Is having a government scientific?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-05-2014, 11:18 AM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 11:27 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(24-05-2014 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  What is it with people like you and frankie? You think anyone who isn't a True Believer™ hasn't investigated your version of political thought?

I have delved quite deeply into libertarian thought. It's pie-in-the-sky.

"advanced contract-making" without regulation? Seriously?
I borrow $20,000 from you with a promise to repay it at some future date certain.
That date arrives, you demand repayment, I tell you to fuck off.
What do you do next? Call me names?
That's a good question. Before I make any contract ever in my life, I'll open an account with a DRO (dispute resolution organization). Everyone will find their DRO on the market, every civilized person will need it, there will be a lot of these companies and so the price will be low thanks to competition.
DRO is like an insurance company and mediator service combined. The DRO theory is well-described in the Molyneux books and maybe not just in these, I see you're not familiar with that.

I will NOT make any contract with anybody, especially not for 20K, unless you agree to have it insured. If you don't stick to the terms of our contract, you will have a problem with your insurance company. They will pay me the damage and they will want the money from you. If you don't pay, you will lose the chance to insure any of your future contracts. Nobody will make a contract with you if you don't have an insurance company that really likes you as a customer. You might lose not just the insurance contracts, but also a chance to insure a new house or car. If you break with them on bad terms, they will tell all the other insurance companies in business and they will tell you to fuck off. No matter how much you offer, it might as well be never coming. Yeah, you could restore their trust, if you pay up front, but that will cost you.

If there's a problem and it's not clear who's guilty, our DROs will protect their customers, they will investigate and will dish it out among themselves or may agree to a mediator (the theory is a bit more complex). In any case, it will be clear who is a bad customer.
The extreme DRO measure for serious criminals is being put into a public register of criminals, where all the companies check before they sell anything to anybody, so they don't, you know, accidentally sell a piece of bread to a criminal, that would be bad for insurance and public relations. Such criminals will have to go live in a forest and defend their potato patches from wild boars, because their credit cards will be marked as a criminal's property and no seller will want to be caught catering to criminals.


Of course, the free society will be able to come up with many other solutions, even better than this. IMO, this is much more simple, cheap and effective than today's court and prison system, which is just... dystopian. Of course I would prefer to live in a city like The Venus Project where I wouldn't have to deal with this money and insurance stuff. But we can only have TVP cities in only 15 years if we start now, while a free society with DROs can be set up in a couple of months. First things first.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 11:33 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(24-05-2014 11:08 AM)Charis Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 03:04 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  The difference perhaps is that every time you murder someone, someone gets hurt?
Anyway as I said I'm not advocating for the legalization of drunk driving. I'm simply not convinced that it is prevented by laws. I happen to think that murder isn't pervented by laws either. But you do have a good point about apprehending law breakers.
I notice you used the word "punish." So as I said earlier it's about vengeance? Educate the person and he is also likely to no reoffend.
I think that we are too caught up in punishing people to see that there is a better answer.
When I say punish, I mean to impose a penalty.
When you say vengeance, I think emotional type of wrath.

I DO mean punish to impose a penalty, yes. If your definition of vengeance is also to impose a penalty, then yes, I would be wanting THAT form of "vengeance" I suppose, if that's what you meant by it.
Being too caught up in punishing people would be one extreme, if we were all obsessed with punishment to the exclusion of everything else. The solution to it, however, is not to abolish punishment/penalties for what people deliberately and knowingly do (driving drunk, murder, etc)

I won't say you are wrong but.....
If I can be shown evidence or directed to the evidence that shows law and not education prevents crime I will be happy to examine it.
Also if I could see the evidence that punishment is more effective than rehabilitation id be happy to give it a look too. I'm not so stubborn that I would ignore information. Honestly I mostly just suspect that imposed laws and punishment are ineffective. Perhaps antiquated and even barbaric..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Drunkin Druid's post
24-05-2014, 11:42 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
I wonder if my opinion of this is informed by the fact that I'm not convinced that free will exists?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 11:48 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(24-05-2014 11:42 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I wonder if my opinion of this is informed by the fact that I'm not convinced that free will exists?
Free will? What other will there can possibly be? All I heard of are bad definitions. In order for the will to be free, people require it to be completely unpredictable, non-causal. That is an unfair demand.

I simply say, there is only will. You can have less or more of will, or you can be less or more under the compulsion of someone else's will. But all will is causal. If you have a will and you're not under compulsion from another person, this is the free will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(24-05-2014 11:48 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 11:42 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I wonder if my opinion of this is informed by the fact that I'm not convinced that free will exists?
Free will? What other will there can possibly be? All I heard of are bad definitions. In order for the will to be free, people require it to be completely unpredictable, non-causal. That is an unfair demand.

I simply say, there is only will. You can have less or more of will, or you can be less or more under the compulsion of someone else's will. But all will is causal. If you have a will and you're not under compulsion from another person, this is the free will.

I mean free will in "the grand scheme."
It's an illusion. We don't (I think) decide what we do nor does anyone else decide for us. You don't decide to turn right. You were going to turn right before you knew it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 01:02 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(24-05-2014 11:18 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  What is it with people like you and frankie? You think anyone who isn't a True Believer™ hasn't investigated your version of political thought?

I have delved quite deeply into libertarian thought. It's pie-in-the-sky.

"advanced contract-making" without regulation? Seriously?
I borrow $20,000 from you with a promise to repay it at some future date certain.
That date arrives, you demand repayment, I tell you to fuck off.
What do you do next? Call me names?
That's a good question. Before I make any contract ever in my life, I'll open an account with a DRO (dispute resolution organization). Everyone will find their DRO on the market, every civilized person will need it, there will be a lot of these companies and so the price will be low thanks to competition.
DRO is like an insurance company and mediator service combined. The DRO theory is well-described in the Molyneux books and maybe not just in these, I see you're not familiar with that.

I will NOT make any contract with anybody, especially not for 20K, unless you agree to have it insured. If you don't stick to the terms of our contract, you will have a problem with your insurance company. They will pay me the damage and they will want the money from you. If you don't pay, you will lose the chance to insure any of your future contracts. Nobody will make a contract with you if you don't have an insurance company that really likes you as a customer. You might lose not just the insurance contracts, but also a chance to insure a new house or car. If you break with them on bad terms, they will tell all the other insurance companies in business and they will tell you to fuck off. No matter how much you offer, it might as well be never coming. Yeah, you could restore their trust, if you pay up front, but that will cost you.

If there's a problem and it's not clear who's guilty, our DROs will protect their customers, they will investigate and will dish it out among themselves or may agree to a mediator (the theory is a bit more complex). In any case, it will be clear who is a bad customer.
The extreme DRO measure for serious criminals is being put into a public register of criminals, where all the companies check before they sell anything to anybody, so they don't, you know, accidentally sell a piece of bread to a criminal, that would be bad for insurance and public relations. Such criminals will have to go live in a forest and defend their potato patches from wild boars, because their credit cards will be marked as a criminal's property and no seller will want to be caught catering to criminals.


Of course, the free society will be able to come up with many other solutions, even better than this. IMO, this is much more simple, cheap and effective than today's court and prison system, which is just... dystopian. Of course I would prefer to live in a city like The Venus Project where I wouldn't have to deal with this money and insurance stuff. But we can only have TVP cities in only 15 years if we start now, while a free society with DROs can be set up in a couple of months. First things first.

And what do you do when I threaten to kill your sister if you ever report the bad debt?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 03:07 PM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 03:17 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(24-05-2014 01:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  And what do you do when I threaten to kill your sister if you ever report the bad debt?
Sounds like a dispute to me. DRO stands for Dispute Resolution Organization.
If I get any of your threats on voice record or other evidence, I give these to my DRO and they will talk to all the business owners in the area. Until you talk to the nice men from DRO and some psychiatrists, there will probably be no electricity for you. Or groceries.

Meanwhile until I get some evidence, I buy my sister a gun, I buy myself a gun, I send a donation to the local security guys with your photograph, call both of our DROs, they put me through to some psychologists that work for them to give me advice, then I put on a hidden microphone and then I talk to you again if there's more evidence to get from you. In case you freak out and attack anybody with a potentially lethal weapon, I'll have my gun, you will not be mourned and I will not be judged in the government court if my degree of defense was adequate to the threat. Attackers just throw their lives or freedom away. You're lucky I'm a nice guy and unless I absolutely have to shoot you, I'd just defend myself with a pepper spray, let you live and bring you to the funny farm to get better. Everyone would donate some money to the mad asylum, they really wouldn't want them to go bankrupt, because that would mean they'd let you out before you get fixed!

(24-05-2014 11:56 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I mean free will in "the grand scheme."
It's an illusion. We don't (I think) decide what we do nor does anyone else decide for us. You don't decide to turn right. You were going to turn right before you knew it.
The only grand scheme I know of for sure, is physics. Will is an activity in our brain, which happens to be electric.

OK, that's kind of a -duh- answer. Let's say something useful. My favorite argument is, if you're saying to me that there is no free will, then you're trying to change my mind, so you're counting on the fact that there is a free will, it's not predestined and you can change it. (Stefan Molyneux says things like this)

The conscious activity is only about 1/7000th of all data that the brain processes every second. We have an unconsciousness and it is as much us.... frankly, it is perhaps more human than our conscious self, because it does not lie. It is a very slow but very instinctively intelligent part of our personality and it does not work quite the way that our conscious self does. Our conscious self is like a frantically jerking laser pointer, in a dark forest. The unconscious is like a moon glow, which is what you actually need to use when figuring out the dark forest of emotions, suppressed traumas and prejudices.
People can't process a rational argument without self-knowledge, if that gets anywhere near their old wounds, which is what all the important issues do. This is why academical intellectuals have this bullshit philosophy of topics that . Intellect isn't good for self-knowledge. The laser pointer of intellect reveals just a small part of the picture and all the darkness around is filled in by bias and justification to turn over the meaning of the little that is revealed.

I would say that Nietzsche was an all right dude. He was not a Nazi bootlicker. Nope, he glimpsed something magnificent that is in people. Imagine a personality that does not war against itself. A personality that accepts every part of itself, without shame, rejection, compensation, addiction and all this bullshit. Imagine a personality that is highly intelligent but in touch with emotions and instincts, perceptive to itself and all people around, and especially perceptive and uncompromising to all the cultural bullshit and lies that we learn since birth. Imagine an effect of synergy from broadening your awareness of all your functions, of all of yous.
Maybe that is what it really means to have free will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 03:46 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(24-05-2014 03:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 01:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  And what do you do when I threaten to kill your sister if you ever report the bad debt?
Sounds like a dispute to me. DRO stands for Dispute Resolution Organization.
If I get any of your threats on voice record or other evidence, I give these to my DRO and they will talk to all the business owners in the area. Until you talk to the nice men from DRO and some psychiatrists, there will probably be no electricity for you. Or groceries.

Meanwhile until I get some evidence, I buy my sister a gun, I buy myself a gun, I send a donation to the local security guys with your photograph, call both of our DROs, they put me through to some psychologists that work for them to give me advice, then I put on a hidden microphone and then I talk to you again if there's more evidence to get from you. In case you freak out and attack anybody with a potentially lethal weapon, I'll have my gun, you will not be mourned and I will not be judged in the government court if my degree of defense was adequate to the threat. Attackers just throw their lives or freedom away. You're lucky I'm a nice guy and unless I absolutely have to shoot you, I'd just defend myself with a pepper spray, let you live and bring you to the funny farm to get better. Everyone would donate some money to the mad asylum, they really wouldn't want them to go bankrupt, because that would mean they'd let you out before you get fixed!

(24-05-2014 11:56 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I mean free will in "the grand scheme."
It's an illusion. We don't (I think) decide what we do nor does anyone else decide for us. You don't decide to turn right. You were going to turn right before you knew it.
The only grand scheme I know of for sure, is physics. Will is an activity in our brain, which happens to be electric.

OK, that's kind of a -duh- answer. Let's say something useful. My favorite argument is, if you're saying to me that there is no free will, then you're trying to change my mind, so you're counting on the fact that there is a free will, it's not predestined and you can change it. (Stefan Molyneux says things like this)

The conscious activity is only about 1/7000th of all data that the brain processes every second. We have an unconsciousness and it is as much us.... frankly, it is perhaps more human than our conscious self, because it does not lie. It is a very slow but very instinctively intelligent part of our personality and it does not work quite the way that our conscious self does. Our conscious self is like a frantically jerking laser pointer, in a dark forest. The unconscious is like a moon glow, which is what you actually need to use when figuring out the dark forest of emotions, suppressed traumas and prejudices.
People can't process a rational argument without self-knowledge, if that gets anywhere near their old wounds, which is what all the important issues do. This is why academical intellectuals have this bullshit philosophy of topics that . Intellect isn't good for self-knowledge. The laser pointer of intellect reveals just a small part of the picture and all the darkness around is filled in by bias and justification to turn over the meaning of the little that is revealed.

I would say that Nietzsche was an all right dude. He was not a Nazi bootlicker. Nope, he glimpsed something magnificent that is in people. Imagine a personality that does not war against itself. A personality that accepts every part of itself, without shame, rejection, compensation, addiction and all this bullshit. Imagine a personality that is highly intelligent but in touch with emotions and instincts, perceptive to itself and all people around, and especially perceptive and uncompromising to all the cultural bullshit and lies that we learn since birth. Imagine an effect of synergy from broadening your awareness of all your functions, of all of yous.
Maybe that is what it really means to have free will.
The thing is I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind. I'm just stating my opinion.
At any rate that's all part of the illusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 03:57 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(24-05-2014 03:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 01:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  And what do you do when I threaten to kill your sister if you ever report the bad debt?
Sounds like a dispute to me. DRO stands for Dispute Resolution Organization.
If I get any of your threats on voice record or other evidence, I give these to my DRO and they will talk to all the business owners in the area. Until you talk to the nice men from DRO and some psychiatrists, there will probably be no electricity for you. Or groceries.

Meanwhile until I get some evidence, I buy my sister a gun, I buy myself a gun, I send a donation to the local security guys with your photograph, call both of our DROs, they put me through to some psychologists that work for them to give me advice, then I put on a hidden microphone and then I talk to you again if there's more evidence to get from you. In case you freak out and attack anybody with a potentially lethal weapon, I'll have my gun, you will not be mourned and I will not be judged in the government court if my degree of defense was adequate to the threat. Attackers just throw their lives or freedom away. You're lucky I'm a nice guy and unless I absolutely have to shoot you, I'd just defend myself with a pepper spray, let you live and bring you to the funny farm to get better. Everyone would donate some money to the mad asylum, they really wouldn't want them to go bankrupt, because that would mean they'd let you out before you get fixed!

You seem to think that I could be easily identified and isolated by these organizations.
In cities of millions, countries of tens or hundreds of millions, where technology allows the creation or theft of identities, those measures can be avoided.

And what if I scammed not just you, but hundreds of people out tens of thousands of dollars? I end up with millions of dollars and a new identity.
I don't need those organizations' cooperation, and there is nothing they can do about it.

But, really, my objection is that what you describe is no less coercive than a democratically-elected government's laws and enforcement.
And it is no less susceptible to corruption, misuse, fraud, and subversion.
It may even be more susceptible to some of those dangers as there is no oversight, no checks and balances, no responsibility to the welfare of society.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
24-05-2014, 04:22 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(24-05-2014 03:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 03:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Sounds like a dispute to me. DRO stands for Dispute Resolution Organization.
If I get any of your threats on voice record or other evidence, I give these to my DRO and they will talk to all the business owners in the area. Until you talk to the nice men from DRO and some psychiatrists, there will probably be no electricity for you. Or groceries.

Meanwhile until I get some evidence, I buy my sister a gun, I buy myself a gun, I send a donation to the local security guys with your photograph, call both of our DROs, they put me through to some psychologists that work for them to give me advice, then I put on a hidden microphone and then I talk to you again if there's more evidence to get from you. In case you freak out and attack anybody with a potentially lethal weapon, I'll have my gun, you will not be mourned and I will not be judged in the government court if my degree of defense was adequate to the threat. Attackers just throw their lives or freedom away. You're lucky I'm a nice guy and unless I absolutely have to shoot you, I'd just defend myself with a pepper spray, let you live and bring you to the funny farm to get better. Everyone would donate some money to the mad asylum, they really wouldn't want them to go bankrupt, because that would mean they'd let you out before you get fixed!

You seem to think that I could be easily identified and isolated by these organizations.
In cities of millions, countries of tens or hundreds of millions, where technology allows the creation or theft of identities, those measures can be avoided.

And what if I scammed not just you, but hundreds of people out tens of thousands of dollars? I end up with millions of dollars and a new identity.
I don't need those organizations' cooperation, and there is nothing they can do about it.

But, really, my objection is that what you describe is no less coercive than a democratically-elected government's laws and enforcement.
And it is no less susceptible to corruption, misuse, fraud, and subversion.
It may even be more susceptible to some of those dangers as there is no oversight, no checks and balances, no responsibility to the welfare of society.

It is telling that his first reaction was to go to men with guns.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: