Gyroscopic Investing

l82start wrote: not every tax on producers is inherently parasitic some (small) amount is symbiotic and does not kill the host.  the parasites are the ones that not only take more than they produce (if they produce at all), they hurt the producers ability and will to produce

By that definition, TennPaGa's relatives are parasites for taking the state's resources without producing much due to their illnesses and disabilities.

To get back to Idealists, unlike us Rationals, they acknowledge that there are some people who simply can't be net producers, either for a period of time, due to being a child, unemployment, unforeseen circumstances, etc, or ever, due to mental illness, disability, low intelligence, etc. We don't like to think about this kind of thing because it depresses us (I know it depresses me) but it's the truth. Some of us just aren't going to be very productive.

The Idealists see all this and even generously offer to care for those people so we don't have to! But they need support themselves. Historically, this support has been provided by the church, but the implosion of religion and religious institutions has basically nixed that. So the state took over during the last 80 years or so, but the state is a fickle master. I have Idealist relatives who work in state agencies that look after the mentally ill, disabled, and runaway children, stuff like that, and they're always complaining about how the resources available to them are being constantly squeezed and reduced.

And so I worry about them. The Idealists willingly deal with the part of society that's depressing to the rest of us, but they don't produce enough economic value to afford to do it without someone else's help. And that level of help seems to be very low.

Simonjester wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Simobnjester wrote: not every tax on producers is inherently parasitic some (small) amount is symbiotic and does not kill the host.  the parasites are the ones that not only take more than they produce (if they produce at all), they hurt the producers ability and will to produce

By that definition, TennPaGa's relatives are parasites for taking the state's resources without producing much due to their illnesses and disabilities.

To get back to Idealists, unlike us Rationals, they acknowledge that there are some people who simply can't be net producers, either for a period of time, due to being a child, unemployment, unforeseen circumstances, etc, or ever, due to mental illness, disability, low intelligence, etc. We don't like to think about this kind of thing because it depresses us (I know it depresses me) but it's the truth. Some of us just aren't going to be very productive.

The Idealists see all this and even generously offer to care for those people so we don't have to! But they need support themselves. Historically, this support has been provided by the church, but the implosion of religion and religious institutions has basically nixed that. So the state took over during the last 80 years or so, but the state is a fickle master. I have Idealist relatives who work in state agencies that look after the mentally ill, disabled, and runaway children, stuff like that, and they're always complaining about how the resources available to them are being constantly squeezed and reduced.

And so I worry about them. The Idealists willingly deal with the part of society that's depressing to the rest of us, but they don't produce enough economic value to afford to do it without someone else's help. And that level of help seems to be very low.

i am not sure those with illness and disability's are the parasites under this definition, the government employees who use force and live off of taking my money to give to them are.. their incompetence and corruption alone would seem to make them so. But the actual recipients who cant produce in easily recognizable ways still have benefit, they may make relatives happy, pass along wisdom, provide  inspiration and so on.  i would prefer that we went back to a family/community/church, based method of providing for them, but they do seem to fall in the symbiotic class of parasite even if providing for them gives no return but feeling good about doing so and the pleasure of living in a society that cares..

+1  And if a person has no virtue, and they just are lazy SOBs.....no one is going to be forced to pay for them. They will have to work. This will make everyone's lives better except for the SOB.

Arguing this though.......is arguing from effects. Ends don't justify means if there really is such a thing as moral principles and human rights. If there are any human rights (which is what the welfare folks like to argue)...then the first right must be self-ownership and not the right to take from others. But maybe we haven't explored this enough.

Anyone care to take stab at my earlier questions?

Pointedstick wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

moda0306 wrote: tech,

Can you give us a better ideas who the parasites are?  Who uses violence to take from you?  Couldn't you say that people on social assistance are, in effect, hiring thugs to come steal from you?

The government is the one stealing from me. The parasites are those who live off my (and other producers') production against our (the producers') will.

Hope that helps.

The problem is that it's basically impossibly to avoid being a "parasite" in our modern society by that definition. I'm a producer, but I also drive on roads funded by taxes on me and other producers, none of which we explicitly consented to. Am I a parasite when it comes to the roads? It's basically impossible to avoid benefiting in some manner from tax-funded goods or services  today, so I don't think that definition is very helpful.

If the taxes you have paid over your lifetime are more than the amount of government services you have received, you're not a parasite, but a victim of the government.

Libertarian666 wrote: If the taxes you have paid over your lifetime are more than the amount of government services you have received, you're not a parasite, but a victim of the government.

But how the heck am I supposed to figure that out? What's the monetary value to me of the national defense the government has provided me? What about the cost to send officers to my house that time I called the police? It seems kind of impossible to determine what the monetary value of my individual share of the government's services happens to be. I suspect that I am a net producer but really, how is this even calculable?

Libertarian666 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: The government is the one stealing from me. The parasites are those who live off my (and other producers') production against our (the producers') will.

Hope that helps.

