good one!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
i withheld any comment i might have on this topic to see what reaction this video might incur and in what form.
i was not disappointed.

over the past 30 years we have seen the rise of the fundamentalist christian (there is a reason for that) conversely we have also seen the rise of fundamentalist islam (over a longer period).
there are many factors why this has happened which i will not get into but suffice to say that they exist.there are causality reasons for this rise and those reasons are not contended.

i am a man of faith but my faith puts me in a precarious cross hairs between the religious fundamentalist and the secular fundamentalist (yeah.i used the term.get over it because they exist).
i am reviled and ridiculed by BOTH sides of that equation.so i am in a unique position to comment on both schools of thought because both schools have harassed me.

those who admonish me usually practice a subtle passive aggressive form of rebuke but always with the intention of calling me stupid,unworthy and wrong.veiled insults disguised as a debate or discussion.

a typical discussion with a militant atheist:
"you are a man of faith enoch? wow..just wow.and i took you for a person of some intelligence"
and then they try to smooth over their overt insult by remarking "well,i guess thats your thing but i cant see how anybody with critical thinking skills could be a person of faith"
this is the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteous belief in ones own perfect understanding of everything based on their own limited understanding but they feel perfectly justified to project their own hubris upon me,even when i have not spoken ONE word on where my faith resides.they based their entire understanding on me simply on there formulated creation of their own imagination.

my conversations with a fundamentalist christian/muslims does not fare much better and oftentimes even worse.because i do not give authority to holy writ.this does not mean i do not find wisdom nor a certain poetry in sacred writings but rather through my studies it has become apparent that these books are not only man-made but borrowed from each other.
so i can appreciate the words within for their beauty and poetry (and brutal violence) but ultimately have to disregard the edicts within for the simple fact they are not only incomplete but rife with human corruption.

so the christian fundamentalist will revile me as an apostate or even worse:heretic and condemn me to hell,to be damned for eternity.while this self-righteous judgment is FAR more direct than a militant atheist may treat me,what i find most despicable and cowardly is how a christian will hide behind the bible and actually attempt a false compassion (pray for my soul) while simultaneously revile me as an unclean agent controlled by satan.

i find BOTH these positions weak and pathetic and here is why:
fundamentalism,in any form,is the stagnation of the mind and deadening of spirit.
it hinders our ability to question and wonder and to push the boundaries of our known perceptions.
the fundamentalist is convinced (by whatever means)that they are correct with a certitude that is immovable,unshakable and to even allow the possibility of a contrary ideology (very specific in relation to this conversation) is tantamount to admitting oneself to be../gasp..wrong.

now let me stop here for a moment and ask my atheist friends how my comment has made you feel?
are you getting angry with me? irritated? annoyed?
and if so.why?
have i specifically called YOU out?
no.i have not and the reason is most atheists i have had discussions with here on the sift are NOT militant.they are just atheists.normal regular people without an agenda nor a desire to purge me of my faith.

sam harris is a militant atheist and no matter how he may wish to paint it, his writings define him as such.
his attacks on the religious are painted with such broad strokes as to encompass anyone who may have a modicum of faith.he may attempt to smooth over his rough edges but the core message is still there.
and he also seem to be under the impression (falsely imo) that if everyone abandoned faith that somehow human society would miraculously be a better and more utopian world.
total.infantile.naivete'.
this is the reason hedges calls him out on his fundamentalism.harris tends to ignore not only human nature but the preceding centuries of history and thats why i find his arguments to be lacking.

now please understand i am vehemently against fundamentalism and religion is the main offender without a doubt.so when i call harris out as being a secular fundamentalist i do so with that truth in mind and i believe harris is totally unaware that he could be perceived that way (as revealed by many of his posts).

hitchens had it right from the get-go.
he didnt use that broad brush harris uses but rather was specific in his criticisms and rightly so.he understood the history and theology and exposed the wretched hypocrisy which dwelt in the underbelly of all fundamentalism.he went after the church.he went after those who would pervert the word in order to dominate and control the poor and un-educated and he was vicious in his admonishments.

the bible,torah,quran are all tangible books.doctrine is written down to be read and studied and they SHOULD be discussed and debated and not treated like some sacred cow that is untouchable.hitchens was the master of using the very doctrine put forth by the church (or imam) to eviscerate any argument in favor of said doctrine to expose the utter hypocrisy.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.

