LovePrevails

A) Yes, there would be a temptation to do this, but the land owner could sue. The more frequent this became the higher the incentive for someone to invent a way to hold culprits responsible and get a share of the settlement. B) As consumables would move towards more environmentally disposal there would be less and less reason to do this as people would be getting paid for a large portion of their garbage, or at least get some benefits like tokens for discounts off a product for returning the packaging. C) Isn't this what is happening already with landfills? I'm sure there are more solutions

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