Kevin Beal Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 To be fair, the sheer volume of content can be daunting. At least we don't hit people too hard with the "that was addressed in podcast #1631 at the 3h21m mark" shenanigan. True, but what about issues resolved in podcasts #1 & 2? I sometimes see people claim that the government is not violent or some other very basic and false claim like that and wonder to myself "how did they even find this place?"
J. D. Stembal Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 I carried a "six-shooter" forever (S&W .357 magnum-to be precise). Still own that gun. Wonderful gun. I wanted to switch to semi-auto when they started getting really popular, but the technology wasn't quite there yet. The technology caught up. Now, I carry an XD .40 and a Ruger LCP. Love' em. Wonderful weapons. Carry a gun with me literally everywhere I go. Never had to pull my gun on anyone to this day. Never shot anybody. Hope I never have to. I love how leftists fall into this trope that armed societies are necessarily more violent by the virtue of being more well armed. Apparently, they've never heard the expression, "An armed society is a polite society." If everyone carried a firearm, the most belligerent of us would be very reluctant to initiate violence for fear of being gunned down in self-defense. This society would be peaceful due to the halo effect of gun ownership. Which flavor LCR do you carry? I thought about pairing a .357 ankle holstered with my GP100 but it does not look like it would be comfortable to fire unless loaded with .38 Spl. It is less than half the mass of my GP100 with a 3" barrel. I need to find someone that has one so they can let me try it out with some self-defense magnum rounds. I've used a Springfield XD-9 before but the sights were way off out of the box. Not one of us could hit the target with it. I'm not too thrilled with polymer guns or trigger/grip safeties.
Ken Cotton Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 There is nothing more annoying on this board than people who arrive here having not read any of the free books and literature available here. In answer to the above question, read this short book Practical Anarchy Or listen to the audio version if you prefer here. There is nothing more annoying on this board than people who arrive here having not read any of the free books and literature available here. In answer to the above question, read this short book Practical Anarchy Or listen to the audio version if you prefer here. I'm not going to forage through 9 hours of material because you're too lazy to write out an answer. I don't expect you to have read or heard every single bit of statist material ever produced. 1 1
PatrickC Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 I'm not going to forage through 9 hours of material because you're too lazy to write out an answer. I don't expect you to have read or heard every single bit of statist material ever produced. So why should anyway else assuage your need then.. Go figure who the lazy one is here.
Kevin Beal Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I'm not going to forage through 9 hours of material because you're too lazy to write out an answer. Then how about because you want to understand the position? It's an excellent resource. 1
Blackfish64 Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I love how leftists fall into this trope that armed societies are necessarily more violent by the virtue of being more well armed. Apparently, they've never heard the expression, "An armed society is a polite society." If everyone carried a firearm, the most belligerent of us would be very reluctant to initiate violence for fear of being gunned down in self-defense. This society would be peaceful due to the halo effect of gun ownership. Which flavor LCR do you carry? I thought about pairing a .357 ankle holstered with my GP100 but it does not look like it would be comfortable to fire unless loaded with .38 Spl. It is less than half the mass of my GP100 with a 3" barrel. I need to find someone that has one so they can let me try it out with some self-defense magnum rounds. I've used a Springfield XD-9 before but the sights were way off out of the box. Not one of us could hit the target with it. I'm not too thrilled with polymer guns or trigger/grip safeties. I don't buy anything from the left or the right. I like to drive fast, straight up the middle. And even if an armed society is not a polite society, and even more violent, and even more people get killed, they still can't have my guns. My property, my right of bearing arms is just that, just what it says: MINE. And it's not up for negotiation. That is the stance pro-gunners need to take. We should not reduce ourselves to the tired old arguments on statistics, and etc., but to simply tell the world our guns aren't up for grabs. You can't have 'em. Sorry, kids. I don't carry LCR. I carry LCP. I have the Arizona 100th Anniversary Commemoration version. I got a great deal on it! I really don't care much for the Springfield XD40. I bought that one only because I needed it for a job I used to have and I just got used to it. It kind of grew on me. But I've gotten used to the LCP, and now the Springfield is just too big and cumbersome for my active lifestyle. I do love the punch the .40 has however. Can't argue about that. I used to carry a 10mm, my favorite, but, again, too big and bulky for me. Got rid of it. I carry the weapon only one way, in a holster on my hip, like the cops do. Always there when I need it. Carrying any other way makes no sense to me. I strap it on every day. It's as second nature to me as tying my shoes. Nothing to it. The truth is, it matters not at all what gun one carries. Any gun will get the job done if you will get the job done. Whatever anyone carries, it's all about practice, practice, practice, and being able to hit targets. I can carry the nicest, fanciest, latest thing, but if I can't hit what I'm aiming at it's perfectly useless and so am I. 1
J. D. Stembal Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Very true. You have to be comfortable carrying the firearm so that you do it every day. I have to admit that sometimes I just don't want to put on the holster. Belt, custom IWB holster, and loaded piece comes in just under three pounds. The grip sits tucked behind my right kidney. I can push it up towards the hip but it sometimes prints. I replaced the grips with wood so it doesn't snag my shirt while concealed. It's a doubt in my mind rather than lack of comfort. I need more range time and rounds through it to feel right about carrying it. I wouldn't ever draw it unless I knew for certain I could hit what I needed to hit. The reason I brought up the halo effect is because Ken is making an argument that violent societies are better able to protect themselves. I think the opposite is true. Societies that are allowed to protect themselves are to less violence. Burglars don't break into houses when there's a chance people are home with a loaded weapon.
dsayers Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I don't expect you to have read or heard every single bit of statist material ever produced. Why not? Most children are indoctrinated with it before they have the intellectual fortitude to resist. You can't turn on the television or watch most movies without it having been shoved down your throat. The beauty is, one doesn't have to partake of all Statist materials anyways. The moment you get to the part about the square triangle being valid, you can safely discard everything that is built upon it. Oh and with regards to our last exchange, you dodged the question. You were essentially claiming that people need to be violently subjugated to keep them sharp. It doesn't matter if you have a wife or not. If you did, you would not beat her just to keep her primed for potential mugger attacks. Since you wouldn't live your own value, you reveal your position yet again to be full of shit.
Ken Cotton Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I'm willing to look at the material, but one of Stefan's flaws is the fact that he is not very concise. There is bound to be a lot of completely irrelevant material in there that I don't want to waste my time on. I'm happy to learn things about Libertarians, but I'm not an adherent to a specific vision of it. I have listened to some Stefan, some Alex Jones. I'm interested in getting the basic Libertarian 101 ideas. 1
Kevin Beal Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I'm willing to look at the material, but one of Stefan's flaws is the fact that he is not very concise. There is bound to be a lot of completely irrelevant material in there that I don't want to waste my time on. I'm happy to learn things about Libertarians, but I'm not an adherent to a specific vision of it. I have listened to some Stefan, some Alex Jones. I'm interested in getting the basic Libertarian 101 ideas. Just curious. Why did you join the boards?
Ken Cotton Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 As I've explained before, I joined to learn about the ideas at play here. I think that some of them are more valid than others. I opine on different topics the same that anyone else might. I am interested in learning and selectively applying the things I learn. 1
Kevin Beal Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 As I've explained before, I joined to learn about the ideas at play here. How do you go about learning things like this?
Ken Cotton Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 It's hard to explain. You absorb a number of subtle cues and then deconstruct them to establish a basic recurring framework. It works on individuals and on groups that share similar characteristics. Judging by trends you can then seamlessly change the way you speak or your ideas to suit any environment. I feel as though based off what I've seen here and basic things I've read from Libertarians I could easily slip into the role. However, you learn a lot less as a passive observer. By asking the right questions or putting yourself in the right circumstances you learn a lot more. There are some barriers present here, but I feel as though if I tried I could easily get past them. At this point in time, I feel as though I can make a reasonable appeal to people who are preoccupied with personal liberty and freedom.
Bipedal Primate Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 So why should anyway else assuage your need then.. Go figure who the lazy one is here. I'm not going to forage through 9 hours of material because you're too lazy to write out an answer. I don't expect you to have read or heard every single bit of statist material ever produced. Hi Ken, I have found your contributions very intriguing, specifically your point of view on violence and self interest. I admire your dedication to knowledge and your openness to new ideas, these are traits I value. I, of course, am always happy when someone is willing to consider the benefits of the NAP, Peaceful Parenting, and Voluntaryism. So, Welcome! :-) I respect your candor and veracity, and because of that, I agree with Patrick's suggestion. I also encourage you to invest your time where you will reap the most benefit, which is Stefan's material on Anarchism. IMO, Stef is the best starting point. --and this is not meant to discredit all the unique and brilliant POV's of the members in the FDR community, "we" are the icing on the cake ;-) I sympathize with your hesitancy to commit 9+ hours of your time listening to podcasts. May I suggest some awesome time saving ways to listen to Stefan's Anarchy podcasts: driving, cooking, house cleaning, working out, in the shower, while having sex(well maybe not that one) lol :-) I would also like to, respectfully, point out that Patrick is not currently, to my knowledge, on a 'statist community forum board' asking lots of detailed questions, therefore we can conclude statism is not a subject he is interested in pursuing. In contrast, *you* are actively posting queries on an Anarchist community forum board. Therefore his suggestion to go straight to the source is both logical and in the best interest of obtaining instant accurate detailed answers on the subject of Anarchy. I hope you find the answers you're looking for. Cheers to learning and Growing! :-) 1
dsayers Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I think that some of them are more valid than others. I don't think validity is analog. Anyways, I do not take your claim of curiosity at face value. Not only does your post history NOT demonstrate curiosity, it mostly demonstrates bias confirmation. If it is true that your purpose here is curiosity, then you should know that this is not at all how you come across.
Kevin Beal Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I ran out of upvotes, Bipedal, or else you'd get a few of them Also, this criticism that Stef isn't concise is interesting. In his books, he is more concise than in unscripted podcasts, but I don't know that being concise is always best. Something I've come to realize is that with topics that are so counterintuitive or against the current zeitgeist, you kind of have to go about attacking it from a hundred different angles before it dislodges. It's interesting to me how something that doesn't seem important or relevant can later end up serving as a necessary premise for a really profound conclusion. I also used to get confused about Stef's choice of examples and metaphors, but then later realized that the examples I would use instead were far more abstract and less visceral and empirical. The tagline of the show should be changed to "the most empirical philosophy show in the world". His podcasts are like syllogisms spread stretched out across an hour because the premises need explaining and the conclusion require a lot of setup. Really annoying to hear, of course, but I'm going to tell you anyway: I don't think you get it. Also, I don't know how to argue with the idea that tilling soil is violent, or how to talk about empathetic issues with a self proclaimed sociopath. I can't get a toe hold in this mountainous climb of a debate. How do I help someone learn about the nature of violence and ethics who says such things? If you put forward arguments for your position looking for help from others to illuminate faulty premises, then that may help. Putting forward a bunch of proposition which you believe to be true is something you have to counter with facts and very little of what has been discussed is easily verifiable. This is why I'm asking the most basic of questions, trying to find a way in what I perceive to be an impenetrable fortress of assertions. 1
Peaceful Parent Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Also, I don't know how to argue with the idea that tilling soil is violent, or how to talk about empathetic issues with a self proclaimed sociopath. I can't get a toe hold in this mountainous climb of a debate. How do I help someone learn about the nature of violence and ethics who says such things? Yeah the sociopath label along with his morbid illustration of said label made me cringe. I took that announcement as "I'm not only irrationally resistant to the NAP, I'm incapable of understanding it." kudos to all of you guys and gals for continuing on with the conversation despite Ken's unmoving support for the initiation of force. Your efforts are inspiring.
