Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Logic, fact, preference, and social
Message-ID: <28200188@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 01:01:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200188
Posted: Tue Oct 22 01:01:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Oct-85 07:14:34 EDT
References: <234@umich.UUCP>
Lines: 98
Nf-ID: #R:umich:-23400:inmet:28200188:000:4612
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Oct 22 01:01:00 1985


[Tony Wuersch : tonyw@ubvax]
> In article <28200162@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
> >The fact that
> >following  a  principle  (in  this  case  non-coercion) sometimes
> >yields a sub-optimal solution in particular situations does *not*
> >make  that  principle  unacceptable to any rational person. A ra-
> >tional person would  consider  the  alternatives:  (1)  following
> >another  principle - which might sometimes yield even worse solu-
> >tions or (2)  calculating  benefits  case  by  case  -  which  is
> >uneconomical,  and also (very important) makes one susceptible to
> >irrational biases and temptations of the moment; a principle  em-
> >bodied in habit is a safeguard.
> 
> What is this -- the two options of rationality are blind adherence
> to principle or paranoiac treat-everything-as-a-special-case?  So
> choose blind adherence to principle?  I'd accept neither.

Why blind ?

> A "common-sense" approach is to establish principles of normal
> behavior (such as non-coercion), and perception of situations to
> discriminate normal from exceptional situations, for instance by
> setting up thresholds within which normality is perceived to
> be operating and outside of which normality has disappeared and
> new rules should come into play.
> 

I agree that every constraint has its  threshold.  E.g.,  someone
who normally doesn't steal, passes that threshold when starvation
is the alternative. Or one initiates  violence  under  unbearable
provocation.  I  wouldn't  necessarily  attempt, however, to make
rules for outside the threshold, a *norm*  for  a  situation  where
"normality  has  disappeared".  What about the threshold for this
new norm, any norms for para-para-normality ? A system cannot
predict,  and  needn't  try, what happens when you jump out of the
system.  One tries to stick to the rules, one fails,  one  shrugs
and tries again.

> >E.g., an alcoholic forgoes a sip of wine that could do him
> >good, sticking to a larger determination to stop drinking.
> >His principle is momentarily suboptimal but not irrational.
> >
> >Now substitute coercion for alcohol and society for the
> >alcoholic.
> 
> But a particular condition distinguishes the alcoholic from the
> regular mass of humanity -- the irrational inability to refuse a
> second drink.

You summed up the whole point of this example. Human societies
*are* addicted to coercion. Just look at history, almost any page.
The irrational inability to refuse a  second drink of blood.
Cold turkey may be our best chance, 
> Unless we share this inability to set up degrees
> of judgment, we need not avoid pragmatic judgments by hard-coding
> principles.

Individually, we may or may not share it, collectively we do.

> >In particular, some rational people support the First Amendment,
> >which could not stand your kind of test.
> >
> >		Jan Wasilewsky
> 
> This matches the alcoholic case:  the state has too many bureaucrats
> who find it rational to censor expression, even though censorship is
> destructive to the public sphere.  So the inability of the state
> to refuse an opportunity to censor when it comes around requires
> that it restrict its freedom via the First Amendment or similar
> statutes.

You must see that the *logical* parallel with coercion in general
is exact. The bureaucrats appetite for control does not stop with
verbal expression. And exactly the same arguments apply  pro  and
con.  If only safe medicines should be allowed, why not only safe
opinions? Therefore, if they licence doctors, why  not  teachers,
too ? (Oh, I forgot, they do licence teachers...  OK, now for the
journalists and writers).  Coercion, in the nature of  things,  is
destructive  whereever  it is applied (in proportion: absolute
control is absolutely destructive, limited control is  damaging).
So the whole question is: are  there  overriding considerations?

> But there are many cases not like First Amendment questions, where
> what the bureaucrats find to be rational is also what citizens and
> the public see to be rational, for instance, social welfare to keep
> beggars off the street, or certification-regulation of medical degrees.
> 

As long as citizens and public see these things to  be  rational,
and  don't  see a better alternative, they will continue.  No one
is trying to take their coercion from them by force.  But histor-
ically,  citizens and public saw many kinds of coercion as neces-
sary and rational until they tried doing without them. It works
both ways: status quo exists because it is seen as rational
and it is rationalized because it exists.

		Jan Wasilewsky