Topic: Economic Devastation - page 10. (Read 504745 times)

Btw, I didn't intend to imply we shouldn't protect women and children. If we see them in distress or in harm's way, we protect them.

My issue is about elevating that to a legal responsibility which then implies we are obligated to build a State apparatus with power to intervene in the parental issues, which has some very bad negative downsides.

I do not get along well with people who think we can fix things with the State, which can't be fixed with the State. But it doesn't mean I don't believe we should protect on a community and individual basis.

I hope that distinction is clear based on my prior points.

That accurately describes my views. Transparency will be painful.

Everybody Knows

How much credence do you lend to the notion that this universe may be encapsulated or simulated?

Agreed. If we could know the absolute truth, there would be no point in life. Everything would already be predetermined and static. There couldn't exist any uncertainty.

---

When I speak against the State "caring" for children, it is because only parents can really give kids what they need which is love and a family identity. And moreover, because by empowering the State with jurisdiction over the parents, we enable bad outcomes such as the one that happened to me (which pretty much still has me in shock until now when I think about it), which now CoinCube is aware of as I explained it to him in a private message. But I don't want to share that misfortune in public.

Just please when you have bleeding hearts for "the innocent" please consider that you destroy many innocents and cause worse problems by empowering the State to be God and the parents both. Please don't. IMO, if we really care then we try to be hands-on active in our community, try to help those who can be helped up to our available time and/or resources. If we are very busy, we can donate to others who have more time and we are know are doing good community outreach.

Giving too much power to an entity which has no feelings is very dangerous. We can't run a society as a spreadsheet (there is far too much complexity that needs free market annealing).

Isn't the objective of competition to determine the optimal route?


Distinct individuals are at different stages of maturity, so of course there will be different ideas on morals. Assume a scientifically proven benefit (e.g. hand-washing) that is not practiced by an isolated culture: would the best action be to offer the knowledge of the proven benefit and allow those in that isolated culture explore and accept or reject it on their own?

Just because you can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink doesn't mean it will not eventually. The question I see is: what time frame are we talking about?

To paraphrase: on a long enough time line, does the optimal strategy become agreed upon by all?

My point is that nothing is a permanent fix and there is no absolute truth. There are competing strategies.

There isn't one order, ever.

It isn't just an issue of moral progress. Even if you are extremely ethical, it is very difficult to raise kids in for example the USA. Your kids are very prone to become very disrespectful to the parents by being exposed to public education and the culture of their peers. So you move to Singapore, but then your kids grow up with the Asian influence of not being an individual and not being unique (e.g. memorization instead of creativity, etc). There is no single absolute truth or best choice for a society or strategy.

Also people don't agree on morals and culture. For example, they don't agree on the level of discipline in the home, whether young kids should have chores and work hard, etc..

You apparently myopically presume that the only purpose of decentralization technology is to enable illegal activities and defection from the aims of a well functioning society. The Internet is decentralization technology. Hello? Do you even understand that the base protocols of the Internet are decentralized.

Do you think blockchains are only about creating crypto-currency? Stay tuned...

And do you think crypto-currency only useful for subversion and investment and not for enabling production that aids a well functioning society that can't be done with the existing monetary systems. Again stay tuned...



For the State to do so is to claim it is God.

I know many humans haven't yet learned the lesson of Babylon, so please don't let me discourage you.

Again I think there will be many competing strategies. If the leftists succeed in forcing everyone into their system of playing God, then humanity could go existent. But I doubt they will be successful in achieving ubiquitous control over God's (nature's) contract between parents and children.

The Bible does say that humans who disobey the commandments will suffer the government they deserve. So you are not incorrect to say that such governance will rise. But it always overextends and starts to dictate one set of morals over another (political correctness), thus violating diversity.

They will tell you what teachings and culture your children must have. They will disallow you to teach your kids the morals and culture you believe in, for example by overriding you and teaching your kids to shame and talk back at you if you do (or to simply think their parents are wrong and archaic).

You can't create an enforcement controlled by the corruption of the collective (the Iron Law of Political Economics) and expect it to not destroy the goodness of that contract also.

Of course for a short while, societies may be functioning reasonably well, so you choose one and go. For next few decades, Singapore probably be a better choice than most others. But there are tradeoffs.


Actually it is empowering immoral men also. Afaik, in strictly conservative societies, the supply of easy women was curtailed.


The problem with your logic is the child is nothing without its parents, regardless of how much financial support the State gives it.

A child needs an identity.

Thus the interests of all of the family is a mutual contract between THEM.

The leftists think they can engineer a better solution than nature did. Good luck.


But we are not God. We can't really help a child without also helping the parents, because the child is nothing without the parents. We could totally remove the child from the parents and given them new parents, but raising the child without parents is not successful.

You are saying essentially I am responsible for doing something that is impossible. And leftists always propose to do the impossible and that is why they are so destructive.


Exactly. So you need to accept that child will suffer the consequence of the parents' choices regardless of anything the State does. The State can only end up making it worse, as it is has done in the USA and Europe. The evidence is clear that State intervention doesn't work. Look at the divorce rate, the birth rate, the level of hedonism, psychological illness, addiction, drug use amongst teens, etc..

The best we can do is community, i.e. personal connections to the parents. That way we can truly help our fellow man and woman and raise them up. With love and care.

Humans respond to human relationships.


Understanding which natural laws are inviolable are important to understanding how activist moralism can be amoral!


Again I think community is a much more optimum and persuasive method than employing the gulag of the State.


Because middle class white people don't want to develop personal relationships with dirty poor people.

I lived in the a squalor area. I was a middle class white person. I can attest that it further destroyed me (but I was already initially broken before that). So they aren't being illogical.

See it isn't as simpleton....

I don't think it is our role to determine for others what society and strategy they will choose.

Those that want to choose to raise a family in Singapore for example, I do not ridicule them. It is in many ways a good strategy for a family or even a profession.

There is not a perfect solution for raising a family. We have limited resources and time, and we have to choose. No system will be perfect or eternal.

I don't think we should worry too much about what will happen to the world. We structure our own individual lives to maximize our productivity and thus happiness. We have to busy on that, not worrying about how the world will work it self out. It is a complex competition of strategies out there.

I am not on a vendetta to attempt to destroy every collectivist society. I am finding ways to be able to continue to innovate regardless of what societies choose to do. Bifurcation is one example of how systems can coexist. I prefer harmony or separation, than war or gridlock.

Production is much better than words, because I don't think there is any absolute truth w.r.t. societal organization and reproductive strategy. It is a soup of competing ideas.

I think I need to get back to working.


Edit: I think one of CoinCube's points is that anonymity is incompatible with the world moving towards global surveillance as part of the lurch towards transparency as collectivism (carrying along with it the usurious monetary system) tries to become more righteous, especially with Asia (Singapore model) leading the way.

I believe CoinCube may be thinking that if crypto-currency enables untraceable cash, then the governments will join together to ban it.

I think they can do this for the crypto-currency that is used by the masses (presuming the masses agree that transparency is desired over privacy which is not a certainty), but I think they can't technically do this for every altcoin. One of the keys to that though is decentralizing the blockchain and putting the control in the hands of the users. No one has yet shown such a technology (but I have something).

In any case, I don't think the lack of anonymity will impact whether a bifurcation is possible, per my prior post. Note the decentralization of the blockchain is necessary for other reasons of scaling and network effects, not just for enabling robust anonymity. So the anonymity aspect is a red-herring.

My writings as summarized above are not inconsistent with my bifurcation thesis. The bifurcation is the entropic force at work as nature routes around the Coasian barrier. The usurious status quo is resisting change, but the change is insidiously occurring and there is shift of GDP to the Knowledge Age. I didn't write above that the change had to be monolithic in that the financial system had to be discarded entirely for any shift to ensue. Afaik, nature normally changes either with abrupt changes to the physical environment or exponentially growing fledgling paradigm shifts.

I am glad I could clarify my writings for you. I didn't ever intend to imply that the shift must necessarily be monolithic. However, I probably at the time I wrote that essay several years ago, did not yet see how the economics could possibly bifurcate as I didn't understand crypto-currencies and blockchains yet.

Also the anonymity issue is a red-herring. As I have stated recently, until there is a 666 global world government identification number, it is simply impossible for the governments to regulate/tax trillions of globalized, cross-border crypto-currency microtransactions per year. So anonymity isn't a necessary element for the bifurcation to proceed. The governments don't have the resources and technical capabilities to effectively tax and regulate trillions of $0.0001 transactions that cross borders. As for the larger players, they will use tax jurisdictions (thus they aren't breaking the law) and anonymity to raise the costs of government to even know who they are (and if you have millions of $millionaires doing this then it becomes too costly for government to track).

The Chinese have a culture of hidden defection (don't raise your head too high above the poppy seeds). Thus they will go along with the Singapore model, while circumventing it in sneaky hidden ways. That is the way their culture works because their public face is not the same as their private face ("saving face" in public). In essence they are being fake in public, but this is also real for them, i.e. my understanding is they believe the public result is very important (and what they accomplish privately is okay as long as the public result is always improving). Some Chinese (perhaps even many or most) may even try to match their private actions to their public ones, yet there would be significant numbers who don't. Notice how periodically there are major public uproars in Asian countries about corruption of high ranked officials, and they resign or are forced out in shame. It is as if the Asians are aghast that their overlords are not also following the same culture. In Singapore, it seems the corruption is probably tied up in the determination of and then gaming of the myriad of subsidies and tax benefits for certain industries and investments. Of course if you are a doctor it would behove you to migrate to Singapore, since the government is mandating that the citizens save 20% for medical care, so the medical system is poised to grow. Which is wonderful for me that there is a high quality medical system nearby.

The statists are going to double-down on more government, but nature will not be denied an escape valve. As always... (e.g. even iin the Dark Middle Ages, the economics escaped to the East)



Edit: I accept even the statist outcomes as natural and avail of them to the extent they don't lock me into changing my core values and philosophy. Which is primarily to be free, because by being free I am most able to gain experience, interaction, and creative inspiration which impacts my productivity (the meaning of my life). I want to accomplish something that impacts a lot of people in a positive way, if possible. I don't think there will be any one Utopian design. There are competing ideas. This is what makes life interesting IMO.

I made one set of choices in my life which severely restricted my freedom. That was to expose myself to very destructive health environment and subsequent acquired numerous life threatening infections and even physical trauma. And I didn't have a reproductive strategy and just allowed random outcomes to trap me in a couple of decades of the resultant quagmire of bearing children without forethought. I realize now that to be free, we also have a responsibility to plan well. This also caused me to become quite depressed at some points in my younger days and resulted in some bizarre behavior. Given that I was trying to figure out how to live in this world with a constitution that didn't seem to fit the world I grew up in, I can understand why it has taken me a long journey to mature and try to figure out how to accomplish and solidify who I am and how to make sure I accomplish my goals. We are all so unique.

I am not at all against humans helping each other. Even with strings attached, so as to enforce certain disciplines. It makes me happy to see others happy. A well functioning society for me would be one with real feelings. And voluntary goodness is for me a very real feeling and is a form of love. And it is even selfishly justifiable because if you want to be happy, then you need to also make others happy. Because man is nothing by himself alone on an island.

But all of this statist enforcement is removing the real feelings. And it is trampling on diversity. But it is also a natural outcome of human nature. There is a competition of ideas.

I don't like to see kids suffering. But I also don't like to see them spoiled. I enjoy for example playing basketball with the young boys. I have donated before for example computer equipment to a school in the Philippines. I think it is wonderful when humanity helps each other.

iamnotback your post above wanders from topic to topic touching many areas where I profoundly disagree with you. I lack the time to engage in a prolonged debate across multiple different subjects so I will respond once highlighting the flaws in your reasoning and then give you the final reply on the matter.

Let's start with the few areas where we agree.


Now let's move on to our disagreements.


You used to understand how usury limits the growth of the knowledge. The quote below is from your essay The Rise of Knowledge.

“Thus if knowledge production was increasingly not financeable, then we would expect to see top-down suppression of knowledge production by vested financing interests and widespread theft by those vested interests trying to maintain levels of net worth they would not have in an economy with more knowledge production.

I assert that is what we see today. To correctly argue that politics is the cause of allowing excessive indebtedness and its resultant misallocation of resources (which is a loss of knowledge), is as irrelevant as arguing whether the chicken or the egg is first. It is sufficient that there exists the destruction and suppression of knowledge coincident with the macro-economic failure of over indebtedness, to conclude the financing and knowledge production do not coexist. Because we know from the “Economy of Knowledge” section, that knowledge production must increase as a share of GDP for there to be increasingly prosperity.”

You later argue that the suppression of knowledge will end because the "entropic force" necessitates a decline in usury over time. This argument is akin to pointing out that a boulder perched atop a mountain is destined to fall to the valley floor below. The statement is true but not necessarily helpful. Elsewhere you have posited that a vast dark economy will grow and then destroy the existing social order via anonymous economic warfare. This appears to be the heart of your bifurcation hypothesis. The war of anonymity against the state is your mechanism for how the rock falls and I simply don't think this is how things will play out. Indeed the exact opposite appears to be the case. We are on the verge of an era of utter transparency. This transparency will have major downsides but ultimately it will yield benefits that exceed the costs. The rock will fall via a different path. It is transparency that will ultimately force us to behave better for our sins will become visible to all.

You expanded my positions out of context above to support your philosophical slippery slope argument. You repeatedly argue that every top-down intervention must spiral into an out of control Frankenstein's monster "because you lower the entropy". This argument is simply untrue. Most top-down responses occur because they are necessary to keep individuals from defecting and destroying the rights of their fellows. Top-down control thus maximizes entropy and can only be relaxed when we learn ways to improve our behavior. Without moral progress any disturbance from equilibrium including those introduced by decentralizing technology will just collapse back into the old order because the old order remains the optimal configuration.  

Enforcing the sanctity of contracts is one of the primary roles of the state. This allows cooperative outcomes that require coordination. When we bring life into the world both parents impose a their will on the unborn. The parents assume the responsibility to raise the child into adulthood to the best of their ability. The child assume the responsibility of life and all the pain and joys life entails. You take the position that a contract forced upon another deserves less scrutiny than a contract entered into willingly. Indeed the opposite is the case. A contract forced upon another deserves more scrutiny and when there is doubt it should always be interpenetrated in favor of the unwilling participant. It is true that making men pay for child support allows immoral women to take advantage of men. Yes this is a massive shift in power from times past when immoral men competed to take advantage of women. Tough cookies the individual who's interests supersedes that of both the mother and the father is that of the child. When people behave morally there is no need for top-down control. However, when they behave badly top-down control is unavoidable.  


Again and again and in various forms you repeat the argument that I refuse to allow failure. I do nothing of the sort. We have many responsibilities one of these is to help the innocent to the best of our ability. All that is necessary to preserve diversity is that we be given free choice to fulfill our responsibilities or reject them. Via our choices we succeed or fail. Freedom of choice and freedom to fail does not entail freedom from consequence.    

Nature is what it is. We must understand it and the limits it imposes but we do not have to accept it as sacrosanct. Promotion and worship of nature and "natural outcomes" ultimately limits both freedom and progress.  

I disagree.

There is no way to exclude entitlement (in your model of responsibility) as I will explain below.

I have no responsibility to help the innocent. It is my choice whether I want to (and I very much may depending on my available resources). This diversity is necessary. What you propose below can only end up in a socialist, totalitarian hell.

You refuse to allow nature to fail, thus you are proposing low entropy directions.

By your argument, the USA and Europe has responsibility to make sure every child in every 3rd world country has a quality education and basic needs which they currently are not getting. But the easy way to solve that is not by making us responsible for doing that (which could never be done without corruption and thus destruction), but rather by removing all borders. But these 3rd world countries also need to allow us to go own land and make businesses in their countries which many don't allow. Yet for example the USA allows anyone to come buy land and create business.

The problems of the world are too much government, not adding more government to try to dictate to nature what the diversity of choices of parents should be. The Philippines doesn't subsidize the way you advocate and thus the parents and youth are very motivated to study hard and go abroad to work hard and earn more.


The only contract is the natural one of children get the parents they got and they have to fight their own battle for happiness or accomplishment, just as I did.

It is also natural for private individuals to step in and befriend the family/kids and offer help. But it is killing diversity for the State to tramp on the parent's rights to raise their children how ever they please.

Keep your brown nose out of other people's business.

If you guarantee welfare for the 12 kids, then you encourage the parents to be irresponsible. If you make the State responsible for enforcing parental support, the females will follow A FALSE LIFE PLAN because they know they can fornicate with another man and still get the money from the man they cheated on.

You can't top-down muck with (trample on) nature and not get Frankenstein outcomes. Because you are lowering the entropy.

The proper role of top-down order in a society is to coordinate cooperative outcomes that require coordination, such as for example contracts entered into willingly by adults. The contract between the child and parent is not a contract entered into by any will of the child. The child is subject to the parent's will until the child is old enough to make it on its own. That is reality. You may not like it. Leftists don't like reality.


And I am saying it shouldn't be dumped on the State. As for being dumped on the woman, women could be less careless with their vaginas if they know they are going to get a bailout from the State for their lack of due diligence. Refer to that panties historical progression image in my post on the prior page.

You are proposing to reward and promote sluts. You are promoting immorality.

You can't do one thing, without causing other effects. It isn't so simpleton.differentiate


Never. It is natural and necessary to maintain a diverse gene pool.

It will certainly get worse while these leftist policies of yours are intact.

The men will fornicate and not work because you've taken away all their purpose and special characteristic for not being one of the irresponsible ones.

You'll then have to start physically castrating men. The leftist delusions are always self-culling.


Agreed.


And that will destroy their country spoiling their children and eventually making the country unproductive.

One of the best insurances is to raise several very responsible and hard working children who can take of you and each other in times of crisis. You form a family insurance fund of sorts, so each of you needs to save less (thus less usury needed, which is a dying self-destructive paradigm anyway). Save by raising work skills and productivity. Also healthcare should decline to a much smaller fraction of a person's lifetime productive capacity if we remove the monopolies of the medical systems (that includes allowing private companies to compete on licensing doctors instead of the State, so consumers can choose what level of expertise they want and end monopolies of medical schools, radically high costs of medical education, etc).

Every top-down action that attempts to enforce uniformity or unnatural outcomes destroys entropy and thus is failure directed.

We value life, which means those who know someone they care about who is in dire need, can decide to help if their resources are sufficient to do so. This is what makes us human is the personal empathy and personal connections. When you transfer that role to the State, you have removed the diversity, the personal connection, the empathy, and turned it into a Frankenstein.

Singapore will some many decades from now enter their Frankenstein outcome due to all the central planning. I mean it feels wonderful now. It always does at the onset of leftist delusions.


Any well functioning society will be always have an abundance of private individuals willing to help. That is what makes good people so honorable (and wealthy!). It raises their reputation/respect/love in society and amongst their connections.

We propose the State because societies aren't functioning well, but the reason they don't function well is because we have all this top-down distortion caused by the State.

There is no nirvana. Nature is what it is. We have to accept it.

Nature isn't fair. It can't be fair, as that is a uniform outcome which is 0 entropy which is non-existence. When I heard that word "fair" in Singapore, I realized what I was dealing with. Proposing more of the poison as a cure isn't rational.

This "fair" notion also devolves in political correctness and soon the society is acting like zombies afraid to be judged as diverse person with a differing viewpoint. Groupthink ensues. Defection of critical thinking disappears. This is all low entropy and destruction directed long-term.

One reason I remained in the Philippines (not the only reason, I did attempt to live back in the USA from 2000 - 2003 but it was destroyed by my father and my ex) is because it didn't have this State regulating everything. You did what you wanted to (which for me didn't mean abandoning my financial and parental responsibility...). Unfortunately the oppressed people in the developing world are very bitter for being colonized by the Spanish for 400 years and still being enslaved by not being able to freely go work where the jobs are in other countries. And thus there is a lot of poverty here and I have suffered a bad health fate. I think it is starting to improve now in the Philippines, but also coming along with it is more government interference in our individual lives. Sigh.

I pray we can do better than these leftist delusions (which of course are always entirely co-opted by elite oligarchy) and actually move forward to a well functioning, decentralized society.

On what rational grounds?

How is the usurious system placing any limits on growth of the Knowledge Age? Sorry I don't see it. I see it accelerating everyday.

Humans are not driven primarily by money but by their passions. That is why the monetary systems can diverge. The usurious system provides their tangible needs. The knowledge age feeds their passions.

I think you aren't aware of the revolution that 160 IQ genius Eric Raymond wrote about, helped drive, and well underway?

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/magic-cauldron/magic-cauldron.html

Familiarize yourself with a gift culture and how it is orthogonal to physical needs.

Also the knowledge age is global and instantaneous already, but the usurious financial systems can't provide all functionality required. So this can be another reason for bifurcation. The Knowledge Age is already under way and can't wait for the decades it will take for a world government and some world currency unit that has a central bank controlling it so can be fractionally reserve debased (necessary for usury).

The distinction is between responsibility and entitlement. We have a responsibility to help the less fortunate especially the innocent. The less fortunate, however, are not entitled to such aid.

In your example above the 12 young children are in danger of starvation and homelessness and a grave injustice is present. The contract between child and parent has been violated multiple times leaving them without the resources needed to survive. Reproduction is a contract voluntary entered between parents and children. The role of the state is to enforce contracts when one party is in breach.

A moral society will step in and rectify the situation if it is capable of doing so. The best solution is to track down the 12 different fathers and make them pay for their children garnishing their wages to substance levels if necessary. As I argued above the lesson society will learn next is transparency. Transparency makes it a simple matter to track down these fathers. Most of the R reproductive strategy you discussed is nothing other then a strategy of defection dumping the economic and social costs of childrearing on women and the state. The R strategy in its present form will mostly vanish. We see this already in various "Red Pill" forums with men forswearing marriage and children due to the high "cost". The state has every right to push back against defection. The R reproductive strategy will continue to exist but to the extent it does it will decouple from defection and abandonment.

In your healthcare example the primary responsibility again needs to be pushed back on the individual. Since we appropriately value life and are thus unwilling to let people who make poor choices simply die people must be forced to save even when they do not want to. The best model I have seen is that of Singapore which requires all of its citizens to save 20% of their earnings in a personal (not collective) health savings account. Health expenses come out of this fund and later in life and if you are healthy and do not use the all money your children can inherit it. For individuals who take poor care of themselves (eating habits, exercise habits, vices, etc) there is nothing wrong with pushing up the required savings to approximate the expected cost.

That still leaves us with extremes of fate. Horrible medical conditions that require massive medical expenses at a young age or children whose parents die in car crashes and have no immediate family. These individuals must petition the state and other individuals for aid. Society in turn has a responsibility to help these unfortunate souls to the degree it is able. However, the distinction should be made that such aid is not entitled but can and often will be gifted.

Sometimes we cannot rectify the errors of others or we choose easy "solutions" that actually make the situation worse. When this happens we suffer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8AWFf7EAc4



Yes, I disagree with the bifurcation part of your thesis.

To reiterate, my thesis is that the economy may be bifurcating:


So I perceive the growth of the fledgling Knowledge Age happening now as a decline of usury and leftism (as a total share of the economic and noosphere/mindshare pie).

Note as a large things rot, decay, and fall down, they may injure things.


The Knowledge Age appears to be underway as a network effect of the computer revolution.

You complain about the totalitarian State and then don't understand why if you build your house next to an active volcano, that you will lava in the living room.


Define "less fortunate" unambiguously.

Hahaha, you still putting out here lots of verbal diarrhea, but good to see you are OK. The most important if your health has improved, seeing you energy it seems it did. I am really glad to see that.

The society need compassion and empathy. Being caring and kind has nothing to do with left or right agendas. Compassion and empathy, willing to help each other make us human.

Edit:
The distinction between state vs personal level involvement and organisations doesn't make sense. These days everything is organised at state level. You can't even fuck a goat anymore without the state interferes with your affairs. Surely, look after and provide need for the less fortunates should be a state level affair.

Obviously I was referring to the distinction between the responsibility to create a State to collectively force each other to pay for the mistakes of others, which is what I wrote and further clarified in a follow-up to CoinCube.

Comparing a tribe of humans or even a tribe of elephants to a State is dumb.

You elided the part about where I wrote that voluntary responsibility and empathy are desirable. How can a State be empathetic when exists only because it has a monopoly on violence and collectivized corruption? Why did Hilter's socialized healthcare system lead to the culling of the crippled and handicapped? Why is Merkel's "empathy" (coupled with Europe's generous social welfare system as a lure) causing carnage and rapefugees?

And how could you possibility associate my comments with not wanting to help people along the side of the road? (as I've done so many times in my life) A desire to help people in obvious need on an individual basis is not responsibility. You need to learn to use a dictionary! Responsibility implies (possibly enforced) obligation. Because we are not obligated to help the person in distress along the side of the road, then by doing it voluntarily there is even greater honor in doing so.

Btw, when I was last in the USA in 2006, my car engine blew up in the California desert. I walked to the next rest stop and literally people ran away from me under the very well lit conditions when I stood 15 feet away (so as to not be threatening) and started to explain I needed help to get to the next service station. It was 1am, but the place was very well lit. So apparently many humans don't even share the empathy that elephants have, but I am not like them. This is not a lie! I had to call for some county police or highway patrol to give me a ride (so there is a record even somewhere).

P.S. Welcome back Mr. Troublemaker with incredibly low reading comprehension. It was pleasant not having to deal with you for the past few months. What brings you back now to start drooling on me again? Still grinding that ax I see.

Thanks god you are the odd nutcase of humanity. Even elephants take care of each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BLwYgTdbQM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-GdNAnVweE

You are (I think) writing about responsibility to make correct decisions about not infringing others and not defecting when our defection is infringing others.

I was writing about responsibility for the mistakes of others, such as paying the rent for mothers with 12 children from 12 different fathers (with the State welfare encouraging them to do that even more). I was thinking about Obamacare and whether we are all responsible for the healthcare of each other, thus encouraging people to make poor decisions about taking care of their health (eating habits, exercise habits, vices, etc). Collectivized healthcare by increasing demand also either drives costs up and/or imposes top-down aberrations such as rationing.

Please make it clear if you also think we are responsible for others in all cases such as the cases I was thinking about.

In short, the distinction appears to be responsibility TO others versus FOR others respectively.

I said that personalized charity based on empathy and knowledge of individual cases is appropriate in cases of responsibility for the mistakes of others, such as for example my health care debacle which is my mistake (choice) for living in a squalor area in third world country in the 1990s.

If the fundamental driver of leftism is usury then a decline in leftism is unlikely to proceed a decline in usury.

The fact that maximum division-of-labor occurs under a different social structure does not mean that future will immediately occur. If you could travel back to 4000 B.C. and take over a small tribe you would probably find it impossible to create a democratic industrial revolution even if you brought all the needed technical knowledge with you. You might make transient changes but any changes to the fundamental structure of society you imposed would likely disappear as soon as you died. Weapon technology you introduced would probably stick around though.

Something along these line is what Dyson may have been referring to in your quote above.