cynicist

If that were to happen we would say it was an amusing accident. Given that the scientific method is the only valid system for determining the truth, better is not applicable. The equivalent test for morality is called logic, that's what the universalization aspect is about. The rigor and clarity are not at all comparable, UPB goes into much more detail. Btw, Habermas and Apel came up with 'Argumentation Ethics', not Hoppe.

I'm happy to help I added the underlined bit. It's conditional on the fact. If you don't want to be good, then ethics isn't binding on you. To use the science example again, we would say that if you value truth then the results of applying the scientific method to determine the truth are binding on you, meaning that you would have to accept them. So no matter if Bob or Doug are using the scientific method to test their theories, the results of those tests would be binding on both of them. (assuming of course that the testing methodology wasn't flawed) Here are some following statements from that same page for clarification (I didn't add the underlined bits this time):

If this was about improving your self-confidence it wouldn't be called pickup. There's nothing wrong with wanting to get laid, just stop pretending it's anything but tips and tricks on seducing damaged or dumb women.

The logic is this, the husband thinks violence against his wife is ok, even if you convince him not to do it in a particular situation. The real problem is the violence, not the instance of it. How could you think you are saving the wife from anything? As long as violence is acceptable he will just hit her for any other reason or come up with any other justification for it. All you have done is give him cause to say, "See? I'm reasonable. I'm not hitting you when you do that anymore." Except Peter is not going to end the fed, and Stefan has already reduced child abuse by convincing many parents not to hit their children. Do you see my point? Wow you are actually starting to irritate me. I'm not saying there is a formal committee.... What I'm saying is that people act in their own best interests. If I was a politician who got paid to dole out favors to people, then I'm not going to be interested in the issue of marijuana unless there is profit involved for me, by either voting against it or supporting its legalization. Whatever gives me more power or financial resources is going to be where I invest my efforts, because that is the whole point of being in political office. Exactly. So why are you being so naive by suggesting that we are going to elect people who this time, will absolutely go by principles rather than simply increase their own wealth or power? Oh my god. Aren't you forgetting all the police officers, prison unions, and federal agents that you will be putting out of a job by legalizing these drugs? Not to mention commercial industries that might have something to say about it. I think what's amazing is your capacity for deluding yourself into thinking that this will happen without it being beneficial to some politician. My point is that it's not a big issue currently because politicians don't benefit from it, so they have no incentive to do it. Accusing me of being selfish and having a lack of empathy is just... I don't even know... well I'm definitely done from this point. I really hope you don't waste your life chasing this fantasy.

Speaking as a man, it's not true. I mean it appears that men process emotions differently, but I would say that is the result of the society we live in, where men are criticized and ritually humiliated for expressing their emotions. (by other men as well as women) I'd recommend Daniel Mackler's criticism of psychotherapy (video linked below), I had suspected some of what he said but it still shocked me to hear it from an actual therapist. (He has practiced in NYC for 10 years) He's also been on FDR a few times and even hosted the show once or twice. He's a very interesting guy and responds to questions unusually quickly, in fact I just asked him a question about therapy yesterday and got a response today.

Anything other than consistency is not going to bring about freedom. Like the example I gave you earlier. If you try to convince abusive husbands not to hit their wives for letting a meal get cold, you haven't really achieved much have you? In fact I could argue that convincing them to abstain in that area would only make it easier for them to justify it in others. If the truth is that the system as a whole is corrupt and evil, why don't we work towards removing it instead of trying to work within it? (where there is a large incentive for people who benefit from state power to oppose you, and fund your enemies or tempt you with money) I never said all violations of NAP would be prevented. The capacity for human beings to do great evil will always be there, the difference is it won't be lauded as necessary or even moral like it is today. Marijuana legalization is not a huge issue for the state, they dangle it in front of voters but they could care less as long as they continue to print money and increase taxes in various ways. Hell, they can tax the newly legalized drug as well. Changing the stuff that really matters is not going to happen through political action. Sorry but we absolutely see things differently here. I'm not sure what is motivating you to pursue this path but I can see that I'm not going to sway you, so I'll just leave the wisdom of George Carlin here and wish you luck in finding the solution for freedom.

I was going to address your points but honestly we didn't seem to get anywhere in your last thread, so as I did there I just have to recommend rereading UPB. And maybe you should make your own thread rather than posting here. (since your post doesn't seem to be addressed to Avalanche in particular)

That's interesting, in what way? From what I've seen, Magnus and myself have been saying the same thing using different words. Government is not really hierarchical, that's just an illusion, because the people at the top are no different than you or I. The only reason they are able to do anything at all is because the overwhelming majority support government in one way or another. If you make one thing legal, you are not saying that violence is wrong in all situations, you are saying it is only not ok in this instance, and so you change nothing. What we're saying is that once people learn how to be free, empathetic, and ethical, government will no longer make sense. The origin of the government's power is in the family and more specifically the abuse against children, which conditions them to accept coercive power as legitimate authority. I think the core issue here is that you and I look at the government quite differently, and that's why you can't see what I'm proposing as a solution to the problem. Yeah I missed the part of the constitution that gives the president the authority to murder Americans abroad. If that doesn't shake your confidence in the legal system then nothing will.

Yeah this is something that is not really mentioned in UPB itself. The way that I look at it is that someone who uses force against another person is rejecting that person's right to own themselves, similar to how a thief who takes your property is rejecting property rights for you. Since these are universals, they cannot reject something for you without it reciprocally affecting them. So if they are not respecting your ownership of your own body, you are justified in not respecting theirs since they are forfeiting it through attacking you. This is how self-defense is justified. Now whether that means you can imprison someone or not becomes rather challenging and technical, but certainly if they are too dangerous to be around others then I can see a self-defense argument there. Ideally, by the time UPB is well understood we'll have methods of prevention in place rather than trying to deal with the after-effects. The most important thing is recognizing ethics as an objective discipline first. This, unfortunately, is where the analogy with science breaks down. The difference between science and ethics is that ethics deals with enforceable preferences while science is an aesthetic preference. Stefan goes over this in detail starting on page 48 in the book.

I've not met any FDR members in person yet but after having a conversation with several over skype I'm certainly seeing things differently. I think you're right that we need to speak to and meet each other, not just correspond over text, in order to truly connect. It's interesting to read about your diet experiences. I hope at least one of you starts a thread about it, since I'm currently a meat-eater who is curious about eating more leafy greens but is concerned about what exactly is required for proper nutrition and also the best ways to make them taste delicious to entice myself to eat more.

You are ignoring my answer. Participating in voting as a method to achieve freedom does the opposite of getting us closer to freedom from the state, it further enslaves people by giving them the illusion that fundamental change can happen through the political process. You are trying to convince them that voting works, despite all the evidence to the contrary. I just told you there is no short term solution for dealing with the government, and you are choosing to ignore that. Convincing people that the government sucks is not the plan. The plan is to raise children peacefully, which people certainly are not convinced of in the mainstream. If you want to beat the libertarian drum go right ahead, but don't be surprised to find yourself stuck in the 1% of the population that has voted libertarian historically.

Oh, haha, it doesn't. It wouldn't even persuade them not to send diplomats, they would do it anyway. Yes it seems you understand it pretty well. The reality is that morality is completely optional, just like science. Mystics can say that they get the truth through prayer, and evil people can say they are doing good when they steal from others to pay for social programs. What it does do is give people a rational way to approach ethics rather than relying on something arbitrary like the bible or your elders. There's no way for UPB to make anyone do anything. It doesn't claim to solve the famous is/ought dichotomy. (which is the idea that you can say what people should do, based on what exists in reality)

I have to admit I'm really confused here. After 20-30 hours of listening you must realize that the only reason the government can do anything is because nearly everyone supports it right? Not only supports it, but thinks it is essential to having a civil society. And you think that raising people who don't believe that is no different than convincing people that legalizing marijuana is a good idea? It's like we are talking about husbands assaulting wives and you say we should convince 50% of them to not hit their wives for letting a meal get cold, and then when I say that we should get them to understand that hitting anyone is wrong, you ask me how that is any different.

Lol first of all I just wanted to say I do the exact same thing to avoid getting confused, sometimes I even have to think in terms of science/the scientific method in order to get things straight. Your interpretation is exactly correct. I will add an additional piece of information to demonstrate how difficult it is to challenge the idea. Not only can you not argue against ethics without using UPB, you can't even argue against UPB without exhibiting UPB. (since doing so is to say that one should prefer truth over falsehood, which is itself a universal and binding preference) There are certainly areas where my understanding could be improved but how air-tight parts of it are just causes me to shake my head in disbelief. I don't envy people who want to criticize it, it's a tough thing to do if you actually understand what is written. And thank you, the compliment is enough.

Great conversation guys, I wish I could have been a part of this one. I kept feeling a desire to add my thoughts lmao. For one thing, I used to listen to some pretty hardcore music. I'm talking melodic death metal, not your average angry rock music. (though I was a fan of more mellow stuff too, like Tool or A Perfect Circle) I go back from time to time and listen to stuff from my youth, not just to experience what my feelings were then: I study the lyrics because I find that it's useful to connect the meaning/metaphors of the artist to my own thoughts or experiences at the time. Often it's directly related and doesn't take much interpretation at all. There's also still a part of me that enjoys it, even though it's much harsher to my ears than it used to be, and it feels like a way to connect to that aspect of myself. I know what I'm describing is similar to memory but it feels like more than that, like I'm connected not just to my younger self but also this entity that I characterize as 'legitimate burning anger', which has its own thoughts about the situations I face today. To spare your eardrums, here's some lyrics where the meaning seems rather obvious to me now but were only understood intuitively at the time:

Wow that's an interesting story, welcome to the boards. I was already no longer involved with any organized religion when I found FDR so it is hard to imagine what that experience was like for you, to come to that realization while in the middle of it. It takes a lot of courage to take that leap over the chasm from delusion to reality. I'm curious how you exited the faith and the reactions of the people that you considered part of your community, but I'd understand if that's too personal to go into. Congratulations on the jump at least.

The only way to have true privacy and security is through encryption, but it's not convenient and most people don't understand it. I just use Gmail and treat everything I send as public. Kevin is right that Google does a good job of protecting against outside spying using encrypted sessions, but due to their business model it isn't going to be applied to messages as a default feature of their service. So no matter what they do, the government can always request or seize the information when they please. If I ever had to communicate something in absolute secrecy I'd either teach the other person how to use encryption (unlikely) or just meet them in person.

This is the issue. You think that there is a way to address the government in the short-term. It does not exist. The only way is long-term through peaceful parenting and the raising of rational thinkers that are not susceptible to this bizarre notion that government is the solution rather than the problem. The best that you can do short-term is simply protect yourself and your assets, and try to help the people that you care about do the same, so that when the impending collapse comes you aren't as devastated. Forming strong community bonds is not a bad idea either. The point is that in the future, people will understand that government and the initiation of force is not required for self-defense or a legal system, or any of the things that people think are necessary prerequisites for having a civil society. The ultimate goal is to not have that system, so there is nothing to curtail or be vigilant over. Before accusing us of not having any solutions to the problem, I'd recommend starting with the books or podcasts as a primer on the kind of ideas that we support as a community. I'm happy to answer questions but given that there are like 9 books and thousands of podcasts, it may take a while to cover some of the important points (the first 100-200 podcasts cover the core issues well, everything after is also great but the first ones are basically the introduction to the main ideas) I don't think risking imprisonment or seizure of your property is a simple decision at all.

Yeah that's how I see it too. Just do what you need to in order to limit what they can inflict on you. Making a stand in this situation won't actually achieve anything. I admire Adam Kokesh's courage but at times it's hard not to mistake it for insanity when he purposefully draws attention to himself from cops/the legal system. If he had been sent to prison, people would think it was horrible but then what? I think he realized that when he was sitting in a jail cell after recording himself pumping a shotgun and posting it on Youtube. He didn't do anything wrong but that's a distinction without a difference in the eyes of the state.

This is exactly the sentiment expressed by GreekRedemption in this thread. (basically the idea that this community is only open to Stefan's ideas) It sounds almost like "all ideas should be considered equal". The fact is that there is truth and falsehood, and everything else is opinion or invalid. So if I see something that is opposed to UPB, then either there is a flaw in Stephan's reasoning or the argument being put forth is flawed. According to the standard of truth one of those ideas is valuable and the other isn't. (or could be improved upon) What I see here, and I might be wrong, but it seems like people are taking it personally that their ideas are being criticized, or compared to Stefans and found lacking. So rather than work on the errors in their own arguments or point out where Stefan has gone wrong, people react by saying the community is closed-minded. I like disagreements, conflict is necessary to figure these things out, but I don't quite get what you hoped to achieve with this thread. If you think that people are just regurgitating information, then it should be really easy to argue against them, since they don't understand what they are saying. If not, then maybe the issue is on your side. (I'm just asking that you consider it)

Welcome to the boards. Absolutely, I've had this concern myself, especially since sometimes you won't even remember certain things until you get further in your exploration of yourself. The only clear way that I could think of to navigate this tangled mental map was my emotions. Logic helps too when you are in discussions with your parents for example, but the emotions you feel can give you some of idea of how you perceived the experiences at the time, even if the experiences themselves aren't clear. God that sounds horrible. The type of mental torture that your mother inflicted on you by threatening you with your father's arrival stood out to me even compared to the rest of the abuse. I know it can seem hard to believe but the anxiety is good. That's how you know that what you are describing is something that is important and needs to be explored further. One thing I didn't know before I began the journey is how essential feedback from others is. Or looking at the events from the perspective of an observer, as if they were happening to another family. Without that kind of denormalization, it can be tough to separate the truth from the story that is told within your family.

If anyone was wondering where the disembodied voice or ambient nature sounds were coming from, that was me being outside on the phone. The repetitive chirping sounds were not a form of trolling lol.

Libertarianism has been around for some time now, yet the government has only grown larger. I voted for Ron Paul a while ago so I've been there. The problem is that the incentives are hugely stacked against the reduction of government even after you get in. This is a false dichotomy. The choice is not political action or do nothing, it's try other things that might actually have an effect. I'd recommend the podcasts or books in order to learn more since Stefan has done an excellent job explaining the issues. The key is to first examine why Libertarianism has failed so far in reducing the size of government and then you can go deeper into why the government is around in the first place. Without a deep understanding of the reasons why it hasn't worked so far there is no hope of improving the situation.

I don't agree with that, but thanks for the link. I'm definitely interested in the subject.

Well, those eight premises are how he establishes UPB (the possibility of objective/universal preferences), and the scientific method (as well as the "moral method") are just applications of UPB. So in a sense they are just practical examples of the theory in action. It's like if I come up with the idea of a vehicle and then use that in order to build a car, snowmobile, and a bicycle. The idea of a vehicle doesn't prove that those things can exist, they can only exist if the idea of a vehicle is logical and consistent and therefore applicable to the real world. I hope that makes sense. Some people get confused and think that the point of UPB is to say what morality should be, but it's actual purpose is to establish a logical framework for testing ideas of morality. Any idea of morality must conform to certain expectations (the primary one that people are familiar with is universality) and so in UPB these expectations are both enumerated and tested against modern day examples of what we think of as valid moral rules. (don't rape, don't kill, don't steal, etc) If you look on page 50, Stefan uses aesthetic to distinguish from enforceable preferences (unavoidable) in order to separate ethics from other things. (like science, which has nothing to do with force) I'm not sure what you mean by aesthetic method or other methodologies, could you be more specific? Methodologies for doing what? Edit: Ah ok nevermind I think I understand. Yes there are other things that UPB can be applied to, like language.