I am the legitimate owner of the universe.

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8828
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.

Post by henry quirk »

There will be a steel cage one way or the other.

why do self-directin', self-responsible folks need to be caged?


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.

the morlocks are cannibals; the eloi are livestock


Safety comes first

no, freedom comes first


Truth comes first in the non-material realm as a prerequisite for all else.

in context, the only truth that matters is a man belongs to himself


It's still necessary to not allow bad people to have too much freedom (ability to accumulate power).

bad by what definition? my definition differs from yours: why should I cast aside my assessments and adopt yours?


A free zone would exist for about a day if it was as free as you seem to want.

yeah, that's flash's view as well (in the why communism doesn't work thread)...there are little free zones all over the damn place...folks interactin' & transactin' peaceably cuz they choose to, not cuz they're forced to...can't see any reason why small free zones can't be large free zones


It is not possible to respect everyone as equals and create a well-functioning society

the only respect that need be shown by anyone to anyone is the recognition of the fact a person belongs to himself, his life, liberty, and property are his...mind that fact and *ta-da!* true civilization happens

I'd rather have civilization than society


define these...

salience

perspective

priority
Advocate
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.

Post by Advocate »

>why do self-directin', self-responsible folks need to be caged?

They don't. That's not the issue. As soon as one asshole or group of assholes gains more power than everyone else, which is inevitable because that's what assholes do ( power does not corrupt, it attracts the corruptible ) they will then perpetuate that power into the future, increase it, secure it, and that means a steel cage for everyone else, exactly as had happened all through history and beyond.

>the morlocks are cannibals; the eloi are livestock

If the Morlock don't care, what's the problem? If livestock live happy lives, why not eat them? If people don't want to rise above there animal nature, why make them? I believe in the responsibility for uplifting but if they have the meaningful ability to consent, let them choose to stay or try to change places. If they're capable, let them change places. If they're not, send them back, they can only cause harm in a higher position.

>no, freedom comes first

That can only end in chaos.

>in context, the only truth that matters is [i]a man belongs to himself[/i]

That's a wish, not a truth. Ownership is about certainty of access and control. A man Should belong to himself, and in a state of nature he does, but this is the state of organisation and civilisation we're discussing, in which context there must be reasonable compromises ensured, not total freedom.

[i]bad[/i] by what definition? my definition differs from yours: why should I cast aside my assessments and adopt yours?

It's contingent. If you want a well-functioning society and you understand the truth of my claims then you'll accept the inevitable result. Ideas must be taken to their logical extreme to check for errors. I go to the logical extreme immediately because i'm satisfied i have a valid and complete Enough answer to all contingencies and objections.

>yeah, that's flash's view as well (in the [i]why communism doesn't work[/i] thread)...there are little free zones all over the damn place...folks interactin' & transactin' peaceably cuz they choose to, not cuz they're forced to...can't see any reason why small free zones can't be large free zones

The difference is scale. At low numbers, ethics is in play. At higher numbers politics is in play, which means layers of complexity which Cannot be dealt with by the same rules. Environmental problems cannot and will not be solved by independent actors being conscientious. But they can be caused by individuals being free, which means there must be a larger power to manage the problem if it's to be managed at all. But i really don't need to demolish liberation principles here. They've never worked anywhere under any conditions at scale.

Individual dynamics aren't at play any longer in a society with lots of people, emergent properties are. An individual has no rights in absence of other people. Politics and economics don't exist in a family sized unit, etc.

>[i]salience[/i]

How strongly you care. ( entirely beyond your control, based on prior experience, current hormones, etc. ) Subconscious.

[i]perspective[/i]

Information ( including combinations leading to higher complexity understandings ) exclusively available to an individual (including place in space-time ). It can be modified in certain limited ways.

[i]priority[/i]

The intentional version of salience, precisely as useful as it is explicit.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8828
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.

Post by henry quirk »

As soon as one asshole or group of assholes gains more power than everyone else, which is inevitable because that's what assholes do ( power does not corrupt, it attracts the corruptible ) they will then perpetuate that power into the future, increase it, secure it, and that means a steel cage for everyone else, exactly as had happened all through history and beyond.

in your steel cage utopia how are these mercenary types blunted?


If the Morlock don't care, what's the problem?

ask the eloi, as the knife moves to his throat, who realizes -- too late -- what's about to happen, what's the problem?


That can only end in chaos.

how can self-direction & self-responsibility lead to chaos?


That's a wish, not a truth. Ownership is about certainty of access and control. A man Should belong to himself, and in a state of nature he does, but this is the state of organisation and civilisation we're discussing, in which context there must be reasonable compromises ensured, not total freedom.

the reasoning of a tyrant: reasonable compromises

and: a man belongs to himself as surely as fire is hot


I go to the logical extreme immediately because i'm satisfied i have a valid and complete Enough answer to all contingencies and objections.

the logical extreme of your thinkin' is hell...a global -- well-appointed, to be sure -- prison is still a prison

your rational calculations lack humanity


The difference is scale. At low numbers, ethics is in play. At higher numbers politics is in play, which means layers of complexity which Cannot be dealt with by the same rules.

nope

natural rights, moral fact don't diminish with scale changes


Environmental problems cannot and will not be solved by independent actors being conscientious.

there are no environmental problems ('cept, mebbe, on the local level)


But i really don't need to demolish liberation principles here. They've never worked anywhere under any conditions at scale.

'freedom doesn't work': already popped that bubble, I did


An individual has no rights in absence of other people.

explain, please


Politics and economics don't exist in a family sized unit, etc.

sez a man who has obviously never raised a kid on a budget

-----

salience: How strongly you care. ( entirely beyond your control, based on prior experience, current hormones, etc. ) Subconscious.

just perspctive (where you stand in relation to this or that)


perspective: Information ( including combinations leading to higher complexity understandings ) exclusively available to an individual (including place in space-time ). It can be modified in certain limited ways.

nope


priority: The intentional version of salience, precisely as useful as it is explicit.
[/quote]

just perspctive (where you stand in relation to this or that


from my place, where I stand: your ideas are awful...should they ever get traction in the real world, I will oppose them
Advocate
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.

Post by Advocate »

>in your steel cage utopia how are these mercenary types blunted?


A steel cage dystopia is the alternative.

Without the foundational elements of what purpose society serves when it's done right, there's no way to get there. In reality i think there is no solution and we're Doomed!, but in theory it's simple, get your priorities right and everything else will fall into place. The first priority of a society must be survival itself, of the individuals within it. If and when that is accomplished the priority must be to enable each individual to explore and become their best self. And so forth. Point being, happenstance will never be a good choice and arbitrary choices not backed by sufficient reason, as we have now, will never be good choices. Depending on whether you like the pragmatic or the idealistic approach, Truth is the first priority, but it's perfectly compatible with survival (and flourishing) even when it's not a prerequisite.

>ihow can self-direction & self-responsibility lead to chaos?

Because people have different levels of salience, perspective, and priority that aren't accounted for in your understanding. Like all libertarian notions it's dangerously simplistic. Human nature is not compatible with freedom except when our higher brains (individually) or smartest people (collectively) are explicitly in charge and deferred to. Constraints are inherent whether or not they're chosen. Allowing freedom first ensures that whoever gets s little more than their share of power first automatically becomes the defacto government and can proceed to create whatever cage they desire. And that's almost certainly going to be someone who doesn't give a flip for Your salience, perspective, or priorities.

Self-responsibility only works if everyone does it, which is impossible. Self-direction is only possible when it's intelligently guided to account for compromise at scale.

>the reasoning of a tyrant: [i]reasonable compromises[/i]

And reasonable compromise is different from the reasoning of a reasonable man how?

>and: a man belongs to himself as surely as fire is hot

How far does your ownership go? Try doing whatever you want that doesn't harm someone else and see how far you get. We should be able to own ourselves to the point of not harming others, but not completely. Society exists specifically to govern that compromise, and government is the practical extension of that necessary control.

>the logical extreme of your thinkin' is [i]hell[/i]...a global -- well-appointed, to be sure -- prison is still a prison

The choice isn't prison or no prison, it's bad prison or less bad prison.

>your rational calculations lack [i]humanity[/i]

Necessity trumps. Reason trumps. Only then can we Reasonably turn our attention to how people feel about it. When you're in the spaceship on a mission to save humanity and you put yourself out to save an individual you're a fucking moron, not a hero. (and those movies suck because they dispense with suspension of disbelief immediately when they let emotionally unstable people fly spaceships)

>natural rights, moral fact don't diminish with scale changes

Ok, the rights don't change, but they do come into conflict, that's the point. At scale you can't have the same ability to exercise your "inalienable" right, both for practical And moral reasons.

>>[b]An individual has no rights in absence of other people.[/b]

>explain, please

The concept of a right it's inseparable from the concept of responsibility. To have a (assume negative for now) right entails others having a responsibility to leave you alone in that regard. Having a responsibility means someone else has a right to expect certain behavior from you, such as in a contact. Neither can exist separately or individually. There's always a contractual element, the purpose of which is always to provide people with actionable certainty (the purpose of so knowledge, wisdom, and understanding).

