Truth and DLJ's manifesto
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-06-2014, 06:43 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
All I know about DLJ's manifesto is that he has a awesome voice. Angel

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
09-06-2014, 06:50 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
[Image: Debate-Flow-Chart1.jpg]

A person very dear to me was badly hurt through a misunderstanding and miscommunication. For this, I am sorry, and he knows it. That said, any blaming me for malicious intent is for the birds. I will not wear some scarlet letter, I will not be anybody's whipping girl, and I will not lurk in silence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Charis's post
09-06-2014, 07:57 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(09-06-2014 05:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  In fact, not only that religion used to be THE law, it used to run schools and hospitals. I don't know about roads, but it definitely did present the first government administration network, in 12th century France. Government used to do literally nothing except knocking taxes out of people and paying soldiers from these taxes for internal tax-collecting and external raids on other territories. Everyone today thinks that if government will not build roads or schools, nobody will do it and humanity will degrade into illiterate peasants walking knee-deep in mud.

Maybe you've heard of these guys?

I think they their evil monolithic hivemind schizophrenic-fantasy repressive moustache-twirling "government" once built a a road or two.

Read a book.

(09-06-2014 05:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  In fact, government used to take a huge shit upon the people. And it keeps doing that, only we are richer today, because we can choose our jobs. So the government takes even more of our money to bribe us back with them and improve our opinion of the government. One of the greatest government douchebags was probably Otto von Bismarck, who invented the social system and welfare Ponzi scheme to make us think it's all for our own good.
http://www.fdrurl.com/HHO_PDF

Conspiracist delusion.

Read a book.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2014, 11:00 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2014 12:06 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
Charis: I'll have a discussion when I meet someone who knows what I'm talking about. Until then it's educating - or trolling them.

(09-06-2014 07:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-06-2014 05:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  In fact, not only that religion used to be THE law, it used to run schools and hospitals. I don't know about roads, but it definitely did present the first government administration network, in 12th century France. Government used to do literally nothing except knocking taxes out of people and paying soldiers from these taxes for internal tax-collecting and external raids on other territories. Everyone today thinks that if government will not build roads or schools, nobody will do it and humanity will degrade into illiterate peasants walking knee-deep in mud.

Maybe you've heard of these guys?

I think they their evil monolithic hivemind schizophrenic-fantasy repressive moustache-twirling "government" once built a a road or two.
[Image: tumblr_mcof6lHWUS1rxs13eo1_500.jpg?resize=300%2C225]
[Image: anarchism-what-if-i-told-you-roads-would...;amp;h=298]

(09-06-2014 07:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Read a book.

Conspiracist delusion.

Read a book.
[Image: 8fe.jpg]
[Image: 420742_10150580526298985_104533213984_90...5893_n.jpg]
My field is a combination of these two, you see? Not counting my previous studies, centered on Law & Economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_sociology
Damn, it may not seem like that, but I am a damn well-educated guy! Cut me some slack, FFS. And I'm curious about your manifesto, what do you think the world is and should be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2014, 12:16 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(09-06-2014 11:00 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Damn, it may not seem like that, but I am a damn well-educated guy! Cut me some slack, FFS.

We'll all cut you some 'slack' when you stop talking like a cunt.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2014, 12:50 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(09-06-2014 05:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I just rebel against the word belief. Acceptance of an objective logical argument is not belief.
OK,
Does this mean you hold a position of objective morality, that moral absolutes exist and can be objectively discovered?
Logic is a tool and on its own is useless, what underlying values, goals, do you use to apply your logic to?

(09-06-2014 05:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  So what do you do if you get attacked? What if your family member gets attacked? Do you pull up your phone to make a video for Youtube?
If I get attacked then my own selfish interest of self preservation kicks in. I run, I fight, I do whatever I can to survive.
If a family member is under attack then it depends on the situation.
If my girl has fallen into a lion's den and is being mauled by 10 hungry lions I certainly don't jump in and add to their feast.
If she is being attacked by a little kid then I man up and smack the kid over.
If she is being attacked by an armed assailant..., well, I'm not sure what I would do, probably sneak up on him and bash him with something hard, or distract him from a distance, perhaps take his photo for evidence???
(09-06-2014 05:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(09-06-2014 03:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I have no idea as to what is universally preferable.
Not being attacked, for starters.
That's a switch in context.
You said "It is universally preferable not to act upon something that is a make-believe."
The context of which was morally preferable actions. Being attacked isn't a moral choice for the victim, it is being in a state of danger against their own desires to be in that state.
Thus it isn't a matter of morality and is out of context of this discussion.
(09-06-2014 05:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Whatever the authorities present as a positive moral obligation that you didn't choose, they're lying. Is paying your fair share of taxes moral? What about supporting the troops? Pledging allegiance to the rag...I mean, flag? Obeying your parents and democratically elected leaders? You get bashed with moral arguments all the time when it comes to these.
I agree, most people have moral beliefs, most people use these to judge others, to hold expectation as to how others are to behave, they use their moral beliefs as justification for putting pressure on others to conform.
But just because people have moral beliefs and act upon them, this does not mean that moral truths actually exist.
(09-06-2014 05:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Well, screw them. There are no unchosen positive obligations. You should never feel bad if you disobey them. However, authorities who do that, who bash you on the head with fake moral arguments are immoral themselves.
Your strawman is quite pathetic.
I do not consider it immoral for authorities to bash people on the head with fake moral arguments.
Nice try though, but if you want to really understand a position you need to let go of your strawman. Ask questions rather than knocking down straw.
(09-06-2014 05:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(09-06-2014 03:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Law is a collective way to come up with and enforce rules on society. These rules don't have to have anything to do with people's moral beliefs.
Really? I thought that's how democracies are supposed to work. Collective coming up with rules is THE writing down of people's moral beliefs.
Is it moral or immoral to drive on the left hand side of the road?
(09-06-2014 05:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Well then, please explain why there is nearly universal refraining from murder, theft and rape in such rules (except for government officials of course). Aristotle has a test, he said if your moral system permits rule, theft, or rape, I don't fuckin' care what do you say or how good your argument is.
In most countries it is illegal to give birth to a baby and not to register this birth. Does that mean that it is immoral not to register a human birth?
Here is a thought experiment for you.
A plan crashes, and you and 100 others are marooned on an island. You are now in a society.
You have no rules and no baggage of a percieved societies collective morals.
You are given an opportunity to build a society from the ground up.
Initially, there is no leader in the group, you are a bunch of people in dissarray, each scared and anxious but with one common aspect "survival". Each of you thinks about how to survive, how to get food, water, shelter...
After a week, you are all starving. One person has managed to catch some fish and is happily feasting himself.
You walk up to him and ask him to share, but he tells you to piss off.
Brutus, goes over to him and kills him, taking his fish and eating it for himself.
You notice that Brutus has no shirt, appears to be shivering and is looking at you and that warm goose down jacket you are wearing. You know that colder weather is coming and if you give him your jacket you will eventually freeze to death. You know that if you don't give him your jacket then he will kill you and take it.
You don't want to die, what do you do?
If you are smart, you will talk to the others about creating some rules to support mutual survival within this society. You will discuss the merits of making murder illegal and some incentives to stop people in the society from performing this action.
Brutus initially doesn't agree with this social contract. He thinks that it isn't in his own best interest. Being the biggest fellow in the group he likes the ability to take what he wants, what he needs to survive. He needs a warm jacket. But then he realises that he is one man and he needs to sleep (everyday in fact) and that it would be easy for others to kill him in his sleep. He now realises that it is in his own best interest to outlaw murder.
Whether murder is right or wrong doesn't come into the equation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2014, 09:24 AM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2014 09:31 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(09-06-2014 11:00 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Damn, it may not seem like that, but I am a damn well-educated guy!

Then stop saying things which aren't true and fatuously evading any and all introspection.

I'm serious about reading a book. It's facile to stuff your ears and spout off mindless rhetoric without an in-depth knowledge of three thousand years of civil engineering and economic history. If you want to talk about roads you damn well better know something about roads - and so far as I can tell you are at such a level of ignorance that you don't even know how much there is you don't know.

