LifeIsBrief

I love to write, debate, and share ideas with people... but I don't enjoy the power that a community can have over its members, and I fear ending up in an echo chamber. I'm skeptical of communities generally, but when I find one with that odd combination of open minded, but critical, I can't get enough. So far, so good at FDR. I just meant, that I refuse to become dependent on a community for my identity. I think anarcho capitalism is the best way for a society to be organized, but I'm not an anarcho capitalist... I'm a Dave

Just a small point... The state does not exist, because it is simply a collection of individuals that believe insane, violent, nonsense. The goal of libertarians, is to encourage people to stop believing insane, violent, nonsense. Once you no longer believe in insane, violent, nonsense, you will no longer be willing to work for the state. It's really that simple. No one who chooses to be a peaceful parent, will want anything to do with people who murder people for disagreement, or kidnap people for not paying them. In essence, you're asking this individual parent to be a square circle.

It's not important to me, some of them honestly look like they're having a lot of fun, without being dogmatic. I'm missing a healthy, loving, relationship... A bit of a tangent, but hey you asked. Maybe it's a simple reproductive strategy, most available mates believe in religion. Joining a new community, is the most exciting part, and you meet the most people. Sports are fun... There doesn't need to be a philosophical principle in play for irreverent behavior to make you smile. If I choose a religion, it will be very casual, or an afterthought of getting into a relationship.

Just to be clear... I actually want to buy a few acres of land, build my own cabin near a small town, and pretty much avoid all of those things, by surfing the poverty line. I'm a monk. I'm completely sold on "I will not participate/sponsor activities that violate the NAP". I'd like to raise my own chickens and cows. I wouldn't try to push this view on anyone else, but yes... I'll take that all the way to its logical conclusion. Participating in this horrifying system is a vice, that I'm working on.

I've gone from being a strong atheist, to a rather weak atheist, but in general, my opinion has always been "You don't know unknowable things either". In being open minded, and kind to religious people however, I have found that almost none of them think they know. It's very much two minorities banging it out, "I know there's a god", vs "I know there's not a god"... Slowly, over time, I've grown closer and closer to "You're both idiots... Stop wasting your time". A whole lot of religious people don't claim to know, they just enjoy believing. I may actually choose a religion one day. I wrote about this a bit in my "How do you feel about Life of Pi" thread. I won't choose to say that I know there is a god. I will simply say, "I enjoy these rituals, traditions, and dances... So I decided to hang out with these people". If that's not enough for a religion, it won't be the one I choose. That is enough for quite a few though, so I might just pick one someday. In general, I wish Atheists had cool traditions, songs, holidays, dances, and rituals. Why not come up with an excuse to hang out together a few days a year, and have fun? In some ways, this is what Atheism 2.0, and +, and Pastafarianism, seem to be attempting... but it's just not irreverent enough for me personally. Holi, in India, looks like a freakin' blast. I'm going to write a thread eventually "Why don't Atheists have the coolest holidays?"... but in general, I would say that's how an atheist becomes agnostic or religious. Pure emotion, "Wouldn't it be fun to pretend to believe in magic occasionally?".

If you've noticed my picture, I obviously have a thing for movies. Kurosawa, is probably my favorite artist, of any kind. So I may as well recommend "Ikiru" if you haven't seen it. It's the story of a city hall bureaucrat in postwar Japan, who gets diagnosed with cancer, and decides to use his "power" to help build a park for children. It sounds like something an Anarchist would hate, but he turned the concept into one of the most beautiful films of all time. It's about how ridiculously difficult it is, to do even the simplest thing in the insane machine modern life has created. I think anyone who loves philosophy, would enjoy the film. Also, my signature, from "Record of a Living Being", about a Japanese man so terrified of a nuclear holocaust, that he wants to sell his family mine, and home, and move them all to Brazil. They want him committed. Some call it Kurosawa's "Doctor Strangelove". The fact I'm 30, and these are the movies I'm recommending, though, shows you my regard for modern cinema. Stand up has been good lately... Stanhope, Louis CK, Joe Rogan and co...

