masonman

Is this on facebook? Whats it called?

This question - as you hinted to - is essentially a statement of the validity of the social contract ("if you don't want to pay for or receive the services you implicitly agreed to via the social contract, you have the right to leave, as somebody who doesn't want to participate in exchange with a restaurant can leave"). As a result of some of my debates I created 14 questions (with a 15th added by darkskyabove) to ask somebody who claims social contract theory to be valid: 14 Questions to Critique the Social Contract

Kind of confusing to me, isn't that saying the person is UPB compliant? I thought it was ethical claims that had to be UPB compliant.

Another interesting one..... up until the 82nd Airborne comment. That seemed to be implying America was improving things at the time. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F8vgwBiKl0]

It seems like a miserably shitty understanding of economics. I don't think unemployment and debt are becoming worse problems because we aren't murdering each other enough.

There tends to be a sort of "replacement" of the state with religion for many of these atheists. I think they are much more religiously devoted to the state than many other people, and considering that they have a large community of people supporting that religious devotion, they will not easily be convinced that they are going on faith.

From what I understand, its how most countries "collapse." The government, as a result of their dismal economic policies, becomes so weak that the poor and oppressed people find themselves in a position to begin protesting, rioting, and eventually overpowering the government and bringing about collapse.

Have you watched this? Its got some info on the subject. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17iAint-_pc]

Thats partly being discussed here http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/38697.aspx

If it collapsed tomorrow, you would have "chaos." People have been under the same statist paradigm for thousands of years, when it goes away people will panic and scurry and rush to get back under that system like an abused person runs back to their abuser. They see the state as that which dictates morality and rationality, and they will rush towards it with great speed. Nothing will change until people's minds have changed. The American Revolution would never have worked if the minds of a large number of Americans at the time hadn't already shifted to a certain philosophy. The philosophy always comes first. Forcing philosophy at gunpoint never works. This is also why political action is pointless (that is, by the time you have enough people agreeing with you that political action would be worthwhile and somewhat effective, you don't need political action anymore). So personally I think humanity is decades away of broad awareness, and, depending upon how things play out, it could be much much longer. Thats why I think the most useful mentality these days is that of comedy (then again don't take my word for it, I'm not exactly the happiest fellow): this whole statist faith and superstition is just one big dark comedy show, and we are all background extras that can choose to find humor in spectating. Having that mentality, talking to others about freedom, and then being peaceful and kind and fair to those in our own lives - that is all we really have the power to do.

Just saw this and had never heard of this guy before. Very much worth listening to. I still think American occupations in the middle east have generally caused a lot of these issues, but his point about Tibet is very true. Why is there such a difference there? Having read some of the Muslim holy books myself, I do find myself very much in agreement with him. However I think further meddling, things like the drone strikes, etc. are definitely NOT the solution of course. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNndF8RP7Lw]

The idea of doing something like that (starting a business) scares the hell out of me. I feel like everything in this world is way too risky so I just hide in college but now I feel like its not any better in terms of risk-reward. I think some of my depression came out of the understanding that I might spend the rest of my life this scared and uncertain. So props to you for, at the very least, developing some kind of plan and direction.

It is extremely commonplace. I'm confused as to how the media is doing something bad by convincing people of something that is true? People are blown up and gunned down over stupid religious and political (also a bit religious) disputes on almost a daily basis. Not to defend the US government in their actions in the Middle East, but most of the Middle East was still a statist hellhole before they showed up. Not everything can be blamed on western governments. Of course you will

I mean, do you want to live in a world where the FBI is closely monitoring every online community as a defense against shooters and terrorists?

Yeah I've been watching these lately and they have made me really reconsider a lot of his videos. He makes great criticisms of the state, and he pays a lot of lip service to the NAP, but I don't think he actually understands that when he says anarcho-capitalism has big issues since there are no overarching rules, he seems to be missing the point that enforcing those rules would be inherently AGAINST THE NAP.

I hope somebody puts up a good rebuttal to this, some of these questions I don't even have fully fleshed out

"Parenting styles should be left up to the parents not the courts or society. He didn't kill them and..." W-W-W-What? Oh man thats fucked up.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/ What do you all think about this article?

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=tykzAyISnNk]

I think the most telling sign to me that a big part of statist thought is projection (the rest just being propaganda that rides upon those early childhood experiences) is that of the people I bring up freedom and voluntary interaction to, maybe 1 out of 4 respond politely and with curiousity, the other 3 quickly turn to frustration and anger and looking at me like I had just said "Hitler did nothing wrong." Its just like a religious debate, no, it IS a religious debate. Religious debates only come to any reasonable conclusion when your opponent has already started asking questions himself. A statist will cling to his grand faith in statism no matter how calm or rational you are, unless he already feels some skepticism. To tell a statist or a deeply religious person that their beliefs are irrational is to tell them that all the ideas and concepts and beliefs - that have been ingrained into them by all the people they love and all the people that love them - are all lies. Most people can't handle that, and most people will do ANYTHING to avoid having to think about that. In some ways that anger is understandable, it makes sense why its happening, even if its irrational. I remember when I was a Freshman in high school and still hard core conservative and people would bring up Iraq and I would feel real anger and frustration at them even though I didn't really have a lot of facts behind my defense. Its like what was said on the 3/24/13 Sunday Call in Show: "Politics is an arena where people go to be angry." If you watch any people within the standard political views "debate" with each other you can watch this happen. Its just a scream fest at some point. It wasn't until I moved more towards voluntaryist/libertarian ideas that I actually didn't feel that anger (though I still feel plenty of frustration at some people's responses and clear inability to think rationally). I didn't feel like they were "insulting my president" etc. etc. anymore.

Thats a really good one I didn't think of that [Y]. Its also a great question because "my descendants" by any definition are incapable of signing a contract since they don't even exist! So even if one does accept "use of government services" as an implicit agreement to the social contract, they still have no basis for claiming that the unborn owe the government their labor.

Amidst a debate I created 14 questions that I asked a proponent of the social contract theory, it may be useful to you, I don't know: 1.) If there is no clear written contract between a citizen and every politician that makes decisions that require that citizen to pay for certain services, is there a limit to how much they can charge me? If they request my (dismembered) left hand, would they be justified in doing so?2.) If I wish to reject my "implicit agreement" to the social contract, who do I go to for arbitration, and who would be the person I bring the issue against?3.) What are the explicit terms of the contract? Is there anything those within the state must abide by, or is it entirely obligations on the part of non state employed citizens?4.) When Obama took office was he no longer under the social contract (at least the one from the Federal Government), since he would, in essence, be forming a contract with himself?5.) If I do a favor for you like returning a lost cell phone or cooking you some bacon, can I justly attempt to kidnap you or assault you because I claim you owe me 8,000 dollars as understood in the implied contract? (I will say that I could make the claim that there was an implied contract, but would it be valid for me to immediately assault you or rob you on the assertion that I am correct in my assumption and you are not?)6.) If I DO in fact build my icy little encampment in Antarctica, but tune in to PBS on my in-tent TV, would the government be perfectly justified in sending police out to require payment or jail me?7.) If a woman is abused by her husband for years but never moves out of the house, is she implicitly consenting to the abuse?8.) If I vote for a politician that promises to do "x," but then doesn't do "x," can I demand compensation or at least render the social contract void since he didn't hold up his end of the deal?9.) If a Chinese citizen goes on a cross country trip across America, is the federal government (or the different state governments) justified in requiring him to pay whatever amount of money they see fit for his use of their services?10.) When does the actual agreement take place? At conception? At birth? When one is 3 years old? (I imagine some would call this a stupid question, but otherwise I'm unsure how there could be a contract that has no starting point. That can't be the case.)11.) Do you support or do you oppose exit taxes?12.) Is it valid that the U.S. enforces the social contract as a result of the use of services it prevents competitors from entering into (Air travel, roads, power, etc)? Would that not make it involuntary, in that they maintain a monopoly on the services by punishing any competitor (see Lysander Spooner attempting to compete with the post office), yet require you to pay for something where choice has been violently prevented from existing?13.) How is there a social contract that requires one to pay for services one doesn't even use? Why is it all or nothing? If the social contract is implied consent to pay for services as a result of their direct use, why do you have to pay for all the other things that you didn't receive any benefit from? Is that not blatant thievery? Being forced to pay money for something you had nothing to do with as a consumer?14.) Do property rights start and end only by what you can defend with physical force? Do you own yourself? Is the human will inalienable? (I ask this in curiosity if you believe a voluntary slavery contract could be ethically enforced)

All I can say is..... Hard assets, hard assets, hard assets.... and maybe some Bitcoin

But the child wont die from it. The child will simply be in pain. Oh. Is this a tradition somewhere, like body peircing in tribes? No its just a woman spanking her child until blood is drawn as the standard of punishment. It does not kill the child, doesn't even do much damage, just causes a bit of pain. Why is it bad for her to do that?

But the child wont die from it. The child will simply be in pain.