Utiliitarianism - doctrine of irresponsibility?

[Seditious]

In the aforementioned context, the argument against doing so was civilization, as if everyone competed for resources as in a state of nature, the result would be a war of all against all..

ok, I see how you got there. cheers.

Property rights are moot unless backed by force, protecting such rights is one of the primary roles of a state respectful of natural rights.

that anyone could grant, but the point at issue is whether or not there is merely force, and no rights to be spoken of in any philosophically (as opposed to lip-service legislative) sense, or actual rights which are transgressed if someone is sneaky and steals while you cannot apply force, such that we could say 'the sneaky had no right to do what he did', employing a 'right/duty' relationship between people and their property.

That is somewhat tricky. To that, I would have to reply 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof', otherwise one could allege all manner of absurdities i.e. 'I will have to part you and your gold or it will rain blood and hail flesh'.

there is proof in the sincerity of the religious. Indeed if you said such as you did, no one would believe it, for we know such a statement is most unlikely to be rational given your education/culture/etc.

Sam Harris noted this distinction in a lecture some years ago, saying "If you believe that saying a few lines in Latin will change your breakfast cereal into the body of Julius Caesar you have lost your mind, but if you believe the same thing about a cracker on Sundays you're very likely perfectly sane, and maybe perfectly intelligent, you're just almost certainly Catholic. And this I actually think is quite dangerous, because it allows people, en mass---by the millions---to believe what only lunatics or idiots could believe on their own."

It seems that perhaps the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate how you could possibly be sincere in such a statement---what network of beliefs supporting such a claim you have.

but in any case, my point indeed was such an argument itself is an implicit absurdity.

However, it would not be in his interest to exercise it so just yet, such revolutions are predicted upon other participants acting in their individual enlightened self interests (i.e. if they can take down his meth lab, they can raid my hemp plantation or impose some other arbitrary restrictions averse to my interests).

certainly it is not expedient to be a criminal of crimes the laws against which are supported by the majority of voters, and which have a hefty prison sentence, but yea, that's a matter for those people struggling with such lifestyles, all that matters for my interest here is whether that right to revolution exists, not how utterly unlikely or unsuccessful it would be.

If I had picked them from a bush on your property, to which you held title, yes, you could deprive me of said berries as it was your lawful property along with the bush at the time of the picking.

why is it mine? because I said it is? suppose, little do you know, a nice old man was eating the berries, I slit his throat, buried him some way away, and said 'k, mine now'. Why are you to treat this like it's 'mine' when it's only mine because I didn't treat it like it was someone else's?--this seems to imply so long as I kill people who aren't of your view, and take all that they own, people like you will leave me alone to my new bounty of riches.

Stabbing, though, is a over the top for something as petty as berry-theft (especially if lethal force had not been initiated and one had already been asked to leave, as it could well have been a misunderstanding if the boundary between neighbouring properties was not clearly marked)

I'll stab you so you don't come back. or perhaps 'to make an example' as the judges like to say, as if it isn't despicably crude. In any case, having the right to stop you, its really your responsibility to avoid such situations where I might do more harm to you than you think necessary.

Whence comes a lack of right to use lethal force? A law can put Jews to death, so we can't of course interrupt moral discourse with 'when a legislator decides that's what he wants'.

though for something more valuable I can see how greater force could be used vis-a-vis the 'castle doctrine'..

this is where I draw one of my disagreements with Locke. I want to protect my castle by just starving off all the possible competitors, so I just horde up all the farmland, harvest all the crop, and let it spoil, as a means of depriving them of the sustenance to increase their population and pose a threat to my kingdom... it's preemptive self-protection. Locke wanted to say 'hey, no, you have to leave it for them to eat if you can't eat it yourself'. We're inclined to do this for trade, that's why money came about, so that we could keep more than we need...and have its value not wither. But Locke spoke as if I wasn't enjoying the wealth of the fruits because I let them rot, though my benefit from them was in depriving others. It seems he wanted to say 'we have to act like animals, animals use only what they need to consume, and they leave the rest for others to take', but as far as human strategy, as I've outlined, that's simply conduct of other animals' inability to be so cunning, and it isn't as if man is defying nature by doing such strategy, though in any case, there is no argument I know of him providing for why we should constrain our behavior to what is more common in nature than civilization.

 

[Seditious]

Man is not just any animal, it is the only sentient animal capable of articulating a claim on property.

I think you take extreme liberty with such a statement. I sincerely doubt you could wander into a cave with a bear, or a paddock with a bull, or climb a tree with a magpie's nest, or other such examples, and find yourself oblivious to a property claim being made in your vacinity which you'd consider valid enough to make flight. This is as valid as a man of a foreign language unable to convey to me his tribe's personal social contract which is utterly irrelevant to my natural rights.

