Gyroscopic Investing

Pointedstick wrote: Kshartle, I would like to posit that I have been more convincing to Moda, Gumby, and Xan in this thread than you've been. If I am correct in that assertion, and if your goal is to either convince people of your point of view, or sharpen your arguments (which would be demonstrated by successfully convincing people of your point of view), what can you learn from my discussion style? Because it sure looks to me like you're alienating everyone you talk to here because your approach is not working. Perhaps it's time to change it?

+1

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: I wouldn't call myself an Austrian but I certainly understand that monopolies are possible without violence. They are beneficial though and not destructive, and probably quite rare.

Well since property itself is very likely to come about without some arbitrary, illegitimate claims backed by violence, I'd have a lot of trouble agreeing that monopolies are possible without violence.

I am not surprised if you think property comes from illegitimate claims backed by violence.

Not all property, but a good chunk of it...

Most of the land we populate used to be occupied by nomadic Indians.  Farming/ranching is tough without land to do it on.  We also enslave animals to our will in miserable conditions for our food source.

Pointedstick wrote: Kshartle, I would like to posit that I have been more convincing to Moda, Gumby, and Xan in this thread than you've been. If I am correct in that assertion, and if your goal is to either convince people of your point of view, or sharpen your arguments (which would be demonstrated by successfully convincing people of your point of view), what can you learn from my discussion style? Because it sure looks to me like you're alienating everyone you talk to here because your approach is not working. Perhaps it's time to change it?

What do you think you've convinced them of?

The only reason we have these discussions is because I bring the obvious truth that violence doesn't solve problems. I don't hide from it and pretend we should accept beatings because they're better than murder.

Pointedstick wrote: Kshartle, I would like to posit that I have been more convincing to Moda, Gumby, and Xan in this thread than you've been. If I am correct in that assertion, and if your goal is to either convince people of your point of view, or sharpen your arguments (which would be demonstrated by successfully convincing people of your point of view), what can you learn from my discussion style? Because it sure looks to me like you're alienating everyone you talk to here because your approach is not working. Perhaps it's time to change it?

PS, I'm afraid you're just another violent sociopath as far as Kshartle is concerned.  Even your hypothetical zero-government society involves force, so you're worse than Karl Marx, and ALMOST as bad as a parent who spanks a misbehaving child.

Kshartle wrote:I bring the obvious truth that violence doesn't solve problems.

Citation needed

Kshartle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Kshartle, I would like to posit that I have been more convincing to Moda, Gumby, and Xan in this thread than you've been. If I am correct in that assertion, and if your goal is to either convince people of your point of view, or sharpen your arguments (which would be demonstrated by successfully convincing people of your point of view), what can you learn from my discussion style? Because it sure looks to me like you're alienating everyone you talk to here because your approach is not working. Perhaps it's time to change it?

What do you think you've convinced them of?

The only reason we have these discussions is because I bring the obvious truth that violence doesn't solve problems. I don't hide from it and pretend we should accept beatings because they're better than murder.

I have convinced them that a non-government system of consequences can keep badly-behaving people in line without needing a central violence monopolist. I did this by admitting that violence and the threat of it will still exist and be used frequently in defensive contexts rather than basing it on an improvement in the moral compasses of the majority of humans. I gave specific, reasonable examples and avoided arguing in black-and-white moral absolutes.

And now I've gotten them to the point where they're challenging me on the really hard cases like hobo murder (that even governments have trouble with), having all but admitted that my proposed system would probably work in most of the easy ones. I think that's an impressive achievement, if I do say so myself.

Kshartle,

You're saying that "violence" doesn't solve problems... Can I assume that when you say that you're redefining the word as "illegitimate" violence?

Because shooting a trespasser or throwing a punch to defend yourself is "violence."

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Kshartle, I would like to posit that I have been more convincing to Moda, Gumby, and Xan in this thread than you've been. If I am correct in that assertion, and if your goal is to either convince people of your point of view, or sharpen your arguments (which would be demonstrated by successfully convincing people of your point of view), what can you learn from my discussion style? Because it sure looks to me like you're alienating everyone you talk to here because your approach is not working. Perhaps it's time to change it?

What do you think you've convinced them of?

The only reason we have these discussions is because I bring the obvious truth that violence doesn't solve problems. I don't hide from it and pretend we should accept beatings because they're better than murder.

I have convinced them that a non-government system of consequences can keep badly-behaving people in line without needing a central violence monopolist. I did this by admitting that violence and the threat of it will still exist and be used frequently in defensive contexts rather than basing it on an improvement in the moral compasses of the majority of humans. I gave specific, reasonable examples and avoided arguing in black-and-white moral absolutes.

