Agalloch

I'd been really interested to hear if you are still considering this OP? I know I spent a long time considering the options and my budget before getting a place and I still spend, probably too much, time reconsidering and tweaking the budget. I think it would help to keep discussing these issues with people who have the numbers, as you could even come up with a plan to help facilate making this practical in the future instead. Also, in the UK we have a forum at the Money Saving Expert, which is full of people that have practical data and experience. Is there anything similar for the USA that you could reach out on for more practical local information?

I've designed a number of Budgets for myself and Girlfriend, as well as Friends and Family, but I do live in the United Kingdom, which changes not only the currency, but also the relative costs between different expenses, especially due to taxes and certain insurance necessities. You also don't State much about your requirements, costs or options. However, in every tight/poor budget I've ever made, rent tended to be about 30%-35% of income. I tend to assume the exchange rate is about 1/2 for back of the envelope calculations which is interesting because I recently designed a budget for a friend whose pay was around £800 and whose rent was £525, about half of your figures - however, they had a partner earning about £650 a month. This was a really tight budget for someone on not much money, whose circumstances meant that they couldn't afford their lifestyle with any less money. Unfortunately, those circumstances do apply to you, because the main factor that I would reduce in another budget is their car, which costs them around £150 a month in petrol, even with one partner bicycling to work, with £300 for servicing, £50 for Government required work (the MOT), £150 for Government Taxes, £500 for insurance and with most of their £800 a year emergency budget being expected to go to the car in the event of serious repair work. They are also saving up for a house deposit, an unlikely task at the low rate they can save, but which might save you £100 a month in comparison. However, they are considering putting this towards a Car instead, which you'd also want to do, and I have recommended considering keeping at least the first years worth of savings for rent and bills in case of emergency. So that's about £300 a month just to have a car on their budget, which combined with the Rent covers 56% of their tight budget and 100% of yours. If costs are similar for you, I heavily recommend another option. I also recommend coming up with a Budget before hand, based upon your guaranteed average monthly earnings for at least a year and seeing whether it's realistic, especially in the event of Job loss. I for example, despite quite low pay, budget to survive at least 6 months in credit and at least another 6 months on the back of debt just in case. Also, living in the UK, I know nothing about Medical insurance costs, or the cost of uninsured medical fees that you should put away, but am under the impression both numbers are astronomical.

Let's test it! Everyone is on their own separate island, completely isolated from other people. You claim property is the problem, and not illogic, so we will take the ancom view of property: it is unownable, anyone can use anything, and we ignore the moral claims to property that are all actions. Now, words like oppressive, and your claims that contracts become involuntary, require a human oppressor. Otherwise, you're arbitrarily blaming one half of a contractual party for physicsand rewarding the other half. So, either we should be able to find a human oppressor of our islander, or he shouldn't "have' to work. Day 1: nobody but our one islander. With no one around, he isn't "forced" to work. He lazes around all day. Day 2-5: similar, though he feels in physical pain as if assaulted but there's no one around so its not assault or oppression causing him pain. Day 6: our islander dies. I hope I don't have to explain the point? Needless to say, there was no oppressor around. BTW, factories? Has someone been reading too much 19th century communism and not spent much time in the real world? Most labour in my country is not factory based anymore. Now that situation isn't airtight because we can also prove you don't have to work. Its just that the islander was in a situation where he did. So, situation 2: Rich kid inherits £300,000,000, never has to work, the end. Not everyone is so lucky, indeed, but the point is, the requirement to work isn't universal, but personal. Therefore there is no force, of man or nature.

Nope. That's the point of havong the word morality. If they respond arbitrarily then its not morality, its sparblburklunk. Words have meanings to distinguish things. Just saying all those things are subjective is to misunderstand why they have unique words.

No. It's a requirement of the meaning of the word. If moral claims aren't consistent then people can't respond to immoral actions meaningfully. The concept of an inconsistent morality can't exist because its functionally equivelant to garblqarbj.

Well, it's really important that you understand how irrelevant this is to our conversation first. We weren't anywhere near discussing whether morality was subjective because it took you an entire page of discussion to not provide an irrational argument to back up a major logical fallacy. Assuming you now see the major fault in your reasoning, you have to ask yourself sincerely if you can understand the basic logic necessary, or add anything to a conversation about, morality. If i repeat the same flawed argument in another area of expertise than my own and I am shown to be demonstratably out of my depth on numerous occasions, I would probably take a step back from the conversation and work on my basics before asking the most complicated questions in that field. Secondly, morality is still mostly irrelevant whether people think its subjective or not. So ask yourself why you want these answers - though aren't willing to put in the prerequisite amount of effort. The vast majority of people support the state, not because morality is subjective, but by committing major logical contradictions. They take their subjective moral standards and still enforce them.completely incorrectly for the state. Are you just here to argue for your indoctrination? Or because you really care about the answers? If you do, go study some basic logic first, it'll really help you understand and formulate basic arguments. Finally, moral correctness can also be determined from logic. All things on reality can be, because reality is logically consistent. Invalid moral claims lack consistency, universality and contradict the basic meaning of morality, by which action is necessary.

What? No! I'm not saying "1+1=3" is equivelant to the claim "morality of objective"and "1+1=2" is equivelant to the claim "morality is subjective", nor am I claiming the inverse. That wouldn't be an analogy, but a loaded pile of crap. The analogy that was made, quite clearly, was that "1+1=3" is equivelant to "theft is good", and "1+1=2" is equivelannt to "theft is bad". Note, that even reversing the roles of those two parts of the analogy doesn't change the meaning. I'm not applying those definitions to prove either is false, but to demonstrate a fault in your logic. The fault is when you go on to say that the existence of the two claims makes all morality subjective. Can you see those two mathematical claims? Do they make all mathematics subjective? If not, then your premises or reasoning are lacking in something, and you need further proof that morality is subjective. I reallly don't understand why you can't get this. I've asked a couple of my non philosophical friends to read my posts and see if they understood, and they were able to clearly state my position back to me without ambiguity and even accepted that it showed a fault in your logic - though that doesn't matter, as you don't even seem to understand the concept. So what exactly are you not understanding?

Some people think 1+1=3. You don't think 1+1=3. Two different opinions regarding mathematics. Mathematics is subjective. Why don't you understand this? Calling certain statements opinions and then presenting two differing ones does not prove something is subjective.

Not sure what you're saying here. But the analogy isn't flawed.

So... Once again. If I stare that 1+1=3 then all of mathematics becomes subjective because a person holding an incorrect opinion makes all theories subjective?

That's not what is being said. What I meant (as the first person to use the maths analogy) and what peaceful parent likely meant, is that you haven't provided an answer to "1+1". But your proof that morality is subjective, applied to mathematics, means that if anyone says "1+1=3" then mathematics is subjective.

Erm... No? I'm no expert on logic, but allow me an analogous parody. When people are enlightened to learn that the expected value on the government lottery is negative, they will hold the belief that this minor physical inconvenience not applying to their lives is well worth the utilitarian result of winning the lottery. They will subjectively believe their stupidity is better than reality. Therefore mathematics is subjective! As you can see, people holding a belief is not the same as those beliefs all being correct and therefore the theory those beliefs refer to being subjective. In fact, people can just be wrong...

Possibly. 1. Are they being immoral about the contract? Aka, are they breaching contract? Has your bank broken any of the agreed terms? What does the contract state should happen in that case? 2. Was it possible to be aware that they were immoral prior to engaging in the Contract? Yes, the information on the banking system is out there. Though I still think this requires 3... 3. Does there immorality have any bearing on the Contract? Does your banks immorality in some way prevent you from paying back the money you agreed? No, where they get the money from has little bearing on your paying. Infact, inflation makes it easier... 4. By diassociate do you mean pay back the money? If I find out my car dealer is intentionally making cars dangerous, I don't disasocciate by keeping the car, I disassociate by giviing the car back and walking away. If your bank is being immoral or breaking contract terms with no stipulation as to what should happen in that case, then you should be able to walk away, after giving them back the money in full. Sure, leave the contract, after giving back what you took. If that money is immorally gained, then the rightful owner can make moves to regain it, but you are not the victim! You simply benefit from their actions. That last point is the one that most speaks to me... You are not the Victim here!

I've been thinking alot about this. Consider the stolen goods scenario. You buy some stolen Jeans off the back of a van. Once justice catches up with the thief, their are two possible courses for you and your jeans. 1) You keep the Jeans, they were stolen and therefore couldn't legitimately be sold to you, so now they're legitimately yours. 2) You give back the jeans, they were stolen and therefore couldn't legitimately be sold to you, so they're not legitimately yours. Obviously, it's the second case. While this isn't meant to be a direct analogy - hopefully you'll get your money back from the jeans sale - the point is that there is no rational scenario in which the illegitemacy of the money means you for some reason get to keep it. It wasn't stolen from ellesante35, and unless he's going to fairly distributed it among the whole of his country, he can't claim it was stolen through inflation either. Sure, it might not be the banks to loan, but then it's can't be yours now!

Well then Stef is wrong, because that premise is wrong, and therefore your analogy is wrong. Why are you in the desert and so thirsty? What has the individual that sold you this water for all your possessions done wrong such that he should be robbed? I'm surprised Stef would give any answer to such a trolley problem, but at any rate,you should definitely honour the contract, there's absolutely nothing special about the situation. You will die without the water, obviously give the man everything you own. Also, even if this premise was reasonable, and it's not, it's bullshit... he didn't get a knowledge load, he got a financial loan. This wasn't his only option, he could have got a job and saved up for an education. The Bank provided money he intends to steal, not Knowledge he "needs".

How did the creditor defraud you? Are you expected to pay back more than originally stipulated? How are they trying to kill you? By making you pay back what you originally agreed? Future generations haven't yet taken out student loans, or been capable of making any agreements, so of course they have no legitimate debt. Your student loan isn't third party national debt, it is your personal agreement ans responsibility to pay, irrelevant of where the bank found the money.

Where'd you find that definition of a Loan? You made that up to fit the narrative. It's not even a consistent narrative, are you claiming the receivers bank account doesn't gain $10,000?

I think it's worth mentioning that you were never a Libertarian JeanPaul. A Libertarian is someone who accepts the moral/philosophical validity of the Non-Aggression principal and who acts with moral integrity in their personal lives. It's not a position on the existence of the State, that's simply a consquence. And anybody who talks about giving up the consequence without mentioning the principles, clearly never had the principles. What you've come here to say is that you were always in support of immorality and violence, and that you don't believe a lack of State fits that vision.

If they do benefit in it, then they will invest in/pay for/support it. There's no such thing as "would benefit", that's the pretense of knowledge. I know people here have provided some great solutions, including assurance markets (which I love the sound of), and seemingly missing the the obvious idea that the tourists who love these cabs so much pay; but it's more important that you understand that, 1) You can't know, it's impossible, and the solutions are numerous and likely more than one will take place, 2) You shouldn't want to know, every little detail isn't important, and when you focus on the imaginary, you're not focusing on the real issues, and 3) It doesn't matter. Even if we find the "correct" answer we won't know it. Nothing changes, the moral argument is no more convincing and time is simply wasted.

I don't understand, you write like you haven't read my previous post, you just skimmed it, guessed I was disagreeing with you and then carried on. For example, I know your point was that you think the parent and child relationship is analogous to a teacher student one, and asked questions about the validity of that. I can't just take it to be true and continue from there, because then we aren't necessarily having a conversation about reality. I also can't put Governments aside, as they heavily affect the teacher student relationship and therefore the validity of that analogy. Most importantly, a Parent is NOT in a position of authority over a child. A Parent is in a position of power, but has no moral authority over the child. They have a responsibility to the child and physical power because of necessity, but they have no justified rights over and above or to reject the wishes of the child. And this is exactly why I don't support the relationship between step-parent and child. A step parent takes on these responsibilities, and can only harm them through inappropriate interaction. The Authoritarian Teacher, at least in this situation, has not taken on those responsibilities, and at best, it is the parent that is at fault for forcing the child into the authority of the teacher. Also, "child/student" isn't an almost synonymous differentiation. Infact it comes over as propaganda, child implies young age, but you specifically suggested we put aside ages. Would a teacher that engaged with a 24 year old student/child be in the same moral position?

If people aren't willing to finance the taxi company, they obviously don't think it is in their best interests. Hopefully the useless taxi company nobody uses will disapear, problem solved.

Yes. But not because of the "legal guardian" part, but the "parent" part. Perhaps it is intended, or should be, that Teachers are parental figures, but that doesn't fit with my experience at all. More specifically, a step-parent takes (should take) on the responsibilities of parenthood. A teacher is an educator, and carer, but I don't know if that includes parental responsibilities, or more importantly, if a teenager views it enough like a parental relationship for it to be abusive. I'm also not sure how relevant any of that is when the relationship is still basically violent and abusive because of the Statism anyway.

More importantly, why do two female teachers want to have sex with a student when they can meet other men who would be perfectly happy to get banged in a three-way? It's about control and domination. This definitely spoke to me. I'm not sure, still, that it is an argument, but it definitely speaks to the completely fucked up motivations of the teachers. As I said before though, wanting to be dominated/controlled is not immoral, just a sign of psychological damage. Note, I didn't say the act of voluntary, just that it didn't look involuntary. My position remains, "I don't know". I don't specifically see anything wrong with you, at 35, dating a 17 year old. However, I wouldn't do that and I'm aware that I wouldn't associate with you if you did. So either I'm being dishonest with you, or myself; I'm going to have to have a good think about that. Before philosophy, and at school, I had overtly repulsive reactions to female students dating older guys, which I never found the cause of, perhaps an unhealthy form of jealousy. But it was an emotional reaction which has made me wary of value judegements. You state that the age of the student wasn't a concern, but then you ask whether a minor can voluntarily engage in sexual relations with a "legal guardian". I'm no so certain about that title for the position of Statist Teacher, but I can't help but see the implication of age there. Also note, I don't force them into schools, I'm against that, so that doesn't really speak to my infantilisation comment. Also, "raped by pedophiles" is sort of begging the question and the end of a post discussing whether that is the case, and I while I have "I don't knows" about the rape, to me it is clearly not pedophilia. EDIT: For some reason I lost the quote on the first paragraph, that should be quoting EndTheUsurpation. Also, while I'm hear, I think I misinterpreted your first comment on age, so my final paragraph is probably wrong, apologies. And finally, I probably won't post again. Every single post I've made on this topic has "required moderator approval" and it's tiring, I don't wish to be censored so I'll be going back to barely posting. EDIT2: Modification didn't require approval? So i recommend anyone whose post won't get by the censors, put the controversial commentary in a modification.

That would have to be a massive "I don't know". For one thing, I'm not sure how much cultural bias plays into the arguments. In the UK, where I am, the age of consent is 16 and so all the arguments regarding the importance of the age of 18 seem very alien. While that might be my bias though, it seems the argument is based upon a factoid stating that the brain doesn't fully develop until you're about 25, which clearly isn't 18. Also, I have no idea of the actual importance of "brain development". The concept is a biological, not moral one, and nothing ivecread proves the moral distinctiveness of decisions made before the time; it is not a point at which we suddenly have perfect logic, nor are we unable to be perfectly reasonable before. Then we have arguments from power. In the UK, the age of consent goes up to 18 in teacher-student relationships. That's a very short period of time over which peoples development can vary widely. If the argument being made against this relationship would apply irrelevant of the age of the student, I'd be much more sympathetic to it. Otherwise, I don't see why an underdeveloped 18 year old or overdeveloped 16 year old really differ here. I'm mich more sympathetic to the statist power argymemt. This student was at school against his will. These teachers were funded and empowered by a monopoly on violence against him. However, the event took place away from school at a location he was unlikely to be involuntarily and we have little information regarding the build up to this event. I don't know whether nothing can possibly be voluntary in these situations, especially when the student so clearly desired it, and I don't see the age problem. Arent arguments about age and sex an infanisation of teenagers? I'm not suggesting they're perfectly reasonable, neither are adults, but I extend them all the same rights as adults in all other aspects of their lives, why is sex so special? Of course, less rationally I find it disgusting and always, but that's not a reasonable argument.

None of this is an argument. "This is rape because I say sex with two women at once is a waste of time". Also, disliking the act after the event is not the same as it not being every straight man's masturbatory fantasy; you can be disapointed in things you definitely wanted. Also (and damn are there a lot of also's here), your terrible taste in sexual partners has nothing todo with other people's standards or integrity; your argument there is like saying other people shouldn't eat Salad because you took a piss in one once and then hated the taste of it. Of course you had a bad experience if you chose - and you did choose, the propaganda of saying you were "solicited into" is only a way of avoiding personal responsibility - to have this experience with terrible women. However, it's perfectly possible to have the same experience following sex with a single person as well, and that's also not an argument against two-way sex. Furthermore, while wanting to be talked to in a such a way after sex might be unhealthy, there's a difference between unhealthy and unwanted. While you didn't want it in this situation, the occurence of "slut shaming" language isn't necessarily unsolicited by other people and is again not an argument against it. Also, how is that "slut shaming"? Did you not engage in these acts? And did you not voluntarily choose to do it with a women who would talk like that after? None of this is to attack your own personal experience, I'm terribly sorry that it made you feel negatively about the act, and much more importantly, that it made you feel negatively about yourself. I hope you have overcome whatever problems made you choose to engage in this act with awful people. However, to be clear, none of this anecdote makes for an argument; it's not even attempting to claim Universality, i doubt even half of voluntary situations of this kind are as bad as your own. So I agree people should be happy that they didn't experience language they would later feel to be sexual harassment following intercourse, but that has absolutely nothing todo with this discussion.