dsayers

I agree that trauma is a requisite for self-mutilation. However, I think some of the absolute assessments in this thread fail to account for momentum and/or culture. For example, we live in a culture where women shave their legs and armpits and wear makeup. Even women of substance, who have no reason to incite the passions in a potential mate do these things for conformity's sake. Many people dress nice who may in fact be people of substance simply because they are aware of how they land for other people and want to not be off-putting. While it is true that we are civilized enough to understand that self-knowledge and rational thought are far more valuable, we cannot escape the fact that we are genetically programmed to seek out and/or establish that which we want by way of our eyes. What about people who lose a limb? They could function as such. Are they superficial for adorning their body with an artificial limb? I stand by my opening statement. Just thought a little counterpoint for perspective's sake was in order.

What empirical evidence do you have that voting no will slow, impede, or reduce the growth of the State? Also, I don't think you're being honest because your story began with studying individuals not issues. You can only say no to some individuals by saying yes to others. As far as issues go, unless you vote no to every single one, it's not a principled conclusion. And if it were your intention to vote no across the board, research would not be necessary. Finally, I think you're doing yourself a disservice by voting. You're accepting your captor's claim over you by voluntarily participating in their little game. You're also doing a disservice to everybody else. Because even if you voted no on every issue and didn't vote yes to a single individual, you'd still be perpetuating the theater of voting and the perceived legitimacy of the State. If you vote, you are demonstrating that you're not even free within your own mind.

Present day in the US this is likely true since the government has taken over the health care system. However, the topic is about State benefits and its relationship with creativity. While not specified, I interpret this as a National Endowment of the Arts type situation. To be clear, I don't claim to be an authority on this sort of thing. The government I live under today has stolen from me all my life. For me to receive some of that back for any reason, it would be hard to know where the line is between stealing your own stuff back and stealing from others. I've qualified for welfare almost all of my adult life, but I've never chosen to avail myself of it. Even before studying philosophy, it didn't seem right.

I agree that there is no choice to use theft-funded roads. How does this relate to receiving State benefits in the form of money being handed out?

I assumed as much. I didn't want to lead with asking you if you thought that studying philosophy to help you understand that voting is the initiation of the use of force would be a better use of your time than trying to get a new word to catch on. I think one of the most crucial steps in my studying philosophy, pursuing self-knowledge, and striving towards happiness was . The too long, didn't watch version is: How can you give somebody something that which you do not own? In the context of voting, the question becomes: If you do not have the right to rule over others or steal, assault, rape, or murder them, how are you able to give this right to somebody else?

Not immoral is not specific. Both amoral and moral are not immoral. As I pointed out before, in order for the claim of X is Y to be meaningful, X must have the capacity to be not Y. Where a moral consideration IS present, not immoral IS moral. The requisites for moral consideration are voluntary behavior (uncoerced) and binding upon another. If this is accurate, then consensual sex being the use of another person's property with their consent would indeed be classified as moral. I think this might sound strange because we've been inundated by those who wish to subjugate us that what they want for us to do is "moral." For example, they would say to you it's moral to feed the poor even though their plan for implementing this is predicated on the immoral act of mass theft. Even just as a prescription, it could not be classified as moral because it's an unchosen positive obligation. Moral simply means the consistent application/observation of property rights. In consensual sex, I own myself and accept that my partner owns herself also. Whereas rape, while mechanically identical, is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. Immoral means the self-contradictory, simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights.

Why were you conducting online voting research?

Doesn't this strike you as wishful thinking? I noticed that you said you had OCD, that you came from religion. As opposed to "my parents abused me to the point of me having to do things a certain way out of fear" or "my parents inflicted unsubstantiated conclusions upon me." I point this out because you mentioned struggling and coping with, but this seems to be a fundamental step in doing so. You're looking forward to the possibility of a perfect life when you have the opportunity for having a much improved life simply by calling things by their proper names. Anyways, I have 2 problems with the possibility of afterlife. First, baked right into the name, is AFTER life. There wasn't your life before your life, there's no reason to logically expect that there could be life after life. Secondly, life is an emergent property of matter and energy. I think the reason why a deity and afterlife go hand in hand is because they're both incredible works of fiction.

