What is NAP and Initiation of Force?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

0. Would it be reasonable to say that tax in a monarchy is legitimate? (I know we already had this conversation)

Possibly, if the monarchy manages to secure the approval of the majority-holders of the nation's land as well as the approval of the Roman Catholic Church. Until I find new information I think monarchies that are supported by those with the most investment in the land (the nobles, possibly) as well as the group recognized (by consistency of action of morality) as the compass for morality (the Roman Catholic Church, short that than whatever is closest in both intent and action and accuracy) then the monarchy is just and the monarchy's powers and restrictions can be legitimately decided by the consensus of these said groups. 

Therefore given the above, there is no taxation in a just monarchy. It's rent. 

2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1. To be frank, I think the entire history of ww1 stinks a bit of fabrication and ditrortion. But it's clear that it is hard to decide who violated the NAP, correct? 

It's hard because I lack all the information. If it was the South German Kaiser who first declared war, then it's him.

2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

2. To be devil's advocate, Hitler was only responding to Entente aggression, which was constantly directed towards Germany during the Weimar era. The Ruhr was occupied by the French, and West Prussia by the Polish.

There are better ways of reclaiming old land. Of course it can be argued the legitimacy of WWII (or the Third Empire's invasion of Poland and reclaiming of old lands) hinges on whether or not it was legitimate that they lost those lands in WWI. I'd argue it wasn't given ethnically German peoples were forced to obey a new law and a new government as well as a new language. 

However it is impossible to make restitution for everyone with a grievance on the battlefield, therefore a kind of deal must be made between the national leaders. Perhaps, for example, Hitler could have negotiated with the Polish government to allow the Prussians living under the Polish government to follow German laws and speak German as their official legal language and perhaps over time reach a settlement wherein they will eventually be returned to the Empire.

Of course I don't know everything that was going on. Hitler was a Fascist/Socialist after all. By that premise alone I think negotiating with him is like negotiating as a businessman with the mafia. I am not negotiating with a legitimate ruler but a tyrant therefore I would rather avoid him or, if he persists, seek to rid the world of him. 

...And I'm sure that attitude was problematic for him since he was most likely without many foreign allies.

2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

3. To my knowledge, the Jews bought the land from the locals peacefully. Forced resettlement only began after 1948, when the arabs attacked.

If you are correct than it's the Arabs that violated the NAP. They sold out their country, they deserve by their own actions to lose it.

2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

6. So provocation is violation of the NAP? But who decides what is provocation?

Provocation is grey territory. I think we can all agree that insulting someone's mom or dad (i.e. not criticizing like a therapist or friend but just merely insulting) is a common way to start a fight with someone. Who can say where the fine line is? DRO's are meant to be the determiners bases on what the community consensus (i.e. the aristocracy of the free society) and part of being an anarchist is realizing I do not have all the answers to every problem nor do I need them, for some problems are unlikely to ever occur and someone wiser than me in this area could argue better.

2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

8. What do you mean "mutually determined"?

As the words imply. If we, for example, agreed beforehand to a boxing match then we set the rules as to how far it can go and how to determine when it'sover. 

If I was some thug coming to attack you but I never go below the belt, then I am indicating that's the standard not to cross. If you agree to it, so be it. If you decide to punch me in the balls then you have changed the unspoken agreement making ball-punching a valid form of winning the ambush I started upon you (to be fair as the attacker I don't have a right to complain if you escalate in your self-defense because I am by my actions threatening to kill you). 

2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

9. So the parent of the child decides?

No. The child demonstrates ability to reason, then the child is partially on way to full personhood and agency. There is no "decides". Either the child can, or can't. And it's easy to test.

2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

11. If you cannot be objectively certain what good and bad is, then UPB is pretty redundant, wouldn't you agree? It's like following a compass in space. In my understanding, UPB is a good methodology for determining what good is, based on what flawed humans find good. Since UPB (of the Molyneux kind) only works with humans, it cannot be completely objective.

Not necessarily. Because I cannot objectively determine what is true and what is immoral without relying on my gut, I claim my moral compass based on whatever I can defend the most in theory whilst feeling the most "true". Of course there's a lot of weaknesses with this strategy hence I'm responding to your criticisms rather than ignoring you and living in my own head about it.

For example: why is murder wrong? Because it steals someone's life. Why stealing wrong? Because it violates someone's property rights. Why's that wrong? Because I wouldn't want it to happen to me. 

See the problem? I can't argue a moral reason, every time I try it ends practically. Therefore I either don't fundamentally understand the differences between morality, preference, and pragmatism or I am correct and therefore to secure morality we must base it on what objectively works to ensure human happiness in the long run. And since the most moral countries are always the most powerful of the era, there seems some natural truth to this.

However I don't know yet. And I do know we need more people to admit they don't know so we can figure it out. The tricky part for me is what is moral? How do I know if something is truly moral? I'll start another thread about this. Maybe someone here can make the case.

[smarterthanone]

9 hours ago, RichardY said:

@smarterthanone So it would be in no way wrong to feed a wild potentially dangerous animal?

Yeah well the Bear/Beast is using aggression to defend its own survival, instinctively. So maybe aggression could be considered instinctual, though is violence instinctual as well? Are you saying there is no distinction between aggression and violence?

Maybe could go further and mention that bears and many animals will kill female cubs to put the female into heat. Could that be considered instinct as well?  

I don't see how feeding or not feeding a wild animal has anything to do with the topic.

You said DEFEND, defense is not an initiation of force, the bear is defending. Aggression and violence are different. I don't see how aggression is relevant really as we are talking about the initiation of force.

It could be, however 99% of organisms do not share that instinct. 99% of animal organisms will defend against attack to the best of their abilities. But to use your example, if bears instinctively kill some of their cubs, then that is moral for a bear to behave. We do not have that instinct so it is not a moral way for a human to behave. Ought implies can, meaning if you are biologically wired to behave a certain way, its not reasonable to require you to function another way. Could we say morality dictates men give birth to children 50% of the time so its equal to women? No because its not possible so its not possible for it to be the moral choice. If bears have an instinct such as they cannot not kill their cubs in certain instances, then it must be in bear morals acceptable for them to do so. Just like its impossible for many people to just stand there and get punched in the face repeatedly, so you cannot hold people to a moral standard to not fight back, its unreasonable.

7 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1. The Molyneux UPB assumes that physicists and scientists don't disagree, or that when they debate, the scientist with the best evidence will win the debate, but both of these scenarios are in dream land. Even on the forums, the hardcore ancaps are coming up with varying assessments of the same moral question, as you can see.
2. You scenario assumes that we CAN cooperate. But in real life there are often disagreements, especially those over values, that cannot be resolved with dialogue, and that is where wars start. If the other guy you crashed on the island with was of a weird Papuan religion, and believed that burning trees can cause fish to swim ashore for food, and then began burning some trees, you would have to intervene, and aggressively at that. If you don't, there is a good chance that everything on the island will be burned, and then you will surely die. This may sound like an off-world example, but disagreements like this one caused some big wars in the past.
3. I would dare you to quote Thomas Aquinas fully. You may find he is saying something entirely different there.
It would seem that you think people choose violence lightly. In my understanding, violence is the tool of one who can see no other way. So again, who decides what is UPB? If we rely on human intellect, that is nowhere near objective. It is weird to me that one would want to live in such an uncertainty.

1. It doesn't matter if you disagree. There is such a thing called evolution and instinctual behaviors. You can either recognize the truth or not. If you do it wrong enough where you violate someone, someone may kill you in self defense.

2. You don't HAVE TO cooperate. Even if you don't cooperate today, you may tomorrow. If he his burning your food you would be responding in self defense of your property which is preferable to starving. If he just doesnt want to cooperate and sits on the other side of the island and leaves you alone, you would be stupid to attack him because you both may die for little to no benefit even in the best case scenario.

3. He says God grants humans the mental capacities and such so that they could, without a bible or anything, sit down and reason him and morality and such out. Now we don't need to get into God here at all. I am saying, what I present comes from just sitting down and observing your surroundings, thinking carefully and reasoning. We have the mental capacity to figure this out without external people telling us how it ought to be.

And violence is certainly not a tool for someone who can see no other way. If that is true, why do some people kill people for fun? Why do countries attack each other when its not necessary? (Such as the usa bombing guys half the world away with ak47s, not a credible threat) Why do people steal $5 items from a store? (That is initiation of force which one could reasonably expect to be met with violence). They do this stuff because they just haven't thought about it and would mostly be evolutionary failures if society didnt protect them. The best way to advance in reproduction is to be highly prepared to defend against violence, but not to confront others if it is not necessary. You could be Goliath and go around crushing people but there is that one chance David takes you out. Where if you just avoided the conflict, you would not be killed.

[Boss]

10 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

6. So until we do that, it is safest to go with physical force? In other words, the NAP can only be violated when there is some sort of physical result?

I don't see why you can't do it today if you really want too. This is philosophy so the best reasoning and evidence wins. If a child whose brain wasn't developed gets verbally abuse and can show physical results as a result of that. Through raised cortisol and damaged brain devlopment. He can say that person violated the NAP.

8. I would have to disagree with you. If someone kills my dog with a car, even if it was an accident, you bet I'm going to treat it as aggression. I don't think courts or DROs can deal with "accidents" or "extreme carelessness".

Yea these scenarios regarding the "accidentally" stepping on someone land and "accidentally" killing dogs with a car lack detail, As I think we are not thinking the same with your undetailed scenarios. I can try to add more details I guess to what I am thinking.

Accidents are preventable. So the blame would be on who didn't prevent them. Like if there was public land that people walked through to get to a beach and someone who knows that buys the land one day without letting everyone know. And people "accidentally" walks on his land without knowing. I don't believe he morally can start shooting the people who "accidentally" walked on his land as it was his fault he didn't warn public users who been walking before. If he didn't want people walking on his newly acquired land then he should have put on a sign on the entrance saying Private land, don't walk, as since he is the new owner and only he knows he doesnt want anyone walking on his land, only he could have prevented it.

As for the dog, if the dog wasn't secured on his chain by the owner and escaped and gets accidentally run over, Its the owner fault for not securing his dog. If the driver "accidentally" ran over the dog you were walking on the sidewalk because he forgot to check his breaks or something. Then obviously it's the drivers fault. 

Anyways, I am not sure if my fictional scenarios I provided are helpful, as I also feel the ones you provided are not helpful. If you have a particular news story with fixed details that can't be changed or maybe you have a personal story with more details maybe we can go over it. 

910. But a contract is only enforcable as far as the reach of the court or the DRO goes. If the aggressor is foreign, is there no way to deal with him? Or does his consent no longer matter?

Your contact is as enforceable as how you both signed it to be. Like if you both sign a contract stating to box each other and stating if one drops dead no one gets in trouble, so be it. Doesn't need DRO/court unless you both signed it needs to be. 

6

 

[RichardY]

10 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

I don't see how feeding or not feeding a wild animal has anything to do with the topic.

You said DEFEND, defense is not an initiation of force, the bear is defending. Aggression and violence are different. I don't see how aggression is relevant really as we are talking about the initiation of force.

It could be, however 99% of organisms do not share that instinct. 99% of animal organisms will defend against attack to the best of their abilities. But to use your example, if bears instinctively kill some of their cubs, then that is moral for a bear to behave. We do not have that instinct so it is not a moral way for a human to behave. Ought implies can, meaning if you are biologically wired to behave a certain way, its not reasonable to require you to function another way. Could we say morality dictates men give birth to children 50% of the time so its equal to women? No because its not possible so its not possible for it to be the moral choice. If bears have an instinct such as they cannot not kill their cubs in certain instances, then it must be in bear morals acceptable for them to do so. Just like its impossible for many people to just stand there and get punched in the face repeatedly, so you cannot hold people to a moral standard to not fight back, its unreasonable.

Yes was basically confirmig what you said. So a bear can not violate the NAP as it is uncapable of, and here is where I draw a distinction  intiating aggression. However as I have stated feeding it( a form of violence), changes it's nature causing or encouraging it to use violence to get what it wants from man. " “You can’t kill the bear Charles! He’s ahead of us all the time! It’s like he’s reading our minds! He’s stalking us for God’s sake!”. The Edge (kill the bear speech)

I still think it is important though to draw a distinction between Aggression and Violence. Instead of NAP why not NVP?
Aggression. The use of force. Verbal or physical. Drill Sergent dressing down recruits.
Violence. The intention or unprocessed emotions, that result in an animal causing evil to occur. Locking people in a Gulag and not giving a shit if they starve.  
Assertiveness. The affirmation of ones individuality.
Pacifity. The avoidance of action and emotion.

So saying humans did have the instinct to kill their offspring (through birth defects or just rejection/selfish gene) it would be a moral way to behave? Infanticide was prevelent in the ancient world.

[smarterthanone]

8 hours ago, RichardY said:

Yes was basically confirmig what you said. So a bear can not violate the NAP as it is uncapable of, and here is where I draw a distinction  intiating aggression. However as I have stated feeding it( a form of violence), changes it's nature causing or encouraging it to use violence to get what it wants from man. " “You can’t kill the bear Charles! He’s ahead of us all the time! It’s like he’s reading our minds! He’s stalking us for God’s sake!”. The Edge (kill the bear speech)

I still think it is important though to draw a distinction between Aggression and Violence. Instead of NAP why not NVP?
Aggression. The use of force. Verbal or physical. Drill Sergent dressing down recruits.
Violence. The intention or unprocessed emotions, that result in an animal causing evil to occur. Locking people in a Gulag and not giving a shit if they starve.  
Assertiveness. The affirmation of ones individuality.
Pacifity. The avoidance of action and emotion.

So saying humans did have the instinct to kill their offspring (through birth defects or just rejection/selfish gene) it would be a moral way to behave? Infanticide was prevelent in the ancient world.

I don't see how feeding a bear is violence. You have to explain that one.

I am not sure exactly what you are picking at between aggression and violence. It's called the NAP. Aggression would include things like a verbal threat. But I feel like you are including "being aggressive", such as you could be while playing a game, or by showing boldness even in defense of violence such as stating to a crowd "I am a skilled marksman and a quick draw, I would love to see a criminal try to violate me". Both of these situations are NOT violations of the NAP. To use your definition, "Drill Sergeant dressing down recruits." This is not a violation of the NAP either. I think this is just a definition issue, the specific definition you are using is not the exact same one as is intended to describe the NAP. No matter what you are actually talking about, if its not the initiation, it doesn't really matter as far as the NAP is concerned, self defense is always acceptable according to the NAP, initiation is never acceptable according to the NAP.

If humans have an instinct (essentially a biological intuitive urge typically aiding in evolutionary process) to kill their offspring then it would be the moral way to behave. Two things one against one for: 1. Just because it was prevalent in the ancient world doesn't mean it was instinctual. I make my bed in the morning, I could not make it easily if I choose because I do not have a biological urge to make my bed. Just because many people make their beds doesn't mean its some kind of instinctual behavior that we intuitively do caused by genetics. 2. It may be instinctual because it is still prevalent today as available, see abortion. Women who do not desire a specific mates child may have some kind of urge to get rid of it. I don't know enough about biology or women and their choice for abortion to comment on it in actuality, however one could imagine it could be possible to some degree.

Think of it this way, if you are standing on a train track and on the other side is 5 people and you have a lever in your hand to divert the train which is already going towards the 5 people to instead hit just you, do you do it? Well in similar problems, where the person being killed is not the decider, about 75% of the population says its ok to kill the one person to save the 5. HOWEVER, when they are also the person on the track, if asked if they would do it, it goes down to like 10% or so. Evolutionary process does not make it easy to kill ourselves to make this same moral judgement. And so everyone MUST behave this way, its not something you can just say, "oh you are right, i will now kill myself", no, your brain, your body, just will not let most people make that choice, its impossible. So should we sentence anyone in this situation to death because of their immoral deed? That would be stupid because they literally could not do anything otherwise. How could the moral choice be an impossible choice?

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎12‎. ‎16‎. at 7:08 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

6. Provocation is grey territory. I think we can all agree that insulting someone's mom or dad (i.e. not criticizing like a therapist or friend but just merely insulting) is a common way to start a fight with someone. Who can say where the fine line is? DRO's are meant to be the determiners bases on what the community consensus (i.e. the aristocracy of the free society) and part of being an anarchist is realizing I do not have all the answers to every problem nor do I need them, for some problems are unlikely to ever occur and someone wiser than me in this area could argue better.
9. No. The child demonstrates ability to reason, then the child is partially on way to full personhood and agency. There is no "decides". Either the child can, or can't. And it's easy to test.
11. Not necessarily. Because I cannot objectively determine what is true and what is immoral without relying on my gut, I claim my moral compass based on whatever I can defend the most in theory whilst feeling the most "true". Of course there's a lot of weaknesses with this strategy hence I'm responding to your criticisms rather than ignoring you and living in my own head about it.
For example: why is murder wrong? Because it steals someone's life. Why stealing wrong? Because it violates someone's property rights. Why's that wrong? Because I wouldn't want it to happen to me.
See the problem? I can't argue a moral reason, every time I try it ends practically. Therefore I either don't fundamentally understand the differences between morality, preference, and pragmatism or I am correct and therefore to secure morality we must base it on what objectively works to ensure human happiness in the long run. And since the most moral countries are always the most powerful of the era, there seems some natural truth to this.
However I don't know yet. And I do know we need more people to admit they don't know so we can figure it out. The tricky part for me is what is moral? How do I know if something is truly moral? I'll start another thread about this. Maybe someone here can make the case.

6. The UPB method of christians is usually the following question: "Does it serve the greater glory of God and the good of the souls?" I think if someone insulted my mother and I retaliated with force, it does not serve the greater glory of God, nor necessarily the good of any sould, so it is pretty straightforward. But with the UPB of the Molyneux kind, I don't really see a conflict. I don't think it would be terrible if retaliation to insult was universalised. Do you see what I'm trying to say?
9. How do you test for it? This is something I am not informed on.
11. Do that. I think this is eesential to this topic, but it is so massive that I wouldn't want to go into it here.

 

20 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

1. It doesn't matter if you disagree. There is such a thing called evolution and instinctual behaviors. You can either recognize the truth or not. If you do it wrong enough where you violate someone, someone may kill you in self defense.
2.
- You don't HAVE TO cooperate.
- Even if you don't cooperate today, you may tomorrow.
- If he his burning your food you would be responding in self defense of your property which is preferable to starving.
- If he just doesnt want to cooperate and sits on the other side of the island and leaves you alone, you would be stupid to attack him because you both may die for little to no benefit even in the best case scenario.
3. He says God grants humans the mental capacities and such so that they could, without a bible or anything, sit down and reason him and morality and such out. Now we don't need to get into God here at all. I am saying, what I present comes from just sitting down and observing your surroundings, thinking carefully and reasoning. We have the mental capacity to figure this out without external people telling us how it ought to be.
4. And violence is certainly not a tool for someone who can see no other way. If that is true, why do some people kill people for fun? Why do countries attack each other when its not necessary? (Such as the usa bombing guys half the world away with ak47s, not a credible threat) Why do people steal $5 items from a store? (That is initiation of force which one could reasonably expect to be met with violence). They do this stuff because they just haven't thought about it and would mostly be evolutionary failures if society didnt protect them.
5. The best way to advance in reproduction is to be highly prepared to defend against violence, but not to confront others if it is not necessary. You could be Goliath and go around crushing people but there is that one chance David takes you out. Where if you just avoided the conflict, you would not be killed.

1. It doesn't matter of scientists disagree? I don't understand this response of yours.
2. Even though I have written everything clearly, you still manage to misread everything.
- Where did I say "have to"?
- The entire point is that you cannot cooerate.
- He is not burning my food. We just landed on the island. Property has not been established.
- Sure, he is leaving me alone, all while burning all the trees.
3. Who has the mental capacity? Who is "we"?
4. I am saying that violence is more often than not utilised in PERCEIVED dire circumstances. And you are pointing out the insane minority, who kill and steal for fun. Rule - not exceptions. You may think it was unnecessary of the US to bomb muslims, but clearly they thought otherwise. Which one of you is objectively right?
5. Do you have historical examples to support this claim? 

16 hours ago, Boss said:

8. Yea these scenarios regarding the "accidentally" stepping on someone land and "accidentally" killing dogs with a car lack detail, As I think we are not thinking the same with your undetailed scenarios. I can try to add more details I guess to what I am thinking.
Accidents are preventable. So the blame would be on who didn't prevent them. Like if there was public land that people walked through to get to a beach and someone who knows that buys the land one day without letting everyone know. And people "accidentally" walks on his land without knowing. I don't believe he morally can start shooting the people who "accidentally" walked on his land as it was his fault he didn't warn public users who been walking before. If he didn't want people walking on his newly acquired land then he should have put on a sign on the entrance saying Private land, don't walk, as since he is the new owner and only he knows he doesnt want anyone walking on his land, only he could have prevented it.
As for the dog, if the dog wasn't secured on his chain by the owner and escaped and gets accidentally run over, Its the owner fault for not securing his dog. If the driver "accidentally" ran over the dog you were walking on the sidewalk because he forgot to check his breaks or something. Then obviously it's the drivers fault. 
Anyways, I am not sure if my fictional scenarios I provided are helpful, as I also feel the ones you provided are not helpful. If you have a particular news story with fixed details that can't be changed or maybe you have a personal story with more details maybe we can go over it. 
910. Your contact is as enforceable as how you both signed it to be. Like if you both sign a contract stating to box each other and stating if one drops dead no one gets in trouble, so be it. Doesn't need DRO/court unless you both signed it needs to be. 

8. I am just playing with scenarios here, since I honestly don't know how it is supposed to work in an anarchist utopia. My main issue is not the details, but rather the WHO DECIDES part. Just because people come to a mutual agreement, that doesn't make anything moral, even though human free will was fully respected. But this traverses into the age-old question of good and bad, so I don't expect to settle that one here. 
910. My point is: what of no contract exists with the individual because he is foreign? Who is the judge then? When I was reading Practical Anarchy, I was expecting there to be a discussion on the scenario where there is no contract. It is a completely realistic proposition I think.

[smarterthanone]

45 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

1. It doesn't matter of scientists disagree? I don't understand this response of yours.
2. Even though I have written everything clearly, you still manage to misread everything.
- Where did I say "have to"?
- The entire point is that you cannot cooerate.
- He is not burning my food. We just landed on the island. Property has not been established.
- Sure, he is leaving me alone, all while burning all the trees.
3. Who has the mental capacity? Who is "we"?
4. I am saying that violence is more often than not utilised in PERCEIVED dire circumstances. And you are pointing out the insane minority, who kill and steal for fun. Rule - not exceptions. You may think it was unnecessary of the US to bomb muslims, but clearly they thought otherwise. Which one of you is objectively right?
5. Do you have historical examples to support this claim?

1. Why should it matter if scientists or anyone else disagrees? Everything I am saying are all objective facts. Humans, like almost all organisms, have an instinct for self defense. People cannot help but enter fight or flight mode for example. It is fact, if you go around violating people, some will fight back. No matter how prepared you are to do battle, there is no such thing as 100% chance, even if say it was 99% chance you would win a confrontation, after 100 confrontations, you will statistically end up dead. Everything I just said is how the world IS. I don't understand what there is to disagree with or argue about but if you were to, you would just be wrong.

2. You said "You scenario assumes that we CAN cooperate." No, my scenario does not have to require cooperation. One possible scenario does include cooperation, the guy could be cooperative, that is certainly possible. You gave one specific example about burning down all the banana trees or whatever. I responded, saying that is an initiation of force which you could defend against. I personally find that to be the least likely example that the guy you sit next to on an airplane thinks he should burn all the banana trees but this is philosophy, we can explore all options. I then listed out a few more scenarios and explained the answer to each. They are not all one example.

In regards to it burning your food. You would die on the island if you don't think you have a claim to the banana trees on the little island and the crazy food burner does. SMH I try not to be rude but this is like ancom level property right theorizing you are doing... how would one establish it? Start a small government and file a deed? LOL YOU NEED FOOD TO LIVE, YOU ARE IN A CLOSED ENVIRONMENT WHERE NOBODY ELSE HAS ANY SUPERIOR CLAIM TO THEM, OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE A CLAIM TO THE FOOD.

3. Every human has a mental capacity to understand this. Exceptions being people who are say mentally retarded or something, which intuitively to most people is unnecessary to address (just as it is unnecessary to address, what if my 1 year old bites me, should I shoot him and it be ok under the NAP).

4. The majority kill and steal for not necessarily fun but for superficial reasons. Absolutely. The minority do not. In today's society, the only people who HAVE TO kill are those responding in self defense. Even in the past it was mostly true as well. There is no evidence the USA would cease to exist or be genuinely harmed if they had not invaded lets say Iraq, this is a fact. The entire reason for invasion was little to no evidence of WMD which turned out was really no evidence at all. You are confusing the initiation with self defense. You can come up with any reason you want, and claim it to be as important as you want, it doesn't rise to self defense unless its in response. By invading Iraq, more people in that part of the world, now hate the USA more than they did before. More Americans are now injured and killed than if we had not invaded Iraq. Those dead Americans are not better off, they will not be reproducing any further, it was a stupid decision on their part.

5. You don't need historical example. It can be proven logically. If you do not join the army, and you move away from war areas, you are most likely not to be killed in war. If you join an army, even a far superior force, you have a chance of dying in war. By avoiding conflict you are more likely to live.

Another:

If you rob houses, any given house the occupants my defend themselves with deadly means. If you were to do this 52 times, say once per week, to pay your bills, feed your family etc. you have 52 chances to die. On the other hand, if you have a job and simply live in a home, and you only get robbed once that year by that one crook, you only have 1 chance to die.

In both situations, by being in less conflict, you have more chance to not die.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

38 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

6. The UPB method of christians is usually the following question: "Does it serve the greater glory of God and the good of the souls?" I think if someone insulted my mother and I retaliated with force, it does not serve the greater glory of God, nor necessarily the good of any sould, so it is pretty straightforward. But with the UPB of the Molyneux kind, I don't really see a conflict. I don't think it would be terrible if retaliation to insult was universalised. Do you see what I'm trying to say?

Let me see. I think the Christian UPB test makes sense but it can be distorted. Like how do we determine if it "serves the greater glory of God and the good of the souls?" Assuming for the sake of argument some pretty solid examples are put forward with the question, it is pretty reasonable.

Stefanist UPB is basically if something can be done simultaneously between two people. Like we can exchange insults therefore it isn't immoral (immoral requires either a breaking of the NAP or an act that can't be both done unto each other and wanted for ourselves. Theoretically we can want to be insulted but not, by definition, stolen, murdered, or raped, etc.) however it is "unpreferable" and if the general consensus of the community is that if you insult someone severely enough they can put up their dukes and fight you unless you stop, then I see nothing wrong with it. UPB mainly applies to the life and death and political stuff, not the preferential stuff like how to handle minor disagreements (although having said this I think I'll contradict myself because the question becomes does threatening someone to stop insulting me or you become an initiation of force. I'd argue not because I am not demanding someone do something positive to me or others but rather not do something negative to me specifically. If I that's the case I think it passes though perhaps you should book another interview with Stefpai to ask it since I haven't heard this case before on the Call in Shows and am not sure how to resolve it). 

38 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

9. How do you test for it? This is something I am not informed on.

Simple. Does my child understand me when I explain him why something is immoral. Can he demonstrate understanding. And then afterwards, does he break it?

Example. "Stealing is wrong because, at the very least, you wouldn't want to be stolen from and by definition no one wants to be stolen from. Otherwise it's 'gifting' or 'abandoning'. Can you give me an example of what I just said?"

Son: "John stole a toy truck from Johan, which is wrong at least because I wouldn't want a toy truck taken from me without my permission, and John probably wouldn't either. But if he doesn't really care then it's not stealing 'cause it'd be like picking up an unowned object."

If Son then were to steal a toy from Daughter after giving this example and perhaps demonstrating it visually with figurines, then he clearly knows he just stole something. 

A reasonable punishment would be, I think, to not buy a new toy for Son until he's made restitution on it with Daughter as far as Daughter is concerned (like he says sorry, returns it, and when she gets to a point where she's not glad it happened but isn't angry about it anymore, I'd then stop withholding gifts or allowance money from my son). 

38 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

11. Do that. I think this is eesential to this topic, but it is so massive that I wouldn't want to go into it here.

It's up on "Religion and Atheism" right now. However I don't know how much attention it'll get since it didn't pop up on the "Recent Topics" cue.

[Boss]

2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

8. I am just playing with scenarios here, since I honestly don't know how it is supposed to work in an anarchist utopia. My main issue is not the details, but rather the WHO DECIDES part. Just because people come to a mutual agreement, that doesn't make anything moral, even though human free will was fully respected. But this traverses into the age-old question of good and bad, so I don't expect to settle that one here. 

The majority of humans live their lives in an "anarchist utopia" I personally have nevered use the courts, police to settle anything. Even in my businesses, it has never needed to get that pathetic. Everyone knows the gov is the most inefficient thing out there. As far as "who decides" both parties did on the contract. And as far as morality, UPB

910. My point is: what of no contract exists with the individual because he is foreign? Who is the judge then? When I was reading Practical Anarchy, I was expecting there to be a discussion on the scenario where there is no contract. It is a completely realistic proposition I think.

If there is no contract then there is no deal? Again you are probably thinking of some scenario which I have no details of. But I have personally worked with foreign people and its no different than people who live near me. So maybe you can make the case how so. If you are talking about language barrier, translators, or even just google translate lol If you are talking about them walking in your society randomly, well if you don't want that its as simple as borders. Just like how people with houses build a fence and put up signs saying no trespassing, attack dogs on premsies or whatever they want 

 

 

[Fashus Maximus]

On 12/14/2017 at 4:28 PM, Mishi2 said:

Who started WW2?

 

On 12/14/2017 at 4:43 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

The Third Empire when it invaded Poland.

The invasion of Poland cannot be the start of WWII if it was retaliation against the Jewish massacre of Germans on Polish territory.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

2 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

 

The invasion of Poland cannot be the start of WWII if it was retaliation against the Jewish massacre of Germans on Polish territory.

If true then correct. However I can't say I know the facts given I remember hearing the government had a false-flag operation on one of their own border towns in order to instigate anti-Polish sentiment. 

I'd like some links for data so I can verify it. I know some group claiming to be the internal Jewish thing or whatever declared that all Jews should embargo (or something) the German government post-Hitler's rise in 1933 but if I'm more than a year off then it could be the difference between a declaration of war or self-defense.

[M.2]

22 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

1. Why should it matter if scientists or anyone else disagrees? Everything I am saying are all objective facts. Humans, like almost all organisms, have an instinct for self defense. People cannot help but enter fight or flight mode for example. It is fact, if you go around violating people, some will fight back. No matter how prepared you are to do battle, there is no such thing as 100% chance, even if say it was 99% chance you would win a confrontation, after 100 confrontations, you will statistically end up dead. Everything I just said is how the world IS. I don't understand what there is to disagree with or argue about but if you were to, you would just be wrong.
2. You said "You scenario assumes that we CAN cooperate." No, my scenario does not have to require cooperation. One possible scenario does include cooperation, the guy could be cooperative, that is certainly possible. You gave one specific example about burning down all the banana trees or whatever. I responded, saying that is an initiation of force which you could defend against. I personally find that to be the least likely example that the guy you sit next to on an airplane thinks he should burn all the banana trees but this is philosophy, we can explore all options. I then listed out a few more scenarios and explained the answer to each. They are not all one example.
- In regards to it burning your food. You would die on the island if you don't think you have a claim to the banana trees on the little island and the crazy food burner does. SMH I try not to be rude but this is like ancom level property right theorizing you are doing... how would one establish it? Start a small government and file a deed? LOL YOU NEED FOOD TO LIVE, YOU ARE IN A CLOSED ENVIRONMENT WHERE NOBODY ELSE HAS ANY SUPERIOR CLAIM TO THEM, OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE A CLAIM TO THE FOOD.
3. Every human has a mental capacity to understand this. Exceptions being people who are say mentally retarded or something, which intuitively to most people is unnecessary to address (just as it is unnecessary to address, what if my 1 year old bites me, should I shoot him and it be ok under the NAP).
4. The majority kill and steal for not necessarily fun but for superficial reasons. Absolutely. The minority do not. In today's society, the only people who HAVE TO kill are those responding in self defense. Even in the past it was mostly true as well. There is no evidence the USA would cease to exist or be genuinely harmed if they had not invaded lets say Iraq, this is a fact. The entire reason for invasion was little to no evidence of WMD which turned out was really no evidence at all. You are confusing the initiation with self defense. You can come up with any reason you want, and claim it to be as important as you want, it doesn't rise to self defense unless its in response. By invading Iraq, more people in that part of the world, now hate the USA more than they did before. More Americans are now injured and killed than if we had not invaded Iraq. Those dead Americans are not better off, they will not be reproducing any further, it was a stupid decision on their part.
5. You don't need historical example. It can be proven logically. If you do not join the army, and you move away from war areas, you are most likely not to be killed in war. If you join an army, even a far superior force, you have a chance of dying in war. By avoiding conflict you are more likely to live.
If you rob houses, any given house the occupants my defend themselves with deadly means. If you were to do this 52 times, say once per week, to pay your bills, feed your family etc. you have 52 chances to die. On the other hand, if you have a job and simply live in a home, and you only get robbed once that year by that one crook, you only have 1 chance to die. In both situations, by being in less conflict, you have more chance to not die.

1. I am not disagreeing with you. You may claim you have the objective facts, but if someone else also claims to have thr objective facts, then we have a problem. Sure, you may say testing can prove who is correct, but apparently that is not how things work, otherwise we wouldn't have a climate-change debate.
Secondly, why is it objectively bad if I end up dead?
2. My scenario is the one most worth considering, because it is one that the anarchist theory always ignores. People are good at cooperating, but they are very often incapable. Such instances may be rare, but they are devestating, as we can see all the wars in history.
- You are assuming my position too often, and missing my point. There are two of you on the island, so how do you decide who the food belongs to. I understand that people usually come to an agreement, but again, they often don't. And this is something the ancap theory doesn't seem to take into account.
3. This is where I think you are wrong. People having irreconcilable differences is not an exceptional case. There have been somthing like 4 days in world history when there were no ongoing wars.
About your 1 year old, I don't know. That is why I'm asking you. Should you and do you have the moral right to?
4. What the hell do you mean by "today's society"? Only a fifth of all people on the planet live in the first world.
I understand your point on self defence, and I don't disagree with you. But who decides what is self defence?
Regarding the Iraq war... what makes you right? I don't disagree with you, I just don't see why you should be more right than the Pentagon.
5. Logic doesn't necessarily apply to the real world, as we see from history. Ancap is completely logical, but it hasn't existed yet, supposedly for good reason, I don't know.
But if I'm a homeless man in Krasnoyarsk, and it is February, then my best chance at surviving the night is breaking into a private property.
You assume that it is completely unthinkable for a person with a few IQ points to initiate force, and I don't think you have tested your theory in the world that avoidance of violence is always better. Again, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't find that your ideas stand up to the test.
At some point you just have to ask: If my position is so obviously right, then why don't more people hold it?

 

22 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

1. Let me see. I think the Christian UPB test makes sense but it can be distorted. Like how do we determine if it "serves the greater glory of God and the good of the souls?" Assuming for the sake of argument some pretty solid examples are put forward with the question, it is pretty reasonable.
2. Stefanist UPB is basically if something can be done simultaneously between two people. Like we can exchange insults therefore it isn't immoral (immoral requires either a breaking of the NAP or an act that can't be both done unto each other and wanted for ourselves. Theoretically we can want to be insulted but not, by definition, stolen, murdered, or raped, etc.) however it is "unpreferable" and if the general consensus of the community is that if you insult someone severely enough they can put up their dukes and fight you unless you stop, then I see nothing wrong with it. UPB mainly applies to the life and death and political stuff, not the preferential stuff like how to handle minor disagreements (although having said this I think I'll contradict myself because the question becomes does threatening someone to stop insulting me or you become an initiation of force. I'd argue not because I am not demanding someone do something positive to me or others but rather not do something negative to me specifically. If I that's the case I think it passes though perhaps you should book another interview with Stefpai to ask it since I haven't heard this case before on the Call in Shows and am not sure how to resolve it).
3. Simple. Does my child understand me when I explain him why something is immoral. Can he demonstrate understanding. And then afterwards, does he break it?
Example. "Stealing is wrong because, at the very least, you wouldn't want to be stolen from and by definition no one wants to be stolen from. Otherwise it's 'gifting' or 'abandoning'. Can you give me an example of what I just said?"
Son: "John stole a toy truck from Johan, which is wrong at least because I wouldn't want a toy truck taken from me without my permission, and John probably wouldn't either. But if he doesn't really care then it's not stealing 'cause it'd be like picking up an unowned object."
If Son then were to steal a toy from Daughter after giving this example and perhaps demonstrating it visually with figurines, then he clearly knows he just stole something.
A reasonable punishment would be, I think, to not buy a new toy for Son until he's made restitution on it with Daughter as far as Daughter is concerned (like he says sorry, returns it, and when she gets to a point where she's not glad it happened but isn't angry about it anymore, I'd then stop withholding gifts or allowance money from my son).
It's up on "Religion and Atheism" right now. However I don't know how much attention it'll get since it didn't pop up on the "Recent Topics" cue.

1. For a catholic, it is pretty easy. We presume that the Church is infallible, so we simple look to her for guidance. For other denominations, I have no idea.
2. Well, you see, you may not see something wrong with it, but someone else may. You said "unpreferable to the community" but that is conrary to the U in UPB. There has to be a universally acceptable solution to every issue, otherwise UPB is invalid. I think the fault in the logic is that UPB is relativistic - let me explain... If Germans believed that Slavs were a toxin in the gene pool, they are not violating the NAP by exterminating them. How do you even argue with them? And how do you know such an attitude cannot errupt in an Ancap utopia? This is not at all an extreme scenario in terms of feasibility.
3. If your child is communist, he may say that it is not stealing if the burgoise class took it from you first. Can you beat the shit out him in that case? In all seriousness, my issue is that there is still no objective arbiter of truth here. If a disagreement erupts in an ancap community, the community will take sides by ostracism and whatnot, but that doesn't indicate who was objectively right. 
Sure, the anarchist will say "Science will prove it", but so far in history, people who worship science above all else haven't always been good. I will grant you any day that ancap makes a lot of sense and sounds awesome, but there ought to be a good reason why it hasn't existed yet.

 

20 hours ago, Boss said:

8. The majority of humans live their lives in an "anarchist utopia" I personally have nevered use the courts, police to settle anything. Even in my businesses, it has never needed to get that pathetic. Everyone knows the gov is the most inefficient thing out there. As far as "who decides" both parties did on the contract. And as far as morality, UPB
910. If there is no contract then there is no deal? Again you are probably thinking of some scenario which I have no details of. But I have personally worked with foreign people and its no different than people who live near me. So maybe you can make the case how so. If you are talking about language barrier, translators, or even just google translate lol If you are talking about them walking in your society randomly, well if you don't want that its as simple as borders. Just like how people with houses build a fence and put up signs saying no trespassing, attack dogs on premsies or whatever they want 

8. So I've read in Everyday Anarchy. I'm not convinced though. In a family, there is government, there has to be. And as far as I know, policies within a family have to enforced. I suppose peaceful parenting works in a high-IQ family, but I know for certain that it does not work in a low-IQ family. I don't think it is corporal punishment that decreases IQ, but that corporal punishment is the only thing that works for low IQ people. But I may be wrong, of course, which is why I'm here.
910. This scenario doesn't exist because every country has a policy on how to deal with foreigners, who are not subject to the social contract of the citizens. My scenario takes place in ancap paradise. Suppose Hungary were an ancap paradise in 2015 during the migrant crisis. Let"s also suppose they already had a fence back then. So if a migrant gets past the fence, stumbles onto your land in order to get to Austria, and you shoot him, how does your society deal with that? He has no papers, so you can't tell whether or not he is a member of your society. You may know that he is not associated with a DRO, since you an check in their databases. So who decides whether or not you were justified to shoot him?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 12/18/2017 at 3:02 PM, Mishi2 said:

1. For a catholic, it is pretty easy. We presume that the Church is infallible, so we simple look to her for guidance. For other denominations, I have no idea.

Then the problem becomes people like the Borgia Pope and the modern Socialist Pope. What happens when their infallibility is disproven? I remember a Pope John XXII (read this on an article called "Papal Infalilibility" on Wikipedia) who said that to claim the Pope is infallible is blasphemy. However in the same context it is written that his opposition meant it as a limiter to the power of the living Popes (so that they cannot contradict their predecessors, and by extension distort the truth) so I might be mistaking what is meant by "infallibility" because it makes sense in the context of individuals later trying to re-interpret a given text for their own political purposes.

But then there's the problem of the original interpretation possibly being wrong. But then compare that possibility to the likelihood of malicious power-seekers taking advantage of the small bit of fallibility allowed (and therefore allowed to "correct" them). But then finally this can be correct via reason and evidence. I think proof in tangible matters can be found to be the arbiter. On the other hand theoretical matters would be challenging since they probably can't be proven easily.  

Quote

2. Well, you see, you may not see something wrong with it, but someone else may. You said "unpreferable to the community" but that is conrary to the U in UPB. There has to be a universally acceptable solution to every issue, otherwise UPB is invalid. I think the fault in the logic is that UPB is relativistic - let me explain... If Germans believed that Slavs were a toxin in the gene pool, they are not violating the NAP by exterminating them. How do you even argue with them? And how do you know such an attitude cannot errupt in an Ancap utopia? This is not at all an extreme scenario in terms of feasibility.

Problem: conflating NAP with UPB.

First off UPB is meant for moral claims not "every issue". 

I am a bit tired so I might not be very coherent, but I don't think UPB is meant to be the answer to everything nor is the answer supposed to be "universally acceptable". A million people compared to 1 might think gravity is a myth but they're still wrong. If the claim is that Slavs are a toxin to the gene pool then it must be tested and proven before the claim can be made. Otherwise it's just sophistry. Also it's not a moral claim and can't be universalized.  

Also just because a whole community aggress another is toxic doesn't justify their attacking them. Communal rules is for the stuff that isn't moral/immoral like what the dress code ought to be or the sound levels at certain times a day. 

EDIT: Now I understand. If Slavs really were like literally toxic then theoretically exterminating them would be self-defense. Obviously they aren't but how do you argue against that? Well, burden of proof being on the claimant comes to mind. What do you do when a large mob is fooled into believing it? Fight them, but the UPB is supposed to be a vaccine not a cure. So how would we nip it in the bud? Well I'd dare the claimant to prove it and go from there.

Once an army is formed though sophistry thought it obviously can't be reasoned with without first destroying their will to fight. 

Quote

. If your child is communist, he may say that it is not stealing if the burgoise class took it from you first. Can you beat the shit out him in that case? In all seriousness, my issue is that there is still no objective arbiter of truth here. If a disagreement erupts in an ancap community, the community will take sides by ostracism and whatnot, but that doesn't indicate who was objectively right. 

My child wouldn't because I would teach him how to reason and use empathy to realize that stealing from the rich is stealing from himself in the long run, at the very least.

Also DRO's are meant to be the law-makers and they are supposed to be supported by the subscription of the majority of a given area (and apply to that area, or maybe just those involved and work with other DROs to ensure that everyone is attached to one and those who aren't are ostracized out and those that break a commonly agreed to law are punished. I don't know what would happen if X breaks a law with A DRO but not by B. Maybe it'd be decided based on whether that law was broken on A DRO's soil or A's client. Maybe A and B would look to come to a common agreement then amend their policies accordingly.)

EDIT: Marxism violates UPB by default because it places a double-standard. The U in UPB means in part that everything has to be measured by the same standard.

Of course I'd teach my children not to let people trick them into holding lower standards for X groups so X groups can do as they please against Y. 

Quote

Sure, the anarchist will say "Science will prove it", but so far in history, people who worship science above all else haven't always been good. I will grant you any day that ancap makes a lot of sense and sounds awesome, but there ought to be a good reason why it hasn't existed yet.

I assume because childhood throughout history has been terrible for most people and therefore most people were trained to be savage and barbaric. Of course who can say for sure if everyone (or a majority) haveing a decent childhood will make anarchy possible. It might not. Which is why my alternative solution is to have a Catholic monarchy where the people are ruled by an aristocracy based on productivity checked by a moral compass like the Roman Catholic Church as a transitional stage that may or may not eventually transition into AnCap. I think it's the best way to get there since a few smart men invested in the longevity of their country is more reliable than a mob of people who can't possibly know every issue voting for a guy (or 500) that they can't possibly keep up with and hold accountable in the long run.

Man will never be perfect but we can all pursue the ideal and get as close as we can. I am too tired to effectively argue for UPB at the moment (I apologize for that I'll make another post tomorrow) but I do know it's meant for moral stuff like "can murder be universalized?" but the hard part I think is what to say to someone who says "why should I care?" and give an answer beyond pragmatism and make it compelling. Also universalized is supposed to mean "if we can want it unto ourselves and others at the same time" not "everyone agrees with it". 

Again I apologize UPB isn't simple enough for me to argue with my IQ temporarily reduced to 70 but I want someone other than me to interject and take up this point since I can't argue more until tomorrow. Also, please send an email to Mike so you can present this dilemma since I haven't heard it before.

EDIT: I think I used UPB well enough to counter your examples: Marxism is by default anti-UPB (double standard); first the racist must prove his racism has validity; and once we're beyond reason UPB doesn't matter because in an immoral situation anything goes. I don't agree with the last bit since I think some standards of civility must be maintained even in war so to mitigate the damages.

I think the problem is you misunderstand what UPB means. However I might as well, so I beg anyone around to intervene and catch me where I went astray. 

Edited December 20, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim
Re-reading and thinking more clearly.

[smarterthanone]

On 12/18/2017 at 3:02 PM, Mishi2 said:

1. I am not disagreeing with you. You may claim you have the objective facts, but if someone else also claims to have thr objective facts, then we have a problem. Sure, you may say testing can prove who is correct, but apparently that is not how things work, otherwise we wouldn't have a climate-change debate.
Secondly, why is it objectively bad if I end up dead?
2. My scenario is the one most worth considering, because it is one that the anarchist theory always ignores. People are good at cooperating, but they are very often incapable. Such instances may be rare, but they are devestating, as we can see all the wars in history.
- You are assuming my position too often, and missing my point. There are two of you on the island, so how do you decide who the food belongs to. I understand that people usually come to an agreement, but again, they often don't. And this is something the ancap theory doesn't seem to take into account.
3. This is where I think you are wrong. People having irreconcilable differences is not an exceptional case. There have been somthing like 4 days in world history when there were no ongoing wars.
About your 1 year old, I don't know. That is why I'm asking you. Should you and do you have the moral right to?
4. What the hell do you mean by "today's society"? Only a fifth of all people on the planet live in the first world.
I understand your point on self defence, and I don't disagree with you. But who decides what is self defence?
Regarding the Iraq war... what makes you right? I don't disagree with you, I just don't see why you should be more right than the Pentagon.
5. Logic doesn't necessarily apply to the real world, as we see from history. Ancap is completely logical, but it hasn't existed yet, supposedly for good reason, I don't know.
But if I'm a homeless man in Krasnoyarsk, and it is February, then my best chance at surviving the night is breaking into a private property.
You assume that it is completely unthinkable for a person with a few IQ points to initiate force, and I don't think you have tested your theory in the world that avoidance of violence is always better. Again, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just don't find that your ideas stand up to the test.
At some point you just have to ask: If my position is so obviously right, then why don't more people hold it?

1. Testing is how you prove who is correct. The end. If you are going to do a test if gasoline lights on fire, and you do testing and see it does light on fire, but then claim it does not light on fire, we can safely assume you are mentally deficient and ignore constructive conversation with you. I have no idea what you are talking about with climate change debate. Safe bet that 99% of people would consider a situation in which they die bad. Feel free to do testing and prove me wrong, do you honestly think that would be worth your time?

2. Ancap theory does take it into account. If he sits on the side of the island and just doesnt cooperate with you but leaves you alone, do nothing. If he burns down the banana trees, you may kill him in self defense. If you do not think you have a right to the bananas then you may not kill him in self defense. This is where many ancaps go wrong, how do you think one acquires property and holds possession anyways? If you go into the woods which nobody is claiming it, you simply need to ENFORCE PROTECTION of it to make it yours. You cant just say its mine, everyone else will just use it anyways, hire 10 guys with guns to protect it and its yours. Once you step foot on that island you have every right to say "I have ownership (of some amount) in the banana trees and will enforce my claim with force." It's that simple. If you believe he has more of a right to burn the trees down then you may not stop him using force. The matter is up to you.

3. They "could" figure it out, it doesn't mean they will. And no I will not discuss shooting your baby who bites your finger, that is not relevant.

4. Today's society I mean where almost all land is controlled by government, and overall society wealth is as high as it is. For example, in the United states, there is no reason to steal food since there are plenty of soup kitchens and food banks, SNAP food stamps, etc.

Regarding who decides if its self defense, see the definition, you are just nitpicking things and not making arguments. Either you responded in defense, or you initiated with an attack. There is no other option. You can lie about it, make things up. Objectively, you did do one or the other, even if you obfuscate or make things up, there is a truth.

5. If you are homeless in the cold and your option is to stay in the cold or break into private property... YOUR BEST OPTION WOULD BE TO NOT BE HOMELESS IN KRASNOYARSK and that would give you the best chance of survival.

How does one need to test it? Its proven. Give me one example in which one is never in a violent situation, in which violence kills the person? Never. Not possible. By not being in violent situations, you are not going to die from violence. Now in the real would you can't 100% remove yourself from violent situations but if you could, you would never die from violence. Just like if you live in the woods where there are no roads and you never drive a car or got in a car, it would be impossible to die from a car accident. This is just common sense. I think you are trying to make trouble.

[M.2]

20 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

1. Then the problem becomes people like the Borgia Pope and the modern Socialist Pope. What happens when their infallibility is disproven? I remember a Pope John XXII (read this on an article called "Papal Infalilibility" on Wikipedia) who said that to claim the Pope is infallible is blasphemy. However in the same context it is written that his opposition meant it as a limiter to the power of the living Popes (so that they cannot contradict their predecessors, and by extension distort the truth) so I might be mistaking what is meant by "infallibility" because it makes sense in the context of individuals later trying to re-interpret a given text for their own political purposes.
2. Problem: conflating NAP with UPB. First off UPB is meant for moral claims not "every issue".
EDIT: Now I understand. If Slavs really were like literally toxic then theoretically exterminating them would be self-defense. Obviously they aren't but how do you argue against that? Well, burden of proof being on the claimant comes to mind. What do you do when a large mob is fooled into believing it? Fight them, but the UPB is supposed to be a vaccine not a cure. So how would we nip it in the bud? Well I'd dare the claimant to prove it and go from there.
3. Also DRO's are meant to be the law-makers and they are supposed to be supported by the subscription of the majority of a given area (and apply to that area, or maybe just those involved and work with other DROs to ensure that everyone is attached to one and those who aren't are ostracized out and those that break a commonly agreed to law are punished. I don't know what would happen if X breaks a law with A DRO but not by B. Maybe it'd be decided based on whether that law was broken on A DRO's soil or A's client. Maybe A and B would look to come to a common agreement then amend their policies accordingly.)
4. I assume because childhood throughout history has been terrible for most people and therefore most people were trained to be savage and barbaric. Of course who can say for sure if everyone (or a majority) haveing a decent childhood will make anarchy possible. It might not. W
Man will never be perfect but we can all pursue the ideal and get as close as we can. I am too tired to effectively argue for UPB at the moment (I apologize for that I'll make another post tomorrow) but I do know it's meant for moral stuff like "can murder be universalized?" but the hard part I think is what to say to someone who says "why should I care?" and give an answer beyond pragmatism and make it compelling. Also universalized is supposed to mean "if we can want it unto ourselves and others at the same time" not "everyone agrees with it".
5. Again I apologize UPB isn't simple enough for me to argue with my IQ temporarily reduced to 70 but I want someone other than me to interject and take up this point since I can't argue more until tomorrow. Also, please send an email to Mike so you can present this dilemma since I haven't heard it before.

1. This assumption some people have of catholics, that we think that the pope is a never-erring genius, is highly insulting. The office of the Roman Pontiff, exclusively when he speaks ex-cathedra, is infallible. There are etremely stringent safeguerds in place for "ex-cathedra", so you can read up on that if you wish.
2. You are missing the point. My issue is that the NAP is highly subject to false interpretation. If a rule can be misunderstood, it is not a good rule. But if it so, then at the very least we need professional interpreters, like lawyers or priests. But in the case of the NAP and the UPB, we don't have any. And the assumption that the best argument will simply prevail is absolutely idiotic... I mean... when has that ever happened?
3. Neither of the Anarchy books address this issue, but here is my main contention with the ancap theory: The stefist model builds a model in a vacuum, as if either the entire world became anarchist, or as if the ancap paradise had been built on a remote island. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here; the paradise has to start from somewhere, and it has to start small.
4. I think there is no question that there is a universally preferable behaviour. As the saying goes "God always has an opinion", and so is there bound to be a behaviour that is "best". The problem arises when it comes to figuring out what that is. And this is where the stefist UPB claims to be the solution, but has at the same time not solved the underlying issue... "what is moral?". A compass is useless if you don't know what your heading is. Even if you know what your heading is, you still have to justify why it is your heading. 
5. Thanks for being so engaged though. You are my only reassurance that I'm actually making some sense, as some people here don't get what I'm saying at all. You could call in if you deem it right, or we could even call in together. I think this is something worth taking up to the big man if it doesn't get settled here.

[RichardY]

@smarterthanone Feeding the bear, more to do with the corruption of environmental resources and lifeforms. A kind of "Prime Directive" Or feeding kids cheesecake, so they end up obese. Perhaps more of an ownership problem. Was seeing if I could figure out some other moral principle than just the NAP. But as you have pointed out to think of the NAP as anything other than a moral principle, in situations of duress is not viable. (train track scenario).

So what causes the breakdown of morality? The intiation of force. But what causes the intiation of force/violence? 

The biological imperative to survive in whatever form? Some kind of scene from the movie SAW?

-------------

EARLY ENGLISH STRATEGY: SLAUGHTER

When Edward III led his first raids into France, he was not aiming to take and hold a series of strongpoints and regions. Instead the English led raid after raid called a ‘chevauchée’. These were missions of pure murder, designed to devastate a region by killing crops, animals, people and destroying buildings, windmills and other structures. Churches and people were plundered then put to the sword and fire. Huge numbers died as a result, and wide areas became depopulated. The aim was to cause such damage that the French wouldn’t have as many resources, and would be forced to negotiate or give battle to stop things. The English did take important sites in Edward’s era, such as Calais, and small lords fought a constant battle against rivals for land, but the strategy of Edward III and leading nobles was dominated by chevauchées

-----------

But who shall dwell in these worlds if they be inhabited?…
Are we or they Lords of the World?…
And how are all things made for man?—

Kepler (quoted in The Anatomy of Melancholy)

 

No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency men went to and fro over this globe about their little affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire over matter. It is possible that the infusoria under the microscope do the same. No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us. And early in the twentieth century came the great disillusionment.

War of the Worlds.

----------

[smarterthanone]

On 12/21/2017 at 5:53 AM, RichardY said:

@smarterthanone Feeding the bear, more to do with the corruption of environmental resources and lifeforms. A kind of "Prime Directive" Or feeding kids cheesecake, so they end up obese. Perhaps more of an ownership problem. Was seeing if I could figure out some other moral principle than just the NAP. But as you have pointed out to think of the NAP as anything other than a moral principle, in situations of duress is not viable. (train track scenario).

So what causes the breakdown of morality? The intiation of force. But what causes the intiation of force/violence? 

The biological imperative to survive in whatever form? Some kind of scene from the movie SAW?

What does corruption of environmental resources and lifeforms have to do with NAP? NAP has a prime directive and its to not initiate force, has nothing to do with good judgement such as not feeding a bear or giving cheese cake to a child. One can follow the nap and shoot up on heroin all day, pay for prostitutes, become obese, chop off their own arm and pay for a commercial on tv advocating everyone else ought to do the same. That is perfectly ok under NAP.

And why does it not work in the train track scenario? I mentioned the train track precisely because it does follow the NAP. Even if the train were to be heading towards you first, you always have a right for self defense, it cannot be infringed. Nobody ought to be able to realistically expect you to get run over by a train if you could stop it. The fact other people get killed is irrelevant, the people responsible for locking everyone to the track comes into play, and /or maybe the train driver if he purposely is not stopping (depending on how you want to fill in the details for the scenario). For example: you live in your home, a criminal with a gun breaks in and tries to kill you, you shoot one time and the bullet goes right into his head, dead! BUT the bullet continues onto your neighbors property and hits him in the kneecap, he is now has extensive hospital bills and a disability. The person responsible is the criminal and all his assets ought to be split between both you and the person harmed by the bullet at some proportion because you are both the injured parties to varied degrees.

People cause the initiation of force.

Biological imperative such as to live and reproduce. Not sure how SAW comes into play, although I love those movies. If you mean because he sets up the trap and they kill themselves and/or others, he is the one killing them, not the person in the trap. You must understand that coercion is a form of violence. If you do not agree with that, how can you say government and politicians violate the NAP?

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 12/21/2017 at 12:37 AM, Mishi2 said:

1. This assumption some people have of catholics, that we think that the pope is a never-erring genius, is highly insulting. The office of the Roman Pontiff, exclusively when he speaks ex-cathedra, is infallible. There are etremely stringent safeguerds in place for "ex-cathedra", so you can read up on that if you wish.

As a lapsed Catholic I think I am simply ignorant of what it actually meant. I apologize since I know I don't study enough of my own religion. I'd like to think I know the important parts but I find a lot of what I learn comes from the atheist Stefpai (who is awfully Christian in ethics).

On 12/21/2017 at 12:37 AM, Mishi2 said:

2. You are missing the point. My issue is that the NAP is highly subject to false interpretation. If a rule can be misunderstood, it is not a good rule. But if it so, then at the very least we need professional interpreters, like lawyers or priests. But in the case of the NAP and the UPB, we don't have any. And the assumption that the best argument will simply prevail is absolutely idiotic... I mean... when has that ever happened?

Presumably that's happening now. You, me, and whoever's reading. It also happened when we first started pursuing philosophy, self-knowledge, ethics, economics, etc. Even basic stuff like knowing how to tie our shoes, write, cook, chop wood, etc. 

On a societal level, hard to say for sure since I think it's generally been a dedicated minority that's made the biggest changes not the majority. Like the American experiment began with a couple dozen guys who managed to convince a few hundred thousand to support them and eventually established a republic against the wills of millions. 

But they didn't win solely based on their arguments. Sophists like Lenin also win. Other times guys without arguments but bigger swords. 

I agree some kind of leadership class needs to be established. I think DRO's have potential as a Free Market legal system. The DRO that's the most effective will, in the long run, produce the best society. 

On 12/21/2017 at 12:37 AM, Mishi2 said:

3. Neither of the Anarchy books address this issue, but here is my main contention with the ancap theory: The stefist model builds a model in a vacuum, as if either the entire world became anarchist, or as if the ancap paradise had been built on a remote island. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here; the paradise has to start from somewhere, and it has to start small.

Practically I agree with you. It does presume from a blank slate, which I think is reasonable from a moral and/or theoretical perspective. The next step is finding a way to make it happen. I figure the best case scenario is a revolution both martially and mentally, like the American revolution of 1776 as the rebirth of Roman Republicanism. 

Of course I can't say for sure how to actually make that happen now. But that's a whole other subject.

On 12/21/2017 at 12:37 AM, Mishi2 said:

4. I think there is no question that there is a universally preferable behaviour. As the saying goes "God always has an opinion", and so is there bound to be a behaviour that is "best". The problem arises when it comes to figuring out what that is. And this is where the stefist UPB claims to be the solution, but has at the same time not solved the underlying issue... "what is moral?". A compass is useless if you don't know what your heading is. Even if you know what your heading is, you still have to justify why it is your heading. 

Given the Roman Catholic Church is comprised of fallible individuals trying to check themselves as best they can to be as accurate as possible, I think an equivalent can (and must) be established for a secular equivalent to thrive. 

On 12/21/2017 at 12:37 AM, Mishi2 said:

5. Thanks for being so engaged though. You are my only reassurance that I'm actually making some sense, as some people here don't get what I'm saying at all. You could call in if you deem it right, or we could even call in together. I think this is something worth taking up to the big man if it doesn't get settled here.

You know I really want to take you up on that. My main concern is using skype (never done it before) and my environment (not exactly sound proof). But by God I had decided last year back when I was just becoming a man that I would have a real philosophical call with the great Stefbot. Perhaps if we can't figure out what's missing ourselves then a call is the best thing. I don't plan on doing it myself soon though, though if my circumstances change I'd be inclined to to do so. 

I think perhaps the Devil here is in the details. 

There are two possibilities: 1: We are misunderstanding Stefanist arguments. 2: We found a loophole.

Given I haven't heard anyone legitimately find a loophole that couldn't be corrected by simply reading/listening to Stefpai's books or a clarification of a possibly ambiguous statement, I am inclined to assume the first. Therefore I'm also inclined to review what we've spoken about (namely the problem of relying on subjective individuals to objectively determine for sure what's moral and impose it collectively on society) and see if either Stefpai has an answer for this or if this is even a problem (for example if he already intended for groups like DROs to be the police/priestly equivalent in determining what's moral, then it isn't up to the majority but the dedicated minority. Then it becomes a different argument. I'm going to re-read what we've spoken about and make a new post either here or on "What is Moral?". I haven't read much of UPB yet (and with Christmas just a couple days away I doubt I'll read too much too soon) but once I do I'll try using it as a frame of reference). 

[M.2]

On 12/20/2017 at 10:13 PM, smarterthanone said:

1. Testing is how you prove who is correct. The end. If you are going to do a test if gasoline lights on fire, and you do testing and see it does light on fire, but then claim it does not light on fire, we can safely assume you are mentally deficient and ignore constructive conversation with you. I have no idea what you are talking about with climate change debate. Safe bet that 99% of people would consider a situation in which they die bad. Feel free to do testing and prove me wrong, do you honestly think that would be worth your time?

2. Ancap theory does take it into account. If he sits on the side of the island and just doesnt cooperate with you but leaves you alone, do nothing. If he burns down the banana trees, you may kill him in self defense. If you do not think you have a right to the bananas then you may not kill him in self defense. This is where many ancaps go wrong, how do you think one acquires property and holds possession anyways? If you go into the woods which nobody is claiming it, you simply need to ENFORCE PROTECTION of it to make it yours. You cant just say its mine, everyone else will just use it anyways, hire 10 guys with guns to protect it and its yours. Once you step foot on that island you have every right to say "I have ownership (of some amount) in the banana trees and will enforce my claim with force." It's that simple. If you believe he has more of a right to burn the trees down then you may not stop him using force. The matter is up to you.

3. They "could" figure it out, it doesn't mean they will. And no I will not discuss shooting your baby who bites your finger, that is not relevant.

4. Today's society I mean where almost all land is controlled by government, and overall society wealth is as high as it is. For example, in the United states, there is no reason to steal food since there are plenty of soup kitchens and food banks, SNAP food stamps, etc.

Regarding who decides if its self defense, see the definition, you are just nitpicking things and not making arguments. Either you responded in defense, or you initiated with an attack. There is no other option. You can lie about it, make things up. Objectively, you did do one or the other, even if you obfuscate or make things up, there is a truth.

5. If you are homeless in the cold and your option is to stay in the cold or break into private property... YOUR BEST OPTION WOULD BE TO NOT BE HOMELESS IN KRASNOYARSK and that would give you the best chance of survival.

How does one need to test it? Its proven. Give me one example in which one is never in a violent situation, in which violence kills the person? Never. Not possible. By not being in violent situations, you are not going to die from violence. Now in the real would you can't 100% remove yourself from violent situations but if you could, you would never die from violence. Just like if you live in the woods where there are no roads and you never drive a car or got in a car, it would be impossible to die from a car accident. This is just common sense. I think you are trying to make trouble.

1. You are not picking up what I'm laying down at all. And this proves my point. We are both writing in english, we are both being civil, we are both being intellectually open, yet we cannot even understand each other. There is nothing wrong with the "scientific method", but as soon as people start using it, it becomes messy.

2. If I understand you correctly, you are making the "might makes right" argument. Out of the two of you on the island, it is the one more aggressive to claim the trees who has the right to them. Is this your position? I'm not saying you are wrong, just clarifying.

I think this is what I can't accept. You say it is down to what you believe. But morality does not hang on what you believe. 

3. Do you even read what I write? It seems like you just gloss over my words and pick one that you think you can incorporate into what you are trying to convey.

4. So you are only talking about the US? Ok.

"Society" is not ao simple as you make it be. We can't even agree on who started ww1, even after a century. I agree that objectively someone started ww1, but who is it, and why can't we figure it out? Cases where we can't figure out who was the aggressor are not exceptions, but a good plurality, and that will be a problem in our ancap utopia.

5. You are such an idiot. Under the ussr, everyone was housed by law, but when the ussr collapsed, many people were randomly thrown out onto the street, because beforehand, entire families were stuffed into one-bedroom apartments, and that system obviously couldn't survive in a capitalist Russia.

On the second point, please read what I wrote, and please reply to what I wrote.

[smarterthanone]

2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1. You are not picking up what I'm laying down at all. And this proves my point. We are both writing in english, we are both being civil, we are both being intellectually open, yet we cannot even understand each other. There is nothing wrong with the "scientific method", but as soon as people start using it, it becomes messy.

2. If I understand you correctly, you are making the "might makes right" argument. Out of the two of you on the island, it is the one more aggressive to claim the trees who has the right to them. Is this your position? I'm not saying you are wrong, just clarifying.

I think this is what I can't accept. You say it is down to what you believe. But morality does not hang on what you believe. 

3. Do you even read what I write? It seems like you just gloss over my words and pick one that you think you can incorporate into what you are trying to convey.

4. So you are only talking about the US? Ok.

"Society" is not ao simple as you make it be. We can't even agree on who started ww1, even after a century. I agree that objectively someone started ww1, but who is it, and why can't we figure it out? Cases where we can't figure out who was the aggressor are not exceptions, but a good plurality, and that will be a problem in our ancap utopia.

5. You are such an idiot. Under the ussr, everyone was housed by law, but when the ussr collapsed, many people were randomly thrown out onto the street, because beforehand, entire families were stuffed into one-bedroom apartments, and that system obviously couldn't survive in a capitalist Russia.

On the second point, please read what I wrote, and please reply to what I wrote.

1. I have no idea what you are talking about. My entire point uses only facts. If you disagree with them, just show proof, or be irrational. You certainly can disagree with the logic or importance of the facts I have chosen to come to a different conclusion but it doesn't change the facts. How is the scientific method messy? You are claiming this, it doesn't seem reasonable or intuitive to me. In fact it seems like the ONLY acceptable thing to me. But go ahead, prove it.

2. Might doesn't equal right. Do you have a claim to the bananas or not? If so then whether you win or lose an altercation makes you rightful in engaging in the altercation. If you do not have a claim to the bananas then you would not rightfully be able to engage in an altercation. If I landed on an island with unowned banana trees with someone else, I would damn sure have a claim to some bananas, but if you don't think you do then that is your right.

3. Nah, I don't read anything you write.

4. Fallacy of Division. There doesn't need to be a specific person or people who started what is known as WW1. Each instance of violence was initiated by someone against someone else. For example, if you get shipped to country ABC to engage in war, you land on the beach and you see some dude walking around so you shoot him because obviously he is part of country ABC since he is there, did some magic president or king or whoever initiate that violence or did you? Clearly you did. You could have just stayed home. If a criminal gang is taking on new members to rob a bank, did you rob the bank? Yes. You did and you will face the consequences of it. Whether the gang organized it or not is irrelevant.

Now you could also claim, what about if Country A is on one side of a battlefield and Country B is on the other side of a battlefield and they both intent to kill each other because the other side wants to kill them (self defense), well depending on the situation it could be clear, if country A wants to capture country Bs land and its taking place in country B, obviously country A people are all initiating force. In a more unclear situation where say it is unowned or extremely disputed lands such there is no clear owner, you could say both sides have entered into an agreement of violence, everyone knows what they are getting into and what the rewards of winning and the penalty of losing is, that could actually be considered voluntary. Now if they kill a civilian or knock down his house that is right next to the war zone, that civilian has a right for damages from the armies just as individuals. The person who shot that civilian would be accountable for murder and face the full penalty and the person who knocked down the home would be responsible for paying for a new one, AND the entire army may be held responsible for both actions on top of the individual depending on many other circumstances.

5. Ad hom is the best way to win an argument on FDR, didn't you know? lmfao.

a. This is due to massive violation of NAP. In actual NAP practice, this would not be a thing, it was because of the USSR.

b. Ok, well this would make sense of why they would violate other people. The only problem is they don't have a right to do so still and ought to be killed in self defense from the property owners to such an extent that they would be safer staying out in the cold. But sure they may have instincts telling them they need the shelter. Yet they have no right to the shelter. This is one of those things you have to get in your head about the world. Sometimes there is no win/win and its ok, it happens. I don't think anyone in that situation is immoral per se if they are simply seeking shelter (not raping and murdering home owners) but just because they can't help themselves and are trying to live doesn't mean its not immoral to also shoot them.

[M.2]

35 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

 

I have nothing to say, only that your reputation score kinda makes sense. It's completely as if I were typing into google translate. At least I tried.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I have nothing to say, only that your reputation score kinda makes sense. It's completely as if I were typing into google translate. At least I tried.

I think you were both talking past each other, i.e., you both were talking about two different things and therefore made little sense to each other.

It's an interesting debate, but I think you need to emphasize again your point is "who determines who is right" and "how do we know it is right" because I think that point's not being explicitly told and therefore without it you don't look like you're making valid claims but just moving the goal post.

Likewise @smarterthanone the idea I know Mishi's trying to communicate is that there is a problem of "who determines what's rightful NAP" and "who adjudicates what's NAP versus a violation of the NAP". 

I think you both ought to break it down to basics since the hypotheticals/real-word-examples have a lot of other variables attached to them that makes it easy to move the conversation away from the main point.

The main point is, I am sure: "What counts as NAP and who decides what counts and how do we prevent subjective preference from mutating NAP to fit their own vision of what it is?"

[smarterthanone]

On 12/24/2017 at 9:53 AM, Mishi2 said:

I have nothing to say, only that your reputation score kinda makes sense. It's completely as if I were typing into google translate. At least I tried.

If that is your understanding of Google Translate, I don't think it does what you think it does. 

[smarterthanone]

On 12/24/2017 at 1:43 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

I think you were both talking past each other, i.e., you both were talking about two different things and therefore made little sense to each other.

It's an interesting debate, but I think you need to emphasize again your point is "who determines who is right" and "how do we know it is right" because I think that point's not being explicitly told and therefore without it you don't look like you're making valid claims but just moving the goal post.

Likewise @smarterthanone the idea I know Mishi's trying to communicate is that there is a problem of "who determines what's rightful NAP" and "who adjudicates what's NAP versus a violation of the NAP". 

I think you both ought to break it down to basics since the hypotheticals/real-word-examples have a lot of other variables attached to them that makes it easy to move the conversation away from the main point.

The main point is, I am sure: "What counts as NAP and who decides what counts and how do we prevent subjective preference from mutating NAP to fit their own vision of what it is?"

It's a definition. You may not understand it and get confused or have your own take on it, it cannot change who initiated violence vs who responded in defense. There is an objective truth. If me and you are drunk and get in a fist fight, we may the next day have forgotten who threw the first punch but objectively one of us did throw a first punch, period. One of us must have. Even say neither of us is sure, I think you did, you think I did. Still, objectively one of us must have thrown the first punch. It just must be.

Why doesn't the NAP say we should punch people who have blue hair, we can initiate violence if they have blue hair. Well, this goes back to the biological reasons. NAP comes from biological reality. You know when maybe someone punched you in the face and you physically see red and punch them back? Well seeing someone with blue hair does not trigger that kind of response, so its not biologically reasonable and thus why its not a part of the NAP or morality. You may be offended or upset or even mad someone has blue hair if it really upsets your delicate sensibilities however that is not the same thing because you choose that response, its not universal and innate.

Hope that responds to your direction Siegfried.

[M.2]

16 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

If that is your understanding of Google Translate, I don't think it does what you think it does. 

I can't believe how thick you are. You have got to be a troll. But I will not treat you as one just yet, because I really want what is best for you, and therefore really want you to get this analogy because it is so damn clever and I don't want you to miss out even if you are monolingual peasant.

Google translate is notoriously bad at translation, and in fact usually the translation brings up something hilariously different from what was typed in,much like you do in responding to me. Get it? It's a running gag amongst us polyglots who can actually translate.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

1 hour ago, smarterthanone said:

It's a definition. You may not understand it and get confused or have your own take on it, it cannot change who initiated violence vs who responded in defense. There is an objective truth. If me and you are drunk and get in a fist fight, we may the next day have forgotten who threw the first punch but objectively one of us did throw a first punch, period. One of us must have. Even say neither of us is sure, I think you did, you think I did. Still, objectively one of us must have thrown the first punch. It just must be.

Agreed. Not complicated.

1 hour ago, smarterthanone said:

Why doesn't the NAP say we should punch people who have blue hair, we can initiate violence if they have blue hair. Well, this goes back to the biological reasons. NAP comes from biological reality. You know when maybe someone punched you in the face and you physically see red and punch them back? Well seeing someone with blue hair does not trigger that kind of response, so its not biologically reasonable and thus why its not a part of the NAP or morality. You may be offended or upset or even mad someone has blue hair if it really upsets your delicate sensibilities however that is not the same thing because you choose that response, its not universal and innate.

Hope that responds to your direction Siegfried.

The problem is this: biology can mutate. Man if fallible. Therefore relying on the general public to always (doesn't this require an always if we abandon the traditional court structure?) know the difference and react accordingly is bound to lead to trouble. A bar fight is very minor compared to political or child-rearing arguments constructed from a flawed misunderstanding of morality and the NAP. Therefore, I think, a priesthood is required to constantly study morality and get it as close to right and infallible as possible. Likewise a legal court (like DROs) are required but must be balanced by a priesthood otherwise subjective preference for THIS law set or THAT law set will most likely result in a lot of overlap and contradictions. Like if I want to blast my stereos loudly and my DRO is cool with that but half my neighbors' DROs aren't, who wins? Do we compromise and form separate neighborhoods? Do we settle it to a vote? (Then at this point morality is non-existent because numbers =/= truth) or do we tolerate the status quo? Or does one group of DROs cave to the other (which is again no longer an issue of morality)? 

Of course this is a minor non-morally challenging problem. What about bigger stuff like child beating? Spousal abuse? Property violations? Theft? It's easy to denounce murder and rape, but there is a lot less obvious stuff (heck who decides murder/rape is evil? By definition they are because by definition we cannot both want to do it and have it done unto us but what if my argument doesn't convince the jury or the jury ignores it?) and who holds the general public/law system accountable? I'd argue a priesthood is necessary and private individuals must monitor the priesthood like we would the DROs and CDAs (for anyone who doesn't get the acronyms; they are Dispute Resolution Organization (think private police) and Collective Defense Agencies (think mercenaries) respectively). 

I don't know if I got the final answer to @Mishi2's question but I think I at least have settle what it is society-wise. Personally is a different story since we might have disagreements and how do we know who is right? Like child beating is logically a violation of the NAP because they can't reason as well (if at all) as adults. But what about animals (for the same reason)? Doesn't hunting become immoral? Logically my answer is "no" because I believe in holding a universal standard for everyone and most/all animals regularly violate the NAP and therefore have no right to defense like a human who is lawful might. However if we keep going you might find a hole here.... how do we resolve it and get it right? Practically it's easy; morality is for people, savagery is for animals and that's it. But where do we draw the line where moral qualms stop and mere pragmatism begins... I don't think "is hunting moral" a big question, but failing to answer the small stuff could lead to justifying big stuff like ethnic cleansing or total wars...

[M.2]

On ‎2017‎. ‎12‎. ‎24‎. at 4:33 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

As a lapsed Catholic I think I am simply ignorant of what it actually meant. I apologize since I know I don't study enough of my own religion. I'd like to think I know the important parts but I find a lot of what I learn comes from the atheist Stefpai (who is awfully Christian in ethics).

That is truly alright. We are not protestant; we don't have to know everything, since we have the clergy for that. It is simply impossible for a layman to know everything there is to know about religion and phylosophy. A quality priest, say a Jesuit studies for about 15 years before they are fully annointed. They speak several languages, they read Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Canon Law, Doctrine, Summa, etc. I was forced by my environment to learn at an early age because my environment was entirely atheist, buddhist, or protestant, and so I had to polish my aguments with knowledge.

Quote

Presumably that's happening now. You, me, and whoever's reading. It also happened when we first started pursuing philosophy, self-knowledge, ethics, economics, etc. Even basic stuff like knowing how to tie our shoes, write, cook, chop wood, etc.
On a societal level, hard to say for sure since I think it's generally been a dedicated minority that's made the biggest changes not the majority. Like the American experiment began with a couple dozen guys who managed to convince a few hundred thousand to support them and eventually established a republic against the wills of millions.
But they didn't win solely based on their arguments. Sophists like Lenin also win. Other times guys without arguments but bigger swords.
I agree some kind of leadership class needs to be established. I think DRO's have potential as a Free Market legal system. The DRO that's the most effective will, in the long run, produce the best society. 

We shall see, won't we...
If however anarchy proves incapabale of functioning on a grand scale, then by its own logic it is immoral in someway that we don't see yet. Simply because if people don't prefer it, it cannot be preferable. If you still argue that it WOULD be preferable, then you are defeated by your own logic again, because you claim to know what is good for others.

Quote

Practically I agree with you. It does presume from a blank slate, which I think is reasonable from a moral and/or theoretical perspective. The next step is finding a way to make it happen. I figure the best case scenario is a revolution both martially and mentally, like the American revolution of 1776 as the rebirth of Roman Republicanism. Of course I can't say for sure how to actually make that happen now. But that's a whole other subject.

I know Mr.Molyneux says a bunch of times that it doesn't matter if it has existed yet or not, but I hardly disagree. In order to make a theory work, it must be tested first according to the scientific method. I also know he says we apply anarchy in our daily lives, but I find that intellectually dishonest, because that is not what he is talking about. There are a lot of thing that do not work in large scale, though they work in the small scale. There is a reason there is such a thing as macro and microeconomics.

Quote

Given the Roman Catholic Church is comprised of fallible individuals trying to check themselves as best they can to be as accurate as possible, I think an equivalent can (and must) be established for a secular equivalent to thrive. 

The church is not considered infallible because it was founded by men. All structures and ideas founded by men fail. Luther was not the first wise guy, as many protestants like to claim. Although I'm open to evidence to the contrary, so far only Islam has been standing up to the test, though only questionably, as they have disintegrated as soon as the prophet died.

Quote

1. You know I really want to take you up on that. My main concern is using skype (never done it before) and my environment (not exactly sound proof). But by God I had decided last year back when I was just becoming a man that I would have a real philosophical call with the great Stefbot. Perhaps if we can't figure out what's missing ourselves then a call is the best thing. I don't plan on doing it myself soon though, though if my circumstances change I'd be inclined to to do so. 

2. I think perhaps the Devil here is in the details. There are two possibilities: 1: We are misunderstanding Stefanist arguments. 2: We found a loophole.
Given I haven't heard anyone legitimately find a loophole that couldn't be corrected by simply reading/listening to Stefpai's books or a clarification of a possibly ambiguous statement, I am inclined to assume the first. Therefore I'm also inclined to review what we've spoken about (namely the problem of relying on subjective individuals to objectively determine for sure what's moral and impose it collectively on society) and see if either Stefpai has an answer for this or if this is even a problem (for example if he already intended for groups like DROs to be the police/priestly equivalent in determining what's moral, then it isn't up to the majority but the dedicated minority. Then it becomes a different argument. 

1. I don't know your situation, of course, but do notify me if you figure it out.

2. Eventually, all disagreements come down to values, supposing the debate is conducted correctly. And values are very often irrational, and that's ok, but you have to admit that. When however you come down to the values, there is when the debate is over. Because you cannot convince someone to surrender their values; they are fundementally integrated with what they consider right and wrong. I feel like (yes, feel) I have perhaps arrived at questioning the values Mr.Molyneux, and why he holds them. Paticularly why free will is important to respect. His answer so far is "because everyone else wants free will to be respected". My answer is "sure you say that, but that does not make it objectively right, no matter how you define RIGHT"; even if it is true that people want their free will respected, that is just like saying "Stalin was the best party secretary ever because 100% of people voted for him".