Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: criminals with guns in courts and jails (Read 17222 times)
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Though I know you don't believe it. The bear is actually making a rational decision when it decides to kill you.
Its not murder because the bear is not subject to human law, nor does it have the protection of such.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Though I know you don't believe it. The bear is actually making a rational decision when it decides to kill you. Indeed I do not. I also do not believe in Santa Claus. Bears are not rational. Bears aren't even on the border line. Even with a few hundred million years of evolution, bears would not likely become rational. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
It makes a rational decision. It understands risk and reward.
What your observing is the lack of previous experience on the bear's part.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
It makes a rational decision. It understands risk and reward.
What your observing is the lack of previous experience on the bear's part. No, the bear understands the rewards. It cannot rationally analyze the risk. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
slothman
|
Doesn't that mean all people, except maybe insane or something, are rational actors?
They all decide what they do is better than the alternatives.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
It makes a rational decision. It understands risk and reward.
What your observing is the lack of previous experience on the bear's part. No, the bear understands the rewards. It cannot rationally analyze the risk. Joe Then a bear would never be afraid of anything. It rationalizes the risk based on limited experience. Doesn't that mean all people, except maybe insane or something, are rational actors?
They all decide what they do is better than the alternatives.
The problem is to themselves... their actions would seem rational. And if they're not hurting someone else... does it really matter?- |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Doesn't that mean all people, except maybe insane or something, are rational actors?
They all decide what they do is better than the alternatives. Yes. "Rational economic actor" is not some elite club. Pretty much everyone who engages in interpersonal interactions is a member. Because they are capable of making rational choices, they are responsible for the outcome of those choices. Then a bear would never be afraid of anything. It rationalizes the risk based on limited experience. Fear does not, necessarily, have a rational basis. Some fear might be rational. Other fear is most decidedly not rational (I know someone who is absolutely terrified of rabbits, for example). Ergo, demonstrating that some entity experiences fear, therefore, does not prove that the entity in question is rational. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
CurtHowland
|
Doesn't that mean all people, except maybe insane or something, are rational actors?
They all decide what they do is better than the alternatives. Yes. "Rational economic actor" is not some elite club. Pretty much everyone who engages in interpersonal interactions is a member. Because they are capable of making rational choices, they are responsible for the outcome of those choices. We also see here the basis for the "insanity defense", the concept that someone who is actually incapable of acting rationally is therefore not responsible for the results. Then a bear would never be afraid of anything. It rationalizes the risk based on limited experience. Fear does not, necessarily, have a rational basis. Some fear might be rational. Other fear is most decidedly not rational (I know someone who is absolutely terrified of rabbits, for example). Ergo, demonstrating that some entity experiences fear, therefore, does not prove that the entity in question is rational. The difference seems to be one of forward planning. A bear acts, but it does not plan. It is not a rational actor. Humans have the seemingly unique capacity to forward plan and imagine repercussions. "If I fell this tree across this stream now, when I have time, I will be able to use it as a bridge when I need it in the future even though I do not need it now." But we're right back to the reason an accidental death isn't murder. Even the determination of negligence rests upon whether or not the actor could have, or would have, known what they were about to do would cause harm. For example, the first question from the cop who came to write up my hitting the deer was, "Was is standing in the road?" The entire case rests upon whether or not I, as the rational actor, made a bad decision. The fact that the deer leaped out and left me no time to make any decision at all is why it was an accident, and not negligent or deliberate. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Doesn't that mean all people, except maybe insane or something, are rational actors?
They all decide what they do is better than the alternatives. Yes. "Rational economic actor" is not some elite club. Pretty much everyone who engages in interpersonal interactions is a member. Because they are capable of making rational choices, they are responsible for the outcome of those choices. We also see here the basis for the "insanity defense", the concept that someone who is actually incapable of acting rationally is therefore not responsible for the results. True. Although I will point out that, in a strict liability system, insanity is not a defense against being required to pay restitution to your victim. Motive is irrelevant, because we're not going to try and "punish" you. If you harm someone unjustly, you are required to repair, to the best of your ability, the damage that you caused. If you acted rationally, you have to do so because you made that choice. If you were truly incapable of rational action, then you are incapable of doing wrong, but you are also incapable of possessing rights, so you have no right to refuse to do so. Since the outcome is the same, in either way, the "sticky" question of sanity is not relevant. Did you intend to cause harm? Was that harm objectively unjust (that is, it was initiated, not self-defense)(and, again, objectively - even if you believed the guy you attacked was a demon or somesuch, that doesn't matter)? Then you owe restitution to the victim. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
Alex Libman
Guest
|
So animals don't act in their own self-interest... nor suffer the consequences? |
They do, but that's not the complete description of what constitutes Rights. Animals participate in the economy around them, not as Rational Economic Actors but as natural resources. A societal ruleset that attempts the alternative would be at a great competitive disadvantage. Humans have much in common with other animals, but only we posses sufficient brainpower to establish an advanced economy based on non-violent cooperation. A cow has instincts to seek pleasure and avoid discomfort, but it cannot enter into a contract, not even to trade milk for grass - it will eat whatever grass it comes across and wants to eat. Individual Rights are rooted not in wishful thinking, but in the fact that individuals can think and act independently, and experience individual consequences of their actions - the mechanisms of natural selection constitute a far better judge than any governments trying to play economic creationism. If human slavery had constituted an overall evolutionary benefit, then it would still be around today, and it would not be immoral to practice it. The fact that AI was used to determine this means the AI is an REA? |
AI is not "used to determine this", it's merely where some of the terminology I use originated. REA can be approximated with AI within an artificial model, to experiment with various algorithms of economic organization. Some of the conclusions can be (very carefully) applied to the real world, which is tremendously more complex, but not the few dozen database columns and lines of code that approximated individual behavior within this experiment. Any AI that is worthy of self-ownership in the real world would have to be many orders of magnitude more complex, which is still at least several decades away from being a possibility. "Rational economic actor" is not some elite club.
Pretty much everyone who engages in interpersonal interactions is a member. |
It might be a matter of perspective. From the point of view of a modern 18-year-old who is generally coherent and hasn't committed any serious crimes, it is indeed a very easy club to enter. (Also see above for me distinction about actual and potential RAC's.) All human beings have the genetic potential to be Rational Economic Actors, and the burden of proof is on others to prove that an individual isn't worthy of "membership". Historically, however, entering this "club" has been a struggle, as benefits of economic cooperation did not always scale beyond the immediate tribal group. All of humanity is now a single tribe, but who knows what other wannabes may someday request "membership" (i.e. recognition of their Rights). Blue aliens on planet Pandora should ideally be given a benefit of doubt, and both sides should try their best to establish for communication and other prerequisites for economic integration, but if millions of humans are dying for lack of unobtainium while the blue aliens can't be bothered to even come to a negotiating table, well, all bets are off. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 01, 2011, 11:37:25 am by Alex Libman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
You do realize that the cow is not behaving in a natural manner.
Its production of milk was for its young... not yours.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Doesn't that mean all people, except maybe insane or something, are rational actors?
They all decide what they do is better than the alternatives. Yes. "Rational economic actor" is not some elite club. Pretty much everyone who engages in interpersonal interactions is a member. Because they are capable of making rational choices, they are responsible for the outcome of those choices. We also see here the basis for the "insanity defense", the concept that someone who is actually incapable of acting rationally is therefore not responsible for the results. Then a bear would never be afraid of anything. It rationalizes the risk based on limited experience. Fear does not, necessarily, have a rational basis. Some fear might be rational. Other fear is most decidedly not rational (I know someone who is absolutely terrified of rabbits, for example). Ergo, demonstrating that some entity experiences fear, therefore, does not prove that the entity in question is rational. The difference seems to be one of forward planning. A bear acts, but it does not plan. It is not a rational actor. Humans have the seemingly unique capacity to forward plan and imagine repercussions. "If I fell this tree across this stream now, when I have time, I will be able to use it as a bridge when I need it in the future even though I do not need it now." But we're right back to the reason an accidental death isn't murder. Even the determination of negligence rests upon whether or not the actor could have, or would have, known what they were about to do would cause harm. For example, the first question from the cop who came to write up my hitting the deer was, "Was is standing in the road?" The entire case rests upon whether or not I, as the rational actor, made a bad decision. The fact that the deer leaped out and left me no time to make any decision at all is why it was an accident, and not negligent or deliberate. You need to watch a bear hunt. And Farmer Ants would be a complexity. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
You need to watch a bear hunt. Let me know the next time you see a bear corral some animals, so it doesn't have to hunt. Or engage in wildlife management practices. Or plan anything. The bear is hungry, and it smells anything edible (it doesn't decide, "today, I'd like ____" and ignore other foods until it finds that one), so it tracks it down. There's no advance planning, there... Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
That is what the Farmer Ant does.
So does the ant now become a rational actor?
Not so sure that a hungry human would be any more picky than the bear about the available food either.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 01, 2011, 01:23:19 pm by John Edward Mercier »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
slothman
|
True. Although I will point out that, in a strict liability system, insanity is not a defense against being required to pay restitution to your victim. Motive is irrelevant, because we're not going to try and "punish" you. If you harm someone unjustly, you are required to repair, to the best of your ability, the damage that you caused. If you acted rationally, you have to do so because you made that choice. If you were truly incapable of rational action, then you are incapable of doing wrong, but you are also incapable of possessing rights, so you have no right to refuse to do so. Since the outcome is the same, in either way, the "sticky" question of sanity is not relevant.
If an "insane" person is incapable of possing rights doesn't that mean I can kill him, he has no right to life? Or I can take his stuff, he has no right to property? Who determines he is insane anyways? We all agree some people aren't of normal mind, even if not many. Or are there many levels of rights? Not just an all or none thing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
