|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Jun 20, 2006 10:24:30 GMT -5
If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree. We must, therefore, emphasize that "we" are not the government; the government is not "us." The government does not in any accurate sense "represent" the majority of the people.[1] But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority.[2] No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that "we are all part of one another," must be permitted to obscure this basic fact. If, then, the State is not "us," if it is not "the human family" getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet.[3] Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary. Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays Murray N. Rothbard Excellent book that's a joy to read, by a brilliant, good-humoured down-to-earth author  And still a very reasonable price: www.lfb.com/index.php?stocknumber=MR8312 |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jun 20, 2006 18:50:13 GMT -5
This is an amazingly popular thread. Never in my wildest imagination did I think when I started it that this would be so. Yeah, that's probably what Bill Gates tells himself each night before he goes to bed! - NonE |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Jun 27, 2006 14:16:13 GMT -5
quote: "I don't want a 'competent' lawyer. I want a lawyer to get me off. I want a lawyer to invent the Twinkie defense. I want to win. - "Honorable" Justice Antonin Scalia" thereisnostate.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1101651829&page=32#1151434612so by his "get me off"... is that legaleze or legal-sleeze?!? (or is there a difference actually?!?) Clinton must have quipped this one a lot. 'cept of course he wanted an intern to get him off... amazing~ but the quote speaks volumes regarding the mind-set rampant today; as it's all about winning, and not what's moral, honorable, and right; where even the winning itself is typically immoral |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Jun 27, 2006 15:15:21 GMT -5
If I am forced at gunpoint into a "cage match" (i.e. COURT) then I will attempt to manipulate the uber-flexible "rules" of this game in order to win (i.e. "get outta here alive"). It's not immoral to escape through their loopholes, such as "a fair trial", "an unbiased judge", "relevant facts/sworn testimony entered into evidence", etc. is it? I know that's not really your point  |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Jun 27, 2006 16:28:24 GMT -5
I know that's not really your point right~ I spoke more unto the (self-proclaimed) "Honorable" (as then to the "Justice" System). As to your notations, heck yeah; when dealing with the notoriously dishonorable; THEY discarded the rule (Golden). |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Jul 6, 2006 13:13:05 GMT -5
Honestly, these sort of "reasonings" tickle me... or they would, if they weren't taken so seriously by too many... 'relativity-ly' (if I may morph a word for points sake). ;D While it is interesting and intriguing to contemplate "reality" ie atoms and the like, it has little to do with "actuality" aka "factuality". For all that 'matters' (emphasis on the matter), elementally (de-emphasis on the "elementary" as the conclusion, with emphasis on the 'elements'), my dear Watson, is that which we hold 'common' to the senses. Or as Sherlock's later character morph as Joe Friday put it: "Just the facts, mam."  For that is 'all' that we-- essentially --have in common as to society. Society then being the only real need for areas of agreement! What we 'are' apart (or "deeper") from what we can experience, thus share universally, belongs to the realm of philosphy and/or religion; not ethics and morality (thus, the No State experience). [side-bar: I find it significant that we make distinctions via the words "reality" vs "actuality"; the real vs the actual; one example: no one argues that 'thought' is not 'real', but it is not actual; thus the distinction between 'conclusion' based upon 'the facts']This quote takes the word "solid" then out of context, imho. That which is 'solid' is simply that which when wielded by another anonymously upon another anonymously yeilds the same factual result, regardless of what is "known" ('deeper' ie 'anatomical' vs "atomical"); eg: put 'you' in a totally dark room and let 'me' smack you up side the back of the head with a 2X4... that is mere "atoms"... "so little actual material that they can barely be said to existl"... and see if it makes a believer out of 'you' (as again, to what you 'know'). Thus it is the factual (commonly sensed) as to the 'universal' experiencial (common sense) that 'matters' as to what we "know". When you boil it down, all we can 'know' is what we can experience in common. We cannot experience the likes of atoms (interestingly, neither collectively nor individually). That is the only essential as to societal existence-- thus of significance to The No State issue. For when you get down to it, atoms and the like are 'mere' theory. Otherwise, prove them factually. Show me 'one'... as opposed to text book drawing aka "Scale Model". May we not be distracted by the (interesting) likes of the 'intangibles'-- the "un-experiencables" --as they are after all, "anti-social" as an 'anti-matter' of significance. eye2i2 (feel the 2x4) here ps: apologies to those that don't particualarly care for word morphs; obviously, I find them potentially helpful~ |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jul 6, 2006 14:18:14 GMT -5
I would imagine, 2i2, that a physicist would be as secure in his "factual" knowledge of the existence of an atom as you or I might be in our factual knowledge that the moon exists. I'm pretty secure in the knowledge that the place commonly known as China exists, even though I've never been there and had a personal tactile experience with it. As a poster (Stacey Curl) on Stef Molyneux's board said: I was impressed by his logic. I think that it goes to the heart of much of the NonEsense that we find herein as regards (see, now you've got ME sticking "as"es in places!) "Factually Describing" things... - NonE |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Jul 6, 2006 15:26:34 GMT -5
I would imagine, 2i2, that a physicist would be as secure in his "factual" knowledge of the existence of an atom as you or I might be in our factual knowledge that the moon exists. I'm pretty secure in the knowledge that the place commonly known as China exists, even though I've never been there and had a personal tactile experience with it. I had hoped that my notation/inclusion of "society" and emphasis on " we" along with "common senses" would qwell this argument temptation.  [que the Aerosmith mp3 " Dream On" here X] ;D If you'll pardon the pun, said physicists live in their own little world. That is not to belittle the significance regarding consideration, but to put it in perspective (...umm... what is 'perspective'?!) . Then the notation of the moon hits closer to the nail, as at least its more 'universal' (obviously, those lacking 1 of the common senses -sight -could still doubt). The moon also offers what I consider a key point: what does it have to do with society (as to dispute/resolution)? The China notation also hits even closer regarding what's relevant. It's not that "China" specific exists but rather that the land I stand on doesn't end. Then neither does it for any other --considering common sense. So again, we get back to two key factors regarding societal/" we" 'matters': 1) as many of the 5 common senses as can be experienced, by the majority, rather than any isolated singles ones, and 2) less specialization vs more generalization. Again, I speak essentially to the No State issues, as societal issues; less to the philosophical ones --acknowledging, they can be entertwined. I understand we cross grey areas (since we're dealing as well with grey matter ie brains; and no, I've not seen mine, 'mind' you, either); it is 'the stuff' of dispute, after all that 'matters'. ;D [thought to self: why do 'we' use the word 'matters' for such, afterall?!? is it a 'sign'?] With notation back to my primary point, I have no problem with noting the illogic of many aspects of seeking answers to societal matters. And so, yes, considering all aspects of specialization (ie physicists) have merit. I just hold that "the model" too often passes over into the irrelevant as to morph into the "reverent" when it comes to societal disputes. If I may speak candidly, I feel this response came closer from the "reverent" side; but that's just mho (and no disrespect intended, at all)~ Reminding then that I've offered in other posts, conclusions-- "non-existances" not inherently non-essences/non-essentials -- are equal in importance, if not moreso societally, than the factual upon which said conclusions rely. Its in disqualifying by implication the common by examining 'beyond' the common, universal* natural senses (viz microscopes, telescopes, etc) that I am inclined to argue against being reasonable and logical, thus applicable. *[as "we" use the term 'universal' commonly, not scientifically] mye2 cents worth, ~eye2i |
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Jul 6, 2006 17:30:48 GMT -5
I would imagine, 2i2, that a physicist would be as secure in his "factual" knowledge of the existence of an atom as you or I might be in our factual knowledge that the moon exists. I'm pretty secure in the knowledge that the place commonly known as China exists, even though I've never been there and had a personal tactile experience with it. As a poster (Stacey Curl) on Stef Molyneux's board said: I was impressed by his logic. I think that it goes to the heart of much of the NonEsense that we find herein as regards (see, now you've got ME sticking "as"es in places!) "Factually Describing" things... - NonE I am having some difficulty with what you have said about and the quote from Stacey Curl. Some of what I2I has made sense but I'm still having some difficulty comprehending. It is my perception, Science is as much about demonstrating, proving, or (To find/figure out or learn through experience, observation, and or experimentation) as it is about disproving things. The splinter in my mind is that Stacey;s statement makes no sense in that the premise necessarily implicitly includes that which it is trying to deny. The not disproven thing makes even less sense. Does that imply we can disprove that if one ceases consumption of nutrients, liquids, and gases (oxygen), we will continue to exist on this planet? In other words lets take something some of us here have discussed before. Existence/Nonexistence. In order to prove the negative premise, or actively disprove existence, one must implicitly include and imply that existence exists or the consciousness pondering nonexistence could not exist to ponder nonexistence to begin with. . . This is insanity. i.e. To postulate that scientific method "only disproves things" the premise must implicitly include and imply that science proves things while not directly addressing the issue and thus while all the reasoning that follows the premise may be sound the, conclusion that follows may likely be incorrect or have some serious flaws. My description of scientific method as I understand it might be described as a tool of logic, reason, experimentation, observation, documentation, data collection/evaluation, analysis, refinement, (rinse and repeat); that allows the user to evaluate Opinions, Assumptions, Theory, or Hypothesis, about specific phenomena, or occurrence. In other words it allows one to test the validity/invalidity of the description of a phenomena, event, or occurrence, and promotes refinement in such a way as to eliminate opinion and assumption to the point that something can be described and demonstrated with consistency independent of beliefs/opinions/assumptions regardless of the consciousness observing it, and thusly be understood by all consciousness' possessing the ability to reason. I would submit for review that scientific method doesn't disprove a thing, it merely shows whether the ideas, opinions,assumptions, etc., we hold about a particular thing or phenomena are valid, clear, consistent, and repeatable, if not then that doesn't disprove the object of observation, "the thing" but the premise, ideas, assumptions, conclusions made prematurely. i.e. Something based upon limited information. When one can refine the description such that it is observable by, demonstrable to, and consistently repeatable by others with "opinions" that may be different then it is my perception one might just be looking at a fact as we perceive this plane of existence with our senses. Marc has some pretty good questions that help expose whether someone is reasonable, rational, and in general the opposite of a psychopath. i.e. Should you kill people to build roads? Should any product or service be provided at the barrel of a gun? I know. . . patently frivilousicious questions. . . at least to a psychotic. ;D But hey how is a question frivolous per the definition of frivolous legal land or otherwise? |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jul 6, 2006 18:12:29 GMT -5
Sagas,
The "scientific method," as I understand it, is to always be open to new evidence. In science you have hypotheses and theories. A hypothesis is an idea about how you believe something works. In order to convert that hypothesis into a theory you must test it. If you test it in every which way that you can imagine, and let others duplicate your tests, and you all seem to get results which do not conflict with the hypothesis, then the hypothesis becomes a theory.
We have, for instance, the theory of gravity. We don't say that we have the "fact" of gravity, it is a theory. The reason that we don't have the "fact" of gravity is that we would then have closed our minds to new knowledge.
We had the theory of relativity for quite some time. Then someone came up with an new hypothesis about quantum stuff and seemed to show that the theory of relativity does not ALWAYS hold true.
That is the difference between faith and science. Science is open to new information. Faith generally is not.
That is why I frequently say that there is no "Truth." "Truth" is finite and allows for no greater understanding. It is the ultimate in arrogance and, it appears to me, shows the holder's great fear of learning something new. The amount of knowledge I have in regards to how the world works is so small as to not even be a speck of sand in the vastness of space as compared to all of the stuff there is to know out there. Learning stuff excites me. Daily. Learning things that turn my previous firmly held beliefs totally on their heads is a RUSH, even though it may be unsettling. It shows that I am alive. Life is movement. Death is stagnant. I welcome new ideas. That is why I decry "rights," as the concept of "rights" is static, and life has to move.
But just as things are not static, they have patterns of flow. If we can discern these patterns then we can learn how to ride the surfboard of life successfully, or at least we can have some great rides and avoid getting stuck in the troughs. No wave is like any that came before it, nor any that will come later. There is no "truth," but there are some patterns, some processes that generally work. The scientific method recognizes this and helps us to weed out the patterns that seem more consistent from those which are just pie in the sky, always allowing for new perspectives when new data appears.
At least that's how it appears to me, at this moment...
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Jul 6, 2006 19:35:57 GMT -5
NonE, Thanks. What I should have said is my attempt at a layman's understanding of scientific method. (For those who may not have any formal training in experimental scientific method other than the grammar school educational requirements). I am familiar with your more precise scientific definition; experiments, data collection, sample sizes, control groups etc. Although it is the stated goal or intent to to always be open to new evidence, since we are still dealing with human beings, there is still a tendency to resist change and many times new theories take some time for the science folks to warm up to. (Cource it also depends upon the field as well. Having a JPL Scientist working with trajectory and physics is much more a "hard" science. Experiemnts are more easily designed and the results mor difficult to ignore) Case in support: Plate Tectonic Theory. I am not supposing wikipedia is the ultimate or infallible source. For expediency and post length I will use it. There is good information and it can also demonstrate the reluctance to change and even acknowledge as there is a good cross section of folks who post there and I found this case that still persists from the textbooks right into wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#Development specifically This statement is so blatantly False it is not funny. I'm serial. Search the whole document for a German Scientist, Meteorologist, Explorer, named Alfred Wegner (1880-1930). You won't find him cited in the document or in Wikipedia, Nor in most textbooks, and you may or may not have a difficult time finding reference to him on the Net. (I haven't checked lately, but I knew of this before we had a commercial Internet). The point. Wegner proposed this theory of continental drift and plate tectonics ohh . . . let's see . . . way back when, maybe even a tad, before Mr. Einstein revealed his grand theory on relativity around 1905. Everyone thought he was a fruitcake and his career was literally destroyed . . . . that is until WWII and out noble protectors employed geologists During WWII to study the ocean floor to find hiding spots for subs to get them nasty gerry u-boats and find places to hide ours. In the 1960's then the honorable, noble, and open minded, scientists employed by the government trying to predict weather patterns etc., was looking for some data. By golly they found the WWII stuff, then started readin the books that hadn't be burned, and figured out crayzee old Wegner was onto something, but they took all the credit for developing the theory. Then there's Galileo and just a whole host of others and many we will likely never know about. BTW: I thought a theory was simply a set of assumptions based upon a limited set of knowledge, observations, or facts. The Hypothesis was a more formal statement which is used in the experimental model when designing experiments. This is to test the validity of the theories, and thus prove or disprove the assumptions in a well defined and controlled environment where all factors (or all known factors) are accounted for which then adds (positive) proof or negative (disproof) i.e. results that will support or detract from the original assumptions. Perhaps I was confused as to what 2i2 was explaining and the difference between scientific and philosophic exploration. I am thankful for my training though. It was in preparation for further scholarly study in science that started me on my journey to being more alert than I was. I started applying theory, hypothesis, test, observe, result to simple everyday mundane stuff and eventually that path led me here and most every day is a learning experience. Thanks All. |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Jul 10, 2006 14:54:17 GMT -5
quote: "We have, for instance, the theory of gravity. We don't say that we have the "fact" of gravity, it is a theory. The reason that we don't have the "fact" of gravity is that we would then have closed our minds to new knowledge." ... "That is why I frequently say that there is no "Truth." "Truth" is finite and allows for no greater understanding. It is the ultimate in arrogance and, it appears to me, shows the holder's great fear of learning something new. The amount of knowledge I have in regards to how the world works is so small as to not even be a speck of sand in the vastness of space as compared to all of the stuff there is to know out there." --end quote Am I the only one that hears something... and just finds it isn't quite 'right'... not quite "true"... yet in some ways it is?!? ;D Otay, as to the first part- the theory of gravity vs gravity as a fact. This is missing the relevancy, imho. Perhaps I could ask it this way: apart from facts (truth) would/could there be a theory of gravity? Thus, I propose (as I don't see how there would/could be a theory if there weren't facts) that in truth there are facts and thus there is truth, as there are truths. Too often of course, someone wants to claim authority regarding their understanding of truth (that which is theory &/or theology) as explaining the facts. That's what's closed; not truth. So it appears what is closeable is only, or at least primarily, and if nothing else, essentially, the theories-- that are (or become) closed (matters)? [I am not saying we can know all truth, either; I feel that's a non-essential, as what 'matters' (pun intended) is that which is societal; in many regards, the theories are non-essentials, where the truths are essential; eg it matter not why regarding if I push you off the highrise, only that truth holds you will splat... tho like the wave, said splat will be unique! ] Now, I want to say that I do feel I grasp a "why?" in much of what else is expressed, NonE; perhaps captured even in the punctuation and capitalization of the word ("Truth")?. While I grasp the oft used authority of "final" truth (ie "Truth") such as most (if not all) Revelation religions claim and the sad/tragic losses associated with it, I feel just because these usurp the ('our') word truth (as of course a 'mere' expression for a concept) we can't discard what is true, as what is then truth. Is it just me or is there a significant distinction needed here? Hopefully the example of the theory of gravity vs. that which prompts the theory (facts) touches on what I'm after...? In that, I would offer that truth-- as simply that which is commonly sensible aka true facts -- does exist and that it is 'universal'. That being said does not close the proverbial door as to the theories that get 'behind' or 'underneath' said truths. Nor does it discount that certain truths in time can be misunderstood. I suppose what I'm offering as an exhortation here, is that we not let those of closed minds usurp perfectly valid words-- as therin to 'make' truth closed-- where it is not. Then I suppose what I'm hearing (and so maybe it's just me?) is a valid word being usurped by a closed-minded group as then becoming invalid. Maybe its just me, but i don't feel we need to allow that with our equity in authority. Why can't we invalidate the theological theorists instead? [fwiw, I also hold that the concept behind the word 'right'/'rights' is of this same usurpation; seems its the nature of the beast? where indeed, would/could the beast usurp a position and call its opponent "the beast"?!] So to use the analogy, its not so much truth(s) that we need to ride like waves as it is the theories we postulate/formulate regarding it/them? Aren't waves a fact and aren't facts true? Call me one looking for the "hang 10" of toes gripping common sense. And then sorting out how we understand it as akin to waves (each one assessed by it's own merits). Its funny, but apart from truth, this discussion even is but pure theory. So is it theory or is it truth? [where apart from the truth of shared common sensing, everything is nothing/void... which we call 'dead'] Isn't it true that for waves to be unique, we then have truth? The truth is, all waves are unique... reach the beach, eye2i? fwiw... (granted, a 'mere' appeal to yet another 'authority') Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913): Truth - 1. The quality or being true; as:
(a) Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with
that which is, or has been; or shall be.We 'stick' to the planet = truth* why we 'stick' = theory We also can 'not stick' = truth why we sometimes don't = theory of propulsion/aerodynmics/etc where interestingly, the ability to 'not stick'-- the truth of propulsion -- has always been true; yet like even the theory, was at one time merely not known; its one thing to be 'not known' and another to be 'not observed' (yet); talk about a wave! |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Jul 16, 2006 11:13:29 GMT -5
Super Quotes for Super Heros"Quote: It is a common saying that a man needs only six feet of earth. But six feet is what a corpse needs, not a man.... Man needs not six feet of earth, not a farm, but the whole globe, all of nature, where unhindered he can display all the capacities and peculiarities of his free spirit." - Anton Chekhov, in response to fellow Russian writer Leo Tolstoy's short story "How Much Land Does a Man Need?"" Super Quotes for Super Herosinteresting... as to considering adjectives or lack thereof...? definte or indefinite article "a"...? is it "a" man throughout? or "Man" (mankind collective) only in the latter? if Man = a man-- then I surely agree with his position on both points (see "Private Property" thread ala land = property-not arguments) the rub of course is in the "unhindered"~ as where of course too often 'a' man indeed gets 'his' six feet (under) land via 'Man' (2+ as the contracting parties for land title/property) insuring ("defensive" violence) said agreement regarding 'a' trespasser... (or maybe he gets his six feet of land in the form of a cage cell=rape cage=jail cell)
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jul 22, 2006 22:35:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Jul 23, 2006 4:03:13 GMT -5
Heh, funny how you took my words to mean the opposite of my intention (however you were completely lolgical in your interpretation). Today we need bold voices of logic and reason to proclaim the importance of individual liberties -- and the "2 Williams" did that service centuries ago, as our generation has Shaffer and Wolfe and others. But the 2 Williams seemed to have a "socialist", or at least a "collectivist" bent with some of their conclusions, perhaps to oheavily influenced by Rousseau... So I'm saying that the quote I mentioned (before my "If only..." statement) was a bit naive about how intelligent and rational the "average joe" actually is... Then again it was written back when "average" people were more literate than university degree holders of today (thanks in no small part to many choices of non-state education, independent work ethic, lack of mass welfare mentality, etc.) I guess I was saying "if the 2 Williams were alive today, what would they think of man's potential, and how hopeful would they be able the future of humanity?" :-\ |
|
[que the Aerosmith mp3 "Dream On" here X] ;D
