dsayers

I think you're referring to our interdependence; The division of labor. This is natural and has no relationship to collectivism.

It was a good one as per usual. And he's totally right. I'm baffled when I see people talking as if the Constitution prohibits something as it's happening. It's the collectivist, "it can't happen here" mentality. It dehumanizes other people, discourages independent thought, and blinds you to the evils of "your team."

Morality is a lens, not a prescription or a rule book. It tells us that theft, assault, rape, and murder is immoral, not that you ought not to do it. To get from IS immoral to OUGHT not do it, you need the conditional of IF you wish to live a consistent, sustainable, virtuous (and therefore happy) life. If I initiate the use of force against you, I create a debt to you. Defensive force is enforcement of that debt, not enforcement of a "moral rule."

Get to know your neighbors and make friends with them. The only way an actual gun grab could play out is if they did like in New York where they bribed slaves to turn in other slaves that were known to own guns. I agree with Stef that slave on slave violence is the State's real power.

You posting this is an exercise is self-ownership. You can't have self-ownership and not have morality, since it's basically an observation of the limits of coexisting self-owned individuals.

Education is a wonderful thing. I think you mean toxic school system.

How does clarity relate to a subject?! You say "enforcement of a rule" as if a rule is automatically legitimate. If the rule is the initiation of force, then so would its enforcement be.

I'm not suggesting that a person could never find reason in the future. I'm saying that we have to be astute enough to grade effort:yield and invest accordingly.

I see adjectives. I don't see any links, proof, or examples.

The context of what I was saying was in regards to somebody who has murdered, but is mechanically not posing a threat in the moment.

Thoughts are not actions and therefore of no nobody's concern but the person who has them. So I would say, to read somebody's thoughts against their will would be theft, albeit of something completely worthless to others.

Is force analog? It's either the initiation of the use of force or response to the same as I understand it.

Fraud is sinister, but it is cooperative. Each and every one of us has the responsibility of fact checking, research, etc. It's underhanded to stand before an audience and make false truth claims, but it is hardly criminal. That's what I think.

The moment it's a wage, it can't be slavery. The moment it's slavery, it can't be a wage. The terms are incompatible.

This is where we disagree. It seems as if from your perspective, everybody can be saved and that it's only a matter of technique and time. I accept that if somebody arrives at a conclusion not by way of reason and evidence, then reason and evidence will not be able to sway them. Sad but true. The topic is dealing with unreasonable people and it's already been pointed out that trying to reason with an unreasonable person is unreasonable. If you want to share reason with somebody that doesn't speak the language, don't interact with them. In this way, you can maintain your own reasonability while demonstrating to them what reason looks like.

The isolation you refer to is an effect. Like if you accept atheism in a theistic world, you will experience isolation. This isn't a feature of atheism, but it is an effect under those circumstances.

Normalization/internalization of erasure of the person by others. Usually parents and parent-selected caregivers since they are the one who create the environment during the formative years. To me, self-erasure isn't what happens when you're alone, but when you're in a group. If in a group, you are smaller than others, maybe not speaking up or when you do, adding a nervous laugh to invite others to disregard you; that sort of thing.

I agree, which is why I was seeking clarification. Though I wouldn't describe it as being for the purpose of preventing further evil. If person A murders person B, they've created a debt. If in the process of servicing that debt, it is discovered that the person lacks reason or empathy, then the fact that servicing the debt will also lead to the prevention of further evil is incidental. As I see it anyway. I'm open to correction. I think objective "justice" is a very difficult topic. My bias in a world of subjective aggression called justice makes it very hard for me to determine what would be the correct course of action in regards to murder in a free society. I've journeyed from believing it needs to be entirely voluntary to accepting that a person who is without reason/empathy is no more a moral actor than a feral beast on the loose in a populated area in terms of actionability.

There is nothing wrong to chose not to give portions of yourself to others for the sake of self-preservation. To me, the important thing is just that you're aware of your decision and why. I struggled with that sort of thing because one of the effects of the abuse I've suffered is I try to seek things out as either black or white. Like be honest with everybody or be honest with nobody. It was hard for me to accept the value of decisions like the one you've made. So kudos to you.

Check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. I think you have a fundamental lack of understanding as to how people think. There are lots of people like myself that could tell something was wrong and just needed to hear it put into perspective. There are others that so desperately NEED for the propaganda they've built their life around to be true that they will go to extraordinary lengths to preserve and/or discount anything they view as threatening their oxygen. Exactly.

What does she mean by politics? To me, the term refers to the initiation of the use of force. I can scarcely think of a more important topic of discussion since it is a violation of objective morality.

Enforceable? Are you talking about defensive force?

Whew! I was afraid you were going to leave out the step where you put words into my mouth. You sort of skipped the steps of being friends with that person, sitting down and talking to them about the reality of their voting, etc. THAT was what I was saying. If you think that "my reasoning" is flawed, why not address it? The knee-jerk appeal to emotion isn't productive.

Welcome, Tanja. I too had a life of never quite fitting in and later finding out that it was because the world was messed up, not me. At least not initially. It being messed up and slave on slave coercion messed me up. Though I didn't have the horror of having to flee my own home. I hope you'll make a topic on that experience alone some time. I enjoyed your sense of humor by the way So what areas of philosophy interest you the most? Whereabouts-ish in Indiana are you? You might now be the geographically closest forum member. Probably vestigial propaganda mentality. I find myself occasionally slipping into such phraseology myself

That's mostly going to depend on how well the mother will accept her child's ability to finally function without her constant contact. The father's job at that point is to sort of help the mother let the child be their own person, with their guidance of course.