dsayers

All of this has been debunked numerous times. You don't know what ruler X or ruler Y will do. Just that they WILL violate property rights. You know that nobody is saying to you "vote (absolute) or I will violate your property rights." The self-defense claim has already been debunked. You don't know what ruler X or ruler Y will do. Just that they WILL violate property rights. Violating property rights disproportionately is never self-defense, it is the creation of a much larger debt, making it its own initiation of the use of force. You don't get to try to enslave 300 million people because you're being stolen from and threatened. The disparity is 300 million to 1. If you're going to accuse me of not addressing an "argument," make it something I haven't already addressed a dozen times or more. @D-Light: Making a claim is not the same as making a proof. You cannot claim I'm engaging in a fallacy of existence when I've never claimed existence for example. You subscribe to whatever version of "morality" you want for whatever reason you want. I'm not interested in wasting my times on models that are just preferences masquerading as valid prescriptions.

Maybe not here, but I did in my most recent article. If "what people ought to do" is subjective, then it's just people inflicting their wills onto others, which leads to competing claims... Who's right? It's of no use to anybody what people with the capacity for error think they should be doing without even knowing them.

If no curiosity is exhibited, this will be the last time I invest the time and effort. I won't let a good first impression prevent me from acknowledging this.

It's been defined for him before. He quickly shoved his fingers in his ears so he could repeat the claim at a later date.

My thoughts (which have been backed up by people I trust) are that the parent's relationship with the child is paramount. It has to be because the child is amid an enormous power disparity. If it wasn't, then if one parent was mistreating the child, their partner's priorities would be to side with the abuser. I cannot accept any line of thought that ends in this conclusion. That's why it's important (to me) that I bond with the mother before the children are present. That way we have the foundation that not only ensures those children are cared for right from the start, but also to make sure that as our relationship with the child is a higher priority, this will not lead to any suffering of the relationship with your partner. What do you think?

That definition still fails to infinite regression. Unless you can delineate in what way one individual would be fundamentally different in a way that they would own themselves, but others wouldn't. I've read your other post and all you've done is assert that morality MUST be subjective. This does nothing to address the case I've made, which is actually the best I've done at pointing out why morality is either objective or utterly worthless. I won't put more effort into this than you will.

I think it is reckless to be "interested in" somebody you don't know about their childhood. How much have you pursued self-knowledge? How much do you value it? I recently found myself at the doorstep of a timeline that might've led to being involved with a women who already had children. I had previously declared that to be a deal-breaker, but I wanted to revisit that policy to see if I still felt the same way. Upon consideration, I concluded that one of two things is going to be true: Either she is a good parent or she is not. If she's not a good parent, then I wouldn't want her even as a friend. If she is, then she's going to have a relationship with her children that would supersede me. I'm not okay with being a 3rd wheel so to speak. So for me, already having children would be a no go, even if she was a rape victim and/or a widow. I'd love to hear what others think about this.

Your methodology is flawed.

Magic, finger-wagging... There is a reason you need to poison the well instead of engaging me in a discussion. The State doesn't exist. People only believe it does. If you truly understand this, then it is evaporated in your life, as it is in mine. I AM leading the way, no matter how many times you express your discomfort as if that offsets the truth. As somebody who believes I've strayed off of a particular path and used your words repeatedly to try and get me on that path, it is curious that you feign ignorance as to why somebody would engage in such a behavior. FDR was once a beacon for great minds and those interested in peaceful parenting. There is no telling how many people might find this argument that discomforts you and this might be the first place they see it. I will plant as many seeds as I can, even if I'm not around to see the crops they produce. Just as you try to salt the Earth behind me because if more people understood the truth, you might have to face it yourself.

Isaac, you continue to speak in sentiments rather than arguments. If your desire is to determine what is true, you'll have to let go of this methodology at some point. Are you open to the possibility that your conclusions are wrong? Because you've only spoken as if you're clarifying rather than actually addressing the arguments being put forth. You appear to be starting from a conclusion and then saying whatever sounds right in order to make it fit. This isn't how philosophy works.

Fiat money has no value to retain. Hyperinflation is the printing of money (which is also theft by the way) to the point where it's worthless even when its use is forced. Taxation has nothing to do with this. Not sure what you're agreeing with as I've not said this. "Possible" is no theft. We cannot stop theft from happening in the absolute, but we can stop pretending that institutionalized theft somehow leads to economic growth. Your approach and much of what you say is under the premise that the State is valid. That theft is benevolent. As seen in the statement just before it, where you indicate that theft even needs replacing. In what way would a transaction fee replace theft? Transaction fees are voluntary and in exchange for a service. Which money in and of itself isn't supposed to be.

Yet another nonsensical claim because somebody was using shorthand while losing sight of what it's a placeholder for. The P is for principle, which means it's universal. It applies to everybody. Non-aggression means that if aggression is leveled against you, counter-force is justified. I THINK you were trying to say that it doesn't apply to people who are initiating the use of force. It does, it's just that they've chosen to waive it by violating it. Creating a debt, which invites counter-force to settle that debt. A standard they initiated at the onset of the transaction. @Isaac: I'm going to push back as much as is warranted because you've expressed you wish to grow, I think you can handle it, and I care enough about you that I want you to have all of that. Just pointing this out because you're doubling down and probably do not even realize it. My replies in bold...

Why would somebody need to prove an axiom? These statements appear to be mutually exclusive. The value of the message is that it's contrary to many narratives that are flying around. If somebody keeps finding themselves in failed relationships for example and never think to look inward, they will be powerless to change that. Which in turn will exacerbate the problem via self-fulfilling prophesies, giving up, experimenting, etc. Not everything has to take us from 0 to 60 to be valuable. The whole point is that nobody CAN be carried. All we can do is point out that the answers lie within and other similar handing the tools to them. They have to be the ones to apply them.

Only to the extent that it's also consenting for others to be governed, which obviously isn't rational. Saying "I choose you to be my master" IS requesting to be ruled over. Also, it IS a referendum as to whether or not to have government. Not that the government would disband itself if everybody wrote that in, but people are being prompted to vote. Inside their own heads, they choose to either dignify this claim of ownership, or to treat it as the make believe that it is.

A comes before B comes before C. If you say less theft is a "pre-condition for economic growth," they you accept my claim that no theft would be a great way. The person who hands you a crutch is not benevolent when the reason you need the crutch is because they broke your leg. You're saying being handed is a "necessary" pre-condition for health growth. I'm saying that not breaking people's legs is.

What does "immovable regarding the NAP" look like? What is Pragmatism? Aren't -isms by definition beliefs and therefore not useful when determining what is true? I can't tell you what to do, but it's definitely more productive spending your time talking to people who will receive what you're saying. For more on this, check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series if you haven't already. How do you know the ideas you're trying to convince others of aren't in need of revision themselves? I ask because "immovable regarding the NAP" seems like poisoning the well. I'm immovable when it comes to 2+2=4. Would that make me wrong?

Taxation is theft. How could that be good? I would say stop stealing from people would be a great way to promote economic growth.

Wasn't the narrative that we had to do this one thing to avert catastrophe to buy ourselves the time to be able to have the conversations from before? What came next?

@rosencrantz: I never said that concepts aren't useful. It's when you miss the trees in the forest and you begin to make false statements that it's time to take a step back and think about what it is you're putting forth. Your initial claim that was a point of contention is that citizens need the State to protect them from violence carried out in the name of religion. Something that occurs in isolated incidents and is accepted by almost everybody to be violent and intolerable. To which I pointed out that the very State you are turning to is also a religion, whose violence is guaranteed, and applies to everybody always. And you were using this oversight to justify folks asking this mother-of-all-abusers to enslave everybody to make use of this violence in a way that you agree with. One could not make such mistake if they were mindful of the fact that people exist, but groups are concepts. Useful ones to address specific aggregates of people, but people nonetheless.

Aw, poor manipulator can't pin down his intended prey. Decides to double down by poisoning the well as if rape evasion is a bad thing. Western civilization is vague. I think your implication that because I understand the government is predicated on violations of property rights, it must mean I would reject everything that is associated with civilizations that utilize it is dishonest. What I think isn't relevant. Violations of property rights are immoral, the State is institutionalized violence, and people who talk about saving Western civilization don't engage in the rigor required to explain why it should be and to the extent that it would justify condoning human enslavement to achieve it. Challenge them. They'll show you what evasion really looks like.

I'm not there or from around there. But may I say that I ADORE Wallace, Idaho. Picture was taken at a memorable gas station on the edge of the very quaint town of Wallace. That obelisk looking thing is actually a statue, commemorating something local. Under the expressway there is a babbling brook. My first stop there, we got to enjoy the kindness of the locals, as well as some unique affection. My second visit there, when the brook was not frozen, was surprisingly calm and peaceful.

Certainly. Fails to infinite regression. Who gave this external body its authority? We'll call that person/group X. Who gave X the authority to give to the external body? We'll call that Y. Who gave Y... Your use of the word authority begs the question. Using this in a definition is poisoning the well. I hope you will return the favor by addressing the case I've made as to why we can discard any model for morality that is subjective.

Agreed. Because the people he pointed Jesus out to had already indicated that they were going to initiate the use of force against Jesus, this is a credible threat. When Judas pointed Jesus out to them, a reasonable person would assume that they would initiate the use of force against Jesus because of this credible threat. Making Judas's behavior immoral. If it was in fact a contract, then yes, it would also be immoral in that it would be a violation of that contract. Without that contract though, for Judas to betray Jesus (in the abstract, not in the way specified above) would not be immoral. Jesus is responsible for who he chooses to associate with. If he wishes to not be betrayed, it is his responsibility to associate only with people he can trust will not betray him. This is actually an important distinction because many drug/smoking laws are thought to be righteous (within a statist paradigm) because they argue that a drug abuser is NOT only harming themselves. When in fact they are and the ways in which their abuse hurts others is their responsibility for associating with somebody that could hurt them in this fashion. @RichardY: Could you define treason? Maybe it's just me, but I would guess the word would invoke a picture of behaving in a way that is detrimental to the country that claims to own them. Which would be an entirely different analysis.

Go on.

False. You said, "Damn guys, he called what I said a strawman, guess I lose the debate," which is NOT feedback on the article. And then I said, "It's easier to put forth a position in a place when you feel you have backup, eh?" You didn't address putting forth a strawman argument by addressing that inconsistency, but by doubling down, calling to the population for assistance because as of late, on this topic, it's easier to do than to address your own inconsistency. Now you're tripling down with the "all I was doing" crap. The point wasn't what you perceive as being said, but the fact that you would categorize it being said as "running around the FDR boards." Your inconsistency and what it means stands. And now accumulates a doubling down there as well. I've heard your criticisms every time you've said them. I am free to take them with a grain of salt in light of the ways you are very clearly doing so out of emotional investment, rather than having an honest discussion with a fellow human being for the purpose of everybody involved walking away that much more enlightened. We'll see if you take this feedback on how to provide feedback in a way that will more effectively land for rational, empathetic follks.