Not an Argument was Seen

[Rosstronic]

 

 Hello, I hope you're all doing well today! Please forgive me for I have sinned this day: I revealed the truth of the state in a single sentence on an internet forum crawling regularly with naa's (not an argument; pronounced like the dismissive word "nah"). Normally I wouldn't bother posting it here, however since Stefan Molyneux and his "cult" were honorably mentioned, I figured I'd put it here for your entertainment if you so choose. 

 

The worm that drew me in was a story from The Local SE: All children in Sweden set for free prescriptions; it was summarized by the original poster and commented on, with a call for thoughts. I obliged with simply: It isn't free. It is paid for through the use of force by the state, and is thus immoral. I await your false dichotomies and straw men. I was post #10.

 

What follows are some of the replies: 

 

"Haha, that's rich! I think it's sufficient to say that you have an... unusual... concept of morality"

 

"Oh, an anarcho-capitalist, how enlightening. Stefan Molyneux has a truncated frame of reference."

 

"Hah.The consequences of not having any laws or any centralized power in a society would be far worse, meaning advocating that is far more immoral than having a government that can enforce law. I'd like to hear your realistic alternative though."

 

"He's probably part of the Molyneux Cult. Dont engage with him, just laugh at him."

 

"Sweden is a democracy, if they dislike it they can show it through voting, but I doubt Swedes have anything against this and neither do I, making sure that everyone under 18, regardsless of their parents economic status gets medicine is anything but immoral, it's called 'not beeing an inconsiderate prick'."

 

"Just like the internet you are using to proliferate anarchist rubbish is paid for by the use of force by the state."

 

"You're free to leave."

 

Now, I would like to see what you all think of the original story (souce links at bottom), my reply, and the predicted responses. Are any of their naa's valid? I say absolutely not. It is a tiny sample of the state of morality and how subjective it is. How stone age it is, and dependent not on reason, but emotion, and what people have been told since they were little. The best brainwashing is the kind where when you show it to people, they still can't see it. 

 

Do you know why I donate to this show? Why I stick around and listen to hours and hours each week? Because so far, the Freedomain Radio team has managed to consistently put out more empirically supported logical arguments than anyone else I can find. People that call this a "cult" do so because they have no counter to the arguments, so all they have is vitriol.

 

The Local SE: http://www.thelocal.se/20151218/all-under-18s-in-sweden-set-to-get-free-medicine

Message board of Doom: http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1922040-All-under-18s-in-Sweden-set-to-get-free-medicine 

 

[thebeardslastcall]

So if I pop out a few kids and drop them off on people's doors because I'm poor they're cool with accepting their claimed moral duty of taking care of my kids even if it means they can no longer afford having any of their own or can no longer afford any of the previous amenities and 'luxuries' they previously were able to afford? Do they also think it's perfectly moral to castrate or 'neuter' people in some manner to prevent them from having kids without state permission? These people have no moral standing, they just say grassland is out there and it's just the evil people blocking access to it preventing them from their heaven on  Earth with infinite resources to support every human possible with 'basic rights'. Apparently theft is a basic right to these people. Basic mentality is something like "I'm not winning, so nobody should win, winning is unfair, so I'll turn everyone into a loser like me and that will be better for all except for those evil winners".

 

Have you asked any of them to actually say something useful and explain whatever it is they're talking about. For example "truncated reference", can they explain what they mean? Or by "unusual concept of morality" do they mean they prefer thievery to be considered moral and normal or that they should want to sacrifice having their own kids to support another person's whom they don't know or like?

Perhaps just ask what they mean by calling everything free, when clearly someone has to pay. "In what way is this free?" "If I buy my kid dinner was that free?" "Is calling something free a truncated frame of reference when it requires only looking at it from the child's perspective and ignoring the source?" "At what point should we stop forcing one person to take care of another person who is unwilling or unable to take care of themselves?"

[adamNJ]

Don't sweat it, if they are not willing to listen to arguments move on.  I am a huge fan of the 'dipping your toe in the water before going in' approach. Before arguing controversial topics I try to start off being extremely gentle, If their eyes don't sparkle couple of times I pull out, that way I never end up feeling like crap.  My energy is limited and I have to spend it wisely.

[A4E]

Looking at that thread, I am so happy that I stopped spending time in ordinary forums. It is definitely not psychologically healthy.

[TheRobin]

Are you meaning to say that saying "It isn't free. It is paid for through the use of force by the state, and thus immoral." IS an argument?

Edit: After some though, I'll have the say, I'm wrong, the second sentence IS an argument, just a really short and unhelpful one to anyone who doesn't already agree with your/our position.

Especially when you poison the well at the end by saying "I await your false dichotomies and strawmen"

But yeah, even so, I'm sorry to see the horribly vile abuse you got back there from some people. 

Without putting the blame on you for the abuse you received, but what did you think was gonna happen when you open like that?

[Will Torbald]

Are you meaning to say that saying "It isn't free. It is paid for through the use of force by the state, and thus immoral." IS an argument?

 

The mistake I think the OP made was that he made a non related argument. He says "it's not free" and ends with "it's immoral". Begins with economy, and ends with morality. To begin with, it's obvious none of these people have any idea what morality is since all they can think of is consequentialism, not ethics from first principles. It should have stayed on economical principles of how they are still paying for the meds anyway through taxation and debt.

[thebeardslastcall]

Especially when you poison the well at the end by saying "I await your false dichotomies and strawmen"

 

Yeah. If you start by insulting them you don't really deserve to get a serious reply. It's like "I think you're an idiot, now take what I just said seriously and say something non-idiotic, but I don't think you will". If someone came onto these forums and opened like that they'd get lots of down ratings I'm pretty sure. You got what you asked for I think. If you want a serious reply you need to presume there might be a receptive and decent person present otherwise what's the point except to stroke your own ego? Spreading philosophy starts with basic decency. We should carry the manners we expect people to have here wherever we go if we want to present a good image and have a chance of being well received. If we go around acting indecent and snarky we're just going to fuel the flames of dislike of ourselves and make it that much easier for them to write off all the ideas they associate with us. Philosophy in practice is meant to break tribalism for rationalism, not fuel tribalism.

[shirgall]

Bottom line: Don't engage in activities that are not productive (or, at least, enjoyable).

[Rosstronic]

In the post, I knew how it was going to go: the same way they always do. People post something regarding the newest state intervention and argue about the details and how to make it more "fair". My reply pulled the pin on the extinguisher and aimed at the base that none of them talk about: the fundamental immorality of using coercion against other people, even if there are many degrees of separation. 

 

For me to say it is not free, and then to point out what pays for it: the state; and that the state gets the money through force, which is immoral, is not an unrelated argument. The last part of my concise argument was admittedly fuel for the flaming I already knew was coming. No matter how much sugar you put on a state is immoral argument, you get flamed. So, I just told them exactly what they were going to do, and they did. It comes from my contempt for them.

 

Furthermore, just to drive home the point: saying that the state is immoral doesn't require someone to agree with "our" position. It requires that they agree that in their life, when they need money for something, they don't go mug someone, because they know it is wrong. If they have no moral qualms with stealing from others and the only thing that prevents them from doing it is the law, then they're simply amoral and lack a conceptual understanding of morals. 

[shirgall]

This is why minarchism becomes a possible answer. You feel like you can argue for limiting the evil because there's no easy way to completely eliminate it. It's devilishly attractive.

[Rosstronic]

This is why minarchism becomes a possible answer. You feel like you can argue for limiting the evil because there's no easy way to completely eliminate it. It's devilishly attractive.

 

Minarchist, i.e., the original U.S. Constitutional government concept is so attractive. The problem with minarchism, is that it requires a special kind of person: it requires someone that knows the fundamental moral contradiction of the state, and it's powers of expediency; yet at the same time it requires that same person has at least an equal disdain of the state, so as to act as a brake on the unquenchable thirst of power. 

 

A sustainable minarchist state requires that a moral person looks out at the masses, realizes they are un-philosophical, and with a heavy heart treats them with just the amount of force is needed to keep them civil. Unfortunately there are not enough of these kinds of rulers; they are outnumbered by people that thirst for power at any cost. 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Regarding your argument, I think it was actually a pretty good sentence you had there. The thing is, it was only one sentence (okay, 2) and you poisoned the well right after. But besides that, and just assuming for granted the person has some ability to understand universal principles (which might be unreasonable), I think you gave them something to possibly chew on.

 

But as Freddy Mercury says, you can only sing as well as the crowd wants you to. If you came in with the notion that these people were going to dismiss your arguments, then it would seem automatically suspicious as to why you are there saying anything at all. But it would seem your gut instinct was spot on (perhaps the situation was biased because of how you initiated) that this was not going to be a productive conversation.

 

So then, the interesting question might be: why did you act out against them? I can think of some reasons why I would and have in the past unconsciously acted out against people I knew or thought to be stupid and/or biased. I'm not sure I would label it contempt, because at least personally, I feel like I would have to have some (not necessarily a lot just some) influence over them to be able to hold them in contempt, which it seemed clear you didn't have any, at least in the way you chose to express your contempt.

 

I wonder if "acting out" might have anything to do with unprocessed feelings of guilt... Maybe Alice Miller has talked about this I'm not sure

 

But then the other side to that is maybe you really didn't know how these people were going to respond, but you poisoned the well anyway, which might be worth thinking about, too.

[Rosstronic]

Regarding your argument, I think it was actually a pretty good sentence you had there. The thing is, it was only one sentence (okay, 2) and you poisoned the well right after. But besides that, and just assuming for granted the person has some ability to understand universal principles (which might be unreasonable), I think you gave them something to possibly chew on.

 

But as Freddy Mercury says, you can only sing as well as the crowd wants you to. If you came in with the notion that these people were going to dismiss your arguments, then it would seem automatically suspicious as to why you are there saying anything at all. But it would seem your gut instinct was spot on (perhaps the situation was biased because of how you initiated) that this was not going to be a productive conversation.

 

So then, the interesting question might be: why did you act out against them? I can think of some reasons why I would and have in the past unconsciously acted out against people I knew or thought to be stupid and/or biased. I'm not sure I would label it contempt, because at least personally, I feel like I would have to have some (not necessarily a lot just some) influence over them to be able to hold them in contempt, which it seemed clear you didn't have any, at least in the way you chose to express your contempt.

 

I wonder if "acting out" might have anything to do with unprocessed feelings of guilt... Maybe Alice Miller has talked about this I'm not sure

 

But then the other side to that is maybe you really didn't know how these people were going to respond, but you poisoned the well anyway, which might be worth thinking about, too.

I did poison the well. I poisoned it, as a defensive move because I knew they would attack. I knew they would attack because the vast majority are wonderfully perfect genetic copies of the optimal way to survive in a irrational world. 

 

I acted out, I think, because after years of talking to people that won't accept rational arguments, I'm fed up and just want to transmit my rage at them. I'm so angry that out of the millions of ways to survive on Earth, not a single one will accept rational arguments. I'm angry that I'm part of a statistical minority. I'm part of an anomaly. I'm weird. If you're a minority of a minority you have a tiny chance of finding what it is that makes you happy. I'm not happy, so I lashed out. 

 

Fundamentally, I'm frustrated because I can't be myself around anyone. First, I'm a redhead, which is about 2% of the population of the human species. Then I'm an atheist, which is about 2% of the total population of humans. Then I'm anarchist, which is less than the most popular viewpoint. 

 

I responded the way I did because I have contempt for them, while simultaneously hoping that they have the capability of reading my reply and eventually reflecting upon it. Such a mathematical improbability as to be not worth the energy expended in typing it. Yet I did type it, and I did expend the energy.

[A4E]

In ordinary forums, people drag you down into the mud with them.

In the FDR forum, people help you up from the mud with them.

 

In the past I was frequenting an ordinary forum, and I am very sure that my life in general suffered from it.