WickedFire - Affiliate Marketing Forum - Internet Marketing Webmaster SEO Forum

Go Back   WickedFire - Affiliate Marketing Forum - Internet Marketing Webmaster SEO Forum > >

Shooting The Shit Anything goes, seriously. Come meet and network with your peers, it's a fun way to take a break out of your busy day of posting at other boring forums.


Welcome to the WickedFire - Affiliate Marketing Forum - Internet Marketing Webmaster SEO Forum forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-23-2012, 03:10 PM   #201
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaszjot View Post
So it was of my interest to learn how do you guys live day-to-day life in countries which on surface appear to be "free".
Ok, my bad. There is a lot of trolling on these forums, and I assumed you were trolling too.

I support myself and my extended family as much as possible, without leaning on the state for anything. We try to keep most of our healthcare private (at our own cost) and we don't engage in politics (volunteering, voting, campaigning, donating) or requesting benefits from the government.

There is a little more but I would rather not post it in public. You're welcome to PM me.
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 04:05 PM   #202
Napolean
Mr. Meseeks
 
Napolean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Peekamoose
Posts: 804
iTrader: 0 / 50%
Napolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by p0ck3taces View Post
Ethically would it have been right for a leader of the native people to have required all indians come and fight? You would say no. But... Realistically, what will happen if the indians don't fight together as one?
Why would he need to require his own people to do anything?

What kind of threats would he have to make to get his people to fight, that weren't already presented by the invading force?
Napolean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 04:37 PM   #203
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napolean View Post
What kind of threats would he have to make to get his people to fight, that weren't already presented by the invading force?
That's their issue. They don't think people will act together in their self-interest.

And yet ironically, they think ONE person can act in EVERYONE'S self interest.

The question they cannot answer is "from whence does this superman come?"
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 05:25 PM   #204
REIMktg
Senior Member
 
REIMktg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Posts: 1,424
iTrader: 29 / 100%
REIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
Indeed. Which is why I continue to stay in the realm of ideas, not in the realm of [sic] solutions.

You'll notice many people don't want to address ideas, and prefer to make appeals to "solutions". This sort of thinking is reinforced in politics, public education, and media. The solution mindset is inherently anti-intellectual. What matters is what "works", as relatively perceived by those using it (ironically, not those being subjected to it). Why it works, or how, is not important. Only that it (supposedly) does.

Until it stops working or values change, and then we need something else that works.

This is also why libertarianism is slow to get traction. It requires an understanding of economics and philosophy. That's one hurdle.

The next hurdle is that it doesn't offer answers (indeed, economics is value free). It says that how we get to answers will help determine the quality of answers. But that isn't a "solution" in the traditional CURE MY PAIN RIGHT NOW sense. That's why we see these repetitive "What about security?" posts. People want security, they don't want to think about the best way to create security. Like watching a basketball game and playing a basketball game, very different modes.

If you've read any Hoppe, he is big on time preference as a model for values, and most people, particularly in our fast paced western culture, have super high time preferences. Perhaps more so than our tribal, caveman-esque ancestors, who understood the necessity of thinking ahead.
This thread would be 1/4 its length if this were established in the OP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
The implication of asking for absolute security, or holding security as your highest value, is that you would be willing to kill proactively to prevent a violation of security.
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
So you and them are saying that the only system is one where we abandon ethics? Is this correct?
If one endorses a non AnCap view how is this an absolute either/or?

Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
I believe humans can live under non-aggression. I don't think sociopaths, liars, assholes, dirtbags, thieves, rapists and politicians can live under non-aggression.
I would be interested in an explanation of the above, unless it is simply a matter of semantics or definition.
REIMktg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 05:49 PM   #205
Napolean
Mr. Meseeks
 
Napolean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Peekamoose
Posts: 804
iTrader: 0 / 50%
Napolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
That's their issue. They don't think people will act together in their self-interest.

And yet ironically, they think ONE person can act in EVERYONE'S self interest.

The question they cannot answer is "from whence does this superman come?"
Their logic follows "to protect us from outside threats we must have inside threats", and its insane that they don't see there isn't a difference between either.
Napolean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 05:58 PM   #206
Suspect Device
Inflammable Material
 
Suspect Device's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 171
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Suspect Device has a reputation beyond reputeSuspect Device has a reputation beyond reputeSuspect Device has a reputation beyond reputeSuspect Device has a reputation beyond reputeSuspect Device has a reputation beyond reputeSuspect Device has a reputation beyond reputeSuspect Device has a reputation beyond reputeSuspect Device has a reputation beyond reputeSuspect Device has a reputation beyond reputeSuspect Device has a reputation beyond reputeSuspect Device has a reputation beyond repute
Here comes a long one.

This post will be more like a rant or thinking out loud.

I have just recently scratched the surface of libertarianism and anarchy. As I have exposed myself to a complete new way of perception and thinking, I still have a lot of confusion in me, but I guess that's what you call personal growth.

But anyway, here it goes.

Just as I started reading and gathering information about Anarchism, I instantly identified myself as minarchist (a different thing I know).

This is how I have always felt - since late teens, I have always felt, for no rational reason, that government is too big/too powerful, and actually is getting in the way of people.

My vision of a "perfect system" is where the government would only have few roles. They are:

*Court system
*Police/security
*National guard (only for defense)/Border guard
*A small organization that would overlook said roles

The rest is left entirely in the hands of free market. And a some kind of minimal taxation would happen to finance these functions.

And here comes the BUT...

If you actually think about it, and take it one step further, you don't even need government to do above mentioned roles. Why?

Well, before I started to write this post, I went downtown using public transport, which is owned by a private investor, to buy meat from the local farmer who has a very good reputation, while my apartment has a security system installed by a private security company for a monthly fee, which also has a very good reputation for providing good security services. You see where I am going with this?

And without borders you don't need no border guard. There would be no borders to secure other than your own property.

If you take some time, and actually think. Just think. Then you'll see anarchy is happening all around you. Every minute, every hour, everyday. There are millions of voluntary transactions happening around the world every day, without the government being part of.

All you have to do is identify it, practice it and pay it forward.

Government is shaking your hand, while pissing on your feet.

Then again, I still don't know how people would handle pollution and natural resources without the big brother watching. I still need to study and explore that area.

Luke, no offence, but I believe that voting for Ron Paul would make no difference, it's quite delusional actually. The system itself is crippled. Then again, on the other hand, with the help of Ron Paul campaign, people are actually (at least some part) are starting to realize other paths, and will take some kind of action even if Ron Paul won't get elected in the office.

Also one thing that I have noticed. The people that are aware of these things are mostly somewhat more intelligent (I'm not praising myself in any way), than most of the society. I doubt that Monica who lives in Atlanta, a single mom of two, who works double shifts at Walmart will ever think of Anarchy, or actually take some kind of action to reduce the power of government. There are other things for her to think and worry about.

Like I said, this is more like thinking out loud, than an actual opinion on things.

Just wanted to share

But whatever, my two cents.

TL;DR
Suspect Device is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 06:18 PM   #207
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napolean View Post
Their logic follows "to protect us from outside threats we must have inside threats", and its insane that they don't see there isn't a difference between either.
And that is the core of the entire dialog.

How do we get people who do not recognize, or care about contradiction, to address those contradictions?

Why would we? Because they can be very dangerous when you have people acting under a delusion. The Jews experienced the downside of mass delusion in Germany circa 1942.
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 06:19 PM   #208
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suspect Device View Post
If you take some time, and actually think. Just think. Then you'll see anarchy is happening all around you. Every minute, every hour, everyday. There are millions of voluntary transactions happening around the world every day, without the government being part of.
You get it. You made my day.
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 07:01 PM   #209
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
This thread would be 1/4 its length if this were established in the OP.
Well, I don't pretend to be an expert educator or promoter, only an enthusiastic one.

