Gyroscopic Investing

moda0306 wrote: I think where things get really foggy is how they translate into property rights... This is the main area where our moral dilemma presents itself, and disagreement ensues, and what the best way to deal with the moral dilemma becomes a valid argument.

Let me see if I can properly address where the bulk of our disagreemt arises.

There is a belief that since the Earth has limited resources, humans will compete for these resources and the gain of one might entail the loss to another. So any act of ownership over resources is a denial of those to another. That means we must figure out some criteria logical and enforce it so that some humans aren't left out in the cold so to speak while others have abundance. This is the "moral dilemma" of property rights right?

Ok I really paraphrased that. I could go into a lot more detail but I want to be sure I'm on the right track. I think I have a rock-solid explanation of why this isn't a problem or a dilemma of any kind but I want to be sure I understand where you're coming from first.

Pointedstick wrote: It's more like, sometimes it seems like you have a poor grasp of how most people less smart than you actually think and feel. "I believe it because I believe it" is pretty much how 95%+ of humanity approaches subjective abstract ideas. I mean, that's what religion is, right? You think all those believers went out to look for evidence of God or the spirits or whatever? They believe in their religion because they believe, end of story.

Will you pardon me if I dissagree?

I'm going to state this in a matter-of-fact way because I'm very confident of it:

1. People may say "I beleive it because I beleive it", but just because they say something that doesn't make it true. They are just unable or unwilling to articulate why they believe. We can use religion as an example. We know for a fact millions or billions of people beleive simply because their parents, teachers, entire society taught them that. We know that because if you're born in Oman, chances are you'll be a muslim, in Chile you're likely to be Catholic etc. To not believe means to admit that you've been lied to by your parents, friends, teachers, society etc. You have to reject so much of what makes you who you are it can be tremendously traumatic. So traumatic many will not even face the possibility. Others will continue to believe because they might not even have a concept of provable logic or reality or high intellectual capacity and it's easier to just accept...it saves time if they don't have to think about stuff....it makes their life easier. Some believe because they don't want to take the risk of burning in Hell.

There are plenty of other reasons and I don't mean to offend any believers. Personal change in your life as a result of your belief or the seemingly imossibility that the universe is so organized that someone or some group must have organized it etc.

None of these reasons for belief are just because you beleive. It's like saying "I ran because I was running". Well, no, that doesn't explain why you were running it's just re-stating it. You can't explain why someone does something by saying they do it, even if they can't or won't give you the reason.

Incindently, if the truthfulness of something rests on belief, then does God not exist because I don't beleive in him. There are members who do beleive in him. So can he exist and not exist at the same time? Existing in the mind is not existing in reality. I'm talking about reality since it's real.

MediumTex wrote:

Xan wrote: I think you'll find that relying on logic for everything also is circular reasoning.  You can't prove logic with logic.  You believe in logic because you believe, end of story.  You may have found that it "works" and so you trust it, but that's true for plenty of people with their religions as well.  But ultimately all reasoning is circular; it's all based on axioms which are assumed to be true, and on which not everyone agrees.

If a scientist tells you that he has figured everything out except the nature of the first cause that set the universe in motion, is he really so different from the man in the village deep in the jungle who tells you that he has figured everything out except what the tree god looked like before he was a seed?

Yes he is Tex. The scientist is searching for the answers and using his intelligence and deductive reasoning to understand the world around him. The jungle villager has declared he knows the answer (the gods) and basis this on nothing but his own refusal to try to understand the world. It's intellectual sloth.

Rien wrote: We can thus propose moralities and investigate whether or not they can be universally applied. This does not mean that we can derive a morality (which is probably what you meant to say by "morality is unprovable") but it does allow us to pass judgement on a proposed morality.

The Non Aggression Principle is such a proposed morality. And to the best of my knowledge it is the only morality that is logically consistent with the universality principle.

However there is no past where this morality has been used so it is impossible make a case from effect. Personally I believe that a morality based on NAP will prove to be the best possible morality, but until we try we cannot prove this. There seems to be a bias in history toward less violence and more property rights, and this bias seems to run in parallel with better living conditions. But cause and effect is unproven.

+1 Rien. Although I can't say definitively that we can't prove it without trying it first. I think it might be possible to prove it.  Did we have to launch a rocket into space before it was proven that it would work?

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I think where things get really foggy is how they translate into property rights... This is the main area where our moral dilemma presents itself, and disagreement ensues, and what the best way to deal with the moral dilemma becomes a valid argument.

Let me see if I can properly address where the bulk of our disagreemt arises.

There is a belief that since the Earth has limited resources, humans will compete for these resources and the gain of one might entail the loss to another. So any act of ownership over resources is a denial of those to another. That means we must figure out some criteria logical and enforce it so that some humans aren't left out in the cold so to speak while others have abundance. This is the "moral dilemma" of property rights right?

Ok I really paraphrased that. I could go into a lot more detail but I want to be sure I'm on the right track. I think I have a rock-solid explanation of why this isn't a problem or a dilemma of any kind but I want to be sure I understand where you're coming from first.

