dsayers

This is just for other people though, right? What you are referring to as natural law is already present. This breaks your initial claim that Christianity is a requisite. You have yet to establish that there is a deity, let alone that it's necessary. I've already pointed out that anarchy and capitalism are the naturally occurring default.

They kind of already know that, which is why they use violence to enforce it. Pointing to a church is not proof that God exists, but rather that people believe he does. If a mugger came to your house to steal from you, your neighbors would recognize this is wrong. If that same mugger had a uniform on, showed up in a car with stickers on it, and pointed to something somebody wrote down one time, they would believe that YOU are in the wrong. These are functionally identical, so what are the variables present? Does the uniform/badge have magic powers? The car with stickers on it? The words written down or paper it's written on? None of the above! As Donnadogsoth and I have pointed out, their power only exists in the minds of people who have been tricked into believing those things have magic powers. What you appear to have been trying to communicate is that just because their power isn't real, the effects of the behaviors they engage in under the premise that their powers are real, are in fact real. That's true. But that doesn't detract from the validity of the point I made. It's been awhile since I've interacted with a policeman. I could've spent all the time in the interim pretending that their power was real and making myself and the decisions I make in my life smaller as a result. Or I can recognize that their power isn't real, pay their protection money to avoid the effects, and live my life as large as I otherwise can. You have that power too. All it takes is admitting the truth to yourself.

The etymology of the word anarchy refers to rulers/leaders. NAP is shorthand for people do not exist in different, opposing moral categories. This is either naturally occurring or a man made concept. If it is naturally occurring, then it is akin to gravity, and anarchy would be unattainable as we are all bound by the laws of physics. This would be disingenuous on your part as your initial premise is predicated on anarchy being attainable. If it is a man made concept, then those who choose to observe and abide it do so voluntarily. Meanwhile, the definition of the verb rule is "to control or direct; exercise dominating power, authority, or influence over; govern." It is inherently an involuntary process. Thus your point here is invalid as it would describes a voluntary process if it is a man made concept. Furthermore, if we assume for the sake of argument that it is a man made concept, and we also assume that the verb rule does not denote an involuntary process, then people who chose to abide by the NAP would rule it, not the other way around. In the ruler-ruled relationship, it is the ruler that is free to walk away, not the ruled. Any way you slice it, just as with your initial premise, you are engaging in mental gymnastics to unsuccessfully made a conclusion fit. So what is your null hypothesis that Christians are a requisite for humans to own themselves (capitalism) and not exist in different, opposing moral categories (anarchy)? Both of which I've already successfully argued are naturally occurring

I did. But if your response to it being pointed out your deflection is to double down with more deflection, then I can't see a reason to continue to do so.

Their power is imaginary. It's only real because enough people believe it is. That's the power you have: To love yourself and understand the State doesn't exist.

On the off chance you literally have not been exposed to this yet, you can find the debunking of the "immorality by proxy is not immoral in the context of politicians" here. You can find the debunking of the self-defense claim here. @jpahmad: Your initial assertion has been refuted. Your not addressing this is a form of deflection, if not willful dishonesty. @Ferssitar: Your summary does not address my challenge. In order to avoid something, that something must first be there. Therefore the avoidability of something (after it) can have no bearing on its identity. A threat is a threat even if you can avoid it. Not that you have yet made the case for avoidance. People engage in agorism, and it's a great way to starve the State and avoid some of the taxation. People engaging in agorism are still under that threat. Also, it's already been pointed out that leaving the country is not a way to avoid it, because you must first engage in it in order to "avoid" it, which isn't avoiding it at all. Address these challenges instead of reminding me what took place prior to them, please.

The way you're communicating this is actually one of the reasons why I have a problem with words like anarchy and atheist. The word atheist suggests that theism is the origin and atheism is the deviation. This would be begging the question. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus the burden of proof lies upon those claiming a deity. I'm not saying this is necessarily your position. However, the way at which you concluded that lacking an opinion denotes agnosticism seems to stem from visualizing theism as the origin. Anyways, we know that consciousness is an emergent property of matter. We also know that nothing exists in uniquity. The idea of a deity supposes to violate these. Based on our understanding of the real world, we CAN know that a deity doesn't exist. At least functionally speaking. For if a deity did exist, but in now way impressed upon our senses, then to exist or not is functionally no different. This is important to understand because if it doesn't impress upon our senses, then belief in that deity would be fruitless. Though if they did, we could measure and substantiate the claim. Agnostics are either people who have not been exposed to these ideas or engage in intellectual sloth to play the middle ground. I know that when I self-identified as agnostic, it was due in part out of fear that God would punish me for denying him if he did exist. Pascal's wager I believe it's called. Once I was exposed to the above ideas (circa Stef's Introduction to Philosophy series), I no longer had any room in which to claim I did not know.

