• Mental Resilience
    Yogi's can master the practice of meditation so that they can voluntarily lower their various biological markers of wakefulness (heart rate, respiration, etc.) -- if reports can be believed.Bitter Crank
    8g51zelu9pis9fpz.jpg
  • The morality of capitalism
    1. Add a rule: You're not allowed to transfer ownership to the State. That in itself is a limitation to property rights so seems a bad choice given the framework.
    2. Add a rule: A duty on the State to minimise public ownership. That could work (and raises practical issues but let's leave that for now).
    3. Amend the ideology: it's not about private ownership but about respect of ownership in itself regardless of whether this is public or private. This could work too.
    Benkei

    1. Dedication of private lands to the state occurs regularly when homes are developed and the developer then deeds the roadways to the state for upkeep and traffic enforcement. If that weren't the case, you'd burden each neighborhood with road and rain drainage upkeep and you'd limit access only to those who owned the roads. So, Rule 1 pretty much fucks up neighborhood development. Good job.

    Another reason you might want to give your land to the state is when they have significantly devalued it by their development of adjacent land, like when they run an interstate through your back yard. You would have the right to seek inverse condemnation, arguing they have taken your land by devaluing it, and you'd force the state to compensate you for it. That's a basic Constitution right under the "takings" clause. So, you have now violated the Constitution with Rule 1. You are really fucking shit up.

    There's also another issue you're not considering, which is that just because one has the right to give their land to the state doesn't mean that the state must keep it. They could resell it and make it public again, so we don't need to prohibit dedicating land to the state in order to protect capitalism for fear everyone will do it. We must assume that the state would be able to find a buyer when all these folks start giving up their land.

    2. State ownership of public land is limited by public policy, based upon what the good folks in our thriving democracy want. Nevada, for example, has massive portions owned by the federal government, and there are many national, state, county, and city parks owned by the government. The US is a huge country with plenty of land for all, and we love our parks and natural preserves. Stop fucking that up. I just got back from Glacier National Park with my kids. Why do you want to deprive future generations of that and the memories of seeing nature and wildlife? Do you hate families and nature?

    3. I agree with this, which is what I was alluding to before. Where "ownership" begins and other less expansive possessory rights begin is not a crystal clear distinction.
  • My moral problem
    Obviously not. To ask is already to know that. Unfortunately, designing wheelchairs is less well paid, so you have to decide how much your moral integrity is worth to you, and whether you want to sell it at any price.unenlightened

    And is it also obvious that service in the military is immoral?
  • The morality of capitalism
    Immortality. Not immoralityBenkei

    Well, make your Ts more prominent if you want a meaningful response.
  • The morality of capitalism
    The bourgeoisie, the owners of capital, may profess the morality of Christianity, or another religion, but in general find the demands of an otherworldly faith to be of little value, except for public relations purposes. Naked capitalism is the ruthless pursuit of wealth.Bitter Crank
    I'd submit this suggestion is lazy. It simply rejects the declarations of faith by the capitalists as not being heartfelt (and perhaps ironically proclaims the avowed Marxist atheists the truly religious). I am quite certain that those declaring their Christian faith truly believe, which means the object should be in figuring out how they can consistently reject the idea of providing the public good through an institutionalized economic system yet truly believe the public should be cared for. The answer lies in the capitalist's profound distrust for government, believing that any good that ought be doled out to the public ought be done privately, voluntarily, and with as little government intervention as possible.

    And I get you reject all this, but I think it's a fairer description of the capitalist than simply calling him a hypocrite.
  • The morality of capitalism
    Can we derive a morality from capitalist ideology or is it an amoral ideology? If we can, what are the ethical rules?Benkei

    Perhaps, but why would we do that? In the US, many of the staunchest capitalists are found among the religious right who adopt a communal ethical theory (love they neighbor), yet they do not impose it on their economic ideology.
    What are the ethical rules we can derive from this idea? I'm only going to mention two for now, to see what other people think is relevant since I'm enquiring here not sharing my rock-solild opinion.
    - things become available for ownership either through trade or production
    - respect private ownership
    - respect transfer of ownership
    Benkei

    I agree that these are notions consistent with capitalism, but it seems a matter of degree than of type when comparing it to Marxist theory. Obviously no Marxist believes I have the right to rip his (our) shirt off his back when I'm ready to wear it. I'm just wondering to what extent you find these notions distinct to capitalism.
    A first question, what happens to a transfer of private ownership to the State? Ethical rules say ok but the ideology itself resists this. So it has the possibility of an inherent contradiction if enough people would want to transfer their ownership to the State. Unlikely at the national level. On the other hand, this seems to be the self-evident method for most families. We pool our resources and spend collectively, parents are generally trusted to make decisions on behalf of the family unit.Benkei

    This confuses me a bit. The right to eminent domain exists in the most capitalist of countries and the taking of the property must be accompanied by just compensation. Taxation is another method of transfer of wealth from the private to the public. Neither of these are antithetical to capitalism, at least not how it's practiced. Even the staunchest libertarian would acknowledge some role for the state and therefore some need for taxation and sharing of wealth. Again, this turns into a matter of degree as opposed to to type. I just don't really know how your Marxist society will be structured and how it can adhere to extreme forms of non-ownership. Even should there be no private right to own land, I'd suspect that the government must provide some possessory right to land (you've got to be somewhere) that cannot be removed without some legal basis.
    Another question: what is meant with private? Keeping aside for a moment the possible utility of corporations, there doesn't seem to be any reason why a State should promote corporations and allow for shareholding and limited liability. In fact, I suffer a higher liability acting as a person (in principle unlimited) than a corporation. It can also damage the first principle to respect private ownership. If I cause damages as a private person, I must repair those damages. If a corporation does it, it will only have to do so to the extent it has capital - once that's exhausted the damaged party has no recourse and his private ownership is not fully respected.Benkei

    This strikes me an diversion from your original question, which was how we were to derive an ethical theory from analysis of capitalism. There is nothing inherently capitalistic about corporations in principle. A corporation could be non-profit and could be committed to protecting the public good (the American Heart Foundation for example). A corporation's liability is limited to its assets, just like yours, meaning it's no more or less vulnerable in principle than an individual. I don't follow your suggestion that you would be liable even after your assets ran dry. Sure, I'd rather sue you personally than the shell corporation you might have set up, but I'd rather sue the major corporation you work for than you personally should you be negligent. I'd also say that it's entirely possible within a capitalistic framework to limit individual liability, which has been the push behind tort reform measures, where limits on liability would be imposed for individuals.
    Another question: what is the effect of the basic immortality of corporations? Instinctually, I'd suspect there's some equilibrium with a large concentration of property and means of production in the hands of corporations, shares in the hands of elites and consumer goods for everyone else.Benkei

    This question overly tips your hand, not that it was hard to decipher the bias, but it detracts from the objectivity of the conversation. The question assumes corporations are immoral. I'd hold that only people are immoral or not, and the great injustices brought about by corporations were caused by immoral people with large financial influence. A rich son of a bitch of any stripe, whether he sits atop family money or as CEO of a major corporation is equally immoral. The corporate status does nothing to confer immorality.
    Considering the above I'm tempted to argue that if you're in favour of capitalism you'd have to argue against the protections afforded to corporations.Benkei
    And yet most capitalists favor corporations. I don't follow what special protection they are afforded that you find offensive to the capitalist. I would suspect that large corporations feel they are much bigger targets to lawsuits than average citizens. In fact, the way the typical citizen of even moderate worth reduces his exposure to liability is by purchasing insurance, which is nothing more than hiring a corporation to accept his potential financial burdens. And what is insurance other than the private enterprise solution to communal burden sharing?
  • The Last Word
    My first girlfriend's parents hated me, so it would have been strange to get married to her - I don't know how one should respond in such cases.Agustino

    I am always a hit with the gf's family. It's my super power. I went to a birthday party for a gf's niece once I didn't know and insisted in being in all the pictures, hugging all the family members, talking to dad about farming, telling sister I was an axe murderer. Niece called me her favorite uncle. I gave her a card from Uncle Hanover. Gf didn't last though. Family missed me though. Sales. Everything is sales. I miss her borderline craziness sometimes. Jekyll was amazing, Hyde a drunken screaming nightmare.

    My story. Learn from it.
  • Can you really change your gender?
    I agree. An individual still can't make a decision out of their free will to change their gender, just like they can't change their sexuality for example, or opinion or feelings about anything.BlueBanana

    If your opinion can't be changed, then are you here just to hear yourself talk?
  • Can you really change your gender?
    do you object? I said generally, and I do hold that their will be exceptions. but for the most part I'd say testosterone leads to a decrease in these traits, and so the less testosterone you have, the more these traits increase. As women generally don't produce testosterone, it would follow that they would be much more open, less aggressive, and more agreeable than their male counterparts.Mr Phil O'Sophy
    I'll acknowledge that the biological variations between men and women can result in personality variations, but I disagree that it is obvious what those are because many traits are socially created, like agreeableness. In fact, your comments suggest you're from a culture more traditional than mine.
  • Can you really change your gender?
    Being female, generally leads to more openness, less aggression, being more agreeable, etc (Mr Phil O'Sophy

    Really?
  • Can you really change your gender?
    I think you have to hold otherwise, as the common view is that transexuals are born that way. Since some animal species do have male/female specific traits and roles, you'd have to assume some wouldn't keep to those roles and would vary.
  • Can you really change your gender?
    The points here are clear: There is biological identification and personal identification of sexuality, each with its own purpose, yet then there is political battling over who gets use of the word "woman" or "man." Calling an XY biological man a woman because he feels womanly is politically correct, but it does, of course, blur the distinction between an XY woman and an XX one.
  • Can you really change your gender?
    Language traditionalists only really have a point if the new use entails unsuccessful communication (for example if I choose to use the word "dog" to refer to cats without informing you), but I don't think that holds at all in this case.Michael

    What is a male dog?
  • Can you really change your gender?
    So what of someone with XY gonadal dysgenesis? They have XY chromosomes but female genitalia (albeit with streak gonads rather than ovaries or testes).

    Man? Woman? Both? Neither?
    Michael

    The person you described would be sexually ambiguous.

    What of a person who was XY and had a normal penis? Man? Woman? Both? Neither?
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Right. There were instances where private run down shops were taken and sold to developers to better the area, resulting in claims that went beyond "public use" traditionally limited to roads and utility access. The courts said that was acceptable.

    Your argument here differs. You're arguing takings can be made for non-public use.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    And you think any court has interpreted it that way? The government must pay for land it seeks for roads, but if they want your house just cuz, they can just take it for free?
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Wonderful sense of community in America where everyone is so afraid of each other that many would rather have a civil war than give up their guns. And why are they so afraid? Well, because everyone has a gun, of course.Baden

    The distrust of government (which you equate with "community") is an inherent principle of American ideology, thematic throughout the Constitution's checks and balances?
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    Doesn't seem to be saying that property can only be taken for public use. Just seems to say that if it is taken for public use then it must be compensated.Michael

    Do you interpret that to mean that if for public use, it must be compensated, but if taken arbitrarily, it's free?
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    We are not the United States. We are not trapped by our own rhetoric into believing that we are no more than an agglomeration of individuals, a temporarily paused anarchy.Banno
    Don't forget to mention your dancing unicorns.
  • The American Gun Control Debate
    The Takings Clause is limited to "public use" as I recall, so the justification would need to be to secure the weapons perhaps for use to defend the public, not just that they didn't want folks having guns. The "just compensation" provision along with the right to trial by jury on what is just compensation would result in astronomical costs that could not be avoided after condemnation. The confiscation of weapons for public use would not illegalize future gun purchases either, thus making future purchases a good investment by citizens, likely bringing a massive return when predictably condemned.

    Just as interesting (and candidly absurd) would be if citizens were to seek inverse condemnation of their guns by arguing usage restrictions have grown so severe they have been devalued and they then use the jury buy back program in the reddest of districts.
  • Belief
    Operant versus classical conditioning. Wouldn't the former require voluntary behavior, implying an understanding of outcome and some sort of belief?
  • 'I know what's best for me.'
    Thank you. This is the greatest day of my life.
  • The Last Word
    Puff the Magic Dragon is the most sentimental of songs. It's about little boys growing up. It gets me every time.
  • 'I know what's best for me.'
    We all engage in self limiting and self defeating behavior all the time, often falling into repeating destructive patterns. Ultimately we must learn what is best for ourselves and we're the only ones who can make change, but, no, we don't what's best for ourselves all the time. I think we all have all sorts of unrealized greatness in us.
  • Currently Reading
    Picked up a Skeptic magazine. Interesting read. A lot of pretty well written anti-PoMo articles and good articles on PC issues. I had never run across this magazine before. I suppose the journal is atheistic, so I can't buy into it all, but overall good (even had an anti-Cartesian dualism article that I endured).
  • The Politics of Responsibility
    First of all, law systems are increasingly unable to cope with the sheer amount of legal disputes. This has driven up costs, making court cases and the legal profession more expensive, due to high demand and a closed system of accreditation (requiring patronage, membership to the bar and similar barriers), and consequently inaccessible to many.Benkei

    In the US, the vast majority of tort cases are handled on a contingency, where the client pays nothing up front and the attorney receives usually 33% to 40% of the settlement. If there is no recovery, there is no payment. The court system is very accessible, probably too much so, where everyone sues everyone.
    Statutes of limitation further limit which claims can be brought before court; we can only pursue a claim for a certain period of time.Benkei

    I don't see this a serious limitation. The barrier you suggest to righting past wrongs isn't the statute of limitations but it's standing generally. I can't sue for my grandfather being deprived an education.
    If we then remember the adagium "it takes money to make money", it is clear that a basic inequality sets in where, within a given State, blacks and women (and other minorities) continue to be at a socio-economic disadvantage; simply because they are not afforded the same opportunities as dictated in large part by their socio-economic background. Contrary to popular belief, the most influential predictor of socio-economic mobility is not a person's education level. Instead, the strongest correlation between a person's life chances in society and economic mobility is how economic status and inheritance are transmitted across generations. The children of well-off parents simply tend to receive better schooling and benefit from material, cultural and genetic inheritances as researched by Bowles and Gintin in The inheritance of inequality.Benkei

    Although I really don't agree that affirmative action programs have been successful, and I do believe they impose injustice on a new set of innocent victims and provide benefit to those questionably deserving, I don't see this as much as a judicial system issue as a legislative one. That is, if there are public benefits that need to be disproportionately awarded due to past injustice, that seems a matter for our legislatures to address as opposed to individual judges through the court system.
    Aside from a broader concept of responsibility, there is also an asymmetry to the counter argument; why accept all the benefits through inheritance as a moral entitlement but not accept moral obligation towards moral claims from the past? In other words, from a moral standpoint to believe entitlements exists but obligations do not, when they stem from the same occurence, is entirely arbitrary.Benkei

    Obviously society does accept responsibility for its citizens by providing all sorts of welfare. The question I have is why it's so important for you to justify those benefits on the basis that they are owed for past violations. I would rather see societal benefits doled out based upon need alone than on requiring that some past injustice be found in order to justify it. That is, if Johnny is starving, I'd be in favor of giving him food regardless of whether he was a slave's great-grandson or whether he was the ne'er do well child of a Senator.
  • Belief
    Well, there's a few books about it.Banno

    I'm sure there are.
    Sure you can play the game of pedant and claim confusion or evil daemon or whatever you like. There is no reason hereabouts to think I am confused - apart from Hanover wanting to suport an aesthetic that says we ought not be certain.Banno
    Pragmatically, it's irrelevant whether you're 99.99% sure or 100%. I don't think that's denied.
    Here's a basis for an epistemology: Some statements are true. And there are some statements which it is unreasonable to doubt.Banno

    Very well, we now have a new definition, which is "reasonable doubt." I would agree it is unreasonable to believe your feet you fell asleep with are not beneath you the next morning. Could they be removed? Could you be hallucinating? Sure. What are the chances, very close to 0% but not 0%, right? That's what I mean by certainty.

    But the question is why any of this matters. Surely we are agreeing with one another to the basic fact that I can be wrong about most any observed fact, including whether my feet remain beneath me. Our dispute then is whether we wish to attach the word "certainty" to certain items of belief. If I agree to call those facts I'm 98% sure about "certainty," and you are willing to call those facts you're 100% sure about "certainity," are we now in agreement? That is, would you be agreeable to saying that you have certainty your legs are beneath you, but you lack certainity?

    And this could matter in some context. A jury is charged they can find a defendant guilty if there is no reasonable doubt as to their guilt. However, they cannot be charged that they can only convict if they find beyond a shadow of doubt that the defendant is guilty, as that is an impossible standard. http://www.yourdictionary.com/beyond-a-reasonable-doubt . I'd think that very few people would be convicted if the charge were " You shall not find the Defendant guilty unless you are certain of his guilt."
  • Drops of Gratitude
    Sure, but the cradle to grave protections afforded by the government provide a safety net if they don't fly. Here, you sort of hit the ground.
  • Belief
    So for you, at the moment, the question is why shouldn’t I be certain I am in Femantle?Banno

    Because you could be confused.

    What is "certainty" to you other than stubborn insistence? Do you concede that one may be certain yet be wrong? If so, all you've identified is a belief with a certain tinge of smugness. Of what philosophical significance is such a subcatagory of belief?
  • Belief
    Why? You've been wrong before?
  • Belief
    Certainty is a type of belief. I’m writing this in Fremantle while eating grilled local sardines.

    That’s not just probable, but certain.
    Banno

    How is it a type of belief? It just seems like a highly probably true belief as you're using the term. "I am eating sardines" is a different type of belief than is "Cogito ergo sum" for example.
  • Anti-intellectualism in America.
    There are no genes identified at this point that contribute to intelligence.yatagarasu

    Obviously people have varying degrees of innate intelligence, none of which would be identifiable by brain analysis. Even should I accept your conclusion regarding equality of intelligence among the races (a conclusion I'm not averse to), I can't see your implied argument holding that no two people (even of the same race) are congenitally smarter than others because no single intelligence gene nor specific brain structure has been identified to explain it.

    My assumption is that we could not analyze muscular structure and determine the best tennis player, yet one person clearly will be superior. The question of tennis superiority is either innate or learned, but no amount of analysis of physical (including brain) structure will reveal it. That does not mean everyone is equal at tennis. It simply means that physical analysis of structure doesn't provide us the information we need.
  • Drops of Gratitude
    When my son was 3, he wandered off at a pool. I noticed him missing and found him at the bottom of the pool flailing his arms but holding his breath. I jumped in in my clothes and raised him over my head. Not a week goes by that I don't think about that. He's 18 now. Every day has been a gift.
  • Does anyone else suffer from 'no ego'?
    I don't disagree with anything you said here at all. For some, working for others is the best option. My advice was to Bitter, not Posty. I don't think Posty ought to start his own business. In fact, I'd suggest a simple job that gets him out of the house around friends, but definetly not something stressful and demanding like entrepeneurship.
  • Does anyone else suffer from 'no ego'?
    Did I mention how much gaslighting was involved in all this? The gaslighting was immense.

    I feel as though I have said enough. Wallows some more.
    Posty McPostface

    And now a teaser designed to solicit additional facts.
  • Does anyone else suffer from 'no ego'?
    At one point (about 6th grade) I had an entrepreneurial impulse: I was going to raise mushrooms.Bitter Crank

    You must pick them from the cow manure. There is value in those.
  • Does anyone else suffer from 'no ego'?
    Prostitution... His father was an alcoholic, so go figure. You'll think I'm loony but the Russian mob was involved in all this. My mother attests to this.Posty McPostface

    My guess is that some form of corruption is involved in everything Russian, and it's never clear who is the mob, the government, and an ordinary citizen.

    You're telling me that your father found comfort in prostitutes and that was his demise? I suppose that could be, knowing little of Russian culture, but I still smell alcohol in this story.