CoinCube, I can't fathom how the mathematical point flew right over your head.  I give up. The balance is precisely high entropy. Collectivism doesn't have it. Anonymint we have already concluded this mathematical debate. Entropy increases the information content of a system only to a point. Beyond that point it becomes destructive. Anonymity allows uncontrolled destructive chaos.
And who are you to judge that individual freedom and responsibility produces destructive outcomes? I am an anarchist. I believe in the math of optimal fitness. So my task is thus to show that the math of optimal fitness requires anarchy to be contained and limited. I accept your challenge. Life requires entropy to exist, but critically such entropy must be limited and contained. Entropy/mutation must not be allowed to exceed the error threshold. Error threshold was developed from Quasispecies Theory by Eigen and Schuster to describe the dynamics of replicating nucleic acid under the influence of mutation and selection. If replication was without entropy no mutants would arise and evolution would cease. On the other hand, evolution would also be impossible if the entropy/error rate of replication were too high (only a few mutation produce an improvement, but most will lead to deterioration). Error threshold allows us to quantify the resulting minimal replication accuracy (ie maximal mutation/entropy rate) that still maintains adaptation. This can be shown analytically at its clearest in an extreme form of a fitness landscape which contains a single peak of fitness x > 1 with all other variations having a fitness of 1. With an infinite population there is a phase transition at a particular error rate p (the mutation rate at each loci in a genetic sequence). In Eigen and Schuster (1979), this critical error rate is determined analytically to be p = ln(x)/L (where L is the chromosome length). When this mutation/entropy rate is exceeded the proportion of the infinite population on the fitness peak drops to chance levels. The can be thought of intuitively as a balance between exploitation and exploration in genetic search. In the limit of zero entropy/mutation successive generations of selection remove all variety from the population and the population converges to a single point. If the entropy/mutation rates are too excessive the evolutionary process degenerates into random search with no exploitation of the information acquired in preceding generations. Thus the optimum entropy rate should maximize the search done through mutation subject to the constraint of not losing information already gained.Any optimal entropy rate must lie between the two extremes, but its precise position will depend on several factors especially the structure of the fitness landscape. It is also worth noting that at least with genetic algorithms natural selection tends to reduce the mutation/entropy rates on rugged landscapes (but not on smooth ones) so as to avoid the production of harmful mutations, even though this short-term benefit limits adaptation over the long term. References: Eigen, M., & Schuster, P. (1979). The Hypercycle: A Principle of Natural Self-Organization. Springer-Verlag. Ochoa G., Harvey I, Buxton, H. Optimal Mutation Rates and Selection Pressure in Genetic Algorithms. Proc. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference 2000 Clune J, Misevic D, Ofria C, Lenski RE, Elena SF, Sanjuán R. Natural Selection Fails to Optimize Mutation Rates for Long-Term Adaptation on Rugged Fitness Landscapes. PLOS September 26, 2008 |
|
|
|
The only way the State could stop individuals from acquiring and using such technology would be to track everything everyone does. Choke points of yore only (e.g. export restrictions on certain technology) worked before the internet. The cat is already out of the box and the only way to put it back in, is to track everything everyone does. That Orwellian State would mean certain extinction of the human race because centralization of power corrupts absolutely and there will be no way to break out of it until hits 0 (i.e. cancer entirely killed the host).
The logic you expressed appears to me to be certifiably insane because...
All you have provided are the choice between two scenarios which are both human extinction paths.
My gosh. Sociopath much? Why not contemplate a more rosy possibility?
Of course anarchy (a.k.a. the free market) would never end up with the outcome you illogically fear. Because (unlike a perfectly centralized system which has 0 entropy), the entropy of the free market is higher (not 0) and thus it has a higher implied equilibrium state (above 0).
Can't you PERCEIVE (i.e. envision) that the free market will always react by providing self-defense technology? For example, technology to leave planet Earth if necessary, technology to live underground, and remote sensing (this exists already) technology sniff out certain chemical compositions in a certain proximity. Etc, etc, etc.
This perfectly exemplifies why those who lack PERCEPTION and are too much JUDGING, will prefer insane (absurd) low entropy choices.
That is because the two scenarios at their extremes are both ones of mass death and extinction. It is only in balance that we find optimal outcomes. If technology advances to the point where a single individual acting alone possess the ability to destroy the entire biosphere then you are correct it will become necessary to track everything everyone does. At that point we would need to be very very creative and develop solutions that prevent that observation from turning into an Orwellian nightmare. Perhaps the state could be fractured into small groups of 100 or so people where only those individuals could observe each other and sharing that information with anyone else made strictly illegal except under prespecified and extreme situations? I don't know. It remains a very difficult problem for the future. I agree that unrestrained anarchism could possibly avoid extinction via self defense technology. It would imply a transition of humanity to a viral reproduction strategy with dormant periods when we lived in small groups underground and on colony ships in transit between the stars and growth periods where we settled a new world or repopulate it after radiation levels subsided only to repeat the process. I find that future unappealing. We have once again come full circle and return to our original divergence from well over a year ago. So what is the informational value of the collective (aka socialism) which appears to me to be chains on our individual ankles? What do we lose by discarding it so that individuals can optimize more freely?
Socialism and anarchism are in constant opposition. Anarchism is needed to combat the evils/suboptimal outcomes of unrestrained socialism as you have convincingly demonstrated. However, socialism is likewise needed to combat the evils/suboptimal outcomes of unrestrained anarchism. The informational value of socialism is that it smooth’s the fitness curve. Anarchy if left unchecked results in an ever steeper curve. This has been shown to reduce the rate of evolution/change as it forces convergence onto the nearest local valley or local optima. http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000187Thus unrestrained anarchism increases short term fitness at the cost of long term optimization/adaptation. To borrow from your corporation analogy the proper role of socialism is to help ensure trailblazers survive long enough to eliminate the economic friction. In a landscape with an extremely steep fitness curve those individuals may not survive or succeed (crossing those barriers involves significant cost). We can get stuck in a higher valley (of the N dimensional solution space). In its most extreme form anarchism can drive the entropy of society past the Error Threshold at which point information is destroyed rather than created. So we are really looking for is congruence or harmony (aka resonance and I have written about this w.r.t. to potential energy and even explored Tesla's work) but if we can't eliminate all necessary barriers then increased degrees-of-freedom in one sub-area might be suboptimal, ineffective, or perhaps counter-productive.
This is the key point. Unrestrained anarchism does not eliminate all necessary barriers. Instead it forces conformity to the nearest local optima effectively raising barriers to distant more global optima. Like I said earlier we are to some degree natural ideological opponents. Perhaps this is due to our division along the FP vs TJ axis? If we somehow could achieve the goal we both share and enact a government that was stable and intent on constantly shrinking itself there would likely be two opposing political parties. The anarchist party would constantly be pushing the latest decentralized solution arguing for rapid dissolution of state functions. The collectivist party would constantly call for restraint and more study worrying over the unknown consequences of untested solutions. Balance would be achieved in the interplay between the parties. We would diverge in that hypothetical world just as we do here today. |
|
|
|
CoinCube, I haven't had much time to think deeply.
My reason to subvert the oversight of government with technology is because without I note power corrupts absolutely and there is no feedback loop that can limit collectivism. The masses don't wake up and change the direction (remember the Petri dish from Understanding Everything Fundamentally which you linked from the opening post of this thread).
Whereas, the free market does limit anarchy such that it doesn't have such devolved, unmitigated disasters. Anarchy can result in egregious individual losses, but it doesn't have the systemic risk of collectivism.
That is my simplest way of proving to you that I am correct.
Does that advance our understanding of our differences?
If you understand what I wrote to be factually correct, then why be repulsed by those egregious individual harm that can come from anarchy? Collectivism also wields egregious individual harm but worse in the form of widespread systemic collapse.
How did we diverge?
I agree there will be a plurality of top-down organizations within anarchy (not just one big collective that swallows everything). But the difference is that the free market is voluntary and competitive and thus the plurality of top-down controllers will never devolve into a single-minded, top-down, systemic catastrophe.
Well there is one exception I can think of where anarchy devolves to systemic collapse. Let's say we know an asteroid is heading for earth, yet no top-down actor in the anarchy has the incentive to act. Then we might need an involuntary collective to act and destroy the asteroid before it impacts the earth. But that is hardly a great argument for keeping collectives around perennially.
Can you think of any other examples that are more compelling in your side?
In line with your asteroid example above unrestrained anarchy can lead to megadeath in other ways. As we proceed into the knowledge age the resources required to develop and deploy nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks will continue to decline. At some point it may be possible for a single individual to possess the destructive potential our nation states have today. Human nature requires us to develop and enforce significant controls around such technology. Terrorism is a currently a bogeyman used to further state control. That may not always be the case.
But why get so enamored with I3552's proposal for a currency based on the hodler's reputation value (anonymous with pseudonyms or not, doesn't matter due to Dunbar limit scaling)
The reason for our partial divergence is that a descent into anarchy especially uncontrolled anarchy will result guaranteed egregious individual losses. The losses from the systemic collapse of socialism while definitively worse remain theoretical until actualized. Hence there exists a potential window of opportunity to act and develop a solution that avoids the guaranteed losses while preventing the unactualized ones. You point out that all historic instances of involuntary collectivism have eventually devolved to a horrible end game to which I reply that never in history have we had the technology, awareness, and education they we do today. At the very least we have a better chance of solving the problem than prior civilizations did. The reason I supported I3552 was not because of his proposal which is skeletal and not flushed out. Indeed in my only comments on his actual proposal I mentioned several several significant potential problems. What interested me about I3552's writings was his eventual goal for government. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg10810137#msg10810137=Sixth Round
A desires a box which is in possession of B.
A offers B to trade his box for a paper in which the violence monopolist vows to not let anyone trade but by that way, insured by his whip.
A get the box and B the paper because he do not want to be assaulted and because he knows that other people gonna have to accept it, increasing community total wealth and safety?
So the violence monopolist prints money out of fear and alienation and by the commodity nature taxes it.
---
I am not an expert CoinCube, but we saw together A being hit and punished by his treachery behavior on the First Round. The same A that repaired his morals and were trading goods and labor force by the Third Round. Yes, the same A that with an honest promise persuaded not only B but the whole group adding immense value by the Fourth Round, value enough, you know, to prevent civil war and starvation if we are lucky. And that is my bet.
If we can dump the commoditization of human awareness and solve the reputation problem that justified the violence monopolist to take his throne we can even go as far as Seventh Round... and by seventh Round... o My Holy Utopian Future...
I3552's goal is to ultimately to reform the government. It is the same goal Armstrong pushes when he argues for education. I fully acknowledge the prospects for success do not look at all promising at this juncture. Indeed, our society may not be advanced enough to break out of this cycle. We cannot stop the bursting of the global asset bubble. A backlash and wave of confiscation is also inevitable. Perhaps there is some small chance that this event in conjunction with the rise of cryptocurrency will allow us to wake up the masses and convince them to climb out of the petri dish rather then consume themselves in a orgy of self destruction. I acknowledge that it is a long shot, but at least we have a much better chance than the Romans did. You are not wrong in your views and I understand your point. Our dispute centers around what may be possible rather than what is now. The work you and others doing on anonymous cryptocurrency is very important for it is an insurance policy to protect the individual in the event I3552, myself, and people like us fail. Sorry CoinCube, I am not going to be able to teach all the people. I am going to have go introverted and just do what I think will help me and others who have similar views and needs as I do.
You have done a tremendous amount to enlighten the people already. You should act to protect you and yours I would not want it any other way. |
|
|
|
INTJs seem to prefer what they can enumerate and apply with forethought. And they are skeptical of any claim without instances of proof.
So if we claim that competitive anarchy is better, yet anarchy never existed, they may fail to see how we are any less deluded than they are.
If we argue that all instances of involuntary collectivism have eventually devolved to a horrible end game, they can counter that no instances of anarchy have prevented it. I can counter that individual empowerment (a.k.a. frontiers) is what has mitigated unrestrained coercion of collectivism and prevented the extreme event of extinction (cancer killing the host). They can counter that I have no proof of that.
We on the Perception side are capable of visualizing that a conceptual paradigm has certain impacts without needing to prove it with equations and precise data. They don't trust this. It unconvincing to them.
Would that be accurate CoinCube?
CoinCube is probably correct that we will be unable to mitigate all the impacts of the coming collapse. And we will argue that our efforts have provided some relief and that we should aim to attain more individual empowerment against the coercion of the collective. CoinCube will probably continue to doubt whether the free market can always provide justice and continue to think it will have some downsides which could go to extremes if we were to eliminate the State entirely. And we counter that he can't prove that either.
I say we all go accomplish and do what we want. And each other make our choices. And let the chips fall where they may.
Life is complex.
(I understand CoinCube's point but I can't possibly bring myself to support large government. Small, local governments I can tolerate, as long as I can walk away when they start devolving).
TPTB we appear to be converging towards consensus once more. We usually always do eventually which is somewhat interesting given that our often dramatically different starting positions. From the logic above you can see why I reach the conclusions I do mainly. Ideally, the decline of the state should be in a progressive, inexorable and gradual allowing time for the development of DACs to promote progressive freedom and lay the groundwork for further shrinkage of the state.
and I oppose the creation of a vacuum unless there is absolutely no other choice.
Show me the existing not hypothetical decentralized alternative that has any realistic chance of efficiently replacing a centralized solution and I will support it enthusiastically.
You can count on me to have significant reservations about any solution that relies on destroying existing state functions in the hopes that things will just turn out ok.
|
|
|
|
Your hypothesis is certainly corroborated:
"They [NPs] have little patience for social customs that seem illogical or that obstruct the pursuit of ideas and knowledge. This may place them at odds with people in the SJ (Sensing/Judging) types, since SJs tend to defer to authority, tradition, and what the rest of the group is doing.[2]"
[2] Keirsey, David (1998). Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. p. 205. ISBN 1-885705-02-6.
Or perhaps not. http://www.16personalities.com/intj-personalityRules, limitations and traditions are anathema to the INTJ personality type - everything should be open to questioning and reevaluation, and if they see a way, INTJs will often act unilaterally to enact their technically superior, sometimes insensitive, and almost always unorthodox methods and ideas. INTJs are simultaneously the most starry-eyed idealists and the bitterest of cynics, a seemingly impossible conflict. But this is because INTJ types tend to believe that with effort, intelligence and consideration, nothing is impossible, while at the same time they believe that people are too lazy, short-sighted or self-serving to actually achieve those fantastic results. Yet that cynical view of reality is unlikely to stop an interested INTJ from achieving a result they believe to be relevant. |
|
|
|
You think the State will slowly decline? Hell no. The end game is always a waterfall collapse into the abyss. Only free market frontiers provide for the adaptation. Without it, welcome to Dark Age.
I believe that a gradual reverse followed by the slow decline of centralization would be far superior to total collapse. However, for all the reasons you mentioned this might not be possible. Achieving a reversal would require the education and awareness of a critical mass of the population. That is a very tall and perhaps impossible hurdle to clear. Cryptocurrency is the best educational tool in this regard that has ever existed. It drives people to think about the complexities of the state, fiat currency, and centralized control. Perhaps given enough time tools such as this will allow us to reach critical mass? Our chances on that front do not appear all that favorable. You asked earlier why I encouraged I3552 to spell out his ideas. I did so because I continue to look for a solution that would permit gradual decline rather than collapse. If he returns with further refinements to his idea I will hear him out as I will with anyone who genuinely believes they can contribute to a solution. I accept anonymous decentralized cryptocurrency as a potential if somewhat desperate answer. It is certainly much better than doing nothing and waiting passively for centralized collapse. However, I remain (perhaps naively) hopeful that a superior solution can be found. We have officially beaten this tangent to death. I propose letting this thread return to the the topic of Economic Devastation |
|
|
|
More optimal would be to reform or explain where I had a misunderstanding of your philosophy.
My response to aminorex above succinctly summarizes my opinion on the matter. I oppose the creation of a vacuum unless there is absolutely no other choice. Show me the existing not hypothetical decentralized alternative that has any realistic chance of efficiently replacing a centralized solution and I will support it enthusiastically. You can count on me to have significant reservations about any solution that relies on destroying existing state functions in the hopes that things will just turn out ok. I do trust that free markets will self-anneal eventually given enough time. I obviously don't believe they anneal nearly as quickly as you do. |
|
|
|
It is fundamentally insane. And I rescind my request for your support. Stay far away from me and I will do the same, unless you can fix your insanity then we can try explore synergy.
I never trust delusional people who think there are (even delusional hope for) sustainable merits in collective coercion.
TPTB I will honor your request to stop replying to your posts out of respect for your work and your contribution. I would point out only that you have erected a strawman. I never said that there are sustainable merits in collective coercion. Please see my reply to aminorex above for my opinion on this matter. |
|
|
|
1) The extinction of humanity
or
2) A return to primitive tribalism
Then 2 is the goal, but these are definitions. Large organizations are useful. They form frequently, ad hoc, in p2p networks, because there is law (implemented in code) which creates a system of incentives establishing a positive-sum game. Like BitTorrent, DACs can aggregate resources. The question is how many painful vacuua will remain and for how long, when the state collapses, and how long until they can be filled by DACs. The transition will not be managed, and will create opportunities for other systems to seize ground, which may not even exist today. aminorex we agree. Ideally, the decline of the state should be in a progressive, inexorable and gradual allowing time for the development of DACs to promote progressive freedom and lay the groundwork for further shrinkage of the state. Rapid and uncontrolled collapse of the state leads to a very real risk of extinction. As for how to accomplish this controlled decline? That is where I am still very much searching for ideas. |
|
|
|
Anonymint you believe the state will always collapse into megadeath and tyranny. You believe this outcome is inevitable and that a large and sustainable state cannot ever exist. You arguments are strong but they all spring from the basic premise that the state is always the greater evil. This is the fracture point where we fundamentally disagree. It is a disagreement regarding what is possible. There is no doubt that your condition has held true historically. It is also is true regarding our current trajectory in the west. It does not logically follow that it must be true for all future incarnations of the state. If your critical premise is false your multitude of subsequent arguments unravel as does your justification for defending the indefensible. Any collectivized resource above our actual Dunbar limit at the level of deep scrutiny (which means rougly a dozen or so people) will be corrupt. Thus the only altruistic goal is to eliminate all collectives larger than that.
Your goal is to destroy all collective institutions larger then a dozen people. It is a goal that naturally arises from your first premise. It is impossible to completely achieve but if it somehow could happen it is synonymous with only two outcomes. 1) The extinction of humanity or 2) A return to primitive tribalism I could never trust you, given your emotional delusion. One day you will snap and go against me.
I would not ask you to trust me. You assume my opposition is due to emotion and cognitive dissonance when it is far more fundamental and profound. We are natural ideological opponents united for a time by a shared enemy and mutual revulsion of our current system. So carry on. Like I said you have my unconditional support.... for the time being anyway  |
|
|
|
Yeah sorry I think you need to entirely abandon that core value you are hanging on to. Specifically thinking that somethings just won't be fair or correct without doing something. That ideological itch has been planted in your brain and I don't think you can remove it. I've so many of these stupid core values. Whats tough is that I know they are wrong, but knowing is not enough. I'm empotionally attached to them. I dont know why. Its like they are a part of me, like a sick leg i'm too romantic to amputate. Maybe because I think they define the myself or the self I want to become/idolize. Its truly idiotic because in the end its working against me. This probably depends on your core value and how it is harming you. I just finished reading through the wall Howard Katz post on the last page. They are surprisingly good. This portion is relevant and good advice. I reject the idea of sacrificing myself for my principles. My principles are to save me and make my life come out better, not to get me sacrificed. If your principles can’t do this for you, then what good are they? This is why I stick to my principles. CoinCube
I never did have you pegged as a Collectivist! Marx, although he did uncover some analytical tools, is indeed to a great degree responsible for many hideous deaths.
In general, I go with whichever side of the argument at hand is most positive for personal liberty. Lower taxes. GTFO of my hair. Fewer rules benefiting any "elite du jour".
And now look at the cops (USA). Word comes in today of a cop who shot a guy in the back as he was running away. I cannot remember (just my own observation) when the cops actually ever prevented a crime in my life (or a loved one's). The cops/NSA/Police State are making me nervous...
Anyone who supports any visage of local government, laws, or rules is to some degree a collectivist. I am pretty sure I would quickly be kicked out of any Communist/Marxist meeting in the country. In comparison to Anonymint, however, I will accept that label as I am certainly to the left of him. I have never claimed to be an anarchist. |
|
|
|
CoinCube, I want to work and I don't work when I am here writing. I am doing this because I genuinely want to see if I could change even just one Marxist to a libertarian (and I realize you think you are a libertarian but I don't think there are but a few westerners who actually libertarians, i.e. even Eric S Raymond appears to be a Marxist apologist with totalitarian outbursts masquerading as an anarchist, because it is what you feel in your heart about nature and tolerating discord, diversity, imperfection, and random shit that determines your true philosophical affiliation). I don't think I can do it, but you are my guinea pig.
...
In short, I trust nature to deal with threats to nature. And the data on crime supports my view.
Collectivism is only beneficial and necessary where it was impossible to otherwise get economies-of-scale to accomplish necessary actions such as military protection and building roads.
I agree this debate is starting to become something of a time sink so lets see if we can wind this down. This will be my last post on this particular issue. Any reply you choose to make will be a concluding one. The purpose of my recent posts echo yours. At it's most extreme anarchism degrades into the the extremism and logical fallacies of egoism. You occasionally wander into these waters as you did with your recent defense of coercion. I want to see if I can pull you back into libertarianism We agree that collectivism is only beneficial when it is impossible or inefficient to otherwise get economies-of-scale. During our prior debate we also agreed that some top down structure is necessary for convergence to optimal outcomes. We appear do disagree substantially over the extent and nature of that structure. Our current dispute is very much related to the concept of justice. When the people of a culture discover the concept of justice. they rise to greatness. There is a burst of energy. They make both intellectual and practical achievements. They astonish the world. If we examine the roots of our own culture and ask what has made the United States great over the past few centuries, we have to trace things back to the ideas of the Founding Fathers, which in turn are modeled on the ideas of John Locke. But Locke was a Calvinist. What the Calvinists did was to reinterpret the Christianity of that day in terms of the Old Testament and the concept of justice.
You asked why I used the words "somewhat repulsive" to describe anonymity. It is because true anonymity obscures justice. Anonymity allows for crime without recourse, darkness without light. In blinding government it also blinds justice. Building roads and the military are not the only areas where economies of scale are achieved. These economies are also achieved in the establishment of systemic justice. It is justice and recourse that allow untrusted strangers to efficiently transact and trade. I hope you support my efforts. As Howard Katz wrote, I know the justice of mother nature will bring humans great prosperity as it did when the Pilgrims learned to abandon their Marxism to survive starvation. And from that transformation all the greatness of the USA was spawned. I believe just maybe you can make this transformation. Maybe.
...
If via technology we can eliminate the need for those economies-of-scale, then we no longer need large-scale collectivism.
You may be surprised to know that I completely support you in your goal of establishing a strong anonymous cryptocurrency. As I stated above I do not favor anonymity as an optimal solution. I believe distributed cryptocurrency with pseudonymity will lead to superior outcomes. However, breachable systems are inherently vulnerable to collectivism. A strong and anonymous alternative is useful as a sword of damocles hanging over the government ensuring good behavior. I suspect our current age of excess will eventually be self limiting, however, it is never a bad idea to hedge ones bets. If I am wrong I too will need an exit. |
|
|
|
You are hiding behind trade. Human trafficking is not voluntary prostitution. It is not trade but theft. Human trafficking implies violence, force, and coercion.
I have personal knowledge that females enter into these situations wilfully and even with determination! I have even begged some of them not to do it! And I am talking about ladies as old as 30, who know better. You are conflating voluntary prostitution with human trafficking. The State will always classify the former as the latter, unless it can license and tax the sex workers (e.g. indirectly by confiscating/expropriating the bar owners) to expropriate them. You are building strawmen. Just admit you hate nature. ... Nature is a whole. You either ban it, or love it. I rationally chose the latter. I don't hate nature when certain actors do heinous acts. I hate those actors. I accept nature as a beautiful system. you are genuinely repulsed by human trafficking. Rather I see it as nature's way of competition and evolution, i.e. survival-of-the-fittest. I see it as a beautiful system of maximizing resilience. I think more like a native in this aspect, i.e. I want to live in harmony with nature.
Filipinos have it about perfectly in balance. Stop the heinous crime, but fuck the pedantic, agonizing rules.
Repugnant you look at the world through the prism of anarchy with a focus on the consequences of imposed rules and systems. I view the world through the opposing prism. Fundamentally this is probably why we argue so often. It is possible to expand ones natural viewpoint and glance through a different facet but it is never the default view. I highlighted your writings in the original post because they helped me to glance through your prism of anarchy and see fundamental weakness in collectivism not previously observed. You are correct when you said I raved about it. I did so because the works exposed a deep truth that was previously hidden from me. It is a truth my natural strengths were not suited to easily discover. In our current age of excess your view is the most useful. We live an an age of collectivism not anarchism. Nevertheless, just as my prism naturally obscures the evils of collectivism. Yours blinds you equally to anarchism. This can be seen in your take it or leave it comments regarding nature and your insistence that opposing any natural outcome is equivalent to opposing them all. It is also apparent in your defense of violence and coercion. When challenged on the morality of coercion it is you who are building a strawman when you attack the inefficiency in a collective remedy rather then responding on the merits. All collective action is by definition inefficient, and wasteful. It does not logically follow that all such actions are of negative utility. I wonder if you have fully examined the implication of praising coercion and violence as "a beautiful system of maximizing resilience" You claim to support punishing the most heinous crime, however, your acceptance of coercion as natural and good means that all crime is also natural and good. You commit yourself to the morals of might makes right in all things. |
|
|
|
One final post on this topic. We both have other things to do. My dislike of anonymity arises not from government but from the blinding of individuals to each other. Anonymity creates a money without any identity. In so doing it inadvertently weakens all of the bonds that hold society together. A truly anonymous money will allow the very worst in humanity to thrive and grow. In circumventing government you simultaneously circumvent all of the group and social controls we use to limit evil in our fellow man.
Nonsense. All the trades I did before that required my physical presence still will require I reveal who I am when I show up physically. And those that didn't require my physical presense are no more anonymous than sending a postal letter in the past. A lot of horrific things can be funded that do not require a physical presence. You are hiding behind trade. Human trafficking is not voluntary prostitution. It is not trade but theft. Human trafficking implies violence, force, and coercion.
I have personal knowledge that females enter into these situations wilfully and even with determination! I have even begged some of them not to do it! And I am talking about ladies as old as 30, who know better. You are conflating voluntary prostitution with human trafficking. The last word is yours. |
|
|
|
Trade is not dark. It is light. You are repulsed that there are disparaties between individuals. Actually women marry for financial reasons, not for love. Trafficking for sex is a natural feature of nature. Some men abuse it (and they suffer), and others may learn to nurture (and they prosper). Free trade and economics work.
You are hiding behind trade. Human trafficking is not voluntary prostitution. It is not trade but theft. Human trafficking implies violence, force, and coercion. If there is any trade at all it is between two males and it is a trade of someone they force to do their will through fear violence and intimidation. |
|
|
|
The banksers and legal tender is a natural top-down outcome.
...
human trafficking, which is a bottom-up economic arrangement.
I agree that both arise naturally and spontaneously from the darkness that is humanity. So both are natural to a degree. They are also both unquestionably evil. You can attempt to justify either with the same natural selection, survival-of-the-fittest, maximizing resilience argument if you wish. Cancer is natural too |
|
|
|
I am repulsed by people who are repulsed by human trafficking, because they are anti-competition, anti-resilience, and thus pro-eugenics (your links to junk science supporting genetic filtering of society was very Nazi-like scary underlying subconscious). Afaik, you are genuinely repulsed by human trafficking. Rather I see it as nature's way of competition and evolution, i.e. survival-of-the-fittest. I see it as a beautiful system of maximizing resilience. I think more like a native in this aspect, i.e. I want to live in harmony with nature. I am not referring to the Marxism of the Mexican Aztec society which did human sacrifice to purify the society.
Most people who support slavery would support our current system. This is the same argument that a banker would use as he justified the use of fiat currency and fractional reserve. Human trafficking: the trade of humans, most commonly for the purpose of sexual slavery, forced labor or commercial sexual exploitation for the trafficker or others |
|
|
|
I find it heinously repugnant that you (or any Marxist) think you have a right to impose upon me a State that has an exclusive monopoly on the use of force.
You do not respect the individual's right to live in freedom. You want to top-down control society.
you are attempting to murder me or my genetic offspring.
You desire to track me like a cow.
Humm where to start. Not sure I agree with much of this last post. I quoted the areas of particular disagreement above. Just to clarify I support gun rights and oppose registration largely because I prefer the government monopoly on the use of force to be weak. I believe top-down control of society should be minimized and ideally forever shrinking. I am opposed to capital punishment as I do not believe the government should have the authority to end life. I do not particularly desire to track anyone. I want the patriot act repealed and I believe Edward Snowden is a hero. You are mistaking reluctant support with opposition. I suggest focusing on different parts of my prior remarks. Anonymity is a desperate and somewhat repulsive solution. Unfortunately I have no better or even viable alternatives to offer.
Filipinos have it about perfectly in balance. Stop the heinous crime, but fuck the pedantic, agonizing rules and always take the most efficient route from point A to B. And thus keep your individual freedoms.
...
Singapore is perfect for you with their perfectionist straight-jacket rules. Fuck that! Singapore can kiss my fucking ass.
The optimal balance of structure to promote efficiency versus freedom to promote creativity is subjective and boils down to personal preference. Ideally let the communities decide and allow people to migrate between them. Why are you so God damn worried if people can exist without being cattle-branded with a number and can trade cash anonymously, as they ALWAYS COULD DO THROUGHOUT 6000 YEARS OF HISTORY UNTIL NOW!
I am just wanting to retain the freedom we always had before the internet and digital age.
Why is it that you find it repugnant that we humans would have the balance-of-power against the State, that we always had for the past 6000 years? Why do you want the digital age to give more power to the State than we always had?
There is nothing repugnant about the ability to trade without the government being aware of the transaction. As you said this simply restores the balance of power that has been present historically. My opposition to anonymity arises not from government but from the blinding of individuals to each other. Anonymity creates a money without any identity. In so doing it inadvertently weakens all of the bonds that hold society together. A truly anonymous money will allow the very worst in humanity to thrive and grow. In circumventing government you simultaneously circumvent all of the group and social controls we use to limit evil in our fellow man. |
|
|
|
|
The foundation trilogy is great and I agree that the analogy of their situation to our current one is both interesting and potentially comparable.
If you get to the point where you need beta testers for your idea shoot me a PM I am interested.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
