nordicpheasant said:

ALL INFORMATION IS USED TO MANIPULATE PUBLIC OPINION,

depends on the intent of the persons/group releasing it

an advertising company wants you to buy/consume or think differently about whatever it is they are marketing

when i watch CNN i'm getting told whats happening in one area of the world, if i watch Russia today I sometimes get an opposing view of what CNN told me both have an agenda/intent to manipulate the viewer to think one way or the other. With the "news" it never seems like they want to let the viewer decide for themselves, they are telling you this is how it is, examples here - http://duncantrussell.com/forum/discussion/comment/54591#Comment_54591

my intent when discussing is to try to understand what is going on, i don't think that's manipulative

Jared said:

"Self-ownership" is another term I try to avoid because you are you.

I tend to agree, I get the idea that ownership and identity are related terms. "Self-ownership" rings like a tautology. What is "you" exactly?

Jared said:

You also run into the issue of children. When do they "own themselves"? There isn't a correct answer but in philosophies that start on the basis of "self-ownership" you need to have some sort of answer, and then there will be multiple answers to that question from multiple people.

If the above is true, they own themselves when they have they have identity. I agree that when that is in terms of development is certainly subject for debate. I think young children express a very strong and instinctive grasp of property and self ownership. This is why parenting is not without its challenges. If a child does not "own" itself, but rather is property of its parent, then there should never be parenting issues because the child could be willed to do this or that like they were the parents own arm or leg. There would never be any conflict of interest.

Jared said:

Maybe some of this discussion is about my own issues

I think the sociopolitical dispositions people have as adults are very heavily influenced by childhood experiences in the years of development. What were your experiences of authority and discipline as a child? Were conflicts of interest with your parents resolved rationally, or violently? It has been my experience in talking to people that the more violent resolutions to conflicts of interest that children are used to as the norm, the more violent, statist solutions they are willing to accept in society as adults.

Jared said:

I've read books, articles, and forum threads from a voluntaryist perspective where people would debate what to do in a hypothetical voluntaryist world

There's a ton of hypothetical dilemma arguments against voluntarism. The man who has to steal medicine for his sick wife because he can't afford to buy it from the pharmacist; the man at the top of a flag pole who has to trespass into someones apartment in order to avoid falling to his death; the man who has to flip the switch on a train line to kill one person tied to one track instead of five tied to the other, blah blah blah.

They're hypothetical scenarios because they are completely devoid of context and detached from reality. There's never any prior explanations or reasonable alternatives. They're not thought provoking, they're brain paralysing.

Jared said:

It's why "rights" don't really mean anything to me.

I don't exactly believe in "rights" either per se. What I do believe in are things that are necessarily so. I'm wary of arguments where the form contradicts the content. Are you not confirming that you are responsible for your actions when you acknowledge that I have responded to your argument and not someone else's? Do you not require exclusive use of a keyboard for some established period of time when you type a cohesive response and not a jumbled sequence of scrambled letters from a conflict of interests?

Splendorsolis said:

If the above is true, they own themselves when they have they have identity. I agree that when that is in terms of development is certainly subject for debate. I think young children express a very strong and instinctive grasp of property and self ownership. This is why parenting is not without its challenges. If a child does not "own" itself, but rather is property of its parent, then there should never be parenting issues because the child could be willed to do this or that like they were the parents own arm or leg. There would never be any conflict of interest.

What I was thinking of is more of the practical aspect. A 6 year old is sure they want to run away from home. Their parent forces them not to. In reality that's no different than a jailer keeping an inmate in, but is it wrong? No, and I don't think any reasonable person would say otherwise.

Splendorsolis said:

I think the sociopolitical dispositions people have as adults are very heavily influenced by childhood experiences in the years of development. What were your experiences of authority and discipline as a child? Were conflicts of interest with your parents resolved rationally, or violently? It has been my experience in talking to people that the more violent resolutions to conflicts of interest that children are used to as the norm, the more violent, statist solutions they are willing to accept in society as adults.

Agree. Other than the religious aspect of my childhood (which is something I still am struggling with) I think it was pretty good. I wasn't abused, I wasn't yelled at, and I wasn't treated like an idiot.

Splendorsolis said:

They're hypothetical scenarios because they are completely devoid of context and detached from reality. There's never any prior explanations or reasonable alternatives. They're not thought provoking, they're brain paralysing.

In some way the hypotheticals helped me see that the "Non-Agression Principle" isn't nearly the black and white ideal it is played up to be. So for that reason alone I think there is use to it.

Splendorsolis said:

What I do believe in are things that are necessarily so. I'm wary of arguments where the form contradicts the content. Are you not confirming that you are responsible for your actions when you acknowledge that I have responded to your argument and not someone else's?

Sure and I think you are correct. To me the term "rights" is like "god". If you asked 50 different people what it is or means you'd get 80 different answers so there it is of no help to use it.

I think Adam is a cool dude who's heart is in the right place I would love for system without need for authoritian control but when I hear these anarchy based ideas it just seems kind of naive; and as far as the big corrupt government that is all true but it seems a lot of the reason the government is so corrupt is there is so much money going to the politicians from the corporations and those at the top of the free market society so if we get rid of government and take out all regulation I'm pretty sure there would be as much if not more corruption and oppression. I definitely see the value and merit in his ideas but it just doesn't seem realistic and the most efficient way to run a society of this size.

I think there is one thing Adam is missing when he talks about his strategy to fixing our society/government situation.

Our society is not ready for anarchy...or socialism...or capitalism...or whatever the fuck we call our system today. That is why we exploit people, take acts of violence, get corrupted, enact laws to protect ourselves, etc etc.

It doesn't matter what system or set of ideals we put in place right now, because we aren't ready for them. For any of this shit to work, we have to all make the personal decision to stop acting like dbags.

We need to start doing what is best for everyone instead of what is best for ourselves. When that happens, the system that Adam suggests will become a possible working solution.

EDIT: At the same time I think it is really cool what Adam is doing and we need more people like him. And I think it would be cool if Rogan took a more active role in politics/activism, but like he said he shouldn't do things that don't make him happy.

LucemPortabo said:

Fundamental changes in the way we think about ourselves and each other need to come about in society at large

Alright lets all take mushrooms now!

Haha, but seriously, this leads me to ask the question, how is this fundamental change going to happen?

I don't think it will happen by implementing a new system of government/society. In my opinion, the only way I see this happening is through a collective psychedelic experience. Either every person on earth needs to take 4.5g of shrooms OR something super crazy needs to happen that changes the way we think (e.g. economic collapse, nuclear bs, environmental disaster, technological innovation).

Jared said:

It's happening now. Nothing needs to be "implemented". People are changing.

Yes, I completely looked over that option as well. This "fundamental change" is happening gradually and will reach a critical mass at some point and then there will be much more rapid social transformation.

Jared said:

What I was thinking of is more of the practical aspect. A 6 year old is sure they want to run away from home. Their parent forces them not to. In reality that's no different than a jailer keeping an inmate in, but is it wrong? No, and I don't think any reasonable person would say otherwise.

I generally agree, there is certainly a lot of contention around issues like this. The relationship between a child and parent is not a voluntary one like that of a husband and wife. The child obviously didn't ask to be brought into that household voluntarily. If a wife can no longer bear living with the husband, we generally accept that she can leave right?. A husband should treat his wife in such a way that she would not want to leave if he wants to sustain the relationship. In my opinion, and take it for what it's worth, the ethical responsibility is stacked on the parent, not the child, to make the best out of an otherwise involuntary relationship with reason and rationality, not violence. To put the scenario of the 6 year old running away from home into context, it would be good to know why the child would sooner risk almost certain death than continue living in the household in the first place. It must take a lot for a child to overcome the intrinsic fear of abandonment.

Jared said:

In some way the hypotheticals helped me see that the "Non-Agression Principle" isn't nearly the black and white ideal it is played up to be. So for that reason alone I think there is use to it.

You might find this relevant.

Jared said:

Sure and I think you are correct. To me the term "rights" is like "god". If you asked 50 different people what it is or means you'd get 80 different answers so there it is of no help to use it.

I agree. I started a thread on "spirituality" and had the same problem. I like to think more about actual, logical terms than the words that represent them symbolically. Is there something substantial to "rights"? Maybe, but that depends entirely on the term the word is referring to.

Maybe Adam Kokesh should give back all of my tax dollars that my government paid him to be their murderous pawn for so many years. Dumb fuck.

Iraq Veterans Against The War = Idiots Biting The Hand That Fed

bob_loblaw said:

This discussion is great but....

WTF happened with fleshlight?

Something tells me they'll talk about fleshlights pro bono anyway.

If you are currently profiting off of the system that you are protesting, no.

The internet you are on right now is made possible by government investment, research and subsidies to put this technology in every corner of this great country. To think that a major corporation would bring broadband to rural towns without government intervention is naive. This is just one example of why Kokesh is misguided.

I don't entirely agree with him. I don't entirely agree with statists. I don't entirely agree with anyone or anything because I don't really ever agree with myself, BUT even misguided, to say that someone on a basic human level shouldn't want to be free in ways they feel they are not and shouldn't want to help people that are in bondage or in pain because of their own sympathy and empathy, is neglecting their humanness, deadlights. Forget the government/no government argument.

I don't care about that.

I agree with a lot of Kokesh's ideas, but not most of them. I think the main idea I'm trying to express is frustration with hypocrisy among many libertarians. The most tragic part is the 'I got mine, fuck everyone else' mentality. Especially the people who have benefitted through aid, subsidies, etc.

It's the 'get your government hands off my medicare' sign.

It's the person who goes through college receiving PEL Grants, maybe even food stamps at times, and then works as a libertarian to dismantle public services for people like themselves. (I know a person like this)

I've had many conversations with one of my friends, and what we essentially agreed upon is if government didn't have the element of institutional corruption and war (same thing I guess) involved in it, I would be all for it.

I've sort of become tired of all of these pro-anti government arguments because I've gone through them so many times. There are only people doing things.

Now that example you just gave, is pretty fucked up, and I can agree with that.

The only thing I can't stand is the dismissal of ideas, which is why I got in a bit of a tizzy, but you're certainly right that you should live up to the values you keep.

Don't say that to the man who killed someone and has it haunt him for the rest of his life. That is a person who has been victimized by society, persuaded or coerced (in the case of vietnam vets) to do something anti-human. He, above everyone else, has a right to attempt to stop anyone else from suffering through the existential pain that has been put upon him.

We all just want the violence and death to stop, yes.

deadlights said:

I think if you charted it all out, most everyone on here agrees on more than we don't.

I'm just so fed up with this war all the time society that I can't support people that use military service as a supposed benefit to their campaign, either for or against war.

Just be a human against war.

I agree with what you're saying in some respects. America is full of people who tend to rip on things of which they are benefitting.

For example, I was driving around Wisconsin a few weeks ago (for work, not fun) and there were tons of signs up around corn fields and dairy pastures that supported "Scott Walker" and his limited government message. Now, that's all good and fine....but corn farmers ripping on a large gov't? Seriously?

So, I sort of see what you're saying with Kokesh. Then again, I don't think an 18 year old kid who joins the army to only later come to the realization that they system is out of whack is really a hypocrit.

@lucemportabo nail on the head with your last comment.

People change and it requires certain experiences to bring about that change. Adam's experience in the military played a big part in the views/opinions he is trying to spread, so of course he has to talk about it...and I'm glad he did. I always want to know how or why someone formed the beliefs they currently hold today. It tells us more about their intentions and the transformation they have gone through as an individual.

So like @doctor_bob said, why don't we discuss the merits of his arguments? While Adam's story tells us about who he is, they shouldn't make a difference when determining the validity of his ideas.

There havent been any real examples of anarchy working with large populations, dont mistake the understanding of what is wrong with this system as a claim of a perfect system to replace it, I think its just people being willing to face the challenge of not expecting someone else to take care of everything and what true responsibility is

The current system is proven to fuck up the human machine, whether you are in power or a victim of those who are

But its funny that my man Rogan is still happilly burning through dead dinosaur juice enjoying the sound and feeling of his car while at the same time approaching the age when medical care will become increasingly more necessary, and is almost completely dependent on that same dinosaur juice.....rogan made it clear - he is here to entertain and talk about whats on his mind, he is not a philosopher, but he is the man!!! (not THE man....)

There was no history of a car ever existing before it was invented and began rumbling down roads everywhere...

dhizzo said:

Anarchy is delusional. If you have one criminal the system is fucked.

that sounds like the current system

but i dont think anarchy is a system, its the lack of a system, its human beings working together, or not, the current system gives you no option for the 'or not'

I see a lot of claims about anarchy being this and that, without any clear definition or the slightest bit of evidence that the critics have much understanding into the subject.

LucemPortabo said:

Criminals are produced by the system they operate within.

How can you say what kind of criminals would be produced in an anarchist society, and then how they would be dealt with?

why would you need to?

deal with problems as they arise the best you can - all agreeing on one way to resolve all issues forever seems to be a lot like government...and doesnt work well