tjx
-
Posts
31 -
Joined
Posts posted by tjx
-
-
Hi there!I have been listening to FDR since 2009 and been into selfknowledge and therapy since 2010. In september 2013, I deFOO'ed. Now I am almost completely lonely, certainly if you count deep and comitted realtionships.I have recently run into a major snag on my journey and I don't really have anyone to talk about it with. I used to see a therapist, but I've since left my home country and am living on very litmited means in my continnued effort to self-actualise.I figure this must be a pretty common situation for FDR members who leave all their bad relationships, but don't immediately find good new ones. Is there any kind of FDR support group for us, I haven't been hanging around the board much so I don't know what the usual procedures look like.Kind Regards,Victor
i don't know how old you are, but you sound relatively young.
don't take this the wrong way, but you are too concerned with yourself. socrates famously said "the unexamined life isn't worth living". but i think he was wrong. j. krishnamurti said "self examination always leads to depression". it's been my experience that he was right.
i went through something similar (i think) to what you're going through. here's another thing from krishnamurti. someone asked him if he was happy. he told them that he doesn't think about it. he ask if you've ever noticed that when you're happy, that as you notice it, it immediately goes away. what you're going through is very hard. some people don't make it through it.
concerned you're self with your work. get your mind off yourself.
i once talked with a guy that was hospitalized for clinical depression. when he got out, he said he wasn't helped. he thought of suicide just as often. then one day, he said in order to keep from bringing everyone down at work, he was going to pretend he was happy, just for them. everyday at work he pretended he was happy. when he got off work, he reverted to depression. but he kept doing it everyday, so he didn't depress fellow workers. then one day, it began to change. he noticed that he was starting to actually be happier little by little when he was pretending to be happy. just something to think about.
learn not to be so concerned with or about yourself.
-
OK, so are if I were begging for it I'd willfully agree to it and there would be no need to impose it upon me. Just like going to McDonalds and buying a meal.
Not to mention that this claim does not address the fact that the constitution is a tool to claim ownership over people living in a geographical area.
This is totally irrelevant and subjective.
This is a great point.
OK, so are if I were begging for it I'd willfully agree to it and there would be no need to impose it upon me.
you can't agree to anything when you're born. and you have to be born somewhere.
people have always come together for common defense whether a tribe or a country. but if you were lucky enough to have been born in the USA a hundred years ago, you could have left any time you chose. you could have freely renounced your citizenship. no one would be imposing it on you if you didn't want it.
Not to mention that this claim does not address the fact that the constitution is a tool to claim ownership over people living in a geographical area.
where in the constitution does it claim 'ownership' over you? all it says is that you're a citizen with the protected personal and property rights of the country. if you didn't like the country, you could leave at any time and renounce your citizenship. yes, it's different now, but that's not the fault of the constitution. it's the fault of socialist ideology that has been sweeping the country.
This is totally irrelevant and subjective.
yes, it's subjective. where would you have rather been born a hundred years ago? why do you say it's irrelevant?
if there is a group of people living somewhere and there is no government, they will come together in some fashion to form the rules they agree to live by. but rest assured they will come together if for no other reason than for common defense. the ones who don't will get wiped out by some kind of raiding party or army. the only way out would be to live in an area so remote that there are no people living anywhere near you. spontaneous order doesn't last long when under attack.
-
Sure it does, It imposes rules an laws on people who have not previously agreed to those rules.
The fact that the constitution was a lot more permissive than the current laws in the US in irrelevant. I don't need my neighbors or you or even my parents or wives to unilaterally come up with a document that that describes what I am allowed and not allowed to do and even what I must do, no matter how permissive it is. If they did that and they were willing to violently impose those rules then they would be claiming ownership over me.
I don't need my neighbors or you or even my parents or wives to unilaterally come up with a document that that describes what I am allowed and not allowed to do and even what I must do, no matter how permissive it is.
if you had lived in a land that was constantly plundered and overrun by foreign armies, you'd be begging for a constitution that protected your life, liberties, rights and property. you couldn't have found a place on earth that was as good to live as the USA a hundred years ago..
-
So person A is raping person B and person C who is capable of helping does not help. According to your statement, person C is being violent towards person A? If that is the case, the only way to stop C's violence towards A is to force him to help.
Only conceptually in the same sense that a society exists. In reality, it is a group of people claiming ownership over a geographical area and its inhabitants.
Sure, If I had to be violent to defend myself or someone else from the initiation of force then I would not be initiating force but I would still be violent.
Maybe this part is just semantics though.
If that is the case, the only way to stop C's violence towards A is to force him to help.
i'm not trying to force a solution. i'm just saying that not helping when you are able to help, is violating the person being raped.
In reality, it is a group of people claiming ownership over a geographical area and its inhabitants.
but the US constitution never claimed ownership over its inhabitants. just the opposite. people were free to leave any time they wished. not only that, they could take all their property with them. back then, the government wasn't allowed to limit anything you decided to bring with you. you can't leave with more than $600,000 without the government taxing you.
Sure, If I had to be violent to defend myself or someone else from the initiation of force then I would not be initiating force but I would still be violent.
i'm saying that measured aggression against violence, isn't violence.
yes, semantics is a problem when we're striving to be accurate in our definitions.
-
For example, designing the things that the machines make is a service, but also a form of economic production.
i think we need to be careful about what we call services. true services have no product. waitresses, repairmen etc. provide a service. but many people say dentists are servicers. but dentists produce fillings and such that have user value (they help you to be able to eat). if we blur the lines between services and production, then everything can be called a service and it loses its meaning.
Making fine art is a form of economic production,
art would lose its value in a destitute world. it's hard for us to fathom this because we were born late enough that we were born into a wealthy world. we could be frivolous with our wealth because we had so much of it. but we're on a wealth destroying course now and the effects will be profound.
even if it's just writing an e-book or singing a song or speaking a role in a play, which have almost no durable, tangible manifestation at all. These things improve lives to the extent that people want them, and they're willing to forego something else to get it.
yes, and again that's because there is much wealth in the world. unfortunately for us, we're in the process of destroying wealth with socialism.
"Growing" or "improving" the economy is a matter of increasing the coordination of production with consumption. It's not a matter of the volume of stuff produced,
the boom and bust cycle is really just errors of production. there's no crystal ball way to know precisely how much to produce. even 'just in time' doesn't help. so ultimately, production can't be successfully coordinated with consumption. if it could, there would never be things like 'rebates'. or huge discount sales. we just have to live with errors of production. maybe in the future technology can solve the problem by instant manufacturing. but we can't do that now.
until that day comes, we will naturally try to produce everything we think we can sell. and if we need more, we'll produce that too because there's profit in it.
or the number of dollars circulated by transfer agents,
of course dollars are products. they're just the 'grease' in efficient trade.
It's the degree to which people are doing things that other people are willing to trade for.
which is value at its fundamental form.
So, economic improvement will always be possible,
yes, as long as we aren't taxed and regulated into oblivion.
even if the growth areas of the economy consist mostly of finding new or better ways to provide desired services,
yes, if the free market is allowed to work more wealth gets generated and more services will become available. but as i keep repeating, the socialists are slowly taking over the country. business are going to close. prices are going to rise and misery index is going to skyrocket. the only way out is to roll back tyranny (big government).
while the physical production of things becomes easier, and thus less and less of a limiting factor.
yes, as technology advances, the cost of production keeps approaching zero. and again, that's not happening here anymore. we are going to be punished economically for electing socialists and tyrants.
sorry i messed up the above post. i'm just learning how this board works..
-
That doesn't really answer the question. "Production" includes both products and services. Manufacturing widgets is a kind of service. Although objects are sold on a per unit basis, and the buyer never meets the maker, the distinction between product and service is largely imaginary.What improves the quality of life is subjective -- the satisfaction of desires. If that means paying for the temporary use of things rather than permanent ownership of them, then so be it. Sometimes use is all that's desired.
Magnus, services would not exist without production. that's because without production nothing can be paid for. and it doesn't matter that the buyer never meets the maker.
without production we would not just suffer, but die. even the cavemen had to produce. they made spears and animal hides. the food they harvested was also part of what they produced. and although they mostly consumed their own production, they probably enhanced their 'wealth' and increased their 'standard of living' which increased their chances to survive, by trading their excess production. their excess production was their currency of the time.
-
Yep. And is the rate at which electronic blips get passed between people presently improving quality of life? Not saying it's not, just curious as to how it is, if it is.
it isn't. what improves the quality of life is production. the more production we have, the better and easier life becomes. automation is a great way to increase production.
-
I don't debate relativists, much like leftists, feminists or creationists.. And I recommend that to the whole board for what it's worth.
I don't debate relativists,
you didn't debate anything.
much like leftists, feminists or creationists.
cop out.
And I recommend that to the whole board for what it's worth.
not much.
-
Nah, Ive been here long enough to know a leftist that wants to change the definitions of words.. Go ahead and attempt your buffoonery.. I will be behind you with my foot held out as you trip over it.
but i do know an absolutist when i see one.
why don't you take the political quiz and see where you stand? bet you're further to the left than you think.
-
Oh I do..
evidently you don't.
-
Is tjx still changing the definitions of words.. Leftist sophist!
i'm the farthest thing from leftist you've ever seen. ad hominem all ya got?
Is tjx still changing the definitions of words.. Leftist sophist!
here's political spectrum quiz. we're on the honor policy, but i'll bet you nearly any amount that i'm to right of where you are.
i have my score posted on another website. it's just a few minutes. take it and tell me what you scored and i'll tell you my score.
i guess you don't know a leftist when you see one.
http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html
-
In the past it was very hard to produce much more than you needed to sustain yourself and your family, as technology advanced that became easier and now it is possible to live in great luxury that wasn't afforded to the wealthiest people 100 years ago.If you simply want to sustain yourself you could probably get by only working 10 hours a month.In the future there will be better technology, and perhaps you'll be able to sustain yourself on 1 hour of work a month, and looking far into the future 1 hour of work a year...
you show a deep understanding of economics. automation has been mankind's greatest boon and will continue to be, as long as we don't let socialism overwhelm us.
in addition to all you've said, automation adds to the value of the dollar, since it makes things cheaper. of course other things like taxation and over regulation reduce the value of the dollar. so it's a constant tug-of-war between value and devalue. the stronger a nation's economy is, the stronger their currency is. they go hand in hand.
-
The reason why your argument isn't sound, is because you cannot universalise this behaviour. For instance, if I were tied to a post and watched my wife being raped. There is nothing I can do. Of course if I cheered them along whilst physically able to intervene, then my wife would no doubt want to divorce me and rightly so.
Violence requires either some physical attack or restraint. Stop confusing good dictionary termas please.
For instance, if I were tied to a post and watched my wife being raped. There is nothing I can do.
if there's nothing you can do, then you're not being violent by doing nothing.
Violence requires either some physical attack or restraint.
i say it requires neither.
Stop confusing good dictionary termas please.
the dictionary is under constant revision. not only are new words added, but old words get revised with better definitions. violence needs a better definition.
-
i believe i can describe the start of evil. but it requires the definition of a few words that must be agreed upon first.
that's why i'm in an argument with other posters about the definition of violence. violence is the most important word to be defined. without an accurate definition of violence, the start of evil can't be understood, or at least it will be misunderstood.
it looks like it will be very difficult to agree on a definition of violence. a definition is like a boundary. it must include everything that the defined is, and at the same time, exclude everything that it is not.
is there an accurate definition of violence that we could all agree on? probably not..
-
This was the first effort you made towards "making a case" for your position. It got me thinking quite a bit and I even reversed my previous stance on the "guy walks in front of a bus" moral scenario. However, the thoughts I had on the matter were numerous enough that I thought it warranted its own topic. Here it is.
Ask that same woman if her perception is that the world is flat. Doesn't make it so. Appeals to emotion are not sound argumentation. It doesn't appear that you're interested in the truth or are at all open to the possibility that your prejudice could be wrong.
However, the thoughts I had on the matter were numerous enough that I thought it warranted its own topic.
then as you know, whatever your position is, it will become stronger.
Ask that same woman if her perception is that the world is flat.
non-sequitur
It doesn't appear that you're interested in the truth or are at all open to the possibility that your prejudice could be wrong.
i have considered this question for years, always looking for where i might be wrong.
Appeals to emotion are not sound argumentation.
correct. but asking her how she felt is relevant.
-
You can't, but the less incentives the larger group of people has the less possibility there is that this will happen. Also, if the incentives of the smaller group are in place, it is more likely that the market will provide a solution. This is true for an anarchistic world as it is for a statist one, but the incentives are better aligned in a situation of freedom and anarchy.Well this is like saying what if the restaurant owner was not able to produce good food? Who would eat there then, and why should someone else be forced to produce good food for the restaurant?Maybe the owner should had not started a restaurant business. So if the proprietor is not able to protect the customers how does it follow that others, not involved int the interaction, must provide security?Besides, in a free society this would also create an incentive to come up with efficient solutions. One idea might be a firm that specializes in recovering from the attackers for a percentage of what is recovered, this would lower the incentives to attack. That is just one solution, the market would provide many and the best would stick.I would agree, except that you don't hire the police, hiring implies mutual agreement and there is no such thing with the police. I'd agree that a community is free to hire a group to protect them.You are not considering the implicit contradiction. In order to make the person help, you would have to initiate force against him. You are making someone responsible for someone else's actions here. The initiation of force is the positive action of one person using force in an otherwise non-violent interaction.And this is an argument against anarchism? N. Korea is certainly not an anarchist paradise.I agree that the polish people have the right to defend against germans. There is no initiating force in defense. Defense may be violent but it certainly is not the initiation of force.
incentives aren't protection from the possibility of attack. and it's not that others must be forced to provide security for a restaurant. the point is that using force in defense is not violence.
I'd agree that a community is free to hire a group to protect them.
that was my point.
You are not considering the implicit contradiction. In order to make the person help, you would have to initiate force against him.
i never said anything about forcing anyone to help.
And this is an argument against anarchism? N. Korea is certainly not an anarchist paradise.
it was not an argument against anarchism. it was an argument that countries do indeed exist.
I agree that the polish people have the right to defend against germans.
good.
There is no initiating force in defense.
my argument is that sometimes there is. for that and other reasons "the initiation of force" is not an accurate definition of violence.
Defense may be violent but it certainly is not the initiation of force.
if someone that you know to be innocent is about to be attacked and in your estimation the only thing that will save him/her is force, would you consider the use of force violence?
So if most of the rest of the world thought dogs were cats, this would make it so?
so if the rest of the world saw a cat and you didn't, it wouldn't exist?
You can't be imprecise when you're talking about definitions. Especially in a thread about just that.
my intention is to get to an accurate definition first, and a precise one second. accuracy is most important than precision.
I recommend you partake of Stef's Introduction to Philosophy series. It's long, but is very helpful in helping to get past these sorts of basic thinking errors.
a condescending recommendation that i didn't ask for. and your assumption about my 'thinking errors' is just that. an assumption.
-
No, not intervening is not violence, but that doesn't mean it's (doing nothing) the right thing to do.
No, not intervening is not violence, but that doesn't mean it's (doing nothing) the right thing to do.
then ask a woman who was raped with bystanders watching, if she didn't feel she was being violated by them also.
