A peak into my emails...
I find that when you wrestle thoughts with a statist, you can end up at a hypothetical where you're swinging from a vine and there's the neighbor's porch, or other examples that they use to try to show that acts of coercion can be okay.
But all it comes down to is that the hypothetical scenario they gave you isn't actually an example of coercion. It's just a matter of digging thru the X's and O's of it, and these scenarios are conceived of in the first place usually to be kind of weird and tedious to unravel. So all you're doing is playing their puzzle.
(These are the good statists anyways. Most would kick and scream and go off the rails and ad hominem before it got to this point. This is the upper crust who are actually willing to try to defend it honorably.)
And then even if you sort it out perfectly, it will still be tedious and not really that convincing. Like it would be such a technical explanation that it would be hard to resonate that meaningfully. (That was kind of the point of it, to get lost in the clouds so that there's a way out of being convinced.)
It's annoying, but you do have to remember that if they've been a statist their whole life, this probably isn't the keystroke that changes it. They're pre equipped with a mechanism that knows how to avoid it. If there's any way thru the mechanism, it won't be simple and ABC.
In an email today my friend asks me to explain why the government coercing us should be any different than the way we "coerce" children (away from the hot stove etc):
I feel like I gave the winning answer.
(Also looks like I gave a screen shot that should challenge the far-sighted. I've pasted the text into a comment below.)
While I'm comfortable with my technical answer from the angle that he was expecting: That children don't have responsibility/liability either, and you need this before you have autonomy.. It won't really accomplish anything. It just continues down the tedious path that he wanted to set us on.
The real way to answer is to flip it.
You have to flip it.
The real answer is that the burden of this isn't on me. You answer. You tell me. Kids being different than adults isn't my unique interpretation of things. Let's stop and remember that you actually don't think adults work the same as your daughter (at least, I assume you're not walking around behaving that way or everyone would think it's really weird), so you tell me why thru the government it would make sense to treat adults as tho that's the same as being a child. #topsyturvy
Of course I'm not expecting a reply that I've convinced him and he sees the state as hogwash now. But I like my answer in terms of trying and doing the best I could.
I don't think comparing children with gown folk to be a fair assessment. First of all the prefrontal cortex (which is responsible for complex causation reasoning) isn't fully developed until on average around 25-28 years of age.
Obviously a 19 yo is capable of much more cause and effect reasoning than a six year old, but they still on average can't compete with a 30 yo. This is probably why so many "young adult" males wind up in prison for much of their early years. This is also why males car insurance drops so low after reaching 25 and 28 consecutively.
Stopping a child from needlessly harming themselves in a super serious way, prior to them understand the basics of said danger is very different than, trying to stop a grown man from ingesting some sort of drug that he is fully aware of it's effects on his own health.
I think that their are three forms of parents.
The first, just doesn't care to much for the child and could not care less what happens to them.
The second is the parent that takes immense self worth in preventing any form of "harm" to fall onto the child, even if it means literally harming the child to prevent some sort of perceived harm. I'm sure that they tell themselves many lies as to why they are so protective, but at the end of the day, they only find self worth in being a
tyrantprotector of said child and will do anything to keep that position.The third is one who will allow the child to make mistakes and even get hurt. For we won't learn lessons if we are protected from all harm and consequences. This parent will only intervene when it is in prevention of serious or mortal harm without justifiable gains in learnings.
I wouldn't have as much of a problem with states if they only sought to follow the 3rd version of "parenting." But history has shown us that number two is business as usual. laws will be made to insure that their presents is required.
Right, and the other thing that I think is so wrong about it (about trying to compare the state to how we parent kids) is that when you parent a child, you're personally viewing it and stopping him from a specific thing (ie touching the stove) that matters in this unique moment. When it's a state, we're talking about generic rules that apply to everyone all the time.
So the comparison is just faulty from all angles.
It wouldn't pass any logic type of test, it's just a thing they say as an ex post facto rationalization that (imo) they wouldn't actually think up if they weren't invested in trying to rationalize the state.
And it's an argument I've heard before -- I'm kind of speaking about the people in general who say these things, not trying to tee off on my friend.. who's always fair and interested in his emails.
Ya, I feel like I've used this metaphor a few times recently, but it seems similar to how exposure to viruses actually helps your immunity, and if you try to avoid all germs it's probably just worse in the long run.
Letting kids get some bumps and bruises will help them be familiar with their bodies and the consequences and make judgments. In the long run they're more likely to be safe more often when you allow them some wiggle room.
Aside of course for the "exceptions" they make for themselves. It's interesting to see just how many presidential pardons have been for trafficking of narcs. Also interesting that the fed has mary-jane as a class 1 narc (meaning to medical use recognized) while it also holds patents for synthetic and other thc concentrates for medical purposes. But If I were to continue the blockchain would surly crash from the shear amount of bandwidth it would take to list all of their hypocrisy's.
I remember a time when playgrounds weren't made up of rubberized foam, and the "castle" in the playground was able to be climbed without giant blockers preventing would be adventurers from testing their luck.
It only took watching one kid get a broken arm, and everyone learned that "hey, if you fall, you can get hurt." We used to have pea gravel on the playgrounds and if you jumped to high off of the swings you would wind up with small rocks under the skin of your hands. These things pretty much would prevent fatal harm from coming to a child, but it would still allow for some serious pain, if you went to far.
Many of the kids of today have never really experienced this sort of thing. I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather have my child learn that there are consequences to their actions early on. Rather than the first time they learn this is from a cop with a gun, or a sharp corner at 120mph.
I'm pretty sure that I have gone off topic, If just makes me sad to see how all this "protection" is really killing so many young people.
I agree this argument doesn't hold up to logic.
Oh wow, didn't know that but not surprising. It's only illegal if you don't have the right connections. Windfall profits for those allowed to do it.
Haha, playground stuff def a bit of a tangent.. I tend to like that foam, lol.. but ya, shielding from consequences def I think has a blowback of "what they'll do later in life when you aren't looking"
Now they're allowed to do whatever they want (they don't have a parent holding them back), and so they aren't as in tune with what's actually good for them.
It's funny how you just can't trick the universe. You can't remove the possibility of bad consequences. You can just maybe shift it to be less likely to happen today at the expense of being more likely tomorrow.
Since my screenshot was small, here's the text of what I said:
Well because it's just different, right? In their current format they don't have the capacity to weigh the consequences of things. (Consider that if your daughter damaged something or hurt someone, she's not responsible. You are.) So if I had to try to put my finger on what exactly the difference is, it would be that, that children aren't complete moral actors with responsibility and liability. So if they're not assumed to have responsibility then it follows that they don't have full autonomy. And you get both at the same time, two sides of the coin.
But really I don't even understand the question, like whether or not I can put my finger on exactly what the difference is, it just seems like a quiz, isn't it just kind of obvious that there's a difference between a child and an adult? Like if your daughter gets too close to the edge of the pool you grab her, but you don't behave the same when it's your adult neighbor. Trying to identity what exactly is the difference is maybe interesting as a thought experiment, but it shouldn't be like the burden of identifying that is on me any more than it's on you, because (I'd imagine) you obviously agree that there's a difference, for some reason. You obviously don't treat adults the same as you treat your daughter. So it would be on you to explain why, through the government, we should change it to where adults and children are the same.
lol first of all, I do like this whole flip idea. Funny clip though!
I maight be a bit confused, but is the point children not being responsible for their actions compared to Goverment not being responsible? At the end parents and the people (the taxpayers) are responsible. At least that’s what Goverment thinks and that’s why they are so careless and irresponsible. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m just trying to flip flop things a bit to get to it.
If I’m right, I totally agree!
The point was that children not having liability for their actions is an indication that obviously he and I both know there's something different about a child than an adult. And I'm suggesting that you develop autonomy and liability at the same time.
Kids (of a young enough age) are dependent on adults, and adults are autonomous actors, is essentially my point.
So a child depending on an adult shouldn't suggest that adults depend on other adults via the rules they create with a state. (It's just an ex post facto attempt at rationalizing statism, like it doesn't actually add up and make sense that because we're dependent as children that we should create an institution for other adults to make rules back and forth at each other, that just doesn't connect or make any sense.)
by the by my way of parenting wouldn't include a lot of the rules that I'm guessing my friend uses.. so whether what he's talking about is even necessary is probably debatable in its own right.. but I didn't want to go off track and my answer was just going with it and assuming that "making rules" for kids is appropriate
(of course I grab a child before they walk into the lake .. but really you should be talking about how there's a lake and it would suck to fall in etc etc before it gets to that point .. so physically grabbing them is a last resort not really the plan A of how you do it)
I think I got your point. The way children are being raised by being too dependent on parents is affecting their life and dependence when they grow up. I’m aware you are not left, just like Me. That’s their goal for us to be dependent on them and we are helping them thanks the way we raise our children. Parenting is way important for the next generations.
At the end you have a great point.
Parenting definitely important. To be clear tho, I actually have a slightly different take: I think kids depending on parents is fine and probably even good. It's natural that kids depend on parents.
Kids can't get their own resources. As a parent you want to provide. It's fine that they depend. They also depend emotionally and for guidance and life lessons etc. So I'm not saying that children are too dependent on parents, no.
(If anything I probably think the opposite -- that too many parents aren't involved and responsive to their kids. And then they think bedtimes and pointless rules is a substitute for actual parenting.)
It's good to give wiggle room and let kids find their own answers, but at the end of the day it's still fine that they depend on adults.
The stuff about parenting as it relates to the government was a metaphor. My friend was making that metaphor, and I'm basically arguing why the metaphor is faulty. (Because as adults we no longer do depend. As children it's normal to depend, as adults we are autonomous and it's not clear why my friend believes we now depend on rules created by other adults.)
lol believe me, I’m more confused now then I was before. But I think I finally have your last point. And congratulation to your 2nd anniversary on Steemit!
Have a great day 👍!
ty ty ty !!
and ya, it's a confusing thing.. like I'm pretty sure the point would be crystal clear once I said it the right way or whatever, you'd be like ohh thaaat's what you're saying!!
things can get out of control when metaphors are involved 🙃
@congratulation for your 2nd anniversary on Steemit!
thanks for share with us
thank you so much!!! time flies
welcome
Dear milano1113,
Somehow, I was a bit confused as well. Now, after reading your and @full-measure's comments I understand it, I hope/think.
I will answer @full-measure's comment here too.
Of course children and adults have to be treated differently and they are not the same. More precisely, children at a certain age do not have liability, they first have to develop it (not every child is the same (no sh!t Sherlock haha) but law says that they are (more or less)). "Only" age matters - behavior comes second, I think.
True too.
Wow, mindfnck incoming. I am not sure if I have got your point but as I have already written "(usually) children need adults so children are dependent". Adults need other adults because 'democracy' and stuff - there have to be some certain structures regarding control/regulation... that is why we need the law/institutions and so on.
I am way too confused right now; if you are really talking about/questioning the meaning of the law/states etc. then I do not get it why haha - such structures have to exist (at least on/for 'our world'); anarchy would not be the solution.
Yours truly,
Gandalf The White
It was probably daring of me to post a section of my emails mid-coitus like that.. without all the background flow and whatnot, it probably isn't as clear as I thought it was when I put it up.
But ya, basically it's like he's saying "no coercion? parents coerce kids tho" and I'm saying kids are a different thing.
And the flip-a-roo is I ask him to justify why he thinks 'kids' and 'adults' are the same rather than stay on the defensive where I'm supposed to explain why they're different.
It works both ways, it can't be like his implication that they're the same is taken as fact until I can prove why they're different.
(And seems like "they're different" is the way better default assumption, so long as we assume he goes through his life treating his daughter a little differently than he treats other adults.)
Whether or not this is true, I'm focused specifically on the metaphor of raising kids and why that doesn't parallel correctly to government/democracy.
Ya, I am questioning the idea of having a state. Which doesn't mean I'm questioning the idea of law or structure.
Is it possible to create a structure that I don't get shot or thrown in jail if I choose not to be a part of it?
Structure seems important. Coercion is not. Laws and norms can emerge p2p and peacefully (this happened before the state, and will easily happen after the state). I argue that our "structure" doesn't need to be violently imposed on us. In fact, the only way for it to be balanced and serve humanity correctly is to not be violently imposed.
(The type of structure you're talking about serves the people with the best connections to the power source. Not humanity at large.)
Great topic, great answer.
thanks!
Setting children's rules of behavior is one of the most important and difficult tasks for parents at the same time, as the child resists much to assert his independence. Many people say, "My son does not care about the system, takes off his shoes, leaves his needs anywhere, he does not care, he plays, or sits in his place to watch television programs.
And do not care about others, and if you mention the negligence and negative, he says: I do what I like, and this is my matter ». Many studies indicate that children may learn to neglect their parents in an involuntary manner, when they tend to use the servants and depend on them in most of their affairs. It is a manifestation of neglect to find neglected people ignore household rules and family regulations and interpret them accordingly.
And he loves to neglect his habits of extravagance, he may watch television and video games and the Internet abnormally, and find his books and papers and needs scattered, and does not keep the cleanliness and safety of his books, and usually tries to finish his duties in the last minute, and if he began work is not completed, and leaves work and supplies on The earth does not return it to its place.
off-topic, obv spam etc
flagging because it's long and I don't want anyone to get sucked into reading it like it's a real comment
I can't help but read flagged comments. I'm just to curious.
Then I tend to take a look at their blog, you know to see what sort of stuff they put out.
Then their comments. Wow that's almost 800 comments a month. I thought I talked a lot.
Then of course their wallet, you know to see just how much reward pool rape they are paying for. Let's just say I understand why their rep is at 57.
Well deserved smack-down. Clearly your post wasn't even read prior to the comment.
Right! There's definitely a Streisand Effect with that.
Ohhh they use bots!!
I'm still surprised when I see big payouts on a post, like I haven't fully adjusted to botting culture yet. And then remember, oh right, bots, they just paid for it.
Man, you'd think one angle is enough.
Actually, one angle is what he really should stick to. Paying for bots AND spamming up a storm could backfire pretty bad on him (his blog posts could get flagged, and he'd still be out what he spent on bots). You shouldn't pay for bots and spam at the same time lol.
BidBot's are complected. There are people who use them, I have respect for,(although I still don't like it) and there are many others that use them to push up crap every time they post.
Like I don't think I would mind so much if it was checked by a person first. I understand that at times it is very beneficial to get more exposure on certain things. It just seems that everyone uses this excuse, for things that well, just don't need it. It's like the boss that everyday says om man this is an emergency we got to rush. After a few days, people are like; "Uh no it's not, this is just the same old bs as usual."
I also wish that the "bidbots" and really any bot worked differently than human accounts. In that they could give rewards but no boost in rep. I feel that it wouldn't be to hard to remove that ability from accounts that perform operations to quickly for humans to do. That being said I'm no coder, nor do I understand fully how this blockchain works, so I'm not even sure that such a thing would be possible. It just seems to be pretty silly that one can buy both rewards and rep, eventually making themselves untouchable from those that do not.
At the end of the day, delegating to bidbots is the easiest way to maximize ROI without ever needing to engage with the community(therefore making oneself untouchable from flags). So it's hard to imagine that it's going away anytime soon.
Maybe someday I will have to view them differently, but thankfully that's not today.
That's a good point. Even if there's a decent enough role for bumping the payout, bumping Rep score doesn't seem to have any redeeming side.
I'm not sure how the coding works and if it would be easy to code certain accounts out of counting for Rep. (The other issue then is the 'moral hazard' of deciding that some accounts don't count.. while bots are one thing, we maybe wouldn't want to get into the territory of "well does that account really deserve Rep influence?", like we probably don't want any mechanism that could do it.. maybe you'd need them to voluntarily offer not to count, and hope that the market would reward that choice.)
A non-technical way to do it would be that the bidbots never post. (I don't know too much of their model and if this would be possible. Seems they need to post. But maybe they could execute the bids from a different account.) And then if that account has only Rep 25 it won't ever bring anyone above 25. Or a twist on that is that people can start flagging bot accounts until they're down to 25 or something suitably low.
It's funny because Rep always seemed limited. If one person is a 58 and another is a 65, you wouldn't necessarily feel like the 65 is bound to be producing better content or you'd trust your life with them. But it would at least tell you they're both unlikely to be trolls. That was the one way decent indicator, that the higher you go the more likely you are to be a normal user. But that's compromised now.
I imagine there are probably certain tweaks that could be made to the algorithm that might dampen their impact.
I think it would need a big overhaul tho before "buying a high Rep" would no longer be an issue. (In a sense the bots are kind of a blessing in that they quickly shed light on a theoretical issue.)
But anyways, I've always felt that for a rating system to work correctly, there needs to be some way to "rate the rater". I don't know how exactly. But there needs to be some incentive towards rating "correctly" and for the system to weight more heavily those who are good at rating.
(The Rep system weights more heaving those who have a good rating but that's different than being good at rating other people. There needs to be a vested interest in how accurately you rate.)