GENIUS FORUMS

He isn't capable of working his way through school?

Self employed, trading the markets.

Whats your opinion on TA.

Ah, you're rich, eh? Got money to blow on legalized gambling? And here I thought you had problems.

Jamesh wrote:Whats your opinion on TA.

Very young company off to a good start, but without a track record it's really high risk. Plus right now the trading volume is so low there isn't enough liquidity to really trust it. Besides that, the industry group it's lumped in is out of favor. Personally, I wouldn't touch it.
.

One of the arguments that simply doesn't work in this work debate is that of taxation as theft with regard to people living contrary to our personal values. Society is far too complex socio-economically for this to be a sensible attitude. Every taxpayer contributes to any number of things he/she would rather not. There's no escaping it. There is no alternative that I can imagine that isn't logistically absurd. I don't support indolence as a lifestyle, but I also don't believe that it exists in a non-pathological way to begin with. Human beings are naturally purposeful and therefore contributary on some level. Pathological indolence is a disability and should be treated as such and be subject to the benefits of welfare.

Of course, in all of this hardly anyone bothers to even broach the matter of whether "work" is in and of itself virtuous, such is our religious obssession with the concept. It is entirely argubale that in many cases the indolent are far more socially benign than the work-crazed. But, our religiosity doesn't see this, it just sees the superfical signs of effort and occupation. And you see, that's really what's its about - being occupied, no matter how demonstrably meaningless it might be. The unoccupied aren't bad because they aren't contributing, they are bad because being unoccupied might cause them to do something incredibly dangerous, like, start thinking...

Dan,

One of the arguments that simply doesn't work in this work debate is that of taxation as theft with regard to people living contrary to our personal values. Society is far too complex socio-economically for this to be a sensible attitude. Every taxpayer contributes to any number of things he/she would rather not. There's no escaping it.

So because we're already taxed for things we don't wish to be, we should accept this tax as well? Doesn't sound very logical to me.

It is possible to escape it - by voting the right people in and trying to get the laws changed. At least that's how it generally works in America.

Of course, in all of this hardly anyone bothers to even broach the matter of whether "work" is in and of itself virtuous, such is our religious obssession with the concept. It is entirely argubale that in many cases the indolent are far more socially benign than the work-crazed. But, our religiosity doesn't see this, it just sees the superfical signs of effort and occupation. And you see, that's really what's its about - being occupied, no matter how demonstrably meaningless it might be. The unoccupied aren't bad because they aren't contributing, they are bad because being unoccupied might cause them to do something incredibly dangerous, like, start thinking...

I don't think you're right here. It doesn't matter to me if someone chooses to do nothing. If that's what they like, then more power to them. I'm glad they found their calling.

What really bothers me is how they leech off of the hard work of others, while they do nothing. I don't believe in any justification for it, by saying they're "thinkers". We are all thinkers. What it really comes down to is that these people are either disabled or lazy. I don't think lazy people should get paid for being that way. They should find some way to earn money for themselves instead of taking it from others.

By the way, no one fears thinking. At least not where I'm from. It sounds ridiculous when someone says something like that.

Re -Whats your opinion on TA.

I wondered whether to not use the above acronym. I meant Technical Analysis (more or less charting), as opposed to Fundamental Analysis (analysis of companies financials, reports, industry sector trends).

Some quite intelligent individualistic folks swear by TA, and it fascinated me for a while, it is kind of a pattern recognition game, but it didn't work for me because I am so undisciplined.

Those who are most successful at trading over the long term tend to use both TA (for buy and sell points) and FA (for determining the likelyhood a stock or index will move in the direction they want).

James,

Ah. Yes, I use both - as you probably realized upon reading my opinion of TravelCenters of America. I check the fundamentals first to see if it is even worth bothering to look at the charts, but there is no way to see trends or entry/exit signals without the charts.
.

Dan,

All good points. I sometimes fail to re-frame the debate in terms of the nature of work itself by unwittingly accepting conventional assumptions about what constitutes activity, indolence, and the like. Thanks for approaching that side of it, which is quite important.

BTW, can we ask people to refrain from polluting a thread about Diogenes and welfare with capitalist rabbit pellets about stocks and such? I find it not only irrelevant and off-topic, but offensive.

Nevermind, I forgot what forum this was in. In retrospect, I guess I should have put it in the other one.

Dan Rowden wrote:Of course, in all of this hardly anyone bothers to even broach the matter of whether "work" is in and of itself virtuous, such is our religious obssession with the concept. It is entirely argubale that in many cases the indolent are far more socially benign than the work-crazed. But, our religiosity doesn't see this, it just sees the superfical signs of effort and occupation. And you see, that's really what's its about - being occupied, no matter how demonstrably meaningless it might be. The unoccupied aren't bad because they aren't contributing, they are bad because being unoccupied might cause them to do something incredibly dangerous, like, start thinking...

Come on, Dan, that isn't what this is about at all. Work may or may not be a good thing. And the Negative Income Tax might even be a good public policy; that's not really relevant.

It's just that "the world owes me a living" attitude which is repugnant. Why is it that I am obligated to support some particular person, that happens to live in my country? Why should that money not to go to, say, someone starving in Ethiopia?

Why is the government, better qualified to say where the money I earn should go than I am? I don't think they have a very good track record when it comes to efficiency.
The government might choose, as a matter of public policy, to support people who, for whatever reason, are not working, but I don't think there is some general moral obligation to do that.

Every taxpayer contributes to any number of things he/she would rather not. There's no escaping it.

Exactly - there is no escaping it. Taxation is theft. It's not optional.

DHodges wrote:Come on, Dan, that isn't what this is about at all. Work may or may not be a good thing.

Indeed. The question here is not whether work is a virtue or vice, but whether unreciprocal "Feed me!" demand is justifiable on ethical grounds.

It's just that "the world owes me a living" attitude which is repugnant. Why is it that I am obligated to support some particular person, that happens to live in my country?

Exactly my attitude. What bothers me is not paying taxes (it's part of our social contract), but people who claim that they are personally entitled to the fruits of my labor. I gave Unidian the following example a while ago:

Suppose you live in a forest by hunting and gathering. Life is hard, and you hate work. Then along comes a proficient forester who is good enough at it to be able to, should he so choose, feed both you and himself. Is he morally obligated to feed your indolent ass? Does he become your slaver without having ever done anything to you, by the mere virtue of the fact that you hate work and he has the ability (but not the desire) to support you?

According to Unidian's surreal argument, this forester owes you a living, and if he doesn't provide it, he is your slaver, because he is capable of freeing you from the need to work. The fact that this forester would rather have more leisure time, or better food, or more clothing, never enters the equation; it's only Unidian's wants (to be indolent) that count. The alternative solution to saving your ass from starvation -- forcing you to work, which would be labor camps in today's society -- is of course not acceptable to Unidian. The only solution he finds acceptable is the one which imposes obligations on others, not one which imposes any obligations on himself.

This reminds me of an old russian joke from the times of stalinist collectivization.

At a village meeting, a communist representative is giving a speech. "Peasants, join the kolkhoz! It's the communist way! In a kolkhoz, everyone's property becomes shared kolkhoz property!" A peasant asks:
-- Does that include horses?
-- Yes, comrade, horses too.
-- Good, good! How about sheep?
-- Yes, comrade peasant, sheep also.
-- Excellent! How about cows?
-- Well, of course, comrade, cows as well!
-- That is terrible. No good at all!
-- Why not, comrade peasant?
-- I have two cows...

Why is the government, better qualified to say where the money I earn should go than I am? I don't think they have a very good track record when it comes to efficiency.

Actually, this is where you are wrong. There are many things which cannot be optimally resolved on individual level. Check out Prisoner's Dilemma.

There are very good reason for government and taxation; but moral obligation to support the voluntarily indolent is not one of them.

The government might choose, as a matter of public policy, to support people who, for whatever reason, are not working, but I don't think there is some general moral obligation to do that.

That is exactly my point of contention with Unidian. He wants to turn the support of voluntarily indolent from a pragmatic public policy into a moral virtue, to twist the world around so that we all owe him a living, and are morally inferior to him due to his elective indolence.

Fundamentally, I think it's a psychological problem. Uni seems to lack the reciprocal impulse, a cognitive feature which makes our society possible. Reciprocal altruism is hard-wired into primates: if a chimp for example receives grooming but doesn't reciprocate, that chimp is soon ostracized by the entire group. Similarly, our society is based on reciprocal altruism -- on a deep-seated sense of fairness which stands above and beyond personal self-interest.

Well, in the same way some people (sociopaths) lack the empathic impulse, I think some other people (like Unidian) lack reciprocal impulse. To them, reciprocation only matters inasmuch as it benefits them personally, and not otherwise. I have had multiple independent reasons to believe that Unidian in fact does lack such an impulse, which explains his incredibly egoistical take on moral obligation (that others are obligated to him, but not vice-versa -- i.e. that the imposition of obligation doesn't have to be fair and reciprocal).

Without the twin supports of empathy and reciprocal altruism, people couldn't exist as people, only as sociopathic individuals.

Taxation is theft. It's not optional.

No, it's a part of our social contract. However, Unidian's argument does not rest on taxation, and taxation is thus merely a smokescreen; don't get sidetracked. He asserts others' moral obligation to sustain him even in the complete absence of a state, as per my forester example above. The whole "I only consume already-collected excess" thing is a red herring, and has nothing to do with the substance of his position.

I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular, just throwing around a few ideas.

The worth of your actions shouldn't be measured solely by what people are willing to pay for them.

Would it be more ethical to live off welfare and develop yourself philosophically, or be a full-time hairdresser and mindless consumer?

Is it not possible that just the statement made by actively and openly choosing unemployment based on principle, has much potential worth to society?

The unemployed aren't the ones who are "stealing" from people's taxes, it is the coercive arm of the government like police, courts and prisons who dominate people into compliance and/or punishment.

Voting implies agreement with the validity of the system, and consent to be represented by the government. How could theft be said to originate from such an agreement?

Victor wrote:

Reciprocal altruism is hard-wired into primates: Similarly, our society is based on reciprocal altruism -- on a deep-seated sense of fairness which stands above and beyond personal self-interest.

Ironically, the more enlightened an individual becomes, the more self-interested he is in this context, he essentially goes beyond all his biological conditioning such as altruism, as he isn’t motivated to sacrifice his blood and sweat equally with other irrational humans. He isn’t motivated to do any sort of repetitive task for long periods of time, there is nothing there that is motivating him. He lacks ambition, and desire to become something.

His sense of fairness transcends the herd mentality of fairness, which is solely measured through contributions in the market economy. He becomes otherworldly. He is basically too sensitive for the civilization to be able to be a productive contributor because of the irrational pace to which things are moving.

Ironically, authentic sages who are bored by the company of women actually become quite womanly themselves. How very drole! They become useless to others, except for their ability to share wisdom and explore any intellectual topic in a novel manner. In this context, it would be nice if the civilization was conscious enough to recognize the value of sages, but it isn’t. However, one is still able to secure basic necessitates through simply speaking the truth, which is usually interpreted as a mental condition by the masses.

Moreover, the financial drain of leeching sages is fairly minuscule compared to the drain on the system to pay for things like drug addicts, single mothers, high health care costs due to people’s vices, nationalized sports events, compensation to pay for injured workers that were hurt while intoxicated, and so on….

However, I still work in the civilization because I have personally found a loophole that works for me – the phenomenon of the security guard. As I said before, the security guard is the perfect job for a sage because it demands very little mental effort, and physical effort. The security guard is basically able to maintain the integrity of his entire being, without any sort of mental or physical anguish.

Furthermore, I may be able to tolerate other jobs if the ‘company’ as an entity wasn’t so irrational in the types of continuous demands it puts on the worker’s body and mind.

In an ideal enlightened civilization, the populations would be much lower, and citizens would probably work roughly three hours per day, securing only the essential goods and services.

Victor wrote:Reciprocal altruism is hard-wired into primates

Well, since you mentioned game theory and chimps, why wouldn't it just be a dominant strategy determined mostly by cultural circumstance ('group dynamic')? The potential for such strategy could be hard-wired in genetic sense but same could be true for lots of behavioral strategies. Success for 'reciprocal altruism' would be measured in group coherence and sacrifice is key to group cohesion on many levels.

This doesn't mean there are never other good strategies available than tit for tat, and some might be quite successful if the circumstances would allow. And it depends on what is defined as 'success' - for example a hermit philosopher, as individual, has mostly other goals than society and its social members have. He might sacrifice lots of comfort and safety to experience freedom from the social contracts demanding piece of his mind (and they always do!).

