dsayers

We've never been properly introduced, but nobody could fault me for referring to you as Puck2.0, eh? I've never been introduced the the president of my auto insurance company, yet the concept of "president of my auto insurance company" is sufficient. As pointed out, you referenced Jesus in the title. According to Jesus, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. You're avoiding the conversation you precipitate, while over-reacting in the "look, I'm a really nice guy" department. This is a form of manipulation, which I suspect may be where the downvotes are coming from. I know that's one of the reasons I press that button.

This is because religiosity is a symptom, not the problem. When children are subjugated (the problem), they are taught to seek validation externally, usually in a top-down arrangement. Should such a person go on to reject religion, they turn to the other external form of top-down validation: the State. The other direction is true also: If such a person goes on to understand the State is immoral, they seek out religion or other spiritual/mystical sources of being subjugated. Stef recently had a talk with somebody where he references pretty girls not having the reality explained to them that the attention and perceived value they possess is in part due to their looks, which will fade. Similarly, if children are not treated like people as their intellectual development will allow for, and do not have peaceful, win-win negotiation and rational thought modeled for them, see previous paragraph.

For those not in the know, an FFL is a federal firearms license holder. In the US, it's a requisite for the commercial sale of firearms.

This is not what you said. You spoke of prosecution and tried to reference specifics. When you said earlier that we've "had our disagreements," you were covering up this lack of integrity.

For what it's worth, FDR just released a call that does a very good job of answering why we can NOT just get along:

Strawman. Why quote what I've said if you're just going to say I said something else?

Effective 1 Jan 2016. Somehow 31 Dec 2015 is safe, but come the very next day, they're allowed to threaten you because they said so. How will this even be enforced? Isn't one of the beauties of BTC anonymity?

This is my thought as well. While I'd rather have comrades than inert victims, I'll settle for not actively trying to threaten and steal from me. So the question then becomes "How do you use your voice to penetrate a brick wall?" The answer is that you don't. Accepting reality is both wise and makes for a safer life. Plus, accepting that somebody cannot be reached, you are then empowered to move along, making your efforts more focused and useful. Once you have then, you can even apply it to scenarios where somebody IS actively threatening and stealing from you by not wasting your time and effort letting them win the war of attrition. They have social and historical momentum on their side, meaning you will lose any war of attrition.

The metaphor is problematic. There are people in the world that accept that murder is immoral, but regard genocide (war) are righteous, benevolent, and necessary. This lack of cognitive dissonance is the result of NOT calling things by their proper names, and therefore not acknowledging that "country" is a concept. Thus, I cannot abide "country" being addressed as if it is an entity, because this would make me complicit in future genocide. Do you see how valuable precision with language can be?

Strawman. You said: And I pointed out the flaws in this. Besides, if "particularly convincing argument" is a standard you would hold yourself to, then you would understand that "Registering your car, required insurance, drivers license" (the initiation of the use of force, the initiation of the use of force, the initiation of the use of force) doesn't adhere to that standard. Because the only thing you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence is violence. The seat belt is a good example.

Title poisons the well. Country is a concept and behaviors are voluntary actions, which concepts cannot engage in.

While this is true, it doesn't change the fact that you did claim somebody said something without source or context and that the things you said he said were not arguments in fact were not arguments.

Not to diminish the truth in what you've said, WasatchMan, but the 2nd Amendment was destroyed the moment they put ANY thing in place that prevented people from freely accessing that which the State had access to. When was this exactly? I don't know. But let's say you wanted to own a suppressor. You need to pay a large fee to get a cert that you might be declined on, one requisite of which is allowing the ATF to search your stuff at any time for any reason. Registration, licensing, waiting periods... The list goes on and on all the ways the State has directly destroyed the 2nd Amendment. That's not counting the indirect ways such as buying up all the ammo to outfit Homeland Security for a domestic war, artificially raising the price, which is a de facto ban. The important thing in all of this is that people learn that things like the 2nd Amendment are just words. Words are not actually binding on anybody. Since State power is imaginary (you cannot give somebody else that which you do not possess to give away in the first place), any effort towards limiting that power is as effective as the ability to limit somebody else's imagination. You can't do it.

That's the point. Because everybody uses cars, you cannot politicize cars in a way that will divide the slaves to distract their attention from the threats and theft that is inflicted upon all of them from the masters. I don't get the safety line. Don't put your finger on the trigger and the gun can't fire. The only way to make guns safer is to raise children more peacefully. However, this would diminish if not eradicate State power, which is why they focus on guns rather than State inflicted SSRI's, institutionalized theft, and a culture where assaulting children is accepted and praised.

I like this for one specific reason and also have a criticism if that's okay. What I like about it: It rightly portrays the atheist as the origin. One thing I've always disliked about the words atheist and anarchist is that they make it seem as if they are the deviation and theism and statism are the norm. The criticism I have: I think you've given too much credit to the agnostic in your analogy. An agnostic (and I say this as somebody who once self-applied that label) is somebody not willing to subject the proposition of a deity to rigorous scrutiny. They might say things like "we can't know," but not only can we know, but they don't accept this standard for any other aspect of their lives. Your analogy made them sound as if they put the most effort into their response. What is this for if you don't mind me asking?

