m.j.

Well, both Chomsky and Harris are far away from the 'regular people'. They are both deeply educated and they are researching all their lives. I mean, it could be possible that the Jewish aspect in both of them plays a role like Molyneux explained in a podcast from many year ago, where he offered a possibility that their judgments are a consequence of a Jewish model of taking care about the members of the tribe and he also mentioned that many Soviet intellectuals were Jews as well. If that's the case, their thinking is unimportant because it is biased by the local cultures, but if it is not, if there is some argument that Molyneux lost, it would be very important to have this debate. But, if you read the email chain i linked 2 posts ago between Chomsky and Harris, it seems they are still in the phase where monkeys shout at each other before the fight. It is sad how we can not make, sometimes, smart people talk and collaborate.

NEWS, NEWS, NEWS!!! Harris and Chomsky failed to organize a debate, but at least, Harris published a private email exchange between the two attempting to explain why they can not engage in any rational public discussion. You can find it here: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse

My assumption of 1 million per day was not arbitrary. It was the assumption of what is fair. There are methods and formulas in the insurance companies that consider many real facts from the life and career of the evaluated subject. Say, in the last 10 years, prior to the unjust arrest, he was creating 365 millions per year, with the stable trend. In reality the insurance company criteria is more complex, but for the sake of this example, let us limit it to this. So, he was in prison unable to continue with his trend, and very probably he would have created the same amount if he was free. So, this is, for my example the definition of fair for this person. The citizens of this country subject to this constitution might like the freedom, etc... but still they are practical people. Evidently some burocrat, made a mistake, so the mistake was private, but the toll was socialized to everybody, because the state must issue the restitution and the budget might not be enough to cover it. This, among other deviations, is inevitable in the minarchist society, because there are still mechanisms for mandatory taxes. In anarchist society, the DROs knowing they can never rely on any mandatory tax, would have to think about this problem ahead of the times and they would issue a clause in their contracts on what is the maximum possible restitution. In the anarchist society, there can not exist the absolute term, fair. There would always be some real world limits, or the DRO would fall into bankruptcy. But only some particular DROs, never the entire society, because there are no damage distribution mechanisms like in minarchy. This is the key difference. Minarchy is a logically not consistent system. Now, you may say that in the Laws section of Liberland, the term 'fair' could be made more accurate, and some real world limits could be introduced, but this is the beginning of the nightmare. If the constitution is already imperfect, everything else is subject to deterioration. There is a good saying in science "less is known is a specific science domain and more there are books about it", while for the Newtonian physics, one single text book is enough, because we know all about it. I see, even in this constitution, the symptoms of this. For example, there are several reactive paragraphs, like the state can not bail out the broken companies etc... there is a long list of particular cases. Why? Because it is attempting not to repeat the mistakes from the current states. Very honorable, but this should not be right approach. The constitution should list the philosophical principles and that's it. Like the explanation of the ownership of one's body, mind and the actions of one's mind and body etc... It is relatively easy to derive from there that nobody can bail out anyone with force, because it would negate principle of self-ownership. It is redundant to put into constitution the consequences of the first principles. At best this could be put into the Laws section, just to make it more usable, like the mathematical theorems. They exist only as the shortcuts to solve some practical problems, because it is very very long to start from the axioms every time. But, in this case the theorems (or the laws) are not helping axioms (the constitution) to become valid, but only to be more efficient in applying the constitution.

I just found the news on Twitter that Sam Harris is seeking Chomsky for a debate: Sam Harris @SamHarrisOrg · Apr 23 I'm trying to arrange a debate with Noam Chomsky on foreign policy, terrorism, religion, etc. Please RT if you want that to happen. It is very interesting the triangle Chomsky - Harris - Molyneux. Chomsky had 2 podcasts with Molyneux, but there was no confrontation, so it was quite boring. I find very important to face all 3 of them, separately or together, as long as they talk. Now, I understand why this is not so easy to happen, Harris explained how he was disappointed after a 3 hours debate with Cenk Uygur, that he was treating him badly, if not worse, after their debate. So, when Harris is saying 'statism is uninteresting' he means that it is not even worth talking about it. Does not mean he is right, but this is his mind state. So, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, push Harris as much you can, by writing to him, twitting to him that we want this debate. For Chomsky - Molyneux, i would still quote Chomsky on his position on anarcho-capitalism from his interview you can find here: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm 5. Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others. Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it? Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else. I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings. I asked myself several times why do I care so much about seeing a debate with 3 of them. Apparently, sounds like i am looking for the opinion of the authority to comply with, like the arguments given so far were not enough etc.. But the situation is more complex than this. First of all, all these things are far from simple, and as Molyneux said in one of the recent podcasts (29xx) it is very wise to challenge the new ideas, because socialists and communists were also promising the paradise on Earth, and we ended up with hundreds of millions of killed people. So, is anarco capitalism really going to be the next good thing we all need? I still do not know. Now, none of the 3 is stupid, the triangle C - H - M is composed of 3 extraordinarily brilliant people, and may be there is some argument that one had that the other one missed. Changing societies is the most important thing in the world, we can not easily accept this. I feel quite frustrated how come 3 so intelligent people, without some apparent agenda, can be so diametrically opposed. I ask myself, what didn't i get if so smart brains are not able to grasp. Neither Chomsky, nor Harris, apparently had bad childhoods. They do not seem to be the victims of some early trauma, so why do they think what they think? I mean, they are not just mildly in disagreement with anarco-capitalism, one is using words like 'preposterous and imbecil', the other one is using the word 'worst possible tyranny'.

Very interesting initiative. I honestly do not know what is the level of realism for all this, but it is very educational to simply follow and comment the entire evolution of it, no matter how it will end. I personally have very little faith anything more than just a provocation will happen, mainly because 7 square kilometers of the land constantly reshaped by the river Danube in that part of the world, does not even guarantee the territorial integrity. It is not an accident that this zone is not populated. Secondly, so far Serbia and Croatia did not agree on this piece of land, because it has very little value for any side, but now that is claimed by these 'crazy minarchists' it will suddenly become of strategic importance for both, and more the Liberland founding fathers will insist on this, and bigger the reaction of the neighboring states will be. It will become one of the old statist sad songs: "foreigners are steeling our territory defended by our grandfathers, this is adding instability in the region and bla, bla, bla". The economies of both neighbors are terrible, so any distraction from the real problems is useful for the politicians. I read the constitution of this, may be to be born country. It is the 'classical' minarchist approach, a minimal state. I am not a lawyer, but any person with some educational background should be able to understand it, and it is very short. There are several very good things inside, but all this reminded me about the anecdote of the german mathematician Kurt Godel the day he was giving oath to become USA citizen. His friend Einstein was begging him not to emphasize the logical contradictions of the US constitution to the burocrat, but it was stronger than him. I am saying this, because minimal state is the contradiction in terms, minarchists are, as we know well, the non consistent anarchists. There are various way to prove this, let me illustrate this with couple of paragraphs from Liberland's constitution: Legislative power: §15. Any Bill proposing taxation and/or taxation-like burdens shall be subject to the mandatory referendum to take place within ninety days after the Bill was passed by the Assembly, and shall be deemed to be vetoed if the majority of the Citizens taking part the in that referendum vote ‘No’. Bill of rights: §32. A person who has been arrested, detained, imprisoned, tried, or sentenced either illegally or in error shall receive fair restitution. So, let us examine that a very rich person gets arrested and every day of non liberty costs him 1 million monetary units. After one year, the justice system may recognize he was detained per mistake, so his just restitution is 365 milions. This would almost certainly provoke the increase of taxes and therefore a mandatory referendum must be invoked. It is very likely citizens will say 'No', so Liberland enters the condition that can not be solved. Either it imposes the 365 milion to everybody, but than it is in contrast with the paragraph 15 or it gives a considerable subset of the fair restitution and therefore it is in contrast with chapter 32. What would happen? Well, some strange new ad hoc bill would be created to cover up this illogical situation, and it would be just the first one in the long series that would transform the small state into the monster state, like it always happen. So, dear minarchists, please pay attention to this, only anarchist solution is imune to this problem. In the anarchic society, the DRO or its equivalent would promise certain restitution but only within its own budgets and would never be able to promise something vague like 'fair restitution'. In this world, there are no infinite money budgets, and anarchy knows this. Anyway, i support the idea of Liberland, i think it deserves at least one podcast show, to spread the information about new interesting initiative. It will fail, but so what, throwing the sand in the eyes of the traditional states is always useful, just to let them know different thinking people exist.

Sam Harris has published a new podcast "Ask Me Anything #1". You can find it here: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/ask-me-anything-1 The question on anarchy starts at 20 min 12 sec on the SoundCloud. When I find some time i will put the entire transcript, but here are just the pills in his style. Which makes me think, again, there are very slim chances of a debate ever between Molyneux and Harris. Here are some fragments from Sam's podcast: - "This whole business about statism, I find profoundly uninteresting, ..." - "To compare a powerful state per se with the problem of religion is just to make a hash of everything that is important to talk about here. And the idea that we can do without a powerful state at this point is just preposterous, so if you are an anarchist, you are either 50 or 100 years before your time or you are an imbecil. We need a police, we need a fire department, we need people to pave our roads, we can't privatize all this stuff, and privatizing will get us other problems, ...."

Isn't the philosophical background of the entire FDR show the idea: "Love your friends, but love the truth more". Isn't the whole concept of UPB the difference between what is commonly preferred compared to what is universally preferable?

I appreciate the letter from kirk paolinelli. It deepens the comment I made. It is my week of metaphors. If Stefan continues with apologies of this kind, I predict the next one will come like this: Empirical data: Statistics reveal that in traffic accidents it is 200 times more probable to be killed or injured for the passengers and persons driving their own private cars compared to the ones using public transportation. Stefan: I apologize for not tempering my criticism of Statist doctrines with praise for positive aspects of keeping many innocent people in the jails for virtual crimes like not paying taxes or smoking the pot, so they are away from dangerous streets and at most, they are transported from jail to jail in the jail buses.

I don't understand how stating facts and apologizing for not being aware of certain facts - and taking responsibility for such - is the ends justifying the means or in any way utilitarian. Nobody thinks that Stefan is encouraging people to convert to Christianity. But, it is not rational to apologize to a community that is keeping the families stable by inducing the fear from god. Let us see the following analogy: Let us assume someone did not know about the Nazis and what they did to the people in WWII. Then, he finds the data that they helped reduce the overpopulation of the world by N million. Yes, they did it, but would a sane person apologize to the Nazis saying that he is sorry for not knowing this empirical fact? Yes, they contributed to decrease the overpopulation of the Planet. We all know this was not their goal, but they achieved it and the data is there. The goal of the Christian Churches was never to keep the families stable. Their goal was and is to maintain the control over the humans and they learnt that by controlling human's sexuality is a very powerful way to do so. The problem with Stefan's declaration was the overstatement. Like my example of the Nazis. Apology is the word that can't be used. The more accurate wording would be that Christians have involuntarily contributed to what statistics later revealed to be useful for the family stability. But, by using the word apology, there was a clear condescendence towards Christian communities. If someone wants to defend this position on the show that will not be me. I am not a quick verbal duelist. I am leaving the honor to WasatchMan.

