Search Ideas

One answer could be that the more fundamental principle wins.

I think you may be giving these stances too much credit.

There’s something to be said about people who have a high time preference also often being pacifists or socialists. But that may have more to do with the constellation of ideas in that particular memeplex than logical sense.

For example, compromise increases disappointment right away since nobody involved gets what they want, and they realize this immediately when the compromise is made.

I have trouble with altitude and can barely breathe when I am in, e.g. Bogotá. But Mendoza was no problem for me and I went on morning runs without even noticing a difference.

It's unlikely that an anarcho-capitalist president, if given enough time, will not lower these taxes.

Currently Argentina is also very bad at collecting tax from you.

Are pacifism, socialism and compromise all short-termist?

Pacifism reduces casualties --- in the short term.

Socialism reduces poverty --- in the short term.

Compromise reduces disappointment --- in the short term.

Freedom of Association Maxxing:
https://libertythroughreason.com/freedom-of-association-maxxing/

Not if personhood requires literal explanatory universality, in the sense of: can create any explanation, since there are explanations which can only be created by a Turing complete system..., surely.

I've been thinking about the principle that principles should not or do not admit of exceptions, else they are not principles. Yet, I've thought, we seem to not abide by this, even with something as fundamental as freedom of speech. We make exceptions for calls to violence, doxing, etc.

But I've (somehow only) just realized that those are not what we might call "standalone exceptions" -- they are overlaps with other principles, those of non-initiation of force and privacy, in this case.

So we can say: principles do not admit of exceptions, but if there is more than one principle in the system, one's exception can be another's enforcement. Which is not an inconsistency. Then the question is, which one is the higher priority? Maybe this is where the court system comes in. (I don't know much about politics).

Welcome to Veritula, Brad.

Feel free to chime in on one of the existing discussions to get started: https://veritula.com/discussions

We also have a Telegram channel you’re welcome to join. I can send an invite.

What brings you to V? What are your main interests?

Interesting insight from TheBentist on Instagram. He’s a dentist making a new toothpaste.

He says cavities are caused by a bacterium called strep mutans. A popular misconception says cavities are caused by sugar. That’s not exactly right: strep mutans feeds on sugar and then ‘poops’ out an acid that corrodes your teeth. But sugar itself does not cause cavities – it only feeds strep mutans that’s already there.

The thing is, people aren’t born with strep mutans in their mouths. And they don’t get it from food. They get it from other people who already have it. Like when parents kiss their kids or share food. I’m guessing things like ‘double dipping’, sharing utensils, or drinking from the same bottle are especially problematic.

TheBentist made a toothpase called ‘Zero Pro’ that supposedly kills strep mutans. Conventional toothpastes just scrub it off your teeth. Zero Pro is said to actually kill it. So my understanding is that you could never get cavities again as long as the strep mutans is dead.

That would also eliminate the need for mouthwash, which he calls a ‘scorched-earth approach’ that kills a lot of good bacteria.

Fact-check me on this stuff. I’m not a dentist myself. I’m not giving any medical advice. But this toothpaste sounds interesting and promising to me. Somebody is actually thinking about the root cause of oral disease, and trying to fix it rather than find ways to live with it.

How to tell you’re ahead, objectively:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-hwx-mUfjAg

I found a clip of Milton Friedman refuting my point:

… prohibition encouraged alcoholism rather than the opposite. To the young people in particular, it became an adventure to go out and get drunk, to go to a speakeasy. Today, with heroin illegal, it pays a heroin pusher to create an addict because, given that it’s illegal, it’s worth his while to spend some money on getting somebody else hooked. Because once hooked, he has a captive audience. If heroin were readily available everywhere, it wouldn’t pay anybody to create an addict, because the addict could then go anywhere to buy.

So if drugs were legal, sellers would have little to no incentive to turn their customers into addicts since the customers could go anywhere to get the drugs. Also, the sellers could always get new customers, so they don’t need to get customers addicted in the first place.

In short, making drugs illegal makes them more dangerous, not less.

To this end, @davies may be able to revive #4058 by editing it to call for the abolition of public property, too.

This is a fair point. I’ve seen videos out of Portland, OR, where most (all?) drugs have effectively been legalized, and public parks are an absolute shit show now.

Opponents of legalization like to point to this footage as evidence that legalizing drugs doesn’t work. But I think it just goes to show that if we’re going to legalize drugs, we also need to abolish public property. (We should do that regardless.)

Regulation begets more regulation. Once you have public property, you need to pass laws about what you will and won’t have on said public property. Conversely, just removing those laws without also abolishing public property causes trouble.

No half measures.

In limited areas like driving it makes sense because people don’t drive 24/7. But outlawing something in general affects them 24/7. So it’s not the same thing.

If drugs were legal, they’d be less dangerous, see #4964. If alcohol were illegal, error correction (including correcting safety errors) would get harder not easier.

I found a clip of Milton Friedman refuting my point:

… prohibition encouraged alcoholism rather than the opposite. To the young people in particular, it became an adventure to go out and get drunk, to go to a speakeasy. Today, with heroin illegal, it pays a heroin pusher to create an addict because, given that it’s illegal, it’s worth his while to spend some money on getting somebody else hooked. Because once hooked, he has a captive audience. If heroin were readily available everywhere, it wouldn’t pay anybody to create an addict, because the addict could then go anywhere to buy.

So if drugs were legal, sellers would have little to no incentive to turn their customers into addicts since the customers could go anywhere to get the drugs. Also, the sellers could always get new customers, so they don’t need to get customers addicted in the first place.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you but this still sounds different from languages just having different grammar. Some languages just don’t have the subject-predicate structure you spoke of. Still, people who speak them can state true things.

Then that statement, as you just wrote it, may not have any pending criticisms, in which case we assume it’s true. As long we treat ideas as discrete and immutable, even when there’s overlap, we can always still say true things.

One of the problems with cynicism, IMO, is that it ends up with pseudo-problems of language rather than genuine philosophical problems. I think that was one of the big issues with DD’s talk on statements vs. propositions.

Just pointing out that language tends to describe things as having properties. For example, "the flag is red." But that isn't really accurate; it's more that we perceive the flag as red. The flag doesn't actually possess the property of redness.

Just pointing out that language tends to describe things as having properties. For example, "the flag is red." But that isn't really accurate; it's more that we perceive the flag as red. The flag doesn't actually possess the property of redness.

Just pointing out that language tends to describe things as having properties. For example, "the flag is red." But that isn't really accurate; it's more that we perceive the flag as red. The flag doesn't actually possess the property of redness.

I spoke of different grammar, not categories.

Good idea, but one more question first. When you say a different language with different categories could also make true statements, do you mean truth is just any description that maps onto the states of the world? If so, it seems you can have multiple (indefinitely?) different carvings that all give coherent descriptions of those states.