David Ottinger

To put it shortly: The concept of property rights begins with possession. Possession leads to an abstraction called 'ownership'. Ownership is a concept that denotes a claim of right. Thus, self-ownership is a concept derived from the realization that no one can be in possession of you. You are your *own* being.

Any sort of indoctrination is immoral because it is a form of epistemological conquest. Like punitive parenting, indoctrination is first viewed as normal and acceptable because the dilemma is so wide spread. However, the reality is that these sort of child rearing practices, including indoctrination, hinder brain development. Mind you, 'hinder' does not mean 'prevent'. In the case of indoctrination, the conclusions of the doctrines set a framework for the child's contemplation. They infect the child's paradigm insofar as to cause the child to intellectually chase red herrings. He/She attempts to perceive the concepts in order to gain an understanding of governing principles. However, the false abstraction(s) is a sham, and yet the child is treating the narrative like it's real. It would be no different than looking at your own reflection and thinking that's really you rather than a reflection. Simply put, such projections lead to a distortion of the self, and eventually leading to delusion. And, more importantly, if you do not know yourself, how can you be in possession of yourself? In this case, your own mind. So, if you're not in possession of yourself because you allow the conclusions of others to dictate your own perception of reality, how can you ever know deception when it's right in front of your very eyes? All property rights begin with possession. If these false narratives seize your imagination, how can you ever truly contemplate the reality in front of you? How can you ever assert yourself if you have yet to familiarize yourself with your own perception of reality? In other words, what we believe matters because what we believe influences our thought process which in turn affects how we respond to stimuli in our environment. At least, that's my 2 cents on it.

Emergence vs Design is quite a lengthy discussion. And, it's not that there is anything wrong with design in and of itself. It's when we're arrogant enough to pretend our understanding of principles has achieved omniscience thereby giving us an ego that begins to dictate how things ought to be rather than accepting how things are. For example, sure, you can build that irrigation system, but what does that do to the equilibrium of the ecosystem? And, you may try to argue that the sciences will give us answers. And, it's true they will. But, to what extent? What is it that we've overlooked? Simply put, we do not have the ability to dictate the laws of nature; we only have the ability to become aware of them and then act accordingly. To try and put this into perspective, in the abstract sense we can imagine a perfect sphere. But, can you make one? To my knowledge it's not possible. There will always be an anomaly. The golden ratio and pi are representations of this. The ecosystem is an emergent system, and when altered its equilibrium shifts. An anarchical society would also be an emergent ecosystem, although one representative of human discourse. There wouldn't be a single person or group that thought it through to an end. It would be a decentralized network of people that bring ideas, i.e. designs, to the respective market(s). Those ideas that are adopted add to the dynamic which eventually emerges into what one could call a system. Although, I think 'network' would be more suitable given that no one in particular designed it.

That Lily Goldberg comes off as a feminist masquerading as a libertarian. Anyhow, hard to take her seriously. The middle article by Julie was on point, and agreed with the perspective. A thought I wanted to raise myself: Women tend to conform to the group, and in return nurture the group. Which she can't do if she is not accepted. And, mainstream view is very in line with statism at this time. So, women assume the risk of being ostracized by the men of the main group -- which is more dominant. Also, on a side note, the women accepted can also be home wreckers, i.e. sabotage the group by poisoning the well. Which, is what Lily Goldberg did. And, the 3rd article, I didn't find any relevance to it. I understood it mostly as a comparison between circumstance and oppression and how some people conflate the two.

I prefer promoting emergence over design. So, first off, if *we* were able to design (i.e. create) a society, then that would be an argument for the state. i.e. The state is a 'we' that tries to design a society. So, right off the bat, this questions is essentially asking: How do we socially engineer a society towards discovering principles? (And, maybe you mean something else here that I've misunderstood? Please correct me if so.) Secondly, we are already naturally predisposed to pursuing this discovery of principles. We are inherently empirical; we just happen to also be prone to logical fallacies while we fumble through this discovery of governing principles. Religion, for example, is a primitive form of existentialism which has now moved into what we call the sciences. A similar example, albeit more microcosmic, is the move from alchemy to chemistry. So, in short, just as it's true that whatever one practices on a daily basis, he/she will become. That truth also extends to the group dynamic of a particular collective. You can look into the development of Zappos' company values/motto to get an idea of what I mean. In other words, an individual can only affect what one commits him/her-self to on a daily basis. From there one can collaborate with those who share similar interests. And what eventually emerges is a network of people collaborating in some ways while also competing in others with others -- hopefully in a non-violent ways; something we have yet to achieve as a species.

In the most simplest sense, men are more focused on what they can achieve in order to provide a better life for others, especially loved ones, while women are more focused on who they can attract for the purpose of contributing to her interests in order to give her offspring the best life possible. Further consider that the part of our brain that allows for this sort of cognition is one of the last things to develop -- which typically doesn't complete until the age of 25. Compare this to women's fertility time clock, and it becomes rather apparent that, biologically speaking, women in their earlier life are driven more towards goals that optimize procreation. Broadly speaking, women think, "What can you do for me to make life better?" Men think, "What can I do to make life better?" Thus, men seek to understand the principles that govern life in order to manipulate the environment to their will while women look to those men who achieve such power, thereby rewarding them with offspring, thus together making life better for all. This does not excuse women from understanding philosophy. It actually makes it an imperative, otherwise she cannot distinguish a man posturing his greatness from a man actually delivering progress.

No, those people making that point don't know what they're talking about. It only "sounds" true to them because their prejudice is: Businesses are amoral, and thus do anything they can for immediate profit. But, it's actually good business practice for a service provider to recommend a competitor, especially if the provider knows the business relationship would not be a right fit.

Economic Left/Right: 4.5 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26

Yup, because what they want is the homogenization of society, not equality. As I understand it, we argue for the equality of law, but they argue for economic equality. The latter being an impossibility. An analogy I like to use is: That's like demanding everyone to be born beautiful.

I tend to answer this sort of question in multiple ways, but given the framing of his/her question, the person is more often than not looking to conclude with, "Therefore the state." So, first I address that by pointing out that the notion, "X is impossible in the absence of a state," sets up a false dilemma whereby the answer is either the state or nothing happens, and usually that "nothing" is tied to the notion that the issue in question will actually worsen as a result of inaction. So, first I need to get the person to understand that there are alternative solutions other than state intervention. So, is it possible to solve X without the state? If they say no, then they need to explain that. Usually this goes into discussing the nature of governance, and why this individual omits self-governance. All forms of governance begin with self-governance. If they say yes, then that changes the focus of the discussion from this false dilemma towards contemplating why a free market solution is better -- well, after you pose the argument. And, the simple answer to why it's better is because of variety. In short, the state provides a one size fits all solution while the market can cater to niches. The power graph or longtail graph illustrates this concept rather well, and also gives you the principle as to why this is the case. A great analogy is considering TV programing before youtube, and comparing that to how much time is now spent browsing youtube over networks deciding what you're allowed to watch, let alone at what time. Essentially, what you're comparing here is: Design vs Emergence. So, ultimately, my conclusion ends with pointing out that the individual's question is asking me how things ought to be designed thereby missing the point regarding emergence -- which is what free market solutions promote. Emergence has no set solution because the solution takes the form of market interests. The longtail graph is an illustration of how far and wide people's interests can be. Given that the initial question admits there is demand, then there is economical incentive to supply services to meet such demands. All that is left to figure out is the logistics of an issue, and then formulating a strategy for executing an economically feasible venture. The logistics of issues do not change by deferring all responsibility to a monopolistic entity like the state. Then, this takes me to my 2nd point as to why free market solutions are better. The monopolistic nature of the state is not an economically feasible solution because all monopolies are inefficient, and at worse, ineffective at allocating resources. This typically leads the discussion towards whether or not market forces can produce monopolies. And, the simple answer to that is: No. Due to the principle of equal consideration, one cannot trade him/her-self into a monopoly. Monopolies are achieved via unscrupulous means, or better said: via acts of conquest. Of course, before moving into that topic, the statist needs to acknowledge that the previous question has been resolved. Although, this tends to get tricky because the statist insists on you giving him/her a design. Thus, they're not actually mentally adapted to contemplating this discussion until they are willing to permit emergence as a possibility. Essentially, it's like asking, "If the USSR doesn't distribute the bread, how else would the bread be distributed?" And look at how the market provides various ways for you to get bread. Why wouldn't that work for everything else?

Variety in skin pigmentation is one of many genetic mutations that exists within our species. Is it really worth isolating insofar is to create a category called 'race'? And why stop at skin color? Why not eye color and hair color? I mean, since we're using color coding to categorize people into groups. Is there really any reasonable grounds for evaluating intelligence based on how one's body absorbs and refracts light? How do you even begin to quantify that? How did such a hypothesis even arise? Isn't the whole dilemma just utter nonsense?

Re highlighted text. They pretty much already say that. They call them natural monopolies. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a single monopoly that has risen due to market forces. In other words, it is fundamentally impossible to trade your way into a monopoly. Monopolies are a direct or indirect product of state intervention, i.e. protectionism, in the economy. The so called natural monopolies are examples of the former. Or, you can look at Cornelius Vanderbilt's steamboat case to find an example of exclusivity granted to a select few. And, the best example of a monopoly arise via indirect means would be Rockefeller's so called monopoly. Or better said, monopolies arise due to NAP violations or violations of the Principle of Equal Consideration (contract theory). Any violations of these 2 principles between exchanging parties, and you cease to have an act of trade. Instead, you would have fraud, theft, or extortion.

Being somewhere you feel safe helps. Letting all parts of you know that you're in a safe place and that all parts are welcome helps. If there is a side attacking another side, which is usually carried out by a manager/protector, try to use the true self to mediate and show appreciation for all aspects of yourself. After all, this is a defense mechanism that was developed for your survival. That side of you is just following the programming it was given. Take note of what mental images come up with this side as well as all sides. If a feeling begins to overwhelm you, this is a part flooding the true self. So, you may want to ask that side of you to distance itself a bit. It may not want to if this side represents the inner child, for example. Let's say this side is the child, and he/she is full of fear. Distancing may cause further fear and anxiety as it will be misconstrued as separation, thus causing a sense of separation anxiety. When this happened to me, it felt like I was asking this side of me to go out into the open and that I was abandoning this part in a field while a predator was lurking. Talk about triggering the flight or fight response, right? The solution that came up was that this part of me hid behind my leg instead of being in my lap. Also, pay attention to where upon the body you feel these emotions or sides. Try to understand why those areas are the focus. For example, were you hit there? Or, does it feel like this because you're recalling (also recoiling) when you were being talked down to by a monstrous mother and other adult women like a teacher: I hope that helps.

A story of collusion between American Psychological Association and the US government to get away with torture: Brief Overview: http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/07/independent-review-release.aspx Full Report: http://www.apa.org/independent-review/APA-FINAL-Report-7.2.15.pdf

Great post Kevin. I think you nailed the pattern quite accurately. Some thoughts I had on the topic: When I find I'm dealing with a troll, there is a strong desire to mock their position, unless they're the type of troll that is purposely utilizing Poe's Law for their own joke. e.g. Going to SJW forums and pretending to be trans just to tell feminists to check their privilege before they talk about how they're victims of the patriarchy. Essentially, that troll is pointing out the hypocrisy within a group. Other people see this and realize just how absurd the paradigm is, thus the lurkers head for the hills to get as far away from that train wreck of an ideology. But, those sort of trolls are rare. Overall, my point is that comedy is a good outlet for presenting different perspectives in a fun way. And sometimes the jester needs the towns fool to make a point. Of course, it can get out of hand and just turn into a mud slinging contest.

I'll take that as a no. And I had to confirm that for myself since I grew up around many emmigrants, so it is not uncommon for me that such a woeful disconnect is the result of English being a 2nd language. Given that it's not. The show is all yours.

I gotta ask: Is english a 2nd language for you?

No, it doesn't. But YOU clearly think it does. At this point, it is an imperative for you to explain why you find that to be the case. But, so far you have failed to reason out this conclusion you hold despite my requests. And, actually, calling it a conclusion would be inaccurate. You have provided no proof of concept. You've simply asserted and reasserted your perception of human discourse. And, you treat this assertion axiomatically. On a side note, this perception is tantamount to those who claim anarchism can't exist because of human nature, and that nature being one of violence. i.e. You've created a false dilemma. In short, you deny cooperation of intellectual pursuits. The unfortunate result of your falsehood is that it leads one to say anything in order to win, including but not limited to, putting words in people's mouth as you have just now with me. For example, show me where I said the audience is illogical? Given your song and dance, I would sooner call you irrational before I held the audience is illogical. If you were being honest here, you'd acknowledge that what you seek is popularity, not truth. In closing, one's perception of reality is not reality, hence the importance of self-awareness which is discovered via philosophy. Just because we experience reality in a relative way does not make truth relative. No, truth is objective. However, we are not omniscient, therefore it is in our best interests to cooperate with one another in order to optimize rigorous behavior. You yourself can make this a competition. And given the amount of negs you have received, I think it's safe to say that isn't working out so well for you. I highly suggest reading the Fountain Head by Ayn Rand.

How so? Or, let's make it more specific: How are you and I in competition right now? And, let me be clear: I recognize that on one hand the capacity for epistemological conquest is present as a choice -- which I find is what you're pointing out. But, on the other hand, we also have the exchange of ideas -- which is the alternative. The "don't shoot the messenger" adage applies here, but in reverse so to speak. Just as it is illogical to shoot the messenger for presenting an unfavorable message, the same holds true for praising the messenger for presenting a favorable message. Essentially, what you're promoting here is politics, not philosophy. What matters is the message, not the messenger. And turning the pursuit of truth into a competition has the adverse effect, or at least the risk, to undermine integrity for prestige. My desire isn't to influence the crowd. My desire is truth. Those who share my interests will inadvertently be on the same course as I. We are simply in the same boat. And should I climb up the proverbial mast and conclude that I see land, that does not make me the leader. Everyone will reach the same conclusion in due time and on their own accord, unless they are not free thinkers. Ok, but how does this substantiate that the pursuit of truth is inherently competitive. You hold that it is. The onus is on you to substantiate your claim. You're avoiding the question: How does this desire for market share cause the nature of the pursuit of truth to be inherently competitive? As I have thus far pointed out, this sensation is illusory as it is a conflation of two different goals, i.e. the pursuit of truth and the pursuit of market share. No, you do not get that I "feel" because I haven't made this an emotional matter. You're projecting. So, let me be very clear, this is not a matter of feeling or opinion. It's a logical conundrum. Either the nature of the pursuit of truth is inherently competitive, or it's not. And the only alternative is that it's neither. Which is it? "I am smarter than you, therefore...." is essentially someone claiming authority over truth. It's a non-sequitur that simply says, "X is true because I say so." i.e. "My house, my rules." Furthermore, to engage such a claim with genuine contemplation is to edify this individuals self proclamation of superiority over truth. However, no man is the truth or the way. Such mentality is that of religiosity, not philosophy.

Yes, some people are more equipped at reaching sound conclusions than others. This fact does not make the pursuit of truth a competition. You and I, for example, are currently not in competition with one another while we hash this out. Although, maybe you think otherwise? Are you and I in competition with each other at this time? Also, as I pointed out earlier, other elements can be introduced to create a competitive environment. Your example is such an example. You introduced the pursuit for market share (if you will) to the framework, and then conflated that with the pursuit of truth because the product in a word was: Philosophy. So, again, your example is of two people competing for market share, not truth. Thus, I have no reason to accept that my statement, "The methodology by which one chooses to pursue the discovery of universal principles has no relation to whether or not that pursuit is a competition," leads to treating Stefan and a mentally handicapped person as though they're on equal footing.

Catholic guilt vs White Guilt. Who would win in a fight?

I don't know how you read that and got that I was propositioning you for a debate. Let me put it this way: "Thus, if we (people) were to engage in discussion about the truth of a particular matter, this would be an act of collaboration, not competition." The methodology by which one chooses to pursue the discovery of universal principles has no relation to whether or not that pursuit is a competition. How best something is achieved has nothing to do with the nature of something. I have no idea what this has to do with this discussion. So far none of your questions for me have dealt with the nature of the pursuit for truth as far as competition is concerned. On a side note, I think it goes without saying that the discovery of universal principles is advantagous. Those who wish to dominate others can turn such pursuits into competition, thus leading to things like an arms race.

I fail to see how any of that follows. Pursuit of truth is universally preferable behavior. Your attempt to correct me now doesn't put us into competition for the truth. We have the same goal. Thus, for us to engage in discussion about the truth of a particular matter is an act of collaboration, not competition. This stands true even if we have differing view points. (This last point does not imply all view points are accurate or that truth is relative.)

I try to point out that truth isn't a competition.

I could've written that a lot better. I meant: There are plenty of women on here for one to gain insight into the female perspective if needed. Hopefully that clears it up for you. Also, if you're going to quote me, at least put some elipses where you cut out the rest of my sentence, otherwise I'm going to assume you're deliberately trying to take me out of context. So, if you still think I'm contradicitng myself, you're welcome to explain how such advertising allows one to determine the logical accuracy of a statement. If I could, it would cease to be speculation. I don't have any such criticisms. I was simply pointing out how the percieved lack of female presence on the forum might be a presumption. Women have to check it out to turn it down, right? Unless you all are saying that women aren't being exposed to the content.