Pepin

Can you expand as to why you do not think you music would cause harm to a child? Can any music cause harm? Can some music cause harm? If so, what is the harm dependent upon? What kind of harm would music cause? I don't really have an answer to this question, with the exception religious and state supportive music that children are forced to chant, as that is a clear method of indoctrination through an induced trance state. On a side note, I've noticed that people are extremely confused when they find that I listen to some bands that are communistic or socialistic... Which I really don't get. For instance: I am absolutely in love with Animals by Pink Floyd which is a critique of capitalism, and people seem to think that due my thinking, I ought to be opposed to the album and despise it.

Basing your argument on an "I think" and stating a consequence as if the "I think" is true does not work as an argument. What you think does not matter, but what you can prove to be true does. First, this is contemplating a situation that does not make sense. If the government is a group of people that claim a monopoly of force in a geographical area, then by definition, you cannot spread the message of peaceful and free society. This is much like how it would make little sense to become the pope to push Catholicism more towards Atheism. Second, to say you would use force to push society towards freedom is contradictory. It is like saying that you are going to use poison to improve a person's health. Third, to use force on a society and to really believe it is for the best is to believe that you really know what is best. Yet, if you are to claim that voluntary interaction is better than forced ones, then you would be acting in a way which you believe is not best for society. To go further, to claim knowledge of that you know what is best for people, is to claim knowledge that you do not have. No, not if you act on principal. For instance, I would not accept partial ownership over any amount of people as I am opposed to all forms of slavery, I am opposed to initiating force, I do not know what is best for these people, and because taking ownership over people would be detrimental to my humanity. This is to assume that a free society is dependent upon the ruler relinquishing their power. If a voluntary society cannot be achieved through the state, then a voluntary society cannot be dependent upon the state. To imagine it this way, when approaching a voluntary society, the acts of the rulers will be called by their proper name: indoctrination through public school, murder through physical and economic wars, theft through taxation, caging through prisons, enslavement of the unborn through national debt, and so on. If power corrupts, then power would corrupt you, more so if that power was over corruption. I am a little confused to as what you mean here and how it relates to the power of the government. Can you give some specifics as to your actions? Like would you just use rational argument? Would you put people into reeducation camps? Would there be repercussions to believing in a deity? If lying is immoral, and if a man comes to your house, says that they are going to shoot your wife, and then asks where she is, is it wrong to lie to the man? Well, the question of right and wrong don't really apply to this situation. It is kind of like being in nature among bears and wolves. Is it wrong to use government services to report a rape that is occurring next door? Right and wrong do not apply, especially in scenarios in which you are forced to use an agency that claims a monopoly of force over the geographical area. It is not wrong to stop physical and psychological abuse of children through the means of force. Is it wrong to use government services to stop this? Again, the concept loses meaning, especially if you are dictator who owns human capital. Hopefully I've helped, though to be honest, I am not really sure what hurdle you are having. Is it the idea that force is capable of having a positive result? Or is it that you would use force if given power?

I don't think this concept is anything new, though I am really confused as it seems to be more descriptive of the current state of affairs, especially in that crime in general is at the lowest state possible. If you embed a "target" of the people within the government, they'll send psychopaths to your home to threaten you, and of course they threaten to kill you if you don't comply. These psychopaths are of course citizens, and there is lawlessness because the citizens given the task to "uphold" the law created by government, are now allowed to purge their own inner demons with sanction from the government. I understand that this movie is likely not in that direction on a conscious level, especially since the theme seems to be to fear your fellow slaves and not your master, but I feel as if there will be a juggling between the premise of the movie and the current reality we are in. This I would consider a spontaneous manifestation of the unconscious with a blend of the left wing propaganda that that has been quite rampant through the Obama presidency. Liberals are the biggest disappointment I have experienced.

In an exchange, both parties must be aware that they are performing an exchange. If one party is not aware that an exchange is occurring, then no exchange is occurring, as both parties must be aware that they are exchanging something. This is to say, that by definition, a trade cannot occur when another party is not aware that they are involved in a trade. This would also be bound the exchange of a gift, one party must be aware that they are giving the gift in exchange for nothing, and the other party must be aware that they are receiving a gift in exchange for nothing. If both parties are not aware of this, then it cannot be said that any exchange occurred. For instance, if you come home and a car you do not recognize is on your front lawn. You have no reason to believe that the car is now your car simply because someone put it is on your property, as property is not some magical device that transfers ownership, rather trade is. You also have no reason to believe that someone has given you the car for free because no interaction had taken place with the previous owner. You realize that since no interaction has occurred in regards to the car, that you cannot claim ownership of the car. Even if there was an interaction with the previous owner, if they were to offer you the car in exchange for nothing, you'd likely be skeptical as to their motives. Now, if you receive a letter the next day saying "please make a payment to pay off car debt to BBB Company", you could not be bound by the debt, since there was no exchange, and property is not some magical entity that transfers ownership. You would not say "no, I do own the car and owe no debt, because property is a magical entity that transfers ownership, and you transferred ownership to me before making it clear that I would need to provide something in exchange for the car, instead you would say "I owe you nothing as I did not even agree for the car to be dropped off on my property, nor was I aware that any exchange was to take place. If anything, I thought the car was stolen, and then abandoned. If this is your car and if you dropped it off on my property, it is incumbent on you to retrieve it. If you fail to retrieve it, leave it in my yard against my will, and still claim that I owe you something, then this is a matter I do not fear to sort out in a court". Now this is where it gets interesting. If you use the car on any sort of basis, this is something that that BBB Company would be able to use in order to claim that the debt is valid, as if you do not claim ownership of the car, you would not act in a manner that claims ownership of the car. To put this into context of a restaurant, if a bartender hands you a drink, you do not assume that the act of handing you the drink magically transfers ownership. Some sort of exchange is likely occurring, and it would be irrational to assume that nothing is to be given in return on your side. You would likely not drink the drink, but rather you'd say to the bartender "I didn't ask for this, why did you give me a drink". If the bartender then asks you to pay for the drink, you would say that you weren't aware that any exchange was occurring and that you do not claim ownership of the drink. If you then proceed to drink the drink, this is a claim to ownership of the drink, and would be something that the bartender could ask to be compensated for. The default position in any exchange is to assume that both parties will be exchanging something. If the exchange is one in which one party is to receive something for nothing, both parties must be aware of this. To assume that the default position of an exchange is one in which things are "free" unless implicitly stated, is to not have any interest in the other party's understanding of the exchange, which is to invalidate action the idea that any trade occurring. I will admit that the phrasing of the above is likely difficult to understand, and I will work to make it more clear.

I've been listening to the audiobook as of late, and the ring of power seems to be a metaphor for control and power over people. To a degree, I feel as though this is in some regard also in loose reference to the mind. Sauron seems to refer to the reptilian part of the brain and is further personified by the eye (though I suppose it could be a cat's eye as well). The reason given for why one who is powerful cannot use the ring of power is that it would basically lead to another Sauron. In the case of a hobbit, which doesn't really have the capacity to attain power, it leads to Gollum. I also get the sense that the hobbits are children, the elves are mystics that are of some higher power than the other races, the orcs are those that are immoral and with no hope, the dwarfs are materialistic/mechanistic, and the humans are some medium. The interpretation might make sense of this sort of intrinsic feud between the elves and the dwarfs. I feel as though that the numbers given to the races are likely to provide evidence for this as far as the meaning of numbers go. I can't say the tale is one of anarchism, but it certainly has to do with power and control over people, and the inability to control that power. I also can't say I know what I am talking about with the above, these have just been the thoughts that have been popping up in my head while listening to the book.

Welcome to the forum. Since FDR centers around personal freedom, I might as well ask: how has philosophy had an effect on your life and your relationships?

I would agree with that, though I start to get confused when thinking about this in relation to situations in my life. I've come across a few people who claim that there was no way they could have known, and I will point out things that happened and things they had said in the past, and then they are kind of forced to agree because they do remember, or they act like I am making stuff up. I'm not sure if these people legitimately forgot, unconsciously repressed it, or if they simply don't want to take any fault for enabling abuse. This is just to say that I am always skeptical when a victim claims that they couldn't have known because the "I couldn't have known" claim seems to be preferable. The above doesn't invalidate anything you said, though it certainly confuses me. I might be overthinking this.

I don't really know how to respond to these sorts of posts.

I know it was not needed, but I provided some commentary. The article got worse and worse as it went on. Normally I like dissecting these sorts of articles, but it becomes difficult to have fun when trying to make sense out of gibberish. What is the argument exactly? That if a particular political philosophy is advantageous to society at large, why is it not adopted by those that control the state? One answer is that people within the state benefit from taxation, and libertarianism is opposed to taxation, then the people who benefit from taxation will be opposed to libertarianism. An institution that claims 50% of your income by force is partial enslavement, and slave masters are opposed to a political philosophy that opposes slavery on a moral level. Another simple answer is that the state is not an institution that aims to benefit society at large, as any institution that has the capability of murdering millions upon millions of the people the claim to serve and claim it to be a virtue is not interested in what society as a whole. What about all the people caged in rape rooms for smoking a little vegetation? What about the millions upon millions who have died in war? What about those who have not been able to get medicine they needed due to tariffs, sanctions, and bombing? What about all those who have lost their livelihood due to the inflation of money? There is also the rational approach of analyzing the premises and finding faults and contradictions in the argument. This is especial vital to determining the validity of any theory, especially one that has yet to be tried out. It is doubtful that the author is capable of making the case of libertarianism due to the phrase "how best to organize". Libertarianism is more a philosophy that posits that the state ought not to organize the majority of society. The author is aware of as shown later in the article. The opposing argument to the above would likely be one in which the fault is put on Republicans, corporations, or even worse: a concept called greed. Such a response does not follow logically, but people seem to think it does for some reason. Does this at all address the libertarian arguments as to why this does not occur? Does the author have any understanding of the position they are arguing against? Mixing and matching is what seems to occur when one criticizes the concept of the state and the beloved rulers that have supported murder, imprisonment, theft, terrorism, and enslavement to their fullest extend possible. Also, the author avoids assessing the effectiveness of "more voluntary programs", likely because getting into the empirical aspects of libertarian arguments would require making an argument, and explaining away statistics would give you the appearance of a weaker argument. A “real” country. I don't understand the author's need to differentiate, besides to give the appearance of something of value being put forth. The author offers their political philosophy, which ends up being a cliché statement unsupported by evidence and then... reiterates their claim again? I am a little confused as to how that paragraph slipped by the editor as it is nonsensical even from a statist point of view. The test of some arbitrary rubric that is put forth without reasoning and evidence? Also, the author is looking for a political philosophy to support their political philosophy. Kind of reminds me of how adults tend to go for preexisting religions that are similar to their existing belief structures. The fuck is going on in this article? What is the argument here? I mean, my Science, the author in the article complains earlier about mixing and matching shit from governments, but this is worse because it isn't even comprehensible. I'm sorry, but I did think about it for a moment, and that line of reasoning does not at all make sense. If socialism is discredited by empirical failure And if libertarianism has had no empirical test Then why is libertarianism not discredited by empirical failure I am a little lost as to how the author could muster up this. I am not really sure what it is, or even how to address it. I mean, sure, these paragraphs may have been slipped in by a drunk sailors while petting a seal as some sort of practical joke, but certainly someone should have noticed a seal in the office, nor does it excuse such a terrible argument. Wait I thought mixing and matching was not an adequate response. Libertarians do not claim that people would enjoy the same quality of life, but a higher quality of life. The author understands this, but must make us for a lack of substance through contradiction. Perhaps we are forced return to that question because the article really has nothing to do with addressing the question, besides randomly stating it at different points.

It was quite a challenge for me, but more on the relationship side, not so much on the rational side. The concept tended not to make a lot of sense to many in many different respects due to a lot thinking about the idea as a child. I believed it because the fear of hell was inflicted far too heavily onto me by my grandmother as a very young child, around the age of four and through my teens. I was often spanked and given hour long lectures about the devil, what hell was, how I was going to hell if I didn't change my ways, how even good people go to hell, how the rapture could happen at any moment and how I'd be left behind, and so on. I was quite a good kid, and I never really talked back and almost always did what was asked of me, yet this was never reflected in the relationship with my grandmother. Other adults seemed to love me and my amazing behavior. It was something that affect me in daily life. I'd be in a store, and wouldn't be able to find my mom, and I would start to wonder if the rapture happened and if I got left behind. The thoughts that I was having that were in opposition to the existence of God gave me a strong amount of anxiety and confusion, and I often ended up crying. I avoided thinking about God for quite some time, and would often have to quell thoughts that popped up. After going to college, my thinking on the subject became more liberated. I think that is because of being away from the relationships I had been in. I still believed in God for a good bit of time, but I began to realize that it became the elephant in the room in terms of what I was not willing to apply rationality to. One day, I decided to be consistent with all of my beliefs, and said "fuck it". Once I became aware of the arguments in opposition to the concept of a deity, I couldn't believe in God, because it was proven to me that God can't exist. It was not within the domain of opinion, or even claims that could not be proven. I was not surprised of this at this point, as a lot of Stefan's podcasts had helped me in understanding childhood and methods of control, though I was surprised that a lot of the thoughts I had previously were legitimate disproof's. It was honestly one of the most difficult things to apply rationality to.

The term complex mechanisms might have been a poor choice of word, as I intended it to be a generalization of psychological issues that are not straight forward, which would include susceptibility to manipulation. What are the implications of holding someone responsible for a choice they make that is the result of scar tissue or a lack of knowledge?

Acting as though an interaction is voluntary does not make the interaction voluntary, especially when there are repercussions from the opposing party upon withdrawing from such an interaction. If taxation were voluntary, then one must claim that it is immoral for a government to prosecute those who do not wish to associate with them, as a voluntary relationship cannot be one in which one is forced to partake in. At least in my experience, the discussion from that point will lead towards the concept the social contract, which is just another way to claim that the interaction is voluntary. It essential to take into consideration the indoctrination that occurs in schools, and the projection of the family onto the state. I also feel as though it is important to realize that these people don't have the ability to take the other side of the argument, which is a sign of incompetency in their belief.

I certainly agree that that there are many complex mechanisms at work, but I cannot say that such mechanisms invalidate or relevant to the responsibility for a free choice. For instance, people tend to join the military for a number of complex reasons such as: propaganda; money; primal desires; "honor", but this does not mean a person ought not to take full responsibility for their act of joining and actions in the military. To not take responsibility would be to dissociate from the part of themselves that caused the action to begin with, which is to offload fault onto a concept or others, and to not recognize one's one capacity and willingness to act in such a way. Taking full responsibility is not to beat yourself over something that cannot be changed, but rather to admit to a part of you that was likely created through infliction, and to be aware of this in regards to your life in the present.

Welcome to the forum. I feel as though you are a bit detached from yourself, as most people aren't all that able to apply concepts to themselves so easy. If this is true, I encourage you to take advantage of this and to notice when you project, have Freudian slips, and do other psychological tendencies. I like to make a game of it, and it can be rather enlightening.

The argument in regards to single parenthood tends to focus on the choices prior to the child's conception, the empirically validated effects of a single parent raising a child, and the economic incentives involved. It is certainly awful that your ex was abusive to you and that you had to separate yourself and your kids from him, but this does not imply that single parenthood is good for a child, rather it implies that single non-abusive parent is better than two parents where one is abusive. I am a little confused as to why you think anybody, especially Stefan, would consider you evil for being a single mother.

This sounds analogous to proposing succession, though it is a little different in that there is no claim to a right to a specific piece of land, but there is an affirmation of a "state's right" to a specific right to a piece of land. I am having a difficult time understanding the incentive for a government to agree to such a proposal in any formal sense. This does occur already in some sense, like when a favored group is granted a monopoly over a specific piece of land or service, or are granted exemption from specific laws and regulations. Eminent domain, private-public partnerships, or any new public program would be an example. Exclusion from the force of the state does occur quite a bit, though such exclusion is either granted temporarily, under the pretense that it can be taken away, and always affirms the state's right to the specific region of land. Granted what the state is, and how it operates, I can't really see how it would agree to a proposition that is the opposite of its mission statement. Putting forth the argument to people in the state might make sense to someone who sees the state as something other than what it is, but other than that, I don't exactly see how making such a proposal makes sense.

Personally, I think when people say this and really believe it, that they are describing a state of consciousness they have experienced and claiming that it is true. I have had many odd sorts of states of consciousness, including the cliché "everything is connected" one, but I see these as just different and altered states of consciousness. People who meditate are controlling and entering altered conscious states, some of which include projection onto objects such as: a flame, people, animals, and the universe. Certain fields of psychology from what I understand seem to claim that these states of consciousness were the result of evolutionary processes, that they did perform a role at some point in the past, and now they tend either be dormant or expressed in unconscious manners. This is all to say that I think there are two parts to this. The feeling: which I don't think there is anything wrong or irrational in experiencing, and the claim that the feeling describes something objective: which is irrational.

Can you expand upon what you mean? Can you define science? I am having a difficult time understanding points 2-4 in regards to the topic of ethics. I think I might understand what you are saying, but I am unsure, and I'd prefer not to mischaracterize the argument.

What kind of argument is the scientific method?

You decide to go to a club. A friend recommended the club to you, and said that the cover charge is $5. There is a bouncer at the front door. You walk up to the man and give him $5, and proceed to walk in... Until the bouncer stops you and says "hey, if you want to get in, you have to pay the cover charge". You say "did I not give you enough money?". The bouncer says "the cover charge is $5, you haven't paid any of it". You reply "I just gave you the $5 for the cover charge". The bouncer replies "that was not at all implicit in the exchange". "You are the bouncer, correct?" "Yes". "And you let people in based on whether they pay the cover charge of $5, correct?". "Yes". "Then you should let me in because I paid the cover charge, right?" "No... Again, how would I know the $5 you were giving me was to get in if you did not specify it?". "Well you know now because I am telling you". "But I did not know before you handed me the $5, and it is too late for you to state the terms of a contract that I did not agree to". "But you are the bouncer, and your job is to let people in based on whether or not they pay the $5 cover charge". "Correct, but how can I know that you are intending to pay the cover charge in order to get in, if you do not state this before hand?". "Because this is the role you are playing at the moment. I am the customer and you are the provider". "Sir, I am sorry that you made the mistake of assuming there was an implicit contract where there was none, but I cannot let you in". "And I assume that you cannot give me my money back either, as you seem to imply that the interaction was one of charity". "Sir, unless you specify that the interaction is not one of charity, how can one assume it isn't?". "All acts are assumed to be acts of charity, unless otherwise stated beforehand?" "Yes". "And is this the principal the entire club acts on?". "Yes of course, this is universal to society". "In that cases, here is $5 to pay the cover. I'm going to have a few drinks on the house."

-Concepts are an abstractions derived from instances found in reality. Concepts tend to lump instances into a class with various properties and behaviors. It is easiest to think about this in terms of biology in that instances that have similar properties and behavior are lumped into a classification called [animal name]. In particle physics, particles that have particular properties and behaviors are lumped into a classification. For instance, there was found to be a large number of alike particles all with the same mass and behavior. The instances of these particles were lumped together to form a class called "electron". The concept of the electron is derived through the empirical observation of a large number of instances with the same behavior and properties. This is all to say that the class does not define the instance, yet rather the instance defines the class. There is a margin of error depending on what the abstraction intends to describe. Particle physics has very strict definitions, while biology does not. For instance, horses have one head, but a horse born with two heads would still be considered a horse. -Logic is a further abstraction that are derived from the concept of classes. This is to say that logic deals strictly with abstractions. Logic does not have to describe anything in reality in order for it to be considered valid. For instance: if a = b and b = c then a = c does not describe anything in reality, but the statement would be considered valid. -Because of this, the validity of any theory that intends to describe reality is contingent upon the classes they are describing. Since classes are derived through the empirical observation of instances, any disagreement about the validity of a statement regarding a such classes, would be resolved through the empirical observation of instances. -It is interesting to note that if concepts are derived from empirical reality, and if logic is derived from concepts, then logic must be derived from empirical reality. For instance, binary logic can apply to reality because binary logic is derived through empiricism. It may be observed that a rock cannot fall upwards and downwards at the same time. From this, the concept of opposites can be formed, in that if falling up and falling down cannot occur simultaneously and if a rock is falling down then the rock is not falling up can be further abstracted to if a and b cannot occur simultaneously and c is b then c is not a Again, the logical abstraction cannot describe anything real unless concepts that describe something real are put into the equation.

I can't at all relate to anyone who would want to go back to their childhood. I've had this viewpoint for most all my life, and people are extremely confused by it. Interpersonal interactions are quite confusing when it comes to cultural rules. I prefer not to offend people, but when someone explains to me that what I said was offensive, I am rather lost. On the issue of judging others, I quite understand how it would be possible to not discriminate. What would it mean to not judge others? I am not quite certain myself, but I feel as though a person who acted in such a way would simply be denying their own interpersonal prefrences. At least for me, I just don't associate with people that I don't like, and I don't see how anyone could judge such course of action as bad. There might be objective or subjective reasons for my judgement, and I try to be very honest about when I don't like someone for no reason, or for an irrational/nonrational reason.

DoubtingThomas, I find that very interesting, in that "you can always leave" is more of a command directed at you in terms of the conversation. Certainly someone making such an remark thinks they are making an argument as I doubt they would say admit to it being a command. An odd area of interest for me as of late has been phrases that are intended to have one meaning, but have a possibility of taking on a seperate unconcious meaning. For instance, the saying "freedom isn't free" is typically is meant in a manner that freedom has a price, which is paid by those in the military who fight for freedom. One of the hidden meanings would essentially be "freedom is slavery". My basic idea is that double meanings become a method for part of the psyche to express itself openly without fear of retaliation.

Definitions are needed just to make sure that people reading your argument are on the same terms. If society is a collection of individuals, then what does it mean to say that "individuals in a collection of individuals nearly universally agree that the collection of individuals act in an non-optimal fashion"? Does it follow that agreement on the non-optimal functioning of society is a validation that society operates in a non-optimal fashion? I think it might be good to specify that the specifics of the disagreement are irrelevant to the theory you are presenting, as your theory presents that any disagreement can be resolved through an appeal to objective truth. I am not sure if it makes sense to put this statement here. The first sentence is I believe is a repetition of the first premise, which makes the reading a little awkward. The focus on "they" gets a little confusing because you are kind of juggling to concepts in a one premise. This could use a lot of simplification, as the statements being put forward are more likely to confuse someone than to convince them. The concluding statement is really difficult to interpret. Don't misunderstand my criticism, I am pretty sure that I understand and agree with what you are saying, but people outside philosophical circles aren't likely to see any connection between the statements being made. I believe that you are trying to say is that a philosophical argument based on guessing, is almost always going to be wrong, because of the odds of being correct through guessing is infinitely small. The first sentence I believe can be eliminated. Here you are applying the principal of chance/guessing to individuals. The repetition of what has already been stated is not needed. I think the wording is also very odd. It is something I can certainly relate to, because when I start formulating theories, I tend to start writing in a similar way. The issue with writing in such a way is that other people tend to have quite a difficult time understanding it. Most people have a difficult time understanding this form of writing, which is why I'd suggest simplifying and condensing your premises. "UPB: The Book" is a good example of this in that it is able to condense the entire argument into seven or eight short statements, and much of the book is an expansion and proof of each premise. With all of my emphasis on clarify, I really hope what I am trying to get across was clear.

Sounds like a book that might be good to read. Does it give advice as to how to avoid being in the lowest group and how to avoid being taken advantage of? In general, I tend not care about this, but more recently I have been running into issues with this. I would be considered a giver.