It reminds me of the prisoner' dilemma. If they all come together and discuss what they all will do in whatever circumstance then they can all agree on something. However, in reality, this sort of ignorance like in prisoner's dilemma for this story are very relatable. The thing is that this can be resolved by two people at a time having honest conversations. For instance, Angelina talks to the guy she likes and tells him thst she wants to mary him but if he won't she'll mary the judge. Then that guy ahould decide what he wants and etc. If they all just decide independently then they can end up in a suboptimal situation. In fact, such a situation is not even possible because choosing to marry is not something that can be done independently (unlike the prisoner's dilemma where chooses have to be done independently). The only choose that is independent is that all remain single but that is unstable and will fall apart as soon as someone speaks to another person about their plans.
Isn't the Libertarian Principle that there are certain choices which each individual should have the right to decide entirely for and by themselves? But whoever thought that the choice of whom to marry could ever be such a choice? In this case there is bound to be at least one other person who has a vital interest in any decision you may make (unless it be to remain single, perhaps) and who has, one would hope, a right of veto. So the fact that the Libertarian Principle comes into conflict here with the Weak Pareto Condition seems wholly unsurprising.
Will is belief wedded to desire. Here the desire is ..what exactly? Social optimization of marriage? Love? Concupiscence? What about the beliefs? Does any one of them have a personal belief that is stronger than any social belief, or vice versa? Belief rules the day. Whoever has the stronger belief does what he/she wills. If an outside source were to decide based on optimization for society instead of the strength of personal belief, how would that be better? Better based on what? A "social will" rather than personal will? Beliefs require faith. A resort of faith is patience. Love is being around and being polite. Being around usually makes patience decide belief: affirm belief or nullify belief. Check Nora in "A doll's house".
Isn't each ought to choose to recognize what would be the basis of these choices and not take them as they are equally viable options. Edwin should realize that staying single is a choice free from the inspiration of the other option of marrying Angelina, which is highly conditioned. After marriage, as the strength of governing conditions dissipates, he might lose interest. And thus, it might prove to be wrong in the future. Given Angelina knows both scenarios, she ought to know the route of desires from both parties. The judge, too, would need to realize that entering a relationship is not merely 'what Angelina wants.' Otherwise, irrespective of looking selfless, there is a danger of not learning his own position and responsibility. He needs to find a reason, which could be different from others, to be a better choice for Angelina than being single or the other option.
These are great! However, "alienable" rights are not rights. It's kind of an equivocation. The "right" to remain single vs the Right to live your life as you see fit - within the nap (which is somewhat socially mediated through tradition and social pressure) - are different in kind. If only because the former is dependent on the latter. Giving up your "right" to stay single is necessary in order to exercise your "right" to not stay single, both of which derive their psuedo-status as "rights" from the more formal and general right to property (the only right), i.e., in this instance self-ownership. This was the entire problem with the Bill of Rights. Listing SOME of the concrete IMPLICATIONS of the right to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness in the first amendment for example, leaves one with the impression that rights are concrete and particular actions as opposed to general, formal, and universal (inalienable) structure of being human. By marring Angelina, Edwin does NOT surrender his "right" to remain single. He still has that "right" - even though it's kind of inaccurate to call it a "right" in the first place, in my opinion. Strictly speaking, one does not have the "right" to free speech, for example. One has only the right to property which includes your body which by chance is capable of facilitating speech. A person born without a mouth still has the "right" to free speech even if he is incapable of exercising that right.
Edwin richly deserves his last choice. Angelina will be well taken care of. I see no problem. Edwin would be a crappy husband at best. The Judge is wrong to wish for her to marry Edwin. The dilemma is resolved by the superiority of an actual _objective_ and normative standard (a solid marriage outcome) trumping _preferences_. Note that no outside entity imposed the objectively-good outcome, therefore it's libertarian enough, isn't it?
I saw the title and said sign me up!
yea, but What if edwin marries the judge?
There is a known saying, "Best is the enemy of good." Because of inefficiency and diminishing returns to attain an ideal.
It reminds me of the prisoner' dilemma. If they all come together and discuss what they all will do in whatever circumstance then they can all agree on something.
However, in reality, this sort of ignorance like in prisoner's dilemma for this story are very relatable.
