Tyler H

I think you're right, it doesn't matter whether A or B committed the single stabbing action without which the victim would have survived. Both A and B are responsible, as far as society is concerned, for the death of C and therefore subject to the consequences that society will impose. This is my meaning of shared responsibility, not for actions but for results and consequences. No need to apologize, I find it all relevant and interesting - although now I've developed a curiosity for that conversation I'm afraid will never be sated, so never mind I'll accept the apology, lol just kidding. Perhaps someone will see this and know what thread or argument you were referencing. Anyways, I think I agree with the statements herein. Right, I think we agree here as well. I should refine the thought experiment to specify the conceptualization of that society being removed, I didn't mean implicate the removal of all the people. But as far as assigning blame and consequences for an immoral act I still think the idea is useful. Thank you very much for the kind words! Yes, once again I agree.

Now that you mention it I remember that.

I was pretty confused by that first sentence for a moment because until now I had assumed you were a guy, lol.

So empirical evidence of the immorality of government, the corruption inherent within all positions of power, that using violence to solve problems has the opposite result of its stated goal, that the government cannot be changed from within the system - evidence argued on this show for a decade - is all overturned by "empirical evidence" that Trump is different, Trump is a possibility, Trump is a maybe? You have no empirical evidence Trump will save the west. You have no empirical evidence Trump will accomplish a single stated goal as president. You have no empirical evidence. You have a lesser evil, you have a successful businessman who has participated in the corrupt system we fight against, and you have a power seeker's rhetoric. You may be right in the end, but don't feign to stand on empirical evidence and don't level the accusation of fool simply because of your failure to effectively communicate the truth value of your position. Either we are fools and you are a fool as well to try to convince us of a reasoned position, or we are not fools and you are trying to ridicule and belittle us for the purpose of either bullying us into your position or virtue signaling to people who already hold your view. Either way does not make you look good. We stand against the tide because we believe it is the right thing to do. Make your arguments, let us make ours and let us all be open to correction, otherwise you are no better than some self-righteous, ignorant SJW shouting down the opposition and manipulating people to serve your own needs. I dare say you are better than that.

Sorry I was unclear, the analogy was less a statement of my argument and more a question as to whether or not that was the view you held that absolved voters of responsibility. I can see that it was not and thank you for pointing out the false analogy. So then let me try again to see if I understand what you are saying - because the voters are not literally in direct control of the outcome of an election or the decisions and/or actions of the politicians they are not responsible? Perhaps we are arguing two different concepts here (or perhaps I have separated them in error); I think you are arguing over responsibility for actions and I am arguing over responsibility for the result. Certainly A and B are responsible for their own stabbing action, but who is responsible for the death of C? Thanks for pointing out the fallacies, I think you're right and I need to back up a bit. In the case of the murderous society, I mixed a couple concepts, the first being does responsibility exist here at all? What capacity for choice and therefore responsibility does someone have if he has grown up in the type of society that condones murder based on unanimity? We recognize that traumatized children are responsible as adults today because they would have to actively avoid information that would grant them moral agency, but to what degree would this information be available in this kind of fictional society? Second, if we do ascribe them moral agency, then who is to blame for the murder? The responsibility of the action is certainly the murderer's alone because he is the only one that controls his body, but the society plays a salient role in the resulting murder. An interesting thought experiment that just occurred to me is to place yourself in the shoes of the victim, would you rather remove the murderer, or the society demanding the murder? Yes, I remember that! Thank you for reminding me. I couldn't agree more. Also, I quite enjoy the mental workout so thank you for being a challenging and enjoyable interlocutor.

I will admit the evidence points to uncertainty in regards to Trump's presidency, however none of this "new evidence" overturns the major tenet (once?)supported by many in this community that using the initiation of force to solve complex social problems is immoral, ineffective, unpredictable in scope, and pernicious if not promptly injurious. No, I will not do your research for you. I will say this however. While you were busy creating a life for yourself, Stefan was busy trying to save it. Do you think it's unreasonable for a man who is running a business and raising three children to ask some questions to see if someone is willing to offer up a synopsis before pouring over hundreds of hours of content? I don't. I also don't think you have any real interest in helping people reach the truth. The question wasn't directed at you so if you didn't want to explain the position all you had to do was not say anything. @ELD - Totally awesome that you went out into the world at significant risk to your own financial well being and created enough wealth to support over twenty people. Totally awesome that you brought three rational thinkers into the world.

Yes, I think I better understand the debt created, but maybe not the allocation of responsibility, let me know. The thief, by presenting the credible threat against the store-owner's life and property, has taken control of said life and property, therefore creating the illegitimate debt. The store owner is justified in his response given it is the only response available to him to settle the imbalance. Since the injury to the innocent bystander was a product of this settlement, it is the responsibility of the thief for it was he that initiated the imbalance. Have I got it? So, morally speaking, as voters we are the store clerks. Having already been initiated against, if we fire back and harm someone other than the offending target then the responsibility lies with the initiator. I guess the question is - is voting for political office the approximate equivalent of firing back at an intruder, or firebombing the entire store (in essence endangering more innocent people), or somewhere in between? And how inappropriate must the store clerk's response be to ascribe some responsibility to him? I think this may be what you were referring to with the candy bar and the car. I have to continue to disagree and say that the responsibility is not actually yours alone. Without the input of society you would have no knowledge of ethics, language, or how to rub two sticks together to stay warm. If all of society were to condone the killing of someone then why would you oppose this? In fact, it may be in your best interest to go along because if you do not you may be the next poor soul to suffer from their psychopathy. So obviously this world strips you of your choice to some extent, and perhaps ethics and responsibility are impossible to apply. Perhaps we need a definition of responsibility. I'll continue to think of how exactly to word what I think it should be, but for now when I think of responsibility and where to ascribe it, I think of all of the factors contributing to the cause. Certainly the societal pressure to murder would lay some responsibility at the feet of the masses, not just the murderer. I think this applies to a hitman's employer, people who cheer wars, bad parents, dog beaters, voters, etc. If my perception of the term responsibility is inaccurate or differs from yours please let me know. What comes to mind is two people stabbing a third person to death, but maybe I've misunderstood. This gave me a lot to think about and really strained my brain! Sorry it took so long to reply.

Yeah, that's true - I'd say we've blown through that tipping point. I agree with the ambiguity of the phrase, and to clarify my position I was just putting forward the scenario as an example of common law assignment of responsibility - not so much a methodology for determining responsibility. I am intrigued by the idea of using property rights and self ownership as part of that methodology though. I didn't quite follow what debt the thief created that pinned him to the murder, could you elaborate? I totally accept that person A cannot be more responsible than person B, but does that remove all responsibility from person A? Maybe I've misunderstood the argument, but can't person A still be less or equally responsible as person B?

Ok, that makes sense. I think we are very much on the same page here then. Yes, I think I may have misrepresented or inaccurately conveyed the proposition. I'll need to think on it to see if I can better articulate the position. I think what we need here is a methodology for determining responsibility. Whatever the methodology for determining ethics (UPB or otherwise), I think it is different for determining responsibility. Of course if there is a gun to your head (a binding instance) you are not responsible for your actions, but there are other precedents for assigning responsibility to those who did not commit the act themselves. For instance there is the scenario where a thief robs a store, the clerk defends the store with a firearm, shoots, misses and kills a customer, but the thief is charged with the murder. The thief is held responsible for the murder because he set the events into motion. Of course there are also the cases of hitmen and the people who hire them, people who incite riots, accomplices to murder, etc. Obviously just because these represent the status quo does not make them objectively correct, but I think it is a decent place to start when determining a methodology for responsibility. I'd also like to add that, after making sound arguments, Stef laid the bodies of dead Iraqi children at the feet of those who cheered on the war in Iraq, and rightly so. If they are responsible, then I think we can say the voters who elected Bush are responsible, and if the voters who elected Bush are responsible then anyone who votes for elected office is partially responsible for the crimes committed by the politician they elect.

If you accept there is no corruption in the electoral process then I think you have to also accept that in aggregate voting matters because it does determine the elected officials and therefore has an effect on policy. However I do think, and I could be wrong, the argument was that your individual vote doesn't matter, for which there is ample evidence. The odds range from 1 in 6,000 to the astronomical (i.e. the equivalent to winning the lottery multiple times in a row) depending on your state. A swing state vote will matter more than a vote in CA, MA, or NY. And of course there is always the wildcard of the electoral college... I personally find it incredibly hard to believe there aren't serious forces at work to sway the election in favor of those in power. The only reason I don't believe it's completely fixed is that they wouldn't need to import all the third worlders if it were so.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by binding here, but from what I remember of UPB, immoral actions were actions that required the use of force to defend yourself against. If you tell someone to murder another person then you are complicit in that murder and have violated the NAP even if you didn't commit the action, no? I don't see a difference between handing someone a gun and telling them they they have your approval to steal, kidnap and murder and voting. I didn't think it was in reference to the existence of the position but for putting any one individual intuit position. If 50 million people vote for a candidate and that candidate wins and goes on to commit war crimes I don't see how any one person who voted for that candidate is not 1/50 millionth responsible for those crimes. The sheeple can plead ignorance, however I do not believe we have that excuse. Of course, but you never know who the next Hitler is. If one of the current candidates were to please Hitler's shade I would bet on Hillary, but the point is you don't know what crimes they will commit. And it doesn't have to be on the level of Hitler - considering the position helms the giant ship of force, whoever holds the position will undoubtedly violate the principles we advocate.

I watched that video when you posted it in the other thread, one criticism I had was that you can't run the voting system we have through UPB. You can run voting through UPB, but it's too specific to say the type of voting; like the "no fish on Fridays" example. Whether the act of voting is immoral or not depends on what is being voted for and the degree to which the results are adhered to. I'll have to rewatch and hash out my thoughts, but I thought I'd get some down now and see what you thought.

Probably not since they have no objection to using violence to impose their perverse ideology. Although they might object to it once they are in power... I thought the moral argument against voting put forth in the Anarchist Roundtable (Podcast FDR953, 41 minutes in) by Wendy McElroy was valid. Stef agreed to it and I haven't heard him state otherwise. I accepted this argument as well and this is the reason why I argue against voting.

You're too predictable. Someone disagrees with you and you immediately start with the insults, accusing them of the exact same behavior you're exhibiting. All I know is that I tried having an honest conversation with you, as honestly as I could, and all I got in return is obfuscation to put it mildly. Thanks for proving my point. Are you going to show any evidence to support your accusations? I didn't see any in the statement you quoted. I do however see evidence of projection on your part. Do you recognize the degree to which your language is passive aggressive and insulting?

BCF - "Big Chatty Forehead"

No, I don't think it does. Efficacy and responsibility are in separate categories. Just because your involvement in a system is unlikely to alter the outcome of that system in any practical way does not absolve you of responsibilities for your actions inside of that system. Joining the military is unlikely to alter the outcome of any given conflict, but you're still responsible for the moral crimes you commit as a soldier because the choice was yours to participate knowing what was likely to be asked of you. Also, your vote is not completely insignificant, but practically insignificant. Whoever gets elected is president as a result of their voters/supporters. They will undoubtedly violate the non-aggression principle and each voter will share that responsibility for putting them in a position of power such as the presidency of the United States. You can't control what happens in aggregate but you can control your actions. If a thousand people line up and kick some guy in the head, being the one-thousandth-and-one will most likely not determine the final condition of this poor man's health (or lack thereof). If you are forced to follow suit that is one thing, but, if you have the option not to, why participate? No, but if we are going to champion morality we need to set the example. I think this is dependent on each person and each situation, a decision each of us has to make. What about the 5%? What about people in this community? There are people from all corners of the globe here. What if your vote gets your politician elected and that politician is instrumental in starting a war that gets someone here killed? Even if it is just 1/50 millionth justified by some stretched meaning of self defense, do you want that thought plaguing your subconscious? This is my concern and what I meant about "if I'm right". I think there are moral implications to voting in a coercive system, and I know there are people here who care about whether or not they are acting morally. If I'm right then maybe I can help someone avoid making a decision that they will later regret, and if I'm wrong then a handful of anarchists didn't vote and the same candidate will get into office. t resembles a sort of "Pascal's wager" but I think it's a valid consideration. I'm not trying to change the minds of any statists, I am only concerned about people in this community who hold virtue and truth as core principles. I could absolutely be wrong, but as long as I believe that I am right I am going to argue for the sake of your integrity. That's my reason. I have experienced our discourse as a mutual pursuit of truth, and have quite enjoyed it. If you're experience has been different I welcome suggestions on how I can communicate more clearly. Whether I am right or wrong my intent is that this debate will produce two winners, not one.

