The Gun vs. The Plowshare

Rather than anecdotal I would say its just a way of looking at things. For example, weapons are designed to wound and kill people and damage and destroy things. So if you wanted to run around destroying your own wealth, you wouldnt necessarily see your effectiveness start to decline as you used your weapons more. However if you applied those weapons effects to other people and their property, they would react and this would change the situation. Consider a hostage-taker. Most people havent thought about this scenario, but the aggressor with a single hostage doesnt have much leverage, if he carries out his threat, then he loses all of his negotiating power (because he killed the hostage), however if this inescapable fact causes him to be reluctant to kill the hostage, then his threats are less credible, therefore he loses most of his negotiating power. Its kind of the same thing in a police state or military occupation. If the guys with the guns use their threat of violence to intimidate people and coerce them into doing things they otherwise wouldnt, then it works. But the more that those threats are carried out, the more people will say "why would I listen to those guys, they are going to shoot me no matter what."

Guns dont kill people,

people kill people.

True, it would have been more correct to say that "guns are designed to enable people to incapacitate people and break stuff"

So in reality...

Should we all fear ourselves???

Malachi, you're full of crap. Who in their right mind uses a gun to break stuff? We have perfectly acceptable bombs for that.

I assume youre joking. But surely you all are curious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211

Its used to blow up stuff like radios, computers, antennas, vehicles etc. because sometimes its easier, faster, and cheaper for a highly skilled infantryman to destroy equipment, or at least make it stop working, from half a mile or more maybe. Thats the funny thing about these technology-driven militaries, the technology necessary to counter the advanced stuff is oftentimes much simpler and cheaper. The age of the private air force is at hand, diydrones.com

Or an artillery shell. Which is just a huge gun.

Now that i think about it, a hollow point .50 cal...... that would be a killer right there.

Yah that would wreck somebody's shit for real.

Not everyone's reaction to the "gun" seems to be the same.

I don't detest the government for taxing me.

I don't secretly plot revenge or seek freedom.

I simply want to wield that power myself.

The problem, from my point of view, with being too concerned with sustainability is that life itself is (at least at present) unsustainable.

One way or another we're all going to die. And while some percentage of our genes may come to live on in our grandchildren or great-grandchildren, our individual genetic profiles will be diluted through reproduction and the neural processes known as "David B" or "Bloom" or whoever might just end when our brains stop working.  Memories are not passed on genetically.

So while it may be more sustainable to teach a man to fish, who really cares?  You're not going to live forever and neither is he.  Wouldn't you rather just take a percentage of the fish from him and call it a day?

I think I would.  And frankly I think the fisherman might want that too (or at least be willing to tolerate it) if he knew that in return for a percentage of his fish he could partake in a percentage of some banker's salary.  Or if he knew that in return for his loyalty and deference to authority his children might be assured work or whatever.

This is the world I see and while I may not approach politics from as humble a place as you do I do feel sober.

The problem, from my point of view, with being too concerned with sustainability is that life itself is (at least at present) unsustainable.

thatsfunny, it seems like life could be defined as a process of continuous sustainment. You appear to be defining "sustainment" as opposition to change of any sort.

Memories are not passed on genetically.

I guess I would like you to explain the migration patterns of monarch butterflies then

Malachi:

 thatsfunny, it seems like life could be defined as a process of continuous sustainment. You appear to be defining "sustainment" as opposition to change of any sort.

I think of the long term sustainment of human life as the sustainment of the basest replicators, not the vessels of the replicators themselves.

The vessel, as you and I both know, has a shelf life.

He seems to be talking about the continuation of human life over successive generations which is what our genes do, not what the genetic vessels do.

EDIT: As an aside, our individual bodies (the genetic vessels) are highly resistant to change.  The word I'm thinking of is "homeostasis."  I remember reading in your post about failure modes (i think?) all the different ways that homeostasis can be interrupted.  I learned a lot from that post, very informative.

