dsayers

This is prejudiced. Science can explain the roots of aggression and dysfunction. A child that is raised egalitarian, taught to be rational, negotiated with, and protected against contrary experiences would be teeming with empathy. Such a person would become physically ill at the very thought of harming another person. In the phrase, "initiation of the use of force," the word "initiation" means it is aggression. Governments claim influence over geographical areas, but they do not legitimately own those areas or anybody in it. Their very nature violates property rights by not securing consent. If consent is secured, you are now describing a contract, not government.

This is fundamental. The more somebody believes they COULD command others or make accurate decisions regarding others, the more out of touch with reality they are, the less effective their commands and decisions will be.

The question cannot be answered because any answer based on numbers doesn't even address the factors that matter. Like the ability to negotiate, defer gratitude, know one's self, etc. There were a couple of threads discussing this. I think one was the thread for the Walker video.

It was suggested that you're a troll because you're all output, no input, and resort to ad hominem as extreme as "not even living on this planet" regularly.

If shaping human reality was your concern, you would not be advocating coercion. You must not have noticed my mention of your use of the internet or your having learned an entire language without any education. For this statement to be true, two conditions would have to be met: 1) the something would have to be beneficial and 2) there would have to be no alternative. Coercive schooling meets neither of these criteria. For somebody who is railing against religion, your belief in coercive schooling seems to be religious.

How exactly would people eat without state-led restaurants? Governments do not provide education, they inflict schooling. Breaking the will of the defenseless is a form of child abuse, which is a requisite for psychopathy, criminality, and dysfunction. Saying it's better than religion isn't the same as saying it's not as good as non-aggression. Small side note, you're stacking here. If something is irrelevant, it's scope is meaningless. Similarly, exceptions are are relevant, even when they're marginal. At this point, it seems that you're demonstrating all output and no input. You didn't notice that anti-knowledge and enemy of reason apply to government schooling also. Actually, you posting this on the internet preempts any claim that without school, children would be forced to rely on two people. You're also ignoring the enormous amount of things that a child teaches themselves, such as walking and language.

I'd like to again recommend Stef's An Introduction to Philosophy series. It awakened me to how much I couldn't think as a result of abuse and propaganda. Well "right" way and moral way to treat people are different considerations. On top of that, one is subjective while the other is objective. The moral way to treat anybody is to not violate their property rights, which includes their body, mind, time, and effort. I say anybody because "mother" isn't fundamentally different from "human." The definition of mother is female that has successfully reproduced. That's it. It's not a skill. it's not even a reflection of the present. What the right way to treat people is subjective as stated above. I think a fair approach is to treat everybody with respect at first, and then treat them as they treat you. By this, I do not mean abuse somebody who abuses you. However, if somebody is abusive or abrasive or inconsiderate, etc, I don't think you would owe them things like honesty, friendship, your time, etc. I'm really very sorry that we live in a society that pushes proximity = virtue (family is necessary) so hard that it's difficult for people in your situation to see that adult relationships are voluntary. Please understand that I'm not saying cut her out of your life. I'm saying that your feelings of being a bad person for just considering an abuser to be an abuser is a significant feature of your abuse. Absolutely not. Like saying, "I am shy," casting your abuse in a positive light only serves to conceal the evil and protect your abuser. Does your mother abuse people her own size? Does your mother abuse people who are free to stay away from her? Does your mother abuse people that don't have to have her in their life just to stay alive? If the answer to ANY of these questions is no, then your mother took advantage of a very fragile relationship specifically because it was fragile. That's wretched and there's nothing to gain from imagining how it could have been worse. "It could have been worse," is another way society abuses victims by marginalizing their experience, avoiding the problem, and blaming the victim for noticing that they had been victimized.

Please be careful here. Your emotions cannot lie to you. Even when they are uncomfortable to bear, you need to try and listen to them because they're not wrong. The guilt you experience was put there by your abusers so that they can prevent you from escaping their abuse, even when they're not there. In this thread, you express shyness and a general challenge getting out there and making a life for yourself. Abusers need to isolate their victims because if you have friends or even just other people you can talk to, the abuse of your abusers will be revealed. This isn't an argument at all, it's an appeal to authority. You didn't ask to be born. She doesn't get extra credit for helping you to survive; To provide for you until such a time you're able to provide for yourself was an obligation SHE CREATED when she chose to have a kid.

