Gyroscopic Investing

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: This potential problem hasn't been overlooked:

http://www.deepleafproductions.com/wils ... -RICH.html

Stage IV is a massive investment in adult education, for two reasons. (1) People can spend only so much time fucking, smoking dope, and watching TV; after a while they get bored. This is the main psychological objection to the workless society, and the answer to it is to educate people for functions more cerebral than fucking, smoking dope, watching TV, or the idiot jobs most are currently toiling at. (2) There are vast challenges and opportunities confronting us in the next three or four decades, of which the most notable are those highlighted in Tim Leary's SMI2LE slogan -- Space Migration, Intelligence Increase, Life Extension.

It just sounds so utopian to me. For the same reason why I worry about an unemployed fast-food cook being unable to make the transition to robot programming, I worry that he will similarly be unable to contribute to the fields of Space Migration, Intelligence Increase, or Life Extension.

Education isn't a panacea. I know you u sed to be a teacher so surely you're aware of this. There are some people you just can't teach. Their home lives are too chaotic or violent, or they can't concentrate, or they prefer physical activities to mental activities. You can't pretend that this hypothetical society is going to be totally devoid of people who would really prefer to be kicking a football or climbing a cliff face or shouldering a rifle. What is society going to do for them? Futilely treat them like round pegs in square holes as the educational system tries in vain to get them interested in cerebral activities while they gaze out the window longingly?

Teaching people is tough when you have to teach them boring things that are not relevant to them. Not everyone is interested in Shakespeare...

("Creative potential" is not a panchreston. It refers to the inborn drive to play, to tinker, to explore, and to experiment, shown by every child before his or her mental processes are stunted by authoritarian education and operant-conditioned wage-robotry.)

As Bucky Fuller says, the first thought of people, once they are delivered from wage slavery, will be, "What was it that I was so interested in as a youth, before I was told I had to earn a living?" The answer to that question, coming from millions and then billions of persons liberated from mechanical toil, will make the Renaissance look like a high school science fair or a Greenwich Village art show.

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Because in order to live in our present society, survival is determined by purchasing power, which is determined either by charity or a wage*. Someone who can't earn a wage is reliant on charity until they can earn a wage--if they're ever able to. Like it or not, most people enjoy having something productive to do. Even if it's not that useful, the human mind really seems to need some kind of productive activity to avoid becoming depressed or sinking into hedonistic debauchery. If we automate away all the crappy jobs, on one hand this is great because now nobody has to do crappy jobs! But on the other hand, all people formerly doing those crappy jobs who lack the ability to rise much farther than that need to do something. And we as a society seem to not have really figured out what that is yet. We have welfare, and we have prison, but I'd argue that neither of those represent very good solutions to the problem.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for robots to do the worst labor. But I'd also like to avoid dispossessed workers whose IQ falls on the left-hand side of the bell curve winding up in prison, on the dole, or at our doors with rifles and torches.

*Technically there's also investment returns and direct theft, but let's ignore those for now.

Whether a person is flipping burgers instead of a machine or learning how to play chopsticks on the piano they are doing something that is essentially worthless to society. However, what would you rather be doing with your time...something worthless and backbreaking and boring...or something that is more interesting and redeeming? I can't help it that the capitalist system contains a fundamental flaw regarding production and wages....but it is stupid to confine humans to back breaking labor because the system is poorly designed.

Kshartle wrote: I would like to point out this is a government built series of buildings.

Kshartle, you have a hang up with the idea of "government".....groups of people abuse other people...end of story. What are you going to do, ban group associations? That is all a modern government is...a big band of people grouped around a fictitious national identity.

In addition, humans are a wickedly destructive species. Look at the mass extinctions of animal species that closely follow our arrival in different parts of the world. We are so destructive that we don't even confine our destruction to animals that don't look like us, but rather divide up our own species into different colors, religions, languages, and then continue to slaughter.

Constantly projecting all of society's evils on government is a cop out.

You complain about captialism and anarchy then display a government death camp. I just want to point out you have it all completely backwards.

You complain about humans being destructive and violent and how that is negative. Well I agree. Perhaps we should stop pretending that force solves problems. That's what government is. It's not just a big band of people grouped around each other like the humane society or Apple employees. It's people who band together to promise everyone they'll solve problems with the use of force. If you don't see the difference you will draw incorrect conclusions about a great many things (Capitalism/free exchange of property without coercion) leads to death and destruction or poverty or some other malarky.

You do have a good point. Blamming problems on government is a cop-out. It's like blamming them on a dragon or something. Government doesn't exist anymore than a forest exists. The forest doesn't exist, the trees exist. the forest just exists in our minds.

The use of force to solve problems is the problem, not government. That force comes from people in all industries, all walks of life. The difference is governmental force is accepted by society while the other is rejected. All force should be rejected. That won't do away with it but it will cut it down to an amazing degree.

We may disagree on the last point but I think we agree on a lot more than at first glance.

Pointedstick wrote: a harmonious all-female society.

We have officially entered fantasy land. j/k ladies

As Bucky Fuller says, the first thought of people, once they are delivered from wage slavery, will be, "What was it that I was so interested in as a youth, before I was told I had to earn a living?"

Maybe that's true of exceptional people like Buckminster Fuller. Can we really say that it's true of everyone? If it's not, this whole idea seems to collapse.

doodle wrote:
My reference to "Arbeit macht Frei" is that it seems that there are people on this board who are arguing that we must keep people toiling in crappy jobs even though we have the technology to replace them either because we aren't creative enough to get around the issue of work and earned wages or because we cant think of what to do with these people other than have them flip burgers.

Agreed completely. You'll never hear me make such an argument. I think it's false.

Kshartle wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: Whether a person is flipping burgers instead of a machine or learning how to play chopsticks on the piano they are doing something that is essentially worthless to society. However, what would you rather be doing with your time...something worthless and backbreaking and boring...or something that is more interesting and redeeming? I can't help it that the capitalist system contains a fundamental flaw regarding production and wages....but it is stupid to confine humans to back breaking labor because the system is poorly designed.
Kshartle, you have a hang up with the idea of "government".....groups of people abuse other people...end of story. What are you going to do, ban group associations? That is all a modern government is...a big band of people grouped around a fictitious national identity.

In addition, humans are a wickedly destructive species. Look at the mass extinctions of animal species that closely follow our arrival in different parts of the world. We are so destructive that we don't even confine our destruction to animals that don't look like us, but rather divide up our own species into different colors, religions, languages, and then continue to slaughter.

Constantly projecting all of society's evils on government is a cop out.

You complain about captialism and anarchy then display a government death camp. I just want to point out you have it all completely backwards.

You complain about humans being destructive and violent and how that is negative. Well I agree. Perhaps we should stop pretending that force solves problems. That's what government is. It's not just a big band of people grouped around each other like the humane society or Apple employees. It's people who band together to promise everyone they'll solve problems with the use of force. If you don't see the difference you will draw incorrect conclusions about a great many things (Capitalism/free exchange of property without coercion) leads to death and destruction or poverty or some other malarky.

You do have a good point. Blamming problems on government is a cop-out. It's like blamming them on a dragon or something. Government doesn't exist anymore than a forest exists. The forest doesn't exist, the trees exist. the forest just exists in our minds.

The use of force to solve problems is the problem, not government. That force comes from people in all industries, all walks of life. The difference is governmental force is accepted by society while the other is rejected. All force should be rejected. That won't do away with it but it will cut it down to an amazing degree.

We may disagree on the last point but I think we agree on a lot more than at first glance.

Now we are getting to the root of the problem....force, control, power. My present perspective is that we are kind of locked into this relationship with other entities by the laws of nature. To even survive and eat we must exert force and control upon our surroundings. A Fundamental truth seems to be that Organisms interact with their environment and those interactions involve force. However, nature doesn't label that force as good and bad...we do. In nature, force works with a kind of harmony to create the circle of life. When humans stopped being a part of nature and instead decided to be above it as master of the planet, that is where the problems begin. Do I believe we can live in a government-less society? Yes. But I believe that such a society would require us to reenter our traditional place in nature. We cannot at the same time subdue the planet and all other species of animals and plants and at the same time proclaim that we should eliminate all relations of force.