Malachi:

 I guess I would like you to explain the migration patterns of monarch butterflies then

I suppose I should have said "Autobiographical memories are not passed on genetically in humans."  I just assumed that since we were talking about human affairs, everyone would know I was talking about human memory and autobiographical memory in particular.  But I should've been more specific.

I don't know anything about monarch butterflies, but I'm pretty sure I'm not a monarch butterfly and I don't think you're one either and I don't think the OP was talking about the politics of monarch butterflies in his post.

I'm sure that whatever biological mechanism evolution has crafted to guide butterflies through their migration cycles is quite amazing but human brains don't come prepackaged with autobiographical memories of their genetic forebears.  I cannot recall a single experiential first person recollection of living through my grandparent's eyes, my parent's eyes or, for that matter, of my great-grandparent's eyes. Can you?

This is not to say that I don't think we pass on genetic hardwiring by the way.  I am not an advocate of what Steven Pinker would call the 'blank slate' it just doesn't appear to be the case that autobiographical memory comes pre-packaged.  Autobiographical memory does seem to be written over a lifetime for each particular lifetime.

The point of me even saying what I said was to point out that I perceive a space between where I end and everyone else begins even those I'm related to.  This distance is punctuated by my own mortality and my awareness of it.  I know that I will only be around for just so long.  While I suppose at some level I'm programmed to think about my progeny, I can't help but also consider myself in a more immediate timeframe.

bloomj31:

Not everyone's reaction to the "gun" seems to be the same.

I don't detest the government for taxing me.

I don't secretly plot revenge or seek freedom.

I simply want to wield that power myself.

Excellent, my vocational analysis of your skills, talents, and desires is that a life in Politics would be a good career move for you.  I'd work on your rhetorical skills, and get a Public Relations advisor, but seems like you're on your way.  (sarcasm intended).

bloomj31:

The problem, from my point of view, with being too concerned with sustainability is that life itself is (at least at present) unsustainable.

I'd focus on the "at present" part of that statement.  All action of men, is aimed at removing scarcity, and yes the limit of a man's lifespan is one of the scarce means we have at our disposal.  Do you have a desire one way or another about whether you would prefer a longer lifespan or a shorter one?

bloomj31:

One way or another we're all going to die. And while some percentage of our genes may come to live on in our grandchildren or great-grandchildren, our individual genetic profiles will be diluted through reproduction and the neural processes known as "David B" or "Bloom" or whoever might just end when our brains stop working.  Memories are not passed on genetically.

You are right, our specific memories don't pass on, but our theory and technology do.  Our culture, knowledge, institutions, our techniques and specific technological devices pass on to our children.  Unless we don't pass them on.  In which case their ongoing battle to achieve for themselves happiness is set back behind our own.  Which is what's happening btw. 

bloomj31:

So while it may be more sustainable to teach a man to fish, who really cares?  You're not going to live forever and neither is he.  Wouldn't you rather just take a percentage of the fish from him and call it a day?

It depends, do I want to get fish from him tomorrow?

bloomj31:

I think I would.  And frankly I think the fisherman might want that too (or at least be willing to tolerate it) if he knew that in return for a percentage of his fish he could partake in a percentage of some banker's salary.  Or if he knew that in return for his loyalty and deference to authority his children might be assured work or whatever.

We have a way for that to happen, the banker gives the fisherman money in return for a portion of his fish.  That's just as easy, in fact, easier than using a gun to take it.

bloomj31:

This is the world I see and while I may not approach politics from as humble a place as you do I do feel sober.

I see how you see the world, it's a bit depressing.  I'd struggle to want to survive if this was the only world available to me.  Humility can in fact be honest assessment of the world as it is.  I think you've done this, but only on one side of the balance sheet.  In your analysis you are honestly appraising part of the reality as we encounter and experience it, but you leave out any reference to the cases where two men willingly and cooperatively exchange wealth to the betterment of each.   Those social phenomena count too, and they vastly outnumber the other class of property appropriation.  

