Money as explanation part 4: two party interaction

[Mason, Larry K]

Prefix (See "Money as explanation part 0" for comments on this prefix.)

In every nation at all periods of their histories we can easily find what one might call "dysfunctional" aspects of their economy and government. Some of the most common are things like unemployment when much work needs to be done, waste of resources, war, poverty, and political oppression. In economics we have the "tragedy of the commons," the business cycle (boom and bust), inflation / deflation, and suppression of any free markets. These and a host of other problems which at best hinder and at worst bring about the total collapse and destruction of nations and societies, can all be attributed to and explained by a single root cause.

I suggest that the root cause of these problems is the nature of the meme called "money" as we know it. It seems clear to me that the concept of money is a meme as defined by Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene" or by David Deutsch in "The Beginning of Infinity." Money as a medium of exchange, a standard unit of account, and a store of value is a concept which developed in many cultures and has shown a great ability to replicate itself.

The feature / aspect of the money meme which explains / accounts for these problems is that money is conceptualized as a physical object and treated as such. Whether the physical form money takes is a consumable commodity (like salt, blankets, iron rods, spear points, or pigs), specie (metal coins), currency (bills and coins), or bank accounts, the money is always dealt with as if it were a physical object. All the problems associated with money can be traced to that fact.

End of Prefix

Possession of a physical object passes from one party to another party. Each party in question may be an individual, a group, an association, a corporation, a government, a club, or a host of other combinations of human beings and organizations. In each case the transaction will be a two party transaction, a two party interaction. Two party interactions are unstable. It seems that in every interaction the various parties to that interaction have power to one degree or another. When only two parties are involved, if one party has greater power that power can be used to gain still more power relative to the other party. The exploitation of that power advantage can make the interaction quite unrewarding to the weaker power. Under those conditions, the weaker party may attempt to end the interaction. Thus we find that two party interaction is inherently unstable. Even marriages which would appear to have everything in their favor as stable interaction have a high divorce rate. This is contrasted with the low divorce rate observed when extended families were the rule and in which the interaction of adults involved far more parties.

If money transactions were inherently three party interaction in which each party had power over one of the other two parties but was dominated by the other party as in the game of rock, paper, and scissors, then the interaction could be stable. If any party exploited the party over which it had power the party which had power over it would be able to require that the harmful actions cease. Note that this stability is dynamic. That is, the stability is maintained by adjustments and adaptations to changes in order to maintain the balance of power. (See, legislative, executive, and judicial balance of powers in government.)

This explanation can be refuted by finding any historical example of a state (people with a formal government) in which there is no business cycle, no economic instability, no exploitation of the weaker by the stronger, no use of force to prevent the weaker from gaining power.

[Elliot Temple]

On May 10, 2013, at 6:44 AM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> Prefix (See "Money as explanation part 0" for comments on this prefix.)
>
> In every nation at all periods of their histories we can easily find what one might call "dysfunctional" aspects of their economy and government. Some of the most common are things like unemployment when much work needs to be done, waste of resources, war, poverty, and political oppression. In economics we have the "tragedy of the commons," the business cycle (boom and bust), inflation / deflation, and suppression of any free markets. These and a host of other problems which at best hinder and at worst bring about the total collapse and destruction of nations and societies, can all be attributed to and explained by a single root cause.
>
> I suggest that the root cause of these problems is the nature of the meme called "money" as we know it. It seems clear to me that the concept of money is a meme as defined by Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene" or by David Deutsch in "The Beginning of Infinity." Money as a medium of exchange, a standard unit of account, and a store of value is a concept which developed in many cultures and has shown a great ability to replicate itself.
>
> The feature / aspect of the money meme which explains / accounts for these problems is that money is conceptualized as a physical object and treated as such. Whether the physical form money takes is a consumable commodity (like salt, blankets, iron rods, spear points, or pigs), specie (metal coins), currency (bills and coins), or bank accounts, the money is always dealt with as if it were a physical object. All the problems associated with money can be traced to that fact.
>
> End of Prefix
>
> Possession of a physical object passes from one party to another party.

First of all: No. Physical objects can be abandoned or lost, for example.

Second: Non-physical stuff can do this too (e.g. bitcoins or the right to publish stories about Harry Potter). So what does this have to do with physical objects?


-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/

[Mason, Larry K]

On May 10, 2013, at about 11:00 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:

>On May 10, 2013, at 6:44 AM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

>> Prefix (See "Money as explanation part 0" for comments on this prefix.)
>
>> In every nation at all periods of their histories we can easily find what one might call "dysfunctional" aspects of their economy and government. Some of the most common are things like unemployment when much work needs to be done, waste of resources, war, poverty, and political oppression. In economics we have the "tragedy of the commons," the business cycle (boom and bust), inflation / deflation, and suppression of any free markets. These and a host of other problems which at best hinder and at worst bring about the total collapse and destruction of nations and societies, can all be attributed to and explained by a single root cause.
>
>> I suggest that the root cause of these problems is the nature of the meme called "money" as we know it. It seems clear to me that the concept of money is a meme as defined by Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene" or by David Deutsch in "The Beginning of Infinity." Money as a medium of exchange, a standard unit of account, and a store of value is a concept which developed in many cultures and has shown a great ability to replicate itself.
>
>> The feature / aspect of the money meme which explains / accounts for these problems is that money is conceptualized as a physical object and treated as such. Whether the physical form money takes is a consumable commodity (like salt, blankets, iron rods, spear points, or pigs), specie (metal coins), currency (bills and coins), or bank accounts, the money is always dealt with as if it were a physical object. All the problems associated with money can be traced to that fact.
>
>> End of Prefix
>
>> Possession of a physical object passes from one party to another party.

First of all: No. Physical objects can be abandoned or lost, for example.

In which case there is no possession. A change in the party possessing a physical object is always one to one in parties. I am referring to interaction here as mediated by physical object money. (I thought that was obvious. :-) )

> Second: Non-physical stuff can do this too (e.g. bitcoins or the right to publish stories about Harry Potter). So what does this have to do with physical objects?

Yes, physical object money in the form of computer accounts is treated as if it were a physical object and thus it also goes from one party to another party. And yes, other objects which are not physical can also pass from one party to another party. What does that have to do with my point? If those other objects can be used to gain power in the two party interaction, they also help to make that interaction unstable. That isn't unique to physical object money. You may have noted that these posts are showing how physical objects in general have these influences and whenever we treat some intangible thing as if it were a physical object that intangible will also have those influences.

Larry Mason

[Rami Rustom]

Money influences us? How does that work exactly?

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com

[Richard Fine]

On 5/11/2013 1:07 PM, Mason, Larry K wrote:
> On May 10, 2013, at about 11:00 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
>> On May 10, 2013, at 6:44 AM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>> Prefix (See "Money as explanation part 0" for comments on this prefix.)
>>> In every nation at all periods of their histories we can easily find what one might call "dysfunctional" aspects of their economy and government. Some of the most common are things like unemployment when much work needs to be done, waste of resources, war, poverty, and political oppression. In economics we have the "tragedy of the commons," the business cycle (boom and bust), inflation / deflation, and suppression of any free markets. These and a host of other problems which at best hinder and at worst bring about the total collapse and destruction of nations and societies, can all be attributed to and explained by a single root cause.
>>> I suggest that the root cause of these problems is the nature of the meme called "money" as we know it. It seems clear to me that the concept of money is a meme as defined by Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene" or by David Deutsch in "The Beginning of Infinity." Money as a medium of exchange, a standard unit of account, and a store of value is a concept which developed in many cultures and has shown a great ability to replicate itself.
>>> The feature / aspect of the money meme which explains / accounts for these problems is that money is conceptualized as a physical object and treated as such. Whether the physical form money takes is a consumable commodity (like salt, blankets, iron rods, spear points, or pigs), specie (metal coins), currency (bills and coins), or bank accounts, the money is always dealt with as if it were a physical object. All the problems associated with money can be traced to that fact.
>>> End of Prefix
>>> Possession of a physical object passes from one party to another party.
>> First of all: No. Physical objects can be abandoned or lost, for example.
>
>
> In which case there is no possession. A change in the party possessing a physical object is always one to one in parties. I am referring to interaction here as mediated by physical object money. (I thought that was obvious. :-) )

Is the claim that 'passing from one party to another party' is the
*only* way that possession changes, or just that it is *one* way that
possession changes?

The idea that physical objects can be abandoned or lost is a refutation
of the former, but not the latter.

- Richard

[Mason, Larry K]

One can come to possess something which was unowned. In that case ownership (possession for this situation) begins with that owner. Once something is property, the ownership of that property can pass to some other owner in a variety of ways. I contend that the owner is always either some individual person or some "party" which is again singular no matter how many persons are a part of that set of persons. So if someone gives some item to a couple as a wedding gift, the couples own the item. The couple is the party.

It is the fact that "owner" always refers to "one" whether that one is an individual or some collective that is my point here so that when ownership changes the transaction is between exactly two parties.

On the other hand, property can be lost or destroyed. In that case, ownership ceases. There is no owner. Ownership has not passed from one party to some other party.

Does the above make my position clear?

Physical possession (like when two boys are holding the same bat to see which team bats first) is a completely different matter.

Larry Mason

[Elliot Temple]

So first you claim, as part of your approach, that "Possession of a physical object passes from one party to another party."

Now you say that, sometimes, "Ownership has not passed from one party to some other party."

So this contradicts the prior statement, which was not qualified.

Further, you haven't actually replied to Richard's question. Nor shown any understanding of my point above (which was: that this particular sentence is wrong).

You have not retracted or corrected the problematic sentence, nor addressed the criticism of it. You should do one of those.

You should be refining and improving -- or at least defending -- your view on money, or there isn't much point in a discussion. The status of the position you have presented will remain "refuted" until you actually address the problem.

It takes a certain sort of clarity and precision to do philosophy (including economics and political philosophy) well enough to reach the truth instead of just make up arbitrary junk. If you don't know how to do that, you should learn it *before* making a bunch of stuff up. If you do know how to do it, then go ahead and do it. If you didn't get my point the first time, well Richard clarified. But you still haven't asked any questions trying to clarify *your* understanding of what we're saying, nor have you addressed what we're saying.

Note that a single contradiction (or any other criticism) refutes your entire position unless and until you (or anyone) deals with it.

You might think problems with one part do not affect the whole. But if that part is not connected to the whole, then it should be be part of the whole. It should be retracted. And if that has no consequences, one would wonder why it was included in the first place.

-- Elliot Temple
http://beginningofinfinity.com/

[Mason, Larry K]

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 2:09 PM Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:

> On May 11, 2013, at 10:38 AM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

>> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:10 AM Richard Fine <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> On 5/11/2013 1:07 PM, Mason, Larry K wrote:
>>>> On May 10, 2013, at about 11:00 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>

>>>>> Larry> Possession of a physical object passes from one party to another party.
>
>>>>Elliot> First of all: No. Physical objects can be abandoned or lost, for example.
>>
>>>Larry> In which case there is no possession. A change in the party

>>>> possessing a physical object is always one to one in parties. I am
>>>> referring to interaction here as mediated by physical object money.
>>>> (I thought that was obvious. :-) )
>

>>Richard> Is the claim that 'passing from one party to another party' is the

>>> *only* way that possession changes, or just that it is *one* way that possession changes?
>
>>> The idea that physical objects can be abandoned or lost is a refutation of the former, but not the latter.
>
>> One can come to possess something which was unowned. In that case ownership (possession for this situation) begins with that owner. Once something is property, the ownership of that property can pass to some other owner in a variety of ways. I contend that the owner is always either some individual person or some "party" which is again singular no matter how many persons are a part of that set of persons. So if someone gives some item to a couple as a wedding gift, the couples own the item. The couple is the party.
>
>> It is the fact that "owner" always refers to "one" whether that one is an individual or some collective that is my point here so that when ownership changes the transaction is between exactly two parties.
>
>> On the other hand, property can be lost or destroyed. In that case, ownership ceases. There is no owner. Ownership has not passed from one party to some other party.
>
>> Does the above make my position clear?
>
>> Physical possession (like when two boys are holding the same bat to see which team bats first) is a completely different matter.

>So first you claim, as part of your approach, that "Possession of a physical object passes from one party to another party."

I do claim that. Of course the word "possession" is in the ownership sense in that sentence.

>Now you say that, sometimes, "Ownership has not passed from one party to some other party."

In the case of property being destroyed or lost ownership has not passed to any other party.

>So this contradicts the prior statement, which was not qualified.

So if you can find some meaning of a commonly used word (like "possession") which makes a statement wrong then you have refuted the statement even though with some other commonly accepted meaning of the term the statement is true?

>Further, you haven't actually replied to Richard's question. Nor shown any understanding of my point above (which was: that this particular sentence is wrong).

I did answer his questions. He asked " Is the claim that 'passing from one party to another party' is the *only* way that possession changes or just that it is *one* way that possession changes?" and I answered that "property can pass to some other owner in a variety of ways."
Do you contend that possession (in the ownership sense) does not pass from party to party? You provided examples of contexts in which possession was lost or ended but you did not provide evidence that possession does not pass from party to party.

>You have not retracted or corrected the problematic sentence, nor addressed the criticism of it. You should do one of those.

See just above.

>You should be refining and improving -- or at least defending -- your view on money, or there isn't much point in a discussion. The status of the position you have presented will remain "refuted" until you actually address the problem.

You should be expanding and enlarging your view on money. You should expand your view of what is possible and see that since money is in the minds of people it need not be restricted to traditional conceptualizations. If you are only going to ignore what I present and describe it falsely then there isn't much point in a discussion.

>It takes a certain sort of clarity and precision to do philosophy (including economics and political philosophy) well enough to reach the truth instead of just make up arbitrary junk. If you don't know how to do that, you should learn it *before* making a bunch of stuff up. If you do know how to do it, then go ahead and do it. If you didn't get my point the first time, well Richard clarified. But you still haven't asked any questions trying to clarify *your* understanding of what we're saying, nor have you addressed what we're saying.

>Note that a single contradiction (or any other criticism) refutes your entire position unless and until you (or anyone) deals with it.

>You might think problems with one part do not affect the whole. But if that part is not connected to the whole, then it should be be part of the whole. It should be retracted. And if that has no consequences, one would wonder why it was included in the first place.

Since you have evidenced no understanding whatever of my statements and positions I will not take your directions (or insults) seriously.

[Elliot Temple]

If you're not going to take posts seriously, you should unsubscribe. Taking them seriously is the ethos of this group.


-- Elliot Temple
http://elliottemple.com/

[Rami Rustom]

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> Having read "The Beginning of Infinity" I am sure you know what memes are and how they work. Money is a meme. Money is not just a mental concept but also it includes a suite of behaviors.

The mental concept is a meme. Each of the behaviors is a meme.


> Therefore, in the context of money interactions, our behavior is influenced by how we perceive, define, conceptualize, and think about money.

Taking the relevant part of your reply:

"our behavior is influenced by how we perceive, define, conceptualize,
and think about money"

and let X by "how we perceive, define, conceptualize, and think about
money", then your sentence goes like:

"our behavior is influenced by X" where X is an idea (or theory).

A person is his ideas.

A person is responsible for his ideas.

A person behaves in accordance with his ideas. In other words, ideas
cause behaviors.

You're saying that the idea of money influences people. But that is
wrong. The idea of money is not itself a moral idea. On the other hand
it is connected to lots of moral ideas -- there are good ones and evil
ones. The non-zero-sum ones are good and the zero-sum ones are evil.

So money doesn't influence us. Its the moral ideas that each person
has that connect to the money idea that influences (causes) each
person's behavior towards/regarding money.

So its incorrect to say that "money influences us". And its correct to
say that "evil (moral) ideas connected to the money idea influences
the people that hold those ideas".

[Anonymous Person]

So what you meant was: "Any type of object can pass from one party to
another or also can not pass from one party to another." ?

If so, that isn't saying anything.

[Drew zi]

Isn't he meaning to say that an object can't pass from one party to more than one party; at most one, and in the cases of exchanges exactly one.

[Mason, Larry K]

Please note that I wrote " not take your directions (or insults) seriously." I did NOT write that I would not take POSTS seriously. When you tell me that attempting to solve a problem is a bad thing for me to do (and you seem to have omitted that part of your comments) when you wrote " That is a bad, misconceived goal. It's a mistake." I have every reason to not take such directions for my behavior and actions seriously.

[Mason, Larry K]

What I was saying is that when ownership (possession) is transferred with respect to physical objects the interaction is a two party interaction.
The emphasis is on the two party aspect. That is what I am writing about. One single sentence was taken from that post. That sentence was to help set up the context for the main point. The sentence was misinterpreted (my fault as author) to be saying that possession can change only by going from one party to another. I probably should have written the sentence something like this.

"In the context of transference of ownership of physical objects the transfer will involve exactly two parties even though either or both of the parties might be composed of more than one person."

[Richard Fine]

Yes, but in which case I think your initial response to Elliot maybe
missed the substance of his criticism. As I understand it you're
defining ownership of objects using two properties:

1) "Ownership of the object exists," true or false
2) Who the owner of the object is

and you're saying that if #1 is false then talking about #2 is
meaningless. Is that a correct description of your position?

But what this means is that any time you are discussing anything
relating to changes in ownership of objects, you are necessarily
assuming that #1 is true (otherwise what you're saying is meaningless).

But the substance of Elliot's criticism is that #1 is *not* always true.
As far as I can see, your arguments so far haven't accounted for that -
you have not discussed the possibility that a party can create wholly
new things (create ownership), nor that a party can irrevocably destroy
things (cause ownership to cease).

- Richard

[Mason, Larry K]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:38 AM Richard Fine <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/11/2013 6:38 PM, Mason, Larry K wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:10 AM Richard Fine <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> On 5/11/2013 1:07 PM, Mason, Larry K wrote:
>>> On May 10, 2013, at about 11:00 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Possession of a physical object passes from one party to another party.
>>>>> First of all: No. Physical objects can be abandoned or lost, for example.
>>
>>>> In which case there is no possession. A change in the party
>>>> possessing a physical object is always one to one in parties. I am
>>>> referring to interaction here as mediated by physical object money.
>>>> (I thought that was obvious. :-) )


>>> Is the claim that 'passing from one party to another party' is the
>>> *only* way that possession changes, or just that it is *one* way that possession changes?
>>> The idea that physical objects can be abandoned or lost is a refutation of the former, but not the latter.


>> One can come to possess something which was unowned. In that case ownership (possession for this situation) begins with that owner. Once something is property, the ownership of that property can pass to some other owner in a variety of ways. I contend that the owner is always either some individual person or some "party" which is again singular no matter how many persons are a part of that set of persons. So if someone gives some item to a couple as a wedding gift, the couples own the item. The couple is the party.
>
>> It is the fact that "owner" always refers to "one" whether that one is an individual or some collective that is my point here so that when ownership changes the transaction is between exactly two parties.
>

?> On the other hand, property can be lost or destroyed. In that case, ownership ceases. There is no owner. Ownership has not passed from one party to some other party.

>
>> Does the above make my position clear?

>Yes, but in which case I think your initial response to Elliot maybe missed the substance of his criticism. As I understand it you're defining ownership of objects using two properties:

>1) "Ownership of the object exists," true or false
>2) Who the owner of the object is

>and you're saying that if #1 is false then talking about #2 is meaningless. Is that a correct description of your position?

Yes. I believe it is.

>But what this means is that any time you are discussing anything relating to changes in ownership of objects, you are necessarily assuming that #1 is true (otherwise what you're saying is meaningless).

Yes I am.

>But the substance of Elliot's criticism is that #1 is *not* always true.
>As far as I can see, your arguments so far haven't accounted for that - you have not discussed the possibility that a party can create wholly new things (create ownership), nor that a party can irrevocably destroy things (cause ownership to cease).

The topic I was attempting to discuss was transfers of ownership. It seemed to me (and still does) that if there is no ownership, then ownership cannot be transferred.

It seems to me that if someone creates a new thing (or comes to possess (own) something which was not previously owned by anyone) then ownership of that thing exists and thus, #1 is true.

It seems to me that if an item of property is lost or destroyed that no transfer of ownership of that (no longer existing) item can take place because #1 is not true.

[Richard Fine]

I think that's true for the position you hold. (FWIW there *is* an
alternative position you could take - you could treat 'nobody' like a
special kind of party in its own right - but as I haven't yet grasped
the entirety of what you're trying to describe, I can't say whether I
think that position would be better).

But like I say, it doesn't address the substance of the criticism. For
example, after you made the claim about how changes in ownership work,
you went on to present a three-party model for ownership transfer with
the goal of ensuring 'stability' in transactions. However, you've not
examined whether a party's ability to create/destroy ownership can be
used to break that stability.

- Richard

[Elliot Temple]

Rendering problems **impossible**, and solving a problem, are completely different.

You proposed the first. I said that that is what I objected to. I said why. I emphasized the "impossible" in bold. Now you say, "When you tell me that attempting to solve a problem is a bad thing". I never told you that. This is your mistake.

So, the problem here is you're being imprecise.

Your imprecision is the problem in most of the discussion (e.g. about ownership transfer). Other people are making criticisms that are more precise than the way you think. That is the cause of the arguing and confusion.

It doesn't help that you intentionally chose not to take a post seriously -- in other words, read it even less precisely, and therefore misunderstood it more.

The standards of precision here are much higher than you are accustomed to from most other places. They are something you can learn and improve at.

One way to improve your abilities with precision would be to study the material in BoI that you agree with, and ask questions about it, and try to understand it really precisely. If you did that, and then came back to the money stuff, you'd have the skill to handle the discussion better.

There must be many other solutions. I have no specific knowledge of why you made several mistakes in the imprecision category. You do. It's up to you to deal with it. Regardless, as long as you're equating phrases which are not equal -- and then attributing statements to people that they never said -- it's hard to discuss things.

[Mason, Larry K]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 11:15 AM Richard Fine <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/12/2013 3:08 PM, Mason, Larry K wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:38 AM Richard Fine <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I think your initial response to Elliot maybe missed the substance of his criticism. As I understand it you're defining ownership of objects using two properties:
>>> 1) "Ownership of the object exists," true or false
>>> 2) Who the owner of the object is
>>> and you're saying that if #1 is false then talking about #2 is meaningless. Is that a correct description of your position?
>> Yes. I believe it is.
>
>>> But what this means is that any time you are discussing anything relating to changes in ownership of objects, you are necessarily assuming that #1 is true (otherwise what you're saying is meaningless).
>> Yes I am.
>
>>> But the substance of Elliot's criticism is that #1 is *not* always true.
>>> As far as I can see, your arguments so far haven't accounted for that - you have not discussed the possibility that a party can create wholly new things (create ownership), nor that a party can irrevocably destroy things (cause ownership to cease).
>> The topic I was attempting to discuss was transfers of ownership. It seemed to me (and still does) that if there is no ownership, then ownership cannot be transferred.
>
>> It seems to me that if someone creates a new thing (or comes to possess (own) something which was not previously owned by anyone) then ownership of that thing exists and thus, #1 is true.
>
>> It seems to me that if an item of property is lost or destroyed that no transfer of ownership of that (no longer existing) item can take place because #1 is not true.

>I think that's true for the position you hold. (FWIW there *is* an alternative position you could take - you could treat 'nobody' like a special kind of party in its own right - but as I haven't yet grasped the entirety of what you're trying to describe, I can't say whether I think that position would be better).

At this point (Money as an explanation part 4: two party interaction) I merely want to make the point that physical object money transactions are two party transactions. The money passes from the ownership / possession of one party to another.

>But like I say, it doesn't address the substance of the criticism. For example, after you made the claim about how changes in ownership work, you went on to present a three-party model for ownership transfer with the goal of ensuring 'stability' in transactions. However, you've not examined whether a party's ability to create/destroy ownership can be used to break that stability.

I presented a three-party model for _money transactions_, not for _ownership transfer_. With my system, ownership of physical objects is transferred between individuals. But money is not in any sense a physical object in my system. Perhaps that's a part of the difficulty. With the system hypothesized, money transactions in which money is gained (earned) involve three parties. Money transactions in which money is spent also involve three parties. Those are two separate transactions unlike physical object money transactions.

With regard to breaking the stability of economic interactions in a three party system, as hypothesized, the relationships are non-zero sum. That is, no party to an economic activity (production or consumption or both) can "win" at the expense of the other party(ies). That situation provides a selfish, vested interest on the part of each of the individuals involved to maintain successful interactions and end unsuccessful ones. Neither of the parties can use any power advantage to gain at the expense of the other party(ies). Thus, though the system (economy) reacts to changing situations and circumstances, the stability of the economy at large is maintained because that benefits everyone involved.

Neither creating nor destroying ownership (and I would expect both in my system) is anyone else's business in my system. It is unrelated to stability in my system. For example, if a person owns a piece of land and abandons it. That is, that person takes no responsibility for that land. That person chooses (voluntarily) to renounce all claims to ownership of that land. That does not harm anyone else. If some other person at a later time assumes responsibility for that land, that also does not harm anyone else. The new owner has full property rights, of course. If the new owner uses that land in a way that results in net benefit to others then that person will have earned money. That is the person's reward (whether they seek it or not, whether they choose to spend the money or not) for helping to produce those benefits.

I probably should also note that no one is obligated to continue any economic interaction (producing or distributing or consuming goods or services) if they choose not to continue it. There is no form of slavery in my system. On the other hand, if a person wants to produce some net benefit for others and does so, they will be paid. So if person "A" ceases to produce some benefit that others are enjoying, then anyone else (person "B") may step forward and produce that benefit in the stead of person "A". In fact, "B" does not have to wait for "A" to stop production. "B" can begin such production at any time. Therefore, though the specific actors in some economic enterprise (process, activity, division of labor) can and certainly will change over time, the enterprise will be able to continue. Just like any actual free market, it has an inherent stability even as it adapts and changes.

[Mason, Larry K]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 1:28 PM Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:

>On May 12, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

>> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 5:04 PM Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
>
>>> On May 11, 2013, at 1:30 PM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>>>> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 2:09 PM Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>
>>>>> It takes a certain sort of clarity and precision to do philosophy (including economics and political philosophy) well enough to reach the truth instead of just make up arbitrary junk. If you don't know how to do that, you should learn it *before* making a bunch of stuff up. If you do know how to do it, then go ahead and do it. If you didn't get my point the first time, well Richard clarified. But you still haven't asked any questions trying to clarify *your* understanding of what we're saying, nor have you addressed what we're saying.
>>
>>>>> Note that a single contradiction (or any other criticism) refutes your entire position unless and until you (or anyone) deals with it.
>>
>>>>> You might think problems with one part do not affect the whole. But if that part is not connected to the whole, then it should be be part of the whole. It should be retracted. And if that has no consequences, one would wonder why it was included in the first place.
>>
>>>> Since you have evidenced no understanding whatever of my statements and positions I will not take your directions (or insults) seriously.
>
>>> If you're not going to take posts seriously, you should unsubscribe. Taking them seriously is the ethos of this group.
>
>> Please note that I wrote " not take your directions (or insults) seriously." I did NOT write that I would not take POSTS seriously. When you tell me that attempting to solve a problem is a bad thing for me to do (and you seem to have omitted that part of your comments) when you wrote " That is a bad, misconceived goal. It's a mistake." I have every reason to not take such directions for my behavior and actions seriously.

>Rendering problems **impossible**, and solving a problem, are completely different.

>You proposed the first. I said that that is what I objected to. I said why. I emphasized the "impossible" in bold. Now you say, "When you tell me that attempting to solve a problem is a bad thing". I never told you that. This is your mistake.

>So, the problem here is you're being imprecise.

Please do me a favor and quote the passage in which my system would render a particular problem impossible. I don't see such a statement by me above. I have looked over Part 4 and I don't find such a statement (though I may have missed it.)

>Your imprecision is the problem in most of the discussion (e.g. about ownership transfer). Other people are making criticisms that are more precise than the way you think. That is the cause of the arguing and confusion.

>It doesn't help that you intentionally chose not to take a post seriously -- in other words, read it even less precisely, and therefore misunderstood it more.

>The standards of precision here are much higher than you are accustomed to from most other places. They are something you can learn and improve at.

>One way to improve your abilities with precision would be to study the material in BoI that you agree with, and ask questions about it, and try to understand it really precisely. If you did that, and then came back to the money stuff, you'd have the skill to handle the discussion better.

>There must be many other solutions. I have no specific knowledge of why you made several mistakes in the imprecision category. You do. It's up to you to deal with it. Regardless, as long as you're equating phrases which are not equal -- and then attributing statements to people that they never said -- it's hard to discuss things.

I very much agree with your last sentence.

[Richard Fine]

On 5/12/2013 7:29 PM, Mason, Larry K wrote:
> At this point (Money as an explanation part 4: two party interaction)
> I merely want to make the point that physical object money
> transactions are two party transactions. The money passes from the
> ownership / possession of one party to another.

Well, OK, sure. When a physical object changes from having one owner to
having another owner, a total of two owners are involved in the whole
transaction.

It's not clear to me why you felt it necessary to make that point, to be
honest - seems kinda trivially true - but reading the text that came
after it I have other questions anyway so I'll post them in a separate
subthread.

>> But like I say, it doesn't address the substance of the criticism. For example, after you made the claim about how changes in ownership work, you went on to present a three-party model for ownership transfer with the goal of ensuring 'stability' in transactions. However, you've not examined whether a party's ability to create/destroy ownership can be used to break that stability.
> I presented a three-party model for _money transactions_, not for _ownership transfer_. With my system, ownership of physical objects is transferred between individuals. But money is not in any sense a physical object in my system. Perhaps that's a part of the difficulty. With the system hypothesized, money transactions in which money is gained (earned) involve three parties. Money transactions in which money is spent also involve three parties. Those are two separate transactions unlike physical object money transactions.

OK. It's hard to visualize that - you might as well have told me "in my
system, triangles have four sides" - but I understand the hypothetical.

> With regard to breaking the stability of economic interactions in a three party system, as hypothesized, the relationships are non-zero sum. That is, no party to an economic activity (production or consumption or both) can "win" at the expense of the other party(ies). That situation provides a selfish, vested interest on the part of each of the individuals involved to maintain successful interactions and end unsuccessful ones.

Excluding cases of fraud, isn't that true of two-party systems as well -
or indeed *any* system where participation is voluntary?

I think this is probably related to the 'power' stuff in your first post
that I don't understand, so I'll ask more questions about that.

> So if person "A" ceases to produce some benefit that others are enjoying, then anyone else (person "B") may step forward and produce that benefit in the stead of person "A". In fact, "B" does not have to wait for "A" to stop production. "B" can begin such production at any time.

If I interpret that with an "in most situations" proviso, that sounds
like something that is true of the present system already. If that's not
what you intended, could you explain how your system solves the
following two examples of scarcity problems:

Suppose person A owns land where there's oil underground. They build a
rig and begin producing oil. Then, for whatever reason, they cease. How
does B begin producing oil from that land without violating A's property
rights?

Suppose that person A is Robert Downey Jr. After giving people the
benefit of his creative abilities in many movies, he is retiring. How
does B begin producing the benefit of Robert Downey Jr.'s creative
abilities without violating A's liberty/property rights?

- Richard

[Richard Fine]

On 5/10/2013 2:44 PM, Mason, Larry K wrote:
> Two party interactions are unstable. It seems that in every interaction the various parties to that interaction have power to one degree or another.

"Unstable" is very vague. Unstable in what way? That the interactions
have unpredictable lifespan? That the terms of them change? That people
back out of them sometimes?

"Power" is pretty vague too. Power to do what?

> When only two parties are involved, if one party has greater power that power can be used to gain still more power relative to the other party. The exploitation of that power advantage can make the interaction quite unrewarding to the weaker power. Under those conditions, the weaker party may attempt to end the interaction. Thus we find that two party interaction is inherently unstable.

I still don't know what you mean by "unstable" here. So I'm left to ask:
so what if they are? What's wrong with a party ending an interaction
that they find unfavourable? Isn't that a *good* thing?

> Even marriages which would appear to have everything in their favor as stable interaction have a high divorce rate. This is contrasted with the low divorce rate observed when extended families were the rule and in which the interaction of adults involved far more parties.

This looks to be mistaking correlation for causation. It could equally
be the other way around: that people in unstable marriages avoid getting
their extended families involved because they don't want to 'air their
dirty' laundry or similar. Or it could be that both high divorce rate
and reduced extended-family interaction are both consequences of some
other thing that has changed (like increased global dispersion, changes
in attitude towards the importance of familial+spousal relationships,
changes in attitudes towards 'duty,' etc).

> If money transactions were inherently three party interaction in which each party had power over one of the other two parties but was dominated by the other party as in the game of rock, paper, and scissors, then the interaction could be stable. If any party exploited the party over which it had power the party which had power over it would be able to require that the harmful actions cease.

From the sound of it, that only addresses situations where the
interaction would otherwise become unfavourable due to a party exerting
its power to bring that about. It doesn't address interactions that
become unfavourable due to any other change in situation. Do you agree?

Do you think that under the present system, in the majority of cases
where an interaction ends, it does so due to one of the parties
deliberately making the interaction unfavourable to the other?

> This explanation can be refuted by finding any historical example of a state (people with a formal government) in which there is no business cycle, no economic instability, no exploitation of the weaker by the stronger, no use of force to prevent the weaker from gaining power.

I think it can be refuted by a lot more than that, but I'll wait for
your answers to my questions first.

- Richard

[Mason, Larry K]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:28 PM Richard Fine <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/12/2013 7:29 PM, Mason, Larry K wrote:
>> At this point (Money as an explanation part 4: two party interaction)
>> I merely want to make the point that physical object money
>> transactions are two party transactions. The money passes from the
>> ownership / possession of one party to another.

>Well, OK, sure. When a physical object changes from having one owner to having another owner, a total of two owners are involved in the whole transaction.

>It's not clear to me why you felt it necessary to make that point, to be honest - seems kinda trivially true - but reading the text that came after it I have other questions anyway so I'll post them in a separate subthread.

It seemed trivially true (obvious on the face of it) to me as well but you can see that other's did not have that opinion. (Besides, I could have been wrong and the point could be false.)

>>> But like I say, it doesn't address the substance of the criticism. For example, after you made the claim about how changes in ownership work, you went on to present a three-party model for ownership transfer with the goal of ensuring 'stability' in transactions. However, you've not examined whether a party's ability to create/destroy ownership can be used to break that stability.
>> I presented a three-party model for _money transactions_, not for _ownership transfer_. With my system, ownership of physical objects is transferred between individuals. But money is not in any sense a physical object in my system. Perhaps that's a part of the difficulty. With the system hypothesized, money transactions in which money is gained (earned) involve three parties. Money transactions in which money is spent also involve three parties. Those are two separate transactions unlike physical object money transactions.

>OK. It's hard to visualize that - you might as well have told me "in my system, triangles have four sides" - but I understand the hypothetical.

Yes, it is difficult to visualize that and that's why I didn't want to get into that part yet. :-( Sigh.

>> With regard to breaking the stability of economic interactions in a three party system, as hypothesized, the relationships are non-zero sum. That is, no party to an economic activity (production or consumption or both) can "win" at the expense of the other party(ies). That situation provides a selfish, vested interest on the part of each of the individuals involved to maintain successful interactions and end unsuccessful ones.

>Excluding cases of fraud, isn't that true of two-party systems as well - or indeed *any* system where participation is voluntary?

Excluding cases of fraud _and force_ that is true of two party systems as well and, indeed, any system in which participation is voluntary. But you may have noticed that in nations there's lots of both force and fraud going on. (See organized crime.)

>I think this is probably related to the 'power' stuff in your first post that I don't understand, so I'll ask more questions about that.

>> So if person "A" ceases to produce some benefit that others are enjoying, then anyone else (person "B") may step forward and produce that benefit in the stead of person "A". In fact, "B" does not have to wait for "A" to stop production. "B" can begin such production at any time.

>If I interpret that with an "in most situations" proviso, that sounds like something that is true of the present system already. If that's not what you intended, could you explain how your system solves the following two examples of scarcity problems:

>Suppose person A owns land where there's oil underground. They build a rig and begin producing oil. Then, for whatever reason, they cease. >How does B begin producing oil from that land without violating A's property rights?

Has "A" abandoned the property? (As I understand it, one can lose ownership rights by abandonment.) If so, "A" has no property rights for the aforesaid property. If "A" has not abandoned the property, "B" has no property rights to that land. In my system, "A" would be able to get support to stop "B"'s actions in violation of "A"'s property rights.

>Suppose that person A is Robert Downey Jr. After giving people the benefit of his creative abilities in many movies, he is retiring. How does B >begin producing the benefit of Robert Downey Jr.'s creative abilities without violating A's liberty/property rights?

In my system Robert would continue to be paid for the continuing benefits resulting from his creative use of his abilities. He may retire but the money keeps rolling in. "B" could make those movies available to the public. In that event, "B" would be paid for his actions and Robert would also be paid for his work. So "B"'s action would increase the money available to Robert. Robert need do nothing including that he need not spend the money that "B"'s actions helped Robert earn.

Now if Robert wants to destroy all copies of every movie he ever helped to make he's out of luck. The physical film and any digital recordings of those movies are the property of many other persons. What they do with their property is up to them.

[Richard Fine]

On 5/12/2013 8:48 PM, Mason, Larry K wrote:
> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:28 PM Richard Fine <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/12/2013 7:29 PM, Mason, Larry K wrote:
>>> At this point (Money as an explanation part 4: two party interaction)
>>> I merely want to make the point that physical object money
>>> transactions are two party transactions. The money passes from the
>>> ownership / possession of one party to another.
>> Well, OK, sure. When a physical object changes from having one owner to having another owner, a total of two owners are involved in the whole transaction.
>> It's not clear to me why you felt it necessary to make that point, to be honest - seems kinda trivially true - but reading the text that came after it I have other questions anyway so I'll post them in a separate subthread.
> It seemed trivially true (obvious on the face of it) to me as well but you can see that other's did not have that opinion. (Besides, I could have been wrong and the point could be false.)

In this case I think the problem has just been the ambiguity of the
statement. Once it's clear exactly what you *meant*, I'd guess everyone
can see it's true. One way to avoid making ambiguous statements is to
avoid making statements until your interlocutor has shown a need for
them - another consequence of the 'thesis-last' approach you're taking
here, I'm afraid.

>>> With regard to breaking the stability of economic interactions in a three party system, as hypothesized, the relationships are non-zero sum. That is, no party to an economic activity (production or consumption or both) can "win" at the expense of the other party(ies). That situation provides a selfish, vested interest on the part of each of the individuals involved to maintain successful interactions and end unsuccessful ones.
>> Excluding cases of fraud, isn't that true of two-party systems as well - or indeed *any* system where participation is voluntary?
> Excluding cases of fraud _and force_ that is true of two party systems as well and, indeed, any system in which participation is voluntary. But you may have noticed that in nations there's lots of both force and fraud going on. (See organized crime.)

If a party's being forced to participate, then the participation isn't
voluntary.

>> Suppose person A owns land where there's oil underground. They build a rig and begin producing oil. Then, for whatever reason, they cease. >How does B begin producing oil from that land without violating A's property rights?
> Has "A" abandoned the property? (As I understand it, one can lose ownership rights by abandonment.) If so, "A" has no property rights for the aforesaid property. If "A" has not abandoned the property, "B" has no property rights to that land. In my system, "A" would be able to get support to stop "B"'s actions in violation of "A"'s property rights.

"A" hasn't abandoned the property; he still owns the land, still has his
rig there, and still technically owns all the oil beneath the surface.
He's just decided to switch his pumps off, such that now nobody is
getting the benefit of his oil. You said "anyone else [...] may step
forward and produce that benefit in the stead of person A" - how can B
give others the benefit of the oil in this case, without stealing it
from person A?

>> Suppose that person A is Robert Downey Jr. After giving people the benefit of his creative abilities in many movies, he is retiring. How does B >begin producing the benefit of Robert Downey Jr.'s creative abilities without violating A's liberty/property rights?
> In my system Robert would continue to be paid for the continuing benefits resulting from his creative use of his abilities. He may retire but the money keeps rolling in. "B" could make those movies available to the public. In that event, "B" would be paid for his actions and Robert would also be paid for his work. So "B"'s action would increase the money available to Robert. Robert need do nothing including that he need not spend the money that "B"'s actions helped Robert earn.
>
> Now if Robert wants to destroy all copies of every movie he ever helped to make he's out of luck. The physical film and any digital recordings of those movies are the property of many other persons. What they do with their property is up to them.

That much is fine, but what about the new content? If Robert Downey Jr
decides to retire, he's no longer giving the world the benefit of fresh
movies with him in. Person B can't take over "being Robert Downey Jr"
from him - he could become a movie star himself, or even a Robert Downey
Jr impersonator, but it wouldn't be quite the same thing. So if Robert
Downey Jr decides to stop making new Robert Downey Jr movies, Person B
can't produce new Robert Downey Jr movies instead of him. So the claim
was false.

I've picked oil and celebrity specifically because they're examples of
natural monopolies. I don't see how a three-party money transaction
system would solve natural monopolies any better than the present system.

- Richard

[Mason, Larry K]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:46 PM Richard Fine <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/10/2013 2:44 PM, Mason, Larry K wrote:
>> Two party interactions are unstable. It seems that in every interaction the various parties to that interaction have power to one degree or another.

>"Unstable" is very vague. Unstable in what way? That the interactions have unpredictable lifespan? That the terms of them change? That people back out of them sometimes?

Unstable in that positive feedback loops are established which make the interaction harmful / dysfunctional / unpleasant / for one or both parties (or all parties if a many party interaction). For example as unions get more power they are able to demand higher wages until the business can no longer compete in the open market. For example, as management gets more power in the labor market, they are able to pay less and less in wages until labor cannot survive. These are examples from economics but they apply to other kinds of interaction as well.

>"Power" is pretty vague too. Power to do what?

Power to punish (coerce, apply force) mostly but also the power to reward. The reward power is far less likely to result in instability.

>> When only two parties are involved, if one party has greater power that power can be used to gain still more power relative to the other party. The exploitation of that power advantage can make the interaction quite unrewarding to the weaker power. Under those conditions, the weaker party may attempt to end the interaction. Thus we find that two party interaction is inherently unstable.

>I still don't know what you mean by "unstable" here. So I'm left to ask:
>so what if they are? What's wrong with a party ending an interaction that they find unfavourable? Isn't that a *good* thing?

Please see the examples I gave above involving unions and management. Or you can consider the relationship between the citizen and the government. As the government gets more power the citizen loses power and is likely to be oppressed. The result is often revolution.

>> Even marriages which would appear to have everything in their favor as stable interaction have a high divorce rate. This is contrasted with the low divorce rate observed when extended families were the rule and in which the interaction of adults involved far more parties.

>This looks to be mistaking correlation for causation. It could equally be the other way around: that people in unstable marriages avoid getting >their extended families involved because they don't want to 'air their dirty' laundry or similar. Or it could be that both high divorce rate and >reduced extended-family interaction are both consequences of some other thing that has changed (like increased global dispersion, changes in >attitude towards the importance of familial+spousal relationships, changes in attitudes towards 'duty,' etc).

If you don't like that example, disregard it.

>> If money transactions were inherently three party interaction in which each party had power over one of the other two parties but was dominated by the other party as in the game of rock, paper, and scissors, then the interaction could be stable. If any party exploited the party over which it had power the party which had power over it would be able to require that the harmful actions cease.

> From the sound of it, that only addresses situations where the interaction would otherwise become unfavourable due to a party exerting its power to bring that about. It doesn't address interactions that become unfavourable due to any other change in situation. Do you agree?

Well, let's say that one of the three parties experiences some change which increases its power. That party is still vulnerable to one of the other parties. The balance is retained. Paper still covers rock no matter how big or how hard the rock becomes. :-)

>Do you think that under the present system, in the majority of cases where an interaction ends, it does so due to one of the parties deliberately making the interaction unfavourable to the other?

If the interaction is an important one to the parties then I think statistically the dissatisfaction of one party is the main reason that party tries to end the interaction. Whether that dissatisfaction was caused deliberately or not is another matter. A boss could simply reward some favorites who work for him and thereby slight the others. This could result in the dissatisfaction even though the boss was not trying to cause such dissatisfaction. I would say it's rather uncommon for one party to deliberately make the interaction unfavorable unless the power is quite unbalanced. I think most interactions these days are rather trivial. Eating lunch in a café one interacts with the staff of the café. It's an economic interaction employing money but it is not important, in itself, to the customer or the staff. Such an interaction might end without dissatisfaction on either side. But if one eats at the same café for lunch every work day and get to know the waitress as a person, then it might take some strong dissatisfaction (the café owner fires the waitress?) to end the interaction.

[Elliot Temple]

On May 12, 2013, at 12:07 PM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 1:28 PM Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>
>> On May 12, 2013, at 5:21 AM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>>> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 5:04 PM Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> On May 11, 2013, at 1:30 PM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 2:09 PM Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> It takes a certain sort of clarity and precision to do philosophy (including economics and political philosophy) well enough to reach the truth instead of just make up arbitrary junk. If you don't know how to do that, you should learn it *before* making a bunch of stuff up. If you do know how to do it, then go ahead and do it. If you didn't get my point the first time, well Richard clarified. But you still haven't asked any questions trying to clarify *your* understanding of what we're saying, nor have you addressed what we're saying.
>>>
>>>>>> Note that a single contradiction (or any other criticism) refutes your entire position unless and until you (or anyone) deals with it.
>>>
>>>>>> You might think problems with one part do not affect the whole. But if that part is not connected to the whole, then it should be be part of the whole. It should be retracted. And if that has no consequences, one would wonder why it was included in the first place.
>>>
>>>>> Since you have evidenced no understanding whatever of my statements and positions I will not take your directions (or insults) seriously.
>>
>>>> If you're not going to take posts seriously, you should unsubscribe. Taking them seriously is the ethos of this group.
>>
>>> Please note that I wrote " not take your directions (or insults) seriously." I did NOT write that I would not take POSTS seriously. When you tell me that attempting to solve a problem is a bad thing for me to do (and you seem to have omitted that part of your comments) when you wrote " That is a bad, misconceived goal. It's a mistake." I have every reason to not take such directions for my behavior and actions seriously.
>
>> Rendering problems **impossible**, and solving a problem, are completely different.
>
>> You proposed the first. I said that that is what I objected to. I said why. I emphasized the "impossible" in bold. Now you say, "When you tell me that attempting to solve a problem is a bad thing". I never told you that. This is your mistake.
>
>> So, the problem here is you're being imprecise.
>
> Please do me a favor and quote the passage in which my system would render a particular problem impossible. I don't see such a statement by me above. I have looked over Part 4 and I don't find such a statement (though I may have missed it.)

I did provide a quote when I originally posted the criticism.

I quoted Larry writing:

> You are correct. That was an error on my part. It should have been something along the lines of "why is it possible for money to be used for such evil purposes?"

Larry presented evil with money being *possible* as a problem, implying Larry wanted to make it *impossible*.

And I replied to that quote with, "So you want to set up a money that is **impossible** to be used for evil purposes?" and then explained why that would be bad if Larry did mean it. I asked a question to clarify Larry meant what I thought he did, rather than assuming.

Larry then replied saying I had understood him correctly. Larry answered, I quote, "Yes". (Followed by some stuff about this being hard to achieve perfectly in practice, but maybe we can get close to that goal.)

Again:

Me:

> So [making sure I understood what you just said] you want to set up a money that is **impossible** to be used for evil purposes?

Larry:

> Yes

[Mason, Larry K]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 4:13 PM Richard Fine <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/12/2013 8:48 PM, Mason, Larry K wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:28 PM Richard Fine <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> On 5/12/2013 7:29 PM, Mason, Larry K wrote:
>>>> At this point (Money as an explanation part 4: two party
>>>> interaction) I merely want to make the point that physical object
>>>> money transactions are two party transactions. The money passes from
>>>> the ownership / possession of one party to another.
>>> Well, OK, sure. When a physical object changes from having one owner to having another owner, a total of two owners are involved in the whole transaction.
>>> It's not clear to me why you felt it necessary to make that point, to be honest - seems kinda trivially true - but reading the text that came after it I have other questions anyway so I'll post them in a separate subthread.
>> It seemed trivially true (obvious on the face of it) to me as well but
>> you can see that other's did not have that opinion. (Besides, I could
>> have been wrong and the point could be false.)

>In this case I think the problem has just been the ambiguity of the statement. Once it's clear exactly what you *meant*, I'd guess everyone can see it's true. One way to avoid making ambiguous statements is to avoid making statements until your interlocutor has shown a need for them - another consequence of the 'thesis-last' approach you're taking here, I'm afraid.

>>>> With regard to breaking the stability of economic interactions in a three party system, as hypothesized, the relationships are non-zero sum. That is, no party to an economic activity (production or consumption or both) can "win" at the expense of the other party(ies). That situation provides a selfish, vested interest on the part of each of the individuals involved to maintain successful interactions and end unsuccessful ones.
>>> Excluding cases of fraud, isn't that true of two-party systems as well - or indeed *any* system where participation is voluntary?
>> Excluding cases of fraud _and force_ that is true of two party systems
>> as well and, indeed, any system in which participation is voluntary.
>> But you may have noticed that in nations there's lots of both force
>> and fraud going on. (See organized crime.)

>If a party's being forced to participate, then the participation isn't voluntary.

I quite agree. But try telling that to the tax man. :-)

>>> Suppose person A owns land where there's oil underground. They build a rig and begin producing oil. Then, for whatever reason, they cease. >>>How does B begin producing oil from that land without violating A's property rights?
>
>> Has "A" abandoned the property? (As I understand it, one can lose ownership rights by abandonment.) If so, "A" has no property rights for the aforesaid property. If "A" has not abandoned the property, "B" has no property rights to that land. In my system, "A" would be able to get support to stop "B"'s actions in violation of "A"'s property rights.

>"A" hasn't abandoned the property; he still owns the land, still has his rig there, and still technically owns all the oil beneath the surface.
>He's just decided to switch his pumps off, such that now nobody is getting the benefit of his oil. You said "anyone else [...] may step forward >and produce that benefit in the stead of person A" - how can B give others the benefit of the oil in this case, without stealing it from person A?

So "B" provides oil to the parties that "A" had been giving oil. "A" has no monopoly on oil. It's the net benefit that earns money, not the oil. If "A" ceases production but continues to own the land that's it for oil from "A"'s land. (Drilling on the slant and such we will ignore for this case.)

>>> Suppose that person A is Robert Downey Jr. After giving people the benefit of his creative abilities in many movies, he is retiring. How does
>>> B begin producing the benefit of Robert Downey Jr.'s creative abilities without violating A's liberty/property rights?

>> In my system Robert would continue to be paid for the continuing benefits resulting from his creative use of his abilities. He may retire but the money keeps rolling in. "B" could make those movies available to the public. In that event, "B" would be paid for his actions and Robert would also be paid for his work. So "B"'s action would increase the money available to Robert. Robert need do nothing including that he need not spend the money that "B"'s actions helped Robert earn.
>>
>> Now if Robert wants to destroy all copies of every movie he ever helped to make he's out of luck. The physical film and any digital >>recordings of those movies are the property of many other persons. What they do with their property is up to them.

>That much is fine, but what about the new content? If Robert Downey Jr decides to retire, he's no longer giving the world the benefit of fresh >movies with him in. Person B can't take over "being Robert Downey Jr"
>from him - he could become a movie star himself, or even a Robert Downey Jr impersonator, but it wouldn't be quite the same thing. So if >Robert Downey Jr decides to stop making new Robert Downey Jr movies, Person B can't produce new Robert Downey Jr movies instead of >him. So the claim was false.

