Personally, I would say NAP and homesteading.
No. Not in the least. Hoppe and other libertarians have given it very good defences. Hardly "inept". You're going to have to search harder.
I also do not think the legal system is a "weakness" of the theory. No, it's only weakness is the tendency to conflate modern capitalism with a free market, at least amongst some libertarians; often even libertarians fail to realise the radical nature of their own theory. And its only point in need of development is expanding on how its underlying legal theory can handle problems like AGW, assuming they exist. Marketing the ideology is, at best, a technical problem and nothing to do with its contents.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
tacoface: Do you mean immediate family (parents, siblings) or a wider sense of the term, such as a House, GilesStratton?
Do you mean immediate family (parents, siblings) or a wider sense of the term, such as a House, GilesStratton?
I mean it in the wider sense of the term, meaning, extended family as opposed to households.
liberty student: Technology has started to change the nature of socio-biology. That trend will continue. Women no longer will need men to hunt or for protection, and both sexes will not longer need one another for procreation. Whether that is moral, desirable, etc, I don't think that it is achievable can be of doubt. "The family" as you constantly refer to it is quickly becoming an anachronism. Again, I'm not saying that is desirable, but it's an acknowledgement that not all evolutionary paradigms are fixed.
Technology has started to change the nature of socio-biology. That trend will continue. Women no longer will need men to hunt or for protection, and both sexes will not longer need one another for procreation. Whether that is moral, desirable, etc, I don't think that it is achievable can be of doubt.
"The family" as you constantly refer to it is quickly becoming an anachronism. Again, I'm not saying that is desirable, but it's an acknowledgement that not all evolutionary paradigms are fixed.
I don't know how you think technology will replace the family, so you're going to have to elaborate.
The thing is, the family has been the most prominent institution throughout civilization, up until the 20th Century. Now, I don't think it's any coincidence that the once the state boomed the family began to decline, especially when you take into account the plethora of rules and agencies telling parents how to raise their children, the public education system, the state pension system, the state provided "charity" the state immigration laws and free state provision of "justice" amongst other things.
Now, these were all roles filled, or partly filled, by families before the state began to fill them (which the state obviously won, due to its ability to coerce and its superior resources). Where arbitration would otherwise be costly, heads of families provided this services for free on an informal basis, and this would occur when members of the same family had a dispute or members of different families had disputes. Before state charity, families would often provide welfare where private charity was inefficient, since private charity has no profit or loss system it cannot calculate.
I don't think I even need to bring up the more obvious roles such as rearing children and supporting the elderly. Like it or not, the family performs an important role in the division of labour.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
ama gi:Vulgar libertarianism. The tendency for (some) libertarians to defend, or appear to defend, Big Business, rather than champion the cause of small businesses and wage earners.
I don't 100% agree with your wording, but the underlying idea is correct in my opinion. All too often when 'Libertarians' are seen and heard by the public, either by their own incompetence or some skillfull editing,they are presented as apologists for businesses acting badly, and looking with rose colored glasses on any action that turns a profit no matter how unethical or immoral, or just downright distasteful that action is to the general public. It is this more than anything else I feel that allows the left to skillfully lump Libertarians in with neo con right wingers as big government big business partnership types.
Another issue is rose colored glasses in general. A purely anarcho capitalist society, or even one just much more free than our current society in the US, would still be imperfect. It's important to remember that the government is there for a reason; people want it and the security it promises on some level. Now yes, we know the government is detrimental to security and well being. However to a person who isn't a good saver, or to a person who has lost a job or two and nto appreciated the way their living was 'creatively destroyed', or to a person whose son or daughter suffers from a rare disease and who doesn't want to be told to wait until enough capital accumulates so 'the market' can be bothered to pay attention and come up with a treatment or cure, to these people the promise of the free market is more of a threat and/or a sentence to a life they don't want. And not everyone who turns to the government is some evil statist. Whenever you position the government as evil, you are essentially calling all those who are dependent on it evil as well. Now they may have been made dependent over time, they may indeed be evil and want to live off taxes, or they may rightly or wrongly simply see no free market alternative to satisfying their wants. Understanding and having the appropriate respect for the opposing view where warranted is necessary.
