I once ....

[TheBishop]

I once was boy that thought Drugs and Russians were evil.  I believed America's military was an instrument of justice, all around the world. It's not surprising considering my father, a Colonel, had taught me how to salute before I could really read.  By the time I was ten I could tell most helicopters apart by the sound of their rotors.  I knew the Phonetic alpha bit, and almost every Soviet and Nato aircraft. I was obsessed and wanted to die a soldiers death.

  I graduated high school in 97. Clinton was President, and was doing bad things to the military by my fathers mind, so he pushed be to go to college first. There I learned drugs weren't that evil, people were. I also began my studies into the criminal justice system. Which can ONLY be stated as a contradiction of terms. I also fell into what would be my second degree, political science.  The two go hand and hand. Though, I never really let go of my childhood militarization and deep rooted conservatism, I know this is were the cracks began to develop. Especially, since it began to draw out my what I found to be more natural, rebellious nature.

  I got into a lot of trouble in college. It seems I was constantly figuring my way out of one mess into another. I think there was only one year, (out of six) I did not go to Jail. I quickly made that up by being arrested multiple times in a year. In only one instance was I ever a threat to another human being. That is the only one I truely should have been punished for, and it turns out, would be the most costly later down the road (DUI).Some I was dumb and stupid. Others, in what I thought was suppose to be a free country, can only be viewed as utterly ridiculous. Yet, even then I was still only seeing a small frame in a much the bigger film.

   Then I saw the towers fall, I wanted Blood like most Americans.  Rivers of it.  It wasn't hard to get worked up then, the nationalism was flowing hard. I was talked into finishing school first, by my father who told me it wouldn't be over before I got there (boy was he right on that one). So I did, then went straight for the service. I scored 94 on the ASVAB and with that demanded the quickest route for deployment.

  I had a shipout date. I squared all my debts, quite my job, got out of my lease, and was prepping to go. But during the interview process I had taken some bad advice from the recruiter. He told me to not answer yes to the drug questions, even though my record would ellude to otherwise. Everything fell apart. The Army would be a no go, and the dream I had held since childhood vanished before my eyes.  A 194 on the asvab, 2 college degrees, and a 10 page letter to the commander of the south east recruiters and I still couldn't get in.  Instead they told me be thankfull they were not having me arrested. Gee, thanks.

  So there I was lost and after 6 months of floundering I took the first job I could get. I have been there 10 years, and I hate it. But it does have some advantages. I have a lot of free time, and a unique skill that allows me some flexiblity. So I get to do what I want at work, just as long as I am availble when needed. So for the last 10 years I have spent a great deal of my time reading, discussing, and writing on all sorts of topics. The most prevelent being politics.

  I started a Hawk Conservative by birth, and evolved to libratarian anarchist. The journey has been so long, with some many contributions, I can't tell you exactly how I got here. I can tell you I was influence by my conversations at http://forum.gon.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9. It was a place I honed some of my internet conversation skills.  It was there I discovered TOLFA, and it resonated with me especially considering I had just finished the Machinery of Freedom, By David Friedman.  Those two pieces tied alot of things together for me.  It really brought into focus another piece I had studied called Private Property and Public Control, The Freeman Classics.

  So here I am, hungry to learn more, so I can teach more to others. I think education is the only chance that freedom has in the future, humanity for that matter.  Maybe paving the way for my children to have a better life, a free life. Plus it's is nice to know I'm not the only crazy anarchist.

 

Rant over

TheBishop

[dsayers]

Welcome. I am happy that you were able to overcome some of your indoctrination and are eager to learn more. Let's start with the most important lesson of all, shall we?

 

since it began to draw out my what I found to be more natural, rebellious nature.

 

Surely you mean rebellious nurture. Unless you're referring to a bear's willingness to eat you or your susceptibility to infection, there's nothing natural to rebel against. At least none listed in your introduction. All I read about was conclusions that were inflicted upon you. I wanted to point this out because I agree with you that education is a solution, even to problems we do not realize are problems.

 

In your very first sentence, you owned something that didn't belong to you. You didn't think that drugs and Russians were evil. These were conclusions inflicted upon you by people that didn't care whether the conclusions were valid and didn't care about you enough to instead teach you how to arrive at conclusions on your own. They used you to reinforce their own invalid conclusions by getting you to repeat it.

 

Why does this distinction matter? Two reasons. For one, you mentioned (and avatar suggests) children. If you don't comprehend the cycle of violence, you will not be able to break out of it. The second being the strong military tone of your back story. Modern human conflict is a direct result of government schooling made to break the will of the innocent, which is a direct result of abuse in the home. Both directly in taking the initiative to break the will of the innocent and indirectly by handing you off to people that would do this too.

 

Plus it's is nice to know I'm not the only crazy anarchist.

 

The idea that people are fundamentally different at all, let alone to polar opposites (can rule vs must be ruled) is crazy. The conclusion of anarchy is the most consistent and sustainable. I wouldn't call that crazy even if it is the minority understanding. It's the minority understanding precisely because of the cycle of violence and breaking the wills of the innocent mentioned above.

 

What do you think about this?

[TheBishop]

Welcome. I am happy that you were able to overcome some of your indoctrination and are eager to learn more. Let's start with the most important lesson of all, shall we? Greetings. There aint nuthin' like gettin' spanked right out the box. Surely you mean rebellious nurture. Unless you're referring to a bear's willingness to eat you or your susceptibility to infection, there's nothing natural to rebel against. At least none listed in your introduction. All I read about was conclusions that were inflicted upon you. I wanted to point this out because I agree with you that education is a solution, even to problems we do not realize are problems.So what then, if not my nature, is it that causes me to rebel agianst the preconcieved notions that were ingrained in me in my youth?  Can it not be part of your  nature to question? As I have read eccentricism and dissenting opinion are the crucial elements to improving the human condition, both are naturally traits of a rebel. In your very first sentence, you owned something that didn't belong to you. You didn't think that drugs and Russians were evil. These were conclusions inflicted upon you by people that didn't care whether the conclusions were valid and didn't care about you enough to instead teach you how to arrive at conclusions on your own. They used you to reinforce their own invalid conclusions by getting you to repeat it. I agree. I don't like it. I love my family and I realize what part of that "nurturing" did to me. Alot is very difficult to overcome. Thankfully I like to read and explore on my own or I would have never changed. It highlights the danger that ignorance represents. Ignorance fosters ignorance.  I was taught to fight for freedom and liberty but I was never taught what those two words truely mean. I found that on my own. Why does this distinction matter? Two reasons. For one, you mentioned (and avatar suggests) children. If you don't comprehend the cycle of violence, you will not be able to break out of it. The second being the strong military tone of your back story. Modern human conflict is a direct result of government schooling made to break the will of the innocent, which is a direct result of abuse in the home. Both directly in taking the initiative to break the will of the innocent and indirectly by handing you off to people that would do this too.No disagreeance here. That is why I am here.The idea that people are fundamentally different at all, let alone to polar opposites (can rule vs must be ruled) is crazy. The conclusion of anarchy is the most consistent and sustainable. I wouldn't call that crazy even if it is the minority understanding. It's the minority understanding precisely because of the cycle of violence and breaking the wills of the innocent mentioned above. What do you think about this?The crazy was a joke.  I went the through e TOLFA.  I blew through it becuase I had done so much up to that it just reinforced everything I was already coming to grips with. I believe in Equal Rights, that the best course of action for the rightful interaction of mankind is the economic means, and I own myself. Anarchy can be the only rational conclusion.

[dsayers]

 

So what then, if not my nature, is it that causes me to rebel agianst the preconcieved notions that were ingrained in me in my youth?  Can it not be part of your  nature to question? As I have read eccentricism and dissenting opinion are the crucial elements to improving the human condition, both are naturally traits of a rebel.

 

The reason I mentioned the bear and disease is to encourage you to look not at the rebellion, but what you're rebelling against. You mentioned "preconceived notions that were ingrained" but not WHO did the ingraining?

 

If you found out your car got stolen, you'd be upset at the situation if you didn't know who did it.

If you knew who did it, you could direct your anger towards an individual and work towards restitution.

If it was somebody you trusted there would be more to process than just your car getting stolen.

 

Your intro only talked about your childhood getting stolen. It made no mention of who stole it even though it was somebody you knew, trusted, and in fact were dependent upon. If this doesn't make you angry, I would consider it important to figure out why. And a downright emergency if you have children of your own or else you risk making the same excuses for yourself as you've made for others.

[TheBishop]

 

The reason I mentioned the bear and disease is to encourage you to look not at the rebellion, but what you're rebelling against. You mentioned "preconceived notions that were ingrained" but not WHO did the ingraining? If you found out your car got stolen, you'd be upset at the situation if you didn't know who did it.If you knew who did it, you could direct your anger towards an individual and work towards restitution.If it was somebody you trusted there would be more to process than just your car getting stolen. Your intro only talked about your childhood getting stolen. It made no mention of who stole it even though it was somebody you knew, trusted, and in fact were dependent upon. If this doesn't make you angry, I would consider it important to figure out why. And a downright emergency if you have children of your own or else you risk making the same excuses for yourself as you've made for others.

 My youth was not stolen. I didn't even insinuate such. I am a product of my past, and I am here, not there, so it would seem to have worked out for the best. If things would have started differently, they most assuredly would have ended differently. There is no sense at being angry at those who helped me become who I am. Were there negatives? Absolutely. Were there positives? Most certainly. How could I have known not to repeat the mistakes of my predecessors if they did't make any? How could I improve, unless I could see what needed to be improved upon? The people that influenced my youth did what they thought was right, they were not malicious. The problem does not start with them, it starts with the ideals that were propoagated upon them, that they beleived were right. I do not fault them for their ignorance, and habor no animosity, nor do I think I should. The past is done, the future is ahead, I draw from the past, I don't dwell on it. Besides if it wasn't for them I would not have foundation of learning that enabled me to arrive were I am.

[dsayers]

At the age of ten, you wanted to die a soldier's death. This is a stolen childhood.

 

You cannot escape your past, so I understand the benefit in rationalizing it. I too used to redefine my "adversity" as if it was strength of character. But strength of character requires honesty above all and it's not honest to say, "It's okay that that guy stole my car because otherwise I wouldn't have walked to work and met my future wife that gave me a ride as a result." The measure of morality is if it violates the property rights of others, not if they survive the violation of their property rights.

 

I am here, not there, so it would seem to have worked out for the best.

 

How do you know? Wouldn't "never damaged" be better than "damaged and repaired"?

 

The people that influenced my youth did what they thought was right

 

And if they were wrong and what was right was available to them, what then? Ignorance isn't an excuse. When you go to buy a laptop, you do your research. Why would how to raise another human being be less important than tech that sits on your shelf half the time?

 

You're saying that it doesn't matter how you treat your children so long as they survive it.

