dsayers

I think more context is required. A parent is certainly physically mature contrasted to their child. An expert in a field is more mature with regards to that field than a layman. In terms of parenting, it's nigh on useless. It's paternalizing to say to somebody that they must do something because you know better than they do. While this may be true in any number of parent-child scenarios, the parent has created an obligation to the child to aide them in maturing, which cannot be done by making decisions for them.

I don't think when a person becomes a moral actor can be defined by a number. It takes self-knowledge and understanding of the other, consequences, etc. While I had a rudimentary understanding of right and wrong, I can honestly say that I was not fully morally responsible until I was 35 as a result of heavy propaganda and will-breaking inflicted upon me. That doesn't mean that if I had murdered somebody before that time, I shouldn't have been held accountable. This is why I specify FULLY morally responsible. In case I'm not being clear, I can give an example of what I mean. In the past, there have been times I've called the police for something because I felt I was living in a paradigm where if I tried to talk to a neighbor about something, I'd be the bad guy. Present day, I view calling the police for anything that doesn't concern the initiation of the use of force to be an immoral act. One I was not responsible for before because I simply did not have the capacity to know better despite my relatively advanced age. This is one of the reasons why I think when discussing spanking, it's paramount that we make it clear that it is assault that's being discussed. Or that voting is the initiation of the use of force. That taxation is theft. As Stef would say, we need to reveal the gun in the room. Otherwise, when discussing these things with other people, it's like we're talking about different things entirely.

You know, those in power are able to fool as many people as they do as effectively as they do by using obfuscation. While maybe not deliberately, you are obfuscating the discussion in ways that are not necessary or useful. Here, you speak of force as if it is enough information. A rapist uses force, but so do the people that stop them. One is righteous, the other is violent. It's like talking about somebody starting a fire. Are they committing arson or cooking a life-sustaining meal? All the difference in the world. I've made deliberate efforts to keep the conversation clear and concise. Could you please address the scenario I provided and answer my question as to where you feel the inconsistency lies? I'm several posts in and do not feel I have any better a grasp on what you're trying to accomplish.

"Do you have a job, sir? Are you employed? Do you go to a job interview dressed like that? On a weekday?"

No double standard. You own yourself. As such, a woman's body belongs to her. Once a child is born (you cannot abort a child), it is the responsibility of his biological parents. This sucks for women since they have to do the whole gestation and birthing thing. This sucks for men since they don't have a say over the woman's body. This is why the subject of vetting your co-parent before risking co-parenting is crucial. When people take this decision seriously, this will almost never even occur. At any rate, I think my position is morally consistent as opposed to being a double standard.

Unless the man was raped or his seed was otherwise stolen, the pregnancy was a decision that he made. He created a positive obligation to the child the moment he chose to engage in a behavior that has the expected outcome of creating that child. This is really no different than my last post. It is up to everybody to get to know somebody before engaging in behavior that could shackle you to them for a couple decades. This is a very serious topic and people need to approach it as such no matter how inconvenient of frustrating in the moment it might be.

As a minor correction, I've only heard him talk about turning on the dependent classes. While this can include the poor, it can also include the elderly or anybody that receives governmental benefits such as unemployment, etc. I glanced over the article. It looks to me like a guy who lives that way by choice. I don't see the State anywhere in it. I could totally live like that IF it included broadband internet. As it is, I do live a bit meager compared to most, but not as pared down as that guy. I would LOVE to be able to not have a car. Such a money drain.

Maybe the problem is that you're talking in terms of beliefs in matters of fact. To initiate the use of force is immoral. This is true. Somebody who initiates the use of force is responsible for that immorality. This is also true. You can reject that 2+2=4, but this doesn't make it my belief. I still don't see the distinction you're trying to make. Going back to the scenario where person A assaults person B, that's person A's assault. If person B suffers injury such as a broken bone, person A is responsible for that, because it is an effect of their immoral action. How is this inconsistent to you?

I'm glad this was made, but it's not enough. It only focused on physical abuse and only on the desire to escape. It doesn't address other forms of abuse or how it alters the victim to go on to victimize others (including self) and accept abuse from others (including the State). It's as useful as guessing part of the answer to a question correctly.

This thread confuses me. For starters, owning the effects of your actions follows self-ownership. Saying we own ourselves is no more utilitarian than saying 2+2=4. There is no reference to how useful those facts are. Additionally, I'm unclear why you'd use "A neighbor fails to maintain his house" as an example since this references inaction. If person A assaults person B, we don't say that person C is responsible. It's person A's assault. This is all that is meant by owning the effects of your actions. I'm intensely confused on the fixation of utilitarianism as it's not present except where you've tried to inject it.

Difficult for some people to hear, but it's true. The other thing that's difficult for others to hear but is true is that the father actually has little say after the fact. I've heard arguments for example that somebody who takes drugs hurts people that care about them. However, this hurt is actually the responsibility of the one hurt for being so close to somebody who would hurt them by taking drugs. Or having an abortion. If a man wants to be with a woman who will not have an abortion, he can choose to not impregnate one that would. Or after having made that mistake, can make the case to her for keeping it. He does not get to impose upon her an unchosen positive obligation.

I do understand that. But I also understand that that's all it is: a claim. As long as I pay my protection money, which is largely calculated automatically at the register, I'm left alone. You and I are having this conversation, I come and go as I please, etc. If you were an alien that landed from another planet and watched me 24/7, you'd never guess that there's this large, unbelievably corrupt parasite claiming ownership over me. I'm afraid you missed the point with my question though. Which was that the act of claiming freedom is a confession of lack of freedom. Since the behavior is only done in response to the claim.

The initiation of the use of force is harmful for all involved. A lack of coercion is harmful to nobody. Saying "the poor" is collectivizing. You haven't actually responded to anything I've said. I draw unfavorable conclusions about people who are all output and no input.

The group only has meaning if the individuals do. Also, the only way to truly value the other is to value the self. The way I see it, there's only one way to meaningfully divide people. That is those who initiate the use of force to achieve their goals and those who will not. Those who initiate the use of force have been trained and train others to see people as other divisions to distract from the one that matters. You can't argue with success I think this is why philosophy, self-knowledge, and concentrating on the moral consideration first and foremost are so important.

Isn't this moving the goalpost? First you were talking about minimum wage, now it's everybody. Why would I google it? I understand what freedom means and your posts here are full of propaganda red flags. If you cannot articulate that which you are passionate about to the point of making this thread and these posts, which do have a little length to them, then this strikes me as an admission of overstating your case.

Brilliant!

So one could develop their human capital so that they are worth more than "minimum wage." And not start a family that they cannot afford to provide for, including time and nurturing directly from the parents. Freedom can be harmful? I don't think you've taken the time to denote what you mean by "new kind of economic system" and "your flavor of libertarianism." It means that whatever follows couldn't be an actual conversation. I've listened to a lot of Stef's work and the only thing he's ever advocated in terms of economics, liberty, and every other aspect of life is NOT initiating the use of force against others. If that could be described as a new kind of economic system, it would only be because preceding economic systems involved the initiation of the use of force. Also, the verbiage, "your flavor of libertarianism" frames the conversation as if the truth can be discarded because it's subjective, which isn't true. I implore you to elaborate on how freedom could be harmful. And of course I'm not talking about something like an unsupervised toddler.

For humans to genetically modify their food supply to amplify yield and reduce the amount of time and effort we invest in hunting/gathering is no different than a bird building a nest. That is to say that it is manipulating one's environment to improve quality of life; Indeed to sustain life. Norman Borlaug made great strides in developing and disseminating the technology that's led to 1/3 of the world's population not having to starve. In my opinion, he and Stefan Molyneux are historically humanity's best friends. To demonize GM food flies in the face of both of them. It saddens me deeply to see so many people distracted by this demonization when the underlying issues State corruption and childhood abuse are what they're actually upset about. To answer your question, GM is simply not enough information. It can be very safe or it can be very dangerous. Most of the people boycotting it don't even understand what it is that they're talking about. "Organic" foods for example are more dangerous, not to mention developed in ways that have reduced yield, adding to world starvation. It's arrogant and pretentious to be well fed, yet damning the technology that could feed others. To be clear, my bias and frustration is with the people who demonize GM on principle, not with you. I understand your thread is curiosity and not a conclusion. I urge anybody interested on the topic to look up Norman Borlaug. My thanks to the Penn & Teller episode of Bullshit that helped me to see through the propaganda on this subject.

K, I'm done. In the abstract, the idea that a piece of paper could limit behavior is ludicrous. To make the claim amid endless empirical evidence to the contrary is proof that you're going to believe what you want to believe. I won't waste my time any further. Do you not even notice that believing a piece of paper will stop people whom you've told have superhuman powers from doing something you don't want them to is a direct contradiction to the belief that morality won't stop people who understand that we're all equals? In both cases, you believe the exact opposite of what the evidence shows IN YOUR OWN LIFE.

And the URL didn't show up... It must be a vampire!

A person is free to tip as they see fit. A restaurateur cannot require a customer tip, so there's certainly nothing morally wrong with that. And being that a restaurant is private property, there is nothing morally wrong with forbidding tipping. That said, if I had a choice between a restaurant that forbid any harmless, consensual behavior and one that did not, I would go to the less restrictive one. I'd also be likely to save my receipts and write a letter to the overbearing restaurant to let them know they're losing business and why.

Wouldn't that be like saying that Ford has superseded the automobile?

Who has more authority to protect you than you? If you don't want to protect yourself or don't think your neighbors would get involved to apprehend/repel a threat, you are welcome to hire somebody to protect you. What you do not get to do is steal from me to provide you THE ILLUSION of protection. You're implying that with a State, there is an authority backing up your right. The State violates your right by its very existence, so how could it be said to back them up? You're saying that in order to be protected against a thief that nobody views as legitimate, we need to rely upon a much larger gang of thieves that everybody pretends is righteous. In your daily life, you interact with other people all the time. You should ask yourself why you are so afraid of other people when you have a lifetime of empirical evidence that almost nobody is going to attack you or your property... except the very people that have tricked you into believing the exact opposite: That nobody can be trusted except them.

No, people vote because there's still enough people under the effect of momentum that they view the truth would make them social outcasts. This is why it is so important that we do not allow people who support violence in our lives: We need to make it uncomfortable to support violence.

Does this mean there's a physiological diagnosis for ADHD? I thought ADHD was one of those made up diseases based on generalizations of non-conformity.