FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
Should the South Vietnamese fought harder against the North Vietnamese? Should we have supported them longer and harder? How much longer and harder? Should we have maintained troop commitments?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
The left broadly owned up to screwing up over Biden's age.
Could you give a brief understanding of what "owning up to screwing up over Biden's age" looks like to you? Because my observation is that this was limited to withdrawing him as a candidate, and some after-the-fact passive voice about "we were fooled".
Could you imagine MAGA doing anything remotely similar, i.e. saying "yes our enemies were broadly right about this particular issue, and we have no choice but to change our strategy"?
As @ArjinFerman notes below, a large part of MAGA's motivation was a rejection of the GWOT and to a lesser extent the economic principles of the Republican party. The movement is the most significant example in generations of the thing you say they can't possibly do.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
My recollection is that the rebels were losing ground pretty steadily, and fear of Qaddafi committing massacres once he broke the rebel forces was used to sell intervention to the public. That was how it was sold to me, in any case.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
Libya was a "pick your poison" scenario, in which the options were to exempt Qaddafi from the "world police" treatment for atrocities (I don't recall the details of what the inciting incident was - some anti-dissident thing gone to far)
Qaddafi was fighting an armed rebellion, something he had done a few times before. My recollection is that he was winning that fight pretty handily as well, that it was not a terribly bloody victory, and that his previous victories over armed rebellions had not been terribly bloody either; based on prior behavior, he would have executed or imprisoned the rebel leadership, and then things would go on more or less as before. The three-way civil war that resulted from our intervention likely resulted in bloodshed roughly an order of magnitude worse than what would have resulted had we just let things play out. At least, that's my understanding; I invite correction from those who know better.
The actual "utility numbers" come about from the fact that we always have some kind of preference between 2 hypothetical futures.
I'm pretty sure this isn't true. Human minds don't run on integer math, and neither do they run on pure rationality, and neither are they very good at modelling future states. I'm pretty sure it's easy to get people to express preference loops, where they rank their preferences as a > b > c > a, for example.
And we could effectively encode the idea of -oo utility by just making all these "above utilitarian calculus" things be -10^10^10^10 utilons (and having the mundane and tangible be on the scale of 10s of utilons)
Humans are very bad at imagining or working with very large numbers, and it seems to me that attempting to express preferences in terms of stacked-exponent utilons is straightforwardly both less honest and less effective than saying "this is the rule, period." I am deeply skeptical of all Utilitarian calculation, as it seems straightforwardly obvious to me that its main usefulness is in deceit or manipulation of the unwary. Utilons cannot be rigorously measured even in a single person, are not consistently perceived between people, and are easy to use to generate absurd conclusions.
But what can you do in situations where you have no leverage over the compromising party?
Circumstances where one has no leverage over the compromising party should be avoided at all cost, and thankfully are rare. Generally the best one can manage in such circumstances is to survive if the immediate compromise is not too great, and otherwise to die the best death possible.
What does this achieve (the King presumably just doesn't care, so he won't abdicate the throne or anything)? These principles Hlynka proposes only seems to bring misery and suffering to it adherents in these sorts of extreme situations.
Precommitting to this sort of stubbornness is a pretty good defense against getting into such a compromised position, and not particularly worse in such a situation than the alternatives. Hlynka did not strike me as a miserable person. I do not think myself miserable either. And indeed, to the extent that it is possible, cultivating genuine stoicism and determination can directly and observably reduce subjective misery, even in the worst situation.
But in the situation of you acting as an individual, against an entire government, I don't see what good precommitment will do.
Individuals are only very rarely pitted against an entire government, and usually they themselves are to blame when this happens. That is why Ted Kaczynski is Uncle Ted. Precommitment helps cultivate the interpersonal bonds that greatly reduce the likelihood of you being alone against the government. It makes you reliable, which makes you attractive in several senses of the word, which helps build a "we" to keep you out of such situations in the first place. And it is not as though the absence of such precommitment is some guarantee of safety. I bet the unfortunate star of the Funky Town execution video was willing to accept any deal offered to him, but that pliancy did not get him out from under the knives.
The "Heather Ale" poem is basically my point - the dwarfs died (and the father was presumably horribly tortured too) , and that was the intended outcome of the father's "trick".
The father secured a clean death for his son and permanent frustration for the king, at the price of a messy death for himself; that seems like a pretty good trade. Maybe you think that's ridiculous, that they should have taken the deal and lived out their lives in peace. What assurance do they have of the King's honesty? And even if he is honest, what are the remaining span of their lives worth? Even in terms of pleasure, what are they worth, compared to the pleasure of spite satisfied? What the king wants, he will never have; his cruelty has cost him dearly, and it is fitting that the cruel should suffer for their evil, that the scales should move toward balance in all possible ways.
But we don't just how far he will go yet - why not give in for now, and if things actually get really bad, the dwarfs can just kill themselves? (killing themselves now just closes options)
Those options may be illusory. What if the father gives up the secret, and the King simply tortures them both to death? By the time they're caught, they no longer have the capacity to kill themselves, and may never have that capacity again. "Options" (more properly possibilities) aren't always a good thing. Sometimes surety is better.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
Happy to discuss.
Just to be as clear as possible here, is your argument that people who consider property a right are significantly more psychopathic than people who think "sharing" is a general solution to the distribution of rivalrous goods?
Our coalition is not hanging by a thread, it is in active civil war and has been since Trump arrived. My side currently appears to be winning that war, but we haven't won by any stretch of the imagination. The last generation of republican leadership actively campaigned for Harris in the last election.
And again, the advantage to passing laws is extremely marginal, and we know this from literally decades of observation from both sides of the culture war both here and in neighboring countries.
Further, and this is my own personal opinion, there is also the BATNA, which in this case is the forth portion of the back-and-forth wrenching we're doing on the fence-post of our current political system. By pushing the imperial presidency, we force a fight over the imperial presidency. To the extent that the positions again reverse upon the other side taking control, the legitimacy of those positions lessens dramatically. It is better for us to burn that legitimacy now attempting to secure our goals rather than leaving it for the other side to burn in pursuit of theirs.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
It's literally sour grapes.
It's not, when we can point to cases where the black-letter wording of the law absolutely did not matter. In some observable cases, passing laws was not sufficient, and in other observable cases, it was not necessary either.
Passing laws is expensive, and it is not obvious that doing so is worth the expense, given that they observably can be ignored. This calculation does not require perfect certainty that they will be ignored, only a suspicion that the likelyhood of them being ignored is high enough that they shouldn't be the current priority. Getting as much done as possible through the methods that do not require negotiation with allies of questionable loyalty, much less outright enemies, can improve one's position when those negotiations are subsequently conducted.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
LOL, sure! But first see my reply to FCfromSSC at https://www.themotte.org/post/1860/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/323011?context=8#context
And see my reply to that reply. You claimed that holding things I wanted was theft on your part. I asked you for 10k dollars, you said "other people asked first, sorry". I observe that other people almost certainly didn't ask first in any strict sense of the phrase, and that you are still holding the 10k dollars that you've said I'm entitled to, because people who want things should have them. I've accused you of theft for having 10k I want and not handing it over. If you have an explanation for how that's not actually theft, I will use that explanation also when you ask me for my money.
I really need the money, too. Maybe even more than you do. So, where does that leave us?
I mentioned in the other reply that you made no mention of a "line" that I needed to wait in to "share" your assets. Likewise, you made no mention of a possessor's claim of "need" countering the claim put forward by another who wants what they have. By claiming that there is a line, and that requests to "share" should be judged according to "need", you are already 9/10s of the way back to capitalism.
More to the point, what do you think your comment actually demonstrates? I don't see anything much of merit.
I think it demonstrates that you are making assertions about how we should think about things, without even attempting to account for the obvious consequences of thinking about things in this way. Doing this is a good way to make yourself appear absurd, and if that is your intention, I am pleased to assist.
In fact, there wasn't a single argument in my post.
I too have seen the Argument Clinic sketch.
Where did I present an argument? Quote please.
But what is ownership? I have my own ideas, but I asked ChatGPT and was surprised that it pretty much hit the nail on the head: the definitional characteristic of ownership is the legal right to deprive others.
This is an argument. You are described a philosophical position and claimed that it is substantively correct.
This has been such a consistently universal view that very few people question it.
This is an argument.
Even fewer have thought through a cogent alternative.
This is an argument.
Most people go slack-jawed at the suggestion that an alternative is possible.
This is an argument.
