I support the use of violence

[Ken Cotton]

That's very interesting Blackfish. How did you disentangle yourself from the peer pressure and that culture? What was the inspiration for you to withold violence? Reading your story reminds me of the way the motto "protect and serve" is used, compared to "law enforcement". I suppose there are police who want to help people, and police who just want to enforce regulation. Did you have to learn that sort of empathy or was it a character trait you just exhibited naturally?

[Blackfish64]

I hope I never have to draw down on anyone. I was told in a defense class that you won't know if you have the will to pull the trigger until the exact moment you are required to do so. Neither of the two retired cops teaching the class had to shoot another person before.  Lefties like to paint firearm owners like wannabe bad asses, and not humans with a conscience. It takes a depraved individual to actually want to shoot a gun at someone.

You will do what you train.

 

Keep out of self-defense classes. Defense wounds are found on corpses.

[dsayers]

Keep out of self-defense classes.

 

I agree. Situational awareness "training," avoidance, and de-escalation will serve you better, easier, in more situations, with a much smaller bottom line overall. Even self-knowledge for the purpose of being able to read others better is more useful than knowing how to move once the fight has begun.

 

Although there is one piece of firearm self-defense advice that I think is helpful: If you're drawing on somebody near to you, do not extend your arm. Keep in near your body to maintain control of the weapon. PRACTICE THIS at the range first since the recoil feels more like a mule kicking back when you don't have all of your arm and shoulder to assist in absorption.

[J. D. Stembal]

I agree. Situational awareness "training," avoidance, and de-escalation will serve you better, easier, in more situations, with a much smaller bottom line overall. Even self-knowledge for the purpose of being able to read others better is more useful than knowing how to move once the fight has begun.

 

Although there is one piece of firearm self-defense advice that I think is helpful: If you're drawing on somebody near to you, do not extend your arm. Keep in near your body to maintain control of the weapon. PRACTICE THIS at the range first since the recoil feels more like a mule kicking back when you don't have all of your arm and shoulder to assist in absorption.

 

We did practice shooting with the firearm tucked in towards the side of the body with the target immediately in front of the booth like we were in a melee with weapon out. Overall, I did not receive the value I thought I would get out of the class, other than it being required to apply for a CCW. If I ever take another class, it will be one of those weekend long combat training courses where they take the time to teach situation awareness and de-escalation in mock scenarios.

[jpahmad]

Although there is one piece of firearm self-defense advice that I think is helpful: If you're drawing on somebody near to you, do not extend your arm. Keep in near your body to maintain control of the weapon. PRACTICE THIS at the range first since the recoil feels more like a mule kicking back when you don't have all of your arm and shoulder to assist in absorption.

 

 

Like Humphrey Bogart!

 

http://gph.is/1cojkOm

[JeanPaul]

You have to describe how it would be the initiation of force. How do 1000 people own a huge continent? 

Suppose they simply say it is their continent, just like native Indians could have said.

[J. D. Stembal]

Suppose they simply say it is their continent, just like native Indians could have said.

 

If I said that your Corvette was mine, that does not necessarily make it so unless I paid or traded you for it.

[Ken Cotton]

North American aboriginals are a pretty good example of what can happen to a stateless society when a state crashes into it.

 

If a non-aggressive society separated from aggressive society right now, I'm not sure they'd be able to maintain their edge. The main problem of putting down weapons in a stand off is that you're never 100% sure that you aren't going to get shot on the spot. It takes an incredibly brave person to be willing to put their life in the hands of someone else. In a stateless society advancing weapon technologies seems like it wouldn't be very profitable and wouldn't be pursued. Other states by contrast would continue investing in weapons technologies simply because they can derive a profit from win/lose arrangements.

[andkon]

I've been trying to figure out if he's a troll or a psychopath.

 

No difference, says science: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

[Blackfish64]

That's very interesting Blackfish. How did you disentangle yourself from the peer pressure and that culture? What was the inspiration for you to withold violence? Reading your story reminds me of the way the motto "protect and serve" is used, compared to "law enforcement". I suppose there are police who want to help people, and police who just want to enforce regulation. Did you have to learn that sort of empathy or was it a character trait you just exhibited naturally?