The problem is that it's basically impossibly to avoid being a "parasite" in our modern society by that definition. I'm a producer, but I also drive on roads funded by taxes on me and other producers, none of which we explicitly consented to. Am I a parasite when it comes to the roads? It's basically impossible to avoid benefiting in some manner from tax-funded goods or services  today, so I don't think that definition is very helpful.

If the taxes you have paid over your lifetime are more than the amount of government services you have received, you're not a parasite, but a victim of the government.

I would also classify the vast majority of welfare recipiants as victims too. First off the government education is bad, parents had to work extra to pay taxes making the childhood worse, no skills upon graduation, very few job opportunites due to low skills, regs and taxes killing the economy, handouts that encourage sloth and dependancy....the list goes on and on and on. Sorry that was rambly, have to run. very few winners from the violence.

Pointedstick wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: If the taxes you have paid over your lifetime are more than the amount of government services you have received, you're not a parasite, but a victim of the government.

But how the heck am I supposed to figure that out? What's the monetary value to me of the national defense the government has provided me? What about the cost to send officers to my house that time I called the police? It seems kind of impossible to determine what the monetary value of my individual share of the government's services happens to be. I suspect that I am a net producer but really, how is this even calculable?

That's why the principles need to be understood. The morality. No way to measure this stuff objectivley and convince someone with dollars and cents. At least that's how it looks to me.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Kshartle,

The problem with starting with morality and building logic from it is that morality is inherantly difficult to prove.

You can say everything starts with self-ownership, but that's a moral statement. How can you prove that self-ownership is a fundamental moral truth, as well as the fact that it spreads to things we touch/change.

This isn't present in nature.  Yes, every animal seems to think it owns itself, but then often they try to take ownership of another animal that probably feels the same way.

And if we have self-ownership, do animals have it?

So what does it mean to have ownership? We control our bodies right? We control our actions and are responsible for our actions right?

Can you argue that you don't control or own your actions? What are you doing when you make the statement "I don't control myself and I'm not responsible for my actions"? Aren't you exercising control of your mouth and tounge and everything else when you make the statement? If you made that statement, would it make sense for me to turn to PS and challenge him on it, or you? If 1 minute later you deny ever having said it, isn't it obvious you're wrong? Are you not responsible for your argument as the effect of your action which you control, just as you're responsible for the death of someone you murder or if you steal from someone or you go to work for a wage? Don't you own the effect of what you do and no one else is responsible for it?

Who else has physical control of you or is responsible for what you do?

Animals are a separate issue. I am certain they do not have self-ownership but maybe we can leave them aside while we deal with humans.

Self-ownership is just the surface of morality but I'm certain that it really does exist, it's not just opinion. It is man made, that doesn't matter, and it is a concept of sorts, but mathmatics and language are also and they exist. They aren't just opinions.

Take a stab at the questions please. I've got a horrifically busy day but I'll try to check in.

So what does it mean to have ownership?

There's a few definitions we could go with:

Control... which isn't a moral claim so much as an observation... "I control the movement of my arm, and what I say."

Others appear to be more based on the codification of laws... "Legal ownership," if you will.

Others appear to be more morally based... to have a "rightful claim."


So if you are talking about physical control of what I do.  Then, yes, I have some control, but I can't fly into outer-space or swim deep in the ocean.  I can't climb over certain fences, walls, or other structures.  Further, if someone pushes me, I've lost control of myself to a certain degree.  I am in control only to the degree that the world around me allows me to be in physical control.

So I can "control my actions" to a degree, but limited by the world around me.  Now to say I'm "responsible" for my actions carries some more weight.

If I can only control myself within certain parameters, and the rest is up to nature, I am one cause of changes in the world around me.  If I lean against a tree that, unbeknownst to me someone else weakened at the base, am I responsible for it falling over... I mean I helped cause it to, but what moral significance does it have?  What if that tree housed birds and squirrels, but I chopped it down on purpose... I'm "responsible" for that happening (as is physics), but what moral significance is that?  If I push over a football player during a game, I'm responsible for that, but what if I push down an old man on a sidewalk, I'm equally "responsible," but this is surely different.

Simply being able to control our limbs does not connect to any moral right to anything, as a squirrel can do the same.  Now we may be more conscious about what we do, but only to a matter of degree (read Influence: The Psychology of Persuason if you want some evidence that we're more animalistic and out of conscious control of ourselves than you think).

The fact that I'm in control of myself to some degree, and it's very difficult to "persuade" others, means that this is very useful in deciding how to conduct myself (as explained in HIFFIAUW).

But that doesn't give me much moral guidance... to apply to myself OR others.  I control my arms and you control yours.  That says nothing of the rightness or wrongness of me punching you (this isn't a veiled threat haha).  It's a physical fact.  You can say that I'm "responsible" for my fist touching your face, but what does that mean, morally?  Is there any reason that trying to control something that attempts to control itself is inherently wrong (I certainly think so, instinctually, but I can't put it into a logical equation)?

I think we both agree that somewhere, deep down, there is some moral truth... that people aren't just clumps of atoms that we can rape, murder, and steal from.  But the fact that I have some limited control over my extremities doesn't lead me to that conclusion.  It's something else.  I think I almost had that answered back in college during Philosophy 101, but I forget most of that now, and I probably had it wrong them .

I think we're closer in agreement than we think, here.  I think there is some fundamental moral truth that could probably be best described best as "individual sovereignty."  I like that better than "ownership" because it implies less about what I should do for myself with the power I have, and more as to what moral right I have.

But individual sovereignty clashes with the fact that we aren't fully autonomous beings floating through space.  We share this rock.  In fact, if it weren't for the limitations placed on us by physics, nature, biology, etc, we probably wouldn't exist in the first place.  It's those forces that work together to make life possible.  So I have to balance my fundamental belief in individual sovereignty (I truly do think it's a fundamental moral truth) with the fact that we live in a world that before we even know how to think about morality, has usurped our individual sovereignty by placing us in close proximity of other people (and maybe even non-human life) that has sovereignty (or at least might have it) as well, and we need to access natural resources to even stay alive, as well as compete for those resources.  It is impossible for everyone to live free, when the very physica/ecological nature of the world around us denies us that freedom, but gives us limited forms of sustenence/resources in return.

Pointedstick wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: If the taxes you have paid over your lifetime are more than the amount of government services you have received, you're not a parasite, but a victim of the government.

But how the heck am I supposed to figure that out? What's the monetary value to me of the national defense the government has provided me? What about the cost to send officers to my house that time I called the police? It seems kind of impossible to determine what the monetary value of my individual share of the government's services happens to be. I suspect that I am a net producer but really, how is this even calculable?

How much have you paid in taxes, including "employer contributions"?
Calculate an estimate of any government services that any reasonable person might think are valuable and divide by the population. Obviously this would exclude the War on Drugs, invading other countries, and the like.

There's an even easier answer, though: would you be willing to forgo any future government services if they would stop regulating and taxing you? If so, you aren't a parasite.

Yes, I know there are people who have received gigantic government expenditures in the past, far more than they ever paid in taxes. If you are one of them, then maybe this is more complicated. But somehow I doubt you are in that category.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: The government is the one stealing from me. The parasites are those who live off my (and other producers') production against our (the producers') will.

Hope that helps.

The problem is that it's basically impossibly to avoid being a "parasite" in our modern society by that definition. I'm a producer, but I also drive on roads funded by taxes on me and other producers, none of which we explicitly consented to. Am I a parasite when it comes to the roads? It's basically impossible to avoid benefiting in some manner from tax-funded goods or services  today, so I don't think that definition is very helpful.

If the taxes you have paid over your lifetime are more than the amount of government services you have received, you're not a parasite, but a victim of the government.

How do you measure that value?

If a business-owner gets a loan at "grossly unnaturally low interest rates," does that count as a service?

If you are benefitting from the legacy of land/resources taken from Native Americans with the help of government, is that a service?

If there are roads that drive your customers to your store, is that a service to you, or a service to them?

If the government educated your employees, is that a service to you or to them?


If you continue to act in ways that you don't have to to earn a higher marginal economic benefit (but paying some more taxes), can you really still call yourself a victim every year? 


You saw your options:

Door A: Live off of welfare.

Door B: Work your butt off for a higher net income (even after taxes) and better lifestyle

Door C: Somewhere in-between.


You chose Door B (or so it seems).  You know what taxes come with door B, but you choose it anyway because you think the marginal benefits are well-worth the work.  You could have chosen Door A if it were so great.

So if we're really talking about self-ownership here, you really can't call yourself a victim after a couple years of choosing Door B and seeing what comes with it.  Fool you once, shame on government/parasites.  Fool you twice, shame on you.

Unlike a slave, everyone here got to choose, and with relatively fair ease of analysis of what each door will bring.  At the risk of sounding much more harsh than I mean to... Pick a life, and get off your high horse about whether you're a victim or not, because not that many people in history have ever had the ability to choose.

If we're going to talk about self-ownership, we probably should live it ourselves before asking our government to dismantle itself so people will get the religion that we seem so often unwilling to truly practice on our own..

Oh my goodness. What a great article. Really hits the nail on the head, I think. Highly recommended for everyone who wants to participate in this discussion.

Though I am not a religious person, I fear that the decline of religion in general and The Church as an institution (with capital letters and everything) signals the fall of the Idealists. Whether it is the cause or the effect, I'm not sure.

The reason for my worries is that I see no solutions on the horizon. I believe our civilizational cycle is simply pivoting to an era where the Rationals and Artisans are ascendant, at the expense of the Guardians and especially the Idealists. The downsides of the Guardian-Idealist axis of power were stagnation, intolerance, and violent expansionism. The downsides of the Rational-Artisan power axis are still being worked out, but I think they will wind up being isolation, stratification, and exhaustion (of people as well as resources and ecologies).

But you can't fight the system. We are where we are and none of us can change it, only deal with it.