My current best guess about what you are trying to say is something like this: “People should give up on the idea of making systems that are resilient against bad actors on both sides. You should just give unlimited power to one side (the moderator, the meetup czar, the police...) and that’s it. Now at least the system is resilient against bad actors on one side.”
EDIT: Never mind, after reading your other comments, I guess you believe that community moderation can be solved by an algorithm. Ok, I might believe it if you show me the code.
My current best guess about what you are trying to say is something like this: “People should give up on the idea of making systems that are resilient against bad actors on both sides. You should just give unlimited power to one side (the moderator, the meetup czar, the police...) and that’s it. Now at least the system is resilient against bad actors on one side.”
Uh… no. Definitely not.
I guess you believe that community moderation can be solved by an algorithm.
… what in the world?
No, I don’t believe anything like this.
Honestly, it would be hard to get further from my views on this subject than what you’ve described…
Here is some commentary on my views on this subject, framed with a bit of literary analysis. (This was inspired by a semi-recent rereading of a pair of Alexander Wales stories, namely Shadows of the Limelight and The Metropolitan Man. NOTE: This comment contains spoilers… well, a spoiler… but only a very mild and general one.)
The key point is: Superman is evil.
For anyone who hasn’t read The Metropolitan Man: it’s a Superman fanfic, wherein Superman is revealed to be evil. That is: it’s not an AU fic where Superman, instead of being good like he normally is, is instead evil; rather, it’s just the regular Superman, but the story shows (or so I claim! it’s not made explicit, of course) that regular Superman is evil.
Now, this is hardly a novel insight, but the trick is articulating just what the nature of that evil is; but I’ve finally managed to do so, to my own satisfaction. The problem with Superman (as depicted in The Metropolitan Man—and also, of course, many, many canon Superman stories) is the chain of reasoning that goes:
“With great power comes great responsibility” → “With great responsibility comes great moral leeway”
In other words, you are responsible for the lives of many people, the fate of a nation/planet/whatever, or some other great and important thing; therefore you cannot be expected to scrupulously follow rules that normal people are held to, and are allowed to break the law, to lie, to imprison innocents, or whatever else.
But why do you have that great responsibility? Well, because you have great power, so you were obligated to take on that responsibility.
But then result of this is: “With great power comes great moral leeway”.
Which is just “might makes right”.
So, through this concept of moral obligation, you have reasoned yourself into being exempt from the rules because you’re very powerful; and of course, being powerful, you also can’t have those rules enforced upon you—very convenient!
That’s Superman in a nutshell. (Also many other superheroes, but Superman is the most famous example.)
The correct solution (morally speaking) is, of course, to deny the first step: no, with great power does not come great responsibility—except the responsibility of being careful not to use that power to do harm. Anything other than that, over and above any responsibilities that any person has, is strictly supererogatory.
And of course one does not have to be Superman to encounter this problem. Whenever you gain power, there is a very great temptation to use this power; and it is a dangerous delusion, to think that the only problematic temptation is the temptation to use your power to aggrandize or enrich yourself directly. The temptation to use your power to benefit others is even more perilous.
So what is to be done?
If you find yourself with power, do not begin by thinking “how can I use this to do good”. Think first:
How can I ensure that I do not use this to do harm?
How can I share this power, so that I am not the only one who has it? Can I set things up so that everyone has it?
Does anyone need to have this power? Can I set things up so that nobody has it?
(Note that these are not numbered—I am not saying that you need to think of these things in that order. Think of them all, simultaneously.)
(There are also auxiliary questions, like “If someone whom I didn’t trust at all were to gain this power, what would I wish they’d do with it?”, and “Suppose that I become crazy and/or evil tomorrow; what should I do to prevent bad-future-me from abusing this power?”. Note that if the above-listed primary questions are addressed effectively, these auxiliary questions also disappear almost entirely.)
But then result of this is: “With great power comes great moral leeway”.
Which is just “might makes right”.
That doesn’t follow. The result of combining these two things is that with great power comes great moral leeway when doing specific things. He can violate the law by breaking into a home to catch a villain, but he can’t if he just sees someone’s big TV and wants to take it for himself. He doesn’t get moral leeway to do things just because he personally benefits from them, and “might makes right” is typically assumed to include that. Furthermore, he doesn’t get unlimited leeway bounded by people’s ability to stop him, like “might makes right” also assumes. If he has to destroy property to save lives, he can, but he still needs to take reasonable steps to minimize property damage.
(And he only gets moral leeway on a stricter standard than utilitarianism. He can’t steal that TV just because he gets more utility from it than its current owner. He can’t even steal it to sell it, donate the money to charity, and help 100 malaria victims.)
That doesn’t follow. The result of combining these two things is that with great power comes great moral leeway when doing specific things. He can violate the law by breaking into a home to catch a villain, but he can’t if he just sees someone’s big TV and wants to take it for himself. He doesn’t get moral leeway to do things just because he personally benefits from them, and “might makes right” is typically assumed to include that.
I’m sure that you know quite well that people with power are exceptionally skilled at finding justifications for how they use their power, even if what they’re actually doing is enriching and aggrandizing themselves and suppressing dissent.
Furthermore, he doesn’t get unlimited leeway bounded by people’s ability to stop him, like “might makes right” also assumes. If he has to destroy property to save lives, he can, but he still needs to take reasonable steps to minimize property damage.
Who decides what is reasonable? The answer is that it’s the person with the power. And others go along with this—because they want to be on his side, or because they fear him, or simply because they “like the strong horse” (which is, of course, nothing more than an evolved response that encodes the preceding two game-theoretic considerations).
And this is what we see in superhero comics (and animated television shows, etc.). When do we see Superman exhibit a careful consideration of what steps are reasonable to take to minimize property damage? The answer is surely not “never”—simply because Superman has been written so many times by so many different writers—but that’s not the typical portrayal.
(And he only gets moral leeway on a stricter standard than utilitarianism. He can’t steal that TV just because he gets more utility from it than its current owner. He can’t even steal it to sell it, donate the money to charity, and help 100 malaria victims.)
Well, utilitarianism is not a very strict standard at all for this sort of thing, so that’s a very low bar to clear. In any case, what does Superman want with someone’s TV? The fact is that when you have that much power, you don’t need to steal people’s TVs, so the fact that you don’t do so is not indicative of anything. The real test is whether Superman (or whoever) does, or refrains from doing, something that really would benefit him—and that is unlikely to involve any petty material goods…
P.S. For a TV to yield 100 malaria victims’ worth of revenue, it would have to be sold for something like half a million dollars. Not exactly a common consumer product…
I’m sure that you know quite well that people with power are exceptionally skilled at finding justifications for how they use their power, even if what they’re actually doing is enriching and aggrandizing themselves and suppressing dissent.
But Superman isn’t, in typical Superman stories. Superman just doesn’t do the kind of things that would be done by someone who’s really in it for themselves but is trying to justify it as needed for the greater good. (Subject to the same caveats as you—I’m sure that over 80+ years of comics, someone’s written Superman that way a few times, but that’s unusual.)
You could argue that actual real world people would and that Superman is thus unrealistic, but in terms of “is Superman evil” and “is Superman just using ‘might makes right’”, the answer is no, even if real world people would act differently.
I’m also skeptical of even this much. Not all real people are the same, after all. I could lie like Cade Metz with no consequence other than some disdain, but I have not, in fact, done so.
When do we see Superman exhibit a careful consideration of what steps are reasonable to take to minimize property damage?
Probably most of the time. Few Superman stories show people complaining about the damage Superman causes, and I don’t think that’s because Superman would beat them up. Just because there isn’t a word balloon saying “I must minimize the damage!” doesn’t change this.
But Superman isn’t, in typical Superman stories. Superman just doesn’t do the kind of things that would be done by someone who’s really in it for themselves but is trying to justify it as needed for the greater good.
The point I am making is that “might makes right, and right is this ideology that I have which involves various things that I claim are good” is still “might makes right”. Superman isn’t “in it for himself”, he’s in it for other people—which in fact is much worse.
When do we see Superman exhibit a careful consideration of what steps are reasonable to take to minimize property damage?
Probably most of the time. Few Superman stories show people complaining about the damage Superman causes, and I don’t think that’s because Superman would beat them up. Just because there isn’t a word balloon saying “I must minimize the damage!” doesn’t change this.
Well of course the stories don’t show people complaining about it, because the writers don’t want their audience to be thinking about this stuff! And that’s because people who do start thinking about it quite often come to the conclusion that actually, the way that superheroes behave w.r.t. property damage is actually quite seriously messed up.
What we see of the behavior depicted in most superhero stories is that property damage is routinely excessive. I mean, this is a well-known trope (and often parodied/deconstructed/etc., too).
The point I am making is that “might makes right, and right is this ideology that I have which involves various things that I claim are good” is still “might makes right”. Superman isn’t “in it for himself”, he’s in it for other people—which in fact is much worse.
Central examples of might makes right have many prominent aspects that are absent from what Superman does, even if in some technical sense it’s “might makes right”. Being in it for other people is one of those, but I mentioned several others.
Well, I already responded to those other points also, so I am not sure what else to say to this…
At this point, I can’t tell if you’re just objecting to my terminology, or what… do you just dislike the use of the term “might makes right” here? Is there some other formulation which you feel better captures my point? Or is your objection deeper somehow…?
The connotation is all that stuff I described. “Might makes right” implies that it is being done for personal gain, not for good, and that there aren’t limits to it beyond the use of more might.
And what term would you prefer for the phenomenon which I described?
You could call him a one man nanny state. But I would disagree that even this accurately describes Superman. Just like Superman doesn’t casually do bad things for personal gain, he doesn’t casually do them to benefit others. Stories where Superman runs the world as a dictatorship are explicitly meant as Superman being evil.
The connotation is all that stuff I described. “Might makes right” implies that it is being done for personal gain, not for good, and that there aren’t limits to it beyond the use of more might.
I see. Well, uh… I disagree. “Might makes right” implies literally none of those things, in my opinion.
And what term would you prefer for the phenomenon which I described?
You could call him a one man nanny state. But I would disagree that even this accurately describes Superman.
I agree that calling Superman a “one man nanny state” would be inaccurate, and I would certainly not use any such term.
Just like Superman doesn’t casually do bad things for personal gain, he doesn’t casually do them to benefit others.
I agree that calling Superman a “one man nanny state” would be inaccurate, and I would certainly not use any such term.
It’s inaccurate for how Superman typically behaves, but it’s accurate in that it matches your claims about him. You said:
The point I am making is that “might makes right, and right is this ideology that I have which involves various things that I claim are good” is still “might makes right”. Superman isn’t “in it for himself”, he’s in it for other people—which in fact is much worse.
The term for a government which harms people for their own good is a nanny state. Superman doing similar things all on his own using his great power makes him a one man nanny state.
My current best guess about what you are trying to say is something like this: “People should give up on the idea of making systems that are resilient against bad actors on both sides. You should just give unlimited power to one side (the moderator, the meetup czar, the police...) and that’s it. Now at least the system is resilient against bad actors on one side.”
EDIT: Never mind, after reading your other comments, I guess you believe that community moderation can be solved by an algorithm. Ok, I might believe it if you show me the code.
Uh… no. Definitely not.
… what in the world?
No, I don’t believe anything like this.
Honestly, it would be hard to get further from my views on this subject than what you’ve described…
Here is some commentary on my views on this subject, framed with a bit of literary analysis. (This was inspired by a semi-recent rereading of a pair of Alexander Wales stories, namely Shadows of the Limelight and The Metropolitan Man. NOTE: This comment contains spoilers… well, a spoiler… but only a very mild and general one.)
The key point is: Superman is evil.
For anyone who hasn’t read The Metropolitan Man: it’s a Superman fanfic, wherein Superman is revealed to be evil. That is: it’s not an AU fic where Superman, instead of being good like he normally is, is instead evil; rather, it’s just the regular Superman, but the story shows (or so I claim! it’s not made explicit, of course) that regular Superman is evil.
Now, this is hardly a novel insight, but the trick is articulating just what the nature of that evil is; but I’ve finally managed to do so, to my own satisfaction. The problem with Superman (as depicted in The Metropolitan Man—and also, of course, many, many canon Superman stories) is the chain of reasoning that goes:
“With great power comes great responsibility” → “With great responsibility comes great moral leeway”
In other words, you are responsible for the lives of many people, the fate of a nation/planet/whatever, or some other great and important thing; therefore you cannot be expected to scrupulously follow rules that normal people are held to, and are allowed to break the law, to lie, to imprison innocents, or whatever else.
But why do you have that great responsibility? Well, because you have great power, so you were obligated to take on that responsibility.
But then result of this is: “With great power comes great moral leeway”.
Which is just “might makes right”.
So, through this concept of moral obligation, you have reasoned yourself into being exempt from the rules because you’re very powerful; and of course, being powerful, you also can’t have those rules enforced upon you—very convenient!
That’s Superman in a nutshell. (Also many other superheroes, but Superman is the most famous example.)
The correct solution (morally speaking) is, of course, to deny the first step: no, with great power does not come great responsibility—except the responsibility of being careful not to use that power to do harm. Anything other than that, over and above any responsibilities that any person has, is strictly supererogatory.
And of course one does not have to be Superman to encounter this problem. Whenever you gain power, there is a very great temptation to use this power; and it is a dangerous delusion, to think that the only problematic temptation is the temptation to use your power to aggrandize or enrich yourself directly. The temptation to use your power to benefit others is even more perilous.
So what is to be done?
If you find yourself with power, do not begin by thinking “how can I use this to do good”. Think first:
How can I ensure that I do not use this to do harm?
How can I share this power, so that I am not the only one who has it? Can I set things up so that everyone has it?
Does anyone need to have this power? Can I set things up so that nobody has it?
(Note that these are not numbered—I am not saying that you need to think of these things in that order. Think of them all, simultaneously.)
(There are also auxiliary questions, like “If someone whom I didn’t trust at all were to gain this power, what would I wish they’d do with it?”, and “Suppose that I become crazy and/or evil tomorrow; what should I do to prevent bad-future-me from abusing this power?”. Note that if the above-listed primary questions are addressed effectively, these auxiliary questions also disappear almost entirely.)
(The astute reader may notice parallels between the above perspective and certain dichotomies among different types of economic systems, approaches to the construction of complex abstract systems, etc.)
That doesn’t follow. The result of combining these two things is that with great power comes great moral leeway when doing specific things. He can violate the law by breaking into a home to catch a villain, but he can’t if he just sees someone’s big TV and wants to take it for himself. He doesn’t get moral leeway to do things just because he personally benefits from them, and “might makes right” is typically assumed to include that. Furthermore, he doesn’t get unlimited leeway bounded by people’s ability to stop him, like “might makes right” also assumes. If he has to destroy property to save lives, he can, but he still needs to take reasonable steps to minimize property damage.
(And he only gets moral leeway on a stricter standard than utilitarianism. He can’t steal that TV just because he gets more utility from it than its current owner. He can’t even steal it to sell it, donate the money to charity, and help 100 malaria victims.)
I’m sure that you know quite well that people with power are exceptionally skilled at finding justifications for how they use their power, even if what they’re actually doing is enriching and aggrandizing themselves and suppressing dissent.
Who decides what is reasonable? The answer is that it’s the person with the power. And others go along with this—because they want to be on his side, or because they fear him, or simply because they “like the strong horse” (which is, of course, nothing more than an evolved response that encodes the preceding two game-theoretic considerations).
And this is what we see in superhero comics (and animated television shows, etc.). When do we see Superman exhibit a careful consideration of what steps are reasonable to take to minimize property damage? The answer is surely not “never”—simply because Superman has been written so many times by so many different writers—but that’s not the typical portrayal.
Well, utilitarianism is not a very strict standard at all for this sort of thing, so that’s a very low bar to clear. In any case, what does Superman want with someone’s TV? The fact is that when you have that much power, you don’t need to steal people’s TVs, so the fact that you don’t do so is not indicative of anything. The real test is whether Superman (or whoever) does, or refrains from doing, something that really would benefit him—and that is unlikely to involve any petty material goods…
P.S. For a TV to yield 100 malaria victims’ worth of revenue, it would have to be sold for something like half a million dollars. Not exactly a common consumer product…
But Superman isn’t, in typical Superman stories. Superman just doesn’t do the kind of things that would be done by someone who’s really in it for themselves but is trying to justify it as needed for the greater good. (Subject to the same caveats as you—I’m sure that over 80+ years of comics, someone’s written Superman that way a few times, but that’s unusual.)
You could argue that actual real world people would and that Superman is thus unrealistic, but in terms of “is Superman evil” and “is Superman just using ‘might makes right’”, the answer is no, even if real world people would act differently.
I’m also skeptical of even this much. Not all real people are the same, after all. I could lie like Cade Metz with no consequence other than some disdain, but I have not, in fact, done so.
Probably most of the time. Few Superman stories show people complaining about the damage Superman causes, and I don’t think that’s because Superman would beat them up. Just because there isn’t a word balloon saying “I must minimize the damage!” doesn’t change this.
The point I am making is that “might makes right, and right is this ideology that I have which involves various things that I claim are good” is still “might makes right”. Superman isn’t “in it for himself”, he’s in it for other people—which in fact is much worse.
Well of course the stories don’t show people complaining about it, because the writers don’t want their audience to be thinking about this stuff! And that’s because people who do start thinking about it quite often come to the conclusion that actually, the way that superheroes behave w.r.t. property damage is actually quite seriously messed up.
What we see of the behavior depicted in most superhero stories is that property damage is routinely excessive. I mean, this is a well-known trope (and often parodied/deconstructed/etc., too).
Central examples of might makes right have many prominent aspects that are absent from what Superman does, even if in some technical sense it’s “might makes right”. Being in it for other people is one of those, but I mentioned several others.
Well, I already responded to those other points also, so I am not sure what else to say to this…
At this point, I can’t tell if you’re just objecting to my terminology, or what… do you just dislike the use of the term “might makes right” here? Is there some other formulation which you feel better captures my point? Or is your objection deeper somehow…?
Your term carries with it an inaccurate connotation.
(And if you didn’t intend that connotation, it doesn’t make sense as a criticism of Superman or a reason to call him evil anyway.)
What is the connotation?
EDIT: And what term would you prefer for the phenomenon which I described?
The connotation is all that stuff I described. “Might makes right” implies that it is being done for personal gain, not for good, and that there aren’t limits to it beyond the use of more might.
You could call him a one man nanny state. But I would disagree that even this accurately describes Superman. Just like Superman doesn’t casually do bad things for personal gain, he doesn’t casually do them to benefit others. Stories where Superman runs the world as a dictatorship are explicitly meant as Superman being evil.
I see. Well, uh… I disagree. “Might makes right” implies literally none of those things, in my opinion.
I agree that calling Superman a “one man nanny state” would be inaccurate, and I would certainly not use any such term.
Indeed; nor did I claim otherwise.
It’s inaccurate for how Superman typically behaves, but it’s accurate in that it matches your claims about him. You said:
The term for a government which harms people for their own good is a nanny state. Superman doing similar things all on his own using his great power makes him a one man nanny state.
It does not.
A “nanny state” style government is not literally the only scenario in which someone does something to someone else for that person’s own good.
I think he means you should design a trustless system, a lá public key cryptography.