>> ^xxovercastxx:

Also, is Swaim dressed up as a Faceball 2000 character?


That's Scud: The Disposable Assassin

Now can anybody positively ID Katie's costume? It seems pretty generic.

Also, super healing FTW, eventual entrapment notwithstanding.

>> ^marbles:
Then you wouldn’t need to quote other ideologies to make that point.

When people know things about general subjects they tend to reference general knowledge to simplify conversations. If I had known at the outset that you are adverse to knowing anything but your sacred ideology I would have just called you a religious wing-nut at the outset and been done with it. At this point I'm in for a pound, and I'm going to make sure you have at least heard something other than you navel gazing nonsense before I am through with you.

>> ^marbles:

Don’t feign ignorance. Marxism is based on the collective's right to the individual.


Okay, that clarifies a lot. You are actually arguing against an absurdist straw-man of any philosophy but your own. Please, since you are so keen on sourcing references, take a look at the manifesto, and tell me where you found that bit.

>> ^dgandhi:
Production does not come from anywhere, you might as well ask where blue comes from.

>> ^marbles:

Production comes from nowhere. Thanks for clearing that up.


Nice selective editing, I like how you completely ignored that your question as stated made no sense.

Okay, if you want to pretend you are six, fine. NON-OBJECTS CAN'T BE CREATED, "production" is not an object, it's a concept, it has no physicality, just like the color blue it can't come/go to or from anywhere. If stating that fact tweaks your ideology then your position is weaker than I thought.

>> ^marbles:

There’s no test needed, it’s inherent to human life. If I build a net, then I rightfully own it. If I catch fish with my net, then I rightfully own the fish.

Yes you keep saying this, saying things does not make them so.

When I say something is a fact, that means that I can clearly demonstrate it. You have failed to even acknowledge that demonstrating your truth claims is relevant to their accuracy. Given your bizarre aversion, what exactly do you mean when you claim something is a fact?

>> ^marbles:

Liberty is self-ownership. If you believe someone else can own you (e.g. selling yourself), then you don’t believe in liberty. Nice try though.

So you own yourself, but you are not allowed to sell what you own? I'm going to need you to define own if you are going to use it like that.

>> ^marbles:

No, I said you were wrong regardless of whether or not you accepted my property claims. And your current social contract is meaningless if you decide to violate my liberty.

You realize that this whole discussion is displayed above right? You used my current property arrangement as an argument that your property ideal is right, that argument fails to differentiate between property and all the other things my social contract covers. You were sloppy, so just suck it up and state your case.

Of course I know that your case, clearly stated, falls in on itself, I'm beginning to think that you know it too.

>> ^marbles:

Production doesn’t come from anywhere, remember? How about you prove this is true: If I steal something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.


Since neither property nor theft have any meaning in the absence of social contract, all three claims are false because they require conditions to exist where they can not. This is not a problem for me, your problem is backing up the one of them you seem to think is true.

This is one of the things about being an oppressed minority. If you say something stupid it's the groups fault. If you say something smart it's an exception.

Blaming feminists en masse for a small group of presumably feminist women being psychotic is sexist.

As for the overplayed victim card, our society lets this shit go because our society is sexist, not because it is overly feminist.

>> ^marbles:

No, you’re quoting “objectivism” for its absurdity like it has another meaning.

objective

>> ^marbles:

You have failed to make any argument that liberty is self-contradicting.

The ideology expressed by the video is self contradicting, calling it liberty does not change that.

Please re-read my original post (watch out for the quotes) for three arguments for self-contradiction.
3 ≠ 0

>> ^marbles:

Incorrect. Marxism does not share that premise.

Please enlighten us, on what basis does Marx argue that workers have the right to the results of their labor?

>> ^marbles:

Where does production come from? If it is a social construction then it would be self-evident.


Production does not come from anywhere, you might as well ask where blue comes from. Please rephrase your question so that it makes grammatical sense.

>> ^marbles:

Fact: Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits.


What mechanism in the physical world can be used to test this supposed fact?

>> ^marbles:

No, Liberty insists slavery is categorically wrong, you insist it doesn’t exist and never could.


You ideology allows the following:
1)You can sell what you own.
2)The product of my property is also my property.
Therefor : If your mother sold herself to me before you were born I own you.

If 1 is false, then your mother didn't own herself, and couldn't sell herself to me.
If 2 is false, then you have no right to the fruits of your labor on the basis of self ownership.
Which do you give up so that you don't support slavery?

>> ^marbles:

False. Social contracts are not by default based on protecting liberty.


But you said I was wrong BECAUSE disregarding property claims doesn't work in my current life. If you meant to actually make a point on some logical grounds, you should have.

You, not I, used my current social contract as evidence of the rightness of your philosophy. Now that I point out the stupidity of that argument, you claim not to have made it.

Pro-tip: Consider the consequences of your arguments before you make them.

>> ^marbles:

False again. If I produce something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.

If I touch something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.

I changed one word. Please, provide some proof that either of these statements is false, without, simultaneously disproving the other.

>> ^marbles:

No one decides. They’re inherent. They evolved in the human mind long before the organization of human society.

Okay, I just have to add, this claim re:property displays an absurd degree of historical illiteracy.

1) Nomadic human societies tend to use a possession scheme, where its yours if you have it.

2) As people began to settle land they started using a usufruct scheme where it's yours only while you maintain it.

3) As settlements and their governments became more powerful they created property in perpetuity to consolidate their own power.

Property, as you defend it, is the result of a statist powergrab.

If there exists an inherent set of human rights to things, history shows that to be by physical possession only.

>> ^marbles:

@dgandhi
You seem to have a problem understanding how quotations work.

Really? I quote common phrases from well established ideologies, and you just can't figure it out, so I'm doing it wrong?

Look, if you have no idea about the alternatives to your self contradicting belief system you can't really expect to have a discussion with people literate in these issues without having to look some stuff up, do your homework.

Your lack of general knowledge in this field is not an argument against those who disagree with you.

>> ^marbles:


I’m still trying to figure out how something can be “ideology indistinguishable” from objectivism and also a Marxist axiom. Fascinating that it can capture the essence of two polar opposite philosophies. But nevertheless, it doesn’t matter--since it’s neither.

Randism and Marxism are based on the same initial premise: people have a natural right to objects created by their labor. The video you posted makes a Randian argument, whether you believe that this argument existed before Rand is immaterial, we are not debating authorship, we are debating content.

If you can point out even one point made by the video that diverges from Rand, then you can make a distinction, otherwise I'll continue to call it what it is.

>> ^marbles:
From the video: “Property is that part of Nature which you turn to valuable use.” That’s reality. It’s self-evident.

I can just as easily claim that the fact that property is a social construction is self-evident, but that gets us nowhere since "self-evident" is just sloppy posturing.

>> ^marbles:

And others live in places that don’t share the same freedom you have. What’s your point? Did your choices and actions produce anything of value?

I made no claim about the efficacy of actions taken by individuals, I only made claims of power. Power is fact, not social convention. In my society I am forbidden from taking heavy objects and bashing people over the head with them. I still have the power to do it, because my body is capable of the motion and my mind is capable of directing it, which society I live in effects this not at all.

My point is that I am dealing in facts, and you are dealing in imposed social contracts, and attempting to conflate the two.

Value is also an arbitrary social convention, you will find that it will not help you here.

>> ^marbles:
Thanks, you just ended slavery all over the world! It's amazing!



I insist it is categorically wrong, and you insist on perpetuating its basis. You really don't have a leg up on this one.

>> ^marbles:

Of course, we both know that's not what you, or the author, meant. You both mean that I have an obligation to accept your property arguments, that I can think whatever I want as long as I obey. Sorry, again, that does not seem to fit the general accepted definition of the word liberty in English.
You don’t have to accept my property argument. And I don’t have to accept your nonsense that property isn’t property. But guess who wins—the one with the property. Don’t believe me: Go ahead and “make use of all the things” of your nearest neighbor. Take his car, his money, his clothes. Let me know how that works out.


I have a social contract with my neighbors. If every social contract I have with my neighbors is universal and immutable, then I suppose there is a sacred responsibly to mow your lawn, and not park your car in the stretch of public space in front of my house. You also, by this "logic" (oh no, fear quotes, do't get distracted) are required by your natural rights to pay taxes, and submit to reasonable search and seizure.

You are attempting to get an ought from an is, while completely disregarding the why of the is, or the other things that are for the same reason. The fact that social contract property looks like Randian property 99.999% of the time does not make it the same thing.

You are all tied in knots because you want a benefit of social contract without the costs, you want to free ride, and it bothers you that we think you have no right to do so. In order to rationalize this to yourself you have decided that you are entitled to property by some mechanism outside of the social contract. The problem is you have failed to realize that in the absence of that contract, claims to property have no power. If society at large does not accept your property claim, then society will not protect your property, and others will use it with impunity. No amount of hand waving will create the power to protect your unattended stake out of thin air.

>> ^marbles:

@dgandhi
Maybe I was unclear. Your incoherent use of quotations has little to no context regarding the video.


Okay, one at a time then(again):

"objectivism" is a ref to the content, It is in quote because Rand's name for her ideology is a troll, and should not be taken seriously, it is relevant to the vid in that the vid describes an ideology indistinguishable from Rand's.

marxist axiom "labor has the right to all it produces" is a ref to the bit that starts at 1:45, that claims legitimacy on the same grounds as Marx, except that the basis of the claim is false, because nothing in the modern world is not already owned.

Objects existing in a "state of nature" is a necessarily prerequisite for the ability to own your work, that exactly matched the vids claim at 1:58, this is also quote for absurdity, not because it is a direct quote from the vid.

>> ^marbles:
False, and false. Liberty was a philosophy long before Rand, Marx, or Engels.

This video was not made pre-Marx. The basis for property rights made is indistinguishable from Marx, until the twist of it never being possible, and therefor not a coherent basis, is thrown in at the end.

>> ^marbles:

Your 3 quotes have no reference in the video.

I am not quoting the video at this point, I am referencing the video, there is a difference. I am also using reasonably clear names for positions the video creator takes, not typing out a transcript.

>> ^marbles:
Life is not arbitrary. Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits. Tangible items that we refer to as property are only representations of property.

You say this, but what do you mean?

I am alive, and I have the power to make choices and take actions, these are not rights they are facts.

Others have the power to act and make choices as well, this is simply a fact.

Sometimes people decide not to mess with each other, they form a society and grant each other contractual rights that serve their best interests as they understand them.

Fee simple property is one of these arrangements where a group of people agree to protect privileged access to some resource to particular people, this too is only a right by contract.

The Randian trick of trying to conflate the contract with the fact, and somehow make it universal and immutable, is cute in its naivete, but really has no basis in reality.

The entire self ownership argument is based on the premise that self directing entities can be owned, and therefor you must own yourself to stop anybody else from owning you. If we dispense with the whole idea of owning (because it's silly) or even just with the idea of owning people, there is no need to own yourself. You, and everybody else can just be un-owned, and un-ownable (but not un-pwnable). There you go, one great (and contrived) moral quandary averted, you're welcome.

>> ^marbles:
False. The quote from the video is “Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values, rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal”. The opposite suggests you give up your right to ANY opinion.


Okay fine, I disregard your silly property claims, and I will make use of all the things you claim to own whenever I wish, since I am perfectly within my rights to not be constrained by your threat to initiate force when I use these things.

Of course, we both know that's not what you, or the author, meant. You both mean that I have an obligation to accept your property arguments, that I can think whatever I want as long as I obey. Sorry, again, that does not seem to fit the general accepted definition of the word liberty in English.

>> ^marbles:
Sorry, I have no idea what you are referencing from the video.

Okay, let me help you with that.

In this part I talk about how the basic premises of owning self/work are borrowed from a competing ideology, and are then subverted by a poorly defined special case which applies to just about everything.
>> ^dgandhi:
This is a perfect example of the absurdity of "objectivism".
The premise is the basically marxist axiom "labor has the right to all it produces", but with some arbitrary caveat about that only being true when the things worked on are "in a state of nature".

In this part I quote one of the stated themes and point out how it is self contradicting in the context of the ideological clarity supposedly depicted in the animation
>> ^dgandhi:
The "Voluntary Mutual Consent" principle, is also similarly constrained by the unexplained arbitrary limitation, that you are required to consent to some arbitrary property system, of course with no coherent way to decide which property system is the "right" one. This "principle" like the "state of nature" special case, must be taken on faith.

Again I quote the video, and point out how it has already constrained its purported freedom by defining liberty in such a way that only those that agree with the stated argument from authority are granted the right to try things, but only so long as they don't rock the poorly conceived boat.
>> ^dgandhi:
"The Marketplace of Values" is similarly not open to any disagreement or experimentation with regards to market and property systems. We are only allowed to experiment once we have given up the right to hold a contrary opinion.


Here is where I point out that the result of the argument does not seem to fit the definition you, or the video's author, claim.
>> ^dgandhi:


This does not sound like liberty to me.

This is a perfect example of the absurdity of "objectivism".

The premise is the basically marxist axiom "labor has the right to all it produces", but with some arbitrary caveat about that only being true when the things worked on are "in a state of nature".

The "Voluntary Mutual Consent" principle, is also similarly constrained by the unexplained arbitrary limitation, that you are required to consent to some arbitrary property system, of course with no coherent way to decide which property system is the "right" one. This "principle" like the "state of nature" special case, must be taken on faith.

"The Marketplace of Values" is similarly not open to any disagreement or experimentation with regards to market and property systems. We are only allowed to experiment once we have given up the right to hold a contrary opinion.

This does not sound like liberty to me.

>> ^hpqp:

Other downsides: personal vendettas, poor training caused disasters, criminals with a badge, etc, etc.
I understand the sentiment behind the idea, but it's putting way too much trust in the masses.


Because none of that shit happens now of course...

The abuse of power is the problem, increase the number of officers by a few orders of magnitude, and give them no reason to cover for each other, and I see no reason to believe that it would be worse than it is now.

Also, change who does the job or not, all cops should have an always on audio/video recording device on them whenever they are on duty. The full tape from any cop within half a mile should also be required as evidence in order to charge someone with a crime, or for the officer to be allowed to defend themselves from charges of abuse.

>> ^hpqp:

@dgandhi and @GenjiKilpatrick
I don't know if it's because my faith in humanity is practically non-existent, but I have a hard time imagining a society which does not have some form of law enforcement, for when the preventive measures and education fail... The powerful (be that with brawn or dough) will always be tempted to prey on the weak, and some will heed that temptation. Then what?


I'm inclined to respond "Yes, obviously, look at how the police act.".

I'm not claiming that power vacuums will somehow remain vacant, I'm simply suggesting that there are probably better ways to fill them. I think that any number of radical departures could serve the need to reduce power abuse better than the current system.

My favorite option is going to lose me libertarian support, but I think conscription would work very well for law enforcement.

Lets say that everybody had to serve 21 days every 3 years, 7 weekends of training followed by 1 week of enforcement. We have some professional trainers, but the cops on the street are civilians for 99.3% of their lives. Since the number of officers would be very high in this case, most of them won't even have to take time off work, they just have a gun, badge and a radio with them at all times, and the closest officers are dispatched to do what is needed.

Down side: everybody has to do it.
Up side: more cops, nobody has to do it much, and nobody get in the habit of being above the law.

Umm...

Okay, so lets take this apart.

Premise: Evo-Devo can't explain early human brain growth.
I'll leave this be, there are a number of theories, which while none is clearly true, make an effort, but he doesn't mention any of them so lets look at his.

1) mushrooms add visual acuity in small doses +survival
2) mushrooms make males horny in small doses +reproduce
3) mushrooms make you catatonic in large doses ---survival and creative/intelligent +?

This seems at best a wash for mushrooms->survival, and still does not address brain growth.

If mushrooms give us extra creativity, then why would we build extra brain matter that does the same thing? I don't see how this, in any way, addresses the issue of brain growth in humans, as he claims to at the outset, whereas "language", "throwing stuff" and "complex social groups" all constitute gradual advantages provided by brain growth that provide evolutionary advantage in a planes environment.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Now come the cop unapologists

As an unapologist I do have to say this does bring up interesting questions, like "Should this even be a profession?"/"Can we trust people to do something like this long term if we know it breaks them in the process?".

I fully acknowledge that the sort of policing that most western countries have is better than many that they could be compared to. Clearly police could be better funded, equipped and trained, but I wonder if there is a fundamental problem with the vocation as envisioned that requires a radical redesign to address the problems that exit in liberal democracies, problems that apparently effect both the officers and society at large.

>> ^Sagemind:

Can someone explain what we are watching happen. I know nothing about what Bitcoin is.


Bitcoins are a decentralized cryptographic digital cash system. The specifics are complicated, but in practice it is non-counterfeitable, low transaction cost, online money.

The website Mt.Gox was the first and largest place to trade bitcoins for dollars.

Mt.Gox got too big too fast, and never bothered to properly security audit their site, as a result there were a number of compromised accounts. This allowed a hacker to go in and sell bitcoins from the compromised accounts at $0.01 each, thereby driving down the price, and allowing the hacker, and anybody else who was paying attention, to buy them up at $0.01, when they are functionally worth between $10-20.

We are watching a live feed of these hacker sell off transactions taking place on the exchange, which is basically an almost unregulated stock market that only trades in bitcoins(BTC).

>> ^KnivesOut:

So did the entire market take a hit because one exchange as compromised?
On another note, is now the time to buy bitcoins?


Yes, but not much.

Mt.Gox is was the primary exchange with >95% of all BTC/USD trades taking place there. So it going down means:

1) All the active balances in USD & BTC are locked in Mt.Gox database until they reactivate.
2) If Mt.Gox decides that they can't cover their accounts they may go bankrupt, which means all the money in point #1 goes into legal limbo.
3) All trading has to move to a different exchange, probably tradehill.
4) Liquidity just disappeared for about 24hrs, which happens at least once a week in most markets, but BTC is accustomed to 24/7

Tradehill is already hopping, right now it's back at 15USD/BTC