AnCap AllCaps

IMO other. Pain does not imply a moral bad. I may like being choked during sex or having hot wax dripped on me, I'm sure you can think of many more painful acts involving sex or not, in which we willingly participate and call it pleasurable. The moral wrong comes about THROUGH CONSENT! If I ask you to drip hot wax on me - moral good, if I did not - moral bad. If I ask you to break my legs, I insist, break my legs now, use this bat... Then that is a moral good. You have not gone against my will. ---- You may ask WHY is consent the issue? It is a simple matter of principle. Every individual has a body. Each individual (on the whole) insist others not violate their will for their body. SO WHAT right!?!? Well if there are 10 of us in a room that maintain this, we each have things we insist others not do to our bodies without consent, what if Bob defies this and goes against consent? What principle has Bob implied? Bob has implied that your simple insistence that others not do things to your body is not a valid reason to keep others from defying that consent. So now what? The other 9 in the room saw what Bob did, it threatens our notion of consent, we are going to kill him (extreme reaction, replace with a less extreme reaction if you like). ON WHAT BASIS CAN BOB OBJECT TO US KILLING HIM?!?! What can he say, "I don't consent to that action on my body?" He has just convicted himself. (This reaction is like a self defense instance, Bob has defied consent, he has set the stage for his own consent to be violated). When one defies consent, he throws his only defense of his own body out the window.

Just looking for some insight here. I was in a discussion, and said something to the effect of "you have a concept of chocolate, or a concept of a car or some physical object." My interlocutor objected to this usage of concept, he thought that concepts only describe "how things work," the concept of gravity for example. I had never been challenged on this idea. What is your take on this? Can we have a concept of a physical object that either exists or doesn't? Thanks.

I know this is an older/longer thread and am chiming in late. But this claim is one that is made VERY OFTEN casually by theists. And you need to be able to respond to it; to give context to why that is not correct. So theists often claim one of the following, each of them are practically the same statement reworded. Response questions: Responses: 1. Atheism is "the lack of religion." So if you asked 3 children: "What sport do you play?" child 1 says "soccer," child 2 says "basketball," and child 3 says "no sport." So would you then say "no sport" is "the biggest sport of them all?" 2. Most religions worship a book, usually ancient, that is their doctrine, their source of guidance, the book they hold sacred. What ancient book do atheists worship? 3. Most religions have a deity that they worship. What deity do atheists worship? 4. Most religions have a day of worship, such as Saturday or Sunday. What day is the "atheist" day of worship? 5. Most religions have a place of worship, like a church. What is the atheist place of worship? 6. Most religions make claims of certainty about an afterlife. What claims of certainty do atheists propose? 7. Most religions make claims of certainty about "cosmic rules" for humans that they call "morality." What claims of certainty about "cosmic rules" do atheists propose. 8. Most religions propose an "eternal reward" and sometimes an "eternal punishment," for following "the cosmic rules." What "eternal rewards" do atheists propose? 9. Most religions claim "to know the mind of god," that is that they know "what god thinks and wants and how god feels and god's opinions." Where do you see atheists claiming to know the mind of god?" 10. What religion does atheism most resemble?

On another forum, the DailyPaul, there was a thread on the topic of "faith:" http://goo.gl/HdkDzBMyself (Enjoying The Deep End) and another member (Micah68) got on to a topic that he (Micah68) presented. You can go to the link and look at the back and forth there for full details into my thinking and his.Here is the argument. Having challenged him, he posted several different "versions" or "wordings" of the argument: Now I propose that the argument is fallacious. I propose that the argument ASSUMES that "personal realities" exist. I ask "How do we know that there is EVEN SUCH A THING as a PERSONAL REALITY?"I could equally posit a: "Feminine reality vs masculine reality," "Structured reality vs impulsive reality," "Joyful reality vs miserable reality," "Tasty reality vs bland reality," Bald reality vs hairy reality," etc....And does my mere proposing these "types of realities" therefore necessitate THAT THEY ACTUALLY EXIST? So there is actually a "Tasty Reality?"---- I see the argument as a "Begging the question fallacy." Because the premise necessitates the conclusion be true; that a "personal reality exists." The argument merely ASSERTS that "personal realities exist."----So can you guys jump in here with your thoughts? Let me know what your "position on the argument" is, and "if you think the argument is even valid or if it contains a fallacy." So do you think there is such a thing as an "impersonal reality" or a "personal reality?" Do you think these categories exist? And do you take a position on it; do you think reality is personal?I look forward to your thoughts.Thanks

Hi. I have gone back and forth with a user at the DailyPaul many times, and many times his arguments have come down to his failure to accept the condition proposed in a conditional statement; like "if there is no creator, then infinite regressions exist." And HE MAINTAINS that merely by FAILING TO ACCEPT the condition (infinite regressions occur) THAT WE WILL the hypothesis to be false (and make a creator exist). No matter what the REASON for failing to accept the condition; either you find it improbable, find it incomprehensible, find it disgusting, find it demeaning... And this person has now formally posted something that IS ALMOST COMPLETELY BASED on his "reliance upon this pattern..." That people FAIL TO ACCEPT THE CONDITION, so he maintains that THE HYOPTHESIS MUST THEN BE FALSE. Let me just post his statements right here: And I have posted thus far: The DailyPaul is not a philosophy forum, so I wanted to outline things a bit for the readers. But give me your thoughts on this topic. Do you find flaws in my reasoning? Have I made mistakes? And what can you add to this "worshipping of conditional statements?"

Well you were mostly correct. But "don't have the time" to watch a Walter Block video? Blasphemy haha. Was anything iteresting uncovered during this debate? 1. At least Jan didn't scream "gangs with tanks" like he did in all other debates. 2. Jan does always resort to extreme "flagpole" hypotheticals (retarded, and if you have listened to the early Stef podcasts, you know how worthless this is). 3. Block raises a good point, shouldn't statists then push for a "one world government?" 4. Although Jan calls himself "small government, minarchist..." BUT DARN does he sound FULL BLOWN STATIST! Damn near socialist. 5. While Jan calls himself "libertarian," as in "As long as you don't hurt anyone else (NAP), go ahead..." But Jan gives "scare stories" of "gangs with tanks" in this instance; so "You are free to take risks, but let me just try and scare the crap out of you and demand I am right about my prediction;" In the same way that democrats use "scare stories" like "The poor and elderly will die in the streets!" 6. Jan is allergic to logic: Jan's premise: "Consent is implied." Jan's conclusion: "Concent is impled." When asked to justify the logic behind this, Jan's logic is: "Concent is implied." Jan just PRESUMES the conclusion and restates it repeatedly; sort of like how Christian's just say "god did it." 7. Poor Jan cannot seem TO GET ALONG WITH ANYONE! Of all of the people that are pleasant to deal with, Larken, Stef, and ESPECIALLY WALTER, are SUCH PLEASANT PEOPLE. How could you end up being rude to these guys?

"Ban tipping?" I don't support "banning" anything. But if a restaraunt IS GOING TO PAY THEIR SERVERS MORE... I support that. But I would say that "tipping should be a hot topic" at that restaraunt. Put some of the philosophy somewhere on the menu or on some sign or leaflet for the customer to start a table discussion about it. So if a restaraunt pays their servers more, and I was happy with my service, and my meal wasn't too darned expensive, than I may tip IN ADDITION to the increased pay.

Enjoy

That is correct. Thank you for noticing that; perhaps someont thought I meant "to replace" the current donation model, but I do not. This would be in addition to the existing model. Yeah I don't know why anyone would want to ELIMINATE the current donation model; or any avenue for donations. I understand. That is why I highlighted the difference between the two questions. 1. Why insert a mention of advertisement? (Obviously to get some donations, hence more donations.) 2. What is a good reason for a donater to cite as his "personal reasoning for donating" this type of show? (This is personal and will obviously vary, but one good exampe of a reason is: ...because... Your sub-conscious pays attention to what... as Stef has mentioned often.)

I totally disagree. AGREEING to a condition is not BEING FORCED or limiting. If I agree to give $10, but then want to donate another hundred, WHAT LIMITS ME from doing so? So where do you see the "fundamental limitation?" Reading a poll DOES NOT FORCE you to do anything. You could ignore the poll. Or you could choose an option or create an option that is unlike any of the others. So if options 1-10 bother you can create an 11th option that is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. Where is the "force" applied? At what step is a person "forced" to do anything? I am confused. And is "increasing donations" the ONLY answer? Of course not, that is silly. BUT WHY do you think that Stef mentions donations???? Because THERE IS AN EXCESS of donations? Does Stef ever come on and say "We have way too much money to handle this week, please stop donating so quickly?" In the early podcasts, Stef would say "I haven't had a donation in X days..." or "The donations are pretty dry, let's pick it up..." So to the question "Why does Stef advertise the fact that donations would be appreciated or that donations are welcome?" I think the OBVIOUS ANSWER IS "Because donations are lacking and an increase in donations is preferred." Or "The show will do better with more donations rather than less of course." To the question "Why should someone donate to the show?" Has personal meaning, and is a totally different type of question, so that is up to the donater. But in general a person WOULD DONATE for the reason that THEY FIND VALUE in the show and trade value for value. But again, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHERE you see the act of FORCE occurring in a poll? If I say "Yeah IF 30 people donate $10, so will I..." How does that FORCE someone to do anything? Because I don't see any use of force and actually very far from it.

Simple, I loved the show, and listened to the first couple hundred podcasts, got my brother to start watching and listening and discussing philosophy. And it became SUCH a big part of our lives and how we looked at things and made decisions, that we said "HOW CAN WE NOT DONATE?" haha So he and I were GUNG HO on this show. I'm sure your donation success rate will be high with subscribers of THAT TYPE. But what percentage is of that type? Maybe 5%?

That does not LIMIT the person! They are still free to donate like usual, the way they do now! How is that TAKING AWAY the current option? You could ask the question: "Why play these games? Why Stef repeatedly ask for donations? Why put donation request banners? Why spend minutes on the topic of donations? Why come up with clever or thoughtful ways to explain WHY donations are the virtuous move? Why..." The answer: "To increase donations." I think that is why there is "donation talk." And it is just a thought, a consideration on how we could shake things up. And if donations were FLYING IN, then I don't think the topic of donations would be upon us. So all of these "why questions" seem silly. Because we need donations to improve. Duh. And also "How can we get subscribers TO BE MOTIVATED to donate?" ONE WAY is Stef goes on a rant. I think he has done that several times. So HOW ELSE can we get subscribers motivated? "Have subscribers apply pressure to each other in creative ways that do not require an ounce of effort (barely, just showing a ticker) from the subscriber, and that requires NO DISCUSSION." So if you listen to 10 hours of content a month, and 10% of the show time is currently spent on talking about "donations," and instead the "donation talk" could be minimized, then it is possible that subscribers could gain 1 hour of content. But asking "why try?" sounds retarded. It is analogous to owning a restaraunt, trying to come up with clever marketing and sales promotions, and then the cashier employee asking "Why have sales, give coupons and flyers and commercials, why put up a sign, why give away free samples...??? If they want to eat our food they will just come in and order, and if they dislike our food, they won't come in, the food speaks for itself, either they want to eat it or they don't, why all these clever tactics, jeez." It really does seem that silly to me.

Yes, I have donated. My little brother and I donate together under his paypal account. He and I have a deal, we discuss donations, and we match each other's donations. And to those that think that this model could possibly TAKE SOMETHING AWAY from the meaningfulness to the individual when donating, how would a person be LIMITED by this model? If a person wants to give more, that is an option, they are not restrained, in fact, each "objection" that you propose may be an option. For example: Option: 8: I receive far more value than only the $10 mark, and have and will donate more than this. And I have also agreed to the $10 %70 mark of option 6. 9. I have no money to donate, but I would be willing to volunteer time to help with tasks. 10. I totally disagree with this "donation poll" system. 11. I would not even donate $.00001 to this system. 12. Add your own option or opinion or objection and it will be shared with others, and the data will reflect how people responded to your position in the poll data. 13. I choose not to participate in this donation system or round. ---- 1. If a person was planning on giving $10, but then sees that "Currently only 5% or less of subscribers are GIVING AT ALL, and that the difference between you giving $10 and 70% giving $10 (or whatever options are proposed), IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE, it may encourage them or others to help push for this larger goal. 2. This could be "the foot in the door" for the 95% of non-donators. Perhaps their FIRST DONATION is only option 1 or 2 and it results in a $1 donation from people THAT WERE NOT EVEN CONSIDERING DONATING. 1 week later they think "I pay $10 for a 2 hour movie, that $1 donation makes me feel cheap, here is another $10." And they are now more of the mind of a donater. 3. How could you call the system "unfair?" If you don't agree, you either do not participate, or you choose or add an option that represents you; you may choose an option that is in objection to the system and everyone will be able to see that data for future "rounds of donations" or may lead to abandoning the system.

