Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: SandySandfort on April 20, 2010, 10:19:46 am

Title: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: SandySandfort on April 20, 2010, 10:19:46 am
[RANT MODE ON]
One of the ugliest techniques people use to deceive others, or to win "debating points," is the intentional misuse of words. In 1984, Orwell demonstrated this concept to the extreme (e.g., "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"). FDR created his "Four Freedoms" out of whole cloth. Left-statist call hurtful word, "aggression" and right-statist willfully misrepresent the non-aggression principle as "pacifism."

Language is Man's most powerful invention. It has created everything good that humans enjoy. Unfortunately, like any other tool, it can be used for evil as well as good. Most posters on this forum realize this truism on a visceral, as well as an intellectual, level. They attempt to use their words as precisely and accurately as possible. Others--pseudo-intellectuals, trolls and agents provocateurs--pervert language for their own purposes.

I believe there is no place in rational discourse--including this forum--for such intellectual dishonesty. If you are a pseudo-intellectual, troll or agent provocateur, please peddle your lies elsewhere. If you believe that words have meaning and you respect the honest use of language, please help us promote intellectual hygiene on this forum. Count coup on any trolls, pseudo-intellectuals and agents provocateurs who try to obfuscate and subvert the honest use of language.
[RANT MODE OFF]
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: Rocketman on April 20, 2010, 10:40:38 am
Nicely put Sandy.  You might be interested in knowing that I watched Glen Beck yesterday and he had on a film clip showing Democrat operative Joe Klein saying on one of the talk shows, I think it was the Joy Benicha (sp?) show, that in Klein's opinion Glen Beck and Sarah Palin were right on the verge of committing "sedition" against the government.  Really.  Funny how he forgot to mention that during the Vietnam war he and others with a similar mindset was probably plotting to bring the government to it's knees through strikes and protests.  If this is what they think is going to work to convince the undecided American people that the left is correct then they are reallly in full  panic mode.  I guess their attempts to demonize the tea parties having backfired so badly this is all they really have left.  I feel so sorry (not) for them.  :'(
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: sams on April 20, 2010, 11:06:24 am
Some people are satisfied by caricature instead of intellectual conversation  >:(

and I think I located the BS comment that triggered you anger and I feel my self disgusted by the stupidity of it

Does being against invasion wars make you a peacenik idiot ? People who make those arguments are just dishonest

In the same line when you oppose public education they accuse you of being against education ... when you object the War on Terror you are a traitor
Title: You're right.
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on April 20, 2010, 03:07:17 pm
I assume you are referring to the post I made on p.8 of "Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals" that is entitled "Ashamed?"

I picked a particularly poor quote to illustrate RAH's view that war was a necessity. The way the post was written, it does imply that libertarians/AnCappers are all a bunch of tree-hugging hippies. That was not what I actually intended, and I apologize. I've inserted a section in the post that explains the mistake, and includes an apology.

However, most of the rest of your post is nonsense. There are quite a few people on here who regularly make logical, thoughtful arguments about difficulties they see with AnCap. Quite frankly, they get a lot of condescension, insults and flip answers in return. "That will never happen," is not an answer. Nor is "Wild scenario!!" or "The market will inevitably provide for that!" There are real problems with the shunning mechanism that enforces most of the rules in an AnCap society. There are problems with arguing that "necessity" justifies something and that all will be forgiven later. There are major hurdles that AnCap has to face when dealing with terrorism. There are major difficulties that any AnCap society will face when it comes to fighting a war against a larger and probably more ruthless foe.

Pointing out flaws in AnCap is not pseudo-intellectualism or trollishness, it is an actual attempt to debate these points. Deal with them, and we can have an intellectual discussion. Smear us all as Orwellian newspeakers or agents provacateurs, and you are doing the same thing that Obama and friends are doing: Trying to shut down debate by claiming that those with objections are all just enemy agents motivated by hate or fear that don't have any logic on their side.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: paulr on April 20, 2010, 03:34:00 pm
Well, while I might tend to you agree with you emotionally, free speech means idiots get to have their say too.  Nothing  demands that anyone else has to listen to them though.

Is there a "kill" or "filter" function that can be used so each person can filter out those they consider to be offensive, or too stupid to describe?

-Paul
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: Rocketman on April 20, 2010, 06:26:30 pm
In the interest of being both as accurate and honest as I can (a libertarian trate if their ever was one) I should note that since the time of my last post and now I read an article on the Joe Klein comment and it occurred on the Chris Matthews show and not the Joy Benicha program.  We now resume our regularly scheduled programming.   ;D
Title: Re: You're right.
Post by: sams on April 21, 2010, 01:56:27 am
I assume you are referring to the post I made on p.8 of "Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals" that is entitled "Ashamed?"

I picked a particularly poor quote to illustrate RAH's view that war was a necessity. The way the post was written, it does imply that libertarians/AnCappers are all a bunch of tree-hugging hippies. That was not what I actually intended, and I apologize. I've inserted a section in the post that explains the mistake, and includes an apology.

However, most of the rest of your post is nonsense. There are quite a few people on here who regularly make logical, thoughtful arguments about difficulties they see with AnCap. Quite frankly, they get a lot of condescension, insults and flip answers in return. "That will never happen," is not an answer. Nor is "Wild scenario!!" or "The market will inevitably provide for that!" There are real problems with the shunning mechanism that enforces most of the rules in an AnCap society. There are problems with arguing that "necessity" justifies something and that all will be forgiven later. There are major hurdles that AnCap has to face when dealing with terrorism. There are major difficulties that any AnCap society will face when it comes to fighting a war against a larger and probably more ruthless foe.

Yes ... because declaring a libertarian society non-viable since it can't survive a nuclear holocaust from Grotesque reincarnation of Stalin is not extreme  ::) or the undead legions of Islam revived from the sands of the 13th century  ::)

Will there are people who indeed sometime give rude answers, like ''statist'' ... or sometime condescention ... but it is because this is not our first internet forum debate and it almost always finish the same way

If you want to debate go for it, but don't try to dessesperatly win by putting the stacks higuers at each post or refusing to consider anithing else than what currently exist
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: terry_freeman on April 21, 2010, 01:47:02 pm
The terrorist incident which has today's neocon's panties all atwist was caused by 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters. They could have easily been stopped in any anarchocap society; armed passengers and crew would have tossed the bodies of the wannabe terrorists out the door.

Instead, the ineffective, expensive, socialist Pentagon failed to protect their own headquarters. This failure, instead of causing people to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the Pentagon, instead of underscoring their ineptitude, led to doubling down on a bad bet.

Is that insane, or what?
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: sams on April 21, 2010, 03:13:29 pm
The terrorist incident which has today's neocon's panties all atwist was caused by 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters. They could have easily been stopped in any anarchocap society; armed passengers and crew would have tossed the bodies of the wannabe terrorists out the door.

Instead, the ineffective, expensive, socialist Pentagon failed to protect their own headquarters. This failure, instead of causing people to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the Pentagon, instead of underscoring their ineptitude, led to doubling down on a bad bet.

Is that insane, or what?

No you don't understand ! they ARE TERRORIST !!!!!

They are GENIUS who use Swiss knives has weapons and exploit the security flaws of such high security sites like subways, and can take out planes full of passengers disarmed !

After them a legion of Islam Jihadist will invading the US in thunderous Camel CHARGE !!! ::)

I know it is insane but I feel that most people who fear terrorism engage in such paranoia internally ... there is nothing magic about Terrorist, they just eploit security flaws and unharmed victims .... like every other kind of criminals ... so what the fuss ?

I also can't take any more the crap about the war of worlds nonsense between the West and Islam ... I mean even if only the marines were on duty there is a ZERO change of any Islamic invasion even of Greece ::)
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: quadibloc on April 21, 2010, 09:16:22 pm
The terrorist incident which has today's neocon's panties all atwist was caused by 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters. They could have easily been stopped in any anarchocap society; armed passengers and crew would have tossed the bodies of the wannabe terrorists out the door.
A statist would not find it difficult to argue that if armed passengers were a routine part of air travel, this could well give terrorists more opportunities, not less.

Even if the pilots and stewardesses have superior training.

I had heard some news about Glenn Beck using doomsday rhetoric about Obama's medicare plans which some felt contributed to harassment recently experienced by Nancy Pelosi. I don't know how close he came to the limits of free speech, but what I have heard at least suggests that he has been irresponsible.

But not nearly on the same level as those who engaged in acts of domestic terrorism out of opposition to the war in Vietnam.

I'm hardly surprised, though, that Glenn Beck finds an audience; I suspect that aside from the occasional extreme comment, I would cheer most of what he has to say. Our society has changed very much from its former old-fashioned common-sense attitudes.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: Rocketman on April 21, 2010, 10:22:06 pm
I'm hardly surprised, though, that Glenn Beck finds an audience; I suspect that aside from the occasional extreme comment, I would cheer most of what he has to say. Our society has changed very much from its former old-fashioned common-sense attitudes.
  Again quad, I'm going to disagree with you.  The reason that Beck finds an audience is because despite the fact that ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times and Washington Post loudly trumpet the liberal (transprog) agenda a fairly large percentage of Americans today have a healthy DISRESPECT for the government and it's lies.  While they're anger isn't focused the way it needs to be they can see with their own eyes just what socialism in America looks like and they want no part of it.  Beck is at the tip of the spear and while not everyone who listens to him totally agrees with him (I don't) they know that he's at least heading in the right direction to what they want America to return to.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: terry_freeman on April 22, 2010, 12:18:01 am
Statists have no trouble inventing spurious arguments out of whole cloth, so what of it? Any terrorist who pokes his head into the cabin of a plane with two armed pilots, who have military training, is likely to emerge with a few extra holes which were not part of Allah's design for the human bod.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: Rocketman on April 22, 2010, 12:34:03 pm
Statists play by only one set of rules.  DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WIN.  To them nothing is out of bounds if they are trying to get socialist legislation passed or trying to defend a statist objective.  Case in point, when Bill Clinton was in hot water for having sexual relations with Monica L.  and his supporters were trying to deflect some of the critizism from him. A socialistic professor over in England claimed that DNA evidence proved that Tom Jefferson had fathered children with Sally Hemmings who was a slave owned by Jefferson.  The newspapers were all quick to point that this was far worse than what Clinton had done.  One little problem was that for DNA can only work if their is a male heir and Jefferson only had two daughters.  Later after the crisis had passed the professor admitted that he made everything up.  Bet you didn't read about that part in the newspapers did you?   >:(
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: dough560 on April 23, 2010, 01:28:48 am
Like the history professor whose book claimed guns were not a part of American Frontier.  It took a while, but it was proven the professor made up his data.  The idiot had to return awards the book had been awarded.  Served him right.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: Rocketman on April 23, 2010, 10:07:03 am
I don't know about you dough, but lying about a good and decent man like Jefferson after he's dead and not able to defend himself to me is beyond disgusting.  As bad as robbing a church poorbox or maining a helpless animal in order to watch it suffer.  He is one pathetic excuse for a human being.   >:(  >:(  >:(  >:(  >:(  >:(
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: terry_freeman on April 23, 2010, 12:49:20 pm
For the wannabe Heinlein devotees, a quote to ponder:

"I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say : Let the damned thing go down the drain!"

Guest of Honor Speech at the 29th World Science Fiction Convention, Seattle, Washington (1961)

What Ancaps are saying is essentially this: not only is conscription too great a price to pay to defend a free country; the entire apparatus of state taxation and management are also forms of slavery, and destructive of freedom. Our so-called "protectors" have enslaved us in order to "protect" us from vague-to-nonexistent threats from outside. This recognized by free people as a "protection racket," a criminal fraud perpetuated to the advantage of the organizers themselves, which the rest of us pay for.

In addition to the deep moral problems with such a means of "protection", there are practical problems; since we have to effective means of resisting the growth of taxation, borrowing, and inflation, we cannot prevent the military-industrial complex from growing far past any legitimate need for defense. It grows like a cancer, ultimately sapping the strength of the host. Heinlein would have been smart enough to see the signs of looming financial crisis, but apparently some wannabe fanbois could not find a clue with a GPS and a military-grade floodlight.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: quadibloc on April 25, 2010, 09:53:55 am
Our so-called "protectors" have enslaved us in order to "protect" us from vague-to-nonexistent threats from outside.
That, as a matter of principle, conscription and taxation are forms of slavery, is something I can't deny; it is true. My only argument is that they can be dilute and thus preferable to the alternative: genuine slavery.

But the claim that the threats which the United States currently faces from the outside are "vague to nonexistent" is something I can argue against. If it weren't for its impressive military strength, those who have no compunction about invading Georgia or bombing civilians in Chechnya, those who have no compunction about occupying Tibet or threatening Taiwan, and those who would throw the Israelis into the sea, would not suddenly discover morality and human rights in dealing with the United States.

We do live in a dangerous world, and that is no hoax.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: nottheowl on April 25, 2010, 02:41:01 pm
Is Escape itself free of the misuse of terminology? Arthur Harris was never convicted of war crimes. Can he therefore be named a war criminal without qualification?
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: terry_freeman on April 25, 2010, 04:20:41 pm
The greatest dangers most of us face are from our own government. About one third of our efforts - our time - is confiscated by various taxing authorities.

The United States has more people behind bars, per capita, than any other country in the world. It may be true that our prisoners are better fed and have better health care, but prison is still prison.

There are many people who fear the police more than they fear random strangers in a dark alley. You can find more than a few youtube videos to explain why this should be so.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: quadibloc on April 25, 2010, 04:39:55 pm
Is Escape itself free of the misuse of terminology? Arthur Harris was never convicted of war crimes. Can he therefore be named a war criminal without qualification?
In a war of aggression, he directly targeted a civilian residence. As he was legally executed on Ceres, presumably he was convicted of something, even if only of murder. (The Cereans may not have recognized the concept of "war", in the sense that marching about in a silly costume did not provide one with any protection against the usual penalties for initiations of force.)

In any case, while someone accused of a crime must be presumed to be innocent until he is convicted, he becomes in fact guilty at the moment he commits a crime. A trial is held for the purpose of determining guilt or innocence, not creating a guilt that does not previously exist.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: nottheowl on April 25, 2010, 04:51:29 pm
Apologies for my ambiguity, quadibloc. I was referring to Sir Arthur Harris ("Bomber" Harris of WWII). He is an historical personage (like Jefferson) referred to quite casually as a war criminal, without reference to this being a matter of opinion.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: SandySandfort on April 25, 2010, 07:05:56 pm
Apologies for my ambiguity, quadibloc. I was referring to Sir Arthur Harris ("Bomber" Harris of WWII). He is an historical personage (like Jefferson) referred to quite casually as a war criminal, without reference to this being a matter of opinion.

Would you be happier if I just referred to him as the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children? They cannot even be considered "collateral damage" as they were his intended targets. He was of the opinion that killing thousands of children would terrorize the German populous into somehow making their government surrender.

Now the concept of "war crime" is fuzzy at best, but murder is not. I used "war criminal" as a short hand for "mass murderer." Does that help?

Since we are playing with words, let me remind you that if someone is convicted of a crime, that conviction is also a matter of opinion. So I don't think dismissing something as merely "a matter of opinion" brings anything new to the discussion.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: Rocketman on April 25, 2010, 10:39:52 pm
Nightowl:  One more thing that Sandy didn't add.  In the future I would appreciate it if you didn't compare Harris who murdered thousands of innocent people to the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence in the same sentence.  Kind of like lumping Mother Teresa in with Adolph Hitler.   >:(  >:(
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: sams on April 26, 2010, 12:55:21 am
Nightowl:  One more thing that Sandy didn't add.  In the future I would appreciate it if you didn't compare Harris who murdered thousands of innocent people to the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence in the same sentence.  Kind of like lumping Mother Teresa in with Adolph Hitler.   >:(  >:(

Anita Dun did this completely stupid thing  >:(

If you launch a thousand bombs on civilians targets with no military value whatsoever, you are guilty of killing innocent people.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: nottheowl on April 26, 2010, 03:21:50 am
SandySandfort;

I've never dismissed anything "as a matter of opinion", because all opinions matter to me.

A. Harris was responsible for the deaths of thousands of non-combatants. Have I suggested I think differenty? There are those who argue that he saved thousands by shortening the war (A. Speer for instance, a swine, but a logistical genius). Therefore I suggest that had a character made the comment about the fictional Harris, that would've been acceptable, since it would have been presented as a matter of opinion. But the word was used by the omniscient narrator, making it a fact.

To answer your question, no, because "murderer" is again a matter of opinion (only incidentally mine), and for the same reason.

Rocketman, I did compare Harris and Jefferson, didn't I? But then what is the opinion of "the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages" regarding the Declaration of Independence? I don't think they were asked at the time; nor indeed were several other "races". I admire Jefferson greatly, not least because of his suggestion that Native Americans be inocculated against European diseases (that was him, I think), but his name is on that document. Therefore I think the comparison not quite so jarring as that between Mother Teresa and Hitler (please read carefully, I am not comparing Jefferson to Hitler). Possibly the only crime of the Mother Teresa was that of failing to question her superiors' stance on contraception.

(Amendment; capital letters Mother Teresa)
Title: Is conscription slavery?
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on April 26, 2010, 10:58:33 am

What Ancaps are saying is essentially this: not only is conscription too great a price to pay to defend a free country; the entire apparatus of state taxation and management are also forms of slavery, and destructive of freedom. Our so-called "protectors" have enslaved us in order to "protect" us from vague-to-nonexistent threats from outside.