That would be my humble suggestion, think equally soberly about the nature of voluntary exchanges as well as government redistribution (or theft).

David B:

 Excellent, my vocational analysis of your skills, talents, and desires is that a life in Politics would be a good career move for you.  I'd work on your rhetorical skills, and get a Public Relations advisor, but seems like you're on your way.

Lol.  Somehow I don't think I have much of a future in getting elected anywhere.  But thankfully there are other ways to work for the government.

David B:

  Do you have a desire one way or another about whether you would prefer a longer lifespan or a shorter one?

Longer or shorter than what?

David B:

 It depends, do I want to get fish from him tomorrow?

I think he might keep producing fish as long as we don't tax him too hard.  If he won't do it odds are another fisherman will.  That's the art of taxation really.  Taking as much as possible while getting as little complaint as possible.  It is ofcourse a delicate balance.  Some people seem to have a higher tolerance for taxation than others.  For my part I can tolerate my current level of taxation, I feel I get plenty in return.  I'm sure you feel differently.

David B:

 We have a way for that to happen, the banker gives the fisherman money in return for a portion of his fish.  That's just as easy, in fact, easier than using a gun to take it.

But then the fisherman can only get as much as his fish are worth to the banker.  With the gun he can theoretically get much much more and the banker will only be able to give just so much protest as long as the current social order is willing to tolerate or basically go along with the aggressiveness of the fisherman.  The aggressive fisherman's strategy is particularly effective because the fisherman himself may never have to lift a finger he just has to watch someone else do the taxing for him and not complain too much.

David B:

 I see how you see the world, it's a bit depressing.

Perhaps.  I actually find it...highly intriguing.

David B:

 I'd struggle to want to survive if this was the only world available to me.

Available when?

David B:

  In your analysis you are honestly appraising part of the reality as we encounter and experience it, but you leave out any reference to the cases where two men willingly and cooperatively exchange wealth to the betterment of each.   Those social phenomena count too, and they vastly outnumber the other class of property appropriation.  

The social phenomena of cooperation counts to you and it counts to me too.  But I find the exercise of power much more fascinating if I'm to be honest.  People basically are naturally cooperative and they generally avoid conflict.  But not everyone.  Some people are willing to use force and coercion to attain things.  They're usually the people who end up in charge.  Why?  My hypothesis is that the natural docileness of most humans (let's call them the sheep) makes them all the more vulnerable to the more aggressive varieties (I like to think of them as the wolves.)  I think there's also a natural deference to authority.  I know I find myself awed by people in power and I don't think I'm the only one.

David B:

 think equally soberly about the nature of voluntary exchanges as well as government redistribution (or theft).

I feel like I have.

I just really struggle with the idea that somehow I own stuff just because I got to it first.

Doesn't really seem to be how things actually work in real life.

bloomj31:

But then the fisherman can only get as much as his fish are worth to the banker.  With the gun he can theoretically get much much more and the banker will only be able to give just so much protest as long as the current social order is willing to tolerate or basically go along with the aggressiveness of the fisherman.  The aggressive fisherman's strategy is particularly effective because the fisherman himself may never have to lift a finger he just has to watch someone else do the taxing for him and not complain too much.

David B:

 I see how you see the world, it's a bit depressing.

Perhaps.  I actually find it...highly intriguing.

David B:

  In your analysis you are honestly appraising part of the reality as we encounter and experience it, but you leave out any reference to the cases where two men willingly and cooperatively exchange wealth to the betterment of each.   Those social phenomena count too, and they vastly outnumber the other class of property appropriation.  

