dsayers

If you help somebody and then they go on to do something awful, you are not responsible. Let us imagine for a second that she lacks self-knowledge, but accepts things like don't hit, don't scream, breastfeed, don't circumcise, etc. She might still treat the child as if inferior, use punishments and other forms of coercion, etc. So while the child might be better off than without her understanding don't hit, etc it's not enough. The problem with lacking self-knowledge is that the person doesn't even realize that something's missing. What do you think about something like Stef's book On Truth? As she reads it, she might internalize some of the messages in regards to her parents. Others, she might incorporate for her child's sake. It would be a way to appear to be helping her with her upcoming child while also helping her to realize that something's missing and it's not a baby.

Well I didn't necessarily mean from an authoritarian standpoint. My father used to enjoy painting and my step-mom did various craftsy type things. They started doing craft shows together and he eventually lost his love for painting altogether because he now felt as if he HAD to do it. I've experienced similar things in terms of computers and programming. Is this natural or an effect of unresolved trauma?

Sorry, I guess the inconsistency is inherent. I was thinking along the lines of them exercising their self-ownership while rejecting mine. My autonomy was heavily stunted. Not allowed to do much outside the house/yard. Once I was, it came with calling to report that I got where I was going (even if it was a two minute walk down the road) and frequent calls to check in. I was frequently not allowed to do various things, for arbitrary reasons. When I tried to seek out the reason, I was eventually told to either drop it or I would be grounded/punished. I felt at times as if I was going insane because I so desperately sought understanding but no explanation was given. It was exponentially worse once I started talking to girls. No real surprise since as a result of my abuse, I had shown signs of deviance very early on. Their infliction of Christianity alone made puberty such a destructive time. I remember the agony of having sexual urges and addressing them while feeling I sinned against God himself and my promise to "never do that again." Anyways, it was if my mother was threatened by other females being in my life. As if she was in denial that as a human, sexuality was a part of who I was too. I even remember her saying in regards to inquiry as to why she freaked out even at the idea of me being alone with a girl for even a couple minutes, "I don't care what you do, but it's not going to happen under my roof." I don't mind the personal questions. In fact, it's nice to be asked. I am curious though as to how this might relate to where self-ownership comes from. I'm looking for answer that are logical, consistent, and objective. I've learned that anecdotal evidence from my life is no guide whatsoever in such matters.

Is there a name or explanation for how the sense of necessity kills passion? I've observed this in my life and the lives of those around me as well.

Inconsistently. We were owned by our parents, God, the schools, our government, etc. What little was "ours" could be taken away for any reason. Stef's video about Childhood Gifts and Property Rights was very enlightening. That said the first couple/few years of my life (prior to parents' divorce), I was thoroughly nurtured. Which I'm thankful for because as I was growing up and even into my adult life, I could feel that things weren't right even though I couldn't articulate how, why, to what extent, or how serious it was. So most of the inconsistencies damaged me in terms of the way I think and my (lack of) level of awareness of the damage itself. You could say this made the transition for me quicker than many. Does that help?

I wanted to personally thank all the donators to FDR. I must confess that I've been listening for about a year now and intend to donate when I am able. I do share the material and the ideas within in the meantime. Since joining the boards, it's been to the forefront of my thoughts more than ever before, so I thought I'd comment on it. I currently live under my father's roof. This is pathetic for a man my age, I realize. I had abusive parents, never really deferred gratification, and ended up falling flat on my face financially after living on my own for over a decade. I'm working now and saving money to be able to move out ASAP. He is an unstable person and continues to abuse me to this day. Though since I began studying philosophy and pursuing self-knowledge, it doesn't burden me as bad as it used to. Especially since a major fight we had just over six months ago when I tried to talk to him about the violence of my childhood, when he made it clear he didn't care and there would be no effort towards restitution. Nevertheless, he has kicked me out before and literally could any day for about any reason. This is why I've been miserly with my money despite the ENORMOUS value that FDR has brought to my life. I just wanted to thank all the people who DO donate. As well as ask you if you too would be sparing every penny if you were in my situation or would you delay your ability to flee your captor (in a manner of speaking) to be able to contribute?

Too long? In the first draft, I spared no detail. Then I revised it down. I figured the specifics could come out as they were relevant.

Doesn't matter. If she owns herself, she owns the effects of her actions, such as money she's earned, and therefore anything she purchases with that money. That purse is her property so for somebody else to exercise ownership over it, even if they don't touch her body, is immoral. Fraud is a kind of theft with the victim's participation. In the internet age, it's kind of hard to be swindled and blame somebody else for your voluntary entry into a bad decision. To me, violence is the initiation of the use of force. Summed up as theft, assault, rape, and murder. As such, I don't think there's any such thing as a non-violent crime.

I don't know that I fully understand the question. Biologically speaking, the word adult refers to the physically developed specimen. Is it that you're not asking about child/adult, but are instead referring to personhood or moral responsibility? I'm no expert but it seems to me that far too many people use the word child to treat children as if they're lesser humans. Parents choose to bring a child into the world. Assuming they nurture the child and teach it to reason, the child will be more rational than most adults. We mostly don't get this simply because abuse is so prevalent.

