Is having a government scientific?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-05-2014, 08:44 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 08:37 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  
(28-05-2014 08:31 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Thanks, but I never said it was.

I said that reality has zero-sum elements.

Some things are finite. Some things are finite within finite timespans. Thus an element of exclusivity arises.

I would never for the life of me imagined such a basic observation to engender controversy.

Fair enough. economist Thomas Sowell defines Economics as the study of the use of scarce (or limited) resources, also known as the economic problem.

Indeed.

(28-05-2014 08:37 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  Where are you and Luminon from btw?

I am Canadian. Luminon is from central Europe (iirc Slovakia?).

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
28-05-2014, 09:09 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 08:44 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I am Canadian. Luminon is from central Europe (iirc Slovakia?).

Cool, I'm Canadian too (since Feb at least). It's very interesting that the radio show (ahem cult) that Luminon listens to seems to be very popular in central and western europe for some reason and its actually run by a Canadian (born in the UK) "philosopher" who is fixated in economic policy and therapy. His wife is really the therapist but she was disciplined for malpractice by giving crappy advice to people calling the radio show and no longer participates (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toro...e4846791/)

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 10:56 AM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2014 11:12 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 04:58 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Regulated? Uh, "Mt. Gox lol" and "Ponzicoin lol" I think is the most appropriate responses to that. Also the code is how Bitcoin is designed to operate, but what ensure that it operates as intended? That's the regulation dumbass. Banks and other financial institutions are designed/coded to work a certain way, and regulation is their to ensure they operate as they are intended/designed/coded to, and as a means to allow oversight.
I don't know what to think about this. Yes, we know that Bitcoin sucks because of Mt. Gox, Ponzicoin and technical exploits.
But I also know that there is just one reason why dollar doesn't suck. The reason is, that any one of hundreds of million of people could go to jail if they did not pay their taxes in dollar, so they use dollar. Not going to jail and not having their property taken, that's a huge advantage. And dollar is the only way of access to American economy, which is still huge.
Otherwise, dollar sucks. It used to be really valuable, but it drops for half a century and continues dropping. It evaporates value in our pockets, just like all government currencies.

Still, Bitcoin is a very interesting technology, because it automates lots of labor. And by labor I mean legal and stock market services. It can automate away lawyers and stock market brokers. It can close down Wall Street and make Federal reserve harmless. What's your opinion on this? Yeah, Bitcoin is not a threat, but there are about 2-3 other cryptocurrencies on the same basis. It seems to be a workable concept. My guess is official finance authorities want to dissuade people from Bitcoin without raising too much fuss about this. The moment government outlaws cryptocurrencies, shit will hit the fan. We know that outlawed things don't disappear, especially on the internet. They tend to get popular.

I think the true value of Bitcoin and other similar cryptocurrencies (like Darkcoin) will show after the fall of dollar. Right now Bitcoin is good for those who don't want to fund Obama's wars. If Bitcoin can't be printed, then everyone would have to pay personally for every bullet and aircraft carrier, which nobody wants, so wars would effectively end.


(28-05-2014 04:58 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also pointing to Zimbabwe's hyper-inflation ignores the dozen or so other factors that simply do not apply to modern America. That was the point of the video. Thanks for proving you didn't watch it.
Frankly, it's painful to watch. I get the same feeling like when Jehovah's witnesses give me their pamphlets with "moral advice" and "scientific evidence for creation" and tell me: "it's supposed to be convincing for you! Take it seriously or we get offended!"
I am unable to imagine any possible reason that would make wholesale printing of money and going hundreds of trillions into debt a good idea. There's no way to sugarcoat american fiscal policy, it stinks so bad. It's like when you look at the Jehovah's pamphlet and there's "proof of creation inside", you just know there's going to be bullshit inside.

(28-05-2014 07:23 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  Luminon, what would disuade you from your (or Molyneux's really) anarcho-capitalist doctrine? If there's nothing, there is no conversation, just preaching.

I would be interested in your theory once you have empirical data of a freedom maxed stateless society running on bitcoin where no parent ever tells their kid what to do and grownups blame their parents for every aspect of their lifes. Until then you are hitting a wall trying to get people here to drink the kool aid.

