This is like reporting that the sun set again or that slashdotters have no love life.
This is getting annoying. I, for one, am happily married and have a fulfilling love life. It's a silly and outdated stereotype that "slashdotters have no love life" and we should just drop it.
Instead of looking at it as rights trumping each other, why not see that the idea space cannot be split up at all? In other words, if you examine the context of your "own" mind, you can never be certain which thought is strictly yours and which one is not. Thoughts always arise in context and are meaningless without the context. Instead of saying that the thought dominates the context, or that context trumps the thought, why not just see it as one unbroken space?
That's a more advanced point of view than your "earlier rights trump the latter one", in my opinion.
The problem with trumping is that once you allow it, then there will be endless bickering on who comes first, etc. This will then spawn endless bureaucracies, legislations, and executive bodies made for enforcement -- precisely the kind of thing you as a "libertarian" should theoretically despise. If you want to eliminate bureaucracy and bs, then it's in your best interest to eliminate as much bickering as possible, and that includes bickering over rights too. The ideapshere is the most turbulent and fickle space there is, and designating any rights in that sphere, any rights whatsoever, will lead to an explosion in disagreements, and hence the need for governance will increase and not decrease.
Sure, except most of the filtering and anti-spam advances came from outside of Mircrosoft and not from inside. In fact, I don't even know a single filter or anti-spam algorithm that originated at Microsoft and is in wide use, and is responsible for eliminating at least 50% of junk.
What is Microsoft talking about? Sure, Gates' prediction came true, but no thanks to Microsoft.
Do you think the act of making love is artless or skilless? Sure, I understand your reaction, but if you think about it, sex is just another form of communication, and like all forms of communications it can be artistic and brilliant, or it can be crass.
And for that matter, all communications are arts of making love. It goes both ways.
The ideasphere is so intermingled and so total, that it's impossible to split it into discrete spaces, such that one can rightly claim, "This idea is mine". Ideas do not arise in vacuum, and the context for the idea is as much responsible for the idea as the person whose lips are the first to verbalize it. The idea that we can "own" ideas is absurd.
What you see here is the result of an expriment: "What if we allow ownership of ideas? What kind of life will that entail?"
Personally, I think one shouldn't even own property like land. Never mind ideas. With land, what one should own is one's own care and effort for the land. For example, if I take some land and start to rape it and put chemicals in it, etc., then my "land stuardship index" should be -100, since I am destroying it. On the other hand, if someone takes good care of land, their stuardship index goes up to +50, etc. The idea is that you own land only to the extent that you're a good stuard of it. It's absurd that a person with enough money can simply buy a large swath of land and just annihilate it, or spread child-slavery on it, just because it's their own property. The idea that "I can do here what I want, cause it's mine, mine, mine" is wrong. It rewards assholes as much as the good people. If we could switch from ownership to stuardship, then only the good caretakers would be rewarded, and assholes who abuse the land would be dumped on their ass.
One way to abuse the land, for example, is to buy some land in the middle of a city and then just sit on it, waiting for the price to rise. A person like that should be stripped of their stuardship. Likewise, if the person owns some land and all it has is slums that fall apart, again, they should be stripped from their land.
This way, anyone should be allowed to start farming anywhere they please, as long as they don't damage the land. I see this as just. It's unjust to block certain people from using the land, because some asshole said, "I was here first". Screw that! If that's justice, then Native Americans own every bit of land in USA and we should hand it over and get our asses out of here.
I have hard time believing this. Is paying minimum wage the only way you can stay competitive? Why didn't you volunterily pay more? Why did the town have to ask you to install a bathroom? Why didn't you want to install it without asking?
I can understand your point about the handicapped parking spot, considering you never had handicapped customers, but it sounds to me like you were an asshole who just did nice things for your workers only when preassured by politics and not becaused you wanted to.
Have you don't anything for anyone other than yourself, during your 9-5 regular business day? Donations after hours to ease off the guilty core-business soul do not count. It's what you do during your core business practice that is considered either virtue or not. If this wasn't true, then even a thief or a rapist who took a little bit of time to help out after hours would be a "good person".
Next time don't wait for the town to ask -- just do it yourself.
Fact is, credit card offers and other such nonsense has gotten so complicated that you often need an antire legal team to understand all the ramifications.
If some dickhead is scheming and plotting how to best rip people off, well, it's no wonder it takes a Ph. D. to cut through the bullshit.
And tips? Please... I will never believe it. How hard is it to divide by 10 and multiply by 2, or multiply tax by two? I refuse to believe that people don't know how to give tips. There must have been some communication problem or, the people in question are so greedy that giving tips is something they do rarely, and thus don't know how to do it.
I have 140 IQ myself. I'm not dumb by any means. And I make spelling and grammar errors if I don't proofread what I write. So fucking what? Big f-deal. And it took me like 10 years to figure out the best way to give tips. SO WHAT???? What does this mean? Oh, look, I used the word "like" in a sentence. Woop-de-doo.
Maybe people need to take their heads out of their asses and take a step back and reasses what is important in life?
I disagree with you about always defending forcefully. Sometimes the best defence is to be martyred willingly -- it shows strength that is greater than rebellion and it unnerves the tyrants to know that someone will die for their belief, not in a fight, not in a blast of a bomb, but calmly, cognisantly, peacefully, like a true martyr (as opposed to the cowardly pretenders who are not man enough to stay alive, but rather, blow themselves up with the others).
It is heroism to say FUCK YOU when the right time comes, but then NOT to fight, but to stand tall and calm and to display an aura that shows you are beyond life and death. This is how true heroes stand and this is how true heroes breathe. Stand tall, breathe freely and openly. Say fuck you but don't get angry. Don't buy the emotional bait. Don't settle for cowardly vengence. In other words, a real hero is never small-minded, but is always a broad-minded individual who rises above the dust.
Personally, I wish schools and universities would simply go away as institutions. Let people learn in solitude and by freely associating with like-minded groups.
All you no-government libertarian freaks should be able to understand me. Get rid of the educational authority! Get rid of the educational governance and free education from its bounds. Let people learn how they will! Sure, what this means is that those who hire will no longer be able to screen resumes by your education "credentials". Wonderful! Maybe now a more honest method to find qualified people will develop.
As long as the so-called "credentials" are used to screen out people, then there will be incentive to cheat. Remove the incentive by ending the reliance on this bogus means of differentiation.
Let's put a stop to universities and colleges -- seriously.
Yes, you can go through life completely ignorant of how the world around you works, but why would you want to?
That's actually a good question. I hope the answer is not obvious to you. Yes, why? Why would you want to know anything? Is there a purpose or benefit in knowing?
From where I sit, knowing is just a cheap way to compensate lack of acceptance and fear. Well, since I am affraid of lightning and can't accept it, I will learn "how it works". Aha, now that I know how it works, I am no longer affraid of it. Sure...but the problem is, this type of comfort depends on constantly learning, but as you learn and learn the amount of unknowns just increases and increases. For every answer 10 questions arise. So where is the peace in this? Where is comfort?
On the other hand, if the person can tolerate the psychological impact of the unknown, of the mystery, then there is no need to learn anything. It's like this -- if you can stand the heat, then you don't need to learn to get out. If you don't mind dying, then you don't need to seek to take an advantageous position in life in order to postpone death, or to make it more bearable.
Sure, I understand what you're trying to say, but really, you should always look at things both ways, if you don't want to be narrow minded. If you don't want to be narrow minded, it's good to understand both wisdoms -- the wisdom of learning, and also the wisdom of not-learning. If you can only understand and sympathize with one but not the other, then it signals a narrow mind that hasn't deeply questioned things beyond accepted dogmas (and you know, geeks are quite dogmatic about certain things).
It's ok to be a little dogmatic if you understand what your weakness is and to be mentally (internally) humble about it.
I still think that government is at best a reflection of the negative qualities of people and often seems to be a motivator of such behavior... governments tend to err on the side of tyranny, to the extent that they've been given the power to do so. If we can convince the individual that he's got some moral responsibility to his fellow man (a fact which I think deep down he already knows, and goes to great effort to convince himself otherwise) then the battle is already won, and forcing a government on top of this situation is just an unnecessary complication.
Actually, I agree with you completely on this.:) Government is a side-effect of the mental cancer that people appear to have, which is lack of insight. If people had developed their insight to the point where its depth could no longer be estimated, and treasured insight and experience above superficial aspects, then we'd not only have no use for the government, but the government would simply evaporate naturally. It would just wither, become irrelevant and disappear, just like a tumor that has nothing to feed on.
So, maybe I am crazy...but I think it is actually an accomplishable goal! But it's not easy, because, as I see it, you'd have to be the first one to develop such insight and wisdom in yourself. You know, no one wants to be the first, and plus, it's a little scary, since the more insight you have, the more it tends to undermine our cherished ideas about this and that. Things become less cut and dry. Ideas that we would normally hold as axiomatic suddenly lose their axiomatic status. It's like a no man's land when that happens, psychologically it is difficult if the person could be somehow forced into such atmosphere. People have problems dealing with loss of limbs (witness phantom limb syndrome, post-traumatic amnesia and other coping strategies of our fragile psyches), what to say with loss of so many ideas that it would constitute loss of identity as we know it? It's hard. So it helps for someone to be couragous and go first to show that it's OK...it's not so bad out there or here (whereever). That it's livable and maybe not uncomfortable. Maybe it's even comfortable. I don't know.
But if people have ideological positions to protect, these tend to be diverse, and conflict arises. Things are difficult when people hold some ideas as axiomatic. Should the axiomatic idea of one person conflict with the axiomatic idea of another -- can they ever live with each other without fighting?:) If people dig in and establish themselves in "me vs. them" attitude...well it will be hard for all of us, because we all will be impacted.
I am as guilty as anyone. I will try my best to eliminate my narrow-mindedness, but I can't promise fast results. Meanwhile I am affraid we'll have to do with some type of governance.:)
Sure. This sounds to me like "change". Things change. That's a little different from saying things "evolve". To my mind, that is. That species change and exist only within the context of their environment is something you can conclude through introspection. You don't even need to study the actual species for that. But oh well... It's a lot more fun (for some people) to go into the wilds and interact with the species than to sit in one place and contemplate hard-core to the point where you can derive such understanding.
"Things change" is a less grandiose claim than "things evolve". To say that things evolve you are usually implying that at "first" there were only bacteria, and that bacteria cooperated somehow to form more and more complex organisms, all the while claiming that it enhances survival. In reality forming a more complex organism does NOT enhance survival. If anything, single cell organisms which multiply and die at a fantastic rate, evolve faster and are better suited to survival if they *remain* as single cell organisms.
However, if you are just saying that things change and adapt, that's a lot more reasonable, but also a lot more humble of an assertion -- because then you're not positing that all life was microbial at first.
It's always smart to make as modest an assertion as is reasonable while still saying something. Change is something everyone can observe and agree with. It's fairly modest. On the other hand, we do not see humans devolving (I know the word is the same as "evolve", that's why I am using devolve...why not?) into apes.
Your idea of niches is a little bogus...but I don't have time to deal with it right now. Hint: there are no actual niches, for example bacteria and humans...sometimes we coexist and sometimes we don't. Bacterial infenctions can kill humans. But we also have bacteria that live in our stomach and help us digest...so is it a niche or not? Truth is, the situation as it REALLY IS cannot be captured by a concept of a "niche". The concept of a "niche" is a dummyfication of reality. Anyway, this is my superficial glazing over the topic, and I won't return to it, due to lack of time. If you disagree, I won't be able to continue this argument (and if you agree, I can't confirm it).
If you agree that directionality is not something that makes sense for "evolution", and you agree that there is no real differense between "evolution" and "devolution", then you should agree to drop the whole "evolution" label and just say, "speciation" or "change" or "adaptation", which are all less grandiose terms than "evolution" as many people understand it.
Scientists do have a well thought out, internally consistent, rationale for evolutionary pressure that may answer the questions you raised in the first part of your comment. I would strongly suggest reading Darwin's Origin of Species. Your issues are very carefully discussed within that book, but only from the point of view of a scientist, of course.
As I see it, everything is internally consistent until it is examined thoroughly. In my experience, nothing, and I really mean nothing, stands up to critical examination of an experienced contemplator. The only possibility is that the person runs out of question-stamina. But if the question-stamina is strong, any conceptual construct will break down under focused, discplined, persistent insight. Ok, I may be wrong, but this is what I see. So even though I am making a certain species of an absolute statement, I also acknowledge that it's just my experience.
I don't need to pretend that what I believe or know or understand is more than just my experience before it becomes valuable to me -- and this is a differense between me and a scientist who posits some kind of "substance" or externally-guaranteed consistency to things. I also don't need to pretend that what I know, understand, etc., is superior to, or is the only way to know, understand, etc. In this way I am different from solipsists. But because I don't need external validation prior to realizing great confidence, I can be considered a certain species of a solipsist in that regard -- although I do not agree broadly with the views of a solipsist.
I happen to like science a great deal. I am not a scientist, but I do enjoy many impacts that science makes. So, it's not really in my interest to completely dismantle it. But it's also not in my interests to support the type of combative "science" that takes the attitude "we must destroy anyone who disagrees."
So I largely agree with your overall sentiment of non-elitism and will check out that link when I get a chance, but my feeling is not that there are multiple consistent frameworks, but rather that all frameworks are equally inconsistent when examined closely! So, they are, in a sense, equal, but they basis of their equality is not consistency, but rather inconsistency.:) Hopefully, even if you disagree with me (which is fine), you can see where I am coming from.
By doing it slowly... First it would move into wetland (which already is a perfect environment for cows). Its evolution would favor mutations that make life in wetlands easier. Like hoofs better suited for water. The ability to swim. Bigger lungs for eating sea grass. Etc. This all would mean that cows would gain an definite advantage over predators that don't like water. And it would also mean that those cows could get into deeper water.
Yes, anything can slowly "become" anything else. (It doesn't even have to be slow, but whatever).
The problem I see is that evolution posits a direction, but really I don't see how this direction can be inferred? I mean, a being is just as likely to devolve as it is to evolve. Why don't complex organisms devolve back into bacteria? You know, if you are talking about survival, bacteria are awesome at it! They can live in extreme cold and extreme heat under extreme conditions such as weird gas mixtures and very prolonged lack of food. Seems like, from the survival point of view, being a bacteria kicks ass all over being a human. In fact, the more complicated a being is, the more fragile it is -- because there are more things that can break. So, why would something very fragile and complicated form from something very simple that kicks ass at surviving and multiplying? Survival can't be the right answer.
So you see, it's not that one thing can't become another. Sure can! It's that there is no way you can predicate some reason or special causality to it, like "it's for the purpose of survival", etc. Purposiveness of action is a human imagination. It is US who imagine a purpose behind anything. Don't you get it? The religious person thinks the purpose is to please God. The scientist thinks the purpose is to survive and thrive. But all of these ideas about purpose are equally sentimental and equally biased. The scientists has his head up his arse as deep as the religious fanatic when they insist on this or that purpose.
The problem with science is that scientists suck ass as philosophers. In fact, mostly a person is attracted to maths or physics and just goes into that field. And there is nothing really wrong with it. But what they DO NOT DO is contemplate WHY they go into physics, why they like it, IS THERE a purpose? Maybe there isn't. Maybe they don't know why they like it. Maybe they know a lot less than they would like to admit. But this cannot be discovered unless the person contemplates sincerely and deeply, aspiring only, ONLY after the utmost. But do scientists aspire after the umtost? Heck no. Why do I say this?
Well, imagine a person wants to be a house of utmost beauty. So he picks up a hammer and starts hammering some boards together?? NO! The person has to make sure he has an UTMOST hammer. But does he then hammer away? No! The person has to make sure his hands are UTMOST. So after taking good care of his hands, does he hammer away? NO! The skill must be utmost! And so on. So the person who aspires after the utmost goes all the way BACK.
Now, a scientist who aspires after the utmost uses WHAT as a primary tool? MIND.. Yes, mind.:) So a scientists who aspires after the utmost has no time to waste doing science if he cannot be certain to possess an utmost mind. That's why such a scientist would first and foremost be a contemplator and maybe even a meditator. Because mind should be in tip-top condition in order to do tip-top science. But do scientists really examine the contents of their own minds that scrupulously, that meticulously and that deeply? Heck NO!! IF they did, they'd have no time to do any science. They'd be spiritual mendicants.
Now, don't get me wrong...I don't think that everyone should be aspiring after the utmost... because maybe after all there is no utmost. But this also means that scientists should approach spiritual people with great humility and respect and they shouldn't be so arrogant about their theories, considering they do not train their minds the same way people do who are dedicated to training their minds as their sole goal in life.
Without the government you get "rule by the mob" that's hardly any better. My personal solution to all this -- raise the level of awareness of people and encourage them to be less materialistic (and I don't mean "greedy", I mean dropping the belief in matter, they way people believe in it today). As I see it, if you take a bunch of greedy people with perverted views about reality (views that do not stand up to critical examination well, and the view of "substance" is one of them), they will invariably self-organize into a body of some kind. Then, whether this body has what we may call a "big government" or a "small government" or a "monarchy" or whatever other distribution of social forces, it will be sick inside, and no system could heal it. On the other hand, I believe that if we take well balanced people who are reasonable (in the sense that they do not abandon reason, but can reason very well) and BECAUSE they are reasonable, they do not give strong preference to this or that view, and especially they do not seriously entertain the view of "substance" as we we have today, and are not greedy, but instead understand that life is not a matter of accumulation, but a matter of experience, then I suggest they will self-organize into a healthy social body no matter how it is set up inside. Even a monarchy with such people will be pleasant.
The culture of the people is more important than the system. The system of "checks and balances" just does its best to hold back the shit-tsunami, as I see it, but it doesn't solve the problem. At least it does acknowledge the problem! So it's not so bad. But the limit to how good it can be depends on culture. And culture depends on insight (which is hard or impossible to cultivate through the traditional authoritative top-down education).
This is just my opinion, but if you really want to see some change, instead of being anti-government or anti-big-government, you should investigate how people's views affect the way they self-organize and behave in groups. You might want to focus your effort on changing culture rather than convincing people of the danger of government, because if you take a group of people and put them together, they will invariably self-organize in some way, and there will be something there that looks like "government" even if it's not called that (unless perhaps the people are completely wise in all respects and don't even depend on each other in any way), so eliminating a government-type of social force may be a total waste of time. Instead it might be more worthwhile to investigate what can cause a more healthy self-organization within the social body. Just an idea.:)
The problem is that often the state gives the union some sort of added "advantage" which discourages them from being reasonable (like making it illegal for the owner to fire them all and hire different workers if the union's demands are too great)... and when the union pushes them a little too far... the owner is left with the choice of either closing altogether, or relocating to a different country to escape those laws. Of course the union sees this as unfair, and they're trying their darnedest to make it illegal for the owner to relocate as well. That'll leave him with one choice... and it's not any prettier for the workers, just worse for him.
Sounds to me like the problem might be with that law and not with the union. Personally, even with this law, I don't see why workers would not accept a reasonable settlement (rent prevalent in the area * 4). Simple formula and hard to argue with it, as that's what many economists recommend people pay for rent.
I see. I think we are more or less in agreement then. It's just how we chose to explain the situation. Since I don't consciously come into contact with politicians as such, I chose not to rely on government as my focal point of criticism.
My point, and I think your point is roughly the same, is that people form self-organizing bodies, but the behavior and power dynamics inside those bodies could often be improved, if people knew better.
When I say economics is making government irrelevant, I mean precisely what you are saying -- that everything is up for sale, if the price is right. So, a lot of time the decision is more a matter of "how much bribe" cash you got, then "is it right for our people"? "Government of the people and by the people" is just a lie, because the government is a lot more sensitive to well-to-do people and hardly cares about the poor and less-than-well-to-do. Government looks at the population of USA with the eye of "What's in it for me?" But they should look at us with the eye of "How can I help you?" and "How can I help you homeless man?" Instead of scoffing and disdaining the less fortunate, we should help them. Now when I say "we" I really mean myself. I should (and do). But I am also hoping that I am not alone. And I am also hoping that our Government could reflect people like me too, and not just reflect the corps, who mostly think "I got mine... screw anything else".
The Government is supposed to be the protector of poor and disadvantaged, but as you are saying, more and more, it is the protector of those who are already hugely successful and really don't need any help.
I'm of two minds on the unionnization of labor. On one hand, how can people negotiate with the corps? They need some representation, don't they? On the other hand, if their power grows too high, they can shift the labor force from being a victim to being an abuser. Now, usually the labor force is a victim, because a laborer doesn't become employed from the position of power. In fact, the word "employed" already connotes just that.
Suppose also that I was a business owner and wanted to pay 2 dollars an hour. Union got me to pay 30/hr. Instead I went to Mexico or Thailand. Now, would you blame the Union for driving off the business, or would you say that actually I was an asshole two times -- first, when I demanded the job be done for 2 bucks an hour without any regard for the livelihood of my workers, and second, when I failed to get what I wanted, I took "my" money outside the state? Now, I put "my" money in quotation marks because it's only "mine" insofar as it has been given to me by others. It is not INHERENTLY mine, and I do not actually recognize full ownership of it -- instead I recognized a tacit agreement between people, an agreement which can change.
A 3 AM phone call is different from a post to blogger.com calling me a jerk. I don't need federal protection from that Night Elf who keeps/chickening my Orc.
Yes, you're right. What sane person would need such a law?
But on the other hand, I can see how politicians and people in power might need such a law. It would make it illegal to criticize them anonymously.
And how many people have gone to Gulag in USA for their political views, compared to say, Russia?
Even in Russia itself, Gulag was less of a threat than the bureaucracy.
While we shouldn't freak out by the various shenanigans that CNN and other conventional media are pulling, we should not excuse them either. We should call them "crap", and move on. But just because we have decided to move on and make something good of our lives doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize crap when it stinks. Gulag is bad, that's for sure. It's good to keep an eye out for it. But it is silly to whitewash all the nonsense the corps are doing with our culture.
You might be lucky with your place of employment. Who knows? Or maybe you just don't care. Or maybe you even agree with some of the things that I would call "crap". There is no way for me to know for sure. All I can do is tell you how it appears to me. And to me it appears that unchecked and unrestrained greed and personal ambition is what's doing the most damage right now. And the arena all this crap is playing itself out most effectively is in economics, while politics continues further slide into irrelevance. Economics is the new politics. Corps are the new governments. It's subtle now. It's not widely broadcasted, but it sure is happening.
But that's just the thing, the corporate censorship, while much broader in practice, is in many cases so impotent as to be more or less merely theoretical.
Ah, I guess this is where we disagree. It's not theoretical, but is very real. When was the last time you could challenge the practices of your executive management and still retain your employment?
How about the constant bashing of game journalism? Everyone agrees that it's bought and paid for. Now, who cares, right? But the same thing is happening with CNN and other mainstream media. For example, it is very "uncool" to report on the number of deaths in Iraq. That's the for-profit effect of corporatism.
On the contrary, I think the danger of the grizzly is a little exaggerated. Gulag is something that is a possibility for most people in USA, but not a reality. Corporate censorship is, on the other hand, a reality. While Gulag is so much stronger and more impressive, it is a remote chance, compared to corp censorship, which is not a chance, but a certainty.
My take is that the person should be aware of stress and its causes at all times, uniformly. So when chaced by a grizzly bear, the person's mind should pay attention, but it should not be consumed, so that when the grizzly bear is not chacing, the person can put on an insect repellant instead of obsessing on a threat that's past.
Slashdot Mirror
This is like reporting that the sun set again or that slashdotters have no love life.
This is getting annoying. I, for one, am happily married and have a fulfilling love life. It's a silly and outdated stereotype that "slashdotters have no love life" and we should just drop it.
Instead of looking at it as rights trumping each other, why not see that the idea space cannot be split up at all? In other words, if you examine the context of your "own" mind, you can never be certain which thought is strictly yours and which one is not. Thoughts always arise in context and are meaningless without the context. Instead of saying that the thought dominates the context, or that context trumps the thought, why not just see it as one unbroken space?
That's a more advanced point of view than your "earlier rights trump the latter one", in my opinion.
The problem with trumping is that once you allow it, then there will be endless bickering on who comes first, etc. This will then spawn endless bureaucracies, legislations, and executive bodies made for enforcement -- precisely the kind of thing you as a "libertarian" should theoretically despise. If you want to eliminate bureaucracy and bs, then it's in your best interest to eliminate as much bickering as possible, and that includes bickering over rights too. The ideapshere is the most turbulent and fickle space there is, and designating any rights in that sphere, any rights whatsoever, will lead to an explosion in disagreements, and hence the need for governance will increase and not decrease.
Sure, except most of the filtering and anti-spam advances came from outside of Mircrosoft and not from inside. In fact, I don't even know a single filter or anti-spam algorithm that originated at Microsoft and is in wide use, and is responsible for eliminating at least 50% of junk.
What is Microsoft talking about? Sure, Gates' prediction came true, but no thanks to Microsoft.
Do you think the act of making love is artless or skilless? Sure, I understand your reaction, but if you think about it, sex is just another form of communication, and like all forms of communications it can be artistic and brilliant, or it can be crass.
And for that matter, all communications are arts of making love. It goes both ways.
The ideasphere is so intermingled and so total, that it's impossible to split it into discrete spaces, such that one can rightly claim, "This idea is mine". Ideas do not arise in vacuum, and the context for the idea is as much responsible for the idea as the person whose lips are the first to verbalize it. The idea that we can "own" ideas is absurd.
What you see here is the result of an expriment: "What if we allow ownership of ideas? What kind of life will that entail?"
Personally, I think one shouldn't even own property like land. Never mind ideas. With land, what one should own is one's own care and effort for the land. For example, if I take some land and start to rape it and put chemicals in it, etc., then my "land stuardship index" should be -100, since I am destroying it. On the other hand, if someone takes good care of land, their stuardship index goes up to +50, etc. The idea is that you own land only to the extent that you're a good stuard of it. It's absurd that a person with enough money can simply buy a large swath of land and just annihilate it, or spread child-slavery on it, just because it's their own property. The idea that "I can do here what I want, cause it's mine, mine, mine" is wrong. It rewards assholes as much as the good people. If we could switch from ownership to stuardship, then only the good caretakers would be rewarded, and assholes who abuse the land would be dumped on their ass.
One way to abuse the land, for example, is to buy some land in the middle of a city and then just sit on it, waiting for the price to rise. A person like that should be stripped of their stuardship. Likewise, if the person owns some land and all it has is slums that fall apart, again, they should be stripped from their land.
This way, anyone should be allowed to start farming anywhere they please, as long as they don't damage the land. I see this as just. It's unjust to block certain people from using the land, because some asshole said, "I was here first". Screw that! If that's justice, then Native Americans own every bit of land in USA and we should hand it over and get our asses out of here.
Yup. Of all the errors, why pick that one to mention?
I have hard time believing this. Is paying minimum wage the only way you can stay competitive? Why didn't you volunterily pay more? Why did the town have to ask you to install a bathroom? Why didn't you want to install it without asking?
I can understand your point about the handicapped parking spot, considering you never had handicapped customers, but it sounds to me like you were an asshole who just did nice things for your workers only when preassured by politics and not becaused you wanted to.
Have you don't anything for anyone other than yourself, during your 9-5 regular business day? Donations after hours to ease off the guilty core-business soul do not count. It's what you do during your core business practice that is considered either virtue or not. If this wasn't true, then even a thief or a rapist who took a little bit of time to help out after hours would be a "good person".
Next time don't wait for the town to ask -- just do it yourself.
Fact is, credit card offers and other such nonsense has gotten so complicated that you often need an antire legal team to understand all the ramifications.
If some dickhead is scheming and plotting how to best rip people off, well, it's no wonder it takes a Ph. D. to cut through the bullshit.
And tips? Please... I will never believe it. How hard is it to divide by 10 and multiply by 2, or multiply tax by two? I refuse to believe that people don't know how to give tips. There must have been some communication problem or, the people in question are so greedy that giving tips is something they do rarely, and thus don't know how to do it.
I have 140 IQ myself. I'm not dumb by any means. And I make spelling and grammar errors if I don't proofread what I write. So fucking what? Big f-deal. And it took me like 10 years to figure out the best way to give tips. SO WHAT???? What does this mean? Oh, look, I used the word "like" in a sentence. Woop-de-doo.
Maybe people need to take their heads out of their asses and take a step back and reasses what is important in life?
Nice way to brainwash the people that there are only two sides in politics. So that's how republicrats and democans maintain their oligarchy?
How about a reform that allows us to move toward a 10 party or a 100 party system? I am so sick of the "two side" system...
Well said!
I disagree with you about always defending forcefully. Sometimes the best defence is to be martyred willingly -- it shows strength that is greater than rebellion and it unnerves the tyrants to know that someone will die for their belief, not in a fight, not in a blast of a bomb, but calmly, cognisantly, peacefully, like a true martyr (as opposed to the cowardly pretenders who are not man enough to stay alive, but rather, blow themselves up with the others).
It is heroism to say FUCK YOU when the right time comes, but then NOT to fight, but to stand tall and calm and to display an aura that shows you are beyond life and death. This is how true heroes stand and this is how true heroes breathe. Stand tall, breathe freely and openly. Say fuck you but don't get angry. Don't buy the emotional bait. Don't settle for cowardly vengence. In other words, a real hero is never small-minded, but is always a broad-minded individual who rises above the dust.
Ah... this is great! It's only fair.
Personally, I wish schools and universities would simply go away as institutions. Let people learn in solitude and by freely associating with like-minded groups.
All you no-government libertarian freaks should be able to understand me. Get rid of the educational authority! Get rid of the educational governance and free education from its bounds. Let people learn how they will! Sure, what this means is that those who hire will no longer be able to screen resumes by your education "credentials". Wonderful! Maybe now a more honest method to find qualified people will develop.
