Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]

The fact that human history is so violent, both on a micro and a macro level should be evidence that "applying social consequence" is not nearly effective enough to stop such things.
I used to fight in middle school, not by choice, but because I'd get jumped by kids with too much testosterone. There were no negative "social consequences" for these kids and I couldn't change that fact if I wanted to.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the main reasons why schools in the US suck so much is that they put kids in these bizarre situations. First off you are lumped together with kids from families you have never met before, then forced to sit still for hours at a time (the exact opposite of what kids want to do), then you are given adult over seers who are not related to the kids and rotate on a yearly basis. Of course there are no (or not enough) social consequences in schools, the schools themselves are set up extremely poorly.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ 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.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Government is a good "game theory solution" IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The fact that human history is so violent, both on a micro and a macro level should be evidence that "applying social consequence" is not nearly effective enough to stop such things.
I used to fight in middle school, not by choice, but because I'd get jumped by kids with too much testosterone. There were no negative "social consequences" for these kids and I couldn't change that fact if I wanted to.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the main reasons why schools in the US suck so much is that they put kids in these bizarre situations. First off you are lumped together with kids from families you have never met before, then forced to sit still for hours at a time (the exact opposite of what kids want to do), then you are given adult over seers who are not related to the kids and rotate on a yearly basis. Of course there are no (or not enough) social consequences in schools, the schools themselves are set up extremely poorly.

[/ QUOTE ]
So social consequences don't prevent violence in any institution which is set up poorly? Or any situation in which you're confronted with people from a family you've never met? Or a combination of the two? If I felt that schools were the only places in which violence occurs in human society then I might say you have a point. But like I said, human history is violent in general, not just in schools.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Government is a good "game theory solution" IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[/ QUOTE ]
Efficiency, organisation, security, life quality, etc.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Efficiency, organisation, security, life quality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not much detail. Do you believe that government is a correct game theoretical response to social ills, or is game theory not part of your consideration? Do you believe that current forms of government maximize efficiency, security, and quality of life?

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]
clever boy.



[/ QUOTE ]

Troll.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

You replied exactly as I thought you would...

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Efficiency, organisation, security, life quality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not much detail. Do you believe that government is a correct game theoretical response to social ills, or is game theory not part of your consideration? Do you believe that current forms of government maximize efficiency, security, and quality of life?

[/ QUOTE ]
I just find it interesting to see people saying that we don't need government, because humans naturally arrive at correct strategies for optimizing society. Why can't government be one of these strategies? I didn't make that comment with the intention of giving a lengthy and detailed explination, just to point out why I find this line of argument odd.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

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.