Gyroscopic Investing

Wow, listen to me! I sound like a neo-con now.....Cheney would be giddy

doodle wrote: Wow, listen to me! I sound like a neo-con now.....Cheney would be giddy

You appear to have learned the truth that government does not save us from the realm of "might makes right", grasshopper!

Kshartle wrote: 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.

How'd that work out for the Native Americans or Australian Aboriginals?

The sad fact is that a proportionally larger amount of violence does triumph a feebler or nonexistent attempt at violence.  Thats why the only way Anarcho-Capitalism will ever be practical is when technology dramatically decreases the returns to inflicting violence at the individual level, not because of a ideology.

You are welcome to fly to the Sun and declare that it is violating the NAP, but don't be surprised if it ignores you while you perish from superhot plasma.  Might may not make right, but it certainly is final termination of your existence.

Kshartle wrote: 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?

Crime and Punishment aka Laws.  In the natural state AKA monkeys, it is known as the Law of the Jungle.  Not everyone believes or operates according to your "higher, moral standard".  You have to be prepared for those types; choosing to give up arms or renounce violence is not a valid strategy.  It's delusional.

Kshartle wrote: 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. 

So humans are somehow special because they have free will and somehow they're supposed to operate at a higher standard and tenaciously deliberate before any and all use of inflicting violence, only except that when it is directed against non-humans?  That is NOT innate biological hardwiring.  It is taught, reinforced and punished by social environment so that the appropriate genes are selected for even though 1-2% of the human population are consistent genetic psychopath whackjobs.  What do you propse to do about that 1-2% that will exploit and rise to the top of any power pyramid and vanquish all you peaceful, pacifist, hippy-loving Anarcho-Capitalists?

Kshartle wrote: 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.

News flash.  Greed doesn't exist; it is a social construct.  It doesn't exist in the human biological hardwiring.  I smell a problem with your ideology based on a fiction.

MachineGhost wrote: The sad fact is that a proportionally larger amount of violence does triumph a feebler or nonexistent attempt at violence.  Thats why the only way Anarcho-Capitalism will ever be practical is when technology dramatically decreases the returns to inflicting violence at the individual level, not because of a ideology.

…Or increases them, such that mutually-assured destruction becomes true on a personal level, and small militia groups can successfully fight off governments. We're getting closer all the time... It's called "terrorism" and the governments of the world haven't a clue what to do about it.

Pointedstick wrote: …Or increases them, such that mutually-assured destruction becomes true on a personal level, and small militia groups can successfully fight off governments. We're getting closer all the time... It's called "terrorism" and the governments of the world haven't a clue what to do about it.

That IS a problem because, unfortunately, people that like to avail themselves of that kind of violent power are all delusional whackjobs, usually religious extremists.  That's the cruel irony for Anarcho-Capitalists.  The situation may get worse before it gets any better.

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: …Or increases them, such that mutually-assured destruction becomes true on a personal level, and small militia groups can successfully fight off governments. We're getting closer all the time... It's called "terrorism" and the governments of the world haven't a clue what to do about it.

That IS a problem because, unfortunately, people that like to avail themselves of that kind of violent power are all delusional whackjobs, usually religious extremists.  That's the cruel irony for Anarcho-Capitalists.  The situation may get worse before it gets any better.

Yeah, a peaceful people will just be conquered by the remaining violent people. That's why the whole, "people will renounce violence" thing seems like a hopelessly utopian non-solution to me. Not only will it probably never happen, but it requires 100% adoption or else the remaining violent people will take over again and we'll be back to where we started. Or else violent aliens will show up and we'll have no Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum to use ancient Macintosh computers to give them computer viruses.

The trick, I think, is to inculcate a sense of violent, but protective rather than violent, but predatory. Violence will always be with us, but I think it's possible to channel it into productive defensive uses. In this respect, I think conservatism has it right. Conservatism acknowledges the possibility of "violent but protective" in certain social capacities such as personal self-defense, not to mention the police and soldiers, which are could certainly exist in a private and (probably far more) protective capacity absent government. Meanwhile, liberalism firmly plugs its ears and pretends that violence is all bad and that we can get rid of it, but in the meantime, we just need to find a magical group of people willing to use violence to protect us but not oppress us so that we can continue our kumbaya circle. Fat chance, suckers.

