Economics Questions

Re: Capitalism is just as bad as Statism.

David B — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:49:59 GMT

I wanted to also mention that there are thoughts and processes designed around the ideas of less direct workflows. In fact on a higher level the economy can be thought of in this way.

Stigmergy is the idea of indirect coordination of active agents in a complex process. The idea is that one of the side effects of a specific action by an agent is to leave a trace of information that stimulates other agents when they see it. Humans seem to be the only creatures that actively exploit this natural process and adapt it to meeting our specific needs. We actively manipulate each other, in symbiotic ways, and in parasitic ways. The problem in modern societies is that government is parasitic, market is symbiotic.

But evolution takes millions and billions of years to create hive like behaviors using these principles in insects. On the other hand perhaps, we just think we know what we're doing, and all of our interactions are stigmergy :).

Be that as it may, the creative (technology creation/modification) and the executive functions are just as important as the raw labor function in modern human social interaction, both within the individual's behavior itself, and as you expand to social group interdependence. They probably have been all the way back. Communication and feedback, active learning and sharing is a huge step up from iterating through billions of lifeforms in order to achieve ant, bee, and termite hive behaviors. Those insect groups are the only animal kingdom analogs, in sheer scope, to human society. The tribal group function is seen in some mammals, but not the larger "city" style community.

Just some additional thoughts.

Re: Capitalism is just as bad as Statism.

Lady Saiga — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:38:18 GMT

"I claim that there are objective values. Ethical facts such are the axioms of self-possession and non-aggression are value-free."

Non-aggression is not value free. It is a moral proposition, i.e. it makes a claim about the definitions of right and wrong. An axiom is a statement that is taken as all but true and can be tested logically. It isn't, however, the kind of claim that can be proven as objectively true.

Re: Capitalism is just as bad as Statism.

David B — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:36:58 GMT

Serpentis-Lucis:

David, reading your post got me thinking, it's true at the moment that people tend to work better when told what to do. (Scratch that, most people work better when told what to do.) Question is, is this part of human nature, or is it because of the authoritarian culture which has been around for so long?

Maybe that's true about people doing better if told what to do, but that wasn't my point. Most jobs require a single-minded focus on the raw details of the task being performed. The leader's role is to hold the highlevel macro-process in view. Even in my own work, with my own stuff, I'll shift hats often. I have to step back take the high level view and double check that the steps I'm taking in my work are heading toward a place that I want to be, and also to double-check to see if anything about the landscape has changed. That's an executive function, then you switch back to the specific plan you have in place and focus back in on the microbehaviors and become a worker bee again.

Here's an interesting article about supposed learning disabilities. Like any function of the mind, one can train and strengthen their executive function. But some are naturally better at it, and others are naturally better at other things. That's ok.

The natural dissonance in the work environment is from the fact that the executive function necessarily must be critical. It says... "Hey something's wrong here!" That's it's primary role. So it's going to be a friction generating profession. But that's it's purpose, to keep a larger vision/plan in mind, and keep track of all the moving parts, so that it can say, "we need to change >This<", instead of simply saying... "something's wrong".

Re: Capitalism is just as bad as Statism.

Serpentis-Lucis — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:15:09 GMT

David, reading your post got me thinking, it's true at the moment that people tend to work better when told what to do. (Scratch that, most people work better when told what to do.) Question is, is this part of human nature, or is it because of the authoritarian culture which has been around for so long?

Re: Capitalism is just as bad as Statism.

David B — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:02:21 GMT

kylio27:
The boss hardly does anything while his workers sweat for him. He makes the highest profit. How is that fair?

I've worked in a few organizations. There's a reason for a boss in any team setting. Democracy when working on a job doesn't get the job done. I've been leader and follower in many of these efforts, there are good reasons for putting one person in charge. That doesn't mean we necessarily like the boss. And that's natural, it rises out of our independent nature. In the end, coordinating the efforts of different people isn't an easy effort. Good managers pay close attention to the information coming in both directions up and down the chain of command.

A boss/worker relationship is hegemonic. There's no denying it. My only complaint is when either party is bound into the arrangement and doesn't have a means to walk away from the relationship. Expanding the options for workers who aren't good at management/leadership or who are suffering under bad leadership/management is a good thing, IMO, but acting like hegemonic relationships aren't natural, proper, and in fact necessary for social cooperation is uninformed and misguided. Acting on the belief that these relationships are immoral and unnatural will result in distopian outcomes, in which these relationships exist anyway, but are somehow redefined. Non-hegemonic communes sound good in theory, but can't operate beyond a certain size in practice, they become hegemonic, and dysfunctionally so.

Good leadership is a force multiplier. Bad leadership is worse than none. But in any self-organizing group, you will find that some key decision makers/organizers will rise into positions (informal or formal) of having more direct influence over the directions and goals of the group. It's natural, it's hegemonic. We can't say words into the ethosphere and have social interaction work differently. The socialist meme tries to deny the legitimacy of this type of relationship, but it will arise naturally.

Re: Capitalism is just as bad as Statism.

Autolykos — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:41:31 GMT

Papirius:
The general concept [of ownership] has it's justification in the original approriation and the existence of self-ownership.

I don't see how this says anything other than "the general concept of ownership being valid necessarily depends on the specific concept of self-ownership being valid because the general concept of ownership being valid necessarily depends on the specific concept of self-ownership being valid". In other words, I don't see how you're saying anything other than "it is because it is", which explains exactly nothing to me. Please try again.

Papirius:
Which is all that it takes, being that only by argumentation can anything be justified. If I attack you, I have just attacked you, and proved nothing, in order to justify anything we have to do that by argumentation, which has it's ethical a priori norms.

Saying "in order to justify anything we have to do that by argumentation" is like saying "all bachelors are unmarried" - it's simply "true" (i.e. logically consistent) by definition. That is, you're simply referring to the definition of "justify" in making that statement.

What do you mean by "prove"? I use "prove" to refer to "show that a set of statements is logically consistent", nothing more. But all sets of statements require at least one that's taken as given (i.e. a premise).

And what do you mean by "norm" anyway?

Papirius:
It is normative, because it's denial constitutes a performative contradiction, meaning it is an ethical fact- a norm of objective morality.

That's certainly not the definition I use for "normative". To me "normative" means "concerning value judgements", which has nothing to do with whether denying a proposition constitutes a performative contradiction. We're speaking very different languages.

Papirius:
He said that I have stated that there is objective morality. Yes. Then he said "Subjects value things." and said I claim that there are objective values. Ethical facts such are the axioms of self-possession and non-aggression are value-free.

Let me ask you this - do you think "right" and "wrong" are values? If not, then what do you think they are?

Re: Capitalism is just as bad as Statism.

Papirius — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:05:47 GMT

LOL! Ok:

Communicative reality includes argumentation ethics.

You have failed to show how a social convention is not a social convention.

I have shown you in a nutshell that argumentation ethics are a priori, and constitute undeniable objective morality.

What I fail to see is how the general concept of ownership being valid necessarily depends on the specific concept of self-ownership being valid

The general concept has it's justification in the original approriation and the existence of self-ownership.

People must respect other people's exclusive use of their bodies" only applies to the people currently engaged in argumentation, and only applies to the duration of the argumentation.

Which is all that it takes, being that only by argumentation can anything be justified. If I attack you, I have just attacked you, and proved nothing, in order to justify anything we have to do that by argumentation, which has it's ethical a priori norms.

It's also entirely descriptive, not normative, in nature.

It is normative, because it's denial constitutes a performative contradiction, meaning it is an ethical fact- a norm of objective morality.

Anytime you use the phrase "ethical fact" or "fact of ethics".

He said that I have stated that there is objective morality. Yes. Then he said "Subjects value things." and said I claim that there are objective values. Ethical facts such are the axioms of self-possession and non-aggression are value-free.

Re: Capitalism is just as bad as Statism.

Autolykos — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:11:32 GMT

Papirius:
Papirius is claiming that there are objective values.

Quote that statement of mine.

Anytime you use the phrase "ethical fact" or "fact of ethics".

Re: Capitalism is just as bad as Statism.

Autolykos — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:07:16 GMT

Papirius:
Yes. Hoppe's argument, which I've accepted, has been shown to be invalid and thus unsound, being that self-ownership is a non-sequitur to the a priori of argumentation that states that people must respect other people's exclusive use of their bodies.

I think you - and Hoppe, for that matter - overestimate the "power" of the APoA. "People must respect other people's exclusive use of their bodies" only applies to the people currently engaged in argumentation, and only applies to the duration of the argumentation.

Papirius:
Self-possession invalidates mured or assault as well as theft (theft being taking of something that is used without the consent of the user), this an apriori fact of ethics as shown by argumentation ethics.

"Argumentation ethics" only invalidates murder or assault while one is engaging in an argument. But this is essentially tautological - it's basically saying people can engage in argumentation with one another as long as they don't attack or kill one another. It's also entirely descriptive, not normative, in nature.

Re: Capitalism is just as bad as Statism.

Autolykos — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:51:33 GMT

Papirius:
I'd here say that justified, legitimate and logically sound are synonyms.

Oh I see. I normally consider "justified" and "legitimate" to be synonyms, but I don't normally consider either one of them to be synonymous with "logically sound". That's just another semantic difference that we have. To me, "justified" and "legitimate" have to do with coercion, which I define as "the use or threat of force".

Papirius:
As I said, I have rejected self-ownership, and with it the concept of ownership that was justified as something that follows from it. Why are you making me repeat myself [sic]? Your trolling / mental impairment [sic] is just shown on more examples not be a matter of my opinion but a fact.

I wasn't making you repeat yourself. I was presenting a short chain of logical reasoning that seemed to be consistent with your new position. However, it seems that you've reasoned out your new position in a different way. What I fail to see is how the general concept of ownership being valid necessarily depends on the specific concept of self-ownership being valid.

Papirius:
It's justifications have failed.

Okay, and they've failed according to what criteria (i.e. premises)?

Re: Capitalism is just as bad as Statism.

gotlucky — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:50:20 GMT

Papirius:

You saying it doesn't make it so.

No, but then you go on to demonstrate it.

Papirius:

"Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism or amoralism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense."

That's pretty cool that you can copy and paste. But maybe in your conversation with Autolykos, you could actually demonstrate an understanding of what you have read.

Papirius:

Quote that statement of mine.

LOL! Ok:

Papirius:

Yes. But moral nihilism in no way means (to me, at least) that moral judgement is impossible. It simply means that moral judgements aren't facts about the world.

Basically- there's no such thing as right and wrong there are just personal subjective unprovable preferences about what is wrong or right. We have nothing to talk about further.

Followed with:

Papirius:

Sure we do - at least if you ask me. Why do you think otherwise?

There is little point in talking to someone being outside of paradigm of communicative reality.

For the record, the underlined is Autolykos and the response is Papirius. But, if even quotes from another thread aren't good enough, what's really great is the section from your response right after asking me to provide quotes:

Papirius:

It doesn't. Neigher does the the concept of murder (which is somewhat a normative concept, whereas killing is descriptive).

This is hilarious. Are you a comedian by trade? If not, you should be. I mean, why ask me to source my quotes when you are just going to provide a gem for me right after?

Anyway, you have a clear failure of understanding of subjectivity and objectivity. If anyone would like to read a little about, this is a pretty good link at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Oh, and to quote you:

There is little point in talking to someone being outside of a paradigm of communicative reality. But I may find some point after all. Who knows?

Papirius:

Argumentation ethics show a priori, value-free, ethical axiom that consists in "respecting other people's exclusive use of their bodies", but Hoppe makes a non-sequitur in labeling that a right to property over oneself (/one's body), because it can simply be a right to possession. A question then arises of how property in external things can come into being. With accepting self-ownership it was property of self (/body) -> property of one's labor -> property over one's product of labor. But being that property of self goes out the window, how can possession of self produce property, and not just possessions in external things.

I'm truly impressed at the dodge of my point. Not only are you a comedian, you are a skilled acrobat too! You have failed to show how a social convention is not a social convention. It can't be done.

This is a great introductory video by Nielsio called Crusoe, Morality, and Axiomatic Libertarianism.

Re: Capitalism is just as bad as Statism.

Papirius — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:26:52 GMT

Exclusive use does not imply ownership. Take rental cars. During the period of time I have agreed to, I have exclusive use over a product which I do not own. Exclusive use is given when I own the property, not simply by my posession of that property.

Contradictory. You say correctly that exclusive use doesn't imply ownership. Therefore, self-ownership is not a justified concept, the a priori norm of "respecting other people's exclusive use of their bodies" is not self-ownership, but self-possession. Can property come from self-possession? Point me to where the break is, where possession becomes property. And if property is unjustified, then exclusive use is only by right to possession, because there's no such thing as ownership/ property.

k Papirius, so my understanding from your posts is that you believe that self-possession is not alienable?

I guess can't transfer a title of possession, being that right to possession is determinet by actual possession, you just give something you're using to someone else.

Re: Capitalism is just as bad as Statism.

Lady Saiga — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:57:33 GMT

Ok Papirius, so my understanding from your posts is that you believe that self-possession is not alienable?

Re: Capitalism is just as bad as Statism.

Levon — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:42:17 GMT

Re: Capitalism is just as bad as Statism.

Papirius — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:23:02 GMT

Right to exclusive use is contained in both right to possession and right to property. The basic difference is in that the right to possession means the right to exclusive use until that use lasts, and right to property is the right to indefinite exclusive use regardless of whether your using it or not, until you renounce it.