Freedomain Radio - Sunday Call In Show Aug 23 2009

[tilsetningsstoff]

Jan is himself at his best, witch makes hes work so great!

[logicChemist]

Also, Noam Chomsky is asked what his political views are in "Manufacturing Consent", and he replies that he is a Libertarian Socialist. For the longest time I had no idea how that would work. I think what he is advocating is Civil societarianism. Seems to be the only minimal government, maximal societal concern based form of "government" that I can find.

[logicChemist]

After a bit of research, I realize the idea that I am proposing in this call (40:00), is not new or unique. The idea is called Civil societarianism and advocates a weakened government, and strengthening of all societal concerns in order to rival and keep all in check. An idea I would like to propose additionally relates to money (units of human productivity). I believe that each of these societal concerns should be able to create their own form of currency, so they compete economically also.

[Cailwyn]

Rocks don't play recorded sounds. Boom-boxes do. Rocks also do not fire bullets or think, where as guns and brains, respectively, do.

Boom-boxes play recordings, guns shoot, brains think and rocks...umm...stay rocks.

[Cailwyn]

Are rocks subject to different natural laws than guns, and are guns subject to different natural laws than boom-boxes, or do they all exist under the same universal, natural laws with the only difference between them being the way their aggregate parts are interacting due to physical limitation?

Are minds the product of universal, scientific laws and, therefore, natural; or are they somehow uniquely uneffected by nature and, therefore, supernatural?

[Cailwyn]

Of course you wouldn't argue with a rock. You also wouldn't use a rock to record sound.

Arguing with a human is a different story, and it doesn't require any supernatural quality to make sense. Evolutionary processes determined that we are more likely to survive with reason.

In arguing with people you actually have a chance of either sharing or receiving information that aids in your survival and prosperity. No ghosts needed.

[goodwithgirls]

Stef, there are plenty of people who derive "oughts" in an illogical manner. In fact, I would say that you are one of those people.

However, here's a different example:

Someone might say that people shouldn't have gay sex because God doesn't want them to. When asked if they can demonstrate logically, the existence of God, and the manner in which we might ascertain his will, they never can, nor even try. Often, they rely on faith (not logic).

[goodwithgirls]

Thus, what Hume is saying, is that IF you want to be logical (which many people obviously don't), then you can't derive "oughts" (there is no way to derive "oughts" logically).

[goodwithgirls]

The act of deriving "oughts" is by definition illogical, because they are all derived from nothing. All "oughts" are non sequitur.

Obviously, not everybody wants to be logical, and so they derive "oughts", even though it's NOT logically valid.

Your argument that everybody already wants to be logical is thus bogus. For one thing, many people would rather lie than be logical.

Other people would rather trick people into behaving in a manner they approve of.

[goodwithgirls]

Thus, your argument that people "should" be logical, because everybody already is logical, just isn't true, and by the way, it assumes what you are trying to prove (that you can derive an "ought" from an "is"). You are making a circular argument that is based upon a false premise.

[janc71]

And what really bugs me is his 'talking to the weather'-argument. Deterministic or not, the weather does not have properties to take in information and to act upon it, human beings do. We even have robots that act upon stimuli.

I'm not saying determinism is true, but as far as I can see, the 'two speaker'-analogy and the 'weather'-argument is flawed.

[janc71]

Change is not a 'free will' word. The weather does change in time, doesn't it? What Stef is doing, is proposing a future state, and then ask if that state can be changed. But you can't do that, since the future hasn't happened yet, and the fact that it's all set doesn't change that.

[PsyogiBottoms]

I suppose the reason a True Anarchist Society can not be found is because to date the world has never been without a monopoly on violence.

Maybe it isn't the violence that is the real problem.

Maybe it is just the monopoly on violence - in which case, that might be easier to eradicate than violence altogether?

[ikemkrueger]

It's just easier to overpower other people.

[logicChemist]

EXACTLY! So the question becomes the how and how many. People seems to gravitate to moral authorities, and the 2 biggest so far have been church and state. They should be the first 2 candidates to begin competing with each other. But there are other special interests, so could there be hundreds of moral authorities...so people can choose their advocate. And any person may be a member of several moral authorities groups. This will localize the conflicts, and spare the people alot of pain.

[MigDanskeren]

Yay! Scandinavian. I can't wait :)

[ikemkrueger]

1:00:52 Do you have a "list" of words of "free will"? o.O

[TheStig000]

Anything that implies choice.

[ikemkrueger]

0:58:00 If two people talk, and one can (magically) see all the possible outcomes from the other, would you still call it a debate?

[gosmokesome]

I suppose such things as leading questions like yes no questions and socratic method might not seem fair but overall its conistent with reality i believe

[ikemkrueger]

0:55:42 The thing is, all the other systems are not aware of themself. They don't have the power to change themself in "free will" (if something like that exist). That's why only WE debate about how we are and SHOULD be. Because we have the power to decide how we could be!

[PsyogiBottoms]

Domestication = The adaptation of an animal or plant through breeding in captivity to a life intimately associated with and advantageous to humans.

Does that sound passive and non-aggressive to you? lol

[logicChemist]

When the church had most of the power, they pushed the government around all day. People saw this as bad and said we need a new moral authority that doesn't have a bias for unprovable things. So we went the other way and made the State the new religion. Its the same thing in the end. So why not let the people have a real choice in who their master is...rather than 2 guys working for the same company....or 50 guys that have no power?

[PsyogiBottoms]

Again, I completely agree with everything you state and believe - I see no logical fallacy in your argument. It is just the Empirical evidence I have a problem justifying in this equation - as it just doesn't cram in there nicely. Even with Duct Tape! lol

But I'm 100% behind the effort - trust me mega empathic pussy boy here - I want a peaceful Utopian world, I just don't see the bridge to never-never land yet.

[PsyogiBottoms]

I suppose what is difficult for me to rationalize is that in the 'real world' I can see millions of examples where aggression and violence has proven to be a successful and efficient way for our species to not only survive but prosper.

Whereas, to date, Anarchy remains defeated and non-existent as a viable means to that end. Why is that? Why would something so intrinsically true or correct not spontaneously arise as the perfect solution or path of human evolution. That just doesn't make sense.

[regresseur]

It makes perfect sense, actually. Persons can't work together; we are all so divided, and so fallible. It's that simple.

[PsyogiBottoms]

See I disagree with you there. I don't believe people are fallible in their evolution - I think they just evolve as they are suppose too. That is the difference between Ideology and Reality.

I don't believe in making excuses for or justification for our existences - I prefer to accept what IS, and understand it on its level, not rationalize it to my own.

There is a reason aggression and violence exists - there must be value to it.

My personal opinion - it is a matter of balance. Denial is not.

[MaikUniversum]

I don't think so.. for example, life exists - it's a fact, but there must not be a purpose for it's existence. So I don't believe in values in reality. And I don't think, that aggression should exist either. Well, there will always be some or another form of aggression, but that doesn't mean, that it should be a norm. As you stated before, we no longer have to "fight" for survival, I mean, food is in supermarket, just go and buy if you have money, lol :D

[NexIuguolo]

Aggression is what drives us daily to assert ourselves and our ideas into existence. If we were not aggressive, we would not have society, because there would be noone who had the drive to enforce /anything/ (i.e. laws, rules, requests, debts, or their own concepts of right/wrong). In truth, aggression is inherent in even matter itself, if you consider the explosions of stars, the greed of gravity, and the activity of taking matter and deliberately transforming it for the good of any lifeform.

[MaikUniversum]

lol.

[regresseur]

In our evolution, perhaps not. But we're not talking about in our evolution. Persons are (very) capable of being deceived / mislead, which is exactly what fallibility is, hence my comment. Your q was basically why doesn't anarchy work. It doesn't work because people are fallible, among other things.

[PsyogiBottoms]

I'm talking about evolution here. And I don't buy that because humans are fallible we don't have an anarchist society - that makes no sense whatsoever.

I didn't say anarchy doesn't work - I requested a 'real world' example of a successful anarchist society - which might not exist YET.

It is like GOD, you can speak of the virtues and splendor of the divine, however there is no proof in the 'real world' to support its existence outside of 'Theory' or 'Belief'.

I was looking for hard proof.

[gosmokesome]

Anarchy as in voluntary interaction between humans as opposed to involuntary interaction then anarchy is what you are using to convince us that it doesnt work! Please if you are a opponent of voluntarism then just always use violence to remain consistent with your principle. The world is mostly an anarchist society.

[PsyogiBottoms]

But you are completely incorrect and your argument is invalid. The majority of the world lives under tyranny - not anarchism.

I'm not opposed to voluntarism - I also believe that Anarchy works (in a world without dominating superpowers of the state) however that is its competition - and to date - it has been loosing historically.

I'm trying to understand why that is - because as it stands Evil is inherent in humans looking at their history. Why does violence succeed where voluntarism does not.

[PsyogiBottoms]

You have to concede the fact that without aggressive behavior in humans there would be no: Football, wrestling, boxing, UFC, any 'team' sport, video games (to a large extent), body piercing, S&M, or sanitation (remember you are killing millions of living things when you clean).

You don't live in a vat of harmony goo. Your own life depends on the dominance of other creatures and enslavement of their bodies.

To deny this is just ignorant IMHO. That is all.

[PsyogiBottoms]

I mean how do you think we found our way to the top of the food chain, by petting Whales and tickling Tigers? No, we Won the position by being the most ruthless and aggressive species on Earth - that wasn't by accident.

Human Being Dominate the planet literally. So to argue we could survive in a flower sniffing utopia is naive - especially given there isn't any real world evidence of that possibility.

Ideals are great - however - a passive climb to the top we did not have nor take.

[stefbot]

Actually, historically, it was largely through the domestication of animals and other forms of agriculture, since of course we are weaker than most other predators...

[PsyogiBottoms]

Hey - the man actually spoke to me. :)

AH... but what is 'Domestication' ? And/or Farming? Domestication takes the enslavement and breaking of animals? Farming is the destruction of earth and plants naturally occurring to aggressively grow our own, while killing millions of insects and starving many other animals out of a habitat?

That is pretty aggressive and violent to me. lol

[PsyogiBottoms]

No, I'm just an Empiricist.

Horses are Broken in order to ride them, they are held hostage in stalls until needed.

So are pigs, cows, goats, chickens, everything is enslaved - that is what domestication means.

Insecticides to ensure crops - kills millions of insects. Tilling the ground, uprooting plants and disturbing burrows and ripping out weeds - killing weeds.

These are all violent and aggressive by any definition.

And yeah, I'm arguing to just argue - what are you doing?

[regresseur]

1.

What am I doing? Asking questions? Seems rather obvious. What does "held hostage" mean? Domestication and enslavement are two very different things, so says the dictionary. Here you didn't state that anything but horses are broken, but in your last comment you made it seem as if all domesticated animals are "broken" -- could that be because you can't imagine a process wherein any other domesticated animal is broken? Rain kills millions of insects -- ban rain, too?

[PsyogiBottoms]

Dogs are broken too. Or do you think that animals like Cats and Dog just choose to live on collars and in kennels and go for walkies? lol

Domestication is enslavement (its a euphemism) Dogs, Cats, Horses, Guinea Pigs, Hamsters, pet snakes - These animals don't choose to live in cages or with humans - we force them too. That is enslavement.

You seem to have a superior impression of your role in this world. Animals aren't ours - you aren't entitled to them. Try talking a horse into pulling a plow.

[regresseur]

I am superior, especially to you. Remember that, punk.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Oh I do, I see that in your rebutals. lol NOT. loll

[NexIuguolo]

fail namecalling and attempted intimidation

[regresseur]

fail run-on sentence okay bye now

[NexIuguolo]

It wasn't meant to be a sentence, it was an indicator of your phayl. Notice the lack of punctuation or capitalization. If I even meant it to be a completely grammatically correct statement, its significance would still remain in spite of syntax errors.

[regresseur]

2.

What does "uprooting plants is aggressive by any definition" mean? I don't get it, I really don't.

[PsyogiBottoms]

n. 1. The act of initiating hostilities or invasion. 2. The practice or habit of launching attacks.

 3. Hostile or destructive behavior or actions.

Take your pick. lol

[robzrob]

How do you measure domination? Numbers? There are more beetles than us. Power? Some bacteria can kill us instantly.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Domination is the influence or control over ecological communities exerted by the dominant.

Beetles out number us yes, but they do not dominate us. Bacteria can kill us, but we dominate over them via eradication and sterilization - they can not achieve the same in an area. Currently. lol

"Dominance is often won through battles or displays of dominance." Wiki

We use bacteria and exterminate beetles - not the other way around - hence we dominate.

[robzrob]

How can you say that beetles don't dominate us? They change the world to their advantage by their actions and they seem to get along in 'our' world very well. How do you know that we wouldn't be better off wihout them? We certainly don't dominate bacteria, they kill milloins of people, it's a consant battle which neither humans nor bacteria will ever win. They continully evolve to beat any and every weapon we throw at them - and always will.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Beetles don't dominate us - you don't work for a beetle, aren't enslaved by a beetle nor does it take over you home. The fact that a human can land anywhere and wipeout the area for only his existence and take over the habitat means HE is the dominator. I have never been run out of my home by bacteria or beetle - however a lot few of them exist under my roof.

And yes we do need beetles - and bacteria - they all serve a valuable role.

You are grasping at straws - just except it - humans dominate.

[robzrob]

I may well be working benefitting a beetle in some way that I don't know. What about smallpox, the black death, malaria? They wiped out a lot of things - whole villages. 'And yes we do need beetles - and bacteria - they all serve a valuable role.' It's never a one-way thing, no living thing exists to serve another, if they serve a valuable role for us, we must do the same for them.

[ikemkrueger]

9:24 This is called "censorship".

[chevin11]

every argument ends up debating human natue.

[Bluer123]

Iiiiii loooooove myyyyyy yoooouuuuu peeeeee beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!­!!!!!

[RuBbErRoOmChAoS]

I hope you don't start handing out kool-aid

[RuBbErRoOmChAoS]

I'd actually like to hear you talk about the real powers of the world.The Rothschilds.

[RuBbErRoOmChAoS]

how do you respond to questions of you starting a Cult

[robzrob]

To PB. I think that's a bit 'black-and-white.' There's a tendency to selfishness, but that doesn't necessarily mean leading, dominating or aggression or only one 'Winner.' There are other tendencies too: co-operation, friendship, etc.

[PsyogiBottoms]

I think the gentleman at 40:00 was referring to the fact that Aggression and Dominance may be a part or constituent of the Human Psyche.

As an Animal there is a tendency to lead, dominate, and/or be aggressive by nature, right?

The Debate isn't violent - but it is aggressive and there will be a Winner, correct?

So possibly it is in our nature to be aggressively dominate to secure our domain.

What do you think?

[MaikUniversum]

the could be a winner, but that's not the case. Maybe the debaters just will exchange their opinions and will try to understand each other by questioning and so on.

[MaikUniversum]

P.S. so EVEN if it is in human nature to be agressive, it is not a rule, that we MUST (should) be agressive towards each other. I mean, it is in our nature to "make kids" but I for example do not want kids, that's why I am not gonna "impregnate" any woman in order to procreate.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Ah yes, but just try and stop humans from procreating and see what happens. lol

To deny the 'drive' to procreate would be to deny the human animal of its true self.

I totally agree, as evolved beings we don't need to kill each other to survive anymore, however my point is that aggression and dominance is very natural and organic in nature and just denying or ignoring it does not make it go away nor does it invalidate the argument.

Sex is an act of aggression, whether or not a child is born.

[MaikUniversum]

you are right of agression being natural in nature, I think it is called survival. But we are rational animals, I mean, we have brains, we can reason, we can philosphize, we have logic and scientific method and we gotta use these tools avoid agression and to live happily. That's my opinion by now.

[PsyogiBottoms]

I agree, it is just my observation that no one flocks by the 10's of 1000's to watch card games held in a stadium do they? lol

To appeal to the 'masses' most entertainment must be violent or aggressive. Still. Unfortunately.

But I don't think this is all bad - there is something of virtue to be said for violence and aggression and acceptance I think is the first step towards truly understanding this.

[D3mi4n]

Ahh, the "human nature" argument.

So common againts anarchy and socialism.

[PsyogiBottoms]

LMAO - How do you even put anarchy and socialism in the same sentence? lol

That is like saying God and the Rational. lol

So what is the argument?

