Indefiance

Just the title. I first heard of DRO's from Stefan in his book Practical Anarchy. I first heard of DAO's from this article http://btcgeek.com/dawn-of-autonomous-corporations/ they called them DAC's but the DAO is more generalized and can easily include DRO's from Stefan's conception of the idea. If it weren't for my reading of Stefan and listening to this idea, I wouldn't have ever understood the power of re-creating society that is possible using the technology of Blockchains. In fact, it was almost like Stefan was predicting the creation of those decentralized organizations long before the technology truly became possible. Anyway...long story short, It was only because of Stefan that I invested in the crowdsale for Ethereum, and I only did that because I wanted a free society via DAO's. Ethereum is truly catching on, and it is quite possible that it would be central to the re-organization of society around decentralized principles, and the creation of Security DAO's using Drones isn't that far away now. Thanks Stefan, you helped bring this vision about, because I know I'm not the only one who saw the similiarities and decided to invest to help bring it about, I know at least 5 others who did the same. If you had a ethereum tipping address I would send you some.

http://www.thefreedomchambernews.com/osgWP3915/osgwp_ChasHolloway_2015.pdf Its long. But worth it IMO. Makes the same point, but very precisely. Not my article, but I am hoping to get it more attention. In fact I don't know the author, but the work is pretty well thought out and he isn't getting as much traction as I think it deserves. I hope you guys give it a look through.

Not my paper. Just thought it had a lot of good points and was philosophically well conceived: http://www.thefreedomchambernews.com/osgWP3915/osgwp_ChasHolloway_2015.pdf Attempts to make the case that free societies were historically a 'hard problem' to solve, and recent technologies may be the thing that enables them. Regardless, I think the historical background he builds was very worth the read in and of itself. I think many here will appreciate what he has to say. My objection is simply that while it may create the possibility for more freedom, Ethereum may also create the very tools for either outcome, i.e., less freedom not more, if not protected against. I'd be interested in a discussion on this.

Hey cool. Saw you posted in my thread. Glad there are others who are tracking this and trying to get the information out there. Her research and presentations on Epigentics is phenomenal, and I immediately thought of Stefan when watching it. I would love it if he did an interview with her. Possible topics would be epigentics of course, but also early childhood development issues caused by malnutrition, and also cognitive diseases caused by lack of Vitamin D etc.

https://youtu.be/qvNLNl7oJnM?t=9m43s Watch till around the 11 minute mark at least to get an idea of what I'm talking about, but watch the whole thing for some pretty ground breaking new discoveries I thought. BTW. this isn't some dumb internet chick. she is the protege of Bruce Ames who won the Nobel peace prize for discovering a method to detect carcinogens and the reason you don't put your kids to bed in pajamas rife with them... But her research pretty much speaks for itself if you've the mind to dig through it. The main question I would like to pose is this: What if you're accidentally harming your children by not allowing them enough sunshine? Perchance this may coincide with the rise of autism, and other dysfunctions being caused by enforced schooling and too much screen time versus playing outside This is something I hit upon and immediately thought of this Forum to get some discussion. Interested in the implications this may have, and other thoughts people may have about it. (Edited for grammar)

Great vids, thanks for sharing.

TL;DR The request is simply Helping me to parse the data, and rationally discover an objective answer if one exists. The question for the show would be: Is moving out of the US objectively better than staying, and by what Rationale? Certainly it would have been objectively better (if the goal is survival) for the Jews to leave germany before Hitler. Is that the case here? Long explanation: So, first things first. I'm not a doom and gloomer, in that I really would prefer to be rationally optimistic where possible. I love Stefan for keeping things real and presenting a clear picture whatever the case may be, but I also really like Jeffrey Tucker for the simple reason that he can always find the silver lining in todays increasingly bleak world. He is part of the reason I keep my wildest fears in check and don't head off for the nearest forest to be a hermit since sometimes it certainly feels like that is the only safe option when we face the evil of todays leviathan state head on. Sadly, In light of recent and historical events both inside the US and outside, (Auschwitz, Topaz UT, Boston Ma, and now the Prism and NSA, some would say 9/11) It is starting to be a rather clear picture to me at least that evil people will do as much evil as they can get away with. (will they get away with murder here too?) I don't think history repeats exactly, but it is certainly iterative and cyclical, and certain trends are unmistakable. Is there some rationale to suppose that this time it will be different? I think its also clear that the Status Quo is unsustainable, at the very least the Dollar will probably collapse. But does a dollar collapse necessitate Martial Law and an Orwellian State? Supposing that "It can't happen here" is obviously wrong without some evidence to point to, and we can dismiss it as irrational american exceptionalism. So the question keeps coming to me; Stay or Go? If I it was the beginning of Hitlers reign, those who fled certainly were the smart one's. Is there enough evidence and 'reading between the lines' to suppose a new tyranny will soon transpire? Is there anywhere safer then where I currently am ? Hard questions that I haven't been able to answer despite it taking up a considerable portion of my energies. My current thinking is to seek stability. But is there anywhere stable right now? I've looked at South America, and heavily considered Chile as it ranks high on The Economic Freedom Index as well as the Global Peace index. But they are also going through some instability with Student Riots as the students demand more free stuff. So that doesn't sit well with me. At the same time I realize we have similiar if not worse in the US with the Occupy movement and there silly demands. So, not a complete deal breaker. Anyway, those are my current thoughts surrounding the dilemma. Any thoughts or input is appreciated.

This is true, but actually on reading your re-wording the meaning didn't get lost, and I have no other way to address the concept of 'society' without being overly simplistic. I realize society is a construct, and not real in the sense that a physical thing is, but I think the same argument could be made about many 'emergent' properties. Society is an emergent property of a group of humans isn't it? As for the rest, I took your critique and really tried to simplify things down and ignore too many extraneous concepts. Let me know if you think it is an improvement.

1. Things aren't perfect, far from it: Most Individuals in a society agree that society itself is not optimal in some fashion. The specifics of their disagreement with society at large are irrelevant, they must only agree with this statement, "Things aren't perfect within society." 2. If the Majority had all the answers or even most of them we would be in heaven already: If an individual agrees that things are not perfect within society, they also implicitly must agree that to the precise degree that society is imperfect that an equal portion of societies members and their majority viewpoints must also be contributing to society in an imperfect fashion. The more that a member finds wrong, the more they should agree that societies individual members and majority viewpoints must be wrong. If things aren't perfect, there must be a reason, and that reason must be that the individuals comprising society are wrong by some undetermined degree. 3.Its infinitely easier to be incorrect than correct: There are nearly infinite methods of being wrong or incorrect, and a limited and finite number of ways to be correct. Infinity divided by anything but itself is itself infinite. Suffice it to say that its far easier to be wrong when an active intelligence doesn't become involved. Because of this all randomly given world-views will be almost always wrong when that world view is unexamined and taken uncritically. 4. Take nothing on faith, the physical world requires rational thought: Because the potential to be wrong far outweighs the potential to be right, it is only through an active intelligence's intervention examining possible outcomes using logic and empiricism, that an individual's world-view and subsequent actions become closer in line with reality i.e., The Truth. Accepting majority opinion on faith, unexamined, is a guarantee that one will have at least in part a potentially crippling world-view inhibiting growth and development. 5. Herds are political, not rational, and humans are herd animals: Humans are herd animals, whose life depends on to a great extent the help of their neighbors. Herds are political. Political maneuvering is not based on logic or evidence. This means that over time groups which become heavily politicized get further and further from reality in their view points and opinions so long as these opinions do not become completely self-destructive. 6. Summation: Since nearly all members of society agree that society is sub-par, and because we can see that the likelihood of being randomly right even in part is vanishingly small, then all members of society implicitly must agree that the majority of all societies members are wrong in whole or in part which is what leads to the sub-par, un-optimal behavior that they take issue with. If even partially reasonable they will further admit that the likelihood of their own world-view being somehow 1 in 10 trillion and somehow completely correct is next to impossible, and furthermore that is far more likely that they are completely wrong on the vast majority of their beliefs right along with everyone else.

Hey thanks for the feedback all.. Don't have tons of time to reply but will do my best. First off, I re-wrote the main points trying to address the criticism here and I think its clearer? Let me know if this works better. Cool. I think those were the most important. I elaborated on them a bit in the new version, but let me know if it helped or hindered. Nor do I. Its a bit difficult to try to be brief and not create misinterpretations. I tried to imply in a couple spots that human thinking will be naturally walled in by our survival mechanism and survival needs. A 100% wrong world-view gets weeded out pretty quickly since it kills the user and never gets passed on. Above this lowest common denominator however is still a possibly infinite variation of incorrect thinking. Hmmm,,, this is trickier. But see if you agree with the new version posted above. If I understand what you're taking issue with I think I have incorporated the 'evidence' in the premise. Its sort of like UPB, in that we judge the person by the principle they use themselves. Very loopy and self-referential. Namely: if the person agrees that society is not perfect then they must also agree that if majority opinion held the answers and all the power in the world to make those answers happen, then we should be in heaven already. Why isn't this utopia? i.e., the answers can't be with the majority since there is obviously something drastically wrong. Then if they claim its a utopia after-all they are just intellectually dishonest and we can ignore them as a troll. I believe it is strongly implied, and perhaps logically demanded should they accept the premise, "Society is not perfect". Perfect may be too strong a word here though. Maybe even if they accept the premise, "Society could be improved." If they accept that society is not perfect or at the very least doesn't have all the answers, and by extension the majority of society and their world views, then they must at least agree that at least some portion of their own world view is probably suspect. It really depends on how much they think society is doing wrong which is why the chain of logic starts with that.

Rewrote the Conclusions Section; While couching my terms a bit more, I did not back down from the full implications. See what you think: Conclusion: Because of these deductions, It is fair to conclude and provide some conjecture on a few things. -This line of reasoning invalidates in whole or in part all religions, political parties, and cultures. The exact extent of invalidation is undetermined here, but also irrelevant. We can only conclude that it is highly unlikely for any one organization or tradition to be right and that we must apply some rigorous standards to find out exactly how much they are wrong. -At any given point in time, the majority opinions of society on any given subject are far more likely to be wrong then correct. - Our own world-view must be the first suspect and receive the most scrutiny since we are not somehow magically special or exempt from logic, reason and evidence no matter how much we may wish it. If we are to find truth, we must first clean the lens we are looking through to insure that what we find isn't skewed by our own incorrect beliefs. - Thus far, the only known proven method of discerning truth is through the use of logic and evidence. Therefore; Those who take a pro-active approach using rigorous logic and appeal to reality through empirical evidence will greatly improve their ability to discern the correct methods of conduct and by extension their world-view and, if consistent over time, they will be more in-line with correct philosophy i.e., truth. In the past, only small minorities have done this consistently, The vast majority of people will never take this approach. - This means, the likelihood of finding 'Truth' in majority viewpoints is unlikely and close to impossible as it concerns any field of endeavor that doesn't adhere to rigorous standards of logic and empirical evidence. - Since political maneuvering as a general rule is anti-logic and anti-evidence and more about human power structure's, the more political an organization becomes, the less likely that it will be able to recognize or implement truth. This includes all organizations, including ones originally based on the principles of logic and evidence. -Lastly, This is the contrarian viewpoint justified since it implies and supports the intuitive notion that majority opinion is nearly always wrong, especially when logic and evidence are not strictly adhered to and political maneuvering gets in the way. It also strongly suggests that if a man wishes to find truth The place to look is with the small minority of those who will bow in the face of logic and evidence and who will let go of the random grab-bag of conflicting beliefs they were given by accident of birth.

Yeah, I guess I don't care if it offends people, but I see your point. I may re-write that portion for general consumption, but I was trying to be somewhat rigourous and logical (disregarding emotional impact) myself although I admit I am still a student in that regard. I have to agree as well that although it is 'suggested' it is not a proof of minority claims by any means, and its very true that both could be equally wrong. Thanks for pointing that out. I suppose It is more accurate to say that the minority of people who use logic and evidence to create their worldview is where to look for further truth vs. minorities in general.

Hey all, Just wrote something down and thought I would share it. I haven't ever heard these particular ideas articulated before, but if you have then I would be interested to know. I suppose you could call this an intuition which I explored in-depth and tried to dig out all the axioms and logical conclusions, and then present it in a way that the logic becomes inescapable. I see a number of ways it could be wrong or over generalized, but I thought I would ask for feedback anyway. Without further ado: The Contrarian Principle 1. Individuals in a society nearly universally agree that society itself is not optimal in some fashion. The specifics of their disagreement with 'society' at large are irrelevant . 2.Since nearly all members of society agree to this imperfection in some or many aspects, and readily agree that there is at least some level of sub-par activity, they also implicitly must agree that to the precise degree that society is imperfect or sub-par that at least some portion of societies members must also be contributing to society in an imperfect or sub-par fashion. The more that is wrong, the more societies individual members must be wrong. 3. There are nearly infinite methods of being wrong or incorrect, and a limited and finite number of ways to be correct. For simplicity sake, we may call these correct philosophies, or incorrect philosophies. Reality is the final arbiter however, and the level of incorrectness passed down will never supersede the person's ability to survive because such a philosophy will be self-destructive and will not be passed on to the next generation. 4. Since the number of correct philosophies is finite, and the number of incorrect philosophies for all intents and purposes infinite, the number of correct philosophies is vanishingly small compared to the number of incorrect. Because of this, if given by pure chance, almost all random philosophies will be nearly completely incorrect. 5. Because Most all humans are given their personal philosophies based on pure chance from their accident of birth locations and culture (far far more common than we would like to admit), we can virtually guarantee that all members of society have incorrect in part or whole philosophies by which they act upon. The chances that any one individual has a completely correct personal philosophy is also virtually zero. The chances are far greater for the majority of societies individuals to have a completely incorrect personal philosophy where said philosophy doesn't impair their ability to survive completely. 6. Since nearly all members of society agree that society is sub-par, and because we can see that the likelihood of being right even in part is vanishingly small, then all members of society implicitly must agree that the majority of all societies members are wrong in whole or in part which is what leads to the sub-par un-optimal behavior they take issue with. They must further admit that the likelihood of their own world-view being somehow 1 in 10 trillion and somehow completely correct is next to impossible, and furthermore that is far more likely that they are completely wrong on the vast majority of their beliefs along with everyone else. Conclusion: Because of these deductions, I think it is fair to conclude a few things. - This line of reasoning invalidates nearly all religions, political parties, and cultures. -At any given point in time, the majority opinions of society on any given subject are far more likely to be wrong then correct. - Our own world-view must be the first suspect and receive the most scrutiny since we are not somehow magically special or exempt from logic, reason and evidence no matter how much we may wish it. - Those who take a pro-active approach using rigorous logic and appeal to reality through empirical evidence will greatly improve their ability to discern the correct methods of conduct and by extension their world-view and if consistent over time they will be more in-line with correct philosophy i.e., truth. -In the past, only small minorities have done this, The vast majority of people will never take this approach. (this is a different subject however). - This means, the likelihood of finding 'Truth' in majority viewpoints is unlikely and close to impossible as it concerns any field of endeavor that doesn't adhere to rigorous standards of logic and empirical evidence. - Since political maneuvering as a general rule is anti-logic and anti-evidence and more about human power structure's, the more political an organization becomes, the less likely that it will be able to recognize or implement truth. This includes all organizations, including ones originally based on the principles of science. -Lastly, This is the contrarian viewpoint justified since it implies and supports the intuitive notion that majority opinion is nearly always wrong, especially when logic and evidence are not strictly adhered to and political maneuvering gets in the way. It also clearly suggests that the best place to look for truth is with the minority opinions, but always with a critical eye even then.

I realized my reply sounded like I underwent the same hell as that man. Not my intention obviously, and what he went through sickens me. Specifically touching on his experience with the chaplain, as I chose that route as well trying to find some moral grounding where there was none. I recieved similiar advice, and banal platitudes and feel good 'we're the good guys' B.S.

This hit home for me. I went to Basic at Fort Benning 3 years ago now. I underwent very similiar events as I realized how deep the cult of death, and death worship is within the military and woke up to the inherent immorality of it all. My first pep talk from a First Sergeant entailed the gruesome and uncensored details of his first 3 kills and how it changed him, and how he loved the military because he gets paid to kill, whereas out in society they would have to put him in prison since he loved it so much. It was Truly heart stopping and disgusting for me at the time as my delusions of honor and being a hero slowly evaporated and I began to realize the error of my thinking and the massive error of joining and realizing I was stuck. Horrifying to say the least. Anyway,Thanks for sharing this.

True. If I understand you correctly, this is entirely what I was trying to get at, and you did so with far fewer words and more eloquently than I could muster. You're right, I never claimed a condition of total coercion existed, and my apologies if I wasn't clear enough on that. In truth I was claiming just the opposite, that any supposed total coercion of society doesn't literally exist. I was taking issue with the fact that Stefan presented his entire case on the show as if it did exist, thereby attempting to give those voluntarily involved with the state carte blanche to do so without any moral repercussions. This whole time I was merely pointing out that to suppose such a total coercion as a means of pretending no morality exists in specific instances (taking of gov grants, welfare, etc.) has the unintended side-effect of claiming all actions amoral and is a perfect recipe/ammunition for all the moral nihilists nipping at our heels in the liberty movement. I would also add that even with your very concise definition of the principle (which I am totally copying from now on), we have to be careful around the word coercion. Loosely defined by those who are at times loose with definitions, it still could be misconstrued to mean just about anything as it concerns 'the state'. This is dependant on the person of course, but I believe reasonable people will agree that no gun is at their head forcing them to partake of most voluntary 'services' provided by the state, and the only morally actionable choice is total boycott where actual choice is possible. Specifically in that statement; Choice means without coercion and Coercion means direct and unavoidable consequences where life and limb are at stake. My own credo I have lived by these last few years when I came to these core conclusions after I accepted Anarchism based on the morality presented by Stefan, I always summed up this way: Choose where I have the power to choose, Act where I have the power to Act. When you know my specific definition of the word choose, you will see how this is fully applicable within all of our lives even while living under our brutal masters. When the power of choice is taken from me by this strict definition, when I can see the unmistakable gun at my head, I agree with Stefan, the blame does not lie at my feet. Anyway, Thanks for taking the time to carify where we were having a disconnect and please let me know if my thinking on this is correct or if you still see any problems with it.

"There is no morality under situations of coercion". Paraphrasing here, "we all live under government coercion, therefor your actions are amoral and cannot be judged". In saying this, Stefan perhaps unwittingly gave carte blanche to all actions taken while under government coercion. Effectively making the case for moral nihilism. Since I disagree with moral nihilism, and I believe he does as well, I thought I would help by pointing this out, because this misuse of the principle can equally apply to the bank robber and the welfare recipient alike, there is no logical distinction made between them, nor can there be an arbitrary distinction made by preference. If you grant the one, you have to grant the other by the same logic. They both live under the same coercion right? They both could rightfully claim the government rob's them, destroys wealth, and brings society crashing down with them unable to do anything to stop it. They are just trying to survive,... They both feel justified to do what they do, and if other people get hurt along the way, so be it. All I am saying is that this misuse of the principle is a blank check written just for people like them. If you have nothing to show me how this logic is incorrect besides utiliatarian preferences and various other appeals, I fear this discussion has run aground. For This is my one and only point. The other stuff you keep bringing up is starting to feel like purposeful obfuscation on your part. Am I saying that there is no difference between acting the aggressor on the one hand, and taking a handout on the other. NO. In fact I'm trying to show why the overly broad use of the principle as used by Stefan within the show is precisely what creates the problem in the first place. Neither person is justified. Neither person is doing an AMORAL action, and we can accurately describe both as immoral. I AM saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too in this case. One cannot logically create an arbitrary difference here, where there is none. If one says that 'there is no morality under situations of coercion' and then goes on to claim that living under government rule constitutes 'coercion' and furthermore goes on to use this line of reasoning to justify the actions of welfare recipients, paying taxes, using roads, and being on the dole in general, then you can't then go on to claim that it doesn't apply to all actions under situations of coercion. If you say the first group has a gun to their head skewing their actions and the blame therefor lies at the feet of those holding the gun, then you MUST also apply it to the second group, those driven to desperate measures like the bank robber just trying to survive, the burglar who is starving, or the guy who murders the IRS agent showing up at his house to destroy him forever. All of these people, group A and group B live under government coercion. Therefor the principle 'there is no morality under situations of coercion' applies equally to all of them if you say that living under a government constitutes 'coercion' as Stefan appears to have done. My problem is with this broad use of the principle. My solution to avoiding the moral nihilism this creates? Don't be so broad with the use of the word coercion. If you re-read all of my posts above, I think you will find that my solution works. The difference between a legitmate use of the principle has to be how avoidable is the danger. How credible, How legitimate, how disperse vs. direct etc... define it however you wish. But the intention has to be to correctly judge the danger. If approached in this manner, the conundrum of giving carte blanche to bank robbers disappears, but so too does the moral justification for those on the dole, on welfare, taking grants etc... And I think this is what you have a problem with. I'm sorry thats just Too bad, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't eat your cake before you bake it, you can't stand in a bucket pulling on the handle to fly, add any number of logical impossibilities here..... whatever gets the point across. It doesn't matter your preference, or possible guilt that you thought was assuaged. Logic doesn't care. Perhaps there is another way to justify those on the dole, those on welfare, those taking as much from the state as they can, perhaps they are justified in some manner by some other logic. But this isn't it, and that is my only point. The rest is just utilitarian distractions. [/font]The argument that some class of voluntary transaction is not permissible, is a positive argument for a state. I think you inadvertently mistook that. My statement 'Not quite true' was directed towards your statement, 'Then you must, to apply that principle consistently, abandon the use of every non-survival product the state is involved in providing.' It's not quite true since I believe you're not seeing which situation is which appropriately, as evidenced by the fact that you seem to be agreeing with Stefan's application of it. I thought that the context of the rest of my reply would make that understood, which went on to show why you can be consistent and guilt free so long as you define 'coercion' sensibly. Roads are required I believe for survival. At least for me, I am fairly certain it would be my death if I tried to live as a hermit. Not that I wouldn't give it my best try, but without the skillset and a support community, living alone in the woods is highly untenable long term. So I do view the use of the roads as a gun to my head, since I know no other way to survive. I believe I can make the case for that far better then the college student taking the grant. As for other 'services', it depends on the impact. I can give you a specific instance in my own life. In my community there is a community water park, huge olympic sized pool, waterslides, toys etc... Cost us literally 100's of millions locally (community of about 70,000) right at the height of the recession 2009. I refuse to partake, I refuse to to go. Plenty of private pools, or I can just not go altogether. My survival is not at stake, and I can lead a perfectly happy life without it. This is definitly a case where direct and legitimate coercion has no bearing. If I used The logic presented in the show, then the fact that I live in society, and society is ruled by coercion would give me a 'clear conscience' to go. But since I understand the principle better than that, I realize that there is NO GUN to my head, and I would not be justified to go. It is a small matter, but I live a guilt free life, which is no small matter. In reply to you're belief that the forceful transfer of property is legitimate and conveys ownership to the person in possession, I can only say you should look at that again a little more closely. For that is the only way a person could possibly see the transactions of gangsters and governments as anything but robbery. By taking the handout knowing the money was stolen, under the law, even laws of a free society, you would be an accomplice to the act. In a free society ran by insurance companies, I could bring a claim against both you and the original robber if I could prove you took the STOLEN property willingly and knowingly. If you disagree, all I can say is you're confused on this issue because you believe the labels 'government' convey special moral properties. Because You seem to be making special exceptions for government, almost like you believe their claim of existence to be legitimate. They are just people. If a private individual robs me, the property doesn't become theres. If they use MY property to pay someone else, and the other person knows that the property was stolen, I can sue them both and rightfully claim restitiution from BOTH OF THEM, because they are both Thieves. The property never changes ownership, it remains mine the entire time regardless of who has possession. If you disagree, then you're confused, and the UPB rule you would have to claim would be 'All forceful redistribution of property conveys legitimate ownership to those in possession' and in case you missed it you have just given a moral rule that justifies all theft. Anyway, I believe I have spent enough time on this. Just as heads up, unless the logic on the original point presented above is directly addressed and shown to be wrong somehow, then I won't be replying here anymore. The rest of the argument is just hashing out the details as far as I am concerned, and mostly unimportant. The meat of the argument is whether or not I am correct to claim that the overly broad use of the principle in question as done by Stefan leads to moral Nihilism. If someone wishes to address this then I would be happy to reply.

Thanks for continuing the discussion. I have a few responses, which I have tried to keep short. First a Quick Reminder: The point under discussion is whether the use of the principle 'There is no morality under coercion' applies wholly to all those currently living under state coercion. Since this would be everyone, According to this logic then, all current actions currently undertaken by all state citizens can legitimately be called 'amoral' and we have effectively become moral nihilists... If you disagree, then you need to show me how my line of reasoning is invalid. Explaining it away via a preference or otherwise or some other utilitarian argument is not a valid rebuttal. Sure, nothing in here that I would disagree with. I don't think it matters though and it complicates the issue unnecessarily perhaps even grossly to no apparant benefit. Whether or not something is percieved as threatening really has no bearing on its actual threat level. People are scared of sharks, yet dogs kill far more people every year. THe point being that it could just as easily swing the other direction, where a legitimate threat to your survival is not percieved accurately as such to your detriment and possible demise. Thus I would say this is an unnecessary distinction, and my points above remain unchallenged as such. I'm not sure I see why you brought this up. I would agree though. My question had more to do with how the implicit result of 'no morality in situations of coercion' if applied to mean 'the state' would make virtually every action, even violence, amoral. Sure. I see nothing wrong with that. The metaphor of the 'rape-babies' doesn't really work. There is a fundamental, and massive, difference between a living human being and blood money taken by force. Remember the rules for a valid metaphor are that all pertinent and outcome affecting details must be preserved between sitation A and situation B. Also, not sure if this was your intention, but This could almost be seen as an appeal to emotion in particular sense, because who would want to be seen as 'against poor rape-babies'. I respond to the 'roads argument' below. Not quite true. But even if it were true it wouldn't negate my points above. Only showing where I have made a mistep logically will do that. Morality being objective from our desires means that it is perfectly possible for us to have to renounce the state completely in order to be moral. That would have to be proven of course, but just because it makes it inconvenient for us is not an argument from morality, but an argument from convenience. A utilitarian argument if you will. Also, If you give this a bit more thought I bet you can see why you are wrong about it as well. I specifically said that we can just tighten up the meanings and words in the principle 'no morality in situations of coercion' so that it prohibits moral judgement where appropriate, but avoids both the overly broad applications that effectively make us moral nihilists, as well as your overly narrow interpretation as well which would be egregious to say the least. I have tried to specifically say repeatedly, that Where the threat of violence is direct, legitimate, and unavoidable then it certainly applies. College loans are easily avoidable, and so are not justified. Government Jobs are also very avoidable (at least outside of soviet russia) and are therefor also not justified. The roads however are not avoidable. I would gladly pay a private company for this service and/or build my own, but should I do so without permission, the repercussions would be severe and violent if I resisted or persisted. Roads fall under the same category as Taxation for this very reason. The threat is direct, legitimate, and unavoidable. In response to your claim that an exchange of money between the mafia and someone else is a 'voluntary' action; I can only say that I hope you will give that a second look. As a hint, Siding with the criminal is usually a red flag. But you have also completely mischaracterized the entire situation. There are not 2 parties here. But 3. Nor is it a voluntary transaction between party A and Party B, but an INVOLUNTARY transaction between party A and party C faciliated by force/threat/violence by party B. By forgetting all about the victim here puts you in the same camp as statists claiming taxation is voluntary. Downplaying the history of the money is also a rather suspect move that I hope you can admit to being wrong about. The metaphor between the Mafia representing all forms of statism, and the payout being all forms of money taken by force in government holds firm. I would also add that this is completely superfluous to the point above.

Really quick, I just wanted to review so far: Stef brings up the principle: 'There is no morality in situations of coercion'. He mentions situations where someone is being raped or mugged, and the actions of the person who is being raped/mugged under those circumstances being 'amoral' inasmuch that we cannot pass moral judgment on those actions. For the record: I agree whole-heartedly with this understanding of that situation specifically. The blame should be firmly laid at the feet of those perpetrating the violence. Continuing on, Stef uses this principle in the show to attempt to justify his apparant opposition to 'going galt'. (correct me if I am wrong in that assumption) This could include things like refusal to pay taxes, or going off the grid and being complete non-participants. Refusing to let the parasites feed etc. He applies the above principle metaphorically to this situation. Likening the victim above with all participants in a modern society, and the mugger to being 'The State', and we all as victims of that society should not feel guilty in any way for our actions in the same manner that the person being raped or mugged should feel no guilt i.e., 'there is no morality in situations of coercion' is the cover being applied for the actions of the people within a coercive society. This would mean we should not feel any guilt whatsoever for paying taxes. (Which I happen to agree applies here just fine) Despite the fact that I believe it applies to taxation, does not in my mind justify this principle being used 'societally' ad hoc in this manner. So For the record: This is where I see the disconnect. This is where I believe he has taken it too far. The application of that principle seems too broadly applied in this specific instance of its use, since I believe I have shown logically above how such a broad application of this principle allows for gross immoralities to be justified thereby. Furthermore, I believe it comes from a misapplication of the NAP, surrounding the use of the word 'coercion' within that above statement, and thus my quest to attempt to refine that definition and eradicate the word 'coercion' since it allowed this misapplication to begin with. Feel free to read through the logical breakdown and correct me if I am wrong. I would add that for a metaphor like he used above with a mugging/rape victim to be validly applied, all pertinent and outcome affecting details have to be preserved with the application of the metaphor between the first situation and the second. In this case, it does not. Specifically, There is a gun/knife/valid threat of credible violence in the one case, but this component is missing in the second case. Point to the gun/knife/credible threat as it concerns a situation where a college student decides to take a college grant. I can see it with taxation, but not with the grant. I don't believe anyone could honestly claim with a straight face that they had a gun to their head when they took that grant, and I believe that they were not forced to take it in any way. They had a choice in the matter. This also applies disconcordantly to disparate situations also brought up, such as government employees being justifed in their occupations. Are they? Do they really have a gun/knife/threat of credible violence hanging over them? I don't believe so, and I also think I have shown how such a broad definition of force/coercion if accepted leads to such absurdities as justifying the bank robber rendered desperate and poor because of living within a 'coercive society' and being a 'victim' of the government for taxing and spending society into the brink. This is certainly all true. He is certainly a victim on many levels of government actions, as are we all, but is he being threatened with force to go rob the bank? Haven't we seen just this exact type of justification from criminals before? I have. So if you justify the college student in this manner, you also implicitly justify the bank robber. If you read the next part of the discussion, things have evolved a bit past 'coercion' mostly because I began seeing this as a misapplication of the NAP, with the fault being in the loose definition of force/coercion. Removing that word helps immediately I believe, since I think coercion is far too general a term to be applicable in the NAP as you have just demonstrated. The question then becomes, what specifically constitutes 'the initiation of the use of force'. Because depending upon how people act upon this answer, will determine their outlook for when they feel justified to act 'amoral' or so they believe in some fashion etc. Furthermore, would you argue there is such a thing as 'non-violent initiation of force' ? For you seem to think there is non-violent coercion, but that really becomes kind of a non-sequitar when we use the word force instead, do you agree? If not, or if you prefer to use the word coercion, Does non-violent 'coercion' then justify violent resistance or accepting? Perhaps that is too strong...does non-violent or psychological coercion justify acceptance of monies procured through violence? I'm not trying to be dick, I'm just trying to get a feel for what you're thinking here. Actually, there is one difference. In the case of the rapist, the victim has expressed a preference not to have sex. No one relinquishing the money has expressed a preference for you not to take it. I'm not 100% sure I follow you completely, but I think you're saying and using the same justifcation for taxation that statists' use i.e., the fact they paid the tax is proof that its voluntary = The fact that no-one expresses opposition to it, must be proof that they accept being robbed and you taking the money. If so, I hope you can see why I would disagree with that sentiment. Furthermore, I hope you can also see why I would say that as a prevarication, and somewhat distasteful. The fact that I was forced by literal threat of death or imprisonment to relinquish the money should probably serve as an indictment of the whole thing. The fact that it is upheld by continued violence, literal not figurative, should at least make you pause. Furthermore, at the very least, this makes for a very convenient (and suspect) excuse, since most people don't need any convincing to take money, moral or immoral. In such a situation, I am automatically leery, confirmation bias being as prevalent in all our thinking as it is, and something I am constantly on guard against. Address the specific before the general. Coercion exists between people (like two of 'em), as a series of spoken or gestural ideas. Being in a particular geographic area is no more an excuse to act-up than it is a social contract. Standing in the middle of Iowa has nothing to do with coercion. If you think of your interactions with other people as not being part of some gigantic collective named "Society", then you won't have quite so much trouble seeing coercion. I think this is exactly my point. I am trying to address the specific, and not let the principle be applied ad hoc to 'Society' and all of us living under government rule without justification. I think I have shown why that leads to the principle justifying just about anything, since we all live in 'society' and we all live with a 'government' dictating over us. I don't, typically speaking, think in 'collectives' and I suppose you could say this is precisely why I took issue with it being used in this fashion in the first place, because it made it Far to broad and over-reaching. I conclusion I think my position could be summed up this way: Its one thing to pay the mafia off since they will surely react violently if you don't, it's an entirely different thing to take their blood money voluntarily when no repercussions beyond being a bit poorer are in the offing. I'll let your own conscience decide which situation is which.

