User Controls
is everyone evil
-
2015-08-14 at 3:06 AM UTC
It's true, Jonathan Haidt has done good work in this, and also demonstrated that leftists generally don't understand rightists worldview, the farther to the left you go the worst the effect becomes, on average, and attribute differences due to evil, which Lanny has consistently shown.
blatant lies.Leftists universalist humanitarian values also tend to be wildly inconsistent and incoherent: www.slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
I'm not going to take time to respond to that considering how egregiously bad it is, but I am interested in an honest answer from you. Have you actually read that and do you honestly think it's anything other than shit?Of course people like Lanny will refuse to take responsibility for it and claim they aren't inherently leftist stances, which is true, but won't answer as to why they come from the left and have been adhered to so consistently and widespread for decades with no sign of changing, all the while having no problem blaming rightists for their perceived outcomes of their policies.
So somehow these positons aren't leftist and yet somehow the left is still to blame for them? Who's failing to understand the opposing ideology now? No one has ever so staunchly demonstrated a failure to understand what leftism is and isn't or been more prone to criticize it based on its adherents rather than it's contents (ironically something you regularly chastise me for without reason) than you. -
2015-08-14 at 3:16 AM UTC
That's the thing right? According to the left nothing is anyone's fault, that is, if you're poor or a minority.
The entire notion of "it's their own fault", comeuppance, and just deserts is a gradeschool mentality that some people seem to have failed to grow out of. Who care whose fault a person's poverty or misfortune is? Does it make their suffering any less material, any less bad? Imagine the world where everyone gets exactly what they deserve and the world where everyone gets exactly what they want/need. Clearly the latter is better than the former. Material concerns might make us shape our policy somewhat differently, past performance may reflect future returns so to speak and showering drug addicts in money may not produce the best returns in human well being but the idea that anyone has or can do anything to make themselves a priori (that is, with all else being equal) less deserving of happiness or existence then you've created what is, in effect, a secular religion in the true blue spirit of the abrahamics. -
2015-08-14 at 3:20 AM UTC
I am not ok with 'control by the competent', and that is it. You advocate it, and that is it. There it is.
So then you admit that calling me a "subservient weenie" was just a pointless insult that wasn't based on anything? Good, I agree.As I said, it is a waste of time to discuss this with you, as you will just say things like 'but science and math!'
Where have I ever said anything that even approaches "but science and math!"? You're just putting words in my mouth now.These disciplines are ever-changing, and there are no absolutes, even in the ivory tower world. If I am going to be ruled by fallible humans, science or not, I would rather just trust my own judgement. I mean, our science and math overlord elites aren't going anywhere, and if I need their services, I can pay them to do so.
What are you even trying to say here? It's better to just go with your gut than like, try to reason your way to an answer? That's how we get cults and people who gamble their retirement at casinos and shit. If you want to deny the legitimacy of... everything that isn't your personal opinion then you can do that I guess but be advised it's historically been a pretty shitty approach to getting anything done. -
2015-08-14 at 3:22 AM UTC
It's a nice story but I don't think it pans out for much, if not most, of the libertarian-esq right.
That's simply due to the fact that you refuse to believe libertarian policies would be beneficial to society as a whole.Consider such dogma as non-aggression. It's considered a fundamental rule which it is never permissible to break. The christian right has much the same in the form or religious dogma. As soon as you have a deontological rule like that which isn't "maximize well being" then your primary concern is no longer the well being of humanity. I mean there are smart people who believe that and it's certainly not a position we can write off without strong arguments but it's simply a matter of fact that if you are willing to reduce net human well being in order to uphold a moral law then you care less about humans than someone who things human well being is the final good (most act utilitarians).
edit: now I should say I'm not sure this cuts along right/left lines, but it's hard to argue that deontological positions (or at least implicitly deontological positions) aren't more common on the right.
The libertarian school of thought is more than the NAP, also, it's not as if the NAP is some arbitrary rule some people came up with, it has a solid philosophical/ethical foundation, calling it dogmatic is disingenuous to say the least. What's more is that adhering to the NAP does not automatically equal a net reduction of human well-being. In fact i'd argue leftist policies decrease net well being in the long term.
Humor me for a second Lan, say tommorow it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that libertarian policies actually increase net human well-being. Will you then forsake your socialist ideology? -
2015-08-14 at 3:24 AM UTC
So then you admit that calling me a "subservient weenie" was just a pointless insult that wasn't based on anything? Good, I agree.
Where have I ever said anything that even approaches "but science and math!"? You're just putting words in my mouth now.
What are you even trying to say here? It's better to just go with your gut than like, try to reason your way to an answer? That's how we get cults and people who gamble their retirement at casinos and shit. If you want to deny the legitimacy of… everything that isn't your personal opinion then you can do that I guess but be advised it's historically been a pretty shitty approach to getting anything done.
It was an insult. You didn't get that?
what are you talking about going with my gut? the stuff I am saying is elemental to life in general, to being a human. all that socialist stuff is all made up, and pretty much an artifact of the 20th century. hopefully it stays there. -
2015-08-14 at 3:36 AM UTC
Lanny thinks that my ideas, the concept of people taking care of themselves, is ridiculous,
Wrong, I think that everyone making their own decisions in everything is suboptimal.and believes that humanity should be ruled by a class of intellectual elites, probably because he is highly intelligent and hopes to take his place among the overlords…
Based on what exactly? I have no desire to govern, in fact I have to actively work to avoid taking on the small amount of authority over others that I'm offered in the workplace. I advocate rule by the best but I'm under no delusion that I'm the best at anything really.yet his ideas fail every time they are tried
Which ideas when tried where? Show me a true aristocracy ruled by evidence-based decision making that's failed and I'll admit I was wrong. Protip: you can'tand mine are the way humanity has lived for tens of thousands of years.
Humanity rampantly raped, murdered, and died prematurely for tens of thousands of years. Do you really think early human history is a compelling case for a system of governance? -
2015-08-14 at 3:38 AM UTC
The entire notion of "it's their own fault", comeuppance, and just deserts is a gradeschool mentality that some people seem to have failed to grow out of. Who care whose fault a person's poverty or misfortune is? Does it make their suffering any less material, any less bad?
See the thing is, i'd have a lot more sympathy for them if they didn't feel like they had the right to threaten me through the government, with imprisonment and even death(if i resist arrest) to further their redistributionist policies.
Think about it for a second, when you're broke and you really, really need to pay your rent, do you go out in the streets robbing people at gunpoint? Or do you ask family and friends for support?Imagine the world where everyone gets exactly what they deserve and the world where everyone gets exactly what they want/need. Clearly the latter is better than the former.
I agree 100% everyone should get what they want, but who's gonna' foot the bill? Money just doesn't magically appear out of no where. You also can't just simply turn the printing presses on because that will cause inflation at first and hyper-inflation should it continue unbridled.Material concerns might make us shape our policy somewhat differently, past performance may reflect future returns so to speak and showering drug addicts in money may not produce the best returns in human well being but the idea that anyone has or can do anything to make themselves a priori (that is, with all else being equal) less deserving of happiness or existence
Everyone deserves happiness and existence, but last time i checked no one was handing it to me on a silver platter, i have to work my ass off to provide food for myself, thereby ensuring my continued existence and possibly happiness. Point being, people make their own future. If you want to blow your entire salary on coke, that's fine, sure i have sympathy for the fact that you were not able to make a better choice for yourself but don't ask me to pay for your mistakes.then you've created what is, in effect, a secular religion in the true blue spirit of the abrahamics.
Sure, if it all was like you portray it to be, the simple fact of the matter is, you seem to have no clue as to what the right actually wants, believes, or cares about. -
2015-08-14 at 4:46 AM UTC
That's simply due to the fact that you refuse to believe libertarian policies would be beneficial to society as a whole.
Wrong. If you could make a compelling case that libertarian policies really were the best way to maximize human well being then I'd happily support them. My commitment is to utilitarianism before leftism.
But can you say the same? If I could prove somehow that violating a policy of non-aggression is the best way to ensure the maximal well being of people on the whole, would be be willing to support such a policy? If your answer is no then it just proves my point.The libertarian school of thought is more than the NAP
I'm aware there's more to libertarianism than NAP but it is generally presented as an inviolable rule which is enough to make my point.also, it's not as if the NAP is some arbitrary rule some people came up with, it has a solid philosophical/ethical foundation, calling it dogmatic is disingenuous to say the least.
