David Sklansky is an ACist

[AlexM]

[ 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.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

[ 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 ]

There is no mistake- the jump from this statement to 'what is best for society is best for the individual' (or vice versa) is the mistake.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]
You said "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". It sounds like you're saying that it's impossible for murder, theft or rape to be considered a positive value within a society. Now you're saying "mistakes happen", which means it is possible and seems to contradict what you said before. That's how I read it, maybe you meant something different.

[ QUOTE ]

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 ]
Ok. Society X is comprised of whites and a smaller population of blacks. The more powerful whites hate the blacks and take up the occasional practice of murdering them. They consider this "good", because they want to keep the blacks fearful of them so they wont have to put up with treating people they hate as equals or with sharing more of their resources.


[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
So does this mean it was "moral" for us to cheat and push around the native americans whenever we wanted to settle new land? Also if you're defining moral as "in your best interest" then how is it "amazing" that the two often coincide? They can't escape coinciding if you define one as the other.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
My point is that a given individual may not care whether something (such as stealing) is beneficial for society as a whole or not. It's beneficial to him, because it makes him money.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
I was just teasing. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry for not quoting the whole thing. I guess I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I also didn't realize it wasn't relevant to the discussion. You said "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."
So are you saying it would be selected against in an AC society, but not in a current Western society? Why? Or if not then what are you saying?

[madnak]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, I think that may be the case. But human reason has resulted in the wrong conclusion before, so it seems dangerous to suggest we rely on human reason to get the "right" answer in the present.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

I wouldn't go that far. What's amazing is that, given how little people have to gain from being horrible to their fellow human beings, so many people go ahead and do it anyhow.

[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, you're right. I should have been more careful. Obviously, if theft didn't exist at all, that would be ideal (under reasonable circumstances). But I don't think every instance of theft is bad, and I think many instances of theft are +EV for the individual committing the crime (it stands to reason that the state of security is going to reach some equilibrium in which it's -EV for most people to attempt theft, but the cost of making it -EV for everyone isn't worthwhile).

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

More likely to die I'll give you, less likely to reproduce I won't. I don't think theft (or crime in general) is the only reason poverty is selected against, just a big one. And as for western societies, I think poverty is selected against but selective processes are not allowed to operate (and here I'll jump on the party line and say "because of government").

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a fine general concept. To say that there are no exceptions, even in a utopia-world, seems hard to justify. Ultimately, under capitalism, there are different mechanisms preventing the much-feared collapse into inevitable polarization of wealth. Arguably some of those mechanisms aren't even necessary under pure laissez-faire capitalism, but in the real world I think they're all relevant. Even if only for psychological reasons - by maintaining that it's fine for a starving person to steal a loaf of bread, we prevent the use of force being justified under some false banner of "capitalism." Which is happening more and more often, particularly in parts of the world where the concept is poorly understood.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ 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 ]

There is no mistake- the jump from this statement to 'what is best for society is best for the individual' (or vice versa) is the mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would what's best for one human not be best for a collection of humans?

Or more accurately, why would what's best for one human not ever be best for the entire collection of humans when you ALSO consider the value to the one?

You can steal ten dollars from me. I guess what's worse for me (- $10) is "best" for the collection of everyone else (+ $10) in some myopic sense. But since the cost to me immediately equals the gain to the collection of everyone else, the action is on one level neutral neutral (since I matter too) and then reduced to whether or not the side effects can be shown to be good or bad. And it's pretty easy to show it's bad in one sense, since if you didn't steal from me, you might have made someone else a really delicious sandwich to get your 10 dollars. I really only give a [censored] cause you took my money; but it's true that one side effect is now that guy eats tuna. And no one likes tuna.

You can say it might be good in the sense that you know the $10 matters more to someone else (someone poor) than it does to me. And it can go back and forth for hours. But the whole point of libertarian "ethics" is that we believe private property owners will always make better decisions for how to use their property, and ultimately the bad (of stealing) will outweigh the good in essentially all circumstances.

You can keep thinking there is some way to magically make more people better off by encouraging people to act in a way that is not to their best interest. But it is clear to me that such belief is terribly destructive, if maybe well intentioned.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
You said "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". It sounds like you're saying that it's impossible for murder, theft or rape to be considered a positive value within a society. Now you're saying "mistakes happen", which means it is possible and seems to contradict what you said before. That's how I read it, maybe you meant something different.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key word (in the first quote) is "rightfully." If someone concludes something different, I think he is wrong (and thus not entitled to act on such belief).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]Ok. Society X is comprised of whites and a smaller population of blacks. The more powerful whites hate the blacks and take up the occasional practice of murdering them. They consider this "good", because they want to keep the blacks fearful of them so they wont have to put up with treating people they hate as equals or with sharing more of their resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think this is a rational conclusion on the part of the whites? Wouldn't you agree that this is a very BAD decision, and in the end, the white people will be costing themselves valuable contribution, merely because skin color means something to them?

Moreover, why would any black choose to be a part of this society? If this is the best you can do, I think you ought just agree with me.

[ QUOTE ]
So does this mean it was "moral" for us to cheat and push around the native americans whenever we wanted to settle new land?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an odd example since the native Americans did not believe in land ownership. If they did, and were willing to barter for the land, the problem likely never would have arose.

But sure, in general, taking people's property involuntarily is very immoral.

[ QUOTE ]
Also if you're defining moral as "in your best interest" then how is it "amazing" that the two often coincide? They can't escape coinciding if you define one as the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. When I said it was "amazing" I meant it with dry sarcasm.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that a given individual may not care whether something (such as stealing) is beneficial for society as a whole or not. It's beneficial to him, because it makes him money.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that what's best for him *will* be best for society when all actions are voluntary. You don't make money without providing some good or service that someone else (with a different preference than your own) values more highly than what he gives to you.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry for not quoting the whole thing. I guess I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I also didn't realize it wasn't relevant to the discussion. You said "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."
So are you saying it would be selected against in an AC society, but not in a current Western society? Why? Or if not then what are you saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was basically just confused by madnak's idea that poverty is selected against through theft. If it is somehow selected against naturally, then the only reason could possibly be that something about poverty makes people less likely to live or reproduce (and I don't think either is the case in current Western society, so it must only be selected against through social and not natural evolution).

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
But human reason has resulted in the wrong conclusion before, so it seems dangerous to suggest we rely on human reason to get the "right" answer in the present.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused why people keep coming back to this. If not for reason, then what prey tell *should* we rely on to form our conclusions? If all of human reason indicates that theft is bad in all circumstances, where is the magic treasure chest that holds the answer that says "sometimes theft can be good"?

Keep in mind that all the mistakes you and others point to are mistakes that didn't follow the conclusion that violation of property is always bad. Since some poker player somewhere has surely folded pocket aces preflop in a ring game, should I relinquish the belief that such action is always bad?

[tame_deuces]

I was merely pointing out that defining society as 'a group of individuals with etc.' does not logically mean that was is best for one individual is best for society (and the vice versa statement is neither logically true).

For instance, if you and 3 friends go to the cinema, and you really want so see 'Bloody Massacre 3' and your 3 friends want to see 'Fluffy Puffy the Cuddly Teddy', then what is best for you is not best for the group. And likewise that is best for the majority of the group is not best for you - though you may concede to it because the notion of a group of friends going to the movies together is the desired outcome of the evening - but that's more democracy than it is individualism, doing it the other way around sounds more tyrannical than anything else.

Now if you can somehow get everybody to think the same way, then your a reformed version of your statement can start to be true. Some of us don't think such societies are possible on a large scale, and empirically we certainly have the data on our side.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But human reason has resulted in the wrong conclusion before, so it seems dangerous to suggest we rely on human reason to get the "right" answer in the present.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused why people keep coming back to this. If not for reason, then what prey tell *should* we rely on to form our conclusions? If all of human reason indicates that theft is bad in all circumstances, where is the magic treasure chest that holds the answer that says "sometimes theft can be good"?

Keep in mind that all the mistakes you and others point to are mistakes that didn't follow the conclusion that violation of property is always bad. Since some poker player somewhere has surely folded pocket aces preflop in a ring game, should I relinquish the belief that such action is always bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a very big difference between something that has been proved mathematically and something that seems like a reasonable conclusion based on certain premises.

Predicting the outcome of a well-defined game with a small number of variables and a smaller number of steps isn't on the level of predicting the outcome of a system involving literally trillions of variables and elements that aren't even finite.

And folding AA pre-flop might be a good idea in some circumstances. Say you're playing limit. A certain opponent tends to reach quick conclusions and stick to those conclusions come hell or high water. You expect to play many games with this person in the future. You're on the button, he calls and everyone else folds to you. You raise, and he re-raises. You know he's trying to scare you off your hand, and you know that if you fold, he'll think you're easily bullied and it will take an act of God to convince him otherwise. But you can also tell that he doesn't have much, and he'll collapse if you push him. The mileage you can get by deceiving him is much greater than the bets you can win in this hand. So fold, give his ego a boost, and exploit the [censored] out of his misconception that you're weak.

Or say you're in a friendly game and people are starting to resent you for winning too much. Maybe you know your opponent is cheating, looking at your cards, and you want to [censored] with him. Maybe you don't know they're aces yourself, because you bet someone you could beat them even without looking at your hole cards. Maybe an insane terrorist told you to throw this hand - or else he'll blow up the world!

Absolute statements suck.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a very big difference between something that has been proved mathematically and something that seems like a reasonable conclusion based on certain premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the difference? What is "math" (as it relates to the poker example) if not merely a tool for reaching and demonstrating a logical conclusion? The point is, if you can demonstrate that one action is good in all instances (however you are able to demonstrate it), then that action is good in all instances!

[ QUOTE ]
Predicting the outcome of a well-defined game with a small number of variables and a smaller number of steps isn't on the level of predicting the outcome of a system involving literally trillions of variables and elements that aren't even finite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing you're not a great poker player. If we could see each other's cards, then I suppose you could say it is a "well-defined game with a small number of variables and a smaller number of steps" (and even then it's iffy, in some ways). But the nature of imperfect information makes poker a very complicated game with infinite variables. And that's why the analogy is so good. Because of all the unique variables, in almost all instances the answer is "it depends." I wouldn't tell you it's "wrong" to raise a certain hand from a certain position, because so much depends on your unique assessment of the exact situation at a unique time (i.e. your ability to play later streets, things you know about the people behind you, etc.). "It depends." But still, there are *some* instances, where all you need to say is "I had AA preflop in a ring game and someone pushed in front of me" or, I suppose "I had KK and 900 chips, 5 people left in a sng, blinds 200-400, I'm first to act" and I wouldn't need any other information; because I know it couldn't possibly mitigate a good decision that was anything but call/push (respectively). In life, things like theft, murder, and rape can be demonstrated to be -EV all the time. If you said "I raped someone because X" I wouldn't care what the X was. It's impossible that it was good. It's always a mistake. So, while I don't like the idea of confining myself to rigid moral views (in the same way I don't like the idea of thinking it is always "good" or "bad" to act a certain way in some generic poker situation), there are *some* actions that just will never be good, even if I evaluate the unique situation in its own right.

The broader point being, life and politics is complicated. There is so much going on, and indeed so much *MISINFORMATION* available that it is not particularly easy to make good decisions. So, if what you eventually conclude is that you support an action that you know pretty firmly to be wrong in all instances, you should reconsider exactly what led you to this conclusion, and consider that maybe you made a mistake. David, if you're reading this, maybe this would be a fun concept for good ole Baye's Theorem.

If we didn't live in a world where the term "moral" was tossed around so loosely, I think my point might be easier to swallow. So forget the word. Do you think stealing is ever +EV? Please give me an example of when it can be.


[ QUOTE ]
And folding AA pre-flop might be a good idea in some circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a ring game? Preposterous. But I'll read your reasoning anyways.

[ QUOTE ]
Say you're playing limit. A certain opponent tends to reach quick conclusions and stick to those conclusions come hell or high water. You expect to play many games with this person in the future. You're on the button, he calls and everyone else folds to you. You raise, and he re-raises. You know he's trying to scare you off your hand, and you know that if you fold, he'll think you're easily bullied and it will take an act of God to convince him otherwise. But you can also tell that he doesn't have much, and he'll collapse if you push him. The mileage you can get by deceiving him is much greater than the bets you can win in this hand. So fold, give his ego a boost, and exploit the [censored] out of his misconception that you're weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I thought, preposterous. Why would you not reserve this play for the times you have the same read on your opponent, but are weaker yourself? What is so special about going for this at this particular time that makes it so you can't wait for AK to do it? Why is this particular hand so likely to stick in your opponents head, as opposed to the times you (presumably) play to actually win bets from him, that makes it so you should sacrifice your equity and not save the same exact play (which has a diminishing return each time you use it) for when you yourself held less equity?

Your argument (if one even accepts its terms anyways) gains equity in some extremely myopic sense, but ignores the cost of the fact that you have spent equity on something that could have been had for much cheaper. If I sell my TV to someone for $100, maybe I've decided that's worth it to me. But if the same model sells on ebay for $200, then it's a mistake to sell it to the first guy.

[ QUOTE ]
Or say you're in a friendly game and people are starting to resent you for winning too much. Maybe you know your opponent is cheating, looking at your cards, and you want to [censored] with him. Maybe you don't know they're aces yourself, because you bet someone you could beat them even without looking at your hole cards. Maybe an insane terrorist told you to throw this hand - or else he'll blow up the world!

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. I'll be more thorough and change my analogy to be "fold pocket aces preflop in a ring game where you're properly bankrolled, motivated only by the goal of winning cash, no one is cheating, you're looking at your cards, and Osama Bin Laden is no where to be seen," which I'd have thought would be understood under the abbreviated version.

[ QUOTE ]
Absolute statements suck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your denial of truth in the name of maintaining some political philosophy sucks. Does the fact that you've forced yourself to defend the idea of folding aces preflop in a cash game lead you to believe that maybe you might be on the wrong track here?