Malachi,
Logical negation, sure. As we also discussed, it is nonsensical to process some concepts through the logic algorithm. Thus we have reached the end of the relevant application of logic as we move towards a holistic expression of consciousness. Without presuming such and such distinctions, there is no ability to compare, therefore no ability to distinguish between "logical" and "illogical".
I took a look at the wiki for the incompleteness theorem, not sure how you wanted to incorporate it inot your argument. If anything, it seems to support the limited ability of algorithms to prove axioms.
Malachi:wu wei is something I would describe as harmony between the ego and the I.
Could you elaborate on this? I find the concept of "acting without acting" very interesting, and something I find myself struggling to understand.
z1235,
Right on all points. I still cannot shake the fear of death, unfortunately. Cowardice prevents me from truly plunging into the void.
Jackson, it's not cowardice that prevents you. It's the wisdom of millions of years of evolution and natural selection. The tools this wisdom has given you are there for a reason, so don't look down on them and don't be afraid to use them. Your only problem is lack of humility towards the things/processes about which you can't possibly ever even know that you don't know.
z1235:It's the wisdom of millions of years of evolution and natural selection. The tools this wisdom has given you are there for a reason, so don't look down on them and don't be afraid to use them.
The ends may be different, though. Survival and procreation differ from ultimate understanding.
z1235:Your only problem is lack of humility towards the things/processes about which you can't possibly ever even know that you don't know.
Intended answer to your second quote: Say what?
Jackson LaRose: The ends may be different, though. Survival and procreation differ from ultimate understanding.
Same ends. Your DNA could only accumulate this wisdom (the tools at your perusal today) through your ancestor's survival and procreation. Finally, even in your particular case, survival/existence is a necessary precondition to understanding (ultimate or otherwise). Nothingness/non-existence could only be contemplated by an existing entity. Zero is not some special quantity that is more "ultimate" than, say, 17. It's simply a non-quantity.
Be humbled by what you don't know that you don't know, and just let it be. When handed lemons, say 'thank you' and make lemonade. When handed reason, say 'thank you' and use logic.
z1235:Nothingness/non-existence could only be contemplated by an existing entity.
"I think, therefore I am", eh? Perhaps, but I tend to think of the Brahman as something beyond the duality of "existence/non-existence".
Numbers only have meaning in a dualistic mindset. What I refer to is beyond calculation, or enumeration.
z1235:Be humbled by what you don't know that you don't know, and just let it be. When handed lemons, say 'thank you' and make lemonade. When handed reason, say 'thank you' and use logic.
I certainly do. I would implore others not to be led astray by the "truths" your tools may display.
@ Malachi:
This will be somewhat difficult to respond to everything, so forgive me if I miss something you thought important. I will attempt to leave my quotes of you only to where they are neccessary to understand my response. I don't want to spam the page with a big "quote war" (for lack of a better term than war).
On Schrodinger's cat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantlog/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpr...ntum_mechanics QM poses real problems for understanding in general. So of course it poses probelms for human behavior.
Ultimate veto power can have leverage over the non-creation of a contract. It has very little leverage over the direction those negotiations take. The proverbial man in the desert dying of thirst must, by necessity, accept whatever terms the man with water throws out. Cake or death is so biased of a choice, as to not be one at all. It's a choice; one in which there is, for all intents and purposes, one answer.
peter and paul have no business interfering with my business beyond their efforts to make sure that the contracts between myself and the slaves adhere to all libertarian requirements, meaning in this case the contract must contain an escape clause among other things.
Your begging the question here. Peter and Paul have every rigth to anything they want. Nature has no concept of "should." As the dude said: It's just... like.. your opinion, man." I have ethical choices I oppose, but I realize that it is just my opinion, and if I want to make it normative, I must convince others to agree with me.
Additionally, socialization of costs requires force, fraud, or consent among the entire group who bears the costs. This is why in a free society, businesses cannot socialize costs among the population at large.
Business cannot engage in fraud, and buy off judges to support them legally? That is how I dismiss your dismissal of socialization. People are smart, and figure out ways to do things; one of those is creating externalities.
Your proposal that poverty is entirely created by "programs that punish production and reward need" seems absurd to me, as poverty is far older than welfare. Poverty is, in my view, created by putting up of proverbial fences/borders that disallow the natural equillibrium to support the population. It creates abundance for some, at the cost of stability for all. This class of people (the real producer class. It's absurd to call ownership that. Ownership doesn't create anything, labor does.) arises because their class opposition legalizes their own claim to property with force, and beats the "have-nots" into submission.
I also don't see how I am disincentivising production. My goal is to make the workplace democratic. All the same decisions can be made, by the vote of everyone involved, rather than the monopoly power of the arbitrary "owner." I may support welfare/charity. But it is not a main focal point of my political philosophy; power over one's own life is.
you propose to exchange the opportunity to build your wealth through peaceful, voluntary action for the opportunity to sit around on subsidized idleness until someone else builds a decent pile of wealth, and then seize that wealth by force
Total red-herring here. Again, you assume I'm a Democrat or American Liberal.
Well... that didn't take as long as I thought
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Classically, if S is the set of states of a physical system, then every subset of S corresponds to a categorical property of the system, and vice versa. In quantum mechanics, the state space is the (projective) unit sphere S = S(H) of a Hilbert space. However, not all subsets of S correspond to quantum-mechanical properties of the system. The latter correspond only to subsets of the special form S ∩ M, for M a closed linear subspace of H. In particular, only subsets of this form are assigned probabilities. This leaves us with two options. One is to take only these special properties as ‘real’ (or ‘physical’, or ‘meaningful’), regarding more general subsets of S as corresponding to no real categorical properties at all. The other is to regard the ‘quantum’ properties as a small subset of the set of all physically (or at any rate, metaphysically) reasonable, but not necessarily observable, properties of the system. On this latter view, the set of all properties of a physical system is entirely classical in its logical structure, but we decline to assign probabilities to the non-observable properties.[3] This second position, while certainly not inconsistent with realism per se, turns upon a distinction involving a notion of “observation”, “measurement”, “test”, or something of this sort — a notion that realists are often at pains to avoid in connection with fundamental physical theory. Of course, any realist account of a statistical physical theory such as quantum mechanics will ultimately have to render up some explanation of how measurements are supposed to take place. That is, it will have to give an account of which physical interactions between “object” and “probe” systems count as measurements, and of how these interactions cause the probe system to evolve into final ‘outcome-states’ that correspond to — and have the same probabilities as — the outcomes predicted by the theory. This is the notorious measurement problem.
If we put aside scruples about ‘measurement’ as a primitive term in physical theory, and accept a principled distinction between ‘testable’ and non-testable properties, then the fact that L(H) is not Boolean is unremarkable, and carries no implication about logic per se. Quantum mechanics is, on this view, a theory about the possible statistical distributions of outcomes of certain measurements, and its non-classical ‘logic’ simply reflects the fact that not all observable phenomena can be observed simultaneously. Because of this, the set of probability-bearing events (or propositions) is less rich than it would be in classical probability theory, and the set of possible statistical distributions, accordingly, less tightly constrained. That some ‘non-classical’ probability distributions allowed by this theory are actually manifested in nature is perhaps surprising, but in no way requires any deep shift in our understanding of logic or, for that matter, of probability. This is hardly the last word, however. Having accepted all of the above, there still remains the question of why the logic of measurement outcomes should have the very special form L(H), and never anything more general.[7] This question entertains the idea that the formal structure of quantum mechanics may be uniquely determined by a small number of reasonable assumptions...[continues]
Laotzu del Zinn:QM poses real problems for understanding in general. So of course it poses probelms for human behavior.
