Gyroscopic Investing

Kshartle wrote: You guys see a problem and think we need a law to correct it. That's as lazy as you can possibly be.  You blame the problem on human behavior which is just bizarre. You don’t even examine why people are acting that way. I take a look and in 5 minutes see how the government has created that behavior.  You need to think through the unintended consequences of the law. They will exist because you are trying to compel people to do things they don't want to do.

Which guys?

I don't feel that way.

Most of the people here feel more or less like you do in principle.  Some of us like to think outside of that worldview just to explore other ways of understanding and interpreting the world, but IMHO it's not any different than what an anthropologist does when is studying another culture.

Moda is probably more apt to see government solutions to problems than some of the other people here, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong and others are right.

Calling someone wrong who disagrees with you often significantly narrows their ability to see the merits of your argument and typically makes it much harder to find common ground.

MediumTex wrote:

Kshartle wrote: You guys see a problem and think we need a law to correct it. That's as lazy as you can possibly be.  You blame the problem on human behavior which is just bizarre. You don’t even examine why people are acting that way. I take a look and in 5 minutes see how the government has created that behavior.  You need to think through the unintended consequences of the law. They will exist because you are trying to compel people to do things they don't want to do.

Which guys?

I don't feel that way.

Most of the people here feel more or less like you do in principle.  Some of us like to think outside of that worldview just to explore other ways of understanding and interpreting the world, but IMHO it's not any different than what an anthropologist does when is studying another culture.

Moda is probably more apt to see government solutions to problems than some of the other people here, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong and others are right.

Calling someone wrong who disagrees with you often significantly narrows their ability to see the merits of your argument and typically makes it much harder to find common ground.

In general, Im not a fan of people forcing others to do things. However, force is an unavoidable component of life on earth as everything thing we do involves us exerting some sort of force on our surrounding environment. Where Kshartle and I fundamentally disagree is that he views all humans as some sort of inherently rational utility maximizing creatures that are endowed with perfect information and no inherent destructive emotions. If that were the case, then 7 billion people on this tiny earth could probably function according his society of perfect freedom. However, being that this is not the case and that this premise regarding human nature (while something to strive towards) is fundamentally not true, then his conclusions about how to organize society do not follow.

It is the same as the monetary arguments that he is making. They make sense if one buys into his basic premises about how money works. Because these premises are wrong, his conclusions are therefore wrong. His logic is sound, its just that the logic is being applied to a fictional set of assumptions about the nature of reality. 

MediumTex wrote:

Kshartle wrote: You guys see a problem and think we need a law to correct it. That's as lazy as you can possibly be.  You blame the problem on human behavior which is just bizarre. You don’t even examine why people are acting that way. I take a look and in 5 minutes see how the government has created that behavior.  You need to think through the unintended consequences of the law. They will exist because you are trying to compel people to do things they don't want to do.

Which guys?

I don't feel that way.

Most of the people here feel more or less like you do in principle.  Some of us like to think outside of that worldview just to explore other ways of understanding and interpreting the world, but IMHO it's not any different than what an anthropologist does when is studying another culture.

Moda is probably more apt to see government solutions to problems than some of the other people here, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong and others are right.

Calling someone wrong who disagrees with you often significantly narrows their ability to see the merits of your argument and typically makes it much harder to find common ground.

Context MT. Doodle and Moda had a little public conversation discussing me. I challenged their position. Obviously I wasn't referring to everyone and you know that. So I don't know why you would ignore the context and attribute something to me I didn't say (EVERYONE here thinks all problems should be solved by a law).

I never call someone wrong because they disagree with me. Again you are making this up and I don't know why. If I say someone is wrong about about something it's not because I disagree, it's because it doesn't make sense logically which I then point out. My belief of something is not proof that it's correct so please don't claim that I say it is. I don't.


Here's part of their converstation which is just a bunch of personal attacks and false arguments. It's a good study for a debate student on what not to do but probably good for a politician to study for advancing propaganda:

"I've given up debating Kshartle on this topic. He is soo intoxicated on the libertarian kool aide that he is unable to recognize that the messy reality of the world we live in doesn't conform to the formulaic logic that he believes governs human social relations. I'm not sure what kshartles background is, but he seems to believe that human society and economics operates based on simple Newtonian principles. The difference between hard scientists and Kshartle though is that when empirical evidence contradicts their theories, scientists rework the theory whereas Kshartle proclaims that reality is mistaken and his theories are in fact correct.

Fundamentally I believe that Kshartle has constructed his worldview on some very faulty premises. If his faulty premises were correct, then his conclusions might have a chance of describing reality. Unfortunately, this isn't the case.

I'm not claiming I have the answer to any of these complicated issues, but my experience in life has taught me that the answer is rarely as simple as Kshartle is trying to make it out to be. To blame every problem in the world on government is obnoxious and the quintessential example of lazy thinking."

I wont deny that many of my arguments contain logical fallacies. However, yours are chocker block full of them as well. I don't have time to go through pages of text and cull them out, but these strike me as some which I think you continuously make:

•Joint effect: One thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause.
•Insignificant: One thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect.
•Wrong direction: The direction between cause and effect is reversed.
•Complex cause: The cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect.
•Overlooked cause: A cause that will greatly change the effect is ignored.
•Treating chaotic system as mechanical: Attributing the effect to causes as though it is predictable, when in fact the system, while parts may exhibit seemingly predictable patterns, cannot be generally predicted in principle from initial conditions.
•Kripkean dogmatism: Refusal to engage arguments or evidence inconsistent with one's preferred position.
•Confirmation bias: Seeking information that confirms one's position.
•Reductionism: Insistence on concepts that are too simple to account for all the evidence.
•Misforecasting: Insisting that an alternative future flowing from one's decision is available, likely, or desirable, when it is not.

Kshartle,

Apparently we're both guilty of straw men.  By no means are we saying the government is the cure to everything.  We are saying that the government can facilitate the creation of wealth and a productive economy, and I can't see how that's very arguable when you glance accross the world at the most wealthy, productive societies.

I'm not giving credit to government.  I'm simply stating what seems to be obvious.

And people only "resist being controlled" to a certain extent.  They also like security, prosperity, peace, etc.  If they have to drive within a speed limit, pay some taxes, and buy health insurance, it's not enough to turn them into revolutionaries.


I really don't feel like I've been lazy in trying to figure out whether we'll continue to be a productive nation, or what the nature of hyperinflations have been, or how our monetary system works, or how long-term bonds work, or what effect organized uses of force have on us as "freedom-loving" people.

I really was pretty politically agnostic when approaching this stuff (and if you looked at how I invested you probably wouldn't think I was a die-hard MR'ist statist utopianist deflationist).  I invest with a very "anything could happen approach," because I realize there is no better investment for prosperity than my own skills... my savings is going to be geared towards other risks.

I don't think it's lazy to look at a world full of hundreds of relatively productive, stable mixed economies (mixture of private activity and statist "engineering"), and NO "free societies," and start asking ourselves if there is something fundamentally fragile or unpopular about said societies (not to mention hypocritical, but that's more into my assertion that claiming, modifying, and defeding real property is a de facto forceful act... another debate for another day).

Is that "lazy thinking?"  I'm no offended, by any means.  I'm just saying... I've actually pontificated long and hard about the legitimacy of the state and the nature of anarchy, and what it truly means to be as free as possible when we're all stuck on an island together (figuretively), and that "righs" aren't natural on an ecological level.  They're a man-made moral position.  I like the idea of individual sovereignty, but once you throw a bunch of people on a rock together with limited resources, the idea of individual sovereignty is a myth.  That doesn't mean we should all pick up a rock and kill each other, and it ain't no big deal, but some sort of organized governance is the only reasonable way to deal with the constraints that our world put on individual liberty. 

