I'm far more concerned with truth in marketing.

An authority is needed in the market to assure against scams.

See I think the theoretical solution is basic income, which is utterly impractical. Which is why data income becomes a very appealing compromise to me.

alright then you understand how left libertarians are pretty strict and dominating in that regards

And of course the collected data resource is one heck of a retirement nest egg in and of itself. I call it a Lifestream cos I'm a geek. lol

i guess i cant use the term authoritarianism if we gonna start arguing semantics
but they want to levy a lot of coercion against humans within the market place.

I understand supply chain economics enough to know why increasing a minimum wage is a bad idea

Terrible idea

if you increase the minimum wage to 15, at best, you wind up devaluing work.

Main driver of inflation, yep

at worst, you increase the cost of living proportionally or worse.

this is utilitarian arguments against it, but theres also the fact that you're simply preventing two parties to negotiate on their own terms.

I mean, sure.

The Utilitarian approach I listed is the one that people think of the least.

Does truth play a part, though?

How acceptable is deception and to what level?

But the result is that the market needs to be able to assign the value of work to determine if that work is worth it.

yeah i feel privileged that i can use either approach

Which leads in to your own argument.

There's also the tangential behemoth coming off of that

At what level does deception become aggression? If I hand you cyanide laced lemonade but didn't lace it myself, I am simply deceiving you.

That there's also currently a push in certain areas for undocumented workers being given a free pass

at which point they're able to compete in a way that a law abiding citizen can't.

Arguing for higher minimum wage and legal amnesty for undocumented employment simultaneously is disingenuous at best.

i think selling foods without giving info about toxins is without a doubt poisoning people is pretty clear aggression, imo. in other words it violates the nap.
but if there is info provided, you can sell toxic foods like tobacco or alcohol and people can posion themselves willingly however much they want.

See, I can agree with that perspective.

but its of course complicated to figure out if cusomers are reasonably informed, so there will be a lot of grayzones and edge cases

I mean, I ALSO consider it a bit annoying seeing these 'State of California' messages on shit.

Working in an auto parts store, I subject myself to materials known to the State of California to cause birth defects on a daily basis.

So, there's got to be some middle ground on that.

Here we have it, though

i think what the middle ground is will always be up for debate

Like all areas, my answer is more data

The company should have the _Responsibility_ to inform, while the individual should have the _right_ to ignore the warnings.

if both parties own a recording of the transaction and whatnot

yup thats a good way to put it i think, rye

legalism becomes much simpler

I don't like Lawyers and Insurance companies running everything.

If you want to look at the ruling class, look no further than that.

but they operate under a monopoly that has perceived public legitimacy, so thats why i personally don't think it's a good metric

Lawyers and insurance companies?

yeah, some insurance companies gets to use government force to make people have to buy them by law

thats quite a way to secure your profits

Well, yeah,

I mean... here where I live

We used to have a municipal pool.

One for each of the cities in this region, actually.

Several years ago, almost simultaneously, they started closing down.

It used to be a fond memory of mine, going to the pool, seeing what kind of jumps I could do off the diving board

If only there were human interest lobbies composed of independent entrepreneurs to represent the actual people, huh?

Like, say, if human resource companies suddenly pulled a hydraulic despotism?

i think everyone can only represent themselves

But a litigious society brought about the reign of Attorneys and Insurance.

And now there exists one public pool in about 80 miles.

i personally believe we're seeing the worst combination of attorneys and insurance within the current paradigm

and they had to remove their damned diving boards to accommodate their insurance policy.

I didn't quite realize what was going on until I worked at a summer camp, where their diving boards were removed for insurance reasons.

They were in the process of replacing it with a slide, but that's not the same. Hardly a point to a deep end, then.

so we want more freedoms to take on more risks

to have more personal responsibility

Personal Responsibility. Now that's a damned concept.

I am responsible for what I do.

Provided that the maintenance for what you supply is in good condition

if we signaled to companies that we agree with the terms, maybe they wouldnt need insurance from getting sued by people who dont want to take responsibility

but i get the impression the state doesnt allow us the freedoms to take those risks

It's not your damn fault if I hit my head on the diving board.

Culture's departed from that.

because public safety

I get where you're going with that, and all, but it's a cultural problem. If you could fix Culture towards a stateless society, you could much more easily control the state as it exists.

yeah i agree

The problem is that the state is not beholden to the people, as it was intended to be.

Our governments should be within reach, not three - or more - steps removed as it is.

well i think we need a culture that doesnt trust so much in politicians

or trust in state competence

You hear people in the Senate demanding that 'Roe v. Wade' be upheld.

Roe v. Wade is a lot more important for them than abortion.

Roe v. Wade establishes that the federal government can dictate shit to the states.

If Roe v. Wade were abolished as piss poor law, the decision would revert back to the states.

i've always been under the impression that the reason the different states even exist is to reduce central power

I bet that's not something a lot of people consider..

A State is a Nation.

In our current incarnation, the United States is supposed to be 50 nations operating in unison.

This is the entire point of a Federation, from which we get our Federal Government

so they should even have a type of sovereignty?

I mean, we've got 51 constitutions within the Nation as we refer to it.

Each State has it's own Constitution.

this makes washington dc seem even more schizophrenic

It absolutely is.

Congress's job is to balance the budget.

The senate's job is oversight

The Executive Branch's job is to manage negotiations overseas and between states

The Supreme Court's job is to sort out disagreements on the word of law.

It's all spelled out in the Constitution.

It's definitely worth reading more than just the amendments in the Constitution.

``Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
``

``To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.``

------------------------
When you combine that with the 10th amendment...
``Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
``

You can really start to see where shit went wrong.

lol yeah

And it's worth considering that the Amendments were written AFTER the document was produced. Meaning, their purpose is to clarify the intent.

@RyeNorth if you are a dude the birth defects thing doesn’t apply

So the state of California is saying that women just shouldn't work some jobs?

What is your favorite speeches guys? one of mine is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJzRa7HWVqs

Nigel Farage is great at speaches

Not to get too cliche but it has to be this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAd1WJ9gXo0

Can't get behind that one. I don't care what music you put behind it.

@Tal,Karpov,AlekhineAllCoolGuys - how about this one: https://youtu.be/4Z2uzEM0ugY

@Tal,Karpov,AlekhineAllCoolGuys This is my favourite, though the Nigel Farage one was hilarious. https://youtu.be/vFcn775CqAg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYSY2ohHFnQ&ab_channel=AlexanderVandenHoeven This has got to be one of my favourites, this too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibVpDhW6kDQ&ab_channel=RichH

I always found Chaplin's speech there a little sentimental and maudlin. He sseems to assume people with power normally are just good people and if we would all just get along we'd all have a better world. However, it should be obvious from history, any point including today, that people DO NOT automatically just try to get along, and leaders usually go after power.

Generally humans are communal and empathic though, generally we are good people. The reason we dispute is mainly because disagreements turn into fights for survival and through co-operation we can humanise and work with those we disagree with, and educate ourselves on things we don't understand. He's speaking out against bias and selfishness in the name of collaboration and rationality. I find this message still applicable today. We won't move forward until the left *and* the right realise the opponents aren't bad people, they just have different understandings, priorities and experiences that shape their outlook differently- and although we should be sceptical and wary, generally people want what they believe is best for society

there was that talk I recall cant recall who did it

"Generally humans are communal and empathic though, generally we are good people." -- and I just generally do not believe this is true of human beings, or ever has been. I used to. I don't anymore.

But I member that they said that intelligence can be narrowed down to someones implicit capability to overcome instinct to work for the betterment of society.

Well, what they perceive as such.

Instinct tells you to react with hostility towards something different or unfamiliar

An "intelligent" person will observe from a distance, or find a way to see if its a threat

YEah I think people are naturally rotton and will naturally be rotton if they aren't taught better. They aren't naturally good. That's sort of rooted in philoso9phers like Rousseu and I just don't see humans that way anymore.

Then again, theres also pathological altruism

Sociopathy and narcissism--the modern way of saying "evil" I think--is normal in humans.

We're not naturally "good" at all. And as a people we're now so poorly educated we're lost. We have no metaphysical certainties, and a civilization that lacks those will be rolled over by one that has some.

Well that kinda fixes itself by making humans dependent on society.

Where it self regulates by getting rid of deviants, and rewarding productive behaviour.

But also, history has kinda a pattern where a society that gets too large will start reverting back to a savage society.

I think collaboration is the reason humanity got this far. It's innately within us, or innately within society, that collaboration is beneficial

How I see it is people naturally have a tribal mentality

They want the benefits for the "tribes" they associate themselves with, so

Well, its just so that its not humans are rotten, humans are rational, and rational prioritizes self survival over all others.

For some people it could just be themselves and their family

Without a shared set of values and principles, people do not cohere, and we reduce to tribalism and family--which isn't necessarily bad, unless you have no clear tribe or good family, in which case you're really lost and will search everywhere.

And if you make it rewarding to benefir the society, well, humans self regulate to continue benefiting fro societyt

Well humans find a purpose in life. Whether it be serving a force relligious or institution, serveing their society, or even their family.

I disagree Max, people can have the same values but different ideas on how to achieve fulfilment of these values

That's where most division comes from these days

Which... is why you get psycopaths. Who have no ties to anyone, making them more "selfish" than the average person

Division comes from refusal to accept differences in values

A left-wing individual and a right-wing individual both want a good economy. Left-winger thinks this is done through redistribution of wealth, right-winger thinks this is done through de-regulation and promoting free trade. This causes a division

The smallest minority is the individual

I don't see difference in values as much of an issue as different ways to reach the end goal

If you cannot protect the individual you cannot claim you stand for the minorities.

But if you cannot protect groups that individuals belong to, that they want to belong to, you aren't really protecting the individual. This is why I find both hyper-individualism and hyper-collectivism both horrifying. It's why I'm not a libertarian anymore, OR a socialist, though I get accused of both. 😛

Thats just being against extremism in general.

Or someone being a moderate. Whats there to argue?

A good collective protects the individual

That's the idea of constitutionalism and generally law- the collective enforce and act by rules that allow them to coexist as individuals

And generally benefit from one another through that.

Trade? Exchange of services? And a force to ensure it runs fair and square.

But of course, relligion has a part as well. In a time when regulation was hard as hell to enforce.

Even now, you cant see everything

Right. Then you run immediately into the "Who Watches the Watchmen?" question, which hasn't changed in thousands of years. I think we have yet to show ARistotle or Plato wrong onthese things.

Wait what? WHo watches a god?

Religion generally came about when people needed a way to enforce rules beyond a single leader, is how a friend explained it to me

Yes, if you plot to assassinate a king, he could be none the wiser and you'd get away with it

But if God's watching? Fuck nah

Or also to uplift a population to act beyond what they were at the time

"Religion generally came about when people needed a way to enforce rules beyond a single leader, is how a friend explained it to me" -- yes this is a common belief. It's a faith-based, non-scientific belief, but it's a belief.

Concepts like hygine, decent behaviour, and more specifically, stuff like population controll and food prepping

What's your scientific explanation for religion Max?

Shit like monogamy

The evidence shows overwhelmingly that spiritual belief and religion are completely normal in humans, and perfectly rational if you engage the topic rationally (which not everyone does).

Well id argue its rational for someone to react to ideas they disagree with with hostility

Because we naturally want to explain the unexplained, nullify fear of death, and have objective morality and definite justice

@Vigil My scientific explanation? Well the science clearly shows we're wired for it. The history clearly shows non-religious and anti-religious societies quickly turn into complete chaos or into authoritarianism. This all points to me to human spirituality as a normal, evolved trait--which It hink is pretty clear from all the data we have.

Was the implication that humans who follow a relligion are irrational.

No

Well, it's like, a lot of the time religion is making an assumption

While evidence states that humans are predisposed to find a common belief to strive towards?

So the next question the Presuppositional Atheist has is how this would develop, since it's supposedly "irrational" and not "evidence based." But it's rational and evidence based, and normal in humans. Fighting it is anti-human and anti-human rights I think.

Which is rational

Afterall the best way to unite a populace is to create a movement for everyone to strive towards.

But now that I think about it. Remember that rat experiment?

Near the end of the experiment, rats started becoming loners?

So your argument is just that religion is good and natural, not that it is true?

Could that be similar to people who simply become reclusive and no longer wish to take part in society as a whole?

Why not a human-centric goal, though? Why do we have to unite over The Beardy Space Guy to get along? Why do we need the threat of punishment to do good things?

Make it impossible to achieve

And with enough faith youd have people working on it forever

A relligion dies when its goal has been achieved

I'm atheist and I'm still a good person with moral knowledge, yknow? I don't need God to make me moral. And anyone that is only moral for salvation is still as selfish as a sinner

I'll take selfish people acting good for their own gains over them acting badly.

And well, you still have to understand that humanity is still hardwired towards instinct

I'm not saying "ban all religion" obviously, belief is a very strong thing and more power to you if you're a rational accepting person with a deep and profound belief. But I work in terms of reality and I won't resign myself to being so ambitionless that my only reason for contributing and helping people is I don't want eternal agonising pain

I do not believe any atheist believes in morals or can come up with a coherent set of morals. They always go, always, to whether or not someone is "nice" or "kind." But these have no fixed menaing at all. Nice to who, when, and what circumstances? Sometimes you shouldn't be nice or kind or em pathetic, in fact. These are not what you build values on.

And it so happens someone who acts for the betterment of societty for selfish reasons, is better for the herd

It was one of many things that led me away from atheism--the moral question gets a surprising number of people.

Than someone who acts deviantly. For the sake of it.

So this is how you were when you were an atheist?

You're wrong, Max, morality doesn't depend on religion. If God didn't exist would you randomly start being a dick? Or do you have innate, in-built values that you act upon because you know they're right regardless of God?

Or even better, rationality and instinct.

If without God you wouldn't act morally, you're just kind of an asshole, to be blunt

Humans are social, depend on social connections, and natural selection takes care of those unable to coexist.

"This" meaning what? That I'm critical of an ideology I rejected? That I insist it's an ideology and a movement? [shrug] I recognized it was an ideology and a movement and I left. I then had many experiences to lead me to examine the social phenomenon more largely. Psychological studies, sociological studies, history, philosophy, and quite a bit else. I came to my beliefs hard, over a period of many years.

The humans who are bad at coexisting or are more secular breed less or die to exposure.

I agree completely Ginga- a good society comes about when helping the collective helps the individual

Id argue that its not just relligion that creates morals but that relligion is a result of refined instinct and morals.

'This' being how you described ahteists. If you were not this way yourself you would have absolute proof that not all atheists are like that. That you would think this is what atheists are I can only assume it is how you are.

you wont convence someone who thinks they know something that they dont know what they are thinking

Created by millions of years of evolution

@Vigil You can think that if you want, but what I find is that no atheist anywhere has ever in all of history at any time anywhere constructed a consistent moral system. Virtually all believe morality is just social convention or genetic and give armwaving generalizations about "group survival." None of it's scientific and none of it makes sense to me anymore. I used to srot of think like that, that it was all social convention and genetics/survival of the fittest. I just reject those beliefs now, I think they're incorrect.

God has 3 purposes for establishing a moral system:
1) It roots it in something that's difficult to change or manipulate. We can see how reason alone is easy to manipulate with fads in intellectual spaces like academia.
2) It provides a means of accountability (yeah, sure stealing that candy didn't get you *punished now* but what about the afterlife?)
3) It provides such a moral system and community binding in the first place.

@Schedrevka I can provide scientific evidence for what I say. Let me know if you want to discuss it. Otherwise, you can jhust keep believing whatever you want, about me or about anyone else who doesn't share your beliefs.

I can smell the smug

I only believe about you what you said. If you say 'all atheists are x' and you were once an atheist that means you must believe you yourself were x.

Gonna be a long way before someone like you gonna be converting people to the flock

Consistent moral system? I'll give you a consistent moral system, sure. "Nobody should infringe on the rights of another to perform behaviour which does no harm to anyone else. People should attempt to help others the best they can."

Meanwhile, Roman Catholicism now accepts homosexuality, and once burned people to death for provable scientific fact but now doesn't

But I've gotta leave for a rheumatologist appointment. Have a good day everyone.

Sounds like I'm more consistent than religion

OK. You're not happy. I'll help you out. See my knife? You won't cry anymore.

@pratel "God" (with a capital G) has been understood for thousands of years not just by religions but philosophers as "The Ultimate Intelligence Running Reality." That is a normal belief in humans that you find in virtually all societies. The Christian claim, in specific--which you can believe or not--is that God chose to become a human being for 33 years in the person of Jesus Christ--that he BECAME a human who wlaked around for a while. The generic idea of "God" as that ultimate creative intelligence/force running reality is pretty universal in humans, and science even says it's a normal evolved trait that most humans are born with. We develop it right around the same age as language, between 2 and 4. There are some exceptions, like autistics, who are more likely to lack this normal intuited rational sense, although certainly it's not true of all autistics.

If the objective is to reduce suffering and "help" you just need a funny definition of help. @Vigil

LOL it doesn't sound like it to me, but whatever.

Hey Max, what are your clothes made of right now

OK. So "the invisible hand of economics" would be god?

The Bible states if you wear clothes made from more than one fibre you're going to Hell so

@pratel You need definitions of "help" and "compassion" and "empathy" and "kind" and "nice" and "good" that are consistent that people can recognize. We don't all come to the same conclusions based on the same dataset.

Sure.

Let's hope you don't wear polyester, because your sky-dictator's gonna damn you, because of objective law from the Bible

But these words like getting redefined.

@pratel What I find is that Materialists tend to treat "THe Market" like a God, yes. It's one of my problems with libertarianism generally.

You'd figure violence would be physical. But somehow here we are anyway, "words are violence"

So if violence is wrong no one should speak.

@Vigil Reading the Bible in a shallow idiotic manner like that doesn't win you any points with Christians who are as smart as you or smarter, sorry.

Dude I was Roman Catholic for 17 years, you wanna know my findings on the Bible?

Please don't tell Christians how to read the Bible, and I suggest you stop reading it yourself, it's obvious you don't understand it with remarks like that. 😉

@MaxKolbe I was going for *argumentum ad absurdism* but my point was that I wouldn't consider the free market "god" for the purposes of religion.

@Vigil No not particularly, I've tlaked to tons of ex-Catholics and heard their stories ad nauseum. They usually boil down to poor catechesis or Father Issues.

It's a good philosophical concept, but kinda distinct from how it's used in most religions.

>literal scripture
>you're just reading it wrong
Oh boy it's this again

@pratel I can see that. But my remark stands. People treat economics like a God, and that's a problem, because economics is a shifty, dodgy thing that involves quite a bit of subjectivity that doesn't always work out in the neat way Market worshippers imagine.

Agreed.

Though that's a bit of a tangent.

@Beeman "I can read the scriptures any way I want, and inform others that's how to read it, and I can ignore anything the people who actually believe and practice it have to say." Yes, I'm familiar with that old saw.

It's certainly better than most distribution systems though.

Wrong, God abandoned me and I realised I had to grow up, stop being a little boy, and take accountability. The Bible was primarily a historical document on the history of the Jewish people and then the prophets and Jesus come along as a refutation of old Jewish law and Roman rule. Revelations is a log of the fall of the Roman empire, and the Book Of Amos literally calls out the hypocritical belief that rich Jewish people were rewarded by God so therefore the poor were sinners and shouldn't be helped

@Vigil That's abuncyh of interesting claims. I've heard them from others.

a bunch

Then enlighten me, o future pope

Hey quick question, if all the prophets go to Heaven and Elisha killed 42 children for making fun of his bald head, does God endorse murderers or do you accept that even the prophets themselves were flawed sinners but God chose preferential treatment and let them into Heaven regardless?

Just wondering if you approve of either murder or corrupt dictatorships

Enlighten you on what? "God abandoned me and I realized I had to grow up" -- God didn't abandon you you abandoned God but whatever. Also, I abandoned my own atheism when I realized I had to grow up and stop pretending that my own limited faculties were not sufficient either to explain the universe OR h ow to have a decent, good, and moral life. You're only going to find those things in strong philosophies, or religion, or ideally, a religion which has both.

Lol when I abandoned God by giving myself those pesky mental health issues

"Hey quick question, if all the prophets go to Heaven and Elisha killed 42 children for making fun of his bald head, does God endorse murderers or do you accept that even the prophets themselves were flawed sinners but God chose preferential treatment and let them into Heaven regardless?" -- See? STill more loaded questions and presuppositions and projections. I don't accept those assertions about the Bible you're making. You're reaeding it wrong, and not the way smart Christians do. Th at is a fact. Now you can keep with your pirmitive beliefs, and acting like I share you rprimtive beliefs, but the rest of us don't have to share them with you. ;Believe wh atever you want, but I don't see it your way, sorry.

How do we always end up arguing about religion these days?

You're allowed to not have an answer for things. I don't know the origin, I don't know where I go when I die. I'm a good person anyway, Max, and if you need any more incentive, but you're exactly the arrogant demagogue Jesus died disproving

No one gets anything and it's not even useful because it's all metaphysics.

@pratel Probably because the faddish Atheism that took so much of Internet-active Millenials is a dying movement, people are figuring it out, and lookoing for alternatives. They've also realized some of their standardbearerrs/heroes, like Sargon, are pretty worthless.

Amos 7:10-17 is this conversation, Max, and newsflash, you're Amaziah

Also, it's just a fact of life that atheism is going away in the general population, here and in Europe and most of the rest of the world, and young people are coming up rejecting atheism. Most people do.

Alright, I'm off. Good debate. Goodnight lads