Discuss libertarianism for the Nth time

[Triple Zero]

I like the idea of evil points, just not in the context of ethics.

I'm guessing evil points express a facet of Bayes theorem.

It's ethical to do what you think is right, yes?  (Moreover to do your honest best to know what is right...)  Evil points help determine it, though you're looking for "do right" as "do least evil".

That's not Bayes, but a sort of utilitarianism.

Bayes is to do with statistics and probability, not ethics.

[Elder Iptuous]

 
Liek this?

also, the words "i agree with Iptuous" made me feel extremely awkward in the context of this board....

[Reginald Ret]

Violence is bad.

Unproven assertion.

It is based on:
I am human.
I don't want to get hurt.
humans are equal until proven monkey.  <- only unproven assertion.

So when a jackass gathers up an army, it's bad to oppose him.

Okay.

woah woah woah i think i haven't made myself clear.
violence is bad, but receiving violence is worse. on account of you or yours getting hurt.

Let's say violence gets you 10 evil points and letting loved ones get hurt gets you 10 violence points, so letting someone use violence against loved ones gives you a 20 point increase in evil while killing the meanies only gives a 10 point increase.

I don't see how the last case gives you any increase.

When the meanies aren't raping and pillaging they are saving orphan puppies and helping old ladies cross the street.
No-one is 100% evil so killing anyone is bad.
It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.

[Elder Iptuous]

It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.

I can get behind that.  it seems corollary to the notion that there is no selfless act, which seems apparent to me.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So, recently I just learned about something called Multi-Level Selection Theory (MLS). Essentially, in transmutation by natural selection, selection acts upon many different nested levels, and NOT just the individual. In the past, group level selection has been so villanized that people would have to be appologetic and make it clear they weren't discussing it.

However, with the advent of Sociobiology, this theory of essentially matryoshki dolls has been tested repeatedly in the laboratory and observed in the field. Group level selection often trumps individual level selection when groups are competing against each other.

Now, humans are a social species, composed of "tribes" or "societies" which compete against one another for resources.

Converging lines of evidence suggest that the key difference between human ancestors and other primate species was the suppression of finess differences within groups, concentrating selection at the group level. Hunter gather societies arefiercely egalitarian. Meat is scrupulously shared; aspiring alpha males are put in their place; and self-serving behaviors are censured. Unable to succeed at each othere's expense, members of hunter-gatherer groups succeed primarily by teamwork.

Selection for teamwork probably began very early in human evolution. Human infants spontaneously point things out to others, and not merely to get what they want, which chimpanzees do not do at any age. Symbolic thought, language and the social transmission of information are fundamentally communal activities that rely on trustworthy social partners. Exploitation, cheating, and free riding do exist in human groups, but what is most remarkable is the degree to which they are suppressed. They loom so large in our thoughts partly be cause we are primed to suppress them, like a well adapted immune system.

Teamwork enabled our ancestors to spread throughout Africa and beyond, replacing all other hominid species along the way. While we remained a single biological species, we diversified culturally to occupy hundreds of ecological niches, harvesting of everything from seeds to whales. The invention of agriculture added new layers to the biological hierarchy. We now live in groups of groups of groups.

When we confront the panorama of human genetic and cultural evolution, are we permitted to think about adaptations as being "for the good of the group:? As soon as we employ the Russian-doll logic of MLS theory, the answer becomes unambiguously yes. The idea that within-group selection [ed: selection at the individual level] invariably trumps between group selection is as absurd for ourselves as it is for the eusocial insects.

Emphasis mine.

In other words, this so called libertarian perspective with everyone out for themselves has no support in sociobiology, in fact, it's the opposite. Cooperation is what's allowed humans to survive and flourish, NOT "the strongest individual wins". Egalitarian traits are favored (and they still are in this society, or we wouldn't have any laws against exploitation, cheating or free riding) and the cheaters can only exist at a low level; otherwise, the whole tribe falls to bits. Societies with higher cooperation survive against those that Darwin was forced to refer to as "savages and barbarians", due to his time and place.

There is no support in the evolution of humans for any goodness associated with everyone for themselves "free market economics". Due to the history of humanity, group level selection has lead to egalitarian traits being favored, evolutionary rational for TREATING PEOPLE WITH FUCKING RESPECT.

If there's support in anthropology and human biogeography for any sort of governing style, I am forced to conclude it would be a socialism with a strict honour code and harsh punishments for "cheaters" of any kind.

I think there's a bit of confusion here about 'libertarian' views on society.

Libertarian philosophy, like various anarchy philosophies doesn't claim, recommend or require "Every Man For Himself". That is what stupid monkeys claim when they watch too much Faux Noose and think that Libertarian is a cool word. The core argument of Libertarian and Anarchy philosophies is NOT  Humans should not be social, but rather humans should not be forced to behave socially without making the choice for themselves.

Libertarian philosophy at its core says that the Government should be responsible for National Defense, Interstate Commerce and Constitutional Law. Everything else should be up to the discretion of the individual. However, most libertarian philosophy promotes the concept of helping your society, they just want it to be voluntary so that they only help those that they want to help.

Various anarchy systems like anarcho-communism, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-syndaclism, not only reject the concept of compulsory government entirely, but also the concepts of capitalism, property ownership and other concepts that are considered restrictive to freedom. If any of these systems were implemented they would act to support the social group... but it would do so out of a sense of working together for survival, rather than being forced to fork over a percentage of income to a government that will do things with the money that the individual may not support (like paying for Missile Defense Systems, or Blackwater Goons).

[Doktor Howl]

When the meanies aren't raping and pillaging they are saving orphan puppies and helping old ladies cross the street.
No-one is 100% evil so killing anyone is bad.
It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.

So your position is that Nazis weren't actually bad guys.

And Saint Francis of Assisi wasn't a good guy.

Nihilism.  Gotcha.

[Doktor Howl]

It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.

I can get behind that.  it seems corollary to the notion that there is no selfless act, which seems apparent to me.

Jesus.  What a dismal world view.

[Elder Iptuous]

It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.

I can get behind that.  it seems corollary to the notion that there is no selfless act, which seems apparent to me.

Jesus.  What a dismal world view.

meh.  it only seems dismal from your pov.... i consider myself quite an optimist and am generally happy, actually.

[Template]

I like the idea of evil points, just not in the context of ethics.

I'm guessing evil points express a facet of Bayes theorem.

It's ethical to do what you think is right, yes?  (Moreover to do your honest best to know what is right...)  Evil points help determine it, though you're looking for "do right" as "do least evil".

That's not Bayes, but a sort of utilitarianism.

Bayes is to do with statistics and probability, not ethics.

OK, then...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_matrix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision-matrix_method

[Cramulus]

When the meanies aren't raping and pillaging they are saving orphan puppies and helping old ladies cross the street.
No-one is 100% evil so killing anyone is bad.
It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.

So your position is that Nazis weren't actually bad guys.

And Saint Francis of Assisi wasn't a good guy.

Nihilism.  Gotcha.

a lack of belief in social constructs like good and evil =/= nihilism

[Doktor Howl]

When the meanies aren't raping and pillaging they are saving orphan puppies and helping old ladies cross the street.
No-one is 100% evil so killing anyone is bad.
It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.

So your position is that Nazis weren't actually bad guys.

And Saint Francis of Assisi wasn't a good guy.

Nihilism.  Gotcha.

a lack of belief in social constructs like good and evil =/= nihilism

Oh?  Then what does?

[Cramulus]

are you asking me what nihilism is?

It sounds like Regret is saying he doesn't believe in absolute truths. He says that he believes in evilness as a concept, and that people can be evil to a certain extent. That sounds different from nihilism, which suggests we should throw out all meaning.

I know that doesn't translate into Roger Prime very well. 

[Iason Ouabache]

When the meanies aren't raping and pillaging they are saving orphan puppies and helping old ladies cross the street.
No-one is 100% evil so killing anyone is bad.
It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.

So your position is that Nazis weren't actually bad guys.

And Saint Francis of Assisi wasn't a good guy.

Nihilism.  Gotcha.

I think he's more saying that Hitler was nice to his dogs.

[Doktor Howl]

When the meanies aren't raping and pillaging they are saving orphan puppies and helping old ladies cross the street.
No-one is 100% evil so killing anyone is bad.
It is all part of my theory: there is only evil, less evil and lack of evil. The idea of good is a mindcontrol technique used by evil people.

So your position is that Nazis weren't actually bad guys.

And Saint Francis of Assisi wasn't a good guy.

Nihilism.  Gotcha.

I think he's more saying that Hitler was nice to his dogs.

Which makes up for a few million murdered.  Oh, wait, no it doesn't.  Hitler's behavior towards his dogs was irrelevant.

[Doktor Howl]

are you asking me what nihilism is?

It sounds like Regret is saying he doesn't believe in absolute truths. He says that he believes in evilness as a concept, and that people can be evil to a certain extent. That sounds different from nihilism, which suggests we should throw out all meaning.

I know that doesn't translate into Roger Prime very well. 

"If you can't explain it to a doped up Roger, you don't understand it."
- Albert Einstein.