I am the legitimate owner of the universe.
-
henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
philosopher sez: What's bad about it?
atavist sez: eloi & morlocks
-
henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.
There is a fundamental difference in these two ways of being
sure one is slave, the other is slaver
eloi & morkocks
what about the rest?
the folks who choose not to enslave or be slaved: what's your plan for these square pegs?
sure one is slave, the other is slaver
eloi & morkocks
what about the rest?
the folks who choose not to enslave or be slaved: what's your plan for these square pegs?
Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=472975 time=1600900532 user_id=472]
[b]There is a fundamental difference in these two ways of being[/b]
sure one is slave, the other is slaver
eloi & morkocks
what about the rest?
the folks who choose not to enslave or be slaved: what's your plan for these square pegs?
[/quote]
There can be many levels of involvement in society, and many levels of involvement in running society. The difference is that one must be granted as a right and the other must be earned as a privilege.
[b]There is a fundamental difference in these two ways of being[/b]
sure one is slave, the other is slaver
eloi & morkocks
what about the rest?
the folks who choose not to enslave or be slaved: what's your plan for these square pegs?
[/quote]
There can be many levels of involvement in society, and many levels of involvement in running society. The difference is that one must be granted as a right and the other must be earned as a privilege.
-
henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
finer clay: you?
If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? F. BastiatAdvocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:44 pmThere can be many levels of involvement in society, and many levels of involvement in running society. The difference is that one must be granted as a right and the other must be earned as a privilege.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:35 pm There is a fundamental difference in these two ways of being
sure one is slave, the other is slaver
eloi & morkocks
what about the rest?
the folks who choose not to enslave or be slaved: what's your plan for these square pegs?
Re: you're a bad philosopher and, mebbe, a bad person
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=472979 time=1600902085 user_id=472]
[quote=Advocate post_id=472977 time=1600901052 user_id=15238]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=472975 time=1600900532 user_id=472]
[b]There is a fundamental difference in these two ways of being[/b]
sure one is slave, the other is slaver
eloi & morkocks
what about the rest?
the folks who choose not to enslave or be slaved: what's your plan for these square pegs?
[/quote]
There can be many levels of involvement in society, and many levels of involvement in running society. The difference is that one must be granted as a right and the other must be earned as a privilege.
[/quote]
[b]If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?[/B] F. Bastiat
[/quote]
There are those made of finer clay. It's true and it's meaningful and it's necessary not just to acknowledge it but to embrace it. Our outer brains are the most advanced, most capable thing that evolution has ever produced. Only utter fools don't grant it primary respect.
There are a number of reasons that The State is necessary but the main one is that people choose it. The state of nature wasn't sufficient and we've been trying to make up for it every since. The further from nature we are, the better things are. Nature is a vicious whore and the entire project of civilisation is to overcome those difficulties, Especially the chaotic randomness.
Second, there will always be someone with the most people and they will always work to gain more until someone had the most forever. This is a fact that cannot be overlooked or overcome. Our project is to accept and manage the interest risks so they aren't problems. If they're interested problems then it doesn't matter because we're Doomed!
This is why libertarianism is the second priority. Control first creates problems that can be overcome with different controls. Freedom first creates problems only control can overcome. There will be a single over-state. We must ensure its based in necessity and values truth and freedom as highly as possible.
"Who gets to decide?" is a problem but it cannot overturn simple necessity in importance. We can test for those things, and we can do it well. We must embrace merit, in particular intellectual merit, for the good of everyone. It's not optional.
[quote=Advocate post_id=472977 time=1600901052 user_id=15238]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=472975 time=1600900532 user_id=472]
[b]There is a fundamental difference in these two ways of being[/b]
sure one is slave, the other is slaver
eloi & morkocks
what about the rest?
the folks who choose not to enslave or be slaved: what's your plan for these square pegs?
[/quote]
There can be many levels of involvement in society, and many levels of involvement in running society. The difference is that one must be granted as a right and the other must be earned as a privilege.
[/quote]
[b]If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?[/B] F. Bastiat
[/quote]
There are those made of finer clay. It's true and it's meaningful and it's necessary not just to acknowledge it but to embrace it. Our outer brains are the most advanced, most capable thing that evolution has ever produced. Only utter fools don't grant it primary respect.
There are a number of reasons that The State is necessary but the main one is that people choose it. The state of nature wasn't sufficient and we've been trying to make up for it every since. The further from nature we are, the better things are. Nature is a vicious whore and the entire project of civilisation is to overcome those difficulties, Especially the chaotic randomness.
Second, there will always be someone with the most people and they will always work to gain more until someone had the most forever. This is a fact that cannot be overlooked or overcome. Our project is to accept and manage the interest risks so they aren't problems. If they're interested problems then it doesn't matter because we're Doomed!
This is why libertarianism is the second priority. Control first creates problems that can be overcome with different controls. Freedom first creates problems only control can overcome. There will be a single over-state. We must ensure its based in necessity and values truth and freedom as highly as possible.
"Who gets to decide?" is a problem but it cannot overturn simple necessity in importance. We can test for those things, and we can do it well. We must embrace merit, in particular intellectual merit, for the good of everyone. It's not optional.
-
henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.
There are those made of finer clay. It's true and it's meaningful and it's necessary not just to acknowledge it but to embrace it. Our outer brains are the most advanced, most capable thing that evolution has ever produced. Only utter fools don't grant it primary respect.
I admire intelligence & capability, but I won't defer to it
There are a number of reasons that The State is necessary but the main one is that people choose it. The state of nature wasn't sufficient and we've been trying to make up for it every since. The further from nature we are, the better things are. Nature is a vicious whore and the entire project of civilisation is to overcome those difficulties, Especially the chaotic randomness.
people choose to organize & cooperate, voluntarily; the state imposes
no one chooses the state ('cept, mebbe, folks callin' the shots)
Second, there will always be someone with the most people and they will always work to gain more until someone had the most forever. This is a fact that cannot be overlooked or overcome. Our project is to accept and manage the interest risks so they aren't problems. If they're interested problems then it doesn't matter because we're Doomed!
This makes no sense to me
This is why libertarianism is the second priority. Control first creates problems that can be overcome with different controls. Freedom first creates problems only control can overcome. There will be a single over-state. We must ensure its based in necessity and values truth and freedom as highly as possible.
to be free you must be controlled: you see no problem with this, yeah?
"Who gets to decide?" is a problem but it cannot overturn simple necessity in importance. We can test for those things, and we can do it well. We must embrace merit, in particular intellectual merit, for the good of everyone. It's not optional.
I ain't seein' that technocrats have any better a track record than any other set of busy-bodies...so: I'll pass
I admire intelligence & capability, but I won't defer to it
There are a number of reasons that The State is necessary but the main one is that people choose it. The state of nature wasn't sufficient and we've been trying to make up for it every since. The further from nature we are, the better things are. Nature is a vicious whore and the entire project of civilisation is to overcome those difficulties, Especially the chaotic randomness.
people choose to organize & cooperate, voluntarily; the state imposes
no one chooses the state ('cept, mebbe, folks callin' the shots)
Second, there will always be someone with the most people and they will always work to gain more until someone had the most forever. This is a fact that cannot be overlooked or overcome. Our project is to accept and manage the interest risks so they aren't problems. If they're interested problems then it doesn't matter because we're Doomed!
This makes no sense to me
This is why libertarianism is the second priority. Control first creates problems that can be overcome with different controls. Freedom first creates problems only control can overcome. There will be a single over-state. We must ensure its based in necessity and values truth and freedom as highly as possible.
to be free you must be controlled: you see no problem with this, yeah?
"Who gets to decide?" is a problem but it cannot overturn simple necessity in importance. We can test for those things, and we can do it well. We must embrace merit, in particular intellectual merit, for the good of everyone. It's not optional.
I ain't seein' that technocrats have any better a track record than any other set of busy-bodies...so: I'll pass
Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.
>I admire intelligence & capability, but I won't defer to it
If we won't put the best of us first, what will we put first?
>people choose to organize & cooperate, voluntarily; the state [i]imposes[/i]
The difference is in the legitimacy of the state. You've included an extra variable of idiots. We need not let idiots in. And we need to dispense with the bullshit that "even intelligent people can disagree..." Not if they have access to the same information and their priorities are straight. A legitimate state works for the good of every individual, not merely the collective. And it has a legitimate way to opt out.
no one chooses the state ('cept, mebbe, folks callin' the shots)
Not in the current state of affairs. I'm taking about the OUGHTs, not the ISes.
>>[b]Second, there will always be someone with the most people and they will always work to gain more until someone had the most forever. This is a fact that cannot be overlooked or overcome. Our project is to accept and manage the interest risks so they aren't problems. If they're interested problems then it doesn't matter because we're Doomed! [/b]
>This makes no sense to me
*the most power, *inherent risks, *intractable problems, *duck autocorrect
>[i]to be free you must be controlled[/i]: you see no problem with this, yeah?
Nope. The principle is "Necessity trumps."
>I ain't seein' that technocrats have any better a track record than any other set of busy-bodies...so: I'll pass.
"Nobody for President! 2020" Y'all libertarians crack me up.
If we won't put the best of us first, what will we put first?
>people choose to organize & cooperate, voluntarily; the state [i]imposes[/i]
The difference is in the legitimacy of the state. You've included an extra variable of idiots. We need not let idiots in. And we need to dispense with the bullshit that "even intelligent people can disagree..." Not if they have access to the same information and their priorities are straight. A legitimate state works for the good of every individual, not merely the collective. And it has a legitimate way to opt out.
no one chooses the state ('cept, mebbe, folks callin' the shots)
Not in the current state of affairs. I'm taking about the OUGHTs, not the ISes.
>>[b]Second, there will always be someone with the most people and they will always work to gain more until someone had the most forever. This is a fact that cannot be overlooked or overcome. Our project is to accept and manage the interest risks so they aren't problems. If they're interested problems then it doesn't matter because we're Doomed! [/b]
>This makes no sense to me
*the most power, *inherent risks, *intractable problems, *duck autocorrect
>[i]to be free you must be controlled[/i]: you see no problem with this, yeah?
Nope. The principle is "Necessity trumps."
>I ain't seein' that technocrats have any better a track record than any other set of busy-bodies...so: I'll pass.
"Nobody for President! 2020" Y'all libertarians crack me up.
-
henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.
If we won't put the best of us first, what will we put first?
intelligence & capability is no guarantee of superiority or nobility or character
The difference is in the legitimacy of the state. You've included an extra variable of idiots. We need not let idiots in. And we need to dispense with the bullshit that "even intelligent people can disagree..." Not if they have access to the same information and their priorities are straight. A legitimate state works for the good of every individual, not merely the collective. And it has a legitimate way to opt out.
how do we keep idiots out?
man is not a rational being, but a reasoning one...access to the same information is no guarantee of agreement between two intelligent, but opposed, people...as for priorities: good luck gettin' consensus
gimme an opt out and you can have whatever state you like
Nope. The principle is "Necessity trumps."
whose necessity?
"Nobody for President! 2020"
eventually, yeah...we aren't there yet
intelligence & capability is no guarantee of superiority or nobility or character
The difference is in the legitimacy of the state. You've included an extra variable of idiots. We need not let idiots in. And we need to dispense with the bullshit that "even intelligent people can disagree..." Not if they have access to the same information and their priorities are straight. A legitimate state works for the good of every individual, not merely the collective. And it has a legitimate way to opt out.
how do we keep idiots out?
man is not a rational being, but a reasoning one...access to the same information is no guarantee of agreement between two intelligent, but opposed, people...as for priorities: good luck gettin' consensus
gimme an opt out and you can have whatever state you like
Nope. The principle is "Necessity trumps."
whose necessity?
"Nobody for President! 2020"
eventually, yeah...we aren't there yet
Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.
>ntelligence & capability is no guarantee of superiority or nobility or character
Intellect is the basic capacity to make good decisions, and you're right, of course, that conscientiousness is also required, but not necessarily. In a well enough designed system, a computer could do it. Conscientiousness alone, however, could never be sufficient. The priorities are clear.
>how do we keep idiots out?
A good start might be to acknowledge the actual and relative worth of the three requirements above.
>man is not a rational being, but a reasoning one...access to the same information is no guarantee of agreement between two intelligent, but opposed, people...as for priorities: good luck gettin' consensus
If we can't get consensus on priorities we're Doomed!, as i believe is the case, but in the meantime let's not wish our way into it. I've never disagreed with an intelligent person so long as we could actually hash out the details, particularly definitions, which is the strength of my offering.
>gimme an opt out and you can have whatever state you like
If the social contract isn't explicit and consensual it's a space state.
>whose necessity?
That's where priorities come in, but we can start with survival and opportunity for self-discovery and growth. Those are universally positive values.
"Who gets to decide?" is a whole slew of separate discussions.
Intellect is the basic capacity to make good decisions, and you're right, of course, that conscientiousness is also required, but not necessarily. In a well enough designed system, a computer could do it. Conscientiousness alone, however, could never be sufficient. The priorities are clear.
>how do we keep idiots out?
A good start might be to acknowledge the actual and relative worth of the three requirements above.
>man is not a rational being, but a reasoning one...access to the same information is no guarantee of agreement between two intelligent, but opposed, people...as for priorities: good luck gettin' consensus
If we can't get consensus on priorities we're Doomed!, as i believe is the case, but in the meantime let's not wish our way into it. I've never disagreed with an intelligent person so long as we could actually hash out the details, particularly definitions, which is the strength of my offering.
>gimme an opt out and you can have whatever state you like
If the social contract isn't explicit and consensual it's a space state.
>whose necessity?
That's where priorities come in, but we can start with survival and opportunity for self-discovery and growth. Those are universally positive values.
"Who gets to decide?" is a whole slew of separate discussions.
-
henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.
a computer could do it
no, dr. forbin: I don't want colossus
If we can't get consensus on priorities we're Doomed!
if we have to become cogs to survive then mebbe doomed! is for the best
I've never disagreed with an intelligent person so long as we could actually hash out the details, particularly definitions, which is the strength of my offering.
what you suggest, with your libertarian fascism, is freedom through slavery: am I wrong? if I am, how?
That's where priorities come in, but we can start with survival and opportunity for self-discovery and growth. Those are universally positive values.
belongin' to one's self, that there is universal too
"Who gets to decide?" is a whole slew of separate discussions.
no better time than now, no better place than here
no, dr. forbin: I don't want colossus
If we can't get consensus on priorities we're Doomed!
if we have to become cogs to survive then mebbe doomed! is for the best
I've never disagreed with an intelligent person so long as we could actually hash out the details, particularly definitions, which is the strength of my offering.
what you suggest, with your libertarian fascism, is freedom through slavery: am I wrong? if I am, how?
That's where priorities come in, but we can start with survival and opportunity for self-discovery and growth. Those are universally positive values.
belongin' to one's self, that there is universal too
"Who gets to decide?" is a whole slew of separate discussions.
no better time than now, no better place than here
Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.
>if we have to become cogs to survive then mebbe [i]doomed![/i] is for the best
The proper framework for society is a steel cage of necessity within which freedom and diversity are encouraged to flourish.
>what you suggest, with your libertarian fascism, is [i]freedom through slavery[/i]: am I wrong? if I am, how?
You're taking the fascist thing in a completely different direction than anything i'm suggesting. Maximizing freedom is the purpose of mandating necessities.
>belongin' to one's self, that there is universal too
Yes, there must be a meaningful way to opt out but no the over-state cannot allow nuclear weapon parts to circulate in the "free" zone..
>>[b]"Who gets to decide?" is a whole slew of separate discussions.[/b]
>no better time than [i]now[/i], no better place than [i]here[/i]
The best place to start is defining the question. The intent is to select, without bias, the group of individuals best suited to make good decisions at scales which have significant effects on strangers' lives, or something like that?
The proper framework for society is a steel cage of necessity within which freedom and diversity are encouraged to flourish.
>what you suggest, with your libertarian fascism, is [i]freedom through slavery[/i]: am I wrong? if I am, how?
You're taking the fascist thing in a completely different direction than anything i'm suggesting. Maximizing freedom is the purpose of mandating necessities.
>belongin' to one's self, that there is universal too
Yes, there must be a meaningful way to opt out but no the over-state cannot allow nuclear weapon parts to circulate in the "free" zone..
>>[b]"Who gets to decide?" is a whole slew of separate discussions.[/b]
>no better time than [i]now[/i], no better place than [i]here[/i]
The best place to start is defining the question. The intent is to select, without bias, the group of individuals best suited to make good decisions at scales which have significant effects on strangers' lives, or something like that?
-
Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.
There's so much mixed up about this.
Firstly, "necessities" do not have to be "mandated." If they are philosophically "necessary," it means they happen anyway. They are certain and predetermined to happen, because they always must happen. That's what makes them "necessary" and not "contingent."
Your reference to "steel cage" suggests no options, possibilities or other ways. But if you already have a steel cage, then you don't need to make any case for it, since it will not be ruptured anyway.
Secondly, "mandating" it the opposite of "leaving free." So if you "mandate" you don't "maximize" freedom; you reduce or eliminate it, in some respect.
Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.
>Firstly, "necessities" do not have to be "mandated." If they are philosophically "necessary," it means they happen anyway.
practically necessary
practically necessary
-
henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.
The proper framework for society is a steel cage of necessity within which freedom and diversity are encouraged to flourish.
a society, ideally, is folks freely livin' & transactn' with one another...no steel cage required
You're taking the fascist thing in a completely different direction than anything i'm suggesting. Maximizing freedom is the purpose of mandating necessities.
the eloi are free, the morlocks mandate
Yes, there must be a meaningful way to opt out but no the over-state cannot allow nuclear weapon parts to circulate in the "free" zone..
you can't have a free zone and a steel cage at the same time...the eloi in the cage, some might wake up and want out...the humans in the free zone might take offense to the cage and orchestrate a jail break
you'll have to choose one or the other
The best place to start is defining the question. The intent is to select, without bias, the group of individuals best suited to make good decisions at scales which have significant effects on strangers' lives, or something like that?
well, there's one insurmountable right there: bias (perspective) is a normal facet of human psychology
a society, ideally, is folks freely livin' & transactn' with one another...no steel cage required
You're taking the fascist thing in a completely different direction than anything i'm suggesting. Maximizing freedom is the purpose of mandating necessities.
the eloi are free, the morlocks mandate
Yes, there must be a meaningful way to opt out but no the over-state cannot allow nuclear weapon parts to circulate in the "free" zone..
you can't have a free zone and a steel cage at the same time...the eloi in the cage, some might wake up and want out...the humans in the free zone might take offense to the cage and orchestrate a jail break
you'll have to choose one or the other
The best place to start is defining the question. The intent is to select, without bias, the group of individuals best suited to make good decisions at scales which have significant effects on strangers' lives, or something like that?
well, there's one insurmountable right there: bias (perspective) is a normal facet of human psychology
Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.
>a society, ideally, is folks freely livin' & transactn' with one another...no steel cage required
There will be a steel cage one way or the other. I'm suggesting it be intentional, necessary, and as unobtrusive as possible.
>the eloi are [i]free[/i], the morlocks [i]mandate[/i]
The Morlock are free to live out their best selves Because of the mandates of the Eloi who keep things running. Left to their own devices they'd have chaos and death, same as we have back here in the 21st century where there's a Morlock majority and the Eloi aren't in charge.
>you can't have a [i]free zone[/i] and a [i]steel cage[/i] at the same time...the eloi in the cage, some might wake up and want out...the humans in the free zone might take offense to the cage and orchestrate a jail break
Yes you can. It's a matter of priorities. Safety comes first, which happens to require control, as a prerequisite for all else. Truth comes first in the non-material realm as a prerequisite for all else. The free zone doesn't mean outside necessity, obviously. It's still necessary to not allow bad people to have too much freedom (ability to accumulate power). A free zone would exist for about a day if it was as free as you seem to want.
>you'll have to choose one or the other
Nope, thinking it's a choice is why we have chaos now. It is not possible to respect everyone as equals and create a well-functioning society - that's the dichotomy. A free zone can Only exist within a structured framework of necessity, otherwise it's called chaos.
>well, there's one insurmountable right there: bias (perspective) is a normal facet of human psychology
Perspective is one of three contingencies that must be accounted for; salience, perspective, and priority. I've just mounted your insurmountable in one sentence. Finding the framework for understanding that does the best work is a possible task, not an impossible one, and your way of thinking is precisely why philosophy goes nowhere. There are meaningful answers to Every question and Every problem if you apply the right understanding.
There will be a steel cage one way or the other. I'm suggesting it be intentional, necessary, and as unobtrusive as possible.
>the eloi are [i]free[/i], the morlocks [i]mandate[/i]
The Morlock are free to live out their best selves Because of the mandates of the Eloi who keep things running. Left to their own devices they'd have chaos and death, same as we have back here in the 21st century where there's a Morlock majority and the Eloi aren't in charge.
>you can't have a [i]free zone[/i] and a [i]steel cage[/i] at the same time...the eloi in the cage, some might wake up and want out...the humans in the free zone might take offense to the cage and orchestrate a jail break
Yes you can. It's a matter of priorities. Safety comes first, which happens to require control, as a prerequisite for all else. Truth comes first in the non-material realm as a prerequisite for all else. The free zone doesn't mean outside necessity, obviously. It's still necessary to not allow bad people to have too much freedom (ability to accumulate power). A free zone would exist for about a day if it was as free as you seem to want.
>you'll have to choose one or the other
Nope, thinking it's a choice is why we have chaos now. It is not possible to respect everyone as equals and create a well-functioning society - that's the dichotomy. A free zone can Only exist within a structured framework of necessity, otherwise it's called chaos.
>well, there's one insurmountable right there: bias (perspective) is a normal facet of human psychology
Perspective is one of three contingencies that must be accounted for; salience, perspective, and priority. I've just mounted your insurmountable in one sentence. Finding the framework for understanding that does the best work is a possible task, not an impossible one, and your way of thinking is precisely why philosophy goes nowhere. There are meaningful answers to Every question and Every problem if you apply the right understanding.