This was in response to a long discussion on this topic in the video below; and Stef said that something like 4% of subscribers donate. Stef currently has around 150,000 subscribers. So consider the following type of donation model: Donations would be done in "rounds." Let's consider a "monthly round." So in January, a "poll" of sorts would be sent to EACH of the subscribers. The poll would ask several questions about "under what scenario would you donate, and how much would you donate for this month?" If you agree to any of the donation options, you provide your paypal info. 1. I would donate $1 if 95% of subscribers agree by the end of the month to also donate $1. 2. I would donate $1 if 70% of subscribers agree by the end of the month to also donate $1. 3. I would donate $5 if 95% of subscribers agree by the end of the month to also donate $5. 4. I would donate $5 if 70% of subscribers agree by the end of the month to also donate $5. 5. I would donate $10 if 95% of subscribers agree by the end of the month to also donate $10. 6. I would donate $10 if 70% of subscribers agree by the end of the month to also donate $10. 7. And so on. ---- So the rounds could be conducted weekly, monthly, quarterly, bi-annually, annualy... And the idea would be to "get subscribers to pressure others" to donate, but just by the display of the voluntary action. And there could be an intersting monitor of the data, so that it would be evident all over either this site, or Stef's videos, THE PERCENTAGE OF SUBSCRIBERS THAT HAVE ALREADY AGREED to a certain goal. So let's consider just goal #1 on the poll, the $1 95% donation level. If 61% of subs had ALREADY AGREED TO GOAL 1, you could see this, and FEEL THE PRESSURE TO ACHIEVE that goal of 95% and lend yourself to the critical mass. And you could see ALL OF THE DATA, so you could ALSO SEE that the #6 goal, the $10 70% goal was at 45%, and the data would ALSO SHOW that this would result in ( ($10 from each sub) * (70%) * (150,000 subscribers) ) = $(10)(.07)(150,000) = $1,050,000. And those dollar amounts MAY GO ON TO MOTIVATE PEOPLE to join. Tell me what you think. Add some ideas or objections please.

I think anarchism is the dominant now. Once you have accepted the philosophy of minarchism, you accept mostly "self-ownership," the "impossibility of legislating or granting rights that YOU YOURSLEF do not possess," and the non-aggression-principle... YOU ARE PRETTY MUCH ON YOUR WAY to becoming an anarchist. Sit in that marinade long enough, and the eventual conclusions THAT YOU MUST logically conclude is that "government type entitities ARE NECESSARILY IMMORAL." So just like the idea of slavery... You can beat yourself over the head trying to come up with a consequentialist theory of why "slavery is a necessary evil," but the MORAL ARGUMENT is like gravity, just pulling you back down to earth. You cannot fight it. And I SPEND alot of my time over at www.dailypaul.com (and I welcome you guys and would love to see MORE ANARCHIST POSTS over on that site, it is a wonderful board, check it out) and those people are of course all Ron Paul lover's and many GOT THEIR START in this philosophy straight from the man Ron Paul. And that somewhat includes me. Then I saw a video Stef did about Ron Paul and.... HERE I AM! Anywways, if you listen to enough interviews by Ron Paul, his position IS THAT OF AN ANARCHIST! No kidding, philosophically he is damn close to being a AnCap. Ron doesn't even whale about the "important role of a government military." He even uses the EXACT WORDS "the non-aggression-principle." So I would say that AnCap is now dominant. And it is hard for a minarchist that has embraced those principles to DENY that anarchism is the eventual philosophical conclusion that these principles demand.