PatrickC

DeepLeftistResistance Ah, that makes more sense now.

Hacker is right, to the extent that in theory communism can be non-violent. If people voluntarily accept it as a way to live their life. However, the disagreement probably lies within the practical application of communism, since it relies entirely on the consensus of the governed. Even anarchic decentralized communism is prone to hierarchical structures, albeit much smaller than at state level. But this still makes it susceptible to tyranny. And since decentralized communism has never existed before, the opposition to it is understandable, given communism has created some of the worst tyrannies in human history. However, I do concede that because it has never existed, doesn't necessarily mean it could never happen.

That's a great point. But like any kind of salesman will tell you, 'find an itch and offer to scratch it'. I think you need to just offer incentives that encourages people to have these scans voluntarily.

It's interesting, as a girlfriend of mine that joins me on a weekly Life drawing exercise, suggested I might start painting again with a view to exhibiting and selling my work. Instead, this week I started to produce some digital art with photography and scanning. Mainly because painting is so messy and I don't have the room to do it in. Nothing worse than the smell of turpentine in your own bedroom.So I look forward to presenting them here first. A bit anxious at putting it out there, as it's been almost 15 years since I did any serious art work. But I figure it will just motivate me more and be more self critical. if I let people know.

This is the fundamental foundation of philosophy in my opinion. Particularly in this age of relativism, which thrives on complicating and mischaracterising the correct definitions of words. You have highlighted some of the best ones of course. But there are so many instances of people using antonyms as their definition in all kinds of conversation and debate. This is a habit that has been picked up by our culture that seeks to undermine philosophy. Sophists are the most obvious example, such as Obama, who is a genius at it frankly. One correction.. war = geneocide

Firstly I want to say this is a great start Tasmlab. Not least because I know this shit is all new to you. So congrats for making a swell effort. Lians touched on a useful point. That activities are often more productive than discpline based study. One of the things the Sudbury school system promoted (particularly for younger kids) was to give the child opportunities to explore areas of interest and then let them decide which area they would like to explore most. This often led to boys not wanting to learn to read and girls often disinterested in physical activities. That said, as they got older they would often meld their interests to some more traditional study, as they found they couldn't pursue their interest further without that knowledge. You could have all kinds of great activities that involve elemental maths. A monumentally dull topic at a discipline level I agree. I recall my father suggesting I count the number of coloured/brands of cars that passed our house. This might seem laughable at first, but was actually very insightful of him, as he had judged correctly my interest in cars back then. I recall doing this for a number of years even up to age 11. As I put them into graphs, patterns and times of the year etc.

Let me confuse things for you.. Philosophy can be objective whilst simultaneously being subjective. I'll explain. Philosophy is really like a bunch of preferences. Which makes it subjective, insofar as I might have all manner of behaviour traits I prefer or detest. The objective part is to universalise some of these preferences. Insofar as people will be in universal agreement with you. This is why UPB is so good, because it's the best attempt so far at bridging that dichotomy.

Yes, that's a good point Andrew. But I think I would deepen the rabbit hole further for them. Compared to the Soviet Union which imposed strict restrictions on travel for its citizens, otherwise known as the 'Iron Curtain'. We now have a system of passports, visa's and immigration restrictions on where we can live and work. We need permission everywhere we go and effectively we still need permission from our existing state to leave (passports). Hence the Snowden dilemma He required official sanction from Putin himself in order to stay in Russia. But even Putin kept to the official rules and legal channels to achieve it. I call it a 'glass curtain' myself. Insofar as we can imagine leaving, but in all likelihood we will either (be) return(ed) or gain permission from a similar state. For the most part though, I tend to agree that these retorts to anarchism are emotionally led. They know they are unproductive and normally outbursts from those not willing to think the unthinkable. These rebuttals they will mostly ignore and scoff at. But, for the few that might be genuinly interested, I can see some productive value in them.

In theory, any group of people in a given geographical location if there is consensus and they are able to buy out any remaining opposition. They can create whatever state, community they like. If people voluntarily agreed to this, including those that came to live within their territory, then what you describe as tax would be more like a subscription. This would be akin to joining a mutual association or cooperative. You are right to point out that what we have now is involuntary association. Therein lies the difference, which is why taxation is still force, because it's derived entirely from that enforced association. Anything else would be called donations, subscriptions or premiums, which are all derived from voluntary association. I would avoid trying to follow the statist line that taxation can be voluntary. It can't by definition. Remembering that definitions are important, not the antonyms people use in an attempt to falsely rephrase those definitions.

Well, that topic is rather broad ranging of course, with lot's of podcasts regarding the family and relationships in general. Defoo is just a general term used to explain where some people have decided they no longer want to have a relationship with their family. However, you can find the first few related podcasts mostly amongst the first 200 or so in volume one.

Yes, I do see technology as making us increasingly more mobile in the future. It's a less talked about new 'travel age' that we have entered compared to the information one. But mostly because travel and working abroad have been highly restricted by passports, visa's and state immigration policies. Once all that goes, it will be interesting to see where people will choose to live. I imagine some significant migration is likely. Perhaps that will be based on old family ties, as much as an improved climate or business prospect, who knows.

They are well known to FDR. To be honest, they are mostly just a handful of malcontents and of no particular concern. Certainly on the surface it doesn't appear that they have grown much since their inception. Of course the more emotionally led critic is drawn to them, since they did a fine job of SEO on linking their content to FDR's. Which is why you always see 'cult' referenced in those Google searches. Stefan actually did address them around the time of the Guardian article in reference to a previous incarnation of the same website under a different name. However, these sites are particularly well known for their consistent slander of both members, Stefan and his family. Albeit that they have toned it down somewhat since Stefan's profile increased, which should tell you something about them. They are a poison well at best. Anyway who doesn't have critics though. I'm guessing Zeitgeist, Alex Jones, even political parties have their fervent (sometimes rational, sometimes irrational) critics. I think it's just a fact of life, at least for now. However, probably appropriate to at least remove reference to the names of those sites mind. After all, if I owned a forum I wouldn't want to advertise (inadvertently) a website that had made viscous attacks upon my family and friends character and continuous to do so.

Ad Block are a donation based business and they call it their 'Honor system'. The developers are deeply involved with their donators views and opinions and are extremely customer focused. https://getadblock.com/pay/ Wikipedia of course. Although, they do have some commercial products that are mostly ad based. On an aside, I now understand better why Stefan avoids advertising. The kind of focus you get from Ad Block as a donator compared to say Facebook, is a whole different experience and much more focused on the end users needs.

A reputation system being new for you. Come now, did Facebook, YouTube or countless other forums allude you.

Surely Magnus, this should be gratis at our grand age in life..

Well, it's funny you mention that. Yes I am of European descent of course. But mostly I have a rather disparate national lineage. Hungarian, English and Scottish. Almost born in Belgium, but mostly lived in North Wales and the south east of England. So it feels more accidental for me. However, by 'accident' I meant more in a philosophical way. Because it's entirely plausible your family could have moved to the US, Canada or Australia potentially. My mother is technically entirely Scottish. Yet most Scots scoff at the idea of me having any Scottish lineage, often based purely on my (English) accent alone. Growing up in Wales wasn't much better either (even with a then welsh accent). Not that it particularly bothers me frankly, but it makes it awkward at attempting to describe oneself in nation terms I think. I'm sure I'm not alone in that experience.

It's at best a very poor analogy then, which is why people may have voted you down. As Emanuel points out, inferring there is a similarity between Stefan's appeals via the internet and Gandhi's appeals within the political classes of India and Britain are somewhat contrived.

Yes, some of Warrens thinking is faulty at times. When he suggests, "does my husband really listen to me?". It assumes that men never or rarely ever listened to their wives, but that their wives always listened to them. Difficult thing to prove frankly.I understand why he does this. Because he is coming from the back foot after a decade or more of vouching for feminist rhetoric. It's a pragmatic approach that in time will be ultimately seen as unhelpful I think.

I partake because I'm pointing out an error in your premises. Apply UPB and then come back to this thread with a better argument. This debate is as circular as all your others I'm afraid. This has more to do with own conclusions than it does with genuine philosophical inquiry. If you don't like that, then fine. This is a public board for which you can and will be criticised.

Yes, you're right, I meant consequentialist.

Then you'll have to concede that your premises is faulty and inconsistent and at best pedantic. It has little to do with philosophical inquiry.

Oh my, this has to be the most ridiculous argument for pragmatism I've ever heard. I hope the previous leader of the libertarian party can now begin to enjoy his life.

Sadly most folk who talk about freedom are normally leftists, even when they imagine they are not. Just listen to the rhetoric, 'equality', 'fairness' et al. Celebrities are often the worst culprits frankly. But I agree, I think it's always useful to break apart their solution tyranny.

I know I've posted this video elsewhere, but as far as Brits go, I have enjoyed this chaps synopsis and commentary on Mutualism and the rise of the welfare state. Anton Howes could be an interesting interview. He calls himself a classical liberal, which presupposes some statist thinking perhaps. That said I think this video highlights very well how the free market can create better services than the state.

Until there is a good argument, that counters the free will one, then fair enough. The trouble is, the board keeps getting the same old tired arguments. If it were my board, I'd probably demand the same reasoning as Stef. It's been fairly droll having to read the same arguments once again recently on a number of threads. Research Stefan's or the boards arguments fully, which has changed on points here and there, then forward it. This isn't about censorship. It's about a good argument.