Critical-Tim

A utopia is not possible with humans. To many fucktards and narcissists plague the human existence and will never be happy with anything no matter how many silver spoons you shove down their throats.. May as well try and coral cats in a circle with no fence.

In the end, it is a trade-off: more freedom means less meaning, and more meaning means less freedom. You buy one by selling the other.

Meaning is subject to individual evaluation.

My point is that governments that are uniformed and meaning driven are more powerful than societies that lack uniformity and meaning.

You haven't substantiated that anaracho-capitalist society lacks "meaning." And I've stated before the only unity "required" is in the concept that they're all sovereign individuals.

There is a middle ground between the concepts of freedom and meaning. I am not supporting Nazism, but I am also not supporting anarchism. I believe that both have important aspects of a society that are important, but the ideal society is between them, which is the balance between freedom and power.

On the "middle ground" is where you find inconsistency. You'll discover once you've extended these "balanced" premises to their logical conclusions, they're absurd. If one maintains that individual autonomy is the highest good, then anarchy is the logical extension politically. There's no "balance." You either subscribe to individual autonomy or you subscribe to individual behavior being subject to someone else's arbitration.

I still don't understand what you mean by free market.

Education as well as certification can be sold. Private organizations supplying these goods can compete in an an open market.

It only is non-sequitur if you just read the bold letters. By summarizing information into key points, one often loses resolution and clarity, along with accuracy of the original text.

I emboldened those parts to demonstrate contradiction. You state they (members of an anarcho-capitalist society) can coordinate and then conclude that they lack organization because you allege, they can't cooperate. So, let me ask you this: is voluntary organization impossible?

Would there be a jury,

If the involved parties want one, then there could be.

and would the jury be paid by the community?

Not necessarily. Naturally, this would be paid for by the involved parties, or the parties in dispute. If however a group of individuals seek to streamline costs and pool their resources, they would be more than welcome to do so.

Who would determine the penalty for the crime?

The free market.

A man who has outlived his family and no friends at the moment is murdered. He's dead, and there is no one to complain; but murder has been done and murder must be punished.

Isn't this like "if a tree falls in a forest..."? Murder has to be investigated; murder has to be proven. But let's for the sake of argument consider that somehow this man's murder is properly investigated and sufficiently proven, then the murderer can be exiled or outlawed.

If private contractors were the ones upholding the law that means they are driven by money, do you not see this as becoming an issue?

No. Because consumers in a free market can opt out if dissatisfied.

Who would be responsible for funding these private armies?

The private armies would naturally sell their services.

Who would decide the law, would it be majority vote or something else?

The free market.

Without any uniformity of a government standardization people would be free to create their own religions and beliefs.

Okay...

Having said that, the moral structure for every individual would be at least slightly different, so who would be the judge of which moral structure is standard and will be used in prosecution?

Each party involved can agree to terms which they believe will resolve their dispute. Private mediation, for example, is quite effective and successful.

I don't see how anarchy could cultivate uniformity.

What does uniformity have to do with one's capacity to cooperate?

The more freedom a society has the freer people are to be

Is this not ideal?

and therefore the less likely they will be unified and seemingly uniformed.

Is this not a non sequitur?

As a result, societies that are driven by strict governments that are tyrannical or oppressive are very uniform and powerful such as the Nazis. Whereas people not driven by uniformity are not very uniform, and therefore do not work in uniformity.

Your criticism of anarcho-capitalism is that it's not Nazism?

Though the question still remains, who would create the standard of education and would everyone within the society be required to accept certification?

The free market; the best standards will emerge in a competitive market.

There definitely can be coordination between individuals in an anarchist society, but as I said before, the more free individuals of a society are the more variance there is between members of that society and the more variance between members of the society the less they seem like members of the society to others. Therefore, societies that are freer have a greater variance between the differences of members and have less uniformity. As a result, freer societies are less uniform and less organized because of the lack of cooperation and expectation of trust of individuals of a more respectable group which would be people and others who you agree with rather than a great variance of other people who do not truly unify with your own.

Again, is this not a non sequitur?

In an anarchist society, how would the code of conduct and the rule of law be enforced?

In an anarcho-capitalist society, laws would be subject to mechanisms of a free-market. Dispute Resolution Organizations would operate in the private sector.

How would the society defend itself from foreign invasion?

Private contractors or private armies.

How would anarchy deal with the problems of violence, crime, and injustice, without any law enforcement or judicial system?

Dispute Resolution Organizations can handle tort and mediate disputes among individual parties; wrongful acts can also make one subject to Outlawry.

How would anarchy ensure the protection of human rights, such as freedom, equality, and dignity, without any legal or moral framework?

Why do you assume there's no moral framework?

How would anarchy foster cooperation, trust, and solidarity among people, without any common values or norms?

The free market will bring together consumers, whether it be of values or norms, and a free flowing price system will dictate where said individuals intend to dedicate their time, labor, and resources.

How would anarchy promote social progress, innovation, and development, without any education, science, or technology?

Why do you assume there's no education, science, or technology? Are you under the impression that government is solely responsible for the aforementioned?

How would anarchy cope with the challenges of diversity, complexity, and interdependence in the modern world, without any communication, coordination, or integration?

Nothing about anarchy suggests individuals can't communicate, coordinate, or even integrate. As long as it's voluntary, it should meet the stipulations, for lack of a better term, of an anarchist/anarcho-capitalist environment.

However, if we do in fact agree that the world is materialistic, that would indicate all things are empirically derived. 

I wouldn’t go so far as to claim that ALL things are empirically derived. 

Not quite

Then what did you mean by “treated as such”? Treated as what exactly?

I suppose it would be determined by one's belief in the nature of the world. It is my belief that the world is materialistic, and as a result everything is merely a projection of the physical.

I, too, am a materialist, but I still acknowledge the limits of what science is meant for. For example, capitalism (and its various subcategories) does not require metaphysical or supernatural belief; neither does socialism (and its various subcategories). Does science help you choose which economic system or which mixture of a mixed economic system to employ? No, because science does not provide guiding principles for all human endeavors. Science is used after guiding principles are chosen, not before.

Being that the description of science is to understand the natural world, and I see philosophy as a means to view the natural world through a specific lens, it seems to me that philosophy is a more fixated way of understanding the world, where science is a broader way to understand the world.

Again, I see it the other way around:  philosophy provides a broad lens or a wide variety of lenses, whereas science provides a specific lens.

I do acknowledge that you pointed out philosophy came first, perhaps it is possible that a specific lens of understanding the world was created before they understood the broader scope of the world in general and created a broader goal. Ultimately, I see the metaphysical as merely the (non-existing but real) conception that is rooted within the physical nature of the world. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but do you understand my perspective, and how does it relate to yours?

I sort of understand your perspective. To me, it seems that what you espouse is called scientism (which I mentioned earlier in a list)— the belief that science can address all human endeavors. Alas, it is usually used as a pejorative accusing the system of having an excessive trust in science, precisely because it is being applied outside of its scope.

Similar to a strategy or concept that lacks physical existence but is still considered real, I believe the concept of the conscious mind is real without requiring a physical form. I do not view this as supernatural, as something that can be real even without physical existence. This is evident to me because humans can conceive an idea or concept before it exists in the world. I think that even concepts and ideas have a physical presence within the electronic pulses of the mind, but for all intents and purposes, it is a non-existing form.

This doesn't fit any of the definitions for metaphysical I could find. What definition are you using?

I think your idea, of your body having different parts which can sometimes conflict, is valid, but they're of the same person, hence there is an overarching will that is a synthesis of the two. Yes, sometimes you consciously know you need to go out and pay bills, but the couch is very comfy, however that doesn't mean you have two separate wills, one of them being metaphysical.

You provided a clear description of how you believe the government should run, but you didn't explain why.

Because of sovereign individuality. No individual should have a final authority as it concerns one's self, time, labor, and resources other than oneself.

We had to rewrite the Articles of Confederation and furthermore implement the US Constitution as a result of how our voluntary arrangement was not sufficient to hold our society together.

Not in the least bit true. This was mostly a result of Alexander Hamilton's Federalist campaign against it.

An example would be the founding of the 13 colonies by the pilgrims' voluntary arrangement.

That was not a voluntary arrangement. The clue in that is the 13 colonies were colonies.

Do you then believe that religion will not disappear completely, but will become more diverse and personalized?

I have no belief one way or the other on that. What I am saying is that humans need a philosophical framework in which to function in the world, deity or no deity.

Do you believe that science could ever be a point of unification that religion once held?

No, because science is a method, a tool, a means to an end but not an end itself. It does not even pretend to answer certain philosophical questions, such as:  why does anything exist? Why are we here, and what should I do to live a fulfilling and meaningful life?

Would you explain why you believe they are not? Are you basing your decision on lack of empirical equality or human value, and do you believe regardless of human values existence it would be better for society to act as though it does or doesn't exist?

I bear no expectation that human value can be quantified; only expressed through emotion, opinion, and abstract behaviors. People aren't "equal" because that would suggest homogenizing individual value. In any social interaction, each individual will be treated and will act with respect to a composite of their respective  individual values, and thus treat others and be treated by others differently. Case in point: I do not treat strangers the same as I do my siblings. Because of my affection (individual value) for my siblings, my behavior toward them as well as my mere association with them will undoubtedly express favor. This can manifest in many ways--e.g. more willing to provide my time, labor, and resources in maximizing my estimation of their utility. I wouldn't do that for mere strangers. What I can do, and have done for strangers is respect their individual discretion and their capacity to act in their own interests so long as it does not or did not interfere with another's capacity to act in service to their individual interests.

What is the US currently?

A microcosm of a globalist one world communist government nose deep in Luciferian practices and rituals.

You gave a very clear explanation of what you perceive, but can you back this up with any suggestive evidence or relative comparisons?

Suggestive evidence or relative comparisons for which part? Or do you request evidence and comparisons for all of it?

I am certain that not every voluntary arrangement would suffice to hold together a society.

Why not?

However, I am interested in hearing more about your description of how the government should be run, and why.

If there is to be government, it should operate in the private sector subject to its market decisions and the satisfaction of its consumers.

 Would you further explain how individual value being objective is irrational?

No worries. As far as the irrationality of individual value being objective, it will be contingent on our unresolved dispute over the description of objectivity.

I suppose the most complicated part of this hypothesis would be deciding which would be the most favorable. Would you say that they should be determined based on a majority vote?

And your subsequent claims:

I wasn't suggesting a vote

I wasn't proposing a majority vote

Eh… what? You most certainly introduced the subject of voting. Whether it was your “suggestion” or not,  your “proposal” or not, is very secondary to the goals of clarity, intellectual honesty, and avoiding semantic entanglements in this forum.

It's apparent that history has the clues, it's just a matter of interpreting or discovering the consistencies. Would you explain your view of what history has taught us?

Well, I’ll just use the US as a historical example. The land was originally settled by pioneers with strong, unifying religious beliefs. The nation itself was founded by men with a strong belief in classical liberalism and a definite fear of tyranny and totalitarianism. These ideas were finally implemented via revolution and agreement upon installing a constitutional republic. So, revolution is an avenue; belief in representative government is an avenue.

Social evolution just happens as a matter of course. That can involve any endless number of things, from theism to hedonism. And, as I said, different leaders espouse different central doctrines, be they “Manifest Destiny,” “Return to Normalcy,” neoconservativism, America First… the list is virtually endless. So, yes, majority vote does play into it, I just wouldn’t say that it would never be presented like this:

“Today, we bring up a national referendum: will our nation be founded upon humanism, or will it be founded upon objectivism? The majority will decide.”

Which is religiously correct?

Neither, sinners inferior to good-doers.

Which is correct from the perspective of human value?

Neither, those closest to one's 'tribe' are valued most this is axiomatically true even if the tribe one identifies with is not blood-related.

You can say I am lying since we don't operate this way in hospital transplant lists or human right but our species is held above other species due to this in the first place. We alienate criminals from the general populace as another means of tribal lines etc etc

The question is: Are people equal,

The question is... WILL IIIIIIIIIII EVER LEAV... Sorry, I got sidetracked. No people are not equal.

What is the US currently?

A microcosm of a globalist one world communist government nose deep in Luciferian practices and rituals.

What should the US be?

Anarchy. Particularly, Anarcho-Capitalism. But any voluntary arrangement should suffice.

Which is religiously correct?

Christianity of course!

Which is correct from the perspective of human value?

Christianity of course.

1 & 2: People aren't equal because individual value creates a constellation and market for individual behaviors. Individuals acknowledge their own estimations of the most attractive; the most talented; the smartest; the most athletic, etc. Equality would necessitate the streamline of individual values, and/or making individual value objective. And objectivity is irrational.