Ryan R wrote:it would be nice if the civilization was conscious enough to recognize the value of sages, but it isn’t.

Oh, our civilization does recognize sages. Not often enough sure, but it does. Your qualm here is that it doesn't recognize you as a sage -- and rather than actually attain a state in which you genuinely have some wisdom to share with others, you prefer to believe that you already magically possess it, and are ignored because the society sucks.

You blame the society for your own inability to be, in anything but fantasy, what you wish to be. Instead of accepting responsibility, you project blame.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Well, since you mentioned game theory and chimps, why wouldn't it just be a dominant strategy determined mostly by cultural circumstance ('group dynamic')?

It is -- just as our survival imperative is determined by biological evolution. However, I don't see many 'sages' quietly opening their veins in a warm bathtub.

In the spirit of A=A, we are what we are. Deal with facts.

This doesn't mean there are never other good strategies available than tit for tat, and some might be quite successful if the circumstances would allow. And it depends on what is defined as 'success' - for example a hermit philosopher, as individual, has mostly other goals than society and its social members have. He might sacrifice lots of comfort and safety to experience freedom from the social contracts demanding piece of his mind (and they always do!).

Good for him, as long as he doesn't demand that others sacrifice on his behalf. Surely you can tell the difference between bucking convention, and bucking convention at others' expense?..

vicdan wrote:

Diebert wrote:This doesn't mean there are never other good strategies available than tit for tat, and some might be quite successful if the circumstances would allow. And it depends on what is defined as 'success' - for example a hermit philosopher, as individual, has mostly other goals than society and its social members have. He might sacrifice lots of comfort and safety to experience freedom from the social contracts demanding piece of his mind (and they always do!).

Good for him, as long as he doesn't demand that others sacrifice on his behalf. Surely you can tell the difference between bucking convention, and bucking convention at others' expense?..

Why this "as long..." condition? We always sacrifice and apart from Utopia there's no perfect return for every sacrifice made (for the individual but it can be argued the benefit for a state hasn't been there either in many tragic cases).

This is the real world where amazing amounts of senseless, meaningless sacrifice is going on every day for fictional causes and totally made-up justifications.

In that real world the imagined sacrifice to pay for the ones not wanting to work for whatever reason quickly becomes a laughing matter and mostly a distraction from any real problem.

My approach would be: let those who want to break away from the social contract do that. Lets pay for it, compared to the weapon industry it will not mean much. And lets bet on the possibility that some of those break-aways may actually produce something, brink something back from the wilderness or solitude that would be worthy.

Just being cold and pragmatic here. I'm still financially independent, always was and would like to keep it that way.

Victor wrote:

Oh, our civilization does recognize sages. Not often enough sure, but it does.

It recognizes them, but the recognition is totally distorted, as the society isn’t wise enough to know what are superior values. For instance: the general consensus of the work of Jesus does not reflect his actual teachings.

And my statement did not reflect an inward yearning to be recognized as a sage, but rather it commented on the dismal state of affairs in civilization, which is based on the majority’s inability to see what is of the highest value.

Basically, the sage dreams of living with less, while the general population dreams of living with more.

However, I am optimistic that the current environmental crisis will cause people to change their attitudes, not out of intelligence, but rather out of a fear of death.

Scott: I'm going to have to agree with Dan on this, based on my own experience.

One complaint that most people say about not working is that they'd get bored. It's true. When you don't work, you get bored, and you end up working anyway. You only do work you can personally justify, but that turns into a lot (volunteer work, cleaning, etc.). The stuff that most people do to unwind (watch television, go to bars, etc.) is really boring for somebody who doesn't have anything to unwind from.

The only people I've ever encountered who didn't work and ended up doing nothing productive had something pathologically wrong with them: clinically depressed people who cann't find the motivation to do anything but sleep and smoke, alcoholics and other drug addicts, etc.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:My approach would be: let those who want to break away from the social contract do that. Lets pay for it, compared to the weapon industry it will not mean much. And lets bet on the possibility that some of those break-aways may actually produce something, brink something back from the wilderness or solitude that would be worthy.

Alas, history doesn't support this supposition. I can't think of any major figure in human history who produced something of great value while forcing others to support their indolence. Greek philosophers generally didn't make others pay for their upkeep. Buddha and Jesus and Lao Tze and Confucius didn't force others to support their indolence.

People who create, create. They don't wallow in indolence and demand that others support this sloth with the sweat of their brow. They often convince others that supporting them is worthwhile, with their very creation itself; but such support is voluntary. Those great ones delivered.

Jesus and Buddha and others somesuch managed to get fed and clothed not by proclaiming that they have a right to others' labor, but by convincing those others that their thought is worthy of support.

Just being cold and pragmatic here.

How can you be coldly pragmatic without actually relying on historic data? Seems to me that you are just trying to justify a predetermined conclusion.

Why can't a would-be sage think and support themselves? it happens all the time! But no, these particular moochers want others to simply accept on faith the assertion that the aforementioned moochers will produce some grand result while living on the dole. No, let them work as security guards, as per Ryan's message! Surely if philosophical creation was the true goal and metric, this would be an acceptable solution?

vicdan wrote:

DHodges wrote:Taxation is theft. It's not optional.

No, it's a part of our social contract.

I don't really buy "social contract" theories, although I must say I don't have a well-formulated alternative; really just a general feeling that there is something bogus about the whole idea of the social contract.

A contract implies negotiation between parties. This "contract" is already existing at the time of my birth, and my consent is merely implied and assumed; I do not actively consent to it. (I might even argue that I am brainwashed into accepting it.)

There is also the tacit assumption that the government has some moral legitimacy to it, and is not formed coercively. While that is theoretically possible, as far as I know all actual governments were formed under some level of violence and opposition (usually by overthrowing some earlier form). So the "consent" is manufactured by force.

The "social contract" also seems to rest on some assumption about a "state of nature" in the absence of such a contract. I have a vague feeling that the actual state of nature before the existence of government... well, it didn't really exist. Tribes always had chiefs. A pack of wolves has an alpha. I have a sense that there is kind of a desire to morally justify what is, in fact, a kind of nearly instinctual behavior and need for authority.

Anyway, as I said, I don't have a coherent theory here, just a feeling that the "social contract" is kind of a fig leaf covering some bits of society that are actually based on dominance and violence, or the threat of it.

<shrug> Social contractarianism is a whole separate field of inquiry (though compare the social contract to, say, condominium owners' contract, which you also join without negotiation); but it has nothing to do with Unidian's argument for the moral obligation upon the rest of us to support the voluntarily indolent.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Unidian wrote:Are you employed, Elizabeth?

Self employed, trading the markets. I still have not made back everything I lost in the recent crash, so although there is work to it, and full-time commitment to sitting in front of the computer, income is not guaranteed but loss is a distinct possibility. I'm self-supporting, though (for the time-being, anyway).
.

The beauty of the capitalist empire, and i'm not being sarcastic.

Dan Rowden wrote:One of the arguments that simply doesn't work in this work debate is that of taxation as theft with regard to people living contrary to our personal values. Society is far too complex socio-economically for this to be a sensible attitude. Every taxpayer contributes to any number of things he/she would rather not. There's no escaping it. There is no alternative that I can imagine that isn't logistically absurd. I don't support indolence as a lifestyle, but I also don't believe that it exists in a non-pathological way to begin with. Human beings are naturally purposeful and therefore contributary on some level. Pathological indolence is a disability and should be treated as such and be subject to the benefits of welfare.

Of course, in all of this hardly anyone bothers to even broach the matter of whether "work" is in and of itself virtuous, such is our religious obssession with the concept. It is entirely argubale that in many cases the indolent are far more socially benign than the work-crazed. But, our religiosity doesn't see this, it just sees the superfical signs of effort and occupation. And you see, that's really what's its about - being occupied, no matter how demonstrably meaningless it might be. The unoccupied aren't bad because they aren't contributing, they are bad because being unoccupied might cause them to do something incredibly dangerous, like, start thinking...

Well, if we had a better government we could perhaps opt-out of taxes for things which we do not support, ie war, religion. Also, the problem with work is that it does stop you from thinking, but not necessarily because it takes up all your hours which it usually doesn't, but because it puts you into a mentality.