>>[b]Politics and economics don't exist in a family sized unit, etc.[/b]

>sez a man who has obviously never raised a kid on a budget

No, i mean the words specifically include an element of scale. We have different words for similar dynamics that can be managed by good will and so forth. At scale those techniques are barely recognisable.

>>[b][i]salience[/i]: How strongly you care. ( entirely beyond your control, based on prior experience, current hormones, etc. ) Subconscious.[/b]

>just perspctive (where you stand in relation to [i]this[/i] or [i]that[/i])

You can see it as perspective but it's not malleable in the same way so it's more useful to not.

>>[i]perspective[/i]: Information ( including combinations leading to higher complexity understandings ) exclusively available to an individual (including place in space-time ). It can be modified in certain limited ways.

>nope

OK, let's have a question about perspective that this definition doesn't advance the understanding of.. Any one will do.

>>[i]priority[/i]: The intentional version of salience, precisely as useful as it is explicit.

>just perspctive (where you stand in relation to [i]this[/i] or [i]that[/i]

The three contingencies cannot be managed in the same way so for my purposes, finding answers, they cannot be considered the same.

>from my place, where I stand: your ideas are awful...should they ever get traction in the real world, I will oppose them

Please just foe me now. No point wasting time.

BTW, i'm still the legitimate owner of the universe.
commonsense
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.

Post by commonsense »

Poppycock. My cat is the legitimate owner.
Advocate
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.

Post by Advocate »

[quote=commonsense post_id=473207 time=1601066524 user_id=14610]
Poppycock. My cat is the legitimate owner.
[/quote]

Finally a True Argument!
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8828
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.

Post by henry quirk »

Truth is the first priority, but it's perfectly compatible with survival (and flourishing) even when it's not a prerequisite.

indeed...so: why do you keep ignorin' the truth?


Because people have different levels of salience, perspective, and priority that aren't accounted for in your understanding.

one, this is busy-body talk I know better than you what's best for you

two, you really don't understand people at all...you may be more autistic than you think


Like all libertarian notions it's dangerously simplistic. Human nature is not compatible with freedom except when our higher brains (individually) or smartest people (collectively) are explicitly in charge and deferred to.

well, now you're just talkin' out your keister...self-directin', self-responsible people require no authority; bad eggs ought not be the standard used (cuz they're the exceptions, not the baseline); smart folks aren't automatically qualified to do diddly


Constraints are inherent whether or not they're chosen.

self-constraint (self-responsibility) is a good thing; your lil straightjacket, nope


Allowing freedom first ensures that whoever gets s little more than their share of power first automatically becomes the defacto government and can proceed to create whatever cage they desire.

puttin' freedom second (or third, or tenth, or...) ensures the mercenary rule the roost


And that's almost certainly going to be someone who doesn't give a flip for Your salience, perspective, or priorities.

free men can shoot (way better than domesticates or their owners)


Self-responsibility only works if everyone does it, which is impossible. Self-direction is only possible when it's intelligently guided to account for compromise at scale.

it works all the time, no matter who else is or isn't bein self-responsible ...I'm self-responsible, joe is not...joe indulges impulse and ends up six feet under

the problem is folks like you wanna buffer joe, take care of him, direct him...let him die (through self-abuse or meetin' up with the business end of a shotgun)


And reasonable compromise is different from the reasoning of a reasonable man how?

your reasonable compromise is neither: it's just surrender, submission, for my own good... :thumbsdown:


How far does your ownership go? Try doing whatever you want that doesn't harm someone else and see how far you get. We should be able to own ourselves to the point of not harming others, but not completely. Society exists specifically to govern that compromise, and government is the practical extension of that necessary control.

you're flailin': I never said diddly about doin' whatever I want (that ain't freedom); I -- over & over -- have talked about self- direction & self- responsibility (that's freedom)

necessary control: I exert all the necessary control I need, on me...you, your well-intended slavery, are not needed


The choice isn't prison or no prison, it's bad prison or less bad prison.

nope...the choice is freedom or slavery


Necessity trumps. Reason trumps.

sure

in the first: you're wrong cuz you think neccessity can only be served through your slave state

in the second: you're wrong cuz you believe you're bein' reasonable, that you're reasoning


When you're in the spaceship on a mission to save humanity

is this how you see yourself?

what I see is a guy addressin' problems that don't exist, with solutions that can't work


At scale you can't have the same ability to exercise your "inalienable" right, both for practical And moral reasons.

my right to myself, my freedom, my property, what the hell does scale have to do with it?


