dsayers

No, here is what a simple disagreement looks like: I disagree. Voting, even for things you think are a good idea is saying: "I'm giving you permission in my name to go and steal from that person to spend the money on something I want, but don't want to have to spend the time and energy to pursue myself." This is far from a "simple disagreement." This is not natural; it is the effect of there being a great big gun in the room. If there was not gun in the room, if there were no weapons, if you couldn't steal from others because they were all bigger than you, if you needed something (read: life depends on it), you would find a way to make it happen. Seeking a greater power can only exist amid the belief that such a greater power is available. This is an effect of religion and government (another religion), not the precursor for it. You can not ascribe something as a solution to a problem when that problem only exists because of the "solution."

This ignores the fact that humans have an upper brain and are capable of reason. This is like me saying that because I live in the US, I am free. Even though I cannot choose to step outside that very large cage on a whim. What I'm saying is that what you call being free actually prevents you from reaching a deeper love, trust, and commitment with another person. That may appear to be freedom on a smaller scale, but in the big picture, it is a cage. Also, if I said somebody could borrow my car, it wouldn't be accurate to describe not being able to lend my car to another person at that time as the person I lent it to having ownership over my car. Their relationship with my car is one I voluntarily entered into. If you're sharing your body with one person and then share it with another, you could catch something that would effect the first person. Are you in touch with what from your childhood has led you to the conclusion that monogamy is bad or an enslavement of you? Being against it is one thing, but describing it as somebody else owning your body is the mark of trauma in my opinion.

I'm really sorry to hear all of this. Thank you for taking the time to share it. I hope you're able to get some value in having done so. 1) Based on what I've read, yes. Listing the good stuff isn't important. Especially if the good stuff is food, which kidnappers and prison guards provide also. Good things will not change bad things. Gender identity is very important. Regardless of your gender, to be told that one gender is all bad is destructive. It's also misdirection in that the parent making the claim chose to have a child with a member of that gender, knowing full well that the offspring has a 50% chance of being that gender, with the other 50% change being somebody who would try to connect with that gender to procreate. Name calling is very destructive. It's also misdirection in that the parent making the claim is ignoring the fact that who you are is based on what they've modeled for you and chosen to expose you to. It's also arrogant in that it doesn't consider even for a moment that whatever motivated them to name call, maybe they are the one who is wrong. Keep in mind that because of the misdirection pointed out above, these things are additionally abusive in that they model for the child a lack of accountability. Like when you said you didn't want to come off as whiney, you are sensitive to this because this is the behavior you saw in your mother. Which by the way, saying 2+2=4 isn't whining. However, it is important that your understanding of these truths help you to see the way they influence your thoughts and behaviors, so that you can regain control of yourself. It is possible for somebody to see these things and use it as an excuse rather than an explanation. Does that make sense? 2) The basic answer is yes. They created whatever environment you grew up in. This is true of their behaviors, the home you grew up in, and the people that they exposed you to and/or left you in the care of. All of this alters who you are, how you think, and how you behave. This is why self-knowledge is so important: It's the only way we can be able to take control of our own lives after having been abused as children. 3) Pursuing self-knowledge. You mentioned a therapist, so that's a great start. Especially if you have one that doesn't subscribe to the old propaganda that proximity equals virtue. In other words, that being family means you have to keep them in your life. The very first step is honesty. Honesty with yourself, honesty about what it is that was inflicted upon you, honesty about how those things have affected you. For example, if one of your parents were abusive and the other wasn't, the one that wasn't is still responsible because they chose the abusive one to be in your life. Things like that. Or being honest about the fact that having good times doesn't mean or at all diminish the bad times. Also, it's important to not own that which was inflicted upon you. I hope this helps.

The most important fact is that assault is immoral. @Mr. Wagner: Thank you for your interest in this subject and for admitting your faults of the past. Have you sat down with your abused children to own the abuse, explain the abuse, and try to make amends? Obviously the best way to get your spouse to not abuse your children is to not marry somebody who thinks abusing children is an option. I recognize you're way past that point, but it still needs to be said for the benefit of others. I feel sorry for the people in your life that view not assaulting children as silly. It's the perfect example of why assaulting children is so very destructive. As I stated above, the moral argument is all that really matters. The utilitarian data only serves to reinforce those who accept the moral argument. Another great source is Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. It's fascinating to learn about how child abuse literally leads to permanent physical damage. It will also help you understand how people think, a useful asset when trying to influence and change their minds on something.

I would argue that we are born seeking patterns and know subconsciously that things like statism cannot be universalized and therefore don't feel right. It only sticks because of the horrible threats made and the way parents abuse their children in preparation for it.

