Dennis Hackethal’s Blog
My blog about philosophy, coding, and anything else that interests me.
Tweets
An archive of my tweets and retweets through . They may be formatted slightly differently than on Twitter. API access has since gotten prohibitively expensive – I don't know whether or when I'll be able to update this archive.
But in case I will, you can subscribe via RSS – without a Twitter account. Rationale
@IamtheWay13 @MagnetThatcher @ToKTeacher @DavidDeutschOxf
my position does not depend on the word 'theft'
@IamtheWay13 @MagnetThatcher @ToKTeacher @DavidDeutschOxf
the position that taxation is theft isn't about words.
it's just about the fact that property shouldn't be stolen, by the government or anyone else. use whatever words you like.
what's the "cultural baggage" btw?
@IamtheWay13 @MagnetThatcher @ToKTeacher @DavidDeutschOxf
we already agree with the popperian notion that definitions aren't all that
what i mean is that if the law referred to the "illegal taking of another's money" it would be circular, and so no, to answer your question, i would not happily agree that taxation isn't theft
@IamtheWay13 @MagnetThatcher @ToKTeacher @DavidDeutschOxf
referred to by the law
codified by law
look-uppable in texts that are law
@IamtheWay13 @MagnetThatcher @ToKTeacher @DavidDeutschOxf
by "definition" you mean legal definition?
Sleepwalkers' behavior is often nonsensical. Like the guy pouring milk into the sink instead of the bowl he just fetched. If he were conscious, he wouldn't do that, would he? (All else being equal, eg he's not mentally ill)
How can we distinguish between that and the claim “They form no memories of their experiences while sleepwalking”?
I wondered that too. My tentative answer is:
@IamtheWay13 @MagnetThatcher @ToKTeacher @DavidDeutschOxf
it's not that it's a definition
it's that the law carries some weight here
the law is one of the institutions financed by blood money after all
yea or there's just mindless updating of parameters/information
it's not learning in the popperian sense of an evolutionary process of conjectures and refutations
@IamtheWay13 @MagnetThatcher @ToKTeacher @DavidDeutschOxf
fwiw 'taxation is theft' meets the legal definition well: law.cornell.edu/wex/theft
let me preemptively state that other intents such as 'helping the poor' do not collide with it
note also that the legal definition of 'theft' says nothing about reduction of quality of life
@IamtheWay13 @MagnetThatcher @ToKTeacher @DavidDeutschOxf
i haven't read the entire thread but:
not everyone is taxed the same (not that it would make things better if they were)
also you went from 'reducing wealth' to 'reducing relative wealth'
@stevegaines @IamtheWay13 @MagnetThatcher @ToKTeacher @DavidDeutschOxf
yes, it's controversial
RT @MurraySuggests:
Once one concedes that a single world government isn't necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibil…
RT @RonPaul:
Every excuse in the book is given for inflation. But inflation has a single source --> The Fed and the immoral fractional-rese…
Du kannst vermutlich eine Petition starten oder klagen.
RT @Stift_und_Bogen:
"Der Mann ist in Not, dem helfe ich." Marie #Burde (* 1892 (#otd), † 1963) lebt im Wedding in bitterer Armut, verkauft…
@ks445599 @mgoldingmd @ChristleNwora
For ice cream or in general?
Attenborough's specious ideas may have done more damage to the world than the rest of the BBC combined. twitter.com/Andr3jH/status…
Remind protesters that Kavanaugh helped bring the Lewinsky-Clinton affair to light, which was arguably #metoo before there was #metoo. twitter.com/LibertyLockPod…
RT @MinistryofTru16:
They are eating their own and it is glorious.
On the importance of making reversible changes. twitter.com/KyleKashuv/sta…
Yet if you x-rayed the minds of adults, you'd find millions of unexamined copies of "Taste is subjective."
Yes, because ideas replicate inside one's mind: blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/the-neo-…
RT @Cicero_PW:
Ich bin für den Genderstern.
Er ist ein geeignetes und hinreichendes Signal,
einen Text nicht weiterlesen zu müssen.
gitpretty.com (mine) if you feel like trying something different
RT @RonPaul:
Every form of authoritarianism has been tried (many times over) to turn free human beings into obedient robots.
The failure…
RT @PR0GRAMMERHUM0R:
I think I go home early today reddit.com/r/programmerhu… pic.twitter.com/aXQzEARVsG
RT @jooeysiiu:
Join me at @VoCommunism’s Tiananmen Massacre Candlelight Vigil tomorrow, 8PM at the Victims of Communism Memorial.
https://…
What if the slaveholder misled them about the work being voluntary and maintains tight psychological manipulation?
@jchalupa_ @bnielson01 @MatMcGann @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Fair enough but most of those are very serious not petty at all
@jchalupa_ @bnielson01 @MatMcGann @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
This one? twitter.com/jchalupa_/stat…
@jchalupa_ @bnielson01 @MatMcGann @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
You mentioned three kinds of violence, deemed them all “different”, and called only one of them a problem: twitter.com/jchalupa_/stat…
@bnielson01 @jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Lemme guess, it’s also easy to vary
@bnielson01 @jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Again, I usually don’t know who is who
I know where I won’t be moving anytime soon twitter.com/AP/status/1532…
@bnielson01 @jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
They can also point out they abhor violence while at the same time disliking libertarianism for unrelated reasons. Which, again, Jose could have done but chose not to. If it had mattered to him he would have.
@bnielson01 @jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Clever, but no, because they can disagree with me for other reasons and make no comment on violence. In which case I just don’t know.
@bnielson01 @jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
This isn’t that surprising. The vast majority of ppl love violence and can’t imagine living in a society without it. They also rush to defend institutionalized violence. So Jose is in good company.
@bnielson01 @jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Libertarians don’t want institutionalized violence. Jose is defending institutionalized violence. I even pointed out to him how he’s bending over backwards to make institutionalized violence work. He still didn’t deny loving violence.
@bnielson01 @jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Jose has been given plenty of opportunity to deny loving violence but he hasn't bothered to once
@bnielson01 @jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
No that isn't how I define 'love of violence'. Ppl may disagree with me for other reasons and I don't describe them as loving violence.
I only describe people who love violence as loving violence.
@jchalupa_ @bnielson01 @MatMcGann @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Look up ‘paradox of tolerance’. There’s no need to be tolerant of those who love violence.
@MatMcGann @bnielson01 @jchalupa_ @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
No, it’s def possible it will
Is it immoral to set free someone who’d prefer to remain a slave?
RT @waitbutwhy:
It's super important to support marginalized people in places where it's popular to do so pic.twitter.com/HIwNaLtkPE
I investigate this more here: blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/a-progra…
We also know some things about how to get there. The change can't come over night, it has to be piecemeal and reversible. Also, some avenues are more prudent than others – like, don't open the borders without getting rid of the welfare state first.
I did not claim to know how to implement libertarianism. We DO know, thanks to optimism, that it's possible – and, if done, that it will be the political implementation of Deutsch's optimism.
Nobody's talking about subjective knowledge.
Deutsch's optimism states that all evils are due to a lack of knowledge. For that to be true one does not need to know, specifically, how to solve each and every problem.
Libertarianism can, and hopefully will be, the political implementation of Deutsch's optimism – one day, when we know how. It is not currently.
Say you're not a programmer. You don't know how to implement addition in some programming language. That doesn't make you question that addition can be implemented, as long as you know how, does it?
I was of the opinion that we don't (yet!) know how to implement libertarianism long before this discussion started. This again shows that you understand little about my stance and are arguing against strawmen.
Asking "[w]here does inexplicit knowledge end and force begin?" doesn't make sense as those are largely orthogonal concepts. It's like asking 'where does chewing gum end and sugar begin?'
Inexplicit knowledge (per Deutsch) is knowledge not (yet) put into words.
Force (per TCS) is enacting an idea when a conflicting idea is still present in the (thus forced) mind.
it doesn't sound like you understand what inexplicit knowledge and force are
maybe you're referring to the fact that one shouldn't favor explicit knowledge over inexplicit knowledge just for being explicit (and vice versa)
I mean 'purest form of' as in 'the fullest implementation of' – nothing to do with essentialism
western democracy's institutions are violent
that's the difference between the west and libertarianism
(yes, yes, in the west we can remove bad leaders without violence, but somehow we haven't figured out how to have political institutions that don't operate on violence) twitter.com/codybaldwin/st…
@MatMcGann @bnielson01 @jchalupa_ @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
How you weren't able to assume that already given that you know I'm a Popperian is a mystery to me, but there you go
@MatMcGann @bnielson01 @jchalupa_ @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Then let me state that I think institutionalized coercion is a problem – one of the big problems of our time, but yes, still 'just' one of countless other problems –, that its solution does not usher in some utopia, and that there will always be more problems to solve.
I've listened to both, yes. IIRC, the first one was about what Sarah called the fetishizing of consent.
RT @SJobs_Stories:
"Anytime I find something I like, I can just turn it around, and play something. It’s that easy. It’s that simple. Isn’t…
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
I suspect there's more than one sense in which institutions can be fundamental
Here we go
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Lol right, those who love peace and peaceable cooperation and prefer it over violence are the psychos
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
This entire thread is reminding me how desperately I need to finish writing my blog post about Popper's criterion of democracy being grossly insufficient
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
It's non libertarians who love violence, not libertarians
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Rand wasn't a libertarian btw, in fact she rather disliked libertarians.
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Unless you're going to bend over backwards, as most people do, and refer to various laws or the 'common good' or what have you to justify this particular kind of violence.
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
If you dislike "invasions of private property" you should acknowledge taxation (and its enforcement) as a huge problem of aggressive violence perpetrated by your beloved political institutions against their peaceful subjects.
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
correct
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
I think you're much more of a sadist than you admit to yourself, as are >99% of all the people who love living in a violent society in the name of the collective.
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
No, it was partly learning epistemology that made me a libertarian.
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Hmm. What other kinds of violence could one mention that would make your erection for it go flaccid?
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
As if violence not being "particular to political institutions" made it any less of a problem. Violence is not particular to any one person or institution, yes, but you just don't want to change your attitude toward violence because you got such a hard-on for it.
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
You do not aim to solve violence, yes, that has become abundantly clear
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Political institutions employ violence on a grand scale no private corporation could
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
You're fucking up your spelling again
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Non violently as in not needing to use violence against politicians, yes.
But if you're going to use violence as a yardstick then it goes both ways. Violence should have no place in a civilized society – political institutions should not use violence against peaceful people.
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
The reason we shouldn't demolish our political institutions is that changes should be piecemeal because we're fallible, not that they solve problems without violence (again, they are highly violent, in fact they're embarrassingly incompetent at being peaceful).
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Also I thought you didn't want to continue this over Twitter?
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
You don't seem to understand Popperian libertarianism very much. As a result you argue against strawmen. It's ironic to claim our political institutions are "the only known way to solve problems without violence" when they use violence against citizens every day.
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Popperian libertarians don't really see a state of zero institutionalized coercion as a goal of political systems as a matter of theory.
I'm one, and I do.
@jchalupa_ @MatMcGann @bnielson01 @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
that sounds like a great explanation unless you're in the business of worshipping violence as you have been judging by your tweets
@MatMcGann @bnielson01 @jchalupa_ @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Imagine talking about a different problem – world hunger, say – and a Popperian not being 'allowed' to speak of a world in which that problem has been solved because that makes him a utopian or something. Bonkers
@MatMcGann @bnielson01 @jchalupa_ @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Being a Popperian does not require one to shit on liberty – quite the opposite is the case as coercion is anathema to problem solving. The recognition of that doesn't make one a utopian.
@MatMcGann @bnielson01 @jchalupa_ @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Popperian libertarians are agnostic as to what comes after a 'state' of zero institutionalized coercion has been reached. They're also open as to how to get to that state, as long as that road is not revolutionary.
@MatMcGann @bnielson01 @jchalupa_ @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
Indeed, insisting by implication that institutionalized coercion should be entrenched or else one isn't really a crit rat is a perversion of Popperian epistemology.
@MatMcGann @bnielson01 @jchalupa_ @BTC_SNEK @DoqxaScott
You can absolutely solve a problem (institutionalized coercion) without being a utopian. While utopian libertarians exist, Popperian libertarians are not among them.
Case in point that the enemies of liberty are deeply pessimistic; they cannot imagine a world without coercion. twitter.com/bnielson01/sta…
Chat with Damian about Abortion: blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/chat-wit…