STer

I feel like we're going in circles. I'm not talking about a case where they can find it elsewhere. I'm talking about a situation where it can't be found elsewhere or the price is simply too high to get the amount needed - which is a great big amount because of the enormous size of modern cities. You don't just need some of these resources. You need a lot. Enough to support the entire population. And so does everyone else in every other huge density center on the planet. Have you never had something that you wouldn't part with because it is dear to you? Especially with native or indigenous cultures, such things are very common. If the settlement of the US will just continue to be ignored, then let's look at what goes on with indigenous cultures now. How many stories have we heard where natives did not want industry coming onto their land and taking resources and fought at all odds against it? In some cases, they even were willing to commit suicide before parting with their land or resources. What happens in those cases? Are they told "Oh alright then, we understand. We'll just go find someone else willing to trade it to us voluntarily because it's so abundant and easy to find what we need"? I don't think so. You say I'm scaremongering. I say you're in denial.

As I pointed out, the issue isn't just that the resource may not be available at all anywhere else. It's that the price may be too high. You said "Any community that has an excess resource is most likely to exchange it in trade..." But again, we're talking about when they either do not have an excess or, if they do, they would rather save it for later or for future generations. Is it really so hard to believe that sometimes people don't want to trade a particular resource? It's kind of hard for me to believe that something as basic as a needed resource not being freely available for trade - which has happened countless times, including throughout the history of US settlement, as already pointed out - is being painted as some sort of outrageous scare tactic. Our basic worldviews appear to be remarkably different.

I apologized for the unpleasant feelings you might be experiencing if you were upset by how you were interpreting what I've said. But I also showed, with literal quotes, that I am not doing what you claim I'm doing or saying what you keep claiming I'm saying. If that doesn't help the situation, then I don't know what more can be said about it. I agree that you should take a break from this and don't feel any obligation to respond to this. I just wanted to put my last thoughts on this across. I don't accept what you are claiming I'm doing and find it disturbing to repeatedly be accused of doing things I'm doing almost the exact opposite of and misquoted no matter how many times I go back and paste quotes showing I said something other than you claim. If this is hitting home for you in some way, by all means take care of yourself and you have my empathy for that. Hopefully, in return, you can empathize with what it's like to feel falsely accused of saying and doing things that I do not believe I've done, even after pasting quotes showing just that. You say "My father didn't teach me empathy" as if i said he did. I paste the quote where I literally said he did NOT teach you empathy. This has no impact at all on changing your view of what I'm saying. And you don't seem concerned at all that you misquoted me. So I'm at a loss. My interest in this thread is on the topic - "What are the various mechanisms by which empathy is amplified?" I have no problem using examples from our lives to examine those mechanisms in an objective kind of fashion. But when personal hostilities seem to be arising on your side - and especially when you then claim I'm being hostile when I'm not even remotely focused on the personal aspect of things - the discussion is going off the rails. I guess my conclusion to this is that when you say "empathy is the only way to foster further empathy" that may not really be a statement about the world in general, but a statement of what you yourself may need. That is speculation so I may be wrong. It's just my guess. We have two threads going at the same time which are philosophical discussions of a sort of academic topic to me, but in both you have ended up appearing to be wanting personal empathy and frustrated at me for not empathizing enough. If you are feeling a need for empathy, I would suggest starting a thread about what is going on for you emotionally and asking for some support. I will be the first one to join it and offer that support. But in threads like this which are focused on particular philosophical topics, I'm not really in that personal feeling mode so it kind of comes as a surprise when the discussion turns personal. I'm just focused on the discussion of the topic and when suddenly there is a personal reaction to what is just an academic exploration as far as I'm aware, it is a bit out of the blue to me. Edit: On second thought, it probably would really be a good idea to start that other thread where we can just forget these academic topics that seem to just be serving as proxies for personal things and focus directly on what's going on emotionally for you. That seems to be of much higher importance right now and these other threads are really just getting in the way of that. I am happy to talk about what is going on for you emotionally and be supportive and empathetic if you need that. Let's just take that somewhere else more dedicated to such a discussion.

I've made clear that what I said was my understanding of your thesis multiple times. I didn't notice you say "No that isn't my thesis. This is my thesis." and then correct me. So I thought I was understanding what you were saying. Here is the thesis I've been suggesting, quite succinctly: "At a certain density of population, some regions can no longer provide all of their population's necessities from within. Therefore, they must get some of them from outside their bounds. As long as someone outside is willing to trade them those resources at an affordable price, all is well. Sometimes, nobody is willing to trade those resources at an affordable price, and, in that case, there is an incentive for violence." Perhaps if you state your thesis in just 3 or 4 sentences like that we can get more clear on what each other are really saying if you believe I'm not understanding your thesis. I have been doing my best to understand it. If I've misunderstood it, then perhaps zeroing in on it very concisely will help me grasp it more accurately. But if you prefer to just drop the discussion, that is fine too. By the way, where the heck is the OP? Get back in here OP!

I didn't say your dad "taught you empathy by abusing you." In fact, I specifically said "Your father didn't teach you how to empathize." and I said he "modeled the opposite" and you disliked that model and went in the other direction. That is an example of how someone can become more empathetic in response to a counter-example. You have repeatedly said the only way empathy comes about is by basically mimicking or internalizing empathy that someone shows to you. But the story of your dad is an example that you already had empathy inside you and his counter-example made you grow in empathy in order to oppose it. You said "The thing, for me, that helps me refrain from being abusive is to think the thought 'I am being just like my father right now.'" So the example of your father gave you something to push against that helps you be less abusive to others. This shows that a counter-example can be powerful in making someone more conscious about empathizing with others, just as an example can be. Someone treating you with empathy can give you a role model to want to be more like. Someone treating you without empathy - or any example of someone lacking empathy - can give you a role model to try to be more unlike. So, this is another mechanism by which empathy can grow. And there are still other mechanisms, as well. The point is that in different people in different situations, empathy can grow in response to a variety of mechanisms. The mechanism of "someone gives me empathy and as a result my empathy for others grows" is one, but not the only one. What I'm finding telling is that you are repeatedly misquoting me and then claiming I said things I didn't say, sometimes in spite of me literally saying the exact opposite of what you said, such as the quotes I bolded above. I could comment further on my perception of what is going on here, which obviously differs from your perception of what is going on. Suffice it say I disagree with your assessment. But I think it best that I don't get into that discussion any deeper. I am sorry if you are finding the conversation upsetting. And I assure you that I am not trying to "use your history against you" or in fact do anything "against you." In fact, I think it is entirely admirable that, in response to your father's counter-example, you redoubled your efforts to be less abusive. And I'm not sure why you are so adamant that there is only one way people can grow in empathy or why you'd find that desirable. I am very happy that there are multiple means by which empathy is fostered. One of those is through counter-examples. That doesn't mean it is our favorite method. It is a shame such counter-examples exist. But, as long as they do exist, it's certainly better that empathy can grow out of counter-examples than if it couldn't and only abusers could ever emerge from abuse. For me this is a discussion about various mechanisms by which empathy develops in people. It is not a personal issue of me vs. you. And I have no interest in a discussion that is like that.

I'm not sure how that is "what you mean." When I respond to a post, I read through it and respond as I go. If you wait until the end of a long post to mention you don't want to discuss what you just spent 5 paragraphs discussing, I'm probably not going to see it until I've already gone through what you put before it. If you want to change a subject or end a debate, you should probably put it at the beginning not the end. Convincing me is an option. I told you how you could do it. You refused to do so and claimed my question was absurd. I disagree that it's absurd. And convincing you that it isn't absurd doesn't seem to be an option on the table. Ultimately, you are making an incredibly bold statement. You are (or my understanding is that you are) saying that when people somewhere need resources, they can always find a trade partner willing to trade them what they need at a price they can afford. I think that's a remarkable statement. If you really believe that's the case, then we just have a factual disagreement. I think people sometimes need things and nobody will willingly trade them it at a price they can afford. I think that situation arises. You seem to think it doesn't arise. As you said, people can make their own judgment.

I've read through the responses and I'm not going to respond individually to every one. But I'll respond overall and then address a few points people raised. Perhaps predictably on a board about anarchism, people focused more on trying to prove government is bad even though my main point was not to argue whether it is good or bad. That is partly my own fault because when I titled the thread and in my OP I hadn't fully thought things through. Later in the thread, when I refocused it, I got to the point I really wanted to discuss. But still almost everybody responded with a general argument about the ills of government. There can be all kinds of arguments for or against government. What I'm raising in this thread is simply a challenge to one of the arguments that Stefan often uses against government. That doesn't mean government is then good. There might be lots of other arguments against it. But my point was that if there is a contradiction in this one argument against government, it should not be used. He should stick to the other arguments against it and let this one go. So the point was that Stefan often says that if you allow people to have a huge power differential over others, they will inevitably abuse it. However, his support for peaceful parenting shows that he doesn't consistently believe this is the case. It shows that he believes that, in some situations, people with great power can exercise restraint. That is what this thread is about - the capacity of people with power to exercise restraint with regard to those over whom they have power. To address a handful of things various people raised: * Parents do have a monopoly on the legitimized use of force in the family. Parents are allowed to use force to discipline their children - at least in most of the world, including the US, and within limits. Children are not allowed to use force against the parents or against each other, other than perhaps in self-defense where it might be permitted (but even most states allow self-defense so that isn't any big difference.) * Some people mentioned that scale is the issue. In a family, the parents know the kids very well, but in a larger social system, it's impossible for leaders to really know the people they are leading that well. That is true. But the point is why couldn't a person in that position say "It's impossible for me to really know all of these people very well, therefore I need to be very cautious in how I exercise this power. I need to show great restraint."? There is that key word - restraint. When a person has a child and suddenly is in a position of immense power over that child, Stefan feels they can choose to use that power with restraint and wisdom. But when a person ends up in a leadership position over a larger social system, he seems to think then they cannot exercise restraint and wisdom in exercising their power. I'm not sure why this difference. * Someone mentioned step-parents being more abusive than regular parents. I agree. Step-parents enter the same nuclear family structure only with even less of a bond with the child usually. What I talked about is the situation that surrounded almost all human children for hundreds of thousands of years which is being around an extended biological family, all related to them by blood, from birth and not hidden away with a nuclear family at the whims of one or two people with nobody else able to see what's going on. In a situation like that, if just one of those parents is unstable or unhealthy, there is ample ability for abuse to be perpetrated and nobody really able to see what goes on. When the extended family is always around, it is harder to hide that kind of thing. There are constantly witnesses. * Someone mentioned that no government in existence fails to violate the non-aggression principle. I guess this is meant to say that this shows people in such positions inevitably act aggressively and can't exercise restraint. But this form of argument as a rule is a fallacy. People try to use the same argument against anarchism. They say "Well if you can't show me a working large-scale anarchist society, that shows it's impossible." That's obviously not logical. Even if nobody currently in leadership showed restraint, it wouldn't mean they can't. And my main point is the difference in how Stefan approaches that same circumstance in parenting vs. social leadership. With parents, even if 99% of parents did not show restraint, he would be enthusiastic and hopeful that this can improve and very encouraging that we should work toward it, even if it takes generations to happen. But with social leaders, if they don't show restraint, he says "See, since you can't find examples of it, that just shows that putting people in positions like that inevitably leads to abuse." He doesn't say "I know it's very rare that they show restraint, but through education and growth, over generations, it can happen and we must work toward it." It seems like inconsistent logic.

You think water shortages are an absurd hypothetical? We'll have to disagree on that. You also are really dodging the main point by focusing on the specific of water, though, which was a purely arbitrary example of any resource someone needs to survive. If you don't like water, then forget water. Fill it in with any other necessity. If your argument is that there is never a case where people can't find willing trading partners for necessities, we just disagree to the point where there isn't much more to say about it. My example of the Western US wasn't to show my hypothetical doesn't happen, but, on the contrary, to show that it's so feasible that there are even early stages of it within the US with something as basic as water. If even here, within the US, we have concerns over water importation being necessary from places hesitant to give it up, imagine what goes on around the world (or what may happen over time if things get worse). Just google "wars over water" and such terms to find more things to read than you can count. But again, if you don't want to focus on water, focus on any other necessity. I'm kind of surprised that you'd actually try to say that on a planet with 7 billion people, many of them densely packed into cities, it's just an outrageous hypothetical to believe people will be in positions where they cannot find people willing to trade them what they need. And this ignores that the population is increasing, as well. But this ties into the "infinite natural resources" fantasy some people have perhaps. I don't know where you see egos involved. You seem to be stating that people do not end up in situations where they need something and cannot find someone to trade it to them. I've already given you the entire history of Manifest Destiny as just one example full of cases of that. You seem to be saying that people are always able to find someone to trade them what they need and that there are not groups of people who need resources and end up using violence to try to get them out of desperation. These examples are not relevant because, once again, my argument is not "Countries that trade openly can't do very well." My argument is that, for a variety of reasons, this is not always going to happen. When countries both have things they wish to trade, they have that trade and do nicely. What does that have to do with the completely different situation I'm talking about where someone does NOT want to trade something that someone else needs? They are completely different situations. If I have something you want and you have something I want just as much and we trade and everything goes nicely, that's great. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a completely different situation where someone needs something and nobody wants to trade that thing away. I disagree because I think your arguments are not sound. And this thread is clearly not a personal discussion of feelings. If you have a personal issue where you need some personal discussion and some empathy about it, I'm happy to do that, but I hardly think this thread, in the middle of a hardcore economics and war topic is the place for that. I find the argument you're making - that people do not end up in situations where they need something that nobody wants to trade to them - pretty extreme. You're saying everyone can always find a willing trade partner for everything they need. And even more, you're saying this will continue to be the case even as the population continues growing. We just disagree. By the way, you can add on to that that it doesn't even matter if someone is willing to trade at all. It matters if they are willing to trade at a price that can be afforded. Perhaps if the demand was high enough, someone would be willing to sell for a high enough price. But if that price is too high, the situation remains. There is an incentive to use violence. Well I had already responded to the rest of your post before getting to the end to hear you wanted to forget the debate. I'm not going to erase what I already typed, but I will now respond to this part. First, remember this was not my topic. Someone else asked if external dependence for resources was a cause for violence. I referred him to work that makes that argument. Again you seem to have what I'm trying to say literally completely backward. The point here isn't that violence is a desirable or tolerable solution for lack of resources. The point was that, because high-density population centers increase the risk for violence, high-density population centers are very unhealthy for humanity. The writer I was referencing in response to the OP is one who believes that the structure of civilized societies is inherently violent and that we should therefore change that structure - quite far from saying the violence is ok, he is absolutely not ok with it and believes it is imperative to change to a structure that will not cause as much conflict over resources. Somehow you got the completely reversed idea that I'm saying that it's ok to have things as they are and just use violence to get the demands met. No. What I'm saying is that a structure that increases the likelihood of such situations occurring is not a sustainable or healthy structure.

The issue isn't whether they trade or not in general. The issue is that a certain group may happen to live on land with a particular valuable resource that they would prefer to keep to themselves, whether so they and their descendants can use it or even just because it has religious meaning to them or whatever. NAP says they have every right not to trade that resource. But if someone else lacks that resource because they do not live on land that has it or can produce it, we have a conflict. If they can find some other group that also has it to trade, then problem averted. But if it's a relatively scarce resource and people don't want to trade it, you have a major problem. It has nothing to do with greed. We're talking about something needed for basic survival, not luxury items. Note: This is in response to your whole post, but because of how you're doing quoting, it's only quoting that last part. I had a hard time figuring out how to quote multiple parts too. You need to click the top left icon which will open up the code and then you can copy and paste the beginning quote and end quotes around various sections and then respond between them. It will make it a lot easier to go back and forth that way. I can't understand how you're claiming violence reduces your access to resources as if things always work in that order. As if you are trading happily, then you start being violent so your access is taken away. Sure that could happen. But the situation we're talking about is where trade is first refused and then violence ensues as a response. You're not saying things don't also happen in that order are you? You're not saying that violence is never the response to refusal to trade rather than the cause? Thanksgiving has to do with an instance with certain settlers and certain natives. Nobody said there were never any friendly interactions or trades going on. But there were countless situations where, unlike in that one, the natives preferred not to trade and wanted to be left alone. The settlers wanted what they had (and in some cases needed what they had). We know what that led to. How can you say "In all cases where the settlers weren't violent toward the native, they enjoyed free trade"? Really? The natives were always happy to trade whatever the settlers wanted and only resisted after violence was used? The natives never wanted to be left alone, did not want to trade certain things but to keep them to themselves, and then were attacked a result of that? What you would have to do to convince me is this. Here is the scenario. You have a city of a million people that can't provide its own water. And it can't find anyone else willing to provide that water voluntarily because, for whatever reasons, they wish to keep it to themselves. Tell me what you suggest the people in that city do in lieu of violence. This is not some outrageous hypothetical. We already have battles over water going on right in the Western US. They want to take water from the Great Lakes. The people in the Great Lakes areas don't necessarily want to give that water up. Luckily, the situation isn't quite so dire in that case that it's on the verge of violence. But the situation I raise above is not only possible, but has happened throughout civilization. I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding my argument. My argument isn't that trade never happens or that trade isn't great when it happens. My argument is that people can refuse to trade and do refuse to trade sometimes and if you need a resource and nobody will trade it to you, you are in a bind. If you think such a situation never happens, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If you agree that it does happen sometimes, my question is what do you expect people in that situation to do and why would you not think this is a huge risk factor for violence? Also, as far as Iraq and oil, that's not a good example. We may have protected access to the oil. But we didn't actually take the oil. The price would be a lot lower if we actually took the resource, not just fought to maintain an open line to continue trading for it. The settlers didn't attack the Indians and then say "Ok now how much for this land." They attacked and said "Our land now." That made the price 0 (other than the cost of the attack itself). Surely you're not saying that things cost more to steal violently than to buy.

You say "There is no way to learn empathy without being treated empathetically or seeing other people treating each other empathetically." I'm not sure how you can back up such a bold, dogmatic statement. I also take issue with your term "learn" empathy since empathy is a capacity that I believe is deeply evolved in the human brain. It isn't a foreign language that you would never have if nobody teaches you it. Most humans are born with biological aspects like mirror neurons and related parts of the brain that allow for empathy. It's the rare exception that has a brain that isn't inherently capable of some level of empathy. No doubt, exposure to empathy may strengthen this response. But I don't think you can just say that it's only a learned response. I haven't abused someone into empathy because I don't abuse people. And I didn't say people often get "reasoned" into empathy (though people certainly can gain empathy when they see a situation in a new light, which can certainly come about through reason. In fact this happened with me. When I learned the reasons behind why certain people act the way they do in studying psychology, I became a lot more empathetic toward them because I logically saw how certain things were not their own choice.) You say: "proceed with empathy is the only chance of inspiring the empathy necessary to adopt the non-aggression principle. Empathy will not work on everyone, but it is still the only tool which will work." Again this is a dogmatic statement I take issue with. For some people, empathy comes more from gaining insight into a situation than experiencing empathy toward themselves. The most important example I gave was when someone experiences that situation themeselves - often precisely because of seeing how hard and painful it is and not having empathy from others - they then understand why they should have empathy themselves. This is really a classic type of situation. It's similar to what happens with Scrooge. The ghosts don't come to Scrooge and say "Oh Scrooge, you had such a hard childhood, we really feel for you." No. They instead show him certain situations and the experience of that is what changes him. So sometimes it isn't that you have to empathize with the other person. It's that you have to give them an experience of being in someone else's shoes so that they better understand. I have said repeatedly that I agree that you should probably start with an empathetic attitude in all situations. Then you should see how things unfold. In some situations, you may find a neutral tone does work better. Some people are more logical and are actually not ready to feel an emotional connection and would prefer to stick to the facts. In other cases, you may find your tone needs to shift to protective. Or you may find you need to stop focusing so much on empathy with that person and focus more on empathizing with yourself or with some other person who is involved in the situation. For many supporters of the NAP, they did in fact come to believe in it based on logical argument. The ought/is thing means you can't logically dictate values. If someone doesn't value the NAP, you can't logically prove they should value it. But someone can definitely come to value it themselves becuase of logic that makes sense to them. So I think you're making a subtle misunderstanding of the ought/is issue. I think a lot of what you're saying is not really necessary though because I'm not arguing against starting with empathy. I'm just giving context that empathy alone isn't enough in some cases and, as the conversation proceeds, you may find the empathetic tone isn't really what the person responds to best. OK I would say a good example of changing someone's opinion using reason would be when I teach people about personality types. Many times, I've had someone who was extremely angry about someone else's behavior because they misunderstood the person's motives. When I explained the differences in personality types, why they exist, how they have pros as well as cons, this has led some people to be much more understanding. This came not from me empathizing with them, but from them understanding the facts about the situation more accurately. Remember - empathy is a response to a certain view of a situation where you can relate to where someone is coming from. Sometimes, it's factual information that leads to that, more than being empathized with yourself. Another example might be that some people become more empathetic with gay people when they read scientific studies that support that orientation not being a choice. There you have empathy developing from factual data being understood. Nothing in the study has any empathetic tone for the reader. But the facts in the study can create empathy. Personality types are very important here too because they speak to what people value, including epistemologically. Rational types (NT types in MBTI) value truth. If they are shown they are incorrect about something, they are uncomfortable with that and want to change to what is logically correct. Some other types are quite opposite. They do not value truth as much as what makes them feel comfortable. They are much more likely to care about being empathized with as opposed to shown logically how they are wrong. When you talk about changing people's minds, the most relevant issue is often epistemology. The importance of empathizing with someone, as it relates to changing their mind on a particular issue, really depends on their epistemology. That's why I say it's not a one-size-fits-all dogmatic thing. I completely agree with you that logic alone will often not work. But that is because so many people do not have a logic-based epistemology. But there are others that do have a logic-based epistemology. You have to be aware of what type of person you're dealing with. Finally, I found it ironic that right under your response to me, you responded to Mike Fleming with a story about how you learned not to be abusive by seeing the contrary example from your father. So right there you have a great example of learning to care for others by being modeled the opposite and disliking that model. Your father didn't teach you how to empathize. You yourself disliked his non-empathetic example and decided to be different than him. This is yet another example of how empathy can come quite indirectly or even from experiences marked by the opposite of empathy. And humility that you could be wrong.

I disagree with your definition. And even if we allowed your definition to pass, it would just ignore the point and reduce this to a semantic thing. The point is this: Why can't a group of people hold the monopoly on force in a society yet choose to rule peacefully just the way parents can do the same? Forget the words state, government, etc. if you prefer. The point is their position in the society and what they do with it. Stefan constantly says that if positions with such power exist, they will be abused as if it's a rule of humanity. Yet he doesn't seem to think this is true at the family level, only at the larger social level.

The state has the monopoly on the legal right to use force. That doesn't mean they have to use it. In that way it's no different than parents. Parents have a monopoly on the use of force in their home. But that doesn't mean they have to use it. Peaceful parenting is all about people in a position where they could use force and have the power to do so, but choose not to anyway. Why couldn't those in the government make that same choice?

OK so if that's true (and I agree) then it is incorrect to state that we can't have positions of power like those in governments because humans simply can't handle such power differentials with grace and care. Yet this is an argument I have heard Stefan make countless times. I would like to establish in this thread, once and for all, that at least some human beings are indeed capable of responsibly handling positions of huge power over others, even greater power than any state has over its people. For is that not what peaceful parenting proves?

Since I think the main point of what I'm raising is getting lost, let me refocus this: True or false? Human beings are capable of handling huge differentials of power over others with grace and care?

Parents exist of biological necessity. But biological parents do not have to have the level of power that they have in modern nuclear families. And, in fact, in many cultures they did not have that level of power. And part of the reason for that may have been that children were actually safer with power over them spread a bit wider over the extended family. There are even cultures, I believe, where there was intermingling so that people couldn't be completely sure which child was whose, which led to everyone having an interest in all the children. So the point is there are different strategies that have existed in different cultures to decentralize power over children. Other than that, you didn't really give any explanation of WHY parents can supposedly raise children in a peaceful manner if the argument is that humans are not capable of handling huge power differentials without abusing them. I don't define a government as not peaceful. I simply define it as an entity that possesses power over the basic functions of a society - certainly functions that charities and businesses do not have power over.

Demand for resources is universal. But dependence on external communities for those resources not only is not universal, but the opposite was just about true for most of our history. Until pretty recently in human history, almost everyone was self-sustaining or they didn't survive. Being self-sustaining was the norm. It is possible for someone not to use violence to obtain resources...as long as there are other parties willing to provide them voluntarily. But there aren't always. As settlers spread west across America, for instance, were the natives always perfectly happy to give them the resources they needed? Of course not, and can you blame them? And sometimes the natives didn't want to trade those resources away even if the settlers could offer something valuable in return. Just one reason might be that those resources had sentimental or traditional value to them that went beyond anything material. Sometimes people simply don't want to trade something away that you need. Remember, the argument being made is that cities are places with populations large enough to require importation, which then offers an incentive to use violence if those resources are not given or traded willingly. The argument isn't about people in just any structure. As you say, the social structure is the issue here. If populations are too densely packed into areas that cannot sustain themselves, then you have a great risk for violence. It's kind of like a "too big to fail" scenario. Having a huge structure like that doesn't guarantee violence...but it makes it a whole lot more likely.

Stefan clearly believes it is possible for parents, despite their almost infinite power over their children - a power discrepancy that I believe he has called the greatest there is - to learn to be peaceful and not abuse that power, which includes a monopoly on the use of force in the family, to cause harm. Indeed the possibility of this seems to be something at the very basis of his hope for a better world, and something he passionately argues is not only possible, but should be our main goal. Yet at the same time, when it comes to government, he says that it is impossible to allow any group of people to have the power of a monopoly of legal use of force - even though, relatively, in practice, this monopoly is less complete than the parental one since at least most of the people governed are adults who can use force if they need to in ways that children just literally cannot do - and end up with peace. Why is this? If parents can learn to be peaceful despite this huge power differential, why can't people who govern learn that too? Doesn't the very idea of peaceful parenting conflict with the idea that human beings simply can't handle huge levels of power over other humans with grace and care? This is more than just a theoretical question. When it comes to government, Stefan's (and other anarchists') line of thinking is "Too much power corrupts, therefore we must not have a government with a monopoly of power." Yet, when it comes to parenting, the same people don't say "Too much power corrupts, therefore, we must never allow one or two people to have that much power over their children." They aren't anarchists when it comes to the ruling position of parents. This may sound silly, but think about the many tribal cultures where the nuclear family is far less important and extended families are much more engaged so that far more people are in the daily life of every child in the tribe. I have heard some researchers say that this may reduce abuses because so many more people are around witnessing what goes on with the children in the tribe regularly. This seems analogous to the idea of never centralizing the power too much applied to the family.

I think the home analogy is indeed apt. And there are literally infinite other examples where the means to an end are quite different than the end. In fact, the entire concept of emergent properties has to do with the fact that things can have properties completely unpredictable from any of the parts that make them up. There is not a parts/whole symmetrical correlation where what makes up something is the same as the endpoint. Or here is an even simpler example. There are many people who were abused that, rather than become abusers, became extra sensitive and may even have more empathy for people who are suffering than those who did not go through that or than they themselves would have had without that experience. How can you explain that if you say one must empathize in order to lead to empathy on the other end? How many times has someone learned to empathize with people in a tough situation not after receiving empathy, but rather after having suddenly been thrust into that situation themselves so that now they actually can relate. Did you ever see the movie The Game? People are not so one-dimensional that empathy in always equals empathy out or that empathy out always requires empathy in. It just isn't that simple. I couldn't disagree more with you that "the only way to inspire empathy is to give empathy." How about a person who has not received empathy who then sees a movie where a character is suffering and suddenly sees in a new way? These things happen. You are being dogmatic in claiming the only way a person can become empathetic is if you give them empathy. We have even seen that very small children can show empathy beyond the level of their parents at times. Where does that come from? Empathy is a very very deeply evolved trait in humans and, in some of them, it's more a case of how much abuse does it take to beat it out of them than how much empathy does it take to put it in them. My statements earlier were about a society based on the NAP. The NAP does not appeal to sociopaths. But if you want a society based on the NAP, you have to wrestle with the question of how to maintain that as the social norm when there are sociopaths within it. Is the answer to simply empathize with the sociopaths? No, that is not enough. And that is my point. A society based on the NAP requires more than just a rule to empathize with everyone. It needs a strategy for what you do in response to those who don't respond to empathy. I completely respect your plan to empathize with people. And I am not saying that you shouldn't do that. I'm only saying that isn't some overall grand solution. And that's the tone I was getting from the OP was that, after a few conversations went well due to empathy and curiosity, it was interpreted as a grand solution. It isn't a grand solution. But I agree it is a very important ingredient. If I was misreading things and you didn't mean to put it forth as a great overall solution, then my apologies. The tone I take online really depends on the setting. For example, I come to FDR for philosophy so I tend to take a rational, debate approach a lot. One of the reasons I enjoy FDR is that there are people here who value rational debate and I enjoy that. However, if someone even here is sharing a very personal issue that isn't really a debate topic, I will focus more on empathy and the feeling side of things. In other places online it just depends on the type of place and the types of personalities that usually frequent it. I'm not saying I ever think it's a good idea to lack empathy. I'm just saying in some settings that whole feeling area isn't really the focus. I really do agree that empathizing as you did was a great thing to do. And I'm not surprised it improved your results. I wasn't trying to knock doing that. I was just trying to put it in context. I don't think you'll always get such a great response to empathizing where it opens them up to changing their mind. And when that happens, there are other approaches to try. And sometimes nothing works and that is what anyone interested in changing minds is up against. So definitely keep empathizing and trying that approach. I will try it more often too. And there is no reason to not empathize with someone, as long as we don't expect it to always be the magic bullet.

I think in this situation, the OP, by "external" means external to their community, not external to their body. In other words, they have to rely on other human beings outside their own community to get those resources because they do not have enough of them that they can produce on their own land.

This is why earlier in the thread I said: "This kind of ties into the cliche where some people think you have to accomplish a goal using means that embody the nature of that goal, which I don't think is the case." I think it's a huge fallacy that the means have to resemble the ends. Building a home, even a warm, comfortable one you can relax in, can involve loud noise, stressful hammering and experiencing cold. The ends do not have to look like the means. Modeling is one way of teaching. Some people see empathy modeled toward them and it clicks "Oh this is how I should act toward others." But for some others that does not click, for a variety of reasons. Surely most of us have had experiences with people where we practice empathy with them for a long time and they still never or rarely reciprocate. Some have had extreme experiences of codependence where they've done almost nothing but empathize with someone only to have them just continue their one-sided behavior. I don't think teaching people to empathize is the goal of people, in general, at FDR, but a means. A world built on the NAP seems to be the goal. And the NAP allows for self-defense. Self-defense is an important part of the NAP. In fact, in many cases, if you want a non-aggressive society, you must use self-defense when appropriate. You are correct that being the change you want to see is deontological as long as you keep doing it regardless of outcome. My point was that if you be that way and it continues not to bring about what you want to see, do you just keep doing it or do you say "Wait, being the change I want to see in this one-to-one direct way is not bringing about the change I want to see. I'm going to try some more indirect route."? If so, you are consequentialist in that case. If you say "Well it isn't working, but it is the right thing to do anyway. I will just keep doing it regardless of outcome." If so, then that is deontology. In other words: "Be the change you want to see" is deontology only if you are doing it because you believe it's right. "Be the change you want to see" is consequentialist if you only do it because you think it is a good strategy that will work to bring about the outcome you want. The reason I am bothering to mention all this is simply to point out that "be empathetic to people and things will work out because I had a few conversations where that happened" is dangerously oversimplified. But I should also reiterate that I do think in a great number of cases, maybe even in most cases, empathizing with curiosity and sincere interest should be your opening move. I just wouldn't stick to it dogmatically. If it isn't working well or is even being used against you, you should have other approaches in your toolbox too.

But I specifically said "And if not enough of them will trade you what you need to support your population" Really? Name some major American cities that provide all of those things for themselves. I think some people in Arizona would be really interested to hear about how they can provide all their own water, for instance. So being reasonable magically makes natural resources appear in new places? I'm talking about necessities here, even though it's just an additional problem that societies will even fight over things they only perceive as necessary. And it is pure faith to believe the free market will just eliminate basic survival needs or replace everything from water to food. Forget being the leader of anything. If you need something to survive and nobody will trade it to you, what would you do? In fact, in a free society this question is even more relevant. The way things are now, it is more of a hypothetical since you have people in power depriving you of the ability to really make such decisions for yourself in many cases. In a free society, it really would be up to you to make your decisions more than it is now. So what would you do? And you would be one of those millions. And what is your one-in-a-million opinion on what to do when a survival need is not being offered in trade to you?

Right. Not just that you're moderately consequentialist, but that you're actually aiming to be more consequentialist, which is an even stronger statement. Seems like a huge amount of the difficulties and conflicts that principled people face come from this inner battle between the deontological and consequentialist aspects of ourselves.

It sounds like you are, at least to a moderate extent, a consequentialist in this situation. Don't get me wrong. I think there is nothing wrong with that. I just find that so often on FDR consequentialism is bad-mouthed. So it's interesting to see how it plays out a bit differently in this case. It's a bit of a paradox. When trying to convince people to convert to principles you believe in, do you focus on carrying out that process in a way that strictly reflects those principles or do you focus on the result? This kind of ties into the cliche where some people think you have to accomplish a goal using means that embody the nature of that goal, which I don't think is the case.

If you mean to say that the principle put forth by FDR is "always empathize with others" I would say that this is at best incomplete. For instance, what about De-FOO'ing? That involves much more than just empathizing with the other person. Clearly, the principle put forth at FDR is not to simply always empathize with others, but to also stand up for yourself, to speak the truth, and to put up healthy boundaries when necessary, as well. The other, equally important principle that I see promoted on FDR is to expect empathy for yourself (and even for third parties) in return and to carefully consider associations with those who do not provide that in a reciprocal fashion. I think "be empathetic" as a standalone principle or strategy is oversimplified and not what FDR really promotes. I think what FDR promotes is closer to something like tit-for-tat, where you try to empathize with the other, then see if they return that empathy or not, and go forth accordingly. I often wish there was a solution as simple as "be empathetic to others." If the solution was anywhere near that simple, we would have found it already. The situation is so much more complicated than that unfortunately. I totally relate to the excitement when you do something straightforward like "act with curiosity and empathy" and a few conversations in a row go well and you start to think "wow it really is that easy!" But, unfortunately, that's usually just a result of very small sample size or only trying it out in a very narrow setting. If "empathize with others" is really a principle, you would do it even if it fails to get the results you want. If you only continue to do it when it works, then it's consequentialism, not deontology.

My point was to ask "How are you measuring improvement?" If your measurement is that the communication leads to the consequence you wanted to bring about, and you are tailoring how you communicate based on what gets that result, that is consequentialism in action. If your measurement is based on whether you are communicating in the way that you believe is optimal on principle, whether or not that gets any particular result, that is deontology in action. I think most of us are really a mixture of these. We will bend to get a desired result, maybe compromise a bit, but at some point will say it's too much compromise to be worth it. But a person who truly does not believe in the "argument from effect" would not be even concerned with the result they are getting, only whether the action itself reflects their principles.