dsayers

Thank you for taking the time to explain. I hope you won't mind if I have some critiques. I have some issues with your terminology here. When somebody makes an objective claim, they are also claiming that there's such a thing as truth, such a thing as falsehood, and that truth is preferable to falsehood. I'm not sure how you've concluded that opinion enters into it. If I say chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, there is no, nor possibility of an objective proof. That is how we know it is a matter of opinion. Also, I find the word "belief" to be equally useless here. The way I see it, a belief is only useful if it motivates us to test the theory in order to either discard it as not accurately describing the real world or upgrade it to truth. I used to think this also. Later I came to understand that this was just a way of excusing myself for NOT thinking it through. I hope you will allow me to make the case. This is directly derived from Stef's An Introduction to Philosophy youtube series. Something I hope you will take the time to watch because I really found it helpful in helping me to think rationally at all, let alone on the topic of the supernatural. When a person makes the objective claim that "God exists," they are making a number of additional claims: 1) Consciousness exists without matter or energy. This does not accurately describe the real world. 2) Only one consciousness exists without matter or energy. This is a seemingly impossible claim as nothing in the universe exists in uniquity. 3) The deity you were taught about as a child happens to be that one consciousness. After all, let us not forget that throughout human history, hundreds if not thousands of deities were referenced. 4) The single consciousness outside of matter and energy that you were taught about intervenes. This is so important, I wanted to elaborate upon it. Suppose for a moment that ghosts exist. One of two things will be true: Either they will impress upon our senses or they will not. If they do, then we can measure and substantiate them. If they do not, then for them to exist would be functionally identical to not existing. This is how we arrive at the conclusion that if "God exists" is true, it is only a meaningful claim if he intervenes. This opens up a whole can of worms that would serve to reveal that if God exists, he is not the "good guy" or worthy of praise or worship. It would mean he both creates and allows evil and suffering in the world. The Bible speaks of things like the good Samaritan, but God could accomplish this with a mere thought. So much more efficiently than a human can. Also, accept me and my commands or burn in hell for eternity is neither rational nor benevolent. I see a number of problems here also. Saying "a square triangle is valid because it exists in a universe where a two dimensional shape can have both 3 and 4 sides simultaneously" does nothing to substantiate existence in our universe. Also, wasn't the purpose of the Bible to be read by humans? Of what use would it be if it wasn't communicated in a way that could be received by its intended audience? Are you suggesting that an omnipotent and omniscient (mutual exclusivity of these concepts notwithstanding) being lacks the capability of precision or communication? Finally, wouldn't a text being open to interpretation indicate that it cannot be used as a standard of what people ought to think and do? First of all, when somebody says faith, they're saying "I believe this because it's what I want to believe." To believe something before gathering any relevant data is prejudice. To believe something AFTER receiving relevant data is bigotry. Also, we're NOT talking about faith here. You are free to believe whatever you want for whatever reason you want. However, the moment you say "God exists," you're not believing, you are putting forth an objective claim. Also, it's dismissive to say "random chance" in the context of "therefore impossible." The chances of you winning a multi-million dollar lottery pool is astronomical, but this doesn't mean that combination of balls can never come up. I agree with you that looking around at how gorgeous some of Earth's landscape is, how resolute and complex humans and life in general is, it's really hard to accept that it is all a result of random chance. But the reality is that this result is not only possible, but a certainty. In the universe, there is likely uncountable instances of the conditions we recognize as the basis for life. There are probably many that didn't play out the way it has for Earth. There are probably some that advanced more than us in the same amount of time, or in a different, perhaps more efficient way. The most important part of all, and I'm happy to say I came upon this myself, even while I was still religiously uncertain and hadn't yet happened upon philosophy and rational thought: What difference does it make? If we were created or we evolved, how does this alter my daily life? Is State power more valid either way? Is child abuse more valid either way? Do you not see that this is a competing claim compared to "Human logic and definitions cannot be applied"? This goes back to what I was saying before that if you get to pick and choose, then you are confessing there is no objective standard and it cannot be used for anything other than a story book. It has some good ideas, but as you reveal right here, there is no sound methodology behind it. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say it's damaging IN THE EXTREME and for reasons you touch on when you say that we are all sinners. I had a crisis of identity when I was growing up. It was a "sin" to masturbate, I wanted to serve God, but I couldn't stop. I experienced such a level of despair over something that turns out to be completely normal. I'll end it there because I don't want my rational input to be dismissed as emotional bias.

