Under what reference frame should rights considered to be significant, that is “to serve a purpose”?
Are not rocks indifferent to your opinion of them? Are they able to even perceive your opinion? Do they differentiate with respect to your behavior? If you tossed one leisurely into a pond or if you hurled one into a plane of concrete, would it not be indifferent? Are rocks able to act in a similar capacity to a man as defined able by Hobbes? Are they able to communicate amongst themselves?
The individuals within a society function as a network. We can demonstrate this with the aid of an example.
Let us suppose an individual lived singularly on a deserted Island. He would be responsible for his own water, food and shelter. He would be left with these tasks all of his days, whether they be fishing, collecting coconuts, or building a hut. He would have little time for leisure and many would suggest his life undesirable.
Let us now suppose that three individuals lived together on a deserted island. The first individual might be responsible for the water (gathering coconuts, collecting rainwater), the second might be responsible for the food (hunting, fishing, etc), and the third might be responsible for building and maintaining the shelter (collecting firewood, replacing worn members of the shelter’s structure, etc). The allocation of these tasks among the individuals is arbitrary. Assuming they all fulfilled their specific tasks, they may have more time for leisure and many would suggest their lives as more desirable relative to the singular individual because of this.
Let us now suppose the first individual murders the second and third individuals in order to gain more water/food. Would not the network cease to function efficiently, specifically would it not return to the state of the singular individual?
What determines the interaction between the individuals living on the island? (hint: Rights)
We may conclude that rights exist for the purpose of maintaining the harmonious interaction between the individuals living on the island. This is analogous to code, which is implemented within a computer’s operating system to maintain the harmonious interaction between of all of the parts of the computer (CPU, RAM, hard disk, etc.).
A question now arises, “What is Harmonious Interaction”? Obviously it is optimal, but it is undefined.
For a system with N variables, how can we define the optimal or ideal solution? Intuitively we would maximize the system, but what if all variables defining the system cannot be maximized simultaneously? Should we maximize the first dimension, the second dimension, the N dimension? (Answer: We Can’t). There is no singular optimal solution, for a Pareto optimal exists under these circumstances.
Pareto Optimal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
We can visualize a Pareto optimal in 2 dimensions as a line that crosses the X and Y axis. We will restrict our analysis to (0<->1 for X,Y) for ease of explanation. These restrictions are arbitrary and we could just as easily extend our argument to N dimensions. At (0,1), the Y dimension is maximized and the X dimension is minimized. At (1,0), the X dimension is maximized and the Y dimension is minimized. Any points that exist along this line are optimal or ideal solutions.
Let’s suppose an individual approaches an Engineer and requests the “optimal airplane”. The Engineer would be left with a question, “What is optimal”?
What is the airplane expected to do?
How far is the airplane expected to travel? How fast is the airplane expected to travel? How much fuel is the plane expected to consume? How many passengers is the airplane expected to carry? What payload is the airplane expected to carry? Under what conditions is the plane expected to take off and land? Etc.
Assuming this, an Engineer could create an optimal or ideal design that performed poorly.
Let’s suppose the engineer was designing a fuel tanker for inter-air-fueling between military aircraft. He allocated 25% of its weight towards fuel, 25% of its weight towards the structure, 25% of its weight towards its payload, and 25% of its weight towards its armor.
Assuming all of the conditions were satisfied, an optimal design could be achieved and this could be an optimal solution.
However, let’s suppose the enemy developed a new anti-aircraft system that penetrated the airplanes armor. Under these circumstances, the engineer’s optimal design would not be an optimal solution.
Although a Pareto optimal exists, its presence does not guarantee the optimal solution because an element of subjectivity is required that is independent of the function (ie not objective). A subjective analysis is required to determine which variables should be maximized/minimized in relation to each other (ie distribution of variables), therefore the solution is subjective. A point amongst the Pareto optimal must be determined for systems where the number of dimensions can be defined by N>1.
How does this relate to our network?
One might make the argument that because a Pareto optimal exists, that the objective solution (ie truth) must also exist. Although the design for an optimal or ideal network (ie state, society, etc) exists, it is a Pareto optimal. It is not the optimal or ideal solution.
I don’t think many could refute Plato’s definition of the “Ideal State” described in his most epic work, The Republic. However, I expect many to disagree with his assertion of strict censorship and control.
