powder

theft is taking property without consent. You must have a different definition. People consent to be taxed, even if they may agree that it is a good idea, it is not voluntary. If they had the choice they would likely decline. If they consent to it, then it is not theft. what prolix said.

What does 'better' mean? Maybe you have some sort of subjective definition of 'theft' that you are not sharing. Does an unethical person think that theft is more profitable or a more efficient way to get resources? Maybe. But we are not talking about that. If someone believes that theft (taking property without consent) is preferable to cooperation then they would not try to hide their intentions or actions and they would not mind if you took their stuff. Why sneak into a person's house when they are not at home to take their stuff, or hold them up in a dark alley at gunpoint?

good points on the gold issues, thanks for the responses.

This makes my head spin. the free market doesn't have morality, its a concept. people's behavior is ethical or it isn't. Violence is Ok for the 'utilitarian' (whatever that means) result of avoiding having underpaid workers? People are paid based on the value they provide to others, forcing others to subsidize wages is theft. If by subjective you mean not universally accepted then sure, but If someone believes or claims that theft is better than cooperation, that rape is better than consensual sex, that violence and coercion are moral, then they are just wrong and misguided. I was wondering why I had to press 'see it anyway' for someone with only 50 posts - now I get it. what are you doing here?

I can certainly see in the exchanges you are having with him that you would find him bothersome. Mostly I find dsayers writing on the nature of government and property rights esp to be brilliantly clear and to the point. I have learned a lot by reading his posts. Sometimes I do find dsayers writing to to obtuse, esp in the kinds of exchanges that are happening in this thread, I have to read over his stuff at least a couple of times to unravel what he is saying on occasion. I find that with your writing too sometimes Kevin, but that may be just me, I am still getting accustomed to this kind of dialogue. that is only because they have not made the connection that minimum wage is violence.

I have a defiant streak, grew up with violence and bullying. I used to be resistant and arrogant with authority figures like cops and customs officers, luckily I only got tickets and had my car torn apart with searches. I like to think I am smarter about this stuff now and I act friendly and polite and as cooperative as I can be with anyone that has the ability of mess up me or my life.

I do think that statements like the ones highlighted, and characterizing things as manipulative and shaming are offensive, its like calling someone a dick. I asked dsayers to respond to this in 2 recent posts, one of them is off in moderation land apparently.

I still don't see how insults and personal attacks are of any value, esp here. I have heard and seen Stef being called many things, I have also listened to a few of his rebuttals, and he simply argues and I don't recall ever seeing or hearing him insult someone. Passive aggression and covert hostility are not OK. I think if you want to help someone see that you can call them out on it or walk away. Framing insults by saying things like "calling a spade a spade", "call it like I see it", "not sugarcoat" and so on seems like an attempt to make it sound like an objective truth.

Fair enough, the claim of you not expressing feelings in the thread was not accurate, and the timing lapse is there, still, that is not the part of his critique that I thought was poignant, you did not address that part.

I have always found that a thing is only as good as the person who is leading it. If you find a good instructor, that is everything. I had to laugh about the story of your fat instructor. One of the reasons I took up marital arts was for this reason. I grew up getting smothered by assailants who were bigger and stronger than me (older brothers included), I was always small and light as a kid. I would get panicky and freaked out if I was held down and smothered in the way you describe. That is why I preferred Karate to Judo, I wanted to be able to kick and punch my way out of these situations. Man, I had a violent childhood. thanks for sharing your stories and perspectives on this subject Zelenn.

@ dsayers. I read this thread, and also the one you referenced regarding gender issues and I could see that esp in that thread, you asked some straight forward questions that were not addressed. That happens to me too, certainly more often in my day to day life because I tend to ask questions that people don't want to address, or that make them feel uncomfortable, but here too sometimes. I agree with what you are saying here, I also think what Robert wrote in that other thread is valid and you did not address it (see below). Calling you a dick and your statements 'crap', not so much. Accusing someone of being manipulative and saying that their words "struck you" as if they were manipulative (aka you "felt" they were manipulative) is the same thing. Expressing feelings of discomfort would be saying something like "I felt hurt when you said that". You actually never once mentioned your feelings in this entire thread, instead you chose to mention what you thought was occurring to you or what you thought others were doing in the thread. (ex. 'marginalized', 'alienated', 'manipulated', 'shame me', etc)

what is wrong with anger? Looks to me like you have good reasons to be angry. Do you generally not feel calm outside of your Aikido practice? Since the title says contained the words "self knowledge" I thought I would ask. I too grew up being bullied, and being a bully too sometimes. I took up martial arts because violence was part of my upbringing and I wanted to be better than other people at it so I could defend myself better - spent years developing my skills. I stayed away from the more esoteric and 'philosophical' disciplines and the styles like Aikido (tried it briefly) and classes that focused mostly on forms and went straight to the sparring, combat oriented schools. I even got into full contact for a short time until I found out I didn't mind knocking people over with kick to the head but I didn't care much for getting thumped myself. I heard a lot of the rhetoric around the focus on self discipline and character building and the like, and the fitness side of it, I even preached it myself from time to time. I am naturally quite athletic and always have been physically active in sports. Still, I don't think I would have been drawn to martial arts, esp as a method for achieving self knowledge, if I had not had a traumatic childhood. That was a long time ago for me and I haven't had an urge to go back to the practice for any reason.

I agree that precious metals are more durable and less maintenance than other commodities like cows, and of course the state can outlaw anything they want. what are the chances that they would outlaw owning cattle or toilet paper or cans of beans? next to none. They know it would cause revolt and threaten their authority. But gold has been under the control of the money changers since the time of ancient Babylon and it is still under the umbrella of 'currency' and so confiscating, controlling and making laws for its use and ownership are much more likely, and generally perceived as legitimate in the mind of the statist. someone will always want gold? maybe, but its value is at the mercy of the money changers and its ownership and trade ability controlled by the state, just like fiat currency.

that was great! I love that stuff. thanks for sharing Yagami.

Josh, can you rephrase the question "does it work" to "is looting as effective way to .......... ?"

I understand, but in the event of the collapse of the fiat currency (which is the reason I hear it is suggested to get precious metals) I still don't see how gold, which is regulated and can even be made illegal to possess, is a better investment than say a herd of cows, or a barn full of toilet paper, or bitcoin,.. what am I missing?

If you are worried that things will get worse in Canada because of who gets to be the public puppet, I don't share your concern. Of course the powers that be want to put someone in the public eye that has a massive appeal to help them garner support for their programs, I don't think it matters who it is. The problem of state power needs to be addressed from first principles. Otherwise you end up in a left/right style debate over who should be on the throne rather than acknowledging that there should not be a throne.

I don't know about the 'truth about' idea, the truth is simple really: the initiation of the use of force is evil, therefore governments are evil. I also know that Trudeau was in power when Canada turned over control of its monetary system to the international banking cartel - from 40 billion deficit to 500 billion in 3 decades. I also don't think it is true that politicians are the real power behind the state, people like Trudeau and Obama are just really good public figures to have out front. I live in Canada and I don't think it matters if Justin Trudeau gets into power or Ronald McDonald, the results will be the same. Hey, I think I just did a 'truth about' rant!

I don't think I have changed the subject, you did not define 'control'. I am not clear about what it means to "have control over privately owned goods" in this context. I have control over my paper money. Gold could drop to $175 an ounce tomorrow. the value, quantity in circulation, availability, access to, etc. precious metals is all controlled, and not by the man on the street, as it is for fiat currencies. what control do you have over gold that you do not have over paper money?

looks like I had better quit with the metaphors.

I have studied lots of history. scottish independence, really? the greatest experiment in freedom the human race has every know has turned into one of the biggest tyrannies the world has ever seen, simply because people are blind to the root problem - and it isn't about standing up to the beast. At the risk of fogging with another analogy - you don't fight the beast, you starve it to death. None of the violence has worked, less freedom with each passing century and war; what world are you looking at?

OK, got it. you did understand the analogy then. that speech is insane - fighting for the freedom to be a scottish countryman, unreal. how did that work out? not too good for braveheart either. I have been called a pacifist, I prefer to think of myself as an empiricist instead - violence, war, and violent revolutions never work to create more freedom, never have, quite the opposite in fact, the evidence is abundant. Yes, it was the dream of a handful of oligarchs. freedom is our natural state, liberty is that which is granted by the overlords. freedom is not taken from us, we give it away.

you think you have control over the value of gold and silver? Can you explain how that works?

I think it is interesting that someone would think that precious metals are not controlled.

I think having ownership of a single independent unit within a coop type situation has less potential headaches and disputes like the type Pepin is outlining. I recently read in the local newspaper about 3 couples that decided to share ownership of a house they are all living in. I couldn't help but imagine some of the situations that could easily create conflicts.