Phuein

I've given this kind of extreme situation a lot of thought, and conclude with an answer. Solid answer for my taste. This happens all the time! The community made the previous unmentioned mistake of not making sure they have their own other options for water access. This is like not planting enough food, finding yourself starving. A mistake. It really does happen. After making such a critical mistake, the next option is either to get help or to aggress to survive. Without help, if really no other trade is possible, or not preferred, stealing is a much lesser evil than death. It's like the difference between rape or rape+murder. Neither is good, at all, both really bad, but the lesser evil is generally subjectively preferable. So you messed up. Steal to survive and deal with the consequences. Sometimes you even get the option of making up for your mistakes and immoral actions. Anyone who would rather die than deal with consequences is not logical. Of course, within all of this there is the argument of whether you would actually die, and not have other benign options. Always the case.

I've been listening to the show much less this previous year, so I can't mark exactly when the change happened. It's been a few weeks now that every time I listen to the show with my earbuds, the sibilance (S noise) is very harsh. I know my earbuds are somewhat sensitive to this issue, which is a common audio issue, but I listen to many podcasts and audiobooks without issue, so it's not the earbuds. I suspect Stefan either uses a Mic that's harsh on sibilance, or just the post-editing should have at least some de-essing done, which is a common post-production edit these days. Especially with audiobooks. Are others using earbuds suffering from this too? I find myself having to listen to the show only when in private, through speakers, sadly. Thanks for the consideration.

[This thread is not about global warming. It is about how prudent Freedomain Radio are, when reviewing popular topics in the mass-media.] I've recently watched a documentary, recommended by Joe Rogan, about how the same people who lie for one giant harmful corporation, get hired by the other similar organisations, to publicly lie for them, as well. Sow doubt, so to speak, so that no further action is taken. I'm not much about climate science and "global warming", but I did notice that the same people who claim against the existence and human-causality of global warming (i.e. saying there's no cause for worry), are the hoaxers being employed by the Oil corporations. >< Stefan released several videos (recent video) about "global warming", sowing doubt about the whole subject. Regardless of the topic itself, which is not of personal interest to me, I am alarmed to see Stefan on the side of the worst enemies to humanity. These guys are known to falsify data and give bribes; Stefan often links to mass-media articles, which might as well quote from sources impacted by these same people (multi-billionaires.) Is it prudent of Stefan and the FDR team to release opinionated videos about such popular topics that are strongly impacted by false information? False articles, false interpretations, false witnesses, and even false research. In the documentary, a woman took over two years to figure out some of the tricks these people use, to make-popular false conclusions! Merchants of Doubt Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ii9zGFDtc

You're misrepresenting my argument, again. I am strictly speaking about the masses being destructive. Individuals and small groups being destructive is none of my interest. I am not responsible for every conflict or harm in existence, and neither are you. If you make the pretense of being "world police" (responsible for everyone), then you'll be rightfully hated for it, and fail miserably in upholding such an impossible standard. Just like governments fail and are hated. [You're fundamentally mimicking the government.] The logical error of making an analogy between a government and a college fraternity, their capacity for destruction entirely dissimilar, is exactly why you need to be precise in your arguments, rather than talk about "trains". And again, I did not say that a government is a gang in disguise. I said that it is, by definition, the exact same thing as a mafia. Different names and attitudes, for the exact same type of organization. Also, it isn't that the people "gain control" through such organizations. It's that those evil few who control the masses, use the masses' resources to destroy and harm, for their own personal benefits. The masses are being threatened into this, and are too stupid to organize against it, efficiently. Just like cattle in a ranch. Notice that you are repeatedly misrepresenting my arguments, even though I have defined my terms very strictly. This means that you are not defining your terms strictly enough, which is why you stand in confusion, rather than reach conclusions. So, make sure you either agree with my definitions, or have strict and concise definitions of your own, for all relevant terms in this discussion.

Capitalism is a system of trade - whether involving a state or not, and has nothing to do with systems of governance. From Wiki: "The government of the United States of America is the federal government of the republic of fifty states..." Trade and capital don't have the pretense of coercion. That is the realm of governance; the state. So, yes, according to evidence, there is no reason to assume that any mass of people would congregate to become dangerous; without a government. Only a government regularly collects resources from the population, in order to become a menace, ever growing. And the drug cartels - which are more than a simple cartel (a trade organization), but a mafia (have an army), are just that. All mafias are that. A group of people who force themselves on a population. An equal definition to the government. Even the "protection" schemes work the same. A government is simply a mafia that had managed to take such control, that no other mafia is able to directly or publicly confront them. Take North Korea, for example. Their government is worse than many known mafia organizations, yet due to their power and control over the population, they are recognized as a "government". A meaningless distinction, when scrutinized against definitions.

