LovePrevails

So the NAP does not apply to mentally disabled people then and it's ok to kill them to eat them?

By the way I was thinking of sending you some audios to use for your shows, would you be willing to consider them? if you want to put our heads together on this one I will send you some more notes, I'm writing on this subject for my book

you might just want to get his book "Who's really running you life" it is a bit more managable then his website which, I agree, it quite convoluted he has updated the website in accordance with feedback suggestions before so if you have any specific requests for ways to make it more manageable I fully recommend email Pete

Right maybe this will help You can't derive an ought from an is without an if so "if you want your conclusions to be correct, you ought to apply the scientific method, because it is the way of measuring whether hypotheses conform to reality" for example

Hey does anyone have any good points to add to this, or any way to improve the way I have put it: If you want people to recycle more and waste less, it's very easy to acheive. All you do is making free garbage disposal available to them. If people can't externalise the cost of waste disposal they have to start making different decisions about what they buy and how they dispose of their waste. Things that are very difficult to dispose of, or unsafe to dispose of, will cost the most to arrange collection of. The more biodegradable something is the cheaper it will be to dispose of, if it is compostable it may even be free as this waste is a resource to other people. Things like glass jars and bottles, as well as tins and cans and sometimes even plastic, have already proven to be economical to recycle in many case, and so some companies may even pay to pick these up, not a huge amount, but enough to incentivise people to favour products which are sold in a recylcable fashion over things which are take-make-and-throw-away and would demand cash to dispose of.Much of the products we buy are wrapped in excess packaging, but people buy them anyway because disposal of this packing is free to dispose of at the point of use. Under a system of voluntarism people would now have an incentive to buy responsibly, because the less environmentally friendly their trash was the more they'd have to pay to get rid of it, and the more biodegradable and recyclable their trash was the easier it would be to have someone pick it up, and maybe even pay for it.

Noam Chomsky is a "libertarian socialist" (left-wing anarchist) like most anarchists, since it's only recently that people on the economic right started using the term to describe their political philosophy.

Hey something I get from peole is "has Stef ever debated a hardcore leftist, like someone with some acumen" anad right enough this is something I'd like to see. maybe we can't get Noam Chomsky or Michael Parenti (althought that would be awesome!) but I am almost certain he could debate Michael Albert (author of Parecon) the left-wing anarchist Could be John Pilger !!! he's a very integerous person who exposed lots of Government scandals (maybe better for an interview then than a debate) or Willam Blum who wrote Rogue State it would also be good to see him debate George Galloway although he is very blustery, he is very into history but he is so certain his lef wing views are correct it would be good to see him meet a match instead of destroying lesser minds of lay people on his radio show. it would also be good to see him debate the very famous contemporary ethicist Peter Singer

I remember this movie being enjoyable but lefty, like the conflate capitalism with corporatism like so much from the left they also say that corporations behave the same as psychopaths! I think it would be good to review this

thanks for posting this TED talk you may also enjoy this.

because you keep moving the bar when your arguments are defeated, just like a statist. It looks to me like post-fact rationalisation. I want to eat meat therefor it is ethical for whatever argument will do.

I have made according changes

sounds good, I like writing around characters because if I know their traits I can use their voices

Without the state what will we do about mad raving axe murderers? DROS Yeah but what if person in the DRO is family with the murderer or has been bribed? Third party watchdogs Yeah but the someone in the third party watchdog can split the money with the DRO guy... Then they will have a bad reputation Not if they cover it up completely... their competitors will have an incentive to investigate them Yeah but they will all just cartelise.... etc. etc... etc... etc... etc...

thank you so much luminescent for giving such useful and specific feedback Wesley I don't know what a hanging word is?

I would like to see the results of a few ayahuasca journeys on Stef the active ingredient is native to the body - therefor it it not a drug it is a "suppliment" it also has various health benefits including killing parasites in the digestive tract the health risks are minimal to none I would like to see the results of a few ayahuasca journeys on Stef the active ingredient is native to the body - therefor it it not a drug it is a "suppliment" it also has various health benefits including killing parasites in the digestive tract the health risks are minimal to none

it's a good week for this, Psychology today also covered it: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201309/research-spanking-it-s-bad-all-kids

hey any responses to this argument I hadn't heard before? I have an idea but I'm interested in other peoples response

