Magnus

Pi day is only two days away, dude. It's pretty sciency.

Yeah, everyone else's statements were totally sincere, but you were just testing us. We're like lab rats, here for your experimentation. But you're above it all, watching us from heights we can't even imagine. I mean, it's pretentious and deceitful to "test" people with arguments you later pretend not to believe. But that doesn't matter, because we didn't pass your test, right? When it was our turn, we werent' "catching more flies with honey than vinegar." It was just intolerance full steam ahead, right? After all, you had a chance to make a sincere, legitimate, meaningful argument, about something, anything, and you chose to "test" people instead of discussing things that matter to you. I can see why we disappoint you. So intolerant, we are.

e As in, e = φ • 0 + e Ergo God. Checkmate, atheists!

How can a state legitimately form in the first place, such that it can, as a corporate entity, own land, much less own land that it did not acquire through the ordinary chain of title?

Police: "We need armored vehicles to deal with homegrown terrorists." People: "How do you identify these homegrown terrorists?" Police: "They're the people who don't want us to have armored vehicles."

Hypereducated and on welfare I think this headline is trying to show some sort of incongruity -- as though being educated should insulate you, all by itself, from poverty. This basic premise and assumption behind the article (and this woman's entire way of life) is absurd. She made a baby with an irresponsible man. Now everyone else in society is supposed to pay for that? Because she went to school to study poetry, the entire world owes her a more comfortable living? Where do people learn this sort of thinking? Are highly educated people not taught basic reproductive biology anymore? Cause and effect? I've given up expecting "educated" to have SOME MINIMAL sense of economics or business. (I've even met some economics professors who have no idea whatsoever about how the world of business works.) But I'm fairly sure that anyone with a master's degree would know where babies come from.

It's amazing to look back at what life was like for young people back then. It wasn't all that long ago, but without cell phones, the Internet, or campus police, it looks like a different world. Saturday detention was a real thing. I went to a semi-large suburban public school through 8th grade, but by the time The Breakfast Club came out, I was in 9th grade and had transferred to a small private school, where the culture was completely different. So, I didn't get the Big School experience after that, but I was close to it. I don't know if it's the same for young people nowadays, but the artificial, forced environment of government schooling caused everyone to fall into the kind of neat categories that you see in this movie -- jocks, preps, geeks, etc. There were a few others, like the heads, the Heathers, the kickers (cowboys), the Iron Maideners. It wasn't so much a personality as an identity, a uniform. The strange part, from the perspective of my 45 year-old self, is that back then, no one had any idea that there was an outside world, that any of this was abnormal. It was the way things were for our parents, but with slightly different technology. The advent of the Sony Walkman seemed revolutionary at the time. Our media and social contacts, outside the tiny bubble of school and some limited amount of television, were virtually non-existent. Another movie that encapsulates the experience of post-war American schooling is Teachers. It's more of a blue-collar environment. Rust Belt America, I guess, less suburban. A lot more violent.

I'm not sure the seven samurai are an example of a DRO, but the bandits are a perfect example of a state. They just need to (a) wear nicer clothes, (b) be a little more systematic about how they steal from the farmers, and © develop a solid body of propaganda about how their pillaging campaign is for the farmers' own good. Presto! Instant statism.

I'm very sorry for the abuse and neglect you experienced. I didn't grow up around chronic poverty, but I did experience first-hand the kind of domestic chaos that many of the poor and working poor experience. It's hard on the children, since adults often find it easy to foist the hardships onto them. In my career, I work with the poor (and indigent) almost daily, and I see the raw deal they get from government. But I still do not understand what you mean by "structural violence." I see persistent corruption and abuse by the police. And I see the trap of unemployment and family dissolution and ruined neighborhoods caused by welfare. But the cause of all that isn't some nebulous "structure." It's just government. And, to the extent the poor (and homeless) are prevented from "access to resources," that's just property rights. Is there some other component of "structural violence," beyond (a) the State or (b) property rights? Because I believe there is no solution to all of these social problems that's better than abolishing the former and preserving the latter. Also, I was wondering what you meant by "sustainable, equally real system that separates the wheat from the chaff." What specifically do you mean, in practical terms?

It's very interesting that there'd be such a marked difference in the shapes of the male and female bell curves on OkCupid's attractiveness rating. I think it can give us some illuminating insights into the psychological aspects of mate selection. I generally operate from the assumption that women are more sexually selective than men. Or, put another way, men are less sexually discriminating than women. This is a feature of our reproductive realities, in which women take a far greater risk in mating with a suboptimal male (one that's less desirable than she is capable of attracting), as compared to a male's minimal risk of mating with a sub-optimal female. The female invests a year of her life in pregnancy, and invests many more years in childcare after pregnancy. The idea of committing to a father who is less desirable than the female could have chosen is sufficient reason for her to be very careful in her selection process. I don't think it would be a stretch to deduce from this that a woman's dating strategy would be to consider all men to be unacceptable as mating partners, until proven otherwise. For men, the default strategy would likely be the reverse – that all women are at least potentially acceptable as mating partners. That would account for a female selection bell curve that's skewed negative.

None of what you've said here takes a position on anything. You've again summarized PJ's ideas (fantasies, really), said that you don't agree with some (mostly-unspecified) parts of it all, and said nothing about what you want, advocate for, or assert an ethical proposition (or principles for deriving ethical propositions). Would you drop the Devil's Advocate bit (which you're not really doing anyway)? What ethical principles are you operating with when you evaluate various ideas about a better or worse future?

Don't forget about the benevolent father ... er, supercomputer that will dispense bounteous abundance and justice to all, and never require anything but our obedience. But don't ask to see the algorithm for it because there isn't one.

This mode of discussion seems to be a pattern for you -- so far, you have either claimed that you are merely summarizing or repeating Peter Joseph's arguments, or you are quibbling with people in this thread who disagree with him. So far, I have not seen you advance any arguments of your own, or take a position on Peter Joseph's arguments, and defend it. (And, by the way, Peter Joseph's interpretation of the state of technology is not especially interesting or useful. I happen to know a little bit about artificial intelligence, and so far he hasn't ever said anything specific at all, much less anything new. He is making economic observations, and ethical arguments, so that is where I will focus my attention.) So, I will ask you to get off the rhetorical fence, and take a position on either his economic assertions, or his ethical assertions. What part, if any, of Peter Joseph's economic analysis, or ethical propositions, do you find to be meritorious, and why?

It's a fantasy that's wholly disconnected from reality. (I'm referring to both the Venus Project and to the Matrix movies.)

I don't concede anything because I don't understand what you're asking me to concede. That it's somehow ethically wrong that people experience the natural consequences of their actions? That's a form of violence? Is my hypothetical monsoon violent? My hypothetical selfish fish? I'm really very confused by your assertions, particularly as to how acknowledging cause and effect makes one a eugenicist.

Yeah, I've always gotten a strong "something for nothing" vibe off of PJ. It has the feel of an adolescent whining about his stern, old-fashioned father who's threatening to cut his son off if he doesn't get a real job. "You have all the resources, Dad, and it's deeply wrong that you don't give them to me just for being me. I deserve to be materially supported, just for breathing, regardless of what I do with my time."

I take it you've never gone fishing.

No problem. The word "enthusiast" trivializes what amounts to a philosophical conclusion by reducing it to mere preference. If you're living by yourself, on a proverbial desert island, and you fail to engage in the manual labor necessary to acquire enough calories to live, or to construct tools or shelter necessary to protect yourself from the elements, is that structural violence? Is the fish that refuses to jump onto your plate denying you the resources you need to live? Is the monsoon committing an act of violence against you? If you are living on an island with a companion, and he fishes laboriously, and uses his skill and industry to build a sturdy hut, and you want to enjoy all of these things but without contributing to the economic productivity of your island life, is it structural violence for him to deny you the fish he catches and the hut he has built? I'm not sure I understand the objection to economic productivity. Because of markets, we now enjoy a quality of life that is far removed from foraging for fish and grubs and hiding from monsoons in a lean-to. But the basic need for productivity, to maintain our lives (or perhaps even improve them) is an essential feature of existence. No, it isn't. No, it doesn't. I don't understand. The ethic of free markets has no preference for strong or weak. It is actually the reverse -- it holds as unethical the overpowering of weaker people for any reason (except in self-defense).

Enthusiasts? Maybe you're trying to be insulting, maybe not. I'm a motorcycle enthusiast. I'm a free market proponent. What is structural violence, by the way?

Surprisingly, the first two minutes didn't make my skin itch, which is what all Peter Joseph videos have done to me, from the beginning of time until now. His definition of "market economy" was straightforward and sensible. Then, as soon as he got to Question 1, I got that familiar-yet-unpleasant Zeitgeisty skin-crawl sensation: "Given that the market economy requires consumption ..." BZZZZZZT! Aaaaannnd, we're already off to a disastrous start. No, market economies do not require consumption. Human happiness requires consumption. I realize that Mr. Nehru Jacket is above all of that, but people like to consume. Starting with food. Then clothing. Then shelter (which is slightly more durable, as a consumption good, so people mistakenly think of houses as an "investment," when they're really just big-ticket consumer items that you can re-sell, usually). Then all the crap that goes into the shelter. Then vehicles. Then all the rest. "The economy" can't "require" any of this because "the economy" is behavior, not a person. People require. See, people are both producers and consumers. When they produce (i.e., the eeeeeevil "LABOR FOR MONEY" that he goes on and on about), they use capital resources. But eventually, all production ends with consumption, by someone. That's what production is for. So, Question 1 is nonsensical crap. Let's go to Question 2: "In an economic system where companies seek to limit their production costs ("cost efficiency") in order to maximize profits and remain competitive against other producers, what structural incentive exists to keep human beings employed, in the wake of an emerging technological condition where the majority of jobs can now be done more cheaply and effectively by machine automation?" I'll start at the end of the question, and work my way back. As to machine automation, it, uh, causes the "jobs" that people do to -- get this! -- change. Before nitrogen-fixing fertilizer was developed (the Haber-Bosch process), it took huge tracts of land to farm. Before internal combustion engines (Herr Benz), the ground had to be farmed by hand, or by animals. Both of these inventions were developed right around the turn of the century. Before that, most people lived in rural areas. After them, a minority did, and people started moving to cities, to do different things with their time, instead of agriculture. That's more or less a constant phenomenon. So, the "majority of jobs" refers to the jobs that existed before the technology. New jobs are then available. And, while we're on the subject, what's the deal with the assumption that these "jobs" are something that can only be doled out by "companies"? That's clearly not true. A freer market tends to make larger companies less viable. The largest companies develop in the most protectionist markets. And what's wrong with profit? It means that you're making life better -- that an act of production was, in the end, a net gain, rather than a net loss. And "competition against other producers" simply means that someone is already meeting other people's desires. You see, when you make someone an excellent winter coat, the consumer's desire for another winter coat drops considerably. The niche that Winter Coat occupies, on his list of priorities, goes down, and thus falls below other things. So, if you want to make winter coats, as your favorite mode of production, you have to satisfy people's need for them better and more effectively than other people are attempting to satisfy them. It's a competition to see who can best cooperate with consumers. It's a cooperation-competition. So, the "structural incentive" for people to engage in production, regardless of what technology may exist, is this -- "the desire that people have to improve their lives, in whatever manner is most important to them at the time (and relative to whatever one's economic condition or status may be prior to engaging in some form of productive activity)." Next! Question 3: "In an economic system which inherently generates class stratification and overall inequity ..." No. That's not a real question. It's bullshit wrapped in a neo-Communist word salad.

There's another disturbing and indefensible aspect to the typical post-feminist way of thinking about these issues of career and children. It's the idea (an assumption, and so rarely discussed) that going to work (men, usually) in a competitive corporate job, climbing the ladder, putting in long hours and never taking any significant time off for anything else you might consider to be more important (like raising children) is JUST WHAT MEN DO. As if THAT career path (again, usually men, as Obama says) doesn't have ANY costs or entail any kind of sacrifice. As if chaining yourself to that kind of career is a privilege for which men should be grateful, and are selfishly preventing women from fully enjoying. As if that's something that MEN WOULD BE DOING ANYWAY, even without a wife and children. The reality is that men pursue these demanding, competitive careers, often at great personal cost, precisely because of their desire to provide for women and children. Without such a reason, many men would pursue entirely different career paths -- more rewarding, less lucrative, more risky, more flexible, less demanding of life-long commitment.

I don't know what bothers me more about this idiotic, corrupt way of thinking -- the part where taking time to raise children is considered to be such a horrible problem that it should be erased from the choices one faces in modern life, or the part where he wants us to think he has the power to alter economic reality.

I think the definitive treatise on the goals of feminism has finally been written. I won't spoil all of it, but here is a sampling of one of the key steps to achieving femi-topia: It goes on for some length. I especially like how mass extermination is portrayed as simple and down-to-earth. The part that bothers me is not that some kook wrote this. It's that her publication of it will prompt zero reaction from this sick society we live in. Imagine of someone wrote something comparable about men, blacks, Jews or government agents, and called for similar actions to be taken to achieve those goals. The site would be taken down and the FBI would be on his doorstep within a week.

I'd like to propose an idea to the FDR community. It's something that I've been thinking about for a while, and would greatly appreciate the input of the resident brain trust. I have a son, age 11. He loves camping. He loves hanging out with other boys who are roughly his age. We have been on a couple of camping trips that are sponsored by the Cub Scouts. We just returned from one this weekend, and it was (in some ways) a lot of fun. I'm exhausted, but feel great. Now, there's a lot that I like about Scouting, and a lot that I despise. The question that's been preoccupying me for a few weeks and months is this -- What would it take to start a group that retains all of the good features of Scouting, and eliminates the intolerable aspects? I don't think we'll be going out with them again, but my son and I do want something to replace it. I have found nothing. Whenever I look for something but can't find anything remotely acceptable, I figure there are other people who may want the same thing I do -- i.e., it might be a market opportunity. I also noticed that the parents on this trip fell into two categories -- a small minority of heavily-Statist and Theistic True Beleivers, who were really gung-ho about all of the quasi-church-ified and paramilitary aspects of the trip, and the majority, who were clearly uncomfortable when the events turned from camp-outs and wilderness explorer skills and games to flag-saluting and "non-denominational" pseudo-church (with a slight tinge of New Age quasi-Native-American flavor glossed over the top). Also, I have believed for a long time that we ought put our minds to the task of forming a youth organization, providing educational resources and activities for philosophical parents, and the general promotion of rationality, voluntarism and non-aggression for young people. (I also believe we should publish a set of home-school-style educational materials, but that's another topic.) First, the good stuff I've noticed about Scouting. Outdoor skills, nature, environmental awareness, physical exercise. This part of scouting is wholesome in the extreme. It's like a living Norman Rockwell painting. Best of all, it's unplugged. Getting kids away from the video games does wonders for their minds and bodies. Accomplishing difficult age-appropriate tasks, with heavy emphasis on safety. Fun, interesting activities, with a strong focus on competence and skill-building. A decentralized organizational structure based around local communities of volunteers, and is thus connected to other similarly-minded people and organizations. Direct parent participation (unlike team sports, for example, where you are expected to hand your kid off to a coach and otherwise keep out of it) The Bad Stuff: The para-military indoctrination, reflected in the uniforms, rankings, titles, etc. It's just awful. The endless "civics" crap, which is just warmed-over jingoistic bullshit; The nascent, soft-pedaled theism (which is actually far worse, and more insidious, than outright orthodox Christianity). To give you an idea of what's out there, here's a brief overview of the main non-school community activities available for boys. It's not very good. 1. Boy Scouts of America -- The main one. Founded by a British Army general in the early 1900s (Baden-Powell), who served in Africa and India. He was essentially on the front lines of British colonialism, and it was his job to quell the natives (by massacring them occasionally). He had written a couple of books about military tactic, in particular on reconnaissance missions (Incidentally, "scout" is a military term, although now a bit archaic, and refers to a unit that travels light, moves fast, and is not designed for large-scale combat.) His books unexpectedly became popular with teachers and teenagers, who were often recruited for scouting and recon missions. He later decided to write additional books explicitly for youth readership. Essentially, scouting was founded as an expressly para-military organization. Hitler Youth for Anglos. The organization has, in some respects, moved out of its militaristic origins, and now focuses on outdoor activities, including camping, woodcraft, aquatics, hiking, backpacking, and (to a limited extent) sports. The familiar Scout uniform was modeled on the British and American army uniforms of the early 1900s. The BSA is one of the few Title 36 federally-chartered corporations, and is officially designated as a "patriotic" organization. It claims to focus on "character development and values-based leadership training" through the following -- "responsible fun and adventure" Instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character as expressed in the Scout Oath and Law Train young people in citizenship, service, and leadership Serve America's communities and families with its quality, values-based program It has recently branched out into a few new areas that appeal to teen boys, such as safe driving and SAT prep educational programs, and even offers some vocational training (e.g., welding). The Cub Scouts is the feeder organization to the BSA, and is for younger boys, ages 7-11. The Cub Scout Oath is: I, (say your name), promise to DO MY BEST To do my DUTY to GOD And my Country To HELP other people, and To OBEY the LAW of the Pack Essentially, the philosophical premise of the Boy Scouts represents just about everything that's wrong with the world. The ony way it could be worse is if they could find a way to make boys into junior minions of the Federal Reserve. Unfortunately, there are no good alternatives out there. Most of the other youth organizations are either strictly academic resume-padding outfits (Junior Classical League, chess leagues, Science Fair, etc.), or just the youth-recruiting wings of churches. Here is a sampling of the mind-warping garbage that is out there, preying on kids: 2. Trail Life USA -- A BSA splinter group for whom the regular Boy Scouts are not conservative enough. 3. Earth Scouts - Objective No. 3: "Social & Economic Justice." Say no more. 4. Navigators USA - "As a Navigator I promise to do my best to create a world free of prejudice and ignorance. To treat people of every race, creed, lifestyle and ability with dignity and respect." Essentially a Baby Boomer/Millennial organization that thinks that racism is the root of all evil. 5. Spiral Scouts - Wiccans. No, seriously. Literally pagan, self-described Wiccans. 6. Woodcraft Rangers - outright Socialist, essentially Hitler Youth for Commies. I'm thinking about starting a youth group for rationalists -- philosophers, voluntarists, anarcho-capitalists, libertarians, whatever you'd like to call us. The idea is simple -- organized group activities for kids aged 7 to 17 (split into any categories as may be appropriate), a focus on outdoors (camping trips, hikes, excursions, adventure of all kinds), educational activities and resources, practical skills, social-skill building (negotiation, cooperation, non-aggression). zero theism, zero statism The only reason I don't mention girls is that I don't have any, and don't know anything about raising one. Is this something that parents would be interested in? Any and all ideas would be greatly appreciated.