"Rationalia"

[Catalyst]

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/748157273789300736

"...one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence."

 

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/748157603176419328

"Citizens of Rationalia."

 

This is a nice article giving criticism to Rationalia.

 

So far there has been a big push-back on the Rationalia form of governing, pointing out that evidence can be manipulated. I feel there is only one system to point out the how this system would be broken over night; the court system of the US. Describing rules based on evidence will lead to subjectivity disguised as evidence because of one's perspective. I believe the intent is to replicate the scientific theory to a system of government, but wasn't that also the intent of the court system? Neil once said that the court's best form of evidence is science's lowest form of evidence, experiencing it yourself. This is because one's experience is subjective and cannot also be repeated or open to interpretation. Designing a government to be like science I believe is not possible. As the article linked above talks about, there is chaos in people's actions. Designing rules based on evidence to manage this chaos is impossible, even modern computers cannot always have an accurate prediction to real world things, let alone humans. Rules can be built to stop 90% of common incidents, but this government would not be too different from the one we have now.

 

 

[EclecticIdealist]

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/748157273789300736

"...one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence."

You can't get an ought from an is through reason alone. If all policy is to be based on the weight of evidence, then where will the morals of the government come from?

[AncapFTW]

You can't get an ought from an is through reason alone. If all policy is to be based on the weight of evidence, then where will the morals of the government come from?

That's what I was wondering.  Is it based entirely on the effectiveness of a policy in having a given effect?  Who decides the limits of the government's power or what it should be involved in?

[AccuTron]

I was going to knee-jerk about how global warming fraud totally occupies the White House and so much more, there thus being already a strong tendency to ignore evidence unless it's tampered with usefully, and how is that going to change...then I see that Tyson is talking to Gore about politics in science!!!!  That's like discussing The Jewish Question with Goebells.  Another set of clay feet!!  Gotta be blunt here:  How the heck does Tyson not know it's all fraud?  You just look, just start anywhere, and it's like Niagara Falls of information, how does he miss that?  I painfully listened to snippets of the audio, and it's mindless prattle; they all assume the lies are true, then proceed from that point, total cheerleaders, I did not hear anyone presenting honest facts or questions.  A total case of kiss the hog's belly.  The clay feet list is growing: Tyson, M.Kaku, S.Hawking.  AGW and Fukushima are the most amazingly useful litmus tests.  Speaking of which, are you monitoring this go-to site re Fukushima?:  ENENews.com – Energy News

 

Recent post from above link:  — TEPCO President: We lied about meltdowns, “It was a cover-up… This is a grave issue” — “It’s an unprecedented nuclear disaster… about as bad as it gets” — 

[Will Torbald]

"It doesn't matter what the evidence is, but who weighs it" - Comrade Tyson

[Guest Gee]

 

Basically this?

 

[Carl Green]

Let's start with asking what a "virtual nation" even is...

[dsayers]

Let's start with asking what a "virtual nation" even is...

That was my first thought too. Like, aren't all nations virtual since nations don't exist?

[shirgall]

That was my first thought too. Like, aren't all nations virtual since nations don't exist?

 

While I agree that nationhood is a concept, there's something tangible about a border when it is actively protected and enforced.

 

A property claim doesn't exist either, but without being able to stake one out, "property" itself has a hard time existing.

 

Even so, a virtual nation that relies on empiricism as a matter (pun intended, har har) of policy?

[Guest Gee]

Yeah, he means virtual in the sense we might think of as imaginary but like an idealised conceptual representation of reality.

 

It's how alot of things are defined in physics, you take something real like a steam engine and create this idealised version of an engine, a virtual engine (call it a Carnot engine). Then use your virtual engine to define concepts like temperature and maximal efficiency.

[Carl Green]

...there's something tangible about a border when it is actively protected and enforced.

 

 

 

The tangible part is whatever weapons the defender(s) use(s).

[shirgall]

The tangible part is whatever weapons the defender(s) use(s).

 

Sure, but doesn't it make the border seem real?

[dsayers]

While I agree that nationhood is a concept, there's something tangible about a border when it is actively protected and enforced.

But that's like saying that a church is proof that God exists. It only proves that some people are willing to behave as if he exists.

 

I did some traveling across the country twice in recent times. As I passed over these so called borders, all that changed was who was willing to threaten me for what with perceived legitimacy. It's a scam.

[AncapFTW]

While I agree that nationhood is a concept, there's something tangible about a border when it is actively protected and enforced.

 

A property claim doesn't exist either, but without being able to stake one out, "property" itself has a hard time existing.

 

Even so, a virtual nation that relies on empiricism as a matter (pun intended, har har) of policy?

A virtual nation is essentially a group of people who call themselves a country so that they can decide what laws they have to follow.

 

I would think that anarchists would support the idea of people banding together to create their own communities with their own laws.

[shirgall]

But that's like saying that a church is proof that God exists. It only proves that some people are willing to behave as if he exists.

 

I did some traveling across the country twice in recent times. As I passed over these so called borders, all that changed was who was willing to threaten me for what with perceived legitimacy. It's a scam.

 

It was not a legitimacy statement, it was a perceived discontinuity of immateriality statement. I know that state borders have the same ephemeral nature as mafioso personal protection insurance.

[Carl Green]

The tangible part is whatever weapons the defender(s) use(s).

 

How'd I forget fences

[dsayers]

I would think that anarchists would support the idea of people banding together to create their own communities with their own laws.

"I would think PETA would support the idea of people banding together to create their own communities with their own animal abuses."

[Will Torbald]

"I would think PETA would support the idea of people banding together to create their own communities with their own animal abuses."

 

Anarchy is not the absense of rules, but of rulers. If a group of anarchists choose to live together in a private community, it would follow that they have voluntarily chosen to accept the laws of their venture and this is consistent with voluntarism.

[dsayers]

voluntarily chosen to accept the laws of their venture and this is consistent with voluntarism.

Gravity is a law. The word you're using is describing commands backed by threats of violence, which is NOT consistent with voluntarism. When I voluntarily create an obligation to somebody, it's called a contract. "Laws" cannot be enforced in the absence of rulers.

 

This is another example of trying to project the mechanics of statism onto a free society. You don't need people to commit to not steal, assault, rape, and murder because those actions in themselves a confession that the action is wrong/actionable. What else is there for voluntarists to agree upon that could accurately be described as a "law"?

[Will Torbald]

Gravity is a law. The word you're using is describing commands backed by threats of violence, which is NOT consistent with voluntarism. When I voluntarily create an obligation to somebody, it's called a contract. "Laws" cannot be enforced in the absence of rulers.

 

This is another example of trying to project the mechanics of statism onto a free society. You don't need people to commit to not steal, assault, rape, and murder because those actions in themselves a confession that the action is wrong/actionable. What else is there for voluntarists to agree upon that could accurately be described as a "law"?

This is semantic onanism. When the people agree to form their community, they also agree to enforce the rules they chose themselves to live by. Freedom of association is what is practiced in a free society. Imagine if a group of Neo Nazis wanted to have a land to themselves, closed it, gated it, homesteaded it, ans declared it free from blacks, gypsies, and jews. They would have, under anarcho capitalism every right to manage the borders of their private property and enforce the rules aka law of the land on it. What you're advocating is chaos and libertine debauchery.

[dsayers]

Imagine if a group of Neo Nazis wanted to have a land to themselves, closed it, gated it, homesteaded it, ans declared it free from blacks, gypsies, and jews. They would have, under anarcho capitalism every right to manage the borders of their private property and enforce the rules aka law of the land on it.

Nice try slipping in "rules aka law" as if the words are interchangeable. There's a reason you cannot address the subject matter head on. If I choose not to sell my property to somebody for any reason, that's not a rule. That's not a law. That's me dispensing with my property as I see fit.

 

What you're advocating is chaos and libertine debauchery.

You're a rapist. I guess we both get to make baseless, insanely wrong accusations. There is nothing chaotic about respecting property rights and accepting that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories, asshole.

[Will Torbald]

Nice try slipping in "rules aka law" as if the words are interchangeable. There's a reason you cannot address the subject matter head on. If I choose not to sell my property to somebody for any reason, that's not a rule. That's not a law. That's me dispensing with my property as I see fit.

 

You're a rapist. I guess we both get to make baseless, insanely wrong accusations. There is nothing chaotic about respecting property rights and accepting that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories, asshole.

The only place where humans exist in opposing moral categories is inside private property. I have the right to remove you by force from my land, and you don't. What you refuse to recognize as a law is exactly that. I make the rules of my property, and I enforce them. That's the law.

