Tyler H

Would you mind telling me which show it was so I could have a listen? Also, I think there was a typo in your last sentence, could you reiterate?

I quite enjoyed the propaedeutic, you certainly have a skill for communicating. I'm going to bookmark this post for future reference. I've read UPB a few times and will probably need to read it a few more to fully grasp the concept, so any correction is welcomed, but from what I understand the book redefines morality in a way that removes it from the realm of the subjective (the preferences and sentiments of people who claim they know how others should act) and places it into the realm of the objective (using logic to determine if what someone claims is their moral rule can be universally applied). Morality is now defined as what can be universally preferable behavior. The claim of objectivity is not directed at the preference itself, but at its universal applicability. So for example, you can say that it is objectively illogical to say murder is good when murder by definition is an unwanted imposition and what is good (moral) is held to the standard of universality. In a lot of the podcast discussions confusion was expressed in regards to the title. It's not that the preferences are or are not universally preferred, but universally preferable, i.e. whether or not it's logically possible that the preference be applied universally. I stress this point because the part of your post I quoted led me to infer this misunderstanding may apply to you, I apologize if this is incorrect.

Where you point out that preferences are subjective, depending on how you interpret the sentence can either support or reject your claim. A preference is a subjective opinion, but the existence of that subjective opinion can be objectively identified. This is what I believe he meant and is quite an important cornerstone to the theory. The book lacks the necessary language to convey the theory accurately, supplementing the book with the many discussions Stef has had with critics can clear a good portion of it up. He has said a few times he plans to update it. You make some good points, I look forward to giving them some thought.

I interpret the default as the starting point, not the inevitable end. The naturally occurring default (in general) is to be born with two hands, if you cut one off it isn't inevitable you'll return to that state. In fact it will take a great deal of effort to return to the default state.

I've always been partial to voluntarist. It hasn't yet attracted the stigma that has been attributed to anarchist, sovereign citizen, etc.

At first glance I disagree that we are ruled by the non-aggression principle, but I will have to think on it - you may be right. Aside from that, it is often differentiated that anarchism means no rulers, not no rules. Rulers being another sentient being to whom you must subjugate yourself.

I guess I'm not understanding how you can have a ruler and be an anarchist at the same time, it's logically inconsistent.

Sorry, I meant to imply God, not Cæsar. Are you not ruled by your God? Do you not need to submit to his commandments and pay a portion of your income to Him?

Anarchism means no rulers, how can Christians be anarchists?

Do you mean conservative-thinking or correct-thinking?

I think the scenario you put forward would be more accurate if there are two thieves and one of them will steal the TVs and the other will steal the stereos of everyone in the neighborhood, and the neighborhood gets to vote on which one of them gets the gun with which to go around stealing. Add to that the fact that you don't know that all they're going to do with the gun is steal TVs or stereos; one may do just what he says, or steal both, or go around raping all the women in the neighborhood, or murder everyone's pets, or visit the next street down the road and start robbing them, leaving notes saying "robbed on behalf of (Your Street Name Here) St. residents" pissing them off and starting a neighborhood war, all the while what you do know is that part of the reason that guy has a gun is because of your vote. Do you want to participate in that or do you want say to your neighbors "Hey, I told you guys not to give one of those lunatics a gun, do you want to listen to me now?"

If I could jump in here, I think how one owns an action is that the term's ownership and responsibility are used interchangeably in the argument for property rights, the ownership of property being a result of our ownership/responsibility of/for our actions. Not sure what you mean by purchasing someone's actions. My first thought was employment for remuneration, but obviously that's not what you meant. If you mean purchasing the core motor functions of another person then as far as I know that's not possible.

Thanks, I did watch it but I can't remember that argument so I will watch it again. "The thing is, if you really believe that by voting you are giving your sanction to the state, then you see you are really adopting the democratic theorist’s position. You would be adopting the position of the democratic enemy, so to speak, who says that the state is really voluntary because the masses are supporting it by participating in elections. In other words, you’re really the other side of the coin of supporting the policy of democracy — that the public is really behind it and that it is all voluntary. And so the anti-voting people are really saying the same thing." I think for people who "accept" the social contract and would willingly sign an actual contract that supports the system as it is, the state would be voluntary. The problem is that the current system encapsulates people involuntarily who would not sign such a contract; as I'm sure you're aware, this is where our particular breed of anarchist take issue. Because the state continually imposes edicts on people involuntarily who do not or cannot vote it can never be said to be voluntary. The legitimization is illusory, but people falsely believe in that legitimization (what we are trying to change). As long as that belief is held, the illusory legitimization has real life effects which is why if you cast your vote and put someone in power then you are somewhat fractionally responsible for their crimes, I think especially so if you have the knowledge we have.

Somalia is always the go to argument for the statist and a terrible example because as anarchists we reject the state because it is a coercive system, so the ideal place for us to go if we had a choice is not a place without a state but a place free from coercion - which Somalia certainly is not. The other options are Bir Tawil, Hala'ib Triangle, or Marie Byrd Land. Seeing that those places are either a barren desert or frozen wasteland they don't really offer much in the way of sustaining human life. Maybe we can start a bitcoin mining facility run by solar energy. . I found Rothbard's words quite compelling, I would be interested in seeing the post in which you argued this to see if I had read it and if so why it didn't give me the pause I'm experiencing now.

My opinion, people who don't listen through reason will only change through personal experience. I was told growing up you can learn the easy way, or the hard way. You can listen to those with experience, knowledge, and just authority, or you can go through the pain yourself. Since people who listen to reason are in the vast minority, I think a cataclysm is necessary for change, and at this point almost certainly unavoidable.

I see what you mean. Well phrased I might add.

I think you're statement is correct from a determinist position, however couldn't the argument be made that the determinist himself can't hold people responsible and be consistent with his own determinist position?

To me, it makes no sense to hold moral ideals above one's own existence because without that existence one has no capacity to be moral. Plus the coercive agent is the initiator of force without which you would never participate in the immorality he has generated, which removes any culpability from you. If someone mugs you, he is responsible for the coercion and theft; he is responsible for what he uses the money for, not you. Paying your taxes under threat of force is the same in that regard. Voting is giving the mugger the gun and the social reinforcement that there will be no consequences for his immorality (to a certain extent).

Lol

I was raised Christian -church twice a week / private Christian school from the age of 7-14 / missions trips / the whole 9 - and from my experience of what christians say they believe this should be a helpful tool to convince them not to circumcise if they do it for religious reasons. That being said I'm not sure how many of them are doing it because they think they are supposed to via religious fiat or if they just use that as an excuse to harm their children. You'd think the risk of organ loss and even death would dissuade them but it still happens in ridiculous numbers. I have to believe it is a lack of pertinent information and surplus of obfuscation that perpetuates this horror. Perhaps starting a group that satirically supports female genital mutilation in order to garner mainstream media attention could get the information out?

For me, I have some weakness for the self defense argument. I've made the argument against it before based on the fact that you are unleashing an unknown amount of force (that certainly isn't 0) on unknown targets (innocent or guilty) with an unknown outcome of whether or not you'll actually defend yourself. I think this nullifies the use of voting (for rulers) as a proper tool for self defense, however if this is the case then the against me argument should be applied to pro-Trump anarchists.... hence my emotional weakness to find a way to accept the self defense argument and my concomitant fervor in attempting to change the minds of people I wish to retain in my life.

The state says pay up or we impose a negative. Payment guarantees relief from the imposed negative. There is no such agreement with voting for a politician, no way to guarantee relief for an imposed negative, nor knowledge of what that negative will be, nor knowledge of what consequences the action of voting will have in ameliorating or exacerbating negative consequences either the ourselves or others. I understand the argument that they both support and perpetuate the state, but it is my argument that the absence of knowledge and presence of choice in regards to voting makes us ethically liable where the presence of knowledge and absence of choice in regards to taxes relieves us of moral responsibility.

Haha, thanks man

And from whom did God receive on loan his consciousness?

How does Stef have millions of listeners?