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
17-08-2014, 03:51 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(17-08-2014 12:19 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  Have you ever heard of the fallacy of composition? If I go to a street with six houses and the first house is blue, can I deduce that all the houses on the street must be blue? What if half of the houses are blue, or even five of the houses are blue; can I than assert that all the houses are blue? No, I can not. Most people are conform to the moral standards of modern society. However, not all people act in a moral way. We hire police forces to take care of the elements of society that we find immoral.
Is there any objective rational or empirical method for determining who is a part of "society", who is this "we", what is moral and immoral? If not, then how do I de-convert and live only according to what is objective or voluntary?

(17-08-2014 12:19 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  We are not perfect however and sometimes those police forces also act immorally. That is why we have systems in place that are designed to watch over the police forces to make sure that they don't abuse their granted power. The people that watch over those watchers are our elected officials. The people watch over the elected officials to make sure that they are behaving in a way that society deems moral. Ultimately, everyone watches everyone else. That is how are system works. This last part This paragraph would normally be totally unnecessary; but I'm willing to bet that you were going to go on a rant about who watches the watchers, so I figured I'd preemptively reply to that argument.
Just like you would ask a Christian, who created God, I ask, who watch the watchers? More watchers is not an answer, just like another God is not an answer either.

Where is the empirical or rational proof that we need as many watchers as are there? Where is the proof there must be a permanent watcher class and an underclass that pays and obeys the watchers?

Who told you that it would work at all? Watchers, I'd bet. Someone has to pay the watchers and so people damn well should believe that we need watchers. Watching the watchers always turns into a whole industry of getting paid for watching, which becomes more profitable and less risky than actual stealing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 04:04 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(17-08-2014 03:32 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
DLJ's premises are completely faulty. He presumes that some groups or individuals have the right to initiate violence. ...

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from what I wrote.

Honestly. No idea!

Probably because you were all spanked as children, thus Lumi just knows (because he has feels) that you'll all resort to violence at the first possible opportunity and usher in the tyranny of collective bargaining and negotiation!!

Or Lumi is just off his meds... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
17-08-2014, 04:14 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(17-08-2014 03:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 12:19 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  Have you ever heard of the fallacy of composition? If I go to a street with six houses and the first house is blue, can I deduce that all the houses on the street must be blue? What if half of the houses are blue, or even five of the houses are blue; can I than assert that all the houses are blue? No, I can not. Most people are conform to the moral standards of modern society. However, not all people act in a moral way. We hire police forces to take care of the elements of society that we find immoral.
Is there any objective rational or empirical method for determining who is a part of "society", who is this "we", what is moral and immoral? If not, then how do I de-convert and live only according to what is objective or voluntary?

(17-08-2014 12:19 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  We are not perfect however and sometimes those police forces also act immorally. That is why we have systems in place that are designed to watch over the police forces to make sure that they don't abuse their granted power. The people that watch over those watchers are our elected officials. The people watch over the elected officials to make sure that they are behaving in a way that society deems moral. Ultimately, everyone watches everyone else. That is how are system works. This last part This paragraph would normally be totally unnecessary; but I'm willing to bet that you were going to go on a rant about who watches the watchers, so I figured I'd preemptively reply to that argument.
Just like you would ask a Christian, who created God, I ask, who watch the watchers? More watchers is not an answer, just like another God is not an answer either.

Where is the empirical or rational proof that we need as many watchers as are there? Where is the proof there must be a permanent watcher class and an underclass that pays and obeys the watchers?

Who told you that it would work at all? Watchers, I'd bet. Someone has to pay the watchers and so people damn well should believe that we need watchers. Watching the watchers always turns into a whole industry of getting paid for watching, which becomes more profitable and less risky than actual stealing.

You didn't answer the questions I posed. Why should I answer your questions to me?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes PKJoe's post
17-08-2014, 04:24 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(17-08-2014 03:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 12:19 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  We are not perfect however and sometimes those police forces also act immorally. That is why we have systems in place that are designed to watch over the police forces to make sure that they don't abuse their granted power. The people that watch over those watchers are our elected officials. The people watch over the elected officials to make sure that they are behaving in a way that society deems moral. Ultimately, everyone watches everyone else. That is how are system works. This last part This paragraph would normally be totally unnecessary; but I'm willing to bet that you were going to go on a rant about who watches the watchers, so I figured I'd preemptively reply to that argument.
Just like you would ask a Christian, who created God, I ask, who watch the watchers? More watchers is not an answer, just like another God is not an answer either.

Where is the empirical or rational proof that we need as many watchers as are there? Where is the proof there must be a permanent watcher class and an underclass that pays and obeys the watchers?

Hooray for false equivocation and being purposely obtuse!

Both the police and the politicians are beholden to the public, they are public servants. Everyone can be fired, or jailed, and politicians can lose elections (so long as the consensus values and enforces equal protection under the law). It's up to the people to be vigilant in watching over those who watch over them. It's not a perpetual never-ending hierarchy, it's an inter-dependent system built upon checks and balances.

Now as opposed to anarchy where everyone just watches themselves with no oversight and zero accountability, this is a system built around negotiation and the forming of a consensus; with the understanding that by our own nature, everyone will be an outlier on some issue at some time. But almost all of them value the protection, stability, and accountability afforded when working together in a group.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
17-08-2014, 07:33 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
I am away from this thread for like, two days . . . the hell is everyone on about now. Sheezus.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Michael Colton's post
17-08-2014, 07:47 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(17-08-2014 03:32 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
DLJ's premises are completely faulty. He presumes that some groups or individuals have the right to initiate violence. ...

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from what I wrote.

Honestly. No idea!

Don't worry, man, I had your back on that:
(16-08-2014 05:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  DLJ's premises are completely faulty. He presumes that some groups or individuals have the right to initiate violence. Not nobody, which is my position. Not everyone, which is Hobbesian natural state. Only some of them.

That is not even remotely what DLJ said.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
17-08-2014, 08:01 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(17-08-2014 07:47 AM)cjlr Wrote:  ...
Don't worry, man, I had your back on that:
...

Yup. Thanks. I noticed.

Just out of curiosity, and here's a challenge to you ... could you / can you identify anything, in what we are reading from our luminous friend, with which you can agree or indeed anything which has brought illumination?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 08:24 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(17-08-2014 08:01 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 07:47 AM)cjlr Wrote:  ...
Don't worry, man, I had your back on that:
...

Yup. Thanks. I noticed.

Just out of curiosity, and here's a challenge to you ... could you / can you identify anything, in what we are reading from our luminous friend, with which you can agree or indeed anything which has brought illumination?

I grant him a great deal of agreement in principle. I believe voluntarism is a worthy ideal. I believe violence ought to be left as a last defensive resort. I believe aggression is disfavourable - but I disagree in that I find the term (and others) difficult to define and in practice very subjective. And I disagree in that I am very reluctant to frame such absolutist statements as "always" or "never". Nuance is the greatest enemy of the True Believer.

But these are guiding statements on which it harder than not to find someone who does not agree in principle.

As for illumination, his several lengthy sessions of freewheeling psychobabble directed towards me are fairly revealing, if perhaps not as intended.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
17-08-2014, 01:23 PM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2014 04:16 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(17-08-2014 04:14 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 03:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Is there any objective rational or empirical method for determining who is a part of "society", who is this "we", what is moral and immoral? If not, then how do I de-convert and live only according to what is objective or voluntary?

Just like you would ask a Christian, who created God, I ask, who watch the watchers? More watchers is not an answer, just like another God is not an answer either.

Where is the empirical or rational proof that we need as many watchers as are there? Where is the proof there must be a permanent watcher class and an underclass that pays and obeys the watchers?

Who told you that it would work at all? Watchers, I'd bet. Someone has to pay the watchers and so people damn well should believe that we need watchers. Watching the watchers always turns into a whole industry of getting paid for watching, which becomes more profitable and less risky than actual stealing.

You didn't answer the questions I posed. Why should I answer your questions to me?
You asked about colored houses. Hypothetical questions deserve hypothetical answers Rolleyes
If you think about the composition of the society, yes, there are some bad people. But you have no evidence that these bad people can't get into watcher structures and control them from within, by shady deals. In fact, there is a strong evidence for that, it's called evening news.
I say, money and power interests are stronger in long term than any watching structures. People will make deals and cooperate in a corrupting way. However, on free market this is safe, because violence is not allowed. Free market does not use violence, because it is bad for business. Nobody wants to send products into a war zone or high tax zone or an unstable political regime. Thus free market voluntarism is naturally stable, provided it is based on peaceful parenting and not a failed state smoking cinders.

(17-08-2014 04:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Hooray for false equivocation and being purposely obtuse!

Both the police and the politicians are beholden to the public, they are public servants. Everyone can be fired, or jailed, and politicians can lose elections (so long as the consensus values and enforces equal protection under the law). It's up to the people to be vigilant in watching over those who watch over them. It's not a perpetual never-ending hierarchy, it's an inter-dependent system built upon checks and balances.

