ResidingOnEarth

Stef did a video on gun control recently: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45566-youtube-the-truth-about-gun-control/ Below the video on that page, check out the links under the heading "Australian Gun Control". There's some interesting stuff.

Matt D: In England we are not forced to vote. Therefore, if I vote for any political group, it is a choice I have made of my own free will. It's my understanding that when you ticket a box on a voting ballot, you are saying "I want this group to be the ruler of me and the ruler of all the other people in this land." I really don't want my name next to anything like that. What we say matters. Do you really want to say that you support Trump? Presumably you are not forced to say you support either the republicans or the democrats. Also: when you tick that box you are (in some very, very small way) assisting that political group with their goal of getting into power. You are also legitimizing their statist system. Their statist system is a rigged game. If you choose to play it they always win. Who are "they"? "They" are the immoral, control-freaks that want to rule over you. Trump is one of them. Wherever possible we should choose not to play. We should choose Bitcoin, not dollars or sterling. We should choose to trade directly with each other whenever possible. We should choose to spread knowledge of voluntarism, not knowledge of which political party is best to vote for. Every moment spent arguing the case for Trump over Clinton is a moment not spent arguing the case for voluntarism over aggression.

Is it a contradiction? I just looked up the word "slave" and the definitions I found all seem to fit my prior understanding of its meaning. "One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household." "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence" "A person who is the property of another person and whose labor and also whose life often is subject to the owner's volition." https://www.wordnik.com/words/slave I don't think being a slave has to be forced upon someone. I think people can choose to be slaves. I see no reason why a person cannot voluntarily submit themselves to the will of a master they have chosen. Obviously once they have picked a master, then they are acting based on the will of their master; not their own will. But they still wilfully chose to be a slave. Also: I think all slaves still have their own will and there will always be some facets of their life where they can exercise that will freely. For instance: a master may not care when a slave drinks or does not drink. So the slave could decide when they drink. So I think it's possible to willfully become a slave and once you are a slave to still have some ability to freely exercise your will. A statist is a willing slave. If you support government, you support the idea of having a master that decides some things for you. Edit: I will correct myself: some statists are willing slaves. I agree that some people simply don't understand that it's slavery. They have been subjected to government propaganda and don't know any better. I think though, that once you have made the simple "gun in the room" argument to them and they continue to support and justify their master, then they are truly willing slaves. This has made me think of the Jones Plantation by Larken Rose:

The strange thing is: they are willing slaves. Even though they don't choose the rules that are imposed on them or the amount of their produce that is taken from them, they do choose to support their master. Those of us who throw off our mental chains and decide that we do not want nor need a master immediately transition from being willing slaves to being unwilling victims. I do sometimes wonder if these willing slaves have a genetic predisposition to their predilection for the slave role. I find it very natural to be my own master and do not feel the need for anyone else to take that role. Most people I speak to hold desperately onto their slave mentality. Before I found philosophy I always had the sense something was wrong. I just didn't understand what it was. It almost feels like I gravitated to the state I am in now. I am my own government. I govern myself and have no desire to govern others. Why don't other people feel that how things are, "are wrong" like I felt? Why don't they desperately seek out truth and freedom like I did and still do?

I'm ready!! (I acknowledge that many other humans are not)

I like this idea. I especially like the fact that it doesn't fund the state. I may consider doing this myself. If you don't mind saying: how do you preserve the value of your insurance savings? Obviously GBP is deflationary. I think if I lived somewhere where the healthcare system wasn't centrally run by the state, I'd likely at least get insurance to cover the really rare but terrible and expensive health problems. As it stands though, I'm effectively already forced to pay for that insurance through the NHS.

I second that question. My guess is that you mean: put the money that you would have put into insurance, into a pot; and don't spend from that pot except if it's an emergency and you would have otherwise claimed against an insurance policy. Also ribuck: if you live anywhere near Cambridge and fancy a coffee and a chat, pm me. I'm hoping to meet some voluntaryists/libertarians at some point. I'm still not convinced they exist outside of the Internet as I've never met one

I just got a letter from the company that insure my car. They have given me a quote for another year of insurance. Their quote included the following sentence: Oh really?! There's a thing called "insurance premium tax" which I have apparently already been paying for via artificially increased insurance rates... and also... it has just been arbitrarily increased! * shakes head in disbelief * Amazing. So this is how it works: people in government decide they want more money to spend on things that they want. Those people in government then increase the amount of protection money they charge me (and the rest of us) so rather than me spend my money on what I want... they get to spend my money on what they want. This is how people want their society to be run? I will obviously being paying up because... it's not a request... it's a demand, backed by threat of extreme violence. Also: they target all companies that provide car insurance so there likely isn't even an option which doesn't involve... [looks back down at the quote]... "insurance premium tax". I've tried to explain to the sheeple that support this stuff that they are supporting and advocating theft on a grand scale. The sheeple invariably tell me (in an apparent attempt to rebut my claim) that "we need to be stolen from by the government because otherwise there would be chaos... and bad people would steal from us!" They actually, usually say "we need to be taxed", but I've got used to silently converting "taxed" to "stolen from" in my head because I'm not aware of any functional difference between the two words and propaganda makes my head hurt. They actually, also usually say "because there would be anarchy", but I've got used to silently converting "anarchy" to "chaos" in my head because it makes their insane statements just slightly less insane. It provides me a slightly less painful cranial experience. I guess this is just a rant. Hope you don't mind. I have literally no one in my life that understands and accepts this stuff.

This made me LOL! Witty. I am at the point now where -- during conversations -- I'll try and quickly figure out whether the person I'm talking to knows how to think or not. If they don't and they're not interested in learning from me, I won't waste my time on them. Personally, I've wasted enough time already on people like your Jane Doe. There are so~ many of them. My recommendation (take it or leave it): learn how to spot the people that are willing and able to learn from you and spend your energy on them. They're the kind of people that will probably be able to teach you stuff too. You're doing it right now and I for one am reading what you write and enjoying it

Youtube serving ads, Youtube channels choosing to enable those adverts and you watching a Youtube video with those adverts are all voluntary interactions. Youtube servers belong to Google and Google does not force you to use them. Like-wise Youtube Channel creators are not forced to post content onto Youtube. So use of ads on Youtube is an example of how people can support each other without using force. Stefan has given some very specific reasons why he has chosen not to use advertising: source: Why Advertising Corrupts

That, is an awesome idea!

It's pretty much the same rules here in England (>.<)

Stefan has talked about this a bit in his podcasts. Something he said that stuck with me was the idea of calmly asking one of these abusive parents: "is this what you had in mind when you imagined yourself as a parent? Screaming, fighting and suffering." I don't know how this woman would respond to that question or whether it's even a good idea to ask it. I can imagine it would hit deep for a lot of people though. I think if at any point you believe the child could be in mortal danger then you should immediately call the police.

I didn't and I wont, as I currently don't think you're trolling, I think you may well believe the irrational things you're saying and you're here (whether consciously or subconsciously) for help with that. Regarding this post of yours... I recommend you read shirgall's response a second time as you didn't properly address his points. I happened to have the exact same thoughts as shirgall on what you wrote: I've coloured in his responses, so you can match them to your statements. If you are really here to learn philosophy, then I recommend you try and understand the points he is making. If you learn how to think rationally, then you are free. You can make decisions and come to conclusions on your own and those decisions and conclusions are likely to serve you and the people around you well. You will become a contributor to the free and voluntary society that many of us want to build and be a part of. If you choose to remain irrational (and it is a choice), then you are a slave. You are a slave to authority who dictate conclusions to you and decide for you. You are a slave to the past. You are a slave to circumstance.

So.... you don't like the idea of the universe being "mostly an eternal tragedy, of almost limitless scope and depth, with no remedy", so you've decided that because you don't like that idea, you'll pick a different idea to believe in which is more preferable to you; that being: "the universe is ultimately just". The "universe is ultimately just" therefore [somehow] there is a hell. That's amazing. I don't know what else to say other than: you are severely lacking in the mental tools required to come to rational conclusions. But, I think you must know that; at least subconsciously. Why else would you be chatting with philosophers on a philosophy forum? You may be praying for us that we change our ways and don't go to hell. I don't do prayers but I sincerely hope that you attain the mental tools required to break through the layers of irrationality you are harbouring in your mind.

I try to come to my conclusions about the nature of life and reality based on reason (in particular: critical thinking skills and knowledge of logical fallacies) and evidence (in particular: sense data and through reading scientifically derived conclusions). "Hell exists" is a conclusion I could only come to through reason and evidence. I've never been presented with any reasoned arguments for its existence or any evidence of its existence. What I am aware of is that many of the people who do believe in hell have come to that conclusion via shoddy means, including: They were repeatedly told about it as children by authority figures (ministers and parents). They think that because it's written in a very old book, it is more likely to be true. They think that because lots of other people believe it, it is more likely to be true. They think that because its existence is not scientifically disprovable, that: it could be true! I think that many other people believe it without even thinking about whether their belief is likely to be correct or not. They may have this horrendous mind virus of an idea in their head that: "anyone who tries to convince you that hell does not exist is likely under the control of the devil". Or that: "the devil will say whatever he can to trick you into believing that hell does not exist." I feel very bad for people who have been imbued with that idea. I can see how it would be like a trap that would be hard to escape from. Someone in this trap has been told that they will suffer for all eternity in the most horrible agony if they go to hell. The stakes are about high as they can get. It makes me feel sad that people will tell their kids that. Then again. The people who tell their kids that probably believe it and probably think they are saving their children from this torment.

It's irrational to fight and die to save mankind from purely fictional threats (eg the Christian idea of hell).

Glad you get it I expect that you have come to your conclusions on this topic after considering many things. I've only been on this forum a short while and I've enjoyed most of the posts that I've read of yours. I admire your sane and rigorous approach to thinking. So at this point I'm not saying your wrong; just for the time being I am struggling to see how you reached your conclusion. I'm not fixed on my current conclusion (being: there is no moral obligation for parents to teach their children the truth... or for anyone to teach or speak any truth). I think it's easy to make the case that at least partial rationality is required in order to survive in this world. I gave the example of driving a car: which requires a lot of rational behaviour and acceptance of truths about the properties of this world. Maybe I didn't explain myself well, but I was trying to say that irrationality in some areas of life may help you to survive in certain tribes/societies or may even be a requirement to survival. I don't see how that (in bold) follows. If Socrates did accurately identify his tribe as dangerous that would not assure his survival of them. It's my understanding that for many people in the past, they were far more restricted to the tribe that they were born into than I am today, in Europe. For Socrates leaving his tribe may have meant certain death. So assuming that was the case (I'm sure it has been for other people, if not for Socrates), it may have been to his own detriment if he knew his tribe was irrational and immoral. I tried to make the case that simply knowing the truth about your tribe would affect your behaviour and make you stand out. You may well become a target of the people with the power in the tribe that do not want the status quo disturbed. I think Socrates became a target because he was far more rational than most people in his tribe. This is something I feel in my own life right now. I feel separate from my tribes (family, co-workers and even more generally, other people who were born in England). I struggle with this daily. I also feel like I stand out. I feel good about myself and my actions, but I feel a lot like I can't rely on my rationality to guide me in this insane society. I found out recently that the UK police had in 2011 advised people to report anarchists to them under anti-terror laws. That event blindsided me. Even doing the mental gymnastics required to put myself into the mindset of the typical British statist, I did not predict that. This is an example of my rational thinking creating the potential for me to get into trouble: I was talking with this group of strangers (all statists) at a meal table. The topic of drugs came up. I tried to make the case to them that it was wrong for the government to initiate force against people who were voluntarily trading drugs with one another. This Scottish lady at the table then told me something like "should I be reporting you?" She said this with a stone-cold, serious expression on her face. At the time I wasn't in England and if I had been reported to the authorities I would be in a weak position to defend myself. After being out all day the next day, I came back to where I was staying to find my bags had been heavily disturbed. I'm pretty sure the Scottish lady was searching for illegal drugs. It just so happens that I don't take any illegal drugs so she found nothing. But this highly irrational woman was quite prepared to report me to the perceived tribe leaders. She wanted me to be kidnapped, caged and questioned in a foreign land. Perhaps if I was much like most other English people and I derived my conclusions from culture and authority then that situation wouldn't have happened. Perhaps if I held the irrational belief that "following the law is good and right and breaking the law is bad and wrong" I would have not have said anything that would have made that crazy lady want to do great harm to me. I suppose something supportive of your position is that, because I am a rational person (at least I try to be), I knew that it would be a very bad idea for my survival to carry illegal drugs on me. So even if I did take illegal drugs, she would not have found anything. Based on my understanding of the non-aggression principle, that statement in bold makes perfect sense to me. I agree

I'm trying to comprehend your position, but I'm a little bit stuck on this one. Presently my answer to your question is "no". The reason I think the answer is no, is because in an extremely violent and irrational tribe (or society), fostering a philosophical mind -- coming to conclusions based on reason and evidence -- could actually be detrimental to your survival. If you question the irrational beliefs of your tribe or question the validity of the tribe's power-structure the tribe may well turn against you. People with the unjust power in an irrational tribe have a very strong incentive to keep other people in the tribe from challenging the tribe's dominant belief-system that allows for their authority to be maintained. Even if you decide to keep your philosophical conclusions to yourself, surely your body language and behaviour will betray you. You will surely act in a strange fashion when compared to the other people in the tribe. Your behaviour is an emergent consequence of your thoughts and conclusions. You would have different conclusions to the other people in the tribe; therefore, different behaviour. You would have to maintain a constant vizard to ensure that the people around you did not realise that you were not one of them. You would likely feel great contempt for those irrational people. Could you hide that contempt? Would that contempt build up and at some point lead to the point where -- in a highly emotional state -- you slip-up and have an outburst that lets everyone know that you are not one of them? Conversely; if you do not know reason and evidence. If you do not call things by their proper names. If all your conclusions are directly derived from culture and the dominant control structure, then you do not have to lie and pretend just to survive. Socrates was murdered by his tribe for the crime of corrupting the minds of the youth (read: threatening the beliefs that maintained the dominant power structure) and impiety towards the imaginary sky wizards of the time. I know that it's not only possible to survive in this world while holding contradictory information in your mind and holding conclusions that were derived from culture/authority/personal-preferences and bias; it's possible to flourish. The majority of people I meet in my life (I live in England) are very irrational in many aspects of their lives. It seems like some things (eg driving a car) require rationality to survive. It seems like other things (eg communicating, trading and socialising with people in a violent, irrational tribe) are feasible with, or even require an irrational way of thinking. For the record: if I had children I would call things by their proper names. I would teach them to draw their conclusions based on reason and evidence. I would provide my children with the mental tools to reason. All to the best of my ability. My reason for doing those things wouldn't be because of a moral requirement (I'm presently not aware of one), but because that is my personal preference. I want to live in a free-society; a society where the non-aggression principle is respected and conflicts -- wherever possible -- are resolved peacefully and rationally. I acknowledge that this choice of mine puts me at odds with a large chunk of humanity; quite possibly the vast majority. It may also put any child I have at odds with a large chunk of humanity. That is the nature of the fight. The fight against evil.

I'm curious. Would you prefer the company you worked for didn't trade with any middle eastern people? If so, why? Note: I'm not saying you should or shouldn't or that you are right or wrong. I'm just curious what you think.

If you're here -- posting in this forum -- you're probably still insane, but still far more sane than the vast majority of people on the planet. You could interpret their display of the flag in any number of different ways, but unless they say why they are displaying it, you probably wont know for sure what their exact reasoning is. If I had to guess, I think most people probably just display it as a non-offensive acknowledgement of the incident and a means of showing solidarity with French people. I expect most people are gently feeling around for what politically correct statements they can make about this incident. Personally the kind of symbols I'd feel good about seeing right now are: * A picture of Howard Beale's angry face with the famous tag line: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" * The voluntaryist symbol (possibly the most heart warming thing for me to see on the planet right now - I swear I'd probably cry a little if I actually saw that symbol somewhere AFK). * The "don't tread on me" snake symbol. I know it's largely a statist symbol, but I think the attitude of the people that display it is far closer to the attitude I have and the attitude I believe people of the west need.

If you're in the UK you can help fight this by supporting only the ISPs that are vocally opposed to this and are willing to fight it. Whatever businesses you buy from, you are supporting. Give your support to only those businesses and people that you want to empower. One UK ISP that I recommend is: http://aa.net.uk/ The are explicitly against the snoopers charter and invest time and money into protecting their customers from it and other similar legislation.

I think our future freedom depends strongly on the creation, maintenance and use of secure, open-source, easy to use, encrypted, anonymous, p2p software and protocols. Thanks for sharing the info.

I share the exact same feelings as you about this; especially in the case of the sentence I highlighted. It's getting to the point where I'm struggling to bring myself to be polite and respectful to the people I interact with on a daily basis. How can I have a nice conversation with someone who I know supports the state using violence to prohibit me from defending myself? The state actively makes the environment I live in more dangerous and then tells me that I cannot protect myself from it. How extraordinarily messed up is that? How can I enjoy the company of someone who wholeheartedly supports a large percentage of the produce of my labour being forcefully taken from me? As-much as half of the time I spend at work now is unwillingly in service of their "farmer". How am I supposed to stay calm and rationale when I'm told to my face that we need the state to keep us safe, meanwhile almost every forceful threat I experience on a daily basis is directly from the state? This is the same state that send machines of war all over the planet and claims to be doing it with the support of the people of Britain. I often feel like I'm the only sane person I know and that the insane and irrational majority want desperately to strip that sanity from me and pull me down into their deep, dark pit. I occasionally meet people who have climbed some of the way out of the dark pit that they were born into. I often try to reach down and give these people a hand-up, but as I do that there are a million other hands at their feet trying to pull them back down. Those hands belong to their friends, their family members, their co-workers and the reporters repeaters working for mainstream news outlets. I've been where they are and somehow I managed to resist the constant downward-pull and instead chose to hold strong onto the rising Zeppelin of reason and evidence. Right now though -- now that I'm out of the pit -- I'm really not feeling the reward. I definitely don't want to go back down to where I was, but up here it's not so great. It's a relatively barren landscape and there aren't many of us. That, and the ground I tread upon is clear and every time I look toward my feet I see darkness stretching to near infinity. I'm actually afraid of going to work on Monday. I feel like I can't take hearing another irrational word from the mouths of the people there. Communicating with them feels like being kicked in the face and then being told over and over again that the kick is for the betterment of myself and our society.

I'm glad I popped into this forum this evening, just so I got to read your post! You've expressed more wisdom in those 8 paragraphs than I've experienced all week while AFK. I really need to surround myself with smarter people (not the kind this thread is talking about). Also... your closing statement about trolls made me laugh. Very true. On most forums trolls probably just spend most their time feeding, but only slowly improve their troll-fu. A philosophy forum must be like troll training camp where they get to feed less often (fewer people take the bate) but their troll-fu is very rapidly honed and improved.