X-ray vision and the strength of 5 gorillas
It won’t. It is.
What is the long term?
No, I don’t like your idea. Giles however already subscribes to his own constructivist theory, so it is a case of the kettle calling the pot black when he dissents.
So anarchism will never actually be established as a stable political institution even after the abolition of the state?
In the state of nature how could we build long term business goals / investment if everything is chaos and therefore unpredictable? Living by the moment promotes high time preference and therefore no savings, thus no growth.
I was just joshing, since you guys are always in disagreement I figured it humorous to state that since now Giles disagrees with me then you would agree with me.
unlikely
Why, in the face of the unknown and uncertain, would people adopt high time preferences? High time preferences seem to be synonymous with periods where there is a lot of confirmation bias and consistency. Where the future is uncertain, a natural psychological trend to a lower time prefence, and conservatism (fiscal and social) is quite prevalent.
Until man overcomes his comfort in stability and his anxiety in extremis, he won’t be able to sustain anarchy.
How so?
Why invest in something when you have no idea what the returns will be? Look at the stock market. Is it receiving a wonderful boom because no one knows what Obama is going to do next?
Part II of my answer addressed that.
I don’t know. I don’t invest. I am very conservative. I recognize the epistemological problem.
I know that I do not know what will happen with investments, and so, I do not invest.
Now the bigger question you and I are struggling with, is we do not know, what we do not know, and so, how can we function?
I can’t handle this trip down the rabbit hole right now. I quit drinking coffee 2 days ago, and am not at the top of my game yet.
Gnostic drivel. The good news is that freaks who hate biological reality will always be out-bred.
Well I don’t seek perfect knowledge of the future, that would be absurd. However, like the predictions that we can make with Austrianism, I seek to know what seems to be the likely course [ apriorism ]. Stability proves such an environment and I think such an environment requires a lassiez-faire hand [ absolutely no government intervention in the economy ] To me, the free-market is stability while government regulation and intervention is instability.
[^o)] Ah what?
A priorism and “austrianism” aren’t predictive. They simply enable us to better understand our circumstances (limitations and possiblities).
I have probably used “predictive” sloppily with Austrian ideas in the past. It was a mistake.
But that is the paradox. As the state tries to find stability, it creates instability, and as we seek instability, we will find some stability.
I’ve been approaching a happier place over the last 3 months. I’m ok that things are. I understand they are not fair, but I also understand that I can’t move mountains, and I don’t have the moral (or political) authority to make things as I think they should be. And even if I could, inevitably, I would have to become what is wrong about the state.
The problem with the state isn’t that it is involuntary. It’s that it is tasked with doing the impossible. As long as we believe in impossible outcomes, we will live a dissatisfying existence. Egalitarianism is an impossible outcome in a natural world. If you watched the Rabbi Lapin lecture at Mises.org, he does a great job of explaining how man makes bricks, and God (nature) makes stones. Bricks are the same, but every stone is unique. In order to achieve egalitarianism, no matter what your motivation, and there are both positive and negative reasons to pursue egalitarianism, you have to remove nature from the equation.
Egalitarianism is a revolt against nature (Rothbard).
And so, using egalitarianism to achieve natural rights isn’t rational.
FYI, Green tea != coffee.
Sorry for the delay, someone is wanking around with the server or the server is going nuts.
Well then explain Peter Schiff and Mises who predicted depressions using the ABCT.
In the words of Anselme Bellegarrigue: ‘Anarchy is order’
Nor am I coercing anyone to become this way. Merely persuasion.
I believe your argument rests on the premise that our body alone makes us unique. However, I think it is the consciousness that does so. Hypothetically, if we were to rid ourselves of racism, sexism, xenophobia etc then would we stop being human? Would we become some kind of Nietzchen overman? My answer would be no, we would continue to be human. In fact I think we would be better humans. More likely to carry out non-violent exchange and interaction. More likely to follow the natural law and more likely to be harmonious and prosperous. Concerning Rothbard, he retained some social outlooks which I find distasteful especially his view on feminism. However, he is dead on that we are all different. This difference does not imply normative subjective values or polylogicism. I would find it contradictory for an individual to promote an objective moral set of values [ non-violence, right to property etc ] and then say ‘Look, individuals with internal sexual organs, how atrocious, clearly they are horrible people’
Just a small correction, I think you’ve got it backwards. Whilst there is always uncertainty, one would generally expect that ceteris paribus the more uncertain the future the higher time preference we’d see in society.
I have been a Peter Schiff fan for some time. He has been right with some of his predictions, and wrong with others. In both cases (Schiff and Mises) they made observations based on an Austrian understanding. Any respectable Austrian will tell you that “when” is not something that can be accurately predicted. And a prediction without a date, is just an observation IMHO.
Doesn’t matter. You can be persuading people to jump out of buildings, that doesn’t make it a good idea.
You are wrong. Check your premises.
I don’t.
Yet apriorism is prediction none the less. It doesn’t have to always be right or on time.
Why isn’t it a good idea? It ends bodily sickness, genetic flaws, provides immorality to an extent, allows for data interaction in real time. It is not as if I am reprogramming everyone’s consciousness, nor am I forcing anyone to even if you see it that way. I’m merely proposing the movement of human consciousness to a new vassal that is better then the old. Where does the bad come into such an enveadour?
Then why are you so quick to state that removing the mind from the body results in the dehumanization of an individual? I know you state that it is a synopsis of the two, however, what I am postulating does not destroy the consciousness of an individual. Since we are speculating, it is possible for an individual to keep his/her consciousness completely intact during the procedure. Granted there will be differences like data interaction, however, I don’t find that ‘dehumanizing.’
This:
Rothbard said it best, egalitarianism is truly a revolt against nature. Thus the gnostic rails against the natural world, aspiring to a purportedly ‘pure’ incorporeal existence beyond race, gender and time. This is a chimera: mind and brain are inseparable. Meanwhile, people of a more earthy bent actually reproduce themselves.
Tell that to the quad that’s also a shut-in (as in s/he cannot talk or breathe on their own, just blink and move their eyes). Tell that to the man that lost his legs at the hip that… Tell that to the boy that was born blind.
Giles, we’re always cyborgs. If you use eye glasses, cars, stairs, elevators, operate a crane or bulldozer, fly in a plane, and etc you are a cyborg: period and end of story. All the technophobics in the world are merely idiots of another cloth, but no better or different in the nature of said idiocy to the technophiles that think technology equals liberty.
ORLY? Me thinks you would bitch for a hard long time if all the last century’s advances were to disappear forever overnight. Pot, kettle, black.