Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-08-2014, 02:23 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 01:56 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What is to stop people from setting up another government half-dictatorship? Short answer: Bitcoin.

Indeed. Fraud-laden, cartel-controlled Bitcoins.

That's way better.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
06-08-2014, 02:26 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 10:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-08-2014 07:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  Words have identity? No, words have meaning. And words only have the meaning we give them. They are invented, they don't stand on their own.

Pure reasoning from bare assertions provides no knowledge; only evidence can do that.
Pure reasoning from the simplest assertions provides knowledge and evidence of natural properties of language, communication and information. These give us certainty that the world exists and we are capable to know it and communicate with it despite of culture.

No, they don't. That is all in your head. Only evidence-based reason shows us reality. Hypotheses must be tested against reality before they become knowledge.

Quote:Evidence of empirical nature comes much later, is way less certain and is always subject to rational and linguistic processing and then interpretation or application.
Empirical nature has little capacity for variability and can be pinned down by the scientific method. Thought has however great variability and the scientific method is unfit for it, because it apparently changes from moment to moment and sometimes fills the culture with wisdom, sometimes with stupidity.
You may call me stupid, but nobody has yet explained me what is the unambiguous definition of wisdom and stupidity. They all laughed instead and called me stupid, avoiding the answer.

Your refusal to understand the scientific method is an example of stupidity.

The understanding that all knowledge is provisional is an example of wisdom.

Quote:If people put empiricism above reason and language, they put a cart in front of the horse and remain barbarians despite of technology, which is only more dangerous.
Those who care more that the science is correct and care less if it is used with wisdom or stupidity are barbarians.

No one here has done that. You, however, ran over the horse with the cart.

Quote:By now, almost everyone who had read this far must be surely pissed off, without knowing exactly why. Hint: my presumptious pomposity is not an answer, nor an argument. If you can ask for a definition of wisdom and stupidity in a non-pompous way, well, you didn't and I am in mood for a little poetic expression...

No it's not an argument - it's a character defect.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
06-08-2014, 02:26 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2014 02:35 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 01:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No. DLJ made the cogent point that government (defined as collective decision-making) and politics (defined as the mechanisms by which government operates) are inevitable and inextricable from any functioning society.

You have not even come close to a coherent response to this.
These are bad definitions because they include violence: the initiation of force to finance all this circus. Privately financed private organizations are just fine.
The sociologist Max Weber defined the government as a monopoly on the initiation of use of force on a given territory and that definition must be obeyed, it's science. (sociology)

I am all for personal secession and sovereignity of violence, which is, everyone should be free to facepalm but never be smacked.

(06-08-2014 01:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That's pathetically facile. Markets are composed of humans. Markets are subject to externalities. Markets are flawed. You go out shopping and your choices are massively constrained by your own resources, by the selection of products, by the selection of retailers...
Guess what, government resources are even more constrained, which is why governments steal from people at gunpoint, a.k.a. taxation.
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQuJstKEmik60S0jOT3zJc...MhHXBt_zzg]

(06-08-2014 01:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  So, gaping hole #1: markets are fundamentally unequal, which you've gone to desperate lengths to ignore and deny (protip: this is not a new observation). An unrestricted market is the tyranny of capital. Period. Recognising irony requires self-awareness, so the beauty of advocating unbridled inequality in the name of freedom is surely lost on you.
The greatest inequality is not between capitalist and employee, but politician and a citizen. Between the former, there is collective negotiation for wages. Between the latter, there is a gun and no negotiation on the amount of taxes.
Marx was wrong, workers can rise peacefully. They can take a loan from bank, buy out a factory from the capitalist and work as shareholders. There is no market tyranny, there is only government tyranny.
Of course, government and market together is the most unholy combination possible. Without market, the government would be poor and couldn't afford global invasions.

(06-08-2014 01:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  To extend an infinitesimal amount of credit, you seem at least dimly aware the real life is not a magical utopia. But because your full-retard no-rules pure market-based anarcho-capitalism relies on everybody being perfect citizens acting in perfect good faith at all times for all eternity, it presents rather some issues when rudely confronted by reality. Your only attempt at a response is to stress how the problems magically go away if everyone magically agrees with you.

Of course, there's a funny thing about such reasoning; did you know that all political systems work perfectly with no conflict when everybody accepts them unconditionally and nobody ever breaks the rules? This is what EK just told you, and once again you either didn't understand the point or disingenuously ignored it.
The difference between state and market is like between hierarchy and network.
Shit may happen in the middle. Rules may be broken. If someone breaks rules in a hierarchy, everything below goes to shit. If someone breaks rules on the market, just tiny part of market goes to shit and gets isolated and people move on to do business elsewhere, where is no risk of shooting and looting. Violence and taxation is not good for business, which is why there is a lot of business on islands of Japan and Taiwan, which are poor on natural resources, but not so much business in Congo and Nigeria, which are full of precious metals. The businessmen know that dictators would jump their cargo even if it's just groceries.

This is why free market is safer and fairer. The same reason that P2P and distributed network processing is better than a centralized server. Free market is like distributed computing, only with little number papers instead of bits and bytes. Hackers (dictators) could take over a central server (central bank, Fed), but trying to take over a population on a free market would be like trying to take over the BitTorrent or Seti@Home (if it's distributed, not just parallel).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dis...g_projects
[Image: networks.png]

(06-08-2014 01:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Insanely gaping hole #2:
You have never even attempted to define either "initiate" or "violence". As such your vapid assertions are meaningless. I suppose this is because any attempt at definition requires you to admit that any such definitions are subjective.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Violence: initiate coercion with force or threats or lies.
"Initiate" means to actively set into motion. The opposite of pulling the trigger or saying you're about to do so if I don't give you money.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2014, 02:27 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
I like Hitchens' take on libertarianism
“I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”

There is nothing I find redeeming about the right in terms of their politics and tactics. Ultimately that leaves me with one option, liberalism. And as it turns out, I agree with most of the political stances liberals take.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
06-08-2014, 02:31 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
While I myself am a big fan of Nietzsche too, Nietzsche was against everything.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Res Publica's post
06-08-2014, 02:51 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2014 03:07 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 02:27 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I like Hitchens' take on libertarianism
“I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”

There is nothing I find redeeming about the right in terms of their politics and tactics. Ultimately that leaves me with one option, liberalism. And as it turns out, I agree with most of the political stances liberals take.
I have found it weird that it is greed to keep my money but it is not greed to vote to get me other people's money.

I like Pen Jillette's take on libertarianism.
[Image: libertarian+facebook+cover+penn+jillette.jpg]

(06-08-2014 02:31 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  While I myself am a big fan of Nietzsche too, Nietzsche was against everything.
Culturally, yes. But from my brief knowledge, he was for honesty, magnanimity and doing your own thing without being bogged down by popular opinion. Of course, when he wrote his popular book on Zarathustra, when Zarathustra decided to descend from the mountain to people, he called it joyfully path to self-destruction. Very honest from him, considering how people receive new ideas. I'd like to think that Nietzsche's specialty was shoveling away the false culture. But I don't share his nihilism in my own dabbling into philosophy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2014, 02:55 PM
Re: RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 02:51 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-08-2014 02:27 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I like Hitchens' take on libertarianism
“I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”

There is nothing I find redeeming about the right in terms of their politics and tactics. Ultimately that leaves me with one option, liberalism. And as it turns out, I agree with most of the political stances liberals take.
I have found it weird that it is greed to keep my money but it is not greed to vote to get me other people's money.

I like Pen Jillette's take on libertarianism.
[Image: libertarian+facebook+cover+penn+jillette.jpg]
It isn't greed for everyone to pitch in their portion for access to the same basic things we all need and use.

Libertarians don't want the government in control over these basic utilities (like roads or security), instead they want private businesses and individuals to fund them. The idea basically boils down to "we believe government is greed but private business isn't". Which seems naive to me and overly (and unnecessarily) complex.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
06-08-2014, 03:02 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 02:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  These are bad definitions because they include violence: the initiation of force to finance all this circus. Privately financed private organizations are just fine.

No, that is not contained in the definitions I provided. At all. I said "collective decision making".

I must seriously question your reading comprehension. Perhaps telling you to read a book is entirely futile.

Either you know that you are being incredibly dishonest, or you cannot help it. Presuppositionalism: it's not just for theists anymore!

(06-08-2014 02:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The sociologist Max Weber defined the government as a monopoly on the initiation of use of force on a given territory and that definition must be obeyed, it's science. (sociology)

Definitions are not science.

(06-08-2014 02:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I am all for personal secession and sovereignity of violence, which is, everyone should be free to facepalm but never be smacked.

Define "violence".
(but we'll get to that...)

You're "all for" personal secession, but not enough to actually bother in your own life, I guess.

(06-08-2014 02:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Guess what, government resources are even more constrained, which is why governments steal from people at gunpoint, a.k.a. taxation.

By saying "even more" constrained, you've tacitly admitted that markets are not unconstrained. So there's that.

Do you have any mechanism beyond Magical Thinking™ to address those inherent constraints and inequalities?

(06-08-2014 02:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The greatest inequality is not between capitalist and employee, but politician and a citizen.

Once again you implicitly recognize the inevitable existence of inequality. Whoops!

(06-08-2014 02:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Between the former, there is collective negotiation for wages. Between the latter, there is a gun and no negotiation on the amount of taxes.

Oh, look more disingenuous equivocation of definitions.

Protip: no, neither "state" nor "corporation" provides any explicit mechanism for interaction between constituent actors.

It's incredibly dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Either that, or you're presupposing so hard you don't realize it.

(06-08-2014 02:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Marx was wrong, workers can rise peacefully. They can take a loan from bank, buy out a factory from the capitalist and work as shareholders.