Normally I'd agree with you that any system based on a few people with guns controlling others is doomed to be fragile and unproductive.  However, the evidence is all around us that there is something inherantly desired and robust about a mixed economy.  Something about the control doesn't "feel like" control (or that bad of control) to enough people where they feel like quitting their productive pursuits and taking up arms against the police.

Normally I'd agree with you that any system based on a few people with guns controlling others is doomed to be fragile and unproductive.

Is this how some people see our world? I mean, I have a hard time seeing how our present society resembles this description which seems more fitting for a concentration camp.

I don't feel that oppressed  in my day to day life. But if I did, I would attribute my greatest feelings of angst to the concept of property. I don't like the idea that I cant just wander out into the middle of nowhere USA where there isn't a soul around and legally build a house and live there. So, if there is one part of this society I find oppressive it is this libertarian obsession with private property rights. As far as Im concerned, you didn't create this green piece of earth and you aren't using it, so because I need a place to lay my head at night.... bugger off and leave me alone.

doodle wrote:

Normally I'd agree with you that any system based on a few people with guns controlling others is doomed to be fragile and unproductive.

Is this how some people see our world? I mean, I have a hard time seeing how our present society resembles this description which seems more fitting for a concentration camp.

I don't feel that oppressed  in my day to day life. But if I did, I would attribute my greatest feelings of angst to the concept of property. I don't like the idea that I cant just wander out into the middle of nowhere USA where there isn't a soul around and legally build a house and live there. So, if there is one part of this society I find oppressive it is this libertarian obsession with private property rights. As far as Im concerned, you didn't create this green piece of earth and you aren't using it, so because I need a place to lay my head at night.... bugger off and leave me alone.

I totally understand this feeling and often feel it myself. But understand that it's multiple things. Private property delineation prevents you from wandering onto Jim's mountain property 100 miles from civilization without paying him, but even if you did own the property, government prevents you from building the house on your private property without being a professionally licensed, bonded, insured, certified, inspected carpenter/plumber/electrician/insulation installer/concrete pourer/general contractor.

I think there's a few questions we have to answer about the nature of Kshartle's (and others') preferred brand of perfect freedom (with private property kept in tact, but no true government but what very small societies form almost by accident as they meet in groups and try to defend their "rights").

1) Is perfect freedom a morally/logically consistent goal, especially considering it accompanies the acquisition of "private property" in the form of vast land/resource ownership and control, and considering we're all stuck on this rock together?

2) Is perfect freedom actually desired by enough productive people if it could be proven that it will stick around long enough?  For a productive libertarian Utopia to generate steam, we'd need an actual demand for said freedom.  One might also consider the costs or risks, which leads me to...

3) Is perfect freedom stable/robust?  Even if we could prove a moral superiority of perfect freedom (with the asterisk of land/resource owership and shooting "trespassers" somehow being ok).  Even if the threat is simply "other evil statists," if you're going to assert that a system is super productive, a robust nature is an assumed requirement of that society. 


I would argue that it not only is "perfect freedom*" morally and logically inconsistent with the constraints of the world and people around us, but it's not even desired all that much, and even if it were moral and desired, you still have to deal with the reality that you could be "plundered" within years by other tribes/statists with bigger, more single-mindedly organized military forces, therefore making it undesireable all over again.


And this speaks nothing to the infrastructural/organizational difficulties of having zero/zilch/nada centrally controlled infrastructure on top of which to build productivity.  Appparently, we're simply being asked to believe that if we sold/gave/allowed NY City's city property and infrastructure to a series of (or single) private interest(s), that everything would not only not fall apart, not only "be fine," but that it would be a massive productivity boon to the city.

A while ago I asked PointedStick to come up with a "transition plan" from "statist nightmare" to "free society."  I'm not trying to throw him under the bus here, but he couldn't come up with one.  He said it was too difficult to communicate, and in some cases to difficult to even pontificate.  He didn't give up on his wish to see a more free society, but the extreme is so full of odd economic events we've never been through that it's hard to even think about.  PS, I hope I'm not miscommunicating what you messaged me.

I'm amazed at the hand-waving libertarians do towards the complications of unwinding government... that it'll just figure itself out.  But in the end, this doesn't even really speak to their incorrect premises about the moral/logical inconsistency of a stateless society, the desireability of it by Galts the world over, and the productivity and stability such a society would enjoy should it even exist.  These fail first.  Or at least in my analysis.

I hope this isn't too lazy of thinking for anyone.

moda0306 wrote: A while ago I asked PointedStick to come up with a "transition plan" from "statist nightmare" to "free society."  I'm not trying to throw him under the bus here, but he couldn't come up with one.  He said it was too difficult to communicate, and in some cases to difficult to even pontificate.  He didn't give up on his wish to see a more free society, but the extreme is so full of odd economic events we've never been through that it's hard to even think about.  PS, I hope I'm not miscommunicating what you messaged me.

My reading of history is that the formation and survival of a truly robust "free society" would take a radical change in human attitudes… or at least the exclusion or non-participation of those with statist attitudes, a substantial diminution of the scarcity of physical space and resources, and a continuation of the trend of highly dangerous weaponry becoming smaller, cheaper, and easier to use. Otherwise, I could see this hypothetical society being destroyed by statists from within our from without, or bumping up against state-type problems concerning secession.

doodle wrote:

Normally I'd agree with you that any system based on a few people with guns controlling others is doomed to be fragile and unproductive.

Is this how some people see our world? I mean, I have a hard time seeing how our present society resembles this description which seems more fitting for a concentration camp.

I don't feel that oppressed  in my day to day life. But if I did, I would attribute my greatest feelings of angst to the concept of property. I don't like the idea that I cant just wander out into the middle of nowhere USA where there isn't a soul around and legally build a house and live there. So, if there is one part of this society I find oppressive it is this libertarian obsession with private property rights. As far as Im concerned, you didn't create this green piece of earth and you aren't using it, so because I need a place to lay my head at night.... bugger off and leave me alone.

doodle,

I'm just saying that even though I don't see Perfect Freedom* as really a logically or morally consistent goal, I don't see how massive political entities with lots of power manage that in a way that facilitates productivity rather than wide-spread fear.  I see that they do it, I just don't understand how.  I don't understand how an underpaid Civil Engineer would be motivated, for the purposes of the public, to build an INSANELY complex system that somehow functions in such a way that facilitates social engagement and productivity.

Now keep in mind, I'm not saying I agree with the libertarian hand-waving towards how great a Free Society* would be, I just don't know how a political entity fixes it... I just see that it works pretty damn well.

If you look at all of this in a completely simplified vacuum, the government, as an entity, is just a bunch of guys with guns telling us what to do.  I'm amazed this political structure can work...

But look around us.  Look at the world we live in.  It does. 

doodle wrote: "force is an unavoidable component of life on earth as everything thing we do involves us exerting some sort of force on our surrounding environment. Where Kshartle and I fundamentally disagree is that he views all humans as some sort of inherently rational utility maximizing creatures that are endowed with perfect information and no inherent destructive emotions. If that were the case, then 7 billion people on this tiny earth could probably function according his society of perfect freedom. However, being that this is not the case and that this premise regarding human nature (while something to strive towards) is fundamentally not true, then his conclusions about how to organize society do not follow.

It is the same as the monetary arguments that he is making. They make sense if one buys into his basic premises about how money works. Because these premises are wrong, his conclusions are therefore wrong. His logic is sound, its just that the logic is being applied to a fictional set of assumptions about the nature of reality.

Where do I even begin there are so many false arguments here.

force is an unavoidable component of life on earth as everything thing we do involves us exerting some sort of force on our surrounding environment - You think that because humans exert force in nature to their benefit this proves that we must choose to use force in our interactions with each other and this is somehow inevitable or something other than a choice. This is a flase conclusion drawn from an obvious truth.

Where Kshartle and I fundamentally disagree is that he views all humans as some sort of inherently rational utility maximizing creatures that are endowed with perfect information and no inherent destructive emotions. Classic strawman and attributing an obviously false argument to me. This one is really bad.

If that were the case, then 7 billion people on this tiny earth could probably function according his society of perfect freedom. Again, if what I didn't say which is obviously false were true then something else would happen.

However, being that this is not the case and that this premise regarding human nature (while something to strive towards) is fundamentally not true, then his conclusions about how to organize society do not follow. You are projecting. You are the one who wants to organize society, not me. I point out the obvious that people will do what's in their best interest and violence doesn't solve problems, it creates new ones. Peaceful negotiation results in win-win and people (with exceptions) will eventually reject the false concept that there can be virtue from violence.

It is the same as the monetary arguments that he is making. They make sense if one buys into his basic premises about how money works.  If "Buying into" my so-called "basic premises" about money makes my argument correct then please disprove my "basic premises". What are they? Saying they are wrong and not pointing out why is argument by dismissal.


His logic is sound, its just that the logic is being applied to a fictional set of assumptions about the nature of reality. What fictional set of assumptions are these? Are they the assumptions you've fictitiously attributed to me?

doodle wrote: I wont deny that many of my arguments contain logical fallacies. However, yours are chocker block full of them as well. I don't have time to go through pages of text and cull them out, but these strike me as some which I think you continuously make:

•Joint effect: One thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause.
•Insignificant: One thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect.
•Wrong direction: The direction between cause and effect is reversed.
•Complex cause: The cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect.
•Overlooked cause: A cause that will greatly change the effect is ignored.
•Treating chaotic system as mechanical: Attributing the effect to causes as though it is predictable, when in fact the system, while parts may exhibit seemingly predictable patterns, cannot be generally predicted in principle from initial conditions.
•Kripkean dogmatism: Refusal to engage arguments or evidence inconsistent with one's preferred position.
•Confirmation bias: Seeking information that confirms one's position.
•Reductionism: Insistence on concepts that are too simple to account for all the evidence.
•Misforecasting: Insisting that an alternative future flowing from one's decision is available, likely, or desirable, when it is not.

I would appreciate if you can point them out when I make or at least occasionaly. That will help me to not make them in the future. Copying and pasting a list and saying that I make them is not helpful.

However, being that this is not the case and that this premise regarding human nature (while something to strive towards) is fundamentally not true, then his conclusions about how to organize society do not follow.  You are projecting. You are the one who wants to organize society, not me.

Again, if you renounce the concept of private property which is not an inherent right, but one that is conferred by force, then I will not criticize your position. I might think it is pie in the sky, but at least it will be logically consistent. The minute you say that you support the concept of private property, you are enforcing your own principles of organizing society on me and are therefore guilty of the same sins that you are accusing me of.

I point out the obvious that will do what's in their best interest and violence doesn't solve problems, it creates new ones. Peaceful negotiation results in win-win and people (with exceptions) will eventually reject the false concept that there can be virtue from violence.

Also, there seems to be an internal contradiction in this idea....because what happens if I don't buy into it? Are you going to force me to be peaceful, or force me to stop being violent? If so, then you are violating your own principle.

Kshartle,

force is an unavoidable component of life on earth as everything thing we do involves us exerting some sort of force on our surrounding environment - You think that because humans exert force in nature to their benefit this proves that we must choose to use force in our interactions with each other and this is somehow inevitable or something other than a choice. This is a flase conclusion drawn from an obvious truth.

Exerting force on the world around you, especially if you start building fences and shooting trespassers, is a de facto exertion of force on others.  ESPECIALLY if you had to shoot Indians off the land to build the fence.

If that were the case, then 7 billion people on this tiny earth could probably function according his society of perfect freedom. Again, if what I didn't say which is obviously false were true then something else would happen.

You assert that a Free Society* will be far more peaceful, productive, and robust than our fragile statist house of cards, and all the other fragile statist houses of cards around the world.  It is implied, at least as far as I can tell, that you're saying we could all benefit from that proposed social arrangement.

However, being that this is not the case and that this premise regarding human nature (while something to strive towards) is fundamentally not true, then his conclusions about how to organize society do not follow. You are projecting. You are the one who wants to organize society, not me. I point out the obvious that will do what's in their best interest and violence doesn't solve problems, it creates new ones. Peaceful negotiation results in win-win and people (with exceptions) will eventually reject the false concept that there can be virtue from violence.

The problem is you DO want to organize society, but you just don't realize it.  You want to have us abandon our state, which is a political choice that involves transitionary decisions (that libertarians love to hand-wave), and you're asking us to respect your idea of what constitutes legitimate private property, which is a HUGE element of social organization.

His logic is sound, its just that the logic is being applied to a fictional set of assumptions about the nature of reality. What fictional set of assumptions are these? Are they the assumptions you've fictitiously attributed to me?

- Perfect Freedom* is logically consistent.

- Perfect Freedom* is robust.

- Perfect Freedom* is desired by many.

Those three alone indicate massive misunderstandings about human nature, and economics (humans interacting with each other for economic benefit.

On a more technical level:

- About everything relating to the relationship between the Treasury, Fed, and Member Banks.

- The underlying cause of hyperinflations.

- The idea that an entire economy can "live beyond its means."  It's impossible.

- The motivations of actors in the economy given certain stimuli (expected inflation, demand, tax expectations, swapping a medium of exchange for a liquid bond of equal value from a "rigged entity, the motivations of savers when they save money sans interest as a benefit).

- That the idea that "demnd is unlimited" can manifest itself in all cases in a monetized non-barter economy (whether that money is gold or fiat).

- The idea that the government can "buy votes."  Voting is irrational.  I lose money by doing it no matter what a politicial promises me.

moda0306 wrote: Kshartle,

force is an unavoidable component of life on earth as everything thing we do involves us exerting some sort of force on our surrounding environment - You think that because humans exert force in nature to their benefit this proves that we must choose to use force in our interactions with each other and this is somehow inevitable or something other than a choice. This is a flase conclusion drawn from an obvious truth.

Exerting force on the world around you, especially if you start building fences and shooting trespassers, is a de facto exertion of force on others.  ESPECIALLY if you had to shoot Indians off the land to build the fence.

I never understand your point when you mention shooting Indians and building fences and shooting trespassers. What is it that this example is proving or dissproving? Honest and sincere question, I don't understand.

moda0306 wrote:

His logic is sound, its just that the logic is being applied to a fictional set of assumptions about the nature of reality. What fictional set of assumptions are these? Are they the assumptions you've fictitiously attributed to me?

- Perfect Freedom* is logically consistent.

- Perfect Freedom* is robust.

- Perfect Freedom* is desired by many.

Those three alone indicate massive misunderstandings about human nature, and economics (humans interacting with each other for economic benefit.

You and I might disagee on the meaning of "perfect freedom". I don't think I've ever used that term before. What I have said is that the use of force by one human against another is destructive and undesirable and morally wrong and logically inconsistent if you believe a person owns their own life and the effects of their actions. If no one has a higher claim on your life than you then no one has the right to force you to do anything.

You are atributing to me something I didn't say and inventing a meaning behind that you then attempt to dissprove. We know what this is there are fields full of them.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Kshartle,

force is an unavoidable component of life on earth as everything thing we do involves us exerting some sort of force on our surrounding environment - You think that because humans exert force in nature to their benefit this proves that we must choose to use force in our interactions with each other and this is somehow inevitable or something other than a choice. This is a flase conclusion drawn from an obvious truth.

