Peter Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Dean wrote: I am excited to see what happens with the new ATMs and increasing market acceptance. end quote I don’t follow the bitcoin world but I have not heard anything about “market acceptance.” I thought the crash ended the public’s trust and faith in a virtual currency. Coupons are much more valuable, and have been around for over 60 years. The talking heads on Fox Business are downright derisive about bitcoins. I am skeptical. I smell some Italian cooking. Is that pasta noodles, spaghetti, or Ponzi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanwins Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 Peter Taylor,I hope you lightheartedly take my effort to comically poke fun at your ignorance on the subject..."I don’t follow the bitcoin world but I have not heard anything about “market acceptance.”Shouldn't that be "and"?"I thought the crashWhich should I be picking on? The assertion that you "thought"? Or that there was a "crash"? I disagree that bitcoin's price "crashed". Mtgox's "price" was invalid, because mtgox defaulted, and hence the "price" was nonsense since they could not deliver. See bitstamp's price history, which so far shows a "long term" trend of increasing price (long term compared to bitcoin's short history). I agree bitcoin's price has been very volatile so far. But at this point, using Bitcoin's price as an argument for or against it is just as poor as using public opinion."ended the public’s trust and faithThe public is a mob of idiots who are hardly capable of thinking for themselves in order to survive, who apparently need wealth redistribution from producers in order to live in "dignity". Surely you don't think that successful entrepreneurs who discover/create new market values use public trust and faith to decide what they should do? Ever heard of Rearden Metal? It is good."Coupons are much more valuable, and have been around for over 60 yearsValuable? What is the meaning of "value"? Valuable for what? Isn't oxygen more valuable than coupons? If we didn't have oxygen, then we'd suffocate! Bitcoin is valuable in enabling transfer of market purchasing power in ways that coupons cannot. Bitcoins have other properties that differ from coupons, such as that they do not expire, and that the original bitcoin ledger is limited to a supply of 21 million. But really... I don't want to go here, on this thread. Try "The New Economy" if you want to talk about bitcoin's valuable properties. In fact I'd really prefer that this conversation was moved over there. Jules Troy, I do not mean to blame you, you were just publicly talking with me more as a in common friend... not really wanting to stir up this debate here."The talking heads on Fox Business are downright derisive about bitcoins. I am skeptical.Are you skeptical of the talking heads or Bitcoin? The talking heads are shills for the Federal Reserve. Fox is probably the best of all of the news corps, allowing people like John Stossel to say things too. Here I will have to admit my ignorance. I rarely watch TV, especially news stations, because they are so full of propaganda. If I remember correctly, Fox News reporters were just as critical towards Peter Schiff in his predictions of the 2008 financial crises as the other stations. Peter Schiff is critical of Bitcoin, but my point stands. I talked to Peter Schiff over the phone... I failed to get him to acknowledge that Bitcoins are good... again, please discuss on "The New Economy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Now mtgox apparently mistakenly gave away all their customers deposits due to a bug in their own software.Dean:Did you actually send a message from your obviously intelligent brain, to your fingers and directed them to type:"...apparently mistakenly gave away all their customers deposits..."A...I am so sorry to use standard forms to indicate a quote...So your point is ...A...Post Script:Losts of ... for you to consider ...[would love to fill in those dots] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanwins Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 Uh, can someone translate Selene speak for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Uh, can someone translate Selene speak for me?Uh, can someone translate Selene speak for me?Uh, can someone translate Selene speak for me?Do.I would prefer that no one would attempt to try to do that.Let me be more clear. I do not like you.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I think Adam is suggesting that there was something more nefarious than just a "mistake" going on. They claim, I understand, they were hacked and the bitcoins were stolen. Adam is not admiring your glossing over a major theft (possibly by insiders?).ps: Just read Adam's post. I'm sorry Adam does not like you, perhaps thinks you are a sociopath if you can't recognize a major crime when you see one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanwins Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 Mikee,There is lots of crime in the world, so sorry for my not expressing shed of tears for the fools who deposited large sums of money at an exchange that has been consistently reported to have trouble making good on withdraw requests. Mtgox is in Japan, and I don't really have any way to "solve the crime" and discover for myself whether it was negligence or an inside job. Surely the way the owner of Mtgox handled the situation was disingenuous, and that he allowed people to continue to deposit into his business while portraying solvency was criminal in my mind... unless those people are also reimbursed for their deposits. I do recognize that it was a crime. I considered Selene's post a trollish insult to Bitcoin, and gave it as much of a response as it deserved. I do think that Mtgox should reimburse its depositors, and if it can't, then the owner(s) should be prosecuted and liquidated.I can't really remember anything that Selene said, I think I once had an opinion but it must not have been very prominent. If he doesn't like me, then maybe there is a good reason for that, and maybe I shouldn't like him too. So sorry Selene for my inability to reveal my thoughts towards you in kind, I have none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I can't really remember anything that Selene said, I think I once had an opinion but it must not have been very prominent. If he doesn't like me, then maybe there is a good reason for that, and maybe I shouldn't like him too. So sorry Selene for my inability to reveal my thoughts towards you in kind, I have none.See this is why I do not like youMoreover, you have no clue why, which is the saddest part about your excellent mind.Thanks Mikee for understanding what I was attempting to present to Jean the Misunderstanding Machine...