I think i explained. He has a choice between being a hypocrite, which means behaving and thinking differently or trying to explain to everybody in his community the reasons why is he not a religious person any more. First of all his inner family will not accept it. He explained that his wife accepted the Mormon religion simply because she was born into it, which means she prefers the conformity to the community instead of really accepting the ideas. Her motivations are not based on knowledge, so no convincing will help. She will reject the new ideas even if she understood them. She will not change her mind as long as she will stay in that community. Others in the community will have similar reasons. Churches are very good in creating communities, that's why it is so hard to break them. That's why he has to leave. And he has to pay the price by leaving the daughter to his wife, because he has introduced his daughter to the same bad ideas, because the child will be torn between 2 opposite set of ideas. And the world is big, there are not only christians and leftist, there are also other types of persons. He will not remain alone and isolated. Will it be very very hard? Yes it will. But, adults, that have the free will are paying for their mistakes. Costs & Benefits. Sometimes the costs are high.

DISAPPOINTMENT, SUPER SUPER SUPER DISAPPOINTMENT Atheists don't owe any apologies to Christians. I heard the show today and now I know why this show will not last. I remember Molyneux's goal was to make this the best show that would last for centuries. Well, it will not if it continues like this. Stefan, remember your book "How not to achieve freedom" where you were talking about how ineffective or suicidal would be to infiltrate the Mafia to persuade them to become good? Well, you are now suggesting to your listener to do exactly that. It is ALWAYS bad to diagnose the right problems with the bad or random methods. There were many cases in the history of science that the pseudo-scientists made the right conclusions for the totally bad reasons. I do not remember now the name of one astronomer, but he was a very talented one and in the era where it was not known the Solar system's position in our galaxy, this guy concluded that our Sun must be on the periphery of the Milky Way because we are so corrupted people that we can't be close to the center that was considered as virtuous. Can you imagine how the rest of this theory would have evolved had the other astronomers accepted this geniunly stupid idea? Stefan, you are clearly a victim of ethics from pragmatism right now. I can live with the fact that free society will take even centuries to become true, or even never, but the last thing to do to achieve it is to give a hand to the non rational people. Forget about the pragmatism, yes, nobody disagrees that some things Christians got right, but this was purely accidental or due to other pragmatic reasons Christian rulers had. Their goal was and stays to govern the people based on false evidence and by manipulating the basic human needs. Forget about the pragmatism, go back to the Software Industry, make the FDR a hobby again like it was in the beginning, if you can't survive with the donations. I do not know what is motivating you to make this HUGE TURN in your thinking, but please stay on the track. I know it is hard to live knowing that your actions most probably will not change the world during your life, but so what. Humanity took 2000 years to get free from the christianity and we are still not completely free. Certain battles of ideas are very long. Shortcuts are NEVER working. You are now engaging in a dangerous shortcut. I feel for you, I feel for the Mormon guy, I know how is it to be in this situation, it is VERY hard to be ostracized by the community once you understand its fallacy, but this is the burden of the virtue. I really understand why this person lost the appetite and can't sleep. Of course. He woke up from the terrible nightmare. He is feeling like he was diagnosed a cancer, of course, wrong ideas have terrible impact on us, but many persons simply die out of cancer, that is a reality. The Mormon guy can't influence anything in his community, it is a suicide mission. By advising him to go back there is to ask him to be a hypocrite all his life. If his wife will not follow him in leaving religion, so be it. His family should dissolve. The bigger problem obviously is with his child, that is the pure victim of his own. I think he must leave it to the wife, he has to pay the consequence of the wrong choices. He contributed to poison his child's mind and his wife is not willing to leave the religion, so he should leave and they should remain together. Curing the cancer, Stefan, you know it personally, is a very painful process, there are no shortcuts there. So it is with the wrong ideas. You were good so far, but if you continue encouraging people to come back to their religious community once they know their core beliefs are false, is like pushing the people to Mafias's godfathers to fight the system internally.

I was thinking during the last couple of days, after this debate i realized it is very improbable there will ever be a debate between Sam Harris and Stefan Molyneux. I think Harris believes Molyneux is too far away in his vision compared to what is doable in the following years or decades, even if he agreed with his ideas. This is quite true, Molyneux agreed it could take even 1000 years to implement the free society. Therefore in Harris' agenda, this would be a waste of energy. He already has too many opponents even without a huge one he would have acquired in case he engaged in a debate with Molyneux. And actually Sam has a lot of work to do with all the crazy religious lunatics around the world at the point that he does not have time to notice his own religiousity that i call, the ethics from pragmatism, instead from the first principles. And this, unfortunately, is a bitter lesson for Molyneux, that probably no one with the high visibility is willing to engage in debate with him. Only some small guys that have nothing to lose actually are willing to debate him. This lesson is unfortunately without a solution, these are simple facts of life. There's nothing Molyneux can do to change their mind. I was wondering for a long time, how come it never happens that really important people debate Molyneux. At first i was thinking they are snobs with him, because they consider him a far fetched crazy guy, but actually i concluded they are afraid of him and they want to keep their social position intact. The only exception to this is Chomsky, he is famous but only outside of the mainstream, and he is very old, so there's nothing he can lose too, but probably he is too old to debate anybody seriously now. When he was young, his debates were very interesting, but now, .... probably the best he can do is to engage in presentations of his ideas. And i say this with the maximum possible respect for Dr. Chomsky.

It was a very interesting debate and it was very useful to openly hear again Harris' bad ideas on pre-emptive nuking and torture and the repeated use of 'We Americans' that are helping the world becoming a better place by engaging in 'humanitarian' interventions possibly in North Korea etc... Harris' religion is called: morality from the pragmatism. So, he continues with the arguments he repeated elsewhere 1. Benevolent dictator to be put in charge of North Korea, after killing their president to transition it to the democracy. Why is this bad? Because a.) there can not exist a thing called benevolent dictator b.) democracy is a problematic system based on the tyranny of the minority masked by the perception it is a majority 2. Nuke first the others in case of a possession of the 'sure' information about others wanting to nuke you first. Why is this bad? Because a.) 'sure' information of this magnitude is never really sure until the last moment and in case of misjudgment the consequences are global and b.) if the spies really had so sure information, they would have enough time to react in many different ways to prevent this strike. One of them is by presenting to the entire world publicly the proves about the intentions of the potential nuker. Especially to the people of the nation of the potential nuker. Only the small minority of the Jihadists in the government would really send the nukes to USA. But if their own people knew that and even the rest of the world, even the Jihadist lunatics would have serious reservations. This is the part where Cenk is right and Harris is wrong. Even though bad ideas are the propulsion for the bad actions, only sometimes they are enough, the context matters a lot. And the ostracism of the people in that nation and the rest of the world would be so high that even the religious madness would not be enough to launch the bombs. Once disclosed their plans globally, they would become paralyzed. This scenario is so difficult for Harris to grasp, because he always sees 'Us against them' paradigm, where the rest the world and other, non crazy Muslims had no role in this world. 3. The torture concept is very similar. It is another very evident example of his ethics from pragmatism instead of the universal ethics. He claims that torturing people is more useful than the collateral damage in the war. First of all it is a false dichotomy, because USA is not in war with most of the countries where Jihadists live, therefore the alternative to torture is not a war in most of the cases, but simply nothing. Second, he defends very eloquently (but incorrectly) that what matters is the intention. If someone judges that the subsequent action of the Jihadist would damage USA, he is entitled to intervene, and the torture is one of those interventions. Let us try to make this universal. The intention of many US soldiers in the bases around the world, especially around the Islamic countries is to control many aspects of their lives, topple their rulers occasionally, help the US governments help the Multinational companies make the insane profits with the arm sales etc... so it would be perfectly moral for Jihadists to torture american soldiers there. 4. Harris' other problem is that he can not realize how much he stretches the concept of the self-defense. He claimed he was against the war in Iraq, but he supports the war in Afganistan, and he said that even in this debate. Why? Because of the same flow in his thinking, of the ethics from pragmatism. For him, it is much less blood if the terrorists (plus many other innocent people as the collateral) are killed where their bases are, than to defend the territory of USA, once (and if) they are attacked on their soil. It is true, pragmatically, but it is not the universal ethics, and i could reverse the situation, with the attempt to make it universal for the Talebans like i did in the point 3.