Is this going to be a lesson in why I should be an an-cap? Because if I’m not you’ll kill me?
Because frankly I find that reason more motivating than Liberty Student’s.
You should threaten to kill more people, I think you’ll get more converts. It’s easier to understand than all the moralism.
If I convert to anarcho-capitalism are you still going to kill me? Because if you are then it doesn’t really matter what philosophy I choose does it?
That’s what you jump to? Murder? I mean, maybe you should be a little paranoid, but murder? It couldn’t be steal your parking space, or, get you ticketed, or “sneeze on your food”, or put a banana in your tailpipe…
Murder?
Maybe you should find some other philosophy if for no other reason than to chill your nerves.
Hmm seemed like you were threatening to kill me. But I also haven’t slept in a day or so.
Anyways I’m going to sleep now for real this time. I’m exhausted. If John James doesn’t kill me tomorrow, I’ll be back to answer responses.
What makes you think other people will chase them? What makes you feel you’ll endorse them? Why won’t you choose to not endorse them? Why won’t you choose to endorse the rapist? Why is that good enough for you?
What makes you think your brain needs objective evidence? What makes you think your brain is capable of accepting any evidence at all? What makes you think your feelings are moral? What makes you think human behavior is objective reality? What makes you think your perception of human behavior is objective reality?
If you are your brain and your brain is you, why do you think it tells you what to do? Why can’t you ignore yourself? Are you an objective reality? If you are, why can’t I see you? How can I observe you? I can’t observe the ‘me’ in the body that’s next to me right now. How can I know that it acts?
Why do you think it’s the source of action? Why can’t you act without a brain? Why is it evident that their brain told them to rape? What is the mind? What is the body? Why aren’t they separate? Can’t they be separate?
Why does the brain choose? What is a moral justification? Why do you care what they told you your whole life? Why do you say you will chase them? What is philosophy?
I think the science of memory and cognition which I’m still learning about, can help us to understand the answers to these sorts of questions. Many of my brain’s estimates (what makes you think other people will chase them?) seem to be derived from past experience of the world as it has been in my life. Memory, to my knowledge, is not something that’s not passed on genetically. I’ve always known the police to chase rapists therefore my brain tells me I can reasonably assume that they will continue to do so. When my brain encounters a new situation, it attempts to compare that new situation to old situations in memory to try and determine what this new situation will likely be like. We measure what we know against what we’re being presented. Why (in an evolutionary sense) we have this ability and whether or not it’s an evolved adaptation to the ancestral environment I don’t know. Many other animals besides humans have demonstrated the ability to remember things.
My “moral compass” so to speak would seem to serve an evolutionary function. Individuals who carried the genes that would allow them to make these sorts of relations between themselves and others were more likely to reproduce than those who lacked it. In the modern world we see that most people exhibit empathy (link 2) (except for psychopaths, but that seem to be due to an abnormal brain structure)
That’s an interesting question. Why am I more likely to support state authority than the authority of the rapist? To be honest I don’t really know the whole answer as to why we tend to grant legitimacy to one authority over another just yet. It might have something to do with how our brain links us to the potential authority. My brain doesn’t know that the cops aren’t biologically related to me anymore than my brain knows that fatty and sugary foods are no longer in short supply. But maybe it assumes that they might be because of their status of “protector” which would’ve been a strong indicator of biological similarity in the evolutionary environment. This is just a hypothesis though I’m still trying to figure this one out.
Why wouldn’t it be?
This is a weird way to think about how the brain evaluates external and internal stimuli. Check out the links on memory and cognition.
Because I experience them as moral feelings. Are you asking me how can I be sure that these sentiments are being generated by the part of brain designed to enable empathy?
Another interesting question. The best answer I can give is because that’s the information my brain has been given and because that’s what my brain has evolved to be able to do: take external information and provide quick evaluations of it. I perceive the physical world as reality because of a complex feedback loop in the brain. My perception of human behavior and reality and further deconstruction of it is a universal human trait.
What else would be telling me what to do? Do you think decisions are being made outside the body?
Why can’t you tell your stomach to stop digesting food? Why can’t you consciously will your eyes to stop creating images in the brain?
Many of our brain’s functions aren’t under our conscious control. Most humans are capable of reasoning and introspection but those seem to be functions of the frontal lobe in the brain. Here’s an interesting study I found on how deductive and probabilistic reasoning might work in the brain.
I have a physical property yes. You can’t see my body because your sense of sight was never developed to be able to perceive things at such distances. You cannot observe me, you can observe the language I use on a forum.
You can’t know for certain. But your brain deals well in probabilistic scenarios. The thing sitting next to you shares the characteristics of other things that have been observed to act in the past. Your empathetic powers tell you that if this thing is similar to you it therefore must have motives just as you do. But then it could be a lifelike replica of a man and your brain could be fooled.
Because there’s an overwhelming amount of evidence that it is. Has a man with no brain ever been observed to act?
