Anarchist Stuff

[guerilla]

Living purely by ethics = living rationally?

Are you trying to argue with me that your an ethical nihilist capable of acting rationally?

If so, I will yield the point that you don't believe in any ethics at all.

Life really works like this? In complete absolutes?

I think you mean "reality" when you say "life". Is reality objective? Am I really at my computer, and not also in China at the same time. Is an apple different and distinct from an orange?

I'd say reality is objective, how we feel about it is subjective.

Or does it work more like balancing a scale and choosing the lesser of two evils?

That's a value judgement. I prefer to abstain rather than choose evil. I think that is the only ethical choice.

It's also a false premise that there are only two choices. There is always the ethical choice of withdrawing, seceding, abstaining etc.

Were the statists not eventually spurred to action from the horrors they saw? But surely statists did not understand right or wrong since they were willing to live under the state?

What horrors? Sounds like a movie narrative.

People understand right and wrong. They tend to look the other way when doing wrong is profitable or has little to no consequences.

Really? Interesting. So man developed "values" and this is what set him apart from animals?

Man doesn't develop values, he has values, and he is able to pursue them rationally. THIS is what makes him different than an animal.

I thought the simple difference was consciousness, anything past that is purely speculation.

It's not speculation. The whole of the social sciences are devoted to understanding this.

Also, what is consciousness? Aren't animals conscious? If so, how is it a differentiating factor?

Take a second and look what happened to the indians. Their tribes were picked off one by one. People have a tendency to care locally.

You're making the anarchist argument here.

Like I said, playing the devils advocate to attack your tact.

I don't have a problem with you playing the devil or his advocate, but shallow stuff like this doesn't allow me to lay out an exposition for other readers. It would be helpful if at the minimum, you spent some time thinking through some good arguments, or researching the topic before challenging the subject.

What I am saying, is that a good devil's advocate is better than a mediocre one.

It's fun to argue with absolutes, but is that how humans make decisions?

Well, we live in reality, which is objectively there, and has objective attributes.

Humans make decisions rationally, their subjective ends drive them to derive means from their knowledge, upon which they act.

Bad information, bad means. Bad means, ends might not get achieved. And ends, well, ethics plays a part in both the means and ends.

Should it be?

Should is an "ought". I don't argue "oughts". Values are subjective from person to person.

I am more concerned that people align their values with reality, so they can achieve those values.

Guerilla, you seem to be stating choosing to live purely by ethical values is living rationally, anything else is irrational behavior.

That's incorrect.

You can't live rationally without ethics. As stated up thread, I use rational in the Praxeological sense, not as laymen do. Laymen use rational and irrational to mean right and wrong. A better use might be "by design", "absent design".

You currently live in the state and therefore support the state.

The state threatens me and those I love with force if we don't comply. I don't support the state anymore than slaves supported slavery or rape victims support rape.

Your ethics tell you this is wrong. What keeps you here?

The entire world has states all over it. And changing states isn't easy.

Most of you guys don't have a clue who I am. Playing the "let's talk about you personally game" is lame and doesn't make your argument. Even if I was a hypocrite, that doesn't validate your position. On the contrary, you look like a very small person for trying to insinuate something about my values.

Did you not make ethics a secondary concern when making this decision?

lol, you need to read back to a proper definition of rational/irrational as posted above. You're arguing nonsense at this point. In fact, realizing you don't have solid definitions of these terms, or a conception of the definition I am using, your entire post needs a rethink.

Which brings me to why I argued to have you focus more on people's issues with security (or focusing on whatever people's issues may be). If we agree people make decisions based off choosing the lesser of two evils in a given situation, rather then absolutes, then we must attack what makes our side of the scale lower in the eyes of those we wish to influence - whatever this may be for whoever we may wish to influence.

Already addressed above. Please come back more when you have a better argument.

In the meantime, I want to ask you

Do you believe in right and wrong? I presume you do, because you mentioned lesser evil, but just to be clear, is there a right and a wrong?

Can you explain why something is right and something is wrong?

Now we're talking about ethics.

 

[Moxie]

Man doesn't develop values, he has values, and he is able to pursue them rationally. THIS is what makes him different than an animal.

Humans are born with a "mathematical brain", but it still needs to be cultivated. Feral children and those raised in highly abusive environments tend to have different values than the rest.

Cavemen brains and their sense of values were quite a bit different than today's human. So I would say that man does/did develop values, both on an individual basis and also as a species.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk]Frans de Waal: Moral behavior in animals - YouTube[/ame]



Evolution of morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[guerilla]

Values != Morals != Ethics.

We sloppily conflate these, but they are all separate ideas.

 

[guerilla]

Doug Casey is one of the foremost anarcho-capitalist businessmen. I am a big fan personally, I think he has figured out that being a cult leader is far less awesome than being rich.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w11jxc8WhR4]Doug Casey on how to Hedge Against Political Risk in the Greater Depression - YouTube[/ame]


I also featured one of his talks (@ Libertopia) in the OP.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Man doesn't develop values, he has values, and he is able to pursue them rationally. THIS is what makes him different than an animal.

Few things:

1.) Of course man develops values. You even said yourself that humans have "evolved" over the past century, meaning human values have developed, right? When a baby is born, they don't have any values. They develop their values over the course of their life, depending on their experiences.

