Hi Nom,
Nice attempted pigeonhole. Nah, Freethinker, seeking of knowledge is
more like what I am. I am trying to be able to shift from premise to
premise, basis to basis and see the pro/con distributions and Nash
equilibria of the various theories and visions.
On 3/13/2013 12:02 PM, nominal9 wrote:
> Is Stephen a Libertarian?.... maybe a slightly confused one.... that's my
> hope, anyway (I wouldn't wish that confused morality on any person)....
> The Libertarian standard -bearers in the U.S. are pretty much the
> Paul-s.... Ron (father) and Rand (son)..... both politicians.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul
> Their ideology is basically "fascist".... which is to say.... Totalitarian
> / Capitalist.....They make quite a show of being for "freedom" in most
> things economic (and social-societal, as long as it deals with
> economics).... problem is that their "freedom" is actually "license"...
> which is to say, the license of the "criminal" to rape, plunder and steal
> the goods or labours, property, etc. of others....That's my take on
> it.....Actual "civil" or "human rights" freedoms of the person....I.E.,
> anti-discrimination, freedoms of association, voting, access & equal
> protection of the laws, etc.... don't seem to concern Libertarains much if
> at all.... their main concern is to promote the Tenth Amendment of the U.S.
> Constitution, asserting the sovereign rights of the individual states
> against the federal government....
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
> But the reason that Libertarians assert their preference for Tenth
> Amendment principles is due to the "Conservative" opposition that the
> Libertarians harbor against many federal measures (laws and practices) that
> actually expanded the civil and human rights and privileges of the
> individual.... Libertarians want to establish "local state" control so that
> they can, instead, enact and pursue more restrictive laws and practices
> against some of their "lower class " or less economically advantaged local
> citizens.....like I said.... totalitarian ("license")... not actual
> "liberty"....
>
> Totalitarian / Capitalism.......Democratic / Socialism
>
>
> Totalitarian / Socialism........Democratic / Capitalism
>
>
> That's an "old" thematic "square" opposition that I've rendered often
> enough... I put it up again, so that Stephen can view it, if he hasn't
> already......
> I present the issue as one of "fact" or "oppositional" accuracy to you
> Stephen.... is there anything that you disagree with in my comments, above?
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:36:40 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote:
>>
>> Zerohedge is more generally libertarian than the water I'd want to
>> swim,but it interesting that right/left critique has come together in
>> recent years. I'm not a traditional leftie really. Most scientists
>> have trouble swallowing GOP/Tory crap - in fact it seems a scientific
>> education produces liberals (PEW poll 2009) - I'm after more data on
>> this if anyone has any.
>>
>> Business and economic offerings in universities (I taught such) are
>> ideological of the neo-con, neo-liberal, neo-classical form - in short
>> dross. There is no science in it i can detect other than the
>> ideological form the Critical Theorists whine on about - message
>> understood, but they conflate science and its use in such ideology.
>> On a personal basis I see the problems as so severe that I refuse to
>> teach the muck and keep wolves from the door assessing apprenticeships
>> and qualifications that don't involve heaping massive debt on students
>> - the average debt burden on a new graduate is more or less what's
>> left on my mortgage.
>>
>> I think Stephen is right in that we need better understandings on how
>> wealth is created, distributed and how money usurps democracy. The
>> guy credited with the first full-blown treatise on economics is
>> Cantillon (these days the Cantillon effect is about how new money
>> sticks mostly to those with first access to it - these days very much
>> with the financiers - his example was with gold mining). Adam Smith's
>> economics was moral and he worried that the rich were very good at
>> convincing the rest of us their notions and interests were those of us
>> all - today (over simplifying) the 'neo-position'. My view is this is
>> a control fraud.
>>
>> I saw Soviet Paradise fairly first hand - though I always had a ticket
>> out. I didn't meet anyone there who really believed the dominant
>> ideology - though I generally mixed with very well educated people.
>> Here, I rarely meet anyone who knows how money is created,
>> corporations do accounting or how we rip off the third world and
>> incorporate criminal and other hot money through the banks.
>>
>> I'd extend what we need to know better into foreign policy, the role
>> of money in politics and what the planet can sustain. The trouble we
>> have is there is almost nowhere to start because there is a ready-to-
>> hand world that prevents us asking the basic questions. I'll be out
>> next week getting the work that keeps me going. I know (more or less)
>> what's going on in economics, but this butters no parsnips. Budding
>> business people don't want to know - they make do with the profit and
>> loss, balance sheet, cash flow and tax returns we could call book-
>> keeping. Beyond this I'd say the system is ideological and
>> crimogenic - key elements concern swindling tax and profit by various
>> looting procedures we call 'transfer pricing'. Hard to know where to
>> start explaining how we can harness decent business practice - even I
>> claim the same car against my own and my partner's tax.
>>
>> On Mar 12, 3:10 am, "Stephen P. King" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2013 12:03 PM, nominal9 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'd like to go off on a tangent... a little....
>>>> I've known and met some actual "creators"....some and not all tend to
>> be
>>>> very focused in their fields, they do their research and come up with
>> some
>>>> innovation, that their "creative ethic" wants leads them to divulge to
>>>> their expertise professional peers for the advancement of
>> "knowledge"....
>>>> yes, in my opinion, many of these "creators" are genuinely motivated
>> by the
>>>> altruistic goal of advancing knowledge (at least at first) then the "
>>>> Product Development" folks get involved... patents.... leading to
>>>> production plans sales and so no.... Most often, at the later stages
>> is
>>>> when the so-called entrepreneurs get involved... and they are most
>> often
>>>> people other than the actual original "creators".....the altruistic
>> impulse
>>>> of advancing and sharing knowledge (for the betterment of all) is
>> subverted
>>>> and diverted by the "entrepreneurs, Capitalists and the MBAs....
>> looking to
>>>> extract the maximum amount of profit at every stage from their
>> business
>>>> venture.....Archytas can probably speak better and more in detail
>> about
>>>> this than I can.... but stephen.... that's my main point.....the
>> actual
>>>> creation and even the "working parts" of a business venture are not
>> what I
>>>> object to.... at that level it can be beneficial to all.... it is the
>>>> others.. the middle men and on who work their "profit-making" games at
>>>> every possible stage of the actual "sale" or "business exchange" level
>> that
>>>> I'm very wary about....
>>>> I think that is what Archytas knows.... the actual "products and
>> services"
>>>> in and of themselves are not the problem.... they are available in
>>>> abundance for all.... maybe even overabundance (including the new
>> ideas
>>>> part).... the trouble lies with those who then speculate on and choke
>> the
>>>> distribution of the "hoarded" supply of those products and
>> services.... etc.
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am here for advice. I am swimming in deep waters.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2013 7:11:42 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>>>
>>>>> have to say most of the people I see claiming to be risk takers
>>>>> clearly are not. It may seem glib to ask how you can tell the
>>>>> difference between a risk taker and a moron but I'd argue this gets
>> to
>>>>> the root of a big lie about risk.
>>>>> I tend to look at why humans organise so badly before thinking about
>>>>> leadership and risk-taking. I'm a long way from convinced anyone is
>>>>> much good at either. I'm also concerned on how long we have to keep
>>>>> rewarding inventors with rents (in the sense of economic rents or
>>>>> tolls). Windows should be free by now - a utility - but this is only
>>>>> one example. I suspect big companies and banks actually prevent a
>> lot
>>>>> of creativity and would be better run as utilities until we don't
>> need
>>>>> them.
>>>
>>>>> But we have nearly all economics upside down. The first question
>>>>> should be about what the planet can maintain. Economics seems to
>> deny
>>>>> that we can organise decent, better ways of living rationally and
>> have
>>>>> instead to rely on entrepreneurs, charismatics and other vapours in a
>>>>> system that rather fortunately keeps the rich richer and makes them
>>>>> richer. Jurgen Habermas wrote an interesting critique of this in
>> 1970
>>>>> called 'Technology as ideology' - but all we really lack is a true
>>>>> accounting system for what is going on. The rich need the motivation
>>>>> of something they already have (money) but workers can put up with
>>>>> wages declining in respect of productivity. And no one seems to
>>>>> think, as we approach robot heaven (admittedly not yet available on
>>>>> Earth - but we are approaching this) we might need new work and
>>>>> distributive ethics? What place in a world where robots could do all
>>>>> the work would there be for current half-wits who laud hard work as
>>>>> necessary to success?
>>>
>>>>> On 7 Mar, 16:19, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Hello stephenk..... you can be contrarian... I don't object.... you
>> can
>>>>>> speak your mind in any way, it's your (everyone's) right that I
>> never
>>>>>> contest.... besides, you seem to be a "good" person, too.....
>>>>>> I guess, in one sense, it gets to be a matter of semantics or
>>>>>> definition.... "entrepreneur".... as distinguished from,
>> say...maybe....
>>>>>> venture capitalist....I don't mind the actual "creator" of
>> something,
>>>>>> object (product) or business (service), etc...but those that just
>> "game"
>>>>>> the system.... they are just parasites that often wind up killing
>> the
>>>>>> host.... I opine...
>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneur
>>>
>>>>>> http://anthillonline.com/the-entrepreneur-vs-venture-capitalist-2/
>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor
>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2013 10:49:23 AM UTC-5, stephenk wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/7/2013 10:30 AM, nominal9 wrote:
>>>>>>>> I go with the "sequestrate their assets" part... but the letting
>>>>> them
>>>>>>>> go part I'm against... As "entrepreneurs", such people would just
>>>>>>>> "steal" their way back up to wealth, without actually creating
>>>>>>>> anything beneficial for any economy, like jobs or even "products"
>> to
>>>>>>>> speak of.....
>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Nom,
>>>
>>>>>>> Not to be merely contrarian, but how is *wealth* created in
>> your
>>>>>>> theory of the world? Does "risk" exist in any positive sense in
>> your
>>>>>>> model? I would like to understand your thoughts. If there is a way
>> to
>>>>>>> define wealth creation that is not, in some way, a form of
>>>>> exploitation
>>>>>>> of one entity of another, please explain.
>>>>>>> Can entrepreneurship be a mutually beneficial process of
>> wealth
>>>>>>> generation to and for all involved in a way that does not require
>>>>>>> top-down controls? I think it can...
>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Onward!
>>>
>>>>>>> Stephen
>>>
>>> --
>>> Onward!
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>
>
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
