powder

I think, rather, what he says... dsayers, I just have to keep voting the thumbs up on your posts, well done. its about being morally consistent, period. the statist mind always want to make it into a practical matter.

'yes' to your last question

Yes, TDB's one. I am thinking that UPB is a method for evaluating the validity of moral/ethical propositions. So replace hypocrite with something like 'valid' or 'rational' perhaps. It just seems overly obtuse to me with all the stuff relating to preferences and such. I like Pepin's take on it above as well. I am just saying I would prefer something simpler and clearer. I mean, if it is a rational methodology for replacing state and religious propaganda that has screwed our moral compass, then it would be nice if we could teach it, or at least explain it in a way that is easy to grasp for the average person. The UPB book just gave me a headache.

I really like this. I don't know if it is a good representation of UPB. I just read the book and I found it dizzing - I wasn't sure what the point of all the logical gymnastics was. I was expecting, or hoping, it to be a simpler expose on how morality, or ethics, could be universal propositions to help people turn away from the insane edicts of church and state. Kevin, do you agree with that definition?

I love spending time in Vancouver, my fav Canadian city. I think I first heard Stef on RedIce Radio a few years back.

yup, I'm done too. I got a lot out your responses especially dsayers, just brilliant, so it wasn't a waste of time for me at least.

Hey, I live in Kamloops! That is one fortunate daughter I would say. Good for you Chris, what a great way to start your life with your family. Good for you.

well done cynicist, I thought of bringing up the parallel with slavery, but you did it in a much better way than I would have. If I understand your concerns Markus, it looks like somehow you believe that the government will be taken down in one fell swoop by an angry mob of peaceful volunteerists or something and we will suddenly end up in a Mad Max world of chaos and random tyranny, so instead, we had better ease into freedom gradually.

Yes, people sometimes believe lies, but you are somehow saying that that is what makes the government evil, what is your definition of evil? What power are people given in a democracy? People don't care enough? I don't see the evidence for that, quite the opposite. You did not address my other 2 questions.

you joined the military for thrills? I would like to learn more about your childhood.

Why am I like this? CHECK WITH YOUR PARENTS Why are a lot of people like this? CHECK WITH THEIR PARENTS Is there any commonality? CHECK WITH THEIR PARENTS Have any of you felt similarly in a situation like this? YES Is it simply human instinct to want others to be responsible so you can blame them? NO Is it a natural defence mechanism to keep from having to own up to reality and not deal with the truth? NO Or is there some root to it that only happens with some people, that can be found through analysing your life? YES, FIND A GOOD COUNSELLOR

Sorry to hear about your dilemma Landof Aus, that is a tough situation. I would never presume to advise anyone on what they should do or how they should live their lives, I can only provide my own perspective of my own life and how I have lived it, perhaps that will be of some small value. I did not have a great family life and upbringing but I did get a remarkable gift pertaining to career and life choices. I am fearless and decisive with how I live my life - relationships, well, I didn't get such good training there... When I was growing up I remember 3 specific instances when my dad found himself in situations where his job was unbearable for him, he never stayed with in a toxic situation but moved on and continued to have a rewarding work life that only got better. We were 8 children and every dollar of his weekly paycheck was gone by saturday, no unemployment insurance or any way to sustain the family for even a week without work. Still, with the encouragement of my mom he walked away and every time ended up with a better job before the end of the week. I was very impressed with that. I have had an incredibly successful and fulfilling work life and I have walked away from some wonderful jobs (and pension plans and benefits) when I knew it was time to move on, never hesitating, no fear. I never did what I was told was 'sensible' but I always listened to my gut, it is never wrong. I have been self employed for over 20 years with an amazingly fulfilling occupation (artist). Whatever you decide to do, I hope you can have that feeling, I think it turns us into good fortune magnets. All the best.

I'm pretty sure that sentence is not right. Still not clear on how any of this would eliminate trade or capitalism, which has yet to be defined by the OP.

I don't get what you are trying to say. What do you mean "no need for capitalism"? Do you mean no need for trading good and services? Do you mean that instead of 'captialism' some central technocratic governing body ala Venus Project would somehow produce all the stuff we need/want? What is wrong with wanting lots more stuff than I need?

I listened to this discussion on Anarchy with James Corbett. I heard a podcast of James and Stefan from a couple of years ago in which Stefan was arguing for the merits of Anarchy and James was not convinced but remained open minded. In this panel discussion James argues for the ethical position of anarchy and does a good job of it. I think this is great, I like James who has done some really good stuff over the years I think.

Right, good points cobra. what I can say about finding relief is that it is not always the case that treatments have not been created yet but perhaps the search has not exhausted all possible options. Still, I understand that it is more about choosing to act freely with regards to your own life and body.

Some interesting and challenging points here. cynicist, I'm glad you decided to contribute to the discussion. I have a couple of questions: -why is not irrational to think that a cure or treatment could not be found for a chronic physical pain, just as it is irrational to think that things will not get better (emotionally)? -considering the idea of drugs influencing someone's mental state and behavior, what about people who are suffering from an imbalance of chemicals in their system that promote irrational thoughts and behavior? We treat people all the time for this stuff. -who gets to decide who is acting rational?

can't help but notice how dark, evil, and decadent some show's plots, and characters are getting in recent years. Breaking Bad, True Detective, House of Cards, Game of Thrones, Vikings - I have only seen one show, or less, of each of these and I could not continue. I am amazed that these are all so highly rated. I must be somehow different but I cannot tolerate such wickedness. That said, the production, sets, directing, and esp the acting are stellar. Still, I just don't have the stomach for what they are portraying and getting us accustomed to taking in with this stuff.

Although I really get this perspective, I have changed my attitude in more recent years. I used to be more defiant and challenging of stupid laws and their enforcers. Now I have come to the place in my life where I understand that we live in a tyrannical authoritarian culture run by psychos, some of them in funny uniforms with guns and the ability to mess with my life and physical well-being. Now I do what I am told, keep my head down, and say "yes sir." There are other ways to work towards freedom that I prefer to look into.

Ok, I listened to the 'against me' video and I certainly understand that who one chooses to associate with is optional, there is no gun to anyone's head in that way. But I am not sure what 'optional' means in this context. And sure, benefits of exposing more people to philo, I get it. But there is nothing in that video about making exceptions for the purpose of exposing philosophy, or virtuous behavior, to a wider audience. Lots of talk about integrity and courage and so on when it comes to making those kinds of choices though. I also remember you arguing against the Ron Paul campaign after it was explained how it opened so many people's minds to, well, stuff like yours, and you said "yes but..." RP had a very large audience to spread alternative thinking to the masses, what is wrong with that then if the end justifies the means so to speak. I found my way here thru the RP road. Not trying to be contrary, I really just want to learn and understand. I am getting so much out of this site and the shows.

Such an excellent point Phuein. I recently watched one of my favorite movies again after 12 years, the Lord of the Rings, and although I really enjoy the characters, the plot and the special effects, I do find my mind focusing on the insane precepts that the story dwells on; conquer and control, blood-line royals and such... ugh.

I would like to learn more about the 'against me' argument. Optional eh? (yes, I am in Canada), I would like to know what that looks like exactly. OK, I do get that, thanks Mike.

Of course I understand all that Mike and it is perfectly reasonable. But it does not address my main question and I am not too clear on the whole 'against me' argument and 'don't hang with people who don't share your values' thing so I really I don't know how this fits, I am just asking. Yeah Stef has a certain amount of crossover in his views with AJ, and Ron Paul, and Peter Joseph, and many others who he would not sit down to dinner with. The interview process is different because?...

It looks to me like there may be an exception to the position that you don't engage people who do not share your values ('against me' thing) - which seems to be a prominent feature of Stefan's philosophy, which I really find admirable - and the interview mandate for the radio show, which is quite different from the debate format as Stef pointed out. I would be interested to know how he would sort that one out. He appears on the Alex Jones show as well. I am not a fan of AJ and his perspectives and ideals and AJ is a Fundy Christian and a statist, and big supported of Ron Paul - not at all in Stef's camp it would seem, yet there it is. The problem with this 'inconsistency', if it can in fact be termed as such, is that Stef and his philo will be lumped it with those of the people he associates with, esp the high profile ones - I certainly would not want to be lumped in with AJ if I were in his place.