Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

They can be shown to have characteristics that individual cars don't have. Those characteristics can be treated independently of individual cars. I never said that traffic jams exist without cars. Go back and read the argument again if you have to. I've never posited the mystical existence of emergent phenomena; I have repeatedly said that emergent phenomena exhibit characteristics that their component parts do not exhibit. We can treat these characteristics without treating the component parts.

I admit that my comment on language was fallacious. I was quickly and haphazardly trying to convey this notion:

A writing that is not structurally readable – iterable – beyond the death of the addressee would not be writing.

EDIT: some food for thought and much needed perspective here:

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/10/concerned-leftists-rediscover-michel-fou

Foucault was highly attracted to economic liberalism: he saw in it the possibility of a form of governmentality that was much less normative and authoritarian than the socialist and communist left, which he saw as totally obsolete. He especially saw in neoliberalism a "much less bureaucratic" and "much less disciplinarian" form of politics than that offered by the postwar welfare state. He seemed to imagine a neoliberalism that wouldn't project its anthropological models on the individual, that would offer individuals greater autonomy vis-à-vis the state....

Foucault was one of the first to really take the neoliberal texts seriously and to read them rigorously. Before him, those intellectual products were generally dismissed, perceived as simple propaganda.

 

[Dak]

Maybe that's why I can abide what I have read by Foucault? Madness and Civilization is currently in the mail on its way to me. I also got my hands on a digital copy of Anarchy and Legal Order. More stuff to read and ever shrinking time to read it.

Edit: I read the actual interview with Zamora. The guy is talking out of his ass about social security, at least if he is referring to the US at all (I don't know about how it was implemented in Europe).

Discussion fodder:
Related to the Sony hack:
http://www.businessinsider.com/hack-attack-will-drive-some-big-company-out-of-business-2014-12

I had an interesting conversation with a person in the computer security industry a few weeks ago.

This person is absolutely convinced that 2015 will be the year that some company goes out of business because it didn't plan adequately for an attack.

The Sony hack is different from most past hacks on this scale because the people who obtained the information don't seem to be out for personal gain. Instead, they're actively trying to embarrass and perhaps even destroy the company.

Unintended consequences:
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/where-stolen-smart-phones-go/

Indeed, Ben Levitan, a telecommunications veteran who has worked for Verizon and Sprint, among other major industry players, has argued that a kill switch, far from fully alleviating the problem, has the potential to send it corkscrewing in new and unpredictable directions.

“So you roll out the kill switch,” Levitan says. “Great. Street theft might shrink a little. Maybe a lot. But the guts of the phone are still valuable, right? People are just going to be trashing their phones and selling them for parts.” He predicted the creation of a “whole new black market.”

 

[Einherjar86]

Already people are responding to the "hack attack" as though it is an act of traditional terrorism. In other words, they call Sony's shelving of the film "un-American" and "cowardly." And this is coming from celebrities.

I agree that the attack does seem motivated not by personal interests, but by ideologues with subversive intentions. This demands a response more intellectual and involved than simply, "Sony's a bunch of pussies!"

 

[rms]

It's such a silly argument. If they released the film and there was 1 shooting at a theater or whatever the 'terrorists' would have done, everyone would be on Sony's ass for not reporting the threats or delaying the film etc..

 

[Dak]

A successful workers cooperative that delivers desirable items competitively.

Where have I said this couldn't occur?

 

[SentinelSlain]

I just assumed that given how right wing you are.

 

[Dak]

I strongly believe in freedom of association. Cooperatives fall under that.

 

[SentinelSlain]

But it's basically like a company entirely run by its union, with things like limits on both the top and bottom pay.

 

[Dak]

That's fine. I just have a problem when it is mandated by the government, protected by the government etc, just as much as I take issue with laws against unions. If someone thinks they have a winning business model that allows them to pay workers more, or provide extra perks etc, great.

 

[Dak]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-24/why-everyone-about-rush-subprime-mortgage-debt-again

Here we go again. Nothing was fixed, and the rug now looks like a mountain what with all the dirt swept under it.

 

[rms]

You didn't expect that happen? Just a nice little recession so rich whitey could buy up cheap stock market prices and cheap real estate to then resell to poor whitey

Gotta love the credit system though.

Merry Christmas though gents

 

[Dak]

What? The real economy has essentially been in a depression since the 70s. Stock market and real estate values are all inflated, even during the most recent "recession".

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I still like individual stocks. I bought pretty hard into the absurd energy selloff over the past few months. Just because oil is 40% cheaper for now doesn't mean an oil company with 20+ years of reserves is worth 40% less.

As far as real estate, I agree that there are still systemic problems in the overall market, but I think someone with enough credit info on specific property owners or tenants can find plenty of good investments. I don't have any real estate investments at the moment, but I've looked into certain REITs that rent out things like hospitals or nursing homes, and they seem like pretty stable businesses.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

In other news, my intriguing tendency toward moderate political views continues. I've been reflecting on our two-party system (along with foundational elements like the Electoral College and first-past-the-post voting), and I'm starting to appreciate some of its merits for the first time.

I like that it maintains a balance of power between two halves of a fickle, undereducated population (granted, it would be preferable to have better education, but that's a separate issue). I like that the balance includes important boundaries like religion versus atheism, urban versus rural, and "big government" versus "big private sector". I like that the system delays the effects of rapid shifts in public sentiment, and protects our economy from regulatory instability.

Sure it helps perpetuate some injustices, but over the long term I think it's helped resolve more than it's created. There may be ideas for better systems in circulation these days, but it's probably worth putting those ideas through the trial of long-term mainstream acceptance before they're implemented. We could easily implement the wrong idea with good intentions, or even the right idea at the wrong time, and end up royally fucked.

 

[Dak]

I still like individual stocks. I bought pretty hard into the absurd energy selloff over the past few months. Just because oil is 40% cheaper for now doesn't mean an oil company with 20+ years of reserves is worth 40% less.

As far as real estate, I agree that there are still systemic problems in the overall market, but I think someone with enough credit info on specific property owners or tenants can find plenty of good investments. I don't have any real estate investments at the moment, but I've looked into certain REITs that rent out things like hospitals or nursing homes, and they seem like pretty stable businesses.

I agree re: oil. The current smackdown of oil is only going to last until the shale wells get good and capped and credit dries up a bit and then OPEC will start turning off the spigot. Then up it will go again.

As far as real estate goes, if you have to live somewhere and want to own it, that is one thing - in terms of looking for a deal based on the current problematic market. After that you have to decide how long you think the housing bubble is going to be able to be supported, both in terms of credit infusion inflation and shadow inventory being withheld.

In other news, my intriguing tendency toward moderate political views continues. I've been reflecting on our two-party system (along with foundational elements like the Electoral College and first-past-the-post voting), and I'm starting to appreciate some of its merits for the first time.

I like that it maintains a balance of power between two halves of a fickle, undereducated population (granted, it would be preferable to have better education, but that's a separate issue). I like that the balance includes important boundaries like religion versus atheism, urban versus rural, and "big government" versus "big private sector". I like that the system delays the effects of rapid shifts in public sentiment, and protects our economy from regulatory instability.

Sure it helps perpetuate some injustices, but over the long term I think it's helped resolve more than it's created. There may be ideas for better systems in circulation these days, but it's probably worth putting those ideas through the trial of long-term mainstream acceptance before they're implemented. We could easily implement the wrong idea with good intentions, or even the right idea at the wrong time, and end up royally fucked.

I'll just say I disagree that it does any of the things you have listed, but it's obvious that implementing new ideas can easily go wrong for any number of reasons. That is why nations need to shrink and governance needs to be small and varied.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I don't know how we would "shrink" a nation outside of strengthening the states within a federal system. I also see the scale of the US (and some of its biggest states) as largely a testament to good track records of governance, or distinctive constituent cultures. Seems to me like China or Russia could have reached the stature of the US by now given their size and natural resources, but their overbearing central governments have led to poor governance decisions and rigid/stagnant cultures. Also, I believe the scale of our federal government is inevitable given the comparable scale of these rival nations.

I don't see how you can say the two-party system doesn't delay the effects of rapid shifts in public sentiment. The parties' platforms change more gradually than public sentiment, and the atmosphere of partisanship incentivizes people to rally under platforms which normalize their views on most issues.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Here's an argument I like about the Electoral College:

The United States of America is a federal coalition which consists of component states. Proponents of the current system argue that the collective opinion of even a small state merits attention at the federal level greater than that given to a small, though numerically equivalent, portion of a very populous state. The system also allows each state the freedom, within constitutional bounds, to design its own laws on voting and enfranchisement without an undue incentive to maximize the number of votes cast.

For many years early in the nation's history, up until the Jacksonian Era, many states appointed their electors by a vote of the state legislature, and proponents argue that, in the end, the election of the President must still come down to the decisions of each state, or the federal nature of the United States will give way to a single massive, centralized government.[113]

In his book A More Perfect Constitution, Professor Larry Sabato elaborated on this advantage of the Electoral College, arguing to "mend it, don't end it," in part because of its usefulness in forcing candidates to pay attention to lightly populated states and reinforcing the role of the state in federalism.[114]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Support

 

[Dak]

I know some people get their panties all in a bunch about the EC, but I don't care. As I shift further into an anti-democracy position, anything that limits the destructiveness of the mob is probably a good thing in some degree, even if mostly in theory.

The US' central government has become increasingly overbearing in the last century, and is set up only to get more so, absent radical change. While public sentiment changes faster than platforms, a 2-4 year delay is still only a delay.

I would much rather see things shift more towards something approaching the Articles of Confederation again. While democracy is generally bad, it gets even worse when people from very different cultures are locked in policy fights. People in Kansas shouldn't have domestic policy disputes with people in California. Providing for the common defense doesn't require total integration.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Articles of Confederation... wow, idk shit about that, but I'll hit the cliff notes and see what jumps out.

This sounds a bit dicey for starters:

"The Articles of Confederation provided no mechanism with which to compel the States to comply with requests for either troops or revenue. At times, this left the military without adequate funding, supplies or even food."

 

[Dak]

Articles of Confederation... wow, idk shit about that, but I'll hit the cliff notes and see what jumps out.

This sounds a bit dicey for starters:

"The Articles of Confederation provided no mechanism with which to compel the States to comply with requests for either troops or revenue. At times, this left the military without adequate funding, supplies or even food."

Not a problem if you don't have a single military unit. NATO makes this work just fine. Modern communication and standardized equipment/training/organization amongst member states, each with their own forces, overcomes those sorts of issues.