No waste of my time. It's just important to understand that any conclusion you've been handed without a case being made is likely wrong, which is why the case wasn't made and just the conclusion was inflicted upon you. Another point I forgot to mention is that alot of these considerations suggest that the statist approach actually works. It's also making the claim that morality takes a backseat to utility. Not only is this not true, but it prevents people from seeking out peaceful alternatives as they believe they've found an answer that works. Another video (series) I would suggest is Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. If you're going to try and influence others, it's important to understand how we (don't) think. It looks to me like you've nailed it. If you've received value, give value. The ability to download digital material challenges creators to do better things and actually leads to increased sales because people can know their money won't be misplaced.

Welcome to FDR. Sincere skepticism is very healthy. My reply would've been to point out the way we can have anarchy in our own lives, but Mr. Beal has covered it better than I could already. I mostly wanted to add that statism is momentum. It's not a conclusion people arrive at by way of logic, reason, and evidence. If we make it uncomfortable for people to maintain the statist position of using violence to achieve our goals, the religion of statism will eventually just *poof* out of existence. Sadly, it probably won't be in our lifetimes, but when it does happen can still be accelerated by us living our principles in our own lives, where we have direct control. Just to be clear, this is an impossible standard. Without freedom, the cost of everything goes up as those in power use the gun in the room to bar and batter competition. The internet has been a huge step forward making the most important component--the discussion of ideas--virtually cost-free.

What's the difference? I see two descriptions of the same event. Landing a sperm into a human egg doesn't fundamentally change a person in a way that morality applies to them differently. If they cannot make the case to the child, if they failed to negotiate leaving after/at a specific time, if they haven't developed a relationship where the child is considerate of the parent's needs also, this is a failing on the parent. Using superior force to drag a human being away against their will is immoral and anybody who physically intervened could not be called a vigilante. How could you assume this? Amid lack of specificity of what was meant by sex trade, I talked about prostitution or other "adult workers." Human trafficking is something completely different. One thing to keep in mind, and this applies to all criminal acts that are actually criminal, in a statist paradigm, the offenders can bribe authorities to look the other way or give special treatment. In a free society, literally everybody you come into contact with that isn't a business cohort could be somebody that would intervene or flee to seek a greater intervening force. In other words, predation would be shoved into the margins all the more since there wouldn't be a corrupt, centralized, coercive body that you could pay off AND would chase off competing businesses and interests. It's very healthy to be skeptical and I certainly appreciate you being frank about it. I didn't mean to make it sound as if the world was going to be popsicles and rainbows. I do think the quote there (which somewhat misrepresents what I said) is more true than you might think. This is why I approached your thread by sharing that I think there's some lack of understanding of the fundamental nature of the problems you're talking about. If you feel my point above about every person being a source of resistance rather that just people with badges in marked cars, let me know and I'll try to address any concerns. So much to say about this. First of all, people DO refuse to buy Apple products. Walmart hatred is very fashionable. Secondly, your friend's concern is self-contradictory. He's claiming to care about human rights violations while asserting that people don't care about human rights violations. Third, you're talking about the end of a story. Where are the beginning and middle parts? The State has so many coercive regulations that companies actually experience better profits manufacturing abroad and shipping the finished products. The State prevents those workers to work for competitors that offered better conditions. This is about as far from a free market problem as you can get. Fourth, Walmart is a horrible example. Yes they make use of foreign sweat shops that pay wages we think are appalling. People worked for those wages in the US as well until such a time that we generated enough capital and wealth that we could rise above. Some of the children working in those shops, if they didn't have a sweat shop to work at, might have to turn to prostitution to help their families. In other words, if you're worried about the conditions of the workers in the factories Walmart makes use of, the best thing you could do to help is to shop at Walmart! This would help them to amass more capital and wealth and generally improve their working conditions. Which would lead to innovation and efficiency improvements that would lead to an even cheaper price coming back to you. Everybody wins. I wanted to recommend this video that was VERY helpful to me in terms of considerations of this type. Basically, the most accurate way to describe it is that when a person violates your property, they are creating a positive obligation to you. How you settle that debt is between the two of you, though in the moment, you'll have limited options. The important thing is that it's enough to make victimizing others unattractive, but not so much that being victimized is attractive. You ask about enslaving them and the answer is: Yes! Say they stroll onto your property to steal your car. You take note and try to stop them. They give you a Nancy Kerrigan and run off to avoid being seen. You're able to identify and prove who it is. You keep a lovely yard, but are unable to walk as a result of their injury. You might decide that restitution includes them servicing your landscaping needs until you recover, as well as making trips to the store for example. Your attacker can choose to comply or face the reality of being unable to buy groceries or gas until such a time as he does. With all due respect, I'm sticking by my claim of a lack of fundamentals. A lot of the "issues" you mention are superficial and looking at how they came to pass makes things look a lot different. That's the act of cutting through propaganda to reach the truth.

