Recent comments

Of course, S2, individuals are free to believe any kind of nonsense they like. If they wish, they can solemnly believe that the Earth is flat. Why not? - religion, being irrational, needs no link to reality. They can even believe that government is necessary or beneficial, despite the mountain of reasoned evidence to the contrary. The universe may or may not have had a beginning; the evidence (AFAIK) isn't in. But if some Flat Earther at the same time urges someone else to reject faith in government on the correct grounds that it's irrational, he can and will be discredited and dismissed as incredible and inconsistent. That was the point of my article. I hope that was clear, and don't regard it as a game to be played. Or not played.

Any time you truck your truck to the North East, Sam, let me know and we'll share a jar. I have this curious feeling that you are not just an ordinary trucker :-)

Was there a "beginning"? How do you know?

G'day JD, Do you really consider it "reasonable" to believe that your concept of a "free society" is "going [to go] viral" in your lifetime?

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but, do you think I was saying you called me a "mass murderer?" Really, I'm seriously asking, since that *inference* (Allen=mass murder[er]) was obviously made from the example argument I posted above, *not* in our previous encounter. The "believer" above didn't come out and say "Allen = mass murderer," but what other conclusion can I draw from his argument? Making such an inference is a common process within rational discussion. It was the process of making an inference that I was referring to when I said "the kind of statement you (S2) desired of me..." regarding our back-and-forth over on Paul's thread. I *inferred* a conclusion from what you said, thus I cannot "cut and paste" you making that conclusion yourself. I think I was fairly clear about that and even invited you to clarify what you meant *if* my conclusion missed the mark. I left the possibility open as to my missing the mark. So far, you declined the invitation to show me if and how my inference was unsound. Instead it seems you've become hostile toward me, considering me dishonest for making an inference even while I asked you if it was accurate. Perhaps it will help us if (if you desire to continue) if you assume "good faith" toward me, even if it means you assume that I'm a dullard, though a persistent dullard. Heck, I've been considered worse, and even on par with a mass-murderer given how some believers view us non-believers in God as traveling the road to human toward human slaughter . Picture me as a dullard who really wants to understand you (and I do), rather than becoming increasingly defensive at some imagined "ridicule," or "dishonesty" on my part.

If you were directing this at me, you need to get your "noggin" in better working order, my friend, because this accusation, "...Allen=mass murder , the kind of statement you desired of me in the other thread...", once again, is absolutely, completely and totally absurd! Where do you get these cockamamie notions, anyway, Allen?

Did I miss something? Was there some ridicule going on?

Perhaps, Tzo, yes. The trouble is that there are, I understand, more than 4,000 religions some of which have multiple gods, so it's impossible to discuss either subject until some crisp definitions are offered. Above, I was assuming that since most readers will have some familiarity with Christianity, I could validly use for illustration some of the alleged attributes of that god. Attributes, however, fall far short of a definition in any case. What is, I hope, abundantly obvious is that (absent such a definition and proof of existence) _all_ such religions are superstitious nonsense with no roots in reality. Yes, I'd say that to believe in illogical entities is certainly a sign of an irrational mind; though not, I hope, of one beyond hope of rescue. None of this is to be confused, of course, with a sense of wonder at the awesome magnificence of the universe, nor for a moment is it intended to dampen enthusiasm for understanding it; on the contrary, rational exploration will continue to be a major purpose for mankind after government has been abolished. And I grant your point in another place that it _may_ prove impossible to obtain answers to everything inquiring minds would like to know. It is just to say that when one encounters dogma such as "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" written by some unknown author who pauses neither to define his terms nor present his evidence, one should call rubbish and hokum by their names.

"Still, I'm always pulling for the pirate." Yeah, imagine the nerve of content creators wanting to be remunerated for their trouble. If you want it, just steal it. Help create a bright new tomorrow!

Aren't you conflating God and religion here just a bit? It seems one could believe in God(s), or believe in the possibility of God(s) with subscribing to any authoritarian or over-explanatory religious doctrine. Is this the sign of an irrational mind, prone to believeing in illogical entities?

G'day Jim, Would you say that what you have written here, like, "who created everything that exists and who is closely interested in the conduct of each of seven billion individual humans", and the Old Nick-Devil-Lucifer crap, pertain, in any way, to the First Cause belief of the Deists?

