Recent comments

  • Guest's picture
    txabier7 (not verified) 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    Hi john: I do not agree with you that some criminals escape the consequences of their crimes. For me it is clear that we are in this life by the way, but that does not end here, and therefore we are to ascend and to descend, which is what we do when we cause harm to our fellow men. That is the inescapable consequence for every human being hurtful, knowing that he is doing.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    "Anything man does is part of nature. Including things contrary to his nature" How can part of nature be contrary to nature?
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    Now you write: "Consequences are not inescapable. but they are transferable from perpetrator to victim and govt action is one major organized method--capable of multiplying the effects and spreading the consequences to large numbers of people--witness the bank bailouts transferred to the tax payers." And here is your original statement which I have been disputing all along: "A man who swallows poison even if he has complete confidence it is vitamins *will become ill*. A man who aggresses against others will be distrusted, avoided, and probably made to repay his victims if some govt forces do not interfere. It may not be immediate or readily apparent but it is inescapable." Do you concede that your original statement said consequences to an individual aggressor were inescapable, like the consequences of eating poison? Do you concede that your original statement was incorrect?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    "Man is part of nature. He is subject to natural law. Anything man does is part of nature. Including things contrary to his nature [well being]." Animals commit actions that may lead to their death but are not known to deliberately commit suicide. Man is capable of doing just that. His volition that is part of his nature makes it possible for him to commit suicide. (Man is distinguished from animals by his faculty of reason and volition).
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    "Of course, neither I nor Spooner have any obligation to something that neither of us signed. But I did sign the Covenant voluntarily. Since you did not sign the Covenant I do not expect you to be bound by it." How are you bound by this supposed Covenant? Can you cite one thing it morally constrains you from doing that you were not already morally constrained from doing before signing? You've signed the document and I have not. You say you are bound by it and I am not. Can you cite any difference in our moral obligations or responsibilities to anyone based on the fact that you've signed and I have not?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    If I have not made the case for inescapable consequences it is because there is book that addresses this issue in a much more complete manner. I prefer to not retype the book here. "The free market is a product of the working of natural laws in the area of human relationships, specifically economic relationships". Consequences are not inescapable. but they are transferable from perpetrator to victim and govt action is one major organized method--capable of multiplying the effects and spreading the consequences to large numbers of people--witness the bank bailouts transferred to the tax payers.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 18 weeks ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    "Let's dispose of the notion, popular with Stephan Kinsella and his hangers-on, that goes like this: Copies of an electronic work are almost effortless to make; therefore they're worth nothing, and nobody need feel bad for taking one and flipping off the original author." Interestingly, has claimed protection of his IP on his web site. http://web.archive.org/web/20061121090001/http://www.no-treason.com/arch... http://web.archive.org/web/20061121052303/http://www.no-treason.com/arch... Even more interesting, as a lawyer it appears he has threatened legal violence on behalf of Lew Rockwell to secure Lew's IP rights. http://web.archive.org/web/20061121073431/http://www.no-treason.com/arch... Oh and I just took a look at the web site for the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, of which Kinsella is the director. http://c4sif.org/about/ The Center actively opposes IP yet oddly reserves some IP rights under it's Creative Commons license.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    You are right it is not appeal to authority. It is an appeal to ignorance. You deliberately refuse to read the book by your own admission but pretend to know what it says.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    Re: "Spooner is dead." and I'm [John] aware of that, but you cited him anyway. You pretended you knew what Spooner would think about the Covenant. You never explained why he would think that. Whereas I made reference to what Spooner actually wrote. Re: "What specific things did he write that are contrary to the Covenant?" Of course, neither I nor Spooner have any obligation to something that neither of us signed. But I did sign the Covenant voluntarily. Since you did not sign the Covenant I do not expect you to be bound by it. Not only did he not sign the Constituion but would not because he considered it the product of "the senseless work of ignorant or thoughtless men". That has nothing to do with the Covenant. As for me I do not presume to know whether he would have approved the Covenant or not. Re: Spooner would *never* say that Natural Law, the entire subject of Smith's supposed agreement, was not binding upon him because he had not signed it. How can you presume to say somebody would not sign something? How can you presume to know the subject of someones mind without citing something specific that they have written on that subject?
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    "If the consequences may not be immediately visible on the aggressor they certainly are on the victims." But of course that's nothing like the consequences to the individual of eating poison, is it? Here was your original statement I disputed: "A man who swallows poison even if he has complete confidence it is vitamins *will become ill*. A man who aggresses against others will be distrusted, avoided, and probably made to repay his victims if some govt forces do not interfere. It may not be immediate or readily apparent but it is inescapable." You were clearly speaking of inescapable consequences to the aggressor. That is precisely what I have contested all along. You can't defend your original assertion by writing as if I contested something else.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    "Regarding Mao and Stalin etc as being exempt from natural laws." No, no, no, that's not my claim. What I've disputed is your assertion of inescapable consequences for the individual. Casino's reap their profits based on the Law of Large Numbers which says that the average of the results obtained from a large number of bets should be close to the expected value. Of course the bets are designed so that the expected value favors the house. You can bank on this law, and Casino's do, but it does not not impose inescapable consequences on the individual. Some individuals come out ahead after betting against the house. Some come out ahead after placing many bets. Likewise some moral criminals escape consequences of their crimes in a way they could not escape the consequences for eating poison (your simile). "Man is part of nature. He is subject to natural law. Anything man does is part of nature. Including things contrary to his nature." This becomes an exercise in confusing different meanings of nature and natural law. If man's nature is defined as what he can do then obviously nothing he does is contrary to his nature. Physics is natural law and I doubt that anything we observe contradicts physics, so physics is inescapable. But this is not what is meant by Natural Law when speaking of morality.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    "If an evil person starts a forest fire, the sensible thing for a man of reason is to recognize the law of nature and protect himself from the consequences of that action (i.e. protect himself from the fire). " Evil people who start forest fires tend to do that too. "The world is on fire." Well that doesn't sound good for anybody, including the man of reason.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    "What negative moral responsibilities does John refer to?" Concisely, the responsibility to refrain from aggression: the NAP. It's not subject to agreement - everyone is morally constrained by the NAP regardless of agreement. "Spooner is dead." I'm aware of that, but you cited him anyway. "What specific things did he write that are contrary to the Covenant?" Spooner wrote: "“Lawmakers, as they call themselves, can add nothing to it, nor take anything from it. Therefore all their laws, as they call them, — that is, all the laws of their own making, — have no color of authority or obligation. It is a falsehood to call them laws; for there is nothing in them that either creates men’s duties or rights, or enlightens them as to their duties or rights. There is consequently nothing binding or obligatory about them. And nobody is bound to take the least notice of them, unless it be to trample them under foot, as usurpations. If they command men to do justice, they add nothing to men’s obligation to do it, or to any man’s right to enforce it. They are therefore mere idle wind, such as would be commands to consider the day as day, and the night as night. If they command or license any man to do injustice, they are criminal on their face. If they command any man to do anything which justice does not require him to do, they are simple, naked usurpations and tyrannies. If they forbid any man to do anything, which justice could permit him to do, they are criminal invasions of his natural and rightful liberty. In whatever light, therefore, they are viewed, they are utterly destitute of everything like authority or obligation. They are all necessarily either the impudent, fraudulent, and criminal usurpations of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, or the senseless work of ignorant or thoughtless men, who do not know, or certainly do not realize, what they are doing. “ From: http://lysanderspooner.org/node/62 This was addressing legislation but it applies well to this supposed covenant. After all, legislation is supposed to be binding as a consequence of agreement. Spooner would say that a supposed agreement to do what you are already morally bound to do as "mere idle wind" and "the senseless work of ignorant or thoughtless men, who do not know, or certainly do not realize, what they are doing". "Spooner objected to the Constitution because he did not sign it. His objection was anything he did not sign he had no obligation to." That wasn't his only objection, not by a country mile! You can find a more comprehensive list of his objection here: http://jim.com/treason.htm Spooner would *never* say that Natural Law, the entire subject of Smith's supposed agreement, was not binding upon him because he had not signed it. "The Covenant is something *I* signed if I agree with it and overcomes that. " There are different senses of the word "agree". You and I may agree that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Upon this matter then we may be said to be in agreement. We may even sign declarations that we recognize that the Earth revolves around the Sun. But none of this would constitute an agreement in the sense of a covenant or a contract, none of it would impose the slightest obligation upon either of us. A proper contract or covenant produces new obligations that have been agreed upon. So when you style the NAP as a covenant it strongly implies that principles therein are the product of agreement. But they are not the product of agreement, so this is a terrible idea.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    If an evil person starts a forest fire, the sensible thing for a man of reason is to recognize the law of nature and protect himself from the consequences of that action (i.e. protect himself from the fire). The world is on fire.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    Natural law has consequences. It will either be paid by the perpetrator or his victims. Regarding Mao and Stalin etc as being exempt from natural laws. Not so. Even if Stalin personally escaped some of the consequences they were never the less transferred to others. His victims were not necessarily innocent. Man is part of nature. He is subject to natural law. Anything man does is part of nature. Including things contrary to his nature. An animal cannot do anything against his own nature without suffering the consequences which is usually pain or death.. A man who does something against his nature will suffer consequences. ( a rabid dog can only infect those who he comes into contact with) Man being a higher level animal the consequences of what he does may affect other animals. (Man can infect inflict consequences on people who do not even know of his existence.) Illustration of this is. Man is capable of creating and exploding small bomb, medium sized bomb and atomic bomb. Consequences of each, effect people within the radius of the bomb explosion. Same is true with Govt. As a rabid dog will effect many victims before his death so it is with an evil human being, effect more than just himself. The person who does not kill a rabid dog allows evil by inaction to multiply. Man is capable of more evil than one man can pay the price. The consequences of that evil are inescapable in that they are propagated and spread out to those who sanction victim hood... People who allow mad dogs or tyrants to exist become victims themselves of their own refusal to deal with reality in a sensible and rational manner. If you allow a tyrant to exist then by natural law you will suffer the consequences of such. Some of us are protecting ourselves as best as we can.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    John: You [AtlasAikido] said the consequences of aggression were inescapable, like the consequences of eating poison. This is the assertion I've contested, because it's pretty obviously not true. "I [AtlasAikido] never said there was a perfect system nor a utopia..." If the consequences may not be immediately visible on the aggressor they certainly are on the victims. Again: Not envisioning a "Utopia" in which no man tries to victimize another. As long as men are human, they will be free to choose to act in an irrational and immoral manner against their fellows and there will always be some who act as brutes, inflicting their will on others by force. What the Tannehill's and I am proposing is a system for dealing with such which is far superior to the past and present govermental ones--*a system which makes the violation of human liberty far more difficult and less rewarding for all who want to live as brutes and downright impossible for those who want to be politicians!!* Again: Nor am I proposing a "Perfect" society (what ever that is).. Men are fallible so mistakes will always be made and there will never be a society of total equity. Under the present and past governmental systems however, blunders and aggressive intrusions into the lives of peaceful individuals tend to feed on themselves and to grow automatically so that what starts off as a small injustice (small tax, regulation, bureau etc ) inevitably becomes *a Colossus with Monsters* in charge.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    "Put the ball back in his court. *Ask him--as an individual--what he would do*. " without roping me into his solution as an involuntary slave." 99% will respond that they are perfectly comfortable doing what you characterize as roping you into their solution as an involuntary slave. They'll say they're not making you an involuntary slave because you're free to leave. "Natural law never went away those who ignore it will (are) continuing to experience the consequence as witnessed the slow motion collapse of all the western financial systems." Yes, but unfortunately those who do *not* ignore it *also* continue to experience the very same consequences. Recognizing Natural Law and acting in accordance with it does not profit the individual in this respect. Since it does not profit the individual in this respect the consequences you cite offer negligible incentive for those who are biased against Natural Law to overcome their bias.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    "Put the ball back in his court. *Ask him--as an individual--what he would do*. " without roping me into his solution as an involuntary slave. John asked the question of Suverans2. "I'm very comfortable with natural law, as were the American Founders but how do you propose to bring it back in fashion?" Natural law never went away those who ignore it will (are) continuing to experience the consequence as witnessed the slow motion collapse of all the western financial systems.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    What negative moral responsibilities does John refer to? Spooner is dead. What specific things did he write that are contrary to the Covenant? I can't speak for Spooner only quote what he has written. Spooner objected to the Constitution because he did not sign it. His objection was anything he did not sign he had no obligation to. The Covenant is something *I* signed if I agree with it and overcomes that. When I signed it no one viewed it the way John portrays nor anyone I know. Spooner himself objected to something he not sign. And signatories do not necessarily expect others to be bound by something they did not sign.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 18 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    "Whether rights are violated or not does not matter in our view of what must be." I am baffled by this statement that stands completely unsupported in this article. Any action which doesn't violate rights is morally permissible. Any action which violates rights is not morally permissible. That certainly matters in my view of what ought to be. I've read Nozick's argument for a voluntary government and find that it simply fails and all such arguments fail in principle.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    "In addition: In a revolution of the individual, “we” questions should not be answered. " I hear you. "Put the ball back in their court. *Ask them what they would do*. " Odd, that sounds like a prescription for what *we* should do. "Human interaction is purely voluntary." It ought to be. If you're really saying it already is then I guess you think we already have a voluntary society. "I know there is one crucial step that has to be taken before humans are physically free, and that step is to be mentally free. If it will be their decision in a voluntary society, it must be their decision now." Yet sadly 99%+ have chosen otherwise. So now what?
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 18 weeks ago Page John deLaubenfels
    "It may well be the case (as time goes by I'm more and more convinced it IS the case) that any government will, over time, grow and encroach on basic rights, until it no more secures rights than a thief in an alley does. It is perfectly reasonable to question the practicality of trying to bring to pass a minarchist's dream of the best possible society." I'd like to hear how any government can act as a government at all without violating basic rights. I can certainly see how someone could fear that anarchy will not produce a stable society, but I cannot see how that fear could ever justify collaboration in the violation of rights - and such collaboration is inherent in government. You can't have minarchy without holding a gun to the heads of innocent people and your misgivings about anachy cannot justify that.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    My concept of universality does not come from Stefan's UPB, but rather from along these lines: http://strike-the-root.com/all-men-are-created-equal
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    I should also clarify: Religion is a subset of superstition. Religion is superstition but I wouldn't say all superstition qualifies as religion.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    Okay, I've just read Smith's proposed covenant and I find that it is not a proper covenant at all. It explicitly styles itself as an agreement yet it outlines only negative moral responsibilities which all men share regardless of any agreement. Spooner would reject this document out of hand. He would observe it is absurd to agree to act justly since such supposed agreement neither adds anything to nor subtracts anything from an individual's moral obligations. To declare the the moral principles on recognizes is of course fine, but to frame this as an agreement is a terrible idea. To even craft such a supposed agreement is highly misleading since it quite naturally creates the false impression that only signatories are morally bound by these negative moral responsibilities when in fact all men are so bound to any valid moral obligation identified in the document whether they sign or not.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    Well put and agreed Suverans2, In addition: In a revolution of the individual, “we” questions should not be answered. Put the ball back in their court. *Ask them what they would do*. Human interaction is purely voluntary. *It is important to let the ones asking the questions find their own solutions, or what they think might be solutions*. I know there is one crucial step that has to be taken before humans are physically free, and that step is to be mentally free. If it will be their decision in a voluntary society, it must be their decision now.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    Thank you, John T. Kennedy, that makes perfect sense.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    Thank you, John T. Kennedy, that makes perfect sense.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    Hi suverans2, This whole religion thing reminds me of those who resolved to AVOID the water until he had learned to swim. If men are to wait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery they may indeed wait for ever. I live with individuals in an UNfree world. Most of them like me were born into slavery and most will die slaves and we have many who still think as slaves here on this thread. There are some who I can have relationships with and do, in a division of labor society now remnant. Can I have a relationship with someone whilst they sort there mind out? Yes I can. This Objectivist thing that one cannot have an inter-relationship with those--religious etc--until they have their mind so-called straightened out from first causes and principles is false. I care about how I act and how you act. That's it. I know how I am going to act and announce that via the Covenant and so forth. I do not know how you are going to act.The Covenant solves this issue and others (within human reason). But it brings things into first contact, direct alternatives etc... I have found those who embrace religion--or no religion--who will sign it. And those who have embraced Govt religion (your words perhaps) or Govt superstition (my words), and those who will not embrace it. One person's love of the "We" or Govt did not manifest until much later. But it is the reason he would not sign it. He was in this case a racist but did not want to show it. Covenant is a great way to work things out...see things...identify consequences. Superstition encompasses religion. And it is practiced by many atheists and Objectivists! The Most Dangerous Superstition [is Govt] Larken Rose makes this connection. You could think of it as a religion and speak write of it that way but I have met religious people and I am sure you have too who are much like tanhadron. I think *tanhadron, exhibits/evidenced tolerance of others, composure, benevolence and lots of practical sense that too many so called non-religious folk do not manifest. I think it is because he has NOT bought into the Government Superstition although he may believe in a religion/higher power and call it something other than nature. But the Covenant would be a good place to start to make it explicit with him and me. Best regards my Dear Friend and good day to you!
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    @Suverans2 "Not sure I understand the difference between Superstition and Religion..." The difference is the degree of success in marketing.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    I didn't switch any discussion here to religion, I responded to comments about religion. You can look it up. However, response to an article about Natural Law I see nothing wrong with exploring the supposed foundations of such law. Surely you can't think that when Natural Law is asserted we are bound to simply accept it without argument? One supposed source of Natural Law is God, and in exploring that possibility I see nothing wrong with disputing the existence of God. But I'm glad to see that thread police are keeping an eye on things.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 18 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I didn't "like" this, John T. Kennedy, because I think you are right. A vast majority of individuals have become so dependent on government that they no longer have any confidence in their own power to solve problems. And, I believe history also proves out what you wrote.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    G'Day AtlasAikido, Not sure I understand the difference between Superstition and Religion, especially after reading this, "Quick definition" from WordNet (superstition) ▸ noun: an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear". Sounds like a good definition of Religion, as well. And, I'm sure everyone here will understand why I particularly like this definition of Superstition from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language; "A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance."
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 18 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    There are many people who want different government, far less than 1% desire no government. As the economy breaks down people will call for more government.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    I wasn't accusing you of not being true to yourself, John T. Kennedy, merely trying to condense what AtlasAikido had just posted. Sorry for the confusion. I try to speak only for myself, because I can't change the world, I can only change my world. And, I truly believe, after much study, that, as self-owners, we have the natural right to choose our jurisdiction, when we are willing to assume responsibility for our own survival, (though we may not be consciously aware that we are choosing). Albeit ignorantly, virtually all of us choose to be members of one man-made jurisdiction, or another. I say "choose", because experience has shown that even when it is made known to men that they (individually) have a choice, that each of us has the innate authority to withdraw from membership in a corporate body, instead of choosing to do so, we make excuses why we can't. This not to say that it will be easy explaining that we have chosen to be under the natural law (of man), instead of the arbitrary and capricious laws of man-made religions and governments.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 18 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    That is normally so. But, these are not normal times. An awful lot of people are already losing their faith in government, and that trend will continue as government is seen as more incompetent and unreasonable, and as it ruins the economy. But you are making my point, really. That's why I say "stop evangelizing freedom". We don't have to convert people into freedom lovers. We just need to get them to tolerate freedom lovers, a much smaller job. Most people are naturally tolerant. It takes a lot of indoctrination to make them act otherwise (e.g. in the voting booth), and that indoctrination is pretty fragile these days.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 18 weeks ago Page tzo
    Meaning no disrespect, John T. Kennedy; being "comfortable with natural law", and actively choosing it as our own, as I am sure you are aware, are two entirely different animals.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 19 weeks ago Page tzo
    "I never said there was a perfect system nor a utopia..." You said the consequences of aggression were inescapable, like the consequences of eating poison. This is the assertion I've contested, because it's pretty obviously not true. "I never said there was a perfect system..." Inescapable moral consequences would comprise a perfect system in a very real sense. "It is sad that you have come this far and show all the hall marks evidenced here of appeal to authority and social metaphysics." Where have I appealed to authority?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Page tzo
    I care not what a person's religion is or faith. Only the interpersonal relationship I and that person have as it relates to the four precepts and specifically the fifth as it relates to religion in the Covenant Of Unanimous Consent . Equality of Liberty FIFTH, that we shall maintain these Principles without Respect to any person's Race, Nationality, Gender, sexual Preference, Age, or System of Beliefs, and hold that any Entity or Association, however constituted, acting to contravene them by initiation of Force -- or Threat of same -- shall have forfeited its Right to exist; There are Atheists who still believe in govt and religionists who do not. It makes more sense to use the statement Govt Superstition than Govt Religion.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Page tzo
    Govt introduces chaos where there is none. This simple point seems to allude you. Perhaps your time would be better served reading what you clearly are out of touch with. And this includes your inability to read what is in front of you: I never said there was a perfect system nor a utopia but I do point to one that is far superior than what we have--a free market system and I supply reasons. You started off with Stalin, and Mao and now you're onto Churchill and Eisenhower. Again Govt introduces chaos where there is none! Frankly you could have read the parts that you are clearly out of touch with the first time I brought it up. John, I am not Morpheus and you are clearly not Neo. Apparently you have a problem opening a book let alone a door to self-knowledge. I am so impressed that you know Murphy --too bad that's as far as it goes because I see no similarity other than you are friends. It is sad that you have come this far and show all the hall marks evidenced here of appeal to authority and social metaphysics.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 19 weeks ago Page tzo
    I am true my myself. I've discovered that it doesn't change the world. I do not aggress against other individuals yet I observe that aggression remains almost universally popular, even among people who know me well. So?
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 3 years 19 weeks ago Page tzo
    "If you mean karma as a euphemism for the consequences of natural laws? Not sure why you use karma when talking about natural laws (laws of identity and causality)?" I use the word karma because you're asserting that the free market is an inescapable mechanism for balancing the scales of justice, functionally the same as the Indian concept of karma or the christian concept of judgement/afterlife. Free markets are wonderful but they are not a perfect mechanism for balancing the scales of justice. "The whole point is the difference between market freedom and government slavery. Is individual consequences interfered with in the case of government? Clearly yes to your point with Stalin and Mao. I pointed out that only govt and a belief in govt could make that possible. Although Stalin and Mao were clearly unfree. And that I do not doubt they suffered the personal consequences of being psychopaths even though they may not have seen themselves as such." Forget Stalin and Mao for a moment and consider Western heroes such as Eisenhower and Churchill. Or any popular president will do, say Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. All of these men are moral criminals yet they have public honors heaped upon them and hardly anyone considers them psychopaths. Do you suppose these people lived in shame or fear as a result of their moral crimes? History seems to show that they were prod of many of these crimes and revered for them. To say that this is only so because government interferes with your inescapable moral mechanism is only to admit the mechanism is not inescapable, which is my point. But put government aside. Suppose a man's son needs an expensive operation to save his life. The man cannot afford it. He robs a bank to pay for it. Because he is smart and or lucky he gets away with the robbery leaving no clues, pays for the operation and his son lives. Now the man may feel guilty about robbing the bank and he may feel some apprehension that he could someday be caught, but there is no reason in principle why he cannot happily bear those costs in return for his son's life. He committed a moral crime and yet may still profit from it. Where is the inescapable justice? "Perhaps you don't read online pdfs. There is also a free audio at Mises.org for "Market For Liberty" and Robert Murphy wrote "Chaos Theory" which is also free." I'm fully aware of the literature. I'm aware of the Tannehills, but have not read them. I may read them someday but I'm pretty sure I know the gist of what's in it. I've known Bob Murphy for ten years, in fact he was a contributor to my web site: http://web.archive.org/web/20050817134418/http://www.no-treason.com/Murphy/
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Page tzo
    To add and clarify: Even a person with a normally calibrated moral compass (a non-sociopath) often *cannot see through clouds of propaganda that have been spewed over police officers and politicians and soldiers*. The answer is, quite simply, that the defense of people’s lives and property is a job just like any other, and it ought to be provided on the free market just like every other good and service by people who are held to exactly the same moral standards as the rest of the civilized world. The uneasiness that the *normal person* feels when confronted with the existence of a group of fat blue-polyester-clad thugs who are not bound by normal moral standards is completely understandable and justified. There is no need for these thugs at all, and there is definitely no justification for exempting them from the moral standards we hold every other person to! --The provision of bread and chairs and computers does not require exempting anyone from moral standards, or empowering them to beat people up and order them around. All that is required is to open the door to competition, and people fall over backwards trying to please customers in their quest to make money. The same is just as true of defense services, which can and ought to be opened to competition between private providers so that consumers of these services can choose what kinds of defense services they want to purchase. In that case, the providers of the services can be held to exactly the same moral standards as everyone else. Their sole purpose would be to protect their customers’ lives and property – not to enforce arbitrary and unjust rules (laws) written by rich politicians on unwilling strangers. See: The Horrific Life of the Police Officer http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli58.1.html
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Page tzo
    And strayed right back on topic I see with a piece on custom/common law, statute law etc
  • Chaeros Galt's picture
    Chaeros Galt 3 years 19 weeks ago Page tzo
    Excellent answer, by far the best ando most concise, accordin to my understanding!!! Thanks Suverans2
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 19 weeks ago Page tzo
    G'day Sam, To take what you 'said' one step further, Statism IS a religion! "…in modern society, with its religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity, it would be much harder for any single group to demand allegiance — except for the state, which remains the one universally accepted god." ~ Roderick T. Long, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill http://anarchyinyourhead.com/comics/2009-08-10-ticket_for_swearing.png
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 19 weeks ago Page tzo
    G'day AtlasAikido, Actually, what I said as, "we stray", meaning I too was guilty of straying.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 19 weeks ago Page tzo
    G'day John T. Kennedy, I think what AtlasAikido was saying is, fashion be damned, be true to yourself, "be the change you wish to see in the world". Those with ears to hear, and eyes to see, will hearken and understand.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Page tzo
    The following gets one out of the "We" and into the "I" (See a prior post). And it gets one out of caring if someone is Buddist or Catholic or atheist. agnostic, deist, religionist etc etc.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent....A Proposal... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... Galt’s Oath and the libertarian Non Aggression Principle (NAP/ZAP) are moral/ethical principles. The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a political statement of *interpersonal relationships* based on those moral principles. The Covenant satisfies the objections noted by Lysander Spooner. Instead of being a document that describes how the government shall act, and a document YOU did not sign, the Covenant is a document that describes how YOU will act and is a document that YOU voluntarily sign, if you agree. Those who do not sign (the “dissenters” mentioned by Ayn Rand above) are not punished, they are simply and clearly warned what to expect if they violate the rights of Signatories. (Unlike the U.S. Constitution--which was created by a committee of Lawyers to replace the (much better) Articles of Confederation, while both Jefferson and Adams were in Europe--the Covenant actually FULFILLS the promise of individual freedom in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. The Covenant is simple, rational, personal, easy to understand and even short enough to memorize). Excerpts: How the Covenant of Unanimous Consent fulfills the promise of Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle381-20060820-04.html While I do agree with Nathanial Branden's First Causes--that he wrote and which Rand edited on infinite regress and reversing existence with causality regarding the question of the existence of a big ghost in heaven--It is a non-issue if one shows them self to be a signatory of the Covenant.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Page tzo
    Regarding 'This has been advocated by religionists who claim "As ye sow, so shall ye reap"; by Ayn Rand who claims that rationality provides survival; by Intelligent Designers who refer to teleological explanations; and by others such as poets'. I am not focused on "what a so called stellar list of authorities" Allen refers to. It does not matter. If an atheist. agnostic, religionist poet said it. But I will answer in this way: For years men with plans to improve society--atheist. agnostic, deist, religionist, poets--have debated the merits and demerits of various kinds and amounts of govt, and they have argued long and and heatedly over how much freedom was desirable or necessary to provide the needs of man's life. *But very few of them tried to clearly identify the Nature of government, the Nature of freedom, and even the Nature of man*. Consequently their social schemes have not been in accordance with reality and their "solutions" to human ills have been little more than erudite fantasies. Neither the futile and shop worn panaceas of The Establishment nor the "God and country" fervor of the Right, nor the angry peace marches of the Left can build a better society *if men do not have a clear, reality based, non-contradictory idea of what a better society is. If we don't know where we are going we won't get there*. It is the aim of the following book to show where we are (or should be) going. Here is a book review Freedom, Naturally Mises Daily: Thursday, May 26, 2011 by Joel Bowman http://mises.org/daily/5305/ Freedom-Naturally