New philosophy articles are at Critical Fallibilism. Since 2021, Curiosity is my personal site for informal or off-topic articles. I don't endorse all old articles here.
> 1. I don't need to ask for consent if the info being shared isn't too private (Eg: address, emotions,family info, pictures etc)
the right thing is to assume the thing shared privately is private. if i write to you i don't intend it to be public. you have to ask consent for everything shared privately otherwise you don't care for consent.
you want to rationalize being a common person that likes to gossip. "oh, i'm not just a common person, i know philosophy so it's ok to the same thin common people who don't know philosophy do."
not ok.
there's less harm in sharing what you call "private stuff".
it's people's philosophical ideas that are the most private thing about them. people do not share their ideas with others. for instance, at work, they just talk about menial stuff where disagreement is impossible or expected or irrelevant, like football and etc.
on facebook they post pics of themselves with their mates drinking and on holiday. there's no content. ppl do not speak their minds.
sharing my ideas is are more dangerous that you posting my boob pics.
what is the big deal about address btw. any company you order from knows your address. what can you do about my address that my neighbor can't. i never got this one. it's like not speaking about your children online. but anyone who lives next to you sees your kid and etc? explain. you don't hide your kid and how you relate your kid from strangers in the supermarket.
> 3. The content a person shares with through email is owned by me.
this would make you a copyright owner of anything people ever wrote you which is bad.
there is an aspect that we are part of other people's life experience and become part of their problems so they will have the need to talk about their problems. but doing it publicly without consent is a betrayal and bad and immoral and evil and ugly and stupid.
without privacy is hard for people to discuss issues, solve problems.
it's like samaritans saying "oh, we won't tell anyone you are suicidal" and then the police are at your door.
> 1. I don't need to ask for consent if the info being shared isn't too private (Eg: address, emotions,family info, pictures etc)
if you share someone's street address or phone number i will consider you a violent criminal and bitter enemy for life. that kind of posting is used to either harass people in person or to threaten it. it intimidates and scares people about IRL violence.
doxing is absolutely and utterly prohibited here. no exceptions.
the only comments i've ever deleted from the site are doxing and spam. (only literal uncontroversial spam posted by bots, like viagra and poker links.)
no comment on the rest. i just wanted to speak about doxing.
> if you share someone's street address or phone number i will consider you a violent criminal and bitter enemy for life. that kind of posting is used to either harass people in person or to threaten it. it intimidates and scares people about IRL violence.
That is what I said.. I am against sharing phone numbers, addresses etc.
> no comment on the rest. i just wanted to speak about doxing.
i'd comments on the rest.
what makes you believe your best friends will never doxe you? if people are fallible and can always change can't they go anyway, for good or evil? what makes you think their moral code makes it impossible for them to be evil?
> you want to rationalize being a common person that likes to gossip. "oh, i'm not just a common person, i know philosophy so it's ok to the same thin common people who don't know philosophy do."
lol..
Me posting your essayish rant isn't gossip.
I wanted those ideas to be seen through intelligent minds so that it can either be accepted or rejected once and for all.
Maybe it would help Elliot see his mistakes and create new knowledge or help me not get persuaded by Fake crits by you.
Why does the IPCC claim that we are doomed if the temperature rises with 1.5 degrees Celsius and where did they get that number from? The former makes no sense to me and the latter is a mystery to me.
#12781 They want an excuse to promote Marxism. The common theme of environmentalist ideas about catastrophe is not what they are worried about but what they propose to do about it. Their solutions are always the same things: more government authority and government control over the economy. That is not a means to an end for them, it is the end, the goal.
#12783 People largely believe what authorities tell them to believe. They are raised that way by authorities (parents and teachers). Adults mostly believe what scientists and government officials tell them.
And most people have been indoctrinated with a bunch of anti-capitalist propaganda. And they are bad at thinking and judge everything by slogans and popularity, not by truth. People are more interested in getting along with others than pursuing truth.
There is ongoing pressure against the holdouts. They get harassed, fired, ostracized, etc. People call them irredeemable racists. Evil has taken the initiative in this battle and hardly anyone is standing up to it. And many of the leaders on the side of Western civilization are actually traitors. E.g. Trump hasn't done what he was elected to do, and many other politicians have betrayed the voters in similar ways. But it's the traitorous intellectual leaders who do even more harm, overall. People like Milton Friedman, Hayek, and Ben Shapiro are considered right wing and pro capitalist and stuff, and they function as a sort of controlled, limited opposition that is actually sucking up to and legitimizing the bad guys, and undermining the actual good guys like Mises or David Horowitz.
I've taken your question as just sorta "what's wrong with the world?" cuz it's not specific to environmentalism or Marxism.
The most fundamental issue is we destroy children's minds. Children are hurt, over and over, until they obey. It ruins their ability to think well and turns them into second handers who are focused on social dynamics and pleasing other people. The rest is downstream consequences.
> People like Milton Friedman, Hayek, and Ben Shapiro are considered right wing and pro capitalist and stuff, and they function as a sort of controlled, limited opposition that is actually sucking up to and legitimizing the bad guys, and undermining the actual good guys like Mises or David Horowitz.
Would you say it is pragmatism driving the former to do this (at least Friedman and Hayek) or was it something else (climbing the social ladder)?
Don't know what you're referring to with pragmatism. I think secondhandedness and social ladder. Also willingness to compromise due to lack of strong, clear principles, due to lack of adequate understanding of their fields.
> Don't know what you're referring to with pragmatism.
I was referring to that they might believe that "what works better", in the prevailing political climate, is what to pursue instead of what is truly the best system (capitalism / laissez-faire).
I know what pragmatism is. I meant that I don't know what specific things those people did that indicates pragmatism. What is the reasoning for potentially concluding that pragmatism is the issue here?
#12792 I see the entire Chicago school of economics as a "socio pragmatic" application of the Austrian. Pragmatic in the sense they use more mainstream methods (positivistic / mathematical) to gain more political influence.
Mening they (MF & FH) understood that Mises had the better arguments, but fearing losing all political influence they compromised (lacking the integrity Mises had).
I don't think they knew that Mises had better arguments. I think they were prevented from ever knowing that, in the first place, by social metaphysics, dishonesty, and that kinda problem.
E.g. do you think Friedman knew he was mistaken about the negative income tax, and that it was bad, as Hazlitt explains in chapter 12 here?
Would Friedman somehow advocate that anyway, while fully understanding everything wrong with it that Hazlitt lays out? Knowing it's just going to make things worse, as Hazlitt explains, why would he consider it practical or pragmatic? I think he disagreed with Hazlitt and wouldn't seriously engage in the pursuit of truth about the matter.
And here is Hayek sharing his perspective in an interview after Mises was dead:
> At first we all felt he [Mises] was frightfully exaggerating and even offensive in tone [in his 1920 economic calculation paper and 1922 Socialism book]. You see, he hurt all our deepest feelings, but gradually he won us around
and
> I was never quite convinced by his [Mises'] arguments.... If I had come to him as a young student, I would probably have just swallowed his views completely. As it was, I came to him already with a degree. I had finished my elementary course; so I pushed him in a slightly more critical fashion. Being for ten years in close contact with a man with whose conclusions on the whole you agree but whose arguments were not always perfectly convincing to you, was a great stimulus.
You can see the social metaphysics and the lack of understanding that Mises was right and why. Hayek was already indoctrinated with mainstream academia crap before he found Mises. And it's specifically Mises' arguments and reasoning that he questions and doubts.
You can also read their books, see the confusions and crap, and realize they are not wise.
#12797 Thank you for the Hazlitt gem. I had not read it before and I find Hazlitt a great source of sound economics.
> E.g. do you think Friedman knew he was mistaken about the negative income tax, and that it was bad, as Hazlitt explains in chapter 12 here?
If Friedman ever read Hazlitt's refutation of NIT (negative income tax), which I'm sure he did, he certainly had no answers to it - else he would have written his own refutation of Hazlitt. (If he has done that I am unaware of it.)
That leaves me to believe Friedman wanted political power / influence more than being correct in principle / being honest and lacking the integrity of Hazlitt who corrected his mistake on the matter as described in the chapter you mention (chapter 12, https://mises.org/library/man-vs-welfare-state-0 ).
> Would Friedman somehow advocate that anyway, while fully understanding everything wrong with it that Hazlitt lays out? Knowing it's just going to make things worse, as Hazlitt explains, why would he consider it practical or pragmatic? I think he disagreed with Hazlitt and wouldn't seriously engage in the pursuit of truth about the matter.
I think Friedman usually addressed issues where he disagreed with his critics and believed he was right. Here for some reason Friedman seemed to just evade the critique.
Thus this leaves me to believe he advocated a "less bad" system over a really bad one (despite knowing it was not the best available solution) since it was still close enough for the political elite to consider implementering it (even though it being wrong - perhaps he took a page from Keynes book regarding the long run ...).
This leads me to arguing pragmatism might be the underlying cause in Friedman's case.
> And here is Hayek sharing his perspective in an interview after Mises was dead: ...
> You can see the social metaphysics and the lack of understanding that Mises was right and why. Hayek was already indoctrinated with mainstream academia crap before he found Mises. And it's specifically Mises' arguments and reasoning that he questions and doubts.
Agreed. I'm starting to understand Rand's position on Hayek.
Friedman's son is notably a utopian, utilitarian anarchist who doesn't understand liberalism (and the harmony of men's interests) and dislikes Objectivism.
(Due to multi-year, sustained harassment from David Deutsch and his fans, commenting here requires an account. Accounts are not publicly available. Discussion info.)
Messages (30 of 305) (Show All Comments)
I was being whimsical.. that was bad.
Can someone explain to me about consent?
When I get whimsical I go to my default mode.
My default mode on consent is:-
1. I don't need to ask for consent if the info being shared isn't too private (Eg: address, emotions,family info, pictures etc)
2. Sharing philosophical stuff is okay. There is no harm possible from that. We can gain knowledge from sharing crit and thoughts.
3. The content a person shares with through email is owned by me.
FF and consent
> 1. I don't need to ask for consent if the info being shared isn't too private (Eg: address, emotions,family info, pictures etc)
the right thing is to assume the thing shared privately is private. if i write to you i don't intend it to be public. you have to ask consent for everything shared privately otherwise you don't care for consent.
you want to rationalize being a common person that likes to gossip. "oh, i'm not just a common person, i know philosophy so it's ok to the same thin common people who don't know philosophy do."
not ok.
there's less harm in sharing what you call "private stuff".
it's people's philosophical ideas that are the most private thing about them. people do not share their ideas with others. for instance, at work, they just talk about menial stuff where disagreement is impossible or expected or irrelevant, like football and etc.
on facebook they post pics of themselves with their mates drinking and on holiday. there's no content. ppl do not speak their minds.
sharing my ideas is are more dangerous that you posting my boob pics.
what is the big deal about address btw. any company you order from knows your address. what can you do about my address that my neighbor can't. i never got this one. it's like not speaking about your children online. but anyone who lives next to you sees your kid and etc? explain. you don't hide your kid and how you relate your kid from strangers in the supermarket.
> 3. The content a person shares with through email is owned by me.
this would make you a copyright owner of anything people ever wrote you which is bad.
there is an aspect that we are part of other people's life experience and become part of their problems so they will have the need to talk about their problems. but doing it publicly without consent is a betrayal and bad and immoral and evil and ugly and stupid.
without privacy is hard for people to discuss issues, solve problems.
it's like samaritans saying "oh, we won't tell anyone you are suicidal" and then the police are at your door.
trust is a tradition.
ABSOLUTELY NO DOXING
> 1. I don't need to ask for consent if the info being shared isn't too private (Eg: address, emotions,family info, pictures etc)
if you share someone's street address or phone number i will consider you a violent criminal and bitter enemy for life. that kind of posting is used to either harass people in person or to threaten it. it intimidates and scares people about IRL violence.
doxing is absolutely and utterly prohibited here. no exceptions.
the only comments i've ever deleted from the site are doxing and spam. (only literal uncontroversial spam posted by bots, like viagra and poker links.)
no comment on the rest. i just wanted to speak about doxing.
> #6508
Does anyone want to crit what LG said?
Does FI agree with her? On what points do you agree and what points do you have disagreement?
> there's less harm in sharing what you call "private stuff".
The stuff I listed is what people normally consider to be un-shareable.
btw did you get consent to post here?
> if you share someone's street address or phone number i will consider you a violent criminal and bitter enemy for life. that kind of posting is used to either harass people in person or to threaten it. it intimidates and scares people about IRL violence.
That is what I said.. I am against sharing phone numbers, addresses etc.
#6512 you said the opposite. i'm glad to hear you didn't mean it as written and it was only miscommunication.
FF trying to impress Elliot
> btw did you get consent to post here?
how is that your concern? i was already posting through you. why should you be my filter? why should what i say be shared in public by intermediaries?
why are you not posting my crits anymore? i guess it gave pleasure you when it was betrayal but now i turned the tables is not fun anymore.
> #6512 you said the opposite. i'm glad to hear you didn't mean it as written and it was only miscommunication.
LG understood it the way it was supposed to. Maybe I wrote it with errors.
" 1. I don't need to ask for consent if the info being shared isn't too private (Eg: address, emotions,family info, pictures etc) "
I gave examples for stuff that is too private to share.. not that I don't need consent to share them.
> no comment on the rest. i just wanted to speak about doxing.
i'd comments on the rest.
what makes you believe your best friends will never doxe you? if people are fallible and can always change can't they go anyway, for good or evil? what makes you think their moral code makes it impossible for them to be evil?
> why are you not posting my crits anymore? i guess it gave pleasure you when it was betrayal but now i turned the tables is not fun anymore.
It didn't give me pleasure.
I was irritated with opposing ideas and wanted to get it cleared. I was being whimsical which is bad. I stopped after a while.
> I was irritated with opposing ideas and wanted to get it cleared. I was being whimsical which is bad. I stopped after a while.
you make no sense.
> you want to rationalize being a common person that likes to gossip. "oh, i'm not just a common person, i know philosophy so it's ok to the same thin common people who don't know philosophy do."
lol..
Me posting your essayish rant isn't gossip.
I wanted those ideas to be seen through intelligent minds so that it can either be accepted or rejected once and for all.
Maybe it would help Elliot see his mistakes and create new knowledge or help me not get persuaded by Fake crits by you.
People on FI had BCC'd you posts and claimed that you have intrusive preferences right?
> Me posting your essayish rant isn't gossip.
as i explained, it's gossip.
sharing a person's ideas is gossip.
"essayish rant" dismissing hatefully what my ideas without argument or crit. how cute.
> People on FI had BCC'd you posts and claimed that you have intrusive preferences right?
i can't parse this, what are you saying?
> as i explained, it's gossip.
I don't think so.. atleast I don't consider it gossip.
Talking and critting Rand's ideas aren't gossip.. How is it gossip when your ideas get shared?
> sharing a person's ideas is gossip.
I don't think so.. SOMEONE PLEASE CRIT THIS ^^
> "essayish rant" dismissing hatefully what my ideas without argument or crit. how cute.
Why do you think it is hate?
> sharing a person's ideas is gossip.
I think sharing a person's weird actions might be gossip..
EG: Rami Mallone trip and fell near the Big Ben.
tripped
Simple stuff
1. I like chocolate bars
2. Ayn Rand was influenced by Aristotle.
3. I am a slow learner
4. I lack initiative.
5. iBooks app is good for reading books.
Why does the IPCC claim that we are doomed if the temperature rises with 1.5 degrees Celsius and where did they get that number from? The former makes no sense to me and the latter is a mystery to me.
I have read *The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels*.
#12781 They want an excuse to promote Marxism. The common theme of environmentalist ideas about catastrophe is not what they are worried about but what they propose to do about it. Their solutions are always the same things: more government authority and government control over the economy. That is not a means to an end for them, it is the end, the goal.
#12782 But I don't understand why people just believe this? Why do they follow suit? Do you mean that regular people want Marxism? Why?
#12783 People largely believe what authorities tell them to believe. They are raised that way by authorities (parents and teachers). Adults mostly believe what scientists and government officials tell them.
And most people have been indoctrinated with a bunch of anti-capitalist propaganda. And they are bad at thinking and judge everything by slogans and popularity, not by truth. People are more interested in getting along with others than pursuing truth.
There is ongoing pressure against the holdouts. They get harassed, fired, ostracized, etc. People call them irredeemable racists. Evil has taken the initiative in this battle and hardly anyone is standing up to it. And many of the leaders on the side of Western civilization are actually traitors. E.g. Trump hasn't done what he was elected to do, and many other politicians have betrayed the voters in similar ways. But it's the traitorous intellectual leaders who do even more harm, overall. People like Milton Friedman, Hayek, and Ben Shapiro are considered right wing and pro capitalist and stuff, and they function as a sort of controlled, limited opposition that is actually sucking up to and legitimizing the bad guys, and undermining the actual good guys like Mises or David Horowitz.
I've taken your question as just sorta "what's wrong with the world?" cuz it's not specific to environmentalism or Marxism.
The most fundamental issue is we destroy children's minds. Children are hurt, over and over, until they obey. It ruins their ability to think well and turns them into second handers who are focused on social dynamics and pleasing other people. The rest is downstream consequences.
#12784
> People like Milton Friedman, Hayek, and Ben Shapiro are considered right wing and pro capitalist and stuff, and they function as a sort of controlled, limited opposition that is actually sucking up to and legitimizing the bad guys, and undermining the actual good guys like Mises or David Horowitz.
Would you say it is pragmatism driving the former to do this (at least Friedman and Hayek) or was it something else (climbing the social ladder)?
Don't know what you're referring to with pragmatism. I think secondhandedness and social ladder. Also willingness to compromise due to lack of strong, clear principles, due to lack of adequate understanding of their fields.
#12786
> Don't know what you're referring to with pragmatism.
I was referring to that they might believe that "what works better", in the prevailing political climate, is what to pursue instead of what is truly the best system (capitalism / laissez-faire).
I know what pragmatism is. I meant that I don't know what specific things those people did that indicates pragmatism. What is the reasoning for potentially concluding that pragmatism is the issue here?
#12792 I see the entire Chicago school of economics as a "socio pragmatic" application of the Austrian. Pragmatic in the sense they use more mainstream methods (positivistic / mathematical) to gain more political influence.
Mening they (MF & FH) understood that Mises had the better arguments, but fearing losing all political influence they compromised (lacking the integrity Mises had).
I don't think they knew that Mises had better arguments. I think they were prevented from ever knowing that, in the first place, by social metaphysics, dishonesty, and that kinda problem.
E.g. do you think Friedman knew he was mistaken about the negative income tax, and that it was bad, as Hazlitt explains in chapter 12 here?
https://mises.org/library/man-vs-welfare-state-0
Would Friedman somehow advocate that anyway, while fully understanding everything wrong with it that Hazlitt lays out? Knowing it's just going to make things worse, as Hazlitt explains, why would he consider it practical or pragmatic? I think he disagreed with Hazlitt and wouldn't seriously engage in the pursuit of truth about the matter.
And here is Hayek sharing his perspective in an interview after Mises was dead:
http://blog.mises.org/9657/the-ucla-interviews-with-friedrich-hayek/
> At first we all felt he [Mises] was frightfully exaggerating and even offensive in tone [in his 1920 economic calculation paper and 1922 Socialism book]. You see, he hurt all our deepest feelings, but gradually he won us around
and
> I was never quite convinced by his [Mises'] arguments.... If I had come to him as a young student, I would probably have just swallowed his views completely. As it was, I came to him already with a degree. I had finished my elementary course; so I pushed him in a slightly more critical fashion. Being for ten years in close contact with a man with whose conclusions on the whole you agree but whose arguments were not always perfectly convincing to you, was a great stimulus.
You can see the social metaphysics and the lack of understanding that Mises was right and why. Hayek was already indoctrinated with mainstream academia crap before he found Mises. And it's specifically Mises' arguments and reasoning that he questions and doubts.
You can also read their books, see the confusions and crap, and realize they are not wise.
#12797 Thank you for the Hazlitt gem. I had not read it before and I find Hazlitt a great source of sound economics.
> E.g. do you think Friedman knew he was mistaken about the negative income tax, and that it was bad, as Hazlitt explains in chapter 12 here?
If Friedman ever read Hazlitt's refutation of NIT (negative income tax), which I'm sure he did, he certainly had no answers to it - else he would have written his own refutation of Hazlitt. (If he has done that I am unaware of it.)
That leaves me to believe Friedman wanted political power / influence more than being correct in principle / being honest and lacking the integrity of Hazlitt who corrected his mistake on the matter as described in the chapter you mention (chapter 12, https://mises.org/library/man-vs-welfare-state-0 ).
> Would Friedman somehow advocate that anyway, while fully understanding everything wrong with it that Hazlitt lays out? Knowing it's just going to make things worse, as Hazlitt explains, why would he consider it practical or pragmatic? I think he disagreed with Hazlitt and wouldn't seriously engage in the pursuit of truth about the matter.
I think Friedman usually addressed issues where he disagreed with his critics and believed he was right. Here for some reason Friedman seemed to just evade the critique.
Thus this leaves me to believe he advocated a "less bad" system over a really bad one (despite knowing it was not the best available solution) since it was still close enough for the political elite to consider implementering it (even though it being wrong - perhaps he took a page from Keynes book regarding the long run ...).
This leads me to arguing pragmatism might be the underlying cause in Friedman's case.
> And here is Hayek sharing his perspective in an interview after Mises was dead: ...
> You can see the social metaphysics and the lack of understanding that Mises was right and why. Hayek was already indoctrinated with mainstream academia crap before he found Mises. And it's specifically Mises' arguments and reasoning that he questions and doubts.
Agreed. I'm starting to understand Rand's position on Hayek.
Friedman's son is notably a utopian, utilitarian anarchist who doesn't understand liberalism (and the harmony of men's interests) and dislikes Objectivism.