G'day calinb, Omnes licentiam habere his quae pro se indulta sunt, renunciare. [It is a rule of the ancient law that] all persons shall have liberty to renounce those privileges which have been conferred for their benefit. Cod. 1, 3, 51 ; Id. 2, 3, 29 ; Broom, Max 699. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991) page 1086 I noticed you changed from my "member-only benefits" to "State benefits" in your reply. The first, (member-only benefits) are STATE benefits/privileges that an individual is entitled to as a "member" of the STATE, that is to say, membership is required in the group order to enjoy them. Enjoy. To have, possess, and use with satisfaction; to occupy or have benefit of. ~ Ibid. page 529 The second may, or may not, require membership in the group. An example of one of these is a "public road", which, according to their own law, is any, "...highway [or] road...for the use of the general public, and over which every person has a right to pass and to use it for all purposes of travel or transportation to which it is adapted and devoted. The proper test in determining whether road is a "public" or "private road" is use to which such roadway is put, and fact that road has been constructed at public expense is not conclusive. Kitchens v. Duffield, 83 Ohio App. 41, 76 N.E. 2d 101, 105, 38 O.O. 142." Another example is the use of FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES. One does not have to be a member of the group in order to use these, and mere use of these does not create membership. This is not, therefor, a "member-only benefit". On the other hand, if an individual, or a group, of which he is a voluntary member, borrows some of this funny munny into existence, a nexus has been created. In summation, it is, in my opinion, entirely possible to renounce "member-only" benefits/privileges. I do my utmost to avoid entanglement with the STATE, I therefor neither apply for, nor accept, plunder, in the form of benefits/privileges, from the STATE.

Jim and others make good points and clarify/add to the point you make. While I am not interested in religion nor government (even though the latter is both The Most Dangerous Superstition and by *nature an agency of coercion*) it can be helpful as Jim points out to understand how both religion and govt are based on superstition and where that leads. Where's the State? http://strike-the-root.com/wheres-state Here's something about AA and how Anarchic it is: AA is a truly voluntary institution. It has no rules nor regulations, no dues nor fees nor taxes, only voluntary contributions. The expenses of local AA “groups” and AA's significant worldwide services designed to provide help to alcoholics everywhere are the collective obligation of its members. AA's “Twelve Traditions,” which are the closest thing to rules, compel nothing. There are no AA authorities. Our leaders actually are our trusted servants whose only power is persuasion. Each of the multitude of local AA groups throughout the world operates autonomously. Withal, AA has proven effective at achieving its primary purpose, which is to enable its members to remain sober and help other alcoholics achieve sobriety. No small task, which eluded the medical profession and mankind on any significant scale until AA came along in 1935. AA's 76-years of experience may one day prove instructive to the formation of a stateless society. http://www.voluntaryist.com/howibecame/windingroad.html My Winding Road to Voluntaryism By Ned Netterville

Double post

Hello Suverans2- Odd. Before I'd made these purported accusations, you said I "seem[ed] to equate "ridicule" with "respectful discussion" even though I had already explicitly said the contrary, and have maintained my opinion throughout this conversation. In a show of complete disregard for what I actually said, you desired to interpret me as saying the very opposite! However, I simply let it go up to now. It's becoming increasingly obvious that we value language, and our even our own opinions, on very different grounds. Once again, I view ridicule as a poor choice for communication and try not to practice it myself. I'm in agreement with you, Paul, and others on this point, and haven't contested it. Things changed, though, when you invoked the NAP as justifiable in the case of ridicule. Unless I'm mistaken, most libertarian-anarchists agree that the NAP can justify defensive violence against aggressive violence. I can only conclude, then, that you equate speech with violent physical action. It also follows, that you equate your subjective feelings and values with your body (life) and property, and would be willing to use physical force in order to "defend" those feeling and values. Being verbally "disrespected" is made equivalent to being mugged or having your home broken into. I cannot agree with this equation. Our feelings and values are subjective and cannot be same as life and property. They are hugely variable from person to person, and even within the same person over a lifetime. Invocation of the NAP on the basis of such variability would not only render the NAP meaningless and unworkable, but would constitute control over speech in favor of one particular valuation. In other words: "Say nothing that 'offends' me because I can justify putting a bullet in you by calling it 'defense.'" With feelings and values there are no lines in the sand or bodies to harm and, like I said, are variable and subject to sometimes erratic changes. As to your "simple" yes-or-no questions: They were *without context,* and thus so general, so unreal, as to be unanswerable in any honest fashion. You are asking for an "absolute" answer that *cannot* exist, since any situation of a man ogling my daughter would happen somewhere, somehow, not in a void involving only the man, me, and my daughter. Simply put, the questions as you posed them are absurd. Here's an illustration: Is the word "nigger" disrespectful? Yes or no? It's a yes-or-no- question. It's simple, right? Come on, yes or no. It is clear that black Americans think the term "nigger" is sometimes derogatory, sometimes not. It varies. *It depends on context!* It differs, for example, if a white American says the word or if another black American says it. Some blacks hate the term no matter who says it. Others don't care. It's how the term is evaluated, who says it, who hears it, where, when. It's not a question deserving of a universal answer applicable everywhere at all times. I think you've read far more into my posts emotionally, than I've actually put there. I've not accused you of anything, but have only gone by what you've written and asked you 1) if my understanding and subsequent conclusions were sound, and 2) for clarification of your position. You've declined both invitations. The ball is in your court, you can choose to play or not...That's up to you. -Joy EDITED FOR CLARITY

