Education and voluntarism

[Micah71381]

@EvilSocialistFellow

Swap 99 people for 90% of the population and swap the 1 person for 10% of the population and you can see why this kind of reasoning becomes a problem in terms of real life (and the lines subsequently become blurred). This is a massive moral dilemna that is not easy and evidently, we have to decide which outcome is preferable. For me, enhancing overall living standards should not merely be a game of survival of the fittest; there should also be a moral stance..

The problem I have with your third option is that it does not best prepare humanity for future problems. Right now humanity is mostly fighting known opponents and problems and they are all reasonably solvable for us. However, what happens at some point in the future when we have to compete against a yet unforseen opponent? Simple sci-fi examples are aliens or robots. Perhaps more ‘realistic’ examples are asteroids colliding with the planet or a nearby star going supernova and ejecting some large chunk of matter at us.

If we do your 3rd option humanity as a whole will not be as advanced as in option 2. When the time comes that we have to deal with an as of yet unknown opponent in our quest for survival our chances of surviving will be higher with option 2 than with option 3. So in option 3 the chances of all of humanity being wiped out are higher than in option 2, which is why I have such a big problem with option 3 (and 1). I want humanity to have the highest chance of survival (as a species), regardless of the cost.

[EvilSocialistFellow]

@Micah71381

The problem I have with your third option is that it does not best prepare humanity for future problems. Right now humanity is mostly fighting known opponents and problems and they are all reasonably solvable for us. However, what happens at some point in the future when we have to compete against a yet unforseen opponent? Simple sci-fi examples are aliens or robots. Perhaps more ‘realistic’ examples are asteroids colliding with the planet or a nearby star going supernova and ejecting some large chunk of matter at us.

If we do your 3rd option humanity as a whole will not be as advanced as in option 2. When the time comes that we have to deal with an as of yet unknown opponent in our quest for survival our chances of surviving will be higher with option 2 than with option 3. So in option 3 the chances of all of humanity being wiped out are higher than in option 2, which is why I have such a big problem with option 3 (and 1). I want humanity to have the highest chance of survival (as a species), regardless of the cost.

Wow, this thread has derailed (partly my fault, sorry guys). I’m going to wrap it up here for this particular reason.

[z1235]

@filc

This is the very reasoning and purpose for the entrepreneur.

Who is (has been) stopping the entrepreneur? (This is both a rhetorical and an actual question.)

Z.

[z1235]

@Liberty Student

Z, thank you for your post, but I suspect it is one massive non sequitur to my argument.

Sorry you think this is the case. I was hoping to create a more beneficial exchange.

Z.

[liberty_student]

@Micah71381

I am suggesting that because we can not predict human action

We’re not predicting human action. We’re predicting the consequences of human action. What do you think economics is?

@Micah71381

it is possible but improbable that statism actually is preferable to anarchy due to factors we can’t account for.

Prove it. And don’t say you don’t know, because if you don’t know, stop saying it is possible.

@Micah71381

I think the chances of that are unlikely in the modern era but low probability does not equate certainty

What does this even mean? It’s not a matter of random chance. Actions have consequences. To deny this is to deny rational, purposeful human action.

@Micah71381

It sounds to me like you are suggesting that it is logically impossible for statism to be competitively advantageous?

Absolutely.

@Micah71381

Given two otherwise equivalent societies, the one that chooses anarchy is guaranteed to have a competitive advantage over the one that has chosen statism when it comes to a competition for resources?

Absolutely. Although the competition for resources isn’t how an anarchist measures the health of a society.

@Micah71381

Without knowing enough about a (such as whether or not it’s positive) that statement is not always true.

Try using deduction. Define your terms. Remove contradictions.