The social phenomena of cooperation counts to you and it counts to me too.  But I find the exercise of power much more fascinating if I'm to be honest.  People basically are naturally cooperative and they generally avoid conflict.  But not everyone.  Some people are willing to use force and coercion to attain things.  They're usually the people who end up in charge.  Why?  My hypothesis is that the natural docileness of most humans (let's call them the sheep) makes them all the more vulnerable to the more aggressive varieties (I like to think of them as the wolves.)  I'm a sheep who knows he's a sheep and dreams of being a wolf.  My natural docileness is why I've been so easily taken from by the people who are willing to use aggression to acquire things.

David B:

 think equally soberly about the nature of voluntary exchanges as well as government redistribution (or theft).

I feel like I have.

I just really struggle with the idea that somehow I own stuff just because I got to it first.Doesn't really seem to be how things actually work in real life.

I don't think we're very far away from each other.  I agree at a theoretical level with pretty much all you've said.   The Docileness you refer to would be IMO a risk aversion metric.  The ideas you're talking about are ones that you find in books like The 48 Laws of Power and The Art of Seduction.   My only problem in reading books like them is in being very careful to not fall prey to the techniques themselves, because while they are effective, they are also destructive.   The refreshing part of your comments is the frank openness about the nature of the use of power, intimdation, theft, etc. in ways which the victim chooses not to fight back.  This type of discussion is extremely valuable IMO.  

Btw, in your fisherman, banker example, the uneven distribution of power is actually weighted to the banker.  Thus it's the banker who can in fact steal more effectively (and invisibly) from the fisherman.  If I think of using the tools and techniques of power, then my goal would be to use specific events to wrest power from the banker via a different vector, information, disinformation, etc.

Yes Praxeology has things to say in this realm of human action also.  I think it's long past time for it to fill this gap in it's coverage of human action.

As an aside, taking over the education of children in the US has allowed those in power to propogate sterile knowledge.

Understanding the Political and Economic forces in society is a vital tool for any child.  However, if we make sure that what they actually get when we teach them is effectively memorization of propoganda then they are more easily lead around by the ring through their noses.

I'm making the point, not quite explicitly, in another thread that Marxism is a mechanism for reordering the balance of political power.  But in the end, the "laws of power" will still result in a class of citizens that lives off of the productive endeavors of the  rest without actually producing anything of value themselves.  Marxism results in the same structure.  Just with different names, and a shorter lifespan for the social institutions that implement the political policies of that doctrine.

A well educated polity, given tools with which to accurately comprehend the political combat (struggle for power) would be better prepared, to engage in such combat themselves.  This would lead, I imagine to a greater level of decentralization of power.  The same is true for better educated consumers, they would in fact be better prepared to engage in negatiation for goods and services, and in evaluating them.

 

David B:

 Btw, in your fisherman, banker example, the uneven distribution of power is actually weighted to the banker.  Thus it's the banker who can in fact steal more effectively (and invisibly) from the fisherman.

Things do seem to generally end up that way.  Perhaps not for every banker but definitely for the ones with money enough to buy influence.

David B:

 A well educated polity, given tools with which to accurately comprehend the political combat (struggle for power) would be better prepared, to engage in such combat themselves.  This would lead, I imagine to a greater level of decentralization of power.  The same is true for better educated consumers, they would in fact be better prepared to engage in negatiation for goods and services, and in evaluating them.

Perhaps.  But wouldn't that also mean that government just has to maintain a monopoly on education or at least what's taught in schools to maintain power?

So then the question for each man who would embrace the logically necessary conclusions implicit in conflict (and the sources of power when thus engaged) would be, 1) how can I avoid being the victim and then secondly 2) How can I in fact become the victimizer.

If a theory of conflict, is present to allow effective analysis, my guess is victim's would decrease, and victimizing would be come more difficult and the scale or scope of "exploitation" would shrink.

Yes, but can they maintain such a monopoly?  That's a fruitful battleground.  They've been rapidly losing the battle.  

There's a shift in power coming, the ideology of those who gain the reins is going to dictate whether the global economic life ascends through production or collapses under the ineffective solutions enacted by sterile theory.