Ken Cotton Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I want to be clear that I'm not saying he should be concise all the time. There is a time and a place for his particular style though, and the fancy rhetoric and constant objection can drag material out well beyond its necessary length. I've seen some of his shorter videos and speaking appearances and they were fine. I've also listened to literal hours of his material in the background, and found it mostly interesting. There are points I agree and disagree with. I'm just lamenting that when you're trying to argue over a specific point, his common way of talking can make finding that specific area of a podcast difficult. Instead, I decided to skim through the book using the Table of Contents. Most of the material there makes sense in a vacuum for intellectually driven minds. I think that Stefan fails to recognize or appreciate the fact that human beings always exist in a state of duality. Logically a lot of what he says makes perfect sense, but people aren't nearly that logical. It's a good thing to, because if we were we wouldn't have as much of the collectivism that has allowed us to succeed as a race. Let's zoom back from the current geopolitical establishment and pretend that we instantly dissolved all states and borders. In the absence of citizenship, the next key identifier for most people is interests. Your interests will generally determine your choice of friends and colleagues. Removing that layer, the next key identifier for human beings is extended family, and past that, immediate family. Families are a persistent human reality in the face of logical nihilism. Is there any perfectly intellectual reason that you should care about your family more than another family? Does it really matter logically at all if your genetic legacy fails? Is the extinction of the human race meaningful in any way? If you put these questions up against the rigors of math and logic you'll find yourself having to default to illogical or subjective justifications. This is part of the duality of the human condition. We are knowing animals. We know that viewed objectively there is little valid reason for our continued existence, but as animals, we have a fundamental and persistent drive to exist. Hitler often spoke about vermin, Jews, and eternal struggle. People used to ask him why such lowly creatures ( in their opinion ) continued to exist, and he'd explain that it was nature. Why do drug addicts with practically no future aside from pain and misery continue to live? While do people who are terminally ill continue to live? Why will someone who is on death row still fight you if you try to kill them? The survival instinct is as strong or stronger than any abstract human thought or logical assertion. Our animal nature is the foundation upon which our greater minds rest. We cannot have the sparkling heights of ivory tower thought without the gritty foundation. When the state is removed, people will fall back to their corporations. When the corporations are removed, people will fall back to their families. History has shown us the power of great and influential families. From the native american tribes to the monarchs of Europe, even to present day Walmart heirs. Families could be considered the first corporation. People working together, often headed by an individual ( patriarch/matriarch ) identified by something like a common name. Even in the absence of the name, they are linked by common genetics. This family will continue to grow, and if successful, it will absorb and merge with other families. These are colonies upon colonies of glorified bacteria. Your every cell working together to make a nation that is you. You working with your partner to create a family. Your family works with another family to create a clan or tribe. Your tribes merge until you form a nation. Your nations merge until you form an empire. You are bacteria in a petri dish. The world is the dish. The superior elements of the human race will rise to the eternal struggle and take over the world. They will find balance with the world, or they will grow out of control until they kill themselves off. Humanity is wonderful and beautiful and vapid and disgusting. The duality of humanity is woven into the fiber of our being, it is inescapable. The state is a house. A red state, a blue state, a red house, a blue house. It is an artificial construct designed to hold a nation. It has fences as any home might have a fence. It has decorations as any home might have decorations. It has rules and leaders as any household has rules and leaders. The nation will arise organically from human interaction no matter which rules are or aren't written down, which currencies do and do not exist. Resources will always exist in one form or another, and competition and pursuit of those resources will always exist. Whether a man subjects himself and others to pain and death for money, for beauty, for honor, for knowledge, that drive will always exist. That drive will exist as your thirst for truth exists. Escaping this is the holy grail of transhumanists, not of humans. To be able to shed your skin and dismiss the physical, intellectually juvenile trappings of family and carnal need. To ascend as a being of pure thought that explores the universe with a disregard for physical considerations is inhuman. You may choose that path if you'd like, but you should know that there is no room for hesitation. You must choose to be human or inhuman. Dissolution of the state and attempts to mitigate the need for violence are only temporary fixes to a much deeper seated problem. The problem has never been the state, which can be voluntary agreed to and established - the problem has always been people.
