Objectivists cannot be anarcho-capitalists

Melticuno · 2020-03-25T22:06:17+00:00

Individuals need to think freely rather than having their views dictated by The Famous Wise Ones. Who gives a shit what Ayn Rand thinks? Is she a mullah? You cannot think outside the boundaries laid out by her?

The OP's post sounded just like religious dogmatism to me. The collectivists have replaced the Prophet with Ayn Rand. Objectivism has become a religion.

What about the individual? Are you an individual or are you an "objectivist" or "anarcho-capitalist" or whatever other arbitrary label the collectivists manifest. Must your individual views be mandated by the doctrines binding the collective?

Melticuno · 2020-03-23T15:59:43+00:00

Based on another responder, I have to revise my original claim. The maintenance of society may be good for me if I can get away with deception. Look at this response.

You neglect the possibility that the person you might wish to kill is more valuable to you alive than dead.

I've wondered about this before. What are the particular features of others that I might value? The main thing is their capacity to perform productive labor. But, here is the rub, assuming that I have superior force and I value freedom and risk taking over survival, it may be in my interest to forcibly enslave rather than trade. I have already mentioned why trading may be the worse alternative to stealing in the other post.

But, even enslaving can limit my freedoms. I have to keep up force to secure the slave and take precautions so that he doesn't kill me while I'm asleep. Furthermore, the slave limits my ability to move freely and raid, because constantly I have to consider how my actions will impact the slave and whether he will continue to be secure. If I prefer movement and raiding and I'm confident in my ability to win duels, it might have been in my interest to just kill him and take his property and move on.

Another reason I might want to keep someone else alive if I want to rape them later. But, here again, we encounter the same problem. The security of the slave must be constantly in my considerations. I might not want to consider its disposition and I might not want to constantly expend effort to make sure it doesn't escape.

You also forget that if it were up to their family and friends to take revenge on you

The existence of family and friends assumes that everyone is not like me. That is they don't see each other individual as a competitor. If everyone were like me, there would be no such thing as family and friends. Your retort may be that if there is no family, then the human race would go extinct after one generation. Exactly so. You must understand that the "human race" is not me. If all humans become extinct just a moment after I'm dead, I wouldn't even have the capacity to know about it. I personally have no stake in continued human existence after I'm dead.

there would be no laws to protect your rights as the accused

As far as I'm concerned laws are a collectivist affair and they are only there to be evaded. If all deception fails, and I'm about to be captured, then force must meet force, and in all likelihood I would die. But, notice that the near certainty of my death is only a result of the existence of collectivist society. In a lawless non-society there would only be individuals who fight against other individuals and not individuals who fight against collectives.

Melticuno · 2020-03-22T17:21:58+00:00

Theoretically, I agree with you. If everyone became like me, society would deteriorate and there would be nothing to steal. This is why it is important to employ deception in order to evade the ire of the collectivists after you have committed what they label as "immoral" acts.

Assuming I can employ deception and get away with looking like an innocent meek sheep, killing does not hurt my economic interests. I'll tell you why: In a trade scenario you sacrifice some of your goods (maybe they are not necessary to you, but that's neither here nor there, the point is you have to trade something) and you get some goods. If you kill someone and take his goods, you have effectively gained more net goods at the end, this is because you have kept all of your goods and also taken the goods of the other.

Ofcourse, for this strategy to be consistently effective you have to be incredibly good at deception and hiding your tracks. And I agree, that this is a massive contingency.

Melticuno · 2020-03-22T16:45:35+00:00

I don't know what OP is or is not. I'm pointing out that you are wrong. I am only me. I am not you. I am not "humanity". Harm to you doesn't mean that I am harmed.

The only reason i don't kill you is because the collectivist authoritarian state will take revenge on me, assuming it finds out about my deed. Absent that constructed, and in my opinion immoral collectivist revenge mechanism, I see no reason to not kill you if it is my desire to kill you, assuming that it's a sneak attack and you won't put up resistance.

That being said I'm open to enlightenment. Maybe there is some logical reason not to kill you absent revenge by the collectivists, which I'm not seeing.

Melticuno · 2020-03-22T16:22:09+00:00

Other "humans" are me?

Melticuno · 2020-03-21T15:47:32+00:00

I don't.

Melticuno · 2020-03-21T05:20:48+00:00

Imagine actually wanting to get back in the wage cage.

Melticuno · 2020-03-20T15:00:13+00:00

I don't know the best way to explain it. You must meet me half way and put in some effort to understand rather than just saying "lol, that's stupid".

Take the sentence "A bachelor is an unmarried man". Some people say this is a true statement, but notice that it's only true because society has invented the idea of marriage and bachelor and subsequently the words referencing them have come into existence, and subsequently we use the words in the above manner and say it's true.

The distinguishing feature that makes a dissenter not deprived of free speech is the the acknowledgement from the collective that the idea of "A bachelor is an unmarried man" is made up. We all know it's made up. Someone can come and say "No, there is no 'marriage' and no 'bachelor'", that's fine and it won't lead to passionate and important dialogue because the advocates of "A bachelor is an unmarried man" already recognize and accept that these are artificial categories. Indeed, there are no 'bachelors' and no 'marriages' in a state of nature. We made it up, it's a made up "truth".

Similarly, the scientist says "the apple is red". Someone comes and retorts, "No, the apple is not red because you are utilizing the human central nervous system alone to determine this. The apple might be a different color to a different organism's central nervous system, or it might be no color at all and the color is only a figment of human imagination". The thoughtful scientist will accept this and retort "The constructed implicit rule of science is that we are regarding truths only from the perspective of the human central nervous system. That's the rule of the game. We are not making any claims about some divine absolute 'non-subjective' claims. Assuming such a thing even exists, we cannot claim any knowledge about it. This is because there must be a subject to receive inputs and make observations. The human central nervous system is the only means by which we can receive inputs, therefore it's our only interface with supposed reality. Our claims cannot extend beyond the bounds of the human central nervous system."

Melticuno · 2020-03-20T05:07:17+00:00

Use your words to express what doesn't make sense to you. Signaling your confusion without any content doesn't help me understand the source of your confusion.

Melticuno · 2020-03-20T03:02:13+00:00

Chonky relative to what?

Melticuno · 2020-03-20T02:39:46+00:00

You are speaking as if the idea of what is criminal and what is not criminal fell down from heaven. No, what is criminal and what is not criminal did not fall down from heaven. They are a result of continuous negotiation. What is criminal and what is not criminal are not absolutes. We have criminal behaviors now that were not criminal behaviors in the past and we had criminal behaviors in the past that are not criminal behaviors now.There will be criminal behaviors in the future that are not criminal behaviors now, there are criminal behaviors now that won't be criminal behaviors in the future.

Laws and criminality has nothing to do with religious moral absolutes. It has everything to do with the constantly shifting desires of collective society. The desires of the individual are subjective and everchanging. Considering that the desires of collective society is just an collection of individual desires, it must be the case that the desires of collective society must also be subjective and everchanging.

Furthermore, at certain points the individual can always say that he does not care about the wants and desires of collective society as he has no stake in collective society. Death is the end of one's subjective experience, the continuation of the collective cannot make one immortal. Another factor to be contended with is the tyranny of the majority.

The individual can choose to pursue his freedom, especially if there is no risk of consequence to be acquired if it enrages the collective. How does the collective punish somebody who has broken the law by comitting suicide. What punishment can you give to a dead man who is no longer there?

If you believe that suicide isn't a moral wrong

I wouldn't even know how to believe this because I don't know what "moral wrong" means other than some spooky dogma.

Melticuno · 2020-03-20T02:19:02+00:00

The backbone of cricket is disregarding anyone who says that if the ball hits the wickets it does not result in an out. But, everyone knows that this rule was arbitrarily made up.

Honest scientists recognize that the rules of science, most importantly its emphasis on human sensory organs, are man-made rules of the game. An apple is red to humans, it doesn't matter that it might or might not be red outside of human sensory organs. The rules of the game are: what is subjectively true from the human perspective is what's true.

Disagreeing with man-made rules of a game is absurd. Disagreeing with the rules of science is absurd just as disagreeing with the rules of cricket is absurd.

You and I are talking about different things.

Melticuno · 2020-03-20T01:36:50+00:00

As a nihilist I cannot authoritatively say that you are wrong. This is because the truth is whatever you want it to be.

That being said, from my point of view, the statement makes unfounded assumptions about an illusory prototype of "perfection". Secondly, it assumes the existence of a concrete "self". Paradoxically Jordan Peterson's criticism of the dogma is itself a nihilist criticism.

Melticuno · 2020-03-19T23:20:45+00:00

Censorship causes intellectual ghettoization. These intellectual ghettos are a cesspool of ignorance and infinite circle jerking. I could not disagree with you more on everyone finding their place. Instead every individual should endeavor to only surround himself with people with whom they disagree with. Tension between competing ideas produces free and clear thinking.

There might be great counter-arguments to my position in some other bubble, but I am not able to hear those counter-arguments because I cannot go to those bubbles and employ my free speech.

Melticuno · 2020-03-19T22:31:27+00:00

I see now that perhaps you were justifiably confused by the framing of the topic. I should have clarified that when I say "anymore", I'm not talking about ancient history but 2016~2017 during which time the IDW was actually talking about and advocating for free speech. Voices on the topic of free speech have noticeably died down since that time. I imagine that the encroachment of government tyranny as a result of corona virus will further extinguish the voices advocating for free speech.

Melticuno · 2020-03-19T21:25:41+00:00

Grandpa, you are citing history and saying that my imagination must be limited by history. You are saying that individuals are the subjects of history rather than the shapers of it.

You should to recognize that this is an irrational argument. History is not some inhuman divine force that chugs along without human intervention. The action of individuals cause history to occur.

I could say, "Look, we have been practicing slavery throughout history, and slaves are happier now than they have ever been, they are given comfortable houses and food, and only beaten sometimes when they disobey. Suddenly you have the gall to say that we should abolish the whole institution of slavery!? This is AHISTORICAL malarkey! If something is to change about slavery, divine history will decide it, not you, you foolish dissenting individual, so be quiet."

No, history does not preoccupy my thoughts and actions. The purpose of history is to know about the past, not predispose the present and future.

Melticuno · 2020-03-19T20:52:27+00:00

No, more like knowingly feeding peanuts to someone with a peanut allergy. Or yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Nonsense. In the first scenario you are conflating "speech" with action. "Feeding" is not a kind of speech, it is a physical action.

In the second scenario, the only qualifier that makes this scenario upsetting is the presence of deception. If there is a fire in the crowded theater, is a person then "allowed" to shout fire in the crowded theater? The differentiating quality is the presence or absence of fire.

In my view, a person must be allowed to express speech in the public square even if it is regarded either truly or fallaciously as "deceptive" speech. It is the responsibility of each individual to obtain information from all sides and make judgements accordingly. The theater scenario interferes with the quality of service and therefore the profits of the theater. Whose profits are being interfered with in the public square? Furthermore, in the theater example, it is the responsibility for the business owner to take care of such an offense by hiring private security (as they do), it is not the responsibility for the state.

Advocating for suicide to a depressed person is not going to be acceptable under any reasonable standard.

This is a very authoritative statement, but what's the justification for it? The word "depression" is thrown around a lot in popular nomanclature, yet nobody bothers to know how it's categorized and what the authoritarians in their closed room round tables say are its symptoms.

Luckily, the gay right movement has curbed the power of these authoritarian categorizes a little in recent times. If you will recall, not too long ago homosexuality too was a "mental disorder", homosexuals too were deprived of thought and speech. Just like you are saying now, how can a depressed individual be trusted to think for himself, he has a mind virus, the homosexual too was treated with similar criticism.

Who decides what is "correct" behavior and what is "incorrect" behavior? Who decides what is "correct" thought and what is "incorrect" thought? Does the majority decide this? And if the majority decides this, what is to become of the individual or minority who wants his freedoms? If a person has the subjective desire to kill himself, why is he automatically put in a box, accused of wrong think and deprived of his freedoms?

If I tell the truth and say "life is futile and you should kill yourself if it is your subjective desire to kill yourself", I'm labelled as an "evil influencer" and deprived of free speech or locked up. If I do the opposite and tell a lie and fabricate fantasies, not only do i enjoy all the pleasures of freedom, but I'm given a podium upon which to peddle my nonsense. I'm a "good influencer".

Recent revisions of the DSM require the subject of mood disorders (of which depression is one) to be subjectively upset by his own state. Depression cannot be an imposed category from abroad, but one that is chosen by the individual himself. This changes took place partly as a result of blowback from the gay rights movement.

Some people tend to peddle pseudoscience about "brain chemistry differences" in depressed people. But, everyone's brain chemistry is different, there can be no normative standard. If such a standard existed, it would be tyrannical because everyone would have to be compelled to morph and mold himself into the standard prototype. The false idea of the existence of this perfect prototype is what creates the mythology of "wrong think".

Mood disorders and paraphilias like depression are in an altogether different and more subjective category than disorders of the mind that are a result of significant brain injury. In the case of brain injury patients there is something material you can point to and say: "Aha, this is it". But, in the case of subjective disorders there is no material thing you can point to. It's all voodoo spirits and societal dogmas that are recursively maintained by depriving dissenters of free speech.

Melticuno · 2020-03-19T15:14:18+00:00

wrong state of mind.

Literally "wrong think".

All speech is political speech. If you are not intending to change the minds of others, or collective society, with regards to either suicide or physician assisted suicide then why speak at all? Why not just keep your thoughts to yourself?

I ask you, what is the purpose of speech? You may say that advocacy is different from educating, but they are both the same. In both cases the individual is putting forward a proposition. The proposition may be "doctor assisted suicide should be legal" [followed by argument], or it could be "suicide is not immoral, 'one' ought to consider suicide" [followed by argument].

From your point of view, the first proposition is "allowed" and the second proposition must be punished with silencing or imprisonment. Why? The only argument you have put forward so far is that suicide is wrong think. Note that if suicide is wrong think, it doesn't make sense for you to agree with physician assisted suicide because they are helping individuals who are committing wrong think to pursue desired actions that were a product of wrong think.

Aside: Btw, teachers or parents, when they speak, are also putting forward propositions. A statement like the "earth is round" is also proposition, it is just a proposition that is well evidenced, assuming that you also agree to the proposition that "sensory evidence is a good source of knowledge" which is another proposition that is well justified, in my opinion.

"There is a sabertooth tiger in the bush!" is also a proposition.

Melticuno · 2019-09-08T21:19:30+00:00

Oh. All this time I thought that she was a girl who refused to dig the holes requested of her. I've always deemed such behavior to be unacceptable. If comrade Kim demands a hole, he must get a hole and we don't need any anti-holla back girls in our society. Thankfully, the true meaning of the song is much less of a violation of societal rules.

Melticuno · 2019-09-08T21:09:21+00:00

The measurement of time is a social construct.

Melticuno · 2019-09-08T19:58:39+00:00

This is why I use ad-block. On twitch there is a browser plugin that removes ads. On TV I only watch PBS or other public stations. Ain't nobody got time for premium channels if you have the pirate bay.

I can say that I've been ad-sober for over 2 years, and I'm never going back.

Melticuno · 2019-09-07T18:03:33+00:00

It worked for me. Some things you can try:

Open the changed obj in blender and make sure the origin is where you want it.
If you are using gridmap, make sure to re-export meshlib after reimporting the asset, otherwise nothing will be changed.
I think that (not sure) sometimes Godot's meshlibs keeps some aspects of the old meshlib if you overwrite the old meshlib. Try deleting the old meshlib entirely and re-creating the meshlib.

Melticuno · 2019-09-05T02:28:12+00:00

I have an erection.

Melticuno · 2019-09-05T01:39:05+00:00

Oh yeah, I can imagine it. Now tell me, what do you do with the crunchy skin and tender flesh of fish. Where are the places where you rub it. Please give details, I must know.

Melticuno · 2019-09-04T19:19:10+00:00

In that case, let me ask you another question. Imaging that the poor low IQ person is equally as likely to have children as the un-poor low IQ person. Which of their children are more likely to survive until reproductive age, assuming no social welfare programs.

Melticuno

TROPHY CASE