what about the difference between manipulation and persuasion ? the  difference between force and cooperation, of win lose and win win?

 

I disagree, so I doubt we will have much to say to each other from here on out. I will add for clarification that most humans seem rather more lazy than ambitious. I think a better case can be made for a general presumption toward "the avoidance of unnecessary work" being a fundamental characteristic of human nature, and indeed, successful genomes.

Persuasion is manipulation. What do you mean by "what about the difference between force/cooperation, win/lose, win/win"?

http://www.burg.com/2010/08/persuasion-vs-manipulation/

http://www.squidoo.com/persuasion-or-manipulation

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Ie-XlhBQwP8J:people.emich.edu/dallbrig/Sales%2520Files/Downloads/Read4_Influence_%2520Manipulation.pdf+difference+between+persuade+and+manipulate&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgKVnvPdS_25bWpkFa096i5zUFHk1qwB1CN6oOPaqB3xDetgW607puG2jyRpQyns6TooNGpv0fnCIrtGDCrqMKnuOBBwFnUr1ATRDcLJYf6h-9n2VfIFOp0UwYm1Jl9dH5YAxhm&sig=AHIEtbRbWP7ICZrBMdOK1J-WZmYHrPSZEw

each of these give differences between the two.

perssuasion win win/ cooperation

manipulation win lose/ force

 

 

I meant what do you mean by asking me the differences. Anyone can look in a dictionary, but why are you asking me. That's what I'm wondering.

As for persuasion vs manipulation, that's just simply not true. Manipulation applied to psychology tends to take on a negative connotation, but at its base it means to influence.

my point is that there are different methods of influence, some negative, some positive.

you say its not true, then you give a example where it is true.

that seems to be a pschopathic  nihilistic take to put difference types of influence on equal amoral terms.

 

Are you suggesting you can't persuade people in negative ways?

perhaps persuasion is more neutral, perhaps it's techneges that i am thinking about. with the definition of manipulative i was looking at, intention seemed to be a key difference between persuasion and manipulation. with other definitions simply suggesting manipulation as management , sure it can all be called manipulation and people will judge if it's postive or negative manipulations.

Yes. And since morals aren't really true but merely constructs of the minds of homo sapiens, it follows that their purpose is to manipulate minds (the subject's mind and/or those of others). It seems their function is to limit competition for liberty and power.

So if I tell you that I don't want to conquer everything, am I lying or simply manipulated by the ethical system?

No, youre just attempting to manipulate hashem to consider you as less competition. The insatiable thirst for more is axiomatic.

Unlimited, perpetual demand for a better position is a part of the foundation of elementary economics. That requires a base amount of liberty and power, and perpetually more liberty and power. Obviously, such drive is tempered by a plethora of factors, among which are the drive to have social relations, and the envenvironmen

Anyway, what's so hard about acknowledging that social interaction is mutual manipulation?

Unlimited, perpetual demand for a better position is a part of the foundation of elementary economics.

unlimited perpetual demand for a better position is not an insatiable demand to conquer.

That requires a base amount of liberty and power, and perpetually more liberty and power.

Not sure I understand what you mean here. The "desire for a better position" doesnt require a "base amount of liberty and power." someone could be utterly powerless and without liberty, and desire an improvement in their position.

It's tempered by factors the drive to have social relations and the environment, among a plethora of other factors.

so youre agreeing with me that it is not properly described as "unlimited"?

What's so hard about acknowledging that social interaction is mutual manipulation?

its either trivial or needs to be supported, depending on how you define "manipulation."

unlimited perpetual demand for a better position is not an insatiable demand to conquer.

Yes, it is. How do you presume to continue satisfying an endless demand for more without an endless need to conquer. Anyway, history seems to be irrefutable evidence that homo sapiens does, as a matter of fact, tend to conquer, endlessly.

The "desire for a better position" doesnt require a "base amount of liberty and power." someone could be utterly powerless and without liberty

What? Someone "utterly powerless and without liberty" is dead, by definition. Recall the proverbial standing room. At a minimum, he must have the liberty to remain alive, and the power to do so.

so youre agreeing with me that it is not properly described as "unlimited"?

I'm thinking unlimited in terms of quantities, so maybe unlimited isn't the best word. Unending perhaps. The point is it doesn't run out, or else man wouldn't act. Elementary economics. You should know that.

its either trivial or needs to be supported, depending on how you define "manipulation."

Everyone seems to be thinking in terms of their own lingual predjudices. So people are attacking the idea of manipulation, like I'm proposing that everyone is secretly trying to exploit their fellows. While that's partly true, my point in asking why it's so hard to acknowledge that social interaction is mutual manipulation was to bring people back to what the words mean, instead of just thinking in terms of their prejudice about them. We manipulate each other, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

Yes, it is. How do you presume to continue satisfying an endless demand for more without an endless need to conquer.

first of all, a "better position" is not equivalent to "more" as there is a qualitative aspect involved. Secondly, catallacty. These desires can be more easily and efficiently satisfied through voluntary action, as you get other people to voluntarily work for you.

Anyway, history seems to be irrefutable evidence that homo sapiens does, as a matter of fact, tend to conquer, endlessly.

history is nothing without interpretation. Your interpretation would seem to differ from mine in several particulars. For example, you appear to be interpreting history from with a collectivist methodology, as opposed to something methodologically individualistic. The vast majority of humans indeed do not seem to be determined to accumulate more and conquer more, as they choose to do otherwise. Furthermore I would suggest that your view of history is not sufficiently informed by the aboriginal peoples of the earth who seem particularly apalled at the idea of conquering the globe.

What? Someone "utterly powerless and without liberty" is dead, by definition. Recall the proverbial standing room. At a minimum, he must have the liberty to remain alive, and the power to do so.

here I am envisioning a person who is strapped to a bed, on life support. They have no liberty to move and they have no power to free themselves. Yet he wishes to escape. However, the room is soundproofed and so he has no means of alerting anyone to this desire. This hypothetical person couldnt exist?

I'm thinking unlimited in terms of quantities, so maybe unlimited isn't the best word. Unending perhaps. The point is it doesn't run out, or else man wouldn't act. Elementary economics. You should know that.

I do know that, which is why I question your interpretation. Continually desiring things is not the same as continually desiring more things. This continual desire for more seems to underpin your argument. I submit that this is not actually the case for human nature qua human nature. Any number of real people could desire to conquer the entire earth, nay the universe, and not be satisfied until they died or were crowned as emperor of dune. But there are also any number of people who desire to live without working, and so are somewhat less ambitious.

Everyone seems to be thinking in terms of their own lingual predjudices. So people are attacking the idea of manipulation, like I'm proposing that everyone is secretly trying to exploit their fellows. While that's partly true, my point in asking why it's so hard to acknowledge that social interaction is mutual manipulation was to bring people back to what the words mean, instead of just thinking in terms of their prejudice about them. We manipulate each other, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

there is no proper denotation of a given verbum. Thats why its helpful to define your terms. The problem here is tha the definition of "manipulate" that youre using is significant to the discussion. So it seems like its a petitio principii.

here I am envisioning a person who is strapped to a bed, on life support. They have no liberty to move and they have no power to free themselves. Yet he wishes to escape.

LOL. I actually laughed so don't take this the wrong way, but what the hell are you talking about?? Hahaha.

history is nothing without interpretation.

History is a record of patterns and exceptions, if nothing else. I maintain my point: the genus homo sapiens has historically tended, and does presently tend, to conquer. An especially important characteristic is our tendency to continually expand our range of things conquered and yet to conquer.

The vast majority of humans indeed do not seem to be determined to accumulate more and conquer more, as they choose to do otherwise.

Any given individual isn't necessarily representative of homo sapiens. The patterns in history of thousands and millions and billions of people over countless generations in similar circumstances and environments expose the patterns and exceptions of the tendencies of homo sapiens. Even the economic axiom humans act means nothing if it isn't verifiable by studying multiple people.

And yet you missed my point. The drive of homo sapiens is to conquer. Picture Crusoe, starting with nothing and needing to survive and then eventually adding society and exchange. None of it is possible without creating capital to overcome obstacles to consumption/exchange. But the primal drives of any given person are tempered, like I said several times, by the drive to have social relations, and by the environment, etc etc.

EDIT: Ok some of it is possible without capital. An utterly ridiculous bare minimum. So bare and absurd even your hypothetical aborigines dare not go there. Even they make and use capital. Even our cavemen ancestors make and use capital. It's one of the main marks of intelligence approaching the level of homo sapiens.

LOL. I actually laughed so don't take this the wrong way, but what the hell are you talking about?? Hahaha.

I guess I'm talking about how you werent making sense earlier when you said:

Unlimited, perpetual demand for a better position is a part of the foundation of elementary economics. That requires a base amount of liberty and power, and perpetually more liberty and power.

unless you would care to explain yourself in light of this little exchange we have had.

History is a record of patterns and exceptions, if nothing else. I maintain my point: the genus homo sapiens has historically tended, and does presently tend, to conquer. An especially important characteristic is our tendency to continually expand our range of things conquered and yet to conquer.

I dont agree. I think that "conquer" is a poor descriptor for the behaviors that totalitarian agricultural humans engage in, which have led to the world we know. If you said "produce" instead then I think I might agree with you.

Any given individual isn't necessarily representative of homo sapiens.

I cant say I agree with this. Every indidividual homo sapiens is necessarily representative of homo sapiens.

The patterns in history of thousands and millions and billions of people over countless generations in similar circumstances and environments expose the patterns and exceptions of the tendencies of homo sapiens.

I consider this most compelling evidence that you should spend the greater part of your time examining the aborigines, rather than the past 10,000 years of agricultural human history.

And yet you missed my point. The drive of homo sapiens is to conquer. Picture Crusoe, starting with nothing and needing to survive and then eventually adding society and exchange.

exactly why I consider "conquer" to be a poor word choice for this activity. Would you say that plants conquer the solar radiation or that the lion conquered the wildebeast?

seems by manipulate he means management and conquer use of resources. sure we must manage social relationships and eat. this does not require being violent towards other humans or using force against them. by cooperating with each other, people can grow a garden and eat the fruits of that labour. this had mutual cooperative management and conguering of nature as to grow a garden.

on the point of prejudice towards words, sure manipulation can be influence and conquer can be optain by effort or productivity or gain.

"conquering" nature seems like a bad idea too, maybe we should work with the nature of things to get what we want.

working with the nature of things is part of conquering nature. building a house and garden is still working with the laws of nature, not  conqeuring nature in the sense of defyng the laws of physics, but management and work to shape and make use of the environment.

http://custance.org/old/noah/ch1t.html this was a interesting article about peoples working with nature.

At this point its semantics, but pesticides and the like are te result of an attempt to conquer vice working with nature where one wouldnt find it necessary to invent poisons.

hashem:

I don't subscribe to the NAP. The NAP is a trick, because it's actually not opposed to aggression.

You're confused on the NAP. I think the root of your confusion is that you have conflated coercion with aggression.

There are two general types of coercion: aggressive coercion, and responsive coercion (which subsumes defensive and retributive coercion).

Aggressive coercion is the initiation of coercion/force on another human being for whatever reason. It is always illegitimate, it damages the attacked person's right to their own body and owned things.

Responsive coercion is always a response to aggressive coercion, and seeks either to prevent an imminent aggression that's threatened, stop an aggression in action, or punish a completed aggression. These are legitimate as they seek to enforce property rights, whereas aggression tears down property rights and is an attempted negation of them.

You can claim you don't subscribe to the NAP, but you will in practice implicitly. Everytime you pay for food rather than steal it, everytime you walk around someone rather than pushing them out of your way, you endorse the NAP because you're living by it.

To answer the OP, it seems to me that a person who rejected the NAP thinks he has a right to aggress over people. Which sounds to me much like the idea of noblesse oblige.

Which I think means that a person to negated the NAP as a premise of their individual philosophy would actually be in favor of total personal or state rule over everyone else.

In short, reject the NAP, or fail to apply it fully, and you get either a total state regime in the former or a mixed economy state in the latter, which is exactly what we have around the world.

The true failing of modern political philosophy and practice is the failure to make the state live by its own laws, laws that generally prohibit aggression.

The state makes theft illegal, yet taxes citizens to the hilt.

The state makes slavery illegal, yet conscripts soldiers and forces businesses to collect taxes for it without pay.

The state makes murder illegal, yet conducts wars the world over.

The NAP is the wedge we must use to drive between people and the state. It is a moral anchor. We must continually ask why the state should be allowed to do what citizens would not approve of between themselves.

here is where i think a mix of nap comes into play

if a government employee pays for food, are they breaking nap by accepting tax money as salery? tax breaking nap, and paying for food following nap. the employees job could consist of entirely tasks that don't break nap, but they are paid by breaking nap.

now transfer it to be rent instead of taxes, and it's no longer violation of nap. then taxes aren't all violations of nap  for each individual as some are fine with the taxes, just it's not a unaminous decision. now nongovernmental situations are not neccicarily unanimous either.

sure we must manage social relationships and eat. this does not require being violent towards other humans or using force against them.

That's simply not true. Slavery arose independently on different continents and among different societies precisely because violence is intrinsic to our psychology. Even now almost without exception slavery persists in all socieities, in the form of statism. Surely, you wouldn't object to the use of defensive or retaliatory violence, would you?

At any rate, when I say conquer I mean it literally: to overcome, specifically to overcome obstacles to sources of pain and obstacles to pleasure. Conquering, whether it is a bad choice of words or not, may imply what I'm trying to imply: that force is used in the aim to overcome, when the social and environmental circumstances permit it.

Every indidividual homo sapiens is necessarily representative of homo sapiens.

Just because you come across a guy with one leg doesn't mean homo sapiens are a one legged species. What matters are the patterns. Models with predictive capability are more powerful than those without. History shows more people with two legs. History shows humans have, unlike any other species of plant or animal, has manipulated his environment and has allowed violent, dominant hierarchies to arise and persist independently and even after trans-continental mingling.

Homo sapiens is a violent, conquering species. The violence and tendency to conquer is tempered by a variety of factors, not the least of which are the drive for social relations and environmental factors. Again, even peaceful people support defensive or retaliatory violence. Most people aren't primitivists, so their support of such violence is precisely in the hopes that it will allow progress (more conquering).

slavery is not required, it's a option, but not the only option.

you don't think people can use free will to  decide cooperate with each other?

if i say "work with me or go your own way", have i forced you to do anything? the decision is your free will.

slavery is not required, it's a option, but not the only option.

I think we're not on the same page. Slavery is a brute fact of human reality. It arose independently, on different continents, in different societies, and persists to the modern day in all civilizations. If non-slavery, voluntaryism, was an option, it was utterly obliterated and ruthlessly annihilated, consistently eradicated from the halls of history.

you don't think people can use free will to  decide cooperate with each other?

Short answer: no. Medium answer: yes, in the sense that the unconscious majority of the brain is capable of deciding to cooperate with others, and subsequently the consciousnesses of any given individuals are capable of experiencing that choice. Whether people will cooperate is a different question, and history makes it brutally clear.

If non-slavery, voluntaryism, was an option, it was utterly obliterated and ruthlessly annihilated, consistently eradicated from the halls of history.

its funny you would say that, as voluntary interactions vastly outnumber coerced actions on any given day.

so the only relationship is that of owners and the owned, none between two owners or two owned or unowned people?

Malachi:

If non-slavery, voluntaryism, was an option, it was utterly obliterated and ruthlessly annihilated, consistently eradicated from the halls of history.

its funny you would say that, as voluntary interactions vastly outnumber coerced actions on any given day.

Slaves may interact voluntarily. That doesn't mean slavery was abolished, or that voluntaryism is the rule.

cab21:

so the only relationship is that of owners and the owned, none between two owners or two owned or unowned people?

Again, we're all slaves regardless of which society we're in. There is no voluntary society. Even if we meet up and exchange voluntarily, at the end of the day we're slaves to our governments. Slavery persists. There is no voluntary society, because slavery and violent dominance hierarchies is the dominant paradigm among homo sapiens.

what definition of slavery is this?

the government does not own citizens in the usa. slavery is a ownership and property thing, citizens are not property of the state in the usa.

I think the defining characteristic of slavery is hegemony, not property. What makes a person a slave is that he is forced through violence or threats thereof. Anyway, if he is thus treated (against his will) as a factor of production, and controlled, what is he if not property?