Now as opposed to anarchy where everyone just watches themselves with no oversight and zero accountability, this is a system built around negotiation and the forming of a consensus; with the understanding that by our own nature, everyone will be an outlier on some issue at some time. But almost all of them value the protection, stability, and accountability afforded when working together in a group.
I'm not obtuse, I refuse to be hoodwinked by skipping the basics. Prove it. Prove everything. I know there are institutions and guidelines on paper, but prove their usefulness.
Show me the scientific studies that prove that checks and balances are the best form of organizing society, and compared to what. I don't want to be stuck in some 18-19th century social theories made up by famous intellectuals that were never tested with science. Tocqueville my ass.
I could make a case for the completely non-capitalistic The Venus Project, which is based on engineering and behavioral science. I think that is more scientific than you rehashing Tocqueville, Locke and Hobbes. But for foreseeable time I'd prefer free market voluntarism, for which I see evidence in how the worldwide web behaves, especially the P2P applications.
I get really suspicious when people use modern phones with internet but insist on being ruled by centuries old ideologies. Drinking Beverage

And please stop this false dichotomy that equates power structures with group cooperation. Voluntarism means to be free to cooperate in any way, while political power interferes and forbids certain kinds of cooperation, such as economic monopoly, which only we consumers can judge with their wallets. OTOH, power means inverse proportion to accountability. On the market, everyone is accountable to the customer, customer is the master. Power gets our money for nothing and produces nothing and we do not have the power to take our money back.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 05:17 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(17-08-2014 01:23 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 04:14 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  You didn't answer the questions I posed. Why should I answer your questions to me?
You asked about colored houses. Hypothetical questions deserve hypothetical answers Rolleyes
If you think about the composition of the society, yes, there are some bad people. But you have no evidence that these bad people can't get into watcher structures and control them from within, by shady deals. In fact, there is a strong evidence for that, it's called evening news.
I say, money and power interests are stronger in long term than any watching structures. People will make deals and cooperate in a corrupting way. However, on free market this is safe, because violence is not allowed. Free market does not use violence, because it is bad for business. Nobody wants to send products into a war zone or high tax zone or an unstable political regime. Thus free market voluntarism is naturally stable, provided it is based on peaceful parenting and not a failed state smoking cinders.

(17-08-2014 04:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Hooray for false equivocation and being purposely obtuse!

Both the police and the politicians are beholden to the public, they are public servants. Everyone can be fired, or jailed, and politicians can lose elections (so long as the consensus values and enforces equal protection under the law). It's up to the people to be vigilant in watching over those who watch over them. It's not a perpetual never-ending hierarchy, it's an inter-dependent system built upon checks and balances.

Now as opposed to anarchy where everyone just watches themselves with no oversight and zero accountability, this is a system built around negotiation and the forming of a consensus; with the understanding that by our own nature, everyone will be an outlier on some issue at some time. But almost all of them value the protection, stability, and accountability afforded when working together in a group.
I'm not obtuse, I refuse to be hoodwinked by skipping the basics. Prove it. Prove everything. I know there are institutions and guidelines on paper, but prove their usefulness.
Show me the scientific studies that prove that checks and balances are the best form of organizing society, and compared to what. I don't want to be stuck in some 18-19th century social theories made up by famous intellectuals that were never tested with science. Tocqueville my ass.
I could make a case for the completely non-capitalistic The Venus Project, which is based on engineering and behavioral science. I think that is more scientific than you rehashing Tocqueville, Locke and Hobbes. But for foreseeable time I'd prefer free market voluntarism, for which I see evidence in how the worldwide web behaves, especially the P2P applications.
I get really suspicious when people use modern phones with internet but insist on being ruled by centuries old ideologies. Drinking Beverage

And please stop this false dichotomy that equates power structures with group cooperation. Voluntarism means to be free to cooperate in any way, while political power interferes and forbids certain kinds of cooperation, such as economic monopoly, which only we consumers can judge with their wallets. OTOH, power means inverse proportion to accountability. On the market, everyone is accountable to the customer, customer is the master. Power gets our money for nothing and produces nothing and we do not have the power to take our money back.

You didn't even give a hypothetical answer. You didn't answer my original question at all. Your issue regarding bad people being put into positions of watcher were addressed by both Evolution Kills and myself. You refuse to accept the answer. Everyone watches everybody is the solution that we have come up with. Everybody is subject to punishment regardless of their position. Police, government officials, military personnel, and private citizens can all be punished in some way. In addition each of these elements has watch power over at least one of the other segments. It's a system of checks-and-balances. Even within the government their are oversight boards, and separation of powers. Your fear of who is watching the watchers is totally unfounded and unsubstantiated. As a society, we have addressed that issue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes PKJoe's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: