What is Value?
Although value permeates our existence, most people have never thought about what value is: what makes something good or bad, and what it means to say that something is good or bad.
In this essay, I will describe four types, or layers, of value: biological, psychological, social and philosophical.
Biological Value
Biological value is what is good or bad for an organism.
Organisms are reproducing machines. The form of an organism was selected to reproduce. So, organisms have a natural purpose: to reproduce. Biological value is defined relative to that purpose. What is instrumental to an organism’s reproduction is good for that organism. Conversely, what is detrimental to an organism’s reproduction is bad for that organism.
For example, it is biologically good for an oak tree to have water and sunshine, and it is biologically bad for an oak tree to be cut down.
When we make a statement about what is biologically good or bad, it is always relative to an organism (or more generally, a reproducing entity). Cutting down the oak tree is bad for the oak tree, but it might be good for a maple sapling that was growing beneath the oak tree.
Biological value is objective in the sense that it is an objective property of events. The oak tree’s objective purpose is to reproduce. Cutting the oak tree down is objectively bad for it. Biological value is objective, but organism-relative.
Biological value is not cosmic. There is no telos to life as a whole. Life is not instrumental to some higher purpose. Evolution creates entities with purposes, and each individual organism has its own purpose: to reproduce.
Biological value emerged from causality via the loop of reproduction. The form of an organism has been selected to reproduce, and every part of an organism has a function that is instrumental to reproduction.
Psychological Value
Psychological value is a subjective judgment of what is good or bad for the subject.
Some organisms have a brain that uses mental models to generate action. Mental models represent more than just reality. They also represent hypothetical events, potential actions and value. Mental models have value-implications: judgments of what is good or bad, from the subject’s perspective.
Value judgments define the subject’s value-orientation toward existing or hypothetical objects and events. They are the desires of the organism. Psychological value does not exist objectively. It is projected onto objects and events by a subject, through mental models. An object (real or hypothetical) can have value to a subject because of its properties, but the value is not a property of the object. It is the subject’s orientation toward the object.
Value judgments are used to generate action. You act toward what you positively value, and away from what you negatively value.
Imagine a cheetah chasing a gazelle. The cheetah positively values catching the gazelle, and is acting to make that outcome real. The gazelle negatively values being caught, and is acting to prevent that outcome. Each brain projects a different value onto the hypothetical outcome of the cheetah catching the gazelle. One subject acts toward that outcome. The other acts to prevent it.
Psychological value is derived from motivation. Motivation is generated by the emotions, which are heuristic problem-recognizers. Hunger is the emotion that motivates us to eat. Fear is the emotion that motivates us to avoid injury and death. We have many different emotions, but they all generate the same thing: motivation. We experience pain when motivation increases, and pleasure when motivation decreases.
We acquire value-knowledge from experience, in essentially the same way that we acquire truth-knowledge. We learn what is good or bad from the experiences of pain and pleasure. We learn to positively value what causes pleasure, and negatively value what causes pain.
Value-knowledge is part of conceptual knowledge. We learn concepts from experience by induction. We apply concepts to experience by pattern-recognition. When a concept is applied, both truth and value judgments are generated.
For example, suppose that you see a $20 bill lying on the sidewalk. You will recognize the object as money, based on pattern-recognition. You have learned from experience that money is good. So, your brain will generate the action of picking up the money and putting it in your pocket. In that situation, recognizing a concept generates a value judgment, which then generates a choice of action. You are constantly making such judgments and acting on them.
Psychological value is not cosmic. Our individual value judgments do not reflect a cosmic standard of value.
Psychological value heuristically reflects biological value, but does not directly reduce to it. Emotions evolved to motivate adaptive behavior, but they do not work ideally in every situation. Emotions are heuristic, ad hoc and stimulus-dependent. In modern civilization, human emotions can generate very maladaptive desires and behaviors.
See Reproduction | Masturbation, Alienation and Art and Motivation.
Social Value
Social value is intersubjective. It emerges from individual psychological value in a social context. Social value defines good and bad for a collective, rather than a single individual. Social value judgments are agreements between multiple minds.
Many other things are intersubjective. Language is one example. “Dog” means dog because we all use the word in the same way. The meaning of words is just an agreement between minds. Laws, money and property are other examples. Each exists as an agreement between minds.
Social values arise by implicit or explicit agreement between the members of a society. They can emerge as cultural norms, or they can be defined explicitly, as laws or principles.
For example, the norm “murder is bad” naturally emerges from people living together. Each member of the group is willing to give up the freedom to kill others in exchange for protection from being killed by others. It is not that killing others is bad from an individual perspective. Each individual could benefit by killing others. But each individual could also benefit from a collective prohibition on violence. So, the people agree, implicitly or explicitly, not to kill each other. This agreement creates the social value “murder is bad”. The group then imposes that social value on its members by killing those who violate the norm.
Although people have conflicting interests, they also have shared interests, and they can often benefit by cooperating. People naturally generate social values that reflect their shared interests.
Just as psychological value is tied to the perspective of an individual, social value is tied to the perspective of a group. Members of a group might agree not to kill each other, but also agree to kill the members of another group, and have no problem killing and eating animals. This double-standard reflects the shared interests of the group. Just as individuals are selfish, groups are selfish.
Social value is often called “morality”. Many people have the false belief that their social values are cosmic values, which emanate from a cosmic source, such as God. This delusion is not necessary for social values to exist.
See What is Morality?.
Social value is not cosmic. Social value arises from psychological value. It derives its normativity from psychological value, and ultimately from biological value.
Philosophical Value
Philosophical value is defined by an explicit philosophical theory of value.
For example, hedonism is a philosophical theory of value. It defines positive value as pleasure and negative value as pain. Only pain and pleasure have intrinsic value, according to hedonism. Other things can have instrumental value as causes of pain or pleasure.
Hedonism is not a scientific theory. It does not describe reality. It is a normative theory. It defines what is good or bad from an individual perspective. It is used to make explicit value claims in a philosophical context.
There is no uniquely rational way to define value philosophically. “What is the right theory of value?” is a normative question: a question of value. To answer that question, we need a theory of value. This infinite regress demonstrates that there is no foundation for value in philosophy. At most, we can define a theory of value and use it to justify itself.
