I have noted in many political threads that some people like to assert that any of society's problems can only be, or perhaps best be solved by collective action. In their minds, the individual is secondary or powerless to the will of the majority, sometimes even rightly so, they say.
Here is an attempt to break that thought on a few deductive grounds.
First I want to establish the obvious and say that the collective is nothing but a collection of individuals, much like a forest is nothing but a collection of trees (not my analogy by far). Many talk of the "greater good", or the "will" of a nation, but those terms are completely empty. There is no greater good, there may be a net good of every individual, but without the individuals, the greater good simply does not exist anywhere in reality. Without its citizens, the nation's will does not exist.
First I want to establish the basic notion of consciousness. This is a circular premise that requires you to believe in it for the rest to follow, so if you do not, I apologize and you may want to stop reading then. Individuals have consciousnesses. Therein resides its experiences, feelings, goals(ends), means for its ends, etc. Other than myself, I can't really prove nor disprove whether other people have a consciousness, whether animals do, plants, rocks, I really don't know for certain. But I'm going to assume that they do not. So then, only individuals have a consciousness. Groups of individuals have individual consciousnesses, but no new consciousness is born out of them just by assembling. That would make a good sci-fi movie, but I'm gonna assume it's impossible.
A second and perhaps more important concept is that you cannot get inside my head. I cannot get inside yours either, so anything you think you know about me is assumed by my actions, even that which I speak directly to you, is assumed to be true (or not). You nor anyone will know for sure what another person wants, thinks, dreams, etc. Should be obvious, shouldn't it.
There is no harm in assuming itself, thankfully. Harm can only be inflicted upon others by interpersonal actions. Me thinking that you're a threat to me won't make a gun fly off my hand and shoot you, unless I decide to act on that predicament. Which is my third point, man can only change anything in the universe through human action (edited, sry iNfuNdiBuLuM & twist), and only through other's actions can we assume things about our fellow men.
The three first points should be non-controversial, but the following may not. When man acts, (99% of the time being conscientiously as a small disclaimer), he acts to his best benefit, to the best of his knowledge. Given a choice between a certain set of circumstances, man will always choose that means which furthers his goal the best.
But duh, with this point, I've completely contradicted myself, for if man can be shown to act on that which is best for him, then we can *know* that whatever his action was, it was the best for him! So in fact, we know in retrospect what he wished to do at that moment in time - that which he just did! Well, yea, but that is only in hindsight. It is kinda worthless and somewhat common sense that whenever someone does something (conscientiously may I add, for the second time), it was because he chose to do it, that one thing, from many other choices at hand.
I think it's enough to elaborate on why collectivism is wrong with these... don't have to go that far into praxeology really.
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals #1 - Only individuals have consciousnesses #2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want #3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions #4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals
- The collectivist is wrong when he says he knows whats best for anyone but himself, breaking premise #2, since he cannot know other people's goals are. (he can only assume per #3)
- Even if he was right in his assumptions, he could NEVER know if he was right unless he allows the man to act freely. (#3+#4) Let me elaborate on that w\ a though experiment. Imagine we were two on a room with an apple on top of a table. I predicted that, among the many things you could do inside such room, the first and most important one for you would be to grab the apple and eat it. This is my assumption based on nothing. It could only be verified if you were to in fact freely grab and eat the apple. However, what if I were to pull a gun to your head and threaten you to shoot if you did not? Would you acting on distress be confirming my original hipothesis? Absolutely not, since the conditions where changed. You, acting man, were not choosing from eating the apple, dancing polka, doing any other type of activity or even leaving the room. You were choosing between eating the apple or potentially dying to my glock yo. My original assumption was never proved nor disproved. Similarly, if government enacts a certain regulation obliging everyone to wear pink hats, it can never be proven that wearing pink hats was what everyone wanted to do all along, merely that, people prefer to wear pink hats than to face punishment for whatever it was stipulated.
- The collectivist will often concede the above points then proceed to claim that he knows whats best for the common good, a fictitious entity per #1
- The collectivist then keeps equivocating anyways, doing and saying whatever *he* feels like doing (according to premise #4 ofc). nothing particularly wrong w\ this, at least he's honest by then. (thug 4 lief)
So without getting into morals, (morals don't exist in reality btw I'll leave it at that, np) this is basically why thinking collectively even with the "best" (or should I say, altruistic) intentions never works, and as a rule of thumb, I suggest that whatever your assumptions on human behavior and societal organization are, do it voluntarily. If it's not voluntary, it's not worth it, and it will never prove anything. TY for reading.
The first one to pull an objective theory of value is gonna get austrianized, just saying.
edit 1: correction on #3 edit 2: missed a "he" on #3 edit 3: rewrote #1 to not intrude w\ emergence (sry/ty hefty)
What is essentially at the root of the problem with the issue of collectivism and individualism is this.
We know that individuals possess a common set of characteristics or nature that they exhibit. However, what individualizes man is his individual development in his/her particular environment. Thus, based on the value system and so forth, based on whatever kind of psychological, sociological and cultural upbringing a being had, such was their unique personal identity. However, at the root of that is a common nature that exists among a large collective of beings, that is one speculation on how collective theory arises.
Another idea we can posit is that individuals work based on their individual circumstances to derive certain conclusions and strive for certain goals based on, as we would like to say in our grossly individualist society, their self interest (not that it's wrong or whatever, just that it is). With this in mind we can posit that in certain common circumstances, like earthquake, global plague (to give obvious examples, but I say this just for the purpose of demonstrating the scenario) and so forth, there arises between certain collectives, or a general collective, to a common pursuit of goals.
So, I've demonstrated two examples in how pockets of individuals can congregate for whatever reason to form collectives in which they pursue a common set of ideals/goals/whatever. From here where can we go wrong?
Well, really I think what is the root of the problem is there can exist for whatever reason a disconnect between the individual and the collective. This can be for example, as generations are passed down you have people who are not educated/understand the collective as the original collective did (and thus why it formed the collective) or have different circumstances and are thus not motivated to fulfill the collectives ideals. The individual is thus no longer interested in the collective and if the collective does not fulfill the role of appealing to the reason of the individual (which is an example of an essential, objective trait of humanity, for, if reason were not objective, then this entire discussion is void of any credibility and necessity, as we are two individuals with inevitably different psychological, sociological and cultural upbringings but share a common understanding that only through reason can we communicate objective ideas that apply to all), then the individual will not be interested in being part of the collective. As we have seen throughout history, many collectives attempt to coerce the individual into molding to the collective ideals, and the disastrous results of such action, this however should not be the sole reason to dismiss collective ideals, because this is just the consequence of the abuse of collective authority.
The only way collectivism can work is through the appeal to the objective reason of the individual, through which the individual can only freely choose to act in.
So TLDR: You are right that you cannot ignore the individual in collective ideals, but to say that because certain collective ideals attempt to intrude upon the individuals freedom does not mean that collective behaviour, like altruism, is impossible or wrong.
Also, I can understand where you are coming from because really your view is coming from the reactionary understanding that, since we have so many numerous examples of authoritarianism, or the abuse of an institution as an authority, we should therefore dissolve such institutions and value individual freedom the most. The problem here is that you're analysis focuses on cherishing the self-interest of the individual, you even go as far as saying that morals don't exist outside of social construction, which means to say that if we are not part of the collective then really we make up our own morals, but if this is true then what restricts us from acting like animals and impeding upon other peoples freedoms?
I can talk about your misguided sense of freedom late but I will only deal with the improper, popular, understanding of the collective vs individualist argument for now.
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals - I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? The same phenomena is explained with the large group of trees you spoke of earlier. A lone tree is unable to provide much of an ecosystem, but put a whole lot of them in one area and a diverse ecosystem can be sustained. Hence we must agree that the collective is not only a group of individuals, but much more indeed.
#2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want - Psychology is a highly respectable field of intellectual knowledge. Granted, to a T I may not be able to see directly into another person's mind; but I can get pretty damn close.
#3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions - There is no *assume* about it. Psychologists apply the scientific method to their hypothesis. This is far more legitimate than a mere random die cast.
#4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals - I can't accept this one either. The passions of the human being cannot be denied. In a blind rage, any human could do any number of rational/irrational actions. You would ask me that I not take this into account, for this is not a human being in a natural state of mind. But what is more natural to a human than emotion? To lose oneself into a fully self-absorbed state is nothing new to the history of humanity.
OP, I liked what you had for a while. Thanks for sharing the philosophy. ;D
p.s. I haven't read the 2nd post. Haven't bothered, hope I haven't missed anything good.
The only way collectivism can work is through the appeal to the objective reason of the individual, through which the individual can only freely choose to act in.
I'd like you to elaborate on what objective means in this instance.
On April 27 2010 13:35 oceanblack wrote: What is essentially at the root of the problem with the issue of collectivism and individualism is this.
Good theories. I tend to think more in a more evolutionary sense and say that collectivism has payed off a lot, but thugs have often taken advantage of a natural sense of empathy among most of the people and enslaved them, be it in a hunter-gatherer tribe, a traditional empire, monarchy, democracy, etc.
On April 27 2010 13:35 oceanblack wrote: The only way collectivism can work is through the appeal to the objective reason of the individual, through which the individual can only freely choose to act in.
Can't be measured until we got brain scanners
On April 27 2010 13:35 oceanblack wrote: So TLDR: You are right that you cannot ignore the individual in collective ideals, but to say that because certain collective ideals attempt to intrude upon the individuals freedom does not mean that collective behaviour, like altruism, is impossible or wrong.
I don't consider altruism to be collectivist since a total altruist will not force someone into doing something. So he too respects individual rights the most. In my view at least. But if in yours he would, then well, he aint altruist to me. Semantics at that point of disagreement. I could be using the word altruistic to mean something more than it is though, w/e idc
On April 27 2010 13:35 oceanblack wrote: Also, I can understand where you are coming from because really your view is coming from the reactionary understanding that, since we have so many numerous examples of authoritarianism, or the abuse of an institution as an authority, we should therefore dissolve such institutions and value individual freedom the most.
Yes
On April 27 2010 13:35 oceanblack wrote: The problem here is that you're analysis focuses on cherishing the self-interest of the individual, you even go as far as saying that morals don't exist outside of social construction, which means to say that if we are not part of the collective then really we make up our own morals, but if this is true then what restricts us from acting like animals and impeding upon other peoples freedoms?
Ourselves. Morals exist interpersonally, so nothing is stopping me from stabbing u, only that I've agreed (and perhaps u too) that killing is wrong and stuff some of it could be biological too, but regardless. its ultimately a choice no different than eating chocolate or vanilla ice cream imo but its k to disagree
On April 27 2010 13:35 oceanblack wrote: I can talk about your misguided sense of freedom late but I will only deal with the improper, popular, understanding of the collective vs individualist argument for now.
The only way collectivism can work is through the appeal to the objective reason of the individual, through which the individual can only freely choose to act in.
I'd like you to elaborate on what objective means in this instance.
I think he means like, if it were possible to objectively measure peoples thought processes which would be quite a feat way far into the future philosophies to this day don't even quite account for that possibility but I think it's possible. In fact, I think philosophy and ethics are just applied biology in that sense I could be talking here all day about praxeology and how man acts, why does he choose what he chooses when in fact, there's a much more complex chemical chain of events that leads to everything I've said more or less
edit: or maybe I'm wrong and he didn't mean any of that, and I only wished he did because I had this totally cool answer ready for it
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote: #1 - The collective is only a group of individuals - I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? The same phenomena is explained with the large group of trees you spoke of earlier. A lone tree is unable to provide much of an ecosystem, but put a whole lot of them in one area and a diverse ecosystem can be sustained. Hence we must agree that the collective is not only a group of individuals, but much more indeed.
Tell me, where does marriage, love, political unions exist if not inside each individuals head? Realistically, the individual is indeed everything, and it would make no difference for him if his lovers, friends, and strangers were all MUTANT CYBORGS or even illusions So all of that exists in his head.
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote: #2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want - Psychology is a highly respectable field of intellectual knowledge. Granted, to a T I may not be able to see directly into another person's mind; but I can get pretty damn close.
Psychology sucks balls I tell you truth. And no you can't get close. An actor could probably make you think he has two hundred different "disorders" imo
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote: #3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions - There is no *assume* about it. Psychologists apply the scientific method to their hypothesis. This is far more legitimate than a mere random die cast.
K. Has there ever been a controlled experiment with any degree of accuracy as compared to a natural science? I mean if you wanna believe in the social sciences be my guest I won't complain. Philosophy and introspection are an alternative to that GLHF
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
#4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals - I can't accept this one either. The passions of the human being cannot be denied. In a blind rage, any human could do any number of rational/irrational actions. You would ask me that I not take this into account, for this is not a human being in a natural state of mind. But what is more natural to a human than emotion? To lose oneself into a fully self-absorbed state is nothing new to the history of humanity.
Doesn't happen as often as you think How did we live to make computers with all that drama? We'd die to our own campfires till then imo
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
OP, I liked what you had for a while. Thanks for sharing the philosophy. ;D
p.s. I haven't read the 2nd post. Haven't bothered, hope I haven't missed anything good.
ur welcome. Second post is fine better than yours LOL jk
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals. However, the individual requires a voice and leadership to broadcast their common interest/goal/ideas. The individual supports the leadership and thus gives power to their movement. Without leadership and common goals, nothing is accomplished.
#2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want. True, but communication allows thoughts and ideas to take shape. Two cannot share the same thought, but can share a common goal. Coming back to the apple on the table, if both wants to eat the apple, that's a common goal - why each wants it is different, but no less relevant (one might wants to know the taste, the other is just hungry). Each's desire are different. If they were in the same room and the apple was out of reach, they would have to cooperate and try to obtain the apple (whether they share it is a different matter again).
#3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions. It is always in human nature do distrust others since it is inbuilt in us to presume the worst in others. However, humans are also designed to move in groups and thus people will always congregate and form a collective to push their ideology. We will ignore potential problems if we can gain what we desire. Although this also makes us vulnerable to backstabbing, which happens when the goals are achieved.
#4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals. This is completely false! People have many choices as how to act in any given circumstance, but tends to choose the easy and fastest way to achieve their goal. If others are in the way of this goal, their removal and the means are considered. Sacrifices within the collective are often made to push the goals and benefit the majority.
So though I disagree with a lot of what you say because the collective has power whereas the individual doesn't. The Collective is essential in bring an ideology/plan/goal etc into effect. The Collective acts in favour of the majority if there is a common goal and sometimes sacrifices the individual within it. The Collective also requires leadership, but the reasons and desires of that leadership could be entirely different to each individual. However, underlying reasons and desires are irrelevant if the common goal can be achieved (this is why complications arise).
Political action is almost always achieved as a collective effort. A ton of control is exerted over people by atomizing them, and keeping them from working together to solve commonly faced issues. Almost all major advances in the social order, including our wonderful American Revolution, have been a collective action.
Usually, clinging to individuality to try and solve problems that are shared by all of your neighbors and countrymen can be a hinderance to progress. Try to focus more on what makes you the same as your neighbors, not what makes you different...
People often ask what can "I" do to make a differance? What can "I" as an individual do to make a change in socitey... the answer is often become part of a movement of people that share the same issues and work hard to get them addressed for the benefit of everyone.
Choice is an illusion. If you were someone else you would do exactly what they would and vice versa.
edit: I think the argument is that if everyone acted individually they would all have freedom to achieve their goals, but society would be conflicted. However, if everyone had a collective approach then although they would have greater collective power they would also have conflicting goals and therefore society would be conflicted.
On April 27 2010 14:57 dtvu wrote: #1 - The collective is only a group of individuals. However, the individual requires a voice and leadership to broadcast their common interest/goal/ideas. The individual supports the leadership and thus gives power to their movement. Without leadership and common goals, nothing is accomplished.
Did you have to petition your neighborhood to make a post here? No? Well then your post was a failure because you haven't accomplished anything LOL
On April 27 2010 14:57 dtvu wrote: #2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want. True, but communication allows thoughts and ideas to take shape. Two cannot share the same thought, but can share a common goal. Coming back to the apple on the table, if both wants to eat the apple, that's a common goal - why each wants it is different, but no less relevant (one might wants to know the taste, the other is just hungry). Each's desire are different. If they were in the same room and the apple was out of reach, they would have to cooperate and try to obtain the apple (whether they share it is a different matter again).
Talking is also an action btw. You don't 100% know what people think just by what they speak, they could be lying, they could be acting, they could be cyborgs and you would never know. And theres a hundred ways for settling property disputes on unowned resources. I don't know what else to say
On April 27 2010 14:57 dtvu wrote: #3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions. It is always in human nature do distrust others since it is inbuilt in us to presume the worst in others. However, humans are also designed to move in groups and thus people will always congregate and form a collective to push their ideology. We will ignore potential problems if we can gain what we desire. Although this also makes us vulnerable to backstabbing, which happens when the goals are achieved.
Perhaps
On April 27 2010 14:57 dtvu wrote: #4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals. This is completely false! People have many choices as how to act in any given circumstance, but tends to choose the easy and fastest way to achieve their goal. If others are in the way of this goal, their removal and the means are considered. Sacrifices within the collective are often made to push the goals and benefit the majority.
Then is it not the wish of the individual for a certain group to thrive? It's still the individual's goal. Premise unchanged
On April 27 2010 14:57 dtvu wrote: So though I disagree with a lot of what you say because the collective has power whereas the individual doesn't. The Collective is essential in bring an ideology/plan/goal etc into effect. The Collective acts in favour of the majority if there is a common goal and sometimes sacrifices the individual within it. The Collective also requires leadership, but the reasons and desires of that leadership could be entirely different to each individual. However, underlying reasons and desires are irrelevant if the common goal can be achieved (this is why complications arise).
Tell me, how do you know what the goals of a collective are? Only individuals have goals and means It's not like people physically join their brains into a hivemind That union itself, is in their heads. The collective is a concept and nothing more...
but I see that you said that "the collective requires leadership". Isn't that a cop out, because, then the "will" of the collective is really the will of the leader, is it not? The others are persuaded into following his orders "for their own good", which could mean a lot of things depending on the context.
On April 27 2010 15:08 cursor wrote: wonderful American Revolution,
you like war I see.
On April 27 2010 15:08 cursor wrote: Usually, clinging to individuality to try and solve problems that are shared by all of your neighbors and countrymen can be a hinderance to progress.
progress towards what goal and who defines such goal? hint: can't be a fictitious entity.
On April 27 2010 15:08 cursor wrote: Try to focus more on what makes you the same as your neighbors, not what makes you different...
sure thing. doesn't make us join together to form megatron tho
On April 27 2010 15:08 cursor wrote: People often ask what can "I" do to make a differance? What can "I" as an individual do to make a change in socitey... the answer is often become part of a movement of people that share the same issues and work hard to get them addressed for the benefit of everyone.
so people individually want to help eachother out? cool, how is that not individualistic? I'm not denying helping others can be rewarding, that would be silly. In fact I'm saying that people can best help others by being aware that everyone's an individual and no such collective entity exists
so if "we" stop saying "we" I believe "we" can do a lot more "for the better good" I put that in collective-speak 4 u
On April 27 2010 15:15 ShaperofDreams wrote: Choice is an illusion. If you were someone else you would do exactly what they would and vice versa.
YES yes yes yes I agree my fellow determinist. It's by convention that I use the word "choice" or free will.
On April 27 2010 15:08 cursor wrote: edit: I think the argument is that if everyone acted individually they would all have freedom to achieve their goals, but society would be conflicted. However, if everyone had a collective approach then although they would have greater collective power they would also have conflicting goals and therefore society would be conflicted.
I guess society is conflicted everywhere.
Society isn't conflicted when it is honest with itself. It's conflicted when people want to tell eachother what to do
You are what you are and if you do what is true to yourself then you are not in the wrong at least though perception. People have core principles they stand by some just have a different way of defending those principles. It is not always important how they act but what they act on and why. The rationalization is not too important to me at least.
It is what it is everything else is just clutter...
On April 27 2010 15:36 semantics wrote: You are what you are and if you do what is true to yourself then you are not in the wrong at least though perception. People have core principles they stand by some just have a different way of defending those principles. It is not always important how they act but what they act on and why. The rationalization is not too important to me at least.
It is what it is everything else is just clutter...
only that I've agreed (and perhaps u too) that killing is wrong
If its in your best interest for you to kill someone (and them, you) why shouldn't everyone kill each other...?
Even if its in your best interest to "pretend" to act collectively, you're still acting collectively.
People have a misconception about collectivism and individuality IMO. It isn't black and white:
Everybody "is": The Individual + Concessions & Compromises.
What we are arguing here is the degree of concessions & compromises
Of course every cell behaves individually, however because it lives within a certain system it MUST behave the way it does. The same applies to people.
When I was a child I wanted to fly. Gravity existed. I couldn't fly. Yes that is a gross simplification.
On April 27 2010 15:50 gyth wrote: Do the cells in your body behave individually?
Good one and deserves attention Indeed they do act individually They have a set of inputs and outputs, and while they are extremely dependent on other cells from other tissues in your body to feed them with what they need to live, they can be seen that way, yes.
And you could further divide it into organelles, and then idk, atoms and shit
But in regards to human conscience, I don't think you can go any lower than an individual human being, because then you have no concept of goals, means, morals then that talk loses any sense of the type of political talk I want to get at it would be a science class "should a cell be free to choose it's own organelles" makes no sense you see, because a cell does not have a conscience, therefore, no free will (even if figuratively which is another topic).
only that I've agreed (and perhaps u too) that killing is wrong
If its in your best interest for you to kill someone (and them, you) why shouldn't everyone kill each other...?
There are no shoulds in my view. There are claims of rights. I claim I have the right to my own body, a murderer would say I don't sadly it may come down to a physical dispute in that case, but often times it does not, because people respect eachothers claims of rights. and otherwise can defend themselves as well. or at least retaliate enough so such actions are discouraged.
On April 27 2010 15:50 gyth wrote: Even if its in your best interest to "pretend" to act collectively, you're still acting collectively.
It's not collectively if I'm doing on my self interest... which then is voluntary may I add
Collective is bullying, forcing, petitioning, mandating, enslaving, etc. but.. semantics maybe? idk, you try it.
On April 27 2010 15:51 ShaperofDreams wrote: I think that whatever the approach no real progress can be made without honesty.
As I said before both the individual as well as the collective are constantly in conflict.
To be more technical, it is always individuals who are in conflict. And some individuals claiming that they are backed by a collective or sometimes even do having the legitimate backing of other voluntarily assembling individuals, certainly
But.. just like "corporations" or "government" (even though I use the concept quite often) aren't going to go out and beat you up, it's only those people within the collectivist groups who will.
So, individuals are in constant conflict should I say
Well, sometimes government does know what is better for people. Drugs anyone? Or mb ban on smoking? Yes you can smoke, but you would be better off if you dont. And you can guess what most people want: money, power, sex, work less, have more. The problem is that when alot of power is given to state the people in power are the same weak ones with their personal needs. They will abuse it some way or another. If perfect people could be breeded and set to govern the nations in their best interest it would be better than democracy. Untill than democracy is the choice.
Well, my belief is that a group is only trully strong, when it consists of strong individuals. There are some exceptions, when there is good leadership, but the above mentioned works best.
Its pretty simple, Once you as an individual have food,water, safety, shelter and electricity you will seek out these individual freedoms, or imaginary rights as i love to call them. As George Carlin puts it, they are made up rights. Like the bogeyman because the government can take them away. Japanese Americans 1940, thrown in jail for being of Japanese origin.
People (and I'm being really general here) don't really care about the right to vote until their country starts hogging in profits and they as individuals start feeling entitled to some of that wealth. What we have here is a varying degree of feminization in our society, most of us where raised on the premise of "everyone are special, you all won today, everyone can be number one." and so fourth. What a country does is take all these communities under one wing, stating with its various of political views that all you need to do is vote, that every vote counts and riding the "everyone are special" train.
As for individualism, our western society is already removing certain individuals with radical ideas from the streets and therefore giving rise to a certain form of normality. Or at the very least swinging it in the direction they wish by keeping up a feminist standard.
Remove #2 from your list. It's a subset of #3. (And #3 is pretty sketchy unless 'actions' include such minor reactions as unconscious facial twitches, which we regularly use to read a person's mental state.)
#4 is of course laughably wrong. People are complete whores for short-term pleasure and ease.
"The collectivist is wrong when he says he knows whats best for anyone but himself, breaking premise #2, since he cannot know other people's goals are. (he can only assume per #3)
- Even if he was right in his assumptions, he could NEVER know if he was right unless he allows the man to act freely. (#3+#4)"
The 'collectivist' can ask a person what that person's goals are, and thus incorporate them. If that person purposefully misrepresents their goals, well, they're damning themselves through their own free choice.
Any concerns about coercion are trivially avoided by applying no penalty for sharing your opinion in this fashion. (Freedom of Speech.)
For some reason I thought the first few posts were Yuberis arguing with himself. Pretending to be multiple people is an interesting choice in a thread about individualism, though.
Anyway, it's better to come up with actually contestable real life examples for topics such as these, as otherwise you end up arguing over who gets to define certain terms.
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote: #1 - The collective is only a group of individuals - I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? The same phenomena is explained with the large group of trees you spoke of earlier. A lone tree is unable to provide much of an ecosystem, but put a whole lot of them in one area and a diverse ecosystem can be sustained. Hence we must agree that the collective is not only a group of individuals, but much more indeed.
Tell me, where does marriage, love, political unions exist if not inside each individuals head? Realistically, the individual is indeed everything, and it would make no difference for him if his lovers, friends, and strangers were all MUTANT CYBORGS or even illusions So all of that exists in his head.
-You're metaphysical view doesn't hold anything for your ethics, especially since you haven't proved that anything follows from: the normative institutions of marriage, the normative interpretations of base sensory data such as love, etc. All of normative existence exists only for the existence of the group of humans living in tangent with one another. In the equation of our universe you mistake every human's value to be a '1', when a closer conception would put the value as 'X'. You're missing a big part of our world if you think you could re-create these normative objects that exist 'inside each individuals head'.
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote: #2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want - Psychology is a highly respectable field of intellectual knowledge. Granted, to a T I may not be able to see directly into another person's mind; but I can get pretty damn close.
Psychology sucks balls I tell you truth. And no you can't get close. An actor could probably make you think he has two hundred different "disorders" imo
-Psychology has its place, though I can't tell you enough to satisfy. I'm not particularly interested in it, but it sufficed for enough of an answer to shoot your argument a nice one. Besides, where are you meeting all these 'actor's? In all the years you've been living you still believe that just anyone can do this?
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote: #3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions - There is no *assume* about it. Psychologists apply the scientific method to their hypothesis. This is far more legitimate than a mere random die cast.
K. Has there ever been a controlled experiment with any degree of accuracy as compared to a natural science? I mean if you wanna believe in the social sciences be my guest I won't complain. Philosophy and introspection are an alternative to that GLHF
-Yeah, philosophy is my main intellectual woman. UCLA philosophy is good enough for me, where you at?
#4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals - I can't accept this one either. The passions of the human being cannot be denied. In a blind rage, any human could do any number of rational/irrational actions. You would ask me that I not take this into account, for this is not a human being in a natural state of mind. But what is more natural to a human than emotion? To lose oneself into a fully self-absorbed state is nothing new to the history of humanity.
Doesn't happen as often as you think How did we live to make computers with all that drama? We'd die to our own campfires till then imo
-I merely meant to call out your basic Aristotelian conception of life. It's completely uncalled for, and not defended by anything I saw in your paper.
So without getting into morals, (morals don't exist in reality btw I'll leave it at that, np) this is basically why thinking collectively even with the "best" (or should I say, altruistic) intentions never works, and as a rule of thumb, I suggest that whatever your assumptions on human behavior and societal organization are, do it voluntarily. If it's not voluntary, it's not worth it, and it will never prove anything. TY for reading.
The first one to pull an objective theory of value is gonna get austrianized, just saying.
I think you will agree that there is a "good" way to build a bridge and a "bad" way to build a bridge -- much like there are good Build Orders in SC/BW and bad ones. The reason that building a bridge in a certain way is the "good" way is that it fulfills the function, the end, the engineers and civilians want it to fulfill -- being able to cross an obstacle.
I think you will also agree that in the same way that there are good ways to build a bridge, there are "good" (non-moral sense) ways to act based on --what-- you want to accomplish. For example, Do you want to be an Olympic Marathon Gold Medal Winner? Well, don't eat only french fries and play WOW all day because if you do that you won't win a medal.
I take your statement "morals don't exist" to mean "Objective Moral Truths" don't exist. And an Objective Moral Truth is, for you, I think, a prescribed end. A prescribed end is a floating or embedded moral commandment with self-sufficient authority. Purportedly, such an end "is right because it is right." So, basically, it is right for no reason or "just because". And since "just because" isn't a good reason, the point you are making here must be something along the lines of this: While you may be willing to concede that once an end has been selected there are "good" and "bad" ways of reaching it but the end that you select to reach --in the first place-- can never be "Objectively" right or wrong. All possible ends are equal. There are no self-sufficient moral commands -- no Objective Moral Truths.
I don't know if I agree with you that there is no Objective moral code but, if it is true that all possible ends are equal then your "rules of thumb" or your claim that coercion is "not worth it" do not hold for people who have selected different ends and you can't give a reason their ends should coincide with your ends. I'll try and explain why.
You would be able to defend non-coercion if you could prove that the ends someone has chosen are best met by following a principle of non-coercion. You would be, in effect, giving someone advice on how to build a "good" bridge that "works". You might use arguments like "You'll be happiest if you live in a society that abides by non-coercion...it will be the most productive society...etc." But what if someone simply chooses a different end? They choose to build a bridge that fails, just to see it fall in the water? Or they choose a path in life that will lead them to experience suffering, simply to explore what it is like? Or they choose to coerce people, just to experience what it feels like?
The point here is that you cannot say that one way of living is -ultimately- better than another . So your claim is reduced to: "If you choose the same ends I do, here are some good tips."
Don't you think it's a little embarrassing that you need to completely reject all philosophy and psychology to maintain your position?
In order to be as individualistic as you are, you have to drop the concept of empathy.
You have to step aside from the linguistic evidence (see Jurgen Habermas) that the base act of communication shows people believe we have enough in common for talking to be worthwhile.
There are also a lot of unarguable things everyone has in common- the most basic being 'I don't want to starve or die young' .Just starting from these, you can lay down many rules everyone would agree on.
I'm not really sure I understand ultimately what you are contesting.
Let us take a simple example, a tribe of hunter-gatherers, 10000BC. Individuals congregate together willingly to better be able to protect themselves from predators, and to make it easier for them to collect food and survive. Your points #2 and #3 don't make much sense in this situation, because the "social contract" was formed to fulfill 2 human needs, in this case protection and food, aka survival. Those individuals who do not feel those needs have absolutely no reason to join the soceity. The society's reason for existence is the efficient fullfilment of these two needs, and that requires that the person/persons who are most skilled and most knowledgeable in this area(surviving in a hostile environment) tell the others what to do, aka become their leaders. The leaders job is to fullfil his assingment, and that is to preserve the collective, for without the collective the individual cannot survive and prosper(or has slim chances to). Now let us assume that the leader sometimes makes decisions that sacrifice an individual to preserve the collective. The individuals accept this risk because the chance of them surviving on their own are very slim, Living in the collective, even with the risk of being sacrificed the individual's chances of survival are still greater than on his own, not to mention that some accept the risk of them being sacrificed if only for the reason that that ensures the survival of their loved ones, children and etc. Those who do not agree can always run off on their own. In this simplified scenario the main goals of the collective(to preserve itself) perfectly mirror the main goals of the individuals in it(to maximize their chance of survival, or their family's or whatever).
So what are you saying, that their is no collective in this case? That there shouldn't be? That the individuals do not want to maximize their chance of survival? Or that the leader cannot know that they do, so he shouldn't make them do things that maximize their chance of survival? That the survival of the collective is not the "will" of the hunters? Or that the individuals in this soceity do not think that the survival of the collective is a "greater good"?
The way I see it, if a collective exists (saying it does not is like saying that there exists no such thing as a forest, only trees) then there exists such a thing as the good for the collective. In this example the "greater good" is that which preserves the collective. The individual can choose if he values this "greater good" over his own or not, and can follow whatever path he chooses, but it's ridicoulus to say that the term "greater good" is empty as long as there exist individuals who willingly sacrifice themselves for it.
The Judeo-Christian pity value is what causes people to become "collectivist." Of course, no individual can be collectivist without being coerced, as this would mean he has to freely choose to do things which do not benefit him (a psychological impossibility). Any individual who values society over himself is pathetic indeed.
If we are always acting in our best interests and we formed a society and a government, it is in our best interest to have a society and government.
Get outta here, anarchist. Somalia is pretty in the spring. Shit, you seriously have to ignore nearly everything we know about humans to claim we should never make any collective effort.
On April 27 2010 20:00 Tal wrote: Lixler - can't you be self interested without being selfish?
If someone gives to charity (and hence society), he is doing something that does not benefit him, but he is not being coerced.
But he is also being stupid. The only reason he would do that is because he derives pleasure from it (e.g. he tells people he donated money and feels good about himself). But this pleasure is a false, empty one that would lead to an emaciation of the self.
Huh? Never heard charity described as 'stupid'. What if he just has some empathy? He imagines if he was starving to death or dying of preventable diesease, concedes he wouldn't like that, and so thinks, 'you know what, I can probably buy two less coffees a month'.
On April 27 2010 20:00 Tal wrote: Lixler - can't you be self interested without being selfish?
If someone gives to charity (and hence society), he is doing something that does not benefit him, but he is not being coerced.
But he is also being stupid. The only reason he would do that is because he derives pleasure from it (e.g. he tells people he donated money and feels good about himself). But this pleasure is a false, empty one that would lead to an emaciation of the self.
he dosnt need to be stupid if the charity donation serves a purpose other than simply pleasure for the sake of giving. For example politicians do it because it makes them look better in the publics eye and might win him an election.
I believe if I see someone drowning and can save them with no risk, I should do that, even if I ruin my nice clothes, purely because of empathy. If I don't have some ulterior motive I'm stupid?
On April 27 2010 20:25 Tal wrote: What if he just believes it's right?
I believe if I see someone drowning and can save them with no risk, I should do that, even if I ruin my nice clothes, purely because of empathy. If I don't have some ulterior motive I'm stupid?
before you jump in, ask yourself why is he drowning in the first place? will he drag you down with him?
Survival comes first in most peoples mind and thus if there is no lifeline, safetly vest or a clothesline you can throw to this guy, hes fucked and if you jump in he will 90% of the time drag you down with him.
Think of Africa for a second, half its populace would be dying to aids or malnourisment yet we help them for some reason. Is it because of the kindness in our hearts? NOOOOO
We are helping those who are dying so their country is put further behind in debt, so that they will have to pay up greater sums than what our government spends for food, clothes and medicine as time passes by. SO instead of a dying place where people struggle and life moves on where you basically let these people sort out their own problems and establish a way of life ON THEIR OWN.
My point, Let those you see need a helping hand, help themselves because life moves on regardless and while i get your feminist point of view, i simply dont agree on it just like you might not agree on my point.
I specifically said I could save them from drowning with 'no risk'. Imagine it's a small child who was playing near a pond and fell in.
I won't comment on your ludicrous Africa argument.
A child is born (through no fault of it's own), into a place where they cannot help but get sick. You have very cheap medicine which will save their life. The child will die if you don't help. It will cost you $5. You know what? That child should help themselves...(intense sarcasm).
On April 27 2010 20:47 Tal wrote: I specifically said I could save them from drowning with 'no risk'. Imagine it's a small child who was playing near a pond and fell in.
I won't comment on your ludicrous Africa argument.
A child is born (through no fault of it's own), into a place where they cannot help but get sick. You have very cheap medicine which will save their life. The child will die if you don't help. It will cost you $5. You know what? That child should help themselves...(intense sarcasm).
no the child is doomed from the getgo, what kind of future will it have even if given medicine?
LET the child die, let it go gracefully and in ignorance rather than delay the inevidable.
Just because you feel guilty enough to fork out the 5 bucks does not mean you should.
It seems like you are willfully misunderstanding my analogies. Where did you get the idea that the child is doomed from the get go? He just got 1 disease, lets say he lives in Sweden for chrissake, he just needs that one bit of help and his life will be fine.
Aids, for the sake of argument is not just ONE disease and yes i willfully misunderstood your analogy because you were fairly vague on what illness.
My point being that most large charity fundations are fundamentally bad for the people they intend to help with the money you donate then again its up to the individual to donate. IN addition feminist, leftside people in positions of power often lobby for the government to aid these fundations and thus increasing taxes for something that will smooth itself out if you just leave it alone.
and in sweden a child wont require such a donation, either his parents will inconvenience themselves and pay for the childs medical care because the country as a whole has a system that works.
I see that there is a lot of discussion of what exactly is right and wrong. I'll try and explain from a position that I believe to be similar to the Original Poster's mindset, which is at least his mindset in principle, if not in practice.
Assuming a human is composed simply of a single consciousness, that means that the individual is limited to a single perspective and a single experience. I think it's safe to say that OP considers a person to be a collection of individual ideas and morals defined by the individual for the individual's self, and that individuals are too separate to achieve any sort of complete and entirely identical mindset or values. In short, none of these "perceived morals" and "influences" are real and are simply a imposition of principles on self. Thus, "right" and "wrong" become things an individuals decides for the self, and cannot be posited on others.
I have examined your claims, and my comments follow. (Bold = your premises)
1. A collective is a group of individuals.
- Yes, a collective is a group of individuals. It is also worthy to be noted that each individual of a collective understands the goal of the collective to a certain extent, but actual consistency of goals is not always the case. Important to note is that the individual identifies with the collective, but actual consistency of goals can be elicited upon careful examination of the collective's stated position and the individual's position.
2. An individual cannot know what others think or want.
- Physically this is a true claim, but then you are undermining the purpose of communication. Of course, completely undiluted communication is difficult without specific definitions and claims, but I believe I addressed how to determine the actual consistency of claims and mindset when I addressed point 1. That is, communication is the attempt to transmit information across barriers between individual consciousnesses, and the success of this endeavor is verifiable.
- To address whether the act of verifying claims itself is prone to misinformation/misinterpretation, that is a simple limit that is consistent with your second claim. Unfortunately, it's the best we have, aside from other methods of verification.
3. Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions.
- Examining action is one such other method of verification. However, action can also be as subversive as communication, so examination of action is still an interpretive method. Again, verbal claims and physical acts are the best ways to verify an individual's true intention. It is not foolproof, but due to a lack of omniscience, humans are limited to interpretation to make sense of the such things as "another individual's intent".
4. Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals.
- If by "best" you mean "ideal according to individual judgment", then it can be stated that, if certain ideas are important enough to the individual, the individual will attempt actions to further those ideas in the form of goals.
- There are, however, moral limitations on action as well as thought and speech. Yes, they are entirely within the consciousness of the individual. That does not make them any less tangible nor does it render them insignificant. That is simply an indelible quality of a societal more.
- The collectivist is wrong when he says he knows whats best for anyone but himself, breaking premise #2, since he cannot know other people's goals are. (he can only assume per #3)
- Assume is a word that, well, assumes little forethought. I'd prefer to say that he can only interpret others' goals. Trying to remove individual responsibility for thought and action from the individual is a critical error because of your premises 1 and 4, meaning that an individual can only certainly know what the self wants, and actions taken by the individual is up to the individual's own judgment. So, we cannot, and the collectivist cannot, be entirely exempt from responsibility for individual action.
- As an audience of the collectivist, we can only interpret his claims as individuals and decide whether we agree or not based upon our own judgment. Therefore, we have no right to claim that he is wrong, because we will be laying claim to an ultimate "truth" of him being invariably wrong. We can only interpret his claims and actions for ourselves.
- Definition of Interpretation: Based upon our individual morals and convictions, which we must know by premise 1 (which I agree with), we pass judgment on another's claims after extensive consideration and thought.
- Even if he was right in his assumptions, he could NEVER know if he was right unless he allows the man to act freely. (#3+#4)
- There can be subversion in action as well as communication. Again, you can only interpret his actions and claims as an individual.
- The collectivist will often concede the above points then proceed to claim that he knows whats best for the common good, a fictitious entity per #1
- The "common good" is an individual's interpretation of what is right, even if that individual derives all or most ideas from a claimed collective. Again, I have said that the collectivist as well as the audience can only be certain of individual thoughts, as per your premise 1, and that though we cannot know, we can interpret. Frankly, that's all we can do.
- Your example revolves solely around solid proof, yet that cannot be how everything in the world should be substantiated, because not everything in the world can be verified that way. We can only draw conclusions based on our own judgment, precedent, and experiences. More on this sort of "false until proven correct" mindset later.
- The collectivist then keeps equivocating anyways, doing and saying whatever *he* feels like doing (according to premise #4 ofc). nothing particularly wrong w\ this, at least he's honest by then. (thug 4 lief)
- This is adopting a policy of disassociation. Basically you choose to disagree with each other. Unfortunately, this results in inaction, and it must follow that inaction will do nothing to solve an apparent issue or problem. Even though we as individuals have the luxury to skirt differences and abstain from compromising others' convictions with the benefit of not needing to compromise our own convictions, government often cannot afford to do such a thing. As an individual, I also believe that such an approach to dichotomy is unproductive. More on this kind of mindset later.
So without getting into morals, (morals don't exist in reality btw I'll leave it at that, np) this is basically why thinking collectively even with the "best" (or should I say, altruistic) intentions never works, and as a rule of thumb, I suggest that whatever your assumptions on human behavior and societal organization are, do it voluntarily. If it's not voluntary, it's not worth it, and it will never prove anything.
- Already established that morals are an individual's choice to conform to an established set of values.
- Perhaps you are saying that the "best" intentions are purely subjective and are not justification for making any one idea the "ideal". This is true.
- Involuntary action will be inconsistent with individual thought, but again, there is an over-reliance on objective proof. Is there really a need to prove something to someone through voluntary action? Perhaps rather than proof for the sake of verification, what is being sought is an example for the sake of interpretation, because many of the things your examples are dealing with are not concrete and rely on interpretation to make sense of them. It all comes back to individual interpretation.
- You say that collective thought is ineffective because it is no more credible than individual thought. Then forget the collective. Focus on the individual or the ideas behind the collective rather than looking to the collective itself for credibility.
On mindset:
Problem I observe with the OP's mindset. It is too concerned with objectifying entirely humanistic concerns. Simply posing a claim and systematically refuting dissent and/or counter viewpoints is a common pastime on the internet, and unfortunately that is how many individuals handle their arguments.
What is the result? A cut-off from external ideas and influence; a withdrawal into self. There is no intent to assimilate, there is only intent to defend. There is no intent on either side to try and achieve synthesis, only an effort made to maintain dichotomy. And people agree to disagree. This is entirely unproductive in and of itself, because the difference is there, but the evolution of ideas and thought ends where individuals refuse to resolve or assimilate conflicting ideas. This is also the problem facing much of political thought and debate as well, because motivation is not a collective thing, but is an individual concern. Judgment through sound interpretation is key. On Interpretation:
Since it seems like all instances of communication and observation relies on the subsequent interpretation, what is the ideal way to go about doing this? Well, that's where the entire body of philosophical thought, religious thought, and psychology within historical contexts is completely necessary. There exists a huge history of human thought that already exists which all provide solid bases from which we can develop our own basis for interpretation. Focusing on the ideas and methods presented throughout each and every text and examining how ideas related to context is key to opening our own capacity for interpretation. Why do I tout this as truth? It is not necessarily truth, but it's rather evident that through educating ourselves with ideas, progression of human thought, how dichotomies are dealt with, and exploring various mindsets through examining such works will serve to do nothing but to expand our own capacity for thought.
Though most of those have a negative spin as well. Seems more strawman than debate. Is collectivism just a word ayn rand made up to feel better about being selfish?
It's interesting that when Hayek brought up this argument, I felt more intelligent for having read it. I'm not sure I can say the same thing about this thread.
On April 27 2010 21:05 Madkipz wrote: no the child is doomed from the getgo, what kind of future will it have even if given medicine?
LET the child die, let it go gracefully and in ignorance rather than delay the inevidable.
Just because you feel guilty enough to fork out the 5 bucks does not mean you should.
Gold.
Yurebis, if you want to have a theoretical discussion (which this is) you can't disregard past philosophy, psychology, rational choice theory, etc. on the subject.
On April 27 2010 19:55 Lixler wrote: The Judeo-Christian pity value is what causes people to become "collectivist."
You are implying that there was no empathy or altruism before the birth of Christ. I find this assertion to be wholly without merit.
Of course, no individual can be collectivist without being coerced, as this would mean he has to freely choose to do things which do not benefit him (a psychological impossibility). Any individual who values society over himself is pathetic indeed.
Perhaps you are blind to your own living condition. Do you live alone? Grow and/or hunt your own food? Weave your own textiles and clothes? Prepare your own safe drinking water? Manufacture your own luxury goods?
In many cases collectivism provides a benefit to all who take part. Surely you were not coerced into going to the market and buying a bag of potatoes. In fact, I would wager a guess that you are unable to successfully perform any of the tasks I listed above sufficiently enough to survive outside of modern society. In this case you ought to value the society over yourself, since the society is the collective providing you with the means to survive.
On April 27 2010 14:57 dtvu wrote: #1 - The collective is only a group of individuals. However, the individual requires a voice and leadership to broadcast their common interest/goal/ideas. The individual supports the leadership and thus gives power to their movement. Without leadership and common goals, nothing is accomplished.
It's in our nature to think we know. It's in our culture to judge other culture from our own cultures perspective. So it's quite understandable that you consider the need of leadership this way but there are cultures which run smoothly without our kind of leadership. Without common goals nothing is accomplished. Is perhaps a better way to put it. But we can still accomplish with individual goals.
#2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want. True, but communication allows thoughts and ideas to take shape. Two cannot share the same thought, but can share a common goal. Coming back to the apple on the table, if both wants to eat the apple, that's a common goal - why each wants it is different, but no less relevant (one might wants to know the taste, the other is just hungry). Each's desire are different. If they were in the same room and the apple was out of reach, they would have to cooperate and try to obtain the apple (whether they share it is a different matter again).
All true. It's the statement that is inaccurate. We can't know anything, yet we somehow manage our lives together through communication.
#3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions. It is always(?) in human nature do distrust others since it is inbuilt in us to presume the worst in others. However, humans are also designed to move in groups and thus people will always congregate and form a collective to push their ideology. We will ignore potential problems if we can gain what we desire. Although this also makes us vulnerable to backstabbing, which happens when the goals are achieved. Trusting or distrusting others is in human culture not human nature.
We are designed to move in groups so when an ideology reaches out to people they might follow together.
#4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals. This is completely false! People have many choices as how to act in any given circumstance, but tends to choose the easy and fastest way to achieve their goal. If others are in the way of this goal, their removal and the means are considered. Sacrifices within the collective are often made to push the goals and benefit the majority. Ethical egoism is the simple answer. There are no altruistic actions since such an action would be made to serve yourself, same goes for all. People have many choises yes but none of them are purely for others. Perhaps people tend to choose the easier way out, perhaps not but that's another discussion. When the line "tends to" enters a philosofical argument one should reconsider it.
So though I disagree with a lot of what you say because the collective has power whereas the individual doesn't. The Collective is essential in bring an ideology/plan/goal etc into effect. The Collective acts in favour of the majority if there is a common goal and sometimes sacrifices the individual within it. The Collective also requires leadership, but the reasons and desires of that leadership could be entirely different to each individual. However, underlying reasons and desires are irrelevant if the common goal can be achieved (this is why complications arise).
To me the fact that collective action sometimes has larger effects than an individuals is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I don't think the ops idea was a suggestion for a satanistic societey where every individual only did actions that purely gain himself (all actions do yes but some also gain others, this is the difference that I mean).
Interesting read, though I do have to disagree on the basis of #4:
Stupid people make actions that do not have a discernible benefit. Stupidity is unpredictable and leads to people doing things which result in a net harm to themselves and others. #4 is only valid assuming people are smart enough to make decisions that are beneficial to themselves, which to be honest, is a pretty big leap of faith.
You may say that "to the best of his knowledge" covers this. However, I would argue that no amount of knowledge can keep people from doing dumb things. People still smoke all the time knowing that it causes cancer.
Whether intelligence is a matter of genetics exclusively remains a subject for another discussion, but this argument cannot be airtight until you address that concern.
At one point, you discussed that a collectivist is wrong when he assumes he cannot know what's best for anyone and any decisions thereafter made will be just as beneficial under individualism as it would be collectivism. However, I felt I should point out, situations such as The Prisoners' Dilemma is only enforced under individualism whereas collectivism would ensure a much greater outcome. Overall, I feel your argument is too biased towards individualism (understandably so in the US despite certain governmental changes ...).
On April 27 2010 16:11 Cheerio wrote: Well, sometimes government does know what is better for people. Drugs anyone? Or mb ban on smoking? Yes you can smoke, but you would be better off if you dont.
Better off for what? What goal? Not having lung cancer? And why do you think anyone shares your exact goals? What if they don't care about lung cancer and want to die young? Certainly them smokers do not think so. If they smoke, it's because they enjoy the short term satisfaction of nicotine over any possible side effects.
So there's different evaluations going on. No better or worse. Maybe you wish people wouldn't die, and I wish people wouldn't die too. But more importantly than living, is living free. So if people wish to take risks for themselves, why do you feel entitled to stopping them by force?
On April 27 2010 16:11 Cheerio wrote: And you can guess what most people want: money, power, sex, work less, have more. The problem is that when alot of power is given to state the people in power are the same weak ones with their personal needs. They will abuse it some way or another. If perfect people could be breeded and set to govern the nations in their best interest it would be better than democracy. Untill than democracy is the choice.
So all those hedonistic people you despise, are the same people you trust to elect your overlords? That makes sense... in democracy land.
On April 27 2010 16:18 L0n3W0olf wrote: Well, my belief is that a group is only trully strong, when it consists of strong individuals. There are some exceptions, when there is good leadership, but the above mentioned works best.
What does being a strong group mean? They can play tug-of-war really well?
Great work! How you managed to mind the motivation to systematically work through that post I don't know but I applaud you for it. Reading the thread the many uninformed claims and inconsistencies killed my motivation for debate, leaving me with only one thing I had strong enough motivation to point out (although you already kinda covered it). That's the response to Yurebis below.
But first I have a question for you. When you say you agree with Yurebis that #1 a collective is only a mass of individuals, do you also agree with him that it is nothing more? I thought it was a pretty widespread understanding that a whole is more than the sum of it's parts (see the term "emergence" in system theory for instance). Actually piratekaybear already pointed this out, but "refuted" it by pointing out how everything must have a representation in the individuals mind.
Yurebis:
You seem seduced by the idea that everything can be accounted for by studying the biology/chemistry of the human body. While it is true that every action has a bilogical counterpart, and every thought/idea must have some biological "representation" or other manifestation, it is not a very feasible approach to only endeavour into this layer of analysis, as output/input is mediated in the interspace of individuals. For this reason interpersonal behavior is as significant a source of information as the body of the individual itself.
On a related note, the whole distinction between individual and other is only an abstraction. Noone is ever free of other's influence (if only understood a bit broad: that is, representations of outside influence). I consider myself a determinist like you, that doesn't mean however, that we are determined only through intropersonal means.
Ideas founded interpersonally have a great deal of influence on the individual mind. That is not to say that we represent them internally in the same way as the next person (we can't be sure of exact agreement on definitions/interpretations), but they were still formed "out there" and now has an impact "in here". If you want to say that only because this has a individual representation (that is: is present in the individual mind) it isn't collective, then be my guest, it just means you either don't agree with everyone else on the use of that word, or you chose a different layer of analysis.
You seem very absorbed with the idea of objectivity and "real" science (SCIENCE?), which is frankly rather odd as you go out of your way to express that an individual can only understand the world subjectively. I think you should revise your understainding of knowledge as it seems very inconsistent. When the social sciences are not exact, it is because they concern themselves with matters that can't be meaningfully operationalized, but thankfully one do not need to have 100% sure knowledge in order to act purposefully. Just like one individual don't need to be 100% sure what the next person wants/thinks in order to respond to it.
I won't tell you how to understand knowledge, as you can only adapt a view consistent with the rest of your world view, I suppose. My aproach is that knowledge is simply the theory that currently best accounts for the widest range of cases.
On April 27 2010 20:25 Tal wrote: What if he just believes it's right?
I believe if I see someone drowning and can save them with no risk, I should do that, even if I ruin my nice clothes, purely because of empathy. If I don't have some ulterior motive I'm stupid?
Bold = my comments
Our actions are made out of Ethical egoism (link). But this situation is not simply answered by this in the same fashion as to "Why am I writing this?". Because when you see a man drowning you will act on instinct. If you chose to save him. Was it a long subconscious discussion where your mind decided that you couldn't live with yourself if you didn't? Or was it pure instinct and you acted before this possibly could happen? A more obvious example is when a mother protects her child. This is a universal occurence, is usually put aside by philosophers in the discussion of altruistic/ Ethical egoism decisions.
before you jump in, ask yourself why is he drowning in the first place? will he drag you down with him?
This was answered above. The human acts of instinct are what should be discussed.
Survival comes first in most peoples mind and thus if there is no lifeline, safetly vest or a clothesline you can throw to this guy, hes fucked and if you jump in he will 90% of the time drag you down with him.
You just created a scenario which the person above most probably didn't consider but I'll answer it anyway. Yes the survival instinct "To fight or flee". It exists in all of us, in this situation you describe we magically know that there is no chance of us surviving it, therefore we might flee indeed. What I'd like you to put some thought into is wether how a empathic man can live with himself after leaving a man to die, not even trying to rescue him.
Think of Africa for a second, half its population would be dying of aids or malnourisment yet we help them for some reason. Is it because of the kindness in our hearts? NOOOOO during the 1960's the western civilisations where learning of the third world, a hopeful generation happy to live in a time of peace wanted a change. Solidarity, empathy and a new understanding of our responsibility was put into action with aid to the third world countries. Sadly this solidarity is rarely seen in our generation since we haven't seen a world were we don't help. With that said. Yes it started from the kindness in our hearts. Even though all of our actions are made egoistically we feel happines when helping others.
We are helping those who are dying so their country is put further behind in debt, so that they will have to pay up greater sums than what our government spends for food, clothes and medicine as time passes by. SO instead of a dying place where people struggle and life moves on where you basically let these people sort out their own problems and establish a way of life ON THEIR OWN. I can't deny that there's a possible subconscious thought in me that is behind my actions of giving money to the red cross. And I can't deny that I don't know the exact thoughts behind the politicians actions to aid other countries. But the same goes for you.
When it comes to how our help sometimes do more harm than good I agree. When we send milk to a village their own shop which sells milk will not be able to sell and it's our fault. When we send money to corrupt gouvernments loads of money are lost on the way.
But according to me we have a responsibility. A big effect in africa is that rivers are running dry and the ground some have lived on for generations is now impossible to farm on. All because of the western civilisations gas pollution, effects on the ozone layer. We can rationalise the problem and talk about how I'm just a person, no big effects comes from me not driving a car etc. But it's still a choice we have to make, we should all consider these effects. As for the thread title collectivism v. Individualism. Collectivism is a pretty good idea here in "the war on global warming" .
My point, Let those you see need a helping hand, help themselves because life moves on regardless and while i get your feminist point of view, i simply dont agree on it just like you might not agree on my point.
On April 27 2010 17:14 Madkipz wrote: Its pretty simple, Once you as an individual have food,water, safety, shelter and electricity you will seek out these individual freedoms, or imaginary rights as i love to call them. As George Carlin puts it, they are made up rights. Like the bogeyman because the government can take them away. Japanese Americans 1940, thrown in jail for being of Japanese origin.
