Portrait of an Atheist: XOmniverse

[danielsondanielson]

XOmniverse, I would think that any legality demands some generally ready enforcement, and such enforcement basically demands the State. But as far as I remember, not long time ago you wanted to reject the State. So, now I am quite surprised you talk about what should be (il)legal in your view, without questioning the very concept of legality. But maybe your view is less inconsistent than as I would see it now. Anyway, could you offer some clarification here? Thanks in advance.

[XOmniverse]

Are you not aware of the market anarchist position on law, defense agencies, etc.?

[danielsondanielson]

To be honest, I haven't read anything original. On the youtube I heard some opinions of various market anarchists, anarchocapitalists, agorists, confederalsocialists etc specifically about defense agencies or about dispute settlements. I haven't heard anybody talking too much about the law yet. But if something is forbiden among some people, I would imagine that who chooses to ignore the ban is likely to be subject of some coercive proceedings, i.e. some institutional violence. Or am I wrong?

[NeonKnight88]

People in the locale stop dealing with you. IE they won't sell you food, freeze your bank account, cut off your power unless you can provide evidence that you went to your court date and did what was required. And if you get violent, people get defensive.

[danielsondanielson]

But what court and according to what rules would it decide and require something? And what is it violence? Someone could percieve as violence, if you "disface" the landscape of their region by a "nasty" new property. Someone recognizes also the existence of "verbal violence". Indeed, with a bit of sophistics, any law in any conceivable regime can be interpreted as "nothing else but the protection of people against violent individuals". But you would maybe do without precise rules, wouldn't you?

[doucher337]

He said in the very beginning of his video that he was using "legality" as if it were interchangeable with "preference".

Regarding your late comment, "anarchists" or anti-statists typically don't oppose the state simply because of violence, but because of the nature of the state - that is, a coercive geographic monopoly. Restrictive social organization is all social organization, or there would be no such thing (no such thing as "social organization").

[danielsondanielson]

What do you mean by your last sentence? Aren't you deliberately unclear here? The only thing I understand from it is that you dislike the expression "social organization". But you probably don't mean that people wouldn't interact and exchange some pieces of information to the benefit of their individual or joint efforts (what I personally would see as the nature of any social organization, no matter if one decides to see it as restrictive or liberating).

[NeonKnight88]

You can perceive anything any way you want, but what I mean by violence is physically hurting people or threatening to if they do not relinquish their stuff.

[danielsondanielson]

Thanks for your clarification.

[boxant]

My mind, you seem to have read it.

;)

[CocoMac877]

i have to say i disagree with ur view on economics.

while in an ideal world it would be a great system, the fact is ppl wants and ppls needs are very different, and most ppl want what they are told to want, meaning, in my opinion, this system is very open to abuse by opportunistic individuals.

hope that made sense

[XOmniverse]

And attempts to control economic activity are not very open to abuse by opportunistic individuals?

[CocoMac877]

yes bt to a lesser extent.

as a result of human nature i dont think there will ever be a perfect system, bt i think a free for all leaves a massive number of ppl in trouble, even nw a tiny minority control the wealth, and i think that would just be compounded.

[XOmniverse]

I have to say that I disagree that attempts to control the whole of society are LESS likely to be abused than small scale voluntary interaction.

[CocoMac877]

do u nt think weve reached a stage where small scale interactions are no longer possible?

the reason for the huge surge in technological innovation is beacause we now have a global community

[XOmniverse]

A community (even a large one) consists entirely of small scale interactions. I don't see any contradiction.

[doucher337]

... And open economics (a "free market") fulfills the needs for abundance, diversity, and quality far better than those markets in which the state presides or interferes with the economy. The state cannot get accurate feedback on the allocation of resources, hence Hayek's calculation problem which a priori means that central planning is damned to fail.

[NoGodsOrKings]

Agree 100% with everything you said.

[Chrisnoscrub047]

But then the couch cushion-guy would get tax cuts, man! we can't have that.

[Kbiomech]

I'm for 100% tax cuts. For everyone. Sink or swim or crawl, but no one has the right to take from another against their will, period.

[stealthswimmer]

(continued from my previous post).

However, the mother is not obligated to wait 6 months to take the baby out of her body. It just so happens that before the 6 month mark, the gentlest way possible to evict the baby still kills it. That's unfortunate, but that's just the way things are right now. Now, maybe in the future with advancing technology we'll be able to evict a baby from a mother's body even sooner without killing it..and maybe eventually we'll be able to always do so without killing

[stealthswimmer]

On abortion: the fetus is a human, now when it becomes a "human being" is more of a philosophical question. However, since the mother CAN change her mind (or sometimes was forced into having a child) I do believe that fetus can be a trespasser on the mother's property and she can therefore have the child taken out, but it should be done in the gentlest way possible.

Walter Block explains this as "eviction." Abortion is eviction + killing. After 6 months, the baby can be evicted without killing

[chapaev36]

I elaborated if that helps. I'm not trying to shout over another person here. Rather I would like to understand his position. I don't see how a partnership without a legal contract is realistic.

[XOmniverse]

If someone wants to have a legal contract for their relationship and they want to call it marriage, that's fine.

I disapprove of the government being involved in any way.

[chapaev36]

That's not much of a position. This contract cannot be enforced without a governing body.

[XOmniverse]

I can't help but think that you're just pretending not to know that marriage, as enforced by the government, is a lot more than just a simple contract between two people.

[chapaev36]

I don't know if you're being intentionally obfuscating or not. The reason I raised this was to get you to elaborate on marriage, rather than clumsily deconstruct my position. If you actually have a coherent opinion on marriage and how a contract can be binding without a governing body then please explain it. Even if marriage is privatized, it would require some state enforcement. If you feel that the government's role is excessive, that I can understand - but you seem to go beyond that.

[chapaev36]

I should also add that even a more reasonable and nuanced position on the privatization of marriage strikes me as problematic, even though it at least makes some sense unlike what is said in this video. It eliminates some of the existing problems, but creates new ones. A contract would be drawn up by the two individuals, something that requires a great deal of good faith and consideration. But this opens the door to a great deal of manipulation and deception as well.

[XOmniverse]

I don't know how I could make my position more clear. If someone wants to have a contract enforced and wants to call that contract "marriage", I am fine with that.

Marriage, as it currently exists, is a contract that is manipulated by the government in several ways. The government can change the contract whenever it wants.

The government also gives special privileges to married people, primarily in the form of tax breaks, which effectively means non-married people subsidize married people.

[chapaev36]

Even privatized marriage would probably include the government in some respect to enforce the contract. I am not talking about the government's role as it is now - sure, its role could be altered. Rather it's your sloppy and absolutist argument about the role of the government that is unspecific. Also your view of the government as manipulative is dangerously naive - the government represents a general negotiated values framework. It does not pull strings at mere whim.

[culvre]

not only does making drug use illicit cause shame among users, it also creates a black market which in turn creates drug-related crime. i think that's the biggest reason to legalize all drugs.

[Kbiomech]

I almost agree. I would put that as the second reason. The FIRST is that making drugs illegal is an explicit statement of ownership over the person who would choose to use drugs. That is incompatible with liberty.

[MaikUniversum]

we have pretty same opinion on abortion and drugs :) cool

[mooktank]

I've watched a couple of these 'portrait' videos and I have to say I've been comforted by all of them. There are humans out there that aren't idiots. We just need to get them in office.

[XOmniverse]

Politics is not the answer.

[fede2]

abortion: i'm not black and white on this topic. provided there is human life, i think it should be avoided except if the mother's health is threatened. also, if it's early, chances are there is no life in the matter.

drugs: agreed. all legal.

gay rights: neutral (specifically on marriage). i agree here as well.

death penalty: by and large, no. punitive justice in general is questionable to me.

economics: libertarian socialism, or anything that marries individual freedom with social justice.

[hellavadeal]

You said you were a parasite. LOL

[aaron0883]

I just went through the beginning of your last 7 videos. Eeryone but one you start off with ... "Hey Everybody ... umm" ... The one that you didn't you addressed to a guy named paul.

[chapaev36]

Without marriage the stronger and more powerful partner has an enormous advantage over the weaker, less powerful partner. If the two split up, without a viable contract there is nothing stopping the more powerful partner from denying the other rights/possessions. Being anti-marriage sounds like being anti-woman to me. Unless of course one is simply against the 'word' marriage, but I don't think that's the case here. Perhaps I am missing something, in which case fill me in.

[XOmniverse]

I don't quite understand where you are coming from here. If anything, marriage has historically existed to give men power over women.

I don't think non-married relationships are inherently abusive or grounded in dominance of one person over another.

[chapaev36]

You have to have a stronger reason than that. Saying that historically marriage has been unfair to women isn't much of an argument. There exists a legal contract now which in case of a divorce allows for a more even distribution of assets. Without such a contract the stronger, more powerful party pockets everything - and that, most of the time, will be the male. Your stance is just dangerous nonsense, unless you can make it more nuanced and specific.

[booty1235]

Gay

[XOmniverse]

"DJ Blaqstarr & Rye Rye- Shake It To The Ground"

Now THAT'S gay :P

[Stargazer5781]

Agree with you pretty much completely, not surprisingly :-p If people want the death penalty, they can subscribe to a DRO that offers that "service" for its customers who agree to it. My DRO will not ;-)

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt is where I tend to send people for econ lessons, or ShaneDK has five great intro to economics vids on his channel. Great vid XOmni :-)

[thorsmitersaw]

I second economics in one lesson

[NamelessCommenter]

I was right there with you, up until economics. The Austrian school is blithering idiocy. But we've all got our vices! :-)

[priapus512]

Yet somehow it remains the only school that predicted the great depression and our current crises.

[modelmark]

it sucks if you want to get a job in the gvt though.

[KohrsFM]

good