Gyroscopic Investing

MachineGhost wrote: 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?

I propose that you stop supporting them and building armies for them and swearing allegience to them and asking them to give you stolen goodies and make deals with them and worship them MG.

And stop voting for them. And stop pretending that you'll find a white knight amoungst them to banish the others.

Stop being part of the problem.

MachineGhost wrote:

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.

Ok then what do you call what everyone else calls greed?

The definition of greed is: 1.An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

You're telling me that doesn't exist? Talk about fiction..............


When I said I consider greed a virtue I was going with the more present day de facto definition of ambition. A lot of wealthy people are called greedy because they have a desire for material wealth etc. If you look above it says "needs or deserves". Well, i want a lot more than I need. To get it I work and save. Therefore to me greed is a virtue. My work and savings are a benefit to others also. Therefore my greed is beneficial because I express it peacfully. I create value and purchasing power and make that available to others.

If it was a desire for stuff that I don't deserve, it would be destructive potentially to my own life and happiness. It doesn't need to affect others and doesn't become a problem unless i act on it with violence or fraud (government )

Therefore as Moda clarified, it's not greed that is a problem, but the greedy persons response to their greed. This is what I've been saying all along.

Kshartle wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: 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?

I propose that you stop supporting them and building armies for them and swearing allegience to them and asking them to give you stolen goodies and make deals with them and worship them MG.

And stop voting for them. And stop pretending that you'll find a white knight amoungst them to banish the others.

Stop being part of the problem.

Now I can support that! I don't agree with it necessarily, but at least it's consistent...the only trouble is that it would be pretty darn hard to do and still kind of fit into society.  Actually, it sounds a lot like a Christs message telling people not to use evil to combat evil....in other words take it on the cheek

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.

What's so bad about violence (non-defensive) and fraud? :):)

Sorry for getting caught in diverting posts. We'll get back on track.

moda0306 wrote: You don't think there are "moral questions" as to how we behave in matters of survival?

Bad behavior can only exist if good behavior is an option so if morality exists it can only be aplied to situations where there is a choice.

Is the guy imoral who if the ship is going down and there's ten of you and only one life jacket and gets it while everyone tries to grab it?

If there are women or children in that group, yes.

Xan wrote: If there are women or children in that group, yes.

Why Xan?

Why is a wife's life more valuable than her husband's?

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: 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?

I propose that you stop supporting them and building armies for them and swearing allegience to them and asking them to give you stolen goodies and make deals with them and worship them MG.

And stop voting for them. And stop pretending that you'll find a white knight amoungst them to banish the others.

Stop being part of the problem.

Now I can support that! I don't agree with it necessarily, but at least it's consistent...the only trouble is that it would be pretty darn hard to do and still kind of fit into society.  Actually, it sounds a lot like a Christs message telling people not to use evil to combat evil....in other words take it on the cheek

So there was a question from MG as to whether I pay taxes. I do. 25% is taken from my check before I get it. Is this me supporting the sociopthic murderers? No. That would be like saying the rape victim supports the sexual relief of her attacker.

I work. There are brigands and robbers I can't avoid. The idea that I could work under the table still subjects me to their violence.

It's not Christ's message. Here's the difference. If a guy comes up to in the street and starts punching me I'll fight back. If instead he points a gun at me he can have my watch and wallet.

The difference is I'll resist the evils of others when it makes sense and submit when I have no choice. The government will exist long after I'm dead. There's no point dying on that hill. I will never volunteer to help it. I will never give it moral saction for it's violence or theft. I will never encourage others to support it, vote for it, clap for it, praise it, beg for it, fantasize about what it will do for them, teach the young there is virtue in doing any of that etc.

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: 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

If thinking humans and animals are different makes me an elitist then I guess that's what I am. I'm going to go explain what I am to my dog. Then my elitist ass will put food and water in his dish, take him for a walk, pick up his poop if he poops along the way and maybe brush him. I hope he doesn't think too much differently about me after he learns what an elitist I am.

I will probably share some sliced turkey with him. Maybe I'll put my plate next to his bowl so he's feels better about his station in life.

Ohhh yeah, I've already given him eyedrops twice today because he's going blind in his old age! Man I wish I had an elitist Alien around to care for me that  much!!!!

Kshartle wrote:Why Xan?

Why is a wife's life more valuable than her husband's?

He's called specifically to give himself up for her.  This is just one example of the kind of morality you can't prove or disprove from the bootstraps.

Xan wrote:

Kshartle wrote:Why Xan?

Why is a wife's life more valuable than her husband's?

He's called specifically to give himself up for her.  This is just one example of the kind of morality you can't prove or disprove from the bootstraps.

Yet you state it like it's true. I'm just asking why you think it's true. No ambiguity in the question and not a trick/trap.

You said he's immoral if X and that he's been called to do Y.

Who called him? When did they call him? Do you really believe any of that and if so why?

Most specifically in Ephesians 5:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it

But I think that's been part of the job description of a husband from Day 1.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

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.

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.

What's so bad about violence (non-defensive) and fraud? :):)

Sorry for getting caught in diverting posts. We'll get back on track.

Perhaps it is bad because it too-often decreases happiness and increases suffering, and happiness is an intrinsically preferred state, and suffering is an intrinsically unpreferable state, and those states, respectively, ought to be maximized and minimized.

But I can't prove this.  You know that I think morality can't be proven and has competing measuring sticks that have to be balanced against each other. 

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: You don't think there are "moral questions" as to how we behave in matters of survival?

Bad behavior can only exist if good behavior is an option so if morality exists it can only be aplied to situations where there is a choice.

Is the guy imoral who if the ship is going down and there's ten of you and only one life jacket and gets it while everyone tries to grab it?

No, but what if the guy knocks out another guy to get to it?  It is a "matter of pure survival," is it not?

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: You don't think there are "moral questions" as to how we behave in matters of survival?

Bad behavior can only exist if good behavior is an option so if morality exists it can only be aplied to situations where there is a choice.

Is the guy imoral who if the ship is going down and there's ten of you and only one life jacket and gets it while everyone tries to grab it?

No, but what if the guy knocks out another guy to get to it?  It is a "matter of pure survival," is it not?

Exactly.

Some people would call him immoral, but virtually every person would scrape and claw and fight for survival in that situation, virtually everyone. Can we all be immoral?

Kshartle wrote: Can we all be immoral?

Yes.  Have you done any of these, EVER?

immoral
adjective
unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, miscreant; sinful, godless, impure, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, degenerate, debased, debauched, dissolute, reprobate, lewd, obscene, perverse, perverted; licentious, wanton, promiscuous, loose; informal shady, lowdown, crooked, sleazy. ANTONYMS ethical, chaste.

Mountaineer wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Can we all be immoral?

Yes.  Have you done any of these, EVER?

immoral
adjective
unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, miscreant; sinful, godless, impure, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, degenerate, debased, debauched, dissolute, reprobate, lewd, obscene, perverse, perverted; licentious, wanton, promiscuous, loose; informal shady, lowdown, crooked, sleazy. ANTONYMS ethical, chaste.

toucee.

Let me be more precise......if we would all do something (fight and claw for the lifejacket or whatever to survive) can that something be immoral?

Kshartle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Can we all be immoral?

Yes.  Have you done any of these, EVER?

immoral
adjective
unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, miscreant; sinful, godless, impure, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, degenerate, debased, debauched, dissolute, reprobate, lewd, obscene, perverse, perverted; licentious, wanton, promiscuous, loose; informal shady, lowdown, crooked, sleazy. ANTONYMS ethical, chaste.

toucee.

Let me be more precise......if we would all do something (fight and claw for the lifejacket or whatever to survive) can that something be immoral?

I repeat myself:

Yes.  Have you done any of these, EVER?

immoral
adjective
unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, miscreant; sinful, godless, impure, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, degenerate, debased, debauched, dissolute, reprobate, lewd, obscene, perverse, perverted; licentious, wanton, promiscuous, loose; informal shady, lowdown, crooked, sleazy. ANTONYMS ethical, chaste.

Mountaineer wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Yes.  Have you done any of these, EVER?

immoral
adjective
unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, miscreant; sinful, godless, impure, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, degenerate, debased, debauched, dissolute, reprobate, lewd, obscene, perverse, perverted; licentious, wanton, promiscuous, loose; informal shady, lowdown, crooked, sleazy. ANTONYMS ethical, chaste.

toucee.

Let me be more precise......if we would all do something (fight and claw for the lifejacket or whatever to survive) can that something be immoral?

I repeat myself:

Yes.  Have you done any of these, EVER?

immoral
adjective
unethical, bad, morally wrong, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, miscreant; sinful, godless, impure, unchaste, unvirtuous, shameless, degenerate, debased, debauched, dissolute, reprobate, lewd, obscene, perverse, perverted; licentious, wanton, promiscuous, loose; informal shady, lowdown, crooked, sleazy. ANTONYMS ethical, chaste.

This is known as missing the point.

Which one of these adjectives would you assign to clawing for the life jacket to prevent drowning?

moda0306 wrote: happiness is an intrinsically preferred state, and suffering is an intrinsically unpreferable state, and those states, respectively, ought to be maximized and minimized.

But I can't prove this.

Don't be too certain! 

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Bad behavior can only exist if good behavior is an option so if morality exists it can only be aplied to situations where there is a choice.

Is the guy imoral who if the ship is going down and there's ten of you and only one life jacket and gets it while everyone tries to grab it?

No, but what if the guy knocks out another guy to get to it?  It is a "matter of pure survival," is it not?

Exactly.

Some people would call him immoral, but virtually every person would scrape and claw and fight for survival in that situation, virtually everyone. Can we all be immoral?

Virtually everyone else might be.  What if only one person was?  Then is it ok to throw aside morality?  What if half of the people are clawing, but the other half are just running? What if everyone was running to it aggressively, but doing nothing overtly violent?

In fact, if 99% of people are in favor of government of some kind, and government is a bunch of thieves and murderers, aren't you effectively in the midst of "clawing and fighting" right now?  Perhaps we don't have immorality as a result.

Perhaps this is another gray area that needs to be discussed once you prove self-ownership...

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: happiness is an intrinsically preferred state, and suffering is an intrinsically unpreferable state, and those states, respectively, ought to be maximized and minimized.

But I can't prove this.

Don't be too certain! 

Well, if I can, it looks like more of a recipe for utilitarianism-based ethics than rights-based ethics.

Be careful what you agree with! 

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: happiness is an intrinsically preferred state, and suffering is an intrinsically unpreferable state, and those states, respectively, ought to be maximized and minimized.

But I can't prove this.

Don't be too certain! 

Well, if I can, it looks like more of a recipe for utilitarianism-based ethics than rights-based ethics.

Be careful what you agree with! 

ahahah....not even close

enough digression. I won't post on this thread again until I do a deeper explanation of the imperative to do what's right. Hopefully it clears up confusion and we can press on.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Don't be too certain! 

Well, if I can, it looks like more of a recipe for utilitarianism-based ethics than rights-based ethics.

Be careful what you agree with! 

ahahah....not even close

enough digression. I won't post on this thread again until I do a deeper explanation of the imperative to do what's right. Hopefully it clears up confusion and we can press on.

Well not to nitpick, but an imperative to maximize happiness or minimize suffering is arguing from effects... exactly what you say we can't do.

But feel free to move back to our premises...

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Well, if I can, it looks like more of a recipe for utilitarianism-based ethics than rights-based ethics.

Be careful what you agree with! 

ahahah....not even close

enough digression. I won't post on this thread again until I do a deeper explanation of the imperative to do what's right. Hopefully it clears up confusion and we can press on.

Well not to nitpick, but an imperative to maximize happiness or minimize suffering is arguing from effects... exactly what you say we can't do.

But feel free to move back to our premises...

I would never argue that maximizing happiness or minimizing suffering is an imperative on purpose. Sorry I missed that part of your statement above. My mistake.

I am saying that they are preferred states though.

Good nitpick.