JSDev

Seriously? I'll Google that for you https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Avirtuous

Whenever I get into these discussions with people, it always comes down to a moral question they must answer. Forget Mises theory, Rothbard, end the Fed, forget all of that. Most will not listen anyway, and will just lump you in as a radical and move on their merry way. Yet when you insist they answer the fundemental moral question, the contradiction hits them right in the jugular. Suddenly the tables have turned. This is a frightening place to be for most people. At this point the conversation usually ends. They'll say things like, well it's the system we have, there isn't much you or I can do about it we just have to make the best of it. Or they'll say things like they just don't see how things can be achieved nonviolently. At this point I think it is vital for the statist to understand that the most important thing they can do to make a change is to first admit we have a problem. At this point DO NOT engage with them on DROs, who will build the roads, military, etc, etc. You will be just giving them ammo to find a way out of the moral dilemma. If they can just admit that what we have is NOT virtuous, then that is really all that is necessary. Pay your taxes, and be good citizens, but just know you're only doing it to stay alive not because you think you're doing anything virtuous. If more people would just admit we have a problem, if nothing else, it's possible we could see real freedom within our lifetimes.

If there's a "we" when talking about the system we live in, then you're the one with the gun. I'm unarmed so whatever you say I have to go along with it. If you want to steal from me under threat of kidnapping me and putting me in a cage, or stealing from the future productivity of those not even born yet through national debt, to keep this system going, to maintain what you call civilization, for the greater good, I will have to comply. But please, do not insult my intelligence, it is neither civilized nor virtuous.

Sorry I assumed most were familiar with it, it's getting a lot of national coverage http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/index.html.

I was hoping Stefan could address this topic in an upcoming podcast. I don't hear any libertarian voices coming out in favor or against it. My thought is that this is just another example of how the state is in the business of banning certain practices at the force of law then doling out exceptions for special interest groups, usually under the guise religious freedom.

I found something insightful http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/ownership-and-its-paradoxes/

I'm not being clear enough. This isn't a "how will X be handled in a free society" kind of question. I'm trying to understand the philosophical basis for ownership. You say that property based on self ownership is justifiable, but what philosophical principle makes that true?

That everyone has equal claim to previously unowned natural resources is just restating the problem I already presented. What do you do about disputes? Can philosophy and reason help us here? The problem highlights the fact that the concept of ownership over property is not self evident or rational, rather it's dependent on it being part of a social pact. I only own something in so much as you agree that I do. Nothing more. If you disagree and want to claim what I thought was my property as your own then the only way I can prove to you that I own it is to appeal to a higher authority, a third party. But we have to agree in the legitimacy of that authority in the first place. Or we have to fight over it. All of this is not a satisfactory answer in terms of philosophy.

I've been thinking about this question and I haven't worked it out yet. I think that the only thing we can really own is our bodies. All other things are un-owned. It seems to me that all claims of ownership over raw materials, land, and other natural resources can only have been acquired through coercion. In the past that coercion was justified by saying that the land was granted by god. We see this today. Who can rightfully make a claim on land in Isreal? The Torah is a legally binding ledger recording the transfer of land from god to the jews. Unfortunately for them, the palestinians have their own divine ledger. All ownership of natural resources can be traced back to some form of violent and often deadly struggle. Does this mean then that might indeed makes right when it comes to the acquisition of natural resources? EDIT: I just want to add that I recognize that the scope of the violence is largely the effect of the State, but in principle, how else would people resolve ownership disputes over natural/un-owned resources, if more civil means proved ineffective? I'm not suggesting a state is necessary to resolve these disputes. I'm only pointing out a kind of infinite regress that happens when trying to determine ownership of natural resources from which you may rightfully trade. Are you the rightful owner of a lawn mower if it turns out that the lawn mower was stolen? Does the original owner of the mower get to take it back? What if I took it apart and built a go cart out of it... do they get to take the go cart? What if the original owner of the mower built it from a metal that was mined on american soil which was previously stolen from the native americans? Where do we draw the line? Where that line gets drawn often seems arbitrary (or violent).

"I came for the economics, I stayed for the personal relationships"

Context is irrelevant because judging whether actions are right or wrong is irrelevant to your main question! You're obviously just playing games now.

I know what context means, you don't have to explain it. It's simply not relevant. Since when was your question about trying to determine whether an action is right or wrong? And please use less words, and if you must use analogies, use one where no cutting is involved.

As a father of a teenage driver myself, a part of me empathizes with your father. I'm not sure what my reaction would be though. I know I'd be hurt thinking about the fact that you didn't think to call. But I wouldn't blame that on you. It'd make me realize that we have some work to do.

I've always loved Supertramp, thanks for reminding me! These lyrics have always resonated with me even as a really young child The Logical Song When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful, a miracle, it was beautiful, magical And all the birds in the trees, well they'd be singing so happily, joyfully, playfully, watching me But then they send me away to teach me how to be sensible, logical, responsible, practical And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable, clinical, intellectual, cynical There are times when all the world's asleep The questions run too deep for such a simple man Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned I know it sounds absurd but please tell me who I am I said now, watch what you say, now we're calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, criminal Won't you sign up your name, we'd like to feel you're acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable But at night, when all the world's asleep The questions run so deep for such a simple man Won't you please (Won't you tell me), (You can tell me what) please tell me what we've learned (Can you hear me?) I know it sounds absurd, (Won't you help me) please tell me who I am, who I am, who I am, who I am But I'm thinking so logical Did you call, one two three four It's getting unbelievable

What? I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous point to make. Context matters? It's as if you said oranges aren't juicy and and I gave you an example of one that is, but you then say, oh yeah but they're round, shape matters. How is context relevant to an individual choosing to do the right thing or not? (Please don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question). You have an individual parent choosing to do the morally right thing by raising children peacefully and you have individuals in a community choosing to do the morally right thing by having peaceful relationships with their neighbors. You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. All the this talk of "parents", "government workers", "context", "roles", "restraint", it's all just needless clutter. Philosophy is about getting at the heart of what it is we're really asking. Adding more words and concepts into the mix is getting you further away from truth, not closer. Maybe that's what you want, I don't know, but that's not philosophy.

Isn't the question of restraint necessarily a question of morality? Why does the role you play in society have anything to do with you doing the right thing or not?

I believe I answered that question in the affirmative: Forget about labels like parents or government workers and only think of individuals. Your question boils down to, can an individual decide to be moral? My answer is yes of course!

I understand that, but it really doesn't make a difference. It's implied that when I say "the state" that what I'm really talking about are individuals. Our relationship with our children is still fundamentally different from that of some individual who has given himself the right to take my property. Yes I have power over my child but that's a natural power given to us not because we have power but because the child is powerless. There is no moral obligation for my neighbors to have power over me. By simply taking that power from me without my consent, that alone makes it immoral, precisely because we're talking about individuals. Because I have not given consent, this power must be taken through the use of violence. There is no place on the restraint spectrum, unless at absolute zero, where we can say it's moral. The question of restraint is really irrelevant. It's a question of whether or not an individual as a parent or community member is acting morally. Of course if a parent can act morally then so could an individual "government worker". Individuals make those kinds of choices all the time. Realize though that there can be no morality in government work. If a government worker chooses to be moral then they choose to stop being a government worker. If you turn around and say but what about a voluntary government, then I know you're not seriously asking questions. If it's voluntary then it's individuals acting morally. Great, then WTF are we debating??

I apologize if I've mischaracterized your question. I'm sincerely trying to understand what it is you're asking. Thank you for clarifying. Parents become parents only by virtue of giving birth to children. It's just an obvious fact of nature. It's this fact that makes it our moral obligation to care for and nurture them. Conversely, the existence of the state is not natural, and there is no moral obligation for it to exist or for it to provide for us.

@STer you really don't seem to understand. You have to use violence to even have the monopoly on the option to use violence. (Anyway, what a completely ridiculous statement to make, and it only shows you to be a sophist). Look, taxes are theft. National debt is theft. Theft is violence... in the case of the state it's the kind of violence that can lead to kidnapping or even death. The one thing Stefan is really good at is helping people to see through the sugar coated word clouds we like to use to justify violence. You seem to be doing everything you can to excuse or to allow some level of violence by the state. Why is that?

I thought the 1st question "Where do you get your morals" is a valid question, and is actually a great opener to what could potentially be a great conversation. Propaganda teaches you to not question certain assumptions like morals can only come from god. Therefore, the mere act of asking the question indicates to me that they might have an open mind.

Fine, you can posit any kind of government you want, as long as it puts the guns down then there's no contradiction as originally posited by @STer - and bob's your uncle.

You realize you're just equivocating now, right? For the purpose of this discussion, that's not at all what we mean when we say "government".

I have mixed feelings about Chopra. On the one hand, I know he's just making things up "WooFoo" as Michael Shermer likes to say. On the other hand, he comes across as sincere and a really engaging person to talk to. To use an overused sentiment... I'd have a beer with him.

There can be NO gradualism. You're either stealing from me or you're not. I can imagine a situation where you steal from me less and less over time, to where eventually you're not stealing from me anymore. But until that time, you're still a thief. I gave my reasons why an "opt-out" government was a contradiction of terms, and you come back with "no it's not".