Everybody else, the economy is not a zero-sum game, cjlr im talking to you Smartass go read some economics seriously.
The problem with Molyneux is, he's a philosopher and he works from the first principles through the only possible steps of logic. Understanding and processing a logical argument is about as difficult, as playing music from notes. It just requires training and it is ultimately a fight against lack of self-knowledge, because it triggers all our problems, fears and insecurities that go against logic. (all of them) These hidden traumas really do screw up our logical abilities. I didn't believe Molyneux that, because I rejected Capitalism, because I knew it sucks, so I looked for an economic theory that doesn't suck. I think I found something, but Capitalism is already in place and in order to understand it, I had to face my demons. There is some good stuff besides Capitalism, but Molyneux was right. The reason why this goes unnoticed, is because this screwed up logic is THE mainstream culture.

We believed in God and Santa who brings gifts to nice children and punishes the naughty ones. And now Santa is the government who does the same, punishes bad people and brings gifts (old age security, medicare, welfare) to good people. I know it sounds condescending as hell, but that's basically how it works, because even Santa isn't real, he's just a man in costume who has to get the gifts from elsewhere, from real economy. And state is not productive, business is. Nobody ever made the society richer by working in public sector or receiving welfare. Society gets richer by producing what people want and state doesn't ask people what they want. A pizza restaurant asks you that, but state just presents pigeonholes for you to fit in.

I think you'd be interested in the book on UPB, especially the ground rules, on page 9, #1 and 4 and whatever else seems interesting.
The rule 1 says ... Valid moral rules cannot be directly derived from the existence of anything in reality. ...
The rule 4 says, ...I do not believe that morality can be defined or determined with reference to “arguments from effect,” or the predicted consequences of ethical propositions. ...

In other words, we have to do things that make sense logically, rationally computed in the head, we can't and don't need to copy anything that physically exists. Science was a good idea even long before it had shiny goodies like iPads to show off that it works.
And even if there may be bad consequences, it still may be the right thing to do, if it's rationally moral. We must act upon the principle and the reality will fall into place. Following rational mind-principles makes things happen. If we chase after effects, we have no way to make them happen consistently in the long term.
For example, ending slavery might have been a bad economical decision in short term, but it was moral and freed space for farming technologies.

Molyneux makes a philosophical case for Capitalism from the first principles. It's not a doctrine, it's principially undeniable. But I can only agree with him as far as the instrument of money is concerned. I think his formulation of morality would prevent us from adopting a non-monetary economic system, such as TVP. I could re-work it so that the transition is possible, which makes me smarter than him? Tongue Anyway, that's a marginal objection. I only accept Molyneux as far as Austrian school of economy goes, which is as far as money go, which is today near universally valid. I'll start reforming Molyneux when we get rid of the governments.

(28-05-2014 08:37 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  Where are you and Luminon from btw?
I'm from Czech Republic. It's a small oligarchy with ridiculously corrupt government. Our schools, police, currency, hospitals and pension security are Communist (just like in USA), but nobody sees them that way, because words don't mean anything anymore, after media are done with them. When words stop making sense, there is frustration that erupts in violence. This violence manifests itself by attacking Roma people.

Czech Republic is located in the middle of Blue Soviet Union, a.k.a. EU. EU adopted the policy that business is more productive than labor camps, but just as easily taxed and it's more fun that way. Instead of flag marches we have the joys of adopting weird Hapsburg-esque rules like lightbulb ban, big toilet tank ban, ban of sugar in fruit juices, ban of old names for common products like fake rum, ban of flavored cigarettes, ban of hair dressers' jewelry and high heels... You see, this is more fun than Marxism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 11:17 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 10:56 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I'm from Czech Republic. It's a small oligarchy with ridiculously corrupt government. Our schools, police, currency, hospitals and pension security are Communist (just like in USA), but nobody sees them that way, because words don't mean anything anymore, after media are done with them.

Yet more comedy. You argue just like a YEC or a recently radicalized Muslim.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-05-2014, 11:24 AM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2014 11:39 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 09:09 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  Cool, I'm Canadian too (since Feb at least). It's very interesting that the radio show (ahem cult) that Luminon listens to seems to be very popular in central and western europe for some reason and its actually run by a Canadian (born in the UK) "philosopher" who is fixated in economic policy and therapy. His wife is really the therapist but she was disciplined for malpractice by giving crappy advice to people calling the radio show and no longer participates (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toro...e4846791/)
Well, I think the word cult is used too loosely nowadays. It used to be creepy guys who isolated people on their farm and took all their worldly possessions. Now it's creepy guys in foreign language whom we never meet personally and who are lucky to get a few cents a month per listener and require heavy logic training.

Molyneux has a lot of his ideas, but he always returns to Alice Miller, John Bradshaw, Nathaniel Branden, Herb Goldberg and so on. As for shunning the families, turns out Stef was dead-right on in my case, more than I knew... You can read Miller and Bradshaw and have my life on paper, so I can't honestly call this giving a wrong advice. If it was a wrong advice, it would just bounce off the good and happy families bound by strong relationships that can't be shaken by some bald guy on the internet. No, I think it stirred some bad consciences. In my case, I'd say the philosopher bites vampires and they get the fever and turn into living people.

If you can give me any links on European FDR fans, I'd be grateful. I think he's so popular in Europe, because two world wars left a shitload of traumatized generations and bad parenting (my case) and the EU is economically oppressive as if the national governments already weren't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 11:26 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 11:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-05-2014 10:56 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I'm from Czech Republic. It's a small oligarchy with ridiculously corrupt government. Our schools, police, currency, hospitals and pension security are Communist (just like in USA), but nobody sees them that way, because words don't mean anything anymore, after media are done with them.

Yet more comedy. You argue just like a YEC or a recently radicalized Muslim.

To extend on the reply to the quote that Chas has quoted...

You clearly have no fucking idea what communism is...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
28-05-2014, 11:34 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
Thanks for the response Luminon, but you didnt answer my question. What would dissuade you from a stateless society? If nothing would, your position is just as religious as you claim the statist to be.

As far as Molyneux, I'm very familiar with him and FDR, I'm aware of the jargon and the concepts of UPB, NAP, etc. heck I even live about half an hour from where his wife practices social work though he is not very popular locally, just on the internet, you would get people here asking "moly who?"

Moly has developed an airtight system that is comparable to many religions. Even the religious language is prominent in his "philosophical" rants. If you disagree with him on empirical, historical and logical grounds, you are flawed (sinful) because of parental abuse, authoritarianism, or negligence. His system has evil doers (sinners) and virtuous people (saints). Has dead people and resurrected people (apparently from FDR and therapy). I was a Christian, his system pulls the same metaphors and emotional motifs. He's only interested in economics and statistics as far as it favors him and has a habit of converting co-relation to causation and creating a moral system around this. This is the reason he rarely cites his sources, he's not interested in an unbiased look at his propositions.

It's good that you havent drunk the kool aid yet and have at least one disagreement with Moly. There is hope.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djkamilo's post
28-05-2014, 11:39 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 11:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-05-2014 10:56 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I'm from Czech Republic. It's a small oligarchy with ridiculously corrupt government. Our schools, police, currency, hospitals and pension security are Communist (just like in USA), but nobody sees them that way, because words don't mean anything anymore, after media are done with them.

Yet more comedy. You argue just like a YEC or a recently radicalized Muslim.

Yeah I was going to let that slide. The fact that only FDR people can see reality and NO ONE else can is quite telling of the nature of the beast (or cult) that Molyneux has created.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like djkamilo's post
28-05-2014, 12:02 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2014 12:37 PM by Revenant77x.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 11:39 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  
(28-05-2014 11:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  Yet more comedy. You argue just like a YEC or a recently radicalized Muslim.

Yeah I was going to let that slide. The fact that only FDR people can see reality and NO ONE else can is quite telling of the nature of the beast (or cult) that Molyneux has created.

There seems to be a hue disconnect between their system of never explaining things because... [Image: It_100a6a_663520.jpg]

and then accusing everyone else of magical thinking. Projection of the Nth degree.

(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
28-05-2014, 12:56 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2014 01:17 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 11:34 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  Thanks for the response Luminon, but you didnt answer my question. What would dissuade you from a stateless society? If nothing would, your position is just as religious as you claim the statist to be.
Sorry, I forgot.
I spent a lot of time studying systems and looking for foolproof systems. So now it is hard to imagine what would dissuade me, because I base my opinion on my best knowledge of reality. Which happen to be now the first principles, on which logic is based. (See UPB) It would have to be something fundamental, but I think I'd recognize it very easily.
If cold and abusive families would suddenly start producing happy people and good families would suddenly start producing psychopaths for no real, causal reason, that would be not only an end of non-violent society, but also a violation of science and reality. We'd have bigger problems than Capitalism then.

OTOH, if somebody offered me a magic switch that would make the state disappear overnight, I think that would be a very bad idea. I wouldn't do it. People need to be actors in the society and change the support structures and change their own worldview in the process. There must be some kind of big social event that makes it feel real to people, otherwise they'll just repeat all the past mistakes or fall into chaos and start from basics (violence). People need that kind of theater. Culture is a big theater or cinema where people can learn and participate and change their consciousness. Even if we had a perfect system overnight, we'd just end up with a lot of people who didn't know how they got there and how to keep it.

(28-05-2014 11:34 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  As far as Molyneux, I'm very familiar with him and FDR, I'm aware of the jargon and the concepts of UPB, NAP, etc. heck I even live about half an hour from where his wife practices social work though he is not very popular locally, just on the internet, you would get people here asking "moly who?"

Moly has developed an airtight system that is comparable to many religions. Even the religious language is prominent in his "philosophical" rants. If you disagree with him on empirical, historical and logical grounds, you are flawed (sinful) because of parental abuse, authoritarianism, or negligence. His system has evil doers (sinners) and virtuous people (saints). Has dead people and resurrected people (apparently from FDR and therapy). I was a Christian, his system pulls the same metaphors and emotional motifs. He's only interested in economics and statistics as far as it favors him and has a habit of converting co-relation to causation and creating a moral system around this. This is the reason he rarely cites his sources, he's not interested in an unbiased look at his propositions.

It's good that you havent drunk the kool aid yet and have at least one disagreement with Moly. There is hope.
Yeah, I think he has closed system too! Ernest Gellner calls that epistemic closure.
In think Moly cites a lot of sources on the boards and below the videos on Youtube and in them. He is certainly less lazy with his sources than me Undecided
I wouldn't say it's as bad as you say. He has more point than I thought originally, as I saw on my own life. Ultimately I think his main fault is, that he's limited to monetary capitalism (and scientific positivist naturalism like 98 % people here), but I think I can broaden his worldview that when the time comes. When people are right, I can't prove them wrong, just generalize what they say a little. (that includes the science too, it's correct and I can only generalize it)

As for the kool aid, man, I have drunk so many flavors of kool aid, that I can judge the bouquet and vintage. I am rationally alive and well, because each tries to poison me in a bit different way and they crowd each other out and I rise free into the realm of abstract thought.
If there was a word for what I do, it would be paradigmatic analysis and synthesis. The thing you think is reality, that's just one of paradigms in my collection. There's an order in them though, I'm not a relativist. You can of course take as big shit on me as you want, because I pay the price of being very impractical. The most practical thing about me is Molyneux. The point is, he's my toy, not vice versa Wink

In my mind there multiple parallel worldviews and not a single of them can take me over. Any of them faces criticism from the others, each has some strengths and weaknesses and they all serve me. I can benefit from any and all all good agendas, which is not always apparent to people within, because they don't know how many chairs I sit on simultaneously with my centipede-like ass.

Molyneux is the most useful and practical person I've ever seen. He does the best job in daily reality by far of all the big animals I admire. Even if he never improved himself till the end of his life, he'd be a great aid to humanity, he stops so many parents from assaulting their children. And he has a great podcast shows, movie analyses, economic comments, political comments... He has a great many of skills that I greedily want and envy, such as letting people figure out things themselves, instead of telling them the answers. Smartass

Molyneux helped me a lot, but he can't control my mind. He's a tame, conservative Earthling compared to me. But I believe it is within my potential to change his mind. He may fancy himself author of the best philosophy show on Earth, I fancy myself his alien critic. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: