dsayers

I used to make this same ex post facto justification. I'm thankful that The Philosopher's Toolkit helped me to understand how beneficial emotions are even in terms of rational thinking. If you don't mind me saying so, you speak as if you own trauma that was inflicted upon you. This is why I asked up front who did this to you. Are you able to identify who? Or identify what they did to you makes you feel?

This is providing a definition, not making a case. Saying "the initiation of the use of force is immoral" is not self-imposed, a handicap, or a liberation movement. Do you own yourself? Are people fundamentally different in such a way that why you own yourself could not be applied to just about everybody? If you accept these, then stating that the initiation of the use of force is immoral is merely observing what is true. Just like saying that objects fall to the Earth is not imposing gravity, but merely observing/describing it. The only options this observation removes is options of evil. This isn't a handicap, it is a purification. Plus as you've stated, people can still understand this and cross it, so handicap couldn't even describe it if you were being honest. You're just making the common mistake that "initiation of the use of force" doesn't include the word initiation. Saying that objects fall to the Earth is not the pretense for a murderous movement of people in high places. The fact that unrestrained people in high places will fall to their death is just what follows the observation of gravity.

@LovePrevails: I think that is a good point about the origin of a product/service (event). What about the competition that comes afterwards? You have a restaurant in order to profit from filling a need. Others do the same also, so you do things in order to compete. Whether that's providing better service, adjusting prices, advertising, etc. Not saying anything about this is evil or unhealthy. In fact, competition is one of the two components that allow the market to be self-correcting. Just saying that competition is part of it, even if it's not part of the origin. Or, in an established market, the origin of a product/service (event) could be said to originate with the understanding that there are alternatives. Then the competition I mentioned would be an integral part of original planning by the proprietor/entrepreneur (coordinator). Why not? Is that not an accurate description of his life also? Or was it rejected because it didn't conform to his prejudice?

I am so jealous of young people today. You're talking about ways of thinking during high school that it took me another decade to get into. When I was in high school, I had a Color Computer 3. My first modem was a 150 baud pair of acoustical cups that I built my own RS232 cable for. I KNOW I would've been exposed to the truth so much sooner if the internet existed back then. Grumble grumble. I'm really sorry to hear your family aren't people you can connect with on matter of truth. I have a father who is so willing to inflict conclusions upon me, but will fly off the handle if you even suggest there are other possibilities and/or the conclusions should be put to the test. Chicago probably isn't the best place to talk about the truth these days. I wonder what that city/state will be like when Obama gets around to bucking the two term limit and just becomes Caesar 2.0

I don't recall exactly when it started, but I've noticed for awhile now, my mind is constantly lit up by song. Any time there's a moment of rest in my mind these days, some song is playing. Often VERY random and can even include songs I haven't consciously heard in many years. Don't know if it's because I'm happier now due to virtuous living through principled adherence to the real world. Or if instead it's just the result of all the audio absorption I engage in, I just don't hear as much music as I used to. Whatever it is, the being stuck in music mode is almost never an annoyance, so I think it's rather neat. Anybody else suffer from some nifty side effects as a result of reversing the propaganda mill?

I'm sorry, but I do not see how this at all alters the conversation. I view this as saying that a person isn't responsible for putting a brick through a window since all they can do is throw it at the window. They might have slipped, or the wind could've picked up, or it could've hit an object and changed trajectory, or any number of things outside their control. I'm not sure. I'm confused by the biological father or not part. What I'm saying would only apply to the biological parents or whomever they relinquished guardianship to (presuming voluntary recipients of course). I don't mean forever if that's what you're thinking. I'm intrigued as I trust you're trying to lead me to greater precision, which I welcome. I'm just not seeing how feeling obligated to not detonate a bomb when a reasonable person would anticipate non-consenting human lives would be impacted is not something to be desired. I have noticed that you continue to put logic in quotes. I take this to mean that I have yet to establish that the obligation I speak of is logical, but you are building off the presumption that it is in order to reveal its flaw. Am I close?

Wow, that's awful. You'd think that if a 14 year old even could have that capability, that somebody in their 30s or older would have the power to overcome or defend against it. It's like spilling paint and turning to the painting, "See what you made me do?" Well it sounds like it was modeled for you that might makes right and to subjugate those weaker than you. If your father aggressed against your mother, both your parents aggressed against you, and you had a younger sibling, for you to aggress against them is normal because the aggression was normalized. I was thinking of his advice to turn the other cheek. Follow it to its logical conclusion and you belong to whomever claims ownership over you. I'm not saying that Jesus isn't accredited with speaking useful words of truth. I am saying that if those words have any value, it's because they accurately describe the real world, not because Jesus said them. If you wanted to teach a child that 2+2=4, you wouldn't say "For Texas Instruments hath proclaimed that rest ye two with another two of the same and verily ye might behold that four doth describe the amount ye now have." I think you might have a better grip of Utilitarianism overall than I do. I'm not a big label guy and didn't fully realize when I made my last post that you were speaking of an entire belief system rather than just a consideration.

I don't think so. A dog is born fully formed. Humans are born prematurely. Dogs have never demonstrated the capacity for reason. 99%+ of humans have demonstrated the capacity for reason. We understand that a human baby's inability to reason is the result of not yet being fully formed. Besides, as I understand it, behavior modification without "aggression" is a possibility with dogs as well. [EDIT] I was thinking about this more and I had another point I wanted to make. Humans do not come with any behavior by default that is worthy of modifying. The default human behavior is adapting. We can adapt better the more we understand the world we're in, so we tend to explore. If a child had the capability of exploring in a manner that was dangerous to the child, it is the parent's fault for providing an environment that was dangerous to the child that they keep there intentionally. Whether this translates to not barricading a flight of stairs or simply not watching over them, it's not the baby's fault.

You didn't answer my question. Freedom also means freedom to make bad decisions so long as you're not initiating force against another person. "Well being" replaces the need for consent, which is immoral.

I have so much to say to this that I hope I can communicate them effectively. First and foremost, be honest about the world you're living in. You literally cannot escape the state. I eat at McDonald's sometimes and just heard about how they used the state to have a monopoly on fries at the Olympics. Say you worked someplace that you somehow couldn't attach the state to. Your employer would still be taking money out for the state without your consent. If you own a car, you had to pay the state taxes on it and licensing, etc. You cannot escape the state. Just as if you did go to work for a corporation (which just about every business is, even as an LLC), that business would likely exist even without any state privilege, they'd just look a little different. So let us look at your situation specifically. You didn't steal the money that gets paid to you. If you refrain from voting, you're not telling anybody it's okay to steal the money that gets paid to you. I'm assuming your position doesn't have you doing things that are immoral while hiding behind a state-created shield. Oh and you weren't the one who thought up that the initiation of force is immoral. So you're not the fat guy selling a diet book. You're speaking the truth, nothing more. If YOU feel uncomfortable working where you do, that's something you should address for your own well-being. That's my thoughts. Feel free to argue the opposing position. I certainly want to know if I'm in error.

I cannot fathom that level of helplessness. I'm glad you spoke up. Who tortured you that you feel this level of agony?

"The initiation of the use of force is immoral" is not self-imposed, a handicap, or a liberation movement. I look forward to all three cases if you'd be so kind.

Welcome, non-hypocrite. You are letting yourself get distracted. You do not have to work at MIT to be able to say that 2+2=4. If you did work at MIT, you saying 2+2=5 wouldn't make it so. Unless you or your employer initiated the use of force to establish your relationship, your working there in no way undermines the truth value of "the initiation of the use of force is immoral." That's the other critique I would offer. Society doesn't exist, but people do. If you want to change society, you have to change people. Rather than focusing on the state, focus on the violence. You own yourself and people are not fundamentally different, so we all own ourselves. If we all own ourselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which belongs to somebody else. If this is true, then you simply cannot have a state. In other words, if you focus on the violence, you eliminate the state and every other evil in the world. It's important to stay on the moral argument and not let yourself get distracted by people making ANY excuse to ignore the truth. Because if you say, "the initiation of the use of force is immoral," and they say, "dude, you work at a state university," they're telling you that the truth isn't as important as conformity or the comfort of the familiar. Was this helpful to you? I do hope you'll hang around for awhile. I've learned alot from the FDR juggernaut

Except that you didn't grow up believing in pure fantasy, you were lied to. You also keep using the word malicious as if "negligent" means "free from responsibility." It's circular. When I say you were lied to, you will say that he didn't know. To which I'll point out that the information was available and you will say that it didn't jump in his lap. Then I'll point out that he should've sought it out and you will say it wasn't available in his time. I'll show it's been around almost as long as the state, and you'll say he's not malicious. Repeat. Seriously, re-read the thread and look at all the ways you've made excuses for him. If I was a nut, or even an astute guy that just happened to make a mistake when it was your father I was talking about, you would just ignore what I had to say. The effort you are putting forth is not for the purpose of seeking the truth, but effort that is placed into pushing the truth away. I don't even know your dad. What difference would it make if I thought poorer of him than he actually earned? Especially since I'm really only commenting on such small portions of him anyways.

I'm not sure how to answer that. I certainly want to begin by saying I meant no undue discomfort. There was a time when if you said to me, "Forests do not exist," I would've replied, "Well of course they exist. Pull up a map and I'll show you." I remember the first time I began to watch Stef's An Introduction to Philosophy, I was fascinated both by how much I've come to believe in lies AND how seemingly innocent yet fundamental lies like "forests exist" could lead to evils of the highest order receiving my stamp of approval. From the very first time I ever hurt somebody that meant a lot to me that I would never hurt intentionally, it's always been paramount for me to be corrected when in error. Back then it was more in terms of social evaluation, today it's more in terms of raw truth value. Not that it's the responsibility of others that I am accurate; I accept that responsibility. Just as I accept that I live in a world where the slightest criticism is often confused for a personal attack. As such, I've always been very forthcoming with others that I invite correction. When it comes to the truth, particularly in the context of imprecision leading to the pain, suffering, and deaths of millions of human beings, I provide the same correction for others. When I read the sentence I first quoted, I took that to mean that we should allow others to believe whatever they feel like as if reality were up to us. Rather than jump to that conclusion, I sought clarification first. My intentions, assuming I did not misunderstand what you were saying, was to help you (as Stef helped me) to understand that reality is not in fact up to us. I am very thankful you were able to express your discomfort and I admire the level at which you are in touch with your feelings. Emotions are something I struggle with since I've only actually been amenable to them for less than a year after decades of suppression. I'm really sorry if I came on too strong as a result.

That's like saying that slavery always existed, so it must be inherent. It ignores free will entirely. No, humans do not qualify for "space faring." In the context of making contact with species not of our world, we've barely engaged in acts that could be described as anything more than playing in our own backyard; We haven't even been around the block yet.

First of all, left or not doesn't matter. Does it initiate force or not is paramount. Beyond that, any proposition simply needs to be feasible. This is vague. I don't know how humans qualify as the most valuable thing or why that information would be of any use. Nor do I understand what best possible humans means. "Education" is vague. What if one guy working for you has a PhD and another doesn't even have a GED? "Healthcare" is vague. What if one guy is a 20 year old Jack Lalanne and another was born with one lung, is 60, and smoked since he was 15? "Their whole family" is vague. Are you talking about a guy and his girlfriend of the month or a guy who lives with his grandparents, has 3 wives, 8 children, and 14 grandchildren? The point being that to say things like education and healthcare is arrogant. You don't know what their individuals needs are. That's why you pay them what they're worth and they can decide what they will spend their money on. Besides that, why education and healthcare and not a house with indoor plumbing and food? People need food, water, and shelter before they need education and healthcare. Put it all together and you're now paying $100,000 for the first year for a guy to mop the floor. You can't start a business with that model and you cannot sustain a business with that model. Why do they have no food while you are financially secure? If you just go and dump a bunch of food on an area, you're going to wreck the local economy and impoverish the area further. Much better would be to share the technology with them (be this education or actual equipment) so that they can acquire their own food. By all means familiarize yourself with Norman Borlaug. He's mankind's 2nd best friend. So if you hired the person, what would the contract look like? If a year goes by and they do not cure cancer, do you not have to pay them anything? How do you know where the cure for cancer will come from? Will it come from a scope that gives us the ability to see in real time which cells are effected and efficiently cut them out? Will it come from a way to strengthen the cells so that they're not susceptible to the code being knocked out of whack? Will it come from inducing a psuedo cancer that provides the cell with a backup and train it to default to the backup in the event that the more susceptible code is compromised? Who knows? If we don't know, then how can you know who will do it that you can just send them money or a maid or whatever? I think this might be why that accusation of lefty gets made. There's no actual identification of a problem, just an espoused desire for a solution. Without understanding the problem, no solution can be provided. So the claim ends up being little more than an ego stroke. Where does this claim come from? Just as with the education and healthcare point above, you don't seem to understand that a paycheck is a means to an end. A person might not like scrubbing toilets, but they damn sure like being able to eat. If you only paid them in food though, they wouldn't have shelter or be able to save for a house or education to improve their human capital and so on. So you pay them a wage and they can do all of that. If their performance isn't satisfactory, you can address that issue.

Self-ownership requires the ability to reason, which a newborn does not have. I agree with Robin's point that ice cream is a bad example because the child wouldn't even have it were it not for the parent allowing access to it. But yes, there are ways a parent has agency over a child before the child is able to reason (somewhere between 2-4) and moreso before the child can speak. At no point would intentionally using the baby's nervous system for the purpose of behavior modification (inflicting external will) be anything but immoral.

One of the first things you said was "When we meet aliens they will likely be aggressive." Why is "is based on little but assumptions" reason enough to disregard people who do not agree with you, but not enough to even question those who do or the premise itself?

We're not talking about statists, we're talking about people who chose to bring a human life into the world without studying how to do so in a way that isn't harmful. But since you used the word fathomable, I thought I'd point out that there have been been people who have questioned the validity of the state for MILLENIA. The first literature I came across that validated my position was written by Herbert Spencer, who died in 1903. He had quoted: "No human laws are of any validity if contrary to the law of nature; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority mediately or immediately from this original." It is a quote from William Blackstone, who died in 1780. Which should be no surprise since a great many of the founding fathers questioned the validity of the state. It's not unfathomable. You don't want to fathom it because you'd have to face the truth about people of whom you have an opinion that the truth would be uncomfortable to acknowledge. What do you love about them? Also, I don't understand the "see no reason" remark. If your mind was once enslaved and you have since broken free, then you have experienced what liberation feels like. That feeling alone is worth showing the enslaved. You're essentially saying, "I see no reason to speak the truth to people I claim to love." I was saddened to read this. "You are very astute, but not when it comes to me." What is the only variable?

The people saying those things desperately need to know that the abuse they suffered was okay, so they are vocal and pat each other on the back. It doesn't help that people like us are making it more uncomfortable than ever before. Those people believe (because they want to believe) that there is no debate, so the sheer prevalence of items looking into spanking will make them very uncomfortable. With any luck, each attempt will peel a few away and then they'll be in the minority. Imagine a world where a parent yells at a child in a restaurant and suddenly three different parties approach to intervene. I cannot wait.

I posted this thread as I was drafting an email reply to the friend I was having this conversation with. When I went to proofread the email, I refreshed the thread and the first reply was already in place and absolutely brilliant. I revised my email to ask my buddy to check the first reply out at least. He's been impressed with what philosophy has done for my ability to think and I felt the first reply here dwarfed my own intellectual capacity. Imagine my sadness to revisit the thread only to find that post has been eliminated. It's the second post (that I've seen) by you that was amazing and later rescinded. Interestingly enough, during our conversation of humility vs narcissism, he had shared that he had learned that part of his shyness came from narcissism. He explained that sometimes being shy is a way to manage people's perception of your reputation before they can even form an opinion. I think that "I am not qualified to discuss" might make a useful edit or disclaimer. But not as a reason to erase the entire post, particularly after it received an upvote and therefor clearly was of value to somebody. For those who missed it, I will try to summarize as best as I can, though I will not be able to do it justice. Basically the post stated in regards to specific skills and abilities, people are in fact not as good at something as others are, but are better than others. So we could not both claim to not be better than the other and accurately describe the real world. And that for people to be the same in general would mean having the same level of skill in all things as everybody else. I appreciate all the feedback and hope a little bump might invite more.

Hello there. I am so sorry to hear that you have parents who are more interested in propaganda and mythology than reality. Have you ever had a chance to talk with them about where this might come from in terms of their own childhoods? Were you ever abused other than neglect that it sounds like you got from your mother? Fear not, for you have good reason to believe that in order to achieve interstellar travel, the human race at least would almost certainly require a peaceful society where innovation could flourish. The prime directive as ST:TNG describes it certainly is not a product of the state. I would disagree. For starters, thou shalt not kill while killing everybody but Noah and telling everybody to kill for just about every reason under the sun. Not to mention telling people that pacifism and humility (self-erasure) are virtuous. This has me thinking. One example I wanted to bring up was that we can eat meat or we can eat the grain and vegetables they would eat so we can eat them. If we ate less meat, there would be more food for others. When I rebuilt my PC last, I hand-picked parts that were high efficiency and low power-consumption. I did that for me since I like a silent PC and those parts are conducive to lower overall air flow and therefore noise. But I take less juice overall to accomplish the same tasks. Then again, I don't know if it could be said that eating less meat or consuming less energy is in fact a good thing. Consuming fossil fuels emphasizes our need for efficient alternatives for example. So maybe you're right. Still, I'm inclined to say that there's things we can do for our own good that benefits others as well. As long as we're not forcing them upon others is all that really matters. Thanks for sharing

I'm sorry, it's still not clear to me. Are you saying that what is real is up to us? Because I felt the same freedom of thought you describe when I came to realize that what is real is not up to us. It makes it so much easier for me to be able to identify the truth.

Are you saying that you are 16 years old and have been unschooled your whole life? If so, have your parents also been active parents? In other words, is it true that while unschooled, you were not unparented as well? If it is true that you have been unschooled your whole life while not also being unparented, I think the book would be of incredible value as well as a way for you to earn some money by sharing your experience and exploring the topic in general. I'm no author, so the ideas I'm about to share aren't from some proven system or anything like that. I think leading with your experience would be a good way to hook the audience. If you're happy, say so. If you spend lots of time exploring any aspect of the world you live in (learning), say so. If you are proficiently functional in the real world, show it. I think this would welcome people who already accept unschooling and those who would reject it. From there, maybe delve a bit into the (developmental) psychology that substantiates why this isn't actually an unexpected outcome. Something to let those who are skeptical understand that your example is not exceptional, but would be the norm. While I would never credit Larken Rose as being a source for scientific research, he recently made a fantastic layman's argument for unschooling by pointing out that people learn to communicate without having somebody actually inflict it upon them, which is actually impossible since you need a language to teach most anything. Then I would go on to contrast your experience and the data that establishes it as the norm to current schooling systems. How they're inflicted. That they're not at all synonymous with education. That they in fact can break people rather than build them up. Certainly that they do not produce people of any real value. This part wouldn't have to be too science-y, but should include a little so as to discourage being discarded as subjective observation. Make a fun section that heralds the internet. Not only for its wide open access to any and all information available, but also as a tool for people to interact with one another to come up with better ways of educating people. If you can find any play centers for example that are open to the public and offer internet access for free will learning. Or programs that are set up to help people voluntarily learn about this or that that is available to young people, even ones that aren't in schools. Any sort of innovations that has bridged the gap between market needs and people who don't have pieces of paper saying that they're ready and qualified to provide. I'd include a section talking about the difference between unschooling and unparenting. There are a LOT of people out there that blame unruly young folks for not having been hit enough or otherwise left to act like animals. These same people hear unschooling and think exactly the same thing. Make the case for a parent's role in terms of teaching the child how to reason, how to defer gratification, and make long term goals. Then finally, you could offer a section for parents. Something to help them understand what somebody in your position would need. Internet access for example. Free play time, especially outdoors, with other children. While learning how to negotiate with parents who treat their children as equals is plenty of socialization, spending time with others in an unstructured environment is very important to the development of empathy. And of course the parents simply being present, available, and engaged with their child. I hope that was helpful. I really hope you're able to see this through because this is something that would be very valuable to mankind in general and in ushering in the transition to a free and peaceful society.