There is so much resistance to the idea of human cooperation, volunteerism, or altruism. The insistence that greed is the only effective human motivator is a cultural plague.

What do you mean by "greed"? My hypothesis is that that term doesn't mean what you think it means in a truly free market. Or more directly: it doesn't exist. Any profit you are able to generate in a free market is the result of providing value to someone else. If I take two $5 resources and combine them, via some process of effort and invention of my own, into a good that I sell for $15, then the person who bought that good freely decided that whatever new property I imbued into the $10 raw goods was worth at least $5 to him. It improved his life at least "five dollar's worth". He would trade five dollars worth of his own claims on resources to me. He wants this thing _today_ more than five dollars worth of other competing things in the future. More simply: Profits earned without aggression or State favoritism represent value added to society. So I've made $5. As money, that represents a claim on resources. One that was legitimately passed to me from the prior holder. I may choose to turn that $5 in for consumable today (maybe I buy cabbage from a farmer), or to hold it and defer my consumption until later. Where does "greed" factor in? Say I sell **A LOT** of $15 goods, and **MANY** people buy them, each of whom determines that my product improves their life. As the transactions are voluntary, my success can only mean I am on net adding value to society. Is that greed? Is too much success, adding too much value to society, greed? Is saving for too long - deferring my consumption - greed? _WHAT_ is "greed"? Surely you don't mean "creating and or selling goods and services through a free market whereby those whose lives are improved by trading with you enrich you accordingly"? That's "acting in one's own interest" but one's own interest can only be improved by creating value for others. Where does "greed" hide in this definition?

You are abusing/misusing the word "valuable". If something doesn't bring profits, it isn't valuable to others. People will trade for goods and services that bring greater value to their lives than the amount they're trading. If the thing you are putting out there is not instigating this kind of response, it doesn't matter if you slap the arbitrary label "valuable" on it. It's not valuable if nobody else voluntarily trades for it. Declaring something "valuable to others" by fiat is exactly what underpins collectivism.

Psychic profits are still profits. When someone donates $5 to a homeless person, it's not because they expect a monetary profit; it's because the psychic/emotional profit they get (helping someone else) is worth at least $5 to them. What I've never understood about non-fanatic religious people is why they don't go 100% in. On one side of the balance, you have eternity. On the other, some integers. Infinity is always going to beat some integers. I understand the suicidal jihadist way more than I do the Sunday church-goer who puts $5 in a basket. Why not $500? Why not 5 million? Why aren't you living as a missionary in a tent, giving up all earthly possessions to maximize returns times infinity?

I didn't do that. Okay, you're muted, you asshole.

You don't sound as religious.

He sounds more religious most of the time. I knew him to be religious. It doesn't bother me. About either of you.

I should have just muted him hours ago and saved myself the grief, geez.

lol, you were learning? seemed more like you were trying to punch a hole in her reputation because of her tendency to type the first thing that comes to her mind i agree that her understanding is weak in some areas and i also understand the process by which she learns through argumentation, mainly because i do a lot of this myself, but i am also very good at inference, many things i figure out even though i never actually read a strict definition of something, i just saw it used so many times in a context that i cemented my understanding based on this and it has been right like 7 times out of 10, in most cases, thus my brazen confidence at typing words

if you would put aside some time to read some good treatises on economics, the most seminal one being Ludwig von Mises magnum opus Human Action you would understand that profit is not only about monetary gain it is also about anything that is perceived as a gain to the profitee... so a philanthropist sees a gain from seeing people pull themselves out of a mess by their help, and yet they net lose money

Thanks for the suggestions. I understand that: I've read a lot of Mises, including chunks of Human Action and many books derived from Mises's work by other authors.

no, and i agree with her that you focused on the religion part and ignored the philosophical basis of her point about psychic profit because she isn't as schooled in economic theory and relies on things she does know that are the religious basis it's fine if you don't want to believe in God or ultimate justice of any kind but you also can't deny that a society that organises around these principles is a better society... the whole reason why europe has come to dominate the world in the last 500 years has not just been guns, it's also because a more just system of money and contracts, which are central principles of christianity, were in effect, from the chiming of the church clock bells to the mediation of disputes performed by the priests of a parish, christianity has been critical to how the world has got a lot better in the last 500 years, and further, Satoshi even gave a nod to that by picking the same day to finally go to public with his early alpha bitcoin project, to make a clear connection to Luther and the end of the catholic monopoly on christianity, and their prohibition of distribution of the bible

and yes, she is a very intelligent lady, and very confident about her intelligence, and performs well at carrying that i also write a lot off the top of my head, so much so that i get accused occasionally of being an AI (even though i post photos of my ortholinear mech keyboard) - back in the old days people would say "you're on meth" and occasionally that was true people with high intelligence and low impulse control have a lot of audacity at argumentation, even when they have got something wrong, and attacking that as a personality flaw does not endear you to them, nor does it achieve the ostensible goal of correcting their inaccurate models and i'm definitely of the opinion that atheism is a wrong model, this universe has rigid laws and you have to at minimum agree that the entire edifice of science rests upon the foundation of this fixity of the laws, even if maybe some of the apparent constants fluctuate the laws that they regulate do not

It's quite the claim that Satoshi's nod was at Christianity itself and not actually the process by which the church's ideological stranglehold was dismantled and potentially a celebration of the decline of the church... but we'll both just be guessing here so let's not. --- I focused on the religion part because I had a strong suspicion that her points about economics were backed not by economics but by religion. I feel that she mostly confirmed this, but we'll never really know since I guess I scared her off by going there. If I'm going to get into a conversation with someone and some large portion of their opinions on all topics are undergirded by a metaphysics I don't subscribe to, I sort of want to know that early on because in my experience it's hard for religious people to set their beliefs aside and meet me on neutral grounds about the topic at hand. Faith tends to be totalizing - and it's understandable that it is, that's kind of the point. It's not meant to be this little sliver of a thing [over here] that sometimes has an effect; it runs through a person's core. So I prefer to find the places we're going to "agree to disagree" early and just get that out of the way and see what else (if anything) is left to discuss that isn't poisoned by either of our convictions about metaphysics (here I am including my own convictions - I totally get that religious people will think I'm quite wrong). In this case, it seems there was "nothing left to discuss" after the religious part was out of the way - since we couldn't even get past the religious part without her blocking me.

well i'm just gonna leave it there also because i don't like the way it feels thinking of the universe as a heartless, dumb machine, because what is the value of my life in such a context? nothing, or at best, an ever shrinking miniscule triviality i believe that there is a force in nature that accumulates coherence and order and continues an unending trajectory towards goodness and justice, terence mckenna called it a "novelty conserving engine" but i think it is no less an abstract thing that governs all around us, and that this nihilistic, mechanistic, materialist perspective only leads to decay and death if there is no eternal axiomatic laws in our universe, then the continued existence of it is a spite in the face of your so called philosophy and i'm just not gonna let this thing go because otherwise i might as well be dead, and there is nothing in the future but eventual heat death and dissipation what kind of model is that? one that does not bolster your will to do the right thing, that excuses evil and criminality and violence, you just haven't thought it through

Well she sure carries herself as if she's some sort of nostr celebrity. Especially the "doesn't take criticism well / quick to mute" aspect. At no point did I attack her personality. The closest I came to something resembling an insult was to say I don't understand moderate religious people, and that I understand fanatics better. And that was in the context of psychic profits. Namely: if there is an endless wealth of psychic profit available to the believer, and those profits are unbelievably strong (both immediately and literally forever after) why does one ever defer on maximizing those profits? I know you think atheism is a wrong model. That's fine.

The universe doesn't care whether or not you enjoy the feeling of how it is. I get that that feels bad - you said it yourself. But I don't choose my beliefs by looking at a bunch of options and saying "which one will make me feel the best, regardless of its validity?" _That_ is wild hedonism. Sometimes you have to accept that the true nature of a situation is not as good as it could actually be or as you'd like or imagine it could be.

I'll bite but I bet it won't hit the same as if she continued the discussion with you You're basically relying on the assumption trickery doesn't exist to justify the idea greed doesn't exist, as far as I can tell? I used to be a delivery driver. People paid for the food I delivered, including the cost to pay me as an employee delivering it, plus tipped me. Meanwhile, I was polluting the environment with an entire car just to move food around safely because other people with entire cars wouldn't let something like a motorcycle be safe. I trust the food I delivered was of decent quality by this shitty era's standards, but via pollution, my job was to kill my customers and everyone they love while relying on them not knowing I'm doing that so they not only pay me, but tip me as well. I didn't tell every customer "you really shouldn't tip me, I'm taking away your food in the long run, it's a tragedy that you couldn't cook for yourself." I don't expect delivery drivers to tell me that every time they deliver to me either. And I also tip them worthless dollars hoping it will help them survive. Doesn't mean I think they're good people or adding anything to society. They're random people who may or may not be good but are currently unable to find a way to survive without being part of the military industrial complex's petrodollar economy. Dollars are worthless pieces of paper anyway, maybe in an economy based on something valuable it would be more likely for the economic exchanges to reflect value and people would be better at accurately assessing value instead of clinging to delusions. I'm sure you're more open to learning than laeserin realizes. I think she sees you have disingenuous thoughts and she assumes you're always willing to argue disingenuously but I notice you might actually be trying to get out of the habit. If you respectfully keep suggesting you'd like to try talking to her my gut feeling is she's the type to try again

I really enjoy this delivery driver anecdote! I'm sorry to say, though, that I fail to see how it connects to what "greed" might mean... I liked where you were going with the "trickery" angle. When I first read that, it made me think about how there's a spectrum of trickery that goes from "fair and expected in bargaining" (like hiding information. i.e. the highest price you'll pay) to "basically theft" (like passing off a forgery as legit). So in the most extreme cases, trickery is theft. Where is the "greed" bit though? Is greed just the tendency to try and deceive people in order to get more out of them than they'd otherwise voluntarily trade if not for having been deceived by you? I feel like colloquially, "greed" has tended to mean "wants to get a lot for himself and not share with others". Which is a pretty questionable definition in the context of a free market...

I'm actually not sure her and I are a good conversation match. My conclusion at this point is that we're so far apart on metaphysics, and her worldview is so colored by her metaphysics, that we can barely talk about anything. I said as much here: note1xmqaq50w8jv4h3fqs677nredajrxn573l0sd05prh0vhczt98z3saxytzn

vinney...axkl

It

This is the post of someone who only thought about atheism for 5 minutes. Meaning is so much more meaningful in a universe where you can truly meet the most meaningful being in existence in person and know that you did with certainty. Not having your meaning doesn't mean having no meaning. The morality of atheism is well documented, if you think we are all just monsters giving in to our every sin impulse it is because you choose to see us that way. I would point out that only one of us feels full responsibility for our wrongdoing. After all @vinney...axkl and I can't say the devil made me do it or god wanted me to make that mistake to learn some lesson. We must simply face the full force of that mistake with 100% of the responsibility in our hands. Put those together, any harm I do to another human is a direct attack on "god" defined as the most amazing and powerful being to exist and I am fully to blame for any damage done.

Yea we've bumped into eachother before. We talked about Stray and other video games. It was fun.

Where did I say religion addled your brain? "Addled" has a negative charge. Wouldn't you agree that someone with strong religious beliefs has different worldviews when it comes to all sorts of topics than those without any religious belief? (It wouldn't be much of a belief if it didn't change your mind, right?) You don't have to use the derogatory term "addled". I am indeed curious where your worldview and mine diverge, and when that divergence stems from our differing metaphysical beliefs. That's not an insulting or trolly disposition is it? For instance, I asked what you consider the term "greed" to mean, elsewhere in the threads. I'd wager we have different ideas there due to our belief systems. There was nothing rude or baiting or inciteful about that question. Of course it's your prerogative if you choose to answer or simply ignore the question. But calling me an asshole, muting me and then chalking it all up to "me thinking you're insane because you believe in god" is quite the different tack than merely choosing not to answer...

I'm willing to bet that psychosis comes from circular logic on your part or a refusal to understand that a different world view can be consistent and their actions make sense given their world view but not yours. No AI used. Just a wordy person by nature. Too much reading old books.

If I were AI my memes would be better.