>I would add to that, only, "he can simply stop calling himself a citizen, and neither >apply for, nor accept, any member-only benefits and privileges". I think one can simply stop violating the non-aggression principle. There are gray areas in this moral endeavor but voting and participating in political processes must cease, because they are participation in violence as a master. Most people don't realize and assume ownership of the violence because it's accomplished via the proxy of the state. I don't think it's necessary to refuse state benefits, which is impossible, regardless. Refusal of state benefits is just as impossible as it was for a plantation slave to refuse food from their master--food that the slave havested, but was seized for profit and redistribution by the master. In fact, JGVibes is wrong here: "Well this may sound good, but it isn’t at all true, because the government is comprised by a miniscule fraction of the population..." In fact, government is huge! It is nearly everyone in the population, because nearly everyone initiates violence on others via the proxy of the state. The people with the state's guns and associated monopoly on their use to initiate force on others may be only a minuscule fraction of the population (see Larken Rose's, "The Tiny Dot"), but nearly everyone endeavors to be a master of others via proxy violence.

"...why is moonshine still illegal?" Some might think that it is because those wish to control population are concerned for your health and safety? Think again! "Because the liquor is worth more to the government than beer or wine. Uncle Sam takes an excise tax of $2.14 for each 750-milliliter bottle of 80-proof spirits, compared with 21 cents for a bottle of wine (of 14 percent alcohol or less) and 5 cents for a can of beer. No one knows exactly how much money changes hands in the moonshine trade, but it's certainly enough for the missing taxes to make a difference: In 2000, an ATF investigation busted one Virginia store that sold enough raw materials to moonshiners to make 1.4 million gallons of liquor, worth an estimated $19.6 million in lost government REVENUE." ~ Source: SLATE It's mostly about REVENUE!

You can indeed brew your own booze and drink it unless you live in a dry county. In fact, I highly recommend it because the quality and taste is better than store bought stuff, and because you avoid paying that liquor tax to the state. I intend to resume brewing my own beer once I get away from driving truck OTR in about a year. You just cannot sell it without a license, and you cannot brew moonshine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrewing http://www.craftbeer.com/ http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/ Alcohol Prohibition is still alive and well in certain counties in Arkansas, Kentucky, and Texas, and there are limits to how much brew you can make in a year, so be sure to research the laws in your own state, or be careful and sneaky. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_county Brian

