Hacker News Reader

Comment by UK-AL | Hacker News Reader

My values are to allow people to follow their own moral values independently of each other. Push the decisions as far down as possible. Not to use a higher authority to force them to comply with my values.

View on HN

That's a fine principle for moral choices that only concern individuals but for society-level choices, of which there are many to be made, it's impossible by definition.

Let's go straight to the extremes of that position and see how far back we come: you're fine with people considering murder to be their moral right, you wouldn't want to push an ethical system that tries to prevent people murdering one-another?

Specifically my moral values are anything is allowed, as long as it doesn't hurt or infringe on other peoples rights.

The devil is in the details. If my neighbor works sixty hours a week measly for food and shelter, is he or is he not infringing on my right for fair pay for my own work?

His not infringing on anybody if its mutely agreed contract.

The solution for his issue is to find a way further up the value chain.

Almost any government intervention which attempts to help him will have a hidden side effect.

> His not infringing on anybody if its mutely agreed contract.

You're supposing that both sides have the same bargain power

And you'd like to enforce that moral position on others through law?

;0)>

Yes, because this can be logically reasoned as a basic right.

It's when it starts going further(which the eu has) is when it becomes a problem.

Where do these rights come from?

I'm not against government in total. Government should enforce basic rights for individuals. Beyond that it becomes dubious.

Who decides which rights are basic and which are not? Is healthcare a basic right? Clean potable water? Safe work environment? Education?

There's tons of philosophy on what is a basic right and what is not. They can convey the ideas better than I can.

> My values are to allow people to follow their own moral values independently of each other.

Does that apply to the neo-Nazis we have in parliament? Nazism has a fundamental difference with Communism: Communism (and neo-liberalism) used violence in order to achieve specific goals, for Nazism violence is an end in itself.

Subsidiarity. He addressed it.

He didn't really address it. He's comment straight after is enlightening.

"When I hear politicians on the Leave side talk about sovereignty, I am again suspicious. What I hear is, “I want unfettered power.” But unfettered power for the Boris Johnsons of this world is not in my best interests or the best interests of the UK, which is why I shall vote for the fetters."

Which means I don't agree with boris Johnson(Despite people voting for him) so I want my values forced on the people who voted for him by a higher power. Ignoring the fact the higher power maybe even worse. You have no idea who could be control of the EU in 20 years time. Your just moving trust from one set of people, to another set of people. Your problem is still there.

The likelihood of one country voting for a populist demagogue[1] (especially via a FPTP system) is smaller than the likelihood of all European states opting for one; quality and inclination of leadership tends to revert to the mean as electorates become more diverse and coalition bargaining more essential. Especially if the organization is a supranational organization purposefully structured to dilute powers rather than centralise them.

As a general rule, extra appeal courts and more bureaucratic checks and balances are more likely to be a buffer against tyranny than a source of it, especially since the possibility of future withdrawal via referendum if the public start to fear what the EU is doing in future still exists.

[1]I don't believe Johnson remotely fits that bracket, and I think the UK's chances of electing an actual demagogue are relatively slim, but the general point still stands.

Another way of putting this would be: Where does the subsidiarity max out? I mean, the minimum is just, you are free to decide yourself. Above that, your local council, above that maybe a city mayor, above that parliament - basically the PM and the cabinet, the other MPs rarely rebel. This is the Boris Johnson as post Brexit PM level. If we Brexit, the buck stops here, this is the maximum. If we don't, there's the EU over that (which presumably has internal regional subsidiarity too, but I'm not good enough at civics to know how).

So it's reasonable to distinguish "I don't like Boris" from "Boris ought not to be where the subsidiarity maxes out, some decisions are better taken over his head."

All these means is that your moving your ultimate trust from one set of people to a different set of people further up the chain.

Both could be horrible dictators.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com