Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5339
Why is that? Moda and I have talked on the side. As far as I know we're cool. We can have a discussion about this stuff although if he or Doodle prefer we can stop right now.Pointedstick wrote: Right now this thread is on course for a locking. Let's settle down a bit.
Animals also express self-ownership. They defend what they think is theirs.Kshartle wrote:Yes I do have a basis. It's the concept of self-ownership. It's very basic and everyone expresses it's validity without even thinking twice about it.moda0306 wrote:
You have NO basis for your moral position, yet you argue with us from a pedestal, acting like you have the moral high-ground, which is an utter joke. When doodle and I ask you what happens if we disagree, you just say "I don't care as long as you don't steal "my property."" That surely is some circular logic. Care to expand on this a bit. Entire wars have been fought by people over what both sides very surely thought was "their property."
What is the circular logic? You can believe whatever nonsense you want....just please don't steal and attack me or others and we'll generally be cool. Keep the violent beast caged and we'll just pretend it doesn't exist alright? I'm not going want to see you punished for your thoughts.
Wouldn't it be better if rather than "fighting" over property people used peaceful negotiation instead? Ohhh wait, I forgot we lived in bizzaro world where you end wars by invading and making war.
Trying to solve property disputes by denying that it exists is like trying to get across the English channel by walking and pretending you won't drown.
I'm not saying you are violent or anyone else here is. I don't know you guys except through this forum. You do advocate it though whether you recognize it or not. If that feels like I am taking the moral high road then so be it. There are no potholes on the high road so I hear.
Simonjester wrote: if its so full of holes and bad logic what is your alternative?
if property doesn't exist and i have no right to claim anything, or anything beyond my body, then there is nothing to build a society on top of, how does this property less society work? if i produce something then what happens? i loose it? it belongs to some guy who a bunch of people elected to take it from me, because he claimed they would get a share? because the were given a monopoly on violence? i don't see any way you can build a fair society, or any society without property, regardless of the philosophical dead end of "moral ownership", that the property is theft philosophy drops you into
property may confound you because of your beliefs, but it still is the only workable foundation we have...
If someone goes into a bank and puts a gun in the teller's face and the teller puts the money in the bag....and the theif leaves....was that violence?doodle wrote: Kshartle,
The empirical evidence indicates that you are wrong...and for that matter so is MediumTex when he makes the claim that governments have led to more violence. That is absolutely not the case.
reason: Why has violence declined? I think most people would be astonished to hear that.
Steven Pinker: First of all, I have to convince people that there’s a fact that needs to be explained—namely, that violence has declined. And it has, as I demonstrate with 100 graphs and data sets. The reasons, I think, are multiple. One of them is the spread of government, the outsourcing of revenge to a more or less disinterested third party. That tends to ramp down your rates of vendetta and blood feud for all the reasons that we’re familiar with from The Sopranos and The Godfather. If you’ve got a disinterested third party, they’re more likely to nip that cycle in the bud. Not necessarily because they have any benevolent interest in the welfare of their subject peoples, especially in the early governments. Their motive was closer to the motive of a farmer who doesn’t want his livestock killing each other. Namely, it’s a deadweight loss to him.
But even without this benevolent interest, you find that with the first states in the transition from hunting and gathering to settled ways of life, violence goes down, and in the consolidation of kingdoms during the transition from medieval times to modernity, rates of homicide go way down.
reason: What else?
Pinker: A second one is the growth of commerce; opportunities for positive-sum exchange, as opposed to zero-sum plunder. When it’s cheaper to buy something than to steal it, that changes the incentives, and you get each side valuing the other more alive than dead—the theory of gentle commerce [that comes] from the Enlightenment.
reason: How much has violence declined?
Pinker: [During] the transition from tribal societies to settled states, there was a reduction from about a 15 percent chance of dying violently down to about a 3 percent chance in the first states.
.Yes. Close to it, anyway. However, if you continue to open your door to him and work at the bank and give him money, maybe you're just complicit in the transaction, and it's no longer violence.Kshartle wrote:If someone goes into a bank and puts a gun in the teller's face and the teller puts the money in the bag....and the theif leaves....was that violence?doodle wrote: Kshartle,
The empirical evidence indicates that you are wrong...and for that matter so is MediumTex when he makes the claim that governments have led to more violence. That is absolutely not the case.
reason: Why has violence declined? I think most people would be astonished to hear that.
Steven Pinker: First of all, I have to convince people that there’s a fact that needs to be explained—namely, that violence has declined. And it has, as I demonstrate with 100 graphs and data sets. The reasons, I think, are multiple. One of them is the spread of government, the outsourcing of revenge to a more or less disinterested third party. That tends to ramp down your rates of vendetta and blood feud for all the reasons that we’re familiar with from The Sopranos and The Godfather. If you’ve got a disinterested third party, they’re more likely to nip that cycle in the bud. Not necessarily because they have any benevolent interest in the welfare of their subject peoples, especially in the early governments. Their motive was closer to the motive of a farmer who doesn’t want his livestock killing each other. Namely, it’s a deadweight loss to him.
But even without this benevolent interest, you find that with the first states in the transition from hunting and gathering to settled ways of life, violence goes down, and in the consolidation of kingdoms during the transition from medieval times to modernity, rates of homicide go way down.
reason: What else?
Pinker: A second one is the growth of commerce; opportunities for positive-sum exchange, as opposed to zero-sum plunder. When it’s cheaper to buy something than to steal it, that changes the incentives, and you get each side valuing the other more alive than dead—the theory of gentle commerce [that comes] from the Enlightenment.
reason: How much has violence declined?
Pinker: [During] the transition from tribal societies to settled states, there was a reduction from about a 15 percent chance of dying violently down to about a 3 percent chance in the first states.
moda0306 wrote: Hard to say that an animal can't judge the "correctness" of his actions if you can't first logically tell me what is "correct." It doesn't matter what I think is correct. I might have a terrible idea of what's correct. I'm still responsible for my actions though. The fact that I can even contemplate it means I have free will. The animal does not. The animal cannot be responsible even for itself since it doesn't have free will. If it can't be responsible for itself....how can it be responsible for property?
My old golden retreiver KNEW when she was doing something "incorrect." Well some things anyway
So if a being can't judge the morality of their actions, they have no true rights. Babies can't. Can we kill them? Do I really need to explain that babies are just little humans and are different from animals? Yes the babies aren't responsible for themselves yet. This would be a grey area but I think it's safe to say that it's wrong to kill a baby. They are humans. Unless you want to suggest that it might be ok? We should probably not go here.
I didn't feel any heat. I appreciate the sharpening of my arguments. Sometimes the blade can only be forged in the fire.moda0306 wrote: Kshartle and I are fine.
I really think the natural state between us is one of near-constant jabbing at each other that's on the border of seriousness but we love the debte too damn much to stop.
However, it's not helpful for others. I'll TRY to cool it
Ummm...your analogy between the thief and the government is extremely tenuous. You see, people created governments and standing armies to avoid a worse type of violence. As nuts as it might seem to you, people are more productive when there is stability and order which at the end of the day must be enforced by some entity. Disagreements will arise between people and if there is no third party arbitrator, then conflict gets solved mafia style. Maybe this isn't rational....but it's reality. Your utopia falls apart because it is based on a flawed overestimation of human pacifism and rationality. At the end of the day, force always wins over rationality.Kshartle wrote:If someone goes into a bank and puts a gun in the teller's face and the teller puts the money in the bag....and the theif leaves....was that violence?doodle wrote: Kshartle,
The empirical evidence indicates that you are wrong...and for that matter so is MediumTex when he makes the claim that governments have led to more violence. That is absolutely not the case.
reason: Why has violence declined? I think most people would be astonished to hear that.
Steven Pinker: First of all, I have to convince people that there’s a fact that needs to be explained—namely, that violence has declined. And it has, as I demonstrate with 100 graphs and data sets. The reasons, I think, are multiple. One of them is the spread of government, the outsourcing of revenge to a more or less disinterested third party. That tends to ramp down your rates of vendetta and blood feud for all the reasons that we’re familiar with from The Sopranos and The Godfather. If you’ve got a disinterested third party, they’re more likely to nip that cycle in the bud. Not necessarily because they have any benevolent interest in the welfare of their subject peoples, especially in the early governments. Their motive was closer to the motive of a farmer who doesn’t want his livestock killing each other. Namely, it’s a deadweight loss to him.
But even without this benevolent interest, you find that with the first states in the transition from hunting and gathering to settled ways of life, violence goes down, and in the consolidation of kingdoms during the transition from medieval times to modernity, rates of homicide go way down.
reason: What else?
Pinker: A second one is the growth of commerce; opportunities for positive-sum exchange, as opposed to zero-sum plunder. When it’s cheaper to buy something than to steal it, that changes the incentives, and you get each side valuing the other more alive than dead—the theory of gentle commerce [that comes] from the Enlightenment.
reason: How much has violence declined?
Pinker: [During] the transition from tribal societies to settled states, there was a reduction from about a 15 percent chance of dying violently down to about a 3 percent chance in the first states.
Yes. Close to it, anyway. However, if you continue to open your door to him and work at the bank and give him money, maybe you're just complicit in the transaction, and it's no longer violence. You were right at yes and then you screwed it up! You can be dumb.....but you can't be complicit in the theft of your stuff and you're never responsible for the theif's actions.moda0306 wrote: If someone goes into a bank and puts a gun in the teller's face and the teller puts the money in the bag....and the theif leaves....was that violence?
Then why are trying to convince me of that with an argument rather than violence? What kind of wierd relationships do you have where people settle things with violence rather than rationale decisions?doodle wrote: At the end of the day, force always wins over rationality.
Right now, my life is not affected by you. But if you started encroaching on my cropland with your grazing cattle and wouldnt leave...then I would probably kill you. And believe it or not, this is why so many people died violent deaths in pre-government societies. Because disputes arose, power struggle ensues, people die.Kshartle wrote:Then why are trying to convince me of that with an argument rather than violence? What kind of wierd relationships do you have where people settle things with violence rather than rationale decisions?doodle wrote: At the end of the day, force always wins over rationality.
The funny thing is..... the violent threat of the third party is a mafia style solution. Two people negotiating, possibly with another party mediating is how almost every human dispute is solved.doodle wrote: Disagreements will arise between people and if there is no third party arbitrator, then conflict gets solved mafia style.
Yes, and when one of the parties refuses to go along with the decision of the mediator...then what?Kshartle wrote:The funny thing is..... the violent threat of the third party is a mafia style solution. Two people negotiating, possibly with another party mediating is how almost every human dispute is solved.doodle wrote: Disagreements will arise between people and if there is no third party arbitrator, then conflict gets solved mafia style.
So, what philosophical guidelines do we use to decide how property is divided up? I suppose the ones that you prefer right? And if I happen to disagree with your guidelines...then what? I suppose you kill me right?Simonjester wrote:you fail to understand the difference between violence "in defense of property and liberty", and "violence against property and liberty", the government is supposed to be limited to the former.... it is it's constant's engagement in the latter, we want reduced or ended..doodle wrote:
Ummm...your analogy between the thief and the government is extremely tenuous. You see, people created governments and standing armies to avoid a worse type of violence. As nuts as it might seem to you, people are more productive when there is stability and order which at the end of the day must be enforced by some entity
Simonjester wrote: we have gone over the basics of how property rights work countless times already, they really aren't that hard to grasp unless you fall into the bottomless pit of confusion the idea that "property is theft" drops you in. for a basic primer try this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
and the answer is yes if you want to take somebodies property they have a right to defend it, but seeing or understanding that requires understanding both property and the difference between violence "in defense of property and liberty", and "violence against property and liberty... so to those in the pit of confusion that may not make sense.
Actually it’s brilliant. What it demonstrates quite clearly is that someone doesn’t need to be physically hurt for violence to exist. Just because the victim submits rather resist does not change the fact that violence took place. There are about a bazillion examples I could have used but this one seems simple enough.doodle wrote:Ummm...your analogy between the thief and the government is extremely tenuous. You see, people created governments and standing armies to avoid a worse type of violence.Kshartle wrote:
If someone goes into a bank and puts a gun in the teller's face and the teller puts the money in the bag....and the theif leaves....was that violence?
Do you truly believe this? Sincere question. Do you sincerely believe this is true?doodle wrote: You see, people created governments and standing armies to avoid a worse type of violence.
He doesn't fail to understand the difference. How can he? Every semi-intelligent person can understnad the difference. When people pretend to not understand basic and simple distinctions like this it is for argumentative purposes. It is wasteful of other people's time and brain power constantly knocking down fallacious arguments that are disingenuous.Simonjester wrote:you fail to understand the difference between violence "in defense of property and liberty", and "violence against property and liberty", the government is supposed to be limited to the former.... it is it's constant's engagement in the latter, we want reduced or ended..doodle wrote:
Ummm...your analogy between the thief and the government is extremely tenuous. You see, people created governments and standing armies to avoid a worse type of violence. As nuts as it might seem to you, people are more productive when there is stability and order which at the end of the day must be enforced by some entity
Simonjester wrote: no that pretty well sums it up... i like to give the benefit of the doubt, but regardless of whether its pretending for argument, contrarianism for sport, a defense mechanism, or honest lack of understanding grown out of a flawed fundamental belief (property is theft) they are still in "confusion" arguing that since you cant tell them "which came first property or theft" there is no validity to any claim of property, and therefore no theft if government takes it.. and yes the contradictions do get really bizarre..
Personally I think you need to learn how to discuss these matters without directly challenging people's hypocrisies, such as the ones you gave examples of. You may be right, but such a blunt approach never works with the person you're talking to and only rarely convinces observers.Kshartle wrote: What do you think Simon? Do you think I have a point with any of that? If you think I'm wrong I'd love to hear why.
Simonjester wrote:
less government... please... have a heart do it for the children
Yes absolutely. It belongs to you, not them.Kshartle wrote:Yes. Close to it, anyway. However, if you continue to open your door to him and work at the bank and give him money, maybe you're just complicit in the transaction, and it's no longer violence. You were right at yes and then you screwed it up! You can be dumb.....but you can't be complicit in the theft of your stuff and you're never responsible for the theif's actions.moda0306 wrote: If someone goes into a bank and puts a gun in the teller's face and the teller puts the money in the bag....and the theif leaves....was that violence?
I've got one... If I have property stolen from me, do I still have a claim to that property?
Well since property hasn't been defined or established yet, apparently, should we stick to "individual sovereignty?"Simonjester wrote:you fail to understand the difference between violence "in defense of property and liberty", and "violence against property and liberty", the government is supposed to be limited to the former.... it is it's constant's engagement in the latter, we want reduced or ended..doodle wrote:
Ummm...your analogy between the thief and the government is extremely tenuous. You see, people created governments and standing armies to avoid a worse type of violence. As nuts as it might seem to you, people are more productive when there is stability and order which at the end of the day must be enforced by some entity
That video is a bit convenient in its description:Simonjester wrote:we have gone over the basics of how property rights work countless times already, they really aren't that hard to grasp unless you fall into the bottomless pit of confusion the idea that "property is theft" drops you in. for a basic primer try this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7Idoodle wrote:
So, what philosophical guidelines do we use to decide how property is divided up? I suppose the ones that you prefer right? And if I happen to disagree with your guidelines...then what? I suppose you kill me right?
Should a father be able to hand down property to his son? I can think of philosophical arguments for or against this. Which one is right? Well, I'll guess the powerful will decide and force the others who disagree to go along.
and the answer is yes if you want to take somebodies property they have a right to defend it, but seeing or understanding that requires understanding both property and the difference between violence "in defense of property and liberty", and "violence against property and liberty... so to those in the pit of confusion that may not make sense.
Well I suppose the term "violence" is a bit too general then, because I'd assume that anyone of us would rather have found out our spouse been held up for her purse than shot in the process. Probably by a HUGE degree.Kshartle wrote:Actually it’s brilliant. What it demonstrates quite clearly is that someone doesn’t need to be physically hurt for violence to exist. Just because the victim submits rather resist does not change the fact that violence took place. There are about a bazillion examples I could have used but this one seems simple enough.doodle wrote:Ummm...your analogy between the thief and the government is extremely tenuous. You see, people created governments and standing armies to avoid a worse type of violence.Kshartle wrote:
If someone goes into a bank and puts a gun in the teller's face and the teller puts the money in the bag....and the theif leaves....was that violence?
Since the government enforces tax collection against the will of people through the threat of violence it is committing violence. The same goes for all laws. They are all enforced through the threat of violence. What this complete idiot professor is trying to convince people is that government has reduced violence. If he had half a brain he could recognize in an instant that governments have perfected violence to such a high degree that very few people even resist.
Modern governments represent the pinnacle of violent expression of some humans against others.
I doubt that many murders take place in North Korea. Does he think it’s not violent there? It must seem like Utopia to this twit.
Well I have to give him a pass since he is coming from Harvard. That hole has given us such moral champions as George W. and B. Obama. Seriously, their ethics department must have an endowment from Hitler or Stalin’s estates. How on Earth can they pump out such up is down, black is white garbage?
"facilitated most of the settling of the west" is a pretty charitable way of referring to genocide. If you believe that the Native Americans rightfully owned the land that was taken away from them, why should the government agents that attempted to exterminate them be the proper holders of their former lands?moda0306 wrote: And who's to say that our agents of government aren't the proper holders of property? I mean it was agents of government before them that facilitated most of the settling of the west...
Believe me I temper it. Advocating the use of violence and theft is so repugnant to me I have to re-type and re-type what I'd really like to say.Pointedstick wrote:Personally I think you need to learn how to discuss these matters without directly challenging people's hypocrisies, such as the ones you gave examples of. You may be right, but such a blunt approach never works with the person you're talking to and only rarely convinces observers.Kshartle wrote: What do you think I82start? Do you think I have a point with any of that? If you think I'm wrong I'd love to hear why.