vahleeb

It is true and legal precedent that you can inherit obligations that are connected to a property. This is valid even today in a statist society and I don't see why it wouldn't be valid in a free society either. If you inherit property and the former owner of that property had signed contracts in which he agreed to use the property only under certain restrictions, then you are bound by the same restrictions when wanting to make use of said property. The principle that applies is that if someone dies owing you a large amount of money, you are entitled to recuperate your debt from the dead person's assets before they are distributed to his/her inheritors. If we accept that property can be transmissible through inheritance, I don't see why obligations can't. That being said, you do realise how far off the original example we have arrived, right?

If the rule has not been agreed to unanimously then yes. If it has been agreed to then the rule-breakers are violating their own contract. To go back to your example, if the homeowner association passes the rule by majority only and not by unanimity, then the case you describe is immoral.

We all seem to forget that before the government got into "regulating" and "banning" drugs, there was no drug related violence, no drug related sex trades and basically no reprehensibility of drug usage. Seems funny to me how we wanna get rid of the state, but not of the scar tissue it created in our brains.

You are saying that he could walk away in the opposite direction, but the opposite direction was replete with other people, not to mention that in the story I put forward, if his wife and children were there, it didn't matter if he were shepherding them all in the opposite direction because a voice carries farther than you can walk within the observed period for notice. You're right, but I didn't address them because I felt that you have changed my example to fit with your view of the event. My example, which I invited you to read again, is specifically designed so that you do not have the option of walking away. In the end, the option of walking away is something that we end up preferring because of the relatively small cost that it implies than doubling down and escalating force, but, in case this cost of walking away is not small, but in fact rather large, the situation changes. This is what I was trying to explain with my example, but your point of view seemed to be in your reply that you can ALWAYS walk away as though you don't see that there could be any costs associated with this action. I'd say that common sense decides. My example goes even farther than simple verbal aggression. If you really feel that a definition is required just so we can talk about the same thing here goes: verbal aggression is a manifestation of speech either directed at or performed in the presence of people who might take offence to the contents of the speech. (why do I feel that you're gonna focus on this definition more than on the following reply? prove me wrong, neeeel ) I think here you may have unknowingly conceded the point. If you say that under the NAP you have the right to "force them to leave" your property, this absolutely implies that they have already committed an initiation of force. I know, you're gonna say that their violation of your property is the initiation of force, but this doesn't qualify under your own definition of threatening bodily harm. If all he does is stand in your living room while cursing you out, but specifically not bringing any credible threats, you're still allowed to forcefully remove him. How about something like this? "you're all a bunch of p**sies! your wife needs to s**k my c**k, so she can get a taste of a real man". Is this acceptable language that does not constitute aggression in front of someone's wife (and child) ? Look, I am not defending what the guy has done, but I am not condemning outright either. All I'm saying is that force has definitely been initiated by someone else and that guy was obviously in the process of continuing force, so whatever the retaliation was it can only qualify as escalation and not initiation.

Just to clarify: your position is that verbal aggression qualifies as initiation of force only if threatening bodily harm and having those threats be credible (in other words if I say I'm gonna knock your teeth out and look like I can pack a punch it is initiation of force, but if I'm all flabby armed and skinny and look like I could fall apart if someone shook me a little harder, then it no longer qualifies). If I'm wrong please correct me about your framework. However, assuming that I have understood correctly then would you qualify the following situation as initiation of force? You have composed a song, are blessed with some musical talent, and you decide to share this gift with the world. As a result you take to the streets, harmonica in hand to sing this song to the world. And wherever you set up and get ready to sing, I show up next to you and start making monkey noises. You go elsewhere, I follow you. Eventually you give up and go home, or... fall asleep on a park bench if you'd like not to quit. I have been popping amphetamines so I can stay awake longer than you. Does my behaviour qualify as initiation of force under your guidelines?

