The path to more pragmatism / Der Weg zu mehr Pragmatismus

in #deutsch2 months ago

Liebe Hiver,

Das Liberale Institut aus Zürich hat ein neues Paper veröffentlicht, geschrieben von Christian Hugo Hoffmann (Unternehmer und Postdoc am Lehrstuhl für Entrepreneurial Risks an der ETH in Zürich; https://www.christian-hugo-hoffmann.com/): https://www.libinst.ch/publikationen/LI-Paper-Hoffmann-Pragmatismus.pdf

source

Zusammenfassung

  • Als Reaktion auf die zunehmende Bedrohung der Freiheit und des Eigentums in heutigen Wohlfahrtsstaaten entstanden liberale Gegenentwürfe. Darunter auch eine reine Form des Liberalismus, der auch als Privatrechtsgesellschaft bekannt ist, wo einerseits kein öffentliches Recht über und neben dem Privatrecht existiert und wo andererseits die Privatisierung von allem, von Land und Wasser und die konsequente Achtung von Eigentumsrechten durchgesetzt werden soll. In dem Paper wird argumentiert, dass der reine Liberalismus als makelloses Ideal nicht taugt, sondern mit theoretischen wie praktischen Schwierigkeiten zu kämpfen hat.
  • Ein wesentliches Problem dieses Ansatzes ist es, dass Rechte und Pflichten in einer Privatrechtsgesellschaft nur durch Verträge entstehen. Tiere werden dabei als grundsätzlich nicht vertragsfähig erachtet. Doch der Mensch ist kein besonderes, mit einzigartiger Intelligenz ausgestattetes Wesen. Tiere unterscheiden sich graduell, aber nicht kategorial von uns auch hinsichtlich der Intelligenz, des Bewusstseins, und der Rationalität. Wenn der Mensch eine nicht so herausgehobene Stellung hat wie angenommen, dann sollten nicht-menschliche Tiere, die ebenso (zumindest in den hohen Entwicklungsformen) ein Recht auf Eigentum an ihrem Körper hätten, nicht kategorisch aus der Gemeinschaft ausgeschlossen werden.
  • Ein weiteres Problem ist die Frage der Haftung bei Verletzung von Eigentumsrechten. Wäre in einer Privatrechtsgesellschaft nur derjenige haftbar, dem man eine direkte Kausalität nachweisen kann? Wirkungen können jedoch überdeterminiert sein, also mehr als eine hinreichende Ursache zählen (etwa wenn ich den Rasen giesse und es gleichzeitig regnet); oder Ursachen können nur probabilistische sein, also nur mit einer gewissen Wahrscheinlichkeit (<1) einen Effekt zeitigen (wenn ich rauchen würde, müsste ich nicht unbedingt Lungenkrebs bekommen). Weiterhin kann man zwischen ordentlichen Ursachen und blossen, aber essentiellen Rahmenbedingungen unterscheiden: Ist das Vorliegen von Sauerstoff die Ursache oder lediglich eine notwendige Bedingung für ein Feuer? Kurzum, der pure Liberalismus blendet eine reichhaltige und Klarheit schaffende philosophische Debatte aus.

Disclaimer: Der Text ist nicht von mir, sondern vom Liberalen Institut. Sobald das Liberale Institut (oder der Autor des Textes) einen Account bei Hive hat, sende ich die Rewards für diesen Post (grosszügig aufgerundet) zu dessen Account.


Dear Hivers,

The Liberal Institute from Zurich has published a new paper, written by Christian Hugo Hoffmann (entrepreneur and postdoc at the Chair of Entrepreneurial Risks at ETH in Zurich; https://www.christian-hugo-hoffmann.com/): https://www.libinst.ch/publikationen/LI-Paper-Hoffmann-Pragmatismus.pdf

source

Summary

  • In response to the increasing threat to liberty and property in contemporary welfare states, liberal counter-designs emerged. Among them is a pure form of liberalism, also known as a private law society, where, on the one hand, no public law exists above and apart from private law, and where, on the other hand, the privatization of everything, land and water, and the consequent respect for property rights are to be enforced. The paper argues that pure liberalism is no good as a flawless ideal, but faces theoretical as well as practical difficulties.
  • A major problem with this approach is that rights and duties in a private law society arise only through contracts. Animals are thereby considered fundamentally incapable of contract. But humans are not special beings endowed with unique intelligence. Animals differ gradually, but not categorically, from us also in terms of intelligence, consciousness, and rationality. If humans do not have such a prominent position as assumed, then non-human animals, which would equally (at least in high developmental forms) have a right to ownership of their bodies, should not be categorically excluded from the community.
  • Another problem is the question of liability for violation of property rights. In a private law society, would only those who could be shown to have direct causation be liable? Effects, however, can be overdetermined, i.e. count more than one sufficient cause (for example, if I water the lawn and it rains at the same time); or causes can only be probabilistic, i.e. produce an effect only with a certain probability (<1) (if I smoked, I would not necessarily get lung cancer). Furthermore, one can distinguish between ordinary causes and mere but essential conditions: Is the presence of oxygen the cause or merely a necessary condition for a fire? In short, pure liberalism hides a rich and clarifying philosophical debate.

Disclaimer: This text was not written by me, but is from the Liberales Institut (a classical liberal think tank from Zurich). As soon as Liberales Institut (or the author of the text) has an account with Hive, I will send the rewards for this post (generously rounded up) to its account.


Queridos Hiveanos,

El Instituto Liberal de Zúrich ha publicado un nuevo artículo escrito por Christian Hugo Hoffmann (empresario y postdoc en la Cátedra de Riesgos Empresariales de la ETH de Zúrich; https://www.christian-hugo-hoffmann.com/): https://www.libinst.ch/publikationen/LI-Paper-Hoffmann-Pragmatismus.pdf

fuente

Resumen

  • Los contra-diseños liberales surgieron como reacción a la creciente amenaza a la libertad y la propiedad en los actuales estados de bienestar. Entre ellas se encuentra una forma pura de liberalismo, también conocida como sociedad de derecho privado, en la que, por un lado, no existe el derecho público por encima y al lado del derecho privado, y en la que, por otro lado, se quiere imponer la privatización de todo, la tierra y el agua, y el consiguiente respeto de los derechos de propiedad. El documento sostiene que el liberalismo puro no es bueno como ideal impecable, sino que se enfrenta a dificultades tanto teóricas como prácticas.
  • Un problema importante de este enfoque es que los derechos y deberes en una sociedad de derecho privado sólo surgen a través de los contratos. Por lo tanto, se considera que los animales son fundamentalmente incapaces de contratar. Pero los humanos no son seres especiales dotados de una inteligencia única. Los animales difieren gradualmente, pero no de forma categórica, de nosotros también en términos de inteligencia, conciencia y racionalidad. Si los humanos no tienen una posición tan prominente como se supone, entonces los animales no humanos, que igualmente (al menos en las formas de alto desarrollo) tendrían derecho a la propiedad de sus cuerpos, no deberían ser excluidos categóricamente de la comunidad.
  • Otro problema es la cuestión de la responsabilidad en caso de violación de los derechos de propiedad. En una sociedad de derecho privado, ¿sólo serían responsables los que puedan demostrar la causalidad directa? Sin embargo, los efectos pueden ser sobredeterminados, es decir, contar con más de una causa suficiente (por ejemplo, si riego el césped y llueve al mismo tiempo); o las causas sólo pueden ser probabilísticas, es decir, sólo producen un efecto con una cierta probabilidad (<1) (si fumara, no necesariamente tendría cáncer de pulmón). Además, se puede distinguir entre las causas ordinarias y las meras pero esenciales condiciones: ¿La presencia de oxígeno es la causa o simplemente una condición necesaria para un incendio? En definitiva, el liberalismo puro esconde un rico y clarificador debate filosófico.

Descargo de responsabilidad: Este texto no ha sido escrito por mí, sino que procede del Liberales Institut (un grupo de reflexión liberal clásico de Zúrich). En cuanto el Liberales Institut (o el autor del texto) tenga una cuenta en Hive, enviaré las recompensas de este post (generosamente redondeadas) a su cuenta.

Se agradecen mucho las correcciones lingüísticas, ya que todavía estoy trabajando con DeepL (https://www.deepl.com/translator) y me gustaría mejorar mi español. Gracias.

Sort:  

Pure liberalism is no good as a flawless ideal, but faces theoretical as well as practical difficulties. First, the assumption that each person is rational and will make decisions that are in their own best interest is often not accurate. In reality, people are often irrational and make decisions based on emotions, social pressure, or other factors. This can lead to outcomes that are not in line with what a purely liberal system would predict.

Second, even if everyone was rational, the world is not always a fair place. There are often obstacles in the way of people achieving their goals, and not everyone has the same opportunities. This can lead to a situation where the most successful people are those who were born into privilege or who have other advantages, rather than those who are the most deserving.

Third, pure liberalism relies on a strong government to enforce the rules and to protect individual rights. In reality, governments are often corrupt or incompetent, and this can lead to a loss of liberty rather than an increase in it.

First, the assumption that each person is rational and will make decisions that are in their own best interest is often not accurate.

  • Yes, but this is not an assumption of liberalism, but of economics in general.

Second, even if everyone was rational, the world is not always a fair place. There are often obstacles in the way of people achieving their goals, and not everyone has the same opportunities. This can lead to a situation where the most successful people are those who were born into privilege or who have other advantages, rather than those who are the most deserving.

  • Yes, I fully agree. This is a problem in each and any political or economic system. Does the current western half socialist, half liberal systems improve the situation of underprivileged people - compared to a purely classical liberal system? We don't know.

Third, pure liberalism relies on a strong government to enforce the rules and to protect individual rights. In reality, governments are often corrupt or incompetent, and this can lead to a loss of liberty rather than an increase in it.

  • Here I don't agree. Pure (really pure) liberalism refuses any government. It wants a "private law society" (as mentioned by the author), especially because governments are often corrupt or incompetent.

The issues about other animals having rights is indeed oddly conceived, for one how would they air those rights😂
If something like a chicken had right to life... Then i must be the hangman or something.

Congratulations @zuerich! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)

You received more than 41000 HP as payout for your posts, comments and curation.
Your next payout target is 42000 HP.
The unit is Hive Power equivalent because post and comment rewards can be split into HP and HBD

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Check out the last post from @hivebuzz:

Hive Power Up Month Challenge 2022-11 - Winners List
HiveBuzz World Cup Contest - Recap of Day 11
Be ready for the last Hive Power Up Month of the year!

Dear @zuerich,
Your support for the current HiveSQL proposal (#138) is much appreciated but the proposal will expire soon!
May I ask you to review and support the new proposal so HiveSQL can stay free to use for the community?
You can support the new proposal (#247) on Peakd, Ecency,

Hive.blog / https://wallet.hive.blog/proposals
or using HiveSigner.

Thank you!