil has certainly one of, perhaps the highest murder rate in the world, a large part of this is due to the war on drugs. yet many people make an argument that goes something like this "there is a lot of violence because of drugs, and so we need to keep fighting the drug war" completely earnestly, without once stopping to think that it might be the drug war itself that causes all this violence.

[Kidlicious]

You want to abolish the nation state, but you want the workers and peasants to be able to use the nation state to advance their goals. You don't see a problem there?

[C0ckney]

i don't think you understood what i wrote.