[Loveseekingmissile]

The real reason to "Debate" is not to win,is to persuade the other to your viewpoint for the benefit of both. It's also not supposed to be aggressive, if it were why not put a gun to the other guy's head and spare your words? I don't believe we are aggressive by nature. We are conditioned by our environment.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Ah, but the goal of a debate is to win. Just as the primary drive in humans is to procreate. These 'natural' dispositions are not mutually exclusive.

In Nature violence and destruction are common and necessary elements - without the horrific explosions of stars we would not exist. Sex is an act of aggression - all animals pursue survival through aggression and often violence.

To deny this is to be ignorant and selective in your rationale. We must embrace ourselves if we are to learn, all of it.

[MaikUniversum]

Rape is an act of aggression, but not casual sex.

[yourboycal]

"Sex is an act of aggression"

i beg to differ =)

oh and stefbot thanks for unblocking me , next time be a man an apologize for your mistakes , instead of trying to hide your critics  =)

[PsyogiBottoms]

If it isn't you aren't doing it right. lol j/k

[Loveseekingmissile]

as human beings we don't just behave like animals (although one would think otherwise when observing aspects of our society) we have evolved to a point of cooperation for survival not competition. The rulers of the world force us to compete for a living but it's our "natural" inclination to want to share and cooperate with others. Sex is only an act of aggression if you have not been taught how to love.

[gosmokesome]

i think cooporation and love is an inherent mode of survival for humans unless superceded by slave-master dominance type reltionship are made preferable through childhood abuse

[PsyogiBottoms]

To Date, has there ever been a documented successful Anarchist society?

...or at this point is this still a dream/fantasy?

What is the practicality of humans ever actually achieving a successful Anarchist Nation or World?

If you don't mind speculating.

[chatsworthsharp420]

check out the venus project, the zeitgeist movement, jacque fresco, and peter joseph

it's about an economy of abundance.

youtube user / tzmofficalchannel

for more info

[PsyogiBottoms]

I have actually - thank you. However that didn't answer the question. I am aware of all these 'projects' or 'realities' however I was asking if there has ever existed in the 'real world' an Anarchist Society that was or is successful.

I know the dream - I am working towards it as well - however I'm looking for Empirical evidence of existence or 'real world' application that provides substantial proof.

If that helps? lol

[chatsworthsharp420]

yeh i see that, jacque fresco is working on a sample society to test out his ideas.

check out youtube user

confederalsocialist to answer your first question

[MaikUniversum]

Anarchist societys is in ours EVERYDAYS LIFE :) or maybe you force your friends to be your friends ? Or what ? Every human is an anarchist in everyday life, and that's the power of anarchism. And that's a success.

[PsyogiBottoms]

But we don't live in an Anarchist society. You and I might be Anarchist, but the USA, Euro, Asia, China, et al are not Anarchist Societies.

I'm talking specific societies - like The Mayans, The Aborigine, or past 'civilization' that was/is Anarchist - not just Democratic or a Free Range Dictatorship or Oligarchy.

I'm looking for an example - like China is an example of Socialized Capitalism or Iran a Fascistic Theocracy. I want an example if there is one of a truly successful example.

[MaikUniversum]

I just proved you, that we LIVE in anarchist society, and you denying the fact. Government, however, is not "anarchistic" and that's the problem. However, seems, that you think (correct me if I am wrong), if something is not currently accepted, then that wouldn't work. Bad logic, my friend. The FACT that WE in our everyday life ARE anarchists, well, at least most of us, is enough of proof, that anarchism "wroks".

PEACE.

[PsyogiBottoms]

You have it wrong, sorry. It isn't that I don't believe in Anarchy - I am an Anarchist and 100% agree with Steph.

I was just attempting to elicit a 'real world' example of a successful anarchist society - which I believe to date has never truly existed.

Sort of like True Free Capitalism. I'm curious if like so many things it is an Ideal that can never be achieved in practical terms, or if so - where is the example.

I'm not contesting the philosophy - just looking for validation physically.

[logicChemist]

Kinda like saying you live in a murder-less society.....until you get murdered. Either it is disingenuous or it is flat wrong to think that conflicting philosophies can co-habitat beneficially to both.

[thebeartaxes]

33:00 maybe if the rapist and rap-ee debate they can come to a common ground?

[Stargazer5781]

FDR's becoming so high tech and awesome :-)