[is morality subjective?]

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.  

[is morality subjective?]

If someone believes that theft is better than cooperation, they might be wrong according to your beliefs, but not according to their subjective beliefs.  This is why morality is subjective.  Are you familiar with Austrian economics which promotes the concept that value is subjective?

 

If I ask you if a particular behavior is ethical, you may reply 'yes' or 'no'.  If I ask someone else, they may reply differently than you.  Therefore your statement that "people's behavior is ethical or it isn't" is incorrect.  

 

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?  

["Bank deposits will soon no longer be considered money but paper investments"]

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

[is morality subjective?]

And when they are enlightened to learn that the minimum wage is violence, they will hold the subjective belief that this petty violence is well worth the utilitarian result of avoiding having underpaid workers.  They will subjectively believe that their morality is better than the morality of the free market.  Therefore morality is subjective.

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?  

[is morality subjective?]

 

And the conclusion I was referring to that we came to was simply that he's bothersome. Additionally, I would add the passive aggressive bit, and I think for my own sanity: obtuse. I really would love to get a second opinion about that last one, though. Sure, I was using unnecessary jargon as Rob pointed out, but if you were actually trying to understand, I think you could get it. Rob did, and then explained it much more simply, lol.

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.  

People have different subjective moral beliefs, such as believing that the minimum wage is just, while some people believe it is unjust.  Those who believe it is just will teach the same to their children.  Those who believe it is unjust will also teach their children to believe what they believe.  

that is only because they have not made the connection that minimum wage is violence.  

[Another one bites the dust. at the hands of the cops.]

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.  

[is morality subjective?]

I think I hit the "mark forum as read" link while some posts were not yet live. These posts never crossed my radar. Luckily another thread gave me reason to search this one out.

 

 

Assertion. For those interested in the (in)accuracy of it, Mr. Beal is referring to this thread. Note the bump for no reason other than to say, "This guy is back." Given the gross misrepresentation of this quote, I'm guessing you thought it made me look bad, as you did then. I've shared that thread with others when they wonder why on the boards I don't often allow myself to be vulnerable even though I used to and when I am, I'm honest and direct. They too were blown away, both by how such prominent members could use such unphilosophical approaches to avoid their bias and that I managed to not stoop to that level of personal attacks.

 

Saying "X is not an argument" is not saying "the person who provided X is a terrible person." I'm not telling you something you don't already know. You word it that way not because it's honest or even because you believe it to be honest. It's a form of doubling down and throwing your weight around, neither of which are healthy ways of interacting with other people. These are things that previously I would've thought to be uncharacteristic of you, which is why I continued to hold you in high regard despite one misstep one time. I'm sorry to hear that even if your representation of that one time were accurate, you wouldn't do the same.

 

You didn't answer my questions here: "If "theft, assault, rape, and murder is immoral" (I never mentioned UPB; see above obfuscation) is an objective claim and an accurate overview of morality, then how does saying things like epistemic vs ontological, morality EXISTS, and morality is subjective at all helpful? And how do you classify that as a bad question?" No, you don't have to care that I don't see the relevance. I'm guessing by this lash out that you do care to not be corrected. I'm guessing this is why in a recent thread, when I challenged your position that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, you just sort of gave up, but not as a form of accepting your own capacity for error.

 

 

 

I didn't realize that holding somebody accountable for their own attempts at being understood was being a dick. I didn't realize that asking questions in order to understand was not taking the time to understand. I do realize that this lack of rationality is an attempt to erase another person in order to manage your own anxiety as the result of irrationally regarding somebody as if infallible. The good news is that my pointing this out gives you another opportunity to use downvoting as an ideological WEAPON against me

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.  

 

And you're not alone. Dsayers says that people have commented to him privately that his detractors are jerks and don't know what they are talking about.

 

I am alone if they called you jerks.  name calling and insults are what I am questioning.  I read the responses to Ana Kasparians review of one of Stef's videos and she was accused of ad hominems and baseless assertions rather than making arguments, that is what I like about this place.  In Stef's follow up to his debate with PJ he made arguments and I don't recall him saying anything about PJ personally.  PJ responded to that with some pretty dandy insults.  It just made me lose (more) respect for him.  

 

I also know that Rob, Prolix and I are not the only ones who've arrived at this conclusion, either. You can refer to when Dsayers accused Rob of simply believing anything I say simply because I said it, because I have status or something (post #35), for one example of this.

 

what conclusion?  example of what?  that he is a jerk?  

 

What value does calling someone a "dick" bring? Well it forces this necessary conversation for one. Whether or not it's "ok" (whatever that means) it is (if we are right) a response to aggression. It makes no sense logically to criticize the person who responds to aggression unless their response is way beyond necessary, like if Rob started making threats or something.

 

I did not say it was not OK to call someone a dick, I don't know, I am exploring that idea, like you say, it is a conversation worth having - I said it was not OK to be passive aggressive.  

 

Imagine how frustrating it would be if you got slapped in the face and when you got mad about it, people try and manage you by telling you that no, actually you didn't get slapped in the face. They appeal to nice platitudes around how you shouldn't be confrontational and that we should all get along, all the while the face slapper is receiving sympathy.

 

I get that, do you think that is what I am doing?  I think, like I said before, that if a person is being aggressive they can be confronted on it in the spirit of self-knowledge, or you can walk away if they are not willing or able to address it.  I am suggesting that that is more productive than insults and the kind of thing that dsayers has done.  

 

You don't see it? Well, how about all the framing of me that I cannot take any criticism ever? (post #35 again)

 

 

There is nothing wrong with confrontation. Dsayers is a big boy. He can handle some salty words.

 

I agree, but why not say personal attacks and insults instead of  'salty words' - isn't that a platitude? 

[is morality subjective?]

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.  

[is morality subjective?]

In that thread, I had expressed feeling helpless, I had expressed confusion, pride, and feeling ostracized. I didn't respond to Mr. Rak's 8 June post because I hadn't seen it in a timely fashion. That thread motivated me to take my leave of this place. My post history shows a gap from 6 June to 15 September (during which I hadn't even lurked). Looking at my PMs, I didn't again come across the topic until 3 November when I was explaining to somebody why I don't allow myself to be vulnerable here often anymore. It was at that time that I saw Mr. Rak's post and felt it would not be productive or timely to respond to since his claim was demonstrably false.

 

For what it's worth, I did initially give him the benefit of the doubt, knowing that I'm not very good at expressing feelings in ways that are easily identifiable as the sharing of feelings. However, after a quick skim of the thread, it is clear to me that the claim that I had not shared any feelings was not accurate.

 

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.  

[Martial Arts training as a means of Self Knowledge.]

Zelenn,

 

Thanks for the stories. They were insightful. I would like any disciple that endorses the non-aggression principle.

 

I apologize if I came off as annoyed with martial arts. I wanted to try out martial arts as a kid, but I don't think my parents wanted to pay for it as I had been golfing since I was six or seven, which is not a cheap sport. In college, I took a semester of Judo, which was fun to learn, but I despised the instructor who was a morbidly obese Olympic Judo has-been. He typically chose me to demonstrate moves. One day, he had me in some sort of head lock/arm bar and I was forced to breathe from his armpit for at least five minutes. I had to go to my happy place to endure his smell. He also nagged me about my hair length, saying that in a tournament, my opponent would be well within his right to tear my hear out to win the match, as if I was eager to compete at that level. I just wanted to learn the moves and have fun sparring. He never picked on any of the women in the class for having long hair.

 

I am turned off by martial arts in general. As with anything, you have to search far and wide to get a good instructor.

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.  

[is morality subjective?]

@ 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)

[Martial Arts training as a means of Self Knowledge.]

Its not rude.

 

MOSTLY, typical kids in school. What was not typical about the experience was the degree of violence involved. Knife fights. Fighting multiple kids at once... in a construction site armed only with a 2x4. Drowned in a sewer. Etc etc. And I wasn't even 12 years old yet after these experiences I've mentioned.

 

On a significantly lesser note; parents spanked me and not very often at all, baby sitters beat me and my sister with switches. Ya know... Typical childhood.

 

I never thought a martial art would be where I would feel calm. I tried MANY martial arts before Aikido and all of the others made me feel very uncomfortable. They were so violent and placed a premium on being aggressive and dominating. Of course, placing myself in a fighting situation like BJJ or when I dabbled in boxing, brought out a lot of anger and some of my very not nice qualities.

 

Aikido doesn't do that. Aikido is an overtly philosophical martial art. I don't agree with most of Aikido philosophy (its derived heavily from Shinto religion and Zen confusions), but Aikido does have at its core, what is basically the Non Aggression Principle.

 

This makes Aikido incredibly unique as fighting systems go.

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.  

["Bank deposits will soon no longer be considered money but paper investments"]

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.  

[The most amazing magic I have ever seen]

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

[Peaceful Protests Change Nothing, but Looting Does!]

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

["Bank deposits will soon no longer be considered money but paper investments"]

No one has the control over the value of anything. Gold, silver, palladium, iridium, and Light Coins are simply worth what someone will pay or exchange for it. The only reason government-issued dollars have any real value is because it is unlawful to refuse to take them when doing business. Since everyone knows dollars are inherently worthless and you have to use them, practically no one trades gold as a form of currency. People are reluctant to cash in or spend the the things that have actual value, like gold. This is Gresham's Law in action.

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?  

[Truth About Pierre Elliott Trudeau]

You misunderstand, I am in no way making a claim that he was anything beyond horrible or necessarily any different from the vast majority of politicians. What I am saying is that there is a large public perception of him having been a positive example and this perception of him lends unjust creditability to his son. The "just watch me" mentality of Trudeau needs to be exposed.

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.

[Truth About Pierre Elliott Trudeau]

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!  

["Bank deposits will soon no longer be considered money but paper investments"]

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?  

[Debt: dun-dun-dunnnnnn! - But I refuse to pay?]

Yes! Starve the beast! Join the rebellion!

looks like I had better quit with the metaphors.  

[Debt: dun-dun-dunnnnnn! - But I refuse to pay?]

If only you could see yourself, little house cat, and truly see that you are a lion. 

 

Sorry, you should educate yourself on history.  “Violence, war, and violent revolutions” have achieved freedom many times.  Like Scottish independence and sovereignty from the brutal occupation of England, which I alluded to in the video, which you called “insane”.  Or how about the American revolutionary war, which was very violent.  That violence created, arguably, the greatest human experiment of freedom the human race has ever known.  History is full of violent revolutions, some leading to tyranny and others to freedom.   Like any tool humans have within themselves, it is the intent behind that tool that is virtuous or non-virtuous.

 

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?  

[Debt: dun-dun-dunnnnnn! - But I refuse to pay?]

I think this sums up my feeling on the subject.

 

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.  

 

Liberty was the American dream, not money - John Taylor Gatto

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.  

["Bank deposits will soon no longer be considered money but paper investments"]

 

Goods which are privately owned are not controlled.  Save by the owner.  That would be me. 

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

["Bank deposits will soon no longer be considered money but paper investments"]

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

[What are your thoughts on Cooperative Housing]

Or if the building was owned by a corporation of which every resident, and only the residents, were equal stock holders?

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.