There's so much wrong with the idea that the article is trying to say here alone. "I'm not taking pie from you, I'm giving pie to me." -Penn Gillette, Bullshit!

Hey, Suave. If you don't mind me saying so, I think there's a fundamental lack of understanding here. "Sex trade" is vague. Also, you spoke as if restriction 1) is the only variable in its size and 2) would not exist in a free society. No rules and no rulers are very different things. Also, much of the sex trade is the result of childhood trauma being recreated in all parties involved. There would be a whole lot less of this in a society enlightened enough to reject coercion as a means of resolution. The vestiges of this trade, such as a widower looking for companionship, would likely want a service that respected its workers and/or would be publicly shunned for using a service that did not. Which also addresses your question of how to get others to conform without initiating the use of force against them. If person A is initiating the use of force against person B, person A has created a positive obligation that others may collect in the event that the victim(s) is unable to. In other words, to save a rape victim, even if that requires force, this is not described as violence or violating the rights of the rapist. They wouldn't be subjected to suspicion, they just wouldn't enjoy the benefit of reputation. Also, privacy compared to what? Would I really want to stop at a toll gate every block to satisfy my bill for use of that segment of road or would I rather have something in my car that transmits where I've driven so I can just satisfy the bill on a monthly basis, which would be divvied among the various owners of the roads I used? The latter sounds like an issue of privacy in a statist paradigm, but in a free society, it would likely be a welcome matter of convenience to the point of being a requisite of use of most roads. I think the short answer is yes: Without a large predator ready to abuse access to personal information, I think privacy would be less important. This is a stark parting from the empirical evidence of how we learn, what public unions have done to impact schooling, the model of schooling itself, etc. You damage intelligence the moment you schedule and enforce sitting still and not talking on somebody you're pretending to educate. It's anti-educational. First of all, it's in error to call it government funded. Government has no money without stealing from people in the present or creating money out of thin air which steals from the unborn. That aside, the "problem" being talked about is equivalent to saying that people need to be stolen from more because an ice cream stand at the north pole wasn't doing well. In a free market, what you're describing is a signal that the demand isn't high enough somewhere for a service to exist in its current state. The Statist paradigm has created this odd belief that anybody who puts forth effort deserves reward. However, through creative destruction and failure of business that are mismanaged, we all benefit and/or resources then go into the hands of the more competent. The bottom line to your thesis is that the initiation of the use of force is immoral. Unless you're talking about theft, assault, rape, or murder, there's nothing that violence pretends to solve that voluntary action wouldn't actually solve and more efficiently and morally.

It sounds to me like your ex alone is reason not to go. You'd be torturing yourself while reinforcing unhealthy motivators. As for your friend, if I understand your opening post, he balked on a commitment to you on a project. Did he address this breach of commitment? If so, was it in advance, in the moment, after the fact? Did he bring it up or did you have to? You mention it now being on for the near future, so I'm assuming it was covered already. I'm just curious if HOW it was covered already transmits the state of the friendship or not. One of the biggest skeletons in my closet is the degree to which friends of mine have been there in my times of need while I wasn't there for them in similar times, such as moving furniture and the like. I am very fortunate that the people most affected by this have accepted my apology as well as my efforts towards self-knowledge so that I might be a better, more reciprocal friend.

If that's true, then I apologize. I certainly cannot claim to have grown up propaganda-free. Can you substantiate your explanation? This would be worth learning about if it's true.

I would've done it for $1,099 an hour. Clearly they didn't shop around.

Thank you for your efforts and for sharing. It's very important that at the very least, the child sees their reality of abuse being called into question. I despise the word discipline. It's so arrogant in that it presumes that the disciplined are wrong. I think to the first parent, I would've shared that I think teaching your child to respect other people is a valuable lesson, but it cannot be taught by disrespecting them. There was no harm it touching your laundry basket and it in fact presented an opportunity to negotiate with the child about property. Besides, the child didn't choose to be there. To the second, I might's said that telling somebody to get out of your face and screaming at a child are not signs that everything is okay. If he talked about saving the world, I woudl've pointed out that I could never save the entire world, but I can save people right in front of me, and he can too. If he chose to have the child, he shouldn't be putting her in a situation where there's room for talk of saving somebody.

I found your last question to be ironic since calling something "karma" is to mask the consequences of actions. The first two examples you provided are biological effects. The third is an effect of aggression. These are not karma. What is your definition of karma? To me, it seems to be a claim of an immeasurable force or entity that goes around balancing out the good and bad in the world. This would not address the biological effects you speak of since smoking and drinking in excess have no good to them. Why then would a balancing force punish somebody who wasn't decadent to begin with? Fair warning: I am biased against mystical explanations of that which has rational explanations.

Understanding as to what you think and feel and why. For example, you called yourself an unruly teenager. How do you know? What does that mean? WHY did you behave in ways that came to be labeled as an unruly teenager. I don't know what unruly teenager means, but it sounds like it's supposed to be a contrast to other teenagers. Therefore there's an explanation as to why. I'm curious if you know the reasons. Or how about the way you answered some of my question pertaining to the process of getting married vs family reaction, but not all. I'm not saying you have to, but it would be useful to you to understand why it is you were willing to indulge in general, but avoided certain areas. On a separate note, I wasn't going to say anything at first since I wanted to be sensitive to your transition. However after a second utterance, I wanted to clarify something to see what you think of the clarification: If somebody steals money from everybody and then hands it to you so that you will do things that would be immoral for everybody else to do, this isn't "service." It's a common misnomer to refer to military participation as service.

I think Mr. Beal did a good job of addressing your post as a whole. So I wanted just to talk about this sentence. I was curious if you were aware of your bias in this matter and if you understand that "what conveniences them" is a conclusion and a bold one at that. Do you have any reason, other than a heavy bias, to arrive at this conclusion? When I look at philosophical disciplines on the whole, certain features jump out at me. For example, mathematics doesn't describe the real world and works entirely with concepts. Biology deals with a part of nature that is very volatile, which is different from being unpredictable. To me, this volatility, and the deviations we are able to witness lend credibility to evolution.

"Being invited" isn't a reason to go. If you take being invited out of the equation, I didn't read a single reason to go. Can you elaborate on where the dilemma is?

Welcome. Thank you for sharing some of your story. I'd be interested in hearing more about coming home with a foreign wife and your family responding in a way that was awkward. Did they know about her before your return? How long did you two know each other before getting married? If your family was important to you before getting married, how did it come to pass that you got married without her meeting them? More important, it's immoral. I'm an incompetent roofer, but since I'm never on people's roofs, it's not important. Anyways, I'd also be interested in hearing more about your journey. How much have you studied philosophy or worked towards self-knowledge for example?

Sorry, I can't help you there. As somebody with very sensitive hearing who lacks self-soothing (insomnia; difficulty falling asleep), I am HEAVILY biased against noise pollution. To me, it comes down to reasonability. Nail guns can be loud, but roof maintenance is necessary and is only required once every decade or so. Lawnmowers and snowblowers are part of maintenance and upkeep; a feature of living around other people. Stuff like dogs barking due to negligent owners, revving engines in a residential neighborhood, loud music, etc I think this is a different category. Plus it's different from somebody sunbathing in the nude where you can just look away. You cannot escape sound. I don't view earplugs as a viable excuse because it means that rather than ONE dog owner investing ONE TIME into training the dog, EVERYBODY ELSE within earshot has to plug up. That's not efficient nor accountability. But like I said, due to heavy bias, I have a hard time knowing if my conclusions are sound or stilted with my preferences. I actually started gathering footage of a dog barking and its owners doing nothing about it or worse: exacerbating it or demonstrating that they acknowledge it, but refuse to address it. This was around the time that I started studying philosophy. So right about the time I was ready to try and press charges, I came to a conceptual shift of what seeking resolution by way of the courts really was. It sucks too because it led to me instead making repeated efforts to try and work it out voluntarily and they've only shoved it in my face, knowing I won't resort to force (courts). Even though I view it as them being the initiator.

It's a form of narcissism. They don't have to consider other people because all that matters is their relationship with God or what God has to say about X, Y, and Z.

*9 years. It's very important to dump the problem into the next guy's lap so that they can issue a line about looking forward and nobody ever gets held accountable.

I can sympathize with that. I knew it would be a process with no end. I just wish it wasn't all like "I want to do A, B, and C but once I do A, I realize there's a D, an E, and a ZZ I should do before continuing on." Or what I really find frustrating is you do A, B, and C, but doing C makes you realize you forgot A and need to revisit B. It's kind of neat, but it can be a bit exhausting. I'm hoping the "fatigue" is just bad habit withdrawal and that in time, it will be weaker and easier to manage.

Like all philosophical disciplines, morality accurately describes the real world, which is not subjective. Were it not universal, morality would have no meaning as even people who don't understand what morality means understand that it's normative.

I'll definitely check this out. I patrol empty buildings, so I do an okay amount of walking daily. However, most of the rest of the time is spent sitting down.