Oddbean

I think you're engaged in a kind of ontological fallacy here, where you insist there's something necessary to directionality. The collective interest and the individual interest can simply be in tension, and mediate each other. Insisting on a simplistic grounding, as say praxeology tries to do, to me, is just weird. It just rejects any kind of dynamical notion around competing equities, and demands a universal starting point.

You might think it is in the collective interest that Palestinian children survive. I would also want that. But most Israelis think it is in the collective interest that Palestinians are exterminated (as far as I can gather, let's not derail the conversation into that example). My point being that the principle of collective interest is not grounded in anything real, it is an assertion of desire, perhaps widely shared but nonetheless not a starting point. People can only be sure of their own desires. Markets inform them about other people's desires.

That's fine. I think you are the one suffering from an ontological fallacy so we are at loggerheads. We can end it here if you wish, I'm not motivated to press this issue. In broad swathes with a lot of hand waving your initial argument about libertarianism and the "colletive good" is correct and I maybe I shouldn't nitpick into deep waters. I wish you well.

How am I suffering from an ontological fallacy, exactly? I'm not the one insisting that the normative grounding of my ethics needs to be erased in any universalist natural rights theory. You're doing that. Not me.

Dear Listeners: Did I insist that "the normative grounding of [his] ethics needs to be erased"? brockm: you can do what you please, good sir. I can only explain my beliefs and how they differ from yours. You claim "common good" or "collective interest" exists (I infer this from your use of the word ontological). I claim that the concept is so messed up as to just lead to bad ideas. I might be wrong. I am only having these thoughts just now I never really pushed that lever this far before. But we don't seem to have the same ideas about what that thing is, or at least we are not on the same page. I claim that instead of "collective interest" what really exists is pairwise shared interests which we only discover for sure by interacting with each other. We have to run a bunch of tit-for-tat-with-forgiveness games with every person we encounter, and treat them each differently depending on our state machine we have for them. And presuming that a large swathe of people have the same interests is, well, quite presumptive and very disrespectful to them. It is what fascists and authoritarians do after all, isn't it? I recently critiqued a U.N. poster about universal human rights. I don't have the same idea about "collective interest" or "common good" that the U.N. has. How can that be if there is a true "collective interest"? I just think it is more productive to come at it from a different direction. But you can do as you like, I'm not trying to erase you.

I don't claim the common good exists in a foundationalist way. I am arguing that conception of it, is necessary for a stable society. You're the one that's insisting that any ethical foundation must be derived from purportedly self-evident truths or objective truths about individual rights. I make no such claim. Either about individual rights or collective rights.

On the first point: point taken. I agree, a shared concept of collective good is necessary for a stable society. And stable societies become unstable as they get larger, because it is harder and harder to have the same shared concept of what that is. Case in point: America. On the second point: I'm not insisting I'm suggesting; I'm sharing my view. You can base your ethics however you see fit.

I think America has a surprisingly concordant view of the common good, when you look at opinion polls 60-70% of Americans generally agree on most things. There's an institutional failure occuring in the two-party system with minority constituency capture. An even bigger problem is one of the parties has collapsed into a personality cult.

Ok I'm going to go back to building a nostr client, but it is funny to hear that one of the parties is a personality cult. How many Trump supporters supported the vaccine he rushed through? If they were in a cult, they wouldn't have mixed opinions about him.

Dunno. When I hear members of my family and former friends referring to him as the most honest, down-to-earth politician of theirnlifetime, I just hear "I'm in a cult". Thats what my brain translates that to.

Well, maybe your family members are. The conservatives I know think Trump has a mental illness (narcissism) that isn't too serious and people shouldn't hate on him for it. They think he lies a ton but mostly inconsequential lies that just make him feel better about himself. And that because he is already pretty well off, he is less likely to be in it to skim off of the system (like Biden clearly is). They think he really wants to make America better, and he wants the credit for it of course. And they agree more with his vision than the alternate. And because he isn't fake like most politicians are, he just says what he thinks without much filter, they appreciate that and feel this kind of person is more trustworthy, isn't hiding some alternate agenda. They are probably somewhat wrong on that last point though - he never locked Hillary up - but they are somewhat right too as he openly admitted 'you just say that to get elected.' But your family members, well I can't say anything about them can I?

A large number of pundits claim a Trump presidency would be the end of everything. They did this in 2020 that I remember the best, but probably are doing it again (I don't pay so much attention to internal American politics anymore). When they say things like this I just hear "I have Trump derangement syndrome" That is what my brain translates that to.

Trump stands in opposition to extremely dangerous figures. So they have painted him as a dangerous figure. And you have sucked it up because it aligns with what you already wanted. But really what use is further conversation between us? Are we coming to greater understandings? No. This just feels like Twitter. If I wanted Twitter I would go to x.com. But I'm on nostr. So I'm going to make my exit from this thread now.

for me are all politcan dangerous. all systems did not work so far, without corruption. Maybe with the block chain technology can be in the future a system with only direct voting of the public.

Who defines the "collective interest"? It always boils down to some douchebag in a suit paid for by his owner making that decision. If you take your assumption to its natural conclusion, theft is good and thiefs should always be in charge because (is/aught) it always leads there anyway.