James Dean

I suppose I didn't really have masses or church services in mind, though I agree, they are dreadfully boring. When I have the displeasure of being forced t go, I try to access my inner anthropologist and see it from the angle of, "human beings are fascinating, aren't they?" But my smug detachment just makes it more of a snorefest... I guess I was thinking like Buddhist rituals, but not exclusively. It could really apply to any personal or small group ritual, i think the key would be participating. Maybe like a hippy-dippy drum circle or other nature based religion, you get a bunch of friends together and burn some herbs, offer up some food and dance around a fire while drinking a lot of wine. If understood that it was all total fantasy, it could still produce some sort of altered or exalted state of mind that could lead to something valuable. I'm interested to know what you guys think, i'm just kind of thinking on my feet here. Interesting point. This gets at something else, maybe not , "religion as a hobby," but more the inherent value of mythology. Maybe that could be extended to talk about religion as sort of 'participatory mythology'... hmmm

so you are saying that there is something inherently bad in religion? I'll give you that there is something inherently morally reprehensible in presenting falsehood as truth, as a lot of churches are wan't to do, but when if there was an implicit or explicit recognition that it was all just fantasy, kind of a role play, would that still be inherently evil? if so, is DnD inherently evil?

I was giving you examples of arguments that had an impact with me when I was a statist, the beauty of the DRO model is one of the things that made me "see the light" so to speak and start really investigating libertarianism and market anarchism. Use those arguments on your statist friends, use the moral arguments that Stef puts out there. Continue to point out that a DRO system would be voluntary, that you would have recourse, etc.

I get the exact same argument, how can they not see the distinction?

I have an interesting theory for you guys, and it makes sense to me, I just wanted to get some feedback for it. I'm an atheist, and have been for pretty much my whole life. I think that organized religion is destructive to society and corrupts people's minds with magical thinking that prevents them from thinking objectively about reality. However, the other day I was thinking, would it be possible for people to know there is no god, know there is no mysticism in real life, think with 100% clear headed objectivism, and still enjoy the ritual and the practice of religion. Who knows what their motivation might be, maybe they are a cultural enthusiast and just want to experience the ritual, maybe they are just drawn to the symbolism and find the poetry beautiful and inspiring, what have you. If they understood that it was all pretend, that it was just a 'for fun' kind of thing, would it still be as destructive or even negatively impact people at all? In my sociology class, we were reading a few excerpts form Emile Durkheim, and he discussed that human beings like to gather together in groups and that it gives them a rush of creative energy, the likes of which would be impossible individually... without copious amounts of drug use that is. Maybe these gatherings and rituals would be benign if people understood it was all fantasy; roll playing akin to civil war reenacting and regular everyday theater. The only problem I could find would be the susceptibility of humans to do destructive things while in a state of group think. If these meetings or rituals were being preformed, the people involved would be in a state of group think, with all the juicy deindividuation that goes along with it. If someone wanted to corrupt a group it would be pretty easy, like an instant cult, "just add water!" Let me know what you guys think!

In a way, that's exactly what elections are.

I agree that directly it doesn't have anything to do with DRO model directly, but from a statist point of view, it can be easy to fall into the trap of "well thats not really different from what we have now, ergo, welfare state!"

I think what OP is trying to say is that in a taxation system, we sign a W-2, which is like a contract with the government. While this is just ridiculous because trying to sign a contract with a monopoly of immoral force is just lunacy, just ask the native americans who had perfectly clear and legal contracts that were just ignored by the US and then were forced to march thousands of miles to barren, infertile land that we had no use for. The W-2 form, however is required before you can work, just like DRO coverage would be required before you can work, and do a whole lot of other important economic actions. You do have the "choice" to not sign either, although in the government model i'm in no way convinced they'd just let you not sign a W-2, but the result is essentially economic suicide. In response I think the main differences lie in the different realms the two institutions operate on, the taxation system is based on violence and you are not really a consumer, you are livestock. In the DRO model you are the free consumer and have the power to take your business elsewhere. If your DRO is doing something you find to be reprehensible, like dealing false rulings, harassing innocent people, and so on, you can just sign a new contract with a different DRO. Even if the DRO is doing something like raising your premiums and they're no longer in your budget range you can switch service, a positive move for you economic wellbeing and therefor the economic wellbeing on the whole. When the government does something you find reprehensible, you have zero course of action. zilch. nada. none. hope this helps.