Many self-proclaimed non-believers are, in my opinion, too emotionally attached to the methods and theories of science, as well as reason in general. Conversations do become heated between these non-believers and believers, just as they have *amongst believers themselves* historically speaking. Discussions revolving around the Big Bang and evolution are certainly flash-points on both "sides" of these debates. In view of reason, there are so-called non-believers, like Stephan Molyneux, who still believe in "absolute truth." The Big Bang is an imperfect *conceptual model* (and a model utilizing language I myself question). Evolution is a scientific theory. It explains as a body of knowledge and evidence. It is not synonymous with "progress" (and I know of few people who actually make this equation). "Absolute truth" is nothing other than God-in-drag, so believers actually have nothing to fear from the likes of Molyneux's brand of "atheism." What isn't being taken into account, and one probable source of the rabid anger against religion in America, is the fact that fear is very often used to spread religious belief. I'm not speaking of charges of "sinner" and "eternal damnation" in the context of adult conversation, but the practice of scaring the crap out of little kids with notions of eternal violence. This comes across to many as a boorish manner in which to force conformity. I agree with this assessment, though there's largely nothing I can do about the children of others. Another thing that frustrates people is the incoherent claim of being a limited, fallible being while also being privy to the absolute truth. One never knows where a believer stands when they speak forth and the hermeneutical gymnastics will be at play. I've found this makes it very difficult, sometimes impossible, to converse with believers. It even gets worse when believers have no idea what differentiates a scientific theory with a mere speculation. Using statements like "Evolution is just a theory" in a manner that equates the theory with idle speculation can really gum-up a conversation. This is particularly the case when a believer makes no effort to inform themselves and further understand the aims of science, yet will continue to make authoritative statements regarding science. Once again, and for the nth time, I'm *not* saying any of this "justifies" the boorish behavior of non-believers, only that it's understandable in view of the multiplicity of people and the differences between them. Believers don't stand in front of a uniform mass of unbelievers who are either simply boorish or polite in mixed company any more than they themselves are either boorish or polite. Another thing: "religion" is a vague concept. Comparing Buddhism with Christianity is like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Apples and oranges can fit together in a concept called "fruit," but it doesn't mean they are, therefore, identical cases. Most sects of Buddhism (even religions themselves contain non-identical cases within them) are not evangelical in the manner of most Christian sects. Many couldn't care less about conversion, and many are more or less "atheistic," more like philosophical schools of thought.

Hello Paul- First off, I'm not irritated. My comments were only what I've observed. A critique ≠ anger, irritation. That you were angry when you critiqued believers also ≠ anger on my part. It simply isn't a given that I must be angry to form a critique of anything. But, let me consider your points. 1. Both you and Suverans2 seem to believe that because I don't wholly condemn ridicule, "disrespectful speech," and put it on par with a physical attack, that I must therefore embrace ridicule as a wholly acceptable form of communication. Where you come up with this dichotomy, I have no idea. Turning my attention to your depreciation of "generalizations": According to your standards, I'd have to come into contact with all religious believers in order *not* to generalize in some manner. This is an impossible expectation. It's like asking you to check under every rock in all deserts to find scorpions, so as to make the generalization: "Scorpions live under desert rocks." and demanding you make no generalization unless you've checked under every rock in every desert! Is this unreasonable? : to form a * heuristic* from experience in dealing with religious people online, or in person, who willingly enter into discussions. The key word here is "willingly." Does this "justify roundhouse attacks," sure, to the person who feels inclined toward doing such! "Justification" is simply rationalizing behavior. It does *not* mean that I think such attacks are therefore good communication. 2. I explicitly said that the venues in question were, in various degrees, "public." Here in the 21st Century where we have no catholic worldview, discussions will inevitably occur where conclusions and presuppositions those participating will come to the fore. This means that religious people who *willingly* put their views out and engaging others will come into contact with those who don't share their worldview, and are just as passionate about their opinions. If they expect no one to respond, then why put it out there in the first place, *particularly if they are responding to the comments of non-believers*? If they desire to put their comments out there, of course they can just "be themselves," but can they realistically expect others not to respond to those comments, and if they do, to be nice about it? No, they cannot. They can, after all, not respond at all to those who've responded to their initial comments. They are responsible for themselves, their actions. 3. No. It doesn't harm me at all to hear another say "God loves us." I hear it all the time, my neighbors are devout. I don't flame them at all. As to other believers, I can't say I'm all that fond of being considered guilty just for living, and even more guilty, lacking even, for not accepting a view of "sin." And I don't care to be shouted down as eternally damned, debauched, without a "moral compass," and other such goodis. But, none of this really angers me. But, all this is beside the point. I've already agreed with you that ridicule is rarely, if ever, conducive for communication. I've not had any problem with this as *a heuristic.* Again, "disrespectful speech" is hardly based on any criteria which will please everyone. As I've said before, some religious people find *any* variation from their view insulting to them personally, yet they *willingly* enter into discussion with non-believers, either in terms of their particular sect, or non-believers in general. And while I see your position as potential helpful advice, I don't think it's reasonable to *expect* the results you desire much less demand them, unless you own a site yourself. Even less do I think the NAP is applicable in any way, shape, or form, in terms of speech. People, non-believers and believers alike, are hugely variable, as to their emotional strength, intelligence, and desires in life. It seems to me, Oonly a totally insular (if not ill) person could deny that this. As Michel de Montaigne put it: "No quality embraces us purely and universally." We vary and we're of multiple qualities, not simply either angry or nice; believer or unbeliever,...You're going to get varying responses in the world which cannot be legislated away and any attempt to do so will be hugely arbitrary.

