Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Regarding the bolded, I believe this is the core misdiagnosis and flawed starting principle of an-x philosophy. You of course know that a chain of logic can be 100% flawless but if it starts from a wrong first assumption it can still end up at the wrong end point. You have mistakenly layed the blame at the feet of the state, which as pointed out earlier is merely a set of proscriptions that describe organizational patterns for the humans in a society to follow. An intimate object. Pretending that that is the problem and without it everything would be fine is letting humans off too easy. It is in our nature to be warlike violent conquerors. You should realize that logically, removing the current organizational dictates followed by a given society does not mean there will be no organizational dictates - any complex system of interactions is going to shake out into some form of organization. It just means we have removed what little organizational control we have and left it to chance. Which given what we know about the darker side of our nature, is a dereliction of duty that will most likely lead to MORE violence and MORE suffering. You should also realize that in science, I cannot just say "throw out Einstein's theory of relativity, because it conflicts with quantum" no, that would be too easy - I have to propose a mechanism that describes the observed phenomena BETTER than the original.
You guys have misplaced the blame for our violent tribal evolutionarily derived nature at the feet of the organization constructs we have decided to follow. When it is actualy the flaws in our nature that spawn the flaws in our organizational philosophies. You are looking at a symptom and thinking it is the cause.
It's like blaming the gun instead of the person. It is easier to blame some intimate thing than our own internal darkness.
You see that's illogical.
If the issue is us and our internal darkness, then what moron determined that placing all power into the hands of the few over the many was going to limit it?
Look if I want to exterminate the seal pups in Canada with MIRVs, it's a lot easier to convince about 300 people it's a good idea than 175 million. Hell just proposing it might net me 25 votes off the bat, once I get into military spending I'm probably up to 100-150, half way there, run negative interference on the greenies, I've probably got another 25 (just to upset the evo-friendlies), then there's improvements, clean up and reconstruction (hey we've done it in Iraq among other places) will that get me the 125 votes I need?
Now straw poll here might get me 5 votes for a laugh, but no where near enough to make it happen. So I'll ask how placing power in the hands of the few over the many limits our destructive capabilities? It's easy to send people off to kill others, it's not so easy to do it yourself, nor can small groups achieve the same net destruction because of resource and time constraints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
You should also realize that in science, I cannot just say "throw out Einstein's theory of relativity, because it conflicts with quantum" no, that would be too easy - I have to propose a mechanism that describes the observed phenomena BETTER than the original.
Oh man, you must be a biologist or something. You're seriously showing your ass. Quantum and Relativity aren't competing theories, neither are they complete, there's no reason to throw out either when under their specific applications they both function to predict the observed outcomes. Indeed under their applications they work so well that we're trying to unify them. This is not what we're discussing though. Although word of advice, don't ever use that analogy again if you don't want to remove all doubt.
There will inevitably be persons with greater mental or physical strength over others in a free society who are able to to produce more and therefore obtain more ‘power’ than others.
The problem with libertarianism is that it offers no universal acknowledgment (within its actual system) of the principle that one human may not dominate over another for there to be real freedom. That fact that those with more power can utilize it over others is a dangerous path to follow.
Our definitions of power are not the same. You're right that people have different abilities, and some will be more successful than others. I don't care if someone else has more wealth than me if they're not given permission to initiate force. If there's a government they can lobby and bribe for special benefits, that's another story...
And they do need permission...can't take on an entire population by force alone.
Be that as it may, I'm referring to your "hard science approach to politics"
Right but you seem to be engaged in predictions in your previous post -- that's why I made my comment in the first place. So it seems like you're now condemning your own approach, i.e. are in agreement with me. So this is a confusing response TBH.
----------
Politics are just a series of processes that can be modeled to predict outcomes. The ultimate expression of state based governance has never been anything but genocide and/or war. Snorlax theory is that we are at fault it's an intrinsic factor, so giving factorial power to few reduces risk. Mine is to normalize power across all to reduce aggregation of power, thus reduce risk.
Analogy. You are making gunpowder, do you store it all in one place with the risk if it blows up it will take out the city? Or do you distribute it across all buildings in small amounts which may cause a few fires?
Politics are just a series of processes that can be modeled to predict outcomes.
Didn't you just say that predicting outcomes in social sciences was insanity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Thus claiming social science predicts anything is an oxymoron, and, the literal definition of insanity (performing the same test under the same conditions and expecting a different result).
If the issue is us and our internal darkness, then what moron determined that placing all power into the hands of the few over the many was going to limit it?
Look if I want to exterminate the seal pups in Canada with MIRVs, it's a lot easier to convince about 300 people it's a good idea than 175 million. Hell just proposing it might net me 25 votes off the bat, once I get into military spending I'm probably up to 100-150, half way there, run negative interference on the greenies, I've probably got another 25 (just to upset the evo-friendlies), then there's improvements, clean up and reconstruction (hey we've done it in Iraq among other places) will that get me the 125 votes I need?
Now straw poll here might get me 5 votes for a laugh, but no where near enough to make it happen. So I'll ask how placing power in the hands of the few over the many limits our destructive capabilities? It's easy to send people off to kill others, it's not so easy to do it yourself, nor can small groups achieve the same net destruction because of resource and time constraints.
There is no definition that a government must be few over many, that is just how ours is constructed. The specific fact that governments CAN and DO go so bad at times through history is why the forethought and design of it is SO important, and why burning it down and letting it develop ad-hoc by chance from the ashes is so dangerous. What mechanism guarantees the stability of your stateless society? What mechanism holds it in equilibrium? Defends it from outside influence?
The anarchy is an unstable state, you might get 10-20 years of it then what comes next?
No one knows.
Could be the reincarnation of Buddha creates the most peaceful society ever to exist.
But more likely, given the draw to power found in malignant sociopaths and our cognitive weakness as a group to exploitation, you end up with the first charismatic sociopath to roll up enough people under their fold to be able to gobble up all the smaller factions and begin exerting their will on the society at large. Congratulations, your anarchy has turned into a reign of terror in 2 generations.
No, I don't buy it, much better to plan it from the start. You don't get the perfect, but you can create barriers against the absolute worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Oh man, you must be a biologist or something. You're seriously showing your ass. Quantum and Relativity aren't competing theories, neither are they complete, there's no reason to throw out either when under their specific applications they both function to predict the observed outcomes. Indeed under their applications they work so well that we're trying to unify them. This is not what we're discussing though. Although word of advice, don't ever use that analogy again if you don't want to remove all doubt.
I'm not a scientist I'm an engineer that used to work with scientists. The unified theory WOULD be the supplantation of both the current quantum and relativistic theories into one overarching broadly applicable theory, one or both could remain unchanged but there would have to be some sort of reconciliation framework if both remained unchanged. This is exactly the kind of replacement process I was referring to. You basically typed out the long version of what I just stated and then told me I was an idiot for saying it. Obviously "throwing it out" is hyperbole - instances in science of the complete scrapping of a framework are exceedingly rare, rather it would be supplanted by the refined version. And yet, from a social standpoint you are ironically advocating just that: "throwing out" what we have and replacing it with nothing, rather than refining the existing framework. The point is you cannot supplant one explanation without providing an explanation that works better than the original. Just pointing out flaws is not good enough.
Until they can come up with a framework that is consistent between both areas and thus could be used universally, of course we continue to use both in their given context - that's the point I was making anyway. This of course with the same disclaimer - science adjacent engineer not scientist.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 04-19-2018 at 10:15 AM..
If the issue is us and our internal darkness, then what moron determined that placing all power into the hands of the few over the many was going to limit it?
Look if I want to exterminate the seal pups in Canada with MIRVs, it's a lot easier to convince about 300 people it's a good idea than 175 million. Hell just proposing it might net me 25 votes off the bat, once I get into military spending I'm probably up to 100-150, half way there, run negative interference on the greenies, I've probably got another 25 (just to upset the evo-friendlies), then there's improvements, clean up and reconstruction (hey we've done it in Iraq among other places) will that get me the 125 votes I need?
Now straw poll here might get me 5 votes for a laugh, but no where near enough to make it happen. So I'll ask how placing power in the hands of the few over the many limits our destructive capabilities? It's easy to send people off to kill others, it's not so easy to do it yourself, nor can small groups achieve the same net destruction because of resource and time constraints.
Oh man, you must be a biologist or something. You're seriously showing your ass. Quantum and Relativity aren't competing theories, neither are they complete, there's no reason to throw out either when under their specific applications they both function to predict the observed outcomes. Indeed under their applications they work so well that we're trying to unify them. This is not what we're discussing though. Although word of advice, don't ever use that analogy again if you don't want to remove all doubt.
Science really is a good parallel, which is why the thread topic is funny to me. It's like calling a scientific-minded person religious because of their "belief" in the scientific method.
Logical consistency and the removal of contradictions from your thinking is fundamental. Ignoring logical contradictions because you don't like the conclusion is as far from scientific thinking as you can go.
The most disturbing part of this thread since yesterday's entries is finding out that Volobjectarian is still voting.
Aye Caramba!
Sounds like he has identified ways to attempt to use his power within the system he finds himself in to attempt to effect change on that system, a realistic approach to trying to move the society that actually exists closer to his ideals. Where as you just want to talk about how the system sucks but take no actions to effect change rather than ranting about how it sucks.
I am going too sum this up in a simple but important idea of what I a Libertarian is and the thinking and thought process.
Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.
Commies, Big Government State loving liberals and republicans and Moderates, Tolerate, and defend tyranny and or use it as a form of control and power. To conceal their power their abuse of power and put as many people under that control is their goal. If dependent on that system to control others to control your neighbor you vote for more of the same.
When the individual has the maximum amount of freedom, as long as it does not impact others rights to do the same, and personal liberty with the JUSTICE System in place to defend then WE the people are free and government is justice and fair.
Sounds like he has identified ways to attempt to use his power within the system he finds himself in to attempt to effect change on that system, a realistic approach to trying to move the society that actually exists closer to his ideals. Where as you just want to talk about how the system sucks but take no actions to effect change rather than ranting about how it sucks.
AnCapistan needs crazy street corner guys preaching away as others pass by just like your statist world.
The bonus is in AnCapistan the cops won't tell me to move along or else they'll beat the hell out of me cuz there will be no public cops.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You basically typed out the long version of what I just stated and then told me I was an idiot for saying it. Obviously "throwing it out" is hyperbole - instances in science of the complete scrapping of a framework are exceedingly rare, rather it would be supplanted by the refined version. And yet, from a social standpoint you are ironically advocating just that: "throwing out" what we have and replacing it with nothing, rather than refining the existing framework. The point is you cannot supplant one explanation without providing an explanation that works better than the original. Just pointing out flaws is not good enough.
