shirgall

Stefan only comments on rational counters, and offers to move people with rational arguments against his philosophical works to the top of the call-in lists. A quick thoughtful question to [email protected] is all it takes. I'm more curious as to why you thought the video was important to bring up. What arguments were shown to be invalid?

I don't buy it. I can't think of a single right that cannot be infringed. The whole point of the Constitution (and documents similar to it) is to codify that such infringements are forbidden and there are consequences for infringing them. The fact that what rights are codified in these various documents makes it clear that there is no universal understanding of what those protected rights should be. Your willingness to choose an internal state doesn't matter if they kill you if you don't choose correctly. How does that make the right to choose inviolable? They want you to obey and submit. I don't think the actors in your scenario care what you actually believe. My focus on on coercion, not persuasion. Those who rely on coercion do not respect rights.

I'm sorry to hear that. I admit that I was tempted to throw my hat in the ring a couple of times but didn't go through with it because I thought the call wouldn't be good "radio", so to speak.

(With regards to the "dating younger is creepy" comment... I was always taught the universal rule is that no one of whatever of the myriad of genders should date someone younger than half their age plus seven.)

I think the audiobook (from audible.com) is an upsell if not separately priced product.

Agreed. I never claimed it was valid, only that the concept exists.

Indeed, it's called "post-scarcity".

I'm summarizing what I felt was the essence of several discussions. When Stefan questions a caller, it's not because he doesn't have some idea of what the answer is, he's exploring how the caller thinks about the issue. One reason to do this is to gain common understanding of a topic. Another is to obtain clarity on what is being discussed. Sometimes the definition part of a discussion can lead to conclusions without actually having to argue. I think we have stepped beyond clarification and into some other discussion. Where are we going?

Stefan doesn't respond to the forums, he would prefer that people work on their questions and send a note to [email protected] to get on the show and discuss them. That being said, you cannot point to something and say "that's a 'right'". All concepts don't exist except as ideas that can be communicated and evaluated. Rights, in general, are inherent and unalienable... you cannot separate them from people. They are actions people can take that others should not interfere with. Free speech means being able to say whatever you want without interference. Property rights means being able to own yourself and your output without it being taken from you, or destroyed. Rights only exist to the extent that others respect them. Because they are different from culture to culture, and state to state, they are therefore difficult to claim as universal. To the extent that they are universal, if not first principles, they rightly enter philosophical discussions.

Most of the book is about evaluating and countering normative statements, without the vocabulary. I look forward to hearing how you feel when you finish your read!

Stefan has recommended "The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem" by Nathaniel Branden:

I think Soros put his money into charity to protect it from seizure. I think the rogue elements of antifa are paid to be rogue elements and the majority have no idea what is going on. I think the Nov 4 "riots" and the buzz to lead up to them are an effort to keep the "right is fascism" idea alive in the media. The best thing we can do is ignore bad behavior and immediately quash threatening behavior, as it affects all of these things: money used to promote violence can still be seized, peaceful antifa will leave demonstrations and groups that are violent, and if the only fascist behavior comes from antifa, their meme dies on the vine.

The entire interview process, just like dating, is looking for a reason to say "no, this is not the one".

Look at it from an employer's perspective... what is a degree evidence of? It indicates the ability and knowledge to pass certain coursework, including some larger projects, assessed independently. There are other ways to obtain and provide this evidence. Employers especially appreciate accomplishment more than effort. It is true that certain professions use degrees or certifications as a gatekeeper, especially medicine, law, and professional engineering. There's not much choice there.

People who advocate coercion used against you and are not willing to listen to you (let alone change) are hideous sinks of time and effort. How is that not akin to harm? Get them out of your lives.

I submit this as evidence that lorry does not listen to the show.

So, you said I defined it, and then said I didn't define it. Yup /thread

FYI, you answered a "How?" question with a "What" answer. The objective standard by which answers to "How?" questions are evaluated is a minimally-necessary list of assumptions, claims, and logically-valid steps that lead to your conclusion, not a book. This is not the same as people who ask questions about UPB who clearly haven't read the book where the answer to their question appears, because you made the claim "values are objective, not subjective". The libertarian definition of force is shorthand for coercion by another through threat of or commission of violence, the seizure of private property, or limitation of liberty through imprisonment or interference.

Because my definition is clear, simple, and complete, and comprises all of the necessary elements of "theft": consent, property, and taking. All three elements have to be present: the taking of property without consent. There is no need to make it more complex or eliminate elements because they are inconvenient.

UPB does give a standard of value: universally-preferable behavior, and a methodology for evaluating actions against that. It eliminates certain behaviors from being universally preferable and it clearly sets for the necessary axioms for using the methodology. I've never claimed the NAP is the only value or even a fundamental tenet (I've written on the subject a lot on this board). We're still talking about definitions, and you are jumping to the end. What is it you do not accept with the definition of theft, and consent, here? Is it because of the conclusion that such definitions will lead to?

As a father, telling this to one's daughter never works. I feel like everyone wears makeup to look 16 no matter what their age is.

Giving consent is not just acceptance of an action, and also acceptance of the consequences of the action. If I order a hamburger at a restaurant I'm not just accepting the offer of a hamburger but also the obligation of paying for it. Let's use an example other than taxation: I don't consent to searches. I never verbally permit searches. If someone searches my house, person, or vehicle, whether or not they have a warrant, it wan't with my consent. I'm not going to fight it if it happens legally, though, because I know I'd lose that kind of fight. Is a search moral? Maybe a lifting the veil of privacy is not as big a deal as a taking of property or person, but neither this construction, or the taking construction, ignore my preference. I'm not sure why you think it's relevant. I have verbally told people I vote against taxes, and I do in fact vote against taxes. I am stating my preference not to be stolen from.

Females shave body hair for the same reason they wear makeup, to look younger and more fertile. The cultural reinforcement of this is long-standing.

Since a considerable amount of effort is expended on "informed consent" in medical practices and "explicit continuous consent" in campus rape cases, it's clear that consent *can* be analyzed and is therefore not irreducible. The fact that I insist that consent must be freely given and is not equivalent to a lack of resistance under duress indicates that consent is be analyzed. If there are irreducible primaries, they might be "existence exists", "consciousness exists", and that things are themselves. Free will and consent derive from these axioms, they are not equivalent to them.