I had not thought of this idea before. That is, if I want material goods for myself, I can offer something in exchange. It can be win-win. But if you want me to obey a norm that I don't believe in, there is not a win-win solution.
Why do you use the word "norms" instead of, perhaps, "rules of coerced behavior"? I ask because behavioral norms are somewhat different than the rules enforced by legislation, the distinction (again in slightly different words) described by Hayek in Law, Legislation and Liberty. Social norms are generally negotiated among people, albeit not directly or explicitly in most cases, as individuals bicker and discuss and interact over them, as Hume points out. Legislation is also negotiated as you point out, and can lead to ridiculous "something for you, and something mutually exclusive for you..." situations. But legislation and social norms need not map to one another, and norms largely exist outside the realm of sending men with guns to your door to effect punishment for breaking them.
At any rate, I agree with your general point that compromise with "do what we say or we will kill you" generally is a bad idea. In fact Ayn Rand said that herself. I think that the use of the word norms here is misleading, as the problem is the "or we will kill you" part, not the norm part.
Or maybe norm is exactly what you mean, and we have a much deeper disagreement than I realize :D
If I have understood at all what you are getting at, it seems to me that what you are doing is critiquing modern Western 'democracy' (parliaments, majority voting etc). If so, I am with you..... because it seems to me (in my 73 year) that this version of democracy has run its course. Nice while it lasted, its inherent tendency to overreach its boundaries (bureaucratic overreach, mass/social media overreach, spoilt-brat intelligentsia overreach) Icarus-like, its end was in its beginning.
Personally I'd prefer to not have the views of extreme ideologues be lexicographically more important than the views of the general electorate, as is the case in with the existing system of party primaries and concentration of power in the hands of congressional leadership. These things exist in an ugly symbiotic relationship with partisan polarization, and I'd rather be rid of all of them.
I had not thought of this idea before. That is, if I want material goods for myself, I can offer something in exchange. It can be win-win. But if you want me to obey a norm that I don't believe in, there is not a win-win solution.
At least I think that is what you are saying.
I think that my norms should take precedence!
Why do you use the word "norms" instead of, perhaps, "rules of coerced behavior"? I ask because behavioral norms are somewhat different than the rules enforced by legislation, the distinction (again in slightly different words) described by Hayek in Law, Legislation and Liberty. Social norms are generally negotiated among people, albeit not directly or explicitly in most cases, as individuals bicker and discuss and interact over them, as Hume points out. Legislation is also negotiated as you point out, and can lead to ridiculous "something for you, and something mutually exclusive for you..." situations. But legislation and social norms need not map to one another, and norms largely exist outside the realm of sending men with guns to your door to effect punishment for breaking them.
At any rate, I agree with your general point that compromise with "do what we say or we will kill you" generally is a bad idea. In fact Ayn Rand said that herself. I think that the use of the word norms here is misleading, as the problem is the "or we will kill you" part, not the norm part.
Or maybe norm is exactly what you mean, and we have a much deeper disagreement than I realize :D
I’m pleased you found Substack without which I would not have found you. 👍
So in essence:
The arc of history bends towards emotional support machine guns.
But political polarisation might save us?
I'm not entirely sure I want to be saved.
If I have understood at all what you are getting at, it seems to me that what you are doing is critiquing modern Western 'democracy' (parliaments, majority voting etc). If so, I am with you..... because it seems to me (in my 73 year) that this version of democracy has run its course. Nice while it lasted, its inherent tendency to overreach its boundaries (bureaucratic overreach, mass/social media overreach, spoilt-brat intelligentsia overreach) Icarus-like, its end was in its beginning.
Personally I'd prefer to not have the views of extreme ideologues be lexicographically more important than the views of the general electorate, as is the case in with the existing system of party primaries and concentration of power in the hands of congressional leadership. These things exist in an ugly symbiotic relationship with partisan polarization, and I'd rather be rid of all of them.