There is, but it's at such a low intuitive level it's extremely difficult to notice without having something else to compare. Here's a universal common sensical value: "no social grouping is predicated upon the unrestricted right of any member to murder any other member for any reason whatsoever". It derives from natural selection: any human social grouping that at some point had developed that as a value went extinct once everyone murdered everyone else, so only those that held alternative values (that it's okay for some members to murder some other members, and for members to murder non-members, under defined criteria) survived, making this a general shared value -- though, evidently, the criteria for when murdering others is and isn't socially acceptable (and must be celebrated or severely punished) vary wildly.

The interesting thing is precisely in that machines may lack human values even at that low level, and it takes a lot of effort to imagine all the ways they can end up doing things that violate these baselines so utterly obvious to us we take them for granted and never ever even state them explicitly, so self-evidently obvious they are to us.

That's precisely why everyone limits it, including Libertarians. Things Capitalists will happily trade when not restrained include, among others -- and these are things that happened until they were forcibly prevented: slaves, of both the chattel and indentured varieties; laws, purchasing the best priced ones from the best law-sellers; navies from army-renting countries to topple annoying governments; bounty hunters to cut off the hands and legs of children slaves to force their parents to do what they're told; corsairs to attack and destroy competing cargo ships; hitmen to kill competitors; mobs to spank and kill protesters; and so on, and so forth.

What differs between political ideologies is how much restraining they want to put on Capitalism. Libertarians think that forbidding Capitalists to trade on slaves and laws suffices. Others think additional restrains are required. But everyone, without exception, wants to prevent pure, raw Capitalism from running rampant.

No one likes pure, raw, unbridled Capitalism, not even its most staunch defenders.

Thank you for making my point.
The fact that you are free to lie in the US, and that it is viewed as protected speech is mind-boggling.

Lying is lying.. but when you write down that lie it somehow becomes fraud, which is illegal?
If you lie about someone's character it is libel, which is punishable by law?

It should be illegal to lie. Sure, you can say what you want, but you should also be held to account for the consequences of those words. The first amendment does not give you a get out of jail free card to say what you want without consequence.

As is fraud, slander and a whole host of other names for the same thing.

If intentionally misleading people is criminal, then using AI to mislead people is criminal.

Of course then so should the right to lying to the public be criminal, and from all I can see it seems to be protected under the first amendment. (If you are a US person, at least)

Those are good points, but what strikes me as utterly silly in what most every critic of the model say is that they threat the four letters as four axes and go from there.

They aren't. The Jungian model doesn't say, for example, that Extroversion and Introversion are one axis. It says there are four extroverted functions, and four introverted functions. Each extroverted function forms three axes: one with its introverted version, another with its opposite function in its extroverted version, and another with its opposite function in its introverted version. The letter "I" or "E" at the beginning of the four letters type tells you which of your two main functions (one of which is extroverted, the other is introverted) is the primary.

So it absolutely obvious, from the mere description of what the first letter alone means, that it won't map to the Extroversion axis of the Big Five model, and any correlation found between both won't be strong.

And yet, every single criticism of MBTI I find, and every single study trying to correlate both, present the E/I letter pair, and the Extraversion axis, should behave roughly the same, and point to them not correlating strongly (but stronger than other such not-axes pared to axes) as if this was a very important finding.

So I do take issue with how psychologists approach this. It's pretty evident they start by paying zero attention to whatever Jung wrote (irrespective of MBTI, for which I care little), then test a strawman they made, and prove this strawman is false. Which says nothing about the Jungian model itself, as it wasn't tested.

What I want to see is someone reading Jung, developing a psychometric test of what he was actually saying, and testing that one. I'm yet to see anything of the sort made, whether by proponents of by critics, I don't care which.

That's where I take issue with the criticisms. Whenever I read a detailed paper criticizing Juntian typology in general, and MBTI in particular, especially when they're compared with the Big Five, I'm always surprised by how much the critics understand the later but not the former. I don't mean agreeing with the former, I mean merely understanding. For example, this paper is one the most detailed criticisms I found, and while it argues very well, it strikes me a categorical set of misunderstandings of everything about one side of the issue coupled with an exceptional understanding of the other. This is the norm for all such discussions with few exceptions, and that's deeply annoying.