And now I've gotten them to the point where they're challenging me on the really hard cases like hobo murder (that even governments have trouble with), having all but admitted that my proposed system would probably work in most of the easy ones. I think that's an impressive achievement, if I do say so myself.

No it's not shaby at all. It's definately not what I'm discussing though. To me, that is more of the hair falling out vs. the cancer (which I'm trying to discuss). I'm not interested in government vs. market solutions (except if we're thinking of business ideas). I'm interested in non-violence vs. violence when the goal is solving the long term problems of the world. 

Even you can convince them over 100 of their worries that the free market can solve a problem better than government....they still will default to the belief that violence is justified or neccessary. It's Pyrrhic victory. It's the libertarian cause which I think hurts humanity in the long run because it is a comprimise.

And I am certain I would never be able to convince them that the initiation of force is immoral. At least...I'm certain the cost to me would not be worth it. As I've said....it's either to sharpen arguments or move onto more receptive people who already have a foundation in that concept.

The spark for this enitre thread and what really made it take off as far as i can tell was my explanation of the problem and the practical solution of embracing the non-agression principle. Now that might be me being conceited, but I think I've never expressed it so clearly before and that means I've sharpened it. Convincing moda, gumby, or Xan is not my measuring stick.

What did you think of the argument? Sorry I don't know how to link back. I think it's on page 4 or 5...it's lengthy.

moda0306 wrote: Kshartle,

You're saying that "violence" doesn't solve problems... Can I assume that when you say that you're redefining the word as "illegitimate" violence?

Because shooting a trespasser or throwing a punch to defend yourself is "violence."

yes it just get tiring typing "the initiation of force".

TIOF - if I type that will you know what I mean?

Defense of one's self and one's property is ok. That doesn't mean shooting everyone who steps into your woodland lair though

Kshartle wrote:Defense of one's self and one's property is ok. That doesn't mean shooting everyone who steps into your woodland lair though

It doesn't?  Why not?  Who says?  Do I really "own" it if I can't defend it in such a manner?

Kshartle wrote: The spark for this enitre thread and what really made it take off as far as i can tell was my explanation of the problem and the practical solution of embracing the non-agression principle. Now that might be me being conceited, but I think I've never expressed it so clearly before and that means I've sharpened it. Convincing moda, gumby, or Xan is not my measuring stick.

If it's not externally measurable in some way, how can you tell if you're right or not? Even if you think you're expressed the sharpest, most polished argument in the world, if it doesn't convince anybody, then is it really? I mean, the entire purpose of an argument is to convince people. Crafting a brilliant argument that doesn't convince anybody is like designing an amazing car that nobody wants to drive. What's the point?

Kshartle wrote:Even you can convince them over 100 of their worries that the free market can solve a problem better than government....they still will default to the belief that violence is justified or necessary.

Because the threat of violence is necessary if you have a group of people that want to enforce a public or private ordinance, or set of rules. (Unless you can prove otherwise).

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: The spark for this enitre thread and what really made it take off as far as i can tell was my explanation of the problem and the practical solution of embracing the non-agression principle. Now that might be me being conceited, but I think I've never expressed it so clearly before and that means I've sharpened it. Convincing moda, gumby, or Xan is not my measuring stick.

If it's not externally measurable in some way, how can you tell if you're right or not? Even if you think you're expressed the sharpest, most polished argument in the world, if it doesn't convince anybody, then is it really? I mean, the entire purpose of an argument is to convince people. Crafting a brilliant argument that doesn't convince anybody is like designing an amazing car that nobody wants to drive. What's the point?

So what did you think of it?

Obviously this is a forum where we post short messages....not tomes. No argument is complete in a post. Certainly convincing people that humans own their own lives and have a right to their lives and property and the initiation of force is immoral and results in perverse consequences....this is as argument that can't be completed in a dozen posts unless the other party has a good foundation to build on.

Not sure about Xan but Gumby and Moda are deeply, deeply entrenched in their beleif in government and violent solutions. How many times have you disucssed it with them? They are not the yardstick by which you should measure your argument, imo.

But anyway, I thought I encapsulated the problem, the only solution to the problem, and the practical step everyone can take today to work towards the solution in one admittedly lengthy post.

Did you read it? What did I miss or what should I remove?

Another way of putting things, Kshartle, is that I'm trying to win battles but you're convinced you can win the entire war in one fell swoop. That's not how it works, I don't think. To convince people to believe things that seem really radical to them (like voluntary market solutions to challenging social problems), you can't just find the "switch" you need to flip that will make them see the total wrongness of everything they previously believed; rather, it's a process. A long process that involves answering their questions, responding to their worries, and reassuring them that you're a reasonable person yourself such that if they did join your side, they feel like they'd be comfortable there.

