powder

I am not making an argument, dsayers and thebeardslastcall have already done a much better job of that than I could. My friend had a clever idea about how to set up his studio space, I need his permission to use that idea or he has the right to use aggression against me? I believe you claimed in an earlier post that society would use subjectively agreed upon boundaries for what is acceptable to determine how to set boundaries for what would be deemed violations of property. It was pointed out that this is not universal or objective therefore has no moral content. How do you get around this? It is theft to copy the image I created, but not theft to use my friend's idea?

I am an artist and I have studied much art history. I find it interesting that the idea of intellectual property with regards to art was antithesis to the art world for centuries when so many great artists were practicing. Indeed, copying another artist's painting, or the work of your master, was not only accepted as good practice but required by all the studios and academies. the greatest prize or award for achievement in the French art academy was the 'prix de rome' where the winner was sent to Italy to copy the works of the great Renaissance masters. the better the copy, the more accolades. this has only became a source of anxiety and frustration in recent generations where accurate attributions meant greater prices in the auction houses. also, art historians, critics and appraisers stake their careers on the ability to identify the true author. it is speculated that more than half of the art in museums around the world are forgeries. Some are modern reproductions of course, but in the day, the concept of a forgery was not even considered. Most artists never signed their work and fully expected that it would, and should be copied. They understood that this practice did not dilute the market for their work but only increased its value and the demand for their art. A number of colleagues of mine here in Canada are concerned about Chinese companies (they don't have copyright laws like the west) that lift images of our art from internet sites and make copies of them to sell for much cheaper. some of them make prints and posters, others actual painted copies. you can see the young artists lined up at their work stations with photos of the paintings they are copying. this has been going on for years and occasionally I get requests to join in some legal assault on the perpetrators. I have been to some of these sites where they have pages dedicated to my art. you can pick a painting, choose a frame, and a shipping method and get a copy of one of my paintings for a fraction of the price that they sell for. I have put a request in to purchase one. I don't want them to stop, I would rather see my art be the most requested.

dsayers, you use the phrase 'binding upon' can you explain this for me please. I am pretty sure I understand what it means but I am unfamiliar with its usage.

Who cares how 'rules' will be derived, as long as there are no rulers - that is what anarchy is all about. If determining what bounds and acceptable behaviors that do not violate the NAP are in society is subjective then it has no moral relevance. There is no moral content in the example you gave since all the actions are voluntary and consensual.

Jnabors, I admire you attitude and your enthusiasm for engaging in this conversation. Where some here will contest you on logic, reason and evidence, I prefer to challenge your position on moral grounds, because, as I stated earlier, this is where I have the most difficulty with governments and the doctrines of religion and Christianity as you have embraced them. In the quote above you are hoping to counter dsayers criticism of the hell idea with one that you presumably consider more virtuous - hell was created (by god) as a place for satan and his followers? And that sits better with you? What kind of person, or worse still, gracious loving omnipotent being, gets pissed off and holds a grudge forever? how bad are God's conflict resolution skills that he decides to have a 'war in heaven' to sort things out, and then create this eternal heinous scenario for his former beloved family members, and all those humans in their ignorance who fall short somehow, and end up having to endure this - set aside for the moment the horrific idea of sending his son to be tortured and killed in low tech Roman culture as a way to settle some bizarre debt he created for us. Can you address this without going to the already refuted claim of freewill? Freewill is the freedom to choose, not the freedom to make a choice. I always like to consider moral principles on a personal level, both with the state, and with religion. If the NAP works for us in our day to day lives, there is no rational reason to expect it will not work for the greater good of human civilization. Likewise, if I were to introduce you to someone that I described as very friendly and loving, but then told you about how he got pissed at his favorite son one day, got into a big fight, then locked him in the basement to rot, what would you think of that person? The God you describe in your post above is not someone worthy of worship and respect, and I certainly would not want to spend any time with him at his place. BTW Jesus did threaten with damnation on a few occasions and also threw out some gems like this one: "...Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" I don't see anywhere to go with this stuff jnabors, and I have had this debate many times. If 'interpretation' is the only way to rationalize the moral contradictions then we are back to the idea brought up earlier in the thread that the scriptures must be dismissed as not only ineffective and inefficient, but very dangerous indeed.

OK, I've read the whole thread and waded thru a lot of fancy jiber jaber. Lets see if I understand what LibertarianSocialist is trying to say. You are not doing a good job of communicating it for my 5 year old brain, so please let me know if I have missed something important. -bad elitists have stuff (capital) that they should not be allowed to keep and they are using it to force people to do stuff that they don't want to do - though I am not clear about how that really works. -their is some way of determining the value of the labor of these workers, which I do not understand, and it is more than the amount they are being compensated, so it is not fair. It is stealing somehow, and that is aggression/force. -LibertarianSocialist thinks its OK to use force to re-structure society by taking stuff from these bad people to make things better. My only question is, what would that look like, and who is going to help you accomplish this task of using force to make these changes?

Hi jnabors, welcome to the forum. I have not been here long myself, but in that time I have seen a couple Christian members come and go, you might find it a bit challenging to discuss your ideas here. I hope you are sincere in your desire to learn because I think there is great opportunity for that here. I don't like any of the Abrahamic traditions (religions) for the same reason I don't like the state - it advocates the use of violence. You say you believe in the bible, I am not sure what that means since you are clearly OK with interpreting it suit your moral code. If you rely on scripture that requires interpretation, then, as dsayers already pointed out, it cannot be a reliable source for determining behavior and must be dismissed. Moreover, it then automatically requires a 'priest class' to interpret and disseminate the information, and we all know how dangerous that is. I know many Christians, some are good friends, and many of them are adopting the 'Universalist' movement where they declare that everyone is saved and its all about Jesus. Still, it requires that you ignore some of the inconsistent and more heinous acts and statements he makes. I am curious to know how you address these issues. I am a bit suspicious of people that declare up front that they want their opinions to be respected. It often means that people want to be able to make irrational and morally contradictory claims without being challenged. I am not accusing you of this and you have not given me reason to be weary of you on those grounds, I simply think it is important to be precise in your language. Beliefs and opinions are not people, they do not exist in the real world, they do not deserve respect. People that are virtuous, rational, consistent, curious, humble and so on, are easy to respect. That said, I do have a lot of admiration for church communities and I did attend a christian church for several years. It brings together people in our society in a supportive and mutually beneficial way better than just about anything else. Certainly the atheists and anarchists don't have anything comparable.

cynicism then, it is the most likely explanation I think. political approval is at an all time low in general and young people always tend to be suspicious and mistrusting of the older generation, esp when they are raised with threats and coercion at home and in school. I would like to think that they are more aware of how they are the victims of state power, that would certainly make it easier to convince them of the violence of the system, but I am not sure that is the case in general. Their education, both in school and from the media, is all socialist/statist leaning so it think it would be more likely for them to look in that direction if they desire change. I would like to hear from more of them, or from studies that have looked into it.

Tomorrow is federal election time in Canada. I keep reading or hearing about the low voter turnout rates for youth, and that in the last couple of decades it is getting worse (or better), as the numbers continue to drop. There is always articles in the local paper about getting the youth more motivated and engaged in the democratic process. Overall in Canada, voter turnout has been dropping since the 70's but increasingly so among the 18-35 year old group. Does anyone have an idea of why this may be? I know that apathy and cynicism are often cited as the likely causes. I am just wondering if the younger generation are more inclined to, or open to the ideas of anarchy and peaceful society. I have never voted and was an anarchist from the start, I just didn't know it, and was not versed in the philosophy and ethical arguments.

We are always reminded to the famous quote "all that is required for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing". I think it is more accurately restated as "all that is required for evil to prosper is for it to masquerade as that which is good and necessary". I think it is useful, in the simplest and most engaging way, to show people the blatant moral and rational contradiction that they are holding on to by supporting the state. We all understand the NAP and live by it in our day to day lives yet believe that society cannot function unless it is violated.

I have not been around the forum much lately, I noticed that you had not been posting either dsayers. good to see you back, I like your posts a lot. @very ape, please read dsayers and rosecodex's posts again, then read them again, you clearly do not understand what is going on here.

hmmm, forum member for over 3 years, almost 900 posts,... writes "providing affordable housing" and "many government programs to help both buyers and sellers",... hmmm.

If you are raised with good parents in a loving and supportive environment, you will automatically seek out and attract that into your life. It will be familiar to you and you will naturally shun the opposite. If you had a difficult and traumatic childhood, you will find yourself surrounded by the like as an adult. I don't think we have a lot of control over our internal subconscious triggers, when your are around abusive manipulative people, they will press your buttons, make you feel bad. people can pretend to be nice, compassionate, empathetic, curious and interested in your well being, but they cannot hide their past. ask the right questions of anyone that wants to be close to you and you will find out fast.

I did not say that people are not interested in current events. I acknowledge that most people care about certain things, including football scores and who Tom Cruise is dating, so what does that tell me? and you did not answer my questions.

What happens in the world is important? What does that mean? To whom, and in what way? You address this topic as if there is something that we can do about it. Then you say that the tactics of the political class are 'interesting' to some people. Important, interesting,... so what is the post about?

I don't understand why this stuff should matter to me. What is the point of bringing this up? You understand what kind of forum this is right? I know the political circus show can be entertaining and even compelling. Trump, or Hillary, or whichever member of the ruling class you want to focus on, may have a bad influence on the state of affairs, and,....?

Interesting. You are suggesting it is a good idea to hang around with wicked people that are out to deceive and manipulate so you can get good at recognizing their signals and behavior? As a life strategy though? I know this works because I have learned a lot about non virtuous people by knowing some and being close enough to them to see how they operate. I would not want to seek them out though. What about the opposite? Find virtuous people and learn to recognize them. As someone has mentioned it would be more automatic is we were raised by good people. I am reminded of the Alanis Morrisette song about telling dad to be good to her daughter so she will grow up to recognize goodness.

the following is an article written by the political columnist in the local newspaper in my small city here in Canada (federal election coming up). this reporter is also interesting in having a discussion with me about anarchy, thinking that it would make for a good article. I know these are the same old cliches and patented arguments for voting but I would still like to hear your best rebuttals. Exercise voting freedoms I know people who don’t vote and are so stubborn in their beliefs it’s pointless to try and convince them otherwise. They’ll grumble and complain, express deeply held opinions on the country’s political leaders — an attitude that can be summed up pretty much by “a pox on them all.” They’ll disagree when told they have no right to complain if they do nothing to shape the system. Here’s the thing, though; it’s that kind of attitude that has given rise to the perplexingly large number of bigots who cherry-pick the Bible and now believe they can be the president of the United States. It’s that attitude that gives rise to the truly silly debate I see on my Facebook page between a couple of avowed right-wingers and an equally rabid pair of left-wingers who seem to think logical political discourse is to fling insults at each other. A caller this week said his belief in the obligation we all have to vote comes from history — and from the thousands of Canadians who died in places like Vimy, Ypres, Passchendaele and, more recently, in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the caller put it, he votes because of the sacrifices the Canadian military have made. Frankly, that’s good enough for me but I belong to the generation that was impacted by the Second World War, who met Americans fleeing their country to avoid the Vietnam War. I’ve listened to the stories of Canadians who survived and came home, many of them disabled physically or mentally. Those reasons aren’t always good enough for the younger set, that lost group of souls so disillusioned with society that they don’t take the time to vote. It’s possible many of them will never be swayed from their stance — but let’s try anyhow. Reasons to vote: • Government creates the infrastructure we live in. • Government sets the rules that guide our economy — you know, that place where jobs come from. • Government even influences where you vacation; when our dollar dips, a lot of places look less inviting. • Government tells you who our enemies are — and, in this election, if that’s not enough reason to go out and vote, I don’t know what is. • Government decides how much privacy — another human right — we actually have and, again, that is a major issue in this federal election. Finally, the best reason to vote? Because we have the freedom so many others in the world do not have.

Well done Wasatchman, I agree. I find phrases like the ones highlighted in blue to be problematic. Statists are always looking for ways to create and implement ways to manage other people so words like 'creating' 'abolishing' 'establishing' and so on sound too much like impositions to me. Convincing people of the value of the NAP and letting things happen they way the will when people adopt it works for me. What the heck does that mean? that does not sound like self defense to me, sounds a lot like the justification used to start wars all over the world.

If previous market trends hold, then there is another bubble burst right around the corner (every 7 years it seems) - perhaps this fall. If you are financing a large portion and interest rates get pushed up in the 'correction', then you need to consider how that will impact you as well. I'd wait a few months and see what plays out. good luck.

If you could take control of an adults mind by some means, and against their consent, program them to believe certain things knowing it would affect their actions and decision making, would that be OK?

curious to know what you mean by 'like minded' Codex and what you think an organization like this might provide that would be of interest to you. Why is the quote on the tent compelling to you?

to be clear, I feel no guilt. and for the record I agree with Stef, donating IS the right thing to do (with FDR that is). It really is not a big deal, I just don't like when people contradict themselves, if that is in fact what is going on here. To do be clear again, I expect most people to contradict themselves, its disappointing when it comes from someone I respect for having integrity and consistency.

no one has addressed the argument I am trying to make. you can try reading my posts again or ask questions to help me re-frame it in a way that is helpful.

Not saying people don't imagine the illusion of citizenship and social contract exist, but it doesn't, and its immoral. that is what the question is about. Just because something is culturally accepted, institutionalized, and historically persistent, like slavery, does that it is rational or ethical.