Here is an adaptation of a conversation I've been having that could maybe be adapted for this, it's a bit convoluted in its present form, but it's a good demonstration of socratic reasoning and teaching people not to philosophise midstream - let me know if it's worth my time and I'll get on dramatising it. A - I'm actually an anarchistJ - Don't we need some sort of organisation that protects the interests of the whole?A - I'm not sure there is such a thing as the interests of the whole, only individual interests.Jonanna - What do you mean?A - Well, lots of people are interested in ending war, but other people benefit from war, so war continues.J - But you do share a concern for humanity in general?A - Of courseJ - That is interest in the wholeA - But if people who profit from harming others are harmed by not being allowed to do, then so be it.J - Those people are acting in their self interests not the interests of the wholeA - I brushed my teeth earlier in my self interestJ - You didn't do that at the expense of others.A - That's my point really, that acting in your own self interest isn't a problem. Doing things at the expense of others is.J - Disarming the war makers to act in the interests of others is acting for the whole, do you only act in the interests of those you knowA - Well you say the interests of the whole I'm not sure there are interests of the whole. I would say we disarm the warmakers because the initiate the use of force. not because they are acting against an abstract concept called "the interests of the whole.J - Do you deny that others care about humanity in general?A - No, but what point are you trying to make?J - If you and others care about humanity in general then there is interest in the whole.A - I see what you're saying, but I just say I care about humanity or I care about people.J - As do others? Therefore, the point stands the interests of the whole existsA - I'm sure some warmakers say they care about the whole as well, that's why they're waging war. But it can just be broken down to some peoples interests, and not in other peoples interest. Not the whole.A - I'm not sure that's a bonafide case, because I say it's a bunch of individuals, and what is good for most people or whatever, isn't good for some people as we have discussedbut you don't do something cos it's good for a majority, I mean, slavery might be good "for the whole" just not for the slavesJ - There are some things that all people require: food, water, air, safety etc. war makers can't acting in the interests of the whole otherwise they wouldn't endanger these thingsA - ok but that is, if "the interests of the whole" exists which I'm still not sure it doesJ - why not?A - for the reasons I've said, do you just mean in the interests of humanity? or people?J - can you yes, but what's the difference?A - it might be good for me if I'm an insurance company or employed as a policeman if people don't feel safe, my job is secure. the difference is "the interests of the whole" is an abstract concept often applied in collectivist political philosophy and humanity or people means "all people"J Samson - lets not think about interests of the whole in terms of discrepancies. Lets focus on the idea that there are shared, universal human needs that need to be protectedA - ok, I agree, go onJ - So instead of thinking about: what a policeman wants. Think about warmth, food, shelter etcA - ok go onJ - I would argue that protecting shared universal needs is protecting the needs of the wholerather than protecting the divergent desires of a collection of individualsA - ok, I am following you so farJ - So, it is our duty to protect those needs. Even if it encroaches upon individual desiresA - how, I mean, on what basis does it become a duty?J - Lets consider the relationship between rights and responsibilities. You agreed we all had a right to food, safety, warmth, love etc. therefore, to maintain those rights we have a responsibility to uphold those rights for the wholeA - no, I didn't agree we had a right to any of those things, I agreed that those are universal needs.J - So, you don't think we have a right to them?A - I'm not saying I don't think we have a right to them. Im saying that if you are going to say those are rights then you've missed a few steps in making your case. There are some missing arguments between them being universal needs and them being rights.what I'm saying is, if you say those are rightsyou have to make a case for them. I haven't said whether I think they are rights or not.J - Right I get you, hmA - I don't even know what a right is defined as. Usually a right is wht people won't attack you for doing. J S Mill said...J - Ok, lets drop the rights and responsibilities terminology. You agree everyone has a need for them and a desire for them?But, you disagree that we have a duty to protect those needs?Or, are you arguing that individuals are solely responsible for ensuring those needs are met?A - No I'm not disagreing with anything, I'm just making sure we are not "philosophising midstream"A - If you want to say people have rights or duties you have to establish those premises based on arguments before you can accept them as given.A - So are you going to take the case from pople having

thanks

that's a good idea, what program do you use?

it's completely consistent. Stef: "someone with an IQ of 30 is not criminally responsible for aggressive actions and so you can't be bound by something you do not understand." But, if someone kills someone with an IQ of 30 we do consider this a violation of the nonagression principle. what logically follows is: if perpetrator understands NAP & victim understands NAP -> NAP Applicable if perpetrator does not understand NAP but victim understands NAP -> NAP Not Applicable if perpetrator does not understand NAP & victim does not understand NAP -> NAP Not Applicable if perpetrator understands NAP but victim does not understand NAP-> NAP Applicable