[AccuTron]

"It doesn't matter what the evidence is, but who weighs it" - Comrade Tyson

Did he say that in the audio, or someplace else?  Because that's a whopper statement.

[Will Torbald]

Did he say that in the audio, or someplace else? Because that's a whopper statement.

It's a version of a quote attributed to Stalin "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." And I was pointing out how creepy it would be to have a state like Rationalia. I agree with others who pointed out that evidence is descriptive, can't get an ought from it.

[dsayers]

The only place where humans exist in opposing moral categories is inside private property. I have the right to remove you by force from my land, and you don't. What you refuse to recognize as a law is exactly that. I make the rules of my property, and I enforce them. That's the law.

You own yourself and the effects of your actions for the same reasons everybody else does. This does not place anybody in different moral categories. It's not comparable to "law" because the ruling class doesn't own you or your land but still threatens you.

 

You're not even trying at this point. Poor prisoner.

[Mister Mister]

You can't get an ought from an is through reason alone. If all policy is to be based on the weight of evidence, then where will the morals of the government come from?

 

Yes you can.

[Will Torbald]

You own yourself and the effects of your actions for the same reasons everybody else does. This does not place anybody in different moral categories. It's not comparable to "law" because the ruling class doesn't own you or your land but still threatens you.

 

You're not even trying at this point. Poor prisoner.

 

More ad homs and downvoting is all you can do it seems. If I am in my property, I have a moral elevation over you. I literally exist in a different moral category when I am in my domain against you. This is the exact principle of propertarianism, or anarcho-capitalism, or objectivism, in actual practice in the real world. Now not only are you arguing against freedom of association, but now you oppose the enforcement of my will within my property.

[dsayers]

More ad homs

Yeah, last time you made this claim, I provided the definition and pointed out how it was false. Same thing here; I'm not ignoring the content of what you're saying, I'm responding to it.

 

If I am in my property, I have a moral elevation over you.

If you are on your property, it is still immoral to steal, assault, rape, and murder. We are in the same moral category because we both own ourselves.

 

Now not only are you arguing against freedom of association, but now you oppose the enforcement of my will within my property.

Saying X = X isn't an argument for or against anything except maybe for truth and first principles. Strawman. There's a reason why you cannot address what I've said head on.

[EclecticIdealist]

Yes you can.

The Burden of Proof is yours.  Prove that you can infer an ought (should/prescriptive or should not/prohibitive relationship) solely from an is (existential relationship) using only reason. I'll give you until the end of your life (or mine whichever ends first) to do so.

 

If you wish to pretend that the Burden of Proof is not yours, I refer you to the principles of informal logic.

 

If you wish to ignore the principles of informal logic, please let me know, as courtesy to me, so we don't waste each other's time in a pointless discussion.

[Will Torbald]

 

More ad homs

Yeah, last time you made this claim, I provided the definition and pointed out how it was false. Same thing here; I'm not ignoring the content of what you're saying, I'm responding to it.

 

If I am in my property, I have a moral elevation over you.

If you are on your property, it is still immoral to steal, assault, rape, and murder. We are in the same moral category because we both own ourselves.

 

Now not only are you arguing against freedom of association, but now you oppose the enforcement of my will within my property.

Saying X = X isn't an argument for or against anything except maybe for truth and first principles. Strawman. There's a reason why you cannot address what I've said head on.

 

 

Calling me a poor prisoner is an ad hom and an insult. Saying it is immoral to steal, assault, rape, or murder means nothing within my property. When you enter my estate you are agreeing to my rules, and if I remove you, you cannot claim it is assault. If I confiscate your belongings within it due to safety concerns, you can't claim it stealing. If I kill you when you refuse to leave, your lawyer can't claim it was murder because I was defending my property. I don't know how I'm going to get over the rape, but maybe I can make clear on the rules that it is an open sex estate and by just being there you consent to being groped or something. The point is that the rules of universal morality only apply in a neutral territory like a no man's land. Inside private land, the rules of the owner are above all else.

[EclecticIdealist]

Saying it is immoral to steal, assault, rape, or murder means nothing within my property.

Actually, yes it does. Simply because someone is on your property does not give you unlimited sovereignty over them.  I'm rather shocked that you are even making this claim. I really think you need to re-think this.

 

When you enter my estate you are agreeing to my rules, and if I remove you, you cannot claim it is assault.

That is correct. But in no case would it be considered assault if you require a person to leave your property and they refuse to leave voluntarily. it would be the defensive use of force to forcibly remove them from your property.

 

If I confiscate your belongings within it due to safety concerns, you can't claim it stealing.

Again, as long as they are on your property voluntarily and are able to leave at will, then you are at liberty to require they give up any property you deem necessary for any reason. Failure to return such property when they voluntarily leave would be theft.

 

If I kill you when you refuse to leave, your lawyer can't claim it was murder because I was defending my property.

If they are at liberty to leave and refuse, and the force necessary to remove them from your property results in their death, then this cannot be considered murder. If such level of force was not necessary and cannot be considered necessary, then it would be murder as the level of force resulting in a person's death was greater than what was necessary and reasonable to defend your property.

 

I don't know how I'm going to get over the rape, but maybe I can make clear on the rules that it is an open sex estate and by just being there you consent to being groped or something.

Again, if there is consent, it is not rape. If there is no consent, it's rape. If the person understands that as a condition of being on your property they must submit to sexual intercourse, and they are free to leave at any point, and they are capable of making an informed decision to stay under such circumstances, then they cannot claim rape if they are given the option of staying and engaging in sexual intercourse or leaving.

 

The point is that the rules of universal morality only apply in a neutral territory like a no man's land.

No, they do not. They still apply whether the territory is neutral or not; the dynamic is simply different when the territory belongs to an individual who has the right to require a person to voluntarily abide by their rules or leave, or when the territory is neutral and they have no such right to make such demands.

 

Inside private land, the rules of the owner are above all else.

No, they are not above all else, they are only above the non-owner's right to demand different rules of voluntary conduct while remaining on the owner's land. The owner's right to control such property does not overcome the rights of another to their life, their liberty, their property, their personal safety or bodily integrity.

[dsayers]

Calling me a poor prisoner is an ad hom

Third time: ad hominem - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

 

I called you a poor prisoner AFTER I addressed your position. Not that that did anything, so you're just deflecting and trying to engage in attrition.

[Will Torbald]

Third time: ad hominem - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

 

I called you a poor prisoner AFTER I addressed your position. Not that that did anything, so you're just deflecting and trying to engage in attrition.

 

You do not address my positions because you just reassert the argument I am countering. Instead of addressing my counter, you insult and berate. Where is your argument about my explanation of how I have a different moral capacity within my property against you if you were in it? This is your deflection. I make the argument that the morality you advocate only works outside private property boundaries since I acquire power you do not have in my estate - where is the case there?

 

From wikipedia:

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"^[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.^[2]

 

When you inject your little insults you are using emotional manipulation and verbal abuse that should not be there if your discourse were clean as it were.

[Will Torbald]

No, they are not above all else, they are only above the non-owner's right to demand different rules of voluntary conduct while remaining on the owner's land. The owner's right to control such property does not overcome the rights of another to their life, their liberty, their property, their personal safety or bodily integrity.

 

My argument is from a purely propertarian-anarcho-capitalist paradigm. If you do not believe in absolute property rights, that's fine. But under that paradigm, I can exert my will in absolutist terms within my property. That is what it means to be fully in control of your self and property. If a non owner thinks he can "demand different rules" while he is in my estate, he can f*** off. Anyone in my property who does not agree with my rules is a de-facto invader of my estate and an enemy of myself - and I can use any amount of force and appropriation I want because enemies don't have rights. It is Kingly. Again, if you do not agree with this ideology, I have no qualms about it. But this is how it works in practice.

[Mister Mister]

The Burden of Proof is yours.  Prove that you can infer an ought (should/prescriptive or should not/prohibitive relationship) solely from an is (existential relationship) using only reason. I'll give you until the end of your life (or mine whichever ends first) to do so.

 

If you wish to pretend that the Burden of Proof is not yours, I refer you to the principles of informal logic.

 

If you wish to ignore the principles of informal logic, please let me know, as courtesy to me, so we don't waste each other's time in a pointless discussion.

You have it backwards.  You can't get an is without an ought in the first place -- if you want to know what is true, you ought to follow reason and evidence.  Also, along the same lines, if you are rejecting the validity of normative statements, on what basis can you tell me to change my behavior?