This, to me hides an important distinction. There is collateral damage and there is intentional targeting of civilian populations, like say in Dresden. I don't think things like this shortened the war. And I don't think the German bombing of civilian London helped their cause and perhaps actually made the British more determined.

This is a good response to Jacob. I want to point out that the intentional bombing of civilians almost certainly DID help shorten the war; case in point Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I think the historical consensus is that had these bombs not been developed and dropped it would have meant for an invasion of mainland Japan which would have been extremely bloody for US troops and prolonged the war considerably.

https://books.google.com/books?id=EftT_1bsPOAC&pg=PA179#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 179 on Ovis Aries.

Last time I checked bisexuality is part of the LGBTQ group as well. Nature is pretty wild.

All right, well this is how I would approach it. Feel free to disagree, ask questions, clarification, etc.

Utilitarian "maximization of utility" and Kantian deontology or other deontological rules like the NAP are distinct philosophical systems. It really doesn't make sense to just pick and choose when you prefer one over the other because then it's really less about the logic of the systems and more ultimately up to your feelings or intuitions. I wouldn't "weigh" one against the other either; they're competing ideologies and if you believe in one then I think you should disregard the other. I've never heard of the two being reconciled.

In regard to making the case for one of them, Kant makes the case that his rules are derived from reason itself. It's very ambitious. Naturally, philosophers have a hard-on for this kind of thing so if you buy Kant's case then I figure that kind of settles it... you're a Kantian. Similarly, I remember I debated with someone over the non-aggression principle years ago and they also argued the principle was derived directly from reason.

The utilitarian case - and it's been some time since I looked into it - is definitely not based around such a strong claim. I think it's more of a mild common sense appeal and then we go from there. I'm not going to make the utilitarian case here - you can find it elsewhere - but ultimately you need to be comparing these two systems more as competing ideologies and less of 'how do we find balance?'

I know I'm not involved in this argument, but this stuck out at me:

We don't see LBGTQ in other species, only in human populations. This tells me that humans are diverse and versatile in their behaviors and societies are what put limitations on those diverse behaviors.

You need to read up on penguins, sir, plus countless other species if you don't think animals engage in gay, lesbian, or bisexual activity. It really is pervasive.

It's only Kantian or deontological in the sense that it is about a duty to a principle that considers the person qua person and not as utility to be maximized. Also, importantly (in my conception anyway), it is about not using people as a means. It is a strong version of this, as Kant's principle holds that you should not use people only as a means. However, I think this can be taken further, in that if you like the idea of a new person being born to do X and X (the parent's agenda for the child), yet this will inevitably cause harm to the child (as life has the possibilities for lots and lots of harm), then it is not permissible to force the parent's agenda on the child, as it is violating the non-harm principle (and the autonomous individual as someone who can be harmed and forced).

I think if we're going to progress in this discussion we need clear definitions. Maybe I haven't fully understood your argument so I'll do my best to re-phrase what I think you're saying and feel free to tell me if anything I'm saying is wrong or a misrepresentation of your argument. All right, here goes:

You're asking why positive ethics should outweigh negative ethics (and you seem to take the side that negative ethics should outweigh positive ethics.) It's crucial to define these terms though, and in your original post you define positive ethics more along the lines of maximizing well-being (this phrase is strongly linked to utilitarianism/consequentialism) versus negative ethics which is more about prohibitions and rules like the non-aggression principle or non-harm principle as well as other deontological principles which limit action. You're asking which should take priority. Am I understanding you right?

Invest it in or loan it to people starting businesses doing what?

If the machines are doing "the essentials" and humans are doing services there's still room to innovate with services. You could invest in a business related to facilitating services.

[Robots] need nothing from the humans,

This is a contentious point. Now, I'm not a mechanic or a physicist.... but every robot I've come across needs things. There could certainly be some kind of machine-to-machine economy where humans could find their own niche; I think the whole idea of a machine-to-machine economy was the idea for IOTA which is a cryptocurrency but maybe we're getting a little ahead of ourselves here. If humans are doing services I don't see why a robot couldn't pay for a cleaning.

then what are all of the other humans going to trade to the robots (or their owners) to get that food and other necessities?

They could trade with each other or provide upkeep or improvements to the machines. Maybe they could trade with the machines too.

If robot ownership is widely distributed there’s no problem, so this isn’t an argument against automation, but against concentrated ownership of the automatons.

I'm somewhat sympathetic with you here; if a billionaire or a government owns all of the robot super-soldiers we have a serious problem. Additionally, if AI gains some kind of self-consciousness we also have a potentially huge problem on our hands. I guess I'll agree with you here insofar as I'm against monopolies.

Ok, just keep in mind when you keep bringing up terms like "maximizing well-being" or "minimizing suffering" you're strongly, strongly hinting towards a utilitarian perspective of things. I've read Kant and he really isn't concerned with happiness or really even minimizing suffering. The NAP also isn't concerned with minimizing suffering.

A nice picture. Except what do Adam and Eve do with the money they earn, apart from pass it back and forth between them? The robots have no use for it, they just produce stuff and pass it around. There's no economy.

They could invest that money, loan it out, start a business with it, save it, gamble it, etc. there's a billion things they could do with that money and it would still be an economy.

Machines do need things by the way.

Ok, all I'm saying here is that negative ethics can be viewed through many different lenses. A negative ethic could be as mild as don't murder or steal from people because it violates their rights. I'm not going to come in and defend the non-aggression or try to reconcile it with birth because it's just not something I've ever really been able to make sense of. As far as I've heard negative ethics are just about getting people NOT to do certain things and we can conceive of that in many different ways.

I haven't read through the entirety of the thread... it's 10 pages but I'll give some of my initial thoughts.

Roughly speaking, negative ethics would be about preventing or mitigating suffering while a positive ethics would focus more on creating well-being and happiness.

I feel like you're conceiving of this idea of positive versus negative ethics through a utilitarian lense. And yes, when you perceive of it that way there can definitely be internal contradictions. I'm not a utilitarian and I'm not interested in defending it. Personally, when I think of a negative ethic it's more like the biblical "thou shalt not" or a political rights-based approach which forbids you from clubbing someone over the head as you walk down the street (i.e. acknowledging their rights at the bare minimum.) It doesn't in itself make for a particularly good society, but it does accomplish the bare minimum.

If you want society to be at least half-decent - and I think most of us do- therein lies the impetus behind a positive ethic.

I never got a response from you. I asked what is wrong with robots largely taking over production/manufacturing and humans moving into more service-related jobs.

You mentioned tractors earlier and tractors take jobs from people. I can't tell if you're trying to eliminate technology or not.

Okay, let me try a different example.

Lets say you're in an art museum and you go into one of the rooms there and a couple gallons of sewage water pours down from the ceiling with an overwhelming smell (lets say this event was orchestrated by an "artist.") This would elicit a greater emotional reaction out of a typical person than, say, viewing something by Picasso or Rembrandt. It would just seem to follow under your logic that whoever orchestrated the sewage dropping would be a greater artist than any of the painters of the past.

I'm not arguing with you here, I'm just trying to flush out your logic and making sure that I understand you correctly.

Anything thus presented to an audience to provoke an emotional reaction is art, whether or not the intention is to convey beauty. Something is good art when it is successful at evoking the intended reaction, where "intended reaction" can vary between the artist, the audience, the surrounding society, or some broader moral standard.

After WWII American soldiers would take nearby German civilians on tours of concentration camps. I guess Auschwitz is art then.

The Meaning of Morality
What do prescriptive claims, that attempt to say what is moral, even mean?

Bonus question: What do aesthetic claims, about beauty and comedy and tragedy and such, mean, and how do they relate to prescriptive claims about morality?

I'm a moral realist so I do believe moral claims express propositions; they can be true or false. In regard to an exact rational system to sort moral claims... I don't really know and I can't imagine we'll ever find one. It's kind of a mind-warp studying philosophy in college... nobody needs to explain to anyone in a different major or in a different walk of life that strangling babies is wrong. That kind of thing is understood without question, it's acknowledged in every culture, it's felt deep in the bones of the vast majority of the population. It's first felt and then it's justified. The justification part of it always seems post-hoc to me. At this point I'm sympathetic to some version of intuitonism I suppose, but I'm down to be questioned here and I could change my mind later.