Appreciating something is not an example of "logical truth and philosophy." I think you need to define what you mean by consciousness. There's consciousness, unconsciousness, and subconsciousness. In the context of somebody on anesthesia, you could argue that the path between consciousness and unconsciousness is a continuum. However, neither state could be described as "wholeness" or "fragmented." Also, what does mind control look like? I wasn't aware that was possible. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, so you'll have to let me know who close I come. What we do with that which we are conscious of is not attributed to the consciousness, but our voluntary behavior afterwards. For example, we can be presented with the proposition that taxation is theft. At which point, we can choose to consider it or choose to reject it without consideration. These cannot be described as "wholeness" or "fragmentation." Calling things by their proper names is the basis for SELF-KNOWLEDGE, which does indeed enhance a person's ability to do just about anything else. But this explanation isn't at all mystical, which is why I find it more appealing. With this explanation, we understand that most likely, what you describe as mind control, is actually co-operative. Otherwise, you would be saying that person X is more responsible for person Y's behavior than Y is, which cannot be universalized. For a behavior to be voluntary, the person engaging in it must have the capacity to not engage in that behavior. Breathing is autonomic and therefore not voluntary. Debt-based economies, health care focused on cure rather than prevention, population incentivized to breed in excess, and widespread war/violence (the bullet points you raised) are all effects of the State and therefore not voluntary behaviors. You attributed this to a bunch of mysticism, which isn't accurate, and only serves to mask the truth. There's no question in my mind that the peaceful raising of children stands to solve every man-made problem. However, regarding unchosen positive obligations* as ethical would be harming a child by teaching it anti-rationality. Your position ignores that your proposition cannot be universalized. For example, in the event that two women get pregnant at the same time, which one should we compel to pay for the other? Also, you speak as if pregnancy is an affliction and not the reasonably expected outcome of voluntary behavior. Finally, I don't think you realize that you've contradicting yourself. You simultaneously claim that breeding in excess is problematic AND that people should be compelled to fund pregnant women. When you don't hold women and the men who impregnate them responsible for the reasonably expected outcome of their voluntary behavior, you incentivize them to breed in excess because you artificially lower their risk and increase their returns. First rule of economics is that people respond to incentives. For a fantastic explanation of unchosen positive obligation, I highly recommend this video by an FDR listener:

I wasn't talking about bananas or trees either. I was pointing out that things are not fundamentally different based on what they're in proximity of. Also, based on my knowledge and experience of self-knowledge, the process you describe is backwards. Learning about yourself will help you to understand the actions of others. Your approach is not only ineffective, but will likely accomplish the opposite of your stated goal. Sorry about that. I was forthcoming that I was unclear as to OP's purpose. I also shared my bias that people who talk about the collective are trying to justify violations of property rights. I should have waited to speak on that until after determining what was actually being said. I did want to clarify my position since it was received more controversially than I anticipated. By exist, I simply mean is comprised of matter and energy. Also, pointing out that something doesn't exist because it is a concept does not denote that it is somehow not valuable. We accept "forest fire" for example because it's more efficient than to communicate "300 out of 350 trees were burned." Thus "forest" is of value to us even though forest is a concept Not exactly. Since OP has clarified somewhat, let us look at that clarification. Can a collective engage in a behavior? Or does behavior describe the voluntary action of an individual?

I for one have never spoken towards minimizing deaths. My purpose in speaking on the subject is to point out irrationalities, inconsistencies, and the moral component of banning anything. What other things in the world are you curious about to this extent that people can use to kill people? I don't think a free society would be producing many violent types, but the ones we were aware of, we wouldn't be trading with until they voluntarily rehabilitated. As for psychos, that's like asking if we should sell guns to dogs. You mention "allowed to own." Allowed by who? All you have to do is put yourself in those shoes. You own a gun store. What criteria do you have for selling a firearm to somebody? What mechanisms would you use to solicit feedback from your community about your criteria? What mechanisms would you use to determine the efficacy of your criteria? How often would you revisit and revise your criteria? Wouldn't asking questions pertaining to the root of human aggression and how to prevent it be more beneficial than addressing one object used by one symptom of the problem?

@JD: Great post. I too had thought about all the government employees that would be out of a job if we did away with libraries. I hadn't considered children's programs, but you could manage that with less overhead as well as I'm sure you're aware. As luck would have it, you and I are opposite. Though I had considered before how books will likely never be completely outmoded because some people like being able to hold a book, or read where there's no electricity/signal. With me, it's the holding of the book that I dislike. I used to think I hated reading, but this was born out of my exposure to government schooling, where I was forced to read and read things I had no interest in. Though I have noticed I'm more of an auditory absorber. Anecdote time: I took AP Calculus in high school. Never had intentions of going to college, but loved math. We used a text book that offered half the answers to the problems since the method was what was being evaluated, not the conclusions. I had a problem I could not figure out where I went wrong with my method despite repeated review. The next day, in study hall, a friend of mine looked over my work. She DID get the right answer when she did her homework, but reviewed my methodology and couldn't find the error. We spent 45 minutes together on it. Bell rings, I walk across the hall, and mention this to the teacher. She begins to write it on the board, and SAYS WHAT SHE'S DOING AS SHE DOES. It only took a few seconds before I realized what I had done wrong, and all because I was hearing it instead of looking at it. I was amazed as I've always been fascinated with how the mind works.

In what way is "needs to exist within unity or wholeness" actually saying something, let alone "logical truth and philosophy"? None of these items in your list are the result of voluntary behaviors. You might as well include the handing over of wallets to muggers and call that a feature of an upside down world. "Nature" unchecked will destroy you. So "harmony with nature" is the upside down (read: false) part here. The electricity that has kept you alive and allowed for you to communicate via the internet as provided by use of fossil fuel. The only reason we have the LUXURY of looking for alternative energy sources is because we're using RENEWABLE fossil fuels to survive long enough to evolve to the point of being able to. This quote here is just repeating narrative. I was shocked to learn how even solar energy isn't as renewable as it seems from the uneducated perspective: This does nothing to address how a woman getting pregnant obligates others to fund her. But that is exactly what happens, making this claim upside down. That this happens is one of the many ways somebody who was interested in "logical truth and philosophy" could figure out that we do not live in a patriarchy. In fact, there's no reason to suspect we do except that some people say it, revealing that you are just parroting a narrative.

disregard

This is precisely the problem when politicians make it about the gun. There would be FAR more data present for you than just gun in hand. One person yells "This is for Syria!" while 5 people are yelling "Drop your weapon," "Don't do it," "Look out, he's got a weapon," etc. One person seems extremely angry while 5 people seem frightened. One person seems aggressive while 5 people seem assertive. One person is taking a risk for an ideology while 5 people are taking a risk for safety's sake. If anything, your concern speaks to your own lack of situational awareness. Please understand that this is not a personal attack! Most people are walking around in a haze because their survival is not dependent on scanning their environment for threats. As a result, people who witness a robbery might come up with a physical description that is completely made up when asked what they saw. When I started carrying a gun, the first thing I noticed is how much more I'm aware of my surroundings. I think when I'm on an ATM run is a good example. We sometimes get calls for a bodyguard for technicians as they work on ATM's that are out of order. When I'm there, I'm perpetually ready to yell "Get down!" Because the reason I'm there is so the technician can focus on the machine and not have to watch over his shoulder. But let's say you're joe blow and you pull into a gas station parking lot and see two people at the ATM and the ATM is open. How do you know if this is maintenance or a heist? The badge, the vest, and the technician's service vehicle is a good start. But what about our body language? The technician doesn't appear nervous or as if he's trying to hurry. I'm always between you and the technician and if you're pulling in from an odd direction, I go out of my way to let you know that I know you're there. As opposed to a thief who is going to try and stay out of sight. Yes, all of this can be spoofed, which is why everybody's situational awareness is key. If you haven't already (anybody interested in this topic), check out the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell.

How do you know? Humans have reason, making them responsible for their actions, which means we own ourselves. We can universalize this to understand that generally speaking, all humans own themselves. Thus theft, assault, rape, and murder cannot be universalized as it requires property to be valid and invalid simultaneously. That's it. Everything else is a matter of preference. Of the list you or words you provided, only "practices" has the capacity for being beneficial, and even that should be regarded with scrutiny. I'll give you an example. The suburb I live in recently tore down a library that was maybe 20 years old. Then they rebuilt it. Can you imagine? It's 2015 and the average income of this community is such that it's reasonable to expect that every home has internet access, a computer/laptop/tablet, and smartphoneS. I do not condone or advocate institutionalized theft, but even in the statist paradigm, a program for subsidized tablets/internet access for children of low-income houses would've been FAR less expensive. I'll bet you not one person involved in that project at any stage stopped to ask "Are libraries even relevant anymore?" A willingness to re-examine that which we just accept without a 2nd thought would've saved a lot of people a lot of money.

But the determination of whether it would cause more harm or not would only be useful in the consideration of banning firearms, which does have a moral consideration. I work alarm response. To drive home the reality of what you reference here, my boss has told me to keep in mind that every call I get is a gun call because I'm bringing a gun there. Unless I have reason to believe the call is NOT a false alarm, I'm usually responding alone. In which case, yes, the fact that I'm armed means I'm POTENTIALLY at greater risk then if I went in unarmed. But this wasn't a case of one on one. Just the possibility of people being armed would mean the assailant would have to have 360 degree vision, which he doesn't. By time he dominated 1 person, he'd had every other person present to overcome in order to be able to dominate a 2nd person. One of the wonderful side effects of a free society is that anybody who wished to cause harm would literally have to stand against EVERYBODY else. Not just a few with a badge.

We've gone from a lynch mob, to partakers of an innocent question, back to being a lynch mob. The fact that you are either oblivious to this or aren't is frightening.