Bloomj31,

I think of the long term sustainment of human life as the sustainment of the basest replicators, not the vessels of the replicators themselves. The vessel, as you and I both know, has a shelf life. He seems to be talking about the continuation of human life over successive generations which is what our genes do, not what the genetic vessels do.

so "human life" defined generally is sustainable. Thats my point.

EDIT: As an aside, our individual bodies (the genetic vessels) are highly resistant to change.  The word I'm thinking of is "homeostasis."  I remember reading in your post about failure modes (i think?) all the different ways that homeostasis can be interrupted.  I learned a lot from that post, very informative.

its all in how you choose to look at it. (Maintaining) Homeostasis is an active process, things are always being changed into other things. No two environments are ever the same, nor is any given environment totally consistent over time, so the human body is always in a state of adaptation. I'm glad you found my post to be informative.

I suppose I should have said "Autobiographical memories are not passed on genetically in humans."  I just assumed that since we were talking about human affairs, everyone would know I was talking about human memory and autobiographical memory in particular.  But I should've been more specific.

I dont want to harass you, but I still dont think that statement is sufficiently qualified. As far as I know, autobiographical memories are not passed genetically in humans. But I would not exclude the possibility, after all there is evidence that dna can carry some memory, and theres plenty in the human genome that we still dont understand. I think its better to be conscious of your ignorance than to import potentially false suppositions for the sake of convenience. Although those arent mutually exclusive. 

I don't know anything about monarch butterflies, but I'm pretty sure I'm not a monarch butterfly and I don't think you're one either and I don't think the OP was talking about the politics of monarch butterflies in his post.

when the open question of genetic memory became relevant to this thread, then animals that appear to demonstrate characteristics of genetic memory also became relevant.

I'm sure that whatever biological mechanism evolution has crafted to guide butterflies through their migration cycles is quite amazing but human brains don't come prepackaged with autobiographical memories of their genetic forebears.  I cannot recall a single experiential first person recollection of living through my grandparent's eyes, my parent's eyes or, for that matter, of my great-grandparent's eyes. Can you?

No but I would rather not make this assumption. there is such a thing as genetic memory. A lot of things happen in the subconscious.

The point of me even saying what I said was to point out that I perceive a space between where I end and everyone else begins even those I'm related to.  This distance is punctuated by my own mortality and my awareness of it.  I know that I will only be around for just so long.  While I suppose at some level I'm programmed to think about my progeny, I can't help but also consider myself in a more immediate timeframe.

thats you. Some rational egoists prioritize the welfare of their posterity. Because thats how they find fulfillment.

Malachi, as much fun as it is to play the lawyer's game and open up a semantics war over what exactly constitutes "memory", "life", "change" etc, I will simply amend my statement in the hopes that I will more effectively communicate the concepts underlying the words.

I can give you or anyone else all sorts of reasons for why worrying about the future of human life and human posterity makes no sense to me but ultimately those reasons are just attempts at explaining the feeling I have when I think of this world after I'm dead.  Basically the feeling I usually have is what I would call "indifference."  I don't care much either way.  I won't be here to enjoy it or suffer it so it matters not to me.

I don't really know why I experience indifference I just do.  I have experienced it for quite a long time.  A "long time" to me is 5-10 years.  It may be 15 years I don't know.  Perhaps it's this indifference that primarily influences my political leanings, perhaps not.  I don't know.  What I do know is that I'm more than willing to support a system that takes from some to give to others.  I do not hate it.  I do not feel resentment towards it.  I simply want to use it to achieve my own ends.  I want to control Leviathan or if that fails, simply become a part of it.  But to even be a part of Leviathan one must also be damaged by it.  So I pay my taxes.

I hope I've avoided the drudgery of semantics this time and conveyed conceptually what I'm thinking and feeling about this subject.

Thats fine as far as it goes. The standard answer for that is usually to observe that you dont seem to be the kind of person whom I would want in the same political system as myself. But it is good to see such honesty, which is rare and probaly wont get you that well-paying bureaucratic job that you think might satisfy you.

Would like to reply to this by suggesting, and perhaps illustrating, that even given your attitude, you benefit more from a free society than from a coercive society. First I want to point something out that we all missed in your earlier example:

So while it may be more sustainable to teach a man to fish, who really cares?  You're not going to live forever and neither is he.  Wouldn't you rather just take a percentage of the fish from him and call it a day?

How does this guy have fish for us to take, if we are contemplating whether to teach him to fish or not? Either he has a supply of fish that we can appropriate, or he does not. Things have to be produced before they can be consumed.

one of the austrian insights that I personally think is most important is the specific concept of profit. Profit only comes as a result of voluntary actions, because profit represents and increase in wealth, which is the representation of the satisfaction of human wants. If the increase in goods came as a result of plunder, then some parties to the event did not have their wants satisfied, so it cannot be considered profit. I hope I explained that well enough

now I imagine yor answer to that is something akin to "I dont care about any of that, I just want to satisfy my wants." which, in human society, involves some measure of cooperation because you dont have all the skills necessary to satisfy your wants. Unlike freedom4me, heh. So you must use a combination of techniques to elicit cooperation from other people, even if you live as a cat burglar you need to look like you are a regular dude so you dont get hooked up. You need to employ some social engineering to get the goods from other people. Well, we know the easiest way to get people to cooperate is find people who already want to cooperate, or convince them that cooperation with you is what they want to do. For the moment, lets ignore cat burglary and concentrate on a continuum of interaction. At the left-hand extreme, is murderous pillage, where the actor kills people who prevent his posession and use of goods he desires. One notch to the right is injurious pillage, and right of that is coercive pillage, where the murder or injury is threatened as an alternative to relinquishing the goods. The fourth notch is gunboat diplomacy, where coercion is used to influence the terms of an exchange, where the victim party would rather not exchange, but receives some nominal value in return. Five notches rightward is catallacty (mutual voluntary exchange) and our continuum is complete. So you can see that murderous and injurious pillage arent going to be very sustainable over a human lifespan. The damage to the means of production is too great. Coercive pillage is also bad because your continued success makes you notorious and people, when faced with losses, will attempt to limit future losses so you have to find new victims. Meanwhile people spend more money on security and less money on consumption items, therefore there is less for you to steal. Clearly the superior solution is to convince people to give up the goods with an ideology. I was gonna write more but I think I'm done. This is all covered in detail in some book written a hundred years ago by some austrian, I just know it.

A point to echo yours Malachi, is that the end result of all human production is ever cheaper servcies and products, specifically in terms of human labor in time and effort -> quantity of goods.

Human labor will approach 0 and quality of goods in the attainment of ends will approach infinity.

Hmmm....

I can see practical holes but that's how the trends work with freedom working with production to increase the velocity of those two curves.

So, I'm not saying to increase velocity, I'm asking for each of us to ask ourselves if we want to increase that velocity.

bloomj31 may respond, seriously I just don't give a shit.  

Well, whether we want to or not, any of us may end up in a place like that, and even if we don't we will have to deal with people who do feel that way.

Malachi:

 But it is good to see such honesty, which is rare and probaly wont get you that well-paying bureaucratic job that you think might satisfy you.

I honestly have no idea.  I'm not really in a position to apply for those sorts of jobs anyways because at present I'm underqualified.  I have no idea if my future employers will even want to know about my political philosophy before hiring me.  If they do then I will have to tailor my response to be something like what I expect them to want to hear.    Maybe that approach will work maybe it won't.

Malachi:

 How does this guy have fish for us to take, if we are contemplating whether to teach him to fish or not? Either he has a supply of fish that we can appropriate, or he does not. Things have to be produced before they can be consumed.

A good point.  I suppose in my head I just imagined a man who already knew how to fish.  I don't know why.

