11 American Nations

[Owen Densmore]

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:03 AM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:

Formalization, Mechanization and Automation of Gödel's Proof of God's
Existence
Christoph Benzmüller, Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo
http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.4526v4

All those links and I still had to use Google to find the actual
article. ;-)  Do you use a program (like the journalism sites seem to)
that automatically links keywords in your e-mails?  If so, what program
do you use?

No sorry, no magic, I simply didn't spend the effort to find the arxiv entry.  My bad.

But you see, I'm not used to these philosophical discussions, I felt only the wiki quote would suffice. And I definitely did not think those considering logic would include Godel's later work which was not completed during his life.  Nor God for that matter.

   -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 1/8/14 7:56 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

But the different parties are reasoning from vastly different facts and values, and we have no mechanism come to an agreement on which facts are true and which values we want to live by. 

 

Hmm, consider which group makes more money.  

http://jsphfrtz.wordpress.com/tag/statistical-correlations-of-gdp-per-capita-welfare-and-voting-by-state/

Nah, let's just let the fit survive.   :-)

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Carl Tollander]

A TED talk on agreement as pablumatic and the fall of TED talks.
http://youtu.be/Yo5cKRmJaf0

On 1/8/14, 9:08 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:

On 1/8/14 7:56 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

But the different parties are reasoning from vastly different facts and values, and we have no mechanism come to an agreement on which facts are true and which values we want to live by. 

 

Hmm, consider which group makes more money.  

http://jsphfrtz.wordpress.com/tag/statistical-correlations-of-gdp-per-capita-welfare-and-voting-by-state/

Nah, let's just let the fit survive.   :-)

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ep ropella]

On 01/08/2014 07:40 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> No sorry, no magic, I simply didn't spend the effort to find the arxiv
> entry.  My bad.

Damn it.  I was hoping you found a browser or email client plugin that
would do something like this:

Link automatically all the highlighted words with the syntax [w:{term}]
on the definition from Wikipedia.
http://wordpress.org/plugins/wikipedia-autolink/

If anyone knows of such a tool, please pass it on.

> But you see, I'm not used to these philosophical discussions, I felt only
> the wiki quote would suffice. And I definitely did not think those
> considering logic would include Godel's later work which was not completed
> during his life.  Nor God for that matter.

Yeah, it's strange to me to think of the recent conversation as
"philosophical".  To me it seems extremely practical, especially when
thinking about interactive vs. isolated simulation.  We had these
discussions about Swarm quite a bit in the early days surrounding the
value of the "probes".  The Game of Life is a good example.  To what
extent is it important for a user to be able to interfere with the
evolution of the CA?  To my mind, allowing interaction _prevents_ the
user from understanding the primary point of the game, i.e. to
(deistically) set up rules and initial state, then see how it turns out.
 But people are inherently interactive.  They want to engage.  And only
a small subset of us really digs pure, autonomous deduction.  Most of us
think theistically... a god should interact with its minions.

What sounds philosophical to you has very practical implications for me.

--
glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Billy Goat Gruff -

Is that you tip tapping on my bridge with your cloven hooves?

Hi, John

 

Your first example, getting advice from a Ouija board  because one believes it to be Infallible illustrates the basic problem of the triumphant declaration of our friam colleagues that right-wingers are irrational.  I think that Peirce believed that all thought was rational  because rationality was built into the nervous system.  Induction, deduction, and abduction is just what nervous systems DO!  We call it conditioning.    And at the very minimum, one can tell a story make any behavior, however aberrant to appear rational. 

I like that you juxtapose "aberrant" with "rational"... we *often* use "irrational" when we mean "aberrant", and *methinks* abberant is in the eyes of the beholder, while rational/irrational is less subjective?

 

I am not sure how to judge the rationality of behavior.  Doesn't rationality really apply to propositions I suppose that "I should punch the wall" might be said to be rational if it follows from,  Punching walls cures itchy knuckles, my knuckles are itching, therefore  I should punch the wall."

 

To call the rightwing irrational is to way-underestimate the problem we have as a nation.  If the problem were rationality, we could give everybody a short course in practical logic, and our national nightmare would be over.  But the different parties are reasoning from vastly different facts and values, and we have no mechanism come to an agreement on which facts are true and which values we want to live by. 

Certainly, I believe that *both* extrema of the left/right continua would insist that the *other* extrema is *irrational*, and being extremists, possibly *everyone* left/right of their position as well?

My son called my attention to an excellent aphorism, something like:

 

Conservatives get upset when somebody gets something they earned; Liberals get upset when somebody doesn't get something they did earn.

 I'm pretty sure that an "error" was introduced into this aphorism right from the start... it would be a specifically *left biased and cynical* version of the less-obviously-biased original:

Conservatives get upset when somebody gets something they earned; Liberals get upset when somebody doesn't get something they did earn.

should read

Conservatives get upset when somebody gets something they didn't earn; Liberals get upset when somebody doesn't get something they did earn.

 

Wouldn’t be wonderful if one of the right wingers on the list would agree to explore the foundations of this value difference.

Again, standing in:  If we are willing to discuss my "rewrite" (or more to the point? my "un" rewrite) then the issue seems to be almost the false-positive V the false-negative.   Conservatives feel that government social programs (aka handouts) for "underprivileged" people are giving them something they didn't earn, while Liberals feel that it is important to step in and make sure that people *do* get what they *did* earn (e.g. social security/medicare benefits, minimum wage standards.

I would say that many liberals would be willing to risk a few murderers and rapists be left on the loose to avoid hanging even *one* innocent person, while most conservatives (and libertarians?) would be willing to risk hanging a few  innocent persons (as long as they don't look too much like themselves) to avoid allowing anyone to go unpunished for their sins. 

If we replace "a few" with "any number of" in the above, we have the extremist versions.

  But I don’t think that is going to happen.  For years, I have wanted somebody to create a website …. Call it PurpleAmerica.com. It would have two subsites, “Argue.with.a.Liberal.com and argue.with.a.conservative.com. It would be like a dating service, but once two arguers were “mated” the site would guide them through the argument by asking questions, such as, “Please state all the says in which you and your fell-arguer AGREE. And when you had typed in your answer, the website would send it to the other guy with the instruction, “Are these premises you share with your fellow-arguer? “  Etc. In my wildest dream, the whole thing would be automated, but to start, I thought I would pretend that it was automated, and provide the questions myself …Like the Turk, I would lurk inside the machine. The reason you are not ALL pig-rich with google ad money is that you did not take me up on this suggestion.

Damn... I knew I missed a beat in there somewhere... pig-rich?  Then I'd have to be a Republican, right?  No, maybe I could be Warren Buffet.  No, I want to be Elon Musk!

 

By the way, did you understand why I closed my argument with the words,  “Who’s that going over my bridge?” Apparently nobody did.  Ach! This younger generation. 

Kids these days!   Get off my Lawn!   Billy Goat Gruff!


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 1/9/14, 12:52 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Certainly, I believe that *both* extrema of the left/right continua
> would insist that the *other* extrema is *irrational*, and being
> extremists, possibly *everyone* left/right of their position as well.
If the answer is "yes" or "no", those on the right will do well. ;-)

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n10/full/nn1979.html

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

On 01/09/2014 11:52 AM, Steve Smith wrote:

> On 01/08/2014 06:56 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't be wonderful if one of the right wingers on the list would
>> agree to explore the foundations of this value difference.
>>
>
> I would say that many liberals would be willing to risk a few murderers
> and rapists be left on the loose to avoid hanging even *one* innocent
> person, while most conservatives (and libertarians?) would be willing to
> risk hanging a few  innocent persons (as long as they don't look too
> much like themselves) to avoid allowing anyone to go unpunished for
> their sins.

The conversation will remain hopelessly befuddled as long as nobody
makes an effort to define "right" vs. "left".  Roger tried to do so in
his Altemeyer posts.  And I tried a different one in my Ukraine vs. US
parties post awhile back.  But those are incomplete efforts.

For example, if we define "right" to mean no intentional market
design/interference and "left" as government designed markets, then
we're lead to some answers to these questions.  But if we define "right"
to mean status quo inertia and "left" to mean something like "change for
the sake of change", then we're lead to different answers.

From my perspective (as a libertarian who can't call himself libertarian
anymore because that word has been hijacked by morons), no libertarian
would ever risk a government sponsored hanging of an innocent person.
We libertarians would much rather all criminals were set free to be
handled by the implicit, systemic checks and balances of an undesigned
society.  In other words, if they're really a bad person, then they'll
eventually have a run-in with another person who decides they're an
@ssh0l3 and simply kills the jerk.

I tend to think there's quite a bit of affinity with this perspective
amongst most "right" leaning people I know, as well, even if they're not
libertarian ... hence the tendency to cling to our guns (the means for
implicit checks and balances) and religion (the justification for those
checks and balances).  "Of course, Jesus would want me to shoot that guy."

From a different perspective, actual libertarians are completely willing
to admit that life isn't fair.  Plenty of people who earned stuff failed
to retain that stuff or were never properly rewarded for their efforts.
 That's just how it all works!  You not only have to be creative and
_useful_.  You also have to be willing to kick @ss and TAKE your share
... even if you sometimes take too much or too little.

So, based on these two scenarios, I think it's safe to assume that
libertarians (as I define the term) don't even play this "fair play"
game.  That aphorism is meaningless to us.  A better aphorism is "He who
has the gold rules."

--
⇒⇐ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 1/9/14, 2:18 PM, glen wrote:
> You not only have to be creative and _useful_. You also have to be
> willing to kick @ss and TAKE your share ... even if you sometimes take
> too much or too little.
This liberal's observation is that these are ordinary (i.e. boring) but
not universal capabilities.   Many people can develop these skills,
especially with the right resources at the right time in their life.  
But if one has the goal of teasing out the freakish talents from the
population, a platform is needed to do it -- a safety net.   That means
taking at scale (i.e. taxing) and filling in the gaps around those that
don't fit immediately within the economy & society where they find
themselves.   If one buy that there is anything of value to subjective
life integrated over the population (other than sanctity), then it is
crucial to the social & economic organism to give each instance a rich,
unstructured, environment to grow.   There are assumptions and
preferences in this world view.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Glen sed:
>> I would say that many liberals would be willing to risk a few murderers
>> and rapists be left on the loose to avoid hanging even *one* innocent
>> person, while most conservatives (and libertarians?) would be willing to
>> risk hanging a few  innocent persons (as long as they don't look too
>> much like themselves) to avoid allowing anyone to go unpunished for
>> their sins.
> The conversation will remain hopelessly befuddled as long as nobody
> makes an effort to define "right" vs. "left".
The conversation will remain wonderfully befuddled, period... it is what
conversations are?

That said, I don't think any single axis (or really any presumed
collection of orthogonal axes) really models things well enough to avoid
befuddlement.

Left and Right have a very specific vintage if not archaic meaning from
the French Parliament:  The Left side of the Parliamentary chambers
being populated with those promoting "Movement" and the Right side
populated with those promoting "Order".

In our co-option of the term (by "our" I mean generally the public
discourse on contemporary American Politics), much is distorted and
swept under the carpet.   There are many sub-factions of "Left" and of
"Right".    The simple dichotomy is a fiction.
> Roger tried to do so in
> his Altemeyer posts.  And I tried a different one in my Ukraine vs. US
> parties post awhile back.  But those are incomplete efforts.
There are an infinitude of hairs to be split in this domain...
>
> For example, if we define "right" to mean no intentional market
> design/interference and "left" as government designed markets, then
> we're lead to some answers to these questions.  But if we define "right"
> to mean status quo inertia and "left" to mean something like "change for
> the sake of change", then we're lead to different answers.
the original French sense of the term roughly...
>
>  From my perspective (as a libertarian who can't call himself libertarian
> anymore because that word has been hijacked by morons), no libertarian
> would ever risk a government sponsored hanging of an innocent person.
Yes... a lynch mob (possibly of one) is always preferable to
Libertarians.   I'm roughly in your camp Glen, as we've discussed...  
but most card-carrying Libertarians *would* risk personally assasinating
an innocent person or being party to a lynchmob who did the same... and
*that* is why I can't "hang" with them.   Revenge might be sweet, but it
is not Justice and often lowers everyone to the lowest level.  Just look
at much of our reaction to 9/11... I'm not sure it made us "a better
people" for the most part.  exhibit A: Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo;
exhibit B: Pakistan, Yemen, Syria.
> We libertarians would much rather all criminals were set free to be
> handled by the implicit, systemic checks and balances of an undesigned
> society.  In other words, if they're really a bad person, then they'll
> eventually have a run-in with another person who decides they're an
> @ssh0l3 and simply kills the jerk.
I have anarcho-primitivist tendencies that align well with this mode,
and in fact may even trump your garden-variety Libertarian... but ...  
I also live within a society who does have an existing order that almost
work... and I'm not interested in spending my life tearing it down so I
can figure out if my romantic fantasies of a purely anarchistic milieu
is viable.  I'm more for aspects of the status quo than I like to admit.
> I tend to think there's quite a bit of affinity with this perspective
> amongst most "right" leaning people I know, as well, even if they're not
> libertarian ... hence the tendency to cling to our guns (the means for
> implicit checks and balances) and religion (the justification for those
> checks and balances).  "Of course, Jesus would want me to shoot that guy."
If I were a gun nut, I'd cling to my gun a lot harder than I'd cling to
my *right* to collect an arsenal of military grade weaponry and
ammunition and to "open carry" into places where I *know* it will scare
and offend people.   But that's just me... I don't think I'm your garden
variety gun nut.  I know plenty of people with a hoard I can go
appropriate if I think I need guns, and I'll bet you I can appropriate
them with less blunt-force-trauma methods than armed invasion.
>  From a different perspective, actual libertarians are completely willing
> to admit that life isn't fair.
The ones I know, seem to almost revel in it... in fact, I guess I do
myself.  Life is wonderfully messy. Now, let's go lynch someone!
>    Plenty of people who earned stuff failed
> to retain that stuff or were never properly rewarded for their efforts.
>   That's just how it all works!  You not only have to be creative and
> _useful_.  You also have to be willing to kick @ss and TAKE your share
> ... even if you sometimes take too much or too little.
And in fact, I just realized the biggest fallacy in the left/right
(up/down, red/blue, yank/reb, this/that) debate is that it almost always
degenerates to two things:   Ownership of Property (real, fiat, chattel)
and the Right to try to take *other's* rights away.

I suppose I just talked myself right up my own tailpipe here (as if
*that* never happens) and realized that I'm really not interested in
politics except for the way it tweaks my morbid fascination...

I'm truly more interested in community and what motivates people, and
what makes life worth living...  having my cold dead hand pried from my
gun... demanding that a doctor or a community give me an abortion when
it goes against their personal principles... or demanding that a
clergyman or magistrate "bless" my sexual union with *whomever* I have
chosen to union with sexually, whether they approve of it or not (how do
you bless something you don't approve of?)...  or taking from the
rich/poor to give to the poor/rich really just doesn't do it for me...
> So, based on these two scenarios, I think it's safe to assume that
> libertarians (as I define the term) don't even play this "fair play"
> game.  That aphorism is meaningless to us.  A better aphorism is "He who
> has the gold rules."
I'd say "he who has the gold should become King Midas and leave the rest
of us alone to seek and pursue love and right livelihood among our
friends and families"

Ok... I guess I'm in a mood... must be the longer days...

- Steve



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

On 01/09/2014 01:45 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> [...] -- a safety net.   That means
> taking at scale (i.e. taxing) and filling in the gaps around those that
> don't fit immediately within the economy & society where they find
> themselves.   If one buy that there is anything of value to subjective
> life integrated over the population (other than sanctity), then it is
> crucial to the social & economic organism to give each instance a rich,
> unstructured, environment to grow.   There are assumptions and
> preferences in this world view.

I actually agree with you.  But I wouldn't call it a "safety net" so
much as an "exploitative heat" or somesuch.  The idea isn't to prevent
those with unrealized potential from dying, getting sick, or whatnot.
The idea is to input energy into the unrealized potential so that it
becomes realized.  As such, I'm completely for giving money, food,
shelter to everyone.  But that's not much good unless we _also_ give
them/us band saws, hammers, computers, soldering irons, 3D printers,
composters, lego sets, etc.

In other words, a safety net doesn't go far enough.  If all we're going
to do is provide a safety net, then we may as well do nothing at all.  I
suppose it's why I donate to the local communitarian efforts like the
food coops, community garden, tool library, etc.  But perhaps I'm not
actually a libertarian because I think the government should be funding
these things with my tax money. [sigh]  That would be way more efficient
than relying on getting the attention of individual donors.

--
⇒⇐ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 1/9/14, 3:51 PM, glen wrote:
> In other words, a safety net doesn't go far enough.  If all we're going
> to do is provide a safety net, then we may as well do nothing at all.
And why one might have the contingency of nudging interesting folks
towards mercenary instincts, if there is reason to think they haven't
found them on their own.

But in any case, the scope of unrealized potential is one that I think
the left and right estimate very differently.   The left aims for
growing productivity across the population (a hypothesis that it is
virtually automatic with enough time and energy to get a ROI) while the
right aims for exploitation of predictable, finite, or controlled
resources (petroleum, slaves / minimum wage employees, etc.).

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

On 01/09/2014 02:34 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> [...]
> but most card-carrying Libertarians *would* risk personally assasinating
> an innocent person or being party to a lynchmob who did the same... and
> *that* is why I can't "hang" with them.   Revenge might be sweet, but it
> is not Justice and often lowers everyone to the lowest level.

Yep.  What I suppose I always misunderstood when I did actively call
myself libertarian was which societal mechanisms [sh|c]ould be
facilitated by government.  I've always agreed government should be
precise, accurate, delicate, and sophisticated (read "small" if you
don't like those words).  But the violent, ham-handed, and cruel
"libertarians" seemed to come out of the woodwork sometime during W's
administration.  Or perhaps I changed and that's just when I noticed them.

> I suppose I just talked myself right up my own tailpipe here (as if
> *that* never happens) and realized that I'm really not interested in
> politics except for the way it tweaks my morbid fascination...
>
> I'm truly more interested in community and what motivates people, and
> what makes life worth living...

But isn't that what politics _should_ be?

--
⇒⇐ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Nick Thompson]

Marcus,

I am too cheap to go behind the paywall, and so do not know how to evaluate
the paper, since I have no idea how they judged Liberal vs Conservative.
I am "conservative" because I am inclined to slow the pace of economic
development and hold social and political values of a philosopher who went
out of vogue 50 years ago?  Not sure how a Luddite becomes a Liberal.  

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus G.
Daniels
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:00 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] "rational"

On 1/9/14, 12:52 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Certainly, I believe that *both* extrema of the left/right continua
> would insist that the *other* extrema is *irrational*, and being
> extremists, possibly *everyone* left/right of their position as well.
If the answer is "yes" or "no", those on the right will do well. ;-)

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n10/full/nn1979.html

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Nick Thompson]

Glen wrote:

"He who has the gold rules"

Yeah.  I can't go along with that.  

I wonder how you and I might have an rational discussion of our difference?  But then come to think of it, why would a libertarian WANT to have a rational discussion with somebody he disagrees with?  That's not a rhetorical question.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:19 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] right vs left

On 01/09/2014 11:52 AM, Steve Smith wrote:

> On 01/08/2014 06:56 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't be wonderful if one of the right wingers on the list would
>> agree to explore the foundations of this value difference.
>>
>
> I would say that many liberals would be willing to risk a few
> murderers and rapists be left on the loose to avoid hanging even *one*
> innocent person, while most conservatives (and libertarians?) would be
> willing to risk hanging a few  innocent persons (as long as they don't
> look too much like themselves) to avoid allowing anyone to go
> unpunished for their sins.

The conversation will remain hopelessly befuddled as long as nobody makes an effort to define "right" vs. "left".  Roger tried to do so in his Altemeyer posts.  And I tried a different one in my Ukraine vs. US parties post awhile back.  But those are incomplete efforts.

For example, if we define "right" to mean no intentional market design/interference and "left" as government designed markets, then we're lead to some answers to these questions.  But if we define "right"
to mean status quo inertia and "left" to mean something like "change for the sake of change", then we're lead to different answers.

From my perspective (as a libertarian who can't call himself libertarian anymore because that word has been hijacked by morons), no libertarian would ever risk a government sponsored hanging of an innocent person.
We libertarians would much rather all criminals were set free to be handled by the implicit, systemic checks and balances of an undesigned society.  In other words, if they're really a bad person, then they'll eventually have a run-in with another person who decides they're an
@ssh0l3 and simply kills the jerk.

I tend to think there's quite a bit of affinity with this perspective amongst most "right" leaning people I know, as well, even if they're not libertarian ... hence the tendency to cling to our guns (the means for implicit checks and balances) and religion (the justification for those checks and balances).  "Of course, Jesus would want me to shoot that guy."

From a different perspective, actual libertarians are completely willing to admit that life isn't fair.  Plenty of people who earned stuff failed to retain that stuff or were never properly rewarded for their efforts.
 That's just how it all works!  You not only have to be creative and _useful_.  You also have to be willing to kick @ss and TAKE your share ... even if you sometimes take too much or too little.

So, based on these two scenarios, I think it's safe to assume that libertarians (as I define the term) don't even play this "fair play"
game.  That aphorism is meaningless to us.  A better aphorism is "He who has the gold rules."

--
⇒⇐ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

On 01/09/2014 04:34 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I wonder how you and I might have an rational discussion of our difference?  But then come to think of it, why would a libertarian WANT to have a rational discussion with somebody he disagrees with?  That's not a rhetorical question.

A libertarian is interested in specific, accurate, fine-grained
government, not too much, not too little.  In order to know
where/when/why government is appropriate, the libertarian _must_ engage
in rational discourse (as well as well designed experimentation).  If he
doesn't, then he's not a libertarian.

--
⇒⇐ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 1/9/14, 5:34 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Glen wrote:
>
> "He who has the gold rules"
>
> Yeah.  I can't go along with that.
>
> I wonder how you and I might have an rational discussion of our difference?
Is Glen's quote above his belief ("He who has the gold _ought_ to rule")
or an proposition he is making about who ends up ruling in practice (and
thus what any individual must be prepared to do to cope with that)?  
First clarify that.  The former could be unpacked and the latter could
checked (e.g. from recent history).  You have to at least entertain that
after several rounds of that you may find out you've hit an impasse in
your two preferences about how the world ought to be.   Then the only
rational thing is negotiation. The consequences of irresponsibly not
acknowledging the other individual or group's political power.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

On 01/09/2014 05:01 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:

> On 1/9/14, 5:34 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> Glen wrote:
>>
>> "He who has the gold rules"
>>
>> Yeah.  I can't go along with that.
>>
>> I wonder how you and I might have an rational discussion of our
>> difference?
> Is Glen's quote above his belief ("He who has the gold _ought_ to rule")
> or an proposition he is making about who ends up ruling in practice (and
> thus what any individual must be prepared to do to cope with that)?  
> First clarify that.

It definitely _is_ that way, at least as far as the data I've seen.
Whether it ought to be that way is a bit of a tricky question.  I can
split it again: Is it necessary that rich people rule the world?  And
what would the world look like if it were not ruled by rich people?

I can't answer either of those questions.  A little simulation and a few
experiments might help, though.  We do have some experiments like the
dictator game and such.  If every practical/feasible initial situation
evolved back to a state where rich people rule the world, then it would
be idealistic (silly) of me to claim a counter factual _ought_ to obtain.

If it turns out to be necessarily the case that rich people rule the
world, then more refined questions would revolve around how to govern
the behavior of the rich people.  For example, perhaps the more rich
people there are, the more variety we'll have in the rules they set.  If
that were the case, then we'd want to create as many rich people as
possible so as to maximize the freedom and capabilities of everyone,
rich and poor.

--
⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella
Oh revival


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Glen, my good friend -

>> [...]
>> but most card-carrying Libertarians *would* risk personally assasinating
>> an innocent person or being party to a lynchmob who did the same... and
>> *that* is why I can't "hang" with them.   Revenge might be sweet, but it
>> is not Justice and often lowers everyone to the lowest level.
> Yep.  What I suppose I always misunderstood when I did actively call
> myself libertarian was which societal mechanisms [sh|c]ould be
> facilitated by government.  I've always agreed government should be
> precise, accurate, delicate, and sophisticated (read "small" if you
> don't like those words).  But the violent, ham-handed, and cruel
> "libertarians" seemed to come out of the woodwork sometime during W's
> administration.  Or perhaps I changed and that's just when I noticed them.

I noticed it about the time I grew fully into my own Anarcho-Libertarian
self...  I realized that most of the hosers who wanted to take the same
label (presumed they OWNED the label) were not just hosers but posers.

It may be more about coming to a certain level of "maturity"?   Like
when you learn a new word and suddenly you hear it *everywhere*! Once
you recognize a fallacy in an ideology, the solid fabric sometimes
becomes a tattered fabric.
>> I suppose I just talked myself right up my own tailpipe here (as if
>> *that* never happens) and realized that I'm really not interested in
>> politics except for the way it tweaks my morbid fascination...
>>
>> I'm truly more interested in community and what motivates people, and
>> what makes life worth living...
> But isn't that what politics _should_ be?
Well, maybe...  which is probably why I keep getting dragged back into
political discussions, because I think it is going to be about what it
_should_ be, not about what it has degenerated to or been replaced by or
parodied by?

I want leaders who are statesmen, not politicians, so I suppose that
means I am interested in statesmanship and leadership not politics?

In any case, I really appreciate the way you read right through all my
blabbering here and find the nut of the issue so easily.

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Glen/Marcus/Nick sed:

"He who has the gold rules"

Yeah.  I can't go along with that.

I wonder how you and I might have an rational discussion of our difference?

Is Glen's quote above his belief ("He who has the gold _ought_ to rule") or an proposition he is making about who ends up ruling in practice (and thus what any individual must be prepared to do to cope with that)?

"he who has the gold rules"
"he who has the gould ought to rule"
"in practice, he who has the gold rules"

and I riposte

"he who has the gold rules those who value gold"

Which suggests for me the negative space vaguely outlined by:

She who commands loyalty can lead those who can offer loyalty.
She who develops, cogent, compelling arguments can convince those who are rational to support her cause.
She who speaks from the heart will be heard by those who hear from the heart.

Gold is extremely useful for a few things, sadly many mistake it's rarity for value, and we build a consensual reality around it's "value".  

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Nick Thompson]

Ok.  Great.  Where would you like to start?

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 5:41 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left

On 01/09/2014 04:34 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I wonder how you and I might have an rational discussion of our difference?  But then come to think of it, why would a libertarian WANT to have a rational discussion with somebody he disagrees with?  That's not a rhetorical question.

A libertarian is interested in specific, accurate, fine-grained government, not too much, not too little.  In order to know where/when/why government is appropriate, the libertarian _must_ engage in rational discourse (as well as well designed experimentation).  If he doesn't, then he's not a libertarian.

--
⇒⇐ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com