Your ideological evolution.

[smellyBobby]

Physically and emotionally we are not. What you mean is we are built to want to conquer and that may be true. But in the end our psychological inclinations do not jive with our psychological capacity. The one who wakes up to this is the one who wastes less precious psychological energy. He's also most capable in defending himself because he is not distracted by overextending his psyche.

Firstly thanks for the response hopefully this will getting interesting.

I would say that our physical and emotional attributes are the product, of our underlying requirement to conquer/exist(maybe this is where we disagree maybe I'm changing my words?) in our environment, a requirement to exist in this universe. Maybe I'm going to far into the abstract/theoretical realm? Do see this differently?

If I was to apply the principle of determinism, then I could say that all intelligence is simply the result of a sequence of causal events from the environment, therefore intelligence = environment.

[1714811267]

1714811267

[1714811267]

1714811267

[1714811267]

1714811267

[AntiVigilante]

Physically and emotionally we are not. What you mean is we are built to want to conquer and that may be true. But in the end our psychological inclinations do not jive with our psychological capacity. The one who wakes up to this is the one who wastes less precious psychological energy. He's also most capable in defending himself because he is not distracted by overextending his psyche.

Firstly thanks for the response hopefully this will getting interesting.

I'll try.

I would say that our physical and emotional attributes are the product, of our underlying requirement to conquer/exist(maybe this is where we disagree maybe I'm changing my words?) in our environment, a requirement to exist in this universe. Maybe I'm going to far into the abstract/theoretical realm? Do see this differently?

Our physical and emotional capacity evolve over generations. Our physical and emotional adaptability can take years to improve. Our physical and emotional tendencies can vary in minutes.  This causes internal tension and potential waste of energy. What you end up with is a moving compromise between diversity of ideas versus efficiency of ideas.

If I was to apply the principle of determinism, then I could say that all intelligence is simply the result of a sequence of causal events from the environment, therefore intelligence = environment.

The more concepts you put in one context, the risk of dividing by zero increases. Some things like intelligence push outward as environment. Others like opportunity, resources, and talent push, twist, and pinch as part of environment.

In fact let me throw this at you:
Talent * Resources = Wealth
Talent * Opportunity = Power
Opportunity * Resources = Riches

As for intent try this puzzle (no wrong answers as I haven't reasoned it all out myself):
What am I after:
If I increase Wealth invested where there is increased Opportunity -> delta Talent * Resources / delta Opportunity = ? I'd say Growth
If I increase Power invoked where there are increased Resources -> delta Talent * Opportunity / delta Resources = ? I'd say Invasion
If I increase Riches risked where there is increased Talent -> delta Opportunity * Resources / delta Talent = ? I'd say Prospecting

All these are forms of speculation and they do not fit neatly in an environment calculation.

[The Script]

I started as a Social Democrat, evolved into a regular Communist, then turned into a market anarchist. Go figure.

To me that just says you are capable of rationally reviewing facts and changing your mind when you find new data to convince you.  You would be surprised how many people cling stubbornly to beliefs that they cannot back up. 

Anyway, welcome, brother.

Is your name a reference to the C.S. Lewis book?  (or totally unrelated?)

[EnterpriseE1701E]

Liberal->Nietzschean->Derridean->Utilitarian->Utilitarian Anarchist.

To those who don't think utilitarianism can manifest itself in a ideology, I don't think any insult is adequate for you.

[smellyBobby]

Sorry for the delay .

Physically and emotionally we are not. What you mean is we are built to want to conquer and that may be true. But in the end our psychological inclinations do not jive with our psychological capacity. The one who wakes up to this is the one who wastes less precious psychological energy. He's also most capable in defending himself because he is not distracted by overextending his psyche.

Ok it seems we are negotiating definitions here. I do agree with your ideas, I'll try to clarify what I think of what you think.

Ideas/Concepts

• An intelligences existence is determined by its ability to dominate the environment(smellyBobby).
• As human intelligence has evolved, human intelligence has developed genetic altruistic capacities(my interpretation of what your saying).
• A human lifetime is characterized by the contrasting interactions, the actions performed by the altruistic component of human intelligence and the
  actions performed by the selfish component of human intelligence(my interpretation of what your saying)

I'll explain how I think points 1 and 2 link. I agree that people on average are not purely selfish. What I'm saying is that sure in normal circumstances, where coercive force between two parties is similar, the genetic altruistic component of human intelligence will prevail. But my interpretation of evolutionary observation is; Evolution has chosen human intelligences that are altruistic when the coercive difference between two parties is similar. But if we alter the coercive difference between two parties, then I think there is a deviation from this behavior, and there will be a tendency towards selfishness. I would argue this because there is no natural factor that will select against such behavior and based on general observations of how species interact; we can basically eat what-ever we want, food-chains, etc. If anything there maybe a natural advantage selecting for selfishness in these instances.

If I was to apply the principle of determinism, then I could say that all intelligence is simply the result of a sequence of causal events from the environment, therefore intelligence = environment.

The more concepts you put in one context, the risk of dividing by zero increases. Some things like intelligence push outward as environment. Others like opportunity, resources, and talent push, twist, and pinch as part of environment.

In fact let me throw this at you:
Talent * Resources = Wealth
Talent * Opportunity = Power
Opportunity * Resources = Riches

As for intent try this puzzle (no wrong answers as I haven't reasoned it all out myself):
What am I after:
If I increase Wealth invested where there is increased Opportunity -> delta Talent * Resources / delta Opportunity = ? I'd say Growth
If I increase Power invoked where there are increased Resources -> delta Talent * Opportunity / delta Resources = ? I'd say Invasion
If I increase Riches risked where there is increased Talent -> delta Opportunity * Resources / delta Talent = ? I'd say Prospecting

All these are forms of speculation and they do not fit neatly in an environment calculation.

I think that there are other operations that should be used to express these relations. Also to me the concepts of resources and opportunity are very similar. What distinguishes them is the amount of coercive control an intelligence has over each one. Resource is something requiring little coercive control and an opportunity is something that requires significant coercive control, therefore requiring coercive help from the environment so the intelligence can use methods of coercion that require less energy. Because historically there is generally a link between economic wealth and crime, I would say that power and wealth are two forms of coercive control. Also talent should be replaced with (talent * intention). 

[smellyBobby]

In conjunction with my previous post and my previous assertions:


The issues I have with "arbitrators" are:

• Coercive-less arbitrators are functionless, as mentioned before the arbitrator and individuals were both armed therefore they are in fact coercive arbitrators.
• Coercive arbitrators are guns for hire, the concept of coercive arbitrators and police IMO are the same, except there are now multiple police forces.
• Coercive arbitrators will require a fee that is proportional to the coercive difference between two parties.
• Therefore the most wealthy arbitrators will be those working in communities where there is a large coercive gap between parties.
• The cost of arbitration will be born by the weaker party.
• Weaker parties will generally be compelled to hire arbitrators.
• Coercive arbitrators are nothing more than farmers. They serve no productive function for this society, except resolving disputes.

Arbitrators will have an incentive to create a large coercive gap between parties within the society. The only good thing is that this "new" type of coercive entity will not be a "single coercive police force". But there is nothing stopping arbitrators becoming larger. There is nothing stopping parties becoming larger. Arbitrators will be the new police/army and everyone else will be at the mercy of arbitrators. This sounds like most third world countries.

[myrkul]

In conjunction with my previous post and my previous assertions:


The issues I have with "arbitrators" are:

• Coercive-less arbitrators are functionless, as mentioned before the arbitrator and individuals were both armed therefore they are in fact coercive arbitrators.

I stopped reading right here, because your equation of gun=coercion proves you to be a moron.[/list]

[smellyBobby]

Its okay, I too would also stop reading if something contradicts my beliefs. Maybe I should have used the word "weaponless" does that make it easier to understand?

[myrkul]

You're still equating armed with coercive. Just because someone has a gun does not mean they will use it to force you to do something.

Porcs in NH open carry all the time. Not one of them has mugged anyone yet.

I explained elsewhere, maybe this thread, maybe elsewhere, I honestly can't remember, and frankly can't be bothered to look, Precisely how a non-coercive Abritrator would 'enforce' their decision.

[smellyBobby]

Stop teasing us and please tell us how it is possible to create a Society where “police/arbitrators” walk around without weapons and yet they can still uphold the liberties of all citizens, this is such a amazingly wonderful thing. I would greatly appreciate you teaching me how it is possible for coercive-less agents to uphold the “liberties” of people. If this is possible we would no longer need weapons ! We could all leave in harmony knowing that there are coercive-less "police/arbitrators" to resolve any disputes within our community. And are you saying that Mr Gross had a dummy gun?

[myrkul]

I'll use little words so you won't get confused.

The arbitrators are not police. They do not have the ability or authority to arrest, any more than the average person on the street.

They resolve disputes. That. Is. All. They. Do.

If it helps your public-school stunted mind to wrap around the concept, you may think of them as lawyers.

The reason they don't have any special coercive powers is because... and get ready for this, it's a shocker... Everyone can have weapons. Nobody's disarmed, so nobody's powerless. The weapons are for defense. I do not pretend that all violence would be eradicated, So of course people would need to defend themselves against possible theft attempts, rape, murder, etc.

There would likely be defense agencies, as well. People specifically hired to defend geographical areas, persons, or buildings. These are the people you are conflating with arbitrators in your unfounded, unresearched screed. Defense agencies are not armies, nor are they police forces. They do not conquest, they do not oppress. They defend. Use of coercive force would not be justifiable without the cloak of legitimacy that 'government' gives.

I admit, I used a few big words. If you'd like to know what they mean, just ask.

[smellyBobby]

Thankyou for being so patient with me I am dwarfed by your omniscience. I must admit I am having trouble understanding concepts such as coercive-less “police/arbitrators/lawyers” that uphold the liberties of all people.

But now everyone is going to have guns? Can my gun be bigger than yours? Am I allowed to carry around a rocket launcher if you have one? Well I don’t feel to safe so am I allowed to drive around in a tank because everyone has rocket launchers?  What about a mini-nuclear rocket launcher? So does that mean everyone else will have a tank too? And I’m guessing we must all have the same weapon otherwise if your weapon is better than mine you could take my wallet? That sounds pretty cool we can all drive around in tanks. But we must all obey the golden rule: we are all only allowed to use them for self-defence.

So if we all walk around with guns, rocket-launchers and tanks and only use them for self-defense then the coercive-less “police/arbitrators/lawyers” will not need weapons. Ahhh I see this makes so much sense! So this is what we all have to do in order to make sure we all obey each others contract. What about if my evil brother’s rocket launcher is better than yours and he wants your wallet?

And now there are geographic defense agencies aswell? Wow there is so much to learn, so many things to make this work. One day I hope to be just as intelligent as you.

So these geographic defense agencies obviously have weapons so they can defend the area. But we can’t call them an army or police force, what about a defense force? Would they be like the Australian Defense Force? And they would also obey the golden rule and not attack people within the geographic area, steal from other territories

So to enforce these contracts that you initially mentioned, we are going to need

              -Coercive-less “police/arbitrators/lawyers”.

              -Everyone will need to have weapons possibly we all get tanks, that would be fun!

              -And we need a geographic defense agency, but it’s not an army or police force and we have to pay for it, but its not a tax.

Wow this society sounds so different from the one I currently live in maybe we should have a revolution!?

[myrkul]

  You're wasting my time. Troll elsewhere.

[smellyBobby]

I want share a story with you. I hope it makes sense, I was a boy when I was first told this story so hopefully it will make sense to you.

The Story of Justice Dragons.

When I was a boy, an older person in my community shared a story with a group of children about Justice Dragons. They said Justice Dragons have amazing abilities. They can be in multiple places at once, they can be invisible, control people and their duty is to maintain Justice in the community and protect the community from the environment. They said Justice Dragons come from people. When people gather, without knowing it they combine some of their life energy and a Justice Dragon is created. The bigger the group the more powerful a Justice Dragon is. Justice Dragons are always created when people gather.

They said that although Justice Dragons are initially created for good, they can become evil. Instead of protecting the community they can harm and hurt the community. Also when meeting other people you must always be aware of their Justice Dragon. Their Justice Dragon is shaped by their community and what their community values. Sometimes outside Justice Dragons are good and they can help your community, sometimes they are bad and will take from your community.

So when people come together and create their Justice Dragon, they must always make sure that their Justice Dragon is adhering to the communities principles. As the community grows more powerful so will their Justice Dragon and therefore so will the need to watch and check their Justice Dragon.

They said that many communities have forgotten about this golden rule. They have forgotten to watch and train their Justice Dragon and consequently their Justice Dragon is now hurting their community and other outside communities. They have forgotten to teach their children about Justice Dragons and now the children are blind to Justice Dragons, and forget that when-ever people gather there will always be Justice Dragons.

And there are those who think that all Justice Dragons are evil and harm the community. But they forget that to destroy Justice Dragons you must destroy communities. They forget that even if they destroy the Justice Dragon, new Justice Dragons will come from the communities that follow. They forget that when people gather, they must train, watch, and punish their Justice Dragon. They must be aware of their Justice Dragon and never forget that it is always there and needs to be watched.

[em3rgentOrdr]

I want share a story with you. I hope it makes sense, I was a boy when I was first told this story so hopefully it will make sense to you.

The Story of Justice Dragons.

When I was a boy, an older person in my community shared a story with a group of children about Justice Dragons. They said Justice Dragons have amazing abilities. They can be in multiple places at once, they can be invisible, control people and their duty is to maintain Justice in the community and protect the community from the environment. They said Justice Dragons come from people. When people gather, without knowing it they combine some of their life energy and a Justice Dragon is created. The bigger the group the more powerful a Justice Dragon is. Justice Dragons are always created when people gather.

They said that although Justice Dragons are initially created for good, they can become evil. Instead of protecting the community they can harm and hurt the community. Also when meeting other people you must always be aware of their Justice Dragon. Their Justice Dragon is shaped by their community and what their community values. Sometimes outside Justice Dragons are good and they can help your community, sometimes they are bad and will take from your community.

So when people come together and create their Justice Dragon, they must always make sure that their Justice Dragon is adhering to the communities principles. As the community grows more powerful so will their Justice Dragon and therefore so will the need to watch and check their Justice Dragon.

They said that many communities have forgotten about this golden rule. They have forgotten to watch and train their Justice Dragon and consequently their Justice Dragon is now hurting their community and other outside communities. They have forgotten to teach their children about Justice Dragons and now the children are blind to Justice Dragons, and forget that when-ever people gather there will always be Justice Dragons.

And there are those who think that Justice Dragons are evil and harm the community. But they forget that to destroy Justice Dragons you must destroy communities. They forget that even if they destroy the Justice Dragon, new Justice Dragons will come from the communities that follow. They forget that when people gather, they must train, watch, and punish their Justice Dragon. They must be aware of their Justice Dragon and never forget that it is always there and needs to be watched.

What is the tl;dr summary?

[myrkul]

What is the tl;dr summary?

tl;dr: Trololol.

[smellyBobby]

It is a new religion .

[The Script]

It's not that long of a post guys...  

Basically my interpretation is that governments (Justice Dragons) arise spontaneously from within communities and are so interconnected to them that destroying the government will destroy the community. It is the communities responsibility to keep watch so the government doesn't turn evil.

It's our fault governments are evil because we created them.

Is that a good summary, smellybobby?  

[smellyBobby]

Yea basically. You should teach your kids . Tell them to watch the police, watch the army, watch the government. THEY MUST WATCH Remember dragons breath fire.

[The Script]

Yea basically. You should teach your kids . Tell them to watch the police, watch the army, watch the government. THEY MUST WATCH Remember dragons breath fire.

Damn, your fast.  . I'm furiously tapping away on my iPad to keep up, but don't how much longer I'll be motivated to do so. 

See, I will teach my kids that we don't need Justice Dragons.  I will teach them it is better to live in a society where people take responsibility for actions and seek to resolve issues through arbitration and dispute resolution, rather than have to always be on guard so you don't get devoured by a blood-thirsty dragon.