Besides, the aforementioned social contract is made with other men, not animals, thus to them we still exist in a state of nature where one has a claim on no property one cannot retain via fiat (granted they are incapable of articulating a claim on property to begin with...) as in such a state, the fiat is the claim period.

a social contract, though, is merely what you hinted at earlier, mere pragmatism, cooperation and division of labor and civility and other such practices mutually agreed to in appreciation of the rewards to be reaped of such combined efforts. This is entirely separate from the question as to whether or not I have the right to roll the tanks in and turn you lot into my slaves.

Personally I think the enlightened self-interest merits of civilization are sufficiently proven to not warrant discussion, so all I'm concerned with is whether or not I have any moral restrictions regarding how I make use of human resources in furthering the combined self-interests of the people of my nation/army.

If you want to enter into a cohabitation with a bear, so be it, but to the bear it is his property by virtue of his presence and he will let it be known by force.

that's what happens when I want your berry bush...'knock knock, didn't you know I walked through these woods 10 years ago? this bush is mine... bye bye, thief'.

 

[razoredge]

presently?--Locke's theory of property; look it up.

So now is this Locke some new kind of "God" ? Whos "theory" is to be adopted ? I will look it up some time and try to interpret it. Why so much dancing around the obvious anyhow ? serious question there

As far as animals (and past human history) in regards to territorial property, claims are made and enforced, sometimes unthreatening compromises are made, sometimes there is conquest & resistance. Is this simple matter something Locke or "intellectual" philosophy is wishing to change, deny or just maul over... over a cup of tea ?

With humans I beleive the current idea is to stop the conquest of others property. Is this supposed to be a bad thing ? However contradatory current one sided laws, ideal and their loop holes have found ways to gain property through conquest. Current balls to the wall Capitolism is proving to be a heavy violator of personal property. Outragous realestate price, leading to outragous property taxes, all of which violates the paycheck, which is another personal property... the fruit of ones labors... it could be considered a mans best asset... is that not property ?

if you scan his posting history you'll see that he tends not to do that.

I would suggest a scan of your response history would show that you tend not to "hear it"

but yeah

Originally Posted by Cipher
Additionally, perhaps if my "contradictions and lack of awareness" is so self-evident, you should compose a counter-argument?

I will get to doing the work when I have chance(as if its worth the effort). One thing quickly off the top of my head, without organizing it, had to do with complaining about tax's, all while touting the value of a multitude of engineers to maintain infrastructure... not that Im suggesting it wasnt blatently obvious as not to deserve the unnessary effort on my part. Seems I've noticed others as well, but... oh... the back research of posts I'll have to do to organize the "proper" "convincing" "counter argument".....

No big deal, just found it amusing when considering your awesome spell check and grammar abilities.......

 

[Seditious]

Whos "theory" is to be adopted ?

That's really the point of such discussions.

as Cipher noted earlier, western nations have molded themselves around the idea of social contract as Locke put it. This make it relevant above other theories of property, rights, social contracts, etc. for us to talk about.

Why so much dancing around the obvious anyhow ? serious question there

meaning what?
I can only here refer to the earlier comments about how we cannot dogmatically adhere to our intuition, and make the assertion how obvious the inferiority of black people and women is, or whatever your culturally favored bigotry. You're welcome to have just whatever values you like, but you need to say something to demonstrate they have some sort of validity as anything but your own personal unreasoned biases. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be iterated: this is a philosophy forum. There is a general discussion forum on this website if you prefer to just rant about things you don't like, or talk to like minds, or assert your point of view, or whatever.

As far as animals (and past human history) in regards to territorial property, claims are made and enforced, sometimes unthreatening compromises are made, sometimes there is conquest & resistance. Is this simple matter something Locke or "intellectual" philosophy is wishing to change, deny or just maul over... over a cup of tea ?

here you seem to be speaking entirely antithetically to your statements earlier in the week about some sort of absolute fixed moral standards...such things as to which we might well apply moral language to the people who engage in such claims and threats and conquests.

With humans I beleive the current idea is to stop the conquest of others property. Is this supposed to be a bad thing ?

it is merely good method to have as little as possible taken for granted. Whether or not this is a bad thing, or a good thing, or neutral, depends heavily on whether or not such things as property and property rights exist.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

With humans I beleive the current idea is to stop the conquest of others property. Is this supposed to be a bad thing ? However contradatory current one sided laws, ideal and their loop holes have found ways to gain property through conquest. Current balls to the wall Capitolism is proving to be a heavy violator of personal property. Outragous realestate price, leading to outragous property taxes, all of which violates the paycheck, which is another personal property... the fruit of ones labors... it could be considered a mans best asset... is that not property ?

The state, if unrestrained, tends to allow well-connected and entrenched interests plunder.

The problem is not too much capitalism, but way too little.

Real estate prices went up because mostly because of bad monetary policy from the government-sanctioned monopolistic inflation factory called the Federal Reserve, but also because of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1995 which mandated that loans be made on real estate to people already known to be of bad credit. If we still operated on a gold standard and did not meddle, the conditions for such a bubble would not have come to pass.

Gas is so high partly because US refining capacity has not been expanded in 30 years because of these damn know-it-all environmental hippie freaks, and also because the idiots in Congress decided, as a gift to their lazy Midwestern constituents who get paid not to grow crops under the farm subsidies bills, that gasoline be required to contain corn-based ethanol. This in turn drives up food prices due to their high exposure to gas through farm machinery operation and transportation, as well as overall grain prices as more arable land was diverted to fuel rather than food.

Additionally, the currency would be much stronger if we were not pursuing trade policies that encouraged deficits, or were borrowing money, which dilutes the money supply. That is partly why gold and more recently silver have done so well lately: more money chasing the same supply on the market, and that is why I do not save in dollars.

If the government stopped meddling in everyone's affairs and instead shut up, sat down, and do what it was meant to do to begin with, this mess would not be half as bad and the beneficent invisible hand of the free market (vis-a-vis Adam Smith) would deliver us from this malaise.

 

[razoredge]

This is long, please give it a fair chance, my appologies

QUOTING Seditious :

That's really the point of such discussions.

I understand this but have concern that you all may have bought it up rather than opted for your own philosophy. See it seems to me these one way only ideals, propositions or philosophys are all errored. Yes I know this contradicts many of my own, but my ultimate quest is best ends of fairness in persuit of the betterment of humanity... and I dont mean that in a whimpy or mothering sense... fairness for the vast population as a whole. I look at things more from an economic (not "economics" sense, yes and as you said a moral kind of thing... but what do I have to do to get you off the religious or western culture ? Geeze there are problems everywhere, east/west/north & south... as has always been. I want answers not added chaos.

Back to fairness, I feel and will even say, I "know" people are well worth their contributing value regardless position because everyone is capable of supplying such that others could not... Lump sum being: labor may not be able to deal with judgement/management/_____ (choose your prefered word), equal as those capable of management could not deal with a life of labor... what I prefer to call getting the work done. Perhaps more of a "contract" that each appreaciates and values fairly the other. Its common in personal relationships, be it friend or lover, why not on the economical spectrum of the family tree. Its the widening spred that concerns me. Please note Im useing "fairly" not "equally" before someone heads in the wrong direction with assumptions.

as Cipher noted earlier, western nations have molded themselves around the idea of social contract as Locke put it. This make it relevant above other theories of property, rights, social contracts, etc. for us to talk about.

cant add to this any further than above. I'm having problems with the relevent part (and confused) as the problem of my different theorys or how far the spred between these theorys even is. I'll once again mention the western attitude used to oppose me, as my not being able to see a eastern idea thats any better, havent they even been more repressive ? (not sure that paragraph makes sense, I struggled there)

meaning what?

too many directions that may only yeild more problems... negative results, a chaotic state.

I can only here refer to the earlier comments about how we cannot dogmatically adhere to our intuition, and make the assertion how obvious the inferiority of black people and women is, or whatever your culturally favored bigotry. You're welcome to have just whatever values you like, but you need to say something to demonstrate they have some sort of validity as anything but your own personal unreasoned biases. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be iterated: this is a philosophy forum. There is a general discussion forum on this website if you prefer to just rant about things you don't like, or talk to like minds, or assert your point of view, or whatever.

I say we can not adhere to any one instution

I do not feel there is any inferiority of race, refer to my first paragraph regarding fair value of contribution, I once again look at opportunity restriction due to invisible or denied walls that do exist. We've turned it closely to "get the degree" or your useless... die... which once again is not true of the various necessary values to get anything from conception to conclusion.

Please... may I not be a bigoted, ignorantly moral, horrid western christian influenced idiot... for at least one day ? Preferably here after. Im far closer to them than those cranking down the millions every year for questionable reasons or validation and lawless exclusion, while our over all value and prospects drops by the year. PLEASE ! Cut a dude some slack.

The rest of that paragraph is lost on me, I feel Im way deeper here than a general discussion, it seems you only oppose the value I place on my own personal, uninfluenced philosophys. You see I oppose dogmatically adhering to any single intuition. Please ! Cut a dude some slack

here you seem to be speaking entirely antithetically to your statements earlier in the week about some sort of absolute fixed moral standards...such things as to which we might well apply moral language to the people who engage in such claims and threats and conquests.

I think you lost me here, seems I could interpret it a few ways, so I wont and play it safe.

it is merely good method to have as little as possible taken for granted. Whether or not this is a bad thing, or a good thing, or neutral, depends heavily on whether or not such things as property and property rights exist

Dont property rights have to exist ??? I cant seem to ponder or imagine they do not. Wouldnt any implication that they do not lead us back to clubing each other over a single piece of meat as if its the last and one Mofo of the two would rather wait behind the rock than do the hunting ? End result equaling chaos ?
----------------------------------------------------------------

Quoting responce to Cipher :

The problem is not too much capitalism, but way too little.

Abused capitolism results in repression, explotation. Resulting in wasteland and chaos.

Real estate prices went up because mostly because of bad monetary policy from the government-sanctioned monopolistic inflation factory called the Federal Reserve, but also because of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1995 which mandated that loans be made on real estate to people already known to be of bad credit. If we still operated on a gold standard and did not meddle, the conditions for such a bubble would not have come to pass.

Yes, but why ignore the law of supply and demand which also results in capitolistic extremes, catering to human greed ? It played as large a part as any... IMO

Gas is so high partly because US refining capacity has not been expanded in 30 years because of these damn know-it-all environmental hippie freaks, and also because the idiots in Congress decided, as a gift to their lazy Midwestern constituents who get paid not to grow crops under the farm subsidies bills, that gasoline be required to contain corn-based ethanol. This in turn drives up food prices due to their high exposure to gas through farm machinery operation and transportation, as well as overall grain prices as more arable land was diverted to fuel rather than food.

Again, Im seeing too much of a one way bias and incorrect, excapist view of the total picture. "lazy" midwesterners... cut and dry ? No government meddleing ? even though you refer to it when it suits you... just plain ol lazy... ey ? Reduced refinement only due to long haired hippy freak environmentalists? nothing to do with capitolistic values of cheapest labor ? Nothing to do with lazy, greedy capitolistic values against cost of cleaning up the act ? There has been much repression of indusrty in the States, yes I agree, but its in the yuppyish, suburban and meddleing housewife style mentality as all others I mentioned. "Not in my backyard"... well OK but where then ? Well now we see....... results: lost work opportunities to get the impoverished a contributing job and if applied in this case by your theory more expensive transportation, processing and heating fuel.

Additionally, the currency would be much stronger if we were not pursuing trade policies that encouraged deficits, or were borrowing money, which dilutes the money supply. That is partly why gold and more recently silver have done so well lately: more money chasing the same supply on the market, and that is why I do not save in dollars.

Yes indeed, as well as other things I have pointed out deminishing our value as contributing people

If the government stopped meddling in everyone's affairs and instead shut up, sat down, and do what it was meant to do to begin with, this mess would not be half as bad and the beneficent invisible hand of the free market (vis-a-vis Adam Smith) would deliver us from this malaise.

Yes but there is some degree of necessity. I have also always said its amazing whats legal and whats illegal in this country and possibly the world, thereby meaning to imply I feel there is much misdirected "meddleing"... looking in all the wrong places.

ALL my worthless opinions and bazaar sense of philosophy... of course...

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Abused capitolism results in repression, explotation. Resulting in wasteland and chaos.[1]

Yes, but why ignore the law of supply and demand which also results in capitolistic extremes, catering to human greed ? It played as large a part as any... IMO[2]

Again, Im seeing too much of a one way bias and incorrect, excapist view of the total picture. "lazy" midwesterners... cut and dry ? No government meddleing ? even though you refer to it when it suits you... just plain ol lazy... ey ? Reduced refinement only due to long haired hippy freak environmentalists? nothing to do with capitolistic values of cheapest labor ? Nothing to do with lazy, greedy capitolistic values against cost of cleaning up the act ? There has been much repression of indusrty in the States, yes I agree, but its in the yuppyish, suburban and meddleing housewife style mentality as all others I mentioned. "Not in my backyard"... well OK but where then ? Well now we see....... results: lost work opportunities to get the impoverished a contributing job and if applied in this case by your theory more expensive transportation, processing and heating fuel.[3]

Yes indeed, as well as other things I have pointed out deminishing our value as contributing people [4]

Yes but there is some degree of necessity. I have also always said its amazing whats legal and whats illegal in this country and possibly the world, thereby meaning to imply I feel there is much misdirected "meddleing"... looking in all the wrong places.[5]

ALL my worthless opinions and bazaar sense of philosophy... of course... [5]

1. Capitalism if not tempered by respect for natural rights, perhaps, though one could argue that absolute capitalism is the economic consequence of a state of nature.

2. Supply and demand driven by speculation can temporarily dislocate the market, though if the speculation turns out to be in the wrong direction, as we saw with owners of mortgage-backed securities, they got what was coming toward them. Same with the irresponsible and reckless borrowers; may their shacks be leaky when it rains! That is the beauty of capitalism: it rewards the distribution of one's resource to meet demand with great profit.

3. The farm lobby in Congress keeps giving handouts to these farmers for doing nothing; why should they not be called lazy for manipulating a corrupt system? The repression of industry comes about because it was regulated to death and has a tendency to move where it is not.

4. The only value one has as a 'contributing person' is that which is indicated on a check at the end of each fort-night or month, depending on the employer.

5. Necessary for who? If one meddles and produces a distorted market, the adverse reverberations echo throughout the wider economy. Some benefit in the short term, but we all lose in the medium to longer-term through the mis-allocation of assets arising from a distorted market. That is the tragic moral hazard of market manipulation, thus why the state must be kept in check so that it does not do such things to 'buy off' segments of the populations like those buttholes who get paid not to grow food.

 

[Insurrectionary]

one could argue that absolute capitalism is the economic consequence of a state of nature.

so everyone is competing against everyone else in a state of nature and we inevitably get capitalism? do you know anything about cultural anthropology? most people studied by anthropolgists who live closest to a "state of nature," ie. hunter-gatherers, are more like anarcho-communists then participants in a competitive war of all against all. if capitalism developed out of competition that started while still in a "state of nature," it was most likely due to a breakdown of a previous ethic of sharing. various anthropological theories can offer insights into why this might have happened, but i don't think ultimately we know for sure. Morton Fried's book The Evolution of Political Society seems to be a good starting place. it at least deals with theory construction grounded in empirical research and not speculative philosophical musings based on little or no evidence.

so we ultimately get capitalism for whatever reason. you obviously think this is good. i obviously think this is bad. i would try to argue with you over these points, but i'm really not interested as i've wasted many hours of my life criticizing pro-capitalism/pro-civilization types. i figured i'd at least bring up the anthropology point as it seems to be a glaring hole in your ideas concerning the state of nature.

 

[Blowtus]

Razoredge - you speak of 'fair' but do not explain what you mean by that. We are in a strong sense here discussing *what fairness is*. No doubt you will claim it is just something you 'know' - such has been and is the cause of many conflicts. Marxism and radical libertarianism both 'know' what freedom is, but both have very different views of it. To contribute 'usefully' to discussions like this, it is kind of important to not just 'know' the validity of one side of the contention, but to know (or at least think you know) *why*. An examination of what to you seems like crazy dreamt up theories, to a more thoughtful viewpoint, may help to elaborate on the 'whys'.

 

[razoredge]

Blowtus - It would seem to me more than obvious as I indicated my concern was the widening of the spred of distribution of capitol which is ultimately what determines ones potential as a secure property holder and security is ultimately what determines quality of life. I wont say "I know" this if that will make you rest easier. I dont mean to imply that other theories are crazy dreamt up, only the idea that one but not another is flawed. Is there such a thing as happy medium between theories to avoid their shortfalls ?
----------------------------------------------------------

Cipher - I strongly doubt your experience with housing, construction or farming. There is much that went down over the years that is excluded from the story for what ever reasons. I only know the jest of it... with farming... things like price control, distribution restrictions, and pressure to "upgrade" by assuming interest loans which were claimed to pay off but never did. Then increased property tax pressure and calling in of loans that led to eventual loss of property that at one time was long paid for. So I dont doubt that there was a lobby for remaining farmers not to get caught in the imposed web... still didnt have a thing to do with "lazy", survival is more like it. So that bullshit freed up land to promote the next economic stimulation which was suburban sprawl = housing. Fat supply & demand fueled housing prices led new home prospects with little alternative but to live at home with mom and dad, continue renting or get a loan and live "the American dream"... joke that that is today. Cant stimulate a false economy if you dont promote the extended credit boondoggle. Then they pulled this extended credit, false economy stimulation in an era where job security had already been decided to be a thing of the past, as our countries largest export is jobs, no longer product. Yet while everyone was aware of this, a picture was cast of "boom town" "technology" "service" futures to keep everyone optimistic and borrowing. The spending of money (consumer America) was the only way to keep the wealthy.. wealthy... so why not stimulate everyone to spend their entire lifes earnings in one decade... all while selling off American assets at an alarming rate = big bucks for the few. "Well welcome to the corner assholes... how do you like the view?"... but alas they still dont see it, why not ? Cant see it from their house, they have everyones money, that people havent even made yet. Just keep the sheep moving around the meadow, chewing down our highly fertilized bullshit grass. I personally did not fall prey to the credit industry but was effected by loss of an industry and to a degree optimistic sunshades, but that was only the result of competitive survival in the capitolistic chaos that was the 90's.
----------------------------------------------------------

these are a few of the reasons I oppose any philosophys indicating a dog eat dog society. The closer we get to that, as we are, the more screwed up things are becoming.

No insult but Im trying hard to believe that Im the one thats dense in these discussions as Im portrayed, yet its really hard.

 

[Seditious]

This is long, please give it a fair chance, my appologies

sweet as, sorry about the delay in reading/replying.

I understand this but have concern that you all may have bought it up rather than opted for your own philosophy.

No philosopher has a philosophy which does not agree with any number of ideas a philosopher before him argued. What makes it your own is your individual disagreements with each of the particular thinkers. You may think there's something dogmatic going on when we talk about this or that person, but really it's more like a short-hand for reference, not an argument from authority.

See it seems to me these one way only ideals, propositions or philosophys are all errored.

and all that matters is that you can provide a better argument---show us the errors. don't complain about the presense of something you can't demonstrate exists.

my ultimate quest is best ends of fairness in persuit of the betterment of humanity. . . . [W]hat do I have to do to get you off the religious or western culture ?

give me a reason to give a shit about your quest---to join it myself. That's really all we're talking about here, whatever the particulars are ('give me a reason to care about...' the greatest good, or the greatest number, the polar bears, battery farm chickens....whatever it is)

Geeze there are problems everywhere, east/west/north & south... as has always been. I want answers not added chaos.

then give us a reason to think there's a problem. Let me elaborate the meaning of that:

Sure, there are people dying of AIDS in Africa, but I think that's a good thing. It would be better if they died painless deaths, but if we forget about all the alternatives and stipulate a choice between helping them live better lives, and just leaving them to die, I think the latter is better. If someone is crying about this situation, if they'd put this on a list of 'problems everywhere, such as...', then they need to tell me why I'm wrong in thinking it's not a problem.

As 'obvious' as this or that situation that could be on such a list is to you, there is something else that might be on the list which is pretty absurd to you (like saving embryos from research, or kittens from being enslaved as animal companions (P.C. lingo for 'pets'), but which is as 'obvious' to the people who favor it as yours are to you, and yours are as far from obvious to me (and probably others here) as theirs are to you.

There is simply no progress to be made in merely complaining, or asserting how stupid everyone else is for not seeing what is so plain. Agendas which rely on preexisting emotional inclinations are most likely doomed to fail.

Back to fairness, I feel and will even say, I "know" people are well worth their contributing value regardless position because everyone is capable of supplying such that others could not...

can you elaborate on this point, first elucidating the phrases 'their contributing value', 'position', and 'supplying as others cannot'?

Perhaps more of a "contract" that each appreaciates and values fairly the other. Its common in personal relationships, be it friend or lover, why not on the economical spectrum of the family tree. Its the widening spred that concerns me. Please note Im useing "fairly" not "equally" before someone heads in the wrong direction with assumptions.

this sounds like the general proposition of The Wealth of Nations. Most unskilled workers are appreciated for what value they have, and higher skilled theirs, just as there is a fairness in romantic life, where each receive according to their peculiar positive atributes---some people are romantically less valuable than others, and it would be unfair to treat them as equals. Can you clarify if you see this being a false analogy to economic life?

I'm having problems with the relevent part (and confused) as the problem of my different theorys or how far the spred between these theorys even is.

not really understanding what you're getting at here.

too many directions that may only yeild more problems... negative results, a chaotic state.

there is a philosophical difference between problems and chaos, if I'm understanding how you're referring to the earlier statements here.

If anarchism was the best defended political theory, we would have no more valid argument than that which would support social chaos, one might say, but for one to say 'this is a problem' is either to merely squawk an emotional sound, or to hint at his desire to present a counter-argument to prove the theory less valid than some other. This is to say an argument taking a direction which you feel presents a lot of problems to your personal worldview, which you think is missing something obvious, is on no grounds a bad thing. Only if you think there are logical problems occuring is there anything of note here, and at such time you need to argue against them, not merely claim we're missing the obvious, which frankly may as well be replaced with 'heresy!' or 'you're evil!', or some other mere expression of emotional unease.

I once again look at opportunity restriction due to invisible or denied walls that do exist.

and suppose those walls were 'no women in the workplace', so what?

We've turned it closely to "get the degree" or your useless... die... which once again is not true of the various necessary values to get anything from conception to conclusion.

this, particularly, I think belongs in another discussion.
it's like 'paper ballots, computer voting, which is better?'--dunno, but who cares when what we're talking about is the validity of democracy.

Please... may I not be a bigoted, ignorantly moral, horrid western christian influenced idiot... for at least one day ? Preferably here after.

you can be whatever you like, that isn't my concern, as I noted (your values are you business), I've merely been iterating how you need to convey whatever it is you value in this particular forum--befitting the particular kind of conversation we enjoy.

It's like if I showed up at a nursary rhyme reading at kindergarton and screamed endlessly like a demon... if I want to scream, I should go somewhere else, there is a particular method that's to be used.

it seems you only oppose the value I place on my own personal, uninfluenced philosophys.

I don't oppose it, I request the reasons behind such valuing, at which time I can estimate for myself its value, and in dialogue have my estimations challenged by you or other posters in response.

Dont property rights have to exist ??? I cant seem to ponder or imagine they do not. Wouldnt any implication that they do not lead us back to clubing each other over a single piece of meat as if its the last and one Mofo of the two would rather wait behind the rock than do the hunting ? End result equaling chaos ?

I'd responded to this earlier, but I'll be more clear this time.

This is what I earlier pointed out to you is the logical fallacy of argument from adverse consequences.
Here's a quote from the net explaining it:
"saying an opponent must be wrong, because if he is right, then bad things would ensue. For example: 'God must exist, because a godless society would be lawless and dangerous'.

Wishful thinking is closely related. 'My home in Florida is six inches above sea level. Therefore I am certain that global warming will not make the oceans rise by one foot'."

If it were that you desired two plus two not equal four, if you happened to feel that way, it would have no impact whatsoever on whether or not that is how the calculation turned out. It's simply a fallacious assertion, it fails basic logic.

 

[razoredge]

yeah, thats Ok, dont worry about it, alot of things fail basic logic. Im not use to spelling out everything so it can be more easily apparent. I wont do it anymore.

 

[Seditious]

yeah, thats Ok, dont worry about it, alot of things fail basic logic. Im not use to spelling out everything so it can be more easily apparent. I wont do it anymore.

I'm confronted with that statement a lot by the religious. Typically it means they value their own belief too much to risk losing it by discovering for themselves how untenable it is in doing what's necessary to convince others of it. This, though, is much more likely in their case than I would assume of yours, as you probably just don't give a fuck, whereas they have a unique duty to go out of their way to spread the good news whenever they can, and they're effectively, in their own terms, refusing to help me come to faith, thus not merely being immoral unto my flesh, but damning me to hell for all eternity for all they care. They're either despicable hypocrites, or selfish self-deluding idiots.

 

[razoredge]

well that bore little intelligent coherence and was lost on me. I have a different way of expressing my points and leave them open to thought. On the same breath of the dissipating breeze... in these "ideals" topics, I have seen little so called proof of valid arguement in the posts of others or any lack of presentation in mine. So my interpretation of the lack of focus on the honest meaning of my posts... turned into focus on whats the matter with me as some method of throwing me into a twilight zone for not meeting up to desired specs. Where as when I read the posts of others I feel they are out there somewhere, way off track or devoid of the bottom line or the end results of application in reality... indicating a great deal of self servitude and the necessary distraction to gain such.

Bottom line... I give up... you succeded in your origional plan which has been obvious to me from the start, but in the mean time, in good faith I did give my best effort to gain at least a single strand of respect... it was lost, floating away on that little breeze... because it was more important to dismiss me than to hear me. This way my time wasted could be sure to lack enjoyment, yeilding a victory.

 

[Blowtus]

When you come into a philosophy forum and start bitching about the 'profoundness and uselessness' of topics, and whinge about the 'crazy ideas' of philosophers who have made a significant impact through history, it really shouldn't come as much of a surprise to come under some scrutiny yourself
The fact that posts such as this are even bothered to be made should indicate that headway has been made from some of the earlier responses. To assert that there was a 'plan' against you, and that people are more interested in dismissing than hearing you, is I think a lovely little protection mechanism, either fearing that you are too weak to try and step up to the challenge laid of explanation, or too weak to acknowledge arbitrariness of idea and critically self examine...

 

[razoredge]

Dude, I explained myself quite well, repeatedly, I have no idea what the fuck is with this lack of presentation bullshit, that is the fucking twilight zone bullshit Im talking about. I just said I gave up and now your useing that as yet another means of insulting me. My so called bitching about the propositions or attitudes of others in no fucking different than all others bitching about mine. Total concentration in fact has been in bitching about mine or just me for fucks sake as you are still doing. For whatever reason I have not been able to get any of my points across and I say that is through disallowment not my lack of effort. Just look at every responce to anything I have said, not a fucking one of them was in regards to what I said, just that I said it and apparently have some birth right as to being the only retard on the face of the earth. Fucking hell... protection mechanism... from waht ? thousands of years of history that led mankind to this day... or that I oppose so called philosophies that want to proclaim a free for all, fuck all, attitude in society. Where do we have this?... let me see, it exists in the ghetto... theres some forward thinking.... it existed in medieval times... lots of progress then. Today we have laws that try to avoid abuse of others, be it theft, rape, murder, violation of rights.... while at the same time the laws are written so that is doesnt apply to the upper class who virtually perform theft, rape, murder and violate human rights because for some reason they are exempt through entitlement. Because some so called philospher showed how this could be done, outside of any laws. I have had slavery thrown at me... I say there is more than one kind of slavery. Stealing has been mentioned, I say theres more than one way to steal from people, I say theres more than one way to rape people. So called Philosophers can dance around it all they like but it still is what it is, regardless the exemptions from prosecution of the law. I would suggest you all look up the defination of philosophy, I did, just to see what the fuck it was I was missing that brought this fucked up wrath from hell imposed on me through you guys... I didnt miss a thing, was only presenting my philosophy and what I felt was wrong with aspects of other philosophies... you guys simply didnt like it and used all this fucking distraction as a self protection mechanism for your take, take, take attitudes which clearly came from the old testament.

 

[forbidden fruit]

For what it's worth razoredge..
- Know your audience, & construct your argument in a digestable form.
- The further from centre your ideal/argument is, the more thought needs to be put in to get it across.

If you're presenting an argument that you know will not sit well with the majority of your audience, make damn sure there are no holes in it, because they will shoot it down if they can.
It's nothing personal.... it's just a 'philosophers forum'.. this is what they do.

 

[Seditious]

cheers for the input, Forb. I always value when a third party from a dispute speaks up, as to help either party in their bias recognize that it may be them at fault and lacking the perspective to acknowledge it.

 

[Silver Incubus]

From most of the thread I seem to understand or at least have a vague impression of what is being discussed. Also the problems I am seeing is that there is not enough definition of terms and their uses by both sides, and also that Razorsedge seems to not get many of the points because he tends to be more of a kinesthetic and audio person based on his language whereas seditious is a visual person according to the language.

You both have to take this into consideration. Kinesthetic people rely more on their feelings then logic, but there is still logic there most of the time. Once you see this, its almost funny to see the argument spread. "You don't see things my way" "well you don't have a grasp on what I'm telling you" etc. Realize this; the way you process information and make decisions are not the same as someone else and assuming that they can is a big mistake.
It is very apparent that visual based people have long sentences with many different aspects of the thought flowing, much like mine are. Kinesthetic based people talk in short and concise sentences.
Also giving Razorsedge a process to follow when presenting his opinions/arguments would serve to better accompany someone who is not formally introduced to philosophy.

IE. Aspect x about his philosophy is wrong because of x and y and z. These are my reasons for disagreeing with x and y and z.

this is a simple yet possibly profound breakthrough for someone. Tell them how you need it presented and then give them a means to present it to you in a way that you will understand and keep away from assuming someone will understand the way you think about things.

I also want to point out that the word 'but' negates everything before it. so saying 'yes but...' is saying 'no' why not use 'and' instead. And the word 'just' makes something an exclusion. That and most words like "focus, bigger picture, point of view" are not metaphorical, instead they are literal to the internal processes either conscious or unconscious to you. If someone cannot see the big picture, its usually because its too close, not in focus, not all there and all they can see is the fine details or a fuzzy picture or an incomplete picture. Changing those things can help.


I know there is valid arguments being presented by both sides, some are in need of some careful consideration instead of flaming. I am really sick of all the bitching and griping from some of the members here. I'd thought I would spread some of my practical knowledge to help. Oh I forgot, even the things I am saying are assumptions, and useful ones at that!

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

so everyone is competing against everyone else in a state of nature and we inevitably get capitalism? do you know anything about cultural anthropology? most people studied by anthropolgists who live closest to a "state of nature," ie. hunter-gatherers, are more like anarcho-communists then participants in a competitive war of all against all. if capitalism developed out of competition that started while still in a "state of nature," it was most likely due to a breakdown of a previous ethic of sharing. various anthropological theories can offer insights into why this might have happened, but i don't think ultimately we know for sure. Morton Fried's book The Evolution of Political Society seems to be a good starting place. it at least deals with theory construction grounded in empirical research and not speculative philosophical musings based on little or no evidence.

so we ultimately get capitalism for whatever reason. you obviously think this is good. i obviously think this is bad. i would try to argue with you over these points, but i'm really not interested as i've wasted many hours of my life criticizing pro-capitalism/pro-civilization types. i figured i'd at least bring up the anthropology point as it seems to be a glaring hole in your ideas concerning the state of nature.

Anarchy...communism...two words that by their very nature form an oxymoron when in proximity and not negated.

As for me, I grow tired of beating what appears to be a dead horse amongst statists who are so willing to surrender liberties unto an institution, which if unchecked or trusted beyond the tip of a sword, becomes a voracious beast as seen throughout history.

However, I shall look into this anthropological argument, as 'Columbia University' is a red flag (both literally and figuratively). I despise nothing more than communism or anything coming forth from that bearded troll Marx, and shall take pleasure in refuting it. However, I am taking summer classes so this will take some time.

In the meantime, by all means look into Dr. Paul's 'Manifesto'.

P.S. tell Karl that the blood of hundreds of millions are on his hands.