shirgall

You are focused on only one aspect of technology. Kiosks that handle rote labor are not going to put millions out of work. Robots that assemble hardware aren't either. Focus on what skills are actually being made unnecessary. Running a cash register? Swinging a hammer? Splitting a log? Plugging in a wiring harness in a dashboard? Welding in a straight line? Sure, what is being supplanted is gradually rising in skill level, but it's not robot Armageddon.

It did not break the IQ bank when pneumatic nailguns were invented for people that used to drive nails with hammers, and that's just one of billions of examples of labor-saving devices that increased productivity. Another good one is the remarkable increase in crop yields that enabled the human race to have an available workforce for industrialization. Another dramatic improvement of productivity in one area that lead to an improvement of productivity in another.

Not at all. I based what I said on what I have seen. When people claim I am being judgmental, and when I've seen the term applied to others, it's because that person is judging yet is not perfect. Claiming that someone is imperfect and therefore cannot judge others is an ad hominem attack that does not address claims or conclusions. You're right, it's a deflection, but it's not scapegoating. Scapegoating is the process of transferring sin to a goat and sending it out into the wild to be eaten by a predator. Violence is not escalating as history progresses. People all around the world live longer, less violent lives on average now than in any prior era. Claiming I cannot understand something is also an ad hominem attack that does not address what I said. You can say I was incorrect. What I said was that once Adam and Eve learned about good and evil they permanently took on obligation of being good and eschewing evil. They could not have been evil until they knew what it was. I've never equated sin with death. Since we've stopped being polite, let me add that the point of the story, written by a person, was to invent a disease that only he could cure: sin. It's a great racket if you can get it. Sure beats chasing antelope or raising crops.

Back in 1983. In the Houston Journal of International Law, Khazir Khan wrote an article entitled “Juristic Classification Of Islamic Law” but I have not seen the full article available online, just quotes from it. http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/02/daily-caller-khan-wrote-extensively-favor-sharia/

Labor-saving devices free people to perform jobs with higher productivity (and possibly higher pay as a result).

You cannot make yourself 100% exempt, but you can take personal exemptions based on the amount of deductions you expect to make on your annual return. I've not been able to greatly reduce my withholding since the 1980s except a bump when I got married. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/withholding-exemptions-personal-exemptions-form-w-4

Person A: meals enough for two people, Person B: no meals, Sum: Person B dies Theft Person A: meals enough for one person, Person B: meals enough for one person, Sum: no one dies "Value" is a much more complex concept than dollar amount. It had objective and subjective elements. It has quantitative and qualitative measurements. The same thing can have different value to different individuals.

Fine, I won't gnaw off your arm, I'm coming over to take a loaf of bread from your pantry. How do you stop me? Physical restrictions, perhaps, but those can be defeated. Assume I can bypass locks and doors (there are certainly ways to do that), what's left to interfere with my freedom to eat the bread in your pantry? If I don't listen to your words of shame or ability to influence others via denouncement, you have to rely on force. Is it coercive? While it has been debated that the use of force to defend property is not justified, the delegation of police powers to prevent theft or recover property is not questioned by very many. Voting is, most of the time, the use of force to redistribute other people's property. That's got less support than police power to prevent and rectify theft. However, it is a tool that has been used against me since before I was born, and if I can eke out some succor or improvement at times, I may use it. just like I will take whatever Social Security and Medicare benefits I qualify for since I have been maxing out the damn things every year since the 1990s. We're all in this thing together. And while it's fruitless to hope we can fundamentally change the system from within, especially using supporting the usual suspects that drive the engine of subjugation, but from time to time we can at least make it not hurt so badly. If there's a libertarian to be truly damned, it's Milton Friedman for giving the government the mechanism to prevent taxation from being protested effectively: withholding. Like Reagan, when he realized his error, it was far too late.

The enforceability of language is direct: the responsibility for confirming that a transmitted message is understood is with the sender, therefore the sender needs to negotiate language rules, transmit the message, and verify it... all using the same medium: language. The enforceability of morality is not direct: the sender teaches a moral lesson and can verify that the lesson has been understood, but following the moral lesson is the responsibility of the receiver, since they are the ones performing actions which could be judged moral or immoral and must evaluate potential actions before deciding on one.

If we denounce the ability to judge our surroundings we get eaten by predators. "Judgmental" is an adjective used to deflect an unwanted argument without addressing it. St. Paul could have just as easily been addressing people's poor self-knowledge than condemning someone's judgment. I think Stefan addressed this directly in one of the call-in shows where he examined John 8:7 and 8:11. The accusers were shamed for hypocrisy and the victim was instructed to stop sinning. There's two judgments in quick succession and it's a well-regarded story. If we are going to learn from the past we must be able to evaluate it. I acknowledge that things were different then, and there's always missing context from available accounts, and the choices made may have made things better than other choices could have, but that does not change whether some particular well-understood action was wrong or not.

If the Second Amendment only applies to muskets than the only laws written on vellum are valid.

The premises are: 1. we both exist 2. the senses have a capacity for accuracy 3. language has a capacity for meaning 4. correction requires universal preferences 5. an objective methodology exists for separating truth from falsehood 6. truth is better than falsehood 7. peaceful debate is the best way to resolve disputes 8. individuals are responsible for their actions The NAP is not one of these. It is not until page 53 where he explains that NAP and proposes testing these claims on 54. 1. It is universally preferable to initiate the use of force. 2. It is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force. 3. The initiation of the use of force is not subject to universal preferences. The entire next part of the book ("II. Application") that tests Rape, Murder, Theft, and Fraud (and more) examines individual cases of force initiation and does not rely on the NAP as a premise.

Any behavior can be claimed to be universally preferable and tested with UPB. It is a test not an answer. Again, the UPB book covers this on pages 32-33, but the idea is that a "universally preferable behavior" is a claim that a particular behavior should be performed by everyone. It is the hypothesis that is then tested within the UPB framework.

"Can", sure, but "should"? Universally preferable means that the behavior in question should be done by everyone.

Remember that UPB says "universally preferable" which is not the same state as "preferable". It is the universally preferable construction that is objective, a statement of what should be preferred by everyone. Stealing is the action of taking possession of a thing without justification. If it is universally preferable to steal--"everyone should steal"--there is no unjustified possession (the universal preference negates the lack of justification). Therefore, there is no distinction between stealing and other forms of obtaining possession in our hypothetical, which causes the universal preference to fail. It cannot be UPB therefore it is immoral. Just as if it is universally preferable to murder then murder ceases to be distinct from other forms of homicide. It cannot be UPB therefore it is immoral. Pages 32 and 33 of the UPB book covers "universally preferable" in better detail.

Sure, I should add that the reason I think some action being forbidden or permitted is not coercive is the chances of obtaining unanimous consent, which begs the question: if there's unanimous consent why does there need to be a rule?

Fair enough, but as I pointed out, even you defending yourself from me because I'm hungry and want to gnaw your arm off is a limitation of my freedom, via force... just like me gnawing your arm off is a significant limitation of your freedom. If I vote to make gnawing legal, that's probably coercion. If you vote to make self-defense legal, that's probably not. It's still a limitation of freedom in either direction.

If you have a unchosen restriction or obligation on your actions, you are not free. However, some restrictions (like physical laws) and some obligations (you gotta eat or you die) are inherent to our reality. Therefore freedom is not a bichromatic concept. You can be more free and less free, based on the quantity and onerousness of restrictions and obligations. If you restrict the discussion to a category of freedoms, specifically unchosen restrictions and obligations relating to other people, you may be able to approach 100% freedom, but it's highly unlikely you can get to that without being on a desert island. Your freedom is often limited by their freedom, and vice versa. We have developed ethical and moral systems to deal with the fairness of these interactions, but not a single one of those systems allows someone to be 100% free. Even the tyrant must fear the coup. So, instead, philosophers explore ways to min/max the concept, especially as it applies to individuals. Philosophy gives people the tools and facts and negotiation gives them a way to balance it. Yes, voting most often imposes unchosen personal restrictions and obligations. There is no one I know that is not already subject to voting that has already happened from before they were born. We've all be subject to a variety of other systems in the past, but they all amount to unchosen restrictions and obligations on our freedom, if not unchosen gain or loss of accessible resources. We all muddle through as best we can, looking for the solution we feel the best about and helps us the most. Voting may be immoral, but one can easily get to the point of saying, "so what?" It is better to take an action that leads to less loss of life or freedoms--even if it is normally wrong--than if a greater loss of life or freedoms would come about if no action were taken. And we use empirical data for that, not some other yardstick.

Poll-wise it is difficult to distinguish between the DNC convention bounce and whether the Khan kerfuffle has traction with voters. It's certainly getting talked about because it is the only attack that managed to stick.

Bottom line is that you should decide on the truth of the concepts for yourself, but there is often insight and benefit to be had when you hear different takes on the same subjects. Tyler said it was a good source but didn't say it was the preferable one. The thing about these forums is that you get another take than the resources listed, too. I have a tendency to boil things down to what's known in cooking as the "fond", the tasty crust of what used to be your sauce that get deglazed and scraped off the pan as a treat. See also my recipe for caramelized onions. But is my version the proper essence of the concept? You have to try other people's cooking, and cooking of your own, to know for sure.

Once your organization gets to 50 employees the amount of regulations that come into effect is staggering.

Well, the parable of the tree of knowledge to me is that once man learns about good and evil then he is cursed to forever have to tread the path of good, except it's hopeless because he became evil by learning of it. At least it was a choice, even if it was not informed consent. Bottom line: God is evil. The Taoist farmer story is "knowledge of the cosmic plan is impossible" which is one of my most hated aphorisms. Bottom line: God is capricious. Even The Terminator's aphorism of "There is no fate but what we make for ourselves" has more self-determination. Bottom line: Play God if you must, but live with the consequences.

"INTJs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "Does it work?" to everything from their own research efforts to the prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention, or sentiment for its own sake ... INTJs are known as the "Systems Builders" of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual trait of combining imagination and reliability." -- Marina Margaret Heiss Sound familiar? When it comes to personality tests, I put a lot less credence into Meyer-Briggs than I do into something like DISC, where I'm a "C" type. https://www.discinsights.com/personality-style-c

Businesses wouldn't let employees stop paying withholding, lest the business gets hauled into tax court and loses their ability to conduct business or a significant portion of it fighting the case.