Agalloch

Consumerism? People who are against cconsumerism and not the State, or at least Central Banking, blow my mind. The entire philosophy behind The pro-inflation, Keynsian Central Banking concept, is that deflation could signal less demand in the economy, so we need to force inflation to actively force people to spend more and not save and plan. Which is stupid in itself, sort of like putting makeup on a jaundice person and saying that fixed any medical problems they might have. But as well as being internally contradictary, none of the people I hear whining about consumerism ever talk about this. Even though it's single handedly the primary reason people spend instead of saving, and spend quickly and brashily instead of risking their money devaluing.

There was no before the universe, you're ignoring time. You can't rewind time, you're just using that as a weird euphemism for examining the evidence, which is a reasonable thing todo to get to a conclusion. You again forget time though, everything started from the same point in time, or more precisely, all time was also in that point; Which leads onto the next sentence, that point in space didn't come from anywhere, that point is existence, time and space, if it didn't "exist", then the concept existence wouldn't be.

Strawmen, false dichotomies, you're just throwing these logical fallacies out like they're nothing. I never said 2 was immoral, I never said giving someone money to do something is immoral.

I don't think you know what a range is. They are immoral because they're objectively immoral, not because of my personal opinion. And its immoral to have someone killed. So 1 and 5 are both not having someone killed. How can the two extremes of your range not cover the point?

I said they're both immoral. Ulbricht didn't successfully have someone murdered. So I already answered that question. However there's more to it than that, because I don't think Hitler or Bush would be immoral if their commands were ignored, because they use the rhetoric of the state and would be nothing but blabbering madmen using euphemism. Ulbricht in the other hand was precise and honest in his attempts to have someone murdered and is unambiguously immoral.

Ulbricht didn't forget to hire someone to commit murder. He thought he had sucessfully hired someone to commit murder. Forgetting something is neither thought nor action. Sharing a thought is another euphemism. That's like saying screaming at your children is sharing a thought. Describe what they actually did, they hired/convinced people to commit murder. And I'm not talking about meaningless "incitement" but direct interaction with the murderer with specific targets in mind. Do you also believe Hitler and George Bush to be completely innocent of crime? Because they never murdered anyone themselves either. Also, can whoever voted me down provide a reason? I thought the purpose of that feature was for unhelpful comments, not arguments you disagree with. I'd much rather have a debate than somebody anonymously pretend they've shown me.

You can literally talk to people aboard the ISS with amateur radio. And if you know anything about Amateur Radio you're very unlikely to be tricked. While it's theoretically possible to fake such a thing, most ways of doing it can be detected/noticed and they will have fooled some of the greatest radio experts on earth. Not to mention you don't need much of a telescope to see it.

Thoughts seems an odd euphemism? As far as I understand Ulbricht attempted to hire someone to commit murder? That's not a thought, that's an action. As for Manson, he didn't just have thoughts, or commit the non-crime of incitement for others choices; he proactively indoctrinated and commamded the actions of others. Also, where's the comparison? They're both genuinely immoral people.

1. The free market is human beings. Nuclear technology was created to create nuclear bombs. Nuclear bombs exist to exterminate lots of human beings. Human beings are the free market... 2. "The incentive wouldn't be there" pretty much answers your own criticism. I didn't say "couldn't", I said "doesn't". Also, as well as incentives, people outside the State lack the psychopathy, hubris and most importantly - and probably even a "couldn't" - they lack funding because noone would pay for that. 3. What product? Also, I meant to say just "market", not free market, my bad. By the way, war isn't caused by scarce resources, that's an excuse. War is a typically Statist phenomena that uses false external pretenses like energy to steal tonnes more from the local population. I don't know where people get this idea that war has anything todo with scarce resources at the same time they peacefully purchase so many scarce resources every single day...

1. Unlimited free energy is impossible. That's important because there's probably not an reasonable example for your question... Nuclear technology is exclusively Statist, the free market doesn't create products that destroy itself. 2. Humanity doesn't abuse technology, the State does. 3. The free market is much more adaptive than the State, it will use technology to free itself from it, see the Internet, Public Key Encryption, Bitcoin, Tor (original a State project I know) etc. What great technology have you invented Level_One, that you need to ponder this about? If people will pay you for it, sell it, an Engineer isn't special, he doesn't have less chance of abusing a technology, so the fact he ponders these things - despite his hubris - implies that the vast majority of people will also not abuse the technology.

Privacy isn't a principle, it's a euphemism. As I've already stated, a public conversation isn't analogous to accessing a wireless routers data, so you're trying to prove a principle in one situation and then apply it inaccurately to another. You seem to have the impression that because of your limited understanding of philosophy and probably less than equal to my knowledge about wireless technology and cracking that somehow I'm lacking in information, please don't pass your burden on to me. Of course you are accessing the router when you intentionally intercept and interpret data it is broadcasting. You are completely aware of what you are interpreting, it isn't just magical floating data without a source, and you need some idea where it came from to decypher it. How hardware can determine whether the information is for them is clearly layed out in the 802.11 standard, so there's no ambiguity that you are accessing data from a router not intended for your use. Just because you don't touch the router with your bare hands is silly, the same would happen if you accessed a telelphone cable outside someone's property.

@Frosty: Well I was specifically responding to Bradford62's comment, "I agree that the ability to duplicate something does blur the line between right and wrong" which makes no reference to even the inaccurate claim that contract violation is wrong only because it's "theft". However, your comment "available to copy (duplicate) which precludes it from being theft, something that is commonly misunderstood with copyright" heavily implies that you also misunderstand the situation. We definitely don't agree on privacy, as I stated earlier in the thread: You don't require euphemisms like privacy to see why it's wrong to knowingly interpret electromagnetic waves from a device you don't have permission to access. A public place is likely a violation of private property. Also this is exactly the kind of jump you only get when using euphemisms like privacy. What does a public conversation have todo with Wireless router ownership?

@Frosty, Bradford62: In relation to your shared incorrect basis that loss is required for something to be immoral... Rape? Assault? Almost every contract violation? That was just a silly thing to agree to, to be honest. Just because someone else says it could only be equivelant to theft and can't be because a fourth a party arbitarily describes theft as requiring the owner to have no access, doesn't make any of that true.

I know what hacking is, and it has nothing to do with privacy, which is why I questioned the term and used cracking in my post as that was clearly your intention. You can't use Stallman's definition of Hacker, with the public connotations of hacker, that's basically new speak. You continue to talk in euphemisms and vagueness. "through technical weaknesses can be discovered" doesn't actually describe the actual physical interactions, Are you now arbitarily restricting yourself to only Wi-Fi snooping? Again though, you're using vagueness to hide the real actions. Wi-Fi isn't magical floaty data, it's an electromagnetic communication standard that requires physical hardware, which you don't have permission to access, and you are fully aware of what you are accessing when you snoop on that information. Otherwise, ISP's do factor, not because your victim has an ISP, but because I very much doubt you have a direct legal hardline to the internet backbone with no contractual stipulations, and so you are likely breaking explicit or implicit restrictions with your own ISP. Hiding the immoral actions doesn't make them go away. Just because I say my shop is moral because I'm selling items voluntarily, doesn't mean the fact all my shops merchandise is stolen is suddenly moral. Provide an explicit situation instead of saying "might be self provisioned", or other vagueness. Morality is about actions, not euphemisms like privacy. The law also sets down the rules for paying in Restaurants. Do you think a Libertarian society would have restraunts that want you to leave without paying? My point about the Law was clear, ISP's would restrict these activities if the State didn't.

Not read much of this post, read about two lines of the OP starting "I'm a hacker (sic, cracker?)..." Obvious first thought was to see if I could add to the only important discussion to be had given ops misunderstanding of his potential behaviour, so I did a search for "ISP" and couldn't find it. I don't think they use a different term in the Americas, so in worried as to what is being discussed here... Words like privacy are euphemisms, not for moral situations where privacy is an invalid moral category, but for the results of immoral actions. Much like free speech isn't a natural right but an arbitraty set of situations in which people wish government was actually restrivted, invading someone's privacy often involves more simple immoral actions. So disvudd them, not the useless concept of privacy. Which brings me back to, why has nobody mentioned the OPs ISP? He implies all his access is remote, as he doesn't engage in social engineering, and that he doesn't access the internet usually, as that udually requires physical access which denies someone's property rights. In that case, the op is likely breaking an explicit or implicit contract with their service provider, which they're fully in their rights to have given that the internet isn't some magical floating mass of information but accessed through the numerous physical devices the ISP is allowing the op access to. As for the implicit contract, everyone understands that cracking is unwanted, and no contract will bother mentioning it if the law says that it is a given. As such, its a more than reasonable thing to consider contractual between ISP and op.

I know the point you were making, which is why I pointed out your fallacy. If pre-existing brain structure is determined by abuse suffered, and not all those who suffer these specific abuses went on to commit those actions, then "brain structure" alone doesn't determine action and freedom of choice is still relevant. You're a dick, bananas are blue, rabbit soup, blamertyblurgh. Don't forget to not criticise these comments, every experience i've ever had lead me to this point cock sucker.

