Search the Community

Hello reason and evidence cultists, recently I've been questioning more and more if my values are worth living, because they're often in the way of facilitating my life. A little bit of background: I consider myself a anarchist much inline with the likes of Stefan Molyneux and Michael Malice, I agree with UPB and try to live my life according to it. In my country, a public job is the easiest ticket for a tranquil life - one which I'm in most dire need, and I'm at constant temptation at getting employed as a public server. I live with my girlfriend and she isn't much of a political person, she understands and supports me in everything that I do. I've never felt directly pressured on trying for a public job, but at the same time I want to give her a better life and this is the easiest legal way of improving both of our lives. It doesn't help that I get really depressed if I'm working at a dead-end job. I always thought I was a smart guy, or at the very least above average, but after catastrophically failing college I've began to despise formal education in such a way that I really, really don't want to go to college. On good days I'm sure I could pass the entrance exam on most courses, on bad days I don't even consider. It doesn't help that school was very easy for me and I never developed a studying habit. When I mentioned that a public job is the easiest legal way of facilitating my life, is because the easiest way is just robbing a goddamn bank. I don't lie to myself thinking I'll be a robbing hood because, before I started considering myself a anarchist I was a extreme individualist much like Ayn Rand, but without the talent. I know bad people who would be more than willing to do it with me and I know smarter people that could give insight on my heinous plan. My life is at stalemate. I work at a job that I like but it has very little security, but it's a dead-end. I've payed for courses which have only costed my money and if it were possible to be bankrupt in my country, I would probably had declared it twice. The only thing going right is my little Easter home made eggs which turns a little profit each year, but I have no idea how to expand these products year round. How do you find strength to keep your head held high and live your values even when they're counter productive to your life?

Man is this election cycle interesting and sort of exciting. Now, don't get me wrong...I'm an anarcho capitalist so this changes none of that but I enjoy observing and interacting with the statist to try to get them to think amongst the chaos. I have actually succeeded in not only getting through to some to get them to actually listen (maybe not agree but have a pleasant convo) but I had a few of them actually step out of the statist indulegence of political advocacy and at least peak behind the door of anarcho-capitalism. I rarely reveal my 'persuasion' unless they ask me directly. I keep it ambiguous and simply stick to the mental exercises to snap them out of the rhetoric. I will share some of my tactics. And I go in with low or reasonable expectations. I don't expect them to go from statist to non statist by the end of the conversation. I go in hoping to give them pause, thought and insight that will hopefully carry with them and be a beacon in their brain even after the fuss of elections that will draw them towards their path to find their answers....which of course I hope will be anarcho-caplitalism or 'worst case' libertariansim. And this was mostly with Bernie supporters! Here's how I did it, this is my general forumula: Bernie supporter: I don't support him because of the free stuff.... (we've all heard this one) Me: So you voted for Ron Paul in 2012? Bernie Supporter: No, why? Me: He was basically Bernie without free stuff.. Bernie Supporter: ..... oh Me: Yeah, it's best to not look at which party line these people choose to run on because of the Commission of Presidential Debates. BS: the what? Me: The Commision of Presidential Debates, it's common knowledge for those who follow actual anti-establishment candidates as they have been known to expose this outright or at least the symptoms of it. Look it up and make your own judgment but it's the reason why Donald Trump, or your guy Bernie Sanders is even running on main party tickets and don't really have the 'freedom' to run as a third party, so it's odd that Bernie doesn't point that out and Trump actually has, Ron Paul has, Ralph Nader has. You can see how they treat people who expose this and Trump is actually getting further than any of the others, which is incredible and will expose the level to which the establishment will go to try to shut him down or steer people away from him. BS: I'll look into it. Me: yes. Look...I don't agree with B.S. but I wish he could run in whatever party he seems fits his platform the best. I loath the 2 party monopoly and I would rather work together with all the voters on this issue than bet on the horse-race. Exposing this would liberate voters from the 2 party monopoly and liberate future candidates so they can run on any party ticket they want without being blocked from media and getting their message out and they can speak as frankly and be their genuine selves without having to be P.C. all the time. BS: Makes sense. Another approach: BS: Free college....help the poor....bla bla bla...I'm donating to BS Now! Let's do this! Activate your friends...get them to donate, buy merch.! Me: Wow, that's incredible how much effort, time and resource such as your money or expertise and energy to rally people to voluntarily give their money to a man for a cause you believe in. BS: Yes....we really believe he's the one to finally...bla bla bla Me: Great. Tell me, have you ever put this much effort in actually