An analysis of the goals of society must be undertaken if we are to determine the optimal solution within the range of optimal designs. THIS is subjective, and therefore the solution (ie rights) are also subjective.
One might suggest that an individual inherently possesses the desire for security. For this reason, he believes rights are inherent to him. However, the desire for security implies the interaction within a network.
The singular individual is not in possession of rights. They serve no purpose, for he is not functioning within a network. He cannot organize and communicate and thus form a network, because there are no others to organize or communicate with. Rights imply interaction within a network and therefore are inherent to the network, not the individual.
One may reach the conclusion that only conscious individuals existing within a society (ie awareness) are in possession of rights and that rights are subjective and may exist along a Pareto optimal.
“The Leviathan” said:
Are not rocks indifferent to your opinion of them? Are they able to even perceive your opinion? Do they differentiate with respect to your behavior? If you tossed one leisurely into a pond or if you hurled one into a plane of concrete, would it not be indifferent? Are rocks able to act in a similar capacity to a man as defined able by Hobbes? Are they able to communicate amongst themselves?
The individuals within a society function as a network. We can demonstrate this with the aid of an example.
Let us suppose an individual lived singularly on a deserted Island. He would be responsible for his own water, food and shelter. He would be left with these tasks all of his days, whether they be fishing, collecting coconuts, or building a hut. He would have little time for leisure and many would suggest his life undesirable.
Let us now suppose that three individuals lived together on a deserted island. The first individual might be responsible for the water (gathering coconuts, collecting rainwater), the second might be responsible for the food (hunting, fishing, etc), and the third might be responsible for building and maintaining the shelter (collecting firewood, replacing worn members of the shelter’s structure, etc). The allocation of these tasks among the individuals is arbitrary. Assuming they all fulfilled their specific tasks, they may have more time for leisure and many would suggest their lives as more desirable relative to the singular individual because of this.
Let us now suppose the first individual murders the second and third individuals in order to gain more water/food. Would not the network cease to function efficiently, specifically would it not return to the state of the singular individual?
What determines the interaction between the individuals living on the island? (hint: Rights)
We may conclude that rights exist for the purpose of maintaining the harmonious interaction between the individuals living on the island. This is analogous to code, which is implemented within a computer’s operating system to maintain the harmonious interaction between of all of the parts of the computer (CPU, RAM, hard disk, etc.).
A question now arises, “What is Harmonious Interaction”? Obviously it is optimal, but it is undefined.
For a system with N variables, how can we define the optimal or ideal solution? Intuitively we would maximize the system, but what if all variables defining the system cannot be maximized simultaneously? Should we maximize the first dimension, the second dimension, the N dimension? (Answer: We Can’t). There is no singular optimal solution, for a Pareto optimal exists under these circumstances.
Pareto Optimal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
We can visualize a Pareto optimal in 2 dimensions as a line that crosses the X and Y axis. We will restrict our analysis to (0<->1 for X,Y) for ease of explanation. These restrictions are arbitrary and we could just as easily extend our argument to N dimensions. At (0,1), the Y dimension is maximized and the X dimension is minimized. At (1,0), the X dimension is maximized and the Y dimension is minimized. Any points that exist along this line are optimal or ideal solutions.
Let’s suppose an individual approaches an Engineer and requests the “optimal airplane”. The Engineer would be left with a question, “What is optimal”?
What is the airplane expected to do?
How far is the airplane expected to travel? How fast is the airplane expected to travel? How much fuel is the plane expected to consume? How many passengers is the airplane expected to carry? What payload is the airplane expected to carry? Under what conditions is the plane expected to take off and land? Etc.
Assuming this, an Engineer could create an optimal or ideal design that performed poorly.
Let’s suppose the engineer was designing a fuel tanker for inter-air-fueling between military aircraft. He allocated 25% of its weight towards fuel, 25% of its weight towards the structure, 25% of its weight towards its payload, and 25% of its weight towards its armor.
Assuming all of the conditions were satisfied, an optimal design could be achieved and this could be an optimal solution.
However, let’s suppose the enemy developed a new anti-aircraft system that penetrated the airplanes armor. Under these circumstances, the engineer’s optimal design would not be an optimal solution.
Although a Pareto optimal exists, its presence does not guarantee the optimal solution because an element of subjectivity is required that is independent of the function (ie not objective). A subjective analysis is required to determine which variables should be maximized/minimized in relation to each other (ie distribution of variables), therefore the solution is subjective. A point amongst the Pareto optimal must be determined for systems where the number of dimensions can be defined by N>1.
How does this relate to our network?
One might make the argument that because a Pareto optimal exists, that the objective solution (ie truth) must also exist. Although the design for an optimal or ideal network (ie state, society, etc) exists, it is a Pareto optimal. It is not the optimal or ideal solution.
I don’t think many could refute Plato’s definition of the “Ideal State” described in his most epic work, The Republic. However, I expect many to disagree with his assertion of strict censorship and control.
An analysis of the goals of society must be undertaken if we are to determine the optimal solution within the range of optimal designs. THIS is subjective, and therefore the solution (ie rights) are also subjective.
One might suggest that an individual inherently possesses the desire for security. For this reason, he believes rights are inherent to him. However, the desire for security implies the interaction within a network.
The singular individual is not in possession of rights. They serve no purpose, for he is not functioning within a network. He cannot organize and communicate and thus form a network, because there are no others to organize or communicate with. Rights imply interaction within a network and therefore are inherent to the network, not the individual.
One may reach the conclusion that only conscious individuals existing within a society (ie awareness) are in possession of rights and that rights are subjective and may exist along a Pareto optimal.
'Rights imply interaction within a network - yes,
"and therefore are inherent to the network" - no, there's nothing inherent about rights. They require either a consensus to adopt them, or the power to grasp or impose them....
"and therefore are inherent to the network" - no, there's nothing inherent about rights. They require either a consensus to adopt them, or the power to grasp or impose them....
The Pareto optimal is inherent to the network, specifically we may deduce rights (Pareto optimal) from the network (the interaction of individuals), not from a single individual.
That really annoyed me when sitting on a chair with a desk , at school .
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly! That is why democracies are so inefficient. The definition of "harmonious interaction" for the network is subjective and undefined. People have very different goals (Pareto optimals) for the network (society).
So ,
an adjective like "liberal" should bring to the word "democracy" a value that makes it more comfortably bearing by the "networkers" .
Means that liberal incorporate in its meanings some of Pareto's thoughts?
(Haven't still searched for Pareto...)
an adjective like "liberal" should bring to the word "democracy" a value that makes it more comfortably bearing by the "networkers" .
Means that liberal incorporate in its meanings some of Pareto's thoughts?
(Haven't still searched for Pareto...)
picowallspeaker said:
I'm sorry, you'll have to be more explicit. I haven't been able to achieve what you are attempting to convey.
Sorry , I was confusing math with vector phisics , thinking of people as subjected to gravitation , leaving on plane surface - earth .
But talking about liberal 😕 ,
yes , it may have the same attributes of Pareto's optimal , so I applied to the latest word I saw written in front of me . Just after reading on Pluto's aircrash.
But talking about liberal 😕 ,
yes , it may have the same attributes of Pareto's optimal , so I applied to the latest word I saw written in front of me . Just after reading on Pluto's aircrash.
I'm not sure the Pareto stuff applies to rights, from the wikipedia page 'there is no consideration of the equity of resource allocation' - which is what rights are in some way attempting to address...???
A Pareto optimal is a multi-dimensional optimal (N>1). Would you not admit that a network or society is multi-objective?
Many governments attempt to satisfy two objectives, "Efficiency of resource allocation" and "Uniformity wrt the distribution of resources amongst individuals". We may relate the first objective to a function wrt the X dimension and the second objective to a function wrt the Y dimension. True capitalism attempts to maximize the first objective (1,0), while true communism attempts to maximize the second objective (0,1). An optimal that involves N>1 objectives is a Pareto optimal.
WRONG.
Individual on a deserted island does have rights. He has the right to smoke Marijuana for example.
The only rights he doesn't have at the ones that have to do with his relationships to other people.
The only rights society has the authority to deny an individual are ones he didn't in the first place have in his solitary existence.
To deny any other rights is tyranny, which is what we have today.
Also according to Nietzsche the optimal way to lead a life is not to be born, which is absolutely correct.
Individual on a deserted island does have rights. He has the right to smoke Marijuana for example.
The only rights he doesn't have at the ones that have to do with his relationships to other people.
The only rights society has the authority to deny an individual are ones he didn't in the first place have in his solitary existence.
To deny any other rights is tyranny, which is what we have today.
Also according to Nietzsche the optimal way to lead a life is not to be born, which is absolutely correct.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.