Arius

Suppose I threaten to shoot you, I don't have a gun, but you think I have a gun. There is no possibility for the violence described in the threat to occur, but it will allow me to control you just as well as if I actually had a gun. It is not the applicaion of force which accomplishes anything. The threat is the source of power. There is non-violent coercion. In any case where there is a threat used to impel, that is sufficient to remove moral culpability. The application of the threat is irrelevant. Empty threats work just as well. Violence cannot solve interpersonal problems. If someone is a liar, don't beat them up. Just don't interact with them, if you have the choice. If a someone tries to shame you into taking some money, should you do it? I'm of the opinion that people should resist illegitimate authority. Don't take the money because someone else tries to shame you into it. Only take the money if you prefer to. I'm not talking about paying taxes. I'm talking about you and the loan officer. The taxpayers are getting screwed, no doubt. However, we shouldn't shun rape-babies just because of how the enter the world. You realize, if you actually want to dissociate yourself from everything the state has ever touched, you'll need to become a hermit. I use the roads. Does that mean I endorse the way roads are built, support the state, or increase the total violence in society? No. It means I need to go places and have no other means by which to accomplish that activity. Where the state crowds-out all alternatives, it makes no sense to punish yourself. This is that "social contract" idea. Walking on the sidewalk is not an endorsement of the state. Getting a student loan is not an endorsement of the state. Then you must, to apply that principle consistently, abandon the use of every non-survival product the state is involved in providing. Regardless, you cannot advance a consistent moral principle which states "People may not engage in voluntary transactions", which is exactly what you have done. The mafia guy wants the fellow to take the money, the fellow wants to take the mafia guy's money. While the money has an interesting history, and that may discourage the fellow from taking it, it is not wrong to take the money. Nor is it right to take the money. Voluntary transactions are always permissible.

There are forms of coercion which have nothing to do with physical violence. Lies and emotional manipulation are both very common examples. If I can make you believe something, I can control your behavior... I can make you self-attack. In fact, with deception I can accomplish significantly more than I can with a gun. Remember, it's not shooting someone that makes me powerful, it's threatening to shoot someone that makes me powerful. A necessary component of a free choice is the lack of artificial consequences. If one person imposes artificial, involuntary consequences on another, as part of a decision, then it isn't a free choice (It's a utilitarian calculation). In fact, a gun is worthless when compared with the power of making someone believe they will get shot. Coercion is power over the mind. It is not physical force. Violence is only the most obvious tool of control, there are many others. 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. 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 the thread title is incorrect. It should read: Don't people need absolute knowledge to believe anything? Alternatively (not asked as a rhetorical question): Nothing can really be believed. Problem solved. It's epistemological nihilism.

Rather than a general rule of us needing force, you mean force is necessary to resolve property disputes? Is that in few, about half, most, or all cases? Is this the logical extension of the log cabin/fishing hole example you proposed in your video? Wherein, the log cabin guy and the fishing hole guy cannot reach an accord about the best use of the fishing/cabin area It's a very Leviathan-esque story. I think you have an interesting point about the relationship between violence and obstinance in cases of property disputes. It's something I've been dwelling on. I can see three non-violent solutions. Either people can be less obstinate (which I see as the preferable solution); or people must, as a foundational activity of forming a group, develop (and agree to) a system for resolving disputes; or (as a dialectic solution) the house can be built in some way that does not impede the ability to fish in the hole (people can all work-around each other).

Insomuch as one person can avoid asserting involuntary authority over another, we can actually avoid force. Look at you and I, we don't force each other to do anything. I don't demand you do things. I don't threaten, harass, bully, or battle you, and you return the favor. Why is it impossible for us to avoid force? We seem to be doing it right now.

I think it's fair to say that, given a free-market, Marx's claims are questionable. Surplus value itself would be a matter of mutual agreement in a society which did not use violence to solve social problems. In the real world, the capitalist enjoys numerous state protections (Most of which are paid for by taxes on workers' labor). I don't believe the theory was intended to describe the idealized world of employment through voluntary mutual negotiation. Rather, it describes the real world, where the state forces workers into tight, hyper-competitive pockets of low-wage labor markets, but props-up capital owners by establishing and enforcing a complex stabilization and support model. Of course, the problem is the state, not ownership. I don't think it's reasonable to describe the current economic system in terms of an idealized free market. The two types of economy are simply alien to one another.

Well said. Fair enough, I'll revise my point to better fit this information. *My point is, it is surprising how much disapproval toward Amanda Palmer's personality has been expressed here. I see the one (opinion-based disapproval on a forum) as a lite version of the other other (insults from car windows). The only difference between the two is the volume of expression. It's possible that I react in this way because I know more about Amanda Palmer than is revealed in this video. I doubt there's much of a readership overlap between this forum and The Bloggess...it might just be me. Anyway, here's a little extra back story on Amanda Palmer. Something strangely kind she did for someone one time. (IMHO) She really does seem like a caring person, at least to her friends and fans. Directly addressing the evidentiary points: She is sharing stories of her life to illustrate a strategic point about give-and-take in business. It would be tough to tell an autobiographical story about someone besides the speaker. I hope everyone gets good outcomes for themselves when they ask for things. That's a good thing. I can't speak to body language. She's a performer, they're all strange. I don't believe there are sufficient details revealed in the video to make a judgement on the bed-taking situation.

My point is, it is surprising how much disapproval toward Amanda Palmer's unconventional approach has been expressed here. I see the one (opinion-based disapproval on a forum) as a lite version of the other other (insults from car windows). The only difference between the two is the volume of expression. And I though I'd try a little rhetoric to illustrate the point.

It's not career advice. There's a bit more to it than that. When a group of people drive past a gay couple and yell "Go to hell f*gs!", should we assume it's a genuine suggestion of metaphisical activity? Or, if a shop keeper says "We don't serve n*ggers", should we take the statement as the social equivelent of "We don't have any bread to sell", as being purely informational? Really now, that's just silly. I think it should (ooo....) be clear to everyone what the difference between insult, demand, and suggestion actually is. But maybe I'm wrong, we could explore that. Perhaps it is tricky to identify the difference.

The phrase "get a real job", when yelled from a passing car, is not intended as helpful career advice (if it is, that's a very strange rhetorical technique). The statement is intended to shame the recipient into conforming to social norms. The phrase "real job" is intended to indicate that, whatever the performer is doing, it isn't actually productive work. Even the use of "get" is cruel in the statement. The phrase isn't "Have you ever considered finding a more lucrative pass time?" or "I'm not able to see the value in what you're doing."...No, it's a command and an insult, all at once. Any statement which implies (or directly states) that Amanda Palmer is behaving incorrectly is the emotional and social equivalent of driving by and yelling "get a job"...Cause really, what's the moral wrong in voluntarily crowdsourcing individual need resolution (That's almost the textbook anarchist ideal)? Using an appeal to cultural norms (to someone's face) is to a use of emotion and social pressure as a tool to establish control. In the case of (effectively) yelling "get a job" at a video, I can only view the effort as an attempt to establish a sense of superiority (moral, cultural, or emotional...I'm not quit sure). As-if, because she fails to conform to social norms, she is somehow less good than those who do conform. Any "She should X and shouldn't Y because <some reason>" type statement must be morally valid or it's just an attempt to tear someone down. Perhaps I'm wrong. I'd be more than willing to explore another explanation. That's just how it reads from where I'm sitting.

I suppose you never know who the people yelling "get a real job" are until you read the forum comments on an Amanda Palmer TED talk.

That is a very astute observation. I wonder though, is it possible you've mistaken the shadow for the thing? Brands are symbols. Symbols (Words, pictures, costumes, etc) can all be used for good or ill. I can assault you with expletives until you cry.. or bolster your resolve with an empowering speech. Symbols are tools, without a moral alignment. Perhaps the behavior you've identified is not due to the symbols, but to the people that wield them. It's not that there's a gun in the room, it's that there's a person wielding a gun.

It's cool. I get irritable sometimes too.

It's interesting you interpret my response that way. I was genuinely relieved that you make statements with no expectation of belief on the part of others. As it is an inevitability that that will occur, I assume you're trying to hurt my feelings. Discussion and debate are not wars of wills. You may, if it is your desire, say anything about me. Thrashing wildly will not help you get at the truth. Should I believe that? It does. The is/ought problem is irrelevant. Of the many assumptions we make by arguing, the most curious is this: if a proposition is true, it ought to be believed. You see, if I should believe the things you say because they are true...well then, we've already crossed the is/ought problem. If that's not the case, then there's no rational reason for anyone to believe anything you say. From the implicit acceptance of the value of truth while arguing, the rest of the moral argument is developed. If you do want to learn, I recommend starting at the beginning.

Whew. I was afraid there was a reason I should believe anything you say.

I'll tell you, because I think you're interesting and this seems to frustrate you. There is not a single individual on this forum who does not realize that a dictionary is a great source of definitions for words. When one person asks another for a definition, it isn't that the questioner doesn't know what the dictionary indicates the word means. It's that the questioner believes the claimant has used a word in a way which is inconsistent with the dictionary definition or that the dictionary definition is too imprecise for the conversation. If I say "Society creates laws to dictate morality", you might notice that I've made a behavioral claim about several non-existent things. A reasonable approach to the argument might be for you to ask me what I mean when I use the word "society", as it is obviously a conceptual placeholder for something else. Better yet, what do I mean by the word "laws"....laws and society are not existent objects. They cannot do anything, much less dictate anything. Further defining words creates greater resolution in an argument. It's not a game. Through discussion, we arrive at shared definitions which are useful in resolving disagreements surrounding larger arguments.

I can. Flurtigh (n): 1. A color between blue and purple. 2. Light with a wavelength of 437nm. I can define any word to mean anything, even if people don't agree. I don't think it would be especially hard to find a flurtigh object. Unripened plums, for example, are flurtigh. The act of defining is assigning meaning to a symbol. It is through definition that words are given sense for other people to make. I think you mean: it's unproductive to use highly unconventional definitions unnecessarily.

In order of importance: Non-aggression, mutual agreement There may be other UPB-type processes which can establish morally valid restrictions on individual activity, but those are the only two I'm aware of. Discounting the body...Homesteading, use, and popular vote are all terms which require mutual agreement to be valid. The body is anomalous because (as a general rule) you necessarily have it at all times (versus non-body objects which aren't always in someone's possession). It isn't actually possible to have an involuntary non-aggression-compatible possession swap of body parts. Everything else can be involuntarily swapped without violating NAP, assuming no one is actively possessing the object at the moment of the control swap. Realistically, people have common understandings (some sort of implicit agreement) of mutually accepted models of ownership. In general, people do not behave as-if that simply setting-down an object releases an ownership claim. A proposed a model of ownership (which could only be valid through mutual agreement), if advanced as the morally correct activity, is actually an attempt to use language to persuade the listener to agree (and behave in a manner consistent with that agreement) to the validity of the model.

Negative interest rates are achieved by adding a non-inflationary positive devaluation on all cash holdings. Basically, if I leave my money in the bank, it will slowly decrease in quantity. Loans will always be issued at a rate higher than the devaluation rate. However, as the devaluation rate increases, the interest rate on new loans should decrease. The objective of this madness is to push all holdings and liquid reserves out into the economy (as demand). Essentially, convert from a mix of consumption and saving to a 100% consumption economy. It's the ultimate Keynesian concept; punish anyone who tries to save. Of course, the national savings rate will drop to near zero and all investment capital will move to commodities or equities. Business will experience a boom while poverty skyrockets. Exactly what you'd expect.

Two quotes from the paper: "In animals, rats who are stressed early in life are right hemisphere dominant for mice-killing (Garbanati, Sherman, Rosen, Hofmann, Yutzey, & Denenberg, 1983). It is possible therefore that, depending on presence of other social triggers and early stressful environmental circumstances, increased right hemisphere subcortical activity could predispose the individual to experience negative affect which fosters aggressive feelings and which in turn act as a general predisposition to violent behavior. " "Second, findings cannot currently be generalized at the present date from NGRI murder cases to other types of violent offenders in the community." 1: Social triggers and early environmental circumstances are the event which foster aggressive feelings. Malformed brain tissues are more sensitive to these triggering events. The events and environment are the cause. 2: The cohort size (41 people) is much too small to draw any general conclusions.

When children demonstrate that sort of behavior, it indicates that someone who the child believes should be modeled is behaving badly. If not parents, then someone very close to the child in social terms. Perhaps an aunt, uncle, or grandparents. I'd be inclined to believe it was the child's primary (or immediate secondary) caregiver. Regardless, the behavior indicates the presence of some kind of close-to-home abuse. Not necessarily physical abuse. Not all bullies are beaten. Lots of bullying revolves around humiliation, shame, and guilt. As far as I know, our society doesn't recognize a parent humiliating, shaming, or blaming a child as abusive. Though, a husband humiliating his wife would be considered abusive. There are lots of double standards. I can't speak on appropriate actions, that's more of a theory-of-justice question. I'm only pointing out that children report what they perceive as abuse in weird ways; primarily by persistently modeling the behavior. My point is purely observational.

Children develop behaviors in two ways. They invent and model. Invented behaviors are exhausted after a short series of failures. Modeled behaviors continue until the person being modeled leaves or stops demonstrating the behavior. Children aren't with-it enough to recognize their parents behavior as abnormal. Instead, they model the behaviors. It would be odd if children simply reported the bad behavior, rather than model it. In fact, children will internalize all sorts of weird beliefs based on how they are treated. Bullying is an abnormal behavior. Bullying is, in some cases, an invented behavior. Persistent bullying can't be an invented behavior because of the negative social consequences (the invented behavior is quickly exhausted). Persistent bullies are modeling the behavior. Don't you see? Bullying is one way children report abuse. In much the same way toddlers report sexual abuse by acting-out sexually.

It would be strange if people could just point out their abusers.

Isn't it entirely possible that people use shame and guilt to control each other, regardless of gender? Why should women be any more or less manipulative than men? It's true that both men and women use a wide variety of tactics to engender guilt and shame in each other. It seems, to me, a better approach than MGTOW is to simply reject guilt and shame as largely invalid. Both are relics from a manipulative authoritarian parent/child relationship anyway. Assuming a bad behavior (manipulation) can be attributed to an accident of birth (gender) lacks all the earmarks of rational thinking. There is no imperative that men and women must pair-off. There is no particular form that a family unit must take. All that nonsense is an inherited narrative from a culture of pure subjectivity.

"when it comes to people over the age of 65, this year’s vaccine has a dismal 9 percent success rate combating this year’s most prevalent strain of flu" http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/morning_call/2013/02/cdc-flu-vaccine-just-9-percent.html