Liberty Is Not Given

Metaphysics and Strong Atheism

2008-08-29T14:58:00.000-07:00

-----

This is a response to jd311989's video titled “Top 7 Fallacies of the Delusional Dawkins.” Dechha1981 has already eviscerated this particular video to such a brutal extent that jd311 adopted the VenomFangX doctrine of disallowing the response. As such, I hold out little hope for this video of mine, but I'm not going to address jd311's whole presentation anyway. After Dechha's two-part refutation, there is no need. I want to focus on one thing, and that's this.

[Audio of metaphysics rant — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SU9LiVBTEcg]

That is a complete lie. But even if it is not a complete lie, it demonstrates nothing, since this argument is presented in a manner suggesting that the alternative to atheism (theism) can account for the “rationale it claims to use.” Magic does not count, unless you care to back up and prove it first. If you're taking a presuppositionalist approach, then you have made a common presuppositionalist error. Namely, evidence and results do matter, if a world-view is to have any applicability to the real world. Arbitrarily declaring magic to have the same relevance to existence as what we can observe and test is simply a way of saying you have no defensible basis for what you claim is true, so the best you can do is pretend that all outlooks are equal.

That might even be the case if we didn't have this pesky little thing called reality, against which we can test our presuppositions and hypotheses. And if you're of the position that reality does not exist, or that humans cannot ascertain or at least interact with reality, then there is no point in arguing.

If you are not taking a deliberate presuppositionalist stance here, I must question which ass you pulled your assertions from.

Anyway, disregarding the sheer stupidity of labeling Richard Dawkins a “strong atheist,” let's define strong atheism and metaphysics.

Simply put, strong or explicit or positive atheism is the position that a god or gods do not or cannot exist, as contrasted with weak atheism or the general definition of atheism itself, which is a simple lack of belief in a god or gods.

Metaphysics, according to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, is “the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology.” The two parts of the word — “meta” and “physics” — collectively denote “beyond physics” or “beyond physical.” In a philosophical context, however, metaphysics is merely the foundational principle or principles on which epistemology is based.

For some bizarre reason that you never bother to elaborate on, jd311, as is evident in the prior sound clip, you declare that strong atheism constitutes an inherent denial of metaphysics. I contend, however, that the origins of the term “metaphysics” predating our scientific understanding of the human brain in no way excludes so-called strong atheists from employing metaphysics.

Like so many theists, your mode of thought is stuck in the Bronze Age. You seem outright oblivious to the fact that metaphysical primacy — be it consciousness or existence — is the starting point for any comprehensive philosophy. In fact, it is vital, having implications, direct or indirect, for every single principle derived therefrom. This is why a theistic world-view fails utterly, breaking down before it can even get past the metaphysical stage, and it's ironic you would accuse atheism (or “strong” atheism) of this. It's also ironic that you accuse atheism of so-called plagiarism, when the primacy of consciousness (theism's foundational metaphysic) is nothing but a series of stolen concepts. For example, consciousness itself, but that's beyond the scope of this video.

How strong atheism necessarily equates to a de facto denial of the entire branch of philosophy known as metaphysics remains shrouded in mystery. You have made no coherent case to this effect.

Bastardizing Rothbard

2008-06-24T11:03:00.000-07:00

[Originally posted at LessGovernment.com]

I recently received a private message through YouTube from a user called Individualism101, who purports to be an “Anarcho-capitalist and Agorist working my ass off to save money, to raise capital, to start ventures.” The message contained the bizarre claim that Murray Rothbard’s property ethic (the “homesteading principle”) rests upon the long-disproved labor theory of value. This is a gross misrepresentation of Rothbard’s position, because he never claimed that labor added any intrinsic value to anything (he subscribed to the Austrian school, after all), but labor is rather a mere means of appropriation. Value is always subjective.

I informed Individualism101 of this and rather politely told him I would think about making a video on the matter if I came to any other startling revelations about his idea. That was essentially the end of civil discourse, and I’ll let portions of the “discussion” speak for themselves from here on (Individualism101 in red, me in green).

