Talk-Polywell.org

The trouble with libertarians starts with their values.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/20/t ... tarian-mor

Thinking about this:

1. Humans are herd (troupe) animals.

2. Most want to live in the center of the herd. They have to know what the rules are. Some want mommy rules, some want daddy rules. They are in agreement that rules (lots of them) are require. It minimizes friction in the center.

3. And then you have the crazies who want to live on the edge - and of course they want as few rules as possible. You never know what might come up.

4. Civilization is carried on the backs of the rule makers. It is advanced by the rule breakers.

Now can we all get along?

I have revised and expanded my remarks:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... enter.html

Care to elaborate on the rules either Edison, Ford, or the Wrights broke?

I don't enjoy pissing in your Wheaties much, but lately you've become taken with making unimpressive, sweeping, fatuous statements.

TDPerk wrote:Care to elaborate on the rules either Edison, Ford, or the Wrights broke?

I don't enjoy pissing in your Wheaties much, but lately you've become taken with making unimpressive, sweeping, fatuous statements.

The unstated rule that everyone with a really good education learns, "You can't do this."

I made a career on breaking the rules. Some prefer to call them mindsets.

Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British writer and scientist Arthur C. Clarke. They are:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

Some might claim you are being intentionally obtuse. I believe I didn't explain myself well enough.

And then there are all the big and little rules. Most barely more justified than taboos i.e. this is the way we have always done it.

TD,

Tell me. Which society will be better off? A greater proportion of edge people (engineers, scientists - some of whom have an affinity for breaking mindsets) or more lawyers (rule makers for the herd). In fact the last thing you want from rule makers is novelty.

"The unstated rule that everyone with a really good education learns, "You can't do this."

I made a career on breaking the rules. Some prefer to call them mindsets."

So you admit they didn't break even one rule, and you are adjusting your language to cover your overstatement. Gotcha. Rules != mindsets, in my view.

Of course society is best off if the creative are free to swing their fist short of someone's nose.

TDPerk wrote:"The unstated rule that everyone with a really good education learns, "You can't do this."

I made a career on breaking the rules. Some prefer to call them mindsets."

So you admit they didn't break even one rule, and you are adjusting your language to cover your overstatement. Gotcha. Rules != mindsets, in my view.

Of course society is best off if the creative are free to swing their fist short of someone's nose.

Dude,

There are internal rules and external rules.

What? You think there are only legal rules? What?

Suppose you have a rule: you must go to church on Sunday. If I don't observe that rule there are possibilities.

1. I never had the rule
2. I am breaking the rule

The Gurdjieff/Ouspensky system is all about reducing the number of internal rules. All the unnecessary shoulds and oughts. Very handy. And the internal rules are in general more debilitating than laws. Why? Because there are so many more of them.

But too many laws can hamstring a system too.

"Care to elaborate on the rules either Edison, Ford, or the Wrights broke? "

I suppose you've answered the question...you don't care to elaborate on what rules they broke. I'd guess you can't name one.

TDPerk wrote:"Care to elaborate on the rules either Edison, Ford, or the Wrights broke? "

I suppose you've answered the question...you don't care to elaborate on what rules they broke. I'd guess you can't name one.

And I repeat:

The "It can't be done" rule.

"The "It can't be done" rule."

Aha. There is some pretense or delusion by which you imagine that is a rule anyone is obliged to accept.

The only actual rules about what can and can't be done are the laws of physics. I won't hold my breath for them to be uncovered in all their ramifications.

There used to be a political party in the 30's called the Technocracy Party, they claimed to have created an experimental village run on their system as a test. Might I suggest a similar experiment for the Libertarian party. Gather a few hundred Libertarians in one town for a few years run entirely on Libertarian principles and see how it works.

TDPerk wrote:"The "It can't be done" rule."

Aha. There is some pretense or delusion by which you imagine that is a rule anyone is obliged to accept.

The only actual rules about what can and can't be done are the laws of physics. I won't hold my breath for them to be uncovered in all their ramifications.

Well true. But when the interactions get complicated it is hard to figure out.

But the mindset is common. In the medical profession and at the NIDA the rule is: drug taking is a symptom. i.e. drugs do not cause addiction. There is ample evidence of what I say.

And yet it is rather difficult to change minds.

The "it can't be done" mind set in various guises is quite common. Of course it is killer for an engineer to hold to such ideas. It greatly reduces the chance of problem solutions.

choff wrote:There used to be a political party in the 30's called the Technocracy Party, they claimed to have created an experimental village run on their system as a test. Might I suggest a similar experiment for the Libertarian party. Gather a few hundred Libertarians in one town for a few years run entirely on Libertarian principles and see how it works.

Wasn't there something like this in New Hampshire in recent years?

Betruger wrote:

choff wrote:There used to be a political party in the 30's called the Technocracy Party, they claimed to have created an experimental village run on their system as a test. Might I suggest a similar experiment for the Libertarian party. Gather a few hundred Libertarians in one town for a few years run entirely on Libertarian principles and see how it works.

Wasn't there something like this in New Hampshire in recent years?

Yes.