Carl Green

Just updated it a bit. Changed constitution and edited the last part.

I'm not trying to formalize, specify and divide a set of people specifically. My motivation is to have a tool to find other people that agree with this core concept, so I can find my tribe. The way I'm seeing this is that anyone that has come to the belief/conclusion/whatever, that humans should interact voluntarily, would be considered 'within' the society by default. However they specifically arrived at it wouldn't matter. The second sentence is a very important part. Everything else can be figured out. Differences in beliefs on things like property rights and such can/do differ and people would segregate peacefully accordingly, I imagine, as long as they have the core belief of discourse > force. So, I'm all ears if you have a way of getting closer to the goal of conveying this in a simple, succinct package that gets universally interpretted correctly.

I'm not married to the word constitution for this. Anyone got a better term for something that a set of individuals all agree on which I guess defines the group? My only justification for using the word constitution was to appeal to those still 'on the other side'. Give them something to replace their existing justifications with. If there's a better term though, I'm all for it. I want to keep it as simple as possible and understandable by 'everyone' so I don't think rigor will be at 100% but anyone is more than welcome to try achieving conveying the concept with simplicity and full rigor. I am here for the goal of improving the concept after all.

...so you're not in, Will? I'm seeing it as a sort of meta society concept. I think people would segregate naturally into many other societies but as long as everyone agrees on this level, there's peace. The core concept is that all human interaction should be voluntary. I'm not here to debate it necesarrily. If you agree that all human interaction *should* be voluntary, for whatever *if*, great! Welcome to the club.

https://voluntaryistsocietyofearth.wordpress.com/ ...an idea that came to me. What are your thoughts on it? What would you change or add?

How'd I forget fences

The tangible part is whatever weapons the defender(s) use(s).

Let's start with asking what a "virtual nation" even is...

Try finding someone who you see as a lot closer to how you are as a person, but also overcoming things in the ways that you'd like. Someone that's super charismatic would probably have a very hard time being able to put themselves in your shoes and be able to give you the advice you're looking for.

Unless someone in the US has enough money to matter, or a minimum of self efficacy, they're not likely to have their "rights" "respected" regardless of what any piece of really old toilet paper says. Cops in the US are trained with the Reid Technique so they care more about getting a confession than protecting your freedom. Using lies and manipulation during investigations to fill the quotas that they absolutely do have. I'm really looking forward to extracting myself from this shithole clusterfuck sociopath factory.

I don't know about you guys, but as far as I'm concerned, the most valuable resource I have is time. As I see it, if you don't have time, you don't have anything else. Given that, we can say when you're talking with someone, you're giving them your time. When you're typing up replies to replies to replies on the board, you're giving them your time. You're spending your most valuable resource on them. Since time is of such an important value, it makes it very important to accurately assess what you're spending your time on. Ask yourself what the goal is in engaging in the discussion with this person/group. Are you spending your time on genuinely helping someone else out, or are you just trying to make sure it's clear that you're 'right' yet again? I don't want to imply either one is correct here, but if you spend your life trying to find new people to prove yourself right to, you'll find a limitless supply of people to do that with, and before you know it, all that precious time is gone. Try keeping this in mind, when you're the navigator, you don't waste your time telling the pilot/driver all the places not to go, you just share the right directions. Life is too short. Fill yours with positive connections by genuinely helping people out (and leaving alone the people you can't.)

I do not have objective evidence of this claim.

Be sure to place more importance on understanding your friends beliefs and why he believes them, than on proving any logical point. You want them to be curious about what you're talking about, show them how it's done so they're curious regarding what you're putting forth.

The goal of sharing a vid is to get people to watch it and you'll get far more people actually clicking the video and watching it if what dsayers asks for is included in the post. Also, F click-bait bullshit titles. Rely on content, not tactics.

The informal term for a non profiting inventor would be tinkerer or 'aspiring inventor', if you've got time for all those syllables. If/When you start generating income from an invention, calling yourself "an inventor" will feel fine. Welcome to this side of that liquid-y mirror that you go through right after the red pill. Glad to see you made it through

1. not being dead 2. Freedom

Not much point in asking individual members what the opinions of all the other members are. I think you'd be better off starting a poll and using that to get your answer.

https://www.google.com/#q=westboro+baptist+church

Don't forget 'understander'. Ask them questions and learn. Real questions about their motivations and desires, not "why aren't you taking better care of yourself and your child?" type of stuff.

Look up where you're planning to send the sample. I think you typically just give them a checklist (each with a cost of course) of things to determine about the sample you send in.

Not sure if you can. Seems like it's the nature of debate. Attack is a rather severe word for this context, but that's essentially what debating/discussing opposing moralities is I think. She has a belief, you're proposing she change her mind on her belief. I might suggest making sure you preface any diatribes with questions about how and why she feels and thinks what she does. And I agree with mellomama, if your wife matters most, where do you and your young son fit into the hierarchy of what matters most?

Yes

I think that's because it is an attack on her unprincipled morals. An 'attack' for a good reason, but an adversarial/opposing position to her current morals nonetheless.

Does the same thing motivate all humans universally?