Karl

We only have abstract notions of what we are feeling, judged against previous experience. Our childhoods teach us dependence on our parents love, we desire that love because it nurtures us. We know fear when we are left alone. Over time we develop the conceptual abstracts beyond pure response to stimuli. Parental love is about as unconditional as it gets, but even that has pre conditions because it wouldn't exist without the child existing. I believe that it is our ability to reason effectively that allows us to follow the moral rules we have developed without contradiction. Then feelings become like an extra sense which we can utilise for action. We can then determine the best way to satisfy our own values and which action to take. Addictions are a result of something contradictory, we are not following our moral code and have screwed up our actions by substitution.

Well it's homesteading rather than simply selling off the oceans. No one owns them yet. Somebody sets up and pays for the 'fencing' security etc. They run it as a business and it's the profit and loss dynamics-just like any farm-which determines success. If they fish the ocean out, then their investment is destroyed by unsustainable operation. There isn't anything but the market and trespass laws/policing to prevent bad actors, but, as we already have bad actors destroying the commons, it's kind of a moot point. We are trying to get from here to a better place and this is one suggestion that has already produced results. Who knows what technology would be released once the seas are private property. An entire marine aquaculture industry would be set up with innovative methods of farming. Some areas might well be bought up by people who wished to have tourism on a reef area. They would be able to prosecute those that damaged their property by chemicals or other things. We can do the same with the skies and rivers. It would make polluters directly responsible. If fossil fuel fumes were not acceptable then producers would have to find better, cleaner ways of providing transport/energy/chemicals etc.

If you can find a guru that does it for the purposes that you state. My role was to overcome limiting beliefs to help people achieve their goal, or overcome some issue. I was extremely dedicated to that purpose. It's very noble from one perspective, but it isn't altruism but only selfishness of gaining some satisfaction out of the process. This will always be the case. No one is immune.

No minimum wage for certain as it destroys opportunity for those who have less skills or are less employable. It is one of the few things they have in their armoury- to undercut everyone else. No tariffs, subsidies or protectionism. The Government would provide any education, roads etc. that would all be private-as indeed it once was. I've left regulation/Medicaid off that list, as you are really implying something that isn't true. Laws and rules can spring from the market as long as there are clear property rights and protection. Charities would deal with those people who fell through the net medically or otherwise-a lot of people regard charities as not being proper businesses, but they operate as any other business does by providing something that people wish to pay for. It must be remembered that the West is highly advanced. We aren't Somalia, we have grown up with a high level of technical sophistication and wealth. We aren't running around in gangs because we recognise it isn't efficient-except for the ultimate gang of course which is the Government/state. It's also not important to lay out exactly how much, where or what will come of operating a free market sans government. It isn't up to me to try and create a communist style state in which every detail is worked out, instead it is the market that will do that. Wether we have no government, some governance, the type and geography of that governance has to emerge from the need to stop what we are currently doing and starting to liberate people.

Just picking up on two points. Yes I'm against cronyism, but neither cronyism or nepotism can function without government blessing. At least I should add the caveat 'successfully' in the case of nepotism. Cronyism requires the state to privilege a business so it's hard to see how that could happen without government. Private education invariably leads to better outcomes, but often this is not only because of the subject matter, but the delivery. Private students are taught the art of debate, proper diction, social interaction and often have networks of other people close to the reigns of power. This gives them a tremendous advantage over state educated students-no doubt about that at all.

Privatising the oceans has already been partially done in the water surrounding Iceland. It has begun to regenerate the depleted fish stocks. Modern technology could be employed via satellite, SOSUS, patrol vessels and buoys to make it work. Quotas and other methods have failed to produce results and have created unforeseen consequences with even more damage. Trawlers operate in relatively shallow waters, fairly close to shore so it's not as big a problem as one might think to privatise the ocean.

They are an integral component of substance and can be strong or weak. The mental abstractions are combined with further abstractions as part of rational thought. In essence they can become a feedback loop. That's the self reinforcing affect which can lead to addiction and obsession. If that's what you mean by grow then yes they can.

voluntarily abdicating the use of our defences is very different to 'by passing defences'. In one case that's a voluntary action in the other it is pre-meditated violence by the use of distraction. NLP techniques, Hynotism and Non Violent communication use 'kindness', distraction, subversion and rhetoric to bypass a persons defences. It's a deplorable thing-I'm both an NLP practitioner and basic level hypnotist and stopped using the techniques once I discovered what I was actually doing. Even when meant for good, it is dishonest and creates all sorts of dependence.

Well, let's see how it goes. I promised you a reaction :-) Interesting that you say you do not have a mystic mindset with regard to Daoism. I would say that few here fit that description and your response certainly seemed to be along those lines. How does a non-mystic cope with Daoist philosophy-funnily enough I don't think The Dao- as I read it-gets into mysticism at all, but I suspect I'm in a minority and would be castigated for my lack of understanding of the 'true way of the Dao'.

You might be wrong, but that's far better than the punch in the face you were delivering previously. First we need to define morality. Morality is a self imposed code by which a man lives. That code is a choice and it is reasoning that produces it. If there is no choice, if man is born good or evil by some other determination then there is no morality because there is no choice. Therefore, like a robot, a man would be amoral. Immorality is the act of not living by ones own moral codes and by choice acting outside of them. A psychopathic killer might be regarded as immoral, but if they are not acting outside of their moral codes then that is not an apt description. Capitalism is really only man acting voluntarily to produce and consume without coercion and with free will to choose a moral course. If the free will is replaced with coercion as it nominally would be in a Marxist society-or any collectivist society including our modern western neo-liberal/conservative cronyism, then the free will aspect and voluntarism is removed. Now man has to adapt and is often forced to violate his code in order to live in the more controlled paradigm. He has been forced to obey another persons morality and not his own.

An internal, non-localised sensation, which can be interrogated by conscious awareness to produce a conceptual abstract.

The refuge of the ignorant. I take it that you have no answers or relevant arguments to a thread in the 'off topic' part of the forum specifically titled 'the morality of capitalism'. By all means slink off into your mystic mindset, but perhaps you could engage in other threads which specifically cater to your bias ?

What is 'kindness' ? It is just another kind of human action, the application of ones reasoning and moral code with the excessive of choice. How one judges cruelty and kindness is unique to each observer. Giving money to a beggar might be kind, but perhaps that small amount of money actually binds the beggar to continual dependence.

I have another word for that which certainly isn't kind. 'Without triggering their defences' is precisely what con men are about.

I can't be enriched by anything that you don't argue coherently. Posting a few quotes and ad hominems in the hope of proving me ignorant doesn't create any new insights. At most it invites retaliation.

Interesting that first quote. I shall use that as a great example of a logical fallacy created as the rhetoric of one who wishes to control others. It is not that far removed to "don't ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". In other words You are ignorant if you do not listen to what I say. Open your mind to my rhetoric and put away any defences because they will make you ignorant". Morality and Capitalism is a counter to immorality and collectivism.

Then it's up to you to point out the error. I've said many times that offering a persuasive, elequent and logical counter argument is something to be applauded. If you simply offer up an ad hominem you appear to be as a person that is an empty vessel. Surely then, I cannot believe that is your intention ?

Right up to the beginning of the 20th century in the UK. There is a good body of research supporting the history of education up to that time. I shall dig it out if you want. There is probably even more evidence in the USA and currently the situation in India. Public schools in the UK were only supposed to be introduced into areas where there were 'gaps'-although there is no evidence to show there were any gaps. These first public schools charged a minimal amount which was below that of the traditional private schools. Despite that they were ill attended and the state had to reduce the prices of attendance to zero to attract any real numbers. This was at a time when economic wealth was growing across all classes and this wealth was producing ever greater numbers who wanted good private education-this is mirrored currently in India-and avoided the state schools like the plague. What should be understood is that the state was looking across at the Prussian model for education. They were looking to create citizens who would take their place in the kind of society that was determined by a group of intellectuals who believed in social engineering- cybernetics. They didn't want groups of adults thinking for themselves and challenging the status quo. This is the reason that states such as USSR/China/pol pot put their educated people to death to prevent revolution. Introducing mass state education was primarily designed to do this by a soft method-effectively mind control through Pavlovian/military ( Spartan style) institutional control. It's only a by product that young adults receive schooling in order that they can understand and correctly respond to the states messages, soldier and perform the jobs the industrialists wanted. Again, plenty of evidence of this if you need it. The EG west website of Newcastle university is a good place to start: http://egwestcentre.com/ Sent from my iPad

Education wasn't for 'the very few' prior to the state sticking it's nose in and coercively extracting taxes to fund it. That's why I mentioned the poem by the six year old mine worker. She was able to read and write to a high standard despite having a level of poverty in which she had to work as a child labourer 12 hours a day. In India the state is trying to impose 'free' state education on its people but it has proved unsuccessful. The reason being that the ordinary Indian people would rather pay for the better quality education their children are receiving. It's considered a bad thing to push your precious children into the hands of mass, state education. There are lots of competing schools that cater for very ones pockets. Children want to go to school they aren't forced. Often these schools will have fewer than half a dozen children. Now 'training' is a different thing to education. All that is needed for education is to ensure children can read, write and do basic arithmetic. It doesn't require a specialised school, with state licensed teachers to manage that. The second stage is to get children to be able to educate themselves and to find those who can provide more depth in the subjects they wish to study. Amazingly teachers just use text books which pupils could obtain for themselves. Anyone can teach themselves anything. If they require further direct training it's easy to find people willing to help and that's the way in which people learn best and gain the experience to flourish.

There is a simple solution to the main problem-that of tragedy of the commons-in which the ocean is treated as common land which prevents private ownership and responsible fish farming and conservation. Here is a good piece describing that problem and what can fix it: https://mises.org/library/save-bluefin-tuna-through-property-rights Increases in temperature-or not, so far we haven't had any warming at all for 17 years-are not things we can do much about. The problem seems to be related to over fishing, dragging and pollution/destruction of the environment necessary to sustain marine life.

We were better educated prior to state education. The cost of education privately in a competitive free market is far lower and offers more choice. Current state education has been a failure-largely because the model is not designed to educate, but to create a vocationally skilled and obedient population happy to fit into their allotted caste. Secondly it is too expensive because it generates self serving interests through effective monopoly. Today, in the West, it's easily possible to educate yourself or obtain skills virtually free of cost. The internet is packed with free resource that is available to anyone who cares to bother to look. What's ridiculous is the belly aching about there never being sufficient educational facilities and yet hardly anyone bothers to partake in the online, low cost and often free courses. Indeed many people I know won't even pick up a book and some are proud that they don't read. In the modern West an education is really just a method of obtaining a ticket of conformity. Young people are emerging from over priced universities with worthless pieces of paper and low employment prospects coupled with public backed debts of thousands of pounds they will likely never repay. The jobs they do get are often poor quality, low paid occupations which they end up staying in to avoid paying back the debts that hang over them. It's another subprime market with inflated education costs created by zero risk finance creating too much demand in a monopolistic market. I would happily educate willing pupils for a very low fee, because I see education as a vocation and not a career in itself. I'm betting I'm not the only one. Today we have highly paid, over stressed teachers fastened into long days in school, they are supposed to be filling empty heads with facts, but that isn't a rewarding occupation. It's treating children and young adults as no more than components and it has become the teachers job to force the components to comply instead of children doing the work to educate themselves.

Well, then if you cannot rely on words, then even 'enlightenment' is pure fantasy. There is no way anything can be depended upon for anything in particular. You may as well give up. I don't worry about this duality because it isn't reality. You can know reality directly so no conflict exists. I can perceptually experience the universe then construct concepts to create new insights. That's exactly what you do. The writings of Buddah might be useful to mash around, but first there needs to be discernment or I would believe everything I was told or read. I have to be very picky. You are over complicating life by giving it your own brand of mysterious stardust. Life doesn't need it and neither do you. This is what happens when you fall in love and reason takes a back seat. The world begins revolving around one desire and focus to the exclusion of everything else. That's where you are, that's awakening, it's puppy love, an intense crush and a feeling of floating on clouds. Eventually it has to go, it is in effect, just another attachment which you will leave behind as experience grows. Your enlightenment will be as uniquely individual as you are.

Let me answer your first question last as it's easiest. Banks and corporations are just examples of businesses. They would form in the free market but would not be privileged by the state. There is no requirement to limit size or any other thing. The market sorts it out just as a field of flowers, a river or a forest grows and changes. Yes, they are human problems. That's exactly the point. There are no Government solutions to social problems. In other words man is fallible no matter if he is in an institution called 'government' or a lone operator in the market. However, put a monopoly of violence and law making in the hands of one small group of men and you inject a blanket of whatever morality those men have into the entire market place. The well becomes poisoned. All labour produces some form of sweat shop in an early industrial market. In China the peasants lived a very hard life on the land. Millions died of starvation. There is enormous competition for jobs in the new factories. The life and wages are better than working the land and so people flock to find work. From our privileged point of view- in a much more free capitalist country-we see awful sweatshops and a reminder of output own past, but things didn't stay that way. The capitalist countries became far more wealthy and as they did so, the competition to recruit and keep the best people became a competition between businesses-this is why Henry Ford paid his workers such a high wage. It stopped them taking their new skills to a higher bidder. Labour is a scarce resource and so business has to compete to get it. The simple fact is that non capitalist countries are many times poorer than capitalist countries- even those that are only marginally capitalist such as China ( it's still a heavily state regulated command and control economy ). As soon as there is even minimal laissez faire the standard of living explodes upwards. Instead of donkeys on dirt roads there are streets full of Ferrari's. This happened to China in the space of a few decades. Imagine what would happen if we lifted the restrictor of state completely ! In the West we are beginning to circle the drain. We have been systematically killing off the free market and the result is stagnation of innovation, competition, education and a steady decline in living standards despite what remains of the free market. The debt burden is enormous and employment of the young is going backwards, whilst those that had retired have had to come back into the labour market. Unless the state gets its boot off all our necks we are going to witness an ever more rapid decline whilst the state grows to strip us of any remaining wealth and dignity. You don't need an example of a country that is totally free market, you only need to see the difference between one which is free market and one that isn't. Our current situation is that of one which is sliding towards a neo feudal oligarchy of bankers and corporations and what we are currently witnessing as a shallow decline, will rapidly turn into a rapid decent.

There is a lot to answer DB and I'm going to struggle to include every connection, but I will try my best within the limits of a short piece of writing. There are no laws to prevent nepotism why would there be ? Education doesn't determine success. Many entrepreneurs, inventors and scientists had no formal education at all. There needs to be equal opportunity without a requirement for state sanctioned qualifications. It's noteable that a poem written by a six year old girl working down the coal mines prior to the start of state education in the UK, and the daughter of a poor mine worker, was able to produce a written piece of work with perfect spelling and grammar. Rich families regularly become poor one generation after being blindingly succesful. The number of companies that go to the wall due to the sons or daughters taking charge is very high. Those businesses were quite likely started by people who had nothing to begin with. Modern state education systems have recreated caste systems. Unless the free market is applied to education with equal enthusiasm then we are stuck with this system which will channel people into positions. A less educated/skilled worker has at least the option of selling his labour for less and thereby undercutting the more skilled worker. That's how markets work, we don't all buy Rolls Royces do we. This gives the less skilled worker a competetive advantage to gain employment and then improve his skill set to obtain a higher price for his labour. He will of course have to compete with the same undercutting by the less skilled. Governments have the power and if the people in those governments are corrupt, then this will result in a corrupt market place. The less opportunity men have to utilise the Government to gain special privileges, the less corruption there will be. So, absolutely, governments in the market are purely corrupting. They have no function in that space, their sole reason for existence was to protect the country from foreign attack and internal strife. Protectionism was covered on the video. The creation of licensing, regulations, examination boards, unionisation etc are all used to specifically prevent competition. The state grants privileges to one group or another by requiring traders to hold licences or other confetti- the taxi medallions in New York are an easy example and the current effort to use the government to kill Uber Taxi competition. This also benefits the state which extracts a fee to keep those with privileges safe from competition. There are many firms of this state sponsored exclusion which are more subtle such as zero percent cost of money for Wall Street gamblers. You and I can't borrow money at zero percent and so we are locked out of that market. Actually an 'economy' is a state manipulated system, there is no such thing in a totally free market. Only the state talks about 'its economy' if the state didn't exist we would only talk about economics and the market. People have tried manipulating semi free markets and come unstuck. Standard oil is a good example. The company tried to create and control a Cartel but someone always tried side dealing. This is what's funny in a free market, those that try and firm monopolies in a corrupt sense soon discover that the same corruption they had employed to try and create the monopoly eventually destroys it. The only way to keep a monopoly going is with the consent of a Government which will force the actors to remain loyal through the coercive application of force. Indeed this is precisely how Nazi Germany and Soviet Rissia worked. The businesses were run by the state completely and the owners, managers and workers told what, where and how. No competition arose in these states. I did not say we could eradicate dishonesty, we have dishonesty on a grand scale right now and no one is going to prison. Fraud and bad dealing is now an acceptable part of the economy by decree of the state. Manipulation of interest rates, capital controls, insider trading bail outs, bail ins, TARP programmes etc. A free market could not eradicate bad actors, but it wouldn't be capable of allowing the wholesale crime spree we currently have. The market would break bad actors and normal law/courts/compensation would deal with those who kept on breaking laws. Yes, governments and their crony warfare, welfare providers like wars and poverty. The only option is to get rid, or minimise the state in such a way as it could not engage in these pursuits. This was the idea of the U.S. Constitution which stated 'no foreign entanglements'. Now the U.S. President- since 9/11-has had a deep state second Government (CoG) which is in a state of continuous emergency allowing foreign intervention without the need to debate the requirement for war through Congress. Obama can declare a war unilaterally on anything, but worse, the CoG has the power to enact any laws or actions it chooses without consultation with the constitutionally elected Government. I don't imagine this answers everything to your satisfaction, it's easier to tackle one part of the subject at a time and devote space to discussing it more fully.

Love is a feeling as is fear. Sometimes we use the words in different ways. We can transpose love for desire, or immense liking and fear can be anything from mild concern to abject terror. It's also possible to love fear (excitement) and fear love (loss of control). Such is the difficulty in separating emotional feelings into any kind of defined description. Poets, musicians and painters have dined off the inaccuracies for millennia.