neeeel, you are changing my example to fit your narrative. I specifically constructed the example in order to illustrate that a) verbal aggression counts as initiation of force and b) if someone breaks into a private event with the purpose to disrupt the communication between two parties it counts as an initiation of force. Read it again, please. If somebody is spewing bad language that counts as initiation of force. Are you saying that I am not allowed to stop someone from cursing in front of my children or in front of my wife? I have conceded to you already that it is escalation of force, I have also conceded to you that under the current law it is actionable. I am stumped however as to how and why you refuse to perceive the possibility that verbal aggression counts as the initiation of force. That's like literally saying all verbal abuse in fine as long as you don't hit. Is this the principle you are basing your argument on? Coming back to the analogy you threw out, I did put it together that way specifically because the situation it is analogous to (a Trump rally within a state) qualifies perfectly as a one off. All of these people that participate in the rallies don't follow Trump's campaign around the country like groupies, the participate in the ONE OFF event that is hosted in their city. I specifically put forward the hotel room case to bring into question that the guy had broken into a private event which is literally equal to trespassing. @mellomama: I think legally freedom of speech applies to public places not to private events (I'm not a lawyer but I heard this banter a few years back). Good rule of thumb is: if you have an organiser and a stated purpose for an event and that stated purpose is not "free exchange of ideas" then there is no freedom of speech there nor are you under the protection of the first amendment ("it is not my job to give you a platform"). The protesters that disturb the Trump rallies are not infringing on the first amendment either, but they are definitely chargeable under the Trespass Act of 2011 (actually passed in 2012). However, an infringement of the first amendment can be argued for what happened in Chicago, because the event had to be cancelled altogether due to "protests" both inside the venue as well as outside.

Hi Alex, It's clear from the comment that you posted it before I had my comment approved. But even in it's absence, aren't you just sort of "sophiscising" with your second post? What is the by the book definition of sophism? What are the general perceptions that make it confusing? The rest, i understand that you have stated in your second post.

neeeel, we're talking about two separate events. The elbow was thrown in North Carolina I think, the video I posted was in Chicago. To answer your question: is taunting grounds for the initiation of force? I'd argue that is the wrong question. Because within the context it's the taunting itself that is the initiation of force. You can argue that the problem was being solved already (they were in the process of being forcefully removed from the premises) and you would be right, but looking in the greater scheme of things, where the guy being removed was obviously not accepting responsibility for his actions but was actually doubling down with his behaviour and where precedent has already been set in the sense that none of the "protesters" at Trump rallies had been arrested to that point in time (despite there being serious legal grounds for it - the Tresspass Act that Stef's alluding to in his last Trump defence video) wouldn't the Trump supporter feel justified in hitting? What about if the guy walking up the stairs was cursing out loud? It certainly seems like that's what he would/could be shouting and what about if the guy that hit, was there with his wife, or with his mother or with his children, or maybe he was there with other people's wives or children that he knew? Wouldn't he feel obligated to hit in order to end the cursing? Would that still qualify as initiation of force? I don't think so because he is obviously stopping an aggression. Obviously we can't know the circumstance and unless they come out we can't pass absolute judgement, but to decry it it as pure initiation of force when there is at least one possible and quite plausible case where it would not be, I think is assuming too much. It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you think that verbal aggression is on a different level than physical aggression therefore you reason that whomever throws the first punch is guilty of initiation of force. But targeted verbal aggression (think of bullying) is absolutely an initiation of force and non-targeted verbal aggression (think of a guy cursing randomly on the street) is not an initiation of force as long as you can walk away, this changes however if the seemingly non-targeted aggression happens in a confined space that you need for an activity. Let me give you an analogy: if you and I have been buddies all our lives, meet regularly and at no great cost to either of us, then if we're meeting at a diner for lunch and a conversation and some dude is just playing loud music on an 80s boom box to the point where you can't hear a word i'm saying, then we're always free to get up and move away from him, or continue the conversation at a later date. But if you and I only have that one chance to meet and exchange ideas and we have planned it in advance and sunk a lot of money in getting it to happen, then the guy with the boom box is obviously initiating force (past the amount that is ignorable) because he's obviously denying our experience and if he wouldn't listen to reason and turn his stereo down, then absolutely I'd be justified in forcing him to stop, even more so if instead of meeting at a diner (public place) we were meeting in a hotel room or in my house (privately organised event).

Hi Alex, I'm also quite a newbie here on the boards. I'd bite on the subject, but you'd have to give me more. Your first sentence seems to establish that there is some unclarity about Sophism. If there's unclarity, it would help (at least me) that you would first state the definition (by the book), the general accepted perceptions of it while highlighting what's confusing about them, followed by your point of view. Cheers! Vbe.

Thanks, neeeel. I stand by the assessment in my previous post. It is grounds for legal action, it is initiation of force. However, the guy that was hit is clearly not restrained in any way and he does seem to continue the taunting while on his way up the stairs. So I will take the chicken shit label back. I also stand by my original assessment about what happened in Chicago: there is a great deal of responsibility that needs to be placed with the "protesters" and there is literally no one in the media speaking out about this.

You're absolutely right, neeeel. I didn't realise you were referring to a specific event. But yes, the case you describe is grounds for legal action, does qualify as force and further more it's just chicken shit behaviour. Can you point me to a timestamp from the video, just so we're both talking about the same thing?

neeeel, in both contexts that I have described?

Technically the guy who elbows is at fault, both legally and morally, if the middle finger is the only "violation". The middle finger is avoidable and ultimately without any consequences. However, if in order to throw you the middle finger, the guy broke into your house and actively disrupted your activities and posed threats to your security, then the elbow is no longer an initiation of force. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is basic common sense, no?

Here's the raw video from that night in Chigago, it's pretty long (about 90 minutes) but you can see for yourself and decide who were the instigators and who weren't. Raw videos are probably the closest thing we can get to eye-witnessing the news for ourselves (because there is no narration, no editing and no editorialising). http://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/…/92731905-raw-video-… Even objectivists have a "confirmation bias" that they can't keep in check. If they think Trump's bad or wrong they'll pounce on him just like everyone else as soon as they get the opportunity. In your shoes, I'd just link them the raw video. If they're really objectivists then they have to watch it.

Hi jpahmad, I agree that when regarded from the point of view that you approach in the video, your conclusion is spot on. However, I think most people here object to voting as a violation of the non-agression principle (at least if I have understood correctly where dsayers and AncapFTW seem to be coming from) because by wilfully participating in an action that furthers the interests of the state then you are implicitly supporting said state regardless of the outcome of the elections, especially so if your choice ends up to be meaningless. If "everyone you get to vote is bought and paid for" then that is absolutely true, your choice would be invalid no matter what and just through participation you would be furthering the statist agenda. But (@dsayers & @ AncapFTW) I think I have gone to great lengths in the article to point out why Trump might actually not fall into the "bought and paid for" category which should (at least in my opinion) change the data of the problem. Going back to the video, it's probably because you took such a long time to make it (as you state), but you end up sort of contradicting yourself when it comes to Person A just thinking about forcing Person B (I know it's almost a tangential matter to the core point, but still). At one point (early) in the video you deem it to be moral (while most likely attempting to say that it is not immoral), while later you refer to it as having no moral value. Personally I think the second stance is the correct one. Also in the video, you seem to say that a person that goes and hires a hitman to off someone has not breached morality and they're just an asshole and nothing more. I don't think you're right about that because, by your logic, you have to shift all moral agency on the hitman in order to absolve Person A. But the hitman's very definition is that he kills people for money. Yes, he is profoundly immoral, so much so, that he has turned it into a profession. He obviously has moral agency for any murder he undertakes, because he could always stop killing people, but it's not like the hitman will analyse everything on a case by case basis (not an efficient hitman, anyway). I think it's arguable that, in a sense, the hitman can be regarded as a tool/robot and thus shift some of the moral agency back onto Person A. Tangent: for a cool movie about hitmen and these kinds of choices and also an excellent dark comedy try Grosse Point Blank from 1998 (John Cusack, Dan Aykroyd, Minnie Driver), I personally love this movie. As far as where I'm coming from, it was long before I realised the value of the NAP and of voluntarism (before I even knew they existed) I had become opposed to the utilitarian nature of the democratic system. So, I'm thinking, if I could see that the "best form of political statehood" is ultimately evil so long before I could realise that the state itself if evil, then why not use this gateway to expose people to the fact that the state is evil? If democracy can fail (from effect - which is always the argument that people who don't reason from first principles respond to) and do so resoundingly in America (not just as it has done throughout history in Germany and in Eastern Europe) then shouldn't anarchists want to facilitate that? If the political establishment is the source of the cancer (the minarchist position) then shouldn't we want to help expose that to the world? Isn't it easier to convert someone who's already 95% of the way there rather than someone who is only 10%? If we're going to invade Germany (as somebody who's smarter than me has said) should we not use their roads in the process?

This brings back so many sad memories. I grew up in communist Romania, which was a repressive murderous communist regime. The regime's history featured all the checkpoints of Stalinist/Leninist USSR: brainwashing, work camps for political prisoners, executions of political traitors, famine, you name it, we had it. One think I do remember growing up with and absolutely remember it having disappear a few years after the toppling of the communists (they were replaced by second block communists, but that's beside the point now) was the constant fear of my parents about what I would say or let slip while in school. Believe it or not this was a fear that would be extremely common for all Romanian parents, the more so if you were sort of a dissident in your home life. Being a dissident in your public life meant an immediate termination of your employment and being put under investigation by the secret police which meant they picked you up off the street and bye-bye... It'd be months before you came home, if ever. So there's the reason to be afraid that your kid might "out" you. It breaks my heart to see the US so hell-bent on sinking into the mud hole that was and forever will be a totalitarian regime...

@sb23rd: I'm not sure I understand the question "how do you know your vote reflects your convictions". I'd say, because you cast it, or even because you don't cast it. Whatever action you take with regards to voting can only reflect you convictions (unless you're possessed or something). I think the question that you are really asking is wether or not the outcome of the voting process or the voting process itself would reflect your convictions and then the answer is no. Voting and democracy is just the latest thing to justify state violence and just like divine right before it, it is an invention of a caste of people looking to wrestle the power away from another caste of people (in this case the lesser nobility from the greater nobility) and they used the power of the mob to do it. I think if you take the time to read through my article you will come to understand that I am by no means an advocate of the state. And I could spend 12 hours straight just disagreeing with separate Trump statements, heck, I'm the guy who almost went on a rant when he fired Carolla during a season of The Apprentice, but I try and touch on the article as to why that is useless to do (I think it's reason nine). That having been said, within the current system and for the current time, I still think Trump is the best option for all of us (and I'm a EU citizen) for the reasons I have outlined in the article. I take full heed of Stefan's advice to "not vote, or to vote in self-defense" when coming to the conclusion I came to. @dsayers: I'm not sure what you mean by your statement, but I'd welcome if you wanted to elaborate.

Full disclaimer: I am not an American citizen, thus I have no right to vote. If I had, I'd most likely vote for Trump now even as a third party candidate. I have put together this very lengthy article which I am linking below trying to explain my convictions. I would absolutely welcome feedback from anyone who disagrees with any of my reasons. I especially encourage undecided voters and people who don't vote on principle to give it a read. https://bukman.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/20160313-i-want-donald-trump-to-win-the-presidency-and-heres-why/

First, I'll concede the point that oratory style is something that can be described as aesthetic value and it can be something that one could object to. However, I would feel, that when you expose someone in your life to FDR (let's go back to the premise) anyone who approaches it in good faith should exhibit some leniency towards aesthetics and focus on the message first. This is why I had a problem with you saying "genuinely object", because I feel that the objection would not be genuine. This is not art to be evaluated for aesthetics, but an idea (or more) which should be at least considered for their contents first. On the opposite end of the spectrum, let's take John Stewart when he was hosting The Daily Show, I absolutely hated some of the messages he was delivering, but he was still funny and that was the main point of a show broadcast on Comedy Central. With regards to false self, I'd rather not enter a debate about it for the following reason: I believe it to be a very complex psychological phenomenon that affects all sides of one's own identity and if it is not seen naturally (that is of the person's own accord and cognisance) but rather the knowledge is inflicted externally it would be very damaging to the person whom you are exposing. The false self can only be truly exposed to someone if, first, they have agreed to (within themselves, not to me or any other person) to value truth and reason above all else and to pursue self knowledge to whatever end it may lead. I can only recommend you listen to the following sequence of admittedly old FDR podcast episodes: 2350 (for a comprehensive short definition) and then, if you are interested in more the following sequence: 70, 223, 234, 251, 252, 289, 290, 304, 308, 335. I know it feels like I'm giving you a "shitload of homework" you are of course absolutely free to disregard all of it.

Csekavec, just going by the definition you quoted at urbandictionary that says "By inventing it, the child develops immunity to the indifference, manipulation, sadism, smothering, or exploitation – in short: to the abuse – inflicted on him by his parents (or by other Primary Objects in his life)" how do you say that the idea of an "universal" false self (that is something that everyone develops) is self refuting? Is there a human being on this earth that went from womb to maturity and avoided absolutely all of the following: indifference, manipulation, sadism, smothering or exploitation? It would seem to me, that the very definition seems to rather prove/imply that everyone develops a false self. To come back to your question, how do you "genuinely object on aesthetic grounds" when aesthetics are not part of the evaluation. It's a talking head. Sometimes, it's just a logo. Thirdly, I am not casting "judgement against" them, per se, because that would probably fall under the category of force intiation. Nor do I classify them as inferior. The problem with the two web definitions you pointed to is that they do tent to regard the false self as an oberall universal negative which is a little different than the image that FDR painted long ago. It goes something like this: the false self is a defense mechanism meant to keep you safe in the first part of your life. Its methods are varried, but the bottom line is that without it, any sort of abuse (as described above) would run its full course through your personality and you would die. So, at this point in your life, the false self is a net positive. But, once you reach a certain level of maturity and the threat of death is removed, the desire of the false self to protect you becomes something negative, because there's nothing left to protect you from (the death finality has been removed) and it is instead enslaving you and preventing you from feelings and emotions that would no longer be dangerous. A good analogy for this is if, when you were a kid and had freeplay in nature, your parents would have set a border (like a larger street) that you weren't supoosed to cross. The reason being that you were a little kid, and you couldn't possibly manage crossing a crowded street without the risk of injury. Well, as you grow up, you eventually become cognizant enough to the point where you can manage crossing the street. At this point, the restriction that was once protecting your life has become negative in nature. This is why I feel that it's important to recognize when someone is interacting with you on a false self level, not to condemn them, but because when you don't interact with someone on a true self level, you cannot exact change. I'm not saying thay you should change/convert the people in your life, but my example already assumes that you have exposed them to FDR, and I don't think anybody does that just for the entertainment value.