Exerting force on the world around you, especially if you start building fences and shooting trespassers, is a de facto exertion of force on others.  ESPECIALLY if you had to shoot Indians off the land to build the fence.

I never understand your point when you mention shooting Indians and building fences and shooting trespassers. What is it that this example is proving or dissproving? Honest and sincere question, I don't understand.

Do you believe in the right to private property? If yes, what happens if I don't?

What I have said is that the use of force by one human against another is destructive and undesirable and morally wrong and logically inconsistent if you believe a person owns their own life and the effects of their actions. If no one has a higher claim on your life than you then no one has the right to force you to do anything.

And what happens if I don't believe that? Are you going to force me to? You can pontificate all you like, but when the barbarians show up on your doorstep I don't think they are going to be interested in what you have to say.

If no one has a higher claim on your life than you then no one has the right to force you to do anything.

Is this a natural law, or a man made one? If its man made, then who is going to enforce it if the natural laws of the universe don't?

moda0306 wrote: - The idea that the government can "buy votes."  Voting is irrational.  I lose money by doing it no matter what a politicial promises me.

What do you think sways millions of voters? A politician promises to steal someone else's money and give it to the voter. How does the welfare recipient lose money when voting for the guy who promises to increase their check? How does the defense contractor lose money when voting for the guy who promises to steal money from some people and buy his products with it?

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Kshartle,


Exerting force on the world around you, especially if you start building fences and shooting trespassers, is a de facto exertion of force on others.  ESPECIALLY if you had to shoot Indians off the land to build the fence.

I never understand your point when you mention shooting Indians and building fences and shooting trespassers. What is it that this example is proving or dissproving? Honest and sincere question, I don't understand.

Do you believe in the right to private property? If yes, what happens if I don't?

Take it to it's logical conclusion. If it's really a right your incorrect belief will be proven false. You'll go around taking other people's property and they will prove to you how false your belief is.

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote: I never understand your point when you mention shooting Indians and building fences and shooting trespassers. What is it that this example is proving or dissproving? Honest and sincere question, I don't understand.

Do you believe in the right to private property? If yes, what happens if I don't?

Take it to it's logical conclusion. If it's really a right your incorrect belief will be proven false. You'll go around taking other people's property and they will prove to you how false your belief is.

Unless he has obtained a monopoly on the use of force in society, in which case he can do whatever he wants to do.

That's the problem with taking too hard a line on private property in the face of social unrest.  If you shoot too many trespassers one day a guy like Fidel Castro shows up and next thing you know you're hoping to get out of the country with your life and perhaps a few personal possessions.

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote: I never understand your point when you mention shooting Indians and building fences and shooting trespassers. What is it that this example is proving or dissproving? Honest and sincere question, I don't understand.

Do you believe in the right to private property? If yes, what happens if I don't?

Take it to it's logical conclusion. If it's really a right your incorrect belief will be proven false. You'll go around taking other people's property and they will prove to you how false your belief is.

So how does Kshartle town defend itself against Ghengis Khan? Are you going to persuade him that he should move along, or are you going to have to engage in force against his trained warriors who don't spend the day farming and growing rice like you do, but rather practicing how to disembowel people?

See, this happened in reality....which is why people banded together and created governments and standing armies and walls and all sort of things that violate your concept of freedom.

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: Do you believe in the right to private property? If yes, what happens if I don't?

Take it to it's logical conclusion. If it's really a right your incorrect belief will be proven false. You'll go around taking other people's property and they will prove to you how false your belief is.

So how does Kshartle town defend itself against Ghengis Khan? Are you going to persuade him that he should move along, or are you going to have to engage in force against his trained warriors who don't spend the day farming and growing rice like you do, but rather practicing how to disembowel people?

See, this happened in reality....which is why people banded together and created governments and standing armies and walls and all sort of things that violate your concept of freedom.

They defend it with guns or missles or whatever. Defending your property is not a violation of freedom. Banding with others to defend it is not a violation of freedom.

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote: I never understand your point when you mention shooting Indians and building fences and shooting trespassers. What is it that this example is proving or dissproving? Honest and sincere question, I don't understand.

Do you believe in the right to private property? If yes, what happens if I don't?

Take it to it's logical conclusion. If it's really a right your incorrect belief will be proven false. You'll go around taking other people's property and they will prove to you how false your belief is.

So since we can agree that rights are machinations of human moral codes, and not natural physical or ecological phenomenon, then we have to decide whether private property, in all its odd forms, is a natural extension of that.

I think a "rights-based" moral argument can be boiled down to the term "individual sovereignty."  Does this sovereignty extend to the land beneath my feet?  How about land in a 40 mile radius around me if I can build enough fence and weapons to defend it?  How about the oil miles below my feet?  How about the ecological system around me that millions of animals depend on?  How about shooting trespassers?

"Individual Sovereignty," to me, is a logically consistent moral concept that just happen to be poisoned by the fact that we are unfortunately stuck on a glorified desert island together.

"Private property" is a concept that,  on one end of the spectrum, can be a very natural extension of that sovereignty (building a hut to live in, building tools to work with, fashioning a flute or guitar to occupy yourself, buying books and beaver pelts from artists and hunters, etc)  However, when expanded to vast swaths of real estate being owned by one person, and transferred to heirs, you've gone far, far away from property as a "natural extension" of human sovereignty, and now it's just become another form of organized force exerted on others.... an awful convenient one for certain people when you combine it with libertarianism in every other facet of the economy, which is the anarcho-capitalists ultimate goal.  "Force for me and not for thee, because mine is legitimate, see?"

So this is the ultimate false premise of false premises.  If we were all nomadic cultures with "individual sovereignty" moral codes and a more limited view on what could be considered legitimate "private property," that would be about as close to legitimate Free Society as I could imagine.  Anything short of that is a policy choice by those trying to control me in some way.

But I don't lose my cool.  I have enough freedom to enjoy life, and our system of organized private property recognition has some wonderful productivity advantages.  As does our system of roads and my public sewer system.  It may not be "legitimate," but who's to say what is in a world where we're all FORCED to share resources and space?



Regarding voting... people vote out of principal, by any reasonable logical analysis, so my answer would be to say (gasp) people generally vote on who they think has the most balanced moral position.  Now our world around us... our advantages and mistakes we made... definitely color our moral view of ourselves, so if I'm poor as hell, I likely believe that I don't deserve to be, or if I'm rich, I likely believe that I've earned it.

But voting vs not voting is a policy decision made by those in a position of force.  It has drawbacks, but it has great traits as well.

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Take it to it's logical conclusion. If it's really a right your incorrect belief will be proven false. You'll go around taking other people's property and they will prove to you how false your belief is.

So how does Kshartle town defend itself against Ghengis Khan? Are you going to persuade him that he should move along, or are you going to have to engage in force against his trained warriors who don't spend the day farming and growing rice like you do, but rather practicing how to disembowel people?

See, this happened in reality....which is why people banded together and created governments and standing armies and walls and all sort of things that violate your concept of freedom.

They defend it with guns or missles or whatever. Defending your property is not a violation of freedom. Banding with others to defend it is not a violation of freedom.

First, you have to determine that it is rightfully "your property."

You haven't done that yet.

And "banding together" certainly is ok, as long as the force you're about to dish out is legitimate, but if history is any indication, force usually comes about as a result of a lack of agreement on what is "legitimate."

So you're essentially making a HUGE assumption (or set of assumptions) in your utopia.  And it's the same assumption that every government, group, agency, or individual makes... "my use of force is legitimate because of (insert convenient, circular-logic premise here)."