Every post you've made in this thread has contained what appear at least to be attempts at "a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view".
We have a rule here: speak plainly. It seems to me that in this post, you are pretty clearly violating it. Still, I'm involved in the discussion, and will thus keep my mod hat off. You've already drawn the attention of @Amadan, who has not involved himself in the discussion and is already issuing warnings. You should read the rules and attempt to comply with them, or you will likely be banned in short order. If you would like to discuss further while speaking plainly, either your original topic or the rules here, I can try to offer my assistance, but my own assumption at this point is that Amadan is correct and you are trolling.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
But doesn't all of this just fit neatly into utilitarian calculus?
I don't think so, no. Utilitarian calculus breaks down with infinites, and this is about infinites. This is not "this has [negative_bignum_utilons] for me", this is "I will not accept this." It's a decision, not a calculation. It's a willingness to accept loss/failure, not another move in the game, and the more absolute it is the better it works.
Seriously? You're saying if some dictator came into power, and tries to violate your rights (even if you don't even care that much about the object-level thing - like literally just clenching your fists), then you would just steel yourself up, and deny him.
Where to draw the line is an open question. But there is a line, and the capacity to both draw the line and stick to it, come what may, are extremely important. It's well-known that small compromises lead to larger ones, and it is in this fashion that one moves from compromising to being compromised. By drawing the line, you move from "I will resist if it seems profitable" to "I will resist no matter what." Precommitment, in other words, the most durable sort of commitment. And such commitments are often decisive, especially in a crisis.
The king sat high on his charger, He looked on the little men;
And the dwarfish and swarthy couple Looked at the king again.
Down by the shore he had them; And there on the giddy brink—
“I will give you life, ye vermin, For the secret of the drink.”
There stood the son and father And they looked high and low;
The heather was red around them, The sea rumbled below.
And up and spoke the father, Shrill was his voice to hear:
“I have a word in private, A word for the royal ear.
“Life is dear to the aged, And honor a little thing;
I would gladly sell the secret,” Quoth the Pict to the King.
His voice was small as a sparrow’s, And shrill and wonderful clear:
“I would gladly sell my secret, Only my son I fear.
“For life is a little matter, And death is nought to the young;
And I dare not sell my honor Under the eye of my son.
Take him, O king, and bind him, And cast him far in the deep;
And it ’s I will tell the secret That I have sworn to keep.”
They took the son and bound him, Neck and heels in a thong,
And a lad took him and swung him, And flung him far and strong,
And the sea swallowed his body, Like that of a child of ten;—
And there on the cliff stood the father, Last of the dwarfish men.
“True was the word I told you: Only my son I feared;
For I doubt the sapling courage That goes without the beard.
But now in vain is the torture, Fire shall never avail:
Here dies in my bosom The secret of Heather Ale.”
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
Why is there a line, and why did your hypothetical not mention the necessity of line-waiting previously? Why can't requests simply be made and granted in the order they were received? I doubt any of the people you listed actually have asked you for 10k USD, so shouldn't I get what I asked for now? I want it, you not giving it to me is theft by your own argument via Proudhon. Are you a thief? Nor is the fixed income really a substantive obstacle, I'm sure you own 10k worth of possessions that you could sell or hand over, and I'll even waive any amount above what you do currently possess if I'm mistaken.
Alternatively, I also am willing to "share" my resources with you, provided I also get to arbitrarily create a "line", place you at the back of it, and ensure that you never reach the front and hence that the sharing never actually happens.
I'm open to hearing how desirables (goods and services and more) are handled differently. Can you give me an example where they're not handled like kidnap hostages?
Okay:
The only difference is that in the case of merchandise, you never had it and had it taken away from you.
Yes, everyone treats this as a massively important difference.
Or, you could see it like Proudhon: the fact that you don't have it even though you need or want it itself represents theft.
Anyone could do this. No one does, for reasons that can be demonstrated by my request that you kindly give me ten grand in fungible US currency.
I perceive you to be arguing that the "Proudhon" interpretation of property being theft is one people should pay more attention to, or consider valid in some way. And indeed, I am very happy to consider your current possession of accumulated value as theft from me, because I want what you have.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
I don't understand - are you saying that in the thought experiment, you will let yourself be shot in the head, instead of capitulating?
One of Hlynka's core arguments was that this was in fact the proper way to begin one's political reasoning from: not what you are willing to kill for, but what are you willing to die for. What comes above utilitarian calculus?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
Sure, but if you graph political influence over time, I'm pretty sure by far the biggest change on the graph is 1776, and everything else is inconsequential. And notably, that's the one you can mostly put a smiley-face on.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
The fact itself that people for the most part avoid engaging with hypotheticals is hugely telling.
I would like you to share some of your resources with me. Ideally I would prefer you to engage with this in a concrete sense by actually transferring a lot of resources from your bank account to mine, say about $10,000, or so but I'm happy to start by discussing the transfer in principle if you find engaging in hypotheticals to be more immediately useful way to approach things. If you don't have $10,000 cash on hand, I'd be happy to take deeds/titles/straight property and handle the conversion to liquidity myself.
And after writing the following:
Well, I didn't ask for an alternative "that works" or claim that there's an alternative that would work (even though there is and it does) did I? I just asked what an alternative might be. This is as hypothetical as it gets. The fact itself that people for the most part avoid engaging with hypotheticals is hugely telling. I mean, what risk is there? Why the reluctance and avoidance? Why throw up objections and attempts to dismiss? It's pretty wild, really.
...I think it would be "pretty wild" for you to ignore an instance of the exact sort of "sharing" you're arguing for, or for you to engage in reluctance or avoidance, or throw up objections or attempt to dismiss the very principle you've expended such effort to draw attention to.
I'd say I really need the money, which is entirely true, but at no point shave you argued that need should come into it, so I'll refrain from polluting your philosophical constructions in this manner.
Money please!
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
I would like you to share some of your resources with me. Should I send you a venmo link, or do you prefer paypal?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
Not how politics work. It’s never over.
England has not had significant influence over American politics since, depending on one's accounting, either 1776 or 1812. Likewise, the Romanov dynasty ceased all significant contribution to Russian politics in 1918. The Japanese ended native Japanese Christianity in the 1600s, and it stayed ended for about three centuries. The 101st airborne marched into the south and ended segregation at bayonet-point, and at least that form of it did in fact stay ended right down to the present day.
Sometimes the show does not, in fact, go on. If you've noted that all of these examples involved mass-bloodshed, and most of them involved the sort of mass bloodshed we can't really even attempt to put a smiley-face on, well, that'd be why I'm generally a pessimist.
What is the meaningful distinction between "this simulation was set up according to deterministic laws and then allowed to run for a trillion years to generate the current state" versus "this simulation instantiated the current state by simulating a trillion years of deterministic evolution in two seconds"?
If your reasoning accepts that we are not living in the base reality, as both Materialism and Theism appear to do, then a lot of the old arguments seem to lose their meaning. If one observes how these arguments evolved, this should not be surprising: both the theists and the atheists very clearly expected and even demanded a clockwork universe. Both were wrong.
The only difference is that in the case of merchandise, you never had it and had it taken away from you.
A lot of people consider this to be a significant difference, enough that they have universally recapitulated social technology built on this distinction.
I just love how this model works. It's been around for a decade now. No one yet has succeeded in pointing out a significant, legitimate flaw in the parallels it presents.
It is certainly true that if you define away the flaws in your argument, then by your definition there are no flaws flaws in your argument.
You say you want a discussion. Discussion necessarily means give and take, other people considering your arguments and you considering theirs. If you insist on controlling both sides of a conversation, you're just talking to yourself.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
The Dems have shown they respect the courts in at least some cases, e.g. Biden trying to ban new oil and gas leasing on federal lands, the courts striking it down, and then Biden effectively going "aw shucks guess we can't do that then".
...And the Republicans likewise "respect the courts" in "some areas", and "pursue legislation" in "some areas". The question is whether Republicans should pursue legislation in an area where the Democrats don't respect the courts, and further where it's questionable whether the courts respect the law. And further, how hard should they pursue legislation, given that there are many competing priorities.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
For some movements, one has no need to mount opposition, as the movement is self-defeating.
I think the ocean has too many waves
There's got to be a way to make them behave
The World would run better if it were run our way
You will not succeed in brainstorming a novel, viable alternative to ownership. You might learn something from the exercise, though, so have at it.
Your description does not match any portion of the right I've ever interacted with. Would you care to provide some evidence along with your inflammatory statements?
More options
Context Copy link