(09-06-2014 11:00 PM)Luminon Wrote:  And I'm curious about your manifesto, what do you think the world is and should be.

I have opinions. Only True Believers have manifestos.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
10-06-2014, 11:30 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(09-06-2014 02:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
Law is an opinion with a gun.
...

This is where we part company.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2014, 11:58 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
Law is an opinion that society sees as so important its members agree with that it comes with sanctions for violators. The opinion enshrined in law is not always correct, but some law is necessary for proper function of society. How much law is ¨good¨? What opinions are so important that they should come with sanctions attached? What kinds of opinions classify as a good basis for law and what kinds are a bad basis for law? How do we work through the tension between the rights of the individual versus the rights of the society? How do we work through the right to disobedience in the face of bad law? These are all relevant questions.

¨Where should the balance lie¨ is a legitimate question when it comes to the formation and application of law. I am strongly of the opinion that the balance should not lie at the extreme of anarchy or the extreme of an authoritarian state. Freedom of speech, freedom to speak out against bad law and convince other members of society that a particular law is bad... this to me is the foundation of a society that can take a balanced view towards the formation of law. The health of a society´s legal system can be measured not only by the laws themselves that describe a snapshot of the conversation at a societal level but also by the health of its public discourse that describes whether that conversation is continuing and is based on good data and sound legal philosophy.

No, I haven´t read the rest of this thread. I´m in an airport lounge wondering why I´m not drunk yet. So if I am skipping off topic or covering points already dealt with adequately please forgive me Smile

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
10-06-2014, 02:51 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2014 03:50 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(10-06-2014 11:30 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(09-06-2014 02:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
Law is an opinion with a gun.
...

This is where we part company.
Nope, this is where we start! Let me play a guessing game. You like peace and goodness. And you can not imagine any other way to peace and goodness than to appoint someone who is the only protector of peace and goodness and can violate them at will. You like a central government planning of peace and goodness, because Communism is such a good way of getting things done. Nothing motivates people to uphold peace & goodness more than giving them nearly absolute power, including the power to take away your means of voting and protesting (money).
That's how I remember my opinions from the early times when I had a similar lack of imagination about peace & goodness and I thought dumping them on Communists will solve that ancient problem. I thought empirical and rational reality of how things work morally isn't real, but words on political paper are real.


(10-06-2014 11:58 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Law is an opinion that society sees as so important its members agree with that it comes with sanctions for violators. The opinion enshrined in law is not always correct, but some law is necessary for proper function of society. How much law is ¨good¨? What opinions are so important that they should come with sanctions attached? What kinds of opinions classify as a good basis for law and what kinds are a bad basis for law? How do we work through the tension between the rights of the individual versus the rights of the society? How do we work through the right to disobedience in the face of bad law? These are all relevant questions.
What is this society? Is this the guy who gets 50,00001 % of voters of hundreds of million of people? (American elections obviously) Now that's what I'd call homeopathic representation Laugh out load
And what is this "correct" opinion enshrined in law? How do we know what is or isn't correct of bad? If we know that, why do we even need laws? If we don't know what is correct, how can we have good laws?
Does the proper function of society include not taking people's property at gunpoint?
I'd say these are the first questions that need to be asked before your questions need to be asked.

I say that experiments in ethics are immoral. When the experiment fails, it's evil. Even if it succeeds, it means we did something that could be evil. Laws are experimenting on people.

(10-06-2014 11:58 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  ¨Where should the balance lie¨ is a legitimate question when it comes to the formation and application of law. I am strongly of the opinion that the balance should not lie at the extreme of anarchy or the extreme of an authoritarian state. Freedom of speech, freedom to speak out against bad law and convince other members of society that a particular law is bad... this to me is the foundation of a society that can take a balanced view towards the formation of law. The health of a society´s legal system can be measured not only by the laws themselves that describe a snapshot of the conversation at a societal level but also by the health of its public discourse that describes whether that conversation is continuing and is based on good data and sound legal philosophy.

