We're all slaves to nature, but most would agree that if one desires an outcome, one can achieve it. Perhaps it's nothing more than a complex reaction, but I define free will as desiring a result, and having the possibility to achieve that result. If you want to be free from pain, you can act to relieve yourself of it. If you want to be free of government because it only exists through coercion, you will only act to free yourself of it because you want to. No one can choose what the factors are, but one can desire a particular outcome. Also Increasing power, generally increases free will (as I have defined it).
I want to maximize my free will, or my ability to achieve my desired outcomes. Being a tyrant would increase my free will by allowing me to do whatever I want, so would eliminating coercive entities such as the government. Becoming a tyrant happens to be much easier than eliminating government. If you care not about the consciousnesses of others, you'd be a fool not to become a tyrant if you only want more free will. For you atheists out there give me one good reason why I should respect your freedom, if my only desire is to increase my free will.
Is there an objective reason why one shouldn't abuse the free will of others (assuming there is no god), and can it be subjectively advantageous?
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
Read any Kant? This is precisely the matter that he tackles.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
classiclib:I want to maximize my free will, or my ability to achieve my desired outcomes.
I would quibble terminology slightly here. The freedom of your will is always unconditionally absolute. I.e., you always want what you want, and nobody can ever make you want other than you want. One can enchain your body, but never your mind.
Freedom refers to the absence of coercion, which is more than "free will" but less than "ability to achieve desired outcomes." As long as nobody is forcibly interfering with you, you're free. Nevertheless, you're limited by all sorts of things. Gravity, for instance.
We don't have a word (that I can think of, at least) for "ability to achieve desired outcomes" in the raw sense. The closest I can come up with is "omnipotence." If you desire to fall upward, for example, and can make it so, then you have the power to override physical laws.
That said, you ask an excellent question:
The answer is no, unfortunately. It can obviously be advantageous: that's why people seek political power or commit crimes. Not everyone gets away with it, but allowing for the probability of failure it's still the case that crime can pay. There's no objective reason not to engage in it when the expectation (crudely, payoff times probability of success minus cost times probability of failure, if those things were cardinal quantities) is positive.
The counter-arguments all hold no water. The fact that you might be caught and punished is already factored into the expectation. The fact that others will call you "evil," and other nasty names, is not an objective deterrent; it's only a deterrent if you object to being called names, and that's a textbook example of a subjective consideration. The fact that expectation isn't really cardinal, and can't be determined precisely, only means that one must allow a significant margin of error. The eudaimonean argument that you aren't being true to your humanity is purely subjective, until someone can produce a trueness-to-humanity meter. The observation that your lack of ethics leads to contradictions if everyone else thinks like you is just a variant on saying that it "isn't fair," and there's no objective reason to give a d*mn about fairness.
Since humans generally do care about fairness, down deep in the core of their souls, makes universality (aka fairness, aka symmetry, aka "the Golden Rule") a mighty darn convincing argument. It is, however, a subjective one. A sociopath would consider the argument pure gibberish.
--Len.
PS Love your icon.
Len Budney: PS Love your icon.
I understand its supposed to signify a balance between greed and peace or something? I would have prefered the "peace" sign to be the anarchist "A", which would represent the balance that anarcho-capitalism achieves, as opposed to state-capitalism in which case there is no real balancing and opposing force stopping greed, etc.
Besides, the "peace" sign derives from Nero's executions of Christians, a method by which he wanted to achieve pagan dominance and bring "peace" to the world. Considering the history of that sign, I don't think it's a particularly good idea to use it, especially if you're a Christian. I've always found it ironic that pacifists and greenpeace people use it.
Fred Furash: Len Budney:PS Love your icon. I understand its supposed to signify a balance between greed and peace or something?
Len Budney:PS Love your icon.
I understand its supposed to signify a balance between greed and peace or something?
It made me think "anarcho-capitalist" immediately, and only later did I even notice that the sign on the left means "peace" rather than "anarchy." I agree that an anarchist "A" would be an improvement. The taijitu seems fitting to me, even though its meaning is elusive. It's not that anarchy and capitalism are opposites, but rather that anarcho-capitalism is what you have when the proper balance is in place. Perhaps eliminating coercive authority, but affirming private property, leads to a society in which authority is balanced.
Besides, the "peace" sign derives from Nero's executions of Christians...
Did not know that. In fact I was so distressed to hear it that I googled around, and found at least one source that claims otherwise. I'll tentatively assume that the site has it right, because it spares me this unpleasant question of conscience for now.
--Len