Can't we just get along?

[Thomasio]

"Interesting" one way of looking at it.

I'm convinced, the conflicts in between different religions without any force in between that keeps them under control, would lead to open civil war.

It would be the dark ages all over again.

But then, that might be just me being afraid of consequences in case the experiment goes wrong.

I guess there's only one way to find out.

[Max Hartford]

Seems that if we want to have a shot at whittling down the state in our lifetimes, some compromises will be necessary. So yes, if atheist and christian libertarians are in alignment on certain political position, absolutely we should be friends and align with them. Otherwise, no progress will ever be made, as pretty much the entire history of political change illustrates.

[shirgall]

Seems that if we want to have a shot at whittling down the state in our lifetimes, some compromises will be necessary. So yes, if atheist and christian libertarians are in alignment on certain political position, absolutely we should be friends and align with them. Otherwise, no progress will ever be made, as pretty much the entire history of political change illustrates.

 

Your comment made me think about the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It was a far more bloodless collapse than any of us expected who lived through it. I think the level of spending the US got addicted to will lead to a similar collapse here, and I'm still wondering who will be our "Boris Yeltsin".

[dsayers]

Seems that if we want to have a shot at whittling down the state in our lifetimes, some compromises will be necessary.

I wish people who were coming from a defeatist mentality wouldn't stand up and try to lead others. Necessary is begging the question. Compromises are win-lose. In our lifetimes is an arbitrary standard. And whittling down is conceding before beginning. Nobody thinks to whittle down cancer or a mass murderer's access to victims. Problems need solutions, not acceptance, tolerance, and co-operation.

[Max Hartford]

 In our lifetimes is an arbitrary standard. 

 

It most certainly is not an arbitrary standard. Who cares what happens after we're dead? We won't be there to see it. The most we can do is try to comfort ourselves in our dying days that things will be better for the people that we love after we're dead because of our actions while living. But we will have no way of knowing whether our actions actually did make things better or not, hence there is always a heavy dose of wishful thinking involved here. 

[Torero]

It most certainly is not an arbitrary standard. Who cares what happens after we're dead? We won't be there to see it. The most we can do is try to comfort ourselves in our dying days that things will be better for the people that we love after we're dead because of our actions while living. But we will have no way of knowing whether our actions actually did make things better or not, hence there is always a heavy dose of wishful thinking involved here. 

 

It ties back to the discussion about "why be moral". Some say "history is written by the victors". I'd say "history is written by those who have the most interest".

 

Imagine a "Gandalf", "Yoda" or a similar kind of wise person. It may even be your grandfather or -mother. Their ideas, their moral behaviour/actions still stand. Aristotle, as basis for Ayn Rand and (as a result) for Stefan's philosophy is probably the best example. If philosophy so old and thus timeless is saved and passed on, he has come immortal. His ideas are the basis of everything we discuss right now. René Decartes and Roger Bacon may be added for the scientific part.

 

An idea of "who cares, we die anyway" I find a bit empty, fatalistic. I am sure that we, consumers of Stefan's philosophical shows (too much of an entertaining word for the wisdom he shows -hihi-) will keep spreading the message on to our offspring.

 

Only in case of a world-destroying-meteorite wiping off 99% of life on this planet (like has happened in the past -K/T boundary or Permo-Triassic-) it may be our ideas are lost forever, but in all other cases people in the future will build upon ideas spread by their ancestors.

 

There's no "wishful thinking" in that; good philosophy is like good science; it speaks for itself.

[dsayers]

we will have no way of knowing whether our actions actually did make things better or not, hence there is always a heavy dose of wishful thinking involved here. 

When you aim to co-operate with cancer, you gain the certainty of outcome that you're seeking. Good luck with that.

[regevdl]

 

I'm watching the FDR channels, listening to the podcasts, and so much of what is said resonates well with me.  The ideas of liberty, freedom, self-determination, all fit nicely into my worldview, doctrine, and faith (a fact which might shock some people).  But then, in many of Stefan's videos, and certainly in most posts in this forum, the conclusion ends up being something like, "and that's why anyone with faith in the unseen is a bane to society and should be drug out into the street and shot."  Huh?

 

I'm an evangelical Christian of the Calvinist tradition.  I'm a member of a church in the Presbyterian Church in America denomination.  I won't go into detail about what I believe regarding theology, since that would be largely pointless, but I will say that I and my church believe that salvation and even faith in God is not something that I can import onto anyone else.  That is an act only God can do (i.e. the blind cannot will themselves to see).  With that said, I have 2 questions:

 

1) It seems that most of these discussions presuppose that is atheism very much a requirement in a free society and it must  be enforced with an (ironic) religious-like fervor.  Is this true?

 

and 2) If it were true that the moral foundation supplied by a religion were in complete accord with one suggested by reason, logic, universally preferred behavior, non-aggression, etc., then wouldn't that religion be just as good a foundation for members in a free society?

 

You are making a LOT of inferrences and assumptions and filling in the blanks with your predisposed bias.  If you can find the podcast where it was inferred that believers should be dragged off an shot, please share so we can address that immediately. 

 

if you are inferring it, then you are having an emotional reaction to the arguments against believing and you need to actually counter the argument rather than use hyperbole to paraphrase what you thought was being stated.  

 

Because, one thing is this.... more than anything, Stefan and anyone who joins these discussions use the Non Aggression Principle as the basis of our moral foundation.  Therefore, to imply, infer, interpret that anything argued against religion would be a suggestion to drag them off and be shot goes against the NAP (non aggression principle) and is in complete contradiction of that.  

 

You have to first define religion in order to answer your question.  By religion, if you use the Webster definition: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods, then, just because all other moral virtues are met, this would not be ideal for society because it's irrational and uses coercion and threats of death and violence.  

 

You seem to worry about society banishing you yet how much does religion and religious text call for the banishment and ghastly punishment of the non believer or the sinful believer?!  

 

Ok now, take UPB for example (if you have not read or listened to the audio...I suggest before going further on this topic) because UPB touches on all of the moral virtues (10 commandments) that are found in a few mainstream religions.  It's the usual...don't steal, don't kill, etc.  But...the difference is, even though the religion and UPB has those virtues in common, UPB does NOT require you believe in a diety or superhuman entity.  AND if you support UPB AND don't believe in the non-required 'god', there is no other threat such as, "follow UPB or else your house will burn up in flames or we will kill your first born, etc".  It's UPB or the consequences of human interaction that go along with not following UPB.  

 

Meaning, if I want to steal, that is against god's word and UPB.  God will send me to hell after I die.  The real world will look like this:  I burglurize someone, I could get hurt if they defend their property, I could be captured by police or privatized civil protection services, I could be financially responsible for damanges or loss of property, I could lose my job/reputation, etc.  THOSE are negative consequences that could easily and predictably occur even before you get into legal prosecution and religious damnation.  That is enough to deter most people.  The risk outweighs the cost of whatever is sought to be stolen.  

 

All of that can be deterred even without believing in a vengeful yet 'loving' god AND have the same desired outcome.  So.... you have to ask yourself, why is having religion so important when you have evidence of people who don't have god can behave equally moral and virtuously and promote it without cathedrals and synagogues?  

 

Also, who should be 'afraid' of who?  Name 5 atheists who murdered religious people for being religious.  And name 5 religious people who murdered because that person went against god.  

[Walter E. Strong]

No, we CAN'T just get along!  We're the human race and we've been "not getting along" for over a million years, no use in starting now!

[A4E]

I have been mulling over this for a while. Lets say I make a book where I write:

 

"Intolerah made the world. Everyone who do not accept and believe that Intolerah made the world needs to be killed."

 

Then I declare my loyalty to this book. Can people be expected to get along with me if they did not declare their loyalty to this book and Intolerism? Can I live peacefully with other people when I am an intolerist?

 

Could it have something to do with me pledging my loyalty to a death threat to people with a different opinion?

[Des]

I have been mulling over this for a while. Lets say I make a book where I write:

 

"Intolerah made the world. Everyone who do not accept and believe that Intolerah made the world needs to be killed."

 

Then I declare my loyalty to this book. Can people be expected to get along with me if they did not declare their loyalty to this book and Intolerism? Can I live peacefully with other people when I am an intolerist?

 

Could it have something to do with me pledging my loyalty to a death threat to people with a different opinion?

Great comment.

 

Looking at such a situation from the viewpoint of dispute resolution methodology, in the sense in which "the owner decides on use of property", "the aggressor is in the wrong", and "women and children first into the lifeboats", are dispute resolution methodologies, I can't propose any resolution of the dispute between the hypothetical intolerist, and "other people", which does not involve either convincing the intolerist that his loyalty is misdirected, or, stealing or destroying the weapons of the intolerist, so that he cannot implement his desire to be loyal to Intolerah.

 

Does anyone have a better suggestion for this hypothetical dispute?

[jimmo100]

Great comment.

 

Looking at such a situation from the viewpoint of dispute resolution methodology, in the sense in which "the owner decides on use of property", "the aggressor is in the wrong", and "women and children first into the lifeboats", are dispute resolution methodologies, I can't propose any resolution of the dispute between the hypothetical intolerist, and "other people", which does not involve either convincing the intolerist that his loyalty is misdirected, or, stealing or destroying the weapons of the intolerist, so that he cannot implement his desire to be loyal to Intolerah.

 

Does anyone have a better suggestion for this hypothetical dispute?

Not if preserving the freedom to choose badly appears high on your list of priorities.

 

It seems to me that as part of this game of life, sometimes a destructive thought(destructive even to the thinker) can be a) entertained and b) acted upon.

 

From personal memory/experience and historical precedent, it appears to be the case that individuals are better left to think and/or entertain whatever thoughts he chooses/accepts. It is the acting which is where the rubber meets the road.

 

If you don't divorce these two, categorically, you are a dead duck. I say that because by failing to categorize thoughts and actions separately, you are guilty of denying the presence of a responsible actor. And as soon as you get into a habit of failing to distinguish them, to that extent you get into a habit of dismissing a sentient and therefore culpable actor.

 

To me a friend is someone who helps one to reclaim individual responsibility. An enemy of mankind, on the other hand, is one who tempts you into undermining your ability to respond to a problem you find yourself suffering from.

 

p.s. hypnotism - or variants thereof - is where things start to get really interesting because it is a technique by which a person can be made to act according to someone else's thoughts or implanted thoughts.

[Malej_Pstros]

No, sorry, we can't get along.

 

Everyone is responsible for being moral, including his responsibility for maintaining a solid moral code. Religious people bypass this responsibility by unquestionably accepting the moral code of their religious doctrine. In simple words they're saying "No, I shouldn't be held responsible for being aware of what is right and what's wrong. God has decided for me".

 

Luckily enough, the current christian interpretation of "god's will" still lets us coexist very peacefully and often enjoyably. But allowing your religion to interfere with your sense of morality will always be inherently immoral.

[Des]

Not if preserving the freedom to choose badly appears high on your list of priorities.

 

It seems to me that as part of this game of life, sometimes a destructive thought(destructive even to the thinker) can be a) entertained and b) acted upon.

 

From personal memory/experience and historical precedent, it appears to be the case that individuals are better left to think and/or entertain whatever thoughts he chooses/accepts. It is the acting which is where the rubber meets the road.

 

If you don't divorce these two, categorically, you are a dead duck. I say that because by failing to categorize thoughts and actions separately, you are guilty of denying the presence of a responsible actor. And as soon as you get into a habit of failing to distinguish them, to that extent you get into a habit of dismissing a sentient and therefore culpable actor.

 

To me a friend is someone who helps one to reclaim individual responsibility. An enemy of mankind, on the other hand, is one who tempts you into undermining your ability to respond to a problem you find yourself suffering from.

 

p.s. hypnotism - or variants thereof - is where things start to get really interesting because it is a technique by which a person can be made to act according to someone else's thoughts or implanted thoughts.

Okay, take the hypothetical proposed, flesh it out like this: You live in a community in which all are rational, except this one intolerist. You have just heard of the situation, from someone you trust, so you know the facts about the intolerist are correct. There has been no time since learning of the facts, for anyone to suggest a course of action. Given that the community members are  (except for one) all rational, if you propose the best rational course of action, they will follow it. You have a suggestion ready, because you thought about the possibility of such a predicament, long before it came about. You have the first turn to make a suggestion about a course of action (or inaction). What is your suggestion?

[AccuTron]

...p.s. hypnotism - or variants thereof - is where things start to get really interesting because it is a technique by which a person can be made to act according to someone else's thoughts or implanted thoughts.

So Hillary and Obama are examples of hypnotists?   Maybe not so far off the mark....

[jimmo100]

So Hillary and Obama are examples of hypnotists?   Maybe not so far off the mark....

 

They both rely on the service of moulders of 'public opinion' .... I call them professional mass manipulators and distractors. Obama and Clinton have whole teams of psychologists managing public expectations.

 

State intelligence services have turned to those trained in manipulation techniques such as memory-wiping. The phenomenon of multiple personalities can be engineered(Manuchurian Candidate). This is well-known among researchers of the topic. Trigger words are used to switch a person from one personality to another... very useful if you ever wanted an action to be performed at arms length. Whenever I hear of another school shooting, where the perpetrator finally uses the gun on himself.... I wonder how much manipulation is involved. Some have been calling for an investigation into the possible connection between psych-drugs and such mass shootings for a long time.

 

Governments have the general public's consent to conduct operations out of the public view. Seems a bit naive to me to expect the worst among us, drawn to the State for this very reason, not to take full advantage of their relative anonymity.

 

I wouldn't say Hilary and Obama are hypnotists themselves although NLP techniques are widely available today and becoming quite popular with those who see nothing wrong with manipulating their fellows without letting on. I know of people in PR who have become very fond of NLP. They're in mid- to upper-level management positions in large companies. I get the impression many people brush off the notion of hypnotism as some kind of magic trickery... more like a form of entertainment. A gimmick. It's real, though. Go back and watch some of the well-known names. Derren Brown, for example. These techniques I think would be too good to pass up for anyone with a monopoly on mass information dissemination.

 

On the topic of NLP, I once met someone who's brother 'threw himself' off a 3rd or 4th floor.... she said he was fine one day but had learned some potentially damaging info about higher ups in the banking institution he worked at. The next day he was cornered into a meeting room and on his way out he jumped to his death. This is a well-known bank in London. There have been similar stories about other banker 'suicides'.

 

There are some things most people don't know. Not because they can't know them but because it is disturbing to learn about some of the things which are going on. And not least because, when you know something, to some degree you acquire a sense of responsibility/duty to do something about it. That applies to most normal people who have a conscience and are not cold-blooded. Doesn't mean they will act on that sense of responsibility. It just means when someone feels it, they know that it is sometimes best not to be at the cutting(bleeding) edge of awareness. They usually just stay quiet on such matters. Who knows, perhaps wisely.

 

Then there are those who vociferously claim to have knowledge that nothing of the sort could possibly be going down. Such is the tone they take. No power could possibly be consistently abused. It's only ever an isolated case. A one-off here and a one-off there. Why? This stuff takes decades to come out.... and one only has to look to see the what these nutters get up to under cover of secrecy laws. Why not just be honest about what you know and what you don't know? Makes one wonder why they are so defensive of the State.

 

Anyway, out of the two I'd say Clinton is by far the more dangerous. I feel her hatred and utter contempt for original American values... for anyone who harbours some hope of a return to a strictly limited State aparatus. It's palpable. Obama is more of a puppet who has warmed to his role among the elites.

[jimmo100]

Okay, take the hypothetical proposed, flesh it out like this: You live in a community in which all are rational, except this one intolerist. You have just heard of the situation, from someone you trust, so you know the facts about the intolerist are correct. There has been no time since learning of the facts, for anyone to suggest a course of action. Given that the community members are  (except for one) all rational, if you propose the best rational course of action, they will follow it. You have a suggestion ready, because you thought about the possibility of such a predicament, long before it came about. You have the first turn to make a suggestion about a course of action (or inaction). What is your suggestion?

Des,

 

I must say I'm not sure I understood exactly what you are driving at.

But before you elaborate, I just want to clarify something. When I said 'individuals are better left to think and/or entertain whatever thoughts he chooses/accepts', I didn't mean nobody should not try to reach the person. What I meant is that nobody should initiate force to rid him of thoughts. Only once he has violated the NAP is any force justified.

 

Suggestions are fine. I have no problem with encouragement and any other form of inducement to moral behavior. There are plenty of ways. But there can be no initiation of the use of force.

 

It seems to me that underlying the assumption(/mocked-up scenario), of a rational society, is the question of to what extent the use of force is justified, beyond the NAP. Do you think I'm wrong about that?

 

Also, I hear many people - who call themselves 'atheists' - emphasizing the need for a knowledge/acknowledgment of THE TRUTH! It's always THE truth! If I'm honest, it smacks of intolerance to me. If you ask me, one person's 'rational' may not be another's. If you try to force a rational standard of morality onto people it tends to backfire. This is why any enforced standard of morality(legal scope) is best kept to a minimum i.e. the NAP. The notion of the NAP, in my opinion, if it and it alone were enforced rigorously would be sufficient to solve the vast majority of human problems. I don't claim we would be problem free but we would undoubtedly put ourselves, by virtue of the adoption of the NAP, in a position of immense strength insofar as solutions to the remaining problems would be concerned.

 

The reason we have such trouble in human affairs is precisely due to our failure to keep the scope of the State limited to protection of the NAP.

 

Not sure if any of that is an answer to what you said. But I specifically wanted to emphasize that when I take the laissez-faire approach it is a matter of legal implementation. People would be free to engage one another in any way they like, as long as it was voluntarily. This leaves the options wide open. Mistakes outside of the violation of the NAP are paid for, though, as far as possible by the actor responsible for the action. This, under a system in which the NAP was adopted as the limits of government power over individuals, would be sufficient for us to flourish and prosper like never before in history.