Ultimate veto power can have leverage over the non-creation of a contract. It has very little leverage over the direction those negotiations take.
The proverbial man in the desert dying of thirst must, by necessity, accept whatever terms the man with water throws out.
Cake or death is so biased of a choice, as to not be one at all. It's a choice; one in which there is, for all intents and purposes, one answer.
Your begging the question here. Peter and Paul have every rigth to anything they want.
Or did I misunderstand the scenario? Is peter the komissar?
Nature has no concept of "should." As the dude said: It's just... like.. your opinion, man." I have ethical choices I oppose, but I realize that it is just my opinion, and if I want to make it normative, I must convince others to agree with me.
Your proposal that poverty is entirely created by "programs that punish production and reward need" seems absurd to me, as poverty is far older than welfare.
Poverty is, in my view, created by putting up of proverbial fences/borders that disallow the natural equillibrium to support the population. It creates abundance for some, at the cost of stability for all.
This class of people (the real producer class. It's absurd to call ownership that. Ownership doesn't create anything, labor does.)
class opposition legalizes their own claim to property with force, and beats the "have-nots" into submission.
I also don't see how I am disincentivising production. My goal is to make the workplace democratic.
however, you disincentivize production when you punish production (legally reposessing a privately-owned factory) and reward idleness (paying people according to "what they need to survive" not what they produce). Who would want to go to the effort of building a factory and assembling a workforce if they didnt get to enjoy the fruits of their labor? And who would want to work harder, or make more widgets, if it didnt get them any more money? And if one person got sick, or "lost their wallet," they got paid more, do you really think that policy would not be abused?
All the same decisions can be made, by the vote of everyone involved, rather than the monopoly power of the arbitrary "owner."
I may support welfare/charity. But it is not a main focal point of my political philosophy; power over one's own life is.
Comrade, you need to work on that formatting. It's hard to tell where my words end and your begin. You could also work on the whole "I'm going to make up my opponents position for him" and the whole anger thing. But w/e...
I'm not going to comment on the QM thing because, with the bad formatting and your angry rant, I really am not sure what you are trying to say... scientists are liars and cooks? Is that it? Is it kind-of like a "how do magnets work" kind-of thing? Idk...
Yes, they can refuse to negotiate based on any single term of any contract. Either party. Its completely voluntary, and completely free. That means that negotiations cannot move in a direction that is unfavorable to either party. They either stalemate, move forward, or terminate
Except that whole "cake or death" aspect of it. Do you agree with me that the less you have to offer, the more skewed the negotiations are in favor of the other person?
But you would have a responsible elder deplete the supply of water that his tribe has carefully preserved for someone who is not only foolish enough to go some place where he has no business going alone with no water, but also inconsiderate enough to feel entitled to the means by which someone wiser than himself intends to make the same perilous journey.
No. I'm not saying anything normative about the man in the desert. It was an analogy to show how sometimes a choice isn't really much of a choice at all. What I will say tho, is that we shouldn't be surprised if the man w/ water attempts to strong-hand the negotiations in his favor, and the thirsty man just kills him and takes the water. I don't advocate that kind of action... but you get what's coming to you.
are you a buddhist or is that just a cool handle? mind your own business instead of someone else's you want to be like "human rights are lies told by our parents just like the easter bunny and bedtime"?!?!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax
well you are not being very convincing right now. The truth is that morality is natural among humans, we are just also naturally bad.
What and who's morality? Ya, everyone has a moral system they believe in. Not any of them are the same as anyone else's.
Thats why even amoralist communists like yourself get OUTRAGED about THOSE POOR WORKERS when you really ought to care only about yourself and your kin, if you were truly amoral.
You must be talking to someone else... ? I have a set of morals, and attempt to follow them strongly.
no, in a private law society, business cannot engage in fraud and buy off judges to support them legally. That would require a monopoly on law and is only possible with a state.
I'm not sure you understand how the world works...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption
People are smart, and we can figure out how to privatize the courts/police, meaning competition in law enforcement and ajudication would bring about universal rule of law. each private court would handle externalities (when those cases were brought to them), but much more efficiently and fairly, because without a good track record they would go out of business.
A good track record according to the judgements of the monied interests...
I did not say "poverty." it is disingenuous for you to slide that in there
I apologize if I took you out of context, but if we weren't talking about poverty... then what were we talking about?
and I specifically referred to a class of people who do not have anything and do not believe they have to work for anything.
.What is that, like 2% of the population? Most people are all about that whole "work hard and personal responsiblity" culture.. and rightly so, even if for all the wrong reasons. (I cannot stand when people are complaining about leftists by saying "I work hard as hell and I'm still broke!" Think about that dude... just think about it for a second...)
If that's who you were referring to, we're referring to entirely different people. Those are a small externality in my philosophy; to you they are the mainstay..?
You, on the other hand, appear to think that a person who works in a factory and lives paycheck to paycheck is no different than someone who lives in public housing projects and collects a welfare check. Is there a significant economic difference, in your opinion?
Well ya... one has a job and the other doesn't! Who wouldn't recognize a significant economic difference there?
But, on the other hand... they both have relatively nothing to offer the market except their labor power. As such, they are both members of the working class. One serves as a cog in the wheel of capitalist development, the other as a boogeyman to scare the poor workers into obedience.
the "natural equilibrium" did not support anything. If your idea of h/g tribes includes that, in general terms, they spent less time working or had more calories available for things like music, than modern ag society, you are sadly mistaken.
1) Ya, it did. That's what natural equilibrium works. If there's not enough to go around, somebody's going to die. I don't see why you would think I am advocating this. I'm just pointing out a fact of nature.
2) They didn't spend less time working? Again, I'm not here to glorify or advocate primitivism. But the claim that h/g's didn't work less seems opposite to what I learned getting my anthroplogy degree. ... oh wait, I see the qualifier now "modern agricultural society." Ya, it's way different now. But I would posit that most people work 8hrs+ a day, and as such most people work more.
in an economic sense, ownership and use are indistinguishable.
And what about renters and wage laborers? They both use things they don't own. Or, do they "economically" own them, even if not legally? Because that sounds like socialism to me; people having possession of control but not formal ownership.
It seems to me that you think these production goods simply appear. They only exist because other people have the wealth to afford them. Now ask yourself why you would save your pennies for years to get a lathe, and then go to work on the lathe, when you could pay someone to work the lathe while you work the saw, and make even more money?
I... wouldn't? You must be talking to someone else, because I have no problem with the division of labor.
What I would do is save up to get a lathe, hire someone to work it, while I work the saw, and give him a distinguishable say over the distribution of profits.
thats why we get rid of the state. You have yet to suggest how ancom would work in anarchy proper
I didn't realize I had to lay out my entire political philosophy for you here
I generally tend to not focus upon my proscriptions for the future. Socialism will grow organically through the actions of the working class, or it will be imposed. If imposed, it is unnatural and will fail. I will lay out how I think it will look; but I am not the totality of the working class, and it's just my opinion.
But if businesses produced more goods with democratic workplaces, it would happen in a free market. In ancap, you can have a democratic workplace if you want. You simply cannot legally force me to allow my workers to vote on how many hours they work, or what responsibilities go to what positions, and so forth.
It does happen. There is sufficient evidence that co-ops are more stable, less susceptible to economic collapse, and offer higher wages, generally. Unfortunately, they offer less to the ruling class (ownership/investment) than traditional businesses, which significantly slows their ability to become the dominant business structure... currently. This situation is likely to change as capitalism evolves tho.
I didn't realize I advocated legally forcing you into a co-op, tho.... you must be talking to someone else? I have said I would prefer a society where monopoly power over resources is not legally enforced (private property). And I have said there are certain situations where I would support the siezure of a factory. But, again, I didn't realize I advocated forcing you into a co-op...
however, you disincentivize production when you punish production (legally reposessing a privately-owned factory)
Banks punish production when they foreclose on a business that can't pay its bills?
and reward idleness (paying people according to "what they need to survive" not what they produce).
Again, welfare is a very small portion of my outlook... and something I would rather we do without. But I would be a hypocrite to suggest that welfare cannot work. It worked for me and my family, and millons of others. If you are against welfare because of productive issues, rather than moral ones, than you must be against charity as well, for the same reason. Both are redistributing wealth to the so-called underproductive.
Who would want to go to the effort of building a factory and assembling a workforce if they didnt get to enjoy the fruits of their labor? And who would want to work harder, or make more widgets, if it didnt get them any more money?
Again.. you must be talking to someone else? These are exactly what I am advocating; people enjoying the fruits of their labor, and making more money for working harder. What you seem to be suggesting is that a capitalist creates the materials, ships them to the land, clears the land and makes it ready for production, builds the factory, and attracts new labor all by himself.
Once I was discussing with an aquaintance about monarchy. He was asked, by another poster, "what value does a king bring." The capitalist's response was "he defends the land from invaders." I responded, "he did that all by himself? What, is he Goku?!" lol
so if a customer calls and orders 50,000 widgets, the guy who spent his whole life in the widget industry, has invented the double widget, and spent his whole life savings building a widget factory and assembling a small army of widget-makers, that guy is less qualified to make the decision, than the collective wisdom of the entire workforce on an up or down vote? Is that your claim?
Why would that be my claim? It has nothing do with qualifications, and everything to do with imposing one's monopoly power. I mean, if the so-called experts are always and inherently the best at making decisions... why not just have a technocratic dictatorship?
ok then why is everone subject to the will of the majority? Thats disempowering for both. The minority doesnt get what they want, and the majority still has to wait for the formality of the election to act on their desires.
What is this... I don't even....
In a non-democratic system, the decision just happens; period. The two wolves just eat the sheep, end of story. In a democratic system the sheep at least gets a vote, and the possibility to argue for a quick and painless death.
I thought Mises laid that Schrodinger's cat nonsense to waste long ago.
Why anarchy fails
Nevermind, I had it backwards. (Why can't I edit?)
It's interesting that Schrodinger's cat has become the premier argument for the Copenhegan interpretation when it's initial formulation was a reductio ad absurdum of that way of interpreting QM.
EDIT: Also, I'm not so sure that all this hocus pocus being postulated as being true from the Copenhegan interpretation is accurate. The Copenhegan interpetation talks about mathematical inferences we can make about the states of certain quantum objects, but it says nothing about physical inference. It seems to me that saying Schrodingers cat is alive and dead is actually false, since "alive" and "dead" correspond to collapsed states which is categorically different from the unobserved state. Essentially, saying an uncollapsed state is simultaneously two discrete collapsed states seems illogical.
Malachi, I wrote up a response last night, but it is pending moderation.
the relevant point about godel is that he establishes the limits of logic and language in much more rigorous terms than anyone else I am aware of. It is relevant because logic doesnt fall short because contradictions exist, logic falls short because plenty of important facts in any system are unprovable.
basically, any part of life, including all of life itself, can be broadly defined as a skill. The process happens naturally, but as life is complicated and these broad collections of individual acts require vastly different thought processes, modern humans have great difficulty attaining unconscious competence at the task of life. You can contrast this with a beast in the wild. The beast is unconsciously competent at the processes that sustain life. Basically, you have to be mindful enough to apprehend the causal processes of your environment, and apprehend their effects on your long-term satisfaction.
if you are trying to suggest that power differentials exist in real life, congratulations. What is your point, that people have a right to favorable negotiation conditions?
No. I'm not saying anything normative about the man in the desert. It was an analogy to show how sometimes a choice isn't really much of a choice at all.
What I will say tho, is that we shouldn't be surprised if the man w/ water attempts to strong-hand the negotiations in his favor, and the thirsty man just kills him and takes the water.
I'm not sure you understand how the world works... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption
What is that, like 2% of the population? Most people are all about that whole "work hard and personal responsiblity" culture..
and rightly so, even if for all the wrong reasons. (I cannot stand when people are complaining about leftists by saying "I work hard as hell and I'm still broke!" Think about that dude... just think about it for a second...)
Those are a small externality in my philosophy; to you they are the mainstay..?
Laotzu del Zinn:Large swaths of people will have nil to offer but their labor. Even if a small percentage of them will be industrious and/or lucky enough to pull themselves out of that over time...
But, on the other hand... they both have relatively nothing to offer the market except their labor power. As such, they are both members of the working class.
1) Ya, it did. That's what natural equilibrium works.
If there's not enough to go around, somebody's going to die. I don't see why you would think I am advocating this. I'm just pointing out a fact of nature.
They didn't spend less time working? Again, I'm not here to glorify or advocate primitivism. But the claim that h/g's didn't work less seems opposite to what I learned getting my anthroplogy degree.
h wait, I see the qualifier now "modern agricultural society." Ya, it's way different now. But I would posit that most people work 8hrs+ a day, and as such most people work more.
Ludwig von Mises:What is called storing money is a way of using wealth. The uncertainty of the future makes it seem advisable to hold a larger or smaller part of one's possessions in a form that will facilitate a change from one way of using wealth to another, or transition from the ownership of one good to that of another, in order to preserve the opportunity of being able without difficulty to satisfy urgent demands that may possibly arise in the future for goods that will have to be obtained by exchange (p. 147).
It does happen. There is sufficient evidence that co-ops are more stable, less susceptible to economic collapse, and offer higher wages, generally.
Unfortunately, they offer less to the ruling class (ownership/investment) than traditional businesses, which significantly slows their ability to become the dominant business structure... currently. This situation is likely to change as capitalism evolves tho.
I have said I would prefer a society where monopoly power over resources is not legally enforced (private property).
welfare is a very small portion of my outlook... and something I would rather we do without. But I would be a hypocrite to suggest that welfare cannot work. It worked for me and my family, and millons of others. If you are against welfare because of productive issues, rather than moral ones, than you must be against charity as well, for the same reason. Both are redistributing wealth to the so-called underproductive.
you mentioned production. If I choose to reward someone for what you consider "nonproductive behavior." then it really makes no difference to you. It doesnt cost you anything and it doesnt obligate you in the least. However, if a bureaucrat spends your tax dollars rewarding what you consider to be "nonproductive behavior" then it does affect you a great deal. You are poorer, and now color of law has created an expectation. You have no opportunity to select an agent to administer your surplus funds, and you have no say in how they are administered. The funds are going to the "needy" obviously people who need more than they produce. If you were to donate to a charity, you could find a charity that rewarded people you considered to be productive.
These are exactly what I am advocating; people enjoying the fruits of their labor, and making more money for working harder. What you seem to be suggesting is that a capitalist creates the materials, ships them to the land, clears the land and makes it ready for production, builds the factory, and attracts new labor all by himself.
Why would that be my claim? It has nothing do with qualifications, and everything to do with imposing one's monopoly power.
I mean, if the so-called experts are always and inherently the best at making decisions... why not just have a technocratic dictatorship?
Malachi:I may not have made this clear, but I reject the theory of limitations on logic.
Then you are making an inherently irrational statement. A statement of faith, if you will. As you say here,
Malachi:logic falls short because plenty of important facts in any system are unprovable.
What this means to me that without omniscience, one is unable to utilize logic to derive "truth", or "fact", or "law" in any objective sense.
This is why I consider Science and Religion to be on equal footing, as far as closeness to "truth" is concerned.
Then you are making an inherently irrational statement. A statement of faith, if you will.
Malachi:faith is a prerequisite for reason.
Yes, which is why faith cannot be considered "reasonable". That's putting the cart before the horse. Therefore, faith is not "reasonable". It is acceptance without knowledge.
Malachi:I have reason to reject the theory of limitations on logic, the arrow of time being one of them.
We can at least agree that our implementation of logic is inherently limited. I'd also venture that without some sort of implicit dualism, logic is inapplicable, as it is a method of differentation.
LOL, at least we agree on the rest!
Somewhat off-topic, but something time related I find cool:
Timewave Zero
banned: EDIT: Also, I'm not so sure that all this hocus pocus being postulated as being true from the Copenhegan interpretation is accurate. The Copenhegan interpetation talks about mathematical inferences we can make about the states of certain quantum objects, but it says nothing about physical inference. It seems to me that saying Schrodingers cat is alive and dead is actually false, since "alive" and "dead" correspond to collapsed states which is categorically different from the unobserved state. Essentially, saying an uncollapsed state is simultaneously two discrete collapsed states seems illogical.
Mystifying people with needless extra silliness, malleable definitions, and obfuscatory mathematics to intimidate critics lets you get more grant money from the State. Lord Keynes used the same tricks.
Jackson LaRose: Somewhat off-topic, but something time related I find cool: Timewave Zero
What did you find cool about this? I may be missing something but, to me, it looked like any other completely unintelligible jibberish produced by an average mathematical illiterate.
Yes, which is why faith cannot be considered "reasonable"
Malachi:science/religion inferior because of their reliance on faith. Thats not inferiority (inferior to what? Nihilism?)
This was not my intention. I do not consider either inferior to anything else. I'm just saying that each requires faith, "magical thinking" if you will, in the relative "trueness" of either. That is epistemological nihilism.
Malachi:the fact that logic requires faith, is a fact that does not require faith.
A bit circular, no?
OK, OK, it's not cool. Sheesh.
"logic needs faith. No logical investigation is required to discover this, it is self-evident from the first step of the logic process."
Malachi:I consider myself to have moved from nothing to "engineered pursuit of happiness"
Can you elaborate on this?
Malachi:No logical investigation is required to discover this
Perhaps implicitly, but I think there are a lot of people floating around out there who never question the validity of "facts" as they are presented. It certainly required active rational pursuit for me to wind up where I am philosophically, that's for sure.
well, I know I like to be happy. So that doesnt require any logic or faith, it is empirically verified from basic sensations. I am not aware of another way to interpret this experience. So my selection of my own happiness as my ultimate goal is axiomatic.
given the nature of happiness, specifically the empirically discovered fact that it is a condition which must be sustained, I choose to make this a long term goal. Meaning that I have worked towards short-term happiness before and it didnt meet my basic goal, because the happiness was transitory. So I define my goal as a "long term condition of sustainable happiness" or a specific type of empirically discovered mix of chemicals in my blood, and the physiological state that sustains this chemical cocktail over the long term.
experience posits the concept of cause and effect. My next goal, as a stepping stone to my primary goal, becomes to determine what causes lead to the effect "long term condition of sustainable happiness."
Engineered happiness results from discovery of the causal factors of happiness. This is this first time I have had an opportunity to explain this to a willing audience, so I apologize if it isnt as clear or insightful as I had hoped.
I prefer to call "engineered pursuit of hapiness" as "the cessation of suffering", which is essentially the same thing as you are describing. Buddha recommends the letting go of attachments and clinging, essentially what Stirner is saying when he dissolves the spooks in his head. Release all false distinction, achieve equanimity for all time.
Jackson LaRose: I prefer to call "engineered pursuit of hapiness" as "the cessation of suffering", which is essentially the same thing as you are describing. Buddha recommends the letting go of attachments and clinging, essentially what Stirner is saying when he dissolves the spooks in his head. Release all false distinction, achieve equanimity for all time.
Some also call that "wisdom". Whatever its name, it's the 'holy grail' of every human's existence. Jackson, the above is just one "prescription" (suggested path) towards it. What made you think/feel that it is THE path? Also, had most of our ancestors "let go of attachments and clinging" to, say, life, we wouldn't be here pondering such alternatives as a possible path to wisdom. Just saying. I've also heard some wise people say that 'it' becomes more elusive the more determined one becomes in pursuing it. Quite the layers on this onion. Nevertheless, interesting discussion, guys.
z1235:Some also call that "wisdom".
As do I.
Jackson LaRose:If one considers "enlightenment" as "ultimate understanding", than Sophia is my desired end, hopefully one that will end desire completely.
"Sophia" is just Greek for "wisdom".
z1235:Whatever its name, it's the 'holy grail' of every human's existence.
If only.
"The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being." - Socrates
This equates the willfully ignorant to animals, which I have a tough time disagreeing with.
z1235:Jackson, the above is just one "prescription" (suggested path) towards it. What made you think/feel that it is THE path?
You're telling me. Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu, Mohammed, Zoroaster, Krishna, the list goes on and on. I would argue that the path is the same, just the names change.
z1235:Also, had most of our ancestors "let go of attachments and clinging" to, say, life, we wouldn't be here pondering such alternatives as a possible path to wisdom.
I don't think that is necessarily the case. Take Super Mario Brothers for example. If I am controlling this little "Mario" avatar on the screen, that isn't to say that I think this avatar "is" me, or that I "am" Mario. That being said, I can still "pretend" to be Mario, and control him as if I was Mario, but I still understand that I am not Mario.
"All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts..." - Shakespeare
The Eastern traditions do not advocate lack of action, they are advocating that you act with the awareness of the "game" within which you are acting:
"Therefore, O Arjuna, surrendering all your works unto Me, with full knowledge of Me, without desires for profit, with no claims to proprietorship, and free from lethargy, fight." - Bahagavad Gita
"having without possessing, acting with no expectations, leading and not trying to control: this is the supreme virtue." - Lao Tzu
All action becomes play, all experience novel, and all fear and ignorance is washed away. This is all dependent of releasing the illusory "I", the Ego. This is why Shiva dances (a playful action) the world into creation and destruction upon the Dwarf of ignorance:
Shiva Nataraja
z1235:I've also heard some wise people say that 'it' becomes more elusive the more determined one becomes in pursuing it.
As distinctions and mirages melt away, it becomes more and more diffcult to distinguish "this" and "that", "should" "shouldn't", etc. This can lead to a sort of nihilistic despair, known as "The Dark Night of the Soul". I had a rough stint with that, although I'm nowhere near union with the divine, so it must get worse!
Jackson LaRose: As distinctions and mirages melt away, it becomes more and more diffcult to distinguish "this" and "that", "should" "shouldn't", etc. This can lead to a sort of nihilistic despair, known as "The Dark Night of the Soul". I had a rough stint with that, although I'm nowhere near union with the divine, so it must get worse!
Hmm, this "end suffering" business sure seems painful. I agree that this is probably all a play/game, in the end, but play is supposed to be fun where I come from. If walking along a certain "path" decreases fun and increases suffering, perhaps that's not the "right" path to take towards ending suffering (i.e. attaining wisdom). I believe that the tools we have (honed through millions of years of evolution) to experience happines/fun vs. pain/suffering are probably much more sophisticated than we give them credit. There's probably much more "wisdom" in them than we could deduct by pure reason/logic. This is what I meant about being humble. Just throwing this out there.
I never was religious so I have hard time associating with the "dark night of the soul" (as described in the wiki). Btw, take a look at "The Sunset Limited" if you haven't already.
Once, I unexpectedly lost consciousness (from a previous concussion). When I woke up few seconds later laying on the ground, strangely, the first thought that occured to me was how if I hadn't woken up I'd never have even known that I had "disappeared". It was like an epiphany after which I've been feeling more free and happy ever since. Perhaps the easiest way to break free from all attachments is the awareness that you could be "unplugged" into nothingness without notice any moment. However hard, long, fun, cold, miserable, stupid, wasted, enlightened, or happy every "plugged" second may be, it still is infinitely better than an "unplugged" one -- it's still a quantity (something) vs. zero (nothing).
z1235:Hmm, this "end suffering" business sure seems painful.
LOL, that depends on how hard you are clinging. Short term pleasure usually leads to long term suffering. See heroin.
z1235:I never was religious so I have hard time associating with the "dark night of the soul"
We are all religious. The basis for anyone's reasoning is faith in the starting premise. A more secular analogy might be Existential Crisis. This is what Camus reasons through in The Myth of Sisyphus. His conclusion is that the struggle of existence becomes the meaning of existence. The means become the end, in other words.
"By now it is proven...
Life is sorrow!
But we have learned to love sorrow in order to love life!
Because in loving sorrow we have learned to struggle.
And in struggle - in struggle alone - is our joy of living"
- Renzo Novatore
I think Western thinkers see nothingness at the end of the logic, which I tend to disagree with. In the Eastern tradition, confounding logic is seen as a necessity, in order to liberate oneself from our own self-inflicted mental bonds. See Zen Koan.
Y'know, I got so busy I forgot about this thread. Much apologies.
How did my links not support my position?
Imminent death, or short-term survival. Seems like a pretty significant choice to me. Are you suggesting that because he dies in the end, it really doesnt matter what he chooses?
I'm saying, and forgive the graphic nature of this response, that it is like having the choice between getting raped, or butt raped. It's a choice wherein you don't really want either option.
why, exactly, do you think that the guy with the water would find it necessary to strong-arm a guy dying of thirst?
He can...? I hold a strict position of human amorality. We like to make moral choices, but sometimes we forsake that out of convenience.
are you suggesting that no one has ever agreed on morals?
There are general agreements. I think it would be hard to find two people that agree 100% on everything moral... espeically if you count actions rather than preferences.
ok, how are your morals any different from your music preferences? What grounds would you use to persuade someone to your moral viewpoint?
They're not. And I say what I believe, and make a sincere attempt not to act against my beliefs.
a good track record according to the judgments of the consumers. It does little good for monied interests to support biased courts in ancap because people just wont use those courts. This is why we support removal of the monopoly on arbitration
But need is not effective economic demand. Effective economic demand requires both need and corresponding purchasing power. ~Henry Hazlitt
The monied class (consumers as you call them) will find it perfectly reasonable to support a court that is always biased in the interests of the monied class.
first of all, every human being alive today has the condition of laziness because of our genetic history. It is bad for survival to perform unnecessary work, so humans constantly try to eliminate work that appears to be unnecessary. Secondly, if they are willing to work hard and take responsibility for their own survival, then what is the big deal? Why do you oppose their voluntary agreements to exchange labor for money? Why urge them towards larceny?
Not performing unnecessary work is far different than being lazy. Being lazy means not performing work at all, if you can get out of it; whether it's necessary or not.
I won't stop them from voluntary arrangements; I will point out to them that it's a 1 sided deal, and there are better ways to go about it. Who's urging them towards larceny; the guy who supports cooperation, and away from exploitation. Or the guy who wants to allow a system wherein 1 guy can have everyone else do his work, and he makes all the profits?
would you mind sharing what you consider to be self-evident about that statement?
I think if anythere were self-evident, everybody would get it. It's obviously not self-evident. Nevertheless, to me it is easy to see a problem when 1 person works his butt off and remains broke. And his boss works half as hard and is living fat.
if the have nothing to offer but their labor, and most of them arent industrious enough to use that, then I call them "people who have nothing to offer and demand to e taken care of."
I am talking about you inserting unneccessary and wrong caveats because of your preconcieved bias (the bolded). As far as I know, voluntary unemployment is like 2-5%...tho I cannot find any data. If you have some, I'd be happy to see it. Remember I am talking about voluntarily unemployed people, who just want to live off the dole.
How do you propose to abolish scarcity in order to make your system workable?
Again with the putting words in my mouth. Abolishing scarcity would be absurd, and entirely unworkable It is not a prerequisite of my "system." It IS tho a prereq of higher order Communism. But we will produce ourselves to abundance, not abolish scarcity. My "system" is merely encouraging worker cooperatives and market regulations; preferably by private companies such as the BBB.
what is your source for aborigines having a fewer than 8hr work day?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society (Note that even considering food prep time, etc that their total work week is shorter than ours today)
http://www.google.com/#pq=how+many+people+are+voluntarily+unemployed&hl=en&cp=28&gs_id=2c&xhr=t&q=hunter+gatherers+worked+less&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=hunter+gatherers+worked+less&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=9161e2c00f8072b6&biw=1366&bih=552
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?pq=how+many+people+are+voluntarily+unemployed&hl=en&cp=28&gs_id=2c&xhr=t&q=hunter+gatherers+worked+less&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1366&bih=552&wrapid=tljp1321470777064240&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws
I'm not going to do your research for you. If you think my statement wrong, prove it. Don't just assert the opposite and ask me to prove YOU wrong.
thats awfully generous of you. Is that a norm or a preference
How many times must I answer this? It is a preference which I hope will become a norm, and such a norm that the idea of doing otherwise would be absurd.
well I guess we could just cuss each other out instead
Brother, I guarantee that I will not be the one to start the cussing out and angry responses. I am not attached to my expecation of being able to sway you from your position. So, when you in fact don't come to my side, I'm not going to beat myself up about it.
As far as "declare yourself a filthy communist" statement; I am a social libertarian and anarchist without adjectives. I feel I am doing a good job of explaining how it works without a state. I'm sorry if we disagree.
its because they are not generally as productive. This is why workers like it, wages are higher and they work less.
No that's false. I implore you to do a little research. What holds them back is their inability to produce as high of dividends for investors, because the dominant business model works directly against the interest of labor in order to produce those high returns. Again, this is likely to change as capitalism evolves, people have more abundance, and economic fluctuations become more wild. It may not; but I see it as likely that it will.
Again, you have this preconceived bias that everybody is or wants to be a freeloader, and that only the ubermensch (or w/e Neitzche called it) can save us. That's your view, I disagree. I also think you will find it increasingly hard to create a populist movment with anti-populist rhetoric. I see people as generally kind, compassionate, and industrious. Sometimes they are not, and each individual is different. But that's been my experience with people. They're pretty great, overall.
tragedy of the commons?
Preferable to the tyrany of the elite
People are entitled to welfare under color of law. Charity is a gift. If you cannot see how these programs are as different from each other as the night is from the day, say something and I will explain further.
I can see the validity in this. Again, this is why I said charity would be preferable. But welfare, again, worked for my family. It's not as if it is an utter failure. Also, aren't most of the people on assitance only on it for a short time? Is it not but a small minority that perpetually lives on some kind of assistance?
you appear to be suggesting that when this capitalist purchases things, they cease to become the fruits of his labor.
No, I am suggesting that when he hires someone to work it for him, it ceases to become the fruit of his labor... at least to the amount allowed by the legal enforcement of private property. Investment is a labor activity, like managment, and real labor; I see no reason why the investor couldn't put compensation up to a vote if he believes his job to be the most important.
please explain how a monopoly arises without any sort of qualifications
You strong arm your way to the top and buy out any competition that threatens your hegemony of the market...? Isn't that what good business is all about?
Hahahahaha I did not realize we were discussing interspecies relations?
You must not have heard the argument that "democracy is like 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner."
Laotzu del Zinn:How did my links not support my position?
I'm not going to do your research for you. If you think my statement wrong, prove it. Don't just assert the opposite and ask me to prove YOU wrong
Brother, I guarantee that I will not be the one to start the cussing out and angry responses. I am not attached to my expecation of being able to sway you from your position. So, when you in fact don't come to my side, I'm not going to beat myself up about it. As far as "declare yourself a filthy communist" statement; I am a social libertarian and anarchist without adjectives. I feel I am doing a good job of explaining how it works without a state. I'm sorry if we disagree.
I hold a strict position of human amorality. We like to make moral choices, but sometimes we forsake that out of convenience.
No, I am suggesting that when he hires someone to work it for him, it ceases to become the fruit of his labor
Investment is a labor activity, like managment, and real labor; I see no reason why the investor couldn't put compensation up to a vote if he believes his job to be the most important.
But need is not effective economic demand. Effective economic demand requires both need and corresponding purchasing power.~Henry Hazlitt The monied class (consumers as you call them) will find it perfectly reasonable to support a court that is always biased in the interests of the monied class.
Why is this considered to be such an insurmountable objection by socialists to the free market? If you lack money, there's nothing stopping your from selling your labour, earning a small wage, and saving your income, or appealing to mutual aid or private charity. And as Malachi pointed out, the idea there exists inexorable castes in a market economy between which there is no hope of mobility and to which you are confined to cramp and starve for the rest of your existence is preposterous. Anyone can be a member of the "monied class", for the reasons I gave. (Anyone can also be a member of the entrepreneurial class, since entrepreneurship requires no previous ownership of resources, or of the investment class, or of any class.) Despite all the neomercantilist policies that has recently been shoved down the throats of taxpayers recently, America remains a good example:
• There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period. • Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005. • Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period. [...] • Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Anyway, the amount of nominal income you earn as measured by dollars is ultimately unimportant. It's your real income, that is, your purchasing power, that is always increasing in a competitive market. As Paul Kirklin writes: The significance of lower prices must be emphasized. [...] Income is typically thought of in nominal terms. Nominal income is the quantity of monetary units (e.g., dollars) of income. Real income is the amount of wealth that can be acquired with income; it is the ratio of nominal income to prices. So, for example, if a person makes $50,000 a year and the prices of everything he buys fall by 50%, his nominal income has not changed, but his real income has doubled since he can buy twice as much wealth. If he gets a pay raise from $50,000 to $100,000 and the prices of everything he buys also double, his nominal income has doubled, but his real income has not changed since he can't buy any more wealth. To determine the level of wealth that income represents, real income should be considered and not nominal income. Prices are equally as important as dollar incomes; they are half the equation. To a person's well-being, a fall in prices (other things unchanged) is the equivalent of an increase in pay (other things unchanged). [...] The abundance of wealth and consequently lower prices [...] causes an increase to the real incomes of [consumers]. It allows them to acquire more wealth with the money they have. Of those customers, the ones whose real incomes increase by the highest percentage are those who spend the highest portion of their incomes on [consumption]. This group is made up primarily of people with lower incomes. | Post Points: 5
• Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.
The significance of lower prices must be emphasized. [...] Income is typically thought of in nominal terms. Nominal income is the quantity of monetary units (e.g., dollars) of income. Real income is the amount of wealth that can be acquired with income; it is the ratio of nominal income to prices. So, for example, if a person makes $50,000 a year and the prices of everything he buys fall by 50%, his nominal income has not changed, but his real income has doubled since he can buy twice as much wealth. If he gets a pay raise from $50,000 to $100,000 and the prices of everything he buys also double, his nominal income has doubled, but his real income has not changed since he can't buy any more wealth. To determine the level of wealth that income represents, real income should be considered and not nominal income. Prices are equally as important as dollar incomes; they are half the equation. To a person's well-being, a fall in prices (other things unchanged) is the equivalent of an increase in pay (other things unchanged). [...] The abundance of wealth and consequently lower prices [...] causes an increase to the real incomes of [consumers]. It allows them to acquire more wealth with the money they have. Of those customers, the ones whose real incomes increase by the highest percentage are those who spend the highest portion of their incomes on [consumption]. This group is made up primarily of people with lower incomes.
no logical contradiction was suggested therein. So "A=A" remains unchallenged
Ya, I guess I was just understanding it wrong. Whereas A=A, A has the properties of A/~A. So A still = A, if you realize that A is equal to A AND Not A... right?
Still, the idea that the cat is both alive and not alive, that light is both a particle and wave at the same time, is pretty self-contradictory to our mundane logical brains.
I think your point equates to "life sucks, sometimes." if there is something deeper I have missed, please enlighten me.
Life sucks sometimes, and the idea of private ownership often, in my opinion, exacerbates the problem; tho many times it does help, especially in comparison to when private ownership translates into political authority; for example feudal ownership.
I wasnt using consumers as a synonym for "monied class." everyone is a consumer. You seem to think that monied interests are not everyone. If you dont consume, you die.
Yes, a theif is a consumer. But his position will not hold up very well in court, not that it necessarily should. My point is that when speaking of consumers, we have to remember that the nature of money means some people have inherently more sway than others. If we take the analogy of "voting with your dollars" we must remember that this means 1 man can have virtually no votes, while another can have theoretically infinite votes. It is about as far from 1 person 1 vote as you can get; especially when the situation is set up to make greater the gaps between the haves and have nots.
The monied interests mostly includes everyone. But it is inhrently weighted towards those with more. Courts who cater to the bigger clients will find more business, and those without may at times have no choice but to accept it, for no other reason than that they have nothing substantial to offer.
obviously the work was not necessary, if he got out of it. We can define laziness differently, it is immaterial. It is human nature to minimize caloric expenditure
I am used to defining things differently than those around here. It's fine. I know that even tho mine more often match up with the standard definition, that will make no difference. There's nothing I can do to change that.
But I don't see how this means laziness. If I work smarter, not harder... I'm being lazy? To me, laziness means you let others do your work for you, shunning virtually all effort whatsoever. I don't see how being entreprenurial (in the sense of finding ways to be more efficient) so to say, is being lazy.
the guy who thinks "money for work" is one-sided and tells them about it is urging them towards larceny
How? I'm not telling them to rob the guy. I'm telling them to demand respect and autonomy. Those who don't work hard accomplish nothing. And those who allow others to define their worth for them, will recieve far less than the value they produce.
The guy who thinks that a mutually agreed-upon contract for employment is exploitation instead of cooperation is urging them towards larceny. The exploitative behavior wherein a factory owner was deprived of his ownership rights by a hostile party is actual larceny.
You know, I misunderstood the term. I thought it was a synonym for lazy. But again, I said earlier to Rothbarddisciple that I don't encourage siezing factories. I said there are times wherein it will be far more efficient, and I will not explicitly condemn it; ends justify the means, so to say.
see, you did not mention the guy's boss before now. Nevertheless, you think it's easy to see a "problem." ok, enlighten me. What is the "problem"?
One guy works exhaustively while the other does not and the one that does not gets all the wealth from their mutual productive activity.
and you dont see utility in convincing me that an ownership share is a necessary component of compensation? Why are you discussing politics if you want to keep your cards close to the vest. Although I see now what you describe yourself as.
I'm trying to explain myself. If my explanations seem inadequate, all I can do is try to flush them out further in the future. But it's inhonest to suggest I am deliberately dodging questions. That, I can assure you, I have not done. I'm trying to convince you that an ownership share should not give you virtual monopoly power on compensation; not that it shouldn't be a component at all, per se.
I did not ask you to do my research, I asked you to support your statement, rather than challenge it, because I wanted to discuss the subject without being accused of making up your position again. Your first link provides one example of an h/g population that works approximately 40 hours/week. Thats everybody, even the kids, as soon as they are able to help, they help. Now, the united states is considered to be a hard-working nation. We support a population of 300 million on 140 million workers who work approximately 40 hours/week. Thats less than half the work, and when we are done, we get to go inside instead of feeding the mosquitoes and lions (equilibrium).
Did you miss the part where they discuss housework: how if we add housework and "labor" together, the average modern person works 70+ hours/week?
I empathize with you. I hope the world will one day recognize the plain fact that Axl Rose is the greatest rock singer in the history of ever.
Well... his range is dynamic, and he has just the right amount of scratchiness to not be pretentious. But if you want to convince the world of that, it is your job to do so.
Like I said, " its because they are not generally as productive. This is why workers like it, wages are higher and they work less." you should do some thinking about your premises, because you restated what I said as if we were disagreeing, when we agree. Look, here is you: "What holds them back is their inability to produce as high of dividends for investors, because the dominant business model works directly against the interest of labor in order to produce those high returns." they dont produce as much, the workers like it because wages are higher and they work less. Surely you will concede that higher wages and less work is in the interest of the workers
I think the confusion came up in the word "production." They produce as many, and as high quality (if not better) than traditional businesses; but they don't "produce" as high of returns on investment. I don't think the workers actually work less, they are just better compensated for their labor.
thanks for trying to sketch out my position for me. I havent referenced nietzche or the ubermensch concept, so its hard for me to see this as anything other than laziness or an attempt at slander? I will assume good faith and believe that you have me confused with someone else. As to your point
It seemed to me you hold a view that most people are unproductive ignoramus'. I'm sorry if I was being prejudgemental. If this caricature of you is incorrect, I will retract it.
that is due to a deliberate denial of the concept of ownership
Yes. Yes it is. Have I not made that clear?
Why would anyone accumulate enough capital to assemble a factory if he was going to have to give it away?
Why did Jonas Salk give away the polio vaccine? Why do people become scientists knowing their abilities in math can get them far better money in more economical/business fields? People do what people do.
I see no reason why it has to be voted on. If his job was not important, then the others would simply do business without him. They would vote with their feet, in other words.
Important and necessary are far different matters. It is my opinion that capitalism has served it's purpose. We can do better, and it's time to move on. Occupy Autonomy; so to say.
no, that has nothing to do with business. This is the second time you have used the term "strong arm" in an economic context. Could you possibly explain yourself? Are we talking about violence or not?
Not neccessarily. It could be as simple as being dishonest about your competitors product; for example the way Edison tried to refute A/C power.
What on earth do you not see about the original criticism? Your rebuttal rebuts nothing, the wolves vote to eat the sheep, the sheep all die, then the wolves die because no one owned the property in order to husband the herd in order to make future generations of sheep.
I understand that, else I wouldn't have brought it up. My point was that at least the sheep gets a say in if and how he dies; perhaps he can get a more quick and painless death. Perhaps he can convince one of the wolves to vote for cow instead of sheep. Either way he has a normative right to represent himself in decisions involving himself.
Your analogy is also absurd, and not refflective of actual existing natural equiliibrium that guards against the over use of resources.
I'm trying to convince you that an ownership share should not give you virtual monopoly power on compensation; not that it shouldn't be a component at all, per se.
still, I will grant that a working household may very well expend more hours of labor than an equivalently sized sample of average aborigines in a given tribe. That productive household is currently supporting one or more idle persons/households, who expend far fewer man-hours and therefore drive the average amount of man-hours/capita lower than man-hours/capita in all but the most fortunate aboriginal societies. Although at this point I should admit that I believe some aborigines did achieve this ideal, I dont think this is good evidence for your argument. After all, the caloric surplus that allowed the tribe to become so leisurely and affluent is bound to be consumed and the equilibrium will set in.
Important and necessary are far different matters.
I understand that, else I wouldn't have brought it up. My point was that at least the sheep gets a say in if and how he dies; perhaps he can get a more quick and painless death. Perhaps he can convince one of the wolves to vote for cow instead of sheep. Either way he has a normative right to represent himself in decisions involving himself. Your analogy is also absurd, and not refflective of actual existing natural equiliibrium that guards against the over use of resources.
If A has properties of A/~A, then there you go! Thats A! No contradiction implied
A simple yes would have sufficed. Your anger only makes it harder for you to be agreed with.
