Mister Mister

right, if there are not enough female characters, then make a fucking movie with more female characters and convince people to see it instead of blogging about someone else's movie. that would be hard though

Hello. Can you tell me what anarchist means to you? For me Libertarian Socialist was always a confusing term, as it seems to be a contradiction. Anarchist as I understand means "without rulers". This means nobody is "Above the Law", that disputes between members of the society must be resolved according to rules which apply to everyone. The basic economic reality that the scarcity of resources outweighs human desire means that there will be disputes over the exclusive use of resources. Property rights are a means of resolving such disputes in a consistent and reasonable way. As I understand, the concern of the Leftist Anarchists is that owners of property are like rulers, is that right? In your scenario, I'm not sure what you mean by coercion. It is a tragic circumstance yes. But I don't understand how such an extreme, tragic, hypothetical situation invalidates the idea of property and voluntary association and trade. Let's say that there was concern for this child, as there most certainly would be given that some portion of the population is compassionate. Then there would be resources available to house, feed, clothe, and educate the child. There may be couples who are gay or infertile and willing to adopt such a child. Especially in the absence of government programs, usually which take 70% or more of the money in overhead, there would be plenty of resources available to help those needy. But in many charity cases, it is not so clear who is needy and who is not, and as I have come to understand through Stef and others like Thomas Sowell, institutionalized charity for those who don't necessarily need it can be a very dangerous drug0. Stories like this are as rare and extreme as the conservatives' stories of the crack-dealing welfare queen. So the idea is, if someone acquires property before you are born, and you don't recognize their ownership of that property, and choose to claim it as your own, and they use violence against you in defense of it, this is a violation of the NAP? Hrmmm...I sympathize with this, I really do. In the same way I generally consider taxation a violation of the NAP, and even though the majority of the society agrees with it, I resent that by acting on my disagreement, violence would be unjustly used against me. The difference is that property can be universalized, applied to everyone, whereas taxation requires separating people into state and citizen; also taxation is an unchosen positive obligation, which is basically impossible to philosophically justify, whereas property rights depends on a set of negative obligations, i.e. "don't steal, pollute, vandalize, trespass, defraud", etc... Also, I find your use of the language very confusing, and misleading, "nevertheless expected to suffer them", "legal imposition", etc. The ownership of property is a concept, a standard that society has, a free society would teach this to children both by instruction, i.e., "don't grab, ASK", but more importantly by example, and allow them to question it, but for most kids it is not that hard to get, so long as their person and property is respected. But the way you frame it, it sounds like, having this standard is automatically a crime against everyone who disagrees with it. The question is whether the standard is reasonable, whether it is valid or not. If a society generally believes in evolution, they are not committing a crime against the minority that believes in Creationism. Also the Creationist is wrong. If you disagree, please make your case. But we maintain that there is a rational, objective way to determine these things, that can be taught to children without the use of force, and therefore generally observed and respected in society without the need for force in most cases. Yes, physical force can be used in defense of property, but only in extremes. You don't just get to shoot a Jehovah's Witness who rings your doorbell, or some lost hikers who wander into the woods in your back yard. Property rights exist to AVOID violence which is so common throughout the animal kingdom, and human history, not to justify violence as you and many leftist anarchists claim. Obviously, if you want to acquire property for yourself, you want the society at large to recognize it - ownership is just a concept, right? So you wouldn't want to acquire property in a way considered illegal by the society, because even if you win the violent confrontation with the owner, you will be seen as a criminal. So an ideal society would have an easily accessible, peaceful, and reasonable means of resolving these disputes. The Common Law Homesteading Principle described by Locke and others, to which I think you are referring, offers a reliable way to sort these things out, though future societies may evolve better ways, through advances in philosophy and technology. All such methodologies, however, would follow from the necessity for principles to be logical, consistent, universal, communicable, and derived from the empirical reality of Self-Ownership. The truth is, not everyone wants to own property. Some people want to travel. Some people like renting. Ownership, especially in a free society (not the modern-day corporatocracy of limited liabilty), entails a great deal of responsibility that many would not wish to assume. Leftists believe that others' ownership is somehow only to their own selfish benefit, at the expense of everyone else's. Sometimes this is true, like when someone buys the house you wanted. But in many more ways, private ownership benefits others who do not own said property. The free market is 5% competition and 95% cooperation, and even the competition involved is peaceful unlike in Nature or in politics. I hope that helps

Hi there! Welcome and thanks for your interest and curiosity. You may not realize it, but you are unique among most people, as most would not even ask these questions but rather attack or avoid entirely. Stef has addressed these questions, in his book Practical Anarchy https://freedomainradio.com/free/#pa as well as his earliest podcasts among others. Economists such as Murray Rothbard, Bob Murphy and David Friedman have also addressed these issues very well in my opinion. However I can try to give a summary of Stef's thinking in this area. The basic idea is that the Non-Aggression Principle applies to everyone, self-defense is a Universal right, and this extends to defending others and their property. The government however, claims a monopoly on the provision of security and protection of property, and demands payment by coercion. Because these "services" are supported coercively, there is no incentive to actually provide the best service at the lowest price, as opposed to goods and services provided by the free market. Just think about it. For anything which the government is supposed to be necessary to provide, does anyone involved face any negative consequences for a failure? Do the police face any liability for violent crime? Does a judge face negative consequences for convicting a guilty man? Does the Dept. of Transportation lose money when there is a traffic jam? A voluntary provider of such a service, accountable to its customers, and susceptible to competition, would have to be liable for its failures. Such a provider might act like an insurance company. Because a security provider would be liable for violent crime, they would want to figure out how to most easily prevent violent crime. The most effective way to do this, based on the best science we have to date, would be to reduce and eventually eliminate child abuse, as in the overwhelming majority of cases, violent offenders suffered violence as children. Thus, it is an inter-generational approach, in a future where children do not suffer violence, there will be no criminals and thus not an excessive need for protection from crime. This in particular is Stef's unique and most important contribution to this issue in my opinion. Having said all of that, the real answer is "nobody knows" , it is impossible to predict what a future would look like as the consequence of such a revolution in ethics. Anarchy and voluntaryism are fundamentally philosophies of interpersonal relationships: what separates this show and this community from the other libertarian/anarcho-capitalists is that we are concerned with what aspects of life we can put these ideas into practice NOW, resolving psychological and interpersonal dysfunctions, living free in an unfree world. Many people still impose their will on friends, spouses, employees, and especially children, so the idea of an entirely voluntary society is unthinkable to them. So people must see anarchy in their lives before accepting it in the larger society. This means learning what it means/looks like to practice negotiation, reason, non-violence, in sex, family, friendship, and business. Thanks again for your fine questions, I hope my answers made some sense and gave you some places to look; I look forward to your response.

You show a lot of animosity towards people who call themselves Christian, and it seems to me you have concluded certain things about how they all think, conclusions which you will not test because you have "disqualified" them from discussion. But you also say that you believe moral choices are created through understanding of ethics. So it seems strange that you are advocating against any philosophical atheist/voluntaryist people to talk with Christians about ethics, while at the same time shaming Christians for being wrong about ethics, which by your admission they can't be at fault for unless they are exposed to the counter-arguments. It just seems lacking in empathy/sympathy to me. I was at one time, a determinist, a relativist, a socialist, into mysticism and other things, and now I'm not. There are many former Christians or even current Christians who listen to this show and are active on these boards. By your logic, should no one have ever tried to talk me out of these errors? It seems to me the only thing that should ever disqualify a person from discussion of a particular topic is if they continually demonstrate abusive or manipulative behavior. But this is not something we can know from their stated conclusions, only from engaging them. Does that make sense? Can I ask what is your history with religion? Of course. For example if you disseminate the belief that the test of a person's guilt or innocence is whether or not they will float, that will have consequences in peoples' choices. If this is the only concept of justice that people ever hear, to some extent they can't be blamed for acting upon it. Is that what you mean?

Some pretty broad claims are being made here. What exactly has been proven, and what does it allow us to predict? What technologies have been derived from this stuff?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle It's an interesting question, but problems like this have been solved, or at least, fairly reasonable solutions have been developed, which could be improved upon. Please realize, that property rights, and ethics in general, only become necessary when there are conflicts, or disputes. If you want to stake a claim to land in the wild in order to improve it, no problem. The problem comes when someone else comes along and wants to build a house on land that you have already claimed, or someone has reason to believe that your plans to develop land will have negative consequences on their land. This is why we need a rational, just, and consistent methodology to resolve disputes over property, one that is simple enough for everyone to understand and have access to.

My immediate thought is: people who feel guilty for being alive. Many parents say horrible things like: "I wish you were never been born", or they blame all conflicts on the children, or in the absence of an explanation, the children blame themselves for family conflicts. Modern environmentalism, along with white guilt, "privilege" of all kinds, and the Catholic concept of "Original Sin", is a way of inflicting automatic guilt on people so they will feel an automatic obligation. The people for whom this emotional manipulation is effective, would be those who experienced it as children.

If you have a question for Stef, you can write it to [email protected], or schedule a call at one of his call-in shows the same time. but he rarely posts if ever on the forums anymore. interesting question though, when I have time later I will think about a response

Anyone seen this movie? I have some thoughts on it, but wanted to see if there was any interest first.

^well I'd be happy to keep the postal workers employed this way, but we can also do long-term games on chess.com

Hey, thanks for bringing this up! I am Rosecodex on chess.com Yes I think it is a fascinating game. I was interested in it from a young age, I used to play with my mother until I started beating her as a teenager. I had some friends who put up a good challenge. Later, in my first year of college, I played a lot in my circle of friends. It was probably the only mental stimulation I got that year. But there were some real good players among us, including an Indian guy who really taught me the essentials of opening strategy - control the center, develop your pieces, protect your king, etc...Then in the last few years I started playing on chess.com, and realized like you that I wasn't nearly as good as I thought I was. I also found that, while I improved a little from playing online a lot, I quickly plateaued, making similar mistakes again and again. That's when I started to study the game in more detail. Chess.com has some good resources, and there are many youtube channels. My favorite is MatoJelic, he has a great voice, entertaing way of presenting, and features examples from many great games in chess history. I do think it connects to other aspects of life. One thing I have found, that for playing faster games, preparation is key, particularly with openings, tactics and endgames. The good players have studied these aspects of the game so that they are automatic, and they can save their time and mental power for only the most new and challenging positions. This rule applies to life in general, that preparation is key for success in high pressure situations. Another aspect of chess, possibly the most important, is tempo. Typically there are two kinds of moves; one that forces your opponent to react, and one which is in reaction to the first kind. Usually whoever controls the tempo is winning, much like soccer or tennis or other competitive sports. I have to disagree with your analysis of the game as good vs. evil however. If anything, both sides are evil in that they are willing to sacrifice pawns and other pieces to protect their king and kill the enemy king, but the king himself is never killed - the game ends before he can be killed. If anything it gives you some sense of what it is like to be a sociopathic manipulator, in that an evil person has as much empathy/emotional connection to other people as you and I have to chess pieces. I am also interested in the mentality of great chess players. Many of world's best have had somewhat troubled lives, maybe there is some deficiency left by an overly intellectual and competitive mindset. In particular I think of Bobby Fischer who went mad, and Mikhail Tal who drank himself to death in his 20s. A big exception is Garry Kasparov, my favorite player, who has become a great philanthropist and a real hero in Russia as one of the most prominent voices speaking out against the Putin regime. Would love to play and talk chess with any of you.

owning property doesn't trump the non-aggression principle. There's no rational Law system that would defend the scenario you are describing. I can't invite a woman into my house, point to a sign in my bedroom which says "all guests must have sex with the home-owner on demand", and rape her. And there is no one who argues for universal property rights who has come close to arguing anything like that. The closest thing to what you are saying, is that it is sometimes argued that you can initiate force against someone who is on your property if you have reason to believe they have intention to commit a crime. If someone enters your house in the middle of the night, if someone is making threats or refuses to leave when asked, if there are clear signs saying "No Trespassing", and so on, then it may be that force is justifiable. But at the same time, you can't shoot a Jehovah's Witness who rings your doorbell in the middle of the day. Property rights are a concept which extend from the obvious reality of self-ownership, which are supposed to serve as a Universal, consistent, and intelligible principle by which we can resolve inevitable disputes over the exclusive use of matter. This concept is in no way opposed to self-ownership, it is extended from it, it is a logical conclusion of it. And if you reject this concept, you still have to reconcile the fact that there will be conflicts over the use of land, resources, and even ideas in any society. As far as I know, there is no other just and rational way to resolve these conflicts.

I think it's Larken Rose's wife

The main reason that people use FRN's in the US, or whatever other national currency rather than something else, is that the Income Tax must be declared in these notes. This is why the Income Tax and Central Bank tend to be implemented at the same time, you can't really have one without the other. This is a very old practice, governments have used taxes as a way to implement fiat currency going back thousands of years. But the claim on your labor is still immoral.

but...she's...pretty...feel...compelled...to...agree...

I seem to be unable to paste anything in my posts, to hyperlink anything, or to quote posts. Does anyone else have this issue? Could it be a problem with my browser? I use Internet Explorer...

I posted a response on his forum, hope I get a few bites.

it's called jury nullification

Hi I wanted to pose some open questions for those of you who have a good knowledge and understanding of science and physics. In my opinion, modern physics and cosmology has become a total mess, full of internal contradictions, and unresolved conflicts between different departments competing for grant money, and where most of the funding and energy is put towards exploring concepts which have no tangible relation to concrete reality, such as super-strings, dark matter/energy, virtual particles, black holes, and so on. But I don't want to argue that for the time being. I want to start at the foundation of physics, and see if we can parse out this confusion, and determine if my concerns are legitimate or not. Can anyone tell me what are the proper rational definitions of the following terms: Matter Energy Space Light Mass Charge As far as I can tell, these concepts form the foundation of physics. Have I missed any?

I had some thoughts on this listening to Sam Harris talking about the subject earlier today, would like to submit an argument that may seem strange to some of you. The assumption is that electronic machines built by human beings will somehow "surpass" the human mind one day. I submit that there are certain aspects of human consciousness that an electronic machine can never surpass. Other areas, such as memory, and calculation, it has already surpassed, and I'm sure I will get no argument, that as people refine these technologies, machines will excel in these areas even further. The idea that human consciousness can hypothetically be improved with computers is kind of missing the point, as we are having this conversation utilizing a technology that is already doing so. But there are other areas, such as creativity, language, logical induction, empathy, concept formation, real-world problem solving, critical thinking, and so on which electronic machines are not equipped to do, nor will greater efficiency, or some new solution in coding enable them to do. I believe this is because of the fundamental difference between biology and electronics, in that biology is defined by the capacity to self-organize from within whereas electronic technology must be designed from without. Life is the process of Self-Organizing, Self-Motivating Matter, whereas Intelligence/Consciousness, is the process of Self-Organizing, Self-Motivated Thought. A human slowly gradually accumulates and sheds matter from their bodies, replaces damage, is born from other human beings, grows old and dies, whereas an electronic machine is built from the outside, and if it's parts wear out they must be replaced again from without. We have inherited a structure from billions of years of self-organization through evolution, and the unique capacities of human intelligence are an extension of this process. So I think it is a dream that a machine could be designed from the ground-up from the Outside, then suddenly be programmed in such a way that it Self-Organizes from Within. I submit that any being with the capacity for Intelligence, must have gone through the process of Evolution, the process of Birth, Childhood, and Death, something which must get tired, sleep, and dream, have emotional needs, feel anger, pain, joy, and so on. I wonder if the desire to "merge human intelligence with machines" is a desire to escape these fundamental realities of the human condition, which are both strengths and weaknesses.

Have you posed this question to your parents?

*sorry my quote isn't working @End the Usurpation: "This has been the way of world for a long time." But didn't the old ways (which I'm not advocating for of course) hold women to some standard? Without welfare, alimony, and child support, didn't a woman sort of have to earn the affections of a man?

This stuff is just rampant right now. A virtuous life for a man is defined by how much he does for women. Lean in for Equality: Men for Women. #heforshe . It's just the modern version of Victorian chivalry except without any definition of virtue for women. Women by the mere possession of a vagina are deserving of men's sympathy, time, effort, money, and very lives.

^No I wouldn't, I just wanted to share that I too was horrified and disappointed that such a compelling and promising idea is so often connected with all this other BS. Sometimes people who have expertise in one field presume to be experts in everything else as well. I've been into yoga, meditation, and tai chi, and so on, which is similar in that many of the people with great competence in these fields think they know something about psychology, ethics, politics, etc. when really they're full of shit. What do you mean "confused about his origins"? And what resources besides the ones you've posted would you recommend? Is there a good message board for example where I can get some feedback?

I read David Holmgren's book on Permaculture hoping for some good tips on gardening in a different way, instead I got a bunch of political and mystical BS. It's too bad because I think this stuff could be very compatible with Anarchism, i.e. Working with plants and Nature in a win-win relationship for long-term success rather than trying to conform them to a Central plan with for short-term gains at the expense of long-term corruption.