Gyroscopic Investing

Kshartle wrote: That is why it endures. There is not enough resistance to the idea that threats and violence are an acceptable way to solve differences..........yet.

Key word emphasized. 

Humans have progressed over the centuries and will continue to.

Mountaineer wrote:

doodle wrote: Why does the government have to steal back that which only they have the ability to freely create?

Three reasons:  control, control, control.  Include your favorite modifier before control.  All in the name of insuring the peace and reducing chaos. 

The more I think about Kshartle's NAP mantra, the more I appreciate it .... all we have to do is eliminate "sin" from humans; of course mankind has been pursuing how to do that for thousands of years, but there is always the possibility ..... this time will be different, right? 

... Mountaineer

Control yes.

As for the NAP......I've written a lot about the solution to the human created problems in the world. They are caused by the acceptance of the use of force from some humans against others rather than peaceful and voluntary negotiation/trade. Since they are a choice the olny solution is for people to choose otherwise. The solution to the use of forced cannot be....enforced. That is, unless God wants to come down and do it

This is outside the scope of the main discussion but I'm sure we can get there after we prove what is right and wrong behavior.

During the blackout I really thought I was banned.

I had mixed feelings about it. I almost thought maybe God was doing me a favor hah!

Kshartle wrote: During the blackout I really thought I was banned.

I had mixed feelings about it. I almost thought maybe God was doing me a favor hah!

You should be so lucky!   

... Mountaineer

Stewardship wrote: Humans have progressed over the centuries and will continue to.

Interesting observation.  What criteria are you using to assert that?  If it is making "stuff", I agree.  If it is in the arena of ethics, I don't see it.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

Kshartle wrote: During the blackout I really thought I was banned.

I had mixed feelings about it. I almost thought maybe God was doing me a favor hah!

You should be so lucky!   

... Mountaineer

LOL I was just thinking to PM to ask why you bother 

Stewardship wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Anarcho-capitalists believe that they can "prove" our unqualified duty to not initiate force on someone else.  They state it as such. They use that "proof" to build a series of other assertions... so to the degree that an anarcho-capitalists wishes to have their brand of morality & property norms adopted by individuals, and for those individuals to be certain about their position, the "burden of proof" is naturally on them.

Having spent some time around anarcho-capitalists, save perhaps KShartle here I've never heard any claim they can deductively prove the NAP.  Please provide supporting evidence.

moda0306 wrote: I'm not asking anyone to adopt a rigid moral code.

Neither are anarcho-capitalists.

moda0306 wrote: I'm asking anarcho-capitalists to logically prove what they believe and assert is so obviously logically proven, since it is the premise in their argument that I have a moral duty to not initiate any amount of force on anyone.  I'm not saying that they're "immoral" if they don't or can't.  Just that they are being a bit obnoxious.  This is my subjective opinion.

Now if an IRS agent were to come to my door and demand payment of $20 in taxes (getting a little simple here with operating procedures), and to claim that he could deductively PROVE to me that he was in the moral right, and I was in the moral wrong, then I could build the subjective case that the burden of proof is on him.

But there's nobody on here arguing that.

The burden of proof is on the IRS agent if he claims to be different from any other kind of robber who steals what isn't his at gunpoint.  If he doesn't make such a claim, then I agree he has no burden of proof.

Perhaps "proving" the NAP wasn't what I meant... instead, "proving" self-ownership.  Do I need to find supporting evidence of this?  I've seen this as either explicitly or implicitly stated in almost all interactions with anarcho-capitalist arguments. 

Are you kidding me that anarcho-capitalists aren't asking people to abide by a rigid moral code? They are EXTREMELY explicit about the behavior they expect out of people... that we ought not to initiate force on someone else no matter what the utilitarian benefit might be to others.  Am I mistaken that they don't have this expectation?  That it is merely a polite request?

There is no natural "burden" on the IRS agent other than that of nature.  If he's attempting to make a deductive argument regarding his moral right, then "proof" is a burden that he may have if he is to create a sound, valid argument.  But if he wants to take money or valuables from the home that you reside at, the only natural burden he has is his physical ability to do so. 

You might WANT him to try to prove that he is something else besides a robber, but there is no natural burden unless he has an argument he wishes to successfully make.  And acquiring something of value is NOT making an argument.  It simply is what it is.  You can call him a robber if you want, but if you want to make that as an argument, once again, the burden of proof is on you.  It really isn't a moral statement, but just one that if someone wishes to make an argument, and wants others to accept it as truth, then the burden required to achieve that result is on the person making that argument.

Kshartle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

doodle wrote: Why does the government have to steal back that which only they have the ability to freely create?

Three reasons:  control, control, control.  Include your favorite modifier before control.  All in the name of insuring the peace and reducing chaos. 

The more I think about Kshartle's NAP mantra, the more I appreciate it .... all we have to do is eliminate "sin" from humans; of course mankind has been pursuing how to do that for thousands of years, but there is always the possibility ..... this time will be different, right? 

... Mountaineer

Control yes.

As for the NAP......I've written a lot about the solution to the human created problems in the world. They are caused by the acceptance of the use of force from some humans against others rather than peaceful and voluntary negotiation/trade. Since they are a choice the olny solution is for people to choose otherwise. The solution to the use of forced cannot be....enforced. That is, unless God wants to come down and do it

This is outside the scope of the main discussion but I'm sure we can get there after we prove what is right and wrong behavior.

Regarding "after" we prove what is right or wrong... I'm not sure even God will outlive that wait... this sure is taking a while  .


But in regards to the bolded item above, it appears that you are saying that one cannot meet force with force.  Though I'm sure that is not what you mean (as you've said before you believe the NAP allows self-defense).

Could you clarify your assertion there?

I once heard that the reason that we have traffic is because the government builds the roads, but the private sector builds the cars, so of course there will be a shortage of roads relative to the supply of cars wishing to drive on those roads.

I used to think that this line of reasoning was an oversimplification, but then I began to closely follow the difference in traffic flows between local highways and local tollways (and the down time for expansion and maintenance of those roads), and it does appear to be the case that when the private sector is creating both the cars AND the roads there are a lot fewer traffic problems.

If someone were to say "No!  We can't make all roads toll roads!" I might point out that all cars are "toll cars" in the sense that you have to pay to use them (or own them).

Imagine if the government opened up a car dealership where all of the cars were free.  The first few people who came by would get a great deal, but everyone else would either have to get on a waiting list (sort of like sitting in a traffic jam), and the cars they got when their name came up might be kind of junky (sort of like driving on a road with a bunch of potholes).

So one possible solution to the traffic problem might be for the government to nationalize the auto industry for the purpose of providing everyone with a free car, as they have done in their ongoing efforts to provide everyone with a free road to drive on.  If they did that, we would have a shortage of both roads AND cars, and it might make for a very smooth flow of traffic, even during rush hour.

MT,

Have you ever been to an amusement park during their economic equivalent to "rush hour?"


And more interestingly is when said amusemet park deliberately causes congestion by lowering ride capacity during slow times (I've seen this occur... and I was quite purturbed).

moda0306 wrote: MT,

Have you ever been to an amusement park during their economic equivalent to "rush hour?"

Yes, but an amusement park is a destination and the longer you stay the more money the amusement park owner will make.

On a toll road, the toll road owner will make more money the less time you spend on the road driving to your destination because a lack of congestion allows more cars to pass through the toll booths.

If you've even been to an amusement park where you pay for each ride individually (such as most state fairs), the lines tend to be a lot shorter.

Now we are dealing with "supply and demand" as a function of morals and or aggression?  Time for Kshartle to chime in.

... Mountaineer

MediumTex wrote:

moda0306 wrote: MT,

Have you ever been to an amusement park during their economic equivalent to "rush hour?"

Yes, but an amusement park is a destination and the longer you stay the more money the amusement park owner will make.

On a toll road, the toll road owner will make more money the less time you spend on the road driving to your destination because a lack of congestion allows more cars to pass through the toll booths.