Government isn't only immoral because it taxes. It is also immoral because it violates property rights by not securing consent. It is inherent; You cannot escape the immorality of government. It is not a neutral tool that has potentially beneficial applications. The moment it is voluntary, you're not describing government.

Are you up for talking about those things? I'd like to be able to help if I'm able. Enforcement of what? Something that somebody chose such as a contract or something somebody didn't choose like legislation? Well legislation is a command backed by threat of violence. Enforcing such things would be incompatible with a free society. Who is a bigger contract violator than the State itself? Even if commands backed by threats of violence were just, they don't conform to them. When they don't, who enforces their breach? Would would enforce the breaches of those who enforce the breach of those who enforce the commands? I think most minarchists who talk about enforcement are talking about crime. If we want to address any problem, we need to understand the nature of the problem first. We know that criminality is predicated on abuse. The State embodies such abuse. Saying that we need abuse to combat that which is predicated on abuse isn't understanding or addressing the problem. We're told by the most successful criminals in the world that criminality is rampant. If we think that criminality is a given to any meaningful degree, we will cling to an illusory protector who just happens to be the biggest criminals of all. When I read, "It seems everytime the minarchistic view holds an advantage," I find myself wanting to ask a number of questions. First of all, in a world full of "maxarchism," one must have a reason to contemplate minarchism and anarchism. In what ways do you find minarchism to be more acceptable than maxarchism? Wouldn't these same reasons make anarchism more acceptable than minarchism? It works in the other direction as well: If anarchism is less acceptable than minarchism because you need a State for certain function, then wouldn't having such a State be more beneficial the more roles it could fill? If it were true that we need a government for certain roles, wouldn't which roles be subjective and contended? In the end, isn't government just people? If the solution comes from people (State), then why couldn't the solution come from people (no rulers)? If you haven't already, I'd check out Stefan Molyneux's Practical Anarchy. It's free on his website, or you click the link in my sig for a chopped up audio version for consumption on the go. In it, he talks about possible voluntary solutions to problems. If you want to know if minarchy has an advantage over anarchy, all you have to do is consider the source of the problems that minarchists say we need some government for. They all have to do with the initiation of the use of force. If we agree that the initiation of the use of force is immoral, then you cannot have a state. What do you think about this?

If I lived in a world where there was someplace without coercion, I would move there. So would others. Places that had coercion would have less people with which to compete against others with and the free society would have increased incentive to do business where there is no coercion. Both of these would cause this tipping of the scales to accelerate. Others who felt they didn't have a dog in the race would take notice. Before long, the demand for freedom would be overwhelming. I realize that that is an incredibly simplistic description of how it might happen, but it is realistic. That's why until that day, we need to help people to think, help them to not abuse their children, help them to understand that violence is what failed us. Empires will fall and when they do, if the population has these assets, they will not be begging for another coercive demagogue to step up and save them. Each mind we save, the further along the process I mentioned above will be when it begins.

I don't understand the first thing about quantum mechanics, but this thread speaks about the concept of nothing, even in consideration of a vacuum.

Does that mean his assistance was up front only and not returning for follow up steps? I've done a fair amount of home improvement myself. Though the only tiles I've dealt with were self-adhesive vinyl and in a very small room. I'm not sure as to what the root of J's distance was. I do see the interrupting thing from time to time. I'll know more when I talk to him. The tooth was very far back in my mouth. When I chew or swallow, things make contact with the backside of that tooth, but cleaning it was very hard to get at. I have porous teeth and my family tends to have underdeveloped molars in general. As a result, the tooth had just began to deteriorate from the back forward. It got to the point where the nerve was exposed and sometimes when chewing, I'd get this sensation as if I was actually compressing the tooth. It ended up being a blessing in disguise. The appointment I set up was for three weeks out at the time. A couple days later, things were escalating and I told them I couldn't wait. They were able to squeeze me in a few days later. There was a miscommunication and the earlier appointment from their perspective was just to get an idea of what was going on. I was able to negotiate with them to have the extraction done despite it being a strain on their scheduling. And the dentist was able to negotiate with me about about getting another x-ray done. It was good practice

I thought I had. Birds don't only turn down food that's in front of them, they turn down food that is already inside of them for the benefit of their offspring. Caring for offspring is another choice, and one that comes with personal sacrifice. That last one just occurred to me and I find it fascinating as it challenges my previous grasp of reasoning which included the ability to conceptualize beyond one's self and survival. I don't think you've established that what they are choosing is unknown.

"Contain" is the denotation of a physical relationship between two objects. There is no connotation of ownership if the object doing the containing is not a moral actor. A box cannot have nothing in it because there's no such thing as nothing. If you have an object in a box and you remove that object, the act of removal displaces atmosphere outside of the box into the box.

You're describing reasoning, not free will. Free will means I can choose. Reasoning means I understand the choice. If you don't accept this distinction, then I'd point out that eating is an expression of preference of staying alive and well over sick or dead. I think this fits the criteria you've offered.

Under statism, the entirety of the population is stolen from everyday. Innocent people are called guilty, property gets seized, people are kidnapped, injured, and murdered, all at the hands of the state, with perceivably no way to resist. This is the description of an incredibly weak population. The very idea that you think that "not theft" can't work serves as proof to how ravaged our very minds are by this perpetual predation.

Well obviously I would rather you were never abused. Given that now unavoidable fact of your history, I'm really happy for you that it would seem he is genuinely bothered by it. Has he talked with you at all about how he came to learn the truth about his evil? This raised a huge red flag for me. Not saying there's necessarily something there, but I would like to share my concern. What do you mean by some topics are still uncomfortable? Uncomfortable for you? For him? Which topics? The nature of your abuse is "uncomfortable" to put it lightly. If a topic being uncomfortable leads to avoidance, this is not processing it. I'm not saying throw out the baby with the bathwater, but if I could ever trust an abuser and their efforts towards restitution, one stipulation I would have is that we cover all of it, for my sake. In your scenario, for your sake. The other thing I wanted to point out as a potential indication that he's not fully owning his responsibility is your relationship with your brother. If your dad was truly sorry and intent on making it up to, then your brother's unwillingness to accept it would strain his relationship with your dad. Which would hopefully lead to your dad talking to his son about the truth of the abuse in an effort to break the cycle. Which would in turn make your brother's refusal to be honest uncomfortable. Not saying it would change your situation, but it's something your dad could pursue as part of reparations towards you. I'm glad you're not letting your brother's refusal to accept the truth bring you down or otherwise poison your relationship with the truth. Thanks again for sharing all of this

What does differentiating between "my wallet is missing" and "that guy stole my wallet" do for you? It reveals that somebody has willfully acted against you. Saying "I am shy" owns that which was inflicted upon you and conceals the abuse. As for what it does to those who would cause you harm, I think it's more important to focus on you. If somebody has a difficult relationship with the truth or reality, that's not your responsibility to manage. Understanding the nature of your abuse doesn't mean you have to discuss it with your abusers. The important thing is just being honest with yourself and calling things by their proper names.

Where is that quote from and by whom? Frame of reference please If we chopped our legs off, we would be immune to broken legs. Amputation is a last resort, not a first defense. What are the statistics of grown men in full possession of their faculties opting for circumcision upon hearing that it could lead to a reduction in the transmission of AIDS? Like every human, I'm at risk of skin disease. I choose bathing over amputating the largest organ of my body. Comparing it to dental work and shots ignores the fact that we're talking about preventative amputation.

Did your friend honor his commitment in this regard? I just ran into a similar situation last night. My boss is more like a mentor and a friend. He is smart and gentle and is accustomed to being the smartest guy in any conversation he's in. However, he doesn't arrive at conclusions by way of principled means, so my awakening has been challenging to our relationship as it's hard for him to be sympathetic or empathetic and its hard for me to be deprived of it from somebody who seems like should be the spitting image of virtue. Let's call him J. For a week now, I've been suffering from a cold and a really bad tootache (just got back from my extraction appointment). Along the way, I mercifully learned that taking Ibuprofen like a normal person (I've always been reserved when it came to pill popping) seriously helped with the inflammation, the pain, and the overall discomfort. Yesterday was bad because my father has called me at home (I live under his roof) on very short notice asking me to meet him at one of his rental properties to act as witness for a damage assessment walkthrough. He knew I had been suffering and was a day away from relief. He made no effort to ask how I was doing or if my suffering would preclude me from lending a hand, which really bothered me. I felt I had to go to avoid the risk of being kicked out of my home. So I popped one more Ibuprofen since there's no telling how long these appointments can take (total of 600 mg in about an hour's time). While I was there, I walked up a flight of stairs to get the toolbox out of an upstairs unit we had been working on lately. After coming back down with a heavy toolbox in tow to change the locks, I was woozy and dizzy. So later, when I was telling my friend/mentor/boss this story of my experience with emphasis on the lack of empathy I had received from my own father, he started telling me that he had encountered six people that day who were experiencing dizziness, so he wasn't sure as to what the cause might be. I was alienated because he knows I've had a head cold for a week, have been heavy on the Ibuprofen for a few days, and in fact had a triple dose before using stairs and carrying weight. I began to say that the cause in my case wasn't an unknown when he interrupted me. I kept on explaining myself despite his interruption and he literally repeated his effort to interrupt like five times. In the end, all he was interrupting for was to repeat his recount of six other people being dizzy as if it had any bearing on my situation. The rest of the conversation isn't important except to say that in the end, he made it out to be that I was under the weather so I was being ornery. You know, accepting the very thing he had been irrationally rejecting as the start of the communication breakdown. It really bothered me though because I shouldn't have to compete with a friend to be able to communicate with them. And if I'm talking about my experience, complete with talking about how another person had been unempathetic, I don't think the appropriate response is to diminish my experience or recreate the lack of empathy. Once I regain my strength, I'm going to be talking with him about this. Fortunately, this is not par for the course in terms of our relationship, so it will at the very least not lead to any "hard feelings."

With the free will discussion abound in multiple places across the forum as of late, I've found myself thinking of it in terms of requiring consciousness. The question of animals has entered my mind every time. Near as I can tell, animals having free will is not logically problematic. That they cannot reason limits the motivations behind their decisions, but doesn't eliminate or challenge the idea that animals have free will. Assuming there's such a thing as free will, would you arrive at the same conclusion I have? If not, why not?

I can sympathize. The things I'd willingly submit to in a free society but vehemently resist the very encroachment of in the Statist paradigm is virtually endless. I often wonder if privacy wouldn't be anywhere near as if there weren't a State trying to steal it from us and conceal it in regards to "legitimate" criminals.

I got what you were saying. But if he's just a machine and his anxiety is the result of a subroutine processing A, B, and C while conditions X, Y, and Z are just so, wouldn't trying to talk him out of it be ineffectual? Or is the argument that the code is self-correcting and being exposed to an alternative view can sometimes be enough to tweak the values of the variables considered. I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. Although I feel embarrassed to admit it, your input has me curious on the subject for the first time. I've just assumed that because people make arguments to humans and not to spoons, that this was an acceptance of free will. I still think this holds despite this thread, but there is something very sexy about comparing it to losing God. It's like reliving the liberation I experienced when I started re-learning how to think and pursuing self-knowledge. The quote I was responding to made it sound as if the abuse was causal. If I misunderstood, I must both apologize and ask if you could elaborate on what you did mean.

I have two challenges I'd like to offer if that is okay. "Could be used to do great harm" can apply to anything. However, I don't even think that potential harmfulness would be a requisite for checking against a database. The premise for voluntary justice as I understand it (generally speaking) is to not do business with people who have committed immoral acts without having satisfied any restitution expectations of the victim. In a voluntary society, I would consent to swiping a card, or putting my thumb on the glass, or having a chip sewn into my skin if it meant anybody who committed theft, assault, rape, or murder would have to either flee society or submit to restitution. My second challenge is: On what do you base the expectation that an intention of restricted access equates to increased safety? When alcohol was banned in the US, people didn't stop drinking, but what they drank was far less safe as a result of the ban. We have eleventy bazillion rules one must conform to in order to be able to possess a gun, but criminals still get a hold of them. Maybe those rules make such an acquisition more difficult. In the meantime, EVERY innocent person has to go through a ton of garbage to get permission to do something they shouldn't need permission for. I view such a restriction as punishing the innocent for the transgressions of the guilty. I know we're only speculating, but I am enjoying exploring it. I hope I'm making it enjoyable for others also.