Download MP3
42.5M 30:57

Hi-def vid
Please to digg!
Please to reddit!

A bit of a chat between me and new user at FDR… it felt effortless!

Can’t wait to do more.

Chat Log 9/12/2008 1:31:12 PM
	OTGman joined the room.
	LibtopMan joined the room.
JC Hewitt:	Hi LibtopMan, welcome.
JC Hewitt:	What brings you to FDR?
LibtopMan:	Hello
JP:	are there no roads in libertopia
JP:	oh sorry
JP:
JP:	hi LibtopMan
LibtopMan:	No private roads , unfortunately , not yet at least
LibtopMan:	lol
JP:
LibtopMan:	I listened to a few podcasts and found the host rather englightening
LibtopMan:	enlightening
JP:	ooh, which ones in particular?
LibtopMan:	How about you guys? How long have you been members of FDR?
JP:	oh, i've been around over a year now
OTGman:	couple days
LibtopMan:	I listened to the first 20 or so .
JC Hewitt:	I'm alright… I've been around here since Jan.
JC Hewitt:	In one sitting? :O
LibtopMan:	Stefan's unique way at tackling morality is very interesting to me
JP to JC Hewitt:	the podcasts can do that to a body!
LibtopMan:	No, lol , over the last week
LibtopMan:	I downloaded some on my Ipod and listened to them
LibtopMan:	I work out of home so I have some time on my hands
JP:	ahhh sweet
JP:	how did you hear about FDR?
LibtopMan:	I ran across Stefan's articles on Lew Rockwell
JP:	*nod*
LibtopMan:	I browse around various anarcho-capitalist websites
JP:	ahh, OK
JP:	is this your first visit to the FDR site, pretty much?
OTGman:	do you consider yourself an A-C?
LibtopMan:	Yes , I've been an ancap for about 5 years now
	mattb joined the room.
JP:	well hey, you got me beat
JP:
LibtopMan:	lol
JP:	how did you become an ancap?
LibtopMan:	I think like most people , I started with Ayn Rand as my big push
LibtopMan:	I was even a member of the Libertarian Party a while back
LibtopMan:	until I got disenchanted with government *cough* 'solutions'
JP:
LibtopMan:	To make the state smaller is a pipe dream
JP:	they are solutions! just not to the problems you think….
JP:	brb
OTGman:	No it's not
LibtopMan:	Oh, OTGman?
	david kopp joined the room.
OTGman:	It may be a pipe dream to live in an anarchic state, but the size and effects of the state can be reduced
LibtopMan:	hmm, what do you mean by 'anarchic state.'
OTGman:	-anarchic society
LibtopMan:	So actually reducing the state to a minarchist optimum is *more* obtainable than a stateless society?
JP:	OTGman, that's great news, can you tell us how that would work?
OTGman:	I think so
JP:	how do we do that?
LibtopMan:	I honestly find the minarchist solution harder to achieve and less realistic
LibtopMan:	Since govts have a track record of consistently getting larger until collapse
OTGman:	That does seem to be an intrinsic feature of governments
JP:	for sure, LibtopMan…
LibtopMan:	And the Libertarian Party has been very active in the last 30 years and hasn't really done anything to stop the growth of the state , let alone shrink it.
JP:	*nod*
LibtopMan:	Trust me , I used to be part of it
JP:	i was wondering what OTGman's ideas were, though
OTGman:	As was I
JP:	i mean
JP:	waiting for a stateless society, that's not going to happen for us, right?
OTGman:	No way!
LibtopMan:	I sort of think the state is going down regardless, simply crunch the numbers and apply basic math
OTGman:	Just the current iteration is going to collapse.
JP:	OTGman, did you have some sort of plan for reducing the government?
JP:	something actionable?
david kopp:	don't vote
LibtopMan:	@JP, I for one have attempted to use the system to… well, fight the system
JP:	or, OK, keeping the next iteration to a smaller size, maybe?
LibtopMan:	I've written to my congressman , I've even gone to DC
LibtopMan:	To no avail
JP to LibtopMan:	i understand… but since OTGman said he believes that the size and effects of the state can be reduced
JP to LibtopMan:	so maybe he's thought of something we haven't
LibtopMan:	Well, it might be that or a fear of anarchism
LibtopMan:	I would call it a misunderstanding
JP to LibtopMan:	well… you don't know that, right?
LibtopMan:	No
LibtopMan:	Mr OTGman?
OTGman to JP:	I think that there is an actionable strategy. Talking about personal freedom is fine, it is time for me to take some action.
JP to OTGman:	OK, what actions?
JP to OTGman:	What will you do?
OTGman to JP:	I can't claim this idea as mine, but I read a pamphlet many years ago: Invulnerability to Coercion.
JP to OTGman:	ahhh, OK
JP to OTGman:	so what's the basic idea?
	LibtopMan left this room.
OTGman to JP:	It's not all or nothing. But freedom is a skill that you develop.
JP to OTGman:	I definitely agree with that.
JP to OTGman:	But what does "invulnerability to coercion" mean in that context?
OTGman to JP:	Vonu means arranging your life or lifestyle so that you are invulnerable to the predation of the state. There are many strategies that may work. But the more invulnerable you are the less the state can feed off of you, thereby reducing its size and scope.
JP:	OK, so "living off the grid" would be a strategy within that framework, right?
JP:	using cash
OTGman:	LOL, love the term OTG. It means more than being a hippie with a windmill.
	david kopp left this room.
JP:	well sure
OTGman:	-not participating in politics
JP:	Right.
OTGman:	By withdrawing your interaction with the state you diminish its legitamacy
JP:	well, that may be true
JP:	and that's one way to reduce the influence of the state in your personal life, for sure…
JP:	I confess that I'm feeling a little stuck
JP:	Are you doing any of those strategies in your life?
OTGman to JP:	sorry, I have to go pick up my daughter. To be continued?
JP:	Oh! OK
	OTGman left this room.
Colleen to JP:	Nice technique there
JP:	thanks
JP:	goodness
JP:	it just flowed
Colleen to JP:
Colleen to JP:	Socratic method pwns
JP:	yeah, no kidding!
JP:	raise da parthenon
JP:	woop woop

I kept seeing goarmy.com commercials on television while watching the Discovery Channel… and they kept talking about being strong and army strong and all that business… well.

I came up with the following:

Download MP3
0.3M 0:22

The following is a review of Stefan Molyneux’s Universally Preferable Behavior – A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics:

The first time I read this book (UPB), I didn’t really “get” it. I mean, I saw the logic and the proof and thought, “Hey, that’s kind of neat.” I was not able to access the implications that the proof of this theory would have in my life and in the greater world.

I have since re-read UPB. While I still struggle with the full range of the implications for my life, I think I get it (certainly more now than I have before).

The null zone concept is brilliant as well as fascinating! I now have the image in my mind of a “null zone” being forcibly inserted between the “little truths” and the “Great Truths”, which disconnect abstraction from practice in the minds of individuals.

This alone ought to be enough to demonstrate to anybody why this is a multi-generational project. Once you’ve had abstractions forcibly disconnected from practice within your mind, it is a trek through the fires of ten thousand hells to reconnect them.

Also of incredible resonance to me is when Molyneux discusses the emergent properties of morality within society as opposed to the imposition of whim-based morality from a centralized authority. This is the fundamental “reversal” of intuition that either Dawkins or Dennett (I can’t remember quite where I read it) has described when it comes to the science of evolution; that life, the universe, and everything do not proceed from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. Complexity and order are emergent properties of matter over time, hence it makes sense that morality and social order are emergent properties of human society over time.

Eradicating that “null zone” within my own mind and becoming ever more aware of my top-down moral standards is the horrible, horrible consequence of UPB. The upside, however, is that if, one day, I have children… I will not inflict a “null zone” upon them and will equip them to be resistant to it!

I haven’t found any flaws. I think that Stefan Molyneux has done it.

From Lew Rockwell: None Dare Call It Genocide

The conclusion called “anarchism” effectively says, “I don’t know the answer, and neither do you.”

When somebody asks the question, “How will Problem X be solved without a government?” the only honest answer I can give is, “I don’t know.” I can make a guess at a possibility, but nobody has to listen to what I say, and if I’m wrong, so what? If I’m wrong making a guess at what a potential industry will turn out to be but I’ve put no money into it, then it’s just an opinion that didn’t go anywhere.

But it’s more than “I don’t know.” I don’t know the answer, and it’s not up to me to give it. It goes beyond my admission of ignorance and responsibility and imputes it upon you. Can you come up with a solution to Problem X that doesn’t involve forcing people to comply? If you are totally honest with yourself, you cannot! Perhaps you have an idea that will provide part of the system, but it’s improbable to the point of impossibility that you will be able to gather all of the information and make a calculation that provides the answer you seek.

It’s the theory of evolution as applied to politics and social organization (NB: not “Social Darwinism,” which is a misapplication of evolutionary theory). Just as neither you nor I could possibly predict exactly what the next species of frog or bacteria will look like “in the wild,” neither you nor I could possibly predict what form a non-coercive system will take place “in the wild.” It’s possible to make general predictions, but that will always be as far as you can go.

For more information, check out Freedomain Radio for a plethora of podcasts, articles, and forum discussions on this topic and more!

While child abuse most certainly begins in the home, it does not remain locked up in a secret room. If physical or emotional abuse is not addressed, it will find its expression in other areas of life.

For those who do not face the abuse they endured, they will become vectors of abuse themselves. If they endured sexual abuse or humiliation, they will inflict it upon their children. If they were hit as children, they will hit their own. If they were belittled or ignored, they will do the same to their kids.

But it does not stop with one’s children. The failure to address one’s own suffering can also cause one to seek abuse at the hands of others. Hence, one goes through life with the belief that an abstract “greater power” is necessary for existence. For a particular majority, this is called “God.” For another majority that does not necessarily intersect, but largely does so, this is called “Government.” These two entities are merely the adult mappings of the category known as Parents.

When one is a child, one’s parents are much larger, much more powerful, and much more knowledgeable than the child, in many ways. However, as a child’s mind develops, he begins to ask questions of his parents that are not met with honesty, but are met with hostility. The child interprets this hostility as a failing on his part, as some innate wrongness that must be corrected… if this illusion is never addressed, this child will grow up and turn to Gods and Governments to be corrected.

The biggest problem here is that despite the fact that Gods and Governments do not exist, they are represented by individuals who themselves are operating under illusions. There is nothing that separates a priest or a politician from a parishioner or a plebian biologically or morally, yet the former participate in the greater illusions in order to survive at the expense of the latter.

If one continues to think that Gods and Governments are so different, consider the following parallel: in the Roman Catholic church, many priests take advantage of their power to molest young boys. This has always been something of an open secret, but it blew up in the media only recently. What was seen as scandalous by many was the fact that the Roman Catholic church did not fire these priests, but transferred them and protected them from criminal prosecution!

In state-run educational systems–especially in some (if not most or all) areas of the United States–it is very difficult to fire an underperforming or even a dangerous teacher. Those that are underperforming may very well be shuffled around, while those that are dangerous may be paid to sit in a room. They are being protected from the consequences of their actions and, in the case of the latter, from criminal prosecution!

In any other scenario, an individual that is a danger to children that is placed in charge of children would be removed from that position and charged with criminal misconduct! In an ideal world, whatever organization pursuing justice would realize this individual was deeply disturbed and would offer treatment and counseling as it would be incredibly likely that this person was abused as a child in some way.

If we start working to get people to wake up, to stop abusing their children, then it’s possible that these illusions will begin to disappear, because they will not be needed. In that time, we (or our descendants) will be able to live as entirely voluntary beings, coerced by no one because no coercion is needed in order to accomplish the various things that need to be done.

The Rule of Law without the State

I personally don’t think I’d want to transplant myself into such a society, but then, they’re not asking me to do so!

Given the way in which the clans police each other, I wonder if violence between parents and children exists to a significant extent? I find it hard to believe that it would, but it would be interesting if somebody did such a study.

This guy I know claims that working in customer service has numbed him to other people. This is his response to the statement that “you might have to shoot somebody if you become a cop.”

But the way he says it… I don’t think he really believes it. It’s an incredibly uncomfortable truth, and he’s got to attempt to numb nimself to the truth somehow, to try to forget it. He started to talk about some martial art, at which point I just took my leave of the conversation. What have I to say to this person anymore?

It’s sad, because I’ll occasionally think, hey, I’d like to talk to him, but… there’s that old chestnut of him signing up to be a state thug. We have this long history… but I can’t say that I ever saw this in him. He used to be interested in weather and was looking to go for a meteorology degree. Perhaps it was a long shot, but he just gave up along the way… and he kept giving up. All of the jobs he’s held… he’s almost 30 and he’s still living with his insane mother and impotent father. His application to the state police sounds like he’s continuing to just give up on life.

I don’t know how many more conversations we’ll have left. I really don’t want to discuss martial arts disciplines. I don’t want to hear about the guy he pulled over who cussed him out. I don’t want to hear about the politics, the mindgames, the… thuggery.

I can’t stop him. I know I can’t. But what I can do is withhold sanction regarding a relationship with him.

I guess that the bottom line is, keeping in touch with him will not make me happy.

Older Posts »