This is mostly my fault. I started to be a bit of a dick towards the end, and I apologize. I can express myself more clearly now. What I mean, is that I see Libertarianism, as an individual approach, to gradualism. I think once the individual begins to use the Non Aggression Principle, in their daily life, they should take it as far as they can. Bob's next goal, should, almost instantly become, trying to find a similar job, in the productive sector of the economy. The fact he may not be able to do that, is something that should anger him a bit, he should discuss it with his family, and friends, maybe even co workers. It should also inspire him to improve his resume, or use that salary to buy some land, and farm a bit, give a little back. Him doing good, restrained, work in this situation, may be the best he can do, at the moment, but once you take, NAP, or... to be honest, most moral codes, to their logical conclusion... What you should be against is the situation. As an individual, you can rise above that situation. You can't change national politics without vast wealth anymore. You can convince your family, and friends, maybe even coworkers, to embrace the principle at an individual, interpersonal level. You can be productive, and try to speak truth to those around you. Over generations, this will gradually change the world. Also, politicians will adapt, to try to trick us into voting for them... This will result in some gradual policy changes, but it's dangerous to put your faith in people who hide behind guns. At best, in this stage, you can effect small local politics, to drop your sales and property taxes, but that's a pretty shallow victory when you're paying for flying killer robots. Really, it's about creating thriving, peaceful, interpersonal communities, one person at a time. It's a different approach to gradualism. This a lot of personal interpretation by the way, I wouldn't claim to speak for all libertarians, or people on the forum, I'm pretty new here. Edit: Deliciously ironic, isn't it? The movie poster is my avatar, and I'm telling you to ignore one of the themes It probably sounds like I'm talking to myself a bit here, because the forum only recently convinced me of the "one person at a time" philosophy. The more I think about it rationally though, especially with the NSA and the police state... You don't want anarchists gathering in large groups, or having heroes. I don't need to be on a list as a supporter. It's just not that popular... yet. Hopefully one day.

I understand what gradualism means. I just don't see changing your job title as catastrophism. It was worth a shot. Peace, love, and the best of luck to you.

No, you're ignoring the fact that I did answer your question. If Bob cares about gradualism... Step one, stop murdering people to steal his salary. It's not that complicated. You want me to pretend, that Bob only has 2 very specific options, so that I pick the one you like... That's nonsense. Bob as an individual, is capable of making a nearly infinite number of choices. If he wants to move gradually towards being a moral person, he will stop working for an immoral entity, and get a job doing something productive. If he cares about wealth, efficiency, or relative morality... Yeah, he can keep being evil, and call it gradualism. That's just him being intellectually dishonest though. Being less evil, is not the same as being more moral.

This is not anti-government commentary... It's about how working for the government directly undermines his ability to be a role model for his child, call himself peaceful, or consider himself moral. This is an objective fact, not commentary. He is setting a violent example for his children, which will harm them, objectively. You're acting as though Bobs morals are situation dependent, rather than objective. This is the disagreement. No, the fact there is a system, does not make being a less abusive member of a destructive system tolerable. He is hurting his children, by working for the government.

I consider eating meat the way it is farmed in the modern world, to be a vice... because I believe that almost all farms now violate the NAP. I live near Los Angeles though. If I lived right near a farm, where I thought there were happy cows and chickens, I would stop thinking it was a vice. Without a connection to the meat you're eating, and without knowing how it is treated, I consider meat eating a guilty pleasure, that I should work on, because most of the meat I eat, likely violates the NAP. Basically, there's no animal so dumb, that it could remain content, without room to turn in a circle. Eating something born into misery bothers me... but I shouldn't have used the blanket "Eating meat is a vice". Also, I'm with Stef in terms of priorities. To start applying the principle to animals, when we haven't even applied it properly to people, is to put the cart before the horse. That said, for me, personally and emotionally, the way we treat animals, is starting to bother me, and thus I am working to improve the way I consume meat, as though it were a vice.

Parenting is something capable of being peaceful, and moral. If a government was to become peaceful, and moral, it would be called charity. By choosing to work for the government, Bob has made a horrifically immoral choice, that actually affects his ability to even claim to be a decent parent. How can you raise children peacefully, while stealing your income from a community? Bob cannot lead by example, and be a peaceful parent, while working for a system which murders people. He can only be the slightly lesser of many evils. He can only "not hit his children", and "restrain force at work". It's a question of moral relativism, versus objective morality. If there is an objective moral standard, then Bob loses his ability to be a peaceful parent, by providing a terrible example for his children, working for a system which is violent and abusive.

I tried to answer the question you asked, about why we keep bringing up the NAP... It seemed to be bothering you. The reason we keep bringing it up, is that we care about Bob, and his chosen moral philosophy. You're asking if Bob can be a murderer who restrains himself... The moral goal of libertarians, is to get people to stop murdering. Thus, your question is horrifying. Whether he can personally "restrain force" at his inherently violent job... has no bearing on his morality or peace. You're saying, "Would you rather be a cruel, horrible human being? Or, a slightly less cruel, horrible human being?"... Well those aren't my, or Bobs only options.

In the words of Stefan "Freedom is not the goal, morality is the goal". It's not a political philosophy, it's a moral philosophy. It's not Anti-statism, in the same way it's not Anti Hobbitism... The state does not exist. There is only Bob, with his individual moral choices to make. The state is forcing Bob to sacrifice his morality, and forcing others to sacrifice to Bob, thus he cannot claim to be peaceful or moral. He can claim to be "restraining his use of force", but he would restrain it more, by working at a diner, and be more peaceful and moral too.

You could write a version like that though... People write and rewrite the bible all the time It wouldn't necessarily be the book I'd choose... I only like a few parts, JC seemed like a nice guy sometimes. I think what the movie and writing this thread, really made me think about was, "What if, and why don't atheists have the best holidays?". Why when Dawkins types propose such things do they always tend towards Newton Day? Why has no one proposed we start worshiping unicorns, and leprechauns? Has anyone ever done that? Dragons are awesome, let's make that an atheist holiday... and write songs, and dance around like idiots once a year... Is there something inherently wrong with intentional frivolity?

I focused on the individual just fine... "He is violating the NAP". To make it a bit more clear... He should stop.

Now that you've changed the focus of the question, from peaceful government, to Bob the Imaginary Individual... Yes, a person can theoretically restrain force... While operating in a system, government, which is in its nature, force. In working for that system however, he is violating his own morality, and the NAP, for the purpose of surviving in a system. A system in which, the alternative, is another more forceful man being hired. He is violating the NAP.... but he can restrain force... as much as possible, in the horrifying situation he finds himself in. The same way people with children and a substantive income violate the NAP when they pay taxes... but they're also perfectly good people dealing with the situation they were born in to. In essence, at the individual level, yes you're right... but it's still a tragedy.

Bob, can, theoretically restrain power in his job... There are a few good police officers. I think most of them would prefer if it was a voluntary, not for profit organization that didn't jail drug addicts though. The organization Bob works for, provided it enforces principles that directly violate NAP, is not peaceful. Bob, in restraining himself as a police officer, and not abusing his children, and preferably, advocating for a stateless society, and rehabilitation reform, is doing everything he can to be a good person, in the situation he is in. Until the state has followed his example, they cannot be peaceful. When they follow his example, they will likely become a charity organization... but that will take a few generations.

Wow! You learn something new every day. No wonder I have a weird affinity for the Amish... I think Insurance is immoral too. There's no there, there. Still, other pacifists have been unable to avoid such taxes, and that rule is probably an America specific carve out. Doesn't stop my primary point, that in every nation, currently pacifists are forced to pay for the MIC, which they are fundamentally morally opposed too. The Amish carve out, is a great move towards real freedom, and we should start carving up the whole thing thusly

I need to read the book... I had a feeling the Disney version was a bit more ambiguous. I didn't find it apologetic of religious bigotry, so much as the one great defense of religion without bigotry. The one last haymaker that religion throws every once in awhile "Oh, yeah... I don't know, but it's fun to believe, and I like the ceremonies". "Which do you prefer?"... I prefer imagination... doesn't everyone? I've even been thinking, along the lines of Atheism 2.0 or + or whatever... Wouldn't it be fun to try to revive some old religions? Celebrate their holidays, just for history sake, and because they're beautiful? Could that be an interesting Trojan horse even? The root of these questions though, is my emotional desire, to occasionally pretend to believe in nonsense... Is that inherently wrong? Is it irrational to be self awarely irrational, for fun, because it feels good occasionally? Edit... Maybe the tiger never really left him, and the jungle is the depths of his mind? It couldn't give him closure. Also, I really enjoyed the story, as well as the visuals of the film. It sold me on the book, it just frustrated me a bit, as a pretty serious atheist. I've always been a "I'm sure no one else knows either", kind of guy.

I'm going to keep this, a bit gray, so people may not like this answer, but I think the talk of "leave emotion out of it", is an interesting choice of words. I smoke an ecig, because I used to smoke, and it was a vice that I'm trying to give up. Eating meat, is another vice I'm trying to give up, but I don't think eating traditionally farmed meat, is inherently a violation of the NAP... I think modern meat production is a violation of the NAP. I think a couple of important questions haven't been addressed in terms of whether or not it's a direct violation, much of which has to do with emotion, but not yours, or mine... The cow, or chickens. Question one - Do farmers, net create life? Can we all agree that there would be a lot less cows and chickens in the world, without farming? They'd get eaten by a larger predator, which we would then have to, and would, deal with. Question two - Can a farmer provide a happy, healthy life for a cow or chicken? I would argue that most don't, thus violating NAP. Veal is impossible to justify... but, in pure theory, a farmer can treat cows and chickens very well, until maturity. But, if farmers net create life, and provide happy lives for their herd... the final question is... Is being a young healthy cow, and wandering around free land, as good as it gets for a cow? Is he going to invent cow rugby in his 20's? Or is wandering around eating food, a really great life? I think it probably is. If you say yes to all three of these questions, it is not inherently a violation of NAP to raise, herd, and then kill a cow, provided you treat it with the respect it deserves, for a long happy life... You've done it a great kindness, in a very cruel world for cows and chickens.

So, first, I think that it's important to mention, that I only saw the film, did not read the book, and I know this is a dated topic, but I was surprised it hadn't been discussed on the board. I recommend the film, if you have an HD TV, just because it's beautiful... but as an atheist, it's a really frustrating film intellectually. A small spoiler, the theme, in essence, is that believing in god makes you happy, and that's a perfectly rational reason to do it. It's important to note that the main character believes in 4 different religions at the same time. It's a bit frustrating for me, because, in essence, as an atheist, I just want to say "Yay, we won the intellectual argument, just admit that, and we can all get along"... but I'm not sure exactly how to feel about those emotions. From the other side, I think they're just looking at us like "Of course it just makes us happy, to believe nonsense, it's fun... Why aren't you joining one of us yet? Are you anti social?" Is there anything wrong with believing in religious nonsense, simply because it makes you happy, provided that you're willing to be intellectually honest with yourself, and family about that? "Yeah, I picked this one, I like the dances". If you start explaining at two, to your child, that you chose the one that throws spices on Holi, because it looks beautiful... As long as you're honest with the child, is that perfectly fine? I tend to side with, "Yeah, sure... Party!". I'm curious if that's the consensus among many people who identify atheist...

Anger he smiles, towering shiny metallic purple armour.Queen jealousy, envy waits behind him.Her fiery green gown sneers at the grassy ground.Blue are the life giving waters taken for granted,They quietly understand.Once happy turquoise armies lay opposite of red,But wonder why the fight is on.But they're all, bold as love.Yeah, they're all bold as love.Yeah, they're all bold as love.Just ask the Axis. Jimi Hendrix "Bold as Love" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwalj_BhkbQ This opener always rang anarchist to me. The greedy sending confused masses off to war, but they're all bold as love... Just ask the Axis. The line "Blue are the life giving waters, taken for granted, They quietly understand" Always reminds me of a great Bruce Lee quote "I do not believe in styles anymore... Be formless, shapeless, like water. Now you put water in a bottle, it becomes the bottle, you put water into a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Water can flow, but it can also crash... Be water my friends"