Des
-
Posts
238 -
Joined
Posts posted by Des
-
-
When it comes to an exchange of value capitalism is the ability of individuals or entities to engage each other in contracts for goods and services that are agreeable to all parties in the contract. Now you can see that unfettered capitalism can be a problem if the goods and services at issue are otherwise detrimental to those who have no say in the contract. For example; you may not contract with an individual who is willing to provide the service of killing your neighbor for the money that you are willing to offer. While the forgoing might fit the definition of a capitalist exchange it is not something that would be permitted in civilized society.In order for capitalism to function amicably in a society, that society must have some set of recognized and accepted standards that are followed by the private sector and are enforceable. Now your friend at the meeting might have been referring to the oft habit of local police bringing in revenue for the local government by issuing as many parking tickets as possible. Well, consider that there is an implied contract with the city to provide a parking space in a public space for a set period of time and for a set fee. Your legal use of such a space implies your willingness to pay the set fee for its use. Failure to pay the fee could result in a fine for not fulfilling your end of the implied contract.But the question remains, is the gathering of fines in this manner considered "capitalism"? I say no because the violator ended up paying a fine rather than the fee specified in the contract. Had the violator paid the parking fee then he would have been voluntarily exchanging of his money for use of the parking space for the set period of time and that would have at least looked like capitalism. The fine however is a penalty for not fulfilling his end of the contract and when he pays this he is not getting anything for his money beyond what the parking fee would have cost him had he paid it at the outset. The overage is paid as a punishment intended to compel a particular behavior from him in the future. It is this negative aspect of the transaction as a fine rather than a fee that defines it as something other than capitalism as there is no mutually agreed upon benefit specific to both parties in this outcome.
Now if the owner(s) of the roads and parking spaces had used gates and armed guards to deny entry to the city, to anyone who did not sign up to the contract which specifies that the parking-space user either pays before use, or pays a penalty if caught in breach of that agreement, then that is capitalism. Road owners are not compelled to let you drive on their roads, so they can set conditions, and if you don't accept the conditions, don't drive on their roads.
-
Do you not agree with that conclusion? The moment the white immigrants displayed hostility, they were no longer immigrants, but rather invaders. At that point, the Natives should've repelled them if possible.
I like the "should have", as an exploration of principles for action which is both practical and makes moral sense.
Some of the "should have"s below may have been "did have"s to some extent.
The natives should have had philosophers who told them what is moral, and futurists to predict likely results from the choices within moral behaviour.
Before strangers even show up, natives should have had peaceful parenting, voluntary association within and among clans and nations, should have had good information about which individuals prefer to do evil, and territorially separated the evildoers, chasing them out of their civilized territories.
Natives should have had treaties allocating territory clearly between clans (and within clans, if desired).
When newcomers show up, natives inform them of the territorial boundaries (per treaties), and to the extent that newcomers wish to be on this clan's or that clan's side of a boundary and claim some territory, the natives should have clearly negotiated that and made treaties, with newcomer territory clearly bounded as per treaty.
The natives should have demonstrated to newcomers how territorial disputes are avoided, and if the newcomers were really obtuse about it, they should have chased them into ships to sail away again.
-
all over the country (South Africa)
I'm delighted that I'm not the only person making posts on freedomainradio, whilst living in South Africa.
Now I am asking myself how much else you and I have in common, besides geography, freedomainradio and friends who have trouble with rational thought.
-
I concede the existence of that pattern in cerain populations, but I also affirm that it is irrelevant as it is subject to change via. hypothesis of common descent or social conditioning, along with rejecting its unjustified speciaism. Or would you imply that the cause of libertarianism is immoral because it violates the appeal to popularity?
I can argue that all preferences include the preference for being alive to enjoy the preference, therefore the preference for being alive is the one and only special case of preference (no-one can have rational preference of anything and not also prefer to be alive).
-
Preference is subjective;
However, the truth value of "there exists more than one person with a preference for being alive" is an objective fact (which you accept if you personally have that preference and you see at least one other person showing you sufficient evidence of that preference). It does not seem simple to prove this fact to a person who does not have that preference, or to a person who would insist that make-you-stay-alive-to-suffer demons are controlling the behaviours which would (otherwise) be evidence of this preference for being alive. However, the evidence supports the objective truth of: "there exists more than one person with a preference for being alive".
I have already provided a paradox that demonstrates the impossability to state 'subjective' morality in a coherent non-self-refuting way that amounted to "It is a universal value to reject universal values".
I get it. "Only the Sith speak in absolutes", said the non-Sith Jedi master.
I concede the existence of that pattern in cerain populations, but I also affirm that it is irrelevant as it is subject to change via. hypothesis of common descent or social conditioning, along with rejecting its unjustified speciaism. Or would you imply that the cause of libertarianism is immoral because it violates the appeal to popularity?
Making a special case of the preference for being alive is rational (justified, valid) when one considers that if the contrary/alternate preference could be known, then we would know someone prefers death and can thus be excluded from any trade of behaviour for behaviour. This person can be excluded from moral consideration. This has nothing to do with popularity. If there were only two [people] in the set of life-preferring, behaviour-trade-capable [people], then those are the [people] to whom the objective standard of behaviour is objectively applicable.
Referencing to what behavior is beneficial or not is a category error; you might as well say that math is the source of morality. Sure, you can use math to help you not take other people's money unduly, but you'll never get an equation that tells you that stealing or cheating is wrong; even if such a thing exists for the sake of argument there is no reason to follow the equation nor an obligation to obey it. Now, when you talk of determining moral values based on the benefits and harm of the behavior you seem to be similarly confused. A pattern is a method that aids us identify better way to help humans flourish, but it in no way tell us why we ought to help humans flourish, or why it is wrong to murder. It tells us what it is, not what it ought to be.
You have not established why ant flourishing is inferior to human flourishing, inflicting harm on an other person is wrong, or how nature at work (ex. animal rape) is wrong when applied to humans.
Trading "I'll do w and refrain from x, and you'll do y and refrain from z" cannot be relied on to yield the benefit of w unless x includes murder, assault, fraud and theft. Similarly it cannot be relied on to yield the benefit of y unless z includes murder, assault, fraud and theft.
Murder, assault, fraud and theft are names of patterns of behaviours that fall in the set of behaviour which objectively is evil.
No-one has to trade behaviour-for behaviour, but if one person performs his part of such a trade without assurance that evil is inhibited, he does so without the benefit of the trade (to him). If there were zero assurance, he'd be crazy to bother.
I'm not talking about flourishing, I'm asking in what conditions can I personally survive (it's within a condition of at least some inhibiting pressure against evil as defined by the objective measurement I have outlined).
-
Atheism doesn't inherently come with a moral standard attached to it, so the source of the morality must be one of the following:
- An arbitrary moral standard which is created (and changeable on a whim) personally to match personal behaviour.
- Borrowing an existing objectivist moral standard, like of the Abrahamic religions.
- A legal or judicial standard, confused it with a moral standard applicable everywhere and at all times.
- A tautology everyone is moral by definition.
- No standard is conformed to.
Those are the options I can think of. None of them provides a worldview with objective morality.The preference for being alive is key to morality. If you concede that there are many [people] who have the preference for being alive, and have the capacity for co-ordinating action by communication (I am not attempting to prove that here, either concede it or say you don't), then I expect you to concede that these [people] could trade behaviour for behaviour. Now there could exist some pattern within the set of bahaviours, some pattern of behaviour which would negate the benefit (to a person with a preference for being alive) of trading with the other [people] (as opposed to say: killing them all). If such a pattern of behaviour can be identified, it could be given a name (say: evil {with euphemistic synonym: not good}). I contend that such a pattern has been identified, and it's sub-patterns have been given names such as murder, assault and theft. All of these (if done by you) negate the benefit (to me) of me trading with you: behaviour-for-behaviour.
This references no external authority, but references an internal preference which you may agree is widely shared.
-
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of asubject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without bias or external influence; this second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously withneutrality.
Can I take you through my workings, short step, by short step, using my tea-and-lunch breaks over a few days?
If so, please start by saying if you prefer being alive, to being dead?
-
I am curious as to what makes you say this. There is something I fear and am uncertain of in any situation regarding other people, though it is not necessarily physical. I fear social situations. I had a rough upbringing with two crazy parents who taught me all kinds of wrong. I am near 30 and am still sorting things out. I do not always know how to conduct myself properly in social situations. Is this the fear and uncertainty people sense in me, I wonder? Perhaps it is manifesting itself physically, and people see it. I think it must be; I don't even initiate interactions, generally.
I have a tip: When you speak, speak loudly (and slowly enough to make the words clear). The process of speaking that way conveys confidence and builds the confidence inside you. I'm saying don't allow yourself to mumble or rush through what you say. No need to say more than you were planning to say, just make loud and clear what you do say. Start from when you are introduced or when you introduce yourself, then the first impression is built. Repeat the name of the person you meet, say your own name clearly (yes, my good friend/manager/cousin Linda is of course right, I am Jonathan Doestoevsky).
I speak loudly because a grandfather of mine had severe hearing loss, so that is just how I speak, trained from early years.
-
I think there is a lot worse aggression that goes on government roads without prosecution, such as tailgating, dangerous lane switches, and right-lane speeding. I think the horn has defensive uses; like if someone is switching lanes and they don't see me, I can let them know I'm there. But it can be also used in road rage, which is clearly aggressive, and could even be the initiation of force if it puts you in danger. If it just pisses you off, I don't think you can say they're initiating force. Think if you're at a venue and some idiot calls you a name, compared to him repeatedly calling you names, following you around, and pushing his body very near yours - the former is a bitch, the latter is aggressive. Series of actions equivalent to the latter happen on the road all the time, and it is clearly aggressive.
Of course I don't see any consistent prosecution of aggressive acts on the road. I see cops parked in random places, stalking at night to get some chump who is going 15 over the speed limit without another car in sight. When the roads are packed and the mayhem is most visible, I see like one or two cops per hundred cars, and for them to stop a single person takes about 30 minutes (at least in my experience cops sit idle for about 20 minutes in the process of giving me a ticket; they're really in no hurry to get back and keep the roads safe).
So the problem is really the state and how it is neglecting and often times contributing to the real danger going on the roads, while they pick from one of maybe 100 or 1000 traffic violations they see daily to prosecute.
And who does the restitution go to? Not the other endangered drivers, but the state! And the supposedly endangered drivers who are being protected from one of maybe 1000 traffic violations* a day have to pay for this whole purposefully lazy and retarded process that can last months before anything is done about the violation; in the mean time the perpetrator is freely driving and endangering others. Then he pays some fine to the state, and is back at it again soon, only he is more careful this time to be weary of the one or two times he'll see a cop a day, and he'll make sure to follow every law for that 20 or 30 second stretch - after all the chances of him being pulled over even if he is violating a law in front of a cop is slim.
So the state is completely criminal, refusing to stop danger on the roads while contributing to it, and preying on and profiting from the victims. Pure evil.
*(if the state is going to call them all violations, I'm going to assume it's because they're dangerous, but of course that is not the case. Still, many dangerous acts happen on the road daily and no consistent action is taken against it)
A private road owner would have each driver's reputation from a reputation agency, and keep dangerous drivers off his roads, to boost the revenue from advertising to the larger number of safe drivers on the road (accidents are bad for business, because competitors may offer a quicker, safer commute), and advertisers pay more to be seen by more eyes.
-
Actually, I was in that mindset before, so an answer came to mind :
" think I am a link in the chain of command between God and some of his creation".
I think that the teacher assessed that it was expected of him to "maintain discipline".
I used the passive form there, because his peers, headmaster, wife, friends and even the learners who are feeling some desire or pressure to learn or produce good marks, will be expecting that of the teacher (because they have that model for their expectations).
-
A nephew, in a facebook conversation about spanking, said that at age 11, he asked a teacher: Who [the hell] do you think you are? He was caned and cried.
I'm curious. Who did the teacher think he was?
Caning has been outlawed and teachers renamed educators (without much real adjustment of approach).
-
If there are not structural defects in the building known to the public, the risk taken and responsibility acquired are negligible. Bad stuff happens frequently, and sometimes its no particular person's fault, just a matter of statistics.No one can choose to live their lives free of any risks. We must sort through which ones are significant and makes decisions about them, weighing benefits no? I think the risks associated with "safe sex" are similarly negligible.
Okay, negotiate a rate with your insurer, for insurance against creating a child whilst using a set of birth control methods.
Alternately, you could neglect or be unable to insure against that, refuse to acnowledge that by default you are your own insurer, and rob me to pay for the consequences if you need to make the insurance claim.
If you and I happened to be born in one particular territory run by one particular government, is it rational that each of us must automatically be the insurer of the other?
This was part of a discussion Kanith and I were having. The example we were using was "Say a man dying of thirst meets a vendor who has a bottle of water. He wants to sell that bottle of water to you for $1'000'000. He's not aggressing against you so NAP is technically followed, but you're a dick".
If for example, the 'dying of thirst' man had insurance for that desert expedition, when he dies, his insurer will sue the vendor for causing them a loss, and the vendor will have trouble from his own insurers who won't like what he does to their industry.
UPB references the preference for being alive, so if the 'dying of thirst' man pulls his weapon and threatens the life of another, to save his own, then he is implementing the preference on which UPB is based. Oh he lost his weapon? Was he insured for the consequences of not having a potentially life-saving weapon?
-
I never made implied it was 100%. dsayers talked about "engage(ing) in behavior you know will likely end in a particular outcome." We call car accidents, accidents despite the fact that we know there is a possibility they occur during the course of normal, safe driving. We expose ourselves to any number of risks even sitting in a building, but that doesn't mean we are responsible for freak accidents.
If you fly to Tokyo today and sit in a tall building there, and it collapses on you in an earthquake: do you have zero responsibility for what happened to you, or enough responsibility that you could acknowledge some responsibility for your decisions prior to the event?
-
I am the proud father of an 8 month old and my wife and I are having difficulties. I am not willing to say much more than that but relationships are complicated and many couples don't understand each other well even after marriage under ostensibly pure intentions.
I do understand about single mothers who've made really bad choices but with my wife, should we choose to separate,
Hi
As one who has made really bad choices and let go of a wife ...
Think about calling Stef before you decide, especially if you can persuade her that Stef would help each of you enjoy the family experience more than you do now, and get her on the call.
I heard Stef before, asking a caller if he really was susceptible to reason and evidence, in repeatedly telling his wife's relatives what he understands about government (which they show no sign of understanding). My hazy memory of that call has Stef asking the caller to weigh up how much he wants a great relationship with the children, versus how much he wants spend time failing to convince people.
I now have a delightful girlfriend, and I spend no time at all telling her there is no god / are no gods, because I wouldn't know how to convince her.
My current self would probably teach my former self from 20 years ago, how to keep a statist christian wife and have fun holding on to her.
[My situation then is not your situation now, and my remark is about me, me, with adult children who are strangers to me, on the other side of the planet (not that I am sad for me {I'm having fun}, just that I could have made their childhoods so much more fun for them)].
-
I am the proud father of an 8 month old and my wife and I are having difficulties. I am not willing to say much more than that but relationships are complicated and many couples don't understand each other well even after marriage under ostensibly pure intentions.
I do understand about single mothers who've made really bad choices but with my wife, should we choose to separate,
Hi
As one who has made really bad choices and let go of a wife ...
Think about calling Stef before you decide, especially if you can persuade her that Stef would help each of you enjoy the family experience more than you do now, and get her on the call.
I heard Stef before, advising a caller to pay more attention to keeping the family on board, even if it meant the caller quit telling his wife's relatives what he understands about government (which they show no sign of understanding).
-
Will and your idealism are completely incompatible. There is no line of reason joining a universe that splits a pear in two and a person willing to cut the pear with a knife at the same time. It's completely opposite.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
I've predicted the consequence to me, if I were to cease to assign blame/responsibility/causality to other living organisms for what appears to me, to be their actions. I predict that that decision would harm my ability to predict, so I won't make that decision.
If I say that Ug the caveman tosses up a microwave oven and attempts to header it like a soccer ball, then I predict that your mind will do some predictive imagination of the consequence to Ug's head. I have some confidence in the correctness of my prediction and in the correctness of your predictions.
Now if the people with whom my senses tell me I am interacting, were to give me very disparate predictions in the many, many instances of predictive thinking that I seem to encounter each day, then I might quit having confidence in my predictive abilities. Similarly, if I had memories of my own wrong predictions and did not have explanations to explain my past errors, my confidence would likely be less.
I'm here absorbing data that helps me to predict. Throw me words which assist me to refine my predictive capacity, or throw me words which actually reduce my confidence in my predictions - what words I get, I will adjust to.
I don't have to know that the universe does obey immutable physical laws, I only need to estimate that my memory record indicates that when I have used physical laws in the prediction process, my predictions have been successful wrt the use of the laws. Those memories will prompt me to continue the usage. This explains why an absence of knowledge of the actual existence of, immutability of, and source of the laws: does not affect my confidence in my predictions.
-
iro = in regards of?
Also, if one's brain is merely an agglomerate of fundamental particles of matter, which move each in obedience to immutable physical laws, then all states of one's brain are also merely in obedience to physical laws, and have therefore no necessary relation to the truth. Ergo, one's confidence level in the truths revealed by one's brain should be 0.
Anyone who has zero confidence in his predictions can either be my controlled robot, or just stay out of my way - as long as he has no confidence in his predictions, he isn't going to tell me he knows my predictions are wrong, so I will try give him orders, and alternately just ignore him.
Sorry, yes, in respect of.
It is those who tell me how an omnipotent being is going to respond to my decisions (and think their prediction is on target), that I choose to debunk here.
I have confidence in my brain's predictive ability based on my memory of past successes and failures in prediction. I'm going to predict anyway, and I will make the reasonable assumption that the really poorly-predictive brains were de-selected by evolution.
Will they protest with "but god wouldn't do that!"?
[from now on I'll use wrt, not iro]
Yes, an omnipotent god could make billions of people feel very confident about what god would or would not do, and then that omnipotent god could do something else.
Billions of people re-assuring each other about the intentions of Loki who is wearing the father-god mask.
-
When someone makes a prediction, he is implying that he is an atheist iro omnipotent deities.
I expect most philosophers will have heard of René Descartes Evil demon.
I don't care what Descartes thought about the concept. I only know to ascribe the idea to him because I was previously using the concept in my argument iro omnipotence, and someone informed me. The remark that he did not ascribe omnipotence to his version of the demon is also irrelevant (argue if you disagree).
If there is an omnipotent being, then none can know anything, and none can predict anything. The earth has orbited the sun once per year for the past 10 years. How do I know? Well, if there is an omnipotent being, I don't. The earth will complete another orbit of the sun in the coming year. How can I be confident of that? Well, if there is an omnipotent being, I should have a confidence level of 0. The omnipotent being will treat me in an ethical manner. How can I be confident of that? Well, if there is an omnipotent being, I should have a confidence level of 0.
All of this is because omnipotence includes the ability to manufacture the appearance of evidence in the absence of actual events matching the evident events, and the ability to re-structure reality so that coming events are not as one may predict from past events whether actual or fake.
Non-omnipotent deities are functionally equivalent to space aliens, they exist (or don't) within an independent reality. Independent reality is incompatible with omnipotent being, omnipotent being implies omnipotent-being-dependent-reality-within-which-no-one-can-predict-anything.
I never said I am atheist iro space aliens, that is a whole other discussion.
-
This thread is relevant to my interests.
I am not quite sure where i fall on the athiest/theist scale. I admit I have never seen any evidence of there being a god. This is not proof that there is no god, however. It is possible that god is outside the realm of our senses, like radiation, gravity, dark matter etc. Before these things were known, we thought they did not exist. We also used to think the earth was flat. What if god is outside our current human understanding?
A deity is either omnipotent or not. If not, what is the difference between saying "space alien" and saying "deity"?
I am not atheistic iro space aliens.
If omnipotent, then I am in the universe of René Descartes Evil demon - and therefore for me to claim to know anything is just nonsense.
So, when someone makes a claim or a prediction, he is directly implying his atheism iro omnipotent deities.
You can choose. You can say you know nothing and can predict nothing, or, you can admit atheism.
If you claim to know something or have some prediction and also claim to be subject to an omnipotent being, you are confused, sort it out.
See my new topic
-
Thanks for elaborating. I understand better now. However, I now have another question: If this is your experience and the concerns you have as a result, have you considered moving? Sorry if it seems I'm straying from what you were originally talking about. However, with the talk about spying and missiles, it occurs to me that trying to manage other people can be exhausting. I wonder if there might be options that are easier for you.
Managing other people is what governments do.
When there are no governments, I want dangerous people managed (not killed outright, for various reasons). I estimate that locking dangerous people up is problematic in many ways, including efficiency (on which point I may have a wrong estimate). If dangerous people are caught and then released (either because we just can't get enough evidence to prove wrongdoing to an excessively high standard), or because they did their time without becoming any less dangerous, then my odds of dying due to physical aggression, are higher.
No, I estimate that the feeble measures of the local police, plus my own measures to avoid being murdered, will allow me to make it to 2063 if my body does not give in earlier. It is only if I get nanomeds to extend my personal healthy life beyond that, that I will be around to care. It is, though, an interesting exercise to estimate what method is the most effective for dealing with whoever is still dangerous (when parenting is better and that proportion of dangerous people is smaller).
-
Hi Bruce!
Looks like your interests fit very well!
So the general business idea is for people who get their sequencing data from sites like 23andme.com then run it through promethease.com
I think some people can't be bothered to sift throught and interpret all the information. This is were we add value.
We would just need a very simple site, and some people who can take the information and write up a concise, actionable report for the customer. Though it would be tough to get people interested in this kind of thing. Would need a sales effort to get people interested.
I'm not even sure if its a good enough idea, which is why I want to brainstorm a bit
I am interested.
I am thinking to get my own DNA sequenced, before exploring the business idea further. Would you recommend 23andme.com, or should I search for alternate websites?
My primary interest is in extending my life, because I have no problem enjoying my life.
Outliving other people born in 1962, will be my success.
I have a diploma in Datametrics, with distinction, from years ago when I was coding computer programs.
I quit coding computer programs (after 20 years of that) and I now sell packaging equipment imported from China, into South Africa, where I live (in Johannesburg).
-
It is many many years ago that nano technology was hot and new. But I rarely if ever hear about it now. Is this a sign that it has already been put away from the public so that we can not use it to create excess or become independent?
Reminded me of the cancer industry, with its cancer organizations who act as police and strong man for the cancer industry, to keep it as high profit and low effect as possible. (By attacking/ignoring/slandering all cheap treatments)
I discuss nanotechnology with the friends I have around me, and have with friends and family at times in the past (yes, starting 20 years ago). I am pretty sure not one of them has attempted to spread the hope that we could live longer. Not one person has reacted to say, "hey, that's cool, I'm going to talk about this with everyone, because I also want extra years of life". I expect you can imagine what reactions I have had. I expect the excitement will start when there is video and additional proof of a person of 130years, with the physique of an 18-year-old, doing star jumps of something. I expect people will go ho-hum until they suddenly go "hey, I'm jealous".
-
Pact, spy, missile... I don't know what you're talking about. I'm a private investigator. Last night, I drove around, making some patrols, stopped in a shop to pick up a pizza. Night before that, I had stopped in a gas station to get gas. I passed by/interacted with a lot of people. Maybe it was the gun on my hip (I honestly don't know; been a feature of my life for a decade now), but I experienced no thoughts of pacts, spying, or missiles because nobody I came across behaved in an aggressive fashion. Given my line of work, I think I would be exposed to it more than most.
So perhaps I am ignorant in this conversation. If I'm not, then I think either there's a breakdown in communication or you're hanging out in some seriously bad places. Could you elaborate on where these ideas are coming from?
Will happily elaborate. I am fine for now. That is to say, that as things stand, I am unlikely to be murdered, and likely to die in about 2063 at age of 100, of pneumonia which my (by then) degenerated body cannot fight off.
I cycle the streets of Johannesburg, South Africa, every morning and evening between work and home. In my years so far, I have only fought off about 5 muggings, all far off from my current route which is short and relatively safe. The walls around each home in the suburbs I cycle through, and the heavy bars over each window of each house, remind me what I know: without that, the stuff inside the house has an over 50% chance of being burgled sometime in the next 5 years. Here, there are significant odds of being murdered during a housebreaking.
Statist police, plus private armed patrols through the neighbourhood, plus all that physical security barrier, is inefficient compared to just keeping dangerous people out of the small territory I commute in daily. It is also ineffective, being reactive more than protective.
This won't be really important (to me), if I can't extend my life. If I can, though, with each decade of extra life expectancy, I add some chance of my life ending in murder. Eventually the odds of being murdered get close to 1:1.
-
Des, I caution against using "NAP." NAP is just shorthand for "theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral." Stated as NAP, I've seen a LOT of people (including you here) refer to this as if it's some contract that needs to be signed, or other intangible force. We all "agree with the NAP" by simply making use of our own bodies. People who engage in theft, assault, rape, and murder are telling you with their very behavior that property rights are invalid, therefore force is justifiable in obstructing their aggression. I think you're taking something that is quite simple and obfuscating it.
Okay, yes, I can conclude from the behaviour of the thief that he either thinks he is special (which thought I am free to deny or apply in reverse as my own special permission to take from him), or I'm left with the alternate conclusion that his morality allows both his theft from me and mine (from him).
My interest firstly comes from my hope that I personally might get nanomeds and survive into a future very different (in social order) from the present. This leaves me interested in knowing the most safe social order I could live in, so I would have the option of really minimising my odds of death (from accident, and from unethical actions not limited to murder).
I did not intend to imply that anyone needs to sign the NAP, I see it as a practicality that I need dangerous people to be away from me, and spied on by people I can trust. I expect other people will come around to this perspective, eventually, and that will be the shape of the future (just that I may suffer if it takes too long for others to come around to the best prediction of choice and consequence, that is why I push for early adoption).
I see it as a key part of the process of assessment of a person's level of threat to me, that I offer him a pact which holds us each to standards to which I am willing to commit, and am willing to follow-through on my commitment. If he refuses to sign, then I know to take 2 armed bodyguards with me when I walk past him. If he signs up, I need a background check on him, to decide if I can do the trade of my ethical behaviour for his (alternately choose mutual distrust and spying as the better option for me). If we aren't signed up with each other, I don't want him within his best missile shot of my suburb, and I want to subscribe to armed forces who will keep him away, spy on him, and destroy his missiles.
I would value your comment, because I am planning my future (even though I may die of old age and not see what I have planned).
Better suggestions (for keeping me safe), I would welcome.
What is a capitalist?
in Miscellaneous
Posted
By Alan's explanation, these are higher order goods:
Down with mean toaster-owning capitalist pigs!