 

 

I was never tangled up in the life to begin with.  Dad is a womanizer, woman-beater, gambler, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, alcoholic, incredibly anti-social individual.  I did none of the above.  I have no desire.  I understood that Dad was a whack-job from the git-go.  I did everything I could to cut myself free of him at every turn.  He and I were always opposites, always at odds.  Him and his unions, the State, the military, the collectivism.  Yikes.  Idiot.  Artificial nonsense. 

 

I fell into the trade simply because I needed a job.  I moved to Las Vegas in 2001.  I took a job in computers and didn't like it.  I needed a new job and went to blackjack school and auditioned at a break-in house as a blackjack dealer.  I didn't like that job either.  But the hotel was very busy and very short-handed at the time, so they told me not to quit, that I could take any entry level position I so desired and keep on working.  I picked a security position, outdoors, riding bikes, carrying guns, keeping the peace, having fun all day and night.  There was nothing like it.  Fit me like a glove.  All hands on.

 

I'd always had poor boundaries, was kind and compassionate (until I was forced to be otherwise), naive and trusting, and self-sacrificing.  The trade, the hotel business made it very clear how and where to draw boundaries, who to trust, who not to trust, etc.       

 

If you're going to gamble, you get on the right side of the tables and the slot machines.  You will win every single day.  Dad could never figure that out and has always been a loser, degenerate gambler.  I took an entry level position and was soon making fifty grand a year, easy money, no problem.  If you're going to gamble, be the house.  The players don't stand a chance.  You can't beat us.  No way.         

 

I do not withhold violence.  Never have, never will.  For me, violence will always be forthcoming.  It has been a part of me since childhood.  I embrace violence.  Violence is an integral part of my self.  I love violence and practice it daily.  I get on the mats with a reaction partner or operant fighter and rip out eyeballs, snap spines, pull limbs from their sockets, break hips, crack jaws, and wreck everyone I can get my hands on.  I am a master of violence on my own terms, happy to say.  Human demolition all the way, forever.  Violence, as I have said, is an implement, a tool, and it is in my toolbox.  Like a hammer, a pair of pliers, a saw, a chisel, or a level, I take it out and use as needed.  I keep my implement rust free, well oiled, maintained, and clean.  Coincidentally, learning the science of violence is some of the very best therapy I have ever had.      

 

Yes, there are good people in the police and military, people who understand the job.  Unfortunately their good efforts are overshadowed by the bad ones.  A classic example of the bad apples spoiling it for the whole barrel.   

 

I don't know that I learned empathy.  It has just always been there.  What I had to learn was when to put it aside and do the right thing... Or, should I say, do the wrong thing for all the right reasons. 

 

You have empathy, too.  If for no one else, you have it for your better self, or you wouldn't be here.  That's a start.  I'd work on that, if I were you.  All this State nonsense will go nowhere.  It all ends up in the same place.  In the shit can.  They build 'em up, they run 'em into the ground.  Their greed and insidiousness always gets the better of them and they wreck everything.  That's the only way it can ever be with the State.  It's 100% pure foolery.  I've never understood how intelligent people can fall for the State crap.

 

Empathy isn't everything it's cracked up to be.  That, too, must be put in a proper context, so I have learned.  I have empathized with victims, particularly women who have been thumped on by abusive boyfriends and husbands, only to see them walking down the sidewalk holding hands with them the next day, sneering at me.  It was then that I realized empathy isn't everything.  Everything has its proper time and place.   

[dsayers]

North American aboriginals are a pretty good example of what can happen to a stateless society when a state crashes into it.

 

So when a wolf, which is used to fighting against lesser beasts, but not supersonic lead pellets gets shot in the head, it's because the man that pulled the trigger hailed from a statist society? No, I'm not comparing the natives to wolves, but rather pointing out the overlooked technological disparity.

[Blackfish64]

quote name="Ken Cotton" post="389355" timestamp="1415925972"]

 

North American aboriginals are a pretty good example of what can happen to a stateless society when a state crashes into it.

