ObserveandReport

The Mexican-American war was one of aggression by the US. You are occupying foreign land. Ought they not be upset?

Trumps stance on foreign policy is vague at best. He's said we'll "...get rid of Isis and get rid of them fast." He's also said he's comfortable with targeting the families of terrorists. Finances and borders are important, but personally I can't vote for another war monger. I did it with Obama when I was on the other side of the isle, thinking he was the peace candidate. Sanders and Paul were the only two this go around. Why do you all feel that supporting a war monger is preferable to abstaining from voting altogether or casting a vote for a third party? Specifically, do you think that saving your children from paying taxes is more important than preventing our military from slaughtering thousands or hundreds of thousands of people?

Is there a section that makes your point? I've watched this before, but it was a while ago so I'll ask that you be more specific.

Is from ought....Hume points out that in laying the groundwork for a moral schema, people often list a number of facts ("is" statements) but will then begin speaking about how things should be ("ought" statements) and he sees no reason why they can do this without explanation. Hume may have though that this means there are no principles which bridge this gap. I did my senior thesis on this exact subject. One philosopher, (I forget his name) suggests that most modern theories themselves contain either explicit or implicit bridge principles. These theories include Utilitarianism, Deontolgy, and strong Pareto principles (think Stefan's two guys in a room). Others (Charles Pidgen) suggest that such principles are either nonexistent or trivial. If I am recalling correctly he asserts that deonotological requirements (universality) are not what bridge "is" and "ought" but are necessary conditions of morality if it is coherent.

I had a bit of a breakthrough in talking this over with the girlfriend in that I understand her argument a bit better. When the woman fails to vett properly, she acts negligently, whereas the man chooses to leave acts with intent. Legally we treat people who leave worse because of the malice and forethought they put into their acts. This isn't necessarily a moral argument, but perhaps one lies therein. While intent is not the whole picture when it comes to judging the morality of acts, it can be quite important because it tells us what you may do in the future. If you punch a baby and it just so happens to fall out of the way of a car because you hit it, we should still be very concerned about your actions. This is a Utilitarian line of thinking, but one which I think deserves consideration. So, the man who walks away intentionally is worse because he is more likely to do it again in the future or at least the kind of person that would do so, whereas the once negligent woman is not the kind of person who would seek to repeat the outcome. She may need self knowledge and practical life skills, but she is a step closer to good living than the man. Moreover, a malicious intent for deontological reasons may be "worse." She in no way finds the prospect of calling in appealing. EDIT: Stefan's claims, if I understand them correctly, are that the negative outcomes of single motherhood are the or part of the) reason we should deplore such behavior. This is an argument about ends. I don't disagree, but then you can transpose that reasoning on the Utilitarian argument above. I think I'm missing something.

I can't imagine she would be very interested, but I will ask. I'm also not sure how it would be productive. I've listened to much of his material on the subject and it doesn't seem like I'm missing any key distinctions of his arguments. That being said, I wouldn't mind. Mike if you're reading this, do you think I've erred somewhere, or is Stefan the better person to have this discussion?

Do you think there would be no need for private sector unions if the state did not exist? I think the emphasis Chomsky puts on the bargaining power disparity between management and the workers is an important one. Does Chompsky debate? If not, it would explain his style. You can breeze by in academia because it's often a series of back and forth essays and responses, where there is no conversation or real exchange of ideas. No one holds the other accountable on salient points.I agree with the large body of your criticisms. Sam Harris tried to pull him into an actual discussion. He outright refused. I think he was being a huge jerk, but that may be my preference for Sam.

I'm convinced that leftist anarchists are right to be concerned about the abilities large corporations gain. A lot of that is cut off at the knees if their isn't the fiction that is the corporate liability shield (as is implied by anarchy, so perhaps moot). Additionally however, one might worry about disparities in bargaining power and similar disequilibrium states that may arise. Private sector unions, I think, will have an important role to play, but as many of you have observed (Rosecodex and Torero), the free market will sort these things out (though I think unions are perhaps an under-emphasized and vital portion of the free market), On a related note, while I agree with Dsayers that labels may be counterproductive, when one espouses both the tenants of Marxism and anarchism, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Common pool resources, jointly owned properties, co-ops, and numerous other communitarian organization schemes could lack coercive authority (hooray for voluntarism) and be functional parts of a greater free-market. Communism such that it is coercive totalitarian regime, obviously is antithetical to AnCap. Is my distinction lacking somehow?

fair assessment Nice!

"studied for 200,000 years" is utter non-sense. "used" may be accurate, though is totally unproven. The process of peer review is essential and didn't exist until relatively recently. The scientific method in all its glory is a recent advent compared to the existence of homosapian. I wasn't using "conspiracy" perjoratively and therefore was not straw-manning you. Conspiracies happen. Cartels happen. Collusion happens. Prove it.

Well, your anecdotes aside, your questions seem rhetorical without substantiation. I'm not saying they are untrue, but it seems an important caveat. I'm not sure how you are using the word "entirely" because two people can't be entirely responsible for a single result can they? They could share an equal amount of responsibility, but not both be responsible for the whole. If I had to guess, what makes me feel as though the departing father is worse, has to do with the devastation not only to the child, but the betrayal of the mother as well. This of course isn't logical because we are talking about the effects on the child, not the mother. However, this extra moral weight may inadvertently bleed into the discussion when we are empathizing.

Yes, she agreed that vetting was a woman's responsibility and that it bears on the child's future deficits. Undoubtedly the rest of what you said is accurate. The disagreement arose, because I argued that she is "at least as responsible" which was the impression I've gotten from Stefan. Perhaps I overreached. EDIT: Hearing Stefan go on about "the gatekeepers" it seems I did not overreach. I think his assessment is baseless. Men are the keymasters, the last person to check on where their sperm are going. I think placing emphasis on the women as more responsible, is irresponsible just because they can't run away from their womb.

Law. Yes, I realize there is some irony for an anarchist. Private law all the way(pie in the sky perhaps). I want to do public interest stuff. First/second amendment, eminent domain. Also, I'm intrigued with things like the Innocence Project and border reform (passports as mechanisms allowing human trafficking). Also, it's an exciting time for property rights as people try and make "cyberproperty" a thing and try and make up nonsense laws treating cyberspace as actual property. One hundred percent.

Hah,

I've heard Stefan echo a similar point and I even brought it up last night. However, I think it may be a weaker argument. How could one be sure this is the case? Is this an evidence based claim? Wouldn't a man just as easily be able to terminate the relationship and the fact that they choose not to is simply irrelevant? Aside from legal marriage which has financial consequences for ending a relationship, how is it actually more difficult for a man to do so? Is a man's willingness to settle for an unhappy situation, the fault of the person he's choosing to settle for? You point to his family. That's fine if in the same breath as you assign blame to the woman you point to her family. I'm not sure either is productive or necessary. How do you balance the woman's ability to vet and terminate a relationship against a man choosing to leave? On it's face it doesn't appear to be a numerical evaluation ("one more so to blame than the other" suggesting a ratio other than 50/50). I know a bit about her family history. She is the daughter of immigrants, who themselves received highschool and college educations. They put her and her brother through the best education possible. She went to a very prestigious charter school. Her father seems levelheaded and calm and they seem to have a healthy relationship. On the other hand, her mother seems excitable and their relationship seems slightly strained. This is probably due, in no small part, that her mother is religious and she is an atheist. It's an odd dynamic. As far as picking mates goes, her parents relationship I believe is a loving and happy one. I've yet to meet them, but that's what I've been able to gather. I'm not really sure how any of this plays into the argument, since at least as far as her parents are concerned, good mate selection on the mother's has been modeled. Nothing I've seen yet indicates that her father was anything but supportive, peaceful, and all around a descent man. Maybe I'm missing red flags.

My girlfriend and I had a lengthy argument last night about whether women are "responsible" for the detriments children suffer from growing up without a father. I ruled out cases due to rape or widowing, naturally. Eventually we agreed that a woman is responsible for the reasonable vetting of her sexual partners, if she is not prepared to terminate a pregnancy via morning after pills or abortion. We also agreed that the extent to which vetting is considered "reasonable" is influenced by the fact that a life hangs in the balance, therefore setting the bar for "reasonable" quite high. She still claims that the father's decision to ditch is far more important/bears more responsibility. Does anyone here think a woman is just as responsible (50/50) or more responsible than the man? If so, why? Is it useful to even discuss the extent to which one person is more or less responsible, so long as it is recognized that they bare some responsibility? Is the question of assigning moral responsibility relevant once it has been determined that, blameworthy or not, women's decisions to better vett their sexual partners can have positive and negative impacts on child rearing as a whole?

There is no such thing as "alternative medicine" but I know what you mean by the term. There is effective medicine, and ineffective medicine. Medicine that has been studied at great length is a safer bet, regardless of whether it was initially developed by pharmaceutical companies or indigenous people. To be fair the cancer organizations are doing wonders if they are discouraging people who are advocating medicines which have not been put through pharmaceutical grade trials and studies which were then peer reviewed. To do otherwise would be to subject the sickest and most desperate among us to the snake oil salesmen of the world. You can claim "conspiracy" but you would also be responsible for answering why some non insider wouldn't develop the "supplement" which is the way to circumvent the FDA here in America, and subject it to rigorous scientific trials. Onnit.com did this very thing with "AlphaBrain" There is demand.

="u mad bro?"

Did you oil pull? Again, they don't argue that it is ineffective, rather that no clinical trials have provided evidence. They don't even discourage it. Rather, they simply point to a lack of evidence and urge the public to at the very least hedge their bets.

It was my understanding that the enamel itself was an important barrier to future cavities. Truth be told, I've heard of remineralization but have not put adequate time into research. I'll have to take a look.

The ADA does not recommend using this to supplement a normal routine of flossing, brushing, and rinsing. They say that there is a lack of scientific evidence showing any beneficial effects of these methods. For anticavity properties, antiseptics like Listerine are their recommended course of action. Using this in addition will probably not do any harm. I looked into this, not to long ago. Sadly, once your tooth enamel has been decayed to the point of cavity, it cannot be restored by any known means. That doesn't mean oil pulling doesn't do anything, but the jury is still WAY out.

Common thread= unseen costs; difficulty of measuring non-contribution. Good arguments on both sides. Personally I vehemently disagree with many of the positions Stefan espouses and as a result I would feel wrong or at least apprehensive about donating. I value the sharpening of my arguments that these forums provide, but that is a resource that you the members provide rather than Stefan himself. To be quite frank I'd rather deal with ads. I have heard why Stefan chooses not to use ads, but my preference is for that which costs the least for me to deal with. I am among those who would probably leave if presented with an ultimatum. I don't proselytize Libertarianism, but I do represent my views when given the opportunity. My efforts are primarily focused on completing my intensive workload for graduate school. Do I count as a free-rider?

I dig the name. Buddhist concept of no-self or bundled self right? On this point, I thinking chalking it up to cowardice is a bit hasty. Good questions with difficult to measure answers might be "how does state indoctrination vs. religious indoctrination measure in ubiquity and intensity?" "To what extent are proponents of atheism vs. proponents of Libertarianism actively spreading their respective gospels?" "What social mechanisms might hinder, or be more prohibitive for criticizing the state vs. religion?" And a host of others I am undoubtedly missing. Not sure if it's of note, but I shed religion first. What about the rest of you?

The point of the post is that despite there being overlap of the group of leftists and atheism, simply stating that fact neither implies nor explains a causal relationship. For instance, nearly all atheists wear pants, yet I would not ascribe "wearing pants" as a logical correlate of atheism. While conservatives are theoretically for limited government, the point of the post was that many people who identify as both religious and conservative are in fact in favor of big expensive government wars. I imagine you find similar support of government interfering in the bedroom with sodomy laws, or the sovereignty of the body and drug laws, or sovereignty of the reproductive organs and contraception.

Theoretically, one could justly acquire (buy, inherit, or homestead) a vast swath of land. A part of living on this land would be signing an agreement to pay something like a property tax. Additionally, to continue living on the land you might be subject to further taxes if approved by a homeowners association you become a part of by living there and signing on. If all of this is in the contracts and more or less explicit, you could get something that looks very similar to a state. However, it would be entirely voluntary. Other than this, what are some differences which may always exist between a private construction and a state or is the voluntary aspect the only necessary difference?