Ken Cotton Posted November 21, 2014 Author Posted November 21, 2014 I've already explained how. You spend X amount of resources to secure the unclaimed resources, plus your opponent's resource. If you have 10$ and your opponent has 10$, and you buy a sword for 5$ and he buys a hoe for 5$, now you can kill him and have a hoe, a sword, and 10$.
J. D. Stembal Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I've already explained how. You spend X amount of resources to secure the unclaimed resources, plus your opponent's resource. If you have 10$ and your opponent has 10$, and you buy a sword for 5$ and he buys a hoe for 5$, now you can kill him and have a hoe, a sword, and 10$. This scenario doesn't generate any profit in the long run due to the inevitable reprisals that will be leveled against you. It also doesn't guarantee any profits in the short run. You cannot assume that the guy with a hoe won't trade his hoe for a sword in response to your imminent attack, or he may hire a mercenary with his remaining $5 to defend against your attack. He could do both and then you are in trouble. If you agree to trade instead, you both save $5 without having to risk dying or taking the trouble to kill the other, a violation of the ethical principles of non-aggression. The $10 value (hoe plus $5) you were expecting to gross through conquest shifted to the inherent costs of war. You quickly find yourself in a position to be lucky to stalemate and return home with your life. Thus, in this way, violence ends up costing more than peacefully trading for the goods you need.
Ken Cotton Posted November 21, 2014 Author Posted November 21, 2014 Only if you lose. No one goes into war intending to lose. If every side that ever lost a war knew the costs ahead of time they would never have committed to it. It is the double or nothing possibility of winning big that makes wars of conquest appealing. Everything in life is chance and struggle from the smallest cell to the biggest game animal. It is best to live in the moment and its visceral nature. Yesterday and tomorrow are always an eternity away.
dsayers Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I don't know what a "self-applying label" is. Labels don't apply themselves, obviously. I never spoke of A self-applying label. The statement was that I refrain from self-applying labels. I won't call myself an atheism even though the conclusion it represents is one I've arrived at also. Labels cannot sum up who a person is and the label of atheist in particular is meaningless because it attempts to sum somebody up by one thing they accept doesn't exist. It would be like if there were a label of aSantaClausist. Useless. I'm just telling you how I use the words and how it makes most sense to me. No, what happened was you made an objective claim that two ideas are not mutually exclusive when most of the world understands them as such. This statement rejects the correction and the opportunity to become a more effective communicator. :/
powder Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 @Kevin: That's not my understanding of what those labels mean. This is one of the reasons I try to refrain from using or self-applying labels. At any rate, on the off chance that my grasp of those labels was faulty, I looked them up. According to dictionary.com (whatever that's worth), agnosticism denotes uncertainty and atheism denotes certainty. On a side note, while I discourage the use of labels in general, atheism and anarchism are among my pet peeves. Even dictionary.com say atheism is a disbelief in God. It's like saying a mathematician disbelieves in 2+2=5. It makes it seem as if theism is the origin and atheism is the variance. As if the onus is upon the "disbeliever" to prove an absence (logically impossible). I love labels, personally. I feel zero compunction using them. And I don't know what a "self-applying label" is. Labels don't apply themselves, obviously. People use words differently and I'm not about to tell you that your definition is wrong. I'm just telling you how I use the words and how it makes most sense to me. I feel the same way as dsayers, I just find it more efficient and simpler to use, or avoid using, labels based on their general consensus understanding. I remember having the 'athiest' debate when I first started posting here. Of course I was using the popular definition of atheism that people understand to mean a disbelief in God, which is problematic as dsayers points out. Most everyone thinks anarchy means chaos and mayhem, so I don't like to use it and have to explain away the confusion. I find lots of groups hijack words and give them different meanings than the generally accepted ones, it just makes things muddy. So yeah, a pet peeve for me to.
Kevin Beal Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I feel the same way as dsayers, I just find it more efficient and simpler to use, or avoid using, labels based on their general consensus understanding. I remember having the 'athiest' debate when I first started posting here. Of course I was using the popular definition of atheism that people understand to mean a disbelief in God, which is problematic as dsayers points out. Most everyone thinks anarchy means chaos and mayhem, so I don't like to use it and have to explain away the confusion. I find lots of groups hijack words and give them different meanings than the generally accepted ones, it just makes things muddy. So yeah, a pet peeve for me to. I remember that thread and how frustrated I got in it. I apologize for any rudeness. And it's not like I haven't noticed that people use these colloquialisms rather than their proper definitions. But I refuse to be let other people define my words for me. I've had very productive conversations that got started simply by pointing out the difference in definitions. I'm proud to call myself an "atheist" and an "anarchist". Just imagine you are having a conversation with someone and you use some obscure word that means the same thing but is one they are unfamiliar with, and then through conversation it clicks and they say "oh, do you mean 'anarchist'?" And you have to concede "well, yea..." Well, I don't want to do that. I want to say what I mean and be direct about it in spite of the mental gymnastics people have learned to do when encountering these words. I regard it to be a challenge, rather than an impending trainwreck. The fact that people will say "oh you mean 'atheist'?" is proof enough for me that the dramaticized definition is just a self serving distortion that I don't want to entertain. 1
dsayers Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 If you have 10$ and your opponent has 10$, and you buy a sword for 5$ and he buys a hoe for 5$, now you can kill him and have a hoe, a sword, and 10$. ...and the ire of everybody who learns of it and the efforts of anybody who knew the person you killed. You get a hoe and +$5 in the moment, but you lose your ability gather resources in the future, or have any peace of mind, or sleep. The more complex a life form, the more complex its desires, the more it benefits from the division of labor. Unless a being can defy ALL laws of physics merely by thinking it, they will require effort to achieve resources, and therefore benefit more from co-operation than from domination. If I befriend you, then we both can work together to satisfy our needs. You no longer have to do what I specialize in because I'm doing it already, so the overhead is already in place and vice versa. I refuse to be let other people define my words for me. The definitions of most words you use were set before you ever existed. The only way you can communicate with somebody is if you do so in a manner in which they can receive. I want to say what I mean and be direct about it in spite of the mental gymnastics people have learned to do when encountering these words. I regard it to be a challenge, rather than an impending trainwreck. The fact that people will say "oh you mean 'atheist'?" is proof enough for me that the dramaticized definition is just a self serving distortion that I don't want to entertain. What did you mean when you tried to point out that agnositicm and atheism are not mutually exclusive? Anybody else I've ever talked to understood these terms to mean uncertainty and certainty respectively. What dysfunctional need would they have for them to assign those definitions en masse? People have suggested deities, therefore we have a use for words meaning belief in such a thing, acceptance of lack of such a thing, and unwillingness to consider such a thing. If not those words, then which? The fact that people will say "oh you mean 'atheist'?" is evidence enough that the use of labels is an inefficient method of communication. On a side note, I had made another post in this thread whose sentiment I am inclined to revisit, that hasn't gone live yet. 1
Ken Cotton Posted November 21, 2014 Author Posted November 21, 2014 ...and the ire of everybody who learns of it and the efforts of anybody who knew the person you killed. You get a hoe and +$5 in the moment, but you lose your ability gather resources in the future, or have any peace of mind, or sleep. The more complex a life form, the more complex its desires, the more it benefits from the division of labor. Unless a being can defy ALL laws of physics merely by thinking it, they will require effort to achieve resources, and therefore benefit more from co-operation than from domination. If I befriend you, then we both can work together to satisfy our needs. You no longer have to do what I specialize in because I'm doing it already, so the overhead is already in place and vice versa. At the risk of sounding asinine, the ire of people can be mitigated. I'll use our real world treatment of the environment as an example. We have destroyed many animal habitats with various justifications. There are a few people who are concerned with that kind of thing, but most people are easily placated. Even without the direct intervention of the state and all that, I think you'd be hard pressed to get people to agree to having less kids or expanding their property because it would kill some squirrels and birds in the forest. People eat those animals traditionally, to say nothing of cutting down trees to build houses. It's entirely possible for another race to view humans in a similar light. That's why we don't really have domesticated crocodiles. Their brains just aren't designed the way that mammal brains are. With crocodiles its been established that the most you can get from them as an owner is reinforcing the idea that you're the least appealing form of food, not that you aren't food. Now, can a crocodile develop the capacity for tool use? Is it possible for alien lifeforms to evolve tool use and inventiveness without developing complex empathy, let alone empathy for outside groups? We're pretty much the mascot for empathy and even we have an extensive history of genocide and xenophobia.
bootoo Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I've already explained how. You spend X amount of resources to secure the unclaimed resources, plus your opponent's resource. If you have 10$ and your opponent has 10$, and you buy a sword for 5$ and he buys a hoe for 5$, now you can kill him and have a hoe, a sword, and 10$. Where are these $5 hoes at homie - holla at me
J. D. Stembal Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 At the risk of sounding asinine, the ire of people can be mitigated. I'll use our real world treatment of the environment as an example. We have destroyed many animal habitats with various justifications. There are a few people who are concerned with that kind of thing, but most people are easily placated. Even without the direct intervention of the state and all that, I think you'd be hard pressed to get people to agree to having less kids or expanding their property because it would kill some squirrels and birds in the forest. People eat those animals traditionally, to say nothing of cutting down trees to build houses. It's entirely possible for another race to view humans in a similar light. That's why we don't really have domesticated crocodiles. Their brains just aren't designed the way that mammal brains are. With crocodiles its been established that the most you can get from them as an owner is reinforcing the idea that you're the least appealing form of food, not that you aren't food. Now, can a crocodile develop the capacity for tool use? Is it possible for alien lifeforms to evolve tool use and inventiveness without developing complex empathy, let alone empathy for outside groups? We're pretty much the mascot for empathy and even we have an extensive history of genocide and xenophobia. Animals and plants don't have property rights. Only humans do. The theoretical gardener with the hoe isn't actually a Bengal Tiger is he? Then no one will care you killed him for a gardening tool. I could go out and shoot a moose this weekend, and no one will care unless I neglected to pay the state licence first for $251. Well, technically, it's past season to hunt anything right now, too. The point is that no one with any moral or legal authority cares about the killing of a moose, as long as they are financially compensated for it. The state is basically claiming ownership over all wildlife within its borders as if they were renewable assets or resources. This is how the state views its citizens as well. We are tax livestock; assets to borrow against. That, however, is a serious moral issue (stealing from people) whereas killing an animal is not.
Ken Cotton Posted November 21, 2014 Author Posted November 21, 2014 Animals and plants don't have property rights because...? Animals feel pain. Humans are animals. If you invade an area that a group of animals have been living in for a long time and kill them, how are you not initiating force against them? Are you allowed to torture animals? If animals don't have property rights, does that mean they don't have any other rights either? Animals are able to vocalize and signify their domain to each other in a variety of ways. Different kinds of animals stake claims for areas that are respected or contested by other animals. Your assertion that animals don't have property rights is a complete refusal and willful ignorance of the proven fact that animals claim territory. 1 2
dsayers Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 The more complex a life form, the more complex its desires, the more it benefits from the division of labor. Unless a being can defy ALL laws of physics merely by thinking it, they will require effort to achieve resources, and therefore benefit more from co-operation than from domination. If I befriend you, then we both can work together to satisfy our needs. You no longer have to do what I specialize in because I'm doing it already, so the overhead is already in place and vice versa. Mr. Cotton, I was rather pleased with this bit and feel you discarded it entirely. Was that deliberate? If so, was it because it was nonsense or because you cannot offset it?
Peaceful Parent Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 Your assertion that animals don't have property rights is a complete refusal and willful ignorance of the proven fact that animals claim territory. Are they in turn capable of accepting and respecting human property rights? Are they then able to solve eventual property disputes without violence? Do they agree to adhere to the NAP? Those are qualities I would think need to be present in order for me to respect their claims of property. It would need to be universal for t to be moral.
powder Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 I remember that thread and how frustrated I got in it. I apologize for any rudeness. And it's not like I haven't noticed that people use these colloquialisms rather than their proper definitions. But I refuse to be let other people define my words for me. I've had very productive conversations that got started simply by pointing out the difference in definitions. I'm proud to call myself an "atheist" and an "anarchist". Just imagine you are having a conversation with someone and you use some obscure word that means the same thing but is one they are unfamiliar with, and then through conversation it clicks and they say "oh, do you mean 'anarchist'?" And you have to concede "well, yea..." Well, I don't want to do that. I want to say what I mean and be direct about it in spite of the mental gymnastics people have learned to do when encountering these words. I regard it to be a challenge, rather than an impending trainwreck. The fact that people will say "oh you mean 'atheist'?" is proof enough for me that the dramaticized definition is just a self serving distortion that I don't want to entertain. thanks for the apology Kevin, I do remember you being frustrated but I did not take offense. I appreciated your persistence in explaining your position, I learned a lot. I don't have any hard rules about sticking to one way of explaining important topics to someone. It depends on the context and my assessment of the situation and the person(s) I am addressing. I will happily used the term 'anarchy' if it works, I just like to be as effective and efficient as I know how to be.
Ken Cotton Posted November 22, 2014 Author Posted November 22, 2014 Mr. Cotton, I was rather pleased with this bit and feel you discarded it entirely. Was that deliberate? If so, was it because it was nonsense or because you cannot offset it? I'm sorry I didn't mean to neglect you. I feel as though that claim is too humanist in terms of talking about aliens. If you just mean imperialism, they can go with the british model ( Alexander the Great's originally if I recall correctly ) and kill off the existing heads of state. If you look at China, they make a lot more for their highest tiers of society essentially through slave labor. The fact that their wages and working conditions are set to improve is part of what will cool their economy. Higher wages and standards of safety reduce net profits and divide wealth. The main objection to slavery is ethical, not economical. If you do not have any ethical objections to slavery or genocide because of an alien composition there's no reason to assume you won't subjugate the entire planet, or terraform it to your living standards in a fashion that kills its domestic life forms.
Ken Cotton Posted November 22, 2014 Author Posted November 22, 2014 Are they in turn capable of accepting and respecting human property rights? Are they then able to solve eventual property disputes without violence? Do they agree to adhere to the NAP? Those are qualities I would think need to be present in order for me to respect their claims of property. It would need to be universal for t to be moral. I want to say yes and no. Obviously animals don't have the same mental faculties as human beings, but they do convey their thoughts and emotions in their own way. I imagine that most animals will tend to respect property rights as they have usually, just out of fear. Those animals that trespass can be dealt with the same way as people who trespass. The questions you've posed though, can apply equally to human beings. What happens to mentally retarded people who are incapable of some of those things? What happens if you encounter someone that speaks a different language than you? What assurances do you have that any given person will adhere to the NAP or be capable of solving complex property disputes without violence? The reason that most arbitration and small claims court services exist is because the majority of the population gets locked into he said she said type disputes over minor grievances or property violations.
Recommended Posts