What happened to frankjs?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-05-2014, 10:49 PM
RE: What happened to frankjs?
(31-05-2014 10:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 10:29 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  We'll I don't know, Rothbard has very crazy ideas, Von Mises on the other hand is more reasonable. Neither are your typical Keynesian Econ by any stretch.

I am not speaking about schools of economics - though what little frankksj understood he misapplied.

I am referring to the actual delusion. Compulsive strawmen, compulsive misrepresentation, insane baseless "hypotheticals", and a total disregard for logic and data.
(the multiple and repeated straight-up lies about his personal life were just icing on the failure cake)

I see. Yes he worked with a lot closed system scenarios. Much more of an ideologue than an empiricist I think is what you're trying to say. I only got to interact twice with him but I seem to recall what you mention.

Luminon is the same way, I know for a fact Luminon is a Rothbardian. I wouldn't be surprised if frankjs was as well. The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.

“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
31-05-2014, 10:56 PM
RE: What happened to frankjs?
(31-05-2014 10:40 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Meanwhile, I wouldn't want Frankie to leave. I only learn from people who do not hold the same views as myself.
I have very little knowledge / understanding of the US-style Libertarianism or economics in general so my awareness has been raised.

I wouldn't either. It helps to know what other positions have to offer. Economic policy tends to become a very religious issue especially with people that love Keynes or Von Mises.

“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
31-05-2014, 11:01 PM
RE: What happened to frankjs?
(31-05-2014 10:56 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 10:40 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Meanwhile, I wouldn't want Frankie to leave. I only learn from people who do not hold the same views as myself.
I have very little knowledge / understanding of the US-style Libertarianism or economics in general so my awareness has been raised.

I wouldn't either. It helps to know what other positions have to offer. Economic policy tends to become a very religious issue especially with people that love Keynes or Von Mises.

Yes, but in this case, you'd learn more from the back of a cereal box.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2014, 04:16 AM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2014 04:36 AM by Luminon.)
RE: What happened to frankjs?
(31-05-2014 10:56 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 10:40 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Meanwhile, I wouldn't want Frankie to leave. I only learn from people who do not hold the same views as myself.
I have very little knowledge / understanding of the US-style Libertarianism or economics in general so my awareness has been raised.

I wouldn't either. It helps to know what other positions have to offer. Economic policy tends to become a very religious issue especially with people that love Keynes or Von Mises.
I rather liked frankssj. He was enough like me that I had to leave him alone, I trusted his judgement. However, I prefer people I disagree with.

I wouldn't call myself a Rothbardian, or any kind of -ian or -ist, although I studied Rothbard. If I can root my statements in objective principles of reality extended by logic, I'm a philosopher.
The problem with any policy, including economic is, I never found any logical justification for active initiation of force, without defense, just like that, or any other positive obligation.

I don't say it's impossible, but the moment you introduce initiation of force as a positive obligation, you have to say exactly who will do that, how, how much and against whom. And especially when do and when don't. And you have to add why - justify all that objectively, you have to root that in some undeniable, objective principle, or it's just an opinion with a gun. That's an awful lot of work.
So I go with the premise that there is no such thing as unchosen positive obligations, unless proven otherwise. Nobody yet did this work, all policy is "do what I say, or else, because I fuckin' say so." The best that this "fiat lex" policy can do, is internal consistency of law, which nearly places it on level of good fiction. Most politicians don't even try for consistency, they arbitrarily order or ban things, which must be an affront to every rational person. Which would exclude vast majority of humanity, none of which are philosophical, that is, rational about the reality as a whole. Majority of people, even the most intelligent on Earth are rational only instrumentally, about a narrow area of lives. Few people are rational about society as a whole.

Yes, I agree that organized societies are better than non-organized, but there is a dialectic of network and hierarchy that few people understand. People tend to mix it, but that is a mistake. Hierarchy has to go, replaced by various forms of network-based global societies. Network is the only way to "watch the watchman" or rather make the watchman question moot. I can see however an objective principle of hierarchy in both nature and society that binds those who can subjectively recognize it rationally, who can think in principles. Those who can't think in objective principles, well, there's no easy fooplroof way to make them understand, so we better keep our mouth shut until we educate the people. Network is a foolproof outer arrangement for society.

