The Nature of Justice - Amartya Sen

[@valsotto27]

its not the strongest species who survive.. its the one who adapts fast :D

[@ananiasacts]

@marsCubed, I'm unsure of how to translate that into a means to get there from here. What specifically are you suggesting we change? Do our "simple relations with nature" including manufacturing things like computers, dishwashers, and hadron colliders? I'd like to see our food source return to the grass farming model of Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms myself, but not because it's a return to anything besides a far healthier way to feed ourselves. But most things seem to need more tech, not less.

[@eirefrance]

I like what he says about natural selection. Its a process, a fact, not a philosophy or a social structure.

[@ananiasacts]

@marsCubed, But I agree with that pretty much. I think you're failing to consider the implications for the disenfranchised of a co2 accounting system that requires those who wish to produce more than the average amount of co2 to purchase that right (in an open market) from those who must then have produced less than the average amount of co2. The poorer one is, in such a system, the more of their rights they can't use but can sell. The approach addresses exactly the issue you claim it neglects.

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3, I'm not sure I really understand your message. I get the feeling that you consider my attempts to convince either 'mars' or 'mrx' that there is nothing wrong with capitalism, if implemented fairly, as recklessly misguided because it really is capitalism itself that's at fault, and my sophistry (from your perspective) might actually be confusing people into believing that it may be redeemable. I apologize in advance if that's utterly misguided. Perhaps you could be more specific.

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3, I agree. I wouldn't want to win anything any other way than fairly and directly. What alternative do you have in mind?

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3, I'm not sure what you have in mind. And I don't see how this mechanism demonizes anything. It notes only that we, as people, necessarily share a single atmosphere. It stands to reason from that fact alone that anyone using more than a single share of it must be balanced but one or more people who've used less of it. Do you believe we should require those that wish to use more than one share to purchase that right from those with unused rights or not? (As a matter of fairness.)

[@ananiasacts]

@marsCubed, We agree. I think the problem with our world is that we have an economic system that creates a far greater incentive to create and exploit an externality than a more productive use of resources. Ways to create private profit from public debt are a lot easier to find than better ways to produce more from the same. Suppose we each received an equal share of "rights" to dump co2 etc into the atmosphere, and those who wished to dump more had to purchase the unused portions of others.

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3: "You do not feel that the Earth is a gift to be inherited by the meek.  Rather you believe it must be controlled and divided and conquered by man." This simply couldn't be farther from the truth. I don't know where you get it. What did I say that is anything like this? The nature of the scheme is to preserve the earth, conserve our resources and create the proper economic and political incentives to fuel a competitive search for more efficient ways to live. It protects the meek.

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3,BTW, how can I tell if my arguments are sophistic or not? It's not deliberate, of course. But it i speople like you that might be able to show me what's wrong with my reasoning. I honestly think these ideas make sense which is why I'n here trying to explain them. In any event, I sure hope you don't think I found your remarks the least bit insulting.

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3, no it's not about the climate change issue. It's just about fairness. The bottom line is that one group of people, America for example, produces 20T/person of co2 and another, Sudan, produces just .01T/person of co2. In my opinion, this implies that there should be some redress of the fact that we raised the concentration of co2 in their air. I notice that you have never once answered a single direct question I've asked you. Is there a reason for that?

[@truvelocity]

@dd1857 He's a Nobel Prize Winning Economist, I would hardly call this man a leftist. Without economists like him, there would be no free market.

[@freesk8]

@thesparitan A good definition of liberty is: "the individual right to do whatever you like, as long as in so doing you harm no one else." Or, we could use the following ending: "as long as you do not violate the equal or symmetrical rights to life, liberty or property of any other individual." This is the definition accepted by the founders of the USA and by modern libertarians. Would you like to accept my definition, or would you like to propose changes, or an alternative?

[@ananiasacts]

@marsCubed, we started out able to feed ourselves and have enjoyed many centuries of steady and substantial productivity growth since then, and yet today many die of starvation, exposure, or neglect. I think this fact alone proves there is a very fundamental flaw in our global economy. I realize we all share the same desire for a wholesome meaningful existence, but wouldn't it be wiser to look for the surest ways to get there rather than more eloquent ways of describing the future we seek?

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3: "I stated clear principles to keep in mind when dealing with any problems. " And I responded to each one, either by pointing out why it wasn't relevant, or that I in fact agreed and tried to explain how the scheme adheres to them.

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3, I'm not sure you noticed that as I defined it, they're giving away rights each week for the entire global production of CO2. This is more than is produced by all of humanity, thus at least until we decide to change that, there will always be more credits issued that could actually be used. This should prevent the price from becoming punitive for all but the largest producers of CO2, and they really should reflect some of that cost in the price of their product or service.

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3, I'm not sure which of many complex problems I've pointed out that you're referring to. The inanity of our approach to justice? The poverty created by externalities that pervert our implementation of capitalism? The frailty of our democracy? But I agree it's not terribly productive to just point to problems without offering solutions. I think that if you read the discussion I had with marsCubed or mrx0066600 you'd see that I do offer fresh solutions to these problems and blog as well.

[@rayyf69]

@truvelocity This claim seems superficial. Wealthy businesses often benefit from regulation and creating barriers to entry by capturing politicians or regulatory instruments. These regulations insulate the larger businesses the most bcs they have the capital to invest in additional legal infrastructure. This has been the history of most, probably all, political economies. It is called neo-mercantilism or corporatism and the public choice school studies this phenomenon.

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3, by people like you, I meant people who dislike my ideas (you initially seemed more certain the co2 rights idea would be a disaster, you seem to distrust the utility of capitalism, etc.) I'm hoping you stay that way to be honest. It takes a great devil's advocate for me to find compelling ways to explain it. If it is a good idea, that will become clearer the more intensely it gets scrutinized. If it isn't, I want to know that a lot more than you do. I'm grateful to get to discuss it.

[@ananiasacts]

@marsCubed, this is why I proposed the use of carbon rights. We have a satellite network that monitors our co2 production. Americans produce about 20T/year. Avg/human is about 2 tons. For the poorest it is .01T(src: Economist) Suppose we give everyone 2T rights/year and make the folks who wish to produce more than 2T buy the unused rights from those who must have then made less in an open global market? Poverty and exploitation from that point on decline automatically with rising productivity.

[@ananiasacts]

@marsCubed, it was definitely one of the better discussion's I've had here. And I do think I understand what you're saying and your motives. I think our disagreement is about 50% implementability, and 50% impact (you fear it could be impossible to implement and might create unnecessary hardships or be insufficiently effective at addressing the underlying problems.) I think I've thought it through very carefully and might even get the chance to convince you of that at some later time. Gnite.

[@freesk8]

@marsCubed "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the election results." Benjamin Franklin. Democracy is only good when it tends to preserve liberty and the natural rights of each individual. Majorities often vote to do horribly evil things. Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. But he also said that D is better than all the other forms of govt.

[@marsCubed]

@ananiasacts Without addressing CO2 directly, I think the principle here is that we are becoming more aware of each true costs. We are coming to understand that GDP should not be determined by how big someone's yacht is, but by how much wealth is produced. Wealth is fish in the river. profit is the boat which can empty it out first. Any fisherperson will tell you, it is fishers who maintain the fish stock in most rivers. If we can do that, we will be fine.

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3, That's the basis of my desire to redress our impact on each other. Because of the fact that we share a single planet it isn't really possible to do much of anything without have some minuscule impact on everything else. Because there's nearly 7 billion of us it can add up to a hell of a big impact. CO2 production is a good rough measure of that impact, and thus it seems like an appropriate, easy, and very natural way for us to account for and redress our affects on each other.

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3, I think that's an unreasonable analysis. All I'm assuming is that everyone alive will definitely need to use the atmosphere for the rest of their lives and has a genuine claim on it based on the fact that they could not live without it. I find it hard to believe you would disagree with this. I also fail to see how that implies in any way that I have some desire to control the atmosphere. Especially since the scheme actually puts equal control into the hands of every person.

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3, but this isn't about climate. It's just that everything we do has some impact on other people and the best rough measure of that impact just happens to be co2. Noise, dust, other gasses, water pollution, all sorts of other stuff is involved as well, but they all are accompanied by co2 production. That's what makes it such an ideal proxy for gauging and thus allowing us to redress the genuine impact we have on each other. Its stopping a theft, not creating a gift. Its not communism.

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3:"Justice is Everyone minding their own business." Then who's business is the atmosphere that we're all forced to share? Maybe that's the place to start looking for those mechanism which might redress the inadvertent impact we each have on everyone else via the dumping of greenhouse gasses, particulates, and noise into the atmosphere.

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3, yes, I just don't believe it's possible to always state both the problem and solution in the same 500 character comment. Standing ready to explain and elaborate is most likely the best we can do here.

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3, one of my all time favorite books is Muhammad Yunus' "Banker to the Poor" where he tells the story of how he stumbled into the idea of micro-lending. In my perspective, the need for charity at all is a testament to our moral bankruptcy as a species. We have undergone mind boggling increases in productivity and yet people still starve to death? How is this possible? Henry George knew why, and explained it well in "Progress and Poverty" over 100 years ago. I assure you we share goals.

[@ananiasacts]

@marsCubed, It's not cap and trade. It's distribute and trade. Just because present implementations of some mechanism are flawed doesn't say anything at all about the underlying suitability of the mechanism itself. Just that governments are easily corrupted. All the more reason to adopt a global mechanism that takes that power away from them by giving the "co2 rights" to people directly and letting all producers compete in the same market to purchase them. We get the clean energy incentive free.

[@marsCubed]

@marsCubed oops N2 not NO2

[@ananiasacts]

@marsCubed, maybe be a better way to vote would be to provide the ability to secretly delegate our vote to those we respect without their realizing they have it.

[@ananiasacts]

@marsCubed, I would like to see us make it to 2050. I have my doubts mainly because we don't recognize our own systemic problems when they conflict with our ideologies in even the most trivial ways. It's an emotional reaction rather than a reasoned one. I seems to remove a lot of dimension from our thinking and leave us in too tiny a place to contain any good solutions to our problems. We don't need outside the box thinking. We need to just throw away all of the boxes and grow up as a species.

[@ananiasacts]

@marsCubed, I disagree. The waste capitalism creates is a measure of the externalities that effectively convert the capitalism we practice into a form of socialism--a wealth transfer from everyone to the enterprise that created the waste. If we, for example, took everything that showed up in the waste stream back to its source manufacturer, with a bill for the cost of doing that, the waste stream would disappear almost overnight. Shouldn't we at least try capitalism before we condemn it?

[@freesk8]

@thesparitan If you lie, and the lie causes harm, you are liable under this definition. Your actions, the lie, have caused harm. Our civil laws justly punish such lies. If you pollute your own property, and it does not despoil the property of another, then there can be no just punishment. But if it DOES encroach another property, there IS liability. It is no different when corporations pollute or cause other negative externalities. Limited govt or private security protects us from others.

[@ananiasacts]

@mrx0066600, it might be as simple as just giving companies the tax incentive to reorganize themselves that way, so that their workers pay for their jobs, but share the profits of the company. It could even be tested in a so-called "special economic zone" to make sure it isn't crazy. I couldn't really understand why you think owners would be against a workforce that was paying to be there, as well as more committed to the long term success of the enterprise. I think this better aligns interests.

[@marsCubed]

@ananiasacts I understand what you are saying, and I understand your motives. What troubles me is that it is not generally accepted. there is no quick feed-back. This is why I would rather see a generalized 'cap and explanation'.. however now that you know this about my position you may come to see that we perhaps need a suite of approaches, for some industries trade makes sense, for others a cap is better, for others we may not want controls I don't have an answer except for educating the pop.

[@ananiasacts]

@marsCubed, didn't competition create us in the first place? I don't understand why you now see it as a dysfunctional trait. Gosh, I think competition is just a perfectly natural and very useful consequence of opportunity itself. Everything that is created changes the whole mix of possibilities thereafter in subtle ways. I think what you blame capitalism for actually has nothing to do with it at all. Henry George explains this most clearly in a book titled "Progress and Poverty."

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3: "You want to make decisions without principle." How is this without principle? I've stated it many times, do you believe that the choices we make in living our lives, specifically the resources we consume, and the pollution we create has any impact on the lives of other people? Do you believe we should desire to redress that impact? These seem like simple and direct questions to me. Yet you refuse to answer them. I don't understand why you're accusing me of being close-minded.