As long as the so-called "credentials" are used to screen out people, then there will be incentive to cheat. Remove the incentive by ending the reliance on this bogus means of differentiation.
Let's put a stop to universities and colleges -- seriously.
Yes, you can go through life completely ignorant of how the world around you works, but why would you want to?
That's actually a good question. I hope the answer is not obvious to you. Yes, why? Why would you want to know anything? Is there a purpose or benefit in knowing?
From where I sit, knowing is just a cheap way to compensate lack of acceptance and fear. Well, since I am affraid of lightning and can't accept it, I will learn "how it works". Aha, now that I know how it works, I am no longer affraid of it. Sure...but the problem is, this type of comfort depends on constantly learning, but as you learn and learn the amount of unknowns just increases and increases. For every answer 10 questions arise. So where is the peace in this? Where is comfort?
On the other hand, if the person can tolerate the psychological impact of the unknown, of the mystery, then there is no need to learn anything. It's like this -- if you can stand the heat, then you don't need to learn to get out. If you don't mind dying, then you don't need to seek to take an advantageous position in life in order to postpone death, or to make it more bearable.
Sure, I understand what you're trying to say, but really, you should always look at things both ways, if you don't want to be narrow minded. If you don't want to be narrow minded, it's good to understand both wisdoms -- the wisdom of learning, and also the wisdom of not-learning. If you can only understand and sympathize with one but not the other, then it signals a narrow mind that hasn't deeply questioned things beyond accepted dogmas (and you know, geeks are quite dogmatic about certain things).
It's ok to be a little dogmatic if you understand what your weakness is and to be mentally (internally) humble about it.
LOL. You're the one that's new! Look at your Slashdot ID and then look at the Slashdot ID of the person you are replying to.
I still think that government is at best a reflection of the negative qualities of people and often seems to be a motivator of such behavior... governments tend to err on the side of tyranny, to the extent that they've been given the power to do so. If we can convince the individual that he's got some moral responsibility to his fellow man (a fact which I think deep down he already knows, and goes to great effort to convince himself otherwise) then the battle is already won, and forcing a government on top of this situation is just an unnecessary complication.
:) Government is a side-effect of the mental cancer that people appear to have, which is lack of insight. If people had developed their insight to the point where its depth could no longer be estimated, and treasured insight and experience above superficial aspects, then we'd not only have no use for the government, but the government would simply evaporate naturally. It would just wither, become irrelevant and disappear, just like a tumor that has nothing to feed on.
:) If people dig in and establish themselves in "me vs. them" attitude...well it will be hard for all of us, because we all will be impacted.
:)
Actually, I agree with you completely on this.
So, maybe I am crazy...but I think it is actually an accomplishable goal! But it's not easy, because, as I see it, you'd have to be the first one to develop such insight and wisdom in yourself. You know, no one wants to be the first, and plus, it's a little scary, since the more insight you have, the more it tends to undermine our cherished ideas about this and that. Things become less cut and dry. Ideas that we would normally hold as axiomatic suddenly lose their axiomatic status. It's like a no man's land when that happens, psychologically it is difficult if the person could be somehow forced into such atmosphere. People have problems dealing with loss of limbs (witness phantom limb syndrome, post-traumatic amnesia and other coping strategies of our fragile psyches), what to say with loss of so many ideas that it would constitute loss of identity as we know it? It's hard. So it helps for someone to be couragous and go first to show that it's OK...it's not so bad out there or here (whereever). That it's livable and maybe not uncomfortable. Maybe it's even comfortable. I don't know.
But if people have ideological positions to protect, these tend to be diverse, and conflict arises. Things are difficult when people hold some ideas as axiomatic. Should the axiomatic idea of one person conflict with the axiomatic idea of another -- can they ever live with each other without fighting?
I am as guilty as anyone. I will try my best to eliminate my narrow-mindedness, but I can't promise fast results. Meanwhile I am affraid we'll have to do with some type of governance.
Sure. This sounds to me like "change". Things change. That's a little different from saying things "evolve". To my mind, that is. That species change and exist only within the context of their environment is something you can conclude through introspection. You don't even need to study the actual species for that. But oh well... It's a lot more fun (for some people) to go into the wilds and interact with the species than to sit in one place and contemplate hard-core to the point where you can derive such understanding.
"Things change" is a less grandiose claim than "things evolve". To say that things evolve you are usually implying that at "first" there were only bacteria, and that bacteria cooperated somehow to form more and more complex organisms, all the while claiming that it enhances survival. In reality forming a more complex organism does NOT enhance survival. If anything, single cell organisms which multiply and die at a fantastic rate, evolve faster and are better suited to survival if they *remain* as single cell organisms.
However, if you are just saying that things change and adapt, that's a lot more reasonable, but also a lot more humble of an assertion -- because then you're not positing that all life was microbial at first.
It's always smart to make as modest an assertion as is reasonable while still saying something. Change is something everyone can observe and agree with. It's fairly modest. On the other hand, we do not see humans devolving (I know the word is the same as "evolve", that's why I am using devolve...why not?) into apes.
Your idea of niches is a little bogus...but I don't have time to deal with it right now. Hint: there are no actual niches, for example bacteria and humans...sometimes we coexist and sometimes we don't. Bacterial infenctions can kill humans. But we also have bacteria that live in our stomach and help us digest...so is it a niche or not? Truth is, the situation as it REALLY IS cannot be captured by a concept of a "niche". The concept of a "niche" is a dummyfication of reality. Anyway, this is my superficial glazing over the topic, and I won't return to it, due to lack of time. If you disagree, I won't be able to continue this argument (and if you agree, I can't confirm it).
If you agree that directionality is not something that makes sense for "evolution", and you agree that there is no real differense between "evolution" and "devolution", then you should agree to drop the whole "evolution" label and just say, "speciation" or "change" or "adaptation", which are all less grandiose terms than "evolution" as many people understand it.
Thank you for writing.
:) Hopefully, even if you disagree with me (which is fine), you can see where I am coming from.
Scientists do have a well thought out, internally consistent, rationale for evolutionary pressure that may answer the questions you raised in the first part of your comment. I would strongly suggest reading Darwin's Origin of Species. Your issues are very carefully discussed within that book, but only from the point of view of a scientist, of course.
As I see it, everything is internally consistent until it is examined thoroughly. In my experience, nothing, and I really mean nothing, stands up to critical examination of an experienced contemplator. The only possibility is that the person runs out of question-stamina. But if the question-stamina is strong, any conceptual construct will break down under focused, discplined, persistent insight. Ok, I may be wrong, but this is what I see. So even though I am making a certain species of an absolute statement, I also acknowledge that it's just my experience.
I don't need to pretend that what I believe or know or understand is more than just my experience before it becomes valuable to me -- and this is a differense between me and a scientist who posits some kind of "substance" or externally-guaranteed consistency to things. I also don't need to pretend that what I know, understand, etc., is superior to, or is the only way to know, understand, etc. In this way I am different from solipsists. But because I don't need external validation prior to realizing great confidence, I can be considered a certain species of a solipsist in that regard -- although I do not agree broadly with the views of a solipsist.
I happen to like science a great deal. I am not a scientist, but I do enjoy many impacts that science makes. So, it's not really in my interest to completely dismantle it. But it's also not in my interests to support the type of combative "science" that takes the attitude "we must destroy anyone who disagrees."
So I largely agree with your overall sentiment of non-elitism and will check out that link when I get a chance, but my feeling is not that there are multiple consistent frameworks, but rather that all frameworks are equally inconsistent when examined closely! So, they are, in a sense, equal, but they basis of their equality is not consistency, but rather inconsistency.
By doing it slowly... First it would move into wetland (which already is a perfect environment for cows). Its evolution would favor mutations that make life in wetlands easier. Like hoofs better suited for water. The ability to swim. Bigger lungs for eating sea grass. Etc. This all would mean that cows would gain an definite advantage over predators that don't like water. And it would also mean that those cows could get into deeper water.
:) So a scientists who aspires after the utmost has no time to waste doing science if he cannot be certain to possess an utmost mind. That's why such a scientist would first and foremost be a contemplator and maybe even a meditator. Because mind should be in tip-top condition in order to do tip-top science. But do scientists really examine the contents of their own minds that scrupulously, that meticulously and that deeply? Heck NO!! IF they did, they'd have no time to do any science. They'd be spiritual mendicants.
Yes, anything can slowly "become" anything else. (It doesn't even have to be slow, but whatever).
The problem I see is that evolution posits a direction, but really I don't see how this direction can be inferred? I mean, a being is just as likely to devolve as it is to evolve. Why don't complex organisms devolve back into bacteria? You know, if you are talking about survival, bacteria are awesome at it! They can live in extreme cold and extreme heat under extreme conditions such as weird gas mixtures and very prolonged lack of food. Seems like, from the survival point of view, being a bacteria kicks ass all over being a human. In fact, the more complicated a being is, the more fragile it is -- because there are more things that can break. So, why would something very fragile and complicated form from something very simple that kicks ass at surviving and multiplying? Survival can't be the right answer.
So you see, it's not that one thing can't become another. Sure can! It's that there is no way you can predicate some reason or special causality to it, like "it's for the purpose of survival", etc. Purposiveness of action is a human imagination. It is US who imagine a purpose behind anything. Don't you get it? The religious person thinks the purpose is to please God. The scientist thinks the purpose is to survive and thrive. But all of these ideas about purpose are equally sentimental and equally biased. The scientists has his head up his arse as deep as the religious fanatic when they insist on this or that purpose.
The problem with science is that scientists suck ass as philosophers. In fact, mostly a person is attracted to maths or physics and just goes into that field. And there is nothing really wrong with it. But what they DO NOT DO is contemplate WHY they go into physics, why they like it, IS THERE a purpose? Maybe there isn't. Maybe they don't know why they like it. Maybe they know a lot less than they would like to admit. But this cannot be discovered unless the person contemplates sincerely and deeply, aspiring only, ONLY after the utmost. But do scientists aspire after the umtost? Heck no. Why do I say this?
Well, imagine a person wants to be a house of utmost beauty. So he picks up a hammer and starts hammering some boards together?? NO! The person has to make sure he has an UTMOST hammer. But does he then hammer away? No! The person has to make sure his hands are UTMOST. So after taking good care of his hands, does he hammer away? NO! The skill must be utmost! And so on. So the person who aspires after the utmost goes all the way BACK.
Now, a scientist who aspires after the utmost uses WHAT as a primary tool? MIND.. Yes, mind.
Now, don't get me wrong...I don't think that everyone should be aspiring after the utmost... because maybe after all there is no utmost. But this also means that scientists should approach spiritual people with great humility and respect and they shouldn't be so arrogant about their theories, considering they do not train their minds the same way people do who are dedicated to training their minds as their sole goal in life.
This is a beautiful post, but I really doubt anyone will understand it. Most people are entrenched in this or that viewpoint.
Without the government you get "rule by the mob" that's hardly any better. My personal solution to all this -- raise the level of awareness of people and encourage them to be less materialistic (and I don't mean "greedy", I mean dropping the belief in matter, they way people believe in it today). As I see it, if you take a bunch of greedy people with perverted views about reality (views that do not stand up to critical examination well, and the view of "substance" is one of them), they will invariably self-organize into a body of some kind. Then, whether this body has what we may call a "big government" or a "small government" or a "monarchy" or whatever other distribution of social forces, it will be sick inside, and no system could heal it. On the other hand, I believe that if we take well balanced people who are reasonable (in the sense that they do not abandon reason, but can reason very well) and BECAUSE they are reasonable, they do not give strong preference to this or that view, and especially they do not seriously entertain the view of "substance" as we we have today, and are not greedy, but instead understand that life is not a matter of accumulation, but a matter of experience, then I suggest they will self-organize into a healthy social body no matter how it is set up inside. Even a monarchy with such people will be pleasant.
:)
The culture of the people is more important than the system. The system of "checks and balances" just does its best to hold back the shit-tsunami, as I see it, but it doesn't solve the problem. At least it does acknowledge the problem! So it's not so bad. But the limit to how good it can be depends on culture. And culture depends on insight (which is hard or impossible to cultivate through the traditional authoritative top-down education).
This is just my opinion, but if you really want to see some change, instead of being anti-government or anti-big-government, you should investigate how people's views affect the way they self-organize and behave in groups. You might want to focus your effort on changing culture rather than convincing people of the danger of government, because if you take a group of people and put them together, they will invariably self-organize in some way, and there will be something there that looks like "government" even if it's not called that (unless perhaps the people are completely wise in all respects and don't even depend on each other in any way), so eliminating a government-type of social force may be a total waste of time. Instead it might be more worthwhile to investigate what can cause a more healthy self-organization within the social body. Just an idea.
The problem is that often the state gives the union some sort of added "advantage" which discourages them from being reasonable (like making it illegal for the owner to fire them all and hire different workers if the union's demands are too great)... and when the union pushes them a little too far... the owner is left with the choice of either closing altogether, or relocating to a different country to escape those laws. Of course the union sees this as unfair, and they're trying their darnedest to make it illegal for the owner to relocate as well. That'll leave him with one choice... and it's not any prettier for the workers, just worse for him.
Sounds to me like the problem might be with that law and not with the union. Personally, even with this law, I don't see why workers would not accept a reasonable settlement (rent prevalent in the area * 4). Simple formula and hard to argue with it, as that's what many economists recommend people pay for rent.
I see. I think we are more or less in agreement then. It's just how we chose to explain the situation. Since I don't consciously come into contact with politicians as such, I chose not to rely on government as my focal point of criticism.
My point, and I think your point is roughly the same, is that people form self-organizing bodies, but the behavior and power dynamics inside those bodies could often be improved, if people knew better.
When I say economics is making government irrelevant, I mean precisely what you are saying -- that everything is up for sale, if the price is right. So, a lot of time the decision is more a matter of "how much bribe" cash you got, then "is it right for our people"? "Government of the people and by the people" is just a lie, because the government is a lot more sensitive to well-to-do people and hardly cares about the poor and less-than-well-to-do. Government looks at the population of USA with the eye of "What's in it for me?" But they should look at us with the eye of "How can I help you?" and "How can I help you homeless man?" Instead of scoffing and disdaining the less fortunate, we should help them. Now when I say "we" I really mean myself. I should (and do). But I am also hoping that I am not alone. And I am also hoping that our Government could reflect people like me too, and not just reflect the corps, who mostly think "I got mine... screw anything else".
The Government is supposed to be the protector of poor and disadvantaged, but as you are saying, more and more, it is the protector of those who are already hugely successful and really don't need any help.
I'm of two minds on the unionnization of labor. On one hand, how can people negotiate with the corps? They need some representation, don't they? On the other hand, if their power grows too high, they can shift the labor force from being a victim to being an abuser. Now, usually the labor force is a victim, because a laborer doesn't become employed from the position of power. In fact, the word "employed" already connotes just that.
Suppose also that I was a business owner and wanted to pay 2 dollars an hour. Union got me to pay 30/hr. Instead I went to Mexico or Thailand. Now, would you blame the Union for driving off the business, or would you say that actually I was an asshole two times -- first, when I demanded the job be done for 2 bucks an hour without any regard for the livelihood of my workers, and second, when I failed to get what I wanted, I took "my" money outside the state? Now, I put "my" money in quotation marks because it's only "mine" insofar as it has been given to me by others. It is not INHERENTLY mine, and I do not actually recognize full ownership of it -- instead I recognized a tacit agreement between people, an agreement which can change.
A 3 AM phone call is different from a post to blogger.com calling me a jerk. I don't need federal protection from that Night Elf who keeps /chickening my Orc.
Yes, you're right. What sane person would need such a law?
But on the other hand, I can see how politicians and people in power might need such a law. It would make it illegal to criticize them anonymously.
And how many people have gone to Gulag in USA for their political views, compared to say, Russia?
Even in Russia itself, Gulag was less of a threat than the bureaucracy.
While we shouldn't freak out by the various shenanigans that CNN and other conventional media are pulling, we should not excuse them either. We should call them "crap", and move on. But just because we have decided to move on and make something good of our lives doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize crap when it stinks. Gulag is bad, that's for sure. It's good to keep an eye out for it. But it is silly to whitewash all the nonsense the corps are doing with our culture.
You might be lucky with your place of employment. Who knows? Or maybe you just don't care. Or maybe you even agree with some of the things that I would call "crap". There is no way for me to know for sure. All I can do is tell you how it appears to me. And to me it appears that unchecked and unrestrained greed and personal ambition is what's doing the most damage right now. And the arena all this crap is playing itself out most effectively is in economics, while politics continues further slide into irrelevance. Economics is the new politics. Corps are the new governments. It's subtle now. It's not widely broadcasted, but it sure is happening.
But that's just the thing, the corporate censorship, while much broader in practice, is in many cases so impotent as to be more or less merely theoretical.
Ah, I guess this is where we disagree. It's not theoretical, but is very real. When was the last time you could challenge the practices of your executive management and still retain your employment?
How about the constant bashing of game journalism? Everyone agrees that it's bought and paid for. Now, who cares, right? But the same thing is happening with CNN and other mainstream media. For example, it is very "uncool" to report on the number of deaths in Iraq. That's the for-profit effect of corporatism.
On the contrary, I think the danger of the grizzly is a little exaggerated. Gulag is something that is a possibility for most people in USA, but not a reality. Corporate censorship is, on the other hand, a reality. While Gulag is so much stronger and more impressive, it is a remote chance, compared to corp censorship, which is not a chance, but a certainty.
My take is that the person should be aware of stress and its causes at all times, uniformly. So when chaced by a grizzly bear, the person's mind should pay attention, but it should not be consumed, so that when the grizzly bear is not chacing, the person can put on an insect repellant instead of obsessing on a threat that's past.
Nice. :) Yea, I really don't care if it's Rumi's or not or where it came from -- I was just mildly curious.