 

If a non-aggressive society separated from aggressive society right now, I'm not sure they'd be able to maintain their edge. The main problem of putting down weapons in a stand off is that you're never 100% sure that you aren't going to get shot on the spot. It takes an incredibly brave person to be willing to put their life in the hands of someone else. In a stateless society advancing weapon technologies seems like it wouldn't be very profitable and wouldn't be pursued. Other states by contrast would continue investing in weapons technologies simply because they can derive a profit from win/lose arrangements.

 

Actually, it isn't a good example at all. Not even close. The native north american aboriginals were quite simply overpowered, overwhelmed, wiped out and controlled with various unknown diseases they knew nothing about, in addition to their own greed, their powerful desire to have the things, the technologies, the europeans brought to their continent. In other words, State or no State, they didn't stand a chance against the juggernaut that was launched against them. Their only choice was to join with the invaders or die. It was the equivalent of an earthworm being crushed by a steamroller. What happened to them was inevitable. There was absolutely nothing they could do about it. There was nothing anyone could do to stop it.

 

In a Stateless society, the weapons would be more sophisticated, lighter, less messy, and more effective to the purpose. People would be in charge of their own security and safety (of which, in reality, they already are anyway), as opposed to the sloppiness and ineffectiveness of the State, which leaves them helpless against both criminals and the State (they are one and the same), like they are now. It's the same in medicine, for example, why you see all these Americans and Western Europeans flocking to Asia and India to get certain medical treatments, e.g., hip replacements, facelifts, cancer treatments, etc. The doctors and scientists do not have the State telling them what to do, so they are free to be doctors and scientists, to use the latest technologies, and to get people well, which they do. A dear friend of mine went to India for hip replacement surgery. She got the latest technology, the best surgeon, and a mandatory month off to lie on the beach and recover. The whole deal cost her less than fifteen thousand dollars, paid for in cash out of her pocket, and she could not be happier with her results. Had she done this in America, well, she would not have done it in America, to be sure; for one thing she could not afford it, but even so, she would have been kicked out of the hospital in only a couple of days after surgery, and sent back to work after only a few days recovery. Things are always messy and complicated, unkind, and stupid like this, thanks to the State.

 

The State is foolery, nonsense, and stupidity. It is a waste of time and materials, along with everything else, including lives, that it wastes. And it's all for absolutely nothing.

 

Furthermore, it is the private, stateless society of contract from which the State gets all its weapons in the first place. So its quite the other way around from your reasoning. The private sector creates all the weapons and other products the police and military use. The police and military, that is to say, the State, buys everything it has from the private sector. The State creates nothing. The State is an agent of expropriation and confiscation.

 

The State couldn't find its ass with both hands.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Suppose they simply say it is their continent, just like native Indians could have said.

Saying it's their continent doesn't make it so and there's no way they could conceivably have mixed their labor with that amount of land.  They have no claim on the continent so if they attack you, you have the right of defense. 

This is problem with all these kinds of scenarios; once they are analysed they all fall apart.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

North American aboriginals are a pretty good example of what can happen to a stateless society when a state crashes into it.

 

If a non-aggressive society separated from aggressive society right now, I'm not sure they'd be able to maintain their edge. The main problem of putting down weapons in a stand off is that you're never 100% sure that you aren't going to get shot on the spot. It takes an incredibly brave person to be willing to put their life in the hands of someone else. In a stateless society advancing weapon technologies seems like it wouldn't be very profitable and wouldn't be pursued. Other states by contrast would continue investing in weapons technologies simply because they can derive a profit from win/lose arrangements.

Defensive weapons technology would likely be massively profitable in a stateless society. Everyone would pay to be heavily defended and they'd always be wanting to upgrade. Imagine each individual armed instead of just a centrally controlled military.

I am Northern Irish and I'm old enough to have seen British soldiers constantly ducking behind walls and down alleyways for fear that there might be a few crappy rifles pointing out from the windows of people's houses. Imagine those soldiers going into an entire armed society. We'd wipe the fucking floor with them.

[cynicist]

At least as far as reason and logic is concerned, the suggestion that human on human violence is immoral is absolutely arbitrary. There's nothing factual that supports that it is wrong to initiate violence against another person. 

 

You must be fairly new. I'd implore you to visit http://fdrurl.com/books and check out Universally Preferable Behavior, which is a free book written to address this very issue.

[Blackfish64]

Defensive weapons technology would likely be massively profitable in a stateless society. Everyone would pay to be heavily defended and they'd always be wanting to upgrade. Imagine each individual armed instead of just a centrally controlled military.

I am Northern Irish and I'm old enough to have seen British soldiers constantly ducking behind walls and down alleyways for fear that there might be a few crappy rifles pointing out from the windows of people's houses. Imagine those soldiers going into an entire armed society. We'd wipe the fucking floor with them.

 

Indeed, it is the reason the United States was not invaded during WWII by the Japanese.  Because there would have been "a rifle behind every blade of grass."  The Japanese did not want to be caught up in that "quicksand."  It is the reason Hitler did not invade Switzerland.  His army would have been ripped to shreds by privately owned firearms. 

 

"The Great Object is, that every man be armed."  --  Patrick Henry

 

Absolutely positutely.  ;-)

 

 

 

 

Ken Cotton, on 09 Nov 2014 - 03:11 AM, said:

At least as far as reason and logic is concerned, the suggestion that human on human violence is immoral is absolutely arbitrary. There's nothing factual that supports that it is wrong to initiate violence against another person.

 

 

Yikes.

[Ken Cotton]

I disagree.

 

In the perfect stateless society where the UPB and NAP are in full swing, your likelihood of actually firing your weapon is really low. In that circumstance you probably won't have a lot of room for improvement. The iPhone gets regulate updates and advancements because it is used all the time. Personal firearms ( rifles, pistols ) advanced rapidly in the 1800s because they were used regularly.

 

Otherwise, you're a weapons manufacturing paying to improve something people don't use. Why would you improve the firing rate of a weapon if no one is firing it? Why improve the stopping power of a weapon that isn't stopping anything?

 

This can even be seen with melee weapons. The constant structured warfare between European countries lead to advancements in swords, polearms, and body armor. These technological improvements wouldn't have been made without the necessity of constant warfare.

[Blackfish64]

Well, Ken, we can argue and speculate about his endlessly and it won't do any good.  And anyway it looks like you're getting your wish. 

 

Weapons are simply labor saving devices.  So long as there's killing that has to be done, the weapons will continue to be manufactured.  So long as the State has a lot of genocide to accomplish, the manufacturers will keep on making the missles and the State will keep on buying them. 

 

Actually, the constant structured warfare between European countries stagnated weapons development, as the State stagnates everything it touches.  A knight, for example, was incredibly expensive to produce, incredibly cumbersome, incredibly ineffective, and was equipped only to deal with another knight.  Knights were actually easily taken down by a handful of farmers with pitchforks.  Whereas in the Americas, around the time of the Revolution, when rifled barrels were invented and utilized by independent artisans and craftsmen, making the weapons incredibly accurate, turning one man with a rifle into a small army unto himself, British officers began to drop like flies, as their heavy, expensive, ineffective old muskets helped to keep them from winning the conflict. 

 

When the mind was set free, finally, for the third time in human history (approximately), in the Americas, and especially around the time of the Revolution, there arose such a free energy unlike anything before seen on planet earth, which resulted in the miracles you see before you today.  Even in our messed-up, declining state, we are still the biggest and the best innovators on earth.  The State is merely a mooch and a loot on our goods and services.  

 

Again the State develops nothing.  It is the private sector that creates all the good goodies.  The State then seizes a good portion of the wealth of the free market and buys its goods for its own purposes.  The State produces nothing.  It gets everything it needs, steals it, from those who do produce. 

[dsayers]

So what? If people aren't using something, why would the something they're not using not getting innovated be a problem?

[Blackfish64]

So what? If people aren't using something, why would the something they're not using not getting innovated be a problem?

 

 

Exactly.  And if they aren't using a particular thing any longer, it means either they've replaced it with something better, or they are headed in the wrong direction altogether.   

[Ken Cotton]

The circumstance presented is that another state is developing advanced weaponry. As with weaponry, there's little reason to assume a NAP/UPB state/region will be advancing espionage skills or surveillance technology. There won't be much use for these things in that area because people won't be spying on one another. This means the ability to spy on other nations will be diminished. Those nations might continue domestic and foreign spying by developing satellites, NSA programs, etc.

 

Let's simply the problem. Let's assume the NAP/UPB society never kills people. There's no logical reason to assume they will be very good at it or advance technology for that purpose. Let's assume there's a non-NAP/UPB land, which we'll call EVIL-STATE. EVIL-STATE has a domestic genocide of say, blonde people, so they can continue to perfect the process of killing humans. When EVIL-STATE decides to invade and take over the resources of the NAP/UPB geographical area, EVIL-STATE will have a guaranteed advantage in terms of killing ability.

[MMX2010]

The circumstance presented is that another state is developing advanced weaponry. As with weaponry, there's little reason to assume a NAP/UPB state/region will be advancing espionage skills or surveillance technology. There won't be much use for these things in that area because people won't be spying on one another. This means the ability to spy on other nations will be diminished. Those nations might continue domestic and foreign spying by developing satellites, NSA programs, etc.

 

Let's simply the problem. Let's assume the NAP/UPB society never kills people. There's no logical reason to assume they will be very good at it or advance technology for that purpose. Let's assume there's a non-NAP/UPB land, which we'll call EVIL-STATE. EVIL-STATE has a domestic genocide of say, blonde people, so they can continue to perfect the process of killing humans. When EVIL-STATE decides to invade and take over the resources of the NAP/UPB geographical area, EVIL-STATE will have a guaranteed advantage in terms of killing ability.

 

You're applying the stereotype that all pacifists are lily-livered wimps, without realizing that it's a stereotype.

[Ken Cotton]

I'm not applying a stereotype, I'm applying the basic logic behind technological improvements.

 

There aren't any vast technological improvements being made regularly behind manual clothes washing things like washing boards, because people don't often do laundry by hand. If people don't have a pressing need to advance a field they won't advance it. If firearms are generally only used for hunting, you are unlikely to develop assault rifles or machine guns. You're unlikely to develop aircraft carriers, fighter jets, or nuclear weapons.

 

America spends ( I think ) billions of dollars a year on its military. Do you think you could convince the area of the USA in NAP/UPB society to spend billions on military development? If not, what would stop Russia/China from eventually outpacing American defense? What would stop them from developing drone technology that can supersede typical home defense measures? Do you own an anti-aircraft or anti-tank weapon? Do your neighbors? Do you plan on buying one? Do you know where to buy one, how to maintain one, etc? If not, what will you do when a Russian/Chinese aircraft or tank comes through your neighborhood?

[MMX2010]

I'm not applying a stereotype, I'm applying the basic logic behind technological improvements.

 

There aren't any vast technological improvements being made regularly behind manual clothes washing things like washing boards, because people don't often do laundry by hand. If people don't have a pressing need to advance a field they won't advance it. If firearms are generally only used for hunting, you are unlikely to develop assault rifles or machine guns. You're unlikely to develop aircraft carriers, fighter jets, or nuclear weapons.

 

 

Again, you're assuming that pacifists are like lily-livered four year olds who have never heard of violence, without realizing that it's a stereotype. 

 

"The non-initiation of force" doesn't equate to "a complete disavowal of all forms of force, at all times". 

[Ken Cotton]

No, but it doesn't hold to logic that people adhering to the NAP/UPB are going to be shooting each other very often. They might carry guns everywhere, but they won't actually be firing them at one another. If you carry a six shooter for 10 years and never have to fire it, then there's a Beretta available, why would you buy the Beretta? You've never really needed to fire your six shooter, so the higher capacity faster firing rate weapon has no realistic uses.

 

Meanwhile, an organized enemy state has been at war with other states. They've needed to develop assault rifles and the like. I'm not saying that NAP/UPB people won't be able to defend themselves, I'm saying that as a virtue of their society they'll have to do so less and less often. The less they need to, the less they will. The less they do, the less capable they'll be.

 

Can you state a reasonable scenario where a NAP/UPB society is matching cutting edge human killing/espionage technologies, and why?

[MMX2010]

No, but it doesn't hold to logic that people adhering to the NAP/UPB are going to be shooting each other very often. They might carry guns everywhere, but they won't actually be firing them at one another. If you carry a six shooter for 10 years and never have to fire it, then there's a Beretta available, why would you buy the Beretta? You've never really needed to fire your six shooter, so the higher capacity faster firing rate weapon has no realistic uses.

 

Meanwhile, an organized enemy state has been at war with other states. They've needed to develop assault rifles and the like. I'm not saying that NAP/UPB people won't be able to defend themselves, I'm saying that as a virtue of their society they'll have to do so less and less often. The less they need to, the less they will. The less they do, the less capable they'll be.

 

Can you state a reasonable scenario where a NAP/UPB society is matching cutting edge human killing/espionage technologies, and why?

 

"A person adhering to the NAP/UPB" is not the same thing as "a person who will never become a soldier", nor "a person who doesn't think anyone else should ever become a soldier".

 

Simple as that. 

 

You're basically saying, "The only people who use violence are sociopathic predators.", because you can't conceive of paladin/protectors. 

[Ken Cotton]

A typical soldier is a person employed by the state. You might mean a mercenary to be more specific. However, in a society of peaceful parenting I am not sure that you can weaponize human beings to the same degree as a state. My understanding of military training is that they use very specific means of control to form soldiers. Depriving people from immediate family/support, sleep deprivation/interruption, starvation, drills, etc. These things combine to essentially break down the individuality of a soldier and form a baseline disposable killing machine. This would be unethical in a NAP/UPB society as far as I can tell.

 

Even if the NAP/UPB society DID have a standing army, they wouldn't be able to ethically pursue programs that hurt the general population for the same of the army. Budgets that starve the general population to boost the military effectiveness for conquest, budgets that factor in the benefits of work camps, etc. Furthermore, can a NAP/UPB society pursue dishonest or unethical means of warfare? Can they engage in chemical, nuclear, biological warfare? Are they able to target medical facilities, population centres, and other areas of non-military infrastructure? I'm not saying that honesty and virtue are bad, I'm asking serious questions about the strategic weaknesses of moral people.

 

I don't think a NAP/UPB society would be competitive in these fields. I think that unless the entire world laid down its arms and converted to the NAP/UPB all at once, they would be destroyed by a more ruthless enemy.

[Blackfish64]

"A person adhering to the NAP/UPB" is not the same thing as "a person who will never become a soldier", nor "a person who doesn't think anyone else should ever become a soldier".

 

Simple as that. 

 

You're basically saying, "The only people who use violence are sociopathic predators.", because you can't conceive of paladin/protectors. 

 

Yes, Statists say that all the time, wittingly or unwittingly.  Statists want "gun control" and a monopoly on the use of violence, claiming that violence is a bad thing, and at the same time telling you that they are going to use violence to stop violence.  But they have no intention on stopping violence.  They intend only to stop you from being able to use violence against them while they are trying to use violence against you.  In other words, they want to stack the ownership of the playing field and the rules of all the games played upon it in their favor.  What they say goes.  You don't stand a chance.  That's what they really want.   

 

Narcissists are stupid people.  Crazy.  Contradictory.  Psychopathic.  All the time.  Every time.  No matter what they try to do.  

 

Do they want a monopoly on violence (and everything else, too)?  Yes, of course.  The question is, will we give it to them?  The answer to taht question is, no. 

[dsayers]

Mr. Cotton, do you beat your wife so that she'll be better prepared in the event that somebody should want to beat her?

 

You're not even willing to test your theory or think it through. Of all the nations NOT being invaded right now, how many of them would be invaded tomorrow if they ditched the State (so no tax structure to take over) and instead were individually armed? As it is right now, we live in a world that believes that if you siege Paris, you own France. In a free society, if you dominate one person, you own... that person, kicking and screaming, with anybody that witnesses it acknowledging that it's wrong. In other words, risk/effort skyrockets and perceived gain becomes negligible.

 

States only work because their perceived legitimacy leads to slave on slave violence.

 

[MMX2010]

This would be unethical in a NAP/UPB society as far as I can tell.