"However, you will also read that my experience has been nearly the opposite of the way in which Paul presents his case. It has been, by far, religious people who insert their beliefs (opinions) on philosophical and news discussion forums I've encountered, the blogs of unbelievers, YouTube threads, book reviews, etc., who upon being challenged *for these stated opinions* begin wailing about being attacked and "ridiculed." That they've entered a "public" discussion *voluntarily* seems to matter not. They take no responsibility for themselves. " OK Allen, I get it that you are irritated by this boorish behavior. I used to be irritated beyond belief over it. But after getting steamed up about it for years if not decades, I started to use my brain instead: 1) Is this not generallizing? Do all religious people do this, or just a few? A few having done so, does that justify roundhouse attacks on all religious people? 2) Are all these venues only for nonbelievers? Believers center their lives on their (Gg)od. So are they supposed to trim their way of thinking and speaking in such venues to suit nonbelievers? Can't they just be themselves? 3) Does it really harm you to hear someone say, "God loves us?" Yeah, it raises your blood pressure, but what is the source of that? This simple, harmless statement, which is merely an opinion? Or is it something in your own mind? (E.g. intolerance). How hard is is, really, to let such statements roll off you like water off a duck's back? It turns out not to be so hard at all. Try it. The argument seems to be, "they are boors, so I'm going to be a boor". When you start working for your ends, rather than reacting emotionally, you begin to see that the best thing you can do with boorish behavior is to let it stand on its own. It, combined with your keeping your own temper, will drive people away from the boor. I am particularly arguing about unprovoked attacks as I mentioned on facebook. Everyone understands that people get emotional and that flamewars happen. Observers are less forgiving of completely unprovoked attacks. They are not impressive. They are counter-productive to the goal of liberty.

"...someone claiming as we do that the self-ownership axiom requires the abolition of government." "We" make no such claim. Only you do. If you take that as a premise, then you end up with conclusions such as that libertarians should be welfare queens. Your premise is wrong. Government can go on all it likes. Let the governments multiply, the more the better. All I want from them is one thing, that they leave me alone. You may say this is impossible, yet governments already leave vast numbers of people alone (e.g. the German government leaves French people alone, all governments leave their ruling classes alone, and there are other such exceptions). Not only that, but there are people who DON'T want government to leave them alone, and it would be wrong for us to force them otherwise. It's also counterproductive to bother people, if you want them to let you alone. Making fun of peoples' religions is a great way to motivate them to harm you. It's not rational if you are trying to avoid harm.

Government is indeed inherently bad. The people in its offices establish "sovereign" territory by force and extract taxes to pay for their organization's existence through force. The people who participate in such an organization are inherently doing bad things. Can't really escape that. And if you jump to the "completely voluntary government" argument, I would point out that you are no longer talking about a government, but rather a business.

Suverans2- "Proof" in terms of a murder trial that of metaphysical postulations are two very different arenas, are they not? At any rate, my murder trial would still depend upon how others *value* the objects and concepts presented at the trial, would it not? If I'm falsely accused, and have no evidence (that is, objects to value) on my behalf, whereas my accusers may, then I'm probably royally screwed no matter my actual innocence or my feelings on the matter. By the way, your OED entry wonderfully illustrates my comments regarding how "proof" is supportive of opinions. It's interesting how you chose "proof" which is a later development and usage of the term "prove" where you can find the origin of both terms. This is the case even when this origin is clearly linked in the very OED entry you provided (as "proof" of your position?) and myself above. You've gone a long way to demonstrate how things/objects are used only to justify the values one already holds in terms of "proof" and "proving." -Joy