Assuming a bank exists, a bank will lend to them, a capitalist owns a factory, a capitalist will sell to them, and they never disagree as to policy and procedure...
(hint: Marx's assumptions were that those things wouldn't be true)

My God but your irrelevant and facetious hypotheticals are laden with unfounded assumptions.

(06-08-2014 02:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There is no market tyranny, there is only government tyranny.

Patently false.

Tell the man with no money about how free he is.

I'm free to buy what people will sell me. I have no control over what people will sell me. I have no control over my own initial wealth.

Whatever that is, it sure as fuck isn't complete freedom.

(06-08-2014 02:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Of course, government and market together is the most unholy combination possible. Without market, the government would be poor and couldn't afford global invasions.

Government and markets are both inevitable components of society. You're once again abusing facile definitions for rhetorical convenience.

That's bad form, but I guess you don't care.

(06-08-2014 02:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The difference between state and market is like between hierarchy and network.

A tiered network is a subset of a generalised network. Do you think any of your analogies through?

Actually, I'm rather more certain they're just things you copypasta'd from other sources inside your bubble.

(06-08-2014 02:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Shit may happen in the middle. Rules may be broken. If someone breaks rules in a hierarchy, everything below goes to shit. If someone breaks rules on the market, just tiny part of market goes to shit and gets isolated and people move on to do business elsewhere, where is no risk of shooting and looting. Violence and taxation is not good for business, which is why there is a lot of business on islands of Japan and Taiwan, which are poor on natural resources.

That statement appears to be unconnected with any external reality. "If there were no problems there would be no problems" is the worst possible kind of problem solving, but for some reason, it's all you can conceive of. Oh, well.

(06-08-2014 02:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  This is why free market is safer and fairer. The same reason that P2P and distributed network processing is better than a centralized server.

... which still requires centralisation insofar as protocol and initial infrastructure are concerned...

(06-08-2014 02:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Violence: initiate coercion with force or threats or lies.
"Initiate" means to actively set into motion. The opposite of doing nothing.

How delightfully circular. You realise that you've now told people not to initiate initiation, right? Define "coercion". Don't go infinite regress here.

If you have any honesty behind your fanatical ideological blinders, you'll admit that this definition is subjective. Inaction can be incredibly coercive. That's the definition of ostracism. Withholding aid is inaction. It is impossible to do nothing such that no one else is affected. Life doesn't work like that.

Notwithstanding that all actions are a response to all other actions. Your definition of "initiate" is at best a deepity and at worst wholly useless.

As per your definition of "violence": I raise for you once again the issue of property. All property is inherently coercive and relies on use of force to establish and preserve. Thus, you're implicitly perfectly fine with violence when it's in your favour.

Is an insult violent? Are any simple words? What if they're slanderous and defamatory? That will influence others' willingness to interact with you - thus, your sanctified market's willingness to interact. That's coercive. Can you quantify precisely where that distinction lies?

A lie is a deliberate falsehood. What of an accidental falsehood? Miscommunication? A market is the sum total of certain interactions; the actors are just as fallible and ignorant as in all human interaction.

A physically coherent definition of "force" is such that it includes either everything or nothing. I'll assume that you agree with the statement that property is an extension of self; is there a distinction between violence against the body and violence against other property? Communal property? Intellectual property?

Vapid sloganeering does not answer these questions. Pathological ideologues like you are terrified by nuance and refuse to acknowledge subjectivity or context.

I still award you no points. May the Flying Spaghetti Monster have mercy on your stringy soul.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
06-08-2014, 03:14 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 01:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Of course, there's a funny thing about such reasoning; did you know that all political systems work perfectly with no conflict when everybody accepts them unconditionally and nobody ever breaks the rules? This is what EK just told you, and once again you either didn't understand the point or disingenuously ignored it.


Fucking hell, at least somebody got it. Rolleyes

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
06-08-2014, 03:14 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 02:55 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It isn't greed for everyone to pitch in their portion for access to the same basic things we all need and use.

Libertarians don't want the government in control over these basic utilities (like roads or security), instead they want private businesses and individuals to fund them. The idea basically boils down to "we believe government is greed but private business isn't". Which seems naive to me and overly (and unnecessarily) complex.
When talking about government, we must talk in the official definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber
Libertarians are for liberty, against violence. Personal ownership may sound selfish to someone, but it's like sex, it's naughty but we all like it and someone gets more, someone less, and there would be no life without it.
When you talk to a libertarian, replace "government" with "force". Libertarians don't want government for the same reasons why women don't want arranged marriages. People put a lot of work and feelings into their private business and taxation is like violation of their private parts. If you need some money, just ask nicely. People are generous when taxes aren't high.

I'd love it if one guy in an office could figure out business and people's needs better than a whole market of competitors. But if such a guy existed and had good ideas, he would not need armed men to force these ideas on the population, he'd put them on the market and become rich just like Bill Gates. Good ideas don't need guns or votes. Votes are a massive subsidy to stupid people, they make a stupid person's opinion on economy as valid as a smart person's. There's more stupid people than economists. We don't vote in science, right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: