The Mill Limit... The Apex of Liberty

[Whaleboy]

http://www.geocities.com/dream_of_the_prophecy/mill.htm

Hope this is ok, its an idea I been working on for quite a while. The essay is still very much a work in progress and I welcome ideas on how to make it better!

[Urban Ranger]

AFAIK, the "apex" of liberty is anarchy.

[C0ckney]

any chance of a summary

[Whaleboy]

C0ckney: You have the right to do anything you want, except impede the rights of another to do the same. That is the Mill Limit.

Anarchy in the true sense, yes that is, but that is also a Mill Limit society

Anarchy in the traditional sense (no order) is not, because though it grants more rights, those rights are only to impede those of another. The net liberty decreases, so the idea of total rights being total liberty is something of a fallacy.

[MRT144]

so its a pipe dream

[Firelad]

Anarchy, as defined by the authors of the concept, is precisely a society based solely on the Mill Limit concept. Any other defition of Anarchy ("Common Sense... :P")would be incorrect
I do have a problem with the capitalism clause in your document, but you are probably at least mostly correct... In my opinion, private property in a Mill Limit society would be limited to those things which are immidiately useful to a person (even if useful means me old teddy bear that I have an emotional bond to...). You can't have an emotional bond or any immidiate use for a corporation share, for example.
Also, I don't see how governments can possibly not breach the Mill Limit. The article seemed to me unclear on this point. When one person can breach the free will of another in even the least arbitrary fashion (which governments are bound to do by definition) they violate that person's Mill Limit.
But generally, grand article

[Agathon]

I'd argue the distinction between "influence" and "impedance" isn't scientifically or ontologically respectable. It's a fiction that developed, along with that of "free will" and responsibility as a useful social tool. In short these are arbitrary divisions of causes into classes for reasons that may (or may not) serve our own or the general welfare. Trying to build a theory on them, as if they were physical or metaphysical facts seems a bit odd to me.

The problem with all forms of libertarianism is that there isn't any such thing as liberty. It's a moral fiction.

[Drogue]

Firelad: Wouldn't Anarchy involve having no government (or at least, not a government as we would see it). The Mill Limit would still make some things illegal, things that break the Mill Limit. Whereas wouldn't anarchy be a lack of laws too? I could be wrong in that, in which case it could be a ML society.

MRT: Yes, it's a pipe dream, but it is possible for a society more educationally advanced than ours, in the sense that it would have to be a society that listens to reason, and is logical. Thus it wouldn't work if you were to impliment it today.

Edit: Elijah is a friend of mine, and I helped a little on the essay, so that's why it might seem like I'm answering for him, in some sense.

[Agathon]

Mill's principle is roughly, "we ought to be able to do what we like, as long as it doesn't harm others."

The problem is that what counts as harm is left underdetermined, so that it's possible to have a fairly totalitarian system on these grounds.

[Drogue]

It is, which is why elijah took it further. I am undecided, but that is why he broke it down into impedance and influence. Direct impedance breaks the Mill Limit, influence does not. This leads to some problems, IMHO, such as harassment and verbal abuse, which would be legal, but that's a matter of opinion. Calling it the 'Mill Limit' is mostly true, it came from his ideas (why oh why did I buy him that ) but it is not strictly limited to that.

[Voltaire]

You state that: “In a totalitarian state, the people are oppressed and subjugated…” true enough, but a totalitarian dictatorship personifies the extremes of dictatorial governments. Democracy does not necessarily constitute liberty, similarly so despotism does not necessarily constitute a lack thereof.

Humanity is a diverse force, and yet this diversity is cut short by a state that has breached the Mill limit. This reduces people to the status of "workers" in every sense of the word, but mainly as small cogs in very large machine.

Please provide some evidence that a state which breaches the Mill limit reduces the status of humans to mere ‘workers in every sense of the word’.

Thus it follows that innovation is practically non-existent, which damages the economy.

Thus it follows? I hardly think so. You have no established that states which limit freedoms and liberties in any way reduce the diversity of people, nor does it necessarily follow innovation would be practically non-existent in such a state. Let us for the sake of argument consider a meritocratic authoritarian state where only those deemed the most qualified rule; in such as society you would have great progress given that persons of talent would be encouraged to excel, and would also be given the rule of such a society. Thus in a meritocratic authoritarian state you have progress and innovation without liberty for the masses. As for lack of progress and innovation damaging an economy I cannot comment on it given that I lack knowledge in such areas; though I suspect your assumptions do have some merit. Nevertheless you have not established that there would be a lack of progress in all societies that breach the Mill limit; you’re jumping ahead of yourself.

This oppression, and poor economy will put the state on a very unstable platform, as a frustrated population is more likely to rise up and fight for themselves.

Actually history shows that the worse the people tend to be off, the less likely the chances of rebellion become. Consider for a moment the fact that if you do not have enough food to put on the table, your first concerns would be to live, liberty would not be on the forefront of your mind. This assertion also has support form historical events, take into consideration the fact that most revolutions in the past (i.e. French Revolution, Communist Revolution, etc.) occurred after the conditions of the people improved. In the case of the French Revolution specifically, the quality of life and standard of living of most of the lower classes had been rising steadily for decades prior to the revolution; the revolution also created the new bourgeois class of wealthy capitalists. Simply put the worse people are off the less likely they will rebel, and the less likely their rebellion would be effective.

I will respond to the rest of the essay when I have the time, for now I must leave.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Voltaire
You state that: “In a totalitarian state, the people are oppressed and subjugated…” true enough, but a totalitarian dictatorship personifies the extremes of dictatorial governments. Democracy does not necessarily constitute liberty, similarly so despotism does not necessarily constitute a lack thereof.

True, indeed, Ben (elijah) is not a massive democracy fan, in that democracy that breaks the mill limit can equal tyranny by majority. Therefore, a ML society is somewhat self governing, with laws to protect the Mill Limit, and with everything under it being legal, although some things frowned upon. He sees it as society's role to counter things like racism with reason, but to keep the being legal. That is why it needs a society that is educated further than our current one, a rational society.

Originally posted by Voltaire
Humanity is a diverse force, and yet this diversity is cut short by a state that has breached the Mill limit. This reduces people to the status of "workers" in every sense of the word, but mainly as small cogs in very large machine.

Please provide some evidence that a state which breaches the Mill limit reduces the status of humans to mere ‘workers in every sense of the word’.

I think it is an idea, and practical examples are not Ben's domain really. However, I believe he was talking about a totalitarian state there (much like Yang from SMAC) or a consumerist state, where people are workers, who are judged by what the can produce

Originally posted by Voltaire
Thus it follows that innovation is practically non-existent, which damages the economy.

Thus it follows? I hardly think so. You have no established that states which limit freedoms and liberties in any way reduce the diversity of people, nor does it necessarily follow innovation would be practically non-existent in such a state. Let us for the sake of argument consider a meritocratic authoritarian state where only those deemed the most qualified rule; in such as society you would have great progress given that persons of talent would be encouraged to excel, and would also be given the rule of such a society. Thus in a meritocratic authoritarian state you have progress and innovation without liberty for the masses. As for lack of progress and innovation damaging an economy I cannot comment on it given that I lack knowledge in such areas; though I suspect your assumptions do have some merit. Nevertheless you have not established that there would be a lack of progress in all societies that breach the Mill limit; you’re jumping ahead of yourself.

I agree with that. However, innovation might involve the breaking of rules in order to start that innovation, such as ethical barriers. Things like cloning could have ben quicker if there were not laws against it. As I said though, I don't quite agree with that part.

Originally posted by Voltaire
This oppression, and poor economy will put the state on a very unstable platform, as a frustrated population is more likely to rise up and fight for themselves.

Actually history shows that the worse the people tend to be off, the less likely the chances of rebellion become. Consider for a moment the fact that if you do not have enough food to put on the table, your first concerns would be to live, liberty would not be on the forefront of your mind. This assertion also has support form historical events, take into consideration the fact that most revolutions in the past (i.e. French Revolution, Communist Revolution, etc.) occurred after the conditions of the people improved. In the case of the French Revolution specifically, the quality of life and standard of living of most of the lower classes had been rising steadily for decades prior to the revolution; the revolution also created the new bourgeois class of wealthy capitalists. Simply put the worse people are off the less likely they will rebel, and the less likely their rebellion would be effective.

I would dispute that. Both those revolutions were sparked off by poverty. The Bourgeousie in Paris tried to spark a revolution, but it took the artisans and workers who wanted food to actually cause the revolution. It took bad harvests to actual springbourd the revolution of the masses. I think that not having enough to eat, extreme poverty, is one of the most common causes of revolution. Even American independance, started , rumour has it, because of tax. I think when the people become slightly more free, like the Bourgeousie, they want mroe freedom, but the actually final cause of revolution is usually poverty IMHO.

[Whaleboy]

...what Drogue said . jk, I do actually know what I'm talking about (so they tell me).

Most of the issues here are down to misinterpretations, however it is my fault if I, as the author am the only one who sees that. I will clear up the ambiguities and broken reasoning, the article I posted up was very preliminary, I had only just completed it, so I need to clearify and rewrite much of it. Thanks for the pointers!
I intend the essay to form a part of a larger text, and if I was a software engineer, I would call this "beta testing", ironing out the bugs in my argument.

The Mill Limit still holds, however, my grammar does not!

Two very good points I must answer are from Agathon:

"The problem is that what counts as harm is left underdetermined, so that it's possible to have a fairly totalitarian system on these grounds."

That is indeed true, however, it is out of the scope of that text to define what harm is. Mathematically speaking, I have provided the equation, but assigning numbers to the variables is a wholly different task (I love analogies, you can tell I started as a poet )

Common sense (the agregation of prejudices that it is) would seem to suggest that harm is something physical, like a punch on the nose. Drogue would argue that harm extends to mental harm, but I in fact argue that mental harm, short of physically passing high voltage through ones cerebral cortex, is merely a matter of interpretation by the harmee. This is of course a grey area, and needing of further work, but I do not pretend that the Mill Limit, for now and foreseeably, will be anything other than ambiguous (the equation, not the variables).

That is part of its charm as a concept I believe. We are 4-dimension creatures, living in a 5-dimensional universe (ignoring string/superstring theory), and are subjective. The best we can achieve is a pseudo-objective in a set context (thats another story, dont start Drogue!), so there is nothing set in stone here.

On that note, with regards to your second point;

" The problem with all forms of libertarianism is that there isn't any such thing as liberty. It's a moral fiction"

one could say that you're making a pseudo-objective, a subjective in a wider context. As an idealist, I believe that perception of existence is solely in the mind, and that can be extended to ideas. There is no such thing as liberty, just as there is no such thing as good, bad, morality, dark, light, or indeed any other abstract or concrete noun you care to name.

As a person, I feel liberty, I know it as my freedom to do and be, x,y,z in a sociological framework. That exists only for human society on planet Earth, which is at the small end of the scale of "big pictures".

In that sense, I can suggest that the Mill Limit is a pseudo-objective in that context, but if you talk about "humanity" in general, then it is a subjective moral fiction. If I, in return, talk about "the solar system", humanity then appears subjective, fictional and irrelevant, to which you can respond by talking about the galaxy (you get the idea).

Needless to say, this argument can be applied to anything, but in the context of human society, it is of little use. The Mill Limit is politics, not metaphysics.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
I love analogies

Too much

Originally posted by elijah
You can tell I started as a poet

I didn't know that? I Must read some. I thought that was Nat's area

Originally posted by elijah
Drogue would argue that harm extends to mental harm

We know each other's arguments too well

[QUOTE] Originally posted by elijah
There is no such thing as liberty, just as there is no such thing as good, bad, morality, dark, light, or indeed any other abstract or concrete noun you care to name.
Or indeed the fact that we call such a thing a noun.

Originally posted by elijah
The Mill Limit is politics, not metaphysics.

An admittance!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by elijah

As a person, I feel liberty, I know it as my freedom to do and be, x,y,z in a sociological framework. That exists only for human society on planet Earth, which is at the small end of the scale of "big pictures".

That could be called phenomenological liberty if we wanted a name for it. However, if you want people to swallow it idealism is hardly the way to go. And there is still the objection that our beliefs and desires have as much to do with culturally inculcated norms as they do with our own reflective musings. Similarly, Freudians would argue that many of our desires are unconscious, and introspection is a notoriously unreliable method for uncovering these.

My own objection is that there's a good case to be made for the idea that liberty is merely a culturally inculcated idea since it doesn't correspond to anything in canonical science and doesn't seem to be a well defined notion, unless you simply mean "being able do what I want" which isn't saying much.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Drogue
It is, which is why elijah took it further. I am undecided, but that is why he broke it down into impedance and influence.

I know - I just find this distinction opaque if it doesn't rely on other hypotheses which I find to be dubious.

[Drogue]

Yes, I agree on that. However, with extensive discussion, I think Ben has more of an idea about exactly where that distinction lies that his essay states. Whether it should be classified as those terms is another thing. I think the idea is there, but not just necessarily to to express the difference.

if you want people to swallow it idealism is hardly the way to go.

I've been trying to tell him that for ages. I think he's more concerned with the ideal than actually getting it implimented.

I agree with Agathon that "liberty is merely a culturally inculcated idea ", but it hs been a goal of many for centuries. I don't see that changing much. Indeed, I think as society progresses, people want more and more liberty. One of Ben's ideas was that it will happen, and he is just predicting it. He may be right, I can see society moving in this direction.

being able do what I want" which isn't saying much.

Isn't it? I think that is saying quite a lot. People want more and more Liberty, having total liberty, or as much as possible without directly impacting others, would be saying quite a bit IMHO.

[Whaleboy]

"phenomenological liberty"

Wow, I thought it was just me that had a love for the polysyllabic! Iike that definition though, with your permission, can I use it in a spin-off text, spawned partly by this conversation?

" I didn't know that? I Must read some. I thought that was Nat's area"

Im sure you know. Nats "poetry" is mere drivel. I have never seen more pointless abstractions, repetitions and similes in my life! USE METAPHORS!!!

Freudians would also argue that the though the foundation for their field in not canonical science, it makes it no less valid.

"I just find this distinction [between influence and impedence] opaque if it doesn't rely on other hypotheses which I find to be dubious"

Can you further explain that? If you're alluding to what I think you are, then impedence is physically taking away ones liberty, for example a bop on the nose takes away my right "Not to be assaulted" (remember the context of the rights in society).

However, influence is anything that in this case, if you are to use my definition as opposed to Drogues (I find mine to be somewhat more coherent in context of the Mill Limit, while Drogues appears to be based on morality and common sense [subjectives even in this context, as both vary on the individual]), that solely goes through the mind of the individual.

You are reading this post, which is going through your mind and being interpreted as a concept (no doubt that of an 18 year old Briton with no idea what he's on about, but bare with me). As such it is influencing you. Any reaction caused because of it is down to you, and not me. In that respect, if one is to use this definition, one could say that Plato is entirely unresponsible for the holocaust.

Using Drogues interpretation (if he hasnt explained, I'm sure he will), then he may argue that Plato is in part responsible, because 3000 years ago, in The Republic, he nurtured the idea of eugenics, a concept brought to its ugly realisation when 6-11 million people were butchered.

As I have this particular distinction between influence and inhibit, I can say that I hold Plato in no part responsible for those deaths.

Another analogy would be if one was to blame Marx for Stalins pogroms.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
Im sure you know. Nats "poetry" is mere drivel. I have never seen more pointless abstractions, repetitions and similes in my life! USE METAPHORS!!!

Come on, it isn't bad at all. I've read much, and she has quite a talent for it. A little abstract, but no moreso than most common poets today. Much as she's not my favourite person right now, she writes damn well.

Originally posted by elijah
Using Drogues interpretation (if he hasnt explained, I'm sure he will), then he may argue that Plato is in part responsible, because 3000 years ago, in The Republic, he nurtured the idea of eugenics, a concept brought to its ugly realisation when 6-11 million people were butchered.

I wouldn't say that. I simply think if you have 5 people, all lying together, one with a gun. If 4 of those people cajole the one with the gun into shooting someone, then those 4 are also guilty of something. Maybe less so than the one who pulled the trigger, but they are guilty of something. With Plato, I would disagree, I don't see a direct link between Plato's writings and Nazi Germany.

Originally posted by elijah
Another analogy would be if one was to blame Marx for Stalins pogroms.

Again a little far for me to say he was.

[Whaleboy]

True, that is the extreme end of a sliding scale, but nonetheless, the concept holds.

The holocaust was based on the principles of eugenics, a concept first described by Plato in The Republic.

The four people cojoling the one into shooting, are guilty of a moral offence... incitement to murder or whatever, but not a legal offence under the Mill Limit. As abhorrent as it is, the Mill Limit states only the shooter should be prosecuted.

Nonetheless, I believe that is a bullet that must be bitten. With the enhanced level of education and cultural development, I doubt that this will happen often enough to make it a bitter pill to swallow, when compared to the benefits of this liberty.

[Whaleboy]

Im certain that people here are not interested in my cousins *cough* poetry.

I am more concerned with tuning the concept than actually implimenting it. I am working on a philosophy for the idealist, something of an artistic article, but nonetheless (who says concepts cant be beautiful? ), and in it, I state that we are concerned with ideas. We leave the implimentation to the pragmatists and beancounters.

Agathon: Liberty, in this sense, really is "doing what you want". On the contrary however, I believe that it is saying a lot. We are diverse creatures, the more we can explore that diversity, then surely the more fulfilled we become, look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs. According to Mill, more liberty is very useful for attaining self-actualisation.

Consider the fact that every human is unique. There will never be another you, me, or Drogue (thank god ). All of our differences create certain specialisations , and as such, there is something that each human that has, is, or will ever live, can do better than any other human that has, is, or will ever live. The more liberty we give that individual to find that "talent" as it were, then certainly in the sociological context, the better.

In this sense, liberty good for the individual, and is good for society. I know about the non-objective nature of "good and bad" etc, but in this pseudo-objective context, I believe it holds.