TennPaGa wrote:

doodle wrote: My reference to "Arbeit macht Frei" is that it seems that there are people on this board who are arguing that we must keep people toiling in crappy jobs even though we have the technology to replace them either because we aren't creative enough to get around the issue of work and earned wages or because we cant think of what to do with these people other than have them flip burgers.

There are?  Did I miss something?  Or misinterpret something?

Arguing is a strong word. Every so slightly implying it with concern for the results of technology might be more accurate.

Now we are getting to the root of the problem....force, control, power. My present perspective is that we are kind of locked into this relationship with other entities by the laws of nature. To even survive and eat we must exert force and control upon our surroundings. A Fundamental truth seems to be that Organisms interact with their environment and those interactions involve force. However, nature doesn't label that force as good and bad...we do. In nature, force works with a kind of harmony to create the circle of life. When humans stopped being a part of nature and instead decided to be above it as master of the planet, that is where the problems begin. Do I believe we can live in a government-less society? Yes. But I believe that such a society would require us to reenter our traditional place in nature. We cannot at the same time subdue the planet and all other species of animals and plants and at the same time proclaim that we should eliminate all relations of force.

doodle,

Exaaaaactly.  We're forgetting that these ideas such as "rights" we may believe come from God or something, but they're in no way natural.  Every animal tends to think subconsciously that it has a right to life and maybe even property around it, but if you look at nature as a whole there is no "right" to anything... even your own indvidual sovereignty is subject to force by desease or predator.

To establish "rights" is to lift us above nature, even if it's just an internal philosophy one may have that one finds unenforcable.

Above the lion hunting the gazelle, the snake invading the bird's nest.

But we don't just ascribe ourselves individual sovereignty... for the sake of our own prosperity we claim lordship over land in ways that go WAY beyond mimicking a squirrel guarding his nest in a tree or a wolf claiming hunting land.... It's neither natural (in a biological way), nor is it directly related to indivdual sovereignty (the idea that we don't harm one another as a philisophical position). 

It's something else we add on, and in almost all cases, it takes an organized legal structure to give us this to any meaningful degree.  It "feels" natural because it's hard work to morph nature to our advantage.

However, doing this requires that we define what is ours for the taking, and whether government does it for us or we do it for ourselves, it means we have to exert some control over our environment, which almost always means shooting "trespassers," ignoring "lesser claims," and changing that environment, sometimes to the detriment of the surrounding areas,which is most certainly forceful.  It also messes with ecosystems, a form of force on others' ability to enjoy the land/water/air that they use.  Lastly, it almost always means that we're displacing certain native species of animal, who most certainly have instincts similar to ours about their "rights," but we conveniently don't deem them to have any... and it appears that we treat certain nomadic cultures or those who have more sustainable use of land to have no legitimate claim either... for some reason we have to modify the land from its original natural state to have claim.

So this whole idea of private property in nature, of actually being able to OWN vast acreage of nature, completely destroy that land from its original state and modify it to what we please, displace animals and/or nomadic cultures, ignore externalities, and shoot "trespassers," while extremely useful to some, is almost entirely a convenient sub-category of "using force."

So the problem isn't just that "we're not all libertarians," it's that our environmental constraints are not consistent wth the premises of libertarianism, or at least any form other than pure, property-right-ignoring anarchism... but then we're simply leaving ourselves ripe for takeover by some other force most-likely worse than our current federal government.

TennPaGa wrote: I am looking for doodle's response to my question.  Who is arguing that we must keep people toiling in crappy jobs?

I think they may be referring to me. But let the record show that I'm in no way, shape, or form arguing for this. Merely worrying about the consequences as technology eliminates the crappy jobs one by one. Heck, I work to hasten the process every day. Maybe my concern is guilt at feeling like in some small way, I'm contributing to something that benefits many, but also harms some.