Stef: "someone with an IQ of 30 is not criminally responsible for aggressive actions and so you can't be bound by something you do not understand." But, if someone kills someone with an IQ of 30 we do consider this a violation of the nonagression principle. what logically follows is: if perpetrator understands NAP & victim understands NAP -> NAP Applicable if perpetrator does not understand NAP but victim understands NAP -> NAP Not Applicable if perpetrator does not understand NAP & victim does not understand NAP -> NAP Not Applicable if perpetrator understands NAP but victim does not understand NAP-> NAP Applicable

I think this sounds like a great idea. I'd be glad to submit a couple idea for comics if it gets going

Here are some popular objections to Stef's arguments that are sometimes overlooked onm the show. It might take an hour but I think responses would make a great show and listeners could pass the arguments on to their socialist friend who may make these objections. We might have some fun with it on the thread as well. 1) Persons on the left hold that the society we have created is unjust because it is not designed to meet people’s needs but demand, that is, the demand of those who can afford to pay for it, in other words the world’s poorest people will never get what they need, even though it can be provided to them, because they are incapable of creating the demand that can incentivise it. To exemplify, the village TotesStarvingHereStef in Africa want a well with clean water more than Mr. Maxamillion Buxdude wants another Ferrari – they cost the same since the dollar goes far in TotesStarving – but the cash goes on the Ferrari because the African village is subsistent, they can’t create the demand for what they need. Most people would be quite happy to use the hand of the state of Maxamillion to pay for this well. Do you think this would be achieved in Agoristopia by social pressure on Maxamillion rather than taxation? 2) You often say “Would you help the poor? So would I too, so it would get done.” But this seems like a straw man because it completely misses the point of the argument for taxation which is a) everyone should pay their share otherwise it is unfair - that's why it is mandatory, and 2) rich people should pay more than poor people. You and I don’t have the same disposable income as Maxamillion Buxdude, so if lots of us are paying but he and his buddies Ivor Welltheo, Aristo Crat, and Topiv Tehchain aren’t it would be so useful. I don’t think this argument should be made without addressing these two objections because it is so transparent that these are the responses that will be received. 2b) Quote from a progressive: “I don't support tax on income, I support a progressive tax on land and wealth. In this country (UK) 6000 people own 69% of the land and they don't have to contribute anything to society at all. Creating Wealth? I’d be surprised if these elites have hardly lifted a finger in their life.” This policy would create a buyers’ market for land as elites tried to shift it to reduce their tax burden, people who wanted to could get their own land and become self-sufficient, and start communities along like-minds. Since people who had “just enough” land would pay little or nothing in tax, the tax burden would fall on those hoarding. 2b) You talk about allowing individuals to make choices, but those choices are limited to circumstances of birth, for example my parents could afford the choice to get me health insurance whereas my friend argues his could not. 3) From a leftish perspective the market is not good at apportioning wealth rationally. For example, your show has stopped thousands of people from hitting their children and helped lots of people improve their ability to reason, argue, and favour evidence over bias. Still it gets significantly less funding than the latest mind rot on the shitbox. In Socilaist Utopia Land, leaders could look assess what is working and put resources into it, and could do so very effectively because they would have A LOT of resources to allocate. Naturally the system in place is corrupt, but this isn’t the system socialists support, they want a life-enriching version. Wouldn’t you rather Delilah Diamonds forgot the Gucci bag that costs $6000 and got one for 500 bucks instead so that good causes like FDR could expand their projects. It would so transparently be better for society that 6000$ for stopping child abuse is better than 6000$ for a Gucci bag that most people would support this. 3b) The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) produces far higher quality and more original programs than competing commercial stations because it is run by people with discerning tastes rather than people who are mainly concerned with market share. Sorry about the pro-state news coverage on there, but the comedy is great! 4a) Tangential point – you make the argument that state departments are not incentivised to solve problems because if they do they are out of the job. A progressive idea is to solve this problem by not creating state departments to solve problems, but having a system of rewards apportioned each year to organisations that are already solving problems. So instead of creating a department to wage a war on drugs, you allocate some money as incentive to organisations treating addicts and apportion it according to whichever charities or businesses have modalities which produced excellent results in a period. If they want more rewards they have to keep delivering the goods. When the private and third sector are done solving the problem they can use their capacities to solve other ones. 4b) Why shouldn’t a Nationalised Health Service make private healthcare cheaper and better since they have to compete with a free service? 5a) You say that welfare disincentives seeking to contribute meaningfully to society, but it’s the current welfare system that creates a poverty trap where someone might get less for working more. It does make people dependent on the state, but there are rational alternatives which do not disincentive work such as a basic income. It could replace all benefits, pensions, tax allowances and social security payments. Every man, woman and child (through their parent or guardian to replace child benefit) is entitled to a certain sum, not huge, but enough to ensure they don’t go hungry. People with adequate incomes would receive this as a tax deduction instead of a welfare payment, and people in between would receive a mixture of both. This would remove the argument that people on welfare are parasites because everyone would be getting the same treatment. In any circumstances if you worked more you would be earning more not less, so it would remove the poverty trap as well. While the system would still yield problems and abusers, these still exist under the present system it would be a huge step in the right direction alleviating the current problems. Imagine what this would do to alleviate the stress and suffering in our society, if people knew even if they lost their job there was a safety net which encouraged them to get back on their feet. Stress is a huge killer. It would encourage entrepreneurialism because it would be there for self-employed people, it would also help people take time to retrain, recognise the value of voluntary work which goes unpaid, as well as stay at home parents who work very hard! 5b) Do you have to be so anti-welfare? Can’t we focus on ending the wars and stopping the government from buying nuclear weapons, and look at the banking bail-outs and all the corporate welfare and public subsidies for the rich, and once we get rid of those abhorrences which both the left and libertarians agree upon, then maybe we can talk about slashing poor granny’s pension. 5c) Also why are people on welfare considered parasites by libertarians but not people who make millions through rent, usury, share dividends and property speculation. They are just piggybacking on other peoples productivity and hard work. 6a) You say people respond to incentives. Great. We should tax junk food and use the cash to subsidise goji berries, turmeric, cayenne pepper, garlic, ginger, blueberries and hemp milk. 6b) What's wrong with policies like taxing motorists to pay for free public transport, this seems sensible, it's good for the environment as less people will drive around and buy cars, it worked to eliminate congestion when tried in the Belgian city of Hasser. It's egalitarian. etc. Not just "it's funded by force" argument, we don't care about that if it's very practical, what is economically wrong with it? 7a) Won’t there be a lot of people who can’t afford to pay for DROs, not just a few. 7b) So far it sounds as though the system you are advocating will entail people choosing whether they can afford either police and fire service, home and property insurance, healthcare insurance, or education for their children, and rarely all of those. All these different insurances! Lots of people won't be able to afford all of them. 7c) If that is the case that may be satisfactory to you but it is very unlikely to win round persons on the left or even the centre. That's why people demand you make a positive case rather than just saying “yeah but it doesn’t use force.” They’re like, so? I’d rather a bit of force, and a bit less anomy thanks. 8) One of the solutions you have suggested to stop pollution is to pay people not to open a factory beside The River Clean, it seems obscene to pay people for doing nothing. Won’t more and more people try to move in just to get the bribes if this is how the problem is handled? 9) In one community they have a scenic street and someone comes and develops a block of apartments beside it, it ruins the whole ambiance, and everyone in the community is sad. In a statist system the community goes to the local council and insist that planning permission is denied to the developer. How can the community be represented in Anarchytopia? 10a) An argument you make which dates back to John Locke is when you mix your labour with the land it becomes your land, but every time you mention this argument you should address the counter argument, which is that when you pour a jar of Ragu into the sea you don’t own that part of the sea. You lose your Ragu. (Don't try this with your marbles.) 10b) In third world countries corporations buy up vast swathes of land they don’t plant to keep the populace indentured and working at whatever terms they dictate since they cannot provide for themselves. For socialist-anarchists if a person owns a lot of land and employs peasants to farm it, say in a third world country where they are very poor, the force is exerted by the landlord to maintain his property. In Anarchocapitalia would the peasants just tell the landlord "bogoff, we plant this land not you, we don't acknowledge your right to the property" and take it in common. 10c) Allegedly, this example to show that force is not black and white, taxes and laws are not necessarily the only way, so can rent be force, no animal needs to pay rent to live. If someone owns far more than their fair share people just don't acknowledge their property rights to own... their local community park, or the road on their street… or maybe some workers decide to socialise their workplace because the owner who is very ill mannered and abusive, they offer him a job… anarchists on the left argue is actually freedom in action. 10d) On the point of workers socialising their work place, this would be subject to “market forces” of a kind – if it typically worked well and produced good results for society then it would become more prevalent. If it was a total disaster it would stop happening. 11) Is it not true that under capitalism the faster we take stuff, make stuff and throw it away the bigger the economic boom? It’s all about throughput. 12) You say we have Self-ownership because we have a body. But we don’t have a body, we are a body. That argument is a scope shift, you are missing hidden premises.