helping a poor person or the poor or needy in general? BS: ............avoids question completely. Me: I mean I look at Bernie. He has a lot of interesting things to say, he's seems like a nice and likable guy, he knows how to rally young people, he cares about the disenfranchised and you guys are willing to help him in this cause and you work together, voluntarily to raise him hundreds of millions of dollars! That's incredible! BS: It really is. I mean when you care about these issues you do whatever.... bla bla bla Me: I get it. I guess my only question is, how many poor people could this effort to raise his hundreds of millions actually help if it was given to them or given to the proper organizations directly? How many studen loans could this campaign money pay off? How many private school tuitions for poor kids could this pay for? How many medical bills could this pay off for people? BS: ..........How much time do you put in to help the poor? Me: (gives list of my effots) BS: Well...there aren't many people like you and why we need....bla bla bla Me: But wait...there are. I mean Bernie's campaign proves how many there are and there are MORE because I don't support BS and do my share and know many others, that's the point. BS:...... Me: I just find it to be a charity with high overhead BS: what do you mean? Me: Well you put in all this time and effort and get everyone involved to raise a LOAD of cash for the guy you want to solve the inequality problem. Then you hope he wins the nomination and dump more money into his campaign. Then you hope he wins the election and dump more money into the campaign. Then once he's president you hope Congress will pass his policies and if he does, it's been several hundreds of millions and then they need to tax everyone to make this plan work when he had people willing to VOLUNTARILY work and donate to help poor people but refused to open a charity with the guy or use this momentum to actually go out and do it. Every month that he brings in tens of millions and it doesn't go to poor people or uneducated people is another day of hypocricy. BS: I..... I mean.... yeah but.... I don't even know what to say. Me: Me neither. Ther eis no reason you and all of his supporters can't do this as an actual charity rather than (and this applies to all campaigns) go out and use the same effort and cooperation and volunterrism to solve the issues you find most important. But you are rallying for political power and force to help when you already prove the voluntarism WORKS, otherwise the guy wouldn't have a dime to his campaign. BS: ......... stunned silent. Me: If you have more to respond later once this sinks in, i'm available to listen but never forget how well voluntarism has helped you help him to help the poor...but it's a WHOLE lot of overhad and risk that has no or little guarantee when you could just simply....help the poor. And another one: Me: How will we pay for all of Bernie's plans? BS: Wallstreet, taxes and future generations. Me: Having the future pay for it doesn't bother you? BS: No, why should it. that's very common thing and guarantees we can get what we need and what' sbest...bla bla bla Me: Well, then you are simply enslaving the children. Could you look a child in the eye and at least explain to them the implications and ask their permission before you sell their future wealth? BS: oh that's ridiculous. Me: I know, so you are taking without asking or you couldn't live with yourself to have to face them in the eye while you take their future wealth knowing they have no idea what's going on or the implications. Me: tell me, do you enjoy now having to pay for past decisions that use your tax dollars today but you receive no benefits for? BS: Huh? ME: Well, most of the income tax goes to interest on borrowed money and this is for things that were voted on when you and I were too young or not even born yet and certainly couldn't vote on. Those benefits have been used up, are not available for you and me and we are still paying for them. And you are sitting here complaining that our generation is out of money or it's unevenly distributed and we have no benefits or not enough. Don't you see the problem you are repeating? BS: yea but the money is spent anyway so what does it matter ME: that we can have some moral, ethical integrity and disciple to at least be the generation that stopped this cycle. Our elders sold our future and we feel now what that is like and you have no problem doing the same to the future? Are you giving any guarantee that they future who will be held to pay for this will have anything left for them or how long do you want this cycle to go on? BS: I guess I can see how paying for the past decisions I wasn't a part of didn't work well for this generation. Me: Exactly and if you have kids or think of having kids, this is the exact posiiton or feeling you will be heiring to them. Now you call yourself moral and good and altruistic. Do you think our elders were moral and good and altruisitc when they made these decisions for you to pay for? BS: absolutely not. Me: ok. so you can feel moral and good now but when your children grow up, they will see you as freeloading jerks as we see our elders. Bs: yea...I guess that's true. Sometimes I ask if they think money is private property. Typically...as leftists do...they ask me WHY I'm asking. That is so they can scan and try to sniff out any advantage and wiggle and move the goal posts. But I just ask them again until they leave the conversation or answer me. of course it always ends with them realizing that taxation is theft. Doesn't mean they will instantly switch to libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism but at least they have come to terms with taxation is theft. ...always a good start.

Stefan points out that the axioms described in the “UPB in a Nutshell” section of UPB are ones that must bind any moral system. As such, the ethical framework I forward will hopefully arise under these axioms without contradiction. In regards to Utilitarianism Stefan had this to say: “I do not believe that morality can be defined or determined with reference to “arguments from effect,” or the predicted consequences of ethical propositions. Utilitarianism, or “the greatest good for the greatest number,” does not solve the problem of subjectivism, since the odds of any central planner knowing what is objectively good for everyone else are about the same as any - 10 - central economic planner knowing how to efficiently allocate resources in the absence of price – effectively zero. Also, that which is considered “the greatest good for the greatest number” changes according to culture, knowledge, time and circumstances, which also fails to overcome the problem of subjectivism. We do not judge the value of scientific experiments according to some Platonic higher realm, or some utilitarian optimisation – they are judged in accordance with the scientific method. I will take the same approach in this book.” This is quite a piercing and accurate criticism. The problem any theory which tries to aggregate some good faces, whether it’s pleasure, happiness, or some other “good”, is that it inevitably cannot measure that good objectively. Therefore, there is no way an individual, let alone a central planner could assess what the correct moral decision would be. Call this the measurement problem. Utilitarianism faces various other problems as well (such as the repugnant conclusion, and the utility monster and probably a few others I’m unaware of). Though this seems to be the most condemning problem of them all, since without its solution, Utilitarianism doesn’t get off the ground. Let’s turn to a quick thought experiment. There is a choice machine. This machine knows all of your current preferences and it updates each time your preferences change. This machine has a phenomenal grasp of deterministic physical forces and can assess the various outcomes of any set of decisions. This machine will best choose the decisions you have before you, in accordance with whatever outcome would best suit your preferences. The machine does this job without fault. Do you choose to let the machine run your life? There is a second choice machine. It too knows all of your current preferences and it updates each time your preferences change. While it doesn’t make the best possible choices in accordance with outcomes and your preferences, it makes the choice you would have made. Do you let this machine run your life? Making decisions can be quite stressful and you would get the exact same life you would have had, but without any of that stress. If you would not let either of these machines run your life, it is likely because you are a rational person. Any rational person innately values choice. But what if we plugged choice itself into the principle, “whatever maximizes x, is good”? Well let’s take a quick look at the meaning of choice. Choice is the willful use of a conscious mind. So a coma patient that is still conscious is making choices about how to direct his attention. Lifting your leg is a choice, as is not lifting your leg. So choosing not to make a choice is itself a choice. Seems pretty straightforward. In fact, so long as there is a conscious person by themselves(in total isolation from other actors), they are making as many choices as they can. That is, choice is always maximized On the other hand, when more than one moral agent gets involved, things get interesting. If A and B decide on an exchange, both of them will the exchange to happen and so you have two choices resulting in one exchange (mutual assent). However, if A were to replace B’s items with his own, despite the fact that B may have traded anyway, there is one less choice than there could have been. A abolished a choice of B’s. When A murders B, A takes away B’s choice for euthanasia, or to remain alive. When A rapes B, the option with greater choice is that where B and A had consensual sex. I know what you’re thinking, A’s a real asshole. I agree. But aside from that, where do A and B get off claiming they have the right to bodily integrity? Well Mill makes a good point (at least there’s one), that human beings are themselves outside the consideration of exclusively being means to other ends. That is, an any given time, we humans are ends in and of ourselves. Preservation of conscious entities and indirectly the shells that sustain them are inherently valuable. If you see a baby drowning in a puddle and there’s no one around, you at the very least get the baby out of the puddle. If not, you are A a psychopath and B not fully rational. More on this later. Choice and Markets How could one go about maximizing choice? Doesn’t this version of Utilitarianism suffer the same measurement problem as the others? Well, no. So, choice is binary in that you either opt for A, or you don’t. In another sense it’s pluralistic in that you may be giving up a litany of other choices by making any one choice. This is what economists refer to as opportunity cost. By saying that somehow making a choice isn’t a choice because of all the other opportunities you pass up, you’re sneaking in a requirement for choice that wasn’t in the original definition. In any given circumstance with more than one conscious actor, you can have an exchange where there is mutual assent. In each of these exact instances there is maximal choice occurring. What’s interesting is that went a voluntary interaction occurs something new is generated. If A gives B his pencil for a dollar, A values B’s dollar more than his own pencil and B values A’s pencil more than his own dollar. Also, A values B’s dollar more than B does and B values A’s pencil more than A does. Net economic value is necessarily created. Involuntary exchanges, however, are zero-sum. With the creation of economic value comes the expansions of resources. Choices are expanded directly as resources expand. If a market is merely the sum of all consensual interactions (including gifts, charity, etc…) then the market is at that point the most ethical state of affairs possible. What’s fascinating is that we know empirically that markets create the most resources netted compared to central planning or other involuntary exchanges, while simultaneous creating the greatest distribution of those resources to the greatest number of people. Voluntarism is necessarily the moral course of action as a direct result of maximizing choice. Then there is the question of how resources come to be decided upon, and by whom. For this, see Rothsbard’s Applications and criticism from the Austrian school. The basics are, in regards to the control of materials external to the body, if you work with something that no one else has a claim to, it becomes yours after a time. A farmer comes to a new territory, puts up a fence, and works the land. That land is his. I reject that the ownership of the self is necessary through these means, because the integrity of the body and its directed use by consciousness within its brain, is innately valuable. Other than that, this method of acquisition is unlimited. Let’s recap. We have free-markets as dictated by the maximization of choice, the respect for property rights due to the homesteading theory, and the intrinsic value of human life. The Intrinsic Value of Preserving Conscious Creatures Let’s revisit the conclusions we drew about the drowning baby. From the notion that one happens upon a baby drowning in a puddle, it is reprehensible that anyone should let it drown, despite perhaps desiring not to bend down. That is, bending down and saving the baby wouldn’t be their choice. This strikes most as intuitive. Similarly, if someone were to happen upon someone who had experience vertigo and fallen into a body of water and was drowning, it would be equally vile not to throw that person a nearby self-inflating life vest. There is also the popular flag pole scenario (though this seems the most farfetched I’ll admit) where a man on a balcony of a very high building loses balance somehow and falls off the balcony. Luckily he grabs onto the flagpole outside the window of the story immediately below. Should a person deny the hanging man the ability to kick in the glass, or land on the balcony(which magically appeared to change this into a different thought experiment), or worse yet actively seeks to defend his balcony from the man trying to set down on it, we would say this strikes us as unsettling behavior. Yet none of the options that would ruffle our feathers in any of the above scenarios is one which there would be less choice. There is another value at play, and as you might have guessed that value one intrinsic to preserving conscious creatures. Only in these rare instances which pose negligible risk to moral actors does that intrinsic value necessarily outweigh the value of the choice to do nothing. This has certain restrictions. If for instance the person in the river did not fall there because of vertigo, and instead was trying to drown themselves, no one should interfere. Worst case scenario, the suicidal person is rescued and must commit suicide slightly after they had wished to initially. Also if you try and maximize conscious creatures, al the value problems and other problems of utilitarianism arise. That only happens if you try and directly create a greater aggregate preservation of consciousness. If in all circumstances where there are conscious actors with the ability to preserve their own lives(such that they are not in danger), choice is deferred to as the vehicle of maximization, then all is well in the measurement department. An immediate imposition of danger would be required for the value of life to be considered and what qualifies as “immediate” or as a “negligible risk” to the moral actor is no more or less than how we use those words. All words with meaning get that meaning through inter-subjective agreement. What would it matter if we could say such people were wrong for refraining from acting? A lot to the families of those imperiled. Compensatory damages to the families or the victims themselves, should they survive but not unscathed, would be a moral right. By abstaining from action, the bad actor injured the victim. They would be obligated to make them whole again. Similarly in the event of death, emotional damages should be compensated to the extent that they could be. What you wouldn’t get is some central planner telling people they have to wipe the noses of passers by. If you have read this far, thanks. The only thing I ask, before you issue your criticism is that you do your very best to defend this position first. Before you ask your question or point out a flaw, anticipate how I might respond and play out the back and forth. Again thanks for reading and have fun tearing it to pieces lol. EDIT: Mill further describes the relationship of people being ends in themselves, and this establishing the argument for self defense, where he says "the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others"

Please help me achieve my goal of ending circumcision in the next ten years by spreading the message. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_93ZJL-Q0TM&feature=youtu.be You have my unending gratitude and thanks!

I just learned about an interesting political philosophy that was created by Paul Émile de Puydt & as you may have guessed it is called Panarchism. "Panarchism is a political philosophy emphasizing each individual's right to freely join and leave the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale." -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchism There is close suggestion to this that was created by a Swiss Economist called Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions (FOCJ) but to me that conception sounds like pre-Thirty Years War Germany honestly. I think this is viable & was wondering what everyone else thought? BTW I will now call myself a Panarcho-Capitalist Edit: It was a joke because they are contradictions of each other, like I have said many times my jokes aren't great. Edit 2: Here are some articles I read on Panarchism that explain it better than the Wikipedia article, please if your going to comment with something regarding it please read a few of these before you do. http://www.panarchy.org/zube/gospel.1986.html http://www.panarchy.org/zube/aphthonius.2005.html http://www.panarchy.org/rozeff/panarchism.html http://www.panarchy.org/knott/principles.html http://www.panarchy.org/debellis/onpanarchy.html

Maybe it's just me but I hate it when people say they believe in "voluntaryism". It's like saying you believe in anerchy. It's an obvious misspelling and when I point this out people tend to say, "I spell it that way so the word voluntary can be in there, that way people know what it means." Nobody, not even G. Dubya, is that stupid. I'm pretty sure people can understand voluntarism. Anyways, I have a page called "Commonly Confused Words List" that takes definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary. (oed.com, not oxforddictionaries.com) And I've posted the differences between voluntarism, voluntaryism and volunteerism. Here they are: Voluntaryism: Abbreviated, Volunteerism The principle or tenet that the Church and educational institutions should be supported by voluntary contributions instead of by the State. Any system which rests upon voluntary action or principles. Now usu. with reference to voluntary labour. Volunteerism: The system of having volunteer military forces. The use of volunteer labour, esp. in the social services. Voluntarism: Philos. One or other theory or doctrine which regards will as the fundamental principle or dominant factor in the individual or in the universe. The principle of relying on voluntary action rather than compulsion; spec. with reference to political and trade-union activities. Denoting the involvement of voluntary organizations in social welfare. Am I crazy for being so annoyed by this? Hamilton called his beliefs federalism. The United States is called a democratic government. Things like mercantilism and imperialism are called capitalism. Theft is called tax. Stefan's documentary teaser ends on the problem with words. Libertarians, voluntarists and anarcho-capitalists alike are pummeled everyday with a misconception of very basic words and yet those who call themselves "voluntaryists" are, to me, a part of the problem. I find it impossible to debate "anarcho"-communists/socialists because they can't speak english. Their entire philosophy depends on and relies on redefining words. If you don't allow them to do that and try to find common ground, they'll start throwing insults and falling apart. Is it right to hold voluntarists to the same standard that we hold everyone else to? Or should I just relax and let them do whatever they want? I mean they're not harming me, I don't want them to go to jail but I think they're misrepresenting themselves and making themselves (and the philosophy) look dumb and misinformed.

Peter Joseph raised this concept in his discussion with Stefan Molyneux. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence "Structural violence" seems to be what happens when a price greater than zero gets between a poor person an a life saving good or service like food or medicine. There is no faster way to eliminate poverty than to engage in trade. Economic globalization lifts 70,000,000 people out of poverty every single year. At current rates, the most serious forms of "structural violence" would vanish some time before the end of this century. I would be curious to know if the prohibition of the buying and selling of health care improved things in Haiti or Rwanda. Usually such measures only make things worse by removing constructive incentives. I don't think "structural violence" is a result of market failure. It is simply a failure of means on the part of those purchasing healthcare, education, water, and food. This rapidly shrinking group of destitute people will continue to be lifted from poverty as humanity continues to become wealthier. I see no need for a risky socialist project like the Zeitgeist movement to alleviate this poverty since capitalism, however restrained by the states of the world, is already doing a good job of making it disappear. Judging by the video, Peter Joseph holds many orthodox Marxist views. Marxist regimes did not eliminate poverty as fast as capitalist economies, so I do not think that repackaged Marxist ideas will do a better job at ending poverty. I think debunking the concept of "structural violence" and similar concepts is essential to promoting voluntarism since structural violence conflates voluntary economic systems with violence. If someone can be convinced that capitalism causes death and destruction they will seek to limit capitalism. I see similar arguments used for the criminalization of recreational drugs and file sharing. These benign activities are conflated with criminal ones to convince the public that police action is needed to keep order and/or protect the innocent. Marxists are making a similar sales pitch with structural violence. They conflate capitalism first with violence and then with inequality to convince people that redistribution of wealth is the only way to make sure that people do not die of preventable disease or malnutrition even though globalization of trade is currently solving the problem of poverty. Redistribution schemes and foreign aid have not been as effective as trade in eliminating poverty in Asia, but trade with the West has. This is a problem for Marxists since many Marxists believe that trade can be inherently exploitative, one sided, and unfair.