Becoming an anarcho-capitalist means rejecting non-consensual authority such as that of the state. This means that our sense of morality is no longer determined by the laws of our homeland. Usually, when one does this, they're left in a nihilistic fog of confusion for a while until they adopt a new moral framework that makes logical sense to them. I went through a messy transition phase like that as a teenager but got myself sorted out in my early twenties and have been humming along wonderfully ever since. As I mentioned in past articles, I adopted a simple moral structure based on the Nonaggression Principle (NAP), which essentially just forbids the initiation of force and fraud against other individuals. This covers the offenses we probably think of first when someone says the word "crime." Fortunately, both church and state consider such offenses to be crimes too, even though they often make convenient exceptions for themselves. This makes for a very simple moral code by which to live and it's not hard to uphold it if one so chooses.
Once we shed the social programing of our childhood and adopt this much simpler foundation, we feel pretty damn good about ourselves. We also become more sensitized to the violence perpetuated by illegitimate authority figures and we actively seek to avoid the institutions they serve and represent. We start to see people as either anarchist or statist and we naturally gravitate towards other people that share our perspective. This is where the so-called "liberty movement" comes from. At first glance, it might appear from the outside that we're all on the same page just because we all claim to uphold the NAP... but as any one of us can attest, the truth is very different. We're deeply divided on many issues and if you look for them, you can find libertarians that despise each other even more than they despise the statist authoritarians that would oppress them. There are a lot of little reasons to be found for this but two stand out above all others.
1) Application of the NAP
(who's property rights should be respected?)
We have different ideas about who's property rights ought to be respected. At one end of the spectrum, we have people that only respect the rights of law-abiding adult humans of sound mind that can enter into contracts (often referred to as full moral agents). As you move down the line, you'll find others that are willing to extend that respect to criminals, mentally handicapped people, people in comas, children, fetuses, and other non-human creatures as well in an attempt to universalize the NAP across all sentient individuals.
2) Behavioral Standards
(what actions should be promoted and what should be discouraged?)
The NAP only defines what deeds ought rightfully be considered crimes (crimes are violations of property rights, which justify defensive force). It doesn't define which ideals to strive for or what values to uphold. Nor does it define which non-criminal activities ought to be avoided and discouraged. Everyone has their pet issues but in general, we can again fit everyone on a spectrum. At one end, we find those who don't want to bother with anything other than the most minimal "bare-bones" application of the NAP without any indication of behavior preferences. At the other end of the spectrum, we have more socially conservative people who believe that for their communities to be strong and resilient, they ought to uphold standards for behavior that go well beyond the NAP. For instance, they often discourage sexual promiscuity because of how it spreads disease, complicates relationships, and results in unwanted pregnancies that produce side-effects like single-parenthood and orphanage.
With these in mind, we can craft a new political compass specifically for libertarians.
What do you think? Do you fit anywhere on this grid? How do you deal with people on opposing quadrants? Is it better to set our differences aside and try to cooperate or should we optimize our lives by sorting ourselves into tribes of more like-minded and compatible people? I'll go into my own opinions about all of this in another article but for now, I'm genuinely curious about where everyone sees themselves on the game board.
Great article, @piedpiper! I too, have many issues with fellow libertarians, and believe that a political compass specifically made for libertarians is interesting. I'm not entirely sure whether I understand the terms you have used in your matrix: universalist, puritan, libertine, and contractualist. Maybe you could explain this compass in greater detail in one of your next posts. :)
Thanks! I explained in the article but maybe I can clarify or simplify a bit here...
A contractualist believes that the NAP only applies to full moral agents (conscious adult humans of sound mind). Contrariwise, a universalist applies the NAP universally to all sentient individuals, regardless of their age, intelligence, or species.
A libertine is satisfied with only the NAP while a puritan also holds himself and those in his community to strict behavioral standards.
I'm not sure where to put myself in your matrix. I consider myself a Daoist and see many ways in which libertarian anarchism and daoism complement one another although their philosophical focus is quite different.
@chhaylin, how does Daoism differ?
