StylesGrant

Let's say we have Jack and BIll. Jack posts a mixture of things, and sometimes does or says things deliberately nonconstructive to the community or showing a lack of forethought. He gets a negative rating. Bill always gives Jack a negative rating, but if every post Jack makes is not inherently guaranteed to be nonconstructive, but Bill 'attempts to sabotage his character' by just boycotting him, than it is safe to say, nothing can stop this level of defamation. So Jack's rating would be doomed. I assume nothing can stop this, except beyond the 6th post given in a day, if the limit is 5 disapproving ratings?

Interestingly the concept of 3D printers has been thrown around a lot, and it was actually brought to my attention that they are mainly talking about printing food with genetically modified insects, meal worms, etc, algae. That this trend towards a corporitist model of central agricultural planning would lead down the road 30 years plus to an insurance prescribed 'food cube'. A bit of a hyperbole, though do not assume its all unlikely in any degree. On the other hand, is the continued movement towards heirloom farmer markets, permaculture, and land conservation in the attempts of getting enough species variety, and consequentially genetic resilience, along with much more anti-oxidant and environmentally protective secondary metabolite within plants into the human body, which would start to bring man back to this aboriginal pre-agricultural genetic strength. Which I mean, hey, if you want to put heirloom food into a 3D printer.. you get the idea. But I digress. Point being, if you know anything about transhumanism. People are talking about growing organs, downloading their minds into machines, genetically programming out diseases, genetically designing babies, and various other continuous meddling. That is to say, applying sophisticated band-aids to an imperfect under-developed body. While no doubt, they may design a type of ubermensche, I can foresee the majority of those individuals brought farther down the course of a genetically bastardized food system, with government, and public schooling to lead to anything less than a weaker version of people. I don't know if anyone on this board would know much about aboriginal studies and traditional cultures. The theory is, that because we have limited the human diet so greatly in the pursuit of an alcohol based society (which Joe Rogan has talked about) and grain consumption, we have increasingly lost the natural genetic protection conferred by eating natural habitat diversity. This shows in CAFO's where the sterility has led to anti-biotic resistant super bugs, and countless other examples. The only reason monoculture farming works, are because of industrial inputs. If you stand back and let nature take over, it kills human artifacts until the wildness returns. This idea of challenging agriculture to ask the question, how do we know what we think we know-..is it perhaps a result of an alcohol based civilization. What if we cause a potato blight on ourselves? This all raises the question of how we see ourselves, as a dominant species, or the anthropomorphic perspective vs. an integral species. Can we survive under a paradigm that assumes we were managing for our own habitat objectively, when in reality we were destroying out own habitat by undermining our own genetics? What if Hayek's obersvations were really about symbiosis? If he had understood this genetic phenomena, how would it have been reflected in his market observations?

On a side note. I'm well aware that everything that America and The West could possibly do bad, is blamed by the likes of Chomsky. And of course Progressives want to bring people down into an underclass, so long as there is an overlord priesthood, along with some financial elite and bankers for I suppose variety. And every anarchist school of thought basically hates established structural derived privilege in some kind of sense. So it is well established that there are a lot of people who hate crimes committed by certain entities in Western History. No doubt. So, yes- I am being very critical of greco-roman western culture, history, and philosophy, on a philosophy board. But I have a point I am trying to make here - no one can be immune to criticism, no one can be irreproachable. If Stefan Molyneux were that way, it would undermine what he is trying to do. I listen to him, because I get a perspective that isn't bias towards the endless accusations against the West. One that is more objective, and coming from a different angle. I listen to him, because he explains the essential good aspects of greco-roman Western culture, history, and philosophy. I just don't want to support total cultural insular value systems of Westernism, in a world where most people aren't of that origin. I am trying to stress that, I don't want to avoid expanding the degree of lens with which inquiry is shown through. I'm not multicultural, if anything I am anti-cultural. Culture is at best, an attempt of humans to interpret their own biology through their own mind. It couldn't possibly be the objective truth. I don't think I need to ask if we'd like to resurrect Aristotle from the dead and ask him if Nicaraguan Coups, and CIA backed contras, death squads that killed Bolivian citizens, and evil corporatism are in fact evil. Isn't it kinda self explanatory?

see - Heidigger Mckenna Watts Paul Stammets Randall Carlson Graham hancock For hell's sake, even the article about the history of intellectuals (in favor of natural elistism and anti-intellectualism which I couldn't more strongly disagree with) on von Mises by Rothbard agrees with this sentiment. State supported intellectuals are to be suspect at best and untrustworthy at worst. Most 19th and 20th and 21st century science is statist, and hence corporatism. Though there were certainly many influential independent scientist in the 19th century, its largely eclipsed. Never mind the fact that Tesla wasn't supported by the state, and Bell was......

http://schoolsucksproject.com/podcast-297-behold-a-dictator-part-1-of-2-with-thaddeus-russell/ Cannot more strongly suggest this podcast for this thread. So let me further make some points. You hear a lot about modernism and post-modernism, and relativism and objectivism. People have tried to hint at the mystical nature of Communism and Fascism, but in the podcast Thaddeus Russell explains that it is actually very objectivist. In this podcast Thaddeus will also correctly point out, as has Peter Joseph, that the most accurately applied case of enlightenment ojbectivist materialist order was the scientific regimentation of military organizations. If you had listened to Dan Carlin's WWI podcasts, he goes into detail about the phenomenal engineering skills of the German Artillery units. They were all crack math wizards. Without the objectivist greco-roman mind, the armies of WWII would have simply been impossible. We know all too well how evil arguing economics from morality can be when it goes wrong, but I don't hear much about the dangers of mathematically controlling people working so well when it becomes the kind of threat that military are. It is certainly true that because of the lack of enlightenment in central Europe, the people were more susceptible to organizing their laws, economics, and social structures through moral authoritarianism, lacking an objectivist approach. But this did not stop them from regimenting their military and peoples in an authoritarian fashion. Pope Leo dictated a need for 'benevolent subservience and father figures'. Thaddeus described the military as a 'total rationalization of man' and something that weeded out 'all but a small, narrow, particular function'. Later, talking about the nature in which the state and church replaced Dunbar's number, and small tribes (hearken to anarcho-primitivism), was a 'total attack on the cultural history of groups of individuals engaging in mutual aid at the town level'. This is to say, the German Nazis, like Peter Joseph, suggested, and implemented, like the New Deal, a rationalized objectivist approach to poverty, which resulted in a drastic reduction of poverty in Germany in the 1930's. What you see is an amalgamation of objectivism and moral authoritarianism. And to a degree by Dan Carlin's arguments, the Russian Communist had better military generals than Hitler...meaning that the organization of divisions was so ultra consequentialist and mathematical, that the Russian troops could better be thought of as a swarm...This quote gives some impression.. Eastern health experts will often use the words 'reductionist' and 'narrow' and 'truncated' much much more than Peter Joseph, to describe western pharmacology and medicine. People like Joel Salatin will use those words to describe Western agriculture. It is because of a root philosophical fallacy. Much in the Progressive method, a pharmacologist will design a drug that functions on a 'particular, narrow, function', when this is in fact not how the body works. The body is essentially Hayekian. Ecology, and life systems are Hayekian, market like dynamically regulating, incapable of being encompassed by central governing and an absolute knowledge of outcomes. Thus there are 'truncations' and 'assumptions' made, that explain a large degree of the chronic illness in the West. The only thing I can suggest, is study it concretely in biology. Study biogeochemical cycles, wildlife land management and population ecology, restoration ecology, bioinformatics, forestry, or perhaps network theory, artificial intelligence, and programming language. Or perhaps study the pharmacology of different Chinese and Ayurvedic herbs, and you'll quickly realize how much of a bastardization western pharmacology is. Through the years I have learned a great deal about permaculture, sustainable agriculture, and alternative health, and the main philosophical contention behind people in those fields is the egregious use of the scientific model used to rationalize moral and social proscription and behaviorism -to force people to self regulate through a moral form of internal control under an objectivist guise. This was also something Gad Saad and Joe Rogan discussed (and in fact Rogan talks about it constantly). Applying positivism, enlightenment, and modernist objective philosophy of logic, science, language, epistemology, etc to human behavior was rooted in the Catholic Pope Leo's early concept of 'corporatism', and then further developed into Italian Fascism. While Communism is more mystical and built upon arguing economics from a moral standpoint, it is still strongly rooted in dehumanizing people with the materialist application of social proscription for a more rational man. But in the case of American and German history and culture, corporatism is much more evident. Since the greco-roman rational material mind is behind all of these historical events, it is not a surprise that America today is the full embodiment of a paternalistic relation of puritanical moral proscription to the corporatism ideology. This is traumatically evident in Obamacare, Archer Daniel Midland, Cargrill, Mansanto, Pfizer, NIH, FDA, ADA, AMA, research grants, journals, Ivy league Progressive hegemony in universities, Insurance monopolies, Glaxo-Kline-Smith, Walmart, and other types of cartel behavior. The manner in which the medical field conducts research has deep roots in the corporatism agenda, the methods in which they design cancer drugs, auto-immune drugs, etc. It is whole sale genocide and corporatism gone wrong. Peter Joseph had indeed suggested more of this extension of the scientific principal in the objectivist sense along with a great deal of post modern mysticism to social problems. You can see how this is a rehash. I mention Peter as much as I do, because he incorporated (no pun intended) a great deal of ideas not traditionally associated with Progressivism or Classical Objectivism into his school of thoughts. Then this community wrongfully criticized those concepts not understanding where they come from. A lot of it comes from computer science, AI, chaos theory, network theory, biological sciences, bioinformatics, cybernetics, and are essentially Hayekian in nature. These same theories are very contradictory towards Fordism, Taylorism, and Weber managerial constructs. Personally, I'm hoping I can read Kevin Carson's Organization Theory. All of this is just loud, screaming, clear in your face in The Matrix Trilogy!!

Well since we are on to Matrix, and I wanted to include Panarchy discription this is pretty important http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/5.09/newrules_pr.html

But I have to add, I cannot finish tying in the points to posts I made. Though it certainly would have made a pretty elaborate and interesting post about cultural history in the last two centuries of the west. And, it would not have garnered good agreement, but it would certainly have been interesting. I really do see the strong need for analyzing things from a perspective of culture and evolutionary psychology and biology to understand how culture creates economic behavior. I am fascinated by the concept of moral impositions being a product of culture, and culture being a product of how people choose to handle their own biological imperatives i.e. wants/needs. All I really wanted to do is debate the moral impositions of hierarchical authoritarianism and communitarism (propertyless anti-individual concepts) and how they formed (which Thaddeus Russell talks about). But this community and I are incompatible. There is a fairly rigid confirmation bias geared on moral imperatives of western philosophy like Kant, Smith, and especially Rothbard, Mises, and Hayek, and anything that ever influenced who and what Rothbard was and where his morals came from. The guiding principles here are pretty locked in, in terms of how people respond to counter arguments, debate, explanations etc. So I can expect nothing outside that etiquette that Stefan has laid in those books. I am going to stop while I am ahead, with somewhat less regret. I strongly urge you to consider the reputation system, the concept of social shaming, the concept of ego and reputation within small communities, and confirmation bias. I strongly suggest this 7 part series with the Schoolsucksproject and Thaddeus Russell http://schoolsucksproject.com/podcast-269-the-shame-debate-with-thaddeus-russell/ I also want to remind you to look at the article I posted about regulatory algorithm. I know right wing capitalist advocates plan to use a moral imperative in how they form society through the crypto-contracts, in terms of how they are structured, the moral principals that are the lattice of which the algorithms code for to create terms and conditions. Its algorithms, but just like criticisms of Zeitgeist, people aren't going to be ruled by those technologies or saved, but only by the morals behind them. Which is why FDR community attacked Peter so vigorously, and for which I am not totally in disagreement at all. If algorithms and crypto-contracts or concepts in a decentralized society have a moral basis behind them that is not in accordance with self-sovereignty and self interest will result in those algorithmic regulatory aspects within the legal contracts resulting in more class privilege and abuse and tyranny, be it socialistic or capitalistic. I see that there is a strong need for insulating the core values of the FDR community in order to maintain the principals and moral points that Stefan is trying to make. If there wasn't some sort of rating system, this community and the board would likely fall apart and the good and bad would be lost. I have probably never met a man that I disagree with and simultaneously agree with as vehemently as Stefan Molyneux. I suppose this is an extension of my views on Rothbard. I dont want to repeatedly 'double down' on my belligerence, thus directly implying that I want the community to fall apart, at the expense of losing the good that is here, but I don't want to be censored. I certainly like to play devils advocate. If I weren't that way, I would have never found myself drifting more to capitalistic morals outlined in the work of Stefan or Rothbard or Mises. I certainly wouldn't be the history advocate I was if I didn't play the devil's advocate. I certainly don't claim to have all the self knowledge that is talked about so much here. Frankly, I have observed Stefan's way of dealing with people he doesn't agree with and the way he completely deconstructs call-ins so methodically to refute peoples explanations. Maybe its warranted. Maybe it has its moral basis, maybe it has its principals. But you cannot deny that it is heavy handed and absolute. Stefan doesn't parse his words, when he says he will consistently hammer in his stated principals. He does. For better or worse. If I were utterly morally opposed to capitalistic principles I would have never started reading left libertarian-ism, nor the history of anarchism, nor the FDR community. I needed historical and moral explanations for what the hell was going on. Anything in terms of the history of anarchism is almost certainly the only example of harmonious consistently moral, morally consistent social structures in modern history. But that also dictates to me that I favor socialistic communitarian values in anarchistic frames like that of Kropotkin more than contemporary State Capitalism. And now it is beginning to be possible to have a propertied, market system coincide with a move towards anarchism, libertarian-ism, and panarchism because of the technology and social backlash, so I have a self interest in trying to survive and utilize a part of those At least Kevin Carson points out that the history of anarchism was always associated with leftist attacks of class privilege. I was somewhat generically, reactionary and liberal in high-school. I honestly would have taken a greater appeal to this community 3 years ago in college, as I had by that point become much more geared towards 'reputation', 'success'. 'earning respect' 'dignity' and other types of somewhat moralizing cultural pressures. It was the alternative health and paleo nutritionist that exposed me to libertarian economics, and really changed my moral system along with experiences with women, positive experiences, that led me to deciding a more favorable attitude towards capitalistic culture and the value systems inherent with living the American life in a ordered integrated fashion. I thought I could adapt, and develop myself. I was looking for self knowledge even then without knowing about any of this communities notions. I was idealistically under the belief that I could solve issues related to environmental, medical, and public health issues with libertarian and lifestyle changes to a more naturally an-cap friendly approach. I related this simply to business done by environmental consulting firms, game management, and farming businesses for the organic industry, herbal and neutraceutical industries, insurance and policy positions, and large marketing of healthier food systems, and I suppose countless other entrepreneurial fantasies I had during that time. So naturally I became hellishly interested in learning applicable economics and finance. But that ended badly 3 years ago. I was already a sick individual physically and in all ways. But I underwent an accident of sorts, a type of health breakdown related directly to the incompetence of this medical paradigm and the culture behind it. My education was ruined, and I was left broken and for dead. Since then I have learned so many things that have made me so disgusted with the notion of working within the apparatus of environmental law and the legal system in general and our regulatory bodies. And it wasn't just me that was affected. I found out that there were other indications that had affected deceased family members, as well as living ones being essentially screwed. Not to mention the economic detriment I have suffered. And frankly, death is better than giving my brain and skills to the corporate state nexus of scientific endeavors in the medical-pharmaceutical-agronomics-biotech complex or the natural resource field with its marriage to the oil cartels and massive government overreach. And I realize now that even the most well intention ed ant-collectivist anti-welfare culture and moral system cannot if funneled through the lens of Mises economic principals give me the answers I need. Though that it is because this world ain't built on Mises principles, its built on state corporate capitalism. Which itself comes from many moral assumptions about the poor, about work ethic, about human rights, class divisions, fairness, cultural hegemony, religion, etc. Social Darwinism, hyper competition, ruthless materialistic egoism. So I am saying, I don't agree with the morals and principles in this community, its only going to be hurtful in the long run. Its not in my self interest. The reputation system is a moral enforcer. No other way to paint it but that. And the idea of putting reputation on a pedestal carries its own problems. I'd rather hear the truth from a frog on a log, than a proselytizing moral crusader. I use to think that it was a lack of morals, a total failure of my self and capacities, internal sense of responsibility. Or That in society it was the materialistic profusion and decadence that was the result of statism and corporitism and inequality. That these were the causes of misery. But really, these are observations of the ill effects of moral authoritarianism. I even have given a lot of credence to Peter Joseph's anti-materialistic fallacies. I have already posted arguments in this thread that are strongly centered on how much better things would be if there was this absolute efficiency. But I have to concede that such puritanical assumptions about efficiency would only stifle innovative expensive inefficient accidents that turn out to be the ideas that change things. I listened to the video about the truth on immigration. And I did like it, I understood it and where Stefan is coming from. But without a doubt I have my disagreements. I'm not going to accept western hegemonic culture by de facto as a form of fatalism towards tribalism. I grew up in a hellish backwater hyper religious conservative bigoted part of East Texas, and was raised around ex-conns and hardcore alcoholics. I hear people like Thaddeus and countless people that Rogan talks to, and people just cannot stop bitching about progressive and Californian liberals. You are angry for good reasons, but the so called zoo animals you're not used to dealing with still control a huge portion of this countries culture and ideology. And no matter how hard you try to sanitize it with von Mises economics, these people are still religious as can be in the worst possible ways. They are neocons and statists to the core, and very dangerous. More over I am firmly against Western philosophic hegemony. The Lakota Russell Means has a very good point, and I believe Cormac McCarthy's books have an encoded warning against the Western Man, as well. Marxism may be a perversity of Western values, but it is a western creation. The philosophy of logic, science, materialistic inquiry...are all more similar among the western approach to central and decentralized economics, than as compared to eastern esoteric philosophy. It is clear that the Western mind has failed at certain things, and has caused tremendous complications in areas of scientific inquiry regarding medicine and agriculture among others. Though only western science can fix it, there continues to be a lag in how the greater minds view the things that they cannot wrap the western mind around. The Chinese do not have this attitude, as they simply amalgamate and steal everything, so in another 300 years it will be hard to imagine that the Chinese wont be more technologically advanced. Once they completely cross analyze their own philosophical history and esoteric sciences like acupuncture, martial arts, meditation, TCM...when they bring those things from the esoteric to the material...its going to radically change the human condition. I still have hope that technology will begin to develop towards sustainability and to reflect social constructs that are more morally in tune with the real ecological predicaments, more morally equivalent to the inalienable rights of all humans, and more morally honest about all peoples sharing a interrelated, and interdependent fate, more morally honest about the consequences of cultural hegemony and classism being the metaphorical Valdeez Captain at the wheel on 2/5ths of vodka hurling the people on board into utter oblivion while leaving waste and pollution in the midst all while under a power raging egoistic hubris. Indeed, I agree with Thaddeus Russell, I'd rather have a society capable of giving freedom to the worst drunks, whores, derelicts, negligent, homeless, and social rift-raft, the non-integratable pariahs. A society that can handle not always having a contingency or principle in every situation, a moral assumption, or regulating reaction. At least a society with a plurality of morals, cultures, technologies, social constructs, an element of ungarenteed safety, lack of absolute clarity and certainty in outcome -would be more human, less like a total realization of The Wachowskis Brothers, Kevin Kelly's, and Baudrillard's nightmare The Matrix. A Bukowski poem sticks out in my mind vividly

So, I'll state something for the record. I don't get a strong sense that FDR as a whole, though I concede there are individuals here who do, understand the difference between market volunteerism leftist anarchism, and communistic or communitarian and other democratic and egalitarian forms of anarchism. I would strongly agree with Robert Steele, in his interview with Max Keiser, Panarchy is NOT Anarchy. And I am not an an cap or a volunteerist leftist market anarchist. I can best be thought of as a Centrist Panarchist.

.

Read the rest at http://c4ss.org/content/29297

Alright so, some more points. This next bit I want to share I hope at least someone will look at for the sake of this thread, because it is only going to be available for the next 24 hours approximately. This is the eating psychology conference, which I decided to reference to at the last minute, realize it could make a valid point. http://eatingpsychologyconference.com/ sign up Basically in my mind, a big aspect of philosophy and consequentially culture and economics, and hence this thread, should revolve around the body. Stefan constantly factors in developmental biology with parenting and childhood abuse. Lloyd Demause's book is hugely significant for this reason. I spend a fair amount of time studying things related to PTSD and mental illness, especially the influence of entheogens (see reset.me or Rogan rants among others). So here is the psychology of eating. Basically all these things could be broadly defined as the interplay between evolutionary behavioral biology and psychobiology. Often, as in this thread, I will rant about alternative medicine. Which people like Penn Gillette hate. What I really intend with attacking western medicine and psychiatry is no different than the arguments that Stefan has made about Psychiatry. I simply am saying, that the concepts, culture, and assumptions are not in line with real psychobiology. Anglo-Saxon culture lives in its head. The meat body doesn't get factored into the equation. When I make concessions to Peter Joseph its not so much about the economic ideals of communism or capitalism, but simply the reality of the health issues. The idea that you can separate culture, economics, psychology, and physical health is just not sound. They are mixed together in a messy way. And this does not conclude to communitarian outcomes to simply apply a once again mental abstraction of economics to everyone to alleviate their suffering, as this is a half truth. The culture is the larger influence towards how peoples minds will react to adversity, and therefore the outcome of their health. If there is any point I am trying to make in this thread, it is that you cannot centrally plan, materialize, and calculate a culture. Though this is a wide held belief, that you can. Also, here are the lineups for today. 12:00pm (EST) Dr. Mark Hyman - A Doctor’s View of Food, Nutrition, and Health 12:30pm (EST) Amy Pershing - The Psychology of Binge Eating 1:00pm (EST) Thomas Moore - A Soulful Approach to Food 1:30pm (EST) Jessica Ortner – Tapping Meets Eating Psychology 2:00pm (EST) Dr. David Perlmutter - New & Daring Insights into Brain Health 2:30pm (EST) John Assaraf – Mastering Your Mindset 3:00pm (EST) Isabelle Tierney – If You Don’t Dare to Love Your Body, Who Will? 3:30pm (EST) John Robbins – A Heartfelt Understanding of Food, Planet & Soul 4:00pm (EST) Dr. Sara Gottfried – A Deeper Look at Hormones & Sacred Chemistry 4:30pm (EST) Jon Gabriel – The Psychobiology of Weight 5:00pm (EST) Lindsey Averill – Fattitude: An Empowering Look at Fat Yes some of it is more on the woo woo side, the freaky crystal side...but there are solid illustrations made by the more objective as well. I recommend Dr. Hyman, Jon Gabriel, and Perlmutter especially.

Unfortunately shame does drive a further divide in the political body. And though what these people represent is patently dishonest and shameful in its own right, they need to be objectively criticized and shown hard evidence of convoluted policies of both parties. They could be shown how NAFTA and other issues have played into this as well. However, these people are generally like playing chess with pigeons.

Chris Hedges is certainly not a Rothbardian, but I agree with a great deal of his points to the extent...that he criticizes people in ways that are normally immune to criticism, such as state and corporate science, insurance, and yes atheist. Do I agree with his Christianity...no...but there are definitely bad beliefs among certain atheist agendas that are not humanistic. And certain elitist strains are against the use of the term humanistic...those are probably the types I am glad to hear Hedges criticize.

I'm planning on trying to tie in Robert Sapolsky and others on some points about behavioralism and evolutionary biology affecting economic behavior... but first this really is sort of concretely pertinent to this thread. " Read more at http://c4ss.org/content/28216

I certainly like it as a form of visualizing the conceptual aspect of organizing society through its capital. I think it points to a more balanced reasonable idea of a more ...forward thinking ..philanthropic real capital economic approach to markets, which in my mind is really what is lacking...the cultural valuation of ..well spiritual capital if that's a term. Which just that part alone could easily fill a 1000 page book. After all I think that is where the real source of conflict in economic arguments comes from, the debate over the humanity in capital vs. the rationality.

.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/20/rise-of-data-death-of-politics-evgeny-morozov-algorithmic-regulation?commentpage=2 http://www.guardianbookshop.co.uk/BerteShopWeb/viewProduct.do?ISBN=9780241957707 The rise of data and the death of politicsTech pioneers in the US are advocating a new data-based approach to governance – 'algorithmic regulation'. But if technology provides the answers to society's problems, what happens to governments? "To his credit, MacBride understood all of this in 1967. "Given the resources of modern technology and planning techniques," he warned, "it is really no great trick to transform even a country like ours into a smoothly running corporation where every detail of life is a mechanical function to be taken care of." MacBride's fear is O'Reilly's master plan: the government, he writes, ought to be modelled on the "lean startup" approach of Silicon Valley, which is "using data to constantly revise and tune its approach to the market". It's this very approach that Facebook has recently deployed to maximise user engagement on the site: if showing users more happy stories does the trick, so be it. Algorithmic regulation, whatever its immediate benefits, will give us a political regime where technology corporations and government bureaucrats call all the shots. The Polish science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem, in a pointed critique of cybernetics published, as it happens, roughly at the same time as The Automated State, put it best: "Society cannot give up the burden of having to decide about its own fate by sacrificing this freedom for the sake of the cybernetic regulator." spike91nz20 July 2014 7:08am Recommend6 The algorithms imagined are developed within a set of assumptions regarding relevant aspects of the system counting for significance and value. It is the assumptions within which the algorithms are constructed that are (or need to be) open for public and political debate. The algorithm is not a neutral and objective construction, but rather one tailored to the assumptions defining the purpose and design applied to the indifferent system. If the world is seen only in terms of economic values, those aspects of human existence resistant to such reductionism, and those impossible to be determined values for future generations, will be excluded by those obsessed with immediate personal profits. If we wish to establish a steady-state socio-political machine in a rentalist's economy, without opportunity for freedom or progress, then the cybernetic algorithms will serve that purpose. They will however demand ever finer constraints upon the individual variables, until the specific calories and allowable waste are calculated for each inhabitant of a maximally populated dystopian reality. Is this really the best future that we can imagine?

William Gibson's books Blood Meridian and other books by Cormac McCarthy Crime and Punishment Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe Goeth's Faust The Omnivore's Dilemma Starved and Stuffed The hidden battle for the world food systems The Heretic's Guide to Global Finance

I had been thinking more about Peter Josephs arguments on relative poverty, as well as the ruthless speculation of basic health costs in America compared to practically any other country by the hospital administration and insurers, and trying to understand it through the evolutionary terms of Sapolsky, as well as some of the arguments in Loyd Demause's books about technology and economics and parenting being the antecedent for cultural evolution, in a psychogenic sense - my point being that there is a strong involvement of evolutionary behavioral signals that govern the reward seeking behavior of people and that it is dependent on what cultural values they have to the extent in terms of how it manifests in character. Ug and Wug like Wushou in paleolithic Iberian times, so they build mud houses to impress her. But Ug's house is less than appealing, so he gets rejected. Ug beats Wug in the head with a rock, like Abel. The second example as a comparison to the first, is the movie Fight Club...which is probably second or third to Matrix in terms of philosophical importance of movies in the last 30 years. There is a book called Schizophrenia in Capitalism as well as Simulacra and Simaltra (for The Matrix) which delve more into rewards, identity, value, and category that can govern behavior. I have yet to lose my interest in the Matrix, because I believe that the value systems that are imposed onto peoples reward system, is a type of predation or hijacking of the evolutionary mechanics, denoting a darker connotation of our reward system's need for a signal (to see a man's wealth etc). This concerns the what that affects the signal, rather than the denial of the signal, which is biological fact. My point being, the mental illness in the speculative JP morgan banker, and the single mother who works minimum wage jobs to survive are rooted in the cultural perception of rewards, and the same cultural, being a sort of system of a down, doesn't lend itself to meeting needs at a basic level of people without taking into account a monetary trade for need and technical efficiency . our culture =/= technical efficiency

I second the korean and swedish thriller movies. There is one movie with the guy who plays Jamie on Game of Thrones with english subtitles and it is unique and awesome. My favorite korean movie is "The Man from nowhere" I saw the devil is pretty crazy too. And there is Oldboy and the remake of Oldboy, super super crazy.

all the more reason to look at evolutionary behavior, see Sapolsky's Stanford lecture and documentarie

http://prn.fm/progressive-commentary-hour-063014/ Feel free to debate the single payer stance, but please consider the actual arguments being discussed about the nature, quality, type, and inherent cost models of health treatments of the current medical industry.

Sapolsky Lectures on Human Behavioral Biology More on this later As well as this , score one more for Rogan

My thoughts- as per Mr. Rogan, that politicians should try it. More on this later.

This is a damn good and relevant episode http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/gad-saad