3: The United States is a hodgepodge of diverse demographics in order to indoctrinate the diverse cultures around the globe with the Luciferian a.k.a. Babylonian mysteries which was brought in by this nation's Masonic "Founding Fathers." As far as my description of "Communist," you need only look into the history of this nation's central banks, as well as Joseph McCarthy's "Red Scare." You can also look into project paperclip.

4. All associations should be voluntary--even at the societal level. Involuntary associations are immoral and should be condemned.

5 & 6: I'm joking for the most part with this one. I'm not religious. If I had to provide an answer, I would state that they're all "correct," in the absence of an alternative term, even if they contradict each other.

Therefore, the fact that both of you have come to a platform to not just share your opinions but also hear the opinions of others is a respectable act and everyone's views should be treated as such regardless of whether we personally accept them.

So in other words everyone’s views should be treated as “respectable”?

Are you talking about the US? Not really. I wasn’t limiting this to the US, but voting isn’t usually how working philosophies gain traction, with the exception of electing politicians who espouse a certain philosophy upfront.

Again, look at history for clues. Sometimes it happens via revolution, sometimes via social evolution, and sometimes via democratic political processes. Perhaps there are other avenues I haven’t thought of.

My central point is that humans need something to believe in, whether that something is a deity or not.

It would be cruel to do as you suggest and just throw them all out rather than try to solve the problem and prevent other individuals from being led down the same path, further allowing the problem to grow. 

Respecting that kind of mentality doesn’t solve anything, it just leads to more problems.

Eh, Albert Einstein said a lot of things.

"I am not an atheist"

"I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists"

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” 

It would be cruel to do as you suggest and just throw them all out rather than try to solve the problem and prevent other individuals from being led down the same path, further allowing the problem to grow. 

Respecting that kind of mentality doesn’t solve anything, it just leads to more problems.

I don't think that materialism automatically means no religion.

I don't know if society would be better, if everyone was the same Religion,

It would probably be healthy to at least have an overlap of Values, Violent conflict otherwise,

. .

It is good to have many ideas in a society,

But some key Features 'must be assumed, Religious or not.

Religious Person 1 says help each other, Religious Person 2 says harm other,

Atheist Person 1 says harm each other, Atheist Person 2 says harm other,

I think many would see the value of help or harming, more important than the Religious or Atheist tag,

Though not 'all, some might see the other Religious/Atheist Person's Help/Harm as something to suffer through until there are no more Religious/Atheists, 'Then to go after the people who disagree on Help/Harm

I don't think science and religion 'must be at odds.

I respect their perspective as a conscious individual. This does not mean I support serial killers.

No, you just respect their perspective, which is problematic in and of itself.

Do you then believe that a society's religion is dominantly responsible for its success?

It's not my belief, it's what many intelectualls point to, like Niall Ferguson in his book Civilization. It's not the only variable for success, but it's indeed important because it forges values and a certain attitude in people which can be decisive for any society's progress.

Do you think it is or isn't important for the religion to be based in truth, and why?

It's not about truth but interpretations. Maybe the creators of religions didnt intend to lie but to explain the world from their point of view which can look idiotic today. Christianity for example is based on how the followers of Jesus interpreted his words. It doesn't matter the stories and interpretations but how these stories have inspired people to live and thrive.

Do you then believe that Judaism is better than Christianity, which is better than Islam? By what metric did you evaluate?

Correlation between religion (differetiating between sects) and social/economic indicators. The advanced societies are western Europe and the US (protestantism), Israel (judaism) and eastern asia (buddhism). Things are changing for bad, of course, with all this woke culture (marxism which is atheist) but that's another story.

Everyone should understand, by the way, that the collective mindset in a country comes basically from the religion these people profess.

Do you then believe that Christianity provides something Atheism lacks, and what exactly?

As I said, Christianity has inspired people, it's what motivates them to thrive. However, I think Christianity is getting more unbearable today as a belief because people are more educated and the new generations are more critical.

As to atheism, it's just the expression of what I was saying, that Christianity is unbearable as a belief. Atheism doesn't provide anything in change.

Can you describe the new age movement and whether you believe it captures what religion has that you believe science lacks?

You said that religions are being slowly replaced by more secular beliefs, would you elaborate?

I would love to elaborate but I don't have time. There is a thread that I opened about it in the religion forum, you can check it out.

Do you think science could become a religion if people choose to believe in science?

Science is not a religion and will never be so. It's true that people nowadays believe blindly in what scientists say, but it's not a religion because it doesn't have the sociocultural component religions have.