Search the Community

In an anarchistic world, how would indigenous peoples seek justice through arbitration or private law so that they might remain on the lands they've existed on for decades or more? Wouldn't these people be at a clear disadvantage when up against a wealthy business, even compared yo your average poor person?

Hello, Quite frequently we hear questions like "Is it fair that that women earn less than men?" as a response to valid arguments based on research and evidence. This is a clear attempt to dehumanise the person as well as to appeal to the emotions of the listeners. The way I see it we have two choices, either surrender and agree with the other person or stand our ground in which case we risk being called and labelled with all the nasty words. I understand that such emotional appeals should not be a part of any sort of reasonable debate, however, it is quite hard to avoid such questions especially when the debate takes place in a university. Let's face it, the moment we are being labelled as a racist or a misogynist, nobody will listen to us. Is there a way of avoiding agreeing and at the same time listeners not labelling you as a spawn of Satan?

In podcast #562, Stefan talks about a scenario of cutting cake among siblings as a tool to teach UPB to children. The scenario is two siblings, who want the most amount of cake. you let one kid cut the cake, but let the other kid choose which slide first. Stefan says this can be used to teach UPB, and i'm sure it can be. But i want more explanation on how because I can see it teaching the complete opposite.First, the kid is concerned with cutting the cake even because of the rules of the game. He is still acting out of self-interest, and perhaps even selfishness. The kid can certainly comprehend fairness and that his sister would end up getting very close to 50% as well. UPB wouldn't necessarily be learned through this, and the parent might have to teach it overtly. My question is how.Second, this can lead to worship of the state. Why? The parent (the state), is laying down the rules. The kid would certainly understand that this rule results in more fairness, as opposed to the kid or his sister getting more or less in greater variance. So the kid can end up learning the lesson that the state is virtuous, and necessary (for without that rule, it would result in fighting and unfair proportions - it may not, but it will be hard for kids to see other solutions.Third, it teaches that you can maximize and focus on self-interest, and still result in fairness, and that it is the responsibility of the parent (state) to set up fair rules. While as an adult, we can appreciate the more subtle lesson that we cannot rely on the goodness of people, but rather things are more stable if people rely on their self interest, but as far as kids... i think this is a sophisticated lesson. They are much more likely to learn that they can shrug off being concerned with fairness, and that maximizing their self-interest can and will result in fairness, as well as inferring that the state should set the rules.Fourth, it will teach the smarter kids to be crafty, set up barriers to entry, and deceive. If the kid cuts the cake in a very complicated manner, so that it is harder for his sister to tell which piece is bigger (relative to the cake being cut in one stroke along the diameter), then it increases the kid's odds of getting a bigger piece. It rewards and directs his efforts into being crafty in a zero-sum game, rather than craft in increasing productivity and wealth for all parties. Now, this skill may be a very useful thing as you get older ( you learn a lot of great things in poker, trading, physical fighting, etc ), and can be channeled for positive endeavors (like being resiliant in face of hardships, being clever to save a company to beat the competition in a legal, legitimate manner, etc ). but for kids??? Also, a smarter kid will use a scale to weigh out the cake's size (or mass), which again is great for cleverness, but the scenario is one of competition and zero-sum and deception and counter-deception. not great for kids imo.I'd love to your hear people's thoughts on these four points.