[Daktoria]

Growing up in school, we have detention because kids get in trouble for acting out, and we expect it of them. It's part of learning who you are and learning the boundaries of society.

However, every kid isn't the same. Plenty of kids are apprehensive. They care about the rules too much, and by the time they do grow up, that apprehension sticks around, unresolved, still intimidated by society. Some of those who hold faith in authority and in community get ignored. The rules are supposed to stand up for them, but they don't. The system fails, and nobody cares to understand at the time when failure's important.

In a society where emotion comes first, these people never really learned to embrace their emotion because it scared the daylights out of them. They were afraid of getting in trouble, they didn't like getting picked on, and there didn't seem to be a healthy outlet for them to release into. Even the gifted and talented ones who got involved in extracurriculars don't necessarily assimilate. They develop their skills and talents, but it's not necessarily enough to make a career a la sublimation, and they don't necessarily become thoroughly socialized.

What's supposed to happen to those who fall through the cracks? Are they obligated to gamble their dignity? On the flip side, is society obligated to endure crime so people can learn to assimilate?

[destryalhmns]

At some point you might be lucky (or unluckly) enough to learn what jail and society are all about. Unfortunately it's a lot different from what everyone thinks and its so big and hard to explain that trying to explain it just makes you sound crazy.

If you are a minor please stop reading. Logically speaking, minors have left so.. If you are a little crybaby please stop reading. Lastly, if you're a nark or a bitch, just fucking leaving.. no one needs you for anything.

The system is not at all concerned with reality. You hit the nail on the head in that a lot of it is like high school. Right and wrong, complicated moral or philosophical decisions, and justice have zero place in our system, ZERO. When you get to the point where you realize what is happening you won't want them there anymore. But won't that cause a wave of crime? Yeah well, there already is a wave of crime and who everyone thinks of as criminals are nothing more than the people who are getting in the way of the active criminals in our world. Please take a while to absorb that.

The system is out of control though. It's already gone. It's a runaway train of insanity. It's an irrational monster with zero accountability that is attacking too many people. There are a lot of "criminals" out there with the righteousness of heaven and the fury of hell.

The misfits don't drive day to day society. The role of a misfit is to change the world. So yeah, in an old and corrupt system like our own the misfits get picked off. But it IS the misfits who will take down this turd and put something better in its place.

[onemalehuman]

What's supposed to happen to those who fall through the cracks? Are they obligated to gamble their dignity? On the flip side, is society obligated to endure crime so people can learn to assimilate?

Ever think they didn't fall through the cracks. Knowledge isn't in words. I have had 4 second chances from mistakes I made and should not have survived while making them. Justice by natural balances taking place in this moment seem mysterious, but in true visions through instincts alone one can see just how and why things fall into place as they occur all the time being part of the results added here as a whole.

The question of dignity and gambling with it, how can one loose what they haven't understood completely they they had from conception because humanity doesn't allow it's characters to understand natural balances outside believing all life offers is death and taxes?

Educate people to believe in symbolic values what can they have that is real when all they have learned is theory vs theology while words of self evident, freedom, liberty to be one's own sole result within the choices offered by humanity's rule of law?

Divine Providence or Manifested Destiny? I am a misfit to humanity because I understand what it is to be a sole result of ancestral compounding of lifetimes each generation to the point my two sisters and I came from the same two parents. In this reality of social justifications and always needing to prove one's loyalty to symbolic ideologies, where does real come into view?

I choose to be civil because that is the code of a predators instincts of survival of the species. One doesn't destroy that which can sustain itself in any prey that predator may feed upon. Codes of silence that bring about the results being exactly what remains here are far louder the the protests over who's who and the battlegrounds of lost lifetimes serving the greater good intentions of ideologues selling notions of national identity where rank has it's privileges at the expense of those ruled under their legislated morality, ethics, and legalities making sure those in charge stay in power to define the reality for the next generation entering the results here as always.

Live by the words and die by the sword makes a fools paradise for those looking to rule the moment without doing the work for themselves. Composing ideologies that blind real for reality's sake is only going to lead to self fulfilling prophecy those following orders will never believe it is their own doing bringing about that end result.

Just cause, just because aren't justice equally applied like adapt or become extinct is and has always been the physical governance of now's results so far. To the educators of reality, please learn this.

Again, educating what to believe in that is incomplete by design only teaches the feeling of being helpless and hopeless of every finding the self understanding that comes with sole conception knowing what now is as the only time space existence exists as conceived never staying the same results while part of the functions functioning the balance taking place here on this planet all the time.

Again, this is the physical core why democracy fails every time socially regardless what the beliefs were and good intentions meant so far throughout realities of humanity's interpretations about character's rights and the world is but a stage philosophy among the ruling class elites teaching symbolism over substance because if your character doesn't mind your body won't matter.

That is absolutely backwards of natural balance as without your sole results you cannot choose whom you wish to become socially. But that is just my instincts speaking over my intellect reciting wht I learned as society's child, not ancestral results of this universal moment being now for each generation added here.

Again, which laws, this moment's eternal balances added together exponentially or humanity's incomplete existential paths of hypotheses, hypotheticals, and hyperbole.

Yes, reality is physically real, but it was constructed through misrepresentation by only informing enough information to get the job done without questions.
Trickle down economics goes along with trickle down understanding of everything going on here in this ever changing moment's details where results are the same every generation male and female lifetimes look like their completed ancestry so far.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, all humans are created equally." What they do after birth as society's children is another story of ity, if, might, and maybe.

Jail to a sole gendered result is reality all lifetime long just being civil to those casting them as misfits in the real moment.

[Daktoria]

Word, OMH.

I wish I saw DestroyAllHymns statement too before. What he said is spot on as well. Everyone needs to digest this down to the core of who they are.

[nucklepunche]

Growing up in school, we have detention because kids get in trouble for acting out, and we expect it of them. It's part of learning who you are and learning the boundaries of society.

True. Actually there are some kids I think it is worth it to just give up on though. Maybe they do need jail or some sort of reeducation camp that is far more extensive than anything school or a week in juvy can provide.

However, every kid isn't the same. Plenty of kids are apprehensive. They care about the rules too much, and by the time they do grow up, that apprehension sticks around, unresolved, still intimidated by society. Some of those who hold faith in authority and in community get ignored. The rules are supposed to stand up for them, but they don't. The system fails, and nobody cares to understand at the time when failure's important.

Is this the social anxiety that led you to libertarianism?

In a society where emotion comes first, these people never really learned to embrace their emotion because it scared the daylights out of them. They were afraid of getting in trouble, they didn't like getting picked on, and there didn't seem to be a healthy outlet for them to release into. Even the gifted and talented ones who got involved in extracurriculars don't necessarily assimilate. They develop their skills and talents, but it's not necessarily enough to make a career a la sublimation, and they don't necessarily become thoroughly socialized.

Are you talking about kids who don't have enough emotions or sociopaths? In which case sociopaths have to be put away for good because they cannot change no matter how hard you try.

What's supposed to happen to those who fall through the cracks? Are they obligated to gamble their dignity? On the flip side, is society obligated to endure crime so people can learn to assimilate?

I don't think society needs to endure crime so people can assimilate. Sociopaths cannot assimilate and we shouldn't try to assimilate them. If you mean this then yes they need to go to jail. If you are trying to say social anxiety is an excuse to commit crimes then absolutely not.

[Sceptic]

...

I kind of see what you mean but if they are committing petty crimes then that is innocent members of the public who must suffer the same kind of social anxiety. Its a lose, lose situation, since you have crime and social anxiety whereas before you just had social anxiety (presuming justice is effective at preventing crime). Not exactly freedom of association, is it?

I would suggest kids are helped to integrate in social circles more by schools instead. It's also important that they DON'T get in with the wrong crowd, i.e. the crowd that are involved in joyriding, vandalism, firebombs, etc. as they will live a very hollow social life anyway. It's important that they integrate with mature and responsible students.

Schools should have more time spent on this sort of thing - i.e. recreational activities - since most of the stuff kids learn at school is a waste of time anyway... I've never had to recite my knowledge about polymers.

EDIT, by the way its interesting that social anxiety lead you to libertarianism since similar difficulties actually lead me to socialism at one point since I believed the idea of the communitarian collective would promote fraternity and co-operative relationships in the workplace and community, even if it was imposed on the people.

[Daktoria]

True. Actually there are some kids I think it is worth it to just give up on though. Maybe they do need jail or some sort of reeducation camp that is far more extensive than anything school or a week in juvy can provide.

The issue here is children aren't taught social values in school. Even among the psychopathic, they're still taught academic values instead, and especially in an environment where faculty are becoming increasingly lax on discipline, this has less and less value. Ultimately, though, educational institutions need to be unwound. Their professional bureaucratic structure makes them unreliable in remaining loyal to philosophical integrity since bureaucrats are results, rather than process, oriented.

One of the advantages of religion is teleological ethics appeals to emotion, so reasoning with psychopaths becomes unnecessary. Likewise, socially anxious people are taught in a controlled environment how to interact with psychopaths.

That said, what seems to ruin religion is the domination of the institution by pragmatic individuals who don't care to teach deeper morals when they're asked about. This negligence leads to skepticism from religion seeming like dogma, and rational idealists leave the community. In turn, emotional pragmatists also leave when they see no value to remaining obedient. The only exception I've seen to this is how some people will remain faithful just to get laid in claiming they're "good Christians". Some Jews remain religious as well just to maintain a social network (and complement their business contacts) rather than actually care about faith.

To be clear, I don't believe religion is a good thing, but it seems necessary to keep emotional pragmatists in check who simply just don't care to think before they act. Ideally, no emotional pragmatists would exist in the first place, but they're needed for labor intense jobs. When some people in society try to clean them out with technology, other people in society always jump on this whether in business, entertainment, politics, religion, or whathaveyou. Furthermore, emotional pragmatists end up vindictively backlashing against immature rational idealists just because they can.

Is this the social anxiety that led you to libertarianism?

Politics lead me to SA, SA lead me to politics. Libertarianism was just the last ideology, but I'm convinced libertarianism doesn't care about SA now either.

Are you talking about kids who don't have enough emotions or sociopaths? In which case sociopaths have to be put away for good because they cannot change no matter how hard you try.

Yes, I was talking about the emotionally impotent.

That said, we have to be wary of psychopaths making the emotionally impotent look like psychopaths themselves, especially when naive or psychopathic leaders are in charge.

I don't think society needs to endure crime so people can assimilate. Sociopaths cannot assimilate and we shouldn't try to assimilate them. If you mean this then yes they need to go to jail. If you are trying to say social anxiety is an excuse to commit crimes then absolutely not.

I'm not sure if this really answered the question. I asked about what's supposed to happen, not what's not supposed to happen.

________________

I kind of see what you mean but if they are committing petty crimes then that is innocent members of the public who must suffer the same kind of social anxiety. Its a lose, lose situation, since you have crime and social anxiety whereas before you just had social anxiety (presuming justice is effective at preventing crime). Not exactly freedom of association, is it?

I would suggest kids are helped to integrate in social circles more by schools instead. It's also important that they DON'T get in with the wrong crowd, i.e. the crowd that are involved in joyriding, vandalism, firebombs, etc. as they will live a very hollow social life anyway. It's important that they integrate with mature and responsible students.

Schools should have more time spent on this sort of thing - i.e. recreational activities - since most of the stuff kids learn at school is a waste of time anyway... I've never had to recite my knowledge about polymers.

EDIT, by the way its interesting that social anxiety lead you to libertarianism since similar difficulties actually lead me to socialism at one point since I believed the idea of the communitarian collective would promote fraternity and co-operative relationships in the workplace and community, even if it was imposed on the people.

I was initially a democratic socialist and fascist when I first got into politics, so you're emphasis on socialism and communitarianism isn't something I'm unfamiliar with.

The problem is those ideologies are still vulnerable to social alienation from charismatic ambition and cultural and political capital. Anyone lacking inside information becomes condemned in economic planning, and there is very little opportunity for social mobility since outsiders are always pushed into awkwardness so insiders can retain their social hierarchy.

Anyway, schools are the exact opposite solution to the problem because they're institutions in themselves. In turn, there is no incentive to cultivate an organic community. Instead, bureaucrats become inclined to cultivate a vicious cycle of dependency. If you remember while growing up, the children who won popularity contests were those who had the greatest social support OUTSIDE of school because they had other things to connect with.

Leisure activities are important, but it's just as important that leisure activities are not proscribed as extracurriculars. They're activities people do to bond together, not to show off. At best, competition should be between communities, not among communities, so people within communities learn to cooperate rather than dominate.

[Sceptic]

I was initially a democratic socialist and fascist when I first got into politics, so you're emphasis on socialism and communitarianism isn't something I'm unfamiliar with.

No, of course: I was merely justifying my view rather than explaining the theory itself.

The problem is those ideologies are still vulnerable to social alienation from charismatic ambition and cultural and political capital. Anyone lacking inside information becomes condemned in economic planning, and there is very little opportunity for social mobility since outsiders are always pushed into awkwardness so insiders can retain their social hierarchy.

If the economic planning is democratic, the lack of information can be trumped by political power. 'Outsiders' can become 'insiders' because they have a say by virtue of might regardless of their lack of technical knowledge. To be involved in economic decision making under liberal capitalism, you must have industrial knowledge. You must also have charisma and energy to succeed: entrepeneurship. The socially anxious lack entrepeneurship: they will wait for the opportunities to approach them; they will never simply take unless they overcome their problems.

EDIT, where are my manners? Merry christmas!

[Daktoria]

If the economic planning is democratic, the lack of information can be trumped by political power. 'Outsiders' can become 'insiders' because they have a say by virtue of might regardless of their lack of technical knowledge.

When I say "inside information" I'm referring to cultural and political capital, not financial or industrial capital.

In politics, inside information is about being savvy and having the right connections and knowing the right mannerisms. There is no hard power in political negotiations except in emergencies. Those emergencies define the rules of engagement, but people are also wary of reaching emergencies in the first place, especially when they're weak and know that repeated emergency measures will not retain their status.

If this isn't obvious, you might want to read from the Han Fei Tzu:

In general, the business of the persuader is to embellish the pride and obliterate the shame of the persuaded. If he has any private urgent need, you ought to encourage him with the cause of public justice. If the persuaded has a mean intention but cannot help it, you ought to praise its excellent points and minimize its harmfulness to the public. If he has a high ambition in mind but his real ability falls short of the mark, you ought to enumerate its mistakes, disclose its disadvantages, and esteem his suspension from realizing it. If he aspires to the pride of wisdom and talent, you ought to enumerate different species of the same genus with reference to every object of knowledge and thereby supply him with abundant information and let him derive ideas from you but pretend to ignorance of his derivation so as to elevate his wisdom.

If you want the persuaded to adopt your suggestion to cultivate inter-state friendship, you ought to explain it in the light of a glorious cause and intimate its accord with his private interest. If you want to describe things dangerous and injurious to the state welfare, you ought to enumerate the reproaches and slanders against them first and then intimate their discord with his private interest.

To be involved in economic decision making under liberal capitalism, you must have industrial knowledge. You must also have charisma and energy to succeed: entrepeneurship. The socially anxious lack entrepeneurship: they will wait for the opportunities to approach them; they will never simply take unless they overcome their problems.

Mmmm... charismatic marketing is more of a cultural issue than an economic issue. If anything, free markets benefit the anxious because free markets imply that people will have freedom of association such that they're not tied down to deal with bullies. The one disadvantage of free markets is the breakdown of the family unit such that parents can neglect socially assimilating children into communities, but again, this is a cultural issue. Why do people consume to the point of willfully risking haphazard reproduction? Why do people produce to the point of being encouraged to risk haphazard reproduction for emotionally rejuvenating release?