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3, but I don't want to discuss climate change either for the same reasons. And my idea has nothing to do with climate change, doesn't restrict carbon production in any way, nor promises to. It only distributes "rights" equal to the measured global carbon produced last week to this weeks citizens of earth, and requires that producers of carbon buy up enough rights to cover their production. I'm only using CO2 as a proxy for our impact on each other because it really is a good one.

[@francesca_hasin]

Im glad he wrote ... because to listen its a bit difficult xD sorry amartya we love you anyway

[@marsCubed]

@ananiasacts Real world is that we are talking to each other. we are as prone not to push African miners into low wage as we are disinclined cut wages here. Raising conditions and standards across the board makes a better world and a level playing field.. where again, we are no longer so ready to compete where we can find mutually agreeable reasonable price. Markets have their place for sure... but humanity is also undermining this with realization of human dignity and rational use of resources.

[@ananiasacts]

@16242T, I disagree. I'd say justice is just the mechanism of redress we've adopted because our perspective on reality is so perverted by our religious heritage. How useful a mechanism could it really be if nature herself found no use for it? We need it only because we believe the way to deal with crime is to punish it rather than undermine whatever utility motivates it. But that perspective traps us in an arms race between our ability to craft laws and the incentive they create to outwit them.

[@marsCubed]

@ananiasacts How? Taking over the means of production, workers internationally refusing to compete each other out of jobs for profits. But that is actually the most abstract thing.. not even a little bit simple, for it can be arrived at in innumerable ways. Something which fascinates me is how Luther used a church to defeat a church. nobody looking at the origins of resistance would have predicted this. The answer is, reason and democracy will win. we be smart. 'How' is for us to discover.

[@ananiasacts]

@mrx0066600, if the owner took too much who would pay to work for him? The owner would decide the pay-in (and might even loan a broke dude enough to get started.) Incentive is built in by the fact that the profits are shared. Again, the owner must make the job attractive to keep the worker, that's why you don't have to worry about the split being fair. If it isn't, someone else could steal the workers by being more fair. The point is only that approach better aligns the interests of parties.

[@marsCubed]

@ananiasacts I think the problem is just historical happen-stance. We started out as small groups which became villages then city states. these then became countries.. At all those points in time, it was unimaginable that we should not war for resources. Today cities fighting genocidal wars seems crazy. As we develop we discover that there what there is is all we got. We either use it rationally or become pigs. I would like to see us go to the stars.

[@arunavadasgupta2147]

Yes Lord tittle too from His majesty King Charle 3 Londan

[@marsCubed]

@ananiasacts Hunter gatherers crisis was when the game ran out, the new 'gods' of scratching the soil became supreme, as did the food store sciences and warrior defenders after that, Then came raiding others and eventually taking slaves.. this too gave way to feudal landlords who organized safety for a tythe, today we are in capitalism, ppl work for a crust. Always we have tried to solve crisis and created a new one. We begin though to return to simple relations with nature through reason.

[@ananiasacts]

@mrx0066600, I think the best we can do is engineer an economy that most accurately connects our true impact (both positive and negative) with the benefits and costs associate with that impact. That's the underlying strategy these ideas are born from. I believe we share common goals: to discover the organization and infrastructure that best empowers people to find lifestyles they enjoy and are fulfilled by. In any event, it's been a pleasure chatting with you this evening, good night.

[@ananiasacts]

@mrx0066600, I disagree with this perspective. The trouble with regulations is that they cannot avoid simultaneously creating a "selective pressure" to somehow circumvent them and we end up with an arms race. A better approach would be to look for ways to undermine the very utility of the behaviors we wish to curtail. It seems to me that the best way to ensure that workers are never exploited would be to change the way they are paid. Perhaps they should pay to work--but share in profits.

[@ananiasacts]

@marsCubed, What's funny about this is that I'm the one that lives in a tiny kingdom. A little island almost wholly owned by the psychotic scion of a soap and chewing gum magnate, William Wrigley, and who seem to share the same general mindset of the House of Windsor. My suggestion for the CO2 rights isn't really about climate change. It's just the best proxy I know of for the impact we have on each other. It does have the nice consequence of leaving that issue in the hands of people, not govs.

[@marsCubed]

@ananiasacts I think that the best democracies in the world are in Northern Europe, places like Denmark. There the population is wealthy, healthy and truly see the money they raise as theirs and all on a common pot. Unless we match democracy with developing each other... well we will be dumb and make dumb decisions. As for how we vote.. that maybe can be as flexible as what votes are for. Sometimes moral issues require personal opinion, sometimes we need to know who what and where.

[@marsCubed]

@ananiasacts I think we will make it. Our species is so very deeply creative. 2025 we are going to level off in population, also consider the huge scope for knowledge and ideas which YT (for instance provides) One day we will be like ancient Greece perhaps, at it's Zenith... simple robe and a cane, simple home and bed, yet they owned the world together. paid to just vote on the pnyx, Humanity as slave owners, robots being the slaves. reason will win. We will return to simplicity with nature.

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3, how do you see this as communistic? Are you disagreeing that we share equal rights to the shared atmosphere of our world? You don't address my reasoning at all but simply condemn it wholesale. How am I to work out what is it about the scheme you perceive as unreasonable?

[@marsCubed]

@ananiasacts Ok, I wanted to avoid this, but I see cap and trade as deeply flawed. In Europe we have already seen huge fraud and cheating with CO2 trading certificates. I would rather see cap and cooperation. The Earth is orbited by a huge mass which shifts large bodies of water around the planet. We could easily tap this with some agreements and not add a single calorie to the system. I would rather see us work together for clean energy. we do this in other spheres like research already.

[@marsCubed]

@ananiasacts BTW, very nice talking to you too. If you ever come to London let me know, I will give you a pub tour beyond your scope of understanding, the most boring and yet culturally enlightening mission you will ever go on.. by the end you will know London as well as me.. if you can still think that is. an Amazon river trip with all mosquito and willy fish included. life is best with the salt added.. I sense you understand that. Have a good one ananiasacts.

[@marsCubed]

@ananiasacts Comepetition with nature created our Social species. Competition can have benefits. We adapted to ensure that our working together was the advantage, Again, abstractly, the problem is that we have deflected completion with nature onto competition with each other..it is capitalism's fast failing credo, today it becomes irrational. the reason is that it creates waste. See this video, it points to reasonable comp etc. watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y efficiency good, but coop is also good. balance.

[@ananiasacts]

@eirefrance, LOL.. Mostly what I've learned from a few years of participating here is that our intelligence is skin deep, but our stupidity goes all the way to the bone. The challenge seems to be to engineer our various infrastructures to disenfranchise most of our predispositions.

[@freesk8]

Any good definition of justice must involve the prohibition against violating the rights to life, liberty and property of any other individual. The natural rights above are derived from an assumption: the individual is the proper owner of his or her own body and life. This assumption is self-evident, because all other possible owners for the self are absurd: govt, society, god, family, community, humanity... Slavery is evil. Each individual owns his or her self.

[@marsCubed]

@ananiasacts You miss something I fear, that is the majority of the population who are disenfranchised. Yet they built this world, so did their parents. Economy must mean systems which enhance the totality, the whole system can be made good. It comes back to informed democracy... informed is growing in leaps and bounds in recent times, we are only beginning And coolest thing is that it is the silent who rule. I have yet to meet a narcissistic meat-heads like me who doesn't love them.

[@ananiasacts]

@eudoxus3, ... Every time productivity rose for anyone--regardless of who profited most--it would cause a rise in the standard of living across the board because the increased spending on themselves, by the rich, requires them to redress their now disproportionately larger impact--they must purchase more "co2 rights" from the people who haven't been able to use their share because they're too poor. We could help this by changing the employment model as well, as I explained to mrx0066600.

[@marsCubed]

@ananiasacts If capital had that level of social responsibility put onto it, it would surely require a society with enough reason to make it happen. It would de-facto be socialist It comes back to Luther. Capitalism digs it's own grave, but also perhaps can also learn not to dig a hole. I see reactionary crap in the right 'libertarians', however they are also reasonable and find language to make it sane. Maybe USA will need to call progress it does 'capitalist' for purely cultural reasons.