dsayers

With all due respect, it's like asking about polio vaccinations in a post-polio world. That is to say that prevention is worth more than correction. I don't have any specific links, but I know it's been talked about many times. Stef talks about how insurance companies could require brain scans to watch for trauma/aggression, thus preventing the onset of aggression and interrupting any abuse. Which would be at a minimum when you consider that the path to a free society is children being raised peacefully.

If somebody you've just met can be suspected of using manipulative language, why would you want any further contact with them?

Define your terms. "Distribution" sounds like an active process. In which case, there would be no distribution since a free society is predicated on not initiating the use of force against others.

To manipulate others is to behave dishonestly for the express purpose of altering the thoughts or behaviors of others. Manipulative language is language designed for this purpose.

This. In addition, it should be pointed out that the only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence.

What is meant by "bad"? The act of breaking a leg with a baseball bat is simultaneously claiming that property rights are valid and invalid. The real world tells that something cannot be itself and the opposite of itself simultaneously.

Here's the irony in my story: I was in the process of being prepared to settle for less when I found somebody that showed me that not only should I not have to, but I would've lost out on if I had. Meeting her, she has literally become the standard by which I judge ALL of my personal relationships, both past and future. You're already living "less than the best," so don't shoot for more of the same is my advice. I'm 39 and have had a life of nearly perpetual hardship. I even have the words VICTIM and TORMENTED tattooed on my body if that's any indication of the level of despair I've felt. I'd say I'm about a 6 and she's at least an 8. Yes, I have had a number of female partners, but mostly when I was young. In fact, there came a point where I felt as if all I could do was hurt others, so I withdrew significantly. Then when I felt all I could do was get hurt, I withdrew further. It had been 13 years (!) since my last romantic relationship when I finally found that virtuous somebody else.

I don't think you could have an objective standard for that which is subjective. I will say that it's a lot easier to train a brain to be analytical than it is to teach a damaged person to be in touch with their emotions.

How would they accomplish this? By first accepting that they exist is a different, opposing moral category. Also, describing a unicorn doesn't mean one exists.

I think you're trying to determine an objective standard for something that is subjective.

Any use of force has an initiation. Hence the importance of the distinction "initiation of THE USE OF force." If a person assaults me and the only way for me to stop the assault is to use counter-force, my use of force will have an initiation, but is not the initiation of THE USE OF force.

In many ways, I think this is true. Allison Gopnik's work has shown that humans are naturally empathetic, which makes sense given that we are social creatures. Still, "I want X, but Billy has X right now" presents competing impulses, and guidance can help a child to process it easier. One of my favorite things about my self-knowledge journey is the ways in which things I always felt were true are things I can now explain in clear language. "Teaching children how to think" is a way of providing this. Does that make sense?

First, a distinction. I think you mean to inquire about the initiation of THE USE OF force. Secondly, I've found this question is more easily answered when you view it in terms of property rights. If somebody steals your bike, they owe you the value of the bike, as well as any value you had to invest to reclaim it. Another way of looking at it is that the person stealing the bike is voluntarily creating a debt. Counter-force is the settling of that debt. Yet another way of looking at it is that the person stealing the bike is asserting that property rights are not valid. Meaning that the use of force to counteract their aggression is not a violation of their waived property rights.

False dichotomy. The process has a gradation. To answer your question, the obligation a parent voluntarily creates is to protect and nurture until such a time as they are able to survive without their parents. When this is depends on many factors and will be different for everybody.

How do you prove that Earth's gravitational pull is 9.8 m/s^2? Because the evidence is consistent that it is. As far as we know, consciousness is an emergent property of matter.

You need to define your terms. I don't know what you mean by support, but if you're referencing a political candidate, you're not talking about liberty at all.

Stellar question. I haven't read the thread, but I need to share all the same. I've worked on my own self-knowledge ferociously for about three years now. Because of prior defeatism, I didn't have much "real life" to have to tend to, so the time I spent was very potent. I had reached a stage in my journey where I really wanted to start branching out, meeting people, and developing a healthy support network. This is when I met her. Because of the self-knowledge work I had done, her virtue was very apparent to me. I approached her and I shit you not, from that moment on, we had not spent a moment apart from one another that we didn't have to. We both were instantly met with the challenge of integrating the other into our lives. The challenge was fleeting though as we both understood that the conversations we were having were literally the best use of our time. As a result, in record time, we've moved to be together and started the rest of our lives together. I don't say this to get others' hopes up about how quickly it WILL happen. But it is very accurate to point out how quickly it CAN happen. When Stef says that love is our involuntary response to virtue if we're virtuous, he's not lying. Both of us would tell you that the entire process was quite involuntary. It makes it that much sweeter to be sure.

Children should be taught HOW to think, not what to think. Do this and they will arrive upon sound conclusions on their own. A person that understands that other humans are people too will not be able to steal, assault, rape, or murder.

If you mean in the context of FDR, I'm assuming the purpose is to be counter-narrative. Since the left/media is quick to trumpet the values of multi-culturalism, people need a voice of reason to offset the hysteria.

Hardly. If everybody around an aggressor understands their behaviors to be aggressive, the aggressor cannot flourish. This is why we need to dress such people in uniforms and pin a badge on them to tell others that their aggression is okay. It is the people who do not see the internal inconsistency of immoral behaviors that see uniformed aggression and let it happen. So while the individual may find no utility in consistent behaviors, society benefits. You're literally pushing for glasses for everybody that would make grizzly bears look like teddy bears. I find that to be monstrous.

When you aim to co-operate with cancer, you gain the certainty of outcome that you're seeking. Good luck with that.

This is not an argument. "Libertarian" is undefined. You have not explained how people can exist in different, opposing moral categories where theft is immoral for everybody, except the ruling class.

If I drive my car into yours, it doesn't matter if you have a reason for your car to be damaged or not. You cannot escape the fact that your car is damaged, therefore it would be accurate to describe my behavior as binding upon you. A rape victim has no reason to be raped, but this does nothing to change the fact that the rapist's actions are binding upon their victim.

I didn't read too much of the thread. But this is false, provocative, and not in any way productive. Maybe instead of labels, focus on ideas. Labels are generalities, and therefore inherently imprecise. Additionally, when it comes to people, the "team" mentality will lead to you looking past the transgressions of "your team," but missing the good things that can be found in "the other guys." Is it voluntary? Then I don't care what others think or why.

I don't think continuing to move forward while walking forward is a "strange objective." I think the problem with trying to move backwards while walking forward is self-evident.