cab21

more miserable than what and how? i dont think miserable can be calculated. how is happyness measured? 5 rapists and one person who does not want to be raped, do the 5 people get to rape because that maximizes happyness? the 5 ought not to rape, even if it means less happyness overall if 1 person thinks he can kill 5 and be happyer than the 6 , it's not a oppinion that i think should count, nor if 5 think killing the one, that the 5 should count against the one. Do you think equal power would make people equally happy? say eaqual desire makes people eaqualy happy, i don't think eaqual desire can be forced

happyness is subjective, so i don't know how to measure it. if one says "i'm only happy when i rape", how is that honered it a way that can keep both people happy, as by definition the person being raped does not want to be raped, otherwise it's just consenting sex. consequences require rules, so i'm not sure how separate rules are from consequences. if two people want to be happy, they each have to write down what makes them each happy, their proposals may involve each other, they may involve going in separate direction. this still does not guarntee people will be happy once the proposal is acheived, and if one person cannot guarentee his own happyness, another cannot do it for him. they can only write up contracts and proposals and honer the contracts and proposals or choose different directions. no system can produce happyness per say, if people choose not to be happy. a free market can provide a environment for happyness to be acheived and develuped, but it won't force happyness or force a result on people. free market is more a system of proposals and negotiation than one of war. if one person cannot offer a job that another likes, that person can ask another person, or go out and create the job, or settle with doing something less happy in order to create something more happy later. the person is not to use war to say how happy everyone will be after some others are killed off or robbed from. i'm not sure how different rules would bring the same consequences, or that the consequences could be defined or forced consequences depend on how people think and form desires, not from the outside if two are happy by giving to each other, that can work more than one happy to give, and another not happy to receive or give, but feeling a need to take, whether taking makes the person happy or not. is shown a different system that worked better, sure i could change.

the person offering a contract is not responsible for the person or welfare of the person to whom the contract is offered. each person is responsible for their own welfare. if people sign a contract, parties are responsible to honer that contract. such as if a wage contract is signed, and the person does the work, the employer is responsible for paying for the work that was agreed on the person without resources needs the resources just as much as the person with resources needs the person without resources. the resources of the person without resources, include the skills to perform the job, time, all sorts of things that could be offered to gain resources and help out those that offer wage contracts, or other contracts such as saleries, or work for hire, or indepentant contracts, or loans, or trades, or angel investment, or gifts or so on

hi james, whenever it works for you to continue is welcome

he could owe them something, if they owe him something. giving " we won't bulldoze your crops" does not count as giving something. i don't think a economic system can work where one person gets without oweing anything to the people that have to give. whether capital, or labor, or service, or some other way to give in order to receive, there has to be trade that goes on.

land ownership is a product of someones labor as well. people don't get a claim on land just by declaring a claim on land. the ownershio comes as a product of labor. if someone has a field of crops, how is another person supposed to use the same land in a way that does not ruin the crops? a person can't plant their own crops without ruining the crops of the first person. a person can't build a house without ruining the crops of the first person. a person cannot build a road without ruining the crops of the first person. by land speculation, the land is only owned through labor , so a person would have to be using the land in some way to get the land. how are you defining community? how are you defining market? if a community is formed through voluntary association, the individual himself can be the whole community. if the individual has to accept others as part of the community others mere wish to be part of the community, that's more of a hostile takeover than anything else. if the seller decides what to sell for. and the buyer decides what to buy for, the wishes of third party people who have "ideas" don't get to push up or knock down these prices just by mere ideas. otherwise people are going to end up oweing unlimited amounts to people that did not even do anything. are people just able to say, "i want 10 pounds of gold for not using the land", and therefor be owed 10 pounds of gold just for saying the person wanted it? if people bid, and 20 pounds of gold is the winner, and 9 others bid 19 gold, does the winner have to pay 190 gold to the losing bidders? and thats just 10 people, let alone some whole "community" if anyone who wants in gets in and people are not allowed to choose their own communitys and be communities of 1. in any bidding situation, the sum of all bids, is greater than the sum of the winning bid. if the winning bid has to pay the sum of the losing bids, to the losing bidders, how on earth will this system work? the profit would have to be extraordinary sums.

if given the choice of X and Y the person prefers X over Y the person chooses X then the person had free choice the person chooses Y then the person had free choice the person chooses not to decide then the person had free choice.

no how is is starvation related to at gunpoint? how is a wage contract related to cake? "if a person is starving and told they can choose to sign a wage contract or starve, is this decision a free one?" if a person is starving, there are plenty of options other from signing a wage contract if a person is told to eat a cake or die, the other options are being violently taking away by another person

ok, so i see you are getting to next parts in future posts. im working on forming the questions im curius about. so the math of electronic universe theory and the creation of homo sapiens is? http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/esp_electricuniverse16.htm i found this site, not sure what it is saying about human life, but it does involve EU

what is your view on this higher entity and the higher entities relationship with human progression or retrogression? i'm wondering about these creation statements about humans devolving, yet humans are discovering and creating more now than in any other time in history, unless you also have counter evidence. so is this saying that if humans were given the math, humans could make a scale universe, as well as other universes that create more life than our current universe. the math of creating humans had to come from a higher entity here? what kind of connections do humans have with the entity that could give such information? when was this math created? what are some examples and where is this information coming from?

is the quantum field suggesting supernatural design or what? looking at this article, i guess this stuff confuses me a bit. http://www.academia.edu/1610087/Evolution_of_consciousness

this was a interesting ted talk from frances arnold

i don't think that many people think overpopulation is a problem. what i am saying is that people that do think it's a problem can kill themselves, and that is the most fair way to address this non-problem choosing to sterilize themselves would be another option, but that does not lower population at the same speed of killing themselves would. killing themselves is simply the quickest way for them to do what they can to fight population.

voluntary suicide of those that think it's a problem?

a example in domestic animals, is to breed ones with desired characteristics if someone wants dairy cows that produce more milk, selecting the cows that produce more milk to breed, while selecting against cows that produce less milk. http://www.animalliberationqld.org.au/Dairy_Cattle.htm http://www.dairyfuturescrc.com.au/improving-cattle/improving-cattle-more-reliable-ABVs.htm i thought this was interesting. shows selecting of cows and bulls to increase milk, and lower disease of the problems that happen when more milk is desired

why are tribes separate when we all share the same common ancestors?

this is the first post in the thread that you used the word "slave" you did not say "slave" when you introduced the situation there are no legal "slaves" in anarcho capitalism a person can't own land , choose to sell land, and be called a slave, or what definition are you using? capturing slaves is not legal , nor selling onself to be a slave, as self ownership is not something that can be bought or sold. in your example, that is not legitimatly aquired money. there is no legitimacy in slavery. ok, with land= slaves you are saying it's not legitimate to own land at all?

cecil had to do something to aquire the wealth used to buy the property in the first place. the people that sold cecil the land must of thought it was a fair trade. what he did with his land could have allowed it to be sold later for more than otherwise. cecil took the investment risk of the property gaining or losing value. cecil would have had to invest to maintain the land that he owned to help the land value not depreciate the way it would if it was not maintained. the service he provided influenced property prices and helped values raise. he does not know what the value in 5 years would be when he buys the land. Neither of the two can predict the market in 5 years perfectly, and each are taking a risk. this kind of speculation is also a way to lose the investment and have to sell at a lower price than the land was bought for. Cecil took a risk that others were not taking. the people that sold the land to cecil could have decided to make other used for the land by selling to someone else, or keeping it for other usages. someone had to homestead and own any land bought. this land outside the city would not just be land noone ever used. productive is a subjective value, unless we have some judge of productivity or other system, say a democracy or republic where people that don't know what they are doing are over voting people that do know what they are doing . the right to use land is bought from those that have used the land. sometimes that means people that think they have a more productive idea won't be able to do it, if the idea cannot be sold to the owners. speculating on property values is a risk-reward investment just as much as someone thinking they can use the property in a more productive way. if someone says, i think i can bulldoze your house, and add wealth by building a skyscraper, does he just get to do it like that? then the next who thinks they can knock down the skyscraper get to do so by the mere thought of being able to use the place more productivly? at least if there needs to be a sale that goes on, there is some accountability and responsibility going on. people need to raise the money for the investment, either through aquiring it on their own or proving to investers that the idea is worth investing in. if a person wants to sell the house, then it can be bulldozed and the skyscraper built, but not until that house is sold. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3pM4DvzSik there is the full book, but this is a chapter on speculation in audio form

how do you define rights? how does it compare to http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html?

in biology, is information lost, gained, or other options, from generation to generation? Looking up one creation article, and one rebuttal to it, people can share any resources thought relevant or updates. http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin looking at this article, claims of the author include ( but not limited to) "It is not just that the train has not gone far enough, but that it is headed in the wrong direction." "... the real issue in biological change is all about what happens at the DNA level, which concerns information." "The information carried on the DNA, the molecule of heredity, is like a recipe, a set of instructions for the manufacture of certain items." "A one-celled organism does not have the instructions for how to manufacture eyes, ears, blood, skin, hooves, brains, etc. which ponies need." "selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite" "... whenever we study mutations, they invariably turn out to have lost or degraded the information." "As creatures diversify, gene pools become increasingly thinned out." "the more specialized they become, the smaller the fraction they carry of the original storehouse of created information for their kind" "Less flexible, less adaptable populations are obviously heading closer to extinction, not evolving." "We see that, just like with the train pulling out from Miami and headed south, if the sorts of changes we see today are extrapolated over time, they lead to extinction, not onwards evolution." "Later, there were lungs, but no feathers anywhere in the world, thus no genetic information for feathers. Real-world observation has overwhelmingly shown mutation to be totally unable to feed the required new information into the system." "given a fixed amount of information, the more adaptation we see, the less the potential for future adaptation." "...of all the examples lauded by Dr Coyne as ‘evolution’, whether antibiotic resistance12 or changes in fish growth rates, not one single one supports his ‘train’ analogy, but rather the reverse. Not one involves a gain of information; all show the opposite, a net loss." http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html here is a rebuttal from talk origins, with claims including( but not limited to) “anything mutations can do, mutations can undo” “Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it.” “ increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995) If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.” “A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example: • Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000). • RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002) • Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998) The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references” “According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).” “The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).”

"praise for aknoledging athiests can be good people" oh just wtf?

so person A develuping land that person B did not develup because person B was not around in the first place to develup the land = person A using a chainsaw to remove person B's arm? people don't claim land by having a idea on how to use it, they claim land by using it. people can sell ideas on how to use the land, on land that has been used. the right to sell ideas would be universial as the right to use the land. it does not mean every idea will be bought, or that people will have access to implement just any idea the person might have. i think a band that recorded just anything any member ever proposed could figure out a proccess that not every idea needs to be proposed without feeling other band members are cutting off arms

what makes a nation different from a nation state? the state is made up of the individuals which comprises the state is there a collective vote on breeding, or do individuals choose who to breed with in these nations? individuals choosing who to create families with, as anarcho capitalism has it, allows for individual choice, and not a collective vote. it is confusing, as nation sounds just as collective as state, and the lines defined for me would help me understand the viewpoint. eugenics was done before the nazi's, the nazi's got ideas from america for instance. state laws about breeding and sterilization, rather than a more free market selection proccess are what is being protested. the collective decision making of who to sterilize, vs the individual choice of who to breed with and support.

some land is more valuable than other land, as are some ideas and people more valuable than other ideas and people. equality of idea creation or people creation is not going to happen, equality of land can't happen. legal equality can happen. people can trade and give value and get resources. yes, politically, there is no rule of who gets what, just a rule about how it is gotten. equality does not mean everyone gets the same right to the same resource by mere existance, or any other method from free trade. people do have the equal political right to buy and sell land. sure, the potential, as well as potential for any free trades mankind can engage each other in as far as adding value to each other. the best creaters are a minority of people, and all can work up and be mobile. nfl wise, it's a limited amount of players, those that earn it, and not everyone that wants to be in the nfl plays in the nfl. i think people would have a system of capitalism, and be good with given to each other in order to receive from one another. leaders would still be followed, for being able to add more value than others who don't know what they are doing have a eaqual vote over those that do know what they are doing.

i want to change this to the General Anarchism and Economics section.