Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Prismatic Sphere]

Actually, I'd say you fit into the 'what is wrong with the world' category.

Boy, would I love to hear that "logic".

 

[Badbird]

You should know Math by now Prismatic.

 

[Pessimism]

Obviously you misinterpreted my statement. Of course voluntary humanitarian work itself has nothing to do with tyranny. I was pointing out that is does no good to do good in one area, and support/do worse things elsewhere.

Pessimism claims to be involved in various "do-gooder" activities. (LOL at Bushism).

But by supporting [illicit] (government, or otherwise) force in assuring others comply with his vision, he has done worse than accomplishing self-defeatism, but is more in line with "1 step forward, 2 steps back".

This is not "Robin Hooding" as some suggest, but actually the opposite. Robin Hood acted outside the law to correct (assumed) injustices created by the law.

Supporting legal theft actually places one in the seat of "King John".

Even if I were to concede that I am at both helping and harming the system (helping build homes for the homeless while simultaneously selling crack cocaine to those dirty black peoples I want to undermine so much), that in no way bears upon the quality of each individual action. This isn't a utilitarian calculus, no positives and negatives values are ascribed or are added together to see where the moral worth of my actions lie - each action is judged alone. For example, John Wayne Gacy is released from prison, and is able to perform two large scale actions before he is killed. First he lets twelve people die at once from something he could have easily stopped (let's say a piano or some cartoonish shit fell on them – all he had to do was yell for them to move), second he saves a bus full of children. No one in their right mind would look at these actions and go “well, he did save way more people than he let die... so yeah all in all this was a good choice of actions”. No, instead we would go “saving that bus full of children was a great thing, but he also let those people die, which is abhorrent.

Now, if you wish to talk about my character, then you have legitimate ground to argue that I may be a hypocrite (ascribing some value system to all my actions and judging my character from said actions); but each action is not up for such a criticism. You could then say I was walking forward in some regards, while walking backwards in others - but you cannot say as a whole that I am just slowly driving in reverse – it doesn't make sense.

But honestly, the whole "1 step, 2 step" argument is entirely fallacious, and your principle of non-aggression stands to face the exact same problem. Tell me, for a principle that values not only natural rights, but property rights, how do the justify the coercive nature of the market – which is in itself an inherently aggressive entity. Furthermore, how is it able to address positive and negative actions on peoples choices? Surely if I build something, for free for people to use, I am changing their ability to choose – I'll say that again, I am LITERALLY altering the choices of people merely by acting – even if what I built was a positive communal thing that hurt no one, absolutely no one, it would still be unethical because I am radically and irreversibly changing the options available to someone without their consent. You could even argue that it is impossible to not coerce anyone at all, and that coercion – or as I should reiterate as the ability to change a scenario based on offering options – is unavoidable. You can argue whether or not these options are positive or negative in value, but the sheer fact remains that I am altering you and your options without express consent – even if you may agree with it at a later time.

I can answer this. Very easily. Because you actually produce nothing. You drain off of the producer because you are in reality a non-value. A non-producer. You don't produce any objective values; therefore, you exploit, foist guilt, and drain as many innocent producing individuals as you can so you can feel good about whatever "higher cause" you are fostering and feeding. You are in fact, a part of the tyranny of exploited wealth for mystical god concept notions as "the greater good" or "higher causes". You produce nothing objective and all you gain is some ephemeral pseudo self-esteem and something to support your own bogus livelihood. Again, you are exactly what is wrong with the world and I hope you get an ass cancer so calamitous that children will want to hit it with a stick, like Badbird.

Their is so much shaman-a-mystically wrong with your vision and logic that I can't help but try and use my fell sorcerous powers to set you straight. I would first suggest you read a god damn book other then Durkheim and Eliade, because I don't believe you actually "get" what they were trying to say. Second, pulling assumptions out of that chasm-like ass of yours would prove to be a good step in the right direction of what is "objective" and what isn't. Third is your entire knowledge of what composes someone to be altruistic seems to entirely stem from Rand's pathetic notions and ideas - you should REALLY fix that one; to assume one does something for others because it makes them feel good is akin to side-stepping all rational thought. I mean, god forbid someone do something to ease someones situation because they could argue it was the morally right thing to do. What if I were to say that I am chemically depressed, incapable of happiness, and furthermore hated the people I help - yet I help them anyway because it is (objectively) the morally right thing to do - what would you say to that? I can take a guess: something incoherent and utterly fucking retarded.

