In other news

What I mean is Lucy would fit perfectly in a dickens' novel.

I thought it was on purpose because it was a key year for a key piece of legislation that in the USA started allowing leftist ideals to become federal law.

Interesting that our industrial and technological boom can be traced back directly to legislation in the USA that started allowing leftist ideals to become federal law

Thats probably just a WILD coincidence

My side is a continuation of classic liberalism yes. Material conditions improve with capitalism and technology, and Dickensian UK was still a marvelous place compared to other places at the time. Of Australia Argentina and the USA were better because more land available per person at the time automatically meant more resources per person.

Your obsessive focus on the negatives of every time period is the reason of your permanent insatisfaction even with the best results and the folly of trying as hard as possible to make things actually worse in the name of a never-achievable "progress".

Crazy, right?

So he's an independent entrepreneur.

That's what climate deniers say btw...

I don't focus on the negatives.
You instead have claimed many times 1890( give or take 10 years) was golden age, without coordi's post in mind.
I think you are vastly overestimating your supposed side good effect.

If you don’t believe in “progress” what could the operative word “improve” be referring to? Improving to what exactly?

It's the conservative paradox it seems.
Don't touch/do anything, progress will come by itself.

don't change anything about the machine making money, spend money as you see fit.

material progress is inherent in technological advancement with capitalism .

don't disturb the process

I don't believe in plannable progress.

I believe total production will increase (=improve) per Capita if you don't plan anything.

I believe violence (=state) based planning almost always destroys total production.

I don't believe any change in the relationship between men and women is needed though, it could stay identical to 50 years ago in perpetuity.

people want "progress" in that kind of things.

everytime a societal arrangement works (ie it doesn't stem per Capita GDP growth) you shouldn't think about what to change, you should preserve it as much as possible

prove it

In general it's people asking for any change that have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their change is indispensable, otherwise no change should happen when things are going decently (in terms of per capita gdp growth).

When people have literally anything else as a goal in mind other than per capita gdp growth, why should we even presume their ideas will improve per capita gdp growth?

Onus of proof is entirely on the people asking to change what provenly works.

Ok, but why value increased production over not increased production. You’re just sneaking in notions of progress and putting it above everything else that you don’t like and calling that “progress”

Really we’re just talking about progress you like, increases in production.

real per capita production (per capita GDP) correlates anyway with basically everything people from the extreme left to the extreme right tend to agree about being "material progress" (maternal mortality rates, infant mortality rates, literacy and so on and on).

Yours is a moot objection given that. There is nothing mentally healthy people like that doesn't positively, strongly correlates with per capita gdp.

That’s not a response to my objection though.

My objection was you say that progress is fake while also holding to another type of progress, material progress.

So I ask you why is one type of progress fake, while the other type of progress is good.

You now appeal to “well I like this progress and I don’t like this progress”

So notice how you are just restating what I said earlier, which is that you do seem to have a notion of progress while scoffing at other people’s notion of progress.

It’s just going to boil down to your preference for this type of progress and your dislike of another type of progress, but you are still committed to the same account of teleology that you scoff at the progressive for having, you’re just setting that above everything else and making an appeal to shared values.

Notice though that this will just be the same appeal that progressives have, which is that upon reflection we should be moving towards maximizing “x”

You must be demented.
For exemple I'd like everyone to cut their grass with human powered lawn mower.
That would improve decibels meters and not really correlates with per capita gdp.
Explain yourself, now!

I say non material, non objectively measurable "progress" is fake. "societal progress" is fake. Unless it causes an increment in per capita gdp (like abolitionism does). Then it's not fake, ONLY because it increases per capita gdp, not because of any inherent value of abolitionism.

If your question is "why are you obsessed with material , per capita progress in GDP", i answered already: everything that matters to basically everyone who isn't a complete psychopath correlates with it.

BUT TO BE CLEAR: unlike the violent leftists, i don't want to force anything upon people, ever. Reading more books per capita probably would increase per capita GDP, but i have no intention to ever try to pass a policy to force that upon people.

Leftists do and that is the difference. Any healthy human being with a model of society and the world has "goals" he thinks society should achieve , in which case society would be better. That's normal and healthy. The atrocity of the left is to think that those goals always justify forcing people who disagree to behave like they say.

You are either trolling or mentally unhealthy

Can you objectively measure the nonaggression principle? Because this is not a number going up. And if you do want to quantify it over incidents of violations of the NAP, you can just quantify over incidents of racism/racist behavior/etc. You absolutely could, if you wanted to, quantify societal progress over some data. That’s a ridiculous stupid thing to claim otherwise, and also just creates another problem for you. Because if you want to say we should quantify over GDP because it is measurable, well why ought we value measurability and accept things that are measurable as indications of progress?

The question isn’t about obsession with GDP. The question is why you get to make a move of talking about progress that you won’t allow in other people? If you want to just say “well there are certain prefereces I have and this is instrumental towards fulfilling those preferences” that’s fine. But you want to make a move that “oh every sane person would value this and therefore we should value this”. The point is though is that if it was objective then there could be some case where every sane person agreed and were just mistaken.

Furthermore, if you have this view then you have the same problem as progressives, which is that there were plenty of times throughout history where the “past” disagreed with the progress measures of the “present”. So you still have the same problem that progressives have which you were trying to avoid in the first place, which is casting your values as progress while sneering at the values of the past as being evil.

The NAP is a personal preference. I cannot and i will not claim it's "good" for everyone to have a NAP based society. I never did claim that. I never hid the fact that the model of society i prefer is one in which i see myself and people like me having the most utility. I am not a kantian i don't need nor want my moral preferences to become universal.

Arrow proved you cannot even define a societal welfare function. You simply can't. It defies axioms (Arrow impossibility theorem). It's for voting but it generalizes to social welfare functions.

There is no US, there never was any US, there cannot be any US.

Anyway again, the difference with progressives is about the willingness to wage unlimited violence to achieve goals. But if you insist i might accept the fact that given everyone else is willing to use violence against me and my goals, i might and should as well do the same.

So why are you wasting so much time sitting here talking to US?

Dollars to donuts you wouldn't last a week on your own in the bush lol And one of your modern addictions tv/sugar/phones/internet/whateverelse would most likely have you running back to society before you had the time to figure out you couldn't even feed yourself 😀

US as us, the pronoun. In any society, there is no "us". Doesn't mean i don't need other people to survive. I don't need all the mother****ers i am forced to cohabit with and share a polity with though.

Being a social mammal doesn't mean that the proper size of society is "an unlimited number of random unfiltered individuals most of which only survived because my bloodline got taxed to hell to keep them alive, or because we didn't slaughter them when we had the chance".