Arius

Because hosting a weekly internet radio call-in show does not provide enough of a chance. Because he won't take your Skype call to help resolve your personal issues through a variant of talk therapy. Because he convinces people of the truth of arguments by shouting them down, rather than walking them through a reasoned process. Because he doesn't post in this forum in response to criticisms of his arguments. ..... Maybe the people who say "he doesn't listen" don't pay attention to what he actually does.

If the dog doesn't do what you want, what happens? If the answer is: Retry training without negative consequences for the animal, then it's not dominance. If the answer is: Apply consequences animal perceives as negative, then it's dominance. It's all about how you set boundaries. Like this, suppose a woman wants to set personal boundaries with a male co-worker. She could spray him with pepper spray every time she sees him or she could explain her personal boundaries. Both solutions will work, but one is excessive for the desired goal. In the case of animal training, it is not necessary or productive to use wild-dog-attack level interactions to reduce a dog's excitement for nearby cats.

Amen.

In the case of human behavior, a preferred state is any behavior a person should perform. In the case of argumentation, people tend to claim that other people should produce arguments which are true. The idea being that producing true arguments is the preferable state of human behavior when compared with producing false or truth-indeterminate arguments. There are two possible arrangements for states. Either there are no preferable states or there are preferable states, the two are mutually exclusive. In the case of no preferable states, there is no difference between what is and what ought be (as any possible difference would give rise to a hierarchy of preferable states). In the case of preferable states, there must be (at a minimum) more than one possible state, in order for there to be a preference. That is, there can be an ought-state which is different from the is-state. Thus, anyone who argues that the number of possible states is exactly one is arguing against preferred states. Determinists tend to argue that the causal nature of reality limits the number of possible states to one. Thus, Determinists tend to argue against preferred states. If you're not arguing against preferred/alternate states, how do you define "determinism" and is that the most concise word-choice to represent your position?

Someone worked very hard to not notice it. I think the FB person might not know that by "preferred states", we're talking about human behavior. The argument is not about (or in reference to) physics, information systems, the future, a causal chain, or the universe. These extraneous elements obfuscate the simplicity of the argument. It's about people who claim that it is a preferred state for other people to claim there are no preferred states, and how there is a necessary contradiction in doing so.

I'd say: 3) therefore your argument contradicts one of it's own necessary assumptions. But yeah, that's a much more accurate reproduction. Strictly speaking, the argument isn't pro-free-will or anti-determinism. Physics aren't involved in the argument as it is presented. It's actually an argument that no argument can be constructed against the validity of alternate states without first assuming alternate states exist (via the necessity of the "should" feature of arguing). It's an argument about types of arguments. It is entirely possible that the whole of the universe is just a series of highly abstract dominoes, constructed in such a way that no alternate states are possible. In fact, there are volumes of information (state-of-the-art physics) which people interpret as having that meaning. However, it is necessarily contradictory to argue that anyone should believe that to be true. Either argumentation is somehow broken ([shocked]), or the relationship between physics and reality doesn't necessitate exact, present states of human behavior... I'm up for a third option if you have any suggestions.

It's weird when determinists claim there are preferential states of human behavior.

I changed my position, based on his argument as it was presented in the four-way conversation several years ago. What's the rule? Whenever the phrase "...it basically boils down to..." is used, you know with near certainty that an argument is about to be misrepresented. I don't believe "can't imagine", "deterministic physics", or "evaluate different courses of action" are part of the argument. Have you considered the possibility that you disagree because you do not understand the argument? Your lack of ability in reproducing the argument suggests a lack of comprehension.

Well, let's look at Greece. The full list of austerity measures is available here. Here's a few measures which I find especially telling: All tobacco, alcohol and fuel now subject to an additional 10 percent tax. New withholding tax applies from May 1, 2010 on both private and public sector salaries (I can't read Greek, but there's a picture) Workers classified in “heavy” industries or “dangerous professions” can retire at 60 (not 55), starting January 2011. The primary difference between rich and poor (not as a rule, just as an observation) is how they earn a living, and what percentage of their income they spend on any given thing. The poor (bottom quintile of income earners) tend to make the bulk of their living through wages and direct transfer payments (some kind of government cheese). The rich (top quintile of income earners) tend to make the bulk of their income through dividends, interest, equity appreciation, or some other form of capital gains. Let's start with an alcohol and tobacco tax increase. Suppose you take a laborer and a hedge fund manager, both of whom smoke and drink in approximately equal quantities. The laborer spends between 10% and 15%of his income on tobacco, the hedge fund manager spends less than 1%. A 10% increase in the price of tobacco increases the percentage of laborer income which will go to tobacco to 16-ish% The hedge fund manager might not even notice the increase, when measured as a percentage on income. Thus, the total impact as a percentage of income, is substantially more for the laborer. That's not to say either of them couldn't quit smoking or drinking, and all taxation is pretty crappy. My point is that the impact of taxes on consumables is significantly more dramatic, in terms of income percentages, on the poor than on the rich. In real terms, the poor person requires a larger degree of earning re-apportionment in response to the tax increase. All withholding taxes are a type of regressive tax. The bottom quintile usually has 100% of it's income exposed to withholding taxes. The top quintile usually has little or no income exposed to withholding taxes. Of course, retirement age (when the pension starts) is primarily a concern of wage earners. I don't know about you, but I've never met a millionaire coal miner Of course, the Greek list of dangerous jobs also includes TV reporter (don't ask me why). If you go through the entire list of austerity measures, you may notice that there are no capital-gains hikes, financial transaction taxes, taxes on earned interest, or even taxes on real holdings. Mind you, I'm not advocating any of those. I'm just pointing out that there isn't a single tax increase which doesn't disproportionately effect wage earners. Perhaps the theory of austerity isn't explicitly bias, but the application of austerity is.

By what means is the attempt made and defused? If someone tries to exercise force against you, then your physical resistance of their attempts would rightly be called "defense" rather than "politics". If a group of people are having a conversation about initiating force against you, then your verbal attempts to dissuade them might be called "negotiation". Though, I think "pleading" might be a better word to use when addressing a potentially violent mob. "Politics", generally speaking, encompasses the family of discussions on who should hold the monopoly on violence, and where such violence should be directed for the purpose of resolving interpersonal problems. Anarchists are opposed to the use of violence as a solution to interpersonal problems. Anarchists are most rightly described as either "apolitical" or "anti-political". That is, Anarchists, generally speaking, are either opposed to political practices or do not believe that such practices are effective. However, if you find someone referring to a decidedly Anarcho-concept as "political", there are two possibilities. First, they do not understand that all Anarcho-compatible ideas are, necessarily, incompatible with the use of force as a solution to problems. For example, I might propose that taking antibiotics is a good solution for some illnesses. If someone claims that is a "political viewpoint", they have understood me to say "people should be made to take antibiotics, regardless of their opinion on the matter". A good resolution to this problem is to remind the person that you are opposed to the use of force as a means to resolve interpersonal problems. Second, I am not aware that the idea I have proposed necessitates the use of force. That is, I have accidentally advanced an Anarcho-incompatible concept as-if it were Anarcho-compatible. For example, I might propose that, in a free society, there will be a voluntary form of taxation which takes place. While the idea does include the word "voluntary", it has placed that word next to a word which has "involuntary" as a necessary property. Thus, I have either proposed a contradictory idea, or I have tried to reframe an Anarcho-incompatible idea as Anarcho-compatible. If you have a conversation with people who understands "we" and "the government" to be synonymous, there is no word (or pattern of words) which will carry the meaning you wish to convey. If, for example, you say "we must work toward a mutually acceptable solution to this problem", a "political" person will hear "the government must be fully participatory". If you say "Violence is an unacceptable solution to interpersonal problems", they will hear "only the government may exercise force". It's funny, but the problem isn't language. The people with whom you are conversing do not have access to the concept you are trying to reference. Simply, you are having a conversation which includes too many euphemisms. I would recommend you use very small, precise words. For example, don't use the words "government", "state", "politics", "party", "tax", "police", "military", "jail", or "law". Those are all words which function to hide the true nature of the thing they reference. Instead, use phrases like "people who tell other people what to do", "people who claim the right to initiate force against other people", "conversations about where to rightly direct violence", "well-ordered mob", "taking someone's things without permission", "people who injure other people", "people who travel to far-away lands to injure other people", "large buildings, full of kidnapped people", "opinions, backed by violence". If you stick to rejecting euphemisms, you can engender questions in your audience (i.e. "Do you really see it that way?", "Why do you say it like that?", "Does that accurately describe the situation?", etc.). Once they're ready to listen (you must get through the natural troll-vetting process), you may be successful in explaining why "we" and "the government" aren't the same thing. Once someone has access to the idea that the government is not the people, you can discuss "politics" in the context you're trying to introduce.

Krugman is actually using an erroneous analogy and a false dichotomy. The Keynesian stimulus makes the rich richer through sweetheart government contracts. Austerity makes the rich richer by increasing taxes on the poor. Krugman believes he's arguing about rich people versus the welfare state. He hasn't realized, the rich people run the welfare state to keep the poor from becoming rich. Neither plan is good for the long-run health of the economy. He is right though. None of the advanced forms of austerity will do any good. He's also wrong. The Keynesian stimulus will just further fuel the wasteful nonsense which passes for business these days.

The economic model of a price floor is only valid when it is impossible to buy or sell below the prescribed minimum and that minimum is above the market equilibrium price. If any transactions can occur below that price, the price floor model does not accurately describe the situation. What prevents me from selling liquor below the legally-mandated minimum price? If you look at the real price floors (corn, milk, wheat, etc), you'll notice the common element is the method of enforcement. In the case of agricultural products, the government enforces the price floor by supplying an infinite amount of demand below some price threshold. For example, the reason there are no pounds of corn available for purchase at $.02 in the US, is because the government will buy 100% of the corn available at, or below, that price. By buying the surplus, the government can create a functional price floor. Without buying the surplus, the government cannot create a functional price floor.

It's a clicker. Clicker training is a type of operant conditioning. It is, by far, the most effective method for training animals. It involves no no intimidation, force, or punishment. The principle was discovered by a student of Skinner. Essentially, the brain associates sensory information and proximal stimulus with immediate behavior. For example, if I shake a tree and an apple falls out (and I like apples), I'll be more inclined to repeat the behavior of shaking the tree in the future. In the case of training dogs, the animal is conditioned to respond positively to the sound the clicker makes (there are a bunch of websites on the exact process). Once the animal is conditioned, any behavior which causes the clicker to go off is reenforced and any behavior which fails to produce a click is exhausted. The actual process of training with a clicker is simple. You stand there with the conditioned animal and observe behavior. If the animal behaves in a way you approve of, you press the button. If the animal fails to behave in a way you approve of, you don't press the button. You can include verbal commands if that's something you need. It is even possible, once several animals have been conditioned to the clicker, to coordinate behavior between multiple animals. For example, I have a dog and a cat. They were both juveniles when they started living with me. They could not interact peacefully when they began living here. I conditioned both to the clicker. By placing two, clicker-conditioned animals in the same room, I could monitor their interactions and approve or disprove of specific behaviors. They are now able to interact peacefully and autonomously, as they have internalized the behaviors which I conditioned. There are two significant benefits to clicker training. First, while the process of conditioning the animal to the clicker can involve food, clicker training doesn't. Training a dog with food results in the animal associating food and reward. This can cause a wide array of odd food-related behaviors (overeating, scrounging, begging, etc). Second, the relationship between person and dog is just better. Dogs have a natural set of social skills. They demonstrate all sorts of strange behavior as part of their inbuilt communication process. People don't natively understand the majority of the communication dogs produce. Dogs don't natively understand people at all. Through a cooperative training process, a dog can learn how to better respond to human body language and speech. If a dog has not been conditioned to expect punishment for bad behavior, it will be significantly less stressed-out. Why is this good? Dogs act-up when their over stressed. Worse, people tend to interpret dogs' fear and stress responses as attacks. Clicker training involves no punishment. A story: My dog was obviously abused as a puppy (not by me). When he started living with me, he responded fearfully to any object a person was holding. I assume his previous owner had beaten him with random objects. If I picked something up too quickly, he would cower, skulk-away, and submissively urinate. Obviously, this was a serious problem. I solved it with the clicker. The dog and I stood in the kitchen. I'd reach for an object on the counter. If the dog did nothing, I'd push the button. Eventually, if the dog did not react to my holding something, which I picked-up quickly, I pushed the button. It took about three hours of training, over the course of a week, for the dog to become completely comfortable with my picking things up, showing them to him,ans tossing them at the counter. The dog no longer responds badly to people holding objects.

If you're not using one of these to train a dog, you're doing it wrong.

So you think this is an entirely political issue? It's possible. I've noticed there's a pattern to these things (at least in America). First, there's excessive media coverage of something trivial. Second, the body politics vows to take swift and decisive action to resolve the non-problem. Third, industry leaders are involved in the planning process. Finally, a series of nonsensical laws, which only benefit the politicians and "leaders" of industry, are passed and enforced. My guess is that the UK government will "work with" large manufacturers and distributors to arrive at a "mutually acceptable" solution. That, or it's possible the UK doesn't have as pro-business (read as: corporate-owned) a government as the US does. Maybe it is just moralizing to build a platform for popular support. We'll see how this develops.

It's not like the government is gonna buy all the booze which can be produced below the minimum price. It's not a price floor or anything. Anyone trying to sell booze at a lower price will either be fined or imprisoned. There won't be an ounce of surplus production. Who this impacts depends on how it's implemented. If the extra price is paid by consumers to the government, it's a tax. If the extra price is paid by consumers to producers, it's a subsidy. If the extra price is paid by producers to the government, it's regulatory capture. And, should merchants do the paying, it's still regulatory capture. Seriously though, a person can setup a still in their home for less than $100. You could, literally, manufacture gallons of liquor each week in a studio apartment with a kitchenette. It's silly how cheap and simple (and illegal) it is to make hard liquor. If there's actually as much market demand for getting black-out drunk as the story suggests, people will just start makin' the stuff themselves (or buying stronger proof stuff). My guess is, there's no more demand for getting blackout drunk in the UK than there is in the US, and this whole story is just an excuse for regulatory capture by the "big booze" moguls.

I sense a market in underground hooch developing. Time for all those unemployed, ambitious Brits to fire-up the still.

In most cases, popular games' DLC is available from a torrentable source...on the PC that is. I don't think the torrent/Xbox 360-DLC gap has been bridged yet, but I haven't looked recently. The last cool indy game I played was called Antichamber. I usually learn about less-well-advertised games through Reddit (not an Earth-shaking answer, I know). I think you've boxed yourself-in by owning a console. I'd recommend holding-off on the next Xbox or Playstation. Computers can be built quite cheaply. Or....you could mod your Xbox....I just checked, you can get DLC for popular games on the 360 from a torrentable source. Perhaps you should consider investing in a modding kit. That won't solve the problem of game availability, but it will save you on all that DLC. PC's are world's ahead of consoles. You might be surprised how powerful of a computer you can put together for very little money. Consider the Rasberry Pi. It's only $35...a little more with the required accessories (but really quite inexpensive overall). You could, if you were so inclined, run a dedicated Xbox (not the 360) dashboard on a Raspberry Pi..or an SNES, Genesis, PS2, Nes, Atari..etc. Even if you wanted something more mainstream in a PC, there are a number of inexpensive options...Assuming you have the knowledge to assemble a computer. If you don't, it's a lot of fun to learn. That diagram is actually a little old (I couldn't find the one from this year). The gap between console and PC is significantly wider now, and isn't going to narrow anytime soon.

I dunno, Bioshock was freakin' awesome. Though, the story was much more interesting than the game play. I dislike shooting fake people, but that narrative was so well-developed. I still Minecraft from time-to-time. Licensure or any other monopoly. Why pay when it's available for free? Problem is, the best next-gen console is already obsolete (and they haven't even hit the market yet). What I find funny is Microsoft and Sony's solution to that problem. Both companies are trying to make their next console into an all-in-one media/gaming machine....with the associated price tag. Of course, that's been tried before, but no one studies the history of their own industry. A little company named Philips released a $700 gaming console once. In partnership with Nintendo, no less. It could play movies, CDs, karaoke, and games...It was called "CD-i", and it was one of the worst commercial failures in console history. Lesson: The customer doesn't want $700 worth of technology, in one machine, if $500 worth is obsolete when it comes out of the box... Electronics are best sold as interchangeable, modular assemblies. Sales on any $700 gaming machine will slump. It is inevitable. Especially if the customer can get an iPad for $500. CD-i was only competing with the SNES and Genesis. There's your problem. You're looking to the large companies to produce something good. All the best games ('sept Bioshock) are made by independent development studios (and rarely released through Steam). You should checkout all the projects on Kickstarter or one of the other crowdfunding sites before you declare the industry devoid of worthwhile products. I think you're just shopping in the wrong place.

The relevant law: A GDN is a general dealership license. The franchised license is extra. Man, that is some balls-to-the-wall regulatory capture right there. If anyone wants to know exactly how free the market in Texas is, read this: http://www.txdmv.gov/whatyouneed/publications/dealer/dealer_manual.htm All the regulations seem geared to make it almost impossible to open a small, independent car dealership. No wonder car technology only improves when the government mandates it, the regulatory barriers keep all small entrants out of the field by ramping-up start-up costs. I wonder if every state has similar regulations. Well, there's another state-created problem for the pile: Slow development of transportation technology.

I suspect that's why it must be a multi-generational change. As the man says, there must be a non-Marxist "long march through the institutions" before anything meaningful can happen. It won't work if social change is catastrophic in speed. It's not just a revolution, it's a paradigm shift. The free market is a more sustainable than whatever you want to call the current situation. If the costs of waste are paid by the waster (rather than being involuntarily socialized), the end effect can only be less waste. You gotta compare possible alternatives. The "what is" versus the "what else there could be". If you include the "wouldn't it be nice if" in the comparison, it'll win every time. .If the government sells land, the ruling class is almost certain to reap the maximum benefit. That is absolutely true. You should read some Kevin Carson. He's a mutualist, so he might not appeal to the die-hard AnCaps. However, he has a most well-informed view on how the state distorts the crap out of the economy. He also discusses several alternative economic models which don't involve force. I just finished this book and I gotta tell ya, it really cleared some things up for me. It's the first Anarcho-book I've consumed which reads like an MBA wrote it. I've linked-out to the Amazon page for it, but I'm sure it's available...elsewhere... for free.

What are they gonna do, forcibly eject you from an anarchy meeting because you don't have tickets? Lol, maybe they'll call the cops? Does somebody centrally plan anarchy get-together events? I never knew I had so many questions.

The only productive thing I have to add is that the OP question was, though I'm sure it happened unintentionally, a bit of a strawman. Specifically, I don't know of anyone who makes the claim "a free market is of benefit and fair to all". I've seen claims like "The free-market most efficiently allocates resources", "The free-market is the most moral form of economy", and "The free-market gives each participant the greatest possibility for success". However, each of these claims are about properties of the free market when compared to other types of economies. For example, I would be correct in saying "A free market produces a better average quality of life for participants than a socialist market can", but wrong in saying "the free-market is perfectly fair and just". I guess what I'm saying is, who made the claim "a free market is of benefit and fair to all", and in what context? Cause I'll tell ya, the king loses big-time in a free market. In terms of "fairness", it's a little more complicated. If you compare the "fairness" of the free-market to some super-ideal economy, I doubt the free market will win. However, if you compare the free-market to the many flavors of mixed markets (some mixture of force and negotiation), you'll find that the free-market is on the top of the heap. It's not the most-fair imaginable market. Rather, it's most-fair from available markets. Of course, all that said, I think that part of the question was just lead-in. The question could easily be reworded "Isn't it most fair and equal to require all property to be redivided equally?" and the answers would be relatively unchanged, with the possible exception of revealing that the question is about a theory of fairness, rather than the necessary structure of markets. If, for example, the question were "To be wholly consistent in the claim that communism is of benefit and fair to all...", then the answers would all relate to the theory of fairness under a communistic market system. So, I think the question you really want to ask is: What is a theory of fairness which can function without force, and how does it work as part of an economic structure? Then you'd get really interesting answers, because each respondent could either answer the question by revealing their opinion of the ranking criteria of fairness, or just dodge. For example, If you asked me my revised question, I might respond that the free-market gives all participants an equal opportunity. By saying that, I would have revealed that I believe an equal quantity of opportunity makes things fair. Alternatively, your asking the question the way you chose to revealed that you believe it is fair for everyone to have (or have rights to) an equal portion of what's materially available to be had (at least, at what you think-of as the beginning of the free-market economy). Another person might respond that no one person could acquire absurdly-high quantities (more than a billion times the mean) of wealth in a free market. By answering that way, such a person would reveal a tolerance for mild imbalance in their model of fairness. As I think about it, there may not be a non-opinion answer to your question. Suppose that's true, is there another way to ask the same question so it produces non-opinion answers? Cause, as I see it, there are really two issues which need to be tackled. The theory of fairness thing, and the structure of the economy thing. The economy thing is just a technical problem that no one will be able to answer until we get there. I think the theory of fairness thing might be purely a matter of opinion, but I can't say for sure. I recommend focusing on a theory of fairness rather than the structure of a theoretical economy. That way, we can answer all the isn't-it-most-fair-if questions at one time.

I'm sure they do. The question is, are they gonna immediately use force as a defensive solution or are they going to try a non-violent defensive solution first? The free society is all about negotiation. Righting wrongs without resorting to force is a pretty important development on that path. If you think about it, our current theory of after-the-fact retribution-based justice is incompatible with the NAP. Murdering the murderer solves nothing, nor is it NAP compatible. By that same token, forcibly-ejecting people from lands doesn't resolve the underlying dispute. Well, since the idea of a central authority is antithetical to a free society, we can be sure there won't be any agency which mandates that definition. My guess would be that each person will need to develop close, personal relationships with each other, nearby person. Realistically, I'm thinking that every community is going to have a mildly different understanding of what does and does not constitute force. However, without knowing what the theory of justice will be in such a society, there's no way to tell how that particular problem will be solved. At best, we can be sure that the force/defense problem will be resolved through some kind of peaceful negotiation.

You are absolutely correct that no one can know how a free society would work. However, if I can identify how some course of action necessitates the initiation of force, then it stands to reason to conclude such a course is not part of any possible model of a free society. For example, we don't know how children will be instructed, but we do know that force won't be part of that process. If I propose that children will be forced into schooling, then you know I'm not talking about a free society. Now, I believe that there is no model of involuntary property redistribution which does not involve force. It only stands to reason that any free-society-compatible model of property redistribution must be based on voluntary agreements. That is, people may choose not to participate in the redistribution pool. Thus, any property redistribution model which depends of force to attain a just distribution of said property, is incompatible with a free society.