Third is a matter of definitions. As long as people are successfully lead to believe that the various forms of socialism, fascism, mercantilism, corporatism, etc., currently dominating the world are in fact capitalism, we'll never get anywhere. Thanks in large part I believe to their default control of the educational system, socialists have convinced people that even the most heavily regulated markets are in fact 'free', and thus any problems that develop are the fault of the 'free' market. As long as the definitions of the words we use are so distorted amongst us there can be no meaningful communication. We either have to teach the proper definitions and get them into common use, or use different words. Because as long as the general public and pundits speak of markets like health care in terms of how free they are, we're lost. I remember a particular recent incident of this where Bill Maher was interviewing Ron Paul and Maher blamed the financial crisis on 'capitalism'. Now of course Paul stated bluntly that the Fed was the root cause and wasn't capitalist, but you could tell it wasn't enough to get through to Maher or his audience. Granted, it's a tough room for that argument., but as long as people are acting and thinking under the dellusion that a central bank fixing the prices of capital below where the market would set them is in fact an aspect of free market capitalism, no matter how contradictory we know that to be, the debate is lost because we're arguing for something completely different than what they think we are.
xahrx:It's important to remember that the government is there for a reason
Yeah, and so was slavery. In both cases they exist because its easier to exploit others than to create your own wealth. Does this make it right?
xahrx:However to a person who isn't a good saver, or to a person who has lost a job or two and nto appreciated the way their living was 'creatively destroyed', or to a person whose son or daughter suffers from a rare disease and who doesn't want to be told to wait until enough capital accumulates so 'the market' can be bothered to pay attention and come up with a treatment or cure, to these people the promise of the free market is more of a threat and/or a sentence to a life they don't want.
You must understand that whenever you say 'the free market' you should be able to substitute in the word 'freedom.' If someone does not think that the free market will provide something for them, they are effectively saying that freedom cannot provide something for them, and therefore they must be allowed to control others. Freedom is often scary to the disadvantaged or, dare I say, lazy. That does not give them the right to take my money at gunpoint, even if done through the government for legitimate-sounding reasons. Now I have to break out that Ayn Rand quote.
"Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives."
"Constitution worship is our most extended public political ritual, frequently supervised as often by mountebanks as by the sincere"-James J Martin
ama gi: Byzantine:Can you articulate to the working class why open borders that increase the supply of working class labor is in their best interest? Tell the WASP that a third-grade educated foreignor who doesn't speak English couldnt possibly threaten their job. Byzantine:Or for that matter, can you convince a Lebanese Christian dutifully going to their local Orthodox parish and clinging to their last shred of the old country why they shouldn't care that Muslims are as free to immigrate to their locale as anybody else? Christians aren' t supposed to live separately, but are supposed to go unto all the world. Byzantine:Can you present a simple, compelling argument to blacks why civil rights laws and affirmative action should be abolished? Or why it shouldn't trouble them one iota that the Mises Institute is whiter than Augusta National? It wouldnt be if they would join! Byzantine:Can you persuade a Southern Baptist granny in West Virginia that she should allow prostitution, pornography and abortion? Maybe granny should convert sinners instead of putting them in jail.
Byzantine:Can you articulate to the working class why open borders that increase the supply of working class labor is in their best interest?
Tell the WASP that a third-grade educated foreignor who doesn't speak English couldnt possibly threaten their job.
Byzantine:Or for that matter, can you convince a Lebanese Christian dutifully going to their local Orthodox parish and clinging to their last shred of the old country why they shouldn't care that Muslims are as free to immigrate to their locale as anybody else?
Christians aren' t supposed to live separately, but are supposed to go unto all the world.
Byzantine:Can you present a simple, compelling argument to blacks why civil rights laws and affirmative action should be abolished? Or why it shouldn't trouble them one iota that the Mises Institute is whiter than Augusta National?
It wouldnt be if they would join!
Byzantine:Can you persuade a Southern Baptist granny in West Virginia that she should allow prostitution, pornography and abortion?
Maybe granny should convert sinners instead of putting them in jail.
Again, he asked "Can you articulate to the working class..." If it were this easy, then the world would be libertarian. I think he makes an excellent point. The masses ARE our intellectual enemy. Obama has a 67% approval rating! Only 20% of Americans identify with the Republican party, which is supposed to be the small government party.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Sage: Bastiat said that "The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended." What do you think is the most "ineptly defended" aspect of libertarianism? Personally, I would say NAP and homesteading.
Bastiat said that "The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
What do you think is the most "ineptly defended" aspect of libertarianism?
I would say "self-ownership" - precisely because it cannot be defended, since it's false.
GilesStratton:I don't know how you think technology will replace the family, so you're going to have to elaborate.
It's very simple really. Think about how and why the family is relevant. Think about what needs, circumstances and characteristics may have caused family to gain prominence, and then ask yourself if those things are static, or if they can change.
GilesStratton:I don't think I even need to bring up the more obvious roles such as rearing children and supporting the elderly. Like it or not, the family performs an important role in the division of labour.
It has, but it won't always. Nothing is a constant. Not even our cellular biology.
When they finally get genetics down to where you can order your child's characteristics, that is going to change a lot. When babies start being synthesized independent of their parents, that is also going to drastically change things.
I'm not saying I hope for or anticipate those futures but they are coming.
Byzantine: ama gi: It' s high time we realize that the masses will prevail, and it is impossible to adopt economic policies that are against their interests. Think about it. When the masses prevail they enact socialism or, at best, social democracy.
ama gi: It' s high time we realize that the masses will prevail, and it is impossible to adopt economic policies that are against their interests. Think about it.
Think about it.
When the masses prevail they enact socialism or, at best, social democracy.
That's hardly a logically necessary law
Think who invented socialism. Think who came first to socialism. Think about the current intellectual defenders of socialism.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
The only way for the common man to see liberty in his best interest, is education. This means working to increase the aggregate level of knowledge and understanding in a society. I don't see the poor or lower classes, or even particular races as incapable of embracing libertarianism. It's not a given, but it is possible to achieve.
Ultimately we're all guilty of the same class war perception as marxists are. We'd rather characterize people by their social, ethnic, religious groups instead of seeing them as individuals.
Philosophy in general. Most of it comes from a few parochial crackpots; and the larger world of philosophy and political theory is pretty much a mystery to much of the 'libertarian' crowd.
Honestly, I think libertarians have only three cards: Economics, political science and revisionist history. Even so, they bias the Hell out of it. Partly because they don't understand general philosophy or other political ideologies.
"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." - Avicenna
Vichy:Partly because they don't understand general philosophy or other political ideologies.
Not being particularly strong in philosophy myself, I will ignore the philosophy attack.
But what do libertarians misunderstand with regards to other political ideologies?
Sage:What do you think is the most "ineptly defended" aspect of libertarianism? Personally, I would say NAP and homesteading.
The principle of homesteading boils down to the NAP anyway. It should not be treated separately.
I love quoting some past exchanges:
Len Budney: Geoffrey Allan Plauche: And how does Hoppe try to prove any axiom for that matter? Hoppe, like Rand and too many others, attempts to prove (in effect) that aggression is morally wrong. In Hoppe's case, he attempts to prove self-ownership--and he tries to do it, not from axioms, but by "proving" that any alternative is self-contradictory. His argument fails. No argument will ever succeed, because self-ownership is an axiom. If we grant his proof that you "own" yourself, that still fails to prove that there's any reason I can't eat you. He sometimes equivocates on the meaning of "ownership" to derive that self-ownership implies exclusivity. His entire ethical argument falls to earth if you reply, "Besides, who gives a d*mn about minimizing conflict?" Geoffrey Allan Plauche:The NAP is not an axoim, btw; it is a conclusion derived from a long chain of reasoning. You're being a philosopher now, not a mathematician. Some attempt to prove the NAP as a theorem. All of their attempts either (1) are invalid, like Hoppe's self-ownership argument, or (2) depend on some other moral axiom. In the latter case, the other moral axiom is equivalent to the NAP. If Hoppe and others were just slightly less philosophical, and slightly better mathematicians, they would realize that the reason they're in a quagmire is that they're trying to prove axioms.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: And how does Hoppe try to prove any axiom for that matter?
If we grant his proof that you "own" yourself, that still fails to prove that there's any reason I can't eat you. He sometimes equivocates on the meaning of "ownership" to derive that self-ownership implies exclusivity.
His entire ethical argument falls to earth if you reply, "Besides, who gives a d*mn about minimizing conflict?"
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:The NAP is not an axoim, btw; it is a conclusion derived from a long chain of reasoning.
Some attempt to prove the NAP as a theorem. All of their attempts either (1) are invalid, like Hoppe's self-ownership argument, or (2) depend on some other moral axiom. In the latter case, the other moral axiom is equivalent to the NAP. If Hoppe and others were just slightly less philosophical, and slightly better mathematicians, they would realize that the reason they're in a quagmire is that they're trying to prove axioms.
and
Len Budney: Jon Irenicus: There's a reason it's a performative and not strictly a logical contradiction. The "performative contradiction" doesn't prove what Hoppe wants it to, though. He claims it proves that you own your body, in the sense of exclusive use. But it doesn't prove exclusive use: it only proves that you can use it suficiently to argue. It doesn't prove that I can't or shouldn't use your body for food later that evening. With enough tweaking, Hoppe's argument does prove convincingly that everyone believes himself to be a self-owner, which is useful rhetorically, but it fails to prove that everyone actually IS a self-owner. The bottom line is that I'm a self-owner because I say I am, and if you attempt to cook and eat my body, I will attempt to take your life in self-defense. If you win, I'll go to my death insisting that I'm a self-owner, and you're a criminal. Powerful people today believe we aren't self-owners: for example, all statists ultimately believe that. And if they want to cook and eat us, they can--we aren't powerful enough to stop them. Self-ownership is an axiom (in Hoppe's system), because we assume it and cling tenaciously to it. It isn't an axiom for statists. --Len
Jon Irenicus: There's a reason it's a performative and not strictly a logical contradiction.
With enough tweaking, Hoppe's argument does prove convincingly that everyone believes himself to be a self-owner, which is useful rhetorically, but it fails to prove that everyone actually IS a self-owner.
The bottom line is that I'm a self-owner because I say I am, and if you attempt to cook and eat my body, I will attempt to take your life in self-defense. If you win, I'll go to my death insisting that I'm a self-owner, and you're a criminal. Powerful people today believe we aren't self-owners: for example, all statists ultimately believe that. And if they want to cook and eat us, they can--we aren't powerful enough to stop them. Self-ownership is an axiom (in Hoppe's system), because we assume it and cling tenaciously to it. It isn't an axiom for statists.
--Len
Thedesolateone: Not being particularly strong in philosophy myself, I will ignore the philosophy attack. But what do libertarians misunderstand with regards to other political ideologies?
Generally speaking: They don't understand liberalism or their relationship to/within liberalism. They don't understand Marx, or Marxism, or socialism generally. They have no idea what the reactionary nationalist movements were all about, lumping them in as 'leftists' because they're opposed to bankers - even though the entire banking industry was controlled by banksters at the time.
They are basically unfamiliar with social theory outside of their box, and when they encounter it they tend to misunderstand and straw-man it ten ways from sunday.
Example: There are almost no liberal utilitarians. They're consequentialists. So stop critiquing welfare with anti-utilitarian arguments.