I agree with Drew. I don't think it's possible that anyone is brought up without implementing a false self in them. Too much of the world's mechanisms are predicated on the existence of a false self. The trick, I think, is to recognize it and dismantle it, or to just take away the keys to the car from it and never let it back in the driver seat, once you have gathered enough self knowledge. I'd be the first to put up my hand and admit that I have a very developed false self that still surprises me sometimes and that has controlled my thoughts and actions for a very long period of my life. What I was asking, however, was about physical rejection experiences shared with the people in your lives. The two people I was talking about didn't object to the ideas that were put forward (at least that wasn't the answer they gave) but instead had physical discomfort from the medium itself.

I'm sure that most of you here have tried, after discovering Freedomain Radio for yourselves, to introduce those in your life to the phenomenon. Come on! I can't be the only crazy social animal on this board! I'm also quite certain that you've received a plethora of reactions, varrying from total acceptance (you lucky bastards!), to tentitive acceptance only to run into a wall whenever they'd get to a subject they didn't agre with, to outright rejection (anyone call for an exorcist?). But have you ever encountered physical rejection? That is people who couldn't even bring themselves to listen because of "list a physiological reason here". I have, in my life, two people each of them with a very exquisite and refined false self side of their personality. If we regard the false self as a soldier ready to protect you, imagine someone in an Iron Man suit, with a connected antenna array that's more fine tuned that whatever the NSA is using and an arsenal from the most surgically precise Swiss Assult Rifle, to Arnold's shoulder Rocket thrower from the Commando movie. What I have found with each of these people is that they had a physical reaction of rejection to Stefan's videos. One couldn't get himself to listen to him, claimed the tone of Stefan's voice drove him crazy, while the other (whom I had subjected to more videos on a variety of topics) would also get irritated by the voice, the verbal ticks and most often would just outright fall asleep (no matter what time of day we tried to watch). It was never about the message but rather a physical reaction of recoil to Stefan's mere presence. So, I wonder, would exposing someone to Stefan's videos and measuring their actual physical discomfort be enough of a litmus test to expose a very advanced false self personality? What were your experiences with this kind of correlation?

You're right, Nightspirit, his actions do sound confusing and I can only empathise with what an emotional quagmire you must be facing. If you could bear with me for one (two actually) more piece of information, so as not to make an error in judgement when assessing your situation, can you tell me who turned you onto Freedomain Radio and what was it about it that resonated with you enough to stay with it? Just so you don't feel like I'm just asking questions without sharing anything about myself, I'd like to tell you how I was turned onto Freedomain Radio. It was by a "recommended for you" video on YouTube and it was Stefan's rebuttal of what some chick from the Young Turks posted in regard to something Adam Carolla had said. I had been a big fan of the Adam Carolla Show (it's a comedy/daily show podcast) and of his political ideas (fiscally conservative, socially liberal) as well as his take on the bullshit of the media and of Hollywood, the decay of California, etc. In watching Stefan's video, I found myself in perfect agreement with his rebuttal of the "criticisms" that had been heaped onto Carolla by the Young Turks presenter. I also realised that he was saying what I was thinking to an amazing extent. In the linked videos of that particular YouTube video, there was another one by Stefan called "Defending Ayn Rand". I had already read the Ayn Rand novels at the time and believed that Atlas Shrugged was the most important book ever written so I gave the video a go just to see if lighting could strike twice. It did. So then I watched at random about 5-8 of Stefan's videos and after getting over the emotional response of "finally" finding someone who could use reason and common sense when examining every situation, I went over to iTunes and started the FDR podcasts at Episode 1. Going through this process has literally helped me change my stance on a great many things: from the actual concept of anarchy, to peaceful parenting, to the quest for truth and reason above all else, to my own misconceptions about my childhood and since I am not yet caught up (not by a long shot) I am aware that the transformation will continue.

Has he ever shown a romantic interest in you (in the past)? Is he currently in a marriage or in a long-term relationship? Is he gay? I have a point with these questions (which I am sure is perfectly transparent to you by now) so please bare with them in answering.

Is your friend (the one you constantly refer to as "hating" your husband) a man or a woman? You seem to have always used gender neutral terms when describing them.