<<<fill those dots in....you have so much more to offer than snippinest...A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanwins Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 I think my presence is kind of like mirror that you can't look away from, which I think can very much change the mood and cause people to identify conflicts and make things less friendly.When I was posting on RoR, I easily "looked away" from you. I found you to have a massively exaggerated opinion of yourself, laughed about it, and then went on with my discussions with others.To share the comedy, I wanted to highlight the irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Dean,You have to make your peace with these guys on your own, but I like you. I don't drink anymore, but we need a bar...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Dean took time from his busy day and wrote: I talked to Peter Schiff over the phone... I failed to get him to acknowledge that Bitcoins are good... again, please discuss on "The New Economy". end quote Ah gee Ma, I don’t wanna. I will talk about something else on the “Enter The Dean” thread: collecting Beanie Babies. Don’t. Gold? Who could have predicted it would drop in 2013? Apparently a lot of people. Silver? Maybe if I can get a good deal. Bit Coins? Good luck gambling. Thanks for your patience Dean. After all it is your thread. I am curious to know if anyone has any predictions about the inflation rate. I remember reading in the late seventies, “How to Prepare for the Coming Crash!” (bought from the old Laissez Faire Bookstore) and the crash never happened. Conservative economists keep stressing that inflation will follow deficit spending but it is low. What gives? If you get a $10g CD the rates are incredibly low. What commodities would you buy to earn a decent rate? Real Estate? Some stock market funds are returning a decent amount. . . . for now. I know of someone who wanted a small business loan and was offered one on the web from a New York firm at the rate of 20 percent! Someone said that is around the maximum percent now and may only be for someone overleveraged and with a poor credit rating, but golly, it sounds like something Tony Soprono would offer. Michael wrote: You have to make your peace with these guys on your own, but I like you. end quote Yeah Michael, The Dean is entertaining. I remember someone (was it Johnny Carson?) who said that whatever happens on the show, and even if I vehemently disagree or are outraged, if it keeps people watching and laughing, then it is good for the show. But none of that is important. Now lets talk about the Dean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanwins Posted February 28, 2014 Author Share Posted February 28, 2014 The Dean says:Inflation is ~16% per year since the end of 2008, using Alasdair Macleod's Fiat Money Quantity as a measure of monetary base. Of course inflation does not hit all sectors of the economy at the same rate. For example, shadow stats says inflation by old CPI measures (using prices of goods to maintain a common man's standard of living) is at about 9% per year. But eventually that 16% should catch up with us.I invest in real estate, gold, silver, bitcoins. I'm also trying to start my own businesses (which I really should spend more time doing).I think farm land may turn out to be a good investment, or at least hold its value, but I think housing prices are way built up out of proportion of free market demand due to government/privilaged bank subsidy. Farm land prices are higher probably due to the same subsidy reasons, but food will maintain its market value while houses have been overbuilt and will drop.Gold and silver prices are rediculously manipulated. Gold prices fall in 2013, especially the April events, were especially telling. The Federal Reserve had reason between 1913 and 1971 to discredit and manipulate gold... and they did so. There is absolutely no reason why they for some reason have become forthright. I don't think the Feds have much of any of the gold they claim to have... I'd guess they only have papers that contract future delivery but never will. So I'd expect gold price to continue to climb verses the dollar for fundamental reasons: inflation of dollar money supply.I'm concerned about investing in stocks for four reasons: 1. The growing corruption of governments has come to the point where in many cases free market success is no longer really the primary determining factor of whether a company succeeds or fails, its more about Rand's described political pull. 2. The increase in proportion of consumption of productivity diverted to various forms of wealth redistribution is causing unpredictable havoc. 3. Given the instability of the current financial system (its only gotten worse since 2008), having paper claims to ownership of businesses that are held by a 3rd party that may go insolvent is a major counter party risk. Hence stocks to not make a large portion of my portfolio whatsoever. 4. I think its silly to "own" a company when you have no inside information about the day to day ongoings within the company. Hence "publically" owned companies have some component of original owner sell out to a bunch of fools, cleaving to old buisness processes that at one time worked but slowly becomes a decaying dinosour business. I like the idea of privately owned companies much better. For something like roads, utilities, cities, etc, I see those things as more worth being "publically" owned.US Treasuries are of course a rediculously bad investement. Why would you want up to 3.6% returns (on 30 year) when we know CPI inflation is 9% and money supply inflation is 16%? Interest rates are so low, its really unfathomable to think they could get any closer to zero (falling interest rates = profit with bonds)... but now you are relying on the Federal Reserve's unpredictable decisions in order to try to buy low and sell high before the house of cards collapse.Money market accounts are of course no longer an investment because banks are already offering essentially 0%-after-risk loans, so they can't offer any interest to money market accounts. Hence this is a huge loss to savers in their ability to contribute to successful businesses. (Instead banks loan out to all businesses (many of which fail) by inflating the money supply, destroying the value of the dollar). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Dean wrote: Inflation is ~16% per year since the end of 2009, using Alasdair Macleod's Fiat Money Quantity as a measure of monetary base . . . . end quote Thanks Dean. I have wondered about the low inflation rate but not really dug into its causes or reliability. I am old enough to remember when a blue collar or office manager could be making enough money so that his wife could stay at home and raise children. Not any more. When I ride my stationary bike I watch nostalgic, Antenna TV. Today I saw “The Patty Duke Show,” from 1964 and “Dennis the Menace,” from 1959. Sometimes the show “Mr. Ed,” and bunch of others. None of the “Moms” work. Inflation is one of the factors that stole our wealth and purchasing power. Any other thoughts about investments from anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Triple tax free municipal bonds are a safe part of a portfolio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Read Warren Buffett's leter to shareholders in the current Fortune wherein he explains the virtue of passive investment in a low cost S & P index fund. (The S & P 500 takes in 80% of the capitalization of US publicly traded companies.) --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Dean wrote:Inflation is ~16% per year since the end of 2009, using Alasdair Macleod's Fiat Money Quantity as a measure of monetary base . . . . end quoteThanks Dean. I have wondered about the low inflation rate but not really dug into its causes or reliability. I am old enough to remember when a blue collar or office manager could be making enough money so that his wife could stay at home and raise children. Not any more. When I ride my stationary bike I watch nostalgic, Antenna TV. Today I saw “The Patty Duke Show,” from 1964 and “Dennis the Menace,” from 1959. Sometimes the show “Mr. Ed,” and bunch of others. None of the “Moms” work. Inflation is one of the factors that stole our wealth and purchasing power. Any other thoughts about investments from anyone?That's definitional ("increase in the money supply") inflation, not realized. It means get prepared to run even though it may not be necessary to run for quite a few more years. In the meantime there may be a backward realized deflationary slosh because of declining economic activity and low monetary velocity. As a perceived safe haven, the many dollars abroad may flow back into this country at a greater rate causing foreign banks to try to corral those bucks and keep them back there by bidding up the cost of the dollar in their own currency as they are using the dollar as their primary banking reserve (in lieu of gold or commodities or exportable goods). It is likely thereby that realized dollar inflation will first hit abroad with the inflation manifested in other currencies and with the dollar value ironically temporarily going up relative to other major currencies, then dollars failed to be kept abroad flood into this country which printed them up in the first place and whamo! Got gold?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 From today's ABA newsletter... Bankruptcy Law Mt. Gox files for bankruptcy after possibly losing all customer Bitcoins in hacker attackPosted Feb 28, 2014 7:18 AM CSTBy Debra Cassens WeissBitcoin exchange Mt. Gox has filed for bankruptcy in Tokyo after a hacker attack.The company’s chief executive, Mark Karpeles, said at a news conference that Mt. Gox had likely lost 750,000 of its customers’ Bitcoins and 100,000 of its own, report the New York Times DealBook blog, the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) and Reuters.The lost Bitcoins are worth about $473 million at current market prices, the Wall Street Journal says. Some investors said their losses in the virtual currency amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars."There was some weakness in the system, and the Bitcoins have disappeared,” Karpeles said at the news conference. “I apologize for causing trouble.”The Reuters story says Mt. Gox had problems beginning last year as it “tangled with regulators, split from former business partners and grappled with cyber attacks.” The wire service says its downfall “lays bare the difficulties the Bitcoin community faces as it tries to square its freewheeling, libertarian ideals with the rigorous regulation required in financial services and customers' needs for reliable service.”Federal prosecutors in Manhattan issued subpoenas to Mt. Gox this month, according to the Wall Street Journal. Jurisdiction could be based on emails or financial transfers routed through Manhattan.Last year, Mt. Gox registered as a money transmitter, as demanded by the U.S. Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security froze some accounts with the exchange's Iowa-based payment processor, Reuters says. The frozen accounts complicated the ability of users to liquidate Bitcoin investments, according to the wire service.Prior coverage:ABAJournal.com: "Should ‘virtual currencies’ be subjected to real-life regulation?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanwins Posted March 1, 2014 Author Share Posted March 1, 2014 Selene, Do you think it should be illegal for people to participate in the distributed bitcoin transaction verification network? Do you think it should be illegal for people to trade bitcoins?Brant, I once trusted that investment method. Not anymore. What I failed to mention above is that I primarily think that people should be investing in themselves. Preparing for the future and making themselves highly valuable capable beings and prepared for whatever might happen. But I agree that maybe an index fund might make sense as a portion of some people's portfolio. I've personally decided to withdraw from the government monopolized financial system as much as I could... But I tend to fail to predict how easily the public can continue to be fooled and how long the Feds can keep the sinking boat from going under. And let me give some examples of how you can invest in yourself: eat well, exercise, make advantageous friends, learn new skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanwins Posted March 1, 2014 Author Share Posted March 1, 2014 Michael,So Luke pointed me to the thread where I damned you... Do you still hold the view that a person should be forced to take care of children in need, even if said person had performed no action that resulted said child from being in need? (The position that children have positive rights, and that positive rights trump individual rights)? Do you still hold that such a viewpoint is Rand's viewpoint?This time I won't be quite so angry as before... I'll not like it that I think you from my viewpoint have an invalid idea of what Objectivism is. If anyone asked, I'd say you dissent from Objectivism on this topic... but I will not fully damn you to being a terrible person. Never the less, I think you holding a positive rights position will have negative consequences... and I hope that in practical government/voting etc that you personally having this view won't have a negative impact in my life. As for others who see what you say and end up agreeing with you... I do not damn you for that, it is their own failure.I hold the position that when it comes to government and laws, it should be the case that individual rights (negative rights) always trump the needs of anyone. I agree that this is not all or nothing, and that some people might want government to enforce that needs be taken care of in some contexts... but this contradicts Objectivism/Capitalism. So to the extend that you do contradict, we'd not be living so much in a harmony of interest. But for the most part it seems that generally we both desire that our government shift significantly towards respecting indiviudal rights... I just want it to go a little further than you, but until we get to where you want to stop... we are allies.Its not clear to me, from your perspective, at what point the needs of another would no longer trump individual rights. You said years ago the differentiation of contexts was whether it was an "emergency situation". But whether a situation is an emergency is a slippary slope. So where on that slope do you draw the line?Cheers,Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Selene, Do you think it should be illegal for people to participate in the distributed bitcoin transaction verification network? Do you think it should be illegal for people to trade bitcoins?Dean...absolutely not to both questions. I am two or three very short steps from anarchism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Dean,That's a lot of damning going on.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Dean,But let me give you a short version. I wrote what I wrote back then without all the study I now have about neuroscience, mirror neurons, etc. etc., etc. And on rereading some of that stuff, I'm quite proud of my soul.(Man do I rock. )Kidding aside, we can either accept human nature, try to identify it, and derive our principles based on that, or we can set some principles in stone and try to mold our lives to fit them.I choose the first way. You probably choose the second.The focus of OL is to work through ideas where people start with Objectivism because all were impacted by it. But as long as the thinking is honest and people have good will, I don't mind if they go from there and come to conclusions radically different than mine. Or radically different than Rand's, for that matter. I don't own their minds. If they're good people, they will generally come to good conclusions for their lives. Working through ideas is a messy process, especially when there are lots of people.The focus of sites like RoR is to preach Objectivism--to work through ideas in a manner that ensures Objectivism is promoted. That is a far tidier process. My way is to start with Objectivism and let each one go out from there.This other way is start from many different places, but to end with Objectivism.So before I could even possibly try to discuss why I would kick the ass seven ways to Sunday of an SOB who was starving a child (not his) in front of him, knowing the child was in danger, being the only one around, and taking pleasure in it (which was the scenario originally presented to me as morally correct), we would have to discuss exactly what you believe human nature is. I derive principles from human nature and reality. Observation is at the root of fundamentals. Ayn Rand swinging her arm around for her ostensive definition of existence and saying, "I mean this."I do not deduct fundamentals from principles. I do not deduct reality from principles.From the way you framed your post, you and I have a very different standard on this score.If you want to continue this conversation, and I am willing to