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: …Or increases them, such that mutually-assured destruction becomes true on a personal level, and small militia groups can successfully fight off governments. We're getting closer all the time... It's called "terrorism" and the governments of the world haven't a clue what to do about it.

That IS a problem because, unfortunately, people that like to avail themselves of that kind of violent power are all delusional whackjobs, usually religious extremists.  That's the cruel irony for Anarcho-Capitalists.  The situation may get worse before it gets any better.

So should Luke have joined his Father and with their combined strength end the destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy?

Stewardship wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: …Or increases them, such that mutually-assured destruction becomes true on a personal level, and small militia groups can successfully fight off governments. We're getting closer all the time... It's called "terrorism" and the governments of the world haven't a clue what to do about it.

That IS a problem because, unfortunately, people that like to avail themselves of that kind of violent power are all delusional whackjobs, usually religious extremists.  That's the cruel irony for Anarcho-Capitalists.  The situation may get worse before it gets any better.

So should Luke have joined his Father and with their combined strength end the destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy?

”? Hmm. In the end, cowards are those who follow the dark side.”?

Kshartle wrote:

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.

I should have been more specific. Quelling the urge to translate greed into violence or fraud has been difficult.  Greed in and of itself isn't really a flaw. Though I would state that even in the absence of overt violence, greed can manifest itself in ways that I, personally, would consider immoral.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: 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.

Kshartle, if self-ownership DOES exist, as well as legitimate property ownership, does this all just go away if we live in a more dangerous world of life-or-death decisions? 

You don't think there are "moral questions" as to how we behave in matters of survival?

In a world of uncertainty about the likelihood of future outcomes, I could assert that we are never really "out of the caves."  It's just a matter of degree. I may be able to feed/clothe myself now, but if someone is a potential threat to my ability to feed/clothe myself in the future, and I have a unique ability right now to remove that threat, surely, I have not escaped the realm of "moral questions."  In fact, IMO, it is when times are tough and you don't have a ton of social pressure to "do good," that it is especially important to have a good moral framework.

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

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.

I should have been more specific. Quelling the urge to translate greed into violence or fraud has been difficult.  Greed in and of itself isn't really a flaw. Though I would state that even in the absence of overt violence, greed can manifest itself in ways that I, personally, would consider immoral.

Seems to me "greed" is not a neutral characteristic; i.e. greed is a problem, even without getting into the 10 Commandments re. coveting.

And further, it seems REALLY odd, based on a common definition of "greed" below, an advocate of the NAP would see greed as a virtue any more than they would see robbery, murder, rape or battery as virtues. 

... Mountaineer

From my OSX Dictionary app:

Greed (Latin, avaritia), also known as avarice, cupidity or covetousness, is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power.

As a secular psychological concept, greed is, similarly, an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs. The degree of inordinance is related to the inability to control the reformulation of "wants" once desired "needs" are eliminated. Erich Fromm described greed as "a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction." It is typically used to criticize those who seek excessive material wealth, although it may apply to the need to feel more excessively moral, social, or otherwise better than someone else.

The purpose for greed, and any actions associated with it, is possibly to deprive others of potential means (perhaps, of basic survival and comfort) or future opportunities accordingly, or to obstruct them therefrom, as a measure of enhanced discretion via majority belongings-having and majority competitive advantage, thus insidious and tyrannical or otherwise having negative connotation. Alternately, the purpose could be defense or counteraction from such dangerous, potential leverage in matters of questionable agreeability.

I've steered clear of this thread because the whole idea of proving morality is like WAY beyond anything I have the mental energy for nowadays.

But I had a interesting thought when I read the last few posts about greed, at least to me. Greed is listed among the 7 deadly sins and you hear a lot about it but so is envy and yet you rarely hear anyone condemning the envious. I believe if you pay close enough attention you can detect a lot more of it than greed.

It's not really necessarily that greed is good or bad, it just is, just like envy, wrath, and the whole host of other commonly looked-down-upon traits and attitudes. And I think negative labeling of them is an acknowledgement that these kind of things can be very bad if people engage in their most negative expressions and have no way to channel them into personally and socially beneficial pursuits.

But I also think the most civilized societies are the ones that take these emotions and feelings and tendencies that can be very bad, and they provide people with ways to express them in harmless or even positive ways. Because in the end, you're probably not going to make a greedy or a violent or a lazy person stop being any of these things, but if you provide them with a path for their perhaps not so praiseworthy traits to at the very least not hurt anyone, and at best even help people, that's probably going to be a much healthier society compared to one in which people are made to feel bad for their personality traits and denied routes to express them in socially acceptable ways.

Stewardship wrote: So should Luke have joined his Father and with their combined strength end the destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy?

How is Star Wars even relevant?  We don't live in a universe where the battle is between the dark and light force.  Anarcho-Capitalism is a moral human-imposed principle, not a metaphysical principle.

Mountaineer wrote: Greed (Latin, avaritia), also known as avarice, cupidity or covetousness, is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power.

AC's are not using that definiton of greed, but the anarchronistic Ayn-Randian-Objectivist-Milton-Friedman-Monetarist-definition.  Greed is just a social fiction meme to indirectly refer to an overexcess of envy.  It does not exist in many non-Western cultures because it is not a genetic or epigenetic trait evolutionarily hardwired into the brain; they have no innate concept of it.  But envy is universal as the byproduct of the breeding motivation (and evolution).

I'd be remiss if I didn't sign off with one of my favorites quotes of all time.  Shiver me timbers!

"The point is, ladies and gentleman, greed ... is good. Greed works. Greed is right. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed in all its forms, greed for life, money, love, knowledge has marked the upward surge in mankind – and greed, mark my words – will save not only Teldar Paper but the other malfunctioning corporation called the USA." -- Gordon Gekko, Wall Street

Stewardship wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: …Or increases them, such that mutually-assured destruction becomes true on a personal level, and small militia groups can successfully fight off governments. We're getting closer all the time... It's called "terrorism" and the governments of the world haven't a clue what to do about it.

That IS a problem because, unfortunately, people that like to avail themselves of that kind of violent power are all delusional whackjobs, usually religious extremists.  That's the cruel irony for Anarcho-Capitalists.  The situation may get worse before it gets any better.

So should Luke have joined his Father and with their combined strength end the destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy?

MachineGhost wrote: How is Star Wars even relevant?  We don't live in a universe where the battle is between the dark and light force.  Anarcho-Capitalism is a moral human-imposed principle, not a metaphysical principle.

How is Star Wars not relevant?  Hehe j/k.

In the exchange quoted above, Pointedstick talked about small militia groups throwing off government and how it's referred to as "terrorism."  You then responded "people that like to avail themselves of that kind of violent power are all delusional whackjobs, usually religious extremists."

Assuming you're talking about small militia groups throwing off government (and not government,) it just made me curious as to whether you rooted for the Empire, rather than the rebellion when you watched Star Wars...

doodle wrote: 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

Is this a serious question?

If intelligent life reaches our planet I suspect it will only be after they've given up on governments and the magical belief that laws and violence will solve their problems.

I doubt they will have need of clothing from our skin or our bones for building their houses! They are travelling at lightspeed!

My God man. How much of your clothing is beaver pelts? Is your house made of bones ahahahahahahah?

Give me a break man.

doodle wrote:

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!

We're talking about human on human force man.

I'm elitist? I guess the definition of elitist is suddenly that people should not be subject to the rule of others based on who can apply the most force. Since that latter piece seems to be your preference I think you are a projectionist.

MachineGhost wrote:

Kshartle wrote: 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.

How'd that work out for the Native Americans or Australian Aboriginals?

Governments and the use of them to solve problems worked out terribly for them.

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote:

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!

We're talking about human on human force man.

I'm elitist? I guess the definition of elitist is suddenly that people should not be subject to the rule of others based on who can apply the most force. Since that latter piece seems to be your preference I think you are a projectionist.

Does the non-aggression principle extend to other organisms, or does it only pertain to humans? If it doesn't extend to animals because you find them "inferior" then yes, you are an elitist.

Edit: by this logic then, aliens who are superior to humans have the right to eat our flesh and make veal cutlets with our babies

MachineGhost wrote:

Kshartle wrote: 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?

Crime and Punishment aka Laws.  In the natural state AKA monkeys, it is known as the Law of the Jungle.  Not everyone believes or operates according to your "higher, moral standard".  You have to be prepared for those types; choosing to give up arms or renounce violence is not a valid strategy.  It's delusional.

Who said anything about giving up arms?

I swear some of you use the shadiest debate tactics. Fields of strawmen.

Are you telling me the only reason you don't steal and rape is because it's against the law MG?