2015-10-29 16:53 GMT+01:00 Razer :

On 10/29/2015 08:19 AM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

Truecost being some unrealistic form of cost determination?

True cost economics is "Unrealistic"?

Surely you jest...

I jest you not.

It's difficult to measure because the variables in /"An economic model that seeks to include the cost of negative externalities into the pricing of goods and services.//"(1) /can be enormous, but the ability to 'do the math' is hardly unrealistic.

It definitely is. A selective enumeration (which it will always be) is merely a political tool. A comprehensive enumeration is impossible to assure and costly to produce. And who should bear the costs of such an enumeration? Society as a whole? It is simply not fair to make law requiring such enumerations. It is much better to make theft illegal.

/"Economics, in its current form, is a very limited science."(2)/ and true-costing acts to de-limit it.

Words without meaning.

1 http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/truecosteconomics.asp 2 http://www.utne.com/community/truecosteconomics.aspx

Link 2, by line analysis: Economics, in its current form, is a very limited science. Classical

economists are accustomed to quantifying cost in gain in simple monetary terms while ignoring the more sweeping ramifications of a particular decision.

Untruth. "Classical economists" are used to not involving terms they needn't in providing a price quote. I don't pay the costs? I don't charge the costs. It is logical, simple, practical.

Air pollution, for example, costs residents of Ontario at least $1 billion a year in medical costs and missed work, but these figures do not make their way into the analysis of the businesses doing the polluting.

This is the fault of governance, not economics. Simply, the company should arrange a license to pollute. The license's cost should equal or exceed the damage to the community - such that individuals in the community are bottom line not negatively affected by the alteration.

Neither does the appalling destruction that China is currently wreaking on the environment, the cost of which damage more than outweighs the country's rapid economic growth.

I need a citation on this. It implies there's "environmental value" being sacrificed for "value of economic size". Apparently the Chinese do think their economy is worth the damage to the environment. This is also a cultural issue. Simply put, the author is being an ignorant presumptuous prick, pushing his values onto the Chinese government planners. There is absolutely no evidence of economic miscalculations - merely of a different subjective valuation of nature (or economy). (And even that is not substantiated in the article)

There is no room for such crucial factors in neoclassical economics, the predominant school of economic thought that assumes that people's decisions are guided by totally rational thought processes.

It merely implies that people that are less rational will lose the economic game. (it's true, they do generally lose) (it's also untrue, there's no rational people. Only coincidence of the particular insanity and reality)

Clearly, the destruction of one's habitat is not an entirely rational decision to make, and critics blast the isolated, 'autistic' manner in which modern economics employs a narrow scope and and a limited conception of cost and value.

There's just no God in it, you know? These pointy nosed walking calculators just ignore all our warm fuzzy feelings! I LIKE THAT TREE! NO I CAN'T AFFORD BUYING A TREE I OWN NO LAND etc...

A number of economists, fed up with the limitations of classical economics, have put forth a new paradigm; in which pricing includes a number of factors beyond an item's market value. The environmental cost of aviation, for example,

(is not beyond an item's market value so long as governance is proper / people aren't being poisoned without compensation ) adds at least $500 per passenger to airline travel. Recent mad cow scares

have cost the cattle industry $6 billion dollars,

Disease is definitely a hard to model and price item. There's lots of factors, like how the disease spreads, population densities, countermeasures, who should carry risks, etc. It goes for humans too, infectious and unhygienic as we are. I'll think on it some other time.

and a World Health Organization study of France, Switzerland, and Austria found that 1.7 percent of the GDP was taken up by the costs of traffic pollution.

I thought traffic pollution wasn't in the GDP? We do have pollution related tax in most nations. Uninterpretable (and uncited) statistic.

By using these figures to paint a more complete picture of the transportation and cattle industries, economists will be able to more easily create value, not just in terms of raw profitability, but in terms of overall health and environmental impact.

Uhh... I really don't know what this is supposed to mean.

In fact, the new paradigm substitutes the more broad Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for the limited Gross Domestic Product, factoring leisure time, crime, and resource depletion into the measurement of a nation's success.

Oh, more leisure time is "Genuine Progress"? Less punished activity (crime) is Genuine Progress? Having natural resources is good, but using them is what makes them resources in the first place. GPD doesn't factor it destroyed potential, but GPD is just what it is and nobody is pretending it's more or less. I appreciate the idea of a better "how good is your nation doing" indicator. It's very political, and it's best to avoid bullshit in statistics.

With global warming racking up a yearly bill of $304.2 billion, businesses would be forced to take note of their own environmental practices in a way that the current model does not encourage. True Cost Economics is currently creating a sizable ruckus in the academic world, and its value as a system of thought is starting to be recognized by the economic establishment.

"We should make those responsible bear the cost for their actions" != "True Cost Economics" True Cost Economics is a way for one nation to tell another it needs to do something. It's just another way to do politics, not economics. Oh, and making those responsible bear the cost for their action is absolutely essential for capitalism. Without it we're only doing the horrible parts of capitalism, not the magical parts.

2015-10-29 18:43 GMT+01:00 Razer :

On 10/29/2015 10:09 AM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

It definitely is. A selective enumeration (which it will always be) is merely a political tool.

Your method is selective, and as I've stated elsewhere seems to revolve around your 'needs', most of which have been impressed in you by external forces with motives NOT friendly to your, or your specie's continued survival.

I'm not sure what the point is. Could you clarify? My method is selective. Money models reality. I'm just trying to make it model better. Model complexity has a cost too, but generally more accurate is better.

...

A comprehensive enumeration is impossible to assure and costly to produce. And who should bear the costs of such an enumeration? Society as a whole?

Absolutely.

I think society as a whole should, where appropriate, set up a mechanism as I described above. What's the TrueCost of a building being painted white instead of black? Does white distract, manipulate, affect? Does black? What about indoor lights turning bluer after lunch? (companies actually do the latter for improving employee performance) If you see value in finding out, go for it. But please don't try to charge me for it. That's just wrong.

You use the word "I" a lot. I aim for a society where "We" is primary. RR On 10/29/2015 08:19 AM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

Other than excessive coercion following wealth imbalance, and government unmarkets, the price I pay is the Truecost.

The difference between "what I pay now", "what I pay later",

On October 29, 2015 10:24:58 AM Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

2015-10-29 16:55 GMT+01:00 Razer :

...

You use the word "I" a lot. I aim for a society where "We" is primary.

The idea that you can force people to act in the common interest has been tried many times. We prefer to have freedom, nowadays. At least, I do.

The idea that one has to be "forced" to act in the common interest is disheartening, especially now. Even worse, considering the list we're posting on. -Shelley

On October 29, 2015 11:17:05 AM Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

I'm sorry, but there's only so much one will do with disregard of self.

That speaks volumes of your character.

I feel like this discussion has starved. There's a distinct lack of depth and logic,

Agreed 100%

Mostly it's the powerless contemplating how fair it would be if they weren't.

Good, let it flow through you! Keep thinking that and carry on. Nothing to see here. -S

On 10/29/15, Shelley wrote:

On October 29, 2015 11:17:05 AM Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

I'm sorry, but there's only so much one will do with disregard of self.

That speaks volumes of your character.

I read Lodewijk's comment as a generalised statement on the current predominant nature of 'Western' (perhaps all) people. As in "how things are" not "how I am and how I want the world to be". Character attack is sometimes not be in the interests of constructive dialogue. Inspiration for a 'better' world is a good thing. Resignation over the current world is a common thing. Finding a point of compassion in our conversations with each other is something I have failed at too many times. Regards, Zenaan

On 10/30/15, Shelley wrote:

On October 29, 2015 5:35:15 PM Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

On 10/29/15, Shelley wrote:

...

On October 29, 2015 11:17:05 AM Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

I'm sorry, but there's only so much one will do with disregard of self.

That speaks volumes of your character.

I read Lodewijk's comment as a generalised statement on the current predominant nature of 'Western' (perhaps all) people. As in "how things are" not "how I am and how I want the world to be".

Character attack is sometimes not be in the interests of constructive dialogue.

I said it spoke volumes of his character; kind of up to the reader to decide what that is, eh?

I'm not intentionally attacking his character. I think it was an expression of cumulative exasperation.

Indeed, and I also read a sense of exasperation or at least resignation in "there's only so much one will do with disregard of self." Even if that -was- an expression of personal position, it's a damn sight better than the sociopaths in the seats of "demoncratic" power.

It feels as though we are speaking from different dimensions; just not connecting.

I was also really busy when I wrote that. I should be more cognizant; it's difficult enough to convey ideas across the ether as it is.

:) Don't stress about it. Some conversations go smoothly, others less so. Everyone brings their viewpoint, and most bring a genuinely good intention, even if their instances of "XX is a given" are different to yours. Even CIA apologists have a mentally justified world view, and I found it uniquely interesting to engage with that think or mental nature, a while back - and yes, I very nearly spat fire and brimstone. I think the only thing saving me was learning to embrace my inner bitch.

...

Inspiration for a 'better' world is a good thing. Resignation over the current world is a common thing. Finding a point of compassion in our conversations with each other is something I have failed at too many times.

Another reason why you've rarely seen me comment in the political threads.

How about a vote - let's be gentle with each other's resignation. Then we can all leap into our attempts to express that which is important to us, without getting upset when we fail to hit our mark of clarity or succinctity, or when others fail to hit our expectation of response. We are schooled to be right, to get the gold star, the stamp of approval, the right to be condescending towards those who "fail" to be "top of the class" or even fail to just be "correct". Are you smelling a human programming program here? Let's shake off our deep schooling (programming) and start educating ourselves how to be genuine. How to simply be. Be what and who we are. Be satisifed, at peace. Then perhaps we can be satisfied with others just as they are (WHOAH! don't get too deep now!)

Misanthropia needs to work on her communication skills, imagine that :) -Shelley

:) Don't we all... Peace, Zenaan fuck fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:34 PM Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On 10/29/15, Shelley wrote:

...

On October 29, 2015 11:17:05 AM Lodewijk andré de la porte

wrote:

...

I'm sorry, but there's only so much one will do with disregard of self.

That speaks volumes of your character.

I read Lodewijk's comment as a generalised statement on the current predominant nature of 'Western' (perhaps all) people. As in "how things are" not "how I am and how I want the world to be".

Character attack is sometimes not be in the interests of constructive dialogue.

Inspiration for a 'better' world is a good thing. Resignation over the current world is a common thing. Finding a point of compassion in our conversations with each other is something I have failed at too many times.

David C. Rose's "Moral Foundation of Economic Behavior" cites some pretty convincing evidence that individualist moralities (perhaps what people here are callign "Western") are inherently superior to collectivist. Of course, I was already biased in that direction when I picked up the book, so I'd be interested to hear what someone who is already fairly sympathetic to collectivism thinks.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/30/2015 12:54 PM, Sean Lynch wrote:

David C. Rose's "Moral Foundation of Economic Behavior" cites some pretty convincing evidence that individualist moralities (perhaps what people here are callign "Western") are inherently superior to collectivist. Of course, I was already biased in that direction when I picked up the book, so I'd be interested to hear what someone who is already fairly sympathetic to collectivism thinks.

The word "collectivism" carries a lot of baggage, as it has been flown as a banner over many authoritarian, violent dictatorships "of the proletariat." But the base concept of concern for the well being of one's community as integral to one's own well being has also been called compassion, honor and common sense. Darwinian evolution does not favor the me-first individualist, however strong, dominant, awesome, etc. that individual may be. Humans have a genetic predisposition to form families, villages and tribes, to identify with them and hold the interests of the group at co-equal to self interest. Purely self centered motives are socially pathological, and Darwinian evolution selects against this trait: Because the awesome dominance of the "fittest" has negative long term survival value, compared to those who work at maintaining a strong, resilient community that provides a favorable environment for the whole community's progeny out to the Nth generation. When the smartest guys in the room tell us otherwise, they are not mistaken: They are lying. The more power is afforded to purely self-interested socioeconomic "winners," the more their actions damage the long term viability of the community. Big problems arise when unnaturally large "communities," i.e. States exist, because they can not exist without the services of an elite group of political and economic power brokers who provide millions (!) of subjects with a convincing illusion of "community" with people they will never meet in real life. Deception alone won't do the job, so armed guards must also be employed to enforce the orders of these facilitators. Viola: Rent-seeking absentee landlords, serving their own interests at the expense of the ersatz "communities" they rule. It's all downhill from there. "Democracy" so-called, an attempt at community self regulation among strangers who will never meet, does not scale well. My favorite historical example is the response of Iceland and the United States to the "financial crisis" of 2008. Iceland, population 1/3 million, responded as a human community, "regulated the regulators" and has since jailed corrupt bankers who failed to flee the country in time. The United States, population 360+ million, responded as directed by the perpetrators of a massive fraud, and rewarded them handsomely for their efforts. Any -ism that is proposed to replace the policies of an existing large State without eliminating that State, promising Utopian outcomes, is at best a shockingly ignorant error in judgement. But it is more likely a deliberate swindle backed by socially pathological "individuals" and interest groups. If the -ism involves a large State with a putative monopoly on violence (as violation: robbery, kidnapping, murder), it's just one more brand label and PR campaign for Fascism. Any -ism that proposes breaking up large States into small, independent communities governed without delegating decision making authority to "representatives" is difficult to implement anywhere the modern State has taken root. Intellectual types rarely approve of any such scheme, because it would mean trusting people to "do the right thing" of their own accord, without morally and mentally superior guidance from On High. But I am confident that people who implement such schemes where and as possible stand the best chance of producing societies worth living in. We are heading into a global industrial and human population crash that will produce numerous local opportunities to do just that . And that's why I look forward to the End Of The World with considerable optimism. By definition the real "collectivists" will be the long term winners, and I don't think that will be a Bad Thing. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWM/SWAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0Lz68QAKMi83duiAlchD78sIgNQmsK Hosytr4ggraPJ5u7Jrf3cyWnq6Zhn+h7sf71Eh5f4AWx14Rd1lWom92UBf5VYZir 3GiIs/UzUHgwOo6PKYKTbiLtqAn4D1fyoG3/LRW8/gZfI87501LdnSUrgj3MJoiV OjeKui/dec9ugG+fcSrsl3GwAMN+FZXAi+WvMoLesEnxg5Mcjc5Xh5VQ3qTxWDaJ pMfAEGZqOUIcX/vMSJIPrUxCQRChIpd3VbODP1Y9uTNT+m/4qDNd7DXCWFA66r0j rfXWC/cT1HQLsQcY6W6SOthDUGlFHLO3y60PLCdRjyr0voMKUzUL3OrjkTEeXySM oAe++H3uo6hAIB1lB/FLBBSadieZQJFB1u3KYV8VlDiVXjteW8o5nlDMZjSskjGg DYQA9GPId73QUUTy1kgG0JYzFJRfqEwFUv+Cskt/XXPdyDPf1vakpgIGQiURFuqW CydxoVV00RM9wD5TuNvR/Q+pyZuL4cAKlDqJVw20m5QK6qZKuuDJjOCa5o+L/W+p 7GA8s8GEnmM8VmodZWLyKMd4OwD38hxpv5cGYZ2FEyS+xVNRvTGCT6vbVp9aNhcc y6teV4xJAZdcEnGeUR//UVKqGDgtE9Mr+IvadsD6aR5cfm0mDThpBh0Kfpf5JGz6 Y+EKrkGJpyrq7HUXLhBL =Z/dm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 10/29/2015 05:20 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