Gumby wrote:

Kshartle wrote:Even you can convince them over 100 of their worries that the free market can solve a problem better than government....they still will default to the belief that violence is justified or necessary.

Because the threat of violence is necessary if you have a group of people that want to enforce a public or private ordinance, or set of rules. (Unless you can prove otherwise).

It's true unless I can prove otherwise?

Before going further I'd like you to recognize that your argument is fallacious.

Pointedstick wrote: Another way of putting things, Kshartle, is that I'm trying to win battles but you're convinced you can win the entire war in one fell swoop.

One fell swoop?

I've started the swooping at getting us to agree that we exist, and that consitency is preferable to inconsistency.

I've swooped through a brazzilion hoops.

Kshartle wrote: So what did you think of it?

Obviously this is a forum where we post short messages....not tomes. No argument is complete in a post. Certainly convincing people that humans own their own lives and have a right to their lives and property and the initiation of force is immoral and results in perverse consequences....this is as argument that can't be completed in a dozen posts unless the other party has a good foundation to build on.

This was the post about raising children better, right? I thought it was pretty good, but like any argument, it can't stand alone. When people started asking you questions about it, you kind of fell apart. You had a good thing going but needed to elaborate in a way that made sense to people rather than repeating the same points over and over again.

Kshartle wrote: Not sure about Xan but Gumby and Moda are deeply, deeply entrenched in their beleif in government and violent solutions. How many times have you disucssed it with them? They are not the yardstick by which you should measure your argument, imo.

Oh, but they are. If I can convince them, think about how powerful my arguments will be to everyone else. Why not sharpen your knives on the finest whetstones available?

Kshartle wrote:

Gumby wrote:

Kshartle wrote:Even you can convince them over 100 of their worries that the free market can solve a problem better than government....they still will default to the belief that violence is justified or necessary.

Because the threat of violence is necessary if you have a group of people that want to enforce a public or private ordinance, or set of rules. (Unless you can prove otherwise).

It's true unless I can prove otherwise?

Before going further I'd like you to recognize that your argument is fallacious.

No... I'm simply saying that anybody who already believes (right or wrong) that the government solves problems won't be convinced that people can enforce a set of rules without a threat of violence.

Kshartle wrote:Gumby and Moda are deeply, deeply entrenched in their beleif in government and violent solutions.

I'm sure we wouldn't be deeply entrenched in our beliefs if you could simply explain how people on a street (i.e. your neighbors that you're trying to convince) could set up a bunch of rules and enforce them without the threat of violence.

If your arguments are so logical, surely you would be able to explain that to all of us.

Even Pointedstick does not believe that you can always enforce a set of private rules without the threat of violence backing it in some way. Are you the only one who believes that KShartle? It certainly seems that way. But, please, convince us how we can enforce rules without the threat of violence.

Pointedstick wrote: Another way of putting things, Kshartle, is that I'm trying to win battles but you're convinced you can win the entire war in one fell swoop. That's not how it works, I don't think. To convince people to believe things that seem really radical to them (like voluntary market solutions to challenging social problems),

I really think it makes more sense to argue the morality. Even if you convince people that market solutions are better....it's a Pyrrhic victory. They can always be convinced that a violent solution is better because they are not guided by morality or principles or an understanding of right and wrong. They still beleive the ends justify the means.

So that's where the libertarian argument always gets impaled. You can't explain how everything will work better. They can always envision another scenario and fantasize about a new law or politician saving the day.

Gumby wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Gumby wrote: Because the threat of violence is necessary if you have a group of people that want to enforce a public or private ordinance, or set of rules. (Unless you can prove otherwise).

It's true unless I can prove otherwise?

Before going further I'd like you to recognize that your argument is fallacious.

No... I'm simply saying that anybody who already believes (right or wrong) that the government solves problems won't be convinced that people can enforce a set of rules without a threat of violence.

Can you prove that? If you can't then it must be false. Please prove it. If you don't then by default I'm right.

Gumby wrote: Even Pointedstick does not believe that you can always enforce a set of private rules without the threat of violence backing it in some way. Are you the only one who believes that KShartle? It certainly seems that way. But, please, convince us how we can enforce rules without the threat of violence.

I don't what you mean by "enforce private rules". The only rules are respect the rights of others. Respect their persons and their property. Don't hit, don't steal.

Will that require defense at times? Yes. Defense is not the same as the initiation of force. Sometimes I use the two interchangebly because my god I've said 100k times that defense of life liberty and the product of your life and liberty is legitimate use of violence. I mean.......If I posted that as my motto would you remember it?

Kshartle,

You're unconvincing to even people who would otherwise want to agree with you because you use sloppily-defined terms and sloppily-assembled logic combined with utter and complete certainty in your language and conclusions.

