dsayers

I'ma cut you! I don't agree. I'm sorry I used a relatively ambiguous word like answerable. Being answerable to somebody is a positive obligation. This is fine in terms of a contractual agreement between entrepreneur and whomever provides the startup capital, since the entrepreneur gives that positive obligation. The entrepreneur (be he restaurateur, road owner, or otherwise) has no contract with the users of his product/service and therefore has no positive obligation. In the context of roads, this is true to some extent even with the state. If somebody's about to go on a trip, they plot their course. If they find a section of highway is deep under construction where there's constant traffic jams, they'll choose a less efficient surface road route. The other day, I was a passenger in my dad's truck. I told him he wanted the left lane as we were eastbound on Alexis Rd because I knew the right lane was busted up due to recent ice. If it were only one lane, I would've recommended an alternate route.

There's lots of videos on youtube. Just search pythagorean theorem proof. The most interesting one I found was . In light of your last sentence there, I thought maybe Patrick Grim's explanation would be beneficial to you. I uploaded it here. That was the point I was making. I have a buddy who checked out of philosophy (his words) while in college for the same reason, so I completely understand. I don't think the topic is annoying at all. I just don't like the labels. Like talking about empiricism as if it's options despite every one of us being born empiricists.

Wow. I really appreciate the amount of thought you put into that. Do you mind if I argue the opposing side for a moment to see how you'd answer that? The NSA, the military, the CIA etc make use of surveillance technology (designed by the "free" market) to an extent much greater than the peaceful individual could, barring factors such as numerousness. This happens as a result of the violent lying to the peaceful both in regards to their existence and what will happen to others if they attempt to compete. Can we not assume that those same oppressors would similarly make use of freedom-formed interstellar travel while threatening harm upon anybody who would compete without their permission? What about the context of nuclear weapons? Those who have them keep an eye on those who do not for the explicit purpose of making sure they continue to not have them. Those that do not have them have little recourse in standing up against the violent advances of those who do simply BECAUSE they already have them. I agree with your conclusion, but I'm interested in how you would respond to those challenges.

This is false. If person A is raping person B and person B fights back or person C intervenes, they are not INITIATING the use of force. The use of force had already been deployed. I'm running out of ways to point out the difference between force and the initiation of the use of force. Could you help me by elaborating on how I am being unclear? Also, countries do not exist and therefore do not have a self. Self only accurately describes people.

For something to be true independent of our experience is the definition of objective. I still don't see the possibility of prior knowledge. Can you list a mathematical truth that wasn't arrived at by use of our senses and put forth as a truth for the purpose of acting as a logical shortcut? The pythagorean theorem for example is used to qualify right triangles, but you can use your senses to prove it without the use of numbers. It's put forth as a truth to save you the time of having to prove it every time you'd need to utilize it to arrive at an answer. It seems to me that if you accept the first statement, the second follows. In order for it not to, there'd have to be a second variable, but your first statement lists sense deprivation as the only variable. Heh heh. Al-right!

This is an effect. Different from "please me, or I take action against you." There was a time where the city was where it was at. As our wealth grew, suburban malls became the preferred method of shopping and entertainment. Now, the internet has made it to where geography isn't as important in such mattes. You don't even know what our dependence on roads will be in the future. All the more reason to regard it as a private owner of property engaging in voluntary trade with other people. That way, the conclusions will be sound and not limited to just roads. I don't think "people want to go from A to B" is reason enough to say a road owner would be a slave to his customers anymore than "people need to eat" is reason enough to say a restaurant owner is a slave to his customers.

What is the difference between "the initiation of the use of force" and "force"? Or, put more simply: the initiation of the use of force - force = ? The answer is "the initiation of the use of." What force are you initiating the use of in this scenario? You keep asking the exact same question. Are you interested in the truth or a way of making a prejudice true? I haven't seen you make the case for inaction as the initiation of the use of force, nor have I seen you describe how the logic of counterpoints has been faulty.

I don't think anybody's talking against self-defense. Of course you can choose to hire people to protect you. You would be wrong to call them police since that would not be voluntary and presumes a jurisdiction that violates self-ownership and property rights.

Is running away or inaction the initiation of the use of force? What is the point of a definition if you can reject it when it doesn't suit a prejudice? Did the wife willingly go someplace she knew she might encounter a bear?

Welcome to FDR. Please accept my huge gratitude in your interest to building for a peaceful future by not aggressing against your future child! Larken Rose just released a cool video about how humans learn. It makes a great case for unschooling even though it doesn't intend to.

People are fundamentally not different from one another. Maybe I like black and you like blue, but this doesn't change the objective claim that spanking is assault and has numerous negative effects. Oh and thanks to epigenetics, we understand that when it comes to personality and disposition, nurture has a lot more to do with it than nature.

If you don't mind me saying so, this all sounds very generalized. If I find out my car was stolen, I'm angry that the car was stolen. If I find out that the person I trusted above everybody else stole it, I'm angry that I was betrayed by somebody I trusted. What you're describing is akin to being angry that your car was stolen. Only you know who did it and you know that it was the last thing they should've done to you. This was not an issue of drawing straws and you happened to get the short one. Somebody of free will, whom you were dependent upon to STAY ALIVE did this to you. So I guess the answer to the topic's question would be to assign the debt to the person responsible. If this is difficult to accept, please just re-read the following while considering it: It would be easy for you to go to your mom and say, "Hey, I didn't like this," and for her to say, "Oh yeah, sorry about that." You might find her reaction to be very different if you approached it more from a, "Yo, this pisses me off. How the hell could you treat somebody like this? How the hell could you leave somebody with people that would do things like this?" I'm being very general since these aren't my experiences, but I hope you get the idea. Your mother is responsible for the way those other people treated you to. The reasons you don't want relationships with them accrues to your mother also.

I still don't follow. How is the ability to experience something from your couch knowledge that is independent of experience? "All bachelors are unmarried" is just the definition of the word. Oh and since I keep forgetting to include it: Giggity.

I don't know if you realize it, but you just said, "not subjective importance, but subjective importance." Then you tried to use an explanation of what this "importance" would lead to as if it established it as an objective measure. I think Stefan Molyneux's An Introduction to Philosophy series is a great place for anybody to start. It deals with a lot of thinking errors most people have as a result of heavy propaganda. It's long, but only because it's quite exhaustive.

Oh wow, that was hilarious! I burst out in uncontrollable laughter at the last line. Is this a series or something? I'll have to look into this.

Larken Rose. He used to be more confrontational in style (in his videos; he was always laid back in his interviews and presentations). Lately though, he's been quite accurate and without the off-putting in your face style. I used to watch Breaking the Set. I ended up having to set it down. They did too much covering events, complaining about how politicians were doing things they shouldn't, but never sat down to talk about the fundamental error in turning to violence for solutions, or expecting the violent to adhere to standards after telling them that standards do not apply to them.

I feel this either doesn't answer my question of contract with who or ignores the comparison I made to restaurants without actually addressing why it should be ignored. Anybody can walk into a restaurant. That doesn't mean it is public property. Nor does it mean that the owner has to answer to the customers. If he doesn't meet their expectations of good, safe food and service at a reasonable price, his customers will simply stop lining his pockets.

Violence is the initiation of the use of force.

Should there be no gravity? It's not something we can change, which is what law means. I suspect you meant to ask should there be no legislations. I would say yes, there should be no commands backed by threats of violence. The purpose of this thread is to improve the precision of our thoughts. But as you point out, it's fundamentally flawed as it purports to own all property (including people) within a geographical area. That's not the sort of thing worth preserving.

@Pinhead: Thanks for the clarification. It's not that you didn't explain it the first time or that I didn't understand it. I just didn't put the parts I understood together to get that the concern was about others actions in regards to his presence. So thanks for clarifying. To clarify, your carrying on their property would not be disrespecting their property. You would be violating your own agreement. Consider "right to life" compared to "right to not be murdered."

Good catch! As soon as I wrote that, I realized it was an assumption and I began to explore whether it is true or not. Would we conceptualize self if we did not have sense perception to understand we can influence other things? Probably not. @Rex: I don't know, could you define that for me please? I've only seen that word once or twice before you mentioned it.

I've found that the more I learn, the more I realize I have yet to learn. The more I understand to be true, the less cohesive that which is true seems to me. You'll have to forgive me for my aversion for labels. I prefer dealing with the nuts and bolts, as this sentence does.Everything we know is derived from sense perception. Without the senses, all you could know for sure is that YOU exist. The caveat being that when our perceptions conflict with reality, our perceptions must give way. A rod that passes through water appears to be bent, but we can determine with our other senses that this is not the case. Which leads to the question of why our interpretation of our eye's data did not conform to the empirical evidence. Which leads to knowledge and understanding. Your contemplation of "humans act with purpose" is for the purpose of determining its truth value, thus establishing that humans act with purpose.

On what basis? Human history shows that violence inhibits innovation. A strong argument could be made that in order to develop interstellar travel, you'd need peace. If we had the technology to teleport just a few feet forward and were violent, the technology would be abused. Technological abuse has almost lead to the end of the human race and some would argue we face such dangers right now.Even if you reject that, you have to understand that you cannot just presume aggression and build an entire series of thoughts on it.

Welcome to FDR. I like your name. Contract with who?No offense, but his idea is too rooted in how things are right now. Your plan seems to want to be one of property and "public property" at the same time. A road in a free society wouldn't be public property any more than a restaurant is. If the owner fails to maintain their road/restaurant, people will simply stop going there. This is a good thing for the consumer since "public property" would not be maintained via the same incentives or maintaining private property. A homeowner repairs his roof, a road owner repairs his livelihood.

Never seen or had an interest in the series. Was curious if the premise of plane crashes on an island leads to anarchic, peaceful coexistence. Or is it lefty, sensationalist, we need rulers to keep us from killing each other.