SaintElsewhere

I think you're probably overrating the drug experience, simply because you haven't partaken. It's kind of like that moment after you lose your virginity and you think, "That's IT? THAT's what everyone has been talking about?" It's not magic happiness in a bottle, it's not necessarily pleasant. It's simply something people do when they are bored. A lot of the culture that has built up around drugs, at least here in the US, has some real victim-y, codependance stuff associated with it. These people that you imagine are having such a wonderful time are generally fairly miserable, and they often want nothing more than to bring others down with them. My advice: Focus on doing something, and doing it well. Feel pride in yourself and look for equals. If you still want to experiment with drugs, do your research first. Do at least a month of heavy reading. Maybe ask some of these people some detailed questions about it. Just don't confuse the feelings a drug gives you with what is lacking in your own life. And never, ever, ever,ever,ever, mess with opiates. Don't do them. Psychedelics can be useful tools for self guided therapy, for the right individual, in moderation. That's a lot of caveats. They tend to bring out all of your demons at once. Take heed. As far as how to get illicit substances without contacts... You might want to do a google search for "Silk Road." I hear it's big in Australia. Psilocybe Cubensis can be grown with minimal skill and an investment of around $40. Takes around 2 months starting from scratch though.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/download-this-gun-3d-printed-semi-automatic-fires-over-600-rounds/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+All+content%29 Most have probably heard that consumer level 3d printers are capable of printing the lower part of a gun, in this case an AR 15. What most don't know is that this fellow is a self described "crypto-anarchist." From the article: While it may be easy to paint Wilson as a 2nd Amendment-touting conservative, the 25-year-old second-year law student at the Univeristy of Texas, Austin told Ars on Thursday that he’s actually a “crypto-anarchist.” “I believe in evading and disintermediating the state,” he said. “It seemed to be something we could build an organization around. Just like Bitcoin can circumvent financial mechanisms. This means you can make something that is contentious and politically important—not just a multicolored cookie cutter—but something important. It’s more about disintermediating some of these control schemes entirely and there’s increasingly little that you can do about it. That’s no longer a valid answer.” And he gives a little jab at his university: For now, though, Wilson said that Defense Distributed has essentially taken over the bulk of his time, and he’s effectively become a part-time amateur engineer. “I don’t go to [law school] class, but I do pass the exams—here’s looking at you {Bar Association]!” he told Ars.

Ok, let's just look at parasitic relationships in Biology. Most parasitic relationships eventually become symbiotic over time. Just as diseases have a tendency to evolve to become less deadly. A disease that kills its host has less time to transmit to a new host. This provides the incentive for the bacteria to adapt. Some bacteria adapt to the point where they begin to provide useful services to the host, such as E coli which produces vitamin K and kills off other pathogenic bacteria. Other types of parasitic relationships become less parasitic because even those that don't kill the host stress it. The incentives of each species begin to align and you have symbiosis. James Lovelock and some of his students did a lot of work in this area, they were the first to propose that mitochondria were at one point free living proteobacteria that merged with other bacteria to create the eukaryotic cell. Economics and Evolution are all about analyzing incentives.

Economic theory, well Austrian anyway, basically says that in a free market it doesn't matter how efficient or autonomous productions becomes. People who fear this are essentially fearing more wealth and capital flowing into the economy. The wealth of a nation is in goods and services. This guy explains better than me. To understand why, let’s imagine that a bunch of Aliens came down from Mars to Earth. They are from the Planet of War, and have admired the way mankind has been killing itself more and more bloodily for less and less reason. Out of sheer respect for our murderous ways, they volunteer to be our slaves. They go out and pick the cotton, wait on tables, and do a lot of things for us, all for free. Being Martians, they don’t eat Earthly food or consume any Earthly products. And here comes Devil’s Advocate, again. Just when I was warming to my topic. DA: von Dave, are you saying von Mises wrote about Martian slaves? SD: No, von Devil, it’s me. I’m describing a thought experiment. You know, like Einstein did for physics. DA: Oh, I see. von Einstein made this up. SD: Whatever. Since you’re here, Devil, tell me. What effect will these Martians have on the economy? DA: They will be great for the economy. Economists of all schools agree that if you increase production, as these loyal slaves are doing, that’s good. More goods, more capital accumulation, it’s great. SD: What about the fact that they aren’t eating or consuming anything at all? DA: Are you kidding? That’s what makes them so good for the economy. They produce and produce, making us all richer, and take nothing back in return. SD: But they aren’t contributing to Aggregate Demand. Isn’t that a problem? DA: Dave, how foolish can you be? You know what they call demand in the movies? “Another Mouth to Feed”. If those Martians start consuming, there will be less for us Earthlings. SD: OK, Dev, thank you. You just disproved Keynes. DA: What? SD: Keynes is describing a situation exactly like the Martians coming here to be our slaves. He says that for some reason or other, a lot of Earthlings have decided to become Martians and work for free. They are producing but not consuming. Instead of spending their money [=consuming] they are hoarding it [= not being mouths to feed]. Just like the Martians, they are making us all richer. They produce, but don’t consume. They increase our Capital Accumulation by working, and don’t decrease it by spending. DA: von Dave, you are losing your touch, no offense. The Martians did not eat, but they did not get money either. The Earthlings aren’t eating, but they are getting money. That’s the problem. Money is magic. It is the gasoline that makes the automobile called the Economy run smoothly. By hoarding their money, they are clogging up the works. SD: They aren’t clogging anything. Say the money has disappeared, never to be seen again. So what? The nation is neither richer or poorer by that. The wealth of a nation is its goods and services. Money is just a measuring stick for that. DA: But if money disappears, then by the laws of supply and demand, the purchasing power of money will increase. Those guys who buried their money have made our money worth more. SD: You say that like its a bad thing. DA: But what about the fact that the earthlings who work for free aren’t buying anything? Won’t that mean that even though the nation as a whole is wealthier, because more capital has been accumulated, there will be one bad side effect? Doesn’t it mean manufacturers will lose money, because they aren’t selling to the Earthlings turned Martians? SD: There may be an adjustment period, sure. No economy is static, anyway. What is produced, what jobs people have, has to change constantly, and does. But bottom line, there is only one thing that counts. If an economy increases its capital stock, it is richer. Its future is brighter than before. There will be more jobs, there will be higher wages, there will be a higher standard of living. That’s what capital accumulation does. It is madness to call that a problem, and to brew some mad scheme to reduce the capital stock. If someone hoards money, that means he’s essentially working for free, and voluntarily to boot. Like the Martian, he is increasing the capital stock without being a mouth to feed who will reduce it by consumption.

"Dictionaries do not record definitions. They record common usage. The people create the language in the free market of vocabulary. Sovereign language is the only way to understand each other in terms of ambiguity." This is absolutely correct. "Our dictionary is not destroying words, it is adding words." Functional vocabularies are decreasing. No opinion on the current semantic argument, just some thoughts.

Thank you for your comment I found it extremely interesting to read. It's poetic that a dispute over the term Anarchy demonstrates how Anarchy functions "in the wild." The article claims that "even strongly held beliefs converge strongly over time even without dissentors directly interacting" simply as a result of the medium. This is Chaos Theory at work, that we can see purposeful behavior (the invisible hand) from a distance resulting from agents working independantly. Just as birds following simple local rules become a flock banking and turning as one. Eventually even strongly opposing views converge over time, even without direct interaction between dissenting contributors Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-conflicts-wikipedia-statistical-physicists.html#jCp Eventually even strongly opposing views converge over time, even without direct interaction between dissenting contributors. The shared medium takes care of this. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-conflicts-wikipedia-statistical-physicists.html#jCp Eventually even strongly opposing views converge over time, even without direct interaction between dissenting contributors. The shared medium takes care of this. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-conflicts-wikipedia-statistical-physicists.html#jCp Eventually even strongly opposing views converge over time, even without direct interaction between dissenting contributors. The shared medium takes care of this. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-conflicts-wikipedia-statistical-physicists.html#jCp Eventually even strongly opposing views converge over time, even without direct interaction between dissenting contributors. The shared medium takes care of this Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-conflicts-wikipedia-statistical-physicists.html#jCp Eventually even strongly opposing views converge over time, even without direct interaction between dissenting contributors. The shared medium takes care of this Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-conflicts-wikipedia-statistical-physicists.html#jCp

Watched that Remote Control thing last night. That was fucked up.

Greetings Freedomain radio! Please forgive me if I spam your board with thought as I am currently underemployed! I was one of those insufferably precocious kids. At the age of 7 I was diagnosed with a major illness, had quite a few surgeries and spent a lot of time bedridden and depressed. And something like that can make you start thinking about certain things early on. My family is Christian. Grandparents on both side were Pastors in the deep south. I was visiting my grandfather in Mississipi and I think I was maybe 10. He gave me his bible, an old leather bound KJV. I decided I would read it all the way through. My other early reading projects were Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. It would be my big project and I would impress all the adults with my knowledge. They were already grooming me to be a pastor you see. Well I got to Exodus and I began having some serious doubts about this God charactor... Why would he "harden" the pharaoh's heart to turn him against Moses and then punish the pharaohs people? And what about Job? I was determined to plow through the old testament. I remember skimming the long lists of names, etc. I read the gospels which kind of made sense. A real feel good message there. Then there were some letters about the churches from Paul and some other people... Revelations was just insanity... I think it took me around a year and a half to finish it. People explained to me that the God of the Old testemant was different than the God of the new testament. So I kind of accepted some things but I explained away inconsistencies by sort of saying that the bible couldn't be taken literally. Well I was in and out of the hospital till I was 14. And all during that period I had to go to church. My family believed in faith based healing (my mother at least knew I still had to see a doctor and I thank her for that), laying on of hands, speaking in tongues. So I had to go up front every sunday I wasn't in the hospital and be prayed for. I tried to believe. I think I believed enough. But I was still sick. I was obsessed with alien abduction theories at this time also. I think that had something to do with all the doctors poking and prodding at me. I became obsessed with the end of days, and I couldn't sleep most nights as visions and dreams of angels and strange creatures haunted me. I found a book at a thrift store that talked about Socrates somewhere in this time and I learned about Philosophy. I also did a lot of science reading and I learned about Natural Selection. My parents supplied books from the church denying natural selection. I think the series was called, "It Couldn't Just Happen!". The arguments in the book just fell apart on their own. I came out as an atheist at around 14. I had a final surgery at 14 and the doctors said I was in remission. I dropped weight because I no longer had to take steroids and began to feel more healthy in general. I still had a lot of issues with depression and narcissism all through high school. The teachers were almost uniformly dumb. I was of course the smartest person around \; I refused to do school work when I realized if I aced the tests I would pass. The teachers at least let me read in a corner alone. I had one friend. I was attacked by gangs of kids regularly. Set on fire and burned with hot lighters. Verbally abused. You know, highschool stuff /; I was very angry so I learned to fight back. Fighting with one kid I dodged a punch only to see him hit the window behind me and severely cut his hand. As the ambulance and police cars arrived I left the school and walked home. After that the other kids left me alone. Even though my grades weren't the best I somehow convinced the principal I should be allowed to get into the running start program, which allows highschool students to attend community college and earn college credit and highschool credit at the same time. It was also in a different town. I think the principal was glad to get rid of me. So I was a depressed loner with narcissistic tendencies. All of this time I was constantly reading, Bukowski, Celine, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Philip K. Dick, The Strugatsky Brothers, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Goethe was an awakening. I found one charismatic teacher who taught philosophy in college. At the college teachers were better. I studied biology, Lovelock, the science behind symbiosis. At 18 I did somehow get a girlfriend, but most importantly I found Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals. If I could only describe what Nietzsche's writing did to my brain... Explosions, screaming rage... this is what sickness is... we are taught to be slaves... We have been domesticated. Resentment is the heart of Christianity and the state. I was sick and here was the cure. I read and reread it all again. It tore me apart and left me to put myself back together again. This was nearly ten years ago and I can tell you that there is no single more influential moment in my life than reading Nietzsche. I became a different person. I am still becoming that person. Well I'm only a slightly warped person now. Fairly happy if poor. I had to drop out of college when the recession hit. I had a semester left. I am 29 now. I have a partner and a 3 year old. I credit Stefan for getting me interested in doing something in society at large, for fulfilling the Socratic model by taking Philosophy out into the world where it Goddamn belongs. Also for introducing me to Austrian Economics which I am now reading about-- hoping to read one of Mises books soon.

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-conflicts-wikipedia-statistical-physicists.html#jCp

The first thing I thought of after reading this was a book I had read about children and robots. The book detailed how children are learning to think of artificial beings as people. It had lots of dialogue with the kids, asking them things like "What does Kismet/Furby think about?" "Is Furby real?" He got some really weird answers. But one of the disturbing things was that some of the kids would attack the robots, try to hurt them, hold Furby upside down while he cried. Also, the kids seemed to project onto the robots, These kids were in the minority, and there was some anecdotal evidence they came from "troubled" homes. I think when someone doesn't react, seems not to defend themselves, it becomes easier to think of them as an object.

This is an avenue I feel is really under explored. The natural world should be our mirror for economics. The calorie is the economic unit of the natural world. Competition has produced all life on this planet. The natural world is a sort of free market of genes. Thoughts? Examples? I will be bringing some of my own later.

Jobs lost from automation? Isn't this like saying "Jobs lost from efficiency?" https://smilingdavesblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/how-mises-dismissed-that-whole-keynesian-thing-with-a-decisive-one-liner/

"What I'm gathering is that the few people responding in this thread prefer to continue using explicit reasoned verbal argument regardless of whether most people appreciate or respond to it as intended." It's not the quantity of the people reached. It's the quality.

Here is a secondary source. USA today claims that the studys on positve mood change and depression have been peer-reviewed. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2011-09-29/Magic-mushroom-drug-may-improve-personality-long-term-/50602264/1 It was hypothesized that the mood change was due to neurogenesis. This is the guy doing the study on that part of it and his claims seem to exceed the previous study. Here's one of the studies on Neurogenesis and psychedelic drugs http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/299/2/401.full#SEC4 I've seen some footage of terminal patients taking psychedelics in controlled environments to combat depression and the fear of death as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Abramovi%C4%87#Rhythm_0.2C_1974 So I noticed a discussion on reddit and found the above link very interesting. Don't worry it's a short read. Thoughts?

While those examples are powerful I don't believe they are universal among primitive people. There are only examples from one or two cultures, and one is Serbia immediately after a war. Don't get me wrong, I think the notion of the "noble savage" is ridiculous as well. Psychedelics can be cool. A peer reviewed medical article was recently released demonstrating that psilocybin encourages neurogenesis, the creation of new neurons. There was some work done showing that LSD can help with creative problem-solving. It's your brain. Just try not to screw it up.

Sorry, I realize that this is more of an appeal to authority than an actual argument. Epistemology is such a sticky and difficult topic that I admit it's the kind of philosophy where I personally don't want to start at the beginning with it when there are some really wise people who have thought about it. Those recomendations are for the serious student of philosophy. I just want to paraphrase in a kind of simple way some other thinkers. And some of this is stuff I haven't read directly in 8 years or so. So what I consider the Platonic position is that-- the world exists (duh?), objects have an essential nature that exists as in an ideal form (world of forms), when we think or talk or percieve we are rearranging these forms or ideals. The world we experience is but shadows of the ideal. The world of forms is in some sense more real or more important than the "real world" because it is eternal. Kant's position-- Objective reality (noumenal world) is the world of things, the phenomenal world is our experience. Certain categories are hardwired into our brain like distance and time and this is how the phenomenal world is structured. Kant goes on to create a list of categories without providing a good enough argument for how they can be derived or even known from the phenomenal world. Nietzsche-- Tears into Kant. To say that objective (the noumenal world) reality exists is nonsense if all we experience is the (subjective) phenomenal world. We can never touch the "thing-in-itself" the objective world, so we can make no claim to speak on it. This opens the door to perspectivism. Nagarjuna-- Nothing has an essential nature. Existence and non-existence is a false dichotomy as are all dichotomies and oppositions. All concepts are empty. Wittgensteing-- Philosophy is a misuse of words. Philosophical speculation of the above kind is like moving chess pieces randomly on a board. If you don't agree with me I will hit you with a poker from the fireplace. Nagarjunas method reveals this by turning the rules of the game against itself. Language does not equal logic. All logically true statements are simply definitions. Language and meaning can only exist in a context. Language outside of context is without meaning which is what any kind of metaphysical discussion is. I will donate my inherited millions of dollars to charity and go try to teach math to children by smacking them over the head. Philosophy is dead. Long live Philosophy!

I think in a voluntary society we might actually see certain "boring" jobs becoming more valuable and high paying. In a truly free market, without the reliance on diplomas, etc, there is less of a capital investment in the creative thoughtful, and altruistic jobs. There is more people in the market for these jobs because they are desirable for their own sake, more competition driving down the value of this labor. You will see people who may be janitors for four days out of the week so they make enough to work for the job they love composing a symphony which they get paid very little for. I don't want to be too utopian about this, but if a voluntary society does end up with a more natural distribution of wealth-- which I believe it will naturally-- we will see that more people will benefit by the production and efficiency of different goods and services. Which is why I don't worry about people talking about robots taking over our jobs, etc. Production and efficiency benefits EVERYBODY in a true free market.

From Arius "Who lobbies for the increases? How do they benefit from changes in the law? Who pays most of the costs of the minimum wage? " Doesn't have to be lobbying. It's pure vote buying on the part of the Democratic party. People at the bottom may simply not think it through.

I think a better title would have been "Punished by incentives." A lot of businesses today are talking about the studies showing the cases in which incentives can hurt performance. What they find is that in some specific circumstances people drastically underperform when offered monetary incentives. There was a study done in Sweden (I think) where they showed that if you offered people $50 to donate blood they are something like half as likely to donate than if you just appeal to their conscience. Other studies show that creative work and certain kinds of problem solving suffer when people are offered incentives, probably because they feel less self motivated. Monetary incentives do seem to work when people are doing work that could be considered boring or drudge work. An example in real life is open source software. If ten years ago I told you that a group of motley programmers, working for free without a central authority, would produce a product that would annihilate Microsoft in the market, you would think I was nuts. But that's exactly what happened with the Apache web server. And Microsoft poured millions into their project. I really think this kind of thing shows the strength of voluntarism honestly. When we are self motivated we can do many things simply for the joy of it.

I'll refer you to Kant and then Nietzsche's criticism on that. Then Heidegger if you can stand it. But I'll try briefly.. Objective- The thing-in-itself. Subjective- Experience. One could say experience of the thing, but that begs the question.

There is no "object in itself". This is just another kind of metaphysics.

This lecture is ok, there are definitely things I would disagree with, and it's probably way too short to do anything other than whet someone's appetite. First of all, make sure your interpretation is by Walter Kaufman. Kaufmann has a portable reader that might be a suitable place to start. There are some excellent essays in the cambridge companion to Nietzsche as well. I'm torn by this question. Some will read Beyond Good and Evil, run away and never look back, but it is probably the best place to start. The Gay Science (The Joyful Wisdom), is a suitable starting place. I would definitely avoid the later works at first. The pre Beyond Good and Evil works Nietzsche essentially rejects later, but could be good if you are at all interested in literary criticism or classical literature.