There has been naught in the way of designer societies, Well there have been many many attempts at small(ish) 'utopian' communities over the last century or more, and none has outlasted

On 10/29/15, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote: their founders (I think Gatto pointed this out but I can't find an immediate reference sorry) and many have ended in, attention holding, ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_community

Really! Rainbow Family of the Living Light. The "Founders" are EVERY SINGLE PERSON who attends. Save us from charismatic cults called 'utopian' as example of anything except Fascism. Welcome home! https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=Rainbow+Family+of+the+Living+Light If you read this article > "Lakota Warriors Vow to Crush Dirty Rainbow Hippies" http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/20/lakota-warriors-vow-to-crus... (Daily Beast) do note the end result. The Lakota nation and Rainbow tribe allied at this last annual July 4th gathering to protect the Black Hills https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP9YATzAmQs (five part documentary about the '15 gathering) (also note the senior editor for the Daily Beast has close acquaintances in al-Nusra Syria which is why their Syria reporting reads like CIA disinfo. The Daily Beast is not a news source of record. It's internet-asswipe). RR

Andre - maybe there is some work happening that your unaware of - as if we are made more conscious of these really beautiful shifts i think it can help create even more thru sort of momentum Its not as monolithic as you state - multifacitity is really how life works I have info about towns with their own currencies - lending libraries that lend much more than books - food deserts being turned into community garden spaces in urban areas - alternative banking structures being developed - tesla shit - massive growth in the cooperative sector globally - indigenous people not allowing destruction of the land - hackers taking information and dissiminating it to the people to produce higher levels of consciousness - highly productive scientists developing methodologies of clean energy without the state apparatus and discounting government as inneffective - environmetally cleaner tech ... Shedding the snake skin of the choking state On Oct 29, 2015 1:22 PM, "Lodewijk andré de la porte" wrote:

2015-10-29 18:35 GMT+01:00 Shelley :

...

The idea that one has to be "forced" to act in the common interest is disheartening, especially now.

I'm sorry, but there's only so much one will do with disregard of self.

I feel like this discussion has starved. There's a distinct lack of depth and logic, and now the meaningless arguments are drying. There has been naught in the way of designer societies, let alone the code we can write to help get there. Mostly it's the powerless contemplating how fair it would be if they weren't.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/29/2015 01:18 PM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

2015-10-29 16:55 GMT+01:00 Razer mailto:Rayzer@riseup.net>:

You use the word "I" a lot. I aim for a society where "We" is primary.

Conflict resolution and nonviolent strategy training emphasize the value of "I statements" because they personalize what one is saying rather than appealing to some "authority" such as the imagined Will of the People, the rules in a game nobody present has volunteered to play, etc. I like I statements, if only because they make it all about me.

The idea that you can force people to act in the common interest has been tried many times. We prefer to have freedom, nowadays. At least, I do.

(To be spoken in the voice of Max Headroom:) Ah, freedom. Such a glittering generality! It makes me want to march in a parade!

Game theory puts wrenches in any collaborative action that's not entirely individual centered. Go let the pigs ravage you, I'll just wait to discuss an arrangement with them once they're through with you. I just hope you didn't give them absolutely unmatchable unfair advantages. (footnote: did you ever see a B-52 bomber in real life?)

The longevity of a culture tends to be inversely proportional to the power of entirely self centered individuals in that culture. Any collaborative action that's entirely individual centered evolves into a murder/suicide machine, even if it does not start out as one. Lookit the good ole U.S.A. after 35 years of Reganomics and Greed Is Good business ethics and corporate culture. Darwinian evolution does not favor the greedy, self-interested individual. Darwinian evolution favors clusters of individuals whose predisposition to take care of others assures that their Nth generation progeny have the best shot at survival because they are supported by a stable and resilient community. When "the smartest guys in the room" say otherwise, they are not mistaken: They are lying. Collaborative actions based on a sane balance between individual and community interests are possible, history provides numerous examples at scales ranging from the family and village to tribe and nation. With the exception of defective individuals, human beings are naturally inclined to form communities, to identify with those communities, and to work in the common interests of those communities. I call the people who lack this natural inclination "defective" as their actions tend toward negative impacts on group survival in the long term. Today we have a really big problem in the form of really big countries: Human communities do not scale to that size. Compare the "community values" performance of Iceland, population 1/3 million, to the performance of the good ole U.S.A., population 360+ million. Attempts to scale community values to the size of a large country always involve creating administrative classes, insular communities of professionals in commercial and political governance who facilitate artificial "bonds of community" between massive numbers of strangers who will never meet. Viola, rent seeking absentee landlords who employ armed guards to enforce their orders. If communities regulated by these institutions are small enough, it is possible for the people to regulate their regulators; but somewhere between 1/3 and 300 million population, the balance of power shifts disastrously toward the managerial class, which becomes a ruling class. Expositions of political theory are supposed to end with a formula for creating Utopian outcomes, and a call to action. Sorry, I'm out of stock on those items and the shop down the street was busted for selling toxic imitations. But I do think that those who occupy themselves with building, maintaining and defending sane communities, where and as opportunities to do so arise, will be big winners compared to those who remain attached to authoritarian top-down rule by any name. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWMsJ/AAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0L2pIP/1C21Qaqr9fsxQrfE1e7OVjC XhwUKYgST0hOJ26ueN7Lsq9vYyxZBtgdW1JReJqEwJ3sUnGlIv8WXI7dHe+80ior R0B1gKTBSQd9gUGkcE6QnTgJ6tJxShm1MDrfJjWxMNMEjo8lhY9anRuEiIr+vplI +SSd3VvLGZlKrD9m2VlovI/pEIKZmyXa278i6rs8eM6TVzq2K1AbCyhTK7/9fmIV eNd3IkOzNtb9vqgCKP3qeKUMSN2AlRikqZCO25ZLdjbcDs0qYb26d1dPvfI0yWY6 PxToc2cDlaYanLOZjOtMCoLHFLq0a4fXUO0Y+zK+AhbxIjaLX612bzAVNDatGI+U nBYTvDxBQonrplTNCLDAJRiq9avl+oPDQGgOqJSBwb37X8UBzSbeJFlujaI8xxom jJKjBICo+blE9195YsLWYjazajaTKzWo/e2enS3eMn+JgVA70n0OMMN6eLjhQdfL TpzEYXO5JywsNRoX0S8IfSs58mxmvVjzrC4NR4H5mqgb0d+pJB8CTDpmo/EMuziy YQZxhiISsMopn2GX4w9pUO10HSBefKCcPqPrQorDM9tWHoSZqwi9cPyK1jcg/wTE EnO9KMHlHgKyWZfOD+8qFz1AqL+bdrDKxChZlkyUqfw98eY8IxCbaiHr/m3QY0uB YlNKceRmjnyY9t/G7Jp9 =6nQs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 10/29/2015 03:27 PM, Sean Lynch wrote:

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:02 AM Razer wrote:

You use the word "I" a lot. I aim for a society where "We" is primary.

I aim for the heads of people who aim for such a society, because "we" is a fiction. It is just a way of saying "I" while pretending you have others' interests in mind. You can only speak for yourself. Trying to speak for anyone else who has not asked you to is just another form of coercion.

Who said I speak for anyone but me? Or care to. You're reading a lot into my interest in social equality. Perhaps it's because of your own world view? RR

Thanks Juan :) 2015-10-29 20:56 GMT+01:00 Juan :

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:19:29 +0100 Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

Juan:

...

That sounds like true capitalism (savings) whereas the system Lodewijk is advertising is mercantilism/consumerism/fascism.

I argued that time expended readily outweighs cost saved.

I argue that the market is distorted by the financial mafia, by big (and even some small) business, by public 'education' (makes people stupid) by religion (makes peoples stupid *and* evil), by 'fashion' (advertising) - and more.

As a result, people buy useless and 'fashionable' stuff, produced by privileged firms, and financed by 'cheap' (i.e. fake) credit.

I mostly agree. I hope the situation will better. I think one of the big things that's needed is a superior alternative to Republics. From there, something so fundamental, perhaps we can see more improvements. (note: I'd like your suggestions)

...

Not anything else. (I have fixed things for fun and cost savings, like Razer argued makes sense, but then it's entertainment - not economically wise choices)

'economically wise' choices can be made in a free market, not in the current mercantilistic/fascist system.

There's still wise choices in a skewed system. They're just not always realistic, sometimes even bizarre. The better the system the better the wise choice. So a criminal monopoly is going to define what 'justice' is,

and enforce it, too.

What's worse, it'll redefine criminal! You can keep repeating absurd, mainstream propaganda without

any regard to logic, but what's the point? What can you achieve?

Complex agreements, abstaining from violence, huge organizations, etc. These are valuable, aren't they? Ideally, there's a political game that is able to generate "appropriate" political choices. It's not a republic, a trade union, tribal understandings, etc, etc, per se, but there's always something. Without this system we are screwed anyway. If we do have that system we *should* use it. And we can use it to determine the absolute widest boundaries of what is permitted, boundaries which you may not wander out of. We can produce incentive schemes, to encourage the correct behavior. In fact, if the system works it needs no restrictions. We've yet to find a system that works. (also on the account of those pesky flawed humans making up the systems)

and 2. invest in the advancement

...

of the human race (think space travel, science).

So your criminal monopoly is not only going to pretend that their crimes are 'just' and 'fair'. They are so enlightened that they are also going to 'advance' 'science'.

Come on Lodewijk. Why don't you do your homework? Learn the ABC of poltical theory.

I tried doing homework, but the books were full of propaganda. Do tell me Juan, how do we prevent a "criminal monopoly"? Isn't it better to make a very good "criminal monopoly"?

...

But, there is no nations.

Ah, so your monopoly of crime is going to tyranize the whole planet. Cute.

The system spans the globe, the crimes are all the peoples'.

...

That is to say, a mixed economy. Again.

...

mercantilism/fascim/state socialism/state communism.

I think some products are best rendered without competition, and some are best rendered with competition.

I think your baseless, economically ignorant opinions are just that. Baseless and ignorant.

Plus, you thik you have the 'right' to force people to conform to your 'utopia'. Do you mind explaining how you acquired that 'right'? <----fundamental question.

Do you mind answering fundamental questions?

Well, atm I'm still dreaming up the utopia. So far I have no convertees, either :) I have the right because I can. Powers *are* rights. Or, rather, rights do not exist until a criminal monopoly invents justice, and grants people a promise of abstaining from using power; a right. IIRC you have this philosophy of inalienable rights, or natural rights, or rights you would always claim, whatever. It doesn't matter. If you haven't the power to claim a right, you do not have it. Ask the pigs, cows, rabbits, ferrits, birds, and all the other animals we do whatever we want to. Ask the mountains thought to have spirits. Listen to them and you will hear but weeping for lack of strength. Ofc, I'm the asshole for saying this. I think in practice it will be easier to make the system a compelling opt-in. If you don't want to be in it, it is probably not good enough. It's important to be a bit selfish, not help people that don't opt-in. It's only fair ;)

...

So long as the drive to do best exists we do not really need to replicate effort. Eg: Patents are only good for preventing people from using the best available methods. It's a hack to make investments more worthwhile, and secrecy less important. If we didn't need a profit incentive there would be no need for patents.

So, you are also defending the 'intellectual property' mafia?

I stated "it makes investments more worthwhile, and secrecy less important". I think most people that have patents don't need their investments to be even more worthwhile. I think patent licensing systems like mpeg, dolby, proprietary connectors, etc, do not help anyone. I think copyright has crippled the economy and creativity, and served mostly to produce Justin Bieber. I do like that there's no more (at least much less) need for secrecy. And I like the idea that an independent inventor is able to to make a living. There's some research-only companies that have a very good market position thanks to copyright law, whereas otherwise they'd be at the whims of producing companies. Understand, then improve upon.

It's a 'necessary evil'? (doubly retarded since you don't believe in 'evil' eh? )

I honestly do not know. This is a very complex issue spanning all industries. I think the patent system is a steaming pile of mercantile shit. The core idea is not so crazy though - idea's can be stolen, so they must be property. But you don't lose the idea when it gets stolen. It ruins the creative industries - we've made our fantasies protected property, subject not to the potential for art but the will of businessmen. Countless stories go untold. The stories that do get told are smudged with corporate inserts and ruinous inserted political messages. (look for racism/feminist inserts, they're everywhere and they usually fail to actually be unracist or feminist) Software is such a broken industry (thanks huge sw companies!) that any sense of right or wrong is already pre-broken. I think software was probably more fun when nobody could protect it. We could develop software based on bounties. There's another game theory problem, but at least software would be fun again. (note: copyright is ineffective at protecting software atm, if it were effective the market might actually be well developed but still not fun) Should Kia be allowed to copy exactly what Ford is doing? It seems like theft to me. Ford invested and created something (a car design), why should Kia customers not pay for that effort? Secrecy is an expensive (and impractical) solution. Fortunately, if we just let them figure it out they will have to find the optimal way of dealing with it. Not us. I think merging all car companies, making manufacture a non-market activity (product price = costs + 10% instead), sales can still do whatever it does now, allow the designers to self-organize and support the projects they believe in, reward them more when their products work out.

...

A similar argument is possible for shrewd advertising, why lie to people if you do not profit from it? One helps everyone most by providing correct information. (*this is not true, people regularly need to be coerced to act in their best interests.

Sure. What if I beat you to a pulp? For your own good of course. Oh, 'your own good' is whatever I say it is. I am the government.

I don't see where this goes. Perhaps a powers = rights argument?

But coercion for

...

the better is really not that bad.)

Okay. You can keep repeating the same totalitarian 'progressive' nonsense ad nauseam. But I had enough.

Sorry.

...

In the real world we oft encounter duopolies. Basically a monopoly with a state-protected laggard. The monopolist ensures the laggard continues existing, for example by increasing it's own prices to a kind of unreasonable height. That ensures sales for the laggard, and maximum profit. Basically this whole system is then fucked, as there is no real drive for advancement (the laggard cannot overtake the monopolist, it has not the funds. But it also cannot fail, the monopolist prevents it. So why even put up a fight?) and humanity is helped no better than the laggard performs. It happens with all our huge markets, from shipping to silicon to telecom to food to housing to government to diamonds, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Clueless rambling. Or ill intentioned, self-serving propaganda.

Microsoft/Apple, Intel/AMD, ATI/Nvidia, most telecoms actually form cartels with more than 2. The basic principles are: * There is a market leader * There is competition * If the market leader claims the entire market, it will be destroyed by government (anti-monopoly law) * The market leader will calibrate it's effort to stop short of claiming the entire market (likely preferring to reward shareholders, divest, etc) * If the competition advances, the market leader will advance as much (it has more resources to advance, and will typically succeed at maintaining it's lead) * Any advance the competition makes is now wasted, as the market leader will match the advancement * The competition has no reason to advance, except upon itself (other competition) I'm not so wise on the world, I am no expert on the actual state of markets and corporations. I'm sure someone reading is.

...

Lodewijk is just a run of the mill fascist who thinks he has

...

the 'god given' right to 'design' 'society' according to his fuckingly retarded tastes.

Also, he likes to pretend that the bad outcomes of his fascist system are caused by innocent lambs who actually want to do the 'right' thing. Sick.

I'm too minarchist to be a facist, but otherwise you're spot on. Try not to confuse my designs with the current world.I am not a supporter of the status quo,

...says a supporter of the status quo who is parroting mainstream propaganda in a more or less radical mailing list.

I rarely get accused of being mainstream. I almost feel normal now. Please don't mistake pointing out advantages for being a supporter.

...

but I will attempt to understand it, and I will say there's hardly an evil actor out there.

Well, I can say the moon is made of cheese.

What if it is?

...

We just collectively fuck up according to our fuckingly retarded tastes.

Sure. Soldiers and wall street bankers are just as innocent as 4 year old children.

Some 4 year old children are soldiers. Bankers are ageist and pretentious, so they prefer white 25 to 60 year olds (in-corporate ranks are age-pinned).

On 10/29/15, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

Thanks Juan :) 2015-10-29 20:56 GMT+01:00 Juan :

...

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:19:29 +0100 Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

Juan:

...

...

That is to say, a mixed economy. Again.

...

mercantilism/fascim/state socialism/state communism.

I think some products are best rendered without competition, and some are best rendered with competition.

I think your baseless, economically ignorant opinions are just that. Baseless and ignorant.

Plus, you thik you have the 'right' to force people to conform to your 'utopia'. Do you mind explaining how you acquired that 'right'? <----fundamental question.

Do you mind answering fundamental questions?

Well, atm I'm still dreaming up the utopia. So far I have no convertees, either :)

Indeed.

I have the right because I can.

Sure. I have the right to intimately engage your skull with a hammer, because I can. That would be a predatorial right, sociopathic, mad, evil etc (not to mention illegal in our Western democratic system), -and- there's nothing in such an experience, i.e. exercise of said predatorial right, which I would want; so, you can confidently trust this would never happen :) But not everyone thinks like me. You see, some people think like you.

Powers *are* rights.

Sort of: power suggests capacity, and capacity or ability implies a natural right. A natural right, is that right which exists by your natural capacity, or as you said "because I can". I have natural rights to move, to communicate, to associate, to breathe, to survive, to predate. Some people really struggle with the reality of that last one. Yes, it can be confronting. As a good friend of mine Malcolm says, the lion has a predatorial right over the gazelle.

Or, rather, rights do not exist until a criminal monopoly invents justice,

Now that's one fucked up statement. You are possibly referring to "statutory" rights, or simply to domination "you pay me for protection, and I shall let you continue to sell hot dogs." The mafia exercises many variations on the predatorial right to dominate others. Our demoncratic governments school us to believe that government exercise of power over us, i.e. dominating us, is in our "best interest" - it is in your best interest to pay protection tax, to pay mafia highway robbery road tolls (which go to banks, most often for roads already paid for), to lose your "license" priviledge to drive/ travel/ survive (go to work) within your society.

and grants people a promise of abstaining from using power; a right.

Time to start typing less, with more thought put into each part of each sentence, to produce a greater quality result. Perhaps brief up on axiomatic logic.

IIRC you have this philosophy of inalienable rights, or natural rights, or rights you would always claim, whatever. It doesn't matter. If you haven't the power to claim a right, you do not have it. Ask the pigs, cows, rabbits, ferrits, birds, and all the other animals we do whatever we want to. Ask the mountains thought to have spirits. Listen to them and you will hear but weeping for lack of strength.

Ofc, I'm the asshole for saying this.

Your heart is heard. Stay true to that which inspires you. Yes there is much that is grave and wrong in the world today. Let's do the best we can to understand our programming and so take a step towards understanding and the possibility of exercising a worthy authority arising within our hearts. Peace, Zenaan

On October 30, 2015 6:08:40 AM Zenaan Harkness wrote:

On 10/29/15, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

Thanks Juan :) 2015-10-29 20:56 GMT+01:00 Juan :

...

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:19:29 +0100 Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

Juan:

...

...

...

That is to say, a mixed economy. Again.

...

mercantilism/fascim/state socialism/state communism.

I think some products are best rendered without competition, and some are best rendered with competition.

I think your baseless, economically ignorant opinions are just that. Baseless and ignorant.

Plus, you thik you have the 'right' to force people to conform to your 'utopia'. Do you mind explaining how you acquired that 'right'? <----fundamental question.

Do you mind answering fundamental questions?

Well, atm I'm still dreaming up the utopia. So far I have no convertees, either :)

Indeed.

...

I have the right because I can.

Sure.

I have the right to intimately engage your skull with a hammer, because I can. That would be a predatorial right, sociopathic, mad, evil etc (not to mention illegal in our Western democratic system), -and- there's nothing in such an experience, i.e. exercise of said predatorial right, which I would want; so, you can confidently trust this would never happen :)

But not everyone thinks like me. You see, some people think like you.

Yes, yes: this. This. Can I just exhibit obnoxious netiquette and +1 your entire reply? You've said it all very well and with more eloquence than I can muster. -S P.S. Thank you for your other thoughtful reply. P.P.S. Fuckity fuck fucking fuck x over 9,000 ;)

...

Powers *are* rights.

Sort of: power suggests capacity, and capacity or ability implies a natural right. A natural right, is that right which exists by your natural capacity, or as you said "because I can".

I have natural rights to move, to communicate, to associate, to breathe, to survive, to predate.

Some people really struggle with the reality of that last one. Yes, it can be confronting. As a good friend of mine Malcolm says, the lion has a predatorial right over the gazelle.

...

Or, rather, rights do not exist until a criminal monopoly invents justice,

Now that's one fucked up statement. You are possibly referring to "statutory" rights, or simply to domination "you pay me for protection, and I shall let you continue to sell hot dogs." The mafia exercises many variations on the predatorial right to dominate others.

Our demoncratic governments school us to believe that government exercise of power over us, i.e. dominating us, is in our "best interest" - it is in your best interest to pay protection tax, to pay mafia highway robbery road tolls (which go to banks, most often for roads already paid for), to lose your "license" priviledge to drive/ travel/ survive (go to work) within your society.

...

and grants people a promise of abstaining from using power; a right.

Time to start typing less, with more thought put into each part of each sentence, to produce a greater quality result. Perhaps brief up on axiomatic logic.

...

IIRC you have this philosophy of inalienable rights, or natural rights, or rights you would always claim, whatever. It doesn't matter. If you haven't the power to claim a right, you do not have it. Ask the pigs, cows, rabbits, ferrits, birds, and all the other animals we do whatever we want to. Ask the mountains thought to have spirits. Listen to them and you will hear but weeping for lack of strength.

Ofc, I'm the asshole for saying this.

Your heart is heard. Stay true to that which inspires you. Yes there is much that is grave and wrong in the world today. Let's do the best we can to understand our programming and so take a step towards understanding and the possibility of exercising a worthy authority arising within our hearts.

Peace, Zenaan

I rather like this calmer tone. It makes it much easier to think about what you're saying. 2015-10-30 22:32 GMT+01:00 Juan :

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:23:39 +0100 Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

So a criminal monopoly is going to define what 'justice' is,

...

and enforce it, too.

What's worse, it'll redefine criminal!

Of course. So, why should any sane person support such a system?

Because it helps you. Consistently applied and effective justice reduces the crime rates. By defining crime to be behaviors that are: * Game theory wise bad - like driving (very) fast being good for you, bad for everyone else. Or contract enforcement - having serious enforcement even for less valuable contracts is very hard (=expensive) to do. The edge of acceptable is sought, and usually differs significantly per person. (Asbestos processing company CEO saying it's a good thing workers are unaware of the dangers, it makes for greater profit, and therefore prevents informing the workers. Past the line? Maybe, but it was legal and didn't cause public retaliation*) * Fragile but preferable - no petty theft (like jackets) makes it much easier to be in shared spaces, but any enforcement is more expensive than the jacket stolen. It's very hard to prevent petty theft. But also shoplifting, being honest about products (Volkswagen's lies might've forced other manufacturers to perform fraud), etc * Simply too unkind - fraud, murder, serious harassment (although the border is hard to place), theft of freedom (rape is both harassment and theft of freedom), (not all but many ways of) causing pain or injury, etc I think it's important to create law that's conservative and very morally and ethically neutral. For me that's the difference between being a force for evil and a force for good. I ran into a fascinating example yesterday, a group of women was mad a friend for leaving without saying she would (which is a strange thing to do, why not say bye?), and for leaving with a guy although she has a boyfriend. I don't know her boyfriend arrangement, or how they're doing, but seemingly that made no difference in the first place. They were forming a loyal monogamy cartel! They did not respect their friend's ethical/moral choice. But I can't say it was entirely unreasonable, if she claimed to be exclusive to the guy it's probably very unkind. To clarify; this was a case of micro-oppression. Their friends were clearly intend on excluding her and otherwise sanctioning her for her behavior, although her behavior was, well, her conscious choice. They could've decided not to care about her, and they wouldn't be upset about her leaving. But they cared and sanctioned instead. If you don't like a person you should attempt to disconnect and isolate first, I think. I think justice should not depend upon ethics very much at all. If it does it should incorporate the ethics of those involved into it's judgement, but if you do this justice will become arbitrary complex and faults are likely. (faulty justice is severe unkindness) * justice increases the cost of retaliation - this is one of the biggest disadvantages. An eye for several eyes might seem pretty reasonable as for retaliation, but we punish this severely everywhere now. (I'd prefer not wasting an eye) (real world: you may not stop NAM - a Dutch natural gas company - from draining so much gas beneath the earth underneath your feet that the earth gives way and fills the void with your house, because the gas draining is legal, because it's hard to estimate the risk of pumping the gas, and because it's very profitable (maybe worth more than the house anyway))

You can keep repeating absurd, mainstream propaganda without

...

...

any regard to logic, but what's the point? What can you achieve?

Complex agreements, abstaining from violence, huge organizations, etc. These are valuable, aren't they?

Abstaining from violence? States are the most violent organizations on the planet.

It's a fucking for virginity kind of thing. And it's because our states are so well matched - you need only be comfortably more armstrong than the other wrestlers. (why that means you need to be able to nuke the entire enemy a few times over, even after considering countermeasures, well, uhm, we all make mistakes. Either that or the propaganda lies about the countermeasures' effectiveness! So, is the USGOV incompetent or shrewd? )

As to the complex arrangements that can exist in a society, you don't need the state to have them.

True, but we have made it far easier by ways of state. Certain arrangements are impossible without an allmighty third party. For example, you will never expend 100 euro's to retrieve 50. So, a promise of paying 50 euro's is not a very good promise if there's no cheaper way of enforcing that payment. This is often possible, through reputation or the like, but not always, and it's always difficult (=costs). Having a third party say "I'll suffer any expense, and I sure can, to ensure the enforcement of this promise, and will be sure punish the violator severely", means the total enforcement cost becomes 0 - not even a fool will challenge an adversary that truly means that. That entity needn't be the state, but it's better the more disproportionately powerful it is. Also because of vagueness. In "maybe more powerful" situations a test of power is sometimes required. And if there's more than two powerful parties they will weaken oneself with such a test. (what doesn't kill you wounds you still)

It's also debatable why huge organizations are 'valuable'.

Economies of scale is one reason. The other is singular ginormous efforts. The pyramids are an example, but also the space race, this boat https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Barzan_%28ship%2C_2015%2..., terraforming projects, and huge softwares too. And soon astroid mining, space solar, eradication of certain diseases, etc, etc, etc, etc Not just commerce; CERN is awesome! (but big is also scary)

...

Ideally, there's a political game that is able to generate "appropriate" political choices. It's not a republic, a trade union, tribal understandings, etc, etc, per se, but there's always something.

Without this system we are screwed anyway.

That's vague. What system are you alluding to, and who is 'we'?

It's tricky. I meant that, one way or another, we arrive at "political" decisions. One could say that the parts involved in arriving at that decision are a system. If the system sucks, we're screwed. It's much better to have a system that generates "appropriate" choices. Sometimes the right choice is undefined, but a choice must be made still. For example; a carbon emission auctioning system, which is the right choice given Capitalism, Game Theory and something bad increasing with carbon emission, is not implementable without filling out an essential parameter, how bad do we accept things to get? Like, maybe I'm okay trading an "idyllic truly empty desert" for "cesspool of all things poisonous" if we profit a lot from it. ( if value of desert < value of cesspool + value of profit.) CNGOV decided that was a good trade, and I (strongly) agree. The BBC http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth did not. (lake here https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C2%B037'32.9%22N+109%C2%B040'10.1%22E/@40.6257967,109.66948,5179m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0 ) (game theory and fluctuating public opinion makes natural protection not a good thing to leave to markets)

If we do have that system

...

we *should* use it.

Statism? That system is designed to benefit special interests. Unless you belong to some special faction, it won't do you any good.

I meant, if we have a good way to generate general interest choices (or, idk, "appropriate" interest choices) then we should use it. I think the "special interest" should be humanity as a whole, averaged with SUM(PERSON_i)

...

And we can use it to determine the absolute widest boundaries of what is permitted, boundaries which you may not wander out of.

Determine, how?

Through the political system. It depends on the system of course. Related; I think we can produce a formal logic for politics. It can model the effects of a policy choice, and project them into a single dimension. The single dimension is "desirability" or "euro's", it's supposed to be the same thing anyway. It'll be very challenging to do that formal logic properly. I don't think it's useful in every situation. Mapping is easy for economic situations, but very hard for emotions. Particularly challenging would be, say, family law. When is it reasonable to split a family? When Suffering_family < Suffering_society? Not if you prefer to leave people alone, then it's Suffering_family + neutrality_bias < Suffering_society. Also, both Suffering_family and Suffering_society will be the results of combining a very large amount of factors. One could model the amount of coercion upon an actor, how much a tax exemption would create incentives. I'm sorry for not having good examples. My understanding of formal logic is not that great, and I haven't actually tried to model a government's considerations. I think formal logic is the successor of "legalese", harder to speak and read, but once the mapping and relating is done the reasoning is absolute. Much easier to find mistakes, be precise, and much harder to make mistakes regarding governance. (note: formal logics dealing with fuzziness are even much harder to write/read, but will be a definite must)

...

We can produce incentive schemes, to encourage the correct behavior.

What is the 'correct' behaviour?

For the system's actors to behave as they should, as determined by the system. In a republic a politician is intended to act in the best interest of its supporters. Businesses can at times provide great enough incentive to causes them to act otherwise.

...

In fact, if the system works it needs no restrictions.

We've yet to find a system that works.

Define 'works'.

Does what it says on the tin.

...

...

Come on Lodewijk. Why don't you do your homework? Learn the ABC of poltical theory.

I tried doing homework, but the books were full of propaganda.

Well yes, there are varying levels of propaganda in political philosophy. There are some sound principles too.

You think people should be free, and things organized according to 'market principles' in some areas, but not in others. Problem is, being 'free' to follow arbitrary rules isn't exactly freedom.

Freedom is not very strongly defined anyway. It means you can't be "forced" to do something, but it's very rare for death not to be an alternative choice. Reality narrows our choices most significantly, but through law and enforcement we can change the "economic landscape" and cause what once was the best choice ('deepest valley') to become only meh, or very not good ('high ridge'). I guess freedom is when you have no (clear) optimal choices, which isn't actually preferable. But I think we understand people so badly that it's better to make them responsible for their own mistakes, rather than sometimes make a wrong choice for them. As our understanding of "the human condition" grows, so does our ability to make choices that are actually better according to certain measures (certain measures because nihilism informs clearly that nothing truly matters). Perhaps freedom is being allowed to choose the measure. Mathematically it makes sense to have competition and free markets. In practice the actors do not obey perfectly, and cause a lot of reality. Additionally, while a market is finding it's optimum (the best way to do a certain thing) competition actually has significant cost. Sometimes reality shifts faster than markets anneal, and we get stuck with a lot of competition instead of expediting that energy to moving towards the ideal solution. (also game theory)

...

Do tell me Juan, how do we prevent a "criminal monopoly"? Isn't it better to make a very good "criminal monopoly"?

Literally? A very good criminal monopoly would excel at being criminal. I don't think that's what you want?

There you go using criminal as if it means something :) Uhm, the ideal criminal monopoly, to me, would be criminal enough to ensure it's own existence, and do things I like as well. Like advancing humanity. (competing with the aliens that might already be underway, or finding a way for them to want to join our superior political system so we may advance together against yet more aliens that might not exist, and then to delay the heat death of the universe, I suppose)

...

...

...

But, there is no nations.

Ah, so your monopoly of crime is going to tyranize the whole planet. Cute.

The system spans the globe, the crimes are all the peoples'.

Whatever. A world state is a pretty bad idea.

Depends on what it does. It sure beats having competing governments. Racism, inflation and excessive military power are what you get, not much more afaik. (and replication of efforts)

...

I have the right because I can. Powers *are* rights.

That's not what 'right(s)' means. Or rather that's the kind of 'rights' that governments rely upon. Arbitrary dictates backed by force.

Rights are defined by government, a self restraint alike "I'll never drink again". But I don't think that's very meaningful. Rights are supposed to be impossible to violate. If the government is incapable of violating the right, then it's a right. But by that point it's synonymous with a citizen's power. In practice "rights" are barriers, not absolute restraints. Ugh, linguistics. You are misunderstanding what natural rights are. Natural

rights are a more legalistic description of common sense morality.

You can probably kill a few random people right now if you want. Say, use a car to run people over. But the fact that you *can* kill people means killing people is morally right?

Same thing with natural rights. The fact that natural rights can be violated doesn't mean they don't exist.

Natural rights are entirely different from rights. It is as you say, a plea for encoding some specific morality into law. Claiming something is a natural right seems to imply that it's been a right since before the politics determined what is and isn't a right. I think it's pretty meaningless, but I deeply empathize with the emotions involved. I could hear myself screaming that my natural rights are being violated. (as a futile plea after I give up hope)

...

Ask the pigs, cows, rabbits, ferrits, birds, and all the other animals we do whatever we want to.

We are not talking about political philosophy applied to non-human animals right now.

I think if humans have natural rights, then why don't animals? Maybe you think they do, maybe you think they don't. But the same goes for humans, some people think something should be a right, some people don't. But for justice to be applied consistently we need there to be a clearly defined set of rules, so we should agree upon that set of rules. We're not very good at it :(

...

Ask the mountains thought to have spirits.

That's a poetic license.

Can't ignore a mountain's natural rights, man.

...

Listen to them and you will hear but weeping for lack of strength.

Ofc, I'm the asshole for saying this.

Well, at least you are sincere...

Thanks!

I would point out (again) that 1) your understanding of natural rights isn't...right. 2) that even current states pretend to get their powers from 'natural rights'.

I think my understanding is still not aligned. What states pretend to get their powers from 'natural rights'? I thought it used to be "God played lottery and my name came up" for kings, queens and pharaohs. And at some point that line could just be omitted because of legacy/buy-in. I think when a (messenger of) the state comes up and goes "you better pay your tax or I'll whip your ass" then that's, well, where they get their power, and natural rights don't really come into the whipping.

It's called 'representative government' and it's allegedly based on 'consent'. Look it up =P

Pretty sure it's more about whipping. If it really was consent I could send a letter to the king informing him I've had enough of his shit and I'll just fend for myself in the western sahara, or on a boat or something, but I think they'll still come get me if I break the law ((most) Dutch law applies to citizens abroad).

...

I think in practice it will be easier to make the system a compelling opt-in. If you don't want to be in it, it is probably not good enough.

Oh that's a good point. So now you wearing your anarchist hat? =P

It's my plan for world domination. I just make a system that's so nice everyone will come running. Probably easier than whipping everyone into obedience. It could even be no-conflict with the governments, running two systems in parallel until either gets attention starved.

...

It's a 'necessary evil'? (doubly retarded since you don't

...

believe in 'evil' eh? )

I honestly do not know.

This is a very complex issue spanning all industries. I think the patent system is a steaming pile of mercantile shit. The core idea is not so crazy though - idea's can be stolen, so they must be property. But you don't lose the idea when it gets stolen.

It ruins the creative industries - we've made our fantasies protected property, subject not to the potential for art but the will of businessmen. Countless stories go untold. The stories that do get told are smudged with corporate inserts and ruinous inserted political messages. (look for racism/feminist inserts, they're everywhere and they usually fail to actually be unracist or feminist)

Yep.

Thanks for showing me the word mercantile. It's like a newspeak thinkbarrier is lifted.

I don't see where this goes. Perhaps a powers = rights argument?

It's a reductio ad absurdum of the "power = rights" argument.

"might makes right" is sarcasm, not a literal statement.

Ah, yes. The syntactic similarity of right and rights.

2015-11-01 23:34 GMT+01:00 Juan :

...

Consistently applied and effective justice The state doesn't provide justice.

Hence I am upset with it.

...

I think it's important to create law that's conservative and very morally and ethically neutral. OK. At this point you are pretty much some kind of bot.

I think justice should not depend upon ethics very much at all. You don't know what justice is.

What, because law is made by criminals, for criminals? idk why you don't like law. I guess you'd rather grab a horse, a sack, and a rope, and call that justice. Ethical considerations like animal rights should not encode into strict law. Same goes for drugs, sexuality, etc. Because these things are difficult and I am not going to hurt people (punish them) for something that might be fine, depending on how you look at it.

...

Abstaining from violence? States are the most violent

...

organizations on the planet.

It's a fucking for virginity kind of thing.

Yes, that's your position. A clear contradiction in terms. An absurdity. Nonsense.

You are supposed to present some kind of rational argument here. Crass contradictions are just the opposite of rational argument.

The game is totally and completely over and you lost big time.

You know, when I answer with a joke it's probably because I couldn't bother to bridge to your level of stupidity. Sorry for letting that out, but compare the Wild West to the Roman Empire, compare African tribes to old Japan. Structured violence can decrease overall violence. If that's beyond you, well, I guess that's why 100% consent is not an option.

...

As to the complex arrangements

...

that can exist in a society, you don't need the state to

...

have them.

True, but we have made it far easier by ways of state.

False.

I explained in detail why this is. If you didn't get the "costs of enforcement" argument you're allowed to admit it. Hell, you might try providing any argument yourself instead of responding to mine. (to recap: if it costs 100 bucks to enforce a contract, the contract will not at all protect any damage below 100 bucks. Without governance the cost of strict enforcement is huge. You may also be in no position at all to enforce a contract, like when your adversary is more powerful than you)

...

It's also debatable why huge organizations are 'valuable'. Economies of scale is one reason. The other is singular ginormous efforts. The pyramids are an example, but also the space race, this boat

What are you talking about. Who gives a fuck about the pyramids or the space race?

Oh you think people should be sacrificed for your retarded collective pet projects?

...

Not just commerce; CERN is awesome!

cern is a useless piece of shit - it's welfare for scammers who pretend to be 'scientists'.

You're like a redneck piece of shit or something. To call CERN scammers ... you must be seriously troubled. And, actually, yeah, I think humanity is pretty much nothing but little pet projects. I think bigger and cooler pet projects are practically all we can hope for.

...

...

...

We can produce incentive schemes, to encourage the correct behavior.

What is the 'correct' behaviour?

For the system's actors to behave as they should, as determined by the system.

Do you have anything else apart from blatant contradictions and cicular 'logic'?

I know it's hard to reason with undefined variables, but the system was instantiated as "some organization that can generate 'appropriate' political decisions", where I marked "appropriate" such that you might understand it is an undefined variable, that I cannot fill in just like that. It's not the first time you've failed to grasp my meaning, and responded unkindly to the shadows you drew instead. "Freedom is not very strongly defined anyway"

More meaningless rambling. Are you high or something?

Nah, I'm fundamental. If you think the word freedom has a good exact meaning, well, fuck you for keeping it to yourself.

...

Mathematically it makes sense to have competition and free markets.

LMAO. Mathematics is for counting stuff.

Continuing in the same vein as the CERN comment. Sad.

...

There you go using criminal as if it means something :)

It means nothing to amoralist nutcases.

Well, at least I don't think I'm the source and means of justice.

...

Uhm, the ideal criminal monopoly, to me, would be criminal enough to ensure it's own existence, and do things I like as well. Like advancing humanity.

lol...

Shouldn't you learn the ABC and master BASIC LOGICAL THINKING before trying to 'advance humanity'?

Are you fucking crazy? You can't grasp BASIC LOGIC and yet you want to 'advance humanity'??

Like, I dunno Juan, I'm really trying here. I thought you were about to start explaining what you think, but here you are, spewing meaningless offense again. I mean, I learned some formal logic, you'd say that's a superset of basic logic. UKGOV (through cie http://cie.org.uk/) even certified me for critical thinking which, I think, involved some logic. I mean I got a pretty bad grade, but I think it is because I merely skimmed the book the day before the exam and dedicated my essay to shitting on the BBC and how they're pressured for time in a world with bad journalism and lack specific expertise to discuss complex topics, but whatever.

Rights are defined by government, Are you completely retarded or what.

Doctors say no, Juan says yes, the mystery continues... Did you ever go for a mental checkup? Or did you prefer the criminals keep their scary tentacles away from you?

...

You are misunderstanding what natural rights are. Natural

...

rights are a more legalistic description of common sense morality.

You can probably kill a few random people right now if you want. Say, use a car to run people over. But the fact that you *can* kill people means killing people is morally right?

Same thing with natural rights. The fact that natural rights can be violated doesn't mean they don't exist.

Natural rights are entirely different from rights. It is as you say, a plea for encoding some specific morality into law. Claiming something is a natural right seems to imply that it's been a right since before the politics determined what is and isn't a right. I think it's pretty meaningless,

Because you are some kind of psycho.

Poor alternative to admitting natural rights are just propagandaspeak for a proposed core/basic/minimal morality, and adjusting how you think about them.

...

...

...

Ask the mountains thought to have spirits.

That's a poetic license.

Can't ignore a mountain's natural rights, man.

Fuck you.

I feel your pain, but please direct your frustration towards the mountain. It knows how to help you.

2015-11-02 22:05 GMT+01:00 Razer :

On 11/02/2015 12:35 PM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

Sorry for letting that out, but compare the Wild West to the Roman Empire, compare African tribes to old Japan. Structured violence can decrease overall violence.

Glad you used the word "Can", as in not indicating that would ever really happen. You've got to be nuts to believe this. The industrialized world kills MILLIONS of innocent civilians every year in their wars alone, no less the casualty count from falling into a vat of some 'food product' at some centralized food factory somewhere and drowning in it.

It's unlikely that all the warriors Genghis Khan ever mustered had collectively even eyeballed a million people in their lifetimes.

What do you mean? Seriously! Millions of civilians a year? What??? WW1 totalled < 260k WW2 totalled < 55000k (including famine and disease related) Afghan war totals < 3k (including anti-US casualties) Or, more completely, "In 2013 war resulted in 31,000 deaths down from 72,000 deaths in 1990." from wikipedia, after http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(14)61682-2.pdf (thanks Bill) Industrial casualties are (usually..) actively minimized, and are doubtless lower per product produced than they were in whatever method came before. In the US in 2014 there were 4679 workers killed in total (according to OSHA https://www.osha.gov/oshstats/commonstats.html), but obviously that number will be better than in less developed nations. Not seeing your point. The Ghenghis Khan comment is like.. what? The Mongol conquest killed over 40 million according to wiki! I might write to /dev/null instead if this is all the response I get..

On 11/2/15, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

2015-11-02 22:05 GMT+01:00 Razer :

...

It's unlikely that all the warriors Genghis Khan ever mustered had collectively even eyeballed a million people in their lifetimes.

What do you mean? Seriously! Millions of civilians a year? What???

WW1 totalled < 260k WW2 totalled < 55000k (including famine and disease related)

Huh? Dunno where you figures are coming from. Let's pick the hardest hit country, for those who just maybe missed it, my current favourite country, Russia: "World War II casualties of the Soviet Union from all related causes were over 20,000,000, both civilians and military, although the statistics vary to a great extent largely because these figures are currently disputed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union Certainly above 55k. Perhaps I missed what the numbers you posted are meant to mean. Apologies if that's the case.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:39:13 -0800 Razer wrote:

Mongols/40M I'm not buying at all.

yeah, sounds like western propaganda, but even if true, it would be just another example of atate-organized violence. Or are we supposed to believe that mongol armies were an example of natural rights anarchy at work.

On 11/2/15, Razer wrote:

On 11/02/2015 03:12 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

On 11/2/15, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

2015-11-02 22:05 GMT+01:00 Razer :

...

It's unlikely that all the warriors Genghis Khan ever mustered had collectively even eyeballed a million people in their lifetimes. What do you mean? Seriously! Millions of civilians a year? What???

WW1 totalled < 260k WW2 totalled < 55000k (including famine and disease related) Huh? Dunno where you figures are coming from. Let's pick the hardest

If "55000k" means 55 thousand thousand it comes a little closer.

My bad, thanks. Mental muscle memory kicked in on seeing a number followed by "k". 55M would have landed correctly. Apologies for the noise.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 23:35:03 +0100 Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

I might write to /dev/null instead

yes, please, do. That's where your mental garbage belongs.

On 10/29/15, Juan wrote:

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:19:29 +0100 Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

...

But coercion for the better is really not that bad.)

Okay. You can keep repeating the same totalitarian 'progressive' nonsense ad nauseam. But I had enough.

I have to agree with Juan, and this is a 'fundamental' for me - Fabianism, Gradualism, Fascism etc, from Stalin to Pol Pot to Syria's al-Abad - and plenty of us Westernites, so "schooled" in "the greater good": "coercion for the better is really not that bad" is just another way to say "the ends justifies the means", or it's younger sibling "I was just doing my job." And this fundamental evil pervades most of the world today. As Juan keeps reminding us over and over again. "if we just coerce people a little, not too much now, for their own interests, then things will get better" "if we just kill enough bad people, we'll be left with mostly good people, and the world will be a better place" Whether a little, or a lot, coercion ends in the cult of the state imposing death upon the people (that's us by the way). History shows us this over and again. The recent blog post summary of the post-1944 escapades in Syria is a classic case in point. Pol Pot revisited, "Nazi-style experiments" and all: http://www.wnd.com/1999/06/3715/ --- You can hear it: " I know how to get to Utopia - just coerce a little, apply a little force, restrain a few, torture but rarely, kill only when needed. I shall wield the force of coercion to get us there, to Utopia [I was going to say "coercion in all its despotic forms" but all forms of coercion -are- despotic so that would either be seen correctly as a tautology, or incorrectly as a subset of the types of coercion]. Give me the power to wield the force and I shall apply it to the non-believers who would stop us from getting quickly to Utopia. So, quickly must we eradicate the forces opposing Utopia! Do you believe? Only the superior believe. Only the superior can make it to Utopia, can be Utopia. We must eradicate all the inferior. Produce your papers please! " The road to hell IS paved with good intentions. The ends DO NOT justify the means. Leave others, that is, everyone but yourself, leave us the fuck alone! Seems we are inexorably entering ... Juan's world. Z

| The road to hell IS paved with good intentions. The ends DO NOT | justify the means. Leave others, that is, everyone but yourself, leave | us the fuck alone! look up "algorithmic regulation" ... soon enough there will be no one to argue with in the sense of no person who made the decision with which you find yourself disagreeing. --dan