Most similar users

Similar Users
The following are the most related users to gustavolacerda.

#		Magic Index
1	candid	52.046
2	perspectivism	40.137
3	techstep	39.502
4	rumspringa	38.745
5	chronicfreetime	36.699
6	amanda42	34.437
7	crasch	34.391
8	pbrane	34.150
9	mlinksva	32.156
10	ataltane	31.732
11	lo5an	31.367
	For a more complete, updated list, click here. The most similar communities showed up in this order: freestate, cogsci.

Pinker

is awesome.

Yesterday, I watched a 100-minute presentation he gave at MIT. He was, as usual, funny and inspiring.

Highlights:
* He discusses the trade-off between freedom and equality
* He talks about Le Corbusier's fascist plans to flatten and then rebuild Paris. Then he mentions that it *did* get implemented, in Brasília.

Later I found him being politically correct. It makes one wonder.

Utilitarianism

All prescriptive science must be utilitarian. When one says that a particular political system is good, it must mean "good for one or more individuals". Utilitarianism doesn't have to be the democratic kind: a perfectly selfish individual can be utilitarian: it just means that he lives by "cost vs benefits", as opposed to some higher principles. (any philosopher readers, please review this post.)

Since it rejects all would-be "higher" principles, I suppose it is a bit un-idealistic to be utilitarian, but it is, in my opinion, a necessary step of reasonableness.

Alright, now that I'm a utilitarian, let me ask two questions:

What is the status of non-utilitarian arguments for or against a particular system, such as natural law arguments for libertarianism?

I've always been fond of the natural rights derivation of libertarianism, so when I find myself using utilitarian arguments, I think an explanation is called for. But there really is no puzzle: the principles of life, liberty and property are like axioms in a formal system (high-utility principles); the philosophy of libertarianism that follows is the consequence (a high-utility philosophy). The rights-theory leads to the axiomatic approach, while a recognition of the imperfection of axioms (as in science) leads to the utilitarian approach.

So I am fundamentally a utilitarian, while appreciating the value of the rights-theory approach, just like scientists appreciate mathematics. I think that makes me a sort of compatibilist on this issue (I always try to convince people that they really agree with each other, despite apparent disagreements).
Liberalism: Rights-Theory vs Utilitarianism.

There is a problem, though: the utility of the principles of liberalism depends on the definition of utility, i.e. whose utility? (which leads to the next question).

( I was inspired by Joel's thread )



Is there a good non-social-Darwinist (i.e. "in a free market, people who are poor deserve to be poor") reply to criticisms of libertarianism for being bad for the poor (as opposed to a mildly socialistic society)? I don't mean the average poor person: suppose I'm talking about the bottom 10% of America.

but this I can't answer.