The question was THOUGHTS and actions. This bluster serves as a deflection from the question of the part you apparently don't reject. Perhaps your annoyance comes from the fact that you've basically reasoned into being against your own position, if I understand the socratic method being employed correctly. Sorry, mostly wasn't following it. How do we own ourselves? It's because we have the capability of reason. We understand the consequences of our actions, therefore we are responsible for them. If we own ourselves, especially for this reason, then of course we own the effects of our labor. Be that a chair we fashion or a window that we break. If you feel your understanding of the word ownership doesn't fit this, how do you know that it is the idea of owning an action that must give and not your understood definition? Not saying that you're wrong to take that approach; Just curious if you're open to the possibility.

I stopped reading at that point.

This is pretty disgusting to me. You're talking about getting stolen from as if that's a valid form of avoiding being stolen from. So the State isn't threatening you just because it takes longer for that threat to come to fruition? Then once it does, if you're not caged, you're more heavily stolen from, with a blight on your reputation that will follow you for life? Where they mostly don't have to come after folks because they've already assaulted the minds of defenseless children, so most will co-operate out of fear or self-preservation? This is somehow better than the mugger who has to victimize one at a time, netting only a wallet, while understood by all to be in the wrong? What is your null hypothesis? You seem to be going to great lengths to believe that people do not pay taxes under threat of violence.

On what do you base this claim that the State will not even try to stop you? What do you think passports are? And forfeiture "laws"? And customs/border patrols? On what do you base the claim that the State is not threatening you 24/7? When is there a window of amnesty? Suppose you "own" your own house and land. If you do not pay your protection money, they will take that way. The utilities you pay for are laden with State theft. When you go out and purchase something at a store, you don't have the choice of it not being taxed. You can't negotiate with the store to not take sales tax. If you seek employment, the very suggestion of being paid tax free could end up with you getting reported. That's what's referred to as slave on slave violence and it's this constant threat that allows a minority to leverage control over the majority.

Don't know where these numbers are coming from. The claim of multi-generational is referring to human acceptance of violence. If we could evaporate the State today, we'd still be living side by side with people who have unprocessed trauma. In order to reach a world the only reads of the language of violence in history books, we need to raise our children peacefully, so that they will, all the while all of us setting an example, encouraging therapy, etc. Legitimizing the State is not setting an example. With all due respect, I think this is intellectual sloth. Government doesn't exist (comprised of matter and energy); true or false? People with the title of politician, a badge, or a costume do not have super-human powers; true or false? Yet this minority somehow summons such a threat of violence that they are able to subjugate an incredibly larger populace; true or false? How is this possible? It's because people believe the State exists and these threats are righteous. Kind of like how when slavery in the US ended, most slaves didn't want to be free and actually saw slavery as a benefit to them. To sum up the above: The lifeblood of the State is its perceived legitimacy. It only exists in people's minds. The moment you reach for the State, you are growing it. Growing cancer is not buying yourself a few years, it is taking years away. Now, these same people who claim they wanted to buy time to spread the word--and mystically aren't spreading the word at all--will be met with justifiable objections such as, "Wait, didn't you vote for somebody to rule over me? Didn't you vote for somebody to rule over my children? You're going to lecture me about how the State is invalid and I shouldn't hit my children, but didn't you enslave my children and perpetuate a system that stole from them long before they were conceived?" Just as it's challenging for a fat person to sell a diet book, it's hard for somebody who is not free in their own mind and chooses to enslave 300 million people will have a hard time selling messages such as peaceful parenting and State immorality.

Where coercion is present, choice is not. The person engaging in the coercion is taking the choice away. Consider a scenario where you work as a cashier for a convenience store. Somebody walks in, points a gun at you, and tells you to empty the cash register into a bag and give it to them. If you comply, you are not stealing from your employer, the robber is. I realize that literally speaking, you do have a choice. You can refuse, you can fight the robber, etc. A reasonable person would also comply. If that is the victim's "choice," they are not responsible for the consequences/immorality of that choice, because choice had been forcibly taken from them as evidenced by the fact that they would not have taken the cash were they not under the threat of violence.

...under threat of violence. Which makes it different from political voting. Which was what I had said. And without the juvenile, 3rd person, passive-aggressive snark because that's one of the benefits of speaking the truth instead of sophist attempts to wriggle out of my own immorality: you don't need to be emotionally offended in somebody challenging your position. Have a nice day!

Hello, fellow Ohioan! Columbus was my favorite city for a number of years. As a teen, we took a field trip down there, visited OSU's campus and COSI. It was a lot of fun. Also knew a number of people that went to OSU later on. Is there such a thing as "too honest"? I'm not so sure. Sounds like an externally inflicted (artificial) conclusion, used for the purpose of erasing you for the preferences of others.

This is difficult to answer. It's not that I'm not capable of imagining a square triangle for the sake of argument, but you're asking me to entertain a notion that is the opposite of reality. Choosing to be enslaved to protect one's self? I will say this: It wasn't until after the election that I had realized that political voting was in fact immoral. Prior to that, one of my largest motivations was that people who accept property rights were rejecting property rights. That people who had the tools to be free were refusing to be free within their own mind. Also, as I said, I'm a strike at the root kind of guy. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So I would still focus on addressing the problem rather than chasing after one symptom. At the same time, I would never suggest somebody not defend themselves. It's just that voters are engaging in a behavior that forces 300 million to one to have to defend themselves, so... Does that help at all? I still don't see the value in the question to be honest. Thank you for clarifying. I wonder why you said "if." If you're read my posts, have you also read my articles on Steemit? The first one I wrote that was on the topic of political voting specifically addressed the self-defense claim. The bottom line being that 300 million to 1 is not proportionate and that like a missile or a bomb, you cannot control the yield, which also makes it disproportionate. I defend myself from the State by helping people to wake up to the reality that there is no State. There's just adults playing make believe, stealing, assaulting, raping, and murdering people in the name of the State and they only get away with it BECAUSE people believe it's real, just, noble, etc.

A bunch of people spending all their time and attention on a belief that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories, that writing things down an alter reality, taking a poll to see who should enslave us all... Nothing about any of that is reality or Truth.

I'm a strike at the root kind of guy. So peaceful parenting and self-knowledge are the acts of self-defense that would save us from State created ills. Why do you ask? I'm curious because I don't recall you asking the FDR Trump supporters how their position might be altered if self-defense isn't an accurate description. Despite the fact that I've made the case and they've made the appeals to emotion.

Your use of the word slower reminded me of the material I partook of that helped me to understand that emotions are not the enemy of rational thought. It's a video series by the name of The Philosopher's Toolkit. In one segment, the instructor talks about emotions vs rational thought and provides an example of a ship at see and a plane in the sky. Amid both is an emergency that is potentially catastrophic. In one scenario, the person in control remained level headed, referred back to his training, and was able to save the day. In the other, the person in control had an emotional reaction that caused him to act against his training in a way that ended up saving the day. Sorry I cannot recall the specifics. The point being that they are both problem solvers. One is just slower than the other. Specialization is a good thing

I agree with you that man is unique because of its capacity for reason. However the second half describes all living things. Life adapts is a universal truth, which would make labeling us super-nature a distinction without a difference. Because species that do not have the capacity for reason do this also, I would just call it natural, not super-nature. Whoops! This post was probably the most sensical I've seen from you in awhile if not ever. As impressive as that is, it's not enough to distract me from you slipping in "is made." This is begging the question. So I'll ask the question one last time: How do you know? No gaps, no assertions. I'm looking for logic, reason, and evidence.

This is known as the god of the gaps. You think you see a gap, so it must be God. So... how do you know? This line of thinking is predicated on the idea that humans know everything. If this were true, then we'd be able to prove a deity. Your claim is self-detonating.

"Rawk! You pay your taxes, hypocrite! *whistle*" The State threatens you with violence if you do not pay your taxes. Same as EVERY SINGLE OTHER TIME this non-argument gets carted out by parrots who reject their own capacity for error. Don't waste my time.

Interesting read. We don't need the New Testament to spot the hypocrisy and irrationality though. God is supposedly all knowing and all powerful, he makes Adam and Eve knowing they will eat of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge (which he also created), then punishes them for doing what he knew they would do and had the power to prevent. It's sadistic. As an aside at this point, I wanted to share how Stef once pointed out something I hadn't considered before: What knowledge of his perfect creation could possible be so awful as to punish mankind for millenia? It reveals that if the story were true, God would be the villain of the piece. Anyways, from there he holds all of mankind responsible for what he created and had the power to stop. Apparently including mutilating infant boys. Which again, if he didn't want them to have foreskin, he could just make it so. Then he sends his son to be sacrificed, to offset original sin. Again, something he could've done at any point and was his responsibility anyways. It's sad that on the cusp of 2017, there are still people that believe this and believe it is of a deity worthy of praise. This doesn't even pass for good storytelling.