Gyroscopic Investing

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Almost everyone reading this has commented that I'm being dense?

My bad with wording... most people that have commented think you're being too closed minded with your so-called "logic" on issues  Libertarian666 is the only one that seems to agree with your application of simple logic to morality.  On such a libertarian-minded board, that should tell you something...

Though if you'd rather not enter this into our debate, we can just put it to bed.  I certainly don't base my positions on what "most people" think.

I didn't introduce it  and certainly don't think it's worth pursuing. There have been about 20 diversions off the topic into making me the topic. I think I'm a boring topic.

I had a humanities professor that said "interesting people talk about ideas and boring people talk about people". I agree with her. Let's choose interesting.

moda0306 wrote: I will choose interesting... However, if I notice that you're using "common agreement" or "societal recogntion" of a society to back a moral assertion, I will throw it back at you that almost NOBODY in this country thinks the way you do about this stuff. Including my sweet Grandmother, who if she is immoral than I don't want to be moral .

I think I just laid a large steaming pile of logical fallacy on you there... sorry!

I digress...

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Almost everyone reading this has commented that I'm being dense?

My bad with wording... most people that have commented think you're being too closed minded with your so-called "logic" on issues  Libertarian666 is the only one that seems to agree with your application of simple logic to morality.  On such a libertarian-minded board, that should tell you something...

Though if you'd rather not enter this into our debate, we can just put it to bed.  I certainly don't base my positions on what "most people" think.

I didn't introduce it  and certainly don't think it's worth pursuing. There have been about 20 diversions off the topic into making me the topic. I think I'm a boring topic.

I had a humanities professor that said "interesting people talk about ideas and boring people talk about people". I agree with her. Let's choose interesting.

moda0306 wrote: You certainly make these truths seem 100% self-evident, and that it's logically ridiculous that anyone could see government as a morally valid legal/social entity.  So you essentially are stating that anyone who doesn't see it that way is a) immoral, and b) kind of dumb.  I'm not trying to put words in your mouth... just extending your logic a bit further.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I will choose interesting... However, if I notice that you're using "common agreement" or "societal recogntion" of a society to back a moral assertion, I will throw it back at you that almost NOBODY in this country thinks the way you do about this stuff. Including my sweet Grandmother, who if she is immoral than I don't want to be moral .

I think I just laid a large steaming pile of logical fallacy on you there... sorry!

I digress...

I don't know what you mean

What moral assertion? Yes if I ever say something is right because people believe so therefore it is please point that out because it's definately wrong.

I've put forward to PS that it's not worth explaining to everyone why violence is wrong since 99% already know it. Might as well spend the time explaining that the government solution is violence and let them work it out after that. It's not wrong because they know it is, just a happy coincindence.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I will choose interesting... However, if I notice that you're using "common agreement" or "societal recogntion" of a society to back a moral assertion, I will throw it back at you that almost NOBODY in this country thinks the way you do about this stuff. Including my sweet Grandmother, who if she is immoral than I don't want to be moral .

I think I just laid a large steaming pile of logical fallacy on you there... sorry!

I digress...

I don't know what you mean

What moral assertion? Yes if I ever say something is right because people believe so therefore it is please point that out because it's definately wrong.

I've put forward to PS that it's not worth explaining to everyone why violence is wrong since 99% already know it. Might as well spend the time explaining that the government solution is violence and let them work it out after that. It's not wrong because they know it is, just a happy coincindence.

MediumTex wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I will choose interesting... However, if I notice that you're using "common agreement" or "societal recogntion" of a society to back a moral assertion, I will throw it back at you that almost NOBODY in this country thinks the way you do about this stuff. Including my sweet Grandmother, who if she is immoral than I don't want to be moral .

I think I just laid a large steaming pile of logical fallacy on you there... sorry!

I digress...

I don't know what you mean

What moral assertion? Yes if I ever say something is right because people believe so therefore it is please point that out because it's definately wrong.

I've put forward to PS that it's not worth explaining to everyone why violence is wrong since 99% already know it. Might as well spend the time explaining that the government solution is violence and let them work it out after that. It's not wrong because they know it is, just a happy coincindence.

Are you sure that things aren't "right" simply because people believe they are right?

