Brandon Buck _BB_

I concur. And let's face it... you'll know when you've reached an impasse. When I get to that point, I move on. Or at least.... I try to make that my default approach.

A show stopper indeed. And a favorite of fathers the world wide as a quick, authoritarian ultimatum. It's exactly the same as "My house my rules!". In fact, I've had the argument posed to me by statist as such... "If you can't follow the rules that society agrees on, you can leave". Of course, mothers aren't immune to this nonsense but it has been my experience that it's a lot more common coming from dad. And wih religion, it's the same thing... the deity is the state is the parent. The holy trinity, as it were. [:S] Yeah... I would think the phrase "freedom isn't free" relates to the parent telling the child he can have more freedoms if he behaves and does his chores.

What he's doing here is what you did. You used the mafia as a metaphor for the state and he's just acknowledging that. Stef's arguments against this claim are pretty much as Pepin said. You cannot just leave. Metter of fact, leaving is an expensive and very drawn out process. Not to mention, once you leave, they (US) still lay claim to a portion of your earnings and that's almost impossible to avoid without breaching at least one of their gazillion fucking laws. So no... you can't just leave. Also... so I leave. Where to go? To another tax farm with another set of arbitrary rules and another group of sociopaths following me around telling me who what when and where I can and can't do just about everything? If I'm arguing with someone who strongly supports the welfare state (most statists) I ask them how much compassion they really have for actual human beings. After all, they want me to be robbed so some stranger can get a check once a month but but they'll uproot me and send me away from my friends, family, career, home, etc? What LoweD said is true... it isn't about the state. You're arguing about the state but they're arguing about their parents. That's not to say we shouldn't argue with statists. It's just good to keep in mind when they start doing batshit crazy somersaults all over your logic.

It is accurate but I still see a long, drawn out discussion over the definitions of words. And frankly, that just can't be avoided.

Of ourse not. They spoke German and there were no cell phones then. Thanks for posting this Allen, I really appreciate your ferreting out these stories. I've posted this one on another site under the title "Father of Four Bludgeoned to Death by Gang of Thugs".

You make a good point, as does prohexa. And while the world has always been shittier as we go back in time that also means that the world is getting better as time goes by. No doubt freedom won't happen in my lifetime and it really took me a long time to reconcile that fact. One thing that really helped was when my son and his wife announced that they are planning to have a child. Once that knowledge hit me it was like there was an entirely new and more wonderful purpose for my living as a peaceful man in such a violent world. Because it's not so much me that I'm helping. It's my son and his wife, their child(ren) and their children after. It's an awesome feeling to know that you are a part of something that is going to fundamentally change humanity for the better. I won't live to see a free society but I will spend my last days surrounded by free people. That will make me happy. []

How do you reason this?

Excerpted from the article: " In that case, a federal judge accepted the banker-defendants' incredible argument: If cities and towns and other investors lost money because of Libor manipulation, that was their own fault for ever thinking the banks were competing in the first place." ↑↓↑↓↑↓↑↓

WOW. Politicians engaging in politics. What is this world coming to...[:|]

No doubt that has something to do with it. Just like most who are religious, they think they have an answer so they stop looking. Sadly, most atheists do exactly that once they shed religion. One thing that's particularly interesting is that a few people have PM'd me with questions and comments about anarchism and my position on say, the potential war with Iran. A few have commended my position, even in the user ratings area. But they can't seem to bring themselves to do so right on out there in public.... because just as with religion, ostricization can seriously affect one's standing in the community. I sincerely pity those who aren't happy where they're at but who can't seem to speak out against it. As for Stef speaking at an atheist event, it could happen at some point in the future. So far I've gotten Against the Gods? into their resource library and when the occasion presents itself I reference a related podcast from Stef so at some point, the name will be familiar. I'm thinking that if he is accepted as an articulate atheist with logical refutations of religion, that will make some folks more comfortable with his other philosiphical works. Of course, there will always be those who accuse us anarchists of hating the poor and loving corporate America but then, those aren't the people I'm trying to reach. I also found today. The author doesn't appear to be anarchist but he uses a clip from one of Stef's videos as the intro to this one. If Stef keeps up his work and we continue to reach out to these communities with compassion and reason, the message will spread far and wide.

Because it is an evasive use of the word voluntary, in that you either pay the attached tax at consumption or you don't buy the good/service. You can choose not to pay the tax but you can not choose not to pay the tax and still buy the good or service.

In other words... the typical creationist argument. []

I agree and frankly, most people never even suspect that there's a problem to be dealt with so statism just becomes the water they swim in after leaving the family... religion or none. Here are a few threads: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Anarchism-or-Statism-A-Voluntarist-s-Perspective http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-A-debate-discussion-with-bbeljefe Most of the debates I enter are tangential to the thread topic so it's a bit difficult to find them. Plus, I'm a bit of a prolific poster there so there's a lot to search. And yeah, Seth and most other priminent atheists are wonderful thinkers except where politics and familial relationships are concerned. It's not hard to understand though, given that they have only deprogrammed their thought processes with relationship to the church. And we all know those though processes infect every aspect of our lives.