I haven't claimed I have the right to own myself in the op but you're right. I was just exploring why the collective thought is logically flawed
On April 27 2010 17:14 Madkipz wrote: People (and I'm being really general here) don't really care about the right to vote until their country starts hogging in profits and they as individuals start feeling entitled to some of that wealth. What we have here is a varying degree of feminization in our society, most of us where raised on the premise of "everyone are special, you all won today, everyone can be number one." and so fourth. What a country does is take all these communities under one wing, stating with its various of political views that all you need to do is vote, that every vote counts and riding the "everyone are special" train.
Individuals don't often care to vote because there's little benefit to be gained from it. Unless you're part of an interest group or have enough money to lobby, you won't ever have a real incentive to vote, just because your chances of making any difference are like winning the lottery. The only incentives in place that I see are the social engagement and the feeling of belongingness that one gets from begging other people to partake in forcing his neighbors to do shit. Voters perhaps get the feeling that those they vote for and get elected are their result. Like dickriding obama yeah? Such silly delusion over power when they have none really. Just an assumption.
On April 27 2010 17:14 Madkipz wrote: As for individualism, our western society is already removing certain individuals with radical ideas from the streets and therefore giving rise to a certain form of normality. Or at the very least swinging it in the direction they wish by keeping up a feminist standard.
stopped reading when i read "the collective is just a set of individuals" - if you start with something that wrong, whatever you end up with will be pretty messed up.
On April 27 2010 17:19 Severedevil wrote: Remove #2 from your list. It's a subset of #3. (And #3 is pretty sketchy unless 'actions' include such minor reactions as unconscious facial twitches, which we regularly use to read a person's mental state.)
It does include facial expressions, which a trained individual (actor) has no problem in emulating.
On April 27 2010 17:19 Severedevil wrote: #4 is of course laughably wrong. People are complete whores for short-term pleasure and ease.
So perhaps short-term pleasure and ease is their main goal in life? Whats wrong with that.
On April 27 2010 17:19 Severedevil wrote: "The collectivist is wrong when he says he knows whats best for anyone but himself, breaking premise #2, since he cannot know other people's goals are. (he can only assume per #3)
- Even if he was right in his assumptions, he could NEVER know if he was right unless he allows the man to act freely. (#3+#4)"
The 'collectivist' can ask a person what that person's goals are, and thus incorporate them. If that person purposefully misrepresents their goals, well, they're damning themselves through their own free choice.
That isn't bad in a nutshell, however, two issues:
The collectivist often not allow the individual to choose (the individual is secondary to the collective, remember?) Democracy is not a voluntary game, the rules are that you have to abide for your neighbors decisions. So if 51% of the population decide that they want you dead, you gonna die son! Ain't no choice on choosing your "representatives" unless you're able to convince 50% of the population w\ you.
Also, as long as the collective thinks he knows "what the collective wants", he will attempt to enact his delusions, because they're the most important in the world. Don't matter what anyone else thinks, this collectivist here knows what's up! He knows everybody's goal and the best means to accomplish those goals, therefore, he feels entitled to forcing everyone to compromise! How does he reach that knowledge, I don't know, it's logically impossible since he can only know what *he* wants and merely assume what other wants.
So is the fate of politics. And this problem grows greater with the more people the collectivist is imposing his will since more people are likely to be upset.
On April 27 2010 17:19 Severedevil wrote: Any concerns about coercion are trivially avoided by applying no penalty for sharing your opinion in this fashion. (Freedom of Speech.)
So if you allow slaves to talk back to their overseers everything is fine then?
On April 27 2010 17:26 Mothxal wrote: For some reason I thought the first few posts were Yuberis arguing with himself. Pretending to be multiple people is an interesting choice in a thread about individualism, though.
ye
On April 27 2010 17:19 Severedevil wrote: Anyway, it's better to come up with actually contestable real life examples for topics such as these, as otherwise you end up arguing over who gets to define certain terms.
if someone wants to contest that they're able to read other people's minds or have a forest without trees do go ahead, no real life example needed Thought experiments can be just as effective in proving a point. it's deduction from a set of premises..
On April 27 2010 13:11 Yurebis wrote: Which is my third point, Only human action can ever change anything in the universe,
I don't think this makes any sense at all.
Can you move an object with your mind? would be pretty sweet but I'm willing to say no
Maybe I am misunderstanding your original sentence:
Which is my third point, Only human action can ever change anything in the universe,
It seems to imply that absent of human action, there is stagnancy. From a purely scientific viewpoint this can be seen as incorrect, e.g. a star burns independent of human action, and regardless of whether or not we observe it burning. Parts of the universe were changing before man stood up, and they will continue changing whenever man decides he's had enough of this place and calls it quits.
It also suggests that humans are separate from the universe, which were are not. We are a self aware piece of it. We don't act upon the universe, the universe acts upon itself.
So without getting into morals, (morals don't exist in reality btw I'll leave it at that, np) this is basically why thinking collectively even with the "best" (or should I say, altruistic) intentions never works, and as a rule of thumb, I suggest that whatever your assumptions on human behavior and societal organization are, do it voluntarily. If it's not voluntary, it's not worth it, and it will never prove anything. TY for reading.
The first one to pull an objective theory of value is gonna get austrianized, just saying.
I think you will agree that there is a "good" way to build a bridge and a "bad" way to build a bridge -- much like there are good Build Orders in SC/BW and bad ones. The reason that building a bridge in a certain way is the "good" way is that it fulfills the function, the end, the engineers and civilians want it to fulfill -- being able to cross an obstacle.
in SC players enter the game sharing the same goal of winning (for the most part) so yea, there can be common means then. but life is an open game, you choose your goals, and they could even be dying. There's people committing suicide for example, for they've evaluated that their pain and sorrow is not worth extending their time on Earth, for more time will only bring them more sadness, and the prospect of a brighter day is too small.
The question of social engineering that I posit, is that you are not entitled to say where the bridge should be built, when, why and how. You are only entitled to yourself, and you can only earn other people's entitlements individually. There is no such thing as a greater good. Yadda yadda.
On April 27 2010 18:38 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: I think you will also agree that in the same way that there are good ways to build a bridge, there are "good" (non-moral sense) ways to act based on --what-- you want to accomplish. For example, Do you want to be an Olympic Marathon Gold Medal Winner? Well, don't eat only french fries and play WOW all day because if you do that you won't win a medal.
Agree. And I don't want to be pushed around, how about that. Do I have to convince 50% of the population to leave me alone? Why? Because they feel entitled to my body or property?
On April 27 2010 18:38 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: I take your statement "morals don't exist" to mean "Objective Moral Truths" don't exist. And an Objective Moral Truth is, for you, I think, a prescribed end. A prescribed end is a floating or embedded moral commandment with self-sufficient authority. Purportedly, such an end "is right because it is right." So, basically, it is right for no reason or "just because". And since "just because" isn't a good reason, the point you are making here must be something along the lines of this: While you may be willing to concede that once an end has been selected there are "good" and "bad" ways of reaching it but the end that you select to reach --in the first place-- can never be "Objectively" right or wrong. All possible ends are equal. There are no self-sufficient moral commands -- no Objective Moral Truths.
Yes.
On April 27 2010 18:38 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: I don't know if I agree with you that there is no Objective moral code but, if it is true that all possible ends are equal then your "rules of thumb" or your claim that coercion is "not worth it" do not hold for people who have selected different ends and you can't give a reason their ends should coincide with your ends. I'll try and explain why.
Indeed. which is why I'm trying to go w\ the basics and not even getting there quite yet. but to put it very simply: For the ends of cooperation, involuntary action is never an acceptable means. The bullshit that "I'm doing this for your own good even if you don't know it" has to stop, we're (I'm) not children w\o rational cognition.
On April 27 2010 18:38 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: You would be able to defend non-coercion if you could prove that the ends someone has chosen are best met by following a principle of non-coercion. You would be, in effect, giving someone advice on how to build a "good" bridge that "works". You might use arguments like "You'll be happiest if you live in a society that abides by non-coercion...it will be the most productive society...etc." But what if someone simply chooses a different end? They choose to build a bridge that fails, just to see it fall in the water? Or they choose a path in life that will lead them to experience suffering, simply to explore what it is like? Or they choose to coerce people, just to experience what it feels like?
Yes, and that is very much possible. I won't judge them on their ends. I just want them to be logically concise and at the very least, understand why collectivism fails for all it's proclaimed goals
On April 27 2010 18:38 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: The point here is that you cannot say that one way of living is -ultimately- better than another . So your claim is reduced to: "If you choose the same ends I do, here are some good tips."
Maybe that is all it was meant to be.
Yes. but so is every other ethical or political claim ever. Except that some people pretend to be gods as you may figure
Don't you think it's a little embarrassing that you need to completely reject all philosophy and psychology to maintain your position?
In order to be as individualistic as you are, you have to drop the concept of empathy.
You have to step aside from the linguistic evidence (see Jurgen Habermas) that the base act of communication shows people believe we have enough in common for talking to be worthwhile.
There are also a lot of unarguable things everyone has in common- the most basic being 'I don't want to starve or die young' .Just starting from these, you can lay down many rules everyone would agree on.
I'm not rejecting all philosophy, that would be quite hard to do but I'm indeed rejecting all psychology, because it's a bad joke applying the scientific method to human action won't ever work because there's always too many confounding variables to be controlled. you can't possibly account for them all as you can with one simple chemical reaction. at least not now, maybe in the future when a lot more is known on neurology and shit. brain scanners mayb. but if you do believe psychology is legit then please forgive me and ignore all my posts ever.
and I don't have to drop the concept of empathy. I feel empathy perhaps just as much as anyone else. The thing is that I recognize people's actions as their actions, and not actions on behalf of a fictional entity. I.e. war is wrong no matter what "country" you're defending. It's man being payed to kill another man.
Empathy and collaboration are 100% compatible with individualism since they offer a great net incentive for both individuals to work together.
I guess if you're a determinist, I don't see the point of making a thread to talk to other people about it. But I guess you don't have any choice in the matter just as others don't have any choice in whether or not they believe you.
The way you talk sounds mighty inconsistent with your belief in determinism though, it's almost like you are trying to persuade people of something. But since they can't choose to agree with you are not, I don't see the point.
I know most of the philosophical arguments, and I agree that it's really hard to make the case for anything other than a deterministic worldview, but it's pretty dang inconsistent with common sense and trying to live an everyday life where for all intents and purposes you feel like you have choices. I just can't help feel this whole thread is an argument against itself, not about collectivism, but about determinism. It seems impossible for any determinist to live a life consistent with their beliefs, which in my view is a pretty damning arguments against its truth, even if that's not really a philosophical or scientific argument.
edit: oh, and I totally agree about psychology, it's very overrated. Statistical psychology has some limited utility, but until we get our own Hari Seldon, that field is going nowhere fast.
On April 27 2010 19:45 Myrkul wrote: I'm not really sure I understand ultimately what you are contesting.
its k
On April 27 2010 19:45 Myrkul wrote: Let us take a simple example, a tribe of hunter-gatherers, 10000BC. Individuals congregate together willingly
emphasis mine, nothing 2 say tbh
On April 27 2010 19:45 Myrkul wrote: to better be able to protect themselves from predators, and to make it easier for them to collect food and survive. Your points #2 and #3 don't make much sense in this situation, because the "social contract" was formed to fulfill 2 human needs, in this case protection and food, aka survival.
seeing as them individuals joined mutually I don't see what the problem is. Does not prove it'd be alright for the leader to start
On April 27 2010 19:45 Myrkul wrote: Those individuals who do not feel those needs have absolutely no reason to join the soceity. The society's reason for existence is the efficient fullfilment of these two needs, and that requires that the person/persons who are most skilled and most knowledgeable in this area(surviving in a hostile environment) tell the others what to do, aka become their leaders. The leaders job is to fullfil his assingment, and that is to preserve the collective, for without the collective the individual cannot survive and prosper(or has slim chances to). Now let us assume that the leader sometimes makes decisions that sacrifice an individual to preserve the collective. The individuals accept this risk because the chance of them surviving on their own are very slim, Living in the collective, even with the risk of being sacrificed the individual's chances of survival are still greater than on his own, not to mention that some accept the risk of them being sacrificed if only for the reason that that ensures the survival of their loved ones, children and etc.
Which can all be done individually as well. You're coming from a descriptive, historical angle, but then, you jump from an "is" into and "ought", and just because it has been that way, it means it always has to be that way? No connection exists. Your arbitrary goal of survival is not binding to everyone unless they choose to adopt it freely. In which case, yeah maybe they'll keep following whoever they want.
On April 27 2010 19:45 Myrkul wrote: Those who do not agree can always run off on their own. In this simplified scenario the main goals of the collective(to preserve itself) perfectly mirror the main goals of the individuals in it(to maximize their chance of survival, or their family's or whatever).
It does not mirror democracy or born-into slavery. The slave is confined to the plantation, and the citizen is always going to have to pay tribute to a gang of men who feel entitled to a whole certain geographical area. The world is full of them sadly. And they got public support too which is hilariously tragic.
On April 27 2010 19:45 Myrkul wrote: So what are you saying, that their is no collective in this case? That there shouldn't be? That the individuals do not want to maximize their chance of survival? Or that the leader cannot know that they do, so he shouldn't make them do things that maximize their chance of survival? That the survival of the collective is not the "will" of the hunters? Or that the individuals in this soceity do not think that the survival of the collective is a "greater good"?
The leader is doing his thing, his giving orders are no different than a company CEO writing memos.
If all the hunters engage freely in a common action then yeah, they do have a common will. But that will of theirs does not join together into something greater, that's just metaphysically inexplainable.
Whenever the leader asks them to do something they do not want, even if on the cloak of a "greater good", they're not going to put up with him, because the leader isn't god, he's just another guy. He doesn't know everything, and he's not entitled to boss everyone.
And may I add that free assembly has nothing to do with collectivism since it's compatible with individualism. Collectivism is about forcing people to do things they do not wish to do, for the better of "society" as you say. How do you know what the better of society is my friend? You can only know your own goals...
On April 27 2010 19:45 Myrkul wrote: The way I see it, if a collective exists (saying it does not is like saying that there exists no such thing as a forest, only trees) then there exists such a thing as the good for the collective. In this example the "greater good" is that which preserves the collective. The individual can choose if he values this "greater good" over his own or not, and can follow whatever path he chooses, but it's ridicoulus to say that the term "greater good" is empty as long as there exist individuals who willingly sacrifice themselves for it.
That's not how it works. The government won't let you forfeit your tax obligations. You got to do it because they know what's best for you than yourself, or so is the word.
On April 27 2010 19:55 Lixler wrote: The Judeo-Christian pity value is what causes people to become "collectivist." Of course, no individual can be collectivist without being coerced, as this would mean he has to freely choose to do things which do not benefit him (a psychological impossibility). Any individual who values society over himself is pathetic indeed.
I don't think it's quite the pitying value taught on religions but the omniscience claimed by its priesthood. don't wanna elaborate, 2 off topic
On April 27 2010 20:04 Romantic wrote: If we are always acting in our best interests and we formed a society and a government, it is in our best interest to have a society and government.
Get outta here, anarchist. Somalia is pretty in the spring. Shit, you seriously have to ignore nearly everything we know about humans to claim we should never make any collective effort.
Who are we? Do you mean "I" instead? cuz I think you do.
And I'm not saying any shoulds, that's you saying it, my kind sir.
On April 27 2010 20:00 Tal wrote: Lixler - can't you be self interested without being selfish?
If someone gives to charity (and hence society), he is doing something that does not benefit him, but he is not being coerced.
But he is also being stupid. The only reason he would do that is because he derives pleasure from it (e.g. he tells people he donated money and feels good about himself). But this pleasure is a false, empty one that would lead to an emaciation of the self.
don't judge people on their goals pls you can have a goal external to yourself, no problem with that at all the conflict exists when you force people to adopt your ends.
its just basicaly the Macro and the Micro of the world. and i also think they are interrelated. i dont see the point in arguing that either or is superior method, since neither can work without the other. imo (if your looking for the 'best' outcome)
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: I see that there is a lot of discussion of what exactly is right and wrong. I'll try and explain from a position that I believe to be similar to the Original Poster's mindset, which is at least his mindset in principle, if not in practice.
Assuming a human is composed simply of a single consciousness, that means that the individual is limited to a single perspective and a single experience. I think it's safe to say that OP considers a person to be a collection of individual ideas and morals defined by the individual for the individual's self, and that individuals are too separate to achieve any sort of complete and entirely identical mindset or values. In short, none of these "perceived morals" and "influences" are real and are simply a imposition of principles on self. Thus, "right" and "wrong" become things an individuals decides for the self, and cannot be posited on others.
I have examined your claims, and my comments follow. (Bold = your premises)
1. A collective is a group of individuals.
- Yes, a collective is a group of individuals. It is also worthy to be noted that each individual of a collective understands the goal of the collective to a certain extent, but actual consistency of goals is not always the case. Important to note is that the individual identifies with the collective, but actual consistency of goals can be elicited upon careful examination of the collective's stated position and the individual's position.
2. An individual cannot know what others think or want.
- Physically this is a true claim, but then you are undermining the purpose of communication. Of course, completely undiluted communication is difficult without specific definitions and claims, but I believe I addressed how to determine the actual consistency of claims and mindset when I addressed point 1. That is, communication is the attempt to transmit information across barriers between individual consciousnesses, and the success of this endeavor is verifiable.
- To address whether the act of verifying claims itself is prone to misinformation/misinterpretation, that is a simple limit that is consistent with your second claim. Unfortunately, it's the best we have, aside from other methods of verification.
3. Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions.
- Examining action is one such other method of verification. However, action can also be as subversive as communication, so examination of action is still an interpretive method. Again, verbal claims and physical acts are the best ways to verify an individual's true intention. It is not foolproof, but due to a lack of omniscience, humans are limited to interpretation to make sense of the such things as "another individual's intent".
4. Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals.
- If by "best" you mean "ideal according to individual judgment", then it can be stated that, if certain ideas are important enough to the individual, the individual will attempt actions to further those ideas in the form of goals.
- There are, however, moral limitations on action as well as thought and speech. Yes, they are entirely within the consciousness of the individual. That does not make them any less tangible nor does it render them insignificant. That is simply an indelible quality of a societal more.
- The collectivist is wrong when he says he knows whats best for anyone but himself, breaking premise #2, since he cannot know other people's goals are. (he can only assume per #3)
- Assume is a word that, well, assumes little forethought. I'd prefer to say that he can only interpret others' goals. Trying to remove individual responsibility for thought and action from the individual is a critical error because of your premises 1 and 4, meaning that an individual can only certainly know what the self wants, and actions taken by the individual is up to the individual's own judgment. So, we cannot, and the collectivist cannot, be entirely exempt from responsibility for individual action.
- As an audience of the collectivist, we can only interpret his claims as individuals and decide whether we agree or not based upon our own judgment. Therefore, we have no right to claim that he is wrong, because we will be laying claim to an ultimate "truth" of him being invariably wrong. We can only interpret his claims and actions for ourselves.
- Definition of Interpretation: Based upon our individual morals and convictions, which we must know by premise 1 (which I agree with), we pass judgment on another's claims after extensive consideration and thought.
- Even if he was right in his assumptions, he could NEVER know if he was right unless he allows the man to act freely. (#3+#4)
- There can be subversion in action as well as communication. Again, you can only interpret his actions and claims as an individual.
- The collectivist will often concede the above points then proceed to claim that he knows whats best for the common good, a fictitious entity per #1
- The "common good" is an individual's interpretation of what is right, even if that individual derives all or most ideas from a claimed collective. Again, I have said that the collectivist as well as the audience can only be certain of individual thoughts, as per your premise 1, and that though we cannot know, we can interpret. Frankly, that's all we can do.
- Your example revolves solely around solid proof, yet that cannot be how everything in the world should be substantiated, because not everything in the world can be verified that way. We can only draw conclusions based on our own judgment, precedent, and experiences. More on this sort of "false until proven correct" mindset later.
- The collectivist then keeps equivocating anyways, doing and saying whatever *he* feels like doing (according to premise #4 ofc). nothing particularly wrong w\ this, at least he's honest by then. (thug 4 lief)
- This is adopting a policy of disassociation. Basically you choose to disagree with each other. Unfortunately, this results in inaction, and it must follow that inaction will do nothing to solve an apparent issue or problem. Even though we as individuals have the luxury to skirt differences and abstain from compromising others' convictions with the benefit of not needing to compromise our own convictions, government often cannot afford to do such a thing. As an individual, I also believe that such an approach to dichotomy is unproductive. More on this kind of mindset later.
So without getting into morals, (morals don't exist in reality btw I'll leave it at that, np) this is basically why thinking collectively even with the "best" (or should I say, altruistic) intentions never works, and as a rule of thumb, I suggest that whatever your assumptions on human behavior and societal organization are, do it voluntarily. If it's not voluntary, it's not worth it, and it will never prove anything.
- Already established that morals are an individual's choice to conform to an established set of values.
- Perhaps you are saying that the "best" intentions are purely subjective and are not justification for making any one idea the "ideal". This is true.
- Involuntary action will be inconsistent with individual thought, but again, there is an over-reliance on objective proof. Is there really a need to prove something to someone through voluntary action? Perhaps rather than proof for the sake of verification, what is being sought is an example for the sake of interpretation, because many of the things your examples are dealing with are not concrete and rely on interpretation to make sense of them. It all comes back to individual interpretation.
- You say that collective thought is ineffective because it is no more credible than individual thought. Then forget the collective. Focus on the individual or the ideas behind the collective rather than looking to the collective itself for credibility.
On mindset:
Problem I observe with the OP's mindset. It is too concerned with objectifying entirely humanistic concerns. Simply posing a claim and systematically refuting dissent and/or counter viewpoints is a common pastime on the internet, and unfortunately that is how many individuals handle their arguments.
What is the result? A cut-off from external ideas and influence; a withdrawal into self. There is no intent to assimilate, there is only intent to defend. There is no intent on either side to try and achieve synthesis, only an effort made to maintain dichotomy. And people agree to disagree. This is entirely unproductive in and of itself, because the difference is there, but the evolution of ideas and thought ends where individuals refuse to resolve or assimilate conflicting ideas. This is also the problem facing much of political thought and debate as well, because motivation is not a collective thing, but is an individual concern. Judgment through sound interpretation is key. On Interpretation:
Since it seems like all instances of communication and observation relies on the subsequent interpretation, what is the ideal way to go about doing this? Well, that's where the entire body of philosophical thought, religious thought, and psychology within historical contexts is completely necessary. There exists a huge history of human thought that already exists which all provide solid bases from which we can develop our own basis for interpretation. Focusing on the ideas and methods presented throughout each and every text and examining how ideas related to context is key to opening our own capacity for interpretation. Why do I tout this as truth? It is not necessarily truth, but it's rather evident that through educating ourselves with ideas, progression of human thought, how dichotomies are dealt with, and exploring various mindsets through examining such works will serve to do nothing but to expand our own capacity for thought.
On April 27 2010 20:40 Madkipz wrote: Think of Africa for a second, half its populace would be dying to aids or malnourisment yet we help them for some reason. Is it because of the kindness in our hearts? NOOOOO
We are helping those who are dying so their country is put further behind in debt, so that they will have to pay up greater sums than what our government spends for food, clothes and medicine as time passes by. SO instead of a dying place where people struggle and life moves on where you basically let these people sort out their own problems and establish a way of life ON THEIR OWN.
My point, Let those you see need a helping hand, help themselves because life moves on regardless and while i get your feminist point of view, i simply dont agree on it just like you might not agree on my point.
semi-agree, but I would suggest that the collective efforts to subsidize and control africa are instead to keep it poor, not so much to profit later. Politics don't often think long term, but those people know what they're doing. In general, the more problems exist in the world, the more power they'll get from desperate citizenry. So there's a minor incentive for the state to impoverish its people. then again there is also some incentive to make it richer since then they can have larger proportional earnings, so, idk, depends on the country and how much they expect to profit from each circumstance.
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: I see that there is a lot of discussion of what exactly is right and wrong. I'll try and explain from a position that I believe to be similar to the Original Poster's mindset, which is at least his mindset in principle, if not in practice.
hi2u
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: Assuming a human is composed simply of a single consciousness, that means that the individual is limited to a single perspective and a single experience. I think it's safe to say that OP considers a person to be a collection of individual ideas and morals defined by the individual for the individual's self, and that individuals are too separate to achieve any sort of complete and entirely identical mindset or values. In short, none of these "perceived morals" and "influences" are real and are simply a imposition of principles on self. Thus, "right" and "wrong" become things an individuals decides for the self, and cannot be posited on others.
k
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: I have examined your claims, and my comments follow. (Bold = your premises)
1. A collective is a group of individuals.
- Yes, a collective is a group of individuals. It is also worthy to be noted that each individual of a collective understands the goal of the collective to a certain extent, but actual consistency of goals is not always the case. Important to note is that the individual identifies with the collective, but actual consistency of goals can be elicited upon careful examination of the collective's stated position and the individual's position.
cool
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: 2. An individual cannot know what others think or want.
- Physically this is a true claim, but then you are undermining the purpose of communication. Of course, completely undiluted communication is difficult without specific definitions and claims, but I believe I addressed how to determine the actual consistency of claims and mindset when I addressed point 1. That is, communication is the attempt to transmit information across barriers between individual consciousnesses, and the success of this endeavor is verifiable.
it is verifiable by action, and only post-fact speech is a type of action you cannot merely think a talk to talk unless ur protoss olololol
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: - To address whether the act of verifying claims itself is prone to misinformation/misinterpretation, that is a simple limit that is consistent with your second claim. Unfortunately, it's the best we have, aside from other methods of verification.
How do you verify if someone is telling the truth? I don't follow.
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: 3. Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions.
- Examining action is one such other method of verification. However, action can also be as subversive as communication, so examination of action is still an interpretive method. Again, verbal claims and physical acts are the best ways to verify an individual's true intention. It is not foolproof, but due to a lack of omniscience, humans are limited to interpretation to make sense of the such things as "another individual's intent".
Assumption is not verification And the action only proves that the rational individual chose to act (if he's not drunk or anything) per #4
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: 4. Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals.
- If by "best" you mean "ideal according to individual judgment", then it can be stated that, if certain ideas are important enough to the individual, the individual will attempt actions to further those ideas in the form of goals.
ofc whose judgement could he use instead?
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: - There are, however, moral limitations on action as well as thought and speech. Yes, they are entirely within the consciousness of the individual. That does not make them any less tangible nor does it render them insignificant. That is simply an indelible quality of a societal more.
Speech is an action (again) and I don't get the rest sorry.
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: - The collectivist is wrong when he says he knows whats best for anyone but himself, breaking premise #2, since he cannot know other people's goals are. (he can only assume per #3)
- Assume is a word that, well, assumes little forethought. I'd prefer to say that he can only interpret others' goals. Trying to remove individual responsibility for thought and action from the individual is a critical error because of your premises 1 and 4, meaning that an individual can only certainly know what the self wants, and actions taken by the individual is up to the individual's own judgment. So, we cannot, and the collectivist cannot, be entirely exempt from responsibility for individual action.
Why do you call it a responsibility? Is a rock responsible to fall downhill? It's just how it is based on general premises
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: - As an audience of the collectivist, we can only interpret his claims as individuals and decide whether we agree or not based upon our own judgment. Therefore, we have no right to claim that he is wrong, because we will be laying claim to an ultimate "truth" of him being invariably wrong. We can only interpret his claims and actions for ourselves.
he is wrong claiming that he can fly or go through walls just as much as he is when he claims he knows your ends. he is wrong objectively. if you want to go further and assume that I can't make truth statements please do but neither can you and then this whole talk is irrelevant etc. I would have included epistemological premises but it would be a waste of real estate tbh since most people dont give a shit about that
Rights don't really exist either so maybe that's keeping you back. I never said anyone had the right to do anything. I'm talking about things descriptively for the most part. is-is only sometimes the ought-to-ought type of thing
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: - Definition of Interpretation: Based upon our individual morals and convictions, which we must know by premise 1 (which I agree with), we pass judgment on another's claims after extensive consideration and thought.
thats fine
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: - Even if he was right in his assumptions, he could NEVER know if he was right unless he allows the man to act freely. (#3+#4)
- There can be subversion in action as well as communication. Again, you can only interpret his actions and claims as an individual.
well the point of the premise is so you can make an objective statement about his thought process, with the caveat that its only restrospective.
Unless you mean like, someone acts like a douche (troll), I claim that he wants to act like a douche as per #4, but then he tells me he was only acting (trolling) me. well, even then, he wanted to act like a douche to fool me, so it's not an equivocation.
the only equivocation would be if the individual acting ceases to be rational, or is acting out of his mind, like drunk and shit, but those are relatively rare cases. I claim that 99%+ of the time, humans act conscientiously, but you're free to reject since I just made that number up
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: - The collectivist will often concede the above points then proceed to claim that he knows whats best for the common good, a fictitious entity per #1
- The "common good" is an individual's interpretation of what is right, even if that individual derives all or most ideas from a claimed collective. Again, I have said that the collectivist as well as the audience can only be certain of individual thoughts, as per your premise 1, and that though we cannot know, we can interpret. Frankly, that's all we can do.
yes, ultimately it is. but wouldn't it be nice if they were honest?
imagine a priest saying "I haven't really talked to god, this is my interpretation of a work by people that also did not talk to god, but I really do believe this set of morals are good for you and you should adopt it"
kind of breaks the whole thing don't you think
well that's my purpose anyway, so... k
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: - Your example revolves solely around solid proof, yet that cannot be how everything in the world should be substantiated, because not everything in the world can be verified that way. We can only draw conclusions based on our own judgment, precedent, and experiences. More on this sort of "false until proven correct" mindset later.
too epistemological for this discussion imo but tell me, how do you verify truth claims, and what type of truth claims can be verified? can I prove that there is or there is not a God? I think not perhaps it would be a matter of switching your mindset from verification to falsification. read up on critical rationalism if u want to know more
No one can prove anything ultimately. But we can falsify truth claims, even too easily sometimes. ITT, I falsify the truth claim that a collectivist 1-knows a whole groups' goals .. and maybe other things, idk, I don't even remember anymore
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote:
- The collectivist then keeps equivocating anyways, doing and saying whatever *he* feels like doing (according to premise #4 ofc). nothing particularly wrong w\ this, at least he's honest by then. (thug 4 lief)
- This is adopting a policy of disassociation. Basically you choose to disagree with each other. Unfortunately, this results in inaction, and it must follow that inaction will do nothing to solve an apparent issue or problem. Even though we as individuals have the luxury to skirt differences and abstain from compromising others' convictions with the benefit of not needing to compromise our own convictions, government often cannot afford to do such a thing. As an individual, I also believe that such an approach to dichotomy is unproductive. More on this kind of mindset later.
emphasis mine - Actually, most of the time it doesn't result in inaction, the collectivist will act anyways on my behalf even if i beg him not to. Well but I'm preaching to the choir 2 u
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: So without getting into morals, (morals don't exist in reality btw I'll leave it at that, np) this is basically why thinking collectively even with the "best" (or should I say, altruistic) intentions never works, and as a rule of thumb, I suggest that whatever your assumptions on human behavior and societal organization are, do it voluntarily. If it's not voluntary, it's not worth it, and it will never prove anything.
- Already established that morals are an individual's choice to conform to an established set of values.
- Perhaps you are saying that the "best" intentions are purely subjective and are not justification for making any one idea the "ideal". This is true.
- Involuntary action will be inconsistent with individual thought, but again, there is an over-reliance on objective proof. Is there really a need to prove something to someone through voluntary action? Perhaps rather than proof for the sake of verification, what is being sought is an example for the sake of interpretation, because many of the things your examples are dealing with are not concrete and rely on interpretation to make sense of them. It all comes back to individual interpretation.
there is no need for anything I just did it for the lulz ^ lol gay
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: - You say that collective thought is ineffective because it is no more credible than individual thought. Then forget the collective. Focus on the individual or the ideas behind the collective rather than looking to the collective itself for credibility.
Thats what I'm pleading others to do yo. But some don't get as far as u or I do. Not trying to be a prick but it's true unless someone can falsify my falsification would be pretty impossible imo
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: On mindset:
Problem I observe with the OP's mindset. It is too concerned with objectifying entirely humanistic concerns. Simply posing a claim and systematically refuting dissent and/or counter viewpoints is a common pastime on the internet, and unfortunately that is how many individuals handle their arguments.
yes, I love it ROFL
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: What is the result? A cut-off from external ideas and influence; a withdrawal into self. There is no intent to assimilate, there is only intent to defend. There is no intent on either side to try and achieve synthesis, only an effort made to maintain dichotomy. And people agree to disagree. This is entirely unproductive in and of itself, because the difference is there, but the evolution of ideas and thought ends where individuals refuse to resolve or assimilate conflicting ideas. This is also the problem facing much of political thought and debate as well, because motivation is not a collective thing, but is an individual concern. Judgment through sound interpretation is key.
define sound interpretation nvm, you can't but it's k.
and I'm not quite looking to defend really, I'm looking to destroy thats how I roll ok now I stop being a fag
On April 27 2010 21:58 LunarC wrote: On Interpretation:
Since it seems like all instances of communication and observation relies on the subsequent interpretation, what is the ideal way to go about doing this? Well, that's where the entire body of philosophical thought, religious thought, and psychology within historical contexts is completely necessary. There exists a huge history of human thought that already exists which all provide solid bases from which we can develop our own basis for interpretation. Focusing on the ideas and methods presented throughout each and every text and examining how ideas related to context is key to opening our own capacity for interpretation. Why do I tout this as truth? It is not necessarily truth, but it's rather evident that through educating ourselves with ideas, progression of human thought, how dichotomies are dealt with, and exploring various mindsets through examining such works will serve to do nothing but to expand our own capacity for thought.
Though most of those have a negative spin as well. Seems more strawman than debate. Is collectivism just a word ayn rand made up to feel better about being selfish?
Ok let me try again with no spin Collectivism is the idea that the Individual's ends are secondary to the Collective's ends. What the individual wants only matters after the collective's wants are fulfilled.
is that good?
that's the thought I'm trying to disprove the reasonings are in the op as you may have read. sorry for not being clear on what my definition of collectivism is
On April 27 2010 23:48 Jibba wrote: It's interesting that when Hayek brought up this argument, I felt more intelligent for having read it. I'm not sure I can say the same thing about this thread.
On April 27 2010 21:05 Madkipz wrote: no the child is doomed from the getgo, what kind of future will it have even if given medicine?
LET the child die, let it go gracefully and in ignorance rather than delay the inevidable.
Just because you feel guilty enough to fork out the 5 bucks does not mean you should.
Gold.
Yurebis, if you want to have a theoretical discussion (which this is) you can't disregard past philosophy, psychology, rational choice theory, etc. on the subject.
dude, if you know praxeology (which is what I suppose you mean by rational choice theory), you should know that my OP is 100% praxeologically valid. not only valid, its almost copy n paste from human action. and I don't disregard philosophy, I'm calling psychology bs because it is bs and has little to do with the topic
psychology hasn't developed lie detector machines yet, hasn't managed to prove anything. psychology is just a pseudo science at labeling arbitrary "behavioral trends" as disorders theres no lab tests, no physics experiments only docs in a room labeling people thinking they know something sorry this goes way off the topic.
On April 28 2010 00:13 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Perhaps you are blind to your own living condition. Do you live alone? Grow and/or hunt your own food? Weave your own textiles and clothes? Prepare your own safe drinking water? Manufacture your own luxury goods?
In many cases collectivism provides a benefit to all who take part. Surely you were not coerced into going to the market and buying a bag of potatoes. In fact, I would wager a guess that you are unable to successfully perform any of the tasks I listed above sufficiently enough to survive outside of modern society. In this case you ought to value the society over yourself, since the society is the collective providing you with the means to survive.
The market is not a product of collectivist action... thats individual, interpersonal action, be it mutual, contractual, etc.
On April 28 2010 00:14 SirGlinG wrote: On April 27 2010 14:57 dtvu wrote: #1 - The collective is only a group of individuals. However, the individual requires a voice and leadership to broadcast their common interest/goal/ideas. The individual supports the leadership and thus gives power to their movement. Without leadership and common goals, nothing is accomplished.
It's in our nature to think we know. It's in our culture to judge other culture from our own cultures perspective. So it's quite understandable that you consider the need of leadership this way but there are cultures which run smoothly without our kind of leadership. Without common goals nothing is accomplished. Is perhaps a better way to put it. But we can still accomplish with individual goals.
sorry I'm not going to answer this post because I don't know what you wrote but if collectivists were half as humble as you, and not force anyone to do anything, then the individuals will would prevail, because the collectivists would not do anything to enforce "the common good" which would be good imo ofc
On April 28 2010 00:28 Floophead_III wrote: Interesting read, though I do have to disagree on the basis of #4:
Stupid people make actions that do not have a discernible benefit. Stupidity is unpredictable and leads to people doing things which result in a net harm to themselves and others. #4 is only valid assuming people are smart enough to make decisions that are beneficial to themselves, which to be honest, is a pretty big leap of faith.
You may say that "to the best of his knowledge" covers this. However, I would argue that no amount of knowledge can keep people from doing dumb things. People still smoke all the time knowing that it causes cancer.
Whether intelligence is a matter of genetics exclusively remains a subject for another discussion, but this argument cannot be airtight until you address that concern.
Yes that is a fair concern. but men will always be ignorant to something, because they cannot know everything our brains would have to be infinitely large, as large as the universe itself perhaps
so my rebuttal is, with what standard do you judge man to be stupid? To the degree of a god? Of a plant? a dog? I am one to think that man are smart enough to act rationally 99% of the time, and yes, to the best of his knowledge. But who are you to blame that he is dumb?
Intelligence can only be defined with a goal and degree in mind. So if you're calling the majority of mankind dumb, I say your standards are too high, or perhaps more likely, your goals are not the same as other people
What if smokers want to have or do not care to have lung cancer? damn I actually wrote this to someone else already. I'm officially repeating myself :/ I'm so dumb
On April 28 2010 00:36 KissBlade wrote: At one point, you discussed that a collectivist is wrong when he assumes he cannot know what's best for anyone and any decisions thereafter made will be just as beneficial under individualism as it would be collectivism. However, I felt I should point out, situations such as The Prisoners' Dilemma is only enforced under individualism whereas collectivism would ensure a much greater outcome. Overall, I feel your argument is too biased towards individualism (understandably so in the US despite certain governmental changes ...).
The prisoners dillema is actually a big big evidence in favor of individualism. You'd know that people who initiate cooperatively and reciprocate defections and coops alike will have a much better chance of cooperating with other cooperative individuals, and defect against uncooperative ones.
But anyway, what you're saying is.. if someone could force everyone to be cooperative, then everyone would be better off..? Better off for what goal?
Case is that some don't believe that everyone being better off will benefit him. that's why they steal, lie, murder, etc. So is it right for you to force them to adhere to your means, if you know that such cooperative means will bring them more resources later on?
On those grounds, thats the thing, it is not. Because you don't ultimately know the future, you don't know if everyone will be better off. It is assumed on your experience that this is so, but you don't. And forcing people to do things is hardly cooperating anyways, It's the opposite of cooperation, yeah?
In fact I would argue that, by you forcing them to cooperate, it's actually a defection on them, by your part.
On April 28 2010 00:51 hefty wrote: You seem seduced by the idea that everything can be accounted for by studying the biology/chemistry of the human body. While it is true that every action has a bilogical counterpart, and every thought/idea must have some biological "representation" or other manifestation, it is not a very feasible approach to only endeavour into this layer of analysis, as output/input is mediated in the interspace of individuals. For this reason interpersonal behavior is as significant a source of information as the body of the individual itself.
I'm a determinist but I argue on free will grounds. I know it's confusing but as you may not I haven't talked science once, and if I did everyone would ignore me anyways because I don't know shit really
On April 28 2010 00:51 hefty wrote: On a related note, the whole distinction between individual and other is only an abstraction. Noone is ever free of other's influence (if only understood a bit broad: that is, representations of outside influence). I consider myself a determinist like you, that doesn't mean however, that we are determined only through intropersonal means.
k
On April 28 2010 00:51 hefty wrote: Ideas founded interpersonally have a great deal of influence on the individual mind. That is not to say that we represent them internally in the same way as the next person (we can't be sure of exact agreement on definitions/interpretations), but they were still formed "out there" and now has an impact "in here". If you want to say that only because this has a individual representation (that is: is present in the individual mind) it isn't collective, then be my guest, it just means you either don't agree with everyone else on the use of that word, or you chose a different layer of analysis.
out there you mean, on other people's heads semantics I would have defined collectivism in the OP but really I didn't think it'd be necessary if someone dared to define collectivism anyway they'd probably be able to see the bs it is.
On April 28 2010 00:51 hefty wrote: You seem very absorbed with the idea of objectivity and "real" science (SCIENCE?), which is frankly rather odd as you go out of your way to express that an individual can only understand the world subjectively. I think you should revise your understainding of knowledge as it seems very inconsistent. When the social sciences are not exact, it is because they concern themselves with matters that can't be meaningfully operationalized, but thankfully one do not need to have 100% sure knowledge in order to act purposefully. Just like one individual don't need to be 100% sure what the next person wants/thinks in order to respond to it.
technically there can't ever be a 100% objective positive truth (god exists, god does not exist), only objective falsification can be 100% true
I don't have that much trouble understanding the basics of epistemology but let me say that I don't feel I'm equivocating when I say you nor anyone else can get inside my head.
On April 28 2010 00:51 hefty wrote: I won't tell you how to understand knowledge, as you can only adapt a view consistent with the rest of your world view, I suppose. My aproach is that knowledge is simply the theory that currently best accounts for the widest range of cases.
positivist right well try some critical rationalism imo
On April 28 2010 00:57 o[twist] wrote: stopped reading when i read "the collective is just a set of individuals" - if you start with something that wrong, whatever you end up with will be pretty messed up.
Which is my third point, Only human action can ever change anything in the universe,
It seems to imply that absent of human action, there is stagnancy. From a purely scientific viewpoint this can be seen as incorrect, e.g. a star burns independent of human action, and regardless of whether or not we observe it burning. Parts of the universe were changing before man stood up, and they will continue changing whenever man decides he's had enough of this place and calls it quits.
It also suggests that humans are separate from the universe, which were are not. We are a self aware piece of it. We don't act upon the universe, the universe acts upon itself.
OOoh ok I apologize. I mean, you know what I meant sorry.
in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Take a look at "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely. It seems that man in fact does behave irrational, and predictably so. Marketing companies have known this for ages and have been cleverly manipulating us to make irrational decisions. This can be an argument for paternalism.
On the other hand, people often assume that whatever cannot be solved on the market, can be solved by the government. But government officials are not benelovent gods, they are both rational in that they seek their own personal gain, and they make the same predictable irrational mistakes as the rest of us. Additionally, in a democracy, they are elected by an irrational populace.
So setting up governmental institutions to take care of things doesn't necessary solve every problem, and it may make some of them significantly worse.
On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote: in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.
...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.
there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.
I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
Too simple to be correct. Human interaction can not be explained in a post. Additionally, your understanding of cells seems lacking based on your response. Do you know how stem cells differentiate? Either way, you should read this and related articles before being so dismissive of people who contradict your unproven, simple theories:
On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote: in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.
...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.
there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.
I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
im pretty sure both can be used, and neither individualism nor collectivism need to be ignored. i dont see why your trying to make this a VS when i reality its a +. am i missing something here?
isnt democracy an individulistic concept (choice by the unit) formulated to concive a result based on a collective agreement starategy?
On April 28 2010 03:33 Phrujbaz wrote: Take a look at "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely. It seems that man in fact does behave irrational, and predictably so. Marketing companies have known this for ages and have been cleverly manipulating us to make irrational decisions. This can be an argument for paternalism.
If you could be so kind as to give me a synopsis of its premises id answer to that but I'm sorry to say I hardly even read the books that interest me, much less the ones that do not...
Going in that tangent a bit, marketing companies may have known how to supply the consumer on what they deeply desired, which does not in any way negate that whatever they bought may after all be the best perceived means for their goals.
Marketing is no scam, and even if it was, it does not disprove that people look to "maximize their utility" (tm)
On April 28 2010 03:33 Phrujbaz wrote: On the other hand, people often assume that whatever cannot be solved on the market, can be solved by the government. But government officials are not benelovent gods, they are both rational in that they seek their own personal gain, and they make the same predictable irrational mistakes as the rest of us. Additionally, in a democracy, they are elected by an irrational populace.
So setting up governmental institutions to take care of things doesn't necessary solve every problem, and it may make some of them significantly worse.
Yeah, even if one concedes that people are considerably irrational (I don't concede that, fu), they seem to throw everything away when they choose a fellow human to lead not only themselves but forcefully, their neighbors.
On April 28 2010 03:42 Three wrote: Too simple to be correct. Human interaction can not be explained in a post. Additionally, your understanding of cells seems lacking based on your response. Do you know how stem cells differentiate? Either way, you should read this and related articles before being so dismissive of people who contradict your unproven, simple theories:
On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote: in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.
...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.
there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.
I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
the question - which you should recognize as a falsificationist - isn't which approach is better but whether, empirically, our assertions hold up
On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote: in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.
...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.
there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.
I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
im pretty sure both can be used, and neither individualism nor collectivism need to be ignored. i dont see why your trying to make this a VS when i reality its a +. am i missing something here?
isnt democracy an individulistic concept (choice by the unit) formulated to concive a result based on a collective agreement starategy?
On a descriptive basis, I don't give a shit and you're right (i still doubt sociology or psychology can prove shit tho)
On a prescriptive basis, doing the top-bottom thing is impossible, due to the reasons in the op
only because you are able to describe how a herd behaves, doesn't mean it should act on one way or another because the herd has no goal, so there can be no ought-ought prescription the only thing that has goals are rational beings individuals
On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote: in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.
...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.
there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.
I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
the question - which you should recognize as a falsificationist - isn't which approach is better but whether, empirically, our assertions hold up
thats beggin the question isnt it. if you denote that the only way to prove something is inductively, then truth can only be reached inductively.
I beg to pardon but deduction is so much more logically concise.
On April 28 2010 03:42 Three wrote: Too simple to be correct. Human interaction can not be explained in a post. Additionally, your understanding of cells seems lacking based on your response. Do you know how stem cells differentiate? Either way, you should read this and related articles before being so dismissive of people who contradict your unproven, simple theories:
On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote: in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.
...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.
there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.
I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
the question - which you should recognize as a falsificationist - isn't which approach is better but whether, empirically, our assertions hold up
thats beggin the question isnt it. if you denote that the only way to prove something is inductively, then truth can only be reached inductively.
I beg to pardon but deduction is so much more logically concise.
but it doesn't really hold up in this scenario. for example, if the question is "do collectives operate in a way that distinguishes them from a set of individuals operating independently? i.e., does the notion of a 'collective' add anything to our understanding?" then you need to look at, you know, how individuals and collectives ACTUALLY OPERATE. if you're positing a rational actor model of the individual, well, that may or may not be an accurate model, empirically. you can't define away the empirical question.
On April 28 2010 03:42 Three wrote: Too simple to be correct. Human interaction can not be explained in a post. Additionally, your understanding of cells seems lacking based on your response. Do you know how stem cells differentiate? Either way, you should read this and related articles before being so dismissive of people who contradict your unproven, simple theories:
On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote: in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.
...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.
there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.
I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
The problem is you're reducing something that's very complex and has many nuances into very elementary elements. The arguments I see in your post aren't very well developed; you stop advancing them once you get to the point that suits your pre-aligned political position. We're all guilty of that (it goes along with the objectivity being impossible thing) but I think you're doing a disservice to yourself by doing it, since you seem genuinely interested in this kind of thing. You're also drifting between ideas and using them incongruently, such as rational choice, altruism, consequentialism, etc.
I don't believe you can argue one is inherently worse than the other, as you're trying to do. Both perspectives have faults and society tends to gravitate within the two, given current political, economic and social climates.
I would assume like most people that refer to Austrian economics that you fall towards Kant's ethical model, which is fine and dandy (although it's absurd and likely impossible to ONLY subscribe to that in all situations) but if you want to prove the ends don't justify the means with regards to government, you haven't really proven how the means (in this case, collectivism - whether this is true or not is also arguable) are bad.
Basically, it's ok to lean towards individualism more than collectivism or vice versa, but I don't think your justification is very strong. I think before you try to develop and broadcast your own system, you should look to others who have done it before you and see how it fits, like Ayn Rand or something.
On April 28 2010 03:42 Three wrote: Too simple to be correct. Human interaction can not be explained in a post. Additionally, your understanding of cells seems lacking based on your response. Do you know how stem cells differentiate? Either way, you should read this and related articles before being so dismissive of people who contradict your unproven, simple theories:
On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote: in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.
...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.
there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.
I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
the question - which you should recognize as a falsificationist - isn't which approach is better but whether, empirically, our assertions hold up
thats beggin the question isnt it. if you denote that the only way to prove something is inductively, then truth can only be reached inductively.
I beg to pardon but deduction is so much more logically concise.
but it doesn't really hold up in this scenario. for example, if the question is "do collectives operate in a way that distinguishes them from a set of individuals operating independently? i.e., does the notion of a 'collective' add anything to our understanding?" then you need to look at, you know, how individuals and collectives ACTUALLY OPERATE. if you're positing a rational actor model of the individual, well, that may or may not be an accurate model, empirically. you can't define away the empirical question.
A little empiricism can't hurt, ok. But some things can be so easily concluded from an "obvious" set of principles that I don't see why do you have to induct everything.
Does anything in social relations exist outside of individuals? No, it's absolutely all in their heads. Therefore, human relations can be 100% understood by understanding individuals themselves
A set of individuals operating independently is still a set of individuals which can be independently understood. Sure you can study group action, but you got to remember at first, that nothing exists outside of the individual! A group has no goal but the goals of each individual, no wishes or needs. It's all aggregated, right?
On April 28 2010 03:42 Three wrote: Too simple to be correct. Human interaction can not be explained in a post. Additionally, your understanding of cells seems lacking based on your response. Do you know how stem cells differentiate? Either way, you should read this and related articles before being so dismissive of people who contradict your unproven, simple theories:
ok, and are individuals in a human society... "consist of a unified protoplast that is chambered into cells"?
I mean, we weren't even talking about plant cells, and even if we were, then the analogy wouldn't fit anyways?
How is an individual physically attached to another in society? Do we have invisible umbilical cords tying us together?
Read the article or don't Responding before reading it is pointless
If you want to prove that my biology sucks, I concede, it does suck Sorry I'm not going to read that. It's completely unrelated.
I'm glad you know that something you didn't read is unrelated. What was your purpose in making this thread exactly?
Whatever the purpose was, it wasn't to discuss biology... the cell analogies I did not make but only respond to were just analogies to understand or refute the on-topic concepts
On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote: in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.
...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.
there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.
I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
im pretty sure both can be used, and neither individualism nor collectivism need to be ignored. i dont see why your trying to make this a VS when i reality its a +. am i missing something here?
isnt democracy an individulistic concept (choice by the unit) formulated to concive a result based on a collective agreement starategy?
On a descriptive basis, I don't give a shit and you're right (i still doubt sociology or psychology can prove shit tho)
On a prescriptive basis, doing the top-bottom thing is impossible, due to the reasons in the op
only because you are able to describe how a herd behaves, doesn't mean it should act on one way or another because the herd has no goal, so there can be no ought-ought prescription the only thing that has goals are rational beings individuals
fairly transparent, the bolded part, represent oldest existansial question, what is our goal? what is our purpouse? obviously it seems you have gained a new level and have come accross what we call a conscience, and your trying to make the world realize you just realized you are right! (well in your world at least)
sorry to say but you just sound like any other kid with a Wiki major / Youtube minor with a big opinion
On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote: in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.
...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.
there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.
I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
The problem is you're reducing something that's very complex and has many nuances into very elementary elements.
simple=bad k.
On April 28 2010 03:56 Jibba wrote: The arguments I see in your post aren't very well developed; you stop advancing them once you get to the point that suits your pre-aligned political position. We're all guilty of that (it goes along with the objectivity being impossible thing) but I think you're doing a disservice to yourself by doing it, since you seem genuinely interested in this kind of thing. You're also drifting between ideas and using them incongruently, such as rational choice, altruism, consequentialism, etc.
tell me where and I have no problem fixing.
you didn't mean praxeology when you said "rational choice theory"? what was it then?
altruism is a broad term anyways. let me define it now 4 u: the idea that one's greater goal is of helping other individuals. good enough? discuss. don't just say I'm being incongruent k?
consequentialism.. i haven't even used that word wtf.
On April 28 2010 03:56 Jibba wrote: I don't believe you can argue one is inherently worse than the other, as you're trying to do. Both perspectives have faults and society tends to gravitate within the two, given current political, economic and social climates.
worse, for what end? LOL I'm saying collectivism is almost, if not a total, impossibility. and i haven't quite seen you facing the main premises yet. only beating round the bushes...
On April 28 2010 03:56 Jibba wrote: I would assume like most people that refer to Austrian economics that you fall towards Kant's ethical model, which is fine and dandy (although it's absurd and likely impossible to ONLY subscribe to that in all situations) but if you want to prove the ends don't justify the means with regards to government, you haven't really proven how the means (in this case, collectivism - whether this is true or not is also arguable) are bad.
you guess wrong. and i've said in the very op that i dont believe in objective morals so.. wtf.
I'm saying there can't be a collective goal, which should be obvious given the premises, which you seem to ignore.
On April 28 2010 03:56 Jibba wrote: Basically, it's ok to lean towards individualism more than collectivism or vice versa, but I don't think your justification is very strong. I think before you try to develop and broadcast your own system, you should look to others who have done it before you and see how it fits, like Ayn Rand or something.
On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote: in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.
...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.
there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.
I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
im pretty sure both can be used, and neither individualism nor collectivism need to be ignored. i dont see why your trying to make this a VS when i reality its a +. am i missing something here?
isnt democracy an individulistic concept (choice by the unit) formulated to concive a result based on a collective agreement starategy?
On a descriptive basis, I don't give a shit and you're right (i still doubt sociology or psychology can prove shit tho)
On a prescriptive basis, doing the top-bottom thing is impossible, due to the reasons in the op
only because you are able to describe how a herd behaves, doesn't mean it should act on one way or another because the herd has no goal, so there can be no ought-ought prescription the only thing that has goals are rational beings individuals
fairly transparent, the bolded part, represent oldest existansial question, what is our goal? what is our purpouse? obviously it seems you have gained a new level and have come accross what we call a conscience, and your trying to make the world realize you just realized you are right! (well in your world at least)
indeed
On April 28 2010 04:03 uiCk wrote: sorry to say but you just sound like any other kid with a Wiki major / Youtube minor with a big opinion
and your assumption is correct, yet, does not make my points any less valid.
I think wiki and youtube are great sources of information. People without the internet would otherwise have to read books to get the same deal, and since less are willing to spend the time doing that, less information is disseminated. I say everything in laymans terms not only because it saves me the time of learning the formal concepts, but it also promotes a general undesrtanding of the same concepts
Why stick with the old methods if the new is much more efficient at reaching the supposedly same end?
I think people that preach for formal education rather do not have the goal of education, but of aesthetics and social status. They use the lingo not to promote debate, but to set themselves off the "uneducated" crowds. I don't like that at all.
On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote: in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.
...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.
there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.
I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
the question - which you should recognize as a falsificationist - isn't which approach is better but whether, empirically, our assertions hold up
thats beggin the question isnt it. if you denote that the only way to prove something is inductively, then truth can only be reached inductively.
I beg to pardon but deduction is so much more logically concise.
but it doesn't really hold up in this scenario. for example, if the question is "do collectives operate in a way that distinguishes them from a set of individuals operating independently? i.e., does the notion of a 'collective' add anything to our understanding?" then you need to look at, you know, how individuals and collectives ACTUALLY OPERATE. if you're positing a rational actor model of the individual, well, that may or may not be an accurate model, empirically. you can't define away the empirical question.
A little empiricism can't hurt, ok. But some things can be so easily concluded from an "obvious" set of principles that I don't see why do you have to induct everything.
Does anything in social relations exist outside of individuals? No, it's absolutely all in their heads. Therefore, human relations can be 100% understood by understanding individuals themselves
A set of individuals operating independently is still a set of individuals which can be independently understood. Sure you can study group action, but you got to remember at first, that nothing exists outside of the individual! A group has no goal but the goals of each individual, no wishes or needs. It's all aggregated, right?
how can you deduce the lack of something in social relations apart from individuals?
On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote: in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.
...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.
there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.
I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
the question - which you should recognize as a falsificationist - isn't which approach is better but whether, empirically, our assertions hold up
thats beggin the question isnt it. if you denote that the only way to prove something is inductively, then truth can only be reached inductively.
I beg to pardon but deduction is so much more logically concise.
but it doesn't really hold up in this scenario. for example, if the question is "do collectives operate in a way that distinguishes them from a set of individuals operating independently? i.e., does the notion of a 'collective' add anything to our understanding?" then you need to look at, you know, how individuals and collectives ACTUALLY OPERATE. if you're positing a rational actor model of the individual, well, that may or may not be an accurate model, empirically. you can't define away the empirical question.
A little empiricism can't hurt, ok. But some things can be so easily concluded from an "obvious" set of principles that I don't see why do you have to induct everything.
Does anything in social relations exist outside of individuals? No, it's absolutely all in their heads. Therefore, human relations can be 100% understood by understanding individuals themselves
A set of individuals operating independently is still a set of individuals which can be independently understood. Sure you can study group action, but you got to remember at first, that nothing exists outside of the individual! A group has no goal but the goals of each individual, no wishes or needs. It's all aggregated, right?
how can you deduce the lack of something in social relations apart from individuals?
TIME OUT. I cannot, and you got me there.
HOWEVER. I can falsify the claims that there exists something, when it does not.
which is the point of the thread.
no, wait, I'm confused, let me put on my thinking hat for a second.
I really think the OP needed a more precise definition on collectivism. Perhabs other thnigs as well, but this problem seems to repeat itself over and over in this thread:
- Yurebis state that collectivists are false in claiming that they "know what's best" since they are only individuals, and thus can not speek on behalf of others (a sentiment I can agree with to some extend - at least I don't accept that anyone can be more right than I on the subject that is my needs/wishes).
- Yurebis tries to prove this through and elaborate range of statements and premises, some of which are highly debatable*. Among these are the one critical to most of this thread: We can only know what is on our own mind, leading Yurebis to state/insinuate that nothing is collective, it is only individuals participating.
- People criticize this claim as it seems evident that a lot of things are collective in nature (they don't necessarily touch on the original concern though - whether a collectivist (here: someone who feels right to enforce a notion of the common good upon his fellow men) can really know what is best for the individual.
- Yurebis responds to said critics, never having to sweat because people's criticism doesn't really apply to his original statement (as we understand it if we accept the agenda I have hereby presented), but rather to the many claims that were made along the way.
I think, Yurebis, you could have been clearer on what you said out to do with this. As for me, I could easily accept/discuss the idea that anyone who claims to know what's better for his neighbour than the neighbour himself is in the wrong, what I can't really be bothered to discuss however, is whether collective manifestations exists.
* And imo outright wrong. Noone needs to agree with all the objections against these points, but at least it should be very obvious that they aren't all undisputable. Whether a group is only a set of individuals is highly debatable, whether people act consciously most of the time also, psychology being bs is definately a very opinionated claim etc. I realize that many of these aren't part of the OP, but the one that matters to the arguement (not in this footnote, but above) is.
On April 28 2010 03:42 Three wrote: Too simple to be correct. Human interaction can not be explained in a post. Additionally, your understanding of cells seems lacking based on your response. Do you know how stem cells differentiate? Either way, you should read this and related articles before being so dismissive of people who contradict your unproven, simple theories:
Whole-heartedly agreed. My whole problem with this is that so many things are lost in mere rhetorics here, a greater respect for different spheres of knowledge would be welcome.
Finally, I need to add that this is not an attempt to patronize Yurebis. I merely got fed up with how the discussion stagnated because of misunderstandings.
On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote: in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.
...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.
there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.
I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
im pretty sure both can be used, and neither individualism nor collectivism need to be ignored. i dont see why your trying to make this a VS when i reality its a +. am i missing something here?
isnt democracy an individulistic concept (choice by the unit) formulated to concive a result based on a collective agreement starategy?
On a descriptive basis, I don't give a shit and you're right (i still doubt sociology or psychology can prove shit tho)
On a prescriptive basis, doing the top-bottom thing is impossible, due to the reasons in the op
only because you are able to describe how a herd behaves, doesn't mean it should act on one way or another because the herd has no goal, so there can be no ought-ought prescription the only thing that has goals are rational beings individuals
fairly transparent, the bolded part, represent oldest existansial question, what is our goal? what is our purpouse? obviously it seems you have gained a new level and have come accross what we call a conscience, and your trying to make the world realize you just realized you are right! (well in your world at least)
On April 28 2010 04:03 uiCk wrote: sorry to say but you just sound like any other kid with a Wiki major / Youtube minor with a big opinion
and your assumption is correct, yet, does not make my points any less valid.
I think wiki and youtube are great sources of information. People without the internet would otherwise have to read books to get the same deal, and since less are willing to spend the time doing that, less information is disseminated. I say everything in laymans terms not only because it saves me the time of learning the formal concepts, but it also promotes a general undesrtanding of the same concepts
Why stick with the old methods if the new is much more efficient at reaching the supposedly same end?
I think people that preach for formal education rather do not have the goal of education, but of aesthetics and social status. They use the lingo not to promote debate, but to set themselves off the "uneducated" crowds. I don't like that at all.
the internet, wiki, youtube, are based on collective systems; networking and such. and its all just a delivery method of the information, and this information comes originaly from academia, so yea there is a huge diference between geting that information from the source and getting footnotes. makes you an amateur, and the one with the diploma is the expert. for you do 'disaprouve' a reliable system of collectivism because of some flaws you just discovered that are in cahoots with some of your individualistic thoughts. im also showing you why your not converting many people at the moment, and being very vague, just like wiki/youtube.
I have zero desire to go after your premise, this is like a repeat of a 100 and 200 level course. I'm just saying that I understand what you're trying to do, but you're not doing it successfully and you need to look deeper if you want to prove it to other posters, and I suspect maybe yourself as well. Parsimony is great, but you're chopping all the branches off the tree.
I'm just trying to help you out in your own personal quest for knowledge. For instance, when I say things like Kantian ethics or consequentialism, I don't think you know what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting you read Weber or Mannheim (yet), Rand and Hayak are both fairly readable.
On April 28 2010 04:25 Jibba wrote: I have zero desire to go after your premise, this is like a repeat of a 100 and 200 level course. I'm just saying that I understand what you're trying to do, but you're not doing it successfully and you need to look deeper if you want to prove it to other posters, and I suspect maybe yourself as well. Parsimony is great, but you're chopping all the branches off the tree.
I'm just trying to help you out in your own personal quest for knowledge. For instance, when I say things like Kantian ethics or consequentialism, I don't think you know what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting you read Weber or Mannheim (yet), Rand and Hayak are both fairly readable.
everyone should read kant and weber; rand and hayek, less important
On April 28 2010 04:00 Yurebis wrote: A set of individuals operating independently is still a set of individuals which can be independently understood. Sure you can study group action, but you got to remember at first, that nothing exists outside of the individual! A group has no goal but the goals of each individual, no wishes or needs. It's all aggregated, right?
Arg!
This is one of the horrendeously wrong statements you keep repeating. Since you haven't responded to the more philosophical critique of this position let's make it simple.
Try to explore the individuals feeling of being part of a group without the group.
On April 28 2010 04:25 Jibba wrote: I have zero desire to go after your premise, this is like a repeat of a 100 and 200 level course. I'm just saying that I understand what you're trying to do, but you're not doing it successfully and you need to look deeper if you want to prove it to other posters, and I suspect maybe yourself as well. Parsimony is great, but you're chopping all the branches off the tree.
I'm just trying to help you out in your own personal quest for knowledge. For instance, when I say things like Kantian ethics or consequentialism, I don't think you know what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting you read Weber or Mannheim (yet), Rand and Hayak are both fairly readable.
everyone should read kant and weber; rand and hayek, less important
I think it's like asking all SC players to start on iccup before they've touched the game, only the learning curve is even more intense.
On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote: in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.
...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.
there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.
I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
the question - which you should recognize as a falsificationist - isn't which approach is better but whether, empirically, our assertions hold up
thats beggin the question isnt it. if you denote that the only way to prove something is inductively, then truth can only be reached inductively.
I beg to pardon but deduction is so much more logically concise.
but it doesn't really hold up in this scenario. for example, if the question is "do collectives operate in a way that distinguishes them from a set of individuals operating independently? i.e., does the notion of a 'collective' add anything to our understanding?" then you need to look at, you know, how individuals and collectives ACTUALLY OPERATE. if you're positing a rational actor model of the individual, well, that may or may not be an accurate model, empirically. you can't define away the empirical question.
A little empiricism can't hurt, ok. But some things can be so easily concluded from an "obvious" set of principles that I don't see why do you have to induct everything.
Does anything in social relations exist outside of individuals? No, it's absolutely all in their heads. Therefore, human relations can be 100% understood by understanding individuals themselves
A set of individuals operating independently is still a set of individuals which can be independently understood. Sure you can study group action, but you got to remember at first, that nothing exists outside of the individual! A group has no goal but the goals of each individual, no wishes or needs. It's all aggregated, right?
how can you deduce the lack of something in social relations apart from individuals?
TIME OUT. I cannot, and you got me there.
HOWEVER. I can falsify the claims that there exists something, when it does not.
which is the point of the thread.
no, wait, I'm confused, let me put on my thinking hat for a second.
Ok back. My claim that a collective goal does not exist is SOMEWHAT circular, that is why I was confused.
This is because of my epistemological grounds.
Sadly, we cannot claim any objective truth without a few circular, introspective premises. I will layout how the work for me:
-There exists a universe. -There exists my consciousness. -My consciousness retrieves facts about the universe through my senses. -Such retrieval can never be perfect, but it is good enough to assume it's perfect
From there we form all the positivist, inductive theories about the universe, and use them as we may.
However, from that point, no certainty can be affirmed. I can only assume that your consciousness and epistemological build is similar to mine because we share similarities which I associate with rational beings.
If your consciousness is anything like mine, then it is not collective by any means. I took the liberty to assume in the OP that you people, fellow humans, have a similar type of consciousness as mine! When in fact you *could* be some kind of cyborgs who receive "consciousness waves" from an overarching entity. My theory would not hold then, because not only are you not human, but you don't have the same consciousness setup as I.
So my premise #1 is circular. I admit. If you want to claim that your consciousness is indeed collective (like, you can see the world literally through other peoples eyes, maybe you have multiple personalities, idk), then disregard every post of mine. you are indeed superior, and perhaps super human!
perhaps I should have defined what a HUMAN is to include that circular premise of mine, huh.
this is quite a simple issue actually i mean, most of us agree that the majority of people are just fucking retarded, so being ruled by the majority will only lead to retarded decisions, simple examples like weed being illegal or gay marriage being illegal.
The form of society at this moment in time forces contraints on any individual child learning how to survive and fulfill its need to belong. Concurrently, the actions of individuals, especially of those who move from one segment of society to another, will be able to change how society is formed.
Neither one occurs first or separately. In time you may learn that there does not exist anything in this universe that does not have an effect on everything else in this universe. Everything is inherently entangled, and we only separate it into parts to be able to understand it with what our intelligence is capable of. We desire to believe in end and starting points because we can understand this by relating it to our limited experience. This is consistant with our desire to find events such as "the beginning of time", or the creation of the universe by a god, which cannot conceptually exist.
On April 28 2010 04:20 hefty wrote: I really think the OP needed a more precise definition on collectivism. Perhabs other thnigs as well, but this problem seems to repeat itself over and over in this thread:
hi
On April 28 2010 04:20 hefty wrote: - Yurebis state that collectivists are false in claiming that they "know what's best" since they are only individuals, and thus can not speek on behalf of others (a sentiment I can agree with to some extend - at least I don't accept that anyone can be more right than I on the subject that is my needs/wishes).
also without consent
On April 28 2010 04:20 hefty wrote: - Yurebis tries to prove this through and elaborate range of statements and premises, some of which are highly debatable*. Among these are the one critical to most of this thread: We can only know what is on our own mind, leading Yurebis to state/insinuate that nothing is collective, it is only individuals participating.
yep, i've found it's circular and all. please do claim you can, I can't disprove it. Like I can't disprove you can talk to god. I'm a sad panda.
On April 28 2010 04:20 hefty wrote: - People criticize this claim as it seems evident that a lot of things are collective in nature (they don't necessarily touch on the original concern though - whether a collectivist (here: someone who feels right to enforce a notion of the common good upon his fellow men) can really know what is best for the individual.
- Yurebis responds to said critics, never having to sweat because people's criticism doesn't really apply to his original statement (as we understand it if we accept the agenda I have hereby presented), but rather to the many claims that were made along the way.
yes
On April 28 2010 04:20 hefty wrote: I think, Yurebis, you could have been clearer on what you said out to do with this. As for me, I could easily accept/discuss the idea that anyone who claims to know what's better for his neighbour than the neighbour himself is in the wrong, what I can't really be bothered to discuss however, is whether collective manifestations exists.
yeah I guess I should do it like you and shut the fuck up when people claim to have imaginary friends...
On April 28 2010 04:20 hefty wrote: * And imo outright wrong. Noone needs to agree with all the objections against these points, but at least it should be very obvious that they aren't all undisputable. Whether a group is only a set of individuals is highly debatable, whether people act consciously most of the time also, psychology being bs is definately a very opinionated claim etc. I realize that many of these aren't part of the OP, but the one that matters to the arguement (not in this footnote, but above) is.
Funny that no one can tell me what that "more" is. They just assert it and leave it at that.
On April 28 2010 03:42 Three wrote: Too simple to be correct. Human interaction can not be explained in a post. Additionally, your understanding of cells seems lacking based on your response. Do you know how stem cells differentiate? Either way, you should read this and related articles before being so dismissive of people who contradict your unproven, simple theories:
Whole-heartedly agreed. My whole problem with this is that so many things are lost in mere rhetorics here, a greater respect for different spheres of knowledge would be welcome.
I have no respect for empty assertions...
On April 28 2010 04:20 hefty wrote: Finally, I need to add that this is not an attempt to patronize Yurebis. I merely got fed up with how the discussion stagnated because of misunderstandings.
On April 27 2010 13:11 Yurebis wrote: First I want to establish the obvious and say that the collective is nothing but a collection of individuals, much like a forest is nothing but a collection of trees (not my analogy by far). Many talk of the "greater good", or the "will" of a nation, but those terms are completely empty. There is no greater good, there may be a net good of every individual, but without the individuals, the greater good simply does not exist anywhere in reality. Without its citizens, the nation's will does not exist.
I definitely agree with this. A group of people who are in superficial agreement (or supposed to be, on the surface anyways), for the "greater good" (which is bullshit), are nothing but the sum of many SELF INTERESTS.
There is huge evidence of this in history. That "angry mob" mentality is fucking scary. Look at the Salem witch trials. Look at the Roman's crucifixion of Jesus (if you believe in that kind of stuff). One or 2 people get a crazy idea, other people start to agree with it prematurely (not taking time to fully consider the impact of their decision), the fact that people are agreeing with their idea reinforces the idea, which spreads more and more influence...and the end result is something terrible.
Ever notice how if you have a lone complaint about something, nothing gets done about it? But when a group of people all start striking or making a scene, then suddenly the offending party begins to take it seriously? I can remember this in college (students didn't agree with a teachers decision to fail most of the class on a test, as they said the test was unfair, and irrelevant to the material presented in class and homework/study assignments). Administration told the teacher to readminister the test and throw out the grades from the first test. If a single student alone had complained about the teacher, NOTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE ABOUT IT.
On April 28 2010 03:27 o[twist] wrote: in a very basic sense the collective is of course a set of individuals but there's actually considerable academic debate over whether it can be accurately analyzed in that way. herd behavior and crowd psychology are huge topics. your above reduction of state-based democracy to raw collectivism is pretty weak from a political philosophy standpoint and i'm not sure exactly how you intend to deploy karl popper in this debate; it doesn't seem relevant.
Alright first of all I'm sorry I can only talk to you in layman's terms but I hope you see my premises for what they are.
...but where exactly are you rejecting my line of thought? just because it's nothing like you've seen it means its wrong? I haven't invented it either... this methodological individualism type of deal... it has a long history too.
there may be an academic attempt out there that tries to make sense of atomic forces by studying how planets move, but has it proven anything? May not be a good analogy, but I think it's much easier to start with an atom and then move on to planets.
I'm not saying either top-bottom or bottom-up is right by default but, it seems to me that bottom-up is much more concise and complete than top-bottom atm
im pretty sure both can be used, and neither individualism nor collectivism need to be ignored. i dont see why your trying to make this a VS when i reality its a +. am i missing something here?
isnt democracy an individulistic concept (choice by the unit) formulated to concive a result based on a collective agreement starategy?
On a descriptive basis, I don't give a shit and you're right (i still doubt sociology or psychology can prove shit tho)
On a prescriptive basis, doing the top-bottom thing is impossible, due to the reasons in the op
only because you are able to describe how a herd behaves, doesn't mean it should act on one way or another because the herd has no goal, so there can be no ought-ought prescription the only thing that has goals are rational beings individuals
fairly transparent, the bolded part, represent oldest existansial question, what is our goal? what is our purpouse? obviously it seems you have gained a new level and have come accross what we call a conscience, and your trying to make the world realize you just realized you are right! (well in your world at least)
indeed
On April 28 2010 04:03 uiCk wrote: sorry to say but you just sound like any other kid with a Wiki major / Youtube minor with a big opinion
and your assumption is correct, yet, does not make my points any less valid.
I think wiki and youtube are great sources of information. People without the internet would otherwise have to read books to get the same deal, and since less are willing to spend the time doing that, less information is disseminated. I say everything in laymans terms not only because it saves me the time of learning the formal concepts, but it also promotes a general undesrtanding of the same concepts
Why stick with the old methods if the new is much more efficient at reaching the supposedly same end?
I think people that preach for formal education rather do not have the goal of education, but of aesthetics and social status. They use the lingo not to promote debate, but to set themselves off the "uneducated" crowds. I don't like that at all.
the internet, wiki, youtube, are based on collective systems;
did some abstract entity write the code for wikipedia, or record videos on youtube? Sorry no, individuals did.
On April 28 2010 04:23 uiCk wrote: networking and such. and its all just a delivery method of the information, and this information comes originaly from academia, so yea there is a huge diference between geting that information from the source and getting footnotes. makes you an amateur, and the one with the diploma is the expert.
why should it matter if the premises are the same? why not address the points and not brag on where you got the information from? just for once I mean.
On April 28 2010 04:23 uiCk wrote: for you do 'disaprouve' a reliable system of collectivism because of some flaws you just discovered that are in cahoots with some of your individualistic thoughts. im also showing you why your not converting many people at the moment, and being very vague, just like wiki/youtube.
what's in cahoots, and how do you know how many people I'm "converting"? do you read their minds?
On April 28 2010 04:23 uiCk wrote: anyways, cheers, its gonna be a bumpy road ahead
On April 28 2010 04:25 Jibba wrote: I have zero desire to go after your premise, this is like a repeat of a 100 and 200 level course. I'm just saying that I understand what you're trying to do, but you're not doing it successfully and you need to look deeper if you want to prove it to other posters, and I suspect maybe yourself as well. Parsimony is great, but you're chopping all the branches off the tree.
don't tell me I'm wrong without saying where I'm wrong at please, it's like the third time already.
On April 28 2010 04:25 Jibba wrote: I'm just trying to help you out in your own personal quest for knowledge. For instance, when I say things like Kantian ethics or consequentialism, I don't think you know what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting you read Weber or Mannheim (yet), Rand and Hayak are both fairly readable.
I really don't, and I apologize for my limited knowledge, but am I not worthy of thy wisdom? Can you spend your time criticizing me on my premises and not on my intellect? I'm not asking much, and you're being annoying now imo.
On April 28 2010 04:00 Yurebis wrote: A set of individuals operating independently is still a set of individuals which can be independently understood. Sure you can study group action, but you got to remember at first, that nothing exists outside of the individual! A group has no goal but the goals of each individual, no wishes or needs. It's all aggregated, right?
Arg!
This is one of the horrendeously wrong statements you keep repeating. Since you haven't responded to the more philosophical critique of this position let's make it simple.
Try to explore the individuals feeling of being part of a group without the group.
the individual's feeling my good sir, happens within that individual's consciousness, does it not? what he feels is of no interest to me.
If one feels that he's in touch with god, does it make god true?
On April 27 2010 13:11 Yurebis wrote: First I want to establish the obvious and say that the collective is nothing but a collection of individuals, much like a forest is nothing but a collection of trees (not my analogy by far). Many talk of the "greater good", or the "will" of a nation, but those terms are completely empty. There is no greater good, there may be a net good of every individual, but without the individuals, the greater good simply does not exist anywhere in reality. Without its citizens, the nation's will does not exist.
I definitely agree with this. A group of people who are in superficial agreement (or supposed to be, on the surface anyways), for the "greater good" (which is bullshit), are nothing but the sum of many SELF INTERESTS.
There is huge evidence of this in history. That "angry mob" mentality is fucking scary. Look at the Salem witch trials. Look at the Roman's crucifixion of Jesus (if you believe in that kind of stuff). One or 2 people get a crazy idea, other people start to agree with it prematurely (not taking time to fully consider the impact of their decision), the fact that people are agreeing with their idea reinforces the idea, which spreads more and more influence...and the end result is something terrible.
Ever notice how if you have a lone complaint about something, nothing gets done about it? But when a group of people all start striking or making a scene, then suddenly the offending party begins to take it seriously? I can remember this in college (students didn't agree with a teachers decision to fail most of the class on a test, as they said the test was unfair, and irrelevant to the material presented in class and homework/study assignments). Administration told the teacher to readminister the test and throw out the grades from the first test. If a single student alone had complained about the teacher, NOTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE ABOUT IT.
I think I should have done what some individualists suggested and simply said that collectivism is a misnomer - everyone is an individualist even if they're altruistic (have the perceived good of others as an end) or simply won't admit it.
it's just that I wanted to preserve the collectivist term so I can keep bashing them I guess.
On April 28 2010 04:55 Yurebis wrote: yes I needed a pat in the back ty.
Your welcome. I've understood this for years now, just couldn't convince others to believe me. I'm a male, and have a lot of female co-workers (I'm a nurse) who constantly gossip about men, and talk about how trashy the men in their lives are.
Dare I open my mouth and try to defend the men? Fuck no. It would suddenly become a 5 against one conversation (anyone watching would see 5 against 1 and auto-assume I'm wrong) where any valid points I bring up are simply refuted by the fact that there are other people around them in agreement with one another.
I learned to pick my battles wisely. I didn't say shit to them, because I already know where that road leads. Save yourself the trouble of changing the world. Let them doom themselves in the long run, it will be much less headache for people like us who understand how influence works.
You didn't really respond to my post, and I don't really plan on reading 7 pages of this discussion.
However, I will note that it is very peculiar that you uphold a deterministic and individualistic doctrine. I can understand how this can come about, humans are programmed based on their individual environment, however then we can just say that they can be programmed to serve for a collective purpose. There isn't really any freedom to uphold as in a deterministic understanding of human will freedom doesn't really exist. If it were posited that the collective is in the self-interest of the individual, then need we go from here? To say that choice is an illusion is to say that individuality is an illusion, for our choices define our individual selves.
I am a little confused on the point of this. So you're saying that collectivism doesn't exist at all? And that everything is just A LOT of individual acts?
On April 28 2010 05:30 oceanblack wrote: However, I will note that it is very peculiar that you uphold a deterministic and individualistic doctrine.
I believe he is combining both subjective and objective thoughts, with pro's and cons all taken into consideration to produce dialectic conclusions.
I would highly suggest reading and understanding that wiki article to anyone who wants to contribute to this discussion. Your argument must stem from being an INFORMED person, otherwise anyone who actually IS informed will see right through you and they won't take you seriously.
On April 28 2010 05:30 oceanblack wrote: However, I will note that it is very peculiar that you uphold a deterministic and individualistic doctrine.
I believe he is combining both subjective and objective thoughts, with pro's and cons all taken into consideration to produce dialectic conclusions.
I would highly suggest reading and understanding that wiki article to anyone who wants to contribute to this discussion. Your argument must stem from being an INFORMED person, otherwise anyone who actually IS informed will see right through you and they won't take you seriously.
Yes but to try to combine two, as I assert, completely contradictory positions is illogical and unreasonable.
On April 28 2010 05:30 oceanblack wrote: You didn't really respond to my post, and I don't really plan on reading 7 pages of this discussion.
However, I will note that it is very peculiar that you uphold a deterministic and individualistic doctrine. I can understand how this can come about, humans are programmed based on their individual environment, however then we can just say that they can be programmed to serve for a collective purpose. There isn't really any freedom to uphold as in a deterministic understanding of human will freedom doesn't really exist. If it were posited that the collective is in the self-interest of the individual, then need we go from here? To say that choice is an illusion is to say that individuality is an illusion, for our choices define our individual selves.
That's all for now.
the programming is within an individuals psyche so they're still individuals in nature
the only way you could make it so collectivism could really exist, is to program the human "consciousness" to be something apart from their nervous system. the decision making would have to be done outside, by another entity, perhaps for even trivial tasks as moving a limb.
otherwise, if the rational being has full control over his actions, then hes completely individualistic ofc
but again, perhaps this is a matter of semantics, and you could define collectivism in a way that it fits even self-controlling beings by a lesser means of control.
the degree of control that is exerted on a human individual by any external element to me however seems very small.
if you were to say that humans are being collective whenever they react to an external event, then by that same rule, so are trees being controlled by the wind, animals are controlled by the threat of predators, I mean, virtually anything that moves could be an association of control of a body by another.
So I like to draw the line at the full control of its nervous system. Me threatening you with a gun to raise your hands does not directly raise your hands, there's a difference, right? It is you raising your hand, not me, yes/no?
the chain of causality can get messy without any differentiation, which is fine but, I'd rather not do that.
edit: also on the matter of choice, I say that choice is an illusion because anything that is made of atoms and energy follows a certain set of rules no matter what, so it has to be possible therefore that all of human action, including choice, can also be mapped as a chain of chemical events. So yea, consciousness is an illusion, therefore so individuality, but it's not useless. It is a shorthand for understanding those very complex and yet unmapped chain of reactions, much like biology may be a shorthand way of understanding living beings without describing every cell interaction separately.
On April 28 2010 05:39 fellcrow wrote: I am a little confused on the point of this. So you're saying that collectivism doesn't exist at all? And that everything is just A LOT of individual acts?
Ok, I read that wiki on dialectic but problem one, if I am not mistaken, results are measured qualitatively. Uh? That is something hard to measure all together and is more objective especially in a case like this. I'm thinking that this is one of those kind of things where this is no right answer and you can fight as long as you want but there is always gonna be people on the opposing side. But anyways I have to disagree to the idea that collectivism doesn't exist. Isn't the American government an example of collectivism. I am not saying collectivism is good, or that it is effective BUT something such as the american government proves that it at the least exists...
On April 28 2010 05:46 ShaperofDreams wrote: A lot of this logic is completely circular
do specify
On April 28 2010 05:46 ShaperofDreams wrote: Both individualism and collectivism have the same problems. Nobody can live completely as an individual or as a collective.
how do you live as a collective? I hope youre not saying that its a matter of living w\ others v. living alone cuz I'm certainly not
On April 28 2010 05:46 ShaperofDreams wrote: Those terms are pretty near meaningless, all people are arguing is the degree of collectivism optimal for the individual and for society.
who is to decide what is optimal? something can only be optimal for a goal then whose goal are we to follow on a group? and why do we have to follow the same goal? why do we have to be a group?
I say we should be free to choose our goals, as well as our groups. Would you force me to partake in your perceived "optimal degree of collectivism"?
On April 28 2010 05:30 oceanblack wrote: However, I will note that it is very peculiar that you uphold a deterministic and individualistic doctrine.
I believe he is combining both subjective and objective thoughts, with pro's and cons all taken into consideration to produce dialectic conclusions.
I would highly suggest reading and understanding that wiki article to anyone who wants to contribute to this discussion. Your argument must stem from being an INFORMED person, otherwise anyone who actually IS informed will see right through you and they won't take you seriously.
you should have seen through me then cuz I don't understand what you mean lol sry...
the programming is within an individuals psyche so they're still individuals in nature
Sure, individual programming, yet this does not make the case, as I think you attempt to assert, that the individual has certain control over himself in a deterministic universe (as you posit from the premise that the world is materialist, and no being of the materialistic universe can do something outside the laws of cause & effect).
the only way you could make it so collectivism could really exist, is to program the human "consciousness" to be something apart from their nervous system. the decision making would have to be done outside, by another entity, perhaps for even trivial tasks as moving a limb.
You present the term consciousness without defining it so I have little to understand as to what you mean. You mention semantic problems throughout this discussion and so I ask that you please define your terms. However, to take what you have written, you are running backwards. Collectivism is the environmental programming that exists in a deterministic universe, and it is only through the presence of a non-materialistic consciousness from which we can derive a freely willed invidiuality.
otherwise, if the rational being has full control over his actions, then hes completely individualistic ofc
Yet you're deterministic position asserts that the rational being doesn't really have such control as he purely derives his behavior deterministically through the influences/programming of whatever source. This is why I say they are absolutely contradictory.
the degree of control that is exerted on a human individual by any external element to me however seems very small.
How can you say this when deterministically we have no choice and therefore there is only the external element to exert influence over the individual.
By now I get the impression you aren't really a determinist.
So I like to draw the line at the full control of its nervous system. Me threatening you with a gun to raise your hands does not directly raise your hands, there's a difference, right? It is you raising your hand, not me, yes/no?
No because I have been influenced under the circumstances to do so. I didn't "choose" by your position to do so.
edit: also on the matter of choice, I say that choice is an illusion because anything that is made of atoms and energy follows a certain set of rules no matter what, so it has to be possible therefore that all of human action, including choice, can also be mapped as a chain of chemical events. So yea, consciousness is an illusion, therefore so individuality, but it's not useless. It is a shorthand for understanding those very complex and yet unmapped chain of reactions, much like biology may be a shorthand way of understanding living beings without describing every cell interaction separately.
This is the same thing as saying "God" is a nice concept so we don't have to worry about how anything in the world works...Also, you would delusionally accept that "individualism" is a nice "concept" for us to believe in so that we don't become slaves to some tyrannical institution?
I have to go for a while but these are my thoughts...
On April 28 2010 05:30 oceanblack wrote: However, I will note that it is very peculiar that you uphold a deterministic and individualistic doctrine.
I believe he is combining both subjective and objective thoughts, with pro's and cons all taken into consideration to produce dialectic conclusions.
I would highly suggest reading and understanding that wiki article to anyone who wants to contribute to this discussion. Your argument must stem from being an INFORMED person, otherwise anyone who actually IS informed will see right through you and they won't take you seriously.
Yes but to try to combine two, as I assert, completely contradictory positions is illogical and unreasonable.
wheres the contradiction? I dont see individualism and determinism as contradictory at all
oh ok I think I get it. what bruce lee said... I find the world to be ultimately, objectively, deterministic
however, since little results can be gained from seeing it as deterministic (edit: with present day science), for the purpose of a better understanding I adopt many libertarian methodologies to understand human action better.
subjectively, I also believe individualistic mentalities fulfill my ends best.
but it's not that these ideas don't have a truth value just cuz I know they're illusory, again, they're a shorthand way of predicting things, and plus it's principled deduction which is extremely logical and doesn't have inductive flaws. (it perhaps has other flaws of its own)
I think u could read a bit on dualism. it's not exactly what I think but... kinda close. I'm more of a hard determinist who doesn't give a fuck and uses free will methodology anyways
wait, not dualism, what is it again... compatibilism, duh
well reading it a little more it is closer to what I think than I thought. free will can be defined in a way that it does not hinge on causation or not and so can individualism I actually tried to define individualism back there so it would not... but my definitions suck
Yurebis so you believe in determinism, so basically everything is predetermined, but you also believe in free will, as long as others don't interfere with a gun to your head, in a nut shell right. Is that right?
On April 28 2010 06:18 fellcrow wrote: Yurebis so you believe in determinism, so basically everything is predetermined, but you also believe in free will, as long as others don't interfere with a gun to your head, in a nut shell right. Is that right?
yes
and I also have no problem using free will concepts as seen in the OP even if I find their more classical definitions illusory
Do you believe that what you do after he puts a gun to your head is predetermined?
EDIT: well i guess your logic is just confusing me. You think everything is predetermined but you have free will at the same time. What do you mean by free will? That is self contradictory.
On April 28 2010 06:28 fellcrow wrote: Do you believe that what you do after he puts a gun to your head is predetermined?
EDIT: well i guess your logic is just confusing me. You think everything is predetermined but you have free will at the same time. What do you mean by free will? That is self contradictory.
hehe
free will does not exist objectively, yes? it's just a living organism deciding whats best for him in a certain situation
a plant will grow towards the sun. did that plant have the choice to grow towards a shadow? the plant, if it had a consciousness, would think so yes likewise, I also think I have a choice, why not, I do have a choice, even though objectively, the choice is made by a chain of chemical events. but it is real inside my head yo
Not good nor evil...just 2 different perspectives...all choices seem good and bad at the same time...which one do I choose...
Guess what? Everything's not black and white. People's minds have a tendency towards seeing everything as either black or white...
THE WORLD IS GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY
CHOOSING ONE THING MEANS NOT CHOOSING SOMETHING ELSE. 2 Hostages to save...only 1 can be saved or the other one dies...omfg what to do what to do what to do?!!?!!!
On April 28 2010 06:35 BruceLee6783 wrote: This is what I'm thinking...
Not good nor evil...just 2 different perspectives...all choices seem good and bad at the same time...which one do I choose...
Guess what? Everything's not black and white. People's minds have a tendency towards seeing everything as either black or white...
THE WORLD IS GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY
CHOOSING ONE THING MEANS NOT CHOOSING SOMETHING ELSE. 2 Hostages to save...only 1 can be saved or the other one dies...omfg what to do what to do what to do?!!?!!!
On April 28 2010 06:35 BruceLee6783 wrote: This is what I'm thinking...
Not good nor evil...just 2 different perspectives...all choices seem good and bad at the same time...which one do I choose...
Guess what? Everything's not black and white. People's minds have a tendency towards seeing everything as either black or white...
THE WORLD IS GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY
CHOOSING ONE THING MEANS NOT CHOOSING SOMETHING ELSE. 2 Hostages to save...only 1 can be saved or the other one dies...omfg what to do what to do what to do?!!?!!!
u choose the richest one obv.
which ever one is closer, and if they are equidistant then whichever is on your right side! (if you're right handed..)
Well choosing the best thing for you is still a choice. As a organism lets say I am in a situation where I can either jump in front of a bullet to save my child or I can let my child die and i stay alive...which is obviously better for me. So why do so many people die for a child when it is better for that organism to stay alive.
On April 28 2010 06:35 BruceLee6783 wrote: This is what I'm thinking...
Not good nor evil...just 2 different perspectives...all choices seem good and bad at the same time...which one do I choose...
Guess what? Everything's not black and white. People's minds have a tendency towards seeing everything as either black or white...
THE WORLD IS GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY
CHOOSING ONE THING MEANS NOT CHOOSING SOMETHING ELSE. 2 Hostages to save...only 1 can be saved or the other one dies...omfg what to do what to do what to do?!!?!!!
Not everyone always chooses the richest person. Or the person who can help them "survive" the best with money, food, weapons, shelter, etc. Some people will choose a woman over a man JUST because they are a woman and it is the "moral" thing to do.
EDIT: Grr sorry for double post. Debates are so much better when people are able to talk and interact. Forums and text is such an inadaquate way to convey a message or have a discussion. Any phylisophical debate should be done on ventrilo because this is just getting me frustrated that there is no real way to argue and this is just ridiculous! lol
On April 28 2010 06:56 fellcrow wrote: Well choosing the best thing for you is still a choice. As a organism lets say I am in a situation where I can either jump in front of a bullet to save my child or I can let my child die and i stay alive...which is obviously better for me. So why do so many people die for a child when it is better for that organism to stay alive.
because its not better for that organism what is better depends on your goal (end) and it needs not be life nor reproduction each one "choses" their goal, perhaps even changing slightly all the time, as they learn and observe things. many core and commonly observed goals may be indeed hardwires into the human psyche however it says nothing that this is the way it should be, and "defective" individuals who are not bound to those goals aren't necessarily being irrational
in your example I find it both rational and common to defend ones offspring, just cuz it's so genetically hardwired to like (love) and protect your descendants even more than yourself.
but what is to say to those that want to kill and suicide? are they irrational? I find not, they just have unconventional ends. I'd hold no regrets in stopping them from harming me however, or anyone close to me for that matter, as best as I'm able to. Not on natural grounds but because I want to, and I also know that long term, it's generally more rewarding to be a "nice" guy.
On April 28 2010 06:35 BruceLee6783 wrote: This is what I'm thinking...
Not good nor evil...just 2 different perspectives...all choices seem good and bad at the same time...which one do I choose...
Guess what? Everything's not black and white. People's minds have a tendency towards seeing everything as either black or white...
THE WORLD IS GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY
CHOOSING ONE THING MEANS NOT CHOOSING SOMETHING ELSE. 2 Hostages to save...only 1 can be saved or the other one dies...omfg what to do what to do what to do?!!?!!!
Not everyone always chooses the richest person. Or the person who can help them "survive" the best with money, food, weapons, shelter, etc. Some people will choose a woman over a man JUST because they are a woman and it is the "moral" thing to do.
ur dumb lol jk
On April 28 2010 07:06 fellcrow wrote: EDIT: Grr sorry for double post. Debates are so much better when people are able to talk and interact. Forums and text is such an inadaquate way to convey a message or have a discussion. Any phylisophical debate should be done on ventrilo because this is just getting me frustrated that there is no real way to argue and this is just ridiculous! lol
I prefer text, I have more control over what I 'say' and dont stutter every word. also its easier to break down premises in text form
First I want to establish the obvious and say that the collective is nothing but a collection of individuals, much like a forest is nothing but a collection of trees (not my analogy by far). Many talk of the "greater good", or the "will" of a nation, but those terms are completely empty. There is no greater good, there may be a net good of every individual, but without the individuals, the greater good simply does not exist anywhere in reality. Without its citizens, the nation's will does not exist.
i think you are missing the obvious point , we are all part of the same species .. i.e collective .. whether we like it or not ... this is the greater good ( survival of our species ) .. There is increasing evidence genes both hold and pass down some form of encoded memory becoming one such catalyst for instinct .. I bring up instinct because this is the greater good you deny to exist anywhere in reality ( the survival of the human species ) ... However human instinct has been evolving further and further away from its origins and becoming muddled ,, this is due to individualism IMO .. Also you say without individuals the collective doesn't exist .. i beg to differ without our SPECIES individuals would not exist ... example : as far as i know humans are not asexual ( not counting one of my favorite pastimes .. meaning one human being ( a single individual cannot perpetuate the human race ) it would take at least a small collective , one male one female to insure the survival of our species , and thus creating more individuals.. thus the individual is dependent on at least one other individual of the opposite sex to procreate . and thus insure human survival : thus making more individuals... id like to see you impregnate yourself ( being a male ) thus having a baby ... even though you individualistically want one . My point being certain individual wants are not even possible without even a small collective (2) not to mention instinctive wants ( survival of species) Whether you like it or not you are a human and part of a collective that governments and countries are mere subsets .. .. I will reiterate one more time .. without our species you an individual would not exist ... It seems to me you you are talking more about synergy i.e the sum of the parts being greater than the whole
I had decided not to post here again but since the subject changed...
On April 28 2010 06:28 fellcrow wrote: Do you believe that what you do after he puts a gun to your head is predetermined?
EDIT: well i guess your logic is just confusing me. You think everything is predetermined but you have free will at the same time. What do you mean by free will? That is self contradictory.
Perhabs my take on determinism/free will can be of some help.
I also regularly use the terms free will and choices, because they make intuitive sense. If a talk of my choice the other day, or my belief that the government must seek to preserve the free will of the individual, I have given you meaningful information that would be more difficult to communicate without these terms. Still, I have some issues regarding the idea of free will - let me explain.
I believe that whenever we make a choice we are influenced by a huge range of factors contributing to our dicision in the very moment. The list includes current state of mind, the recent chain of events leading to this moment, the sum of past experiences, current physical level of arousal, overall physical condition, exterior conditions such as weather, and inputs from the immediate surroundings including interactions with other human beings. In other words, my choice will be based on who I am (as a result of everything I went through that shaped me to this day) in this very moment. That's a lot of things, most of them very hard to account for I agree, but nonetheless they are likewise results of a prelude of similar instances. I believe that my choice will be a direct result of the past that shaped me and the present in which is it made - and since it is a direct result of this, it is in the moment i chose, actually determined. Of course I have the notion of free will, as the process of chosing makes me go thourgh all sorts of considerations, but since the outcome is based on these (already induced) considerations/notions the result of my decision making is already given.
I may have repeated myself unnecessarily in that paragraph, forgive me. Now, if there is anything that influences my choice, which is not accounted for in the whole string of experiences leading to this moment, what could it be? If I am to maintain an idea of free will I will need some other factor apart from these. What could it be? Would would make it so that my choice in this very instance could have been different from the one I'm making? A random variable? If the outcome of my decision process is influenced by a truly random factor, it just makes exhibition of free will a die roll. I don't like to entertain that idea - and luckily it seems improbable to me. I would much rather my choices are made by me (that is: determined by who I am).
So you see following this (possibly flawed, but please tell me how) logic, even though we are autonome agents, our actions are still determined. At least in a sense. It doesn't change a thing however, because as all these actions are a consequence of the world they are working upon, and that world's responses as much a result of these, it gives no reason to do anything differently than we already does. If I chose to kill a man, the world should still react and lock me up, because such is the rules/conditions that our many choices have created (even when choices can't be said to be free in the normal sense). This also takes care of the "problem" presented in this post:
On April 28 2010 01:35 LaughingTulkas wrote: I guess if you're a determinist, I don't see the point of making a thread to talk to other people about it. But I guess you don't have any choice in the matter just as others don't have any choice in whether or not they believe you. + Show Spoiler +
The way you talk sounds mighty inconsistent with your belief in determinism though, it's almost like you are trying to persuade people of something. But since they can't choose to agree with you are not, I don't see the point.
I know most of the philosophical arguments, and I agree that it's really hard to make the case for anything other than a deterministic worldview, but it's pretty dang inconsistent with common sense and trying to live an everyday life where for all intents and purposes you feel like you have choices. I just can't help feel this whole thread is an argument against itself, not about collectivism, but about determinism. It seems impossible for any determinist to live a life consistent with their beliefs, which in my view is a pretty damning arguments against its truth, even if that's not really a philosophical or scientific argument.
edit: oh, and I totally agree about psychology, it's very overrated. Statistical psychology has some limited utility, but until we get our own Hari Seldon, that field is going nowhere fast.
At least in my understanding of determinism, the OP should still create this post and LaughingTulkas should still reply to it, because the circumstances leading to all this prescribed it. We shall still have this discussion, and if I chose not to take anymore part of it, it is again a result of the circumstances leading to that particular choice.
In this notion of determinism, it doesn't quite make sense to say that "it doesn't matter what I do, because it's all just predetermined", because you always do what you do for a reason - as a result. Likewise, it has no moral implications, you are still responsible for your actions as much as with your free will.
Disclaimer: Not writing this to win anyone over to my point of view. What I presented is easily stated, and parts come close to being tautologies. I don't really believe in a concept like truth, I believe in perspectives. So I will welcome other perspectives on the matter - this doesn't mean I refrain from argueing of course. I'm especially interested if anyone can point out something that could preserve a notion of free will within the understanding of choice presented above. How can there be room for anything not accounted for by who we are, when making a choice?
EDIT: Shit, I need to add: I don't think of myself as a true determinist, because I don't really believe in determinism broadly. Not even in the world of physics. This also introduce some randomisation into the choice situation, I am aware, but it still doesn't take anything away from the awkward relationship between the concept of free will and the idea of chosing based on your personality, experiences and current influences.
You can't be individual, you live in a world with people and things. You must compromise.
If you want to fly you can't just fly, you have to compromise with gravity. Individual means alone, without an environment. You can't take everything so out of context. You can act alone but even then all of your decisions are created/decided by your environment. You simply cannot live without compromise.
This also works with collectivism. There is no "one thing" "I can be conservative about crime, but liberal about prostitution"Chris Rock
What I'm saying that it is impossible to be one thing or another, you can be nothing you can point to/say.
No matter your philosophy or lifestyle you are both a collective as well as an individual. You are everything and therefore nothing specific.
Your body is not individual, you are composed of many different things. You have a history, you have experiences, you have genetics. These things compromise your decisions. To be individual you must be completely alone, which is impossible. It implies a completely unaffected consciousness that has no entity or history and resides in no environment, that exists only for a split second.
edit: a thought made by the above consciousness would be almost an individual thought.
The words individual and collective are inventions of the mind and only serve as extremely vague, relative concepts.
edit: therefore we can really only talk about how "individual" and how "collective" we should be, but the thing is that the degree of collectivity/individuality always is as it should be because the entire universe created that circumstance. you cannot "decide" to have a different society or live a different way, the proper situation/universal happening has to exist prior to that.
Everything is a cause of everything else. One cannot be the cause for an effect, the entire universe has to cause an effect, and when it does the effect will be, with or without our consent because we have no real control of how our own decisions will be made.
On April 28 2010 05:39 fellcrow wrote: I am a little confused on the point of this. So you're saying that collectivism doesn't exist at all? And that everything is just A LOT of individual acts?
yes
thats alot of posts just to be sherlock holmes and state the obvious.
On April 28 2010 01:35 LaughingTulkas wrote: I guess if you're a determinist, I don't see the point of making a thread to talk to other people about it. But I guess you don't have any choice in the matter just as others don't have any choice in whether or not they believe you. + Show Spoiler +
omg that is too freaking funny good one man ... i love your humor
but to the person that is a determinist who believes in free will ( too funny) Heisenberg and that little thing called the uncertainty principle , not to mention the standard model of the universe would completely disagree ... but i do find it funny you adhere to both determinism and free will , as they contradict each other ,,, I am seriously trying to figure out if by saying that it is a big troll joke or you are being serious about believing two contrary points of view .......
we could get into Einstein saying god doesn't playing dice and Niels Borh's reply dont tell god what to do etc etc ... or hidden variables explaining why you cant know the two contrary values of electrons , but at the moment particles (i.e electrons ) to not appear to behave deterministically )
not to mention other such experiments .. action at a distance explain that one with determinism .... but in all actuality you cant have determinism and free will at the same time in your argument and expect anyone to take it seriously .. unless they deterministically do not have a choice in the matter lmao ..... if anything you labeled one such catalyst you were searching for , for the greater good of reality .. Why , because we are predetermined to . not saying i believe this , but i find it extremely funny you search for such a reality of greater good , then say several posts later you are a determinist
First I want to establish the obvious and say that the collective is nothing but a collection of individuals, much like a forest is nothing but a collection of trees (not my analogy by far). Many talk of the "greater good", or the "will" of a nation, but those terms are completely empty. There is no greater good, there may be a net good of every individual, but without the individuals, the greater good simply does not exist anywhere in reality. Without its citizens, the nation's will does not exist.
i think you are missing the obvious point , we are all part of the same species .. i.e collective .. whether we like it or not ... this is the greater good ( survival of our species ) .. There is increasing evidence genes both hold and pass down some form of encoded memory becoming one such catalyst for instinct .. I bring up instinct because this is the greater good you deny to exist anywhere in reality ( the survival of the human species ) ... However human instinct has been evolving further and further away from its origins and becoming muddled ,, this is due to individualism IMO .. Also you say without individuals the collective doesn't exist .. i beg to differ without our SPECIES individuals would not exist ... example : as far as i know humans are not asexual ( not counting one of my favorite passtimes .. meaning one human being ( a single individual cannot perpetuate the human race ) it would take at least a small collective , one male one female to insure the survival of our species , and thus creating more individuals.. thus the individual is dependent on at least one other individual of the oposite sex to procreate . and thus insure human survival : thus making more individuals... id like to see you impregnate yourself ( being a male ) thus having a baby ... even though you individualistically want one . My point being certain individual wants are not even possible without even a small collective (2) not to mention instinctive wants ( survival of species) Whether you like it or not you are a human and part of a collective that governments and countries are mere subsets .. .. I will reiterate one more time .. without our species you a an individual would not exist ... BUT to argue you point for you i think you are talking more about synergy i.e the sum of the parts being greater than the whole
why is it that only because our genetic code is about 99.999% alike or something, that this fact binds us together? I could just as easily say whatever living beings with >90% genetic similarity have to band together or >50% heck, all living beings should hold hands and listen to me! I should be the lord of the universe!
...all the above assertions are equally meaningless without an individual to believe in them.
so, first be careful when shifting from descriptive statements (observations of reality), to prescriptive statements (norms that you think people should follow for a certain goal)
second, note that only a consciousness can have ends, and if consciousnesses only exist within individuals, then there can be no such thing as a group goal, or a greater good, or a certain species' ends. All of a species' goals lie within each individual's head.
On April 28 2010 05:39 fellcrow wrote: I am a little confused on the point of this. So you're saying that collectivism doesn't exist at all? And that everything is just A LOT of individual acts?
yes
thats alot of posts just to be sherlock holmes and state the obvious.
why is it that only because our genetic code is about 99.999% alike or something, that this fact binds us together? I could just as easily say whatever living beings with >90% genetic similarity have to band together or >50% heck, all living beings should hold hands and listen to me! I should be the lord of the universe!
...all the above assertions are equally meaningless without an individual to believe in them.
so, first be careful when shifting from descriptive statements (observations of reality), to prescriptive statements (norms that you think people should follow for a certain goal)
second, note that only a consciousness can have ends, and if consciousnesses only exist within individuals, then there can be no such thing as a group goal, or a greater good, or a certain species' ends. All of a species' goals lie within each individual's head.
your reply does nothing to answer my assertions of instinct as the catalyst of greater good you deny to exist .i am saying because we are all a part of the same freaking species we are a collective like it or not , and another thing DNA is passed down you have no control over it as an individual ( i.e your instinct)
.. also you do nothing to answer my point .. individuals would not exist without our species , it would come down to the last individual who could no longer bread you cannot continue to bread by your self ( this is a clear example of an individual goal ( that very well may parallel species survival ) that cannot be achieved with only an individual
On April 28 2010 06:28 fellcrow wrote: Do you believe that what you do after he puts a gun to your head is predetermined?
EDIT: well i guess your logic is just confusing me. You think everything is predetermined but you have free will at the same time. What do you mean by free will? That is self contradictory.
Perhabs my take on determinism/free will can be of some help.
I also regularly use the terms free will and choices, because they make intuitive sense. If a talk of my choice the other day, or my belief that the government must seek to preserve the free will of the individual, I have given you meaningful information that would be more difficult to communicate without these terms. Still, I have some issues regarding the idea of free will - let me explain.
k
On April 28 2010 07:24 hefty wrote:
I believe that whenever we make a choice we are influenced by a huge range of factors contributing to our dicision in the very moment. The list includes current state of mind, the recent chain of events leading to this moment, the sum of past experiences, current physical level of arousal, overall physical condition, exterior conditions such as weather, and inputs from the immediate surroundings including interactions with other human beings. In other words, my choice will be based on who I am (as a result of everything I went through that shaped me to this day) in this very moment. That's a lot of things, most of them very hard to account for I agree, but nonetheless they are likewise results of a prelude of similar instances. I believe that my choice will be a direct result of the past that shaped me and the present in which is it made - and since it is a direct result of this, it is in the moment i chose, actually determined. Of course I have the notion of free will, as the process of chosing makes me go thourgh all sorts of considerations, but since the outcome is based on these (already induced) considerations/notions the result of my decision making is already given.
but if all those inputs are also determined by other chains of events, then virtually everything is determined so it's not just in the moment either. it's everything in reality.
On April 28 2010 07:24 hefty wrote: I may have repeated myself unnecessarily in that paragraph, forgive me. Now, if there is anything that influences my choice, which is not accounted for in the whole string of experiences leading to this moment, what could it be? If I am to maintain an idea of free will I will need some other factor apart from these. What could it be? Would would make it so that my choice in this very instance could have been different from the one I'm making? A random variable? If the outcome of my decision process is influenced by a truly random factor, it just makes exhibition of free will a die roll. I don't like to entertain that idea - and luckily it seems improbable to me. I would much rather my choices are made by me (that is: determined by who I am).
yes. there is the argument that determinism is not a curse but a gift, because since everything is determined, we can predict and play with outcomes to our benefit. very cute idea.
On April 28 2010 07:24 hefty wrote: So you see following this (possibly flawed, but please tell me how) flawed logic, even though we are autonome agents, our actions are still determined. At least in a sense. It doesn't change a thing however, because as all these actions are a consequence of the world they are working upon, and that world's responses as much a result of these, it gives no reason to do anything differently than we already does. If I chose to kill a man, the world should still react and lock me up, because such is the rules/conditions that our many choices have created (even when choices can't be said to be free in the normal sense). This also takes care of the "problem" presented in this post:
yeah ofc but you could still call yourself autonomous just by a slightly more tolerant definition.
On April 28 2010 01:35 LaughingTulkas wrote: I guess if you're a determinist, I don't see the point of making a thread to talk to other people about it. But I guess you don't have any choice in the matter just as others don't have any choice in whether or not they believe you. + Show Spoiler +
The way you talk sounds mighty inconsistent with your belief in determinism though, it's almost like you are trying to persuade people of something. But since they can't choose to agree with you are not, I don't see the point.
I know most of the philosophical arguments, and I agree that it's really hard to make the case for anything other than a deterministic worldview, but it's pretty dang inconsistent with common sense and trying to live an everyday life where for all intents and purposes you feel like you have choices. I just can't help feel this whole thread is an argument against itself, not about collectivism, but about determinism. It seems impossible for any determinist to live a life consistent with their beliefs, which in my view is a pretty damning arguments against its truth, even if that's not really a philosophical or scientific argument.
edit: oh, and I totally agree about psychology, it's very overrated. Statistical psychology has some limited utility, but until we get our own Hari Seldon, that field is going nowhere fast.
At least in my understanding of determinism, the OP should still create this post and LaughingTulkas should still reply to it, because the circumstances leading to all this prescribed it. We shall still have this discussion, and if I chose not to take anymore part of it, it is again a result of the circumstances leading to that particular choice.
In this notion of determinism, it doesn't quite make sense to say that "it doesn't matter what I do, because it's all just predetermined", because you always do what you do for a reason - as a result. Likewise, it has no moral implications, you are still responsible for your actions as much as with your free will.
yes. that is a very hard point to understand i think that people should use fatalism for what they mean when they talk bad about determinism. fatalism being that idea that no matter what u do the world sucks u have no choice etc. in determinism, its not so much of a matter of choice but that there is always a cause for everything.
them philosophers fucked with them terms 2 much
On April 28 2010 07:24 hefty wrote: Disclaimer: Not writing this to win anyone over to my point of view. What I presented is easily stated, and parts come close to being tautologies. I don't really believe in a concept like truth, I believe in perspectives. So I will welcome other perspectives on the matter - this doesn't mean I refrain from argueing of course. I'm especially interested if anyone can point out something that could preserve a notion of free will within the understanding of choice presented above. How can there be room for anything not accounted for by who we are, when making a choice?
there is nothing but you could define free will as the ability of a rational entity to act on its judgement without direct restraint by another rational entity or something like that
and direct restraint = violence and violence can mean a bunch of things depending on how homo u r.
i think the fact that he lists two contrary points of view as a proof to the same argument says it all .. hard to take it seriously .. if your not gonna reply to the points i am making then just ignore me directly .... A post filled with more empty rhetoric that doesn't in any way reply to the point i made is not needed . there is no need to deflect the issue just ignore it
On April 28 2010 07:53 chessmaster wrote: i think the fact that he lists two contrary points of view as a proof to the same argument says it all .. hard to take it seriously
Yeah it seems like he says yes to everything.
"free will is the ability ot act with rational judgment without the interference of another rational entity"
seriously? You don't see how many restrictions you just put on "free" will?
On April 27 2010 20:25 Tal wrote: What if he just believes it's right?
I believe if I see someone drowning and can save them with no risk, I should do that, even if I ruin my nice clothes, purely because of empathy. If I don't have some ulterior motive I'm stupid?
Bold = my comments
Our actions are made out of Ethical egoism (link). But this situation is not simply answered by this in the same fashion as to "Why am I writing this?". Because when you see a man drowning you will act on instinct. If you chose to save him. Was it a long subconscious discussion where your mind decided that you couldn't live with yourself if you didn't? Or was it pure instinct and you acted before this possibly could happen? A more obvious example is when a mother protects her child. This is a universal occurence, is usually put aside by philosophers in the discussion of altruistic/ Ethical egoism decisions.
before you jump in, ask yourself why is he drowning in the first place? will he drag you down with him?
This was answered above. The human acts of instinct are what should be discussed.
Survival comes first in most peoples mind and thus if there is no lifeline, safetly vest or a clothesline you can throw to this guy, hes fucked and if you jump in he will 90% of the time drag you down with him.
You just created a scenario which the person above most probably didn't consider but I'll answer it anyway. Yes the survival instinct "To fight or flee". It exists in all of us, in this situation you describe we magically know that there is no chance of us surviving it, therefore we might flee indeed. What I'd like you to put some thought into is wether how a empathic man can live with himself after leaving a man to die, not even trying to rescue him.
Think of Africa for a second, half its population would be dying of aids or malnourisment yet we help them for some reason. Is it because of the kindness in our hearts? NOOOOO during the 1960's the western civilisations where learning of the third world, a hopeful generation happy to live in a time of peace wanted a change. Solidarity, empathy and a new understanding of our responsibility was put into action with aid to the third world countries. Sadly this solidarity is rarely seen in our generation since we haven't seen a world were we don't help. With that said. Yes it started from the kindness in our hearts. Even though all of our actions are made egoistically we feel happines when helping others.
We are helping those who are dying so their country is put further behind in debt, so that they will have to pay up greater sums than what our government spends for food, clothes and medicine as time passes by. SO instead of a dying place where people struggle and life moves on where you basically let these people sort out their own problems and establish a way of life ON THEIR OWN. I can't deny that there's a possible subconscious thought in me that is behind my actions of giving money to the red cross. And I can't deny that I don't know the exact thoughts behind the politicians actions to aid other countries. But the same goes for you.
When it comes to how our help sometimes do more harm than good I agree. When we send milk to a village their own shop which sells milk will not be able to sell and it's our fault. When we send money to corrupt gouvernments loads of money are lost on the way.
But according to me we have a responsibility. A big effect in africa is that rivers are running dry and the ground some have lived on for generations is now impossible to farm on. All because of the western civilisations gas pollution, effects on the ozone layer. We can rationalise the problem and talk about how I'm just a person, no big effects comes from me not driving a car etc. But it's still a choice we have to make, we should all consider these effects. As for the thread title collectivism v. Individualism. Collectivism is a pretty good idea here in "the war on global warming" .
My point, Let those you see need a helping hand, help themselves because life moves on regardless and while i get your feminist point of view, i simply dont agree on it just like you might not agree on my point.
Where did feminism get in the picture?
The feminine, emotional, the social, desire to nest. Desire to shape your own habitat. You worry that some day you will become personally inconvenienced and thus you turn to collectiveism and i say it belongs with the rest of its ISMS, inside a book where people read to feel more clever than their peers when in reality the idea of collectiveism is as lucid as belief in god.
Want to talk about global warming?
A comedian puts everything in perspective and i agree.
On April 28 2010 07:30 ShaperofDreams wrote: You can't be individual, you live in a world with people and things. You must compromise.
so you don't have your own conscience then? that would be amazing imo
On April 28 2010 07:30 ShaperofDreams wrote: If you want to fly you can't just fly, you have to compromise with gravity. Individual means alone, without an environment. You can't take everything so out of context. You can act alone but even then all of your decisions are created/decided by your environment. You simply cannot live without compromise.
nope I think ur conflating individualism with isolationism or something
On April 28 2010 07:30 ShaperofDreams wrote: This also works with collectivism. There is no "one thing" "I can be conservative about crime, but liberal about prostitution"Chris Rock
What I'm saying that it is impossible to be one thing or another, you can be nothing you can point to/say.
No matter your philosophy or lifestyle you are both a collective as well as an individual. You are everything and therefore nothing specific.
well by this point I can tell we differ on definitions what you mean by an individual is "selfishness" right. that is not what I mean by individualism individualism means recognizing only individuals can have a consciousness, goals, perceived means, claims to rights, etc.... "collectives" have no such things by themselves because they have no consciousness consciousness can only exist within individuals and yes that is circular, but unless you want to claim that god exists or that you experienced a shared consciousness, it's hard to claim otherwise
On April 28 2010 07:30 ShaperofDreams wrote: Your body is not individual, you are composed of many different things. You have a history, you have experiences, you have genetics. These things compromise your decisions.
don't really matter history, experiences, DNA spirals have no consciousnesses. therefore, they cannot have goals. therefore, no "greater good" objective can be drawn from them.
On April 28 2010 07:30 ShaperofDreams wrote: To be individual you must be completely alone, which is impossible.
nope
On April 28 2010 07:30 ShaperofDreams wrote: It implies a completely unaffected consciousness that has no entity or history and resides in no environment, that exists only for a split second.
did I ever say that? and how does it imply that?
you have mentioned a chain of events that produce a consciousness. that is completely irrelevant to the question that collective entities don't exist.
if they do exist, tell me, tell me what its goals are, and how are they not your interpretation of history but something objectively outside of you? no such thing can exist. it is you. it is your interpretation of history, and it is your goals as you adopt them.
On April 28 2010 07:30 ShaperofDreams wrote: edit: a thought made by the above consciousness would be almost an individual thought.
what you think is not an individual thought? elaborate.
I'm sorry dude you just don't get it If you have honestly read what I wrote and are asking the questions above you just need to read more or read it again, no offense.
On April 28 2010 07:34 ShaperofDreams wrote: The words individual and collective are inventions of the mind and only serve as extremely vague, relative concepts.
edit: therefore we can really only talk about how "individual" and how "collective" we should be, but the thing is that the degree of collectivity/individuality always is as it should be because the entire universe created that circumstance. you cannot "decide" to have a different society or live a different way, the proper situation/universal happening has to exist prior to that.
Everything is a cause of everything else. One cannot be the cause for an effect, the entire universe has to cause an effect, and when it does the effect will be, with or without our consent because we have no real control of how our own decisions will be made.
there is no such dichotomy... everything you do is your decision alone... and I see that youre a determinist also so think about this. what binds you to other people? We are just atoms correct? Why is it that you as a human being is bound to obey a group of other human beings? Might makes right is what your argument comes down to? Then there is no such obligation. You do what you want and can.
and again, by collectivism I don't mean altruism. jesus, them collectivists made a good job of conflating the two terms...
On April 28 2010 01:35 LaughingTulkas wrote: I guess if you're a determinist, I don't see the point of making a thread to talk to other people about it. But I guess you don't have any choice in the matter just as others don't have any choice in whether or not they believe you. + Show Spoiler +
omg that is too freaking funny good one man ... i love your humor
but to the person that is a determinist who believes in free will ( too funny) Heisenberg and that little thing called the uncertainty principle , not to mention the standard model of the universe would completely disagree ... but i do find it funny you adhere to both determinism and free will , as they contradict each other ,,, I am seriously trying to figure out if by saying that it is a big troll joke or you are being serious about believing two contrary points of view .......
we could get into Einstein saying god doesn't playing dice and Niels Borh's reply dont tell god what to do etc etc ... or hidden variables explaining why you cant know the two contrary values of electrons , but at the moment particles (i.e electrons ) to not appear to behave deterministically )
not to mention other such experiments .. action at a distance explain that one with determinism .... but in all actuality you cant have determinism and free will at the same time in your argument and expect anyone to take it seriously .. unless they deterministically do not have a choice in the matter lmao ..... if anything you labeled one such catalyst you were searching for , for the greater good of reality .. Why , because we are predetermined to . not saying i believe this , but i find it extremely funny you search for such a reality of greater good , then say several posts later you are a determinist
have you read up on compatibilism yet? I think not its not the classical definition of free will, its a redefined one to allow for causation
On April 28 2010 07:58 chessmaster wrote: yeah either a troll or someone so ignorant he doesn't realize when he is contradicting himself ... either way a waste of my time .. gl guys
Whereas I agree to your conclusion (that it is futile to argue with him) I do not agree with how you arrived there. Individualism does not require you to accept a conventional understanding of free will. Look to my post above for details.
Yurebis: When you responded to said post it seemed you felt the need to rebuttle even though it was in alignment with your opinions. I guess it's natural since you have been argueing for 9 pages, I just found it funny.
You're spouting a bunch of terms and really they don't mean much
You are asking a lot of completely irrelevant, meaningless questions that are answered in the statement you are challenging if you look at it with any depth at all.
You told me you believed in free will as an illusion and at the same time you argue against it. You literally contradict yourself in almost every statement.
and a lot of stuff that I've said you just don't get.
The way to learn is not by pummeling with those types of questions it's by making a statement of your own. I have no idea what you are arguing anymore because you contradict yourself so much.
why is it that only because our genetic code is about 99.999% alike or something, that this fact binds us together? I could just as easily say whatever living beings with >90% genetic similarity have to band together or >50% heck, all living beings should hold hands and listen to me! I should be the lord of the universe!
...all the above assertions are equally meaningless without an individual to believe in them.
so, first be careful when shifting from descriptive statements (observations of reality), to prescriptive statements (norms that you think people should follow for a certain goal)
second, note that only a consciousness can have ends, and if consciousnesses only exist within individuals, then there can be no such thing as a group goal, or a greater good, or a certain species' ends. All of a species' goals lie within each individual's head.
your reply does nothing to answer my assertions of instinct as the catalyst of greater good you deny to exist.
Why is it good? And according to whom? Hint: it is good to your ends. don't mean that it's good for everyone, because "everyone" is not a person, "everyone" does not have a consciousness. Only individuals can have a consciousness, agree/disagree?
On April 28 2010 07:42 chessmaster wrote: i am saying because we are all a part of the same freaking species we are a collective like it or not
and I'm saying that if we were to wear pink hats, we would be part of a group of "people wearing pink hats" and therefore... it doesn't mean anything.
On April 28 2010 07:42 chessmaster wrote:, and another thing DNA is passed down you have no control over it as an individual ( i.e your instinct)
doesn't quite matter another meaningless descriptive statement that does not prove a collective consciousness exists. nor does it prescribe that everyone should follow some undefined entity with arbitrary goals
On April 28 2010 07:42 chessmaster wrote: .. also you do nothing to answer my point .. individuals would not exist without our species , it would come down to the last individual who could no longer bread
again, does not matter as it does not disprove any of the premises in the OP
On April 28 2010 07:42 chessmaster wrote: you cannot continue to bread by your self ( this is a clear example of an individual goal ( that very well may parallel species survival ) that cannot be achieved with only an individual
uh. why are you limiting yourself to one rational individual? the world has billions of them. you seem to be conflating collectivism with collaboration. the latter I not only encourage but is also a direct opposite of collectivism if you put your thinking hat on. to put a very evil spin in it, collectivism is the art of convincing individuals to waste their resources on an imaginary entity while the leaders profit off of it.
On April 28 2010 07:58 chessmaster wrote: yeah either a troll or someone so ignorant he doesn't realize when he is contradicting himself ... either way a waste of my time .. gl guys
Whereas I agree to your conclusion (that it is futile to argue with him) I do not agree with how you arrived there. Individualism does not require you to accept a conventional understanding of free will. Look to my post above for details.
Yurebis: When you responded to said post it seemed you felt the need to rebuttle even though it was in alignment with your opinions. I guess it's natural since you have been argueing for 9 pages, I just found it funny.
On April 28 2010 08:14 ShaperofDreams wrote: You're spouting a bunch of terms and really they don't mean much
You are asking a lot of completely irrelevant, meaningless questions that are answered in the statement you are challenging if you look at it with any depth at all.
You told me you believed in free will as an illusion and at the same time you argue against it. You literally contradict yourself in almost every statement.
and a lot of stuff that I've said you just don't get.
The way to learn is not by pummeling with those types of questions it's by making a statement of your own. I have no idea what you are arguing anymore because you contradict yourself so much.
well tell me what you dont get and ill elaborate better
I argued against free will, or against 'free will being an illusion'? do quote precisely where the contradiction is and I apologize + correct myself if its the case
and I'm sorry if you don't like questions. some times they're reciprocal and easy to answer if you follow along. but I guess not. I will refrain from asking them at you.
On April 28 2010 08:20 ShaperofDreams wrote: please tell me what your argument is man
edit: what is your point
my argument for you is
1- collectives do not have a mind of their own 2- therefore, they cannot have ends of their own 3- therefore, there cant be a "greater good"
all that exists is your perceived notion of what could be good for everyone else never is it objective never is it binding never *should* (that being my opinion) it entitle you to act on behalf of others without their permission.
when I talk of collectivism I talk of the notion that such greater good exists, and people are entitled to act on it on behalf of others even without permission, be it by voting or being thugs themselves. when such action occurs, it is ultimately an individual forcing his will upon another not "the greater good", as it does not exist
On April 28 2010 08:29 ShaperofDreams wrote: Also you are talking about entitlement and right at the same time as you denouce them.
let me attempt to elaborate on that. I've wrote about rights before but you may have missed it.
rights also do not exist in reality when someone claims to have a right to x, it is merely that, a claim to right
an entitlement would be a claim to right as well.
so what I mean by "you are not entitled to x" is that I would not consider your claim of "right to x" valid. I would laugh in your face.
In context, I would laugh in your face if you come by my door and say "you have to give me money for the greater good" thats hilarious. since I know the greater good does not exist, I would understand such statement as " you have to give me money period" which is complete thugishness, would you not agree?
then, any other type of collective cry for action is also an individual claim. when people say "we need to do x!" what they really mean is "I wish we would all do x, and I would even perhaps support the use of force upon others to do x!" of course, if all collectivists would be honest with themselves and use the latter statement instead of the former, their support would shrink rapidly. which goes against their goals (and their goals are not "the greater good")
On April 28 2010 08:29 ShaperofDreams wrote: Sorry I'm not wasting anymore of my time here.
On April 28 2010 08:30 Yurebis wrote: thats me being against the conventional notion of free will
... but did I convince you that the collective notion of a "greater good" does not exist?
TLDR: you are stating that a collective is just a bunch of individuals gathering together yet you are against free will and believe anyones individual choice in any given matter has its base in genetics?
it seems like a lot of people think I'm being contradictory but I'm yet to find a single mistake.. besides that one about trying to prove something does not exist. ...and that other minor one in the op
On April 28 2010 08:30 Yurebis wrote: thats me being against the conventional notion of free will
... but did I convince you that the collective notion of a "greater good" does not exist?
TLDR: you are stating that a collective is just a bunch of individuals gathering together yet you are against free will and believe anyones individual choice in any given matter has its base in genetics?
Thats too much.
I'm not against free will, I'm against the conventional definition of free will. If you want to label me, call me a compatibilist, I think it sounds cool
and people's personalities which in turn determine their choices are built from many many factors, not just genetics, I don't feel like listing a bunch of them for you but someone else already did so let me find it, brb...
this post by hefty
On April 28 2010 07:24 hefty wrote: I had decided not to post here again but since the subject changed...
On April 28 2010 06:28 fellcrow wrote: Do you believe that what you do after he puts a gun to your head is predetermined?
EDIT: well i guess your logic is just confusing me. You think everything is predetermined but you have free will at the same time. What do you mean by free will? That is self contradictory.
Perhabs my take on determinism/free will can be of some help.
I also regularly use the terms free will and choices, because they make intuitive sense. If a talk of my choice the other day, or my belief that the government must seek to preserve the free will of the individual, I have given you meaningful information that would be more difficult to communicate without these terms. Still, I have some issues regarding the idea of free will - let me explain.
I believe that whenever we make a choice we are influenced by a huge range of factors contributing to our dicision in the very moment. The list includes current state of mind, the recent chain of events leading to this moment, the sum of past experiences, current physical level of arousal, overall physical condition, exterior conditions such as weather, and inputs from the immediate surroundings including interactions with other human beings. In other words, my choice will be based on who I am (as a result of everything I went through that shaped me to this day) in this very moment. That's a lot of things, most of them very hard to account for I agree, but nonetheless they are likewise results of a prelude of similar instances. I believe that my choice will be a direct result of the past that shaped me and the present in which is it made - and since it is a direct result of this, it is in the moment i chose, actually determined. Of course I have the notion of free will, as the process of chosing makes me go thourgh all sorts of considerations, but since the outcome is based on these (already induced) considerations/notions the result of my decision making is already given.
I may have repeated myself unnecessarily in that paragraph, forgive me. Now, if there is anything that influences my choice, which is not accounted for in the whole string of experiences leading to this moment, what could it be? If I am to maintain an idea of free will I will need some other factor apart from these. What could it be? Would would make it so that my choice in this very instance could have been different from the one I'm making? A random variable? If the outcome of my decision process is influenced by a truly random factor, it just makes exhibition of free will a die roll. I don't like to entertain that idea - and luckily it seems improbable to me. I would much rather my choices are made by me (that is: determined by who I am).
So you see following this (possibly flawed, but please tell me how) logic, even though we are autonome agents, our actions are still determined. At least in a sense. It doesn't change a thing however, because as all these actions are a consequence of the world they are working upon, and that world's responses as much a result of these, it gives no reason to do anything differently than we already does. If I chose to kill a man, the world should still react and lock me up, because such is the rules/conditions that our many choices have created (even when choices can't be said to be free in the normal sense). This also takes care of the "problem" presented in this post:
On April 28 2010 01:35 LaughingTulkas wrote: I guess if you're a determinist, I don't see the point of making a thread to talk to other people about it. But I guess you don't have any choice in the matter just as others don't have any choice in whether or not they believe you. + Show Spoiler +
The way you talk sounds mighty inconsistent with your belief in determinism though, it's almost like you are trying to persuade people of something. But since they can't choose to agree with you are not, I don't see the point.
I know most of the philosophical arguments, and I agree that it's really hard to make the case for anything other than a deterministic worldview, but it's pretty dang inconsistent with common sense and trying to live an everyday life where for all intents and purposes you feel like you have choices. I just can't help feel this whole thread is an argument against itself, not about collectivism, but about determinism. It seems impossible for any determinist to live a life consistent with their beliefs, which in my view is a pretty damning arguments against its truth, even if that's not really a philosophical or scientific argument.
edit: oh, and I totally agree about psychology, it's very overrated. Statistical psychology has some limited utility, but until we get our own Hari Seldon, that field is going nowhere fast.
At least in my understanding of determinism, the OP should still create this post and LaughingTulkas should still reply to it, because the circumstances leading to all this prescribed it. We shall still have this discussion, and if I chose not to take anymore part of it, it is again a result of the circumstances leading to that particular choice.
In this notion of determinism, it doesn't quite make sense to say that "it doesn't matter what I do, because it's all just predetermined", because you always do what you do for a reason - as a result. Likewise, it has no moral implications, you are still responsible for your actions as much as with your free will.
Disclaimer: Not writing this to win anyone over to my point of view. What I presented is easily stated, and parts come close to being tautologies. I don't really believe in a concept like truth, I believe in perspectives. So I will welcome other perspectives on the matter - this doesn't mean I refrain from argueing of course. I'm especially interested if anyone can point out something that could preserve a notion of free will within the understanding of choice presented above. How can there be room for anything not accounted for by who we are, when making a choice?
EDIT: Shit, I need to add: I don't think of myself as a true determinist, because I don't really believe in determinism broadly. Not even in the world of physics. This also introduce some randomisation into the choice situation, I am aware, but it still doesn't take anything away from the awkward relationship between the concept of free will and the idea of chosing based on your personality, experiences and current influences.
he is much more literate in the concepts of determinism than I so listen to him instead LOL
Oo alot of isms, this conversation has left me with the notion that your just an advanced troll with alot of time on your hands. LIKE ME ;D
what is the difference between free will and choosing based on experience and current influence are they not one and the same?
Its like burning your hand on the frying pan, you could choose to do it again but you would be an idiot for choosing to do so point being, you could do either and thus maintain the idea that your will is free.
On April 28 2010 09:07 Madkipz wrote: Oo alot of isms, this conversation has left me with the notion that your just an advanced troll with alot of time on your hands. LIKE ME ;D
what is the difference between free will and choosing based on experience and current influence are they not one and the same?
Its like burning your hand on the frying pan, you could choose to do it again but you would be an idiot for choosing to do so point being, you could do either and thus maintain the idea that your will is free.
well free will traditionally has a more humanist concept of consciousness, experience, responsibility, etc. determinism is pretty dull and tries to be scientific, disregarding consciousness as a relevant concept for explaining anything, humans being a closed system no different than a machine both recognize the importance of previous inputs to the individual as defining what he will output... its just the way they put it and the afterthoughts that are different free will doesnt deny experience and other factors in thought processes like you seem to think.
in your example.. it wouldn't be stupid to burn yourself if you want to feel pain
when one says "that was/is stupid", what I think they mean is "that is an inefficient course of action for whatever the implied end is" or perhaps "that is an inefficient course of action for my goals, this being an information which I sadly did not know before. such are the ins and outs of risk taking and even life itself."
On April 28 2010 08:41 Yurebis wrote: it seems like a lot of people think I'm being contradictory but I'm yet to find a single mistake.. besides that one about trying to prove something does not exist.
At this point I'm finished with my participation in the discussion. When you are called on for your contradictions, you try to throw labels which you say "sound nice" but you really don't care if they are relevant for your position.
A compatibilist isn't a determinist who just throws the concept of free will out there just to communicate, there is a reasonable stance on how there can be free will and determinism but that's an argument that has no place in this thread.
TBH, if people are still wondering what he's trying to say.
He is just bitching out that regimes which try to force you to do something are bad. He thinks all collectives fall under this description and therefore all collectives are bad. Your examples just prove that even further.
Is it really necessary to have 10 pages of you trying to say that?
On April 28 2010 08:41 Yurebis wrote: it seems like a lot of people think I'm being contradictory but I'm yet to find a single mistake.. besides that one about trying to prove something does not exist.
At this point I'm finished with my participation in the discussion. When you are called on for your contradictions, you try to throw labels which you say "sound nice" but you really don't care if they are relevant for your position.
I don't care much for labels in the first place so yea
On April 28 2010 11:06 oceanblack wrote: A compatibilist isn't a determinist who just throws the concept of free will out there just to communicate, there is a reasonable stance on how there can be free will and determinism but that's an argument that has no place in this thread.
yep.
On April 28 2010 11:06 oceanblack wrote: TBH, if people are still wondering what he's trying to say.
He is just bitching out that regimes which try to force you to do something are bad. He thinks all collectives fall under this description and therefore all collectives are bad. Your examples just prove that even further.
nope. could be the best regime, the least intrusive in the world it would still be a lie and I would call it out on it no one can know whats best for everyone let alone claiming there is something such as the "greater good"
On April 28 2010 11:06 oceanblack wrote: Is it really necessary to have 10 pages of you trying to say that?
Not my fault if people can't understand this quite simple set of premises keep going offtopic and shit but its k I dont really care tbh, I read and answer them all, im a lazy bum.
On April 28 2010 08:20 ShaperofDreams wrote: please tell me what your argument is man
edit: what is your point
my argument for you is
1- collectives do not have a mind of their own 2- therefore, they cannot have ends of their own 3- therefore, there cant be a "greater good"
all that exists is your perceived notion of what could be good for everyone else never is it objective never is it binding never *should* (that being my opinion) it entitle you to act on behalf of others without their permission.
when I talk of collectivism I talk of the notion that such greater good exists, and people are entitled to act on it on behalf of others even without permission, be it by voting or being thugs themselves. when such action occurs, it is ultimately an individual forcing his will upon another not "the greater good", as it does not exist
So, if we posit a single instance in which a collective policy would result in objectively better results, where does that leave you?
On April 28 2010 08:20 ShaperofDreams wrote: please tell me what your argument is man
edit: what is your point
my argument for you is
1- collectives do not have a mind of their own 2- therefore, they cannot have ends of their own 3- therefore, there cant be a "greater good"
all that exists is your perceived notion of what could be good for everyone else never is it objective never is it binding never *should* (that being my opinion) it entitle you to act on behalf of others without their permission.
when I talk of collectivism I talk of the notion that such greater good exists, and people are entitled to act on it on behalf of others even without permission, be it by voting or being thugs themselves. when such action occurs, it is ultimately an individual forcing his will upon another not "the greater good", as it does not exist
So, if we posit a single instance in which a collective policy would result in objectively better results, where does that leave you?
that leaves me swearing at u and calling u a liar like a crying baby
edit: no, actually, that would leave me trying to explain to you the subjective theory of value and why such measurements cannot be done i.o.w. there is no such thing as objectively better anything something better has to be better for something, in a certain criteria for what, depends on your ends
On April 28 2010 08:20 ShaperofDreams wrote: please tell me what your argument is man
edit: what is your point
my argument for you is
1- collectives do not have a mind of their own 2- therefore, they cannot have ends of their own 3- therefore, there cant be a "greater good"
all that exists is your perceived notion of what could be good for everyone else never is it objective never is it binding never *should* (that being my opinion) it entitle you to act on behalf of others without their permission.
when I talk of collectivism I talk of the notion that such greater good exists, and people are entitled to act on it on behalf of others even without permission, be it by voting or being thugs themselves. when such action occurs, it is ultimately an individual forcing his will upon another not "the greater good", as it does not exist
So, if we posit a single instance in which a collective policy would result in objectively better results, where does that leave you?
that leaves me swearing at u and calling u a liar like a crying baby
I guess we'll start with a hilariously obvious one:
Civil society.
Your move.
Edit: Lol okay, try to justify living in a forest in a war of all against all as subjectively superior. Stretch that relativism as far as you can go, brosef.
On April 28 2010 08:20 ShaperofDreams wrote: please tell me what your argument is man
edit: what is your point
my argument for you is
1- collectives do not have a mind of their own 2- therefore, they cannot have ends of their own 3- therefore, there cant be a "greater good"
all that exists is your perceived notion of what could be good for everyone else never is it objective never is it binding never *should* (that being my opinion) it entitle you to act on behalf of others without their permission.
when I talk of collectivism I talk of the notion that such greater good exists, and people are entitled to act on it on behalf of others even without permission, be it by voting or being thugs themselves. when such action occurs, it is ultimately an individual forcing his will upon another not "the greater good", as it does not exist
So, if we posit a single instance in which a collective policy would result in objectively better results, where does that leave you?
that leaves me swearing at u and calling u a liar like a crying baby
I guess we'll start with a hilariously obvious one:
Civil society.
Your move.
Edit: Lol okay, try to justify living in a forest in a war of all against all as subjectively superior. Stretch that relativism as far as you can go, brosef.
I'm not advocating that. in fact I would posit that the establishment of collectivism allows that to a much greater extent than if people were individualistic and didn't put up with involuntary leaders.
when people are free to do as they may, they also risk full retaliation for their actions. it is not so in a collective system. a nation's leader is free to send other people to die in a war "for the greater good", exempt from all retaliations to his person and property (unless you consider the citizens his property, then I guess you could call the death of his peons and ravaging of their homes a loss)
so as you see, collectivism always enables the group in charge of promoting "the greater good" to fuck up real good w\ little consequences. the costs of violence are externalized to the taxpayers aka slaves.
oh I'm sorry, I forgot you only listen to empirical claims. why do I bother...
edit: and I'm sorry what does civil society mean? is it something like government gave people "rights"? edit2: did I say way? i meant war. edit3: fuck why do I edit so much
On April 28 2010 08:20 ShaperofDreams wrote: please tell me what your argument is man
edit: what is your point
my argument for you is
1- collectives do not have a mind of their own 2- therefore, they cannot have ends of their own 3- therefore, there cant be a "greater good"
all that exists is your perceived notion of what could be good for everyone else never is it objective never is it binding never *should* (that being my opinion) it entitle you to act on behalf of others without their permission.
when I talk of collectivism I talk of the notion that such greater good exists, and people are entitled to act on it on behalf of others even without permission, be it by voting or being thugs themselves. when such action occurs, it is ultimately an individual forcing his will upon another not "the greater good", as it does not exist
So, if we posit a single instance in which a collective policy would result in objectively better results, where does that leave you?
that leaves me swearing at u and calling u a liar like a crying baby
I guess we'll start with a hilariously obvious one:
Civil society.
Your move.
Edit: Lol okay, try to justify living in a forest in a war of all against all as subjectively superior. Stretch that relativism as far as you can go, brosef.
I'm not advocating that. in fact I would posit that the establishment of collectivism allows that to a much greater extent than if people were individualistic and didn't put up with involuntary leaders.
when people are free to do as they may, they also risk full retaliation for their actions. it is not so in a collective system. a nation's leader is free to send other people to die in a way "for the greater good", exempt from all retaliations to his person nor property (unless you consider the citizens his property, then I guess you could call the death of his peons and ravaging of their homes a loss)
so as you see, collectivism always enables the group in charge of promoting "the greater good" to fuck up real good w\ little consequences. the costs of violence are externalized to the taxpayers aka slaves.
oh I'm sorry, I forgot you only listen to empirical claims. why do I bother...
Unless you prove to me that civil society is not the result of collective action, I don't think your qualms with instances of defects in government amount to more than strawmen.
and I'm sorry what does civil society mean? is it something like government gave people "rights"?
Ten pages of incoherent drivel? I salute you, sir.
Short answer to libertarianism/anarchism: Natural forces are coercive. Interpersonal forces can alleviate that coercion, at the cost of applying interpersonal coercion. If this interpersonal coercion is milder than the natural forces, it's a net win.
Well-applied redistribution increases freedom. (As, of course, does the application of force to restrict peoples' coercion of one another... but libertarians at least recognize that.)
On April 28 2010 08:20 ShaperofDreams wrote: please tell me what your argument is man
edit: what is your point
my argument for you is
1- collectives do not have a mind of their own 2- therefore, they cannot have ends of their own 3- therefore, there cant be a "greater good"
all that exists is your perceived notion of what could be good for everyone else never is it objective never is it binding never *should* (that being my opinion) it entitle you to act on behalf of others without their permission.
when I talk of collectivism I talk of the notion that such greater good exists, and people are entitled to act on it on behalf of others even without permission, be it by voting or being thugs themselves. when such action occurs, it is ultimately an individual forcing his will upon another not "the greater good", as it does not exist
So, if we posit a single instance in which a collective policy would result in objectively better results, where does that leave you?
that leaves me swearing at u and calling u a liar like a crying baby
I guess we'll start with a hilariously obvious one:
Civil society.
Your move.
Edit: Lol okay, try to justify living in a forest in a war of all against all as subjectively superior. Stretch that relativism as far as you can go, brosef.
I'm not advocating that. in fact I would posit that the establishment of collectivism allows that to a much greater extent than if people were individualistic and didn't put up with involuntary leaders.
when people are free to do as they may, they also risk full retaliation for their actions. it is not so in a collective system. a nation's leader is free to send other people to die in a way "for the greater good", exempt from all retaliations to his person nor property (unless you consider the citizens his property, then I guess you could call the death of his peons and ravaging of their homes a loss)
so as you see, collectivism always enables the group in charge of promoting "the greater good" to fuck up real good w\ little consequences. the costs of violence are externalized to the taxpayers aka slaves.
oh I'm sorry, I forgot you only listen to empirical claims. why do I bother...
Unless you prove to me that civil society is not the result of collective action, I don't think your qualms with instances of defects in government amount to more than strawmen.
oh ok. you mean then, you want me to prove to you that people can respect eachother without being forced upon, by a collectivist group like a state? why do you like being whipped around so much lol thats not hard to prove at all given some principles...
and I'm sorry what does civil society mean? is it something like government gave people "rights"?
Okay, what are rights?
Rights dont actually exist but there exist claims to them. There exists people claiming to have rights. I call that a claim to right and I havent seen such explanation elsewhere so pls listen.
People very often claim to have a right to their inherited, homesteaded, traded, or transformed property. I do claim that i have the right to my stuff too. But ultimately, there is no such natural rule that has to be followed. I believe there is no God to punish us for breaking them either. So the only punisher and enforcer of your claimed rights is ultimately whoever feels like defending you against perceived violators.
This may seem like "law of the jungle" for you, or might makes right, but fear not because it ain't. it is mere reality, and it is that way even with the best constitutional republic possible. Fact is, the government is no more than a group of people. These people have no super powers, they have no god-given immunities. They are an organization providing a service.
The big difference between the government and any other business of course is that it is legitimized into getting its money before any service is given. A regular shoemaker for example would have to convince you first to give his money before any shoe is sold. But not for the state - he can force you to do pay him for its services, even if you do not use it afterwards, even if you never asked for it.
Now I know you're touchy on the subject of law mr. L so I'm going to try to explain briefly to you why such vile proceedings aren't necessary at all to ensure a stable legal code.
Lawmakers are the suppliers of law, they offer the general public with a set of codes that settles disputes and clears up confusing interpersonal issues people may have over property and civil rights. A healthy law code does have to be personalized and changed as often as people adapt their views and new problems arise.
So first off, the notion that lawmakers are law givers is wrong, they are not. They have to answer to the demand for laws, not do whatever they like and the people have to follow. On the contrary, if the people get pissed off at the poor quality of a lawmaker at settling disputes and issues, it may topple him down no matter what, even if he has a legal monopoly, there may be revolution, or he could be isolated and impeached, whatever. You prob know what can happen better than I do.
Therefore, the most efficient method of law distribution I argue is not the monopolistic model of one-size-fits all that is imposed on us in modern day USA, but a decentralized, free-market system, much like any other type of service.
If you have certain qualms about the uncertainty or stability of this model, let me reassure you again. It will be actually more stable than a monopoly. You know why? Because a thousand judges think better than one. Because the minds of many more lawmakers will more proficiently devise that best lawcode that is demanded by a society. What can be more stable, a set of judges I can count on my two hands being in charge of a whole nation's legal code, or countless, competitive judges that are trying to serve the publics needs best, voluntarily and naturally so?
Now if its a matter of whether there would be a demand for such extensive and competitive legal resources, I would be honest and tell you "I don't know". I can't know for certain what people want, and I'm not going to pretend I do know (I'm not a collectivist after all). But I assure you that if there is such a demand, then there is profit to be made off it (do not be fooled, the monopolistic judges of today do earn quite a salary, which would probably be reduced given more competition and more potential judges being able to serve the public). And if there is profit to be made, then let the courts make the dough they voluntarily deserve!
On April 28 2010 12:53 Severedevil wrote: Ten pages of incoherent drivel? I salute you, sir.
ty me so good at drivelz
On April 28 2010 12:53 Severedevil wrote: Short answer to libertarianism/anarchism: Natural forces are coercive. Interpersonal forces can alleviate that coercion, at the cost of applying interpersonal coercion. If this interpersonal coercion is milder than the natural forces, it's a net win.
why are natural forces coercive exactly by natural forces you cant mean like.. the wind, volcanoes and shit right? hope not but that would be funny
On April 28 2010 12:53 Severedevil wrote: Well-applied redistribution increases freedom. (As, of course, does the application of force to restrict peoples' coercion of one another... but libertarians at least recognize that.)
I guess if you repeat something a thousand times it makes it true...
On April 28 2010 12:53 Severedevil wrote: Short answer to libertarianism/anarchism: Natural forces are coercive. Interpersonal forces can alleviate that coercion, at the cost of applying interpersonal coercion. If this interpersonal coercion is milder than the natural forces, it's a net win.
why are natural forces coercive exactly by natural forces you cant mean like.. the wind, volcanoes and shit right? hope not but that would be funny
Those natural forces are coercive, yes. They impose serious restrictions on the actions and individual can take, and may threaten death. I was thinking more in the direction of hunger, cold, and disease, as they're more frequently relevant.
you mean then, you want me to prove to you that people can respect eachother without being forced upon, by a collectivist group like a state?
This isn't about respect. Civil society isn't about tolerance. Quite the opposite, its defined based on the clear revocation or renunciation of a group of rights. Locke would say that the renunciation is based upon mutual consent to be bound. Hobbes would say that the renunciation is somewhat independent of consent and is the result of a power monopoly.
So try again. Why is civil society not based in collectivism?
So the only punisher and enforcer of your claimed rights is ultimately whoever feels like defending you against perceived violators.
There you go, rights exist based on the systemic use of coercive force. A common power to keep them all in awe, so to speak.
Tell me again how your society works without systemic use of coercive force and how do you force people to exert force when they'd rather not? How do you prevent people from supplanting justice for a system of tit-for-tat, in which in-groups develop a systemic advantage? How do you deal with the 'unjust'? Either its a collective endeavor, or its an outright rule of the strong over the weak. Since you seem to be arguing over the latter, tell me again how your power monopoly is supposed to be objectively superior to the former?
As for the rest of your post, a majority of your information is downright wrong and I simply don't have time to fill in the gaps for you. That thousand judges line, for instance, is flat out wrong. Certainty in the law is one of the prime pillars in any legal system, so you need to know which judgement is the one that shapes your liability. Your claim that dispute resolution is a monopoly is wrong. ADR is huge and operates on the consent of parties. The rigid monopoly is of formal courts are normally only used when there's a lack of consent to engage in ADR. There are more inaccuracies, but frankly, they're irrelevant. The basis of rights is the important portion.
On April 28 2010 12:53 Severedevil wrote: Short answer to libertarianism/anarchism: Natural forces are coercive. Interpersonal forces can alleviate that coercion, at the cost of applying interpersonal coercion. If this interpersonal coercion is milder than the natural forces, it's a net win.
why are natural forces coercive exactly by natural forces you cant mean like.. the wind, volcanoes and shit right? hope not but that would be funny
Those natural forces are coercive, yes. They impose serious restrictions on the actions and individual can take, and may threaten death. I was thinking more in the direction of hunger, cold, and disease, as they're more frequently relevant.
can you make a distinction between rational and irrational entities please
edit shameful grammar
I mean, no use trying to talk hunger out of oppressing us.
you mean then, you want me to prove to you that people can respect eachother without being forced upon, by a collectivist group like a state?
This isn't about respect. Civil society isn't about tolerance. Quite the opposite, its defined based on the clear revocation or renunciation of a group of rights. Locke would say that the renunciation is based upon mutual consent to be bound. Hobbes would say that the renunciation is somewhat independent of consent and is the result of a power monopoly.
So try again. Why is civil society not based in collectivism?
So the only punisher and enforcer of your claimed rights is ultimately whoever feels like defending you against perceived violators.
There you go, rights exist based on the systemic use of coercive force. A common power to keep them all in awe, so to speak.
Tell me again how your society works without systemic use of coercive force and how do you force people to exert force when they'd rather not? How do you prevent people from supplanting justice for a system of tit-for-tat, in which in-groups develop a systemic advantage? How do you deal with the 'unjust'? Either its a collective endeavor, or its an outright rule of the strong over the weak. Since you seem to be arguing over the latter, tell me again how your power monopoly is supposed to be objectively superior to the former?
As for the rest of your post, a majority of your information is downright wrong and I simply don't have time to fill in the gaps for you. That thousand judges line, for instance, is flat out wrong. Certainty in the law is one of the prime pillars in any legal system, so you need to know which judgement is the one that shapes your liability. Your claim that dispute resolution is a monopoly is wrong. ADR is huge and operates on the consent of parties. The rigid monopoly is of formal courts are normally only used when there's a lack of consent to engage in ADR. There are more inaccuracies, but frankly, they're irrelevant. The basis of rights is the important portion.
oh I'm sorry but I did not know what civil society meant... I just thought it meant a society organized with a legal monopoly
ok well it can't work without some degree of "coercion" sometimes I think when an obvious thief breaks into someones home, is found guilty by a court, and is evading all communications, it would be "fair" to break into his home and take whatever was stolen back for restitution and if that can't be found, I don't know (not a law enthusiast at any rate) but in extreme situations I would not reject a code which would allow for restitution with other pieces of property owned by the thief.
I see what you mean L, and I do feel that power wins even if a perfect and altruistic collective is in place to handle it. So I've tried to explain why a free market would be superior. Because just as much as people can demand that their government be fair and transparent, they can demand for businesses to do so as well, and I argue directly on that basis, that business can out-compete the government easily on an open field.
Because businesses have a much more direct benefit to listen for fluctuations in demand, they are more efficient at doing so than government, which only has to worry about reelection in arbitrary periods. So vis-a-vis, if people are to demand more fairness, on both systems, the one that will respond faster IS the for-profit legal courts.
So.. you obviously know more than I do about courts and law codes.. and it's fine if you don't want to bother (I don't even know what that ADR is). But if i understood anything from you is that you don't dispute that free markets are more efficient, but just that you'd wish for a kind statist to subdue all the criminals and treat all its citizens equally? Sorry if I'm wrong but that would be wishing too much if thats what you want.
The thousand judges line is pretty obvious 2 me, idk what u talking about... nine judges are both cheaper to corrupt and more likely to swindle a major ruling than a thousand judges competing in a whole country... but its k
I am of the belief that the less violence the better. there is no "optimal level" of coercion where everyone is happy. thats ridic. Whether a society can completely exist without violence I'm not certain... but I'm certain that I'm not going to cherish something like democracy as the best thing there can ever exist. I think men can live perfectly fine w\o having to convince half the population of a huge geographic area where he lives, to be left alone. pretty ridic. imo
My point that I was trying to make in my long-ass post was that without the proper mindset, argumentation/falsification/verification will only exist for the sake of existing, in other words, it is not trying to end in a solution, it is trying to end in coercion or dichotomy. They should instead approach differences with the intent to reach a synthesis. That inevitably entails the destruction of both opinions to create a coherent new idea.
This applies to the individual and collective, since the collective is just a large of individuals holding more or less the same convictions. They need the proper mindset, as I mentioned above.
Then if it comes down to the individual, how do you approach your own individual thinking and ideals?
The ideal is not simply whatever you want, because, as I said, large numbers of more educated individuals have already established a large history of human thought and what really is the "ideal" and what is really "truth" (philosophy, religion, psychology). It is wise to look at their methods and ideas IN THEIR CONTEXTS to formulate your own individual thinking.
Again, you need to approach this with the proper mindset, or else all and any act of communication (whether between individuals or through books) will be rendered ineffective.
I think when an obvious thief breaks into someones home, is found guilty by a court, and is evading all communications, it would be "fair" to break into his home and take whatever was stolen back for restitution and if that can't be found, I don't know (not a law enthusiast at any rate) but in extreme situations I would not reject a code which would allow for restitution with other pieces of property owned by the thief.
You wouldn't get whatever was stolen back in restitution. You'd get it back in compensation. Restitution would give you the amount the thief gained from you in return. Compensation would pay for the amount of damage you suffered, which would include things like repairs for broken locks, etc. (That's an aside)
But good for you on not rejecting said code; No one cares what you think, you're just an individual, After all under your own conception, and no one can possibly know that you wouldn't want your shit stolen from you. So how is anyone else going to act in your interest in a collective?
I see what you mean L, and I do feel that power wins even if a perfect and altruistic collective is in place to handle it. So I've tried to explain why a free market would be superior. Because just as much as people can demand that their government be fair and transparent, they can demand for businesses to do so as well, and I argue directly on that basis, that business can out-compete the government easily on an open field.
Nothing can compete with a monopoly of power and there is no "perfect altruistic collective", nor could there be under your starting axioms. The first business to set up an armed force and subjugate their opponents becomes the new defacto government. In areas wherein governments cannot rally sufficient force, small warlordships crop up. In areas where power is bountiful and government strength doesn't grow proportionally to the total potential power, open war between the state and organized crime occurs. Power follows the exact same pattern that capital wealth does: it flows upwards.
If you outcompete the government at providing protection, you are the new government. Surprise, that's how conquest and revolution work!
Decentralizing power results in struggles between said groups in the form of war. The only method of true individualization would exist in a format wherein people could not join their physical forces together, which simply isn't the case.
Because businesses have a much more direct benefit to listen for fluctuations in demand...
and the rest of the post: Really has nothing to do with the non-existence of collectives. Has to do with your perception of the efficiency of businesses.
But if i understood anything from you is that you don't dispute that free markets are more efficient, but just that you'd wish for a kind statist to subdue all the criminals and treat all its citizens equally?
Free markets are fantastic for optimization of a number of goods and services. They perform horrendously, by contrast, in a number of other instances. And no, there are many important functions of government which flow from extra-criminal sources.
But frankly, that's entirely irrelevant and isn't needed to disprove your position. All you really need to do is go back to first principles, look at the base characteristics of humans, then extrapolate from there. Human history has never been one in which individuals act autonomously without a social structure, and for good reason.
On April 28 2010 13:49 Yurebis wrote: I am of the belief that the less violence the better. there is no "optimal level" of coercion where everyone is happy. thats ridic. Whether a society can completely exist without violence I'm not certain... but I'm certain that I'm not going to cherish something like democracy as the best thing there can ever exist. I think men can live perfectly fine w\o having to convince half the population of a huge geographic area where he lives, to be left alone. pretty ridic. imo
How exactly do you have a society without violence? Either there's coercion to prevent violence, or there's violence. Any form of deterrent to violence is violence in and of itself, ergo unless human nature was completely changed there seems to be no method of removing violence from the equation.
(unless you assume that coercion isn't violence, but you seem to take the opposite position).
On April 28 2010 14:37 LunarC wrote: My point that I was trying to make in my long-ass post was that without the proper mindset, argumentation/falsification/verification will only exist for the sake of existing, in other words, it is not trying to end in a solution, it is trying to end in coercion or dichotomy. They should instead approach differences with the intent to reach a synthesis. That inevitably entails the destruction of both opinions to create a coherent new idea.
This applies to the individual and collective, since the collective is just a large of individuals holding more or less the same convictions. They need the proper mindset, as I mentioned above.
Then if it comes down to the individual, how do you approach your own individual thinking and ideals?
The ideal is not simply whatever you want, because, as I said, large numbers of more educated individuals have already established a large history of human thought and what really is the "ideal" and what is really "truth" (philosophy, religion, psychology). It is wise to look at their methods and ideas IN THEIR CONTEXTS to formulate your own individual thinking.
Again, you need to approach this with the proper mindset, or else all and any act of communication (whether between individuals or through books) will be rendered ineffective.
no way around it man there cant be such thing as a scientific ought there is nothing in us, genetically, biologically, historically, that says we have to do this or that. history is history. it can be examined inductively to build a principled theory but theres nothing in history or any theory that binds man to act a certain way man will act as he wants to no matter what. even if forced by another mans means to an end
what you can say however is suggest to others what the best means to their ends are. and explain why such means are better than whatever other alternative they think. if youre right, then they have no reason to not adapt unless their ends arent as stated... but thats the most that can be done. voluntarily
or you can just force them into doing what you think should be done. wont prove anything ofc but hey, theres like 200 countries in the world that do just that so who am I to argue right.
I think when an obvious thief breaks into someones home, is found guilty by a court, and is evading all communications, it would be "fair" to break into his home and take whatever was stolen back for restitution and if that can't be found, I don't know (not a law enthusiast at any rate) but in extreme situations I would not reject a code which would allow for restitution with other pieces of property owned by the thief.
You wouldn't get whatever was stolen back in restitution. You'd get it back in compensation. Restitution would give you the amount the thief gained from you in return. Compensation would pay for the amount of damage you suffered, which would include things like repairs for broken locks, etc. (That's an aside)
ty4info
On April 28 2010 14:40 L wrote: But good for you on not rejecting said code; No one cares what you think, you're just an individual, After all under your own conception, and no one can possibly know that you wouldn't want your shit stolen from you. So how is anyone else going to act in your interest in a collective?
I know.
they will act in my interest because they want my money similar to how you're able to buy a shoe or, you can also buy legal help even today in fact no need for collectivism but I guess you know that.
I see what you mean L, and I do feel that power wins even if a perfect and altruistic collective is in place to handle it. So I've tried to explain why a free market would be superior. Because just as much as people can demand that their government be fair and transparent, they can demand for businesses to do so as well, and I argue directly on that basis, that business can out-compete the government easily on an open field.
Nothing can compete with a monopoly of power and there is no "perfect altruistic collective", nor could there be under your starting axioms.
Cool, so it comes down to the lesser evil then?
On April 28 2010 14:40 L wrote: The first business to set up an armed force and subjugate their opponents becomes the new defacto government. In areas wherein governments cannot rally sufficient force, small warlordships crop up. In areas where power is bountiful and government strength doesn't grow proportionally to the total potential power, open war between the state and organized crime occurs. Power follows the exact same pattern that capital wealth does: it flows upwards.
I don't believe that necessarily happens. Businesses will only build enough resources to sustain the market demand + profit. So if some court or defense agency starts pilling up ammunition and mercenaries to take over the country, their rates are gonna go up disproportionally to their services, and their clients are just gonna migrate to smaller and now relatively more efficient agencies. imagine if walmart were to start building up an army...
On April 28 2010 14:40 L wrote: If you outcompete the government at providing protection, you are the new government. Surprise, that's how conquest and revolution work!
not unless they demand tribute regardless of service like a state today does... but maybe my definition of gov't is different.
government is that agency which enforces a monopoly on some services (legal, defense, etc.) and requires its subjects to involuntarily pay it through taxes. it is the only agency which is seen by the public at large to have a legitimate use of force.
a for-profit business agency would: - not have such monopoly, -not require everyone to pay him -not be seen as legitimate if it uses force to the extent that the modern state does
the type of force that I would tolerate it to do would be just for restitution (or compensation ty) but you could very well have an even less violent agency that wont do that. they could, instead of requiring the thief to compensate for their clients loss, simply "blackmail" him by asking every other business in town to (voluntarily) ostracize him. the thief wont be able to buy any food, go into any property that does not want a thief in there, and will have great difficulty finding work. He's blacklisted from any place that agrees to the legal code made by the defense agency. and that could be enough, idk
more on force/violence/coercion later (i use them terms interchangeably...)
On April 28 2010 14:40 L wrote: Decentralizing power results in struggles between said groups in the form of war. The only method of true individualization would exist in a format wherein people could not join their physical forces together, which simply isn't the case.
free association does no harm to anyone... now if they use those guns to an extent where enough people consider it violence, they'll be stopped, and I don't mean violently the state for example would immediately vanish if people simply stopped paying taxes and allowing it to pay for guns w\ inflated money. especially since its literally bankrupt already...
Because businesses have a much more direct benefit to listen for fluctuations in demand...
and the rest of the post: Really has nothing to do with the non-existence of collectives. Has to do with your perception of the efficiency of businesses.
But if i understood anything from you is that you don't dispute that free markets are more efficient, but just that you'd wish for a kind statist to subdue all the criminals and treat all its citizens equally?
Free markets are fantastic for optimization of a number of goods and services. They perform horrendously, by contrast, in a number of other instances. And no, there are many important functions of government which flow from extra-criminal sources.
those instances include.. violence, right. because violence is so costly, it is best performed by a state, which can offload the costs of violence to its slaves er taxpayers.
and I've seen rebuttals for every other service too, would you care to mention so i can ramble about them too...?
On April 28 2010 14:40 L wrote: But frankly, that's entirely irrelevant and isn't needed to disprove your position. All you really need to do is go back to first principles, look at the base characteristics of humans, then extrapolate from there. Human history has never been one in which individuals act autonomously without a social structure, and for good reason.
ofc, allow me to clarify what I mean when I bash collectivism I don't bash socialization or hierarchies. I bash the involuntary ones. The ones you can't not be a member of, that you can't leave, secede. Everywhere you go today has a thug saying he has a claim on your property and person, when it's not even their property I'm standing on. And the people around think that's normal. Don't even realize the thug is there. And the ones that do notice how cruel that is, like you, then think its necessary. Why?
If you find the thug's (state) services necessary, it is for you only. remember there isn't a "greater good" spirit to call upon for guidance? Every means you adopt is your means, and every end you want to reach is your end. Why force everyone to pay for the services that you find important? You don't know their ends, you don't know what means they would choose instead. If its truly important for "society" (the other individuals around you), and you were indeed right, then those people will pay for it too. But if you force them to, then you will never know if it was indeed necessary, because you're being a thug and not letting them decide...
So history is seldom a proof that the state is necessary, when the state was forced to be there in the first place. that ain't proof that the state is necessary today just as much as it wasn't proof that feudalism was necessary a thousand years ago. and monarchy, and despotism, and on and on.
I don't bash socialization or hierarchies. I bash the involuntary ones. The ones you can't not be a member of, that you can't leave, secede. Everywhere you go today has a thug saying he has a claim on your property and person, when it's not even their property I'm standing on. And the people around think that's normal. Don't even realize the thug is there. And the ones that do notice how cruel that is, like you, then think its necessary. Why?
]
It's still possible to secede from society. You can renounce your citizenship and rebuild your voluntary society of non-coercion in Antarctica.
On April 28 2010 13:49 Yurebis wrote: I am of the belief that the less violence the better. there is no "optimal level" of coercion where everyone is happy. thats ridic. Whether a society can completely exist without violence I'm not certain... but I'm certain that I'm not going to cherish something like democracy as the best thing there can ever exist. I think men can live perfectly fine w\o having to convince half the population of a huge geographic area where he lives, to be left alone. pretty ridic. imo
How exactly do you have a society without violence? Either there's coercion to prevent violence, or there's violence. Any form of deterrent to violence is violence in and of itself, ergo unless human nature was completely changed there seems to be no method of removing violence from the equation.
(unless you assume that coercion isn't violence, but you seem to take the opposite position).
So, what constitutes violence is for each one to decide.
Is me changing the pixel patterns on your screen violence in my part against you? I am after all intruding on your optical senses
Is a man talking to another intruding on that other's ears? how about screaming?
going even "lighter" than that, imagine there were two on an unowned piece of land. Man A is in front of man B. Is A intruding B's right to move ahead by standing in front of him?
I mean.. you could go on and on with idiotic scenarios like that but, point is, theres many different things that could be or could not be seen as violence
I don't consider homesteaded or traded property to be violence (not going to go into specifics for homesteading, but ofc, it's arbitrary) I don't consider defending your homesteaded or traded property to be violence
anarcho-communists would think I'm intruding their rights by claiming to have exclusive control over anything but my own body perhaps. 2 bad I say...
I don't consider restitution (or compensation in extreme cases) to be violence and a lot of anarchists can disagree, idk
harmful physical contact is violence (probably not the best definition) taxation is violence (obv) a legal monopoly is violence, or rather raiding someones establishment that didn't do anything involuntary and yeah, involuntary interpersonal actions that aren't conceded to before or afterwards by either party is violence (not the best definition by far) and by "is" I mean "I consider it to be" (should be obvious by now)
so the state is obviously violent, not unlike the popular conception of a criminal mafia a business that offers legal or protective services wouldn't be, because it doesn't tax, it doesn't shut down others businesses, and it doesn't coerce besides for cases of restitution and compensation, and again, they would not even do that if their clients don't want them doing that.
