Scott Duncan
Larken Rose doesn't really like me or much of what I stand for. This, of course, means he's wrong. Not much to be done there.
What we do agree on, is that established rules should be both voluntary and morally right. It's that last part (morals) we disagree on.
People have a hard time grasping my political ideology because they don't actually know anything :/
When it comes to commerce, I am an Anarcho Capitalist. When it comes to knowledge, I am a Marxist Above all I am a humanist, and a scientist in equal portions.
It leads to the truth faster.
If it's TRUE, it doesn't matter who says it. Larken Rose doesn't like me, but I like him, very much. He stands for what he BELIEVES to be true. He harms NOBODY and does NOT advocate violence except in self-defense. He is very public with his views and will even change them when he sees sufficient evidence to warrant doing so.
He is ALWAYS asking EVERY "authority" this one question. He's done it for YEARS. He's doing it again here, and I want to encourage the asking of this question, because it is the program you have in your head, that avoids the answer, because there is a LOT of bullshit attached to it, and answering "no" destroys ANY "moral" ground you may have, is always running.
"If you believe that it is morally wrong for YOU to do a certain thing yourself, can you make it morally right for someone else to do the same thing"?
OBVIOUSLY the answer is NO. It cannot BE anything else, and the second you start making excuses for answering "yes", I am, by default, BETTER THAN YOU.
Larken Rose is RIGHT here. Nothing you say, think, feel, or believe, will change that.
Now ask a Government Worker that same question.
In writing and recording the script for "The Mirror," the main challenge is not just accurately expressing a concept or question, but carefully shutting off all the "escape routes" that the human brain uses to AVOID thinking about something unfamiliar or uncomfortable. And the human mind is very creative and resourceful when it comes to making up excuses for NOT considering something that causes cognitive dissonance. Consider a question as simple as this: "If you believe that it is morally wrong for YOU to do a certain thing yourself, can you make it morally right for someone else to do the same thing?"
If someone's mind is relaxed, clear, and being honest, the concept is simple and the answer self-evident. But if someone knows where the question is headed, and is scared of facing the logical conclusion at the other end, then the brain--often subconsciously--will start to do the weirdest gymnastics and evasions, such as:
1) Ignore the question and bring up some unrelated concern, such as: "But how would we care for the poor?"
2) Intentionally "misunderstand" the question (even if only subconsciously): "I can hire a plumber who can do my plumbing when I can't."
3) Fish for some excuse for avoiding the obvious answer: "Well a football team can delegate to the quarterback the right to call what play will be run when other people on the team have no such right."
4) Argue about semantics: "What do you mean by 'moral'?" (I always respond, "However YOU define and determine morality.")
5) Admit the obvious answer but then quickly try to change the subject: "Well no, but that's not how government works!"
Why is it so hard to just say, "No, if I don't have the right to do something, I obviously can't give someone else the right to do it"? Because... COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.
(P.S. If you need me to point out why any of those five responses are irrelevant and irrational, let me know.)
Read Comments
Scott Duncan
Scott Duncan
Scott Duncan