The concept of a right it's inseparable from the concept of responsibility. To have a (assume negative for now) right entails others having a responsibility to leave you alone in that regard. Having a responsibility means someone else has a right to expect certain behavior from you, such as in a contact. Neither can exist separately or individually. There's always a contractual element, the purpose of which is always to provide people with actionable certainty (the purpose of so knowledge, wisdom, and understanding).

what's you're talkin' about here is codified morality

me, alone, in the mountains, got no cause to really worry about mindin' my own business and keepin' my hands to myself, nor do I have to worry about others encroachin'...the fact I belong to me and the derived moral fact it's wrong to treat me as property still hold but require no assertion or defense...in the company of others, the codifications become important (cuz sprinkled out among the decent are some real sumbitches)


BTW, i'm still the legitimate owner of the universe.

nope...you're just another resident
Advocate
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.

Post by Advocate »

>indeed...so: why do you keep ignorin' the truth?

Underwhelmingly compelling there, brah.

>one, this is busy-body talk [i]I know better than you what's best for you[/i]

You totally shifted the goalpost there. I know the categories of things that need to be accounted for. Not remotely the same thing.

>well, now you're just talkin' out your keister...self-directin', self-responsible people require no [i]authority[/i]; bad eggs ought not be the standard used (cuz they're the exceptions, not the baseline); smart folks aren't automatically qualified to do diddly

No, i'm talking out of my higher brain. Try it.
it only takes one bad egg to ruin the chicken coop. I thought we knew that already. Well, some of us did.

Smart folks aren't automatically qualified. You're right. That's the minimum.

>puttin' freedom second (or third, or tenth, or...) ensures the mercenary rule the roost

Balls. Truth Must come before freedom. Nothing works when it's arbitrary. And the truth is, we're going to have that cage one way or other (as evidenced by literally everything happening literally everywhere). So now what?

>free men can shoot (way better than domesticates or their owners)

Some of those free men are going to have control of nukes. How does that make you feel?

>it works all the time, no matter who else is or isn't bein self-responsible ...I'm self-responsible, joe is not...joe indulges impulse and ends up six feet under



the problem is folks like you wanna buffer joe, take care of him, direct him...let him die (through self-abuse or meetin' up with the business end of a shotgun)

You misrepresent any possible balance of power exponentially.

>your reasonable compromise is neither: it's just surrender, submission, for my own good... :thumbsdown:

My reasonable compromise is "as free as possible". I don't see where the slavery part comes in. If the system isn't a slave state it will offer an opt-it that is as meaningful and it can afford to.

>[i]necessary control[/i]: I exert all the necessary control I need, on me...you, your well-intended slavery, are not needed

Leaving aside the part about how no control is not possible, it's also not desirable. You won't have control of yourself for long in a society as free as the one you want. That's not how free men operate. Some take your shit.

>what I see is a guy addressin' problems that don't exist, with solutions that can't work

I agree they can't work because nobody with the capacity to understand is listening and it doesn't matter because society is fucked and we're Doomed! But it might be nice to go down trying.

>my right to myself, my freedom, my property, what the hell does scale have to do with it?

<whoops, my "lost cause" button just went off>
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8828
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: I am the legitimate owner of the universe.

Post by henry quirk »

Underwhelmingly compelling there, brah.

you know what I'm talkin' about: man belonging to himself


You totally shifted the goalpost there. I know the categories of things that need to be accounted for. Not remotely the same thing.

nope, I just phrased it more honestly than you


it only takes one bad egg to ruin the chicken coop.

that's an old fiction: one bad egg does not in fact ruin the chicken coop, and we're not eggs


we're going to have that cage one way or other (as evidenced by literally everything happening literally everywhere). So now what?

cage sumbitches and leave everyone else alone?


Some of those free men are going to have control of nukes. How does that make you feel?

if they're truly self-directin' & -responsible, it don't worry me none

can I have one too?


You misrepresent any possible balance of power exponentially.

no, I just laid it out as it is, and you don't like it


My reasonable compromise is "as free as possible".

no, your bottomline is: as free as your masters allow


I don't see where the slavery part comes in.

I don't think you do...I think your intentions are utterly good-hearted...c.s. lewis was right


If the system isn't a slave state it will offer an opt-it that is as meaningful and it can afford to.

yes, yes: if you meet the standards we'll let let roam without your leash


That's not how free men operate. Some take your shit.

them ain't free men, they're criminals...some have tried: I kept my shit


I agree they can't work because nobody...is listening

thank Crom for small miracles


whoops, my "lost cause" button just went off>

oh, mine went off well before I posted in this thread...beat you to the punch
Post Reply