When I first started listening to Stef, I always wondered why he said "initiation THE USE OF force" instead of initiation of force. This is a prime example of why the distinction is necessary. ALL uses of force have a beginning. In your scenario, the person who first brings force against another into the equation is initiating THE USE OF force. Another useful way to look at it is that the person initiation the use of force is telling you, by way of their own actions, that they reject property rights. This is precisely why defensive force is righteous and philosophically sound.

As I understand it, the price of admission is reason, not "heart." Can an ant conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behavior to those ideals, calculate consequences, etc? If they are unable to understand and control their actions based on principled ideals, they're not responsible for their actions and wouldn't qualify for personhood.

Sorry I missed your initial thread. It might have been a better move to have the next step lined up first. But I don't know your situation and you definitely have to follow your own conscience. For what it's worth, I'm a private investigator myself, so I can tell you with reasonable certainty that I think your degree will find you work pretty easily. You might not be in a position to start your own firm yet, but at least you won't be getting paid with stolen monies It's also nice knowing that if I get into a situation where I do have to use force, that I'm doing so with authority of the property owner, who can actually transfer that right to me. When I was reading Larken Rose's book The Most Dangerous Superstition, it was an easy read since I already got most of what it was about. However, one of the most interesting parts of the book to me was when he talks about how the belief in moral superiority can turn people who do things like become a cop just for the paycheck can be poisoned by the rhetoric. How the excuse that police abuse is an isolated incident doesn't stand up because group think leads to otherwise/previously peaceful people into seeing others as enemies instead of humans. Good for you for being able to stand up against it. You know what the best part is? The human race could have freedom that much sooner and that much easier if the enforcer class simply told the rulers, "No, I reject the proposition that I could exist in a different, opposing moral category." Here you've done just that! I think that "hero" is a mythical term, but this decision of yours is definitely heroic. I hope the time you had to talk to your co-workers about this helps the message to grow. And I hope others find your story and choose to follow suit.

When I saw the title, this is what I wanted to post.

I'm not so sure. It's true that higher education tends to be of that slant. However, institutionalized aggression has gotten so out of control in the "first world," that I think it's hard for youngsters to believe in any of it. My main reason for doubting they'd lean left is simply because in the cycle of aggression, they're the victims. State power tends to forcibly transfer wealth from young to old, healthy to sick, rich to poor, etc. They're the ones that cannot start a business due to artificial costs associated with entry. They're the ones that were stolen from before they were born to pay for those lording over them. In fact, the only reason for them to vote would be to try and push back against their predators. With any luck though, it's more about them accepting that political voting is the initiation of the use of force.

Wrong thread? The topic is about free trade. Democracy is a method for distributing violence. The two are incompatible.

What do you think? Is there a null hypothesis? Can you describe by what method we could test for this and interpret the results? What would it mean if the answer turned out to be yes or the answer turned out to be no?

If the initiation of the use of force is used: First of all, it's not free trade (capitalism). Secondly, why would you point to those making use of State power (symptom) instead of those who actually make and backup the threats in the name of the State (problem)? I suspect it is because YOU need that State power to implement YOUR preferred method of HOW to use that violence. Based on what I've seen, this would be socialism. It took some digging, but I think I've identified where you're coming from. I'm thankful. Both that you showed just enough of your hand for me to figure this out, and for the lesson that this is probably the reason behind EVERY pro-violence person pointing at the symptom (what they call capitalism even though it isn't) instead of the problem. In other words, I'm thankful that you've given me a tool to have these sort of discussions a little more efficiently in the future. You helped me to profit

As well as do damage by holding the 20lb weight up for prolonged periods of time.

