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 UrGod » Sun Sep 03, 2017 12:04 am

Serendipper wrote:
UrGod wrote:Dipper, your "definitions" are invalid.

Oh? By what reason or rationale? Proof? Anything? Oh, that's right, ur god now; you can make proclamations. :lol:


I go into it in the rest of my post.

You might try calming down just a bit.

Reality doesn't care about however you want to narrowly define something, then cling to that definition at the expense of... reality. And also of logic, and deeper thought.

Definitions do not exist in reality and all definitions are manufactured by constructs of imagination.


No, definitions are accurate to the degree that they accurately reflect reality, and are inaccurate to the degree they inaccurately reflect reality.

"Manufactured constructs of imagination", if that were the case then our definitions would be useless out in the world, which clearly is not he case. Definitions are useless only when they are bad definitions.

For a quick example, a free market requires some regulation to come into being:

LOL! Oh yeah? So if I kill a beaver and trade it to a guy who has distilled some alcohol, by what regulations are we abiding?


That isn't a free market.

I already alluded to this with my comment about the dude who, rather than pay you the agreed upon price for your good or service, just gets a few of his thug buddies to rob and murder you. Yeah, that's not a free market, that lawless anarchy.

Nope, I gladly trade the beaver for the booze instead of simply shooting the guy because I want him to continue his trade because I like his product. What you say makes no sense. Why shoot those who provide services to you?


Right, and why does any crime exist, why does anyone get mugged and robbed and murdered? Clearly there is no rationale for doing so, in your mind, therefore it must never happen. Lol.

The immorality of the capitalist system enters with employment, which is taking advantage of someone's hardship to make him a slave for the enrichment of the master and then calling the act a "service to the community".


No, employment is a voluntary contract that benefits both parties. If both parties did not benefit then both parties would not freely choose to enter into an employment/employee agreement.

Unless you think that you, alone, can create access to as much capital and machinery of production that your employer can allow you to use, in order to make values in the world?

Yeah, good luck with that. Go try and create a factory from the ground up, versus someone else who simply works at one that is already built, and then we can see which of you produces the most value, and ultimately has the most reward for the amount of effort and time invested.

A market requires agreed upon and enforceable rules; laws.

I just gave example to the contrary.


No you didn't. A simple barter trade isn't what "free market" means. You clearly have no idea what a free market even is.

The fact you don't understand this is actually quite appalling.

Slander is the tool of the loser.


How by any stretch of imagination can that be construed as "slander"? You are really off your rocker here, aren't you.

Come back to me when you find some sanity.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Sun Sep 03, 2017 12:13 am

UrGod wrote:Come back to me when you find some sanity.

Once again, slander is the tool of the loser.
"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 » Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:14 am

Serendipper wrote:
Arminius wrote:Humans are both natural and cultural ("artificial").

Why is culture artificial?

From the natural "point of view", everything that is not natural, but cultural, is somehow artificial. You can use both words when it comes to the opponent of nature.

Serendipper wrote:
Humans are partly their own selectors,

Birds select mates based on colors and nest-building ability, so are they not their own selectors?

To some degree, yes, but they are not capable of being independent of natural selection. Is the number of the bird’s offspring determined by themselves or by nature? Please read my texts I quoted (again).

Serendipper wrote:
also the selectors of pets and many other living beings,

Are not lions selecting the evolution of deer by eliminating the weak? Likewise with the jackals who threaten them?

Animals can't interfere with natural selection because they ARE natural selection, ...

They are NOT natural selection; they are objects of the natural selection.

Serendipper wrote:but somehow when humans interfere, it is not called natural selection anymore. Why are we distinct?

Because we are the only species that is capable of being independent of natural selection. We can live without any natural environment and can determine that e.g. the unfit survive and the fit do not survive. Please read my texts I quoted (again).

Serendipper wrote:
and they can survive in very extreme and artificial environments,

Some bacteria thrive in nuclear reactor cores. Are they artificial?

No.

Is it possible that you have not understood what I have said?

Serendipper wrote:Humans are actually quite vulnerable to extremes and our existence is owed to the very mild and stable environment whereas the cockroach, for instance, is more adaptable.

Yes, but note that this is the case only according to the natural selection principle. In other words: I am not saying that the humans are naturally more adaptable than, for instance, the cockroaches.

Serendipper wrote: Natural events such a meteor impacts, volcanoes, or a swing in climate could end humanity but the cockroach will survive even a nuclear war.

Yes, I did not deny that. Again: I am not saying that the humans are naturally more adaptable than, for instance, the cockroaches. That is not the point I am talking about here. The point is that humans are capable of circumventing nature by their culture (based on their intelligence), regardless whether they are naturally vulnerable or not. Intelligence is an advantage and can lead to a culture that circumvents nature successfully.

Humans have invented machines that will perhaps take over sooner or later (cp. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562). Machines are artificial, an invention of humans, so they are not natural, not even as natural as humans or their culture.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5385
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:25 am

Serendipper wrote:
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.

I am not sure. Thinking back to the pioneering days where economies were based on trade, there were no laws that could be enforced. I think the mountain men and native americans would have laughed at the idea that anyone could tell them how to operate. They simply traded the goods and services they had for the goods and services being offered and the value was determined at the time of the trade with no rules or laws or preconceived notions. If you wanted to shoot your trading partner, there was nothing stopping you... except that then you'd have to find a new partner. The economy worked naturally and with no regulation because there was no mechanism (ie army) to enforce any regulation.

All that changed when there were too many people to be fur-trappers, smiths, coopers, farmers, etc and therefore many people needed to be employed under someone else and that's where economic structure entered the picture. Employment is what necessitated regulation. As societies grew, more regulations were necessary to protect the safety of food, for instance. Then we needed regulations to protect children, elderly, and the sick. Now we've gone as far as protecting people who are sexually confused.

Did the Wild West Europeans in North America and the Indians as the Native North Americans have no rules at that time? I do not think so.

Also, I was talking about the human history:

Arminius wrote:Humans regulate or intervene. That shows clearly that the natural selection can be circumvented, and that the free market has never existed in human history (but only a relatively free market).

The Wild West Europeans in North America and the Indians as the Native North Americans traded partly but not completely according to natural rules. The rules of historical humans are written rules. But the rules of the Indians as the Native North Americans were just orally transmitted and comparable with the rules of the Stone Age humans. So the Wild West Europeans in North America had no other choice than to trade according to the older rules, which does not mean that they traded completely according to natural rules. The rules of the Indians as the Native North Americans were mostly but not merely like natural rules.

Gangs have rules.
Mafia organizations have rules.
Mafia states have rules.
Global organizations have rules.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5385
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:55 am

Arminius wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Arminius wrote:Humans are both natural and cultural ("artificial").

Why is culture artificial?

From the natural "point of view", everything that is not natural, but cultural, is somehow artificial. You can use both words when it comes to the opponent of nature.

So it's based on perspective. That was my original assessment. Here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&start=25#p2678082

Serendipper wrote:
Humans are partly their own selectors,

Birds select mates based on colors and nest-building ability, so are they not their own selectors?

To some degree, yes, but they are not capable of being independent of natural selection. Is the number of the bird’s offspring determined by themselves or by nature? Please read my texts I quoted (again).

I don't see a distinction because the number of human offspring are equally determined by nature. You could argue that we have the capability to abort or artificially grow humans, but that's merely a capability and it's possible that animals would utilize that capability if they could. Therefore it doesn't necessarily mean that human actions in determining numbers of offspring are artificial because there is no reason to believe animals would not behave in the same way if they had the capability.

Serendipper wrote:
also the selectors of pets and many other living beings,

Are not lions selecting the evolution of deer by eliminating the weak? Likewise with the jackals who threaten them?

Animals can't interfere with natural selection because they ARE natural selection, ...

They are NOT natural selection; they are objects of the natural selection.

You know what I mean.

Serendipper wrote:but somehow when humans interfere, it is not called natural selection anymore. Why are we distinct?

Because we are the only species that is capable of being independent of natural selection.

Suppose we setup a self-sustaining colony on Mars. Now, will that artificial environment naturally select for the fittest in that environment? 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. 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZTweMHEFAI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF4JCmqF6ec

We can live without any natural environment and can determine that e.g. the unfit survive and the fit do not survive.

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:
and they can survive in very extreme and artificial environments,

Some bacteria thrive in nuclear reactor cores. Are they artificial?

No.

Is it possible that you have not understood what I have said?

Of course.

The point is that humans are capable of circumventing nature by their culture (based on their intelligence), regardless whether they are naturally vulnerable or not.

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.

Intelligence is an advantage and can lead to a culture that circumvents nature successfully.

Intelligence was not an advantage for the sauropods. Due to their long necks, their survival was greatly improved by reducing the size of their brains over time due to the difficulty of pumping blood that high. In other words, it was more of an advantage to have a longer neck than a bigger brain.

As I said before, sharks have not gotten more intelligent in 400 million years of evolution, so it seems sharks are optimally intelligent.

Noam Chomsky argues that intelligence is a lethal mutation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZbW7lvGkuA

Satoshi Kanazawa argues that the average IQ will decline throughout the 21st century due to intelligent people not reproducing. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ldlessness

It would indeed seem that intelligence is a lethal mutation.

We needn't look farther than an online message boards for proof that anyone truly intelligent has been selected against rather than staying to endure the constant barrages of insults. Evolution favors the thickest-skinned and the hardest heads. I've been watching the comments section of zerohedge for years and have observed most of the insightful commenters are gone, leaving a bunch of angry old men ruling the roost. That's natural selection.

Humans have invented machines that will perhaps take over sooner or later (cp. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562). Machines are artificial, an invention of humans, so they are not natural, not even as natural as humans or their culture.

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.
"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 » Sun Sep 03, 2017 4:05 am

Arminius wrote:Did the Wild West Europeans in North America and the Indians as the Native North Americans have no rules at that time? I do not think so.

Then who enforced the rules?

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

Gangs have rules.
Mafia organizations have rules.
Mafia states have rules.
Global organizations have rules.

Gangs have rules only if you wish to be part of the gang. Pioneers and fur-trappers were not unionized.
"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 » Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:02 pm

Serendipper wrote:I don't see a distinction because the number of human offspring are equally determined by nature.

No. That is just the point. 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.

Serendipper wrote: You could argue that we have the capability to abort or artificially grow humans, but that's merely a capability and it's possible that animals would utilize that capability if they could.

Non-human living beings are not capable of doing what human living beings are capable of (in that said case).

Serendipper wrote:Therefore it doesn't necessarily mean that human actions in determining numbers of offspring are artificial because there is no reason to believe animals would not behave in the same way if they had the capability.

Non-human living beings are not capable of doing what human living beings are capable of (in that said case).

Serendipper wrote:Suppose we setup a self-sustaining colony on Mars.

We already have the ISS (the better example):

Image

Serendipper wrote:Now, will that artificial environment naturally select for the fittest in that environment?

The planet Mars has no artificial environment. So again: We already have the ISS (the better example):

Image

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.

He is not 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.

But that does not mean that it is impossible to circumvent the natural selection.

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.

Believe me, it is not an artificial distinction.

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.

Serendipper wrote:Intelligence was not an advantage for the sauropods.

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.

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.

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".

Serendipper wrote:Noam Chomsky argues that intelligence is a lethal mutation ....

Noam Chomsky is an interesting linguist.

Again: I am not saying that humans will forever be more successful than other living beings and that they will live forever. I am saying that humans are much more intelligent than all other living beings and that they can circumvent the so-called "natural selection".

Serendipper wrote:Satoshi Kanazawa argues that the average IQ will decline throughout the 21st century due to intelligent people not reproducing.

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.

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.

Serendipper wrote:It would indeed seem that intelligence is a lethal mutation.

Again: I am not saying that humans will forever be more successful than other living beings and that they will live forever. I am saying that humans are much more intelligent than all other living beings and that they can circumvent the so-called "natural selection".

Serendipper wrote:We needn't look farther than an online message boards for proof that anyone truly intelligent has been selected against rather than staying to endure the constant barrages of insults. Evolution favors the thickest-skinned and the hardest heads. I've been watching the comments section of zerohedge for years and have observed most of the insightful commenters are gone, leaving a bunch of angry old men ruling the roost. That's natural selection.

You are missing the point.

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.

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".

Again: I am not saying that humans will forever be more successful than other living beings and that they will live forever. I am saying that humans are much more intelligent than all other living beings and that they can circumvent the so-called "natural selection".
Last edited by Arminius on Sun Sep 03, 2017 5:02 pm, edited 9 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5385
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:28 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Arminius wrote:Did the Wild West Europeans in North America and the Indians as the Native North Americans have no rules at that time? I do not think so.

Then who enforced the rules?

Enforced? Why?

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

No.

Serendipper wrote:
Gangs have rules.
Mafia organizations have rules.
Mafia states have rules.
Global organizations have rules.

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".

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.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5385
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby UrGod » Sun Sep 03, 2017 3:35 pm

ILP is a perfect example of what happens when you don't have rules, laws, standards of merit. This place is a raw anarchy, not a free market of ideas. Which is why almost nothing good gets produced here, and certainly even the little good that is produced does not get selected and elevated above the nonsense.

A free market is a system designed specifically to allow merit to be elevated into a selection standard. For that to work you need institutionalized rules against things that represent the deliberate destruction and abnegation of merit, such as theft and fraud and any use of force that would destroy the voluntary nature of economic transactions.

Dipper, I'm done with you. Have a nice life, or whatever you call this thing you've decided to live for yourself. I'm too sickened to see your deliberate retardification of yourself to bother caring any further: so don't reply to what I wrote, either here or in the previous post of mine that you also ignored-- keep pretending it is "slander" and go full retard mode yourself into a hole somewhere.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Free Government

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Sep 03, 2017 4:49 pm

Whatever wants to preserve its form of existence must impose restrictions upon whatever is threatening to destroy it. Otherwise, the form is lost so it no longer persists through time. For example, if you want to continue living you must impose restrictions upon every kind of expansion that would be at the cost of your life. Giving up on restrictions, regulations, rules, laws, etc is giving up on control and surrending to the circumstances. This is not always a bad move -- there are times when it is good-- but if it is understood as an absolute in the sense that it is always better than the alternative, then yes, it is not a good thing.

The term "free market" only makes sense if there is such a thing as "market". If people are stealing from each other then there is no market.
Market refers to consensual exchange of goods.
When someone steals from someone else, there is neither consent nor exchange.

How can market exist (i.e. persist through time) if it does not restrict that which would destroy it?

One man's freedom is another man's unfreedom.
That's how it is.
Whenever something happens at some point t something else does not happen at that same point t.

The question is thus never freedom versus unfreedom but what form (i.e. order) you want to establish versus what form (i.e. order) you don't want to see established.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3391
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Meno_ » Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:03 pm

Magnus, it seems brazen perhaps to suggest that between the marketplace , the freedom to exchange views thereof, there lies the indefinite, variable identifiable power to form the system where such rules can be laid down, and a s such, those values can either be accepted, or, excluded.

This power has been fueled and propelled through at least the beginning of the twentieth century by reduction to elemental underlying motives, identifiable lesser inclusive effects
.

This devaluation is of necessity, and more and more, freedom has been undermined by a degree of difference corresponding to what has become known as that which incrementally describes a defacto and dejure discrepancy.

Power, does corrupt absolutely, when the patent appearances are the only measure by which they are the only measure of their affects
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2311
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Free Government

Postby UrGod » Sun Sep 03, 2017 8:26 pm

Power only corrupts the already corrupted.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Sun Sep 03, 2017 8:32 pm

James S Saint wrote:
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.

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.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5385
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby Meno_ » Sun Sep 03, 2017 9:28 pm

There is no total lack of regulation, as well as there is no total chaos. They are in the absolute sense merely a play of smoke and mirrors.

Capitalism uses chaos more as a tool to generate the need for regulation, that is why it appears freer.But this kind of freedom masks its intrinsically subtle and hidden motives, hiding acquisition under the fear of avoiding chaos.

Which basically reverberates the cliche that what we really fear (not fear its self), but the fear of true freedom.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2311
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Free Government

Postby Meno_ » Sun Sep 03, 2017 9:32 pm

UrGod wrote:Power only corrupts the already corrupted.


It's said, -everyone has a price for which he is corruptible.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2311
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Free Government

Postby surreptitious75 » Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:42 pm

Seren wrote:
Definitions do not exist in reality and all definitions are manufactured by constructs of imagination

Mathematics does not exist in reality but the laws of physics are written in mathematical form and they are derived through observation
Language does not exist in reality but the entire history of the planet is written in multiple languages which is fundamentally how we all
communicate and learn. Sometimes abstract concepts can be very useful and in these cases absolutely indispensable. No language would
mean no sharing of knowledge or ideas or experience. So just because something is not real does not mean it has no practical application
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:57 pm

Meno_ wrote:Capitalism uses chaos more as a tool to generate the need for regulation, that is why it appears freer.But this kind of freedom masks its intrinsically subtle and hidden motives, hiding acquisition under the fear of avoiding chaos.

Or (in my words):

Arminius wrote:If you want to have a "capitalistic" system, you need rules; if you want to have an "anti-capitalistic" system, you need rules.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5385
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby surreptitious75 » Sun Sep 03, 2017 11:09 pm

Seren wrote:
Why is culture artificial

Because it is a human construct incorporating history and religion and philosophy all of which are constructs themselves
They are not naturally occurring phenomena so when the human race becomes extinct then so too will its entire culture
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:53 am

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.

Yes. :wink:

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

Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5385
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:31 am

Arminius wrote:
Serendipper wrote:I don't see a distinction because the number of human offspring are equally determined by nature.

No. That is just the point. 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.

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.

He is not the richest man on earth.

You're going to point that out like it matters to the discussion? 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Bu ... ilanthropy

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Serendipper wrote:Intelligence was not an advantage for the sauropods.

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.

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.

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 ;)

Serendipper wrote:Satoshi Kanazawa argues that the average IQ will decline throughout the 21st century due to intelligent people not reproducing.

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

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?

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.

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.
"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 » Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:42 am

Arminius wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Arminius wrote:Did the Wild West Europeans in North America and the Indians as the Native North Americans have no rules at that time? I do not think so.

Then who enforced the rules?

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.
Mafia organizations have rules.
Mafia states have rules.
Global organizations have rules.

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
"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 » Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:51 am

UrGod wrote:ILP is a perfect example of what happens when you don't have rules, laws, standards of merit. This place is a raw anarchy, not a free market of ideas. Which is why almost nothing good gets produced here, and certainly even the little good that is produced does not get selected and elevated above the nonsense.

The sites that vote answers to the top don't work either. Neither natural or artificial selection seems to work.

A free market is a system designed specifically to allow merit to be elevated into a selection standard. For that to work you need institutionalized rules against things that represent the deliberate destruction and abnegation of merit, such as theft and fraud and any use of force that would destroy the voluntary nature of economic transactions.

I agree.

Dipper, I'm done with you. Have a nice life, or whatever you call this thing you've decided to live for yourself. I'm too sickened to see your deliberate retardification of yourself to bother caring any further: so don't reply to what I wrote, either here or in the previous post of mine that you also ignored-- keep pretending it is "slander" and go full retard mode yourself into a hole somewhere.

Can I put that in my siggy? I've never had such an honorable mention.

There is no sense in replying to your other post because you're simply going to reply that I'm wrong so why waste time? I know that and you know that.
"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 » Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:09 am

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
Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits.

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?
"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 » Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:17 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
Seren wrote:
Definitions do not exist in reality and all definitions are manufactured by constructs of imagination

Mathematics does not exist in reality but the laws of physics are written in mathematical form and they are derived through observation
Language does not exist in reality but the entire history of the planet is written in multiple languages which is fundamentally how we all
communicate and learn. Sometimes abstract concepts can be very useful and in these cases absolutely indispensable. No language would
mean no sharing of knowledge or ideas or experience. So just because something is not real does not mean it has no practical application

Yes, but he is arguing that the definitions already exist in reality and that I'm somehow perverting reality by creating my own definitions. In fact, the systems of government are whatever we say they are. We could call them: system 1, system blue, system unicorn... whatever... a label is a label. So what it boils down to is the reality of what differentiates one system from another and the definitions that I presented do that best. What % control of private business is ideal and what % of profits should be redistributed? If you say 0 and 0, then that is capitalism. If you say any other number, then that is socialism because the only reason to take control and money from private business is for the good of society and therefore it is called socialism.
"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 » Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:25 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
Seren wrote:
Why is culture artificial

Because it is a human construct incorporating history and religion and philosophy all of which are constructs themselves
They are not naturally occurring phenomena so when the human race becomes extinct then so too will its entire culture

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?

Is this crow acting unnaturally?

"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

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users