I'm learning things in this discussion too. Understanding is rarely pretty or well organized, it comes in fits and starts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
If one endorses a non AnCap view how is this an absolute either/or?
I'd be happy for anyone interested in making a case for ethics without anarchism to do so. That would be an interesting discussion.

Earlier in the thread Pseudo Nym shared some of his values. He shared some of the conclusions he has drawn around his values and his perception of reality.

What he didn't do, is explain where those values came from. What were their origin? Were they good/bad? What are the consequences to himself and to others of holding those values?

Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
I would be interested in an explanation of the above, unless it is simply a matter of semantics or definition.
It was a bit of rhetoric but I think the case it makes has truth.

If you think and behave like an animal, are you a man? If you would use force to get your way against others, basically following a law of the jungle mentality, then what good is the human faculty of reason? The Law of the Jungle isn't compatible with humane treatment or behavior.

Just because we're both born biologically human, doesn't mean we're both going to be the best of humanity. People who behave in a dangerous manner to people who want to co-exist ethically and peacefully are perhaps less human than those who do not.

Common law actually has this sort of built-in. People who violate laws and don't make restitution are OUT LAW. The law no longer protects or applies to them, since they refuse to participate in the law.

I suggest ethics may be well served to operate in a similar manner.
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 07:16 PM   #210
thedarkness
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 16
iTrader: 0 / 0%
thedarkness has a spectacular aura about
I think I lean toward anarchism. Although I don't know if it's the exact same flavor as some prefer here.

I remember finding Chomsky on anarchism to be immensely persuasive. In fact, a quick google of "Chomsky anarchism" turned up this beautiful paragraph:

Quote:
CHOMSKY: I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes since. I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view), and much else. Naturally this means a challenge to the huge institutions of coercion and control: the state, the unaccountable private tyrannies that control most of the domestic and international economy, and so on. But not only these. That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged, but I think it can readily meet the challenge. And there are other cases; life is a complex affair, we understand very little about humans and society, and grand pronouncements are generally more a source of harm than of benefit. But the perspective is a valid one, I think, and can lead us quite a long way.
It's simple but true. The onus should always be on the person exerting authority to justify that authority. That simple principle really would go a long way.

What I find confusing, oftentimes, is just what to think about what's best to do in there here and now, in the making the best of a radically fucked up situation. It seems preferable to support the least destructive iteration of state authority in the short term, even if in the long run I hope it is done away with altogether.

I have always meant to read more about this and attempt to clarify my thinking on anarchism, and maybe eventually be well-read enough to write elegantly and usefully on it like Chomsky can. I've been too busy jacking off the last few years, though. Maybe some day if I stop jacking off I'll get back to reading more history and do something useful with my life, godammit.

thedarkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Ad
Old 10-23-2012, 07:21 PM   #211
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
People could do a lot worse than be interested in Chomsky. He's very good on seeing the state as it is, not as people imagine it to be.

I do find him lacking a little when it comes to economics.
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 07:27 PM   #212
Unarmed Gunman
Medium Pimpin'
 
Unarmed Gunman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The D
Posts: 7,315
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Unarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond repute
I've already addressed why anarchy won't work on any large scale in society earlier in the thread. But for those that feel all warm and fuzzy about camping trips and private security systems at their apartments, I think you're missing the fact that those arrangements exist within the State, not outside of the State. Your private security company isn't going to drive to your apartment if it's broken into for instance, they're going to call the cops (The State).

It's also ironic that we're discussing the evils of the State on the Internet, which was developed and funded by the State. The free market didn't create The Internet, the State did with taxpayer money that it took by force. My point is simply that everything isn't as simple as people want to believe.

Yes, the State is evil. But if you want to see what happens in a modern society when you remove the State apparatus, read about the recent collapse in Argentina. If nothing else, it's a great document for preparing for when the shit hits the fan. Life goes on, but it's something very different than what most of us are accustomed to.

The "Anarchy" that many of you describe in your everyday lives is happening within the apparatus of the State, don't assume those transactions/experiences would look the same with that apparatus removed. The State is always there, even if you don't see it, and that threat of force has an effect on people's behavior/ethics/morals etc. whether you want to believe it or not. Therefore the Anarchy that you see everyday within the State, is something very different than the Anarchy that you'll see without that State.

Anyway, I'm not a statist or an anarchist, I'm a realist. Carry on.
Unarmed Gunman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 07:32 PM   #213
Kiopa_Matt
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,216
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Kiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unarmed Gunman View Post
I've already addressed why anarchy won't work on any large scale in society earlier in the thread.
Nah, it's already been cleared up. This anarchy stuff is about ideals and dreams only. Not reality.
Kiopa_Matt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 08:29 PM   #214
lukep
Minimalist Prepper
 
lukep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: On the blockchain
Posts: 7,676
iTrader: 9 / 100%
lukep has a reputation beyond reputelukep has a reputation beyond reputelukep has a reputation beyond reputelukep has a reputation beyond reputelukep has a reputation beyond reputelukep has a reputation beyond reputelukep has a reputation beyond reputelukep has a reputation beyond reputelukep has a reputation beyond reputelukep has a reputation beyond reputelukep has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unarmed Gunman View Post
No it's not.
You don't see it all then. Hopefully one day you will... Until then you won't know what a slave you actually are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unarmed Gunman View Post
When the people realize that FOX is lying to them, they go to MSNBC. When they realize that MSNBC is lying to them they go to FOX.
I was laughing about how stupid people were to do that back when clinton was in office. Something has changed with the liberty movement and it's sad that you can't recognize that, considering you support it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Unarmed Gunman View Post
If you think 10% of the population are Anarchists, you're nuts.
...
You're being naive Luke.
I certainly don't have the numbers to back up this opinion, but the growth has been obvious, even off of the liberty-loving sites.

We'll agree to disagree on this point because you'd first have to see how bad the propaganda situation is (and you obviously haven't scratched the surface yet) to even get a starting point on estimating how large the numbers they are hiding is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Unarmed Gunman View Post
The masses finally began to wake-up and wanted to get rid of their leaders by...electing different leaders? lol
Some of them, not as far along, actually do believe that, but it's just a stage in their growth. Then you get real sure, real fast that the state should not be given any more power than it already takes. It's a pretty short jump, in fact. I'd say 80% of the Ron Paul voters that were active during the 2012 campaign season will be anarchists soon, if they aren't already.


Quote:
Originally Posted by -joe- View Post
Option 3. Buy Niue for $10m or Tuvalu for $36m and educate everyone on Anarchy, and let them vote for whether they want it, and see if it works.
The problem with this is that those people are likely perfectly happy right now living with their localized government. It isn't as evil as the american empire so they don't get taxed so hard to pay for foreign wars and their personal freedoms are relatively intact... So what would be their incentive to care about living without a government? That's a pretty drastic change to ask someone to take without them caring (much) about the problems it solves.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Suspect Device View Post
Just as I started reading and gathering information about Anarchism, I instantly identified myself as minarchist (a different thing I know).
Are you still leaning towards minarchism?

There is no better example in human history of minarchists failing than right here in the usa. Any government at all WILL eventually be run by bad people who expand it until it is too bloated to work well anymore, and then they'll run it into the ground fully. This is fact.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Suspect Device View Post
Then again, I still don't know how people would handle pollution and natural resources without the big brother watching. I still need to study and explore that area.
Check out the books linked to on the front page of this thread. Most are free, and they cover this area very well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suspect Device View Post
Luke, no offence, but I believe that voting for Ron Paul would make no difference, it's quite delusional actually.
Don't worry bro, I don't condone voting. That signature is just for the sheeples... Voting for RP is the first step along the path of natural progression towards anarchy. Thankfully I get to take it down in a few weeks and I can stop hearing from other anarchists about how it's so stupid...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Unarmed Gunman View Post
But for those that feel all warm and fuzzy about camping trips and private security systems at their apartments, I think you're missing the fact that those arrangements exist within the State, not outside of the State. Your private security company isn't going to drive to your apartment if it's broken into for instance, they're going to call the cops (The State).
Are you actually arguing that a camping trip can't exist without a government to make the land free? Or that an unrestricted security firm can't do the job of the whole job of policemen?

I can't accept that you actually think this. I feel like I'm being set up here... What's the catch?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Unarmed Gunman View Post
It's also ironic that we're discussing the evils of the State on the Internet, which was developed and funded by the State. The free market didn't create The Internet, the State did with taxpayer money that it took by force. My point is simply that everything isn't as simple as people want to believe.
Your point is simply state propaganda and crap.

A totally free market could have delivered the internet to humanity before the pyramids. (In fact it never would have resulted in any pyramids, because slavery is extremely unfree and economically unsound.) Arguing that we couldn't have had the internet without the government is madness... The government's only power is to RESTRICT freedoms, and who knows where we'd be today without it... Possibly existing as pure energy by now...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Unarmed Gunman View Post
The "Anarchy" that many of you describe in your everyday lives is happening within the apparatus of the State, don't assume those transactions/experiences would look the same with that apparatus removed.
Au contraire, we don't assume it would look the same at all, actually. We assume it would be BETTER. More freedom is a good thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Unarmed Gunman View Post
The State is always there, even if you don't see it, and that threat of force has an effect on people's behavior/ethics/morals etc. whether you want to believe it or not.
We do believe it... It has a very NEGATIVE effect on people's behaviors, making them more likely to be bad people who perpetuate the current system.


We can still practice limited anarchy though IN SPITE OF the state's invisible hand.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Unarmed Gunman View Post
Anyway, I'm not a statist or an anarchist, I'm a realist. Carry on.
What a total spineless cop-out. You either support the state or you don't. In this case if you try to stay out of it you help perpetuate the current system, and that is the state.

Statist.
lukep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 09:24 PM   #215
Unarmed Gunman
Medium Pimpin'
 
Unarmed Gunman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The D
Posts: 7,315
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Unarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukep View Post
You don't see it all then. Hopefully one day you will... Until then you won't know what a slave you actually are.
???

I don't think you understood what I was responding too. The main argument against anarchy as a system has nothing to do with roads or schools, it has to do with the desire of people to be led.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukep View Post
I was laughing about how stupid people were to do that back when clinton was in office. Something has changed with the liberty movement and it's sad that you can't recognize that, considering you support it.

I certainly don't have the numbers to back up this opinion, but the growth has been obvious, even off of the liberty-loving sites.

We'll agree to disagree on this point because you'd first have to see how bad the propaganda situation is (and you obviously haven't scratched the surface yet) to even get a starting point on estimating how large the numbers they are hiding is.
Numbers Luke. You keep skipping over the point that for every person that wakes up, 5 more take their place in the flock. If you expect Anarchy to take hold in society, you need numbers. You need mainstream acceptance. You need human nature to change. You need human nature to change. You need human nature to change. You need human nature to change.

It has nothing to do with education - Anarchy is not new. It has everything to do with human nature. You're never going to have more than a small percentage of people that are comfortable with Anarchy. They will always demand leaders. ALWAYS. baaa baaa baaa baaaa

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukep View Post
There is no better example in human history of minarchists failing than right here in the usa. Any society at all WILL eventually be run by bad people who expand it until it is too bloated to work well anymore, and then they'll run it into the ground fully. This is fact.
Fixed that for you. You keep blaming this on government, but government is just people. People are to blame, Luke. Whether they call it government or anarchy, people will always do what people do. Human nature can not changed. The masses will always demand leaders, and the most corrupt amongst us will always be there to seize power. That's not a knock on Anarchy, nor a defense of the State, it's just a realistic understanding of human nature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukep View Post
Are you actually arguing that a camping trip can't exist without a government to make the land free? Or that an unrestricted security firm can't do the job of the whole job of policemen?
No. I'm pointing out that those things might look very different without the framework of the State. Anytime you remove a variable from an equation, everything changes. Read the link in my last post about the crisis in Argentina a few years back and you'll see how different things looked when the State stopped functioning. Again, it's not a knock on Anarchy, but if you really want to understand it in a real world context, study it in a real world context. Otherwise you're just like any of the other keyboard Anarchists around here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukep View Post
A totally free market could have delivered the internet to humanity before the pyramids.
Sometimes it's very difficult to take you seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukep View Post
Au contraire, we don't assume it would look the same at all, actually. We assume it would be BETTER. More freedom is a good thing.
Jesus Christ this is getting old. You guys keep arguing the merits of anarchy, but you keep ignoring the fact that anarchy can not exist as a societal system because human nature will not allow it. People want to be led, Luke. Until you can reprogram the human mind, anarchy will forever be relegated to philosophical discussion like this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukep View Post
We can still practice limited anarchy though IN SPITE OF the state's invisible hand.
OK...who said you couldn't? Go join a commune, or become Amish, or move to the mountains. Nobody is going to stop you. You're the only one holding you back from a voluntaryist existence. But you're wasting your time if you expect the rest of society to join you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukep View Post
What a total spineless cop-out. You either support the state or you don't. In this case if you try to stay out of it you help perpetuate the current system, and that is the state.

Statist.
There is a difference between supporting the State, and recognizing the inevitability of the State. For instance, murder is wrong. I do not support murder. But I also know that there will always be murder.
Unarmed Gunman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 10:41 PM   #216
Napolean
Mr. Meseeks
 
Napolean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Peekamoose
Posts: 804
iTrader: 0 / 50%
Napolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unarmed Gunman View Post
It's also ironic that we're discussing the evils of the State on the Internet, which was developed and funded by the State. The free market didn't create The Internet, the State did with taxpayer money that it took by force. My point is simply that everything isn't as simple as people want to believe.
Telegraphs, bitch.
Napolean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 10:45 PM   #217
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
Crediting the state with inventing the internet is like crediting the Pharaohs with inventing pyramids.

Nikola Tesla wrote about and envisioned the internet long before anyone started practical work on it.
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 11:04 PM   #218
-joe-
Britfag
 
-joe-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Just outside London, UK
Posts: 4,324
iTrader: 15 / 94%
-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
That doesn't work. Anarchy works when the incentives are right, and when the morality or ethics of the people is proper for the task.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
The absence of government is not in itself anarchy (that's what some guys in this thread cannot get past). The absence of government could very well lead to government again (OH NOES)
Again, I'm with you. However, that's where the mass education (some would call it propaganda, but I'm talking full education, pros and cons, etc), as well as the vote. It could also be made so that for the first 5 years it's "semi" anarchy. In that, you're still technically in power, but don't get involved (unless things collapse) for 5 years, where there's a second vote, and if that turns out to be "no anarchy", then you go back to a full statist system. (That 5 years is a random number I plucked out of the air, it'd need more thought obviously, to say the least.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
People who understand the immortality of the state won't tolerate a new one any more than we would tolerate the subjugation of women and blacks again in our society.
Perhaps. But what if you can convince people the state doesn't have to be immortal? I wouldn't say it necessarily compares in people's belief systems to slavery or lack of womens rights. It's a strong belief, certainly, but I think it can be challenged, in the same way that someone can convert from liberalism to conservatism, or vice versa. (I will admit that it's more difficult than that, but not impossible; it's just a different spectrum to go down.)
-joe- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 11:51 PM   #219
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by -joe- View Post
Again, I'm with you. However, that's where the mass education (some would call it propaganda, but I'm talking full education, pros and cons, etc), as well as the vote. It could also be made so that for the first 5 years it's "semi" anarchy. In that, you're still technically in power, but don't get involved (unless things collapse) for 5 years, where there's a second vote, and if that turns out to be "no anarchy", then you go back to a full statist system. (That 5 years is a random number I plucked out of the air, it'd need more thought obviously, to say the least.)
I'm not sure voting has anything to do with anything.

Power corrupts. It corrupts everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -joe- View Post
Perhaps. But what if you can convince people the state doesn't have to be immortal? I wouldn't say it necessarily compares in people's belief systems to slavery or lack of womens rights. It's a strong belief, certainly, but I think it can be challenged, in the same way that someone can convert from liberalism to conservatism, or vice versa. (I will admit that it's more difficult than that, but not impossible; it's just a different spectrum to go down.)
State doesn't have to be immortal or immoral?
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 12:11 AM   #220
-joe-
Britfag
 
-joe-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Just outside London, UK
Posts: 4,324
iTrader: 15 / 94%
-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
Power corrupts. It corrupts everyone.
I'm not sure of the point you're making here, to be honest. Could you elaborate a bit further?

Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
State doesn't have to be immortal or immoral?
Immortal. And to clarify, I am right in saying you meant your original quote in a sense of "will live forever" rather than "not being mortal"? 99% sure you meant the first one, but just wanted to double-check.

Sorry if that didn't make a lot of sense, it's getting late, I'll be back on tomorrow
-joe- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 01:24 AM   #221
REIMktg
Senior Member
 
REIMktg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Posts: 1,424
iTrader: 29 / 100%
REIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond repute
What do the AnCaps say to the following:

1. No Man is consistently good.
2. No Man is consistently rational toward the long term.
3. Therefore there must be a mechanism that protects Man from Men and from Himself.
REIMktg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 02:36 AM   #222
Napolean
Mr. Meseeks
 
Napolean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Peekamoose
Posts: 804
iTrader: 0 / 50%
Napolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
1. No Man is consistently good.
Lets empower a few men to rule over all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
2. No Man is consistently rational toward the long term.
Lets delegate all important decisions to a few men with little experience in the matters they find long term solutions for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
3. Therefore there must be a mechanism that protects Man from Men and from Himself.
And that mechanism will be run by men, and we will arm those men.

The response to all three of these is, no one man knows what is best for all living and all future men. The only man who knows what is best for himself, is himself. The only reasonable conclusion to this is, the only person who has the credentials to make a decision to better ones life is yourself.
Napolean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 03:11 AM   #223
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by -joe- View Post
I'm not sure of the point you're making here, to be honest. Could you elaborate a bit further?
As I understood it, you were saying to manipulate the political process.

My point was that doing that will taint any man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -joe- View Post
Immortal. And to clarify, I am right in saying you meant your original quote in a sense of "will live forever" rather than "not being mortal"? 99% sure you meant the first one, but just wanted to double-check.
That was totally my mistake. I meant immorality. Stupid typo. Sorry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
What do the AnCaps say to the following:

1. No Man is consistently good.
2. No Man is consistently rational toward the long term.
3. Therefore there must be a mechanism that protects Man from Men and from Himself.
Napoleon's answer is great, but I think I can add a little.

1. This is why we dare not give any man, or small group of men control over all men. Regardless of the process by which we choose them, if you believe man is flawed, then putting men in charge of other men is just a compound error.

Not to mention, it's silly to think that flawed people can elect their keepers.

2. I use rational in the praxeological sense. Most people do not. They use rational as a proxy for "objectively correct".

There is no such thing as "objectively correct" behavior in the sense that man's knowledge is always imperfect, and all values (we hold) are subjective.

Then there is the economic argument. Short and long term horizons, or high and low time preferences should and do reflect the environment of the moment. They aren't fixed. A man's perspective has to change based on what is happening, rather than stay in one mode regardless of circumstances.

3. You can't protect (absolute surety) man from himself. You can only try to build a system to protect men from other men. That system is the market.

As soon as you assume control for your brother as his keeper, you've taken away his freedom. What starts off as a good intention, ends up being very malicious. I like Jesus' take. He tolerated everyone, even those who did not believe in him, his morals, etc.
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 03:15 AM   #224
Kiopa_Matt
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,216
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Kiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
Indeed. Which is why I continue to stay in the realm of ideas, not in the realm of [sic] solutions.

You'll notice many people don't want to address ideas, and prefer to make appeals to "solutions".
First, you seem to imply people seeking solutions to existing problems is a bad thing.

Regardless, then I have to ask, why do you strongly advocate destroying 5000 years of progress on the concept of government, when you yourself have basically acknowledged that anarchy only exists within the realm of ideas, and real-world application of it in modern day society would fail?
Kiopa_Matt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 03:25 AM   #225
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiopa_Matt View Post
First, you seem to imply people seeking solutions to existing problems is a bad thing.
Not all solutions are equal. Not all ways of finding solutions are equal.

Being fixated on the solution, but not the method, or the consequences to others, is problematic for obvious reasons. This is how people reach conclusions like, Jews caused the economic problems in Germany so we should annhilate their race. That was ironically called, "The Final Solution".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiopa_Matt View Post
Regardless, then I have to ask, why do you strongly advocate destroying 5000 years of progress on the concept of government
That's like someone saying that abolitionists were trying to destroy 5,000 years of economic progress through the concept of slavery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiopa_Matt View Post
when you yourself have basically acknowledged that anarchy only exists within the realm of ideas
I never said it only exists within the realm of ideas, it requires the realm of ideas to become the dominant paradigm.

Violence doesn't require ideas. It only requires fear.

Animals organize packs through violence. We're capable of better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiopa_Matt View Post
and real-world application of it in modern day society would fail?
Anarchistic relationships happen all around us, all the time. For some reason, what I call "exception making", we rationalize the government as a necessary exception to the basic social rules most of us obey instinctively.

I can't kill, but if I put on a government uniform, I can. That's an exception to the rule, "don't kill"

I can't take your money from you, but if I put on a government uniform, I can. That's an exception to the rule, "do not steal".

Why do these exceptions exist? Why can government do things I can't do, if government is supposedly an expression of my will?

You might say, it's some abstract and arbitrary (you wouldn't say that, but it's what you would be arguing) "collective will".

But then you would be saying it is wrong for one man to murder, but ok for many men to murder.

Which also doesn't really make much sense.

To remind you, the burden of proof for government is on you, not me. I only have to defend a system of non-aggression as economically and morally superior, which I am happy to do any time.

Also, I've ignored your last 5 or so posts, but I was curious to see what this one was about, so you get a reply. Don't expect it to be a habit, you just repeat yourself over and over, and it's very unproductive.
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Ad
Old 10-24-2012, 03:54 AM   #226
Moxie
Jedi Knight
 
Moxie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,176
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Moxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unarmed Gunman View Post
the crisis in Argentina a few years back
"Argentina's many years of military dictatorship (alternating with weak, short-lived democratic governments) have caused significant economic problems."


So government was steering the ship, government helped decide how many lifeboats to have on that ship, it ran into an iceberg, people got violent over lifeboats, government couldn't stop much of that violence, but that is why government has to be in control of all boats on planet earth?
Moxie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 04:26 AM   #227
Unarmed Gunman
Medium Pimpin'
 
Unarmed Gunman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The D
Posts: 7,315
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Unarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond reputeUnarmed Gunman has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moxie View Post
So government was steering the ship, government helped decide how many lifeboats to have on that ship, it ran into an iceberg, people got violent over lifeboats, government couldn't stop much of that violence, but that is why government has to be in control of all boats on planet earth?




Unarmed Gunman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 04:38 AM   #228
REIMktg
Senior Member
 
REIMktg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Posts: 1,424
iTrader: 29 / 100%
REIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond reputeREIMktg has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
What do the AnCaps say to the following:

1. No Man is consistently good.
2. No Man is consistently rational toward the long term
3. Therefore there must be a mechanism that protects Man from Men and from Himself.
I edited the quote below to give relation to the quote above and responses below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napolean View Post
1. Lets empower a few men to rule over all.
2. Lets delegate all important decisions to a few men with little experience in the matters they find long term solutions for.
3. And that mechanism will be run by men, and we will arm those men.

a) The response to all three of these is, no one man knows what is best for all living and all future men. b)The only man who knows what is best for himself, is himself. c)The only reasonable conclusion to this is, the only person who has the credentials to make a decision to better ones life is yourself.
1. Are we then in agreement that “No Man is consistently good?” or do we need to define “good”?
2. The is hardly a serious answer and implies not only poor selection but also a gross generality that I am surprised was looked at as serious. Had I said such a thing I would have been chastised.
3. Statist and AnCap systems both have armed men chosen by Men who are not good. Assuming we agree to #1. Both systems have Men who are authorized to violate others in the enforcement of their respective systems.. Is that even under debate? Because it is a clear fact within both systems.

a) Who would make that claim? I have not.
b) This statement is clearly wrong. Do you really believe this? You can argue for Free Market Sovereignty, but you cannot say that Man always knows what is best for himself. Not only that, you cannot say that Man acts in a way that is consistent with what even believes is best for Himself.
c) The premises are not valid. The conclusion is not either. You can argue that Man is Sovereign and therefore can make His own decisions, but you cannot say he “knows” nor will “act” in a way to “better” Himself, unless you define “better” as relative and inclusive of advancement toward an end that many would consider “worse”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
I edited only to try to make easier to follow.
1. This is why we dare not give any man, or small group of men control over all men. Regardless of the process by which we choose them, if you believe man is flawed, then putting men in charge of other men is just a compound error.
Not to mention, it's silly to think that flawed people can elect their keepers.

2. I use rational in the praxeological sense. Most people do not. They use rational as a proxy for "objectively correct". There is no such thing as "objectively correct" behavior in the sense that man's knowledge is always imperfect, and all values (we hold) are subjective.
…...edited out.....

3. You can't protect (absolute surety) man from himself. You can only try to build a system to protect men from other men. That system is the market.

a) As soon as you assume control for your brother as his keeper, you've taken away his freedom. b) What starts off as a good intention, ends up being very malicious. c) I like Jesus' take. He tolerated everyone, even those who did not believe in him, his morals, etc.
1. I disagree, but I want to save that clarification for the progression of this line of thought. For now, are we in agreement that Man is not good?
2. I too was using it in the praxeological sense and I agree that the definition of “rational” is relative especially if Man is Sovereign. Are we in agreement with my second statement?
3. While you cannot provide absolute surety, you can protect Man against many actions should those actions be under duress, distress, or from a poor decision something not within AnCap.

a) You are correct, but I am moving toward the idea that absolute freedom is not the ideal.
b) First, this is a logical conclusion that you may find obvious, but once again you would not allow me to get away with it.
c) I am doing my best to leave religion out of this. Jesus tolerated everyones' intentional Sovereign decisions to be separate from God. When I say say Sovereign in the religious sense it should be understood appropriately. When man derives morality from himself he is separating Himself from God. But that is for a different thread.
REIMktg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 12:58 PM   #229
pfgannon
Sic semper tyrannis
 
pfgannon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: DC/MD/VA
Posts: 3,224
iTrader: 41 / 100%
pfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond repute
On human nature:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPCsbudHoWw]Genes, Nature, Nurture and The Freedom of Self-Knowledge (HD) - YouTube[/ame]
pfgannon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 01:13 PM   #230
-joe-
Britfag
 
-joe-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Just outside London, UK
Posts: 4,324
iTrader: 15 / 94%
-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
As I understood it, you were saying to manipulate the political process.

My point was that doing that will taint any man.
Depends. How do you define the political process? The political process in the majority of countries is for candidates to spread their views, and then people vote on who they want in power. In this system, there would be one "candidate", who would be stating the benefits and negatives of anarchy, people would be totally free to consider any further negatives or positives, and then they'd vote on whether they wanted the system changed. If they didn't, then a full statist election could go ahead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
That was totally my mistake. I meant immorality. Stupid typo. Sorry.
Ah, got it. Wasn't sure if that was what you meant, but didn't want to put words in your mouth. In which case, it would be up to the new, possibly temporary "king" to be moral; and to convince the people of his/her morality. Someone with that kind of wealth would most likely be used to power, although obviously not on that scale. Theoretically, could it work if the "king" was moral, had a firm belief in anarchy, and was able to handle power on that scale?
-joe- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 01:26 PM   #231
pfgannon
Sic semper tyrannis
 
pfgannon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: DC/MD/VA
Posts: 3,224
iTrader: 41 / 100%
pfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond reputepfgannon has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by -joe- View Post
Theoretically, could it work if the "king" was moral, had a firm belief in anarchy, and was able to handle power on that scale?
Nobody would be able to handle power on that scale. You'd have to sell your soul to even get into such a position to begin with.

Who would be in charge of this electoral process? Things get very messy very fast when you start heading down this path.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a free society, and let people choose to be ruled in a decentralized fashion, if they so choose?
pfgannon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 01:44 PM   #232
kingofsp
WF Premium Member
 
kingofsp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,327
iTrader: 37 / 100%
kingofsp has a reputation beyond reputekingofsp has a reputation beyond reputekingofsp has a reputation beyond reputekingofsp has a reputation beyond reputekingofsp has a reputation beyond reputekingofsp has a reputation beyond reputekingofsp has a reputation beyond reputekingofsp has a reputation beyond reputekingofsp has a reputation beyond reputekingofsp has a reputation beyond reputekingofsp has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by -joe- View Post
Ah, got it. Wasn't sure if that was what you meant, but didn't want to put words in your mouth. In which case, it would be up to the new, possibly temporary "king" to be moral; and to convince the people of his/her morality. Someone with that kind of wealth would most likely be used to power, although obviously not on that scale. Theoretically, could it work if the "king" was moral, had a firm belief in anarchy, and was able to handle power on that scale?
Without initiating force to enforce his bidding, the king would not have any power. Without the threat of violence, the people wouldn't necessarily be inclined to pay taxes or live by whatever the king's rules are, and the king would more or less be useless. Someone has to provide for the chicks that feed him grapes, after all.
kingofsp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 02:14 PM   #233
-joe-
Britfag
 
-joe-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Just outside London, UK
Posts: 4,324
iTrader: 15 / 94%
-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute-joe- has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfgannon View Post
Nobody would be able to handle power on that scale. You'd have to sell your soul to even get into such a position to begin with.

Who would be in charge of this electoral process? Things get very messy very fast when you start heading down this path.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a free society, and let people choose to be ruled in a decentralized fashion, if they so choose?
Until Anarchy comes in (or doesn't) - you, you can employ people. And yep, that's exactly what I'm suggesting, but without the need for some violent revolution or anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingofsp View Post
Without initiating force to enforce his bidding, the king would not have any power. Without the threat of violence, the people wouldn't necessarily be inclined to pay taxes or live by whatever the king's rules are, and the king would more or less be useless. Someone has to provide for the chicks that feed him grapes, after all.
I'm not suggesting levying taxes, setting rules, etc. (at least not new ones) It would be a full Statist system until the vote has been cast, and once it had been, the government would be dissolved (although the "king" would still be the one to organise the voting as to whether to keep anarchy, "5" years later (I put that in quotes because it's a random number I plucked out of thin air before) - if the people vote for anarchy to stay, fine, you step down from power. If not, then you can have a go at staying in power and helping the island back to the old system, but since it's a $10m island (I'm not suggesting this for anyone under the $100m wealth bracket, at the bare minimum) if you're in danger for your life by returning, then you class the experiment as a failure.
-joe- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 03:11 PM   #234
Kosher
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 29
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Kosher Kosher Kosher Kosher Kosher Kosher Kosher Kosher Kosher Kosher Kosher
fuck that arab cunt obama. Romney all the way
Kosher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 04:31 PM   #235
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
1. I disagree, but I want to save that clarification for the progression of this line of thought.
I don't see how you can disagree without providing a lot more information to support your claim.

It's a non sequitur to go, "man is not good, therefore government". I could just as easily say, "man is not good, therefore no government".

These are assertions. They need to be substantiated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
For now, are we in agreement that Man is not good?
You really need to break that down. Good is a very value laden term. It means all sorts of things, and in all sorts of different ways, to different people.

If you mean original sin, then no, I don't believe that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
2. I too was using it in the praxeological sense and I agree that the definition of “rational” is relative especially if Man is Sovereign. Are we in agreement with my second statement?
I don't think you were using it in the praxeological sense, because man is always rational in praxeology (unless he is suffering some mental derangement or affliction).

It has nothing to do with sovereignty.

I agree with your statement, but again, it implies a value. Long term thinking is irrational when faced with short term crisis or opportunity. What you're basically saying is, "man can adapt", and I agree and I believe and he should do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
3. While you cannot provide absolute surety, you can protect Man against many actions should those actions be under duress, distress, or from a poor decision something not within AnCap.
It's irrational to do so.

Since we can't actually make it work in any objective sense, the next question is, what moral authority does one man have to direct the life of another man? What cause and justification?

Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
a) You are correct, but I am moving toward the idea that absolute freedom is not the ideal.
Performative contradiction. Without absolute freedom, you don't have the freedom to reject absolute freedom.

Be careful what you move towards. It sounds like you're still trying to confirm your pre-existing bias than to break it down and justify it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
b) First, this is a logical conclusion that you may find obvious, but once again you would not allow me to get away with it.
It wasn't a statement of fact. It was an observation. What we see, and what is real, are not always the same thing because there is a gap between our ability to perceive and process, and the nature of reality.

That's WHY we use logic. To make sure our observations are not arbitrary, but at the least, are congruent with one another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
c) I am doing my best to leave religion out of this. Jesus tolerated everyones' intentional Sovereign decisions to be separate from God. When I say say Sovereign in the religious sense it should be understood appropriately. When man derives morality from himself he is separating Himself from God. But that is for a different thread.
Don't leave religion out. Those are your values. I have values. We shouldn't be afraid to square our ideas with our values. If we are, then there is something very wrong with either our values, our ideas or both.

Jesus was very tolerant. He kept the company of people who did not believe as he did. He did not try to use force to get anyone to act any way.

Jesus believed in free will. Christians, by extension, should also respect free will IMO.
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 04:43 PM   #236
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by -joe- View Post
Depends. How do you define the political process? The political process in the majority of countries is for candidates to spread their views, and then people vote on who they want in power. In this system, there would be one "candidate", who would be stating the benefits and negatives of anarchy, people would be totally free to consider any further negatives or positives, and then they'd vote on whether they wanted the system changed. If they didn't, then a full statist election could go ahead.
The system doesn't change by voting though. Anarchism shouldn't be dependent on a majority vote.

If people want to be anarchists, they should be allowed to be anarchists. They don't need to engage in a process of permissioning themselves.

That's sort of like you taking a vote before you decide what to eat. You're the only voter who matters!

I am ok with people running for office as anarchists, but they will get as much traction as a nun in a whorehouse. The failing of Ron Paul is that he actually got elected, and so to maintain his platform, he had to make small compromises that the system forced him to make, but he wouldn't have had to make if he had been outside the system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -joe- View Post
Ah, got it. Wasn't sure if that was what you meant, but didn't want to put words in your mouth. In which case, it would be up to the new, possibly temporary "king" to be moral; and to convince the people of his/her morality.
I'm not trying to be difficult, but why would we need a temporary king? If you get anarchism and you want to live that way, just do it. You shouldn't need to engage in the delusion of having a faux government.

This is why minarchists are actually worse than marxists. They refuse to address the fundamental error in establishing a state, instead thinking that if they fiddle around the margins and with the size, they can make something wrong, right.

Marxists on the other hand hate everything political, but they think that they have to exploit politics to destroy it.

A lot of libertarians are former Marxists who come to realize you don't have to destroy politics to get rid of it. You just have to reject it outright.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -joe- View Post
Theoretically, could it work if the "king" was moral, had a firm belief in anarchy, and was able to handle power on that scale?
This is sort of like a liar who believes in telling the truth. lol

No man can handle power on that scale, which is precisely why government is irrational (unless your ends are to dominate, hurt and loot people)
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 01:32 AM   #237
Napolean
Mr. Meseeks
 
Napolean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Peekamoose
Posts: 804
iTrader: 0 / 50%
Napolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
1. Are we then in agreement that “No Man is consistently good?” or do we need to define “good”?
We are not in agreement and we do not need to define "good", only because neither or us could possibly make such an assertion with absolute certainty.

There could be thousands or millions of perfectly good men who were never written about in history. A single person doing good throughout their lives doesn't automatically change the world, and is a lot less likely to be noticed than a person who has only done one wrong thing in their life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
2. The is hardly a serious answer and implies not only poor selection but also a gross generality that I am surprised was looked at as serious. Had I said such a thing I would have been chastised.
No, it is a serious answer.

If I am reading your response correctly, then you are saying that I am wrong to assume that the wrong people would be chosen for appropriate long term planning. If this is what you meant, can you show me where my scenario is not a rampant problem with today's policy makers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
3. Statist and AnCap systems both have armed men chosen by Men who are not good. Assuming we agree to #1. Both systems have Men who are authorized to violate others in the enforcement of their respective systems.. Is that even under debate? Because it is a clear fact within both systems.
Statist systems have armed men who have only one purpose, which is to violate others, whether they consent or not. In a voluntary society you get what you dish out in terms of violence. If you don't initiate aggression against others, then you will not be dealing with aggression, except in the case of self-defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
a) Who would make that claim? I have not.
Was your post not a criticism of AnCap/Voluntarism/Anarchism?

If everyone agreed that no man knew what was best for all living and future men, then nobody would find a constitution necessary, nobody would find government necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
b) This statement is clearly wrong. Do you really believe this? You can argue for Free Market Sovereignty, but you cannot say that Man always knows what is best for himself. Not only that, you cannot say that Man acts in a way that is consistent with what even believes is best for Himself.
I'd rather make my own mistakes, then let someone else make my mistakes for me. At least I have an idea of how to fix my mistakes when I make them.

It's human nature to test the boundaries of what you should do, and what you should not do. When you continuously do the wrong thing for yourself, we actually have biological mechanisms in place that alert us to this (anxiety). When that pressure becomes too great, we are compelled to change our actions for the better.

When you leave it to somebody else to solve your problems, they still have these same boundaries but in respect to what is best for you, when they know they are doing the wrong thing for you, they at best feel guilt. Guilt alone is not enough pressure to alter actions to improve somebody else's situation. They don't feel anxiety until they have ruined enough lives to put their own job in jeopardy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by REIMktg View Post
c) The premises are not valid. The conclusion is not either. You can argue that Man is Sovereign and therefore can make His own decisions, but you cannot say he “knows” nor will “act” in a way to “better” Himself, unless you define “better” as relative and inclusive of advancement toward an end that many would consider “worse”.
I can argue that man is sovereign and that alone would be valid, but that wasn't my argument. My argument is everything you have presented falls into circular logic that should immediately show you that your thinking is flawed.

Napolean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 04:58 AM   #238
p0ck3taces
Define title
 
p0ck3taces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,002
iTrader: 45 / 96%
p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces
Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
No, I addressed your security concerns. I pointed the implicit things you have to buy in to, in order to satisfy your need for infinite security.

Also, ethics are important, because that's what separates us from animals. If you can't have an ethical discussion with me, you're yielding the high ground. You're basically admitting, that I can't treat you with, or expect, rational behavior from you.

That's a pretty huge deal.
Am I?

Living purely by ethics = living rationally?

Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
All of you guys arguing that ethics aren't a primary concern, then what your position means is

* There is no right and wrong (ex. anything we do for security is implicitly right, such as rationalizing the shoving of Jews into ovens as security for the Aryan race)
* There is no concept of humanity (man is just an animal, the strongest animal, but an animal just the same)
* There is no possibility for good behavior based on values, only violence (we're fundamentally incapable of getting along in the absence of violence, and all of our peaceful relationships are only the result of violence. Our wives and children love us because they know we will kick their ass if they don't)
Life really works like this? In complete absolutes?

Or does it work more like balancing a scale and choosing the lesser of two evils?

Were the statists not eventually spurred to action from the horrors they saw? But surely statists did not understand right or wrong since they were willing to live under the state?

Quote:
Without values and first principles, "man" is no different than an animal.

You're welcome to disagree. I'd love to hear what makes a man a man, rather than an animal in your opinion.
Really? Interesting. So man developed "values" and this is what set him apart from animals?

I thought the simple difference was consciousness, anything past that is purely speculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Napolean View Post
Why would he need to require his own people to do anything?

What kind of threats would he have to make to get his people to fight, that weren't already presented by the invading force?
Take a second and look what happened to the indians. Their tribes were picked off one by one. People have a tendency to care locally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Napolean View Post
Their logic follows "to protect us from outside threats we must have inside threats", and its insane that they don't see there isn't a difference between either.
Again, do we live in absolutes or do we decide based on a scale?

People currently see the threats from inside the state as less threatening then the threats from outside the state, simple as that.

Quote:
So again, if you don't like my posts, don't read my fucking thread. We, and the world around us, will get on just fine without you.
Like I said, playing the devils advocate to attack your tact.

It's fun to argue with absolutes, but is that how humans make decisions?

Should it be?

Guerilla, you seem to be stating choosing to live purely by ethical values is living rationally, anything else is irrational behavior.

You currently live in the state and therefore support the state. Your ethics tell you this is wrong. What keeps you here? Is it irrational behavior that keeps you here? OR are you here because you have weighed your options rationally and decided even though you do not agree with the laws forced upon you by the state, it is not plausible or advantageous for you to live outside the state?

Did you not make ethics a secondary concern when making this decision?

Was your decision then irrational because of this?

Which brings me to why I argued to have you focus more on people's issues with security (or focusing on whatever people's issues may be). If we agree people make decisions based off choosing the lesser of two evils in a given situation, rather then absolutes, then we must attack what makes our side of the scale lower in the eyes of those we wish to influence - whatever this may be for whoever we may wish to influence.
p0ck3taces is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 05:13 AM   #239
p0ck3taces
Define title
 
p0ck3taces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,002
iTrader: 45 / 96%
p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces p0ck3taces
Just like it would be a waste of time for me to argue ethics with you (guerilla) in trying to influence you to leave the US and stop supporting the state (as you obviously already intimately know the ethics behind the decision you're making and have decided based on other reasons) - so it is a waste of time for you to argue ethics to anyone else who this isn't their prime concern/reason.

If ethics isn't even a primary concern for you, how can you expect it to be the primary concern held by others?

I believe many here are able to easily see ethics as a pro on the anarchy's side of the scale - it's what's on the state's side of the scale you must focus on (whatever that might be for whoever you are talking to).
p0ck3taces is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 07:36 AM   #240
Napolean
Mr. Meseeks
 
Napolean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Peekamoose
Posts: 804
iTrader: 0 / 50%
Napolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by p0ck3taces View Post
You currently live in the state and therefore support the state. Your ethics tell you this is wrong. What keeps you here?
Gravity.
Napolean is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Ad
Old 10-25-2012, 01:47 PM   #241
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by p0ck3taces View Post
Living purely by ethics = living rationally?
Are you trying to argue with me that your an ethical nihilist capable of acting rationally?

If so, I will yield the point that you don't believe in any ethics at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by p0ck3taces View Post
Life really works like this? In complete absolutes?
I think you mean "reality" when you say "life". Is reality objective? Am I really at my computer, and not also in China at the same time. Is an apple different and distinct from an orange?

I'd say reality is objective, how we feel about it is subjective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by p0ck3taces View Post
Or does it work more like balancing a scale and choosing the lesser of two evils?
That's a value judgement. I prefer to abstain rather than choose evil. I think that is the only ethical choice.

It's also a false premise that there are only two choices. There is always the ethical choice of withdrawing, seceding, abstaining etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by p0ck3taces View Post
Were the statists not eventually spurred to action from the horrors they saw? But surely statists did not understand right or wrong since they were willing to live under the state?
What horrors? Sounds like a movie narrative.

People understand right and wrong. They tend to look the other way when doing wrong is profitable or has little to no consequences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by p0ck3taces View Post
Really? Interesting. So man developed "values" and this is what set him apart from animals?
Man doesn't develop values, he has values, and he is able to pursue them rationally. THIS is what makes him different than an animal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by p0ck3taces View Post
I thought the simple difference was consciousness, anything past that is purely speculation.
It's not speculation. The whole of the social sciences are devoted to understanding this.

Also, what is consciousness? Aren't animals conscious? If so, how is it a differentiating factor?

Quote:
Originally Posted by p0ck3taces View Post
Take a second and look what happened to the indians. Their tribes were picked off one by one. People have a tendency to care locally.
You're making the anarchist argument here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by p0ck3taces View Post
Like I said, playing the devils advocate to attack your tact.
I don't have a problem with you playing the devil or his advocate, but shallow stuff like this doesn't allow me to lay out an exposition for other readers. It would be helpful if at the minimum, you spent some time thinking through some good arguments, or researching the topic before challenging the subject.

What I am saying, is that a good devil's advocate is better than a mediocre one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by p0ck3taces View Post
It's fun to argue with absolutes, but is that how humans make decisions?
Well, we live in reality, which is objectively there, and has objective attributes.

Humans make decisions rationally, their subjective ends drive them to derive means from their knowledge, upon which they act.

Bad information, bad means. Bad means, ends might not get achieved. And ends, well, ethics plays a part in both the means and ends.

