Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure that David doesn't care enough about the topic to research it deeply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Called it.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
You replied exactly as I thought you would...

[/ QUOTE ]

Correctly.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

Nice reply.
[ QUOTE ]
All I am is a guy who when he was 14 was insanely good at quickly and accurately doing algebra word problems. Easily one of the best in the world (back then) and better than 99% of math Phds includuing jason and boris p. Specifically algebra word problems. Nothing else. I could also explain my methods quite well if it was important to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have any objective evidence of this? i.e. consistent scores in national or international math Olympiads at that age. There are a lot of guys who can ace math problems without being good at the hard stuff. I do have such evidence (from exactly this age, actually), so I'm skeptical of some of your claims. For example, I would never claim my ability to tackle these problems was better than 99% of math PhDs at that time - while a sharp, flexible wit is an amazing thing, it's no substitute for depth of experience. And there's the lack of actual verification of such a claim. I understand the power a young brain has to soak up new information or instinctively grasp the subtleties of difficult problems. You can see layers on layers that other people just don't get, and you can see instantly what takes others weeks to grasp. But I think it comes from the structure of a young brain, and not so much raw genius. And some of it is a failure to understand the utility of your understanding. So extrapolating that stuff to being brilliant in other areas is perhaps a stretch.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

"Do you have any objective evidence of this? i.e. consistent scores in national or international math Olympiads at that age. There are a lot of guys who can ace math problems without being good at the hard stuff."

I never said I was good at the hard stuff. I never even learned the hard stuff. I never even learned differential equations. But I did win statewide contests. I easily passed the first two actuarial tests while still in high school. I got a perfect score in something called the actuarial aptitude test which was designed so that it was supposed to be impossible to do this in the allotted time (a Met Life recruiter said he had never seen this). And I was I believe the only one in the state of New Jersey to get a perfect score in both the math and science sections the year I took the National Merit Scholarship Test.

Remember that all I said was that I could (back then)do elementary algebra word problems better than 99% of math Phds. And realize also that such a statement is less boastful than saying I could beat half of Princeton Phds.

I should also add that I did develop another talent twenty years later. Namely some street smarts. But that was mainly because of the life I lived as a professional gambler. Its obvious to me that I have more street smarts than most of the relatively sheltered people who post on this forum. But no more than many of the other poker players.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this thread went exactly where I thought it would.

[/ QUOTE ]
clever boy.

[ QUOTE ]
Libertarian ethics are selected for pretty strongly, both via biological and cultural evolution (I.e. The market).

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why has every anarchy is history (except Somalia...lol) ended up being a government?

Doesn't sound like strong selection to me.

It's also funny that you don't make the correlation the other way...that the most externally aggressive and imperialistic have come about through government...and through the prosperity that generates, become libertarian internally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the US would be a great example illustrating that the libertarianism comes before the external aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you discount Women, Slaves, and Natives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and why wouldn't you? I'm not sure why this is a pertinent response.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

Interesting, thanks for responding.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Namely some street smarts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a tidy definition of street smarts? I'm never sure what people mean by this. Is it like, how long you could survive as a drug dealer in the Bronx?

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

are you Vegas Nick?

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Namely some street smarts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a tidy definition of street smarts? I'm never sure what people mean by this. Is it like, how long you could survive as a drug dealer in the Bronx?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think allot of it is life experance. Particularly, over broad ranges of circumstances. If you have been really poor, I mean really poor, and are now of average wealth then you have experianced all the stages in between. Similarly if you have been really poor and really rich you have experianced everything i between.

If you have lived sleeping in doorways (And this is nothing to do with wealth) hanging out with drug addicts and bums, you have gained more experiance.

If you have served in the forces, again, add more. If you fought in a war, add more, if you made General, add more.

Been ripped off? Add. Ripped someone off? Add. Been to space? Add.....

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Namely some street smarts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a tidy definition of street smarts? I'm never sure what people mean by this. Is it like, how long you could survive as a drug dealer in the Bronx?

[/ QUOTE ]

hitch touched on how some may be acquired, but being very aware of the actual social situation you are in, rather than some pretend one or one that exists 12 blocks away.
The expected code of conduct, the danger signs.

DS mentioned the handling of cheats the other day. That's a street smart. To move in the gambling world and not know how such thing are handled would be street dumb.

luckyme

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]

hitch touched on how some may be acquired, but being very aware of the actual social situation you are in, rather than some pretend one or one that exists 12 blocks away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah-hah...so street smarts aren't an "informational" asset, but rather the ability to marshal your attention and behavior effectively.

No wonder I never understood that term. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
All I am is a guy who when he was 14 was insanely good at quickly and accurately doing algebra word problems. Easily one of the best in the world (back then) and better than 99% of math Phds includuing jason and boris p. Specifically algebra word problems. Nothing else. I could also explain my methods quite well if it was important to.

Being insanely good at algebra word problems meant I could get very very good at related subjects. Like probability and logic problems.

Being good at those things meant I could write good books on endeavors where those subjects played a large part. It also meant that I could tease out the logic-math aspects of complex everyday problems and usually demonstrate how those aspects comprised a bigger part of the problem than most people want to admit. It also meant that I could be a major thorn in the side of people who had a strong position on something even though they hadn't made sure that their position didn't bump into mathematical-logical type fallacies.

Armed with this one talent and its spinoffs I could make a lot of money, buy a few animals, have a shot with some younger girls, and not have to work 9-5.

I don't even think about the stuff on this thread unless it helps me achieve one of those three goals or perhaps a few others.

[/ QUOTE ]


Aren't you interested in certain things *because* they are challenging? Like the whole theism thing? Why not to the same with the whole *politics* thing? It's essentially a religion, so why not? Or maybe it's because you are the believer this time?

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't you interested in certain things *because* they are challenging? Like the whole theism thing? Why not to the same with the whole *politics* thing? It's essentially a religion, so why not? Or maybe it's because you are the believer this time?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that was his long winded version of "politics is boring"

Poking fun at religion is a lot more fun, I think. Plus it makes you look smart and badass in front of young ladies. When was the last time AC pulled you some tail?

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aren't you interested in certain things *because* they are challenging? Like the whole theism thing? Why not to the same with the whole *politics* thing? It's essentially a religion, so why not? Or maybe it's because you are the believer this time?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that was his long winded version of "politics is boring"

Poking fun at religion is a lot more fun, I think. Plus it makes you look smart and badass in front of young ladies. When was the last time AC pulled you some tail?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not interested in women who think I am 'badass'.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]

I am not interested in women who think I am 'badass'.

[/ QUOTE ]
This reminds me of that famous quote by Groucho Marx...
" I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members."

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is not a coincidence that the most internally liberal socities generally come to dominate the world

[/ QUOTE ]

So the nazis were intenally liberal?

Hmm.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is not a coincidence that the most internally liberal socities generally come to dominate the world

[/ QUOTE ]

So the nazis were intenally liberal?

Hmm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rapid expansion beyond productional/economical/logistical means may look impressive, but it won't really get to dominate anything as it spells it own doom.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is not a coincidence that the most internally liberal socities generally come to dominate the world

[/ QUOTE ]

So the nazis were intenally liberal?

Hmm.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed the part where the Nazis came to dominate the world.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is not a coincidence that the most internally liberal socities generally come to dominate the world

[/ QUOTE ]

So the nazis were intenally liberal?

Hmm.

[/ QUOTE ]


Moreso than the Amerikans.


The Economic Doctrine of the Nazis
http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/ss05/ss05-Hoppe.mp3

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is not a coincidence that the most internally liberal socities generally come to dominate the world

[/ QUOTE ]

So the nazis were intenally liberal?

Hmm.

[/ QUOTE ]


Moreso than the Amerikans.


The Economic Doctrine of the Nazis
http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/ss05/ss05-Hoppe.mp3

[/ QUOTE ]

Afaik I know, the nazis had a socialist economic policy, with hard intervention from the state/government, with heavy regulations from the state being the norm and severe punishment (and I mean severe, executions not uncommon) for violators/black marketeering.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

How'd this thread lose its gusto? I'm still waiting for ALawPoker to show us the error of our ways.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
How'd this thread lose its gusto? I'm still waiting for ALawPoker to show us the error of our ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like a true politician. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is not a coincidence that the most internally liberal socities generally come to dominate the world

[/ QUOTE ]

So the nazis were intenally liberal?

Hmm.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed the part where the Nazis came to dominate the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on, you must at least concede they came pretty damn close.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
But rules of thumb like "be nice to your family" or "be honest in your dealings" aren't social constructs, they are tried and true game theory solutions, developed over millions of years of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how do you explain that what is moral today is different than what was considered moral 50 years ago? Not to mention 100, 200, or 300 years ago. The more you go back through human history, the more you will find things that you would nowadays call an atrocity, to be everyday events that society didn't consider bad.

So clearly this process didn't take millions of years to evolve. It didn't evolve at all. It's been designed.

Sure, some bits and pieces probably have evolved, like a mother protecting her children, but most of today's society's average moral code is a social construct that changes radically from generation to generation.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is culture not a function of "evolution"? Why (referring to your note thingamajig) do you believe the actions that contribute to "culture" are not "included in our genes."

[/ QUOTE ]

I said in my footnote I'm using the term as it is used in evolutionary biology. If you don't like the term, choose another one.

There is a genetical basis for which you're able to create and absorb culture, but the culture itself, is not included in your genes, since by definition culture (again, in evolutionary biology) isn't genetical. You can take an american newborn and have it grow up in afghanistan, with an average family from there, and it's culture will be quite different than you'd expect from the son of american parents.

[ QUOTE ]
my point (stemming back to your first reply in this thread) is that regardless of how we arrive at "morals," we arrive there because the morals have a logically defensible foundation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true as long as you accept that in many cases the foundation will be logically flawed. Also do consider that, as I said earlier and will probably end up repeating several times, for any such logical conclusion to be drawn, you must input preference/purpose/desire into the equation. Otherwise it's meaningless to think of ethics/morality.

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't bad to steal because "it just is" or because some dude wrote that it was on a stone. I could logically explain why the action of stealing is detrimental. So, getting back to your original disagreement, I think it's pretty clear that one can examine a person's logical applications of various situations as insight into their moral conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can definitely conceive a society where stealing isn't bad. For example, take away private property and stealing loses it's sense. So it cannot be said that stealing, or any other moral issue, is fundamentally wrong or right. It all depends on who's objectives are being considered to measure something as good or bad, and what those are. You never answered that question by the way. Check my second post in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what you meant here, but if I got it right, you didn't get me right when I used the term "anybody" to refer only to the hosts, and not to the parasites/viruses/memes themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't get why you'd look at it that way. Why is a virus concerned with doing things that its host interprets as "good" if it can survive anyways? All it is concerned is doing what's good *for it*, i.e. surviving.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what I said. That the viruses/parasites/memes/etc don't necessarily have to do any good to the host to survive. You were arguing that moral codes are there because they're good for us and thus been selected for. I argued that to the extent that they've been selected for our benefit, they were mostly designed and not evolved, and to the extent that they did evolve, they did it mostly for their own capability of surviving, and not majorly because of being good for us.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't realize we were at the evolutionary finish line. What makes you think the burdens you observe won't die out eventually?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please, you're walking right into my trap! Please don't make it that easy...

Are you aware that the same applies to your particular moral/ethical code? It too could be a burden that would eventually die out.

[/ QUOTE ]

It *could*, but the whole point is that we apply reason to determine which values/beliefs are most worthy of defending. If it did turn out that my "ethical code" was in fact a burden, then nature would correct the mistake, and it wouldn't be contradictory to what I'm saying here in the least. All it would mean is I (being a human, and not an omniscient force) made a mistake. I don't see why this is a problem, or what point you think you're making.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the one part you're saying that we apply reason to determine which values/beliefs are most worthy of defending, and on the other you say that "nature will correct the mistake". You can have both, but in most cases it's either one or the other. Or more accurately, one of the two plays a much more important part than the other.

When you argued about morality you spoke as if we were at the evolutionary finish line. That is my point. Your idea that whatever is considered moral is good for us, is wrong.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How exactly do we do this? Do we close our eyes and make a wish? Or do we merely live and make decisions according to what seems most pleasing?

[/ QUOTE ]

By thinking about what we want for ourselves and others, and communicating it to others, hearing them out, form new conclusions, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in other words, by logically examining which values are best? Are you willing to concede the point that morals do not exist without underlying logical justification?

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you concede that this justification can be logically flawed, as it often is.

But the more important point I want to make you understand is that nothing is inherently good or bad, you need to consider the wishes of people (or, purposeful entities if you prefer) for anything to be good or bad. Thus morality is extremely subjective.




[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the thing here is that not all human beings share the same interests/purposes, especially in the sense that we can be selfish and want something for ourselves when that means someone else won't have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Equilibrium ensues. If that person can't get it, why should he have it? That seems chaotic to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really didn't understand what you meant here.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is it doesn't matter if people are selfish if people desire to be selfish. If the action is a problem, nature will correct it. Why do you think it's a problem if people behave differently?

[/ QUOTE ]

We're at least 4.4 billion years into this thing, and nature has still to correct many incorrect or problematic actions. Your suggestion that we let nature follow it's course and do nothing ourselves is ludicrous.

Each individual is selfish, and whether they want to be that way or not, the fact that other individuals are selfish, is negative for him. Even if everyone wants to be selfish, this usually creates such a problem that everyone would be better off being altruists. Just because everyone wants something doesn't mean it's good for all that everyone wants it. You're being ridiculous.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that bias is the reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... Hellooo? That is what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm... liiike, no you dinnnnnnn't, sistah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I did. Here I include the definition:


------------------------------------------
Bias:
N. Inclination towards something; predisposition, partiality, prejudice, preference, predilection
------------------------------------------

I meant everything, except prejudice. Prejudice is something else that does influence this process, but the main reason are the other definitions of bias. In this sense, ethics and morals cannot exist without bias. They don't make sense without it.



[ QUOTE ]

If you agree that bias explains why people hold slightly different ethical codes, then you must agree there is some ethical core that, in the absence of bias, all humans would share.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Without bias (in the way I meant by "bias"), there can be no ethic or morality.

[ QUOTE ]
And the differences between our ethical sets are based on our differing experiences and logical applications.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the differences are fundamentally based on preference. Bias.


[ QUOTE ]

So, you are basically agreeing with me that you can examine a person's logical application of various situations to get some insight into his ethical set.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some insight, sure, I never said you couldn't get any insight in this manner. I was just saying you can't base a trustable prediction on this.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, some bits and pieces probably have evolved, like a mother protecting her children

[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot to add (and can't edit now), that in evolutionary biology (as in most other areas), those wouldn't count as culture, since they're imprinted into the genes, and even in everyday life are considered instinct as opposed to moral. (the fact that they're also moral is not a coincidence, but that's not relevant here)

Morality, by definition, is a cultural construct. If it was genetical, we'd call it instinct. We also have instincts that we consider immoral.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can definitely conceive a society where stealing isn't bad. For example, take away private property and stealing loses it's sense. So it cannot be said that stealing, or any other moral issue, is fundamentally wrong or right. It all depends on who's objectives are being considered to measure something as good or bad, and what those are.

[/ QUOTE ]

That society would consist of animals that were not humans. But when we're dealing with *human* objectives, it is clear that based on the nature of our condition, one will always conclude stealing is bad.

I consider myself a moral relativist (though I've never actually looked much into what that term actually means, so maybe I'm not one). You shouldn't think that what I'm arguing here means that I believe in concrete morals. I'm not interested in trying to weigh your personal moral decision, because it will depend on a plethora of inputs that I, not being you, can't possibly understand. But there are certain things (i.e. theft, rape, murder) that are so extreme where it's simply wholly unreasonable to think there could ever exist enough mitigation where someone with the human condition could rightfully conclude it is good.


[ QUOTE ]
When you argued about morality you spoke as if we were at the evolutionary finish line. That is my point. Your idea that whatever is considered moral is good for us, is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you get that impression? It's a preposterous idea in the first place, and I think nothing of the sort. It really seems like you're jumping through hoops now to try to defend yourself.

I do not think that whatever is considered moral is *necessarily* good for us. I think it's simply the best we can do given the boundaries of our condition, and thus the *most likely* to be good for us. You might decide to call all your chips with aces. If only you were omniscient, you'd have known he was gonna flop his set. But still, given your condition and what you're bound by, calling with aces is always the best you can do.

Please, really stop and consider my arguments for a moment or two. It seems like you're rushing to try to defend yourself for the sake of the debate. I appreciate the discussion, but you really do have a losing hand. Morals are not separate from logic.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
How'd this thread lose its gusto? I'm still waiting for ALawPoker to show us the error of our ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried responding to you, but I had computer trouble and lost the post. I can recreate the reply if you want, but I'm a bit busy now, so let me know if you're still interested before I do so and I'll reply later on.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

David,

How exactly do the "few animals" fit in with the young ladies, spare time, and free flowing money? My wild imagination demands an answer.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

Six cats. One African Grey. They only watch.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Oh come on, you must at least concede they came pretty damn close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Defeating the armed resistance is a long way from successfully ruling the world. There's little question the Nazis would have done great harm, but I doubt they could have ruled much of anything for long. Their ideas were unsustainable. I also don't think they were half as close to winning the war as we tend to believe.

[ QUOTE ]
So how do you explain that what is moral today is different than what was considered moral 50 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's talking about a "tit for tat" morality, which is universal. Some cultures have tried to stamp out this kind of morality, and all have failed. In many ways this is unfortunate; a standard of compassionate altruism would arguably be better for modern society than a standard of reciprocal altruism. The latter's what we're stuck with.

[ QUOTE ]
I said in my footnote I'm using the term as it is used in evolutionary biology. If you don't like the term, choose another one.

There is a genetical basis for which you're able to create and absorb culture, but the culture itself, is not included in your genes, since by definition culture (again, in evolutionary biology) isn't genetical. You can take an american newborn and have it grow up in afghanistan, with an average family from there, and it's culture will be quite different than you'd expect from the son of american parents.

[/ QUOTE ]

The interactions of ideas and values in culture is arguably a selective process, and is therefore similar in many ways to (biological) evolution. The same standards apply.

[ QUOTE ]
That's true as long as you accept that in many cases the foundation will be logically flawed. Also do consider that, as I said earlier and will probably end up repeating several times, for any such logical conclusion to be drawn, you must input preference/purpose/desire into the equation. Otherwise it's meaningless to think of ethics/morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. Logic moves from premises to conclusions, nothing more. Without moral premises, you can't get moral conclusions. At least, not logically.

[ QUOTE ]
On the one part you're saying that we apply reason to determine which values/beliefs are most worthy of defending, and on the other you say that "nature will correct the mistake". You can have both, but in most cases it's either one or the other. Or more accurately, one of the two plays a much more important part than the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Important part" in what sense? Selective processes take a very long time, and are very inefficient. If a quick heuristic can serve as an effective substitute, so much the better. That's probably why we've developed the ability to absorb culture, rather than evolving specific cultures at a genetic level. But where shortcuts and rules of thumb fail, selection will almost always succeed. It takes longer, it's costlier, and it's riskier, but it's also more reliable.

On the other hand, the question of "success" isn't necessarily a question of what's good for us. In memetics, we aren't even sure what the standard is. And there's a chance that we'll go extinct before we find the "right" configuration - that's an integral part of selection, too. Sometimes it doesn't correct, sometimes it just terminates. So I don't think apathy is defensible. Particularly since social perspectives are themselves memes that work within a selective context. I agree it's silly to say "apathy is fine, because selection will solve our problems" - apathy may be selected against (let's hope so).

[ QUOTE ]
Without bias (in the way I meant by "bias"), there can be no ethic or morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I go further. I think bias informs every human action to some degree. Not all ACists buy into praxeology.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
But there are certain things (i.e. theft, rape, murder) that are so extreme where it's simply wholly unreasonable to think there could ever exist enough mitigation where someone with the human condition could rightfully conclude it is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that many societies have concluded that all three of these actions are "good." Never across the board, but often under cirtain conditions (and almost always when perpetrated against "the enemy"). Many societies have also failed to consider these actions particularly "extreme" - heresy and treason have typically been considered far worse.

And how is theft extreme? Hell, theft is part of how capitalism works - some theft is actually healthy, think about the security industry. And some theft helps maintain equilibrium - poverty encourages theft, which is a big part of why poverty is probably selected against.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Six cats. One African Grey. They only watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. I'll bet they do.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh come on, you must at least concede they came pretty damn close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Defeating the armed resistance is a long way from successfully ruling the world. There's little question the Nazis would have done great harm, but I doubt they could have ruled much of anything for long. Their ideas were unsustainable. I also don't think they were half as close to winning the war as we tend to believe.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me just add to this portion of the post, simply because it is a subject that is very interesting to me. Not many who knows their history thinks Germany came close to winning the war, and in informed military and political circles around 39-40 many said germany could at a maximum last 5-10 years simply due to financial issues (a bad side-effect of this was that not many expected germany to go to large-scale war, and if you read contemporary sources...you will probably find that was not the belief in germany at that time either, and that the whole large scale thing was most likely a mishap).

Not that is in any way takes away from what happened. They waged war, they were bloody good at doing it and the scale of the war is simply unbelievable and all honour to those who fought them back and made victory possible.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Except that many societies have concluded that all three of these actions are "good."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well what do YOU think? Just because some society somewhere has concluded something, that makes the conclusion correct? I thought the whole point of progress and assessment was that we can correct our mistakes.

[ QUOTE ]
Never across the board, but often under cirtain conditions (and almost always when perpetrated against "the enemy").

[/ QUOTE ]

Harsh times call for harsh measures I guess. At least that's superficially what our instincts tell us. I'd say we have this bias because over the course of our evolutionary journey when you did not succeed, there was no "next time." But today, when you logically analyze certain situations, it is clear to me that there exist certain "harsh measures" that will always do more harm than good to you (the actor) in the long run.

Look at the Middle East for example. You know, [censored] Iran, [censored] Iraq. They're archaic [censored] whose best interest I couldn't care less about. But I support leaving them the hell alone not because I give two [censored] about some Iranian's wellbeing, but because I know that in the long run intervention will do me more harm than good (even if my superficial instincts tell *me* to hit the nuke button).

It's really amazing how often what is "moral" is also to your rational best interest. If I didn't know better, I'd think this universe had a sense of order or something.

[ QUOTE ]
And how is theft extreme?

[/ QUOTE ]

No need to dwell on my word choice. I merely meant that theft as a societal norm is bad in all circumstances that involve human beings.

[ QUOTE ]
Hell, theft is part of how capitalism works - some theft is actually healthy, think about the security industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about what the people providing those services might contribute instead if there was not a demand to prevent theft. Capitalism provides a *solution* to a problem; do you really think it's a good thing that some of capitalism's effort is bogged down with preventing theft rather than, say, solving the problem of making my television set an inch bigger and a C-note cheaper?

I fail to see why the fact that theft occurs is a good thing just because people have found a solution. The health industry is a good thing in the sense that it's a solution to a problem; but heart attacks still suck.

[ QUOTE ]
And some theft helps maintain equilibrium - poverty encourages theft, which is a big part of why poverty is probably selected against.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poverty is selected against (if that's even the case right now, which I would say is a big long shot in Western societies, but that's beside the point) because people who are poor are more likely to die and less likely to reproduce.

And yes, if I have 10 dollars and you have 3 dollars and you steal 2 of mine, you've helped move towards fiscal "equilibrium." I fail to see why this is a good thing, since I think more utility will occur when you earn rather than take your 2 dollars.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How'd this thread lose its gusto? I'm still waiting for ALawPoker to show us the error of our ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried responding to you, but I had computer trouble and lost the post. I can recreate the reply if you want, but I'm a bit busy now, so let me know if you're still interested before I do so and I'll reply later on.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm still interested, but wont take it as a duck if you opt not to.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is not a coincidence that the most internally liberal socities generally come to dominate the world

[/ QUOTE ]

So the nazis were intenally liberal?

Hmm.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed the part where the Nazis came to dominate the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on, you must at least concede they came pretty damn close.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they didn't. And to answer your original question, yes Germany was more internally economically liberal during the 1930s than the United States, in that Hitler correctly allowed wages and prices to fall rather than maintaining artificially elevated wages and prices, as Roosevelt did in the U.S., causing huge unemployment. But other than that, Hitler's economic policy wasn't that much better than Roosevelt's. In fact, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Roosevelt were all pretty close to each other ideologically and policy wise. When their socialist economic policies were wreaking terrible damage, Hitler blamed the Jews and Roosevelt blamed the capitalists. Roosevelt's top economic edvisor was a Marxist who wrote glowingly of Joseph Stalin while his policies were starving millions of Ukranians to death. As late as 1940 Roosevelt was still publicly praising Mussolini's economic policies. Mussolini, Hitler and Roosevelt all resorted to corporatist (i.e. fascist) control of their national economies through government-enforced cartelization of industries (i.e. nominally private owners heavily controlled and regulated by the government), whereas under Stalin there was national control of industries through nationalization, the outright government ownership of industry. All called for autarchic national self-sufficiency and heavy control and restrictions on international trade, including government managed international barter replacing international free trade based on the gold standard.

But really there was never any real question of these countries coming to dominate the world. None could match the productive capacities of the United States and its enormous capital stock built on hundreds of years of much freer internal markets.

The world comes to be dominated culturally by internally liberal societies because liberal economic policy leads to exponentially greater capital accumulation and productivity. But these nations also have governments, which are inherently violent and aggressive. Having much more internal wealth to plunder to finance international aggression allows such nations to externalize the costs of much grander imperialist adventures. This has been the story with the Romans, the Spanish, the British, and of late, the United States.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

LALawPoker,

These two quotes seem inconsistent:

[ QUOTE ]
But there are certain things (i.e. theft, rape, murder) that are so extreme where it's simply wholly unreasonable to think there could ever exist enough mitigation where someone with the human condition could rightfully conclude it is good.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well what do YOU think? Just because some society somewhere has concluded something, that makes the conclusion correct? I thought the whole point of progress and assessment was that we can correct our mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you conceding that the first one is incorrect?


[ QUOTE ]
It's really amazing how often what is "moral" is also to your rational best interest.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't seem at all the case to me. I think you're mistakenly linking an individual's best interest with society's best interest.

[ QUOTE ]
Look at the Middle East for example. You know, [censored] Iran, [censored] Iraq. They're archaic [censored] whose best interest I couldn't care less about. But I support leaving them the hell alone not because I give two [censored] about some Iranian's wellbeing, but because I know that in the long run intervention will do me more harm than good (even if my superficial instincts tell *me* to hit the nuke button).

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh, you seem like a nice guy (no offense).

[ QUOTE ]
people who are poor are more likely to die and less likely to reproduce.

[/ QUOTE ]
Poor people reproduce more.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is not a coincidence that the most internally liberal socities generally come to dominate the world

[/ QUOTE ]

So the nazis were intenally liberal?

Hmm.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed the part where the Nazis came to dominate the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on, you must at least concede they came pretty damn close.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they didn't. And to answer your original question, yes Germany was more internally economically liberal during the 1930s than the United States, in that Hitler correctly allowed wages and prices to fall rather than maintaining artificially elevated wages and prices, as Roosevelt did in the U.S., causing huge unemployment. But other than that, Hitler's economic policy wasn't that much better than Roosevelt's. In fact, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Roosevelt were all pretty close to each other ideologically and policy wise. When their socialist economic policies were wreaking terrible damage, Hitler blamed the Jews and Roosevelt blamed the capitalists. Roosevelt's top economic edvisor was a Marxist who wrote glowingly of Joseph Stalin while his policies were starving millions of Ukranians to death. As late as 1940 Roosevelt was still publicly praising Mussolini's economic policies. Mussolini, Hitler and Roosevelt all resorted to corporatist (i.e. fascist) control of their national economies through government-enforced cartelization of industries (i.e. nominally private owners heavily controlled and regulated by the government), whereas under Stalin there was national control of industries through nationalization, the outright government ownership of industry. All called for autarchic national self-sufficiency and heavy control and restrictions on international trade, including government managed international barter replacing international free trade based on the gold standard.

But really there was never any real question of these countries coming to dominate the world. None could match the productive capacities of the United States and its enormous capital stock built on hundreds of years of much freer internal markets.

The world comes to be dominated culturally by internally liberal societies because liberal economic policy leads to exponentially greater capital accumulation and productivity. But these nations also have governments, which are inherently violent and aggressive. Having much more internal wealth to plunder to finance international aggression allows such nations to externalize the costs of much grander imperialist adventures. This has been the story with the Romans, the Spanish, the British, and of late, the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why did you edit out the Dutch?

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
LALawPoker,

These two quotes seem inconsistent:

[ QUOTE ]
But there are certain things (i.e. theft, rape, murder) that are so extreme where it's simply wholly unreasonable to think there could ever exist enough mitigation where someone with the human condition could rightfully conclude it is good.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well what do YOU think? Just because some society somewhere has concluded something, that makes the conclusion correct? I thought the whole point of progress and assessment was that we can correct our mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you conceding that the first one is incorrect?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Far from it. People can, have, and always will make mistakes. The pleasant side, though, is that we can, have, and always will (tend to) learn from our mistakes.

If you disagree with my first quote, then I suppose you're willing to explain to me why societal norms such as rape, theft, or murder could be good?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's really amazing how often what is "moral" is also to your rational best interest.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't seem at all the case to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're confused by a lot people (think: religious zealots) telling you things are "immoral" when they in fact are not. I reserve the term "moral" for things that I actually believe would be -EV in all situations. And even still, "moral" is an empty word to me. What's "immoral" is immoral because it can be demonstrated to be bad in its own right; not because it "is" some word. By definition (my definition anyways) something could not possibly be moral if it wasn't to my practical best interest.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're mistakenly linking an individual's best interest with society's best interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last time I checked, society was nothing more than a group of individuals; all with slightly different preferences and concerns. Where's the mistake?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look at the Middle East for example. You know, [censored] Iran, [censored] Iraq. They're archaic [censored] whose best interest I couldn't care less about. But I support leaving them the hell alone not because I give two [censored] about some Iranian's wellbeing, but because I know that in the long run intervention will do me more harm than good (even if my superficial instincts tell *me* to hit the nuke button).

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh, you seem like a nice guy (no offense).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm honest. Would you rather I say I care about some Iranian I've never met when in fact I don't?

And LOL: Re-reading my quote there, I actually meant to put the *'s around the first 'me' in that sentence. The emphasis looks so ridiculous where I put it. But hopefully the intended point was not convoluted.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
people who are poor are more likely to die and less likely to reproduce.

[/ QUOTE ]
Poor people reproduce more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence, why I said it's a big long shot that such is actually the case. You took out the "if" part of my response that I included in parenthesis. Thanks for cherry picking a portion of a quote that's silly and irrelevant to the discussion anyways. Though, in your case you seem like someone who is sincerely looking for answers and honest debate, and I doubt it was done maliciously.