I don't bash socialization or hierarchies. I bash the involuntary ones. The ones you can't not be a member of, that you can't leave, secede. Everywhere you go today has a thug saying he has a claim on your property and person, when it's not even their property I'm standing on. And the people around think that's normal. Don't even realize the thug is there. And the ones that do notice how cruel that is, like you, then think its necessary. Why?
]
It's still possible to secede from society. You can renounce your citizenship and rebuild your voluntary society of non-coercion in Antarctica.
hahaha nah I prefer to bitch about the state all day long obv.
On April 29 2010 00:16 MoltkeWarding wrote: So are you claiming the right to secede from society and afterwards still be part of the exact same society you just seceded from?
secede from being a subject of the state the state =/= society and the state doesn't own all land either
think this way, would you not see it as right for the countries in the world to be able to reject joining a world organization, and seceding if one were to exist?
then, why is it not fine for states (subdivisions of a federal state) to secede a country and then a county from a state a township from a county then an individual from a township?
all that is, is the secession of a smaller organization within a bigger one if you accept x number of people doing it v. a >x number of people why not accept an individual v. >1 number of people
its all involuntary in the first place regardless...
obv you would respect the choice of a member from an alcoholic anonymous group seceding from it or me seceding from teamliquid a slave running away from its overlord an establishment not paying extortion money to the mafia then... why not a citizen from the state why do you find the state legit in keeping its subjects but not all of the above.
The distinction is irrelevant. As long as people live in a commonwealth of laws, there is a state. You cannot secede from a state, and then continue to live in the same neighbourhood under an entirely different system of laws than your neighbours- unless of course, there is collective secession.
On April 29 2010 00:52 MoltkeWarding wrote: The distinction is irrelevant. As long as people live in a commonwealth of laws, there is a state. You cannot secede from a state, and then continue to live in the same neighbourhood under an entirely different system of laws than your neighbours- unless of course, there is collective secession.
what distinction? I'm not making a distinction, you are. you're making the distinction between an individual v. state and a state v. world. I'm the one being more general and saying it's all the same involuntary thing. A smaller group (all the way down to an individual) v. some larger group than itself subjugating the smaller one to its rule.
yes or no please, do the nations of the world have the right to not be part of an overarching global state?
On April 29 2010 00:52 MoltkeWarding wrote: The distinction is irrelevant. As long as people live in a commonwealth of laws, there is a state. You cannot secede from a state, and then continue to live in the same neighbourhood under an entirely different system of laws than your neighbours- unless of course, there is collective secession.
what distinction? I'm not making a distinction, you are. you're making the distinction between an individual v. state and a state v. world. I'm the one being more general and saying it's all the same involuntary thing. A smaller group (all the way down to an individual) v. some larger group than itself subjugating the smaller one to its rule.
yes or no please, do the nations of the world have the right to not be part of an overarching global state?
No, since a completely autonomous country would not recognize a source of "right" which is higher than its own definitions. No nation can impose the view on other nations that she has a "right" to anything.
And yet nations of the world do generally choose to consecrate some form of mutually-binding international law, since many of them recognize the same natural legal principles. Similarly organic society at its onset is organized into tribes, clans and states.
On April 29 2010 01:00 uiCk wrote: no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge,
I can't believe people post no content and call me a troll instead
what have you braught to the table? the only "content" that has been braught forwad, is by other people tying to make you realize your wiki major is pretty weak.
On April 29 2010 00:52 MoltkeWarding wrote: The distinction is irrelevant. As long as people live in a commonwealth of laws, there is a state. You cannot secede from a state, and then continue to live in the same neighbourhood under an entirely different system of laws than your neighbours- unless of course, there is collective secession.
what distinction? I'm not making a distinction, you are. you're making the distinction between an individual v. state and a state v. world. I'm the one being more general and saying it's all the same involuntary thing. A smaller group (all the way down to an individual) v. some larger group than itself subjugating the smaller one to its rule.
yes or no please, do the nations of the world have the right to not be part of an overarching global state?
No, since a completely autonomous country would not recognize a source of "right" which is higher than its own definitions. No nation can impose the view on other nations that she has a "right" to anything.
first, dont fret about rights, when I say right, I actually mean the claim of a right, or otherwise the perceived and respected exclusivity of others.
but that is sad to hear. so you mean, you see that a nation has no grounds to stay sovereign, when its neighbors decide that it's time for it to be subjugated to a global order?
On April 29 2010 01:07 MoltkeWarding wrote: And yet nations of the world do generally choose to consecrate some form of mutually-binding international law, since many of them recognize the same natural legal principles. Similarly organic society at its onset is organized into tribes, clans and states.
if by nations you mean the state (thugs) and not the people, hell yeah they do, the more "order", the more control they have over their pawns.
On April 29 2010 01:00 uiCk wrote: no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge,
I can't believe people post no content and call me a troll instead
what have you braught to the table? the only "content" that has been braught forwad, is by other people tying to make you realize your wiki major is pretty weak.
your what i call a life troll.
you know, if my premises are so wrong, then why hasn't anyone went bullet by bullet refuting them. they're in the OP, take a shot saying they are don't make them to be
they will act in my interest because they want my money
No, they'd kill you for that. Because then they wouldn't just have stolen your shit, they'd have everything of yours. They'd also rape your wife, eat your food and live on your land.
They will act in your interest by establishing a covenant with you to no take your shit in exchange for you not doing the same. The mutual renunciation of your right to complete liberty is the foundation of both the identity of a collective (in that people who have not renunciated with you are not part of said collective) and the content of the collective (the scope of the renunciation defines the terms of civil society).
But how do you establish that covenant and make it more than airy aspirations? You can't without enforcement, and the moment you have enforcement, someone has a coercive power over you. Ultimate coercive power needs to rest somewhere.
Cool, so it comes down to the lesser evil then?
Violence and coercion aren't evil. In fact in most deistic conceptions of morality, an objective truth coupled with ultimate coercion is the ultimate good. Even in pre-judeo christian conceptions of mortality, both aristotle and plato would argue that coercion is not simply required, but a good in and of itself for making people align with the virtues or to agathon respectively.
Cruelty and unreasonable application of force, by contrast, do not serve an end in either the consequentialist or deontelogical forms of justice.
Be very careful about using a term like evil without knowing what it means.
not unless they demand tribute regardless of service like a state today does...
Completely irrelevant. If taxes allow the government to outcompete other options with regard to holding a monopoly of force, then taxes will eventually be levied in a stable system.
free association does no harm to anyone...
There is no such thing as a free association according to your axioms. You can't have it both ways.
If someone freely associates as an individual, he does so out of his own interest. Similarly it follows that if he can benefit from damaging the free association, he will. Given that a free association without a central coercive power cannot even enforce the existence of its own membership, i don't see how even the simplest of agreements could be entered into with certainty that they would be performed.
I bash the involuntary ones.
They're all voluntary. If you want to get out of one, maybe they'll come after you, but you have the entire liberty to go into the forest and eat leaves for the rest of your life.
Granted that you aren't doing that, I see that you've wisely voluntarily decided to enjoy all of the amenities of civil society. When you want to exercise the maximum in unrestricted freedom, go to somalia, because their government sure doesn't do very much.
Feel free to see the difference that civil society makes.
I've seen rebuttals for every other service too, would you care to mention so i can ramble about them too...?
Easy example? Health care. Every single numerical indicator says you're wrong on privatization being more efficient. Insurance. Any form of monopoly busting. And so on.
Then again, maybe you'd prefer that Standard Oil was still around. That pesky government had to stop them from using the teamsters (lol private companies using private armies!) because they cornered the market on steel, oil and transport.
But don't take my word for it. Read some mises.org and ignore real world outcomes!
I don't consider homesteaded or traded property to be violence
Property is inherently violent unless no one wants it. The act of unilaterally expropriating everyone else's ability to interact with the object of your property in its purest form is entirely reliant on coercive measures.
Think about the difference between public and private property to flesh that idea out more. Why is one private? Is public property fully public? Why not?
On April 29 2010 00:52 MoltkeWarding wrote: The distinction is irrelevant. As long as people live in a commonwealth of laws, there is a state. You cannot secede from a state, and then continue to live in the same neighbourhood under an entirely different system of laws than your neighbours- unless of course, there is collective secession.
what distinction? I'm not making a distinction, you are. you're making the distinction between an individual v. state and a state v. world. I'm the one being more general and saying it's all the same involuntary thing. A smaller group (all the way down to an individual) v. some larger group than itself subjugating the smaller one to its rule.
yes or no please, do the nations of the world have the right to not be part of an overarching global state?
No, since a completely autonomous country would not recognize a source of "right" which is higher than its own definitions. No nation can impose the view on other nations that she has a "right" to anything.
first, dont fret about rights, when I say right, I actually mean the claim of a right, or otherwise the perceived and respected exclusivity of others.
but that is sad to hear. so you mean, you see that a nation has no grounds to stay sovereign, when its neighbors decide that it's time for it to be subjugated to a global order?
Of course she has grounds; but she cannot appeal in favour of her sovereignty on the basis of some supranational "right." That would require all nations to admit the principle of international law.
I will share some ideas here on the topic that I've been thinking about recently.
The world can be experienced with the senses causing you to interpret the objects that you see. A tree, a rock, a car. There is no way to relate to them, therefor they are objects. However, when you are in the presence of another human being and interact, it creates a dialog between the two of you that is unique to the human race. There can be conversation between people that isn't dialog, polite conversation or asking for directions etc. But if you truly engage in discussion and both people are honest, it creates a relationship called I-Thou, a term coined by German philosopher Martin Buber. It is here that we become human. This has nothing to do with your confidence, inner monologue, plans for the future, outlook on humanity. Just a decision from both people to be real with one another. Afterwards you feel a whole new energy that drives you forward.
What is individualism compared to this? My guess is the time spent between relationships where you do work (study, earn money). Collectivism is the absence of I-Thou relationships that are instead replaced with a collective goal, ignoring any needs that the individual might have.
On April 29 2010 01:00 uiCk wrote: no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge,
I can't believe people post no content and call me a troll instead
what have you braught to the table? the only "content" that has been braught forwad, is by other people tying to make you realize your wiki major is pretty weak.
your what i call a life troll.
you know, if my premises are so wrong, then why hasn't anyone went bullet by bullet refuting them. they're in the OP, take a shot saying they are don't make them to be
too much barking, too little bitting
Your premises have been shown wrong numerous times, but I won't give you every example. Just take this from one of the first responses in the thread:
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote: #1 - The collective is only a group of individuals - I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? T
Tell me, where does marriage, love, political unions exist if not inside each individuals head? Realistically, the individual is indeed everything, and it would make no difference for him if his lovers, friends, and strangers were all MUTANT CYBORGS or even illusions So all of that exists in his head.
You're missing the point. The marriage, or sense of belonging/whatever, may be in his head, but is only possible because of it's existence (or perceived existence, see below).
And if I have to respond to your matrix/cyborg idea: It doesn't change a thing. If only the subject experiences belongingness to a group of any sort, it has already qualitatively altered his subjective consciousness.
You seem to have a hard time accepting this, so I'll use the rest of his example, which is more xplanative, really.
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote: #1 - The collective is only a group of individuals - I contest this premise. The same phenomena is explained with the large group of trees you spoke of earlier. A lone tree is unable to provide much of an ecosystem, but put a whole lot of them in one area and a diverse ecosystem can be sustained. Hence we must agree that the collective is not only a group of individuals, but much more indeed.
You see, the individual tree's conditions i altered by the ecosystem maintained only in the cluster of trees. A tree in a forest is qualitatively different than a lone tree on a field, and not only as a result of it's own merits.
The group alters the conditions of the individual, heck the group alters the individual.
You may say "trees don't have minds" and believe that you refuted this because you only ment to say that people can't know other people's mind, but that makes no difference. I only set out to show your premise was wrong.
One more time: A whole is more than the sum of its parts. If you need other references than this pretty common knowledge, try reading about "emergenece".
If this doesn't sink in you are either extremely stubborn or ignorant.
they will act in my interest because they want my money
No, they'd kill you for that. Because then they wouldn't just have stolen your shit, they'd have everything of yours. They'd also rape your wife, eat your food and live on your land.
They will act in your interest by establishing a covenant with you to no take your shit in exchange for you not doing the same. The mutual renunciation of your right to complete liberty is the foundation of both the identity of a collective (in that people who have not renunciated with you are not part of said collective) and the content of the collective (the scope of the renunciation defines the terms of civil society).
But how do you establish that covenant and make it more than airy aspirations? You can't without enforcement, and the moment you have enforcement, someone has a coercive power over you. Ultimate coercive power needs to rest somewhere.
does walmart rob you everytime you enter their establishment just because they can? That is ridiculous, only lowly criminals think short-term like that. The smart thugs know how to rob you just enough so you keep going, and enough so they have a good life. I mean, look at government, thats what they do, and they're the best at it.
Can't the enforcement take place after the fact? like, innocent till proven guilty type of deal? Covenants can be interchanged without force you know. you can have a third party to arbitrate the deal, and call on you if you break it. people who break contracts are ostracized and lose profit, so its on their interest to not break it...
More rigid contracts w\ more insurance and deposits are made if the risks are greater and if something is so risky that it cant be done then it's not done, too bad.
Violence and coercion aren't evil. In fact in most deistic conceptions of morality, an objective truth coupled with ultimate coercion is the ultimate good. Even in pre-judeo christian conceptions of mortality, both aristotle and plato would argue that coercion is not simply required, but a good in and of itself for making people align with the virtues or to agathon respectively.
Cruelty and unreasonable application of force, by contrast, do not serve an end in either the consequentialist or deontelogical forms of justice.
Be very careful about using a term like evil without knowing what it means.
obviously I don't mean objectively evil... I don't often mean objectively anything unless I'm speaking on tautologies
not unless they demand tribute regardless of service like a state today does...
Completely irrelevant. If taxes allow the government to outcompete other options with regard to holding a monopoly of force, then taxes will eventually be levied in a stable system.
they can't have a de-facto monopoly of a service if they don't arrest everyone that tries to provide that service. only government can institute a de-facto monopoly... otherwise, it's not a monopoly imo. a monopoly in a market of free entry is not really a monopoly but an organization that outperforms everyone so good, that no entrepreneur thinks they can undercut them, so they don't even try. Those monopolies ain't bad, and if they do start raising prices, then guess what, then it's possible to undercut and new companies will seek that profit margin.
There is no such thing as a free association according to your axioms. You can't have it both ways.
If someone freely associates as an individual, he does so out of his own interest. Similarly it follows that if he can benefit from damaging the free association, he will. Given that a free association without a central coercive power cannot even enforce the existence of its own membership, i don't see how even the simplest of agreements could be entered into with certainty that they would be performed.
what? how do you "damage" free association? you're gonna be a thug on the streets and shoot whoever tries to talk to one another? how are you gonna profit from not allowing people to talk and assemble? give me a hypothetical pls, I don't follow.
They're all voluntary. If you want to get out of one, maybe they'll come after you, but you have the entire liberty to go into the forest and eat leaves for the rest of your life.
wow, bravo L. so if I steal your car, you'll say that you gave it to me? seriously?
On April 29 2010 01:19 L wrote: Granted that you aren't doing that, I see that you've wisely voluntarily decided to enjoy all of the amenities of civil society. When you want to exercise the maximum in unrestricted freedom, go to somalia, because their government sure doesn't do very much.
Feel free to see the difference that civil society makes.
Somalia is hardly an anarcho-capitalist place right now. It just doesn't have a conventional modern state. it still has thugish families that take care of the law functions of society and you can only secede from if you have another one to go.
I don't have a family nor contacts in Somalia, if I go there on my free will I couldn't do shit even if I knew their language.
I've seen rebuttals for every other service too, would you care to mention so i can ramble about them too...?
Easy example? Health care. Every single numerical indicator says you're wrong on privatization being more efficient. Insurance. Any form of monopoly busting. And so on.
wow ok. since you conceded that the free market is generally more efficient than bureaucrats writing doodles on papers, tell me what is in healthcare that is so overly complex that can't be solved by entrepreneurs alone? nothing, and we hardly have a free healthcare system today, not limited to the U.S. that is a nice statement you got there, privatization being inefficient. tell me, what is privatization? is it the turning of government property into private property? well by definition, yes, but that is hardly what happens. You know what happens really, is the government leases the establishment to a company in the condition that it follows its regulations. government never ever ever gets out of a market once it's in, unless there's a bloody revolution to take the leeches off or they've screwed up everything so hard that they can't even print more money any longer. privatization is a bad bad joke.
Insurance. what's so hard about insurance that free competing entrepreneurs can't give a good, cheap performing service? Does it require an insane amount of work? By itself, I don't think so really, just some actuaries, people on finance, lawyers... idk. Thats the price of the service, you pay those people at the very least. Then there's overhead of administration and investment. Ok. What else can make it more expensive? Massive government regulation perhaps? Raising the barriers of entry and not allowing entrepreneurs to go in and out of the market when profit windows marginally open? Yea, I guess. So what does government does? Regulates some more, restrict some more, and it gets so shitty to the point that they take it over. Oh how sad. I guess the government will have to boss around this place too, thats unfortunate. But people will have to understand that they're dumb and can't do things right, yes.
Monopoly. what's the crime about monopoly? Has monopoly gotten out from under your bed and spanked you? What is bad about a monopoly that whenever that word gets thrown around people shiver in fear? I don't get it. If a monopoly is being abusive on its prices, then open your own goddamn company and undercut them. You don't think there's people looking for a profit? Don't you understand that's exactly how the economy works? It's people overbidding and undercutting that creates the equilibrium of supply and demand. If a monopoly ever arises non-violently, it's because he has succeeded in being a hell more efficient than anyone else. Why the fuck would it throw its name and brand away by taking people "hostage" (oh noes, he has raised the price on the products he's voluntarily produce! what an outrage!), he would only lose profit then and risk being undercut. You know how he can avoid that however? He can ask papa government to make a bunch of regulations so other entrepreneurs can't come in and invest to undercut, or even mandate that prices be fixed "so that the consumer is protected". Bullshit. Whenever you see government "protecting" the consumer, be 100% sure, it's the opposite. They have no incentive to "protect", and even if they did, it would be by doing absolutely nothing. When a price ceiling is set, every time, it affects the equilibrium price, else it would be pointless. Same deal with a price floor. It's government fixing the prices so there can't be innovation and the now REAL monopoly can be laid back and not have it's margins undercut. tl;dr; -monopoly is not violence as it's not forcing anyone to do anything -unless it has the government to do that job for them -then it's obviously bad since it's violent -but it can only be done w\ the state (edit: disregard)
whenever you hear about the government breaking monopolies, be sure it's the government creating a monopoly (cuz that's what they do, duh) and whenever you hear about privatization, be very very skeptic about the government's ability on lay off their hands over anything (can't do that, nuh-uh)
On April 29 2010 01:19 L wrote: Then again, maybe you'd prefer that Standard Oil was still around. That pesky government had to stop them from using the teamsters (lol private companies using private armies!) because they cornered the market on steel, oil and transport.
cornered by being extremely efficient? what crime has been committed? is offering a service a crime? I guess it is when the government wants to enter a market and control it right... so, now the oil tycoons use government armies instead? how nice of the government, using taxpayer money and lives to stifle competition and create artificial scarcity.
On April 29 2010 01:19 L wrote: But don't take my word for it. Read some mises.org and ignore real world outcomes!
I don't consider homesteaded or traded property to be violence
Property is inherently violent unless no one wants it. The act of unilaterally expropriating everyone else's ability to interact with the object of your property in its purest form is entirely reliant on coercive measures.
yeah man, and me claiming to own my body is also violent because I'm depriving rapists and murderers from raping me, correct?
I see what you doing L, you're just mudding the water on violence so you can call the state legitimate from usurping homesteaded or traded property from others... well not just the state at that rate, even the mafia, thieves, murderers aren't wrong w\ those principles
classic statist...
On April 29 2010 01:19 L wrote:
Think about the difference between public and private property to flesh that idea out more. Why is one private? Is public property fully public? Why not?
public property is a joke. it's state property. there is only unowned property, unownable property (just made that up imo), and owned property public property is property owned by the thugs.
On April 29 2010 00:52 MoltkeWarding wrote: The distinction is irrelevant. As long as people live in a commonwealth of laws, there is a state. You cannot secede from a state, and then continue to live in the same neighbourhood under an entirely different system of laws than your neighbours- unless of course, there is collective secession.
what distinction? I'm not making a distinction, you are. you're making the distinction between an individual v. state and a state v. world. I'm the one being more general and saying it's all the same involuntary thing. A smaller group (all the way down to an individual) v. some larger group than itself subjugating the smaller one to its rule.
yes or no please, do the nations of the world have the right to not be part of an overarching global state?
No, since a completely autonomous country would not recognize a source of "right" which is higher than its own definitions. No nation can impose the view on other nations that she has a "right" to anything.
first, dont fret about rights, when I say right, I actually mean the claim of a right, or otherwise the perceived and respected exclusivity of others.
but that is sad to hear. so you mean, you see that a nation has no grounds to stay sovereign, when its neighbors decide that it's time for it to be subjugated to a global order?
Of course she has grounds; but she cannot appeal in favour of her sovereignty on the basis of some supranational "right." That would require all nations to admit the principle of international law.
so then, I have grounds to say I'm sovereign and wish not to be coerced, correct? I didn't say nothing of objective rights, god damnit, I explicitly said I wasn't in that very quote.
On April 29 2010 01:49 Emon_ wrote: I will share some ideas here on the topic that I've been thinking about recently.
The world can be experienced with the senses causing you to interpret the objects that you see. A tree, a rock, a car. There is no way to relate to them, therefor they are objects. However, when you are in the presence of another human being and interact, it creates a dialog between the two of you that is unique to the human race. There can be conversation between people that isn't dialog, polite conversation or asking for directions etc. But if you truly engage in discussion and both people are honest, it creates a relationship called I-Thou, a term coined by German philosopher Martin Buber. It is here that we become human. This has nothing to do with your confidence, inner monologue, plans for the future, outlook on humanity. Just a decision from both people to be real with one another. Afterwards you feel a whole new energy that drives you forward.
What is individualism compared to this? My guess is the time spent between relationships where you do work (study, earn money). Collectivism is the absence of I-Thou relationships that are instead replaced with a collective goal, ignoring any needs that the individual might have.
thats cool but individualism does include voluntary interaction my definition of collectivism in contrast includes involuntary interactions where what the individual wants is secondary to what "the greater good" needs ITT I call that bs
Monopoly. what's the crime about monopoly? Has monopoly gotten out from under your bed and spanked you? What is bad about a monopoly that whenever that word gets thrown around people shiver in fear? I don't get it. If a monopoly is being abusive on its prices, then open your own goddamn company and undercut them. You don't think there's people looking for a profit? Don't you understand that's exactly how the economy works? It's people overbidding and undercutting that creates the equilibrium of supply and demand. If a monopoly ever arises non-violently, it's because he has succeeded in being a hell more efficient than anyone else. Why the fuck would it throw its name and brand away by taking people "hostage" (oh noes, he has raised the price on the products he's voluntarily produce! what an outrage!), he would only lose profit then and risk being undercut. You know how he can avoid that however? He can ask papa government to make a bunch of regulations so other entrepreneurs can't come in and invest to undercut, or even mandate that prices be fixed "so that the consumer is protected". Bullshit. Whenever you see government "protecting" the consumer, be 100% sure, it's the opposite. They have no incentive to "protect", and even if they did, it would be by doing absolutely nothing. When a price ceiling is set, every time, it affects the equilibrium price, else it would be pointless. Same deal with a price floor. It's government fixing the prices so there can't be innovation and the now REAL monopoly can be laid back and not have it's margins undercut. tl;dr; -monopoly is not violence as it's not forcing anyone to do anything -unless it has the government to do that job for them -then it's obviously bad since it's violent -but it can only be done w\ the state
whenever you hear about the government breaking monopolies, be sure it's the government creating a monopoly (cuz that's what they do, duh) and whenever you hear about privatization, be very very skeptic about the government's ability on lay off their hands over anything (can't do that, nuh-uh) .
LOLOLOLOLZ
did you know guys, monopolies are super awsome! LOLZ . so much epic lulz in your desperate 48h of writting nonsense on TL (have you slept yet?)
On April 29 2010 01:00 uiCk wrote: no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge,
I can't believe people post no content and call me a troll instead
what have you braught to the table? the only "content" that has been braught forwad, is by other people tying to make you realize your wiki major is pretty weak.
your what i call a life troll.
you know, if my premises are so wrong, then why hasn't anyone went bullet by bullet refuting them. they're in the OP, take a shot saying they are don't make them to be
too much barking, too little bitting
Your premises have been shown wrong numerous times, but I won't give you every example. Just take this from one of the first responses in the thread:
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote: #1 - The collective is only a group of individuals - I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? T
Tell me, where does marriage, love, political unions exist if not inside each individuals head? Realistically, the individual is indeed everything, and it would make no difference for him if his lovers, friends, and strangers were all MUTANT CYBORGS or even illusions So all of that exists in his head.
You're missing the point. The marriage, or sense of belonging/whatever, may be in his head, but is only possible because of it's existence (or perceived existence, see below).
And if I have to respond to your matrix/cyborg idea: It doesn't change a thing. If only the subject experiences belongingness to a group of any sort, it has already qualitatively altered his subjective consciousness.
it's still his consciousness. It's not an external entity's consciousness. It's not the "greater good"'s consciousness. Don't matter to me what happens within when I'm just trying to show there can't be a greater good when it's just a group of individuals. there is a good for each individual, and those may be assumed to be the same, but you'll never know before hand, only after the fact if you allow them to choose the (perhaps coinciding) means.
premise not invalidated
On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote: You seem to have a hard time accepting this, so I'll use the rest of his example, which is more xplanative, really.
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote: #1 - The collective is only a group of individuals - I contest this premise. The same phenomena is explained with the large group of trees you spoke of earlier. A lone tree is unable to provide much of an ecosystem, but put a whole lot of them in one area and a diverse ecosystem can be sustained. Hence we must agree that the collective is not only a group of individuals, but much more indeed.
You see, the individual tree's conditions i altered by the ecosystem maintained only in the cluster of trees. A tree in a forest is qualitatively different than a lone tree on a field, and not only as a result of it's own merits.
The group alters the conditions of the individual, heck the group alters the individual.
still only the individual has changed. no new creature has been formed out of the group of trees, much less a common entity overarching all of them. unless you mean bushes and shit but then I'd have to include bushes in the definition of a forest also. so, just picture a forest with only trees.
On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote: You may say "trees don't have minds" and believe that you refuted this because you only ment to say that people can't know other people's mind, but that makes no difference. I only set out to show your premise was wrong.
no, the analogy is just relative to the group being made up of single elements and nothing else... theres probably a better analogy out there. but really, why is it so hard?
whats wrong about the premise? have you found something that exists besides the trees in a forest? or an external conscience out of the individuals and among them all? do tell, would be a first. or maybe second.
On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote: One more time: A whole is more than the sum of its parts. If you need other references than this pretty common knowledge, try reading about "emergenece".
what's "more" about it?
On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote: If this doesn't sink in you are either extremely stubborn or ignorant.
...or trolling me, but I don't think so.
I'm not trolling, I just don't see anything there but trees or anything in a society but people and their individual goals their characteristics may be alike but that doesn't create anything outside of them
if it does, it would be something supernatural, like spirits, or god, maybe.
Monopoly. what's the crime about monopoly? Has monopoly gotten out from under your bed and spanked you? What is bad about a monopoly that whenever that word gets thrown around people shiver in fear? I don't get it. If a monopoly is being abusive on its prices, then open your own goddamn company and undercut them. You don't think there's people looking for a profit? Don't you understand that's exactly how the economy works? It's people overbidding and undercutting that creates the equilibrium of supply and demand. If a monopoly ever arises non-violently, it's because he has succeeded in being a hell more efficient than anyone else. Why the fuck would it throw its name and brand away by taking people "hostage" (oh noes, he has raised the price on the products he's voluntarily produce! what an outrage!), he would only lose profit then and risk being undercut. You know how he can avoid that however? He can ask papa government to make a bunch of regulations so other entrepreneurs can't come in and invest to undercut, or even mandate that prices be fixed "so that the consumer is protected". Bullshit. Whenever you see government "protecting" the consumer, be 100% sure, it's the opposite. They have no incentive to "protect", and even if they did, it would be by doing absolutely nothing. When a price ceiling is set, every time, it affects the equilibrium price, else it would be pointless. Same deal with a price floor. It's government fixing the prices so there can't be innovation and the now REAL monopoly can be laid back and not have it's margins undercut. tl;dr; -monopoly is not violence as it's not forcing anyone to do anything -unless it has the government to do that job for them -then it's obviously bad since it's violent -but it can only be done w\ the state
whenever you hear about the government breaking monopolies, be sure it's the government creating a monopoly (cuz that's what they do, duh) and whenever you hear about privatization, be very very skeptic about the government's ability on lay off their hands over anything (can't do that, nuh-uh) .
LOLOLOLOLZ
did you know guys, monopolies are super awsome! LOLZ . so much epic lulz in your desperate 48h of writting nonsense on TL (have you slept yet?)
Monopoly. what's the crime about monopoly? Has monopoly gotten out from under your bed and spanked you? What is bad about a monopoly that whenever that word gets thrown around people shiver in fear? I don't get it. If a monopoly is being abusive on its prices, then open your own goddamn company and undercut them. You don't think there's people looking for a profit? Don't you understand that's exactly how the economy works? It's people overbidding and undercutting that creates the equilibrium of supply and demand. If a monopoly ever arises non-violently, it's because he has succeeded in being a hell more efficient than anyone else. Why the fuck would it throw its name and brand away by taking people "hostage" (oh noes, he has raised the price on the products he's voluntarily produce! what an outrage!), he would only lose profit then and risk being undercut. You know how he can avoid that however? He can ask papa government to make a bunch of regulations so other entrepreneurs can't come in and invest to undercut, or even mandate that prices be fixed "so that the consumer is protected". Bullshit. Whenever you see government "protecting" the consumer, be 100% sure, it's the opposite. They have no incentive to "protect", and even if they did, it would be by doing absolutely nothing. When a price ceiling is set, every time, it affects the equilibrium price, else it would be pointless. Same deal with a price floor. It's government fixing the prices so there can't be innovation and the now REAL monopoly can be laid back and not have it's margins undercut. tl;dr; -monopoly is not violence as it's not forcing anyone to do anything -unless it has the government to do that job for them -then it's obviously bad since it's violent -but it can only be done w\ the state
whenever you hear about the government breaking monopolies, be sure it's the government creating a monopoly (cuz that's what they do, duh) and whenever you hear about privatization, be very very skeptic about the government's ability on lay off their hands over anything (can't do that, nuh-uh) .
LOLOLOLOLZ
did you know guys, monopolies are super awsome! LOLZ . so much epic lulz in your desperate 48h of writting nonsense on TL (have you slept yet?)
GLENN BECK IZ THIZ YOU? lols
Yeah son that's me sup
your the first guy i meat thats pro monopolies LOLZ
Monopoly. what's the crime about monopoly? Has monopoly gotten out from under your bed and spanked you? What is bad about a monopoly that whenever that word gets thrown around people shiver in fear? I don't get it. If a monopoly is being abusive on its prices, then open your own goddamn company and undercut them. You don't think there's people looking for a profit? Don't you understand that's exactly how the economy works? It's people overbidding and undercutting that creates the equilibrium of supply and demand. If a monopoly ever arises non-violently, it's because he has succeeded in being a hell more efficient than anyone else. Why the fuck would it throw its name and brand away by taking people "hostage" (oh noes, he has raised the price on the products he's voluntarily produce! what an outrage!), he would only lose profit then and risk being undercut. You know how he can avoid that however? He can ask papa government to make a bunch of regulations so other entrepreneurs can't come in and invest to undercut, or even mandate that prices be fixed "so that the consumer is protected". Bullshit. Whenever you see government "protecting" the consumer, be 100% sure, it's the opposite. They have no incentive to "protect", and even if they did, it would be by doing absolutely nothing. When a price ceiling is set, every time, it affects the equilibrium price, else it would be pointless. Same deal with a price floor. It's government fixing the prices so there can't be innovation and the now REAL monopoly can be laid back and not have it's margins undercut. tl;dr; -monopoly is not violence as it's not forcing anyone to do anything -unless it has the government to do that job for them -then it's obviously bad since it's violent -but it can only be done w\ the state
whenever you hear about the government breaking monopolies, be sure it's the government creating a monopoly (cuz that's what they do, duh) and whenever you hear about privatization, be very very skeptic about the government's ability on lay off their hands over anything (can't do that, nuh-uh) .
LOLOLOLOLZ
did you know guys, monopolies are super awsome! LOLZ . so much epic lulz in your desperate 48h of writting nonsense on TL (have you slept yet?)
GLENN BECK IZ THIZ YOU? lols
Yeah son that's me sup
your the first guy i meat thats pro monopolies LOLZ
Yeah. very unusual since I was taught they're bad in school also.
also corrected the last premise. a monopoly could be violent w\o a state, who am I to say it can't. point being, nothing wrong with providing a service and nothing more.
I invent an awesome product that also only I can make. Therefore, being the sole supplier, I'm a monopolist of it I'm selling it for one million dollars. Is that a crime? Am I holding people hostage by offering something?
On April 29 2010 02:33 fellcrow wrote: Monopolies are ridiculous. They stop the free enterprise, capitalist, system that the US government has. Monopolies rightfully shouldn't be allowed.
how does a company offering a service stops others from doing things give me any hypothetical
You making a monopoly charging ANY amount you want for your product is fine. Lets use gasoline. You own 100% of all gasoline. It costs you $1 to extract the gas, move it to where you want, cover overheads, etc. You sell your gas for $100 an ounce. You are now the only gas company making a ridiculous amount of profit selling a product for an amount ridiculously more then it is worth OR economically viable for anyone to buy. That is wrong. The american government made monopolies illegal for a reason. Corrupt people, like you, think they are right to fuck people over.
On April 29 2010 02:39 fellcrow wrote: You making a monopoly charging ANY amount you want for your product is fine. Lets use gasoline. You own 100% of all gasoline. It costs you $1 to extract the gas, move it to where you want, cover overheads, etc. You sell your gas for $100 an ounce. You are now the only gas company making a ridiculous amount of profit selling a product for an amount ridiculously more then it is worth OR economically viable for anyone to buy. That is wrong. The american government made monopolies illegal for a reason. Corrupt people, like you, think they are right to fuck people over.
why is it wrong to do whatever I want with my legally obtained property? I'm not stealing anything from you I'm not stopping anyone to do anything in their control
I'm as right to do what I want with my business as you are with yours, thats free enterprise yo.
No. I LOST my ability to compete with you because you will buy me out if i ever tried to join it. Part of the free enterprise, capital, system is that i have the ABILITY to do something if i so wish. I lost my ability when you made a monopoly.
On April 29 2010 02:39 fellcrow wrote: You making a monopoly charging ANY amount you want for your product is fine. Lets use gasoline. You own 100% of all gasoline. It costs you $1 to extract the gas, move it to where you want, cover overheads, etc. You sell your gas for $100 an ounce. You are now the only gas company making a ridiculous amount of profit selling a product for an amount ridiculously more then it is worth OR economically viable for anyone to buy. That is wrong. The american government made monopolies illegal for a reason. Corrupt people, like you, think they are right to fuck people over.
why is it wrong to do whatever I want with my legally obtained property? I'm not stealing anything from you I'm not stopping anyone to do anything in their control
I'm as right to do what I want with my business as you are with yours, thats free enterprise yo.
There's no such thing as legally obtained property, or legality, without laws imposed by a collective...
On April 29 2010 02:43 fellcrow wrote: No. I LOST my ability to compete with you because you will buy me out if i ever tried to join it. Part of the free enterprise, capital, system is that i have the ABILITY to do something if i so wish. I lost my ability when you made a monopoly.
do you feel entitled to compete with me? do you feel entitled to my gasoline? that would be you wanting to steal my shit, would it not?
The enterprise system I am LEGALLY allowed and should have the ability to fight with you. In a free enterprise system it is not stealing .THAT is why a monopoly is illegal. Ok go be a communist. Monopolies are not illegal there. But there is areason why they ARE illegal in free enterprise.
The better question is why kind of a market are you talking about a monopoly in. You live in china and wanna have a monopoly. Go ahead. You're basically the government. But in America, monoplies are illegal, and if you can't see why they are illegal, then you are ignorant.
On April 29 2010 02:39 fellcrow wrote: You making a monopoly charging ANY amount you want for your product is fine. Lets use gasoline. You own 100% of all gasoline. It costs you $1 to extract the gas, move it to where you want, cover overheads, etc. You sell your gas for $100 an ounce. You are now the only gas company making a ridiculous amount of profit selling a product for an amount ridiculously more then it is worth OR economically viable for anyone to buy. That is wrong. The american government made monopolies illegal for a reason. Corrupt people, like you, think they are right to fuck people over.
why is it wrong to do whatever I want with my legally obtained property? I'm not stealing anything from you I'm not stopping anyone to do anything in their control
I'm as right to do what I want with my business as you are with yours, thats free enterprise yo.
There's no such thing as legally obtained property, or legality, without laws imposed by a collective...
I was just speaking in colletivish but youre semi-wrong a brief example of a lawful yet individualist society
individuals can set their laws in the form of contracts everytime a transaction is needed they can hire a third party to intermediate the process and make everything as simple as is it now except that you'd have a choice on whose courts are you gonna go to, and whose police station you gonna call. if a party breaks the deal, they get punished, or if the society is quite the pacifist one, then he just wouldnt be trusted anymore, be blacklisted, and then won't be able to trade w\ those who care about contractual law.
no buying food or work would suck a bit for the thief. hed have to be constantly stealing, or would just have to go away. If he keeps robbing people well, by the nature of self defense, sooner or later someone would incapacitate him imo. sadly
On April 29 2010 02:39 fellcrow wrote: You making a monopoly charging ANY amount you want for your product is fine. Lets use gasoline. You own 100% of all gasoline. It costs you $1 to extract the gas, move it to where you want, cover overheads, etc. You sell your gas for $100 an ounce. You are now the only gas company making a ridiculous amount of profit selling a product for an amount ridiculously more then it is worth OR economically viable for anyone to buy. That is wrong. The american government made monopolies illegal for a reason. Corrupt people, like you, think they are right to fuck people over.
why is it wrong to do whatever I want with my legally obtained property? I'm not stealing anything from you I'm not stopping anyone to do anything in their control
I'm as right to do what I want with my business as you are with yours, thats free enterprise yo.
There's no such thing as legally obtained property, or legality, without laws imposed by a collective...
I was just speaking in colletivish but youre semi-wrong a brief example of a lawful yet individualist society
individuals can set their laws in the form of contracts everytime a transaction is needed they can hire a third party to intermediate the process and make everything as simple as is it now except that you'd have a choice on whose courts are you gonna go to, and whose police station you gonna call. if a party breaks the deal, they get punished, or if the society is quite the pacifist one, then he just wouldnt be trusted anymore, be blacklisted, and then won't be able to trade w\ those who care about contractual law.
no buying food or work would suck a bit for the thief. hed have to be constantly stealing, or would just have to go away. If he keeps robbing people well, by the nature of self defense, sooner or later someone would incapacitate him imo. sadly
Why is there a police station? Laws for them to enforce can't be defined without a collective.
On April 29 2010 02:48 fellcrow wrote: The enterprise system I am LEGALLY allowed and should have the ability to fight with you. In a free enterprise system it is not stealing .THAT is why a monopoly is illegal. Ok go be a communist. Monopolies are not illegal there. But there is areason why they ARE illegal in free enterprise.
The better question is why kind of a market are you talking about a monopoly in. You live in china and wanna have a monopoly. Go ahead. You're basically the government. But in America, monoplies are illegal, and if you can't see why they are illegal, then you are ignorant.
what? so I'm forced to give you my gasoline by the state because you can't buy it? are the sellers of luxury cars forced to give cars away to people for free too, so they can in turn compete w\ them?
and thats not stealing? you're stealing my shit, literally, only because you feel entitled to compete with me. Dude, if you can't compete, that's your own incapacity. Not my fault.
The government *is* the monopoly of many things in america, legal services, roads, police, army, you say it. so obv you got something wrong there.
On April 29 2010 02:39 fellcrow wrote: You making a monopoly charging ANY amount you want for your product is fine. Lets use gasoline. You own 100% of all gasoline. It costs you $1 to extract the gas, move it to where you want, cover overheads, etc. You sell your gas for $100 an ounce. You are now the only gas company making a ridiculous amount of profit selling a product for an amount ridiculously more then it is worth OR economically viable for anyone to buy. That is wrong. The american government made monopolies illegal for a reason. Corrupt people, like you, think they are right to fuck people over.
why is it wrong to do whatever I want with my legally obtained property? I'm not stealing anything from you I'm not stopping anyone to do anything in their control
I'm as right to do what I want with my business as you are with yours, thats free enterprise yo.
There's no such thing as legally obtained property, or legality, without laws imposed by a collective...
I was just speaking in colletivish but youre semi-wrong a brief example of a lawful yet individualist society
individuals can set their laws in the form of contracts everytime a transaction is needed they can hire a third party to intermediate the process and make everything as simple as is it now except that you'd have a choice on whose courts are you gonna go to, and whose police station you gonna call. if a party breaks the deal, they get punished, or if the society is quite the pacifist one, then he just wouldnt be trusted anymore, be blacklisted, and then won't be able to trade w\ those who care about contractual law.
no buying food or work would suck a bit for the thief. hed have to be constantly stealing, or would just have to go away. If he keeps robbing people well, by the nature of self defense, sooner or later someone would incapacitate him imo. sadly
Why is there a police station? Laws for them to enforce can't be defined without a collective.
self-defense protective services you know there's people that hire bodyguards and private security even today right?
laws can be defined interpersonally. I think the only problem youd run into is w\ private property against anarcho-communist its a very common debate "I won't respect your claim to own yourself! nor what you make! It's all ours!" "k" fucking commies lol
On April 29 2010 02:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: if you can't defend yourself from government "theft" that's your incapacity and therefore it's your fault
Very good. so you see no difference between creating something, and taking away that which was made by others? it's all human action and might makes right?
On April 29 2010 02:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: if you can't defend yourself from government "theft" that's your incapacity and therefore it's your fault
Very good. so you see no difference between creating something, and taking away that which was made by others? it's all human action and might makes right?
On April 29 2010 02:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: if you can't defend yourself from government "theft" that's your incapacity and therefore it's your fault
Very good. so you see no difference between creating something, and taking away that which was made by others? it's all human action and might makes right?
thats swell, but I want to make sure
no on both counts
then you see the difference between "I claim to own that which I created" and "I claim to own that which you created" ("and I act on that predictment too, np")
government constantly applies the latter which I find repugnant. do you not?
On April 29 2010 02:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: if you can't defend yourself from government "theft" that's your incapacity and therefore it's your fault
Very good. so you see no difference between creating something, and taking away that which was made by others? it's all human action and might makes right?
thats swell, but I want to make sure
no on both counts
then you see the difference between "I claim to own that which I created" and "I claim to own that which you created" ("and I act on that predictment too, np")
government constantly applies the latter which I find repugnant. do you not?
unjustified assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created
On April 29 2010 02:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: if you can't defend yourself from government "theft" that's your incapacity and therefore it's your fault
Very good. so you see no difference between creating something, and taking away that which was made by others? it's all human action and might makes right?
thats swell, but I want to make sure
no on both counts
then you see the difference between "I claim to own that which I created" and "I claim to own that which you created" ("and I act on that predictment too, np")
government constantly applies the latter which I find repugnant. do you not?
unjustified assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created
if you want me to try to justify the first I could give you the whole course on natural rights and all that crap but it's going to be arbitrary anyways, so it comes down to either you accept it or you don't
On April 29 2010 02:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: if you can't defend yourself from government "theft" that's your incapacity and therefore it's your fault
Very good. so you see no difference between creating something, and taking away that which was made by others? it's all human action and might makes right?
thats swell, but I want to make sure
no on both counts
then you see the difference between "I claim to own that which I created" and "I claim to own that which you created" ("and I act on that predictment too, np")
government constantly applies the latter which I find repugnant. do you not?
unjustified assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created
if you want me to try to justify the first I could give you the whole course on natural rights and all that crap but it's going to be arbitrary anyways, so it comes down to either you accept it or you don't
do you respect private property or not?
it's a generally good idea but the supremacy of property rights above all is not absolute
On April 29 2010 02:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: if you can't defend yourself from government "theft" that's your incapacity and therefore it's your fault
Very good. so you see no difference between creating something, and taking away that which was made by others? it's all human action and might makes right?
thats swell, but I want to make sure
no on both counts
then you see the difference between "I claim to own that which I created" and "I claim to own that which you created" ("and I act on that predictment too, np")
government constantly applies the latter which I find repugnant. do you not?
unjustified assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created
if you want me to try to justify the first I could give you the whole course on natural rights and all that crap but it's going to be arbitrary anyways, so it comes down to either you accept it or you don't
do you respect private property or not?
it's a generally good idea but the supremacy of property rights above all is not absolute
I didn't say it was so then
you would respect my claim that "I own that which I create" and would not respect the thief's claim that "I own that which I can grab from others fuck yeah"?
On April 29 2010 03:00 EmeraldSparks wrote: obviously a completely libertarian society can * function *
but why the fuck would we bother
not paying taxes would be a huge benefit imo but it's for each to decide, right.
do we keep stealing from everyone or cut the bullshit? latter pls.
we keep stealing from everyone because societies without taxes are retarded
thought experiment time. would you a thousand years ago say "societies without slavery are retarded"? think.
no, because taxation isn't slavery
I see, so you would say "slavery isn't barbarianism, they still let you live and don't rape your wife" haha
Slavery (also called thralldom) is a form of forced labour in which people are considered to be the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand wages. In some societies it was legal for an owner to kill a slave; in others it was a crime.[1]
How is taxation slavery? Yurebis, you need to be consistent. If you talk about rights and stealing you obviously believe in a government. What kind of government? On every argument you set up a new scenario that best fits your argument. This is why debates are done in person and not over text. You are manipulating everything. Debates are forums are fail.
On April 29 2010 03:00 EmeraldSparks wrote: obviously a completely libertarian society can * function *
but why the fuck would we bother
not paying taxes would be a huge benefit imo but it's for each to decide, right.
do we keep stealing from everyone or cut the bullshit? latter pls.
we keep stealing from everyone because societies without taxes are retarded
thought experiment time. would you a thousand years ago say "societies without slavery are retarded"? think.
no, because taxation isn't slavery
I see, so you would say "slavery isn't barbarianism, they still let you live and don't rape your wife" haha
no if you and your wife are slaves they will actually rape your wife and you can't do anything about it
comparing the statement "taxation is fine" to "slavery is fine" is retarded come off it
it's not retarded, it's different degrees of aggression and yeah I guess they'd rape your wife in both cases.
in slavery, the master claims control over 100% of your assets and your body in democracy, the state elected by your neighbors claim control over.. idk, 40% of your assets.
On April 29 2010 03:14 fellcrow wrote: How is taxation slavery? Yurebis, you need to be consistent. If you talk about rights and stealing you obviously believe in a government. What kind of government? On every argument you set up a new scenario that best fits your argument. This is why debates are done in person and not over text. You are manipulating everything. Debates are forums are fail.
make your own hypotheticals then, if you dont like mine
On April 29 2010 02:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: if you can't defend yourself from government "theft" that's your incapacity and therefore it's your fault
Very good. so you see no difference between creating something, and taking away that which was made by others? it's all human action and might makes right?
thats swell, but I want to make sure
no on both counts
then you see the difference between "I claim to own that which I created" and "I claim to own that which you created" ("and I act on that predictment too, np")
government constantly applies the latter which I find repugnant. do you not?
unjustified assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created
if you want me to try to justify the first I could give you the whole course on natural rights and all that crap but it's going to be arbitrary anyways, so it comes down to either you accept it or you don't
do you respect private property or not?
it's a generally good idea but the supremacy of property rights above all is not absolute
I didn't say it was so then
you would respect my claim that "I own that which I create" and would not respect the thief's claim that "I own that which I can grab from others fuck yeah"?
in general, yes
caveats: 1. rarely, but sometimes private theft is justified 2. society acting in concert can legitimately do things that individual citizens cannot 3. assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created
On April 29 2010 03:00 EmeraldSparks wrote: obviously a completely libertarian society can * function *
but why the fuck would we bother
not paying taxes would be a huge benefit imo but it's for each to decide, right.
do we keep stealing from everyone or cut the bullshit? latter pls.
we keep stealing from everyone because societies without taxes are retarded
thought experiment time. would you a thousand years ago say "societies without slavery are retarded"? think.
no, because taxation isn't slavery
I see, so you would say "slavery isn't barbarianism, they still let you live and don't rape your wife" haha
no if you and your wife are slaves they will actually rape your wife and you can't do anything about it
comparing the statement "taxation is fine" to "slavery is fine" is retarded come off it
it's not retarded, it's different degrees of aggression and yeah I guess they'd rape your wife in both cases.
in slavery, the master claims control over 100% of your assets and your body in democracy, the state elected by your neighbors claim control over.. idk, 40% of your assets.
a police officer control over speeding drivers and hitler's control over nazi germany were "different degrees of aggression" but comparing them is still retarded
On April 29 2010 02:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: if you can't defend yourself from government "theft" that's your incapacity and therefore it's your fault
Very good. so you see no difference between creating something, and taking away that which was made by others? it's all human action and might makes right?
thats swell, but I want to make sure
no on both counts
then you see the difference between "I claim to own that which I created" and "I claim to own that which you created" ("and I act on that predictment too, np")
government constantly applies the latter which I find repugnant. do you not?
unjustified assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created
if you want me to try to justify the first I could give you the whole course on natural rights and all that crap but it's going to be arbitrary anyways, so it comes down to either you accept it or you don't
do you respect private property or not?
it's a generally good idea but the supremacy of property rights above all is not absolute
I didn't say it was so then
you would respect my claim that "I own that which I create" and would not respect the thief's claim that "I own that which I can grab from others fuck yeah"?
in general, yes
caveats: 1. rarely, but sometimes private theft is justified 2. society acting in concert can legitimately do things that individual things cannot 3. assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created
its k on point number 2, like what, invading property rights maybe? on 3, nothing is completely created (unless you consider intellectual property legit, i dont) but transforming from unused resources is good enough. homesteading. from there on, trading, etc.
On April 29 2010 03:00 EmeraldSparks wrote: obviously a completely libertarian society can * function *
but why the fuck would we bother
not paying taxes would be a huge benefit imo but it's for each to decide, right.
do we keep stealing from everyone or cut the bullshit? latter pls.
we keep stealing from everyone because societies without taxes are retarded
thought experiment time. would you a thousand years ago say "societies without slavery are retarded"? think.
no, because taxation isn't slavery
I see, so you would say "slavery isn't barbarianism, they still let you live and don't rape your wife" haha
no if you and your wife are slaves they will actually rape your wife and you can't do anything about it
comparing the statement "taxation is fine" to "slavery is fine" is retarded come off it
it's not retarded, it's different degrees of aggression and yeah I guess they'd rape your wife in both cases.
in slavery, the master claims control over 100% of your assets and your body in democracy, the state elected by your neighbors claim control over.. idk, 40% of your assets.
a police officer control over speeding drivers and hitler's control over nazi germany were "different degrees of aggression" but comparing them is still retarded
actually I think a police officer giving tickets is the one thing thats somewhat justified parting from the premise that the state owns the roads. but how did they get to own the roads, was obviously by coercing private money, so it was wrong, and it could be claimed that they don't own it after all. until theres a proper privatization, that muddy situation will be... muddy.
On April 29 2010 02:55 EmeraldSparks wrote: if you can't defend yourself from government "theft" that's your incapacity and therefore it's your fault
Very good. so you see no difference between creating something, and taking away that which was made by others? it's all human action and might makes right?
thats swell, but I want to make sure
no on both counts
then you see the difference between "I claim to own that which I created" and "I claim to own that which you created" ("and I act on that predictment too, np")
government constantly applies the latter which I find repugnant. do you not?
unjustified assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created
if you want me to try to justify the first I could give you the whole course on natural rights and all that crap but it's going to be arbitrary anyways, so it comes down to either you accept it or you don't
do you respect private property or not?
it's a generally good idea but the supremacy of property rights above all is not absolute
I didn't say it was so then
you would respect my claim that "I own that which I create" and would not respect the thief's claim that "I own that which I can grab from others fuck yeah"?
in general, yes
caveats: 1. rarely, but sometimes private theft is justified 2. society acting in concert can legitimately do things that individual things cannot 3. assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created
its k on point number 2, like what, invading property rights maybe? on 3, nothing is completely created (unless you consider intellectual property legit, i dont) but transforming from unused resources is good enough. homesteading. from there on, trading, etc.
On point 2 - the state has the legitimacy to do a lot of things that private citizens cannot. If the properly operating justice organ of a society puts a thief in jail for a year, that's more or less justified; if I catch a thief and lock him in my basement for a year, that's not justified. As another example, the government of a society can own cruise missiles; private citizens and corporations should not be allowed to. On point 3 - that's more or less exactly my point. Now, this doesn't meant that people should have carte blanche to take away your shit on the assumption that you didn't create it all, but it does allow for taxation for "society's contribution to your wealth." Wealth today is so absurdly far removed from homesteading and "unused resource exploitation" (who owns those resources in the first place) that anything you do is integrally tied into society.
On April 29 2010 03:00 EmeraldSparks wrote: obviously a completely libertarian society can * function *
but why the fuck would we bother
not paying taxes would be a huge benefit imo but it's for each to decide, right.
do we keep stealing from everyone or cut the bullshit? latter pls.
we keep stealing from everyone because societies without taxes are retarded
thought experiment time. would you a thousand years ago say "societies without slavery are retarded"? think.
no, because taxation isn't slavery
I see, so you would say "slavery isn't barbarianism, they still let you live and don't rape your wife" haha
no if you and your wife are slaves they will actually rape your wife and you can't do anything about it
comparing the statement "taxation is fine" to "slavery is fine" is retarded come off it
it's not retarded, it's different degrees of aggression and yeah I guess they'd rape your wife in both cases.
in slavery, the master claims control over 100% of your assets and your body in democracy, the state elected by your neighbors claim control over.. idk, 40% of your assets.
a police officer control over speeding drivers and hitler's control over nazi germany were "different degrees of aggression" but comparing them is still retarded
actually I think a police officer giving tickets is the one thing thats somewhat justified parting from the premise that the state owns the roads. but how did they get to own the roads, was obviously by coercing private money, so it was wrong, and it could be claimed that they don't own it after all. until theres a proper privatization, that muddy situation will be... muddy.
you can't claim that the government doesn't own the roads
you can claim that the government * shouldn't * own the roads but it's pretty clear that they do
On April 29 2010 03:19 EmeraldSparks wrote: i merged the two separate discussions in one post i'm a badass
I don't flood other threads so I'm inflating my postcount with this one sup
On April 29 2010 03:19 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On April 29 2010 03:12 Yurebis wrote:
On April 29 2010 03:10 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On April 29 2010 03:09 Yurebis wrote:
On April 29 2010 03:07 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On April 29 2010 03:06 Yurebis wrote:
On April 29 2010 03:03 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On April 29 2010 03:01 Yurebis wrote: [quote] Very good. so you see no difference between creating something, and taking away that which was made by others? it's all human action and might makes right?
thats swell, but I want to make sure
no on both counts
then you see the difference between "I claim to own that which I created" and "I claim to own that which you created" ("and I act on that predictment too, np")
government constantly applies the latter which I find repugnant. do you not?
unjustified assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created
if you want me to try to justify the first I could give you the whole course on natural rights and all that crap but it's going to be arbitrary anyways, so it comes down to either you accept it or you don't
do you respect private property or not?
it's a generally good idea but the supremacy of property rights above all is not absolute
I didn't say it was so then
you would respect my claim that "I own that which I create" and would not respect the thief's claim that "I own that which I can grab from others fuck yeah"?
in general, yes
caveats: 1. rarely, but sometimes private theft is justified 2. society acting in concert can legitimately do things that individual things cannot 3. assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created
its k on point number 2, like what, invading property rights maybe? on 3, nothing is completely created (unless you consider intellectual property legit, i dont) but transforming from unused resources is good enough. homesteading. from there on, trading, etc.