Quote:
Originally Posted by p0ck3taces View Post
Should it be?
Should is an "ought". I don't argue "oughts". Values are subjective from person to person.

I am more concerned that people align their values with reality, so they can achieve those values.

Quote:
Originally Posted by p0ck3taces View Post
Guerilla, you seem to be stating choosing to live purely by ethical values is living rationally, anything else is irrational behavior.
That's incorrect.

You can't live rationally without ethics. As stated up thread, I use rational in the Praxeological sense, not as laymen do. Laymen use rational and irrational to mean right and wrong. A better use might be "by design", "absent design".

Quote:
Originally Posted by p0ck3taces View Post
You currently live in the state and therefore support the state.
The state threatens me and those I love with force if we don't comply. I don't support the state anymore than slaves supported slavery or rape victims support rape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by p0ck3taces View Post
Your ethics tell you this is wrong. What keeps you here?
The entire world has states all over it. And changing states isn't easy.

Most of you guys don't have a clue who I am. Playing the "let's talk about you personally game" is lame and doesn't make your argument. Even if I was a hypocrite, that doesn't validate your position. On the contrary, you look like a very small person for trying to insinuate something about my values.

Quote:
Originally Posted by p0ck3taces View Post
Did you not make ethics a secondary concern when making this decision?
lol, you need to read back to a proper definition of rational/irrational as posted above. You're arguing nonsense at this point. In fact, realizing you don't have solid definitions of these terms, or a conception of the definition I am using, your entire post needs a rethink.

Quote:
Originally Posted by p0ck3taces View Post
Which brings me to why I argued to have you focus more on people's issues with security (or focusing on whatever people's issues may be). If we agree people make decisions based off choosing the lesser of two evils in a given situation, rather then absolutes, then we must attack what makes our side of the scale lower in the eyes of those we wish to influence - whatever this may be for whoever we may wish to influence.
Already addressed above. Please come back more when you have a better argument.

In the meantime, I want to ask you

Do you believe in right and wrong? I presume you do, because you mentioned lesser evil, but just to be clear, is there a right and a wrong?

Can you explain why something is right and something is wrong?

Now we're talking about ethics.
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 03:50 PM   #242
Moxie
Jedi Knight
 
Moxie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,176
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Moxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond reputeMoxie has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
Man doesn't develop values, he has values, and he is able to pursue them rationally. THIS is what makes him different than an animal.
Humans are born with a "mathematical brain", but it still needs to be cultivated. Feral children and those raised in highly abusive environments tend to have different values than the rest.

Cavemen brains and their sense of values were quite a bit different than today's human. So I would say that man does/did develop values, both on an individual basis and also as a species.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk]Frans de Waal: Moral behavior in animals - YouTube[/ame]



Evolution of morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Moxie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 04:56 PM   #243
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
Values != Morals != Ethics.

We sloppily conflate these, but they are all separate ideas.
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 04:14 AM   #244
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
Video

Doug Casey is one of the foremost anarcho-capitalist businessmen. I am a big fan personally, I think he has figured out that being a cult leader is far less awesome than being rich.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w11jxc8WhR4]Doug Casey on how to Hedge Against Political Risk in the Greater Depression - YouTube[/ame]


I also featured one of his talks (@ Libertopia) in the OP.
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 04:32 AM   #245
Kiopa_Matt
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,216
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Kiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond reputeKiopa_Matt has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by guerilla View Post
Man doesn't develop values, he has values, and he is able to pursue them rationally. THIS is what makes him different than an animal.
Few things:

1.) Of course man develops values. You even said yourself that humans have "evolved" over the past century, meaning human values have developed, right? When a baby is born, they don't have any values. They develop their values over the course of their life, depending on their experiences.

2.) You're the big stickler for definitions, so humans haven't "evolved" like you mentioned before. We've learned and adapted. Humans evolving would require us to be able to see in the dark better, or something like us being able to live on this planet without having to build houses with furnaces and air conditioners. In reality, we're one of the poorest evolving species on the planet, and the only reason we're not extinct is because of our massive brains. We can adapt to our environment like no other species can.

3.) There's various things that separate humans from other species, such as forward thinking, ability to walk upright, and probably the most important, the ability to clearly communicate ideas to each other.
Kiopa_Matt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 06:47 AM   #246
cheeseman
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 15
iTrader: 0 / 0%
cheeseman has a reputation beyond reputecheeseman has a reputation beyond reputecheeseman has a reputation beyond reputecheeseman has a reputation beyond reputecheeseman has a reputation beyond reputecheeseman has a reputation beyond reputecheeseman has a reputation beyond reputecheeseman has a reputation beyond reputecheeseman has a reputation beyond reputecheeseman has a reputation beyond reputecheeseman has a reputation beyond repute
I have ears and I hear.

Thanks for the info guerilla, luke and others.
cheeseman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 02:07 PM   #247
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 08:21 PM   #248
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
From one of the truly great Americans, Lysander Spooner (No Treason)

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit.

He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travelers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these.

Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands.

He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 11:21 PM   #249
tomaszjot
Membership Suspended
 
tomaszjot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Albany Plantation
Posts: 1,935
iTrader: 17 / 100%
tomaszjot has a reputation beyond reputetomaszjot has a reputation beyond reputetomaszjot has a reputation beyond reputetomaszjot has a reputation beyond reputetomaszjot has a reputation beyond reputetomaszjot has a reputation beyond reputetomaszjot has a reputation beyond reputetomaszjot has a reputation beyond reputetomaszjot has a reputation beyond reputetomaszjot has a reputation beyond reputetomaszjot has a reputation beyond repute
I've got another question. Again, quite personal.

How is a anarchist parent different from non-anarchist parent? I'm not thinking about passing your views or ideology, that is understood. I think about your views about child using drugs and whatever child may consider its personal freedom etc.
tomaszjot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 01:24 AM   #250
guerilla
All we do is win
 
guerilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: No
Posts: 11,428
iTrader: 91 / 100%
guerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond reputeguerilla has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaszjot View Post
I've got another question. Again, quite personal.

How is a anarchist parent different from non-anarchist parent? I'm not thinking about passing your views or ideology, that is understood. I think about your views about child using drugs and whatever child may consider its personal freedom etc.
There is a peaceful parenting movement within the broader voluntarist or anarcho-capitalist movement.

It's about talking to your kids before they do drugs or having sex or whatever, and creating an environment where they can talk to you about the choices they are making (and mistakes they make) instead of doing it in secrecy or shame.

Children are just little people with superior morals to adults. I don't have kids, but if I did, I would have to treat them with the same dignity I expect from them.

It really comes down to thinking about the role of the parent. Your job isn't to control your children, it's to teach them how to protect themselves. You can't do that if you exercise violence against them. You're hurting them to keep them from getting hurt, another classic contradiction.
guerilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Story of Stuff zimok Shooting The Shit 1 10-21-2009 12:57 PM
Twitter Site with potential for grey hat stuff dsm56 Misc. Products/ Software/ Services 1 03-23-2009 10:44 AM
developing a domain with affiliate stuff marcom10 Affiliate Marketing 12 02-01-2009 07:48 PM
Good example of a landing page for That Berry Acai stuff? Abel1337 Affiliate Marketing 21 11-19-2008 04:23 AM
How stuff works Jan Newbie Questions 8 09-08-2006 02:52 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.2.9 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
WickedFire.com Copyright © 2016 - WickedFire is an international registered Trademark of Coastal Synergy LLC. You may not use any of our trademarks, copyrights, content, or images without a written approval by members of Coastal Synergy LLC. "Banners on this site that promote Wickedfire are satire unless clearly stamped as REAL".
Switch to Mobile Layout