Or maybe... just maybe... I am totally a psychic vampire.


I did discover a fun game though, I ran your bullshit ranting through a Markov generator to see if it I could tell the difference between you or an algorithm that just mashes words together.

Because you gain is wrong with the world and something to support your own bogus livelihood. Again, you actually produce any objective values; therefore, you actually produce nothing objective and drain as many innocent producing individuals as "the greater good" or "higher causes". You drain off of the producer because you actually produce any objective values; therefore, you are fostering and all you gain is wrong with a part of the producer because you exploit, foist guilt, and feeding. You don't produce nothing objective and something to support your own bogus livelihood. Again, you actually produce nothing objective values; therefore, you get an ass cancer so you get an ass cancer so calamitous that children will want to hit it with a part of the tyranny of the tyranny of exploited wealth for mystical god concept notions as "the greater good" or "higher causes". You are in reality a part of exploited wealth for mystical god concept notions as you can feel good about. You are exactly what is wrong with a stick Because you exploit, foist guilt, and I hope you get an ass cancer so calamitous that children will want to support your own bogus livelihood. Again, you are in reality a stick Because you can feel good about whatever "higher cause" you exploit, foist guilt, and feeding. You are exactly what is wrong with the world and I hope you exploit, foist guilt, and all you are in reality a non-value. A non-producer.*

Frankly it NEEDS MORE MYSTICISM.

 

[Pessimism]

As for actual shit for the news thread:

70 year old vet thrown out of Clinton speech for silent protest

House Votes to Strip Planned Parenthood of Federal Funding

Most Americans Are 'Over-Insured'

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Their is so much shaman-a-mystically wrong with your vision and logic that I can't help but try and use my fell sorcerous powers to set you straight. I would first suggest you read a god damn book other then Durkheim and Eliade, because I don't believe you actually "get" what they were trying to say. Second, pulling assumptions out of that chasm-like ass of yours would prove to be a good step in the right direction of what is "objective" and what isn't. Third is your entire knowledge of what composes someone to be altruistic seems to entirely stem from Rand's pathetic notions and ideas - you should REALLY fix that one; to assume one does something for others because it makes them feel good is akin to side-stepping all rational thought. I mean, god forbid someone do something to ease someones situation because they could argue it was the morally right thing to do. What if I were to say that I am chemically depressed, incapable of happiness, and furthermore hated the people I help - yet I help them anyway because it is (objectively) the morally right thing to do - what would you say to that? I can take a guess: something incoherent and utterly fucking retarded.

I guess ephemerally feeding your pseudo self-esteem was an understatement, huh? At least black people knew when they were slaves. You remain clueless. Harriett Tubman probably had more self-esteem than you do while she was whipped until she whimpered to her "massa" for some scraps of raw pork.

Now let me set you straight.

Altruism

Dictionary Definition: (1)Uncalculated consideration of, regard for, or devotion to others' interests sometimes in accordance with an ethical principle.

The Media's and Society's Distorted and Erroneous Connotations: A benevolent lifestyle based on selfless sacrifice that reflects love and concern for one's fellow man and his needs. Altruism through self-sacrifice is the ultimate ethical good.

The Reality-Oriented Objective Contextual Meanings and Connotations: The philosophy where sacrifice of human values is the good. Sacrifice is a process of reduction; of greater values to lesser values. Altruism or sacrifice always yields a net loss to everyone. If carried out to its finality, altruism would destroy all human values..... and thus destroy all human life. Altruism reflects a malevolence and meanness toward all human beings in denying people the guiltless right to their own lives, property, and happiness. Reflects an envious fear and resentment for the pleasures earned by those capable of living productive and competitive lives.



In summary, society would probably view you as a beautiful person.
Objective Realists would call you for what you are; dog-dick ugly.

Obviously the former is all that really matters, isn't it?

 

[Dak]

Even if I were to concede that I am at both helping and harming the system (helping build homes for the homeless while simultaneously selling crack cocaine to those dirty black peoples I want to undermine so much), that in no way bears upon the quality of each individual action. This isn't a utilitarian calculus, no positives and negatives values are ascribed or are added together to see where the moral worth of my actions lie - each action is judged alone. For example, John Wayne Gacy is released from prison, and is able to perform two large scale actions before he is killed. First he lets twelve people die at once from something he could have easily stopped (let's say a piano or some cartoonish shit fell on them – all he had to do was yell for them to move), second he saves a bus full of children. No one in their right mind would look at these actions and go “well, he did save way more people than he let die... so yeah all in all this was a good choice of actions”. No, instead we would go “saving that bus full of children was a great thing, but he also let those people die, which is abhorrent.


Now, if you wish to talk about my character, then you have legitimate ground to argue that I may be a hypocrite (ascribing some value system to all my actions and judging my character from said actions); but each action is not up for such a criticism. You could then say I was walking forward in some regards, while walking backwards in others - but you cannot say as a whole that I am just slowly driving in reverse – it doesn't make sense.

But our actions do not exist in some sort of vacuum, so you can't really suggest that progression in one area is overall seperate from regression in another area. If I hand a guy a dollar, and then beat the shit out of him, it did no good to give him the dollar, even though by your standard, the action in a vacuum was still "a positive.

Our entire society is obsessed with treating symptons over causes(socially and medically), and most "humanitarian" are guilty of merely enabling the root causes to limp along unchanged, because the results have been temporarily mitigated to a degree the "have's" can live with themselves over. So I could argue that it is 3 steps backward.

Even if it was 1 forward, 2 back, it is really rather pointless to argue that you aren't merely slowly (steadily) moving backwards, because the end result is the same.

But honestly, the whole "1 step, 2 step" argument is entirely fallacious, and your principle of non-aggression stands to face the exact same problem. Tell me, for a principle that values not only natural rights, but property rights, how do the justify the coercive nature of the market – which is in itself an inherently aggressive entity. Furthermore, how is it able to address positive and negative actions on peoples choices? Surely if I build something, for free for people to use, I am changing their ability to choose – I'll say that again, I am LITERALLY altering the choices of people merely by acting – even if what I built was a positive communal thing that hurt no one, absolutely no one, it would still be unethical because I am radically and irreversibly changing the options available to someone without their consent. You could even argue that it is impossible to not coerce anyone at all, and that coercion – or as I should reiterate as the ability to change a scenario based on offering options – is unavoidable. You can argue whether or not these options are positive or negative in value, but the sheer fact remains that I am altering you and your options without express consent – even if you may agree with it at a later time.

Adding options for someone else that cost them/anyone else nothing that was not voluntarily given, is hardly use of unethical force(I am equating coercion with force).

Also, the aggressive market analogy is built on a faulty reasoning. The market is merely the result of the collective actions of buyers and sellers. If the people involved are aggressive, then the market will be so. The market is not some ethereal entity that is inherently aggressive.

 

[Cythraul]

I really really don't want to sound sanctimonious here; but I am well beyond libertarianism(because I understand one has to be devoid of mysticism and so does everything else, as a base, so that only freedom flourishes and parasites exposed) just as I am well beyond atheism(because I don't really believe that you believe).

Remember that political power grew out of religious power. Whether it was the shamans who told you when it was going to rain, or the god-priest class, and ultimately the crystalline example of the Pharaoh. The unwritten law of man is that they must be led. And this entire god concept is utter nonsense.

Seriously, just shut the fuck up. You come across as a complete ideologue and you're fucking obnoxious. I really don't know why you're rambling about that shit there, because it's not making you any less embarrassing.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Seriously, just shut the fuck up. You come across as a complete ideologue and you're fucking obnoxious. I really don't know why you're rambling about that shit there, because it's not making you any less embarrassing.

Jeez...put your knee jerking, childish feelings away for one second and actually read what I wrote(especially the first part of the first sentence) and stop being such a nitwit. I mean, what the fuck is wrong with you and what is your fucking problem? Can I get you a tampon or a prozac or what?

 

[Cythraul]

Jeez...put your knee jerking, childish feelings away for one second and actually read what I wrote(especially the first part of the first sentence) and stop being such a nitwit.

Well, let's see, the first part of the first sentence said that you really (really!) don't want to sound sanctimonious. Well, too bad, because you do. In fact, your whole approach to issues on which you have some kind of ideological commitments comes across as arrogant, self-satisfied, dogmatic, and aggressive.

I mean, what the fuck is wrong with you and what is your fucking problem?

You are my problem.

Oh and by the way...

Also, the aggressive market analogy is built on a faulty reasoning. The market is merely the result of the collective actions of buyers and sellers. If the people involved are aggressive, then the market will be so. The market is not some ethereal entity that is inherently aggressive.

The market is grounded in a system of property rights, even an idealized "free" market. Property regimes are coercive; they have to be, otherwise they wouldn't embody rights. Markets are not just "the result of the collective actions of buyers and sellers." Now, you can go ahead and argue that merely acquiring property initiates force against nobody, but the only clear ways of defending that view produce highly troublesome results for folks with your ideological commitments.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Well, let's see, the first part of the first sentence said that you really (really!) don't want to sound sanctimonious. Well, too bad, because you do. In fact, your whole approach to issues on which you have some kind of ideological commitments comes across as arrogant, self-satisfied, dogmatic, and aggressive.

This.
In truth he just like a biblical fundie, except he's replaced the bible with Ayn Rand.

 

[Dak]

The market is grounded in a system of property rights, even an idealized "free" market. Property regimes are coercive; they have to be, otherwise they wouldn't embody rights. Markets are not just "the result of the collective actions of buyers and sellers." Now, you can go ahead and argue that merely acquiring property initiates force against nobody, but the only clear ways of defending that view produce highly troublesome results for folks with your ideological commitments.

Well obviously nature, etc. plays a role in the value of goods. I am referring specifically to the trading of goods and services itself, without interference from regulatory entities, etc.

Use-occupancy land rights and general property rights are not aggressive, since you cannot lose what you never had. Without property rights you are constantly at the mercy of unchecked aggression, with zero recourse.

 

[-CC-]

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Great scene, except for the fact I had to look at Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.

 

[Badbird]

This movie could not come at a better time.

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/atlas-shrugged-movie-trailer

Ayn Rand is a piece of shit that nobody cares about.

 

[Cythraul]

Use-occupancy land rights and general property rights are not aggressive, since you cannot lose what you never had.

Well, I'm not so sure that I would say that they are aggressive (although I think that view might be right.) The main point I was making was that the enforcement of property rights is clearly coercive, which militates against Prismatic Sphere's glib characterization of the market. Anyway, here's a question you should ask yourself: How is the mere violation of a property right aggressive? Suppose I steal your television while you're off at work. Is that aggressive? Why? If it's not, then it looks like the enforcement of property rights really is aggression, because it would amount to using force against somebody engaged in non-aggressive behavior.

Without property rights you are constantly at the mercy of unchecked aggression, with zero recourse.

Well, I think that there should be property rights; I'm just not quite sure whether they can be justified by appeal to the concept of non-aggression.

 

[Dak]

Well, I'm not so sure that I would say that they are aggressive (although I think that view might be right.) The main point I was making was that the enforcement of property rights is clearly coercive, which militates against Prismatic Sphere's glib characterization of the market. Anyway, here's a question you should ask yourself: How is the mere violation of a property right aggressive? Suppose I steal your television while you're off at work. Is that aggressive? Why? If it's not, then it looks like the enforcement of property rights really is aggression, because it would amount to using force against somebody engaged in non-aggressive behavior.

I don't know how you can suggest theft is a non-aggressive action. The things you own are (excluding gifts, the product of someone else's time/effort, voluntarily given) the product of your time/effort. Your time/effort = your life. Stealing someone else's things is equal to stealing their time and effort, therefore an aggressive action on them.

And aggression in justice is not the same thing, just as murder is not the same as killing someone in self defense.

 

[Cythraul]

I don't know how you can suggest theft is a non-aggressive action. The things you own are (excluding gifts, the product of someone else's time/effort, voluntarily given) the product of your time/effort.

So what? Sure it's a product of somebody's labor, but it begs the question when you declare that, because somebody now "owns" something, it is therefore aggression to mess with their "property." The point is that property rights violations are supposed to be wrong because that initiates force against somebody. We can't answer the question of whether something initiates force against somebody by simply declaring that somebody owns something. That gets things exactly backwards; that is to say, a property rights violation is not an initiation of force because somebody owns something. It's the other way around: a property rights violation is a property rights violation because it's an initiation of force against somebody. But I asked the crucial question here: is a violation of somebody's property right an initiation of force? Not in any straightforward sense, unless the thing the person "owns" is a part of them. Otherwise tampering with somebody's property is a "violation" in exactly the same sense in which acquiring property is a violation, which is problematic, because libertarians need property acquisition to be non-aggressive in order for property rights to get off the ground in the first place. I mean, maybe you could explain how the fact that something is a product of somebody's labor makes messing with it incompatible with the non-aggression principle.

Stealing someone else's things is equal to stealing their time and effort, therefore an aggressive action on them.

Is it though? How is stealing somebody's time and effort - assuming that that's what's actually going on here - an act of aggression against them? I only "stole" their time and effort; I didn't do anything to them strictly speaking. And anyway, how can I steal somebody's time and effort? I can clearly take a thing that somebody has, but I can't take somebody's time and effort merely by taking something that is a product of their time and effort. For the thing that is a product of their time and effort is not in any straightforward sense equivalent to their time and effort.

 

[Badbird]

Torture prosecutions and aid to Israel


BY GLENN GREENWALD


Yesterday and today were travel days for me, making posting difficult. I'm in New York this week to do several television programs, and will post them as they are confirmed (in particular, tomorrow night, I'll be on The Colbert Report to talk about the HBGary/Hunton & Williams story).

In the meantime, I recorded a Bloggingheads session on Monday with former Bush speechwriter David Frum over several issues about which we've disagreed: (1) Frum argued -- first on his blog and then on CNN.com -- that no other countries have the right to prosecute Bush officials for the torture regime they created; that's a position with which I obviously disagree; and (2) Frum recently (and reasonably enough) observed that Israel will likely face increased defense costs as a result of the upheaval in Egypt, but then, from that premise, argued that U.S. aid to Israel should therefore increase (as though the principal burden for Israel's security lies not with Israeli taxpayers but with American taxpayers); that, too, is a position with which I strongly disagree. Our discussion of both issues can be seen on the recorder below; it was a lively and contentious exchange and one that I think is worth watching:





UPDATE: I'll be on Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC program tonight at roughly 8:20 p.m. discussing a rare event: a purely commendable decision by the Obama administration. The Attorney General announced today that the President ordered the DOJ to cease defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a law which (as the DOJ will now acknowledge) is patently unconstitutional and gravely and unjustly harms tens of thousands of gay Americans.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Thanks for returning and making this thread interesting to read again Prismatic.

As for the Atlas Shrugged movie, I'm not looking forward to it in the least. For the record, there were no black people in the book. If they're going to do it properly, it needs to be, at the least, a 3 part movie. Also, every word of John Galt's speech should be in it as well. All 70 pages.

 

[Dak]

So what? Sure it's a product of somebody's labor, but it begs the question when you declare that, because somebody now "owns" something, it is therefore aggression to mess with their "property." The point is that property rights violations are supposed to be wrong because that initiates force against somebody. We can't answer the question of whether something initiates force against somebody by simply declaring that somebody owns something. That gets things exactly backwards; that is to say, a property rights violation is not an initiation of force because somebody owns something. It's the other way around: a property rights violation is a property rights violation because it's an initiation of force against somebody. But I asked the crucial question here: is a violation of somebody's property right an initiation of force? Not in any straightforward sense, unless the thing the person "owns" is a part of them. Otherwise tampering with somebody's property is a "violation" in exactly the same sense in which acquiring property is a violation, which is problematic, because libertarians need property acquisition to be non-aggressive in order for property rights to get off the ground in the first place. I mean, maybe you could explain how the fact that something is a product of somebody's labor makes messing with it incompatible with the non-aggression principle.

I think you are overlooking the voluntary vs involuntary issue. Acquiring property (outside of theft/war), requires mutual consent on both sides, or no "original owner". Theft requires involves involuntary transfer of propery, as opposed to a sale or gift.

Is it though? How is stealing somebody's time and effort - assuming that that's what's actually going on here - an act of aggression against them? I only "stole" their time and effort; I didn't do anything to them strictly speaking. And anyway, how can I steal somebody's time and effort? I can clearly take a thing that somebody has, but I can't take somebody's time and effort merely by taking something that is a product of their time and effort. For the thing that is a product of their time and effort is not in any straightforward sense equivalent to their time and effort.

To directly steal someone's time/effort is basically slavery, which is an aggressive action.

Theft, to the victim, is the involuntary loss of anything that is an extension of himself, whether it be his time, efforts, or the product thereof.

In a sale, each individuals make voluntary exchanges that are seen as a gain to both. Gifts are voluntary losses from one individual for the gain of another. It is whether or not gains/losses are voluntary that make them aggressive/non-aggressive.