8 ms·

Oh man, Error Theory comes to legal systems. HLA Hart is spinning in his grave. I am absolutely not surprised. I've been whistling the Cowboy Bebop Intro since

Oh man, Error Theory comes to legal systems. HLA Hart is spinning in his grave. I am absolutely not surprised. I've been whistling the Cowboy Bebop Intro since before I could spell "legal nihilism." This planet is a joke. And it's because probably .3% of You (here in this "hacker community") will know half of what I'm talking about. Snowden playing hop-scotch around Europe is "hacker news." lulz argue over the flippantness or "integrity" of headlines until you realize you've described your own simulation.

wittysense 13y ago
SRSLY. Previous poster said all of that -- all of language, all of that "thinking outloud" -- ultimately to stick you with the oh-you-shouldn't-be-surprised "I don't have any theory of rights or justice, I'm just pointing out the violence that government tries to hide." Of what Noam Chomsky has said time and time and time, and time, and time, and time, and time time time time motherfucking time again: "See, people with power understand exactly one thing: violence." It's like you GUYS ACTUALLY do not read, and if you do, we ALL know EXACTLY what it is you've read. We are not prepared. We "hackers" today will be the anthropologists of this dystopia; nothing more. It's like you're all hiding the belief that philosophy has not progressed since the time of Plato, and you don't want to admit it. Now I have to watch you all become your own little Socrates, from pg all the way down to the bottom of the barrel -- "hey, get a degree in philosophy sneee! it'll make you more well-rounded! sneee! haha! we're life hacking with the remnants of the failed capitalism cut us some slack -- play ball! sneee!" Call it rambling, because you CHAPS just overanalyzed a whack-a-mole game (i.e., Snowden) all over my Web. Would MOST of you PLEASE go read a modern legal philosopher?
- oleganza 13y ago
  I have my own theory of ethics in line with what Stefan Molyneux describes in his UPB (universally preferable behaviour). But I don't wave it in the face of others because it's pointless. I'm voluntarist. Don't like/trust my theories or proofs - fine, just don't point a gun in my face. I won't judge your theories either on the same grounds.
  - embolism 13y ago
    How will you stop people pointing a gun in your face once there is no government?
    - oleganza 13y ago
      There are plenty of ways and you use them everyday(1). But my point is that it does not matter. If you cannot figure out how to protect yourself and you suggest me to follow your gun (or some representitive's of yours), then it's just silly. (1) you put locks on your car, apartment and bike. You have passwords. You don't tell people left and right where you live and how much money do you have. You have insurance. You hire guards, set up cameras, build up reputation with people you work with. You document your agreements to show to others in case of a conflict. You choose safer districts and don't go where it's unsafe. You choose to live with other people seeking peace and protection, rather than with crazy lunatics. You minimize risk voluntarily: individually or together with others. Without any "moral theories" or justification for any violence.
      - embolism 13y ago
        How does locking your bike prevent people from pointing a gun in your face?
- wittysense 13y ago
  ... This response is exactly the problem: "Live and let live." In the face of anarchy, this is not a mature or safe philosophy to hold for oneself or to recommend to others. You have to understand that we are talking about (A) a legal system and (B) a moral system. We generally have moved away from absolutist moral systems, thus becoming more "error prone" there. At the same time, we all fully admit to the _belief_ that morality is "fuzzy" or "vague." So we allow for interpretation. However, no one will say thus vagueness entails a lack of any coherent system all together. So, they deduce that it must come from some supernatural substratum. Whatever. Belief in whatever you want in terms of metaphysics, but we are still in agreement about the phenomenological structuring of morality: it is underpinned by our capacity to agree or disagree. The moral system is available in virtue of our capacity to go one way or the other. Of course, the only "response" to a moral nihilist is to "slap" that person. That's all within the framework of morality. What happens when we say it is METAPHYSICALLY impossible for there to exist disagreements at the LEGAL level of critical thinking? So ASSUMING that morality is the bedrock of legal systems, we're suggesting supervenience of properties related to the "spooky" properties that belie moral disagreement. Thus, legal systems (assuming the parasitic nature of the legal on top of the moral) become "error prone" and by John Mackie's argument: essentially erroneous. We admit that law can be an artform. Who wants to allow for Dadaist lawyers ? "That's a-legal" is just a can of worms, and you hackers are going to fuck it up.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    If it's not mature, what's you suggestion? "There are evil violent people in the world. To protect from them we must allow violence only to a selected group of people and disallow to everyone else." I wonder who will end up among these people. Will you point a gun at me if I don't agree with your theory of law and justice? If I withdraw my income and do not obey your laws? (Provided I don't make any threat on you directly or indirectly.)
    - wittysense 13y ago
      Planned Economies, Post-scarcity anarchism. Alain Badiou, Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky. The only reason we're all seemingly fucked is because the U.S. DID a decent enough job to lock down knowledge and disseminate according to their time tables. I'm not going to answer your thought experiment. I've been through it too many times. Go read HLA Hart. Go read Donald Dworkin. If all you can think in terms of is coercion, you are NOT in a good spot intellectually to deal with these problems. "So what if I hold a gun to you?" is so demonstrably non-critical, HLA Hart had to write a book "The Concept of Law" in order to demolish it with VERY, VERY, VERY boring to read, DRY analytic philosophizing. Stop feigning dissent, and actually start reading.

