The ousting of tallow by soy can be interpreted as one lobby triumphing over another.
Soy is a huge industry in North America, plus the US soy industry is subsidized. The intent is to have an abundant staple that reduces the both the price of animal foods and human labor.
Dehydrogenation is used because it gives oils an indefinite shelf life. The shelf life is indefinite because they becomes substances no living thing can use it as energy.
Hey, my first Youtube comment. I was with you right up to the very last sentence, "until you are absolutely positive, stay off of my fucking lawn." Even when they are absolutely positive, I want them to stay off my fucking lawn. In fact, they are more dangerous when they ARE absolutely positive.
But, that's a minor dig. It's a great summary of what we know to be hidden order, creative destruction and unintended consequences. But, mostly, arguing for state control is just a fatal conceit.
If we want people to act in the way which is "socially responsible" why bother with the clumsiness of a third party? Just work to get the people in, say, the ad agencies, to be socially responsible.
What's that? People who have command of so many resources who have the means to bend the public to their will, and who have attained their positions through social manipulation are not likely to follow your desires for social responsibility?
Cellular standards make everyone money: every phone company will sell more phones if their networks have wider reach. Modern examples using regulations that proximately decrease production or sales would strengthen your argument.
You or I might avoid the cheaper company and buy from the one that doesn't dump their shit everywhere, or refuse to patronize the electric company that ignores long-term safety standards on their nuclear plants to save money today. I'm skeptical that this is typical.
@StevenBukal Organic food. While it's 95% BS, a lot of people are willing to pay more for this 'healthy' alternative.
Prius' would be another example. Or ethanol.
The lack of effective or useful examples are because government has a large monopoly on regulation; why would you submit to a secondary Reg Body, when you're already bending over backwards for the first?
ok, the state did what was in the interests of people who benefited the state in the 60s and 70s regarding nutrition. I.e. the grain lobby, the low fat crusaders, the media hype around it, etc. But you see, this isn't a problem that is inherent in the state. All we have to do is make it rational for the state to be interested in the well-being of "the public" and make sure that we are very certain on what makes people healthy.
It's so easy. Elect the "right" people and hold them accountable.
@intercourseman69 There isn't a single form of democracy that leads to that outcome; the majority are far too willing to exert their tyranny over their fellow man, and corruption becomes rampant when power is handed away for free.
For the same reason many people dislike those who live off the government like leeches we would eventually dislike those who live off the real interest that would make just by sitting on their currency rather than putting it into some asset or bank so that they are at least some part of the growth / economic process.
@MirageScience A thought occurs - at the point where too much money is locked up in savings, deflation would begin to approach zero, removing the incentive to continue saving it, resulting in a natural equilibrium. Certain purchases - such as paying off one's house, or investing in a great deal of canned goods - would keep it flowing. Saving it in the mattresses would eventually grant diminishing returns.
@Aurini yeah that's right but that's not where you want the equilibrim to be. This is currency it's meant to be in circulation. It's if they say purchase silver or gold which would still be deflationary just resulting from market growth. The ideal area for the equilibrim is between a small rainyday liquid asset fund and in the market some how. If the currency goes into the mattress then the machine would ahve to compenase for something incalculable semi-outside the market.
@Aurini so my idea wouldn't even work if it's deflationary, it would be back to central planning of the monetary system. My idea however wouldn't ahve a problem with inflation if the thing / mechanism w.e we are going to call it had some type of cash flow as it could always correct for it after the fact.
Indeed I wouldn't be forcing shit like money on people, and I'm pretty glad you are suspecious, I don't care much for people that always say I'm right.
It seems most austrian economists support deflation because it lets savers save which is fine but savers can easily put their money into a bank rather than in a mattress and still be considered savers, and that way the currency is flowing which rewards the investor rather than the person sitting on their ass and just owning a piece of paper.
@MirageScience I think the main thrust of the austrian argument is "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa - this Keynesianism is getting way too complex! Let's get back to basics before we play around!"
Its the same for driving on certain sides of the road most the world drives on the right cept for southern africa the subcontinent the UK and Japan Australia and Indonesia. Japan was never colonized by the UK but cause left hand traffic seem to be better suited to an island country.
@PavelDragunov Well okay roads are state sponsored, but I mean so much of driving a car is just common sense. Staying on a specific side of the road dosen't need to be enforced by law, it just makes sense so yah don't fucking die. We can organize ourselves in our daily lives without state coercion.
I wouldn't encourage eating less, but if I was a statist I'd make physical fitness mandatory. Its not hard it dosent require complicated excercise equipment or that much time. For me its like knowing how to use a gun or knowing systema (and the gun laws here suck and I don't know where I can go to learn Russian martial arts), if society collapses/ the feds enforce martian law or whatever I've got a better chance to survive/ mount a resistance than some wheezing flabby bastard.
@PavelDragunov Heh, but speaking of which, I'm reminded of a military officer who destroyed my body one summer. He quite literally reduced my physical fitness, by his philosophy of "Running creates the highest metabolic rate - we will marathon run EVERY SINGLE FUCKING MORNING." Without a chance for my muscles to recoup, I gave up even trying to run the whole thing.
@Aurini Haha jesus fucking christ. Yah you need downtime to let your muscles build back, I jog and basketball a few hours a week and I take the weekends off as like downtime. Truth is being in shape isn't nearly as complicated or expensive as some would have ya believe. Granted I hit the genetic lottery by being tall thin and excessively Nordic lol but I feel like if I eat right work out then I'm allowed to smoke cigars drink vodka and eat fried foods salty snacks and pizza lol
@GTBeauregard - Yes, one can be both a nationalist and an anti-statist. Nation =/= state. A nation is a collective identity and a state is an agency that has a monopoly on law over a fiat land claim.
@GTBeauregard I think so; I find that I'm 'pro-peoples of Canada', and I'd be more willing to sacrifice on behalf of them, or make alliances when neccessary - and yet I don't see much use for a government.
While carbs are generally bad, some races can handle carbs better than others. For example, European-Americans actually eat more carbs, and more of their carbs come from soda and sports drinks, than African or Mexican-Americans. And yet, Europeans have lower diabetes and obesity rates.
It's also known that Australian Aborigines and Polynesians do TERRIBLE on high-carb, agricultural diets. East Asians on the other hand, from best can be inferred, are the most adapted to a high carb diet.
@fringeelements As you said "Evolution is fast" - I certainly need to grab some carbs every so often, but not near so often as the Offical Diet would think.
I'm unsure about East Asian; I think they might be more adapted to carbs than whites, but nonetheless they grow taller and stronger when they live on a North American diet (which isn't even the healthy diet).
Quality of nutrients seems to matter too; I find that carb-rich potatoes are great, in moderation.
It's so sad. I don't eat french fries anymore because of the oil they use. I would like to try some beef fat french fries, that sounds tasty. But oh well.
agreed. watched the whole thing, and I've personally noticed that statists think they know whats best for you and me. If we disagree what does that matter, isn't that why they're statists?! Lols
Im not going to lie, I subbed for stuff like this. I like listening to semi-boring talk that I can follow about stuff that doesn't directly effect me while I blast aliens in X-Com. Its a great combo.
Regulation by force (government) requires a monopoly on force. If the government thinks regulation by force is right then it should agree to be regulated by force. But the only people who can regulate them are the public. The public and the government cannot both have a monopoly on force so the theory that regulation through force can be right is invalid.
I've been reading Stefbot's "Universally preferable behaviour" a lot lately.
@Aurini I'm a big fan of stefbot and how he logically destroys arguments for violence. However while I can see that a moral theory that is self contradictory cannot be universal I am not convinced that the opposite of what cannot be universal is necessarily an objective moral truth/theory. My problem comes down to the word opposite which I believe is always subjectively attached to a binary outcome when there may be more than one opposite or none at all.
Molyneux rarely destroys arguments. What he does is falsely extract principles and universalizes everything. You can make just about anything seem absurd if you universalize it. He decontextualizes everything. For example, hitting a kid when he's being a brat and crying that he wants cotton candy. Molyneux would say, "Oh, now you're working under the proposition that it is morally right to hit anyone weaker than you..."