 

Even if the NAP/UPB society DID have a standing army, they wouldn't be able to ethically pursue programs that hurt the general population for the same of the army. Budgets that starve the general population to boost the military effectiveness for conquest, budgets that factor in the benefits of work camps, etc. Furthermore, can a NAP/UPB society pursue dishonest or unethical means of warfare? Can they engage in chemical, nuclear, biological warfare? Are they able to target medical facilities, population centres, and other areas of non-military infrastructure? I'm not saying that honesty and virtue are bad, I'm asking serious questions about the strategic weaknesses of moral people.

 

I don't think a NAP/UPB society would be competitive in these fields. I think that unless the entire world laid down its arms and converted to the NAP/UPB all at once, they would be destroyed by a more ruthless enemy.

 

Dude, this is becoming annoying.  Here's something I would never do: (1) Never get to know any Black people.  (2) Make bold predictions of what Black people "Can't do", which are rendered stupid by the fact that they can do these things. 

 

But that's what you're doing when you say, "Followers of the NAP can't become soldiers." - only to not notice when it's pointed out to you that they can, indeed, become soldiers. 

 

In response, you mentioned three (or four) more things that followers of the NAP can't do.  But guess what?  They can do them. 

 

At some point, you're going to have to ask yourself: "Am I really interested in understanding those who follow the NAP?" 

[Blackfish64]

No, but it doesn't hold to logic that people adhering to the NAP/UPB are going to be shooting each other very often. They might carry guns everywhere, but they won't actually be firing them at one another. If you carry a six shooter for 10 years and never have to fire it, then there's a Beretta available, why would you buy the Beretta? You've never really needed to fire your six shooter, so the higher capacity faster firing rate weapon has no realistic uses.

 

Meanwhile, an organized enemy state has been at war with other states. They've needed to develop assault rifles and the like. I'm not saying that NAP/UPB people won't be able to defend themselves, I'm saying that as a virtue of their society they'll have to do so less and less often. The less they need to, the less they will. The less they do, the less capable they'll be.

 

Can you state a reasonable scenario where a NAP/UPB society is matching cutting edge human killing/espionage technologies, and why?

 

 

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. 

Dude, this is becoming annoying.  Here's something I would never do: (1) Never get to know any Black people.  (2) Make bold predictions of what Black people "Can't do", which are rendered stupid by the fact that they can do these things. 

 

But that's what you're doing when you say, "Followers of the NAP can't become soldiers." - only to not notice when it's pointed out to you that they can, indeed, become soldiers. 

 

In response, you mentioned three (or four) more things that followers of the NAP can't do.  But guess what?  They can do them. 

 

At some point, you're going to have to ask yourself: "Am I really interested in understanding those who follow the NAP?" 

 

Yes, enough.  Annoying, to say the least.  I'm off this thread.  It's been fun.  But it hasn't been real fun.  The "strategic weaknesses of moral people" comment is what finally did it for me.  

 

Clue: the most potent weapon any man has at his disposal: his brains.  The rest proceeds from here. 

 

"Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters."  Bob Dylan

 

Have fun, y'all!

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I disagree.

 

In the perfect stateless society where the UPB and NAP are in full swing, your likelihood of actually firing your weapon is really low. In that circumstance you probably won't have a lot of room for improvement. The iPhone gets regulate updates and advancements because it is used all the time. Personal firearms ( rifles, pistols ) advanced rapidly in the 1800s because they were used regularly.

 

Otherwise, you're a weapons manufacturing paying to improve something people don't use. Why would you improve the firing rate of a weapon if no one is firing it? Why improve the stopping power of a weapon that isn't stopping anything?

 

This can even be seen with melee weapons. The constant structured warfare between European countries lead to advancements in swords, polearms, and body armor. These technological improvements wouldn't have been made without the necessity of constant warfare.

If there are threats then we'll have weapons and constant updates that meet the challenge of those threats. If there are no threats (a "perfect " society) then we won't need them. People are smart enough to know that they need to keep up with external threats. 

Warfare certainly pushed technological advancement but it also hindered it. The degree to which technology did NOT get advanced because of the destruction of people and wealth is something we can't calculate. 

A typical soldier is a person employed by the state. You might mean a mercenary to be more specific. However, in a society of peaceful parenting I am not sure that you can weaponize human beings to the same degree as a state. My understanding of military training is that they use very specific means of control to form soldiers. Depriving people from immediate family/support, sleep deprivation/interruption, starvation, drills, etc. These things combine to essentially break down the individuality of a soldier and form a baseline disposable killing machine. This would be unethical in a NAP/UPB society as far as I can tell.

 

Even if the NAP/UPB society DID have a standing army, they wouldn't be able to ethically pursue programs that hurt the general population for the same of the army. Budgets that starve the general population to boost the military effectiveness for conquest, budgets that factor in the benefits of work camps, etc. Furthermore, can a NAP/UPB society pursue dishonest or unethical means of warfare? Can they engage in chemical, nuclear, biological warfare? Are they able to target medical facilities, population centres, and other areas of non-military infrastructure? I'm not saying that honesty and virtue are bad, I'm asking serious questions about the strategic weaknesses of moral people.

 

I don't think a NAP/UPB society would be competitive in these fields. I think that unless the entire world laid down its arms and converted to the NAP/UPB all at once, they would be destroyed by a more ruthless enemy.

Those brutal training practices are perfectly ethical if the solider volunteers for it. 

The USSR hurt their population for the sake of military conquest much more then the US but they still lost. So the willingness to hurt your population is not necessarily an advantage. 

The NAP and UPB allow for effective self-defense. 

[Ken Cotton]

Mr. Cotton, do you beat your wife so that she'll be better prepared in the event that somebody should want to beat her?

I don't have a wife, but if I did, I'd want her to be proficient in self-defense. However, that's because I perceive a need for it. If I didn't, then I wouldn't.

 

In response, you mentioned three (or four) more things that followers of the NAP can't do.  But guess what?  They can do them. 

At some point, you're going to have to ask yourself: "Am I really interested in understanding those who follow the NAP?" 

I'm completely willing to learn. If there are circumstances where you feel as though people who adhere to the NAP/UPB are able to use those kinds of weapons and technologies, explain them to me. Don't just blindly assert to me that they can use them. Explain to me how it logically follows that a NAP/UPB society can do something like weaponize ebola and then use it against an enemy state, killing millions of innocent civilians in the process. If you have an explanation I'm happy to read it. Don't just get frustrated and say I'm wrong without explaining yourself.

 

 

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.

How long would you say you carried a six shooter before you upgraded? Do you think that you maintained the technological edge during that period of time?

 

 

If there are threats then we'll have weapons and constant updates that meet the challenge of those threats. If there are no threats (a "perfect " society) then we won't need them. People are smart enough to know that they need to keep up with external threats. 

Warfare certainly pushed technological advancement but it also hindered it. The degree to which technology did NOT get advanced because of the destruction of people and wealth is something we can't calculate. 

Those brutal training practices are perfectly ethical if the solider volunteers for it. 

The USSR hurt their population for the sake of military conquest much more then the US but they still lost. So the willingness to hurt your population is not necessarily an advantage. 

The NAP and UPB allow for effective self-defense. 

Who is going to keep you updated on the threats? How will they keep you updated on the threats without violating the NAP/UPB? Are you allowed to just pay other people to violate the NAP/UPB for you? Why would people in the NAP/UPB society volunteer to be broken down into killing machines? Who in the NAP/UPB society would be qualified to train people to become killing machines?

 

It seems like some people here just have trouble admitting the pros/cons of their system. ALL systems have pros and cons. Instead of trying to make excuses or beat around the bush, just admit them and work around them. One of the cons of a NAP/UPB society is that it has less of a capacity for violence on the whole. Pros/cons are objectively determined, not subjectively determined. Is the NAP/UPB society going to be as good at creating hardcore pornography that completely degrades and brutalizes women? I highly doubt it. Objectively, that's a con. That doesn't mean that subjectively for people that's a bad thing, it just means from an objective POV that's something the society is less adept at.

[PatrickC]

Who is going to keep you updated on the threats? How will they keep you updated on the threats without violating the NAP/UPB? Are you allowed to just pay other people to violate the NAP/UPB for you? Why would people in the NAP/UPB society volunteer to be broken down into killing machines? Who in the NAP/UPB society would be qualified to train people to become killing machines?

 

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.

[shirgall]

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.

 

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.