There are tons of private sector efforts towards ending famine and poverty. Let's look at all the unnatural things that interfere with their efforts. First of all, the biggest of them all: State power. From arming oppressors, to paying first world farmers to destroy yields, to creating artificial hoops for people to jump through just to leave a country, for even a short period of time. As Stef frequently points out, that which some call "foreign aide" only serves to exacerbate the problem. Or how about the ways the State intervenes, artificially culling competition, leading to things like medicine being prohibitively expensive. Next up, we have the "fashionable elite." People who talk about the worker as an oppressed class and demonize "sweat shop" labor. Working in a so-called sweat shop is where any developed nation begins. By railing against such things, people are using ostracism to try and prevent these people from earning capital to improve their local economies. Then you have things I refer to as "anti-progress." Such as anti-GMOs. "Let us, who have too much food, condemn technology that helps to feed people who don't have enough food." It's disgusting. I have the occasional "sucking at the State teet" gripe with them, but the youtube channel The Good Stuff does better than most at staying impartial. They recently did a pretty good series about food technology moving forward. It was an interesting watch. Especially the episode on indoor farming. Norman Borlaug would be proud! Link to playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsRLUurFnvvWvSYB7hJ-WNdiyZ-aWJpy7

This is a great point. If a person who inherits stored value chooses to use that value to run a business, if they do it well, where the initial value came from is irrelevant. If instead, they run the business into the ground, that value is lost, again making its origin inconsequential. Define private sector power. In the real world, where people do not exist in different, opposing moral categories, there is no such thing as "power over others" as you imply with your claim of it being akin to coercion.

Wouldn't competing interpretations of the same text reveal the subjective nature of it, therefore precluding it from consideration as a source of how people OUGHT to behave?

I wish I had the power to make the mental connection for people that not seeing "responsible smack" as a contradiction in terms is a product of that same level of IRresponsibility.

Fear is an emotion, but there's still such a thing as rational and irrational fear. If you can find it, the Penn & Teller's Bullshit! episode on fear is both informative and entertaining. The main idea is that whether or not something is harmful is less of an important question than "am I exposed to it?" One example offered was "mad cow" disease. Once a media scare, the reality was that it was anomalous as humans mostly can't even catch it. It was very real for a small number of people, but there was no reason to fear it. Probably the best example is driving automobiles. How much better would people drive on average if they were mindful of how much of a danger they're engaging in and that it CAN "happen to them"? Does this mean don't get behind the wheel of a car? Not really; a car could protect you more than being on foot or on a bicycle. It just means exercise caution and be aware. "Not too careful; But just careful enough." The real problem is when you involve State power. So many things have been engaged in and/or theorized about making use of that could literally lead to the extinction of human beings. It is unreal how much some people take our presence on this planet as a given.

"Well atleast I have the word belief left." was what I originally quoted when I made that point. To me, this is an example of "doing that." Religion is another example, as I referenced. Truth isn't a continuum. For something to be true, it must accurately describe the real world. Once upon a time, it was believed (yes, I acknowledge the luxury of hindsight) that the Earth was the center of the solar system (I acknowledge it likely wasn't called solar system at the time). From our perspective, this was the natural conclusion. As technology advanced, we were able to determine that the Sun was the center of our solar system. Since this more accurately described the real world, this superseded the previous belief (which at this point would be regarded only as a previous belief). We wouldn't say the now disproven theory was less true. This is part of the reason why I'm adamant about the word belief and its fleeting nature. The example I provided here is the exception to the rule where our increased resolution of measurement seemingly alters what is true and what isn't. Most of the process is organic and occurs during childhood (and as we're presented with ideas for the first time later in life). We jump, Earth always brings us back, we call gravity universal and no longer concern ourselves with it. Accepting truth frees the mind up whereas belief bogs it down. This is perhaps WHY we seek to reconcile the discrepancy between subjective observation and objective reality. Yes. This is why I pointed out how irrelevant belief is in the process of determining the truth. Just look at optical illusions. My perception is that this still image is in motion. While that's useful in explaining how parts of the brain work, it's not useful in determining whether the image is in fact in motion or not. I point all of this out because I think it's an easy way to identify if somebody accepts their own capacity for error. An anecdote if you have the time. I was once having dinner with a friend who is hard to talk with because he's usually having his own inner-conversations rather than talking about what's on the table. One example is if you claim that people own themselves, he hears that people aren't inter-dependent. Anyways, this particular day was an election day. I pointed out that political voting is the initiation of the use of force. He had nothing to say. Later on at this same dinner, he actually spent the better part of an hour that stacking wood a particular way helps it dry out quicker. When he first presented this idea, I had never heard of it before. So I took a moment to think about it. My understanding of physics didn't explain how his claim could be true. So I brought up one way I didn't see that being the case. After well over a half of an hour of increasingly impatient debate, it turns out that the reason he felt his claim was true was because he was certain that that's what he observed one time. Had I taken into account up front his rejection of his own capacity for error, I could've saved time and a little bit of sanity that evening.