What do you mean by "concerns"? You are welcome to ignore any posts you think aren't contributing, and respond only to those you find stimulating. Monitoring the forum for worse content than that is the job of the moderators.

1) If there's involuntary slavery, it isn't a free market. 2) Keeping slaves is really expensive, the Government tends to enforce it and subsidise the costs of things like policing slaves. 3) The free market breeds ingenuity, ingenuity favours intelligence, intelligence tends to come with morality, slave keeping isn't moral. Or more simply, humans want to be better, and slavery isn't better. 4) Without the State making it illegal, there's a relatively limitless (how much would you pay to return family members, or even unknown children/women from slavery?) market in the prevention of and destruciton of slave traders and slave markets. 5) Organised crime, like slavery, often comes from Government regulation. Just as there is little crime in alcohol today, I imagine less crime in areas that use slavery, like prostitution and labour, where those things aren't crimes.

I was really convinced by this argument the first time I read it, but I'm afriad I missed the really common and obvious logical error, you got your implications completely backwards! "Why is it that a very disproportionate number of rapists were neglected and abused as children themselves?" actually says nothing, the non-existant statistic you are looking for is: Why is it that a very disproportionate number of neglected and abused children are rapists? would actually support your argument, but unfortunatley no such study exists that I can find. Of course the vast majority of rapists were neglected and abused as children, that's a prerequisite. It's like asking why the vast majority of people who murder with chainsaws grafted to their stumps were involved in accidents in which they lost an arm. Healthy people don't tend to become rapists. However, have you considered all the people that were abused to the same extent, and then didn't go on to become rapists? Not that they just magically didn't want to, despite the sexual horrors that they had suffered, but those that at least choice not to act out their desires, and those that sought help, as many here have, to attempt to erase the affects of their traumas.

This article heavily implies that the babies mothers, their primary care givers and protecters, were complicit in the acts, If it says anything about Gender it says a lot more about them, but I don't think it has anything to do with Gender.

I want to say this situation us rare, but that's rubbish,. This situation had never and will never happen to the point that it's practically impoosible. These aren't moral questions. Also, why does this matter? The NAP applys to real life why does it matter that it doesn't apply to situations that never happen? And why does this matter to you? If you can find an unrealiatic situation in which the NAP seems intuiuvely wrong, suddenly it's ok to aggress against people in your own life? I recommend worrying about the application of morality in your own life, using the logically sound framework from which we can reasonably validate the NAP: universally preferable behaviour; instead of trying to disprove it with emotional claims. Finally, you completely ignored my last set of responses and implied that a better example was necessary. Suggesting that I misunderstood and that my reasonable criticisms would be invalid if I just got it better is both terribly rude and an awful debating technique.

Going back in time to kill Hitler isn't a moral question, because time travel is logically meaningless and therefore physically impossible. Also, you might want to look into the Non-Aggression principle, I'm almost completely certain that killing Hitler would under most circumstances, not be working against the principle. Most importantly however, you seem to miss the big picture around your own argument. Hitler murdered literally 1 person by his own hand (and that was Hitler). You try to brush off the non-aggression principle because it won't allow the killing of Hitler, while avoiding the fact that the valid application of the NAP would have prevented those around Hitler from following his orders, from participating in his insanity and from suffering the abuse at the hands of their own parents that created the environment in which so many evil people flourished in early 20th century Germany. I'm pretty certain that State leaders are responsibile for their orders, but it is the Statist infastructure which exists in the minds of those that don't follow the NAP that allows those meglomaniacs orders to become action. Without that, they're just madmen that noone listens to. Finally, people really need to get over this Hitler as the single handed evil of Germany thing. I'm sure he wants central in practical terms to the actual events that took place, but one evil man doesn't make an evil empire. To use the time travel analogy, going back in time to kill Hitler might actually cause millions more deaths under a worse leader. We can be pretty sure though, given the momentum of europe and Germany at the time, that very few lives would have been saved, World War 2 was an inevitable result of past evil.

I associate authority with authority and no other thing. What you describe isn't authority.

And you're now incorrectly giving me the burden of proof. Lack of authority over another human is the default position, our natural state. Some authority is given to others via contract, children are unable to enter into serious contracts, therefore they cannot give away authority, even to their guardians. The burden of proof is on you to show that parents, by virtue of sex, somehow have the right to give orders to a child.

A parent isn't in a position of authority over a child because, they have no authority over the child.