[Rei Murasame]

Rei, how exactly do you organize your news media? Got any screen shots?

Opera Speed Dial for browsing, and the bookmarks are a whole big mess of bookmarks sorted by date, but Opera's search function usually makes it easy to dig a story back up again if you remember some small part of what the general theme was since it then becomes sorted.

I'd take a screenshot of my Speed Dial (which is like 4 screens long now I think ) but there would probably need to be a whole new thread for that, I'll do it when the July Desktop thread opens, if you want.

[Daktoria]

To advocate action, there has to be an example of something that is happening.

I have no idea what your definition of corporatism is, so do tell me what you think it is, since it's like every time we have this conversation you overlook the fact that unions are supposed to be present on the scene in tri-partitite negotiations. You think they are going to really support direct cuts to their quality of life for the benefit of financiers?

It's like your criticisms of both corporatism and socialism are dependent on a fundamental misunderstanding of what they are about.

My concern over corporatism isn't just about capital-labor relations. It's about consumer-labor and consumer-capital relations as well.

The problem with corporatism is it disconnects household income from household expenses. Households become obligated to live lifestyles endorsed by the government instead of choosing how to live their own lives. Cultural exploration... disappears.

You could say my definition of corporatism is orchestration between lifestyles and productivity.

With regards to 'axioms', my 'axiom' is in my ideology tag under my location all the time, (minzoku-shugi), so it need not be restated all the time.

Nationalism is not an axiom (maybe there's more to it, but I'm not sure).

An axiom is like how libertarianism depends upon "people act" or "people think" or "ethics require free will to exist" or "identities require nonaggression".

Which is not very good if I am all about public health by hook or by crook. We had this conversation in 1001 healthcare PoFo topics over the past 12 months. I want to reduce the role of chance as much as we can get away with reducing it.

Well then you wouldn't have very much action taking place, would you?

I don't like luck either, but there's a difference between open and closed stochastic behavior. Open stochastic behavior is randomness. Closed stochastic behavior is personal decision making. Likewise, sometimes, success can only be had by enduring open stochastic behavior, but it's up to people to decide how much they want success in deciding whether or not to invest themselves. Otherwise, you again destroy cultural exploration.

But that particular statement could never exit the mouth of a Third Positionist, so what are we talking about? You would never be asked to go and die for international bankers, the first Third Positionist that came out with that request would be removed very swiftly. And if not, then it would be proof that you have a degenerated state on your hands.

You could argue that all corporatist states inevitably must become degenerated and I would dispute that of course, but in order to even have that argument about that potential pitfall, you'd have to first accept that class really exists (and it does indeed exist!), but you are not prepared to do that, are you, so how will you have that argument?

Rei, I think you've nearly made this exact statement on chat. You've admitted to wanting to govern so people are happy, and you said before when we were discussing the cliffhanger scenario that the potential savior would have to put up with the chance of being neglected on the basis of "that's life".

(Specifically, I said it's possible an "endangered" person could be colluding with the savior's competitor. You pointing a gun at the savior would force the savior to lose the competition, yet it's not necessarily true that you would uncover the collusion. In turn, you said it's the savior's burden to endure the risk of investigation failing.)

[Rei Murasame]

The problem with corporatism is it disconnects household income from household expenses. Households become obligated to live lifestyles endorsed by the government instead of choosing how to live their own lives.

Only a liberal could see having a way of life, as a problem.

A lot of the time, these things you call 'problems', are just 'having a form of social organisation other than liberalism'.

Nationalism is not an axiom

It certainly is when minzoku-shugi means "ethnicity-as-first-principle". The way that the term is written describes what it's made of.

Well then you wouldn't have very much action taking place, would you?

Why not?

Rei, I think you've nearly made this exact statement on chat.

I tend to be consistent, so I would say the same thing on PoFo IRC, yes.

You've admitted to wanting to govern so people are happy

I just had to give this one a special highlight as that is an interesting choice of words that I've heard from other libertarians as well, where I tell them that I want to smother the public in love and never let them go (or any wording to that effect), and they react like it's some kind of terrible admission.

Yes I admit that I would like people to be happy.

you said before when we were discussing the cliffhanger scenario that the potential savior would have to put up with the chance of being neglected on the basis of "that's life".

Define 'neglected'.

Specifically, I said it's possible an "endangered" person could be colluding with the savior's competitor. You pointing a gun at the savior would force the savior to lose the competition, yet it's not necessarily true that you would uncover the collusion. In turn, you said it's the savior's burden to endure the risk of investigation failing.

Yes, because you shouldn't get to let people die in front of you on excuses like "oh, but I thought all the people who use the NHS were faking their illnesses, so I decided not to pay tax ever."

Come on.

[Chill]

ethnicity-as-first-principle

What is the reason you put so much importance on ethnicity?

[Fasces]

Ethnicity, taking a broad definition to include race [sociobiology], language, culture, faith, etc, is the most natural and basic of all human institutions. Basic human empathy carries among those of the same ethnicity better than those of different tribes. It is the fundamental organism which all humans make up, and this is due to psychological and evolutionary reasons.

It is easier to organize a society around ethnicity, and the subsequent society will be more stable, than any other institution. The class state was still full of ethnic strife, and the Soviets failed to contain it. The kingdoms of God still fell to ethnic strife. The empires of sword and gold fell to ethnic conflict. It is enduring, and the easiest sentiment to revive after centuries or millenia of suppression. To suggest anything other than the most solid foundation for society is to doom it. Would you build your house in the mud, when bedrock is available?

[Daktoria]

Only a liberal could see having a way of life, as a problem.

A lot of the time, these things you call 'problems', are just 'having a form of social organisation other than liberalism'.

Each person lives a different path. It isn't having a way of life being a problem, but having a way of life proscribed to you being a problem.

It certainly is when minzoku-shugi means "ethnicity-as-first-principle". The way that the term is written describes what it's made of.

Well yes, that sounds hierarchic. The origin of value though from putting your way of life before others eludes me.

Don't you live your way of life because you believe in it? Why does it matter if others believe in it?

Why not?

An optimally risk-averse environment would have no risk taking at all.

Likewise, (metaphysically speaking) in order for action to take place over time, you have to have uncertainty. Without uncertainty, the world would be stuck in a freeze frame.

That's the weird thing about predetermination. A predetermined world is static, so there's no need for a predetermined world to have time.

I just had to give this one a special highlight as that is an interesting choice of words that I've heard from other libertarians as well, where I tell them that I want to smother the public in love and never let them go (or any wording to that effect), and they react like it's some kind of terrible admission.

Yes I admit that I would like people to be happy.

It isn't a matter of liking people to be happy. It's a matter of projecting your tastes of happiness onto others.

Everyone doesn't feel the same way over the same experiences.

Yes, because you shouldn't get to let people die in front of you on excuses like "oh, but I thought all the people who use the NHS were faking their illnesses, so I decided not to pay tax ever."

Come on.

What about people who have preventable illnesses who didn't prevent them because of lifestyle decisions?

The problem with centrally planned lifestyles is no lifestyle is immune from illness altogether. Even if you decide upon disciplined lifestyles for people, you will always be forcing a mismatch between income and expenses.

[Fasces]

A mismatch between expenses and income would only reduce, at worst, given a responsible government, people to the necessities of life. I care little if a man is unable to fill the void in his spirit by mindlessly consuming the latest gadget.

[Daktoria]

It's not about being a materialist/consumerist entertained by tools and toys in themselves if you will. It's about deciding which tools and toys to acquire in order to explore culture with.

Aside from that, it's rather interesting because Rei and I have talked about subduing consciousness over chat through mindless consumption under a corporatist government. The reason for this is you need the masses to be distracted while engineers invent new technologies to advance and stabilize civilization.

Science itself has to be transformed into a religion in order to persuade the masses that endorsing engineers is worthwhile (because after all, the masses aren't intelligent enough to be engineers themselves). Under corporatism, the masses have to be willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of evolution.

The problem with that is evolution is a cognitive experience. When you sacrifice cognitive actors, you beg the question over the value of evolution. The sacrifice of cognitive actors for other cognitive actors is a contradiction.

[Rei Murasame]

Each person lives a different path. It isn't having a way of life being a problem, but having a way of life proscribed to you being a problem.

Then how can you support any ideology at all?

Don't you live your way of life because you believe in it? Why does it matter if others believe in it?

Why do Liberals want others to believe in their way?

An optimally risk-averse environment would have no risk taking at all.

I agree, but in reality a trade-off has to be made in order to actually get things done. It just so happens that my idea of a trade-off leans dramatically toward the 'less risk' side of the spectrum.

Everyone doesn't feel the same way over the same experiences.

Close enough is good enough, that's acceptable. You aren't offering an alternative to this other than anomie.

What about people who have preventable illnesses who didn't prevent them because of lifestyle decisions?

They should have been made to prevent them. If they somehow get those illnesses anyway, we should treat them, because that's what taking care of each other is all about.

Anyone who objects to this should of course be ignored.

The problem with centrally planned lifestyles is no lifestyle is immune from illness altogether.

So? We choose the best one we can find and continue to improve on it.

The problem with that is evolution is a cognitive experience. When you sacrifice cognitive actors, you beg the question over the value of evolution. The sacrifice of cognitive actors for other cognitive actors is a contradiction.

Why? You are again - conveniently - ignoring group selection.

[Daktoria]

Then how can you support any ideology at all?

This is actually a very good question.

Ideally speaking, I don't want to call myself a deontological libertarian, paleolibertarian, or libertarian transhumanist.

The only reason I do so is to communicate with others, but I'd prefer to communicate with people without words. I'd prefer to take my raw, unconscious, informal intuitions and fuse them with your mind (and vice versa).

Unfortunately, that's just not possible in physical reality, but then again, ideas are not words themselves, but the meaning behind words.

It isn't language itself that's important, but composition method behind language that's important.

I can support ideology because my focus is on "support", not "ideology".

Why do Liberals want others to believe in their way?

I don't want you to believe in my way. I just want you to open your eyes and realize there are other ways out there just as identifiable as your own.

If you don't want to open your eyes, that's fine, but then you don't have the right to administer over others. You can have the right to keep your eyes shut, but you don't have the right to condemn others to your blindness since that would objectify who they are.

I agree, but in reality a trade-off has to be made in order to actually get things done. It just so happens that my idea of a trade-off leans dramatically toward the 'less risk' side of the spectrum.

This... is confusing. The less risk you take, the less action that can happen.

Also, why should people who lean even further than you accept your compromise?

Close enough is good enough, that's acceptable. You aren't offering an alternative to this other than anomie.

They should have been made to prevent them. If they somehow get those illnesses anyway, we should treat them, because that's what taking care of each other is all about.

Anyone who objects to this should of course be ignored.

So? We choose the best one we can find and continue to improve on it.

How close though? Even then, if you make 44 decisions with 90% confidence, you'll only have a 1% chance of being right.

At some point, your central planning model is going to betray people who were loyal to you. You need to leave people to their own methods of discovering best courses of action in order to respect who they are. Who knows, they could even be better than your own, and by forcing people to conform, over the long run, you're shunning creative problem solving.

Why? You are again - conveniently - ignoring group selection.

The group is nothing without its components. If you sacrifice components, then the group's value becomes questionable since (admiring) the survival of some components over others becomes a matter of luck.

[Rei Murasame]

It isn't language itself that's important, but composition method behind language that's important.

I can support ideology because my focus is on "support", not "ideology".

Well that's stating the obvious, so we agree on that.

I don't want you to believe in my way. I just want you to open your eyes and realize there are other ways out there just as identifiable as your own.

And what when I do so, and the still reject those other ways?

Also, why should people who lean even further than you accept your compromise?

They shouldn't, they should try to continuously find ways to get people in my camp to lean even further, and I'm sure that you can imagine how they might do that, because it happens all the time.

At some point, your central planning model is going to betray people who were loyal to you.

This is mainly because we aren't gods, which is something that we are obviously willing to acknowedge. I'm not sure why you are always stepping through these obvious statements with me, seeing as I have read things from all your Austrian economics authors many times before, and so I know quite well that central planners cannot actually be omniscient (yet?).

You keep making the assumption that I think that central planners know everything. That's obviously not the case.

Who knows, they could even be better than your own

That's why neocorporatism involves tripartite committees and guilds, and why institutions are set up for these debates to take place in, because the system wants to know what people are thinking and there is to be a framework for making that happen, a framework clearly superior to casting a vote every 4years and hoping for the best. The principle behind calling up all the workers in the factory to supply the 'boss' with ideas is not something that is foreign to us.

It is however foreign to liberal-capitalists.

If you sacrifice components, then the group's value becomes questionable since (admiring) the survival of some components over others becomes a matter of luck.

Explain the logic behind this statement, since it's like you are following a train of thought that is so incredibly pie-in-the-sky that I can't see how you are judging 'value' in the first place, or why we should actually stop to worry about that.

[Daktoria]

And what when I do so, and the still reject those other ways?

Privately speaking, that's fine. You don't have to walk or invest along each path to deserve respect. I won't tax you to spend on others.

Publicly speaking though, the only way you can respect "people" is if you acknowledge free decision making. Otherwise, you couldn't even call yourself an administrator over society. You'd just be an engineer, but people aren't objects to be toyed with. People are subjects who toy with objects and play with each other through toying with objects.

That is the limit of physical reality, Rei. Unfortunately, it's impossible for people to toy with each other without depreciating each others' identities. Maybe one day, the cage of physical reality will be destroyed without destroying the identities of people, but that's not today.

They shouldn't, they should try to continuously find ways to get people in my camp to lean even further, and I'm sure that you can imagine how they might do that, because it happens all the time.

We talked about this on chat already about explorers who rebel and become squashed. Frankly, I think you're acting as an agent provocateur over this point. You want people to fight so you can exert supremacy over them (or experience the drama of (the risk of) defeat).

The problem is people who lean further than you don't necessarily want to dominate, especially when it comes to risk aversion. Risk averse people tend to be conservative, not aggressive.

This is mainly because we aren't gods, which is something that we are obviously willing to acknowedge. I'm not sure why you are always stepping through these obvious statements with me, seeing as I have read things from all your Austrian economics authors many times before, and so I know quite well that central planners cannot actually be omniscient (yet?).

You keep making the assumption that I think that central planners know everything. That's obviously not the case.

If you're not a god, then what right do you have to force people to have faith in you?

That's why neocorporatism involves tripartite committees and guilds, and why institutions are set up for these debates to take place in, because the system wants to know what people are thinking and there is to be a framework for making that happen, a framework clearly superior to casting a vote every 4years and hoping for the best. The principle behind calling up all the workers in the factory to supply the 'boss' with ideas is not something that is foreign to us.

It is however foreign to liberal-capitalists.

The reason it's foreign is because you're assuming everyone on each side of the table is unified when that's not the case.

Every firm is not alike, every worker is not alike, and every household is not alike. There are flavors among groups which you are trying to homogenize.

Even in the nation of "blue" for example, there are different shades of blue.

Explain the logic behind this statement, since it's like you are following a train of thought that is so incredibly pie-in-the-sky that I can't see how you are judging 'value' in the first place, or why we should actually stop to worry about that.

Well it's rather simple Rei.

If I sacrifice you for the sake of letting the group evolve, you won't be able to experience that evolution.

[Rei Murasame]

Cross-purposes:

Publicly speaking though, the only way you can respect "people" is if you acknowledge free decision making. Otherwise, you couldn't even call yourself an administrator over society. You'd just be an engineer, but people aren't objects to be toyed with. People are subjects who toy with objects and play with each other through toying with objects.

But my purpose was never about bringing anyone liberty or independence. I am about bringing inter-dependence.

From your perspective,any administrating that I do is engineering, but why would that matter to me?

Frankly, I think you're acting as an agent provocateur over this point. You want people to fight so you can exert supremacy over them (or experience the drama of (the risk of) defeat).

No, if they win then they get have their way. I don't really understand why you continue to avoid this. If I go into a negotiation with someone and they get me to give them what they want, then they can have it.

The problem is people who lean further than you don't necessarily want to dominate, especially when it comes to risk aversion. Risk averse people tend to be conservative, not aggressive.

Then you will find yourself unable to explain 'revolutionary conservative' personalities, and likewise you'll be unable to explain environmentalists and conservationists.

If you're not a god, then what right do you have to force people to have faith in you?

No one has a right to do anything.

Every firm is not alike, every worker is not alike

Hence guilds.

If I sacrifice you for the sake of letting the group evolve, you won't be able to experience that evolution.

I don't worry too much about that possibility though, so long as we take actions to ensure that the new epoch actually comes about, I can accept not being around to see it myself.

[Daktoria]

But my purpose was never about bringing anyone liberty or independence. I am about bringing inter-dependence.

From your perspective,any administrating that I do is engineering, but why would that matter to me?

Wasn't even talking about liberty there. I was just saying you couldn't be a social administrator because you've relegated the status of people to things.

