dsayers

You're skipping a lot of steps here. You said that there is an argument that people on the island that is the UK equally own it. What argument were you referring to? Skip the narrative of "defending the fatherland." This does not answer how you arrived at "fair" as a standard. When I was pointing out the difference between tax and rent, you hadn't yet said "don't want the land, don't rent it." Skip the backpedaling. You were conflating tax and rent when the words are as polar opposite as rape and love-making. To answer your question, what's not voluntary about that which is involuntary is the lack of consent of course. You need to stop moving the goalposts. If YOU tried to rob a group of people that outnumbered you 10,000 to 1, you'd be debilitated in no time. However, people do this and get away with it in the name of the State every day. Nobody is going to attack a free society for the income because they will be outnumbered. They have to attack the tax base because a tax base means the populace are actively being stolen from and not resisting it.

Yeah, at the time, I didn't think you might've meant a physical sensitivity. For what it's worth, I experience things similarly. When I was engaged was about the only time I experienced a pronounced respite from it. Everything external that wasn't a threat seemed to mostly not register for me.

Not only can we, but we MUST. If I talk to you about a specific couch, you can only understand me because a conceptual representation of that couch is present in your mind. If we're working together to move that couch through a narrow doorway, your mind must first conceptualize everything about the maneuver before beginning to execute it. Does that make sense?

Neither have I. I was recently pinned down in a place where I knew nobody and couldn't leave after a time where I had a great many things awoken in me and an unlimited outlet in/with which to explore it all. It's a level of isolation, starvation, and anguish I never thought possible. Here I stand before you, ready to speak the truth. My best friend of a great many years on paper has no business being friends with me. The reason he's gone out of his way to maintain contact with me and keep that friendship alive is precisely because I AM a survivor. Times in my life when I thought it was over and saw no hope for the future, I picked myself up, took the steps I needed to to strengthen myself, and began walking towards the future anyways. This is one of those things that people engage in that have the opposite effect of one's stated goals. He gets a pass because his life wasn't easy? Trying to maintain two "realities" complicates life, it doesn't make it easier. In fact, the only complication that comes from speaking the truth regarding State power is social ostracism. Which again means he's achieving the opposite effect of his stated goals. How many people that he has contact with or is connected to are afraid to speak the truth because of how HE might react. Because HE is currently deliberately living the lie. Which brings us to you. You say you will not falter, but why are you continuing to allow this person in your life? It is one thing to be oblivious. It is another to know and deliberately disregard to the expense of everybody else. Just as in my last paragraph, if he had to lose you too, would that maybe not be the incentive he needs? What does his support network look like? I know in my most recent devastation, I plead for help out of sheer desperation. The response I received all but saved my life. Something I was able to achieve specifically BECAUSE I have spoken the truth for so long. I appreciate your sensitivity on this topic. I encourage you to look it over once again please. There's some fundamental flaws in thinking here. You are both inadvertently perpetuating the cycle when breaking it would be easier than you both seem to think it would.

Which rule is that? *ruleRs. All the difference in the world. If you have such a low opinion of your audience, why share? Or if you're going to preach civility, why not demonstrate it by NOT engaging in this passive-aggressive, manipulative backhand?

Which argument is that? If "fair" is the standard you're putting forward, how would getting half of land man's land be fair to land man? Also, how did you arrive at "fair" as a standard to begin with? Is it fair that you and I were born in different circumstances, have had different life experiences, and so on? This is like saying that the love-making you engage in is your rape. Well why are you sure that rape needs to be sustained? If a payment for temporary use is voluntary, it is called rent. Taxation is inherently theft because it is involuntary. You cannot conflate the two. What does this look like? "Countries" don't exist. It is a concept. You cannot attack a concept. If a PERSON was attacked, and we as a society do not favor aggression, his neighbors and support system will aide him as necessary. "Countries" get attacked for their tax base. So if you really wanted to protect a large group of people, not abiding a giant engine that steals from them all (your call for continued taxation) would be a good step.

First of all, I appreciate your sensitivity in this matter. Those who raise a child peacefully are literally saving the world! Unfortunately, the correct steps to take would actually pre-date your relationship with your partner. Pursuing self-knowledge brings all kinds of insights into yourself and the harm that trauma causes. This will help you to select a suitable mate. And will help you both love and empathize with your child. Most of what you'd need to know is going to be counter-narrative type stuff. Stuff like it's not okay to sexually assault your child if they call it circumcision. Though I would hope that anybody with self-knowledge would literally be incapable of mutilating their baby for any reason anyways. I think the most challenging part would be modeling habits and behaviors and negotiating with your child. If you have self-knowledge and empathy, these things should mostly be easy in theory. The complexity of implementation again comes back to countering the narrative. Societal narratives as well as the narratives you and your partner were likely raised under. Does that make sense?

It runs deeper than that. It's not the lack of alternative because alternatives aren't required. For example, how do you and I have cellphones? I did nothing to achieve this and you probably didn't either. Yet people did research, developed technology, manufactured, and distributed the things because people have desires and it's profitable to satisfy human desires. The reason why we MIGHT return to a State if it could be blinked out right now is because of upbringing. People are taught through traumatic childhoods that might makes right, that institutionalized theft, assault, rape, and murder are not only righteous, but noble, and that by making use of that big gun, nobody is responsible for any of their evil by proxy deeds or responsible for their own self-sufficiency. Does that make sense?

If it's through fear, it is coercion, and therefore not a choice at all. This isn't true. When you're walking down the street and somebody's walking in the other direction, you don't assess who is more damaging and either yield or steamroll them accordingly. You ensure efficient passage because it's the most efficient path towards satisfying your goal. It IS true that we live mostly in anarchy, since most of all make almost all of our decisions without the use of violence. [EDIT] A point I forgot to include: Most people do not want violence. Not in their own life, the lives of the people in their lives, or anywhere they might want to be. So if a guy with a big stick wanted to use that big stick to take by force, it would literally be him against everybody else on the planet. The reason why institutions such as the State are effective is because people are taught that they are righteous, it is their duty, and so on. Once you take away the perceived legitimacy, they would not be able to inflict such damage. If you haven't already, check out Larken Rose's videos the tiny dot and Mr. Jones's plantation I think they're called. They illustrate this (pun intended) nicely.

Are you into mysticism? People don't have purposes in life. Self-knowledge is what you're looking for. It will help you to understand what you feel and why and be honest about where you came from and how. Which empowers you to start making the changes, breaking free of manipulation and narrative, etc. Just know that it's not a quick fix by any means.

I never thought I'd read a whole paragraph to say that 2+2=4 is "interpretive magical sophism." You're not following the conversation at all. Also, you said I said something I didn't say and when I point it out, move on as if you never engaged in such lack of integrity. What happened, neeeel? Your posts used to be philosophically sound and curious.

Other way around.

What is the deal with all the strawmen on the forums lately? Not one person here has said anything that could be misinterpreted as it's immoral to not donate (as much).

I continue to appreciate your level of integrity. What do you mean by oversensitivity though if that's not a rude question? And how do you know that it's yours? If it has no evolutionary purpose and you didn't deliberately develop it (and especially if it prevented you from being competent to raise children), I would argue it was inflicted upon you and owning it would be a disservice to yourself and your future partner/children.

I didn't say it was impossible to say. I said that they are telling you with their actions that they "prefer" property rights.

You're right. If I wish to engage in a rational discussion and somebody says that I said something I didn't say, I get to claim you're making a strawman. Definitions do not appear to be your strong suit. Consent is a choice and therefore cannot be inherent in anything. It must be created by choice or else it's not consent at all. Do you know what inherent means?

This isn't an argument, it's collectivizing. Governments are predicated on the initiation of the use of force, so focusing on individuals is a waste of time. You will not be able to use logic, reason, or evidence to talk somebody out of a conclusion they didn't arrive at by way of logic, reason, or evidence. Check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series if you haven't already.

It wasn't a question. The person engaging in theft is telling you that they get to benefit from the fruits of their labor and you don't. Obfuscation. A positive obligation is chosen where consent is present. Consent cannot be implied. "Society one is living in" is not measurable. More strawman. Here, you reveal you're more interested in one-upmanship than having a discussion. You're claiming I'm making self-contradictory claims based on your definitions when I've already made the definition I'm speaking from clear.

Nuh uh! Nobody is talking about prohibition. To prohibit somebody's behavior, you would first have to own them. Which is impossible. Also, it's not about what *I* prefer. If it were, it would be subjective and meaningless to everybody but me. The person engaging in theft is telling you by way of their very behavior that they "prefer" property rights. To wit, the problem comes in specifically because their behavior is both accepting and rejecting property rights simultaneously. The consistency of matter and energy tells us that something cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously. You're referring to unchosen positive obligations, which is unethical. Another way we would know that what you're describing is useless. I've already identified that we disagree on definitions. You're describing an ideological weapon while I'm describing a tool by which to measure the internal consistency of behaviors that are binding upon others. So when you pretend to disagree with me, you're not even having the same conversation as me. The objective claims I've made are true. I'm not sorry this is problematic for you.

It all depends on what you're looking for. I personally will not settle for a casual relationship. If I were to meet somebody that I couldn't go all the way in life with, I wouldn't be committing to them. So for me, finding out if a person I'm interested in is of the same mind will be a very early question for me. It wouldn't mean that they're looking to settle down WITH ME, but it would mean an important compatibility check. So for me, this information will be on both sides of the table early because it's important to me. I personally am impressed and admire that you care enough about your potential future partner(s) that you would ask this question. If it's something of importance to them as it is with me, then I would anticipate it's going to come out fairly early for them. Since you're posting the question, I don't think you're going to be deliberately hiding it from somebody, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. I'd bet that you'll bring it up when it's appropriate. The more you care about somebody, the more you flesh out the deal-breakers. I'm speaking from experience here.

Of course I don't. This is a philosophy forum. "Legally" means actions you can engage in without people who pretend to exist in a different, opposing moral category threatening you. It is a subjective and arbitrary non-standard.

Thanks for sharing this. I see a lot of deflection here. Like when your father brings up a psychologist and asks what you'd say to them in order to avoid having to say something to you. I know how challenging this is to spot in the moment and not get swayed by it. Have you yet seen Stef's Bomb in the Brain series? I think it might help you to process the reality of your situation. The way your mother started talking about other people, it's clear to me that the two of you do not have agreed upon standards. As such, there can be no conversation between the two of you. Any attempt will just frustrate you and galvanize her resolve. Also, are you still living with them? Are you able to move out right now? I only ask because I don't think it's very good for self-preservation to be so provocative when you're dependent upon them. I'm not blaming you as it would be understandable if you did a whole lot more. It's just one of those lessons I learned along the way and wanted to try and help with that.

I apologize if my post seemed personal. I try to address ideas, not the people putting them forth. Still, I wonder if the part I quoted before couldn't be expressed in a more sensical way. While I think that left-anarchism and left-libertarianism are oxymorons, I definitely accept that any form of political theory dispenses with property rights. Which is why I'm always right there to break through the logical inconsistencies.

Yeah. Never forget that gang rape is applied democracy.

How does the test know what racism is? There's a difference between having a natural in-group preference and hating others. And unless people hating others initiate the use of force against them, their disposition isn't terribly important.