The single most important political principle ever

[Tekania]

And you did such a great job at doing that too I loved it.

You loved that they 'insisted' on trying to make him think 'rationally'?

Well yes I do. I think the argument was great with a perfect mix of humor and rationality.

I'm just trying to point out that there are reasons why the OP could reject the rational and that indeed his most "logical" choice would be to make an emotional argument since emotional arguments are less easy to "disprove" using pesky "logic"

Just because I point out the existence of such reasons does not mean that I personally advocate them for myself or others. Why does it matter what I think anyway?

Is this some sort of divide and conqueror strategy to make me stop extending solidarity with the OP?

Well, such would be the case were we not dealing with a zealous Objectivist (who adheres to the philosophy likes it's the holy grail)... Rather than fall back on emotion, the appeal is always to "nature" and "reason"... Thus I fear little of a backing into emotion as a crutch... More like he will present some other axiom as a "natural reason and logic" to defend his point by (which is usually just as easy to logically defeat)...

[Brewdomia]

I think Bluth is calling for a complete anarchy. The dumbest Idea known to man.

[Gauthier]

I think Bluth is calling for a complete anarchy. The dumbest Idea known to man.

More like he's calling for Corporatism.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

0 * 1 = 0
0 * 2 = 0
0 * 299,999,999 = 0
0 * 300,000,000 = 0
0 * 6,000,000,000 = 0

Only if you define * as the same type of multiplication as one would have in the Reals. You can define multiplication in a way which is vector space compatible that does not follow that model.

[Brewdomia]

I think Bluth is calling for a complete anarchy. The dumbest Idea known to man.

More like he's calling for Corporatism.

I don't understand why he would want the State to co-control with Corporations.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

But ln(0) = 1.

NO!

ln(0) is undefined.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I was waiting for somebody to ask this question.

I cannot delegate to the state authority I do not have. If I have zero authority to do a particular act on my own, and everyone else does as well, then altogether we have zero authority to do it, which means the state cannot ever have the authority to do it either.

Why does delegation follow a multiplicative operational model? It would seem an additive model would be more appropriate.

[Gauthier]

I think Bluth is calling for a complete anarchy. The dumbest Idea known to man.

More like he's calling for Corporatism.

I don't understand why he would want the State to co-control with Corporations.

He doesn't mind collective control as long as it's a Corporation doing it.

[New Kereptica]

But ln(0) = 1.

NO!

ln(0) is undefined.

It's rather difficult to multiply e by itself sufficient times so that it equals zero.

[Brewdomia]

I think Bluth is calling for a complete anarchy. The dumbest Idea known to man.

More like he's calling for Corporatism.

I don't understand why he would want the State to co-control with Corporations.

He doesn't mind collective control as long as it's a Corporation doing it.

That's retarded, on how Corporations can do something better with your money than the government. Is trusting Greedy Profit Hungry Pigs, with money better than the people we elected.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It's rather difficult to multiply e by itself sufficient times so that it equals zero.

Nor can it be divided by itself a sufficient number of times to be zero. (Remember that ln(x) goes to minus infinity as x goes toward zero.)

[Tekania]

That's retarded, on how Corporations can do something better with your money than the government. Is trusting Greedy Profit Hungry Pigs, with money better than the people we elected.

It's not about what is better, it's about what is "right"...

At least that would be BC's response... Adherence to an adopted axiom despite the effects and outcomes. The same way someone of an overzealous religious faith would cling to their beliefs regardless of effect...

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

That makes no sense because it starts from a false premise: that every one of us possesses zero authority to do something.

"Authority" isn't quantifiable, and "something" isn't defined properly.

It also makes the unjustified assumption that the proper model with which to represent delegation of authority is multiplication as defined over the reals. Why could it not be an additive model or any piecewise continuous bivariate function for that matter? Why does he choose addition?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Cells do not, and cannot, engage in political activity on their own. Individuals can, and do.

Interestingly enough, however, the cells that make up your body follow an extremely collectivist model. They are by no means capitalist.

[New Kereptica]

Cells do not, and cannot, engage in political activity on their own. Individuals can, and do.

Interestingly enough, however, the cells that make up your body follow an extremely collectivist model. They are by no means capitalist.

My glial cells outcompeted all the others ;-;

[Natapoc]

Since authority is quantifiable and we accept the assumption of an individual being able to have x units of authority... we should make an authorities market where people can trade authority for real or imaginary goods.

Different organizations can buy and sell "authorities" based on anticipated future value of the authority they bought. We can even have little tokens that represent a share of the total amount of "authority" in circulation at a given time. These tokens can be used to redeem authority as desired.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Math doesn't equal philosophy or politics.

You can model ethics and politics with mathematics, but you have to justify all of your equations. You must explain WHY delegation, for example, follows the model of binary multiplication.

[Spirit of Truth]

But ln(0) = 1.

NO!

ln(0) is undefined.

It's rather difficult to multiply e by itself sufficient times so that it equals zero.

a²+b²=c²

[New Kereptica]

But ln(0) = 1.

NO!

ln(0) is undefined.

It's rather difficult to multiply e by itself sufficient times so that it equals zero.

a²+b²=c²

The Pythagorean theorem can solve for x where e^x=0?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

No Noble Truth can be found in mathematics. Numbers are only good for engineering, computers, and card counting.

1) If you think mathematics is just numbers, you have no understanding of mathematics at all.

2) Prove the claim that there are no "noble" truths in mathematics.

3) In fact, why don't you give us a coherent definition of "noble" truth?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

a²+b²=c²

How does that answer the problem exactly?

[Funk4ever]

Since when did the zero property of multiplication become a "political principle," let alone "the single most important ever?"

I was waiting for somebody to ask this question.

I cannot delegate to the state authority I do not have. If I have zero authority to do a particular act on my own, and everyone else does as well, then altogether we have zero authority to do it, which means the state cannot ever have the authority to do it either.

That's because we've already given our authority to another person or a state, or created the concept of authority for people to govern us. Silly Libertarian.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Who is to say that so called "reason" or "logic" is any more valid then love or anger or any other human construct which can be used to understand the world? Just because his ideas are not founded on "logic" does not make them "wrong."

Why has the "collective" decided to enforce "reason" on the individual? What right or authority do the masses have to judge an individual who rejects reason?

Because contradictions are inherently meaningless and nature is not beyond understanding => nature is not full of contradictions.

[Natapoc]

Who is to say that so called "reason" or "logic" is any more valid then love or anger or any other human construct which can be used to understand the world? Just because his ideas are not founded on "logic" does not make them "wrong."

Why has the "collective" decided to enforce "reason" on the individual? What right or authority do the masses have to judge an individual who rejects reason?

Because contradictions are inherently meaningless and nature is not beyond understanding => nature is not full of contradictions.

You can't use reason to prove reason. That is assuming what you want to prove.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

more "successful?" What does that even mean? The reasons you give for supporting "reason" sound like good reasons to reject it to me: Missiles and nukes? Is that what reason gives us? And who cares if an idea is "verifiably true"? Why would that even matter if you don't assume logic as the most important?

If being an "objectivist" makes a person feel happy then why should the collective insist on making them think rationally?

Because reality is out there regardless of whether you believe in it or not. One cannot simply wish it away. The refusal to accept reality is the highest form of weakness. Also, the whole "Let's not consider facts and let's let everyone say that whatever they want is true is true without ever questioning it." idea is why America is in the mess that it's in today. Facts don't matter in politics anymore. Nobody cares what's actually based upon evidence. Beliefs do not exist in a vacuum. They have real world implications.