Free Government

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Moderator: Uccisore

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:27 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Arminius wrote:The number of human offspring is partly determined by humans (by their technology, their artificial practice and their social policy), whereas the number of all other living beings is determined by nature. If the number of human offspring was regulated only by nature, then the current number of the humans would be merely one billion or one million or or even less.

I agree. I'm just suggesting that human technology is natural.

But it is cultural - artificial.

Serendipper wrote:Like Warren Buffett says: had he been born long ago, he would have been some animal's meal rather than the richest man on earth.
Serendipper wrote:
He is not the richest man on earth.

You're going to point that out like it matters to the discussion?

Did I or did you ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&p=2678184#p2678143 ) mention his name in a discussion where he has nothing to do with?

Serendipper wrote:He has often been the richest man and could be again soon.

In 2008, he was ranked by Forbes as the richest person in the world.

That does not mean that he was or has often been or is the richest man on earth.

Serendipper wrote:So the artificial environment we created in government and economics naturally selected Warren to be topdog. Other environments would not have selected him as favorably. So it seems that regardless what environment we place ourselves, the most successful will be naturally chosen.
Serendipper wrote:
But that does not mean that it is impossible to circumvent the natural selection.

Can you think of a way that we could circumvent it?

Have you not read my posts?

Serendipper wrote:Believe me, I get your point, but I'm arguing that whatever humans do can be considered natural and that the distinction between artificial and natural is an artificial distinction.
Serendipper wrote:
Believe me, it is not an artificial distinction.

When I asked you to believe me, it was my saying that I understand what you are trying to convey, which is asking you to believe a fact about myself on my authority. When you asked me to believe you, you're asking me to believe a fact about reality on your authority. Quite different.

You did not ask me, and I did not ask you.

There was no question mark at all. 8)

Serendipper wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Are herds and swarms considered cultures that circumvent nature successfully?

The definition of culture is "an integrated pattern of knowledge" which implies mindlessness since the knowledge is integrated, therefore it seems a herd qualifies since it is also an integrated pattern of "apparent" knowledge. In other words, it's a successful strategy.

But that has nothing to do with the humans' artificial environment. A "successful strategy" is not necessarily an artificial environment.

Of course, a successful strategy is a natural environment created by natural beings doing things that come natural to them.

A strategy is abstract, a natural environment is concrete. Try to touch a strategy!

Why are you always reducing everything to nature and not seeing that there is a lot which is not only natural?

We should at least consider two realms:
1) A natural/physical/chemical realm. This is what I have called „the ocean »nature«“.
2) A cultural/artificial/spiritual realm. This is what I have called „the island in the ocean »nature«“.

Examples:
1) Planets belong to the natural/physical/chemical realm.
2) Thoughts as such belong to the cultural/artificial/spiritual realm.

Our differences (and also the differences you have with other ILP members) have to do with that said issue. Otherwise we can easily come to agreement, I think.

Serendipper wrote:Intelligence was not an advantage for the sauropods.
Serendipper wrote:
That does not change anything of my statement: Intelligence is an advantage and can lead to a culture that circumvents nature successfully. I did not say that sauropods were intelligent. Intelligence is one advantage of many advantages. So there are other advantages too.

You said "Intelligence is an advantage and". I gave you an example where intelligence was a disadvantage. Actually, there is empirical evidence that as sauropods evolved, the brains shrank and necks grew longer. Not only is a large brain-size a disadvantage due to blood flow, but intelligence itself leads one to become bored standing there eating leaves and growing to monstrous sizes. All intelligence would accomplish is leading the sauropod into being curious, bored, and it would not grow as fast or as large because it would desire more time away from eating. That is principally why I feel it's immoral for most folks to own dogs (particularly the smarter breeds) because the animal is not dumb enough to endure being tied to a tree in the yard. The smarter an animal is, the more it's going to need things to do and if growing to enormous sizes through constant eating is the success of the species, then being intelligent is disadvantageous to the goal.

I said that "intelligence is an advantage“, yes, and it is true that intelligence is an advantage. I have also clarified that "intelligence is one advantage of many advantages“ ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&p=2678255#p2678182 ). (You obviously like to circumvent some of my text passages.) It depends on what advantage is the one that is chosen/selected. In the case of humans it is the intelligence. Bodily said: it is our brain that made us so successful. We do not have other physical features that have made us as successful as the brain has done. If we lose this advantage, we will immediately lose other features too and will perhaps get extinct.

Serendipper wrote:As I said before, sharks have not gotten more intelligent in 400 million years of evolution, so it seems sharks are optimally intelligent.
Serendipper wrote:
Note that I am not saying that humans are more successful than sharks or sauropods. I am saying that humans are much more intelligent than all other living beings and that they can circumvent the so-called "natural selection".

I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure you know what I'm saying ;)

You are saying that intelligence can be a disadvantage. But you have not understood that I have never denied that. My sentence „intelligence is an advantage“ refers to human beings, and does not mean that intelligence is always an advantage. I have never used the word "always“ in this thread, but you are trying to put it into my mouth. Intelligence is the advantage of human beings. Whether this may become a disadvantage is another question. And you are certainly not the one who knows this. Nobody knows this for sure in the present, and whether it will be known in the future is not known in the present either.

Serendipper wrote:Satoshi Kanazawa argues that the average IQ will decline throughout the 21st century due to intelligent people not reproducing.
Serendipper wrote:So Satoshi Kanazawa knows what I mean: survival of the unfittest, survival of the disadvantaged groups. It is a fact that intelligence is an evolutionary advantage.

Well, no, it's the survival of the advantaged groups. You're assuming intelligence is always an advantage and obviously it is not... at least, not in excess of proper proportions.

Q.E.D.. Here it is again: You are putting words in my mouth that I have never used here in this thread.

So again (see above): I have never used the word "always“ in this thread, but you are trying to put it into my mouth. Intelligence is the advantage of human beings. Whether this may become a disadvantage is another question. And you are certainly not the one who knows this. Nobody knows this for sure in the present, and whether it will be known in the future is not known in the present either.

Serendipper wrote: And the title to his book is "The Intelligence Paradox: Why the Intelligent Choice Isn't Always the Smart One"

Interesting.

Serendipper wrote:
Also, intelligence and altruistic sociability are correlated with each other. (Cp.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02vvYDxXQ3w&t=369s). So we can conclude that the number of humans will shrink, if the average IQ is shrinking.

So if people are smarter, the population shrinks from lack of births and if people are dumber, the population shrinks from lack of altruism. Wait, what?

You do not understand that?

By the way: It is not so important for our discussion here that you understand that, because the fact that intelligence is an advantage - or can be an advantage (if you agree at least with that) - and has especially been being an advantage for human beings for a very long time (I would say since the first homo appeared) and will probably remain an advantage for them (or not - who knows?) is not deniable.

Serendipper wrote:I never thought about machines being natural... I never had reason to, but in this light, I'm wondering if a case can be made that argues successfully that AI is natural. I'll have to ponder that some more.
Serendipper wrote:
You are missing the point again. Remember that the topic of this thread is "Free Government" and that I was referring to the topic by saying that humans are capable of circumventing nature, which means a form of relatively free government as compared to the "government nature".

I'm not missing points... I'm arguing that the circumvention of nature is natural.

You are missing points. See above. Have you noticed that I am arguing that the circumvention is cultural/artificial in the sense that culture is like an "'island' in the 'ocean' nature“. This means that nature is indeed the more powerful one, but as long as the "island“ will exist for itself and the "ocean“ will not become chaotic (cause accidents and so on), this "island“ will have and defend its own rules ("laws“).
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:37 pm

@ Serendipper.

Why are you always reducing everything to nature and not seeing that there is a lot which is not only natural?

I was talking about the metaphor "'islands' in the 'ocean' nature“. The ISS, for example, is such an "'island' in the 'ocean' nature“. This "island" is a man-made island and its selection principle is not natural but human (cultural artificial).

Arminius wrote:I am not saying that the political/social selection has nothing to do with the natural selection. I am merely saying that the political/social selection contradicts the natural selection, although it is embedded in natural selection. This is what I have been saying for a very long time and with many of my posts in several threads (you may read them). If a thing contradicts another thing, then this does not necessarily mean that the contradicting thing is outside of the contradicted thing. The relation of this things can be a hyperonym/hyponym, a superordination/subordination, set/subset relation. So, actually, we agree, but you have misunderstood me. I am also saying that political/social selection works within the boundaries of natural selection. There are many selections that contradict natural selection but are nonetheless part of it.

Maybe the following charts depict the relations properly:

Image
Image
N: Natural selection.
S: Sexual selection.
K: Kin selection.
P: Political selection.

As long as all these "islands" (in the charts: P, K, S or S-K-P [there are more than shown in this charts]) will exist and will contradict their "ocean" (in the charts: N) they will also have their own order within their own boundaries.

The everyday lives of the humans, if they are healthy and not somehow disabled, are more surrounded by their human environmant than by their natural environment. If asked where they live, they would answer with words that clearly indicate that their way of life is mainly surrounded by an artificial (cultural) environment, although this is completely embedded in a natural environment. This is comparable with the geocentric and the heliocentric point of view. In everyday lives of the humans the geocentric interpretation is more important than the heliocentric interpretation of the movements in the solar system. In an everyday life it is more important to know for example when the sun "goes down" and not when the rotation of the planet Earth has reached the corresponding "position" -. although both informations refer to the same issue. The former information is important for surviving and the organization of the daily life, the latter information is merely important for science/philosophy and some other aspects (except those that belong to the former information) and has only indirectly but not directly to do with surviving and the organization of the daily life.

Humans are mainly selected by humans, although they are natural. Most of the currently living 7.4 billion humans live because of relatively few other humans (and most of this relatively few humans are already dead), and those humans who were and are not allowed to live did or do not live also because of that relatively few other humans. Without human's technology (especially in medicine, hygiene, ... and so on and so forth) there would currently be merely about 1 billion humans; without human's selecting politics there would currently be about 10 billion humans or another number of humans (depending on the respective kind of the alternative politics). In addition, many living beings have become extinct because of humans, and many other living beings do live just becasue of humans. The natural selection, although the basal selection or God as the natural selector would have nothing to do, if the humans were capable of selecting like the natural selector - who- or whatever this may be -, and they are not but try to be in their typical way.
Source: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190270&p=2604589#p2604589 .

Arminius wrote:The ISS is such an "absolute island". There is no natural environment inside the ISS, everything is human-made, thus artificial (cultural), even the air that the humans breathe. So the environment inside the ISS is an absolutely artificial (cultural) environment. The natural environment is completely outside the ISS. If there were a natural environment inside the ISS, then the humans who are inside the ISS would immediately die.

Image
Image

There are more than this human-made "islands", some are absolute, for example spaceships or the ISS, the others are relative, for example the atmospheric "islands":

Image
Source: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=188393&hilit=selection+principle&start=375#p2608881 .

Arminius wrote:All of the are human-made and - either absolutely or relatively - isolated from nature.

Image

As long as all these "islands" will exist and will contradict their "ocean" nature they will also have their own order within their own boundaries. If you replace the natural environment by an artificial (cultural) environment, then you have created an artificial isolation of natural selection - either absolutely or relaitively.
Source: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=188393&hilit=selection+principle&start=375#p2608882 .

Arminius wrote:Humans can live without any natural environment, because they can live in an artificial environment, which is made by themselves. They can live on their own "absolute islands" - thus: without any natural environment.

....

If you live in an artificial environment like the ISS, the natural environment is even deadly for you. An astronaut is immediately dead after leaving the ISS (artificial environment) without any other artificial environment (at least the astronaut suit).
Source: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=188393&hilit=selection+principle&start=400#p2635325 .

Arminius wrote:Living beings like the human beings who are capable of living in an artificial environment have, if they do it, nothing to do with any natural environment, at least as long as they live in their own artficial environment.

....

Humans who go through our solar system by their spaceship without any contact to the planet Earth can survive as long as they are in their self-made environment. During this time (which can be a very long time in principle) all living beings that live in this environment evolve because of a man-made environment. So this anthropogenic environment causes the adaptations of all living beings who live in it. They are selected by humans.
Source: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=188393&start=400#p2641695 .

We should at least consider two realms:
1) A natural/physical/chemical realm. This is what I have called "the 'ocean' nature'“.
2) A cultural/artificial/spiritual realm. This is what I have called "the 'island' in the 'ocean' nature“.

Examples:
Planets are part of the natural/physical/chemical realm.
Thoughts as such are part of the cultural/artificial/spiritual realm.
Last edited by Arminius on Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:44 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Arminius wrote:Enforced? Why?

What do you mean why? I'm going to make a rule that you must stand on your head, since I don't need to enforce it, you will have no choice but to comply.

A law is only as good as the army behind it.

Serendipper wrote:If there were rules, you'll have to change the name from "wild west" to "civilized west".

No.

Yes

Serendipper wrote:Gangs have rules only if you wish to be part of the gang.

Fortunately, I am not a part of a gang.

Seriously, you are wrong. The rules of a gang exist, regardless whether "you wish to to be part of the gang".

Well, gang rules don't apply to me regardless if they exist. And you're wrong :handgestures-thumbdown:

Serendipper wrote:Pioneers and fur-trappers were not unionized.

So you are saying that being unionized is the only rule that a human group can have.

Pioneers and fur-trappers were not unionized into a society. It doesn't mean part of local 101 lol

What?

You are a nice guy. :handgestures-thumbup:
But you are wrong. :handgestures-thumbdown:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:00 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Arminius wrote:Capitalism is not the "absence of regulation". If it was, then it would be anarchy, chaos.

How do you know it's not? Show me where capitalism has ever existed (besides the wild west) and let's see if it was anarchy.

Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits (FALSE, the Soviet Union is not an example for all other examples)
Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong)
Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong)
Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong).

Pretty simple. No definitions overlap, every one is distinct, and nothing is left out... well, that is unless you want to define a system that controls <100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits, but it makes no sense because if you don't have 100% control, how can you keep 100% of the profit?

If you're going to argue about the definition of capitalism, then tell me what % of control of business and what % of the profits should be paid in tax that defines capitalism and then explain how those %'s are not completely arbitrary?

Arminius wrote:As for the relatively free market or relatively unfree market: humans have always had rules ("laws") in order to regulate their markets.

If you want to have a "capitalistic" system, you need rules; if you want to have an "anti-capitalistic" system, you need rules.
Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:If one "wants" for anything, one must have rules to obtain it. 8)

Without rules, one gets whatever comes without any consideration from others - every man for himself and by himself. And no such thing as "money" or time to try to make it.

We have two words that fit the absence of regulation the most: "chaos" and "anarchy".

Serendipper wrote:We have to keep in mind that capitalism is absence of regulation. As soon as even one regulation is imposed for the good of society, it is socialism.

Once you concede one regulation, then it's a matter of how many are appropriate.

So to really get a picture of what capitalism is, we have to go back before regulations were in place.

Capitalism is not the "absence of regulation". If it was, then it would be anarchy, chaos.
James S Saint wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Any interference at all is not free.

The purpose of freedom is to allow competition and if gov takes any action to protect free trade (or anything else), then it's not the fittest who are surviving but the chosen of government or those working under the constraints of an artificial system of regulation.

The purpose of competition is to not presume we know what is best. That begs the question of whether we actually DO know what is best. I think, concerning some things, we do; other things, we don't.

So you believe that football, for example, should have no rules at all.
Interesting.
Arminius wrote:Yes. :wink:

Or, maybe, the philosophers try to play football (soccer) and to find out a rule. :)

Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:34 am

Seren wrote:
Do you think aliens who have the capability to travel between galaxies would conclude that human culture is unnatural
Do we consider homo habilis to have been unnatural in making simple stone tools

Whatever aliens think is irrelevant because human culture is unnatural as it is an artificial construct which we have created
Anything that does not occur naturally has to be unnatural and so that would include tools no matter how simple they were
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Alf » Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:07 pm

Arminius wrote:@ Serendipper.

Why are you always reducing everything to nature and not seeing that there is a lot which is not only natural?

I was talking about the metaphor "'islands' in the 'ocean' nature“. The ISS, for example, is such an "'island' in the 'ocean' nature“. This "island" is a man-made island and its selection principle is not natural but human (cultural artificial).

Yea. The ISS is artficial and has nothing to do with the universe as the natural environment, because it has its own artificial environment.
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: Free Government

Postby Alf » Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:35 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
Seren wrote:
Do you think aliens who have the capability to travel between galaxies would conclude that human culture is unnatural
Do we consider homo habilis to have been unnatural in making simple stone tools

Whatever aliens think is irrelevant because human culture is unnatural as it is an artificial construct which we have created
Anything that does not occur naturally has to be unnatural and so that would include tools no matter how simple they were

Of course, the human culture is unnatural. Humans have created their culture. The human culture is, Arminius has pointed it out, like "the island in the ocean“, and the ocean is not like the island. The "island" culture resists the "ocean" nature as long as possible. So do humans.
Last edited by Alf on Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: Free Government

Postby Alf » Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:02 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Government restricts freedom.

Not always and not necessarily. It can, but doesn't have to restrict freedom. Freedom for the one is unfreedom for the other one. Governments can make laws for both freedom and unfreedom. It depends on whom they obey.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Liberalism (pro-freedom), by definition, is anti-government.

Anarchy is anti-government. Liberalism (pro-freedom) isn't always and necessarily anti-government. Laws can be made for freedom and can be made for anti-freedom.
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:14 pm

Alf wrote:
Arminius wrote:@ Serendipper.

Why are you always reducing everything to nature and not seeing that there is a lot which is not only natural?

I was talking about the metaphor "'islands' in the 'ocean' nature“. The ISS, for example, is such an "'island' in the 'ocean' nature“. This "island" is a man-made island and its selection principle is not natural but human (cultural artificial).

Yea. The ISS is artficial and has nothing to do with the universe as the natural environment, because it has its own artificial environment.
Alf wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
Seren wrote:
Do you think aliens who have the capability to travel between galaxies would conclude that human culture is unnatural
Do we consider homo habilis to have been unnatural in making simple stone tools

Whatever aliens think is irrelevant because human culture is unnatural as it is an artificial construct which we have created
Anything that does not occur naturally has to be unnatural and so that would include tools no matter how simple they were

Of course, the human culture is unnatural. Humans have created their culture. The human culture is, Arminius has pointed it out, like "the island in the ocean“, and the ocean is not like the island. The "Island" culture resists the "ocean" nature as long as possible. So do humans.

Exactly.

And this "island" (=> culture) can be so isolated that it is just deadly to connect with the "ocean" (=> nature). Think of the astronauts, the ISS and other "islands".

schlegel_im_weltraum.jpg
schlegel_im_weltraum.jpg (72.53 KiB) Viewed 335 times
Image
atmosphaerographie.jpg
atmosphaerographie.jpg (101.13 KiB) Viewed 335 times
foetographie.jpg
foetographie.jpg (119.87 KiB) Viewed 335 times
Last edited by Arminius on Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:19 pm

Alf wrote:
Urwrongx1000 wrote:Government restricts freedom.

Not always and not necessarily. It can, but doesn't have to restrict freedom. Freedom for the one is unfreedom for the other one. Governments can make laws for both freedom and unfreedom. It depends on whom they obey.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Liberalism (pro-freedom), by definition, is anti-government.

Anarchy is anti-government. Liberalism (pro-freedom) isn't always and necessarily anti-government. Laws can be made for freedom and can be made for anti-freedom.

Yes.
Last edited by Arminius on Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:01 pm

Liberalism may be a precursor for anarchy, but it is not identical with it. Liberalism can even have many rules. Socialism can have merely few rules. It is just a stereotype to say that "liberalism is always against laws and socialism is always for laws", although this stereotype is often correct, but just not always.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:20 am

Arminius wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Like Warren Buffett says: had he been born long ago, he would have been some animal's meal rather than the richest man on earth.
Serendipper wrote:
He is not the richest man on earth.

You're going to point that out like it matters to the discussion?

Did I or did you ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&p=2678184#p2678143 ) mention his name in a discussion where he has nothing to do with?

Serendipper wrote:He has often been the richest man and could be again soon.

In 2008, he was ranked by Forbes as the richest person in the world.

That does not mean that he was or has often been or is the richest man on earth.

Total misdirection and a red herring. You may as well be complaining about a spelling error.

Claim: Warren Buffett rose to the top by natural selection in an artificial environment.
Rebuttal: He is not on top.

Like really? That is your rebuttal? :shock:

Does everyone here seize upon trivialities to win debates? :confusion-shrug:
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:26 am

Arminius wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Believe me, I get your point, but I'm arguing that whatever humans do can be considered natural and that the distinction between artificial and natural is an artificial distinction.
Serendipper wrote:
Believe me, it is not an artificial distinction.

When I asked you to believe me, it was my saying that I understand what you are trying to convey, which is asking you to believe a fact about myself on my authority. When you asked me to believe you, you're asking me to believe a fact about reality on your authority. Quite different.

You did not ask me, and I did not ask you.

There was no question mark at all. 8)

I pointed out a false equivocation and your defense is a lack of question mark? :shock:

Serendipper wrote:So the artificial environment we created in government and economics naturally selected Warren to be topdog. Other environments would not have selected him as favorably. So it seems that regardless what environment we place ourselves, the most successful will be naturally chosen.
Serendipper wrote:
But that does not mean that it is impossible to circumvent the natural selection.

Can you think of a way that we could circumvent it?

Have you not read my posts?

After this series of displays, I don't see a reason to.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:34 am

Arminius wrote:Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits (FALSE, the Soviet Union is not an example for all other examples)
Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong)
Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong)
Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong).


history has shown that your statement is wrong

1) You have no proof.
2) My definitions do not depend on proof. I conjured them into existence.

So even if you did manage to comb through history and find an example of so-called "communism" that wasn't real communism as some sort of proof, it wouldn't mean poop. That leaves you sticking your fingers in your ears screaming "you're wrong". So =;
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:37 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
Seren wrote:Do you think aliens who have the capability to travel between galaxies would conclude that human culture is unnatural
Do we consider homo habilis to have been unnatural in making simple stone tools

Whatever aliens think is irrelevant because human culture is unnatural as it is an artificial construct which we have created
Anything that does not occur naturally has to be unnatural and so that would include tools no matter how simple they were

Did you come into this universe or did you come out of it?

If you came into it, from where did you come?

If you came out of it, how are you not natural?
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:41 am

Alf wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
Seren wrote:Do you think aliens who have the capability to travel between galaxies would conclude that human culture is unnatural
Do we consider homo habilis to have been unnatural in making simple stone tools

Whatever aliens think is irrelevant because human culture is unnatural as it is an artificial construct which we have created
Anything that does not occur naturally has to be unnatural and so that would include tools no matter how simple they were

Of course, the human culture is unnatural. Humans have created their culture. The human culture is, Arminius has pointed it out, like "the island in the ocean“, and the ocean is not like the island. The "Island" culture restists the "ocean" nature as long as possible. So do humans.

Same questions to you:

Did you come into this universe or did you come out of it?

If you came into it, from where did you come?

If you came out of it, how are you not natural?
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:21 am

Serendipper wrote:Total misdirection and a red herring. You may as well be complaining about a spelling error.

Claim: Warren Buffett rose to the top by natural selection in an artificial environment.
Rebuttal: He is not on top.

Like really? That is your rebuttal? :shock:

Does everyone here seize upon trivialities to win debates? :confusion-shrug:

You were the first one who mentioned that name here in this thread ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&p=2678184#p2678143 ).

Also, you have no proof at all for your statement. Mentioning Forbes is no proof.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:29 am

Serendipper wrote:I pointed out a false equivocation and your defense is a lack of question mark? :shock:

My defense? I have posted a lot of posts here. And your problem is that I have mentioned the lack of a question mark?

You pointed out nothing. You were talking about questions that were no questions at all.

If you do not want any discussion in this thread, then just post in another thread. You are always circumventing important statements of other posters and focussing on irrelevances.

Serendipper wrote:So the artificial environment we created in government and economics naturally selected Warren to be topdog. Other environments would not have selected him as favorably. So it seems that regardless what environment we place ourselves, the most successful will be naturally chosen.
Serendipper wrote:
But that does not mean that it is impossible to circumvent the natural selection.

Can you think of a way that we could circumvent it?[/quote
Serendipper wrote:
Have you not read my posts?

After this series of displays, I don't see a reason to.

You don't see a reason to not have read my posts? What is your first language?
Last edited by Arminius on Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:03 am

Serendipper wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits (FALSE, the Soviet Union is not an example for all other examples)
Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong)
Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong)
Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits (FALSE, history has shown that your statement is wrong).

You said: "Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits" ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&start=50#p2678274 ).
You said: "Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits" ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&start=50#p2678274 ).
You said: "Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits" ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&start=50#p2678274 ).
You said: "Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits" ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&start=50#p2678274 ).

You really said that ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&start=50#p2678274 ). And that is 100% nonsense!

Serendipper wrote:
history has shown that your statement is wrong

1) You have no proof.
2) My definitions do not depend on proof. I conjured them into existence.

So even if you did manage to comb through history and find an example of so-called "communism" that wasn't real communism as some sort of proof, it wouldn't mean poop. That leaves you sticking your fingers in your ears screaming "you're wrong". So =;

You are the one who has absolutely no proof and absolutely no idea.

China's current government as a communistic government does not control 100% of means of production and not keep 100% of profits.
The fascistic governments did not control 100% of means of production and not keep <100% of profits.
The socialistic governments did and do not control 100% of means of production and not keep <100% of profits.
The capitalistic governments do not control 0% of means of production and not keep 0% of profits.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby Alf » Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:40 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Alf wrote:Of course, the human culture is unnatural. Humans have created their culture. The human culture is, Arminius has pointed it out, like "the island in the ocean“, and the ocean is not like the island. The "Island" culture restists the "ocean" nature as long as possible. So do humans.

Same questions to you:

Did you come into this universe or did you come out of it?

If you came into it, from where did you come?

If you came out of it, how are you not natural?

If there is an universe, there can, but doesn't have to be a planet too.
If there is an ocean, there can, but doesn't have to be an island too.

Smaller systems have their own rules. Not all, but most of this rules are subordinated to the larger system. The not subordinated rules of the smaller system temporarily circumvent, resist, contradict the rules of its superordinated larger system. That's evident and can be observed almost everywhere.
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users