I think that Ghost (Matt) was another interesting freethinker here, emphasis on the part "free".
I sensed in him a lot of political correctness, relativism and subjective (wrong) reasons for sometimes right things. I don't tolerate that well because it is inflexible and stunts learning.
I can re-formulate Rothbardian "principles" of proprety rights and non-violence into a non-violent society with no explicit property rights and back. I can tell if a hierarchy is objective or not and accept what is objective, Matt couldn't. So much for people who think I can't be reasoned with.

If your argument goes all the way up to objective first principles and is rooted in specific implementation, then you must insist on it as if it was defending evolution in the face of a creationist. I think that pisses off a lot of people. Some want an eternal formulation of rules, which is arbitrary nonsense. Some want no rules because they're afraid of arbitrary oppression, but what will they do, make a rule that no rules are allowed? That's self-detonating.
Neither of such people would be at their time unable to find any objective reasons to end slavery of blacks.
This will piss off many people here. Principles are more important than data. Data are never perfectly accurate, exhausting and objective except in very limited experimental conditions, but principles are perfectly objective in all reality, only occassionally corrected by data. If we follow principles, data will follow too. I'm sure there was a lot of data on why slavery of Africans was a very positive thing, after all, slavery was as old as humanity. Well, fuck data, for the most part. Data are subject to interpretation, principles are subject to nothing but accuracy, repertoire of language and occassional correction from natural science data.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2014, 06:16 AM
RE: What happened to frankjs?
Luminon, non, non.

I'm with you up to a point.

All social groupings have pros and cons as do all governance systems. Virtual communities are certainly going to impact the future (I dunno if that's what you meant by Network).

But..,

Principles are subjective. They represent our values and drive our codes of ethics.

They help us set objectives but they are in no way objective.

Maybe we're using different dictionaries.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
01-06-2014, 06:49 AM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2014 06:55 AM by Luminon.)
RE: What happened to frankjs?
(01-06-2014 06:16 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Luminon, non, non.

I'm with you up to a point.

All social groupings have pros and cons as do all governance systems. Virtual communities are certainly going to impact the future (I dunno if that's what you meant by Network).

But..,

Principles are subjective. They represent our values and drive our codes of ethics.

They help us set objectives but they are in no way objective.

Maybe we're using different dictionaries.
When I say "first principles", I mean "undeniable objective philosophical principles" which are just linguistic abstraction for basic properties of reality. The way how waves and particles ride space-time determines sequentiality and causality. The law of energy preservation determines the principle of identity.

We can derive logic from the behavior of energy and matter in space-time, but we don't really have to, we already do that, because we are matter and energy riding space-time. Try anything without logic and you won't even have reason to prefer your rules over any other. Try anything without sequentiality and you won't even be able to think a statement. Principles make thinking, language and action possible. These principles can be contacted by pure reason alone at any time and their basis in physical reality is just a modern confirmation thanks to better science.

The problem with humanity is, that we can put into language and thought things that do not make sense logically, or make sense only partially. We create social orders out of these things, which are doomed to fail sooner or later. Vast majority of human effort goes into maintaining the fundamentally flawed structures, so they only fall after generations or centuries, but at a terrible price, usually neglecting science, human rights and such. Their destiny is quite predictable, because they contain fundamental violations of principles at their core, for example they use force. Force is never universally applicable, so the monopoly on force becomes the eternal apple of discord.

It is important to derive all ethics from logic, so that it fulfills all obligations, such as burden of proof. If we make a positive universal obligation, there is a shitload of burdens and conditions to prove to localize it in space-time, that it is basically impossible.
However, a negative obligation, such as not to initiate force is truly universal and is basically valid to begin with.
So this is where I draw the line, where the verbal hobby ends. There are first principles and we can derive universal obligations from them, in fact we have to, if we want to avoid suffering and be happy. There's no way around that.

This is what I think Ghost could not process and I doubt if Frank could. Even my pet philosopher Molyneux would perhaps raise an eyebrow at my formulation, because he's not familiar with general systems theory, he's a very down-to-earth thinker. But the first principles only seem puny until we apply them to some social institution. Applying them to nature is OK (see above) but try that with families, politics or economy and shit hits the fan.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2014, 06:58 AM
RE: What happened to frankjs?
(31-05-2014 11:01 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 10:56 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  I wouldn't either. It helps to know what other positions have to offer. Economic policy tends to become a very religious issue especially with people that love Keynes or Von Mises.

Yes, but in this case, you'd learn more from the back of a cereal box.

(01-06-2014 06:16 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Luminon, non, non.

I'm with you up to a point.

All social groupings have pros and cons as do all governance systems. Virtual communities are certainly going to impact the future (I dunno if that's what you meant by Network).

But..,

Principles are subjective. They represent our values and drive our codes of ethics.

They help us set objectives but they are in no way objective.

Maybe we're using different dictionaries.

No he means to say objective as in true regardless of time, place and situation. He derives this from Molyneux who derived it from Rand. I understand the drive for objectivism.

I'm more of a Realist in the philosophical sense. Objectivists in my experience are quite religious in using circular reasoning or tautologies to develop an impenetrable unfalsifiable system and a general disdain of empiricism.

“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
01-06-2014, 07:01 AM
RE: What happened to frankjs?
I also forgot complete negligence of the is-ought problem.

“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
01-06-2014, 07:20 AM
RE: What happened to frankjs?
(01-06-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(01-06-2014 06:16 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Luminon, non, non.

I'm with you up to a point.

All social groupings have pros and cons as do all governance systems. Virtual communities are certainly going to impact the future (I dunno if that's what you meant by Network).

But..,

Principles are subjective. They represent our values and drive our codes of ethics.

They help us set objectives but they are in no way objective.

Maybe we're using different dictionaries.
When I say "first principles", I mean "undeniable objective philosophical principles" which are just linguistic abstraction for basic properties of reality. The way how waves and particles ride space-time determines sequentiality and causality. The law of energy preservation determines the principle of identity.

We can derive logic from the behavior of energy and matter in space-time, but we don't really have to, we already do that, because we are matter and energy riding space-time. Try anything without logic and you won't even have reason to prefer your rules over any other. Try anything without sequentiality and you won't even be able to think a statement. Principles make thinking, language and action possible. These principles can be contacted by pure reason alone at any time and their basis in physical reality is just a modern confirmation thanks to better science.

The problem with humanity is, that we can put into language and thought things that do not make sense logically, or make sense only partially. We create social orders out of these things, which are doomed to fail sooner or later. Vast majority of human effort goes into maintaining the fundamentally flawed structures, so they only fall after generations or centuries, but at a terrible price, usually neglecting science, human rights and such. Their destiny is quite predictable, because they contain fundamental violations of principles at their core, for example they use force. Force is never universally applicable, so the monopoly on force becomes the eternal apple of discord.

It is important to derive all ethics from logic, so that it fulfills all obligations, such as burden of proof. If we make a positive universal obligation, there is a shitload of burdens and conditions to prove to localize it in space-time, that it is basically impossible.
However, a negative obligation, such as not to initiate force is truly universal and is basically valid to begin with.
So this is where I draw the line, where the verbal hobby ends. There are first principles and we can derive universal obligations from them, in fact we have to, if we want to avoid suffering and be happy. There's no way around that.

This is what I think Ghost could not process and I doubt if Frank could. Even my pet philosopher Molyneux would perhaps raise an eyebrow at my formulation, because he's not familiar with general systems theory, he's a very down-to-earth thinker. But the first principles only seem puny until we apply them to some social institution. Applying them to nature is OK (see above) but try that with families, politics or economy and shit hits the fan.

For future reference, the first paragraph of your reply would have been enough to clear up my misunderstanding.
And I thank you for it.

The rest? Kantish stuff about Universals... there ain't none.

I'm OK with the understanding of is from physical laws (or at least our current observations of them and derivations from them) but that ain't gonna turn into an objective ought any day soon.

@djk, also, thanks for clarifying. I like the way you said "drive for objectivism"... yup objectivism should be our collective objective. Big Grin
Like utopia, I know it does not exist, but that should not stop us looking for it.

Cool

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
01-06-2014, 08:09 AM
RE: What happened to frankjs?
(31-05-2014 10:40 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(31-05-2014 10:33 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  ...
I'd like to think the Forum Team took notes in how to ensure such cases were handled more efficiently.

It's almost an entirely new team since then.

The new team are a bunch of fools and will probably make similar or worse errors of judgement in future.

Angel

Meanwhile, I wouldn't want Frankie to leave. I only learn from people who do not hold the same views as myself.
I have very little knowledge / understanding of the US-style Libertarianism or economics in general so my awareness has been raised.

For the most part I confused it with Libertinism... I can get behind that Dodgy

the team is*

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: