:100: I agree, but I'm a'feared few others do. When we figure out we can't breath, drink or eat money, we might come around. Too bad about all the biodiversity lost in the interim. :sad:

Tragedy of the commons is best seen in a public toilet :( — schopenhauer1

:100:

This sounds like the thread on what is wrong with Individualism. Nothing is wrong with a single molecule of water, but a rock will stop it.

As I said, you need to calm down, you are only aggravating yourself and making your condition worse. — Apollodorus

Thank you for your concern for me, Apollodorus. I will take this under advisement.

Looking at your chart, where do Libertarians come down on government limitations on personal responsibility?

No. — Apollodorus

The record speaks for itself and it's says you are a liar.

He said "sky daddy". "Sky daddy" is a well-known slang name for God: — Apollodorus

Here's the record. I will emphasis the relevant portions for you:

"TL;DR: upon close inspection of the biblical god, it quickly becomes apparent it was fashioned after Man's lesser-desirable traits, making the worship thereof foolish at best.

I was raised to be a christian, dragged to more than a few churches. Eventually, as a teenager, I got bored enough to actually read the bible, not selectively, but cover to cover. It was interesting, so much so that I was compelled to concurrently read multiple versions/iterations of the bible, so as to compare and contrast the language used, with the hope of gleaning a more accurate understanding.

Being full of teenage hormones and a strong natural sense of justice/fairness, I was more than taken aback by the plethora of blatant contradictions I found in the bible, not to mention the horrific behavior of the main and ancillary characters. I knew there were some in there (contradictions) , I'd encountered a few previously, but in my quest to better comprehend the literary work and thus the derivative ideologies, I had gone about it with as open and objective a mind as I could manage. Suffice it to say that the end result was my complete and total atheism, at least in regard to the Abrahamic/biblical "god".

It wasn't merely the contradictions, the imperfect nature of what should've been the perfect work of a perfect entity, that drove me so far from belief, but more so the childish and disgusting, outright repulsive personality of this god thing.

Do I hope that your terrible magic sky daddy doesn't exist? Obviously, but not actively or often, I so very rarely to never think about it. If you've actually read the bible, in its entirety, in as short a period of time as you can manage, you would be insane to wish for such an entity to have any basis in reality, unless of course, you were some sort of immoral masochistic sociopath."

You stand corrected.

You're thinking of the divine right of kings. — Tzeentch

No, I'm thinking of the social contract. It's an unfortunate fact of life. Only the King is somewhat exempt. But even he has obligations, and breach of the contract will at his peril.

But it doesn't seem convincing to argue that no-one really wants to do it, and everyone who claims to is either lying or has internalised misogyny or somesuch. It's too dogmatic to apply a category judgement like "all wage labor is slave labor" and be done with it. Personalities and aspirations differ, a market economy does get that part right. — Echarmion

Agreed. I'm sure there are some folks who enjoy their work and figure "Hey, if I can get paid too, great!" I know I've had work where I couldn't believe I was getting paid to do it. But, in general, most folks must be induced, hence the "market". I don't know why I even brought it up. I was just rambling.

That's a blatant lie. Seditious said exactly what I said he did: — Apollodorus

No, you said "God". He didn't say God. He qualified his comment to the Abrahamic god. That's why I asked if you were Christian. I assumed you had your panties all up in a knot because that's the only god you know. So I asked. You didn't answer.

If most "discussions" tend to end in ad hominems and that shouldn't be the case, especially on a philosophy forum, then it's probably because you lack analytic thinking skills and are over your head. At least I hope that's what it is. Otherwise, your misquoting people, or saying things they didn't say, is trolling.

My experience with trolls is, they must get the last word. So the floor will be yours.

I always try to focus not on who said what, but what was said. That seems more logical to me. However, once in a great while, I am forced to consider who said what, if only because they are a waste of time and incapable of reasoned argument, or the understanding of it. It’s such a drag because I’m one of those people who naturally doesn’t focus on names. So, when I feel compelled to remember someone, so I don’t waste my time any longer, it is, itself, time consuming. I’m still feeling my way around TPF, but so far:

Synthesis, check;
3017amen, check;
Apollodorus, check.

Hopefully the list doesn’t get too long.

Any coercion is also a transaction and can be framed as a mutual agreement. — Echarmion

Thinking out loud. I'm not married to any of these ramblings.

I've been thinking about prostitution lately. Leaving aside for now the issue of whether or not it should be legal, let's assume it is legal. I think that most people would rather not sell sexual access to their body for money. But they could be convinced to do it if the price were right. The same would be true for labor in general, would it not? Most people would not want to work for someone else for money. But they could be convinced to do it if the price were right. So there really isn't much daylight between prostitutes and any other laborer. Even those who own their own business "work for" their clients/customers/guests. Aren't we all whores?

Doesn't the payor always have an advantage, in that all they are trading is money, not themselves. They are all johns. We are all whores and johns, sometimes one, sometimes the other. I guess if you enjoy your work, then there would be no need to pay you to get the work done. Yet we can and will charge for the work.

Was there ever a time when we just did something for nothing?

As they used to say on SNL: "Discuss among yourselves."

Or not.

:100:

There is one obvious answer: Get all domestic/private animals off public land. Better yet, shoot them in place so they can go back into the soil from which they profited. Then re-wild with bison, etc.

In other words, don't let the commons be used for extractive private profit. Tell the free marketers to go pay fair market value to graze their range maggots on private land.

I saw that last post was two years ago, figured out how I got here, went back where I was, deleted this. I'm new. :sweat:

That's mine; I'm keeping that. — Banno

It was social media of some sort, and they don't allow me to cut and paste. I don't know how to screen shot, and I was too lazy to write it down. I wish I could give proper attribution. :sad:

I recently read a statement that went something to the effect: At the pizza party after work, one guy took three slices thinking it would run out. Another guy took one slice thinking the same thing.

I practiced public lands law out west for some time, and got involved in grazing issues and the Taylor Grazing Act. I also studied the tragedy of the commons. It made sense then and it makes sense now. It's not a capitalist myth, but a tragedy when capitalists feed at the public trough. However, some of the critiques, above, are indeed persuasive. I think it comes down to what kind of people are feeding at the public trough. Americans that I know lean toward taking three slices of pizza.

As one who thinks the trees should have standing, I think privatization is a non-starter developer's wet dream. "Condos all around Old Faithful! Yeah, that's the ticket!"

wrong thread, sorry.

You cited it from Wikipedia and in so doing you made it your narrative. What's the point in saying "he was born Jewish"? His father had already converted to Christianity before he was born. So, what? — Apollodorus

So what? So, if a person is born and raised a theist and then switches, it is more likely than not that the change was thinking, not unthinking. You say Marx was an unthinking atheist, but you've got exactly squat to show for it.

You have no idea what my religion is. You're making it all up. — Apollodorus

I didn't make up anything. I asked: "you are a Christian, aren't you?

And why are you defending Marx? You must be either some sort of neo-Marxist or something along those lines. — Apollodorus

Now you make my point about why you brought up Marx. It had nothing to do with him being an atheist who served to make your argument. It was so you could try to cast shade on my argument about atheism with your "commie bad" BS. You are so transparent and predictable.

And anyway, Seditious has already admitted that he is an atheist who hopes that God doesn't exist. So, that already answers the question. — Apollodorus

Seditious admitted no such thing. He said he doesn't "want your terrible magic sky daddy" to exist, and the end result of his extensive thought was his complete and total atheism, at least in regard to the Abrahamic/biblical "god". This was after expressing concerns about a biblical demonstration of blatant contradictions, horrific behavior, and the childish and disgusting, outright repulsive personality of this god thing. You'd have to be some sort of immoral masochistic sociopath to want such a "god".

So again, Apollodorus, you stand corrected. Only now you have started misstating what I and other's have said. You can disagree all day long, but when you start with those tactics, and the "commie bad" shit, you have lost your credibility. You are now beneath me and no longer warrant my time. Buh bye.

No logic there at all. You're constructing a narrative there from unrelated bits of information.

Young Germans at the time were often atheists because that was the new fashion in that period, not because they had analyzed religion and found it to be unscientific or whatever. — Apollodorus

Tim Wood tried to teach you about extrapolating from the specific to the general and back again. I mentioned it, but I think that, and logic in general, are over your head. You go from atheism to Marx, from Marx back to young Germans at the time, blah blah blah. You have absolutely know evidence that Marx came to his atheism in an unthinking manner. You made some vague reference to "historians and scholars" but that dog won't hunt. I gave you my anecdotal experience of atheists, and how not a one came to it in an unthinking manner. Most were Christians at one time. See Seditious, above. I pointed out how Marx was not raised in a vacuum, but was exposed to much theology. Most people (you might be an exception) think about their decisions. So foreign that may be to you, that you can't fathom it. After all, you are a Christian, aren't you? Did you come to a sky being through faith? I get that. But you certainly didn't get there through logical thought.

But let me tell you and any reader what is going on here: Apollodorus, you are like the Christian who says that anyone who doesn't act in accord with Christian values isn't really a Christian. You know, like the Vatican, circa 13th Century, et seq. Anyone who is an atheist is really an agnostic. Anyone who is an atheist is unthinkingly so. Anyone who doesn't see it your way is illogical or constructing a narrative from unrelated bits of information. But it's not true, Apollodorus. I didn't create a narrative. I just cited some Wiki crap about Marx's early years, showing you that he wasn't in some secular, unthinking vacuum.

You've been spanked. You keep digging. And digging. You are in over your head. Let it go. If you don't, I will have to add you to my short but growing list of people on here who have lost all credibility and who no longer warrant my attention.

The Samson Option — Manuel

Sounds like an evangelical Christian wet dream. The Jewish people who are capable of parsing the people from the Israeli state know that Jews are all over the place and not going anywhere. They are welcome here and in many places. There's no need to burn the damn house down. On the other hand, I can think of a planet that would probably be glad to see all humans go.

But they got into the state building affair a couple hundred years late, when it was more complicated to eradicate people willy-nilly and they couldn't conquer the whole Arab world. — Manuel

True. I can't help but think that while the Jews are looking at their own history, Palestinians are looking at history in general, and how colonialism worked in the past. and saying: "Not this time!" It starts with an inch and becomes a mile. As I used to opine on the wilderness movement and "compromise": We keep slicing the the pie until the last slice is thinner than the knife we would cut it with. Pretty soon compromise means giving some back.

It's the opinion of historians and scholars. — Apollodorus

Oh, okay. "Historians and scholars" say Marx arrived at atheism without thought. Gotcha. I would never pretend to question historians and scholars.

I never said "Marx was unthinking". I said "unthinking atheist", i.e. a person who was an atheist from the start, not as a result of thinking about it. — Apollodorus

You parse a hair too thin. He was born Jewish, the family changed to Christianity, he was baptized, and grew up in a secular environment of philosophy which, I'm pretty sure, did not make him an unthinking atheist. I'd say the burden would be upon you to show that he was. But you've got nothing.

That was precisely why I chose him as an example. — Apollodorus

Then you chose poorly. I think you chose Marx, as I said, because he is your go-to when trying to saddle atheists with all kinds of other baggage irrelevant to the merits of the discussion. It's a distraction when you are getting your ass handed to you in argument.

You are confusing yourself. Or maybe you're just a bit tired. — Apollodorus

And there's the loss. :smile:

:100:

Frankly, I think this was anticipated, but it wasn't of the greatest concern to those involved in the creation of the state. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes. Like the preeminent example of white privilege, letting former slave-owners back into real- and personal property ownership after the civil war. The combatants were tired, wanted to move on, and didn't really care about the slaves all that much anyway. "Here Jewish People, take this and leave us alone. Those indigs won't give you much trouble." :roll:

But there is no such contract between you or I or anyone else, and at any rate, uttering it doesn't justify any use of force over any individual. — NOS4A2

Actually, there is. And it exists whether you like it or not. It is an adhesion contract and you will obey or you will suffer the consequences. Full stop. See what cringing gets you. :razz:

He is free to walk away should he disagree, as I am I free of any obligation towards employing him. — NOS4A2

What if you have created an increase in the supply of labor by patronizing emerging communist and dictator markets, driving the price down and making any agreement between you and the employee one of unfair dealing? He is as free to walk away as you are to step away from the state and go it alone.

I'd just like to add, some folks think the idea of ownership itself is BS. You might control it, but the sovereign can take it via condemnation in the most gracious of methods. But even the state is transitory. You can't take land with you when you die.

[deleted misattributed quote]

IMO land, like all property, rightly belongs to whoever last had uncontested use of it. — Pfhorrest

I'm hard-pressed to think of any uncontested land. Maybe where one of the contestants has been completely exterminated? But so long as one sole survives, even if they capitulate, was that capitulation voluntary, or under duress, or solely due to lack of will to fight anymore, brought on by might?

Uncontested use establishes convention, and then whoever breaks with that convention is in the wrong. — Pfhorrest

That's quite a load to carry. What is "contest"? If there is any contest, even rhetorical, then convention can, by that estimate, go F itself. So-called "convention" is wrong in the eyes of the dispossessed. Wrong is subjective.

The law is full of stuff about estopple, laches, adverse possession, first-in-time = first-in-right, booty, statutes of limitation, etc. But what it all really boils down to is possession is 9/10ths of the law; or might-makes-right. From an objective, evolutionary perspective, that is moral. From our human perspective, not so much.

Rather than a bunch of finger pointing at another side, I think it is often best to look in the mirror. For instance, the U.S. entered into two different Treaties with the Lakota/Dakota. Treaties shall be the supreme law of the land, per our own Constitution. We breached those treaties. With no rational excuse. So, forget the Indians for a moment. I mean that. Forget them. Look only at us. We violated our laws. That has nothing to do with the Indians. It's all on us; what we did to ourselves. Why? Because the law doesn't mean shit when might doesn't want it to. And we all agree to look the other way. Israel learned from the best.

Pacta sunt servanda . . . . . . . rebus sic stantibus = BS.

I think Somalia had it clan based society far before the civil war that made it what it is now. — ssu

I'm sure you are right. They did. Again, it's that inclination natural and necessary to man.

And I'm beginning to see that you're getting angry for your own inability to convince anyone, perhaps not even yourself. — Apollodorus

I'm not angry at all. I've convinced lots of honest, thoughtful people.

I simply gave Marx as a well-known example of unthinking atheist. — Apollodorus

I don't believe you. I think you gave Marx because he's your boogey man and easy to paint. It's lazy. And to say he's "unthinking" demonstrates your dishonesty; either that or your ignorance. I'm no fan of Marx, but I'd never say he was unthinking. That would make me stupid.

Hitler and Christianity is a totally different story. — Apollodorus

An analogy, by definition, is not the thing itself. It is no argument to simply point that out. Rather, it is incumbent upon those who wish to defeat it to draw a distinction with a relevant difference. To do that, you would have to understand the purpose for which it was offered. Apparently it flew right over your dualistic mind.

And yes, most atheists are agnostics who refuse to admit that they don't know. — Apollodorus

Yeah, and most theists don't think or admit they don't know. I'd rather the honesty of those who aren't sure. And besides, this thread isn't about "most atheists" who you suspect (without evidence) are agnostics; it's about the atheists that aren't agonistic. See OP.

Pretty old and idiotic argument nurtured by leftists. — ssu

The reason it's not old or idiotic is because Somalia falls-four square under the definition of "failed state."

Yet a tribal society like Somalia with clans and clan structure with hierarchical system of patrilineal descent groups being so important has hardly anything common with individualism (or libertarianism/liberalism). — ssu

Wait, what? You mean even in failed states people tend toward clan and group? Who'd a thunk it? I don't think that is the flex you think it is.

No. The agnostic is an atheist who admits that he doesn't know. — Apollodorus

You just said:

I suspect most atheists just don't know. — Apollodorus

Doh!

I don't think Marx ever thought about it. Most likely he never believed. If you start from the unexamined premise that religion is "the opium of the people", then you don't think about it. It is like a religious belief that you accept on faith. — Apollodorus

I'm beginning to see where Tim Wood is coming from. If we are to tie the specific to the general, then you end up conflating the disparate. Please don't be so fundamentally stupid as to run to Marx when discussing atheism generally. That's like me running to Hitler when discussing Christianity generally.

In my experience, honest and thoughtful atheists tend to admit that, ultimately, they don't know. — Apollodorus

In my experience, most theists are not honest or thoughtful.

I suspect most atheists just don't know. — Apollodorus

I thought that was an agnostic?

They certainly can't prove that there is no God . . — Apollodorus

They are the same as theist in that regard, for they can't prove there is a god.

I doubt many of them have even tried. — Apollodorus

Do you have any evidence to support your doubt? Most atheists I know tried damn hard but logic and reason just wouldn't let them do it. Hell, many of them were raised deep in it, and were believers.

Most people are really lazy when it comes to these matters. — Apollodorus

Indeed. Thinking can be hard. It's a lot easier to let go and let god.

Cletus is exercising his right to self-determination, making widgets. A necessary by-product is hazardous waste he doesn’t want. He tosses it in the crick that runs through his place. Sally, down-stream, pulls a ladle out, drinks it and goes tits-up. Her pappy gets his cordless hole punch, goes up stream and runs and round through Cletus’ brain pan. We all good? Is that how it works?

Or can we have big gubmn’t regulate Cletus, meddle in his affairs, interfere with his right to self-determination, make him get a permit, and regulate his generation and disposal of hazardous waste? But then, of course, we’d have to sit around and listen to him whine like a little bitch about the evils of gubmn’t as he’s shopping at Healthy Sally’s for dangerous chemicals that came in on the gubmn’t highway that morning.

I get the idea of the Bill of Rights, Natural Law, defending against the tyranny of the majority, and all that. I'm a strong proponent. But there is a sovereign for a reason, a social contract of adhesion. Life is not fair, there is no justice, and there is always someone bigger and stronger. I'd rather that someone be the state than some individualist asshole who came into his capital by being first, being bigger than me, being more rapacious than me, having gained enough to purchase the state as his tool to lord over me.

The state is indeed my big brother and he will kick your ass if you mess with me. If he has to hold me down and give me a noogie once in a while, so be it. I wouldn't need his help if all the individualists would leave me the hell alone.

so long as he doesn't violate the freedoms of others. — NOS4A2

Good luck with that. Merely being here takes up perfectly good space that could better be utilized by nothing. Yet we champion the right to procreation, the swinging of a fist before the nose, and at the nose.

Sure. And let's not forget all those atheist saints like Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and their millions of followers. — Apollodorus

You're just proving my point. Atheists are more likely to wish they were wrong than to hope they are right.

Maybe some such disbelievers can be found? An odd kind of wishful thinking?
Doesn't seem all that likely, though, or at least uncommon. — jorndoe

:100: Agreed.

While an atheist may hope he's not wrong out of fear of finding a god on the other side, he doesn't really then go the extra step of hoping god doesn't exist just because he doesn't want a god for some other fearful reason (the OP, as I understood it). To not want god for fear of what might happen if you are wrong, is much different than not wanting god simply because you don't want god. What, in the latter case, would you possibly be afraid of?

Most atheists I know wish there was a god, thinking he'd come down here and spank the shit out of all his dumb-ass followers who violate his tenants on a daily basis.

How does the state of realized individualist freedom look in practice? — Echarmion

Somalia.

One writer said I have felt helpful for in connection with thinking about the concern for family in relation to the universal is Edward O Wilson, a sociolobiologist. He introduced the idea of an expanding circle. — Jack Cummins

I first heard that from Justice Scalia (he probably stole if from Wilson). Anyway, as I have oft opined, there is frequently the case where that which is (ostensibly) further out actually presents less of a threat and more of a benefit than that which is (ostensibly) closer in. An element of biodiversity a thousand miles away from me, like a snail darter, for example, is probably better for me and mine, and poses no threat, than is, say, a human being that wants to drain the snail darter's water and build a McMansion there.

This whole idea that we must support a human because, well, because he's human, is BS. For all the flowery, touchy-feely language that we surround this issue with, let me cut to the chase and tell you what the quiet part is: "I won't object to the shit you're doing as long as you look the other way while I do it too."

I'm not interested in discussing the trans politics here. — Edy

Fail.