2.) You're the big stickler for definitions, so humans haven't "evolved" like you mentioned before. We've learned and adapted. Humans evolving would require us to be able to see in the dark better, or something like us being able to live on this planet without having to build houses with furnaces and air conditioners. In reality, we're one of the poorest evolving species on the planet, and the only reason we're not extinct is because of our massive brains. We can adapt to our environment like no other species can.

3.) There's various things that separate humans from other species, such as forward thinking, ability to walk upright, and probably the most important, the ability to clearly communicate ideas to each other.

 

[cheeseman]

I have ears and I hear.

Thanks for the info guerilla, luke and others.

 

[guerilla]

 

[guerilla]

From one of the truly great Americans, Lysander Spooner (No Treason)

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit.

He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travelers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these.

Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands.

He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

 

[tomaszjot]

I've got another question. Again, quite personal.

How is a anarchist parent different from non-anarchist parent? I'm not thinking about passing your views or ideology, that is understood. I think about your views about child using drugs and whatever child may consider its personal freedom etc.

 

[guerilla]

I've got another question. Again, quite personal.

How is a anarchist parent different from non-anarchist parent? I'm not thinking about passing your views or ideology, that is understood. I think about your views about child using drugs and whatever child may consider its personal freedom etc.

There is a peaceful parenting movement within the broader voluntarist or anarcho-capitalist movement.

It's about talking to your kids before they do drugs or having sex or whatever, and creating an environment where they can talk to you about the choices they are making (and mistakes they make) instead of doing it in secrecy or shame.

Children are just little people with superior morals to adults. I don't have kids, but if I did, I would have to treat them with the same dignity I expect from them.

It really comes down to thinking about the role of the parent. Your job isn't to control your children, it's to teach them how to protect themselves. You can't do that if you exercise violence against them. You're hurting them to keep them from getting hurt, another classic contradiction.

 

[guerilla]

I just wanted to say, a lot of people growing up to be fucked up adults, starts with child abuse.

Child abuse is the dirty little secret in our society. No one is supposed to talk about it. No one is supposed to criticize it specifically or too loudly. You won't see it on TV. It's almost never shown in detail in movies.

We can save the whales, we can fight global warming, but we just can't seem to stop emotionally and physically (when we're not sexually) abusing our children.

I think Marc Stevens calls this sort of thing residual tyranny. It's passed down. You beat your kids, your kids beat their kids, their kids beat their kids. Everyone grows up damaged.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Children are just little people with superior morals to adults.

That is a profoundly ignorant generalization.

We can save the whales, we can fight global warming, but we just can't seem to stop emotionally and physically (when we're not sexually) abusing our children.

Yet you support the right of people to look at child porn:

That said, there is nothing inherently wrong at looking at kiddie porn.

You even argue that little children can consent to sex with adults, so really your whole view on this is a little warped to say the least.

 

[guerilla]

I have brought up Marc Stevens a couple times. He's been a pretty big influence on me, he is a Lysander Spooner inspired Voluntarist, which is different from most of the Austrian Ancaps inspired by Rothbard.

This video is pretty powerful stuff if you take the time to really listen to what he is saying.




He has a great book, Adventures in Legal Land, you have to order it directly from him. I can't recommend this book enough. He's not a professional author, but he does a fantastic job of deconstructing the "law" and demonstrates some ways to avoid legal trouble.

Last year, one of the guys @WF ran into trouble in Arizona. I PM'd him to get in contact with Marc who is also in AZ, and he PM'd me back months later thanking me for pushing him that way. I don't remember how it worked out, but the guy was happy with how things were going.

 

[guerilla]

Also, for all 3 of my fans, my argument style, specifically the WF-inside joke "define" is loosely based off Stevens' style of argument in court.

You get the other guy to admit or define his position thereby invalidating it.

If I say someone is wrong, then no one cares. If they say they are wrong, it's hard for them to argue with that.

This doesn't work with trolls (just put them on ignore), but it works great with people who want to debate sincerely.

 

[guerilla]

 

[guerilla]

Did anyone actually watch this video, or buy his book?

If you didn't, you're missing out.

I have brought up Marc Stevens a couple times. He's been a pretty big influence on me, he is a Lysander Spooner inspired Voluntarist, which is different from most of the Austrian Ancaps inspired by Rothbard.

This video is pretty powerful stuff if you take the time to really listen to what he is saying.




He has a great book, Adventures in Legal Land, you have to order it directly from him. I can't recommend this book enough. He's not a professional author, but he does a fantastic job of deconstructing the "law" and demonstrates some ways to avoid legal trouble.

Last year, one of the guys @WF ran into trouble in Arizona. I PM'd him to get in contact with Marc who is also in AZ, and he PM'd me back months later thanking me for pushing him that way. I don't remember how it worked out, but the guy was happy with how things were going.

 

[crackp0t]

You get the other guy to admit or define his position thereby invalidating it.

If I say someone is wrong, then no one cares. If they say they are wrong, it's hard for them to argue with that.

I love arguing like that in real life, because it's the easiest way to when an argument and it pisses people off. It's much harder to do on the internet, but I like how you pull it off.

 

[charlesmartel]

Did anyone actually watch this video, or buy his book?

If you didn't, you're missing out.

Fascinating guy. I checked out some of his other videos on Youtube. I'm buying his book.

 

[guerilla]

Fascinating guy. I checked out some of his other videos on Youtube. I'm buying his book.

You'll never see law and the courts the same way again.

 

[guerilla]

I love this one, it is brilliant.