Why Is Peaceful Parenting Possible but Peaceful Government Not Possible?

[_LiveFree_]

podcast 858 may help this conversation.

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_858_Reason_Passion_and_Statism.mp3

[Formelyknown]

If your monopoly of aggression is restraining. What if an individual doesn`t like your monopoly and form another government? If yes it is restraining, then how the hell can you tell me it is a monopoly and if there is No restrain in this situation then it stop to be peaceful. Therefore a contradiction and we should reject the question.

[STer]

Well first... I just want to point out that you cut off the first sentence.  "The state does not exist, because it is simply a collection of individuals that believe insane, violent, nonsense."

 

It's a concept, not a thing.... Like Christianity.  Christianity does not exist. There are 100 different types, that believe directly contradictory things.  Can you touch the state? See it? Smell it? Define it? Or is it just lines someone randomly scrawled on a map before you were born?  What you can touch, is people who choose to steal your money, for that belief.  Just as the Inquisition, could touch you, but Christianity, can't. 

 

Libertarians, for the most part, know that the concept of "the state" is fatally flawed, and that once people stop believing in it, it will disappear.  The same is not true of things that actually exist.  If everyone chooses not to believe in dogs, they don't simply disappear.  It's ephemeral.  The state is Tinker Bell, and we want you to stop clapping

 

I wasn't asking you to prove to me that the state doesn't exist. I was asking you to reconcile the apparent contradiction between you saying it doesn't exist and then admitting that working for the state is an option that some people choose.

 

Also, I find libertarians and anarchists that obsess over the fact that concepts aren't "real" in a material sense rarely apply that to their own concepts. They try to educate people that "the state" isn't a real thing. But, if concepts aren't real then here is what else isn't real:

 

Anarchism

The Free Market

Ethics

Principles

 

I could go on and on. None of them exist by your criteria. So please do not refer to them or encourage people to believe in them.

I am shocked.  You say a role is not a fiction, but it is a name?  I will insist that names are fictional.  We are not born with names tattooed.  If anything is fictional, is not a name fictional that is strictly conjured in our minds?  And there is certainly no such thing as a "name we place" on things because we jointly share no speaking or writing organs.  The name you place differs from the name I place, as proven by our differing use of words.  The Sears Tower is still named by me "Sears Tower", I do not care what the new owner says.  There is certainly cause for somebody to feel guilt about committing a necessary wrong.  To me it is far less confusing than making wrong a context-based word.  If I kill in self-defense, I will regret killing and feel guilt.  I will only take slight comfort in the necessity, not the morality.  Your system of naming seems to exonorate people who seek out conflict (or at least do not try to avoid) until they must act out in violence, and you seem to call it right.  I am comfortable blaming but not punishing people who do wrongful things out of necessity.  But you seem to be saying there is no such thing as necessary evil.

 

I said the role itself is not a fiction. The word "role" you can claim is a "fiction" if you want. But I don't see what that proves.

 

Sorry but I don't believe the term "necessary wrong" makes sense. To me that's an oxymoron.

 

I think you're mixing up certain words. If you kill in self-defense, but believe you had no choice, you might feel regret over having ended up in the situation. Guilt is a feeling that has to do with believing you should not have done what you did. If you call something necessary, then it doesn't make any sense to also say you should have done otherwise. If you believe you should have done otherwise, then you don't believe it was necessary to have done, since you are saying you had other superior options.

Context is irrelevant because judging whether actions are right or wrong is irrelevant to your main question! You're obviously just playing games now.

 

I would say the same about you, my friend.

podcast 858 may help this conversation.

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_858_Reason_Passion_and_Statism.mp3

 

I listened to it. Very interesting. I certainly agree the world is rife with hypocrisy. And I find the overall message of that podcast very important.

 

The podcast also reminded me of this old gem:

 

"It's hard to get a man to understand something if his paycheck depends upon him not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

 

How exactly did you think it applies here to this discussion though?

 

I noticed one interesting thing. Stefan says he very rarely meets someone that uses violence to achieve their ends in their own life. He laughs at the notion when he asks people if their wife married them voluntarily or if they locked her up against her will. But he leaves out that he knows lots and lots of people who use violence in their personal lives to achieve certain ends - namely to get their children to do what they want.

 

So here you have that relationship again. The average person only initiates violence regularly in two capacities - either in some capacity working for the (non-existent, as I'm told, though it may be) state or in their role (also non-existing I'm told) as a parent. This is why I am comparing Stefan's view of these two situations. Certain forms of government work and parenting are the only two places most people initiate force regularly.

 

Another flaw in his argument:

 

People who don't use violence in their daily lives say that you can't get things done without violence and he says this is stunning hypocrisy. But it's likely that they believe it's BECAUSE the state is there to take on the responsibilities of force that they don't have to use violence. They believe violence is necessary one way or the other and that if the state wasn't in charge of it, they'd have to do it themselves. So there is no contradiction between not using force personally within a state-run society and believing violence is necessary overall within the system to get things done.

 

But despite these specific problems with his argument, I definitely think the issue of people being paid well to be moral hypocrites is hugely important. In fact, it's a topic I'd like to talk about a lot more (and am more interested in really than this topic in this thread, honestly).

[LifeIsBrief]

Concepts are not real, even my own. That's how humanity has managed to yell at itself and constantly get in fights since... forever.

[_LiveFree_]

wow people. stop engaging this thread. 

 

 

listen instead.

 

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_867_Dismantling_The_State.mp3

[STer]

Concepts are not real, even my own. That's how humanity has managed to yell at itself and constantly get in fights since... forever.

 

If your definition of "real" excludes concepts, then the next question is "So what?" The fact is that things that are, by your definition, "not real" still have huge influence in the world on every one of us. So to me it seems an irrelevant debate whether you want to use the word "real" to describe them or not. What matters isn't whether they are "real" by your definition, but whether they have effects that we care about.

wow people. stop engaging this thread. 

 

 

listen instead.

 

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_867_Dismantling_The_State.mp3

 

When you post a podcast in the thread, would you mind stating specifically what its relevance is to the thread (ie: what exact message or lesson in that particular podcast relates to what is being discussed?)

[_LiveFree_]

It wasn't for you. It was for the people who think it might be worth spending time debating you.

[STer]

It wasn't for you. It was for the people who think it might be worth spending time debating you.

 

Oh well the feeling is mutual. Please ignore Nathan's attempts to derail the conversation.

[LifeIsBrief]

The fact is that things that are, by your definition, "not real" still have huge influence in the world on every one of us.

 

Yes... and I'm suggesting that you stop suggesting that things that are by my definition "not real"... Stop being argued over with violence.  This may be a step further, in the right, or wrong direction, from the average FDR individual, but it is my contention that no "concept", is worth killing people over.  If you have to defend yourself from someone enforcing a concept on you however, you have every right to use extreme prejudice.

 

Edit: I just want to mention, that I have nothing against you STer, I think you're trying to make a perfectly valid argument, that I happen to disagree with, and I have enjoyed this conversation.

[STer]

Yes... and I'm suggesting that you stop suggesting that things that are by my definition "not real"... Stop being argued over with violence.  This may be a step further, in the right, or wrong direction, from the average FDR individual, but it is my contention that no "concept", is worth killing people over.  If you have to defend yourself from someone enforcing a concept on you however, you have every right to use extreme prejudice.

 

Edit: I just want to mention, that I have nothing against you STer, I think you're trying to make a perfectly valid argument, that I happen to disagree with, and I have enjoyed this conversation.

 

So no "concept" is worth killing people over...but "self-defense," which is a concept, is reasonable to kill someone for?

 

Thanks for your kind words.

 

I have no problem with honest disagreement. But sometimes I feel like some of the people in this thread are responding as if we disagree when we're not even talking about the same topic.

[LifeIsBrief]

So no "concept" is worth killing people over...but "self-defense," which is a concept, is reasonable to kill someone for?

 

Thanks for your kind words.

 

I have no problem with honest disagreement. But sometimes I feel like some of the people in this thread are responding as if we disagree when we're not even talking about the same topic.

 

You and I may disagree, but with a probability that either one of us could be correct.  I do not claim infallibility. I would say that "self defense" is not a concept, because it relies on a physical act, someone aggressing on you. I may disagree with some forum members, because as I suggested, participating in taxation is a violation of the non aggression principle. Thus, don't pay taxes, and see what happens. Once someone attacks you physically for not paying taxes, it is no longer in the realm of theory and concept, its a physical realm attack that exists. If someone intentionally tries to enslave, or kill you, you have every right to try to stay alive, by any means necessary.  Some may call this psychopathy, but.. that's on them.  I am perfectly willing to admit, that if that is your definition of psychopathy, I am a psychopath.

[_LiveFree_]

Yes... and I'm suggesting that you stop suggesting that things that are by my definition "not real"... Stop being argued over with violence.  This may be a step further, in the right, or wrong direction, from the average FDR individual, but it is my contention that no "concept", is worth killing people over.  If you have to defend yourself from someone enforcing a concept on you however, you have every right to use extreme prejudice.

 

Edit: I just want to mention, that I have nothing against you STer, I think you're trying to make a perfectly valid argument, that I happen to disagree with, and I have enjoyed this conversation.

 

I don't have anything against STer either. I believe the best course of action for him is to not continue with what he is doing here. And by continuing to engage in this is making it worse. 

 

However, I disagree with you in that he is making a perfectly valid argument. He is not and that is the problem. The underlying current running through this whole thread was almost touched upon, but then casually dismissed. These things are hard enough to deal with in person or over the phone, to say nothing of a message board. 

 

STer, understand that I care about you far more than your argument. An argument is only as sound as the logic it's based upon. To outright reject logic is not a failure of the intellect. It shows a much deeper issue at hand. I would absolutely love to talk with you about that. You're a very smart guy, but you're avoiding what really matters. This is not meant to be condescending at all. I respect you enough to not waste your time and to cut through the fog of intellectualism to the heart of what is really going on. 

 

If that is something you'd be interested in, I'd be very happy to talk over PM if you like. 

[STer]

You and I may disagree, but with a probability that either one of us could be correct.  I do not claim infallibility. I would say that "self defense" is not a concept, because it relies on a physical act, someone aggressing on you. I may disagree with some forum members, because as I suggested, participating in taxation is a violation of the non aggression principle. Thus, don't pay taxes, and see what happens. Once someone attacks you physically for not paying taxes, it is no longer in the realm of theory and concept, its a physical realm attack that exists. If someone intentionally tries to enslave, or kill you, you have every right to try to stay alive, by any means necessary.  Some may call this psychopathy, but.. that's on them.  I am perfectly willing to admit, that if that is your definition of psychopathy, I am a psychopath.

 

If you think "self-defense" is not a concept, I don't think there's much more to discuss.

 

Hopefully you realize the "non-aggression principle" is also a concept.

 

And when concepts you care about lead to physical consequences, you say they are now no longer just concepts. When other concepts lead to physical consequences, you still call them "not real."

 

Anyway thanks for the discussion. I think I see where we both stand and there isn't much more to say on it.

I don't have anything against STer either. I believe the best course of action for him is to not continue with what he is doing here. And by continuing to engage in this is making it worse. 

 

However, I disagree with you in that he is making a perfectly valid argument. He is not and that is the problem. The underlying current running through this whole thread was almost touched upon, but then casually dismissed. These things are hard enough to deal with in person or over the phone, to say nothing of a message board. 

 

STer, understand that I care about you far more than your argument. An argument is only as sound as the logic it's based upon. To outright reject logic is not a failure of the intellect. It shows a much deeper issue at hand. I would absolutely love to talk with you about that. You're a very smart guy, but you're avoiding what really matters. This is not meant to be condescending at all. I respect you enough to not waste your time and to cut through the fog of intellectualism to the heart of what is really going on. 

 

If that is something you'd be interested in, I'd be very happy to talk over PM if you like. 

 

Not sure why your reaction sounds so grim, talking about "making it worse" and so on. It's a forum discussion. I am confident we'll all come out of this intact.

 

I'm not sure if you, even now, could state what my argument actually was. The amount of straw-manning in this thread has been quite significant. If you can state what my argument was correctly, I'm happy to talk with you about that argument. What I won't do is try to debate responses to arguments other than the ones I made.

 

So please post your understanding of what I even argued in this thread. If you can accurately put forth what my argument was, we can talk about it. If not, I won't get into the discussion until we're clear on what the argument I made actually was. The bare minimum for having a discussion about my argument is accurately understanding what my argument was (which by the way, is something I determine, not you. You don't get to tell me what my argument is. I am the one who gets to say what my argument is).

 

So first just post your understanding of what my argument was. And there isn't any point continuing beyond that until we agree on what it was so try to keep it concise and just state my argument if you can for now.

[LifeIsBrief]

"I'm not sure if you, even now, could state what my argument actually was. So please post your understanding of what I even argued in this thread. The bare minimum for having a discussion about my argument is accurately understanding what my argument was (which by the way, is something I determine, not you. You don't get to tell me what my argument is. I am the one who gets to say what my argument is)."

 

Oh... I get it... You're a troll who just randomly spouts nonsense.  I apologize to FDR for engaging.  Your argument, is your job to get across, not your audiences.  I said self defense stops being a concept once someone attacks you, but you then changed the definition to your imagined version of my argument, but it's wrong for anyone to do that to you.  Ignore the undue compliment about you trying to make a valid argument.

[_LiveFree_]

My post where I stated your argument back to you.http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37523-why-is-peaceful-parenting-possible-but-peaceful-government-not-possible/?p=343841  Your post where you replied...http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37523-why-is-peaceful-parenting-possible-but-peaceful-government-not-possible/?p=343898 

Thanks, Nathan. Yes I think you accurately understood my question.

But like I said. I'm not debating you on the topic anymore. It isn't important. 

The bare minimum for having a discussion about my argument is accurately understanding what my argument was (which by the way, is something I determine, not you. You don't get to tell me what my argument is. I am the one who gets to say what my argument is).