You did. You said "wasting your time HERE" and "I have tried." These denote that there is a frame of reference one is expected to know despite you not providing it--that you are speaking from the past. I wasn't even talking about childhood trauma. Though that too is evident in the fact that you demonstrate hostility towards people. And that you're so emotionally charged, you haven't put forth a coherent thought yet. You mention some post a month ago, but I wasn't active a month ago. But you're having THAT conversation instead of this one. I see you're refusing to define your terms. I've already informed you that profit means getting more out of something than you put into it. We don't have to agree on that, but unless you tell me what you mean by it, you know this is how it will be received. If two people exchange things where they are free not to, they are telling you with their actions that they get more out of it than they put into it. "Just" only enters into it if both people are free to abstain and engage anyways. You speak as if value is objective and therefore can be measured by 3rd parties which isn't the case. Forming a monopoly to cure a monopoly? Society is a concept and cannot benefit. It describes an aggregate of individuals, who can benefit, but do not benefit equally since value is subjective. Therefore, I reject the claim that pretending humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories benefits everybody equally. See how helpful defining terms can be? For example, I pointed out that you've confused coercion for free market and that you're using your capital to make these assertions. You haven't addressed these. Which goes back to how I knew you're having a conversation from the past. In a moment, I identified that your issue isn't with capital since you make use of your capital to claim such a thing is abominable, but rather with the initiation of the use of force. Yet rather than exploring that, you're simply repeating yourself. Which is tragic because if your issue is with the initiation of the use of force, this is a reasonable conclusion and you would find yourself in good company here, or with any rational thinker. Ignoring that "inherently valuable" (objectively subjective) is a contradiction in terms, if it's voluntary labor, it IS valuable. The person engaging in the labor rather than not tells you this. Even if that labor is in molding a lump of clay into something OTHERS don't find value in, the investor or the labor still profits by learning A) there's no demand for such a thing and B) market research may have been a better investment of his labor. I don't know why these conversations always try to dispense with freedom to choose and the fact that if behaviors aren't binding upon others without their consent, it's none of our business what, how, or why other people choose to trade.

You need to define your terms. You said a lot of things that could be classified as rhetoric since this is little or seemingly ambiguous or contradictory frames of reference. Profit is getting more out of something than you put into it and it is underlying in our every thought, decision, and behavior. For example, you created this post because you expected to get more out of it than you put into it. Does this mean you have monopolistic control over the means of production and distribution of thought and ideas? Monopolistic control over the means of production and distribution describes socialism. Here you speak ill of it, yet one can't help but notice it is a label you've self-applied (self-contradictory in its entirety aside). First of all, what somebody "should" be paid cannot be identified. That said, you described capitalism here while sounding as if you thought you were talking about the opposite of capitalism. Perhaps you've mistaken coercion for a free market? Mistaken State privilege for capitalism? So dumb it down for us. Explain it to us like we're 5 years old. If you can't, then perhaps the idea is clouded with narrative or you yourself don't understand it. No rational individual would conclude that something IMPOSED is the opposite of consent. You just made this claim up. Also, the employee/employer relationship is voluntary. Such hierarchy is for efficiency's sake, and is voluntary (since voluntary is more efficient). In closing, you need to stop using the word argument until you've made one. It's clear to me that you're speaking from unprocessed trauma in the past. Going just by your posts right here, all I see is emotionally-driven assertions. It sounds as if your issue is with aggression and rightly so. However, this is not in opposition of self-ownership, property rights, and therefore capitalism.

When you say the guy by the pool has to do something, the act of saying that is you choosing to say that, the proposition is that the person poolside doesn't have that same choice. Forget property rights and objective analysis; In what way is that proposition not internally inconsistent? *tries to predict where the goalposts are going to be moved to*

Opening with deflection means your post didn't get read!