I'm interested both in the ethics and the application. The $1 was a bad example because theft is different in that restitution is possible and quantifiable. You steal my car, I go to get it back, you stand in my way, I force my way past you, I have not committed an immoral act. With the praxeological requisite of self-ownership, does this mean it's safe to assume that a serial killer/rapist can be taken down with the use of force simply because they've demonstrated a lack of reasoned consideration? What about somebody that's done it just once? A brain scan would be a good idea, but at what point is ostracism not enough and force moral? If person A assaults person B and creates a debt to him, can person B hire person C to collect on that debt? Even if this would involve person C initiating the use of force to "bring the person to justice?" If person A murder person B, who does the debt accrue to? When I pose these questions, I'm not asking you specifically. It's something I've been thinking about. I'm sure the day will come when there is no state, people raise their children peacefully and rationally, that regular brain scans will help us to eradicate environmental psychopathy and/or minimize damage that does get inflicted, and so on. My concern is that by this time, we'll have centuries of abuse-addled bloodlust in our makeup. I think it's important for people to remember that somebody who commits an immoral act still owns themselves so that we can come up with better solutions than force first, last, only, and always. Plus I think it will prime our consciousness in a way that will help us identify mistakes vs patterns.

Why not? A human's personality is mostly formed by about five years old. Double that to add the wisdom of time passing and experience that much more of the world. Then physical maturation. It used to be this way back when life expectancy was much shorter. Longer life shouldn't lead to drawing out childhood, especially since present day, this translates to extended abuse.

She wasn't being honest when she said she was unbiased. Being desensitized is a bias. Being unwilling to discuss logic, reason, or evidence is a bias. When was the last time she took sugar water for a headache? I think you made an important move when you began to qualify the subject's importance to you. She responded by simultaneously placing value on her preferences while rejecting yours, which isn't consistent and therefor indicative of bias.

I agree with all of this and this is one of the major reasons I'm investigating this. Say for example a "known criminal" is in my presence and I could easily overpower/subdue him for the purposes of formally assessing damages, subjecting him to a brain scan to determine the extent of his capability for reason, or whatever it is. For me to do so in regards to the transgression of theft of a dollar would be immoral. Many would say that to do so in regards to the transgression would be moral and necessary. How do we grade this scale if the person doesn't cease to own themselves? I realize this is more of an application of the answer. I'm still interested in why we don't say for example that horses own themselves. I really appreciate your time in helping me examine this.

Is it voluntary or coercive? Does it violate self-ownership?

Are you saying that everybody needs nourishment to survive, so eating food isn't a choice, and therefor stealing food isn't immoral? What does "dying of thirst" mean? Even a three year old understands that you want water, you go and turn the handle. A boy scout knows how to boil water from a natural source. A teen understands that to pay for water to be piped right to your house, you need to pay for it, which would require contributing to society for currency. I can envision only two scenarios in which somebody stealing water isn't morally responsible. 1) Person A abducts person B, parches them for exactly the right amount of time that they'd need to either steal water or die, and then releases them. 2) Person A holds a gun to person B's head and says, "Steal some water or I will kill you." Person B has no choice in these scenarios. Does this ever happen? Is that not still theft, just the immorality accrues to person A rather than the person stealing the water?

I understand what you're saying, but wanted to point something out. Philosophy is a method by which we can determine the truth value of objective claims. Math, science, physics, biology, economics, etc are all offshoots of philosophy. The likelihood of somebody engaging in good philosophy in one area, but faulty philosophy in other areas isn't high.

Welcome to FDR! What do you mean by "should control morally well"? If you own yourself and people are fundamentally not different from one another, then everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral because they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. This is not a positive obligation like "should control morally well," but a negative obligation as "do not initiate the use of force against other people." This is a useful video to check out to maybe aide in clarifying your verbiage: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38425-self-ownership-and-ethics/

Would it be more accurate to say that the number is per post until they fall beyond the threshold, at which point it's the user's total? That's how it appears to me anyways. I don't know how associated settings might alter this.

I felt I sort of lost my cohesion half way through my answer to it. Thanks, rockin' Robin for so eloquently saying what I was trying to

It's sad that people are so dependent on turning to an enforcer class to "solve problems." I've talked with statists that ask things like "how will _____ be accomplished?" They never ask themselves this question though. "How will we deal with criminals?" Well state influence has raised the level of psychopathy from 2% to 4%. If we can think on the whole enough to get past the need for a state, we'll be back to 2% or even down to 1%. The question then becomes how can 99% of the population stop 1% from preying upon it. They don't realize how silly a question this is because this is how it is now except right now, there's X% holding the great big gun in the room.

"You cannot escape" is not the same as "Escaping will be difficult" or "If you try to escape, there is an 80% chance you will not succeed." I cannot speak for others, but I can say that most of my life, I've treated women differently just because they were women. Sometimes it was in their favor. Sometimes it was against them. Either way it was inconsistent and dishonest about reality. I think it's healthy to be angry at a system that sells itself as justice, but administers it unevenly, by any standard. This is not the same as anger towards women for being benefactors, which would be irrational (except in a case by case basis such as a female that claims rape because she understands that people will damage her intended victim for her). Anger towards the system is the necessary first step for healing. Anger's purpose is to motivate us to action. It's a process. Women were once considered inferior by "the system" and were victimized as a result. When humanity became enlightened enough to see past this fallacy, people of both genders began to overcompensate. What we have today is the pendulum in the other extreme. Men are considered inferior by the system and are victimized as a result.

Interesting video. I especially benefited from the point of data loss in the event of projecting 3D onto 2D. To answer your question, we first need to be precise with our language. Dimensions do not exist. Dimension is a concept. We use the term to describe things that exist in the real world. My next question would be how do you define a dimension? Could life be classified as the 4th dimension? If we're built in three dimensions and with the capability of detecting and measuring three dimensions, how would we know what the 4th dimension is? Could time be the 4th dimension? If so, it would be a description of something that exists and therefore could be traveled. I'm skeptical simply because if time was traverse-able, we'd have visitors just as people died from carbon monoxide even before we could identify and measure it. Point being that if we cannot even visualize it, how would we know what it is even if we interacted with it? The video makes this point. I don't think it's accurate to ascribe the occult as recognizing additional dimensions. By definition, the occult deals with the supernatural and dimension as a concept describes things that exist in the natural world. Additionally, recognize is a description of something that is understood or accepted. If we do not know what the 4th dimension is, how could anybody recognize it?

I've read your whole post and I feel that it all falls away relative to this statement. If the entirety of your experience of conflict as a child was win-lose with you destined to be the loser based strictly on your smaller size, your chronological disadvantage, or your inability to escape those who cheat to "win," I would not classify any aversion to conflict as irrational. The way this statement was worded, it puts the origin upon yourself. As if you're broken. As if the perceived flaw just came out of nowhere. I can speak from first hand experience that it's one thing to recognize that your parents abused you, but it is something entirely different to be able to identify HOW they abused you, how damaging that abuse really was, how this manifests in your personality and interactions with others, and so on. Before I got to this sentence of yours, I too was wondering based on the seemingly remote description of your "relationship" with the person you're talking to, why you'd have an interest at all. Don't get me wrong; I understand all too well what it is to be able to see things so many cannot and have the desire to share it with them. However, it seems to me that this person is living a life devoid of self-knowledge and will not know how to make use of the information. And that's assuming they don't reject it outright. Similarly, you called yourself passive and described this as a vice. I engage in a steady intake of caffeine. I know quite a few people that smoke. These are vices because they are chosen. People are not passive. We know this because passivity is tantamount to death. We come into this world with a want to explore it, to understand it, to survive in it, to adapt to it, to adapt it to our desires, etc. If you're kept up at nights, it sounds as if maybe you could benefit from organizing your thoughts a bit. One thing that would help with this is calling things by their proper names, which means being able to accurately describe the chain of causality. In terms of resources you are expending in an ongoing fashion, it would be more efficient to accept that your parents did these things to you than to mentally wander about wondering why you're this way. If a waitress has a large party to tend to, she might be able to save some time carrying X meals simultaneously. If she adds to this to the point of dropping the entire tray, then she accomplishes nothing and in fact works against herself. I cannot tell based on your description how this person is in your life in such a way that approaching her on the subject of peaceful parenting would at all be considered. Based on your description, it sounds as if she has a LOT of ways at the ready to dismiss you before even considering your words. I mentioned the waitress analogy to make the point that knowing how extensive the damage of child abuse is to us all, taking on the responsibility of every pregnant woman we see will not be productive. I would especially caution against it while you have more important work to do within yourself. It may even be that you're inspired to try and help her to avoid helping yourself. I'm certainly no expert on these things, but it sounded like you could use an alternate viewpoint. Especially since you're subconsciously blaming yourself for things others did to you.

I appreciate your patience in this thread. I'm very frustrated as it seems as if I suffer from a mental disconnect that I cannot identify. If person A assaults/rapes/murders person B, they do not cease to own themselves as I understand self-ownership. As such, are we not engaging in the immoral act of the initiation of the use of force if we try to arrest their freedom of movement for the purpose of forcing punishment upon them? I get that a serial killer/murderer is on the level of a wild animal on the loose. However, I don't know how I know this since I cannot logically and consistently arrive at that position starting from first principles. Because of this, I cannot fathom how somebody who only commits such an infraction once (and therefor isn't necessarily suffering from a persistent effect) fits into all this.

If you put you hand into a fire, you impulsively pull it out. If somebody holds your hand in a fire, you pass out. If a person was beaten as a child--that is, a time when they had no escape--any number of forms of damage could manifest. One could be to translate the experience as pleasure in an attempt to regain control over the situation. For what it's worth, I personally wouldn't concern myself too much with the specific name. Most names are given to such things in order to classify them as human defects. To conceal that they're inflicted by somebody that should be regarded as a criminal of the highest order for preying on children.