David Sklansky is an ACist
 

I'm calling you out, pal.

I don't have any specific evidence really. It's sort of like trying to explain why you called with 10 high and won the pot. But I'm pretty sure it's true, and feeling like posting about it. I've had odd assumptions about 2p2 posters before, and usually ended up being right. So maybe this is one of them.

First of all, he believes in logical truth. The man's life is dedicated to being logical. And to me, AC is the logical destination. So in a way it's almost far-fetched (*to me*) that Sklansky wouldn't agree that government is bad.

I have the vague theory that he is (myopically) only interested in discussing things logically, but ultimately he believes it leads to the conclusion that the state is interference. He just isn't willing to start off with that assumption because he refuses to discredit himself (in some people's eyes) by claiming a broad belief. And also he probably believes he does the broad belief better justice by not claiming it anyways.

Now, Sklansky might not "be" an ACist. I don't think he really cares, or is as passionate about it as someone like Borodog. But I think he would agree that most of the things he talks about are ultimately things that support the AC arguments.

That being said, I fully expect to be laughed at for posting this. I also don't expect David would admit it even if I'm right. So this thread is mostly useless. But I'm so sure that I'm right (and have been for a few days now -- DAYS, I say) that I couldn't help but post it.

Liberty and justice for Sklansky.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

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

I also believe that he may believe (erroneously) that prisoner's dilemmas present some sort of problem for the market that necessitates a government.

Lastly, I'm not sure that David thinks that the initiation of force is bad.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
And to me, AC is the logical destination.

[/ QUOTE ]
Starting from what premises? I'd like to discuss this notion, because AC is no more "logical" than other political preferences, IMO.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Starting from what premises?

[/ QUOTE ]

Human nature.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to discuss this notion, because AC is no more "logical" than other political preferences, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well sure. But most political preferences eventually expose some bias that is contradictory to what other human beings fundamentally value. I'm yet to see one for AC, other than the bias that human nature is good.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that David thinks that the initiation of force is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

He might not think it's bad in the sense that he has confined himself to an ideology that assumes/knows it's bad; but I think we'd be hard pressed to find a Sklansky thread where he conluded that the initiation of force was good.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that David thinks that the initiation of force is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

He might not think it's bad in the sense that he has confined himself to an ideology that assumes/knows it's bad; but I think we'd be hard pressed to find a Sklansky thread where he conluded that the initiation of force was good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's stated before that, for example, the starving can steal bread (which I agree with), but I'm not sure he's taken it any further than that. I.e., that just because it's "ok" in some sense to steal bread when you are starving does not mean that you don't owe the owner compensation later (unless he forgives you the debt, which he almost certainly would, but that's beside the point).

There really is a lot to libertarian ethical theory that never even gets discussed around here, even with all of our wrangling.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

Ya, often when people "disagree" with libertarianism, they maybe just haven't considered certain extensions of the libertarian position. Probed thoroughly, it's pretty incredible how many people eventually change their minds.

And that's why I find it pretty interesting that David's musings here seem to support the idea that AC is "right," even though he might not be willing to admit that.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

Also, just to be clear: My bold assumption in this thread is that David is *consciously* aware of the benefits of AC/libertarianism (but just hasn't admitted it, for whatever reasons). I think he knows where his logic is leading. I just think he cares more about the logic (as it relates to his ability to unravel it) than the abstract "cause," so he talks about it differently than people who would admittedly label themselves as libertarians.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

What does it even mean to be an ACist?

To me that means a moral/ethical position. Any such is mainly subjective and therefore I don't see how you can try to predict that from Sklansky's logical arguments. If you want to guess at all you should base yourself more on what you know of David's feelings/position on morality and ethics, than his reasoning or his support for reasonable arguments.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
the benefits of AC/libertarianism

[/ QUOTE ]

Benefits for whom?

There is no inherent benefit or negative*1.

Those two concepts only make sense when the facts (that which is to be considered beneficial or negative*1) are being compared to the purpose(s) of purposeful entities. So I ask, benefits for whom?



*1 - "negative", as the opposite of "beneficial", use your own term here if you prefer

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]

Well sure. But most political preferences eventually expose some bias that is contradictory to what other human beings fundamentally value. I'm yet to see one for AC, other than the bias that human nature is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do human beings fundamentally value? What is the basis for proposed bias that human nature is good, and how do one define good in this expression?

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

Why do you think morality is subjective?

Do you think it's just really good luck that makes it so eating broccoli or hugging your mom is rarely considered "immoral"?

"Morals" require underlying logic. They are either good for tangible reasons, or they die out.

To address your initial question though, I'm not sure what it means to "be" an ACist. I don't really consider myself one. I'm just some drunk [censored] minding my own business, drinking coffee to try to stay up for a while and get back on a good sleep cycle. Does that count? I figure David is probably the same way. But my point (to whatever extent I have one) in the OP is not merely that David's logic supports AC but that he is actively aware of where his logic leads (even if maybe he doesn't really care enough to label himself). I just think he is a closet anarcho-capitalist, haha.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

The burden of proof is layed out here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
What does it even mean to be an ACist?

[/ QUOTE ]


An ACist is essentially the same as a voluntaryist. From the voluntaryist (V for Voluntary) facebook group:

[ QUOTE ]
This group is for people who support voluntary human relationships in their ideas and also in their actions.

This group is not for people who are authoritarian either in their ideas or in their actions.


Frequent questions:
Q: If I vote, am I an authoritarian?
A: Most people who vote are authoritarians in their ideas (statists), however writing on a piece of paper is itself not an act of violent aggression. For example: anyone can declare war on a country but it really doesn't matter much. What matters is what you *do*.

Q: I support voluntary interactions in most cases, but I believe there are times when coercive force is justified, outside of direct self-defense. Am I a voluntaryist?
A: Voluntarism is a moral principle. Moral principles are universal statements. Either you support the principle universally or you can not be said to hold it. If you hold that violent aggression is justified in some cases then you are an authoritarian because you think that the moral principle does not exist!

[/ QUOTE ]
(I'd link this, but I'm not sure it's allowed)



Also, the Fundamentals of Voluntaryism
http://www.voluntaryist.com/fundamen...troduction.php

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it's just really good luck that makes it so eating broccoli or hugging your mom is rarely considered "immoral"?

"Morals" require underlying logic. They are either good for tangible reasons, or they die out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. Through evolution, it's the law of the jungle. If I'm stronger than you I can take you down and own all the women in the area. How does that resemble morals?

Moreover, viruses and memes don't have to do good to anyone to survive. They survive because they can. Religion is a perfect example. So is the common cold.

The ever advancing moral zeitgeist doesn't evolve because it's good for us and reproduces by selection, we make it evolve the use of reasoning and communication.
We choose what is best for us, for our interests/purposes, within a lifetime. Because we are intelligent enough to do so. We design our moral/ethical code. It doesn't evolve on it's own by a process of natural selection. And to the extent that it does, it doesn't "do it" for the "global good", or even the good of the majority.

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.

This is the main reason why there are different moral/ethical codes within the human population.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And to me, AC is the logical destination.

[/ QUOTE ]
Starting from what premises?

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-aggression axiom

Natural Rights

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

Some stuff from the linked website in quotes:

[ QUOTE ]
A government order cannot mend a broken leg, but it can command the mutilation of a sound body. It cannot bestow intelligence, but it can forbid the use of intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even know what this means. A government order can't break a leg, but it can give the command to mend a broken leg is just as true.

And you certainly can bestow most accepted definitions of intelligence on someone, it is a training thing.

[ QUOTE ]
It is impossible to "wage a war for peace" or "fight politics by becoming political."

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone sure loves their play on words, both historically and logically speaking this statement is highly debatable.

[ QUOTE ]
Neither can a person be compelled to do anything against his or her will, for each person is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is extremely debatable using what we currently know in psychology, and shows a very simplified view of how humans make decisions. How is AC going to deal with the fact that humans tend to follow - regardless of their own moral stance of their actions (A principle which has shown consistency across all known cultures, genders and personality types)?

[ QUOTE ]
A government might destroy one's body or property, but it cannot injure one's philosophy of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

The logic value of the statement also remains exactly the same if you exchange government with 'My neighbour', and again, I don't know what this means, I'm quite certain that the government can influences philosophy of life.

I'm actually fairly certain that some people become voluntaryists because of their governments.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, and more important from the voluntaryist point of view, is what it does to the person wielding the power: it corrupts that person's character.

[/ QUOTE ]

An interesting view and utterly confusing. What is the definition of corruption here?

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, I happen think your idea of morality is pretty ridiculous, but I tried to be polite. Since you'll eventually realize you have a losing hand, you might want to be polite too. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
If I'm stronger than you I can take you down and own all the women in the area.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a good thing we, as an intelligent species, realized that we don't really like the idea of someone stronger coming by and "taking us down," so we apply social consequence to restrict the behavior. The (social and natural) evolutionary ramification ensues. But it stems from a belief that has tangible merit. That taking people down because you're physically stronger is not productive for a society of human beings.

[ QUOTE ]
How does that resemble morals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I don't think it's "morally good" to take you down and steal your chics? I'm not really sure what you're asking.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, viruses and memes don't have to do good to anyone to survive. They survive because they can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does all of existence really revolve around human beings? A virus doesn't have to do "good" in the way we interpret "good" to survive if it is equipped to handle our attempts to kill it. If we couple kill the HIV virus, wouldn't we?

[ QUOTE ]
Religion is a perfect example. So is the common cold.

[/ 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 ]
We design our moral/ethical code.

[/ 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 ]
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 ]
This is the main reason why there are different moral/ethical codes within the human population.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that bias is the reason.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, I happen think your idea of morality is pretty ridiculous, but I tried to be polite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Always good to be polite, if you can manage =)

[ QUOTE ]
Since you'll eventually realize you have a losing hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I doubt it is me with the losing hand here, but if you can show this to me I'd be much grateful.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a good thing we, as an intelligent species, realized that we don't really like the idea of someone stronger coming by and "taking us down," so we apply social consequence to restrict the behavior. The (social and natural) evolutionary ramification ensues. But it stems from a belief that has tangible merit. That taking people down because you're physically stronger is not productive for a society of human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

This being a good thing or not, would depend on your moral position, but in any case, the point is that it's been designed, it didn't come about by a natural process of evolution, but by an artificial one: culture. *1

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How does that resemble morals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I don't think it's "morally good" to take you down and steal your chics? I'm not really sure what you're asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was merely pointing out that your idea that morals today evolve MAINLY by a process of natural selection and thus natural evolution, is wrong. The selection process is mostly artificial, and so is the evolution process.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, viruses and memes don't have to do good to anyone to survive. They survive because they can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does all of existence really revolve around human beings? A virus doesn't have to do "good" in the way we interpret "good" to survive if it is equipped to handle our attempts to kill it. If we couple kill the HIV virus, wouldn't we?

[/ 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. I thought about using another term at the time, but I thought what I said next would clarify what I meant. Maybe it didn't.

[ 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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
We design our moral/ethical code.

[/ 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. Just like we do with any other cultural idea. *1

I don't think I got your point here, if there was one.

[ 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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is the main reason why there are different moral/ethical codes within the human population.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that bias is the reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

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





*1 - Here I'm using the word "culture" in the evolutionary sense, to mean the knowledge, thoughts, experiences, and techonology, that we pass on from generation to generation, that is not included in our genes.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
the point is that it's been designed, it didn't come about by a natural process of evolution, but by an artificial one: culture. *1

[/ 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." If I grill a steak, bake an apple pie, and wave an American flag, what exactly is driving my action? Why is the desire to pass down knowledge to future generations not "included in our genes"? What exactly are you saying? Do aliens sometimes make decisions for me that I'm not aware of?

In any event, this semantical tangent is sort of irrelevant to the point. Whether you want to call it natural selection or social selection (and I already said it's both) or whatever, 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.

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 ]
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 ]
[ 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 ]
[ 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 ]
[ 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 ]
[ 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.

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


EDIT: This post is so long that you MUST be a pro by now.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

this thread went exactly where I thought it would.

Libertarian ethics are selected for pretty strongly, both via biological and cultural evolution (I.e. The market). It is not a coincidence that the most internally liberal socities generally come to dominate the world (nor is it a coincidence that the most internally liberal have also become the most externally aggressive and imperialistic; but that's another topic).

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ 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.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And to me, AC is the logical destination.

[/ QUOTE ]
Starting from what premises?

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-aggression axiom

Natural Rights

[/ QUOTE ]
Awesome, thanks. Is there anything else to add? Do other ACist agree that AC follows entirely from these two premises? Before I write a long debunking of the "AC is the most logical" position, I want to be clear on the basic premises.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And to me, AC is the logical destination.

[/ QUOTE ]
Starting from what premises?

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-aggression axiom

Natural Rights

[/ QUOTE ]
Awesome, thanks. Is there anything else to add? Do other ACist agree that AC follows entirely from these two premises? Before I write a long debunking of the "AC is the most logical" position, I want to be clear on the basic premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Debunk away. I trust your debunking will include, at least implicitly, which political/economic system actually does logically follow from the preceding premises.

Edit: No, not all ACists even accept natural rights. Some, for example, support AC purely based upon social utilitarian grounds.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

I think what he was going for was to recap history based on the order in which the events actually occurred.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it's just really good luck that makes it so eating broccoli or hugging your mom is rarely considered "immoral"?

"Morals" require underlying logic. They are either good for tangible reasons, or they die out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. Through evolution, it's the law of the jungle. If I'm stronger than you I can take you down and own all the women in the area. How does that resemble morals?

Moreover, viruses and memes don't have to do good to anyone to survive. They survive because they can. Religion is a perfect example. So is the common cold.

The ever advancing moral zeitgeist doesn't evolve because it's good for us and reproduces by selection, we make it evolve the use of reasoning and communication.
We choose what is best for us, for our interests/purposes, within a lifetime. Because we are intelligent enough to do so. We design our moral/ethical code. It doesn't evolve on it's own by a process of natural selection. And to the extent that it does, it doesn't "do it" for the "global good", or even the good of the majority.

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.

This is the main reason why there are different moral/ethical codes within the human population.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is all wrong and demonstrates a pretty fundamental misunderstanding, IMO. The reason "kill or be killed" is the law of the jungle is because its the only strategy lions and tigers and bears (oh my?) can come up with. Other animals, other organisms, come up with very different strategies. Keep in mind, the goal is to win, not to kill everything else. Just to win. Just to get as many copies of yourself out there as possible. This is MOST CERTAINLY not always best accomplished by "kill or be killed." Humans do not behave this way, at least not with anything even resembling a "law" or "rule." We cooperate, because, in our environment, this is a selected for strategy. Human nature is cooperative, its altrustic. Sure, its also violent at times. 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. Nowadays, I don't even WANT to kill or rape anyone, so thats why I don't do it, but the impetus for my desire is that no one wants to hang out with a killer or a rapist, and its tough to make it as a lone human.

We are absolutely NOT a wild collection of bloodthirsty animals being barely held in check by the yoke of government or law.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's a good thing we, as an intelligent species, realized that we don't really like the idea of someone stronger coming by and "taking us down," so we apply social consequence to restrict the behavior.

[/ 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 ]
But it stems from a belief that has tangible merit. That taking people down because you're physically stronger is not productive for a society of human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]
But it may be productive for a particular physically stronger individual.

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please explain what you mean by "problem" and by "nature will correct it". Example?

[ 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 ]
I don't think this is correct. Is there a core of culinary preference that all humans would share without bias? We all have slightly different tastes and following this logic would lead to the conclusion that there is a "correct" sense of taste when it comes to food. Similarly with art, music and film.

[ QUOTE ]
"Morals" require underlying logic. They are either good for tangible reasons, or they die out.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you give an example of a moral and a tangible reason why it's "good"?

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ 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.

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think it's just really good luck that makes it so eating broccoli or hugging your mom is rarely considered "immoral"?

"Morals" require underlying logic. They are either good for tangible reasons, or they die out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is ridiculous. Through evolution, it's the law of the jungle. If I'm stronger than you I can take you down and own all the women in the area. How does that resemble morals?

Moreover, viruses and memes don't have to do good to anyone to survive. They survive because they can. Religion is a perfect example. So is the common cold.

The ever advancing moral zeitgeist doesn't evolve because it's good for us and reproduces by selection, we make it evolve the use of reasoning and communication.
We choose what is best for us, for our interests/purposes, within a lifetime. Because we are intelligent enough to do so. We design our moral/ethical code. It doesn't evolve on it's own by a process of natural selection. And to the extent that it does, it doesn't "do it" for the "global good", or even the good of the majority.

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.

This is the main reason why there are different moral/ethical codes within the human population.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is all wrong and demonstrates a pretty fundamental misunderstanding, IMO. The reason "kill or be killed" is the law of the jungle is because its the only strategy lions and tigers and bears (oh my?) can come up with. Other animals, other organisms, come up with very different strategies. Keep in mind, the goal is to win, not to kill everything else. Just to win. Just to get as many copies of yourself out there as possible. This is MOST CERTAINLY not always best accomplished by "kill or be killed." Humans do not behave this way, at least not with anything even resembling a "law" or "rule." We cooperate, because, in our environment, this is a selected for strategy. Human nature is cooperative, its altrustic. Sure, its also violent at times. 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. Nowadays, I don't even WANT to kill or rape anyone, so thats why I don't do it, but the impetus for my desire is that no one wants to hang out with a killer or a rapist, and its tough to make it as a lone human.

We are absolutely NOT a wild collection of bloodthirsty animals being barely held in check by the yoke of government or law.

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

Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
 

Did the Enlightenment come before land owners became kings and consolidated power?

It seems bizarre to make such claims about libertarian ethics leading to prosperity, when the most advanced civilizations on earth have been built on the centralization of power. Rome, England, in fact most of Europe, China - centralized governments and power hierarchies (such as monarchies) preceded widespread development.

Did the modern age of human rights come before or after widespread prosperity under stable governments?

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.