Social anxiety comes about because of this haphazard attitude. When the community around you behaves haphazardly and you don't have the resilience to endure getting hurt, that's when your fight or flight mechanism kicks in all the time. On the other hand, when the community does not behave haphazardly, entrepreneurship is easy because it's easy to talk with people and believe they'll be reliable rather than manipulative.

Merry Christmas, Sceptic. Hope the semester's gone well for you.

[Sceptic]

When I say "inside information" I'm referring to cultural and political capital, not financial or industrial capital.

I agree what you're saying here. Let me explain my reasoning:

The nature of the free market is that it is free from State intervention so the only way to exercise influence in the market is through the accumulation of financial or industrial capital. And for this you need entrepeneurship: only the most dynamic of socialites have entrepeneurship. It can be acquired but it must be fought for.

In the State, to exercise influence requires might. Under democracy, everyone has equal might because they each have an equal vote.

When you have power granted to you, you can gain inside information. Power is granted by the State under socialism but it must be taken under liberal capitalism. And to grasp power under capitalism, requires not might but the ability to create value for others which requires social skills in the first place.

It is because the State grants power under socialism that weak people are put into positions of responsibility which they cannot handle. But they are empowered to socialise. Only strong people are put into positions of responsibility under capitalism. But the weak cannot socialise. That is the disadvantage of liberal capitalism. It is why liberal capitalism works best economically but the State must intervene to impose a social order. It is why I am a conservative.

I support liberal capitalism out of principle (justice) and because it leads to greater economic efficiency (since pacifistically pursuing each individual values benefits the other partner in the exchange). But social interaction is not one of its strengths: social interaction must be imposed. As the market develops, trade becomes more impersonal and therefore so does social interaction.

If this isn't obvious, you might want to read from the Han Fei Tzu:

The problem is the need to persuade in the first place. In a position where there is no hierarchy of political power, no-one needs to persuade. When there is hierarchy of political or economic power, there is a divide of the dominant (the ruler) and the passive (the subject): the passive must persuade the dominant to improve their status. The passive either becomes the persuader or they lose confidence and do not try to persuade (the socially anxious). The persuader is in a dangerous position but has nothing to lose (if he is unsuccessful, he will lose confidence; if he does not try he will lose confidence). If he is successful, however, he will become dominant. The way people lose power is to think they have none. So the dominant can only retain their superior power by convincing the passive they have none.

The passive must take control either by gaining the the support of someone (either passive or dominant): they must persuade that person. To persuade that person, they must become passive to that person. They seek help of the dominant, because the dominant can help them the most. They become enslaved to the dominant, socially, unless they can overwhelm them by physical might: revolution.

In general, the business of the persuader is to embellish the pride and obliterate the shame of the persuaded. If he has any private urgent need, you ought to encourage him with the cause of public justice. If the persuaded has a mean intention but cannot help it, you ought to praise its excellent points and minimize its harmfulness to the public. If he has a high ambition in mind but his real ability falls short of the mark, you ought to enumerate its mistakes, disclose its disadvantages, and esteem his suspension from realizing it. If he aspires to the pride of wisdom and talent, you ought to enumerate different species of the same genus with reference to every object of knowledge and thereby supply him with abundant information and let him derive ideas from you but pretend to ignorance of his derivation so as to elevate his wisdom.

If you want the persuaded to adopt your suggestion to cultivate inter-state friendship, you ought to explain it in the light of a glorious cause and intimate its accord with his private interest. If you want to describe things dangerous and injurious to the state welfare, you ought to enumerate the reproaches and slanders against them first and then intimate their discord with his private interest.

I find myself in strong agreement.

Mmmm... charismatic marketing is more of a cultural issue than an economic issue.

Yes, and it is the cultural issues that I am focussing on, no?

Social anxiety comes about because of this haphazard attitude. When the community around you behaves haphazardly and you don't have the resilience to endure getting hurt, that's when your fight or flight mechanism kicks in all the time. On the other hand, when the community does not behave haphazardly, entrepreneurship is easy because it's easy to talk with people and believe they'll be reliable rather than manipulative.

The State is the only violent part of the community. Any other member of the community that is violent is subject to the might of law because the State and the State alone may monopolise law. For this reason, the entrepeneur can trust the broader community (that is, excluding the State) to behave peacefully. It is only dealings with the State which become haphazard.

Finally, something that I did not mention earlier is that there is also the issue of hierarchy in social relationships. There is a theory that capitalism is defined by that of economic hierarchy because the capitalist has power over his workmen: the relationships between these individuals is one of power between the dominant and the subdominant. Social flowering is less likely to occur in these circumstances of domination. These are the circumstances by which any economy MUST develop because its power house is the hierarchical mode of production, given the limitations provided by reality on economic co-operation: the law of diminishing returns and the general absence of entrepeneurship. For these reasons, the capitalist formulates a minority of the population, if we define 'capitalist' in terms of being in possession of hierarchical capital rather than capital in general.

Merry Christmas, Sceptic. Hope the semester's gone well for you.

Finished all my assignments

[Daktoria]

Sceptic, I'm going to jump to your part about persuasion. I was going to refer you to what I said about social anxiety when you talked about entrepreneurship again, but then I saw what you wrote about violence.

From violence, persuasion needs to be discussed as a matter of community members (within social hierarchy) persuading each other over who deserves to be treated violently. The weak have no leverage in this persuasion.

The problem is the need to persuade in the first place. In a position where there is no hierarchy of political power, no-one needs to persuade. When there is hierarchy of political or economic power, there is a divide of the dominant (the ruler) and the passive (the subject): the passive must persuade the dominant to improve their status. The passive either becomes the persuader or they lose confidence and do not try to persuade (the socially anxious). The persuader is in a dangerous position but has nothing to lose (if he is unsuccessful, he will lose confidence; if he does not try he will lose confidence). If he is successful, however, he will become dominant. The way people lose power is to think they have none. So the dominant can only retain their superior power by convincing the passive they have none.

The passive must take control either by gaining the the support of someone (either passive or dominant): they must persuade that person. To persuade that person, they must become passive to that person. They seek help of the dominant, because the dominant can help them the most. They become enslaved to the dominant, socially, unless they can overwhelm them by physical might: revolution.

This is tremendously naive. Persuaders have everything to lose ranging from their achievements to their dignity from so much as offending a ruler. By definition, the weak already lack power, and that's why they're in the position of persuading.

The weak become provoked by statements such as what you made about losing power by thinking you have none. When the weak believe they're empowered, they become squashed out of the excuse of arrogance.

Avoiding this requires inside information. Those who lack inside information become punished, and that's why free markets are so valuable - they prevent people from being punished due to circumstances beyond their control, especially being born as an outsider. Free markets don't condemn people for that. Instead, free markets respect freedom of association.

The key to preserving free markets is ontological language. That way, free markets don't become corrupted by hierarchic or collectivist attitudes which take inside information for granted.

Again we can read the Han Fei Tzu:

Ministers who attend to their duties in conformity to orders and fulfil their posts in accordance with laws, are not called "heavy-handed men". 3 The heavy-handed men would without any order act on their will, benefit themselves by breaking the law, help their families by consuming state resources, and have enough power to manipulate their ruler. Such are the so-called 4 "heavy-handed men".

Men well versed in the principles of tact, being clearly observing, if listened to and taken into service by the ruler, will discern the secret motives of the heavy-handed men. Men able to uphold the law, being straightforward, if listened to and taken into service by the ruler, will correct the crooked deeds of the heavy-handed men. In short, if these types of men are taken into service, noble and powerful ministers will infallibly fall off the inked string. 5 This is the reason why they and the authorities in charge of the state affairs 6 are bad enemies and unable to coexist.

If the authorities concerned take all matters of the state into their own hands, then everybody, whether outside or inside the court, will be bound to become their tool. Thus, unless through their good offices, feudal lords from abroad cannot accomplish any negotiation, wherefore even enemy states praise 7 them; unless through their good offices, no official in governmental service can advance his career, wherefore the body of officials becomes their tool; unless through their good offices, the courtiers cannot approach the sovereign, wherefore the courtiers conceal their vices; and, unless through their good offices, the allowances of scholars will decrease and the treatment accorded them will deteriorate, wherefore the learned men speak well of them. These four assistances are means whereby wicked ministers embellish themselves.

The heavy-handed men cannot be so loyal to the sovereign as to recommend their enemies and the lord of men cannot rise above their four assistances in such wise as to discern the right types of ministers. Therefore, the more deluded 8 the sovereign is, the more powerful the chief vassals become.

In general, the authorities concerned, in relation to the lord of men, are rarely not trusted and beloved, and, moreover, are his old acquaintances and long time intimates. To please the sovereign's mind by sharing the same likes and hates with him, is, of course, their beaten way of self-elevation. Their posts and ranks are noble and powerful; their friends and partisans are numerous; and the whole country praises them with one accord. Contrary to these, upholders of law and tact, when they want to approach the Throne, have neither the relationship of the trusted and beloved nor the favour of the long acquaintances and old intimates, and, what is still worse, intend to reform the biased mind of the lord of men with lectures on law and tact; which altogether is opposed to the taste of the lord of men. Naturally they have to acquiesce in a low and humble status and, having no partisans, live in solitude and singleness.

Indeed, the strange and distant, when contesting with the near and dear, have no reason to win; newcomers and travellers, when contesting with long acquaintances and old intimates, have no reason to win; opponents of the sovereign's opinion, when contesting with his supporters of the same taste, have no reason to win; the humble and powerless, when contesting with the noble and powerful, have no reason to win; and a single mouth, 9 when contesting with the whole country, has no reason to win. Confronted with these five handicaps, upholders of law and tact, though they wait for a number of years, are still 10 unable to see the sovereign. On the contrary, the authorities concerned, possessed of the advantages of five winnings, speak freely to the Throne at any time. If so, how can upholders of law and tact distinguish themselves and when can the lord of men realize his own mistakes?

Being thus hopelessly handicapped in their equipment and rendered incompatible with the authorities by force of circumstances, how can upholders of law and tact avoid dangers? Those who can be falsely accused of criminal offences are censured with state laws; those who cannot be indicted as criminals are ended by private swordsmen. For this reason, 11 those who clarify the principles of law and tact but act contrary to the sovereign's taste, if not executed through official censure, are infallibly dispatched by private swordsmen.