Hey Thanks for taking the time to respond. I just wanted someone to bounce this off of since it was sticking in my craw so to speak upon hearing it. I would appreciate any further insights you may have as well. It has also been something I have grappled with in the past to a great degree. Long story short, I became a Conscientious Objector and left the army about 4 years ago now when I finally accepted and began to apply the NAP. How to apply it rationally has been something I have put a lot of thought into. My best guess that I came to finally was to basically Act upon the principle to the best of my ability where I have the power to act. Simply put, where I have a choice in the matter, I will choose the NAP. Error on the side of caution etc. Consequently around that same time, I breached my contract with the ROTC and dropped out of college all based on my convictions and best understanding of the principle. I couldn't see how taking government money, or attending a government run school (all supported by force and violations of the NAP) was any different than actively supporting that same institution via the military. Perhaps some here would say I threw the baby out with the bathwater. For me, I just have always been all or nothing when it comes to a principle I accept. As Ayn Rand would say, "there is no compromise with poison". Where I would differ with Rand would be in Aesthetics of course, there she took that uncompromising spirit too far. Ok I can see that, and I said pretty much the same thing myself as well, not realizing its full application. Its almost like we should refuse to sully the word 'choice' in such a situation since it really isnt' a choice. I agree that we should look to the instigator as the responsible party for sure. Yes, I remember this. And you're correct, I would have to agree by my own definition as far as that takes us. My worry is that the defintion is so loosely defined it could be misconstrued to give justification for any number of evils. For instance, what specifically constitutes 'initiation of force'. To me, this is physical violence done directly to my person or the credible threat thereof. I added 'immediate' since this would lend creedance to the credible threat. i.e., the gun is in my face, this is clearly immediate, and clearly credible. So in retrospect, perhaps 'credible' is a better choice, but the intention of rationally defining 'initiation of force' remains the same. I mean, if these are the principles we stand upon as libertarians, I think its high time we clearly and rationally define them so they aren't some nebulous construct that could be misconstrued and justify murder. So, to continue, I believe 'initiation of the use of force' has to be a credible, clear and present danger, and not something that may happen to me ,maybe, possibly at some point in the future. Notice that 'credible' would also help weed out instances of misuse of the principle surrounding things like...'child of 7 killed. Defendant , 35, claims he was being threatened by the child and the child had 'initiated the use of force'. I suppose there are instances where this could be true. guns being the great equalizer, but the 'credibilty' of the claim has to be established to make it valid. Taxes correctly fall under this category to me, being a credible, clear and present perhaps even 'physical' danger to our continued wellbeing since we can and have clearly seen what happens to those who don't consent. But there are surely Other things I don't believe fall into this category since they are mere hypotheticals based upon conjecture. Things like taking a college grant. The danger is not clear, present or credible by any rational defintion of those words as far as I can see. The 'threat' in such a case is merely conjectures based upon an a priori patchwork of guesses as to possible outcomes..i.e,. you think your future is being limited in some fashion without the college education. But I think a good argument could be made that higher education is as stultifying as all other public schools and deleterious to overall education and intelligence, and the danger is actually in the attendance thereof. Thats the problem with conjecture, it can be construed either way and I think you would be hard pressed to make the case that you were being forced in this situation to such a degree that your choices became amoral. Its this type of broad brush approach which I fear is using the Non-aggression principle to jusfify immorality. Because by that exact same rational, if I am living hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck, and starving and I know its because the government inflates and taxes and destroys wealth every chance it can (all true), and then I go rob a bank and kill someone along the way, am I then justified in that robbery and murder? For it seems to me that is the logical conclusion of his reasoning. Is that action Amoral and can't be judged as wrong since I am living in a society literally nose-diving into the ground by the thugs in government, and they made me do it? How is this application of the principle currently so loosely defined any different from justifying taking a handout using the same rational? Am I missing something here? I think the only solution to avoid this type of reasoning and misapplication is to redefine or just define the principle as I have done. At this time I can't see any other way to avoid this. So, in short If I am wrong, Help me see how refusing to take a handout is a 'credible, clear and present physical danger' to your person. I can't see the gun myself, so I am forced to conclude that coercion was not a part of this situation. I'm not sure. I think that I would want some clarification from Stef to see for sure. What do you think? Have I made the case that we need to rationally define the non-aggresion principle to keep it from becoming badly misused? Whatever the case may be as to my reasoning, I believe that its just a good practice in philosophy to define our terms. So, either way I think a discussion needs to be made to clearly define when and where and how 'initiation of the use of force' can be correctly used.

Just a quick critique of the segment about 'morality while under coercion'. I agree with the principle, but not the application. I don't think the conclusions presented were rigorously defined. I'm also unsure how we can get to the principle in the first place, even though I do agree with it, using UPB. Perhaps someone here would venture a suggestion? I commented on the youtube channel as well. To quickly reiterate what I said there: I fully agree with the principle paraphrased here as 'there is no morality in situations of coercion'. I question whether it is being applied consistently or fairly however. So I feel like it is being used, or could be used to justify a number of different acts that I think would be inconsistent morally, because I don't believe the terms or there use were defined well enough. Specifically: what is coercion? It seems the definition that Stefan uses is so widely interpreted that it could mean 'living in any society with a monopoly of violence at its center is a situation of coercion'. This is clearly false, for if we were to take this definition and apply it to the principle, then any act whatsoever within said society by its members could not be judged moral or immoral. I could use this principle to justify anything. I could murder rape and steal all day long and not be judged since I live within a society of coercion. Soooo...that being said, what is the proper definition? In my opinion I think the principle should be restated or reformulated something like this: "In choices or situations where an immediate threat of violent retribution is a possible outcome, there is no moral judgement" Notice the word coercion (loose term and hard to define) has been removed, and been replaced by a specific 'immediate threat of violent retribution' which clearly defines where and when this principle can be applied. Now, I realize I made a new distinction, and perhaps it could be said I did so arbitrarily, but I intuitively believe this is the correct application of the principle he is using via metaphor, but I would need some help to defend it rigorously...any takers? Why do I believe it, simply because if it isn't used this way, it could be used to defend rape, murder etc. and this is one of the first defining rules of UPB...any system of ethics that could be used to defend rape, murder etc....should be discarded out of hand forthwith. So take the rape example Stefan used: this is obvious that anyone being raped with a threat of violence to coerce them cannot be judged as immoral, they had a choice per se to resist, but it wasn't free of 'an immediate violent retribution'. This would preclude the overly broad defintion he seems to be using ad hoc to justify living within a system of violence. But also when stated this way, we can see where it doesn't apply. So, choosing to be a teacher on the dole, choosing to recieve welfare. In short, choosing to be an active supporter, directly or indirectly of a geographical monopoly of violence puts that person in the place of the rapist, not the rapee. True? They had a choice free of an immediate threat of violence...they can't claim they had a gun to there head when taking the check, when supporting the state, etc. We might also redefine more carefully the word choice. I think it would be fair to say that choices don't truly exist when faced with violence for making the wrong decision. I think an argumetn could be made that That word 'choice' doesn't exist ,or is used incorrectly, when applied to the person who is faced with violent retribution. However, When such retribution doesn't enter the equation, then they are fully culpable for the choice. Taxes is like being raped. You do it because you have to or face retribution. Taking a government grant for college is like being the rapist. You had a choice free of retribution to NOT take the money, no immediate threat to your survival justifies you taking that course of action. Your actions are therefore fully capable of being judged as moral or immoral. My Summation: Act morally where we have the power to act free of violent retribution. All else can be justifiably placed at the feet of those who hold the gun. So I guess my question is: How is this reasoning wrong or was I misunderstanding something in some way?

Good review of the situation as it stands now, and some of the history involved. Informative and entertaining as usual. I was howevever a little disappointed that You didn't bring up at least in a cursory mention the alternatives possible with thorium. If only a private firm could become involved instead of governments yet again, I think Thorium would be a perfect for a safe and stable production of nuclear power without all the baggage associated with Uranium. Governments corrupt everything, they like weapons, and thus Uranium reactors were the best option for them since it provides weapons grade material at the same time it produces power. Makes sense from the viewpoint of sheer evil, just not from the viewpoint of a society that wants peace and no hazardous materials to keep track of for 20,000 years.