If there is a gun pointed at you then everything you do is forced, so I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean that because we live in a general state of coercion that everything we do is at the point of a gun I have to disagree. We are forced to pay taxes and we are forced to obey arbitrary laws, but for the most part we are free to make many choices in our lives. You can't equate eating with voting, food is necessary for survival, voting (currently) is not. I don't. Is Trump unprecedented? Yes. Is there a good possibility Trump will be a completely different kind of president? Sure. What does this have to do with the efficacy and morality of voting? Nothing. The state is immoral, and the idea that a majority can enforce it's will on the minority is immoral. So we know that voting is immoral, but, as victims of the state, voting in self defense can be argued. So while self defense can be arguably justified, the question for me remains - why take part in an immoral system when your vote will have practically no effect on the outcome? If whether you vote or not will have no effect on who wins, then the only difference I see between voting and not voting is the fraction of responsibility taken on for the crimes of the official you help put into power (if he wins). My point is that you don't know what trajectory is going to cause the most harm to malefactors and the least harm to innocents, and you may inadvertently achieve the opposite of your intention. Not to mention (I hate this phrase but I'm unaware of another that conveys its colloquial meaning) that once the grenade is in the air wind gusts may alter the trajectory that negate any knowledge you thought you had of where it would land while retaining your culpability for throwing it. The downside is my responsibility in the possible (and likely) growth in government power that has occurred no matter who has been president since the beginning of the republic and the harm that will undoubtedly occur no matter who is elected. I can't support your right to vote since I don't recognize the imposition of the will of the majority onto the minority as moral, but I do support your right (for lack of a better term) to self defense. Conversely, I personally see no reason to vote given our moral position regarding the validity of the entire institution and the efficacy of voting to reduce government coercion and power. I argue against voting because if I'm right then there are moral implications for people in this community I want them to be aware of. If I'm wrong nothing changes.

What I said about not using force was only in reference to the freedom of your choice in regards to where you allocate your resources, nothing else. Resorting to ad-hominem attacks and sarcasm only speaks to your emotional attachment to this issue. This is no longer a debate.

Yeah, currently it is a hedge against inflation, but if things get so bad that they take it then there wouldnt have been any way to protect your wealth anyways.

Physical gold and silver, get it in your hands. I think whatever you pay to get it it will be less than its real value due to the paper slips you mentioned. They've basically fractionally reserved gold so when those debts are called in and they don't have the gold to give people the actual supply/demand curve of gold will be realized and the price will skyrocket. Lol, gross.

Tom Woods - 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask

Yeah, I think a Trump victory will almost certainly ensure the Fed will stop artificially inflating the bubble and let it pop on his watch. Fortunately this may actually trigger the withdrawal symptoms of monetary heroine and the economy can actually start to heal. But yeah it'll be a rocky few months, maybe a year. Food, water, gold and silver - these will be my investments.

Unknown negative* consequences, sorry. It's an important distinction, thank you for pointing it out. Do we agree that problems solved through the initiation of force almost always have unforeseen negative consequences? Or perhaps foreseen, but almost always negative in the long run.....

Charities don't use force, if they did they would be called welfare. There is disagreement here on the board but I argue that taxation is different than voting because there is an outlined and known risk of evading taxes, on the contrary no one forces you to vote. I don't think unknown consequences of the opposing politician's policies is equal to going to jail for not paying taxes, especially when the effect your vote has is so inconsequential. Also I believe you're right that taxation is more immoral because the agent of evil is forcing someone who holds morality as a value to participate in immorality or face persecution. More immoral for the tax collector, not the victim. This is what makes voting so muddy, you can claim self defense if the politician is going to lower your tax burden, but at what cost? His other policies may include the murder of hundreds of thousands of people. That's why I equate voting as self defense to using a hand grenade in a crowd of people. Maybe I should refine it to a crowd of people in the dark where you can hear some gunshots and you just lob a grenade in that direction. The gun of the state is a fickle bitch that often goes off in your face.