What else could’ve told them to rape? The “mind” is a complex neurological framework that is generated by several parts of the brain working together. There is no real meaningful biological distinction between “body” and “mind.” The brain is an organ just like every other organ in the body. How could they be separate?
Because that is its evolved function in animals. I would recommend Chapter 4: The Gene Machine in the Selfish Gene to understand why brains exist and why they were evolved to make quick choices.
A moral justification involves a complex set of ideas. A moral relates to the principle of right and wrong in human behavior. A justification is a reason, fact or explanation that defends an action or behavior.
Because that input is all my brain has to go on. I cannot work with information I do not yet have.
Because I think, given what I know, that that is the most likely outcome.
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, it usually uses reasoning and rational argument as its methodology for the analyzation of said problems.
Wow!! I just wrote out a really long response with extensive citations and everything and I think the forum ate it.
That’s ridiculous what is going on with this forum??
That shit took me like an hour to compose. Unreal.
I’m sorry Excel I will try again later when I’m less frustrated.
Don’t worry, it came out fine.
All these concepts sound kinda like the popular conception of buddhism, as I understand it. (Which is mostly from speeches on buddhism and hinduism by Alan Watts.)
Legal pedophilia is a logical consequence of the non-aggression principle. The more you argue otherwise, the more you contradict yourself. Adios!
Not true in the slightest. A minor cannot consent for themselves, and thus one could not ethically engage in sex with a minor even in an NAP-based society. Libertarians do not suggest that children have capacity to consent no matter what, that would be silly.
Almost as silly as a troll thinking nonsense like that in this forum is going to envoke the outrage he would prefer to see.
Who determines who can and can’t consent? Whatever way you cut it, it’s paternalism.
I love how libertarians support that when it comes to concrete, everyday things like age of consent or private nuclear weapon ownership but shut down when it comes to financial/environmental regulation stuff they don’t understand.
The age of consent is not derived from the NAP. Historically, the age of consent in common law and customary law societies has actually been quite low, around 12 years old. Only within the last 150 years has it risen to the various ages we have today, typically between 16 and 18 years of age. The age of consent has risen directly with the rise of statutory law as the dominant form of law (in fact it is has risen because of specific statutory laws).
Also, Rothbard considered children adults once they demonstrated that they were adults. His example was when a child runs away from home. So, I cannot say whether or not I agree with what you said as I do not know what you consider to be a minor, and it is possible that everything I wrote completely lines up with what you said.
One last thing, troll19’s remark about pedophilia misses a very important point: children who are prepubescent do not have interests in sexual relationships. A five year old is not going to consent to a sexual relationship with anyone, because a five year old child does not have any interest in a sexual relationship.
I hope not.
Not necessarily; there may be objective measures of ability to consent that we can appeal to, without relying on whim or a rule like a strict age limit. Let’s take Gotlucky’s post as a jumping off point:
True enough.
We do in fact agree. I used the term ‘minor’ without qualifying that I consider the application of that term would be decided in a different manner in an autarchic republic than what most states do these days.
In another thread, I’ve suggested three potential rubrics for determining whether someone should be considered an adult with full power over themselves or not:
First is passage into puberty, second is demonstration that one can care for themselves by complete financial self-support, third is sufficient maturity to have the ability to understand the consequences of consent. Any one of these alone or in combination could be sufficient. I think there could be some kind of family ritual in a sense, where the parent gives a child complete control over their life–you are now an adult, type of thing. And also the idea that a kid could sue to remove his parents’ right to make decisions for them should they feel themselves mismanaged.
I think we’ve tended to use the ‘age 18’ rubric because it applies quite broadly. Some kids may be able to take care of themselves by 13, some much later.
Rather than say any of those is definitive, I would leave it up to individual jurisdictions to decide what rubric they want to use and let the competition of ideas bear fruit. In a voluntaryist society, that sort of flexibility is primary. The whole point is not to force another’s way of life on other people.
Out of curiosity, what source are you using (I’m not saying I disagree, just wondering)? I’ve been reading this. Apparently the legal age of consent dropped to as low as 10 in 13th century England and Colonial America.
Also, have you found evidence that these laws ever simultaneously proscribed marriage at any age and/or ever proscribed sex between a married couple even if the woman was very young? I haven’t yet.
You don’t think there will ever be a market for services like bringing back runaway children? Do you think parents might have a biological reason for wanting to control their children, particularly their reproductive capacity?
I don’t remember where I first read about the age of consent used to be lower. Jews considered 13 to be the age of majority. I remember hearing that one of Mohammed’s wives was 9 years old (or some age close). And then Romeo and Juliet were supposed to be quite young too. Wikipedia’s article on it is pretty good, and it has links to all sorts of other pertinent information.
Outlawing a consensual interaction between two people because some moral authority doesn’t consider one party’s consent to “count” is, by most definitions, paternalism.
But I’m glad you guys don’t actually follow the NAP.
What, everyone has to be an anarchist now or else they’re dumbasses?