Vichy:Generally speaking: They don't understand liberalism or their relationship to/within liberalism. They don't understand Marx, or Marxism, or socialism generally.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Vichy:Generally speaking: They don't understand liberalism or their relationship to/within liberalism.
Radical liberalism = libertarianism?
Vichy:They don't understand Marx, or Marxism, or socialism generally.
Well, I feel like I understand Marx pretty well. Materialism, inevitability, progressivity, dialecticism, exploitation, alienation.
Vichy:They have no idea what the reactionary nationalist movements were all about, lumping them in as 'leftists'
I think generally people would call them right-wing statists, although I cannot be sure.
Vichy:Example: There are almost no liberal utilitarians. They're consequentialists. So stop critiquing welfare with anti-utilitarian arguments.
Sorry, I genuinely don't understand what you're getting at there.
Spideynw:Again, he asked "Can you articulate to the working class..." If it were this easy, then the world would be libertarian. I think he makes an excellent point. The masses ARE our intellectual enemy. Obama has a 67% approval rating! Only 20% of Americans identify with the Republican party, which is supposed to be the small government party.
Maybe, but their economic interests are not diametrically opposed to libertarianism--are they?
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Dondolee: Juan: ama gi: The ones making $50K or less are the ones hardest hit by monetary inflation and interest on counterfeit $$. They are the ones whose livelihoods are threatened by every twist and turn of the money spigot. The rich, on the other hand, are the ones benefitting from monetary inflation, interest on counterfeit money, intellectual property, government contracts, the military-industrial complex, and Obama bailouts. The funny (or rather sad) thing is, saying that will get you branded as an egalitarian marxist or something... Funny you mention that. While I have not noticed it as a common trait, I have noticed that attitude by some libertarian types. From my experience they happen to be "intellectual", much like the annoying and dangerous "intellectuals" of the left. How common a trait do you think this is?
Juan: ama gi: The ones making $50K or less are the ones hardest hit by monetary inflation and interest on counterfeit $$. They are the ones whose livelihoods are threatened by every twist and turn of the money spigot. The rich, on the other hand, are the ones benefitting from monetary inflation, interest on counterfeit money, intellectual property, government contracts, the military-industrial complex, and Obama bailouts. The funny (or rather sad) thing is, saying that will get you branded as an egalitarian marxist or something...
ama gi: The ones making $50K or less are the ones hardest hit by monetary inflation and interest on counterfeit $$. They are the ones whose livelihoods are threatened by every twist and turn of the money spigot. The rich, on the other hand, are the ones benefitting from monetary inflation, interest on counterfeit money, intellectual property, government contracts, the military-industrial complex, and Obama bailouts.
The point is to get them to realise it.
Exactly the kind of misconception I'm talking about. Read Gerald Gaus and Jeffrey Friedman to understand what the liberal-movement is from a bird's eye view, and stop trying to look for 'Teh Tru Liberalism'. There is non - liberalism is a tradition with varying elements and varying theories, and libertarianism is in no shining exemplar of consistency or philosopical depth. It does have some consequential advantages, but that's a different story.
Marx is probably more of a theoretical libertarian
Maybe you do, maybe you don't - but most libertarians don't. Marx was, for example, a libertarian (in the sense of being for positive freedom). I'll grant you his scheme was absolutely loopy. But that has nothing to do with whether he was a libertarian, and as a matter of fact Marx was influenced strongly by the liberal tradition. Many people have noted his resemblence to Smithian economics, for example.
Most people, yes, but a lot of libertarians and conservatives like to distance themselves from Nazis. But, quite aside of the left-right nonsense there's the fact that most libertarians understand nothing beyond the rudiments of Nazi economics; without understanding the ideological impetus behind it. Which was - to save western civilization from Bolsheviks. To shut down the banksters. To rid us of inept democratic bureacracies and mad theories of egalitarianism.
Yes, they tried to solve these problems ass-backwards.