It seems to me that the concept of transforming the land is simply arbitrary, and can be heavily abused. If I wanted to own the entire moon I could simply let loose some robots up there to put a flashing beacon every 100 meters, thus transforming the entire moon and appropriating it to myself. I don’t think anyone would really consider this to be a valid title of property. By the same argument I could release a bacteria into the atmosphere of mars thus transforming it; this would not constitute valid property title either.

Again, I’m not sure you are accurately representing Rothbard. If you don’t think robots and bacteria create valid property titles, that’s fine — it’s a dubious prospect at best. But I don’t recall any argument leveled by Rothbard or any other Austrian or Chicago school — or ANY Lockean-friendly school — economist that even hints at such. Rothbard would probably argue that releasing bacteria in one region and letting nature take its course doesn’t constitute labor on your part. On the same token, nor does the “currently in use” theory of mutualism purport that someone should be able to seize your farm simply because the crops fail one season. That is also a gross misrepresentation of the position. If I’m in error, please point me to some sources supporting your claims, but as it stands I have no idea from whence you’ve derived these conclusions.

Rather than acknowledging that his position has no relation to Rothbardian or mutualist property theory, he then repeats his argument:

If I am an entrepreneur who hires labour to bulldoze a site and erect a factory it is not my labour, but I am still said to be the owner, because it was my capital which paid the workers and hired the capital equipment.

>

If you replace workers with robots, does the story change? If you replace robots with biological robots, such as genetically engineered bacteria, does the story change?

>

If I invest the capital to develop a bacteria to terraform mars, and succeed, am I now in ownership of the atmosphere of mars?

>

Surely you concede that the criteria of basic transformation is too open ended to constitute a valid principle of first ownership — or is it? And from the mutualist standpoint a criteria of current use is again too open ended.

Neither system is too “open ended” if you actually understand what they entail and do not entail. Rothbard specifically argued against atmosphere ownership, which you apparently are not even aware of. As for dispatching your biological or mechanical minions, have at it, but don’t expect anyone to recognize your ownership simply because you’ve painted every other tree or released a microbe into the air. What you describe Rothbard would label feudalism (and Kevin Carson more accurately labels “bastard feudalism), which he (Rothbard) also opposed vociferously.

>

Carson outlines the modern Mutualist position in “Mutualist Political Economy,” and once again I have never gleaned anything even approaching what you have apparently concluded from his writings. Have you read any of his material at all, for that matter?

>

Directly related, there is quite a discussion in a Stephan Kinsella blog post at mises.org on this very issue — “absentee landlordship” specifically in Carson’s context — and it includes some very interesting points and counter-points. If you’re looking to put mutualist property theory through the ringer, that’s the place to start rather than making up bizarre ideas that don’t even reflect what the theory actually is, like “someone can steal my farm if the crops fail.” That’s erecting a straw-man and attacking it with a machine-gun, and I’m, frankly, bewildered that you even think you’re attacking valid ideas here. To make a comparison, what you’ve done is like someone analyzing the libertarian opposition to the welfare state by attacking libertarians for wanting to starve poor children. It simply doesn’t make sense.

Again, unable to make a salient point, he repeats his argument (noticing a pattern yet?):

I’m not deliberately misrepresenting Rothbard or Carson (although, as you point out, I have not read the latter). I am aware Rothbard argued against atmosphere ownership but I am yet to see any principle by which original ownership can be strictly defined, as to leave no doubt in the minds of onlookers.

>

Further, I was not attempting to construct a strawman with respect to mutualist property title; I was just arguing that it would lead to injustice if, again, no strict definition of current ownership were established. Perhaps there exists such a strict definition, if so I am ignorant of it. Please reply with a link to it if you know of one.

>

As Rothbard himself points out, feudalism would essentially be equivalent to a libertarian society if the lords respected the negative liberty of their renters and if the land was homesteaded through valid original ownership by the lords. And this is really what confuses and irritates me.

>

Because we now have technology to amplify the power we (as individuals) wield, a criteria based on homesteading, or first transformation, or first use, becomes little harder to satisfy than planting a flag and just declaring the land yours…

If you can’t see this, then what is your suggestion? If you think labor transformation or own-through-use concepts are arbitrary, open-ended or whatever, what would you consider NOT open-ended and arbitrary? Something more along the lines of Max Stirner?

>

- “Might is a fine thing, and useful for many purposes; for ‘one goes further with a handful of might than with a bagful of right’”

>

- “Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property.”

>

- “What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing.”

>

That constitutes a clearly delineated account of property yet in my estimation is no more or less arbitrary than declaring property a result of labor or use. It’s also incredibly open-ended, because someone can just, to borrow your example, conquer an entire planet. Seriously, I don’t know what you’re looking for. Everything, in the end, is arbitrary, even if you write detailed laws and enforce them universally and fairly. Even the libertarian non-aggression axiom is ARBITRARY. I consider it ESSENTIAL, mind you, in order for any flavor of my political philosophy to be viable, but it is no less arbitrary.

Cue the scene where I am accused of being negative, defensive, rude, etc….

“Wow you give me a pretty negative vibe, as though I am an enemy of liberty or something”

“…the original transformation criteria of original ownership becomes no harder to satisfy than parking your space-yaught in orbit and claiming mars for your own.”

And as I have explained to you repeatedly, this does not satisfy any criteria of original ownership that I’m familiar with. If I need to say it in another language, let me know and I’ll try to accommodate.

“…but the burden of proof isn’t on me.”

I would say that it is, because you have yet to demonstrate that you’re even accurately representing the ideas you’re attempting to attack.

“There is no need to be rude.”

Don’t confuse rude with honest. But if you’re really getting a “negative vibe,” maybe you should just go talk to someone who agrees with you.

Regrettably, I cannot quote directly from his last message, because it has mysteriously vanished from my inbox. I don’t know if I deleted it accidentally or if YouTube is behaving oddly again, as it often does. At any rate, I’ll summarize his final points from memory.

I am intellectually dishonest for calling him wrong without explaining why he is wrong.
I am an ass.
He hopes I will never be a leader within the libertarian movement.
I can go fuck myself.

I attempted to respond to him one last time, but apparently he has blocked me from communicating with him (which is why his crap is now posted here). Had I been addressing him with unmitigated belligerence, I suppose that’s a fair reaction, but in light of his ideas having no merit whatsoever, he strikes me as petty, childish, and not fundamentally different from a religious zealot who simply cannot face being wrong. In fact, in the reply I typed before realizing I was blocked, I told him I could not tell any difference between his behavior and that of a creationist who insists I believe the “universe came from nothing” and “humans evolved from monkeys,” no matter what I tell him to the contrary. It’s a wonder my patience lasted as long as it did.

Anyway, addressing his final bullets:

I did explain why he was wrong. His initial premise was incorrect, because Rothbard’s property theory relies on labor as a means of appropriation, not a means of conferring value, as value is subjective. Also, in terms of claiming moons and planets, I suggested that would fall under what Rothbard terms “feudalism,” which he fervently opposed. Individualism101 even provided a possible answer to himself, whereby even if we accept the flawed interpretation of homesteading, a “landlord” can either not violate libertarian principles when dealing with tenants or be willing to sell his land freehold to new residents. At any rate, the “whys” regarding my opposition to Individualism101’s claims were clearly expressed, whether he would acknowledge them or not.
I never claimed I wasn’t an ass, though I think my discourse in this matter was largely civil until it reached “creation vs. evolution” status.
Don’t worry, as I have no aspirations to lead anyone. I’m asocial and hate crowds. That said, I hope anyone who does fancy himself a leader has a much clearer understanding of libertarian principles than one Individualism101.
He concluded his message by telling me to go fuck myself. Need I say more?

I think we’re done here.

REVIEW: Stefan Molyneux's "On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion"

2008-03-01T21:36:00.000-08:00

Since my website is currently experiencing database issues, I've decided to post this review here for the time being.

-----

It seems self-evident that a free society requires free individuals. Likewise, oppressed individuals tend to produce oppressed societies. From Stefan Molyneux's perspective, the core of this problem is a person's willingness, consciously or otherwise, to cling to destructive fantasies regarding his or her personal relationships. As such, the purpose of On Truth is a frank exploration of this issue.

I will also be frank in this review and express up-front that the manner of personal conflict and reflection referenced in the book is not something I am familiar with. I've been fortunate enough to have a very stable family and perhaps the best parents an individual could ever hope for. My friends are few and far between, but they are all people whom I would trust with just about anything, without reservation.

With that being the case, I almost felt like an outsider while reading On Truth. Mind you, this has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of anything posited by Molyneux, but I could not personally identify with the philosophical crises being addressed. In this sense, perhaps one might consider me a neutral observer, and maybe that's a good thing. Or maybe my lack of relation to the issues disqualifies me as a valid critic. Nonetheless, I'm seldom without an opinion.

As I've come to expect from Stefan Molyneux, the writing in On Truth is top-notch. The text is clean, logical, easy-to-follow and simply could not have been constructed in a more organized, concise fashion. Indeed, the work is so brief and to-the-point that it reads more like a long essay, rather than a book.

The early portions of the exploration focus on parents and quickly extrapolate to the family as a whole. From start to finish, the principal and crucial concepts that Molyneux attempts to convey are truth and integrity (which he defines as “consistency with reality”).

As the title might suggest, On Truth pays much attention to identifying and eliminating hypocrisy and contradiction within relationships. One notable section is titled “Detonating Mythology” and is followed by an in-depth look at the idea of love, what it means to love (as a verb) rather than just speak of the idea and how love is so often used as a mere mechanism by which one party imposes artificial obligations upon another. This all gives way to larger applications, such as religion and society as a whole

Ultimately, through illustration and what might seem like pure common sense upon consideration, Molyneux presents a relatively sound case for the existence of what he terms “the tyranny of illusion.” At the same time, he leaves little room for excuses, no rational justification for continuing to perpetuate illusion and fantasy once the prevalence of such things has been established

Should John or Jane Q. Public read this book? Probably. The oppressive condition of society alone suggests that Molyneux's thesis is at least close to being correct (whether one agrees with his larger philosophy or not — i.e. Universally Preferable Behaviour, anarchism, etc., which are related but separate issues). In essence, a reader will have three possible choices after delving into On Truth: she can choose to dismiss the ideas entirely, acknowledge the validity of the ideas but ignore them, or admit that there is something in the ideas worth exploring further.And I say “exploring further” because On Truth in and of itself does not necessarily reach any sweeping conclusions. Whether that was intended, I cannot say. Given the brevity of the work, I suspect the open-ended nature was deliberate. From my perspective, it is meant to encourage the reader to realize that philosophy goes beyond reading a book and knowing things. Philosophy is about finding what is true, in turn allowing one to live a life that is based on integrity, which will in turn result in happiness.

In fact, Molyneux himself seems to state as much on the final page:

“This book is not a call to meditation, but to action.”

Anyone who wants a direct, honest examination of what it means to find integrity in his or her own life will, in all likelihood, benefit greatly from On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion. Even if you have trouble relating to the conflicts presented (as I do), you will have still learned something and will know what to avoid in the future, lest you at some point come to relate to the described conflicts all too well!

Special thanks goes to Mr. Molyneux for generously providing a copy of On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion for review.

Stefan Molyneux's books, Podcasts, articles and message board are all available on his website, Freedomain Radio (http://www.freedomainradio.com).

Conversation With a Christian

2008-02-29T20:30:00.000-08:00

Recently, I saw this guy named "PheonixRise173" (yes, he misspelled his own user name) posting ridiculous messages on YouTube. That's nothing out of the ordinary, but this dude really seemed to think he was God's little warrior and had all the answers.

Curious, I ventured over to his channel and saw that he had a couple of videos. I took a look at one titled "Atheism is too Simple," in which he foolishly conflates atheism and nihilism and simply refuses to be corrected. Also, he believes that humans creating purpose for themselves is undeniable evidence that God exists. What leads him to this absurd conclusion is anyone's guess, so I'm not going to spectulate.

Anyway, we started arguing (well I started arguing, and he kept being a parrot) in the comment section of his video. Later, I spotted a moronic comment that he left on his main channel page, in which he claimed every single culture in history has a flood story in which a guy saves himself on a ship. It is true that most ancient cultures have flood myths, inspired by a variety of ancient disasters, but few of them even resemble the Noah story. I pointed this out to him.

So the snowball rolled until, several posts later, he had worked himself into a corner and had nowhere to go. So what did he do? Naturally, he deleted the entire conversation, sent me a snide private message calling me a troll and a "mischief maker," and blocked me from responding again.

Little does the bastard know that I suspected he was going to try something like that. My clue was that he deleted one of my earlier comments simply because it refuted his claim about the global flood. Consequently, his attempt to cover his own ass prompted me to save the entire exchange. Now the conversation in question will be archived for the cyber-masses indefinitely, in all its unedited glory, with his words in red and mine in blue.

Nice job, PheonixRise173! Reminisce below, coward.

-----

PheonixRise173
I don't have to prove Noah's Ark, CNN did that for me. Check it out, you'll find something VERY interesting.

Note: Every ancient civilization tells of a flood and a man that build a large ship so that he was spared. The Welsh myths, Norse myths, Aztec, Mayan, and even Hawaian myths tell of this.

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"Note: Every ancient civilization tells of a flood and a man that build a large ship so that he was spared. The Welsh myths, Norse myths, Aztec, Mayan, and even Hawaian myths tell of this."

False. Most ancient cultures have a flood myth, but they do not all involve a boat/ship/ark or even necessarily resemble the Abrahamic myth, so appealing to this actually harms your case. In fact, there is a Pueblo flood story that involves the ritualistic sacrifice of two young children in order to save the land.

Hmm ... maybe that WAS inspired by the Christian deity after all!

PheonixRise173
Ever think about the fact that the Flood Story could have gotten skewed through out these people's history? Of course not, everything but Christianity and Judaism is right, so anything that opposes that view is okay and good.

Repent my friend. You are being led blindly by one who knows his time is short.

LibertyIsNotGiven
[deleted]

LibertyIsNotGiven
You deleted my response. I could have punched holes in the Noah story itself, rather than just citing localized historical floods that might have inspired it. Oh, well. I see what you're all about now, and whatever that is obviously does not include intellectual honesty.

jesusfreak1292 (coming to the defense of his fellow cultist)
ok the flood has been writen down in most of the ancient books of old. This means that he bible is one of the mostnGeographically proven books of all time, infact even some Atheist scientists have proof of aworld flood. This is known by fossils, it shows that many populations of fish on earth are in different places of the world. Any questions?

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"the flood has been writen down in most...."

Not THE flood ---- MANY floods, each inspiring a series of legends and myths.

**"This means that he bible is one of the mostnGeographically proven books of all time,"

Because it contains a flood myth? No. That's actually more reason to regard it as just another myth collection.

**"infact even some Atheist scientists have proof of aworld flood."

There is no accepted geologic evidence that points to anything of the sort.

talkorigins[dot]org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark[d ot]html
home[dot]entouch[dot]net/dmd/gflood[dot] htm

**"This is known by fossils ... Any questions?"

Yeah, what do you think this demonstrates? See #3 in the entouch link above and #7 in the TalkOrigins link.

Also see the Geology section here:

talkorigins[dot]org/indexcc/list[dot]htm l

Occam's razor, folks.

