Topic: Economic Totalitarianism - page 50. (Read 345758 times)

Yes, but this is your higher-prioritized principle, not theirs. People who value (a degree of) collectivism see your adherence to extreme individual non-agression as evil (as in selfish, anti-social, etc.). There is a symmetry, not in the principles themselves, but in how people value them. At least acknowledge it.

It isn't impossible people are in fact being brainwashed, confused, raped, oppressed, exploited, etc. and that has certainly happened in history. I actually doubt this in the case of most of Europe today.

Maybe, as we discussed earlier, the people who left for various other parts of the world (and I suppose are still leaving) have influenced the mix of people left behind. A large portion of the people living in Europe today, even intelligent and well informed ones, hold sincere values more compatible with a (fairly significant) degree of collectivism than strict individual non-aggression and find the latter distasteful at best, evil at worst. This is somewhat less true in the US, but still true to an extent.

It is clear as you have pointed out in the past that we have mostly run out of frontiers, which have generally been the mechanism by which uncompromisable incompatibilities between value systems have been resolved, outside of genocide (people with one set of values leave). That may turn ugly. I guess it already is.

 
  
The fact that I have to clean my house is a pit of non-productivity.  I'm at the point in my life where I should be paying someone to do this for me, because my time is more valuable than that... and yet here I am unpacking and cleaning up.  
  
Humans are irrational and do stupid things sometimes.  Also, time spent creating something, even stupidity, is not wasted.  Time spent enjoying the stupidity that others have created is wasted, unless it inspires you to also create your own stupidity.  
  
A long time ago, a man scratched a stupid picture of the sun on a wall.  One thing led to another, and a few years later we wrote a few stupid books about prophets and burning bushes.  Then, a few years after that we used cryptographic ring signatures to create the first stupid private digital decentralized token of value.  Also, we made this really cool movie named Back to the Future Part 2.  All of it stupidity inspired by previous stupidity.  
  
Or was any of it really wasted effort?  Sometimes things have a larger purpose, even if its not clear at the time of their creation.

In this forum, do not write anything. Just write platitudes. Otherwise you will fall in a tarpit of non-productivity.

The weather is dandy today isn't it.

In a relativistic system that is our Universe, objectivity is relative to the perspective of the beholder.

From my perspective, they are confused and being raped. From their perspective, they are not.

The non-aggression principle of choice means I don't need them to wrong in order for me to correct. They may not be able to adhere to the same principle since they need to extract some of my productivity to fund their morass.

This is what I fear also, that the Russian leadership was compromised by the jewish force (bolsheviks). But, then there is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m04GVvbWMes

Watch the whole thing, you will see why. He argues that the opposition to westerners might not be a fake opposition. It's a very interesting presentation...

I was in the process of writing an edit along similar lines when you wrote that. See above.

But the key point you are missing is that people are not necessarily "confused" about fairness as you wrote above, nor are they even necessarily being "raped" by the system, they may simply attach a different value to perceived fairness (and therefore be willing to accept greater costs in pursuit of even an imperfect version of it). The NHS in the UK for example is apparently enormously popular, even among people who do pay for it (net taxpayers). They are not being raped, they are living within a partially collectivist system largely of their own making and largely aligned with their own values.

What part of "individual empowerment via technological innovation so that those who want to opt out can" did you misconstrue as " wipe them off the face of the earth"?

Smooth you are just babbling nonsense today. What happened to you.

 
  
I heard your arguments that the analogy to a body is flawed.  
  
However, it should be obvious that the future of humanity (intelligence) on this planet is to coalescence into a higher form.  Since the beginning of sentience that is what intelligence has done: from the individual to families to tribes to nations to continents.  The future (enabled by the progress of technology) is to form into one planet of singular purpose.  
  
That purpose will be decided by those who hold the "tokens".  We face a future with free energy, labor, and increasingly free AI 'creative intelligence'.  Jobs and wealth will become increasingly unnecessary as all humans are lifted up to a minimum survival standard of food, shelter, and medicine with no effort on their part whatsoever.  Their life may not be glamorous, but it will be bearable.  Those intelligences (and I will include AI in there because 'robot rights' will become an increasingly prevailant issue in the 2030's and 2040's) that show promise can seek employment or innovate in order to earn the "tokens" of the day.  With most luxury happening in virtual space, those tokens can only serve one of two purposes if we are still depending on consumerism: as costly signalling for mating (debatable whether this will be an issue in the future) or as a vote where humanity places its 'focus'.  
  
Therefore if humans *do* cede control to AI it will be an organic economic process as we trade our tokens to AI who provide us with value.  This likely won't be as scary as it seems though, because by this point we will be integrating human consciousness directly with robotics and computers.  
  
Point is, there will be one world government; it is inevitable.  I would even argue there already is, and it forms the young 'consciousness' of our species that seems to move in mysterious ways sometimes (and ends up hurting itself).  At the moment (subject to change) America proports to be the immune system due to our military, China the muscle, and Europe houses most of the 'creative brains'.  Russia is having a crisis of existence, but will figure itself out soon enough (though isolationism will not be an option or they will crumble into a third world nation for real).  
  
Whether through the growing power of corporations or a cabal of the wealthy, global government is inevitable.
  

However, viewing individual choice as such a fundamental principle is relative to your own individual makeup. If other humans have a different (possibly genetic) makeup that elevates, for example, fairness over individual choice, then there is nothing to say that your way is right and theirs is wrong. What are you going to do, wipe them off the face of the earth? Wish them out of existence? Convince them that their genetics are defective? RMA under warranty?

You have to acknowledge the subjectivity of your own values relative to others'. Well, you don't, but it's clearly there anyway.

I guess one reasonable answer is just wait for them to self destruct and the possibly pick up the pieces the best we are able. We probably don't disagree on that, given your comments about finding a place to hole up (south america or whatever) and try ones best to live life.

What? My god I hit on a dumb nerve today (and it isn't in my body). I don't know how it happened.

The alignment of the stars in a particular structure is not the point. Various forms of astrology have been around since people have been around.

The interpretation of the geographies of things like pyramids and airports is more out there, and demands a stronger support if that is possible (which I seriously doubt).

Granted something like the Guidestones which may be somewhat arbitrarily placed could have been placed by their originator to aline with other objects of occult significance, for whatever astrological or similar reasons (see above). The airport (which was built after the Guidestones) I'm much, much more skeptical about being anything other than overfitting.

And none of that is contrary what I wrote except the bolded accusation which is in error.

On the second bolded part, there is no way I could force someone to not participate in a collective with technological innovation that enabled others to choose not to. Duh.

The non-aggression of individual choice is one fundamental principles that makes it so fair.

americanpegasus

Sigh. I have refuted that many times in the past. Do I have to do again!

Read the debate between CoinCube and myself in the Economic Devastation thread.

Indeed, people will believe what ever they want to. And it is not my job to change their minds.

No I think the point entirely fails if people strongly value fairness and collectivism and the reason those policies exist is to best serve the people. In that case you are the one trying to top-down impose individualism and take away the freedom live within such a more socially-oriented system. Such people may even value that sort of system so much that they are willing to accept corruption, less individual freedom, structural instability, and other bad outcomes as a cost of (attempting to achieve) fairness.

In the event that turns into a catastrophic failure, well in that case antifragility will take over and these genetic tendencies or whatever they are, will likely be wiped from the gene pool. But that may simply be the nature of people doing what they want, not bad policies imposed by an elite.

 
  
A world government is necessary and inevitable.  
  
Whether it will be controlled by the rules of a computer system, or the hand of a small group of humans, or even an AI(s), remains to be seen.  
  
But anarchy cannot work.  Without a coordinated central nervous system and immune system, the occasional cancer or virus will obliterate the body.  As well, the cells of the arm would die if the brain did not make good decisions for them.  
  
I have met many humans in my lifetime from all over the world.  Each had wildly different beliefs and backgrounds.  One global constant is ego, as are varying levels of ignorance.  And having risen through some of the levels of that same ignorance in my lifetime (from a religious trailer park kid to my current form) I know that at every level no one believes they are ignorant until they attain the next level of understanding and look back at their previous self.  Then their former ignorance is obvious.  
  
Nevertheless, just as the farmer would be ineffective and useless without the economists and computer scientists, so to would the scientists crumble to lower levels of Maslov's pyramid without the support from below.  
  
http://i.imgur.com/E0WUums.gif

WTF? Why has this thread turned into "each comment has to be a white paper"?

Are you trying to filibuster me?

The simple point has already been sufficiently explained. If you can't figure it out (about chaos theory), that is not my problem. If I have incentive to write a white paper I assume I will.

I don't know why you can't understand what I wrote:

Focusing on one word in my statement and expanding the reasons which people ascribe to collectivism isn't "another interpretation". You are not disagreeing with what I wrote. I never wrote that indoctrination is the only way that people fall in love with collectivism as a fairness solution.

Don't you understand that forum comment is not a fucking novel. I write one word "indoctrination" instead of a novel, because no one is going to want to read a novel and I don't have time to be exhaustive in every last detail.

The point of what I wrote remains.

If you're going to go there, then show your work. Make an actual mathematically grounded case for it (based on any branch of mathematics), or don't throw names of mathematical theories around as rhetorical flourishes. That's a cheap trick.

Oh go study Chaos theory. Nothing means a damn thing and everything does. If someone is into symbolism and then someone else can demonstrate their symbols form another pattern, that sort of makes the initial symbolism a joke. It was a point about serendipity and the futility of control. Someone was so serious about the alignment of the stars to their structure and the orientation, etc.. And that seriousness falls to random chance. haha.

Tsk. Tsk. The powers of discernment are so weak.

Honestly it doesn't mean a damn thing unless you specify the pattern you are looking for before you test for it. There are just too many possible patterns that may emerge when you cherry pick "interesting" patterns from unlimited data.

Anyway, I don't disagree with you that some of these ideas are cultural norms. That's kind of a different question from whether someone is actively promoting it or not, using vague and ambiguous symbolism. The idea that many people have many fucked up views is not remarkable at all.