TDB

OTOH, it is hard to convince anyone of anything if they perceive you as accusing them of something. Not sure this applies in your case or not. Someone was saying something like that on the school sucks podcast a few weeks ago, you have to build a bridge of empathy so you can drive your logic and evidence accross the bridge. If people perceive you as accusing them, they are more likely to react defensively than too give you a fair hearing.

I think Stef's explanation is that people with childhood trauma issues tend to use post hoc/ motivated reasoning to defend their actions and maintain the status quo. You can't logic someone out of a position if they weren't logiced into it. Jonathan Haidt also gives a nice evolutionary story to explain the prevalent tendency to be able to convince oneself conveniently in his book "The Righteous Mind." But people do sometimes change their minds. That doesn't mean they have escaped their biases.

I don't think that's what you meant to say. Or maybe it is awkwardly put? Anyway, I think you mean independent of the observer. The contents of my stomach is part of objective reality, could be verified by any number of observers. But it is not independent of me, it depends on what I ate for lunch. Similarly, my brain waves are part of objective reality, and if we knew how to decode them, perhaps so would be my thoughts and preferences. When is objectivity or subjectivity relative to anything? The meaning of words is historically contingent, arbitrary, but I can't change the meaning of "dog" in English by myself. Mistakes, jokes, laziness, cleverness can push language to evolve, but it is an emergent phenomenon of multiple minds, not of any single mind. Some economic phenomena, like market prices, are similar. Visit the commodity pits in Chicago if you doubt.I'd say more, but I have used up my monthly quota of big words.

"The atmosphere of planet Earth in the year 2013 was composed entirely of methane gas." Objective and false. Question: What if I invented an improved MRI and some software that could observe whether a person being examined likes ice cream or not? (Perhaps we should switch it to Lima beans, who doesn't like ice cream?) would ice cream liking now be an objective fact, because it is now observable? Or would it remain subjective, because it's only true so long as the subject believes it/experiences it that way? What about language? Is it objective or subjective? They came up with a special word for things like that, where it depends on what people believe yet does not depend on what a particular person believes: intersubjective.

If I try to channel Stef, I think he would say this: Gandhi advocated that Britain end colonial rule of India and allow the Indians to set up home rule. Gandhi knew there was significant strife among the different groups, particularly between Hindus and Muslims, and therefore that immediate independence for India entailed a risk of partition and violence. Gandhi advocated immediate independence. Any effort he made to ameliorate conflict after the end of colonialism was secondary, half-hearted, and unsuccessful. Stef has not directly advocated any action in Germany. I suspect that if you asked him, he would advocate spreading the ideas of peaceful parenting in Germany, in hope that sometime in the future, Germans could make significant progress toward freedom, rather than having a minority waste time trying to slow down the growth of coercive policies. So one important difference is, Gandhi got his wish and contributed to the deaths of 1 million, Stef has partially gotten his wish (not complete yet) and perhaps the German state has grown a tiny bit more than it would otherwise. The question seems to take for granted certain ideas that I think Stef would reject. That is, how can we make progress? I started to answer that question, but it got too long, so I will post it on my blog. http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/2014/01/how-to-pursue-liberty.html Let me hint that I associate different approaches with Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, and Stefan Molyneux (perhaps inaccurately, even unfairly).

Hey Scottishhh, Thanks for telling your story, though it was not pleasant to read it. I am angry that the bureaucrats gave you such a trial. How can people behave like that, and then call themselves "public servants" with a straight face? I hope your new situation is more comfortable, and that you have better luck with US immigration. Regarding your questions: I don't know much about polytheism, but your question reminded me of a chapter from a book titled "The ProbLem of Political Authority" by Michael Huemer. He spent the first several chapters attacking the idea that the state is justified in giving commands and the citizens or subjects are obligated to obey. Then in chapter 7 (I think) he gave a brilliant analysis of the psychology behind obedience to the state, including a discussion of the Stanford prison experiment, the Milgram experiment, and analysis of the symbolism used in architecture of state capitols. He did a talk at porcfest on pretty much the same topic. As for whether philosophy will help you with trauma or survival, I think Stef would probably remind you of the "reward" given to Socrates by the city of Athens. Hmmm, that's not so encouraging, is it? Okay, let me try harder. You have become interested in the truth. Would you trade that for a comfortable lie? You have set out on the path of philosophy, and that has made happiness, integrity, and worthwhile relationships more achievable. If we concentrate on the negative things that surround us, we can overwhelm ourselves. But there are also many hopeful signs and opportunities. Don't be discouraged, be determined. Cheers, TDB

I think the coma test follows directly from Stef's idea of universality. (Maybe I should review the text, I'm not sure Stef will go along with me.) If a moral proposition passes the UPB test, it applies to all of us, all the time, everywhere. If we had positive obligations, we could not escape them by arranging to go into a convenient coma. In fact, we can't escape them by dying, or failing to yet be born. We are all obligated, if at all, from the beginning of time to its end. So, negative obligations are okay, positive ones are a big problem. I am capable of fulfilling my negative obligations even after I am dead, and the unborn commit no UPB violations. The problem here is that I don't remember Stef giving much of an argument why we should accept this rather cosmic version of universality, and maybe what I've said sounds as much like a reductio ad absurum as a proof to some persons. (I have a blog entry about universality at http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-u-in-upb-universality.html.) With regard to the opposite/negation controversy, I think it calls for a rewrite rather than a repudiation. Swap "opposite" for "negation " and it's fixed. I think trane is technically correct that Stef used the wrong word, but it's not a catastrophic logic fail, it's just bad copyediting. If we have positive obligations, failing to fulfill your obligation rates punishment (speaking strictly, others can use violence to defend themselves against your non fulfillment?) so the man in a coma deserves punishment. This is absurd. I also think that the presentation in the UPB book is confusing. I've put a lot of effort into trying to understand it, and I'm still not sure I could summarize it in a way the Stef would agree with.

I think I hear Stef saying, is it your opinion or is it true?

"it is universally preferable for people to live rather than to die." From my (imperfect) understanding of UPB, this obligates me to live, not to insure that anyone else lives, if we accept it as true. Hence, it obligates me to try to find blood if I need it, but no one else is obligated. (Does it obligate me to steal blood if none is available by peaceful means?) Maybe the problem is that "you should live" is not really a moral proposition at all? How far am I obligated to go to avoid death? Risk of death? Use the "coma test." If the man in a coma refuses or fails to give blood, shall we punish him? This seems pretty clearly to indicate that "you must give blood" is not UPB. If "you must give blood" is really UPB, then everyone, even the recipients of the blood, would need to be donating blood at all times. Having donated yesterday or earlier today is not good enough, because it's universal, binding at all times in all places to all persons. Actually, this is one of the most head-scratchingest parts for me, though maybe I have an interpretation that works. Look at what is punished (physical self-defense = ethical violation; shunning, ostracism, other nonviolent social sanctions = aesthetic; no punishment = neutral). Why not "sometimes give blood?" That would be the same as declaring it aesthetic (or even neutral?), since you're not punishing either behaviour, donating or not donating. (?) My impression is that Stef draws this line, violate UPB and you earn a violent response. Does that work? I blogged about Stef's idea of universality at http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-u-in-upb-universality.html. I am still trying to figure it out.

Why do you call this "the lynchpin of Stefan's argument?" Seems to me the passage you quote could be edited out of the book without significant loss. And where is the glaring error? 'The opposite of “virtue” must be “vice” – the opposite of “good” must be “evil.” If I propose the moral rule, “thou shalt not steal,” then stealing must be evil, and not stealing must be good.' Maybe you are pointing out the difference between 'not stealing' and whatever would be the opposite of stealing. Giving? Or pointing out that 'not stealing' can be 'not evil' without actually being good. This is a quibble. Stefan's words are not very clear or careful, and that is a criticism, but I suspect you could tidy up the prose. 'This does not mean that “refraining from theft” is the sole definition of moral excellence, of course, since a man may be amurderer, but not a thief. We can think of it as a “necessary but not sufficient” requirement for virtue.' This part of the quote seems to have nothing to do with your complaint. Maybe I am missing something? If the man in the coma is obligated to give to charity and fails to do so, he fails to meet his obligation, he has done wrong. 'negation' or 'opposite' are beside the point. In other parts of the book, Stefan does some confusing related thought experiments, something like, if stealing was good, we would have to be stealing all the time. At first I had a reaction like yours, if something is good, how does that imply we must always be doing it? I think the answer is that what he really wants to talk about is what can be punished by defensive/retaliatory violence. This is not identical to "bad". We must always be doing the negation of that which is violently punishable. If the punishable act is an act of commission, we must always be omitting it. If it is an act of omission, we must always be committing it.

You are arguing for a different set of property ownership rules. It is still ownership, or at least, using that word is as appropriate as changing to another word. Your example seems odd. You are building a homestead in the guy's orchard, and the use is not conflicting? Maybe you should try a complementary case, say apple orchard and beekeeping. Then google the coase theorem.

I went to your blog. Is there no way to comment there? Your definition of ideology doesn't match the way it is commonly used, or even as used by Marxists, who have a particularly jargony take on it. Many people use it as a pejorative, and also in a context where "ideological" is treated as the complement of "pragmatic." That is, pragmatic action ignores ideology and just tries to "get the job done" while ideological action ... doesn't? I suspect this all boils down to people disagreeing about how the world actually works, and so my favorite definition of "ideology" is "a system of ideas about how the world works." But by this definition, pragmatism is never opposed to ideology, rather different persons will disagree how to accomplish some end if they have different ideologies. The people who oppose ideology and pragmatism implicitly hold that all truth claims about facts and theories involved in "getting the job done" are clear and obvious to all. Yet if things really were so obvious, why the "ideological" opposition? Perhaps the idea is that ideological persons prefer the value of maintaining ideological purity to the practical outcome. Maybe people use this rhetorical technique to obscure the real issues, which are, do we know how to do this, and what is the real cost? Pure logic, formal logic, applies to abstractions and has only as much to do with reality as your premises do. You can apply valid logic to anything, even unicorns. Stef usually includes "evidence", that anchors things to reality. Reason, I would hope is reality based, but common usage has warped the word to mean almost anything (usually a straw man created by someone arguing against it), so in order to use it meaningfully, it helps to give your own definition.

I define ownership as the justified ability to decide who may control an object. We could give this another name, but the issue remains, who may control an object, and who decides? Whoever decides who may control an object in effect claims ownership, under that model. Disputes among rival owners get resolved in one way or another, leading to either a reasonably coherent set of rules of property, or an incoherent mess. Other people want to replace language of ownership with that of possession or justified possession. The OP wants to use language of responsibility. Seems to me it is just semantics, as the underlying mechanism remains. Some person or persons controls each object at each instant. It can be used, stored, shared, loaned, traded, modified, abandoned, destroyed, etc. People can have disputes about these actions. The dispute will be resolved in a way that makes sense or not. Maybe this is what a different poster meant by saying ownership is axiomatic. I suppose I should apologize for this drive-by post. I skimmed the thread, which is rude of me. I can't help feeling that I am contributing something, but I may have fooled myself. Most of the issues raised did not help me understand what seems like the main point to me, which is, how would anything be different if we switch to "responsibility" instead of "ownership"? The original poster addressed this indirectly, with an example of a person who lived on and used land which he claimed not to own, so he could not sell it. If someone else began using part of that land as if the newcomer owned it, or someone tried to evict the occupant from the land, who would dispute that in the local system of dispute resolution? By my model, the person who requests the resolution of the dispute also in effect claims ownership. If the person occupying the land has all the other powers of ownership, that is he could abandon it and leave, he could allow someone to use the land, or disallow someone else, plant a tree, uproot a tree, etc. then he is in fact the owner. We can change the name, but why? "Responsibility" has a broader and vaguer meaning, and is a useful word on its own. Use it if it makes sense in context, by all means, but why confuse things by pretending it can replace "ownership?" Perhaps I would reinterpret the OP as meaning something like this: responsibility goes along with ownership in all cases, and even more so in some cases, such as ownership of land. People will suffer when land owners act irresponsibly. If a land owner treats land as beneath him, or as having no importance or significance different from that of a shoe, this sort of reckless thinking invites danger.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Our choices are: go Galt or produce to the max, transparency or obscurity, follow the "legal" rules or break those based on coercion. Transparency and honesty help us achieve integrity, authenticity, sincerity, etc. and cultivate our true selves and struggle for self-knowledge. Deceit and secrecy reenforce the false self, and bring cognitive dissonance. I conclude that healthy people either tell the truth honestly, or refuse to reveal information others have no right to know (info that could be used for identity theft, or intimate details of sex life, etc.). So in an ideal world, we would all act with integrity. In the actual world we inhabit, honesty may bear a high price. By honestly producing value and openly following the rules, we prop up the system and provide resources to violent aggressors. And while our psychological health may gain from the honesty, honesty and rule-following will not protect us if some bureaucrat finds us inconvenient or not sufficiently respectful. transparent outlaw = civil disobedience = expect to live in jail, with integrity, activist transparent legal Galt = low risk of jail, poverty, high integrity, mostly pointless transparent legal producer = low risk of jail, good income, flaming tax cow obscure productive outlaw = risk jail, good income, integrity problems, black market maven obscure Galt outlaw = risk jail, poverty, low integrity, saboteur obscure productive legal = low risk of jail, good income, flaming tax cow obscure legal Galt = low jail risk, poverty, total slave The amount of taxes we pay make almost no difference to the federal budget, borrowing or money creation take up any slack. Higher debt and larger money supply increase the fragility of the system, but no amount of tax paying would solve that problem.

I enjoyed reading your story, Marc. I hope I could do as well.

What meaning do you give the word "manipulative?" Intent seems important to me. If I am seriously trying to understand, I do not see that as manipulative. For it to be manipulative, I would have to have some intention of getting to a specific outcome, or guiding an outcome in a more favorable direction, particularly using a vulnerability of my conversation partner that I know about or have used successfully before. If I began guessing things in an attempt to make that person feel guilty, or to flatter, etc. that would be manipulative. If I seek the truth, I guess that could be thought of as manipulative, but without the usual negative connotation. In fact, I'd rather call that "helpful."

I'd like to help Marc, but I don't know how. I admire his tenacity. I suspect Thomas K could profit by thinking about things a bit more calmly, and when something someone says/writes can be interpreted in more way than one, might prefer not to assume they intend the most nonsensical meaning. I'm pretty sure he has heard other people apply that approach to ideas that are popular on FDR. If we get so eager to refute something that we attack without understanding fully, we may miss the point. I want to understand the Alice Walker quote better. I would paraphrase it as, Gordon's and Rosenberg's books may help certain people a lot, might help everyone a bit, but some people have problems that require help from a therapist to solve. On the one hand, I doubt that studying NVC, or psych more generally, and just trying to work on your self-knowlege and self-empathy on your own is such a great idea. On the other hand, some people lack funds, others are reluctant to seek therapy for whatever reason, and others seek therapy but end up with a bad therapist, and the self-help approach beats inaction.

Strange question. On the one hand, contradiction is not a good thing, if you see one in your own ideas, that calls for some work. On the other hand, no one is right every time, confirmation bias exists, facts can surprise you, and learning requires change. So I certainly try to get it right and not have contradictions, but sometimes I will fail at both. Maybe that's why I like the sort of Bayesian approach where you keep track of alternative hypotheses and give each a rough probability of being right based on current evidence, and stay alert for new evidence. But I am an INTP, this might not work for INTJs.

http://completeliberty.com/magazine/read/episode-188---empathy-circle-addressing-domination-systems_275.html links to a video of Wes Bertrand and 3 others using an empathy circle to discuss domination systems. I am intrigued by the empathy circle technique. The idea is explained briefly at the beginning of the video, as some of the participants were using it for the first time.

is a talk by Michael Huemer, from porcfest, from a chapter of his recent book The Problem of Political Authority. The first part of the book attacks ideas such as the social contract that conventional philosophers have used to try to justify the state. Chapters 1-5 show how little thought philosophers have spent on this, and how slapdash. Chapter 6 addresses the idea, if justifying the state is so difficult and philosophers have failed on the rare occasions they try, why is it that ordinary people believe so strongly that the state is justified and resist even thinking about it?

Chapter 6 of Michael Huemer's excellent book The Problem of Political Authority examines the psychology of obedience. I summarized/reviewed the chapter on my blog at http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/2013/07/psychology-of-political-authority.html . This obstacle blocks our path to liberty.

Parent Effectiveness Training by Gordon was along the same lines as How to Talk so Kids, but it seemed clearer and more concrete to me. I may have just been in the wrong mood when I read How to Talk.

No sources, sorry. I don't think ancaps need to argue that labor is a commodity. (Depends on your definition of commodity? Certainly you can't have a carload of labor like you can have a carload of pork bellies.) But more importantly, I don't see any necessary connection between "labor is not a commodity" and ... whatever it is they're trying to conclude? That employers should treat their employees with dignity? What does that necessarily mean? Seems to me they need to say a lot more, which either they left out of their argument or you neglected to mention. Are they saying labor is not or should not be a good traded on the market? Plenty of market goods, including labor, are not commodities. So? Are they citing any philosopher, economist, anthropologist, sociologist, or internet rant as the source of this idea? If so, you can probably find someone trying to rebut the original source with a google search or a trip to the library.

I think shunning would be more appropriate. My first response at the idea of DRO enforced hate-speech laws was "eww, creepy." OTOH, racial hatred, also creepy. Get off my lawn! Out of my gated community! Maybe.

I still have a long way to go on my journey to self-knowledge and self-compassion. good luck! TDB