underdog28 Posted December 30, 2013 Posted December 30, 2013 Let me start out by saying I'm really new to this whole website. I've gotten through about 7 podcasts (I'm going in order) This guy has some great ideas, and I agree with good chunk of what he's saying in reguards to current issues of governemnt. What I don't quite understand is how these DROs are expected to work. In the first podcast, Stefan mentions DROs are basically just "Contract enfocement agencies", but by the third podcast they're virtually totalitarian in their force. It's never explained how this happens. One issue I have is that he says someone truly wronged by a DRO decision (in the case of bribary) is respectable in his decision to go into the "Grey market". Then later he's saying leaving your DRO show criminal intent, and you will be hunted down, not allowed anywhere. After that podcast he's saying that'll only happen to murderers, but he never really answer the question of what happens if a DRO gets greedy. He also starts talking about crazy (Almost more than US governement) ammounts of burocrosy with DROs investigating other DROs and DROs sharing "No registered lists", and DROs being subject to other DRO rulings.... The blaring issue I have, though: If Jack isn't registered to a DRO, and 99% of other people ARE, what stops Jack from riding through town with a tank? He's well within his freedoms to do so, unchained by a DRO. My next question is about the "Universality of morality". He claims that morality MUST be uniform. He says what's good for Jim HAS to be good for jack, other wise the morality isn't valid. The example he give is: If you say a mammal is warm blooded, ALL animals that are warm blooded MUST be considered mammal, or the idea of "mammal" is invalidated. So, a car uses gasoline. Does that mean everything that uses gasoline MUST be considered a car? Does the existance of gas powered push lawn mowers invalidate the statement that cars use gasoline? What about giving someone milk? It's good to drink milk, there for milk must be good for everyone. But what about the lactose-intolerant? Does that mean no one should drink milk, because universal "good" must be maintained? The last thing I'd like to say in this post, is that he mentions Ebay is a DRO. However, ebay is still within a government. If there was no government, ebay may not be so effective. I don't think it's a valid argument, because you're still within the frame work of government. If you find a dro that works in somalia (or some other area like that), then it might be more valid.
doglash Posted December 31, 2013 Posted December 31, 2013 I'll have a go at answering some of your queries. I apologise for all the quotes. My next question is about the "Universality of morality". He claims that morality MUST be uniform. He says what's good for Jim HAS to be good for jack, other wise the morality isn't valid. The example he give is: If you say a mammal is warm blooded, ALL animals that are warm blooded MUST be considered mammal, or the idea of "mammal" is invalidated. So, a car uses gasoline. Does that mean everything that uses gasoline MUST be considered a car? Does the existance of gas powered push lawn mowers invalidate the statement that cars use gasoline? What about giving someone milk? It's good to drink milk, there for milk must be good for everyone. But what about the lactose-intolerant? Does that mean no one should drink milk, because universal "good" must be maintained? If you create a group called "mammals" and say that part or all of what makes them "mammals" is that they are warm-blooded, then you can't take something that is cold blooded and include it in that group. If you designate something "a car", and part of what makes it "a car" is that it runs on gasoline, then you can't also include in that group a horse, since it doesn't run on gasoline. But, if the only characteristic of "a car" is that it runs on gasoline, if it doesn't matter whether it has five wheels or a tail or a central nervous system, if all that matters to your classification of "a car" is that it runs on gasoline then technically a gas powered push lawnmower is "a car", as is a portable generator, as is a gas-fueled lantern. Arguing that these last two are not "a car" then invalidates your original statement that "a car" is something that runs on gasoline. How this relates to morality is this: If you create the classification "human being" that covers all of humanity and propose that we are bound by a set of moral rules, you can't then apply a different set of rules to certain people without showing how they differ from the rest of humanity and invalidating your original classification of "human beings" In regards to lactose-intolerance The example that Stef uses the most I think is a comparison to biology. In biology there is the classification of "horse", which includes the characteristics: four legs, one long tail, hairy neck/mane and one head. When a horse is born with two heads, it doesn't void the classification of "horse", because we understand that there is a certain amount of random mutation in biological reproduction. A two-headed horse is still a "horse". The same goes for the nutritional rule that milk is good. In general, milk has good nutritional properties for the human body. In particular though, it is bad for people who have lactose intolerance. This doesn't void the general rule for the same reasons as the horse example. We hold moral rules to a biological standard of accuracy, accepting that there are going to be exceptions and grey areas that will require further investigation and understanding. This is a fairly brief and muddled explanation. Stef does a much better job of it and so I urge you to keep listening. I'm sure others on the board can direct you to particular podcasts with the answers you are looking for.
underdog28 Posted January 1, 2014 Author Posted January 1, 2014 I'll have a go at answering some of your queries. I apologise for all the quotes. If you create a group called "mammals" and say that part or all of what makes them "mammals" is that they are warm-blooded, then you can't take something that is cold blooded and include it in that group. If you designate something "a car", and part of what makes it "a car" is that it runs on gasoline, then you can't also include in that group a horse, since it doesn't run on gasoline. But, if the only characteristic of "a car" is that it runs on gasoline, if it doesn't matter whether it has five wheels or a tail or a central nervous system, if all that matters to your classification of "a car" is that it runs on gasoline then technically a gas powered push lawnmower is "a car", as is a portable generator, as is a gas-fueled lantern. Arguing that these last two are not "a car" then invalidates your original statement that "a car" is something that runs on gasoline. How this relates to morality is this: If you create the classification "human being" that covers all of humanity and propose that we are bound by a set of moral rules, you can't then apply a different set of rules to certain people without showing how they differ from the rest of humanity and invalidating your original classification of "human beings" In regards to lactose-intolerance The example that Stef uses the most I think is a comparison to biology. In biology there is the classification of "horse", which includes the characteristics: four legs, one long tail, hairy neck/mane and one head. When a horse is born with two heads, it doesn't void the classification of "horse", because we understand that there is a certain amount of random mutation in biological reproduction. A two-headed horse is still a "horse". The same goes for the nutritional rule that milk is good. In general, milk has good nutritional properties for the human body. In particular though, it is bad for people who have lactose intolerance. This doesn't void the general rule for the same reasons as the horse example. We hold moral rules to a biological standard of accuracy, accepting that there are going to be exceptions and grey areas that will require further investigation and understanding. This is a fairly brief and muddled explanation. Stef does a much better job of it and so I urge you to keep listening. I'm sure others on the board can direct you to particular podcasts with the answers you are looking for. Thanks for taking the time to answer. I understand what you're saying, however in the podcast talking about police, he asks why police can arrest people, or ticket them, if others can't. He's saying that police are immoral, based off of the understanding that *B* can't take money from people, there for neither should the PEOPLE in the government. in this case, he is not allowing for a moral grey area. He has made the statement that ALL human morality must be universal. He has refused to accpet moral alterations. What he is saying is that a car take 97 octane gasoline, and there for a sports car that takes 93 CAN NOT be considered a car. Neither can a diesel, electric, bio-fuel, or any other form of fuel-powered "car". I feel there HAS to be differences in moral code from person to person. He claims that a world without government just "won't have violence, because it's not natural". The comparison is the bound feet of chineese woman. He says the human foot CAN be a ball, but only with force. In the same way the human mind CAN be violent, but with force. I feel similarly, but NOTHING is black and white. In the same way someone can be born with an extra toe, some people ARE more prone to violence. In a perfect world his theories hold water. However, that one person who has a psychopathic mind set will rule his world. His claim is that there is no violence in "my" life. I think that is because the violent people have the stick of a government. If it isn't, then why is it that in all the cases of government-less areas in the world today, there isn't perfect peace? I know that no where has a total lack of government, but there are areas (Like somalia, which I mentioned before) that have such a LACK of government, or at least lack of a functioning government, that we SHOULD be seeing at least SOME if his prodictions forming...
dsayers Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 what happens if a DRO gets greedy. They lose customers to competition that can provide something similar for less. To drink milk or not drink milk is amoral. ebay doesn't exist within a state. It may be located in a place where people steal from them under threat of violence, but this has no bearing on their operations except... the cost of overhead. Meaning that ebay in the absence of a state would do what it does now, but could charge less in usage fees. By the by, if truth and consistency is your criteria for acceptance, you should abandon studying statelessness as it's never truly existed and therefor you could toss out any claim that didn't suit you by simply saying "It's under a government" even if that fact has no bearing on it. When a church collapses, you can't say it's congregation are atheists. Similarly, when a government collapses, you can't say that its people fundamentally embrace non-violence. Please show me the grey area in 2+2=4. The people that are trying to convince you that truth is analog are the ones trying to tell you that their theft is valid because they call it taxation.
Carl Green Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 Welcome to the FDR boards! in this case, he is not allowing for a moral grey area. He has made the statement that ALL human morality must be universal. He has refused to accpet moral alterations. What he is saying is that a car take 97 octane gasoline, and there for a sports car that takes 93 CAN NOT be considered a car. Neither can a diesel, electric, bio-fuel, or any other form of fuel-powered "car". I feel there HAS to be differences in moral code from person to person. He claims that a world without government just "won't have violence, because it's not natural". I think Stefan explains the type of stuff you're seeing a problem with better in his books. Read/Listen to Universally Preferable Behavior and the three on anarchy starting with Everyday Anarchy. It might help to double back on a concept you're disagreeing with as well because it seems like you're misinterpreting some stuff.
doglash Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 in this case, he is not allowing for a moral grey area. He has made the statement that ALL human morality must be universal. He has refused to accpet moral alterations. What he is saying is that a car take 97 octane gasoline, and there for a sports car that takes 93 CAN NOT be considered a car. Neither can a diesel, electric, bio-fuel, or any other form of fuel-powered "car". I feel there HAS to be differences in moral code from person to person. He claims that a world without government just "won't have violence, because it's not natural". I think you should try to explain why you think there has to be a difference in moral code from person to person, since this seems to be the premise you are starting from. To rough it out in point form: 1. Morality/ethics is rules of behaviour 2. Our behaviours stem from and are part of our biology. 3. All humans are the same, biologically. 4. Therefore, all humans should be held accountable to the same moral code. Read/Listen to Universally Preferable Behavior and the three on anarchy starting with Everyday Anarchy. I second this motion wholeheartedly
Recommended Posts