You've brought up Molyneux before, so I can't say there's literally no argument for Molyneux is hardly well respected in the field of ethics and besides his inability to garner general recognition in the academy I think even staunch libertarians will have a hard time reading his work can calling it an argument from first principles.Humor me for a second Lan, say tommorow it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that libertarian policies actually increase net human well-being. Will you then forsake your socialist ideology?
Like I said above, I would in an instant. And just so it's not forgotten, I'll reiterate my question, can you say the same? If it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that NAP would cause a net reduction in human well-being would you abandon it in favor of leftist principles? -
2015-08-14 at 4:51 AM UTC
It was an insult. You didn't get that?
I got that you were trying to be dismissive. I have you the benefit of the doubt, however, and assumed you wouldn't waste your time doing nothing more than insulting people on the internet who will, obviously, never take it to heart. I took you to be at least quasi-serious, my bad I guess. But I have to wonder why you replied to me if your first post wasn't meant to be taken seriously at all.what are you talking about going with my gut? the stuff I am saying is elemental to life in general, to being a human. all that socialist stuff is all made up, and pretty much an artifact of the 20th century. hopefully it stays there.
lol, what are you talking about? "all made up"? How exactly is anything in your ideology any less made up than in mine? What is the issue with being made up? It seems like just about anything we interact with these days (technology, social systems, man-made materials) is "made up" in some sense. It sort of sounds like you're just trying to back out of having to make a defensible argument at this point. -
2015-08-14 at 5:07 AM UTC
blatant lies.
I'm not going to take time to respond to that considering how egregiously bad it is, but I am interested in an honest answer from you. Have you actually read that and do you honestly think it's anything other than shit?
So somehow these positons aren't leftist and yet somehow the left is still to blame for them? Who's failing to understand the opposing ideology now? No one has ever so staunchly demonstrated a failure to understand what leftism is and isn't or been more prone to criticize it based on its adherents rather than it's contents (ironically something you regularly chastise me for without reason) than you.
Blatant lies? No they aren't, he specifically stated that that was the conclusion of his study. That doesn't respond to what I stated at all.
I actually did read that. It drags on too much and the writing quality is mediocre, but he's absolutely accurate and in-group biases are well supported. The insights into leftist culture are valuable and the least commonly examined due to your own bias.
They aren't inherently leftist, but you could argue this about many things. They've still shown clear widespread support among leftists. Why is that? It derives from leftist ideology, from traits that predispose people toward leftist ideologies. You should absolutely be held responsible for what you people have inadvertently done. Without the power of political authority you believe in and seem to deeply cherish you would never have been able to cause so much harm. -
2015-08-14 at 5:25 AM UTC
See the thing is, i'd have a lot more sympathy for them if they didn't feel like they had the right to threaten me through the government, with imprisonment and even death(if i resist arrest) to further their redistributionist policies.
It's hard to imagine a way to advocate wealth redistribution that doesn't involve something that could be melodramatically described as "threats of imprisonment and even death". In fact it's hard to think of any policy, including pretty innocuous things like roads and public education, that don't involve implicit "threats of imprisonment and even death" to libertarians.Think about it for a second, when you're broke and you really, really need to pay your rent, do you go out in the streets robbing people at gunpoint? Or do you ask family and friends for support?
What is this question supposed to prove? If it were me personally I would, of course, go to my family and friends because I have those things (and because I don't think I could really rob a person a gunpoint), but if I didn't I guess I'd give it a whirl since I don't have anything else to lose and it's a pretty safe bet my life is worth more than other people get out of whatever I'd be able to steal from them.I agree 100% everyone should get what they want, but who's gonna' foot the bill? Money just doesn't magically appear out of no where. You also can't just simply turn the printing presses on because that will cause inflation at first and hyper-inflation should it continue unbridled.
Sure, material value definitely doesn't appear from nowhere. Like I said before, pouring money on people who will squander it is not a great plan for improving collective utility, but the question here is not "how do we get to where we want to be" but first "where do we want to be". I propose where we want to be is people being as happy as they can be, as opposed to getting what they "deserve" under the various quasi-moral-frameworks that we find on the right. We can not, at this point in history, give everyone everything they want. But we can do better or worse and it seems pretty clear to me that systems that obsess over "deserving" (which usually translates to a very specific and very western conception of property law) are less well equipped to maximize human well being than systems that have human well being as an explicit goal.Everyone deserves happiness and existence, but last time i checked no one was handing it to me on a silver platter, i have to work my ass off to provide food for myself, thereby ensuring my continued existence and possibly happiness. Point being, people make their own future. If you want to blow your entire salary on coke, that's fine, sure i have sympathy for the fact that you were not able to make a better choice for yourself but don't ask me to pay for your mistakes.
Again there's this mythos of what people "deserve". "I'm paying for someone else's mistakes" is just a framejob cooked up by the right. You latch onto examples like "someone blew their salary on coke and now I have to pay to support them". I don't support government funding of unproductive drug habits, that's just something that gets pinned on the left for no good reason. I support any program that has leads to an effective reduction in human suffering. The implicit premise of the (largely fictional) "welfare queen" situation is that supporting the less fortunate will somehow encourage people to impoverish themselves so they can rake in state benefits. Aside from by and large being a fantasy, this rhetoric is disingenuous because that's not what the left supports at all, and if you could demonstrate that was the case all but the most radical reaches for the left wing would back out of support of such policy.Sure, if it all was like you portray it to be, the simple fact of the matter is, you seem to have no clue as to what the right actually wants, believes, or cares about.
Where, exactly, have I made comment on what the right actually wants, believes, or cares about? I made a claim about those who accept deontological principles other than utility and caring but that's provable a priori, if you disagree I welcome you to challenge it with whatever argument you have. But by and large I refrain from making comment about what motivates others (except in jest) since it's by and large irrelevant. The important thing is if given policy helps or hinders human well being, and those are the terms I prefer to engage such discussions in rather than motives. -
2015-08-14 at 1:58 PM UTC
Wrong. If you could make a compelling case that libertarian policies really were the best way to maximize human well being then I'd happily support them. My commitment is to utilitarianism before leftism.
There have been a shitload of thinkers that have made a compelling case for libertarian policies.But can you say the same? If I could prove somehow that violating a policy of non-aggression is the best way to ensure the maximal well being of people on the whole, would be be willing to support such a policy? If your answer is no then it just proves my point.
It's an ethical principle, that's the same as saying: If i could prove that sacrificing your first born child increases the summer harvest by 100% would you do it? No of course i wouldn't because it's morally reprehensible.I'm aware there's more to libertarianism than NAP but it is generally presented as an inviolable rule which is enough to make my point.
If utility comes before morality in your worldview you're not a good person.You've brought up Molyneux before, so I can't say there's literally no argument for Molyneux is hardly well respected in the field of ethics and besides his inability to garner general recognition in the academy I think even staunch libertarians will have a hard time reading his work can calling it an argument from first principles.
Nigger please, did you even read Molyneux? Besides that, there have been more than one philosopher to advocate the NAP.Like I said above, I would in an instant. And just so it's not forgotten, I'll reiterate my question, can you say the same? If it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that NAP would cause a net reduction in human well-being would you abandon it in favor of leftist principles?
See above. -
2015-08-14 at 2:13 PM UTC
It's hard to imagine a way to advocate wealth redistribution that doesn't involve something that could be melodramatically described as "threats of imprisonment and even death". In fact it's hard to think of any policy, including pretty innocuous things like roads and public education, that don't involve implicit "threats of imprisonment and even death" to libertarians.
As you may recall i'm an anarchist and i support the NAP, the government is nothing but a monopoly on violence so you're correct, public education and roads and whatever policy you have is an implicit threat of imprisionment and death. Now, that is not to say i do not support education, or don't give a shit about the poor, it is to say that there are multiple ways of solving these problems and i'd be willing to wager we don't need any violence to do so.What is this question supposed to prove? If it were me personally I would, of course, go to my family and friends because I have those things (and because I don't think I could really rob a person a gunpoint), but if I didn't I guess I'd give it a whirl since I don't have anything else to lose and it's a pretty safe bet my life is worth more than other people get out of whatever I'd be able to steal from them.
If you support the state and it's ok for the state to take away people's property at gunpoint why isn't it ok for you? Is the state in a magical sphere of moral absolution no matter what they do? Seems legit.Sure, material value definitely doesn't appear from nowhere. Like I said before, pouring money on people who will squander it is not a great plan for improving collective utility, but the question here is not "how do we get to where we want to be" but first "where do we want to be". I propose where we want to be is people being as happy as they can be, as opposed to getting what they "deserve" under the various quasi-moral-frameworks that we find on the right. We can not, at this point in history, give everyone everything they want. But we can do better or worse and it seems pretty clear to me that systems that obsess over "deserving" (which usually translates to a very specific and very western conception of property law) are less well equipped to maximize human well being than systems that have human well being as an explicit goal.
At least the libertarian school of thought is consistent in it's 'quasi-moral framework'. Can't say the same for socialism because it is implied the state is above moral scrutiny to serve 'the greater good' whatever that's supposed to mean.Again there's this mythos of what people "deserve". "I'm paying for someone else's mistakes" is just a framejob cooked up by the right. You latch onto examples like "someone blew their salary on coke and now I have to pay to support them". I don't support government funding of unproductive drug habits, that's just something that gets pinned on the left for no good reason. I support any program that has leads to an effective reduction in human suffering. The implicit premise of the (largely fictional) "welfare queen" situation is that supporting the less fortunate will somehow encourage people to impoverish themselves so they can rake in state benefits. Aside from by and large being a fantasy, this rhetoric is disingenuous because that's not what the left supports at all, and if you could demonstrate that was the case all but the most radical reaches for the left wing would back out of support of such policy.
Right, right, because the 1 trillion dollars a year the US government spends on welfare certainly has improved living conditions for the poor right? Actually, poverty has increased no matter how much money the government pours into 'helping the poor'.
-
2015-08-14 at 2:44 PM UTCWow Lenny's on a roll
-
2015-08-14 at 3:29 PM UTC
lol, what are you talking about? "all made up"?
'made up' as in humans made it. Socialism didn't just appear one day, did it?How exactly is anything in your ideology any less made up than in mine?
I am not trying to have an ideology, I am just trying to underscore how nature and the world work.
Lets say that tomorrow, a meteor hit the earth and 90% of everyone died and we were basically living in 'Mad Max' times.
The first thing people would do, is arm themselves. Then they would set up a store. They sure wouldn't set up anything remotely resembling socialism. Capitalism is just an expression of the natural human condition.
-
2015-08-14 at 3:32 PM UTC
Humanity rampantly raped, murdered, and died prematurely for tens of thousands of years.
Under socialism, all of that stopped, and a utopia appeared. right?Do you really think early human history is a compelling case for a system of governance?
No. What I believe is that 'governance' is not necessary, even in our modern society. -
2015-08-14 at 3:51 PM UTC
The entire notion of "it's their own fault", comeuppance, and just deserts is a gradeschool mentality that some people seem to have failed to grow out of. Who care whose fault a person's poverty or misfortune is? Does it make their suffering any less material, any less bad? Imagine the world where everyone gets exactly what they deserve and the world where everyone gets exactly what they want/need. Clearly the latter is better than the former. Material concerns might make us shape our policy somewhat differently, past performance may reflect future returns so to speak and showering drug addicts in money may not produce the best returns in human well being but the idea that anyone has or can do anything to make themselves a priori (that is, with all else being equal) less deserving of happiness or existence then you've created what is, in effect, a secular religion in the true blue spirit of the abrahamics.
So if you and I took a course at a university together and I fucked the entire semester and did squat. While you busted your ass and produced A+/4.0 gpa effort. Would you be ok with both of us getting a C/2.0? -
2015-08-14 at 3:52 PM UTCI am sure I am missing some of the issues lanny was addressing towards me, but as you can see by my single sentence replies, I have just been drive-by posting lately. I may post 20 times a day, but that doesn't mean I spend that much time here. I read and type really fast, and my activity here is basically short bursts of spending five minutes reading posts and five minutes replying. I bet I am only here for an hour a day max.
Also, realistically I know that I am not going to convince anyone or make any headway towards refuting ridiculous leftists beliefs, I just like to get Lanny all riled up. -
2015-08-14 at 4:03 PM UTC
Wow Lenny's on a roll
You can thank him and his fellow lefties for the inevitable economic collapse of America in the future. -
2015-08-14 at 4:35 PM UTCInsert easy sarcasm detector here: ðŸŒ
