Fudo Manu

Some are saying these are hashes to check the authenticity of files. This could be a defensive move by Assange, which to me means he is feeling threatened.

This could mean bad news for Julian Assange; https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787777344740163584

Most knowledge exists as "immaterial concepts", yet it is held has valid knowledge. Logic is the tool used to test the validity of inferred knowledge. All rights are asserted. There is no natural law compelling you not to do harm to me. Logically the Divine Rights of Kings falls apart, as it has. Reason is the faculty which one must employ to discover what rights one might posses. It could be said that they are innate in mans nature, but they must be reasoned from that nature to be claimed. To claim that the right to not be harmed is innate is no different then to claim the right of kings is divine. Both claims must be demonstrated to be true. How would one demonstrate that rights are innate if they have not discovered their origins? As for hypocrisy, the point in stating that the action is the primary is to emphasize the importance of looking at the action, not the words. If one's goal is to find and eliminate falsehoods, looking at the action resolves the contradiction inherent in hypocrisy.

No, in the case of this conversation we are speaking of the concepts themselves, apart from the attributes and accidents they connote. We are speaking of them with an identity of their own, namely as the mental integration of those attributes and accidents, in fact man cannot reference a thing apart from its abstracted qualities. If they don't exist how can it be said that they are ephemeral? If ephemeral means "Lasting for a short time", how is it that something that does not exist, can be said to last?

Concepts do exist. It is true that the mental integration of abstracted attributes and accidents only exists in the mind, but it still exists. The opposite of to exist is to not exist, to be nothing. It would reason then that for something to have an identity, it must exist. Square circles don't exist, contradictions don't exist because they break the law of identity. A is A, a thing is what it is, and it can't be what it is and what it isn't. Existence is Identity. Certainly concepts have identities, for we can speak of them. If they didn't exist this conversation, and all conversations wouldn't be possible.

The brain receives its stimulus through electrical impulses, These impulses can originate from within the body as well as from without. These impulses to the brain is what is meant by sense data. Man is not consciously aware of these impulses, but Mans defining characteristic, abstract reasoning, an automated and subconscious process, takes these impulses and abstracts characteristics and attributes from them and groups them. These grouping we call concepts. In order to store and recall these concepts. a symbol is applied. Words are one such symbol, and the must common. Reasoning is different from the quality of abstract reasoning, in so far as the latter is automated and non volitional, while the former is volitional. Reasoning means inference, and its utilization beyond the formation of basic concepts require cultivation. When you state that knowledge gained thru Reasoning originates in the mind, you are not incorrect. However I stated that all knowledge is founded in sense data, and to use your rational faculty there must be something to use it upon. Where would this initial knowledge come from? If not from the senses then where? If there is knowledge that is attained innately what is it and how would we know it is innate? The last point I will make is that rights are not innate, and must be discovered. I agree that I have a duty to abide by the NAP with those that hold it as a value. A value being that which one seeks to gain and or maintain. Those that express disregard for the NAP are not protected by it. That I may rightfully act aggressively toward an aggressor is the foundation of self defense. I also have no argument against be obligated to honor a contract made volitionally and free of duress. To break such a contract is theft, which is no different then placing said individual in ex post facto servitude, a violation of the value of self ownership and in discordance with mans nature as a heterotroph.

It is not. The first puts primacy in the the words, the second puts primacy in the action.

Pretty much a noob myself so no worries. If we get a couple more interested individuals, then I'll start arrangements.

The basis of knowledge is through sense data and the formation of basic concepts. There is intuitive knowledge and inferred knowledge. Intuitive knowledge is information received through the senses, inferred knowledge is the vast majority of mans knowledge and is gained through inference of existing knowledge. At its base this would be inference of sense data. Logic is a system that deals with inferred truths (knowledge) and guides one in what knowledge is valid and what is not. Since all knowledge must begin with sense data, any knowledge of morality must also be able to trace back to sense data. When it comes to morality; anyone that expresses a right to a thing, say life, must be able to express where ones right to life comes from. One that does not know, can not hold it as a value. My right to life comes from my nature as a living being, more specifically a heterotroph. That I must first and foremost in my existence seek to sustain my life means that my life must be my highest value. For without my life I can have no other values. To remove life from another human, is to express through action that human life is of no value, a contradiction. Most live in this contradiction because they don't value their lives but are too weak to end it, thus acting to continue a value they don't hold. One that expresses that human life is not a value is a threat to those that do. Remember, a hypocrite is not someone that does differently from what they say, but says differently from what they do. It is the action that holds truth, words often are used to manipulate.

Why does more reality equal more happiness? For most philosophy, and through it a clearer perseption of reality, equals strife. For one most likely grew up with beliefs and values that are contradictory to the true nature of things, and to see otherwise forces a choice, to live in contradiction or to abandon past held beliefs and all relationships founded in them.

All thought is conceptual. Man does not experience his sense data on a perceptual level. When mans senses are excited they leave an imprint, a phantasm, in mans mind, from which mans faculty of abstract reasoning automatically begins abstracting, or "taking away" attributes from it. These attributes are then catagorized into concepts. A symbol (word) is assigned to allow man to recall the concept. Man can only work from these phantasm in conscious thought, and the strength of the phantasm is a product of ones level of focus and concentration. So yes, all is conceptual in mans mind, and all concepts must originate from sense data.

Is it immoral to lie? No. Most are taught that it is because it is beneficial to those that do (lie). Always being honest is a dangerous position to put oneself in as it makes one vulnerable to manipulators. As all morality must be derived from sense data and observation of the nature of things, what evidence would support that lieing is immoral?

Curious if this group ever got off the ground, or if there is interest in reviving it. I'm willing to coordinate things if 5-6 individuals are willing to commit.

Searching Google didn't help much, most responses criticized the IQ as not valid for much other than "feeding one's ego". The others suggested some online tests that require a fee, I've taken one of those, the Stanford Binet and scored 128. Mensa was suggested. I'm looking to take one in person that will be recognized as authoritative. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

These were just thoughts I had. My intent was never to construct an arguement.

Because I've invested alot of time and energy into this conversation and I feel like maybe what I thought was truth isn't.

I may have backed myself into a corner then because I went down the path of concepts, not the other person. I was trying to argue that society doesn't have the right to enforce positive obligations because no individual has that right. They argueed that society does, and I went down the path that society doesn't exist and is only a concept. I'm afraid that if I say individual's have rights even though individual cells don't, they'll just say society has rights that individual persons don't. I'm at a loss.

Wouldn't you be able to progress that upward to society? The individual would die without society and society would die without individuals.

I'm sure this has been mentioned elsewhere but I can' find it. How would you responed to this counter argument to society being a concept? "Kevin, you're not really Kevin but actually a grouping of different individual cells. Certainly your cells could be included within the concept of you, but when we are talking about your rights the only thing we can look at are the rights of the cells which the concept of "you" is used to describe. You exist as a concept, and don't exist in reality; only individual cells do." I'm having a hard time with that.

While I was showering tonight I was thinking about what Peter Joseph was saying about Stephan's agrument being trancated and simplistic. Has anyone tried to put this in the analogy of a mathmatical problem. My thoughts went something like this: Peter is looking at an incredibly complicated equation trying to find a solution. Stef is there looking at the equation with Peter and says. "I think its important to adhere to the principle that two plus two equals four." Peter replies, "Your thoery is trancated and simplistic, have you seen this problem? Two plus two equals four doesn't take into acount multiplication, division, square roots. Plus there are one's and three's and ten's. Two plus two equals four is fine on its own but it doesn't account for outside factors." I think alot of people view society as a complex equation and think that the solution has to be complex as well. Just as in mathmatics I think the most basic principles hold true even in the most complex situations, or at least they should.

Has anyone here ever come across this site? If so what are your thoughts on hierarchys and capitalism?

This was added, although a little late, but at least it's an attempt to argue taxation as not being theft. I felt she was just redefining the "Social Contract" though. Maya Rinta This has been an interesting debate to watch. I'm curious to ask after one specific philosophical strand, and I think I can get there my answering one of Kevin's requests (sorry if I'm beating a dead horse):Argument that Taxation Isn't TheftInherent in the definition and idea of "society" is that "society" is composed of a group of people who have decided to live together in some defined, regulated way which requires that each individual relinquish some individual liberty/freedom in order to benefit and better the group as individuals as a whole. That is, all the people decide that there are common resources accessible to all, and that there must be a means by which these common resources are regulated in order to ensure all can access/benefit from them. In this model, "taxes" would be this defined means, for it is a system by which the resource is relegated: individuals forfeit personal resource, and it is distributed to the whole (e.g. in forms of what we call "public services"). Therefore, taxes cannot be defined as theft, for there is no individual who does not consent to the regulation of public/common resource.The above argument is invalid only if one rejects the idea that a bunch of people living together are a society in which there is a shared agreement of social responsibility. If you don't believe that a bunch of people should try to ensure the sharing of resources, and therefore every individual has a right to those shared resources, then yes, taxes would be theft because that individual from whom resource ($) is taken does not give consent to the system of ensuring shared resource. Thus the individual must logically believe that individuals have no inherent responsibility towards other individuals living with/near them---that individual believes s/he has no inherent responsibility toward others by the way of social services/goods.

I recently have been in a debate with an old high school teacher over the idea of taxation as theft. Here is the argument we had on facebook: [*] Kevin Scott Krajewski No, we should get rid of the current welfare system because it is immoral. 18 hours ago via mobile · Like [*] Cliff Shaw How is it immoral? Because it helps people? 17 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1 [*] Jean Gritter Except the small percentage who cheat welfare simply take money, and those who misuse guns kill people. 17 hours ago · Like · 1 [*] Kevin Scott Krajewski It also hurts people, but no it immoral because it funded through theft. 16 hours ago via mobile · Like [*] Ryan G. Bruno I assume you are referring to taxes as theft? If so, then I think you have a choice in front of you: 1. Accept the fact that modern civilization is not free. 2. Explain your alternative political philosophy that builds roads and bridges entirely with donations. 2. Go live as a hermit somewhere. 15 hours ago · Like [*] Kevin Scott Krajewski 1. Your assuming civilization and the state are the same thing. 2. I can't believe your putting forrh the (but who will build the roads?) argument. Private roads and bridges have been built using donations and tolls, I dont see how thats an argument for a state. 3. Seriously? If your ever in the unfortunate position that someone has entered your home and is robbing you, maybe you should remember your own advice. If slavery was still practiced would you except that advice? Go live as a hermit. Would you tell women fighting for thier rights, "Don't like the current system, go live has a hermit somewhere." Sorry, but you need to prove to me how taxation isn't theft. 15 hours ago via mobile · Like [*] Justin Jackson I like turtles. 14 hours ago · Like [*] Ryan G. Bruno 1. I did say modern civilization, so yes, I was referring to the nation-state. You didn't say the state was bad or that the concept of government was bad. You said welfare was immoral. I'm sorry to have mistaken your anarchy for libertarianism. They're very similar when it comes to taxes. 2. Private roads are built when there's profit in it. That doesn't cut it if you enjoy getting around the way you currently do. Unless of course you are rich and only want to travel within major cities. I wasn't arguing for a state, I was explaining what taxes are for. 3. Seriously. Somebody robbing my house isn't building roads for me. I'm not saying "like it or leave it". I'm saying that you benefit from the tax system and must acknowledge that or live in hypocrisy. You are certainly free to call taxation theft if you are unwilling to contribute your share to the social contract you benefit from. If you are unwilling to pay but willing to accept the benefits, you are a free-loader. If you are unwilling to pay and have enough rectitude to refrain from all benefits, you'd have to become a hermit to accomplish this. A black-and-white position is untenable when you are up to your eyeballs in grey. 14 hours ago · Like [*] Kevin Scott Krajewski I'll except your definition of civilization, but I'm not sure how modern civilization having a cost is an argument for the morality of taxation. Also I have no problem with roads being built for profit, and I disagree that roads would only be availab...See More 13 hours ago via mobile · Like [*] Kevin Scott Krajewski Look, I can recognize that I have a gun to my head and play a long like any sain person would do. That doesn't mean I relinquish my right to point out the immortality of the system. It also doesn't make me a hypocrite if I participate in "society". What I'm more interested in though, is why your avoiding talking about the morality of taxation. I can never get anyone to explain to me how taxation isn't theft. I just get the same onslaught of preprogrammed propaganda. 13 hours ago via mobile · Like [*] Cliff Shaw Kevin, maybe if you started by explaining why, from your viewpoint, taxation is different than going shopping for groceries, Ryan and I might understand. I need groceries, despite my huge garden. I wish I didn't have to spend money that way, but I do in order to survive. I don't view that as theft, although I do get cranky when I know things aren't the price I'd like to pay for the environmental impact I'd like to have or the taste or nutrition I'm after. Likewise, I see the benefit of having public education and mental health facilities and fire fighters and bridges. I voted for people who put those in place, just as I voted what to buy at the grocery store. I'm no huge fan of representative democracy, but I don't see it as theft, despite its flaws. I do see it as incredibly prone to corruption as we see happening now, especially on the federal level. As a father of three (?) now (congrats, by the way, your youngest looks incredibly cute) I'm interested how you are going to justify your position in regards to public school being theft. By sending those beautiful wee ones there, are you not either "freeloading" or tacitly approving the system? The reality is that few of us could afford to send our kids to private schools and without the existence of pubkic schools, we'd lose half our labor force and half our household income. And then it becomes a question of how that is fair foe those who cannot afford public education and the cycle of poverty and class system that that creates. How is that not theft of the dreams of our children and their futures? 6 hours ago via mobile · Like [*] Cliff Shaw So here's what it comes to for me and Libertarians: explain how you deal with inequality. We have been watching the income gap grow in our lifetime, and if only those with that wealth can choose, isn't that essentially creating a slave/servant class? 6 hours ago via mobile · Like [*] Cliff Shaw Supposedly, in Ketchikan Alaska, not far from Ryan Bruno, they have that voluntary system with the fire department. If you choose not to pay your fire taxes, they let your house burn. I heard rumors that they did away with this, but it is interesting on that level. It essentially reduces the fire service to insurance. 6 hours ago via mobile · Like [*] Kevin Scott Krajewski Shaw, who is going to send you to prison for not buying groceries? Definition of theft from merriam-webster: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. Now if I don't "voluntarily" pay my taxes do I get left alone? No, the IRS will go after my bank account, my car, my house, they'll throw my in prison and if I resist they'll ultimately shoot me. Now tell me how I somehow agreed to this? I never signed any contract, I never voted on it (not that I agree voting is useful or legitimate), and just because I exist in this system doesn't somehow make me party to any sort of social contract (again whatever that is supposed to mean). Going to the grocery store and spending money (value) on things you "need" but are resentful for having to buy is completely different. No one owes you the things you buy at the store, so of course you have to trade value for it. Otherwise your arguing for a quasi form of slavery. I'm sorry the facts of biology and nature means that we have to eat and be sheltered to survive, and food and shelter are scarce, rivalrous commodities. Just because you might agree with the intentions of the thief doesn't change the legitimacy of his actions. Most people seem to be in favor of having bridges and roads and schools and are perfectly willing to pay taxes for them. I don't see how then having roads and bridges and schools without taxation would be a problem then. As far as the wealth gap is concerned, I would strongly argue that the government is more responsible for this then any other factor. I'm not going to do it here, but I will make that case. As far as schooling goes I have absolutely no intention on sending my kids to a public school, with the technology that is available today it almost completely unnecessary. Yes I would argue that the public schools are funded through theft and thus immoral. The government has no business in the education of children and schools serve a greater purpose in indoctrination then in education. I'm perfectly fine running the fire department like insurance. I think that children are far better off being at home with their parents and there is plenty of science to back this up. "How is it not the theft of the dreams of our children and their futures?" What does that even mean? By denying somebody something that they don't have any claim to (others time and resources) you are not taking anything from them. Shaw, you talk constantly against theft and exploitation (recent Russel Brand posts and info shop memes) while at the same time arguing for a system that is based off of theft and exploitation. Forgive me if I have a hard time understanding where your values really lie. 3 hours ago · Edited · Like [*] Ryan G. Bruno That's because if you don't pay your taxes you are stealing from your neighbors. 4 hours ago · Like [*] Tami Noll Cutler I don't think we should get rid of the welfare system but I don think it needs a lot of changes. I think we may have had this conversation before but my sister-in-law has been on it for 16 years. When she lost custody of one child, she had another. Her own words were it's too easy to get those benefits but if she works, they cut them and she makes more on welfare in the long run. She has never worked a day thus far paying any taxes into the system she lives off of. My Grandma on the other hand, work until she was 80 paying taxes and didn't get enough social security to live off that a lone. They cut a lot of their job training for people on welfare and steps to help get them on their own feet. Then they cut them off cold turkey if they start to work. I wouldn't mind a slaes tax so at least we know everyone would be paying into the system when they pay their goods but they would have to do away with one taxation for that to happen. 3 hours ago · Edited · Like [*] Kevin Scott Krajewski No Ryan, not paying my taxes is not stealing from my neighbors. Not paying my taxes is resisting my neighbors theft. I have a claim on my time, labor and fruits thereof, not anyone else. To argue otherwise would be to argue for slavery. Sorry. You can make up whatever ex post facto justification you wish. It isn't going to change the fundamental fact that forcefully taking property from someone is the exact definition of theft. 3 hours ago · Like [*] Ryan G. Bruno If you don't pay your taxes you are forcing your neighbors to pay for your services. How is that not theft? Also, your point about nobody having claim to the fruits of your labor is highly debatable. You are simply restating you insistence using different terms. 3 hours ago · Like [*] Kevin Scott Krajewski Look, the services only exist because of the initial theft. You continue to try and avoid disproving taxation isn't theft. I don't believe it can be done. You either are going to need to put forth an argument that taxation isn't theft or concede that it is. If you want to invoke a social contract then show me the contract. Show me the parties involved, the terms of the contract, and where I explicitly consented to it. Otherwise its just a euphemism used to try and disguise a system inherently founded on theft and exploitation. 3 hours ago via mobile · Like [*] Cliff Shaw While I couldn't agree more that capitalism is a system inherently founded on theft and exploitation, I don't think that going the way of super capitalism is the answer. To continue our earlier comparison, while it is true that if you refuse to pay your taxes you may end up in jail and have an extremely small chance of being killed for it (although that may change very quickly). Try not eating. You will die. And I hope you aren't arguing that it is worse to be in jail than dead. 2 hours ago · Like [*] Kevin Scott Krajewski Ill be killed if I resist. I'm curious how the realities of our biology justifies a system of hegemony? 2 hours ago via mobile · Like [*] Cliff Shaw If, as you said, resources like food are limited and scarce, how do we make sure that all people get what they need to live given the disparity in wealth and power we see today? This is my biggest complaint with Libertarianism, it makes no excuses for people having different amounts of power and wealth. It seems like philosophically, they really only care about how much money can be made off of others needs while calling it a choice. We do not have a choice whether to eat or not, and many of us on the planet have no choice of what to eat (did you see the Fatwa issued in Syria allowing people to eat dogs and cats?). Libertarianism doesn't give a damn about poor people other than giving them the feeling of freedom while keeping them in what we anarchist/socialist types call wage slavery. My values are for freedom and the abolition of the wage system and all forms of hierarchy and oppression. To have a commodity that is essential for life and withhold it for the sake of profit is immoral and the highest form of exploitation and violence. You call it a choice when in truth, there is none. My garden gets pillaged fairly often. I had a conversation with a neighbor who was very upset about the same thing happening with theirs. My philosophy is that if someone is stealing my vegetables, they are hungry. Nobody steals broccoli for fun or out of greed. This is my moral obligation, to help others. Where does this come in with Libertarianism? 2 hours ago · Like · 1 [*] Cliff Shaw And what about monopolies? Read up on Standard oil. When we have something that is essential for modern life, there should never be a scarcity or control of it for the sake of profit. Any controls on it must be in place to make sure that it is available equitably for all, not only for those who seek to profit from others need. 2 hours ago · Like [*] Cliff Shaw But in your example, it is the act of physical resistance that gets you killed, not the act of refusing taxes. Just as if I went to the grocery store, it isn't the stealing of the food that gets me killed, but my response to the security guards. Of course they are inter related, but not a required outcome. I could talk my way out of it, apply more cunning methods or make sure I can outrun them or take them on physically. Or I could appeal to their better sides and ask for their mercy and help so I can eat that day. Or I could roll deep and do it with 100 other hungry people. And there is the strength of the anarcho-syndicalist. 2 hours ago · Edited · Like [*] Cliff Shaw Gah. I need to get back to grading these photo editing projects. Here's my challenge to you. Go for a week without using anything tax supported. You can cry monopoly all you want, but there really is no monopoly on roads. A private company can buy land and make a road, it just is prohibitively expensive. 2 hours ago · Like [*] Kevin Scott Krajewski I'm not a libertarian. Are you telling me food and resources aren't scarce? We can't make sure it's distributed equitably, not even with a state, and certainly not without violating peoples freedom and sovereignty. Your position as both an anarchist and socialist are untenable. You have to use this idea of structural violence to rationalize how it not immoral to take from others what you think they may be withholding from others to sustain life. I'm sorry but I have no obligation to insure that others have the things necessary to live, and even if I did that wouldn't justify enslaving the people that did have those things. I'm glad that you have no problem with people taking from your garden, but in making that example do you realize that you vindicated my position. I applaud your desire to help others, but your means go against the very values that you put forth. 2 hours ago · Like [*] Cliff Shaw So am I getting your argument right that if you don't want to pay the taxes, you shouldn't have to? And if the rest of us vote against you, you call it slavery? I get that in some ways. Have you been paying attention to the issues around the Sellwood Bridge in Portland? Something like 75% of the cars that use it are registered in Clackamas County, but they refused to pay any taxes towards it. Should we Portlanders make it a toll bridge for them and let Multnomah county residents who are paying for it through taxes drive for free? What if we extend this idea to interstates making all roads toll roads unless you have paid for them? I'm all for making the new CRC a toll bridge, but the people who use it are freaking out. Just as we parents with kids in the school system freak out about having to pay the full cost of an education ourselves. Sometimes, we need to help our neighbors, I suppose. I've been an adult without kids for longer than I've had them. 2 hours ago · Like [*] Kevin Scott Krajewski I don't need to take your challenge, my participation in the current paradigm doesn't mean it has my consent any more then a slave's participation in slavery means slavery has his consent. As for your example of stealing from a store, whatever happens after the theft is irrelevant, it's the initial act that is of concern. Obviously if there were no consequences for not paying my taxes then it wouldn't be theft. about an hour ago · Edited · Like [*] Cliff Shaw Of course food is scarce. But as far as values, for me someones life is far more important than making money and If I have enough to live, the extra should be going to help others. And I would argue strongly that we do have an obligation to help others. That is what makes us human. When we allow ourselves to not believe we can and should assist others, we begin to fall down some dark paths. It is only in our society and a very few other deeply individualistic cultures this last century that this notion of not having responsibility for others comes up. Throughout our history as humans, this has been a constant. about an hour ago · Like [*] Cliff Shaw And my free garden is pure anarchy. Those who need can have for free. No trades unless people want to. Not socialism, but I teeter on that edge all the time. about an hour ago · Like [*] Kevin Scott Krajewski Then make the argument. How do I have an obligation to someone I've never met and don't even know of, and how do they have a claim to my labor, time, and resources? I have no problem if cultures hold those values, I'll help people where I can, but that voluntary. about an hour ago · Like [*] Cliff Shaw OK. So define a perfect society/economy under your vision. It sounds very Libertarian. about an hour ago · Like [*] Kevin Scott Krajewski Libertarians believe in a state, granted a very small one, I do not. about an hour ago · Like [*] Kevin Scott Krajewski Sarah is getting annoyed with me, so I'll have to pick this up later. Take care. about an hour ago · Like [*] Cliff Shaw And therein is the social contract. Wouldn't you want someone to help you in a time of need? Even if they didn't know you? In many places in this country it is illegal to not stop for a stranded motorist as the weather puts their lives in danger. about an hour ago · Like [*] Cliff Shaw Enjoying this, but I'm at work on a grading day and just making more work for myself this weekend. These grades have to get done. Gah. about an hour ago · Like [*] Kevin Scott Krajewski Its always a pleasure. I guess my question is has anyone ever encountered an arguement for taxation from first principles and how do you deal with the issue of a social contract. Obviously I'm posting this for support as these kind of debates can be quite draining, if not pointless. Thanks, Kevin Krajewski