dsayers

Isn't FDRs position regarding race relations that the ways in which the black community is told they're going to fail takes away hope and sort of leads to a self-fulfilling prophesy? The success of important and emotionally challenging discussions is predicated on the honesty, integrity, vulnerability, and investment of those involved, not the medium through which they exchange these things. "Guaranteed failure" is such absolutist language that unless you're talking about a fact (2+2=4 absolutely), it's almost certainly a false claim.

I parted ways with them once I accepted that humans do not exist in different, opposing moral categories. Once I did that, it was hard to hear them talk about how violence was righteous if only used properly, that our masters should obey their own edicts, etc. Is this to say that Trump is without flaw though? Do you think Trump has been demonstrating that he would be worthy of Libertarian support?

1. For you and me, it is immoral to steal, assault, rape, and murder. However, (according to statism) for the ruling and enforcer class, these things are not only not considered to be immoral, but are considered righteous. Thus, statism is the belief that humans are capable of occupying different, opposing moral categories simultaneously. 2. Consent cannot be implied. With regards to the mating ritual, it is given even if not verbally. Which wasn't the point. The point was that for you to claim that contracts are voluntary except when they're not exceeds the definition of contract. It is a first principle that something cannot be itself and the opposite of itself simultaneously. Such as love making and rape, or contract and coercively imposed interaction. 3. You are projecting as you go on to do the fogging when you bring up libel and slander. That is not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is the repercussions of violating one's contract, which is tantamount to voluntarily taking on a reputation of being unreliable in the context of satisfying one's contractual obligations. In order for your assertion that contracts require "legally enforceable" to be true, they would not be able to exist outside of state oversight. However, we know that they do. We also know that the only thing that you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence is violence itself. Which is the opposite of contracts. Which are the embodiment of cooperation. 5. ALL contracts involve investments that the parties are"has such an authority [to] grant." Bring up this characteristic as if it refutes contracts is nonsensical. That ability was not granted willy nilly. There are requisites one must agree to in advance and adhere to. Yes, they can withdraw it at any time, because it is their property. Just as if I let you borrow my car, the nature of your use of my car is temporary by design, thus withdrawal of my consent is a feature of our contract. 6. This is also false. In the examination of whether or not contracts are a statist construct, your initial point 5 was "Contracts are a statist construct because the legal fiction, history, and logic we use to understand and implement them are statist constructs." This is begging the question. You go on to claim requiring a 3rd party, but that claim had already been challenged and as of yet, has yet to be established. Thank you for the exchange. I miss the days when this is what FDR looked like.

1. The rest of your post tells me this likely isn't so. Either way, without specifying what parts are problematic, I can't make them "plainer"? 2. "Love making is generally voluntary, yes, however, there are types of love making in which this is not the case such as rape." Which by definition would mean it's not love making. Just like if it's not voluntary, it's not a contract. 3. "the threat of loss of reputation is coercion" You poison the well with the word threat. a) Thinking less of somebody is not a behavior. b) When somebody engages in a voluntary behavior, they are voluntarily accepting the consequences of that behavior. c) By extension, when somebody initiates the use of force (which breaking a contract with no early termination clause is), they are voluntarily creating a debt and cannot claim the collection of that debt is coercive. d) In the cause and effect relationship, effect is not the threat of the cause. It would be like saying that using a ladder is coercive because losing your footing comes with the "threat" of falling to the Earth. This is just reality. 5. False. When you came to these forums, you were given user level access in exchange for your agreement to abide by the forum TOS. This is a contract, is completely voluntary, and has nothing to do with a "statist construct." What even is a statist construct for that matter? I think maybe you don't know what contract means. It's just an agreement between two people predicated on the other person's involvement. I will provide X in exchange for Y is a contract.

Where to begin? Statism is institutionalized coercion; The belief that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories. Contracts are voluntary. These ideas are incompatible. When two people enter into a contract, if they voluntarily designate a 3rd party arbiter, this is not coercive. If somebody breaks their contract, then others will be less likely to trade with them due to reputation. This is natural, voluntary "enforcement." Finally, because contracts are voluntary, they should be constructed with early termination clauses. That way even once in a contract, people are free to leave. Just because you can make use of the State to forcibly punish people for breaking contracts does not mean contracts are a statist construct.

Well if we continue to speak the truth and accept reality, I imagine expansion (assuming this is a requisite) would be found in evolving beyond the State. At that point, the claim of no more uninhabited areas becomes false.

Thanks for the input, y'all. While I was specifically asking about caffeine, talking about coffee satisfies my inquiry just about as much. I'd like to see this sentiment fleshed out a bit better. My understanding is that addiction is rooted in abuse/trauma. I don't think caffeine solicits a sense of "normalcy" that would make it truly addictive. Or that addiction can be attributed to substances to begin with for this reason. I'm also not sure that "natural process" is a sufficient measure. If it weren't for negative side effects, if one's body were to adapt to the presence of chemical X, to go without would just mean the body would adjust again. I'm more interested in what the side effects might actually be, especially when compared to the benefits, if any. Thank you for the link though. And thank you CalebSC for the word aquaretic. I was familiar with diuretic, but not aquaretic. In being exposed to this word, I've also gotten a more precise idea of what diuretic means. So thanks for that

I'm not going to sit down and post a bunch of links of "self-defense" being debunked for somebody that has demonstrated they are only interested in bias confirmation. But I will share this link again for those who are unaware of your confirmation bias.

Your ability to create this thread after how many years of human evolution is proof that we don't need X to survive where X was not present before.

Does anybody know of any good resources that touches on the positive aspects of caffeine? I know that from a fitness and circulation standpoint, there are benefits. And I know the overarching narrative is that caffeine is "bad" and "addictive." I'm curious as to how these two columns compare. Thanks.

I loved Bullshit!

I knew that when facing evidence that your claim was false, you would make no effort to circle back for integrity's sake. I see you're still on about how enslaving 300 million people is either self or defense. Must be because you've never seen anybody debunk that position either. How can you tell it's a philosophy forum? Because people respond to evidence with downvotes, appeals to emotion, and moving the goalposts.

Willful ignorance, likely due to bias confirmation. As YOU know, I once held that political voting was immoral. YOUR thread/video here convinced me otherwise. Then I released an article here (dated 16 Nov) that re-established my position that political voting is immoral, with the concept of credible threat as the keystone. It was said here, in this very thread: link 1, link 2 As well as here, prior to this thread: link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6, link 7, link 8 (where the case is made that this is WHY political voting is immoral; also dated 16 Nov 2016) There are 21 more such links that I won't belabor linking. You can search for "credible threat" by dsayers to see for yourself. The first one on record was here (dated 16 Sep 2014). It's not even a controversial position. We know that a person pointing a gun at you is engaging in immorality, taking responsibility away from you coercively, even though their action technically is not binding upon you. Precisely because it is a _____.

This is an appeal to emotion. In order for moral consideration, you have to have a behavior and it has to be binding upon another moral actor. Inaction is not action and therefore has no moral component. This is why it's important to be precise with our language. The word selfish is not sinister. It doesn't mean anti-compassion. It's just being honest about the fact that biologically speaking, when you help others, you're doing it for the ways in which you subconsciously perceive it to benefit you. Even if that just means not living with the guilt of leaving somebody in the snow when you could have helped, for example. It's involuntary, so there's no point in demonizing or denying it.

When I was looking into this for myself, I was told that an IDCL is considered baseline. I never looked too far into it, so I'm afraid that's all I have to add. I hope it's helpful.

Since there's a lot of talk about "legitimize," I wanted to point out two things. The first being that I defined it here. Which is odd considering I've been accused of not rebutting it Secondly, I never claimed that it legitimizing the State is what makes it immoral. Engaging in political voting is immoral because it is deliberately using a credible threat to bind others without their consent AND it legitimizes the State by demonstrating to others that something that only exists in people's minds actually exists and is righteous.

Absolutely. Who else's interest does it serve if not for the self? This is not true. Creating a business requires a great deal of investment and overhead. This is done with the expectations of returns on investment. Self gain. We are a social species and our individual lives is made easier by the division of labor. Specializing by providing a product/service for others enables you to accumulate the wealth to have the freedom of choice to do that much less of the labor you want done in your life. I don't know that such a thing is possible. As I reflect on my own life, the most "unselfish" things I've done, I did because of the ways they brought joy, peace, happiness, and tranquility to my own life. Not consciously, and that's my point. We are biologically driven to increase pleasure and decrease pain.

So you find value in it being pointed out that you did despite not wanting to? Also, I addressed your position by saying I agree. Is this personalization? I find that when somebody shifts a discussion from ideas to individuals, they're going astray, up to and including closing themselves off to the discussion. Every breath you take is oxygen others don't get to use. Every drink and bite you take is nourishment others don't get to use. You provide products/services to others so that you can store value for yourself. "Selfishness motivates our every decision" is only a controversial position to those who want for the individual to erase themselves.

I agree with your underlying point, but this is an appeal to emotion. "Selfish" is what motivates everybody and that's okay. Although it is unclear to me what either of you mean by "is the right kind of attitude," I just wanted to point out that ethics comes from capitalism. If you own yourself (capitalism), then your neighbor owns himself, and now we know how to interpret interpersonal behavioral propositions (ethics).

If you find my argument to be flawed, by all means refute it. I don't think saying it hasn't been provided accomplishes anything.

Just remember that everything we do is enhanced by self-knowledge.

I agree that it takes all types to make the world go 'round. How do you know that they are moving freedom in the right direction? It seems to me that every behavior we engage in either adds to our freedom or detracts from it. Operating from within the system--when within the system precludes dissolving it; when in fact within the system grows that system--is detracting from freedom. It's not only not a solution, but it is an anti-solution. It achieves the opposite of one's stated goals and prevents them from seeking out actual solutions. Mires them down. Takes them out of the game, which is what the whole "of the people" narrative is meant to accomplish. Then, instead of choosing to be mired down himself, he's putting a lot of effort into misleading others into thinking his approach is tenable. Miring that many more people down. I will try and check out the video you just shared as I am interested. However, I think it's tangential at best to the discussion. Full disclosure: I find the title to be problematic. Not knowing for sure what is meant by "system," man made systems are built on ideas.

Moving the goalposts. My input was to challenge your language, as "Anarchist utopia" is an oxymoron. You did not accept this, nor have you circled back to address this.

You can't fix a problem that you don't understand. Would you agree? It seems to me that talking about dissolving the State demonstrates a lack of understanding of what the problem is. Government doesn't exist. A belief in it does, that allows those who operate in its name to go largely unopposed. The moment you turn to the State for anything, it grows, because you are now behaving as if it exists. Even if your intent is to "dissolve" it. When people make voluntary trades that aren't taxed, this dissolves the State. When people have conversations about the fact that government isn't real, they dissolve the State. When people use Bitcoin (as an example), they are dissolving the State. Nobody set out to dissolve the horse and carriage. They made something better and people stopped using horse and carriage organically. This has been my single greatest issue with Mr. Kokesh all along. He's so busy figuring out how to use an imaginary weapon in order to dismantle itself, that he's doing so little to actually contribute to doing so.