Do the math. No religion has a majority on this little planet. Therfor no matter which religion you believe in, most people have it wrong.
I’m an atheist, but I would say faith and religion aren’t necessarily the same.
Could you please elaborate?
That’s a zero sum way of looking at preferences and values.
Some people prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate ice cream. That doesn’t mean the opposite is wrong.
The atheist vs. creationist arguments are very boring, and I think counterproductive to a libertarian society. Libertarianism only works when we seek win-win outcomes from cooperation and voluntarism. Win-lose outcomes and judgements move us back into the sort of thinking that thrives under the state. Conflict.
We are talking about faith and religion, not preferences, not values, not vanilla ice cream. Don’t change the subject.
Faith and religion do not assert “I prefer”, they assert “This is the truth and anything else is wrong.” Jesus either did or did not walk on water. There is no preference here. If we he did walk on water, thinking the opposite is wrong. And vice versa.
if you have faith in a religion, you are saying “What they say is true.” Therefor the majority of the universe that believes otherwise is dead wrong, and will of course burn in hell forever. Sorry, it can’t be true and false at the same time. No amount of name calling can change that.
If you find a debate on a certain topic boring, that is certainly a valid preference. Too bad we weren’t discussing that topic.
So an attempt to ascertain the truth of a certain topic is “counterproductive to a libertarian society”? Why? Because you find it boring?
“Libertarianism only works when we seek win-win outcomes from cooperation and voluntarism.” Please. Libertarianism [or any sytem] only works when we seek the truth. BTW if a debate will decide which is true, creationism or evolution, that is a win-win situation, because everybody wins knowing the truth.
Unless one side is not seeking the truth at all, but something else. Then if the truth is found to contradict him, he has lost something.
“Win-lose outcomes and judgements move us back into the sort of thinking that thrives under the state. Conflict.” Nope. What you are erroneously calling “a Win-lose outcome” is that the true side is revealed as true and the false side as false. Every living human gains by an increase in knowledge and revelation of truth. There are no losers.
Seeking the truth thrives under the state but not in a free society? Make that your signature and see what happens.
“Conflict.” Who is talking about conflict? We are talking about two sides presenting their evidence or lack of it and trying to thresh out the truth.
Summing up: I stated an irrefutable fact, that most people are dead wrong about religion, no matter which religion is assumed to be true. Though you agree with this fact [implicitly], you started in with the name calling and also tried to confuse the issue. You call someone who mentions a simple mathematical statement of irrefutable fact [that you also accept as true] a statist.
I hope this disagreement gets dissolved peacefully and maturely
Where?
Where?
Ideally, that will be how it plays out. That depends on Dave, as it takes two to cooperate. I’m still waiting for him to explain some of his claims about my posts. Perhaps we just have a misunderstanding.
LS, I certainly am willing to drop the subject, it being apparently a very charged one and not really relevant to the OP.
Seems like we have gotten into this kind of wrangle a few times already.
I do hope there is just a misunderstanding here, a confusion caused perhaps by our individual styles of communication.
Tell ya what, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and will always try to interpret your statements in the best possible light. If reluctantly forced to disagree, I will of course defend my position, but with no personal aspersions on you, neither explicit nor implied. All I ask in return is the same treatment.
Not exclusively. Faith is also belief in the absence of proof.
Watch this, it’s interesting to say the least.
The faith in science, overlooks the fact that science is susceptible to bias. Which is why the Austrian school is oriented more to deduction than to induction.
The reason why I said that creationism and atheism (a popular debate meme online) is boring, is because adherents of either frequently ignore epistemology. Many will presuppose their knowledge is superior, without having vetted that knowledge logically.
Humans are analog creatures. We fudge at the edges. We’re not wired like Vulcans.
You don’t even have to do that. Just evaluate what I have written, by what I have written. If you need clarification, you only have to ask.
I’ve got no problem with you Dave. I barely know you.
Dave, if this is how you want to play it, let’s go back to the beginning.
Where?
Where?
I like this.
Thanks. I’ve been working on it for a little while.
@all, new thread, I split the posts off from the last one since it was almost completely OT.
The first sentence kind of implies there’s a choice we have between win-win outcomes and win-lose or zero some outcomes… What do you mean by emphasizing this choice? In the marketplace voluntarism excludes the latter 2.
Maybe I’m just misunderstanding. I like the idea though. It really pins down the untenable position statists have to defend.
Sometimes it is ok to say, “I agree to disagree” thereby allowing both parties to retire from a conflict or debate without having to yield. When we get two parties in any conflict who will not yield, we get a zero sum outcome. Both parties only accept absolute victory for themselves, and absolute defeat for their opposite. This means that the battle becomes longer, bloodier, costlier, as both parties can’t win.
Particularly online, the longer people debate, the further they get from common ground, and the argument starts to focus on unrelated minutiae and technical points of debate, instead of working towards a common understanding.
Absolutely. And my point is that we should be looking to act in a voluntaristic manner whenever we can. To find peaceful non-confrontational solutions instead of staking out all or nothing positions. To shoot for mutual understanding instead of total annihilation of opponents.
That’s not to say we should compromise on morality, but that on trivia like religion or ice cream, it is simply not necessary to conflict. Whether I think God made me, or aliens deposited me on earth, or I am evolved, that doesn’t have to effect voluntarism. Whether I like to use drugs or not, shouldn’t affect voluntarism. Whether I believe in polyamory, shouldn’t affect voluntarism. We can incorporate these beliefs and preferences into our lives, without compromising voluntaristic behaviour.
I have been slowly going off the term anarchist, and one of the guys here had a thread about rebranding, which normally I think is silly, but then I considered what I would do with one of my websites if it was in need of a PR boost. I would rebrand in a heartbeat. Not to mention, sometimes you rebrand to clarify your mission, or product or service. So I thought, the real problem (borrowed from Stefan Molyneux) is the gun in the room. So what better way to confront that, by staking out the voluntarist position? Right off the bat, people know I am only for voluntary interaction, and if they want to criticize my label, they will have to argue for involuntary relations. No time wasted on conflation with G20 rioters, vandarchists, or leftoid cranks. It also is a nice buffer from the constitutional minarchists and Objectivists.
Anyway, I’m trying to find ways to “be” libertarian, not to just proclaim my “support” from my keyboard for it. I think I can start by working for understanding (win-win) instead of victory via conflict (win-lose). The notion of subjugating your opposite in debate is the sort of militaristic, aggressive mentality that leads to statism IMHO.
Anyway, I’m not even into debating the religion and science bit of all this, I thought it was unfair to jack a new guy’s thread (already happened to Blueline recently). Where we come from isn’t as important as where we are going.
This is sort of similar to a brief, and now dead, movement in formal philosophy. The most influential example was Heidegger’s last book, in which he wrote that his future critics would suppose his ideas were meant to be rationally competitive and supersede all other theories. He claims he has meant no such thing and intended his ontology to be an aesthetic rather than an absolute…
What I take from this is the challenge to debating on a win-lose arena. I feel that this may be be true for some ideas, in that green does not beat blue, though not true for 2+2=4 vs = 3. The latter is clearly the loser when rationality is the victory criterion… So it seems that by agreeing to talk and argue rationally, one is set up for the win-lose scenario. I think your conclusion that this leads to statism follows from the fact that arguments are analogous to a presupposed monopoly of authority coming out of rationalism. Don’t know what to say about this.
Perhaps win-lose situations are tacitly agreed because most of us assume rationality to be prestandard.
Although I think yours is very good idea in some scenarios. I recently met an an-cap who is hardcore NAP. I don’t agree with NAP but my ideas about society don’t contradict it (very much). When we have conversations it is very win-win oriented because we don’t really have to compromise much and can focus on progressing eachother’s education.
Then there are some people I know who just want to fight any radical ideas they encounter. In this case it could never be a win-win resolution for both of us since they are determined to fight for whatever policies, and I’ll “lose” if I give up even the bare minimum amount of ground required for them to win.
Anyway, I think you’re smart enough to realize we can’t always get into win-win situations. I guess let me ask you this: what is the point in having all these high caliber ideas if we can’t wage intellectual war on the oppressors [8o|]?
I think many libertarians would agree with you that we should seek out win-win in our intellectual relationships in the same way as in our market relationships, but statists advocate violation of the NAP so don’t they forfeit all libertarian/market/win-win relationships? Perhaps this is a muddled articulation.
Totally. I’m still having trouble figuring out what I am. I think I’m closest to an agorist… but it’s still fuzzy. I like to think of myself as a scientist about these issues, where the laws of economics are neither good nor evil, they simply exist like the laws of physics. Ignoring these laws creates failure in the same way as an ignorance of physics etc etc.
It’s too bad “libertarian” is already taken [:P] I mean it has "libert"y right in it. Not much of a clearer package if you ask me. I suppose you reject the label since most libertarians are statists and you believe in subjective ethics.
I reject the label because there are people like Cass Sunstein promoting ideas like “libertarian paternalism” and people like Bob Barr trying to brand themselves as libertarian. These people and their ideologies are in direct contrast to voluntarism.
Agorism is a tactic, not a political philosophy.
No, we can’t always get win-win scenarios. Life is not perfect. I am not a Utopian. However, that shouldn’t stop us from looking for the productive solutions that leave both parties better off. If you had a gun and were in conflict, you might use diplomacy or some other tactic, rather than shooting first.
I’m saying there is no reason for us not to use that sort of discretion in debate or market relationships as well.
I have brought quite a few people over to minarchism, and more to voluntarism. I never had a single success playing the win-lose game. I’m a big fan of listening to what other people are saying, and find a way to communicate your ideas to them, in a way that adds value to their perspective. Basically, appeal to their own self-interest. Oh sure, I have been in some pointless debates wasting time and space, but I am really trying to cut down on that high time preference behaviour. It is not in my best interest.
I am not proposing these ideas as rules or absolutes. Just my thoughts and perhaps intentions. YMMV. I’m happy to hear feedback on them, but no zero sum debates please. [;)]
I just don’t know what to say to people who are mega obama supporters etc without getting into a win-lose situation… maybe this is my limitation. Maybe there is nothing I can say… Its frustrating because I feel like I should say something.
Oh the fire of youth.
I’ve seen something like argumentation ethics and kinsella’s name sprout up here and there in the forums. Is their discussion relevant to the one at hand? If there is an alternative to the zero sum debate I’d love to learn it.