Economic Devastation

[iamnotback]

[discussion of the mind control and hedonism of Internet addiction]

We can look at that as a market opportunity instead of as a destined failure:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg17529904#msg17529904

If you view the links I provided for Internet addiction in above quoted post, you will see that a driver is the lack of feeling of control or empowerment that Internet addiction soothes.

[1714035071]

1714035071

[1714035071]

1714035071

[iamnotback]

Such twisted thinking follows naturally from a culture of entitlements. The concept that are "owed" large financial rewards from birth. In a world of entitlements more children means less for those already born. Thus it becomes logical to turn on the unborn.

That is an interesting point. I was wondering why xSplit viewed additional population as a threat or hell on earth. He probably thinks of it as we can give a higher quality of life if we have fewer mouths to feed, but that is an incorrect logic because lower entropy is destructive.

xSplit's fundamental myopia is he doesn't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics and thus he doesn't understand that UNIFORM AND UBIQUITOUS strategies which lower entropy are MEGADEATH directed outcomes.

To increase the entropy, we must also compete/contribute with our genetics.

The fundamental education problem is that no one understands entropy.

I think also xSplit is unwilling to accept a world in which the children suffer if their parents don't or can't provide well for them. He thinks we are all collectively responsible for all the others. Again this is a low entropy philosophy of collectivism. Those who want to adopt or help others are free to do so, but forcing collectivism on everyone is a low entropy MEGADEATH directed outcome. Basically he demands that nature not be allowed to have failure and thus he demands non-existence. This is the common trait of the leftist insanity. Singapore will disagree successfully for a while because they can leverage their good fortune (of billions of cheap labor resources in Asia, etc), but eventually their idealistic insanity (this concept that everything must be "fair") may run it's course (I am still not yet 100% decided if their subsidy programs are rational investments in their citizenry or collectivist top-down misdirection of the free market, my intuitive reaction is they are appropriate in the small/seedling stage but need to be phased out over time lest they become Coasian misincentives).

The leftist "idealistic" ideology insanity is so self-destructive. They are culling themselves.


My son said he doesn't want to work at a casino in Asia because you have to share your tips with the 6 tables around yours. In the USA, his tips are his own and he was earning up to $500 a day. Many co-workers were jealous of him, and they tried to sabotage him. This concept of "fair" and sharing everything is pervasive in Asia.


Edit: Singapore the gleaming glass house in a sea of billions of those suffering. A socialist nirvana leveraging a massive suffering. Ironic (and instructive to my point) isn't it.

[iamnotback]

Again this is a low entropy philosophy of collectivism. Those who want to adopt or help others are free to do so, but forcing collectivism on everyone is a low entropy MEGADEATH directed outcome. Basically he demands that nature not be allowed to have failure and thus he demands non-existence. This is the common trait of the leftist insanity.

CoinCube's source George Gilder writes about this also:

Knowledge and Power by George Gilder

The most manifest characteristic of human beings is their diversity. The freer an economy is, the more this human diversity of knowledge will be manifested. By contrast, political power originates in top-down processes—governments, monopolies, regulators, elite institutions, all attempting to quell human diversity and impose order. Thus power always seeks centralization.

Capitalism is not chiefly an incentive system but an information system. We continue with the recognition, explained by the most powerful science of the epoch, that information itself is best defined as surprise: by what we cannot predict rather than by what we can. The key to economic growth is not acquisition of things by the pursuit of monetary rewards but the expansion of wealth through learning and discovery. The economy grows not by manipulating greed and fear through bribes and punishments but by accumulating surprising knowledge through the conduct of the falsifiable experiments of free enterprises. Crucial to this learning process is the possibility of failure and bankruptcy.

R&L: What has been the impact of environmentalism on American economic and spiritual life?

Gilder: The essential proposition of the environmental movement, that we should protect our environment, is positive. But it has been delivered over to an almost entirely dishonest, deceitful, and scientifically discreditable movement. It is amazing how any group could perpetrate so many preposterous howlers in a row and retain the respect and attention of the country and the press. And it really has become a kind of pseudo-religion, a new kind of paganism. It is accepted as the only religion in our public and most of our prestige private schools. They all worship nature in this perverted way.

Environmentalism is part of this multicultural vision which denies that any one culture is better than any other. Indian culture didn’t fail because it was virtuous. It failed because it was a corrupt and unsuccessful culture. These tribal cultures they are trying to import from Africa are tragic failures, too. To uphold these destructive cultures that have been virtual social suicide for the people who live in them is a terrible perversion. That is what multiculturalism is. And environmentalism is a kind of religious rite of the multiculturalists.

And I was pointing out that the Apache culture did not fail against the conquistadors, because it was decentralized.

Even Geronimo said on his death bed that he should not have surrendered because to be free was more important than to be safe:

On his deathbed, he confessed to his nephew that he regretted his decision to surrender.[37] His last words were reported to be said to his nephew, "I should have never surrendered. I should have fought until I was the last man alive."

[iamnotback]

CoinCube is positing that Ethical Monotheism is the absolute truth that maximizes freedom and knowledge formation consistent with driving humanity to higher entropy levels. As I understand it, the essence of Ethical Monotheism is that morality must be absolute, thus it requires a supranatural (i.e. external to the bounds of our existence) basis, i.e. a God.

Unfortunately I can't (yet) find any rational support for this thesis.

The key is morality. For example, the argument is made that we would not value humanity if we did not have an absolute God telling us to. I find this to be ludicrous and I don't understand how any smart person could come such a conclusion. Even if entirely self-interested, we value humanity because our existence would be irrelevant and unsuccessful without humanity. Man is nothing without a society. The maximum division-of-labor dictates that our production and achievements can only increase (and be meaningful existing outside of our own perception) by being a member of a society.

The righteous points in the Bible are simply what smart men would realize are necessarily to have well functioning society. It doesn't require any God. The "judgments" against our sins are simply natural outcomes of not understanding the principles of a well functioning society.

The God part is necessary to get the people to follow who would otherwise defect from the principles of a well functioning society. But dumb people following blindly is top-down mind control and thus is not maximizing freedom and knowledge formation. I am leaning towards ubiquitous Ethical Monotheism would be counter-productive.

However, there is a theory that women are naturally prone to hypergamy and would naturally choose a False Life Plan (<-- click the link) if they were not mind controlled:

R&L: What are the differences between the genders as articulated in your book Men and Marriage and what impact does this have on the social order?

Gilder: The key difference is that the woman holds in her very body a link to the long term future of the race. Her sexuality determines her long term goals. As a very physiological consciousness, she knows she can bear and nurture children. She has a central role in the very perpetuation of the species. The man is estranged from this process; his sexuality arises merely as a compulsive drive to pleasure. It’s short term by nature. It’s predatory and quickly gratified. The Women’s Movement tragically reduces female sexuality to the terms of male sexuality. When this happens, she reduces herself to the male level of recreational sex. Paradoxically, when that happens the woman loses all her power over men and the reverence and respect toward the procreative potential of woman is lost. And that really destroys the family. But if the power of “choice” is given up, the woman actually ascends to a higher level of sexuality and her body attains an almost mystical power over men.

Note a man should realize that he has a role in a well functioning society and also can't just view sex as for pleasure. By well functioning society, I obviously don't mean the leftist insanity.

There is also the issue of an undersupplied public good, in that every person may perceive it is in their self-interest to defect from the principles of a well functioning society because they assume others won't. A little cheating here and there won't hurt, except everyone is doing it. The fear of a God may be necessary to defeat this Tragedy of the Commons. Yet this seems to be part of diversity of nature than an absolute truth, for even the R selection strategy is necessary to advance the entropy of the human race.

It means that suttee, the now rare but once widespread Hindu practice of burning widows with their husband's body, is wrong. It means the killing of a daughter or sister who lost her virginity prior to marriage, practiced to this day in parts of the Arab world, is immoral.

And their societies are languishing in extreme suffering because of their inability to comprehend how disrespecting their fellow humans is destroying themselves. They reaped what they sowed. We don't need a God to tell us that.

First, nature is finite and God is infinite.

Incorrect. Nature is unbounded.

Nothing can be infinite, by definition. Fairy-tales may help though to keep the pagans locked in an unfalsifiable fear/superstition?

It further argues that information (degrees-of-freedom) cannot be infinite or it would not converge to become knowledge.

The conflation of infinite and unbounded is a fundamental error.

Knowledge and Power by George Gilder

...Smith himself spoke of property rights, free trade, sound currency, and modest taxation as crucial elements of an environment for prosperity. Smith was right: An arena of disorder, disequilibrium, chaos, and noise would drown the feats of creation that engender growth. The ultimate physical entropy envisaged as the heat death of the universe, in its total disorder, affords no room for invention or surprise. But entrepreneurial disorder is not chaos or mere noise. Entrepreneurial disorder is some combination of order and upheaval that might be termed “informative disorder.”...

...Freedom must be subject to the constraint of convergence. Some top-down order must be maintained to prevent destructive chaos aka noise that would otherwise destroy rather than create knowledge.

The amount of top-down control needed increases in the presence of increased noise...

Information is distinguished from noise by the mutual information (what I had sometimes informally referred to as "resonance"). If every outcome is independent (i.e. maximum entropy/disorder/equiprobable randomness), then there is no mutual information. Thus, information requires some order. Entropy is unbounded, but it can't be infinite else existence would not be perceived because every outcome would be entirely independent sharing no mutual information with each other.



I looked into the genius Freeman Dyson's view on religion and he seems to be approaching from the position of wanting to feel he is connected to whole of society:

Freeman Dyson thinks science and religion aren’t at odds: “I think it’s only a small fraction of people who think that. Perhaps they have louder voices than the others . . . I think Richard Dawkins is doing a lot of damage. I disagree very strongly with the way he’s going about it. I don’t deny his right to be an atheist, but I think he does a great deal of harm when he publicly says that in order to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist. That simply turns young people away from science. He’s convinced a lot of young people not to be scientists . . . they don’t want to be atheists. I’m strongly against him on that question. It’s simply not true what he’s saying, and it’s not only not true but also harmful. The fact is that many of my friends are much more religious than I am and are first-rate scientists. There’s absolutely nothing that stops you from being both . . . Dawkins has the arrogance to say that anyone who does not share his views is infected with a virus. No wonder he cannot coexist peacefully with them”.

“For me, “ Dyson says, (much as Santayana had observed before him), “religion is much more about a community of people than about belief. It’s fine literature and music. As far as I can tell, people who belong to my church don’t necessarily believe anything. Certainly we don’t talk about that much. I suppose I’m a better Jew than I am a Christian. Jewish religion is much more a matter of community than it is of belief, and I think that’s true of us Christians to a great extent, too . . . they  [my parents] were practicing Christians, but not believing Christians . . . a practicing Christian is somebody who lives a Christian life and likes to worship in common with a lot of other people and considers the church as a community to which to belong, but you don’t inquire closely as to what the others believe. Of course, some people take belief very seriously, and others don’t.  My conception of God is not weakened by my not knowing whether the physical universe is open or closed, finite or infinite, simple or multiple. God for me is a mystery, and will remain a mystery after we know the answers to these questions . . . I cannot imagine that he is greatly impressed by our juvenile efforts to read his mind . . . I don’t remember the context out of which this remark arose. Maybe I was thinking of the fight between Galileo and the Aristotelian philosophers of his day. The Aristoteleans wanted to keep the heavens separate from the earth so there would be room for God in the sky. Galileo said the moon was a world like the earth with mountains and seas. Translated into modern language, Galileo was saying that the size and shape of the universe are not telling us anything about God.”

Cosmology and the Divinity Blankie

“It [biology, physics and quantum mechanics]  impacts upon our understanding of theology,” Dyson has said, “ What I was pointing out is that human theology is based on our own value system – above all our knowledge of good and evil as we experience it. Take an autistic child. I took the case of Jessica Park, who is a friend of mine who happens to be autistic. If she had a theology, it would be quite different because she cannot understand other people suffering. She has no conception of other people’s existence in the way we have. It’s a radically different world that she lives in. You can tell by the fact that she can’t understand the difference between ‘I’ and ‘you’. She uses the words indiscriminately. So the idea of a suffering savior would have no meaning for her at all. If she had a theology, it wouldn’t involve sin. One thing that is characteristic of autistic people is that they cannot tell a lie. Jessica never tells a lie because to tell a deliberate lie, you have to have the idea of deceiving somebody. That’s something she couldn’t imagine. Since there is no sin, there can be no fall from grace and no redemption. The example of Jessica shows us how our own view of the world might be equally skewed. There may be many essential features of the world to which we are blind, just as she is blind to other people’s thoughts and feelings. So our theology also reflects our possibly skewed view of the world.”

I think I am disagreeing with Dyson on the following point, because the discussion I've been having with CoinCube is employing the science of entropy (which I think is fundamental) to theorize about human nature and society (and its relationship to knowledge formation and the Second Law of Thermodynamics):

What Dyson has said is that it’s impossible to observe both the scientific and the religious aspects of human nature at the same time. “For me,” he says, “science is just a box of tricks, and I enjoy playing with them. It’s a form of exercise. It has nothing to do with philosophy, certainly even less to do with religion. It’s essentially just a skill that I happen to have learned. Some people think about science much more solemnly. For me, science has nothing much to do with deep thoughts.”

I found this quote of Dyson which based on my writings and the work I aiming to do with crypto-currency appears to be incorrect:

*Technological progress does more harm than good unless accompanied by ethical progress. The free market by itself will not produce technologies access-friendly to the poor.

[CoinCube]

...
I think also xSplit is unwilling to accept a world in which the children suffer if their parents don't or can't provide well for them. He thinks we are all collectively responsible for all the others. Again this is a low entropy philosophy of collectivism. Those who want to adopt or help others are free to do so, but forcing collectivism on everyone is a low entropy MEGADEATH directed outcome. Basically he demands that nature not be allowed to have failure and thus he demands non-existence. This is the common trait of the leftist insanity. Singapore will disagree successfully for a while because they can leverage their good fortune (of billions of cheap labor resources in Asia, etc), but eventually their idealistic insanity (this concept that everything must be "fair") may run it's course (I am still not yet 100% decided if their subsidy programs are rational investments in their citizenry or collectivist top-down misdirection of the free market, my intuitive reaction is they are appropriate in the small/seedling stage but need to be phased out over time lest they become Coasian misincentives).

The leftist "idealistic" ideology insanity is so self-destructive. They are culling themselves.
...

We are collectively responsible for each other. Every form of top-down control is a form of collectivism and top-down control will always be necessary.

It is a mistake to view the current trend of leftism as some sort of disease. It is not. Leftism is simply the natural and inevitable result of the missignalling introduced into society by usury. Usury creates an eternal growth imperative that persists regardless of underlying conditions.

Usury was instrumental in destroying feudalism and releasing the tremendous economic growth that was previously inhibited by the restraints imposed by "nobility". However, nothing in the universe exhibits eternal exponential growth and usury requires this.

Leftism or collectivism is the expected and necessary result of an underlying structural and moral problem. Its not even bad really its is just inevitable consequence.

I will write more on this when I have time.

[OROBTC]

...
I think also xSplit is unwilling to accept a world in which the children suffer if their parents don't or can't provide well for them. He thinks we are all collectively responsible for all the others. Again this is a low entropy philosophy of collectivism. Those who want to adopt or help others are free to do so, but forcing collectivism on everyone is a low entropy MEGADEATH directed outcome. Basically he demands that nature not be allowed to have failure and thus he demands non-existence. This is the common trait of the leftist insanity. Singapore will disagree successfully for a while because they can leverage their good fortune (of billions of cheap labor resources in Asia, etc), but eventually their idealistic insanity (this concept that everything must be "fair") may run it's course (I am still not yet 100% decided if their subsidy programs are rational investments in their citizenry or collectivist top-down misdirection of the free market, my intuitive reaction is they are appropriate in the small/seedling stage but need to be phased out over time lest they become Coasian misincentives).

The leftist "idealistic" ideology insanity is so self-destructive. They are culling themselves.
...

We are collectively responsible for each other. Every form of top-down control is a form of collectivism and top-down control will always be necessary.

It is a mistake to view the current trend of leftism as some sort of disease. It is not. Leftism is simply the natural and inevitable result of the missignalling introduced into society by usury. Usury creates an eternal growth imperative that persists regardless of underlying conditions.

Usury was instrumental in destroying feudalism and releasing the tremendous economic growth that was previously inhibited by the restraints imposed by "nobility". However, nothing in the universe exhibits eternal exponential growth and usury requires this.

Leftism or collectivism is the expected and necessary result of an underlying structural and moral problem. Its not even bad really its is just inevitable consequence.

I will write more on this when I have time.

My paternal grandmother had very bad experiences in Poland right after WWII (with the Red Cross there).  Communists hassled her to no end, very bad.  I have a mental rash that hits me when I ponder Communism and its fellow-travelers.

And I had the chance myself to see Communism in action in E. Germany and Poland in 1984.

Long as you're not spending my money to do so (your sentence I marked in red)...

[CoinCube]

Leftism or collectivism is the expected and necessary result of an underlying structural and moral problem. Its not even bad really its is just inevitable consequence.

My paternal grandmother had very bad experiences in Poland right after WWII (with the Red Cross there).  Communists hassled her to no end, very bad.  I have a mental rash that hits me when I ponder Communism and its fellow-travelers.

And I had the chance myself to see Communism in action in E. Germany and Poland in 1984.

Long as you're not spending my money to do so (your sentence I marked in red)...

Communism was an evil ideology that killed millions I should clarify that I am not in any way defending it. I am also not defending collectivism in general (which is not necessarily communism) other then to say that usury makes it's rise inevitable.

Here is a nice (but very long) article that highlights this point.

The Economics of Usury
http://sacred-economics.com/sacred-economics-chapter-6-the-economics-of-usury/

Wealth Redistribution and Class War

Without wealth redistribution, social chaos is unavoidable in an interest-bearing, debt-based money system, especially when growth slows...

[iamnotback]

...
I think also xSplit is unwilling to accept a world in which the children suffer if their parents don't or can't provide well for them. He thinks we are all collectively responsible for all the others. Again this is a low entropy philosophy of collectivism. Those who want to adopt or help others are free to do so, but forcing collectivism on everyone is a low entropy MEGADEATH directed outcome. Basically he demands that nature not be allowed to have failure and thus he demands non-existence. This is the common trait of the leftist insanity.
...

We are collectively responsible for each other.

What is your logic?

I think we are only responsible for not injuring others or unnecessarily interfering with the free will of others.

Making us all responsible for the mistakes of others is a very low entropy result and does not improve diversity.

Giving us the freedom to be choose to be responsible for others on an individual case-by-case basis is high entropy and diverse. Empathy should be personalized and from closeness, not coming from a State (which can't be empathetic because it is ruled by the Iron Law of Political Economics).

Every form of top-down control is a form of collectivism and top-down control will always be necessary.

The scope of top-down control declines as humans anneal their diversifications with less noise. So I think the level of top-down control required can decrease as our knowledge and technology improve (which I also thought was your theory?).

Open source (decentralized, bottom-up) proved this to be case as compared the closed-source (centralized, top-down). Open source is the only known positive scaling law of software engineering, i.e. the more developers added continues to improve the quality and rate of development of the software (whereas in closed-source the coordination load reduces the quality and rate of improvement and can even cause the software to worsen as the number of developers and duration of development are increased).

Thus what ever the cause of Leftism, I view it as a diseased religion that is on its deathbed as it culls itself because knowledge and technology are ready to move forward out of the Industrial usurious (high concentration of fixed capital) Age into a maximum division-of-labor (highly diversified annealing, low concentration of capital) Knowledge Age.

[CoinCube]

What is your logic?

I think we are only responsible for not injuring others or unnecessarily interfering with the free will of others.

Making us all responsible for the mistakes of others is a very low entropy result and does not improve diversity.

Giving us the freedom to be choose to be responsible for others on an individual case-by-case basis is high entropy and diverse.

...
Even if entirely self-interested, we value humanity because our existence would be irrelevant and unsuccessful without humanity. Man is nothing without a society. The maximum division-of-labor dictates that our production and achievements can only increase (and be meaningful existing outside of our own perception) by being a member of a society.
...

It means that suttee, the now rare but once widespread Hindu practice of burning widows with their husband's body, is wrong. It means the killing of a daughter or sister who lost her virginity prior to marriage, practiced to this day in parts of the Arab world, is immoral.

And their societies are languishing in extreme suffering because of their inability to comprehend how disrespecting their fellow humans is destroying themselves. They reaped what they sowed. We don't need a God to tell us that.

We are responsible because the distinction between self and not-self is fundamentally arbitrary. It is true that responsibility cannot be collectively delegated. It is also true that employing force is to coerce desired behavior (especially behavior that does not infringe on the free will of another i.e. self-destructive behavior) is "low entropy". We voluntarily choose to accept responsibility. Otherwise we are not free. Progress requires people to make the correct choices with increasing frequency over time.

For the discrete and separate self the rest of the world is fundamentally other. Individuals with such a worldview are rationally concerned not with maximum division-of-labor but instead on how much he or she can personally commandeer.  

Our society is languishing in extreme suffering because of our inability to comprehend how harming our fellow humans is ultimately harming ourselves.  

http://sacred-economics.com/read-online/

The discrete and separate self, surveying a universe that is fundamentally Other, naturally treats the natural and human world as a pile of instrumental, accidental stuff. The rest of the world is fundamentally not-self. Why should we care about it, beyond our own foreseeable utility?
...
In nature, headlong growth and all-out competition are features of immature ecosystems, followed by complex interdependency, symbiosis, cooperation, and the cycling of resources. The next stage of human economy will parallel what we are beginning to understand about nature. It will call forth the gifts of each of us; it will emphasize cooperation over competition.
...
Within every institution of our civilization, no matter how ugly or corrupt, there is the germ of something beautiful: the same note at a higher octave.

Cycles of Contention

		Cycle #1	Cycle #2	Cycle #3	Cycle #4	Cycle #5	Cycle #6
	Mechanism of Control	Knowledge of Evil	Warlordism	Holy War	Usury	Universal Surveillance	Hedonism
	Rulers	The Strong	Despots	God Kings/Monarchs	Capitalists	Oligarchs (NWO)	Decentralized Government
	Life of the Ruled	"Nasty, Brutish, Short"	Slaves	Surfs	Debtors	Basic Income Recipients	Knowledge Workers
	Facilitated Advance	Knowledge of Good	Commerce	Rule of Law	Growth	Transparency	Ascesis

Ethical Monotheism that teaches us to treat others as ourselves even when dealing with strangers.

Matthew 7:12
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Hillel the Elder
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

Abdullah ibn Amr Al-Ass
"Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and enter the garden should die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and should treat the people as he wishes to be treated by them"

We are slow learners.

[CoinCube]

Thus what ever the cause of Leftism, I view it as a diseased religion that is on its deathbed as it culls itself because knowledge and technology are ready to move forward out of the Industrial usurious (high concentration of fixed capital) Age into a maximum division-of-labor (highly diversified annealing, low concentration of capital) Knowledge Age.

If the fundamental driver of leftism is usury then a decline in leftism is unlikely to proceed a decline in usury.

The fact that maximum division-of-labor occurs under a different social structure does not mean that future will immediately occur. If you could travel back to 4000 B.C. and take over a small tribe you would probably find it impossible to create a democratic industrial revolution even if you brought all the needed technical knowledge with you. You might make transient changes but any changes to the fundamental structure of society you imposed would likely disappear as soon as you died. Weapon technology you introduced would probably stick around though.

Something along these line is what Dyson may have been referring to in your quote above.

*Technological progress does more harm than good unless accompanied by ethical progress. The free market by itself will not produce technologies access-friendly to the poor.

[iamnotback]

We are responsible because the distinction between self and not-self is fundamentally arbitrary. It is true that responsibility cannot be collectively delegated. It is also true that employing force is to coerce desired behavior (especially behavior that does not infringe on the free will of another i.e. self-destructive behavior) is "low entropy". We voluntarily choose to accept responsibility. Otherwise we are not free. Progress requires people to make the correct choices with increasing frequency over time.

You are (I think) writing about responsibility to make correct decisions about not infringing others and not defecting when our defection is infringing others.

I was writing about responsibility for the mistakes of others, such as paying the rent for mothers with 12 children from 12 different fathers (with the State welfare encouraging them to do that even more). I was thinking about Obamacare and whether we are all responsible for the healthcare of each other, thus encouraging people to make poor decisions about taking care of their health (eating habits, exercise habits, vices, etc). Collectivized healthcare by increasing demand also either drives costs up and/or imposes top-down aberrations such as rationing.

Please make it clear if you also think we are responsible for others in all cases such as the cases I was thinking about.

In short, the distinction appears to be responsibility TO others versus FOR others respectively.

I said that personalized charity based on empathy and knowledge of individual cases is appropriate in cases of responsibility for the mistakes of others, such as for example my health care debacle which is my mistake (choice) for living in a squalor area in third world country in the 1990s.

[altcoinUK]

I think we are only responsible for not injuring others or unnecessarily interfering with the free will of others.

Thanks god you are the odd nutcase of humanity. Even elephants take care of each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BLwYgTdbQM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-GdNAnVweE

[iamnotback]

I think we are only responsible for not injuring others or unnecessarily interfering with the free will of others.

Thanks god you are the odd nutcase of humanity. Even elephants take care of each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BLwYgTdbQM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-GdNAnVweE

Obviously I was referring to the distinction between the responsibility to create a State to collectively force each other to pay for the mistakes of others, which is what I wrote and further clarified in a follow-up to CoinCube.

Comparing a tribe of humans or even a tribe of elephants to a State is dumb.

You elided the part about where I wrote that voluntary responsibility and empathy are desirable. How can a State be empathetic when exists only because it has a monopoly on violence and collectivized corruption? Why did Hilter's socialized healthcare system lead to the culling of the crippled and handicapped? Why is Merkel's "empathy" (coupled with Europe's generous social welfare system as a lure) causing carnage and rapefugees?

And how could you possibility associate my comments with not wanting to help people along the side of the road? (as I've done so many times in my life) A desire to help people in obvious need on an individual basis is not responsibility. You need to learn to use a dictionary! Responsibility implies (possibly enforced) obligation. Because we are not obligated to help the person in distress along the side of the road, then by doing it voluntarily there is even greater honor in doing so.

Btw, when I was last in the USA in 2006, my car engine blew up in the California desert. I walked to the next rest stop and literally people ran away from me under the very well lit conditions when I stood 15 feet away (so as to not be threatening) and started to explain I needed help to get to the next service station. It was 1am, but the place was very well lit. So apparently many humans don't even share the empathy that elephants have, but I am not like them. This is not a lie! I had to call for some county police or highway patrol to give me a ride (so there is a record even somewhere).

P.S. Welcome back Mr. Troublemaker with incredibly low reading comprehension. It was pleasant not having to deal with you for the past few months. What brings you back now to start drooling on me again? Still grinding that ax I see.

[altcoinUK]

I think we are only responsible for not injuring others or unnecessarily interfering with the free will of others.

Thanks god you are the odd nutcase of humanity. Even elephants take care of each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BLwYgTdbQM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-GdNAnVweE

Obviously I was referring to the distinction between the responsibility to create a State to collectively force each other to pay for the mistakes of others, which is what I wrote and further clarified in a follow-up to CoinCube.

Comparing a tribe of humans or even a tribe of elephants to a State is dumb.

You elided the part about where I wrote that voluntary responsibility and empathy are desirable. How can a State be empathetic when exists only because it has a monopoly on violence and collectivized corruption? Why did Hilter's socialized healthcare system lead to the culling of the crippled and handicapped? Why is Merkel's "empathy" causing carnage and rape?

And how could you possibility associate my comments with not wanting to help people along the side of the road? (as I've done so many times in my life) A desire to help people is obvious need on an individual basis is not responsibility. You need to learn to use a dictionary!

P.S. Welcome back Mr. Troublemaker with incredibly low reading comprehension. It was pleasant not having to deal with you for the past few months. What brings you back now to start drooling on me again? Still grinding that ax I see.

Hahaha, you still putting out here lots of verbal diarrhea, but good to see you are OK. The most important if your health has improved, seeing you energy it seems it did. I am really glad to see that.

The society need compassion and empathy. Being caring and kind has nothing to do with left or right agendas. Compassion and empathy, willing to help each other make us human.

Edit:
The distinction between state vs personal level involvement and organisations doesn't make sense. These days everything is organised at state level. You can't even fuck a goat anymore without the state interferes with your affairs. Surely, look after and provide need for the less fortunates should be a state level affair.

[iamnotback]

Surely, look after and provide need for the less fortunates should be a state level affair.

You complain about the totalitarian State and then don't understand why if you build your house next to an active volcano, that you will lava in the living room.

I was writing about responsibility for the mistakes of others, such as paying the rent for mothers with 12 children from 12 different fathers (with the State welfare encouraging them to do that even more). I was thinking about Obamacare and whether we are all responsible for the healthcare of each other, thus encouraging people to make poor decisions about taking care of their health (eating habits, exercise habits, vices, etc). Collectivized healthcare by increasing demand also either drives costs up and/or imposes top-down aberrations such as rationing.

Define "less fortunate" unambiguously.

Why is Merkel's "empathy" (coupled with Europe's generous social welfare system as a lure) causing carnage and rapefugees?

R&L: How do you approach immigration policy?

Gilder: Immigration is undermined when the welfare state grows too generous. Under such conditions, you effectively spurn the real poor in order to support special interest groups. The United States is approaching this point, particularly in California which has some of the most generous welfare “benefits” on the face of the earth. Immigration is becoming impossible there because the state actually lures in immigrants with welfare programs while punishing businessmen who employ them. So it’s legal in California to go on welfare if you are an illegal alien but it’s not legal to work. And we are creating this nightmarish, and really vicious, welfare system that not only destroys American families but now is reaching out to destroy immigrants as well.

R&L: How is the welfare state destroying the American family?

Gilder: Essentially, welfare benefits are far better than low wage, entry-level jobs. Welfare gives benefits far superior to entry level jobs because they yield valuable leisure time for the recipient. Thus it usurps the male role as chief provider and undermines the foundation of families. His provider role is absolutely central to the family; if the state replaces the male provider, you don’t have families. The welfare state cuckolds the man. That is why we have eighty percent illegitimacy rates in the inner cities. The welfare state has been far more destructive to the black family than slavery was.

R&L: Why is the poverty line, in your words, a “virtually useless measure” of real poverty?

Gilder: Because poverty is not a matter of income but a matter of prospects. College students are regarded as impoverished, as are all sorts of single people who live with their families. The poverty line in a rich country like the United States is a meaningless standard. We have no poverty problem strictly speaking, we have a desperate problem of family breakdown and moral decay.

[iamnotback]

Thus what ever the cause of Leftism, I view it as a diseased religion that is on its deathbed as it culls itself because knowledge and technology are ready to move forward out of the Industrial usurious (high concentration of fixed capital) Age into a maximum division-of-labor (highly diversified annealing, low concentration of capital) Knowledge Age.

If the fundamental driver of leftism is usury then a decline in leftism is unlikely to proceed a decline in usury.

To reiterate, my thesis is that the economy may be bifurcating:

Remember my thesis is the monetary systems of the world will bifurcate into a usurious fiat system seving the dying Industrial Age and a crypto-currency system serving the fledgling Knowledge Age. Let the Marxists have their dying system with SDRs and national currencies enslaved to the SDRs. That is not for us. We are moving forward. It is very likely that the Marxists are going to cull themselves. We should not subscribe to their system.

So I perceive the growth of the fledgling Knowledge Age happening now as a decline of usury and leftism (as a total share of the economic and noosphere/mindshare pie).

Note as a large things rot, decay, and fall down, they may injure things.

The fact that maximum division-of-labor occurs under a different social structure does not mean that future will immediately occur. If you could travel back to 4000 B.C. and take over a small tribe you would probably find it impossible to create a democratic industrial revolution even if you brought all the needed technical knowledge with you. You might make transient changes but any changes to the fundamental structure of society you imposed would likely disappear as soon as you died. Weapon technology you introduced would probably stick around though.

The Knowledge Age appears to be underway as a network effect of the computer revolution.

[CoinCube]

...
I was writing about responsibility for the mistakes of others, such as paying the rent for mothers with 12 children from 12 different fathers (with the State welfare encouraging them to do that even more). I was thinking about Obamacare and whether we are all responsible for the healthcare of each other, thus encouraging people to make poor decisions about taking care of their health (eating habits, exercise habits, vices, etc). Collectivized healthcare by increasing demand also either drives costs up and/or imposes top-down aberrations such as rationing.

Please make it clear if you also think we are responsible for others in all cases such as the cases I was thinking about.

In short, the distinction appears to be responsibility TO others versus FOR others respectively.
...

The distinction is between responsibility and entitlement. We have a responsibility to help the less fortunate especially the innocent. The less fortunate, however, are not entitled to such aid.

In your example above the 12 young children are in danger of starvation and homelessness and a grave injustice is present. The contract between child and parent has been violated multiple times leaving them without the resources needed to survive. Reproduction is a contract voluntary entered between parents and children. The role of the state is to enforce contracts when one party is in breach.

A moral society will step in and rectify the situation if it is capable of doing so. The best solution is to track down the 12 different fathers and make them pay for their children garnishing their wages to substance levels if necessary. As I argued above the lesson society will learn next is transparency. Transparency makes it a simple matter to track down these fathers. Most of the R reproductive strategy you discussed is nothing other then a strategy of defection dumping the economic and social costs of childrearing on women and the state. The R strategy in its present form will mostly vanish. We see this already in various "Red Pill" forums with men forswearing marriage and children due to the high "cost". The state has every right to push back against defection. The R reproductive strategy will continue to exist but to the extent it does it will decouple from defection and abandonment.

In your healthcare example the primary responsibility again needs to be pushed back on the individual. Since we appropriately value life and are thus unwilling to let people who make poor choices simply die people must be forced to save even when they do not want to. The best model I have seen is that of Singapore which requires all of its citizens to save 20% of their earnings in a personal (not collective) health savings account. Health expenses come out of this fund and later in life and if you are healthy and do not use the all money your children can inherit it. For individuals who take poor care of themselves (eating habits, exercise habits, vices, etc) there is nothing wrong with pushing up the required savings to approximate the expected cost.

That still leaves us with extremes of fate. Horrible medical conditions that require massive medical expenses at a young age or children whose parents die in car crashes and have no immediate family. These individuals must petition the state and other individuals for aid. Society in turn has a responsibility to help these unfortunate souls to the degree it is able. However, the distinction should be made that such aid is not entitled but can and often will be gifted.

Sometimes we cannot rectify the errors of others or we choose easy "solutions" that actually make the situation worse. When this happens we suffer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8AWFf7EAc4

Thus what ever the cause of Leftism, I view it as a diseased religion that is on its deathbed as it culls itself because knowledge and technology are ready to move forward out of the Industrial usurious (high concentration of fixed capital) Age into a maximum division-of-labor (highly diversified annealing, low concentration of capital) Knowledge Age.

If the fundamental driver of leftism is usury then a decline in leftism is unlikely to proceed a decline in usury.

To reiterate, my thesis is that the economy may be bifurcating:

Yes, I disagree with the bifurcation part of your thesis.

[iamnotback]

Thus what ever the cause of Leftism, I view it as a diseased religion that is on its deathbed as it culls itself because knowledge and technology are ready to move forward out of the Industrial usurious (high concentration of fixed capital) Age into a maximum division-of-labor (highly diversified annealing, low concentration of capital) Knowledge Age.

If the fundamental driver of leftism is usury then a decline in leftism is unlikely to proceed a decline in usury.

To reiterate, my thesis is that the economy may be bifurcating:

Yes, I disagree with the bifurcation part of your thesis.

On what rational grounds?

How is the usurious system placing any limits on growth of the Knowledge Age? Sorry I don't see it. I see it accelerating everyday.

Humans are not driven primarily by money but by their passions. That is why the monetary systems can diverge. The usurious system provides their tangible needs. The knowledge age feeds their passions.

I think you aren't aware of the revolution that 160 IQ genius Eric Raymond wrote about, helped drive, and well underway?

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/magic-cauldron/magic-cauldron.html

Familiarize yourself with a gift culture and how it is orthogonal to physical needs.

Also the knowledge age is global and instantaneous already, but the usurious financial systems can't provide all functionality required. So this can be another reason for bifurcation. The Knowledge Age is already under way and can't wait for the decades it will take for a world government and some world currency unit that has a central bank controlling it so can be fractionally reserve debased (necessary for usury).

[iamnotback]

...
I was writing about responsibility for the mistakes of others, such as paying the rent for mothers with 12 children from 12 different fathers (with the State welfare encouraging them to do that even more). I was thinking about Obamacare and whether we are all responsible for the healthcare of each other, thus encouraging people to make poor decisions about taking care of their health (eating habits, exercise habits, vices, etc). Collectivized healthcare by increasing demand also either drives costs up and/or imposes top-down aberrations such as rationing.

Please make it clear if you also think we are responsible for others in all cases such as the cases I was thinking about.

In short, the distinction appears to be responsibility TO others versus FOR others respectively.
...

The distinction is between responsibility and entitlement.

We have a responsibility to help the less fortunate especially the innocent. The less fortunate, however, are not entitled to such aid.

I disagree.

There is no way to exclude entitlement (in your model of responsibility) as I will explain below.

I have no responsibility to help the innocent. It is my choice whether I want to (and I very much may depending on my available resources). This diversity is necessary. What you propose below can only end up in a socialist, totalitarian hell.

You refuse to allow nature to fail, thus you are proposing low entropy directions.

By your argument, the USA and Europe has responsibility to make sure every child in every 3rd world country has a quality education and basic needs which they currently are not getting. But the easy way to solve that is not by making us responsible for doing that (which could never be done without corruption and thus destruction), but rather by removing all borders. But these 3rd world countries also need to allow us to go own land and make businesses in their countries which many don't allow. Yet for example the USA allows anyone to come buy land and create business.

The problems of the world are too much government, not adding more government to try to dictate to nature what the diversity of choices of parents should be. The Philippines doesn't subsidize the way you advocate and thus the parents and youth are very motivated to study hard and go abroad to work hard and earn more.

In your example above the 12 young children are in danger of starvation and homelessness and a grave injustice is present. The contract between child and parent has been violated multiple times leaving them without the resources needed to survive. Reproduction is a contract voluntary entered between parents and children. The role of the state is to enforce contracts when one party is in breach.

A moral society will step in and rectify the situation if it is capable of doing so. The best solution is to track down the 12 different fathers and make them pay for their children garnishing their wages to substance levels if necessary. As I argued above the lesson society will learn next is transparency. Transparency makes it a simple matter to track down these fathers.

The only contract is the natural one of children get the parents they got and they have to fight their own battle for happiness or accomplishment, just as I did.

It is also natural for private individuals to step in and befriend the family/kids and offer help. But it is killing diversity for the State to tramp on the parent's rights to raise their children how ever they please.

Keep your brown nose out of other people's business.

If you guarantee welfare for the 12 kids, then you encourage the parents to be irresponsible. If you make the State responsible for enforcing parental support, the females will follow A FALSE LIFE PLAN because they know they can fornicate with another man and still get the money from the man they cheated on.

You can't top-down muck with (trample on) nature and not get Frankenstein outcomes. Because you are lowering the entropy.

The proper role of top-down order in a society is to coordinate cooperative outcomes that require coordination, such as for example contracts entered into willingly by adults. The contract between the child and parent is not a contract entered into by any will of the child. The child is subject to the parent's will until the child is old enough to make it on its own. That is reality. You may not like it. Leftists don't like reality.

Most of the R reproductive strategy you discussed is nothing other then a strategy of defection dumping the economic and social costs of childrearing on women and the state.

And I am saying it shouldn't be dumped on the State. As for being dumped on the woman, women could be less careless with their vaginas if they know they are going to get a bailout from the State for their lack of due diligence. Refer to that panties historical progression image in my post on the prior page.

You are proposing to reward and promote sluts. You are promoting immorality.

You can't do one thing, without causing other effects. It isn't so simpleton.differentiate

The R strategy in its present form will mostly vanish.

Never. It is natural and necessary to maintain a diverse gene pool.

It will certainly get worse while these leftist policies of yours are intact.

The men will fornicate and not work because you've taken away all their purpose and special characteristic for not being one of the irresponsible ones.

You'll then have to start physically castrating men. The leftist delusions are always self-culling.

In your healthcare example the primary responsibility again needs to be pushed back on the individual.

Agreed.

Since we appropriately value life and are thus unwilling to let people who make poor choices simply die people must be forced to save even when they do not want to. The best model I have seen is that of Singapore which requires all of its citizens to save 20% of their earnings in a personal (not collective) health savings account. Health expenses come out of this fund and later in life and if you are healthy and do not use the all money your children can inherit it.

And that will destroy their country spoiling their children and eventually making the country unproductive.

One of the best insurances is to raise several very responsible and hard working children who can take of you and each other in times of crisis. You form a family insurance fund of sorts, so each of you needs to save less (thus less usury needed, which is a dying self-destructive paradigm anyway). Save by raising work skills and productivity. Also healthcare should decline to a much smaller fraction of a person's lifetime productive capacity if we remove the monopolies of the medical systems (that includes allowing private companies to compete on licensing doctors instead of the State, so consumers can choose what level of expertise they want and end monopolies of medical schools, radically high costs of medical education, etc).

Every top-down action that attempts to enforce uniformity or unnatural outcomes destroys entropy and thus is failure directed.

We value life, which means those who know someone they care about who is in dire need, can decide to help if their resources are sufficient to do so. This is what makes us human is the personal empathy and personal connections. When you transfer that role to the State, you have removed the diversity, the personal connection, the empathy, and turned it into a Frankenstein.

Singapore will some many decades from now enter their Frankenstein outcome due to all the central planning. I mean it feels wonderful now. It always does at the onset of leftist delusions.

That still leaves us with extremes of fate. Horrible medical conditions that require massive medical expenses at a young age or children whose parents die in car crashes and have no immediate family. These individuals must petition the state and other individuals for aid. Society in turn has a responsibility to help these unfortunate souls to the degree it is able. However, the distinction should be made that such aid is not entitled but can and often will be gifted.

Any well functioning society will be always have an abundance of private individuals willing to help. That is what makes good people so honorable (and wealthy!). It raises their reputation/respect/love in society and amongst their connections.

We propose the State because societies aren't functioning well, but the reason they don't function well is because we have all this top-down distortion caused by the State.

There is no nirvana. Nature is what it is. We have to accept it.

Nature isn't fair. It can't be fair, as that is a uniform outcome which is 0 entropy which is non-existence. When I heard that word "fair" in Singapore, I realized what I was dealing with. Proposing more of the poison as a cure isn't rational.

This "fair" notion also devolves in political correctness and soon the society is acting like zombies afraid to be judged as diverse person with a differing viewpoint. Groupthink ensues. Defection of critical thinking disappears. This is all low entropy and destruction directed long-term.

One reason I remained in the Philippines (not the only reason, I did attempt to live back in the USA from 2000 - 2003 but it was destroyed by my father and my ex) is because it didn't have this State regulating everything. You did what you wanted to (which for me didn't mean abandoning my financial and parental responsibility...). Unfortunately the oppressed people in the developing world are very bitter for being colonized by the Spanish for 400 years and still being enslaved by not being able to freely go work where the jobs are in other countries. And thus there is a lot of poverty here and I have suffered a bad health fate. I think it is starting to improve now in the Philippines, but also coming along with it is more government interference in our individual lives. Sigh.

I pray we can do better than these leftist delusions (which of course are always entirely co-opted by elite oligarchy) and actually move forward to a well functioning, decentralized society.

[CoinCube]

iamnotback your post above wanders from topic to topic touching many areas where I profoundly disagree with you. I lack the time to engage in a prolonged debate across multiple different subjects so I will respond once highlighting the flaws in your reasoning and then give you the final reply on the matter.

Let's start with the few areas where we agree.

•   The proper role of top-down order in a society is to coordinate cooperative outcomes that require coordination, such as for example contracts entered into willingly by adults.

•   I pray we can do better than these leftist delusions (which of course are always entirely co-opted by elite oligarchy) and actually move forward to a well-functioning, decentralized society.

•   The contract between the child and parent is not a contract entered into by any will of the child. The child is subject to the parent's will until the child is old enough to make it on its own.

Now let's move on to our disagreements.

•   How is the usurious system placing any limits on growth of the Knowledge Age? Sorry I don't see it.  

•   You refuse to allow nature to fail, thus you are proposing low entropy directions.

•   You can't top-down muck with (trample on) nature and not get Frankenstein outcomes. Because you are lowering the entropy.

•   You are proposing to reward and promote sluts. You are promoting immorality.

You used to understand how usury limits the growth of the knowledge. The quote below is from your essay The Rise of Knowledge.

“Thus if knowledge production was increasingly not financeable, then we would expect to see top-down suppression of knowledge production by vested financing interests and widespread theft by those vested interests trying to maintain levels of net worth they would not have in an economy with more knowledge production.

I assert that is what we see today. To correctly argue that politics is the cause of allowing excessive indebtedness and its resultant misallocation of resources (which is a loss of knowledge), is as irrelevant as arguing whether the chicken or the egg is first. It is sufficient that there exists the destruction and suppression of knowledge coincident with the macro-economic failure of over indebtedness, to conclude the financing and knowledge production do not coexist. Because we know from the “Economy of Knowledge” section, that knowledge production must increase as a share of GDP for there to be increasingly prosperity.”

You later argue that the suppression of knowledge will end because the "entropic force" necessitates a decline in usury over time. This argument is akin to pointing out that a boulder perched atop a mountain is destined to fall to the valley floor below. The statement is true but not necessarily helpful. Elsewhere you have posited that a vast dark economy will grow and then destroy the existing social order via anonymous economic warfare. This appears to be the heart of your bifurcation hypothesis. The war of anonymity against the state is your mechanism for how the rock falls and I simply don't think this is how things will play out. Indeed the exact opposite appears to be the case. We are on the verge of an era of utter transparency. This transparency will have major downsides but ultimately it will yield benefits that exceed the costs. The rock will fall via a different path. It is transparency that will ultimately force us to behave better for our sins will become visible to all.

You expanded my positions out of context above to support your philosophical slippery slope argument. You repeatedly argue that every top-down intervention must spiral into an out of control Frankenstein's monster "because you lower the entropy". This argument is simply untrue. Most top-down responses occur because they are necessary to keep individuals from defecting and destroying the rights of their fellows. Top-down control thus maximizes entropy and can only be relaxed when we learn ways to improve our behavior. Without moral progress any disturbance from equilibrium including those introduced by decentralizing technology will just collapse back into the old order because the old order remains the optimal configuration.  

Enforcing the sanctity of contracts is one of the primary roles of the state. This allows cooperative outcomes that require coordination. When we bring life into the world both parents impose a their will on the unborn. The parents assume the responsibility to raise the child into adulthood to the best of their ability. The child assume the responsibility of life and all the pain and joys life entails. You take the position that a contract forced upon another deserves less scrutiny than a contract entered into willingly. Indeed the opposite is the case. A contract forced upon another deserves more scrutiny and when there is doubt it should always be interpenetrated in favor of the unwilling participant. It is true that making men pay for child support allows immoral women to take advantage of men. Yes this is a massive shift in power from times past when immoral men competed to take advantage of women. Tough cookies the individual who's interests supersedes that of both the mother and the father is that of the child. When people behave morally there is no need for top-down control. However, when they behave badly top-down control is unavoidable.  

•   I have no responsibility to help the innocent. It is my choice whether I want to (and I very much may depending on my available resources). This diversity is necessary.
•   There is no nirvana. Nature is what it is. We have to accept it.

Again and again and in various forms you repeat the argument that I refuse to allow failure. I do nothing of the sort. We have many responsibilities one of these is to help the innocent to the best of our ability. All that is necessary to preserve diversity is that we be given free choice to fulfill our responsibilities or reject them. Via our choices we succeed or fail. Freedom of choice and freedom to fail does not entail freedom from consequence.    

Nature is what it is. We must understand it and the limits it imposes but we do not have to accept it as sacrosanct. Promotion and worship of nature and "natural outcomes" ultimately limits both freedom and progress.  

Nature is amoral. Nature knows nothing of good and evil. In nature there is one rule—survival of the fittest. There is no right, only might. If a creature is weak, kill it. Only human beings could have moral rules such as, "If it is weak, protect it." Only human beings can feel themselves ethically obligated to strangers.
...
Nature allows you to act naturally, i.e., do only what you want you to do, without moral restraints; God does not. Nature lets you act naturally - and it is as natural to kill, rape, and enslave as it is to love.
...
One of the vital elements in the ethical monotheist revolution was its repudiation of nature as god. The evolution of civilization and morality have depended in large part on desanctifying nature.
...
Civilizations that equated gods with nature—a characteristic of all primitive societies—or that worshipped nature did not evolve.
...
Words cannot convey the magnitude of the change wrought by the Bible's introduction into the world of a God who rules the universe morally.