Josh F

If you don't seek a patent, another person can get one and use it against you. Once you own a patent it is yours to determine how other people can use it, and you're very capable of making the license for it extremely open. You can also just choose not to sue anyone for patent infringement. But letter someone else get the patent will give them political leverage to prevent you from doing something you want to do with your own idea. Also, I highly recommend you do not attempt to compete against large tire companies, that is a business which would require millions in start up (fyi)

I think my netflix is missing like half the movies because I dont live in the US, fuckin copyright laws.

People are engaging in a voluntary relationship with contractual rules for how the property is managed. I don't think property is like xeno's paradox, it is quite a human concept not limited by any kind of indivisible physical law. I hear the argument is contradictory without seeing the contradiction, and fallacious without proof of the fallacy. Your entire argument just uses the wrong pronouns. "If people can outvote you on what you do with "your property," then either it is not your property or their claim to your property is invalid." If majority owners of property can out vote you on your portion of the property, then you are sharing property under voluntary contractual agreements. And of course this exists outside of just a corporate structure. If you and your roommates all chip in to pay the electricity, or you and your wife buy a home together, or you and your buddies order some Chinese food and eat it family style.

I tend to say what I mean. Shooting people in ISIS will only cause more violence, not less. You're only imaging that what your purposing is a solution, it is absolutely not.

In a stateless society, the US dollar will be meaningless anyways.

Anything publicly owned should be auctioned and the proceeds divided up democratically. Any business whose property claims are based on government force, like Exxon's ownership of an oil rig for example, should remain owned by the shareholders but lose their protections. Exxon would no longer exist as a legal entity, but the shareholders do remain.

Queecho, some of those you mentioned come with tons of regulation: toys, nutritional supplements, retail and electronics. Software is almost entirely unregulated, though with IP there are some lawsuits. Anything without a store front, importing, exporting, or certified services works, like the above mentioned math tutor or landscaper.

I think the free market, in many cases, is beginning to find decentralized and networked solutions more competitive than hierarchical business structures. Then what is stock if not shared ownership divided amongst several people? You think some guy owns Exxon Mobile and its all his property?

I dont know, not my point though. Look don't stunt yourself based on some allegiance to principles, the world has enough martyrs.

Yeah, similarly for me libertarians in general and FDR in particular are the only things which talk about issues akin to the right, like family values and morality, that I like. I am also endlessly frustrated with liberals and many of their little sub-sects like feminists and socialists. I also have a long history of being into post-modernism and philosophy in general which is why I like this site: but my favorite all time philosopher is Socrates. The wisdom to know you don't know, and all that. Also, I did a topic talking about truth as relative in the philosophy forum. I talked about the coherence theory of truth, which you can check out if your interested. In short, the litmus test for truth in this system is different than objectivism. Objectivism says it is true if it corresponds to reality, whereas in the coherence model things are true is they are consistent within their own vocabulary or system. In this way alone, there are plenty of critiques against leftys as their beliefs often run into contradiction. For example intolerance towards the intolerant, or claims like "all white people are racist" fail within their own logic. Feminist theory fails the lefty litmus, which is why so many feminists have to always say "but i'm an egalitarian" because they know otherwise it is clearly irrational to be pro-women, against men, and for equality of the sexes all at the same time. They say that if you're not a liberal when you're young you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative when you're old you have no brain. I think libertarians in general are working on a project to square that circle. oh also I tried to look up that documentary on Netflix but I couldnt find it

haha yeah a philosophical Rosetta Stone, probably some caveman told some another caveman some silly joke, he misunderstood it, and here we are

Morality isn't a force field. If you want to fund some private group of people to kill ISIS or invade North Korea the more important considerations are the consequences. Anytime someone uses violence its like a drive by shooting, not all the victims are your intended target. Ron Paul talks a lot about this, he and the CIA call it BLOW BACK. Blow back is the consequences of interventionism, unpredictable violent actions in the future. Its only postponing evil, at best, intervention never ends it. Interventionism reminds me of the old quote by Tacitus: Rome makes a wasteland and calls it peace.

There is no question there is social engineering. I don't think it is a left or communist system people are being tricked into. I think degrading our morality has been the defacto state of things historically. Nietzsche divides moral systems into two categories, Slave Morality and Master Morality. Master Morality is that wealth and power and violence and strength are virtues. Slave morality is that being weak and poor and powerless are virtues. In the Master Morality category we have very few modern examples except I'd say Nationalism. Comparatively the vast majority of people have a slave morality, be it both common in Christianity, Communism, Western Democracy, Socialism, Feminism, Islam etc. Now look, if Objectivism is the truth, and the only truth, then its reasonable to conclude that all other isms and moralities and philosophies are false and corrupting. The corruption is variable and has different consequences, for example the Islamic corrupt morality is more likely than Feminism to get a 5 year old to strap a bomb to his chest. Similarly, Feminist morality probably results in far more false rape accusations than Islam (considering how legit rape victims are often treated in Islam). Stuck without any paradigm, people with ideological or dogmatic beliefs can't necessarily smell their own shit, so to speak. Post-Modernists and modern Liberal Secularists have taken a valuable approach to discerning these characteristics, as have Objectivist Libertarians. Objectivists seek to understand the truth with a better understanding of how Government corrupts our morality. And this community makes great efforts to discover the corrupting morality inherent within the family. In those ways, "lefties" contribute another approach: the way in which culture and language is morally corrupting. Now, in context, when they talk about moral relativism it is NOT at all what it is made out to be so frequently by its critics. The idea that it is a pick and choose system of right and wrong is incorrect. That pick and choose factor is present in every single group (Christians, Commies, etc). Modern Liberalism holds that cruelty is the worst thing humans can do, and their goal is to reduce cruelty. This is why they're one of the only other group who advocated against war and violence and child abuse. They do this by understanding how our culture and language justifies cruel acts. What are some of those conclusions? Otherness, dehumanization, bigotry, are the central focus of most of their work. Its opposites, tolerance and open-mindedness are VIRTUES they advocate (so it is not entirely pick and choose). So why might liberals get all butt hurt about things like "islamaphobia"? It is because they live in a society wherein which once there can be an identified ideological "other" we tend to murder them. They do not, and with very good reason, trust the average boob in the street to have a nuanced enough view of Islam, like maybe Sam Harris has, to demand anything short of war and violence in the face of a clear cut enemy like "Muslims."

I've been pondering one of Sam's points in this debate a lot, when asked how to reform islam he talked about an approach to do so from within the doctrine. He compared it to Christians being able to finally end their own internal warfare because of the biblical passage Render unto Ceasar, which biblically justified the separation of church and state. Its inspired me to think about how to introduce ideas about peaceful parenting and anarchy to people with different philosophical world views.

Oh, and we can talk about Confucius a bit more. I think he ironically has one big similarity, though almost opposing, with this community. He is one of the few philosophers who connect the state with the family, though he advocates for abusive and stern families in order to produce a similarly stern and rigid society. Here we promote being nice to your children and treating them with respect, the idea being that the abuses of society are a function of the family. Or as Stef puts it so eloquently, "If you try to change society without examining the family it is like trying to move a shadow without moving the statue" (paraphrase)

you didn't invent the tire or the wheel, and you should pursue patents in this market it is the only way to remain competitive. That is to say, if you invent something which someone else patents, you're locked out of your own invention. Should you bribe the mafia not to break your knees? Does that participating in an immoral mafia system? Yes, and yes.

Firstly, there is no bankruptcy in a free market as far as I know. Secondly, let the business close down so that another business with a better structure can fill its place. If there exists at all a market demand, another entity will fulfill it. If this company is in demand but its owners can't properly motivate the required donations or sales, then new owners are in order.

Indeed, well put. And I think also, and maybe this isn't very philosophical, but there is a sort of historic emergence of terminology. If we were to translate those pre-columbian native tribes into modern language I think we'd find their vocabulary very small and mystical. Language, not unlike technology, develops and changes. Now in the Objectivist or Aristotelian sense, it is discovering the truth or better approximating reality. In other philosophical traditions, the vocabulary isn't approximating reality but instead changing to best cope with ever increasing complexity. Either way, I've always found varying philosophies meaningful and useful, even some of these ancient ones. The philosopher Heidegger was always trying to find the origins of words. I similarly met this profoundly brilliant homeless guy once, and he had the same fascination. If you told him "sun" for example, he would go on this like rampage listing backwards in time all the terminology that brought the word sun. I'm making these up but something like "sun, sol in spanish, suna in greek, sunnia in egyptian" (not real terms!) it was wild!

I tend to avoid that conspiratorial outlook, and I find the idea that we somehow became immoral in the 60's ridiculous. I think the majority of it, things like the Protocols of Zion and others are not only proven to be falsified, but more importantly created by frightened ideologues to combat growing skepticism of dogma. I think by and large the vast majority of violence around the world comes from people with objective world views from fascists to fundamentalists to marxists, not relative world views. The fear of the undermined family value system and moral decay is ancient christian propaganda. Moral bankruptcy is a hilarious notion, when is it that the moral reserves were at their full? During slavery? The world wars? Was it during the crusades or the inquisition? The reality is that the LEFT is the only semblance of morality in the United States, the only ones who muster up any resolve against child abuse or warfare. The right, on the other hand, with their objective traditionalists values promoted spanking and defends irrationalities like war and nationalism. I take the view of deMause on this stuff, the further back in history you go the more violence existed especially within the family. It isn't irrational, as explained about there is a rational historical context. Dogma and violence go hand in hand, and the post-industrial Europe and America fought battles against one ideology after the next. Anyone not skeptical of any "one true" ideology is not paying attention to history and is motivated by an irrational attachment to their particular ideology. There is a great deal to learn from the left, as aside from this tiny little movement here, they're the only ones talking about ending war and child abuse.

ooooh, that I do not know. I don't even know how much information like that exists. My goal isn't even to prove its universality just to draw some parallels to other philosophy. I think that there appear to be many ways to skin the philosophical cat, each one sort of encased in its own grammar and vocabulary tailored towards the culture it comes from, molyneux recently did a video talking about Aristotle's connection with Ayn Rand. His philosophy, not unlike Taoism, has its own kind of goofy terminology. He talks a lot about essence and potentiality. The early greek philosophers a lot of time focused on the essence or form of objects. Plato saying universals exist in this heavenly realm or the world of the forms, and Aristotle said that universals existed within objects (essence). Later philosophers vary, some suggesting universality is a concept and exists within our mind, like pattern recognition. Anyways, some of his stuff read like alien code or something: ""Disposition" means arrangement (taxis) of that which has parts, either in space (topos) or in potentiality (dunamis) or in form (eidos). It must be a kind of position (thesis) , as indeed is clear from the word, "disposition" (diathesis)."

(continued, previous post awaiting moderator approval) Oh, and to go on with the similarities: in Taoism there are three "treasures" or virtues. The first is compassion (empathy), the second is moderation (delayed gratification), and the third is humility which I guess doesn't make the cross over, lol! And yes, it is often mystical and goofy and a tad bit religious as well. I don't recommend it as an end all alternative to any other philosophy, as explained my goal here is to reconcile other world views with our own in an effort to reduce otherness and create common ground.

Well, Wu Wei is more of an ethical foundation not too dissimilar from the NAP. The idea is that to will (impose, force, coerce) an action (behavior) goes against nature (reality). In Taoism, the closer equivalent to virtue is "Te", which is the application of "Tao". Tao loosely meaning philosophy, te meaning the application of philosophy, virtue. The concept 'pu' not that dissimilar to the idea of tabula rasa, or uncorrupted in terms more familiar within this community. The similarities are striking, considering how Taoism is an ancient philosophy from a distant culture written in a very different language coming from a very different school of philosophy.

Yeah, the market place of ideas is flooded with bad ideas, and with so much propaganda in the world it certainly isn't a free market. The goal of post-modernists, like Thaddeus, is to evaluate our historic, cultural and/or linguistic biases to promote a free market of ideas unburdened by appeals to external authority, wrapped in shame, or distorted by culture. There is no way to square this circle with objectivism. Promoting a 'one true' philosophy, as this show so often does, is not going to liberate the market of ideas. Its an excellent tool, undoubtably, in an arsenal of philosophical tools which help us to cope best with our existence. And I think it is important to stress that government schooling and spanking children are dogmatic and religious, they're not designed by secularists. And though secularists have taken over the school system in many respects, they're probably one of the biggest allies against spanking.

So.... you didn't invent the tire, how dare you try and understand and replicate the functions of a wheel!

I think he makes an excellent point on this topic and an opinion I've shared. Aside from philosophical objectivists, most objective arguments are religious. Secularists, or "lefties" have a rational self interest in avoiding objectivity, it has an extremely dogmatic and dark history of superstition and religiosity. Their fear of libertarians is similar and for this exact reason. Libertarians are often religious, this community being a minority in its atheism. Secular people, atheists, were persecuted by people who claimed to know the ultimate truth. So I think their skepticism isn't without context, and understanding that context is helpful to making any kind of inroads into conversations. Aside from burning witches and holy crusades, these religious people primarily use shame as a tactic to manipulate people especially within the family. Post modern thinkers and other secularists are frightened of arguments which stem from "reality" or "nature" or "god" as objective sources of information. Their own philosophy is to disempower stigma's associated with non-normative behavior. Liberals promote a market place of ideas, a place in which ideas are evaluated on their effectiveness and not on any appeal to higher knowledge. Objectivists of all varieties including within this community promote a "one true" philosophy which frightens them. And with reason. Hopefully this helps to put this into a context that makes more sense for you, so you don't think lefties are some rabid fools who simply dont understand. Yeah all that stuff about the Prussians is very interesting. I don't know if Gatto goes past that or not, since education has been coopted by the "new left" since the 70's. Its hardly a system promoting good employment and good citizenship any longer, now it is a system promoting political correctness to varying degrees. Some might say it promotes cultural marxism, victim mentality, active anti-racism, feminism, etc.