Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[viewerfromnihil]

http://www.naturalnews.com/039603_sinkholes_Louisiana_land.html

So I heard about this a year ago or more, and assumed since there was nothing really more about it, it must have stopped/been mitigated. Apparently not.

Another New Madrid earthquake is a pretty scary prospect. The last big one in the early 19th century sent the Mississippi River running upstream for an extended period of time. It is, of course, inevitable and if anything, sparking the quake early would cause it to be less severe than if we let the plates reach their breaking point. The factors spoken of in the article don't cross me as quite significant to spark an earthquake though.

 

[Dak]

Another New Madrid earthquake is a pretty scary prospect. The last big one in the early 19th century sent the Mississippi River running upstream for an extended period of time. It is, of course, inevitable and if anything, sparking the quake early would cause it to be less severe than if we let the plates reach their breaking point. The factors spoken of in the article don't cross me as quite significant to spark an earthquake though.

Yeah, when something's inevitable at some point, I don't get too concerned when the possibility is moved up. I'm just pointing out the effect of silence, as well as the immediate effect of the toxicity/potential explosiveness of the sinkhole itself.

There's an irony in the current economic arguments, where Keynesianism on it's mere surface makes a ton of sense for a country: Save for the rainy day. Catastrophic economic or tectonic or meteorologic events count as national "rainy days". But of course "Saving" has not only never happened, it's outright denigrated and policy-prohibited by neo-keynesians and monetarists.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Well we wouldn't want to stop printing in one direction to sent it in another, now would we? God knows broken windows are the number one job creator in the country, so why not print in two directions at once? We could break windows in other countries too, and then fix them as well. God can only hope that he'll break half the windows on the continent, we can certainly cover the other half. The tab is on us.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well I know we've been around on this before, but particularly in business or politics, there is intent, even if there are unintended consequences. This is why businesses and politicians spend millions on R&D, advertising, market testing, etc. This is also why you or I will often look item or music reviews, etc. before buying.

Now as he pointed out, a lot of this can go out the window to someone with a High Time Preference. But High Time Preferences usually fail in the long term from an economic perspective (and in the short term to, from an economic perspective or HTP perspective). But those people don't care.

The assertion that there is intention in business and politics is ultimately one that can only be inferred, nothing more. The attribution of causal relationships is a symptom of the way we view the world.

Even if there is intention, the question remains as to what that intention is. In business, we assume people intend to make money. But this in turn assumes that everyone involved in market exchanges is playing by the rules of the game.

Yes, it would be difficult. Not impossible. Why is this disturbing? How do we demonstrate we have made a marked change in mindset? By action. How much action does it take to demonstrate a sincere and real change after years of the other? A lot.

We're not talking about years of such behavior. According to that speaker, one false move can do you in. Obeying the rules of the game ensures reciprocal appreciation. One false move sets you on the road to exile. The problem is that everyone makes mistakes.

Furthermore, even if one has engaged in such behavior for years and decides to genuinely change, it remains questionable as to whether that person could survive while trying desperately to make an "honest" living. The prolonged sincerity demanded by other actors might prove too long for that person.

So you don't think Maslow's heirarchy is somewhat relevant? I agree that some elements can be shifted around, but.....

I dislike anything hierarchical.

I think that qualifying everything included on that hierarchy as "needs" makes cultural assumptions. I think it privileges certain "needs" over others, and I think it places undeserved importance on certain "needs." Individuals qualify themselves on an evaluative basis according to where they position themselves upon this hierarchy. It's an ideological regime through and through.

Organisms do not need food. They only need food in order to survive. Organisms do not need copulation. They only need copulation in order to procreate. It remains highly questionable as to whether organisms need anything in the "self-actualization" category.

Finally, Maslow's hierarchy operates according to very specific cultural/ideological criteria. Organism's only need property if one assumes they're operating within some kind of modern market quasi-capitalist society. Property is by no means a universal need.

 

[Dak]

The assertion that there is intention in business and politics is ultimately one that can only be inferred, nothing more. The attribution of causal relationships is a symptom of the way we view the world.

Even if there is intention, the question remains as to what that intention is. In business, we assume people intend to make money. But this in turn assumes that everyone involved in market exchanges is playing by the rules of the game.

No it doesn't assume everyone is playing by the rules. It merely assumes people are trying to improve their position. Playing by the rules is a secondary possibility at any given juncture.

We're not talking about years of such behavior. According to that speaker, one false move can do you in. Obeying the rules of the game ensures reciprocal appreciation. One false move sets you on the road to exile. The problem is that everyone makes mistakes.

Furthermore, even if one has engaged in such behavior for years and decides to genuinely change, it remains questionable as to whether that person could survive while trying desperately to make an "honest" living. The prolonged sincerity demanded by other actors might prove too long for that person.

I thought he made it pretty clear that even repeated mistreatment could be non-threatening to future prospects, for the reasons given in the talk (population size, diversity, mobility, etc).

Even so, the ability to survive (vs thrive) is very much dependent on things other than reputation (unless people are literally hunting him down for his/her deeds)

I dislike anything hierarchical.

I think that qualifying everything included on that hierarchy as "needs" makes cultural assumptions. I think it privileges certain "needs" over others, and I think it places undeserved importance on certain "needs." Individuals qualify themselves on an evaluative basis according to where they position themselves upon this hierarchy. It's an ideological regime through and through.

Organisms do not need food. They only need food in order to survive. Organisms do not need copulation. They only need copulation in order to procreate. It remains highly questionable as to whether organisms need anything in the "self-actualization" category.

Finally, Maslow's hierarchy operates according to very specific cultural/ideological criteria. Organism's only need property if one assumes they're operating within some kind of modern market quasi-capitalist society. Property is by no means a universal need.

Like I said, some things can be adjusted. But the basics are there. Making a statement like "organisms only need X to live" is assuming some don't want to live, and in that case why are those organisms taken into account for these purposes? There is going to be no civilization of suicidees, and so why factor them in to long term calculations or organizational plans?

 

[Einherjar86]

No it doesn't assume everyone is playing by the rules. It merely assumes people are trying to improve their position. Playing by the rules is a secondary possibility at any given juncture.

That's fair, since improvement doesn't necessitate playing "by the rules." Someone's perception of the rules might be different from someone else's though.

I thought he made it pretty clear that even repeated mistreatment could be non-threatening to future prospects, for the reasons given in the talk (population size, diversity, mobility, etc).

Even so, the ability to survive (vs thrive) is very much dependent on things other than reputation (unless people are literally hunting him down for his/her deeds)

I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. This discussion boils everything down to honesty and dishonesty. There isn't any punishment for those who are dishonest beyond disenfranchisement from the market scenario (because other actors won't "play" with them). Those who are thus exiled must find means to survive that do not abide by the rules of the system, since these require reciprocal actors who are prepared to engage in transactions.

Like I said, some things can be adjusted. But the basics are there. Making a statement like "organisms only need X to live" is assuming some don't want to live, and in that case why are those organisms taken into account for these purposes? There is going to be no civilization of suicidees, and so why factor them in to long term calculations or organizational plans?

The importance isn't on the needs themselves, but on the effect that people's needs and/or relationship to those needs has on their psychical conception of their own role and place within the society. Organisms may all have entirely different visions and understandings of what their needs are, but these don't boil down into "those who want to live" and "those who don't want to live." There may be those who want to live but don't want to work.

 

[Dak]

That's fair, since improvement doesn't necessitate playing "by the rules." Someone's perception of the rules might be different from someone else's though.

This is true. The rules evolve through interaction. Such as accepted amounts of time to wait on food service.

I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. This discussion boils everything down to honesty and dishonesty. There isn't any punishment for those who are dishonest beyond disenfranchisement from the market scenario (because other actors won't "play" with them). Those who are thus exiled must find means to survive that do not abide by the rules of the system, since these require reciprocal actors who are prepared to engage in transactions.

I guess at some point there could be perfect information symmetry. Until then, those effectively or literally "exiled" from one area may move to another. Or the exile may merely be in trade, and said person may be forced to eek out a subsistence existence in the ground (unless the person turns to extra legal methods, which is essentially what they were exiled for to begin with).

I don't think anyone suggests that there wouldn't be thieves and murderers in a purely market economy. Merely that the "soft" kinds would be highly discouraged, unlike now where they take control of any sort of regulatory apparatus for their benefit. In turn, the openness of the market would discourage those turning to crime for improvement. We could already see how most crime in the US would vanish were drug dealing decriminalized.

The importance isn't on the needs themselves, but on the effect that people's needs and/or relationship to those needs has on their psychical conception of their own role and place within the society. Organisms may all have entirely different visions and understandings of what their needs are, but these don't boil down into "those who want to live" and "those who don't want to live." There may be those who want to live but don't want to work.

That would require defining work. If we define it as "doing things we don't want to do", then that includes everyone.

 

[Einherjar86]

I guess at some point there could be perfect information symmetry. Until then, those effectively or literally "exiled" from one area may move to another. Or the exile may merely be in trade, and said person may be forced to eek out a subsistence existence in the ground (unless the person turns to extra legal methods, which is essentially what they were exiled for to begin with).

I don't think anyone suggests that there wouldn't be thieves and murderers in a purely market economy. Merely that the "soft" kinds would be highly discouraged, unlike now where they take control of any sort of regulatory apparatus for their benefit. In turn, the openness of the market would discourage those turning to crime for improvement. We could already see how most crime in the US would vanish were drug dealing decriminalized.

I don't think this is convincing. I think that the majority of those "exiled" for "criminal" or dishonest behavior will only be forced to continue such behavior. The supposed discouragement against such behavior only applies to those who already hope to make headway, and even then it's questionable. I share your discontent with those who manipulate or exploit regulatory apparatuses, but I don't think their absence would necessarily promote the evaluative behavior you expect.

That would require defining work. If we define it as "doing things we don't want to do", then that includes everyone.

I suppose that in some cases people are doing what they don't want to. But in plenty of cases people end up getting a job they love. I don't see why we should decide whose survival is more valuable or worthy simply based on how much they avoid performing a job they despise.

 

[Dak]

I don't think this is convincing. I think that the majority of those "exiled" for "criminal" or dishonest behavior will only be forced to continue such behavior. The supposed discouragement against such behavior only applies to those who already hope to make headway, and even then it's questionable. I share your discontent with those who manipulate or exploit regulatory apparatuses, but I don't think their absence would necessarily promote the evaluative behavior you expect.

Well again, a high(er) time preference is needed. I think there's always going to be a subset of the population that's going to do what it's going to do, regulatory apparatus of the social kind or of the bureaucratic kind or not. I think we can look at the US reg. apparatus on anything, and the global financial "regulators" and see that the bureaucratic regulatory apparati purely serve those worst interests.

"People are bad, so we need a government (or regulator) made up of people".

I suppose that in some cases people are doing what they don't want to. But in plenty of cases people end up getting a job they love. I don't see why we should decide whose survival is more valuable or worthy simply based on how much they avoid performing a job they despise.

I think we talked about murder before in this way, in that "people don't want what they don't want." So while you might enjoy the hell out of reading and researching and teaching classic lit, I would find it quite "the job", or something I do not like. Most people have something they like doing, it's a matter of being able to find a way to use that enjoyment to serve others.

If we are talking to someone who wants to lay in a literal hammock all day that they didn't make, and do absolutely nothing else, why should I be concerned about them? Whether it's stealing or whether it's doing something legitimate, it's something they really don't want to do.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think we should be concerned because I believe there are ways to accommodate those people without abandoning them altogether. I think that the individualist mindset is so absolute and all-encompassing that it prevents most people from even thinking any other way.

I am personally concerned because I find that I care about other people even if they lie around in a hammock all day. I'm not insinuating that you don't care, but my personal reaction is to try and think my way through to a mindset and ethico-political system that can care for such individuals. This is why I'll likely never come around to an anarcho-capitalist position. I believe that such a system necessitates that some individuals be left on the sidelines, and I have trouble accepting that.

I don't believe that all government automatically equals authoritarian enslavers. I don't believe that living under some form of political system means that I'm a slave. I believe that there are ethical modes of politics, but that they're complicated and multifarious. And I think anarchy is an easy suggestion that masquerades as a solution.

I also don't believe that anarcho-capitalism is an ethical system because it doesn't demand ethical action of its practitioners. Its successful operation merely falls in accordance with what some people deem "ethical." This merely gives the appearance of ethics while actually existing purely for its own perpetuation. Finally, I don't really believe that humanity will achieve any kind of emancipatory political system that I envision or argue for. I think that long before that happens our systems will evolve to the point of being autonomous super-intelligent entities, and at that point we won't be much more than ant colonies to them.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Some rhetoric I found on Chomsky on a comment page.

"After randomly doing a bit of research on Chomsky I think it's a bit funny how a guy who says that American corporations "are just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism," didn't mind taking money from them, either, because the Eastman Kodak Corporation also provided financial support. He wrote his first book, Syntactic Structures, with grants from the U.S. Army (Signal Corps), the air force (Office of Scientific Research, Air Research, and Development Command), and the Office of Naval Research. His next book, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, was produced with money from the Joint Services Electronic Program (U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force) as well as the U.S. Air Force Electronic Systems Division.

Serving this "fascist institution" (as he has repeatedly called it) became a family affair when his wife, Carol, also an accomplished linguist, signed on for Pentagon work participating in a DoD-funded project called "Baseball.""

 

[Einherjar86]

That's the same argument people use against Terry Eagleton because he has a house in England and one in the United States. So people say "for being a communist, he sure likes the perks of capitalism." The problems with this statement alone notwithstanding (Eagleton is in the States so often that it's more practical for him to have a second house), people don't seem to realize that in a system absolutely controlled and dictated by the monies that run through it, one has no choice but to criticize the system from within. Chomsky and Eagleton could try and totally isolate themselves, but then they wouldn't be able to make the money required to fund the book they want to write in order to challenge the establishment. It's a fucking stupid argument people try and make.

I challenge anyone to try and find monies somewhere that haven't been "tainted" by mega-corporations or the government. If people want to find connections, they'll find them everywhere.

 

[Dak]

I think we should be concerned because I believe there are ways to accommodate those people without abandoning them altogether. I think that the individualist mindset is so absolute and all-encompassing that it prevents most people from even thinking any other way.

I am personally concerned because I find that I care about other people even if they lie around in a hammock all day. I'm not insinuating that you don't care, but my personal reaction is to try and think my way through to a mindset and ethico-political system that can care for such individuals. This is why I'll likely never come around to an anarcho-capitalist position. I believe that such a system necessitates that some individuals be left on the sidelines, and I have trouble accepting that.

The concern of the market is market participation. Those who chose not to participate are not excluded from any participation if they change their minds later. Also, nothing prevents someone so concerned about Mr/Mrs Hammock from taking care of them. They aren't "left on the sidelines", they decided they wanted to be there.

If you mean people that merely don't want to do x_job, that's fine, there's a effectively infinite amount of things that could be done. Choose something else. Just don't start breaking windows and expounding on how it's benefiting the economy, etc.

I don't believe that all government automatically equals authoritarian enslavers. I don't believe that living under some form of political system means that I'm a slave. I believe that there are ethical modes of politics, but that they're complicated and multifarious. And I think anarchy is an easy suggestion that masquerades as a solution.

Obviously it's not an easy suggestion, as quickly as it is usually rejected.

It obviously doesn't solve some of the problems that the state supposedly exists to handle. But the state doesn't handle them either, it just creates more problems. I think that is the general practical position.

Obviously some forms of government are less "enslaving" than others. On a practical note this may be relevant, but not in an ethical discussion. Note I am talking about coercive government, and not organizational heirarchy.

I also don't believe that anarcho-capitalism is an ethical system because it doesn't demand ethical action of its practitioners. Its successful operation merely falls in accordance with what some people deem "ethical." This merely gives the appearance of ethics while actually existing purely for its own perpetuation. Finally, I don't really believe that humanity will achieve any kind of emancipatory political system that I envision or argue for. I think that long before that happens our systems will evolve to the point of being autonomous super-intelligent entities, and at that point we won't be much more than ant colonies to them.

As far as the liklihood of The Matrix before Utopia, I would agree.

All systems attempt to self-perpetuate, and all perpetuate and exist within what the controlling group deems "ethical". The former is why systems/orgs that exist purely to combat a problem cannot be trusted to do so past a certain point. Too much success renders them obsolete. It's why you have to worry about mechanics breaking things, manufacturers making things to only last a certain amount of time, or government creating more criminals and enemies.

Government is a reactionary organization to perceived problems of anarchy. It does not solve these problems, and creates more. The only thing that Gov is good at, and can possibly be argued as necessary for as war. But for those who see government as generally bad, war seems relatively counterproductive. Forming a government as a defense against other governments. You've already lost.

What anarchy does is eliminate the double standards for the "People" and the "Government".

Some rhetoric I found on Chomsky on a comment page.

"After randomly doing a bit of research on Chomsky I think it's a bit funny how a guy who says that American corporations "are just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism," didn't mind taking money from them, either, because the Eastman Kodak Corporation also provided financial support. He wrote his first book, Syntactic Structures, with grants from the U.S. Army (Signal Corps), the air force (Office of Scientific Research, Air Research, and Development Command), and the Office of Naval Research. His next book, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, was produced with money from the Joint Services Electronic Program (U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force) as well as the U.S. Air Force Electronic Systems Division.

Serving this "fascist institution" (as he has repeatedly called it) became a family affair when his wife, Carol, also an accomplished linguist, signed on for Pentagon work participating in a DoD-funded project called "Baseball.""

Well, it does take money to pay the bills, and guess who controls the money in the system? I may as well be labeled a hypocrite for having been in the military and drawing the GI Bill, although that path was chosen before I changed my views.

 

[Einherjar86]

The concern of the market is market participation. Those who chose not to participate are not excluded from any participation if they change their minds later. Also, nothing prevents someone so concerned about Mr/Mrs Hammock from taking care of them. They aren't "left on the sidelines", they decided they wanted to be there.

If you mean people that merely don't want to do x_job, that's fine, there's a effectively infinite amount of things that could be done. Choose something else. Just don't start breaking windows and expounding on how it's benefiting the economy, etc.

What you say sounds attractive, but it doesn't jive with the reality of the situation. Markets appropriate, and they grow; they're a large part of the reason why nations have laid claim to so much land across the globe. If they aren't exclusionary at the outset, they will rapidly become so.

Obviously it's not an easy suggestion, as quickly as it is usually rejected.

It's funny you should say this. I personally find anarchy to be the easy "solution."

It obviously doesn't solve some of the problems that the state supposedly exists to handle. But the state doesn't handle them either, it just creates more problems. I think that is the general practical position.

This isn't to say it can't; it merely doesn't as it currently stands. I tend to see a voluntarily crafted central apparatus, defined and organized by the people in an emancipatory fashion, as a more likely and successful model than one that proposes to let the market handle all problems.

All systems attempt to self-perpetuate, and all perpetuate and exist within what the controlling group deems "ethical". The former is why systems/orgs that exist purely to combat a problem cannot be trusted to do so past a certain point. Too much success renders them obsolete. It's why you have to worry about mechanics breaking things, manufacturers making things to only last a certain amount of time, or government creating more criminals and enemies.

Government is a reactionary organization to perceived problems of anarchy. It does not solve these problems, and creates more. The only thing that Gov is good at, and can possibly be argued as necessary for as war. But for those who see government as generally bad, war seems relatively counterproductive. Forming a government as a defense against other governments. You've already lost.

Your claim that all systems self-perpetuate isn't accurate. Many systems self-combust.

What anarchy does is eliminate the double standards for the "People" and the "Government".

It eliminates a lot of things.

 

[Dak]

What you say sounds attractive, but it doesn't jive with the reality of the situation. Markets appropriate, and they grow; they're a large part of the reason why nations have laid claim to so much land across the globe. If they aren't exclusionary at the outset, they will rapidly become so.

Mankind utilizes land to survive and/or thrive. I don't see the problem with this. When it's done in colonial fashion, then we have a problem. But this wasn't market action. This was Imperial Glory. Why did the governments of Britain, Spain, et al finance these expeditions and give exclusive rights to groups like the _X_X_Company? To gain revenue to finance fighting each other. None of that was market oriented. There was no value to be provided for anything other than power/ego.

I find it interesting they were much more interested in financing wars to fight over the relatively tiny bit of land they currently occupied, than spreading and migrating to the larger areas (the governments, not settlers).

It's funny you should say this. I personally find anarchy to be the easy "solution."

This is news to me. But even so, I meant across the population.

This isn't to say it can't; it merely doesn't as it currently stands. I tend to see a voluntarily crafted central apparatus, defined and organized by the people in an emancipatory fashion, as a more likely and successful model than one that proposes to let the market handle all problems.

What you are describing is still anarchic, unless that central apparatus lays claim to those who are not (or do not want to be) participatory. Kind of like if a different university than you are at suddenly began demanding you teach there for free *or else*.

Your claim that all systems self-perpetuate isn't accurate. Many systems self-combust.

Well I didn't speak to the success of self-perpetuation. Only the intent. On a long enough time line the survival rate for everything approaches zero.

It eliminates a lot of things.

I don't really think so. Most of the things that people think won't exist without government will exist. Like roads for instance. However, particular roads or particular bridges (examples) would no longer exist. Supply and demand vs lobbying efforts for bridges to nowhere.

 

[Dak]

http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html

An enjoyable little read.

 

[Einherjar86]

I take it that you mean it was an amusing little read.

 

[Dak]

So you don't believe in self-imposed nonage?

 

[Einherjar86]

I was talking about your impression of the essay, not mine; and I was referring specifically to this comment:

In some affairs affecting the interest of the community a certain [governmental] mechanism is necessary in which some members of the community remain passive. This creates an artificial unanimity which will serve the fulfillment of public objectives, or at least keep these objectives from being destroyed. Here arguing is not permitted: one must obey.

 

[Dak]

Ah yeah, well I don't think I agree with anything I read 100%.