Once he does know and once he's getting fish then his labors would become subject to taxation.  I guess I jumped to that point in my head.

Malachi:

 If the increase in goods came as a result of plunder, then some parties to the event did not have their wants satisfied, so it cannot be considered profit. I hope I explained that well enough

Alright.  

Malachi:

 which, in human society, involves some measure of cooperation because you dont have all the skills necessary to satisfy your wants.

True enough.

There are many many people who view government as cooperative.  I have never been chastised by anyone I know in real life for supporting taxation and/or the state. Not a friend, family member, professor or employer.  I do not stand out for advocating taxation.

The state may be losing the education battle but I've yet to find myself ostracized for being a statist.

Perhaps the day will come and if it comes I suppose I'll just be executed for crimes against humanity by the new free society.  Or perhaps I'll just die during the transition.  Or maybe just crossing the street tomorrow, who knows?

Malachi:

 So you must use a combination of techniques to elicit cooperation from other people

Well I just have to get and keep a job working for the state, someone else has to convince people to part with their stuff and I don't intend to work for the IRS.  I'm terrible at math.

Malachi:

 Clearly the superior solution is to convince people to give up the goods with an ideology.

I suppose so.  But I don't really see my place in all this as an ideologue.  I'll leave that sort of job to the politicians.  I actually see myself working for the executive branch.  I'm thinking of going back to school for a degree in criminal justice.

David B:

 Human labor will approach 0 and quality of goods in the attainment of ends will approach infinity.

How long do you think it will take?  Because I have things I want now as well as in the future and I, like everyone else, have a scarce amount of time in which to acquire them.

EDIT: I guess this is sort of a weird discussion because in my head I took the thread to be talking about present conditions and the idea of the gun and plowshare as metaphors for different approaches for dealing with other people at any place and/or time.

I thought the excerpt from the Tao te Ching was a sort of proverb meant to drive that metaphor home so to speak.

I didn't think we were literally talking about teaching a man to fish.  How did you intend this thread to be read David?  Metaphorically or literally?

Its philosophy. We start with theory and work it into practice. If you want to make money, pick something youre good at. If you want to be happy, pick something you like. But if you want to talk about whether you benefit more from a free society or from a police state, well thats the debate I thought we were having. The problem with consuming goods that were procured through coercive means is that you dont have an accurate sense of the value of things, you lose contact with the processes that sustain civilization and your intuition suffers. It happened to me when I worked for the government, I thought I would become a more vauable employee, lo and behold I became a socially deranged monster. But give it a shot if you like, although most jobs I see (that I am interested in anyway) require a degree in something. Get a degree and go be and officer in the army or something, theres your ticket to elite society.

oops, 

I said : "bloomj31 may respond, seriously I just don't give a shit.  "

I meant, 

bloomj31 may respond, "Seriously.  I just don't give a shit..."

I didn't mean that I didn't care if he responded :)

Hahaha, second reading made that jump out at me.

bloomj31:

David B:

 Human labor will approach 0 and quality of goods in the attainment of ends will approach infinity.

How long do you think it will take?  Because I have things I want now as well as in the future and I, like everyone else, have a scarce amount of time in which to acquire them.

EDIT: I guess this is sort of a weird discussion because in my head I took the thread to be talking about present conditions and the idea of the gun and plowshare as metaphors for different approaches for dealing with other people at any place and/or time.

I thought the excerpt from the Tao te Ching was a sort of proverb meant to drive that metaphor home so to speak.

I didn't think we were literally talking about teaching a man to fish.  How did you intend this thread to be read David?  Metaphorically or literally?

It's gotten a bit contentious.  

I meant it metaphorically of course.  We did end up talking about fishing specifically.  I don't plan on opening a fishing school, for sure.

However, of course, the conversation I intend to have, and that one that actually happens don't necessarily have any relationship with each other.  Uncertainty :)  Yet another given from reality that man is combatting.