Savages!

So the other day I had the pleasure of speaking to a True Savage.

He came from a country recognized as the ‘Second least failed state in Africa’ and the 53rd-least-failed worldwide; up until now I didn’t even realize that there was a list of ‘least failed states’, but it’s an interesting fact to know, ain’t it?  The reason I bring it up is to establish that this man’s countrymen are not Savages – 53rd ain’t great, but it ain’t awful, either – his primitive views are entirely his own, a matter of his own poisonous neurology.

“So tell me,” he asked, over drinks, “What exactly are Human Rights?”

I paused.  What to say?  Human Rights are a restriction placed upon Democracies?  A principle of Governance developed when the French realized the Ugliness of Monarchy?  A basis for fair interaction between individuals?

Obviously there was no Right answer.  The question was dishonest from the get-go – an attempt at manipulation.  But I’m an admirer of the Priciples of Debate, so I responded anyways.

“Human Rights,” I said, “Are a series of principles to guide our lives, mathematically consistent in nature, the denial of which require due process of law – your right to property might be restricted due to a tax levy, or your right to freedom of movement might be restricted due to your violation of someone else’s Rights – but only after Due Process.  They are an internally coherent principle.  Questions of justice are – a priori – questions which only occur when Human Rights have been violated.”

“Aha!” he said, in poorly-enunciated glee, “But they are all written on paper, no?”

The Savage – too simple to realize it – had dug down to the heart of my Rationalist’s Soul.   Why did I believe in these values in such an unquestioning manner?

When it comes right down to it, I’ve got two precepts.   Beliefs must be internally consistent; and they must subscribe to historicity.

The first is a question of mathematics; it’s relatively simple to identify the Divide By Zero problems which occur in Communism.  When you treat the state as the Ultimate End, it overwrites those Little Ends which en-valuate the state’s existence.  The things which ought to grant the state value – those principles of humanity and equality – are overritten by the fact that the state has pre-emptive value.

If the individual has no value, then what value could the State possibly have?

And as for Historiocity – this is the laboratory experiment question of governments.  Which one best serves the interests of Humanity?

For this case, I won’t investigate Perversions – an ugly and interesting topic, of supra-intelligent entities which manipulate us for petty ends – no, as relevant as that conversation is, I’ll hold it for another time.  A Dystopian Paperclip Maximizer would have the perfect solution for our economy (during the short term at least), but that’s not the point – what’s the provably-best organization of Human-guided society?

This is the second point; that, ultimately, History will decide.  Should I be completely wrong about the values of Human Rights – of Rationality – then History will prove me wrong.

Let History happen, say I.  A false belief deserves destruction; so does a dishonest society.  I am frightened by the false-belief society which might last for generations, because of Evil Luck – but the best guarantee against this is the Randomness, it is the Free Society Itself.

“How could you say that,” said my old Boss, “This man lived in a third world nation!”

So much Ugliness, Hypocrissy, and Shameless Signalling.  I finished my beer and left without paying.