We can also select a theory of value based on its alignment with biological or psychological value, but there is no prior basis for doing so. It would be the naturalistic fallacy (leaping across the is | ought gap) to assume that biological or psychological value is philosophical value. To have a rational theory of value, we must understand that it has no prior basis, and that we choose it.
However, it does not follow that we are free to choose any philosophical theory of value and live by it. Consider the value theory “green bottlism”, in which making green bottles is intrinsically good, and nothing else has intrinsic value. You could propose this theory as a joke or a thought experiment, but you could not live by it, because it does not fit your nature. A philosophical theory that conflicts with human nature could never be adopted.
A philosophical theory of value does not replace intuition. In ordinary life, we have to make judgments quickly and automatically. But a philosophical theory of value can make a difference in areas where intuitions are unclear or conflicted. It can also give a larger purpose to life, one that goes beyond the judgments generated by intuition.
✦ ✦ ✦
Biological value arises from causality by the loop of reproduction. Psychological value is used by the brain to generate action. It is a biological adaptation that evolved. It derives its normativity from biological value. Social value arises from psychological value in multiple interacting minds. It derives its normativity from psychological value, and thus from biological value. Philosophical value arises from our ability to think about ourselves, and ask the question “What is value?”.
seeing humans as machines is rather quaint
ReplyDeleteHow is it "quaint"? You are a reproducing machine. Every part of you is a mechanism within that machine. A kidney is a mechanism for filtering blood. Your brain is a mechanism for generating behavior. The emotions are a mechanism for generating motivation. Etc. Maybe that bothers you, but it's the truth.
DeleteThe proposed rule that "murder is universally preferable behavior" is just as cOsMIcAlLy wrong as the statement "2 + 2 = 5". You are underestimating the influence of logic that we have evolved to value. You're getting closer though: "It derives its normativity from psychological value, and ultimately from biological value."
ReplyDeleteNo, neither is cosmically wrong. Murder is wrong within a human defined system: morality. It is not bad to the cosmos. "2 + 2 = 5" is wrong within a human defined system: mathematics. It has no meaning outside that system. We can use mathematics to describe and reason about reality, but mathematics is not part of reality. The same is true of logic, although logic is innate, not cultural. You are making the error of assuming that the presuppositions of your thought (cultural or innate) are properties of reality.
DeleteMore specifically, murder (as a moral rule, aka. as a universally preferable rule) is wrong *within the human subjective valuation for logic* - anyone who values logic cannot simultaneously hold that view, or any other NAP violating rule. FURTHERMORE, anyone who doesn't value logic is closer to a rat or a rock and isn't protected by any (logical) moral obligations.
DeleteFirst, people don't value logic. Logic is a presupposition of thought -- it is built into how we think, although people can make mistakes. As a formal system, it's something we created by induction from observations of thought and argumentation. Most people have never thought about the presuppositions of their thought, so they couldn't value logic. They have no concept of it.
DeleteSecond, a law against murder is not "universally preferable", nor is it based purely on logic. It's a social construct and/or a cultural norm -- a collective value. Like other collective values, it emerges out of the interplay of individual values when people live together. It's not a cosmic rule, and societies apply it selectively.
I know you want to believe that your moral values have an objective foundation, but they don't. Morality is a delusion, in which people project their collective values onto the cosmos, usually onto God. You're trying to substitute logic for God, but it's still a delusion.
You're stuck in a loop with your strawman. "Please don't murder, we don't like it" is a cultural norm. "Murder is a rule that ought to be (can be) universally preferred by everyone" is a logical absurdity/contradiction because the person being aggressed against can't simultaneously want it to happen, by definition. It can remain a local subjective rule, but it can't hold moral (universal) status. Moral rules are universal, by definition.
DeleteNo positive-obligation rules can be universalized, so you're kinda right. The rule "Thou shalt not murder" is really a poetic paraphrasing of the logical statement that a NAP-violating rule can't be universalized, plus the logical idea of Estoppel (as Kinsella explained) - anyone who initates an aggression against you performatively consents to being reciprocally punished.
@Dennis Nezic, you've strawmanned Blithering Genius innumerous times.
DeleteFor example, in your third debate with BG, you did everything you possibly could to stop him from explaining how the Prisoner's Dilemma for Society works, and you repeated "Society is not 3 agents" about five times around 15:00, even though he *never* said that the prisoner's dilemma for society only consists of 3 agents. That's a strawman argument on your part. You would know how the Societal Prisoner's Dilemma actually works if you didn't rudely interpret BG so many times and gave him an equal amount of time to speak.
This is for you, Dennis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jif_6hXT7kU
Do you know how "the Societal Prisoner's Dilemma" works?
DeleteThe Societal Prisoner's Dilemma is the most fundamental game theoretical problem that every society must solve in which every individual is incentivized to either: 1. kill, abuse, and steal from other people when it makes them better off, or 2. bound to also kill, abuse, and steal from other people as a reaction to other people who are doing the same thing in the absence of an enforced legal code that would prevent these conflicts from arising.
DeleteIn the absence of a law enforcement that would punish people for committing crimes, every person has an incentive to kill, abuse, and steal from other people because these actions make it easier to gain the resources for supporting oneself and one's desires, compared to if they had labored and traded with other people instead. If only one person is defecting while everybody else is cooperating with each other, then this scenario is analogous to either of the two scenarios in the standard Prisoner's Dilemma where one party cooperates while the other defects from the other, except that there could be any number of people cooperating and defecting at the same time.
Unfortunately, when it's easy and feasible for one person to defect from cooperating with everybody else (Anarchy & Lawlessness), everybody else is also incentivized to defect from everybody else too. If this happens, then this scenario is analogous to how the two parties involved in the standard Prisoner's Dilemma are both defecting from each other, except that this defection applies to *everybody* in the area of lawlessness, not just two people.
Obviously, neither of these scenarios are desirable in comparison to a prosperous society where each person's labor produces wealth that is guaranteed to not be stolen or abused by other people, and where people can safely trade commodities and money to make each other better off with the guarantee that the other side will be punished if they don't hold up their side of the trade.
That being said, the better scenario (as well as the only scenario that can create a functioning society) is when every person cooperates with each other. In practice, this scenario can only be achieved by a government that imposes the rule of law, which effectively eliminates every person's incentive to defect, since the penalties and punishments for defecting (breaking the law) are too costly and the probability of getting caught breaking the law are near ~100%. Note that the exact probability doesn't matter as long as it's reasonably high enough to punish nearly all defectors and to discourage other from defecting. The imposition of this law is involuntary by definition because *every* person has to abide by it whether they like it or not. On the other hand, a "voluntary" imposition of law would be an oxymoron because every person would disobey the voluntary law and defect in the Societal Prisoner's Dilemma when it suits their self-interests. Law can thus only be involuntary and involuntarily imposed.
Although the previously mentioned scenario is the most favorable for building a society, it comes with an important caveat that doesn't exist in the standard Prisoner's Dilemma. When the government enforces the rule of law, some members of the government may choose to "defect" from the rest of the society by abusing their power to better achieve their self-interests. Such is the Nature of Game Theory and the intrinsic selfishness of life, but this is still better and more functional than an Anarchist world where literally *everybody* is defecting from each other, not just a handful of people who are in control of a strong government. Even if the government defects from the people whose interests it's supposed to represent, that's still fewer people defecting and thus a more prosperous society, compared to the Anarchist alternative. How to govern society is one of the oldest philosophical problems, and while they're aren't any ideal solutions that can completely eliminate corruption, there are some pragmatic principles and heuristics that we can follow to generate a better society.
Where is the dilemma? How is this a critique of ancap's voluntary / polycentric / distributed / networked legal systems?
Delete> "Where is the dilemma?"
DeleteI just explained it. If people can get away with stealing stuff instead of working and trading to acquire said stuff instead, they will choose to steal because it's easier than working for a living. People steal from others because people are selfish. Selfishness means that a person prioritizes satisfying their own needs before everybody else's needs. Stealing makes the thief better off, while the victim becomes worse off.
The dilemma is that if *everybody* steals, then everybody is collectively worse off because no new wealth is being produced, while anybody who does produce any tangible wealth will get it stolen. Even though it's more beneficial for a single individual to steal from others for their own survival, this is not a good basis for building a functioning society. That's the whole point of the Societal Prisoner's Dilemma.
> "How is this a critique of ancap's voluntary / polycentric / distributed / networked legal systems?"
As stated before, the key to solving the Societal Prisoner's Dilemma is to prevent everybody from defecting from the society's collective interests. The only realistic way to accomplish this is if a government enforces its rule of law over a territory, and establishes a monopoly on its enforcement of the law. If a government does not have a monopoly on enforcing the law, then that means it is competing against another gang or government who is trying to enforce their laws on others. If there is significant competition on what the laws should be, then that means that the Societal Prisoner's Dilemma is not resolved because there are still people who can and will kill, abuse, and steal from other people without a reasonable fear of being punished for doing so. That's why "voluntary" polycentric legal systems do not create functioning societies.
You did not mention any "dilemmas". (Look up the meaning of the word.)
DeleteAnd you did not provide any criticism of ancap dro's.
> there are still people who can and will kill, abuse, and steal
Yes, and ancaps will hire defense and insurance services to handle you faggot animals. And our services will be better than your faggot imposed
monopolistic ones, cuz that's what competition does.
Dennis, you beg the question by assuming that a market for law enforcement could exist without the rule of law. It is the rule of the law that creates markets, and so there cannot be a market for law or law enforcement. Laws and law enforcement are a necessary prior condition for markets. The market depends on the state.
DeleteAny organization capable of imposing law in an area is the de facto government of that area. Such entities can compete, but of course they do so outside the law. In other words, they fight wars.
> You did not mention any "dilemmas". (Look up the meaning of the word.)
DeleteIt is a dilemma. Wiktionary.org defines "dilemma" as: "A circumstance in which a choice must be made between two or more alternatives that seem equally undesirable." In this case, the two choices are to cooperate or to defect. Cooperation is more conducive to building a civilization but leaves individuals at risk of being abused by defectors, and defecting is the best option for an individual even though it cannot foment civilization.
Are you denying that the prisoner's dilemma is a real dilemma???
> And you did not provide any criticism of ancap dro's.
I didn't critique Ancap DROs because you didn't even explain what they are, and I don't want to misrepresent what you're saying.
> Ancaps will hire defense and insurance services to handle you faggot animals. And our services will be better than your faggot imposed monopolistic ones, cuz that's what competition does.
Competition will not improve the quality of service unless the rule of law is established beforehand to prevent people from killing each other. Since Ancapistan does not enforce the rule of law, competition between defense agencies will devolve into all-out war. That's the real type of "competition" that anarcho-capitalism would create.
@ Blithering,
Delete> a market for law enforcement [can't] exist without the rule of law
nonsense. what does that even mean. as one (of a zillion) counterexample(s), countries don't operate under any higher/global rule of law, yet they provide a kind of market for law enforcement. ancaps just want to take this idea to it's logical conclusion - roughly to the scale of citadels, I think. i already mentioned, many times, that a legal monopoly at the scale of a city is fine because it's reasonably easy to move and shop around - you only seem able to argue with your strawmen.
and you contradicted yourself in the same fucking paragraph. you start the paragraph saying that no such markets can exist, and then conclude your paragraph by saying that there is indeed a competing market. (if you want sharia law, you move to saudi arabia. if you want free speech, you move to the US. etc.)
Dennis,
DeleteNo, of course I didn't contradict myself. Try being honest and thinking.
You are conflating the existence of different countries with a market. There is no market for citizenship. I can't just choose to live in one country or another. Each country has its own immigration laws, and enforces those laws. A country might prevent its citizens from leaving, or break its social contract, and there is no higher power that will enforce the contract or protect the citizen. So it is a very different relationship than the relationship between market participants.
Your notion of city-states is silly, as I've explained to you before. First, the scale of social order tends to grow. Two city states could join forces to defeat others, and form an empire, etc. Many empires began as city-states. Second, there is no market for citizenship, regardless of scale. Yes, you could run away in the dead of the night, without your property, to beg entrance to another city. That is not a "free market". Third, if you accept the monopoly on law and violence at one scale, why not at a higher scale? If your objection is moral, then scale wouldn't matter. OTOH, if you concede that a monopoly on law and violence is necessary to solve problems of cooperation at one scale, then you concede it is necessary at higher scales. In that case, you have conceded the core argument against anarchism.
So, you're not taking anything to its "logical conclusion", lol. Changing the scale of the state is just an absurd cope. It doesn't change the nature of the state, or your moral objections to the state. It's just an attempt to dodge the fatal flaws in your worldview, rather than accepting that you are wrong.
Read "The Case Against Anarchism", and actually read it this time, instead of raging against it.
@cizeN sinneD from June 15 5pm,
Delete> A circumstance in which a choice must be made between two or more alternatives that seem equally undesirable.
Yea, and the ancap alternative IS desirable (for good people). Obviously nasty theives and tyrrants like you won't like it.
> In this case, the two choices are to cooperate or to defect.
You didn't present a cooperative option, but yea obviously it exists, and it's desirable, soooo no dilemma.
> leaves individuals at risk of being abused by defectors
Tf is that supposed to mean? Yes we all have the capacity for evil. And to pay for mitigation of that obvious ever-present risk. In other news, individuals are also at risk of asteroids.
> defecting is the best option for an individual
False, and incredibly retarded and myopic. (1) these simplistic artificial thought experiments have ~nothing to do with real human society, (2) I heard that long-term tit-for-tat is the optimal strategy (in this gay artificial thought experiment) ... NOT defection. Midwit.
> Are you denying that the prisoner's dilemma is a real dilemma
It's a real thought experiment. In that highly contrived thought experiment, with no other factors (no ideology, no values, no culture, no long term considerations, no opportunity for future reciprocation), as a matter of pure sterile statistics, yes, the prisoner has better statistical odds at lessening his sentence if he defects. Whoopdyfuckindo.
> I didn't critique Ancap DROs because you didn't even explain what they are
So before you open your fat ugly dumb mouth, before you start enthusiastically pushing for violence against your neighbours, learn what your fucking oponents have already said a million times. You're in a gay circle-jerk dude. A gay cum bubble.
> Competition will not improve the quality of service unless the rule of law is established beforehand
No shit dumbass. And ancap law will be more coherent and better enforced. Ie. laws that are voluntarily opted into, by REAL contracts.
> Ancapistan does not enforce the rule of law
Ludicrous retarded strawman. Get out of that circle dude!
> competition between defense agencies will devolve into all-out war
That's for revealing your nasty sick mind. Fortunately most people aren't evil bloodthirsty scum like you. (Or, more likely, you're just faking being an evil piece of shit who wants to enslave people who disagree with him - much like Axolotl faked being an evil psycho bitch when he said he'd eagerly nuke a competing distant ancap startup citadel. You guys are all fake.)
The US disagrees with Canada over a lot of things, yet still hasn't invaded. It can conquer all of Canada in less than a day, easily, and gain all our resources which it desperately needs. Think about why that hasn't happened.
> Yea, and the ancap alternative IS desirable (for good people).
DeleteThere is no such thing as "good people". Everybody is selfish and violent, including you. If you had to kill, steal, etc for your own survival, you would eventually succumb to your natural instincts.
> Obviously nasty thieves and tyrants like you won't like it.
Ad Hominem Fallacy.
> You didn't present a cooperative option
You're lying here. I did present a cooperative option, and I explained how it's different from the standard Prisoner's Dilemma.
> Tf is that supposed to mean? Yes we all have the capacity for evil. And to pay for mitigation of that obvious ever-present risk.
It means that if you cooperate and other people defect (steal from and try to kill you in this case), then you would've been better off spending your time defending yourself and/or even defecting.
> (1) these simplistic artificial thought experiments have ~nothing to do with real human society,
Stop strawmanning my arguments, Dennis. The Societal Prisoner's Dilemma has *everything* to do with a real human society, whether you like it or not.
> (2) I heard that long-term tit-for-tat is the optimal strategy, NOT defection.
You're wrong here too. Tit-for-tat is only the optimal long-term strategy when a government is established. You're making the fallacy of assuming that a society will continue to get all the benefits of government in the absence of a government. In the absence of government (Anarchy / Anarcho-Capitalism), defection is the best option.
> In that highly contrived thought experiment, with no other factors (no ideology, no values, no culture, no long term considerations, no opportunity for future reciprocation), as a matter of pure sterile statistics, yes, the prisoner has better statistical odds at lessening his sentence if he defects.
You're just appealing to complexity here. Ideology, values, culture, and genetics are irrelevant here because the Societal Prisoner's Dilemma (SCP) will operate with the same inevitable outcomes in the presence and absence of government, irregardless of those factors. You're also wrong that the SCP doesn't account for long-term considerations or future reciprocation. You should read some game theory: https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2014/07/game-theory-and-society.html.
@Dennis Nezic
DeleteContinuing my comment:
> before you start enthusiastically pushing for violence against your neighbors, learn what your fucking opponents have already said a million times.
Stop projecting, Dennis. I'm not "pushing for violence" against anyone.
I already have a good idea of how Ancap DROs work, but I'm not going to critique it unless you present what they are and how they work. I have to be really careful when replying to your comments because if I make the slightest misstep, you'll accuse me of strawmanning what you believe, and that's not what I'm doing at all.
> And ancap law will be more coherent and better enforced. Ie. laws that are voluntarily opted into, by REAL contracts.
Dude, I explained to you a few comments ago why voluntary law enforcement won't work. You're just ignoring everything that I'm saying, while regurgitating "It will work, just trust me bro".
> Ludicrous retarded strawman. Get out of that circle dude!
No, *you* are strawmanning me. I explained to you multiple times why Ancapistan would not enforce the rule of law, and you haven't explained why I'm wrong. It's really cringe how you think your comment is actually being persuasive here.
> That's for revealing your nasty sick mind. Fortunately most people aren't evil bloodthirsty scum like you. (Or, more likely, you're just faking being an evil piece of shit who wants to enslave people who disagree with him - much like Axolotl faked being an evil psycho bitch when he said he'd eagerly nuke a competing distant ancap startup citadel. You guys are all fake.)
LOL thanks, I got a laugh out of this. But in all seriousness, no I'm not evil, nor did I ever say that I would enslave people who disagree with me (Happy Juneteenth btw). I'm just explaining how Ancap defense agencies would work in the absence of a monopoly on law enforcement. You haven't presented any rebuttals, nor have you explained how Ancaps DROs work.
> The US disagrees with Canada over a lot of things, yet still hasn't invaded. It can conquer all of Canada in less than a day, easily, and gain all our resources which it desperately needs. Think about why that hasn't happened.
The US hasn't invaded Canada because the US is too busy trying to figure out how to outflank China, Russia, North Korea, etc, if/when China attacks Taiwan. Not only that, but Canada is a member of NATO, and if the US were to attack and invade another NATO member, they would probably be banned from the defense alliance, globally humiliated, and NATO would retaliate against the US.
Anyway, you're making another fallacy here. You're assuming that the Societal Prisoner's Dilemma works the same way as the Geopolitical Prisoner's Dilemma, when it doesn't. These are completely different scales with completely different rules for cooperation and defection, so they're not comparable.
@cizeN sinneD, the June 19 3:18PM comment,
Delete> Stop projecting, Dennis. I'm not "pushing for violence" against anyone.
Aren't you the "gEorGiSt" who wants to violently tell me how many kids I can have, who wants to violently stop me from breeding, who wants to violently take my money, who would violently stop me from leaving (you oppose "opt-out" options like Liberland, no?)
> Dude, I explained to you a few comments ago why voluntary law enforcement won't work.
Dude, you literally did not. You just gayly asserted it, like a gay. You did not read David Friedman's book on the mother fucking topic - Machinery of Freedom. Or Molyneux's Practical Freedom. Or any other of the other countless people who wrote on the topic. You are not honest, not arguing in good faith.
> Ancapistan would not enforce the rule of law, and you haven't explained why I'm wrong.
I (and the majority) will pay for it to be enforced. BAM. Proven wrong.
> I'm just explaining how Ancap defense agencies would work in the absence of a monopoly on law enforcement.
I even gave you one (of countless) example that disproves your retarded theory - countries exist in a state of anarchy, essentially, yet we weak af canadians have no fear of US or China or Mexico invading us and ruling over us. You don't seem to understand or appreciate how cultures and value systems work. Politics is downstream from culture.
> The US hasn't invaded Canada because the US is too busy trying to figure out how to outflank China, Russia, North Korea.
You are dumb. The US will also never invade China, Russia or North Korea. They were in Iraq for so many years, and accomplished fuck all there :P. (Except for the Raytheons and Lockheed Martins and inside traders et al.)
> and NATO would retaliate against the US.
HAhahaha. So dumb. The US *IS* Nato. The US can do whatever the fuck it wants, unilaterally. It's army is more powerful than every other countrys', combined. (ie. physical strength, military might, isn't enough.)
@Dennis Nezic, the June 25, 2023 at 6:05 AM comment
Delete> Aren't you the "gEorGiSt" who wants to violently tell me how many kids I can have, who wants to violently stop me from breeding, who wants to violently take my money, who would violently stop me from leaving (you oppose "opt-out" options like Liberland, no?)
What? I don't know what you're talking about. I don't care about Liberland. You're free to go there if you want, but it's not my fault if Serbia, Croatia, or some other country decides to arrest you for trespassing or declaring independence.
Blithering Genius sent you a comment a week ago explaining why city-states like Liberland won't work. You should read it and re-read his Case Against Anarchism essay.
> Dude, you literally did not. You just gayly asserted it, like a gay.
Yes I did, Dennis. Everybody else who's reading this can judge for themselves. You'll never be happy with any answer I give you. I have read both of those books, and they are gay and retarded. They don't explain anything, because what they *think* is morally right, which is just meaningless.
> I (and the majority) will pay for it to be enforced.
That won't work. You need to think on a societal level, not an individual level, but that might be hard for you since you have autism.
Unless there is a top-down authority that will ensure that everybody will protect the community when called upon to do so, there will be a free-rider problem where members of the voluntary army are incentivized to not protect the community so that they don't have to put their life on the line, while they still get the benefits of everybody else doing the actual fighting and defending. The end result will be that the voluntary army only consists of ghost soldiers.
> I even gave you one (of countless) example that disproves your retarded theory
You didn't disprove anything. Neither of the books that you cited explain how Ancaps would solve the free-rider problem. Canadians don't fear foreign invasions because: 1. their country has favorable geography for protecting against invasions (which most of the world does not have btw), 2. they have a military to protect them and keep them safe, and 3. the Geopolitical Prisoner's Dilemma is so rigid that it's not worth it for any country to attack Canada and face the wrath of NATO.
You oppose having a military because you are a retard, even though it keeps you safe.
> The US will also never invade China
I never said that they would, Dennis. What I did say is that the US military wants to be prepared to defend Taiwan from a potential Chinese invasion, which is one reason (of many) why the US isn't invading other countries.
> So dumb. The US *IS* Nato.
No, the US is not the same thing as NATO. The US can't do whatever it wants. No country would tolerate that, and most of world would sanction and penalize the US if they invaded Canada, just as they did to Russia when they invaded Ukraine. You should read the original NATO treaty to see what it actually says: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/history_pdf/20161122_E1-founding-treaty-original-tre.pdf.
@cizeN sinneD from 11:07 AM on June 25,
Delete> What? I don't know what you're talking about.
You are such a dishonest piece of shit. You claimed that you weren't pushing for violence, and then after I gave you several examples of you pushing for nasty violence you act all stupid and naive. You aren't fooling anyone dimwit.
> I don't care about Liberland. You're free to go there if you want
More dishonesty, you dishonest sack of shit. But at least now you realize that we aren't free to opt out. But then again you didn't push this position, you were a psycho globalist dictator from day 1 - most other NPC's do push that position, in a pathetic (futile) attempt to convince themselves that they aren't being enslaved or enslaving others, in a pathetic (futile) attempt to assuage their guilty consciences.
> if Serbia, Croatia, or some other country decides to arrest you for trespassing
The whole point behind Liberland is that neither country officially owns that tiny swampy island you dumb fuck.
> I don't care [...] if [others try to violently stop you for] declaring independence [and living peacefully separately].
You sick nasty evil fuck. (I know you're just larping as this, you're really a nobody, a nothing, but I'm just going with what's written, with what you tell me). The most frustrating thing here is how you don't even realize how this undermines your gay position. You just admitted that you don't care about justice, about right vs wrong, yet you expect us to take you seriously when you rant like a gay autist about how people SHOULD have their breeding practices violently managed by others, FOR THE GREATER GOOD, FOR JUSTICE, etc. You are so dumb, and dishonest, and nasty. This is a waste of time.
Why did you awkwardly avoid defending/confirming your position about global(?) managed breeding regimes, you sick confused fuck? ;)
[continued...]
[...continued]
Delete> I have read both of those books ... [Friedman and Molyneux] don't explain anything, because what they *think* is morally right, which is just meaningless.
Haaahahaha. You're SUCH a liar, this is disturbing. Friedman is famous for not discussing the moral dimension you dishonest sack of shit - he's famous for being autistic and purely technical/logical, which bothers ancaps who have emotions and hearts. And Molyneux painstakingly defined the concept of morality in rational terms before invoking it you stupid DISHONEST fuck. Ugggh, I'm such a masochist.
>> I (and the majority) will pay for it to be enforced.
> That won't work.
Haaaahahaha. Okay loser. I'll definitely take your gay word for it ;) ;).
> Unless there is a top-down authority
That's YOUR gay slave-mentality. Your bitch ass yearns for a master, you faggot nigger. Men spines realize that we can get mediation and any other service "sideways", through (complex) VOLUNTARY networks that we opt into. We also realize that such a market would far outcompete your nasty stagnant evil monopolistic one.
> when called upon to do so
"called upon" ... hahahaah ... nice dishonest euphemism you got there, you slave bitch.
> a free-rider problem
You literally just quoted me fucking saying that WE WOULD PAY FOR IT OURSELVES you illiterate bitch.
> fighting and defending
And you still don't realize what war is, or how people are conquered. You retarded naive fuck. Keep playing your video games kid, you aren't ready for the real adult world yet.
>> I even gave you one (of countless) example that disproves your retarded theory
> You didn't disprove anything
THERE IS ANARCHY BETWEEN NATIONS YOU DUMB FUCK. LEARN TO READ. THERE IS NO 'TOP-DOWN AUTHORITY' THAT PREVENTS THE US FROM CASUALLY WALKING INTO CANADA AND TAKING ALL OUR TREES AND WATER AND OIL AND MINERALS AND FRENCH GIRLS.
> Neither of the books that you cited explain how Ancaps would solve the free-rider problem.
BOTH DID you *dishonnneeessst* piece of shit. That's literally what they were EXCLUSIVELY about. The brazenness in your lying is quite something.
> You oppose having a military because you are a retard
LIE. I oppose slavery. I'd be very willing to pay for a military to kill your gay evil ass. (That would be self-defense, ofc. You have threatened me numerous times with murder/enslavement.)
Dennis, if you had read "The Case Against Anarchism" and "Game Theory and Society", you would understand that the United States and Canada are not in the simple prisoner's dilemma situation. It's more like an iterated prisoner's dilemma, because they are in long-term association. As I explained, small societies can be organized based on tit-for-tat. The "society of countries" is relatively small, and involves repeated interaction. Societies are not strangers to each other. So, as predicted, countries organize into cooperative networks, typically into competing blocs that are internally more cooperative, and outwardly competitive.
DeleteIf you stop the self-righteous spazzing, maybe you could understand reality. However, I expect that you will remain ignorant :D
@Dennis Nezic; the June 29, 2023 at 6:39 AM comment:
DeleteJesus Christ, you need to calm down, man. You're triggered as fuck.
> I gave you several examples of you pushing for nasty violence
No, I *never* promoted *any* violence, you liar. YOU are promoting violence since you want to overthrow the government that protects my rights and keeps me safe. I already explained to you before why Anarcho-Capitalism would only lead to tribal warfare, not freedom. Only an idiot would think it can work.
> But at least now you realize that we aren't free to opt out.
You're always free to opt out, Dennis. You could bag your bags and move to Liberland right now if you wanted to. But once again, it's not my fault if a government decides to arrest you or if you die.
> The whole point behind Liberland is that neither country officially owns that tiny swampy island.
If you paid more attention to Liberland, then you would know that people have arrested for visiting Liberland: https://www.foxnews.com/world/liberland-president-arrested-by-croatia-for-trespassing-in-no-mans-land
> You just admitted that you don't care about justice, about right vs wrong, yet you expect us to take you seriously.
Wrong, I never said any of that. Justice is important, and I support doing what's "right" for my country because I want Humanity to have a Future.
> people SHOULD have their breeding practices managed by others
Yes. If the Earth becomes overpopulated, it's game over for civilization: https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2017/11/dysgenics-overpopulation-and.html. Overpopulation will lead to war, billions of people dying, and a *permanent* Dark Age. But I guess you're too dumb to understand how population dynamics work.
> Why did you awkwardly avoid defending/confirming your position about global(?) managed breeding regimes? ;)
It's so easy to trigger you. You're such a lolcow. Never change, Dennis.
> Friedman is famous for not discussing the moral dimension.
Friedman has spoken about morality before. For instance, he believes that the NAP should be a guideline instead of an absolute rule.
> And Molyneux painstakingly defined the concept of morality
Yeah, and he failed. He didn't accomplish anything meaningful. It was such a waste of time to read his lousy book.
> Okay loser.
No, you're the loser. You abandoned your entire family because they wouldn't join your cult. You never graduated from college, whereas I did. You have a vegan diet, whereas I don't. And you're wasting your life away trying to recruit people into your cult, while I'm trying to talk some sense into you.
> You yearn for a master
Stop projecting, Dennis. Your masters are Molyneux, Friedman, and Kinsella. Your mind is enslaved to the Ancap cult.
...continued:
Delete> You literally just quoted me saying that WE WOULD PAY FOR IT OURSELVES
You Ancaps are so quick to point out how welfare is a free-rider problem. But when rational people like BG and myself point how Ancapistan has no solutions to resolving the Free-Rider Problem that's created by relying exclusive on voluntary self-defense, you suddenly pretend that Free-Rider Problems don't exist. This is a contradiction, Dennis. Ancaps are intellectually dishonest.
Why is it so hard for you to understand Game Theoretical Reasoning and apply it consistently to everything???
> There is anarchy between nations.
No, there is no "Anarchy between Nations". That's a lie. And once again, Geopolitical Prisoner's Dilemmas are not the same thing as Societal Prisoner's Dilemmas.
> BOTH DID you dishonest POS. That's literally what they were EXCLUSIVELY about.
No they didn't. Ancaps don't understand how Free-Rider Problems work, otherwise they wouldn't be Ancaps.
> I'd be very willing to pay for a military to kill your gay evil ass.
And I would pay a fortune for the US to nuke the shit out of all you Ancaps for threatening to kill innocent law-abiding citizens like myself. Y'all would deserve it, and it would be so hilarious. Just look at how rude and violent you've been acting towards me right now during this comment thread.
> You have threatened me numerous times with murder/enslavement.
I never threatened any of that, but everybody who's reading this thread just saw that you threatened to kill me.
@Blithering Genius's June 29, 2023 at 3:45 PM comment:
Delete> the United States and Canada are not in the simple prisoner's dilemma situation.
Nothing except maybe the most primitive biological organisms can be described by that thought experiment.
> It's more like an iterated prisoner's dilemma, because they are in long-term association ... and involves repeated interaction ... So, as predicted, countries organize into cooperative networks, typically into competing blocs that are internally more cooperative, and outwardly competitive.
No shit. That's what I've been trying to tell you. The idea that free people will necessarily go around literally back-stabbing each other, instead of relatively fairly competing, given these "multiple interations" and insanely complex tit-for-tats and friend-networks ... is so unblievably retarded, you need to look back and humble yourself for saying the shit you did.
> As I explained, small societies can be organized based on tit-for-tat. The "society of countries" is relatively small. Societies are not strangers to each other.
Hahaha, nice mental pretzel you got goin' on there. The set of countries, which comprises ALL OF HUMANITY, is "a relatively small set" :)))). Because, you know, Quebec-Canada is basically the same as Albert-Canada, and they're in such a small-world-network with China (China ofc is just one monolithic thing) ;) ;). Clown world. Saskatchwaners are totally not strangers to Beijingers ;) ;).
@cizeN sinneD's June 29, 2023 at 3:47 PM comment:
Delete> No, I *never* promoted *any* violence, you liar.
You support violently imposing YOUR gay breeding preferences on other people, on the entire planet.
You support violently stealing my money while I'm on "your" CONTINENT.
You said NOTHING when Axolotl said he'd murder all Liberlanders (he said he'd nuke the island), when I asked him directly if he'd support such a secession movement. You said nothing even here when you linked to Liberlanders being violently arrested for trying to claim that unclaimed land.
You are a confused violent sick individual. Dishonest too.
Dennis,
DeleteI've already explained this stuff more than once. Just read Game Theory and Society and the The Case Against Anarchism.
The prisoner's dilemma can be resolved by tit-for-tat when people are in regular association, not between strangers. Tit-for-tat doesn't scale up, and that's why state coercion is necessary to solve it between strangers, and create markets.
There are 195 countries in the world, which is a small set, and there are multinational organizations. Saskatchewaners are strangers to Beijingers. They don't interact directly. They interact through their respective states.
So, stop being dense, or pretending to be dense. It's all been explained. Just read and think.
@Dennis Nezic's July 2, 2023 at 12:45 PM comment:
Delete1. I've already explained this to you. It would more productive for you to make sound arguments proving that it is unnecessary to be cautious about overpopulation. If you can successfully prove this, then I will concede that there is no reason to enforce population control and no reason to debate how population control should be implemented.
Until you can do that, your opinions about population control are completely worthless. The known consequence of not enforcing population control are global civilizational collapse, billions of people dying, and a permanent dark age. Is *that* the future that you for Humanity?
You support reproduction licenses too btw. One time you argued that parents should be punished if they starve their kids to death because it's a contract that they opted into. I support reproduction licenses because I believe that there should be a legal guarantee that parents will take care of their children. We agree on this, Dennis.
2. No, I don't support stealing anybody's money. Taxation is not stealing because stealing is illegal, whereas taxation is legal. If you don't like it, then you should leave Canada and sign a citizenship contract with a different country that offers cheaper protection services.
3. Liberlanders were arrested for treason and trespassing. It's Liberland's fault because they didn't provide any protection services to protect their citizens. Liberland is a corrupt scam. They bribed Somalia with millions of dollars to get diplomatic recognition. The people who donated the money didn't agree to that.
4. I support nuking Ancaps because they (and you) want to kill me. You admitted this a few days ago.
@Blithering Genius's July 2, 2023 at 2:39 PM comment:
Delete> The prisoner's dilemma can be resolved by tit-for-tat when people are in regular association, not between strangers.
WHAT FUCKING DILEMMA? And why tf did you awkwardly insert that "regular" adjective there LOL? If people are close enough that they can interact, that they can share reputations and ratings, then they're not strangers! If they are real strangers who don't interact, then what's the fucking problem?
> There are 195 countries in the world, which is a small set
Are you seriously telling me that those 195 things behave like 195 distinct things, and not like the few million special interest groups that they're comprised of? Are you seriously trying to tell me that Albertans + Saskatchewaners + Quebecers + Frenly Parkers + ... = 1?
@cizeN sinneD's July 2, 2023 at 4:32 PM comment:
Delete> It would more productive for you to make sound arguments proving that it is unnecessary to be cautious about overpopulation.
I'm personally very much in favour of BEING CAUTIOUS, about anything potentially life threatening. I don't need your gay ass to tell me to WORRY about feeding MY fucking family!? Wtf are we even talking about here??
> If you can successfully prove this, then I will concede that there is no reason to enforce population control
No faggot, that's not how this works. Stay the fuck out of my bedroom and out of my sex life, you CREEP! I dont need to ask YOUR faggot ass permission to breed. Ewwwww.
Also note how you're STILL pushing your psycho disgusting violent position on breeding, without ever backtracking on your assertion that you never promoted violence :)))). Clown world. (Your CRINGE justification for this initiation of violence, which you've never clearly stated (hahahaha ;]) is that me having one additional kid would remove that last crumb of bread (which is the last bit of edible food on the planet), and that last drop of drinkable water, from you and your family's plate, that you'd LITERALLY STARVE to death - ie. me having kids would literally kill you, thus you're justified in pre-emptively killing me and my kids first, before we literally kill you :)))))))). I. can't. even.
> The known consequence of not enforcing population control are global civilizational collapse, billions of people dying, and a permanent dark age.
The certainty with which you say this mind numbingly retarded shit is funny and terrifying. So you're able to predict the future eh? :D You think humans are too fucking stupid to feed themselves and their offspring -- except you OFC -- YOU need to tell OTHER people how to eat, because YOU CARE SO MUCH. That's why you had NOTHING to say when Axolotl "jokingly" said he'd murder secessionists. You just CARE SO MUCH about other people!
> You support reproduction licenses too btw. One time you argued that parents should be punished if they starve their kids to death because it's a contract that they opted into.
That's not a license dude. It's logic, a truism. Ie. you can't opt out of requiring to nurture (or abandon to another caregiver) a child, if you choose to have one. (That would logically invite a reciprocal response against you. Ie. by your actions you demonstrate that it's okay to confine and starve humans, which includes you.)
> I support reproduction licenses because I believe that there should be a legal guarantee that parents will take care of their children. We agree on this, Dennis.
I mean in the spirit of comprimise, sure - and I'd prevent you and Axolotl from breeding. I'd take Axolotl's kids away from him, and give them to willing moral parents.
> Liberlanders were arrested for treason and trespassing.
Croatia arrested Liberlanders for trepassing on an island they don't own?
> It's Liberland's fault because they didn't provide any protection services to protect their citizens.
So it's the jews' fault for being (allegedly) holocausted because they didn't provide adequate protection to their citizens?
> The people who donated money [to Liberland] didn't agree to [some funds going towards acquiring diplomatic recognition]
I smell bullshit :D. Who told you this??? :DD Clown!
> I support nuking Ancaps because they (and you) want to kill me. You admitted this a few days ago.
Dishonest clown! I specifically explained why I'd kill you, and Axolotl. Axolotl threatened to murder me first! I told you this many times. You are hopelessly dishonest.
@cizeN sinneDJuly 2, 2023 at 4:32 PM (my time):
DeleteRiya replied to you, but was censored here. Censorship, lol. Very weak, gentlemen, very weak... http://dennisn.mooo.com/mf/story.php?sid=7109
(POLITELY promoting the murder of innocent ancaps and the violent control of other people's breeding is a-okay here, but colorful language from a girl is not :PPP. Honk honk.)
> I'm personally very much in favor of BEING CAUTIOUS, about anything potentially life threatening. I don't need you to tell me to WORRY about feeding MY family!? What are we even talking about here??
DeleteWow, it's almost as if you're completely unaware that you live in a society of millions of people. Overpopulation isn't an individual problem. It's a societal problem, and it's explained in the FAQs: https://zerocontradictions.github.io/FAQs/overpopulation-FAQs.html#what-is-overpop
> Stay out of my bedroom and out of my sex life. I don't need to ask your permission to breed.
Stop strawmanning my arguments. I never said that I "want to stop people from breeding". You are welcome to have as many kids as you can support. You just have to satisfy this easy list of requirements: https://zerocontradictions.github.io/FAQs/overpopulation-FAQs.html#overpop-solution
> without ever backtracking on your assertion that you never promoted violence.
Correct. I never promoted violence. You didn't offer a solution for preventing literally BILLIONS of people TO DIE from overpopulation. The political system that I'm proposing would prevent wars caused by overpopulation before they could ever happen, and yours doesn't. That's precisely why my system leads to less long-term violence than your retarded ideas.
> me having one additional kid would remove that last crumb of bread
Stop strawmanning my arguments. If a pair of parents have ONLY ONE more child, that's not going to cause overpopulation, but it will if EVERYBODY does that. This is just another example of you being unable to think from a societal perspective.
> You think humans are too stupid to feed themselves and their offspring
Stop strawmanning my arguments, you fucking retard. Overpopulation has lead to countless wars in the Americas (See: https://zerocontradictions.github.io/FAQs/race-realism-FAQs.html#tribal-warfare). The Amerindians who fought wars were able to steal land and food that prevented their children from starving to death. That's the future that Ancaps want for humanity. If we don't regulate the world population, it's going to be the Pre-Columbian Americas all over again (if there isn't enough disease to kill enough people). This time, it will be on a global scale.
> That's not a license dude. It's logic, a truism.
No, that is not logic. You support reproduction licenses. Just read the FAQs.
> I'd prevent you and Axolotl from breeding. I'd take Axolotl's kids away from him, and give them to willing moral parents.
If you ever lay a finger on my children, I will kill you and chop your balls off. You don't have a legal right to kidnap another person's kids if they've met all the requirements for a reproduction license.
> So it's the Jews' fault for being (allegedly) holocausted because they didn't provide adequate protection to their citizens?
No. The Jews are a people, not a government. Murder is the fault of the murderer, not the victim. Liberland failed to protect its "citizens" from getting arrested. Liberland is a failed country.
> I specifically explained why I'd kill you, and Axolotl. Axolotl threatened to murder me first! I told you this many times.
No. You threatened to kill us first. You literally accuse everybody who explains why you should pay taxes as being a thief or a murderer. Only bullets will resolve this. You would lose because the State is on our side.
Riya's comment wasn't censored, it was placed in the spam auto-detection filter. BG may remove it from the spam folder.
Oh it wicked
DeleteWorked*
DeleteThis thread has degenerated, so I'm closing it. Any more replies will be deleted.
Delete"It would be the naturalistic fallacy (leaping across the is | ought gap) to assume that biological or psychological value is philosophical value."
ReplyDeleteThe very idea of a "fallacy" already implies a respect for logic, and a whole bunch of other things if you stop and think about it (eg. identity, reality (as opposited to a matrix simulation), property rights, etc). Ie. "fallacies" don't exist in nature, they're a nOrMaTivE psYchOloGicAl sOciAl structure that we have overlayed on top of nature.
Yes, rationality is a norm that we developed by induction, from observing our own behavior. It reflects our innate mental processes, so it is also a theory of mental function. It is like health, which is a normative theory of bodily function. So, yes, fallacies exist to me, from my perspective, and maybe to you, from your perspective (since you have inherited the same mental processes). Rationality is subjective. See "What is Subjectivity?".
DeleteBG is correct that if you're a materialist, you have to be a nihilist, egoist, atheist. But is materialism correct? Or is it baloney?
ReplyDeleteYou need to define "materialist" (I don't use that term to describe my beliefs), "nihilist" and "egoist", and then explain the relation between those terms. I think by "materialist" you just mean "atheist", or someone who doesn't believe in magical notions.
DeleteI wouldn't call myself a "nihilist", unless I clarified the meaning of the word. It's not like I believe in nothing, lol. If that's what you mean, then a nihilist can't be an atheist, materialist or egoist.
So, you really need to clarify what you are saying.