On point 2 - the state has the legitimacy to do a lot of things that private citizens cannot. If the properly operating justice organ of a society puts a thief in jail for a year, that's more or less justified; if I catch a thief and lock him in my basement for a year, that's not justified. As another example, the government of a society can own cruise missiles; private citizens and corporations should not be allowed to.
I know what you mean but to be exact, when you say "is justified" you mean "I see it as justified"? I say it like that (too?) and I hate when people call me out on it but I just have to make sure for what I'm about to say. assuming you are from here on.
there is no practical difference between the state incarcerating someone and a private agency doing the same, correct? The only difference is on the perception of others whether it was right or not, on a case-by-case analysis. Many people see the war on Iraq illegitimate, despite being the saintly US government that started it. So government ain't the law or god. What it does can be see as illegitimate, yeah? Just like if you started a war, same deal.
On April 29 2010 03:30 EmeraldSparks wrote: On point 3 - that's more or less exactly my point. Now, this doesn't meant that people should have carte blanche to take away your shit on the assumption that you didn't create it all, but it does allow for taxation for "society's contribution to your wealth."
does not
On April 29 2010 03:30 EmeraldSparks wrote: Wealth today is so absurdly far removed from homesteading and "unused resource exploitation" (who owns those resources in the first place) that anything you do is integrally tied into society.
I meant unowned. Like, me by going in a forest and grabbing an apple, have not stolen anything from anyone, because its an unowned and unused apple tree, and the whole forest in fact. I would also not respect the claim to own a piece of land just by fencing around it. gotta transform more than just putting a flag on it and declaring it yours. but thats besides the point
and it's not removed at all. from cutting down the trees, extracting oil, transporting them to a factory, making shit, distributing, through all that business I don't know nothing about, there is rigid control in the part of the entrepreneurs who own, transform, and trade those resources into products.
unlike the government, who has no part in creating or transforming anything. they just boss around, take some cash, and give back shitty services just so we wont outright kill them all in a bloody madness of revolutionizing rage. rar.
also, unsolicited services should not be payed at all. if I wash your car without you asking for it, would you recognize my right of stealing you $10 for it? thats what the government does with their services basically.
On April 29 2010 03:02 Yurebis wrote: [quote] not paying taxes would be a huge benefit imo but it's for each to decide, right.
do we keep stealing from everyone or cut the bullshit? latter pls.
we keep stealing from everyone because societies without taxes are retarded
thought experiment time. would you a thousand years ago say "societies without slavery are retarded"? think.
no, because taxation isn't slavery
I see, so you would say "slavery isn't barbarianism, they still let you live and don't rape your wife" haha
no if you and your wife are slaves they will actually rape your wife and you can't do anything about it
comparing the statement "taxation is fine" to "slavery is fine" is retarded come off it
it's not retarded, it's different degrees of aggression and yeah I guess they'd rape your wife in both cases.
in slavery, the master claims control over 100% of your assets and your body in democracy, the state elected by your neighbors claim control over.. idk, 40% of your assets.
a police officer control over speeding drivers and hitler's control over nazi germany were "different degrees of aggression" but comparing them is still retarded
actually I think a police officer giving tickets is the one thing thats somewhat justified parting from the premise that the state owns the roads. but how did they get to own the roads, was obviously by coercing private money, so it was wrong, and it could be claimed that they don't own it after all. until theres a proper privatization, that muddy situation will be... muddy.
you can't claim that the government doesn't own the roads
you can claim that the government * shouldn't * own the roads but it's pretty clear that they do
yeah I guess, w/e edit: naw, fuck you, I won't concede. the government CLAIMS to own the roads, but what has it done to make them? It stole some money from citizens gave it to a constructor company there, it's theirs
god damnit, if I steal your dough, buy me a stereo, do I own the stereo? thats what I meant.
On April 29 2010 01:00 uiCk wrote: no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge,
I can't believe people post no content and call me a troll instead
what have you braught to the table? the only "content" that has been braught forwad, is by other people tying to make you realize your wiki major is pretty weak.
your what i call a life troll.
you know, if my premises are so wrong, then why hasn't anyone went bullet by bullet refuting them. they're in the OP, take a shot saying they are don't make them to be
too much barking, too little bitting
Your premises have been shown wrong numerous times, but I won't give you every example. Just take this from one of the first responses in the thread:
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote: #1 - The collective is only a group of individuals - I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? T
Tell me, where does marriage, love, political unions exist if not inside each individuals head? Realistically, the individual is indeed everything, and it would make no difference for him if his lovers, friends, and strangers were all MUTANT CYBORGS or even illusions So all of that exists in his head.
You're missing the point. The marriage, or sense of belonging/whatever, may be in his head, but is only possible because of it's existence (or perceived existence, see below).
And if I have to respond to your matrix/cyborg idea: It doesn't change a thing. If only the subject experiences belongingness to a group of any sort, it has already qualitatively altered his subjective consciousness.
it's still his consciousness. It's not an external entity's consciousness. It's not the "greater good"'s consciousness.
Here you are doing what I later in the post preemptively pointed out you shouldn't do. It's not about your agenda in this thread (collectivism and all), I just want to disprove premise #1, the point follows.
On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote: Don't matter to me what happens within when I'm just trying to show there can't be a greater good when it's just a group of individuals. there is a good for each individual, and those may be assumed to be the same, but you'll never know before hand, only after the fact if you allow them to choose the (perhaps coinciding) means.
premise not invalidated
Still, it's only premise #1, stop defending your position on collectivism it's irrelevant here.
----- Tried to put things in quotes and stuff here, but messed up, I'll jump to the point:
On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote: I'm not trolling, I just don't see anything there but trees or anything in a society but people and their individual goals their characteristics may be alike but that doesn't create anything outside of them
if it does, it would be something supernatural, like spirits, or god, maybe.
Take heed of the above objections and forget the society and individual goals for a moment.
It is still only trees in the forest, no new entities are made. But the individual trees are altered by the group/collective. They are no longer what they were on their own. There don't need to be new entities, there just need to be added something to the equation.
On their own, the trees were 1.
Grouped together something was added, in a cluster the individual tree is: 1+s
The cluster is then n(1+s) where n is the number of trees.
n =|= n(1+s)
Thus #1 is false, a group is more than a sum of individuals although it is only made entities called individuals.
Linkin park told me to be an individual and independent so i am an individualist and I think it rocks woooo even if in the end it doesnt even matterrrrr
On April 29 2010 01:00 uiCk wrote: no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge,
I can't believe people post no content and call me a troll instead
what have you braught to the table? the only "content" that has been braught forwad, is by other people tying to make you realize your wiki major is pretty weak.
your what i call a life troll.
you know, if my premises are so wrong, then why hasn't anyone went bullet by bullet refuting them. they're in the OP, take a shot saying they are don't make them to be
too much barking, too little bitting
Your premises have been shown wrong numerous times, but I won't give you every example. Just take this from one of the first responses in the thread:
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote: #1 - The collective is only a group of individuals - I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? T
Tell me, where does marriage, love, political unions exist if not inside each individuals head? Realistically, the individual is indeed everything, and it would make no difference for him if his lovers, friends, and strangers were all MUTANT CYBORGS or even illusions So all of that exists in his head.
You're missing the point. The marriage, or sense of belonging/whatever, may be in his head, but is only possible because of it's existence (or perceived existence, see below).
And if I have to respond to your matrix/cyborg idea: It doesn't change a thing. If only the subject experiences belongingness to a group of any sort, it has already qualitatively altered his subjective consciousness.
it's still his consciousness. It's not an external entity's consciousness. It's not the "greater good"'s consciousness.
Here you are doing what I later in the post preemptively pointed out you shouldn't do. It's not about your agenda in this thread (collectivism and all), I just want to disprove premise #1, the point follows.
what follows? that the individuals consciousness has been changed by external entities? big deal? doesn't conflict with there being nothing other than many individuals' consciousnesses within that group of individuals
On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote: Don't matter to me what happens within when I'm just trying to show there can't be a greater good when it's just a group of individuals. there is a good for each individual, and those may be assumed to be the same, but you'll never know before hand, only after the fact if you allow them to choose the (perhaps coinciding) means.
premise not invalidated
Still, it's only premise #1, stop defending your position on collectivism it's irrelevant here.
no u
On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote: ----- Tried to put things in quotes and stuff here, but messed up, I'll jump to the point:
I use a copy+paste of like (/quote)
(QUOTE)(B)On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote/B) that I set up every reply
i paste that shit right where I want to comment and type inside of it so good, no mistakes ever
On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote: I'm not trolling, I just don't see anything there but trees or anything in a society but people and their individual goals their characteristics may be alike but that doesn't create anything outside of them
if it does, it would be something supernatural, like spirits, or god, maybe.
Take heed of the above objections and forget the society and individual goals for a moment.
It is still only trees in the forest, no new entities are made. But the individual trees are altered by the group/collective. They are no longer what they were on their own. There don't need to be new entities, there just need to be added something to the equation.
On their own, the trees were 1.
Grouped together something was added, in a cluster the individual tree is: 1+s
The cluster is then n(1+s) where n is the number of trees.
n =|= n(1+s)
Thus #1 is false, a group is more than a sum of individuals although it is only made entities called individuals.
wtf. it's still a tree. It don't matter to me even if it would turn pink and be embarrassed for being around other trees because it's naked, or self-explode due to bizarre atomic reactions, it's still just a tree. the point of the analogy is not to say that the individual elements are unchanged no matter what, they can change, i dont give a shit, but no new entity has been created out of it. there is no external consciousness out of the individual there can be no external goal therefore, the greater good is at best an illusion
On April 29 2010 03:53 TheAntZ wrote: Linkin park told me to be an individual and independent so i am an individualist and I think it rocks woooo even if in the end it doesnt even matterrrrr
On April 29 2010 01:00 uiCk wrote: no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge,
I can't believe people post no content and call me a troll instead
what have you braught to the table? the only "content" that has been braught forwad, is by other people tying to make you realize your wiki major is pretty weak.
your what i call a life troll.
you know, if my premises are so wrong, then why hasn't anyone went bullet by bullet refuting them. they're in the OP, take a shot saying they are don't make them to be
too much barking, too little bitting
Your premises have been shown wrong numerous times, but I won't give you every example. Just take this from one of the first responses in the thread:
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote: #1 - The collective is only a group of individuals - I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? T
Tell me, where does marriage, love, political unions exist if not inside each individuals head? Realistically, the individual is indeed everything, and it would make no difference for him if his lovers, friends, and strangers were all MUTANT CYBORGS or even illusions So all of that exists in his head.
You're missing the point. The marriage, or sense of belonging/whatever, may be in his head, but is only possible because of it's existence (or perceived existence, see below).
And if I have to respond to your matrix/cyborg idea: It doesn't change a thing. If only the subject experiences belongingness to a group of any sort, it has already qualitatively altered his subjective consciousness.
it's still his consciousness. It's not an external entity's consciousness. It's not the "greater good"'s consciousness.
Here you are doing what I later in the post preemptively pointed out you shouldn't do. It's not about your agenda in this thread (collectivism and all), I just want to disprove premise #1, the point follows.
what follows? that the individuals consciousness has been changed by external entities? big deal? doesn't conflict with there being nothing other than many individuals' consciousnesses within that group of individuals
On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote: Don't matter to me what happens within when I'm just trying to show there can't be a greater good when it's just a group of individuals. there is a good for each individual, and those may be assumed to be the same, but you'll never know before hand, only after the fact if you allow them to choose the (perhaps coinciding) means.
premise not invalidated
Still, it's only premise #1, stop defending your position on collectivism it's irrelevant here.
no u
On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote: ----- Tried to put things in quotes and stuff here, but messed up, I'll jump to the point:
I use a copy+paste of like (/quote)
(QUOTE)(B)On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote/B) that I set up every reply
i paste that shit right where I want to comment and type inside of it so good, no mistakes ever
On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote: I'm not trolling, I just don't see anything there but trees or anything in a society but people and their individual goals their characteristics may be alike but that doesn't create anything outside of them
if it does, it would be something supernatural, like spirits, or god, maybe.
Take heed of the above objections and forget the society and individual goals for a moment.
It is still only trees in the forest, no new entities are made. But the individual trees are altered by the group/collective. They are no longer what they were on their own. There don't need to be new entities, there just need to be added something to the equation.
On their own, the trees were 1.
Grouped together something was added, in a cluster the individual tree is: 1+s
The cluster is then n(1+s) where n is the number of trees.
n =|= n(1+s)
Thus #1 is false, a group is more than a sum of individuals although it is only made entities called individuals.
wtf. it's still a tree. It don't matter to me even if it would turn pink and be embarrassed for being around other trees because it's naked, or self-explode due to bizarre atomic reactions, it's still just a tree. the point of the analogy is not to say that the individual elements are unchanged no matter what, they can change, i dont give a shit, but no new entity has been created out of it. there is no external consciousness out of the individual there can be no external goal therefore, the greater good is at best an illusion
Jeeesus Christ*. I took all that effort telling you to forget the minds of individuals for a moment - setting it up so it should be fairly understandable to anyone that the following point (the one at the end of the post obv) has NOTHING to do with external consciousness, and yet you fall back to it. That post was only on premise #1. I give up on you.
On April 29 2010 01:00 uiCk wrote: no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge,
I can't believe people post no content and call me a troll instead
what have you braught to the table? the only "content" that has been braught forwad, is by other people tying to make you realize your wiki major is pretty weak.
your what i call a life troll.
you know, if my premises are so wrong, then why hasn't anyone went bullet by bullet refuting them. they're in the OP, take a shot saying they are don't make them to be
too much barking, too little bitting
Your premises have been shown wrong numerous times, but I won't give you every example. Just take this from one of the first responses in the thread:
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote: #1 - The collective is only a group of individuals - I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? T
Tell me, where does marriage, love, political unions exist if not inside each individuals head? Realistically, the individual is indeed everything, and it would make no difference for him if his lovers, friends, and strangers were all MUTANT CYBORGS or even illusions So all of that exists in his head.
You're missing the point. The marriage, or sense of belonging/whatever, may be in his head, but is only possible because of it's existence (or perceived existence, see below).
And if I have to respond to your matrix/cyborg idea: It doesn't change a thing. If only the subject experiences belongingness to a group of any sort, it has already qualitatively altered his subjective consciousness.
it's still his consciousness. It's not an external entity's consciousness. It's not the "greater good"'s consciousness.
Here you are doing what I later in the post preemptively pointed out you shouldn't do. It's not about your agenda in this thread (collectivism and all), I just want to disprove premise #1, the point follows.
what follows? that the individuals consciousness has been changed by external entities? big deal? doesn't conflict with there being nothing other than many individuals' consciousnesses within that group of individuals
On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote: Don't matter to me what happens within when I'm just trying to show there can't be a greater good when it's just a group of individuals. there is a good for each individual, and those may be assumed to be the same, but you'll never know before hand, only after the fact if you allow them to choose the (perhaps coinciding) means.
premise not invalidated
Still, it's only premise #1, stop defending your position on collectivism it's irrelevant here.
no u
On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote: ----- Tried to put things in quotes and stuff here, but messed up, I'll jump to the point:
I use a copy+paste of like (/quote)
(QUOTE)(B)On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote/B) that I set up every reply
i paste that shit right where I want to comment and type inside of it so good, no mistakes ever
On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote: I'm not trolling, I just don't see anything there but trees or anything in a society but people and their individual goals their characteristics may be alike but that doesn't create anything outside of them
if it does, it would be something supernatural, like spirits, or god, maybe.
Take heed of the above objections and forget the society and individual goals for a moment.
It is still only trees in the forest, no new entities are made. But the individual trees are altered by the group/collective. They are no longer what they were on their own. There don't need to be new entities, there just need to be added something to the equation.
On their own, the trees were 1.
Grouped together something was added, in a cluster the individual tree is: 1+s
The cluster is then n(1+s) where n is the number of trees.
n =|= n(1+s)
Thus #1 is false, a group is more than a sum of individuals although it is only made entities called individuals.
wtf. it's still a tree. It don't matter to me even if it would turn pink and be embarrassed for being around other trees because it's naked, or self-explode due to bizarre atomic reactions, it's still just a tree. the point of the analogy is not to say that the individual elements are unchanged no matter what, they can change, i dont give a shit, but no new entity has been created out of it. there is no external consciousness out of the individual there can be no external goal therefore, the greater good is at best an illusion
Jeeesus Christ*. I took all that effort telling you to forget the minds of individuals for a moment - setting it up so it should be fairly understandable to anyone that the following point (the one at the end of the post obv) has NOTHING to do with external consciousness, and yet you fall back to it. That post was only on premise #1. I give up on you.
* Don't believe in him of course ^^
why not break down your points like I do. let me try.
1-a tree is a certain arrangement of molecules 2-those molecules may change arrangement when another tree is nearby 3-therefore, this arrangement of molecules has gained something
in response 2- I don't give a damn if it's changed, it's still a damn tree 3- changing isn't gaining something new
does walmart rob you everytime you enter their establishment just because they can?
Does wallmart exist in civil society wherein the sword of the state would crush them if they did so?
Yes.
Does wallmart's position in society constitute a renunciation of their right to self governance and an authorization of the state to act against them?
Yes.
Go look at what you're quoting then tell me if an organization like wallmart is a good example. Somali pirates might work a bit better. And yes, they would rob me.
Covenants can be interchanged without force you know. you can have a third party to arbitrate the deal, and call on you if you break it. people who break contracts are ostracized and lose profit, so its on their interest to not break it..
The third party, if able to enforce the agreement, has coercive measures and violence against both of you. You further assume that people who break contracts are ostracized (ie, gain stigma) and lose profit, but that's operating under the assumption of perfect knowledge, which is false. This is completely demolished by the parable of Gyges.
If you cannot be held accountable because your anti-social behavior cannot be detected, then there's no deterrence. What's more, if you're perfectly immoral and excellent at it, not only will you not appear to break your contracts, but you'll appear like a beacon of morality and gain plenty of profit. What's more, if the profit accrued by a single breach of covenant was large enough, no amount of stigma would deter it. In the most charitable instance, every covenant becomes an evaluation of how much stigma would be gained vs how much profit there was to be made by breach.
Your example regarding the "smart" thief shortly before works here; a smart thief would break covenants which would minimize stigma (he'd kill certain people to shut them up, bully the old and weak, put fear into people so they don't say anything, pay off the people responsible for spreading news related to stigma, etc), and would maximize self gain.
how do you "damage" free association?
Easiest method? Break covenants regarding free association as per the above schema.
that is a nice statement you got there, privatization being inefficient.
It is because its true in that sector. There isn't a single case study which proves otherwise. The profit motive does not optimally mesh with every potential service.
Monopoly. what's the crime about monopoly?
There's no crime until its made a crime by civil society.
That said, you're showing your true colours by pretending that free markets work well when dominated by monopolies; your entire argument in the OP is essentially an attempt at attacking the power monopoly of governments. Somewhat contradictory that you'd ignore the same ability to levy force when the instrument is not called a government, but I don't really expect better from bread thinkers.
cornered by being extremely efficient? what crime has been committed? is offering a service a crime? I guess it is when the government wants to enter a market and control it right...
If by being extremely efficient you mean hired the mob to fuck their competition at night and refused to let anyone that didn't play by their rules use the railways, then yes. They were efficient. Efficient at consolidating power.
Feel free to look up the history of Standard Oil. Don't even bother defending yourself on this point until you do because its clear you have no idea what you're talking about if you think free markets and cornered markets are the same thing.
yeah man, and me claiming to own my body is also violent because I'm depriving rapists and murderers from raping me, correct?
How do you claim your body? By preventing someone else from exercising their will to kill you. Yes. That's violence.
Oh shit, violence and force can be used in a justifiable manner! Better re-look at that truistic hatred of government!
public property is a joke. it's state property. there is only unowned property, unownable property (just made that up imo), and owned property public property is property owned by the thugs.
No, actually it isn't. I can create public property in the private sphere by the granting of servitudes or unlimited implied licenses. Go back to my question and try again without the canned talking points.
and the best for last:
wow, bravo L. so if I steal your car, you'll say that you gave it to me? seriously?
Strawman. Try again.
Somalia is hardly an anarcho-capitalist place right now. It just doesn't have a conventional modern state. it still has thugish families that take care of the law functions of society and you can only secede from if you have another one to go.
I don't have a family nor contacts in Somalia, if I go there on my free will I couldn't do shit even if I knew their language.
Nah bro. The lack of a modern state means you can build your dream world there. Bet it all on the hope of not getting shot at night and having all of your stuff stolen.
On April 29 2010 05:45 Yurebis wrote: why not break down your points like I do. let me try.
1-a tree is a certain arrangement of molecules 2-those molecules may change arrangement when another tree is nearby 3-therefore, this arrangement of molecules has gained something
in response 2- I don't give a damn if it's changed, it's still a damn tree 3- changing isn't gaining something new
is it clear now?
You been telling people to read up on all sorts of stuff. My advice for you is to read up on emergence, then apply to said premise. I don't want to continue this as it is going nowhere.
does walmart rob you everytime you enter their establishment just because they can?
Does wallmart exist in civil society wherein the sword of the state would crush them if they did so?
Yes.
you really think the state is a bigger threat to them rather than its customers never coming back and them losing profits? what if they're operating at a third world country where the police force is inexistant why dont they enslave a whole country there w\ their cash
because contrary to popular thought, violence is expensive. the crime does not pay not because of punishment, but because of retaliation and lack of a long term prospect of profit unless of course, you got the government watching your back and people see your crime as legitimate so its not really a crime then
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote: Does wallmart's position in society constitute a renunciation of their right to self governance and an authorization of the state to act against them?
Yes.
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.
Covenants can be interchanged without force you know. you can have a third party to arbitrate the deal, and call on you if you break it. people who break contracts are ostracized and lose profit, so its on their interest to not break it..
The third party, if able to enforce the agreement, has coercive measures and violence against both of you. You further assume that people who break contracts are ostracized (ie, gain stigma) and lose profit, but that's operating under the assumption of perfect knowledge, which is false. This is completely demolished by the parable of Gyges.
It's not coercive if it was agreed upon by both parties beforehand. hence its a contract... a deal, an agreement.
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote: If you cannot be held accountable because your anti-social behavior cannot be detected, then there's no deterrence. What's more, if you're perfectly immoral and excellent at it, not only will you not appear to break your contracts, but you'll appear like a beacon of morality and gain plenty of profit. What's more, if the profit accrued by a single breach of covenant was large enough, no amount of stigma would deter it. In the most charitable instance, every covenant becomes an evaluation of how much stigma would be gained vs how much profit there was to be made by breach.
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. You're not the first person in the world to know that L, and if such immense barriers exist where a certain business model cannot exist without coercion, too bad, it may not come to exist w\o a state after all. Why is it that you think anything that man does requires some type coercion? Have a cup of peace, jesus.
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote: Your example regarding the "smart" thief shortly before works here; a smart thief would break covenants which would minimize stigma (he'd kill certain people to shut them up, bully the old and weak, put fear into people so they don't say anything, pay off the people responsible for spreading news related to stigma, etc), and would maximize self gain.
I didn't get half of what you said but sounds like government black ops to me amirite?
anyways. who is to stop such a clever clever criminal today, the state police? haha he'd probably be the sheriff himself, being that smart. What's a better spot to be in as a thief and murdered if not inside the sanctified state itself?
Easiest method? Break covenants regarding free association as per the above schema.
You know, I used to think controlling the flow of information was easy like that too, you pay people off, kill those that can't be bribed... but seriously, by doing that, you're rasing the price of whatever information you're trying to conceal so much, that it becomes increasingly more rewarding to those who know to sell it elsewhere. so.. to be able to do all that consistently, you either got to be mad rich or mad powerful. in which case, if you're one of the two already, you're probably better off just lobbying the gov't to get whatever evil plan you have in mind done for cheap
I mean what would be easier, pay off a thousand people to shut up, or idk, pay off some key representatives to enact a censorship law? or paying off the FBI and state police chiefs?
Politics is the art of making people pay for their own miseries. You pay to get fucked up, rly.
that is a nice statement you got there, privatization being inefficient.
It is because its true in that sector. There isn't a single case study which proves otherwise. The profit motive does not optimally mesh with every potential service.
it's not true privatization because again, the government never, 99% of the time, shrinks a service or department. it does not like to layoff its bureaucrats. If there's a department taking care of healthcare, and they've "privatized" some places, that department is not going to close. It's gonna keep regulating behind another company. What government calls privatization more often than not is just a lease under the same regulatory thugs.
There's no crime until its made a crime by civil society.
That said, you're showing your true colours by pretending that free markets work well when dominated by monopolies; your entire argument in the OP is essentially an attempt at attacking the power monopoly of governments. Somewhat contradictory that you'd ignore the same ability to levy force when the instrument is not called a government, but I don't really expect better from bread thinkers.
you see, I've used the word monopoly contradictorily I don't know how many times and I don't bother to check but, the popular definition is "a sole provider of a certain goods or services" and I've used that some, but sometimes I also mean it as what now is "legal monopoly" just by saying "monopoly", which is a sole provider as well, but one that has reached its status by force, by literally, coercively shutting down the competitors by the gun, by mandate.
so there really isn't a contradiction, I just slipped a few. to make explicit 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 a market monopoly is the first (unless they're shady, which then probably means they're protected by the state anyways. the state doesn't like competition on shadiness so they either join or break lol)
cornered by being extremely efficient? what crime has been committed? is offering a service a crime? I guess it is when the government wants to enter a market and control it right...
If by being extremely efficient you mean hired the mob to fuck their competition at night and refused to let anyone that didn't play by their rules use the railways, then yes. They were efficient. Efficient at consolidating power.
that I'm against and you know I'm against. but it certainly certainly is not what naturally happens there's hundreds of successful multinational corporations in the world, how many of them could you say are violent? id say at most like, 1%
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote: Feel free to look up the history of Standard Oil. Don't even bother defending yourself on this point until you do because its clear you have no idea what you're talking about if you think free markets and cornered markets are the same thing.
I don't need to. Even if the state, a mafia, knocked out some other mafia per say, it's still just mafias colliding didn't do anyone a favor.
yeah man, and me claiming to own my body is also violent because I'm depriving rapists and murderers from raping me, correct?
How do you claim your body? By preventing someone else from exercising their will to kill you. Yes. That's violence.
Oh shit, violence and force can be used in a justifiable manner! Better re-look at that truistic hatred of government!
we're using different words for the same thing then what I mean by violence are unjustifiable interpersonal acts so.. that was it.. you were using violence to say any interpersonal act that interferes the other party in any way?
so, is me changing the patterns of pixels in your screen violence, since I'm affecting your vision? the word violence loses it's meaning like that imo
public property is a joke. it's state property. there is only unowned property, unownable property (just made that up imo), and owned property public property is property owned by the thugs.
No, actually it isn't. I can create public property in the private sphere by the granting of servitudes or unlimited implied licenses. Go back to my question and try again without the canned talking points.
it's still your property, you're just allowing people to walk on it... re-reading
On April 29 2010 01:19 L wrote:
Think about the difference between public and private property to flesh that idea out more. Why is one private? Is public property fully public? Why not?
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)
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote: and the best for last:
wow, bravo L. so if I steal your car, you'll say that you gave it to me? seriously?
Strawman. Try again.
it was a slight strawman, but your definition of voluntary is trash voluntary doesn't mean "you have a choice between eating the bullet, running away, or performing fellatio 4 me" it means you're free to reject the proposal and be left alone you're joking if you mean that the state is voluntary because they're limited to a certain area, or they're still invading my property and not leaving me alone if I don't want to pay them thugs. the word voluntary is meaningless like that
Somalia is hardly an anarcho-capitalist place right now. It just doesn't have a conventional modern state. it still has thugish families that take care of the law functions of society and you can only secede from if you have another one to go.
I don't have a family nor contacts in Somalia, if I go there on my free will I couldn't do shit even if I knew their language.
Nah bro. The lack of a modern state means you can build your dream world there. Bet it all on the hope of not getting shot at night and having all of your stuff stolen.
On April 29 2010 05:45 Yurebis wrote: why not break down your points like I do. let me try.
1-a tree is a certain arrangement of molecules 2-those molecules may change arrangement when another tree is nearby 3-therefore, this arrangement of molecules has gained something
in response 2- I don't give a damn if it's changed, it's still a damn tree 3- changing isn't gaining something new
is it clear now?
You been telling people to read up on all sorts of stuff. My advice for you is to read up on emergence, then apply to said premise. I don't want to continue this as it is going nowhere.
ok
... so, by emergence, you mean, new atoms are gonna pop out the tree and form something new? jk I'll read..
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.
that ring of gyges story is really cute. but that doesnt disprove praxeology at all in fact it's very compatible (praxeology is value-free, so it can also explain the actions of a vile person)
assuming that the person who's invisible is also somewhat invulnerable (cuz it seems like he is): you can't stop him from stealing shit, raping you can't inflict damage upon him in exchange can't recognize him can't in fact even know he's next to you!
meaning, he cannot be retaliated upon, and he cannot be avoided so obviously self-defense won't help, ostracism won't help and that mofo is gonna run free raping bitches like a fucker
but that doesn't mean much in the real world where people are not invulnerable nor invisible. you mess with someone, you better be ready to suffer back and people knowing what others are able to do, are also able to prepare against the worse. so violence can always be minimized further and further down by the virtue of technology and capital retention.
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.
ok hefty I've read a little on emergence and it is a curious thing I may modify #1 a little bit just so it doesn't offend u, mr. strong emergence
as you could tell already the premise has nothing to do on whether a certain pattern of trees could create some sort of system so awesome that is something unique
but more on the consciousness property of individuals
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 06:43 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.
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
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
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?
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...
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
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
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
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.
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.
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 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)
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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 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
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.
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 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!
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...
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...
Earns what? Who enforces the law? This isn't about investigation. Its about enforcement. Does he go around like a bounty hunter just locking people up in his van? If so, how isn't he a mercenary, and how isn't 'law' not just what the highest bidder pays said mercenaries?
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?
So self defense isn't violence? Justified violence that's acceptable and unjustified violence that isn't acceptable are both VIOLENCE.
Its making you crazy because you can't deal with the fact that one of your major ideological reservations about government is that you don't think their application of coercion is justified, ergo you feel it correct to label it violence and thus evil. You're the one who's imported moralistic language and had it completely frame your perspective, and frankly until you get out of that method of thinking you're going to find plenty of problems with throwing around terms like evil and attempting to use terms like "violence" pejoratively.
once someone does that, word can go out, company loses credibility, some other entrepreneur can come and undercut him
Word gets out how? Why do you assume people know? Would the rating agency want to tell people that their ratings are biased? No. Would the company want to tell people that their rating is a lie? Quid pro quo between the two and you're fine.
I read a bit more sounds like bullshit says it's voluntary yeah right.
It is, just like its voluntary if someone else puts a gun to your head and you give them your wallet. While the action itself was intentional, the circumstances indicate that it wasn't borne out of consent.
Voluntarity and consent are not the same thing. Consent means that two minds have met and agree. Voluntarity means you're doing something out of your own free will. I can voluntarily steal bread because I have no money, for instance. Let me give you an example:
If you're sitting in an electric chair and I give you two options. One is to kill a little girl. The other is to kill 5 little girls. If you refuse to choose one of the two options in a minute, I electrocute you, then I kill all 6 little girls. While I am applying duress which would vitiate your consent (ie, you would rather not have anyone die) and you wouldn't have the same MOTIVE as the person you're dealing with, nevertheless your act to pick the one little girl to die is voluntary. You may be picking the least evil possibility, but its still you picking.
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.
I don't see how this is relevant at all given that you already made the admission that coercive monopolies aren't your cup of tea (which is what standard oil was). You've already admitted what you're trying to disprove here and inductive logic doesn't mean that the conclusion found via induction is wrong.
shouldn't it be called... "private property that people can walk on, np"?
Do you even remember why you're talking about malls at this point, or have you completely ignored the initial question? It is private property that is public in nature. Hence it is public private property. A person's house is private, private property. A government run park is public public property. A government armory is public private property. We're talking about the first public, as per my last post.
Feel free to examine the difference between THAT form of public compared with private in the context of what I asked you the first time.
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...
Earns what?
earns money directly from his clients, payment for his services as opposed to earning a fixed bounty stolen from all taxpayers (the socialist way)
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote: Who enforces the law?
the same way that morals only exist inside each person's head, the law is also just a formal manifestation of each person's head people will adopt those codes that best facilitate peaceful human interaction, because no one likes to get hurt those who do indeed not mind coercing others, will find no more ease doing so than in todays society especially if he's a government thug. he'll be missing these days like it was heaven for him.
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote: This isn't about investigation. Its about enforcement. Does he go around like a bounty hunter just locking people up in his van?
1-He will do what he's payed to do 2-I believe such coercive actions are not needed 3-he just has to collect evidence enough to prove the thief is a thief in court 4-the thief is blacklisted and has to repay the victim to get cleared
there is generally no need to "enforce" the law beyond self-defense, and if there is, then the code which people agree upon will account for those very specific situations.
...I can't think of any examples... can you? self defense itself is broad enough for matters of... defense... and you can call self defense a type of violent enforcement, I don't give a shit, you'd do the same, would you not? unless you're jesus or something.
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote: If so, how isn't he a mercenary, and how isn't 'law' not just what the highest bidder pays said mercenaries?
not so
and law can be said to be just that in today's society, when you only have to pay off key people in government to go unpunished or to twist law your way
you seem to come from a perspective where everything is perfect and I'm trying to destroy all that man built the state hasn't built shit. the founding fathers failed. it's a shitty system of separation of powers that does not work. the people on top are not gods, they have the same monetary incentives than everyone below, and can be corrupted just as much.
its not a question whether "corruption is possible in ur system?", its a question of "which system has the best incentive mechanisms to deal with it?" I haven't even fully explained how a court system could work (I'm no legal expert, I believe and have explained why I believe thousands of competing experts can do a much better job than some monopolist pigs) and you're so damn defensive rejecting it already.
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?
So self defense isn't violence? Justified violence that's acceptable and unjustified violence that isn't acceptable are both VIOLENCE.
why make that separation is a kiss to your lips violence because it's interfering with your ability to talk? it's justified because (normally) it's consented and that's all that matters the way you're calling human interpersonal action violence, there's no discernment w\ anything. talking to you could be violence screaming at you certainly could be violence just being in front of you, not allowing to move your body through the space where I occupy, could be violence So me existing, by disallowing you to move through me, is violence? better definitions please
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote: Its making you crazy because you can't deal with the fact that one of your major ideological reservations about government is that you don't think their application of coercion is justified, ergo you feel it correct to label it violence and thus evil. You're the one who's imported moralistic language and had it completely frame your perspective,
yes
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote: and frankly until you get out of that method of thinking you're going to find plenty of problems with throwing around terms like evil and attempting to use terms like "violence" pejoratively.
your definition sux, sry. semantics. you know what I mean by violence (perceived unjust interpersonal action) and I know what you mean by violence (anything asgasfagahadshas hurrr)
once someone does that, word can go out, company loses credibility, some other entrepreneur can come and undercut him
Word gets out how? Why do you assume people know? Would the rating agency want to tell people that their ratings are biased? No. Would the company want to tell people that their rating is a lie? Quid pro quo between the two and you're fine.
those very problems apply to the status quo and if you got an idea on how to solve them, guess what, yo can open your company and show people how much more trustworthy you are w\ your devices. you'll be leading in no time because you're such a genius. no one is stuck w\ a one-size-fits-all system in a free market. whenever a new idea comes up, it can be implemented instantly, no need for bureaucrats
anyway
word gets out same way as it does today people know roughly the same way the private officials will prob. be better than the police or any federal agency for that matter the agency would have an incentive to be as transparent as possible if its customers want it to, or else it can be undercut by a more trustworthy agency (no such thing happens in a monopolistic system where they do in fact never have an incentive to be transparent besides a little bit on reelection time) quid pro quo between who?
I read a bit more sounds like bullshit says it's voluntary yeah right.
It is, just like its voluntary if someone else puts a gun to your head and you give them your wallet. While the action itself was intentional, the circumstances indicate that it wasn't borne out of consent.
thats ridic. your definition of voluntary is just as twisted as that of violence.
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote: Voluntarity and consent are not the same thing. Consent means that two minds have met and agree. Voluntarity means you're doing something out of your own free will. I can voluntarily steal bread because I have no money, for instance. Let me give you an example:
If you're sitting in an electric chair and I give you two options. One is to kill a little girl. The other is to kill 5 little girls. If you refuse to choose one of the two options in a minute, I electrocute you, then I kill all 6 little girls. While I am applying duress which would vitiate your consent (ie, you would rather not have anyone die) and you wouldn't have the same MOTIVE as the person you're dealing with, nevertheless your act to pick the one little girl to die is voluntary. You may be picking the least evil possibility, but its still you picking.
if you define free will to exist even under duress.. then I guess it's valid but it's still a useless definition like that I guess I'll have to use consent instead of voluntary 4 u? just so we're on the same page
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.
I don't see how this is relevant at all given that you already made the admission that coercive monopolies aren't your cup of tea (which is what standard oil was). You've already admitted what you're trying to disprove here and inductive logic doesn't mean that the conclusion found via induction is wrong.
I didn't want to disprove the case specifically. I'm saying, if standard oil didn't do anything w\o people's consent, then it did not deserve to be acted upon w\o consent. I don't know the specifics and frankly I don't care what the statist perspective has to say about that ("we're always right and you should be glad we steal from u")
shouldn't it be called... "private property that people can walk on, np"?
Do you even remember why you're talking about malls at this point, or have you completely ignored the initial question? It is private property that is public in nature. Hence it is public private property. A person's house is private, private property. A government run park is public public property. A government armory is public private property. We're talking about the first public, as per my last post.
Feel free to examine the difference between THAT form of public compared with private in the context of what I asked you the first time.
ok the second word is what matters and the second word makes the claim of property an exclusive right to the owner the first word is just an authorization for use given by the owner to anyone who wants to use it a bit, or a prohibition of any use at all by the owner unless specified explicitly good enough?
if your point is to say that private private property (or public publicstate property) is "violence" because it denies other people from the use of it, don't have to tell me, I know
the law is also just a formal manifestation of each person's head
This makes no sense.
people will adopt those codes that best facilitate peaceful human interaction, because no one likes to get hurt
Who adopts these codes? Who enforces them?
You're basically saying people are going to follow the rule of law even in situations in which its in their best interest not to, which simply doesn't happen without enforcement. If you were right, we wouldn't need police, people wouldn't steal, and communism would probably have worked out pretty well. Attempting to use the objectivist "stigma" as a deterrent is already disproven by gyges, so you're left with the need for your voluntary society to dole out legitimate violence.
Once you do that, you have a government and a collective. So you're back to square 1.
1-He will do what he's payed to do 2-I believe such coercive actions are not needed 3-he just has to collect evidence enough to prove the thief is a thief in court 4-the thief is blacklisted and has to repay the victim to get cleared
1- Okay, I pay him to lock up my competition. 2- They are. 3- WHAT COURT? THERE IS NO FUCKING COURT. 4- Already dealt with.
Jesus you keep stating the exact same 'solutions' without dealing with THE GLARING PROBLEMS WITH THEM.
not so
You admit it in section 1 of the prior post, so we're pretty much done with that entire section of your argument. You even go as far as to fall back on the "how is it different now?" argument, which essentially gives up your position.
There are arguments to be made that some of our checks and balances have not survived intact, but that's not the argument you're making. Instead that argument would be of the form "sure there's a collective, but it isn't representative when it comes to government, ergo there's a deficit of legitimacy". The prior argument does not follow from your original position, but its one I think most people would be far more sympathetic to.
I haven't even fully explained how a court system could work (I'm no legal expert, I believe and have explained why I believe thousands of competing experts can do a much better job than some monopolist pigs) and you're so damn defensive rejecting it already.
No, you essentially told me how a lack of legal system would appear. You didn't do anything to solve enforcement or substantive law or certainty of law or certainty of arbiter, all of which I've pointed out.
Restating an argument does not make your point valid in the face of ignored criticisms. Since you've been doing that repeatedly, I'm going to stop being charitable and tell you to go back and try again.
Go back. Try again.
Make a legal system, a system designed around the application of coercive force work without a coercive force. Feel free to base it on something other than rational self interest, because rational self interest is exactly what most legal systems attempt to avoid in favor of objective collective interests.
your definition sux, sry.
Actually, mine is the accurate definition of what violence is. Yours is a perverted moralistic version because you want to add pejorative force to your words. You do so because your argument does not do what you want it to do.
If you want to replace "perceived unjust xyz" for violence in future posts, feel free to go back and read your arguments. Especially if you force the requirement of subjective unjustness. Essentially your argument boils down to "nothing I disagree with should be done against me", but Kant has already completely demolished that position morally. Hobbes also deals with this statement under his argument regarding the explicit foole and with his need for a third party arbiter.
Who ultimately gets to decide if something is unjust? Do you get to say "microsoft, you are illegitimate" and burn down their offices? According to your argument, if you actually had that perception, you'd be entitled to do so. Better burn it completely because they'd be entitled to hang you from a tree afterwards using the exact same subjective viewpoint.
So, go back. Try again.
and if you got an idea on how to solve them, guess what, yo can open your company and show people how much more trustworthy you are w\ your devices. you'll be leading in no time because you're such a genius.
Leading what? Why would I open a company that would make me an objective threat to the most armed individuals who currently have a huge incentive to keep their actions under wraps? If I had a private army to protect myself against them, I'd essentially end up becoming the new government because I would be the provider of defence, and as such everyone would be forced to pay me for services.
But not only would they be forced to pay me for services, I'd essentially be able to do whatever the fuck I wanted because anyone who opposed my monopoly of power would get killed. other PDAs would fight me in massive turf wars, with the winner forming a far more brutal government than the ones we have now.
Well, unless we assume that the corporate owners of the company hate profits and would instead rather act out of goodwill. But we can do that with any power structure and typically that doesn't work out.
The PDA argument has already been dealt with before. The best part is that it literally replaces the government with thugs, which is rhetorically the entire reason you're making the argument.
word gets out same way as it does today people know roughly the same way
So you admit that you assume things would be relatively the same? I already told you that you need to stop assuming you'll have the services that civil society provides after you've removed civil society.
Go back. Try again.
thats ridic. your definition of voluntary is just as twisted as that of violence.
No it isn't. There's a difference between motive (why you're doing something) and intention (what you intend on doing). This distinction takes a while to accept if you don't know what the difference is, but I assure you they're different. For instance: I steal bread from a store. I intended on taking the bread which wasn't mine, but for what reason?
1) I am a klepto and I love stealin'. 2) I had hungry kids to feed.
Those two be on the level of motive, whereas my intention to take the bread was on the level of intent.
Another example: Say I'm sleepwalking and I stab your face in.
I didn't have the intent to stab your face in. I didn't have control over my own body. Because I had no intent, I had no motive either!
Motive and intent are very hard to distinguish and even appeal level judges make the mistake, but the distinction is important.
if you define free will to exist even under duress.. then I guess it's valid
So are you saying that if you'd grant that free will exists at all, that you have no control over your ability to choose in such a circumstance? No. The choice is morally unambiguous and a single acceptable path is laid out in front of you, but that's because you've accepted that you should only do what is moral. If you, by contrast, believed that little girls go around spreading AIDS and bully little boys, you might choose to kill the group of 5 or sacrifice yourself to get rid of the rest.
Either way, the choice is there.
I'm saying, if standard oil didn't do anything w\o people's consent, then it did not deserve to be acted upon w\o consent. I don't know the specifics
Go back and try again. Learn something. This isn't a new debate. Natural monopolies are not the same as coercive monopolies. Coercive monopolies, however, form naturally despite outside coercion against their formation.
the second word is what matters
No, it doesn't. Go back to my original question and look at your responses in context. It does indeed rely on a measure of coerciveness, but you don't seem to understand the scope.
Almost every time I see arguments like this it comes down to what you are as a person...a natural cooperator or a natural individualist. If you think either collectivism or individualism is 'right' you are being short-sighted.
On April 30 2010 06:26 sc4k wrote: Almost every time I see arguments like this it comes down to what you are as a person...a natural cooperator or a natural individualist. If you think either collectivism or individualism is 'right' you are being short-sighted.
I disagree entirely. I'm a strong individualist in almost every sense, but I also believe strongly in the power of cooperation. In fact, both go hand in hand. The opposite of individual freedom is tyranny - that's not cooperation, it's subjugation. Cooperation is when people freely agree to work together towards a common goal . Proponents of individualism simply disagree with coercion - forcing people to do what you want of them rather than have them do so of their own volition. Most governments, as they stand, are coercive in nature. They, under the auspices of serving the "public good" (an ill-defined term at best), assume what they deem to be the only legitimate monopoly on the use of force - force they use to serve whatever ends are deemed to be "the public good". Hardly cooperation.
On April 30 2010 06:26 sc4k wrote: Almost every time I see arguments like this it comes down to what you are as a person...a natural cooperator or a natural individualist. If you think either collectivism or individualism is 'right' you are being short-sighted.
I disagree entirely. In fact, both go hand in hand.
On April 30 2010 06:26 sc4k wrote: Almost every time I see arguments like this it comes down to what you are as a person...a natural cooperator or a natural individualist. If you think either collectivism or individualism is 'right' you are being short-sighted.
I disagree entirely. In fact, both go hand in hand.
Well you clearly don't disagree entirely then.
In the sense that being an individualist IS being a cooperator, and not that one is either one or the other. Collectivism really isn't about cooperation, it's more a headless form of tyranny - that was my only point.
I see what you're saying, but it's a semantic point. Either people are naturally individualist or they are naturally collectivist ok? Neither is right. Collectivism helps the weak, individualism helps the capable- both groups are worthy of help.
Also it depends which system you are from. American people probably find it easier to see the virtues of individualism, British and European probably the virtues of collectivism.
evolution seems to favour collectives. why is it people tend to move into big city... and think of the 6 billion people not wanting to live in collectives - the earth would be way to small (even if i dont count the gigantic egos of some individuals)
BUT (and the "but" is huge) - allmost every collective is controll by one or very few indiviuals and the ideas that helped forming those collectives get corrupted.
The problem I have with the OP's treatise is that he's claiming that collectivism "doesn't work", by which I take it to mean that individualism is always preferable- but that is demonstrably not true. It is sometimes possible to take collective action that will lead to a better outcome than would have been reached by every individual acting in their own best interest.
One classic example is the tragedy of the commons (google "tragedy of the commons" if you don't know what I'm talking about)- for example: A group of fishermen make their living fishing in a lake. If they all act in their own self-interest, the extraction rate of the fish will be greater than the natural reproduction rate of the fish. If everyone is allowed to fish to their hearts' content, all the fish in the lake will die out and everyone will be left without fish. If a mayor / council / president / whatever takes a collective action measure, in the form of fishing quotas, or parceling the lakes into fish farms or selling the rights to fishing in the lake to a single entity which will employ the fishermen and make responsible use of the resource, you get an outcome that is hands down better to the 'individualistic' approach for all involved.
Another example is public goods. Say you live in the wonderful country of Chile. Everyone is happy in Chile, except for the fact that there are roving bands of 'Chilean Lanzas', the local brand of thieves, who go about stealing from people. The individualistic approach would be to take justice into your own hands and protect your property from these groups of criminals. A collectivist approach would be to form a police force, which will handle criminal affairs fairly, more effectively and efficiently. You could say the same thing about the matters of national defense (forming an army is the collectivist approach and it is good), and of providing justice and therefore being able to protect property rights and allowing you to enforce contracts (forming courts of law is the collectivist approach and it is good).
So, yeah. Collectivist measures CAN be superior to just letting every man choose for himself. These are well-known and documented cases in economics (public goods and shared natural resources). Those cases aside, though, I generally prefer individualism over collectivism.
On April 30 2010 08:54 Zato-1 wrote: The problem I have with the OP's treatise is that he's claiming that collectivism "doesn't work", by which I take it to mean that individualism is always preferable- but that is demonstrably not true. It is sometimes possible to take collective action that will lead to a better outcome than would have been reached by every individual acting in their own best interest.
One classic example is the tragedy of the commons (google "tragedy of the commons" if you don't know what I'm talking about)- for example: A group of fishermen make their living fishing in a lake. If they all act in their own self-interest, the extraction rate of the fish will be greater than the natural reproduction rate of the fish. If everyone is allowed to fish to their hearts' content, all the fish in the lake will die out and everyone will be left without fish. If a mayor / council / president / whatever takes a collective action measure, in the form of fishing quotas, or parceling the lakes into fish farms or selling the rights to fishing in the lake to a single entity which will employ the fishermen and make responsible use of the resource, you get an outcome that is hands down better to the 'individualistic' approach for all involved.
Another example is public goods. Say you live in the wonderful country of Chile. Everyone is happy in Chile, except for the fact that there are roving bands of 'Chilean Lanzas', the local brand of thieves, who go about stealing from people. The individualistic approach would be to take justice into your own hands and protect your property from these groups of criminals. A collectivist approach would be to form a police force, which will handle criminal affairs fairly, more effectively and efficiently. You could say the same thing about the matters of national defense (forming an army is the collectivist approach and it is good), and of providing justice and therefore being able to protect property rights and allowing you to enforce contracts (forming courts of law is the collectivist approach and it is good).
So, yeah. Collectivist measures CAN be superior to just letting every man choose for himself. These are well-known and documented cases in economics (public goods and shared natural resources). Those cases aside, though, I generally prefer individualism over collectivism.
Any kind of purely individualistic state wouldn't allow for a lake that anyone can fish out of, it would be someone's private property, and this person would have an interest in maintaining the fish population of the lake.
"Individualism" doesn't mean that people can't ever have coinciding interests...the point is that everyone acts in their interest rather than in the interest of the whole. If a police force was better at protecting individuals, it would clearly be in any person's interest to fund/hire/etc. a police force to protect them.
the law is also just a formal manifestation of each person's head
This makes no sense.
Shit, it really doesn't the law is just a formal guideline for what actions are justifiable or not which is in turn based on what a bunch of people find agreeable, not just the lawmaker
if someone rich guy pays a reputable court to make a law to his benefit, people will notice and call them on it. the lawmaker firm risks losing his clients plus credit, and the rich guy may not get anything since people won't go to that court anymore. so, vis-a-vis, it is much better to have a free market on law-making, because at least you have somewhere else to go and aren't stuck w\ the corrupt monopolist decision.
also, it's much easier to bribe a state judge that has more stable terms and don't have to worry about losing their job until reelection time even if he's somewhat bad, than a private judge who's always trying to build up credit and be the best so people flock to him, which means more $$$. if he screws up, it's instant lose.
more incentive mechanisms can be put in place too, that I can't even imagine. lots of things can happen when you're not bound to state bureaucracy.
people will adopt those codes that best facilitate peaceful human interaction, because no one likes to get hurt
Who adopts these codes? Who enforces them?
I think your notion of enforcement is a little off you don't need thug cops walking around looking for terrorists and rapists all day cops don't do shit on patrol anyway, they just harass people and give tickets if people get robbed the cops aren't there to help, be honest you go and file some papers to them after your car is gone, or you call them and they show up 1 hour later if someone broke into your house is that enforcement? it ain't. it's a joke service
what exactly is enforcement for you, and why can't you imagine cops that aren't non-consensual? and why can't you imagine people enforcing self defense? they do it today and the world didn't fall apart yet. there's private security guards, private body guards.. they're not out there shooting people, what the frick. they're doing exactly what they're paid for, and if they don't then they get fired and out of a job because people didn't pay them to be thugs (like the state cops)
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: You're basically saying people are going to follow the rule of law even in situations in which its in their best interest not to
no, I never said that, I said that it is rarely in someones self interest to pick a fight because of retaliation, because of ostracism, because of measures already put in place to stop them. unless they want all that, like, they want to have fun beating people in a bar fight, or quick money for cocaine, not caring for what happens next its short-term thuggery and if everyone wants to be a thug, then we will have a thug world, no law is going to change that my friend.
when people do something, obviously they think its the best for them (#4 on OP, also one of the basic premises of praxeology)
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:, which simply doesn't happen without enforcement. If you were right, we wouldn't need police, people wouldn't steal, and communism would probably have worked out pretty well. Attempting to use the objectivist "stigma" as a deterrent is already disproven by gyges, so you're left with the need for your voluntary society to dole out legitimate violence.
how is an invisible and invulnerable man analogous to people in reality? r u for rela? and I've already said that moron's behavior doesn't disprove shit, I not only "conceded" that but I started the fucking OP saying that people act on their self interest #4#4#4#4#4#4#4#4 have you read it motherfucker? lol
and I don't get you man. are you saying people aren't allowed to defend themselves or that they don't know how to they need to ask a master-thug first? or let the master-thug do it for them? else they can't because it's too unorganized? that's retarded you think people don't have the slightest clue of what self defense is? even children know. "he started it" go to a day care, maybe you'll find someone more mature there ooooh ok disregard that last one was weak anyways
law does not start from the lawmaker it starts with every individual the lawmaker only tries to negotiate the rules of society it's the individuals, yes, surprise, the individuals who ultimately decide everyone is their own moral agent you know that, don't you? then, there is no need to relinquish that exact claim which would only be given back
INDEED... the system AS IS allows for self defense! why the fuck have you not mentioned that? HUH? I just now realized that so obvious fact. WHY DO I NEED TO RELINQUISH MY PERCEIVED RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE TO YOU JUST SO YOU COULD GIVE IT BACK TO ME? I bolded it just so you wont miss it pls. hint: I DONT, THUG you just want me to you just want the whole world to have your sacred authorization to do anything, right?
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: Once you do that, you have a government and a collective. So you're back to square 1.
your definition of violence is still too broad and meaningless and you havent answered my questions on this again and again: am I being violent to you by changing the pixel patterns in your screen, and messing with your visual inputs? would I be violent by sending sound waves into your head (speech) would I be violent for being in front of you and not allowing you to go through me would I be violent to you by refusing to let you stick your genitals in my anus. would I be violent for hitting you back
if I understand your definition of violence, all of those are yesses which means its a shit definition.
1-He will do what he's payed to do 2-I believe such coercive actions are not needed 3-he just has to collect evidence enough to prove the thief is a thief in court 4-the thief is blacklisted and has to repay the victim to get cleared
1- Okay, I pay him to lock up my competition. 2- They are. 3- WHAT COURT? THERE IS NO FUCKING COURT. 4- Already dealt with.
1- thankfully, that sir you just blew your money on is no more right to pass a court decision than a bum on the street. hes not a god, nor is he a thug. people are eventually gonna notice and call you on it, go to the court next door, and you're left w\ nothing 2- besides self defense. which shouldn't be considered coercion. but you do, perhaps because you don't like people resisting your thuggishness. 3- you mean theres no demand for courts, or that people are just missing out an amazing profit opportunity because no one knows how to read or something? if theres no courts, well, just hire some bum on the street that both parties agree on to arbitrate the case. why do you want a thug to arbitrate your case anyways... 4-what? when, where?
