Brandon Buck _BB_

The problem with your hypothesis is that it presupposes people in a free society would be like people today. This won't happen, because as long as the majority are bigoted, there will be no stateless society. Once there are enough peaceful, rational people in the world for statism to fall by the wayside, there won't be many people left who're scared of homosexuals. And since there will be so few, the occurance of discrimination will be as appalling to the average person as seeing a child being hit is to us today, so those who would hate against gays will be driven into the closet all the more quickly.

I have no idea what the numbers are but he is now a full time parent/philosopher and has become a high demand speaker at libertarian conferences. So yeah... I think he made it.

Well yeah but... who knows what that guy might have done if they hadn't beat the shit out of him....

What's wrong with pacifist and voluntarist? Or, philosophical libertarian (as opposed to political libertarian)? Or anarcho capitalist? I think we have enough words. We just need to use them properly. []

Welcome, Bert. You demonstrate empathy in understanding your father's indoctrination and you seem sympathetic to his plight. I beg you to afford yourself the same. After all, you're a product of his indoctrination so it stands to reason that you followed along and did what you thought was best in joining the military. That you now see the error in your decision and in your father's indoctrination is to be loved & respected, not hated. Your post resonates with me somewhat because my son joined the Army when we were both still minarchists. Not long after basic, he saw the machine for what it was and fortunately he was able to get himself phased out before he completed AIT. He called himself an agnostic but they tagged him as an atheist. He wasn't happy about that and while he was in AIT he attended at least one of every flavor of religious service they had... by the time he left he was proud of the "atheist" stamp on his tags. [] I'd also like to offer that there are a lot of people in the media who would be very interested that the military refuses to acknowledge an atheist as a conscientious objector. What they're telling you is that as an atheist, you cannot have any moral grounds from which to base your objection to their predations on innocent people. Your story could not only be your way out of the military but it could also help others in your position. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and if needed, finding someone who can help you and others like you.

The foundational problem I see with this review and with a lot of arguments against UPB is that he doesn't understand what UPB means. To wit: "So after reading the book, I still have no idea what a Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB) is." This statement renders the review pointless, since one cannot rationally argue against that which he doesn't understand. If I were to read a book on string theory, finish it with no understanding of string theory and then attempt to formulate a refutation based on my admitted misunderstanding, would that seem rational? Perhaps to his credit (or not), he makes the same wrong assumption most people do about UPB: "If I argue against UPB, I have not shown a preference for truth over falsehood, only a preference against UPB (for example, I might still prefer to lie to the Nazis about some Jews I am hiding.) Even if I did have a preference for truth over falsehood, it would not be a universal preference, because many other people do not share my preference for truth over falsehood." He's not arguing against universally preferable behavior, he's arguing against individually preferred behavior and thus, is slaying a strawman... In the entirety of his review.

Property isn't a result of the NAP. The NAP is a derivitave of property. Specifically, ownership of the self. The notion of material property ownership flows from self ownership. Thus, I own my body and because of that, you cannot use it or harm it without my consent. To do so is to agress against me. Since I also own my material property, the same applies.

I like the title with one exception.... I would replace America with statism. To be sure, America is a fantastic example of minarchism gone empire but, using the word in the title will stop a lot of people from reading it simply because of the emotional reaction their patriotism will incite. Statism, on the other hand, is a word most people can't define even if they've heard it, so if you use that word you stand a better chance of luring in a few people you might otherwise turn away. Plus, it's inclusive of all nation states. Of course, that's not to say you shouldn't use America as a perfect example of statism but, not on the cover. I'd also like to offer a suggestion on a subtitle... "How Patriotism Has Robbed Your Identity" Or maybe Nationalism? In any event, I'd love to see this book written. Just recently I joined the Thinking Atheist forum and have been blown away by the statist indoctrination these people suffer. Likewise, every single prominent figure in the atheist movement writ large seems to be a far left democrat/socialist and frankly, that's a real slap in the face of rational thinking. So much so that I would hesitate to call these people "rational" atheists. Rational about religion perhaps, but not generally rational. I'm not much in the way of creative writing but I'm pretty good at proof reading and editing so if you need some help... I'm happy to do anything I can.

I would say that you should suggest he read Spooner's papers on the Constitution and natural law but since he can't understand what he's already read, I'm sure that would only serve to add dirt and water to an existing mudhole. I wouldn't bother discussing anyhting else with this person. Ever.

Pacifists reject violence, even in self defense.

Welcome to the forum. Stef is not a pacifist and doesn't agitate for pacifism. Perhaps speed isn't the best method of consuming information?

"Holidays in the Middle Ages, for example, were far more numerous than we enjoy today. Feasts and festivity days were abundant. Work was intermittent, relaxed and unhurried." That myth fits well with the myth that free trade has caused harm to society. In the middle ages children started to work at about age seven and more often than not, the "jobs" they had were actually as indentured slaves in someone else's home. Feasts in the town square were held by the peasants because they couldn't store perishables or afford as individual families to buy small quantities of them, so they shared food with one another. Given that the mental health norm of mediaeval people was paranoid schizophrenic, they had little concern for travel as they were too busy killing one another for being witches and raping children to ward off STD's, to bother with a trip to Disney Land. On capitalism and travel, the free market has provided labor saving devices such as cordless and other power tools for tradesmen, electronic office equipment for office workers, et al and those tools are more affordable for more people every day. The state, on the other hand, has increased taxes and regulations, making it cost more to live and making it harder for middle and lower classes to enter the marketplace of gainful income opportunities. The truth of the matter is that capitalism has made our lives easier and has given us extra lleisure time in spite of the predations of the state. In the absence of what is left of true free market capitalism, seven year old Americans would still be plowing fields with plows drawn by sickly mules.

"So, one can break the rules of a society and then just leave with no consequences?" Selling one's home, finding another and moving all your stuff isn't a consequence? "Let's say an Atheist consumes alcohol in this society then decides to leave, but unfortunately, while the atheist was drunk driving, he killed a person." What atheist is going to be drunk driving around in a fundamentalist town? Surely he doesn't live there and since there are no bars to hop, he'd have to have brought his own drink along for a nice drive through a place he doesn't care anything about.... Not to mention, there's a considerable difference between consuming alcohol and vehicular homicide. And... what does it matter that the person who commits vehicular homicide is a) atheist and/or b) drunk? And for the record... in cases of accidental death due to another person's negligence it is customary (even in today's statist society) that the victims family be renumerated the amount of lifetime income the victim would have earned plus all associated costs of burial, et al plus pain and suffering. There's nothing at all about a stateless society that would change that, save the probablility that pain and sufferring damages would be more rationally calculated. "Is the primary difference between anarchy and democracy is that you have the ability to opt. out (despite the initiation of force)?" I don't understand what you mean by (despite the initiation of force). Do you mean aside from the initiation of force? As in... compulsion to follow arbitrary rules set forth by people who don't know you that are designed to inhibit or stop the free movement and voluntary interaction of peaceful individuals? In the end, I'm not a legal specialist and the proposed solutions I've mentioned here are rudamentary at best. If you're interested in hearing some much, much, more well thought out solutions I would recommend Stef's book Practical Anarchy, the Center For a Stateless Society's website and, perhaps, Larkin Rose's website. And try to keep in mind, solving the minutia of a stateless society is not the only thing standing between statism and freedom. In fact, it's the last thing we need to worry about, because once enough people see the evil of statism for what it is, those things will be but wrinkles to be pressed out of a fine suit. []

"Do capitalists espouse a work ethic? If so, aren't they inherently averse to advocating that we ever realise the existential freedoms that exist beyond work?" Are you capable of advocating more than one thing?

Natural law is determined through the notion of property rights and a respect thereof. In short, through the non agression principle. Who determines natural law in a given instance is the local community. For example, in a typical common law court in 17th century Britain, the townsmen (women hadn't yet received rights) present on the day a trial was held determined the guilt or innocence of the accused. When the King was the plaintiff, the jury first judged the validity of the King's complaint (law) and then, only if the King's law was deemed just, they judged the accused. An example of how this could work in a stateless society of today is that in a township made up of fundamentalist Christians, common law might include some prohibition on the consumption of alchohol while in a neighboring town of rational thinkers, there would be no such prohibition. If the accused in the fundamentalist town agreed to leave, he would be aquitted of his "crime" with no restitution owed or he could choose to pay restitution to his accuser and he would be allowed to stay. As for contracts, your question is somewhat vague. If you and I agree on the terms of a contract and I break them.... the contract is the only vehicle for adjudicating my guilt. Of course, our contract won't likely stipulate that I'm not allowed to murder you, since murder is a proscribed behavior based upon the NAP. So if I murdered you and we had a contract for services rendered, then obviously the contract would be useless for that charge. It's late and abortion is a very detailed and highly emotional topic of conversation so I'm going to graciously decline speaking to that topic.

Your son cries when his mother isn't nearby because he fears abandonment/emotional neglect. He didn't fabricate that fear, either, he learns from experience. With that and the other information you've shared about his mother's emotional stability, I cant' think of anything more important for you right now than to get your child in a household where he isn't neglected emotionally. I understand it will be hard to do but the reality is that he is nearing the end of his most critical emotional development stage and he desperately needs to feel secure with a parent. In the short term it will be hard on him and you but his long term health and happiness are the goal. Not to mention, perhaps his mother will seek therapy, heal from her pain and be able to fulfill her parental responsibility to him. Best of luck to you all.

Anarchic law is based on natural law or, common law, which is based on the non aggression principle and it's application to any and every dispute one can imagine. Outside those basic tenets, anarchic law would primarily exist within contracts between individuals. Suggested reading: No Treason - Lysander Spooner An Essay on the Trial by Jury - Lysander Spooner Universally Preferable Behavior, A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics - Stefan Molyneux Spooner's works were writtten in the mid nineteenth century but could be easily construed as having been written today, writing style and verbiage notwithstanding. They will give you an easy to understand framework of the theory of natural law and how trials were conducted when Britain's justice was based on it. Stef's work is a bit complicated to follow but it posits an easy to understand method of determining the validity of moral rules, ergo, proposed laws.

Welcome to the forum! On political action... what do you suppose would happen if a politician were actually able to end all US occupations and wars accross the world? Can you foresee any negative affects? On anarcho-xxx... anarcho communists reject the notion of property rights, which is antithetical to individual liberty. Anarcho capitalists respect property rights, which are essential to individual liberty. In fairness, ancoms do make property exceptions for your body and other such personal belongings but no one's really sure how far the personal property extends, if at all, past your toothbrush. []

Sir, you've arrived here a man, so the best we can do is help one another become better men.... and women. I can't help but reflect on how the past twenty six years would've gone had I been so open minded when I was your age. Welcome to the forum!

"Not just any dog can be trained to be a "fighting dog", this is understood by most anyone in that line of business." Any dog can be trained to be vicious. And, any dog can be trained to fight. The breeds that are chosen are chosen because they have been bred in such a way that they often have brain abnormalities that don't occur naturally outside random instances and because they are strong enough to make the "show" a brutal, bloody fight. Poodles can be quite fierce and aggressive animals but they just can't create the bloodbaths that an 80lb Pit Bull Terrier can. This is why Pit's are the dog of choice. With that out of the way, here is the yet unanswered question relating to dogs: Kirk24: "If we were going to make financial bet as to whether dog was vicious, and we had some standard to measure this when the dog was full grown. But you have a choice to pick the breed or how it's raised what would you choose?"

"So then if someone else claims violence/aggression are totally genetic and as evidence they cite "stuff I read and some conversations and experiences I had" you'd accept that?" I looked at the material you presented. I don't expect you to take my word, I expect you to do your own research and I provided a few places for you to go since I obviously can not include all of the evidence I have read in a forum thread. "That's not scientific evidence on which you can base a conclusion this crucial and important." Most of what I've read has indeed been scientific. Moreover, the experiences I've had have been congruent with the results of the scientific studies I have read and the conversations I've had on the matter are no different than the conversations on this forum. They aren't intended to be scientific... they are discussions about the science. I'll thank you not to judge my research material unscientific until such time as you have reviewed it yourself. I'll also afford you that same courtesy. "Even though in that quote I linked to above he claims to be agnostic on this issue, his work doesn't seem to reflect that~" That he's agnostic only means he cannot prove nurture and disprove nature. Being agnostic is not synonymous with indecision. "Every stand we take has potential consequences. That's why I tend to remain agnostic unless very confident. When forced to place a bet I place my best bet. But premature taking of stances should, in my view, be avoided. We're talking here about one of the most vexing problems in the history of humanity - the roots of violence and aggression. To jump to a conclusion on such an issue is really not justifiable for a responsible person who identifies as rational or empirical in my view. Refusing to jump to premature conclusions is just as much a part of rationalism and empiricism as is taking stances when they are supportable." With all due respect, that's a wall of fog. If you don't understand what I asked or you don't want to answer, please either don't respond or simply say you don't want to answer. "The burden of proof is on Stefan. We are asking for his view of the subject and his evidence for his view." As I mentioned earlier, there are a few thousand hours of his view available (for free) and within those hours, there is ample evidence provided for his view. By this time, it is clear that you're attempting to turn his thesis on its head simply because he hasn't returned to this particular thread and typed the three letters I typed a few posts up. That has to be it, because you're far too intelligent to have consumed much of his material, understood it "quite well" and still remain oblivious to what his position could possibly be.

"Taking stands on these types of issues has consequences and should not be done lightly." What is your history with taking stands and what sort of consequenses were there?

I can't talk for Stef but from everything I've read and heard from him, I would say that they are Stef's views. As for how I support my views empirically.... through evidence. That's the only way one can support anything empirically. That evidence ranges from things I've read to conversations I've had to personal experiences with my own family and the families of friends. As for your claim about the BiB series, I agree wholeheartedly that it doesn't support those things sufficiently. And, it's not supposed to. It's a short documentary series on the subject of human psychological development as it relates to childhood and to cover each and every aspect of the topic sufficiently, it would have to be so long that most people wouldn't even begin to watch it. What it is designed to do is put forth some of the base arguments for the ethical treatment of children and how that affects society writ large in such a way as to entice interested viewer to gather more information on his or her own. Stef says often that no one should take his word on anything. Rather, he advises that everyone with interest should do their own due diligence. I don't know how much time you or Godwin have spent studying and I won't make judgements or accusations toward that time but I will offer that if you are truly "stumped" by the arguments presented in the BiB series, you probably need to do more research. To begin with, you'll need about two thousand hours to review just the material Stef has presented in its entirety. After that, there are at least a few thousand more hours of available reading on the subject. Edit - I'd also like to add that the study of human violence and its relationship to environment (in earnest) has been going on for about 45 years. Phychohistory is a branch of psychology that deals specifically with this topic and there are forty years worth of study materials available from The Institute of Psychohistory alone.

"- Is childhood trauma the primary reason for violence/aggression in our world? -Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world?" Yes. Yes.

I don't agree that her explanation was straight forward. We have discussed her comparison of BiB with Reefer Madness and she did not refute what I said. Xelent also commented that her claims of emotional manipulation were extraordinary and yes, it is an important part of the conversation. It is especially important given that one can not be rational and empirical without knowledge of why he/she reacts to something in a given way. For instance, if I've had a child who was killed by a drunk driver, it would be hard for me to approach the topic of drunk driving legislation rationally. In fact, that sort of emotional reaction is arguably at the root of the draconian laws most of the world suffers. I'm not asserting that Godwin suffers from this sort of reaction. I'm merely asking if she has asked herself those questions. And it's not me who needs those answers, it is she.