But you're wrong about light; consider the double slit experiment. It's not about it being either wave OR particle at given times. The double slit experiment shows that it is both particle AND wave, at the same time. Now, if I understand you correctly you are saying A=A1/A2, and so logically it still follows the identity axiom (A[A1/A2]=A[A1/A2].
life sucking at times isnt a problem, it is a fact. As far as private ownership exacerbating the problem, I disagree. For every person who says "life sucks because I dont have things" there are people who have worked to produce those things, in order that the individual could perceive his life getting worse because other people are happier. On the whole, life would suck a lot more without private ownership because the incentive to produce and maintain would be diminished considerably.
Except I'm saying "life sucks because me not having things means I don't have any power nor autonomy."
I think much of cognitive neuroscience disagrees that private ownership, and its concurrent "work for pay" (or wage labor), is the best incentive. Look up RSA videos and the empathic civilization; they do a pretty good job of summing it all up. What motivates people is
1) having enough "pay" to not have to worry about pay
2) autonomy
3) reward for effort, not necessarily success.
This is how it seems the most innovative firms are the most innovative.
those "votes" do not compel anyone to do anything, which certainly cannot be said of the political system. Before you can claim that people should have equal "votes" you should first argue that we need to give others a say in our affairs at all
They will, whether you want them to or not. There simply is no feasible way to stop busibodies from thinking we don't have to all live under the same umbrella. To suggest otherwise is utopian.
If a consumer doesnt feel he will get justice from one court because of perceived bias, he can hire his own arbitrator. Rather than compare private courts to some mythical ideal world where every criminal is punished justly, we should simply apply the logic and wisdom of the market to the justice system.
If you have a way to provide universal right to due process, an attorny, and at least the semblance of a fair trial, I will be all for it. I'm not against markets. I think we can do better. I just think ancap will not provide certain protections, and will revert not back to what we have now, but to a neo-feudalism; where a small group of people own basically everything, and everyone else rents from them.
You seem to envision a world where a few fat cats with all the wealth just go around sueing people who have less than nothing for the sheer cruelty of it, and a monolithic court system that toes the line because there is profit in making biased decisions against people who have no property to seize.
Not for the sheer cruelty of it, but because they can make a few extra bucks. Is that so unreasonable; that people will screw over others if there is a net profit to be made and they lack empathy?
you dont understand because for you, laziness has pejorative connotations (and perhaps denotations). I use the word "laziness" to refer to the tendency of human beings to tend towards less caloric expenditure. Its not a pejorative any more than "human" would be. If you have a better word or term for this phenomenon I would love to hear it
I believe common nomenclature would call that "efficiency." Laziness is the opposite of productive; you would not call someone productive that did far more work than necessary for simple goods. If X and Y are hunting elephants and X uses a spear while Y uses a rock... who would be the lazy one? Most people would say neither, Y is just being dumb.
because you are lying to them. "money for work" is, by definition, a 2-sided exchange. It is a fair and cooperative arrangement, and to suggest that people are being treated unfairly by a an arrangement they sought out, entered into voluntarily, and with informed consent, is an attempt to pervert their moral sense
I am not lying to them. I am pointing out the systemic nature of the issue, rather than the apparent personal nature of it. Big difference. For you, someone who got hooked on drugs, sold themselves into prostitution is in a fair arrangement. To me they are not. I would do whatever I could to help them realize their bottom, and get off the drugs.
Why is an ownership share a necessary component of a labor contract, in your opinion? The individual remains autonomous as long as he is not being held their by force.
So living in the states to you is a voluntary arrangement? You are under no force to stay? You can leave at any time, all you need is $200 for a passport.
You appear to imply that none of this is deserving of compensation.
I am saying, at the very least, that the "owner" should not have legally enforced monopoly power on who gets compensated how much for what.
But I doubt that individuals who have not shown themselves to be resourceful enough to obtain capital goods through nonviolent means will be resourceful enough to manage them in such a way as to be more efficient than someone who has.
I think there is evidence that they can be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Take_(2004_film) Just to get you started
and it is supposed to be self-evident that this is a problem?
No, or else everyone would realize it. If it were self-evident, we woudln't even be having this conversation.
Let's just drop the "do h/g's work less" becuz it's not important, and not a settled matter even amongst anthropologists. And I don't really have the time to look up things I learned years ago in university.
Businesses exist for the purposes of those who create and sustain them. A firm, as a voluntary collaboration of people, only continues to exist so long as it serves all of their purposes enough for that person to continue the association. When investors and entrepreneurs create a business, they do it for profits. When customers buy from a business, they do it for products. When laborers take a job, they do it for wages. All of these outputs represent production. your personal value judgments as to which products are superior and which are inferior is fine, as far as philosophy goes, but to make it normative is just hampering other people's freedom of association and freedom to contract. Workers "working less" versus being "better paid" is a false dichotomy. If someone gets more money for the same work, that is relatively equivalent to getting the same money for less work. It all averages out, when the workers are paid more for the same work, there is less money in the payroll, so fewer people can be hired
I swear... I can listen to physics, biology, and anthropological lectures all the time. But when capitalists talk, I often hear "wah wah, wahahwhaha. bloom blown pocka trow." That's not your fault, it's mine. I just think our brains work differently.
I am saying that the good they make are of equal, if not greater, quality. The wages they offer are more competitive for general labor, less for management and investment. I am saying that despite any of this, or any criticism you may have; they continue to grow, thrive, and prosper... and all without government subsidies. The cooperative movement, at least the IFC (I think is the name) is. Chavez has begun to give state funding for it. But prior to that, co-ops funded themselves.
please do. I believe no such thing.
Then I retract it. And ignore my previous statment in this response. Much apologies.
well with this magical notion of human motives, it is no surprise you can dismiss ownership as a component in human motives. As for salk, he probably gave it away because he was foolish enough to think he was doing some good, or he was smart enough to know that when you fire the first shot in a war, you had better make it count. People do what people do. Man acts with purpose
What's so magical about exerting that not everybody is motivated by material/monetary gain? I would think it magical to suggest they are.
do enlighten me.
It's important for me to meditate. It's not necessary. It's important to me to help kids not become subject to addiction; it's not neccessary. I could get along fine without either of these; many people do either day.
"The top" of the proverbial pile. I realize it has no top; that has not, as of yet, stopped people from trying.
Here's the thing, though. I like worker-managed businesses. I happen to be part of one. But I am not nosy enough to expect other people to follow my preferences when they get together to hash out an employment contract.
I still think you think I want to force cooperative business upon everyone... have I not made it clear I want people to choose this? You have a caricature of socialists you are trying to project unto me... I assure you, I'm not the droid you're looking for. If you consider me nosy, I am fine with that; I believe what I believe. But I'm no tyrant.
Laotzu del Zinn: I still think you think I want to force cooperative business upon everyone... have I not made it clear I want people to choose this? You have a caricature of socialists you are trying to project unto me... I assure you, I'm not the droid you're looking for. If you consider me nosy, I am fine with that; I believe what I believe. But I'm no tyrant.
Then you're no socialist, my friend. You are a free market capitalist with a peculiar subjective preference for exclusively entering/supporting voluntary enterprises where all participants are necessarily partial owners, as well. Welcome to the club.