june

i find this post intellectually offensive. are you really suggesting i have no place on this forum because i have a different world view? i came to this forum to discuss and explore the ancap disposition, to learn it, ask questions on it, and genrally to discuss philoposhy and our world. i posted a thread that put the nap and property rights through a intregrity test in the hopes of finding an answer to possible problems with those principles. so far no one has provided a valid answer to my queries. i do not know why you are picking on me personally because of this. i have not been offensive. i have not "promoted" tzm or tvp. i came here for discussion and exploration, and this attitude from you to shut out other perspectives is sad to see. i did not (and do not) believe that this is how this board operates, and i hope it is only you who holds this closed-off view on discussion and philosphy. edit: if you want to move past this petty attack on me personally, please feel free to respond to my thread where i raised queries/concerns about the nap and property rights. that is what is important -- putting philopshy through intellectual tests to see if they can withstand pure logic. that is what is important. stick to the information, not the people. peace, and i really do look forward to your response should you choose to do so, as after reading the other responses to my thread no one has been able to dismantle my arguments head-on. i challenge anybody to do so. i welcome it, if it can be done.

i literally just told you that i am uneducated when it comes to RBE. i do not claim otherwise. i am not actually that interested in the topic either because (as far as im aware) RBE is more about specific design (TVP), whereas i am more interested in the logic which allowed that design to be, ie. sustainability, technology, focus on public health etc (TZM)

all i can say is that i align with their general outlook on the world in terms of sustainability on a finite planet and using technology to help keep us in balance with nature as best as needed. i dont mind whether that is tzm or tvp, it's the information/viewpoint that is important.as for "the zeitgeist movement defined" book, peter mentioned it in his new interview with breakingtheset. he said it releases in jan 2014, if i recall correctly. hopefully it can lock me onto some specifics behind this viewpoint/outlook

i certainly align with their general principles of sustainability (which is basically common sense more than anything) and how the world today is a 'systems' problem rather than an ethical problem (ancaps belief?), i.e. the world and everything related to it works in synergy and intertwine constantly, therefore everything of relevance needs to be altered for true change, rather than just abiding by the nap and hoping other people will also abide by the nap, as that method basically cuts off the entire spectrum of pressures and just hones in on people, as if people are somehow separate from the pressures of the world and everything around themas for the rbe specifically, i'm undecided at this stage, mostly due to a lack of education. i will be reading their "zeitgeist movement defined" book when it releases to gain a better understanding of this topic

i know. it's a rebuttal to stefan's truncated arguments, which is what we're talking about. so you have no proof and are merely projecting your own prejudices. until you can validate your claims (which if true, really shouldn't be hard to do at all; even if they don't "come out and say that they want a statist blob" surely you can provide a source which at least hints towards this?) then it's best if this subject is put to a halt for now.

essentially, yes (retard is a strong word, but regardless i understand your intent)this is because ethics are not empirical. killing may be wrong a lot of the time, but there are scenarios where killing is in fact 'just' (self-defense for one), so to say "thou shall not kill" is to make a rash, hollow blanket statement. to just declare "do not kill" completely ignores the reasons of why one might need to kill.this relates to the ancap position of "do not use the initiation of force" also.... because why should one not use force?! why just declare that, what about the reasons? i started a thread relating to this topic in which i argued that it's likely impossible to raise a child with absolutely zero force (picking up the child against it's will; stopping the child from chewing a small plastic toy... these are initiations of force)

i was merely trying to make a simple analogy about how stefan's argument was taking place within a vacuum and didn't allow for the influence of other factors. for example, you cannot state that "killing + person = wrong. therefore thou shall not kill", because that is trying to claim empiricism from limited factors, and it is clear that there can in fact be circumstances in which killing is 'right', or least acceptable. so when you add another influencing factor both the question and answer change altogether, ie. "killing + person + self-defense = right" -- it becomes an entirely different equation.peter joseph explained this quite well in the debate: "in pure vacuum and in the void of space these theories hold true, in other words you can have perfect circles when there is nothing else drawing influence. the fact of the matter is we live in a constant continuum of pressures."in response to the rest of your post, could you please provide just one source of your claim that peter joseph promotes, "Some kind of horrible statist blob that is controled by a 'benevolent dictator'". i have never heard tzm advocate anything like this and it would surprise me if this happened to be true, so i would appreciate it if you are able to back up this claim with evidence.

isn't this then an argument of practicality, not ethics? stabbing people for food might not work in the long-run, i agree, but what if you're hungry or thirsty now, so that your goals are only aimed at the short-term.

1. no. i am saying it is someones choice to walk where they want to walk. they may not have a full range of the information of a given scenario (an oncoming vehicle in this instance), but they still made their own voluntary decision. if someone intervenes with force (to push them out of the way) then they are breaching the nap.2. "Of course you can always convince and reason with a child". i plainly disagree. i mean young children don't even have the ability to understand speech. but i'll move on from this topic3. no one is thinking about molesting anyone. this example was in regards to property rights. it was established that children are in full ownership of their own bodies (i dont know if you disagree with this or not). therefore i asked if under the definition of property rights, is it okay for me to lure someones elses child away with sweets and ice cream (or whatever else would work on a young child) and keep that child away from it's parent? the child voluntarily wishes to follow me and my sweets, and the child is wholly in ownership of itself, therefore any forceful intervention on behalf of the parent to bring back the child would be wrong a breach of property rights. you are right, and i should have worded that better. it does not inherently invalidate the nap. but it does reduce the nap to the point of absurdity. defintion of nap from wikipedia: the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.this principle is clearly defined. the example of a forcing a baby's hand away from the oven is a breach of the nap, by definition. so either you: 1) follow the nap and allow the baby to put their hand in the oven, or 2) do not follow the nap and remove the babies hand from the oven.

sigh. i only know the scenario from the information provided. if you now suggest that you were studying her behaviour and reactions enough to know she didn't want those events to occur (even though you could not actually be 100% certain) then i admit, that brings this scenario into even more shaky ground, and it's pointless debating this particular example if you can keep applying new details. my main point, which you ignored, is that you are transferring the decision-making of a person over to the violator of that person. and that leads to very dangerous avenues

you have still not confronted my main argument. the surgeon example is not proof of anything, it's an exact replica of the scenario i'm trying to present an argument against (your real life example of the lady in the street)! you are transferring the decision-making of a person over to the violator of that person. if i attempted to commit suicide and a surgeon forced his will upon me and brought me back to life... then yes, that is a breach of force, is it not?

no. that is a far deviation from the topic of conversation. we are talking about the nap (and property rights secondarily) and how it applies. what i am suggesting is that actions, such as what you performed, are a violation of the nap. can you refute this? can anyone?

i've stated what i'm talking about several times — you used force on another person without their consent and are now attempting to justify it (the act before the consent). imagine if this logic was extended to parents who hit their kids and attempt to justify it by saying: "kids need to be hit, it will give them character!"you're transferring the rights of decision making of a person and handing it to the violator.

but this is false. you did not know 100% what the 'best' decision for her was, and even if you did, you did not have her consent; you made a decision for her, and then acted on that assumption with force. that is breaking the nap. what if afterward she scorned you for using force on her?

or more specifically, it was the best decision you assumed was the best for her.and if this logic is accepted and extended, then it's perfectly fine for a person to enact force upon another all because that person assumes they know what is best for the other....... so does this not invalidate the nap entirely?

so until this point in time, the child's consent is invalid? and who determines when the child is at an age of understanding? well if i physically, forcefully intervene, then is that not a breach of the nap? that is my question. i am putting the nap under logical scrutiny. this is how you react to an examination of principles?my arguments are looking quite strong thus far. no one has yet to offer a solid response to dispel my qualms. your input has been great people, thanks

this is a pretty good description of the problem between both parties and fine example of stefan's truncation. 2+2=4 is fine on it's own... but how is it at all relevant when the equation you're trying to solve has to factor in methods of division, subtraction, muliplication etc?and that is pretty much how the debate carried out. stefan stated things which were mostly true, peter agreed with stefan that these things were true, but then also pointed out that they were not always true when given the relevant context (in this case, the context of the reality).

but is this not essentially saying that it's okay to violate someone's voluntary choice, because the violator assumes they know best for the other person? this logic can lead to very shaky ground once extended further but children cannot always be convinced or reasoned with. if a child is biting a small plastic toy and looking as if it will eventually swallow it, it's not like the child will always listen to your explaintation of why swallowing the toy is bad and will cause harm (maybe the child doesn't even know language). so what other practical choice does the parent have but to physically/forcefully remove the toy from the childs hands (which as you stated, is a violation of the nap)? hypothetically, does this mean i am perfectly free (in the context of property rights) to lure someone elses child towards me with enticing goods like sweets and toys and lots of other pleasureables? i may not have the childs long-term interest at heart, but as long as i can provide what it wants (again, young children aren't always 'reasonable' in that they dont/cant look at the long-term) then that is fine? but who are you to decide for the child what is/what is not a good idea? partially, yes this is correct. but there are 3 options here that i see:1) abide by the nap; having children is not force. keep having children2) abide by the nap; having children is force. stop having children3) the nap cannot withstand practicality or logical scrutiny; discard the nap

wow everybody, thanks for all your responses! i'll do my best to get back to everyone individually, even just for the fact that i hope to get many viewpoints on this topic from different people just to re-iterate, my main query is about how these scenarios apply to the nap and property rights i don't understand your dinstiction between between 'real violence' and 'not-real violence (?)' in this context. to re-state my position: although there are many avenues this question can go down (which i would love to see discussions on!), the primary purpose is to understand if these scenarios are classed as breaches of the nap or not. so in the case of nap, the severity of the violence is not the issue, the fact that it is breaking the nap at all (or not) is. the creation of life is only consenual for 2 out of the 3 parties. the child does not and can not consent. you say "the child isn't certainly isn't being aggressed against by coming into existence", well, why? again, the child did not give any consent to being born. again, i'm not specfically talking about 'should they or shouldn't they' (but do welcome discussion on it!) but much moreso about the nap. so i simply ask, why should you intervene? the child made their decision to eat the leaf or to put their finger in an electrical socket, so who are we to stop them? yes, you can attempt to educate with words, but what if they don't listen and still attempt to put their finger into the socket? most parents at this stage would use force to stop the child. is this not a breach of the nap? and this doesn't have to apply only to dangerous situations either, it can happen in a lot of casual ways because of course parents all have their own do's and don'ts -- just use the same scenario as above except replace the electrical socket with ice cream, or when it's time for bed, etc. ideally, yes, they could serve as great learning opportunies. but what if the child does not heed your message and decides to eat the leaf or put their finger in the electrical socket regardless. if the child does not heed your teaching then at this point some parents may use force to physically stop them from doing so; and then, is this not a breach of the nap? 1a) "because no one wants to be dead at the moment of birth or conception." -- i dont understand this part. my point is that the parents are making a decision for the child that has huge consequences directly unto that child, all without the childs consent. is this not a breach of the nap? 1b) but the child didn't consent for you to be it's carer, nor do children always peacefully consent. so if you ask them to not do something and they refuse, then you physicaly remove the item from their hands, is this not a breach of nap? 2) nice and blunt. i agree with you, and was hoping that would be the answer my follow-up question to this would be: if the child is solely the property of itself, then what role is the parent/carer playing here. wouldn't then the parents/carers rights be just as null as any other random adult in the street, e.g. so my neighbour could interact with my child just as much as myself, because we both have no actual property rights over the child? we're both as null as each other right (morally, not legally)? oh, that's a very heavy statement. "the child's position is not valid". could you expand on this? why isn't the child's position valid?

hi, i have recently been introduced to stefan's ideas and am enjoying his content (especially his call-in shows). so far it seems his strongest 'goals' are essentially to remove violence/force/coercion, which is best achieved through good parenthood. agree? okay, so i was wondering how these specific ideas conflate specifically with the 'being' of children. i will state my queries bluntly: 1a) a child has no say in being born, therefore is it an act of force for a parent to have a child? there may be an argument that it is 'natural' for people to have children and therefore permissable under the circumstances, but that would then lead to various other avenues such as "if eating is natural, and someone cannot attain food, would it then be 'natural' and therefore permissable for this person to steal food, or take it by force?". there can be a lot to say when going down these avenues, but primarly i am interested in the distinction of "is it force/breaching voluntarism to have children?" 1b) a child has no meaningful say in his/her upbringing, is it force when a parent restricts/rules over aspects of that childs life? e.g. a child picks a leaf from a tree and tries to eat it, the parent then stops the child from doing so and carries her away from the tree to stop her from doing it again. is that force/breaching voluntarism? it is the childs choice and want to eat the leaf, and yet her parent stopped her from doing so. there might be an argument that the child isn't wise enough to make her own decision yet, but does that logic then allow others to make/force their decision onto her? 2) is a child the property of the parent/s, the child itself, or a merge? -- if the child is property of the parent alone, then it can be presumed that the parent can do what they wish with the child, even to destroy it if they want, because it is their property -- if the child has full ownership over itself, then is it not force/breaching voluntarism when a parent supercedes it's will (this question is tied with 1b)? and following this thought, as the parent by definition would be an non-owner (morally, not legally), doesn't this allow any adult or person to interfere with any children just as much as the biological parent, because their status as property holder over the child are both equally null? -- and finally, if ownership is merged... (well, i don't know what that means really, if this is the answer then i would need it explained) then, again, who gets the final say over the actions of the child, the child or parent? if it is the parent then, as stated, the parent can choose to destroy their property if they wish, if it is the child, then the parent has no right to breach the childs voluntarism. so there are my main concerns about these ideas so far, i hope they come across clear enough, and i hope you guys can help me & whoever else may have similar questions. thank you