[TheBishop]

 

At the age of ten, you wanted to die a soldier's death. This is a stolen childhood. You cannot escape your past, so I understand the benefit in rationalizing it. I too used to redefine my "adversity" as if it was strength of character. But strength of character requires honesty above all and it's not honest to say, "It's okay that that guy stole my car because otherwise I wouldn't have walked to work and met my future wife that gave me a ride as a result." The measure of morality is if it violates the property rights of others, not if they survive the violation of their property rights.  How do you know? Wouldn't "never damaged" be better than "damaged and repaired"?  And if they were wrong and what was right was available to them, what then? Ignorance isn't an excuse. When you go to buy a laptop, you do your research. Why would how to raise another human being be less important than tech that sits on your shelf half the time? You're saying that it doesn't matter how you treat your children so long as they survive it.

 We'll have to disagree with the whole stolen thing. The glorification of a battlefield death had litte to do with any one person, and more to do with a combination of beliefs I held. No one told me it was the way to die, I came to believe it was the ONLY way to die. It was more something I felt that was a spiritual calling, the self sacrifice for freedom.It is one thing in this day and age to talk about ignorance not being an excuse. Information is a click away almost anywhere you can get a signal. That wasn't even the case twenty years ago, certainly not fifty. At the time of my parents indoctrination, they were at the begining and peak of the cold war. The statism and militarism were dominating. Cinema, news, literature, you name it. They were misled, fooled, it makes no good to get angry. It is better to understand the cicumstances that led to it, and change that.As far as children go, the most important thing is a loving family enviroment. I had that, mine have that, and I certainly have a different approach than my parents.

[dsayers]

It was more something I felt that was a spiritual calling, the self sacrifice for freedom.

 

But there's no such thing as a spiritual calling. One doesn't arrive at "self-sacrifice -> freedom" on their own, it's inflicted by external, free will actors.

 

The argument for technology fails on both sides of the coin. In regards to your parents, you don't need the internet to understand that telling a child stories that leads them to choosing how they want to die is damaging. How old is the "teach a man to fish" adage? Bringing accessibility into the equation actually makes my point stronger because it reveals that you were not important enough to seek the truth amid the propaganda even if it meant going to the library.

 

The way the technology argument fails on the other side of the coin is you DO have the internet. And a claim to want to learn. Yet here we are discussing something that could be tantamount to the theft of your children's childhood and you're not even considering the possibility. And as I already pointed out, your children will have access to the technology of tomorrow. The ball is already rolling.

 

As far as children go, the most important thing is a loving family enviroment. I had that

 

It doesn't sound as if you did. There was no mention of your mother, but we know she chose your father. You've already described your father both as teaching you things that led to you choosing how to die at the age of ten and later being instrumental in telling you when to die. Or murder others because a stranger offered you stolen money to do it if you prefer.

 

If you cannot identify that you did not have a loving family environment, then you will be powerless to stop yourself from reproducing it for your own children. If that's not important to you, I'll stop putting more effort into it than you are.

[TheBishop]

Well I appreciate the phsyco analysis over the net but I going to have to disgaree with your assessment. I didn't come here for "self help". I came here looking for a community of individuals that seek to erode the power of the state. You want to know who I'm angry at? The institution of government, all of them, and the power mongers that feed off our sustenance.

[Wesley]

Well I appreciate the phsyco analysis over the net but I going to have to disgaree with your assessment. I didn't come here for "self help". I came here looking for a community of individuals that seek to erode the power of the state. You want to know who I'm angry at? The institution of government, all of them, and the power mongers that feed off our sustenance.

How does the state get its power?

[TheBishop]

 

How does the state get its power?

 Ignorance and complacency.

[Wesley]

 Ignorance and complacency.

How do you know?

 

I find that I tell people information (ridding of ignorance) and they get angry and more certain of their original position.

 

Complacency is somewhat different.

 

com·pla·cent

kəmˈplāsənt

adjective

adjective: complacent

1.

showing smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one's achievements.

 

I do not quite understand how this applies.

[TheBishop]

 

How do you know? I find that I tell people information (ridding of ignorance) and they get angry and more certain of their original position. Complacency is somewhat different. com·pla·centkəmˈplāsəntadjectiveadjective: complacent1.showing smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one's achievements. I do not quite understand how this applies.

 Call it a SWAG.com·pla·cent/kəmˈpleɪsənt/ Show Spelled [kuhm-pley-suhnt] Show IPAadjective1. pleased, especially with oneself or one's merits, advantages, situation, etc., often without awareness of some potential danger or defect; self-satisfied: The voters are too complacent to change the government.2. pleasant; complaisant.

[Wesley]

 Call it a SWAG.

Ok, I'm done.

[dsayers]

I didn't come here for "self help".

 

I wasn't trying to help you. My every post was made for your children's sake. The fact that I have to help you to help them is just a bonus.

 

You want to know who I'm angry at? The institution of government, all of them, and the power mongers that feed off our sustenance.

 

All of them... except your father. How can you rebel if you do not know how to identify what it is you're rebelling against? How can you erode something you don't understand how it comes to be?

[TheBishop]

 

Ok, I'm done.

 It was a joke, lighten up. 

I wasn't trying to help you. My every post was made for your children's sake. The fact that I have to help you to help them is just a bonus.   All of them... except your father. How can you rebel if you do not know how to identify what it is you're rebelling against? How can you erode something you don't understand how it comes to be?

 My children will be fine. They're intelligent, and like me have a loving atmosphere to grow up in. Despite what you may believe, and since you have nothing to go on but a paragraph or two, I know the enviroment I grew up in was loving. My father loved all of us. I do not blame the indoctrination he put off on me and my sibling on him, nor do I blame my mother for her side. They did what they believed was best. They gave us shelter, food, clothes, and both would have walked through the depths of hell for anyone of us. They gave us independence when they felt we were ready, and never once forced us to do anything we didn't want to do. They encouraged us, even in the things that they might not have agreed with, and most of all, they were there when we fell. We they perfect? No one is.Now if I felt they intended any of their actions maliciously I might see things differently, but I know they did't. They were igonrant like I said. Like most people are. It wasn't a matter of having the information, being presented a choice and choosing the wrong one. It was ignorance of not even knowing these things exist, or that it was even possible to question things differently. It was something that took me 10 years of reading to get too. I had the time neither one had. There is a reason the ranks of true libratarians are small compared to the statists. It isn't that this stuff is widely propogated, and that these principals are repeated throughout our lives. No, I had to pry it out the information world, at the same time shed the misconceptions that nearly 20 years of "education" have bestowed upon me.Seroiusly? I have been here less than a week have a negative reputation for what? Not willing to blame my circumstances on another and a joke. If this is the type of atmosphere that one can expect here, maybe this isn't the place I thought it was. People that seek to develop their self ownship and grow the ranks of the freedom movement need to be fostered. Freedom is a desperate state around the world, and this is your first move? Even if people are not quite there in your mind you need to embrace them, not scold, reprimand, and psycho analysis them before they even get started. You must do all you can to coddle them, grow the ranks, and if they are wrong they will find out on their own.I gaurantee you people don't get here by accident, and trolls will be easily spotted. They got here by learning they found something different. They will pay attention and question, like they have been doing all along to get here. Welcome them. Make everything about their experience positive. Avoid anything that cuase them to loose interest, or hope. This is a war of ideals that can only be lost in the hearts and minds of individuals. And we can't affor to lose even one to the staist mentality

[dsayers]

I do not blame the indoctrination he put off on me and my sibling on him, nor do I blame my mother for her side. They did what they believed was best.

 

One of the first things I said to you was that any excuses you make for others, you will make for yourself. Here, you speak of "believed was best" while your efforts here reject even suggestions of better. Put the two together and we see that your children will not be exposed to what's best, but what you believe is best, which is unwavering and therefore cannot be the best. To demonstrate, I will point out numerous thinking errors I see:

 

you have nothing to go on but a paragraph or two

 

This indicates that you are not actually interested in learning, but rather only interested in learning that which conforms to your predeterminations. It is a back door which you did not avail yourself of up front, which demonstrates that any behavior you engaged it that looked to be discussion was merely theater. It's convenient because it provides you with the opportunity to summarily reject everything ANYBODY could say. This is in contrast to your initial display of trying to discuss the points that were brought up, despite "hav[ing] nothing to go on but a paragraph or two."

 

Now if I felt they intended any of their actions maliciously I might see things differently, but I know they did't. They were igonrant like I said. Like most people are. It wasn't a matter of having the information, being presented a choice and choosing the wrong one. It was ignorance of not even knowing these things exist

 

Ignorance WAS the choice. "Everybody else owned slaves" does not make slavery a moral act. When I first mentioned seeking knowledge, you spoke of technology. When I mentioned the library, you changed to ignorance being widespread. This means that technology wasn't actually a measure you accepted, but one you provided just the same as you believed it staved off a challenge to your predetermination. This is more confirmation bias.

 

It was something that took me 10 years of reading to get too. I had the time neither one had.

 

Did they die? Did they know they were going to die? Under what circumstances would you say that "didn't have 10 years" and "chose to have children" are compatible? For that matter, how can you with a straight face say that they didn't have 10 years to learn how to raise a child peacefully, but they did have 10 years to program a child to die by the command of a stranger?

 

People that seek to develop their self ownship and grow the ranks of the freedom movement need to be fostered.

 

People that reject self-knowledge prior to considering it cannot be described as seeking to develop their self-ownership. The encouragement to be honest about themselves and their environment IS fostering them.

 

Even if people are not quite there in your mind you need to embrace them, not scold, reprimand, and psycho analysis them before they even get started.

 

You think that at this point, we're in a place that can be described as "before getting started"? Do you not see that this is in stark contradiction to your initial attitude of "There aint nuthin' like gettin' spanked right out the box"? And for the record, the very first thing that I personally did WAS embrace you. Because you spoke as if the truth was important to you and that is worthy of embrace. I can't speak for others, but I personally do not feel that rejection and manipulation of the truth is worthy of embrace.

 

I gaurantee you people don't get here by accident, and trolls will be easily spotted. They got here by learning they found something different. They will pay attention and question, like they have been doing all along to get here. Welcome them. Make everything about their experience positive. Avoid anything that cuase them to loose interest, or hope. This is a war of ideals that can only be lost in the hearts and minds of individuals. And we can't affor to lose even one to the staist mentality

 

Right and protecting your abusers in your own mind IS the statist mentality. Look, dude, we were both damaged. So of course I sympathize. The problem is that now you are aware of what damage is and how it can distort your perceptions. This means that now you are responsible for it.

