- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
galathaea wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
> > [This article was originally by the Ontario Libertarian Party under the
> > title "The Party of Choice', and opened with this paragraph: "The
> > Ontario Libertarian Party is proud to be known as 'The Party of
> > Choice.' Choice is what we stand for, and promoting choice is why we
> > exist." Permission is granted to any libertarian organization, list,
> > or website to reprint in full or part without changes (other than the
> > name of the organization)]
> > Choice means both "an act or instance of choosing between alternatives"
> > and "a range from which to choose" (Canadian Oxford Dictionary). "To
> > choose" means to "select from a number of alternatives," "decide,"
> > "like," and "prefer."
> > Human choice is always individual, as only individual minds can choose.
> > Libertarians consider the recognition of, respect for, and protection
> > of individual human choice to be the highest political good.
> > Why the highest good? Because choice appears necessary for so many
> > other things that we consider good. Indeed, it is hard to separate the
> > idea of choice from that of good: If you (or I) consider something (X)
> > to be good, that is only because you (or I) have chosen X as a good;
> > believing that X is a good necessarily also means believing that
> > choosing X is good. Whatever we value in life, we value by our own
> > choice, and in valuing it we also value our own choosing.
> it is interesting that this can be formalised modally
> let X represent "X is a goal"
> and []X "it is chosen that X is a goal"
> then the statement above becomes
> X -> []X
> (only if)
> now X \/ Y -/-> [] ( X \/ Y )
> but would it be valid that
> X \/ Y -> []X \/ []Y ?
> it does seem that
> X /\ Y -> []( X /\ Y )
> this is already an interesting modal logic
> that seem in some ways dual to lob derivability
I’m glad someone noticed the underlying logic. To tell you the truth,
I did map out the earlier paragraph in modal logic before writing it.
For that purpose, I defined an operator [C] "choose" such that
[C]A =df. [B][O]A.
"To choose A is to believe that A ought to happen"
B’s an operator of doxastic logic, and O of deontic. Both use modal
D4. Accordingly, [C] is an operator of D4, which means one has the
axiom:
[C]A <=> [C][C]A
"To choose A is to choose choosing A."
That S4 axiom is the support for the above claim.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > Choice is necessary not only for ourselves, but for everyone.
> > Respecting the choices of our friends, family, neighbours – indeed, all
> > of humanity – seems essential to respecting them as persons. Honouring
> > the choices of others seems a necessary part of the idea of morality.
> > Equally, choice looks fundamental to the idea of justice. Phrases like
> > "he brought it on himself" or "you made your bed, now lie in it"
> > reflect a basic intuition that it is just for people to experience the
> > consequences of their own choices. Similarly, we consider it unjust to
> > hold people responsible for actions they did not choose to commit, or
> > had no choice but to commit.
> > As well, choice appears necessary to human progress and abundance.
> > Without the ability of humans to imagine and act on preferred
> > alternatives, we would literally still be living in caves. All
> > creativity, all advancement, every new idea and invention, exists only
> > because of the power of choice. The market and the price system – an
> > economy directed by nothing more than individual choices – make those
> > ideas and inventions widely available, empowering us to live without
> > the age-old fears of starvation, poverty, and disease.
> > Despite all this, some people worry about choice – perhaps not about
> > choice in general, but quite often about there being "too much" choice.
> > One worry is that people’s choices often conflict. Letting everyone act
> > on their own choices seems to lead to disagreement and conflict; some
> > principle that can override individual choice is required to solve this
> > type of conflict.
> > That is a legitimate concern. Libertarians agree that there should be
> > rules and principles governing choice; what they deny is that any of
> > these rules trump the principles of choice. Rather, they are required
> > by that principle itself. As choosing to do Y means choosing to use
> > one’s mind and body to do Y, respecting another’s choice means
> > respecting his (or her) right to shoose what to do with his own mind
> > and body. What John wants to do to himself is a matter of his own
> > choice; but what John wants to do to Mary is not simply a matter of
> > John’s choice, but also (and more importantly) of Mary’s.
> > The idea of choice requires the complementary idea of individual human
> > rights – of what philosopher Robert Nozick calls the ‘moral space’
> > within which each person is governed solely by his own choices. In
> > turn, the idea of human rights helps define, securing as well as
> > limiting, the scope of everyone’s freedom of choice.
> > Acting on one’s choices requires not just moral but also physical
> > space, and (often) access to physical things. Human choices on how to
> > use these spaces and things are a fertile source of conflict. So choice
> > requires property rights, as a necessary part of human rights.
> > A second objection is that some people make bad choices – some choose
> > to rob, some to murder, some to defraud. Why should those choices be
> > respected?
> > But this second objection is just a special case of the first – that
> > choices conflict in some cases – with the same solution. Recognizing
> > the principle of human rights, means recognizing that choices which
> > violate the human and property rights of others, should not be
> > respected, or even permitted – not because one person’s choice is not
> > important (it is), but , but because everyone elses’ choices are
> > equally important.
> > That leads to the Libertarian theory of law: that actions which violate
> > the rights of others, should be legally forbidden, while those that do
> > not should be left alone. What is important, in judging a law good or
> > bad, is the nature of the acts it forbids. Does an action affect only
> > the person acting, or only those who consent (or choose) to be
> > affected? Then it should not be interfered with. Does it hurt those who
> > have not consented? Then it should not be allowed. Whom an action
> > affects; where it takes place (in one’s home? on a public
> > street-corner?); and whose property it uses; are what the law should
> > consider when judging any action.
> > In this way, the Libertarian theory of human and property rights makes
> > possible a free society, one based on and maximizing individual choice.
> > That society of choice, in turn, makes possible the realization of
> > those other values of respect, morality, responsibility, freedom,
> > harmony, and abundance.
> i tend to look at the pathological cases
> the slippery slopes and such
> i see a demented witch atop her hill
> with a strange machine that sucks away
> the oxygen that enters her property
> she runs the machine for years
> eventually decreasing the oxygen across the planet
> we know that no oxygen kills
> but lets say she keeps this above harm of humans
> is this an acceptable choice?
> what if it hurts animals other than humans?
> plants?
> which leads another slippery slope…
> why does this right of choice only extend to humans?
> we can still kill and eat plants and animals right?
> is this a genetic thing?
> can we eat genetically mutated babies
> that can no longer procreate
> or be considered a part of the genetic species?
> just some questions…
> good article!
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
runaways