If I didn't have my minimum wage jobs, I would have probably never got my entry level corporate job.

Random thought about this discussion:

In my senior college class, my eyes were opened by a single question from a professor.

The professor asked the class who got their job through a family member or friend?

28 of 30 students raised their hand.  Myself and another student were instantly pissed that we worked our asses off and we did not get this memo about easy street.   

Moral of my story: Minimum wage job was my first step, where apparently a high percentage of folks just use connections.

Pointedstick wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: I am looking for doodle's response to my question.  Who is arguing that we must keep people toiling in crappy jobs?

I think they may be referring to me. But let the record show that I'm in no way, shape, or form arguing for this. Merely worrying about the consequences as technology eliminates the crappy jobs one by one. Heck, I work to hasten the process every day. Maybe my concern is guilt at feeling like in some small way, I'm contributing to something that benefits many, but also harms some.

The federal government should take some of its vast land holdings in the western United States and turn some of it into a huge dude ranch where unemployed people from all over the U.S. could go to be cowboys and cowgirls.

Some people would undoubtedly call it a concentration camp for the poor and unemployed, but I'll bet the government would insist that it was just a dude ranch.

Bean wrote: If I didn't have my minimum wage jobs, I would have probably never got my entry level corporate job.

Random thought about this discussion:

In my senior college class, my eyes were opened by a single question from a professor.

The professor asked the class who got their job through a family member or friend?

28 of 30 students raised their hand.  Myself and another student were instantly pissed that we worked our asses off and we did not get this memo about easy street.   

Moral of my story: Minimum wage job was my first step, where apparently a high percentage of folks just use connections.

The jobs I could have gotten through my family and friends are not jobs I ever would have wanted.

My first legal job came from me sitting alone in a Starbucks one day and a group of attorneys sat down next to me and as they were talking about their practice it sounded interesting to me.  I walked over to their table and told them I couldn't help but overhear how interesting their practice sounded and asked if they felt like there were good opportunities out there doing that type of work.  One of them suggested I contact the partner at his law firm who managed that practice.  I cold called the partner and told him I had run into one of his associates and told him how interesting his work sounded and asked if he would be willing to have lunch with me and talk more about it.  He said yes, we had lunch, and after many more discussions and a few months I was hired at his firm doing the work that I continue to do today, 12 years later.

Bean wrote: In my senior college class, my eyes were opened by a single question from a professor.

The professor asked the class who got their job through a family member or friend?

28 of 30 students raised their hand.  Myself and another student were instantly pissed that we worked our asses off and we did not get this memo about easy street.   

Moral of my story: Minimum wage job was my first step, where apparently a high percentage of folks just use connections.

It wasn't my first job but I did get one through my dad after I came home from the war. He was a milkman and he told me if I went to work for his company I would have a job for life just like he did (He died last week at 94 and it was the only job he ever had). So he got me a job loading milk trucks for the next day's delivery at the end of an assembly line. It took me one night on the job to decide that this wasn't what I wanted to do for the rest of my life, much to my father's disappointment.

Moda, dead on!

So the problem isn't just that "we're not all libertarians," it's that our environmental constraints are not consistent wth the premises of libertarianism.

Nothing about existence itself is consistent with the tenets of libertarianism. Sure in theory it sounds like a wonderful idea, but once you get past the idea that we aren't isolated individuals floating around in autonomous bubbles and that we are on fact all inextricably linked to the same small piece of rock hurtling around space, then the notion of force being illegitimate is absurd. Even if unintentional, every action I undertake exhibits a force upon my surroundings. If the libertarian is an anarchist...I might disagree with them regarding their beliefs, but at least they are logically consistent. But when they start criticizing the illigitimacy of government force and in the same breath talking about the need to respect property rights, the hypocrisy is too much for me to handle. There is no way to have property rights but through force. And if you want to have anything that resembles our advanced society and economy, that force is going to have to be highly refined, codified, and consistent and enforced by some central agency. If you eliminate this central agency then you dont have enforceable laws or property rights, you just have anarchy and the law of the jungle.

TennPaGa wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: I am looking for doodle's response to my question.  Who is arguing that we must keep people toiling in crappy jobs?

I think they may be referring to me. But let the record show that I'm in no way, shape, or form arguing for this. Merely worrying about the consequences as technology eliminates the crappy jobs one by one. Heck, I work to hasten the process every day. Maybe my concern is guilt at feeling like in some small way, I'm contributing to something that benefits many, but also harms some.

I agree on both counts (i.e. that you are the one who doodle thinks is advocating people toil in their crappy jobs, and I don't think you've said anything close to this).

We have had about a dozen of these discussions so I can't pull a quote from this one, but the overall feeling that I get is that some people are worried that automation, or raising minimum wage will eliminate jobs and that these jobs are important to preserve because people need to work. I'm simply arguing that if it's possible to eliminate backbreaking jobs, then we should do it. We need to get over this protestant hurdle where people link labor and redemption. Sure, work is great....but doing the same task all day like some automaton isnt redeeming, it is degrading to men's souls.

doodle wrote: We have had about a dozen of these discussions so I can't pull a quote from this one, but the overall feeling that I get is that some people are worried that automation, or raising minimum wage will eliminate jobs and that these jobs are important to preserve because people need to work. I'm simply arguing that if it's possible to eliminate backbreaking jobs, then we should do it. We need to get over this protestant hurdle where people link labor and redemption. Sure, work is great....but doing the same task all day like some automaton isnt redeeming, it is degrading to men's souls.

As a general idea, I agree, by all means, let's automate away the degrading, useless, backbreaking jobs. But then I would raise a point that I believe you've made in the past: we have to figure out what to do with any of the people who previously held those jobs but don't really have what it takes to join the knowledge economy. Welfare or prison--the current options--are both really lousy choices, I think we can agree.

And this gets into a much more interesting philosophical discussion, but I don't think it's just some kind of protestant hangup. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that people in general derive a lot of psychological satisfaction from keeping busy and feeling useful, even if it's in a small way. Most of us, if given a virtually unlimited amount of free time caused by the elimination of our labor having any real value, are not just going to become self-actualized philosophers. I can't put my finger on how or why, but my gut feeling is that an awful lot of humans want to work with their hands in some way and will be really upset if the society simply doesn't let them because nobody values the output.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: We have had about a dozen of these discussions so I can't pull a quote from this one, but the overall feeling that I get is that some people are worried that automation, or raising minimum wage will eliminate jobs and that these jobs are important to preserve because people need to work. I'm simply arguing that if it's possible to eliminate backbreaking jobs, then we should do it. We need to get over this protestant hurdle where people link labor and redemption. Sure, work is great....but doing the same task all day like some automaton isnt redeeming, it is degrading to men's souls.

As a general idea, I agree, by all means, let's automate away the degrading, useless, backbreaking jobs. But then I would raise a point that I believe you've made in the past: we have to figure out what to do with any of the people who previously held those jobs but don't really have what it takes to join the knowledge economy. Welfare or prison--the current options--are both really lousy choices, I think we can agree.

And this gets into a much more interesting philosophical discussion, but I don't think it's just some kind of protestant hangup. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that people in general derive a lot of psychological satisfaction from keeping busy and feeling useful, even if it's in a small way. Most of us, if given a virtually unlimited amount of free time caused by the elimination of our labor having any real value, are not just going to become self-actualized philosophers. I can't put my finger on how or why, but my gut feeling is that an awful lot of humans want to work with their hands in some way and will be really upset if the society simply doesn't let them because nobody values the output.

For the first time, humans would be free to do whatever they like. If they want to paint...do that. If they want to garden, do that. If they want to build bikes...do that. Instead of having to sit in a chair all day and connect widget A to gizmo B...they can ask themselves the question, what am I really interested in? Even if machines are capable of making all of our furniture in the future, that doesn't mean that someone can't go out in the forest, harvest some wood, and make their own. The best part about it is that they will be engaged in the labor for the pure joy of what they are doing. When I was a child I didn't need to be compelled by my parents to build cities out of Legos, or practice the guitar, or learn how to cook. I did these things for hours on end with devoted attention even though there was no monetary gain to be had from the activity. Sometimes, it is the money itself that drains the joy out of life's activities.

doodle wrote: Moda, dead on!