[TheBishop]

 

One of the first things I said to you was that any excuses you make for others, you will make for yourself. Here, you speak of "believed was best" while your efforts here reject even suggestions of better. Put the two together and we see that your children will not be exposed to what's best, but what you believe is best, which is unwavering and therefore cannot be the best. To demonstrate, I will point out numerous thinking errors I see:  This indicates that you are not actually interested in learning, but rather only interested in learning that which conforms to your predeterminations. It is a back door which you did not avail yourself of up front, which demonstrates that any behavior you engaged it that looked to be discussion was merely theater. It's convenient because it provides you with the opportunity to summarily reject everything ANYBODY could say. This is in contrast to your initial display of trying to discuss the points that were brought up, despite "hav[ing] nothing to go on but a paragraph or two."  Ignorance WAS the choice. "Everybody else owned slaves" does not make slavery a moral act. When I first mentioned seeking knowledge, you spoke of technology. When I mentioned the library, you changed to ignorance being widespread. This means that technology wasn't actually a measure you accepted, but one you provided just the same as you believed it staved off a challenge to your predetermination. This is more confirmation bias.  Did they die? Did they know they were going to die? Under what circumstances would you say that "didn't have 10 years" and "chose to have children" are compatible? For that matter, how can you with a straight face say that they didn't have 10 years to learn how to raise a child peacefully, but they did have 10 years to program a child to die by the command of a stranger?  People that reject self-knowledge prior to considering it cannot be described as seeking to develop their self-ownership. The encouragement to be honest about themselves and their environment IS fostering them.  You think that at this point, we're in a place that can be described as "before getting started"? Do you not see that this is in stark contradiction to your initial attitude of "There aint nuthin' like gettin' spanked right out the box"? And for the record, the very first thing that I personally did WAS embrace you. Because you spoke as if the truth was important to you and that is worthy of embrace. I can't speak for others, but I personally do not feel that rejection and manipulation of the truth is worthy of embrace.  Right and protecting your abusers in your own mind IS the statist mentality. Look, dude, we were both damaged. So of course I sympathize. The problem is that now you are aware of what damage is and how it can distort your perceptions. This means that now you are responsible for it.

 I hope your not a representation of the populace in these forums. If so my time here will be short lived. I pretty much disagree about everthying you said. My parents aren't abusers and ingorance isn't always a choice. I certainly don't see a damaged individual when I look in the mirror.I have been seeking truth all my life. It's a journey that has led me to some very unconfortable positions in my life. This isn't unconfortable, this is annoying. You have made some very major assumptions based off little information. Some partly correct, but most you took your own preconcieved misconceptions an applied them to my circumstance. That has some very abrasive undertones.I am not looking to change, I am changing, and I can't stop it. Reflecting on the mistakes of my parents is something I have been doing since I became a father. But to outright villify them is unnecessary and to keep pushing the issue irritates me. They are insignificant for the future course of events.

[dsayers]

You didn't answer my questions.

 

I hope your not a representation of the populace in these forums. If so my time here will be short lived.

 

I can only speak for myself if that's what you mean. Being a forum devoted to philosophy, and your thread having 144 views as I post this, I would certainly be corrected if I was speaking falsehoods. Talk about a 10 year old choosing how to die is not one to be taken lightly. One other person posted to try and help you identify the source of state power. Which I also tried to help you with when you spoke of statist mentality. To him, you backpedaled and said "lighten up" while telling others to embrace and coddle, which is a universality fail.

 

Your quote here is basically saying "tell me what I want to hear or I'm leaving." A consistent theme throughout this thread.

[TheBishop]

 

You didn't answer my questions.  I can only speak for myself if that's what you mean. Being a forum devoted to philosophy, and your thread having 144 views as I post this, I would certainly be corrected if I was speaking falsehoods. Talk about a 10 year old choosing how to die is not one to be taken lightly. One other person posted to try and help you identify the source of state power. Which I also tried to help you with when you spoke of statist mentality. To him, you backpedaled and said "lighten up" while telling others to embrace and coddle, which is a universality fail. Your quote here is basically saying "tell me what I want to hear or I'm leaving." A consistent theme throughout this thread.

 Maybe it's the condescension that I find a little abrasive. Especially considering that last line. I'm not looking to be coddled, or be spoon fed. I certainly don't expect my rear to be kissed with feel good answers. But I do expect to be able to disagree without getting negative feedback.I understand you think I have daddy issues and I should confront them. But I think the confrontation is not worth the gain. You think I should get angry and resent my parents them. I think haboring anger and resentment, is like haboring sadness, and pessimism, it can only slow you down and impede your focus. I pity my parents. I think its sad for them that they are unable to make the connections I can make. I am superior to them, in that manner, but most has to do with their circumstance. I now understand that you can't accept that I feel that way. I'm ok with that. But it rather annoys me that you insist that I'm a danger to my children, and you fell the need to compell me to believing I'm some type of victim. I reject that entirely.One, the victim mentality doesn't work for me. I take it as a lesson,something to be improved upon for each subsequent generation, and apply it. Victim implies the need of justice. In all the bad you think, and I know they did, I also see greater amounts of good that they bestoyed upon me and my family. Some of their core tenets are fundamental beliefs that enabled me to breach some gaps when looking for a righteous way to live.Again my father would have thought of wishing a battle field death a horid idea, at least out loud anyway. That has probably more to do with hollywood, the books I liked to read, and religous influence at the time. Either way it was a conclusion I had developed on my own. My father would have been just as happy if I had chosen baseball to pursue. He didn't push me, I pursued it becuase I did idolize my father, like any boy should.

[dsayers]

You still didn't answer my questions. You realize that the inability to answer them is instructive, right?

 

Honesty isn't weakness. I don't know where you're getting confrontation or resentment. You can have honesty without confrontation or resentment. However, without honesty, you can't have focus or any speed by which stuff might "slow you down."

 

I did idolize my father, like any boy should.

