Gyroscopic Investing

moda0306 wrote: So in the spirit of "violence never solves a problem," can I start by asking whether you think me forcibly restraining another human being who is doing no harm to me or another person is a form of "violence?"

If so, what if the man was about to walk into the street with a  bus coming?

I guess "the ends justify the means," right?

To you they do. The answers to the other questions are simple ones. Deliberately overcomplicating them for yourself doesn't actually make them more complicated for others.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

JHWY wrote: First post!  I stumbled upon this site a week ago and just started reading TPP by Rowland and Lawson.  My only disappointment so far is all the partisan BS that is unnecessarily shared across many topics and posts in this forum.  The stated objective here is for HB followers to protect and hopefully grow their savings, not to complain about all the things you hate.  If you want to hate, go find another forum so the rest of us can focus on TPP.  Now for my 125 characters....

Deflationary environment.  Interest rates will rise.  Stock market euphoric.  TPP unproven in this specific scenario.  Maybe that doesn't matter?

The "Other" section of our discussions is decidedly not very connected to investing/PP talk.  You might want to get used to it .  Other sections are awesome for discussing these various topics.

JHWY.....investments and economics and such are all interesting topics. Once you've gone through them in a couple weeks you will have figured out where to put your gold...how to buy your bonds....what account your stocks should be in, and what form is best to hold your cash. You might even dable in some predictions and discussions of the markets.

Then you'll come down to "other". And then we will have you. 

He'll be debating "rights" in no time.... muahahahaha.

moda0306 wrote: He'll be debating "rights" in no time.... muahahahaha.

No you idiot it's the LAW OF THE JUNGLE!!!!1!!!!one!!!1!!111!!eleven

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: So in the spirit of "violence never solves a problem," can I start by asking whether you think me forcibly restraining another human being who is doing no harm to me or another person is a form of "violence?"

If so, what if the man was about to walk into the street with a  bus coming?

I guess "the ends justify the means," right?

To you they do. The answers to the other questions are simple ones. Deliberately overcomplicating them for yourself doesn't actually make them more complicated for others.

Just to me?  The ends wouldn't justify the means for you?  You wouldn't grab a guy who was unknowingly walking out into traffic while on his cell phone or something?  If you would, then "the ends justify the means," which is exactly the thought process that you're using towards others when you lecture them about avoiding violence as a solution to anything.

I'm not overcomplicating anything for myself.  I'm testing your "logic."  And it's failing.

moda0306 wrote:
He'll be debating "rights" in no time.... muahahahaha.

Maybe even "Figuring Out Religion". 

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: So in the spirit of "violence never solves a problem," can I start by asking whether you think me forcibly restraining another human being who is doing no harm to me or another person is a form of "violence?"

If so, what if the man was about to walk into the street with a  bus coming?

I guess "the ends justify the means," right?

To you they do. The answers to the other questions are simple ones. Deliberately overcomplicating them for yourself doesn't actually make them more complicated for others.

Just to me?  The ends wouldn't justify the means for you?  You wouldn't grab a guy who was unknowingly walking out into traffic while on his cell phone or something?  If you would, then "the ends justify the means," which is exactly the thought process that you're using towards others when you lecture them about avoiding violence as a solution to anything.

I'm not overcomplicating anything for myself.  I'm testing your "logic."  And it's failing.

Of course stopping someone from getting hit by a bus is perfectly fine. Are you also in the camp that thinks changing a babies dirty diaper is violence or abuse?

At some point you need to apply the most basic level of commonsense.

Kshartle wrote: Of course stopping someone from getting hit by a bus is perfectly fine. Are you also in the camp that thinks changing a babies dirty diaper is violence or abuse?

At some point you need to apply the most basic level of commonsense.

Moda's point is that "common sense" isn't a logical construct. You can't simultaneously claim that your world view is backed up by logic and reason but then revert to saying, "well, that's just common sense" whenever someone presents a situation that challenges your tight logic.

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Of course stopping someone from getting hit by a bus is perfectly fine. Are you also in the camp that thinks changing a babies dirty diaper is violence or abuse?

At some point you need to apply the most basic level of commonsense.

Moda's point is that "common sense" isn't a logical construct. You can't simultaneously claim that your world view is backed up by logic and reason but then revert to saying, "well, that's just common sense" whenever someone presents a situation that challenges your tight logic.

Ding!

His point is that he thinks he can prove that intent trumps methods and that some level of violence is clearly acceptable because it's obviously acceptable to grab someone before they get run over or change a dirty diaper.

You guys are arguing that those things are a the equivalent of sticking a gun in someone's face to rob them if your intent is to give the money to the poor, like it's all based on your subjective values. You're trying to claim that changing a diaper or stopping someone from getting hit in traffic is just a subjective value and morally no different.

If you think there is a difference then share it. If you don't say so. 

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: To you they do. The answers to the other questions are simple ones. Deliberately overcomplicating them for yourself doesn't actually make them more complicated for others.

Just to me?  The ends wouldn't justify the means for you?  You wouldn't grab a guy who was unknowingly walking out into traffic while on his cell phone or something?  If you would, then "the ends justify the means," which is exactly the thought process that you're using towards others when you lecture them about avoiding violence as a solution to anything.

I'm not overcomplicating anything for myself.  I'm testing your "logic."  And it's failing.

Of course stopping someone from getting hit by a bus is perfectly fine. Are you also in the camp that thinks changing a babies dirty diaper is violence or abuse?

At some point you need to apply the most basic level of commonsense.

Since we love to dive into logic, I would refer you to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

You can't bounce in and out of giving credence to the idea that "everybody just knows" something.  You use it to your advantage when talking about violence, even though it's a logical fallacy, but then you say that it doesn't matter what the majority thinks, you feel you've proven your position.

Kshartle wrote: His point is that he thinks he can prove that intent trumps methods and that some level of violence is clearly acceptable because it's obviously acceptable to grab someone before they get run over or change a dirty diaper.

You guys are arguing that those things are a the equivalent of sticking a gun in someone's face to rob them if your intent is to give the money to the poor, like it's all based on your subjective values. You're trying to claim that changing a diaper or stopping someone from getting hit in traffic is just a subjective value and morally no different.

If you think there is a difference then share it. If you don't say so.

That is an interesting argument, but one not particularly relevant to "logic and reason." I think you might get farther with it, because you're right: even if both are acts of force, changing a diaper is on a totally different ethical plane from committing robbery at gunpoint. And it's certainly a much more sane-sounding argument than trying to selectively redefine acts of force perpetuated on babies and people about to get hit with a car out of the definition of "violence," which can be kind of head-scratching.

moda0306 wrote: You can't bounce in and out of giving credence to the idea that "everybody just knows" something.  You use it to your advantage when talking about violence, even though it's a logical fallacy, but then you say that it doesn't matter what the majority thinks, you feel you've proven your position.

Something isn't right because "everybody knows it"....that a fallacious argument.

However...if it's so basic that everyone knows it.......do we need to waste time discussing it?

You know the Earth is round....everyone (practically) knows it. It's not round because everyone knows it. But my God.....do want to sit here and debate it? Can't we just agree that it's round since you already know it and move on?

Can't you agree that changing an unruly babies diaper or pushing someone out of the way of traffic is not the initiation of force and has nothing to do with the problems we discuss that arise from the initiation of force?

If you can't just admit the obvious and move on from this ridiculous argument then please debate it with someone else. Equating the diaper and the life-saving traffic resuce with welfare, regulations, murder, theft and the rest is absurd. I'm sure it can be proven absurd with logic and the rest but i'm not interested. If you want to give it a shot go for it. It's enough for me to say we already know this so let's move on.

Kshartle wrote: His point is that he thinks he can prove that intent trumps methods and that some level of violence is clearly acceptable because it's obviously acceptable to grab someone before they get run over or change a dirty diaper.

You guys are arguing that those things are a the equivalent of sticking a gun in someone's face to rob them if your intent is to give the money to the poor, like it's all based on your subjective values. You're trying to claim that changing a diaper or stopping someone from getting hit in traffic is just a subjective value and morally no different.

If you think there is a difference then share it. If you don't say so.

I am not trying to "prove" anything, other than that your argument is flawed, which it is.  We all engage in decisions where "ends justify the means" throughout life, and it's just "common sense" that we need at least SOME government to protect us and our property, even if we have to give a little up in return... so if we're going to incorporate "common sense," we've left logic (if you were ever really there) and entered the realm of social constructs.

I am not arguing ANYTHING is the equivalent of anything else, except in principal.  I don't think SS is the equivalent of Slavery (though you seem to almost be there).  I don't think jailing murderers is the equivalent of the holocaust.  You're throwing up straw men and ad hominems in the absence of sound logic, which is typical of somebody whose logic is being challenged and they can't respond in the realm of logic.

There is a reason philosophers have debated morality for centuries.  Hell, most people who excel in logic (my philosophy professors from college), if you talked to them, couldn't identify One Truth.  It's just unprovable... even if you are CLOSE to proving Self-Ownership, you still have to prove its link to the world around us (property/possession), and how it applies to quasi-self-aware beings (certain animals), AND even if you could prove the mechanics of those elements of our life, we STILL are all stuck on a rock together with resources that we NEED to survive and are FORCED to share.  We can't just fly away into space and live on our own bubble.  Even if we knew PERFECTLY how to behave in a vacuum, we've essentially been placed in a moral dilemma where force MUST be exerted, and we're left simply trying to decide how to limit its application.

Pointedstick wrote: it's certainly a much more sane-sounding argument than trying to selectively redefine acts of force perpetuated on babies and people about to get hit with a car out of the definition of "violence," which can be kind of head-scratching.

Yes and my point about everyone knowing this already is not an appeal to common-held beliefs. I'm not arguing it's correct because everyone knows it is....that's fallacious.

I'm arguing that everyone knows it already so lets skip it. If we can't skip past the most basic things that everyone knows then why stop here....why not argue about the nature of existance or atoms or gravity or whatever everytime someone challenges the idea that violence solves problems.

See if you think violence solves problems you have to come up with all kinds of non-sense examples where you think you're demonstrating violence as a virtue. Then you can establish that there is no such thing as right or wrong or moral and immoral. It requires the most absurd nonsense though like babies getting thier diapers changed and how violent that initiation of force is rather than what it really it......a parent caring for the basic needs of a totally dependant human. Even the state recognizes LEAVING a dirty diaper on a human as child abuse. Not complicated.

Kshartle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: it's certainly a much more sane-sounding argument than trying to selectively redefine acts of force perpetuated on babies and people about to get hit with a car out of the definition of "violence," which can be kind of head-scratching.

Yes and my point about everyone knowing this already is not an appeal to common-held beliefs. I'm not arguing it's correct because everyone knows it is....that's fallacious.

I'm arguing that everyone knows it already so lets skip it. If we can't skip past the most basic things that everyone knows then why stop here....why not argue about the nature of existance or atoms or gravity or whatever everytime someone challenges the idea that violence solves problems.

Congratulations, you just discovered why arguments based on supposedly self-consistent logic get nowhere!

Logic always has to be in the service of a context. And sometimes the context can run into the logic. That "everybody knows" it's good to push someone out of the way of an oncoming car in no way helps us answer logic-based of what constitutes force questions UNLESS we are willing to admit that things like "common sense" and "tradition" an "basic human decency" enter into the equation. And if they do, it completely explodes abstract logic-based arguments because none of those things are logical. I mean, 90+% of the world believes in a religion of some sort. How logical is that? Not at all. But if we're going to start talking about things that "everybody knows" we really can't exclude something as widely "known" as religion from the equation, can we?

moda0306 wrote: I am not trying to "prove" anything, other than that your argument is flawed, which it is.  We all engage in decisions where "ends justify the means" throughout life, and it's just "common sense" that we need at least SOME government to protect us and our property, even if we have to give a little up in return... so if we're going to incorporate "common sense," we've left logic (if you were ever really there) and entered the realm of social constructs.

I am not arguing ANYTHING is the equivalent of anything else, except in principal.  I don't think SS is the equivalent of Slavery (though you seem to almost be there).

There is a reason philosophers have debated morality for centuries. 

Which argument of mine is flawed and where is the flaw. Please help me.

It's "common sense" that we need a government to what?......this is the appeal to common sense. It is a fallacious argument.

You are equating the "need" to have a government with the "need" to change a dirty diaper on an infant. I hope you can see the difference. The first one is obviously a significant claim requiring to me an impossible argument (although good luck)....the other one is so basic it's an insult to intelligence even discussing it.

What would you call a group of people who have a portion of their income stolen against their will under threat of force. Ohhh wait...I forgot they always have the option to not produce anything so they're free.

Scholars debating is not an argument. Actually...it's a fallacious one...Inflation Of Conflict:
arguing that scholars debate a certain point. Therefore, they must know nothing, and their entire field of knowledge is "in crisis" or does not properly exist at all.

I'm not sure what you're still arguing about, Kshartle.  Since we all agree we're pre-eschaton (whatever exactly that might be), then we all agree that some force is necessary.

You can argue the pros and cons of particular proposals, and it may well be (and I would argue, is) a plus if a proposal uses some method other than force.  But you can't argue anymore that there shouldn't be any laws, or any force.  I proved that in the other thread.  So can we PLEASE stop hearing about your utopia.  It is a waste of everyone's time.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: You can't bounce in and out of giving credence to the idea that "everybody just knows" something.  You use it to your advantage when talking about violence, even though it's a logical fallacy, but then you say that it doesn't matter what the majority thinks, you feel you've proven your position.

Something isn't right because "everybody knows it"....that a fallacious argument.

However...if it's so basic that everyone knows it.......do we need to waste time discussing it?

You know the Earth is round....everyone (practically) knows it. It's not round because everyone knows it. But my God.....do want to sit here and debate it? Can't we just agree that it's round since you already know it and move on?

Can't you agree that changing an unruly babies diaper or pushing someone out of the way of traffic is not the initiation of force and has nothing to do with the problems we discuss that arise from the initiation of force?

If you can't just admit the obvious and move on from this ridiculous argument then please debate it with someone else. Equating the diaper and the life-saving traffic resuce with welfare, regulations, murder, theft and the rest is absurd. I'm sure it can be proven absurd with logic and the rest but i'm not interested. If you want to give it a shot go for it. It's enough for me to say we already know this so let's move on.

Pulling someone back from walking into traffic, in my mind, certainly isn't unethical, but it is initiation of force.  The reason I still think it is ethical is that I don't think self-ownership is the ONLY moral consideration out there.  If it isn't, it has to compete with others.

However, I'm not willing to claim, foolishly, that I can PROVE that my moral conscience is correct.  Further, if we are in a big moral dilemma, which I believe us to be in, then we are going to HAVE to initiate force, and "common sense" leads most people to the conclusion that government is necessary in some dose to limit more undesirable uses of force out there, contributing to all sorts of negative consequences.

So if we don't need to debate grabbing the guy from walking into the road, or changing the baby's diaper, then why debate government?  So few people identify with anarcho-capitalism in this country that is it even worth debating?  Is it even worth debating whether government is useless, much less disgustingly immoral, if it's so obvious to everyone?

I only make that last argument to you, Kshartle, to show 1) that you can't limit thinking by just getting a lot of people to agree.  WHY is it ok to initiate force on someone about to get hit by a bus if the ONLY moral truth is self-ownership??  WHY?  or 2) because I want to show you that people don't have a gun to their head... they LIKE it here.  They CHOOSE to be here, and the BELIEVE in government of some sort.

But, most importantly, even though you just think it's obvious, ask yourself WHY it's ok to initiate force against someone about to walk into traffic, if the only moral imperative is self-ownership.

And if we have other moral imperative's that compete with self-ownership, what might those be?

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: it's certainly a much more sane-sounding argument than trying to selectively redefine acts of force perpetuated on babies and people about to get hit with a car out of the definition of "violence," which can be kind of head-scratching.

Yes and my point about everyone knowing this already is not an appeal to common-held beliefs. I'm not arguing it's correct because everyone knows it is....that's fallacious.

I'm arguing that everyone knows it already so lets skip it. If we can't skip past the most basic things that everyone knows then why stop here....why not argue about the nature of existance or atoms or gravity or whatever everytime someone challenges the idea that violence solves problems.

Congratulations, you just discovered why arguments based on supposedly self-consistent logic get nowhere!

Logic always has to be in the service of a context. And sometimes the context can run into the logic. That "everybody knows" it's good to push someone out of the way of an oncoming car in no way helps us answer logic-based of what constitutes force questions UNLESS we are willing to admit that things like "common sense" and "tradition" an "basic human decency" enter into the equation. And if they do, it completely explodes abstract logic-based arguments because none of those things are logical. I mean, 90+% of the world believes in a religion of some sort. How logical is that? Not at all. But if we're going to start talking about things that "everybody knows" we really can't exclude something as widely "known" as religion from the equation, can we?

Sorry, PS, but this is a ridiculous stretch. Obviously it is NOT true that "everybody knows" that religion is valid, since I can think of quite a few people who don't "know" that. They're called "atheists" or "agnostics". Furthermore, almost everyone who is religious believes in one specific religion that contradicts other religions, so even religious people can't agree among themselves. So this is not in any way a good answer to Kshartle's point.

Pointedstick wrote: That "everybody knows" it's good to push someone out of the way of an oncoming car in no way helps us answer logic-based of what constitutes force questions UNLESS we are willing to admit that things like "common sense" and "tradition" an "basic human decency" enter into the equation.

PS that's my point. I'm not arguing that it's good because of anything, but instead it is so obvious it is a waste of time that I'm not interested in undertaking. If the person making the argument that this somehow invalidates statements about violence then he should state that he believes these actions are fundamentally the same. If he does not believe that then why even state it except to troll?

If Moda thinks pushing someone out of the way of a car is the same concept as all other forms of the initiation of force, just a different degree then he should say so.

If he doesn't think that then he's free to point out the difference. However I would ask if he knows the difference then why bring it up.

Xan wrote: I'm not sure what you're still arguing about, Kshartle.  Since we all agree we're pre-eschaton (whatever exactly that might be), then we all agree that some force is necessary.

You can argue the pros and cons of particular proposals, and it may well be (and I would argue, is) a plus if a proposal uses some method other than force.  But you can't argue anymore that there shouldn't be any laws, or any force.  I proved that in the other thread.  So can we PLEASE stop hearing about your utopia.  It is a waste of everyone's time.

Can you please link to where you proved it?

"Since we all agree we're pre-eschaton (whatever exactly that might be), then we all agree that some force is necessary."

I don't know what that means and clearly you don't either. That's an interesting way to not prove a point.

Kshartle wrote: Can you please link to where you proved it?

Yes:
http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... /#msg89510

Kshartle wrote: "Since we all agree we're pre-eschaton (whatever exactly that might be), then we all agree that some force is necessary."

I don't know what that means and clearly you don't either. That's an interesting way to not prove a point.

What's your basis for saying that I don't know what that means?  I agree that you don't.

K,

I did state that I thought it was a matter of degree.  I think it's different to shoot someone than to pull them out of the way of walking into traffic.  However, it's still initiating force, and according to your thinking, this is an affront to self-ownership, and therefore wrong.

So I'm wondering HOW you think it's ok to pull someone from walking out into traffic, if self-ownership is the only moral imperative?

Pointedstick wrote: At this point, I'm going to claim that this thread offers some great support for my earlier opinion about the state of our union.

+1 Haha!

Last night I watched A Man For All Seasons and the following clip reminded me of the discussions on this forum (1 minute):

http://youtu.be/d9rjGTOA2NA

"So, now you give the devil benefit of law."
"Yes, what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?"
"Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that."
"Oh? And when the last law was down and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?" 

~ Robert Bolt

Xan wrote:

Kshartle wrote: "Since we all agree we're pre-eschaton (whatever exactly that might be), then we all agree that some force is necessary."

I don't know what that means and clearly you don't either. That's an interesting way to not prove a point.

What's your basis for saying that I don't know what that means?  I agree that you don't.

Your statment where you said "whatever exactly that might be" is the basis for me saying you don't know what that means.