I'm also an aesthetic realist and I believe beauty is both real thing (a property, I guess you could say) and that beauty is inherently valuable as a property and in turn ought to be preserved. Value ought to be preserved, but that's not to say it's always wrong to destroy a beautiful thing. I believe someone who can't grasp beautiful will have difficulty living a good, complete life. I do believe in the case of music that it can be learned (e.g. one often hears of someone slowly growing accustomed to, say, Bach or Mozart and growing to appreciate it.)

Anyway, I guess that's the bare bones of my thoughts. Anyone is welcome to challenge or comment on it.

As a guy who loves probabilities....assigning basically everything probabilities would be pretty absurd/hilarious. I mean how sure are you that, for instance, Abraham Lincoln existed? Like 99.99%+?What would it mean if he didn't actually exist? Think about it... Your entire conception of US history would be blown apart. GEM Anscombe has a fascinating paper on this subject called "Hume and Julius Caesar" that I would recommend.

Going back to Lincoln, it's not just one belief that gets shattered if it somehow turns out that Lincoln didn't exist. It's more like a node of a system has failed and the system can no longer sustain itself. It's like a card removed from one of those houses of cards and the whole structure comes tumbling down including your entire view towards history and it's study.

makes contracts of rent and interest ("usury", a fee for use) illegitimate and so unenforceable

Ok, I'm making an honest attempt to understand this from a socialist perspective: Why would someone give a loan if they're unable to change interest? Even if people were 100% honest and they would always repay and there was no risk to the loan, inflation grows by around 2% a year so a loan would pretty much always lose the creditor money. There are just no more loans in this economy. I can't tell if you're fine with an economy with no loans or not.

That feature is so broad that it would only rule out utopias. But even utopian thinkers knew that their kingdoms were fantastic. "Task for the gods," says Glaucon to Socrates in The Republic.

Human nature is like the rainbow. As soon as one comes down to it, fades away. (I swear I have made up this phrase myself alone).

I'm actually thrilled with your first statement and I do agree. I wasn't seeking to lay out an entire political system based solely on this premise about men not being angels. All I was aiming for was to provide Siti an example when he asked for one stable feature of human nature. I'm happy with that limited "victory." We don't need to then go from there and be like "oh well that's not really saying all that much in reality...." because I wasn't really aiming for that.

The rainbow metaphor is cute but I think as long as we can agree on that premise of human nature we need to concede to some permanence even if it is "broad" which it is obviously is as I was seeking to describe the entirety of humanity.

But can you eat live streamed video games? If you cannot, you will need to trade directly or indirectly with a food producer. You are providing a service he is a producer. Man cannot live on service alone. Someone has to produce the devices, the houses, and the medicines and the food, but robots don't watch live-streamed video.

Yes, we will always need producers, but I just don't see what's wrong with robots taking over much of that production (more things that are tangible as opposed to digital) as long as us humans can keep busy and keep earning income in other ways. Robots already do much of the harvesting and milking and sure jobs have been lost and you bet it's going to continue but to only look at this isn't viewing the whole picture.

I'm happy to respond to you, just be aware that we are do seem to be on very different sides of the political spectrum so I wouldn't expect anyone's mind to change. Maybe we can both gain some deeper insight into the topics however.

You seem to be very worried about the decline of manufacturing but this has been going on in the US since like the 1970s. Since the end of the 70s the economy has boomed so the decline of manufacturing in the US was hardly the death knell of the US economy. I am very aware that many cities and towns suffered. Other cities and towns also suffered when manufacturing jobs were on the up and up and people left agricultural centers. We receive many of our products now from China and Japan, and just to be certain we still do have our own domestic manufacturing... I'm not an economist but if manufacturing were to die in the US what exactly is wrong with just getting manufactured goods from Canada and elsewhere? I guess it might be a security risk but not much else.

But the first principle of economics is 'produce or die.'

This was true in the Soviet Union. If you didn't work, you didn't get fed. It's almost 2020 now and people can make a living streaming video games. They can make a living doing digital content (is this production? I guess, but not really in the traditional sense.) It's not the 1950s anymore where we all need to receive our wages from factories in order to put food in the table.

In the past decade or so we've seen a shift towards a "gig economy" where a lot of apps like etsy, uber and airbnb to name a few connect other people peer to peer where someone can request a service or a facility and someone else provides it. Right now I think there's a big demand for better apps/platforms that can connect users in better ways and take a smaller fee for the transaction. To insist that we ought to be making more cars or tools or manufactured just feels very outdated; that's not where any of this is heading.

So with labor gone, social relations would change. Think Star Trek or some other sci-fi scenario or historical one.

I think we can all agree that AI/robots/automotion will take jobs, but I think most of us also agree that new jobs will be created in other sectors. In the actual unlikely event that there is apparently "no more labor" for us humans to do we have a much bigger problem than this marxism vs. capitalism debate... we as humans are probably done. If we have robots governing, robots developing better robots, robots commanding militaries, robot judges, etc. all while humans are sidelined... you get where I'm going.

This would be much larger than just an economic issue.

In any case I'm not losing any sleep over it. Sure, we'll lose truck drivers and we've lost cash register but we've had such an enormous boom in tech job offerings with really some very exciting implications for other fields as well.

OK. But that kind of thing is very abstract. You won't get precise rules out of them. Besides, they don't need to respond to a human nature, but could be the result of habits or customs. What is your method of distinguishing one thing (nature) from another (culture)?

I don't think it's abstract at all; we see it throughout history. In my discussion with Siti he only asked me to list one immutable fact of human nature. I gave him one, and he has since disappeared from the discussion. It's been years since I've picked up Marx but if I remember correctly it is a Marxist assumption that human nature is seemingly endlessly malleable and it is a product of the economic system.

In regard to not getting "precise rules," just a knowledge of this fact can help you eliminate certain political systems immediately. Could you show me a culture in which men are angels? The claim that all you need is good culture to turn men into angels is patently ridiculous and I don't see how anyone can take it seriously.

We can start with "men are not angels." Well, besides Kim Jung Un obviously.

Sure, someone could devise a system that fails because it fails to take into account human variability, but I also believe in certain unchangeable facts about human nature and that if a system ignores or tries to endlessly suppress that fact it's going to fail. I don't believe in an endlessly malleable human nature.

Because I believe that there are certain facts about human nature and if a system ignores or directly contradicts these facts it is bound to fail.

I do believe morality and political systems are ultimately tested in their implementation.

What is typical of this situation is that conservatives seem to make a statement of fact, but in reality it is a value judgment.

It's that they start with the statement of fact (something like "human nature is X, Y, Z") and from there they're able to evaluate political or moral systems. If one of these systems flies in the face of human nature it is dismissed.

This is an approach that I use but I wouldn't call myself a conservative.

Alright, I'm someone with a philosophy degree here so I'll try to give you my take on this.

Yes, morals, ethics, and law are all fascinating subjects that initially drew me into philosophy. The thing is, when you dive deeper into these topics and you start working some of those fundamental assumptions it inevitably goes into metaphysics.

Metaphysics is just unavoidable. For instance, one ethical system (e.g. virtue ethics) could be very compatible with one metaphysical assumption (possibly some sort of teleological theism) but I've never quite been able to make sense of it under a sort of atheistic materialism. What counts as a virtue? Who decides?

I didn't mean to ignore your earlier response; there's just sooo much material out there that I don't want to go in a million different directions. If there's one or two things you REALLY want me to respond to or focus in on let me know.

Didn't want to neglect this though:

Deserve" has a place when it comes to morality and justice, but we need to be very careful with it when it comes to economic status.
— BitconnectCarlos
Economics, and politics, are closely related to morality and justice. They're all about value of some kind. (It was actually my childhood interest in politics and economics that lead me into ethics to begin with). And general principles of morality and justice apply just as much to economic and political activity as they do to any other aspect of life.

Alright, lets say I throw half of my investable assets into bitcoin right now. What do I deserve? Maybe I deserve to lose it all for taking a stupid risk and being greedy or maybe I deserve to double it for being bold. I honestly have no idea.

Lets say instead of throwing my assets into bitcoin I decide to start my own business and work really hard. Do I deserve millions of dollars for being a hard worker? Or maybe I deserve to lose it for being selfish and not donating it?

What kind of a return do I deserve on my investment portfolio this year? I feel like I would need to ask myself how nice I was.

I've played poker for years as a way to supplement my income. Do I deserve money from that because I'm better than the competition or maybe I deserve to lose my bankroll because I'm preying on people and taking advantage of holes in their game. Do I deserve to win money if I get my money in as a favorite?

If you want to offer some answers here I'm all ears.

We're almost in agreement! We're like 80% of the way there.

That person is financially better than the aforementioned family because not only does he not owe anyone anything, they owe him, on balance. Yeah he's renting an apartment and borrowing for his car but he's getting way more income from other people paying him rent and interest than he's paying out on it, and at any time he would pay off the car and buy out his (or an equivalent) apartment and still have loads of money that other people are paying him to borrow, so he's not stuck owing anyone rent or interest, he's just (for some reason) choosing to pay it when he has the easy option to not do so without losing anything.

100% agree. $1k of debt with those types of assets and income just isn't meaningful. Keep in mind there are certain advantages to renting: This person can pick up and leave and travel where ever he wants without needing to worry about taking care of the house or mortgage payments. Renting can be very flexible.

Getting by when you don't owe anything besides to pay for your ongoing consumption is pretty easy, and it is a lifelong uphill struggle just to get to that point. People already at that point young in their lives don't know how good they have it.

I feel like you're not considering the quality of life factors and potential power imbalances that come from working a minimum wage job. Keep in mind, if our provider from this family is fired then this family is in serious trouble. They have no investments. Maybe they have some savings but those could go quick in prolonged unemployment especially with children to take care of.

I'm someone who has worked in a factory earning roughly minimum wage where I wasn't allowed to sit down. I'm not entirely sure why this rule was in place; it just was. Similarly, this family (or just our one provider) could be subject to arbitrary rules or a nasty boss who unfortunately holds this economic power over him. When you're living paycheck to paycheck your options to fight back are limited. I'm surprised you're not more critical of workplace hierarchies. Maybe I'm the real socialist here?

And what is "financial independence" if not freedom from debt and rent, not owing anybody anything just to keep what you already have, only needing to pay (and work to earn that pay) if you want something more?

Alright, lets imagine a family here with a few kids. Lets say they own their home and car outright - no debt, but also no investments and the parents (or parent) work low-end jobs which they don't really like.and can't really get another job. Just because you have no debt doesn't mean you don't have expenses. You still need to pay for food, clothing, cell phones, insurance, etc. - and sure, lets say they can cover these bills but they don't have much left over every month.

Would you call these people financially independent? They work for what they have and they owe nobody.

Additionally, would you call someone with $10M in assets and 500k annual income who rents a $1500/month apartment and has $1000 left on his car debt in a financially worse place than the aforementioned family? Who do you think is in the better situation here?

EDIT: To clarify, the 500k income is from passive investments not from working a job he hates. It is from multiple streams of income.

They'll spend it on whatever they think is most worth the money, whatever their highest priority is, whatever gives them the most value in their lives in exchange for it. Who are we to tell them that what they value is wrong?

I'm not going to tell them that; I'm not their parent. However, from an economic standpoint - since we're talking about economics - clearly a reality exists there.

This is a topic that I see almost every day. It's a military meme (and it has been for decades) that you have lower enlisted (typically those from the lower middle/poor sectors) driving around in these 40k trucks or camaros or whatever. And sure enough, a couple of months ago one of my good friends/co-workers who grew up in section 8 housing went out and bought a 40-50k audi. Obviously, I wasn't going to step in and parent him. We're the same age. But whenever these discussions arise between how these wealth disparities could exist and how the wealthy horde all these investments, etc. these stories do pop into my head.

I would never in a millions years do what he did. I drive a toyota corolla. As much as you might speak down to investing it is part of the road to wealth and financial independence. Again, on a social level, not my job to shame him.

Economic activity is driven from the bottom up: poor people spend more of their incomes than rich people, so if you put money into the hands of the poor, it will immediately be spent on whatever they actually need, funneling that money into businesses generating actual value for actual people (who will then hire more people to meet that increased demand and so on). If you put that money instead into the hands of the rich, who already have everything they need, they will "invest" it meaning lend it out to or buy stock in whatever businesses they bet will be able to pay them back the most money. Rich people gambling on who they think will make good returns for them is a less efficient allocation of resources than poor people directly paying the businesses that provide goods and services people actually need.

I feel like you've almost got it here. Yes, the poor will spend more and the rich will tend to invest it. However, the poor won't just spend the money on things that they need... they'll just spend it. Maybe they buy a luxury vehicle. Sure, it feeds the economy but are they really better off? Cars and clothes depreciate quickly. I feel like you're so close to being right here. Many of the rich are rich because they invest.

It's funny, and I know we're veering off more into sociology now, but I'm someone from a UMC background who works with mostly lower middle class or people from poor backgrounds. It's just a very, very different mentality about money. I'm not making a value judgment here, but the poor tend to be more concerned about acquiring status items/symbols or material possessions or possibly being able to present as wealthy or at least owning X possession. I can't say I blame them given their background/upbringing.

Alright, there's sooo much here I could address so I'm just going to pick out a few points and provide some commentary. Obviously we're too far apart on the spectrum to really change each other's minds 180 degrees so I'm considering this more of a discussion/exchange of ideas than a debate where I'm working vociferously to change your mind.

At the start of the transaction, the lender has whatever he's lending out and the borrower has nothing. At the end of the transaction, when the lease is expired or the loan paid back, the lender has what he started with plus the rent or interest payments, and the borrower still has nothing, minus what he paid in rent or interest.

In reality it's a little more complicated. The lender is taking a risk with the borrower (this is true for both rent and interest) and also the risk isn't just with the borrower it's with many extraneous factors. I feel like socialists/Marxist don't have clear account of risk which is really, really central to capitalism.

If we're just talking a normal loan the borrow could just run off with the money, or inflation could become such so large that by the time the borrow repays he's actually paying off less (in real terms) than the original amount. If we're talking about a renter here we need to take into account renovations, trash removal when the renter leaves, problems with facilities, replacing older appliances, and a billion other factors that could arise. The landlord could be sued.

The landlord needs to worry about constant upkeep and the highs and lows of the real estate market. Landlords and lenders can very easily lose money and I never see this risk mentioned when this point is brought up by leftists/marxists/etc.

That's how it's supposed to work in a truly free market, wealth goes to those who are doing the work, and if you slack off you lose it.

Not necessarily - maybe their investments go up. I actually find some capitalists tend to agree with you here (i.e. they really stress hard work and how those who work the hardest make it to the top and deserve it) but this just certainly isn't how I see things. I mean don't get me wrong - much of the top earners do pull insane hours, but risk tolerance again can definitely play a role. I don't know about you, but I would never want to live in a world where the ultimate determinant to making wealth was how many hours you worked. It would be like slavery. Investment helps you escape this.

I don't know what you're going to think of this, but those who don't work don't necessarily deserve to be poor and those who do work long hours don't necessarily deserve to be rich. Would you agree? "Deserve" has a place when it comes to morality and justice, but we need to be very careful with it when it comes to economic status.

Alright, that might be too big of a question so I'm gonna go back to the comment you made earlier about rent and interest being coercive redistribution systems. It's interesting because I'm someone who pays rent and I've never felt it to be coercive. If there's a problem with my apartment I talk to the front desk and they send maintenance people up to fix it immediately. If I really don't like their service I could either move or gather other dissatisfied residents and probably get the managers fired. It's not a one-sided relationship where I'm always at their mercy.

Additionally, no one is forcing me to pay rent. If I wanted to cut costs I could probably either buy an RV or just live with roommates. I do believe there are homeless shelters as a last resort, but the cost to that would be that you'd always be under their rules and have little privacy and have the bare minimum. I've lived in the barracks for years and even though it was free and I could have stayed in I was happy to move out and pay rent rather than stay there. It's hard to understate the difference in quality.

I feel like as long as you actually have alternatives - and having savings certainly expands your options and extends that freedom - that paying rent isn't really coercive. As much as I'd love to live for free where I am it's not like I can just walk into a random city and feel entitled to someone's space.

Just curious, how do you see the connection - if there is one - between wealth and freedom? And, say, private property and freedom (i.e. not being required to live on government land)?

This is a good thread and it may be dead but no harm in reviving it.

I'm in a strange place philosophically. I do have a philosophy degree but it's been like 6-7 years since I've graduated and my job just doesn't involve philosophy but I still find it popping up from time and time and I'm happy to engage it.

I'm gonna have to dig back in my brain a little but to give a quick run-down, I'm an meta-ethical realist but I don't subscribe to any particular normative theory. I have an interest in virtue ethics, but I could never quite make it work rationally (i.e. I couldn't make it work within my broader meta-physical framework.) I'm currently non-religious but I'm willing to entertain theistic arguments. I'm very open philosophically and willing to entertain a lot. Hume and Wittgenstein (Investigations-era) are some of my favorites. I loved reading Anscombe even though I'm not a Catholic, but she was incredibly bright.

I'm generally skeptical of people who get "married" to a train of thought, and I see this a lot of marxists and libertarians. I hold facts and practical application in enormously high regard - as well as experience- so I suppose I'm kind of an anti-philosopher in that sense? I am a bitcoiner so the whole cypherpunk and decentralization movements hold a special place in my heart, but that does not mean that I accept them unquestionably. I am skeptical of many of the dogmas I see today.

Alright, we're on waaayyyy different pages politically so it's probably not worth going into that. Do you believe in forced redistribution though? Should there be a wealth cap?

I feel like even if I were to concede to you that a wealth cap was moral it would be impossible to implement. The millionaires would either just flee on conceal their wealth which can definitely be done.

but the fact that the world is dependent on him being nice because so much of the wealth of the world is at his command is a symptom of a much larger systemic problem than a single billionaire.

Do you have a better alternative? Surely it's more than just the billionaires too; multi-millionaires and even millionaires could donate more and it probably wouldn't have much an effect on their standard of living. I'd group mass affluent individuals in those category as well. Regardless of how much he gives he'll pay taxes on top of it.

I'm reminded of a bit I recently saw about all these news stories about things like "teachers, staff, even janitors donate sick days so fellow teacher can take time off to visit his daughter during her cancer treatment" spin that as being all about the loving charity of those people helping their colleague out, completely washing over the bigger story of "teachers normally aren't allowed enough time off to visit their children during medical emergencies". Yes, a bunch of individuals did a very nice thing, to plaster over one corner of an enormous systemic injustice.

I sympathize. I don't know what the leave policy is like there, but I know in the military they have something called "emergency leave" which I think can be taken even if you have no leave days. I think the danger is that with public employees - since they get paid a fixed salary - could potentially abuse leave policies. It's a case-by-case kind of thing though.

Ok, so what are your thoughts on someone like Bill Gates who has raised billions of dollars for charity to fight extreme poverty but, yes, of course, he still has billions more?

We certainly do have the resources, and it is very sad that there are so many around the world hungry when we do have so much abundance. I remember hearing or reading a study a while ago that most famines were essentially man-made and perpetuated by the governments themselves often for political motives. I think it's best to focus on establishing systems that lead to long-term prosperity and in reality to distribute much of this food could be quite dangerous. I'm not sure who you're referring to when you reference this "tiny fraction." Dictators? Billionaires?

Cognitive load theory assumes that, for example, critical thinking is biologically primary and so unteachable. We all are able to think critically if we have sufficient knowledge stored in long-term memory in the area of interest.

A car mechanic can think critically about repairing a car. I, and I dare say most of you reading cannot. Teaching us critical thinking strategies instead of car mechanics is likely to be useless.
— John Sweller

This is very much wrong, and I'm saying this as someone who largely trusts car mechanics. A car mechanic will have certainly a vast body of knowledge about the inner workings of a car, just as a doctor will have a vast, vast body of knowledge about medicine.

So lets say I go to a doctor with a cough one day; clearly, at least in theory, it could indicate a billion different ailment. Coughing might be a sign of bubonic plague or AIDS, but a doctor who is hopefully able to critically think doesn't just thrust his entire encylopedia of conditions at me and instead is about to critically reason that it's most likely a seasonal cold and check for that first before moving onto bigger, rarer ailments.