dsayers

I can't help but think that people are more concerned with privacy simply because there are those who seek it coercively. In a free society, I would submit to tech that tracked my car's whereabouts by a company that would accept a lump payment (plus fee) to pay each owner of the roads I use appropriately for me. In a statist society, I am morally outraged that phones have GPS modules that can be activated remotely for causes/reasons I am not party to. It's essentially the same thing. The difference is the voluntary nature, which requires the "intrusion" to be beneficial, welcome, and controlled by the person who owned the information.

One of the first steps to wisdom is to call things by their proper names. Those who wish to enslave you will often as an attempt to increase efficiency/reduce risk try to alter your reality to make you more amenable to their advances. We think in words, so to alter words is to potentially alter thought. This is probably the single highest yield:effort. Let us compile a list of common words and phrases that are used to pass evil off as virtue in an attempt to help us all be resistant to this clever ploy. All submissions/revisions/corrections welcome. I will try to maintain it as able. arrest - assault citizen - person; refers to a person based on the false claim of ownership somebody else has placed over them Constitution - document; commonly used as proof of something despite being select inconsistent words of select individuals democracy - mob rule human nature - normalizing evil; Often used as an ex post facto justification for evil that isn't actually innate in humans. Note: Not propaganda when referring to things which are innate in humans. imprison - rape law - legislation; Used to make commands backed by threats of violence appear binding, as in the law of gravity. national debt - enslavement of the unborn public sector - coercive sector; area of human interaction predicated on theft/involuntary participation. public school - government school right - amoral behavior; Often contrasted by "privilege" to feign steadfastness. However it is only used to describe items of contention despite denoting incontestability. Also used to discourage action opposing contention out of disbelief that anybody could take away a "right." taxation - theft war - genocide; Commonly misused as addressing unwanted behavior when in fact it attacks people.

Morality requires choice. Birth is an autonomic biological process. If I tie you up in my basement or your parents birth you, you are in a place involuntarily. As such, the person who has you someplace involuntarily is responsible for your health, feeding, etc. The exception to this would be a lack of understanding that nourishment is a requisite of survival. This doesn't apply to people who have been nourished for so long that they have survived to the point of developing functional reproductive organs.

For me, it began with an abusive childhood where I was taught that force and manipulation (not negotiation) was the way to interact with the world around you. I was severely hurt by a 3rd party to the point of actually wanting... very bad things. My state allows for legal concealed carry and handgun purchase, so I decided to pursue it. As luck would have it, the trainer I got for the classroom requirement of the licensing was such a gentle man sharing his love of firearms that I was convinced to respect the responsibility and never do anything to risk losing that "right." From there, I joined Ohioans for Concealed Carry and began to study freedom, American history, the legal system, etc. As a lifelong anti-authoritarian, I was particularly interested in stories of police abuse and eventually became the center of one myself. A man who owned his own security company, who saw a young himself in me, took me under his wing for guidance/protection. All this eventually led me to copblock.org, where Pete Eyre shared materials analyzing the (lack of) validity of the state, the incentive issue with the institution of coercive government/police, etc. This took me to Larken Rose. Which took me to Stefan Molyneux. That was a year ago and I've spent much of that time studying Stef's work and pursuing self-knowledge. I've grown more as a person in any two month window of the past year than I have in the 36 yrs prior combined!

In my short time here, acronyms I've had to look up were deFOO and MRA (men's rights activist).

There's a difference between the majority voting to force private companies to not allow smoking in their places of business and a homeowner saying I do not allow smoking in my house. The fundamental difference is ownership. This forum is a privately owned service and its rules/methods only purport to bind you during your use of that service. In order for this to be analogous to democracy, the majority of people in the geographical area you live in would have to own you, your home, your occupation, etc.

So true. I remember a time when I used to use quotes to converse about topics. Later, I'd link videos of people saying things more succinctly then I could. Nowadays, I'm willing to argue based on merit and not from authority of one dead guy or a 200+ yr old piece of parchment that may have accidentally gotten a couple things right. Even still, I so often find myself about to point out a movie as I believe it's something they could relate to. I almost always refrain simply because I accept that it is an inferior method of communication and confirmation bias would marginalize it as a work of fiction. I've noticed that as I've acquired self-knowledge, the types of entertainment I enjoy have shifted and/or been re-assessed. It was a bit anxiety-provoking at first since as somebody that disassociated, it was a large part of how my time was spent. I've come to accept and in fact embrace it as it now gives me a lot more time to engage in things that are far more important.

Added to my "to-read" list and placed at the top. Thank you for the excellent review and suggestion.

When people are paying, they're more likely to take a proverbial slap across the face than if it were otherwise just friendly advice. To be willing to part with money, they are accepting that they don't have the answer. Not to mention if advice you give lands as off-putting, I think it would go a long way if the coach were to admit that they're not an expert and that their job is to provide an outside perspective, born from areas they've studied.

I feel this is a brilliant distinction. Well we have no idea what "college" will look like 15 yrs from now. Rather than providing this conclusion for him, I would recommend that when the time is right, explain this to him. Encourage him to research what college is, what are its benefits, what are its pitfalls. There is already tons of material out there for people without (completed) government schooling to prepare them for college. Surely better, more time-accurate material will surface over the next 15 yrs. Let him decide if that's a concern he wishes to adopt and address. To the topic at hand: Save the money you would've paid him to get him a tablet PC once he's old enough to properly maintain it. Just make sure it's one that supports handwriting input. I don't know if the day will ever come where humans won't need that skill, but it'll likely be pertinent for a long time to come.

Something occurred to me the other day and I thought I'd share it since I haven't heard anybody else make this case before. We all own ourselves. Therefore our bodies, our time, and our effort are our capital. When we want to visit a friend who lives down the street, it is a capitalist decision to use our body, time, and effort that could be used doing other things to walk to that friends house to achieve our goal. Even if the friend lives across town and the car you use to go there is paid for (including insurance, fuel, and maintenance) by somebody else, to use your body, time, and effort to use the car to achieve your goal is a capitalist decision. When you are hungry, it is a capitalist decision to use your body, time, and effort that could be spent doing something else to nourish yourself. Even when somebody uses their body, time, and effort to argue against capitalism and/or argue for a bogus alternative, they are affirming capitalism. In conclusion: Everybody is a capitalism-supporting capitalist.

The omnipresence point is a good one. I agree with that. So as a thought experiment, how do we determine that psychopathy is the root of their (habitual) immorality? If it's that murder, rape, and more extreme cases of assault would cross the line based on the extent of the damage, how much do we take into consideration intent? While the damage is dramatically different, stealing somebody's pencil, raping somebody, and nuking a city are morally identical. How then can we consistently or effectively draw a line by extent of damage alone? I think most people would feel pretty similarly on this subject, but I would like to try and figure out an objective measure with a sound case behind it. It's a hard one to consider because we live in such a pro-violence society and that large amounts of the desire for retribution stem from this shield of "free evil."

Well, if you felt that the sun and the moon were the same size and then you were exposed to the science behind actual size/distance and perception, you'd be challenged to either re-examine your perception, or cling to a proven falsehood. In the latter, it would be revealed that you believe what you want to believe and are not interested in the truth. I trust in light of the amount of effort you've put into this thread that the truth is of interest to you. This sort of thing is really important to understand since nationalism and coercive control structures in general have been responsible for the deaths of millions of human beings. If you ask me, there's only one meaningful way by which to divide people: Those who initiate the use of force and those who do not.