wittysense 13y ago

SRSLY. Previous poster said all of that -- all of language, all of that "thinking outloud" -- ultimately to stick you with the oh-you-shouldn't-be-surprised "I don't have any theory of rights or justice, I'm just pointing out the violence that government tries to hide." Of what Noam Chomsky has said time and time and time, and time, and time, and time, and time time time time motherfucking time again: "See, people with power understand exactly one thing: violence." It's like you GUYS ACTUALLY do not read, and if you do, we ALL know EXACTLY what it is you've read. We are not prepared. We "hackers" today will be the anthropologists of this dystopia; nothing more. It's like you're all hiding the belief that philosophy has not progressed since the time of Plato, and you don't want to admit it. Now I have to watch you all become your own little Socrates, from pg all the way down to the bottom of the barrel -- "hey, get a degree in philosophy sneee! it'll make you more well-rounded! sneee! haha! we're life hacking with the remnants of the failed capitalism cut us some slack -- play ball! sneee!" Call it rambling, because you CHAPS just overanalyzed a whack-a-mole game (i.e., Snowden) all over my Web. Would MOST of you PLEASE go read a modern legal philosopher?

oleganza 13y ago
I have my own theory of ethics in line with what Stefan Molyneux describes in his UPB (universally preferable behaviour). But I don't wave it in the face of others because it's pointless. I'm voluntarist. Don't like/trust my theories or proofs - fine, just don't point a gun in my face. I won't judge your theories either on the same grounds.
- embolism 13y ago
  How will you stop people pointing a gun in your face once there is no government?
  - oleganza 13y ago
    There are plenty of ways and you use them everyday(1). But my point is that it does not matter. If you cannot figure out how to protect yourself and you suggest me to follow your gun (or some representitive's of yours), then it's just silly. (1) you put locks on your car, apartment and bike. You have passwords. You don't tell people left and right where you live and how much money do you have. You have insurance. You hire guards, set up cameras, build up reputation with people you work with. You document your agreements to show to others in case of a conflict. You choose safer districts and don't go where it's unsafe. You choose to live with other people seeking peace and protection, rather than with crazy lunatics. You minimize risk voluntarily: individually or together with others. Without any "moral theories" or justification for any violence.
    - embolism 13y ago
      How does locking your bike prevent people from pointing a gun in your face?
wittysense 13y ago
... This response is exactly the problem: "Live and let live." In the face of anarchy, this is not a mature or safe philosophy to hold for oneself or to recommend to others. You have to understand that we are talking about (A) a legal system and (B) a moral system. We generally have moved away from absolutist moral systems, thus becoming more "error prone" there. At the same time, we all fully admit to the _belief_ that morality is "fuzzy" or "vague." So we allow for interpretation. However, no one will say thus vagueness entails a lack of any coherent system all together. So, they deduce that it must come from some supernatural substratum. Whatever. Belief in whatever you want in terms of metaphysics, but we are still in agreement about the phenomenological structuring of morality: it is underpinned by our capacity to agree or disagree. The moral system is available in virtue of our capacity to go one way or the other. Of course, the only "response" to a moral nihilist is to "slap" that person. That's all within the framework of morality. What happens when we say it is METAPHYSICALLY impossible for there to exist disagreements at the LEGAL level of critical thinking? So ASSUMING that morality is the bedrock of legal systems, we're suggesting supervenience of properties related to the "spooky" properties that belie moral disagreement. Thus, legal systems (assuming the parasitic nature of the legal on top of the moral) become "error prone" and by John Mackie's argument: essentially erroneous. We admit that law can be an artform. Who wants to allow for Dadaist lawyers ? "That's a-legal" is just a can of worms, and you hackers are going to fuck it up.
- oleganza 13y ago
  If it's not mature, what's you suggestion? "There are evil violent people in the world. To protect from them we must allow violence only to a selected group of people and disallow to everyone else." I wonder who will end up among these people. Will you point a gun at me if I don't agree with your theory of law and justice? If I withdraw my income and do not obey your laws? (Provided I don't make any threat on you directly or indirectly.)
  - wittysense 13y ago
    Planned Economies, Post-scarcity anarchism. Alain Badiou, Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky. The only reason we're all seemingly fucked is because the U.S. DID a decent enough job to lock down knowledge and disseminate according to their time tables. I'm not going to answer your thought experiment. I've been through it too many times. Go read HLA Hart. Go read Donald Dworkin. If all you can think in terms of is coercion, you are NOT in a good spot intellectually to deal with these problems. "So what if I hold a gun to you?" is so demonstrably non-critical, HLA Hart had to write a book "The Concept of Law" in order to demolish it with VERY, VERY, VERY boring to read, DRY analytic philosophizing. Stop feigning dissent, and actually start reading.