|
you really think the state is a bigger threat to them rather than its customers never coming back and them losing profits? Death and incarceration aren't scarier to an individual than having slightly less filthy lucre?
You, sir, have your priorities hilariously skewed.
what if they're operating at a third world country where the police force is inexistant They'd be selling stuff instead of offering people semi-slavery employment there?
what if they did indeed ask the government to stop opressing them?
don't matter, state says no, walmart folks got to shut the fuck up or have thugs come by and incarcerate them. So?
1) they've renounced the right of self-sovereignty, so they can't claim based on superior authorization.
2) they can join another collective by leaving the state.
violence is expensive. Its also excessively profitable.
It's not coercive if it was agreed upon by both parties beforehand.
hence its a contract... a deal, an agreement.
If i put a gun to your head and you sign a deal, suddenly it isn't coercive?
Ok bro.
and you think the entrepreneurs doing businesses wouldn't account for that risk? you really think they're dumb and like throwing money away? They will manage. There can be insurance, deposits, I don't know what else, the market is a billion heads worth of ideas. They accounted for it. The current only viable idea for accounting for it is rule by law in civil society.
But lets take your example: I give a shitton of cash to an insurance company. The insurance company packs up and leaves. What exactly do you do? Get insurance insurance? Get the insurance company to give YOU a deposit?
LOOOOOOL.
it's not true privatization because again, the government never, 99% of the time, shrinks a service or department. Completely irrelevant? Well done. You have no data to support your claim. I have pretty much every quantifiable indicator in that segment.
I didn't get half of what you said but sounds like government black ops to me amirite? Read Gyges. The 'perfect' unjust man is one that appears to be perfectly just and gets away with everything.
I'm not against monopolies which have reached their position by voluntary means
I'm against monopolies which are what they are by coercion, threat, violence.
the state is the latter There's no difference outside of civil society.
I don't need to. Oh, okay. I don't need to look up facts to make comparisons either. Henceforth your argument is invalid because my hair is a bird.
ok sorry for misrepresenting
it's not, because if no one owns it, then no one has a 'right' to control it
but I guess u know that and we are in agreement
(still don't like to call it public) No. That's res nullius or abandoned property. Property that has not yet been taken or abandoned property. I'm talking about PUBLIC property as opposed to PRIVATE property. Unappropriated property is another classification altogether.
I'll end there, because bird hair makes me invulnerable. When you feel like reading up on the topics that people have presented you in this thread, do so. This isn't a 'new' philosophical debate. Plenty of your arguments have already been completely decimated in literature to the point of having catch-phrase names. So, to restate my position: My hair is a bird, your argument is invalid.
|
On April 29 2010 06:54 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 06:43 shinigami wrote:
The anime "The Legend of Galactic Heroes" explores these issues as well as providing an epically scaled galactic-wide political drama/warfare.
One of the the protagonists believes nations are "meaningless". By that, he meant that nations are made up of people with similar goals, and exist to serve those people to that end. He sees it as more of a political tool for power (you serve it) than a genuine entity that serves you.
Though he hates the corruption present in his government, his loyalty to his country and beliefs does not waver lest he fall into corruption as well. He understands that though he is a single man, he is part of the foundation of what is right.
--
With that in mind, collectivism only works to a certain extent before the amount of individuals that belong to it starts to cap the collective's willingness to pursue the said goals. Eventually, there's going to be a point where the growing amount of individuals within the collective do not share the same mindset and thus begin to hinder the collective's overall progress.
Obviously, there are a lot of benefits to collectivism, but it is never the "be all, end all" solution to everything, and should be utilized in humanity within reasonable limits. your too mild u gotta go like fuk the poleeece
Well, that would be the extreme option... A revolution.
The public opinion isn't in favour of a revolution, but the slow and steady changes they want aren't happening because of it being hindered by various red-tapes, and its own slow speed via inefficient legislation...
"The Legend of Galactic Heroes" brings up an excellent point:
Do we want a corrupt democracy, or a just dictatorship?
Obviously, the democracy is of no use when it is corrupt, and a dictatorship is only as good as its leader; the dictator may be righteous, but once he dies, the system can easily become corrupted.
There really is no right or wrong answer.
|
On April 29 2010 07:12 L wrote:Show nested quote +you really think the state is a bigger threat to them rather than its customers never coming back and them losing profits? Death and incarceration aren't scarier to an individual than having slightly less filthy lucre? You, sir, have your priorities hilariously skewed.
sigh
it doesn't matter what the punishment is because the crime itself is not worth it.
they're gonna kill and rob some people for what?
bad press and some quick money?
they have too big of a name to waste on petty crimes
too many years and capital invested to risk it all on an inefficient and short-term profit scheme
which is why only petty criminals do petty stuff like that
nothing to lose
On April 29 2010 07:12 L wrote:Show nested quote +what if they're operating at a third world country where the police force is inexistant They'd be selling stuff instead of offering people semi-slavery employment there?
this has nothing to do with what I said but... you say semi-slavery?... funny
you think third world sweatshop workers would be better off with no job, or maybe subsistence farming?
they know what's best for them better than you, and guess what, they choose to work, even if its what we would call a shit job
don't you think they would be offended by you calling their job slavery?
their job may be tougher than anything else in the world but it's not slavery unless they're working at the point of a gun
which I doubt they are
On April 29 2010 07:12 L wrote:Show nested quote +what if they did indeed ask the government to stop opressing them?
don't matter, state says no, walmart folks got to shut the fuck up or have thugs come by and incarcerate them. So? 1) they've renounced the right of self-sovereignty, so they can't claim based on superior authorization.
paying tribute to your warlords is renouncing your property then?
On April 29 2010 07:12 L wrote:
2) they can join another collective by leaving the state.
sure they can, and I can try to run away from a thug thats pointing a gun at me
does it make the thug legitimate for you?
what if they just can't move, like, what if I'm on a wheelchair?
too bad?
On April 29 2010 07:12 L wrote: Its also excessively profitable. Show nested quote +It's not coercive if it was agreed upon by both parties beforehand.
hence its a contract... a deal, an agreement.
If i put a gun to your head and you sign a deal, suddenly it isn't coercive? Ok bro.
obviously the contract has to be signed voluntarily, not under duress, and consciously.
and if he puts a gun to your head well, the thug could make you do a lot of things like, maybe just make you give him your wallet. nothing's right after the gun has been pulled...
On April 29 2010 07:12 L wrote:Show nested quote +and you think the entrepreneurs doing businesses wouldn't account for that risk? you really think they're dumb and like throwing money away? They will manage. There can be insurance, deposits, I don't know what else, the market is a billion heads worth of ideas. They accounted for it. The current only viable idea for accounting for it is rule by law in civil society.
you don't know that.
On April 29 2010 07:12 L wrote:
But lets take your example: I give a shitton of cash to an insurance company. The insurance company packs up and leaves. What exactly do you do? Get insurance insurance? Get the insurance company to give YOU a deposit?
LOOOOOOL.
hahaha.
I think you give too much credit for government if you think some lazy pigs sitting at a desk in washington are the ones preventing massive fraud from happening because pranksters are afraid of them.
if there's a possibility for fraud in a transaction, people themselves will learn from experience and will find ways to stop it. no one is a fool forever. as much as new scams are created, new preventive checks are too.
I know you like real life examples so I do have a readilly available one. on the internet too. look at ebay.com and how they handle fraud. theres a credit system, theres a complaint system, a dispute settling system.
hell in the real world even, there are many credit score agencies that could easily take over the legal system as well, and issue "lawful" scores about the peoples and companies ability to fulfill contracts, with a history of any disputes. use your imagination, not everything needs a gun to be solved.
entrepreneurs > bureaucrats, any day of the week
On April 29 2010 07:12 L wrote:Show nested quote +it's not true privatization because again, the government never, 99% of the time, shrinks a service or department. Completely irrelevant? Well done. You have no data to support your claim. I have pretty much every quantifiable indicator in that segment.
no I don't, but for that matter, I haven't seen any data from you, so I guess we're even mr. empiricist.
On April 29 2010 07:12 L wrote:Show nested quote +I didn't get half of what you said but sounds like government black ops to me amirite? Read Gyges. The 'perfect' unjust man is one that appears to be perfectly just and gets away with everything.
I did and I made a post about it.
and its completely compatible w\ praxeology
On April 29 2010 07:12 L wrote:Show nested quote +I'm not against monopolies which have reached their position by voluntary means
I'm against monopolies which are what they are by coercion, threat, violence.
the state is the latter There's no difference outside of civil society.
I still don't quite know what civil society means
I read wikipedia but just made me more confused.
So give me some time b4 using that word again
On April 29 2010 07:12 L wrote: Oh, okay. I don't need to look up facts to make comparisons either. Henceforth your argument is invalid because my hair is a bird.
thats not how it goes. you lay out logical chains built on agreeable premises
theres not really a need to induct everything, just for specific disputes
On April 29 2010 07:12 L wrote:Show nested quote +ok sorry for misrepresenting
it's not, because if no one owns it, then no one has a 'right' to control it
but I guess u know that and we are in agreement
(still don't like to call it public) No. That's res nullius or abandoned property. Property that has not yet been taken or abandoned property. I'm talking about PUBLIC property as opposed to PRIVATE property. Unappropriated property is another classification altogether.
then you mean public property is property that has never been owned?
there's not that many types and I dont know wtf u mean by public property then
On April 29 2010 07:12 L wrote:
I'll end there, because bird hair makes me invulnerable. When you feel like reading up on the topics that people have presented you in this thread, do so. This isn't a 'new' philosophical debate. Plenty of your arguments have already been completely decimated in literature to the point of having catch-phrase names. So, to restate my position: My hair is a bird, your argument is invalid. so funny
|
On April 29 2010 07:24 shinigami wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 06:54 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 06:43 shinigami wrote:
The anime "The Legend of Galactic Heroes" explores these issues as well as providing an epically scaled galactic-wide political drama/warfare.
One of the the protagonists believes nations are "meaningless". By that, he meant that nations are made up of people with similar goals, and exist to serve those people to that end. He sees it as more of a political tool for power (you serve it) than a genuine entity that serves you.
Though he hates the corruption present in his government, his loyalty to his country and beliefs does not waver lest he fall into corruption as well. He understands that though he is a single man, he is part of the foundation of what is right.
--
With that in mind, collectivism only works to a certain extent before the amount of individuals that belong to it starts to cap the collective's willingness to pursue the said goals. Eventually, there's going to be a point where the growing amount of individuals within the collective do not share the same mindset and thus begin to hinder the collective's overall progress.
Obviously, there are a lot of benefits to collectivism, but it is never the "be all, end all" solution to everything, and should be utilized in humanity within reasonable limits. your too mild u gotta go like fuk the poleeece Well, that would be the extreme option... A revolution. The public opinion isn't in favour of a revolution, but the slow and steady changes they want aren't happening because of it being hindered by various red-tapes, and its own slow speed via inefficient legislation... "The Legend of Galactic Heroes" brings up an excellent point: Do we want a corrupt democracy, or a just dictatorship?Obviously, the democracy is of no use when it is corrupt, and a dictatorship is only as good as its leader; the dictator may be righteous, but once he dies, the system can easily become corrupted. There really is no right or wrong answer.
how about
neither
|
I edited the OP
mr. hefty will be happy
|
it doesn't matter what the punishment is because the crime itself is not worth it. The only way you can argue this is that the person had an objective value to the criminal which was larger than the payoff for killing him and taking all his stuff.
Alternatively, you could argue that there was some sort of collective identity that would be harmed by infighting, but you can't do that because that's prima-facie against your conclusion.
which is why only petty criminals do petty stuff like that
nothing to lose No, that's because there's a massive amount of violence which is justified and accepted waiting for them if they do in civil society. That violence does not exist except from being generated from individuals on an individual basis in your theory.
You clearly haven't thought this out.
This has nothing to do with what I said So then don't talk about it. Talk about the relevant part, which you failed to do.
paying tribute to your warlords is renouncing your property then? Would you keep a claim over your property after you've alienated it? No. That said, your reply has nothing to do with my comment.
sure they can, and I can try to run away from a thug thats pointing a gun at me
does it make the thug legitimate for you? You need to make a fundamental argument for why the 'thug' is not legitimate, which means you need to define legitimate in the first place, which you probably won't be able to without either some form of objective natural law (which goes against your stated relativism) or some sort of collective that agrees with your definition (which goes against your militant individualism). So yeah, if I'm in a war, wherein I'm not under the protection of a state and someone comes up to me with a gun, I could say "good sir, you couldn't possibly shoot me. your actions are illegitimate!", but legitimacy would be somewhat irrelevant wouldn't it?
obviously the contract has to be signed voluntarily, not under duress, and consciously. Says who? Your collective that agrees to enforce such an obligation? You don't have one, remember?
you don't know that. Yes I do. But you don't think people know anything because of your relativism, so why is this a retort here and not elsewhere?
hahaha.
I think you give too much credit for government if you think some lazy pigs sitting at a desk in washington are the ones preventing massive fraud from happening because pranksters are afraid of them.
if there's a possibility for fraud in a transaction, people themselves will learn from experience and will find ways to stop it. no one is a fool forever. as much as new scams are created, new preventive checks are too.
I know you like real life examples so I do have a readilly available one. on the internet too. look at ebay.com and how they handle fraud. theres a credit system, theres a complaint system, a dispute settling system.
hell in the real world even, there are many credit score agencies that could easily take over the legal system as well, and issue "lawful" scores about the peoples and companies ability to fulfill contracts, with a history of any disputes. use your imagination, not everything needs a gun to be solved.
entrepreneurs > bureaucrats, any day of the week I didn't see a solution in there.
You told me to set up a complaint system for people that go against their word. Who would agree to be bound by that? Who would follow it? Who would survive long enough to develop one when you're in somalian conditions and people kinda want to take your stuff? Why wouldn't someone just enter the office and force people at gunpoint to change their score to "awesome"? Hell, why bother. Why not just kill the people you'd deal with and take their shit instead? Because of stigma? Gyges. Does a rating agency even matter if I can just leave the area where I'm blacklisted with fat wads of cash and set up an even bigger ponzi scheme in another city?
Either you argue that everyone is part of the same collective and has the same interests in maintaining this stigma listing system, or your suggestion doesn't work. If you accept the required preposition, your original conclusion is shown to be false. You've trapped yourself.
I could probably stop here because I've shown that even you, in your anti-collective rage have created collectives repeatedly in order to fix inherent problems with your lack of common power, but I'll finish the rest of your post off ez pz.
its completely compatible w\ praxeology No, it isn't. Your objectivist anarchist concept falls very, very quickly when the threat of stigma removes the ability of actors to be fully objective. Without that, we don't even need to address the assumption of rationality, which also gives rise to irreconcilable difficulties.
I still don't quite know what civil society means
I read wikipedia but just made me more confused.
So give me some time b4 using that word again
The section on Hobbes and Locke is probably most instructive, although their description in that article is a gross simplification. Most of the terms that Moltke and I have been using are most cogently described in the frameworks those two authors propose. The following theories are entirely subsidiary to those two original conceptions of what commonwealths and civil society consist of.
thats not how it goes. Oh, i just assumed because you have no idea what we're talking about that I could ignore facts too. Read the history.
then you mean public property is property that has never been owned?
there's not that many types and I dont know wtf u mean by public property then No. Public property is property which is dominantly accessible to everyone. A shopping mall, for instance, is a public area because despite being owned privately, there is an implicit permission that within the ambit of shopping, people can use it as they wish. A bed, by contrast, is in someone's house and is not susceptible of public use. A park is public and within the public sphere. A government building, by contrast, is private, but within the public sphere.
Now tell me what the difference between the first category of public and private property is, and what's the ultimate source of that distinction?
|
It's confusing with all the subtopics floating around...
Let's try to keep things about Collectivism vs Individualism!
|
Just have Balance 
|
Only in a perfect world...
|
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote:Show nested quote +it doesn't matter what the punishment is because the crime itself is not worth it. The only way you can argue this is that the person had an objective value to the criminal which was larger than the payoff for killing him and taking all his stuff.
no, forget it, I think I extrapolated a bit.
the criminal takes into account everything that he knows off, both that can go wrong and right.
in regards to punishment... it does matter, sorry for saying it does not.
but it's not just the punishment, it's punishment times the chance of being caught!
so even if everything else is equal, a private investigator in an unhindered society has much much more of an incentive doing his job than a monopolist thug sheriff, because he earns by each case, has his own reputation to build, and also has to compete w\ other unhindered investigators. He would in the long run, do the job better...
one time where a thug would perhaps perform better is if the victims cannot afford such services, while in the welfare society, he can get those costs payed for by other citizens!
but that is no excuse to lower the quality of service for everyone else. By socializing the police force, it also means everyone gets the same shitty cops, and if they wish to hire private agencies, they are still paying for the public ones and so are burdened in their ability to pay for a decent investigation!
another would be if the investigation requires coercion in the form of, like, breaking into peoples houses, looking for cocaine and shit, but I seriously would not miss that part!
... agree?
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote:
Alternatively, you could argue that there was some sort of collective identity that would be harmed by infighting, but you can't do that because that's prima-facie against your conclusion. criminals don't care bout that. (if I understood anything from that)
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote: No, that's because there's a massive amount of violence which is justified and accepted waiting for them if they do in civil society. That violence does not exist except from being generated from individuals on an individual basis in your theory. You clearly haven't thought this out.
I haven't, but I got a decent set of premises at hand.
and you really got to stop using violence in that sense. It's making me crazy.
can't you be like the good guys and call it self defense?
pleeease?
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote: So then don't talk about it. Talk about the relevant part, which you failed to do.
lol ok
it was a little relevant though
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote: Would you keep a claim over your property after you've alienated it? No. That said, your reply has nothing to do with my comment. When have I alienated it?
I never agreed to have thugs take it over or tax me on it
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote:Show nested quote +sure they can, and I can try to run away from a thug thats pointing a gun at me
does it make the thug legitimate for you? You need to make a fundamental argument for why the 'thug' is not legitimate, which means you need to define legitimate in the first place, which you probably won't be able to without either some form of objective natural law (which goes against your stated relativism) or some sort of collective that agrees with your definition (which goes against your militant individualism).
I'm saying it relatively, don't fret
but I'm amazed that you do not find it illegitimate too
ur really a thug then lololol
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote: So yeah, if I'm in a war, wherein I'm not under the protection of a state and someone comes up to me with a gun, I could say "good sir, you couldn't possibly shoot me. your actions are illegitimate!", but legitimacy would be somewhat irrelevant wouldn't it? for you it wouldn't be irrelevant
and I would back you up too personally
too bad you wouldn't do the same for me 
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote:Show nested quote +obviously the contract has to be signed voluntarily, not under duress, and consciously. Says who? Your collective that agrees to enforce such an obligation? You don't have one, remember?
Can't say I ever did!
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote: Yes I do. But you don't think people know anything because of your relativism, so why is this a retort here and not elsewhere? You don't know if what hasn't be tried works or not.
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote:Show nested quote +hahaha.
I think you give too much credit for government if you think some lazy pigs sitting at a desk in washington are the ones preventing massive fraud from happening because pranksters are afraid of them.
if there's a possibility for fraud in a transaction, people themselves will learn from experience and will find ways to stop it. no one is a fool forever. as much as new scams are created, new preventive checks are too.
I know you like real life examples so I do have a readilly available one. on the internet too. look at ebay.com and how they handle fraud. theres a credit system, theres a complaint system, a dispute settling system.
hell in the real world even, there are many credit score agencies that could easily take over the legal system as well, and issue "lawful" scores about the peoples and companies ability to fulfill contracts, with a history of any disputes. use your imagination, not everything needs a gun to be solved.
entrepreneurs > bureaucrats, any day of the week I didn't see a solution in there. You told me to set up a complaint system for people that go against their word. Who would agree to be bound by that? Who would follow it?
whoever wants to (x2)
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote: Who would survive long enough to develop one when you're in somalian conditions and people kinda want to take your stuff?
hahahaha
ur 2 halariouz
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote: Why wouldn't someone just enter the office and force people at gunpoint to change their score to "awesome"?
once someone does that, word can go out, company loses credibility, some other entrepreneur can come and undercut him
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote: Hell, why bother. Why not just kill the people you'd deal with and take their shit instead? Because of stigma?
stigma and the chance of retaliation
+ whatever other measures put in place by people smarter than you or me
or any bureaucrat for that matter.
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote: Gyges. Does a rating agency even matter if I can just leave the area where I'm blacklisted with fat wads of cash and set up an even bigger ponzi scheme in another city?
agencies can communicate with eachother and share blacklists
not unlike countries in the world do today on a global scale
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote:
Either you argue that everyone is part of the same collective and has the same interests in maintaining this stigma listing system, or your suggestion doesn't work. If you accept the required preposition, your original conclusion is shown to be false. You've trapped yourself.
not really, I can tell that you haven't given peace a chance so you're not really seeing how it could work. it's k man, here, have a cup of peace
=b ũ
ok that doesnt look like a cup... but try it anyways
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote:
I could probably stop here because I've shown that even you, in your anti-collective rage have created collectives repeatedly in order to fix inherent problems with your lack of common power, but I'll finish the rest of your post off ez pz.
nope
I got a hidden expo and you havent scouted it yet
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote: No, it isn't. Your objectivist anarchist concept falls very, very quickly when the threat of stigma removes the ability of actors to be fully objective. Without that, we don't even need to address the assumption of rationality, which also gives rise to irreconcilable difficulties. not just stigma.
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote:Show nested quote +I still don't quite know what civil society means
I read wikipedia but just made me more confused.
So give me some time b4 using that word again The section on Hobbes and Locke is probably most instructive, although their description in that article is a gross simplification. Most of the terms that Moltke and I have been using are most cogently described in the frameworks those two authors propose. The following theories are entirely subsidiary to those two original conceptions of what commonwealths and civil society consist of.
I read a bit more
sounds like bullshit
says it's voluntary
yeah right.
given your interpretation of what "voluntary" means, I don't think thats a voluntary framework at all.
but i'll read some more just cuz
lol, I read bout social capital somewhere.
treating people like property mayb?
classic thugs
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote: Oh, i just assumed because you have no idea what we're talking about that I could ignore facts too. Read the history.
Brief intervention here.
Does seeing a hundred black swans allow you to claim that there are no white swans in the world?
Logically, it does not. There may be a white swan somewhere, but you missed it.
That is the flaw of induction, in a nutshell.
...and also why you can't use history to prove anything tbh.
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote:Show nested quote +then you mean public property is property that has never been owned?
there's not that many types and I dont know wtf u mean by public property then No. Public property is property which is dominantly accessible to everyone. A shopping mall, for instance, is a public area because despite being owned privately, there is an implicit permission that within the ambit of shopping, people can use it as they wish. A bed, by contrast, is in someone's house and is not susceptible of public use. A park is public and within the public sphere. A government building, by contrast, is private, but within the public sphere.
isn't the shopping mall owned by somebody though?
shouldn't it be called... "private property that people can walk on, np"?
my terms, so good
On April 29 2010 08:40 L wrote:
Now tell me what the difference between the first category of public and private property is, and what's the ultimate source of that distinction?
mutual agreements on the use of property
edit: source is those peoples culture and customs.
so what?
|
|
|
On April 29 2010 09:43 jgad wrote:Anyone interested in this topic should absolutely read this book : Man, Economy, and State : with Power and MarketMurray Rothbard. It is a veritable treatise on the subject. Very thorough, very well written, and very enjoyable to read.
fuck yeah
high five
I listened to the audio book
(... while I slept, I'm that lazy)
but it was worth it
|
I can see now why L uses some terms in a backwards (from my perspective) way
those civil society thugs use them like that too
nothing against, just... makes it confusing 4 me
edit: hadn't read the hobbes and locke part on wiki as suggested yet, was reading random websites..
but I gotta say
I don't agree with either one at all
to put it simply
If a single man like hobbes or locke can devise a supposedly awesome civic system (it ain't), why is it assumed that countless entrepreneurs, competing to supply the market w\ the best solution that would be in very high demand after an order has fallen, cannot?
They very well can. just like those two did, especially since information is scaling hugely these years. There are probably as many more systems on paper ready to go, exponentially so as decades go by. Thats why entrepreneurs > bureaucrats; while they can't take everything they want, they also aren't hindered by the idea that everything can be fixed with a gun.
At least something hobbes and locke got right. Humans act on self interest. What they didn't think though, is that the non-initiation of violence becomes increasingly more lucrative for the individual, not less, as time goes by.
also, renouncing your claim to property rights in order to have property rights is quite the oxymoron...
you don't have property rights then, duh, the state does
or whatever thug is above you
|
On April 29 2010 10:01 Yurebis wrote:
I can see now why L uses some terms in a backwards (from my perspective) way
those civil society thugs use them like that too
nothing against, just... makes it confusing 4 me
Property rights seem to give most people a terrible brain working. Most people either don't or can't get it. They understand them perfectly as it applies to their property, but when it comes to other peoples' property suddenly all the rules go out the door and Orwellian doublethink takes over. I'm at a loss to explain it, but I think it was Hayek who said that freedom is that thing we all agree to when it pertains to us, but which we are more than eager to take away from others... or something to that effect. Go figure. Entitlement society seems to wire people up all crazy. I don't understand, man, lol.
|
What they didn't think though, is that the non-initiation of violence becomes increasingly more lucrative for the individual, not less, as time goes by.
No kidding. They simply didn't play enough starcraft. If you just sat down with your opponent and agreed that it would all be a lot better if you didn't kill each other then you would both be rich. A lot of good a mined-out elimination race is, eh? No minerals left, no gas left, and no armies left. All that might survive is an SCV and a Goliath...both of whom would have nothing left to entertain each other with save the last remaining Ursodon who managed to escape the carnage, lol. If you just didn't fight there would be two whole nations full of crazy tech and rich as hell. You could even trade Ghosts for Dark Archons and both end up with so many mad crazy skills that nobody would ever screw with you.
|
On April 29 2010 11:01 jgad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 10:01 Yurebis wrote:
I can see now why L uses some terms in a backwards (from my perspective) way
those civil society thugs use them like that too
nothing against, just... makes it confusing 4 me Property rights seem to give most people a terrible brain working. Most people either don't or can't get it. They understand them perfectly as it applies to their property, but when it comes to other peoples' property suddenly all the rules go out the door and Orwellian doublethink takes over. I'm at a loss to explain it, but I think it was Hayek who said that freedom is that thing we all agree to when it pertains to us, but which we are more than eager to take away from others... or something to that effect. Go figure. Entitlement society seems to wire people up all crazy. I don't understand, man, lol.
it makes sense praxeologically yo
I was gonna elaborate, but that would be preaching to the choir so I refrain '
would be something like.. low time preference + limited knowledge
On April 29 2010 11:07 jgad wrote:Show nested quote +What they didn't think though, is that the non-initiation of violence becomes increasingly more lucrative for the individual, not less, as time goes by. No kidding. They simply didn't play enough starcraft. If you just sat down with your opponent and agreed that it would all be a lot better if you didn't kill each other then you would both be rich.
