Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

We can now see that the Central State faces an impossible contradiction: to pursue its primary purpose of protecting the citizenry from predation, it is granted powers that enable it to evade its own self-limiting mechanisms

This idea has been argued and expounded by the continental theorist Giorgio Agamben in his book Homo Sacer where he describes his idea of the "State of Exception." An excerpt from a lecture Agamben gave on this concept is here: http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-a...-of-exception/

I liked that article a lot, although the criticism levied at centralized governmental systems (i.e. that they perceive anything external to them as a risk and thus are propelled toward expansion as an inherent feature) can also be levied at practically any "self-sustaining" system or theory. The very point of a total, enclosed process of theory or action is to provide an explanation for the phenomena that challenge it. In this way, philosophers and politicians alike gravitate toward rationalization and justification in order to make their theories work.

[Overwatch]

Originally Posted by Einherjar86

This idea has been argued and expounded by the continental theorist Giorgio Agamben in his book Homo Sacer where he describes his idea of the "State of Exception." An excerpt from a lecture Agamben gave on this concept is here: http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-a...-of-exception/

I liked that article a lot, although the criticism levied at centralized governmental systems (i.e. that they perceive anything external to them as a risk and thus are propelled toward expansion as an inherent feature) can also be levied at practically any "self-sustaining" system or theory. The very point of a total, enclosed process of theory or action is to provide an explanation for the phenomena that challenge it. In this way, philosophers and politicians alike gravitate toward rationalization and justification in order to make their theories work.

Thanks for the link. I don't know if you read my articles in UVM, but I agree with the assertion in that lecture that essentially the culmination of politics is violence. Politics is violence.

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Thanks for the plug.

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y...ature=youtu.be

I thought it was hilarious that TED tried to hide this crap

[Overwatch]

Either an idiot or a liar. Or both.

I should find a chart showing all the famous deaths on full moons, exclude all other possible data, and then give a talk about how famous people are obviously deathly allergic to full moons, replete with the charts showing the "obvious" connection.

[Einherjar86]

I think he likes saying "systematic feedback loop."

[Einherjar86]

To talk about this a bit more, TED itself is a money-making machine; it charges its subscribers something like $1000 per year. I always face a certain internal conflict when confronted by institutions like TED or the Singularity University, and similar programs.

On the one hand, I love the fact that there are institutions devoted to scientific and technological development, and the absolution of potential global catastrophes.

On the other hand, it frustrates me that such institutions only serve to widen the gap of intellectual segregation. The knowledge and information they deal in adopts an esoteric and elite status because it's reserved for the minority that can afford it. Thus, in contradiction to their proposed goals, they're actually perpetuating global inequality and mass ignorance by isolating new developments and information to an elite and erudite few.

That said, with technology continuing to develop the way it is, another internal contradiction arises: even while private institutions like this attempt to socially and financially isolate their advancements, they're also contributing to the vastly expanding field of technology and electronics that is simultaneously enabling the free and unchecked spread of ideas. So that's good, I guess.

And in other news, has everyone seen this fucking gem?

You Tube

Ya'll oughta be a-gen it!

[Overwatch]

Originally Posted by Einherjar86

To talk about this a bit more, TED itself is a money-making machine; it charges its subscribers something like $1000 per year. I always face a certain internal conflict when confronted by institutions like TED or the Singularity University, and similar programs.

On the one hand, I love the fact that there are institutions devoted to scientific and technological development, and the absolution of potential global catastrophes.

On the other hand, it frustrates me that such institutions only serve to widen the gap of intellectual segregation. The knowledge and information they deal in adopts an esoteric and elite status because it's reserved for the minority that can afford it. Thus, in contradiction to their proposed goals, they're actually perpetuating global inequality and mass ignorance by isolating new developments and information to an elite and erudite few.

That said, with technology continuing to develop the way it is, another internal contradiction arises: even while private institutions like this attempt to socially and financially isolate their advancements, they're also contributing to the vastly expanding field of technology and electronics that is simultaneously enabling the free and unchecked spread of ideas. So that's good, I guess.

At one point, only rich people could own cars. Only rich people could own (Car) wireless phones, computers, etc.

In a free market, "early adopters" are pretty much always going to be the rich, and then as money flows in, markets expand, competitors come in, cost is driven down on scale and competition, and eventually it is available to the masses in ways that only years before even the rich didn't have access too. (Look at smart phones for instance).

However, once an item is mandated for everyone, it generally ceases innovation, for there is no longer need for market expansion or competition.

The problem comes in when the ability to fail/succeed is removed. Then you wind up with permanent classes/underclasses, and the knowledge/skill divide becomes exacerbated and endemic.

[Overwatch]

Charting Fun with Krugman

[Einherjar86]

Originally Posted by Overwatch

At one point, only rich people could own cars. Only rich people could own (Car) wireless phones, computers, etc.

In a free market, "early adopters" are pretty much always going to be the rich, and then as money flows in, markets expand, competitors come in, cost is driven down on scale and competition, and eventually it is available to the masses in ways that only years before even the rich didn't have access too. (Look at smart phones for instance).

However, once an item is mandated for everyone, it generally ceases innovation, for there is no longer need for market expansion or competition.

The problem comes in when the ability to fail/succeed is removed. Then you wind up with permanent classes/underclasses, and the knowledge/skill divide becomes exacerbated and endemic.

It's not so much the object-commodity that I'm concerned with as it is the idea-commodity; these institutions aren't prohibiting access to tools or mechanical instruments, they're prohibiting access to information and new ideas.

[Overwatch]

Originally Posted by Einherjar86

It's not so much the object-commodity that I'm concerned with as it is the idea-commodity; these institutions aren't prohibiting access to tools or mechanical instruments, they're prohibiting access to information and new ideas.

In a copyright/IP sense or merely restricting access to the symposium video/attendence?

Ideas should be free, events are different. It does cost money to put on events.

[Overwatch]

Originally Posted by Overwatch

Charting Fun with Krugman

http://bastiat.mises.org/2012/05/2-9...or-bob-murphy/

A follow up on the Misesian blog.

[Einherjar86]

Originally Posted by Overwatch

In a copyright/IP sense or merely restricting access to the symposium video/attendence?

Ideas should be free, events are different. It does cost money to put on events.

My issue is with the information itself rather than the events. Unfortunately, these institutions try and restrict their ideas to the space they dictate for their events.

[Overwatch]

Originally Posted by Einherjar86

Unfortunately, these institutions try and restrict their ideas to the space they dictate for their events.

Therein lies the problem.

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I've been reading Jean-Jacques Rousseau lately.

I'm paraphrasing - Man in a "state of nature" is fundamentally good. When the idea of private property developed, society had to develop a system to protect it.These laws bind people in unjust ways. This system evolved as laws imposed by those with property onto those without property. Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains.

[Overwatch]

I know it's somewhat disputed, but this is nothing more than The Noble Savage myth (and this probably should be in a diff thread).

[Ov Wulf]

Edit: Whoops. Wrong thread. Apologies.

[Mathiäs]

Originally Posted by Overwatch

However, once an item is mandated for everyone, it generally ceases innovation, for there is no longer need for market expansion or competition.

Disagree. Consumer demand and desire for profit dictate accessibility to new technology, as well as spur innovation.

[Einherjar86]

Originally Posted by Jimmy... Dead.

I've been reading Jean-Jacques Rousseau lately.

I'm paraphrasing - Man in a "state of nature" is fundamentally good. When the idea of private property developed, society had to develop a system to protect it.These laws bind people in unjust ways. This system evolved as laws imposed by those with property onto those without property. Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains.

Originally Posted by Overwatch

I know it's somewhat disputed, but this is nothing more than The Noble Savage myth (and this probably should be in a diff thread).

I agree with Dak. Furthermore, it's ironic to elevate man in his "natural state" to a kind of ideal goodness, since we had to first develop into a civilized, intellectual, enlightenment-driven culture in order to even acquire the cognitive ability to be able to make that claim in the first place.

The human in its natural state, as Rousseau envisions it, is a fantasy of origins; an obsession with the primordial, pre-legislative state of human beings. Essentially, it's an obsession with the human when it was still an animal, in a kind of symbiotic relationship with the natural world, but yet somehow still in possession of humanitarian virtues and values. It's very much a Romantic conception of the ideal.

[Overwatch]

Originally Posted by Mathiäs

Disagree. Consumer demand and desire for profit dictate accessibility to new technology, as well as spur innovation.

Your disagreement with my statement and your follow-on sentence are at odds.

"Consumer demand and desire for profit dictate accessibility to new technology, as well as spur innovation."

This is correct. Consumer demand, or "organic market driven demand", does lead to these ends. Entrepreneurs seek to improve products and services to gain a competitive advantage over competitors and to either gain a large share of an existing market, expand an existing market, or create a new market.

Mandates have the opposite affect, as they shift the focus from customer satisfaction to mandate satisfaction, limit market participation (and thusly competition), and cement the market boundaries. They also divert capital to lobbying/counter lobbying for competition reducing mandates, and to personnel and equipment specifically for ensuring compliance in regulation/ implementation/oversight. When mandates are on product specifications, the incentive for improvement/innovation is removed, since the mandate specifies the form in which a product is satisfactory and must be consumed. When mandates are on ownership (nearly always co-existent with mandates on product specification), the market can neither be expanded nor lost, so incentive to gain market share or retain customers (through providing customer, as opposed to mandate, satisfaction)is removed.

Mandates are, in short, incentives to stagnation in innovation and service, and are contrary to consumer interest by default.

[Overwatch]

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog...ists-eco/6199/

Guess philosophers are now terrorists.

[Einherjar86]

Now? They have been since Socrates.

[Overwatch]

Originally Posted by Einherjar86

Now? They have been since Socrates.

Point.

[Einherjar86]

That is a very interesting article though, I enjoyed reading it (or, I should say, enjoyed becoming infuriated whilst reading it).

I also think that any philosophy worthy of the name should pose a problem for the ruling ideology. Otherwise, what's the point of philosophy?

[Overwatch]

Originally Posted by Einherjar86

That is a very interesting article though, I enjoyed reading it (or, I should say, enjoyed becoming infuriated whilst reading it).

I also think that any philosophy worthy of the name should pose a problem for the ruling ideology. Otherwise, what's the point of philosophy?

Well, "tin-hatters" have been accused of the slippery slope fallacy for while, which I guess could apply, until it doesn't. We are pretty much there as far as bureaucratic bent.

Anyway:

Mises Daily: Property Means Preservation