Free Government

There is no total lack of regulation, as well as there is no total chaos. They are in the absolute sense merely a play of smoke and mirrors.

Capitalism uses chaos more as a tool to generate the need for regulation, that is why it appears freer.But this kind of freedom masks its intrinsically subtle and hidden motives, hiding acquisition under the fear of avoiding chaos.

Which basically reverberates the cliche that what we really fear (not fear its self), but the fear of true freedom.

It’s said, -everyone has a price for which he is corruptible.

Mathematics does not exist in reality but the laws of physics are written in mathematical form and they are derived through observation
Language does not exist in reality but the entire history of the planet is written in multiple languages which is fundamentally how we all
communicate and learn. Sometimes abstract concepts can be very useful and in these cases absolutely indispensable. No language would
mean no sharing of knowledge or ideas or experience. So just because something is not real does not mean it has no practical application

Or (in my words):

Because it is a human construct incorporating history and religion and philosophy all of which are constructs themselves
They are not naturally occurring phenomena so when the human race becomes extinct then so too will its entire culture

Yes. :wink:

Or, maybe, the philosophers try to play football (soccer) and to find out a rule. :slight_smile:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur5fGSBsfq8[/youtube]

I agree. I’m just suggesting that human technology is natural.

You’re going to point that out like it matters to the discussion? He has often been the richest man and could be again soon.

In 2008, he was ranked by Forbes as the richest person in the world en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Bu 
 ilanthropy

Can you think of a way that we could circumvent it?

When I asked you to believe me, it was my saying that I understand what you are trying to convey, which is asking you to believe a fact about myself on my authority. When you asked me to believe you, you’re asking me to believe a fact about reality on your authority. Quite different.

Of course, a successful strategy is a natural environment created by natural beings doing things that come natural to them.

You said “Intelligence is an advantage and”. I gave you an example where intelligence was a disadvantage. Actually, there is empirical evidence that as sauropods evolved, the brains shrank and necks grew longer. Not only is a large brain-size a disadvantage due to blood flow, but intelligence itself leads one to become bored standing there eating leaves and growing to monstrous sizes. All intelligence would accomplish is leading the sauropod into being curious, bored, and it would not grow as fast or as large because it would desire more time away from eating. That is principally why I feel it’s immoral for most folks to own dogs (particularly the smarter breeds) because the animal is not dumb enough to endure being tied to a tree in the yard. The smarter an animal is, the more it’s going to need things to do and if growing to enormous sizes through constant eating is the success of the species, then being intelligent is disadvantageous to the goal.

I know what you’re saying, but I’m not sure you know what I’m saying :wink:

Well, no, it’s the survival of the advantaged groups. You’re assuming intelligence is always an advantage and obviously it is not
 at least, not in excess of proper proportions. And the title to his book is “The Intelligence Paradox: Why the Intelligent Choice Isn’t Always the Smart One”

So if people are smarter, the population shrinks from lack of births and if people are dumber, the population shrinks from lack of altruism. Wait, what?

I’m not missing points
 I’m arguing that the circumvention of nature is natural.

What do you mean why? I’m going to make a rule that you must stand on your head, since I don’t need to enforce it, you will have no choice but to comply.

A law is only as good as the army behind it.

Yes

Well, gang rules don’t apply to me regardless if they exist. And you’re wrong :handgestures-thumbdown:

Pioneers and fur-trappers were not unionized into a society. It doesn’t mean part of local 101 lol

The sites that vote answers to the top don’t work either. Neither natural or artificial selection seems to work.

I agree.

Can I put that in my siggy? I’ve never had such an honorable mention.

There is no sense in replying to your other post because you’re simply going to reply that I’m wrong so why waste time? I know that and you know that.

How do you know it’s not? Show me where capitalism has ever existed (besides the wild west) and let’s see if it was anarchy.

Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits
Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits.

Pretty simple. No definitions overlap, every one is distinct, and nothing is left out
 well, that is unless you want to define a system that controls <100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits, but it makes no sense because if you don’t have 100% control, how can you keep 100% of the profit?

If you’re going to argue about the definition of capitalism, then tell me what % of control of business and what % of the profits should be paid in tax that defines capitalism and then explain how those %'s are not completely arbitrary?

Yes, but he is arguing that the definitions already exist in reality and that I’m somehow perverting reality by creating my own definitions. In fact, the systems of government are whatever we say they are. We could call them: system 1, system blue, system unicorn
 whatever
 a label is a label. So what it boils down to is the reality of what differentiates one system from another and the definitions that I presented do that best. What % control of private business is ideal and what % of profits should be redistributed? If you say 0 and 0, then that is capitalism. If you say any other number, then that is socialism because the only reason to take control and money from private business is for the good of society and therefore it is called socialism.

Do you think aliens, who have the capability to travel between galaxies, would conclude that human culture is unnatural? Do we consider homo habilis to have been unnatural in making simple stone tools?

Is this crow acting unnaturally?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G2gmcr2egU[/youtube]

But it is cultural - artificial.

Did I or did you ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&p=2678184#p2678143 ) mention his name in a discussion where he has nothing to do with?

That does not mean that he was or has often been or is the richest man on earth.

Have you not read my posts?

You did not ask me, and I did not ask you.

There was no question mark at all. :sunglasses:

A strategy is abstract, a natural environment is concrete. Try to touch a strategy!

Why are you always reducing everything to nature and not seeing that there is a lot which is not only natural?

We should at least consider two realms:

  1. A natural/physical/chemical realm. This is what I have called „the ocean »nature«“.
  2. A cultural/artificial/spiritual realm. This is what I have called „the island in the ocean »nature«“.

Examples:

  1. Planets belong to the natural/physical/chemical realm.
  2. Thoughts as such belong to the cultural/artificial/spiritual realm.

Our differences (and also the differences you have with other ILP members) have to do with that said issue. Otherwise we can easily come to agreement, I think.

I said that "intelligence is an advantage“, yes, and it is true that intelligence is an advantage. I have also clarified that "intelligence is one advantage of many advantages“ ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&p=2678255#p2678182 ). (You obviously like to circumvent some of my text passages.) It depends on what advantage is the one that is chosen/selected. In the case of humans it is the intelligence. Bodily said: it is our brain that made us so successful. We do not have other physical features that have made us as successful as the brain has done. If we lose this advantage, we will immediately lose other features too and will perhaps get extinct.

You are saying that intelligence can be a disadvantage. But you have not understood that I have never denied that. My sentence „intelligence is an advantage“ refers to human beings, and does not mean that intelligence is always an advantage. I have never used the word "always“ in this thread, but you are trying to put it into my mouth. Intelligence is the advantage of human beings. Whether this may become a disadvantage is another question. And you are certainly not the one who knows this. Nobody knows this for sure in the present, and whether it will be known in the future is not known in the present either.

Q.E.D
 Here it is again: You are putting words in my mouth that I have never used here in this thread.

So again (see above): I have never used the word "always“ in this thread, but you are trying to put it into my mouth. Intelligence is the advantage of human beings. Whether this may become a disadvantage is another question. And you are certainly not the one who knows this. Nobody knows this for sure in the present, and whether it will be known in the future is not known in the present either.

Interesting.

You do not understand that?

By the way: It is not so important for our discussion here that you understand that, because the fact that intelligence is an advantage - or can be an advantage (if you agree at least with that) - and has especially been being an advantage for human beings for a very long time (I would say since the first homo appeared) and will probably remain an advantage for them (or not - who knows?) is not deniable.

You are missing points. See above. Have you noticed that I am arguing that the circumvention is cultural/artificial in the sense that culture is like an "‘island’ in the ‘ocean’ nature“. This means that nature is indeed the more powerful one, but as long as the "island“ will exist for itself and the "ocean“ will not become chaotic (cause accidents and so on), this "island“ will have and defend its own rules ("laws“).

@ Serendipper.

Why are you always reducing everything to nature and not seeing that there is a lot which is not only natural?

I was talking about the metaphor "‘islands’ in the ‘ocean’ nature“. The ISS, for example, is such an "‘island’ in the ‘ocean’ nature“. This “island” is a man-made island and its selection principle is not natural but human (cultural artificial).

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 .

Source: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=188393&start=400#p2641695 .

We should at least consider two realms:

  1. A natural/physical/chemical realm. This is what I have called "the ‘ocean’ nature’“.
  2. A cultural/artificial/spiritual realm. This is what I have called "the ‘island’ in the ‘ocean’ nature“.

Examples:
Planets are part of the natural/physical/chemical realm.
Thoughts as such are part of the cultural/artificial/spiritual realm.

What?

You are a nice guy. :handgestures-thumbup:
But you are wrong. :handgestures-thumbdown:

Whatever aliens think is irrelevant because human culture is unnatural as it is an artificial construct which we have created
Anything that does not occur naturally has to be unnatural and so that would include tools no matter how simple they were

Yea. The ISS is artficial and has nothing to do with the universe as the natural environment, because it has its own artificial environment.

Of course, the human culture is unnatural. Humans have created their culture. The human culture is, Arminius has pointed it out, like "the island in the ocean“, and the ocean is not like the island. The “island” culture resists the “ocean” nature as long as possible. So do humans.

Not always and not necessarily. It can, but doesn’t have to restrict freedom. Freedom for the one is unfreedom for the other one. Governments can make laws for both freedom and unfreedom. It depends on whom they obey.

Anarchy is anti-government. Liberalism (pro-freedom) isn’t always and necessarily anti-government. Laws can be made for freedom and can be made for anti-freedom.