Gyroscopic Investing

Libertarian666 wrote: There are other components, including a major role for insurance companies.

Yes....insurance will be super important because you won't be able to sue people for money as easily. Losses caused by the actions of others will need to be insured against. The best insurance companies (lowest prices, best product) will win out in the marketplace.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Now we're getting somewhere. If it is impossible to "solve" the problem of violence, we need to think of approaches to minimize it if at all possible. I do not think that centralizing violence in the hands of a small number of people who are granted the power to basically use it will minimizes it at all, because there is no real check on the power of the central organization of violence. I think violence is minimized when each person's violence is held in tension by the possibility of other people's violence. Right now the government holds our violence in check but we can't do the same to the government, It's an unequal relationship where we receive more violence from them than they receive from us, thus making us more battered and dependent and them more powerful.

Well, Steven Pinker and his 800 page book disagrees with you. Why don't you take it up with him and write him a letter. I would be very curious how he would respond since he has spent years investigating this topic.

Clearly I am going to need to read his book before I am able to formulate better responses!

You can start with the cliffnotes: http://edge.org/conversation/mc2011-his ... nce-pinker

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: NO! I don't think that governments SOLVE violence... I don't think you can solve "violence" without some radical reprogramming of human nature. We are violent creatures for crying out loud. Is this good? No, its not. But its REALITY!!! Maybe one day that will change, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Now we're getting somewhere. If it is impossible to "solve" the problem of violence, we need to think of approaches to minimize it if at all possible. I do not think that centralizing violence in the hands of a small number of people who are granted the power to basically use it will minimizes it at all, because there is no real check on the power of the central organization of violence. I think violence is minimized when each person's violence is held in tension by the possibility of other people's violence. Right now the government holds our violence in check but we can't do the same to the government, It's an unequal relationship where we receive more violence from them than they receive from us, thus making us more battered and dependent and them more powerful.

Well, Steven Pinker and his 800 page book disagrees with you. Why don't you take it up with him and write him a letter. I would be very curious how he would respond since he has spent years investigating this topic.

Classic appeal to authority. I'm sorry but this is such a weak argument I don't know where to begin.

I refuted Plinker's premise with 5 minutes of reasoning and there are a slew of people on this thread who can do that in a heartbeat, regardless of how many pages he wrote.

doodle wrote: Anyways, so what contract did I sign when I popped out of my mothers womb? I didn't agree to any of this. I didn't agree to the laws of nature. How dare the universe force ME to do anything against MY will! Gravity is oppressive and the laws of physics...who wrote those laws and who is going to watch over the oppressor who made the laws of nature and make sure they don't violate my RIGHTS!!

I thought you were a spotted owl!

But out of curiosity, why is this so upsetting to you? I don't personally believe that the laws of nature prevent us from achieving an incredible level of freedom. But freedom isn't omnipotence. Simply because I'll die if I jump off a cliff, doesn't mean that I'm not actually free. That's just silly.

doodle wrote: Anyways, so what contract did I sign when I popped out of my mothers womb?

Good point. You just demolished the "social contract" theory people use to defend the initiation of force to "right wrongs".

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Now we're getting somewhere. If it is impossible to "solve" the problem of violence, we need to think of approaches to minimize it if at all possible. I do not think that centralizing violence in the hands of a small number of people who are granted the power to basically use it will minimizes it at all, because there is no real check on the power of the central organization of violence. I think violence is minimized when each person's violence is held in tension by the possibility of other people's violence. Right now the government holds our violence in check but we can't do the same to the government, It's an unequal relationship where we receive more violence from them than they receive from us, thus making us more battered and dependent and them more powerful.

Well, Steven Pinker and his 800 page book disagrees with you. Why don't you take it up with him and write him a letter. I would be very curious how he would respond since he has spent years investigating this topic.

Classic appeal to authority. I'm sorry but this is such a weak argument I don't know where to begin.

I refuted Plinker's premise with 5 minutes of reasoning and there are a slew of people on this thread who can do that in a heartbeat, regardless of how many pages he wrote.

Well, then Ill just throw in an ad hominem while Im at it.....you sir, are an idiot. :-)

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: Anyways, so what contract did I sign when I popped out of my mothers womb?

Good point. You just demolished the "social contract" theory people use to defend the initiation of force to "right wrongs".

Oh snap!!!

doodle wrote: Well, then Ill just throw in an ad hominem while Im at it.....you sir, are an idiot. :-)

  I have no doubt there is rock solid evidence of this. I am also a doo-doo head.

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: Anyways, so what contract did I sign when I popped out of my mothers womb?

Good point. You just demolished the "social contract" theory people use to defend the initiation of force to "right wrongs".

Oh snap!!!

Huh? Maybe you couldn't tell I was being facetious.

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Good point. You just demolished the "social contract" theory people use to defend the initiation of force to "right wrongs".

Oh snap!!!

Huh? Maybe you couldn't tell I was being facetious.

I could not; it seemed like a perfectly sane argument to make, in fact.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Oh snap!!!

Huh? Maybe you couldn't tell I was being facetious.

I could not; it seemed like a perfectly sane argument to make, in fact.

Houston, we have a problem. :-) Are you and Kshartle typing all this from inside the computer lab of a psychiatric institution?

doodle wrote: Houston, we have a problem. :-) Are you and Kshartle typing all this from inside the computer lab of a psychiatric institution?

You're actually in the Matrix, doodle. We've been studying you for quite some time now.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: Houston, we have a problem. :-) Are you and Kshartle typing all this from inside the computer lab of a psychiatric institution?

You're actually in the Matrix, doodle. We've been studying you for quite some time now.

He is in the matrix still. Few get out.

Simonjester wrote: he cant take the red pill, he doesn't have free will...

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

What does it mean that human's have individual soverignty?

Is this rhetorical?  Isn't this what all this is about?  It's the idea that we have a valid moral claim over our own lives... we get to decide what we do with ourselves, and it is immoral for someone else to inflict their will against us.  This is all fine and good in a perfect universe where we're just nebulous entities floating through space.

But of course I've pointed out that it's severely limited by mother nature and our conundrum of all being stranded on the same rock together.  It means we MUST force each other.  This means we have to decide how, not whether, to manage that relationship with others and the natural world around us, and that, sir, is one fickle, complex b!tch.

Ok....it's all fine and good and in a perfect universe but not in this one. Why is it not good in this one?

Using violence against another human is a choice. It doesn't matter that we live on the same rock. You keep repeating this like it's relavent. It's not. It doesn't change the fact that people choose to use violence against another acheive thier goals. Saying that we must choose to violate the individual soverignty of others to manage our relationship with them is the problem. It is fundamentaly no different from what you recognize as a problem (people choosing to violate the rights of others).

Constantly repeating that it's complex and a b1tch is another false agrument. It's called "appeal to complexity". Just because you don't understand the concept you conclude no one does, so your opinions are as good as any.

"I don't know for certain what created the universe and neither do you so I'm going to say it was a leprechaun and you can't prove me wrong with your big bang theory"

It doesn't work in this one because we have to share resources and space.  We have to lay claim to things that we have little/no direct sovereign connection to, which is de facto force on others freedom.

So when I say "it's complex," I mean it's too complex to build a simple moral framework on top of.  If my actions to lay claim on the world around me inhibit someone else from enjoying the world around them, this means that property might actually hinder individual sovereignty rather than be supported by it, if taken too far.

Listen, you gave up on logic when you said, "I don't care if I can't prove it, logically.  Property rights exists because 99% people agree with me that they exist."  We know we can't deductively prove property rights, so let's give up on perfect deductive logic, shall we?

You find the perfect times to weave yourself in and out of one line of thinking into another it's impossible to debate you.  Your basis for property right is still "I can control my actions and 99% of people agree with me (even though they don't), so I have a right to claim ownership of property, and I don't need to prove you wrong logically."

Your constant accusation of "appeal to this" or "appeal to that," like we're having a deductive logic conversation is condescending and annoying, especially as you deny me the logic necessary to back your definition of what delineates true moral ownership.

Either build a DEDUCTIVE case for YOUR definition of property (which differs greatly from what most of your "99%" think property should entail), or have a discussion where you don't condescendingly respond to our non-deductive conversation points.  Appeals to authority, appeals to complexity, etc are useful discussion points.  They don't PROVE anything, but when having a good-faith discussion where people aren't afraid to admit to one iota of wrongness (which you obviously are), they can actually spur on thoughtful conversation.

Instead of admitting property claims ARE complex moral connections to the world around us, you try to accuse me of f'king up a deductive argument, which I wasn't making.

Instead of realizing that you DO disagree with other smart people, even other libertarians, on property, you just do the same once again.

Kshartle wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: There are other components, including a major role for insurance companies.

Yes....insurance will be super important because you won't be able to sue people for money as easily. Losses caused by the actions of others will need to be insured against. The best insurance companies (lowest prices, best product) will win out in the marketplace.

Of course, if I DON'T have insurance, but believe I have a rightful claim against another party who wronged me, I have the moral right to take his property, but he'll surely feel differently. 

Or if I did have insurance, the insurance company would likely have subrogated that right, and now has a moral right to go after his property.

Welcome to mankind.  These conflicts arise all the time.  When there is no final arbiter, a battle of wills ensues.  Let's not pretend it's as pretty as you think.

moda0306 wrote:
Listen, you gave up on logic when you said, "I don't care if I can't prove it, logically.  Property rights exists because 99% people agree with me that they exist."  We know we can't deductively prove property rights, so let's give up on perfect deductive logic, shall we?

Which post was that? I might have been unclear. I feel I've proven it logically and what I might have meant is I don't care anymore if I can't prove it to you or you don't agree. I imagine what I was getting at was the fact of you disagreeing or not understanding doesn't invalidate the existance of property rights.

Which post are you referring to? If I said something dumb I'd be happy to have that pointed out so I can correct it.

The percentage of people who believe something definately doesn't make it true or false, I've argued that against a slew of people here, maybe even you

I think a majority of Americans still believe in Angels.

Your posts are a slew of appeals to complexity Moda. They aren't even arguments. You just keep repeating that you don't understand or beleive something can be understood therefore no one understands or can ever.

That way your opinion can just be as good as anyone's else.

If you want to try to refute other people's arguments about the existance of property rights or human rights then just saying it's a complex issue does not cut the mustard.

Ok. There are instances where two people can claim ownership of something and it's difficult to see who has a higher claim.

If two guys build a house together they might both think they did more than the other and deserve more of the house's value. They should have had an agreement ahead of time to settle it but they might need a third party.

You're arguning that an overwhelming force of violence should decide and they should agree based on the fact that they can't resist the violence. Doodle appears to be arguing that also.

Have you ever tried to use the government to settle a dispute with someone? How well do you think it works? Do you think it's worth all the other stuff that comes along with it to get this great "dispute resolution"?

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: Anyways, so what contract did I sign when I popped out of my mothers womb? I didn't agree to any of this. I didn't agree to the laws of nature. How dare the universe force ME to do anything against MY will! Gravity is oppressive and the laws of physics...who wrote those laws and who is going to watch over the oppressor who made the laws of nature and make sure they don't violate my RIGHTS!!

I thought you were a spotted owl!

But out of curiosity, why is this so upsetting to you? I don't personally believe that the laws of nature prevent us from achieving an incredible level of freedom. But freedom isn't omnipotence. Simply because I'll die if I jump off a cliff, doesn't mean that I'm not actually free. That's just silly.

The laws of nature inhibit my freedom a lot more than the laws of our government.  If I want to fly through the air at wil... I simply can't.  If I want to lift up a car... I simply can't.  If I want to live forever.... I can't.  There's no way around these things.

If I wan't to be free of the Federal Income Tax, U.S. regulations, the U.S. military, U.S. dollar inflation, etc, I've got a lot of options.  I just have to be willing to quit whining about my plight long enough to figure out what they are and actually take some actions.

Nature not only puts some arbitrary limits on us, but it forces us together and to use her productive output in ways we never "signed up for."  We have to interact.  It's not just a human will... for the most part, ecologically, it's human necessity.  Any claim I make on mother earth is a claim someone else cannot.  Further, more ballsy claims tend to completely screw up ecosystems and displace/kill/torture animals of the earth (but they have no rights (because they can't choose, consciously) so who cares).

So not only does nature place a huge amount of force on us, the fact that she traps us here with other humans pits us against each other for the same resources to survive and prosper.  Individual sovereignty is an impossible ideal given these constraints.  By existing and making claims on the world around us, we are exerting our force upon others. Eliminating government doesn't eliminate this.

moda0306 wrote: Of course, if I DON'T have insurance, but believe I have a rightful claim against another party who wronged me, I have the moral right to take his property, but he'll surely feel differently. 

If you want to be irresposible then you'll have to suffer the consquences. You might even cause some other people suffering because of your irresponsibility.

Do you think government solves this?

moda0306 wrote: So not only does nature place a huge amount of force on us, the fact that she traps us here with other humans pits us against each other for the same resources to survive and prosper.  Individual sovereignty is an impossible ideal given these constraints.  By existing and making claims on the world around us, we are exerting our force upon others. Eliminating government doesn't eliminate this.

This is where unsustainable agruments lead to, absurdity. "Given that we exist we must accept the choice of the initiation of force. We have no free will to choose since we are a slave to the reality of existance."

I hope others reading can see this is not reality. 

Kshartle wrote: Your posts are a slew of appeals to complexity Moda. They aren't even arguments. You just keep repeating that you don't understand or beleive something can be understood therefore no one understands or can ever.

That way your opinion can just be as good as anyone's else.

If you want to try to refute other people's arguments about the existance of property rights or human rights then just saying it's a complex issue does not cut the mustard.

Ok. There are instances where two people can claim ownership of something and it's difficult to see who has a higher claim.

If two guys build a house together they might both think they did more than the other and deserve more of the house's value. They should have had an agreement ahead of time to settle it but they might need a third party.

You're arguning that an overwhelming force of violence should decide and they should agree based on the fact that they can't resist the violence. Doodle appears to be arguing that also.

Have you ever tried to use the government to settle a dispute with someone? How well do you think it works? Do you think it's worth all the other stuff that comes along with it to get this great "dispute resolution"?

Kshartle,

Is this a good point summary of your "proof" of property rights?:

- Humans control their actions and understand the consequences of those actions.

- This means humans have a right to individual sovereignty, and that other humans have a moral obligation not to infringe on those rights.

- Human also can mold the world around them, to a degree.

- Since this takes time and effort out of their life energy, they now have extended a moral claim from their own individual self to the item that they have modified for their own use.

Is that fair?

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Your posts are a slew of appeals to complexity Moda. They aren't even arguments. You just keep repeating that you don't understand or beleive something can be understood therefore no one understands or can ever.

That way your opinion can just be as good as anyone's else.

If you want to try to refute other people's arguments about the existance of property rights or human rights then just saying it's a complex issue does not cut the mustard.

Ok. There are instances where two people can claim ownership of something and it's difficult to see who has a higher claim.

If two guys build a house together they might both think they did more than the other and deserve more of the house's value. They should have had an agreement ahead of time to settle it but they might need a third party.

You're arguning that an overwhelming force of violence should decide and they should agree based on the fact that they can't resist the violence. Doodle appears to be arguing that also.

Have you ever tried to use the government to settle a dispute with someone? How well do you think it works? Do you think it's worth all the other stuff that comes along with it to get this great "dispute resolution"?

Kshartle,

Is this a good point summary of your "proof" of property rights?:

- Humans control their actions and understand the consequences of those actions.

- This means humans have a right to individual sovereignty, and that other humans have a moral obligation not to infringe on those rights.

- Human also can mold the world around them, to a degree.

- Since this takes time and effort out of their life energy, they now have extended a moral claim from their own individual self to the item that they have modified for their own use.

Is that fair?

I'll tighten it up a little. This is over-simplified and leaving out some critical stuff. I'm taking a work-break for a little bit.

moda0306 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: I thought you were a spotted owl!

But out of curiosity, why is this so upsetting to you? I don't personally believe that the laws of nature prevent us from achieving an incredible level of freedom. But freedom isn't omnipotence. Simply because I'll die if I jump off a cliff, doesn't mean that I'm not actually free. That's just silly.

The laws of nature inhibit my freedom a lot more than the laws of our government.  If I want to fly through the air at wil... I simply can't.  If I want to lift up a car... I simply can't.  If I want to live forever.... I can't.  There's no way around these things.

I think the problem may be that you're defining "freedom" as synonym of "omnipotence." If you can only be free when you are in a state where not only can you do anything, but your actions accumulate no consequences, then okay, I'll grant you that under that definition, nobody has ever been or ever can be free... except for maybe God, if he exists.

But I don't think many people use that definition of freedom. I mean, do you? Or are you just playing around here?

moda0306 wrote: Listen, you gave up on logic when you said, "I don't care if I can't prove it, logically.  Property rights exists because 99% people agree with me that they exist."  We know we can't deductively prove property rights, so let's give up on perfect deductive logic, shall we?

Still interested where you got this though......

If you can't say where can you admit you just made it up?

You've said it now two or three times so I'm curious. Please give me the courtesy of a quote on this one.

Pointedstick wrote:I think the problem may be that you're defining "freedom" as synonym of "omnipotence." If you can only be free when you are in a state where not only can you do anything, but your actions accumulate no consequences, then okay, I'll grant you that under that definition, nobody has ever been or ever can be free... except for maybe God, if he exists.

But I don't think many people use that definition of freedom. I mean, do you? Or are you just playing around here?

I think the point would be that we are always under constraints, by nature (not being omnipotent) and by being forced by nature to live together with limited resources and having to come to mutual agreements at a societal level about the best way to arrange those resources.

Xan wrote: having to come to mutual agreements at a societal level about the best way to arrange those resources.

Is it a mutual agreement if I point a gun at you to rob you?

I agree by the way....mutual agreement is the way to go.