3RU7AL

...but I see no reason not to say it disproves the idea that I am favored over them.

This is the response I intended to ascertain. Because they (adherents of Libertarian free will) argue that their decisions can be influenced but not caused. So then, what do they mean by "influence" and what do they mean by "cause"? I suppose one could argue that cause is the source, and influence is the effect of alteration.

But then that begs the question: does the alteration effect become the cause of the altered event?

That depends. Does one attribute transitively the altered event to the original cause, or does one attribute the altered event to the response of the object? What do you think?

I'm willing to move forward with any definition you personally prefer.

You submitted your premises. It's only appropriate that you submit their definitions.

When you argue "free from" are you using it in a context where its synonymous with "uninfluenced"?

Free means uncaused.

Once again: that depends on how one defines random. So how do you define random?

Where did you ascertain this definition? Or did you conceive it yourself?

I could go into the details but you're surely smart enough to know you're lying when suggesting that certain ethnicities and genders weren't favoured severely in many cultures throughout history (not always the same ethnicities but usually always males).

While some do (wrongly) do this, especially due to an older mentality of the poeple themselves being the enemy rather than the system they were forced to be a part of, they are hardly the norm or trend to be describing.

People who truly loathe the injustice of Nazism don't go and be Nazis themselves towards people

When the 'hatred' being referred to (which wasn't towards the men or whites, it was towards the system that favoured them) was around (and/or is around),

...there were undeniable advantages to being of a certain gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation and identification that were made most blatant by how much you lacked compared to the others...

However, these corporations also lobbied to create a multicultural country and there are legitimate reasons for cultures to reject each other and not unite.

Do rich people have an advantage over those that are not rich? Yes, and advantage increases if the lower and middle classes distract themselves with petty nonsense believing that their neighbor is their enemy when in reality there is no enemy.

Give me examples in history of 'hatred' towards the elite and I'll give you at least at a ratio of 5:1, cases of the Elite themselves forming hate-groups in order to kick the struggling minority while they're down.

You are preaching nonsense based on the idea that what the Nazis did to the Jews is somehow equal to the emotional resentment that the latter may feel after the fact, towards the actions of former.

What must be done to 'set a wrong right' often involves deeply passionate drive to get going, that doesn't equate to 'hate' it equates to anger perhaps. It is not the people who are hated, it is the corrupt system and imbalance.

Libertarian free will is provably impossible whether determinism is true or false.

Would you mind proving or offering proof of its impossibility?

More knowledge may lead to ability to see more options ergo the above is false.

Presuming this feudal hierarchy is aggressive, then we take up arms and defend our lands. But answer me this: what place would feudal hierarchies have in the advent of the moral revolution which informs the anarchy for which I argue?

...conceive and rationalize a moral standard which is fundamentally premised on self-interest. The only moral standard that's consistent with respect to the aforementioned directive is individualism. And by extending the premise of self-interest, we can conceive and rationalize autonomy, sovereignty, and voluntarism.

Nobody thinks that there isn't a difference between being coerced and not being coerced.

My ideal voting policy would be no voting. I advocate for Absolute Hereditary Monarchy (think Saudi Arabia)

1. Declaring victory in early rounds of multiple-round debates.

Why is true symbiosis extremely rare in the sphere of human cooperation? What informs this claim?

And how are proto-governments more inclined then governments to become "self"-protecting and "self"-interested?

Hence the mere absence of government does not suffice. I would never argue nor have I ever argued that.

The anarchy of which I speak requires a moral revolution.

I thought I'd discuss the Kalam a bit.. As this seems to be one of the most discussed arguments for the existence of God.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore the universe has a (transcendent) cause.

Why do you agree or disagree with this argument?

And a god principle may be a part of the sequence...

Nobody thinks that there isn't a difference between being coerced and not being coerced. The only interesting question is whether somebody can, ultimately, determine their own behavior and the answer to that really is no. 

Determinism, as suggested by countless philosophers suggests that our minds are simply predictable, our behavior is literally determined from the start.

But, who determines our behavior in the first place?

Philosophers state that there's external and internal forces that we can't possibly interfere with.

If we can not interfere with them, that means, to us, they do not exist.

We have no way of proving if they do exist or do not. So, why pretend that they have power?

Determinism is further contradicted by the legal and moral obligations of a human being.

True, parents have control over children. But, do they really? A child has the free will to run away. 

Free will is literally mastered by happiness and true justification within a human mind.

Once you've achieved a true moral compass, you're free from the philosopher's version of "determinism", and you do have free will.

Evil ones are easier to predict that moral ones.

I'm not supporting the practice of studying ancient cultures in that way.

To imply that I do support that practice by trying to get me to defend it is misleading.

I'm just pointing out that doing so doesn't violate the prime directive.

Oh and also I am saying I don't like the prime directive.

The thing that the Federation says is "cultural contamination"/ interference is bad.

True cooperation "should be" based on mutual benefit (usually at a third party's expense).

Why must a mutual benefit come at a third party's expense?

It's the same story as "The Godfather 2".

Which collective is that? The Corleone family? The Senate? Hyman Roth's investment club?

Basically, Star Trek's heroes must abide by the Prime Directive, an order that forbids them from interfering in the affairs of primitive civilizations. Hardcore fans could probably argue it's more complicated than that, but let's assume it is this simple for the sake of this thread.

You can literally get high tech plastic surgery to look like a native and spy on them for years at a time...

Any interesting people you can think of that might disagree with me?

COOPERATION =/= RISK AVOIDANCE

RISK AVOIDANCE = COERCION

COERCION is COERCION whether it is EXPLICIT or IMPLICIT.

Elaborate.

How does your example inform on people's alleged proclivity to form vigilante proto-governments as a result of being part of an unaffiliated collective? Were the baldknobbers the standard or a caricature?

I'm just saying, there are people who I have had to take time to explain why it is impossible for 100% of a group to be better than that group average at something... Took several paragraphs to lay it out and they still don't get it.

In the absence of a state, ownership claims can be disputed and resolved through cooperation--that is, individuals who don't intend to risk escalation or even reprisals.

Because a rock is still a rock regardless of if humans are around to observe it. 

First, the State isn't the same as one's "community."