This still has nothing to do with anything I said, and this repetition is boring.
-
-
Huemer explains this better than I can, but in short: Violent conflict is almost always negative-sum: the losing party loses more than the winning party gains. Frequently both parties lose, as from a fight over trivial stakes.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev @woke8yearold and
Even when there's a winning party, that party expends resources on coercion, which functions as a tax on their winnings. Yet, mysteriously, the economy is vastly larger today than it ever was. The amount of knowledge available is many orders of magnitude greater than in the past
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev @woke8yearold and
Where's all that wealth coming from? From people pursuing their interests, either under coercion (which is intrinsically wasteful) or freely. That's all. One infers the amount of relatively free production/intellectual progress from the accumulation over time.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev @woke8yearold and
That production may then be coercively seized! But coercion never increases the sum of wealth, only burns it. So if the total amount of wealth is growing, there must be free production going on somewhere. The end.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
This is an unhealthy fixed idea. Hierarchy is no more stable and eternal than freedom; each undermines the other. And again, this is irrelevant to my original point, which could be rephrased as 'total progress/wealth is created when you're not fighting or enslaving others'.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The grand tyrannies of the ancient world functioned by skimming razor-thin surpluses and wasting them. This doesn't contradict my point in the least.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.