i withheld any comment i might have on this topic to see what reaction this video might incur and in what form.
i was not disappointed.

over the past 30 years we have seen the rise of the fundamentalist christian (there is a reason for that) conversely we have also seen the rise of fundamentalist islam (over a longer period).
there are many factors why this has happened which i will not get into but suffice to say that they exist.there are causality reasons for this rise and those reasons are not contended.

i am a man of faith but my faith puts me in a precarious cross hairs between the religious fundamentalist and the secular fundamentalist (yeah.i used the term.get over it because they exist).
i am reviled and ridiculed by BOTH sides of that equation.so i am in a unique position to comment on both schools of thought because both schools have harassed me.

those who admonish me usually practice a subtle passive aggressive form of rebuke but always with the intention of calling me stupid,unworthy and wrong.veiled insults disguised as a debate or discussion.

a typical discussion with a militant atheist:
"you are a man of faith enoch? wow..just wow.and i took you for a person of some intelligence"
and then they try to smooth over their overt insult by remarking "well,i guess thats your thing but i cant see how anybody with critical thinking skills could be a person of faith"
this is the epitome of sanctimonious self-righteous belief in ones own perfect understanding of everything based on their own limited understanding but they feel perfectly justified to project their own hubris upon me,even when i have not spoken ONE word on where my faith resides.they based their entire understanding on me simply on there formulated creation of their own imagination.

my conversations with a fundamentalist christian/muslims does not fare much better and oftentimes even worse.because i do not give authority to holy writ.this does not mean i do not find wisdom nor a certain poetry in sacred writings but rather through my studies it has become apparent that these books are not only man-made but borrowed from each other.
so i can appreciate the words within for their beauty and poetry (and brutal violence) but ultimately have to disregard the edicts within for the simple fact they are not only incomplete but rife with human corruption.

so the christian fundamentalist will revile me as an apostate or even worse:heretic and condemn me to hell,to be damned for eternity.while this self-righteous judgment is FAR more direct than a militant atheist may treat me,what i find most despicable and cowardly is how a christian will hide behind the bible and actually attempt a false compassion (pray for my soul) while simultaneously revile me as an unclean agent controlled by satan.

i find BOTH these positions weak and pathetic and here is why:
fundamentalism,in any form,is the stagnation of the mind and deadening of spirit.
it hinders our ability to question and wonder and to push the boundaries of our known perceptions.
the fundamentalist is convinced (by whatever means)that they are correct with a certitude that is immovable,unshakable and to even allow the possibility of a contrary ideology (very specific in relation to this conversation) is tantamount to admitting oneself to be../gasp..wrong.

now let me stop here for a moment and ask my atheist friends how my comment has made you feel?
are you getting angry with me? irritated? annoyed?
and if so.why?
have i specifically called YOU out?
no.i have not and the reason is most atheists i have had discussions with here on the sift are NOT militant.they are just atheists.normal regular people without an agenda nor a desire to purge me of my faith.

sam harris is a militant atheist and no matter how he may wish to paint it, his writings define him as such.
his attacks on the religious are painted with such broad strokes as to encompass anyone who may have a modicum of faith.he may attempt to smooth over his rough edges but the core message is still there.
and he also seem to be under the impression (falsely imo) that if everyone abandoned faith that somehow human society would miraculously be a better and more utopian world.
total.infantile.naivete'.
this is the reason hedges calls him out on his fundamentalism.harris tends to ignore not only human nature but the preceding centuries of history and thats why i find his arguments to be lacking.

now please understand i am vehemently against fundamentalism and religion is the main offender without a doubt.so when i call harris out as being a secular fundamentalist i do so with that truth in mind and i believe harris is totally unaware that he could be perceived that way (as revealed by many of his posts).

hitchens had it right from the get-go.
he didnt use that broad brush harris uses but rather was specific in his criticisms and rightly so.he understood the history and theology and exposed the wretched hypocrisy which dwelt in the underbelly of all fundamentalism.he went after the church.he went after those who would pervert the word in order to dominate and control the poor and un-educated and he was vicious in his admonishments.

the bible,torah,quran are all tangible books.doctrine is written down to be read and studied and they SHOULD be discussed and debated and not treated like some sacred cow that is untouchable.hitchens was the master of using the very doctrine put forth by the church (or imam) to eviscerate any argument in favor of said doctrine to expose the utter hypocrisy.

i have read hitchens and harris is no hitchens.

You may stop watching this bullsh1t at 1:29 when the entire Vietnam war is labeled as US soldiers--without any context--killing 4 million people in Southeast Asia. REALLY?

NEWSFLASH: the world has always been a violent place. Spin the globe, point to any country and there's a long history of military failures and maybe a few successes. If you're looking for utopian perfection, check the Fiction section.

RoPaul doesn't seem to know that the cult of islam has been at war with everyone around it since its inception. osama was a prick now and forever, and if we aligned with him it was to fight even bigger pricks.

NEWSFLASH 2: Right now, in 2011, the world is also more peaceful than ever

I like Ron Paul... I probably would not vote for him, instead I would just not vote at all and give into bitterness. But, if Dennis Kucinich gets involved as Pauls running mate I will be absolutely sold on the idea of voting for them.

I seriously have me some man love for Kucinich. He is an angel from a different dimension where Spock mated with elves and they formed a utopian society by bonding over Working Class Hero, fighting off the evil mages and making love to fine women.

You know what would give more credence to your nonsense? Give George W. the credit due for simultaneously launching us into two poorly managed and unwinnable wars while drastically lowering taxes, thereby digging a grave for our country's economy for generations to come.

Oh, where to begin? There's probably more than we agree on about Iraq and even Afghanistan than you'll concede. Both wars appeared to be poorly planned and managed and the goals ill-advertised. Both were rife with the same business-as-usual waste, fraud and abuse found in our social welfare programs.

Now I hate to leave you behind, but Iraq was and is a VICTORY and the left will never admit it. Whether the Iraqis ultimately succeed or not is now up to them, but they seem to have embraced freedom even above islamist theocracy; their future is theirs to decide. Bush saw a threat which the rest of the world agreed was legit, including the American left, and he made the call. History will be the final judge.

Afghanistan is more of a mess due to a lack of clearly defined goals; if the goals were wiping out the Taliban and/or killing Been Hidin', then the job was somewhat done. Rebuilding the place is a waste of time. Again, history will decide.

BTW the left seems to support these other "uprisings" to overthrow Arab dictators and yet they have no idea who or what will replace the original turds, and though I doubt you or anyone else on the left will admit it, it's the birth of a free Iraq which spawned a demand for freedom in other Arab lands.

If you want to talk about runaway spending, at least have the fucking intelligence to figure out that it happens worse when your ideological brethren are in charge. Otherwise you just come off as another proto-typical brainwashed conservative dupe.

As the last three years have AMPLY proven (more if you count Congress being controlled by taxocrats since 2006) leftists in power are FAR worse. Odumbo has spent more money we don't have in 3 years than Bush did in 8, so there's really no comparison. Now you may balk at Bush being labeled 'a liberal with a few conservative tendencies' but that's what he was. I'm well aware the SOB rubber-stamped everything on his desk, including all the social programs the left loves so much, and as I state from time to time, the original scamulus and GM failout on his watch tips the scales of his legacy to FAIL.

We can only speculate on what Bush might have done/gotten away with had there been no 9/11. His spending sprees, had they taken place, might have been more roundly criticized by the right, or the prosperity of those years without the hit of 9/11 might have left everyone in a dream state like in the 90s.

Had Odumbo been a slithering socialist like President Hillary, there likely would be no Tea Party, but he made the same mistake Cankles did with the original full court press for socialized medicine. Now the Giant is awake.

I do read your other posts, and I really don't know what to tell you, Dude. You mark capitalism/free markets/deregulation as being failures or even nonexistent. My response to that is, "Compared to what?" Some utopian ideal that has never existed?




>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You know what would give more credence to your nonsense? Give George W. the credit due for simultaneously launching us into two poorly managed and unwinnable wars while drastically lowering taxes, thereby digging a grave for our country's economy for generations to come. If you want to talk about runaway spending, at least have the fucking intelligence to figure out that it happens worse when your ideological brethren are in charge. Otherwise you just come off as another proto-typical brainwashed conservative dupe. >> ^quantumushroom:
Even the St. Petersburg Times, proto-typical liberal rag-in-denial, has noted that His Earness's "Buffett Tax" will only bring in a couple of hundred billion over 10 years, nary a drop in the bucket. Runaway spending is still the problem.
Taxocrats pretend they want to tax "only millionaires" but it's the "common man" the left claims it's defending that will be taking it in the ass from the federal mafia, both in trickle-down higher taxes AND direct higher taxes.
As for The Bignose and Fatso Vaudeville Hour, I've never been offered a job by a poor man.

^So in one comment we have a free market that's killing us all. In your next, we never had one because it's utopian. Your narrative needs work.

Very creative! Here's what you need to know about BHO.

He's a child of privilege posing as a downtrodden victim who somehow climbed out of America's drowning pool of "racism".

He isn't terribly bright but he knows what he's doing. He was nominated to assuage idiots' "White Guilt." He is an affirmative-action president with no real political credentials.

He's got a grudge against America, American Exceptionalism and free market capitalism. What the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright believes, BARACK believes.

He's likely a closet atheist, but for now obviously can't admit it.

He has had no achievements to speak of since taking office, unless--UNLESS--you understand what his true motives are: turn America into just another forgettable Euro-dump with no identity. Suddenly it makes sense!

"BULLPLOP QM! Barack wants JOBS for Americans!" As long as he embraces Keynesian rubbish, it won't happen. And he can't turn back now.

The libmedia works for BHO as if they were being paid directly from the White House. They hide his gaffes, downplay his goof-ups and hide the results of his schemes.

America is worse off now than when this jug-eared socialist was elected.

I'm not a liberal (anymore) so I can't match wits wit the brilliant geniuses here, but the results of the BHO Fraudsidency speak for themselves. Every day.


>> ^Crosswords:

>> ^quantumushroom:
And when will Supergenius Barack Hussein Obama be releasing his kollij grades?

Never cause he's a Manchurian candidate created by the Kenyan Illuminati who control the world's drug companies. That's why he was so insistent on getting healthcare legislation passed, so he could make sure everyone could have access to the drugs and get them addicted so they can all be his mind slave zombies he'll use to make war on the peaceful utopian capitalist society on planet orbiting Gliese 581. If he had actually gone to college someone would have remembered him graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law, but not surprisingly nobody ever saw him graduate, even his 238 year old lizard man Illuminati grandmother who's actually the queen of England never saw him graduate.

Did I do it right, can I vote republican now?

>> ^quantumushroom:

And when will Supergenius Barack Hussein Obama be releasing his kollij grades?


Never cause he's a Manchurian candidate created by the Kenyan Illuminati who control the world's drug companies. That's why he was so insistent on getting healthcare legislation passed, so he could make sure everyone could have access to the drugs and get them addicted so they can all be his mind slave zombies he'll use to make war on the peaceful utopian capitalist society on planet orbiting Gliese 581. If he had actually gone to college someone would have remembered him graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law, but not surprisingly nobody ever saw him graduate, even his 238 year old lizard man Illuminati grandmother who's actually the queen of England never saw him graduate.


Did I do it right, can I vote republican now?

I agree with the professor. Voluntarism as a substitute for the welfare state is utopian.

How would it reach everyone, even in the most remote backwater towns, and at that, equally? Who decides who gets what? Do christian and/or white poor get more than others? Who decides what constitutes a poor person? Will drug addicts and drunks get the same help as everyone else? How long until the voluntary philantropists don't want to donate anymore when they see how others who give nothing are getting more prosperous while they themselves 'lose money'?



I've read enough of Gaskell, Disraeli and Dickens to imagine possible outcomes.

Upvote for the professor.

I would say that in your case, @blankfist, that the burden of proof is on you to prove that raw milk can be used and offered safely.

This may be a shaky analogy, but it's similar IMO. to the 2nd Amendment, I'm very pro-gun, but there has to be SOME regulations, you just don't put certain weapons out there in the open market for any tom dick and harry who has the cash to buy. The potential for those weapons infringing on the life, liberty and happiness of others far outweighs the freedom to buy said weapons. Sure there may be plenty of people out there who would use such weapons wisely...but we don't just take their word for it, do we?

If it weren't for gov't regulations, we probably wouldn't even have ingredient lists or nutrition information on our food. Much of our quality of life today is because of these gov't regulations, not because of the free market. Personally, I don't want to turn back the clock and live in the old west days where if someone shoots me, It's MY fault for not dodging quick enough or for not shooting him first. Free market says slavery works too. Free Market says child labor is awesome. Free Market says sweatshops rule! We as a people have said time and time again that some things are more important than profit at all cost and that just because you can do a thing, doesn't necessarily mean you should. Were you asleep in History class?

If you believe otherwise, the burden is on you to prove it. It's a judgement call, you can't just blindly de-regulate everything in the name of liberty. News flash, the patriot act has very little to do with patriotism. The fair tax is anything but fair, and freedom isn't free. Just because Liberty is in the word libertarian, doesn't make it so.

This is another case of someone envisioning their version of a utopian world and working backwards. Well in a perfect world, there are no abortions, so obviously we have to ban abortions. Well in a perfect world, there are no poor people, so obviously we gotta make life more and more difficult for poor people so they are motivated to not be poor. In a perfect world, we don't need gov't looking over our shoulder because we get along fine on our own, then obviously we need to reduce gov't.

It' just doesn't work that way.

@NetRunner

"I don't have some utopian structure for society I'm trying to sell, I'm mostly trying to debunk the idea that markets are some utopian ideal we should strive for."

So you're arguing against markets (meritocracy) and in favor of collectivism & experientialism ('feel good' degrees paid for by somebody else). It does seem relevant then whether or not meritocracy causes greater contributions to humankind (it appears to, if we compare my outcomes to those of my lazy collectivist friends).

"Would you really stop working on it if you got paid less, or if everyone got paid the same no matter what they did?"

Yes I would, and that's one of the reasons I stopped working in academia early on. I realized most human problems are self-caused and aren't relevant to rationalists (same as the make-believe problem of student loans).

But fortunately it's not generally necessary to make the choice between passion and career... individuals have general interests, and they can follow the most socioeconomically valued paths within those interests. Also, rationalists get paid well in every field, because they're the one thing society needs more of.

>> ^chilaxe:

@NetRunner "rather gross display of immodesty"
Ha. But we're evaluation the relative merits of meritocracy vs. collectivism/experientialism, so looking at the outcomes in terms of how good they are for contributing to humankind seems relevant.

That doesn't seem to be the conversation we're actually having though. We're talking about the merits and shortcomings of markets. I don't have some utopian structure for society I'm trying to sell, I'm mostly trying to debunk the idea that markets are some utopian ideal we should strive for.

>> ^chilaxe:
"My problem with that is that those incentives don't work... Your "lazy liberal" friends still exist despite our largely Randian society"
Isn't that mostly because collectivist/experientialist culture tells us to not follow incentives?

No.

...and even if it was, it's another case of the invisible hand failing to work as advertised.

More to the point, is payment really your only motivator?

Let's suppose you're right, and what you're doing is tremendously more important to humanity than what the rest of us mere mortals are doing. Would you really stop working on it if you got paid less, or if everyone got paid the same no matter what they did?

Isn't the intellectual pursuit enjoyable enough to get you to continue? Isn't the benefit to humankind enough?

Shouldn't it be?

...if the left could prove that man-made global warming was dangerous, and there was a solution to be found to the global warming "problem", the solution wouldn't arrive via socialist edicts, the free market would find it.

First off, thanks for proving my point. You have no interest in hearing about any problem that turns your political ideology on its head. This pretty much seals the deal of what your motives actually are.

Which problem would that be? The correlation between man-made activity (industry) and global warming remains scientifically unproven. Plenty of theories, NO demonstrable proof. This would be fine, except the alarmists wish to radically change the world to suit their "vision" in aforementioned ways. Not just tomorrow but 100 years from now. We've seen this collectivist BS repackaged and resold over and over again, and the result is always the same: central planning by elites = failure.

My "motive" is this: I wish to live free, it's my GOD-given right to live free. Or, if you prefer, it's a NATURAL right to live free, and this right cannot be "revoked" by any legit government. Pure anarchy doesn't work, so a free society surrenders some freedom to achieve the maximum amount of freedom possible.

Now along come the warming alarmists. They have declared, in hysterical fashion, that our dynamic ever-changing global climate now poses a threat because it isn't doing what they assumed it would do, without even knowing what is "normal". By some accounts, we're way past due for another ice age.

Private property rights and free markets have proven they're the best ways to manage both themselves and the "common good", which too often is code for non-competitive hangers-on and government incompetence. Capitalism creates ecologically-friendly goods when they're what consumers want. Capitalism creates new, more efficient technologies.

Does this mean capitalism is perfect? NOPE. Humans are selfish and regulation is necessary, but the latter is not a "solution" to all of life's problems any more than capitalism.

In the case of global warming, just for the sake of this discussion, assume that yes, burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming, and that global warming is in fact detrimental to humans.

Then there's still no easy answer. The burning of fossil fuels has made a high standard of living for nations which in turn grow food and build technology to sell to less advanced nations. Global warming (or cooling) simply cannot be detrimental to all humans at the same time. So assuming--for the sake of argument--that the alarmists' theories were somehow proven, there is still no solution, only trade-offs.

Free markets and private property rights are not utopian. HOWEVER, while they may not self-correct to the exacting standards of some, they're a hell of a lot more responsive and 'organic' than governments, whose motives are all over the map.

The most effective way to deal with such a problem for capitalists is simply deny the problem actually exists. Your problem is you desperately want there to not be a problem to fit your capitalist ideology, so you will not ever be convinced that global warming is real and human influenced. This is largely because if it is real, it likely cannot be dealt with using market forces solely, and your ideology will be irreparably destroyed.

This is just a silly ad hominem attack. One more time: the direct correlation between man-made activity (industry) and global warming remains scientifically unproven. Plenty of theories, NO demonstrable proof.

No, heropsycho, I have no interest in personally labeling anyone, as if that would solve anything.

>> ^marbles:

Social contract theories have no relevance to the philosophy of liberty. As I pointed out from the beginning, your references have no context. Liberty exists outside of any relationship to an external authority.

This is your premise, it is also your conclusion. You have failed to demonstrate it at all. You have not made an argument. You have simply made a flurry of self contradicting statements, and insisted that they are true, and that any counter argument is false by definition. Do you really expect anybody to take you seriously?

>> ^marbles:

I guess you’re right. Marxism is actually based on a small group’s right to the individual. Not even Marx was naïve enough to believe that a utopian classless society was achievable, let alone sustainable.


Marx advocated only the abolition of capital, not of workers rights to what they produce, he believed that capitalism had already destroyed that right:

>> ^Karl_Marx:

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing
the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a
man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork
of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the
property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of
property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to
abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent
already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.


>> ^marbles:

the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.
So where does production come from again?



To restate: where does the producing of articles having exchange value. come from

Lets see, how many ways can I interpret this?

1) Where do produced items come from : They are made of other things + energy, conservation of M/E
2) Where does the idea of production come from : The social contract of market societies
3) Where does the exchange value of objects come from : Somewhat arbitrary cultural valuation
4) ??? : what you secretly mean probably goes here, how about cluing us in?

>> ^marbles:

I did just clearly demonstrate it.

Where?

>> ^marbles:

Care to prove it false?

State your case and I'll give it a whirl.

>> ^marbles:
Sorry but self-ownership is a hyphenated word not found in the dictionary. The implications in of itself are clearly not literal: My self owns myself? So why exactly are you trying to make a literal argument?

Because the logical consistency of your ideology depends on the ability to bootstrap a property system with the ownership (as in what they word usually means) of self. Dispensing with that when it gets inconvenient makes the whole thing fall apart.

Without actual self ownership, you have no logically necessary ownership claim to the value produced by self, and so you can not build you system on property only. You must start adding more first principles in order to get there. If libertarians have been purposely obfuscating their ideology as you claim, then they have been hiding the weakness in their argument, and making a false case.

I take most libertarians at there word that they actually meant what they said. Your position now significantly diverges from that put forth in the video, and requires you to make a different argument to bootstrap your personal libertarian-derived view.

What new first principle are you introducing to bootstrap ownership from only figurative ownership of self?

>> ^marbles:

I’m sorry, was I supposed to give a damn about your hypothetical social contract?

You used its existence as an argument. You want to back peddle and say you didn't mean it? Then do so.

>> ^marbles:

I didn’t use your property arrangement for anything; I rejected your claims outright.

And then, as an example, argued that I was wrong because what I suggested would not work in my property arrangement, read the transcript.

>> ^marbles:

And yet you recognized property for Nomadic humans. Wonder what all those hunter-gatherers were doing? So does physical life also need a social contract to exist?

possession ≠ fee-simple

Possession is fact, who has current physical control of a thing is not an issue for philosophy, but only of physicality. If I hold a pen in my hand I possess it, irrespective of any ownership claims on the pen. To take the pen from me without my consent requires the initiation of actual physical force against me, based on the physics.

If you own the pen, I don't have to interact with you in any way to use it, or take it home with me. There is no way to know if you own the pen, or if anybody does.

There is no demonstrable physical consequence of fee-simple property, possession, on the other hand in a matter of facts. My acceptance of both the fact and historical relevance of possession, does not get you within miles of fee-simple.

>> ^dgandhi:
When people know things about general subjects they tend to reference general knowledge to simplify conversations. If I had known at the outset that you are adverse to knowing anything but your sacred ideology I would have just called you a religious wing-nut at the outset and been done with it. At this point I'm in for a pound, and I'm going to make sure you have at least heard something other than you navel gazing nonsense before I am through with you. Social contract theories have no relevance to the philosophy of liberty. As I pointed out from the beginning, your references have no context. Liberty exists outside of any relationship to an external authority. And instead of addressing the concept directly, you hide behind vapid arrogance and resort to personal attacks. Bravo!
>> ^dgandhi:
Okay, that clarifies a lot. You are actually arguing against an absurdist straw-man of any philosophy but your own. Please, since you are so keen on sourcing references, take a look at the manifesto, and tell me where you found that bit. I guess you’re right. Marxism is actually based on a small group’s right to the individual. Not even Marx was naïve enough to believe that a utopian classless society was achievable, let alone sustainable.
>> ^dgandhi:
Nice selective editing, I like how you completely ignored that your question as stated made no sense.

Okay, if you want to pretend you are six, fine. NON-OBJECTS CAN'T BE CREATED, "production" is not an object, it's a concept, it has no physicality, just like the color blue it can't come/go to or from anywhere. If stating that fact tweaks your ideology then your position is weaker than I thought.
I never said it was an object. Actually, I've previously said objects are only representations of property.

production
–noun
1.the act of producing; creation; manufacture.
2.something that is produced; a product.
3.Economics . the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.

So where does production come from again?
>> ^dgandhi:
Yes you keep saying this, saying things does not make them so.

When I say something is a fact, that means that I can clearly demonstrate it. You have failed to even acknowledge that demonstrating your truth claims is relevant to their accuracy. Given your bizarre aversion, what exactly do you mean when you claim something is a fact? I did just clearly demonstrate it. Care to prove it false?
>> ^dgandhi:
So you own yourself, but you are not allowed to sell what you own? I'm going to need you to define own if you are going to use it like that. And I’m the one that’s six? One argument you ignore the literal meaning, the next you cling to it. Sorry but self-ownership is a hyphenated word not found in the dictionary. The implications in of itself are clearly not literal: My self owns myself? So why exactly are you trying to make a literal argument?
>> ^dgandhi:

You realize that this whole discussion is displayed above right? You used my current property arrangement as an argument that your property ideal is right, that argument fails to differentiate between property and all the other things my social contract covers. You were sloppy, so just suck it up and state your case. I’m sorry, was I supposed to give a damn about your hypothetical social contract? I didn’t use your property arrangement for anything; I rejected your claims outright.
>> ^dgandhi:
Since neither property nor theft have any meaning in the absence of social contract, all three claims are false because they require conditions to exist where they can not. This is not a problem for me, your problem is backing up the one of them you seem to think is true. And yet you recognized property for Nomadic humans. Wonder what all those hunter-gatherers were doing? So does physical life also need a social contract to exist?