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: Jesus you keep stating the exact same 'solutions' without dealing with THE GLARING PROBLEMS WITH THEM.
what problems? that there's no thug to make people obey him? how about you take a nice cup of peace and try to figure out consensual ways to deal with problems b4 taking your gun out? certainly there's better ways
You admit it in section 1 of the prior post, so we're pretty much done with that entire section of your argument. You even go as far as to fall back on the "how is it different now?" argument, which essentially gives up your position.
did I ever say that private cops would have to knock down peoples doors and incarcerate people? I never did, and I don't know how you find this thuggishness necessary for self defense purposes it ain't. at most I conceded that it may be for strict restitution and compensation purposes at most
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: There are arguments to be made that some of our checks and balances have not survived intact, but that's not the argument you're making. Instead that argument would be of the form "sure there's a collective, but it isn't representative when it comes to government, ergo there's a deficit of legitimacy". The prior argument does not follow from your original position, but its one I think most people would be far more sympathetic to.
yeah I just got mad very mad I don't like to argue that. history does not prove anything after all like I said
I haven't even fully explained how a court system could work (I'm no legal expert, I believe and have explained why I believe thousands of competing experts can do a much better job than some monopolist pigs) and you're so damn defensive rejecting it already.
No, you essentially told me how a lack of legal system would appear. You didn't do anything to solve enforcement or substantive law or certainty of law or certainty of arbiter, all of which I've pointed out.
tell me what kind of enforcement you want
substantive law... no clue. why wouldn't it be possible though? you want fries with that? there you have it. unless you're the only one who cares about that shit then 2 bad. they may not have that flavor after all. as long as it's not a thug thing that imposes itself on people non-consensually. then they're not gonna do that, they'd lose clients.
and certainty... thats a joke, right? do you want certainty of food and shelter to come from the state too? those are no less important, why limit yourself to law? they're just services dude. If there's a demand, entrepreneurs will want to supply that profit opportunity, and multiple entrepreneurs will compete to offer the best service.
certainty is no excuse to pull a gun and make people do something. and if you mean stability, well then I already tried to explain why 1000 judges *may be* more stable than 9 but you just hand-waved that w\ no argument... so I don't know what else to say. tough luck? you can't have everything you want from other people? go stabilize yourself? maybe something like that.
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: Restating an argument does not make your point valid in the face of ignored criticisms. Since you've been doing that repeatedly, I'm going to stop being charitable and tell you to go back and try again.
Go back. Try again.
uh, thank you for being charitable so far...? lol
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: Make a legal system, a system designed around the application of coercive force work without a coercive force. Feel free to base it on something other than rational self interest, because rational self interest is exactly what most legal systems attempt to avoid in favor of objective collective interests.
ok, to put things in perspective. say I'm a serf from 1000 years ago would you require from me, lord L, that I devise a political system prove it to you that's better than slavery just so you can at the very least listen to what I have to say and then perhaps concede that you're being a bit too intrusive? a bit too thuggish?
have a cup of peace yo.
the legal systems of today even don't stop self interest, because self interest is an inherent characteristic of human behavior. people always act on their goals even if their goals are external to them. it's part of my op.. maybe you should read it some time.
you got to understand self interest, not try to take it out of the equation. you're never going to take it out of the equation. you're never going to control "the beast". so you might as well just let the leash go and try to tame it.
allow people to make their own legal systems. you do "allow" the countries of the world to do it, right? well then, let the state... then the county.. the town, and the individual do it too.
the system that is in place does not seek the best benefit for the individual, it seeks to leech off it, to stay in control and minimize the chance of revolution by giving back just enough so we dont kill them all. wait, I think I wrote that b4. sigh. w/e.
if the system's means were to supply the wants of individuals, then it would not be necessary for it to be non-consensual, for everyone would pay them thugs on their own self interest...
Actually, mine is the accurate definition of what violence is. Yours is a perverted moralistic version because you want to add pejorative force to your words. You do so because your argument does not do what you want it to do.
still don't know what yours is
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: If you want to replace "perceived unjust xyz" for violence in future posts, feel free to go back and read your arguments. Especially if you force the requirement of subjective unjustness. Essentially your argument boils down to "nothing I disagree with should be done against me", but Kant has already completely demolished that position morally. Hobbes also deals with this statement under his argument regarding the explicit foole and with his need for a third party arbiter.
you know I'm not an objectivist so no need to preach at me
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: Who ultimately gets to decide if something is unjust?
the individual obv. but you don't quite admit that.
no sir, there needs to be a "thug entity" above them all to define what is unjust! man can't do it himself! it would be chaos! people would call their mothers unjust, rape them and kill them, just because they can! man is that aggressive. let us thugs, beings above man, do it for you, peons! yes! then we'll have order. (thug order)
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: Do you get to say "microsoft, you are illegitimate" and burn down their offices? According to your argument, if you actually had that perception, you'd be entitled to do so. Better burn it completely because they'd be entitled to hang you from a tree afterwards using the exact same subjective viewpoint.
when someone says "you are illegitimate" they always mean "I think you're illegitimate" and by "entitled to" you mean they would claim being entitled to again I'm no objectivist so I don't know why you're telling me all I know already
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: So, go back. Try again.
what did I get wrong sir? I didn't claim any of that I said your definition sux because it's too broad if every interpersonal action is violence in your definition, then why call it violent? and I'm sorry if I misrepresented your definition, but you haven't defined it in ages, while you know very well what mine is. unfair I say
and if you got an idea on how to solve them, guess what, yo can open your company and show people how much more trustworthy you are w\ your devices. you'll be leading in no time because you're such a genius.
Leading what? Why would I open a company that would make me an objective threat to the most armed individuals who currently have a huge incentive to keep their actions under wraps? If I had a private army to protect myself against them, I'd essentially end up becoming the new government because I would be the provider of defence, and as such everyone would be forced to pay me for services.
what the fuck lol you're coming from a statist world so I understand why you think there's thugs under every rug and you need a stronger thug to protect you, but... let me tell you this standing armies are not profitable they are 99.9999% of the time not the fruits of a free market even private mercenaries work for the government there would be no armies to shoot you down or to take it over because it would be stupidly unprofitable to do that
let me give you a couple scenarios. don't read if you don't wanna
you raise an army with money from nowhere (lets say you were mad rich and suddenly turned evil). that cost you 100 million. now you take over a country and pillage everything. total earnings are 200 million good job sir thats a lot of money, now what? you killed everyone. now the countries around you are getting ready for invasion, and it's gonna be increasingly harder for you to take them over will you be able to take them all down? OK lets say you are! you are a war specialist and your leet plans devised a way to pillage through the whole world? now what retard? everyone is dead but you and your army. what a great profit huh. armies are not made for destruction, any statist thug knows that. they are meant for herding the farm. standing armies and fighting armies for that matter are a waste of resources unless they're meant to control territory. Getting people to kill people doesn't make you that much richer. Controlling them does.
Now that you know, you're gonna be conservative this time. Instead of simply obliterating everything, you're going to try and conquest every little land you move to. With your massive army, it's gonna be easy, right? This is an anarchist world after all, no one has shit.
ok. you move to the neighboring country. everything is taken over, civilians are disarmed. now they have to obey your rule and pay you tribute. Fine. Earnings are 100 million (generous). wtf, but thats exactky what I just spent on the army. well no shit idiot, just think a little. the US army is payed for it's taxpayers, and the army isn't even big enough to take over the entire country. How the fuck did you expect to take over a country and even earn any profits?
Those people don't want to give you anything, they're gonna resist, they're going to die trying to stop you, they're gonna strap bombs in their chests and blow your army with them. They don't see you as legitimate, they see you for the thug. If even the US has trouble managing their shit w\ a non-revolting population, how are you going to keep those people down AND extract good money from them?. Long term, impossible. you go broke.
You need people to see you as legitimate for there to be enough collaboration and progressive capital accumulation on their part for an invasion to be worth it long term. In other words, you do have to become their state, and they have to accept it. Else, it's a quagmire. Oh where did I hear that word before? I wonder.
So thats why massive armies are retarded in a free market. In a free world, people won't see you as a king, they'll see you as a thug. you won't have your dough.
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: But not only would they be forced to pay me for services, I'd essentially be able to do whatever the fuck I wanted because anyone who opposed my monopoly of power would get killed. other PDAs would fight me in massive turf wars, with the winner forming a far more brutal government than the ones we have now.
nope, people won't pay for that, so no armies will be raised unless it's for defensive purposes. It's not profitable. It's only profitable if you can control people and make them pay for the deaths of others. Its what austrian economists call the externalization of the costs of violence. or something like that externalization of costs for sure. meaning, if you can make other people pay for it, hell yea you can blow up the world and be god, np. but you can't control people that don't see you as legit. they'll have greatly reduced efficiency at best, suicide bombers at worst.
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: Well, unless we assume that the corporate owners of the company hate profits and would instead rather act out of goodwill. But we can do that with any power structure and typically that doesn't work out.
Nope, they love profits. but pure and simply, violence is retardedly expensive. increasingly so as time goes by and word can go out that you're a thug. a private thug, this time. the real thugs in the state, well not quite, since people see that thuggishness as alright. but sooner or later... truth will out ... unless we all die first. but otherwise it will out.
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: The PDA argument has already been dealt with before. The best part is that it literally replaces the government with thugs, which is rhetorically the entire reason you're making the argument.
what how are they thugs? they're not making anyone pay them working on self defense is being a thug? security guards are thugs? a lady that pushes a rapist back is a thug? everyone in the US that believes in self defense is a thug? the US courts are also thugs for allowing citizens to defend themselves?
and I've already explained why it's not profitable to do so
oh, think like this
in starcraft terms it's like youre saying "4 pool is invicible no one can stop it" well duh if people know that you can 4 pool them, they're going to prepare for it and not let you have your way they're going to wall off, use SCVs. your lings won't do shit, and you'll be broke
meaning, the thugs who wanna be thugs may even succeed vs. noobs, like, d, c- but against pros youre gonna lose mofo high five
word gets out same way as it does today people know roughly the same way
So you admit that you assume things would be relatively the same? I already told you that you need to stop assuming you'll have the services that civil society provides after you've removed civil society.
will peope continue to like, talk, and write shit down? yeah? are they being force to do that now? is there a ministry of media that I'm not aware of? hell there may be, idk, not an expert on thuggishness
does civil society provides people with a voice? does it make the grass grow? the sun rise? I mean...
even on those grounds that you talked about earlier, about thugs paying people to shut up. well, if people can talk, and there's a demand for talking, then they're gonna talk to the highest bidder, right? so yeah, thugs can pay people to shut up, of course. but as that info being squelched becomes more scarce, it becomes increasingly more valuable (theres less supply) a small crime, OK, he can pay off some people but a sequence of crimes, hundreds of people, then thousands. is it possible? can he shut up family members, every one of his thug staff, neighbors, multiple PDAs? I don't know if he can man but if he can do all that then surely he'd have waaay more than enough to do the same thing in a statist society. state thugs are not gods, they can be shut up too. even more so since they have a monopoly, stable employment, etc etc etc
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: Go back. Try again.
thats ridic. your definition of voluntary is just as twisted as that of violence.
No it isn't. There's a difference between motive (why you're doing something) and intention (what you intend on doing). This distinction takes a while to accept if you don't know what the difference is, but I assure you they're different. For instance: I steal bread from a store. I intended on taking the bread which wasn't mine, but for what reason?
1) I am a klepto and I love stealin'. 2) I had hungry kids to feed.
Those two be on the level of motive, whereas my intention to take the bread was on the level of intent.
Another example: Say I'm sleepwalking and I stab your face in.
I didn't have the intent to stab your face in. I didn't have control over my own body. Because I had no intent, I had no motive either!
Motive and intent are very hard to distinguish and even appeal level judges make the mistake, but the distinction is important.
ok. intent is what you want to do and motive is why you want or what you want to do that for. voluntary is "with intent"
didn't have to elaborate so much but ty. what was this for anyway...
oh yeah. civil society. so is civil society consensual also? I still don't quite know what it means.. I didn't read that much tho tbh.
if you define free will to exist even under duress.. then I guess it's valid
So are you saying that if you'd grant that free will exists at all, that you have no control over your ability to choose in such a circumstance? No. The choice is morally unambiguous and a single acceptable path is laid out in front of you, but that's because you've accepted that you should only do what is moral. If you, by contrast, believed that little girls go around spreading AIDS and bully little boys, you might choose to kill the group of 5 or sacrifice yourself to get rid of the rest.
Either way, the choice is there.
thats not how I define free will. my free will is not about whether I have a choice. let me define. it is "the liberty to act w\o being physically threatened for something you do or dont do". don't really matter how many choices I have, just as long I'm not being physically "forced" to do it. I know it's not the regular definition so sorry for wasting ur time on that. Its a determinist redefinition. a quite poor one at that but it was made just so compatibilism I would have no free will under the threat of death in that scenario.
I'm saying, if standard oil didn't do anything w\o people's consent, then it did not deserve to be acted upon w\o consent. I don't know the specifics
Go back and try again. Learn something. This isn't a new debate. Natural monopolies are not the same as coercive monopolies. Coercive monopolies, however, form naturally despite outside coercion against their formation.
what's a coercive monopoly? I don't know your definition of coercion but I remember thats not the same as mine.
oh yeah, I think I know what you mean. hahah ok so tell me if I wrong. but do you mean that.. a monopoly is always coercive in the sense that... like private property, you are forcing everyone to back off your shit? so, I have a coercive monopoly over my own body then? if this is right... then this shit is as dumb as your definition of violence goddamn, how do you convince anyone with that bs? a rapist comes at you, "let me rape you! you can't have a coercive monopoly over your own body!" "I'm gonna steal your car! because you have a coercive monopoly of a means of transportation!" whaaat... any private property is a coercive monopoly amirite? man you gotta stop with these definitions im serious haha
No, it doesn't. Go back to my original question and look at your responses in context. It does indeed rely on a measure of coerciveness, but you don't seem to understand the scope.
well ok let me try again. first word defines use, second word defines ownership. that much is right because you didn't quote. so, if the coercion isn't in the second word, on exclusive ownership... it can only be in the first word! of use. so you mean, coercion only exists if I stop someone from using it? ok that makes sense but that's dumb, separating use from exclusive control... the one with exclusive control dictates how to use it so... there's always gonna be some restriction on the use even if its a restriction on changing the restrictions. loophole?
On April 30 2010 06:26 sc4k wrote: Almost every time I see arguments like this it comes down to what you are as a person...a natural cooperator or a natural individualist. If you think either collectivism or individualism is 'right' you are being short-sighted.
there is no objective right there are rights for a goal
On April 30 2010 06:26 sc4k wrote: Almost every time I see arguments like this it comes down to what you are as a person...a natural cooperator or a natural individualist. If you think either collectivism or individualism is 'right' you are being short-sighted.
I disagree entirely. I'm a strong individualist in almost every sense, but I also believe strongly in the power of cooperation. In fact, both go hand in hand. The opposite of individual freedom is tyranny - that's not cooperation, it's subjugation. Cooperation is when people freely agree to work together towards a common goal . Proponents of individualism simply disagree with coercion - forcing people to do what you want of them rather than have them do so of their own volition. Most governments, as they stand, are coercive in nature. They, under the auspices of serving the "public good" (an ill-defined term at best), assume what they deem to be the only legitimate monopoly on the use of force - force they use to serve whatever ends are deemed to be "the public good". Hardly cooperation.
yes my friend don't let people drag you down to their level like that L thug
On April 30 2010 06:26 sc4k wrote: Almost every time I see arguments like this it comes down to what you are as a person...a natural cooperator or a natural individualist. If you think either collectivism or individualism is 'right' you are being short-sighted.
I disagree entirely. In fact, both go hand in hand.
Well you clearly don't disagree entirely then.
yeah i think he fucked that up you weren't saying individualism v. cooperation you said it right but he misrepresented it its all good lets have a group hug
On April 30 2010 08:54 Zato-1 wrote: The problem I have with the OP's treatise is that he's claiming that collectivism "doesn't work", by which I take it to mean that individualism is always preferable- but that is demonstrably not true. It is sometimes possible to take collective action that will lead to a better outcome than would have been reached by every individual acting in their own best interest.
doesn't work for what I didn't say it doesn't work I said its full of holes and it can certainly work for some goal like thuggishness
but overall, collectivism as I see it is a misnomer because there is no collective goal only your goal, which may indeed be "the best of others" or something but thats yours a collectivist's goals is actually his individual goal thats kinda weird isnt it. so... it's kinda broken
On April 30 2010 08:54 Zato-1 wrote: One classic example is the tragedy of the commons (google "tragedy of the commons" if you don't know what I'm talking about)- for example: A group of fishermen make their living fishing in a lake. If they all act in their own self-interest, the extraction rate of the fish will be greater than the natural reproduction rate of the fish. If everyone is allowed to fish to their hearts' content, all the fish in the lake will die out and everyone will be left without fish. If a mayor / council / president / whatever takes a collective action measure, in the form of fishing quotas, or parceling the lakes into fish farms or selling the rights to fishing in the lake to a single entity which will employ the fishermen and make responsible use of the resource, you get an outcome that is hands down better to the 'individualistic' approach for all involved.
people can individually agree to those quotas and those who don't can be ostracized
why jump for the gun?
I know it's an issue though, and props 2 u for bringing something actually relevant and not more of the same "oh you're a selfish person you!" "you want to rape little children don't you? anarchist!"
nah no one actually said that but close
anyways I don't have all the answers. not the point of the thread. if it was, i'd be a statist, because I'd have all the answers, and I surely would entitle myself to be the president of the world and boss people around.
I admit I don't have a clear answer for that. but I still think pulling the gun is the wrong way to solve it
On April 30 2010 08:54 Zato-1 wrote: Another example is public goods. Say you live in the wonderful country of Chile. Everyone is happy in Chile, except for the fact that there are roving bands of 'Chilean Lanzas', the local brand of thieves, who go about stealing from people. The individualistic approach would be to take justice into your own hands and protect your property from these groups of criminals. A collectivist approach would be to form a police force, which will handle criminal affairs fairly, more effectively and efficiently. You could say the same thing about the matters of national defense (forming an army is the collectivist approach and it is good), and of providing justice and therefore being able to protect property rights and allowing you to enforce contracts (forming courts of law is the collectivist approach and it is good).
who pays for the police force.. and why do you have to force them to pay for it? surely you've seen neighborhood patrol guards somewhere, payed voluntarily?
On April 30 2010 08:54 Zato-1 wrote: So, yeah. Collectivist measures CAN be superior to just letting every man choose for himself. These are well-known and documented cases in economics (public goods and shared natural resources). Those cases aside, though, I generally prefer individualism over collectivism.
I don't concede they can be superior at all I'm not a wuss like you rage lol
On April 30 2010 08:54 Zato-1 wrote: The problem I have with the OP's treatise is that he's claiming that collectivism "doesn't work", by which I take it to mean that individualism is always preferable- but that is demonstrably not true. It is sometimes possible to take collective action that will lead to a better outcome than would have been reached by every individual acting in their own best interest.
One classic example is the tragedy of the commons (google "tragedy of the commons" if you don't know what I'm talking about)- for example: A group of fishermen make their living fishing in a lake. If they all act in their own self-interest, the extraction rate of the fish will be greater than the natural reproduction rate of the fish. If everyone is allowed to fish to their hearts' content, all the fish in the lake will die out and everyone will be left without fish. If a mayor / council / president / whatever takes a collective action measure, in the form of fishing quotas, or parceling the lakes into fish farms or selling the rights to fishing in the lake to a single entity which will employ the fishermen and make responsible use of the resource, you get an outcome that is hands down better to the 'individualistic' approach for all involved.
Another example is public goods. Say you live in the wonderful country of Chile. Everyone is happy in Chile, except for the fact that there are roving bands of 'Chilean Lanzas', the local brand of thieves, who go about stealing from people. The individualistic approach would be to take justice into your own hands and protect your property from these groups of criminals. A collectivist approach would be to form a police force, which will handle criminal affairs fairly, more effectively and efficiently. You could say the same thing about the matters of national defense (forming an army is the collectivist approach and it is good), and of providing justice and therefore being able to protect property rights and allowing you to enforce contracts (forming courts of law is the collectivist approach and it is good).
So, yeah. Collectivist measures CAN be superior to just letting every man choose for himself. These are well-known and documented cases in economics (public goods and shared natural resources). Those cases aside, though, I generally prefer individualism over collectivism.
Any kind of purely individualistic state wouldn't allow for a lake that anyone can fish out of, it would be someone's private property, and this person would have an interest in maintaining the fish population of the lake.
yeah, there you go. just privatize the whole thing problem solved lol why didnt I think of that. disappointing.
On April 30 2010 09:03 Lixler wrote: "Individualism" doesn't mean that people can't ever have coinciding interests...the point is that everyone acts in their interest rather than in the interest of the whole. If a police force was better at protecting individuals, it would clearly be in any person's interest to fund/hire/etc. a police force to protect them.
yeah
I mean theres people that love jumping the gun fuck them
the law is just a formal guideline for what actions are justifiable or not
No it isn't. That would be A law, not THE law.
if someone rich guy pays a reputable court to make a law to his benefit, people will notice and call them on it.
People do this all the time in the majority of states in the world. Over 90% of the world's legal systems are run via bribes (including some of those in the USA which you actually mention ), yet you're assuming that the good will and private self interest of individuals will make them act in a manner that doesn't benefit them.
Wronnnnnnnnnnnng.
Hilarious how you can cite cases wherein your assumptions are flat out wrong, then restate your assumptions a line or two down.
what exactly is enforcement for you, and why can't you imagine cops that aren't non-consensual?
Because the fact that you would need them indicates that someone in the equation doesn't want to have cops running him down. Unless you assume that me killing you and stealing all your shit indicates consent on my part to be taken to some sort of consensual jail, of course.
If, by contrast, you're talking about a large group of people who have collectively agreed to restrict one another by agreeing to have some sort of consensual police force, but then you'd have a collective and a commonwealth of laws and your initial argument doesn't work again.
no, I never said that, I said that it is rarely in someones self interest to pick a fight
Its rarely in someone's interest because they know they're going to get carted off to jail in civil society. Can't assume current conditions. Go back. Try again.
the individual obv. but you don't quite admit that.
Okay, so now everyone has the right to unilaterally declare themselves above the 'law' of the commonwealth?
There goes your system of law enforcement again!
1- thankfully, that sir you just blew your money on is no more right to pass a court decision than a bum on the street. hes not a god, nor is he a thug. people are eventually gonna notice and call you on it, go to the court next door, and you're left w\ nothing 2- besides self defense. which shouldn't be considered coercion. but you do, perhaps because you don't like people resisting your thuggishness. 3- you mean theres no demand for courts, or that people are just missing out an amazing profit opportunity because no one knows how to read or something? if theres no courts, well, just hire some bum on the street that both parties agree on to arbitrate the case. why do you want a thug to arbitrate your case anyways... 4-what? when, where?
I'm only going to bother dealing with this point and the one about war because I've already dealt with everything else. Feel free to reread the context surrounding the ring of Gyges so that you can understand why its being used.
1- What's a right? This is why I had you ask yourself the prior property question. Until you know what a right is, don't tell me XYZ has a right to ABC.
2- Self defence is coercion, but its justifiable coercion. Again you shit up the place by attempting to use pejorative moral language instead of actually dealing with what I'm saying. This doesn't just go for this line either. This goes for the entirety of your rhetorical diarrhea. Your magic private cops are cops, but public ones are thugs? Give me a break.
3- Hire a random bum off the street? And have him do what? Armlock the loser if the loser just decides to tell both of them to fuck off? Not only do you have no enforcement, but you also have no certainty in your legal system either.
Give me a real solution, otherwise stop pretending that vagrants on the street do the same function as an entire legal system. Then again, given that you have no idea where the original incentive to actually form a commonwealth comes from, this isn't surprising. Your only incentive is that you hate government, I suppose.
4- Go read.
Regarding the list of things you need to read because i've addressed them, i'll quote 5 things that I've DIRECTLY answered, or that you could literally look up in a dictionary and see that you're wrong.
are you saying people aren't allowed to defend themselves
if I understand your definition of violence, all of those are yesses
what problems?
(this one is particularly hilarious)
WHY DO I NEED TO RELINQUISH MY PERCEIVED RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE TO YOU JUST SO YOU COULD GIVE IT BACK TO ME?
(also pretty hilarious)
tell me what kind of enforcement you want
All of these have been answered, but you're doing your best to avoid recognizing that.
And so we'll end on this point:
let me tell you this standing armies are not profitable
You're 100% wrong. People do not go out waging wars because its unprofitable. In fact, the entire conception of a "justified war" which arose in the middle ages was specifically to develop a moral force AGAINST highly profitable wars of opportunity.
So, I'll ask: What exactly do people wage wars for if it isn't profitable? Include both negative gains (preventing losses) and positive gains in your answer. Then address the issue of perspective; How does a commonwealth vs a private organization that can wage war change the calculus (you will find that perspectival analysis is very detrimental to your position here)?
Bonus because its hilarious and frankly I love to see your double think in action:
they're not making anyone pay them
You realize that this is exactly what the mafia did, right? Tell people to pay for protection, don't force them or anything. Then, if you don't, create a need for protection? Governments do the exact same thing; Start conflicts than beat the "rally around the state to protect you from shit we're starting!!!" drum. How is this different when its a private organization?
Maybe because you're hoping that a nice, gentle happy PDA would outcompete all the ruthless ones that kill their competitors. But then why wouldn't you apply the same evolutionary pressure to governments and say that the nicest, gentlest, happiest ones will outperform the others? Ah, because public bad, private good, thugs thugs, violence, have a cup of peace. Gotcha.
#1 - Only individuals have consciousnesses #2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want #3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions #4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals
two is practically wrong, because we have the action known as "communication" (technically true because it is impossible to know exactly what another individual means, but you can take an extremely good guess)
three is true if you count communicating as an action, so you can "assume" that when i say i'm a human being, i do think so
four is hilariously wrong. not only because of obvious examples (alcohol, drugs) but because humans don't think like that. for example: you have something to do (a paper for instance) but you feel like procrastinating, although you know you shouldn't.
- The collectivist is wrong when he says he knows whats best for anyone but himself, breaking premise #2, since he cannot know other people's goals are. (he can only assume per #3)
your assuming the collectivist is deaf, blind, and illiterate.
#1 - Only individuals have consciousnesses #2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want #3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions #4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals
two is practically wrong, because we have the action known as "communication" (technically true because it is impossible to know exactly what another individual means, but you can take an extremely good guess)
three is true if you count communicating as an action, so you can "assume" that when i say i'm a human being, i do think so
four is hilariously wrong. not only because of obvious examples (alcohol, drugs) but because humans don't think like that. for example: you have something to do (a paper for instance) but you feel like procrastinating, although you know you shouldn't.
- The collectivist is wrong when he says he knows whats best for anyone but himself, breaking premise #2, since he cannot know other people's goals are. (he can only assume per #3)
your assuming the collectivist is deaf, blind, and illiterate.
I have not read the entire thread, or much of it at all, but I feel I can answer some of these arguments that you make on the various points.
#2 - Individuals cannot know what others want/think because no individual reveals the entirety of their thinking to another. Taking a "good guess" is nowhere near close enough.
#3 - Communicating is most definitely an action. Someones actions will never represent someone's thought. It may represent part of it, but not enough to actually know what they are thinking; only enough to make assumptions.
#4 - In that procrastinating example, the short-term goal has been shifted from finishing the paper to avoiding to finish the paper. #4 is correct. The ONLY reason people do something is because they believe it is the best method to reach their goal(s). Whether it is short-term or long-term goals that are focused on at any particular moment is dependent on the moment itself.
if someone rich guy pays a reputable court to make a law to his benefit, people will notice and call them on it.
People do this all the time in the majority of states in the world. Over 90% of the world's legal systems are run via bribes (including some of those in the USA which you actually mention ), yet you're assuming that the good will and private self interest of individuals will make them act in a manner that doesn't benefit them.
Wronnnnnnnnnnnng.
Hilarious how you can cite cases wherein your assumptions are flat out wrong, then restate your assumptions a line or two down.
what? 90% on bribes? define bribes please
and if you really mean bribes, not some switcharoo of words then why the fuck do you support such system in the first place if its that bad...
what exactly is enforcement for you, and why can't you imagine cops that aren't non-consensual?
Because the fact that you would need them indicates that someone in the equation doesn't want to have cops running him down. Unless you assume that me killing you and stealing all your shit indicates consent on my part to be taken to some sort of consensual jail, of course.
yes if I were a really tough libertarian id say that. the thief consents to have the stolen items taken back by force, because since he did it in the first place, he doesnt respect anyones private property, therefore his private property shouldnt be respected either
but I'm gonna go ahead and say no, thats a bs explanation, and I don't need bs explanations to advocate restitution or compensation
I would just do it because it fits my property rights principles and I would respect anyone trying who does the same
am I being too rough? I don't know, the judges will tell say, thief steals my car I set up court proceedings. thief doesn't show up, judges probably gonna rule in my favor w\ all the evidence and blacklist the thief. I take my car back, he can't do shit, no PDAs will answer him. 2 bad for him. it's a case by case thing and it could work in other ways wouldn't you, L, do the same?
On April 30 2010 11:09 L wrote: If, by contrast, you're talking about a large group of people who have collectively agreed to restrict one another by agreeing to have some sort of consensual police force, but then you'd have a collective and a commonwealth of laws and your initial argument doesn't work again.
it's not a consensus to a certain body of law
you join the body of law and the PDAs that agree to such body of law and that facilitates a lot of things
think credit agencies. you only get credit if your score is good if your score is bad, you dont necessarily go to jail, but you dont get credit either. you dont get their help
no, I never said that, I said that it is rarely in someones self interest to pick a fight
Its rarely in someone's interest because they know they're going to get carted off to jail in civil society. Can't assume current conditions. Go back. Try again.
and they know they're gonna get bad credit in free society
I mean... you don't need a gun to put down a criminal. thats the old way of doing things the pen is mightier than the sword now
1- thankfully, that sir you just blew your money on is no more right to pass a court decision than a bum on the street. hes not a god, nor is he a thug. people are eventually gonna notice and call you on it, go to the court next door, and you're left w\ nothing 2- besides self defense. which shouldn't be considered coercion. but you do, perhaps because you don't like people resisting your thuggishness. 3- you mean theres no demand for courts, or that people are just missing out an amazing profit opportunity because no one knows how to read or something? if theres no courts, well, just hire some bum on the street that both parties agree on to arbitrate the case. why do you want a thug to arbitrate your case anyways... 4-what? when, where?
I'm only going to bother dealing with this point and the one about war because I've already dealt with everything else. Feel free to reread the context surrounding the ring of Gyges so that you can understand why its being used.
1- What's a right? This is why I had you ask yourself the prior property question. Until you know what a right is, don't tell me XYZ has a right to ABC.
claim of right a right doesnt actually exist I been saying that forever sorry I made it up, so its ok if you dont want to use this terminology
On April 30 2010 11:09 L wrote: 2- Self defence is coercion, but its justifiable coercion. Again you shit up the place by attempting to use pejorative moral language instead of actually dealing with what I'm saying. This doesn't just go for this line either. This goes for the entirety of your rhetorical diarrhea. Your magic private cops are cops, but public ones are thugs? Give me a break.
ok I'm gonna be using the term "justifiable coercion" from now on private cops (generally) practice "justifiable coercion" state cops practice "unjustifiable coercion" its gonna be a pain to write that every time but k
and I said generally, because they're men too, they can be paid off to kill and kidnap, sure, but at least it isn't their modus operandi.
On April 30 2010 11:09 L wrote: 3- Hire a random bum off the street? And have him do what? Armlock the loser if the loser just decides to tell both of them to fuck off? Not only do you have no enforcement, but you also have no certainty in your legal system either.
well I don't think you'll keep up a good credit armlocking people. so people will know you're a thug and you'll lose opportunities you'd otherwise have if u were a bit more civil. maybe you wont be able to buy food at the supermarket get a job at a big company no credit cards at all its up to you to weight it out the advantages
On April 30 2010 11:09 L wrote: Give me a real solution, otherwise stop pretending that vagrants on the street do the same function as an entire legal system. Then again, given that you have no idea where the original incentive to actually form a commonwealth comes from, this isn't surprising. Your only incentive is that you hate government, I suppose.
theres a ton of incentive mechanisms that I havent told you and that youre not giving yourself a chance to think about even more that I don't know about and even more that no one has yet invented all by justified coercion (man, that sounds ugly)
On April 30 2010 11:09 L wrote: 4- Go read.
Regarding the list of things you need to read because i've addressed them, i'll quote 5 things that I've DIRECTLY answered, or that you could literally look up in a dictionary and see that you're wrong.
sorry it must be like 10 pages back, I can't find it can I just concede this one then? I don't even know what it was, idc, lolololo
All of these have been answered, but you're doing your best to avoid recognizing that.
but that bold capitalized and angry one is new, isnt it
I mean I know youre a fan of leviathan but really what is the exact purpose of this merry-go-round of rights
I give you my rights, mr thug! oh why, thank you peon. here, you can have self defense back gee, thank you mr. thug! I can now enforce it myself right? yes, yes little slave, you can use it now that I gave it back to you. it's unlocked! o I c mr. thug thank you so very much for keeping world peace. bye bye mr.! see you...
On April 30 2010 11:09 L wrote: And so we'll end on this point:
let me tell you this standing armies are not profitable
You're 100% wrong. People do not go out waging wars because its unprofitable. In fact, the entire conception of a "justified war" which arose in the middle ages was specifically to develop a moral force AGAINST highly profitable wars of opportunity.
So, I'll ask: What exactly do people wage wars for if it isn't profitable? Include both negative gains (preventing losses) and positive gains in your answer. Then address the issue of perspective; How does a commonwealth vs a private organization that can wage war change the calculus (you will find that perspectival analysis is very detrimental to your position here)?
1-increases control over peons 2-artificial scarcity or control over resources 3-war breeds fear, fear breeds ... more state, and state breeds war. the ciiiircle of liiiiiiife 4-it's free anyway, you're making peons kill peons 5-not so much over territory or resources, but some of that yeah.
maybe more but thats from the top of my head.
On April 30 2010 11:09 L wrote: Bonus because its hilarious and frankly I love to see your double think in action:
You realize that this is exactly what the mafia did, right? Tell people to pay for protection, don't force them or anything. Then, if you don't, create a need for protection? Governments do the exact same thing; Start conflicts than beat the "rally around the state to protect you from shit we're starting!!!" drum. How is this different when its a private organization?
dude, don't steal my analogies thats mine also, private mafias work hand in hand w\ government, contrary to popular thought they profit off black markets that are made illegal by the government and enjoy this monopoly using unjustified coercion if the government were to make drugs legal, prostitution legal, gambling legal guess what, the private mafias would disappear, because the peaceful entrepreneurs would outcompete them easily, and they would run out of money
so... contrary to what you may think, the government basically creates private mafias too.
On April 30 2010 11:09 L wrote: Maybe because you're hoping that a nice, gentle happy PDA would outcompete all the ruthless ones that kill their competitors. But then why wouldn't you apply the same evolutionary pressure to governments and say that the nicest, gentlest, happiest ones will outperform the others? Ah, because public bad, private good, thugs thugs, violence, have a cup of peace. Gotcha.
you know, I never said the market of state mafias didn't also respond to austrian economics theory. they do. a "nicer" mafia certainly would have more of a capital pool to leech resources from. but its just a parasitic relationship, its up to the flea whether it wants to suck off more blood or less.
the most efficient PDAs would prevail. unjustifiably coercive PDAs could spawn, just like crazy maniacs who shoot people at malls can. but their time is short lived. You gotta ask not if "is it possible?" it's always possible, it's also possible that a PDA can at the worst, gasp, devolve into a state. yea? but is it likely? you got to ask just that.
"is it likely?" and how can you decrease the chances of that happening? wouldn't the PDAs clients be demanding some insurance that the PDA isn't stockpilling or perhaps unjustifiably coercing some of its clients into paying them?
I don't know, use your creativity. weekly reports, third party inspections, insurance agencies could do something about it, make one of those "prove me wrong" contests, lol so many things
but over all just the fact that it's not a unjustifiably coercive agency and therefore can have competitors should decrease the risks a lot. if theres any demand by the consumers for insurance, then insurance will be served (for a slight cost ofc, theres nothing free, not even w\ a socialist state)
#1 - Only individuals have consciousnesses #2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want #3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions #4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals
two is practically wrong, because we have the action known as "communication" (technically true because it is impossible to know exactly what another individual means, but you can take an extremely good guess)
three is true if you count communicating as an action, so you can "assume" that when i say i'm a human being, i do think so
four is hilariously wrong. not only because of obvious examples (alcohol, drugs) but because humans don't think like that. for example: you have something to do (a paper for instance) but you feel like procrastinating, although you know you shouldn't.
- The collectivist is wrong when he says he knows whats best for anyone but himself, breaking premise #2, since he cannot know other people's goals are. (he can only assume per #3)
your assuming the collectivist is deaf, blind, and illiterate.
I have not read the entire thread, or much of it at all, but I feel I can answer some of these arguments that you make on the various points.
#2 - Individuals cannot know what others want/think because no individual reveals the entirety of their thinking to another. Taking a "good guess" is nowhere near close enough.
#3 - Communicating is most definitely an action. Someones actions will never represent someone's thought. It may represent part of it, but not enough to actually know what they are thinking; only enough to make assumptions.
#4 - In that procrastinating example, the short-term goal has been shifted from finishing the paper to avoiding to finish the paper. #4 is correct. The ONLY reason people do something is because they believe it is the best method to reach their goal(s). Whether it is short-term or long-term goals that are focused on at any particular moment is dependent on the moment itself.
o ic, it only becomes THE law when you have the leviathan god enacting it ok
No. The law is not a specific rule within the larger context of a legal system. A legal system has rules for who makes rules, rules for who interprets rules, penalties on people who don't follow rules and ways of enacting those penalties, etc. If you take away any of these qualities, you don't have a functioning legal system.
what? 90% on bribes? define bribes please
You give someone something for favors in a situation where it creates a conflict of interest.
Why do I support this? I don't. The legal systems which involve such corruption are those with the weakest government oversight; Western industrialized nations, by and large, are very well developed on the legal front; state courts in the USA, for instance, are completely anomalous to the concept of judicial independence, yet they're the direct spawn of fear of the american government. Your philosophy here actually CREATES the problem you're trying to bash me for acknowledging. Well done.
yes if I were a really tough libertarian id say that. the thief consents to have the stolen items taken back by force, because since he did it in the first place, he doesnt respect anyones private property, therefore his private property shouldnt be respected either
but I'm gonna go ahead and say no, thats a bs explanation, and I don't need bs explanations to advocate restitution or compensation
I would just do it because it fits my property rights principles and I would respect anyone trying who does the same
That's irrelevant, remember? You said every single person can judge based on their own perception. Unless you're your own judge, jury and executioner, you can't enforce any of your cute principles. And if you're all three, you don't actually have principles, its just you walking around doing whatever you want to whomever you want.
That guy fucking threw gum on the ground? DEATH SENTENCE ACCORDING TO MY PRINCIPLES.
Your principles are nothing but wishes until you get force applied behind them. If you get a group to enforce your principles with you, you're in a commonwealth and thus that's unacceptable according to your original position.
But yeah, you already know this. You already know that your 'principles' don't afford you rights in your property unless those rights are defended. You admit as such right here:
there are no rights, claim of right you mean?
To use your own example; sure you can claim you owned something, but whoop de doo, no one cares.
Your own arguments DIRECTLY contradict each other. Either you cede one point or you cede the other.
and they know they're gonna get bad credit in free society
Stigma already dealt with as insufficient. Not going over it again.
it's not a consensus to a certain body of law
you join the body of law and the PDAs that agree to such body of law and that facilitates a lot of things
Its not consensus to a body of law, yet there you are joining one? Either you're forced in by measures which would vitiate your consent, or you are indeed consenting to it. This section literally contradicts itself in two subsequent phrases. That's impressively quick.
But again, how is a PDA different from a state here? Why can't you do the exact same thing in modern times by moving to another country?
claim of right a right doesnt actually exist I been saying that forever sorry I made it up, so its ok if you dont want to use this terminology
So you admit that you pretty much don't have rights because you can't enforcement. There goes property. Now you simply have a bare pre-property relationship to objects. That relationship is terminated the moment you lose possession. There goes bailments, trusts, banks, investments, currency, securities, financing. Clearly such a society would out compete one with such amenities. I'd cite how history shows the opposite occurs with 100% frequency, but you don't listen to facts.
ok I'm gonna be using the term "justifiable coercion" from now on private cops (generally) practice "justifiable coercion" state cops practice "unjustifiable coercion" its gonna be a pain to write that every time but k
and I said generally, because they're men too, they can be paid off to kill and kidnap, sure, but at least it isn't their modus operandi.
Ah good.
I'll bold this because its incredibly important. You've already stated that private moral judgement is the only form of judgement in your society; what happens if any person finds that the private cops are 'unjustified', even under conditions that most would call 'justified'? Well, now you have a civil war.
This portion right here is the central nugget of your entire rant and why I wanted you to search back to get here. Essentially your premise relies on the concept that states automatically practice unjustified coercion, but that's not true. That isn't remotely true. Sure it happens, but as you've admitted, a PDA could do the same. So why is competition between nations not the exact same type of free market force that would drive PDAs to not rape and pillage their vassals?
Is a state unjustified when it incarcerates murderers? This is central; If you find that there is a justified use of force, then you need to agree that the justifiability of actions coming from those with power rests upon a spectrum, and does not automatically lie at 'unjust' for states and 'just' for private individuals. You've already admitted that private enterprises COULD do stuff you consider unjustified.
If you admit that, then your conclusion is false and we can start a more honest discussion about the proper limits that can be imposed upon a government and how best to impose them.
theres a ton of incentive mechanisms that I havent told you and that youre not giving yourself a chance to think about
Oh. So you can't be asked to actually field a working civil society, but you want me to believe that in the face of the massive holes, zero case study support and completely contradictory support you've pushed forward that I should take a leap of faith and assume it'll work.
No. Try again.
well I don't think you'll keep up a good credit armlocking people. so people will know you're a thug and you'll lose opportunities you'd otherwise have if u were a bit more civil. maybe you wont be able to buy food at the supermarket get a job at a big company no credit cards at all its up to you to weight it out the advantages
Who's going to deny those opportunities? And how would this even matter if you haven't solved the problem of me stealing in the first place? Why would I bother buying food if I could just take it and walk away with it?
You tried to address this issue by calling the PDA your legal system, but I've already demolished that. Here, however, you're back to an entirely stigma based system. You don't even know which option you want to support! I can't blame you! They're all trash.
but that bold capitalized and angry one is new, isnt it
No. Already dealt with.
1-increases control over peons 2-artificial scarcity or control over resources 3-war breeds fear, fear breeds ... more state, and state breeds war. the ciiiircle of liiiiiiife 4-it's free anyway, you're making peons kill peons 5-not so much over territory or resources, but some of that yeah.
You realize all of these support my statement, right? I don't really give a shit about your moral point of view, but you're trying to defend the statement that war is not profitable, yet you just gave me a list of sources of profit. Besides 3, which is a problem that your entire system just wishes away.
also, private mafias work hand in hand w\ government, contrary to popular thought
Yeah, I figured when they were having shootouts between the FBI and the italian mafia that they were both trying to consolidate power independently. Little did I know that co-existing as power brokers means they're not competing, despite the fact that they were both aggressively attempting to consolidate their positions!
Oh wait, that makes no sense and neither does your premise here!
if the government were to make drugs legal, prostitution legal, gambling legal guess what, the private mafias would disappear, because the peaceful entrepreneurs would outcompete them easily, and they would run out of money
Go to Somalia. None of that stuff is illegal because they have no real legal system. I guess the private warlords don't exist anymore because of that?
Wrong.
you know, I never said the market of state mafias didn't also respond to austrian economics theory. they do. a "nicer" mafia certainly would have more of a capital pool to leech resources from. but its just a parasitic relationship, its up to the flea whether it wants to suck off more blood or less.
No. It actually works such that a nicer mafia would have less immediate resources available, so their competitors who were less nice would have more funds to expand and take more territory, which would again give them more resources to expand. Once they hit the point that they were relatively equally matched with other PDAs, they would focus on developing their captive market by being nicer. The financial market exhibited the exact same problem during the recent crisis; Even if you knew what you were doing was wrong, someone else was going to make a move and if you didn't you'd be smaller than your opponent and would get completely walked over.
How is that even MORE of a factor when it comes to an organization that essentially buys guns and tries to expand their turf with goons? Well, you're going to assume that people are made of daisies and that people could contract with another PDA or some shit, but you might as well make the same argument about street gangs; doesn't flesh out in real life.
"is it likely?" and how can you decrease the chances of that happening? wouldn't the PDAs clients be demanding some insurance that the PDA isn't stockpilling or perhaps unjustifiably coercing some of its clients into paying them?
Rofl. Asking for insurance insurance again, eh? Your PDA is your insurance against unjustified coercion, but you have no recourse if they themselves coerce you.
Its quis custodiet ipsos custodes all over again, but in this case the watchmen aren't just enforcers; they're an unaccountable power monopoly. Here you're faced with an infinite regress because of the issues of corruptibility of ultimate power. This very same corruption is probably why you're so opposed to states, yet you don't actually solve anything here. You just complain and set up a system which would make the problem worse.
but over all just the fact that it's not a unjustifiably coercive agency and therefore can have competitors should decrease the risks a lot. if theres any demand by the consumers for insurance, then insurance will be served (for a slight cost ofc, theres nothing free, not even w\ a socialist state)
See, i'd like to agree with this, but the fact that you admit that a PDA could eliminate competition by unjustified means essentially 1) admits that a PDA could abuse their position as a monopoly to gain a massive competitive advantage in the market, and 2) sets up tyrannical corporatism of a nature far worse than any government we currently have.
o__O Did they both get temp banned because of this thread?
Anyways, most people who would rat out a bribe are those who can't stand another person getting easy money (being bribed) or an easy way out (bribing).
#2 - Individuals cannot know what others want/think because no individual reveals the entirety of their thinking to another. Taking a "good guess" is nowhere near close enough.
#3 - Communicating is most definitely an action. Someones actions will never represent someone's thought. It may represent part of it, but not enough to actually know what they are thinking; only enough to make assumptions.
it's true that you'll never know the other person's entire mind, but being sure of someone's intentions is definitely possible. basically, i disagree that you would need to know all of somebody's thoughts to be sure of what they think on a major issue.
#4 - In that procrastinating example, the short-term goal has been shifted from finishing the paper to avoiding to finish the paper. #4 is correct. The ONLY reason people do something is because they believe it is the best method to reach their goal(s). Whether it is short-term or long-term goals that are focused on at any particular moment is dependent on the moment itself.
are you really saying that no one has done something just because he felt like it? am i the only one? -_-
#2 - Individuals cannot know what others want/think because no individual reveals the entirety of their thinking to another. Taking a "good guess" is nowhere near close enough.
#3 - Communicating is most definitely an action. Someones actions will never represent someone's thought. It may represent part of it, but not enough to actually know what they are thinking; only enough to make assumptions.
Read this first, thoroughly. Then think that the informations you acquired aren't even a tip of an iceberg when it comes to the subject of communication in sociology (this field should be a major one for your OP, communication spreads over many fields).
When you educate yourself some more (you have some free time now seeing that you're banned), come back, read your OP again and review it.
Edit: Read the rest of the OP so I can provide some more opinions.
1. It's hard to understand because I'm a grammar nazi. 2. You start off wrong and then the rest of your hypothesis just goes downhill. 3. You want to look smart but you fail hard. I have no idea about your education but you either read just a few things you found on the net and then proceeded to create your "hypothesis" or you're studying sociology/psychology or whatever else but you're a bad student.
Required reading for the OP: Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind H. G. Wells, Men Like Gods (yes, it's science-fiction, but it illustrates what you're trying to convey a lot better than you do)
After you finished this 2 books and familiarized yourself with terms like diffusion of responsibility, come back and make the thread again.
To be brutally honest, this whole OP fails for two reasons: 1) Totally misconstrued sense of "consciousness" 2) Narrow understanding of human communication, as Manitou suggested
So we are all greedy. We all act collectively, only on the "presumption" that its what other people want and that we are all after the same goal.
That's really great, very insightful. Rampant individualism is the best thing you can do for society. Taking care of yourself and "yours" is the best thing you can do for society. Screw the old lady down the street who cant pay for her healthcare, that's obviously her fault.
This really gives me a philosophical reasoning to be a self-centered prick! TYVM
On May 02 2010 11:33 cursor wrote: So we are all greedy. We all act collectively, only on the "presumption" that its what other people want and that we are all after the same goal.
That's really great, very insightful. Rampant individualism is the best thing you can do for society. Taking care of yourself and "yours" is the best thing you can do for society. Screw the old lady down the street who cant pay for her healthcare, that's obviously her fault.
This really gives me a philosophical reasoning to be a self-centered prick! TYVM
This is a classic misunderstanding. Nobody is suggesting that it would be best if everyone did absolutely nothing to help poor people like this figurative old lady you speak of. That is patently ludicrous. Why it should be the case that opponents of individualism construct this nonsensical idea about it is beyond me, but it is simply not what is being advocated whatsoever. If YOU would not have compassion enough to freely WANT to help the old lady, then in a free society you would be perfectly free to not help her. Just the same, you would also be perfectly free to offer whatever assistance you were capable of, and in the amount that you felt was proper. The only thing that libertarian theory espouses is that it is detrimental to the sum "wealth"** of society to use force to make anyone do anything. If you feel that humanity simply lacks the humanity to provide help to the less fortunate without someone holding a gun to their head, then that's your own cynical problem to deal with. It's got nothing to do with the validity of the economic and logical arguments contained in libertarian thought.
** And here, by "wealth", I don't mean money or shiney coins - I mean wealth as measured subjectively by the sum of the population. For a monk to be wealthy is for him to be free to spend his days sitting peacefully on the top of a mountain and free to beg for food such that he can devote his efforts to the pursuit of enlightenment. For a generous person, being wealthy is to be free to use their time and resources helping others, and deriving pleasure from doing good. And so on - wealth is defined by what people value.
Forcing the monk to pay taxes or prohibiting him from begging, thus making him get a job and toil away in a factory that he might earn wages in a "legitimate" fashion, robs him of that which he considers wealth, even though it produces more consumer goods, higher GDP, and more "money".
Point well made. It's part of an individual desire to want to help someone. Because... that makes ME feel good. The point is using (or not using) collective consensus to force others to do something. Like pay for this or give that. If I believe people won't do enough of it freely, that's more of a lack of faith in humanity than a criticism of a system of personal freedom.
On May 02 2010 12:05 cursor wrote: Point well made. It's part of an individual desire to want to help someone. Because... that makes ME feel good. The point is using (or not using) collective consensus to force others to do something. Like pay for this or give that. If I believe people won't do enough of it freely, that's more of a lack of faith in humanity than a criticism of a system of personal freedom.
Perhaps not enough for your tastes - but there will always be some with a thirst for more than others when it comes to almost anything. I still don't think it's any more right to use majority consensus to force others into whatever mode of "normal" that majority feels normal is. If, after all, the majority are happy to freely contribute to the less fortunate, then shouldn't that be enough? Why force the rest of the people?
It gets even more complex when you start thinking of it like a chess game - consequence upon consequence, move after move. Consider free access to publicly funded roads, for example - funded by taxes which people are forced to pay. How many goods are shipped via transport truck because road maintenance is funded publicly? Surely fuel taxes contribute to road maintenance, but they are by no means the sole source of funding for road upkeep. This creates a distortion in the cost of transportation. Perhaps the real cost of shipping by rail would be cheaper, save that when you ship by rail you have to deal with the private rail companies who, by necessity (and without the luxury of taxation to cheapen their service) require that their charges for use equal the cost of maintenance and upkeep. Of course, getting the taxpayer discount on roads means that good shipped by road become cheaper in the stores, making it less expensive for the person buying it - they just make up the difference in taxes where they don't equate the value to the product. Still, without the external intervention, who knows - perhaps rail would have become more dominant as a means of shipping goods. Maybe the fuel consumption of the nation would drop measurably were that the case. Who knows?
Entire patterns of economic action are affected by deceptively simple and superficially well-intentioned policies when they are effected on a large scale. What it does is make it very difficult to calculate the true costs of goods and services when they are maniupulated with force politics - ultimately it leads to people making decisions based on the rules rather than what makes most economic sense. It necessarily leads to waste and misallocation of resources - ultimately an atrophy of the collective pool of wealth. Like driving with the brakes on, it's just entirely detrimental to everyone's well being. Some will come out ahead, of course, and thus the impetus to maintain said policies. Still, the cost of those who come out ahead is paid for by a greater cost of those who come out behind. War is the ultimate example - the purest use of force, and I don't think anyone will argue that war is bad for everyone. With every use of force you pile on the attrition - it's logically inescapable.
To make up the numbers entirely, It's not so simple as to take a dollar from the rich and give it to the poor - you have to take two dollars from the rich to give a dollar to the poor and another dollar just gets wasted away as a consequence of the action being coercive in nature. Thus one has to be very careful in making the decision to take that dollar by force, and weigh the consequences of what is lost in doing so. To my knowledge, nobody does this. Only Austrian Economics even considers the notion, and nobody teaches Austrian Economics. 0_o
Let's not assume though, that people who have 10 million dollars actually deserve that money. And are actually a Million times more productive than the man in the 3rd world country who has 10 dollars and is actually making the product that the millionare "owns". Participation in production should assume some kind of ownership of the product, instead of the laborer being another item to just be owned. The rich, to me, have been stealing the whole time anyways.
On May 02 2010 13:11 cursor wrote: Let's not assume though, that people who have 10 million dollars actually deserve that money. And are actually a Million times more productive than the man in the 3rd world country who has 10 dollars and is actually making the product that the millionare "owns". Participation in production should assume some kind of ownership of the product, instead of the laborer being another item to just be owned. The rich, to me, have been stealing the whole time anyways.
It's difficult to disentangle from coercive government policies just how much the rich deserve of what they have, but if you take away all of the interventions of force by governments then yes - the rich deserve every penny of what they have, just as everyone deserves what is theirs. Why wouldn't they? Economics requires a dispassionate and logical mind. Being emotional is no way to think clearly.
Consider the factory worker who cuts or fits pipes. He makes a wage for what he does, but how would he ever do so if someone wasn't there to decide which pipes needed cutting and fitting most urgently - to give him useful work to do such that his skill of cutting and fitting pipes was put to use in a productive framework that ultimately generates goods and wealth? Simply cutting and fitting pipes is not a means to wealth in and of itself. How many pipe fitters have the mental prowess to be successful on such a scale - managing the intricacies of a vast organisation. What if he is negligent and fails in his duties - what is the scope of the damage? Perhaps an accident, perhaps some downtime, extra repairs, a few casualties, etc.
How about the president of the company? What if he is negligent and fails in his duties? Everything could go wrong - the whole company, should it become unprofitable due to his inability to manage, could fail. Thousands of workers would lose their jobs, masses of capital equipment would be wasted - millions or billions of dollars in damage could be done. Why does it not make sense that the person whose success or failure reaches further gets paid more money?
In fact, the other thing to consider is that rich people don't spend most of their money - they invest it. There are exceptions, of course, but those people don't stay rich for very long. Mike Tyson is a pretty good example of that. One could say that he didn't deserve to be rich, and it was true - he couldn't stay rich even after making more money than almost anyone. But, at any rate, people who invest are important. They make decisions about what sorts of things are worth buying now so that, in the future, they will be more productive - this is what fuels growth. It's what makes technology get better year by year. It's what makes hospitals cure more and more diseases. It's what makes mines spring up which provide materials to build our stuff with, etc, etc. When these investors are successful it means they have done well - the things they have bought have indeed been useful and have contributed things of value to the pool of goods and services we all buy from - the pool of stuff that we seek to satisfy our desires.
And yes, we all have desires - whatever they may be. If we didn't, we'd be dead. Even if what you desire is free time, then more productive processes to provide more of those things you still have to work for means that they are provided at a lower cost - thus allowing you to spend less, work less, and maintain the same standard of living you had before.
Back to the investors - if they are not successful, then it means they have invested poorly - the things they have invested in have not produced more goods or services that people want, or at a price that they want them. They lose their wealth to the degree that they have made bad investments. So you see, the only way to get rich, in a free society, is to continue to be successful not in spending your own wealth on yourself, but to save it and invest in things that you feel will most please your fellow man - the better you are at making or investing in things that your bring pleasure to your fellow man, the better you are at maintaining and retaining your wealth. How bad can that be?
Would the folks at Blizzard be rich if they weren't so good at making games that brought pleasure to so many people? Would they continue to make games that were better and better if they didn't take profits and spend them towards more equipment, development, and employees? It's the great circle. Let go of jealousy and the logic is irrefutable.
You honestly think Donald Trump has Earned, in human output, 16 houses, 13 cars and 2 planes? While someone who works 7 days a week 12 hours a day making shoes deserves to live in a sheet metal shack?
That's fine. The logic is irrefutable. Okay. Investing, just gambling on what will make your money grow is a fine way to make money.
Jealousy plays no part in my logic. I'm sure I'm in the top 10% of wealth in the world what with my computer and my refrigerator. I work a part time job and live in a nice house. Not renting. My point is, wealth is concentrated so tightly at the top... with the top 1% owning the vast majority of the wealth in the world. To think that they actually produce, or even facilitate the production, to warrant that of ownership is pretty silly. Considering most of them just push papers around and have "meetings" all day- bet it in a restaurant or on a golf course.
Plumbers do not need to be told what type of pipe goes where. Usually the "owners" have no idea how to do these things. There are business models where decisions are made democratically, by the body of workers.
I really find it ironic that we live in a society that treasures "democracy" so so much, but will defend, with fervor, the correctness of working in these huge top down structures (corporations, government bodies) where all the decisions are made at the top, and are forced downward. You're a great Democrat (in the political sense) untill you go to work, then you're a rank and file fascist.
Other business models do exist, and work. Though I won't argue, that until this point- the top down, monarchy style ownership has done much much better.
edit: Investing really gets me though. The sweatshop worker should invest half his earnings. Or, investing being sold on TV as an "everyman" sort of solution to retirement, even though 99% of earnings are made by 1% of investors. I'll spare you the links to obviously biased websites. Let's just be glad social security wasn't "invested" in the stock market at the time it was being pushed. And my parents happened to lose over half of their retirement in 2008. Fortunately, Social Security wasn't invested as well.
The fact of the matter is that we as Americans embrace an imperfect sense of democracy and capitalism much like the Soviets embraced an imperfect sense of communism and dictatorship. You can argue that rich of America only own their fortunes due to their gimmicky passion for the economy or whatever capitalist-favored industry they partake in and that they are not worthy of any more praise than a less paid and less influential physician or even a construction worker. However, you cannot deny that the higher paid you are in a capitalist society the more critical your position is to the society as a whole. Its true that there are other working systems out there, its just a matter of whether or not the government feels the initial pros of that system outweigh the initial cons and if the government has the capacity to work towards perfecting that system.
I really find it ironic that we live in a society that treasures "democracy" so so much, but will defend, with fervor, the correctness of working in these huge top down structures (corporations, government bodies) where all the decisions are made at the top, and are forced downward. You're a great Democrat (in the political sense) untill you go to work, then you're a rank and file fascist
Well, I for one have no love for democracy. Democracy is just another form of tyrrany. Ten people in a room and eight vote to steal from two so it's ok? It's a screwed up system if you ask me.
even though 99% of earnings are made by 1% of investors.
Probably because 99% of humans would never have evolved our society past the stone age. If anything it justifies the top-down structure, except that in the corporate world you have to earn your place at the top rather than to win it through violence or a beauty-pageant popularity contest.
In a truly free market system you can't stay rich (ergo : powerful) without being successful at being powerful - in creating things for people that they don't know how to create for themselves and are willing to work doing anything to have. In a democratic system to remain powerful you just have to be skillful in the art of screwing the minority.
To say the rich deserve what they have is only to say that, at least in a truly free society, other people feel they deserve it. And other people do so by freely agreeing to exchange the goods provided by those people for the fruits of their labour. What is a carrot worth? What is a graphics card worth?
Something else to think about - intellectual property would not be something considered property by a libertarian. A band couldn't record an album and then monopolize the distribution of copies of it. To make money they would too have to work - to perform, etc. An album would become something like an advertisement - perhaps sold with goodies, but the music itself free to distribute. Their real earnings would come from performance - getting up and going to work every day. Same with technology - to build a computer chip would make you money, but you wouldn't be allowed to forcibly stop someone else from taking their own materials and making one just the same. That way competition is true - companies aren't allowed intellectual monopolies graned by the state. If you want to make a Core i7 CPU, you're going to have to do it better and cheaper than the other guy. Your advantage comes from being first, from reputation and quality of production, etc. I could go on.
Ya. Is society more "just" now? Or more "just" if it were re-arranged? To assume it would be "pure" either way is pretty naive. I certainly won't say we need to redistribute everything. I obviously wouldn't say that society is now a perfect refection of 'production' to 'possession'.
On May 02 2010 15:46 cursor wrote: Ya. Is society more "just" now? Or more "just" if it were re-arranged? To assume it would be "pure" either way is pretty naive. I certainly won't say we need to redistribute everything. I obviously wouldn't say that society is now a perfect refection of 'production' to 'possession'.
Either way we are off topic. GG
I quote Kurt Cobain :
Monkey see, monkey do I don't know why I'd rather be dead than cool I don't know why Every line ends in rhyme I don't know why Less is more, love is blind I don't know why
oh hey I'm unbanned First I wanna say that I surely deserved to be tempbanned, but L did not. He did not offend me in the least bit, while I was calling him a thug like 5 times every post. If my pleading could have any weight on the moderator's decision I would PM him, but I fear for getting banned again so I won't, ha. I'll respond very kindly from now and capitalize every sentence.
On April 30 2010 14:58 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: What a battle Yurebis and L had. Why'd you fucking mods have to stop it!?!?
It wasnt for the flame I don't think, but because they didn't like the low-level arguments we were having, too much repeat and snobbishness. Anyway they have full rights over the wonderful site that is teamliquid and I would personally do the same except maybe issuing a warning first. But no problem.
On April 30 2010 15:06 buhhy wrote: o__O Did they both get temp banned because of this thread?
Yes Being jerks was the reason given Repetitively so in the case of L, worth a week of isolation, and 2 days for me. Not that bad.
On April 30 2010 15:06 buhhy wrote: Anyways, most people who would rat out a bribe are those who can't stand another person getting easy money (being bribed) or an easy way out (bribing).
Following premise #4, People act on their best interest, those who refuse a bribe weighted that taking the bribe would give him less net benefit than not taking a bribe. Could be due to high factors like the chance of getting caught times punishment, psychological burden (yes that can be a factor), retaliation by the part of the victimized party, idk
cash too low, risks too high, bribe isn't made, and no moral judgment has been passed.
I think entrepreneurs could very easily handle those risks, at the very least better than government does since the state just ignores the economical incentives of man wholly. Guess what, it never goes away, the fairest of judges can also be bribed (for a lot of money). I think even L agrees on that. So the question is not "how can bribery and corruption be stopped" since it's not ever going to stop, but how can it be diminished best.
By the gun? It maybe so, but using the gun to stop another gun is kinda counter-effective I would think.
On April 30 2010 15:13 Ace wrote: I had L winning on my scorecard
Ofc he's winning, he uses a gun to make his point. Very easy to win like that. Ask your local representatives.
#2 - Individuals cannot know what others want/think because no individual reveals the entirety of their thinking to another. Taking a "good guess" is nowhere near close enough.
#3 - Communicating is most definitely an action. Someones actions will never represent someone's thought. It may represent part of it, but not enough to actually know what they are thinking; only enough to make assumptions.
it's true that you'll never know the other person's entire mind, but being sure of someone's intentions is definitely possible. basically, i disagree that you would need to know all of somebody's thoughts to be sure of what they think on a major issue.
Which is why I said you can assume, and you can even be right on your assumptions. But you can only know if you're right after the fact, after you've let the individual act the way you described w/o changing the initial circumstances (i.e., putting a gun in his mouth)
#4 - In that procrastinating example, the short-term goal has been shifted from finishing the paper to avoiding to finish the paper. #4 is correct. The ONLY reason people do something is because they believe it is the best method to reach their goal(s). Whether it is short-term or long-term goals that are focused on at any particular moment is dependent on the moment itself.
are you really saying that no one has done something just because he felt like it? am i the only one? -_-
"Just because" is also an intent. But if you mean to argue that there are cases where people do stuff without knowing, then yes that happens, however, the great great majority of the time, 99% being my made up statistic, I believe man act conscientiously.
#2 - Individuals cannot know what others want/think because no individual reveals the entirety of their thinking to another. Taking a "good guess" is nowhere near close enough.
#3 - Communicating is most definitely an action. Someones actions will never represent someone's thought. It may represent part of it, but not enough to actually know what they are thinking; only enough to make assumptions.
Read this first, thoroughly. Then think that the informations you acquired aren't even a tip of an iceberg when it comes to the subject of communication in sociology (this field should be a major one for your OP, communication spreads over many fields).
When you educate yourself some more (you have some free time now seeing that you're banned), come back, read your OP again and review it.
Edit: Read the rest of the OP so I can provide some more opinions.
1. It's hard to understand because I'm a grammar nazi. 2. You start off wrong and then the rest of your hypothesis just goes downhill. 3. You want to look smart but you fail hard. I have no idea about your education but you either read just a few things you found on the net and then proceeded to create your "hypothesis" or you're studying sociology/psychology or whatever else but you're a bad student.
Required reading for the OP: Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind H. G. Wells, Men Like Gods (yes, it's science-fiction, but it illustrates what you're trying to convey a lot better than you do)
After you finished this 2 books and familiarized yourself with terms like diffusion of responsibility, come back and make the thread again.
The premises and hypothesis are not mine but rather come from praxeology, a very well studied field of economics/philosophy that studies human action inside austrian economics. it is an a-priori, introspective theory, so if you do not agree with the premises you can certainly disregard everything as rubbish, no problem.
But do note that communication IS part of human action. You would not notice the difference between an android talking, to a human talking, so how is it that you feel safe to infer you know what the human is thinking when technically you shouldn't even know he's human? An agent in reality is just an agent in reality, he can have many chemical truths and those may be scientifically proven to be a basis for a conscience, and analyze it, but until that day, you cannot logically prove that you know what other man thinks. It is only assumed per the way he acts and talks, correct?
On May 02 2010 11:16 Drk_ItachiX wrote: To be brutally honest, this whole OP fails for two reasons: 1) Totally misconstrued sense of "consciousness"
Just my own definition, for the sake of discussion. If you don't like it, then redefine it and show it to me why my definition is "misconstrued".
On May 02 2010 11:16 Drk_ItachiX wrote: 2) Narrow understanding of human communication, as Manitou suggested
Prove it to me how can communication exist outside of action. Can there be communication without action?
On May 02 2010 11:33 cursor wrote: So we are all greedy. We all act collectively, only on the "presumption" that its what other people want and that we are all after the same goal.
That's really great, very insightful. Rampant individualism is the best thing you can do for society. Taking care of yourself and "yours" is the best thing you can do for society. Screw the old lady down the street who cant pay for her healthcare, that's obviously her fault.
This really gives me a philosophical reasoning to be a self-centered prick! TYVM
Nope. you got it all wrong and thanks for the smear. I am saying that the only way you can know that which is best for another is to respect that other's wishes. And you don't do that by forcing a gun to everyones head and telling them to be nice. You offer them things, and you trade things, individually. There can't be a greater good in a world of individuals. There can only be a net individual good, and that can only happen if you allow those individuals to choose what is best for them.
The grounds for cooperation are very individualistic, so much in fact that I despise collectivism just for that equivocation.
On May 02 2010 11:33 cursor wrote: So we are all greedy. We all act collectively, only on the "presumption" that its what other people want and that we are all after the same goal.
That's really great, very insightful. Rampant individualism is the best thing you can do for society. Taking care of yourself and "yours" is the best thing you can do for society. Screw the old lady down the street who cant pay for her healthcare, that's obviously her fault.
This really gives me a philosophical reasoning to be a self-centered prick! TYVM
blabber
Dude why you be stealing my job thats no fair
On May 02 2010 12:05 cursor wrote: Point well made. It's part of an individual desire to want to help someone. Because... that makes ME feel good. The point is using (or not using) collective consensus to force others to do something. Like pay for this or give that. If I believe people won't do enough of it freely, that's more of a lack of faith in humanity than a criticism of a system of personal freedom.
Not just feel good (though thats certainly a factor), but he can expect to have something back in the future too. And the lack of faith part, I wouldn't call it faith, it's just another economical evaluation like any other.
A thug expects people not to give him money even if hes nice to them and all, and since he wants that money so bad, he's gonna force people to give it to him. He doesn't have a "lack of faith" that people will give him money but, he just wants that money now, his goals now. It makes his means no different to me, for whatever his goals are, even if external to himself A thug stealing for medicare and education is no different than a thug stealing for bling imo.
The state does not act on a collective wish, as that does not exist, he's just stealing and giving some crap services back as an act of "self-sacrifice". (Oh how kind of him, stealing from me to give it to me! Very sweet.)
On May 02 2010 13:11 cursor wrote: Let's not assume though, that people who have 10 million dollars actually deserve that money.
By deserving, you mean what? Like.. whether he stole it from somebody? I don't know if they did and I couldn't tell unless I were a private investigator and went through their whole lives.
If he stole part of it then yeah I'd consider him undeserving, obv.
On May 02 2010 13:11 cursor wrote:And are actually a Million times more productive than the man in the 3rd world country who has 10 dollars and is actually making the product that the millionare "owns".
Then you mean to assume in that hypothetical that the millionaire stole their labor from then? Was the millionaire forcing them to work at the point of a gun, or was it a voluntary job where the laborers could leave anytime?
If they laborers were indeed doing everything, why not then leave the job, do their own thing, and earn a lot more than what the millionaire offers? Are you saying that the workers are dumb and wouldn't have guessed that they could (in which case it makes the millionaire no less deserving nor exploring nobody, he's supplying the workers with something, even if that something is just a little information on how to do their thing), or that the millionaire is stealing their times and lives by forcing them to work?
Too muddy of an argument, needs clarification.
On May 02 2010 13:11 cursor wrote: Participation in production should assume some kind of ownership of the product, instead of the laborer being another item to just be owned. The rich, to me, have been stealing the whole time anyways.
The laborer is not even claimed to be owned unless he's not a laborer but a slave, in which case he should be chained, confined, under surveilance or a little bit of all options. And, in which case, I'm just against it as you are.
If the laborer chose to be there and receive a shit paycheck, what's wrong about it? The laborer is working on his best interest too, and if better jobs are available, then he will go for them instead, and the millionaire will be left with nothing or less apt workers for himself.
On May 02 2010 14:52 cursor wrote: You honestly think Donald Trump has Earned, in human output, 16 houses, 13 cars and 2 planes? While someone who works 7 days a week 12 hours a day making shoes deserves to live in a sheet metal shack?
I don't claim to know enough about him to judge either way. But if all you know is that he got a lot of stuff, then I would say that you don't know either. Has he, or has he not, stolen from someone else to own what he owns? The answer to that is the same answer to whether I would consider him to be unworthy of his property or not.
On May 02 2010 14:52 cursor wrote: That's fine. The logic is irrefutable. Okay. Investing, just gambling on what will make your money grow is a fine way to make money.
Are you implying there's something wrong with investment? You're investing time into a forum. Investment is often times how capital is able to accumulate, and superior chains of production come to exist. You invest into something because there's a greater prospect of return than if you did nothing or continued to do the same thing.
And gambling... same deal.
On May 02 2010 14:52 cursor wrote: Jealousy plays no part in my logic. I'm sure I'm in the top 10% of wealth in the world what with my computer and my refrigerator. I work a part time job and live in a nice house. Not renting. My point is, wealth is concentrated so tightly at the top... with the top 1% owning the vast majority of the wealth in the world. To think that they actually produce, or even facilitate the production, to warrant that of ownership is pretty silly. Considering most of them just push papers around and have "meetings" all day- bet it in a restaurant or on a golf course.
If they don't produce nor do anything that other people don't want to trade for, then they won't earn anything and their capital reserves will diminish until they do. The very basic premise of capitalism is that people can only earn when they do something worth to others... so unless you can point out what they're doing exactly that is 1-not worth to others 2-earns them money anyway 3- capitalistic in nature, then I don't know what you're talking about. suonds like theft, or unjustified transference of resources, which goes against free market principles ofc.
On May 02 2010 14:52 cursor wrote: Plumbers do not need to be told what type of pipe goes where. Usually the "owners" have no idea how to do these things. There are business models where decisions are made democratically, by the body of workers.
Then go become self employed plumbers? Isn't it in their self interest to earn more? If they find the company they're employed to as provinding them with nothing they already have, then they'll certainly go do their business themselves! But it's not the case, is it. Even if it's just a name, the company does offer him with something, because he chose to be there! Democracy.. I'm not going there, too much for one post.
On May 02 2010 14:52 cursor wrote: I really find it ironic that we live in a society that treasures "democracy" so so much, but will defend, with fervor, the correctness of working in these huge top down structures (corporations, government bodies) where all the decisions are made at the top, and are forced downward. You're a great Democrat (in the political sense) untill you go to work, then you're a rank and file fascist.
Free market is not top down. The corporations listen to the consumers, and I would argue, in a far far more responsive and direct way than the best direct democracy could offer.
Well whatever let me try to explain a bit.
Democracy listens to the wishes of every individual in its geographic region and concatenates into a certain number of individuals called the state. The state has its ways of doing things much like a corporation does, except, its goals are not profit but public approval. More precisely, enough public approval so they keep afloat. They have very little incentive to go past public approval as their profits do not scale as well as a company owner (unless they got private ties to like, war profiteers and shit, but thats besides the point). Their job is to hear the whining and do just enough about it so the babies shut the fuck up.
Compare that to the incentives of a corporation, that, do have a direct scaling of earnings to profit, and it is in the shareholder's best interest to provide exactly that service which the corporation does best, ever more efficiently so they earn more.
Thats in a nutshell. The common argument for the state or democracy is that there are certain services that the free market cannot handle (bs but w/e) so "we need" people w\ guns to do that for us.
Also, I suggest that you work on your definition of force. Is a boss at work being forceful when he preaches (screams even) at its employee? I'd say no, because the employee can leave anytime if he doesn't like the job, so "fuck teh pooleeece" doesn't apply in a free association atmosphere... as much as I like to say "fuck da poleeece"...
On May 02 2010 14:52 cursor wrote: Other business models do exist, and work. Though I won't argue, that until this point- the top down, monarchy style ownership has done much much better.
How is capitalism monarchy? is a boss no different than a king for you? For one, you need the king or feudal lord's authorization to leave the feud... not quite analogous IMO. Also if you know of a superb business model that is very efficient because of its added tolerance to the bottom employees, then guess what, you're free to sell that idea or make your own business and try it yourself. Unless you wish to force that model upon others, then yeah, I guess your best bet would be to implement it via democracy. It works good @ forcing, no joke.
On May 02 2010 14:52 cursor wrote: edit: Investing really gets me though. The sweatshop worker should invest half his earnings. Or, investing being sold on TV as an "everyman" sort of solution to retirement, even though 99% of earnings are made by 1% of investors. I'll spare you the links to obviously biased websites. Let's just be glad social security wasn't "invested" in the stock market at the time it was being pushed. And my parents happened to lose over half of their retirement in 2008. Fortunately, Social Security wasn't invested as well.
The sweatshop worker isn't being forced to work. He is doing that which he wants to do to the best of his ability (including knowledge).
If 99% of the earnings are made by 1% investors, then why the fuck do you posit that those investors are dumb enough to stay in that voluntarily joined group? They got to be either extremely retarded, or the situation isn't what you describe...
And your complaints on social security... I share them wholeheartedly, however the solution is not to... uh.. what, dismantle the stock market? if that's what you're implying with that parallel... but to stop stealing from people "for their own good". Let people do what they think it's best with their money, you can't possibly even get near their individual efficiency even if somehow you could indeed know what every citizen thinks, wants, needs. Even if the government had brainscanners and computers calculating every want in society automatically, they'd do a shittier job than if they'd let people choose, because the aggregate economical judgment of 300 million people > a few thousand bureaucrats in D.C., any day of the week
On May 02 2010 15:21 Drk_ItachiX wrote: The fact of the matter is that we as Americans embrace an imperfect sense of democracy and capitalism much like the Soviets embraced an imperfect sense of communism and dictatorship.
How can there be a perfect one, if there can't be a perfect transition between the minds of many, to the minds of an elite? The elite put in power is forever trying to guess what it's subjulgates are, and that evaluation is forever doomed to be imperfect, inefficient. It's a few thousand thugs trying to emulate the minds of millions... can't work.
On May 02 2010 15:21 Drk_ItachiX wrote:You can argue that rich of America only own their fortunes due to their gimmicky passion for the economy or whatever capitalist-favored industry they partake in and that they are not worthy of any more praise than a less paid and less influential physician or even a construction worker.
You praise whoever you want, dog. but if you mean to say any of the two did something wrong, I don't agree at all unless you prove that either has stolen from others to have what they have. If they didn't then what could have been done wrong? Working for cheap is bad? Selling a lot for cheap is bad? What can it be?
On May 02 2010 15:21 Drk_ItachiX wrote: However, you cannot deny that the higher paid you are in a capitalist society the more critical your position is to the society as a whole.
By critical, you mean, people depend on you more? Yeah, I can see that. However there is a huge gap between depending, and claiming to be deserving of your services. To illustrate:
If you were to invent a magical machine that made infinite loaves of bread, and were to sell them at a huge profit of a penny each, to the whole world, would it make people dependant on you? Maybe so, after some time it may be that every wheat farm goes bankrupt from your stable success. Are people entitled then to your bread? Would it be right then, for people to force you to keep making bread at one cent, never more or less?
It would not, your services are voluntary just as the people buying them are voluntarily funding you. Even if it means other peoples less efficient services are having less of a "share", in no way is it implied that such "shares" were deserving to any party. The consumer decides what it wants, every time, and if the prospect of their choicesbuying your cheap bread instead of the conventional one (edit) is their own doom, I would claim that they would be less likely to invest on you alone, maybe multiple machines can be done, before all the worlds wheat is left to decay
On May 02 2010 15:21 Drk_ItachiX wrote: Its true that there are other working systems out there, its just a matter of whether or not the government feels the initial pros of that system outweigh the initial cons and if the government has the capacity to work towards perfecting that system.
On May 02 2010 15:46 cursor wrote: Ya. Is society more "just" now? Or more "just" if it were re-arranged? To assume it would be "pure" either way is pretty naive. I certainly won't say we need to redistribute everything. I obviously wouldn't say that society is now a perfect refection of 'production' to 'possession'.
On April 30 2010 15:13 Ace wrote: I had L winning on my scorecard
Ofc he's winning, he uses a gun to make his point. Very easy to win like that. Ask your local representatives.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, you were winning on my scorecard. Till I realised you were a damn subjectivist, mr yuberries!!11!
How do you know my alt. screen name you be stalking me? you know me? don't be a jerk supporting the state then please unless you dont and I just misread
I don't ever base my arguments on moral subjectivism, value subjectivism is a requirement, but I could have been a natural rights advocate and they wouldn't change... austrian economics and praxeology are value-free theories it just so happens that peace is indeed profitable. and violence is indeed destructive. just so happens...
Thank you. Yes, I'm proposing its a legal system of stealing. No private investigators needed. Just as you might describe a 50% tax on the wealthy as a legal form of stealing. The system is a giant machine that funnels wealth from the bottom to the top... income distribution supports this. The only argument against is that 1% of people are the only "real" workers"... about 10% don't mind doing a little work... and 90% of people are just lazy leaches who want some kind of populist society so they can just do nothing. Of course, I'd argue that the vast majority of people are hard workers who are cheated out of owning part of what they produce by a system of wage slavery. It's actually a term used and in some circles isn't seen as any different from actual slavery. Especially in a society where your only other real choice is a different wage job- where the structure is essentially identical. Your point about "not having a gun to their heads" is of course, literally true.
My argument is that the ideas of a business being collectively owned are intentionally kept out of discussion- and would appeal to people if they were given a chance. I work in a job with a lot of public contact. I know 90% of people who come in, or more, don't know a thing about collective ownership, forming a union or even collective political action. In fact, its probably the same 90% that know as little to nothing about investing, starting their own business or taking some real capitalist initiative. But I do know, that you could get these people to do just about anything for 15$ an hour. Of course, that could be the way things or supposed to be, or a result of a system that intentionally makes them that way.
(edit: I wouldn't argue with Austrian Economics either, it makes too much sense. I'd prefer to see a more communal type of society, than an atomized one, just for the fact of the type of people I think each breeds- but sometimes we don't have a choice. Ron Paul is one of my favorite politicians and I wouldn't have a problem voting for him or being happy about him being president. I don't agree with a lot of the stuff he says- but enough of it makes perfect sense and he is rational enough for me to like him a lot.)
On May 03 2010 02:48 cursor wrote: Thank you. Yes, I'm proposing its a legal system of stealing. No private investigators needed. Just as you might describe a 50% tax on the wealthy as a legal form of stealing.
Ok. At least you're honest! I commend that.
On May 03 2010 02:48 cursor wrote: The system is a giant machine that funnels wealth from the bottom to the top... income distribution supports this. The only argument against is that 1% of people are the only "real" workers"... about 10% don't mind doing a little work... and 90% of people are just lazy leaches who want some kind of populist society so they can just do nothing.
Once you start passing judgment on what another man's work is worth, you are evaluating his work for you and yourself only. A judgment that the work of a CEO is no more valuable to you (or society as you want it to be) than the work of a sweatshop laborer would be no more objectively correct than say that the only real job is starcraft progaming and everyone else is a bum. What defines a person's salary is an aggregate of it's profit expectations by the person's boss, final consumers of the service, and everything in between. Does a CEO deserve to earn a million dollars a year? That's for each one to judge but fact is, he has aggregately been expected to, and people have invested that much capital on him because they expect him to serve it back by his functions of administration and whatnot (I srsly don't exactly know what a CEO does lol)
More simply and harshly put, you are nobody to judge what someone's job is worth (unless maybe you're going to be paying them one way or another and you wish to negotiate). You can however outcompete them and undercut if you're able. If being a CEO is a cakewalk, then surely other able persons would appeal to the corporation's shareholders by offering them the same service of the current CEO for half the payoff.
But I don't think it's that easy, and the shareholders probably are more than willing to spend an extra million dollars hiring someone trustworthy and stable. Who am I to tell anyways. I don't own any stock.
On May 03 2010 02:48 cursor wrote: Of course, I'd argue that the vast majority of people are hard workers who are cheated out of owning part of what they produce by a system of wage slavery. It's actually a term used and in some circles isn't seen as any different from actual slavery. Especially in a society where your only other real choice is a different wage job- where the structure is essentially identical. Your point about "not having a gun to their heads" is of course, literally true.
A little historical perspective. You are a neanderthal, and after a week worth of hunting, you've only managed to kill and eat a single deer, and are still starving. Would you blame the deer for offering you too little meat? Or maybe nature for not making enough available food for you? Today, (ohmygod I'm saying "we" again) are not at a technological era just yet where people can have electricity, clean water, food, housing, and so many other man-made products and services, for free. So until that time, "we" do have to put up with scarcity, number one.
Number two, if you believe in property rights, you are not entitled to other people's products and services, as much as they are not entitled to yours (Politics being the art of convincing people otherwise). Those workers you speak of are not being cheated because they are not having anything being taken away from them by other human forces.
Number three, poverty is a relative concept. What you consider to be poor today may have been rich a thousand years ago. Even the noblest of kings did not have gas pumps to keep him warm, electricity, well conserved food, etc. etc. etc.. so do have some perspective when you think about the poor. Why are they poor? Has the robber baron stolen anything from them? Are they entitled to be rich just because you feel bad for them?
On May 03 2010 02:48 cursor wrote: My argument is that the ideas of a business being collectively owned are intentionally kept out of discussion- and would appeal to people if they were given a chance. I work in a job with a lot of public contact. I know 90% of people who come in, or more, don't know a thing about collective ownership, forming a union or even collective political action. In fact, its probably the same 90% that know as little to nothing about investing, starting their own business or taking some real capitalist initiative. But I do know, that you could get these people to do just about anything for 15$ an hour. Of course, that could be the way things or supposed to be, or a result of a system that intentionally makes them that way.
As long as it's not forced bro, all the power to you.
On May 03 2010 02:48 cursor wrote: (edit: I wouldn't argue with Austrian Economics either, it makes too much sense. I'd prefer to see a more communal type of society, than an atomized one, just for the fact of the type of people I think each breeds- but sometimes we don't have a choice. Ron Paul is one of my favorite politicians and I wouldn't have a problem voting for him or being happy about him being president. I don't agree with a lot of the stuff he says- but enough of it makes perfect sense and he is rational enough for me to like him a lot.)
Ron Paul is a minarchist. So obviously he contradicts himself when he says the state is both harmful and necessary. Not all libertarians are minarchists. but depending on your definition of libertarianism, then they may not be libertarians anymore. The words been changed so much
I totally agree that no one is "entitled" to services of another. No one has the right to service from another. That's obviously just slavery. I tried explaining this to my Mom for like 2 hours, because she knows how socialist I lean- and she couldn't seem to understand what I meant. The state should be very careful about what it guarantees people, because eventually you may be looking at doing pretty heavy handed shit to make these things happen.
On May 03 2010 05:39 cursor wrote: I totally agree that no one is "entitled" to services of another. No one has the right to service from another. That's obviously just slavery. I tried explaining this to my Mom for like 2 hours, because she knows how socialist I lean- and she couldn't seem to understand what I meant. The state should be very careful about what it guarantees people, because eventually you may be looking at doing pretty heavy handed shit to make these things happen.
The classical self-contradiction of well-meaning socialism. It's one or the other - either nobody is entitled to the services of another, or you belive that they are. Socialism is, ipso facto, the latter.
Wanting to do good for other people is not socialism - that's just being a good person. Making other people do what you feel is good for other people is socialism, and it is a form of slavery.
On May 03 2010 14:38 EmeraldSparks wrote: Should parents be required to feed their children? Yes. That is not slavery. It is duty.
You mean, you would support the use of coercion against parents for the goals of making them treat to their offspring? Such duty is in your head. It is not in the heads of abusive parents obviously.
There are more peaceful ways of resolving the "issue" (your deep disdain to other's people use of their property), like claiming the abused child to be misused homesteadable property in court. if the court agrees, they're not going to do the dirty work for you, but they also aren't going to defend the parents if you break into their homes to retrieve the misused property. .
What makes children homesteadable property? Idk, some level of setience, the prospect of it becoming a rational being... w/e. How can someone prove to do a "better" job at homesteading something without homesteading it? Don't think it's that hard to prove if you got a good parenting reputation yourself, while the parents are keeping the child locked, beating, and barely feeding it... What's "better" anyway since there can't be a priori goals? The goal would obviously be to keep the children alive and healthy.
Tbh I don't really care about other people's misuse of homesteadable property even if I were able to homestead it instead. For those that do care... I don't see why you caring makes it an obligation in the part of another individual to do what you want. How about you try talking to them first, or maybe buying their children? Sounds harsh, but so is the CPS knocking down peoples front doors and taking children while parents are out.
o ic, it only becomes THE law when you have the leviathan god enacting it ok
No. The law is not a specific rule within the larger context of a legal system. A legal system has rules for who makes rules, rules for who interprets rules, penalties on people who don't follow rules and ways of enacting those penalties, etc. If you take away any of these qualities, you don't have a functioning legal system.
You could have a static legal system that doesn't need all that... but whatever, that's just pure semantics, and I have no problem using your definitions.
A law (not The Law, ok) is just a formal guideline on what actions are justifiable or not. But it stems not from the lawmaker, it stems from what people think its fair. You can have the best legal system, and the best legislators in place. If people don't like one of the laws, they're worthless, they're pieces of paper.
Ultimately, it is each individual's moral sense, in the form of agreements (however they may be), that decide what a law ought to be. The lawmaker just formalizes it. His function isn't to regulate people's actions, it is to facilitate them. Each individual that believes in it will adopt those laws without being unjustifiably coerced into it, and if they reflect a common agreement, then a lot of people will accept it and have their interpersonal activities facilitated by it.
Try seeing things that way for a moment. I know it's hard but lawmaker (gives right to)-> peon wrong! or citizen -> lawmaker -> citizen dumb... but individual <-(negotiates right)-> lawmaker <-> individual which could ofc be reduced to individual <-> individual
if someone rich guy pays a reputable court to make a law to his benefit, people will notice and call them on it.
People do this all the time in the majority of states in the world. Over 90% of the world's legal systems are run via bribes (including some of those in the USA which you actually mention )
amazing stat though, and I don't doubt it.
On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Why do I support this? I don't. The legal systems which involve such corruption are those with the weakest government oversight; Western industrialized nations, by and large, are very well developed on the legal front; state courts in the USA, for instance, are completely anomalous to the concept of judicial independence, yet they're the direct spawn of fear of the american government. Your philosophy here actually CREATES the problem you're trying to bash me for acknowledging. Well done.
Nope. to make an analogy, you point to me the beast that is the economical interest of man, and claims that I'd kill people if I were to let it go out of its cage. That we ought to leave it caged. What you don't admit however, is that there is no way to cage the beast without another beast taking care of it. You think that if we have a certain system of cages where there's beasts caging other beasts which are in turn caging themselves, that everyone is going to be jailed. But it can't work yo. The beasts will figure out a way to collaborate, get out, and freely enslave the lesser beasts in coordination.
The 90% of bribes are happening because there's a beast on the outside being bribed by a rich beast from inside the cage. The bribes happen when there is such a power to be sold. But in a world without cages, there's nothing to bribe another beast for, because there are no cages, the beasts that choose to go in one can just as easily go out.
beast[beasts] just regular enslavement [beast[beasts]] dumb solution, doesn't work [beast<->beast<->beast[beasts]] just as dumb [[beasts]->beast->]beast[<->beast<->>[><]-<.,> [beast]->[beasts]] wtf just ... beasts thats right, no cages, believe that.
So anytime a court is even rumored to be corrupt, guess what, you can not go to that court, you can not contract to people and PDAs who use that court. Other courts will take the opportunity to smear that court and steal market shares, etc. If a monopolistic court is corrupt? Uh... wait 4 years and cross your fingers, or convince half of the population that it's corrupt, so you can put a slightly different beast in (the incentive mechanisms are still the same after all). so superior...
yes if I were a really tough libertarian id say that. the thief consents to have the stolen items taken back by force, because since he did it in the first place, he doesnt respect anyones private property, therefore his private property shouldnt be respected either
but I'm gonna go ahead and say no, thats a bs explanation, and I don't need bs explanations to advocate restitution or compensation
I would just do it because it fits my property rights principles and I would respect anyone trying who does the same
That's irrelevant, remember? You said every single person can judge based on their own perception. Unless you're your own judge, jury and executioner, you can't enforce any of your cute principles. And if you're all three, you don't actually have principles, its just you walking around doing whatever you want to whomever you want.
People can freely assemble and figure out cooperative means to enforce their perceived rights... and I find that a lot of people also believe in self defense and (homestead-based) property rights.
On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: That guy fucking threw gum on the ground? DEATH SENTENCE ACCORDING TO MY PRINCIPLES.
Not many will agree with you. I doubt any big PDA would at the very least. They'd lose too much supporting that type of judgment.
On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Your principles are nothing but wishes until you get force applied behind them.
By your definition of force yeah.. But your definition of force is so broad that me being in front of you could constitute force... (I'm forcing you to not move your body through mine in space, even if I'm not even touching you) please prove me wrong and define it more like mine please
On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: If you get a group to enforce your principles with you, you're in a commonwealth and thus that's unacceptable according to your original position.
Thats called a contract? Unless I was unjustifiably coerced to join such a group, in which case, yeah I'm against it? But you seem to think it's not possible for people to do stuff together voluntarily? I beg to differ, we're both here voluntarily posting under TL's jurisdiction and property for example. People can do the same in life, believe it!
On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: But yeah, you already know this. You already know that your 'principles' don't afford you rights in your property unless those rights are defended. You admit as such right here:
To use your own example; sure you can claim you owned something, but whoop de doo, no one cares.
How do you know no one cares? I think other people who claim to own their stuff will respect my claim to own my stuff... there's a profit motive... Unless they wanna be dumb thugs. But people also generally have no problem w\ self defense so... thugs can be dealt with once their actions are spotted as thuggery. It's the hidden thugs I worry most about.
On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Your own arguments DIRECTLY contradict each other. Either you cede one point or you cede the other.
Nope. You just don't believe people can cooperate without leviathan... which is sad.
and they know they're gonna get bad credit in free society
Stigma already dealt with as insufficient. Not going over it again.
Sorry but you have not. That story was fine and I liked it, but I've explained why it's completely explainable why someone invisible and invulnerable would act that way praxeologically, and why someone who isn't would not. Stigma is a form of retaliation. Stigma means less people to do business with. That is a direct toll on how much money you can make. Imagine being rejected by a whole society? Even if you're very skilled at stealing and lying, you're going to get caught eventually if you keep doing it. People will take action against your theft to the ratio it is threatening to them, and because they have far more support, they'll outperform you, and your activities will become more and more obsolete. Then what? You either need a really really big pool of resources (money) to waste it all on fucking with others, or you're going to die alone right then.
it's not a consensus to a certain body of law you join the body of law and the PDAs that agree to such body of law and that facilitates a lot of things
Its not consensus to a body of law, yet there you are joining one? Either you're forced in by measures which would vitiate your consent, or you are indeed consenting to it. This section literally contradicts itself in two subsequent phrases. That's impressively quick.
It's not a consensus with the whole planet because thats impossible even w\ a massive state. It's just for those that voluntarily joined it, consented.
I'm not going to give you historical examples but there are examples of free jurisdictions out there. Like merchant codes, international law maybe, I don't know, don't care for empiricism tbh. Also I recommend if you look into the real story of the wild west, its a lot cooler than the hollywoodian myths http://mises.org/daily/4108
On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: But again, how is a PDA different from a state here? Why can't you do the exact same thing in modern times by moving to another country?
You're not unjustifiably coerced to join. (god I hate having to use your definitions lol)
claim of right a right doesnt actually exist I been saying that forever sorry I made it up, so its ok if you dont want to use this terminology
So you admit that you pretty much don't have rights because you can't enforcement. There goes property. Now you simply have a bare pre-property relationship to objects. That relationship is terminated the moment you lose possession. There goes bailments, trusts, banks, investments, currency, securities, financing. Clearly such a society would out compete one with such amenities. I'd cite how history shows the opposite occurs with 100% frequency, but you don't listen to facts.
I think you have a pretty bad perspective of humanity if you can't picture people doing agreements to respect each other's property w\o a thug overseeing them.
How does international trade ever happen since theres no 'one thug' to rule them all?
ok I'm gonna be using the term "justifiable coercion" from now on private cops (generally) practice "justifiable coercion" state cops practice "unjustifiable coercion" its gonna be a pain to write that every time but k
and I said generally, because they're men too, they can be paid off to kill and kidnap, sure, but at least it isn't their modus operandi.
Ah good.
I'll bold this because its incredibly important. You've already stated that private moral judgement is the only form of judgement in your society; what happens if any person finds that the private cops are 'unjustified', even under conditions that most would call 'justified'? Well, now you have a civil war.
If someone thinks the PDA is unjustified, then leave it, be loud, sue them, go to court, say why is it unjustified, start your own, join another one, go live in the woods, I don't know. There's tons of things that can be done to stop it. Why does it always have to escalate to war w\ you... War is unprofitable... no one wants war but the war makers (a.k.a. thugs a.k.a. state)
On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: This portion right here is the central nugget of your entire rant and why I wanted you to search back to get here. Essentially your premise relies on the concept that states automatically practice unjustified coercion, but that's not true. That isn't remotely true. Sure it happens, but as you've admitted, a PDA could do the same. So why is competition between nations not the exact same type of free market force that would drive PDAs to not rape and pillage their vassals?
You don't see it as unjustified, that's fine man. But fact is, a PDA is far less intrusive than a state. Don't have to join it... doesn't shut down the competition, doesn't claim to own everything. If you can't even admit that much well... you must be very invested in the idea of a state then. Saying it doesn't work, ok, any statist says that, but at least the ones that do understand how a PDA would function would call it "utopian" if you know what I mean. "we can't free the slaves or else they're gonna be all over the town killing people" or so they used to say.
Anyway, competition between nations is not the same thing because people aren't able to move that easy. The cost of moving greatly hinders people's ability to freely choose.
If you were to have a plantation on an island, and tell the slaves that they're free to leave if they want, and well, not only that but all other places in the world are also completely occupied islands of thugs, well, you do have a free market of thug islands but not really that much of a choice but to live in one, plus the huge costs of moving... unfair analogy, yeah, but why are we arguing that anyways
The state doesn't even own it's coercively-paid-for civic buildings! Much less all land! So it's hardly analogous to the free market either! Unless you want to claim that it does own everything... which you might, but I'm not going to argue if you feel that way.
On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Is a state unjustified when it incarcerates murderers? This is central; If you find that there is a justified use of force, then you need to agree that the justifiability of actions coming from those with power rests upon a spectrum, and does not automatically lie at 'unjust' for states and 'just' for private individuals. You've already admitted that private enterprises COULD do stuff you consider unjustified.
No, I don't see incarceration as justified, and it would take a lot of wrongdoings by someone for me to think it is. The person would have to have such mental processes that no matter what we tell him he behaves like a crazed dog always trying to harm and destroy, even his own mother. Like an US general or something. In general no, there is no reason to put a rational being in jail when he can be reasoned with (duh)
On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: If you admit that, then your conclusion is false and we can start a more honest discussion about the proper limits that can be imposed upon a government and how best to impose them.
Thanks but no thanks. I don't like discussing how hard a slave has to be whipped.
theres a ton of incentive mechanisms that I havent told you and that youre not giving yourself a chance to think about
Oh. So you can't be asked to actually field a working civil society, but you want me to believe that in the face of the massive holes, zero case study support and completely contradictory support you've pushed forward that I should take a leap of faith and assume it'll work.
No. Try again.
Sorry to repeat this analogy but, you a thousand years ago would be telling me, a delusional slave, that a world without monarchy would not work on the same grounds, which is sad. Give peace a chance maybe?
What was, or is, has no weight on what I think ought to be... sorry for repeating again.
well I don't think you'll keep up a good credit armlocking people. so people will know you're a thug and you'll lose opportunities you'd otherwise have if u were a bit more civil. maybe you wont be able to buy food at the supermarket get a job at a big company no credit cards at all its up to you to weight it out the advantages
Who's going to deny those opportunities? And how would this even matter if you haven't solved the problem of me stealing in the first place? Why would I bother buying food if I could just take it and walk away with it?
Your stealing can be dealt with self defense. After the fact, you are blacklisted and can't do a lot of things that regular law-abiding people can. Hardly will you be able to steal repetitively from the same places, and people will grow more and more weary in your activities. You will be stopped, sooner or later. The more you steal, the more they'll invest to stop you, and because of the defenders' advantage (lol starcraft), they'll be more efficient at defending than you at stealing.
On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: You tried to address this issue by calling the PDA your legal system, but I've already demolished that. Here, however, you're back to an entirely stigma based system. You don't even know which option you want to support! I can't blame you! They're all trash.
Sorry, you have not. And it's not just stigma, I've said it at least three times, stigma is just one of the possible forms of retaliation. And retaliation isn't all either. Preventive measures yo, like static defense. Think cannons or sunkens (lol).
If you can't even think that private cops and security in general would be better managed and think of better things to do privately than publically, I really can't help you... since you're an empirical type of person, you should notice the fact that whenever rich people need security, they never turn to the public authorities, they're trash, even though they're paying for it, they'd rather pay that same public funds amount wasted on the cops to a private agent who is sure to use it better. That should give you a hint, if not everything else I've ever said and everything you yourself probably experienced in dealing w\ public services. It's all trash for the same economical reason... that you ignore.
but that bold capitalized and angry one is new, isnt it
No. Already dealt with.
You see that system as necessary, that's all right? That's not proving it. If you want to prove it's necessary, then lower your gun and see if the people choose it! I doubt you expose all that law theory to people when in practicality it comes down to what I said it was! Everyone should forfeit their right to X to leviathan only so leviathan can give X back to them... Sounds like a pretty dumb system to me!
1-increases control over peons 2-artificial scarcity or control over resources 3-war breeds fear, fear breeds ... more state, and state breeds war. the ciiiircle of liiiiiiife 4-it's free anyway, you're making peons kill peons 5-not so much over territory or resources, but some of that yeah.
You realize all of these support my statement, right? I don't really give a shit about your moral point of view, but you're trying to defend the statement that war is not profitable, yet you just gave me a list of sources of profit. Besides 3, which is a problem that your entire system just wishes away.
Have you heard about the broken window fallacy? You have right? The state is the glazier, who surely earns a profit, but only so long as he isn't caught for what he is, a window breaker. Would people keep paying the glazier who's breaking their windows? I mean... If a PDA were to do that it would inevitably go bankrupt for the many reasons I said and I'll probably have to repeat again for you, but Amerikah, ain't breaking anytime soon, even on the red. It has public support and printing presses so it keeps going, no problem.
also, private mafias work hand in hand w\ government, contrary to popular thought
Yeah, I figured when they were having shootouts between the FBI and the italian mafia that they were both trying to consolidate power independently. Little did I know that co-existing as power brokers means they're not competing, despite the fact that they were both aggressively attempting to consolidate their positions!
Oh wait, that makes no sense and neither does your premise here!
I'm not going to argue, sorry L. I don't know about those shootouts. If you don't believe then don't. But the mafias would always rather settle w\ money than w\ force. (like any sane human being) and that the illegality of drugs and prostitution only helps the thugs in black markets is almost an undeniable fact at this point in time. If drugs weren't illegal, they'd be outperformed by more peaceful institutions who don't spend unnecessary money on guns and thugs. Oh I just said that again.
if the government were to make drugs legal, prostitution legal, gambling legal guess what, the private mafias would disappear, because the peaceful entrepreneurs would outcompete them easily, and they would run out of money
Go to Somalia. None of that stuff is illegal because they have no real legal system. I guess the private warlords don't exist anymore because of that?
Wrong.
Wow, L, your empiricism is going strong it seems. So you take a third world country with a completely different culture, history, and tradition, a country which you don't know more about than I do in fact (I have noted that you didn't know how their legal system worked, which it's ok, it's rather "primitive" really), ignores any of the millions of possible confounding variables that may exist, and takes it as a demonstration of fact that drug wars wouldn't stop even when decriminalized (legalized). Nice. There's no way anyone can win an argument with you man, you can just cite Somalia all day and prove that slavery is fine even.
Somalia is growing rapidly compared to its neighbors, and the warlords being asses there are actually thugs trying to reinstall the state, not for-profit mercenaries. It's for-power mercenaries being payed by thugs from elsewhere. And it's failling because their activities are stopping, people there are not going to buy the idea of a state unless their families are fine with it. It may happen in the future, I don't know because I'm not familiar with their culture, but if you want to understand whats happening in Somalia and claim it's evidence for your ideology, at the very least try to familiarize yourself with it first, please.
The mafia (both private and state) flourishes in a black market, because peaceful establishments aren't left alone to work. You try to open an illegal drug store, they'll shut you down. Only if you got bribe money do they let you stay afloat. Because there's only those few suppliers then, it means prices will go up for that product, and huge profits can be made by the mafia (either one). The state isn't working to stop the drug, they're working to stop those supplies that aren't paying their share, and the regular mafia isn't looking to give everyone drugs, they're looking to give the least so prices stay up, they got no competition anyways, they can take their time.
Mafias (both) love to make things illegal. It means they got control.
you know, I never said the market of state mafias didn't also respond to austrian economics theory. they do. a "nicer" mafia certainly would have more of a capital pool to leech resources from. but its just a parasitic relationship, its up to the flea whether it wants to suck off more blood or less.
No. It actually works such that a nicer mafia would have less immediate resources available, so their competitors who were less nice would have more funds to expand and take more territory, which would again give them more resources to expand. Once they hit the point that they were relatively equally matched with other PDAs, they would focus on developing their captive market by being nicer. The financial market exhibited the exact same problem during the recent crisis; Even if you knew what you were doing was wrong, someone else was going to make a move and if you didn't you'd be smaller than your opponent and would get completely walked over.
No, and I think you must have skipped my whole section on war trying to explain why thats not so. The balance between "how much to leech" and "how much the economy grows" is for each state to make. States judge differently what to do... and there's too many variables to account for. "Resources to expand" are useless in making your pool grow UNLESS you can tax those newly acquired peons in foreign lands. If people don't see you as legit, they're not going to sit down and get taxed. They'll keep revolting till you go away, till you put a puppet in, till you do something more contrived. And even then, they won't be working at full performance. Hell, even your people back home might not be working on high gear, since you'd have to tax them more to get enough resources to invade some foreigner.
It's not easy invading Iraq to get all the oil. (it's easy to burn the oil ofc) No, in fact, when a state invades another state, it's purpose is much more likely to be just for blow resources, to create more scarcity, so what they do already have, increases in price. It's the broken window fallacy all over again. They break windows so they can fix them. You can make a profit as long as you're not caught, and what better way to not get caught when you got citizens following your rule and paying for your wars? You just got to be cautious enough not to get impeached or overthrown basically, which shouldn't be too hard tbh.
PDA's are way more restrict in what they can do because people aren't just going to put up with an increase in monthly rates and will see you're trying to stockpile more than you need to defend your clients (you're buying more resources to invade someplace else). Every cent is accounted for out of someone's pocket, not a printing press or bottomless public funds.
And your analogy to the financial market is debatable since it could have been caused by the FED's low interest rates and all, not by addicted investors, but I'm not going to preach you on the austrian business cycle which you may know about already and I'm not that familiar with it anyways.
On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: How is that even MORE of a factor when it comes to an organization that essentially buys guns and tries to expand their turf with goons? Well, you're going to assume that people are made of daisies and that people could contract with another PDA or some shit, but you might as well make the same argument about street gangs; doesn't flesh out in real life.
To try to expand, you don't just buy more guns and bang, there you have it, you got to face retaliation, you got to subdue perpetually till you turn a profit, or simply kill them all and take what you can for a one-night thing, which of course isn't profitable in the long run.
The PDAs will outcompete eachother to a point where the best PDA will have that enough resources to serve the protective needs of their clients, not hundreds of jets, tanks, navies, international bases for a show of power, like some state we know. Each gun and cop will be payed directly by peoples pockets, and to invade someother place, you'd have to at least match their expenditures on defense right? which means, your PDA would have to double its premiums just to try to invade someone. Who's going to put up with a sudden doubling of their rates when they can go to the second-rate PDA instead? Not many clients I'd say. Everyone would see through it.
And even if someone is able to do it, someone has a huge amount of money and wants to blow it trying to subdue some town. Fine, he can do it. But will the people be subdued? Will they pay him taxes and still keep going economically strong like before? I don't know man, but I find it extremely unlikely. I find it much more likely for that scenario to happen today, where that rich evil man can pay much much less to the state and provocateur a war to do the same thing, but making the very peons hes subduing to pay for the army...
You must have ignored that whole section on war I wrote, I swear, because I'm repeating myself basically.
"is it likely?" and how can you decrease the chances of that happening? wouldn't the PDAs clients be demanding some insurance that the PDA isn't stockpilling or perhaps unjustifiably coercing some of its clients into paying them?
Rofl. Asking for insurance insurance again, eh? Your PDA is your insurance against unjustified coercion, but you have no recourse if they themselves coerce you.
You can join PDA#2, make a ruckus about what PDA#1 did to you, use the media, courts, people will hear and if your story is true, PDA#1 will suffer directly in popularity and profits. what recourse do you have if the SWAT busts your house and kills your dogs for a pack of weed? You can mail your congressman...? Complain w\ the very cops themselves so maybe one of the cops gets tried by the same monopolistic courts, and then maybe gets fired? Sorry but I have to say LOL. it's very sad...
On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Its quis custodiet ipsos custodes all over again, but in this case the watchmen aren't just enforcers; they're an unaccountable power monopoly. Here you're faced with an infinite regress because of the issues of corruptibility of ultimate power. This very same corruption is probably why you're so opposed to states, yet you don't actually solve anything here. You just complain and set up a system which would make the problem worse.
That question of who watches the watchers is so easy to solve... the answer is, let people decide how to answer it. Let people organize in the way they want to solve it. Don't just force them your answer just cuz you think it's best. If it truly is best, then they'll choose yours anyway! Because it was indeed best!
Why jump for the gun? You're not afraid of what others may do. No. That's bullshit.
You're afraid that you might be wrong... right? (cute moment)
but over all just the fact that it's not a unjustifiably coercive agency and therefore can have competitors should decrease the risks a lot. if theres any demand by the consumers for insurance, then insurance will be served (for a slight cost ofc, theres nothing free, not even w\ a socialist state)
See, i'd like to agree with this, but the fact that you admit that a PDA could eliminate competition by unjustified means essentially 1) admits that a PDA could abuse their position as a monopoly to gain a massive competitive advantage in the market, and 2) sets up tyrannical corporatism of a nature far worse than any government we currently have.
First off, it wouldn't be far worse, because if it was worse, it means they'd be oppressing and squishing the citizenry too hard, not allowing them to produce, meaning, they'd be leeching off too hard.
The incentive that a PDA has for devolving into a state is directly proportional to the chances it has into successfully subduing its population into citizens times the profit expectancy from that. How likely is it for a non-slave to be subdued peacefully into a slave? How likely would it be for a free man to be subdued peacefully into a citizen? I think both are analogous, and very unlikely. Once people are free of states, states are no different than mafias, and no free man is going to be fine w\ peacefully giving racket (tax) money to them. The individuals, if not peacefully subdued, will not work efficiently, so the profits cant be any more than just as much as they would pay in taxes for a native state, minus what percentage they get back in benefits (they're not getting any benefits besides having tanks patrolling the streets, if you can count that). So i'd say like, 10%
Just think why won't the US of today raise taxes to 70%, 80%. They can right? They got all the army they need to turn the USA into the Martial States of Amerika. Why won't they? They won't because it's retarded. The retaliation (rebellions, as little they may be) and little profit prospect (with strikes, impeachments, tax evading, people refusing to work, minus the additional expenditures to keep the army going), it's just retarded to try it w\ a profit motive because coercion becomes unprofitable past the point where it's recognized as so!
and I doubt free men would see the rebirth of a state as peaceful in a free world.
SECONDLY, PDA#1 could try to destroy PDA#2 #3 etc. Assuming that you PDA#1 does indeed magically have the resources (people just gave you money to do it, ok), and acknowledges the profit expectancy is very low but wants to blow it anyways (dumb and unrealistic but ok) Will PDA#2, #3, #4, all just lay down and die? You may get #2 unprepared, ok but #3, #4, they'll all grow stronger as people are pooling resources to stop YOU this time, and they'll have the defender's advantage, they'll have the moral ground too. People don't see you as legit, ravaging past towns and trying to subdue everyone. Not even getting any profits really because no one wants to be your slave. So you'll either run out of resources before you conquer everything,or after.. really.
Starcraft parallel The more you 4 pool people the more people will know you for the cheesy faggot you are. (and by you, I don't mean anyone in particular so don't ban me thx) so yea, maybe you'll be able to 4 pool in the Ro32, Ro16... but by the 8? semis, finals? You won't last man. Hell, even if you do win the whole tournament by 4 pooling, they probably wouldn't even give you the prize tbh, maybe you'd be banned even.
damn I spent almost 3 hours typing this no kidding
EPT
.
