|
|
|
|
|
|
by nunyabuizness
3828 days ago
|
|
|
> Don't campaign against privacy in hope of indirectly fixing your actual concerns So that's my fault for conflating two things without making it explicit - 1) privacy is a non-issue b/c of my aforementioned reasons and 2) I believe that no one really wants privacy, they really want the freedom to act transparently without punishment (since we can't have that, we ask for privacy instead). > But that is not how you originally defined the problem. B/c the original problem is about the person and their world according to their morals: if I used pain to get my way and it was legal, what need would I have for privacy? > The idea is to not have to negotiate socially with them. The article you provided only declares that there are points that exist that people will converge to when coordinating when communication can't be trusted or is non-existant, and I fail to see the relevance of it to this discussion. |
|
|
In that framework, punishment includes things like "being shunned by a friend due to exposing your personal beliefs". Yet that friend should have the right to freely associate with whom they please. Please resolve this conflict without requiring people conform to your specifications.
> the original problem is about the person and their world according to their morals
You said: "how do we create a world that places everyone in their own private moral world".
I'm asking how you create this private moral world for someone who's moral desire is to force their will on other people.
Schelling points also apply to abstract concepts, like the idea of property itself. Private property is an abstraction we could take or leave, so why do we find it so useful?
A property line, with a fence or without, very clearly delineates who has authority over which square inch. If your neighbor decides to store stuff on your side of the line, they are clearly in the "wrong". They can easily foresee this, so the situation likely does not even come up.