-
This is false. If person A is raping person B and person B fights back or person C intervenes, they are not INITIATING the use of force. The use of force had already been deployed. I'm running out of ways to point out the difference between force and the initiation of the use of force. Could you help me by elaborating on how I am being unclear?
Also, countries do not exist and therefore do not have a self. Self only accurately describes people.
If person A is raping person B and person B fights back or person C intervenes, they are not INITIATING the use of force.
i agree with that. in the case of the rape, if a person that is able did NOTHING to help, that person is being violent to the one in need. to stand and watch or to leave the scene is being violent.
Also, countries do not exist
tell that to the n. koreans that are held against their will. you might not accept that they exist but most of the rest of world certainly does.
Self only accurately describes people.
everyone describes the defense of their country as 'self-defense' because they usually identify with their country. that's all that's meant.
poland was attacked by germany. did the polish people have the right to defend against germans that were invading their country?
self defense is natural law. everything and everyone has a right to defend itself from attack. initiating force in defense can not be called violence. at least not accurately.
I would say:
Polish citizens should flee or defend themselves. They should call for aid.
Law Enforcement should enforce the law and the law should be thou shalt not agress against, nor violate the rights of others. They should also be subject to competition.
A problem with the constitution being written in stone is that I think women and blacks have the same rights as I do. Emminent domain, as you rightfully point out is another. Most of all, as demonstrated throughout history, political power is most attractive to people who want to exersize that power. Power corrupts.
I'd rather live in a world with a minimalist Federal Government and have 50 laboratories of innovation to pick from, than live in the world as it is. But I'd also rather live in a world with unregulated, unbounded and infinite innovation, than in one with only 50 regulated laboratories to pick from.
Polish citizens should flee or defend themselves. They should call for aid.
yes, they should be free to act as they deem necessary.
Law Enforcement should enforce the law and the law should be thou shalt not agress against,
agree.
A problem with the constitution being written in stone is that I think women and blacks have the same rights as I do.
the constitution had no laws against blacks or women. the right to vote was metered by the states, not the constitution. frederic douglass a former black slave who was hired to write that the constitution was pro slavery, could not do it. after he read it, he said the constitution was an anti-slavery document.
Most of all, as demonstrated throughout history, political power is most attractive to people who want to exersize that power. Power corrupts.
yes, power attracts the psychos. the framers knew that and did their best to limit federal power. but they didn't do it well enough. the constitution should have been made unchangeable. let the people vote with their feet in the 50 states. if they don't like what one state is doing, they can move to another. all the while their personal and property rights should be eternally protected by the constitution.
I'd rather live in a world with a minimalist Federal Government and have 50 laboratories of innovation to pick from, than live in the world as it is. But I'd also rather live in a world with unregulated, unbounded and infinite innovation,
then what you want is really the free market. free market capitalism. and the free market works best when it has the protection of common law. what we had would have worked very well if we wouldn't have fiddled with it. but no, the meddlers are always trying to 'do good'. of course it always ends up the opposite.
-
I don't think anybody's talking against self-defense. Of course you can choose to hire people to protect you. You would be wrong to call them police since that would not be voluntary and presumes a jurisdiction that violates self-ownership and property rights.
but i'm asking if you think self-defense is violence. whether it's a group of people or a country, it doesn't matter. if you're saying that self-defense isn't violence, then i agree with you. then it would follow that defending an innocent is not violence either.
all this is to say that sometimes the initiation of force isn't violence. it has to be taken into the context of the whole situation.
-
What is the difference between "the initiation of the use of force" and "force"? Or, put more simply:
the initiation of the use of force - force = ?
The answer is "the initiation of the use of."
What force are you initiating the use of in this scenario?
You keep asking the exact same question. Are you interested in the truth or a way of making a prejudice true? I haven't seen you make the case for inaction as the initiation of the use of force, nor have I seen you describe how the logic of counterpoints has been faulty.
the initiation of the use of force - force = ?
so then the first punch in a fight is violent, and the rest of the punches are force?
What force are you initiating the use of in this scenario?
none, but i'm not the one saying the initiation of force is violence. as Stefan has asked, are you using violence or force when you push someone out of harms way? it seems to me that i would be initiating force without it being violent.
-
While it could be theoretically argued that the bear owns it's habitat, and the couple violated property rights, and the bear was only defending its property, its think it strays from the point.Running away is not violence, there is no force.
and is doing nothing when someone is being raped also not violence? if you see a woman being raped and you do nothing to help her, even if it's just a phone call, isn't it another violence on her by you?
-
Is running away or inaction the initiation of the use of force? What is the point of a definition if you can reject it when it doesn't suit a prejudice?
Did the wife willingly go someplace she knew she might encounter a bear?
is the use of force always violence? if so, what is the difference between violence and force?
-
War: Poland and Germany are only countries because of the initiation of force of their states upon it's "citizens", without the states there is no Germany or Poland. It would be just a group of people initiating force against another group of people.Arrest: There could be laws, dictated by the owner of the place. I for one would not go to a restaurant where shooting at people was allowed.I don't think any anarchist would disagree with you here, but how is that an argument against anarchism?
War: but how do you stop a large group of people from attacking a smaller group of people and taking whatever they want?
Arrest: what if the proprietor wasn't capable enough to stop some people from attacking his customers? who would stop them? how could anyone stay in business if the strongest could always take what they want or just start shooting people?
my point is that the right to self defense must be absolute, meaning that you must be free to hire protection if you need it. a community should be free to hire a group, such as a police force to protect them.
Should there be no gravity? It's not something we can change, which is what law means. I suspect you meant to ask should there be no legislations. I would say yes, there should be no commands backed by threats of violence. The purpose of this thread is to improve the precision of our thoughts.
But as you point out, it's fundamentally flawed as it purports to own all property (including people) within a geographical area. That's not the sort of thing worth preserving.
but commands can be defensive. i think self defense is a sticking point that isn't being considered.
throughout history people have lived in fear of some enemy overcoming their own geographical area. force shouldn't be initiated, but the best response to it may be force.
-
Violence is the initiation of the use of force.
that's what many dictionaries say. but i think the definition is inadequate.
can't violence be running away, or inaction?
i read about a couple that were hiking in alaska. the wife was attacked by a bear. the guy could have got away clean, but he took out a pocket knife and attacked the bear. the chances of either surviving was small. but he couldn't leave his wife. to him, running away would have been violent to his wife.
the propaganda to honesty dictionary
in General Messages
Posted
If it didn't claim ownership over you, there wouldn't be anything to evade. These claims are incompatible.
i didn't say there wasn't anything to evade. i asked where in the constitution it claims ownership of you.
Just to be clear, you said this as a direct reply to it being pointed out that if it's willful, it doesn't need to be violently imposed.
and just to be clear, i am pointing out that you can't choose what you're born into, but at least you could leave the good ole USA if you wanted to, back in the old days. are you still living in the USA? i'm not. i left because of the growing police state. i left while you can still get out.
So you can force everyone into contracts as long as you do it when they are born?
you can still leave. what contract were forced to sign? obamacare maybe?
Could you renounce your citizenship without leaving? If you could not then you were not allowed to own land and thus others owned you, if you could then there was no need for the constitution.
renounce citizenship in any country and you have to leave. you have to be a citizen of a country to live there and be afforded the benefits of living there. and you'll find out how quickly you need a country if you have none.
"Well X was pretty nice to his slaves, who would you have rather had as your slave-owner X or somebody else?"
Would you consider that a relevant statement about the morality of slavery?
same question over and over.. where does the constitution claim ownership of its citizens.
You mean like when people come together to invest in or create an enterprise?
you mean like when they are safe enough under the protection of law to be able to create an enterprise?