 

"Proximity equals virtue." This isn't being honest. But it does tie in very nicely with how somebody incapable of being honest about the parent child relationship is powerless to provide a good one for their own children. This quote here dooms your boy if one of your children are male. It's arrogant in that it presumes that the parent is automatically right by no virtue other than being the parent. I don't feel this to be a controversial claim given that you are not open to negotiation, so you certainly will not be to somebody who cannot escape you. If you held your father responsible for this exact same mistake, you wouldn't be allowing yourself to make it in turn.

 

There is no condescension here. There was with your father. Perhaps if you admitted the truth to yourself, you wouldn't find condescension in others. Not that it's any actual proof, but the lack of condescension is one of the indications that I'm telling the truth. Like if you seriously thought that 2+2=5, I wouldn't have to use tactics such as humiliation, emotional manipulation, or threats of military action or hellfire. All I have to do is talk to you about the truth. You can reject it if you like, and I usually do not waste my time on those who do. But you have children who will suffer by way of your negligence of the truth, just as you suffered as the result of your parents' negligence of the truth.

[TheBishop]

 

You still didn't answer my questions. You realize that the inability to answer them is instructive, right? Honesty isn't weakness. I don't know where you're getting confrontation or resentment. You can have honesty without confrontation or resentment. However, without honesty, you can't have focus or any speed by which stuff might "slow you down."  "Proximity equals virtue." This isn't being honest. But it does tie in very nicely with how somebody incapable of being honest about the parent child relationship is powerless to provide a good one for their own children. This quote here dooms your boy if one of your children are male. It's arrogant in that it presumes that the parent is automatically right by no virtue other than being the parent. I don't feel this to be a controversial claim given that you are not open to negotiation, so you certainly will not be to somebody who cannot escape you. If you held your father responsible for this exact same mistake, you wouldn't be allowing yourself to make it in turn. There is no condescension here. There was with your father. Perhaps if you admitted the truth to yourself, you wouldn't find condescension in others. Not that it's any actual proof, but the lack of condescension is one of the indications that I'm telling the truth. Like if you seriously thought that 2+2=5, I wouldn't have to use tactics such as humiliation, emotional manipulation, or threats of military action or hellfire. All I have to do is talk to you about the truth. You can reject it if you like, and I usually do not waste my time on those who do. But you have children who will suffer by way of your negligence of the truth, just as you suffered as the result of your parents' negligence of the truth.

You know what you think, I know what you don't. I look at my father and see not a malicious man, but a man caught up in the lies of the state. A man blinded by the corruption propagated by the times, sentiments, and beliefs of a society, that has lost touch with the true spirit that enabled its existence. I see a man that wanted nothing but his chldren to be happy, in terms that he improperly defined. A man subjected to poisonous ideals, that once embeded, are only subject to destruction from within.To imply that I represent a danger to my chilren is utter ignorance. You don't know me. You don't know how I act twards them. You certainly don't have a clue how I understand the transgressions of my parents and apply them to my own parenting.

[dsayers]

You know what you think, I know what you don't. I look at my father and see not a malicious man, but a man caught up in the lies of the state. A man blinded by the corruption propagated by the times, sentiments, and beliefs of a society, that has lost touch with the true spirit that enabled its existence. I see a man that wanted nothing but his chldren to be happy, in terms that he improperly defined. A man subjected to poisonous ideals, that once embeded, are only subject to destruction from within.

 

You live in the same world as your father, with the same poisonous ideas floating around. If you are not limited by them (assuming that you are not), you can not reference them as if they are limiting. I've addressed your claim that he was powerless to overcome every single time you've said it. Does repeating it make it true?

 

To imply that I represent a danger to my chilren is utter ignorance. You don't know me. You don't know how I act twards them. You certainly don't have a clue how I understand the transgressions of my parents and apply them to my own parenting.

 

You were not originally of the disposition that I did not know you. It wasn't until you noticed that I would not be swayed by flawed logic that you turned to marginalizing the extent to which I "know you." You're right, I don't know you. However, I do know that you are capable of holding opposing values, using self-contradictory statements, and have no interest in negotiation. I also know, as I stated up front, that the excuses you make for others are the excuses you will allow for yourself. ALL OF THIS will influence the way in which you parent. AND your inability to even consider means it is doomed to never improve. It can only degrade.

[TheBishop]

 

You live in the same world as your father, with the same poisonous ideas floating around. If you are not limited by them (assuming that you are not), you can not reference them as if they are limiting. I've addressed your claim that he was powerless to overcome every single time you've said it. Does repeating it make it true?  You were not originally of the disposition that I did not know you. It wasn't until you noticed that I would not be swayed by flawed logic that you turned to marginalizing the extent to which I "know you." You're right, I don't know you. However, I do know that you are capable of holding opposing values, using self-contradictory statements, and have no interest in negotiation. I also know, as I stated up front, that the excuses you make for others are the excuses you will allow for yourself. ALL OF THIS will influence the way in which you parent. AND your inability to even consider means it is doomed to never improve. It can only degrade.

Never said he was powerless. But just as child that grows up in a sheltered muslim setting is likely to turn out muslim, a man that grows up in a sheltered statist society, is likely to be statist. It isn't as if the information is readily available. It isn't now, even with the internet, and back then, it isn't even fathonable how one would even come about questioning the state. That is why the ranks of statist are so great. You speak as if we should blame every statist out there, for thier ignorance, when it is beat into their skull to obey their entire lives.The only flawed logic is yours. And your pretty good but you have too many false assumptions about father and I. Your conlusions would be spot on,if your assumptions weren't wrong. I have read alot of what you post, I can see your very astute at this stuff, but your reaching with me. I Love how this is was just suppose to be an intro about a statist that disovered the irrationality of statism and turned into a counseling session.I am not damaged,I do not see a stolen childhood. I would relive every moment of it if I could, good and bad. I love and pity both my parents. The pity becuase I love them, and wish they could discover what I have. They have very little time left and I see no reason to show them, they wasted all their lives and inadvertantly endagered their childrens lives. They were fools to be pitied not hated.Grudges and regrets are burdens I try to avoid. I take the lessons I can learn and move on. My parents and I are polar opposites when it comes to parenting. I make an effort to be that way. If You don't belive me I don't care. The fact I am here should tell you that I am on quite a different path than my statist father.

[dsayers]

It isn't as if the information is readily available. It isn't now, even with the internet, and back then, it isn't even fathonable how one would even come about questioning the state.

 

We're not talking about statists, we're talking about people who chose to bring a human life into the world without studying how to do so in a way that isn't harmful. But since you used the word fathomable, I thought I'd point out that there have been been people who have questioned the validity of the state for MILLENIA. The first literature I came across that validated my position was written by Herbert Spencer, who died in 1903. He had quoted: "No human laws are of any validity if contrary to the law of nature; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority mediately or immediately from this original." It is a quote from William Blackstone, who died in 1780. Which should be no surprise since a great many of the founding fathers questioned the validity of the state.

 

It's not unfathomable. You don't want to fathom it because you'd have to face the truth about people of whom you have an opinion that the truth would be uncomfortable to acknowledge.

 

I love and pity both my parents. The pity becuase I love them, and wish they could discover what I have. They have very little time left and I see no reason to show them

 

What do you love about them?

 

Also, I don't understand the "see no reason" remark. If your mind was once enslaved and you have since broken free, then you have experienced what liberation feels like. That feeling alone is worth showing the enslaved. You're essentially saying, "I see no reason to speak the truth to people I claim to love."

 

 I have read alot of what you post, I can see your very astute at this stuff, but your reaching with me.

 

I was saddened to read this. "You are very astute, but not when it comes to me." What is the only variable?

[TheBishop]

We're not talking about statists, we're talking about people who chose to bring a human life into the world without studying how to do so in a way that isn't harmful. But since you used the word fathomable, I thought I'd point out that there have been been people who have questioned the validity of the state for MILLENIA. The first literature I came across that validated my position was written by Herbert Spencer, who died in 1903. He had quoted: "No human laws are of any validity if contrary to the law of nature; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority mediately or immediately from this original." It is a quote from William Blackstone, who died in 1780. Which should be no surprise since a great many of the founding fathers questioned the validity of the state.

 

It isn't that information wasn't out there. It certainly was, but it's not like its prolific. Especially considering the times my father grew up.  A book would have literally had to fall from the sky and hit him to discover this stuff.  Heck, it took me years to find, after hundreds of hours searching on the net for variety of topics. I literally came about it by accident, from one video link to another. 

It's not unfathomable. You don't want to fathom it because you'd have to face the truth about people of whom you have an opinion that the truth would be uncomfortable to acknowledge.

 

Agian, I don't see it that way.  You could be right and it might be an excuse about an uncomfortable truth.  But if you were right and my father knowingly, maliciously, fed me the lies of the state to indoctrinate me, I would see evidence. I do not.  I see a man fully indoctrinated himself, unable to question the very premises he's been trapped into believing.  I pity that.  

 

What do you love about them?

 

 

Thier my parents, the only ones I have, and they gave me a chance to get here. They placed no pressure on me to do anything other than be good person.  They were affectionate, trusting, and loyal.  

 

Also, I don't understand the "see no reason" remark. If your mind was once enslaved and you have since broken free, then you have experienced what liberation feels like. That feeling alone is worth showing the enslaved. You're essentially saying, "I see no reason to speak the truth to people I claim to love."

 

I remember the journey I went through to reject the state. I wouldn't call it liberating.  Devastating is more a term I would use. I know you'll probably revert to the whole daddy issue and this is probably good reason.  But my rational conclusion came with saddness, deppression, and feeling of deep burden. Sad becuase I realized that I grown up believing in pure fantasy. That freedom and liberty is not what I would have fought and died for, and it really can't be, ever. Depressed becuase I didn't know where to turn next, and burdened becuase I was compelled to act for the sake of my children. And I  didn't  like  that I hadn't reached the conclusion ealier.

 

I also felt alone and that I had a goliath enemy of humaity in front of me.  And that beast is impossible to slay alone.

 

I was saddened to read this. "You are very astute, but not when it comes to me." What is the only variable?

. 

Agian you are assuming a constant.  Astute meaning keen, wise, knowledgable, not perfect and without mistake.   

[dsayers]

Sad becuase I realized that I grown up believing in pure fantasy.

 

Except that you didn't grow up believing in pure fantasy, you were lied to.

 

You also keep using the word malicious as if "negligent" means "free from responsibility."

 

It's circular. When I say you were lied to, you will say that he didn't know. To which I'll point out that the information was available and you will say that it didn't jump in his lap. Then I'll point out that he should've sought it out and you will say it wasn't available in his time. I'll show it's been around almost as long as the state, and you'll say he's not malicious. Repeat.

 

Seriously, re-read the thread and look at all the ways you've made excuses for him. If I was a nut, or even an astute guy that just happened to make a mistake when it was your father I was talking about, you would just ignore what I had to say. The effort you are putting forth is not for the purpose of seeking the truth, but effort that is placed into pushing the truth away. I don't even know your dad. What difference would it make if I thought poorer of him than he actually earned? Especially since I'm really only commenting on such small portions of him anyways.

[TheBishop]

Except that you didn't grow up believing in pure fantasy, you were lied to.

 

 

 

Inadvertantly, yes. Just like a priest that has dedicated his life to a religion. They lie all day long and don't even know it.

 

 

You also keep using the word malicious as if "negligent" means "free from responsibility."

 

 

Negiligent isn't the word to describe it either. Ignorance is the only term that fits.  If the neighbor of a child is next store when it drowns in the backyard pool, and the neighbor had no knowledge of the pool, or the child, you could charge the neighbor with negligence. Now he could have made the effort to find out but what would have prompted him?  Intuition? ESP?

 

It's circular. When I say you were lied to, you will say that he didn't know. To which I'll point out that the information was available and you will say that it didn't jump in his lap. Then I'll point out that he should've sought it out and you will say it wasn't available in his time. I'll show it's been around almost as long as the state, and you'll say he's not malicious. Repeat.

 

There you go reaching again.  Were you born with an innate sense of this stuff? Did you just know? How did you find it? I know how I did, and It took me years of searching like material to arrive at the conclusion I have. So how am I suppose to expect someone to just know? That's stupid.  Why are Libratarian, anarcho-capitalist, minarchist, and full blown anarchist such a fraction of society? The information is not only suppressed, admonished, and ridiculed by the mainstream, it's difficult to grasp for some, and the illusions they shatter can be downright frightening for them. To expect my father just to know is just silly. The ranks of freedom oriented individuals will not grow with that mindset.  

 

Seriously, re-read the thread and look at all the ways you've made excuses for him. If I was a nut, or even an astute guy that just happened to make a mistake when it was your father I was talking about, you would just ignore what I had to say. The effort you are putting forth is not for the purpose of seeking the truth, but effort that is placed into pushing the truth away. I don't even know your dad. What difference would it make if I thought poorer of him than he actually earned? Especially since I'm really only commenting on such small portions of him anyways.

 

No dude, its called setting the record straight.  You are wrong about my father. If I could go back fifty years and show him some of the things I learned, I believe he would have seen the things he taught me as heinous, and shifted direction. Some of the conversations we have lately leeds me to believe that he has cuaght on to some things a little to late.

 

What I have difficulty understanding is why it is so important to you that I hold some adimosity twards him.  Why is it not enough to understand his transgressions and move beyond them?  Why must I hold his ignorance against him ,and punish him for things I see no way of him knowing? Is it not enough to understand that he was wrong, and correct them? To show others the mistakes he made so as not to repeat them?

 

If that is somehow neccessary to get with your "program", peace I'm out.  I don't dwell on crap like that. I prefer to focus my energy forward and try to fill the ranks of people willing to shed the chains of state bondage.  

[dsayers]

Negiligent isn't the word to describe it either. Ignorance is the only term that fits.

 

Chosen ignorance + responsibility = negligence. If somebody hope into a car, doesn't know how to operate it, and runs a bunch of people over, they don't get to cite ignorance and walk away. They accepted a responsibility that they did not attempt to prepare for. This is negligence, it is destructive, and it belongs to the person who engages in it.

 

What I have difficulty understanding is why it is so important to you that I hold some adimosity twards him.

 

I never said animosity. I did multiple times say that any excuse you make for others you will allow for yourself and that my concern is for your children. So the question becomes: Why is it difficult for you to understand? The answer, were you to be honest with yourself, is shameful.

[TheBishop]

Chosen ignorance + responsibility = negligence. If somebody hope into a car, doesn't know how to operate it, and runs a bunch of people over, they don't get to cite ignorance and walk away. They accepted a responsibility that they did not attempt to prepare for. This is negligence, it is destructive, and it belongs to the person who engages in it.

 

Terrible analogy. Under such a scenerio the driver would have been in an easy position to see that they were operating something foriegn to their knowledge. Given that understanding, they could be considered acting in negligence.  A better analogy would be a person that was raised in completely sheltered, heavily indoctrinated, and taught not to question.  You cannot expect a slave, that has no ability to guage their own servitude, to acknowledge and teach others freedom. Nor could you hold them accountable for thier actions.

 

 

I never said animosity. I did multiple times say that any excuse you make for others you will allow for yourself and that my concern is for your children. So the question becomes: Why is it difficult for you to understand? The answer, were you to be honest with yourself, is shameful.

 

I do not make excuses for myself when it comes to my children.  I understand my shortfalls, and work hard to keep an even keel when dealing with them. My children ages 3 and 4 already show great capacity for rational discussion. They are both learning quickly, that the best course of action in when dealing with their father is to cut a deal. I love to wheel and deal.

[dsayers]

All that's necessary for a good analogy here is the potential to damage others without acknowledging the potential to damage others. This is what having a child with no research equates to, as well as hopping into a car without knowing how to operate it. Bottom line: ignorance + responsibility = negligence.

 

I do not make excuses for myself when it comes to my children.

 

This was exactly my point: You won't see it as an excuse if in your mind, it's an accurate description of the way things are.

[LocalTravelAgent]

After skimming this post I have a bit to say.  This forum is somewhere that you can find reasoned challenges to flawed perspectives which run deeper than those concerning flawed government... instead, people here are likely to dig into the root causes of flawed perspectives which lead to government abuses.  If all you want to do is discuss the state without getting at the root causes of its power, I would suggest some other venue.  There are plenty of communities of libertarians who will not challenge you to reexamine your own history.  The distaste you seem to have for the challenge is a bummer... because the challenge is what is unique about this community.  Obviously, I am making some assumptions as I have not read through the forum extensively and am a new member myself... but I doubt that I am far from the mark.