This was the first qualification I brought to the topic. Police have used tazers for example an inordinate amount of times and in scenarios where that level of force was not required simply because it was categorized as non-lethal. Well I have good news for you then. If you're in a situation where your life depends on it, you will find it wasn't a choice at all. As in it will literally be over by time you are conscious of it. Do not underestimate your autonomic system mixed with an adrenaline dump. And this is why I make an effort to debunk "non-lethal." While not easy, it is possible to override this self-preservation with enough programming ahead of time. Sympathy for your attacker's being alive status in the moment helps nobody. As for your anarchists vs army scenario, this would be a symptom and not something that can be solved in the moment (beyond simply surviving it). The aggressors here reject property rights in their mind even though their very behavior accepts property rights. The solution here would be making the case for property rights to those already traumatized and to not traumatize those not yet traumatized. Then there simply wouldn't be any scenario of this grand aggression. I disagree. Anybody who accepts that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories assume the police are automatically in the right. I've been held at full-auto rifle point by police twice, once when there wasn't even an accusation of wrong-doing. I couldn't tell you how many people drove by as if there weren't humans threatening humans with lethal force right in front of them. If a cop accuses somebody of resisting or attacking, that's the narrative. "I didn't kill him" isn't going to save you.

People claiming something isn't definite doesn't mean it's not. Consent simply means to choose something where the option to decline is present. In what way does this bring you closer to accepting that unchosen positive obligations are unethical?

When people ask me if I believe in God, my response to them is that I accept that reality exists objectively and one's belief is not useful in determining what's real and what isn't. I point this out because a lot of people (just as this quote implies) believe that believing is somehow relevant. The way I see it, (notice I didn't say believe; a product of what I'm about to explain) a "belief" is only useful temporarily. To somebody who accepts reality and their own capacity for error, a belief should serve only as motivation to test the theory. Upon testing, that which is being tested can either be discarded as not accurately describing the real world, or upgraded to truth. I disagree. To me, opinion is something that literally cannot be true or false. "In my opinion, chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla." This is an expression of preferences that there neither is nor can be any objective proof for. In keeping with my last point, words themselves are in fact opinions. Look at the word "sanction." Depending on usage, it can appear to contradict itself! This is why defining terms is so important. Suppose you and I were having a discussion on fraud. Maybe you were talking about people who did not honor their half of an exchange. Maybe I was talking about using deceit to precipitate an exchange. We wouldn't even be talking about the same thing! Now suppose I brought up the topic and defined what I meant by fraud. Even if you didn't agree with the definition, you would still understand what I was talking about. Which is all that really matters since the entire purpose of communication is to transmit an idea from one consciousness to another. Yes, I realize there are generally accepted definitions, which increases the efficiency of communications most of the time, forgoing the need to define every term we use. But we also have the capacity to substitute ideas. For example, if I began a story talking about person X, you wouldn't think that I was referring to a person called X, but rather somebody who doesn't need to be distinctive in any way other than NOT being person Y. You wouldn't object that that's not the actual definition of "person X" because it's meant to be a generic placeholder. This is good stuff though! Precision is important and I hope this helps.

Not at all. The individual is responsible for their actions (another way of saying owning themselves) because they possess reason. The explanation for why we might feel uneasy killing somebody who is physically a human but mentally not a moral actor is BECAUSE of their physical identity being that of a species that has the capacity for error. Early on, I tried to make a big deal out of how your initial challege for me helped me to identify the difference between being reasonable and having the capacity for reason, and how this helped me make the case for the personhood of children based not on current characteristics, but future expectations. I noticed that you didn't respond to that, which I didn't push the issue since I thought it might appear as trying to dodge your challenge. However, with this post here, I think it would've been a useful distinction to explore. @Graham: I disagree that the only place to discuss something is calling Stef.

@Des: What is your definition of evil? Is it putting forth a standard and exempting yourself? Is it a willingness to violate the property rights of others? Are these definitions the same thing? There is no pact required and this is my favorite thing about objective morality: The very person violating the property rights of another is telling you with their actions that they are violating property rights! Regarding cannibalism in a do or die scenario: I can certainly understand it. But it's still a violation of property rights.