No. Stop misrepresenting my argument. My argument is clear. This "institution to control them" is exactly the tool that lets them be so destructive, as a whole. Without such a tool, the idiot masses are unable to cooperate to such a degree; both in scale of people, and in scale of time. My experience with most people is negative, as well. Few perpetrate coercion, while the rest either ignore it, or encourage it for their own benefit. However, this doesn't mean that I should join in. I have set a logical standard of morality, for myself, which some others agree with and apply as well. So, the stupidity of others doesn't excuse my abusing them. This is akin to knowing that young people are less experienced, and thus easier to trick and con. Not a justification for doing so! I'm seeing two options for this dilemma, both of which should apply. The first is getting away from the masses; living in a remote place, where I'm not bothered, but still have access to technology. The second is applying a strategy - through environmental conditions, that encourages myself, and those around me, to grow towards a logical moral society; rather than over-populate and regress into a stupid mass; or even regress as a small group, which does happen. This strategy would, generally, emphasis Logic, self-defense, communications, and ecological sustainability. I suspect access to Research&Development would be crucial.

Responsibility over an object or person means that you both have authority over it, and that you are at fault if it threatens or harms others. Responsibility isn't being kind or caring. Those are separate terms. So, how you treat your family only regards your own utility of them - and is none of my interest. You are responsible for your children, however, and so you also have authority over them; and how they are raised to handle any such "trains". So that's up to you. But, it is very much in my interest to avoid you, if you clearly say that you cooperate with immoral people (statists) out of utility, while ignoring morality, because of the practical value it gives you. Were you just playing devil's advocate? I don't identify as a Libertarian. Also, evidence shows that cooperation with statists only reduces freedoms. Also, morality trumps utility, unless the issue is basic human needs being denied. Further, your obvious frustration with "people" is expected, when you try to be logical with those (statists) who practice initiating force on others. They are clearly illogical, won't bow down to evidence and reason, and thus aren't worthy allies. I cringed, when you said my argument supports the State. >< It doesn't. The State is the organization that gives the stupid masses the power, the ability, to congregate into a destructive force. Without it, the masses are too stupid to cooperate to the extent of causing such harm. They are aloof and idle, mostly.

Thanks. Authority can be used in both ways, and the context of the section is coercion, so it's not vague. I also clearly define it there, to avoid confusion. While sovereignty is used mostly within the context of states. Even in a personal context, it tends to borrow the word authority. I don't see why I should mention parental responsibility in the guide. The guide is intended for personal use, regardless of the social or familial situation. Or rather, I'm not seeing any rule that may apply only, or differently to parents. Do you think I'm missing something specific?

Thanks. I don't expect there to be more. I'll definitely edit it, for readability and correctness, but I intended it to be short and to the point. Do you feel it's lacking anything?

That argument is both a strawman - not what I said, and an argument from emotion. I said you aren't responsible for other people. There is, of course, utility in cooperating with others. Choosing who to cooperate with, finding them, and then how to do it, are the actual issues. Martin Niemoller was not responsible for what the Nazis did. Thinking that he should have or could have given more resistance, if at all, is useless rhetoric. Emotions. "We should have all known better. Done more." He made the mistake of thinking the Nazis won't abuse him, and so stayed to be abused later on. A utilitarian mistake, not a moral one. Your fear is justified. The stupid masses might ruin it for all of us; or for you, specifically. But it is also tautology... The hoards may always ruin it for everyone else, in many ways. They already are doing it, to many people; like myself. This is not a specific problem. There is no one train to stop, and even worse, those many trains are more complex, than a mere fast moving object on rails.

You were asking people to do something about a problem that they don't recognize. That won't work. People smoke cigarettes, when they're proven as harmful. The actual threat&response mechanism is intuitive rather than logical, for people without a strong foundation in logic. Immediate threats are different from complex threats. The threats you point out aren't akin to a train. They aren't immediate. A train going to hit you is immediate. Also very graphic. Finally, not only will you be attacked for this behavior, they would be justified in attacking you. You aren't responsible for others. If an old lady doesn't want my help crossing the road, then me badgering her about it won't do. :+D

Is it only for singles?

