A fresh (I Hope) perspective on the Zeitgiest Debate

[Fudo Manu]

While I was showering tonight I was thinking about what Peter Joseph was saying about Stephan's agrument being trancated and simplistic. Has anyone tried to put this in the analogy

of a mathmatical problem. My thoughts went something like this:

 

Peter is looking at an incredibly complicated equation trying to find a solution. Stef is there looking at the equation with Peter and says. "I think its important to adhere to the principle that two plus two equals four." Peter replies, "Your thoery is trancated and simplistic, have you seen this problem? Two plus two equals four doesn't take into acount multiplication, division, square roots. Plus there are one's and three's and ten's. Two plus two equals four is fine on its own but it doesn't account for outside factors."

 

I think alot of people view society as a complex equation and think that the solution has to be complex as well. Just as in mathmatics I think the most basic principles hold true even in the most complex situations, or at least they should.

[MysterionMuffles]

It's kind of like Occam's Razor right? The simplest answer is usually the best one. Otherwise muddling it up in abstractions and complications creates its own set of problems when trying to tackle complex social problems. Not to say that that principle is always valid. I think complicated answers to complicated questions are required sometimes, but I can't think of a situation right now, so maybe that's just me trying not to be fully accepting of other philosophical ideas? I don't know!

 

But basically, Peter Joseph for the sake of simply being understood by ANYBODY...needs to look into Occam's Razor. Theories with the least assumptions and the simplest line of reasoning should be preferred, but not always the answer when a complicated answer is truly required.

[_LiveFree_]

The Ptolomiac system was hellacomplicated. Then some jack hole came along and said, "just put the sun in the center, it's simpler."

 

Jack holes are integral to humanity's evolution.

[june]

Peter is looking at an incredibly complicated equation trying to find a solution. Stef is there looking at the equation with Peter and says. "I think its important to adhere to the principle that two plus two equals four." Peter replies, "Your thoery is trancated and simplistic, have you seen this problem? Two plus two equals four doesn't take into acount multiplication, division, square roots. Plus there are one's and three's and ten's. Two plus two equals four is fine on its own but it doesn't account for outside factors."

 

this is a pretty good description of the problem between both parties and fine example of stefan's truncation. 2+2=4 is fine on it's own... but how is it at all relevant when the equation you're trying to solve has to factor in methods of division, subtraction, muliplication etc?and that is pretty much how the debate carried out. stefan stated things which were mostly true, peter agreed with stefan that these things were true, but then also pointed out that they were not always true when given the relevant context (in this case, the context of the reality).

[Armitage]

While I was showering tonight I was thinking about what Peter Joseph was saying about Stephan's agrument being trancated and simplistic. Has anyone tried to put this in the analogy

of a mathmatical problem. My thoughts went something like this:

 

Peter is looking at an incredibly complicated equation trying to find a solution. Stef is there looking at the equation with Peter and says. "I think its important to adhere to the principle that two plus two equals four." Peter replies, "Your thoery is trancated and simplistic, have you seen this problem? Two plus two equals four doesn't take into acount multiplication, division, square roots. Plus there are one's and three's and ten's. Two plus two equals four is fine on its own but it doesn't account for outside factors."

 

I think alot of people view society as a complex equation and think that the solution has to be complex as well. Just as in mathmatics I think the most basic principles hold true even in the most complex situations, or at least they should.

My understanding is, Peter knows very well that under the current system two plus two equals four.

However, he says the equation does not actually say that. It says 3+3 - 8 = -2 which makes Stefan's description of the left side of equation "too narrow". Peter says, that we can use other signs, such as * multiplication, to achieve a "sustainable non-growth system" (COP 1), vaguely said, as he is wont to. And if we increase the base just a little and use the awesome technology of exponential ^, we can achieve really high results   

 

 

But basically, Peter Joseph for the sake of simply being understood by ANYBODY...needs to look into Occam's Razor. Theories with the least assumptions and the simplest line of reasoning should be preferred, but not always the answer when a complicated answer is truly required.

You may think Occam's razor is useful, but here we are dealing with social world. Social world is studied by sociology and other social sciences. The social sciences have multiple paradigms. I'm not sure if Occam's razor is even applicable here. For study purposes yes, if you seek to study a minor phenomenon.

But to be a sociologist, you need what C. W. Mills calls "sociological imagination". You need to see the whole complex society in your head and all the relationships as a fractal model and see the rich interactions in the eye of history and the present. That's why not anybody can be a sociologist. Sociology is not like economy. Economists need sociology, but sociologists are not good at explaining that to economists. (because economists aren't trying to make economy obsolete!) You can't put the society into your pocket by reading Ludwig von Mises' Human Action, just like you lose at multiple sciences if you take Bible seriously.

[Mike Fleming]

 

Peter is looking at an incredibly complicated equation trying to find a solution. Stef is there looking at the equation with Peter and says. "I think its important to adhere to the principle that two plus two equals four." Peter replies, "Your thoery is trancated and simplistic, have you seen this problem? Two plus two equals four doesn't take into acount multiplication, division, square roots. Plus there are one's and three's and ten's. Two plus two equals four is fine on its own but it doesn't account for outside factors."

 

I think alot of people view society as a complex equation and think that the solution has to be complex as well. Just as in mathmatics I think the most basic principles hold true even in the most complex situations, or at least they should.

 

People are doing those equations and making those calculations daily in companies all over the planet.  And programming computers to do them as well.  Why do we need a central mainframe when it's obvious decentralization is the way to more efficiency?  We gave up those centralized kinds of systems decades ago.

 

Perhaps you'd like to construct another strawman?

[Kevin Beal]

People are doing those equations and making those calculations daily in companies all over the planet.  And programming computers to do them as well.  

I work on systems like this

 

Having a central computer do this for us would actually not be to our advantage. We do it ourselves for very important reasons.

[TheRobin]

Complexity can only arise out of consistent adherence to basic premises and axioms, else all you can get is random noise.

 

You can't understand a complex phenomena by using other complex phenomena as explanation. So anyone who's against figuring out the basic underlying causes is fundamentally against actually trying to understand a phenomena. Usually so they can use it as a dumping ground for all the prejudice and unprocessed trauma they have.

[Armitage]

I work on systems like this

 

Having a central computer do this for us would actually not be to our advantage. We do it ourselves for very important reasons.

Do these systems work with money or with other resources? Because unlike wheat, iron and steel, money have a powerful eroding effect on human morality, comparable only to oil, alcohol or heroin  Special precautions are necessary, such as moral rules, law protectors, business ethics, corrective institutions and other oxymorons 

But if a computer system should move around mere industrial resources, in great quantities and complexity, then it would be useless to any single person (resources are generally not edible) and by sheer magnitude of Earth data it would be impossible to control.

[Fudo Manu]

People are doing those equations and making those calculations daily in companies all over the planet.  And programming computers to do them as well.  Why do we need a central mainframe when it's obvious decentralization is the way to more efficiency?  We gave up those centralized kinds of systems decades ago.

 

Perhaps you'd like to construct another strawman?

These were just thoughts I had. My intent was never to construct an arguement.

[Kevin Beal]

Do these systems work with money or with other resources? Because unlike wheat, iron and steel, money have a powerful eroding effect on human morality, comparable only to oil, alcohol or heroin  Special precautions are necessary, such as moral rules, law protectors, business ethics, corrective institutions and other oxymorons 

But if a computer system should move around mere industrial resources, in great quantities and complexity, then it would be useless to any single person (resources are generally not edible) and by sheer magnitude of Earth data it would be impossible to control.

You know, you could say something like:

 

"Oh really? That's very interesting. Could you tell me a little more about how these systems work? I have this society I would like to help build where there is a system like yours of a much larger scale, so large in fact that it encompasses all resource allocation on the planet, so it's super crucial for me to really understand how these types of systems work. How do these systems scale? Since efficiency is the name of the game, what kind of resources would I need to develop such a system without having to accumulate Google's capital? Can this large a project even be done?"

 

There are engineers, economists, computer scientists and other very intelligent people on these forums who could teach you a hell of a lot toward understanding this future society you want to help build, but every post you've made (that I've read) you are telling people how it is, which wouldn't be so bad if you would actually pose an argument.

 

You are putting people off who could be enormously valuable to you in achieving your goals, but you don't accept any criticisms, do not offer counter evidence, do not express humility about things that are seriously advanced things, and you suggest that people are doing immoral things, are fascists etc. That's really irritating.

 

Do you get what I'm saying?

[Xtort]

While I was showering tonight I was thinking about what Peter Joseph was saying about Stephan's agrument being trancated and simplistic. Has anyone tried to put this in the analogy

of a mathmatical problem. My thoughts went something like this:

 

Peter is looking at an incredibly complicated equation trying to find a solution. Stef is there looking at the equation with Peter and says. "I think its important to adhere to the principle that two plus two equals four." Peter replies, "Your thoery is trancated and simplistic, have you seen this problem? Two plus two equals four doesn't take into acount multiplication, division, square roots. Plus there are one's and three's and ten's. Two plus two equals four is fine on its own but it doesn't account for outside factors."

 

I think alot of people view society as a complex equation and think that the solution has to be complex as well. Just as in mathmatics I think the most basic principles hold true even in the most complex situations, or at least they should.

Eh, that works, but all you have to remember is that calling someone's argument simplistic doesn't refute it.  A simplistic argument shouldn't be difficult to refute if it's wrong.  The thing is, Stefan's position is not simplistic, he just starts with simple and obvious premises and works from there.  Peter starts with the conclusion (a guy that owned a company was a jerk to me once so capitalism sucks) and tries to reverse engeineer reality to make it fit.

[Armitage]

You know, you could say something like: "Oh really? That's very interesting. Could you tell me a little more about how these systems work? I have this society I would like to help build where there is a system like yours of a much larger scale, so large in fact that it encompasses all resource allocation on the planet, so it's super crucial for me to really understand how these types of systems work. How do these systems scale? Since efficiency is the name of the game, what kind of resources would I need to develop such a system without having to accumulate Google's capital? Can this large a project even be done?" There are engineers, economists, computer scientists and other very intelligent people on these forums who could teach you a hell of a lot toward understanding this future society you want to help build, but every post you've made (that I've read) you are telling people how it is, which wouldn't be so bad if you would actually pose an argument.

I don't know what kind of help *I* need yet (though I probably do, or I wouldn't be here). The Venus Project needs help and these engineers, economists and computer scientists would be enormously helpful if they Got Involved on the website. Actually, I they said during one of the Q&A sessions, that several groups (including Google) already develop a system of global resource management.But my work seems to be different, I don't work with technology, but with ideas. TVP is that idea and I would like to know what problems it faces when dealing with people. So far I've focused on one problem, which I call the tunnel vision of Libertarians. If I could show Stefan himself how to have a broader view on market and TVP, he'd be great at explaining this back to the anarcho-capitalist movement and they could join forces with TVP, because they're already so similar in thinking. That's what I was up to, so far. If you want me listening to you, please tell me what do you think, what do you want to suggest. Looks like you have quite a lot to say. I'm sorry, I just didn't want to start the 4 month discussion about Economy 101 all over again, I've been there, done that. 

You are putting people off who could be enormously valuable to you in achieving your goals, but you don't accept any criticisms, do not offer counter evidence, do not express humility about things that are seriously advanced things, and you suggest that people are doing immoral things, are fascists etc. That's really irritating. Do you get what I'm saying?

Not exactly. I am a "veteran" of discussions about economy, TVP, and many other things. But I should behave like a beginner, so that others will feel more welcome.Most of discussions I've ever had were about educating the other party. But people are not data storage devices, education literally means physically rewiring ourselves. And we already need to be wired in a certain way, to accept information of a certain kind.What do you mean? If anyone ever uses the word "fascist" in any possible context, it will be taken personally by everyone present as an insult. Do you actually care about what the original sentence said?When discussing market, Stefan is prone to go to a tunnel vision mode, where nothing but market exists and market can initiate coercion and it is completely all right, hence he talks in a somewhat fascistic way. I did not mean that anyone here actually behaves like a fascist. Not at all, or I wouldn't be here. But this discrepancy between speech in one and the second moment is really irritating.But this tunnel vision worries me. In lesser degree it's present in about half of all Libertarians I've ever met and it puts people off more than I could. It totally changes rules for discussion. That's the biggest problem I see. You could say this is my argument, main reason why people disagree with TVP. Do you agree with that?

[TheRobin]

using the word "tunnel vision" three times in a post doesn't automatically make it an accurate description or a valid argument.

[tasmlab]

 

When discussing market, Stefan is prone to go to a tunnel vision mode, where nothing but market exists and market can initiate coercion and it is completely all right, hence he talks in a somewhat fascistic way. I did not mean that anyone here actually behaves like a fascist. Not at all, or I wouldn't be here. But this discrepancy between speech in one and the second moment is really irritating.But this tunnel vision worries me. In lesser degree it's present in about half of all Libertarians I've ever met and it puts people off more than I could. It totally changes rules for discussion. That's the biggest problem I see. 

 

Hi Armitage,

 

I'm confused on two things.  

 

When you use the word "fascistic" do you mean the common definition of third position economics that is collusion between corporations and government paired with a strong promotion of nationalism and militarization, or some other meaning?  It would be tough to imagine SM of all people promoting govt' corporatism and nationalism.

 

What is the libertarian tunnel-vision specifically?  You mention it often but I still didn't grasp what it was.

 

Thanks in advance!

[Armitage]

using the word "tunnel vision" three times in a post doesn't automatically make it an accurate description or a valid argument.

I suppose it doesn't. You don't see a point in what I say and I have a problem, because I don't know how to explain it. I don't have an argument other than we already know from Stefan how warfare has an effect on soldiers and veterans or how childhood spanking has an effect on children and later adults. The argument is, Stefan knows that, but he does not realize that there are similar bad effects of market competition and market corrections on all people living and working in the economy today. And I am totally bewildered why he doesn't see that. And I'm not the only one who wonders about Stefan.

 

 

 

Hi Armitage,

 

I'm confused on two things.  

 

When you use the word "fascistic" do you mean the common definition of third position economics that is collusion between corporations and government paired with a strong promotion of nationalism and militarization, or some other meaning?  It would be tough to imagine SM of all people promoting govt' corporatism and nationalism.

 

What is the libertarian tunnel-vision specifically?  You mention it often but I still didn't grasp what it was.

 

Thanks in advance!

 I used the word "fascism" to describe the way which which people like Stefan place a total trust in market forces and obey them whatever they do, even if that's harmful to people's psychology and social relationships. It really looks like Stefan would believe that market forces have the right to violate the non-aggression principle. Obviously, the effect of market forces or "market corrections" is psychologically unpleasant. Nobody wants to change a production, lose profit, lose job, lose home, seek a new job, count money, make ends meet, sell themselves on market as a some kind of harlot, and so on. Market society is not a very pleasant place to live. There is occasional satisfaction, but more of an exception. Fortunately Stefan snaps out of it every time he changes a topic and otherwise he's a very moral person.

 

Market corrections are necessary in the current system. However, we must realize that they are stressful and destructive on human relationships. If Stefan talks about the evils of child spanking and traumatic experience of war, I am surprised why does he not talk at all about constant stress and occasional trauma of market life style and market corrections! Instead, he praises the market as some kind of privilege.

 

There are more reasons why the market system is unviable and Peter Joseph deals with these.

[Kevin Beal]

Nobody wants to change a production, lose profit, lose job, lose home, seek a new job, count money, make ends meet, sell themselves on market as a some kind of harlot, and so on.

Nobody wants to get dumped, lose that affection and closeness, seek a new partner, settle for masturbation and then dress up nicely and try and win the affection of a new potential partner. Therefore romantic relationships are structural violence.

[TheRobin]

Well, again, simply saying "Stef doesn't see or realize these things" isn't an argument for them being true or false. If you can show the evidence and/or premises these conclusions are based on, then there'd be a ground on which some actual communication could take place, else it's really just you using ad hominems.

 

Oh, sorry, jsut saw your second paragraph. Well, Kevin's response basically says what's falacious with these kinds of arguments. Saying: If other people don't give me what I want then I feel bad. Is not the same as them using violence against you. And it surely doesn't justify violence, but assuming it did, then that still doesn't mean your conclusion is valid, cause then everyone who's for the free market simply could say: If you want to take away my freedom to work and trade with whom I want and under what conditions I want, then I don't like that and therefore I can use violence to stop you.

 

But basically it means that arguing morality from a subjective emotional standpoint doesn't work logically.

[tasmlab]

To be nit picky, you didn't mean fascistic (as it had nothing to do with fascism) but more like 'absolute'.

 

Yea, working does suck it.  I don't think Stef would deny that there are unhappy parts of being an economic actor.  We don't know how the mix of good or bad would be in a free market economy.  I admit that libertarians tend to have a positive projection of a free market, but it is a sight unseen at this time.  

 

One of the things about the Peter/Stef debate that bothered me was that Peter seemed to think government was a product of markets, and this meant there could be no discussion about a free market vs. a hybrid (i.e., fascistic) economy.  And this makes the 'market' a thing when it's really an anti-concept like atheism or freedom.  It doesn't describe what it does, it describes what it is missing.  In this case, violence.   And by violence I mean the plain-ole understanding e.g., actively hitting people, shooting people not the way violence is being bandied in this thread where it means any category of suffering or unpleasantness regardless of where it comes from.

[Armitage]

To be nit picky, you didn't mean fascistic (as it had nothing to do with fascism) but more like 'absolute'. Yea, working does suck it.  I don't think Stef would deny that there are unhappy parts of being an economic actor.  We don't know how the mix of good or bad would be in a free market economy.  I admit that libertarians tend to have a positive projection of a free market, but it is a sight unseen at this time.

You're right, absolutism is probably a better word. And from what I see, we do not need to try our luck in the market gamble at all. We have the technology to eradicate human servitude, just like we eradicated plague, typhus and cholera. (not really a market venture - once something is cured, a market is destroyed and productivity is released into someone else's hands)Because either we build a resource-based economy where people can freely use the production as equal shareholders, or corporations will automate everything and lock us out of it, because we won't have the opportunity to earn money and they will not need our labor anymore. That is quite a sinister version of the future, but it is happening right now. RBE is not a hypothetical concept, it is an incoming train on which we can either jump, or be overrun by it.

Libertarianism was good 100 years ago, when machines couldn't speak and understand human speech. We have the technology because the wars and governments drove us to it, but now that it is here, the genie will not go back to bottle again, even if in a strictly Libertarian world this would not be invented so soon. 

 

One of the things about the Peter/Stef debate that bothered me was that Peter seemed to think government was a product of markets, and this meant there could be no discussion about a free market vs. a hybrid (i.e., fascistic) economy.  And this makes the 'market' a thing when it's really an anti-concept like atheism or freedom.  It doesn't describe what it does, it describes what it is missing.  In this case, violence.   And by violence I mean the plain-ole understanding e.g., actively hitting people, shooting people not the way violence is being bandied in this thread where it means any category of suffering or unpleasantness regardless of where it comes from.

 

Actually, I don't feel good about this Peter's argument. There seem to be some hidden intuitive leaps, I see where's he coming from, but he should keep things simple. The fact is, "rent-seeking" is the best investment that anyone can make, investment into bribing the government, considering financial input and output. Input is high, but output is immeasurably greater. It's the best business opportunity ever invented, it's a temptation greater than a market can possibly resist. If I won't do it, somebody will, so let it be me. 

 

As for Peter's argument, it is very tricky, because it involves several intuitive quantum leaps. Let me try. Market is based on competition. Agreed? In competition, there are winners and there are losers. Still with me so far? Winning and losing is decided by power. That's obvious. The ultimate power is violence. OK. Now, who has the monopoly on violence? The government. So the government is the best investment.  But I have met Libertarians who have market classified as cooperation, where everyone wins and everyone is happy. Well, I don't say that never happens, but I'd say that is more of an exception. 

 

I don't think you classify the market right. I'd say market is not an absence or opposite of violence, it is only less of the same in diluted doses, a dampened violence. It is a form of symbolical rule-based competition and competition does involve frustration. People want to take what they want, but rules say taking is stealing and stealing is punished. So we suppress our natural impulse to take and instead work long hours to get enough number tokens and then give them up. That is very frustrating, but it also diverts attention from the natural impulse to take, so much that we only see it in small children.

The violence is dampened, veiled and spread to such a degree, that it becomes "only" a frustration, people can bite the bullet when the market exchange does not go well for them and thus society can work less or more smoothly. Society does not need a perfect non-violence to hold together, only good enough, social coherence depends on many other factors. This suppressing violence below threshold of frustration is a great historical invention, because it allowed people to live alongside each other in greater groups, develop trade, thus division of labor, thus better productivity and technology and so on. So there was nothing wrong with that, for most of the history money were not a part of everyday life, 90 % of people were farmers and they could grow food, they rarely bought it from strangers, often just exchanged food with people they knew. Their servitude was feudal, they gave food to the feudal lord. People were not free, but they had stability spanning whole centuries. Money were something extraordinary, you could buy out sins or pay for a murder with money. They were not meant for everyday use. The society had a stable order. Money are the agent of instability, they can get you to the top of social ladder in a moment, in next moment you can be millions in debt. Such is the stress of modern life. 

People can withstand some degree of frustration, or have some ways to dissolve it (in beer every evening) so the everyday frustration is normally not even noticed. People get worn out over long periods of time and think this is normal. But every market exchange has an element of frustration, because you give up things (money) that you could still use for *anything in the world*. And this counts, on large scale of society, or people wouldn't try to get around it, worship wealth and get rich or rob banks. To ascertain this, Fresco had to visit a primitive non-capitalistic society, to see human beings without chronic frustration for the first time.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoGc7E1Se58

Nobody wants to get dumped, lose that affection and closeness, seek a new partner, settle for masturbation and then dress up nicely and try and win the affection of a new potential partner. Therefore romantic relationships are structural violence.

Yeah, people are supposed to get hurt and traumatized, or it wouldn't be a proper love and economy! (sarcasm)

 

No wonder people invented online dating services, typology matches, books about relationships, relationship advisors, masturbation toys and especially contraception. If it was all right and natural, they wouldn't bother, they'd just go for the real thing. Romantic relationships are much distorted today by commodification of sex and nudity, thus it can have the same common source as the structural violence of capitalism. Our romantic customs are just whispering mail from olden times, colored by popculture illusions about how love works. No wonder people get hurt. It's an elaborate form of lying.

 

 

Well, again, simply saying "Stef doesn't see or realize these things" isn't an argument for them being true or false. If you can show the evidence and/or premises these conclusions are based on, then there'd be a ground on which some actual communication could take place, else it's really just you using ad hominems.

Please look here, this is the best post so far I've made about an example of what I think is Stefan's problem. Tell me what do you think about it. Do you agree with me? Nonetheless, the main goal is to get to talk with Stefan himself. I don't know yet where to start or how to break the bad news to him. Maybe he doesn't see any economic alternative to capitalism, that's why he holds on the capitalism so strongly. And he's right, there is no easy parametric fix, short of rebuilding the whole world and economic system in an entirely different way.http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37271-peter-joseph-on-stefan-molyneux-the-art-of-nonsense/page-2#entry345238 

Oh, sorry, jsut saw your second paragraph. Well, Kevin's response basically says what's falacious with these kinds of arguments. Saying: If other people don't give me what I want then I feel bad. Is not the same as them using violence against you. And it surely doesn't justify violence, but assuming it did, then that still doesn't mean your conclusion is valid, cause then everyone who's for the free market simply could say: If you want to take away my freedom to work and trade with whom I want and under what conditions I want, then I don't like that and therefore I can use violence to stop you. But basically it means that arguing morality from a subjective emotional standpoint doesn't work logically.

That may be logically consistent, but the problem is, it's not about logic. Bad emotions, stress and suffering still get generated in huge amounts and damage the society, no matter of who is right. If there is any difference to outright violence, it is only in degree and doses we are exposed to more regularly, but overall the impact is high. If we get a slap on the face once per day for the rest of our life, it's going to affect us, even if we get the slap for a perfectly logical reason, even if it gets the economy running.

 

We only pushed that out of attention, because in all the centuries until now market system was the only way things could possibly work reasonably well. Now this is not the only way and even the old way breaks down, due to massive automation of low-class jobs.

 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Nonetheless, the main goal is to get to talk with Stefan himself. I don't know yet where to start or how to break the bad news to him. 

 

 

 

Go talk to him on the call in show. That would be best because there are so many things wrong with what you're saying it's hard to know were to begin. Most of it is opinions stated as if they were facts and I can't actually find one valid argument; at least not one that hasn't mangled the concepts of free-trade to the point were it would take a small novel to unpack everything. You are firing so many claims that it has become non-falsifiable. How would one begin to falsify any of your claims?

[TheRobin]

if you toss out logic, whenver it suits your claims, then I don't see how you can go and try to debate with people. You're basically saying, that people should just accept the conclusions you derive from your emotions as objectively true and whenever they show that you're incorrect, you can reject them by saying it's not in accordance with your feelings.

 

For the slap in the face metaphor: Yes, precisely, which is why it's so impotant do deal with whatever you had to go through as a kid so you don't project that out onto the world and call it reality. The only people who can still get away with slapping people in the face everyday are parents, sadly. And if that's how you grep up, then I'm truly sorry for that.

 

And as Teabagger mentioned, you can basically talk to Stef anytime you want by calling into either the Wednesday or Sunday show, but in case you do, I'd recommend preparing your argument beforehand and make sure you communicate it as clearly and accurately as possible.

 

But anyway, I don't really see that this discussion is going anywhere, so I'm gonna stop responding, feel free to write an answer though, I'm gonna read it.

[Armitage]

Go talk to him on the call in show. That would be best because there are so many things wrong with what you're saying it's hard to know were to begin. Most of it is opinions stated as if they were facts and I can't actually find one valid argument; at least not one that hasn't mangled the concepts of free-trade to the point were it would take a small novel to unpack everything. You are firing so many claims that it has become non-falsifiable. How would one begin to falsify any of your claims?

You think that "government is tyranny" and "spanking is violence" is not mangling of concepts, but the deepest discoveries that place you or Stef at the forefront of social innovation. Well, so do I, and it was a discovery for me too. And where were you or me doubting and falsifying? Wasn't this too well hidden in plain sight for us, before Stef came and said how it really is? What if I say there are more things in plain sight that need to be called their true names? More concepts that need some well-deserved mangling to see what they really are? Government is not the only one who uses silly euphemisms to cover bad things.

 

I think arguments don't work here. We all have very good arguments. My arguments can be just a little better than yours and that is not enough to make you abandon a part of you. I'd say right now you are saturated, you have more than enough social innovation that you can handle. Maybe if you process Stef's message, you will find yourself ready for more than that and you will doubt more things, that Stefan doesn't. After all, you can't bash the government and spanking forever, we learn new things all the time.

 

I don't want to brag, but I can absorb social innovation from Stef and Peter Joseph or Jacque Fresco simultaneously, having before upgraded my vanilla soc/dem upbringing by Austrian school. So many people have puzzle pieces of social innovation and nobody has them all, one has to have a nose for them and collect them here and there and reason enough to put them into context. The upside is, I am socially innovative. The downside is, nobody understands me, they think I'm too radical.

[tasmlab]

Armitage, on 14 Nov 2013 - 8:04 PM, said:

Nonetheless, the main goal is to get to talk with Stefan himself. I don't know yet where to start or how to break the bad news to him. 

 

 

Be careful, Stef's a bit of a delicate flower when it comes to hearing these things.  You may break his heart.

Let me try. Market is based on competition. Agreed? In competition, there are winners and there are losers. Still with me so far? Winning and losing is decided by power. That's obvious. The ultimate power is violence. OK. Now, who has the monopoly on violence? The government. So the government is the best investment.  But I have met Libertarians who have market classified as cooperation, where everyone wins and everyone is happy. Well, I don't say that never happens, but I'd say that is more of an exception. 

 

 

Let me reflect on this point in particular:

 

In my experience, interacting in the market is rarely a competitive situation.  You don't, for example, compete with your grocer, your landlord, your employer, your employees, the stores you frequent, the service people you hire (plumber, lawyer, etc.), your dependents (children), your parents or almost anybody whom you interact with economically.

 

The brief bits of personal competition come in those infrequent times one is frictionally unemployed, up for a promotion, or if they happen to be a salesman or entrepreneur by trade, a minority of people who sign up for a competitive job.

 

So to characterize free economic association almost always cooperation may indeed be the rule, not the exception.

 

I will concede that government is a powerful and destructive tool in the hands of competitive corporations.

 

Please look here, this is the best post so far I've made about an example of what I think is Stefan's problem. Tell me what do you think about it. Do you agree with me? Nonetheless, the main goal is to get to talk with Stefan himself. I don't know yet where to start or how to break the bad news to him. Maybe he doesn't see any economic alternative to capitalism, that's why he holds on the capitalism so strongly. And he's right, there is no easy parametric fix, short of rebuilding the whole world and economic system in an entirely different way.

 

I think it is important to remember that capitalism isn't a system that is employed to achieve something.  It's a lack of a system.  It's free people interacting as they choose (presuming they are not stealing as you mention earlier).  So any alternative that injects control, coercion or a layer of rules will be thrown out on first principles.

[Armitage]

Armitage, on 14 Nov 2013 - 8:04 PM, said:

 

Be careful, Stef's a bit of a delicate flower when it comes to hearing these things.  You may break his heart.

I'm sure you mean this in irony, because from what I saw, Stefan's heart is hard as stone when market is the topic.

 

Let me reflect on this point in particular:

 

In my experience, interacting in the market is rarely a competitive situation.  You don't, for example, compete with your grocer, your landlord, your employer, your employees, the stores you frequent, the service people you hire (plumber, lawyer, etc.), your dependents (children), your parents or almost anybody whom you interact with economically.

 

The brief bits of personal competition come in those infrequent times one is frictionally unemployed, up for a promotion, or if they happen to be a salesman or entrepreneur by trade, a minority of people who sign up for a competitive job.

 

So to characterize free economic association almost always cooperation may indeed be the rule, not the exception.

You have touched upon an important point. Today the tradition is, prices are prices, take them or leave them. We do not have a choice. All price competition takes place between salesmen or corporation, typically through cartels.

This was not so in the past, in the past people routinely haggled for prices, that's what markets were for. In some cultures like Middle East or India, haggling is considered expressing a polite interest and it is expected that you will haggle. It's part of the fun. So a fixed price is another piece of power and freedom taken from us, probably to make supermarkets possible. Tell me, why don't we haggle anymore? Why do we take all prices at face value? Is it the power that social convention has over us?

 

I think it is important to remember that capitalism isn't a system that is employed to achieve something.  It's a lack of a system.  It's free people interacting as they choose (presuming they are not stealing as you mention earlier).  So any alternative that injects control, coercion or a layer of rules will be thrown out on first principles.

Oh, but capitalism is a system! My early education is automation, which involves regulation of systems and general electrician's stuff. It is useful to understand The Venus Project, which is very automation-based, but also capitalism or any other system.

 

From the point of view of the systems theory, capitalism as archetype is a system of positive feedback. This is what every single economic unit in capitalism has to do, if it wants to last. And the whole world might be said to be in the state of resonance, the unpleasant high-pitched sound you hear when someone drops the microphone. All the energy is concentrated in the highest bands of frequency spectrum.

 

Every engineer will tell you that positive feedback works, the problem isn't that it wouldn't work. The problem is, that it works too much and burns out the hardware. Works so great, until the last moment. 

 

I suggest you read Max Weber's Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism. Don't worry, it praises the virtues of capitalism. It's just an introductory paper, but it tells you a lot how people learned to invest surplus back into business, which the principle of positive feedback. You are right, positive feedback does not have a goal, but it does not need one, it's a self-reinforcing process. Originally people gave it a goal (protestant Heaven) but later forgot it and capitalism remained.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

You think that "government is tyranny" and "spanking is violence" is not mangling of concepts, but the deepest discoveries that place you or Stef at the forefront of social innovation. Well, so do I, and it was a discovery for me too. And where were you or me doubting and falsifying? Wasn't this too well hidden in plain sight for us, before Stef came and said how it really is? What if I say there are more things in plain sight that need to be called their true names? More concepts that need some well-deserved mangling to see what they really are? Government is not the only one who uses silly euphemisms to cover bad things.

 

I think arguments don't work here. We all have very good arguments. My arguments can be just a little better than yours and that is not enough to make you abandon a part of you. I'd say right now you are saturated, you have more than enough social innovation that you can handle. Maybe if you process Stef's message, you will find yourself ready for more than that and you will doubt more things, that Stefan doesn't. After all, you can't bash the government and spanking forever, we learn new things all the time.

 

I don't want to brag, but I can absorb social innovation from Stef and Peter Joseph or Jacque Fresco simultaneously, having before upgraded my vanilla soc/dem upbringing by Austrian school. So many people have puzzle pieces of social innovation and nobody has them all, one has to have a nose for them and collect them here and there and reason enough to put them into context. The upside is, I am socially innovative. The downside is, nobody understands me, they think I'm too radical.

No they're not a mangling of concepts. They have specific arguments reasoned form first principles. That you you imply arguments don't work here when this is a philosophy forum is astonishing. You are essentially preaching. I asked how one would falsify your theory. Can you answer or not?

[Armitage]

No they're not a mangling of concepts. They have specific arguments reasoned form first principles. That you you imply arguments don't work here when this is a philosophy forum is astonishing. You are essentially preaching. I asked how one would falsify your theory. Can you answer or not?

How can we falsify a simple, self-evident fact? Reasoning about it would be insulting your intellect. There is nothing to reason about, this is a problem of observation. Perhaps this is too simple to see, you expect logic to figure out, there is nothing to figure out.

 

I don't need to reason from first principles, all I need is to look at society and ask, does the market/money/capitalism/competition harm the society today? Empirically. Market can be effective only as long as it can change people's behavior. Does this change harm people? If so, then it is coercion, even violence. Subtler perhaps, indirect, but harmful and that is hardly open for dispute. Is it too bad? No, not too bad. It's much better than nothing, better than no economy at all. But do we have to put up with that in the age of automation and digitalization? No, I don't think so. That's what I think. It doesn't even seem that radical to me and I wonder what is there to misunderstand.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

How can we falsify a simple, self-evident fact? Reasoning about it would be insulting your intellect. There is nothing to reason about, this is a problem of observation. Perhaps this is too simple to see, you expect logic to figure out, there is nothing to figure out.

 

I don't need to reason from first principles, all I need is to look at society and ask, does the market/money/capitalism/competition harm the society today? Empirically. Market can be effective only as long as it can change people's behavior. Does this change harm people? If so, then it is coercion, even violence. Subtler perhaps, indirect, but harmful and that is hardly open for dispute. Is it too bad? No, not too bad. It's much better than nothing, better than no economy at all. But do we have to put up with that in the age of automation and digitalization? No, I don't think so. That's what I think. It doesn't even seem that radical to me and I wonder what is there to misunderstand.

Okay then so using reasoning about this would insult my intelligence (and you're not insulting my intelligence by avoiding reasoning on a philosophy forum) and there is nothing to reason about. No argument is required and your claims are self-evident facts. The market/ money/ capitalism /competition harms society and thus it is coercion. There's no need for you to define coercion or argue why harm is the same as coercion or to argue how these things are coercion or to distinguish between the state market and the free-market or to prove technology is sophisticated enough to forgo all these things? It's just true because you say you say it's true and that's that? 

[Armitage]

Okay then so using reasoning about this would insult my intelligence (and you're not insulting my intelligence by avoiding reasoning on a philosophy forum) and there is nothing to reason about. No argument is required and your claims are self-evident facts. The market/ money/ capitalism /competition harms society and thus it is coercion. There's no need for you to define coercion or argue why harm is the same as coercion or to argue how these things are coercion or to distinguish between the state market and the free-market or to prove technology is sophisticated enough to forgo all these things? It's just true because you say you say it's true and that's that? 

If coercion includes only state or criminal violence and not structural (such as economic) violence, then the definition of coercion is incomplete and thus partially wrong. You don't want to have a wrong definition. Why would you want to have a definition that includes violence only from some institutions and not others? 

One reason can I think of is, that you might be attached to the institution. Why would anyone want to be attached to capitalism and market? I can hardly imagine why. Perhaps because all other imaginable alternatives are much worse. However, I can see working resource-based economies, I don't feel attachment to capitalism, I see an alternative. So I don't feel the need to protect it by making incomplete definitions of coercion. I don't need to sweeten up the market. It's sweeter than government regulations, I can see that much, but it's best replaced ASAP.

[Heath Long]

Back to the OP and in the spirit of the first few posts: a few very simple rules can spawn incredibly complex systems. Wolfram stated in his giant ass book that the universe could have started with a handful of rules...like enough to count on one hand, spawning the universe we observe today. I like this, because I live it. First principles.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

If coercion includes only state or criminal violence and not structural (such as economic) violence, then the definition of coercion is incomplete and thus partially wrong. You don't want to have a wrong definition. Why would you want to have a definition that includes violence only from some institutions and not others? 

One reason can I think of is, that you might be attached to the institution. Why would anyone want to be attached to capitalism and market? I can hardly imagine why. Perhaps because all other imaginable alternatives are much worse. However, I can see working resource-based economies, I don't feel attachment to capitalism, I see an alternative. So I don't feel the need to protect it by making incomplete definitions of coercion. I don't need to sweeten up the market. It's sweeter than government regulations, I can see that much, but it's best replaced ASAP.

Coercion is the initiation of force and if someone initiates force through economic means then that would be coercion too. But you are not demonstrating how that is the case with the free market. You are just asserting it and alluding to to "structural violence". I have asked you how one would falsify the claim that the structure of the free market is violence and you refuse to do that. Any theory that can not be falsified is not a valid theory. There is no point at which people trading without coercion morphs into an act of violence. The arguments against structural violence have been made repeatedly and people like you are refusing to deal with them other than to make the same claims over and over. If you say my free trade with others leads to a structure of violent coercion then you need to prove it. I will not stand for being accused of violence by people who refuse to back the claim up with anything other than propaganda.

If you see an alternative then fine, go do it. Who the hell is stopping you? Stop preaching and make a god-damn argument.

[Armitage]

Coercion is the initiation of force and if someone initiates force through economic means then that would be coercion too. But you are not demonstrating how that is the case with the free market. You are just asserting it and alluding to to "structural violence". I have asked you how one would falsify the claim that the structure of the free market is violence and you refuse to do that. Any theory that can not be falsified is not a valid theory. There is no point at which people trading without coercion morphs into an act of violence. The arguments against structural violence have been made repeatedly and people like you are refusing to deal with them other than to make the same claims over and over. If you say my free trade with others leads to a structure of violent coercion then you need to prove it. I will not stand for being accused of violence by people who refuse to back the claim up with anything other than propaganda.

If you see an alternative then fine, go do it. Who the hell is stopping you? Stop preaching and make a god-damn argument.

I don't know what do you mean by falsification. By definition, all social phenomena are statistical. There always are exceptions, or there's something wrong with the survey. Can you imagine a statistical causal link?

 

Structural violence matters, because it impacts people. Impacted people are more likely to go and coerce other people. Coerced people are more likely to initiate violence. But you see only the manifested violence and it is a tip of the iceberg and does not directly reflect the real roots. The statistical causal link starts at the deep end, of social and economical insecurity, lack of surely, unconditionally provided food, housing, education, healthcare. If there are conditions about these basic needs, then there is some degree of coercion. Institutions that provide food, housing, education and healthcare are operated by people and by mutual coercion of people to receive these needs in return for some form of servitude. 

 

This is not an argument, this is a description, an observation of what society does. This is not a judgement if that's right or wrong. This is only a different way to say "people provide goods and services in return for money and they use money to buy goods and services". I merely describe what happens with their feelings and relationships during that process. You confirm it by the way you choose on which of your preferences do you spend money. The very fact you have to choose because of limited money causes you stress, that's why you try to maximalize your benefit - otherwise you'd choose randomly.

 

Most people here tend to idealize that process. Why? Because it is an economic model that does not include these feelings. Economists do not consider it necessary to write into economic textbooks how do people feel about this or that market process. So readers imagine that in reality the feelings are not there, or at least in the future reality of free market. Of course, that's nonsense. But proponents of various economic theories seem to neglect the emotional impact of economic processes on people, as if the economic theory would be competent to study the society. OTOH, to sociologists this kind of observation comes naturally.

[Kevin Beal]

If you see an alternative then fine, go do it. Who the hell is stopping you? Stop preaching and make a god-damn argument.

He's been asked to do this for like every day this week in different threads. He's not going to start now. It's an exercise in futility.

[Barry_diller]

You're right, absolutism is probably a better word. And from what I see, we do not need to try our luck in the market gamble at all. We have the technology to eradicate human servitude, just like we eradicated plague, typhus and cholera. (not really a market venture - once something is cured, a market is destroyed and productivity is released into someone else's hands)Because either we build a resource-based economy where people can freely use the production as equal shareholders, or corporations will automate everything and lock us out of it, because we won't have the opportunity to earn money and they will not need our labor anymore. That is quite a sinister version of the future, but it is happening right now. RBE is not a hypothetical concept, it is an incoming train on which we can either jump, or be overrun by it.Libertarianism was good 100 years ago, when machines couldn't speak and understand human speech. We have the technology because the wars and governments drove us to it, but now that it is here, the genie will not go back to bottle again, even if in a strictly Libertarian world this would not be invented so soon.

This is only true if Automatisation caused permament unemployment which have not yet at all happened. The information revolution, industrial rev. made a lot of other jobs obsolete, But new jobs have been created. I can't see how this will stop. Though automatisation are rapidly increasing, I have not seen yet humans replaced. What happens then we finally reach that point? We would properly be cyborgs and our intelligent would greatly be increased by gen manipulation,implants etc. That would make us still valuable. I'm guessing, but I don't see an end of human labour anytime soonHow on Earth do you think Governments and war made us create techonology? You don't know what could have been invented if so many people where not slaughtered and so much ressources wasted. 

Actually, I don't feel good about this Peter's argument. There seem to be some hidden intuitive leaps, I see where's he coming from, but he should keep things simple.The fact is, "rent-seeking" is the best investment that anyone can make, investment into bribing the government, considering financial input and output. Input is high, but output is immeasurably greater. It's the best business opportunity ever invented, it's a temptation greater than a market can possibly resist. If I won't do it, somebody will, so let it be me.As for Peter's argument, it is very tricky, because it involves several intuitive quantum leaps. Let me try. Market is based on competition. Agreed? In competition, there are winners and there are losers. Still with me so far? Winning and losing is decided by power. That's obvious. The ultimate power is violence. OK. Now, who has the monopoly on violence? The government. So the government is the best investment. But I have met Libertarians who have market classified as cooperation, where everyone wins and everyone is happy. Well, I don't say that never happens, but I'd say that is more of an exception.

Market are based on competition. Yes there are winners and loosers. But No winning and loosing are not decided by power, how do you come to this conclusion? 

I don't think you classify the market right. I'd say market is not an absence or opposite of violence, it is only less of the same in diluted doses, a dampened violence. It is a form of symbolical rule-based competition and competition does involve frustration. People want to take what they want, but rules say taking is stealing and stealing is punished. So we suppress our natural impulse to take and instead work long hours to get enough number tokens and then give them up. That is very frustrating, but it also diverts attention from the natural impulse to take, so much that we only see it in small children.The violence is dampened, veiled and spread to such a degree, that it becomes "only" a frustration, people can bite the bullet when the market exchange does not go well for them and thus society can work less or more smoothly. Society does not need a perfect non-violence to hold together, only good enough, social coherence depends on many other factors. This suppressing violence below threshold of frustration is a great historical invention, because it allowed people to live alongside each other in greater groups, develop trade, thus division of labor, thus better productivity and technology and so on. So there was nothing wrong with that, for most of the history money were not a part of everyday life, 90 % of people were farmers and they could grow food, they rarely bought it from strangers, often just exchanged food with people they knew. Their servitude was feudal, they gave food to the feudal lord. People were not free, but they had stability spanning whole centuries. Money were something extraordinary, you could buy out sins or pay for a murder with money. They were not meant for everyday use. The society had a stable order. Money are the agent of instability, they can get you to the top of social ladder in a moment, in next moment you can be millions in debt. Such is the stress of modern life. People can withstand some degree of frustration, or have some ways to dissolve it (in beer every evening) so the everyday frustration is normally not even noticed. People get worn out over long periods of time and think this is normal. But every market exchange has an element of frustration, because you give up things (money) that you could still use for *anything in the world*. And this counts, on large scale of society, or people wouldn't try to get around it, worship wealth and get rich or rob banks. To ascertain this, Fresco had to visit a primitive non-capitalistic society, to see human beings without chronic frustration for the first time.

How are your personal experience with the market? How was your jobs? How is your economy? How did you coop with competetion in your personal life?The market comes from the idea that you fully own your body and you fully own the affect of your body. You have fully responsibility of what you do and can keep the earnings of your affects in the world.You may feel discomfort because some are more talented than you in earning money, and you may also feel discomfort if someone beats you in soccer, or whatever that is important to you. You then call it violence, I don't think that is very honest of youI'm fully aware that the Western society to some extend is sick. I don't think because of capitalism. I think it's because of a lack of community. Some tribes have an really healthy psychology because of the strong bond between the individuals and the constant stimulation they get by being in nature. How do you think sitting idle on a chair looking at a screen does to our mental health? 

Yeah, people are supposed to get hurt and traumatized, or it wouldn't be a proper love and economy! (sarcasm)No wonder people invented online dating services, typology matches, books about relationships, relationship advisors, masturbation toys and especially contraception. If it was all right and natural, they wouldn't bother, they'd just go for the real thing. Romantic relationships are much distorted today by commodification of sex and nudity, thus it can have the same common source as the structural violence of capitalism. Our romantic customs are just whispering mail from olden times, colored by popculture illusions about how love works. No wonder people get hurt. It's an elaborate form of lying.

It seems you have been hurted a lot then it comes to love in the past.

[Barry_diller]

I don't know what do you mean by falsification. By definition, all social phenomena are statistical. There always are exceptions, or there's something wrong with the survey. Can you imagine a statistical causal link? Structural violence matters, because it impacts people. Impacted people are more likely to go and coerce other people. Coerced people are more likely to initiate violence. But you see only the manifested violence and it is a tip of the iceberg and does not directly reflect the real roots. The statistical causal link starts at the deep end, of social and economical insecurity, lack of surely, unconditionally provided food, housing, education, healthcare. If there are conditions about these basic needs, then there is some degree of coercion. Institutions that provide food, housing, education and healthcare are operated by people and by mutual coercion of people to receive these needs in return for some form of servitude.  This is not an argument, this is a description, an observation of what society does. This is not a judgement if that's right or wrong. This is only a different way to say "people provide goods and services in return for money and they use money to buy goods and services". I merely describe what happens with their feelings and relationships during that process. You confirm it by the way you choose on which of your preferences do you spend money. The very fact you have to choose because of limited money causes you stress, that's why you try to maximalize your benefit - otherwise you'd choose randomly. Most people here tend to idealize that process. Why? Because it is an economic model that does not include these feelings. Economists do not consider it necessary to write into economic textbooks how do people feel about this or that market process. So readers imagine that in reality the feelings are not there, or at least in the future reality of free market. Of course, that's nonsense. But proponents of various economic theories seem to neglect the emotional impact of economic processes on people, as if the economic theory would be competent to study the society. OTOH, to sociologists this kind of observation comes naturally.

Have you read any books on this? Any research you can show us?