By objectifying people in forcing them to converge to the same path, you make it impossible to recognize "society". Society is different from other systems because of its stochastic character.

No, if they win then they get have their way. I don't really understand why you continue to avoid this. If I go into a negotiation with someone and they get me to give them what they want, then they can have it.

Not necessarily.

Sometimes, people don't want what you have. They want you yourself, but they don't want to "have" you.

Slavery corrupts your identity. The point is sometimes, people want to interact with who you are rather than force you to do certain actions.

Sometimes, people are interested in witnessing how you make decisions rather than just the end result. Dominating you would make that impossible because it would corrupt your decision making process.

Then you will find yourself unable to explain 'revolutionary conservative' personalities, and likewise you'll be unable to explain environmentalists and conservationists.

Revolutionaries in general are not risk-averse personalities. They wouldn't be people who are more risk-averse than yourself.

No one has a right to do anything.

OK, I'll rephrase. If you're not a god, what (positive, rather than normative) premise do you have to force others to have faith in you?

Maybe you force others to concede to your will, but then you've objectified them such that their identities don't really exist.

Hence guilds.

Why don't workers who don't belong to guilds not get a say in tripartite discussions?

Furthermore, what happens when you have multiple guilds within the same nation when those guilds have divergent interests?

I don't worry too much about that possibility though, so long as we take actions to ensure that the new epoch actually comes about, I can accept not being around to see it myself.

That's the thing though Rei. If you're not around, then there's no way you can confirm the new epoch actually does come about.

For all you know, as a despot, I could be deceitful and tell you I'm sacrificing you for the sake of evolution, but once you're dead or damaged, I could use your sacrifice for other purposes.

[Rei Murasame]

Notice how you've taken my thread and completely derailed it?

Society is different from other systems because of its stochastic character.

It's possible to administrate despite that.

OK, I'll rephrase. If you're not a god, what (positive, rather than normative) premise do you have to force others to have faith in you?

A leader can use any combination of knowledge, merit, and force, to get either consent or acquiescence from people.

Why don't workers who don't belong to guilds not get a say in tripartite discussions?

They can have a say as consumers, or form their own guild.

Furthermore, what happens when you have multiple guilds within the same nation when those guilds have divergent interests?

The state should try to guide them toward a compromise that is acceptable for them both as well as consumers.

That's the thing though Rei. If you're not around, then there's no way you can confirm the new epoch actually does come about.

That's the risk we run, and it certainly beats doing nothing.

_________________________

But seriously, do you see how far off topic this has gone?

[Daktoria]

Actually, the topic has come full circle.

That's the risk we run, and it certainly beats doing nothing.

From what I said before:

The thing about corporatism though is corporatism forces people to endure risk. It forces people to trust the State's interpretation of empirical data, endure central application of empirical data, and deal with the State's margins of error. Citizens are obligated to put up with risk for the good of society and trust the State to insure their welfare for when things go wrong.

That's why the speaker isn't held up for treason. Holding the speaker for treason would make the State look like a hypocrite because the speaker is asking people to do exactly what the State wants to do - endure risk for the gamble of happiness.

[Rei Murasame]

And it is actually still nonsense, because:

• Corporatists, socialists, and whoever else, are demanding that you join them in enduring risky actions so that by those actions risk can be reduced.
  
  
• Liberal-capitalists like Tucker Carlson are asking you to endure risk for the rush of enduring risk, so that he doesn't have to change anything at all.

_____________________

Your ideology is a bit like deer in headlights, because it can't differentiate between those two things. By refusing to do anything at all, you become essentially aligned to Carlson.

[Daktoria]

Rei, you seem to enjoy the rush of enduring risk all the time though. I thought I explained that enough in the P+D thread.

Isn't that the whole basis of national mythology? I mean you give the "tough, that's life" argument all the time like you enjoy making people deal with being doomed.

[Aekos]

Ethnicity, taking a broad definition to include race [sociobiology], language, culture, faith, etc, is the most natural and basic of all human institutions.

And our civilization has gotten to a point where we are able to improve on nature. While ethnicity might have been a vital bond in the development of civilization, much like religion was in the development and preservation of medieval science, it has become obsolete. And like religion, or "the Church" in specific, it has become a detriment rather than an engine of progress. Breaking the age-old bonds of ethnicity has not caused societal collapse - in fact, cultural mixing has created some very innovative and fruitful ideas.

[Dr House]

Such as?