Why do you think I was trying to tell you what your position was? 

[STer]

"I'm not sure if you, even now, could state what my argument actually was. So please post your understanding of what I even argued in this thread. The bare minimum for having a discussion about my argument is accurately understanding what my argument was (which by the way, is something I determine, not you. You don't get to tell me what my argument is. I am the one who gets to say what my argument is)."

 

Oh... I get it... You're a troll who just randomly spouts nonsense.  I apologize to FDR for engaging.  Your argument, is your job to get across, not your audiences.  I said self defense stops being a concept once someone attacks you, but you then changed the definition to your imagined version of my argument, but it's wrong for anyone to do that to you.  Ignore the undue compliment about you trying to make a valid argument.

 

I don't believe what you just said bears much relevance to what I actually said, which differs significantly from what you just portrayed it as. But, thank you for your opinion. 

[_LiveFree_]

"I'm not sure if you, even now, could state what my argument actually was. So please post your understanding of what I even argued in this thread. The bare minimum for having a discussion about my argument is accurately understanding what my argument was (which by the way, is something I determine, not you. You don't get to tell me what my argument is. I am the one who gets to say what my argument is)."

 

Oh... I get it... You're a troll who just randomly spouts nonsense.  I apologize to FDR for engaging.  Your argument, is your job to get across, not your audiences.  I said self defense stops being a concept once someone attacks you, but you then changed the definition to your imagined version of my argument, but it's wrong for anyone to do that to you.  Ignore the undue compliment about you trying to make a valid argument.

 

No, no. This is not the way. This is why I was encouraging people to disengage.

[STer]

No, no. This is not the way. This is why I was encouraging people to disengage.

Do you find your level of concern over this at all odd? If you don't like the thread or my viewpoints, you are free not to participate. You've even exercised your right to tell people you think they should not engage, in fact multiple times. At this point, if people agree with you and don't want to participate in the thread, they can choose not to. Nobody is being forced to participate. But what you're doing now seems to go beyond that. It's as if you're patrolling the thread trying to disrupt participation repeatedly.

 

I think that you've expressed your opinion on the thread and my viewpoints and at this point should respect people to make their own decisions about participating or not. This is, after all, a forum focused on individual liberty.

[_LiveFree_]

My level of concern is finally right where it should be. I sincerely apologize for it not being nearly enough earlier when I just dismissed you as a time waster. I believe that you have a lot to talk about. I'll send you a private message. Respond if you like, I really hope you do. 

[STer]

My level of concern is finally right where it should be. I sincerely apologize for it not being nearly enough earlier when I just dismissed you as a time waster. I believe that you have a lot to talk about. I'll send you a private message. Respond if you like, I really hope you do. 

 

Nathan,

 

I'm convinced you're projecting a lot of your own issues and emotions onto this thread. This forum has moderators. If you believe anything is going on in this thread that is problematic or against the rules, you can contact a moderator and they will take whatever action is needed. As far as I know you aren't a moderator - and even if you were, you wouldn't be acting as one in this way - yet you are trying to moderate the thread for some reason and dictate what should be said and who should participate. And on top of all of that, you are then acting as if I am having some issues that need your help.

 

I assure you I am doing fine and am not in need of your help. If I feel I am at any time, I'll let you know. If you are actually in need of some help or someone to talk to, I hope that instead of acting out by inserting yourself as a de-facto thread moderator, you'll instead simply express your feelings and needs and ask for that help.

[_LiveFree_]

Fair enough. You could be right. However, I don't think I was acting like a moderator at all. Nor was I trying to dictate to, control, overpower, or belittle you or anyone else. I've sent you a PM. We can talk that way. I will not participate in this thread any further. 

[STer]

Fair enough. You could be right. However, I don't think I was acting like a moderator at all. Nor was I trying to dictate to, control, overpower, or belittle you or anyone else. I've sent you a PM. We can talk that way. I will not participate in this thread any further. 

 

Alright. So with that, if anyone is interested in the actual topic of the thread, feel free to return to it.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Alright. So with that, if anyone is interested in the actual topic of the thread, feel free to return to it.

 

So, STer is now the boss of what a thread is about, and how the discussion should be conducted.

[Hugh Akston]

I'm amazed at the lengthy arguments to a rebuttal that is so simple. Truth is Anarchists do not have a problem with peaceful government. Many would gladly participate in government where violence is not an option. This would necessarily mean that when I withdraw my consent there can be no threat of violence to elicit my consent. These types of governing bodies will exist in a free society.

[RestoringGuy]

I am sure we can all agree nothing is wrong with peaceful government or peaceful parenting.  I would only want to ask people if their definition of "peaceful" is identical for those two categories.

 

I aim to treat them the same as far as word definitions and saying what constitutes peace.