Discussion of Anarcho-Capitalism.

[Too Few Lions]

Yeah, I'm calling for a society where people work. Working a shitty job is better than starvation. Nor should people get paid to not work, simply because they feel the jobs they can get are beneath them. I understand that some people legitimately can't find work, but I do not agree with forcing others to help them.

I think people should work too, so they're not a burden to the state and instead can contribute to society via taxes. But if someone's going to days their life doing some dead-end job, I think they should at least receive a wage that allows them to be afford to live a basic existence. Working for peanuts in a shitty job or starvation shouldn't be the only options. But I would also agree that plenty of people milk the system and get paid far too much on welfare. I guess my main problem with your free market model in general is that I don't see it creating a cohesive or egalitarian society, and I think both those things are important. I don't think the free market gives a toss about any social values or justice.

It is only the law because the people in power, who get rich off taxation, say it's so. If it were law to kill homosexuals, would that be evidence that killing homosexuals is not murder?  Simply because the state makes something law, in no way makes it any less wrong.

It's not a question of right or wrong, it's just a question of law. I don't agree with every law, but I know if I break them that's a criminal act. Whether or not I personally feel that any given law is morally right or wrong is an entirely different question. It's not just the people in power who believe in taxation to fund a basic social structure and redistribution of wealth, I would imagine it's the majority of people in society.

Many cities suffer from traffic jams do to poor engineering, old bridges, pot holes, etc. Not to mention there are some very dangerous roads, with no reason to fix them. The government is not held liable when someone dies on the roadways due to poor design or infrastructure. It is nothing like the society I propose, seeing as the roads are run by the state, and financed through taxation. In my system, unsafe roadways, would likely result in their owners being held liable for any deaths or injuries.

This society you're proposing suddenly doesn't sound very anarchic at all. What if I don't want to repair the potholes in my road? Who are you or anyone else to force me to repair those potholes? Or to say I can be sued because someone who I might not want driving down my road in the first place had an accident on it? What if I consider forcing me to fix a road that I'm fine with just the way it is, or by suing me after any accident as being plain theft? I've put a 'traveller uses this road at their own risk / responsibility' sign up, why should I be held responsible for the road?

I can see most roads being toll roads in the system you're proposing anyway, why should I let anyone drive for free down my road that I've paid for? Plus what if a racist person / community doesn't want any blacks driving down their road? Or a Muslim community don't want any women drivers or non-Muslims on their roads? Or an evangelical Christian community don't want any homosexuals on their roads? Aren't you infringing on their rights as road-owners in a very governmental way if you don't allow them to run their roads the way they want?

Why is theft justified if someone is wealthy. I will say some of the wealthy do currently steal from society, but that is facilitated by the governments you support. The rich in government help the rich in business and vice versa.

Only you see tax as theft, most of us see it as redistribution of wealth and the rich contributing back to the society without which they never would have become wealthy in the first place. I could also ask why should laws protect individual wealth and property? There's no stone tablets saying that has to be so, just society's laws.

Yet robberies, murders, and rapes take place every day, despite the government having so little to do. Furthermore, many government laws result in more violence. Take the drug laws for example. If their only charge is to protect the people, how is justified they put the people at risk by driving certain business underground. Also, so much for happy lives. I'm sure the Middle Easterners are thrilled with our Western governments killing their people. I suppose they only should care about the lives under their charge.

Far more Middle Easterners are being killed and suppressed by their own governments than by western governments. What gives you the idea that governments have 'little to do'? Making sure societies of tens of millions of people function well seems like a mammoth task to me. Do you seriously think you could stamp out robberies, murders, and rapes in an an-cap society? Short of removing any remotely violent or sociopathic person and their genes from society I don't see how that's possible.

We don't need them to fight violent crime. They have never eliminated it and never will. Government is useless. We would have as much success, if not more, handeling these problems without government.

how? Without any police, your system would appear to make organised crime easier to me. How are the poor even going to get justice if they can't afford to pay for an investigation or any legal support?

Without taxes, who's going to pay for the care and treatment of the poor when they're ill or injured in your system? and who's going to support the long term mentally or physically ill? or the old? (assuming they're not wealthy).

They would have to rely on charity. Without taxes, people would have more of the wealth they earned to do with as they saw fit. There would also be much cheaper options for medical care due to the elimination of all the regulations.

Again we're back to the idea of 'society'. Old and ill and poor people having to rely on charity or otherwise dying or starving isn't the kind of society I personally would want to live in.

I have been having fun with this conversation but am starting to grow bored with it. So if it takes me a while to respond, that is why. I tried looking for some debates to post, but most are between an-caps and an-comms. Two anarchists debating doesn't really fit into this conversation.   

although it might make for some tasty viewing! I guess we both just have different values and as a result different views on society, government and peoples' social responsibilities, and there's nothing wrong with that. Variety of opinion's generally a good thing.

[ThinkAnarchy]

One of the main problems I have with your argument is that you make a lot of generalizations about government and its perceived failings.
Your claims about the government "creating nothing", for example, aren't really true. Here's a list of things the government has created

- the Internet (a military project originally)

A few good contributions do not make an evil entity good. They were only able to fund these ventures through taxation, which is theft.

- Space exploration (NASA is a government agency), which you claim people will fund out of the goodness of their hearts. Not a chance, considering how expensive it is

Although a lot has been discovered through space exploration, their tract record isn't all that impressive. The shuttle has had the same basic design since it's infancy. Sure they have made some imporvements throughout the years, but governments don't care how much something costs, because it isn't their money being spent. I can't say for certain if the costs would be much lower if it had been in the private sectors hands all these years, but when someones money is actually on the line, and you must rely on investors, you tend to be more motivated to lower the costs of such technology.

- All sorts of long-term research which is not initially profitable, but which pays an enormous social benefit in the end. Clean energy research, for example, or genetically modified crops which resist diseases.

There is a market for all those things. Medical research is an expensive venture as well, that results in most drugs never making it to market. This is why drugs cost so much, they have to make up for the money spend of failed drugs that will never be sold.

Clean Energy would be developed in the private sector when the need arises for it and many farmers would be happy to buy genetically modified crops. We don't need the government to research these things. I doubt anyone thought a civilian would be able to create a candle with no flame at some points in history.

- Universal health care for the population, in most Western nations

Don't get me started on universal healthcare.

You also claim that not only has the government failed to eliminate crime, but they're really making it worse. I can say with certainty that is not true in the US. Take New York City, for example. The crime rate has nosedived since the early 90's thanks to the NYPD adopting techniques such as computerized tracking of crimes and more cops patrolling directly on the streets. That is the government right there. My particular town was a rundown community up until 15 years ago, and is now so safe that I often walk around at night, thanks again to the police.

What I was referring to is that by criminalizing things like drugs, they actually create more crime. When they criminalized booze, it to led to more crime. I don't particularly call that them doing their jobs.

One of the reasons businesses succeed and thrive in the Western world is because of government funding of infrastructure such as effective roads, railroads, electricity, internet, police and fire protection, etc, which gives them the ability make and transport their goods safely. Elizabeth Warren, who is running for Senate in Massachusetts, had a great speech about this, starting at the 1:00 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs

In our current world, what she say's in the video is not completely untrue. What I'm saying is we don't need the government for infrastructure, police, fire, or anything else. They would have those same benefits without the government.

Government is not perfect by any means. However, your solution of throwing it all away is extreme. You say that your experiment has never been tried, as opposed to bigger government, but there are countries with little organized government, and none of them have thrived. Look at Pakistan, which has little organized government and where citizens have to rely on private security guards to keep them safe in their gated communities. Pakistan is an infinitely more dangerous country than most of the Western world, due in large part to the lack of effective government. Not to mention the horrendous human rights abuses there.

Pakistan is not even close to what I propose. They have a state police force and if they are ineffective, that seems to strengthen my arguments. An ineffective government is not an example of anarchy. It is simply more evidence for the ideals of anarchy.

You have an extreme faith in the ability of the free-market to fix everything. Who's going to tackle the inevitable corruption that always pops up in said free markets?

Because the free-market does fix problems when given the time. When ever a problem appears the government jumps in and typically makes the problem worse.

What if an organized crime racket corners the private security guards which replace police in your system, and force the population to pay them extreme amounts of money or else? Who's going to stop them with no government? Another marauding band of citizens who'll duke it out in the streets with them?

Unlikely, if one police force did that, their customers would be very unhappy, resulting in them picking up a different agency. I also find it slightly funny you are worried about private police forces charging to much, when our current police shoot the family dog when they bust down you're door, attack non-violent individuals, arrest people for filming them, shoot unarmed civilians, etc. We currently have private security at most amusement parks and shopping malls, yet we don't hear about them abusing people nearly as often.

And organized crime? Really? Organized crime is due to the government making things illegal. The mob in the U.S. gained power during Prohibition. The current drug cartels are only around because of Drug Prohibition.  There is no money to be made in organized crime when these things are allowed to be sold on the open market. Furthermore, if one protection agency were to charge too high a fee, people would cancel their contracts and choose a cheaper one.

Without regulation, there's no reasons businesses wouldn't do unethical or downright illegal things to earn profit. Or, at least, illegal as it stands, since you wouldn't even outlaw murder.

There profits would come from selling what ever service they provide. Murder would not be acceptable in my society, it simply wouldn't be criminal as it is today.

Business in my society would not be protect by the government for doing bad things. LLC's and Corporations protect their owners from liability. There would be no such protections in my society.

While getting a ticket for going 3 mph over the speed limit is an annoyance, it is not an infringement on your liberty. It's to protect the kids who are in that school zone. That's more important than your "right" to go a little faster, as far as I'm concerned, and an important value to hold onto in most societies.

Pulling me over for going 3mph over is not protecting any children. There would still be rules like speed limits enforced around school zones, they would simply be set by the owner of the roads. If the speed were set too high and a child were killed. The owner of the road would likely be sued for having an unsafe roadway.

[DeterminedJuliet]

You have an extreme faith in the ability of the free-market to fix everything. Who's going to tackle the inevitable corruption that always pops up in said free markets?

Because the free-market does fix problems when given the time.

This is such a huge assumption. It's the basis for pretty much all of your arguments.

[ThinkAnarchy]

You have an extreme faith in the ability of the free-market to fix everything. Who's going to tackle the inevitable corruption that always pops up in said free markets?

Because the free-market does fix problems when given the time.

This is such a huge assumption. It's the basis for pretty much all of your arguments.

This lecture provides some information as to how it isn't a huge baseless assumption. But yes, a basis for this philosophy is that the free-market is better able to correct problems as opposed to government. I don't have a whole lot of time right now, but here is a good video about free-market facts and fallacies.

It starts off a little slow, but picks up speed at around the 10:00 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bwEcH7HGSZY

And here is more info about the speaker.
http://www.tomwoods.com/about/

[Firebird]

Yeah, that's really what it comes down to. I just don't believe that the free-market is a cure-all for every problem, for reasons I've already cited.
Anyway, we've clearly agreed to disagree at this point. Thank you for presenting your arguments and being willing to defend them in this way. As many people have noted, such discussions on the internet are not usually so civil.

[DeterminedJuliet]

You have an extreme faith in the ability of the free-market to fix everything. Who's going to tackle the inevitable corruption that always pops up in said free markets?

Because the free-market does fix problems when given the time.

This is such a huge assumption. It's the basis for pretty much all of your arguments.

This lecture provides some information as to how it isn't a huge baseless assumption. But yes, a basis for this philosophy is that the free-market is better able to correct problems as opposed to government. I don't have a whole lot of time right now, but here is a good video about free-market facts and fallacies.

It starts off a little slow, but picks up speed at around the 10:00 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bwEcH7HGSZY

And here is more info about the speaker.
http://www.tomwoods.com/about/

I know the principles behind a Laissez-faire market. "Invisible hand" and all of that, but I just don't buy it and I don't think that our actual experiences with capitalism point that way. You claim that our capitalism troubles come from Government intervention and not from capitalism itself which, again, I just can't agree with.

I feel like we're going in circles a bit  So I'll withdraw (again. for now.  )

[NatsuTerran]

 On your presentation, an unqualified thumbs up, TA! Thank you.

As a libertarian, I agree with a lot of it, but the "anarcho" element leaves too much trust to individual responsibility for my taste.  Minimal government: yes. But no organized government at ALL?  Nope.  Leaves a vacuum, with random human nature (often falling to the LCD (lowest common denominator)) inevitably filling it.

I started out like that as well, but than I started thinking about how America was founded. It was founded on small government principles, and look at it's current state over 200 years later. I like the idea of small government, but can't see it every staying small. The same pattern very well may repeat itself from anarchy, but it would hopefully take longer than a starting point of limited government.  

This just makes me want to cry. First of all, you make the assumption that the USA is the best country, and second you make the assumption that it was because of small govt principles. THINK CRITICALLY MAN. First of all, the USA is miles behind other countries in a LOT of ways. Give Japan twice the land they own now and they are suddenly the world's ultimate power, that is BECAUSE of their large amount of social control and structure, not despite it. Second of all, the USA had many, MANY large government principles. What brought this country to a lot of greatness was partly due to the Fed through the mid-later 1900's. It was also just due to, ya know, stumbling upon a mostly ungaurded continent-sized country with vast resources and two oceans of water that prevented it from getting its infrastructure destroyed during wars, that which happened very regularly all throughout Asia and Europe...

If you really think all of that isn't a million times more of the reason for any success the US scrounged up, and moreso because of robber-barons which caused the great depression in the first place, then you really need a revitalized education. You shouldn't believe all the right wing propaganda you come across. It's best to ignore any and all subjective claims and focus on objective facts.

Also, the non-aggression principle is a moral nightmare to me. If you live in country X and have a neighbor who owns the only nuke in the world, and an asteroid is heading towards country Y, I think it is that neighbors responsibility to save the other country. If he refuses due to prejudice or whatever, I believe it is morally necessary and even somewhat righteous to invade his house with an SMG, kill him, and launch the nuke to kill the asteroid.

If you are walking in the wilderness and find a man trapped in a deep hole, it is your moral duty to save him and not walk away and avoid calling for help. You should be held for negligence if you do that. Aggression/force/coercion/etc are NOT inherently bad in any way shape or form. They are neutral things; the end result is the only thing that matters. Subjectivity should be cut through. In my experiences, the main thing that leads to Libertarianism is the belief in free will, the hopeless illusion that people actually have control in their lives. Every last thought/belief/action/behavior is predetermined in a myriad of ways. For each one individual, there is only one possible outcome given their situation. What's true for one is not true for all. A person left to their own devices will never change. No one accomplished anything on their own, all the success from those like Einstein, Bill Gates, etc? Their minds were shaped 100% by the societies they live in, they owe it all to them. An individual is responsible for nothing.

Sorry, but my cognitive Psychology bias tends to leak out with anger. It just annoys me when people are so arrogant and fall for such illusions of control in life. As the quote goes "too many people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple."

[NatsuTerran]

To further demonstrate the basis for my rebuttal:

Assume you are not born yet, but you have a great deal of empirical facts about reality. Now say that you need to vote for laws in a new country, a new country that you will be born into. You do not know *who* you will be born as. So for example, if you vote against women's rights, you *could* be voting against yourself. Only a fucktard would vote against things like gay marriage because they do not yet know how they will develop as a person when they are born in this illustration.

I think the problem a lot of people have is that they think people who work, or who get rich, actually did something from their own merit.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

This very simple, basic myth-busting article just hits the tip of the iceberg in terms of how much luck is involved to live a good life. Nothing you do in life is through your own merit. Have a good job now? Okay, now say you were born in Africa for the first five years of life, then learned English and came here. Still think you would be in the exact same position in life? Your thoughts are all pre-determined with foreknowledge. Your thoughts are a product of what society has put into you.

Individuals cannot change who or what they are without *external* factors going into them. For example, say you decide to read a self-help book in order to deal with a problem you are facing. You likely bought the book because someone brought up the idea that you need help, and you may be receptive to self-help books for other variables throughout your life. Now you are reading this book, and you decide to change some aspects of your behavior to become more successful. But wait a minute, you wouldn't even have the OPTION to change at all if it wasn't for a great deal of people in society to put the book together and advertise it. Furthermore, how *receptive* you are to changing is not a part of "you" either, but is ALSO due to the causal chain that makes up who you are. If you have had experiences and variables that are not conducive to using a self-help book as a guide, then you are less receptive to taking its advice.


I cannot even possibly go into all the messiness and details that come from analyzing a simple choice or decision such as those outlined above. But what should be clear is that there is no free will. Now you might say "well I still think the rich should be rich and the poor should suffer." And that's what I will call the naturalistic fallacy.

The implications of all this? Science demonstrates rather clearly that individuals cannot and should not be responsible for themselves. Group responsibility is the only way changes will ever occur. I also believe in utilitarianism as my basis for morality over non-aggression. Utilitarianism is logical and based on objective facts. N-A is based on subjective wishes which may even come back to harm the individual! Objective facts are always there and they will stay the same from person to person. Subjective wishes change from person to person, and how you developed that interest is through your experience. Subjectivity should never be heralded over objectivity. End results matter more. Most atheists are liberal because of their scientifically-guided minds. I know how people like you think, my dad is identical to you more or less. Atheist, doesn't believe in climate change, only believes in the science he likes such as evolution, thinks all coercion is evil etc. This attitude is derived from subjectivity. And guess what, my dad disbelieves in God for subjective reasons, not objective, empirically-guided ones. It's very childish. You shouldn't try to assert a position based on feelings of discomfort with anything. It leads you to seeking confirmation bias such as believing conspiracy theories like "climate change is fake" or "supply-side economics work." A lot of things that may sound reasonable to your intuitive mind are actually the exact opposite of reality. I am an atheist but I have more of a beef with people who think intuitively instead of logically. Make no mistake, that leads to religion. But religion is the least of my concerns, the disastrous policies from right-wing politicians are what can harm us all, simply because it sounds true to their intuition. Sigh, if only everyone was required to take a few years in cognitive Psych before being allowed into politics.


I think a good video to watch that doesn't even play into politics, but is more about science (which I know libertarians don't care much for, but he's an atheist).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk

[ThinkAnarchy]

 On your presentation, an unqualified thumbs up, TA! Thank you.

As a libertarian, I agree with a lot of it, but the "anarcho" element leaves too much trust to individual responsibility for my taste.  Minimal government: yes. But no organized government at ALL?  Nope.  Leaves a vacuum, with random human nature (often falling to the LCD (lowest common denominator)) inevitably filling it.

I started out like that as well, but than I started thinking about how America was founded. It was founded on small government principles, and look at it's current state over 200 years later. I like the idea of small government, but can't see it every staying small. The same pattern very well may repeat itself from anarchy, but it would hopefully take longer than a starting point of limited government.  

This just makes me want to cry. First of all, you make the assumption that the USA is the best country, and second you make the assumption that it was because of small govt principles. THINK CRITICALLY MAN.

Are you serious. Where did I make the assumption the U.S. is the best country? If you had read the things I have said, you would realize I think the U.S. is a very shitty country. With that, the second assumption is invalid as well. I simply said it was founded on some small government principles. Seeing as you seem to have based your response on assumptions I have not made, I see no reason to even read further.

As for the others, I have been taking a break from this thread, but am planning to respond to one or two on Tuesday.

[NatsuTerran]

I just think it's inconceivably sad that you are poor and have bought the lies that think-tanks push out to further their selfish agenda. Libertarianism makes things worse for everyone except those born into success. Looking at things strictly objectively, all of their policies are total lies that will make things worse. And yes, the government SHOULD restrict you from doing things that you may think you are intelligent enough to make your own decisions on. Risk/reward should not be a part of life when there are serious objective consequences.

How would you raise a child? I just imagine you saying "Son, go to school and try your hardest, if you don't do well then you will be quite miserable 15-20 years in the future." That's bullshit parenting. Control is a must. I'm an Asian parent and I will instill good habits into a child that will lead to OBJECTIVELY good results. One must always remember that your own subjective values are irrelevant. Control is irrelevant, the objective end result is all that matters. No individual ever chose a thing. People are molded by their circumstances. It is up to society to correctly implant proper behaviors that lead to objective well-being for all.

[Stevil]

ThinkAnarchy

This must be taking up heaps of your time.
You have been making a great effort thus far.

I don't think you have won anyone over though,

Like me they are all scared of this concept, worried for the poor. Poor people often group together in poor neighborhoods, they won't have rich neighbors to pay for infrastructure, no police, no fire service, no waste management, no hospitals, no schools, no welfare support.
Also scared of the rich, whom can buy the justice they want, whom can own the courts, the police, the good schools, the neighborhoods and whom can push all small businesses out of operation as they build their lucrative monopolies.

I know you have tried to explain to us how this won't happen, but I struggle to see anything but this happening. I do not have faith that people will be charitable and throw money into the poor neighborhoods. I don't have faith that the rich won't look to dominate and accumulate all the wealth and control all that they can afford.

Anyway, please don't go to any effort to address this post of mine. If I thought this was a worthy candidate to explore further I would go to the wealth of resources on the internet so as not to drown you further in this discussion.

My current position is that an-cap is scary. If it picks up momentum in my society then I may reconsider trying to understand it. It is just too hypothetical and too scary right now.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I just think it's inconceivably sad that you are poor and have bought the lies that think-tanks push out to further their selfish agenda.

I would like to know what think-tank you are referring to. I would imagine this is another incorrect assumption. However, if you are referring to a think tank like Cato, or a magazine like Reason, you would yet again be incorrect. Those groups are worthless at best.

Libertarianism makes things worse for everyone except those born into success. Looking at things strictly objectively, all of their policies are total lies that will make things worse. And yes, the government SHOULD restrict you from doing things that you may think you are intelligent enough to make your own decisions on. Risk/reward should not be a part of life when there are serious objective consequences.

How can you say that risk/reward should not be a consideration where there are serious consequences? Everything you do, every decision you make, is based on this. Whether to open a business, get an advanced degree, or have children. These all have serious consequences. Should someone make ALL decisions for you?

How would you raise a child? I just imagine you saying "Son, go to school and try your hardest, if you don't do well then you will be quite miserable 15-20 years in the future." That's bullshit parenting. Control is a must.

Again, I am confused. This is basically what happens now. Children and parents have basically no choice but to follow this path. Even if a child goes to school and does great they are not guaranteed a successful career. I am not saying that it is a bad route, but how can you say that this is the only option people should have? Besides, there are many highly successful people like the late Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that did not finish school, and far surpassed the successes most college graduates will ever achieve. I think going to school should be an option. If at 12 a child wants to learn computer programing, they should have the option to apprentice with a computer programer to learn the business first hand. Or watch free online tutorials as I'm doing now.

Control of a child is not a must. If anything that is highly destructive. Children need to learn how to take care of themselves as early as possible. Total control produces a child that cannot think for themselves and always needs someone to tell that what to do. These children will never run and own successful businesses or create new and unusual products. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the most important job of a parent is to teach a child how to survive on their own.

I'm an Asian parent

Well I'm German-American. Not sure how our races place a role in THIS conversation.

...and I will instill good habits into a child that will lead to OBJECTIVELY good results.

What if the child would have to do something highly immoral, like fraud in order to produce these so called objective results? So, how do you subjectively define objectively good? No matter what, your SUBJECTIVE values must be used in order to define what you believe to be objectively good.

One must always remember that your own subjective values are irrelevant. Control is irrelevant, the objective end result is all that matters.

Everything in your daily life is based on subjective value. There is no such thing as objective value. Individuals value things differently. I may think that it is stupid to buy a home, while you may believe it is a good investment. I think buying a pair of designer shoes is a waste of money, you may think that the price is nothing compared to the status symbol. Perhaps you think a private school education is worth the money while I may think that home school is the way to go. These are all subjective values. Again, whose subjective values are you basing your objective values on?

Please lay out what values you subjectively believe are objective.

No individual ever chose a thing.

So you choose nothing in your life? Not how to discipline your children, what you will eat for dinner tonight, or what outfit you will wear? Maybe this is an unfinished thought, but by looking at it, I don't think I need to hear the rest of it to call it banal.

People are molded by their circumstances.

Again this is subjective because all our experiences are different. 

It is up to society to correctly implant proper behaviors that lead to objective well-being for all.

So, who makes up societies values? Perhaps I think your command and control manner of raising children is destructive. What if society as a whole wanted to correct those implanted behaviors?

[NatsuTerran]

There's not one single thing you quoted that actually even comprehends my position. I really feel like I'm talking to a wall. You're just like a theist in your misunderstanding of determinism. Know that there is quite a bit of scientific evidence for it.

And no, I HIGHLY disagree that a child should be taught to take care of themselves as early as possible. No one can truly take care of themselves in every aspect of life. A child should not be allowed to just drop school and do what they want. Are you that immature? They don't have the cognitive maturity to truly know what is best for them. You are in fact the perfect testament to liberalism, that even adults do not know what is ultimately best for them. How on earth are businesses run in Asia? Oh my. By Asian parenting I meant strict and disciplined. Apparently there are no businesses in Asia. Oh wait, Asia is extremely prosperous right around now. Teaching a child to take care of themselves is irrelevant. Societies should take care of societies. Everyone does what they can. Hard work should be rewarded, not demanded.

I'm sorry to say but a lot of your ideas on parenting and human nature are extremely farfetch to someone like me who studies Psychology. People aren't going to turn into lazy bums when there are safety nets and societal supports, they actually start working harder. Authoritative parenting isn't going to have negative side effects; your kids will be thanking you when they are older. If I had it my way I would have dropped out of high school at 17 to become a "pro-gamer." There's your individual choice. Where does society get its knowledge and expertise? By society itself: Individuals working together is not a group of individuals. It creates an entirely new entity by bouncing ideas off each other. Everything you have ever known and learned comes from someone else.

The children that are the least likely to think for themselves are those granted too much freedom. Thinking for yourself doesn't even entail anything. What does that even mean from a psychological standpoint? Japanese are group people and they don't just accept things without thinking about them. I'm sorry but a stern education will solve all the problems of our world in my opinion. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if you had one.

And no, everything can be considered objective. There is nothing subjective going on that is necessary other than our basic moral goals for humanity. Watch the Sam Harris video I posted above for a complete rundown.

[ThinkAnarchy]

There's not one single thing you quoted that actually even comprehends my position. I really feel like I'm talking to a wall. You're just like a theist in your misunderstanding of determinism. Know that there is quite a bit of scientific evidence for it.

I quoted your exact post. Don't expect further responses. I will limit my responses to those intelligent enough to discuss this like FireBird, Stevil, TooFewLions and every other individual who has responded. You are clearly a fucking idiot though, and I will not waste anymore time on you.

Tank, Whitney, or another mod feel free to warn me or give me a temporary ban, but I can't deal with idiots who think they are intelligent.

Added: Sorry for making your job harder Tank, but my response is staying up unless someone with authority decides to delete it.

(A warning has been issued to ThinkAnarchy for violation of the civility rule.
-- Recusant)

[NatsuTerran]

I'm the idiot? Wow, what a twisted world you live in. Your mind is clearly already made up about this. I came into politics with a completely free head and libertarian parents. My knowledge and expertise on human nature made short work of just about every right wing claim I then encountered.

If I'm getting flustered, it's due to the sheer arrogance of a person who thinks they can put forth some seemingly new system that destroys the status quo, and they have absolutely no doubts in their mind that it will be objectively better for all of us. I'm not going to lie, I have anger issues when people don't have the same knowledge background as I do. It's okay to ask questions; it's not okay to make up your mind about a drastic change due to an intuitive bias against a vital system and then seek confirmation bias from other such asshats who have not a shred of objective evidence any of it works. That's called religion.

Your only qualm about "control" in the other post was that people don't think for themselves or can't run a business or something. Seriously? I'm sorry but I believe in a group effort. Individuals should NOT be making choices in their lives where there is pre-existing knowledge and expertise that serves as a foundation. People should know when to listen to others and expand upon that frontier once they get up to a certain level.

Let me guess, you're one of those people who goes to a boxing class, gets told you are punching incorrectly, and then continues to punch like a tard because it simply feels more comfortable/powerful to you. We have an established system for boxing that dates back hundreds of years. What I hate is the arrogance that you, someone that can just step up and think that you have new and better ideas about how to punch than the millions of people who became experts through both experience and theory in the past. Humans are social animals and must build their knowledge from others, not try to re-learn every mistake everyone has ever made. That's my issue with your take on parenting. Experience is mightily expensive. Individuals should not be put in a position to have to learn things for themselves. If I am to start a business I don't have to be able to "think for myself" whatever that means. I'm not the first person in existence to start a business. I would get educated and become familiar with the longstanding knowledge and expertise on how to run a business. You seem to be making it out like everyone should just try to learn everything from experience. Society will get nowhere with a mentality like that. All of humanity's success comes from the strength of a collective conscious that knows it needs to take advice of other people and step the fuck down in any area they are not an expert. When I was a kid/teen I knew I didn't know anything about politics, and I didn't say a word or make a value judgement about anything. Even during my learning process I had serious reservations about committing to any side until the vast majority of facts were uncovered.

But then here you are, wanting to learn the same experience firsthand what our ancestors learned before societies were invented. These things were invented out of necessity. Liberalism has won its battles so thoroughly that people forget why they were waged in the first place.

Oh and you keep getting stuck on "values." We are essentially speaking different languages, which is why I'm done here. You seem to only think small picture whereas I can only see big picture. There is a clash between subjective values and interests versus objective well-being. Objective well-being is what is truly good for everyone once all values are stripped away. We implant values onto people so they should not be glorified. For example, say a person likes hard drugs. Now, their subjective interest in the activity is in direct conflict with the objectively negative results. They may deem it worthy as you seem to based on "risk/reward." But anyone in their right mind that only had objective facts and was stripped of subjective values would clearly see how destructive and pointless this is. Now, are hard drugs *necessary* for people to live a happy life? Of fucking course not. People have plenty of interests and values that do not bring with them serious objective consequences. But what is true for one is not true for all. So this person can likely not change and lower their standard of living because of addiction. They are now trapped in objective suffering either way you look at it. If, after they die, they could look back and rethink life, they will almost certainly choose to live a more risk-free life. To say otherwise is to suggest that people who do drugs are having more "fun" than people who do sports or paint or have any other activity. But this is not true, what you don't know you don't know. Even if certain things were better, it is best left untouched if it leads to serious objective consequences. Notice I say *serious* consequences. I'm not saying junk food should be banned because it makes you fat.

This brings up the issue of what to do with those who are already trapped in a cycle. We obviously can't ban things that people are already dependent on. The goal should be to coerce future generations into leading better lives. Another example, taken from the Harris video, is that of a native girl who is ecstatic about being sacrificed, probably for a religious reason. She personally values her choice, but it is objectively harmful. There is a clash there. What I am saying is that subjective values must almost always be trampled in favor of objective well-being. To say otherwise is to think in your shoes and your shoes only. Again, imagine yourself a person who is not yet born. You are stripped of values but objective facts are always there. Would you want to be born in a native society that will brainwash you into liking the value of sacrificing yourself? Since you have no preconceived values, there is ONLY a negative to this situation, and not a positive. This is how I feel everyone should think. I like video games for instance, but if there was some objective harm that video games did to society that carried serious consequences (besides making some people fat and lazy) then I would be the first to discard my interest in favor of another. Would I be upset at first? Of course, but I am smart enough to know that once I get comfortable in a new position in life, then I will not miss the past.

Now obviously, our subjective interests are what make life worth living, you may retort. What I am getting at is that our subjective interests do not arise out of thin air. I didn't learn to like video games just because, I was given them at age 4 to play with. The hypothetical native girl didn't just "choose" to enjoy her religion of self-sacrifice, she was born into that. I'm sorry if I haven't made myself clear. I just assume most atheists know what I'm talking about when I rail on the notion of free will. But our subjective interests are implanted in us by society at large. It should be up to society to encourage interests that do not carry negative objective repercussions, rather than just allow people to fall into traps. Seen in this light, nothing is voluntary because our very thoughts and interests are not of our choosing, but of random chance.

Now think, if you are that preconceived person that will be born in the future, ask yourself: Where would you want to be born in the world? Strip away all of the things that make you who you are. Think of humanity as all equals, we are all one. I don't think anyone who honestly does this exercise will choose to live in the middle east for one thing. Now a person who is already brainwashed to appreciate their values may think it is a great place to be, but that's because those values are already implanted. I'm asking to remove these values to see what is truly best for everyone. This is the basis for morality that Sam Harris talks about. He calls it something like the "worst possible suffering for everyone." In which we are to assume objective suffering for everyone's conscious mind that can be applied to all of us.

The reason I ask to remove subjective values should be obvious, but if not, it is because these things are not necessary before the fact. When you have a child you can mold them into whatever you want them to be. To do otherwise and allow them perfect freedom is NOT allowing them to "choose for themselves.'' There is no such thing! If they are not influenced by you, they will be influenced by other prominent figures in their environment. So by neglecting to use control and force you are in essence glorifying nature. Glorifying that people who are ill-equipped in certain areas of life should suffer the consequences, glorifying that people who make simple mistakes should suffer. I guess the gist of what I'm saying is that it is a fact that people are ultimately in control of other peoples' lives, but not their own. We like to think we are in control of our own lives, but it is a well-documented illusion. It's like the glass ceiling for the poor worker. He is but a wage slave, committed to working 40-50 hour weeks and all he can show for it is bread on the table. The republicans tell him "look, you can be rich too! Look at Joe Blow over there, he was in your position and he made something of himself!" But it is disingenuous. You aren't Joe Blow, you don't have the same brain as he does, nor the same experiences. Therefore, you CAN'T pull off what some "rags to riches" story pulled off. There is only one possible truth for every individual.

We have two options. We can either glorify nature, glorify natural selection which is inherently wasteful and has none of the compassion that we have. Or, we can treat nature as something that needs controlling. I believe nature is here for us to overcome, not worship. Humans are rewriting the rules of natural selection with their modern, first world societies. This has numerous benefits. For one thing, by not allowing people to be killed off or inhibited by otherwise avoidable things, we are dramatically increasing the talent pool of our society to go into a variety of fields and make life more comfortable for all of us. Just throwing your hands up and letting people be free may sound nice at first glance, but when that freedom inhibits objective well-being, it's sickening. I don't believe people should act like children and glorify their interests over objective well-being. There are many times in everyone's life where they have been stubborn about something and then later found out they were wrong and wished someone was there to force them otherwise. Even my dad, at this time in his life is still so immature as to not realize when he needs to go to the doctor. He could have died to a type of cancer if my mom did not coerce him into going. Freedom is a horrible, horrible thing to glorify. It is entirely neutral in essence. Freedom can lead to good results just as likely as it can lead to bad ones. The end results are what truly matter, not our subjective interests.

Edit: And just to clarify, I'm not encouraging in any way a total militant trampling of people's subjective values and interests. I simply say that there is an objective morality, based on utilitarianism/consequentialism which is based on our conscious experience. Sam Harris goes into detail on this notion. What I am seeing is that there is a spectrum of morality based on this concept, and we are neither totally perfect in our well-being or totally imperfect. We are along the continuum. Now, I am saying that societies should attempt to move towards that side of the spectrum that carries more objective well-being, and not just let life sit wherever it is and glorify the nature of the situation. So I'm not saying to go out and kill/jail people with abhorrent subjective interests, but rather to promote education and hope to ourselves that their ideas die off with them and do not gain a foothold in the newer generations. It's a slow process. I am not militant in imposing my idea of morality on others, but I simply believe in education and wishing for the best in my society to follow those values. It is obviously hypocritical to my moral foundation to trample currently integral subjective interests that in essence "kill" the individual. That is a form of objective suffering too, in some cases. But it is also true that in many cases subjective interests are quickly forgotten when they are gone for over a month or two. People don't clutch onto things, they find new interests and modes of life. It's all a case by case basis in this regard.