No, I haven´t read the rest of this thread. I´m in an airport lounge wondering why I´m not drunk yet. So if I am skipping off topic or covering points already dealt with adequately please forgive me Smile
Well, if you tone down on the Law 101 a little, that would be great, it makes me feel like at middle school again Drinking Beverage Only this time I know for sure it's make-believe made-up arbitrary rules that really don't need to be that way.

Anyway, what do you mean by balance? Getting only half-shot, or half imprisoned? Or only halves of dollars being printed by central bank? (that would be great actually) Or half-smoking of marijuana made illegal, legal only breathing in, not breathing out?

And what is so extreme about anarchy? There used to be anarchy in Wild West era, the U.S. frontier. You know how many people got killed in the most violent city, the most violent year? About three.

What's so awesome about laws that we must risk bad laws and then going with speeches against police batons and pepper sprays? It takes enormous gathering of a whole nation to make politicians raise their eyebrows a little and all they need to do is to send the police to beat up the protest leaders and then increase taxes so that the nation won't have money for bus fare to the capital city next time. I've seen that already. Protesting against laws doesn't work. Politicians have enormous incentive and power to manipulate laws and citizens have too little incentive to raise sufficient hell about almost all the bad laws.




(10-06-2014 12:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  OK,
Does this mean you hold a position of objective morality, that moral absolutes exist and can be objectively discovered?
Logic is a tool and on its own is useless, what underlying values, goals, do you use to apply your logic to?
There are rational moral universals, corrected case by case by objective, empirical biological differences.
Because they are rational, we don't find them lying on the ground, we get to propose them as proposals and then we try to disprove them.

RTFM
https://freedomainradio.com/free/#upb

The Non-aggression principle says, that it is immoral to initiate aggression. (force, threats, lies) Find a moral reason to initiate aggression (not defense or self-defense) and you've disbanded the Libertarian movement.

(10-06-2014 12:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  If I get attacked then my own selfish interest of self preservation kicks in. I run, I fight, I do whatever I can to survive.
If a family member is under attack then it depends on the situation.
If my girl has fallen into a lion's den and is being mauled by 10 hungry lions I certainly don't jump in and add to their feast.
If she is being attacked by a little kid then I man up and smack the kid over.
If she is being attacked by an armed assailant..., well, I'm not sure what I would do, probably sneak up on him and bash him with something hard, or distract him from a distance, perhaps take his photo for evidence???
No lions please. Not unless you work in Uganda national park and your internet is like 10 Kb/s.
And what's selfish about self-preservation? How do you know what is selfish? That's a moral judgement.
Anyway, I hope there aren't any kids near you.

(10-06-2014 12:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  That's a switch in context.
You said "It is universally preferable not to act upon something that is a make-believe."
The context of which was morally preferable actions. Being attacked isn't a moral choice for the victim, it is being in a state of danger against their own desires to be in that state.
Thus it isn't a matter of morality and is out of context of this discussion.
The definition of morality I use is negative. Not doing something is moral, such as not obeying make-believe or not attacking people. Defense is optional and highly advisable. Nobody needs to be a victim.


(10-06-2014 12:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I agree, most people have moral beliefs, most people use these to judge others, to hold expectation as to how others are to behave, they use their moral beliefs as justification for putting pressure on others to conform.
But just because people have moral beliefs and act upon them, this does not mean that moral truths actually exist.
They exist the same way that numbers exist. Rationally. There is a set of proposals that are objectively true about all people and reality (except objective biological differences, such as childhood). If we avoid violating them, we'll live a happy virtuous peaceful life.
Universally preferable actions are that which we all can "perform" simultaneously and consistently and we'd all choose them if we had a choice. Morality must be consistent, or it's nothing.

(10-06-2014 12:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(09-06-2014 05:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Well, screw them. There are no unchosen positive obligations. You should never feel bad if you disobey them. However, authorities who do that, who bash you on the head with fake moral arguments are immoral themselves.
Your strawman is quite pathetic.
I do not consider it immoral for authorities to bash people on the head with fake moral arguments.
Nice try though, but if you want to really understand a position you need to let go of your strawman. Ask questions rather than knocking down straw.
What? Tell that to me again when you will see a politician give moral justification for a law. They all say laws must be obeyed, because it is moral and evildoers are people who don't obey laws. They make the moral argument all the time. They never say laws are words on paper that will earn you a prison stay if you don't obey. I say, there are no positive unchosen moral obligations, such as actively do this or that, or you are a bad person.

(10-06-2014 12:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Is it moral or immoral to drive on the left hand side of the road?
Neither, of course. Driving on the road is not a moral or immoral action. Of course you can do it in a stupid or clever way, but if you don't actually hurt anyone or damage something, there is no moral violation.
Why? Because no matter how fast you drive, it is not actively aggressing against anyone. Nobody has the moral right to attack you (such as demand ransom by ticket) if you don't cause actual harm.

(10-06-2014 12:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  In most countries it is illegal to give birth to a baby and not to register this birth. Does that mean that it is immoral not to register a human birth?
Not registering is not a positive action and as such it is not initiating aggression against anyone. Nobody has the moral right to attack you if you don't register a baby.

(10-06-2014 12:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Here is a thought experiment for you.
A plan crashes, and you and 100 others are marooned on an island. You are now in a society.
You have no rules and no baggage of a percieved societies collective morals.
You are given an opportunity to build a society from the ground up.
Are you kidding me? A 100 people as product of lousy parenting and government schools? That is a recipe for disaster. Such people have no morals, logic or backbone, they're conformity sluts and culture whores. They'll flock to those they consider strong, they'll shun intelligent people and they'll flock according to their religion, skin color, language and sports team.
Did you ever hear about the Milgram experiment? The school system of power and hierarchy kicks the integrity out of us. We spend our 14 impressionable years bullied by neurotic adults who can't get fired and by kids without parental authorities who bond to their peers, because parents are emotionally unavailable. They don't know how to not misuse power, their parents, teachers, peers and politicians misuse power all the fuckin' time. Stanley Milgram took some middle class white kids on university and in a day or two they turned into torturers, because that's how bad our parenting and schooling is.

Give me a few generations of peaceful parenting and voluntary education and then repeat the island scenario. The people will be different down to neurological and genetical level.

(10-06-2014 12:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Initially, there is no leader in the group, you are a bunch of people in dissarray, each scared and anxious but with one common aspect "survival". Each of you thinks about how to survive, how to get food, water, shelter...
After a week, you are all starving. One person has managed to catch some fish and is happily feasting himself.
You walk up to him and ask him to share, but he tells you to piss off.
No, I don't. I ask him where he caught that and how.

(10-06-2014 12:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Brutus, goes over to him and kills him, taking his fish and eating it for himself.
You notice that Brutus has no shirt, appears to be shivering and is looking at you and that warm goose down jacket you are wearing. You know that colder weather is coming and if you give him your jacket you will eventually freeze to death. You know that if you don't give him your jacket then he will kill you and take it.
You don't want to die, what do you do?
Stop taking LSD, because such people typically don't fly on the planes. However, you might want to name him Ahmed, that would explain the plane crash and his singed beard.
But seriously, that sounds like a standard fight or flight scenario, preferably to nearest people to tell them about the murder.

(10-06-2014 12:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  If you are smart, you will talk to the others about creating some rules to support mutual survival within this society. You will discuss the merits of making murder illegal and some incentives to stop people in the society from performing this action.
Brutus initially doesn't agree with this social contract. He thinks that it isn't in his own best interest. Being the biggest fellow in the group he likes the ability to take what he wants, what he needs to survive. He needs a warm jacket. But then he realises that he is one man and he needs to sleep (everyday in fact) and that it would be easy for others to kill him in his sleep. He now realises that it is in his own best interest to outlaw murder.
Whether murder is right or wrong doesn't come into the equation.
Hey! As far as I'm concerned, murder is already outlawed, because it's initiating aggression. People like Brutus who initiate aggression become a fair game. If he likes to kill people who own stuff, then he can easily be provoked, ambushed and look his liver face to face.
The NAP and UPB provide a universal moral framework that needs no passing of laws. All the other rules are just for convenience and we base them on verbal or written contracts as long as they are mutually beneficial. If they are not mutually beneficial, we negotiate as long as it takes to come up with a voluntary deal, or we just let us be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: