Infinite Limit

As many of you are probably aware, Porter Robinson once released a dubstep track titled "The State", which featured lyrics directly quoted of Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty. YouTube video: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=npfdrO1Dp6A The section that Porter quotes (from the audio book read by Jeff Riggenbach) mentions how taxation is mass robbery, how the state operates by coercion and violence with the direct threat of confiscation and imprisonment, and a bit more. A few days ago, Excision and Pegboard Nerds posted a song titled "Bring the Madness". The lyrics and song are posted below, but they seem to make references to the NSA and police state ("cameras that capture your image at City Hall, realize they listen whenever you make a call"), the illusion of political freedom ("Strength is the army that bands against bands of dead presidents determining life of man"), the scam of fiat currency ("greed got us bleeding in streets for cheap paper"), and others. What also struck out was the line "take back the Atlas", which, while it seems a bit out of context, has a double meaning either of the world and the Greek god or of the world and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Considering I'm still in the middle of reading it, I am not sure, but it was the first part, besides "government racket", that led me to see libertarian themes. Thoughts? http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8dZDdW7v4Q8 https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Excision-Pegboard-Nerds-feat-Mayor-Apeshit/Bring-the-Madness

What I never could figure out is why statists use the human nature argument to justify the state while completely ignoring the fact that their human nature claim also applies to those in the state. If humanity is inherently evil/irrational (ignoring the lack of evidence for this assertion), and this is used to dismiss a free society, then by the same standard, we must also reject any and all forms of government because governments are nothing more than a minority of humans.

The state drives innovation like religion drives morality: into the ground.

The Stockholm Syndrome...it hurts.

You mean I have to choose between two sheep? What kind of sick beastiality fetish is this?

"The findings will strengthen the case of those who argue that more coercive methods are needed if people’s energy consumption is to be reduced." Hypocrisy being used to prop up a defunct philosophy? Really? This wonderful piece of ad hominem by projection seems to go a little something like this: 1. I subscribe to an ideology called environmentalism. 2. I won't follow my own stated ideology. 3. Therefore, no one can follow this ideology voluntarily. 4. But my ideology is good because I say so! 5. Therefore, everyone should be forced to follow my ideology.

Ah yes, bullshit buzzwords: the fallacy with the inclusiveness of the mafia, the empathy of Joseph Stalin, and the emotional maturity of Honey Booboo!Jokes aside, I've actually tried this with mixed results and continue to do so. Most of the time, when I point out their fallacious and deceptive use of buzzwords like "we", "our society", and other collective classics, the people I'm "conversing" with get defensive, interrupt me, and claim I'm getting too worked up with "lexical definitions" rather than addressing their "argument", which usually involves them attacking a straw man and appealing to relativism before I get a chance to explain that they are associating themselves and I with sadistic psychopaths. The few people that actually listen to the explanation are those that are slowly reasoning their way to the conclusions of libertarianism. Of course, while this probably speaks more to the people I surround myself with, it is definitely useful in understanding what emotional level people are at. But be prepared for defensiveness.

This so much. It's like attempting to assign a probability to the existence of square circles. Considering square circles are logically self-contradictory, you don't need to delve into mathematics to know the probability is 0 (i.e. impossible). In fact, the very act of arguing from probability gives the false impression that logically self-contradictory concepts are worth investigating beyond the first logical step. But there is another, far worse problem with using probability. If you use an argument from probability, as Kevin pointed out, you've already erroneously acknowledged the possibility of a god because probability analysis assumes internal consistency in whatever you're analyzing. Then you have to complete the (logically) insurmountable task of developing a valid framework for determining such a probability. Base rates (which most probability analysis depends on) for the existence of god cannot possibly be calculated because base rates are derived directly from observation.In other words, particularly with Bayesian probability analysis, the argument from probability allows the religious to pull numbers, equations, and base rates out of their asses to tip the scales in their favor because those numbers, base rates, and equations cannot be objective because they aren't falsifiable. Stephen Unwin attempted (unsuccessfully) to do this in a book titled "The Probability of God". He assumed a base rate of 50% to mean total ignorance about god's existence and assigned arbitrary multipliers regarding the likelihood of god existing given that moral goodness, moral evil, natural evil, religious miracles, and other concepts to arrive at the conclusion that the probability of god existing is 67%. This implies that ignorance can have anything to do with the principles of existence and that a base rate can be based on ignorance and the impossibility of direct observation. At best, Unwin has wasted his time.Although you can use probability to discuss the infinitesimally small probability that any individual god from any given religion could exist, I would not employ that as your main argument. As Kevin stated, the strong atheist position is far more consistent and valid (and saves you far more time lol).

Saw this in my Facebook news feed and facepalmed, especially since the person who shared it was a guy. You know the propaganda has overwhelmingly succeeded in brainwashing when men are openly lining up to bear the burden of women's bad decisions because "white male privilege" in the Supreme Court. The shitty part is that one mandate in Obamacare was overturned because people irrationally believe in sky ghosts more than property rights and the NAP.

Yes, the government does that to us, so it is responsible regardless of whether we can resist. If we can't resist without irreparable damage to ourselves and loved ones, then we cannot be responsible. But in order to be honest, we must acknowledge that we are afraid to resist. If we can effectively resist or avoid taxation and choose not to, then we continue to endanger everyone around us while supporting theft and murder and can be held at least somewhat resposnible because you are knowingly providing support to criminals when you could avoid doing so. Providing monetary support to a criminal is acting as an accomplice or enabler if you can effectively avoid or resist doing so (i.e. without getting yourself killed). You can choose to be extorted yourself, but you cannot choose to help extort, steal from, or kill others as a result. Regarding the inevitable immortality, you're right. I misspoke. What I should have said is that he is forced into an amoral situation. Although I agree that the government is ultimately responsible for all of the events that follow, I still don't see how Joe could at all be responsible for people he kills because the government can and will imprison, torture, or kill him.Regarding a draft, I really don't know what I would do. My gut tells me that I would resist or leave, but I honestly don't know.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?referrer= Let's play the closet Keynesian drinking game! Take a drink every time you spot a fallacy!

Moral decisions are not always possible, and by making exceptions for insanity and lack of physical control of oneself, you seem to agree with this. The degree to which morality is relevant depends on what choices we can actually make and the extent to which we can avoid certain actions. A baby cannot be responsible for kicking his mother on impulse because a baby has little to no control over his actions. A baby does not have a sufficiently developed brain, does not know how to meet his needs, does not exist by choice or choose his family, and is entirely at the mercy of his parents. Likewise, because we do not consent to be taxed and cannot effectively resist or avoid being taxed, we cannot be held responsible for what the government does, even though we are forced to fund it. We can certainly attempt to resist, even violently, and we would certainly be justified. However, we would likely get ourselves killed, endanger our loved ones or friends who had nothing to do with our resistance, and potentially destroy any chance of a free society ever returning. Therefore, we are caught in a situation where a not immoral (let alone moral) decision is impossible. Either we continue to submit out of fear and fund all the crimes inherent to government, or we resist with no reasonable chance of success and get kidnapped, tortured, and/or murdered. As a result, we also break all promises and contracts we voluntarily entered into, which effectively means we stole from others, especially those who have children or other dependents. We cannot avoid supporting evil, but the people collectively referred to as government can and should.This argument is the exact same regarding a draft. Given the choice, Joe would not have fought in a war and kill others, which is why the government forcibly conscripted Joe and others to begin with. Otherwise, the draft would be unnecessary. Yes, Joe could desert the military before killing anyone, but he would likely never see his family again, be permanently in exile, and stuck in an unfamiliar culture assuming the government couldn't find him, which would be the best case scenario. No matter what Joe does, he endangers other people. But the government (or Steve) is fully responsible for this, not Joe.As Brentb pointed out, responsibility requires a voluntary agreement between at least two parties. What voluntary agreement is present here?Of course, if Joe could reasonably avoid the draft and chose not to, he would be responsible to some degree for what he does in the war.

Just to clarify, and correct me if I am wrong, murder is defined as ending another person's life without their consent, either by physically killing him or directly setting in motion the events that lead to his death. Therefore, it is an initiation of force, making it immoral. If a man acts on his own to murder, then he is obviously the only one responsible. If a group of men work together voluntarily to murder, then they are all equally responsible because, like the man who works alone, they own themselves, and are responsible for their actions and the effects of their actions if they have not been forced to murder. The same is true when one man orders another to do his dirty work. If Joe voluntarily joins a group or chooses to serve under Steve (without any coercion, especially from Steve or the group), knowing that he will likely have to attack and kill people who pose no threat to him, then Steve and Joe are equally responsible because both could have acted differently and avoided the murder. Steve could have not ordered the murder, and Joe did not have to enable it. However, if Joe was forced to serve Steve (in the case of conscription for example), then Joe is in a position where no moral decision can be made if he cannot resist Steve without getting himself or those he cares about killed. Joe either kills others on Steve's behalf, or he gets killed. In such a case, Steve assumes all responsibility because he has not been coerced into murder while Joe has. Propaganda or irrationality on the part of Joe, if he acts voluntarily, does not excuse his role in such a murder because, as a human, he has the capacity to reason and identify lies and, as a result, know that murder is immoral. Although Steve would be responsible for both the lies of his propaganda and the murder, Joe is also responsible for the murder because he could have avoided serving Steve by using reason. As a side note, this argument is exactly the same for soldiers and governments. The soldier, assuming he wasn't conscripted, is just as responsible for the people he kills on behalf of the government, and no amount of "I was just following orders" refutes this because he chose to join the military knowing that it murders and coerces people for money and power. This is also why there is no such thing as a good soldier or cop, even if they aren't directly involved in killing or coercing, because they are providing more support to a violent system than they have to. They can't avoid paying taxes. They can avoid enlisting.

"Only God can judge me" is an attempt by someone who feels guilty about an immoral act he has committed to shift the blame from himself to others, especially when they openly and rationally condemn him. Rather than accept responsibility for his actions, he wants to wish it away by accepting that he is to blame while simultaneously blaming others for describing his past. Without delving any further, this is already a blatant contradiction because if only God can judge him, there is no reason why that shouldn't be applied universally, especially, although not necessarily, if he accepts that every person is equally morally responsible. Therefore, he cannot rationally judge others for judging him, and morality as a whole breaks down despite accepting the validity of morality. This doesn't even account for the fact that gods are defined with self-contradictory characteristics and, as a result, cannot exist. Thus, his claim that only God can judge him breaks down to, "No one can judge me," which also breaks down to, "It is universally preferable that no one describes anyone's actions using universally preferable behavior." The intentions of this are to not only shift responsibility, but also to avoid justice (i.e. paying restitution, returning stolen property, etc.).

This would seem like a lifeboat scenario, but considering how often this likely occurs, I doubt my feeling on this is valid. Still, it makes far more sense to look at the source of coercion and understand prevention rather than a cure. Compulsory education violates the NAP as does violent parenting. Anyway, important to understand is that in the troubled child's life, at least two sources of coercion exist. The first is her dysfunctional and abusive family, and the second is the government indoctrination center we all know and despise. In both cases the child acting out is a result of horrible parents and a lack of any source of empathy. Although both are responsible for their actions (as they have some capacity for free will, the high school student more so than the kindergartener), it scarcely makes sense to use violence to stop a behavior caused by repeated violence unless the child is immediately threatening further harm and no other option exists to prevent the child. I would probably start by making sure the student who was hit was okay first, but I am not totally sure, nor is it the point I'm trying to make. It would be immoral to hit the child or high school student back if she is no longer threatening or pursuing violence because that still constitutes an initiation of force.And sorry for the late replies. Work is keeping me busy. I will try to address all comments directed my way when I can