Of the three, though, the libertarian ignorance of liberalism is the greatest and most biased. Libertarian philosophical theories are usually amateur as Hell. There are exceptions, of course, but given many major libertarians endorse 'natural rights' which they can't make any coherent defense of even to eachother - and yet keep on insisting that Property is Inviolable, Men have Rights by Nature, etc. - it's double-think. Libertarians gain a lot by just adopting a consequentialist position.
No problem, it presumes a lot of the reader. Basically, Rothbard et. al have been interested in refuting Welfarism by reference to the problems of utilitarianism (you can't interpersonally compare values, voluntary trade typically expects gain). And these are very good points - against utilitarianism. But most welfarists are NOT utilitarians. These welfarist, and their less-welfary liberal relatives, are NOT utilitarians. They're individualists, they believe in personal freedom and expect their welfarist and interventionist measures will have a post-facto consequence of expanding freedom, or well-being.
Most liberals are not nearly, nearly as anti-market as you people seem to think. The Obamatards are not a good model to base your ideas of philosophical liberalism on.
Jon Irenicus:The point is to get them to realise it.
Exactly. And the way to do that is NOT with elitist rants about how democracy is evil and greed is good (which is a mistake that some libertarians make).
Right, that's what I mean about bad marketing. Personally I think democracy is just another form of statism, and has no real outstanding merit, except when understood (by reinterpretation) as anarchism. And of course I don't think greed is bad - I think it's good - but it's not exactly a good idea to go say that to a person who's been taught to associate greed with "EVIL" their whole lives.
Vichy:Marx was, for example, a libertarian (in the sense of being for positive freedom).
Many people have noted his resemblence to Smithian economics, for example.
Byzantine: Low IQ (and high T) correlates with poor impulse control which in turn correlates with criminal behavior. This is why the overwhelming majority of criminals are young adult men. The high IQ criminal mastermind is largely a fiction. It's more like Goodfellas, not The Godfather. Poverty is also highly correlated with low IQ.
Low IQ (and high T) correlates with poor impulse control which in turn correlates with criminal behavior. This is why the overwhelming majority of criminals are young adult men. The high IQ criminal mastermind is largely a fiction. It's more like Goodfellas, not The Godfather. Poverty is also highly correlated with low IQ.
In what is seemingly a vacuum statement, connected to nothing quite possibly, what you seem to be saying by "poverty" is because you have a stack of 100 dollar bills in your desk drawer and somebody else has a stack of 1's each pile containing 100 bills that somehow by osmosis the person with the stack of 100 dollar bills gets a higher IQ over time. Well if that's what you mean then damn I should sleep with gold bars under my pillow and I'll outwit anybody.
But maybe that's not what you mean...
Byzantine:Low IQ (and high T) correlates with poor impulse control which in turn correlates with criminal behavior.
Byzantine: I was responding to Juan, who's not talking to me. <sniff> Something you may not know: If you click "replied on," it will re-direct to the post to which the response is addressed. That should clarify things.
I was responding to Juan, who's not talking to me. <sniff>
Something you may not know: If you click "replied on," it will re-direct to the post to which the response is addressed. That should clarify things.
Did I make a baseless argument? This is a public forum. Byzantine, you can always pm Juan, but that might be something you didn't know.
LOL!! LOL!! LOL!! Sorry VIchy, some of your baseless assertions are especially, uh, baseless.
Once again, this demonstrates a lack of familiarity with basic liberal theory. People are either to be free from, or free to, do things in various proportions. Essentially, by an evaluation of what circumstances lead to 'maximum freedom'. The problem is, in real life, liberties are incommensureable. One man's freedom is another man's slavery, and various elements and interpretations of 'liberty' have existed since the Levelers. Equality and Property, often exemplified in 'the rights of man' were held to be supreme; though other consequentialist and utilitarian veins existed.
Marx wanted to remove the need for coercion from human life, along with all evil which would make coercion (defense, retaliation) necessary. He wanted humans to have the maximum positive freedom, by essentially always choosing what was right and themselves being broad, truely autonomous individuals - seperated from the the 'scarcity' caused by private property.
It's a wacky idea, but it's definitely libertarian.
What's Wrong with Libertarianism by Jeffrey Friedman
Oh ? Everybody knows that crackpot marx created his theories using copy and paste. He pasted some wrong value theory from Ricardo and Smith, pasted french socialism, pasted deranged hegelian 'philosophy' and came up with his 'system'.
It's not so nefarious as you make it sound, but yes, he was kind of a crackpot. He integrated various themes in English and continental philosophy, or tried and never really quite got it to work. Marx was definitely a moralist more than economist or technical philosopher, though. And Hegel's not that bad, but he's got some cranky ideas. No worse than Spinoza, though.
Byzantine: You referenced my statement as being in a vacuum. It was actually a response to something Juan posted. That's all I was pointing out.
You referenced my statement as being in a vacuum. It was actually a response to something Juan posted. That's all I was pointing out.
Oh, my apologizes. What I meant by "vacuum" is if I go by the narrow definition of poverty that I gave is that the kind of conclusion you're trying to make. In other words, the event of poverty doesn't happen in a "vacuum", IQ doesn't happen in a "vacuum". There are way more factors than just trying to correlate IQ with strictly money. Leads to the osmosis scenario, meaning, I don't get what you're saying. I mean if you pile criminal activity and difficult social relations to get past the drug gangs or the gang down the street that will kill you if you don't join the gang on the other street, then that factors in whole other scenarios. Your IQ therefore would get killed unless you know the IQ of the streets. And I've met a lot of youth from the streets and they are very intelligent in how they handle their situations.
Byzantine:Ever hear of a Gaussian distribution? Sure Madoffs exist, but young thugs exist in far greater numbers.
Byzantine: If you put a high IQ person in such situations, they are generally able to handle themselves absent predatory violence by someone. Or, they'll use their skill set to make enough money to hire a thug to protect them from thugs. By contrast, a low IQ individual will have to rely on some degree of largesse in complex society. Low IQ doesn't mean you can't be quite savvy in assessing status within groups but that's pretty instinctual. Animals and children do it too.
If you put a high IQ person in such situations, they are generally able to handle themselves absent predatory violence by someone. Or, they'll use their skill set to make enough money to hire a thug to protect them from thugs. By contrast, a low IQ individual will have to rely on some degree of largesse in complex society.
Low IQ doesn't mean you can't be quite savvy in assessing status within groups but that's pretty instinctual. Animals and children do it too.
You're ignoring a major factor in criminal activity: extremely high pecuniary returns and access to the black market.
Byzantine: wilderness:Your IQ therefore would get killed unless you know the IQ of the streets. And I've met a lot of youth from the streets and they are very intelligent in how they handle their situations. If you put a high IQ person in such situations, they are generally able to handle themselves absent predatory violence by someone. Or, they'll use their skill set to make enough money to hire a thug to protect them from thugs. By contrast, a low IQ individual will have to rely on some degree of largesse in complex society. Low IQ doesn't mean you can't be quite savvy in assessing status within groups but that's pretty instinctual. Animals and children do it too.
wilderness:Your IQ therefore would get killed unless you know the IQ of the streets. And I've met a lot of youth from the streets and they are very intelligent in how they handle their situations.
It's where they grew up. It's not a vacuum situation is the point. And since your here cause you don't like the State meddling with you, then don't you think the State is meddling with them. I've seen the State meddle with them constantly and making it worse at times. The impact in those areas is much higher whereas the maid and butler take the cushion punch for some people. And no I dealt with them, you can't just run and get your butler or maid to deal with them. You need to make decisions on the spot.
For somebody complaining about the State you now think the State only messes with you? But maybe you hire out a butler for your IQ too. That's a bit ridiculous in real-time. If you can't handle them your self and need somebody to do it for you that says a lot.
So should I sleep with gold bars upon my pillow or what to get that god-like IQ? These are silly questions for silly scenarios.