I've never been a fan of the "if you don't like it, you can leave" argument because it implies there's some other place someone can live that isn't controlled by a Mafia-style coercive entity.
Some things are morally wrong and should be prevented by civilized, empathetic humans. We don't say things like "if you don't like child/spouse abuse, you can leave" or "if your don't like slavery, you can leave" because we recognize these actions as immoral and unjustified. Even then, these outrageous claims are more logical because they imply there is a place on earth the victim can go to escape the abuse. This is not the case with government. Accepting their monopoly on the initiation of force and saying it's up to the victim to find a country which won't be as bad, to me, is similar to justifying what is inherently evil. If slavery is taking 100% of my income, at what percentages is it no longer slavery? Saying government owns everything may make us feel better, but I don't see how it gets around the realities of theft/extortion.
But I guess many don't see government as evil. They see it as a force used for good and evil. Maybe they are right, but I personally can't get around democide. Any organization that is responsible for 100% of war doesn't get a pass.
But there is! There are tons of places that the "smart contract" of the goverment doesn't apply.
Liberland, most of Australia, most of Mongolia, many places in Latin America and Russia, There are tons of places where the goverment doesn't really give a fuck if you go there.
Nothing is "morally wrong". Morality is subjective because morality is defined by the group, not some higher entity. morality is a construct of the group, the masses. They decide what is moral and what is not. It is something people agree upon. This is why every single part of the earth has different morality. this is why every single person has a different morality.
Saying "the goverment" is a massively erroneous generalisation since there are many goverments and many places without a goverment.
There is nothing "inherently evil". Some people agreed that things should be "X" and you were born in that place. That contract is written on those parametres. if you don't like it then you can live. really. you can. nobody is holding you slave or abuses you. that's just sensationalisms.
// If slavery is taking 100% of my income, at what percentages is it no longer slavery?//
You don't need to repeat to me libertarian memes. You are not making any more points by doing it. Again. it is slavery if you HAVE to pay it and they won't let you go. If you can leave then it is not slavery. You are paying a "fee" for being there.
No I don't see goverment as evil because the goverment is a generic concept much like religion. Science is not evil. Religion is not evil. Schooling is not evil, parenting is not evil. these are just concepts. they can be evil or good depending on who is judging them and from what specific scope.
@kyriacos: replying to your previous comment.
If you use
>before each paragraph, it will create the markdown quote formatting which makes things easier to follow.Also, use of "seriously dude. wft?" and "seriously. wtf." doesn't create a healthy enviornment for debate in the Greek fashion of two people seeking to enlighten themselves. You seem to go with a "I'm right, and you're not only wrong but stupid" approach. We don't need to be in opposition of each other or be demeaning.
I don't like them because they aren't places humans can easily survive. That's why they don't have government (IMO).
Again, this statement implies I don't have basic logic.
I watched the video. It was quite annoying. The new age music didn't help his arguments. Is this where you learned your style of discussion/debate?
Around 1:26 he goes right to attacking people and calling them "tools."
"We will not even consider": that's quite an extreme interpretation.
"You don't actually need sex": ignores how important sex is. Some argue sex (the distribution of our genes) drives activity of all species which reproduce that way. In a very real sense, reproduction is the purpose of life.
"how do you solve the problem of needing food and water if you need the problem already solved before you can solve the problem?"
WUT? Look at the lack of innovation of thousands of years when most of human existence existed on the lowest rungs of the hierarchy. I get the point being made that some aspects of the higher rungs are being used, but the point of the framework is to acknowledge how little of it takes place if the lower rungs aren't met. Or, at least, that's the framework for how I use it in my own thinking. It's not all or nothing. Of course someone can have thoughts about self actualization while they are working three jobs and barely covering their living expenses. The frequency with which that happens (if it happens at all, for most people) is, I think, determined by where someone is on the hierarchy as their standard mode of day to day life. Each day is different and we're changing all the time.
I got a bit hung up on terms like "science and spirituality index", "synomnia" (sp?), "peak pathway", and "mojo".
Is that from this study?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1466734/
There are a lot of absolutes in the video "There is no human who..." etc etc. I see interpretations of these concepts existing in many different cultures, not just Western ones.
"hands down one of the most douchie things I have ever heard anyone say ever." More absolutes there.
I'm really trying to understand where this person is coming from. I searched for "peak pathways" (what he says ends the argument entirely) and came up with an article on "podlair" which I don't even think is worth linking to. I try to have an open mind, but taking this "Everything is Energy Evolving" website with its star background is seriously difficult for me. It sounds like ridiculous woo.
"That's it. Argument over. Theory dismantled." Just by saying "Peak Pathway" and "Mojo Phenomenon"? If this is so definitive, why am I having trouble finding any reputable sources about these ideas?
That said, I did like the part about questioning our mechanisms for determining who is successful and then building frameworks around our interpretation of their thinking. I also liked how it questions whether or not Einstein, as an example, even fit the model prior to the validation of his discoveries. Is that enough to completely debunk the concept of Maslow's Hierarchy? No, not for me. I'd like to see more reputable, structured arguments that don't resort to personal attacks or use new age music to create desired emotional responses.
This is why my understanding of morality involves things like the NAP. Stealing from a rapist is an unusual example, but if restitution to the victim involved property, this wouldn't be called stealing. It would be called justice. Using language accurately is important.
I spent 10 weeks in Costa Rica, but you're right, I really would like to travel more and be immersed in other cultures and perspectives. That said, I run a company with an international team including members from Russia, Pakistan, Australia, and Canada. I regularly have very great philosophical discussions at conferences with people from Europe and other areas. As to Muslims, many of them have very similar moderate moral values as the rest of the world. Only a very small percentage of muslims are terrorists or believe things like honor killings are justified. Let's not straw man here.
I'm not whining or spoiled, as you claim. I've lived with next to nothing (see my blog post about living on a boat) and know what it's like, granted, I was still in a privileged position even then.
That's an interesting approach, but it would be hard to run my online business that way.
That's fantastic. I'd like to learn more. As I said, I have been exploring various options, specifically in Latin America. Again, please, it's not whining to say "Taxation is, by definition, extortion and not only that, part of that money goes towards the military industrial complex which is immoral."
I get that all governments live on a spectrum and I have talked with friends in Switzerland about how things are there. I am very interested, but (from what I understand) it would take 10+ years to be able to live there legally as a citizen. Anarchic cantons freely associating in small groups sounds fantastic to me. It also doesn't fit the definition of government I'm using.
I've read your post on the subjective nature of morality and even upvoted it, but I haven't yet responded. If that dialogue will be like this one with personal attacks, I may not bother.
Have a great day.
In support of this claim you list Liberland (which I recognize as having the potential of being possibly one of the only places, along with the Sea Steading Institute, but it's still just a possibility), Mongolia (not a place many humans want to live), most of Australia (also basically uninhabitable, unless you happen to be an Aborigine and care little about modern quality of life), Russia (might as well also list the North and South poles), and Latin America. Latin America comes close to a rational argument for me, and I have been looking into options like Belize, Chile, Panama, Costa Rica, and the like. Unfortunately, there's still government backed by violence or there's more obvious Mafia-stye enforcement (bribe this group or that group, etc) which I may actually prefer because at least there's no pretense. One could at least argue there's slightly less monopoly use of force going on. I'm looking into it from a "lesser of many evils" perspective.
I've discussed morality before and don't think it's as subjective as you see it. Many disagree with me, but I think it's based on where humanity as a whole sits on Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. If morality was subjective, we could create arguments to justify things like rape, murder, and theft. Given the modern realities of our species and where we are on the evolutionary scale of consciousness, I don't think those arguments could be valid. Some things (at this stage in history) are clearly wrong and can not be justified (IMO).
I wish we could use more accurate language because there is no actual contract. No consenting adult agreed to "it" simply by location of birth and where they grew up. I can't think of any valid, enforceable contract that doesn't involve conscious choice by consenting adults. Even the "by signing up, you agree to our terms of service" have some problems in court (and I don't mean "court" in just the legal sense). To me, "the social contract" is a story we tell ourselves to feel better about our current immoral situation.
Try not paying. Try leaving without paying. Try leaving without paying an exit fee. Try arriving somewhere other than Siberia and also not paying. From my perspective, you're telling yourself a story (as we all are), but your story doesn't seem consistent with reality from my perspective. If I'm paying a fee and that fee is not voluntary and if I don't pay the fee, violent force is used against me, that's called extortion. We can call it other things, if we like, but that's what the word means.
I see government as evil because I define it as a monopoly on the initiation of force within a geographic region (rights I believe no one has, so no one can delegate them). If we had social structures which didn't have that specific characteristic and met the needs we have in society, I'd be all about it, and I wouldn't describe it as "government" as I do the State. It would be similar to so many other voluntary organizations we have that do have real contracts like home owner's associations, bowling leagues, boy scouts, etc, etc.
And yes, this is certainly true:
We have the arguments we can make and support with evidence. I appreciate being able to voice my views and hear criticisms of them.
So you basically don't like the other places because the good places have goverment. Talk about free-association mate. You have a choice. You can't have everything.
//Many disagree with me, but I think it's based on where humanity as a whole sits on Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.//
Go live with aboriginals and you will see how Maslow's pyramid of needs applies. The pyramid has been debunked many times. Here is a short reason why (although basic logic could allow you to do so by yourself)
//If morality was subjective, we could create arguments to justify things like rape, murder, and theft.//
Yes you could. E.g you can make an argument that is ok to steal from a rapist.
//Given the modern realities of our species and where we are on the evolutionary scale of consciousness, I don't think those arguments could be valid. //
You speak as westerner. You seriously need to travel more to more remote places and ask the rest of 75% of the planet how they feel about things. For examples most people on this planet are Muslims. Go check how their morality rhymes with yours. seriously dude. wtf?
//I wish we could use more accurate language because there is no actual contract. No consenting adult agreed to "it" simply by location of birth and where they grew up.//
You don't have to sign up. it's like Steemit. If you don't like it. again. leave. no need to whine. again. you can leave. you can't tell me. "well, i don't like it there because there is no X, i am spoiled here, but i also want the others to conform to my needs).
//Try not paying. Try leaving without paying. Try leaving without paying an exit fee.//
I did. it works. in the US (since you are american) you can claim your land for mining purposes and the goverment will stay out of it. you will need special papers though like visa and other permissions to have any dealings with any other terittory. so there. you can.
//Try arriving somewhere other than Siberia and also not paying. //
I lived in 3 continents without paying shit. Seriously. I am an-cap/voluntayrist but i can't stand whining from an-caps that stay in US and bitch and moan.
//I see government as evil because I define it as a monopoly on the initiation of force within a geographic region (rights I believe no one has, so no one can delegate them).//
repeating the same mantra doesn't make it true. For example the Swiss goverment is vastly different from the Venezuellan one. In Switzerland they don't even know who the president is. In essence there are only anarchic cantons free associating in small groups.
move there. try something else. Unfortunately I can't see you having any arguments especially on the "morality is not subjective" part. seriously. wtf. look around you how people live. From Muslims, Russians, Brazilians.
morality is anything but objective and I can't think of anyone being able to support anything else other than being an arm chair philosopher that never traveled to see what is outhere.
You have to buy your freedom from the U.S.A. You can't just leave and be free of them. They still claim ownership of you.
@kyriacos - Regarding your idea that it is easy to leave the country and rid oneself of the leech that is the US government:
According to the IRS: "Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside."
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/u-s-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad
According to the US government, you must request permission to renounce citizenship and it can be denied:
"A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html
You also have to pay extortion money in order to "legally" separate yourself. This article explains quite a bit: http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/227982/Income+Tax/Renouncing+Your+US+Citizenship+Is+Divorcing+Uncle+Sam+Right+For+You
Lastly, without paying for a passport (paying for the right to move my physical body to another physical location), it is not easy to leave or enter another country. In fact, I know people who were recently denied entry into Canada for a visit due to petty, old "criminal" charges for which fines and probation were paid and served years prior to attempting to cross the imaginary line between the US and Canada. Again, this was just for a visit, not even a request for citizenship, which is a whole other process.
Bullshit. one good friend of mine just moved to Kuwait and dropped his green card.
Where do you people hear these things? Research the laws of your own country guys. stop listening to bullshiters.