Triage is where the need outweighs capacity and manifests by neglecting those who are done for and/or would be a less efficient use of time. To flip the switch is to actively get involved in a situation that doesn't require involvement. Active participation is not comparable to inaction.

Is this a fancy way of saying minimum wage? How do you answer the near unlimited empirical evidence that this doesn't even address the problem it's said to solve? Implemented by whom? How did they get this power that nobody has to be able to implement such a thing? If you receive goods you know to be stolen, you are complicit to the theft. In the context of my claim that not earning such things is confession of not being able to by way of voluntary means, that the recipient wasn't the one directly initiating the use of force is a distinction without a difference.

This is one of the side effects of widespread, unprincipled claims to a "right" to something. If it were true that people had a right to education, then they'd view those that stand in their way of that right as required to conform to their right. As opposed to them conforming to the reality that inflicting unchosen obligations upon others to educate them is internally inconsistent.

How do I know this couch exists? Because it can be measured (validated) independent of my own consciousness.

When you initiate the use of force, you are saying that you cannot meet your goals through voluntary means. This is not an assumption, it's an observation of their own confession.

Morality is not analogue. A behavior either violates property rights or it does not. "Less moral" is a meaningless phrase. Besides, in the scenario that is the topic of this thread, both tracks have people getting killed, which is the point of the exercise. "Hard-nosed" is manipulative language. People who observe the effects of gravity or state that 2+2=4 are "hard-nosed," but this doesn't mean they are incorrect. Property rights is not a belief; It's an accurate description of the real world. If you are able to refute this, then do that as opposed to calling it dogmatic as if that's proof. To say that inaction is immoral is to inflict an unchosen obligation upon somebody. This is in contrast to your claim that no force is present. Doesn't this contradict your earlier claim of less moral? Whereas before, you were claiming that responsibility could be calculated, and that not being responsible is not possible since nobody can force anybody to choose a certain way, here you're claiming there is no responsibility. If a person has unprincipled conclusions and doesn't accept the universality of self-ownership, then yes, their behaviors may be erratic when stress is introduced. We practice how we perform and we perform how we practice. ...where they are voluntarily created. Unchosen positive obligations are unethical. If I ask to borrow your kite and you consent, for me to take and make use of your kite is binding upon you. Your consent makes this a moral behavior. Same as if I buy it off of you or trade you for it.

This is like saying magnets make gravity happen. Nothing makes gravity happen; It's an effect of matter. Nothing makes capitalism happen; It's a description of consciousness plus the capacity for reason. I think it's more damaging that many people speak of coercive markets when they say capitalism than it is that many people speak of chaos when they say anarchy. It doesn't matter what term you use; Humans are not fundamentally different in a way that some being rulers and others being ruled is consistent or principled. THAT's what's important.

I've heard people stand up about it. I think the main reason it doesn't get as much attention is because it doesn't directly lead to mass murder the way formal religions do and because it's a myth that is eventually revealed as such. Not trying to say it's any less damaging since repealed or not, it takes place during the crucial formative years. It not only promotes an unhealthy dependence on artificial incentives, but it offsets the ability to learn rational thought.

More importantly, "positive behaviors" is not a standard. If you put a gun to somebody's head, they'll engage in the positive behavior of giving you their wallet. It's a utilitarian argument, which is a distant second to the moral consideration? Why is the moral consideration paramount? Because it's the adherence to the real world. Assault is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. It is an internally inconsistent behavior. To promote it is to promote letting people believe they can fly up to the point of them jumping off of a building. It's a break from reality with very harmful effects. Unlike the jumper example, the harm of assault is inflicted on somebody else. A developing somebody else. I'm embarrassed that it was EVER considered a beneficial practice.