@joeyarnoldvn, libertarian anarchism is very political in nature whereas Daoism describes a personal philosophy of living that would be compatible with anarchist politics. Libertarian anarchism states that government is bad and should not infringe people's freedoms. Daoism at its core is a philosophy on 'relational singularization' - how we, as radical individuals are related to one another and how from there we should live our deeply personal lives, not just our political lives.
I realize it may sound quite unclear. I need to find words to express myself better, and may write an article about it later on. :)
I like what you said here and I agree with it. I like the ideas of Daoism. I like freedoms for individuals in individualism.
How do you like my interpretation of taoism being pretty much the same thing as utilitarian voluntarism?
Hi @samupaha, very nice article. I'm not sure whether we can call Daoism utilitarian. Daoists, to me, seem to me to be negating the conception of utility - or at least, utility for society in general. This is well exemplified in the story of the tree and the carpenter.
Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying maybe rape me.
I think living in like-minded communities is what will be the next progression of things. Statism is a barrier to this but it would probably happen quickly in a voluntary world.
It wouldn't be isolationist like you live in your community and those 150 are all that you know. Rather people probably want to constantly visit and explore and figure out what works best and what other people are doing.
But there are so many arbitrary things like even down to what level of nudity is acceptable. Is it ok to walk around puffing a cigarette near people, etc. And life just works a little easier when you surround yourself by people who are on the same page rather than try to live on top of each other with different attitudes about this stuff.
And being surrounded "by like-minded people" can actually mean a community of completely different people, if they wanted to attempt that and see how it works.
And it's my feeling that there will probably be "public" areas where people from different communities all hangout and stuff. And this is great for people who haven't settled somewhere. And there's some generic code of conduct in these places, and then in your home communities you have more niche differences.
I been thinking the same thing.
Nassim Taleb put it well in his latest piece: "You know instinctively that people get along better as neighbors than roommates."
Too much population density = Mouse utopia.
Ya, I think it's easier to really connect and go deep and be one when we're more surrounded by people who don't have clashing preferences and attitudes.
And we'd have "neighbor" communities who we're friends with, but we'd organize more closely and more intimately with people we vibe most with.
It's a funny duality where we want to accept everyone -- and we should in the sense that we want them to be them, to live their destiny in whatever ways seem good to them.
But that's different than being close with everyone.
And I think in today's world we take it for granted that we build "communities" of people who essentially barely even know each other, let alone have a real capacity to bond and connect deeply.
We need more family like communities.
Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying maybe rape me.
Hi! Glad I found your profile. After reading Atlas Shrugged some years ago I could never go back. The problem I have with anarchism is that in my opinion a lot of people who call themselves anarchists are actually communist. They want the state gone, but at the same time they want to force people to live in their communist society. That makes no sense to me. Anarchism is about freedom from force and violence. Sure, create your communist society, but leave me out of it. Love the post. Got a new follower. I usually dont ask people to follow me or check out my blog, unless I actually believr you will enjoy it :) cheers
Good to meet you! Yeah, there's no going back after the Shrug.
You're definitely right about the word "anarchy" being misused a lot. I'm still surprised by how few people actually know what the word means. When you ask most people, they say that it's just a synonym for chaos. lol And yes, a lot of commies use it too.
Of course I'll take a look at your stuff. Cheers!
How can anarchism not become chaotic? Family has a governmental structure. The President of the family is the father. There is a system in place. Government is simply a structure. Companies have governance as well. Without structure, you have chaos.
Would you consider Bitshares a company? Bitshares is known as a DAC, a Decentralized Autonomous Community/Company. There is no president, and the "powers" get divided up amongst many different people. I see disagreements once in awhile and the occasional rage-quit, but Bitshares continues to grow like crazy.
As for the father being president, I have to disagree there. I am a father of two, and my wife and i share in all decisions. If she's not happy, then I sure won't be happy. You might have been taught that the man is the head of the house (church perhaps?), but the woman is the neck, and she can turn the head any way she wants. --shout out to the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding
As for companies, I manage multiple teams of developers providing my insight and ideas, but ultimately i leave it up to them to make the right decisions on how to structure a class, function or sub-routine etc, seek out bugs, and do what they do best.. code code code. So, yes it might be my company that hired them, but giving them the freedom to do it right and collaborate directly with their peers on other dev teams around the world brings in a very nice level of decentralization in my company too. So, once designers, developers and other creatives start to see the power of decentralizing, then that hierarchy disappears as well and everyone gets a piece of the pie.
