Re: anrcho-libertarianism

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

 Well said Lawrence I used to become pulled in to the churning (and 
pointless) vortex of politics, but life is far too short for that exercise in 
futility.
Far better to open oneself instead to the transcendent ineffable experience of 
the many wonders of life and of the immediate impactful experience of living 
life, alive with spontaneous being, than to waste endless hours in "debate" 
debate that changes nothing except raising blood pressure.
Cheers,Chris


 
 
  On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:33 PM, Lawrence 
Crowell wrote:   The situation is hopeless. I 
correspond with someone who is a communist, and have gotten into some 
arguments. The argument here, though the words are different, has much the same 
sort of thinking. Politics in general is a sort of brain infection that causes 
neuron to seize up when any cognitive dissonance occurs, and these neuron go 
into an overdrive with various output that has no bounds of actual reason or 
limits on what is preposterous. The ideological meme is "uber alles" and it is 
upheld for a fortress of words. Religion has this property. 
LC

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 7:43:35 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
  
 
 On 6/6/2019 3:53 PM, John Clark wrote:
  
   On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:
 
   
 
>> There will be a Private Protection Agency  protecting Jews and if there is 
>> another one that is trying to kill them then the employees of both agencies 
>> will have very dangerous jobs and both will expect to be very well payed . 

  > Those are called armies.  So why didn't the Jews have an army?   
 
  The Jews didn't have an army to protect them because of government,  a 
government that was powerful enough to enforce its decrees, such as there can 
only be one army and they were the only one that could conscript men into it, 
and the only one that could make laws, and the only one that could collect 
taxers to pay for the army.  
 
 And why would it be any different if the Nazi PPA decided to collect taxes 
from the Jews?  It would be a government powerful enough to do so.   As long as 
they live together in the same area they will have to have a lot of the same 
laws.
 
 
   
  
 > What you're suggesting is every man for himself.  
 
  No, I'm just suggesting if we were starting from scratch it would be better 
if the group one belong to was not forced and was based on more than just 
geographical location. I'm suggesting it would be better if people had some 
choice about which set of laws they would obey. Obviously the laws can't be 
tailor made specifically for just one individual like your "every man for 
himself" straw man, that would never work, but it's weird people worry so much 
about corporate monopolies but are oblivious to the largest monopoly of them 
all, the government.
 
 They worry more about corporate monopolies because (1) There are not the 
checks and balances of our government.  The board is elected and they appoint a 
CEO.  The documents of incorporation, even if they say something about fairness 
and rights, are not overseen by any courts.  So it's effectively an oligarchy 
that elects a dictator.  (2) Big corporations wield more economic power and 
influence than many nation states, yet they are narrowly focused on making 
money.  They're not going to provide education or clean up the environment or 
provide health care.  Their officers only have a fiduciary responsibilty.  So 
one they can do with their economic power is capture government and thus wield 
both economic and military and law enforcement power. 
 
 
   And if you took all the evil every corporation has ever done and 
concentrated it into one spot it would amount to little more than rudeness 
compared to the horrors committed by government;
 
 You're ignoring the role that corporations have played in supporting those 
governments.  Mussolini said that fascism would be better called corporatism 
because it was the merging of corporate and state power.
 
 
   yes Facebook may not have treated the private information of its users with 
enough respect but at least it didn't stick them into ovens.   
 
 But Ligget and Meyers gave people lung cancer.
 
 
   
  I'm suggesting it would have been nice of the Jews had been given some 
choice. In 1933 if the Nazis didn't have a monopoly on making laws collecting 
taxes conscripting men and forming armies I'm sure the 6 million Jews would 
have chosen a Private Protection Agency that  enforced a law that said you 
can't murder Jews. Unfortunatly the Jews couldn't do that in 1933 due to the 
government monopoly. 
   
 
 Sure.  But the Jewish PPA might have decided that it was really a good thing 
to kill Palestinians and take their land.
 
 
  
   
  > That's my main criticism of libertarianism...it assumes people are just 
motivated by money.  Money's only one form of power.  German soldiers were not 
especially well paid by the Nazis.  
 
  True, they were payed little and yet Nazi so

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[Lawrence Crowell]

The situation is hopeless. I correspond with someone who is a communist, 
and have gotten into some arguments. The argument here, though the words 
are different, has much the same sort of thinking. Politics in general is a 
sort of brain infection that causes neuron to seize up when any cognitive 
dissonance occurs, and these neuron go into an overdrive with various 
output that has no bounds of actual reason or limits on what is 
preposterous. The ideological meme is "uber alles" and it is upheld for a 
fortress of words. Religion has this property. 

LC

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 7:43:35 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/6/2019 3:53 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> >> There will be a Private Protection Agency  protecting Jews and if 
>>> there is another one that is trying to kill them then the employees of both 
>>> agencies will have very dangerous jobs and both will expect to be very well 
>>> payed . 
>>
>>
>> * > Those are called armies.  So why didn't the Jews have an army?  *
>>
>
> The Jews didn't have an army to protect them because of government,  a 
> government that was powerful enough to enforce its decrees, such as there 
> can only be one army and they were the only one that could conscript men 
> into it, and the only one that could make laws, and the only one that could 
> collect taxers to pay for the army.
>
>
> And why would it be any different if the Nazi PPA decided to collect taxes 
> from the Jews?  It would be a government powerful enough to do so.   As 
> long as they live together in the same area they will have to have a lot of 
> the same laws.
>
>
> > *What you're suggesting is every man for himself. *
>>
>
> No, I'm just suggesting if we were starting from scratch it would be 
> better if the group one belong to was not forced and was based on more than 
> just geographical location. I'm suggesting it would be better if people had 
> some choice about which set of laws they would obey. Obviously the laws 
> can't be tailor made specifically for just one individual like your "every 
> man for himself" straw man, that would never work, but it's weird people 
> worry so much about corporate monopolies but are oblivious to the largest 
> monopoly of them all, the government. 
>
>
> They worry more about corporate monopolies because (1) There are not the 
> checks and balances of our government.  The board is elected and they 
> appoint a CEO.  The documents of incorporation, even if they say something 
> about fairness and rights, are not overseen by any courts.  So it's 
> effectively an oligarchy that elects a dictator.  (2) Big corporations 
> wield more economic power and influence than many nation states, yet they 
> are narrowly focused on making money.  They're not going to provide 
> education or clean up the environment or provide health care.  Their 
> officers only have a fiduciary responsibilty.  So one they can do with 
> their economic power is capture government and thus wield both economic and 
> military and law enforcement power. 
>
> And if you took all the evil every corporation has ever done and 
> concentrated it into one spot it would amount to little more than rudeness 
> compared to the horrors committed by government; 
>
>
> You're ignoring the role that corporations have played in supporting those 
> governments.  Mussolini said that fascism would be better called 
> corporatism because it was the merging of corporate and state power.
>
> yes Facebook may not have treated the private information of its users 
> with enough respect but at least it didn't stick them into ovens.
>
>
> But Ligget and Meyers gave people lung cancer.
>
>
> I'm suggesting it would have been nice of the Jews had been given some 
> choice. In 1933 if the Nazis didn't have a monopoly on making laws 
> collecting taxes conscripting men and forming armies I'm sure the 6 
> million Jews would have chosen a Private Protection Agency that  enforced a 
> law that said you can't murder Jews. Unfortunatly the Jews couldn't do that 
> in 1933 due to the government monopoly. 
>
>
> Sure.  But the Jewish PPA might have decided that it was really a good 
> thing to kill Palestinians and take their land.
>
>
> * > That's my main criticism of libertarianism...it assumes people are 
>> just motivated by money.  Money's only one form of power.  German soldiers 
>> were not especially well paid by the Nazis. *
>>
>
> True, they were payed little and yet Nazi soldiers fought with great bravery. 
> Why? One reason is they'd be shot if they didn't. Another reason is that 
> among all the other monopolies the Nazis also had a monopoly on education 
> and the distribution of information and could therefore indoctrinate the 
> population with crap like the importance of the Fatherland, and total 
> obedience, and sacrifice, and courage, and martial glory.
>
>
> And hatred of Jews, which went back at 

What is computing?

