Saturday, April 19, 2014


Re:  Fairness concerning people who are self reliant, successful, and do not view themselves as victims

Infants are not fair, because they have not the physical, emotional, or cultural means by which to be, barter about, or communicate about that which is fair.  Until a human being acquires physical, emotional, and cultural competence, he has no means by which to understand or communicate about that which is fair. A child who is never pushed to grow up to become competent does not become able to look out for himself, much less be taken seriously in any conversation about fairness.  A child who is perpetually indulged with drugs, support, and entitlements cannot grow up.  He will begrudge those who do grow up (those who "act white"), and he will always be a burden.  This may not disrupt a collectivist culture, but it is poison to a culture that seeks to avail decent human freedom and dignity, wherein people are expected to grow up, take personal responsibility, and support the continuation of liberty.  The first thing to know about babies of whatever race or color or culture who never grow up, who perpetually whine about fairness, is that they have not the least idea about what fairness means.  Nor, given means to steal from you without being caught, would they incline in the least to hesitate.  Progs whining about fairness are like bottles stuffed with poison.

Nor can a government that tries to cater to the specific whims of such perpetual babies be fair.  In fairness, all government can do is to provide an infrastructure and then mostly get out of the way.  Government is incapable of making the multitudinous decisions that tend to allocate towards fairness in the marketplace of ideas and production.  A government that perpetually "progresses" towards ever more intrusions in the call for being "fair" cannot avoid becoming a government of despotism for farming people who never grow up.


To trade fairly, I think one needs to have something to trade.  An infant trades with cute coos and sympathetic cries.  If that's all the infant ever learns, the coos and cries soon grow old and of little value for any trade, fair or otherwise.  Civilization is a competitive jungle with a cooperative safety net.  A child who never learns how to compete for himself while defending rather than abusing the safety net has nothing to trade with his civilization, fair or otherwise.  If fairness is akin to being charitable with the civil system, then it does not tend to be well expressed by usurping authority to redistribute other people's money to such a point as to destroy the familial institution and the accultured mores out of which fairness is taught.  Replacing middle-class, family taught fairness with two-class rule of "wise" despots is conducive, I think, to serfdom, not fairness.  The coos and cries of infants are not cute to a detached, generally centralized government that is more concerned with the "perfect" system of widget management.  Without the bonding and assimilative effect of family and culture, a system of artificially intelligent managers will be programmed to be singularly ruthless.  The Bomb has temporarily stifled some of our competive impulses that are not adequately moderated or softened by familial bonding.  As the family institution breaks down, so will that softening influence.  That, in turn, will necessitate much greater distrust and, therefore, governmental invasions of privacy.  A similar challenge applies to our competiton towards developing singularly intelligent A.I.  We need an assimilative culture that will restore familial bonding.  I think that is not a multi-culture of people who incline to exploit collectivism so that they need never to have to grow up to become anything more than serfs for rulers.

"Possible bootstrapping algorithms include “do what we would have told you to do if we knew everything you knew,” “do what we would’ve told you to do if we thought as fast as you did and could consider many more possible lines of moral argument,” and “do what we would tell you to do if we had your ability to reflect on and modify ourselves.” In moral philosophy, this notion of moral progress is known as reflective equilibrium."

No comments: