Rick Horton

How about, " Maxim Obscura "?

Insomuch as one person can avoid asserting involuntary authority over another, we can actually avoid force. Look at you and I, we don't force each other to do anything. I don't demand you do things. I don't threaten, harass, bully, or battle you, and you return the favor. Why is it impossible for us to avoid force? We seem to be doing it right now. But we have no property dispute

That's nicely put. About how I'd use the concpet of the senses too. Except that... ..if all input are to be called "valid" then the idea of "valid" vs "invalid" doesn't make any more sense imo. Like if you went to a test and all answers we're called correct no matter what you write, then the idea of "correct" loses all its meaning in that context. If that makes sense We can and do test our senses every days of our lives. Clearly our senses are valid, enough for a lot of things, but inadequate for other things.

I see it that way as well. Property = force. And what is property if it is not something people have to agree on? But, then that isn't enough either since not everybody will ever agree on anything. So property is an idea, but not a thing. Holding on to something you want to keep doesn't make it yours no matter how much you want it to be. That doesn't mean we shouldn't or don't try to do it. But morals have ZERO authority besides the one deciding to hold on to a thing, in determining who gets what. After all, once there is an outside entity, or subject that is partial in deciding who gets what, or what you can have, you are experiencing FORCE. I think that this is a huge error in the NAP. Obviously we cannot avoid force, and the NAP hasn't dealt with it in any detail that can be measured in any way what ever so.

I see it that way as well. Property = force. And what is property if it is not something people have to agree on? But, then that isn't enough either since not everybody will ever agree on anything. So property is an idea, but not a thing. Holding on to something you want to keep doesn't make it yours no matter how much you want it to be. That doesn't mean we shouldn't or don't try to do it. But morals have ZERO authority besides the one deciding to hold on to a thing, in determining who gets what. After all, once there is an outside entity, or subject that is partial in deciding who gets what, or what you can have, you are experiencing FORCE.

I think about senses as tools, and nothing more. You can have a really good hammer, a really poor hammer, and you can have a job that requires more than a hammer is good for. That doesn't make a hammer useless in all situations.

I agree with that.

You need to have a talk with your inner critic and set him straight.

It's not career advice. There's a bit more to it than that. When a group of people drive past a gay couple and yell "Go to hell f*gs!", should we assume it's a genuine suggestion of metaphisical activity? Or, if a shop keeper says "We don't serve n*ggers", should we take the statement as the social equivelent of "We don't have any bread to sell", as being purely informational? Really now, that's just silly. I think it should (ooo....) be clear to everyone what the difference between insult, demand, and suggestion actually is. But maybe I'm wrong, we could explore that. Perhaps it is tricky to identify the difference. Wait hold on. I didn't say career advice. Again, more projecting. Nobody is saying that people who yell awful things from car windows are being literall or caring. I don't even know what your point is although you're definitely reading things into this conversation that just aren't being said by anybody.

It's not career advice. There's a bit more to it than that. When a group of people drive past a gay couple and yell "Go to hell f*gs!", should we assume it's a genuine suggestion of metaphisical activity? Or, if a shop keeper says "We don't serve n*ggers", should we take the statement as the social equivelent of "We don't have any bread to sell", as being purely informational? Really now, that's just silly. I think it should (ooo....) be clear to everyone what the difference between insult, demand, and suggestion actually is. But maybe I'm wrong, we could explore that. Perhaps it is tricky to identify the difference. I don't know, but nobody here has told her to get a real job. I'm right there with Ribuck. I don't care if she's employed or not. It's not the basis I judge people by.

See. That's projection... Yelling "get a job" is yelling get a job. Nothing else somebody says equals yelling "get a job". I don't think anybody who's noticed she seems more into herself than the average person is telling her to get a real job. I'm going out on a limb, maybe, but I'll ask the forum, " Does anybody think she needs to get a real job?" Because, really, I don't, and I don't even care about her job.

Wait, so in all your comments towards the video, you felt no anger? Angry about?

Branding then, might not be the culprit. It seems that the problem is just in the way people are in general. There's no way I've seen to change that besides recognizing it yourself because I don't really think people are going to change. If so, where's the evidence?

Yeah, the anger in this thread troubles me. Again. I see a lot of projection. Nobody yelled "get a real job" I'm being honest about how I feel. As I understand it, that is not projection. honesty has nothing to do with projection. Whenever a person reads context where it isn't, a person is projecting. This is true because in order to come up with some kind of meaning where it wasn't explicitly given, that person must project FURTHER than what was said or written. Thus, you are projecting. Nobody yelled "get a real job", AND nobody was mean or bitter, or angry. Not based on anything written. Now, you can project whatever you want, but projecting can only come from the one who is doing the projecting, and in this case it is you and Arius. I'm not preaching. I'm pointing out is's and nothing more. Based on what she actually said in her presentation and no projections I judge her to be selfish. She exhibited a lack of understanding and compassion that most people who ask for things don't just "get" what they want. I have seen a lot of kickstart projects crash and burn and it wasn't because the people asking weren't nice, and didn't have a good project, it was just based on luck, popularity, and life. She is lucky and doesn't mention how lucky she is. She merely pointed out that she got stuff by making connections. But we all try and do that, so her point is really fucked up.

I haven't ever had the kind of thoughts you guys are describing, but I think it's fair to say we all have our demons, right? There isn't any freedom in modern cilivlization. The human being has been replaced by social concepts. Social concepts dillute the individual, and reduce him to constant comprimise. In turn, my feeling is that we never really live, because living is something that you feel when you have mobility in action dependent on nothing more than doing what you want to do at the time you want it. We've been conditioned for centuries to wave that for "whatever" moral reason of the day we discover, yet it all boils down to comprimise, and there's no moral basis or way to measure morality based on doing stuff to appease others. I mean, I think an individual guy can do stuff based on what he himself feels is moral, but these days there is SO much conditioning to wipe away before we get down to the brass tax, which is, " I want this, therefore I will do this to get this, and if it will advance me, and not hurt the ones I value I will do it/take it." But in the modern world this entails such a degree of comprimise OUTSISDE of your control that these actions are reduced to miniscule practice. Or you go to jail. Social Contracts are agreements to let yourself be caged in order to be comfortable. Humans have put themselves in these cages for so long now that we no longer have a personal identity. We seem to have a societal identity that becomes our inner critic, and it just drives people nuts. It's like having a constant Nag in your brain, asking you whether or not you should do something based on NOT what you think should be good, but based on what will be perceived as good to this big, social construct in the world. Even anarchism enters these waters, and especially Stef's UPB. I don't think there is any fact, measure, philosophy, etc... that really should let a man cage his desires, but alas it seems we must , in this world, beat our needs to death by constantly stripping our supreme authority out of fear. In this way, I think we actually all do have 2 separate beings within us. One that needs to take and give when and what we want, and one that nags us on why it "isn't right, or fair, or blah blah fucking blah.

While it's a pyschologically very nasty thing to try to "dominate" others with such things, it's not really an appropriate application of the word dominance or violence, since all participants (especially the ones dominated) can opt out of this crazy any time they want. If people play a game and behave aggresively when they win towards to loser, then the loser is free to just not play with them anymore. I really don't see how the word "violence" could be applied here totally agree.

Yeah, the anger in this thread troubles me. Again. I see a lot of projection. Nobody yelled "get a real job"

Nobody has yelled that. Maybe you shouldn't project.

Maybe Jack Herer if I had a choice. I'm not fussy though. You are asking people from this forum to send you drugs and the thread hasn't been deleted?

What kind of weed in particular?

and?

2 hits of acid and Mr. Bungle's Disco Volante changed me forever. Nuff said...

In what ways do your girlfriend's views differ from yours? My girlfriend is a strict Vegan, and politically and philosophically she leans left.

I've never found as easy as giving, giving and giving to test a person on if they are recipricle. In my experience it is better to give and take equally from the beginning. I believe the belly can be hypnotized like in nature, and weaken a soul. For example, the way to tame an animal is to feed it. Once it's dependant on that food, you are it's friend and it "usually" will not harm or attack you. Same with pets in general, and trust. But that comes with the price of dependence on you. You feed a stray cat and it will keep coming back. It forgets how to fend for itself, so although you may get some kind of emotional benefit from giving, giving, giving, and maybe even get reciprication, you are also handicapping the other person as well, it may well be in a lot of relationships. I see that with Parent/Child relationships all of the time. Parents can give to a child so many things that the child becomes very weak and dependent instead of ready for adult-hood. So I'd say equal give and equal demands, and no guesswork or games about what is what. Ask a favor, give a favor. Don't be cryptic about it, or "testing" in nature. Anyhow, this has worked far better for me than what is being discussed now, and I had to go through a lot of trials to realize it.

I listened to the show he did with Adam, recently, when he talks about choosing women, or trying to find them. It's definitely a sausage festival in the anarchist "community". Most likely, it seems to me to be because a lot of the anarchists are activist in nature, and activists are, meh, hard to deal with in any sect of society. I find it best in my own relationship with my girlfriend to act according to my principals, and let her do her own thing. I don't think my way is inherently better than any other person's philosophy. Hell. What do I know, right. A lot of the anarchist principals resonate with me, but hardly all of them. One, is that I don't preach my beliefs anymore, or try and change the affairs of the world. I just facilitate my own reality, and since my girlfriend is of very high value to me I don't disrespect her views although they differe HUGELY from mine.