First, start by calling things by their proper names. You say "social organization" while organization refers to an external process. Anarchism is not a manner of organization. It is a description of the real world. You say "private law" but humans cannot make laws. Such as gravity, laws are binding. It's what the word means. Which brings me to my final example of calling things by their proper names: labels. You use words like minarchism, anarchism, libertarian, and (in the title) non-aggression principle. These words are summaries/conclusions. They can mean different things to different people. Since you mention a challenge in communicating ideas, avoiding these pitfalls will help. Secondly, it would appear that what you're identifying as a stumbling block for you is people afraid of a free society because a State might emerge. Just to be clear, if the worst scenario they can envision is the emergence of a State, this is an argument against the State, not against Statelessness. The reason why the State gets away with immorality and aggression is because of their perception of legitimacy first and their lack of competition or consequence second. This is addressed by: Third, in order to talk about a Stateless society, it's important to understand HOW such a thing could come to be. Namely by the peaceful parenting of children who will not speak the language of aggression. These people will grow up as rational thinkers who respect property rights. They would not be inclined to aggress against others and to do so would mean experiencing the pushback (competition plus consequence) of EVERYBODY ELSE. The State's perception of legitimacy is the reason we don't see that sort of pushback today. So the simple answer to your question is competition and consequence, the two features of a free market that makes it self-correcting in every regard (not just attempts to rule). However, I think the other points I've made will help you to be free in your own mind first, which will help you to present these ideas to other people more effectively. Also, I highly recommend watching Stef's Bomb in the Brain series if you haven't already. Before you can influence other people, it's helpful to understand why they think what they do to begin with. That is to say that you cannot convince somebody out of a conclusion using logic, reason, and evidence unless they arrived at that conclusion by way of logic, reason, and evidence.

"The best way to fight terrorism is to invest in education. Instead of sending weapons, send teachers." Who said this? How do they know? Invest how? Education in what? Who should send teachers? Teachers of what? It's non-specific, sophist nonsense. Don't let yourself get sucked in by this. I noticed your post had a lot of they/we in it.

In what way? I try to keep things simple. The opening post has so many references to -isms that I cannot tell what it's trying to say, nor is it engaging enough to make me want to try and figure it out. Not saying that your conclusion is wrong, but I think your explanation fails the 4 year old test.

Would it help to clarify as: your skeptical meter going up when SUBJECTIVE history is put forth as objective truth? "The Earth is at the center of the solar system" is an objective claim and one that was "historically accurate." However, since it wasn't arrived at by way of objective measurement, it is subjective history. Or perhaps better still is to point out that humans (who have the capacity for error) recording something (the Earth is at the center of the solar system) does not make it objectively true.

If a behavior is not binding upon another person, it is amoral (it lacks a moral component). If a behavior IS binding upon another person and violates their property rights, it is an immoral behavior. If a behavior is binding upon another person and does NOT violate their property rights, it is a moral behavior. The conclusion that there is no such thing as a moral behavior is an irrational one. By that, I am referring to the fact that for any claim of X is Y to be meaningful, X must have the capacity to be NOT Y. To say that behaviors can be immoral is to denote that they have the capacity to be moral.

While I certainly appreciate precision, this is semantics. Money is stored value. In context, the claim of unconditional money simply refers to the lack of value being exchanged for it. It's value given without the requisite of value received, which incentivizes meeting the requirements you reference for free-to-them value. This is in contrast to non-benefactors of such programs having to put forth an effort to provide value to others in order to store value.

What reason? I've been in places where toilet stalls had no doors. Not once did I see one person watching another. The question is: Why would a bodily function that we all engage in be considered shameful to the point of concealing it? This question is particularly entertaining simply because nobody's trying to watch.

Being threatened with violence for not letting somebody steal from you to fund social programs seems dangerous.