powder Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Yeah the sociopath label along with his morbid illustration of said label made me cringe. I took that announcement as "I'm not only irrationally resistant to the NAP, I'm incapable of understanding it." kudos to all of you guys and gals for continuing on with the conversation despite Ken's unmoving support for the initiation of force. Your efforts are inspiring. Perhaps I the not the only one that is kinda freaked out by Ken and the stuff he says? I mean, it gives me the shivers. I would like him to go away if people stop responding to him and he gets bored.
shirgall Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 True, but what about issues resolved in podcasts #1 & 2? I sometimes see people claim that the government is not violent or some other very basic and false claim like that and wonder to myself "how did they even find this place?" Yeah, it's a spectrum... but I'd be surprised if most people have even made it through "An Introduction to Philosophy" http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadio-IntroPhilosophy ...or have even read the UPB and RTR books from cover to cover.
Ken Cotton Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Powder I apologize for making you uncomfortable. That is not my intention.
J. D. Stembal Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Perhaps I the not the only one that is kinda freaked out by Ken and the stuff he says? I mean, it gives me the shivers. I would like him to go away if people stop responding to him and he gets bored. Soon you will not have to see his posts. Ken, what would the value be in writing a book about logic and philosophy if most people already had the ability to use them?
growler76 Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Perhaps I the not the only one that is kinda freaked out by Ken and the stuff he says? I mean, it gives me the shivers. I would like him to go away if people stop responding to him and he gets bored. This is easy for me to say, since I haven't been engaging him, but I enjoy reading his perspectives. I also appreciate those that have been engaging him, especially since I can tell there is a lot of frustration. I'm frustrated myself just reading some responses because I'm not so sure there is an honest attempt by him to understand, although he seems to exhibit instances of it, but then other times I get the sense he is just trolling. IF he is sincere in wanting to learn, I would be interested to see if/how his ideas change over time here.
Ken Cotton Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 The process of joining this site, using my identity, and being consistent in my beliefs across mediums would make this pretty dedicated trolling. Which it isn't. This is just who I am and what I think.
Urbanvictim Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 Human beings are the only beings capable of rational thought (we have evolved past our primitive ancestry) Now that we are aware we can see that co-operation is far more efficient than violence. Stef's universally preferable behaviour theory covers this well. As such there is a massive difference between me killing a plant and you killing someone to solve a dispute. It is not arbitrary at all as far as I can see
Ken Cotton Posted November 22, 2014 Posted November 22, 2014 Human beings are the only beings capable of rational thought (we have evolved past our primitive ancestry) Now that we are aware we can see that co-operation is far more efficient than violence. Stef's universally preferable behaviour theory covers this well. As such there is a massive difference between me killing a plant and you killing someone to solve a dispute. It is not arbitrary at all as far as I can see Cooperation is only more efficient than violence if you assume equality. In a position where one entity is significantly stronger than the other, violence can be highly efficient. Our civilization and logic are extremely fragile, ready to collapse at any moment. Very poor people are outpacing us in reproduction at a devastating rate. China and India have over a billion people each. Our rights and freedoms are ideas on paper, tenuously connected through chains of people that can be silenced at any time. More insidious bad ideas rampant in the left undermine our basic survival instincts and perpetuate the problem. Societies where 90%+ of the female population has been sexually assaulted, or where cities are lost in smog, or where people stricken with ebola flee medical services, are set to inherit the earth. Don't lecture me on how we all need to put down our weapons and forget how to fight when there's a teeming sea of insects out there eager to eat us alive. 2
Recommended Posts