It should tell you something that after dozens of pages of posts where you tried to pick apart everyone else's uses of "logical fallacies" in the midst of a discussion that was NOT a case of deductive logic, and after post-after-post where I was trying to have a discussion with you about the fact that your assertions are based on inductive logic, not deductive logic, you FINALLY admitted that you simply didn't know what the terms meant, and implicitly that you hadn't looked them up at all the entire time we were discussing these topics.  You didn't ask what they meant, you simply shrugged off not knowing what they meant as being immaterial to the discussion, then moved on to continuing to make your same old arguments over and over.

Also, in the discussions of our monetary system, it took you forever to even consider anything about what Gumby was saying about our fractional-reserve banking system and how it truly worked.  Then, once again, you just abandoned that new knowledge and went back to your old arguments.

This reveals (to me) a very high amount of intellectual stubbornness, where you are going to find it simultaneously difficult to learn new things, and VERY difficult to convince others of your arguments.

Add on top of it that you don't like:

- any logical fallacies (even in discussions that aren't about iron-clad logic being available)
- any links to outside sources
- any quotes of outside sources
- questions
- grey areas that challenge your logic, or might present a moral dilemma in how they are applied (they are just hand-waved away)
- historical references that challenge your opinions on human behavior given a certain set of conditions
- descriptions of how systems work
- discussing definitions of terms (well, sometimes you're ok with this) that are CRUCIAL to how we form our conclusions of what your asserting

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Kshartle,

You're saying that "violence" doesn't solve problems... Can I assume that when you say that you're redefining the word as "illegitimate" violence?

Because shooting a trespasser or throwing a punch to defend yourself is "violence."

yes it just get tiring typing "the initiation of force".

TIOF - if I type that will you know what I mean?

Defense of one's self and one's property is ok. That doesn't mean shooting everyone who steps into your woodland lair though

Why isn't it ok to shoot a trespasser?  Or to flip it, why is it ok that I "defend my property?"

If I truly believe in self-ownership for every person, how could it possibly be ok for me to take someone's life over a dispute over a tangible good?

Maybe no violence...  Period...  Should be a mottow.  No defense of land.  Nothing.  You live your life and bend over backwards to never bring harm to another sovereign human.  If someone comes charging at you with a knife, it COULD be for some other reason than to kill you, so give him the benefit of the doubt.

Where did you determine that YOU get to define what is property, AND what actions fall into what is legitimate defense of property vs just vioence?

Because these things are essentially what government is... so you're just breaking up government into little angry pieces, not getting rid of it. 

Kshartle wrote:

Gumby wrote:

Kshartle wrote: It's true unless I can prove otherwise?

Before going further I'd like you to recognize that your argument is fallacious.

No... I'm simply saying that anybody who already believes (right or wrong) that the government solves problems won't be convinced that people can enforce a set of rules without a threat of violence.

Can you prove that? If you can't then it must be false. Please prove it. If you don't then by default I'm right.

K,

You are the one claiming that this is simple logic.  Gumby and I are stating that in morality there IS no clear logic.  With property there is no clear connection between us as human and the world around us.  With violence, there is no clear line at what point something is defense vs violence, especially when talking about property.

The burden of proof is on the person claiming they have a logical conclusion.  The only burden on the other party is to poke holes in their logic.

You'd have made things much easier on yourself if you posed your assertions more like PS, and didn't make them sound like the logical conclusion to some perfectly sound/valid logical structure.

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: So what did you think of it?

Obviously this is a forum where we post short messages....not tomes. No argument is complete in a post. Certainly convincing people that humans own their own lives and have a right to their lives and property and the initiation of force is immoral and results in perverse consequences....this is as argument that can't be completed in a dozen posts unless the other party has a good foundation to build on.

This was the post about raising children better, right? I thought it was pretty good, but like any argument, it can't stand alone. When people started asking you questions about it, you kind of fell apart. You had a good thing going but needed to elaborate in a way that made sense to people rather than repeating the same points over and over again.

The questions were the exact same ones that have been answered over and over again in previous threads by the exact same people.

All those questions have been answered and some of them are so lazy it's hard to believe. If this was a new discussion with new people it's one thing. But to have the same people ask the question "who will pick the cotton if we free the slaves?" for the 100th time when it's already been answered shows they don't care about the answer.

And I am at work and frequently away from my office.

Kshartle wrote:I don't what you mean by "enforce private rules". The only rules are respect the rights of others. Respect their persons and their property. Don't hit, don't steal.

But, those 3 or 4 rules are too limited for a group of people to live by. Most towns have hundreds of ordinances that are agreed upon by people in the community — to keep a certain way of life. So, my questions is, how does a community maintain those rules  — that most people like and want — without an underlying threat of violence?