Kurtis Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 I ask if the "love it or leave it" gang would hold their stance in a world government. In science fiction writing this is the case, as the "leave it" option is extended to the planet. I would expect that will be how it goes in the future. "If you don't like it, then go ahead and start your voluntary, violence free society somewhere off-world." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCLugi Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 In science fiction writing this is the case, as the "leave it" option is extended to the planet. I would expect that will be how it goes in the future. "If you don't like it, then go ahead and start your voluntary, violence free society somewhere off-world." To which I say, "Universal government?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtis Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 To which I say, "Universal government?" I can't really answer for that crowd, as I am not one of them, but the irrational always have more irrationality to offer. I don't think you'll ever get a satisfying answer because you are attempting to use logic against people who are acting on emotion. Which brings us back to the OP, and why I agree with Stef's approach to solving the solution by working instead to not damage the next generation of children. (Although he has lately expressed concern as to whether we have enough time for this to work, versus his earlier multi generational vision.) I don't think the question should be: "What is the perfect line of questioning/arguments that will convert statists?" But rather: "Is it even possible to do so in any meaningful way?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamish Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Great video! His other videos are worth a watch too. They seem like great little videos to share with others who are open to the ideas. I'd be interested in seeing how the videos get received by folks not open to the ideas also. Just out of curiosity really... Which brings us back to the OP, and why I agree with Stef's approach to solving the solution by working instead to not damage the next generation of children. (Although he has lately expressed concern as to whether we have enough time for this to work, versus his earlier multi generational vision.) I don't think I've encountered this concern anywhere yet. Where has he expressed this concern? I've only been around for about 7 months now and I'm currently jumping between older and more recent podcasts so I may just not have encountered this yet. I read a similar claim by Kevin Geary (of the rebooted kids website) on facebook: "asking why Stef was moving so far away from anarchism". I haven't really heard this move in what I hear coming out of FDR. Anyone else? Having concern for the timeline of peaceful parenting is a pretty big concern of mine too. But I can't see any reason not to continue to battle (not that I'm a very active solidier!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtis Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 But I can't see any reason not to continue to battle You are absolutely correct. A good rant on discussing logic with irrational people and the coming tougher times (show # 3080 and starts around 2:15:00): http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3080/liberal-media-industrial-complex-call-in-show-september-19th-2015 I don't think I've encountered this concern anywhere yet. Where has he expressed this concern? I've only been around for about 7 months now and I'm currently jumping between older and more recent podcasts so I may just not have encountered this yet. I don't know exactly as I haven't marked down the instances, but it is a change I've noticed from listening to almost all of the shows. If you continue to listen to a mix of older and newer shows I'm sure you'll come across it also. Thinking of the multigenerational approach being the solution was easy to get behind as I've improved a great amount from my parents and I hope to pass the knowledge on to my potential future children, so that they can reach even higher heights with an improved start. Thinking that this battle will need to be won within my lifetime ups the anti a fair amount as I'll need to focus on raising a family to the best of my abilities whilst continuing the fight in an ever worsening environment. But what other responsible option is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 What happens if they don't get a birth certificate or SIN number for the baby? Also that's selling kids into slavery. The kid didn't agree to it and the kid is the individual with agency that is then going to be put under the control of this contract which they didn't agree to. Can I sell people I don't own into slavery and then call that legit? I don't think so. Exactly my thoughts Can your parents consent to your statutory rape? Well they can, whether it is morally right is another question. I am not sure what your question is getting at. Can you please explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Well they can, whether it is morally right is another question. I am not sure what your question is getting at. Can you please explain? I was determining if someone can give your consent to something before you are capable of consent yourself... therefore your parents, by getting you a social security number and so on, are consenting to the social contract on your behalf. This is an argument given by some as a counter to the "I did not consent to the social contract" argument. I was using an analogy to statutory rape. The theory is that under a certain age a person is incapable of consenting to sex by virtue of their age. So I was asking if one's guardian could consent to statutory rape on a young person's behalf and whether that was moral... and by analogy whether it was appropriate for them to consent to a lifetime of servitude to the state by virtually signing the "social contract." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaz Lokuciewski Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Hi everyone, What do you all think are the best arguments against the 'you can just leave if you don't consent to be governed' line from statists. I have to admit when I hear it from people, I get so angry that I lose my ability to think of a clear and concise rebuttal. All that pops into my head is an image of a school yard bully beating up a kid, and instead of anyone caring at all about the immorality of the kid being bullied… everyone simply shrugs their shoulders and says that the bullied kid could always move schools, so who cares. Anyway, I would like to hear your ideas on how to rebut this 'you can just leave the country' arugement so that it can give some clarity to my own thinking and so that I might be able to throw some good arguments back in the face of the next person that says it to me. Cheers! Rob Let me know where there is a landmass I can use and no-one will come and claim to rule me. Since that place can never exist, it kind of explains why there is no lasting Anarchy (all life starts as anarchy and most non heard animal life is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Let me know where there is a landmass I can use and no-one will come and claim to rule me. Since that place can never exist, it kind of explains why there is no lasting Anarchy (all life starts as anarchy and most non heard animal life is. This argument fails if there is a change the fundamental demeanor of the people of the world, for example, if there were a generation or two of peaceful parenting perhaps a world of "no rulers" would be in the offing. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the world cannot change. Don't you think the people of today are fundamentally different than the people of 30 years ago? 100 years ago? 1000? 5000? It's not just technology that has made the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Green Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I actually had another thought on this one, which might be an interesting rebuttal to anyone who makes this point in the USA. The US was actually meant to be a libertarian society of the least government and the most freedom possible… but it has grown into the monstrosity that it is today. Maybe next time anyone tells me that you can just leave, I will say that people did leave. They already travelled to the other side of the earth to be more free… and you busy body assholes still followed! good one. You can ask them if they've ever looked into the feasibility of what they're saying. You can't "just leave". Not only are there citizenship renunciation taxes, but you have to find somewhere to go, which won't let you just show up. In my experience though, if the conversation gets to this question, the whole thing's been a waste of time because I couldn't perceive their non-receptiveness earlier. I doubt this question's ever been asked by someone who was truly listening to the person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaz Lokuciewski Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 This argument fails if there is a change the fundamental demeanor of the people of the world, for example, if there were a generation or two of peaceful parenting perhaps a world of "no rulers" would be in the offing. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the world cannot change. Don't you think the people of today are fundamentally different than the people of 30 years ago? 100 years ago? 1000? 5000? It's not just technology that has made the difference. I don't believe you can train out humane character flaws and if you could, they are contagious. You would need not one injustice that someone is not willing to accept justice for. Not one assumed injustice that leads someone to seek misplace justice. Physical pain is how we learn not to kill ourselves, young men are hard wired to fight. I don't believe the change in humanity you are describing is biologically possible, let alone practically. I don't thing we are any better than we were. If your home had only enough food for 10% of you...as soon as one person turns to violence you will either have to choose to fight, kill your family humanely or watch them die. It's easy to feel superior when even if we don't work we can get fat and have social media to keep us occupied at home. The reality is that the fundamental skills needed to survive in a low each setting..we don't have and if we were to kill our own meat our attitudes may change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 It's clear that a lot of human character flaws can I don't believe you can train out humane character flaws and if you could, they are contagious. You would need not one injustice that someone is not willing to accept justice for. Not one assumed injustice that leads someone to seek misplace justice. Physical pain is how we learn not to kill ourselves, young men are hard wired to fight. I don't believe the change in humanity you are describing is biologically possible, let alone practically. I don't thing we are any better than we were. If your home had only enough food for 10% of you...as soon as one person turns to violence you will either have to choose to fight, kill your family humanely or watch them die. It's easy to feel superior when even if we don't work we can get fat and have social media to keep us occupied at home. The reality is that the fundamental skills needed to survive in a low each setting..we don't have and if we were to kill our own meat our attitudes may change. It's clear a lot of human failings can be traced back to abuse. By consciously working to eliminate that abuse it is likely a net positive change will result. I strongly suggest you look into the material on Peaceful Parenting available here and look at the research and results. By bringing up children with love and logic instead of punishments and pain you train them to be better negotiators and communicators. If you train them to be always on defense or always on the run, they don't exactly start new relationships on a good footing. I feel we are talking past one another here. I suggest you give the material a chance before you discount it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Don't get sucked into consequentialist alleys. A person who says "love it or leave it" still hasn't answered the fundamental contradiction of state violence being OK. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaz Lokuciewski Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 It's clear that a lot of human character flaws can It's clear a lot of human failings can be traced back to abuse. By consciously working to eliminate that abuse it is likely a net positive change will result. I strongly suggest you look into the material on Peaceful Parenting available here and look at the research and results. By bringing up children with love and logic instead of punishments and pain you train them to be better negotiators and communicators. If you train them to be always on defense or always on the run, they don't exactly start new relationships on a good footing. I feel we are talking past one another here. I suggest you give the material a chance before you discount it. You seem to miss the idea that your shower you can shower children with love, challenge them with logic and...when they have simply committed evil or lost it..given them a spank. I have enough examples around me of destructive children who are a law above their parents mad. It's not just the parenting though. In two examples there only one such child in 2 and the other is one such child in three. Judging by apparent natural character alone I would have had 1 in 2 had I adopted 'we argue until you give up' technique. We have a loving happy home because no-one bothers having three year old tantrums any more. I think this new 'never spanked no matter what' generation is not proving to be better than their parents of their parent before them. On the contrary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 You seem to miss the idea that your shower you can shower children with love, challenge them with logic and...when they have simply committed evil or lost it..given them a spank. I have enough examples around me of destructive children who are a law above their parents mad. It's not just the parenting though. In two examples there only one such child in 2 and the other is one such child in three. Judging by apparent natural character alone I would have had 1 in 2 had I adopted 'we argue until you give up' technique. We have a loving happy home because no-one bothers having three year old tantrums any more. I think this new 'never spanked no matter what' generation is not proving to be better than their parents of their parent before them. On the contrary... Spanking children does nothing useful but exhibit your frustration, and teaches children that frustration and violence are elements of problem-solving. Tantrums are evidence of that methodology in practice by the child. The "I learned it by watching you" refrain from those old drug commercials is more true than you may realize. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts