Nice attempted pigeonhole. Nah, Freethinker, seeking of knowledge is more like what I am. I am trying to be able to shift from premise to premise, basis to basis and see the pro/con distributions and Nash equilibria of the various theories and visions. /stephen
Good for you, I am very glad to hear it......always keep an open mind..... think "contrary" on principle.... all four (or more) poles of every question, I say..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium Nash equilibrium... sounds like something an MBA might learn.... are you an MBA, stephen?... (HAR).....it's got nothing on my nominal9 thematic dialectic logic (HAR).... On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:34:49 PM UTC-4, stephenk wrote: > > Hi Nom, > > Nice attempted pigeonhole. Nah, Freethinker, seeking of knowledge > is > more like what I am. I am trying to be able to shift from premise to > premise, basis to basis and see the pro/con distributions and Nash > equilibria of the various theories and visions. > > > On 3/13/2013 12:02 PM, nominal9 wrote: > > Is Stephen a Libertarian?.... maybe a slightly confused one.... that's > my > > hope, anyway (I wouldn't wish that confused morality on any person).... > > The Libertarian standard -bearers in the U.S. are pretty much the > > Paul-s.... Ron (father) and Rand (son)..... both politicians. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul > > Their ideology is basically "fascist".... which is to say.... > Totalitarian > > / Capitalist.....They make quite a show of being for "freedom" in most > > things economic (and social-societal, as long as it deals with > > economics).... problem is that their "freedom" is actually "license"... > > which is to say, the license of the "criminal" to rape, plunder and > steal > > the goods or labours, property, etc. of others....That's my take on > > it.....Actual "civil" or "human rights" freedoms of the person....I.E., > > anti-discrimination, freedoms of association, voting, access & equal > > protection of the laws, etc.... don't seem to concern Libertarains much > if > > at all.... their main concern is to promote the Tenth Amendment of the > U.S. > > Constitution, asserting the sovereign rights of the individual states > > against the federal government.... > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution > > > But the reason that Libertarians assert their preference for Tenth > > Amendment principles is due to the "Conservative" opposition that the > > Libertarians harbor against many federal measures (laws and practices) > that > > actually expanded the civil and human rights and privileges of the > > individual.... Libertarians want to establish "local state" control so > that > > they can, instead, enact and pursue more restrictive laws and practices > > against some of their "lower class " or less economically advantaged > local > > citizens.....like I said.... totalitarian ("license")... not actual > > "liberty".... > > > > Totalitarian / Capitalism.......Democratic / Socialism > > > > > > Totalitarian / Socialism........Democratic / Capitalism > > > > > > That's an "old" thematic "square" opposition that I've rendered often > > enough... I put it up again, so that Stephen can view it, if he hasn't > > already...... > > I present the issue as one of "fact" or "oppositional" accuracy to you > > Stephen.... is there anything that you disagree with in my comments, > above? > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:36:40 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > >> > >> Zerohedge is more generally libertarian than the water I'd want to > >> swim,but it interesting that right/left critique has come together in > >> recent years. I'm not a traditional leftie really. Most scientists > >> have trouble swallowing GOP/Tory crap - in fact it seems a scientific > >> education produces liberals (PEW poll 2009) - I'm after more data on > >> this if anyone has any. > >> > >> Business and economic offerings in universities (I taught such) are > >> ideological of the neo-con, neo-liberal, neo-classical form - in short > >> dross. There is no science in it i can detect other than the > >> ideological form the Critical Theorists whine on about - message > >> understood, but they conflate science and its use in such ideology. > >> On a personal basis I see the problems as so severe that I refuse to > >> teach the muck and keep wolves from the door assessing apprenticeships > >> and qualifications that don't involve heaping massive debt on students > >> - the average debt burden on a new graduate is more or less what's > >> left on my mortgage. > >> > >> I think Stephen is right in that we need better understandings on how > >> wealth is created, distributed and how money usurps democracy. The > >> guy credited with the first full-blown treatise on economics is > >> Cantillon (these days the Cantillon effect is about how new money > >> sticks mostly to those with first access to it - these days very much > >> with the financiers - his example was with gold mining). Adam Smith's > >> economics was moral and he worried that the rich were very good at > >> convincing the rest of us their notions and interests were those of us > >> all - today (over simplifying) the 'neo-position'. My view is this is > >> a control fraud. > >> > >> I saw Soviet Paradise fairly first hand - though I always had a ticket > >> out. I didn't meet anyone there who really believed the dominant > >> ideology - though I generally mixed with very well educated people. > >> Here, I rarely meet anyone who knows how money is created, > >> corporations do accounting or how we rip off the third world and > >> incorporate criminal and other hot money through the banks. > >> > >> I'd extend what we need to know better into foreign policy, the role > >> of money in politics and what the planet can sustain. The trouble we > >> have is there is almost nowhere to start because there is a ready-to- > >> hand world that prevents us asking the basic questions. I'll be out > >> next week getting the work that keeps me going. I know (more or less) > >> what's going on in economics, but this butters no parsnips. Budding > >> business people don't want to know - they make do with the profit and > >> loss, balance sheet, cash flow and tax returns we could call book- > >> keeping. Beyond this I'd say the system is ideological and > >> crimogenic - key elements concern swindling tax and profit by various > >> looting procedures we call 'transfer pricing'. Hard to know where to > >> start explaining how we can harness decent business practice - even I > >> claim the same car against my own and my partner's tax. > >> > >> On Mar 12, 3:10 am, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net> wrote: > >>> On 3/11/2013 12:03 PM, nominal9 wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> I'd like to go off on a tangent... a little.... > >>>> I've known and met some actual "creators"....some and not all tend to > >> be > >>>> very focused in their fields, they do their research and come up with > >> some > >>>> innovation, that their "creative ethic" wants leads them to divulge > to > >>>> their expertise professional peers for the advancement of > >> "knowledge".... > >>>> yes, in my opinion, many of these "creators" are genuinely motivated > >> by the > >>>> altruistic goal of advancing knowledge (at least at first) then the " > >>>> Product Development" folks get involved... patents.... leading to > >>>> production plans sales and so no.... Most often, at the later stages > >> is > >>>> when the so-called entrepreneurs get involved... and they are most > >> often > >>>> people other than the actual original "creators".....the altruistic > >> impulse > >>>> of advancing and sharing knowledge (for the betterment of all) is > >> subverted > >>>> and diverted by the "entrepreneurs, Capitalists and the MBAs.... > >> looking to > >>>> extract the maximum amount of profit at every stage from their > >> business > >>>> venture.....Archytas can probably speak better and more in detail > >> about > >>>> this than I can.... but stephen.... that's my main point.....the > >> actual > >>>> creation and even the "working parts" of a business venture are not > >> what I > >>>> object to.... at that level it can be beneficial to all.... it is the > >>>> others.. the middle men and on who work their "profit-making" games > at > >>>> every possible stage of the actual "sale" or "business exchange" > level > >> that > >>>> I'm very wary about.... > >>>> I think that is what Archytas knows.... the actual "products and > >> services" > >>>> in and of themselves are not the problem.... they are available in > >>>> abundance for all.... maybe even overabundance (including the new > >> ideas > >>>> part).... the trouble lies with those who then speculate on and choke > >> the > >>>> distribution of the "hoarded" supply of those products and > >> services.... etc. > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I am here for advice. I am swimming in deep waters. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2013 7:11:42 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > >>> > >>>>> have to say most of the people I see claiming to be risk takers > >>>>> clearly are not. It may seem glib to ask how you can tell the > >>>>> difference between a risk taker and a moron but I'd argue this gets > >> to > >>>>> the root of a big lie about risk. > >>>>> I tend to look at why humans organise so badly before thinking about > >>>>> leadership and risk-taking. I'm a long way from convinced anyone is > >>>>> much good at either. I'm also concerned on how long we have to keep > >>>>> rewarding inventors with rents (in the sense of economic rents or > >>>>> tolls). Windows should be free by now - a utility - but this is > only > >>>>> one example. I suspect big companies and banks actually prevent a > >> lot > >>>>> of creativity and would be better run as utilities until we don't > >> need > >>>>> them. > >>> > >>>>> But we have nearly all economics upside down. The first question > >>>>> should be about what the planet can maintain. Economics seems to > >> deny > >>>>> that we can organise decent, better ways of living rationally and > >> have > >>>>> instead to rely on entrepreneurs, charismatics and other vapours in > a > >>>>> system that rather fortunately keeps the rich richer and makes them > >>>>> richer. Jurgen Habermas wrote an interesting critique of this in > >> 1970 > >>>>> called 'Technology as ideology' - but all we really lack is a true > >>>>> accounting system for what is going on. The rich need the > motivation > >>>>> of something they already have (money) but workers can put up with > >>>>> wages declining in respect of productivity. And no one seems to > >>>>> think, as we approach robot heaven (admittedly not yet available on > >>>>> Earth - but we are approaching this) we might need new work and > >>>>> distributive ethics? What place in a world where robots could do > all > >>>>> the work would there be for current half-wits who laud hard work as > >>>>> necessary to success? > >>> > >>>>> On 7 Mar, 16:19, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Hello stephenk..... you can be contrarian... I don't object.... you > >> can > >>>>>> speak your mind in any way, it's your (everyone's) right that I > >> never > >>>>>> contest.... besides, you seem to be a "good" person, too..... > >>>>>> I guess, in one sense, it gets to be a matter of semantics or > >>>>>> definition.... "entrepreneur".... as distinguished from, > >> say...maybe.... > >>>>>> venture capitalist....I don't mind the actual "creator" of > >> something, > >>>>>> object (product) or business (service), etc...but those that just > >> "game" > >>>>>> the system.... they are just parasites that often wind up killing > >> the > >>>>>> host.... I opine... > >>> > >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneur > >>> > >>>>>> http://anthillonline.com/the-entrepreneur-vs-venture-capitalist-2/ > >>> > >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor > >>> > >>>>>> On Thursday, March 7, 2013 10:49:23 AM UTC-5, stephenk wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>> On 3/7/2013 10:30 AM, nominal9 wrote: > >>>>>>>> I go with the "sequestrate their assets" part... but the letting > >>>>> them > >>>>>>>> go part I'm against... As "entrepreneurs", such people would just > >>>>>>>> "steal" their way back up to wealth, without actually creating > >>>>>>>> anything beneficial for any economy, like jobs or even "products" > >> to > >>>>>>>> speak of..... > >>> > >>>>>>> Hi Nom, > >>> > >>>>>>> Not to be merely contrarian, but how is *wealth* created in > >> your > >>>>>>> theory of the world? Does "risk" exist in any positive sense in > >> your > >>>>>>> model? I would like to understand your thoughts. If there is a way > >> to > >>>>>>> define wealth creation that is not, in some way, a form of > >>>>> exploitation > >>>>>>> of one entity of another, please explain. > >>>>>>> Can entrepreneurship be a mutually beneficial process of > >> wealth > >>>>>>> generation to and for all involved in a way that does not require > >>>>>>> top-down controls? I think it can... > >>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Onward! > >>> > >>>>>>> Stephen > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Onward! > >>> > >>> Stephen > >> > > > > > -- > Onward! > > Stephen > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
