David Ottinger

Magic? Well, if agency is magic according to you, then yes magic. "...flap our mouths and scuttle about..." i.e. agency Borrow? From whom? How can there be a borrower without a lender? How can there be a lender without ownership? This anti-property stance is presented by socialist. I have had this discussion with many of them. In the end, whether they realize it or not, they're advocating for ownership in common.

Her message was simple, and not simple in a bad way. That message being: "I recognize that my life has become superficial, and I want something more meaningful." And, so, in essence she resigned from her current job -- if you want to call it that -- in order to pursue higher aspirations. My guess is that she was neglected growing up, and so she pursued external validation to fill that hole. But, she realized her social interactions weren't meaningful relationships. It was just numbers. Thus, it was just another food without nutrition, to put it analogously. And, if my interpretation is accurate, then good for her.

Anyone have a mirror? Not for her. I mean a link. Found one:

Ever since I've come across this claim, I've been curious to see if it's true, and so far I'm noticing more and more women participating in the conversation. So, maybe that claim was premature?

Good stuff. Are you working on anything now?

There is so much that can be taken from this simple video, especially the hope it inspires for those looking to resolve their impulsive behaviors.

Those look great. I've always enjoyed infographics. I see quite a few on pinterest.com I hope you're adding yours on there too.

If your currency is gold, then why does your example use dollars?

In order to explain why the NAP is not a social contract, I first need to explain natural law and then distinguish it from edicts. Natural law is built on the observation that there is a natural order to things -- which is to say that nothing is random. If you accept this, then it's safe to assume that there is a natural order to human behavior, i.e. it's not random. Thus, if that is accepted, then it is safe to assume that there are particular actions that lead to particular outcomes. Meaning: The human experience is not random. So, that said, if it is sound to hold that no outcome is random*, then there must be a natural law governing our experiences regardless of how ignorant we are of its influence on events as well as to what degree. Further more, if there is a goal like justice (a description of a particular experience), then there must be *laws* (i.e. principles) affecting events that lead to such outcomes. And, so, the discovery of such principles is the pursuit of the rule of law. Or, better said, the pursuit of justice. Otherwise, you're left with rule by might, i.e. tyranny. Anyone that demands justice is by default acknowledging there are natural laws, otherwise 'justice' is a meaningless word, i.e. it's not objective. In short, valid moral theories like the NAP are natural law rather than contractual in nature. Law is not to be confused with edicts. What contracts allow is for people to make binding agreements that have the force of law, but they are not law. And, edicts are contractual in nature rather than a principle. Although, identifying edicts as duties created by a contract is misleading because between the state and the individual there is no offer; consideration; acceptance. The so called contract is just imposed and consent is then assumed, hence the idea that the consent is implicit. It's a trick. I'm being brief, so I hope that explains it enough to get the idea. *Not to imply that every event has purpose.

The author is so close to having it fully thought through. And, I'm glad to see he identified various forms of slavery. Unfortunately, he failed to identify the tool that leads to this particular slavery he identified which is otherwise known as bondage slavery. That tool that enforces the bondage is the state. But, instead of considering the state's influence on the distribution of wealth, he instead focused on the owners of capital because it is true that the owners of capital have the power to influence the way in which resources are allocated. It's like that prank where you're walking with your buddies and you're in the middle, and the left guy sneakingly taps you on the right shoulder so you think the guy on your right did it. In other words, this socialists, like many others, falsely accuse the owners of capital because they're not dealing with all the facts. The author was correct in pointing out that there is a form of slavery we face today. The author is also correct in pointing out that the wage labor is correlated to the slave status, but again, he is incorrect in holding that wage labor is a form of slavery. Wage labor is not the cause of this bondage slavery. What is the cause is that we have a hyperization of the Cantillon Effect due to state intervention which is two fold. On one side you have the expansion of the money supply and on the other end you have taxation. The expansion of the money supply debases the currency thereby affecting the buying power of each unit of exchange. And, the taxation withdraws any excess which is then redistributed among the lower classes under social welfare programs. The first receivers of the new money pumped into the economy get to purchase everything at a discounted rate. And, by the time it gets to the wage earners, it is nearly dried out (if you will). Hence, why trickle down economics is a sham. In short, the reason why you have this sort of slavery is because the principle of equal consideration is being violated, and the reason that is being violated is because the medium of exchange being used is corrupt. And, in short, the medium of exchange is corrupt because there is a monetary monopoly being imposed upon us all. And, if there is any myth that ought to be addressed here, it is that monopolies can arise via trade alone. No, all monopolies are either directly or indirectly caused by state intervention in the market place. The whole socialism vs capitalism is a false dichotomy. Socialism simply promotes ownership in common. Capitalism embraces all forms of ownership, i.e. sole proprietorship; partnership; or, ownership in common. This is why in a voluntary society you can achieve the socialist ideal. This divide was created due to false associations -- the one I expressed above. I ask that we grow beyond it so we can deal with the real threats -- which isn't even the state really because, again, it's just a tool, and a fictitious one at that. The issue is the belief in the state, or more specifically: That there can be no governance without the state. A false dilemma as there is always self governance, and we exercise it by exercising our right of contract with one another. i.e. Agorism is how we will overcome this monopoly and the oppression it imposes.

Hopefully my above posts gives you some ideas to think about.

The market, regardless if it's free or not, will always reflect the moral theories held by the people.

I hope this new found autonomy brings you some relief. I can see its still something you need to explore further, but you got it from what I can tell. And, yeah, given the brief insight you've given us, it's clear it was an unfortunate experience you went through. A tragedy of sorts. And you're not alone in that. The good thing is that now the doors of opportunity are open for you. You can build your internal system however you want now, and in turn you fulfill yourself. Whatever we put into practice we become.

I'll break down the article: http://whistlinginthewind.org/2014/03/22/why-taxation-is-not-theft/ Governing according to the rule of law is a commitment to governing according to sound moral theories. And, a grievance is a moral objection to a piece of legislation. "Taxation is theft," is an accusation that expresses a grievance. And, in the first paragraph, this writer is claiming that the particular grievance is without merit. But, he doesn't just do that. He outright mocks it thereby belittling anyone who expresses such objection. Personally, I'm glad that he's so confident in his standing, but let's see if he's on solid ground. (1) Why would I assume consent? (2) Given that all ownership is a claim of right, by what right does the state own the land? (i.e. de facto vs de jure) Also, who or what is the state? (3) What relevance does 'private vs public realm' have in an anarchy? By what right am I subject to their rules? In other words, how was my sovereignty surrendered when I stepped upon another's land? So far, we have a false analogy. (4) No, when I lose possession of property without my consent, it is theft. Even if the thief returns the property, that does not absolve him/her of the transgression. In short, the write is making a false equivalence because he assumes consent is a factor of the exchange. (5) This is a good example of what real melodramatic hyperbole looks like. (6) The writer is setting up and buying into a false dilemma whereby these services and commitments cannot exist without the government. And, because of this false dilemma coupled with the false analogy, the writer cannot see that what libertarians are arguing in favor of is the ability to withdraw economic consent thereby leading to better services. (7) Anthropomorphizing the state like this is leading to the writers confusion as to the nature of the dilemma. If the writer was willing to acknowledge that a tyranny of the majority is possible and a valid threat to moral governance, then maybe we could have ourselves some real discourse instead of this constant mockery of other people's grievances. So, again, we have ourselves a false equivalence because the state has no agency as it is a fictitious entity, albeit a legal fiction, but nonetheless a fiction. (8) Why must someone first consent to a system in order to withdraw economic consent? That logic does not follow. That means what I'm really doing is trading all my economic buying power for a single currency, and that currency being a vote. No, I refuse to *subject* myself and my property to the whims of a mob. And, when you and your mob decide to use force to get me to surrender my property by calling it taxes, you have engaged in economic conquest against your fellow human beings. I do not care how many people stand with you, no one has the right to achieve ends by might. Any group that does that is not upholding justice; i.e. any such group is not committed to the rule of law. Instead, that group is governing according to rule by might. Hence, why the tyranny of the majority is a real threat. Meaning: just because something is NOT voted into power, that doesn't mean it is absent of moral legitimacy. This sort of moral relativism simply leads to a system of order that is arbitrary. Mob rule is not rule of law. (9) Yes, a libertarian would rightfully protest this legal standing, i.e. that the state has legal right to seize property, by pointing out that explicit consent has not been achieved thereby alluding to the unlawful nature of the act called taxes. What is happening is that consent is assumed just as this writer has been doing this whole time. (10) No, consent is not implicit. This is an unconscionable bargain as no individual in his/her right mind would willfully surrender his/her sovereignty for citizenship (a lesser legal standing) or for protection or any other services because any such lesser legal standing is not necessary for the performance thereof. Any such standing simply restricts my right of contract by putting it in the hands of another. And, should I ever desire to delegate my right of contract to another, then all I need is a power of attorney. The abdication of my sovereignty is never necessary except by those who dare to engage in acts of conquest. I reserve the full right of contract. That is my natural right. Understanding the difference between natural rights and legal rights is an imperative. But, statism indoctrinates people into believing that the state is some higher power therefore has authority to subjugate others simply because they were born or stepped upon these lands, except it is all fiction. No man is under the legal decree (i.e. juris-diction) of another. However, everyone is subject to natural law. So, it's not possible to simply make up my own rules. That's not how logic and reason works. 'Duties' are the product of contract. They are not to be confused with moral obligations. What the writer is attempting to assert is that everyone has the moral obligation to end the suffering of others thereby claiming that each individual is responsible for the circumstances of others. But, how can I be held responsible for the circumstances of others if I do not have to be responsible for my own circumstances? It's a contradiction. Also, this perspective is just factually incorrect. I (or anyone for that matter) cannot possibly be responsible for the circumstances of others because I did not create those general circumstances. Such circumstances are simply the product of life and one's own choices. Overall, that is to say that no one has the natural right to have his/her survival needs met. Suffering is simply a fact of nature. Nature does not guarantee anyone happiness. And recognizing that this is the way life is does not make people sociopaths. It makes them realistic. And appeals to emotions like, "Libertarians don't have a heart," does not address reality. And, here is that false dilemma I mentioned earlier, being: X cannot exist without government. Basically the writer cannot distinguish society from government. More importantly, the writer has stopped dealing with what libertarians think and has instead decided to tell them what they think. False equivalence. The landlord doesn't have a real-estate monopoly. The government does. In the former, people have recourse. In the latter, people only have the illusion of recourse. So, the writer concludes by redefining theft by including an absolution clause; i.e. you're absolved of theft if you return something. He omits the grievances of the minority by holding that the majority has authority to dictate rules. So, I suppose if you asked this guy, "How many people does it take to make god real?" His answer would be, "The majority. And if you don't like it, you can leave." Although, the Protestants already did this, but I guess some people have difficulty seeing the parallels in that sort of reasoning, or rather lack of reasoning.

Given you're asking for help, I take it you don't think your argument is a valid counter argument. Why is that? And, don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing you for asking for help, or anything of the sort. What I'm trying to understand is why are you so certain he is wrong and you are right when you're lacking an argument? And, to clarify my perspective a bit more: When I present my anti-thesis of the state, I am met with a lot of knee-jerk reactions -- none of which are arguments. Their comments are simply disdain disguised as an argument. And, in order to argue against someone's position, an individual is required to understand the premise as well as the logic that leads the given debator to his/her conclusion. After all, how else can one argue against something if he/she does not understand the other persons position? You cannot. And given that we can never be omniscient, the best method to overcoming this dilemma in the future is to use the Socratic method. So, I hope you understand my reluctancy to just hand the rebuttal over to you.

I'm assuming these questions are rhetorical, but correct me if I'm wrong. And I am curious about the last one. Why does that make you feel sad?

Given the lack of experience you're limited to entry jobs, which are all minimum wage for that very reason. However, there is nothing stopping you from practicing entrepreneurship. With entrepreneurship, you're free to bring your own sense of variety and creativity to the market in any way you choose. And you have opportunity to explore entrepreneurship with your lessons, or you can work on developing something else, e.g. selling your songs. In the most basic sense, an entrepreneur is simply one who gets paid for solving problems. It sucks that you have to deal with that, but I have to point out that solving that problem would be an exercise in creativity. Don't let the abuse hinder you any further. Follow your passion. Granted, if music is what you're pursing and your parents are going to attack you for practicing, then your only option is to find alternative locations. Consider that all of these problems you face is part of you learning to take responsibility for your circumstances in life. And you are free to be creative with the solutions you want to implement.

The heart wants what the heart wants. However, intellectually you're telling us something is not right. And, unless I missed it, I don't see why you find yourself thinking that. Could you elaborate on that? Edit: Wait. I just realized this thread is 2 months old. I'm guessing a lot has happened since then.

According to the IFS model, there is a part of you that holds all these feelings, and then there is a manager/protector trying to limit your exposure to them. If you approach these aspects of yourself with curiosity and appreciation, you may find a way to upgrade them to the current environment you face. Hopefully, when you establish that connection with this side of you, you embrace a parental role in order to re-nurture this side of yours. Soon enough, you'll find that it's you who you've been looking for and waiting for the whole time.

If I hadn't already been exposed to the SJW madness out there, I would've thought it was from the Onion. Does this sort of stuff really deserve a rebuttal? I don't think so, but I'm happy to poke fun at it: For now on... (1) I vow to make every girl feel like she's like every other girl I've met; (2) I vow to never question a woman's telepathy, especially when it comes to knowing how other men might perceive her actions; (3) I vow to recognize how gullible women are, and thus will do everything in my power to edify their inherent princess qualities and with blind devotion; (4) I vow to edify the female fantasy to be just like men and treat her like the beastly savage she is -- I know this contradicts number 3, but see number 5 for clarity; (5) I vow to treat every woman's words as though it's a form of abstract art and I will stand amazed at her creativity with logic and reason; (6) I vow to embrace a woman's biological purgative qualities by naming each dead egg and lighting a candle for going out like Braveheart, "FREEDOM!"; (7) I vow to take women seriously (Phew! Almost violated the 1st rule here.); and, (8) I vow to tap into and embrace my oppressed femininity so that I may realize just how misogynistic every masculine thing I do actually is.

No, it's a response to force. It's called third-party defense.

Ok, this is where the misunderstanding lies. 'Possession' is not expressing a right. Possession refers to the ability to exert one's will power over something, i.e. control.

I don't see why that is. The "extra work" is simply exercising one's will power -- which, again, is innate. Just like you can't deny your own existence, you cannot also deny your own agency. What do you think 'possession' means? Possession does not mean ownership.

Possession of the self is innate, hence your autonomy. This is all empirical. "I think, therefore I am." And, we're not talking about morality here. This is basic self-awareness.

'Immortality' should be on everyone's bucket list. (couldn't resist.) Suicide is a way for one to exert control over his/her life, although it takes everything out of you. (Ok, I thought I was going to be a little more serious, but I failed at the end. C'est la vie. No one gets out alive. Hopefully you all enjoyed the jokes.)