HAHAHAHA
genius
|
On April 29 2010 11:13 Yurebis wrote:
would be something like.. low time preference + limited knowledge
Of course, that much is obvious. I mean more the mystery that humans are so poor at choosing effective means to reach their desired ends. Value may be subjective, but it's perfectly valid to make an objective assesment based on one's chosen goals and corresponding means to achieve them.
For example, if someone chooses to live as a monk on a mountain living a beggar's lifestyle, then there's nothing I can say about it - it is their time preference and their value judgement to make. If however, someone desperately wants to build a durable house, but they insist on expending considerable labour and materials in building a poor house whose design will not fulfil the stated function that they intend it to carry out, then it is perfectly valid to question their choice of means as being poorly suited to achieving their desired ends...and to wonder why they made such a poor choice to begin with. The only explanation is a poor internal model of causality - ignorance, or stupidity, to be succinct. It's something humans excel at and something that none of us really entirely escape.
|
On April 29 2010 12:19 jgad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 11:13 Yurebis wrote:
would be something like.. low time preference + limited knowledge Of course, that much is obvious. I mean more the mystery that humans are so poor at choosing effective means to reach their desired ends. Value may be subjective, but it's perfectly valid to make an objective assesment based on one's chosen goals and corresponding means to achieve them. For example, if someone chooses to live as a monk on a mountain living a beggar's lifestyle, then there's nothing I can say about it - it is their time preference and their value judgement to make. If however, someone desperately wants to build a durable house, but they insist on expending considerable labour and materials in building a poor house whose design will not fulfil the stated function that they intend it to carry out, then it is perfectly valid to question their choice of means as being poorly suited to achieving their desired ends...and to wonder why they made such a poor choice to begin with. The only explanation is a poor internal model of causality - ignorance, or stupidity, to be succinct. It's something humans excel at and something that none of us really entirely escape.
yea well, I consider those poor models to be part of his limited knowledge
and tbh it's not all thaaat bad. people are laid back like that and don't want to spend time learning something silly as... logic, principles and such. they want to get on with life, work, marry, have a family. and for those ends, you don't really need to know much
only if you're more ambitious and have a higher time preference, then you do ofc
i'd personally put all the blame on the statists that hold people back and convince them to settle for less, instead of being in awe with the general contentment for the status quo.
I think thats because I'm quite content and lazy myself
and I like to bitch bout them thugs
also I believe that as information comes by cheaper, people will be more willing to have better logical constructs in their head as it will require less of an effort to learn it!
all those people bitching about wikipedia and youtube? yeah, go fuck yourself you fucking elitists
|
On April 29 2010 12:30 Yurebis wrote:
also I believe that as information comes by cheaper, people will be more willing to have better logical constructs in their head as it will require less of an effort to learn it!
Good luck with that notion.
|
On April 29 2010 12:40 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 12:30 Yurebis wrote:
also I believe that as information comes by cheaper, people will be more willing to have better logical constructs in their head as it will require less of an effort to learn it!
Good luck with that notion.
ok maybe not the for the general population, I'm uncertain. people's demand curves for knowledge may not scale as good since additional knowledge only has a marginal benefit to their same low time preference goals...
but still, at the very least there should be an increase in logical argument and debates. Those who indeed have a high demand for truth and knowledge will find it increasingly easier to study.
... unless we've already reached the point where the increases in technology will only marginally help them...
what else is there to invent? neural receptors that make you watch youtube videos in your head?
wouldn't that help? maybe?...
... the more I think, the less optimistic I get...
best I stop thinking
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