Sorry, my error. The contribution of any person is quite voluntary in my system. But whatever Downey was providing (humor, drama, education,...) can be provided by others. It may not have that unique Downey style but there are many movie makers. What is the particular benefit that you see Downey's movies as providing to people? Can that benefit be produced only by Downey? Do people suffer for lack of Downey movies?

>I've picked oil and celebrity specifically because they're examples of natural monopolies. I don't see how a three-party money transaction >system would solve natural monopolies any better than the present system.

It's the "unnatural" monopolies that my three party system would prevent. (I don't think oil is a natural monopoly since it can be made from hydrocarbons and is found in many places.) Artificially induced (by government, business, church, or whatever) monopolies would cease to exist.

[Mason, Larry K]

Ah. I see my problem. I was looking in part 4 for the exchange but it was in "part 2: it's amoral." Thank you for finding it for me.

I see the use of money for evil purposes as a problem to be solved. I would like to help produce a solution to that problem that comes near to making evil uses of money impossible. (That's the stuff about this being hard to achieve perfectly in practice.)

I _want_ but don't expect to be able to achieve making money be **impossible** to be used for evil purposes. I see nothing wrong with such a desire. I see nothing wrong with striving in that direction. In other words I see nothing wrong with striving for a good though impossible goal.

[Elliot Temple]

As BoI explains, problems are inevitable. Wanting otherwise is a mistake. Trying to create a situation contrary to this is impossible and will only lead to (bad) problems.

Making problems impossible is not a good goal. See, the thing is, problems are a part of life. Not a bad part, but a necessary part of a good life. Any life without them would be a bad thing -- boring, pointless, static. We need problems. We shouldn't be afraid of them.

Similarly, tools like hammer, guns, money, it's good that they can do lots of things. It would not be better to try to make a gun that is only possible to use for target shooting, for example. Or a hammer that only hits nails. That sort of restriction to try to make misuse impossible is actually destructive of freedom, it's rejecting instead of embracing the proper nature and attitude of humanity.


What you're saying is a totally understandable and typical point of view, but is actually incompatible with BoI.

[Mason, Larry K]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 10:19 PM Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:


>On May 12, 2013, at 1:58 PM, "Mason, Larry K" <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>> I see the use of money for evil purposes as a problem to be solved. I would like to help produce a solution to that problem that comes near to making evil uses of money impossible. (That's the stuff about this being hard to achieve perfectly in practice.)
>
>> I _want_ but don't expect to be able to achieve making money be **impossible** to be used for evil purposes. I see nothing wrong with such a desire. I see nothing wrong with striving in that direction. In other words I see nothing wrong with striving for a good though impossible goal.

>As BoI explains, problems are inevitable. Wanting otherwise is a mistake. Trying to create a situation contrary to this is impossible and will only lead to (bad) problems.

I seem to recall BoI also explaining that problems can be solved. Is wanting to solve problems a mistake? Is wanting to solve one particular problem a mistake?

I would also appreciate your providing a quote of mine in which I indicated that I thought I was solving all problems forever. Or that I wanted to solve all problems forever. Or that I thought it was even possible to solve all problems forever. Or that I did **not** think that problems are inevitable.

>Making problems impossible is not a good goal. See, the thing is, problems are a part of life. Not a bad part, but a necessary part of a good life. Any life without them would be a bad thing -- boring, pointless, static. We need problems. We shouldn't be afraid of them.

Making problems impossible has never been a goal of mine. One at a time is plenty for me. Trying to remove some of the problems of money has greatly enriched my life for over 40 years. You are preaching to the choir on this point.

>Similarly, tools like hammer, guns, money, it's good that they can do lots of things. It would not be better to try to make a gun that is only possible to use for target shooting, for example. Or a hammer that only hits nails. That sort of restriction to try to make misuse impossible is actually destructive of freedom, it's rejecting instead of embracing the proper nature and attitude of humanity.

How about making a gun that never goes off half cocked? How about a gun that never has a "flash in the pan" and thus not fire when desired. How about making a gun that only the owner can fire? There are many ways to improve guns that have been developed over the years.

Are you saying that I should not attempt to improve the nature of our money? Are you saying it's impossible to improve the nature of our money? Are you saying that I should let others who agree with you be the only ones who express ideas about money? Because I also like versatile tools. I find our current form of money to be far from versatile. It seems to force all sorts of things upon the economy and the society. So it isn't at all clear to me how you would have me react to the economic problems the world has been experiencing that involve money. The impression I get is that I should "shut up." Perhaps I misunderstand your goal / intent.

>What you're saying is a totally understandable and typical point of view, but is actually incompatible with BoI.

What I actually think is that BoI is "right on the money." I agree with almost every sentence of that work. I was especially struck by the parts on memes and their suppression of explanation. I was hoping such suppression of attempts to explain would not be present on this list. I was not expecting such to be the case however. :-)

[Anonymous Email]

No one is suppressing you. You've been allowed to post a bunch of
whatever you want and there are no signs of that changing. Criticism
is not suppression.

But here is what's going on. God's honest truth:

- most people here understand BoI way better than you. you think you
know a lot more about it than you actually do. you read it. half the
people you're talking with have been discussing most of the ideas in
BoI (including with David Deutsch) since long before it was published.
they are in a different league than you for this particular thing.
they also have much more familiarity with David Deutsch's other work
and thinking than you do, and much more experience applying and
integrating the ideas.

- when you say you agree with almost every sentence of BoI, you're
mistaken. for that to be true you would have had to understand almost
every sentence of BoI. understanding is a prerequisite for real
agreement. no one understands that much on their first reading and
without studying the material at length and having lots of discussions
about it with the right people and so on.

- most people here have much better critical thinking skills than you,
including being better at discussion, writing clear explanations,
being precise, reading other people's stuff and understanding what it
says, keeping track of long discussions, and more. they might have
been like you or worse when they started, but they've been improving
these things for years. you could do that too, but have not done it
yet.

- most people here understand economics way better than you.

- you came here to lecture us, but not to learn from us. that's bad.
you should either be looking to learn or both learn and teach, but not
only to teach.

- because you know less about boi, econ and philosophy -- and because
you are in lecturer mode not student mode -- you haven't even
understood many of the criticisms that attempted to point out flaws in
your system

- you are not familiar with the list. you should read it for a month
or two and see what it's like in normal operation to better understand
how to deal with it. you would then better understand how to deal with
this list, what it's about, how promising it is in the long term if
you learn to get along here, and more.

- all of this was readily apparent to everyone who has talked with you
within your first few posts. it has informed their posts whether they
said it or not. they didn't say it because they thought it would be
nicer or more rational or something to offer criticism of various
mistakes you've made, or thought you'd consider this an insult, or
perhaps various other reasons. but i think there is value in clearly,
openly stating what's going on.

- whether any of this is correct or not, basically all the regular
posters here think it is correct and you haven't yet done anything
effective to change their mind


So, questions: If this explanation is correct, what ways of proceeding
would work well? And what would you recommend people here to do, if
this is correct, or if they think it is? Like how do you think they
should handle you, if they see it this way?

[Mason, Larry K]

If you please, you tell me what ways of proceeding would work well.

I would also appreciate it if you would give me a reference to a post and thread in which BoI is discussed well by astute list members so I can see examples of the understanding you say I lack.

[Anonymous Email]

http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/browse_thread/thread/cc419e5423062b5b/fa7f9dd8af7be473#fa7f9dd8af7be473

It's hard for me to tell you how to proceed, because I do not know
your preferences and values. For example, it might be a good idea for
you to read a few hundred list posts. If you would enjoy that, I
recommend it. But if you wouldn't, then don't suffer through it. (More
precisely: if you would enjoy starting to read some, then start. And
continue as long as you enjoy it.)

You could also answer posts on various topics. By asking questions,
posting your own version of important ideas and asking if you have it
right, trying to point out mistakes and improvements, explaining
connections between ideas, and more.

Another suggestion about how to proceed I have is to try answering my
questions. Your perspective on them might provide hints about what
sort of thing would work well.

There are many other options. For example, you might try discussing a
passage from BoI which you believe you understand and agree with. Then
another one. Repeat until you are getting good reactions. Then try
money again.

It's one thing to read a book and have a general impression of liking
it. It's quite another to study the book and subject one's
understanding to detailed critical analysis, bit by bit. Trying to
explain material to others can be a good way to test and improve your
own understanding. Trying to improve on the material or expose
mistakes is another option, but more ambitious. Asking questions about
the material (or its implications) is another option, less ambitious
but very valuable if done well.

But that's just one option. If you'd rather discuss Mises than BoI,
for example, that's fine. The topic doesn't matter so much as the way
one approaches it. (Not as only a teacher.)

An example of something you said which is incompatible with BoI was
when you demanded evidence is your way of judging whether a claim was
correct. BoI's epistemology would say what matters is explanation and
criticism. Demanding evidence is a typical strategy in non-BoI
epistemologies. Saying how you think BoI's epistemology works could be
fruitful. Or you could search the group archives for the word
"epistemology" (728 results) and read some. Perhaps you are an
inductivist; I don't know. If so you could read prior discussions
about that, or try to explain your position. If not, perhaps you could
explain why you think induction is mistaken and see if that matches
other people's understanding of the matter. Or you could take past
posts by inductivists and reply to them, and then read the replies
from others and compare.

Another option would be to talk about something you're good at which
is less controversial. You sound accomplished at some things. You've
studied some things other people haven't. Maybe you could share some
insights that people would be like "cool I didn't know that" instead
of disagreeing. Or you could find out about other people's specialties
and ask them questions about things you haven't found the time to
study much.

Another option would be to read more books, such as The Fabric of
Reality if you haven't. Or some by Karl Popper, for example, but many
other authors could work.

Productive participation in general -- anything where you learn
something -- is progress. After some of that, you are in a new and
better situation. That makes progress slightly easier. So then you
make more progress. And now you're in and even better situation and do
it again. After many iterations it starts snowballing.

It may help to be less ambitious to start with. First accomplish
something smaller successfully before trying to accomplish something
big. I think it's particularly valuable to see some topics through to
a conclusion. And I think that's hard and one better do it first with
one narrow issue, and then again with a little bigger issue, and so
on, and work his way up.

With stuff like the above you could learn things like what it takes to
win an argument here. What are the standards to impress anyone, how
thorough does one have to be for the criticism to stop, which types of
ideas get less resistance and which more (the ones getting less may be
more in line with BoI's worldview).

But it really depends on you. You have to find your own way, and it's
hard to give specific advice without you sharing more.

[Mason, Larry K]

Excellent presentation. I wish your suggestions above had been a part of the "guidelines" that I read before posting. There are so many unwritten norms on this list and it seems I kept "stubbing my toes" on various occasions. As I get the time, I will try to follow your advice for success on this list.

[Mason, Larry K]

I have read the linked discussion you provided above. Thanks.

I have been exploring and have come across
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/beginning-of-infinity/AXs2titGs4o

in which you wrote (I could not find the date of your post but it was in response to a Rafe Champion post on Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 2:52 PM)

BEGIN QUOTE
I think Popper's ideas about how to handle these things do help, and
Deutsch contradicts them in FoR and BoI (I posted a bunch of quotes
previously).

Popper was not always totally clear about this everywhere but I think
his main idea was something like this:

You conjecture ideas (to address problems). They can be anything;
there is room for imagination. You try to criticize them. You put more
effort into criticizing the ideas you suspect of having problems;
there is room for judgment. If you can't think of any criticisms of an
idea, then you can use it (act on it). If you do think of some
criticisms, then you must modify the idea, criticize the criticism, or
reject the idea.
END QUOTE

My questions concern how one should explain and present the explanation.
For example, the last paragraph above begins "You conjecture ideas ( to address problems)."
I assume that such a conjecture is the explanation. Are there any rules for the conjecture's presentation / definition / description?
What kinds of statements constitute appropriate criticism? What kinds of content (ideas) should the criticism have?
I am looking for "rules of the road" for this list as well as for "best practices" for the conduct of science.

Thanks for any help and linked examples you may be able to provide.

[Mason, Larry K]

On

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 8:26 PM Anonymous Email <anon...@curi.us> wrote:
>
> If you please, you tell me what ways of proceeding would work well.
>
> I would also appreciate it if you would give me a reference to a post and thread in which BoI is discussed well by astute list members so I can see examples of the understanding you say I lack.

>http://groups.google.com/group/beginning-of-infinity/browse_thread/thread/cc419e5423062b5b/fa7f9dd8af7be473#fa7f9dd8af7be473

>It's hard for me to tell you how to proceed, because I do not know your preferences and values. For example, it might be a good idea for you >to read a few hundred list posts. If you would enjoy that, I recommend it. But if you wouldn't, then don't suffer through it. (More
>precisely: if you would enjoy starting to read some, then start. And continue as long as you enjoy it.)

>You could also answer posts on various topics. By asking questions, posting your own version of important ideas and asking if you have it right, >trying to point out mistakes and improvements, explaining connections between ideas, and more.

I found this set of statements by Elliot Temple from
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/beginning-of-infinity/gdZ3Y6eqgHE
in the last Elliot post on that topic (January 4, 2013).

BEGIN QUOTE
One way to deny legitimacy is to insist that some ideas are too bad to be considered. To try not to allow them into rational debate at all. This is a hostile attitude to those ideas. And when it's done to the ideas a list is supposed to be about, it is unacceptable, and the person doing it does not belong on that list.

Another way is to deny that some ideas exist at all. Or to deny that anyone (or anyone legitimate/reasonable/sane) actually believes or advocates them. This often involves insisting opponents do not mean what they say, and trying to reinterpret them as meaning something contrary to their positions.
END QUOTE

It appears that it is the legitimacy of ideas rather than the legitimacy of persons that is being discussed.

Are these means of denying legitimacy to be avoided if at all possible?

[Anonymous Email]

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Mason, Larry K <ma...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> I have been exploring and have come across
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/beginning-of-infinity/AXs2titGs4o
>
> in which you wrote (I could not find the date of your post but it was in response to a Rafe Champion post on Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 2:52 PM)

FYI "Anonymous Person" isn't me. Different name.

> BEGIN QUOTE
> I think Popper's ideas about how to handle these things do help, and
> Deutsch contradicts them in FoR and BoI (I posted a bunch of quotes
> previously).
>
> Popper was not always totally clear about this everywhere but I think
> his main idea was something like this:
>
> You conjecture ideas (to address problems). They can be anything;
> there is room for imagination. You try to criticize them. You put more
> effort into criticizing the ideas you suspect of having problems;
> there is room for judgment. If you can't think of any criticisms of an
> idea, then you can use it (act on it). If you do think of some
> criticisms, then you must modify the idea, criticize the criticism, or
> reject the idea.
> END QUOTE
>
> My questions concern how one should explain and present the explanation.
> For example, the last paragraph above begins "You conjecture ideas ( to address problems)."
> I assume that such a conjecture is the explanation. Are there any rules for the conjecture's presentation / definition / description?

There are no hard and fast rules.

For practical problems (say, hunger), commonly there might be some
action involved ("eat the cookie") and some explanation of how it will
address the problem ("cookies are food so it'll help with hunger"). In
this example, the explanation part is not the whole conjecture.

In this example, there are many further questions, concerns,
objections and criticisms someone might raise, such as how food helps
with hunger, whether all foods help with hunger, and whether it might
be better to eat sushi in the particular case under discussion.
However, people could also be satisfied because they are able to
answer those issues themselves (e.g. they already know cookies are
particularly tasty and understand how food deals with hunger).

This is a simple example, yet many further questions are possible.
It's very hard to give a complete argument even in simple cases. When
discussing philosophy, there can be many layers of questions in order
to satisfy people. And each layer is genuinely important to think
through and analyze.

> What kinds of statements constitute appropriate criticism?

A criticism is an explanation of a flaw or problem with an idea. (As
Elliot says.)

For example, if X is supposed to accomplish Y, you might point out a
way that X might result in Z instead. The explanation, whether you
state it clearly or not, would be that there is a problem with
claiming X accomplishes Y since it might not. Rather, X sometimes
accomplishes Y and therefore one has to consider whether it will work
in the particular circumstances one is interested in.

One could also ask what the purpose of Y is. Maybe it's a bad goal.
You could explain why we shouldn't accomplish Y as a criticism.

Or you could point out that the explanation of how X will accomplish Y
is vague or incomplete. In that case, there is a problem with
accepting it since we don't know if it's right or not. First we'd want
to figure out what is meant then evaluate it.

Any of these criticisms could itself be criticized. They are pretty
good types of criticism in general but might be the wrong way to
approach a particular discussion.

This is pretty abstract. For any particular issue you can look at
examples of real criticisms. You can find many examples in BoI. For
example, BoI criticizes induction, empiricism, creationism,
sustainability, the principle of mediocrity and certain ideas about
voting. Each of those provides concrete examples of criticisms.

> What kinds of content (ideas) should the criticism have?

To criticize an idea, say what's bad about it. Raise some problem.

> I am looking for "rules of the road" for this list as well as for "best practices" for the conduct of science.
>
> Thanks for any help and linked examples you may be able to provide.

There is a lot of scope for creativity and imagination. I'd say that
epistemology gives somewhat loose constraints. Within certain
boundaries, there is a lot of scope to try many approaches, rather
than just one best one.

One way to look at it: stuff falling outside the boundaries often gets
criticized as irrational. But within the cateogry "reason" there's
many options.

[Anonymous Email]

I think so. And I think it's always possible. Can anyone think of any
example where they would be good to do, or unavoidable?