gdp's Comments

A Division by Zer0 : Bumming Mutualism

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:52:29 +0000

Larry is generally sharp when it comes to these sorts of issues...

You're too kind. ;-)

THE ATHEIST JEW : Troubling: Atheist Blogosphere Silent About Obama's Egypt Speech

Fri, 5 Jun 2009 22:35:57 +0000

Don't blame me; I'm a communist, and I've been slamming Obama since before the election.

A Division by Zer0 : Why the Free Markets concept is useless

Sat, 23 May 2009 01:43:31 +0000

I hadn't read that comment before. Great minds truly do think alike.

A Division by Zer0 : Why the Free Markets concept is useless

Fri, 22 May 2009 12:21:36 +0000

For any scientific theory, it is not the premises but the conclusions that are typically subject to empirical verification. A theory predicts the results of observations and experiments: if the theory's predictions do not match the actual observations, then the theory fails to accurately describe reality. Which brings up, of course, a more important point (that you correctly note): All scientific theories are descriptive, not normative. It is impossible to establish a normative proposition by the scientific method, since any non-trivial normative proposition is in principle unfalsifiable by experiment in any theoretical context. There are substantial problems with free market economics from a purely theoretical level. First, free market economics do indeed entail Pareto efficiency, but this result begs the question as to whether we actually want a Pareto-efficient economy and more importantly which Pareto efficient solution we want to achieve: many different patterns of distribution are Pareto-efficient. More importantly, free market economics entails that all individuals seek the local Nash equilibrium for individual economic decisions. This entails that any "Prisoner's Dilemma" economic situations are always resolved by mutual defection. Therefore, free market economics (as well as purely anarchist economics) structurally fails to achieve available mutual benefits. (Note that all outcomes of PD games are Pareto efficient, when different decision-sets are considered as alternative benefit distributions.) Third, there is the observation that free market economics has absolutely nothing to do with actually existing political economies. Free market economics specifically requires (on close examination) that property rights be limited (with only trivial exceptions) to ownership by physical possession. Ownership of capital is necessarily abstract, abstract ownership is by definition an externality, and free market economics assumes no externalities. To attempt to describe a capitalist political economy in terms of free market economics is as pointless and stupid as trying to describe aerodynamics in terms of gravitation in a vacuum.

Exsisto Sane : Moral Relativism

Mon, 4 May 2009 23:51:36 +0000

You might enjoy my series on Meta-Ethical Subjective Relativism a.k.a. Constructivism.

Exsisto Sane : Moral Relativism

Mon, 4 May 2009 23:49:01 +0000

Harris states that he believes there is an absolute moral right and wrong and that the claim that morality must be relative is itself an absolute statement about morality and so moral relativism is therefore self-contradictory.

Harris commits an obvious fallacy of type. The statement, "All morals are relative" is (in the relevant sense) an absolute statement, but significantly it is not itself a moral statement; it is a metamoral (or metaethical) statement. It is thus not self-referential and does not entail any self-referential paradoxes. In just the same sense, consider the obviously true statement: (1) The value of the sum of an arithmetic addition is relative to the values of the operands Clearly (1) states a relation in absolute terms, but it is not an arithmetical statement, it is a statement about arithmetic, a meta-arithmetical statement.

Stochastic Scribbles : Torture may not have been stupid

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:34:02 +0000

It’s beginning to sound like false confessions were exactly what they wanted.

You are surprised?

Evolved and Rational : Fucking RRRAAAGGGEEE!

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:22:46 +0000

The current system spills the blood of civilians too. I'm not going to *make* anyone else fight, but I myself am not content to go down without fighting.

Evolved and Rational : Fucking RRRAAAGGGEEE!

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:07:18 +0000

I've read a lot of things. But I'm a communist, not an anarchist.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : 10 Answers from an AntiChristian

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:00:37 +0000

Damn, Lea, fucking idiots like you are even more tiresome, jumping wildly to conclusions. I was pointing out an additional flaw in the Bible, not in db0's analysis. Get a fucking clue: the phrase "missed a trick" means that an opportunity to score additional points was missed.

A Division by Zer0 : Why not try to change the system from within?

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:23:23 +0000

I can't read the original argument, but I can pick up some hints from babelfish. As Francois Tremblay notes, the key question is whether "centrist" political activities really do improve the conditions of the masses, the working class and the poor: the answer is itself controversial. One might make the case that FDR's actions, and the political activities that directly supported him, really did improve conditions for the masses, at least temporarily. Of course the dramatic increase in American imperialism is a factor in that improvement. It's arguable that the improvement came not from the bourgeoisie making direct concessions to the proletariat, but rather the bourgeoisie using the surplus labor of hyper-oppressed foreign workers to buy off segments (mostly white male) of the American proletariat. Improvement in the conditions of one segment of the masses at the expense of another is not progress. More importantly, we have to ask whether ameliorative "centrist" activities have a cumulative effect. That there is in fact no cumulative effect seems almost obvious. We have seen the greater the gains, the more activity, focus and energy is required to maintain those gains; the smallest passivity or indecision, and the gains are lost, and must be fought for anew. If centrist activities had a cumulative effect, we would have seen improvement since the 50's and 60's; instead we have seen a general decline in workers' standards of living, in the rights and privileges of the masses of racial minorities and immigrants, and, most notably in women's rights, especially their core reproductive rights. At best we have seen women and racial minorities gain improved access to the bourgeoisie; great for the fraction who are admitted, not so great for the overwhelming majority denied access on other grounds. If you are sincerely dedicated to making immediate, material improvements to the conditions of the masses without attacking the fundamentals of the system, more power to you. I maintain that centrists and the radicals reinforce each other far more than they contradict each other. The centrists help bring to attention the crimes and failures of the system in a concrete way, and the radicals give the centrists something to be in the center of. Radicals don't (or shouldn't) actively oppose immediate improvements, especially when those improvements tend to directly undermine the power of the bourgeoisie. We merely say that these immediate improvements aren't enough, not nearly enough, and that these improvements are necessary and even the smallest are so bitterly opposed by the bourgeoisie are evidence that the system as a whole is at fault and must be replaced. In a similar sense, centrists shouldn't actively oppose changing the fundamentals of the system; to do so is to oppose a cure for the disease rather than a mere amelioration of its symptoms.

A Division by Zer0 : Why not try to change the system from within?

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:58:38 +0000

Winning parliamentary seats is irrelevant as even if by stroke of luck it happens, it will not amount to anything. A parliamentary seat can provide a unique and valuable platform for propaganda.

Evolved and Rational : Fucking RRRAAAGGGEEE!

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:03:10 +0000

'Tis true: those in power will never give it up voluntarily, no matter how despotic and tyrannical. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Evolved and Rational : Fucking RRRAAAGGGEEE!

Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:13:14 +0000

The real revolution is the one where people actually change things. Find one or start one.

Evolved and Rational : Fucking RRRAAAGGGEEE!

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 02:36:32 +0000

Mad enough to join the real revolution yet?

Evolved and Rational : Superstition kills again

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:02:34 +0000

While all this despicable lunacy is going on around the world, the postmodernists still claim that we must leave them alone; and rant about how it is AWWRIGHT because their culture is different...or something fucktarded like that.

Bullshit. Apparently lies and libel are objectionable only when Cretinists and Scientologists do it. Peachy keen, though, when you do it. You have no more integrity or ethics than any cretinist. I used to like you. Not any more.

A Division by Zer0 : Objective and Subjective Value

Sun, 1 Mar 2009 14:27:45 +0000

I read perfectly, I just dont agree.

I was making the more charitable interpretation. Since you deny this interpretation I will go to the next most charitable interpretation that you are stupid. (Disclaim that interpretation and the next is that you're being intentionally obtuse.) Just because db0 uses the word "value" does not mean that you may interpret this word willy-nilly. He explicitly defines "objective value", and any intellectually honest reading of his work must conform to his definitions. You can (as I do) argue that his terminology is a little confusing, but you cannot argue he is mistaken because you are applying a definition he explicitly disclaims. And keep in mind that I myself can't delete shit here; it's db0's blog, not mine.

A Division by Zer0 : Objective and Subjective Value

Sun, 1 Mar 2009 12:37:39 +0000

The Labor Theory of Value and the Marginal Theory of Value are related: The Marginal Theory of Value (which discusses the relationship of subjective value to price) quantifies how prices reach equilibrium (and whether prices fall to cost or cost rises to value); the Labor Theory of Value states that the equilibrium price is the socially necessary labor time necessary to produce the commodity.

A Division by Zer0 : Objective and Subjective Value

Sun, 1 Mar 2009 12:27:45 +0000

I think Marx's terminology requires revision. The higher the cost (labor time), the higher the price (exchange value). Applied to a single commodity produced by a single producer, higher actual labor time will result in a higher price. Applied to a commodity produced by many producers in a single market, the equilibrium market price of the item will be related to a statistical properties of the individual actual labor costs (socially necessary abstract labor time). As db0 notes, if the price exceeds the relative subjective utility, no one will buy the item. If an individual producer's price exceeds the equilibrium price, then (eventually) everyone seeking the commodity will buy from her competitors. If the equilibrium price exceeds the relative subjective value (i.e. if people would rather spend their own labor acquiring other commodities), then no one will buy the commodity from any of the producers. Although his terminology is a little different, db0 makes these concepts clear enough in his post, which the_Libertarian does not appear to have read carefully.

Evolved and Rational : In solidarity with The Pirate Bay

Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:09:17 +0000

Keep in mind that I am criticizing a legal defense; I am not arguing that the TPB did anything at all morally or ethically wrong, nor am I arguing even that TPB's action was definitely illegal. FTR, I consider TPB's actions ethically praiseworthy, regardless of their legality, and I think -- at least as to the extent that I understand American constitutional law -- would not be illegal in the United States. Just because some particular legal theory might be used in defense of an activity that one approves of does not automatically render that theory valid. The administrators of TPB are not subject to legal action because they are distributing torrents. They are subject because they are distributing torrents that clearly and demonstrably can be used only for illegal actions, i.e. downloading copyrighted content. (One problem that I have with the recent content of your blog, ER, is that you seem to have attracted an audience of supporters as bereft of skill in logical, critical thought as the cretinist detractors of your previous content.)