Free Government

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.

Exactly.

And this “island” (=> culture) can be so isolated that it is just deadly to connect with the “ocean” (=> nature). Think of the astronauts, the ISS and other “islands”.

[tab]schlegel_im_weltraum.jpg

[/tab]

Yes.

Liberalism may be a precursor for anarchy, but it is not identical with it. Liberalism can even have many rules. Socialism can have merely few rules. It is just a stereotype to say that “liberalism is always against laws and socialism is always for laws”, although this stereotype is often correct, but just not always.

Total misdirection and a red herring. You may as well be complaining about a spelling error.

Claim: Warren Buffett rose to the top by natural selection in an artificial environment.
Rebuttal: He is not on top.

Like really? That is your rebuttal? :open_mouth:

Does everyone here seize upon trivialities to win debates? :confusion-shrug:

I pointed out a false equivocation and your defense is a lack of question mark? :open_mouth:

After this series of displays, I don’t see a reason to.

  1. You have no proof.
  2. My definitions do not depend on proof. I conjured them into existence.

So even if you did manage to comb through history and find an example of so-called “communism” that wasn’t real communism as some sort of proof, it wouldn’t mean poop. That leaves you sticking your fingers in your ears screaming “you’re wrong”. So =;

Did you come into this universe or did you come out of it?

If you came into it, from where did you come?

If you came out of it, how are you not natural?

Same questions to you:

Did you come into this universe or did you come out of it?

If you came into it, from where did you come?

If you came out of it, how are you not natural?

You were the first one who mentioned that name here in this thread ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193246&p=2678184#p2678143 ).

Also, you have no proof at all for your statement. Mentioning Forbes is no proof.

My defense? I have posted a lot of posts here. And your problem is that I have mentioned the lack of a question mark?

You pointed out nothing. You were talking about questions that were no questions at all.

If you do not want any discussion in this thread, then just post in another thread. You are always circumventing important statements of other posters and focussing on irrelevances.

[/quote]
You don’t see a reason to not have read my posts? What is your first language?