The thing is that this can be resolved by two people at a time having honest conversations.
For instance, Angelina talks to the guy she likes and tells him thst she wants to mary him but if he won't she'll mary the judge. Then that guy ahould decide what he wants and etc.
If they all just decide independently then they can end up in a suboptimal situation. In fact, such a situation is not even possible because choosing to marry is not something that can be done independently (unlike the prisoner's dilemma where chooses have to be done independently). The only choose that is independent is that all remain single but that is unstable and will fall apart as soon as someone speaks to another person about their plans.
The Meta-Game of the individuals gets revealed here! And a place, where humility gets you far!
Edwin's jealousy will fade with each new conquest.
His desire to be single will last till is mojo is gone.
Isn't the Libertarian Principle that there are certain choices which each individual should have the right to decide entirely for and by themselves? But whoever thought that the choice of whom to marry could ever be such a choice? In this case there is bound to be at least one other person who has a vital interest in any decision you may make (unless it be to remain single, perhaps) and who has, one would hope, a right of veto. So the fact that the Libertarian Principle comes into conflict here with the Weak Pareto Condition seems wholly unsurprising.
Will is belief wedded to desire. Here the desire is ..what exactly? Social optimization of marriage? Love? Concupiscence?
What about the beliefs? Does any one of them have a personal belief that is stronger than any social belief, or vice versa?
Belief rules the day. Whoever has the stronger belief does what he/she wills.
If an outside source were to decide based on optimization for society instead of the strength of personal belief, how would that be better? Better based on what? A "social will" rather than personal will?
Beliefs require faith. A resort of faith is patience. Love is being around and being polite. Being around usually makes patience decide belief: affirm belief or nullify belief. Check Nora in "A doll's house".
Isn't each ought to choose to recognize what would be the basis of these choices and not take them as they are equally viable options. Edwin should realize that staying single is a choice free from the inspiration of the other option of marrying Angelina, which is highly conditioned. After marriage, as the strength of governing conditions dissipates, he might lose interest. And thus, it might prove to be wrong in the future. Given Angelina knows both scenarios, she ought to know the route of desires from both parties. The judge, too, would need to realize that entering a relationship is not merely 'what Angelina wants.' Otherwise, irrespective of looking selfless, there is a danger of not learning his own position and responsibility. He needs to find a reason, which could be different from others, to be a better choice for Angelina than being single or the other option.
Thanks for the video.
The picture at 2:22 reminded me of Ted Bundy, unfortunately
These are great! However, "alienable" rights are not rights. It's kind of an equivocation. The "right" to remain single vs the Right to live your life as you see fit - within the nap (which is somewhat socially mediated through tradition and social pressure) - are different in kind. If only because the former is dependent on the latter. Giving up your "right" to stay single is necessary in order to exercise your "right" to not stay single, both of which derive their psuedo-status as "rights" from the more formal and general right to property (the only right), i.e., in this instance self-ownership. This was the entire problem with the Bill of Rights. Listing SOME of the concrete IMPLICATIONS of the right to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness in the first amendment for example, leaves one with the impression that rights are concrete and particular actions as opposed to general, formal, and universal (inalienable) structure of being human. By marring Angelina, Edwin does NOT surrender his "right" to remain single. He still has that "right" - even though it's kind of inaccurate to call it a "right" in the first place, in my opinion. Strictly speaking, one does not have the "right" to free speech, for example. One has only the right to property which includes your body which by chance is capable of facilitating speech. A person born without a mouth still has the "right" to free speech even if he is incapable of exercising that right.
Option 4 polyamory.
😀
Another explanation of the J. Geils Band Love Stinks.
Option 4
Polyamory
Option 5
Sex robot with Angelina’s face on it.
Edwin richly deserves his last choice. Angelina will be well taken care of. I see no problem.
Edwin would be a crappy husband at best. The Judge is wrong to wish for her to marry Edwin.
The dilemma is resolved by the superiority of an actual _objective_ and normative standard (a solid marriage outcome) trumping _preferences_.
Note that no outside entity imposed the objectively-good outcome, therefore it's libertarian enough, isn't it?
Thanks for the video.
The picture at 2:22 reminded me of Ted Bundy, unfortunately. I thought the pictures were weird (esp the guy without the shirt)