Only you can decide if it's a waste of time to attend atheist functions. I don't think it is. My thinking on the subject is that they've already shed one irrational belief so they might well be more inclined to rational thought where the state is concerned. My experience on the subject, however, is quite the contrary. A lot of atheists and consequently, the most outspoken ones, come from highly religious backgrounds. A lot of them who weren't fundamentalists before becoming atheists were at least raised in fundamentalist households and that means that they were seriously abused. Most often physically but more importantly, mentally, because mental abuse is a by product of the physical. The result of this abuse is a person who tends to cling to the state as a replacement for religion. In simple terms... they viewed their abusive parents as kind but strict and thus, god as kind and strict. And god is the scapegoat for parental abuse so once he get's the boot, something else has to take his place, lest they're forced to face the fact that their parents were evil. But with all that said, they're still one irrational belief closer to rational thought, so I tend to spend more of my "proselytizing" time amongst atheists. I've debated anarchism and peaceful parenting with a number of them on The Thinking Atheist forum and frankly, most of their arguments sound exactly like Christian arguments with government as the replacement for the word god. When I point that out I either get flamed or they concede and pull the agree to disagree card. In either case, I know they've begun to think and that's the most important thing we can do at this point.

In his head. That's where he proves it. Every argument he offers has been soundly refuted time and time again.

Haha. When I found out that my boy didn't care anyhting at all about baseball or football, I was the happiest man on the planet. []

I must agree with Kevin B. What most people will read from that quote is that parents should let their children choose between football and baseball or between Spanish or French classes in the public school they send them to. EDIT: Not to mention... if there's a peaceful parent behind that posting, maybe we should be contacting Spacey's publicist. []

batou - I appreciate that he's attempting to point out a problem but he's disseminating incorrect information. That said, he may not agree with me and that's fine. But, his good intentions don't make up for the lack of due diligence in finding the root of the problem, nor do they make his incorrect premise correct. Humanity will never move past the point we are at now if those we trust to find the real genesis of our problems contnue to stop looking further back than adult action. I understand why most of these people can't loook further back but still, it is no different for a psychologist or a sociologist to say that there is a serial killer gene today than it was for a priest to say the sun revolves around the Earth 400 years ago. It's wrong information and when we start from a flawed premise, everything we do past that point is also flawed. Another good example of wrong headed science is Steven Pinker's book about the decline of human violence. I forget the exact reasons he claims violence has diminished but it's nothing to do with child rearing and that is simply false. A lot of these people would have you believe that humans aren't subject to environmental influence until they turn twenty, when quite the opposite is the case. And I apologize for the rant. This is a topic that's just so plain and clear to me and it's frustrating to see such dissonance around it. [head2wall]

The problem here and, with almost everything I've read on the subject of human action, is that the foundation of his arguments is based on a presupposition of human nature. One can never reach an accurate conclusion by looking only at human actions or at the most obvious motivations. In simple terms, research too often focuses on the what that humans do rather than the why. We are inherently mimetic, that's safe to say. It's the foundation of how we learn and it's the trait that 99% of parents ignore when they presume they can teach their children through words rather than actions. We mimic what we see more than what we hear. Thus, when we tell our child not to hit and punish him with hitting... the lesson learned comes from the action, not the words. Moreover, there is nothing at all about human action that should lead us to assume that mimicking someone will lead to violence. Sure, it can lead to conflict but as stated above, conflict is not synonymous with violence. Violence can be entirely unprovoked and often is. Likewise, if two non-violent individuals enter into a conflict, that conflict may exist for any given amount of time, may never be resolved or may be satisfactorily resolved and throughout the whole process no violence whatever will occur. Take that exact same scenario, replace just one actor and there may indeed be violence. Perhaps at the beginning, perhaps in the middle of the conflict or perhaps at the end. And to break it down further, that violence could be minor or it could be murder. Again... it's the individual actors and, most importantly their histories, that are the determining factors... not mimicry, not human nature and not the material source of the conflict.

I think that would be a great thing to have, although a quick google query didn't produce anything of interest. So... let's start one of our own. [H] But before we begin, freedom-centric terms are really nothing more than calling things by their proper names. So with that said, it might be a good idea to present a statist term and then follow with its truthful synonym. arrest = kidnap jail = cage ← verb and noun usage capital punishment = murder flag = colored rag patriotism = Stockholm's Syndrome, indoctrination, blind obedience public servant = ruler, person who claims the right to control the action of others war on drugs = attempt to control peaceful behavior through dictate and violence, war on people war on terror = attempt to controla entire populations under the guise of security, war on people war on poverty = attempt to control poor people through theft of the more economically productive, war on people trade sanction = attempt to harm the proletariate of another nation state through threats of violence, attempt to protect domestic businesses from competition, war on people taxation = extortion There are hundreds more but it's late and my brain is falling asleep. Perhaps others can add to the list.

So in other words, the reason there are so few heated debates and outright flame fests on this forum isn't that the people here are kind, empathic and curious. It's because all we talk about here is really heavy shit...

My dad has had a (used) dealer's licence in Texas since around 1973 and a salvage license since 1987. When he first started, he could buy and sell anything that rolls down a road. Now, there are seperate licenses for motorcycles (as observed), and recreational vehicles, including trailors. I don't know all the details but there's no doubt these laws have become much more onerous. He recently retired and sold his salvage business to someone who already had a salvage yard but whom has tried five times to obtain a license, to no avail. Since the license cannot be transferred, Dad has stayed on as the president of the corporation so that the license can be retained by the new owner. Of course, no one has been protected from any malfeasance through this nonsense and my dad is no more a working member of the new operation than he is of Starbucks.... but if he hadn't done what he's doing, the man who bought his business would have been forced to close his business down and would have incurred tens of thousands of dollars in losses just from the cash he had already invested. My experience with state licensure is about the same. I owned a burglar alarm company which required me to obtain licensing from the State Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies and the Texas Commission on Fire Protection. The combined license fees (in the mid '90s) were about seven hundred dollars per year, on top of the cost of testing, in Austin, in order to qualify for the licenses. I was about 25 then and was still a bit naive about the state, so I thought that as a part of my licensure, the state would protect me against unlicensed competition. I didn't mind competition but I did want my competition to jump through the hoops I did. To shorten the story... I wound up following behind an unlicensed competitor on a number of jobs and in each case, he had miswired things and had also refused phone calls from customers he had defrauded. In the process of rewiring one computer network he ran, I found private labeled wiring that read "Property of Wal-Mart Security Department". He worked for Wal-Mart. I called the state, made a complaint and provided affidavits from his customers along with pictures of the stolen wire. To my knowledge, no one from the state ever so much as called this guy and asked him to buy a license. Consequently, when my licenses came up for renewal, I didn't respond and I continued to trade for about twelve years afterward. So that's how the state works... it gets its money from licensees, provides absolutely no service to them and ignores theft. But without them, apparently, we would be unsafe. [head2wall] Sorry for the long story but it fit quite well with the OP.

As a lot of you know, the US government has passed another destructive piece of legislation today (as if there's legislation that's not destructive). CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing & Protection Act) allows the federal government to spy on any online communication of any individual it chooses without a warrant and with impunity. That, among other provisions in the bill ensures that nefarious corporations will be able to leverage the guns of the state for the purpose of harrassing and imprisoning alleged intellectual property rights violations as well as copyright infringements. This law allows the state to shut down an entire domain should it deem that one such violation has been made by any person who uses the site whether or not they're affiliate with it. My son is a web developer and an anarchist who despises this law and, of course, sees the obvious abuse that will take place as a result of its passing. Because of that, he's composed a petition at the whitehouse.gov website and would appreciate he help of anyone who doesn't mind signing it. Thanks in advance to all who help out. []

If human soul is not left behind or something equally unprovable, the default idea that nobody takes our property evaporates when going out for lunch. If we rely strictly on the idea that I am here and you must attack me to take my property, then consequently I am not attacked when you take it while I am gone. The church uses morality, or the state uses laws, to prevent this. We market capitalists can only use contracts, and moral requirement to obey the contract does not exist for parties who have not signed it. By the state stealing our right, we get an immoral method of property, but it is still one that we pay for and get protection from theft (theoretically anyway). When this idea of paying for protection is transplanted to anarchy, we still must resort to immoral methods. Just being free to defend our property seems worthless, since once taken we lack the ability to recover it by moral means except to patiently wait for the thief to abandon it. I don't intend to delve into an intellectual debate about the nuances of property rights but I will say this.... If you steal my bike and I find where you've hidden it. My taking it back is not immoral. My killing you for stealing it is another issue to be sure, but once you've initiated the agression, my reasonable efforts to recover it are not subject to moral critique. Other than that, I understand what your'e saying and I agree. However, this is an excecise I'm looking to present to people who don't can't grasp the fact that compulsory school attendance is force. Which is why I mentioned above that I don't want to go into the minutia of the terms. I'm only looking for general similarities between statism and religion. Anything beyond that is an interesting mental excercise but again, we have to consider the audience. Thanks!

Well, there is one primary difference between the state and the (modern) church. Tithing is a choice, although one can suffer ostricization for not tithing. As for paying for one's property rights, the default position of statism is that you don't have any rights. Thus, you are renting your rights from the state. Absent a controlling entity like government, we don't need to be granted "rights" because noone is taking them by default. Moreover, in the absence of the state, we are free to defend our property ourselves. The state steals that "right" from us, rents a small portion of it back to us, payments due in perpetuity, and then calls itself protecting us from the bad guys. [dazed]