You're right: Taxation is extortion, and conscription is slavery. The question that was asked in the "Armed Forces as a Distortion of AnCap Ideals" forum basically came down to: Can an AnCap society effectively defend itself against external threats? I said that it could not. I do not believe that the institutions upon which an AnCap society relies will work as well as the advocates suggest. I do not believe that an AnCap society will be able to defend itself against a foreign invader if that invader is even relatively competent or larger than the AnCap society. I proposed a very limited governmental system, similar to minarchy, that would provide for the common defense, police, and a court system while minimizing the amount of extortion and enslavement involved. I am willing to accept a tiny bit of both to prevent conquest by the real threats that exist outside our nation.

And a preemptive attack of my own: "He will sacrifice liberty for security..." does not apply here. Ben Franaklin voted for a Constitution that included a Navy and a Marine Corps. Apparently, he did not think these two organizations comprised some sort of overwhelming compromise of liberty. Similarly, the word "militia" as used in the Second Amendment generally meant (at the time,) "all able-bodied males aged 18 and up." British history is pretty clear on this point. Ben Franklin knew he was voting for conscription.

As to the question of real threats:

Were Germany and Japan nonexistent threats in the 1940's? Ask Poland and China. How about the Soviet Union during the Cold War? Ask anybody who lived next to the Soviets, and any of the millions of Americans who built bomb shelters. Are there real terrorist organizations out there that are seeking to attack this country? Ask any New Yorker or Tokyo subway patron.

There are bad individuals out there who will happily kill you for your wallet. For them, we have personal firearms. For bad countries, and foreign groups that seek to attack us, we need a military.
Title: The internet is a rough place...
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on April 26, 2010, 11:22:06 am

Will there are people who indeed sometime give rude answers, like ''statist'' ... or sometime condescention ... but it is because this is not our first internet forum debate and it almost always finish the same way

If you want to debate go for it, but don't try to dessesperatly win by putting the stacks higuers at each post or refusing to consider anithing else than what currently exist

The internet is a rough place, and everybody who posts on here should understand that their feelings might be hurt. Those people can go home and cry to their mothers.

What people can't get away with is double-talk. If somebody wants to claim to favor honest and open debate, and then dismisses every objection that is raised with "look it up," "never happen," or "Statist/agent-provocateur!" they are full of it. These are not arguments, they are attempts to skirt the issue and avoid dealing with the issues raised. It's misdirection, obfuscation, and ad hominem.

I expect it on the internet, and the only way to stop it is to call people on it and point out what they are doing.

As tot he question of hypothetical situations:

Since there has never been an AnCap society, the entire question is hypothetical. I am asking about hypothetical enemies that I argue the United States could defend against, and explaining why I don't believe that an AnCap society could do so. The discussion has not been limited to the Soviet Union/Genghis Khan with WMD's example, however. We included a discussion of a purely conventional conflict, conflicts involving terrorists, etc.

If you think a situation is unlikely, fine. This is a hypothetical discussion, not an argument about probability. Improbability does nothing to advance the argument for AnCap.
Title: Re: Is conscription slavery?
Post by: Brugle on April 26, 2010, 03:09:11 pm
Were Germany and Japan nonexistent threats in the 1940's? Ask Poland and China. How about the Soviet Union during the Cold War? Ask anybody who lived next to the Soviets, and any of the millions of Americans who built bomb shelters. Are there real terrorist organizations out there that are seeking to attack this country? Ask any New Yorker or Tokyo subway patron.

I think we can all agree that the Polish government's military failed to either protect the Polish people (its nominal purpose) or protect the Polish government (its actual purpose) in 1939.  I think we can all agree that the US government's military failed to either protect NYers or defend its HQ in 2001.  How do those facts support the idea that security can best be provided by a government military?
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: nottheowl on April 27, 2010, 01:15:07 am
Does Heinlein Libertarian mean us to consider how the alternative would have coped? An established military at least permitted a rapid and coordinated response, including the option to take that response overseas. Could an informal military have done this?

(I appreciate that the actual response was not so rapid and coordinated as it could have been. HL, excuse my presuming to speculate on your intention- please correct me if you intended otherwise.)
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: terry_freeman on April 27, 2010, 01:46:44 am
Now that Russia and China are selling portable missiles which can travel at mach 5.5 and destroy aircraft carriers and other warships the question is, can a socialist military force still project force against a wealthy AnCap society? Sure, it can lob ICBMs, but can it still engage in "shock and awe" tactics from a few miles offshore, when AnCaps can shoot back and destroy billions of dollars of hardware at a cost of a few million? We are no longer speculating about what hardware a wealthy AnCap society might be able to develop; this stuff is available at your Russian or Chinese Guns R Us mart.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: Rocketman on April 27, 2010, 12:41:37 pm
The argument has been raised that USN aircraft carriers are totally vulnerable to cruise missles developed by the Chinese and Russians.  I'm not so sure about that.  You have to remember that the U.S. government isn't going to tell the public every new piece of technology that it develops and I'm aware of two things that if developed might be able to protect a carrier from advanced cruise missiles.  One an Aussie has developed an new type of gun called the hellstorm that is currently undergoing tests.  Would you believe a million rounds a minute?  I can see that as soon as it can handle cannon shells similar to the GAU-8 which is what is used on the A-10 that it could replace the Phalanx system currently used on anti-missile ship defense.  The second is an article that I read recently.  The russians are currently developing an microwave system that goes on a russian tank.  Once it senses that an incoming anti-tank missile it sends out a very small localized EMP burst in the direction of the missile and scrambles the electronics and hopefully the firing circuits.  Carriers are going to be prime targets during a major conflict but they are anything but helpless.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: Shotgun Wedding on April 27, 2010, 02:46:04 pm
This is all quite thought provoking but what does this have to do with Escape from Terra?

While idiocy is rampant in our reality.Until humans stop thinking in terms of need instead of want, this will continue to be "normal" in the course of human development. One of the most obvious trends in EFT is that the folks out in the belt seem to understand this and are endlessly entertained by the antics of authoritarian Earth. Those of you out there that think that AnCap ideals are pie in the sky have never lived on the edge of civilization. When the barbarians are at the gate Nobody is gonna appoint a committee to deal with the problem they are gonna kill the bastards and then stack the bodies like cord wood. People that really believe that the only answer to all our problems is more taxes, laws and government are THE PROBLEM.

Think it over.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: Rocketman on April 27, 2010, 04:09:27 pm
SGW:  There are links that if you go through some of the replies will become evident how this is revelant to EFT.  Read an interesting article concerning the french airforce during the very early part of WW2 and what you said couldn't happen concerning creating committees to deal with a serious existing threat (namely the nazi's) back then did indeed happen.  They knew that the Nazi's were getting ready to attack them yet instead of getting the best existing aircraft that they had and mass producing them had dozens of different prototypes built and tested wasting time and money.  The main reason of course was that the french aircraft companies all had politicans that wanted the aircraft built in their district (sound familiar?) and the french government had paid for dozens of different aircraft companies designs.  Finally, they had to buy P-36 mohawks from the U.S. but by then it was too late to undue the damage. 
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: dough560 on April 28, 2010, 03:00:43 am
Also we get a chance to vent about some of our pet peeves.  ;)   Always with due consideration for the feelings of the viewing audience.  ::) 

I would suggest the human condition will continue to develop, not from need or want.  But from the development of individual self determination.  Implied self-interest is something more people are learning about.  We're surrounded by individuals who believe they have the right to hold a gun to our heads.  Occasionally they get what they deserve.  May it happen with greater regularity.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: quadibloc on April 28, 2010, 09:39:52 am
Those of you out there that think that AnCap ideals are pie in the sky have never lived on the edge of civilization.
I think that's the problem, though. Yes, this is the natural way for people to govern themselves when they live on the edge of an open frontier. When there are opportunities for everyone to convert their labor into wealth for the taking - instead of people being dependent on getting a job, if there is one, from a business to live.

On the frontier, this way of governing ourselves makes sense. In an overcrowded area, though, economic pressures seem to require more and more effort to suppress them, leading to more authoritarian regimes. If there is no way to apply the AnCap type of governance to that situation without a cull, it's not surprising there is little interest.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: sams on April 28, 2010, 09:49:50 am
Those of you out there that think that AnCap ideals are pie in the sky have never lived on the edge of civilization.
I think that's the problem, though. Yes, this is the natural way for people to govern themselves when they live on the edge of an open frontier. When there are opportunities for everyone to convert their labor into wealth for the taking - instead of people being dependent on getting a job, if there is one, from a business to live.

On the frontier, this way of governing ourselves makes sense. In an overcrowded area, though, economic pressures seem to require more and more effort to suppress them, leading to more authoritarian regimes. If there is no way to apply the AnCap type of governance to that situation without a cull, it's not surprising there is little interest.

I think there is a HUGE straw-man into both of you arguments argument : An Ancap Society is not one of self employment nor is the contrary a non ancap society.

An Ancap society or libertarian for those who believe in minimal government, is the the in which VOLUNTARY is the norm, ie : If you feel like doing a living for yourself self employed or not is your up to you. There is a nirvana fallacy of an Ancap world has a frontier only brave new world of self employement and very individualistic self sustained people ... The empirical evidence is inverse : an Ancap society will in the contrary have a much greater cooperation level and it won't be like you can only make a living by grabbing obvious asteroids, but also by working in the huge e specialized industries required to make consumers goods and services restricted only by the willing of people to pay for them and not regulations
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: Zilabus on April 29, 2010, 11:48:28 pm
Those of you out there that think that AnCap ideals are pie in the sky have never lived on the edge of civilization.
I think that's the problem, though. Yes, this is the natural way for people to govern themselves when they live on the edge of an open frontier. When there are opportunities for everyone to convert their labor into wealth for the taking - instead of people being dependent on getting a job, if there is one, from a business to live.

On the frontier, this way of governing ourselves makes sense. In an overcrowded area, though, economic pressures seem to require more and more effort to suppress them, leading to more authoritarian regimes. If there is no way to apply the AnCap type of governance to that situation without a cull, it's not surprising there is little interest.

I think there is a HUGE straw-man into both of you arguments argument : An Ancap Society is not one of self employment nor is the contrary a non ancap society.

An Ancap society or libertarian for those who believe in minimal government, is the the in which VOLUNTARY is the norm, ie : If you feel like doing a living for yourself self employed or not is your up to you. There is a nirvana fallacy of an Ancap world has a frontier only brave new world of self employement and very individualistic self sustained people ... The empirical evidence is inverse : an Ancap society will in the contrary have a much greater cooperation level and it won't be like you can only make a living by grabbing obvious asteroids, but also by working in the huge e specialized industries required to make consumers goods and services restricted only by the willing of people to pay for them and not regulations

Thank you for that comment sams. I too feel as through the idea of a society completely built up of entrupenurs (I know the spelling in incorret. Forgive me)and people who work for no man but themselves. I think it's very reasonable to say that nearly any industrialized nation will end up tilting towards having more people working for others then making it on their own. It's just unrealistic to think of any other model in a situation that isn't totally ripe with recources and open frontier for the taking.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: dough560 on April 30, 2010, 12:03:00 am
When people have choices, they act with implied self interest.  By restricting individual choice, spreading the misery, governments stays in business.

All societies are made up of a variety of people.    Some just want to live their lives as they see fit.  They want to go to work, and go home.  To earn a living, with as little hassle as possible.  They're not interested in the stress involved in creating a new product and getting it to market.  They just want to live their lives as they see fit, working a job paying enough for them to live the way they want.  Others will push the boundaries, failing and succeeding as the case may be.  Others will be in the middle.  They'll work their job, until they sport their chance.

Then we have those who believe they know what's best for everyone.  They do a pretty good job of making everyone miserable, as they steal other peoples profits.  Welcome to government.

Any society must be flexible.  With room for the dreamer and the plodder.  In any healthy society, each person will find their level.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: terry_freeman on April 30, 2010, 01:42:50 am
An AnCap society probably won't have corporations with tens of thousands of employees, but it also will lack the institutional reasons such megacorporations exist. Transactions between business A and business B in today's world require a considerable amount of book-keeping and tax overhead. Each entity must record details of the transaction, over and above those needed for their own business purposes, to satisfy the tax lords. Taxes must be paid, or in the case of tax-exempt transactions, proof of exemption must be maintained. This encourages entities to integrate vertically, over and above any innate business advantage of doing so. Regulatory overhead, in a large corporation, can be amortized over many transactions. A large corporation may have entire teams who deal with regulatory compliance alone.

Odds are that corporations will tend to be smaller. How much smaller, we can only guess.

I suspect that an AnCap society will have a lot more reserve capacity than is available today. Supporting $3.5 trillion of federal government, plus an approximately equal amount of state and local government spending, is a huge drain on productivity. Some people will choose to work as hard as before, which will allow them to produce much more than before. Some will choose to spend a lot more time to "stop and smell the roses"; some will engage in more long-term prospective research and intellectual activity.

Having such great reserves of time, savings, and productive capacity, will mean the potential for vast expenditures on whatever purposes may inspire people, or voluntary associations of people - including education, health care, defense, space travel, and so forth.

How inefficient is government? Let's take education, which swallows about half of all local and state spending. Home schoolers are able to do much better with less than a third of the time used by government schools, and vastly less expense. A very conservative estimate would be that a better education could be accomplished for a tenth of the total resources now devoted to that field.  Thomas Jefferson, based upon the usual level of attainment in his day, expected that a child with just three years of formal education would be able to keep books for his or her own business, and read, understand, and amend legal contracts. Frankly, he underestimated the capacity of children to learn - but these attainments seem remarkable today, so used are we to the lousy performance of government schools.


 
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: MacFall on May 07, 2010, 12:34:44 pm
The only reason there are vast, hierarchical companies at all is because government creates barriers to entry into the market which limit enormously the number of firms in existence. In a free market, every person would be an independent contractor, and firms would be horizontal affiliations between individuals. Management would still exist, but not in the broad pyramid structures we now see. And firm size would be strictly limited to the utility gained by the combination of resources and savings in transaction costs, the latter of which is almost entirely created by government today.

Furthermore, the incentive for firms with different but related functions to combine into large companies would be vastly reduced, so "horizontal integration" would be much less of a factor. A supermarket might combine the services of a pharmacy, grocery, and hardware store - but it is very unlikely that Wal-Mart would have its own producers, wholesale distributors and warehousers for those things. That sort of integration is the result of regulations which make it difficult for smaller and more independent firms to function.

So it is not correct to say that the individualism of the frontier would not "work" in a settled and densely-populated society. In fact it is the lack of government that allows the natural state of things to flourish on the frontier, and the presence of government that prohibits it from functioning in a settled society. But in a free market, firms would be much smaller, more mobile, and therefore more able to solve the problems that would arise in their environment. Different problems from those found on the frontier, to be sure; but they would nevertheless be more quickly and permanently solved by millions of free agents than by a few hulking behemoth companies with millions of wage-slaves in tow.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: Brugle on May 07, 2010, 01:58:28 pm
In a free market, every person would be an independent contractor, and firms would be horizontal affiliations between individuals.
You could be right, but I doubt it.  I don't think that anyone can accurately predict how the people in a free society would organize themselves.  (That's one reason I pay little attention to Kevin Carson.)  I do agree that a typical (however that's defined) firm would be quite a bit smaller.  There may not be a sharp distinction between an employee and an independent contractor--some people could have characteristics of both.

I'd expect there to be hierarchical firms in some industries and environments.  People are not the same, and free societies with high mobility would form a variety of organizations, some of which would be adapted to people with preferences that are different from yours.  I'd expect to see some organizations that are similar (in function if not name) with common modern organizations, but also strikingly different organizations.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: quadibloc on May 07, 2010, 08:06:15 pm
So it is not correct to say that the individualism of the frontier would not "work" in a settled and densely-populated society. In fact it is the lack of government that allows the natural state of things to flourish on the frontier, and the presence of government that prohibits it from functioning in a settled society. But in a free market, firms would be much smaller, more mobile, and therefore more able to solve the problems that would arise in their environment.
The condition I see developing in a settled and densely-populated society is not inefficient large companies.

Rather, it is that as people lose the option of striking out on their own as pioneers, their bargaining power in the marketplace is reduced. As well, natural resources like arable land, water, and minerals become more scarce relative to the number of people. So those who live by selling their labor become poorer, while those who are owners of resources become richer.

This is the situation that gives rise to demagogic revolutionaries on the one hand, and the rich banding together against the mob on the other hand.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: terry_freeman on May 08, 2010, 01:13:23 pm
What makes you think that bargaining power depends solely upon the ability to strike out on the frontier? If your thesis were even approximately correct, people in large cities would earn no more than people scratching out a subsistence on the frontiers. Instead, people in the cities earn more.

Division of labor increases productivity. On the frontier subsistence farm, one is too busy trying to do everything - building a house, furnishing it, creating tools, working the land, guarding against pests - too busy to specialize and improve productivity.

In larger organizations - which can be voluntary, contrary to the mythology of state-worshipers - people specialize and improve their skills; the overall systemic productivity rises, and individuals prosper. If wealth flows to a few rather than many, it is most likely due to the use of coercion - that is, the government.
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: Shotgun Wedding on May 18, 2010, 04:46:48 am
Well, while I might tend to you agree with you emotionally, free speech means idiots get to have their say too.  Nothing  demands that anyone else has to listen to them though.

Is there a "kill" or "filter" function that can be used so each person can filter out those they consider to be offensive, or too stupid to describe?

-Paul


Hi Paul and All!
The filters you require can be purchased at any pharmacy, supermarket, hardware or home improvement center. They come in all shapes and colors and they work really well. They're called earplugs. They not only filter out the incessant buzzing stupidity of liberal koolaid drinkers, it'll protect your hearing when you delete one of the really loud and obnoxious types. A .45 can be very noisy, so protect your hearing! ::)
SGW ;D
Title: Re: WORDS HAVE MEANING
Post by: terry_freeman on May 25, 2010, 10:08:06 am
This is a review of an interesting study of life away from the State:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/25/life-on-the-edge