in good faith, I suggest you approach it from the cognitive to normative angle. Try to identify correctly, then judge. Not the contrary. In other words, if you want to start this discussion on OL by telling me to what degree you believe I am a scumbag, but you can be convinced of the contrary to the extent I fall in lockstep with your approach, I don't predict a harmonious discussion.MichaelEDIT: My last paragraph is probably a little harsh, but I was trying to highlight the nature of normative to cognitive thinking. You obviously didn't say scumbag. But how far is the distance between that and "not fully damning me as a terrible person"? And that's before you are sure of what I think. Is that using reason to you? Judging before identifying correctly? Think about it.Believe it or not, there's a lot more underneath this discussion, but first things first. Let's agree on a standard of reason. Or not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanwins Posted March 1, 2014 Author Share Posted March 1, 2014 "Kidding aside, we can either accept human nature, try to identify it, and derive our principles based on that, or we can set some principles in stone and try to mold our lives to fit them. I choose the first way. You probably choose the second."I use game theory/Austrian economics to predict the outcome of human behavior and determine whether a particular law would have positive or negative effects. I think about the infinite long term effects of various policies, including that humans will change and humans are different (evolution).No, I do not see benefits from punishing people for not helping others, even for not helping starving children. In fact I think it would be a bad government policy. I think there will always be starving children-- no matter what. The more you satisfy child hunger, the more starving children you get (because the children grow up and have children themselves). What age does the child no longer require to be fed by others? (slippary slope) What about when there are so many people in the world that bad crop harvest years result in lots of deaths of less competent people (hence they are incompetent people)... should more competent people's wealth be redistributed to the incompetent people? What age range? What about young pregnant women? I forsee that if you punished people for not helping starving children, then that is pushing us towards a world where there's no farming or trading or anything like that (competent people's seed crop consumed), we'd be living like animals, with significantly less people after the resources run out and most everybody starves to death. And that is exactly what will eventually happen... unless you draw the line somewhere...===============So you answered the first question for me, yes you do still hold the same position. Let me repeat the other two:2. Do you still hold that such a viewpoint is Rand's viewpoint (that right to life meant duty for others to provide, a positive right, and that such trumps individual (negative) rights)?3. Its not clear to me, from your perspective, at what point the needs of another would no longer trump individual rights. You said years ago the differentiation of contexts was whether it was an "emergency situation". But whether a situation is an emergency is a slippary slope. So where on that slope do you draw the line?===============Here is a new question...On a personal note, I see how you can feel angry towards someone who didn't help a child that was right there with the child. Given that Luke/MSK child starving scenario, I sympathize with your feelings. I can empathize thinking about the children I've met in my life (I used to have lots of fun playing with the younger children in my extended family). Never the less, I do not see what is gained by the government beating/killing/jailing/fining a person who doesn't act to save the child. All I see is one more person being hurt, and long term consequences of unneccesary animosity between quirky unhelpful people and the rest of the population. 4. If a person is a quirky unhelpful person who doesn't help stranger children... than what is gained by beating them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Dean,You are doing too much thinking for me.We are definitely on different wavelengths about human nature.I don't divorce the foundation of ethics from human nature. You haven't even asked what human nature means--I'm not even sure you see the problem--as you run through all your different prejudged scenarios and ask me to pick among your outcomes.It reminds me of how some people argue the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Both sides (the people I am talking about, not all people) push you to make a stand against the other. You cannot support one side without that side (and the other, for that matter) automatically making assumptions about you that are not true.It goes something like this in simplified terms. One side asks (much like you are asking me), are you for us or against us? You say you are for them in many respects. They become friendly and start bashing the crap out of "them" (the other side). You say, wait a minute. I don't hate "them." They say then you are not really for us. You say I don't think in those terms. I am on a third way. They tell you this is a sellout and you are part of the problem--that you are really for "them." The other side does the same.To them the problem is the other. Period. End of thinking about it and identifying it. Time to act.I have argued for years with people who do this. It rarely ends well.Before you say this isn't what you are doing, let me ask you who is using the word "enemy" preemptively to refer to the other? You or me?We don't have the same premises. (I suspect we do underneath, but I'm talking about conscious reasoning right now.) You want to play game theory? What if I think your assumptions are flawed and your rules are irrational? What kind of player does that make me in your game?And what do you do about it? Keep playing the same game?Here's an example. Are you a spokesperson for Ayn Rand? Oops, that doesn't fit the Austrian assumptions, does it? That's not supposed to be part of the game. But you talk like you are a spokesperson. I observe it. So rather than squeeze myself into your assumptions, choose among your alternate outcomes, and not recognize reality there, I choose to go with what I see. That makes for a different game. And, frankly, I don't recognize you as such a spokesperson.From what I see, I have to ask, do you even understand everything Rand was about? Based on the way you run some of your ideas, I have the impression your understanding of her work is vastly different than mine. I know you sense this because of all your questions about what I believe. Do you wonder about why this difference exists or do you just think I'm wrong?I'll take this one step further and go with one simple example. Do you understand how Rand would get from the law of identity to the view that a woman who wanted to be president of the USA would have a defective psychology? Do you wonder how she could do that in her reasoning? I bet you never even considered the law of identity in this quirk of hers, or even the word "reason." I bet it is something uncomfortable you just don't think about. Maybe you put this in the category of stuff Rand-bashers use and there it stays unexamined.That sure as hell doesn't fit the way the game is supposed to be played, now does it?But that's the way my mind works.There are a gazillion things like this, too. But let me use your premises for a minute. Everything is loss and gain, right? The only way the law of identity is involved in reality with living things is through loss and gain. (Force is a word used more often, but it is merely one way--the evil way--loss and gain is carried out in the arguments I have seen so far.) This is the concept I keep seeing over and over. So OK. Here's a loss and gain question for you.What do I have to gain from playing your game? Are you offering a trade or are you trying to win?Think about it.Now it's my turn. I'm going to do something I rarely do and talk like a guru (which I am not). Why am I going to do this? Who the hell knows? Maybe this kind of rhetoric will get you to see what I see. If not, not. And you are free to take this any way you wish. I still like you either way--I will not "fully damn you as a terrible person" if you decide to use your mind differently than I do. In my book, Dean is good. So here goes.Rather than using normative before cognitive thinking, I invite you to do the cognitive before normative. On Rand's ideas themselves. On your most sacred beliefs. On game theory itself. Rather than judging before correctly identifying, I invite you to identify correctly, then judge.In other words, rather than you trying to get me to commit to evaluations based on your predigested terms so you can later try to mold me or pigeonhole me for degree of damnation, I invite you to check your own premises and trust your own mind to take you to a good place based on what you see.Believe me, you have a wonderful mind and it will carry you into the unknown much better and much safer than dogmatic evaluations could ever do. In fact, I see you struggling with this a bit.And it all starts with getting human nature right.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanwins Posted March 1, 2014 Author Share Posted March 1, 2014 Michael,When I say "game theory" I have a specific meaning in mind. Your play with different meanings of the word "game" (changing definitions mid-point) makes one's points significantly more difficult to follow. When I make points, I strive to use words precisely and keep meanings consistent. When one fails to do this, one end up making all sorts of logical errors. For a specific example, how about the word "right" in the phrase "right to life".I agree that in the past I have portrayed (or rather, made it ambiguous to newbies) myself as being a spokesman for Rand's Objectivism, when really I should have been more explicit in that I have differences in premises of the nature of reality and life/man that leads me to different conclusions than Rand. I'll have to be more careful about that in the future. While I'm at it, I should also say that I tend to jump to conclusions that people who bring false ideas or invalid logic to a discussion are doing so maliciously... I really should take more time to get to know people before damning them.My definition of "enemy" is a person who has net negative effects on one's goal attainment. But then I'd further refine that... that is from the universe perspective... but from a person's perspective, such a person may identify that some set of people are their enemy, when really some of those in that set are actually their friends (false positive) and some outside that set are their enemy (false negative).Earlier I said "but I will not fully damn you to being a terrible person". Re-reading that I see that could be taken that I think you are a terrible person, just not damning you. That isn't what I meant. I don't think you are a terrible person. Putting everything I know about you, and your effect on my life, I think you are a "friend". (One who has net positive effects on my goal attainment). You judge me as one of the "good guys". Its not really my style to say "good" and "bad" unless I explicitly also state the goal, since so commonly religious and other manipulators like to drop the essential goal premise that is required for a statement proclaiming something as "good" to be valid (rather than nonsense). So instead I call you my friend. Michael, you are a friend to me. I do not think I am making false assumptions about you, but please point them out if you think I am.I assure you that I do my best to identify what is and how things work before making moral judgements. I have goals, such as to be healthy and capable, to learn and discover ever more of what is and how things work, and to help my wife be successful with me, and to help my son become the master of the universe. (benevolent) And in my mind, I do my best to try to simulate the effects of various actions, such as in moral dilemmas where people would really like to accomplish two different goals, but only one of them can be accomplished. And when it comes to government, it is my goal to help discover what a government should do in order to enable friends to flourish, where people are capable of becoming the best they can be while respecting others' control over their own property (negative rights). To me, capitalism is simply the relationship between friends. Socialism (forced wealth redistribution) is just one form of relationship between enemies. Socialism/communism is promoted as a relation between friends, where friends are willing to share resources with each other an live happily with whatever individuals do with resources... but this is actually a form of capitalism (where people are extremely generous). But it doesn't work in reality, especially in large numbers of people, because in real, people do disagree with how resources should be used, and hence there is conflict, and without using capitalistic methodology of resource allocation, resources become allocated by brute force rather than production and trade... and the incentives to produce and save capital goods is destroyed. Hence the promoters of socialism are either maliciously promoting theft, or they are evasive (I'd say this is again malicious), or they are just not smart enough to come to their own conclusions.Taking "what is" into perspective: I am really smart and physically fit-- I'm not saying that I'm the greatest, but I'm definitely significantly above average. So for me, generally any kind of law that conflicts with negative rights I see as inhibiting the success of me and others like me. I know the laws are meant to "protect", but I see them as doing more harm than good, as commonly is found when looking at various government policies form an Austrian economic perspective (Human Action is full of it). Yet I can see how some lazy and inept people might want to make laws that benefit them at my expense. From their perspective I'm not really their enemy, I'm their host and they are the parasite. But to me they have a net negative impact on my life, they are my enemy.======Given that I take evolution as undeniable truth, I have a different perspective/premise on human nature than many others. I don't see "human nature" as fixed what-so-ever. Rand's generalization caricature of humans (highlighting human's general difference from animals) is a generalization, it doesn't apply to every individual. A la evolution, human nature is ridiculously vast in nature, with everyone being their own unique individual. And over time, successful species diversify in nature as their population grows and various individuals with common properties such as ability, ambition, efficiency, and goals find themselves deciding to form differing ecological/social niches. This is truth, given evolution, I've not been personally satisfied with any argument denying this. I agree that we can generalize human nature, but basing laws and one's ethics on generalizations is foolish, because new niches will necessarily develop to take advantage of such policies.Make laws that require all children be fed to 8 years old, even if no one is willing to use their own resources, and enforce them for 1,000,000 years, and what you will result with would be something like a large population of young contorted physically and mentally disadvantaged (that's PC right?) incompetents, a population of slave workers, and elite masters who rule (but are also dumb). But it will be inefficient and the population will be stupid. So some other species, or a foreign nation, or a natural disaster will wipe them out. Does that sound too far fetched? Look at the changes to our society. Why are young human children so incompetent compared to other species young? Because the human mothers sustain their health-- no matter how incompetent they are... just as long as they don't die from some cause that is out of their control. So evolutionarily, increased incompetence of children doesn't result in death like it does with other species young. Not that I'm saying that mothers should just let their own children die if their children are exceedingly incompetent... I'm just pointing out an aspect of human nature, which is due to evolution. Helping people through stages of incompetency through their life enables the human race to become more diverse, allowing people with strange problems that result in unexpected positive side effects in other aspects to survive. From a software engineer's perspective, not constraining children by their helplessness at early age has enabled later life abilities to come into existence at a faster rate than if those with those abilities yet were incompetent as children would have died.From what I see, I have to ask, do you even understand everything Rand was about? Based on the way you run some of your ideas, I have the impression your understanding of her work is vastly different than mine. I know you sense this because of all your questions about what I believe. Do you wonder about why this difference exists or do you just think I'm wrong?From the thread on RoR, which was a long time ago, I saw two differences between what you thought and what I think. I'm pretty sure Rand would agree with me... and you were pretty sure she'd agree with you.1. You take "right to life" as a claim of duty for others to provide for the needs of incompetent. Verses I take "right to life" to mean that a person is free to do whatever he wants with his own property.2. I see guardianship as a contract that first must be accepted before it is enforced. Verses you see guardianship to apply ??? undefined, you haven't answered my question #3 in post #73. But given your position #1, that would imply that everyone has guardianship duty always.Now... I can see how you could say "Feeling emotional rage at an unhelpful person who could have easily saved someone but didn't is natural human nature." and conclude that punishing an unhelpful person is justified just because you are following through with your natural emotional urges. Empathy for child + unhelpful person not loosing much of anything by saving child = rage. But feeling angry towards a person doesn't justify violence, at least not in a society between friends. Except if you hold the view of "right to life" as you did, then actually it is murder from that premise, leaving a child to die from starvation would be a violation of "rights"/the law, whatever, and it would be criminal. But is it your rage that you are using to accept your definition and application of "right to life"? Argument by emotion? Which you claim to support by the emotion being human nature? But I have destroyed your and Rand's concept of "human nature" as applying to every individual a la evolution: everyone's nature is different, some are more like the general than others.I'm not sure if you ever recognized the difference between what people should do (morals) and what government should do (law). I didn't see you acknowledge it. Basically, people can do "bad" (where bad = harmful to their own or some other person's goals... whatever goal & actor you have in mind) things, but so long as they are not infringing on negative rights (using some other's property against the other's consent), the government should not do anything. The government's purpose should not be to make sure people do not do "bad" things otherwise they get hammered down. Its only when one uses property without the owner's consent. But again, given that you still accept your past upheld definition of "right to life", this argument is null.If a blind person is about to cross a street, but first asks you whether it is safe to cross... and you do not say anything... and the blind person gets tired of standing there and decides to walk onto the street, and you watch idle as he is tragically crushed under the wheels of a semi truck... that was a "bad" thing for you to do. Despicable... but what should the government do? Nothing. Again, with "right to life", this claim that government should do nothing is null.Anyways, I hope you see that I see/understand both sides of the argument. I know what you are arguing. But given my premises of human nature (diverse, changes, and fulfills niches a la evolution), I come to a different conclusion than you. I uphold negative rights as primary for defining what the government should do, in _all_ circumstances. As a side note, maybe to your pleasure, I assert that even though government should always be restricted in its actions by upholding negative rights, I think in many cases, for individuals, it may very well be the case that individuals should violate negative rights, particularly in emergency situations, or to pre-emptively attack given that the government has different information than a potential victim.I'll take this one step further and go with one simple example. Do you understand how Rand would get from the law of identity to the view that a woman who wanted to be president of the USA would have a defective psychology? Do you wonder how she could do that in her reasoning? I bet you never even considered the law of identity in this quirk of hers, or even the word "reason." I bet it is something uncomfortable you just don't think about. Maybe you put this in the category of stuff Rand-bashers use and there it stays unexamined.I'd agree that woman verses men have differences in general. But I wouldn't call individual differences necessarily "defective", just different. If there is a woman who is more capable in things that normally men are best capable at, then that's awesome. I am "sexist", if that means that I acknowledge that in general women for example are better at direct care and empathy, verses men are better at logic/math/economics. Given sexual dimorphism, that human woman have over many many generations had to put significantly more resources towards their children verses men (men just have an orgasm... woman 9 months + labor + breastfeeding etc) women generally only feel pleasure from sex when with a person they highly value, verses men will enjoy sex with any woman. Woman care more about their own children's success, while men care more about themselves. Hence men want less obligation for themselves to raise children, verses women want men to be more obligated to raise their children. Hence democrats verses republicans has shifted towards what it is today after women could vote... women verses men. This is all generalizations of course... individuals can significantly differ from the general.What do I have to gain from playing your game? Are you offering a trade or are you trying to win?My goal is to enable individuals to increase goal attainment by improving their philosophy to be more consistent with reality, more useful/applicable to their life, and more comprehensive. Given I speak truth, you aligning with more truth is mutually beneficial. Given I speak false, you identifying the problem is mutually beneficial. Debating increases my understanding of nuances and helps me make new discoveries, such as the shifts in political positions of democrat verses republican... of course it would shift towards male verses female in a single preference voting system... haha! Anyways, if you do not reveal your position on my questions 2, 3, and 4 above, then I will not know your position on these, we will not be able to debate.Everything is loss and gain, right? The only way the law of identity is involved in reality with living things is through loss and gain. (Force is a word used more often...Loss and gain is just looking from an individual's perspective evaluating goal attainment. "Force" only makes sense in the context of capitalism where property usage control is sacred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now