Leaderboard

“But Scott, the emphasis on him successfully persuading doesn’t deal with the fact that what he would be persuading someone towards or the country toward may not be a good thing. Ok, so for instance I think he is someone who is so morbidly selfish, then again this is not me with a crystal ball, this is me just looking at how he’s lived his life, the kinds of things he’s done, the kinds of things he says about himself, he’s put himself first to such a pathological degree that I think he’s capable of committing treason or something like treason without even noticing it. Because there is no sense at all that he has the public good in mind when he’s acting, so the fact that he’s a good persuader even if I were to grant you that, and there’s one thing that I want to flag here that you just said that I think is manifestly not true which is that none of his lies have harmed our society. I think that all of his lies have harmed our society. I think the fact that we have a president who lies and everyone knows it and no one can really trust what he has said until the facts come out, I think that has done immense harm to the world frankly”. -Sam Harris He says this at around the 43-45 minute mark and like, none of it is an argument. I know very little about Sam Harris but isn’t he supposed to be an intellectual? Like, a smart person? This is pure sophistry, wtf is this?? He claims that Trump is morbidly selfish, and yet Trump put his reputation on the line, wore bullet proof vests, received thousands of death threats when he didn’t have to. He hired tens of thousands of people, helping them put food on their tables. How is any of this selfish? “this is me just looking at how he’s lived his life, the kinds of things he’s done, the kinds of things he says about himself, he’s put himself first to such a pathological degree that I think he’s capable of committing treason or something like treason without even noticing it”. Like, none of this is a fucking argument! “The kinds of things he says about himself” isn’t a fucking argument. And at the 45 min mark his metric as to how the end times are upon us, brought on by Trump is that lots of people are politically engaged and talking about politics! In other words, he believes that if the masses were ignorant and hated political engagement, then the world would be a wonderful place. Can anyone tell me what his views on Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are? What is his political affiliation? Has he been paid off? Why is he popular? He’s a filthy fucking sophist.

I'm surprised that you understand the argument, but you're not convinced of it. You're the scientist who believes the earth is flat. Yes, you can respond to violations of the NAP with self-defense, but you are not required to do so. It is not immoral to not act in self-defense. It is not your duty as an anarchist to respond to violations of your NAP with self-defense, just as much as it is not your duty as an atheist to come out as one to your whole fundamentalist muslim family. You say "I personally view". You view it as the price for living in a civilized society, which makes it consensual on your part. Just because you consent to something, doesn't make the action consensual for everyone else. Example: A man in a bar starts flirting with a woman and after a while insists to kiss her, she lets it happen and thereby consents to it (let's just assume they're both sober, or tipsy at best.) He gets bored with her very quickly and finds a new prey, but this time he skips the flirting and kisses an unexpected woman. She's outraged and screams at him. Just because the first woman consented, it doesn't follow that the second woman will consent. And even if the first woman claims to consent for the other woman, the second woman is still not consenting, because you cannot consent for another person. If that was the case, we'd be living in a very different world right now.. My question to you: Do you agree that one cannot consent for another, and that if you consent, it doesn't follow that the next person will? If yes, do now you accept that taxation is theft? If no, would I be morally justified in taking your savings if I think/say/view that you consent to that?

you say taxation is theft. okay fine. then theft is a violation of the non aggression principle right? and you can respond to violations of the non aggression principle with self defense right? so, that means you can respond to taxation with self defense. so, if you don't agree to taxation, don't pay them and when they come for you, gun them down. its your duty as an anarchist. now i personally dont view tax as theft. i view it as the price i pay for living in a civilized society. i used to view it as theft until i thought this argument through. either i give up tax as theft, i give up theft as a violation of the non aggression principle, or i give up self defense as a response to violations of the non aggression principle, or i wager war on the government.