Not that it will be helpful to those who seek confirmation bias, but there's two things you can point out in regards to the "rise up" argument. The first obviously is that if the worst scenario that can think of without a state is that there could become a state, they're actually arguing for you. There are a LOT statists say that actually apply to statism and not anarchism. The second being that the last 30 years has yielded tons of understanding of how the brain works. The origins of psychopathy, epigenetics, nuero-elasticity, even innate empathy. To imagine that people being able to think en masse to the point of accepting that government is false would be plagued by crime is akin to thinking that people being vaccinated against polio will be plagued by polio. It's a fear tactic with no understanding of the topic they're discussing. Ye olde "we've always had slavery, so it must be necessary." Besides, if they really believe people are going to try and subjugate one another, then step one would obviously be to not build nukes, assemble armies, and call such subjugation moral, just, and noble.

I agree that it is a ridiculous hypothetical. If we live amid people who could think to the point of understanding government is false, assault, rape, and murder would only be carried out by psychopaths and the brain-damaged; those without a moral self. Outside of that subset, we lack the capability of fundamentally altering somebody's self-ownership. You cannot claim self-defense in the absence of harm or threat of harm to self. Theft is different because if you take my car, I can take it back. Were you to try to prevent me from doing so, YOU would be the initiation of the use of force in the moment. I get that. But if somebody assaults, rapes, or murders you, there is no taking back (restitution). What is the solution? I don't know. I'm pretty certain it needs to be voluntary or else we'd be no more moral than the person who we're addressing. Plus, I think the moment you accept violating self-ownership based on past behavior (no threat in the moment), you have formed the basis for a state. This is a tricky area and I'm certainly open to ideas to the contrary. I just don't view self-defense in the absence of threat to self, or violating self-ownership without a threat of immorality in the moment as valid or moral.

Age isn't maturity isn't intellect. I grew up in a family that was full of drinkers and smokers. They were obnoxious and it turned me off to drinking, smoking, and even the idea that family = necessary. In these ways, I was mature for my age. It wasn't until a year ago that I began studying philosophy and pursuing self-knowledge. In this way, I'm less mature than people who were raised with reason or are studying as an effect of abusive families at half my age, but am more mature than people twice my age who lack self-knowledge. Anecdotal evidence aside, virtue is what matters. If a person can think and is virtuous, I think it would be a very rewarding relationship regardless of age disparity.

Is this to say that where you were born/ancestral homeland typed those paragraphs full of conclusions with no proof or rigor? Can we universalize this? I'm white. I have a touch of Cherokee in me, otherwise my ancestry comes from Europe. This would mean that your claim is that the same area owns me as well. But if it's issuing your words (forgive my use of "your" words in this instance as it's inconsistent with your claim; damn, did it again with "your" claim), how can it also be issuing my words, which challenge your words? I feel I've arrived at "you do not own where you were born" with some rigor. Can you demonstrate how you concluded that where you were born owns you? If not, then it's incumbent upon you to re-examine that conclusion.

By "monopoly of force," do you mean monopoly on the initiation of the use of force? If so, this cannot be voluntary as the individual doesn't have a valid claim of the initiation of the use of force and therefor cannot delegate it to others. "Organize the society" is the initiation of the use of force. There is no such thing as society as humans are not fundamentally different when standing alone and standing amid 100 or even 1 million others. Taxation is theft. Theft requires the initiation of the use of force. If I agree to pay you X for good/service Y, it is incorrect to describe this as you taxing me X. Not trying to be annoying, but it's very important we're precise when talking about these things. This is an anthropomorphism. "The State" is not a person and is not capable of behavior. This is an important distinction here because your quote would be clearer if stated with precise language. "Person A gives person B a choice: You may live here..." In order for this to be a valid statement, person A would have to own the land in question to be able to morally decide who gets to live there. If person A does own the land, they don't have to offer anybody else anything to NOT live there.

Except that voting is the initiation of the use of force. Except that the way anarchists "take over" is by getting people to think and understanding that violence is what failed us. If everything collapsed today, there would still be enough people that don't understand self-ownership and the NAP that they would just give themselves away to whatever demagogue convinced them that if we gave him a monopoly on the initiation of the use of force, all our problems would be solved. Worse, this would be a bonding action, the demagogue would go down in history as a savior, and we would be relegated to another dark age.

Actually, a government claims to own all of the land in their "country" and all the people within it. Not just the land. There is a chain of events though. The "evil man" exercises ownership over that which is owned by somebody else, making him actionable. The action taken, if logical, reasonable, and necessary (not shooting somebody just for strolling onto your lawn), is justified and not a violation of the NAP. The is why the INITIATION of the use of force is key. Also, the use of the word utopia is a sophist trick. Statism is the utopia because it pretends that giving a small group a monopoly on the initiation of the use of force (something people don't have, and therefor cannot give) will solve all problems despite there being no logic, reason, or evidence to support this conclusion. Being a mass murderer is reason to not do business with somebody. If they are not a threat in the moment, it IS an initiation of the use of force to "go after him." His profound history of immoral acts does not fundamentally change that he owns himself. I don't know what a DRO's role would be in this case. Do they have a vested interest because their customers were violated? Keeping track of him, informing all the people around him, etc would be a way to act based on his immoral acts without committing immoral acts themselves.

Did you intend to be born where you were born? Did you make efforts to be born where you were born? Then where you were born was an accident in the context of its bearing on your life. If you own yourself, then you own the effects of your actions. You do not own where you were born. Pride and shame are not valid descriptors of the actions of other people.

I absolutely adore how out of control government has gotten in the last decade. Statist: mwa mwa mwa mwa mwa Thinker: empirical evidence Statist: mwa mwa mwa mwa mwa Thinker: empirical evidence squared Statist: mwa mwa mwa mwa mwa Thinker: empirical evidence cubed Statist: ... I get it now

They lose customers to competition that can provide something similar for less. To drink milk or not drink milk is amoral. ebay doesn't exist within a state. It may be located in a place where people steal from them under threat of violence, but this has no bearing on their operations except... the cost of overhead. Meaning that ebay in the absence of a state would do what it does now, but could charge less in usage fees. By the by, if truth and consistency is your criteria for acceptance, you should abandon studying statelessness as it's never truly existed and therefor you could toss out any claim that didn't suit you by simply saying "It's under a government" even if that fact has no bearing on it. When a church collapses, you can't say it's congregation are atheists. Similarly, when a government collapses, you can't say that its people fundamentally embrace non-violence. Please show me the grey area in 2+2=4. The people that are trying to convince you that truth is analog are the ones trying to tell you that their theft is valid because they call it taxation.

Sorry, roger, but I'm seeing a lot of conclusions with no logical path, up to and including characteristics of the state being ascribed to statelessness. "Chaos" which in the absence of the state is balanced by competition and each individual a sovereign cortex for dissent, but within the state is balanced and restricted by nothing, which is true chaos. The state stealing from everybody to protect them against theft only to steal from them again. Then again. Except that you do. You have to. First and foremost, is it forced or are people free to leave the arrangement? If it's forced, it is immoral. If it is voluntary, you cannot rely on the others as they may not be there tomorrow. If you have a child when others aren't, you're exploiting the arrangement by consuming more than your fair share. In order for socialism to be free of exploitation, everybody would have to value everything equally all the time. This is in direct opposition of the meaning of "value." Is this how it happened? Or is that for all of recorded history, subjugation of others has been present and the larger population just meant more efficient means of enslavement needed to be employed. If you can get the slaves to fill out their own theft forms (tax return) and whip each other for not doing so, you barely have to lift a finger to own 300 million people AND be paid exorbitant amounts of money for doing so.

My least favorite part of studying philosophy is all the different labels I get exposed to that I never realized were even a thing. It means that there are that many different ways people have explored to try and control others minus one. It makes me sad. On what basis do you feel you are responsible for me other than not stealing, assaulting, raping, or murdering me? What if happiness to me is people not controlling me? How would this be compatible with everybody else being responsible for me if they only way they could intervene is by not intervening? If you believe it doesn't matter which body happiness and its absence resides, why not give everything that you have to somebody like Stef that could use it to bring happiness to that many more people at your expense? How can we take you at your word if you don't live your values in this fashion?