"A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a master once in a term of years." —Lysander Spooner

so this is along the lines  the anarchist communists that say anarchy can't happen because of homosapian's  hegemonic nature. saying it's imposable to not have hedgemony, they want their hedgemony. we are all slaves, pick your hegemony

cab21:

slavery is not required, it's a option, but not the only option.

you don't think people can use free will to  decide cooperate with each other?

if i say "work with me or go your own way", have i forced you to do anything? the decision is your free will.

In the case of slavery, the "master" (usually in conjunction with the state legal apparatus) is using force to prevent the "slave" from being able to leave the contract, in essence preventing him from exercizing his free will and freedom to associate. A slave is not able to say "ok, I quit" and leave.

Sounds a bit like prisons, conscription, public schools, jury duty, etc. doesn't it?

hashem:

Yes. Or the non-initial-aggression-principle. Or whatever.

So what Rothbard is calling "aggression" is the same thing as what you're calling "initial aggression". So there's no contradiction in what Rothbard or any other anarcho-capitalist is talking about (in this regard). Does that make sense to you?

@ cab21

No, anarchism can happen because of human nature. But it hasn't for important reasons. And it won't any time soon for the same reasons. When the vast majority of the people worldwide begin to oppose hegemony, it will be because, like catalactics or economics, for two reasons: they can sympathize with it, and they can do something about it. The world will therefore be in such a technologically advanced state it won't resemble today. It won't be because homo sapiens all of a sudden is no longer violent and dominant, it will be because the tendency toward social relations is more valuable than the fruits of violence and dominance, and because communication will connect people in more of a hive mind environment.

Libertarians seem to acknowledge that libertarianism hasn't been the dominant paradigm in history because violent dominance hierarchies have spread and persisted instead. The question is why? Because it's part of human nature. A deeply rooted survival mechanism. And its not going away just because "it could in theory". When it goes away, it will be because of the unnatural factor: technology.

humans are natural

humans create technology

human technology is natural

it seemed the communists discribed a aspect of  hedgemoney as those that own private property or the means of production vs those that do not, how would technology solve this? libertarians don't even call this relationship enherently violent and call the lack of aknoledgement of private property as something that leads to more violence i think.

we already have many relationships that are nonviolent in nature with a recognition of social cooperation over violent dominance. we have nap domination in ownership, but i don't think that is violence against others.

people are allowed to quit and leave with their own property, but not the property of others in many relationships today.

Slaves may interact voluntarily. That doesn't mean slavery was abolished, or that voluntaryism is the rule.

I think youre trying to petitio principii again, with another equivocation, so I have lost interest in parsing your defintion of "slave." there are a vastly greater amount of voluntary interactions than coerced interaction on any given day. I refuse to countenance your attempt to disregard this plain fact with arbitrary categories of people whose voluntary interaction somehow doesnt count.

there are a vastly greater amount of voluntary interactions than coerced interaction on any given day.

There are an astronomically, unthinkably greater amount of unconscious, non-consciously-controllable processes in the brain, and in the entire body, than there are conscious ones, and yet you would say something along the lines of "a person has "free" will".

But you're just pulling a red herring anyway........so common on these forums :( I said if non-slavery, or voluntaryism was an option, it was obliterated. I didn't say voluntary exchanges don't occur. And it's true, we don't see voluntaryist societies, and the certainly aren't the rule throughout history, and they certainly didn't arise and persist on multiple continents independently.

There are an astronomically, unthinkably greater amount of unconscious, non-consciously-controllable processes in the brain, and in the entire body, than there are conscious ones,

irrelevant in the context of voluntarism vs slavery

and yet you would say something along the lines of "a person has "free" will".

no I wouldnt.

But you're just pulling a red herring anyway........so common on these forums :( I said if non-slavery, or voluntaryism was an option, it was obliterated.

and youre wrong, obviously.

I didn't say voluntary exchanges don't occur. And it's true, we don't see voluntaryist societies, and the certainly aren't the rule throughout history, and they certainly didn't arise and persist on multiple continents independently.

yes we do, and yes they do and yes they did, but I dont think you care about history nearly so much as your own ideas.