Government is good or bad? Some say it is bad. Some say government is not in family or in some decentralized groups. You might be arguing semantics, on what to call what. There is structure and design in life. We may call things with different names and labels, but those things are still there. You do not have to call yourself the boss to be the boss. As a father, you do not have to think of yourself as the leader or king to be at the top with your wife.
.
Better leaders delegate. You trust in other people. They do the work. But if they do not do the work, who will fire them or how do you get rid of people if you need to? These are questions about how you do your business. The structure is a form of governance even if you choose not to label it with words that you do not like for some reason. Different people have different roles and jobs which are suited to their abilities and talents and everything. Men and women have the freedom to do what they want to do. Women can choose to do what men do. Look at the relationship between Captain Picard and his number one, Riker, in Star Trek Next Generation (STNG). Picard was at the top, but he would get advice from Riker. Many things happened in their seven seasons and in their movies. The father and mother may have that same kind of relationship. It can be rather complex or simple. It is a long story. Men are often better suited above women. That is how things work.
.
Decentralization is a structure and a design.
.
Government does not have to be big, bad, evil, and corrupt.
.
But too often, it has been because people are bad too often.
.
So, we normally hate the word "GOVERNMENT."
In Star Trek, Starfleet was a an opt-in organization. Because participation was voluntary, it was perfectly compatible with anarchism. I think it's a good example of how people will choose to participate in hierarchies and submit to legitimate authorities voluntarily.
If you are forcing your children to obey you, then yes, you are their ruler. That's not anarchist structure. An anarchist parent doesn't rule their children at all. They serve their children as service providers and never force them to do anything against their will.
Kids can choose to leave if they do not want to follow the rules. And when people come into my country, then I want them to follow the rules and laws of my country. If you do not want to follow the laws, you must pay the price or leave. The same thing is true for companies. Everything involves choice even when people say there is no choice. The choice is always there and the spanking hurts me more than it hurts you.
The word anarchy literally just means "without rulers." It doesn't mean that there can be no voluntary structures. Consent is the key. The current governments that we're accustomed rule by force, not by consent. Companies are perfectly compatible with anarchy because participation in them is voluntary. Your boss at work isn't a ruler because you're just engaged in a voluntary transaction with him and you can end your association with one another at any time.
@piedpiper, I disagree. What you said are generalities of how you see the world. A CEO can rule by force. A CEO can also engage in consent and participation and collaboration and teamwork. Government does the same thing. There does not need to be a difference between how a boss does stuff with how government leaders do things. It is the same thing or can be. A boss can be a ruler and a ruler can act like a boss. It goes both ways.
No, A CEO cannot rule by force because his employees enter into their position voluntarily and are always free to leave. It's a consensual agreement, not force. Government laws are backed by the threat of violence (theft, kidnapping, imprisonment, assault, and murder).
Kids grow up and they leave too. The husband and wife come together via a consensual agreement, something like a legal contract and commitment and smart contract, a thing we call marriage, and when a father is too bad, maybe like seen in the movie Mr. Doubt Fire starring funny comedian actor Robin Williams, and if the father is maybe too bad and abusive and is like assaulting kids and doing too bad, then the mother or others can take the kids from him. You do not like government. You have personal problems with government. That is very sad. You cannot see pass your own blind spot. You live in fear and you deflect an reflect and impose your own feelings and problems onto others by saying that they fear when you are the one that fears either accidentally and subliminally or you do know that you are in fear. You can say you have no fear but you do regardless of whether you know it or not.
Agreed. Some anarchists are communists / socialists /Marxists / progressives. I do not want to be too forced towards too many things like taxes or bad laws or any of those things that can become problematic maybe eventually. Some anarchists can be maybe too impractical about the world. Without government or leaderships and some structure, then many bad things do happen or can happen when there are no compensations and substitutions and replacements for the absence of government.
