Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024
Activity
6 unchanged lines collapsedAny attempt to ignore or evade this reality leads to police forces and justice systems that are, all else being equal, worse than they would be in a free market because they don’t correct errors as well as they otherwisewould.would.↵ ↵ See #267.
#894·Dennis HackethalOP, 10 months agoHarry Binswanger wrote a piece titled ‘Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government’ for Forbes, criticizing the libertarian position.
The wielding of force is not a business function. In fact, force is outside the realm of economics. Economics concerns production and trade, not destruction and seizure.
It cannot be. This is an attempt to step outside of nature rather than obey it, even though objectivists normally advocate obeying it.
The police force, prosecutors, judges, etc need resources and payment. Those resources don’t grow in nature. Scarcity and the economic calculation problem apply.
Any attempt to ignore or evade this reality leads to police forces and justice systems that are, all else being equal, worse than they would be in a free market because they don’t correct errors as well as they otherwise would.
#894·Dennis HackethalOP, 10 months agoHarry Binswanger wrote a piece titled ‘Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government’ for Forbes, criticizing the libertarian position.
Force properly employed is used only in retaliation, but even when retaliatory, force merely eliminates a negative, it cannot create value.
That isn’t true.
People want protection and justice. Retaliatory force does not merely eliminate a negative. Restoring and producing justice is a value.
Retaliating against one burglar can scare off ten others. The value that’s created here far exceeds the negative which the burglar created.
Harry Binswanger wrote a piece titled [‘Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism RequiresGovernment’]Government’](https://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2014/01/24/sorry-libertarian-anarchists-capitalism-requires-government-2/) for Forbes, criticizing the libertarian position.
Harry Binswanger wrote a piece titled‘Sorry[‘Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism RequiresGovernment’Government’] for Forbes, criticizing the libertarian position.
Harry Binswanger wrote a piece titled ‘Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government’ for Forbes, criticizing the libertarian position.
#826·Dennis HackethalOP, 11 months agoKilling a pregnant woman is considered a double homicide, so aborting until week 6 can’t be right.
I’ve heard that but I don’t know if that’s even true. If it is, the killing shouldn’t be considered a double homicide until after week 6.
Homicide is “a killing of one human being by another”. If an embryo isn’t a person yet, its death can’t be homicide.
#299·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year agoI’m pro abortion but I have some pro life in me.
Banning the abortion of a zygote seems ridiculous. So does aborting a seven-month-old fetus.
Why not go with: you can abort until the nervous system develops.
Clearly, an embryo without a nervous system can’t be sentient and thus can’t be a person, right? And as long as it’s not a person, it doesn’t have any rights.
According to https://www.neurosciencefoundation.org/post/brain-development-in-fetus, “an embryo’s brain and nervous system begin to develop at around the 6-week mark.” And: “At as early as 8 weeks (about 2 months), you can see physical evidence of the brain working (the electric impulses) as ultrasounds show the embryo moving.”
This idea is for viable pregnancies only. Other considerations may apply for non-viable ones.
Killing a pregnant woman is considered a double homicide, so aborting until week 6 can’t be right.
4 unchanged lines collapsedThe chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things theydon’t want to do?[^1]feel conflicted about? Inschool.[^2]↵ ↵ [^1]: I mean “do things they don’t want to do” as in: the smoker doesn’t want to smoke *and* doesn’t want to not smoke at the same time. They ‘know’ they don’t want to smoke as in ‘they are aware they have conflicting preferences’. They know *part* of them doesn’t want it, to be precise. They ‘don’t want to do it’ as in: it’s not a hell yes. It’s not a course of action without any outstanding criticisms. So it’s not a rational decision.↵ [^2]:school.[^1]↵ ↵ [^1]: This is out of scope for the topic of addiction and deserves a more thorough treatment, but I think school could be one of *the* major causes of crime in this same epistemological sense. Since I’m guessing most criminals feel conflicted about whatever crime they’re about to commit but then commit it anyway.
Use properly formatted footnotes
4 unchanged lines collapsedThe chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things they don’t want todo?^1do?[^1] Inschool.^2↵ ↵ ---↵ ↵ ^1school.[^2]↵ ↵ [^1]: I mean “do things they don’t want to do” as in: the smoker doesn’t want to smoke *and* doesn’t want to not smoke at the same time. They ‘know’ they don’t want to smoke as in ‘they are aware they have conflicting preferences’. They know *part* of them doesn’t want it, to be precise. They ‘don’t want to do it’ as in: it’s not a hell yes. It’s not a course of action without any outstanding criticisms. So it’s not a rationaldecision.↵ ^2decision.↵ [^2]: This is out of scope for the topic of addiction and deserves a more thorough treatment, but I think school could be one of *the* major causes of crime in this same epistemological sense. Since I’m guessing most criminals feel conflicted about whatever crime they’re about to commit but then commit it anyway.
5 unchanged lines collapsedThe CambridgedictionaryDictionary [defines](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/entrenchment) entrenchment as “the process by which ideas become fixed and cannot be changed”.26 unchanged lines collapsed
Link to image of barbed hook
3 unchanged lines collapsedWhen a conflict is entrenched, it basically means the conflict resists solving. It’s like abarbed hook:[barbed hook](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/517AGneVrVL._AC_SL1000_.jpg): pulling on it just causes more damage.28 unchanged lines collapsed
4 unchanged lines collapsedThe chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things they don’t want todo?\*↵ ↵ \*do?^1 In school.^2↵ ↵ ---↵ ↵ ^1 I mean “do things they don’t want to do” as in: the smoker doesn’t want to smoke *and* doesn’t want to not smoke at the same time. They ‘know’ they don’t want to smoke as in ‘they are aware they have conflicting preferences’. They know *part* of them doesn’t want it, to be precise. They ‘don’t want to do it’ as in: it’s not a hell yes. It’s not a course of action without any outstanding criticisms. So it’s not a rationaldecision.decision.↵ ^2 This is out of scope for the topic of addiction and deserves a more thorough treatment, but I think school could be one of *the* major causes of crime in this same epistemological sense. Since I’m guessing most criminals feel conflicted about whatever crime they’re about to commit but then commit it anyway.
Address Amaro’s criticism
4 unchanged lines collapsedThe chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things they don’t want todo?do?\*↵ ↵ \* I mean “do things they don’t want to do” as in: the smoker doesn’t want to smoke *and* doesn’t want to not smoke at the same time. They ‘know’ they don’t want to smoke as in ‘they are aware they have conflicting preferences’. They know *part* of them doesn’t want it, to be precise. They ‘don’t want to do it’ as in: it’s not a hell yes. It’s not a course of action without any outstanding criticisms. So it’s not a rational decision.
If it were so clear to the chain smoker that he didn’t want to smoke he’d just stop. Having an internal conflict just means that you’re not sure what to do. You can come up with reasons for and against stopping orcontinuing.↵ ↵ (Amarocontinuing.↵ ↵ If he knows he doesn’t want to do it, that sounds like he doesn’t feel conflicted about wanting to do it. Being conflicted is simultaneously wanting it and not wanting it.↵ ↵ (Amaro Koberle)
#753·Dennis HackethalOP, 12 months agoWhat makes such entrenchment possible in the first place?
Being conflicted about what to do for long stretches of time is not the natural state of any mind. It is an anti-skill ~everyone learns in their youth.
The chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things they don’t want to do?
If it were so clear to the chain smoker that he didn’t want to smoke he’d just stop. Having an internal conflict just means that you’re not sure what to do. You can come up with reasons for and against stopping or continuing.
(Amaro Koberle)
#750·Dennis HackethalOP, 12 months agoEntrenchment
Like Karl Popper, I think definitions rarely matter. But sometimes they do. So, just to clarify what I mean by ‘entrenchment’, here are some explanations and examples.
When a conflict is entrenched, it basically means the conflict resists solving. It’s like a barbed hook: pulling on it just causes more damage.
The Cambridge dictionary defines entrenchment as “the process by which ideas become fixed and cannot be changed”.
The word originally came from the literal fortification of a place through the use of trenches. “[A] position protected by trenches”.
Here are some examples of how physicist David Deutsch uses the word in his book The Beginning of Infinity, which contains lots of epistemology. They’re from various chapters and obviously taken out of context, but I think they should still clarify the term (bold emphasis mine):
Though they are blind optimists, what defines them as utopians is their pessimism that their supposed utopia, or their violent proposals for achieving and entrenching it, could ever be improved upon.
And:
[T]he institutions of science are structured so as to avoid entrenching theories […]
And:
There are also arguments about the stultification of society caused by the entrenchment of old people in positions of power; […]
And:
[W]hat is necessary for progress is to exclude ideas that fail to survive criticism, and to prevent their entrenchment, and to promote the creation of new ideas.
And:
[T]he evolutionary pressure is for the psychological damage […] to be deeply entrenched, so that the recipients find themselves facing a large emotional cost [for considering deviating from prescribed behavior].
And:
A Popperian analysis would focus on the fact that Caesar had taken vigorous steps to ensure that he could not be removed without violence. And then on the fact that his removal did not rectify, but actually entrenched, this progress-suppressing innovation.
What makes such entrenchment possible in the first place?
Being conflicted about what to do for long stretches of time is not the natural state of any mind. It is an anti-skill ~everyone learns in their youth.
The chain smoker from my example is conflicted about smoking, right? Yet continues to do it anyway. Where do people learn to do things they don’t want to do?
#751·Dennis HackethalOP, 12 months agoThis doesn’t explain how to solve the entrenchment, ie cure the addiction.
Working on it. My preliminary answer is that it’s case by case. It depends on the nature of the particular entrenchment and the preferences involved. A more overarching answer might involve Randian ideas around introspection and getting one’s reason and emotions in the proper order.
I’ll leave this marked as a criticism until I flesh these thoughts out more.
#744·Dennis HackethalOP, 12 months agoMy conjecture
Conjecture: addiction is the result of the entrenchment of a conflict between two or more preferences in a mind.
Picture a smoker who wants to give up smoking but also really enjoys smoking. Those preferences conflict.
If the conflict is entrenched, then both preferences get to live on indefinitely. The entrenchment will not let the smoker give up smoking. He will become a chain smoker.
This doesn’t explain how to solve the entrenchment, ie cure the addiction.
Entrenchment
Like Karl Popper, I think definitions rarely matter. But sometimes they do. So, just to clarify what I mean by ‘entrenchment’, here are some explanations and examples.
When a conflict is entrenched, it basically means the conflict resists solving. It’s like a barbed hook: pulling on it just causes more damage.
The Cambridge dictionary defines entrenchment as “the process by which ideas become fixed and cannot be changed”.
The word originally came from the literal fortification of a place through the use of trenches. “[A] position protected by trenches”.
Here are some examples of how physicist David Deutsch uses the word in his book The Beginning of Infinity, which contains lots of epistemology. They’re from various chapters and obviously taken out of context, but I think they should still clarify the term (bold emphasis mine):
Though they are blind optimists, what defines them as utopians is their pessimism that their supposed utopia, or their violent proposals for achieving and entrenching it, could ever be improved upon.
And:
[T]he institutions of science are structured so as to avoid entrenching theories […]
And:
There are also arguments about the stultification of society caused by the entrenchment of old people in positions of power; […]
And:
[W]hat is necessary for progress is to exclude ideas that fail to survive criticism, and to prevent their entrenchment, and to promote the creation of new ideas.
And:
[T]he evolutionary pressure is for the psychological damage […] to be deeply entrenched, so that the recipients find themselves facing a large emotional cost [for considering deviating from prescribed behavior].
And:
A Popperian analysis would focus on the fact that Caesar had taken vigorous steps to ensure that he could not be removed without violence. And then on the fact that his removal did not rectify, but actually entrenched, this progress-suppressing innovation.
Prevailing explanations do not mention entrenchment. They do not refer to any epistemological concepts. My theory does.
Prevailing explanationsof addiction(#734) attributeitaddiction to desensitization. My theory doesn’t do that.
Prevailing explanations of addiction (#734) attribute it to desensitization. My theory doesn’t do that.