/liberty/ - Liberty

If someone is not in their righr mind, I just do whatever they would have wanted to to do when they were lucid. Even if it's a complete stranger, I can make a pretty educated guess that they would have wanted medicine. If they come back frim the edge and say they liked being insane, well, ok then. We'll cease the treatment and let them return to the void. As for sleepwalking, you technically always have the right to kill a tresspasser, even an accidental one. But it's a pretty dick thing to do and you'll likely incure the wrath of the local community.

>is adhd real?

I'm doubtful, but maybe.

>>83970

>adhd

Maybe once upon a time, but seeing as nearly any preteen boy is liable to be diagnosed these days, you'd have a hard time convincing me it has any meaningful definition.

>>83970

Go get your CPR card from the American Heart Association. They go over in fine detail when it is ok and when it is not ok (legally) to give someone treatment.

>>83971

You'd be surprised how opium overdosers get pissed off about being given Narcan (Naloxone) because it ruins their high even though it saved their life.

>>84005

I remember reading that they're not pissed so much as they have like this violent emotional reaction where they have to strap them down so they don't hurt the doctor. Like after all is said and done they're happy their life was saved I would imagine its just that initial reaction.

>>84005

Not without cause; there's no reason to give them enough to enforce massive precipitated withdrawls, but folks keep doing it…

>>84004

>Just look to this spooky organization in order to find out what the state says is okay

>>84005

I think you'd be surprised how little some people want to live and how much they want to be high, I'm certainly surprised how little you seem to respect peoples rights to die blissfully. If an allowance is made for "saving someones life" it could easily be extended to the point of horrific dystopia. After all, forcing children to go to school is said to, in essence, save them from a life of squalor and mediocrity. Why stop there, why not force people to go straight from school to government jobs; You'll be saving them from the possibility of unemployment, thus saving their lives. Actually why even risk that, they might overspend or fail to spend their own money and then starve to death so you better just have someone feed them and bathe them and such. Truly the glorious savior of the people.

Freedom means the freedom to die. Freedom means the freedom to be insane. Nothing is to be done without consent. People who want to be treated if/when something happens need to have consented beforehand or if we live in that loopy land of consent passing then their guardians or family or whatever need to do so on their behalf. Otherwise you have no right to do anything to "save" them. People may appreciate it or love it or only be capable of grumbling at it afterwords but that's irrelevant. Nothing is to be done without consent.

do you have any diagnoses anons? how much does private visit at psychiatrist cost in your state?

>>84085

That's all fine and dandy, but if I see someone dying I'm going to try to keep them from dying. There's a thing called being a Good Samaritan which most courts of law recognize. This isn't a slippery slope here- you're not forcing someone to live, you're saving someone from a bad decision. If they wanted to die they should have been more precise or more discrete. There is no such thing as "you ruined my death." Just as a heads up, Opium isn't exactly labeled thanks, government and Opium requires higher doses over time to the point where you're scrounging for a bigger dose just to keep you from dying from the withdrawals. It becomes pretty fucking easy to overdose on opiates in the first place, and doubly so when you don't even know how "pure" your opiates are and thus can't judge how much you're putting into your system.

>>84085

>If an allowance is made for "saving someones life" it could easily be extended to the point of horrific dystopia. After all, forcing children to go to school is said to, in essence, save them from a life of squalor and mediocrity. Why stop there, why not force people to go straight from school to government jobs; You'll be saving them from the possibility of unemployment, thus saving their lives. Actually why even risk that, they might overspend or fail to spend their own money and then starve to death so you better just have someone feed them and bathe them and such. Truly the glorious savior of the people.

You're trying too hard. The slippery slope only works as an argument when there really is a slope involved, when you have nowhere to draw the line. The liberals are right about that, if about nothing else. Most people who risk their own lifes or attempt suicide don't know what they're doing, they'll be thankful to you three days later once the spook is over. They don't think properly, their perception of the world is flawed, they contradict shit they said five minutes earlier. Suicide is not usually a decision carried by ones entire character and conviction. Rather, suicidal impulses are a kind of madness. You do people a favor by not letting them kill themselves, and like I said, most people acknowledge that once the madness is over.

There are exceptions, of course. Someone who kills himself out of an ideological or religious conviction is really standing behind his decision. He's not in conflict with himself. He's not betraying what he stands for. His mind is in it, his heart is in it, the action expresses his character. There is no grounds for paternalistic action, then. Same is true when prisoners enter a hunger protest, when two gentleman negroes engage in an honorable duel to the death or when some daredevil decides that doing extreme sports with no safety gear is a good pastime.

So, with that said:

>Freedom means the freedom to die. Freedom means the freedom to be insane. Nothing is to be done without consent.

Lofty little ideals. I had a friend who was variably catatonic or screeching about conspiracies to murder her, who banged her head against the wall to kill herself. I am glad that her brother gave a fuck about her "freedom to die" and "freedom to be insane" and called the ambulance on her. So was she, once she entered a lucid phase. There's a reason we say of the insane that they are "not themselves", because they aren't. And that is why we shouldn't respect "their" decision to kill themselves.

>>84472

And here your non-authoritarian ancap starts allowing and enforcing things onto other subjects using arbitrary values and subjective analysis of a situation.

>>84481

>using arbitrary values

Calling my values arbitrary does not substitute for actually demonstrating them to be arbitrary.

>subjective analysis of a situation

Meaning what exactly, if this is supposed to mean more than what you already said above?

>>84472

It doesn't matter if someone thinks after the fact that being coerced benefited them. Violence is neither a right or duty.

>>84485

>If someone acts the way i disagree with "they're not themselves" and i can force them to act the way i seem reasonable.

You cannot forse someone to go through psychiatric examination, and without that your claims would not even be backed by facts, just your assumptions, aside from the justification of intervention, which you have not, other than "they'll be grateful". You know, theft can be justified that way: "i'll take your money, invest them and then return you more, so you'll benefit and be grateful for that".

>>84489

>You cannot forse someone to go through psychiatric examination

I didn't say you could. You don't need a psychiatrist to recognize a crazy person. People knew what craziness looked like before the first diagnostic tool was invented.

>and without that your claims would not even be backed by facts, just your assumptions

My assumption that someone is crazy who plunges head-first into a wall after being in a catatonic state for a whole week is not exactly far off. You're ascribing some mystical dimension to mental illness as if only a trained psychiatrist could recognize someone who is clearly out of his mind.

>aside from the justification of intervention, which you have not, other than "they'll be grateful".

I'll come to that.

>You know, theft can be justified that way: "i'll take your money, invest them and then return you more, so you'll benefit and be grateful for that".

You try so hard, it isn't funny anymore. No, stealing from someone and investing what you took from him is not proper paternalism. There are two justifications for paternalism: One, the person in question does not know what he's doing, for example he's about to step on a landmine. (Although I wouldn't call that paternalism.) Two, the person isn't himself. In that case, you are not doing what's in his best interest according to your or to some objectove standard, but according to his standards when he is himself. You're not suppressing his person, you're helping him preserve it when he isn't able to.

Say you got a buddy who gets extremely drunk and is about to break up with his girlfriend of five years because of a stupid argument. Three days ago, he still wanted to marry her, and now he's typing in his phone that she's a cunt. Would you really restrict his freedom if you slapped the phone out of his hand? You are helping him fulfill a goal that is the very expression of all that defines him, but somehow, that's restricting his freedom? And somehow, you're forcing your own values on him by forcing his values on him?

Personalities are consistent. Values, too, are defined by their consistency. We don't conflate momentary emotions with personality traits and values with sudden whims. Just watch yourself thinking about other people. You don't conflate emotions with personality traits and values with whims. That's because you intuitively know - like we all do - that personalities are defined by elements that are supposef to be consistent.

>>84494

>You don't need a psychiatrist to recognize a crazy person.

Oh, rly? You have called a person trying to commit suicide crazy, so you do not tkow much about psychology, it seems.

>People knew what craziness looked like before the first diagnostic tool was invented.

Lel, why do they keep all these psychiatrists, i wonder, when people can easily diagnose everything themselves?

>not proper paternalism

You are so full of shit it is really hard to comprehend. Also, no true scotsman.

>the person in question does not know what he's doing

And your knowledge of a person's knowledge is arbitrary. You do not need to prove you understand what you're doing to face consequences of your actions, especially to a fag like you.

>the person isn't himself

Well, this isn't even bullshit, it's beyond that. You need to really define what "himself" is, as you can only pull off your personal interpretation of one's personality, which might have changed, reverted or even lost, then you still would be just trying to bring him back the same way as hauling your buddy's corpse to his work will return him.

>Would you really restrict his freedom if you slapped the phone out of his hand?

Yes, for sure, the same way that you would if you tied him up, or something. If the person changed, even due to separate factors, it is still a person and its freedom can be restricted. It is just not the person you'd like, but a person nonetheless.

>You are helping him fulfill a goal

Right now the only thing for sure is that you are taking his property without consent, not more, not less. The only way to immediately prove that it is his goal is consent, which he has not.

>you're forcing your own values on him by forcing his values on him

You are trying to force him to act like you think he "would" act, based on your understanding and knowledge(or lack thereof) of what he is, so you are trying to make him act like your image of him, in that sense, you force your values on him.

>Just watch yourself thinking about other people.

Looking at other people as at absolutely independent actors and acting accordingly is hard to achieve but extremely beneficial.

>you intuitively know - like we all do

Are we talking about facts here, or is it just about feelings? I remind you, a person is "a human being, whether an adult or child" as defined in a dictionary, and you are trying to push your definitions, go fuck yourself. Personality is not a term that has general agreement on its definition, but wikipedia says "defined as the set of habitual behaviors, cognitions and emotional patterns that evolve from biological and environmental factors" and emotional factors are included. On the other side, it is not stated that decisions made are independent from external sources, which would be silly, as the whole experience, skills and knowledge of a person, which you might believe to be parts of a personality, are products of interaction with the world and therefore are subject to change, and not some state that you call "consistency".

>>83971

>If someone is not in their righr mind, I just do whatever they would have wanted to to do when they were lucid. Even if it's a complete stranger, I can make a pretty educated guess that they would have wanted medicine.

This. If they're not mentally sound or passed the fuck out someone needs to start making decisions. The problem is that that's abused too often.

>>84505

>Oh, rly? You have called a person trying to commit suicide crazy, so you do not tkow much about psychology, it seems.

The same psychologists who fucked around with Freud and behaviorism for decades disagree with me? Oh no! Severe depression and schizophrenia, two causes of depression, are mental diseases no matter who you ask, so your argument from authority has even less weight than it already has.

If you think teenaged girls drinking bleach is healthy behavior, you lack basic human decency.

>Lel, why do they keep all these psychiatrists, i wonder, when people can easily diagnose everything themselves?

Because they can't treat everything themselves, nor can they diagnose exactly what's wrong. You don't need to do either to wrestle a knife from someone who is trying to stab himself to death.

>You are so full of shit it is really hard to comprehend.

Yeah, somebody stop me from curtailing the freedom of schizophrenics to kill themselves in a fit of madness.

>Also, no true scotsman.

I just handed you a metaphorical birth certificate showing our scotsman was born in Ireland.

>And your knowledge of a person's knowledge is arbitrary.

Really? When you see some blind man walking into a minefield, your assumption that he doesn't know what he's doing is arbitrary? You can NEVER know what knowledge anyone has, under any circumstances?

>You do not need to prove you understand what you're doing to face consequences of your actions, especially to a fag like you.

Tell that to the legal order. Pretty sure that in yours, too, you're only culpable of negligence when you didn't know what you're doing, and not culpable at all if you were clinically insane.

>Well, this isn't even bullshit, it's beyond that.

And ur mom gay.

>You need to really define what "himself" is, as you can only pull off your personal interpretation of one's personality

The same kind of interpretation everyone relies on in his private life, and that every psychiatrist, forensic expert, psychologist or judge relies on.

>which might have changed, reverted or even lost, then you still would be just trying to bring him back the same way as hauling your buddy's corpse to his work will return him.

When someone has been trying to kill himself for months, ask a psychiatrist (a proper one) if that person is sane. Alternatively, talk to that person, see yourself if he's sane. If someone could calmly explain to me why he wants to die, I'd let him. Which, you know, most can't. Turns out suicide isn't a behavior typical of normal people .

>>84505

>Yes, for sure, the same way that you would if you tied him up, or something. If the person changed, even due to separate factors, it is still a person and its freedom can be restricted. It is just not the person you'd like, but a person nonetheless.

>"Let me drink bleach, mom! My life is, like, the worst!"

>You are trying to force him to act like you think he "would" act, based on your understanding and knowledge(or lack thereof) of what he is, so you are trying to make him act like your image of him, in that sense, you force your values on him.

You are reading arbitrariness where none is. If your image of that person is wrong, then yes, you commit a crime. If not, though, then you're not. In principle, there is zero arbitrariness here. In practice, that might be different, or it might not.

>Looking at other people as at absolutely independent actors and acting accordingly is hard to achieve but extremely beneficial.

>Did someone clean that blind man off the pavement already? He stepped on a mine. Sorry, I didn't want to make assumptions about his knowledge.

I'll just go ahead and say your method is shit.

>Are we talking about facts here, or is it just about feelings?

Facts.

>I remind you, a person is "a human being, whether an adult or child" as defined in a dictionary, and you are trying to push your definitions, go fuck yourself. Personality is not a term that has general agreement on its definition, but wikipedia says "defined as the set of habitual behaviors, cognitions and emotional patterns that evolve from biological and environmental factors" and emotional factors are included.

That definition also presupposes constancy, you moron.

>On the other side, it is not stated that decisions made are independent from external sources, which would be silly, as the whole experience, skills and knowledge of a person, which you might believe to be parts of a personality, are products of interaction with the world and therefore are subject to change, and not some state that you call "consistency".

I knew it, you're a physicalist. You also didn't properly read that Wikipedia-definition you invoked.

Also, you made a case for pedophilia in your last two or three paragraphs. Have a great fucking day.

>>84537

>Severe depression and schizophrenia, two causes of depression, are mental diseases no matter who you ask, so your argument from authority has even less weight than it already has.

Sure, and it is for them to decide as it is not proven that every suicide happens because of that. You cannot prove that every suicider is mentally ill, cause they are not. Even if they are, it is needed to be proven, and it can only be done by a specialist, not some whiny moralfag who thinks he knows people betterr then themselves.

>If you think teenaged girls drinking bleach is healthy behavior

Strawman, i never said that it will be healthy, i just said that their health, along other issues is their own problem. You are the type who'd ban cigarettes because "unhealthy", right?

>you lack basic human decency.

Not an argument, just a moralfag who cannot find a way to justify being an invasive bitch screwing people around him for the sake of his memories of them.

>Because they can't treat everything themselves

And that's what you need psychiatrists for, dumbass, to help them if they need it. If they need it is decided by them, paid by them and in the way they seem reasonable.

>You don't need to do either to wrestle a knife from someone who is trying to stab himself to death.

And that would be a NAP violation, if that flag of yours is not a decay, of all things. You do not need either to steal stuff from people, you just fucking do. It does not mean that what you are doing is justified, as it will never be, or tolerated, which it might, depending on a society.

>Yeah, somebody stop me from curtailing the freedom of schizophrenics to kill themselves in a fit of madness.

Yeah, stop you from forcing people into something because of your made up diagnoses. The moment someone does something you do not like, they become insane and lose all rights to the onle ever sane person it the world to decide on their fate. Or is it no true paternalism again?

>When you see some blind man walking into a minefield, your assumption that he doesn't know what he's doing is arbitrary

You can ask, it is not that hard, if you are so desperate about these examples.

>Tell that to the legal order. Pretty sure that in yours, too

Sure, but only to some extent, and the laws of the state that exists solely on the belief of people in its legitimacy are no good example for me, just a good brainwashing strategy. You really sound like a statist, you know.

>>84537

>The same kind of interpretation everyone relies on in his private life, and that every psychiatrist, forensic expert, psychologist or judge relies on.

There is a difference between legal definitions and certain states of being that science describes. Psychology, though, is still pretty far from being a proper science, as there is plenty of trash shilled in there by fags like you.

> ask a psychiatrist (a proper one) if that person is sane

Exactly, and a proper psychiatrist will never do diagnoses without examining the subject first, like any other doctor would.

>Alternatively, talk to that person, see yourself if he's sane

You are not a psychiatrist, so it would be just "do i like that guy?", which would be absolutely arbitrary, as you want it to be, to find excuses for forcing a person into something.

>If someone could calmly explain to me why he wants to die, I'd let him.

Except he does not have to, you are no authority and he can tell you to fuck off and be totally right. No one is obliged to prove knowledge or anything before acting, unless explicitly stated in an agreement, which is not here for sure, as it does not involve different actors, only himself. See the section about facing circumstances of one's actions, whatever the reason they were done.

<"Let me drink bleach, mom! My life is, like, the worst!"

Not an argument. The restriction of freedom is surely here, thats a fact. Are you talking facts or moralizing, again?

>If your image of that person is wrong, then yes, you commit a crime

Your image of a person is never fully correct at best, and a product of your imagination at worst. The person is what it is at the moment, you cannot change it, and

<Did someone clean that blind man off the pavement already? He stepped on a mine. Sorry, I didn't want to make assumptions about his knowledge.

Again, you just need to ask or tell, it is not that hard, if it is the well-being of the person that you-re after, and not the feeling of moral superiority.

>That definition also presupposes constancy

And i'd say it is fluid and changes due to numerous outer factors.

>I knew it, you're a physicalist

I find it pointless to argue on scientific points with an unscientific person, so you'll have to actually prove stuff under the presence of okkam's razor and falsifiability if you want to be heard. i do not believe in things i cannot prove or refute, no more, no less, for now there is no reason not to assume that cognition is not a physical process, put aside cognitive distortions

>you made a case for pedophilia

ad hominem, also i do not really mind as i find the idea of owning children as property possible, put aside moralfaggotry.

>>84564

>Sure, and it is for them to decide as it is not proven that every suicide happens because of that. You cannot prove that every suicider is mentally ill, cause they are not.

Did I say "every suicider"? I didn't. Some may be lucid. A Japanese nationalist cutting his belly open or a priest setting himself ablaze, or a terminally ill patient deciding to eat a shotgun, may be perfectly lucid. I wouldn't stop them even though I think what they are doing is a moral wrong. These people are not your average depressed teenager, however. Killing yourself is such a crazy decision that as a general rule, only crazy people make it.

>Even if they are, it is needed to be proven, and it can only be done by a specialist, not some whiny moralfag who thinks he knows people betterr then themselves.

Again, you don't need to be a specialist to draw the conclusion that someone who is about to drink a gallon of bleach is fucked in the head. Especially when it's a close friend or family member.

And mind you, we're not talking about locking that person up and forcing treatment on him. We're talking about wrestling the gun, or knife, or match or whatever from his hand. When you have to make a decision within minutes to avoid irreparable damage, then you can let the specialists wait and consult them later. When someone is running at you with a knife, you don't ask some forensics expert if that person really has the intent to kill you before you knock him out. You don't look around to see if he's instead trying to kill another knife-wielding attacker behind you to save your life. That should be common sense. We don't live in a world of perfect certainty and sometimes, we have to make a decision that looks good ex ante and terrible ex post.

>Strawman, i never said that it will be healthy, i just said that their health, along other issues is their own problem.

You trivialized suicide throughout our discussion, so I think I was right to assume that you see nothing wrong with it.

>You are the type who'd ban cigarettes because "unhealthy", right?

No, did you listen to a single word I just said? People who smoke cigarettes stand behind their decision. They made an informed and lucid choice to smoke, and they have been doing it for months. If I saw a small kid try to smoke, I'd absolutely slap the cigarette out of his hands.

Pro-tip, don't assume the person you're talking to is a strawman. Actual people hold opinions you don't like. You're talking to people, not dedicated representatives of shit you don't like.

>Not an argument

Indeed, it isn't. It's a reproach. Change your ways, or be an asshole.

>just a moralfag who cannot find a way to justify being an invasive bitch screwing people around him for the sake of his memories of them.

Warning: The following is a reproach, not an argument!

You're a cynical little bitch if you think preventing schizophrenics (actual, diagnosed schizophrenics) is selfish and harmful behavior.

>And that's what you need psychiatrists for, dumbass, to help them if they need it. If they need it is decided by them, paid by them and in the way they seem reasonable.

Yeah, if they decide they don't need a psychiatrist because all psychiatrists are actual, literal demons from hell, then we should respect their autonomy. Are you truly that deluded or just too proud to make a concession even to extreme cases? Extreme cases which may not be the majority, but which certainly happen, mind you. You try hard to go all the way with your opinion.

>>84564

>And that would be a NAP violation

In Rothbards framework, not in mine. He got most things right but not all.

>Yeah, stop you from forcing people into something because of your made up diagnoses. The moment someone does something you do not like, they become insane and lose all rights to the onle ever sane person it the world to decide on their fate.

That's a bunch of assumptions with nothing behind it.

>Or is it no true paternalism again?

Yes, it is no true scottish communism.

I said "proper" paternalism, by the way. Not "true" paternalism. "Proper" can also connote that it's paternalism used properly. As in, proper, instead of wrong paternalism, not true instead of false paternalism.

>You can ask, it is not that hard, if you are so desperate about these examples.

His foot is one inch from the mine, your voice is hoarse from a bad cough, and you are in China. The blind man may not even understand your language. Grabbing him by the waist and moving him a meter away, though, that would be a violation of his freedom!

>Sure, but only to some extent, and the laws of the state that exists solely on the belief of people in its legitimacy are no good example for me, just a good brainwashing strategy.

Yes, I got it, you're woke. You don't care about legal principles of the sort that even Rothbard sometimes counted among rules of the natural law.

>You really sound like a statist, you know.

I really don't care what you label my beliefs.

>>84565

>There is a difference between legal definitions and certain states of being that science describes.

No idea what this has to do with what I wrote.

>Psychology, though, is still pretty far from being a proper science, as there is plenty of trash shilled in there by fags like you.

Okay, what is it? Am I too ignorant of what the psychologists say or am I participating in their games? Reconciling both may be a bit hard to do.

>Exactly, and a proper psychiatrist will never do diagnoses without examining the subject first, like any other doctor would.

Why are you even talking about that when it is a sideshow to your argument? You already claimed that we should even let complete loonies kill themselves. So why is it important whether they are crazy or not if you think we should let them kill themselves anyway=

>You are not a psychiatrist, so it would be just "do i like that guy?", which would be absolutely arbitrary, as you want it to be, to find excuses for forcing a person into something.

You're even more cynical than I thought. At no point did I so much as imply this. You're not even putting words in my mouth, you pretend to look directly inside my head to discover that my opinion is not just wrong, or evil, but also held in bad faith. Let me just say this: Your argument has no basis. None whatsoever. You're throwing mere assumptions around.

>Except he does not have to

He doesn't, but then he has the deal with the consequence of me assuming he's not in a proper state of mind. When you decide to run around with a brandished knife as cardio, you don't get to complain if people stop you. You certainly don't get to stab them to death in self-defense. It's your responsibility to clear up the misapprehensions your behavior created, because you could've known how they'd interpret what you do.

That what I said here presupposes my argument is correct should go without mention.

>Not an argument.

Part of an argument. May the reader fill out the blanks. Get used to the fact that not everything people throw at you in a debate is a strict syllogism.

>The restriction of freedom is surely here, thats a fact. Are you talking facts or moralizing, again?

Talking the fact that teenagers who want to drink bleach should not be treated like responsible, lucid adults.

>Your image of a person is never fully correct at best

It doesn't have to be fully correct. Do you assess the personality of the people around you? Congratulations, you don't think that making a mental image of a person is completely futile.

>and a product of your imagination at worst.

In which case I, too, would say you shouldn't do anything. I said so, too. In no uncertain terms. So why bring that up again?

>The person is what it is at the moment

That a rock is in one particular place at any given moment does not mean it cannot have momentum. Likewise, that a person behaves a certain way at a particular moment does not mean it has no constancy to it.

>you cannot change it

You shouldn't, and you aren't. If the person is truly just out of his mind, you're only ensuring he can snap back. If he doesn't, if you're truly trying to hammer him into a certain shape, then you are committing a crime, too.

>Again, you just need to ask or tell, it is not that hard, if it is the well-being of the person that you-re after, and not the feeling of moral superiority.

That's not a hard question. I am after the well-being of that person. Did you think I'd look into myself now and discover that I am really just trying to play holier-than-thou than suicidal persons?

>And i'd say it is fluid and changes due to numerous outer factors.

The rock has momentum even though you can change its trajectory.

>I find it pointless to argue on scientific points with an unscientific person, so you'll have to actually prove stuff under the presence of okkam's razor and falsifiability if you want to be heard.

Falsifiability is only a methodological principle in the empirical sciences.

>ad hominem, also i do not really mind as i find the idea of owning children as property possible, put aside moralfaggotry.

>What if the child consents tho? :^)

Sure the FBI didn't hire you to make ancaps look bad?

>moralfaggotry

Oh, piss off with this bullshit. I'm moralizing, you're moralizing, we're both participating in a debate on ethics and throwing ethical arguments around, so why act surprised one of us is a moralfag?

>>84577

>In Rothbards framework, not in mine. He got most things right but not all.

How convenient to have a loophole in a rule just for you. You really are a lot more a statist than a libertarian, it is not label, but a definition, commonly used one, not one i made up, unlike you, i suppose.

>That's a bunch of assumptions with nothing behind it.

Your diagnoses are not backed up by scientific or legal proof, you just pull them out of your ass, so i expanded it into a broader category, is that clear enough for you, dummy?

>I said "proper" paternalism, by the way. Not "true" paternalism.

Yeah, yeah, another word that is meant to look like there's a real line or limit to paternalism, not imaginary one you made up to look less like a fag.

>His foot is one inch from the mine, your voice is hoarse from a bad cough, and you are in China. The blind man may not even understand your language. Grabbing him by the waist and moving him a meter away, though, that would be a violation of his freedom!

You could have asked before if you wanted to, standing near, but you did not. And yes, it would be a violation of his freedom, you can do whatever with the fact as i'm not arguing morals or ethics, it is no different than grabbing a random person on the street in terms of freedom violation.

>that even Rothbard

Neither do i care about Rothbard's preferences. I just agree with austrian theory, mostly, i do not have to like the girls Mises preferred.

>No idea what this has to do with what I wrote.

Then think again. The interpretation of state on sertain questions can gtfo for state reasons, interpretation of just random people is more often faulty then not, and psychiatry is not a very developed field in scientific scence, so i dont know which psychologists you refer to. They rely on a idea called "person", which, i remind you means a human being, and no matter the changes it stays "himself" in these terms and is treated accordingly.

>Am I too ignorant of what the psychologists say or am I participating in their games?

You definitely are ignorant, and it is because of ignorant morons like you modern psychology is still shit.

>Why are you even talking about that when it is a sideshow to your argument?

Because it is just one way your argument is faulty. Not only they are free to die, but enforcing otherwise scenario would require proper proof of a person's state of mind, which cannot be done without a specialist. Without reliance on documented facts it would be arbitrary and lead to abuse at the very least.

>You're even more cynical than I thought.

Never thought this is a bad thing, it dos not prevent me from thinking and holding an argument, unlike a belief of sorts, which is biased. I just drew direct conclusion of your "hey, this person looks mad to me, as he's acting not the way he used to in my memory, why don't i force him to act a way i'd like". You know, if you can force someone into some kind of previous state, then you can just force other things onto him as well, your moral standards, for example. Your ignorance of possible outcomes of your actions only proves my point.

>>84577

>but then he has the deal with the consequence of me assuming he's not in a proper state of mind

And if this would be ancapistan, he would have a perfect reason to crack your skull to find out there's no brain, as this is a NAP violation, even with probably good? intentions.

>run around with a brandished knife

I do not see anything wrong with people wearing weapons as long as they do not violate the NAP.

>It's your responsibility to clear up the misapprehensions your behavior created

No, their misunderstanding and actions followed are solely their own responsibility, no one is responsible for your own stupidity.

>et used to the fact that not everything people throw at you in a debate is a strict syllogism.

Then go ahead and claim that you've won a discussion as i could clearly find out your intellectual superiority and perfect consistency of your ideas and accept my defeat.

>should not be treated like responsible, lucid adults

The only person who is not fitted to be a person is you, sa you clearly seem braindead.

>you don't think that making a mental image of a person is completely futile.

I think that changing the original person to fit its unclear image of it in your mind is futile.

>So why bring that up again?

As you never know for sure, how precise the image is.

>that a person behaves a certain way at a particular moment does not mean it has no constancy to it.

Momentum is just another trait of an object, i do not see how a person can be a person, but not be itself at the same time.

> if you're truly trying to hammer him into a certain shape, then you are committing a crime

So it is fine as long as you believe that you're acting for his good right? Cause you can't really tell when you do, and when you do not.

>Did you think I'd look into myself now and discover that I am really just trying to play holier-than-thou than suicidal persons?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'll never know, but i'll treat you like you do, as this is a reliable strategy of survival in this unpredictable world. Game theory will tell you more about that, if you're interested in strategies.

>The rock has momentum even though you can change its trajectory.

Still do not see how is this relevant, as momentum is its trait at a point of time.

>Falsifiability is only a methodological principle in the empirical sciences.

And neuroscience is surely one of them. One of few good things there are about modern psychology, along with psychological egoism.

>Sure the FBI didn't hire you to make ancaps look bad?

I see different scenarios of child/parent relations in an ancap society, and obligation to care about child is not one of them. I do not care much really, as i'm not planning children in the near eternity anyway.

> you're moralizing

I was trying not to, actually. You misinterpret my arguments. You are totally free, and i think capable of the actions you described. What i my whole point is that in an ancap society paternalism is very unlikely to have a special place as a tolerated interference within a persons property and self ownership. It is really a society where personal autonomy is at its peak. I'm not even saying that you should or cannot be a moralfag, i'm here to talk, and i'm talking from the position of an ethical nihilist. You might see no point in this discussion, anon, as universal morality was yet to be found, despite all efforts, so arguing for it would be among the borders of moral relativism, same as arguing what color looks best.

>>84575

Oh, i missed this post.

>Some may be lucid

And those who are prove that a suicide attempt is not a proof of insanity. Other than that, innocent until proven guilty, or sane until proven insane applies.

>Again, you don't need to be a specialist to draw the conclusion that someone who is about to drink a gallon of bleach is fucked in the head

But you do, there are plenty of perfect reasons for a sane person to do that, a bet, for example, otherwise see above.

>we're not talking about locking that person up and forcing treatment on him.

I do not see difference in violation of property rights and self ownership. if one can be done, then why cannot be another? It is really a matter of drawing a line for me, a principle to follow without exceptions. Otherwise, it can be pushed, blurred and abused, and if it can, it will, and i would not like to be the rare victim. I'm unlikely to be the one making decisions, though.

> I was right to assume that you see nothing wrong with it.

You die from suicide, quite frankly. It is definitely not for everyone, though if a person needs it or not is for the person to decide, ultimately, otherwise it is just murder and is treated accordingly.

>People who smoke cigarettes stand behind their decision. They made an informed and lucid choice to smoke, and they have been doing it for months. If I saw a small kid try to smoke, I'd absolutely slap the cigarette out of his hands.

Most people who start smoking do it unintentionally, or at least not as a solid decision, and not drop it for the same reasons. Children are not really different. There is no point, where a child becomes an adult, except for legal terms. It is very personalized and lengthy process, people develop throughout their entire life, just faster in childhood, and plenty of children are more capable of critical thinking and making serious decisions than lots of adults.

>You're talking to people, not dedicated representatives of shit you don't like.

Agree, but you just said you'd slap cigarette out of a child's hand, so you'd probably ban it, too, at least for children? People are generally more willing for a policeman to do it, rather than force people themselves, as this is how empathy works.

>or be an asshole.

Being an asshole is not a nap violation, though they do violate NAP more often, so the system is fitted to keep their number at bay.

>if you think preventing schizophrenics (actual, diagnosed schizophrenics) is selfish and harmful behavior.

I think treating all people the way you would if they were same is the best way for the sane people, and a way for the insane to understand their insanity and accept help and actually work for it, which is more efficient than forcing them, while those who cannot accept and control their insanity are likely to be physically removed, which would either give them a hint that something's wrong with them, or remove a threat they pose.

>Yeah, if they decide they don't need a psychiatrist because all psychiatrists are actual, literal demons from hell, then we should respect their autonomy.

What if they're right though? :^)

Seriously, if they think so, acting accordingly is inefficient, and if they accept it, i'm fine. Acting inefficient is a penalty in itself, if they can notice it, they are improving, if not, they lose whatever was at stake. The same way it works with sane people, stupid or whatever trait they have. Also, who would pay psychiatrists to forcefully try to cure these people? I wouldn't. Though, i would not likely do anything to stop you, its PMC's role, as i'm not arguing morals. I would not like to be forcefully treated even if i'm considered insane, i'd like to be able to decide of efficiency of my actions and my brain functioning and conclude myself to get help, try fix myself or leave it the way i like it. That was my opinion, no more, no less. If you want to be forced into something in case you change in the future, i suppose it can be done, though.

>>84584

>How convenient to have a loophole in a rule just for you.

Look, I've read Rothbards philosophical treatises and several of his essays, including all where he developed his ethical framework. I know the guy very well, and I know he wasn't right about everything. I don't think he'd disapprove of me not copypasting everything he ever said, as he explicitly disliked uncreative copycats. Read his essay on modal libertarians or what he had to say about SEK3.

I'm not building loopholes into his rules either, I've tried to synthesize Rothbard and Saint Aquinas. Charge me with not doing that well, but not with building loopholes into Rothbardianism when I am not pretending to be an orthodox Rothbardian.

>Your diagnoses are not backed up by scientific or legal proof

Going by the narrow definition of science that we have nowadays, yes, they're not scientific. Nor legal.

>you just pull them out of your ass

Well, that just doesn't follow. I have my criteria, I believe they'd work well enough for people that I have known for ten or fifteen years.

>Yeah, yeah, another word that is meant to look like there's a real line or limit to paternalism, not imaginary one you made up to look less like a fag.

Demonstrate why the line I've drawn is ineffectual, don't just claim it with no further argumentation.

>You could have asked before if you wanted to, standing near, but you did not.

I was spontaneously teleported next to him, although I am wearing a bomb suit and I am in no danger whatsoever. Please, don't defuse hypotheticals.

>And yes, it would be a violation of his freedom, you can do whatever with the fact as i'm not arguing morals or ethics, it is no different than grabbing a random person on the street in terms of freedom violation.

It would be a violation of his freedom, even though you can be 99% sure that he wouldn't have wanted to blow himself up? That's ridiculous, sorry. By your argument, he'd still be free if someone put a mine right where he wanted to step, but unfree the moment someone tackled him away so he wouldn't step on your mine. Your argument supports absurdities.

>Neither do i care about Rothbard's preferences. I just agree with austrian theory, mostly, i do not have to like the girls Mises preferred.

Then I don't understand what you're doing here. I thought for a moment that you were trying to be as Rothbardian as you can, and that this was why you were so invested in your stance, but now I just plain don't get you. Why would you be so damn invested, to the point where you'd rather support pedophilia and deny that convictions are real instead of moving a metaphorical inch to the left.

>>84682

>I'm not building loopholes into his rules either

I'd say you are bending NAP too much, personal autonomy is the very basis of it.

>he narrow definition of science that we have nowadays

Maybe the strictness of the science is not the problem, but your blurred diagnoses?

>I have my criteria

>I believe

Belief is not something that will protect you from mistakes. Faith will not give knowledge, power, nor it will change the world around you. We are talking about possible intervention in people's whole live right now, you know.

>Demonstrate why the line I've drawn is ineffectual, don't just claim it with no further argumentation.

Your argument was "it is not proper paternalism" in the first place. Is this defined by you liking it, or it following your moral code?

>I was spontaneously teleported next to him

And saying "stop" is still faster unless you move at the speed of sound, do you? It starts to look like science fiction.

>someone put a mine right where he wanted to step

It depends on whose property is it.

>unfree the moment someone tackled him away so he wouldn't step on your mine

If he stepped on the mine or not is debatable, as it has not happened, so it is applied the same way as any other person any other time.

>Your argument supports absurdities.

Reducto ad absurdum exists for the arguments that are not scalable and, therefore, incomplete.

>the point where you'd rather support pedophilia

It is only the modern society that pushes these borders, long before that these norms were rather different. Also, modern teenagers have sex a lot anyway, i do not see how this is wrong, and how is it bad to have sex with another person when you can have sex with a younger one. I do think children that are self sufficient can be treated as persons without a disaster one may be preaching.

>you were trying to be as Rothbardian as you can

Never will, never try. I agree more with Tucker. He seems more of a practical guy, instead of wishful thinking. I'd like all this theory to be as scientific, amoral and unemotional as game theory is now. Modern economics is really a mess even bigger then psychology.

>deny that convictions are real

The convictions are real the same way morals are, they are within the field of subjectivity and generalizing. They are true in the same way stereotypes are true, if you follow them, you will guess, but make mistakes too. Take race for example, if you are a ruler, you can chase blacks and decrease the amount of crime, but the more you follow it, the more innocents will suffer. This is not a personalized approach, and is, therefore random, to some extent. It is a compromise in chase for a certain goal. In ancap, everyone may go for his own goal, it is the essence of it. You can try to help someone based on your assumptions, do your guess, and if you were right i'm sure the person helped would be grateful and will not do harm to you, but if you did not, no one will protect you. No one will ignore your harmful actions, or tolerate you just because of your seemingly good intentions. This is the reason why ancap is against that, against group thinking, collectivism, victimless crimes and all that other stuff, as when you do allow these, there will always be place for abuse and corruption. If you view something as trustworthy, the moment it betrays you you'll lose a lot more than you would by positioning otherwise. That's why if you want to do that, do it on yourself so it would be you who is facing the consequences. Your paternalism in ancap may be tolerated, but only until you fail, and it will only hold onto the good intentions of those whose lives you are risking to ruin.

>>84682

>what he had to say about SEK3.

namely?

>>84700

>I'd say you are bending NAP too much, personal autonomy is the very basis of it.

And I'd say I don't care much about your opinions.

>Maybe the strictness of the science is not the problem, but your blurred diagnoses?

I talked about the narrow definition of science, not the strictness of the methods of a particular science.

>Belief is not something that will protect you from mistakes. Faith will not give knowledge, power, nor it will change the world around you.

Where does this meme come from? When people say they believe something, they mean they have a conviction. How they arrived at this conviction, and whether they see this conviction as infallible, plays no role.

>We are talking about possible intervention in people's whole live right now, you know.

By taking their murder weapon away before they kill themselves? I suppose you're right, but couldn't be less concerned.

>Your argument was "it is not proper paternalism" in the first place. Is this defined by you liking it, or it following your moral code?

The latter. Why do you even ask? Even if I was arbitrary, do you think I'd say so?

>And saying "stop" is still faster unless you move at the speed of sound, do you? It starts to look like science fiction.

And this is beginning to look like you frantically trying to defuse a hypothetical scenario, which is not what you do with hypothetical scenarios.

>It depends on whose property is it.

It doesn't. Please, don't be a smartass about libertarian ethics if you have no clue about them.

>Reducto ad absurdum exists for the arguments that are not scalable and, therefore, incomplete.

Who taught you that? No, an argument does not have to be scalable (whatever that means) or incomplete for a reductio ad absurdum to be applicable. If your argument, thought through to its logical conclusion, is absurd, then it can be reduced to absurdity. That shouldn't be so hard to understand.

>It is only the modern society that pushes these borders, long before that these norms were rather different.

Cultural relativism? Go away.

>>84758

>You've been a moralizing little shit for this entire talk, now you're telling me that morality isn't real? Yeah, screw that.

I was trying not to, and you missed the very idea i was arguing in the sentence.

>It took me five years to discover the foundations of morality. The difference between me and nihilists is that you just gave up looking.

Yeah, maybe i just need more than that to trick myself into lying about importance of my opinion.

>Would you have been half as invested if the topic

It was kinda fun.

>Silly nihilists can't even act out their stupid belief

Nihilism in not a belief. You are stupid already pointing that.

>You talk just as much about ethical topics as anyone else

Did you miss the whole "you are free to act as you wish, just in ancap you wont be granted legitimate monopoly on your cuckish invasiveness"?

>>84756

>I talked about the narrow definition of science, not the strictness of the methods of a particular science.

Did you not think they are interconnected? Also, scientific method is applied strictly in every science, not some of them. If it is not the case, it stops being science. It is the reason modern psychology is debated not to be science, along with the amount shit like of moral psychology in it.

>When people say they believe something, they mean they have a conviction

Sure, but the faith itself is not justification for certain privileges for the reason i described.

>By taking their murder weapon away before they kill themselves?

Or by forcefully trying to "cure" them. I do not see how one thing you are trying to enforce, while whining how other is "bad".

>The latter. Why do you even ask?

And viewing your person as a authority in deciding such a thing is totally not egocentric.

> liking it, or it following your moral code

Basically the same thing, you know.

>Please, don't be a smartass about libertarian ethics if you have no clue about them.

No one will care about ethics when there will be money in game. I'm saying about how things will be, not how you'll be building your own kind of socialist utopia.

>Who taught you that?

Skills in discussing things. Reducto ad absurdum is a valid counterargument, unless it does not change the basic argument. You are drawing a line using your own feelings, saying that you will decide on the situation. This is not enough. Your liking or disliking it does not make it any different from another, scaled up or applied broader.

>Cultural relativism

Not an argument. Your belief that the modern definition and application of the term is better(whatever that means) then the one from the past is not enough for this to be an argument. Go spread your autistic screeching somewhere else.

>>84765

>I was trying not to, and you missed the very idea i was arguing in the sentence.

I totally understand what you mean, but I still think that what you did was moralizing. You can call it something else, but that doesn't make it so. You can enter a boxing match and then kick around, but that only means you don't know what you're doing, not that you didn't enter a boxing match. In the same vain, you cannot try to guilt trip people and then pretend you're not moralizing.

>Yeah, maybe i just need more than that to trick myself into lying about importance of my opinion.

Read the books I posted if you want more. Doubt you do, because if you decide to go nihilist, chances are you're complacent to begin with.

Also, articles were invented for a reason. Omitting them does not make you sound like a cool Russian, sorry.

>It was kinda fun.

Not really. I found it tedious, and I only engaged because I had a point to make.

>Nihilism in not a belief. You are stupid already pointing that.

That's as silly as saying that atheism is not a belief, when it's clearly a belief in the absence of something. Atheist believe there is no God, nihilists believe there is no objective morality. To say that atheists don't believe there is a God is correct, but not the full story, as the same is true of someone who just never considered whether there is a God or not, or someone who doesn't care or doesn't know either way. Likewise, to say that nihilists don't believe there is an objective morality is not the full story. If you have no opinion on the topic, then you also don't believe in an objective morality, but you also don't believe there is no objective morality.

For comparison:

<You can know there is a car outside.

<You can know there is no car outside.

<You can not know if there is a car outside.

The first two sentences describe a state of knowledge, only the third describes a state of not having any knowledge.

>Did you miss the whole "you are free to act as you wish, just in ancap you wont be granted legitimate monopoly on your cuckish invasiveness"?

If you talk about a realistic Ancapistan, not one directly modeled on anyones ideal of an anarchocapitalist society, then we cannot say either way how people would judge me. If the culture is supportive of suicide or neutral on it, I will be condemned. If it sees it as sinful or insane, I am more likely to be applauded.

You could say that if in Ancapistan, people would put up with my terrible invasions of freedom, the society would stop being Ancapistan. To this, I first say that you have no reason to care, being a nihilist. Second, that then we leave the realm of sociology and talk about ethics again. You are not saying that an otherwise anarchocapitalist social and economic order would be incompatible with my ideas, but that I am betraying the anarchocapitalist ideal. Again, a peculiar discussion for a nihilist to have.

>legitimate monopoly

Misses the point. I never talked about having a monopoly.

>>84766

>Did you not think they are interconnected? Also, scientific method is applied strictly in every science, not some of them. If it is not the case, it stops being science. It is the reason modern psychology is debated not to be science, along with the amount shit like of moral psychology in it.

Semantics. Not unimportant semantics, because people attribute factuality to enterprises labeled "science" and deride everything else as inconsequential navel gazing.

>Sure, but the faith itself is not justification for certain privileges for the reason i described.

Again, no one said it was. I gave my reasoning above. I defended it afterwards. At no point did I imply that my position is correct because I hold it, or because I hold it more or less dearly.

>Or by forcefully trying to "cure" them.

Yes, yes. You made that position clear. Not interested in reviving that discussion down here.

>I do not see how one thing you are trying to enforce, while whining how other is "bad".

Again, see above. I am not very interested in continuing this, I think I said what had to be said.

>And viewing your person as a authority in deciding such a thing is totally not egocentric.

Egocentric because I make general claims about human nature and ethical principles? By that standard, everyone is either egocentric or very uninteresting. You'd have a point if I said that I should be the last court of appeal in cases where a suicide was prevented, but if I am not mistaken, I explicitly said I wasn't. At the very least, I strongly implied it. If someones relatives and close friends think he really wants to die, chances are they know what they're doing. I will hardly be a better judge than them. Is that egocentrism, too?

>No one will care about ethics when there will be money in game.

No wonder you're a nihilist if you're so cynical. People care about things other than money. Money is often overriding their ethical principles, but not always. And how money can be made is also influenced by ethics. If people are disgusted by animal cruelty, then kicking kittens to death in front of your store is not a good way to attract customers.

>I'm saying about how things will be, not how you'll be building your own kind of socialist utopia.

I've got suspicions that you're trying to (heavy handedly) provoke me. I mean, bringing socialism up? That's hardly relevant.

>Skills in discussing things.

Wew.

>>84766

>>84839

Part two:

>Reducto ad absurdum is a valid counterargument, unless it does not change the basic argument. You are drawing a line using your own feelings, saying that you will decide on the situation. This is not enough. Your liking or disliking it does not make it any different from another, scaled up or applied broader.

A reductio ad absurdum can sometimes be accepted. If the absurdity follows from first principles that you see as sound, then you must conclude that the absurdity isn't really an absurdity, and that the reductio ad absurdum actually wasn't one, for that matter.

In our case, however, the absurdity was vitiating your premise. Here's my post: >>84682

>By your argument, he'd still be free if someone put a mine right where he wanted to step, but unfree the moment someone tackled him away so he wouldn't step on your mine. Your argument supports absurdities.

A better example would be if a sniper fired a bullet at him. Obviously, that would be a violation of his freedom, and a clear violation of the NAP. if you shoved the man out of the way within the second that it took for the bullet to reach him, you'd be violating his freedom. You would violate his freedom by protecting him from a far more serious violation of his freedom that would permanently take away his capacity for being free, as he'd be dead. (Assuming that he didn't want to be hit by a bullet. If he did, then I, too, would say you're very likely violating his freedom and not protecting it.)

I suppose that is not a clear contradiction, but it's nevertheless self-vitiating. It weakens your case.

>You are drawing a line using your own feelings, saying that you will decide on the situation.

No, I argued from my view of human nature. You constantly said it was arbitrary, but you didn't describe why. You saw my post, then said I was being arbitrary and emotional, but never delivered the "why". Later on, I tried to move the topic back to human nature, and then we started talking about convictions and whether there was anything constant about personalities. At this point, you could've declared that I was an idiot, but not that I was arbitary. You had a very strong hint that I was arguing from a specific conception of human nature and not from anything I made up on a whim.

This is why I found talking with you tedious, while we're at it. You couldn't so much as identify the core of my argument. You were too busy attacking my person to do so. It's boring to talk to someone who is so far off-track.

>Go spread your autistic screeching somewhere else.

Kek, if anything, this is my board. You're the one that has to leave. That, or put up with me.

>>84837

>Well, i agree that i kinda failed at that. Though my points do stand. I'll explain it below.

>Doubt you do, because if you decide to go nihilist, chances are you're complacent to begin with.

I doubt it will do any good, as to get to certain morality you need to already have a moral belief, to build the system on it. Also, i've got more important things to do than read articles on theories already disregarded.

>Not really. I found it tedious, and I only engaged because I had a point to make.

Well, you do it for the sense of moral superiority, i kinda enjoyed it, as long as we both get what we wanted, we're good.

>That's as silly as saying that atheism is not a belief, when it's clearly a belief in the absence of something.

Well, that'll go in parts.

>Atheist believe there is no God

First, my theist(i assume?) friend, you've got to define what a god is, as even most theists cannot agree on that. You cannot believe in what you cannot pretend or define. Second, an atheist CAN agree with you on the existence of an omnipotent being, or at least agree on the possibility of it, taken aside the all-powerful part. Atheists simply do not see a reason to worship a (possible?) being on the basis of it being stronger that themselves, especially when there are so many of different gods "discovered" by humans.

>nihilists believe there is no objective morality

Not really. In a sense, any morality that has emerged out of whatever sick mind an individual has is objective, as it is present in real world. It can even be scientifically explored. What nihilists do not agree with, is that yours, or any other morality system is capable of describing the world, and not its bearers emotional state on the subject. It, again really comes to the definition of morality. If you think that it is an inherent trait of the world, and not a developed evolutionary mechanism within humans to aid survival, you've got to point out where is it present.

>For comparison:

<You can know there is a car outside.

<You can know there is no car outside.

<You can not know if there is a car outside.

The first two sentences describe a state of knowledge, only the third describes a state of not having any knowledge.

Except, again, the concept of a car is clear, and can easily be proved and defined, while the concept of morality is not. You are trying to present anything as beliefs, which would really aid your theist position, but it is not the case. Atheism is better defined as a certain state, characterized by an absence of belief in the necessity of worshiping a creature whose existence is unprovable, or, shorter, a god. It can be because of not caring, or understanding the logical inconsistency of idea of god, nihilistic approach or even a belief in some deity that cannot be defined as god, really. It is a very old strawman, and it was not funny even then.

>If you talk about a realistic Ancapistan, not one directly modeled on anyones ideal of an anarchocapitalist society, then we cannot say either way how people would judge me. If the culture is supportive of suicide or neutral on it, I will be condemned. If it sees it as sinful or insane, I am more likely to be applauded.

Yeah, except this outcome is possible in one special community, while the non interventionist nature of ancap ensures that these will likely be extremely rare, if existent, as its capability to withhold competition is very low. On the other hand, if it is a general practice, then this society is too invasive and is a lot closer to what we today call "christian socialism".

>you have no reason to care, being a nihilist

<You're a nihilist, so my faulty argument is not real and never existed.

>Second, that then we leave the realm of sociology and talk about ethics again.

Not really, anarchocapitalism can be easily described without using ethics and other forms of emotional pressure, it has a clear definition, and if the system you present fits the definition of another system better, being closer to it, than it is, and it is still a subject of scientific discussion, as it can be proved and refuted on the present data.

> I am betraying the anarchocapitalist ideal.

You just aren't an ancap, no betrayal, whatever flag you put on, your propositions are incompatible with ancap ideas, as both of them were present here. No betrayal or some other word with a moral context is necessary.

>I never talked about having a monopoly.

You did wish to have protection from the consequences of your intervention, didn't you?

>>84839

>Semantics. Not unimportant semantics, because people attribute factuality to enterprises labeled "science" and deride everything else as inconsequential navel gazing.

I do not get what your argument is. Mine is that modern science has reached such heights because of its strict rules and definitions, and this also explains why modern psychology and sociology is so controversial.

>At no point did I imply that my position is correct because I hold it, or because I hold it more or less dearly.

<Your argument was "it is not proper paternalism" in the first place. Is this defined by you liking it, or it following your moral code?

<The latter.

Here you go, pal.

>Egocentric because I make general claims about human nature and ethical principles?

Egocentric because you view yourself as an absolute authority making decisions about the subjects. You did say that you did not care about proof of your diagnose, as your opinion is not the one to be backed by something other than "i remember he acted differently before".

>I will hardly be a better judge than them

This again starts to go into the dirty pit of ethics, but yeah, you are very similar in your position to modern judicial system.

>Money is often overriding their ethical principles, but not always.

Ethics is arbitrary, resources are not. See modern business and politics, and you'll understand. This also scales up with the size of the company, as more resources come in play, and less sentimentalism is tolerated. Money is more likely to be made abusing ethics, really.

>If people are disgusted by animal cruelty, then kicking kittens to death in front of your store is not a good way to attract customers.

True, but in ancap they would not be able to do anything more than that.

> I mean, bringing socialism up?

See above post and make a guess.

>>84840

>A reductio ad absurdum can sometimes be accepted.

Whether is it accepted or not, it is a valid argument, no matter if you agree with it or not. There is no "proper" way of using it, especially where it is defined by compliance with your moral standards.

>A better example would be if a sniper fired a bullet at him.

You have no right to do the duty of a PMC without consent, again. You cannot enter his property, steal his things or whatever a PMC does. It is not a police, and you seem to misunderstand it. You can let him hire yourself, or offer your cervices, but until he does hire you, his protection includes protection from you.

>No, I argued from my view of human nature.

Whatever you call it, it does not change what it is. You never described your view for me to refute, so it is arbitrary, as it is only defined by its relation to you.

>At this point, you could've declared that I was an idiot, but not that I was arbitary.

Not really, even if a personality would be stagnant , which it is not, you was arguing about the forceful coercion of someone to it, or, rather your view of it, to justify which you pulled that "view on human nature" out, but it does not rally matter, as this is not the case. You just want to force your view of human personalty on others, and this view is just trying to support this wish by a pseudo scientific claim.

>Kek, if anything, this is my board. You're the one that has to leave. That, or put up with me.

Yeah, my bad, sorry i didn't notice that the board wan named /paternalism/, i might have turned wrong somewhere.

>>84766

>No one will care about ethics when there will be money in game

nope