That's pretty close to it... MT had a good point that lends to this (and my quote reenforces it)... that people's legitimate "property" is the value they add to a piece of land or existing property, not the resource itself.

This implies that there is some "net worth" tied up in resources themselves, rather than any one person's additional value added to them.  To deny certain people ANY right to these resources by claiming them as our own either by conquering them, or by "making them better," is to essentially steal value from all the other people that could have used it.

Most of the land claimed in the U.S. was not done in this context.  The US government said, basically, "if you can do something productive with it, we'll allow you legal title to it, and maybe even shoot some Indians that 'trespass' on your property."  This was an order by government without which many people would simply NOT have moved West, drilled for oil, etc, because the risk of claiming what was quasi-occupied property would have been too high without a government guarantee. 


Further, I think it would help to define your term "ownership."  I tried to give a few of the potential definitions of it, but would like to see yours (though I'm sure you've given it, somewhere... sorry for the repeat request). I still think you're moving from one definition to the other.  I may understand the consequences of my actions, and am able to control my actions, so since I can control them one could say I "own" them from a functional perspective, and if there IS an established moral principal, I'm responsible if I violate it, but it doesn't, in and of itself, establish a moral principal.... or more specifically, to "own" something from a moral perspective is not just about control of it, but having a morally valid claim to it.  I may "own" a stolen car from a functional standpoint, but I don't, morally.  I may have been able to "own" another human being in 1850, but I didn't have any moral "ownership" of him. 

See what I mean?  You're taking a functional FACT (I agree that we have conscious control of our actions an understand consequences), and moving to a different definition of the same word and making it a moral argument.  And it's not that I don't agree with it mostly.  I think the fact that we can control what we do, and have a conscious understanding of the results of our actions is a HUGE piece of building a moral structure atop it.  It's NECESSARY for morality, because the existence of a moral code involves 1) understanding consequences, and 2) being able to choose our actions.

So I'm simultaneously extremely close to agreeing with you, while saying that there is a wall between your attempt to link our conscious control of our actions, and morality in and of itself.  One requires the other (morality requires conscious understanding and control of our actions), but the other doesn't naturally follow from the former (control of our actions doesn't necessarily, logically mean that someone else attempting to force us to do something is wrong).

Further, as I've said a bunch of times, any misinterpretation (to the detriment of others' potential sharing of claims) of the extension of any individual sovereignty (self-ownership) that I MIGHT have (I do believe we have it), is, in fact, an act of force, not enforcement.  Building a fence around something that is not mine, and shooting trespassers is force, not enforcement (as you've said), and since we live in a world of varying opinions (none of which is provably right/wrong) on HOW our individual sovereignty extends outside our bodies, we MUST have force.  Even if it's us thinking that we're "enforcing" when we're really just "forcing."  So do we take the force we know/understand (government), and replace it with random, uncontrolled, individual expressions of "force" that many practitioners of will see as "enforcement" (and therefore are just mini-governments, essentially)? 

Some would say yes.  But I would argue that they're not advocating for no use of force, but just different use of force, that HOPEFULLY will look less like "force" and more like "individual enforcement."

Rien wrote:

moda0306 wrote:- Morality is unprovable

What exactly do you mean by that?

Do you claim that morality has no consequences? Based on your previous posts I do not believe you do.

If you accept that morality has consequences then it becomes possible to judge a certain morality on these consequences.

Common to all moralities is the claim that it applies to everyone. Personal moralities are not really moralities. While it is perhaps possible for a single person to refer to his morality in isolation, morality is normally used to govern the interactions between people.

Morality thus implies a claim that it is universally applicable.

This gives us a chance to evaluate a morality based on this universality rule.

We can thus propose moralities and investigate whether or not they can be universally applied. This does not mean that we can derive a morality (which is probably what you meant to say by "morality is unprovable") but it does allow us to pass judgement on a proposed morality.

The Non Aggression Principle is such a proposed morality. And to the best of my knowledge it is the only morality that is logically consistent with the universality principle.

However there is no past where this morality has been used so it is impossible make a case from effect. Personally I believe that a morality based on NAP will prove to be the best possible morality, but until we try we cannot prove this. There seems to be a bias in history toward less violence and more property rights, and this bias seems to run in parallel with better living conditions. But cause and effect is unproven.

I mean that it's impossible (as far as I've seen) to prove logically that an act is right or wrong, because any premise that helps build that logic is usually subjetive and somewhat vague when applied to our "moral dilemma" (all trapped on a desert island together), like:

"Humans have individual sovereignty."

"Humans have a right to property."

"Forcing other humans to do something is wrong."

"An act should be judged not on its end-result, but on the intrinsic, direct nature of the act and whether it violates these principals."

The non-aggression principal is fine if we were all nebulous entities floating through space, but we're not... we're subject to natural laws and we're all stuck on this rock together, and have to claim and mold resources from said rock to survivive and prosper.

Morality has consequences, but we have to establish a sound premise which we can build morality upon.

This comment by a LIBERTARIAN within a conversation about whether libertarianism is about competition or property explains it pretty well:

The non-coercion principle! It achieves many great things at once:

1- It seizes the moral high ground in much the same way that declaring human life to begin at conception does. In both cases you get a pure, platonic essence, a crystal declaration, that declares a priori that the declarer is not only morally superior, but safe from argument. Because any demurral must be, by nature, either a violent thief or a murderer!

2- "I own what I own and if the government come to take what is mine, then it is violent theft." Again, convenient. Ignoring the fact that ownership itself is a convention within any given society of assumptions as to what ownership means. And disagreements over that meaning have always been settled by violence. COnsensus LAW, mediated by government" has been the only EXCEPTION to the rule of ownership by might!

3- Like the anti-abortionists, the holders of non-coercion can point to no basis in nature, in natural law, in thermodynamics, genetics or any other verifiable science for the centrality of their "obvious and fundamental" principle. Indeed, life and nature have been always exceptionally violent and so was our evolution.

4- Indeed, as Daniel Pinker shows, the rates of violence have only fallen in the last 60 years... because... of the consensus systems called nations and many many fine-tuned rule sets mediated by... government. It has been PRACTICAL men and women - not platonist idealists - who have wrought this miracle.

It's from the comments in this article, which is an interesting read:

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2012/01/i ... about.html

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: What is a corporation (an economic interest) that tries to grab power beyond providing goods and services to the market usually called?  Isn't it usually just simply referred to as either a gang or government?

There are so many things to respond to in these posts it's just an impossible task

A corporation is NOTHING like a government. Corporations are groups of people that make offers for trade. Trade your property, trade your labor, trade political favors even.

The government is a group of people using the gun. That is the distinction. It's such a huge difference they don't belong in the same breath.

The idea that a corporation can control a government.......look, starbucks doesn't have an army, a navy, courts, dungeons. To the extent they bribe the guy with the gun to point it at their enemies.....they are still appealing to the true master. The true master is the one who no one else can hold accountable and has a monopoly on violence.

I didn't say they were the same.  As soon as a group of people quit trying to produce goods and services, and start pointing guns, they're going to be called a gang or government.  Naturally, what we call a "corporation," (which you've stated doesn't even exist), is a group of peope seeking profit, using production of goods and services.  Any entity that is seeking its gains by committing genocide, by natural definition, isn't going to be called a "corporation," even if they're organized around a goal, because that goal isn't "producing goods or services."  It's genocide.  Besides, most of what people here are advocating government do is arguably beneficial to trade, not a hinderance to it, so we're not talking about backin genocide or nuclear war here.

The problem is, though, that we call anything from an honest judge in a small villiage, to a racist cop that beats suspects, to a Social Security Administrator, to a gang of thugs that commits genocide... "GOVERNMENT."  You act like it's all the same, so you can then say "we can't trust them."

And what is this "monopoly on violence?"  I hear it a lot, but can it really be a "monopoly" if 1) there are various levels of government, or various governments, with this right (within the U.S. alone there are millions of towns with police forces, counties, states, and then our federal government... there's also individuals and private security firms that have a right recognized by most levels of government to defend themselves or a piece of property... not to menton different models in hundreds of countries worldwide... it's no monopoly), and 2) if it's not a good/service.  "Violence" or "the use of force" is a method to drive behavior, and may either be legitimate or illegitimate.  It's not a good or service.  The term monopoly doesn't even apply.  It'd be like saying I have a "monopoly" on "moda insults."  It's just a pejorative (monopoly) combined with another (violence) to make something sound like The Empire in Star Wars.

Also, if you can BUY the influence of an agent of the use of force as a "corporation," but that agent of force needs to compete with another agent of force every 4 years (who will make the same deal with you as a corporation) to hold his seat, who really has the power?  The thug agent of force?  Or the corporation who pays him?  It's symbiotic, to be sure, but I'm willing to bet the Corporation heads feel more comfortable about their position in the economy than the politician feels secure in his seat in the government.

Weren't entire wars and "rebellions" in South America essentially indirectly engineered by corporations?

I should have said, "Monopoly on the accepted use of violence" or something like that. The government can use violence and claims it as a right that only it has. Agressive force is a better term, since defending yourself is legal.

When I say government I mean the people who are referred to as the government...it's just a convinience word like corportation and not something that actually exists in a physical form.

"most of what people here are advocating government do is arguably beneficial to trade" - yes that argument is being made, and I think it's wrong, that's why I'm arguing against it. I just think the economic argument has been tried for so long and proven to be such a failure I'm trying to explain why the use of force is immoral. If we can understand with certainty that a person owns themselves we can understand the nature of property rights. Then we can know, I mean really know, not just write off that when we steal and murder we are violating the rights of another. Therefore all "government" solutions are predicated on the violation of human rights. The problems that we attepmt to solve with more violence (government) were created by violence, not trade and negotiation. So the idea that violence can solve the problems that come from violence, or the use of force more specifically, is nonsensical. The solution to the problems that come from the use of force (poverty, untimely death etc.) have one solution...humans stopping from trying to solve their problems with the use of force.

moda0306 wrote: Also, if you can BUY the influence of an agent of the use of force as a "corporation," but that agent of force needs to compete with another agent of force every 4 years (who will make the same deal with you as a corporation) to hold his seat, who really has the power?  The thug agent of force?  Or the corporation who pays him?  It's symbiotic, to be sure, but I'm willing to bet the Corporation heads feel more comfortable about their position in the economy than the politician feels secure in his seat in the government.

Weren't entire wars and "rebellions" in South America essentially indirectly engineered by corporations?

This is why arguing that we just need a different group of rulers or a better constitution or better laws or better voters or any of that is so foolish and such a failure. It's not government that should be opposed. It's not Democracy or Socialism or Fascism or Communism or Monarchy or any of that that is bad. It's the acceptance of the use of force against other people to get what you want. It's that people, "good" people, still think that works. They claim we can help the poor if we just steal more, or we can be safer if we just attack more countries/people, we can have better technology if we just steal money and give it to scientists, we can have less crime if we make stealing and murder illegal (except for the government). We can have less violence if the entire society lives under the threat of un-resistible violence (the original premise of this thread).

We discuss the symptoms and never the cause, or miss-diagnose the cause. That's why I'm so vehement that we get to the cause if we're going to really discuss a solution. The government solutions are fantasies. I mean do you guys really think obamacare is going to make health care better? Do you think they can "fix" Obamacare? It's so flawed from a moral standpoint it can't do anything except cause more misery. There will be 1 winner for every 3-4 losers. The politicians just hope the losers can't figure it out. It's the same with all the government programs.

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I think where things get really foggy is how they translate into property rights... This is the main area where our moral dilemma presents itself, and disagreement ensues, and what the best way to deal with the moral dilemma becomes a valid argument.

Let me see if I can properly address where the bulk of our disagreemt arises.

There is a belief that since the Earth has limited resources, humans will compete for these resources and the gain of one might entail the loss to another. So any act of ownership over resources is a denial of those to another. That means we must figure out some criteria logical and enforce it so that some humans aren't left out in the cold so to speak while others have abundance. This is the "moral dilemma" of property rights right?

Ok I really paraphrased that. I could go into a lot more detail but I want to be sure I'm on the right track. I think I have a rock-solid explanation of why this isn't a problem or a dilemma of any kind but I want to be sure I understand where you're coming from first.

That's pretty close to it... MT had a good point that lends to this (and my quote reenforces it)... that people's legitimate "property" is the value they add to a piece of land or existing property, not the resource itself.

This implies that there is some "net worth" tied up in resources themselves, rather than any one person's additional value added to them.  To deny certain people ANY right to these resources by claiming them as our own either by conquering them, or by "making them better," is to essentially steal value from all the other people that could have used it.

Ok great. I can see where the concept of ownership of land is different than say, an invention. I think I82 put forward the word "stewardship". I have a lot of thoughts on this subject. I'll try to share as completely as possible while still being brief. I think I have a great, practical explanation of why human ownership of land is not only legitimate but also very beneficial. Others have made the case but perhaps not in enough depth.


Moda sometimes in your posts there are like a dozen bunny trails. I'm not criticizing, I'm just saying if I don't address them all it's because we would need a dozen more threads. I'm not saying they aren't related, just that my non-response doesn't imply I don't think it's important or i don't have a response. There's just only so much time

Kshartle wrote:Ok great. I can see where the concept of ownership of land is different than say, an invention. I think I82 put forward the word "stewardship". I have a lot of thoughts on this subject. I'll try to share as completely as possible while still being brief. I think I have a great, practical explanation of why human ownership of land is not only legitimate but also very beneficial. Others have made the case but perhaps not in enough depth.

If you're going to argue that zero force and zero government is possible in society, then you can't be wishy-washy about any of this.  In order for your Utopia to exist, there must be definitions of everything (PARTICULARLY about human ownership of land) that are so obvious and simple as to command 100.000% agreement of all people everywhere.

Obviously, this is not the case, and it's not going to be.

Kshartle wrote:

I should have said, "Monopoly on the accepted use of violence" or something like that. The government can use violence and claims it as a right that only it has. Agressive force is a better term, since defending yourself is legal.

When I say government I mean the people who are referred to as the government...it's just a convinience word like corportation and not something that actually exists in a physical form.

"most of what people here are advocating government do is arguably beneficial to trade" - yes that argument is being made, and I think it's wrong, that's why I'm arguing against it. I just think the economic argument has been tried for so long and proven to be such a failure I'm trying to explain why the use of force is immoral. If we can understand with certainty that a person owns themselves we can understand the nature of property rights. Then we can know, I mean really know, not just write off that when we steal and murder we are violating the rights of another. Therefore all "government" solutions are predicated on the violation of human rights. The problems that we attepmt to solve with more violence (government) were created by violence, not trade and negotiation. So the idea that violence can solve the problems that come from violence, or the use of force more specifically, is nonsensical. The solution to the problems that come from the use of force (poverty, untimely death etc.) have one solution...humans stopping from trying to solve their problems with the use of force.

When you say "accepted," do you mean by agents of government?  A branch of government?  Most people?  The vast majority of people?

And are you sure you want to conflate "aggressive force" with illegality, because that implies that anything the government legalizes is "not aggressive force," and any illegal violence is "aggressive force."  I know this probably isn't what you are saying, but it would be kinda weird to say that the government gives itself the right to do something illegal... usually they just legalize it or reinterpret it as legal haha.

Just trying to get an idea by what you mean there.

The government (or the people in it) doesn't claim it has the only and universa right to violence.... and while defending yourself is legal, so is the government collecting taxes based on law, or arresting/incarcerating someone based on due process, or building a road based on a legal levy that is passed.  How is it different?  The government does not illegalize certain forms of force by individuals nor does it legalize all forms of force for itself.

There are a ton of laws that prohibit government agents from being violent given certain scenarios, and when they are violent in an inappropriate way, usually they are punished.  I'm not saying it's perfect, but neither is our rate of punishing violent aggression in the private sector... it's just not always going to work.

I just want to be clear about definitions and what we are actually asserting here, so we don't go on misquoting and misunderstanding each other.

Xan wrote:

Kshartle wrote:Ok great. I can see where the concept of ownership of land is different than say, an invention. I think I82 put forward the word "stewardship". I have a lot of thoughts on this subject. I'll try to share as completely as possible while still being brief. I think I have a great, practical explanation of why human ownership of land is not only legitimate but also very beneficial. Others have made the case but perhaps not in enough depth.

If you're going to argue that zero force and zero government is possible in society, then you can't be wishy-washy about any of this.  In order for your Utopia to exist, there must be definitions of everything (PARTICULARLY about human ownership of land) that are so obvious and simple as to command 100.000% agreement of all people everywhere.

Obviously, this is not the case, and it's not going to be.

Really? I need to explain why humans may choose to not do something? That seems obvious since it's a choice. Now i don't think it's likely, and I don't think it will ever happen (zero initiation of force against other humans) but if its a choice that people make then obviously they can choose not to.

The opposite argument is the one that's unsupported. The idea that humans will always use force against other humans....this is the one where I have yet to see an argument that isn't fallacious.

Saying I need to explain how everything in society will work if it's based on voluntary consent rather than violent threat is quite a high standard. This is again the ridiculous argument that if I can't explain how the cotton will be picked then we need to assume slavery will and/or should continue. Or how about when all marriage was arranged, if I argue that people should not and don't need to have marriage arranged and you reply "well explain how everyone will decide on a mate then and be able to convince everyone."

I don't need to be able to explain how the entire world will work and how every human will have the exact same understanding of all these concepts. All we need to do is keep teaching future generations that violence doesn't solve problems and the use of force against others is wrong. The more that idea gets ingrained the more anyone who disagree will find themselves isolated and their viewpoint dying out, until it's gone or the holders of such beliefs keep it hidden.

This is all done by accepting it yourself. If you don't accept it, then it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's the practical application of what will actually improve the world. Since you can't force people to agree with you, you just live it. You don't use force or support force to acheive your goals and you be an example to others and especially the kids.

How many of your circle are openly racist? How many advocate arragned marriage, child sacrifice, slavery etc. All these things were prominent parts of society for thousands of years. They went away in a flash. If the human timeline ever comes to an end, when they look back I'm sure they'll see a turning point that occured over just a few or a few dozen generations when the idea that using force against others pretty much dissapeared. 

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Also, if you can BUY the influence of an agent of the use of force as a "corporation," but that agent of force needs to compete with another agent of force every 4 years (who will make the same deal with you as a corporation) to hold his seat, who really has the power?  The thug agent of force?  Or the corporation who pays him?  It's symbiotic, to be sure, but I'm willing to bet the Corporation heads feel more comfortable about their position in the economy than the politician feels secure in his seat in the government.

Weren't entire wars and "rebellions" in South America essentially indirectly engineered by corporations?

This is why arguing that we just need a different group of rulers or a better constitution or better laws or better voters or any of that is so foolish and such a failure. It's not government that should be opposed. It's not Democracy or Socialism or Fascism or Communism or Monarchy or any of that that is bad. It's the acceptance of the use of force against other people to get what you want. It's that people, "good" people, still think that works. They claim we can help the poor if we just steal more, or we can be safer if we just attack more countries/people, we can have better technology if we just steal money and give it to scientists, we can have less crime if we make stealing and murder illegal (except for the government). We can have less violence if the entire society lives under the threat of un-resistible violence (the original premise of this thread).

We discuss the symptoms and never the cause, or miss-diagnose the cause. That's why I'm so vehement that we get to the cause if we're going to really discuss a solution. The government solutions are fantasies. I mean do you guys really think obamacare is going to make health care better? Do you think they can "fix" Obamacare? It's so flawed from a moral standpoint it can't do anything except cause more misery. There will be 1 winner for every 3-4 losers. The politicians just hope the losers can't figure it out. It's the same with all the government programs.

- Some things that "work" are hardly moral.  Almost every country in the world, it seems, in your view, is doing extremey immoral things, but it seems to be "working" from certain measuring sticks.  If by "works" you mean "works to reduce force," then we have to measure whether the threat of force by government resulting in a FAR smaller murder rate is actually better or worse, fundamentally, than actually a lot of murders occuring.  If by "works" you mean "works for productive gain," then I'd just have to say that we have some amazingly productive economies today, and most of them have a centralized form of force.  I guess we can never know if your Galt-opia would be better for production.

As for the rest of it, it sounds like you're describing just an awful society to live in.  I realize we should always be skeptical of government, even when things are good, but you seem to be describing a world that we just don't seem to live in.  Some countries with very centralized power structures seem to have a very happy populace.  Now you can say they're sheep if you want, but it certainly doesn't appear that we have 3-4 losers to every winner in those happy societies.  Also, if the environment was so bad, let's not forget that almost every government gives you the right to leave to go somewhere else.  Most are not concentration camps, so explaining what a hell-hole they are has to be taken within a bit of context.

moda0306 wrote: When you say "accepted," do you mean by agents of government?  A branch of government?  Most people?  The vast majority of people?

Yes by the vast majority of people.

Kshartle wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

Xan wrote: I think you'll find that relying on logic for everything also is circular reasoning.  You can't prove logic with logic.  You believe in logic because you believe, end of story.  You may have found that it "works" and so you trust it, but that's true for plenty of people with their religions as well.  But ultimately all reasoning is circular; it's all based on axioms which are assumed to be true, and on which not everyone agrees.

If a scientist tells you that he has figured everything out except the nature of the first cause that set the universe in motion, is he really so different from the man in the village deep in the jungle who tells you that he has figured everything out except what the tree god looked like before he was a seed?

Yes he is Tex. The scientist is searching for the answers and using his intelligence and deductive reasoning to understand the world around him. The jungle villager has declared he knows the answer (the gods) and basis this on nothing but his own refusal to try to understand the world. It's intellectual sloth.

Intellectual sloth by whose standard?

Didn't the British hunt aborigines in Australia for sport before realizing much later that the aborigines' culture and understanding of their environment was no less complex and nuanced than the culture of the people who were murdering them for entertainment? 

It seems to me that the belief in the intellectual sloth of others may itself be the result of intellectual sloth in many cases. 

Since I don't really know what goes on in the mind of anyone but myself, on what basis can I say that my understanding of reality is superior to theirs?

Isn't the villager in my example also diligently searching for the best understanding of reality that is available to him?

Kshartle wrote:

Xan wrote:

Kshartle wrote:Ok great. I can see where the concept of ownership of land is different than say, an invention. I think I82 put forward the word "stewardship". I have a lot of thoughts on this subject. I'll try to share as completely as possible while still being brief. I think I have a great, practical explanation of why human ownership of land is not only legitimate but also very beneficial. Others have made the case but perhaps not in enough depth.

If you're going to argue that zero force and zero government is possible in society, then you can't be wishy-washy about any of this.  In order for your Utopia to exist, there must be definitions of everything (PARTICULARLY about human ownership of land) that are so obvious and simple as to command 100.000% agreement of all people everywhere.

Obviously, this is not the case, and it's not going to be.

Really? I need to explain why humans may choose to not do something? That seems obvious since it's a choice. Now i don't think it's likely, and I don't think it will ever happen (zero initiation of force against other humans) but if its a choice that people make then obviously they can choose not to.

The opposite argument is the one that's unsupported. The idea that humans will always use force against other humans....this is the one where I have yet to see an argument that isn't fallacious.

Saying I need to explain how everything in society will work if it's based on voluntary consent rather than violent threat is quite a high standard. This is again the ridiculous argument that if I can't explain how the cotton will be picked then we need to assume slavery will and/or should continue. Or how about when all marriage was arranged, if I argue that people should not and don't need to have marriage arranged and you reply "well explain how everyone will decide on a mate then and be able to convince everyone."

I don't need to be able to explain how the entire world will work and how every human will have the exact same understanding of all these concepts. All we need to do is keep teaching future generations that violence doesn't solve problems and the use of force against others is wrong. The more that idea gets ingrained the more anyone who disagree will find themselves isolated and their viewpoint dying out, until it's gone or the holders of such beliefs keep it hidden.

This is all done by accepting it yourself. If you don't accept it, then it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's the practical application of what will actually improve the world. Since you can't force people to agree with you, you just live it. You don't use force or support force to acheive your goals and you be an example to others and especially the kids.

How many of your circle are openly racist? How many advocate arragned marriage, child sacrifice, slavery etc. All these things were prominent parts of society for thousands of years. They went away in a flash. If the human timeline ever comes to an end, when they look back I'm sure they'll see a turning point that occured over just a few or a few dozen generations when the idea that using force against others pretty much dissapeared.

Kshartle,

You don't have to prove everyone will obey your One Moral Truth, but you have to describe it to them.  Since property has to be establish for "theft" to have occured, in your definition, then it would be useful if you could describe what, within your One Moral Truth, establishes property.  An invention is a perfectly reasonable example, but if there are various claims to the same land, or oil, or lake, or ocean, then these people should AT LEAST know what your One Moral Truth says about it, otherwise they're engaging in forceful behavior if their interpretation of property is incorrect.

So you don't need to explain to us what exactly people might do to disobey your One Moral Truth, but please, for the sake of our will to be a moral people, explain to us what constitutes a moral claim on naturally occuring property, because every single f*king person in this country seems to have a slightly different definition than the next.

moda0306 wrote: .... because every single f*king person in this country seems to have a slightly different definition than the next.

And, I would add in the virgins too. 

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Also, if you can BUY the influence of an agent of the use of force as a "corporation," but that agent of force needs to compete with another agent of force every 4 years (who will make the same deal with you as a corporation) to hold his seat, who really has the power?  The thug agent of force?  Or the corporation who pays him?  It's symbiotic, to be sure, but I'm willing to bet the Corporation heads feel more comfortable about their position in the economy than the politician feels secure in his seat in the government.

Weren't entire wars and "rebellions" in South America essentially indirectly engineered by corporations?

This is why arguing that we just need a different group of rulers or a better constitution or better laws or better voters or any of that is so foolish and such a failure. It's not government that should be opposed. It's not Democracy or Socialism or Fascism or Communism or Monarchy or any of that that is bad. It's the acceptance of the use of force against other people to get what you want. It's that people, "good" people, still think that works. They claim we can help the poor if we just steal more, or we can be safer if we just attack more countries/people, we can have better technology if we just steal money and give it to scientists, we can have less crime if we make stealing and murder illegal (except for the government). We can have less violence if the entire society lives under the threat of un-resistible violence (the original premise of this thread).

We discuss the symptoms and never the cause, or miss-diagnose the cause. That's why I'm so vehement that we get to the cause if we're going to really discuss a solution. The government solutions are fantasies. I mean do you guys really think obamacare is going to make health care better? Do you think they can "fix" Obamacare? It's so flawed from a moral standpoint it can't do anything except cause more misery. There will be 1 winner for every 3-4 losers. The politicians just hope the losers can't figure it out. It's the same with all the government programs.

- Some things that "work" are hardly moral.  Almost every country in the world, it seems, in your view, is doing extremey immoral things, but it seems to be "working" from certain measuring sticks.  If by "works" you mean "works to reduce force," then we have to measure whether the threat of force by government resulting in a FAR smaller murder rate is actually better or worse, fundamentally, than actually a lot of murders occuring.  If by "works" you mean "works for productive gain," then I'd just have to say that we have some amazingly productive economies today, and most of them have a centralized form of force.  I guess we can never know if your Galt-opia would be better for production.

As for the rest of it, it sounds like you're describing just an awful society to live in.  I realize we should always be skeptical of government, even when things are good, but you seem to be describing a world that we just don't seem to live in.  Some countries with very centralized power structures seem to have a very happy populace.  Now you can say they're sheep if you want, but it certainly doesn't appear that we have 3-4 losers to every winner in those happy societies.  Also, if the environment was so bad, let's not forget that almost every government gives you the right to leave to go somewhere else.  Most are not concentration camps, so explaining what a hell-hole they are has to be taken within a bit of context.

  We are talking two different languages. I am talking about the initiation of force and you are referring to government as if it's not that. I am arguing that the initiation of force does not imporve our lives and you are putting forward improved human lives in areas dominated by force as if it was the the force that caused it. This second one is confusing correlation with causation.

The fact there have been fewer murders in countries with powerful central governments (I'll concede that as irrelavent even though I don't know it), is not an argument that govenment solves the problem of violence. It is violence, I don't know how many times we've gone over this. It's just so overwhelmingly powerful that only the insane resist.

I will continue on with the discussion about land ownership, but this other stuff and the questions.....the language barrier is so great. I feel like Neo and I'm talking to someone in the Statrix. I don't mean that to be offensive, almost every single person sounds that way. I have libertarian friends who occasionaly sound like Nazis to me when they advocate for the government programs they like. 

MediumTex wrote:
Isn't the villager in my example also diligently searching for the best understanding of reality that is available to him?

No. He's ascribed everthing to imaginary beings. It's the opposite of searching for understanding. It's the rejection of any attempt at understanding.

MediumTex wrote: 1. Didn't the British hunt aborigines in Australia for sport before realizing much later that the aborigines' culture and understanding of their environment was no less complex and nuanced than the culture of the people who were murdering them for entertainment? 

2. Since I don't really know what goes on in the mind of anyone but myself, on what basis can I say that my understanding of reality is superior to theirs?

1. I don't understand what that is supposed to be an example of.

2. Well, If I tell you I think my computer operates based on magic what do you think of my understanding of computers? If you explain to me how a computer works (even in very basic terms) and I persist that it's magic, what do you think about my understanding of reality compared to yours? Can you honestly tell me they are equal? - Please answer that question if possible.

Kshartle wrote:The idea that humans will always use force against other humans....this is the one where I have yet to see an argument that isn't fallacious.

My apologies if this has been mentioned (don't have time to read all twenty-something pages right now).

But this idea that humans could live in a world without violence seems more than a bit of a stretch in terms of our evolutionary history.

Humans are primates of the family Hominidae. We are primates that just happen to have larger brains, with more neurons than our primate cousins. Nevertheless, we are still primates. All primates exhibit violence amongst one another.

The New Scientist wrote:In the course of the book we learn about infanticide and violent infighting among silverback gorillas. We get to know Mlima, a gorilla the biologists have been observing almost daily for six years. Through diary entries we are there when they find her dying from wounds inflicted by a younger member of her own species.

We also meet Volker, an ambitious young bonobo the researchers have followed for most of his life. Volker has close relations with Amy, a female whose baby the researchers believe he fathered, but the attention he pays her is finally punished: he is savagely beaten by his former friends. The biologists observe Volker's screaming face as he clings to a tree trunk, then never see him again.

Josephine Head, also of the Max Planck Institute, describes how she tracked a trail of blood from where chimps had been vocalising loudly the night before, and made a horrible discovery: the spread-eagled body of an adult male chimp, his face battered and bruised, throat torn open and intestines dragged out.

"I feel as though I am looking at a person who has been murdered in a savage attack," she writes. As she takes this in, the band of chimps return to the corpse, and the biologists retreat to watch. Afterwards, Head's team finds the dead male's penis and testicles some 30 metres away - ripped off, she speculates, as part of an emasculation ritual. The incident was so human in so many ways that she wonders: "Is our 'moral code' nothing more than a controlling system that humans have invented to keep some order in society?"

The answer is surely yes. So much in human culture is echoed in what we see in other apes. This book reveals unforgettably that these apes have personalities, that their societies are political and complex, and most of all that - if we need a reason - we cannot let them go extinct. Understanding them will help us understand ourselves.

Going ape: Ultraviolence and our primate cousins

moda0306 wrote: The government (or the people in it) doesn't claim it has the only and universa right to violence.... and while defending yourself is legal, so is the government collecting taxes based on law, or arresting/incarcerating someone based on due process, or building a road based on a legal levy that is passed.  How is it different?  The government does not illegalize certain forms of force by individuals nor does it legalize all forms of force for itself.

There are a ton of laws that prohibit government agents from being violent given certain scenarios, and when they are violent in an inappropriate way, usually they are punished.  I'm not saying it's perfect, but neither is our rate of punishing violent aggression in the private sector... it's just not always going to work.

First off....nothing is morally acceptable because it's legal or morally unnaceptable because it's illegal. I have never said anything like it or insinuated it. I think you are deliberatly trying to confuse the issues and bury me in the endless task of making explanations of obvious stuff, all by deliberatly misstating me.

I have to mention defense of one's self as legal because if i say government is a monopoly on violence or the use of force people (yourself included) will claim it doesn't have that because people can defend themselves and it's even legal. It's annoying that the distinction between the two acts and the impact of those differences are still deliberately ignored as though they don't exist.

If you are going to write a sentence that defending ones self has anything in common with the government moderating the level of force it initiates based on law......and think these have anything to do with one another.......then I think you are not debating in good faith and are just trying to fill posts with as many words as possible. I am sorry if that's harsh but I can't believe you are trying to discuss this stuff in good faith when you write something that it, there is no way you believe it.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: When you say "accepted," do you mean by agents of government?  A branch of government?  Most people?  The vast majority of people?

Yes by the vast majority of people.

So if the vast majority of people around you want things a certain way, and the government they elect reflects those wants, and you don't like it, maybe the problem isn't everyone else in your way... maybe it's just that you picked the wrong spot to build a home and call your own.  Maybe you DO have a right to it, but since you understand the consequences to your actions, and have acknowledged that the "vast majority" of people around you are essentially, knowingly or unknowingly, trying to steal from you, maybe it's wise to acknowledge your role in creating your current dilemma.

Not trying to be condescending... just trying to shed light on one possible way to look at this.

If we truly do control our actions and understand the consequences, I wonder if the moral obligation isn't on us as individuals to pick the society we want and accept it, rather than point to others who are "stealing from us," which we can't control, but definitely can predict because we've been seeing it happen for centuries that individualss accept and encourage a certain amount of power be given to government.

I certainly wouldn't sit and complain about Somali society if I chose to move there where I know that the "vast majority" of people were in favor of stealing from me.  I'd simply avoid it.

Gumby wrote:

Kshartle wrote:The idea that humans will always use force against other humans....this is the one where I have yet to see an argument that isn't fallacious.

My apologies if this has been mentioned (don't have time to read all twenty-something pages right now).

But this idea that humans could live in a world without violence seems more than a bit of a stretch in terms of our evolutionary history.

Humans are primates of the family Hominidae. We are primates that just happen to have larger brains, with more neurons than our primate cousins. Nevertheless, we are still primates. All primates exhibit violence amongst one another.

What is your argument? We are primates therefore we will be violent towards each other? This is the nature argument. It's a law of nature and not a choice that people are violent, like gravity right?

1. All non-human primates are violent even though they lack free will to choose
2. Humans are primates
3. Therefore humans will always be violent because they are classified as primates even though they have free will to choose

Incidently, humans and gorillas are not the same, just similar. The biggest difference is the critical one. Free will. We are in control of ourselves. Nature controls the gorilla. They have no concept of what is moral and immoral.

Some humans might always choose violence to solve their problems, in fact I agree they will, but it's not because they're primates. Primates is a just a word that groups "similar" organisms together.