By the way, yes, the test the company itself applies is garbage, as it, the test, utterly fails at doing what it purports to do.

That's a good denouncing of the test applied by the company. Is that a problem with the testing procedure, being as it is profit-motivated? With the baseline Jungian model it's based upon? With both? For instance, I haven't seen any study of how things fare when one ignores the four MBTI letters that try to wrap the eight Jungian cognitive functions into an easy-to-sell package, and go deal with those directly.

Sure. Here's an analysis of how it fails correlating with Big Five and how it's measuring "something" that Big Five doesn't deal with. That something is consistent. And there's a remarkable lack of studies of what that is, which is precisely the problem:

* Furnham, A. (2022) The Big Five Facets and the MBTI: The Relationship between the 30 NEO-PI(R) Facets and the Four Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Scores. Psychology, 13, 1504-1516. doi: 10.4236/psych.2022.1310095.

Psychologists not studying something "because reasons" isn't the same of that which they aren't studying being nothing.

Why?

(Expecting the standard handwaving of having heard something-something about statistics without having looked into any of that directly.)

Who's a leftist?

Biden?

If you believe having governments makes things bad, try living in places where there's none.

I suspect you wouldn't like the experience.

Wow, you really took to heart the half-truths conspiracy theorists mix within their lies to make those lies seem true. What's next? Alleging climate scientist "forgot to take Sun cycles into account"?

Nope. American pseudo-conservatives in general believe they can become elite, so why would they bring to heel that which they aspire to? Sure, less than 0.01% of them ever will, but the low likelihood doesn't impact the inspirational aspect of the dream. Therefore, they fully support "drill, baby, drill" policies, even if the slogan itself went away.

Pretty much, yes. That's law, not logic. Though presumably laws should be logical, they need not be. Hence, if a law states a goal and a means to achieve that goal, both the goal and the means are linked, whether that link makes sense (as it does for guns case) or not (in your analogy with books).

Therefore, if the legislators wanted the right to bear arms to be an absolute freedom, they wouldn't have stated as a goal the upkeep of a well-regulated militia, they'd simply have stated the right by itself, as an end unto itself. Since there's a linked goal, both must be pursued together.

I think therein lies the solution. The 2nd Amendment has two parts:

a) People should be free to bear arms;

b) So that they're effective members of a well-regulated militia.

Why defend only "a", but not "b"? Enforce "b"! Have a permanent, universal draft in the US, as is done in other countries. 1 to 3 years of mandatory army service when one turns 16 or 18 years old, including obligatory extensive firearms training and infantry tactics. This way everyone will be a full part of the well-regulated militia, making their free arms-bearing when released from the draft a useful skill to both family, neighbors, State, and Union, in the eventuality of external invasion.

Complement it with two provisions:

c) Once one's released from the draft, one gets, to keep and safeguard, the personal-grade weapons and body armor they used during their draft, with a legal duty to keep them in working order so former draftees can be called unto service ready for deployment when duty calls. They may also bring to service any additional weapons and armor they own as personal belongings if they so wish, but, at the bare minimum, they must have their government-issued ones always in perfect functioning order -- and always ready to be inspected.

d) One may refuse "b", and be exempted from the draft (and also from "c"), but that automatically rescinds their "a", as they cannot be split. Hence, if someone wants the right to bear arms, one must be part of a legally valid militia by following all the regulations that make it well-regulated.

Those provisions would simultaneously completely fulfill the 2nd Amendment's original intent Conservatives are fond of, and reduce accidental gun accidents and crime as Progressives desire since every single arms-bearing citizen would be fully competent at it. It'd also fulfill Communists' and Anarchists' wishes since all Proletarians would be armed and ready for the Revolution if conditions are met; militant Feminists, since all cis-women and transgender persons would be trained to be ready to defend themselves with full force if attacked; and also provide the means and training for all members minorities to similarly defend themselves.

No Constitutional changes are required, only ordinary laws, if even that much.