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:54:42 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 6 Jun 2019, at 19:34, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> [... *stuff on libertarianism*]
>
> I'm reminded of Bruno's theory that everything is computation…
>
>
> Just to be exact. My working hypothesis is “Indexical Digital Mechanism”. 
> It is “YD + CT” to sum it all.
>
> My contribution is a theorem: which says that if we assume Mechanism, it 
> is undecidable if there is more than the additive and multiplicative 
> structure of the natural numbers, or Turing equivalent.
>
> But most things are not computation. The mixing of the codes of the total 
> computable functions and the strictly partial one IS NOT computable, yet 
> “arithmetically real” and this will have a role in the “first person 
> indeterminacy” measure problem.
>
> If Mechanism is true, very few things are computable, or even deducible in 
> powerful theory. Both consciousness and matter are typically not 
> computable, yet absolutely real, for all Lôbian machines, from their 
> phenomenological perspective.
>
> Every is numbers, or computations, which means we can limit the 
> arithmetical reality to the sigma_1 sentences eventually, but that means 
> only that the fundamental ontology is very simple. The interesting things, 
> including god, consciousness and matter all get their meaning and laws from 
> the phenomenological perspective.
>
> So, to say that with mechanism, that 'everything is computation’ is a bit 
> misleading, as the phenomenologically apprehensible things will all be non 
> computable, and yet are *real*, as we all know.
>
> For consciousness you need only to agree that it is
>
> True,
> Knowable,
> Indubitable,
> (Immediate),
>
> And
>
> Non-definable,
> Non Rationally believable
>
> Together with the invariance for some digital transformation at some 
> description level.
>
>
>
>
> and so everything must be explainable in terms of computation.
>
>
> In terms of addition and multiplication, you can understand where 
> consciousness come from, why it differentiates, and the transfinite paths 
> it get involved into, and why Reality is beyond the computable, yet 
> partially computable, partially and locally manageable, partially 
> observable, partially and locally inductively inferable. Etc.
>
> Even just the arithmetical reality is far beyond the computable, but from 
> inside, the sigma_1 (ultra-mini-tniy part of that reality) is already 
> bigger than we could hope to formalise in ZF or ZF + Large cardinal. 
>
> Digital mechanism, well understood (meaning with understand the quasi 
> direct link between the Church-Turing thesis and incompleteness, (which I 
> have explained many times, but I can do it again), is constructively 
> antireductionist theory. The Löb-Gödelian machines, those who obeys to the 
> probability/consistency laws of Solovays (cf G and G*) can defeat any 
> complete theory anyone could conceive about them.
>
> Only numbers at the ontological level, OK, but the crazily interesting 
> things appears at the phenomenological levels, where things are no more 
> very computable at all.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
Today is the last day of *UCNC 2019*.

Program: http://www.ucnc2019.uec.ac.jp/program.html 

What the conference is about can be summed up as

*What is computing*
if the CT thesis [ 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis ] is *false*?


@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/71fdd53d-c433-4c6d-9c9a-347ee44103da%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Computational self-reference and the universal algorithm

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 7 Jun 2019, at 15:58, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:09 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 15:22, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
> >> Self-reference is not what you think it is.
> 
> > That is a weird statement, almost comical!
> 
> I could not fail to disagree with you less.

Hmm Two negations, after a day of oral exam! You really want to kill me, don’t 
you?



> To define recursion you must first define recursion.


I don’t even see the relationship with my comment.

What can I say? 

I have define recursion using the combinators, some month ago.

I can also define/implement recursion/recursive procedure using only very 
elementary, arithmetic (first order arithmetic without the induction axioms). 
It is already much longer than with the combinators, which needed a bit more 
than an half-dozen posts.

Now, in computer science, there is two theorems of recursion: the first one 
concerns extensional functions, the second one concerns the code of the 
functions, but again, both are verified/satisfied in elementary arithmetic.

We need only to assume one universal machinery, to get them all, with all their 
relative implementations, to get us to the formulation of the mind-body 
problem, or first person view/third person reality relation problem, which 
indeed, as some have intuited in this list is a measure problem.

You seem to assume that the universal machinery *is* the physical universe, but 
then you need to define it properly and explain how it selects your 
consciousness from all the infinitely many Turing equivalent computations 
realised in elementary arithmetic or/and combinator algebra.

Using the physical universe, in a metaphysical discussion, to say that it is 
the one who makes that selection is as much informative as saying, because god 
made it.


Bruno






> 
> John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2njpq83sNu%3DvP%2BBkzncBrkom1gCq28XWS2ZHnMGeS%3DVg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/79F1B71F-4AF5-444B-8D17-07F34AED819D%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 Jun 2019, at 19:34, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/5/2019 6:04 PM, John Clark wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 8:15 PM 'Brent Meeker'  
>> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
>> wrote:
>>  
>> >Do you call ISIS and Hezbollah governments? 
>> 
>> They make laws, force people to pay taxes ,conscript them into their army. 
>> and give people no choice. It sure sounds like a government to me.
>>  
>> > Of course under almost all governments it is illegal to kill any citizen 
>> > for pay. 
>> 
>> Solderers are payed by the government and so are the police, and they have 
>> both been known to kill people, sometimes on a industrial scale..
>>  
>> > I don't think anarcho-libertarians are, on average, more immune to racist, 
>> > populist fear-mongering that other people.  
>> 
>> I don't either but the morality of anarcho-libertarians has nothing to do 
>> with it. There will be a Private Protection Agency  protecting Jews and if 
>> there is another one that is trying to kill them then the employees of both 
>> agencies will have very dangerous jobs and both will expect to be very well 
>> payed .
> 
> Those are called armies.  So why didn't the Jews have an army?  And it's not 
> just Jews, it's Roma, and homosexuals and atheists and guys who crossed 
> Hitler in politics?  What you're suggesting is every man for himself.  Which 
> of course quickly leads to forming tribes of mutual protection, which leads 
> to city states, which leads to nations, which apparently doesn't lead to 
> rational world government.
> 
>> I maintain that the agency protecting the Jews will  be much better payed  
>> (and thus it will attract the most skilled warriors) and also they will 
>> be.much better equipped than the agency that would like to kill them  
>> because the 6 million Jews would be willing to spend everything they have if 
>> needed for protection while the 40 million Germans would not.be 
>>  willing to spend everything they had on destruction.  
>> 
>> Another good thing is that when its clear that the soldiers on both sides 
>> are just fighting for money then all the current crap associated with war, 
>> like glory duty and heroism , would be diminished and the job of soldiering 
>> would seem no more glorious than being a hedge fund manager on Wall Street.
> 
> That's my main criticism of libertarianism...it assumes people are just 
> motivated by money.  Money's only one form of power.  German soldiers were 
> not especially well paid by the Nazis.  And why would the Russians care 
> whether Hitler or Stalin ruled them?  Did Osama pay the 9/11 guys well?
> 
> I'm reminded of Bruno's theory that everything is computation…

Just to be exact. My working hypothesis is “Indexical Digital Mechanism”. It is 
“YD + CT” to sum it all.

My contribution is a theorem: which says that if we assume Mechanism, it is 
undecidable if there is more than the additive and multiplicative structure of 
the natural numbers, or Turing equivalent.

But most things are not computation. The mixing of the codes of the total 
computable functions and the strictly partial one IS NOT computable, yet 
“arithmetically real” and this will have a role in the “first person 
indeterminacy” measure problem.

If Mechanism is true, very few things are computable, or even deducible in 
powerful theory. Both consciousness and matter are typically not computable, 
yet absolutely real, for all Lôbian machines, from their phenomenological 
perspective.

Every is numbers, or computations, which means we can limit the arithmetical 
reality to the sigma_1 sentences eventually, but that means only that the 
fundamental ontology is very simple. The interesting things, including god, 
consciousness and matter all get their meaning and laws from the 
phenomenological perspective.

So, to say that with mechanism, that 'everything is computation’ is a bit 
misleading, as the phenomenologically apprehensible things will all be non 
computable, and yet are *real*, as we all know.

For consciousness you need only to agree that it is

True,
Knowable,
Indubitable,
(Immediate),

And

Non-definable,
Non Rationally believable

Together with the invariance for some digital transformation at some 
description level.




> and so everything must be explainable in terms of computation.

In terms of addition and multiplication, you can understand where consciousness 
come from, why it differentiates, and the transfinite paths it get involved 
into, and why Reality is beyond the computable, yet partially computable, 
partially and locally manageable, partially observable, partially and locally 
inductively inferable. Etc.

Even just the arithmetical reality is far beyond the computable, but from 
inside, the sigma_1 (ultra-mini-tniy part of that reality) is already bigger 
than we could hope to formalise in ZF or ZF + Large cardinal. 

Digital mechanism, well understood (meaning with understand the quasi direct 
li

Re: Computational self-reference and the universal algorithm

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:09 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 5 Jun 2019, at 15:22, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >> Self-reference is not what you think it is.
>
>
> > That is a weird statement, almost comical!
>

*I could not fail to disagree with you less. To define recursion you must
first define recursion.*

John K Clark



>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2njpq83sNu%3DvP%2BBkzncBrkom1gCq28XWS2ZHnMGeS%3DVg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>> The Jews didn't have an army to protect them because of government,  a
>> government that was powerful enough to enforce its decrees, such as there
>> can only be one army and they were the only one that could conscript men
>> into it, and the only one that could make laws, and the only one that could
>> collect taxers to pay for the army.
>
>

* > And why would it be any different if the Nazi PPA decided to collect
> taxes from the Jews? *
>

If only the Nazi PPA was allowed to collect taxes then it wouldn't be a PPA
it would be a government. The entire point of anrcho-libertarianism is you
don't pay taxes you voluntarily pay fees. It would be like deciding to join
Netflix except that instead of deciding which movie you want to watch you
decide which laws you want enforced. The more outrageous the law (I can do
anything I want) the higher the fee would be. I maintain that the fee to
enforce a law that said all Jews must be murdered would be very high and
very very few of those 40 million Germans would be willing to pay it, the
fee to enforce a law that said all Jews must be protected might be almost
as high but all 6 million Jews would be more than willing to pay it.
Therefore the pro Jew PPA would have more muscle than the anti Jew PPA.


>
> *> As long as they live together in the same area they will have to have a
> lot of the same laws.*
>

Why? If there is a disagreement among PPA's there are 3 ways it could be
resolved:

1) By violence, but that is expensive and would reduced the PPA's profits,
although if it did come to that the PPA protecting the Jews would have
soldiers that were better payed and better equipped than the PPA that wants
to kill them because they would have collected more money in fees.

2) By arbitration

3) By avoiding it from ever happening in the first place by making sure the
laws you promise to enforce were not so outrageous that violent opposition
was guaranteed.


> * > They worry more about corporate monopolies because (1) There are not
> the checks and balances of our government.  *
>

Checks? Like the checks the US Senate has placed to curb the outrageous
behavior of the current head of the Executive branch?

> *(2) Big corporations wield more economic power and influence than many
> nation states,*
>

Baloney. In terms of percentage of the Gross Domestic Product no
corporation in the history of the world was larger than Standard Oil, and
yet the government broke it up in 1911. And US corporations invested
billions of dollars in Cuba but when Castro took over the government in
1959 he kicked them out and confiscated all their property almost
immediately. Castro was even able to do the same thing with the Mafia's
property because he was the head of government. The Mafia had guns but
Castro had tanks.


> > *they are narrowly focused on making money. *
>

Yes! That's why I trust corporations much more than I trust government. If
Hitler had been a CEO the board of directors would have fired him because
starting World War 2 was a bad business decision that lost them a vast
amount of money.

>>if you took all the evil every corporation has ever done and concentrated
>> it into one spot it would amount to little more than rudeness compared to
>> the horrors committed by government;
>
>
> * > You're ignoring the role that corporations have played in supporting
> those governments. *
>

Sure, but government gave the order and the corporations obeyed not the
other way around. Supporting an atrocity is bad but not as bad as
initiating it. Governments can arrange things in such a way that atrocities
become profitable, something that would be impossible without government.


> *Mussolini said that fascism would be better called corporatism because
> it was the merging of corporate and state power.*
>

Well yes, if you merge state power and corporate power that's just about
all the power that there is, and it's all concentrated in just one place.
So let's not merge them.


> > Ligget and Meyers gave people lung cancer.
>

Yes but that's no secret, it's been scientifically accepted for over half a
century and yet people still decide to start smoking. As a libertarian
(small l) I think people have the right to kill themselves if they want to.

*> But the Jewish PPA might have decided that it was really a good thing to
> kill Palestinians and take their land.*
>

Who knows they might have, but if they did the results would not have been
worse than what we know actually happened to the Palestinians and their
land. I'm not so naive as to believe anrcho-libertarianism would eliminate
all violence and injustice but I do think it would greatly reduce it.

*> hatred of Jews, which went back at least to Martin Luther, waaay before
> Hitler.  Before Germany was even a country.*


Yes but Germany was far from unique in that regard, just look at the
Dreyfus affair. If you asked somebody in 189