There is no reason for an employer to invest in you, unless they trust you, or have other leverages on you. All investments include risk. However, if you betray your first employer, and move to another, then others will know that you are not trustworthy. This may affect your professional future, and may be a great social-leverage on you, already. A responsibility over an agreement is outside of morality. The freedom to choose what you wish with your own body and property - at all times - is fundamental to morality. But how you treat other people, without threatening them, has no moral value. It's generally a good idea to be reliable, trustworthy, and kind to others, so you get similar treatment. But it's entirely a personal subjective choice, and no one can [properly] argue that you're a bad person, if you don't. Also, don't confuse "voluntary association versus free association", with the term "freedom of association." These are different terminologies. Who you associate with isn't sufficient for moral judgement. Below is google's definition of the latter. In my Guide, there former are defined. The term "association" is a sub-category of "make an agreement." So, instead of discussing who you spend time and identify with, the object of discussion is what agreements you have made with others; or simply, what you agree to do. To voluntarily agree with someone, does not mean that you must continue that agreement indefinitely, or for any period of time. You are free to agree or disagree, at all times. Without constant individual choice, morality becomes irrelevant. The simplest example is sexual consent. A person may agree to have sex at first, but later on disagree, and is entirely free to do so. If the other party insists, by force, because consent was already given, then it is rape. Obviously, a person who repeats such a behavior, will soon see themselves alone and disliked by the thirsty hoards.

I'm glad I ran into this discussion. I've given this question a lot of thought, over the years. Actually, I phrased my question differently: What is the harm in doing evil? Say murder, rape, or steal. Even insulting others, say out of spite. The idea of karma entertained me. The notion that all bad deeds eventually return to you. Seems fair. But it doesn't always happen... History tells of people who did horrible things, yet lived a full rich life in great success, such as some of the ancient Greek emperors. Also, Hindu Karma requires reincarnation for it to make sense; as karma may act in another life entirely. I dismiss karma, because there's no proof for reincarnation, nor for future retribution. So I kept thinking... And then I realized that the price for doing evil is instantaneous. The moment I act in a harmful way, I immediately make that behavior a real part of my life - of myself. This means that while I don't steal, theft isn't a constant reality in my life. I don't fear it each moment. But, once I do steal, then the reality of theft turns so vivid, that the threat of theft becomes constant. If I could steal, then might as well anyone else could steal from me. The clearest example of this is murder. Murder has the greatest impact on people. One you kill a man, not in self-defense, your mind sees the world as if in constant war. Every person is a real potential murderer, who might attack you at any moment. Anxiety eats at you constantly. Your dreams are full of murder, and loud noises make you jump in terror, bringing you back to that moment you murdered. >< The only exception to this are sociopaths. People who are unable to sympathize with others. They see others only as prey. But those people don't represent humanity in any way, so I don't think it's relevant for this discussion.

After many months, on and off, writing and editing a special page on my website, it's now publicly released. http://guide.assafkoss.com/ The Moral Guide is a page dedicated to be a concise guide to morality; personal morality. What behaviors should a person turn into habits. What makes for justice. How to define a free person. And how to make sure these ideas, and others, have a place in each person's life. I made it somewhat interactive, to browse the chapters and sections more easily. They are all very very short. This is not intended to be a book, or even an article per se. It's intended to be a short accessible guide for individuals. A clear introduction and reference. I have no reason to assume it is conclusive nor complete! It's designed to be regularly updated, and I am looking for feedback about it.

There is no definition to this term, "can do", because it cannot be proven. It's impossible to prove that any person can do anything, at any time. You can insist that a person was "able", and that person will insist that they were "not able", and that's where it will end, objectively. Subjectively, you can argue for your opinion, but that will only face an endless mountain of justifiable excuses for inability: injury, sickness, shock, confusion, panic, and so on and so forth. I gave the possible request for ability training, to refute the logical next question, about whether people have an obligation to train to do anything.

Let's see if I can refute your criticisms of moral universality. It's no secret (or hidden) that universality requires a group to be applied on. Stefan had mentioned it before, and he argues in favor of "all potentially reasoning beings" - which is basically all mentally normal humans, including babies, and excluding literal psychopaths. Personally, I think that killing trees for fun is wrong, even if trees can't be reasoned with (through verbal argument). For that, I insist that the correct group for morality is "all living beings", and that moral rules (murder, theft, threat...) should be better phrased, to accommodate this difference. Notice that in order to define a group, well-defined properties must be described, which is again no secret, but just part of making an argument. Also, your examples are good, but your approach to them is not. To make a rule, "... if you can", is to create an impossible standard. Ability has nothing to do with morality, because it is never immediately a choice. And to insist that one is morally liable to train themselves to certain abilities, is once more a contradiction, for the person in a coma. And, no one would say that, "punching is wrong", because we have cases where it is fine. However, instead of judging the "punch" itself, we know that our moral category is "harm to another", and so the argument is as follows: "To initiate harm to another is wrong."

Yes, they are both wrong and incomplete, and misleading because of that. However, their utility is undoubted. It's like reaching the correct answer, without using any of the correct premises. A mixture of luck and circumstance. Happened to me in a geometry test. To argue from utility is very different to arguing from truth. Wrongs can be very useful. We use true generalizations, to often make false assumptions, which is very practical.

The statement that logic is based on experienced is not an argument, but rather a definition. Our logic is purely reflected in our experience of reality. We have 1+1=2, because this is our unchanging experience. It seems unjustified to suggest a logic that is either not, eventually, based on experience, or that is divorced from experience, completely. Josh, how do you respond to the claim that any two theories that are useful, but contradicting, and each has errors in certain experimental situations, are both wrong? They are correct, to a useful extent, but eventually erroneous. The conclusion from the above is that there is a correct understanding of reality, which had simply not been arrived at, and then documented. It gives disagreement to your fundamental conclusion; that we should accept such contradictory but useful theories, as somehow "true". And yeah, well written OP.

Why should I not judge a man's trustworthiness in accordance to how he treats himself? It takes time and effort to figure out a persons claims and arguments. I wouldn't want to bother with someone who doesn't, at the very least, appear logical. A self-neglecting person talking about the meaning of life makes no sense.

Thanks for sharing. I didn't like that it was not structured. The Swami's talk was very clear, with descriptions and examples, especially in the longer videos. Also, the Swami gave credence to the value of our temporal experiences, which makes sense for any functional person. I did like the irony he pointed to, with the scientific method. Just as research gives evidence for physical laws that may predetermine everything, so does free choice seems evident. A clear contradiction. A fault in the method, due to "seemingness" not being valid proof. More than anything, though, I cannot trust the studiousness of a fat person. Such behavior immediately highlights for me a person who is self-neglecting, and thus generally neglecting. Not rigorous. He feels manipulative, in the conversation, rather than genuine.

I hope you manage to balance things out, Wesley. Just being around such an abusive and offensive person tends to drain the emotional energy away, and make an [emotionally] unskilled person functionally disabled, and even self-harming. Update us on how it goes.

Speaking from experience, you want to use this as an opportunity. Get online, in a public library or school, and find places where you could volunteer in, for living and food. Pay doesn't matter right now. Any suitable volunteer work or friendly farm. Make a list, on paper, with phones, emails, names, addresses, and directions. Reach out, and explain that you are now completely free and looking for an opportunity to travel and get skills. Explain that this is immediate, from now to now. Don't give them your life story on first contact, as strangers will not want to feel they are now entirely responsible for you. Show that you are willing to take the risk... and take this risk. Otherwise, the other option, unless you're a wild vagabond like me who enjoyed living outdoors, is a shelter. It's a good option. A bit more static, depressing, and slow, than going to whatever reliable seeming place would accept you for work, but still a good option to get yourself together comfortably. Remember that you can move to any place, and find a shelter there! Take the risk, if you intuit it. You're young and sturdy. As soon as you're settled there, take a breather, and start looking for opportunities. Remember, you are entirely mobile and free now, other than for money. Don't be shy asking for small sums to get you moving. Also, remember that you can hitchhike, and that you can ask people for food, and often enough they will help, even if it feels awkward. Most people can sympathize with being between a rock and a hard place as a young adult.

I think that it is this lack of experience with the modern forms of evil, that makes it hard for most Westerners to define evil with the inclusion of the less obvious threats and assaults. Until there is a persuasive explanation of this reasoning, I suspect that modern cultures will continue to give host to the con-artist-sociopaths, who lie through their teeth, while harming many.

I was referring to the Israeli army.