If you've even been to an amusement park where you pay for each ride individually (such as most state fairs), the lines tend to be a lot shorter.

Good point to chew on... But then again, have you seen some of the guys operating those state fair rides?  I can see why the lines are short.

moda0306 wrote: Good point to chew on... But then again, have you seen some of the guys operating those state fair rides?  I can see why the lines are short.

Yeah, those guys probably couldn't get a job at Disneyworld, unless there was a new themed ride based on a transient lifestyle, poor dental hygiene and the regular use of methamphetamine, and they were looking for ride operators to make the experience seem more authentic.

moda0306 wrote: I'm not asking anyone to adopt a rigid moral code.  I'm asking anarcho-capitalists to logically prove what they believe and assert is so obviously logically proven, since it is the premise in their argument that I have a moral duty to not initiate any amount of force on anyone.  I'm not saying that they're "immoral" if they don't or can't.  Just that they are being a bit obnoxious.  This is my subjective opinion.

Anarcho-Capitalists are to the State what Christians were (are?) to the Jews.  Wasn't the principles of Christianity self-evident, morality-based and reasonably/logically/deductively/inductively proven?  After all, the concepts swept the world (let's leave Rome out of this).  Some truths are just self-evident, such as initiating coercive violence against other living beings is immoral, unjust, unfair, non-impartial and inefficient.  Since the default order of the universe is initiatory coercive violence, I do think the impetus is on Anarcho-Capitalists to prove their way of organizing human civilization is superior to others.  Property is merely a transparent way to keep score and assign responsibility.  We don't pee around our property, we use land deeds instead.

doodle wrote: Why does the government have to steal back that which only they have the ability to freely create?

To keep the peons in line and let them know who is really in charge.  Otherwise, the peons would stop paying any taxes at all.  And I think we've evolved from a government masscre here and there to drive that point home.

Mountaineer wrote: The more I think about Kshartle's NAP mantra, the more I appreciate it .... all we have to do is eliminate "sin" from humans; of course mankind has been pursuing how to do that for thousands of years, but there is always the possibility ..... this time will be different, right? 

Its is not possible as long as humans have free will, ergo Anarcho-Capitalism will never happen with pure-blood humanity, only cyborgs or AI.

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Three reasons:  control, control, control.  Include your favorite modifier before control.  All in the name of insuring the peace and reducing chaos. 

The more I think about Kshartle's NAP mantra, the more I appreciate it .... all we have to do is eliminate "sin" from humans; of course mankind has been pursuing how to do that for thousands of years, but there is always the possibility ..... this time will be different, right? 

... Mountaineer

Control yes.

As for the NAP......I've written a lot about the solution to the human created problems in the world. They are caused by the acceptance of the use of force from some humans against others rather than peaceful and voluntary negotiation/trade. Since they are a choice the olny solution is for people to choose otherwise. The solution to the use of forced cannot be....enforced. That is, unless God wants to come down and do it

This is outside the scope of the main discussion but I'm sure we can get there after we prove what is right and wrong behavior.

Regarding "after" we prove what is right or wrong... I'm not sure even God will outlive that wait... this sure is taking a while  .


But in regards to the bolded item above, it appears that you are saying that one cannot meet force with force.  Though I'm sure that is not what you mean (as you've said before you believe the NAP allows self-defense).

Could you clarify your assertion there?

I'm saying the solution to the problem and problems that arise from people using force instead of negotiation cannot be solved with violent enforcement.

We can't use government to solve the problem of violence for example since it's just more violence with all the associated problems and then some.

What makes you think that we can ever solve the problem of violence. Force is inextricably linked to life. Government is simply a way to organize, delineate, codify force and violence so it is less random and arbitrary.

doodle wrote: What makes you think that we can ever solve the problem of violence. Force is inextricably linked to life. Government is simply a way to organize, delineate, codify force and violence so it is less random and arbitrary.

Are you violent? Do you personally use force against others to get them to do what they don't want to do?

When you want something do you steal it? When you like a woman do you force yourself on her?

If not, why not?

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: What makes you think that we can ever solve the problem of violence. Force is inextricably linked to life. Government is simply a way to organize, delineate, codify force and violence so it is less random and arbitrary.

Are you violent? Do you personally use force against others to get them to do what they don't want to do?

When you want something do you steal it? When you like a woman do you force yourself on her?

If not, why not?

I notice you didn't answer his question before asking your own.

I can solve the problem of ME not being forceful easily enough.  However, convincing others of anything has proven extreeeeeeeemely difficult in history. Quelling greed has been even moreso.

Now we can argue whether government is a legitimate tool to com are the worst aspects of greed and immorality, but to think that it isn't a fundamental aspect to human nature in a world of scarcity is a big mistake.

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: What makes you think that we can ever solve the problem of violence. Force is inextricably linked to life. Government is simply a way to organize, delineate, codify force and violence so it is less random and arbitrary.

Are you violent? Do you personally use force against others to get them to do what they don't want to do?

When you want something do you steal it? When you like a woman do you force yourself on her?

If not, why not?

I notice you didn't answer his question before asking your own.

I can solve the problem of ME not being forceful easily enough.  However, convincing others of anything has proven extreeeeeeeemely difficult in history. Quelling greed has been even moreso.

Now we can argue whether government is a legitimate tool to com are the worst aspects of greed and immorality, but to think that it isn't a fundamental aspect to human nature in a world of scarcity is a big mistake.

Ok well his premise is wrong that force is inextricably linked to life. My questions were going to demonstrate that. The use of force by one human against another is a choice. When it's a matter of pure survival because of circumstances beyond either parties control it's no longer a moral question and we don't need to concern ourselves with this. Those are problems not caused by human actions. 

Voluntary action and problem resolution by humans and the market is sufficient to clothe and feed and care for all people. We are out of the caves technologically even though many of us (and many on this forum) still have caveman morality and problem solving abilities.

I know for certain the problem of humans using force against each other can be solved because I've solved it personally. I choose to not. Others can make that choice also, I'm not that special. The question is how do you get to a point where virtually everyone makes the choice to use negotiation and non-violent/coercive means to achieve their goals? I think I know the answer and have expressed it many times. It's best left for another thread after we finish this one.

Please don't bring up defense. The difference between defending yourself and forcing other humans has been explained time and time again. They are not the same and have little in common.

This is all kind of off-topic. I'll get back to the main one with a different methodology that I think will speed it up. I'll do more explaining up front so hopefully the amount of questions is greatly reduced. 10 pages can maybe be condensed to 1-2 on major ideas.

moda0306 wrote: Quelling greed has been even moreso.

I don't want to divert but I've got to ask moda why you think greed is a problem. I consider it a virtue so I'm curious. I know the overwhelming popular belief that we're taught to think is that greed is a problem, even though it's a natural human/animal characteristic that is obvious even in infancy.

Simonjester wrote: similar to the confusion between force and self defense, there is a common misunderstanding of the difference between, greed for my benefit and by extension the benefit of others, and greed at the expense of others.
i blame that Russian woman and her sloppy choice of wording in the defense of greed, it was just to easy to confuse and misrepresent, there should be two different words to represent the two different things, and there opposite outcomes..

Ok well his premise is wrong that force is inextricably linked to life.

What???!!

Explain to me how you can live without force? Your survival depends on applying force to other organisms which usually ends their life. Of course, you are an elitist and think that humans somehow are not organisms or don't belong to the realm of nature. In Kshartles world, the rules of force only matter when it concerns two organisms that have approximately the same location of tubes, sensors, and dangly tentacles. Your argument and premise are completely ridiculous!

Let me ask you ask you a question...

What if aliens landed on our earth who were so amazingly intelligent that they made humans look like rocks? Would they be justified in making clothing out of our skins or building houses with our bones? I'm sure the aliens would say that the rules of force only pertained to actions between one another and didn't apply to these squirmy amoebic like human creatures

I think the Ukraine is the perfect example of what happens to a country that let's it's military dwindle. They get taken advantage of by their neighbor who doesn't... At the end of the day all the flowery logic and reason isn't more persuasive than a fist.