So the problem isn't just that "we're not all libertarians," it's that our environmental constraints are not consistent wth the premises of libertarianism.

Nothing about existence itself is consistent with the tenets of libertarianism. Sure in theory it sounds like a wonderful idea, but once you get past the idea that we aren't isolated individuals floating around in autonomous bubbles and that we are on fact all inextricably linked to the same small piece of rock hurtling around space, then the notion of force being illegitimate is absurd. Even if unintentional, every action I undertake exhibits a force upon my surroundings. If the libertarian is an anarchist...I might disagree with them regarding their beliefs, but at least they are logically consistent. But when they start criticizing the illigitimacy of government force and in the same breath talking about the need to respect property rights, the hypocrisy is too much for me to handle. There is no way to have property rights but through force. And if you want to have anything that resembles our advanced society and economy, that force is going to have to be highly refined, codified, and consistent and enforced by some central agency. If you eliminate this central agency then you dont have enforceable laws or property rights, you just have anarchy and the law of the jungle.

I almost totally agree.

I wouldn't say "nothing about existence itself is consistent with the tenets of libertarianism."  That's almost making libertarianism sound like a complete failure or flop.  I think the idea of individual sovereignty is a phenomenal one.  Now we don't include animals in there, but to have some sort of non-animalistic code of morality I think is a good idea... I probably simply think that way because some unpleasant chemical rushes through my brain when I see people inflict pain on others unnecessarily.

And if we're going to have an entity that has as much power as goverment does, I think we should encourage said entity to carry the idea of individual sovereignty in its collective hive mind as it passes and enforces laws, and engages in war and regulation.

So if the whole idea behind having a moral philosophy and a political framework to protect people is that "there's something special about us," then making sure that the government is treating us all like "something special" and not a cog in a machine is important.  Libertarianism is a strong voice in making sure that inefficiencies are pointed out, and direct government threats to individual sovereignty (or at least some of them) are being pointed out.  I like that they do this, and there's a lot of validity to a premise CLOSE to the one that they're illustrating.

So I think that there is one more premise to add to libertarianism that has to some how be mixed in with it, but in many ways is at odds with it.... I look at it like this...

1) Individuals are sovereign entities with free will, and they should not be forced to do things they don't want to do.
2) All us individuals are stuck on a big rock together with limited space and natural resources with which to live, share and enjoy life.

Trying to mix these two quasi-inconsistent truths together into one reality creates a lot of complications that leave neither premise perfectly respected.  Add to that the fact that most people don't desire perfect freedom at the expense of some minimum level of social harmony, and most people believe that government contributes to some of that social harmony in some important ways.

In the end, we're only sovereign entities because we're unique enough to DESIRE to be sovereign, free entities, right?  If we were too animalistic to even have desires, we couldn't have built a philisophical framework to respect those desires, and even if other entities could create a moral framework for us, they would be irrelevent, cuz if something has no desire or consciousness, it's not really something we worry about (a tree, or bacteria).

Well, we also desire many other things, and to be 100% free at the expense of things such as security, prosperity, health, etc, is usually not where people place their balance.  And if we can't be 100% free on this rock anyway, why try to create a system (or lack thereof) that prioritizes an impossible-to-obtain desire (perfect freedom from force), when we have other desires that are equally important to balance against it (to most people, anyway).

Moda,

I think you should contact this guy and debate him on free domain radio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

He took on Sam Seder a couple of times, but I think you would do a better job.

I think some of these debates are best had over time where you can come back after you've had time to absorb things.

Usually the Internet wouldn't be a good place, but this forum's way different.

The radio, it seems to me, would be an awful place to have this debate. But maybe this guy is different.

Also, I don't know if I could verbally debate as well as I can write my logic.