SWMA

Hello everyone, I remember reading an article that was linked I think in this forum quite a while back. It was an explanation of the concept [blank], a nice (I think french) word for the principle that someone's argument self-defeats if it both relies on X and the person has themselves shown to disregard X through his actions. One example was someone who uses force to rob someone - he can then not claim that force against him would be immoral since he has already chosen to accept force as legitimate means. I looked for quite a bit but I simply cannot find it any more. Anyone know? cheers, SWMA

slightly offtopic - bitcoin isn't "untouched". Remember the silk road raid? I strongly suspect they are using that massive number of bitcoin to keep the price down artificially, they can effectively at any point crash the market if they want to, and they did a few times just to lessen confidence in it

And another one: peer pressure Why is it taking so long for my comments to appear here? Makes having a conversation hard. I already wrote a big comment ... why is it not here?

so here are a few things which are most clearly not violence but can be used to coerce someone: (threat of) (social) ostracization - fear of being ostracized (which resides in most humans) can be used to make someone conform - it coerces him to conform. (Freedom of Association) temper tantrum (usually by a child) - uses a feeling of shame that arises in the parents in order to coerce them into giving the child what it wants (doesn't work on all parents of course) (threat of) slander - (the threat of) making public some bits of (possibly incorrect) information which would, for example, make people not want to buy in a certain store (Freedom of Association) blackmail - (the threat of) releasing (correct) information which would, for example, make people not want to buy in a certain store (Freedom of Association) You're right, it probably has nothing to do with the language barrier in your case. And of course this list is not meant to be exhaustive or anything, just a few pointers...

No. How does that "almost certainly" provoke the increase of taxes? Why would the citizens be against a so called fair restitution, if it was indeed fair AND they're believers in their constitution? Why do you think your arbitrarily ridiculous figure would constitute "fair" restitution? What is your definition of "fair" in this context and why do you think they would adhere to it? Or more to the point - why do you think "the authorities" would adhere to it but at the very same time the people who pay for it would not? Why do you think they have to be of different opinions on this? Why do you think they have to be completely different people to begin with? Just because that's the way it is in the system you live in?

I already wrote this once but after a few days it's not here so I'll try again... as I understand you right now you do not see the difference between "coercive force" and "violent force", is that correct? Think of them as "what one applies in" - and then either coercion or violence. You surely see the difference between violence and coercion, do you not? And yes, the problem that native english speakers don't readily see the differences are exactly what this is about. I think the inherent conflation of different concepts into one word limits the ability to differentiate for native speakers of said language, unless they dive deep enough into the material to spot the differences which are inherently conflated by the language they are used to. And then make up new words, or qualifiers like I am doing here. Or use a different language.

If this is indeed a trend, then I would believe it to be connected to the social narrative they and everyone else are subjected to. That is - they are "victims", they are "being held down" by the establishment. That they are "still" "slaves". Slaves hate other slaves. Slaves "are worth less". Being subjugated breeds unhappiness. So they wind up being unhappy and hating each other. Seems like good ingredients to make hitting each other more likely. But note that it is not based on "real" things, just on what the narrative says. Yeah this is mostly pulled out of my behind, I'll be first to admit.

you're being brainwashed. Of course the church says that you need a god for morality. But when you look at that, it's really, really pathetic. What they're saying is basically that without a god (in essence to punish them in the life after death without this life supposedly is meaningless blahdibla) they'd be immoral. Utterly pathetic.

as I understand you right now you do not see the difference between "coercion" and "violence". Is that correct? I strongly suspect I am misreading you here, could you please elaborate?

Just out of curiosity - why do you think Stefan would be qualified to give such expert advice? He sure knows how to use language, he is very skilled at the manipulation of words. But in my experience knowing something and knowing how to teach it are two different things. Of course it could be true that he is a really good language teacher, not saying it's impossible. Just not necessarily likely given the information set I see.

Imho possible but long term it messes with most women and has to be stopped. In my experience (and shared stories with others) most men are able to have sex without (developing) feelings, most women are not. Your mileage may vary.

They want 3-4k people in the 7 square kilometer area. That's a lot. Means they won't be able to be self-sufficient in the slightest. Probably has no important natural resources to start with (except for water and ground). Wouldn't want to live there.

Sargon did a piece on this. Recommended.

Hello everybody. I am a German native speaker. As I wrote here: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43637-yet-another-real-life-newspeak-equivalent/ there are three different subconcepts which in the English language are all subsummated in the word "force". To reiterate: "force" in the English language can be used as "physical force"(in the sense of violence), "scientifical physical force"(eg what Newton's axioms talk about) and "coercive force"(what one applies to another human to make him do something against his [initial] will without resorting to open violence, may include the threat of violence however). In the German language we have different words for all these concepts(which do overlap in some fringe cases, not of interest here). The Non-Agression Principle (NAP) states "no one may initiate the use of force". However, it doesn't specify in which sense the word should be read. If you read it as "physical force"(as said, in the sense of violence) then it is absolutely agreeable for everyone, just by one glance at it. In talking to other native German people I have found that all agree "Gewalt"(physical force) may not be initiated by anyone*. I personally am of the opinion that also no one is allowed to initiate "Zwang"(coercive force) against another human. But, and that's what perplexed me, many other people are not. It seems to be the case this nuance is completely lost in the English debates -and I dare say in Stefan's videos- as 'the proof'/'explanation' for the NAP is just done with the "physical force" interpretation and it then is just asserted that it is true for "force" in general. The 'cases' for why coercive force would be permissible seem to boil down to "keeping the social peace" and similar. After noting that this sounds like a highway robber who says "well I don't have a pistol but my companion here does so please give me your money", which obviously is still robbing just the same, the conversations mostly ended in that area, much to my dismay. What are your thoughts on this? Have you thought about this in detail before, have you had conversations about it? What have you come up with? Are you aware of anything on the NAP that covers these issues, or even a general derivation of the NAP that's more than just "this looks good to me let's have it as a principle"? cheers

tongue-in-cheek: the way they'd contact the anarchist society is with guns. That is if there is anything valuable to be stolen.

Having dabbled in the pickup scene myself I find that you might have a very skewed look on "PUAs". Every single PUA I knew wanted a real, loving relationship with a woman. Except for the female PUAs, they wanted that with men. Yes I have not met a homosexual PUA, which I attribute to sample size, personally.

Why do you think you would have to get rid of the freedom of association? That's what I meant when I said it would be different from the police today. It does not mean "monopoly of legal force". You can still defend yourself etc pp. You can even have a private security firm. Except that those have an incentive to keep a level of threat up. You get that, right? No, that is not the definition of "tax" I am using, and that was quite clear by the words which I chose. You can call it "donations" if you want. The difference between "my" utopia and yours is, if you look at it, just that in your case you propose many (potentially small, overlapping) areas of what I propose for a big area. To each question of "how best to do something" there is but one answer, one ideal to strive for (you have to phrase the question precise enough of course). A contract in one area either would be valid in another, or one of those areas has an inferior standard of what constitutes a legal contract. Take the best standard, apply it everywhere.

feminists claiming "logic is invalid and a form of oppression" isn't news, I distinctly remember back in school, at least 14 years ago, an ethics teacher (instead of religion class) mentioned it as a side note

Not necessarily true - a minimal government can operate without the initiation of force in the areas of a judicial system, military and police. Of course their respective areas of work would be different from now, there cannot be a mandatory draft for example. Police wouldn't be very much like ours today is, more like is usually ascribed to the "private security firm" in the anarchistic utopia, but with public accountability. And of course mandatory taxes wouldn't be a thing, but I'm sure with just those three areas of government left it would be very, very manageable with voluntary taxes.

Yes it would violate the NAP. You should try to get away from such puzzles, because they're just that and nothing more. You can't derive general moral statements from situations in which the course of action is strictly confined (in number of choices, the choices themselves, also the actions are laid out to "always" lead to a certain outcome, as in there is no uncertainty at all, etc) by a completely arbitrary layout of the situation itself.

I see, I was unaware of that you wrote the thing and so are in the sole posession of the knowledge of how it was meant. Sorry for that then, and yes, to me it came across as implying that "having a gun" is anti anarchist or not having one is required to be one

sorry, I don't see how the rest is "instructing what to do with the firearm", there is nothing she says that would allude to that, that's just your wishful interpretation. And it doesn't add up, either. Or are you suggesting she tells him to use the AK47 in his family when he announces himself the household's ruler?

Hmmmmm no. The very first step in the "cure for anarchism" is a prescription for a firearm (in the video). My point stands.

(emphasis by me) and - not in the way you state it. Not unconditionally. No doctor in the public health care system anywhere would say "violence is unconditionally appropriate at any and all times". When you deliberatly leave that out, it's dishonest.

Meh, all that stuff about guns strikes me as strangely dishonest. If you're free, you can have a gun. Implying that to be an anarchist you have to be against guns is ... ludicrous.