In a minarchy the state's only role is to protect your property, meaning your land, house, things and body. Everything else will be voluntary. Do you want someone to put out the flames if your house bursts into fire? Then its a good idea to organize and pay for a fire departement. Anarchy doesnt mean chaos. It means voluntarism. It will be your priviledge and responsibility to either chose to pay for firemen or not. You will be a grown up human being capable of taking the best decision for you.
Agreed. I want to choose to pay for it. I don't want to be forced to pay. I hate taxes. Sadly, many people feel and think and are too dependent on welfare and they are like babies that cannot live without training wheels. You would probably need to replace the government with people and groups that could come in and help those people maybe. I am not saying that we have to help some of the people who are too lazy to work, but we should consider what kind of crime they may do when they are without their precious welfare.
Yes, every government agency and program can be replaced with voluntary alternatives in the private sector.
@piedpiper, agreed, it can be replaced but that is still a process and a transition that takes time and training and everything and it is kind of tough to switch over.
People like your comments and not mine. That is bias. Everybody has bias. But I agreed with what you said. People do not understand what I am saying. We all see things through sunglasses.
Nah man, they say they're dependent but if the state dissolved, they'd adapt. barriers to entry would come crashing down and they could enter the marketplace and start grinding or they could leave town and start fresh like our ancestors. Don't mistake a leach for anything less than a highly evolved survivor. They just found out that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. They are keenly aware of how to sell emotional relief to their customers. In an open market, healthcare costs would be so low (like the way it was before big govt) and loans so reasonable that even if you gambled on it and didn't get insurance, you'd still be able to bounce back. And even then there'd still be some charity and family help. And as far as crime goes, First of all what you described is a shake down, its like paying them to not be criminals perverting the incentive. Secondly, when we're all packin heat and are an app away from rallying the neighborhood watch and alerting our insurers, desperation crime doesn't stand a chance. It would be far easier to go dumpster diving. You just sign a waiver proving you understand that the food you find isn't guaranteed to be fresh and pig out to your hearts content. I'm guessing you've never been poor before. It's not that scary. I try to make sure that I'm never more than a days march from unpaved rural terrain. I know I can scratch a living from the earth if need be. bums today with their $10 phones and over the counter vitamins are richer than all the kings of the ancient world combined. Don't let them have their way with your heart strings.
Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying maybe rape me.
I think there is also a big difference between "utilitarianism" and "natural rights" in the libertarian scene. I was going to leave a comment but instead ended up writing a full post: Utilitarian voluntarism vs. natural rights libertarianism
But I guess it's still too short to explain everything so feel free to comment and ask questions.
That's a very fun topic. My short response would simply be that rights don't exist. That is to say, they aren't anything objective outside of ourselves. They're just thoughts in our minds. They're the respect we decide to automatically grant others and it varies from person to person. For instance, someone at the top of my chart only believes that conscious adult humans of sound mind have full human rights. Someone at the bottom of the chart, like me, will disagree and argue that people in comas, children, and all other sentient creatures of the world ought to be granted the same rights.
But how do you come up with the story of rights? Where does that come from? What's your argument for "this is the story that people should believe"?
For me the concept of natural rights has been always somehow incomplete. It's like saying "everybody should believe this story, period", and not discussion of the reasons why. Like it's just a story that's mandatory for every libertarian to believe. That's the starting point and there is no need to discuss why we should start from there.
We adopt a moral framework based upon our highest values. Someone who values power and the spreading of his genes will have no interest in the NAP. He'll instead say that strength and domination are virtues and that weakness and submission are sins. I adopted the NAP because my highest goal/value is peaceful coexistence with others. The NAP is a recipe that produces that desired outcome. Morality is subjective until you have defined your ultimate values/goals. Once you have identified those, the rest is a matter of objective cause and effect.
But that is very dangerous. And your definition of subjectivity is incomplete. You should reconsider because you are not looking at the bigger picture.
Great post. Maybe here:
All depends on how exactly "puritan" is defined, really, in regard to different areas.
It's just there to indicate maximum social conservatism. If you happen to think of a better word for that, by all means, fire it at me. This is just a first draft and can definitely be refined.
No, it's not that. I just mean, in regard to being "puritanical" when it comes to marriage commitments, I am all the way to the right, really. In regard to using substances and being slightly loose sometimes in that respect, I'd be a little more to the left.
I love the chart, man.
Yeah, I'm the same. The exact behavioral expectations will vary from tribe to tribe. The chart is only meant to reflect the amount of such expectations one has.
Followed. Liked. Upvoted. Resteemed. Read. Understood. I love peace through strength. Now, is the Non-Aggression Priniciple the same as pacifism? Should we become monks and live in towers up in the sky and only come down once a year? I choose to be aggressive sometimes. I believe in aggression. I understand people who DO NOT believe in starting the aggression. But can aggression be a form of discipline and correction towards your children or students as parents or teachers? I believe in smaller government. I may even consider becoming more like an anarchist. I believe in capitalism. I love money. I love freedoms. For the most part, I do not try to be aggressive towards people, but I make exceptions like you said above when you mentioned the state and also religion.
Hi Joe. Aggression is the initiation of violence, so if you didn't start it, you're not being aggressive.
The NAP isn't about withdrawing from society, just the state, which loves it when you confuse the two.
There's still plenty to disagree about though, as @piedpiper has mentioned.
I don't believe corporal punishment qualifies as aggression, for example.
@mattclarke, agreed, I believe in not starting violence, physical fights, but some would argue and say that Trump Tweets caused terrorists to kill people. I hear the left on CNN and all over blaming Trump for what he said. They said Trump was too aggressive. There is physical aggression which involves violence. My dad was always drinking when I was a kid. My dad was verbally abusive. My dad did not hit my mom but he was yelling. So, I have those memories.
.
I think I agree in the NAP in withdrawing from the state. I think that is not a good enough strategy for making the world better or anything good. I know that corporal punishment can be a dangerous thing to do, especially when the government becomes too big and too corrupt and everything. It might be different if government was perfect enough. I try to tell myself to focus more on grace over justice. So, my definition of grace, mercy, kindness, agape, may include the NAP thing. I love the justice thing which involve wrath and revenge and giving people what they deserve and all. But as I get older, I start to consider more the opportunities and potential of a focus on grace.
Glad to see you're taking steps to avoid inheriting your Dad's temper.
My old man is a really good example to follow, and I see how easy it is to act like him. If he was a bastard, I'm not sure how I'd go fighting the urge to emulate.
Keep up the good work.
Good. Thanks. Agreed. I do not want to invade or conquer people.
yeah, if you treat children like property that you can hit, you'd be a contractualist at the top of the compass.
It's an interesting premise. Do you have anything more in-depth on the different extremes? I'd like to read up on it.
@mattclarke, Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying maybe rape me.
Yeah, you guys are just going to downvote each other to oblivion.
You're calling him a fool, on his own post. That doesn't work here, and will cost you money.
You want my advice? Go do pretty much anything else, instead.
@mattclarke, I did not downvote him. I am taking your advice. But I wanted to tell you this before I left. @piedpiper said he was against aggression but then took aggression on me. He contradicted himself. He said that hitting children is abuse. I say it normally is and we should not hit children in normal situations. It should not be the normal thing to do. I said that there are some exceptions. He does not like that I believe in exceptions. But in generality, basically, I agree with him in a general way. But now he is downvoting me.
.
Matt Clark, I took your advice. I LEFT. I WENT ON. BUT HE WENT TO MY STEEMIT PAGE AND DOWNVOTED MY POSTS. He is stalking me. He is assaulting me. He is spamming me.
@piedpiper, I like all four corners of your game board.
What happens if you don't hit children?
If you don't hit children, those children won't be hit by you. Neat, huh? ;) Rather than obeying an illegitimate authority figure out of fear and learning that might makes right, they'll follow your example and seek your guidance voluntarily while learning logic, critical thinking, negotiation and creative problem solving skills.
@piedpiper, children do not always and only directly do from and by and through imputation from what they see parents and others do. The world is not that simple and I know people want to blame the parents and others and say that is how it works but this is not how it works and it is not that simple and we can do our best to help children but we cannot guarantee outcomes because destiny are ultimately up to each individual and person and kid.
.
Kids do better when they learn critical thinking and everything else from people, especially from their own parents, and the sooner the better too. Kids do better, I agree, when they can have better examples and everything from people and especially parents.
.
You need to hit people something. It is very important. That does not mean it is a fear thing. It is a love thing. Please reconsider this thing. When you do not hit, bad things happen. The whole thing is not a simple thing to describe. There might be exceptions.
No, hitting others is never love. It is assault. It's very simple.
No, the NAP isn't pacifism. It allows for the use of violence as long as it's strictly defensive... and no, hitting children isn't defensive.
Correct, in the NAP you do not escalate a situation. You can meet force with equal force, self-defense.
Great post by the way piedpiper - UPVOTED :)
@kencode, Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying maybe rape me.
How can you discipline children without enough punishment and motivation?
If there is no punishment, then why would a kid stop doing bad things?
Some kids are different and may need different kinds of punishments at times.
Some kids are well behaved like more often while others not so much.
Discipline is something we develop for ourselves, not something to do to other people. Children are naturally curious and interested in learning, growing, and becoming adults already. They don't need motivation to do that. There's no reason that that should turn out the way that their parents want them to. Obedience isn't a virtue and children are not property. They're self-owning individuals like you and me. They can choose their own paths in life and it's not our place to force them down other paths against their will.
Agreed. I agree with those things. I am not talking against those things. The story is a longer story than that. Many people do not let children ask enough questions. People should let kids be kids more. We should let kids have more freedoms. We should let kids explore more. My mother taught me at home. The way my mother helped me changed as I got older. The way my mom helped my siblings were different at times. Different kids are different. We do better when we cultivate strategies towards helping the youth. We learn at different speeds and in different ways. Children are better off when they are more curious and when they are encouraged to be more curious and to work on their projects at their own pace and everything. I agree with all of that. What I said before is not about this. It goes way beyond that. There are so many opportunities for children. When I was ten years old, we had a camcorder and we were making movies and videos. I was also building things with wood. I would take apart electronics like my older brother. Life is full of adventures and that is great. And by the way, parents can also reward kids. You can tell them good job. You can take them out for pizza or buy them gifts. I agree with that too. I will probably write books about these things. I would emphasize on rewards. I would focus more on that and things like that first.
joeyarnoldvn- Are you familiar with peaceful parenting (sometimes also referred to as positive parenting or gentle parenting)? If not, I highly recommend that you look into it as it addresses the questions you’ve raised here.
It’s a more constructive method of parenting, whereby the parent learns to be more conscientious in their own modeling behavior when responding to their child; identifying and addressing the underlying needs of children that may be driving their behavior; guiding children with proper coping skills and problem solving skills (while still setting healthy limits), and how they can be applied in future situations; and most importantly, creating a foundation of trust, connection, mutual respect, and empathy with your child.
Rebecca Eanes has written some excellent books on this topic (‘The Newbie's Guide to Positive Parenting: Second Edition’ would be a good place to start), as has Dr. Laura Markham (‘Peaceful Parent, Happy Kids: How to Stop Yelling and Start Connecting’) who has a wonderful website filled with useful information & tips: www.ahaparenting.com. I hope you’ll check it out. :)
Peaceful parenting does not always work and there are problems with it.
That's an assertion without an argument.
@piedpiper is pretending I did not make an argument and is therefore trying to discredit what I said. History is on my side. He can say that is not an argument. That is not relevant because truth does not have to be an argument to be true. It does not matter if you like what I said or not. Human nature is not governed externally. I do not make you into the person you are. You make yourself into the kind of person that you are for the most part.
.
@piedpiper What I said is true. Peaceful parenting does not work as much as you would like people think it works. Sadly, it is not that simple. You need to think about this. You are ignoring so much evidence and so many things which either makes you a bad person or very dumb for ignoring the world and the history that will show you what happened and is happening.
@tmendieta, I love "PEACEFUL PARENTING." I do not disagree with that. Please think about that. People thought I disagree. I do not disagree. I love those things. My parents did those things and I do those things. I agree with you with those things. Thanks for writing. Thanks so much.
@tmendieta, Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying to maybe rape me.
I try to be in the middle of the game board. When I was a kid, I was more on the top right corner as a contractual puritan. As I got older, I went down and left to be more liberal and universal. I believe in classical liberty or liberalism in letting people do what they want to do. I believe in objective universal morality and everything that can be applied to everybody everywhere. I kind of want to be in the middle of the board but I am becoming a bit more liberal and universal on the bottom left corner of the game board.
Yeah, I moved around the board too. Ten years ago, I was in the top left and now I'm in the bottom right. Funny how much we can change, huh? :)
Right. Funny. Sure. And I also try to go to the right where you are too.
But I tend to be more liberal than pure. I am at the bottom too like you.
I can see myself anywhere on the board depending on the situation and everything.
I like everything on your board. So, the center is a great place to be.
There's nothing wrong with the center. As for religions, I guess I would have to take the agnostic label (can't prove to me he exists, can't prove to me he doesn't), but then again, Simulation Theory seems convincing too.
I can absolutely prove that God doesn't exist. I did a post on it last year but I guess it's a good time for a refresher ;) lol You should see my white board here. Got a lot of topics lined up.
Maybe our "god" is just an algorithm and we are all just variables in an array. Hell maybe we're not even code at all anymore, maybe we're just the conscious of a VR world's avatar, of an avatar, of an avatar......
The key is in the language. If we're talking about a computer system, then we have words for that and we shouldn't call it anything else. We don't point at a dog and call it a car... so if someone talks about space aliens or AI systems as being god, they aren't making a case for God, they're just using words wrong.
Is the simulation theory kind of like what Dilbert creator Scott Adams talked about? Adams talked about how crazy life things could be explained if we were all inside a computer simulation virtual reality VR program alternative reality hologram Star Trek Holodeck Matrix thing.
not sure, but that sounds about right. elon musk has mentioned it a few times too.
great
But now he is trying to kill me.
What wild ride to go through the intellectual drama of personal development. We are programmed as children, i believe only a small number of us can break the "conditioning" and drop all of the pre-conceived notions, basically uploaded to us. A good question is if governments are intentionally "social engineering" us, is that a crime? To manipulate ones personal being through deception. Seems as if they are taking away our individuality for personal gain, stealing our livlihood for profit, it may be considered theft.
Trying to convince someone to believe as you do isn't itself a violation of the NAP but if you use force to do it, like the state does, than it absolutely becomes a violation. I would never force my daughter to go anywhere, least of all a state indoctrination facility.
Haha, very true. Its not the act of convincing someone, its the method.
perhaps
That is a crime or it is not good. Many people are or are trying to brain wash us at all times all over the palce in so many ways in so many different ways and it is complex and simple.
@americana-reboot, Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying to maybe rape me.
Please guys follow me I'm new user
welcome
@piedpiper, DO NOT HIT / ASSAULT CHILDREN. I AGREE. PEOPLE ARE PAYING YOU MONEY TO LIE ABOUT ME. I agree with you. But you continue to comment and pretend that I disagree. I hate violence. I hate abuse. I hate assault. I do not like it when people assault / hit people. I said that I agree with you many times but you continue to pretend that I did not say that. You continue to insult me and you continue to lie about what I said. I talked about discipleship. I did not talk about bad things like killing people. I hate bad things. I hate abuse. I hate it. I hate it when we hurt people. I agree with you.
Do not hit except sometimes.
Hmm, there is a lot to think about in this thread. I may have to read up again on Larken Rose first to get in to the right mood and build up my vocabulary.
Larken Rose is awesome ! :D
Focus and inner knowing...moving most aside in a physical sense to concentrate on uplifting the masses through my own positive works...by simply living...I create more magick...and harmony in my surroundings...
Upvoted and follow :)
“People who pride themselves on their "complexity" and deride others for being "simplistic" should realize that the truth is often not very complicated. What gets complex is evading the truth.”
― Thomas Sowell,
@piedpiper I see collaborative efforts, spontaneous self-organizing phenomena, peer-to-peer, sharing, and both open & free source technologies competing with institutional governance that seek to centralize control...
Market volatility and social upheaval may be coming.
Pied Piper is downvoting my posts. He uses aggression against me. @piedpiper is attacking me. He said that discipline is bad. He said discipleship is bad. I agreed with him that abused is bad. I agree. Assault is bad. Murder is bad. We agree but he continues to attack me. I am not attacking him but he is abusing me. He is trying maybe rape me.