Turd Flinging Monkey's Political Trichotomy

 Turd Flinging Monkey's Political Trichotomy

1 Freedom

2 Equality

3 Stability

Not everyone shares the same values in life when it comes to politics and money there are three common values that are mutually exclusive.  You can not have 100% of all three at the same time or even 100% of two out of three at the same time but you can mix and match.  

Complete economic freedom can not co exist with complete equity because the freedom to make different choices will result in unequal wealth

By Economic Equality I do not mean Equality of opportunity in the context of this article.  Equality of opportunity is closer to Economic freedom than Economic Equality but not neccessarily the same as Economic freedom.  Economic freedom may not result in equality of opportunity because having more money gives people more opportunities to do business.  Equality of opportunity is not the same as economic equality because not all people choose to live up to their maximum economic potential with the opportunity they have.  If two identical twins both have the same economic opportunity and one person works "smarter" and also puts in more time and effort to making money they will not have equal amounts of money in a monetary society with equality of opportunity.

Some people make a distinction between Economic Equality and Equity.  If you gave every one the exact set of the same food items with the exact same quantities that add up to the exact same number of calories that would be economic equality in terms of giving food but would not be equity.  Equity is based on giving according to "needs" where as equality in this context is giving identical amounts irregardless of needs.  In the case of equity you might give people with a higher metabolism more food and those with a lower metabolism less food.  Perhaps you could have both equality and equity if you gave everyone an equal amount of food that is based on the caloric expenses of the individual with the highest metabolism in the group such that both everyones "needs" were met and also everyone was given an equal amount.  If you gave every individual in a group the same amount of food equal in calories to the average mean caloric expense per person in that group you would have equality but not equity because the "needs" of the individuals with above average caloric expense would not be met and they might start starving if they are not obese and not spending calories with "unnecessary" work (not needed for survival) that they could choose to reduce.  If the individuals have different metabolisms and everyone is given an equal amount of non perishable food items  that are sufficient to meet the needs of even the individual in the group with the highest metabolism and both economic equality and economic equity is achieved in terms of how much food each individual in a group is given then those with a lower metabolism would be able to save more non perishable food items than those with a higher metabolism and so even though economic equality would be achieved in how much food people are given there would still be economic inequality in the amount of extra food saved for an emergency each individual has.  If everyone was given equal income, people would still have unequal savings if they have unequal spending.  It is very much difficult then to have economic equality because equality in all things can not exist to force equality to exist in one measureable criteria might remove it in another.  To make things simpler when people say they value economic equality in many cases they may simply mean they value government "welfare" programs and very rarely means they value two measurable economic quantities being equal.

Anarcho Capitalism is economic freedom without economic equity/equality

Statist Communism is economic equity/equality without economic freedom

Negative income tax is Partial Economic Freedom plus Partial economic Equality

Negative income tax is Universal Basic Income plus Flat income tax without any other government programs to help the poor (other than Universal Basic Income) and without corporate welfare and without tax deductions

Social Security is Partial Economic Equality/Equity plus Partial Economic Stability

The elderly who have already made a fortune and do not want to lose it often prefer the economic stability of maintaining that fortune even if it means a lack of economic freedom for the youth and a lack of economic equality/equity for the youth to receive the same benefits as the elderly.  The elderly who have spent their fortune and are no longer in good mental or physical health to earn more often prefer economic equality/equity compared to the healthier youth who have more earning potential through labour (by which I mean the elderly receiving equal or equitable pay compared to the youth without the elderly doing equal or any [future] labour compared to the youth)

Since the three values are mutually exclusive in their fullest forms people who value economic freedom find those who value economic equality/equity at the expense of economic freedom to be problematic when such indivuduals support violent means to equalize wealth.

A simple solution would be for those who support economic freedom to separate from those who support economic equality/equity so they do not quarrel due to conflicting values. 

Those who support economic freedom would have no problem allowing those who support economic equality/equity to have their own commune where everything is distributed equally/equitably so long as they are not forced to join the commune.  Those who support economic freedom have no problem with those who support economic equality/equity living out their values so long as those who support economic freedom are not required to live out the values of economic equality/equity.

 But often those who support economic equality/equity do not want to permit those who support economic freedom to leave and live in a separate community from them because then they could not take their stuff.  Those who support economic equality/equity often have a problem with allowing those who support economic freedom to live out their values because then they could not take their stuff.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2021

duckduckgo.com/?q=political+trichotomy&ia=web

observablereality.com/political-trichotomy/

http://web.archive.org/web/20211112075222/https://www.observablereality.com/political-trichotomy/

Political Trichotomy: Cant We All Just Get Along?

by Turd Flinging Monkey

https://archive.org/details/BitChute-RG-bAcyWbsg

Political Trichotomy Cant We All Just Get Along

youtube.com/watch?v=vQmWfKXWhSM

http://web.archive.org/web/20211112080604/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQmWfKXWhSM

Turd Flinging Monkey Political Trichotomy All Systems Fail (mirror)

francis chow

youtube.com/watch?v=318KHpJ8bHU

http://web.archive.org/web/20211112081452/https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=318KHpJ8bHU

Turd Flinging Monkey Political Trichotomy The Moderate Right (mirror)

francis chow

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oYCgbjYqEiA

http://web.archive.org/web/20211112081708/https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=oYCgbjYqEiA

Turd Flinging Monkey Political Trichotomy The American State Religion (mirror)

francis chow

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9qPZ_cktO20

http://web.archive.org/web/20211112082134/https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=9qPZ_cktO20

Moral value not to murder may derive from the desire not to be murdered

Moral value not to murder may derive from the desire not to be murdered nor killed

Morality is both subjective and objective

Morality is both relative and absolute.  Some people say morality is either relative or absolute and can not be both but they are simply wrong

Even though morality is relative to the individual it is still very much objective and absolute.  Relativity does not contradict absoluteness or objectivety.  The elevation of the top of a building above sea level is an absolute and objectively measurable distance but it is still relative to sea level because you could also measure it's elevation relative to another location such as the height above the buildings parking lot for instance

If you do not want to be murdered you would desire to live in a society where other people have a moral value of not wanting people to be murdered to the point where they are willing to either imprison, exile/banish or execute murderers or attempted murderers.

But living in such a society would result in arrest, banishment or execution for you if you commit murder or attempt to commit murder

Even if you do not have a moral prohibition of murdering other people innately in your moral code, you would choose to have a moral prohibition against murdering other people in your moral code if you do not want to be killed, murdered or imprisoned out of a desire to be in a society where murderers are prosecuted combined with a desire not to be imprisoned, executed or banished out of such a society (as banishment would be certain death when the only remaining alternative societies to leave to have no prohibition on murder)

So even though not everyone might have the same moral code not to murder people most people will adopt such a moral code not to murder people if they do not want to be murdered or killed themselves and they think things through sufficiently

There are some people who do not care if they are murdered or killed and do not have any moral prohibition against murdering people in their mind.  Such people are rare but most certainly exist.  Such examples would certainly include mass murderers or serial murderers that requested the death penalty for themselves.

If everybody practiced the same universal moral code there would be no suicides so clearly morality is relative to the individual and not all people universally share practice of the same moral code 

Although practice of the moral code not to murder is not present in 100% of the society it can be widespread in a community as people who do not want to be murdered would choose to hang around people who morally object to  murdering other people.  Someone not sharing a personal moral code not to murder people would not get off the hook in such a society because they live by a different moral standard instead such a person would be imprisoned or executed or at least banished and exiled (with threat of death or imprisonment upon returning) upon committing or attempting to commit a murder in such a society precisely because other people in the society do not want to be murdered by them.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2021

In a society with property tax employment is slavery with extra steps

In a society with property tax employment is slavery with extra steps, in a society without property tax employment might not be slavery.  The combination of property tax, zoning laws and vagrancy laws create a situation in which one must be employed to pay property tax or rent to someone else who pays property tax or be sent to jail when they sleep.  One can not simply farm food and eat it without selling it while being unemployed because of property tax

Copyright Carl Janssen 2021 November 9

Probability does not exist for playing cards

 Imagine you have a deck of 52 uniquely labeled playing cards each one being different such that there are no cards which repeat the same label as another card.  Shuffle the cards "randomly" placing them in a pile facing down so that you can not see the labels and that they are in one pile of 52 items that would be drawn in a specific order and in only one order if whatever card is on top is drawn each time.  

Normally each of the unique card labels will be given a probability of 1/52 chance or (100/52) percent chance of being drawn on the first draw and all of the card labels will be assigned the exact same probability individually.

In reality there is only one card on the top of the deck of 52 cards and it has a 100% chance of being drawn when the top card is drawn, all other cards have a 0% chance of being drawn.

Forms of statistics that use probability are not scientific and not mathematical.  Forms of statistics that use probability include mathematical functions but are not truly a form of math or at least not a truthful and factually correct form of math or science in terms of accurately representing reality.

It is possible to use math without being scientifically minded in attitude or mathematically truthful.  For example someone could make a formula that the number of inches tall any and every man in Sweden is, is equal to 50 plus the number of fingers they have they could even measure many men in Sweden and find many (but not all) of them to be 60 inches tall rounded to the nearest inch and simultaneously having 10 fingers.  That would be a mathematic formula to represent height but it would not be valid math or science to do so even if the conclusion was correct for a large number of Swedish men the reasoning to arrive at such a formula would not be valid.  You could call it math if you want to but it would not be truthful math.  You could call anything in which quantities are calculated using mathematical formulas math if you want to but you really should not call probability math in the sense of being valid, reasonable, correct or truthful math.  

Statistics with probability is not valid math even though it uses mathematical functions to do calculations instead the use of statistics with probability is a religious worldview that is used by many people that label themselves as scientists.  It consists of a protocol for calculating probabilities, but as I already demonstrated with the cards example that protocol gives you the incorrect answer.

I do not have any problem with statistics without probability as you could count how many of something there is and call that statistics and that is fine.  But the use of statistics with probability such as paired and unpaired t-tests,  ANOVA tests etc. are not in line with a proper use of the scientific method even if quantities are measured and then calculations are done with those measured quantities.

Statistics with probability is not pure math it is applied math and the application of that math does not apply correctly to represent reality.

The scientific method is testable, falsifiable, observable, repeatable, accurately predictive and measurable.  The use of probability in "science" is not repeatably accurately predictive or falsifiable.

For example Newtons laws of motion will give you a single answer for kinematic problems involving the predicted location of an object at a specific time based on mathematical formula.  Those predictions do not give a distribution of probabilities of different locations but a single location for a single object at a single point in time that can be measured.  Either the object is at that location or it is not within a certain margin of reasonable error and rounding.  Newtonian laws (excluding G but including the use of g) have been shown to accurately predict the location of objects in the world we live on repeatably.  A prediction is made based on input and a output occurs the output can then be decided as either refuting the prediction or confirming the prediction within a certain acceptable margin of error that is why testing Newton's laws can be done using the scientific method because it is not a probabilistic model but is instead a falsifiable model.

When metric and a decimal number system is used with metric measurement tools the margin of what is reasonable error is not based on probabilities of distribution of measurements but significant digits.  With significant digits the range of possible measurements is explained based on the limitations of the measurement tools.  There is an upper maximum measurement and lower minimum measurement based on rounding up and rounding down to the nearest second to last digit.  An exact and precise set or range of output answers can be calculated using the values for each input rounded down or rounded up to the second to last digit with no need for probability whatsoever to determine what range is acceptable for the output.  For example if something is measured as a length of 3.15 meters it's actual length could be anywhere between a minimum of 3.1 meters and a maximum of 3.2 meters a range of acceptable outputs can be determined based on plugging in a range of input values between 3.1 meters and 3.2 meters into whatever function is used to predict the output.  There is no need in such a case to give probabilities assigned to each output value, if it is outside the range the function failed to predict and if it is within the range the function succeeded in prediction.

The scientific method is falsifiable meaning that a formula can be shown to falsely reflect reality if the output is not in the range calculated for the input.  Probabilistic statistical methods such as t tests work entirely differently and are fundamentally non falsifiable despite a false pretense of falsifiability. First an assumption of a normal distribution curve is typically assumed with no proof of such a distribution in reality although sometimes methods are used to try to test if it actually is a normal distribution curve within a certain probability.  Then based on the faulty assumption that both samples or populations are normally distributed a standard deviation and mean is separately calculated for each of the two separate groups.  Then a alpha value is arbitrarily chosen and an arbitrary decision is made as if a one tail or two tail test will be used with some fake justification as to why one or two tails is to be chosen.  It is then decided if the average mean of these two groups is different because they both have the same distribution and the difference was caused by random variance or have two different distributions caused by a non random factor.  If the two different groups have no difference in there average mean (a difference of zero) such a t test will not be needed because no matter what non zero alpha value is assigned the conclusion will be the same.  If the two groups have different means whether or not the difference between the two groups was statistically significant is based on the alpha value and number of tails if a different alpha value was chosen a different conclusion would be reached.  This testing method is claimed to be scientific and falsifible but it really is unfalsifiable because having chosen a different alpha value would change the conclusion, choosing an alpha value in advance does not magically meet the requirement of falsifiability because the alpha value is chosen arbitrarily and not by the physical limitations of the tools or any physically observable means but with how much "risk" the performer (or the performers supervisor/boss) is comfortable with.  You can not actually know if the measurements for the groups are different by random or non random causes you only allegedly get a probability that they are different making this testing method non falsifiable.

Resorting to using t tests instead of predictive formula that can be potentially falsified shows a lack of knowledge as to the subject matter of the experiment or requirement to act as though lacking knowledge in the case of just doing it for homework or for an employer or supervisor.  For example if a specific dose of medicine such as 10 mg is being tested to effect heart rate a t test could be used to determine if the control group not using the medicine has a statistically significant different heart rate than the test group using the method but this involves no chemical/physics model for how the medicine chemically influences the heart.  There is only a comparison between 10 mg and 0 mg but no function of heart rate based on the input of dosage and other variables, no prediction is made in advance as to what the heart rate will be as a function of dose such that there will be a specific heart rate for 5 mg and a different one for 10 mg or 7 mg each predicted output being a specific number for each input.  There is no predicted output at all for this kind of testing only a conclusion of a probability that the results of the two groups are different.  The output predicted for each input can not be falsified when there is no numerical prediction as to what the output actually will be.  Claiming the heart rate will be 60 bpm + 1 bpm*dosage/1mg is a testable formula but claiming the heart rate will be different with no quantity predicted as to the number of bpm is not a formula at all and therefore certainly not a testable and falsifiable formula.  Making such a claim involves no need for the presentation of mathematical formula involving chemical reactions of the drugs and this displays a fundamental lack of knowledge in the subject matter tested in such an example.

Probability based Statistics should only maybe be used when one admits they do not have a understanding of how the subject matter tested physically or chemically works.  In the long run one should not try to get a better understanding by doing more statistical tests for several years but instead start proposing formulas based on past observations then test those formula to see if they correctly predict future quantities and reject them if they do not then try testing new mathematical formula instead until a formula is found that has a trend of making successful predictions.  Probability based statistics can be done rarely and occassionally in the short run just to get a guess as if doing something has any effect at all but should be replaced with the use of formula instead in the long run.  Probability based statistics should not be the primary basis for medicine. 

Look at the percentage of scientific journal articles in industrial engineering, quality control engineering, biology, psychology, sociology and health related fields that use statistical tests instead of formula with predicted output as a function of input being tested and you will understand that the early 21st century and the 20th century were metaphorically in the dark ages when it came to science and people were publishing religion disguised as science in many of the articles in scientific journals during this time period.

Look at the curticulum of graduate programs almost always requiring statistics classes for graduate students to take during graduate school but rarely requiring pure math courses to take during graduate school and the proportion of thesis projects in industrial engineering, psychology, sociology and health science related degrees using statistics instead of mathematical formula and understand that in that time period proper scientific research methodology was not being taught in many science, health and industrial engineering classes.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2021 October 22

Experiment raising fish on land

 Since this is a fish that can walk on land, scientists used it in an experiment to see what happens if a fish is raised on land. They were kept in special low water environments and misted to keep them moist. Scientists were able to note structural changes as well as improved mobility.

https://wildlifeinformer.com/fish-that-walk-on-land/

http://web.archive.org/web/20201123223058/wildlifeinformer.com/fish-that-walk-on-land/

If anybody has more information on this or similar experiments please post it in comments

Most rich people advocate for reverse communism

 Most rich people support a single worldwide communist State with their words, meanwhile they intend for the taxing of the middle class to give resources to the rich instead of the poor

They pretend to advocate for communism taxing the rich to give to the poor but really advocate for reverse communism with the policies they propose taxing the poor to give to the rich by government subsidies to their corporations which create slave labour they call employment

Copyright Carl Janssen 2021 September 21

Taxation is slow murder through prolonged slavery to pay a fraudulent debt with fictitious money

 Taxation is slow murder through prolonged slavery to pay a fraudulent debt with fictitious money

Copyright Carl Janssen 2021 September 16

Why open borders anarcho capitalism fails

 Let's say everyone on an island believes in open borders anarcho capitalism what is to stop more than twice as many statists as the islands population of anarcho capitalists from immigrating into the island while carrying weapons that they do not attack anyone with while traveling to a location within the island.  Once they have all arrived and not a moment before then they begin to impose statism on the islands inhabitants before that they do nothing to violate the non aggression principle.  Let's say they are forbidden from entering because because every part of the island is already private property then what is to stop children born on the island not owning private property and not able to homestead it(since all the land is already private property which was the only way to prevent statists from invading due to the open borders policy) from becoming default slaves of the previous generation that has a monopoly of private property

Copyright Carl Janssen 2021 March 15 

There is a higher power than society and the individual

 I am not confirming or denying the existence of a god or gods by posting this.  A lot of people who label themselves as atheists believe society is the highest power and that societal consensus could over rule or change the laws of physics and chemistry and determines reality itself.  Such knowledge would be given as example statements such as that we know ___ is true because the consensus of scientists say ___ is true which is different than saying the consensus of scientists have concluded blank is true because since blank really is true in reality there is over whelming evidence which when interpreted with proper reasoning confirms blank is true beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and I can show you the evidence and explain the reasoning without referring to such and such scientists.  In this way society is like a mythical god to them.  Other people think that they themselves are like gods such that if they do not want something to be true or do not believe something to be true it will not effect them harmfully if they behave as though it is not true when it is really true in reality or behave as though something really is true when it is not true in reality.  The intentions of an individual are very important because they may determine their actions but the physical consequences of an action are not mitigated or changed based on someone's intention.  If someone has good intentions that will not prevent the physical harm from an action and if someone has malicious intentions that will not cause an action to be harmful in ways it would not be harmful if they did the same action with good intentions.  This does not mean I think individuals with good and bad intentions should be treated identically by society as the individual with good intentions when given proper knowledge is generally more likely to refrain from harmful actions in the future none the less that does not change the consequences of their actions they made when ill informed.  The real laws of physics and chemistry are a higher power than the consensus of society and the belief of individuals whether or not a god or gods exist.  Knowingly doing non defensive harmful actions to individuals without those individuals consent will harm the individual who performs such actions even if they are not caught and prosecuted by making the environment they exist in a worse place, however one may do good deeds or try to do good deeds without being rewarded if one lives in a society of malicious individuals who persecute people for good deeds, but in a society of sufficiently formed individuals who have good intentions good deeds will reward the individual by improving the environment they live in.

Copyright Carl Janssen January 11, 2021

Purpose of taxes is to coerce people into employment not to pay for services

Welfare, food stamps and any other government subsidies in which money is given to people do not raise taxes.  The purpose of income taxes is to make you work more hours for an employer in order to get the same amount of money, the purpose of property tax is to coerce people who are not receiving subsidies into employment with State approved entities since property tax can only be paid in State recognized currency/money which only can be given through individuals who received State subsidies or through a series of individuals tracing back to them (individuals who received State subsidies) eventually.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2020 July 25

Image downloaded from third party forum posting

original source unknown

Rioting is often bad

When police imprison murderers that is good but when police use violence to enforce bad laws and put people in prison who should not be in prison that is bad.  Rioters often attack random people and destroy random property which is often bad.  A society that attacks random people in riots can not be improved by replacing police with rioters that are even worse than police.  The way to improve society is to improve the state of consciousness of the members of society and arm those who have reached the highest state of consciousness with the proper tools to defend non violent people.  It is particularily important to morally educate members of the police and military.  Making rioters who are at an even lower state of consciousness than the police and military to replace them is a bad idea and often results in an increased popularity of top down leadership and the general public supporting increased police ruthlessness as preferable to the worse ruthlessness of the rioters.  If a regime is despotic it maybe preferable for armed citizens to overthrow that regime but only if they enact a rule that is less bad than the previous regime but in the case of rioters that destroy random property and attack random people it is sometimes worse than the previous state of rulership.  Although some form of anarchy in which there are no slavemasters maybe possible in an enlightened society, a society of rioters that attack random people and destroy random property has not achieved the state of consciousness neccessary for the good kind of anarchist society.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2020 June 13

Seattle Resident Living In CHAZ Speaks Out

Unlisted



Daily Caller


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo5j3UbXscQ

http://web.archive.org/web/20200613231844/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo5j3UbXscQ