powder

what contract? you must have a different definition of what a contract is.

andkon, you need to read my post again.

Larken Rose has the "government on trial" project going where he is going to send these 5 questions to 200 political philosophy profs. What do you think will be the responses? I can imagine some of the things that most people will say. 1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves? 2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which most people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right? 3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)? 4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own? 5) When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?

thanks for the responses, but I don't think my query has been addressed. I get it, it is good to support. Value for value. I don't feel guilty, FDR is not a religion and Stef is not a priest, I get that. "please and thank you" are different from "you should" and "do the right thing" NOT DONATING = BAD PERSON. And no, pastors and priest are not saying 'or else', there is no damnation for being cheap, those that say it are implying that you are bad for not donating. Was Stef criticizing the priest for doing what he himself was doing? I am not seeing the difference.

I think that Stef is doing remarkable and valuable work, and I respect his business model of relying on donations. Asking for people to help out the show, telling them how much it is needed and appreciated, and so on, brilliant. At some point in the past year I think, I noticed that he started doing something different. He made appeals to integrity and virtue with statements like, "you know it is the right thing to do..." "you should..." I won't try to quote or paraphrase what he said here any more than that, but just want to make the point. Then I heard him respond to a listener who told him he should not use tactics to make people "feel guilty". He said, "I do not have the power to make people feel anything, that is on them, I can ask for a million dollars if I want,..." Understood. Then in a recent call in conversation he criticized priests for using tactics of chastising and guilt to get people to donate. He said that it was not good, not because they don't have freedom to say what they will but because they knew that it was a 'button' that they could exploit. When someone knows you are sensitive in a certain area and knows they can manipulate you by targeting that 'weakness', not cool. I am not seeing how what he was doing was different, I was raised with the Catholic thing so it did make me cringe when he started to go there with his requests for donations. I have not heard Stef use these tactics lately, but I don't listen to everything by any means. I don't like it or respect it, but I would be curious to know if it was an effective strategy for getting donations. I would like to get some comments and feedback on this.

End, I think that is a very interesting post, I also think it should be the topic of another thread. Wasatchman, its still not clear to me what you are arguing for here though you are asking some good questions. My understanding of morality is that it concerns itself with the NAP - if you are not assaulting, stealing, murdering or raping, you are living a moral life. The fact that the Bible has all that stuff in it and is thought of to be some sort of moral tome for human living is a real problem for sure. Still, I talk to Christians about morality and not all Christians believe in the heaven/hell paradigm. They still all have a twisted sense of ethics, just like statists do, because they hold onto morally contradictory tenets. But I can still talk to Christians about morality just as I can talk politics with statists. So, what you saying is that if their understanding of morality is based on irrational and inconsistent information (bible stuff) then,... what exactly? I don't like that your post is downvoted without explanation.

I listened to it yesterday while I was working. very good, and important conversation Kevin. thanks for sharing.

I have friends that are Christians, and it is true that they are simply good people and would be with or without the religion. But the gathering place for them to get together is centered around church activities outside of church services - they call these social interactions 'fellowship' and it sure does make it easier to have a 'community' where relationships and friendships can develop. That is a good thing and like Stef said, where else are you going to get that? Not too many anarchist 'communities'. My nephew is living alone in Toronto on disability $ from the government - he is badly messed up from a traumatic childhood. I think the best option for him might be to join some sort of church community where he can have social interaction with people that will look out for him. There isn't much in society that can do that for him outside of churches.

Ok, I have to ask. "God is a verb", what does that mean? I like the phrase "non-dual contrarian."

I spent many years studying different spiritual traditions, including Kabbalah. I find this kind of thing interesting and some of the ideas quite compelling. That said, what I am really interested in learning is why you would think this would be a good place to post about this stuff, and what kind of response you are expecting to get to this kind of thing.

interesting. I have also read about how rock and roll, recreational drugs, and the hippie movement were started by these covert ops to derail the youth movement. I am not sure I see how influencing and supporting the arts can be a valuable tool in the cold war for the oligarchs though... the article goes into detail about how they wanted to foster this left wing liberal perspective in the US, but why would they care about that sort of thing?

you ask in all seriousness but can you tell me why I should take this seriously?

I read a book a few years back called "Vicars of Christ" a while back, sort of a biographical look at the history of the papacy. Francis is a cuddly kitten compared to some of those dudes.

looks like its just you and me here now RestoringGuy so I will bow out. this is beyond incomprehensible and I am not going to continue down that dark hole of random ideas without backup. ciao.

I remember reading at some point that the chances of a successful lasting marriage/relationship are inversely proportionate to the number of sexual partners that a woman has had, men too but less significantly. These kinds of choices do make it harder to have a sustainable long term relationship, esp for women. There is a biological imperative at work here, but it is not a moral issue.

Crackies, I understand this last post even less! What am I missing here? I'll ask again, can you define 'consent' for me? How is 'liking to smack' consent? You are talking principles, not property conventions. Again, I am stumped. what principles are you talking about? I thought this was about morality, which is about property rights. and what are 'property conventions'?

I'm sorry that you are not closer to your mom. The reason I asked what an ideal relationship to you would look like with your in-laws is because I wanted you to consider how much value they bring to you and your family. I never know what to think when people use phrases like 'really nice people'. Does that mean friendly with good social skills? Cuz that describes every politician and psychopath out there. Are they virtuous? If they are dishonest cowards that are not loving or supportive or empathetic then that certainly makes it easier to decide what kind of relationship you want to have with them and how close you want them to be to your children right? If they are good people then it may be worth having a close relationship while sharing your ideas with them and not flaming them all at once. It takes time to shift your mind and your emotional attachments, which is what 'faith' is. If they are good people and they are important to your wife then why not talk to them about their beliefs and listen to them with empathy and interest and curiosity? just my 2 cents. good luck

really? can you give a definition of consent please. I own my body and the effects of my actions. I worked to get money to pay for a car, it is mine. If you take it without my consent (theft) you are acting immoral, but you are not using physical force against me.

ethics are about consent, not the use of force. some people like to be smacked.

Good point Carl. Most Christians that I know are what I would call 'soft' Christians and do not adhere to the eternal damnation interpretation. also, the "universalist' movement (everyone gets redemption) is gaining a lot of traction in the Christian world these days. I don't find this position to be rational or morally sustainable but it is an upgrade and the nice people in the faith tend to like it.

I agree with jpahmad. appropriate and proportional self defensive is common sense and instinctively obvious to those who are not psychos or severely traumatized - hence my WTF reaction to Archimedes' response.

Uh, no. There is no social contract in a statist society either, it does not exist, no one signed anything or agreed to anything. It is a concept and has no legitimacy. also, what does you can use "whatever actions to defend myself" mean to you? do you think it OK to shoot someone that slaps you in the face?

what would you like from your in-laws? how would this all look in an ideal scenario for you?

good post

that made me laugh, thanks for that one Wasatchman!