“Free” meaning “free from government control”. But government still maintains the general protection of society so as to allow for free trade.
Correct
Correct. We could say it is a form of socialism that is not related to economics.
Incorrect
Any interference at all is not free.
The purpose of freedom is to allow competition and if gov takes any action to protect free trade (or anything else), then it’s not the fittest who are surviving but the chosen of government or those working under the constraints of an artificial system of regulation.
The purpose of competition is to not presume we know what is best. That begs the question of whether we actually DO know what is best. I think, concerning some things, we do; other things, we don’t.
The reason we aren’t still monkeys in trees is that we fell out and began taming our environment. Clearly, farming is better at sustaining a population than hunting/gathering and it argues strongly for a managed system rather than leaving things to natural selection. Then again, we mustn’t get carried away and overmanage. The best system is a balancing act or a muddling along as conditions and considerations change.
So you believe that football, for example, should have no rules at all.
Interesting.
Humans regulate or intervene. That shows clearly that the natural selection can be circumvented, and that the free market has never existed in human history (but only a relatively free market).
That’s a good point. I never thought of that. Well, define “human”. I assumed the moment we left the trees to begin hunting was when we took the first degree of control from nature. Cooking came next, where we learned language because we had leisure time from the abundance of calories in the meat. As we became more agrarian, we had more and more time to contemplate science and art. As time moved on, we took increasingly more control from nature. This is where it gets philosophical: is that a good thing or bad thing? Are “we” part of nature or are we artifical?
If aliens observed us, they would conclude what we do is natural. When a beaver builds a damn, is it natural or artificial? We, being higher lifeforms, proclaim the beaver’s actions as natural. It appears that it’s based on perspective. But why should that be so? Well, if a lower lifeform exists, it must know something useful… and it wouldn’t be cognitive. In other words, there must be some intrinsic aspect to the universe that enables their success and I think we call that natural selection. It’s probably safe to assume that every species is the optimal design of that species for what that species does, right? So, for example, a shark has not gotten more intelligent in 400 million years; therefore, we can conclude that the shark is optimally intelligent and we know that because it exists. However, if we were to design a shark, I think we would err on the side of intelligence (because I know how humans think) and surely that would be a detriment to the species or else sharks would already be that way, right? Our meddling could actually cause their extinction! That appears to be a good argument for natural selection, yet we persist in taming nature. I don’t know… what do you think?
It seems if we say meddling is bad, then we are artificial… and how could we justify that?
Rules, in that case, define the game and they actually may have evolved by natural selection over time into what they are now.
But I think you misunderstood me somewhere… I’m for a mild socialist style like what the US has now except with an FDR-style tax structure because there has to be a mechanism to get the money back to the bottom so it can flow up again. The way it is now, money only goes up, leaving the bottom going into debt in order to replenish the supply of money at the bottom. Truly, most of the people paying taxes should not be taxed because it makes no sense to redistribute money back into the same class. The purpose of taxation is the engineering of an economy. But people don’t want to hear that because they want everything to be “fair” and don’t realize the government could print its own money in unlimited quantities and therefore doesn’t need taxes at all. If anyone doubts that, just look at what the fed, ecb, boe, and particularly the boj and snb have been doing lately… only the money is going straight to the rich, bypassing the poor. I mean, the SNB is a major shareholder of Apple, for crying out loud! They printed Francs then gave them to Apple shareholders when they took possession of the shares. The BOJ is steadily buying japanese ETFs until it owns the entire market, it seems. Again, money is going straight to the rich. They should launch a Universal Basic Income (UBI) so that the money goes more towards the bottom instead of printing yen to buy stocks. That’s why those idiots never got the inflation they’ve been targeting for the last 30 years. If one of those banks ever try UBI, they’ll have more inflation than they could believe as the printed money is quickly put to work in the economy, bidding prices up through increased demand. Giving money to Goldman Sachs doesn’t do shit… except increase the wealth divide. But the reaganites claim Goldman will lend the money out to businesses. Baloney! They will put it on deposit at the fed drawing interest. Besides, loans are dirt cheap and banks are full of cash and do not need more to lend.