However, friends and partisans who form juntas on purpose to delude the sovereign and twist their words so as to benefit themselves, always win the confidence of the heavy-handed men. Accordingly, those who can be accorded the pretext of meritorious services are ennobled with official rank; those who cannot 12 be accorded any good reputation are empowered through foreign influences. For this reason, men who delude the sovereign and frequent the gates of private mansions, if not celebrated for official rank, are always empowered through foreign influence.

Ministers guilty of major offences must have deceived their sovereign. Such crimes deserve the death penalty. The wise men, far-seeing and afraid of death, never will obey the heavy-handed men. Similarly, the worthies, anxious to cultivate their personal integrity and ashamed of joining the wicked ministers in deceiving the sovereign, never will obey the chief vassals. That being so, the adherents and dependents of the authorities concerned, if not stupid and ignorant of the impending calamity, must be corrupt and mind no wickedness.

The chief vassals, holding such stupid and corrupt men under control, co-operate with them in deceiving the sovereign from above and collect spoils from below. Their friends and partisans exploit the masses of the people, 23 associate for treasonable purposes, bewilder the sovereign by unifying their words, and disturb the gentry and commoners by breaking the law. In so doing they incline the state towards danger and dismemberment and the sovereign towards hardship and disgrace. Such is a major offence. When ministers are guilty of such a major offence and the sovereign never suppresses them, he is then committing a serious fault. Should the sovereign commit such a serious fault and ministers commit such a major offence, to prevent the state from going to ruin would be impossible.

[Sceptic]

From violence, persuasion needs to be discussed as a matter of community members (within social hierarchy) persuading each other over who deserves to be treated violently. The weak have no leverage in this persuasion.

Whether the 'weak' have leverage depends in which respect they are weak: they can lack cultural capital but possess might. Also, it depends whether the weak have interests which coincide with the strong, or whether collectively, they have more might than the strong in which case they are no longer strong. In the former case, they can co-operate with the strong.

Essentially, in the absence of hierarchy, each individual has equal power to impose its will upon society via the employment of violence.

This is tremendously naive. Persuaders have everything to lose ranging from their achievements to their dignity from so much as offending a ruler. By definition, the weak already lack power, and that's why they're in the position of persuading.

The naive are open to unrealistic outcomes which shows open mindedness, even if it is the product of ignorance about the real world around them. Because they are naive, they are advantaged in so far as they can consider the multitude of possible outcomes.

In many ways the ruler is a persuader since the ruler must persuade the governed to be granted authority to rule. In this way the roles are reversed and equilibrium is attained.

The weak become provoked by statements such as what you made about losing power by thinking you have none.

Indeed, if they are not provoked they will never gain respect: respect must be attained through the employment of either physical might or cultural capital of which they have none.

In a liberal society, to attain respect through the employment of physical might is outlawed so only people with cultural capital can attain respect. One must have social expertise to attain respect in society, therefore.

This explains the demolition of the socially inferior in the Western liberal democracies where they are driven to solitary confinement, unemployment and alcohol. In Eastern culture they are supported by family structures.

the crooked deeds of the heavy-handed men

As I have depicted them, they are not necessarily crooked per se, provided it is values or some form of teleology they impose.

Being involved in politics is all about the competition to impose some form of teleological outcome. It is only sinister when the motives are selfish. Why should the privilege be monopolised by the State? As I envision it, it is only a universalisable principle if private citizens may also be involved in this business.

If the authorities concerned take all matters of the state into their own hands, then everybody, whether outside or inside the court, will be bound to become their tool.

Only if this business is monopolised.

To please the sovereign's mind by sharing the same likes and hates with him, is, of course, their beaten way of self-elevation.

See above point about the reversible nature of persuasion with respect to the politics of relationships.

Indeed, the strange and distant, when contesting with the near and dear, have no reason to win; newcomers and travellers, when contesting with long acquaintances and old intimates, have no reason to win; opponents of the sovereign's opinion, when contesting with his supporters of the same taste, have no reason to win; the humble and powerless, when contesting with the noble and powerful, have no reason to win; and a single mouth, 9 when contesting with the whole country, has no reason to win.

Indeed, they lack respect, but might they do not if the hierarchy of political power is abolished.

Social elevation in markets requires some form of respect.

I don't know. Do I speak much truth, if any at all?

I cannot see how liberty helps the socially anxious.

[Daktoria]

The naive are open to unrealistic outcomes which shows open mindedness, even if it is the product of ignorance about the real world around them. Because they are naive, they are advantaged in so far as they can consider the multitude of possible outcomes.

In many ways the ruler is a persuader since the ruler must persuade the governed to be granted authority to rule. In this way the roles are reversed and equilibrium is attained.

You're really not listening.

The weak are persuaders because rulers are mighty and stubborn. Openmindedness doesn't help because it makes you look weird and complicated. Intelligence doesn't help either because rulers are stupid.

Even with regards to popular sovereignty, intelligence doesn't help because it makes things complicated, yet being normal requires being simple in order to accommodate multiple cultural dimensions pragmatically.

Indeed, if they are not provoked they will never gain respect: respect must be attained through the employment of either physical might or cultural capital of which they have none.

This statement doesn't make sense. Not only are you admitting to provocation, but then you're admitting that provocation is a failing technique.

In a liberal society, to attain respect through the employment of physical might is outlawed so only people with cultural capital can attain respect. One must have social expertise to attain respect in society, therefore.

This explains the demolition of the socially inferior in the Western liberal democracies where they are driven to solitary confinement, unemployment and alcohol. In Eastern culture they are supported by family structures.

You seem to be blabbing here because you still haven't explained how the weak obtain social expertise. Combined with what you said before about provocation, you don't seem to care if the weak become abused.

As I have depicted them, they are not necessarily crooked per se, provided it is values or some form of teleology they impose.

Being involved in politics is all about the competition to impose some form of teleological outcome. It is only sinister when the motives are selfish. Why should the privilege be monopolised by the State? As I envision it, it is only a universalisable principle if private citizens may also be involved in this business.

Teleology is crooked because it depends upon particular aesthetic tastes, not universal rationality.

In your system, if you're born with the wrong tastes, you're screwed. The law could not protect you because law enforcers won't personally like what you're doing.

In terms of entrepreneurship, you seem to be conflating economics with law here, and it's vital that we don't do that.

One, everyone in the future isn't born with compatible tastes with the past when the law is written.

Two, sustaining society and the rule of law is a dynamic process because the supply of natural resources and talents in the world is not uniform. If we conflate legal aesthetics with economic aesthetics, this process will become static such that people born outside of the norm become condemned.

If you want, think of economics as a wave. When legal and/or teleological intervention happens, that wave becomes flattened not only in amplitude, but in slope as well. Anyone with abnormal tastes becomes condemned, and the elimination of those tastes prevents society from inventing methods to identify with into the future.

Flattening this wave will inevitably lead to a Malthusian Catastrophe where population density becomes so noisy that it exceeds the information entropy capital intensity can accommodate. Therefore, the only motives to support wave flattening are:

One, you're betting the catastrophe will happen beyond your own lifetime,
Two, as a pragmatist, you want (the excuse to give) future generations to have problems to solve, and
Three, you're deliberately pressuring competition such that people will have to gamble their legal dignity to obtain economic sustenance.

None of these motives respect the identities of people in general, and they all take particular luck for granted.

Indeed, they lack respect, but might they do not if the hierarchy of political power is abolished.

Social elevation in markets requires some form of respect.

I don't know. Do I speak much truth, if any at all?

I cannot see how liberty helps the socially anxious.

No, at this point, I think you're just going around in circles, and it's getting frustrating explaining the same points over and over to you. It's as if you're being deliberately dense about the definitions of "weak", "persuader", and "ruler".

Liberty respects people qualitatively, not quantitatively. Quality is the only way the strong can be expected to respect the weak because quantity would allow the strong to take their luckily endowed strength and experience for granted. Quality, in contrast, respects people per unit, acknowledging that people are valuable for their internal rationality, not for external forces beyond their control.

Luck is not personal. Liberty separates luck from personality.

[Sceptic]

It's as if you're being deliberately dense about the definitions of "weak", "persuader", and "ruler".

Indeed, that is because you have not defined these terms, so you are forcing me into a position where I must guess the meaning of your words all the time! Are you playing mind games?

[Daktoria]

Weakness is a lesser magnitude than strength.

Rulers are strong people who aim the direction of their magnitude at the weak (and demand that the weak aim their magnitude at each other as well as the strong as an excuse for the strong to retaliate).

Persuaders are those who preserve the direction of magnitude.

Fair enough?

Liberty is when one magnitude's direction is not restricted by another magnitude's direction.

[Sceptic]

The weak are persuaders because rulers are mighty and stubborn. Openmindedness doesn't help because it makes you look weird and complicated. Intelligence doesn't help either because rulers are stupid.
Even with regards to popular sovereignty, intelligence doesn't help because it makes things complicated, yet being normal requires being simple in order to accommodate multiple cultural dimensions pragmatically.

If intelligence is a vice, how can the persuaders hatch a strategy to earn the rapport of their rulers? If openmindedness is a vice, how can the various strategies be conceived?

Also, what of the submission of the governors to the governed?

This statement doesn't make sense. Not only are you admitting to provocation, but then you're admitting that provocation is a failing technique.

Let me rephrase. The weak, to meet ends must strive to attain political capital. If they do not possess cultural capital, by what other method can they attain political capital than through the employment of sheer might?

You seem to be blabbing here because you still haven't explained how the weak obtain social expertise.

They cannot. This is the failing of liberalism, in my mind.

Teleology is crooked because it depends upon particular aesthetic tastes, not universal rationality.

How so?

In your system, if you're born with the wrong tastes, you're screwed. The law could not protect you because law enforcers won't personally like what you're doing

There are no wrong tastes: if you believe in them, then enforce them. This is the only principled approach in this universe. Your values are true if you consider your person part of a grander teleology.

One, everyone in the future isn't born with compatible tastes with the past when the law is written
Two, sustaining society and the rule of law is a dynamic process because the supply of natural resources and talents in the world is not uniform. If we conflate legal aesthetics with economic aesthetics, this process will become static such that people born outside of the norm become condemned.

I didn't understand these two points. Explain to me how I am conflating law and economics?

If you want, think of economics as a wave. When legal and/or teleological intervention happens, that wave becomes flattened not only in amplitude, but in slope as well. Anyone with abnormal tastes becomes condemned, and the elimination of those tastes prevents society from inventing methods to identify with into the future.

Yes, that is a very free market view. If intervention is necessary to promote co-ordination what is to explicitly demonstrate those wave-lengths, so to speak become disrupted, rather than increasing in frequency?

Flattening this wave will inevitably lead to a Malthusian Catastrophe where population density becomes so noisy that it exceeds the information entropy capital intensity can accommodate.

Didn't Malthus believe this was the headed direction of population increase anyway? What will realistically incentivise its deceleration other than an imposed teleology?

Therefore, the only motives to support wave flattening are:

I'm not sure why you feel the need to use this metaphor. In any case, I don't technically support anything. I just describe different possible outcomes, although this requires a moral explanation of the teleology.

Weakness is a lesser magnitude than strength.

Rulers are strong people who aim the direction of their magnitude at the weak (and demand that the weak aim their magnitude at each other as well as the strong as an excuse for the strong to retaliate).

Persuaders are those who preserve the direction of magnitude.

What of just rulers who aim the direction of their magnitude to benefit the weak?

Also, is anything particular meant by magnitude or are you referring to a force in general with direction?

I do not mean to sound brash by the way, it is just the way tone is conveyed online. I enjoy our discussions as I learn so much.

p.s. I would like to understand more about how you decode cryptically encoded messages in philosophical texts, which you mentioned in my thread about compassion.

[Daktoria]

If intelligence is a vice, how can the persuaders hatch a strategy to earn the rapport of their rulers? If openmindedness is a vice, how can the various strategies be conceived?

Also, what of the submission of the governors to the governed?

What of just rulers who aim the direction of their magnitude to benefit the weak?

Also, is anything particular meant by magnitude or are you referring to a force in general with direction?

I do not mean to sound brash by the way, it is just the way tone is conveyed online. I enjoy our discussions as I learn so much.

Rulers don't submit. They rule. If they wanted to peacefully coexist, they wouldn't establish hierarchy from which they can direct magnitude other than their own (yes, that's what I meant).

Intelligence and openmindedness aren't a vices. They're talents. Whether cultivating that talent is effective in politics or not doesn't matter either.

You're treating the personal as political when the personal can do much more. You could also go back and look at my first reference to the Han Fei Tzu to see how intelligent/openminded people can succeed.

The problem is nobody has mind control. At some level, a ruler has to make up his own mind. Persuasion is only valuable in convincing the ruler that you're trustworthy, but persuasion only works if rulers aren't corrupt. If they are corrupt, they won't listen to you, and it's only a matter of time before the regime falls to the heavy-handed.

Often, corrupt rulers will remain corrupt because they don't see the regime falling by the time they've passed on whether in death or from their particular office. Other times, they'll remain corrupt because they don't see potential losses as painstaking enough.

Other times, they just sadistically enjoy the corruption, but that involves being surrounded by other sadists who are just as willing to usurp them. Again, it's only a matter of time.

Let me rephrase. The weak, to meet ends must strive to attain political capital. If they do not possess cultural capital, by what other method can they attain political capital than through the employment of sheer might?

They cannot. This is the failing of liberalism, in my mind.

How so?

There are no wrong tastes: if you believe in them, then enforce them. This is the only principled approach in this universe. Your values are true if you consider your person part of a grander teleology.

The weak can obtain political capital through social values. They socialize, find other weak people, achieve things on their own, and let the reputation of their achievements spread.

If there are other honest, openminded, intelligent people around, it will come. If there aren't, then there was nothing to be done anyway. They were born into a strategy stealing argument.

Teleology, in contrast, is particularist, not universalist. The recognition of a final cause in nature depends upon what you like the final cause to be. We can calculate nash equilibria all day long to see how nature is predisposed, but even at that, the very calculation process is a strategy, and fulfilling nash equilibria might not be aesthetically pleasing.

This isn't to say emotions should be repressed, but it must be realized that emotions are unreliable. Just because we feel a certain way doesn't mean our emotions can tell the future. All our emotions do is energize us to try our hardest. Perhaps conflict resolves in our favor, perhaps it doesn't, but we won't know until after the fact if we follow our emotions.

Analyzing, in contrast, allows us to simulate possibilities in conjunction with what's necessary for the world to exist in its present state. We can then choose a strategy which reflects our thoughts about consistency and completeness. That way, our success represents who we are, not some external natural impulse.

Yes, that is a very free market view. If intervention is necessary to promote co-ordination what is to explicitly demonstrate those wave-lengths, so to speak become disrupted, rather than increasing in frequency?

It isn't about free markets. It's about the unknowable frontier of research and development as well as how social games become increasingly excited as people become more stimulated. You can't fix either of these through intervention. The first is just based on the discovery of scientific and technological principles, and the second is part of intervention itself.

Didn't Malthus believe this was the headed direction of population increase anyway? What will realistically incentivise its deceleration other than an imposed teleology?

Social values, ontology, the application of imagination over time to arrive at categorical judgments.

p.s. I would like to understand more about how you decode cryptically encoded messages in philosophical texts, which you mentioned in my thread about compassion.

It's just reading comprehension. Nothing to it really.