No, what happened is the parent gave a light smack to their child WHEN the child was being a brat. They didn't hit some random child, they didn't hit their child for nothing, and they hit with the appropriate amount of force. The action was not universal, it was contextual. And if an adult friend started crying and screaming that he wanted cotton candy and for me to pay for it, I'd punch him in the nose, and much harder than I'd smack a child on the rear. Context.
@fringeelements He is fucking insane when it comes to parenting. He was arguing with someone who was against absolutism and it was Stefan's contention that the reason that the other person was against absolutism was because of his childhood. Clearly his dad must have been authoritarian, thus he rebelled against it in the form of opposing absolutism.
Molyneux's view is that which is moral is that which is psychologically healthy is that which is economically optimal. It is magical thinking. This equation is never made explicit, because once I consciously realized that was what was going on, the magic evaporated.
It feels really good and certain and coherent, but it would be a cosmic fluke if it were correct (like race equality). I hope you don't get too caught up in it.
No, it's not noise, and you understand what I'm saying just fine. In Molyneux-world, that which is moral (according to UPB) is also economically optimal is also psychologically healthy. I don't know how to make it any clearer.
Something being nuanced and hard to grasp doesn't mean it doesn't provide certainty. Stop moving the goalpost.
Also, if UPB were bollocks, it would seem slippery, would it not? Because you'd have to constantly get creative bridging the is-ought gap without subjectivity.
@fringeelements I agree; I very much like Molyneux on Psychology, his child-rearing is a bit naive (he probably has great kids that don't need to be hit - try raising a bully). It's very reminiscent of the 'ethics are innate' AI debate (vs we need to be careful with the first superintelligence). Hell, I don't even think our moral instincts are coherent - they're evolved for Dunbars Unit & reproduction - short of re-engineering ourselves, we will NOT find a universal morality.
If it's economically optimal for the government to regulate the public, it does not follow that it's economically optimal for the public to regulate the government - the public and the government are not the same.
@shlockofgod Regulation by force does not require a monopoly as far as i can see. Even in our statist society, it is recognized that a person can use certain degrees of violence to 'enforce' the regulations against, for example,
Though this MAY be true of most positive forms of intervention. Violent enforcement of property claims as a last defense will certainly exist in any society.
I dont consider a conflict of values to be irrational. Like with the example of wanting to move out of NYC but still living there. I don't think the lag time between when the person started valuing living outside of NYC and making a decision on whether or not to do so is irrational. The person could be indecisive on choosing which pros are more valued, pros of living outside NYC vs pros living in NYC. In the end I think they are still trying to maximize their utility.
@blakstar101 Think about this way; they know they're happier in Alabama, and that it would be possible to transfer to a branch in that city over a six-month period, where they might even earn more, but they never bother to initiate the six-month transfer because it takes too long.
I dont think spawks argument is that we make mistakes in our reasoning and regret our decisions. I think hes fundamentally rejecting the very idea of utility maximisation. Hes saying that, regardless of information and foresight, people still dont necessarily act in their own self interest. He made a video rejecting psychological egoism a while back.
@InvincibleNumanist Hmm, in that case a far more subtle argument might be needed.
Though even then, I fail to see how his 'expert' opinion on the fundamental aspect of human nature is guaranteed to give us a better life experience than a free market exploration.
yes true, if thats what hes saying then it just muddies the water even more. makes it even harder for any kind of central plan to take place. Its like the problem of calculation squared.
@InvincibleNumanist Indeed. I may have drifted somewhat off-topic with this video (it wasn't quite as planned as the others) but the essential point I was trying to make is that I don't *know* what the perfect society is - I just want the freedom to explore, which the Statists deny us.
That follows a general theme of Spawk talking things too literally. For example, recently he made a video arguing that utility is vague, thus economic models based on utility are modeling something that doesn't really exist. I actually agree with a lot of what he says, but there's some truth in utility-maximizing models, and he doesn't apply much skepticism to the state. He has this ideal state that only does god and intervenes and solves things.
This to me is far more utopian than anti-statism. Anti-statism is like kicking the football out of the stadium. Ideal statism is like kicking a football and trying to get it to land in precisely the right seat in the stadium. Moreover, he envisions a democracy doing this, which to stretch my analogy to it's limit, would be like the crowd all rushing the football and just happening to kick it in the correct seat because a few people in the rushing crowd have determined that would be best.
@fringeelements His most recent focus on 'happiness' is just as misguided as his focus on utility. Yes, - happiness levels are stable over time, genetically programmed. We know this. But I'd still rather be living in an advanced first world nation than a mud hut.
Ironically I found this channel on a status form called Iron March from an individual that supported totalitarianism.
SAEuropeanPatriot 2 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Spawktalk used to be a good channel 3 years ago.
Luigi84289 1 week ago
'Vegetable oil' is a euphemism for soy oil..
The ousting of tallow by soy can be interpreted as one lobby triumphing over another.
Soy is a huge industry in North America, plus the US soy industry is subsidized. The intent is to have an abundant staple that reduces the both the price of animal foods and human labor.
Dehydrogenation is used because it gives oils an indefinite shelf life. The shelf life is indefinite because they becomes substances no living thing can use it as energy.
leopoldvonhabsburg 1 week ago
Hey, my first Youtube comment. I was with you right up to the very last sentence, "until you are absolutely positive, stay off of my fucking lawn." Even when they are absolutely positive, I want them to stay off my fucking lawn. In fact, they are more dangerous when they ARE absolutely positive.
But, that's a minor dig. It's a great summary of what we know to be hidden order, creative destruction and unintended consequences. But, mostly, arguing for state control is just a fatal conceit.
cosmicslop2006 1 month ago
If we want people to act in the way which is "socially responsible" why bother with the clumsiness of a third party? Just work to get the people in, say, the ad agencies, to be socially responsible.
What's that? People who have command of so many resources who have the means to bend the public to their will, and who have attained their positions through social manipulation are not likely to follow your desires for social responsibility?
You don't say...
blackacidlizzard 1 month ago 8
Cellular standards make everyone money: every phone company will sell more phones if their networks have wider reach. Modern examples using regulations that proximately decrease production or sales would strengthen your argument.
You or I might avoid the cheaper company and buy from the one that doesn't dump their shit everywhere, or refuse to patronize the electric company that ignores long-term safety standards on their nuclear plants to save money today. I'm skeptical that this is typical.
StevenBukal 1 month ago
@StevenBukal Organic food. While it's 95% BS, a lot of people are willing to pay more for this 'healthy' alternative.
Prius' would be another example. Or ethanol.
The lack of effective or useful examples are because government has a large monopoly on regulation; why would you submit to a secondary Reg Body, when you're already bending over backwards for the first?
Aurini 1 month ago
You make great videos - but please use a coaster or something under your glass. The constant banging of your glass on the table is very distracting.
OneCerebralSamurai 1 month ago
@OneCerebralSamurai Fair point.
Aurini 1 month ago
ok, the state did what was in the interests of people who benefited the state in the 60s and 70s regarding nutrition. I.e. the grain lobby, the low fat crusaders, the media hype around it, etc. But you see, this isn't a problem that is inherent in the state. All we have to do is make it rational for the state to be interested in the well-being of "the public" and make sure that we are very certain on what makes people healthy.
It's so easy. Elect the "right" people and hold them accountable.
intercourseman69 1 month ago
@intercourseman69 There isn't a single form of democracy that leads to that outcome; the majority are far too willing to exert their tyranny over their fellow man, and corruption becomes rampant when power is handed away for free.
Aurini 1 month ago
For the same reason many people dislike those who live off the government like leeches we would eventually dislike those who live off the real interest that would make just by sitting on their currency rather than putting it into some asset or bank so that they are at least some part of the growth / economic process.
MirageScience 1 month ago
@MirageScience A thought occurs - at the point where too much money is locked up in savings, deflation would begin to approach zero, removing the incentive to continue saving it, resulting in a natural equilibrium. Certain purchases - such as paying off one's house, or investing in a great deal of canned goods - would keep it flowing. Saving it in the mattresses would eventually grant diminishing returns.
Aurini 1 month ago
@Aurini yeah that's right but that's not where you want the equilibrim to be. This is currency it's meant to be in circulation. It's if they say purchase silver or gold which would still be deflationary just resulting from market growth. The ideal area for the equilibrim is between a small rainyday liquid asset fund and in the market some how. If the currency goes into the mattress then the machine would ahve to compenase for something incalculable semi-outside the market.
MirageScience 1 month ago
@Aurini so my idea wouldn't even work if it's deflationary, it would be back to central planning of the monetary system. My idea however wouldn't ahve a problem with inflation if the thing / mechanism w.e we are going to call it had some type of cash flow as it could always correct for it after the fact.
MirageScience 1 month ago
Indeed I wouldn't be forcing shit like money on people, and I'm pretty glad you are suspecious, I don't care much for people that always say I'm right.
It seems most austrian economists support deflation because it lets savers save which is fine but savers can easily put their money into a bank rather than in a mattress and still be considered savers, and that way the currency is flowing which rewards the investor rather than the person sitting on their ass and just owning a piece of paper.
MirageScience 1 month ago
@MirageScience I think the main thrust of the austrian argument is "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa - this Keynesianism is getting way too complex! Let's get back to basics before we play around!"
Aurini 1 month ago
Its the same for driving on certain sides of the road most the world drives on the right cept for southern africa the subcontinent the UK and Japan Australia and Indonesia. Japan was never colonized by the UK but cause left hand traffic seem to be better suited to an island country.
PavelDragunov 1 month ago
@PavelDragunov Well okay roads are state sponsored, but I mean so much of driving a car is just common sense. Staying on a specific side of the road dosen't need to be enforced by law, it just makes sense so yah don't fucking die. We can organize ourselves in our daily lives without state coercion.
PavelDragunov 1 month ago
I wouldn't encourage eating less, but if I was a statist I'd make physical fitness mandatory. Its not hard it dosent require complicated excercise equipment or that much time. For me its like knowing how to use a gun or knowing systema (and the gun laws here suck and I don't know where I can go to learn Russian martial arts), if society collapses/ the feds enforce martian law or whatever I've got a better chance to survive/ mount a resistance than some wheezing flabby bastard.
PavelDragunov 1 month ago
@PavelDragunov Heh, but speaking of which, I'm reminded of a military officer who destroyed my body one summer. He quite literally reduced my physical fitness, by his philosophy of "Running creates the highest metabolic rate - we will marathon run EVERY SINGLE FUCKING MORNING." Without a chance for my muscles to recoup, I gave up even trying to run the whole thing.
Aurini 1 month ago
@Aurini Haha jesus fucking christ. Yah you need downtime to let your muscles build back, I jog and basketball a few hours a week and I take the weekends off as like downtime. Truth is being in shape isn't nearly as complicated or expensive as some would have ya believe. Granted I hit the genetic lottery by being tall thin and excessively Nordic lol but I feel like if I eat right work out then I'm allowed to smoke cigars drink vodka and eat fried foods salty snacks and pizza lol
PavelDragunov 1 month ago
Statism only looks good on paper.
paradoarify 1 month ago
Can one be a nationalist and an anti-statist?
GTBeauregard 1 month ago
@GTBeauregard - Yes, one can be both a nationalist and an anti-statist. Nation =/= state. A nation is a collective identity and a state is an agency that has a monopoly on law over a fiat land claim.
xXMetalMeltdownXx 1 month ago
@xXMetalMeltdownXx A tumour, in outherwords
Aurini 1 month ago
@xXMetalMeltdownXx That's good - I was turned off of anti-statism by Stefan Moilineux.
GTBeauregard 1 month ago
@GTBeauregard I think so; I find that I'm 'pro-peoples of Canada', and I'd be more willing to sacrifice on behalf of them, or make alliances when neccessary - and yet I don't see much use for a government.
Aurini 1 month ago
While carbs are generally bad, some races can handle carbs better than others. For example, European-Americans actually eat more carbs, and more of their carbs come from soda and sports drinks, than African or Mexican-Americans. And yet, Europeans have lower diabetes and obesity rates.
It's also known that Australian Aborigines and Polynesians do TERRIBLE on high-carb, agricultural diets. East Asians on the other hand, from best can be inferred, are the most adapted to a high carb diet.
fringeelements 1 month ago
Comment removed
lovingsingleton 1 month ago
@fringeelements As you said "Evolution is fast" - I certainly need to grab some carbs every so often, but not near so often as the Offical Diet would think.
I'm unsure about East Asian; I think they might be more adapted to carbs than whites, but nonetheless they grow taller and stronger when they live on a North American diet (which isn't even the healthy diet).
Quality of nutrients seems to matter too; I find that carb-rich potatoes are great, in moderation.
Aurini 1 month ago
It's so sad. I don't eat french fries anymore because of the oil they use. I would like to try some beef fat french fries, that sounds tasty. But oh well.
fringeelements 1 month ago
@fringeelements Fry your hashbrowns in bacon grease.
Aurini 1 month ago
statist arrogance ftw!
ConformistDave 1 month ago
agreed. watched the whole thing, and I've personally noticed that statists think they know whats best for you and me. If we disagree what does that matter, isn't that why they're statists?! Lols
natritious1 1 month ago
Im not going to lie, I subbed for stuff like this. I like listening to semi-boring talk that I can follow about stuff that doesn't directly effect me while I blast aliens in X-Com. Its a great combo.
shoopoop21 1 month ago
@shoopoop21 Hah! I'm halfway through TFTD right now.
Aurini 1 month ago
Regulation by force (government) requires a monopoly on force. If the government thinks regulation by force is right then it should agree to be regulated by force. But the only people who can regulate them are the public. The public and the government cannot both have a monopoly on force so the theory that regulation through force can be right is invalid.
I've been reading Stefbot's "Universally preferable behaviour" a lot lately.
Great, great video.
shlockofgod 1 month ago
@shlockofgod I recognized his reasoning there; if guns are evil, then giving those people guns can't *not* be evil.
I very much like his logician approach to the whole thing.
Go check out stefbot's channel, folks.
Aurini 1 month ago
@Aurini I'm a big fan of stefbot and how he logically destroys arguments for violence. However while I can see that a moral theory that is self contradictory cannot be universal I am not convinced that the opposite of what cannot be universal is necessarily an objective moral truth/theory. My problem comes down to the word opposite which I believe is always subjectively attached to a binary outcome when there may be more than one opposite or none at all.
LatteJonny 1 month ago
Molyneux rarely destroys arguments. What he does is falsely extract principles and universalizes everything. You can make just about anything seem absurd if you universalize it. He decontextualizes everything. For example, hitting a kid when he's being a brat and crying that he wants cotton candy. Molyneux would say, "Oh, now you're working under the proposition that it is morally right to hit anyone weaker than you..."
fringeelements 1 month ago
No, what happened is the parent gave a light smack to their child WHEN the child was being a brat. They didn't hit some random child, they didn't hit their child for nothing, and they hit with the appropriate amount of force. The action was not universal, it was contextual. And if an adult friend started crying and screaming that he wanted cotton candy and for me to pay for it, I'd punch him in the nose, and much harder than I'd smack a child on the rear. Context.
fringeelements 1 month ago
@fringeelements He is fucking insane when it comes to parenting. He was arguing with someone who was against absolutism and it was Stefan's contention that the reason that the other person was against absolutism was because of his childhood. Clearly his dad must have been authoritarian, thus he rebelled against it in the form of opposing absolutism.
45means45 1 month ago
Take it from an ex-molyneux cult member:
Molyneux's view is that which is moral is that which is psychologically healthy is that which is economically optimal. It is magical thinking. This equation is never made explicit, because once I consciously realized that was what was going on, the magic evaporated.
It feels really good and certain and coherent, but it would be a cosmic fluke if it were correct (like race equality). I hope you don't get too caught up in it.
fringeelements 1 month ago
@fringeelements It wouldn't matter if it WAS a cult. If the reasoning is correct it's correct.
"Molyneux's view is that which is moral is that which is psychologically healthy is that which is economically optimal."
I don't understand what this means and you don't explain. It's noise.
If you think it's magical thinking then you should be able to show how my application of UPB to government regulation is wrong.
"It feels really good and certain"
It's actually quite slippery.
TheCinemaTroll 1 month ago
No, it's not noise, and you understand what I'm saying just fine. In Molyneux-world, that which is moral (according to UPB) is also economically optimal is also psychologically healthy. I don't know how to make it any clearer.
Something being nuanced and hard to grasp doesn't mean it doesn't provide certainty. Stop moving the goalpost.
Also, if UPB were bollocks, it would seem slippery, would it not? Because you'd have to constantly get creative bridging the is-ought gap without subjectivity.
fringeelements 1 month ago
Also, I didn't say it was wrong because it was a cult. Insults are not necessarily ad homenims. Please sharpen your thinking.
fringeelements 1 month ago
@fringeelements I agree; I very much like Molyneux on Psychology, his child-rearing is a bit naive (he probably has great kids that don't need to be hit - try raising a bully). It's very reminiscent of the 'ethics are innate' AI debate (vs we need to be careful with the first superintelligence). Hell, I don't even think our moral instincts are coherent - they're evolved for Dunbars Unit & reproduction - short of re-engineering ourselves, we will NOT find a universal morality.
Aurini 1 month ago
@fringeelements Whoops. Sorry I accidentally responded to you with my other account.
I fail so hard.
shlockofgod 1 month ago
@shlockofgod
If it's economically optimal for the government to regulate the public, it does not follow that it's economically optimal for the public to regulate the government - the public and the government are not the same.
Stefbot uses too much weak deontology.
StatelessLiberty 1 month ago
@shlockofgod Regulation by force does not require a monopoly as far as i can see. Even in our statist society, it is recognized that a person can use certain degrees of violence to 'enforce' the regulations against, for example,
Though this MAY be true of most positive forms of intervention. Violent enforcement of property claims as a last defense will certainly exist in any society.
Worldslargestipod 1 month ago
I dont consider a conflict of values to be irrational. Like with the example of wanting to move out of NYC but still living there. I don't think the lag time between when the person started valuing living outside of NYC and making a decision on whether or not to do so is irrational. The person could be indecisive on choosing which pros are more valued, pros of living outside NYC vs pros living in NYC. In the end I think they are still trying to maximize their utility.
blakstar101 1 month ago
@blakstar101 Think about this way; they know they're happier in Alabama, and that it would be possible to transfer to a branch in that city over a six-month period, where they might even earn more, but they never bother to initiate the six-month transfer because it takes too long.
Aurini 1 month ago
I dont think spawks argument is that we make mistakes in our reasoning and regret our decisions. I think hes fundamentally rejecting the very idea of utility maximisation. Hes saying that, regardless of information and foresight, people still dont necessarily act in their own self interest. He made a video rejecting psychological egoism a while back.
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago
@InvincibleNumanist Hmm, in that case a far more subtle argument might be needed.
Though even then, I fail to see how his 'expert' opinion on the fundamental aspect of human nature is guaranteed to give us a better life experience than a free market exploration.
Aurini 1 month ago
@Aurini
yes true, if thats what hes saying then it just muddies the water even more. makes it even harder for any kind of central plan to take place. Its like the problem of calculation squared.
InvincibleNumanist 1 month ago
@InvincibleNumanist Indeed. I may have drifted somewhat off-topic with this video (it wasn't quite as planned as the others) but the essential point I was trying to make is that I don't *know* what the perfect society is - I just want the freedom to explore, which the Statists deny us.
Get off my lawn!
Aurini 1 month ago 6
That follows a general theme of Spawk talking things too literally. For example, recently he made a video arguing that utility is vague, thus economic models based on utility are modeling something that doesn't really exist. I actually agree with a lot of what he says, but there's some truth in utility-maximizing models, and he doesn't apply much skepticism to the state. He has this ideal state that only does god and intervenes and solves things.
fringeelements 1 month ago
This to me is far more utopian than anti-statism. Anti-statism is like kicking the football out of the stadium. Ideal statism is like kicking a football and trying to get it to land in precisely the right seat in the stadium. Moreover, he envisions a democracy doing this, which to stretch my analogy to it's limit, would be like the crowd all rushing the football and just happening to kick it in the correct seat because a few people in the rushing crowd have determined that would be best.
fringeelements 1 month ago
@fringeelements His most recent focus on 'happiness' is just as misguided as his focus on utility. Yes, - happiness levels are stable over time, genetically programmed. We know this. But I'd still rather be living in an advanced first world nation than a mud hut.
Aurini 1 month ago
@Aurini I would rather have sex in a Ferrari than a stationwagon, although
Sex> Ferrari> station wagon
45means45 1 month ago