There is a basic intelligence test that occurs when someone points to the “Industrial Revolution” as an example of “Capitalism” run amok (I will also throw in today’s “sweat shops” also into the same realm of logical fallacy). They like to emphasize the Robber Barons, Child Labor, working conditions, soot, and other things, that when compared to today’s standard of living, seem criminal.
I will admit that I was once of the same mindset being brainwashed by the public education system, but I think I would’ve quickly realized my fallacious thinking had someone pointed it out to me.
The problems with the critiques against the “Industrial Revolution” is that it doesn’t properly compare conditions. The comparison should not be against the conditions of our comforts here in the United States in 2016, but should be compared against the actual, local conditions at the time in question, and those that preceded it.
Upon that view, it will become clear that the poorer working conditions of the Industrial Revolution (when compared to average working conditions and standard of living in the United States in the present) are actually SUPERIOR working conditions (when compared to average working conditions and standard of living in the locality of the specific time). And when you consider the incredible increase in the standard of living IN THANKS TO “Capitalism,” you really have to wonder if the “better alternative” really can be any “better.” It’s not to say that “Capitalism” doesn’t have its weaknesses, for which there exist. It’s all about perspective since life is all about trade-offs thanks to the scarcity of resources and time.
WARNING: this video presents the information with a level of mockery / sarcasm that’s not intended for those who fail to grasp this common logical fallacy. But if you don’t grasp basic logic, then you probably aren’t reading my posts anyway.
57.2% Total Income Tax over $406,751 while living in California.
Bernie Sanders believes I’m still not paying my “fair share.”
The 2015 tax year was the first time I’ve reached this threshold. The angry electorate are envious of the hard work invested by my Korean-immigrant parents and me resulting in annual profits over an arbitrary threshold. Now, I’m simply living in “excess.” For the crime of my success, the State will now reward me by coercing more than half of all future income.
At this point, “Politics” is a matter of self-defense and moral indignation. I will not stay silent and see my remaining 40 years of working life “redistributed” to other people’s “free” health care, tuition, welfare, and other “entitlements” via the wasteful, bureaucratic Mafia we call “the welfare State.”
If you disagree, please write in the comments exactly how my immigrant parents and I “owe” the rest of “society” for our success (AKA “Social Contract”). Also, please specify how we didn’t “earn” the success we have today (AKA “Labor Theory of Value” definition of “Exploitation”). Please also specify all the great benefits we received from the State for which we have not already paid for, therefore creating a moral obligation on us to the State to more than half of all future income (or higher if the Progressives have their way).
In the “bottom trawling” crusade of Bernie Sanders against “greed” and “capitalism,” you will find caught in the “net of State coercion and violence” those who practice “clean” Capitalism. Yes, I decry Wall Street bailouts, Corporate welfare, the military-industrial complex, the drug war, and all other forms of “crony capitalism” on the grounds of violating the “Non-Aggression Principle.” You are misguided if you believe punishing successful small business, immigrant owners in your crusade can be considered “justice.”
The reality of what you are advocating for is the use of violence and coercion against immigrant business owners. You may want to reconsider the moral “high ground” you believe you stand on.
The US dollar has nothing backing it except the full weight and might of State coercion and violence. Look beyond the coercion and violence, and all you see are the printing presses on worthless paper.
What a strange illusion we all live in today that rests solely on the restraint of the State from printing itself out of existence.
At some point there has to be a reckoning in which fiat currencies collectively collapse, and hopefully we go back to the gold standard? Or even better, allow “money” to be commoditized on the free market to prevent abuse inherent in monopolized currencies.
For a “heavy hitter” philosophical debate, see below. But probably worthless to most people since the Utilitarian argument against spanking is overwhelming anti-spanking.
Kids don’t have the same rights as a fully functional adult. The question is whether kids have more or less rights than a fully functional adult.
Even full grown adults, when they have dementia, or a severe mental illness, cannot be seen to have the same rights of a fully functional adult since they do not have either physical/mental capabilities to act competently.
There doesn’t seem to be a clear line between what defines a “child” and what defines someone with a debilitating mental illness. So it’s possibly more like a continuum. For example, if I’m physically preventing my child (which would be initiating violence) to not touch their penis to the urinal when they are age 3, that’s “protective custody.” But if I’m still doing that when they’re age 13, then that can be seen infringing on the rights of my 13 year old who probably has full cognitive knowledge of what they’re actually doing. Who knows? Maybe it’s their “sexual preference” and they like the cold feeling of porcelain on their junk.
If “full rights” are only given to those deemed competent, and those who fail that standard receive rights that are on a continual scale from that standard, then the next question is who has the authority to measure that?
So, for example, to an “average IQ” person, someone with “Down Syndrome” would have less rights than an average person being in “protective custodian” with Guardianship. But isn’t that all relative? We all operate to some degree of imperfect knowledge. The difference between ourselves and someone who with mental handicap is to the degree by which we have imperfect knowledge. One could argue that the genetic “hardware” of the individual with mental handicap is the measurement, rather than just being willfully ignorant of an average person who doesn’t want to put in resources to gain more knowledge (can be described as a “software” limitation).
But how does one accurately measure whether the lack of knowledge is a “skill” or a “will” issue? Is it a “hardware” or “software” limitation of an individual that so hampers their mental capability requiring them to lose some of their rights and enter “protective custody?”
For children, we would say it’s a “hardware” issue along with those with severe mental handicaps. They simply don’t have the physical capacity and it would be impossible for them to have it unless they have “upgraded” hardware. For children, this “hardware” is gradually improving in its capacity as they age and their brains develop.
But once again, isn’t this all relative? And who will be the authority to determine by what continuum of rights one receives as the “hardware” increases in potential?
Let’s look into the future of a time where the average human now has literal “hardware” implanted in their brain, which we’ll call “augmentation.” Now these Augmentated humans are crazy, super smart with levels of knowledge where they literally have instant access to all of humanity of all time. In addition, they are neurally meshed with all other human beings so that they connect emotionally with all other human beings and can know what they are thinking (I recommend “Nexus” by Ramez Naam to explore this sci-fi world).
To us non-augmented individuals, wouldn’t we see these augmented humans as being almost like demi-gods? Even today, the amount of knowledge I have compared to my father (who doesn’t use the Internet), must seem like I’m some kind of crazy smart person simply because I know how to “Google” things. Any question in the world is at my fingertips. Yes, it takes effort. But compare me, augmented with the tools of “Google Now,” and compare that with my father who has to ask his friends for advice, for which are super old and just as irrelevant as he is. We are all like demi-gods in knowledge compared to those who operated pre-Internet days.
[Let’s take this a step further. Now imagine an Artificial Intelligence with perfect knowledge and instantaneous speeds to process. One second is equivalent to 1000 years of human development. The scope of the potential of AI and the “Singularity” will make even those with Augmentation to seem pitiful and limited.]
Now when it comes to the new “normal” of augmentation, won’t the non-augmented humans be seen as “mentally retarded?” Just as we see today’s “mentally disabled” as needing “protective custody,” won’t there one day be a time when we can declare the necessity of “protective custody” on non-augmented humans? Certainly from the perspective of those with augmentation, those who are non-augmented are clearly “retarded” in terms of “relativity” and “hardware.”
Another look could be aliens who come down to Earth with intelligence so superior to us, that we look like ants to them. To the super aliens, we may not fit their standard of “competence” and we may be considered easily expendable, just as we easily step on ants. Can augmented-humans really be considered “human” anymore? “Augmented” humans with genetic manipulation will seem “alien” to us today.
To those in the future (or super aliens) with much greater “hardware” and mental capacity, wouldn’t they corral all of us human beings on Earth for “our own protection” and put us all in “protective custody?”
Separate thought going back to the AI. Perhaps the AI will realize the greatest threat to human flourishing is the FREEDOM of humans to choose. If the AI has perfect knowledge (and we’re going to assume perfect power as well controlling all the world’s resources), if the AI knows our wants and needs better than we do (and can predict into the future what our needs and wants will be), AND if the AI can fulfill those wants and needs better than we can on our own, then would we, as humans, object to the AI removing our FREEDOM in order to live our life better than us?
We may reject the notion that “other people know how to live our lives better than we do,” but what if you have an outside force that IN FACT does know how to live your life better than you do?
Do humans, in order to be happy, needs to have the FREEDOM to make bad choices? Is the freedom to make bad choices, within itself, a basic component for human happiness?
If given the choice to trust the recommendation of an AI versus doing it “your way” what would you choose if you knew the AI always made the “best” choice?
I tend to follow Google Maps religiously. Before, I wouldn’t always trust it because it would often have errors, but now that it includes traffic in its calculation for the fastest route, I tend to err on the side of the directions. I’ve discovered that when I go a different route than Google Maps, I end up regretting it when I hit the unexpected traffic that Google Maps was trying to have me avoid. My mom and I have this argument all the time driving in Los Angeles with all the freeways. She has the “fastest way” in her mind, but then I’ll tell her that I’m going to defer to the ALL MIGHTY GOOGLE MAPS with its traffic calculations instead.
What if we have a “Google Maps” but exponentially bigger that applies to the “road of life” for which we live? How many times will you have to veer “left” when the “AI of Life” tells you to veer “right”, resulting in regret and the realization you should had followed the AI’s directions?!!!!
Dating decisions? Job decisions? Home purchasing decisions? Who your friends are? etc. etc. the list goes on for the freedoms we have to make bad decisions, for which a Super AI may one day essentially guide us through life.
And then. . . you have the day when the power goes out. Without the Super AI. And now people have no ability to think for themselves since they relied on the Super AI to make ALL their life decisions. Aren’t we already severely hampered when our Internet goes down? Our memory is gone. Our sense of direction is less developed. etc.
Anti-Intellectualism is the prevailing value in today’s discourse on Truth. The question is whether it’s “nature” or “nurture.”
It’s difficult to say considering the “dumbing down” and “group think” that is indoctrinated on our students through the Public School and “Higher” Education systems.
Regardless of the cause, I’m still trying to figure out the appropriate response to these anti-intellectuals (who typically are also self-unaware, and egotistical). There literally is no “reasoning” with these people, since they lack the skills to “Reason” properly.
In the mean time, I guess I’ll continue on in the tradition of mocking the hypocrisies of the anti-intellectuals.
Moral Absolutism is true [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism]
Morality can be discovered through the use of Deductive Reasoning from these Axioms [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning]
[The Meta Axioms can be generally understood as Deontology as a subset of Normative Ethics, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics]
“A PRIORI” (Independent of Experience)
VS. “A POSTERIORI” (Dependent on Experience / Empirical Evidence)
AXIOM 1 [A1]
The individual is the basic unit of moral concern [https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/individualism-collectivism/]
AXIOM 2 [A2]
You own your own human essence (ie. body, mind, spirit) and the product of that essence (labor) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership]
AXIOM 3 [A3]
Unclaimed natural resources (ie. land, trees, etc.) become morally, and individually owned by mixing natural resources with human labor [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle]
AXIOM 4 [A4]
A Government achieves its means through violence and the threat of violence on involuntary participants (“a monopoly on violence”)
The individual is not morally responsible for the actions of another individual unless directly involved
A Government is a group of individuals
A Government made up of individual moral units is bound by the same morality as the individuals by which it is formed
1. An individual has a right to their own Life (body & labor)
2. An individual has a right to their own Personal Property justly obtained
3. An individual has a right to not be interfered with by another individual if they are not violating #1 & #2 of another individual (Liberty)
The INITIATION of force by one individual against another (ie. theft, murder, slavery, fraud, and kidnapping) violates their Natural Rights through involuntary means and is therefore morally wrong [“Non-Aggression Principle” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle]
The only moral means to obtain Life or Personal Property from another individual is through voluntary and free exchange, and homesteading
SECOND LEVEL DEDUCTIONS
Individuals may use violence (or appoint an Agent to use violence) in protection from an initiating Aggressor violating an individual’s Natural Rights
If the Non-Aggression Principle applies to individuals, then the Non-Aggression Principle should apply to individuals in a Government
Individuals in a Government that violate the Non-Aggression Principle are acting immorally
A Government that bombs non-aggressor individuals is immoral (Murder)
A Government that drafts through involuntary means is immoral (Slavery)
A Government that imprisons non-violent drug offenders is immoral (Kidnapping)
A Government that taxes through involuntary means is immoral (Theft)