This says it all for me:
"Are we going into a discussion to see who's right and who's wrong, or are we trying to expand & increase the whole of human knowledge & insight? Are we cutting each other down or lifting everyone up?"
Our solidarity is their Achilles heel.
Why do you guys seem so averse to the idea that some things are wrong, and that wrong should not/cannot be lifted up?
I thought the debates were great discussions, and feel that they were dialectics as well, but a synthesis between oil and water just isn’t possible, really.
Even when things are wrong, you can learn from them, and it's very rare to find things that are completely wrong.
Edward de Bono has the idea of a po, an idea which is only intended as a stepping stone to get to a solution. Even an idea which is contrary to reality can be useful in this way.
Personally, I love ideas, and I do my best to gather more of them. You never know how an idea is going to be valuable until you fully understand it, explore it, and even attempt to apply it, or its children.
Have a good one
Definitely.
And I’ve learned that to compromise foundations always leads to a compromised foundation.
Does the non-aggression principle apply to verbal aggression? Isn't the very idea of debate adversarial?
Perhaps it's just semantics but it feels better when good people are working towards common ground to find the truth and to solve problems than focusing on differences.
No, the NAP does not apply to words, unless someone is saying things you do not want said on your property and you ask them to stop/leave. You really should look into learning more about the foundations of voluntaryism.
This drives me nuts! No one is trying to avoid solutions or “focus on differences.”
It reminds me of someone saying
“Sure slavery is bad, but why not try to find some common ground with the slavemasters. They’re not all bad.”
You guys need to become comfortable with black and white at times, in my opinion.
Words have meanings. An apple is not an orange, no matter how much “common ground” the two fruits have.
Lying, for instance, is violence and an infringement on our unalienable rights as it attacks our reality. I'm a simple kind of person. I do not feel the need to know every definition because I only go by right and wrong. Words may not violate NAP by your definition. In my opinion, they should or the NAP is incomplete.
Your slavery analogy.. Who is trying to find common ground with the slavemasters? ?
I think black and white to a fault, my friend. I was watching one of your videos and you were talking what a good thing it was that there was disagreement (debate?) going on. That I was uncomfortable with because when people disagree, someone's right and someone's wrong (black and white). That certainly isn't the goal though, to disagree. The goal is the truth and for everyone to see it.
Theft of one's property sure seems like it would violate the NAP but according to you, it doesn't if you get conned out of your money... no violence... that's the rule right.. .words can't be violent.
what kind of a non aggression principle is that? either your logic is off or your principle is or both
With all due respect, and in love, I do not care at all if you are uncomfortable that ideas are being discussed.
I'm not against that idea, and obviously as anarchists we all agree that some ideas are wrong (like authority, aggression, etc). I left a large comment on your reply above going in-depth on this part of the conversation.
Voluntaryism asserts that non-consensual authority is wrong, yes. And Adam Kokesh says that he can gain authority via a majority vote. Direct contradiction there, which so many are afraid to address, for some reason. Maybe because he is a well-known figure?
Thanks. I'll check out your reply above.