Hi everybody. Glad to be a part of the world’s largest philosophical conversation!

[Existing Alternatives]

Long time ago I started as a Harry Browne’s fan and a daily reader (first investment-wise then philosophy). Through him I discovered Ayn Rand and Ron Paul. First heard of this forum and Stefan at last years’ Liberty Now event. Have been making my way through the podcasts ever since.

My major interest here is around peaceful parenting. Stefan was able to convince me about anarchism. Atheism – not so much. Looking forward to the debates. Please be nice, remember, I’m new!

 

[Guest NateC]

Hi.

So, why not atheism?

[Existing Alternatives]

Short answer: not convinced.

Long answer: I believe that the world we live in is way too complex, irrational and inconsistent. There are too many things that require significant effort to understand and be explained, be it at all possible. Thus, I think, there is a pretty good chance that a higher power, energy, whatever you want to call it, exists outside of our current realm of understanding. At the same time, even inside our minds we are full of irrationalities: we eat way too much carbs, stay up too late, drive too fast, maintain too many destructive relationships – why not throw in this one on top? But, having said that, I am not here to convert, convince, condemn or otherwise offend anyone.

[Guest NateC]

Hm, ok. Well, if the world is irrational and inconsistent, how then did you arrive to the conclusion of anarchism? Wouldn't you agree that anarchism is rational and consistent?

[Existing Alternatives]

I find Stefan’s interpretation of anarchism to be very rational and consistent, which is why I am attracted to it. For me it was the violence factor that got me over the fence from small-government libertarian to anarcho-capitalist. But Stefan’s ideas are, at best, on the fringe of anarchism. Anarchism in general is very violent and neither rational nor consistent.

[endostate]

 

Short answer: not convinced.

Long answer: I believe that the world we live in is way too complex, irrational and inconsistent. There are too many things that require significant effort to understand and be explained, be it at all possible. Thus, I think, there is a pretty good chance that a higher power, energy, whatever you want to call it, exists outside of our current realm of understanding. At the same time, even inside our minds we are full of irrationalities: we eat way too much carbs, stay up too late, drive too fast, maintain too many destructive relationships – why not throw in this one on top? But, having said that, I am not here to convert, convince, condemn or otherwise offend anyone.

 

Paraphrasing:
-the world is way too complex, irrational and inconsistent.
-many things are too complex to understand, likely impossible.
-the world is too complex to understand.
-god exists but can't currently be understood.
-other irrationalities exist, why not theism?

How do irrational theories help with understanding complexities?

[endostate]

 

I find Stefan’s interpretation of anarchism to be very rational and consistent, which is why I am attracted to it. For me it was the violence factor that got me over the fence from small-government libertarian to anarcho-capitalist. But Stefan’s ideas are, at best, on the fringe of anarchism. Anarchism in general is very violent and neither rational nor consistent.

 

Can you give an example of where anarchism is very violent, irrational or inconsistent?

[Mister Mister]

    Hrmm that's interesting.  Can you give some examples of how the Universe is irrational and inconsistent?  Human beings may seem to be irrational, but I have learned from this show and a general interest in psychology, that when you peel back the layers, there are invariably reasons for the things people do and say.     I feel that when people say things like the Universe is irrational, it is more just a feeling people get because of an irrational and inconsistent academic cosmology which depends on non-contradictory identities, entities which cannot be proven/disproven, and different rules for different sizes of objects.  For me the question of theism/atheism is kind of irrelevant, as they mostly deal with definitions given by religions which are obviously silly.  The one proof that I think is most interesting, is Aristotle's cosmological argument, that all motion has some cause, so there must be some "first cause" and "prime mover".  Of course this doesn't necessarily have all or any of the various qualities different people and traditions may ascribe to God, but it is really the interesting question: what is the cause of the Universe,  the source of energy, matter, form, motion.  The mistake that I think both Creationists and modern Cosmologists make is they assume this to be an event in the past.  It seems to me possible that it is instead a continuous evolutionary creative process.  There is clearly a pattern in Nature for systems to self-organize, and it seems that the hard sciences have failed to deal with this up to now.  One conclusion that is potentially very paradigm-shattering, is that if the Universe has no beginning, it seriously calls the law of entropy into question.  So I am willing to consider the idea of a creator as an energy source which feeds the continuous creative process of matter and motion.  What do you think of this concept?

[Existing Alternatives]

Paraphrasing:
-the world is way too complex, irrational and inconsistent.
-many things are too complex to understand, likely impossible.
-the world is too complex to understand.
-god exists but can't currently be understood.
-other irrationalities exist, why not theism?

How do irrational theories help with understanding complexities?

 

That’s very good paraphrasing.

 

I don’t think we have neither emotional nor intellectual capacity to “understand” everything. “Rational theories” may only begin to scratch the surface, whereas “irrational theories” help us accept the complexities.

 

 

[Existing Alternatives]

 

Can you give an example of where anarchism is very violent, irrational or inconsistent?

 

Are you familiar with the concept of "propaganda of the deed"? The idea is to convince your opponents not by words or ideas, but rather "deeds," which would include assasinations, bombings and other terror tactics. It was developed and perfected by early anarchists.

Also, the motto of the only libertarian / anarchic "country" that I am aware of (Free Territory of 1918-1921) was "Death to all who stands in the way of freedom."

My point is that the subject and field of anarchy goes way beyond pure non-violent anarcho-capitalist utopia and has a very complex history. Whereas we accept it all or just a part of it is a different story. Whereas the label itself had been tarnished - also another discussion. I just don’t think we can conclusively state that there is no violence, irrationality or inconsistency in it as a whole.

 

 

[Existing Alternatives]

 

Hrmm that's interesting.  Can you give some examples of how the Universe is irrational and inconsistent?  Human beings may seem to be irrational, but I have learned from this show and a general interest in psychology, that when you peel back the layers, there are invariably reasons for the things people do and say. 
   I feel that when people say things like the Universe is irrational, it is more just a feeling people get because of an irrational and inconsistent academic cosmology which depends on non-contradictory identities, entities which cannot be proven/disproven, and different rules for different sizes of objects.  For me the question of theism/atheism is kind of irrelevant, as they mostly deal with definitions given by religions which are obviously silly.  The one proof that I think is most interesting, is Aristotle's cosmological argument, that all motion has some cause, so there must be some "first cause" and "prime mover".  Of course this doesn't necessarily have all or any of the various qualities different people and traditions may ascribe to God, but it is really the interesting question: what is the cause of the Universe,  the source of energy, matter, form, motion.  The mistake that I think both Creationists and modern Cosmologists make is they assume this to be an event in the past.  It seems to me possible that it is instead a continuous evolutionary creative process.  There is clearly a pattern in Nature for systems to self-organize, and it seems that the hard sciences have failed to deal with this up to now.  One conclusion that is potentially very paradigm-shattering, is that if the Universe has no beginning, it seriously calls the law of entropy into question.  So I am willing to consider the idea of a creator as an energy source which feeds the continuous creative process of matter and motion.  What do you think of this concept? 

 

My point here is less that the Universe is irrational, but rather that I am not in a position to comprehend whether or not it is.  

The theism vs. atheism conflict, in my opinion, has more to do with the tools you use to solve that. Atheist may use “rational theories,” theist may simply chalk this “incomprehensiveness” under “higher power,” or “Bob did it.”

 

 

[Guest NateC]

 

 I believe that the world we live in is way too complex, irrational and inconsistent. There are too many things that require significant effort to understand and be explained, be it at all possible.

 

If that's your belief, why are you attempting to make arguments in this thread.

 

 

[Existing Alternatives]

 

If that's your belief, why are you attempting to make arguments in this thread.

 

 

 

I don’t think I actually attempted to make any arguments at all in this thread. I merely stated the reasons behind my personal belief in response to your and Endostates’ questions, and RoseCodex’s helpful proposal on how to resolve some of the perceived inconsistencies.

[endostate]

 

Are you familiar with the concept of "propaganda of the deed"? The idea is to convince your opponents not by words or ideas, but rather "deeds," which would include assasinations, bombings and other terror tactics. It was developed and perfected by early anarchists.

Wasn't familiar but it sounds alot like state-sponsored terrorism used to strengthen the idea that governance is required.  It is unethical and is what militaries/agencies do now.

 

Also, the motto of the only libertarian / anarchic "country" that I am aware of (Free Territory of 1918-1921) was "Death to all who stands in the way of freedom."

Interesting motto, sounds like an extreme of self defense. Government employees have murdered over 260,000,000 people in the last century (democide). Not sure what the mottos were. "Death to all who stands in the way of socialism?"[:O]

 

My point is that the subject and field of anarchy goes way beyond pure non-violent anarcho-capitalist utopia and has a very complex history. Whereas we accept it all or just a part of it is a different story. Whereas the label itself had been tarnished - also another discussion. I just don’t think we can conclusively state that there is no violence, irrationality or inconsistency in it as a whole.

Agreed. What better term or subject/field do you think would encompass the principles of non-agression and property rights? Agorism? Voluntarism? Golden rulism? Don't tread on meism?  These seem to carry less violent baggage along with them.

Its that common "law" that keeps people from butting in line at the market or forcing a relationship. It seems like the non-agression principle and property rights are already preferable behaviour... seemingly universally in the private lives of people.  What is that thing called?

 

[Existing Alternatives]

Are you familiar with the concept of "propaganda of the deed"? The idea is to convince your opponents not by words or ideas, but rather "deeds," which would include assasinations, bombings and other terror tactics. It was developed and perfected by early anarchists.

Wasn't familiar but it sounds a lot like state-sponsored terrorism used to strengthen the idea that governance is required.  It is unethical and is what militaries/agencies do now.

It could have been state-sponsored, although too many fairly influential anarchists called for it... Bakunin, Brousse, Berkman (and these are just the ones whose names start with B – not sure what’s the significance here). There is also a matter of Regicide (where the head of state is targeted), which weighs the argument away from state sponsorship.

 

My point is that the subject and field of anarchy goes way beyond pure non-violent anarcho-capitalist utopia and has a very complex history. Whereas we accept it all or just a part of it is a different story. Whereas the label itself had been tarnished - also another discussion. I just don’t think we can conclusively state that there is no violence, irrationality or inconsistency in it as a whole.

Agreed. What better term or subject/field do you think would encompass the principles of non-aggression and property rights? Agorism? Voluntarism? Golden rulism? Don't tread on meism?  These seem to carry less violent baggage along with them.

Its that common "law" that keeps people from butting in line at the market or forcing a relationship. It seems like the non-aggression principle and property rights are already preferable behaviour... seemingly universally in the private lives of people.  What is that thing called?

 

 

Maybe a contest for a new term is needed? Although all good labels tend to get hijacked and tarnished – look what happened to “Liberals”!

[Magenta]

 

Short answer: not convinced.

Long answer: I believe that the world we live in is way too complex, irrational and inconsistent. There are too many things that require significant effort to understand and be explained, be it at all possible. Thus, I think, there is a pretty good chance that a higher power, energy, whatever you want to call it, exists outside of our current realm of understanding. At the same time, even inside our minds we are full of irrationalities: we eat way too much carbs, stay up too late, drive too fast, maintain too many destructive relationships – why not throw in this one on top? But, having said that, I am not here to convert, convince, condemn or otherwise offend anyone.

 

Great coincidence! I'm listeng to FDR podcast 506 right now, which is a Sunday call-in show where these ideas are discussed. I give it a strong recommendation, I'm finding it one of my favorite podcasts of the 505.5 to which I've listened.

[Existing Alternatives]

 I'm still in 200s, so my enlightment is still a couple of months away...[]

[Magenta]

I forgot to say: welcome to the board!

What's your background with peaceful parenting? Is it something you had in mind before you found FDR, or is it something that FDR brought to light for you?

[Rob_Ilir]

 

 

Can you give an example of where anarchism is very violent, irrational or inconsistent?

 

Also, the motto of the only libertarian / anarchic "country" that I am aware of (Free Territory of 1918-1921) was "Death to all who stands in the way of freedom."

 

 

 

 

 

That reminds me of the French revolution: Text displayed on a placard announcing the sale of biens nationaux (1793). Soon after the Revolution, the motto was sometime written as "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or Death". The "or death" part was later dropped for being too strongly associated with the Reign of Terror.