BitShares Forum

Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: Thom on June 15, 2015, 04:09:40 pm

Title: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: Thom on June 15, 2015, 04:09:40 pm
To the mods: please allow this thread to stay here so it will be seen, at least until tomorrow. After that if you feel it would be more appropriate in random discussion or elsewhere feel free to move it.

This strikes to the heart of what we're trying to accomplish with this ecosystem. Most here will not find the perspective foreign, but for those that may this message is for you.

This is a short 16 minute review of the economic philosophy portrayed by Star Trek. It is concise and well articulated. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U0s4_e9y38 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U0s4_e9y38)
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: onceuponatime on June 15, 2015, 04:30:47 pm
Thanks Tom.

A very good introduction to the problem as I see it too.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: lil_jay890 on June 15, 2015, 04:38:17 pm
Very interesting Thom, a great watch.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: gamey on June 15, 2015, 05:27:13 pm

Meh. I have some libertarian leanings but I find any one simple system that encompasses the whole rule of society seems to have serious failings.

Lets take for example Feudalism.  How was this not Capitalism?  How was this so great? The Lords/Kings owned the property which likely their family earned, and the serfs worked for their wages. The idea that Capitalism is always some great thing always struck me as a huge simplification and goes back to why I can never agree with any system defined by one word. Where is my thinking wrong?

A lot of these NAP/ANCAP types seem to have all grown up in the privilege of a first world country with a large component of it being socialized. I look around at places with societies that I see as close as possible to anarchy and the situation is never anything I would prefer. My basic belief is one that government must be constantly fought because the only real incentive of most politicians is to make more laws. Either from fear pandering or being paid off. These are the things I choose to fight and argue against, not social/economic systems contained within one word.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: onceuponatime on June 15, 2015, 05:40:55 pm

Lets take for example Feudalism.  How was this not Capitalism?  How was this so great? The Lords/Kings owned the property which likely their family earned, and the serfs worked for their wages.

That is not my understanding. I think that the Lords/Kings of feudalism gained their property through violence/conquest - not any type of free market process.

There are, however, prior examples of societies where the Kings ruled through consensus, and of tribal societies where the "headman" was more of an adviser than a ruler and had no actual power to compel.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: gamey on June 15, 2015, 05:47:55 pm

Lets take for example Feudalism.  How was this not Capitalism?  How was this so great? The Lords/Kings owned the property which likely their family earned, and the serfs worked for their wages.

That is not my understanding. I think that the Lords/Kings of feudalism gained their property through violence/conquest - not any type of free market process.

There are, however, prior examples of societies where the Kings ruled through consensus, and of tribal societies where the "headman" was more of an adviser than a ruler and had no actual power to compel.

And how did Americans (as in USA!)  receive their property !?!
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: Riverhead on June 15, 2015, 07:37:51 pm
And how did Americans (as in USA!)  receive their property !?!

 +5%

I only own my house because I can summon violence towards anyone that tries to take it from me. If I stop paying for that protection those very protectors will take it from me by force. So I don't really own it; I just lease the rights to use and can sell that right (deed) to someone else the ruling party deems a member of their/our system.

Anyway, Capitalism doesn't age well if left unchecked. It tends towards monopolies and wealth gaps. It works out very well for a few and horribly for most. Socialism isn't perfect by any stretch but no system is. A mixture of systems is the only thing at has ever worked.

The Army is a good example of socialism that more or less works. Soldiers get health care, food, housing, and a paycheck in return for their service.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: onceuponatime on June 15, 2015, 07:39:07 pm

Lets take for example Feudalism.  How was this not Capitalism?  How was this so great? The Lords/Kings owned the property which likely their family earned, and the serfs worked for their wages.

That is not my understanding. I think that the Lords/Kings of feudalism gained their property through violence/conquest - not any type of free market process.

There are, however, prior examples of societies where the Kings ruled through consensus, and of tribal societies where the "headman" was more of an adviser than a ruler and had no actual power to compel.

And how did Americans (as in USA!)  receive their property !?!

That is a complicated question. For sure some property was stolen through violence, some was stolen through fraud, and some was earned through free market transactions or through the labor applied to unclaimed resources or through trade and commerce. And I am sure there are many other cases as well.

The wheat and the tares have grown up together and are now a tangled mess.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: Ben Mason on June 15, 2015, 07:51:00 pm
Very interesting, thanks thom.

I wonder what you'd call a society that was voluntary, peaceful and resistant to systemic corruption, where individuals acquire wealth though merit? Blockchainist? Sorry Gamey, I know. One word definitely doesn't do it!

If everyone can keep the fruits of their labour and willingly reinvesting their excess into society...even if only to make a further profit, that's all good because innovation will explode as capital will be being put to good use instead of being destroyed. It's advanced technology that is the answer (combined with a corruption resistance system) because technology deals with scarcity.

Added
Who knows, if we get far enough along that road, perhaps we cease being human. I'm up for the adventure though! It'll be better than this endless psychopathic merrigoround.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: Thom on June 15, 2015, 09:19:23 pm
I'm actually quite surprised by many of the comments.

I thought the piece was spot on, in particular regarding the Borg being a perfect socialistic society, but at the cost of individual freedom. It couldn't work unless they had victims to exploit for their resources. Kindof like the USA now.

Saying the military strikes a good balance strikes me as Borg like. You have almost no freedom in the military and it is very dangerous to longevity. It too can only survive as a "society" by being parasitical on others.

As for using "one word" to encapsulate or label "the best" form of society I somewhat agree, but that is the nature of labels, they don't fit every situation and thus new ones are created. Labels are just symbols. I wouldn't get too hung up on them. Focus on the principles, that's what's important, that's what drives behavior. What you believe at the core of your being will manifest in your actions. Trouble is, most people aren't in touch with the core of their being, they just execute the programming that's been implanted in their subconscious, either overtly or covertly, some intentional some not.

Bottom line: I don't want to live in a society that doesn't encourage my individualistic creativity or forces me to do things. We can accomplish so much more through voluntary cooperation than manipulation and force.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: Riverhead on June 15, 2015, 09:49:59 pm

Countries that have the best quality of life have a mix of both. Privatization where it makes sense and socialization where it makes sense. Germany, France, Japan, Denmark, Canada, etc. For example health care, education, and pharma as for-profit institutions are in conflict of interest (i.e. treatments are more profitable than cures). Places where it makes sense are consumer goods and non utility services.

Not as cut and dry as that but any system that tries to apply one philosophy to all things is doomed. You either end up with North Korea or where the USA is headed. How many ISPs do we have now? Two? How's that working out?
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: merivercap on June 15, 2015, 11:43:06 pm
And how did Americans (as in USA!)  receive their property !?!

 +5%

I only own my house because I can summon violence towards anyone that tries to take it from me. If I stop paying for that protection those very protectors will take it from me by force. So I don't really own it; I just lease the rights to use and can sell that right (deed) to someone else the ruling party deems a member of their/our system.

Anyway, Capitalism doesn't age well if left unchecked. It tends towards monopolies and wealth gaps. It works out very well for a few and horribly for most. Socialism isn't perfect by any stretch but no system is. A mixture of systems is the only thing at has ever worked.

The Army is a good example of socialism that more or less works. Soldiers get health care, food, housing, and a paycheck in return for their service.

A free-standing army is one of the biggest threats to freedom and Madison and George Washington warned of its dangers.  America's main form of defense was supposed to be militias: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s6.html

Theoretically there could have been immigration to America without as much conflict because some of the early American settlers did not have the same concept of state-sanctioned property and generally lived in anarchy like the colonies in Rhode Island.   Many early settlers purchased land from the Indians in those areas and elsewhere.  Probably a lot of the land granted to early settlers from the English Crown was enforced by violence.  Not sure all American Indian tribes had the same standard concept of property as the early settlers.  Some tribes may have had a broader sense of land ownership.  Some tribes may have had views in line with anarchists, non-propertarian & some propertarian libertarians depending on how you define 'property'.  In cases of conflict it was either money or violence that solved the dispute. 

The famous anarchist Proudhon wrote 'property is theft' when describing state-sanctioned property.  Proudhon followed up with the phrase 'property is freedom' when describing property from a natural rights perspective.  It's interesting Proudhon was anti-Marxist and many left-Anarchists today who have strong Marxist tendencies use Proudhon's first quote out of context.    In any case many libertarians probably favor contract-regulated property rights or common-law/natural law property rights compared to government-sanctioned property rights.

Interesting to think about, but in any case all this discussion should really be in Random. 
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: Ander on June 16, 2015, 12:06:56 am
As is often the case in debates, the two sides of the debate dont have the same understanding of the term they are debating, in this case, 'Capitalism'.  Also 'Socialism'.


When the pro capitalism people hear 'capitalism', they think of a system of contract law that protects the privacy and rights of everyone in society.

When the anti-capitalism people hear 'capitalism', they think of a society that is in a state of greatly unequal distribution of wealth, in which a small percentage of the people own most of the capital.


Most people would probably be able to agree on things if they would taboo their terminology and the connotations they have built up around it, and discuss things in other terms.


For example, most people would probably agree that a system of contract law which protects the rights of everyone in society is good. 

Most people would probably agree that having a more equal distribution of wealth and power than we find in our current society would be a good goal to aim for, provided that we can do it in a way that doesnt hurt one section of the populace to help the other, or result in a failed economy.


When people hear socialism, some people think of 'achieving better income equality' or 'taking care of people in need', while others hear 'stealing from people who produce things'.  And so on.


My problem with marxist ideas is not that their values are wrong (indeed, it would be great if distribution of economic power was more equal, all else staying the same, because this would improve average life quality).  The problem is that they don't really contain any solutions to the difficult organizational problem of 'how should the economy run'.  They seem to think that all you have to do is tear down the capitalist system, and then everything will magically become awesome and everyone will be happy.  Sadly, that isnt the result that you will get, as evidenced by every time it has been empirically tested in reality.


Personally I like the idea of basic income systems, but rather than is the case in some systems where taxation is used to fund payments to everyone, I wish that society itself would own some portion of the capital (shares in index funds), and dividends from this capital ownership would be given equally to everyone, each citizen having 1 share.  In my idea, the initial society capital fund could be gradually grown over time through donations and estate taxes.  I would imagine that many rich capital owners would gladly donate to such an endeavor, and would greatly prefer this route to the current taxation system.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: gamey on June 16, 2015, 06:09:10 pm
I think both sides do understand what it is they are debating they just frame it different according to their own biases.

I really like the idea of ANCAP but when I start to think about it I come across so many places where I believe it would fail. I think basic Western style government is probably the best. The problem is that laws keep being created. So many ANCAP people seem to be totally biased by their hatred of government. It makes a lot of the thinking I see not so logical and ignoring of certain issues.

I also like a level of socialized medicine because I fail to see how a 100% privately run healthcare that is all voluntary can work well when it comes to communicable diseases.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: Riverhead on June 16, 2015, 06:14:27 pm
A free-standing army is one of the biggest threats to freedom and Madison and George Washington warned of its dangers.  America's main form of defense was supposed to be militias: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s6.html (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s6.html)

Agreed. It is absurd how much the US spends on "defense" and embarrassing when contrasted to what's spent on infrastructure.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: rgcrypto on June 16, 2015, 11:48:33 pm
My belief is that the more choice we can have regarding governance the better. Monopolies, no matter in what services or products leads to higher costs and a lowering of the quality.

I would love to see a future society where governments compete for citizens...which is already occurring because of the ever lowering cost of transportation.

Competition in governance is the KEY. Also, we must also let go in the belief in authority...which may take a few centuries.

Until then...Vote with your feet!



Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: Thom on June 17, 2015, 02:08:31 am
Also, we must also let go in the belief in authority...which may take a few centuries.

Until then...Vote with your feet!

Awesome!  +5%

Although I seriously doubt ridding humanity of the belief in authority will happen in my lifetime, I think it could happen faster than a few centuries once momentum in the paradigm shift begins to move in that direction. You're right tho, in how deeply entrenched in our psyche it is. Here's hoping Larken Rose will live a long and fruitful life!
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: Stan on June 17, 2015, 02:45:47 am
Also, we must also let go in the belief in authority...which may take a few centuries.

Until then...Vote with your feet!

Awesome!  +5%

Although I seriously doubt ridding humanity of the belief in authority will happen in my lifetime, I think it could happen faster than a few centuries once momentum in the paradigm shift begins to move in that direction. You're right tho, in how deeply entrenched in our psyche it is. Here's hoping Larken Rose will live a long and fruitful life!

People went into the Wild West in search of freedom from authority.
The first thing they found they needed was a sheriff.

We will wind up needing a digital sheriff.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: Riverhead on June 17, 2015, 02:50:27 am
Also, we must also let go in the belief in authority...which may take a few centuries.

Until then...Vote with your feet!

Awesome!  +5%

Although I seriously doubt ridding humanity of the belief in authority will happen in my lifetime, I think it could happen faster than a few centuries once momentum in the paradigm shift begins to move in that direction. You're right tho, in how deeply entrenched in our psyche it is. Here's hoping Larken Rose will live a long and fruitful life!

People went into the Wild West in search of freedom from authority.
The first thing they found they needed was a sheriff.

We will wind up needing a digital sheriff.

I thought they all died.

(http://www.sweatvac.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/YouHaveDiedOfDysentery.jpg)
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: Thom on June 17, 2015, 03:25:06 am
Also, we must also let go in the belief in authority...which may take a few centuries.

Until then...Vote with your feet!

Awesome!  +5%

Although I seriously doubt ridding humanity of the belief in authority will happen in my lifetime, I think it could happen faster than a few centuries once momentum in the paradigm shift begins to move in that direction. You're right tho, in how deeply entrenched in our psyche it is. Here's hoping Larken Rose will live a long and fruitful life!

People went into the Wild West in search of freedom from authority.
The first thing they found they needed was a sheriff.

We will wind up needing a digital sheriff.

That's just evidence that at their core violence was still present. When we overcome our deep seated appeal to violence to solve problems the need for authority will dramatically be reduced. How will disagreements be settled? by 3rd party arbitration of course.

It is such a radically different context for life I don't think we can even truly grasp it now, as we're so deeply conditioned to think with the violence within us. As rational, peaceful parenting and respect for children increases, so will the violence in society. That's my opinion anyway.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: rgcrypto on June 17, 2015, 03:50:28 am
Also, we must also let go in the belief in authority...which may take a few centuries.

Until then...Vote with your feet!

Awesome!  +5%

Although I seriously doubt ridding humanity of the belief in authority will happen in my lifetime, I think it could happen faster than a few centuries once momentum in the paradigm shift begins to move in that direction. You're right tho, in how deeply entrenched in our psyche it is. Here's hoping Larken Rose will live a long and fruitful life!

People went into the Wild West in search of freedom from authority.
The first thing they found they needed was a sheriff.

We will wind up needing a digital sheriff.

That's just evidence that at their core violence was still present. When we overcome our deep seated appeal to violence to solve problems the need for authority will dramatically be reduced. How will disagreements be settled? by 3rd party arbitration of course.

It is such a radically different context for life I don't think we can even truly grasp it now, as we're so deeply conditioned to think with the violence within us. As rational, peaceful parenting and respect for children increases, so will the violence in society. That's my opinion anyway.

I would like to point out that the "Wild West" was in large part an idea vehicled through movies and cartoons. Most of the real life account actually reflect a much more "peaceful" existence than their counterpart back east.

On that topic, I would suggest reading: "The Not So Wild West". https://mises.org/library/not-so-wild-wild-west

It's a good read and is showing some of the interesting voluntary solution people came up with to provide security.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: Troglodactyl on June 17, 2015, 03:57:07 am
Also, we must also let go in the belief in authority...which may take a few centuries.

Until then...Vote with your feet!

Awesome!  +5%

Although I seriously doubt ridding humanity of the belief in authority will happen in my lifetime, I think it could happen faster than a few centuries once momentum in the paradigm shift begins to move in that direction. You're right tho, in how deeply entrenched in our psyche it is. Here's hoping Larken Rose will live a long and fruitful life!

People went into the Wild West in search of freedom from authority.
The first thing they found they needed was a sheriff.

We will wind up needing a digital sheriff.

"Need" in order to accomplish what exactly?  What is the end in question, and does it justify the use of any means necessary?  When it's framed simply as a need, the implication is that the costs and consequences are irrelevant, because there's no other choice.  There's always another choice.

I think a legitimate government can derive just authority from the consent of the governed, but only if the governed possess the authority in question to begin with, and if they actually consent.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: lil_jay890 on June 17, 2015, 02:34:18 pm
Also, we must also let go in the belief in authority...which may take a few centuries.

Until then...Vote with your feet!

Awesome!  +5%

Although I seriously doubt ridding humanity of the belief in authority will happen in my lifetime, I think it could happen faster than a few centuries once momentum in the paradigm shift begins to move in that direction. You're right tho, in how deeply entrenched in our psyche it is. Here's hoping Larken Rose will live a long and fruitful life!

People went into the Wild West in search of freedom from authority.
The first thing they found they needed was a sheriff.

We will wind up needing a digital sheriff.

That's just evidence that at their core violence was still present. When we overcome our deep seated appeal to violence to solve problems the need for authority will dramatically be reduced. How will disagreements be settled? by 3rd party arbitration of course.

It is such a radically different context for life I don't think we can even truly grasp it now, as we're so deeply conditioned to think with the violence within us. As rational, peaceful parenting and respect for children increases, so will the violence in society. That's my opinion anyway.

As long as we have our lizard brain we will always have violence... It's in our nature
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: rgcrypto on June 17, 2015, 02:39:06 pm
Neocortex is where it's at baby. (See the NEO allegory of the Matrix Decoded -> https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17006.0.html)
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: Thom on June 17, 2015, 03:14:13 pm
Also, we must also let go in the belief in authority...which may take a few centuries.

Until then...Vote with your feet!

Awesome!  +5%

Although I seriously doubt ridding humanity of the belief in authority will happen in my lifetime, I think it could happen faster than a few centuries once momentum in the paradigm shift begins to move in that direction. You're right tho, in how deeply entrenched in our psyche it is. Here's hoping Larken Rose will live a long and fruitful life!

People went into the Wild West in search of freedom from authority.
The first thing they found they needed was a sheriff.

We will wind up needing a digital sheriff.

That's just evidence that at their core violence was still present. When we overcome our deep seated appeal to violence to solve problems the need for authority will dramatically be reduced. How will disagreements be settled? by 3rd party arbitration of course.

It is such a radically different context for life I don't think we can even truly grasp it now, as we're so deeply conditioned to think with the violence within us. As rational, peaceful parenting and respect for children increases, so will the violence in society. That's my opinion anyway.

As long as we have our lizard brain we will always have violence... It's in our nature

With all due respect what you're saying here is you've lost YOUR WILL to overcome that "lizard brain", you have made A CHOICE away from freedom and towards enslavement. Putting responsibility on a "lizard brain" is like saying, "I'll probably die young because it's in my genetics", which is an excuse to not take care of your body. You become passive and refuse to exert your will to control that which you may.

@rgcrypto - thanks so much for The Maxtrix Decoded (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaDqNDLpZa8), it blew me away! For those you may not be familiar with Mark Passio, he has been interviewed many times by Jan Irvin on Gnostic Media (http://www.gnosticmedia.com/). I highly recommend his work as well.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: lil_jay890 on June 17, 2015, 03:30:08 pm
Also, we must also let go in the belief in authority...which may take a few centuries.

Until then...Vote with your feet!

Awesome!  +5%

Although I seriously doubt ridding humanity of the belief in authority will happen in my lifetime, I think it could happen faster than a few centuries once momentum in the paradigm shift begins to move in that direction. You're right tho, in how deeply entrenched in our psyche it is. Here's hoping Larken Rose will live a long and fruitful life!

People went into the Wild West in search of freedom from authority.
The first thing they found they needed was a sheriff.

We will wind up needing a digital sheriff.

That's just evidence that at their core violence was still present. When we overcome our deep seated appeal to violence to solve problems the need for authority will dramatically be reduced. How will disagreements be settled? by 3rd party arbitration of course.

It is such a radically different context for life I don't think we can even truly grasp it now, as we're so deeply conditioned to think with the violence within us. As rational, peaceful parenting and respect for children increases, so will the violence in society. That's my opinion anyway.

As long as we have our lizard brain we will always have violence... It's in our nature

With all due respect what you're saying here is you've lost YOUR WILL to overcome that "lizard brain", you have made A CHOICE away from freedom and towards enslavement. Putting responsibility on a "lizard brain" is like saying, "I'll probably die young because it's in my genetics", which is an excuse to not take care of your body. You become passive and refuse to exert your will to control that which you may.

@rgcrypto - thanks so much for The Maxtrix Decoded (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaDqNDLpZa8), it blew me away! For those you may not be familiar with Mark Passio, he has been interviewed many times by Jan Irvin on Gnostic Media (http://www.gnosticmedia.com/). I highly recommend his work as well.

When you say "will" you are talking about using a conscious effort to overcome and control something that is subconscious and deeply routed in our DNA.  According to your logic I should be able to use my "will" to stop myself from blinking, stop my heart from beating and stop my lungs from breathing.  I may be able to hold my breath, slow my heart rate, and keep my eyes open, but eventually I need to breath and blink and pump blood through my body.

Our bodies are filled with chemicals and hormones that are released when certain subconscious parameters are met.  These chemicals can cause a range of reactions including fear and violence.  Everyone has different parameters and thresholds for the release of the chemicals, but we all have them.  Unless you plan on removing adrenaline and testosterone from our bodies you won't remove violence.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: rgcrypto on June 17, 2015, 04:13:54 pm
Quote
According to your logic I should be able to use my "will" to stop myself from blinking, stop my heart from beating and stop my lungs from breathing.  I may be able to hold my breath, slow my heart rate, and keep my eyes open, but eventually I need to breath and blink and pump blood through my body.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjTuYsy7NKg

He stopped his heart for 20 seconds with his will.

Yes, every parasympathetic function of the body can be controlled by the sympathetic(The power of the Will)

We are much more powerful than we are thought to believe.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: Xeldal on June 17, 2015, 04:20:38 pm
Quote
According to your logic I should be able to use my "will" to stop myself from blinking, stop my heart from beating and stop my lungs from breathing.  I may be able to hold my breath, slow my heart rate, and keep my eyes open, but eventually I need to breath and blink and pump blood through my body.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjTuYsy7NKg

He stopped his heart for 20 seconds with his will.

Yes, every parasympathetic function of the body can be controlled by the sympathetic(The power of the Will)

We are much more powerful than we are thought to believe.

Ken Wilber Stops His Brain Waves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFMtq5g8N4
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: Thom on June 17, 2015, 04:26:44 pm
And here we come down to the essence of our beliefs.

Is consciousness a manifestation of a specific collection of matter or is it the other way around?

I don't think we can provide empirical proof it is the later, yet we cannot explain what basic organization of matter is required to produce consciousness.

Examples of unusual and unexplained phenomenon challenge us to ask this question and try to find a rational explanation for what we observe. Many dismiss these anomalies as would people of the 10th century dismiss radio waves. Others attribute such things as the hand of a diety or "spiritual" influences.

There is so very much we don't know. Although I think 5 sense reality and the scientific method are extremely important tools to seek truth, it is the height of arrogance to say that's the only way possible to do so.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: rgcrypto on June 17, 2015, 04:48:47 pm
To return to the reptilian brain issue which is in essence "fight of flight response", I have experience in my own life how I am able to stop knee jerk response to outside events by using meditative practice(awareness of breathing, logic, perspective, etc.) which use other part of the brain. (neocortex for example)

The Law of Use (that which is not use is lost) dictate that the more we are able to control use the part of the brain that is connected to logic and language, the less power the unused part of the brain has over our lives.

On a macro level, the mass media is mind control to keep us in a state of fear...which in turn stimulate our reptilian brain. :(
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: puppies on June 18, 2015, 10:34:56 pm
Some really great stuff here.  To add my thoughts in no particular order or relevance

I thought the video was very good.  Discussion perhaps better.  '

I agree that we have to be careful with labels, and the emotional attachment that we have towards them.

I dislike utilitarian arguments because they can so easily be used to justify truly evil things.  I am shocked to hear some defend coercion.  Perhaps I am misunderstanding.  Perhaps they are saying that the best way to prevent coercion is to monopolize it.  Perhaps I still don't understand.

In a free society I think it is also important not to forcibly socialize the cost of exclusion.  This tends towards increasing the cost of accumulating property, as you bear the cost of protecting it.

I want to see each individual responsible for protection of their own property (it all comes down to property rights).  I would like to see each individual free to socialize that responsibility or hold it alone, or any number of things I can't even think of.  I would like to see a plurality of solutions, and not one solution for all.

I think many people get suckered into a false duality between being pro business and being anti business.  It is possible to be pro freedom and not lick a corporate jockstrap nor curse them as our oppressors.

and finally.
(http://nationalvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-02-at-7.27.09-PM.png)



Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: cylonmaker2053 on June 18, 2015, 11:17:58 pm

Countries that have the best quality of life have a mix of both. Privatization where it makes sense and socialization where it makes sense. Germany, France, Japan, Denmark, Canada, etc. For example health care, education, and pharma as for-profit institutions are in conflict of interest (i.e. treatments are more profitable than cures). Places where it makes sense are consumer goods and non utility services.

Not as cut and dry as that but any system that tries to apply one philosophy to all things is doomed. You either end up with North Korea or where the USA is headed. How many ISPs do we have now? Two? How's that working out?

mixed social models are inevitable bc of the vast mixture of the species we call human; hybrid systems are also likely more robust than forced one-size-fits-all alts. however, my gripe with anything political is the horrible notion that it's acceptable to use violence to shape peoples' lives in any direction. humans are social and would form all sorts of collective associations (e.g. insurance pools) on their own; no violence needed to force anyone's great ideas on the rest.
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: cylonmaker2053 on June 18, 2015, 11:22:17 pm
hopefully blockchain tech is part of a broader social revolution where people can peacefully choose alternative systems designed to meet all sorts of wants and needs. If the BTS mission of creating viable p2p asset markets is successful, that, alone, would be a massive disruption to the predatory gatekeeper / oligopoly world of finance that currently dominates. BTC is another great example of having the potential liberate people from banking cartels and financial repression, in general.

#vivaLaBlockchain
Title: Re: Economic Philosophy i.e. Why Socialism is Bad
Post by: Thom on June 19, 2015, 12:33:05 am

Countries that have the best quality of life have a mix of both. Privatization where it makes sense and socialization where it makes sense. Germany, France, Japan, Denmark, Canada, etc. For example health care, education, and pharma as for-profit institutions are in conflict of interest (i.e. treatments are more profitable than cures). Places where it makes sense are consumer goods and non utility services.

Not as cut and dry as that but any system that tries to apply one philosophy to all things is doomed. You either end up with North Korea or where the USA is headed. How many ISPs do we have now? Two? How's that working out?

mixed social models are inevitable bc of the vast mixture of the species we call human; hybrid systems are also likely more robust than forced one-size-fits-all alts. however, my gripe with anything political is the horrible notion that it's acceptable to use violence to shape peoples' lives in any direction. humans are social and would form all sorts of collective associations (e.g. insurance pools) on their own; no violence needed to force anyone's great ideas on the rest.

 +5%