Dipper, your “definitions” are invalid. Reality doesn’t care about however you want to narrowly define something, then cling to that definition at the expense of… reality. And also of logic, and deeper thought.
For a quick example, a free market requires some regulation to come into being: I already alluded to this with my comment about the dude who, rather than pay you the agreed upon price for your good or service, just gets a few of his thug buddies to rob and murder you. Yeah, that’s not a free market, that lawless anarchy.
A market requires agreed upon and enforceable rules; laws. The fact you don’t understand this is actually quite appalling.
Humans are both natural and cultural (“artificial”). Humans are partly their own selectors, also the selectors of pets and many other living beings, and they can survive in very extreme and artificial environments, thus in environments that are not natural.
Source: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190270&p=2604589#p2604589 .
Source: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=188393&hilit=selection+principle&start=375#p2608881 .
Source: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=188393&hilit=selection+principle&start=375#p2608882 .
Source: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=188393&hilit=selection+principle&start=400#p2635325 .
As for the relatively free market or relatively unfree market: humans have always had rules (“laws”) in order to regulate their markets.
If you want to have a “capitalistic” system, you need rules; if you want to have an “anti-capitalistic” system, you need rules.
If one “wants” for anything, one must have rules to obtain it. 
Without rules, one gets whatever comes without any consideration from others - every man for himself and by himself. And no such thing as “money” or time to try to make it.
Oh? By what reason or rationale? Proof? Anything? Oh, that’s right, ur god now; you can make proclamations. 
Definitions do not exist in reality and all definitions are manufactured by constructs of imagination.
LOL! Oh yeah? So if I kill a beaver and trade it to a guy who has distilled some alcohol, by what regulations are we abiding?
Nope, I gladly trade the beaver for the booze instead of simply shooting the guy because I want him to continue his trade because I like his product. What you say makes no sense. Why shoot those who provide services to you?
The immorality of the capitalist system enters with employment, which is taking advantage of someone’s hardship to make him a slave for the enrichment of the master and then calling the act a “service to the community”.
I just gave example to the contrary.
Slander is the tool of the loser.
Why is culture artificial?
Birds select mates based on colors and nest-building ability, so are they not their own selectors?
Are not lions selecting the evolution of deer by eliminating the weak? Likewise with the jackals who threaten them?
Animals can’t interfere with natural selection because they ARE natural selection, but somehow when humans interfere, it is not called natural selection anymore. Why are we distinct?
Some bacteria thrive in nuclear reactor cores. Are they artificial?
Humans are actually quite vulnerable to extremes and our existence is owed to the very mild and stable environment whereas the cockroach, for instance, is more adaptable. Natural events such a meteor impacts, volcanoes, or a swing in climate could end humanity but the cockroach will survive even a nuclear war.
I am not sure. Thinking back to the pioneering days where economies were based on trade, there were no laws that could be enforced. I think the mountain men and native americans would have laughed at the idea that anyone could tell them how to operate. They simply traded the goods and services they had for the goods and services being offered and the value was determined at the time of the trade with no rules or laws or preconceived notions. If you wanted to shoot your trading partner, there was nothing stopping you… except that then you’d have to find a new partner. The economy worked naturally and with no regulation because there was no mechanism (ie army) to enforce any regulation.
All that changed when there were too many people to be fur-trappers, smiths, coopers, farmers, etc and therefore many people needed to be employed under someone else and that’s where economic structure entered the picture. Employment is what necessitated regulation. As societies grew, more regulations were necessary to protect the safety of food, for instance. Then we needed regulations to protect children, elderly, and the sick. Now we’ve gone as far as protecting people who are sexually confused.
I go into it in the rest of my post.
You might try calming down just a bit.
No, definitions are accurate to the degree that they accurately reflect reality, and are inaccurate to the degree they inaccurately reflect reality.
“Manufactured constructs of imagination”, if that were the case then our definitions would be useless out in the world, which clearly is not he case. Definitions are useless only when they are bad definitions.
That isn’t a free market.
Right, and why does any crime exist, why does anyone get mugged and robbed and murdered? Clearly there is no rationale for doing so, in your mind, therefore it must never happen. Lol.
No, employment is a voluntary contract that benefits both parties. If both parties did not benefit then both parties would not freely choose to enter into an employment/employee agreement.
Unless you think that you, alone, can create access to as much capital and machinery of production that your employer can allow you to use, in order to make values in the world?
Yeah, good luck with that. Go try and create a factory from the ground up, versus someone else who simply works at one that is already built, and then we can see which of you produces the most value, and ultimately has the most reward for the amount of effort and time invested.
No you didn’t. A simple barter trade isn’t what “free market” means. You clearly have no idea what a free market even is.
How by any stretch of imagination can that be construed as “slander”? You are really off your rocker here, aren’t you.
Come back to me when you find some sanity.
Once again, slander is the tool of the loser.
From the natural “point of view”, everything that is not natural, but cultural, is somehow artificial. You can use both words when it comes to the opponent of nature.
To some degree, yes, but they are not capable of being independent of natural selection. Is the number of the bird’s offspring determined by themselves or by nature? Please read my texts I quoted (again).
They are NOT natural selection; they are objects of the natural selection.
Because we are the only species that is capable of being independent of natural selection. We can live without any natural environment and can determine that e.g. the unfit survive and the fit do not survive. Please read my texts I quoted (again).
No.
Is it possible that you have not understood what I have said?
Yes, but note that this is the case only according to the natural selection principle. In other words: I am not saying that the humans are naturally more adaptable than, for instance, the cockroaches.
Yes, I did not deny that. Again: I am not saying that the humans are naturally more adaptable than, for instance, the cockroaches. That is not the point I am talking about here. The point is that humans are capable of circumventing nature by their culture (based on their intelligence), regardless whether they are naturally vulnerable or not. Intelligence is an advantage and can lead to a culture that circumvents nature successfully.
Humans have invented machines that will perhaps take over sooner or later (cp. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562). Machines are artificial, an invention of humans, so they are not natural, not even as natural as humans or their culture.
Did the Wild West Europeans in North America and the Indians as the Native North Americans have no rules at that time? I do not think so.
Also, I was talking about the human history:
The Wild West Europeans in North America and the Indians as the Native North Americans traded partly but not completely according to natural rules. The rules of historical humans are written rules. But the rules of the Indians as the Native North Americans were just orally transmitted and comparable with the rules of the Stone Age humans. So the Wild West Europeans in North America had no other choice than to trade according to the older rules, which does not mean that they traded completely according to natural rules. The rules of the Indians as the Native North Americans were mostly but not merely like natural rules.
Gangs have rules.
Mafia organizations have rules.
Mafia states have rules.
Global organizations have rules.
So it’s based on perspective. That was my original assessment. Here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&start=25#p2678082
I don’t see a distinction because the number of human offspring are equally determined by nature. You could argue that we have the capability to abort or artificially grow humans, but that’s merely a capability and it’s possible that animals would utilize that capability if they could. Therefore it doesn’t necessarily mean that human actions in determining numbers of offspring are artificial because there is no reason to believe animals would not behave in the same way if they had the capability.
You know what I mean.
Suppose we setup a self-sustaining colony on Mars. Now, will that artificial environment naturally select for the fittest in that environment? Like Warren Buffett says: had he been born long ago, he would have been some animal’s meal rather than the richest man on earth. So the artificial environment we created in government and economics naturally selected Warren to be topdog. Other environments would not have selected him as favorably. So it seems that regardless what environment we place ourselves, the most successful will be naturally chosen.
youtube.com/watch?v=uZTweMHEFAI
youtube.com/watch?v=OF4JCmqF6ec
Believe me, I get your point, but I’m arguing that whatever humans do can be considered natural and that the distinction between artificial and natural is an artificial distinction.
Of course.
Are herds and swarms considered cultures that circumvent nature successfully?
The definition of culture is “an integrated pattern of knowledge” which implies mindlessness since the knowledge is integrated, therefore it seems a herd qualifies since it is also an integrated pattern of “apparent” knowledge. In other words, it’s a successful strategy.
Intelligence was not an advantage for the sauropods. Due to their long necks, their survival was greatly improved by reducing the size of their brains over time due to the difficulty of pumping blood that high. In other words, it was more of an advantage to have a longer neck than a bigger brain.
As I said before, sharks have not gotten more intelligent in 400 million years of evolution, so it seems sharks are optimally intelligent.
Noam Chomsky argues that intelligence is a lethal mutation: youtube.com/watch?v=UZbW7lvGkuA
Satoshi Kanazawa argues that the average IQ will decline throughout the 21st century due to intelligent people not reproducing. researchgate.net/publicatio … ldlessness
It would indeed seem that intelligence is a lethal mutation.
We needn’t look farther than an online message boards for proof that anyone truly intelligent has been selected against rather than staying to endure the constant barrages of insults. Evolution favors the thickest-skinned and the hardest heads. I’ve been watching the comments section of zerohedge for years and have observed most of the insightful commenters are gone, leaving a bunch of angry old men ruling the roost. That’s natural selection.
I never thought about machines being natural… I never had reason to, but in this light, I’m wondering if a case can be made that argues successfully that AI is natural. I’ll have to ponder that some more.
Then who enforced the rules?
If there were rules, you’ll have to change the name from “wild west” to “civilized west”.
Gangs have rules only if you wish to be part of the gang. Pioneers and fur-trappers were not unionized.
No. That is just the point. The number of human offspring is partly determined by humans (by their technology, their artificial practice and their social policy), whereas the number of all other living beings is determined by nature. If the number of human offspring was regulated only by nature, then the current number of the humans would be merely one billion or one million or or even less.
Non-human living beings are not capable of doing what human living beings are capable of (in that said case).
Non-human living beings are not capable of doing what human living beings are capable of (in that said case).
We already have the ISS (the better example):
The planet Mars has no artificial environment. So again: We already have the ISS (the better example):
He is not the richest man on earth.
But that does not mean that it is impossible to circumvent the natural selection.
Believe me, it is not an artificial distinction.
But that has nothing to do with the humans’ artificial environment. A “successful strategy” is not necessarily an artificial environment.
That does not change anything of my statement: Intelligence is an advantage and can lead to a culture that circumvents nature successfully. I did not say that sauropods were intelligent. Intelligence is one advantage of many advantages. So there are other advantages too.
Note that I am not saying that humans are more successful than sharks or sauropods. I am saying that humans are much more intelligent than all other living beings and that they can circumvent the so-called “natural selection”.
Noam Chomsky is an interesting linguist.
Again: I am not saying that humans will forever be more successful than other living beings and that they will live forever. I am saying that humans are much more intelligent than all other living beings and that they can circumvent the so-called “natural selection”.
So Satoshi Kanazawa knows what I mean: survival of the unfittest, survival of the disadvantaged groups. It is a fact that intelligence is an evolutionary advantage.
Also, intelligence and altruistic sociability are correlated with each other. (Cp.: youtube.com/watch?v=02vvYDxXQ3w&t=369s). So we can conclude that the number of humans will shrink, if the average IQ is shrinking.
Again: I am not saying that humans will forever be more successful than other living beings and that they will live forever. I am saying that humans are much more intelligent than all other living beings and that they can circumvent the so-called “natural selection”.
You are missing the point.
You are missing the point again. Remember that the topic of this thread is “Free Government” and that I was referring to the topic by saying that humans are capable of circumventing nature, which means a form of relatively free government as compared to the “government nature”.
Again: I am not saying that humans will forever be more successful than other living beings and that they will live forever. I am saying that humans are much more intelligent than all other living beings and that they can circumvent the so-called “natural selection”.