I would suggest that most of what people believe to be right IS based upon their belief that it is right.

This tendency that people often have to think that the "rightness" of something is based upon their beliefs rather than logic just helps to more accurately frame the challenge of getting through to them regarding contrary ideas.

If a person believes that what is right is based solely upon what he believes to be right, then my first challenge is to understand what beliefs informed his conclusions about what is right.  If, for example, someone believes that people with red hair are evil because they were abused as a child by someone with red hair, then all of the logic in the world regarding why there is no relationship between evil and red hair may not dent his beliefs in any way.  Often the only way to really loosen up such beliefs is to get at their root, which may have nothing to do with red hair at all, but rather a bit of hard coding that the reptilian brain imprinted long ago and which is utterly logic-resistant.  How do you do that?  Well, it's hard, and that's part of the reason that violence is such a pervasive part of the human experience.

MediumTex wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I will choose interesting... However, if I notice that you're using "common agreement" or "societal recogntion" of a society to back a moral assertion, I will throw it back at you that almost NOBODY in this country thinks the way you do about this stuff. Including my sweet Grandmother, who if she is immoral than I don't want to be moral .

I think I just laid a large steaming pile of logical fallacy on you there... sorry!

I digress...

I don't know what you mean

What moral assertion? Yes if I ever say something is right because people believe so therefore it is please point that out because it's definately wrong.

I've put forward to PS that it's not worth explaining to everyone why violence is wrong since 99% already know it. Might as well spend the time explaining that the government solution is violence and let them work it out after that. It's not wrong because they know it is, just a happy coincindence.

Are you sure that things aren't "right" simply because people believe they are right?

I would suggest that most of what people believe to be right IS based upon their belief that it is right.

This tendency that people often have to think that the "rightness" of something is based upon their beliefs rather than logic just helps to more accurately frame the challenge of getting through to them regarding contrary ideas.

If a person believes that what is right is based solely upon what he believes to be right, then my first challenge is to understand what beliefs informed his conclusions about what is right.  If, for example, someone believes that people with red hair are evil because they were abused as a child by someone with red hair, then all of the logic in the world regarding why there is no relationship between evil and red hair may not dent his beliefs in any way.  Often the only way to really loosen up such beliefs is to get at their root, which may have nothing to do with red hair at all, but rather a bit of hard coding that the reptilian brain imprinted long ago and which is utterly logic-resistant.  How do you do that?  Well, it's hard, and that's part of the reason that violence is such a pervasive part of the human experience.

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I will choose interesting... However, if I notice that you're using "common agreement" or "societal recogntion" of a society to back a moral assertion, I will throw it back at you that almost NOBODY in this country thinks the way you do about this stuff. Including my sweet Grandmother, who if she is immoral than I don't want to be moral .

I think I just laid a large steaming pile of logical fallacy on you there... sorry!

I digress...

I don't know what you mean

What moral assertion? Yes if I ever say something is right because people believe so therefore it is please point that out because it's definately wrong.

I've put forward to PS that it's not worth explaining to everyone why violence is wrong since 99% already know it. Might as well spend the time explaining that the government solution is violence and let them work it out after that. It's not wrong because they know it is, just a happy coincindence.

Well now that you (seem to have) backed off your observation of "self-ownership" back to a recognition of cognitive ability to identify outcomes, rather than have it be a moral statement, I don't understand What did I back off of?

A "moral assertion" is a statement about the morality of a given action.  "Theft is wrong.  Murder is wrong.  Rape is wrong."  Stuff like that.

Well people and philosophers have had millenia to "work things out," and very, very few would push a button abolishing government if given a chance, so whether or not people would agree with the general statement that "murder and violence is wrong," we have very, very different definitions of what constitutes illegitimate use of force. I think I'm miss-understand the argument here. Are you arguing that very very few people and philosophers would choose to abolish government if given a chance? I'll concede that primarily because I don't think it's relavent so i don't care. I'll agree to agree even though it's kind of an appeal to the past/the majority/unprovable etc. On the second point....that people don't get that government action is violence and force of some humans against others I completely agree, many people don't get that. That's why I argued that this should be pointed out and explained, since they already know that stealing and murder/violence is wrong. No need for the latter argument, just the former.

Also, you're really not arguing for no government (even though you claim to be)... the "logical conclusion" of all this is just a bunch of little governments that disagree over property rights, and either 1) fight (of which one or both sides is "wrong"), or 2) comply with some sort of arbitration under the fear of violence being the alternative. Your statment is the exact opposite of what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing against government per say. I'm arguing against the use of force. Government is just an expression/symptom of the problem. I've posted this so many times You're defending it by saying it will always exist. We've gone 'round and 'round this point so many times.

So government is going to exist.  It just doesn't look like it when it's a government of one or Hatfields & McCoys. You're now calling any act of force from one human against another "government"? Why is government force/violence acceptable but non-government is not? See I think it's all unacceptable, and the existance of one doesn't justify the other. And it's all a choice.....it's not the law of gravity or the sun.  There could have been aztecs who argued that child sacrifice would always exist like it was just a force of nature....but it's not....it was a choice. It's no longer chosen.

moda0306 wrote: However, when faced with the question of "Kshartle, please prove your moral assertions for me," he says (indirectly... not to me, but to PS when answering a different question), "99% of people understand that force is wrong so why try to explain it... better to explain that government is a forceful entity."  From a functional point of view, he's correct... though tons of people still disagree with him on the role of government.  However, he has yet to PROVE any moral assertion... in fact he just asked me what a "moral assertion" even was (which maybe indicates we've been talking past each other to a degree).

moda0306 wrote: I can't PROVE individual soveriegnty is a valid moral position, but I FEEL it...

This is not a moral argument and the attempt is constantly being made that it is. Morality is a code of behavior. Human self-ownership either exists or it doesn't. Someone's disbelief doesn't invalidate it no more than someone's belief in it, sort of like God. The argument that it doesn't exist because some people don't respect only proves that if rights exist they are violated.

that people don't get that government action is violence and force of some humans against others I completely agree, many people don't get that. That's why I argued that this should be pointed out and explained, since they already know that stealing and murder/violence is wrong. No need for the latter argument, just the former.

I'm not arguing against government per say. I'm arguing against the use of force.

You're now calling any act of force from one human against another "government"? Why is government force/violence acceptable but non-government is not? See I think it's all unacceptable, and the existance of one doesn't justify the other. And it's all a choice.....it's not the law of gravity or the sun.  There could have been aztecs who argued that child sacrifice would always exist like it was just a force of nature....but it's not....it was a choice. It's no longer chosen.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I can't PROVE individual soveriegnty is a valid moral position, but I FEEL it...

You don't have to prove it. Maybe take a shot at my case. We don't need to call it a "valid moral position", that's trying to turn it into a moral argument. You keep shying away from the case I've made that people own themselves as a matter of fact, not opinion and not subjective. My argument is not based on subjectivity. Dismissing it as unprovable subjective morality is just avoiding it because of the conclusions it leads to.  I've made it over and over and over. It's on at least half the pages in this thread and others.

I might be wrong but it's not because you can't prove I'm right.

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I can't PROVE individual soveriegnty is a valid moral position, but I FEEL it...

You don't have to prove it. Maybe take a shot at my case. We don't need to call it a "valid moral position", that's trying to turn it into a moral argument. You keep shying away from the case I've made that people own themselves as a matter of fact, not opinion and not subjective. My argument is not based on subjectivity. Dismissing it as unprovable subjective morality is just avoiding it because of the conclusions it leads to.  I've made it over and over and over. It's on at least half the pages in this thread and others.

I might be wrong but it's not because you can't prove I'm right.

You've proven that we consciously control our actions and usually understand the consequences of those actions.  Then you try to extend that to a moral statement to say "force is wrong."

That's like saying "a knife can kill someone, therefore murder is wrong."  You haven't proven anything related to the moral status of a human or "their property." 

You're using the term "ownership" to mean "control," developing a valid position that we control our actions, and then changing the definition of "ownership" to having a valid moral claim to control and benefit from something.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: You don't have to prove it. Maybe take a shot at my case. We don't need to call it a "valid moral position", that's trying to turn it into a moral argument. You keep shying away from the case I've made that people own themselves as a matter of fact, not opinion and not subjective. My argument is not based on subjectivity. Dismissing it as unprovable subjective morality is just avoiding it because of the conclusions it leads to.  I've made it over and over and over. It's on at least half the pages in this thread and others.

I might be wrong but it's not because you can't prove I'm right.

You've proven that we consciously control our actions and usually understand the consequences of those actions.  Then you try to extend that to a moral statement to say "force is wrong."

That's like saying "a knife can kill someone, therefore murder is wrong."  You haven't proven anything related to the moral status of a human or "their property." 

You're using the term "ownership" to mean "control," developing a valid position that we control our actions, and then changing the definition of "ownership" to having a valid moral claim to control and benefit from something.

If this what you think I've done we should stop. So much is left out of here it's not even funny.

I've made the case that since we are the only ones who exercise control over our bodies, words actions etc, and have the ability to choose our actions based upon moral standards of right and wrong (even if they are our own) we are responsible for them. We are ultimately responsible for everything we voluntarily choose and in control of it. We are the stewards of our life. We demonstrate the action/principle of ownership of ourselves, every non mentally deficient adult human does this. We are the only creature that does this. This is not a moral assertion, it's an outright assertion of fact. If it's wrong please show me where. Please don't just repeat it's a subjective moral assertion. Is what I said right, or wrong? Not do I believe it or not, clearly I do. Believing it doesn't make it right, just like believing in God or not doesn't make him exist...or not. It's independant of my belief.

Looks pretty right to me... and I agree this is not a moral assertion, and it is an assertion of fact (though I think it's a sliding scale from bacteria to human.  I think some animals exhibit different levels of consciousness over their behavior)

Here is a weaker argument: If it's possible to own anything, then we must own ourselves first. We are the thing that we (the individual that is us, in our brain) exhibit ownership over more than anything else. No one else can own us, because if anything can be owned then you can't deny self-ownership, the argument is self-detonating. So while I shy away from an argument from effects, I think this one is different. Essentially, if I don't have the right to myself, no one else can have a right to me, because no one can have any right above the right of self-ownership. You can't own anything if you don't own yourself because any criteria of ownship of any kind would be a slam-dunk for self-ownership.  So even if you don't believe people own themselves, you can know for certain that no one else can own them, and therefore either way it's impossible for force against another human to be moral or right. It can't be because the argument of ownership of another human falls apart at the slightest touch. It pre-supposes self-ownership which negates any external ownership of person because you can't simultaneously own yourself and be owned by someone else.

Blah blah. The point is if you own yourself then no one else can. Their attempt to control and force is the attempt to pretend to act like they own you, which they clearly don't, they can't. They can't own you because you own yourself and even if you don't then nothing can be owned anyway, therefore they still don't have the right to force you.

Does any of this make sense? Can you find a break in any of this line of thinking?

Definitely making more sense.  But you see... I believe in individual sovereignty (you call it self-ownership).  I just think we've been placed in a position (competing for resources on earth, with no direct link to the world around us, but a dependency on it for sustenence and prosperity) that we can't help but exercise indirect or direct force upon others... so the question is containment, not elimination... it's a moral dilemma.  A government is an organized system of organized force.  The alternative is accepting various alternative interpretations of property, enforcement, and force. 

MediumTex wrote: I think that I probably agree with Kshartle mostly on the issue of whether we "own" ourselves, and the extent to which this personal ownership leads to (or away) from certain obligations/duties with respect to the rest of humanity.

I am sympathetic to moda's concern that if we all simply act in our own individual self-interests, then it could (and will) give rise to certain unavoidable and bad consequences for all of humanity.

But unfortunately that's just how it works.  Not all lions will live and not all gazelles will live.  The process for determining the survivors is a fundamentally competitive one.  Whether it's fair or not based upon one's sensibilities is beside the point--it's like talking about whether it's "fair" that it rained on the day of the parade.

The place where I think that moda's reasoning gets off track is in the apparent belief that the only agents in society that are capable of preventing the harms resulting from each person acting in his own self-interest are the governments of the world.

I don't think that any government can be more enlightened than the mob that created it in the first place, and mobs are virtually never enlightened.  In the U.S., we are sort of lucky in that the mob that created our government WAS sort of enlightened, and I think that it has helped to make our country what it is today, but that's not really a basis for believing that governments in general are trustworthy entities to which personal sovereignty should be subordinated.

IMHO, the basic reason that government is not a trustworthy entity to which we should turn over our personal sovereignty is the basis of the government's power in the first place, which is the threat or actual use of force, along with an attempt to gain a monopoly on the use of force in society.  I always contrast this force-based accumulation of power in society with the persuasion-based accumulation of power in society that the corporation uses. 

Whatever abuses of power that corporations may commit around the world, to my knowledge a corporation has never started a war or committed genocide.  One might say that corporations HAVE done these things by using governments as their proxies, such as in the oil wars and occupations of recent years, but this gets back to a problem with GOVERNMENTS, not CORPORATIONS.  Like all entities in society, corporations will grab all the power they can, but if the only power that can be grabbed is based on persuasion, then corporations should be mostly a force for good in society.  For example, I think that Apple Computer makes good products precisely because people buy them because they WANT to, not because they HAVE to.  OTOH, if Halliburton/KBR can persuade the government to project its violence apparatus in a way that will increase its profits, then I would expect it to do that (though it is still done through the process of persuading the government to take certain actions, not coercing it).  The way to remedy that problem, though, is to reduce the government's ability to apply generous doses of violence all over the world, which should make violence groupies like Halliburton/KBR go away on their own.  In other words, corporations that SEEM to be engaging in the same sort of violence-based power accumulations as governments may actually be more like parasites that are simply feeding on the host government's appetite for violence by providing it with the necessary tools.

Unfortunately, we mostly have to take our governments as we find them.  To do otherwise often leads to nothing but personal suffering as the crusader is either converted into a politician or bureaucrat (which with rare exception involves suffering in the form of compromised beliefs), OR is converted into an object to be stored for an extended period in one of the government's trophy cases (i.e., prisons).

The system itself rarely changes, and when it does it is often pretty ugly, and gives way to a worse system than the one that preceded it.

Against the backdrop I describe above and the fact that the government seems to struggle mightily with tasks like setting up websites that the private sector seems to do with ease, I don't see giving the government MORE power as a way of improving the world as an appealing option.

Kshartle wrote: Does it make sense that someone believes something because they believe it? Isn't that circular?

I hope this post doesn't sound jerky. At this point I must admit I don't know because it seems like when I actually point out where I disagree and explain why I feel it's taken as a sign that I'm a jerk. I'm just trying to boil away what I think are incorrect beliefs (the idea that something is true just because someone believes it or that this is the basis for most beliefs).

Xan wrote: I think you'll find that relying on logic for everything also is circular reasoning.  You can't prove logic with logic.  You believe in logic because you believe, end of story.  You may have found that it "works" and so you trust it, but that's true for plenty of people with their religions as well.  But ultimately all reasoning is circular; it's all based on axioms which are assumed to be true, and on which not everyone agrees.

moda0306 wrote:- Morality is unprovable

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Does it make sense that someone believes something because they believe it? Isn't that circular?

I hope this post doesn't sound jerky. At this point I must admit I don't know because it seems like when I actually point out where I disagree and explain why I feel it's taken as a sign that I'm a jerk. I'm just trying to boil away what I think are incorrect beliefs (the idea that something is true just because someone believes it or that this is the basis for most beliefs).

It's more like, sometimes it seems like you have a poor grasp of how most people less smart than you actually think and feel. "I believe it because I believe it" is pretty much how 95%+ of humanity approaches subjective abstract ideas. I mean, that's what religion is, right? You think all those believers went out to look for evidence of God or the spirits or whatever? They believe in their religion because they believe, end of story. You could find concrete evidence of the absence of God and they would challenge your methods or try to bash you in the head in the less civilized parts of the world.

I can see how that would be incredibly frustrating for a logical-minded fellow of above-average intelligence. However, as someone who considers himself in the same bucket, I will humbly suggest that it is our burden to learn how to deal with it so we can understand our fellow man. Goodness knows that all the logical argumentation in the world won't do any good. This thread itself should prove that better than any argument you could possibly make.

moda0306 wrote: What is a corporation (an economic interest) that tries to grab power beyond providing goods and services to the market usually called?  Isn't it usually just simply referred to as either a gang or government?