Nathan T_ Freeman

Why does it bother you that I call you dishonest? Hi Nathan, it seems to me you are trying to avoid answering my question about morality, and maybe derail this thread. Please prove me wrong by replying on topic. Best wishes, Marc Why should I concern myself with whether you think I may be derailing this thread? If you'll answer that question yourself, then you'll know what my answer is to your original question.

Why does it bother you that I call you dishonest?

If you take morality and call it "graf'lindar", and then say it's great to use graf'lindar to meet everyone's needs instead of morality... well, it doesn't seem an honest approach to me.

One might be tempted to call that "universal." One might refer to this subjective variety of needs as "preferences." One might describe the various strategies to meet needs as "behavior." Interesting...

I don't see it that way, for me that's a choice you make, whether to bring in morality into it or not. Hmm. I think you might be saying that the moral aspect is not embedded in the aggression itself (i.e. in the initiation of violence), but arises out of the human context of that aggression. For sure I agree with that. For example, a volcanic eruption is violent but there is no moral aspect to it. However, in this discussion we are referring to things like the use of aggression to collect taxes to pay for food stamps. Within the implied scope of this discussion, I think there's always a moral aspect to aggression. Perhaps I have misunderstood you and you mean something else. In that case, I would find it helpful if you could give an example of the type of aggression you have in mind, where it is a choice whether or not to bring morality into it. Hi ribuck, I believe I mean something else. Since you asked for an example, I hope the following one will do: person A hits person B on the back of the head then steals B's money while B is unconscious. One choice is to think of what happened using morality, to think that what the aggressor did was immoral. Another choice is to think of what happened without bringing morality into it, and instead to consider whose needs have or have not been met by what happened (according to the definition of human needs used in Nonviolent Communication, http://happinesscounseling.com/NVC_Intro.pdf ). The advantage for me of the second choice is that we think of the aggressor as merely having chosen a tragic and inadequate strategy for meeting their needs, since this strategy most likely did not meet their need for peace nor their need for self-respect nor their need to make life more wonderful for everyone (in NVC view we all have these needs), and the focus stays on helping this person find other strategies that will meet everyone's needs, in win/win fashion. We don't think of the aggressor as deserving to be punished (regardless of the punishment method, whether it be shaming, ostracism, a fine, prison, or death), which would only cause more violence to occur (towards the aggressor initially and perhaps later other persons, if the aggressor does not learn better win/win strategies and ends up attacking more people in order to get their needs met in the future). I find it difficult to explain this in just a few sentences, if you're interested I suggest you read this interview: http://www.openexchange.org/features/Keep/rosenberg.html There are also YouTube videos on Nonviolent Communication, such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Basics+of+Non+Violent+Communication I'm convinced that thinking in moralistic terms is the main cause of violence on this planet, because it justifies violence when someone does something we don't like. All we need to do is think of them as "bad", and the gate to violence is opened. Thinking in terms of finding win/win solutions that meet everyone's fundamental human needs avoid this trap. Please let me know if you find this explanation satisfactory or not! Best wishes, Marc What's the problem with violence, then? Why shouldn't we just accept violence as a way to meet needs?

I love XKCD.com. I don't think Randall intended to be quite so true to life with this one, though...

Of course, Ayn Rand received Social Security and Medicare payments. Sure. And she's a great example of someone who didn't live the values they claimed to uphold. Yes, the "bleed it dry" approach. I'm familiar with it. Even if you think that greater government excesses will hasten the demise of the state, there's still a difference between laughing at the latest entitlement program and accepting the stolen proceeds yourself.

Would you read a diet book from a man who weighed 400lbs? Would you read a physics book by a woman who followed her horoscope every day? Would you take ethical advice from a serial rapist? 1. I might if he had a good reason for being fat. 2. I don't follow the logic here. 3. If the choice is between raping someone and dying, is there any ethical decision? You asked whether I would read the books of an anarchist who is supported by the government. I responded by offering other examples of seeking the advice of people who clearly aren't living the values they are claiming to expouse. Is it possible they still have good ideas? Sure. But they're clearly hypocrites who don't practice what they preach. And if they can't live by the values they claim, that increases the likelihood that the values themselves are corrupt. It's clear by your questions that you already know what the right thing to do is. And it's equally clear by the continued conversation that you're looking for a moral sanction to forgive yourself for doing what you already think is wrong.

Would you read a diet book from a man who weighed 400lbs? Would you read a physics book by a woman who followed her horoscope every day? Would you take ethical advice from a serial rapist?

I don't see it that way, for me that's a choice you make, whether to bring in morality into it or not. I believe it's very difficult to realize that we are doing this though, since almost everyone of us is raised as if morality was the same to us as water is to fish. I know for me it was very difficult to step out of that box! It's only when I had been learning and practicing Nonviolent Communication for months, and therefore learning to think in terms of meetings needs instead of what is right and what is wrong, that it happened for me. Best wishes, Marc So a rapist and a surgeon have no distinction in the quality of their behavior. They just have different needs?

Good thing the argument-from-effect is not the best approach to ethics!

Yes, fraud is immoral.

I hate to say this, but reframing the question as a magical hypothetical isn't going to get a lot of traction around here. There is no such magic gun. So if you're actually facing the problem you initially posed, then people might be able to help work out principles from the concrete specifics. But a "90% cure, 10% death ray" is just the kind of ethical smokescreen that diverts from real problem solving.

I can think of one: serious addiction to drugs or alcohol where the treatment involves in-patient facilities for recovery. It's sometimes necessary to use force to check someone in to such a facility. Those who relapse into their addiction after in-patient treatment often suffer much greater. Another excellent example of what I'm trying to get at =) Unfortunately, I don't have any actual answers to offer. Sorry.

I can think of one: serious addiction to drugs or alcohol where the treatment involves in-patient facilities for recovery. It's sometimes necessary to use force to check someone in to such a facility. Those who relapse into their addiction after in-patient treatment often suffer much greater.

Why not just parallel as closely as possible? "The State Delusion" or "The America Delusion" or "The National Delusion." Then match it chapter for chapter. I haven't read The God Delusion, but Wikipedia states it has 4 major theses... Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled. Natural selection and similar scientific theories are superior to a "God hypothesis"—the illusion of intelligent design—in explaining the living world and the cosmos. Children should not be labelled by their parents' religion. Terms like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should make people cringe. Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind. So how does that align with the ancap argument? Anarchists can be happy, moral and fulfilled Voluntary exchanges are superior to violence -- the illusion of social planning -- in solving the problems of the world. Children should not be indoctrinated by the state. Terms like "American child" or "Chinese child" should make people cringe. Anarchists should be proud, not apologetic, because anarchism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind If you directly pattern the arguments against the state after Dawkins arguments against God, I bet the book practically writes itself. I'd love to read such a work.

I don't mean to be harsh, but Stef has two excellent books on the topic: Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy. Both are available for free. Both have audio recordings available. Walking into the conversation asking questions about minarchism vs. anarchism is like walking into a Calculus class asking "I don't get this Quadratic Equation thing." Sure it's a reasonable question and some people might even choose to help you, but how about starting with the textbooks and at least taking a look at them. Or search the podcast lists for the topic "Anarchism." A quick search shows 18 podcasts on the subject. Again, they're good questions. It's just that they've been addressed repeatedly before. Conversational ettiquette is to seek answers for yourself before requesting help.

How can your beef not be with the focus on X, but with the lack of balance between X and Y? That's a self-contradictory proposition. To be balanced between X and Y would mean giving them equal focus. Your logical fallacy is: strawman. If you want a personal answer from Stefan, ask a question of him in person. Every Sunday at 10am ET, the lines are open. If you can't be bothered to make an effort to engage on a personal level, then quit demanding a response on a personal level. You're just pissing on our dinner party at this point.

Your concern is not unfounded... http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/37844/293910.aspx#293910 and you've proven my point made in the other thread that talking about one's abuse will be used against you and would work to one's disadvantage! Actually, you deserve a longer explanation... In this thread, you are questioning the argument that abuse is destructive to the physical brain and therefore the reasoning capacity of children. Further, you have said that you find this argument manipulative, initially by reversing the causal basis of the argument as mistaking the objective (a free and peaceful society) for the means (the fair and peaceful treatment of children in society.) Elsewhere on the same forum, you describe your own experience as a child... Would it be rational to regard these issues as unrelated? If you feel manipulated by the argument that the state is an effect of childhood trauma, AND you clearly experienced a traumatic childhood -- it would be crazy to think these weren't related outcomes. In fact, what it suggests is that your feeling of manipulation makes sense given your personal history. If you listen to the history of Stef's podcasts on parenting and childhood, one of the themes you'll find is that of normalization; the human tendency to attempt to take whatever we experienced in our own histories and color it as "normal." If a person's experiences as a child were actually abnormal, then it can be very difficult for them to feel anything other than "broken." But you are not broken. And what happened to you wasn't normal. It wasn't even "not acceptable." It was wrong.

Your concern is not unfounded... http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/37844/293910.aspx#293910 and you've proven my point made in the other thread that talking about one's abuse will be used against you and would work to one's disadvantage! How have I used it against you? As I did in the other thread, I am in support of your well-being.

Your concern is not unfounded... http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/37844/293910.aspx#293910

Your transition from 5 to 7 is a bit abbreviated. Childhood trauma is not the only cause of brain damage. It is the most pervasive and least understood. Child abuse is not the only form of trauma. If you examine the ACE survey, you'll see that the death of a parent, divorce and witness to spousal abuse are clearly listed. http://www.acestudy.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/ACE_Calculator-English.127143712.pdf For someone that continually self-describes as an empiricist, you certainly aren't very good at it. Godwin has inquired about whether his explanation of Stef's argument is accurate, and has made NO CLAIM that the argument is faulty yet conversant to that explanation. You have a serious problem with confirmation bias.

... because it was deliberately misleading [ignoring the role of genetics, promising results like a peaceful society] so that it could achieve its primary objective (convincing people to stop child abuse). That's the definition of manipulation. You've inverted the motives here. The objective is to achieve a free and peaceful society. Stopping child abuse is, according to the theory, the path to achieve that objective. Other proposed theories to achieve that objective include voting, violent revolution, and going on strike from the world. This is why I asked the question "what is the purpose of proving that violence is caused only by genetic factors?" How do you intend to put such a proof into action to achieve the primary objective of a free and peaceful society? TronCat proposes a eugenics program based on skin color.

It's clear from your language here that you're being gentle and submissive in the interaction. Stop that. Be assertive and be vulnerable. Don't ask her to stop; demand it. If she argues against you, let your reaction flow naturally. Don't use words like "appropriate" and instead use words like "wrong." The more you are reserved, the more she will assume that she's right. I have the good fortune to have a mother who is not aggressive, but she still makes errors of authority with my kids. I don't equivocate when she screws up: "Mom, if you listen to what you just said, you'll realize that your granddaughter won't want to talk to you any more. If you want her in your life, you need to act like it." Sometimes it's difficult, but the success rate is 100% so far. I understand that not every relationship can withstand that kind of direct honesty, but please at least consider it a starting point from which you can work backwards into more subtle approaches.

I really don't think that's merited or necessary at all. People call into the Sunday show to talk about their dreams or to debate whether they should have implemented mandatory baby factories on Battlestar Galactica. I think having a conversation about what you called "the central idea of Freedomain Radio" would qualify as a reason to call in. Sure, you and the Aryan Brotherhood. Asked and answered. He's stated in multiple podcasts that he's ambivalent on the degrees of influence between nature and nuture, but that it doesn't matter because nurture is the only one that people can control. So if we eradicate child abuse and there's still lots of violence in the world, then maybe we need to focus on genetic factors. It doesn't matter whether it's the largest; it's the low-hanging fruit. Stopping child abuse is a far easier, safer and moral plan of action than a eugenics war or mandatory abortions. Again, already answered in podcasts. Navel gazing over percentages of influence is misdirection. No, at this point the ball is already being carried through the victory lap. You just keep running the race anyway. Already published multiple times. You just keep plugging your ears.