PheonixRise173
I cannot help those who do not wish to be helped. Tell me something, if there is no God, therefore no absolute truth, why are you trying to convince me that there is no God?

We've plenty of evidence that there was a flood that came and a man that built a ship and was spared from the flood. We've actually found that resting place of the Ark and the satellite photos to prove it. On the mountain of Ararat, we find the resting place of Noah's Ark. How could a ship be on top of a mountain? The only plausible answer is if there was a flood.

I have more than a dogmatic religion. I have a philosohpy and a way of life that makes logical sense. Not only that, but it is an improvement on humanity as a whole. If someone followed the teachings of Jesus to a "T" then the world would view him as a man of virtue. But remember, one of the teachings of Jesus is to love God. So, do you want to follow the man who is the most moral person to ever walk the Earth, or remain in the darkness that has enveloped you?

"You deleted my response. I could have punched holes in the Noah story itself, rather than just citing localized historical floods that might have inspired it. Oh, well. I see what you're all about now, and whatever that is obviously does not include intellectual honesty."

Why don't you go and play with your little toys and be a good Athiest and just let the world exist because (in your view) there is no point to life. There is no absolute truth... but how curious that you claim to know absolute truth when you do not believe in it...

I believe in absolute truth, but I don't claim to possess it. There is only one such being that has the capacity for absolute truth and that being, by default, has to be God.

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"...remain in the darkness that has enveloped you?"

I'm a ray of sunshine, dude! The violent text you call the word of god is not something I care to model my life after, and knowing that some people do is rather disturbing.

**"...how curious that you claim to know absolute truth when you do not believe in it..."

You have a penchant for straw-men. When did I 1) claim to know it and 2) claim to not believe in it? What degree of truth humans can or will access is debatable, but reality exists independent of my perception (and yours).

PheonixRise173
But you see, in order to be able to argue in the human sense (use reasoning instead of fight like animals) two things have to happen. One, we have to use reasoning; and two, we have to come to an agreement that reality is absolute... that it is not debatable, and whoever's position is closer to actual reality, then they have got it right.

If you are comparing two paintings of New York City, you'd think that one of the paintings looks more like New York City than the other... but something has to be done first, New York City has to exist in order for you to say "this painting looks more like New York City." So it is with our different positions. You think your position is closer to that of the absolute truth of reality than my position.

After all, the defination of Truth is "That which coincides with the original." In the this case, the original is reality. If reality is absolute, something absolute must have made it.

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"But you see, in order to be able to argue in the human sense (use reasoning instead of fight like animals) two things have to happen. One, we have to use reasoning; and two, we have to come to an agreement that reality is absolute... that it is not debatable, and whoever's position is closer to actual reality, then they have got it right."

Once again, I have made no claim that reality ISN'T absolute, nor have I implied this. You're simply assuming that "absolutes" run counter to what I believe, and you're proceeding on those grounds. That is a called a straw-man. You're having an absurdly common Christian misunderstanding by which you conflate atheism and nihilism.

**"If reality is absolute, something absolute must have made it."

Completely non sequitur. Reality simply is, and this provides no rational means by which to fill in variables *according to your faith* and label them "must have." The "something absolute" variable is only a "must have" for you, because you want to believe in an invisible deity that created everything. It's not a "must have" at all for someone just perceiving reality without supernatural presuppositions.

PheonixRise173
Let me ask you a question. Why ought I to care about your argument? If what you say is true, then you should not infringe upon my view of reality. I'm merely stating my opinion of things. Who are you to say that I'm wrong. Again, I'm only stating my view of things, my perception.

If you say my perception is wrong, you are claiming that your way of viewing things is right and that it is the only way to view things. You are defeating yourself.

If you say that my perception is just one that is right for me and for me alone, then you have no right telling me that my perception is wrong. Either way, you're defeating yourself.

LibertyIsNotGiven
**"Why ought I to care about your argument?"

I never said you should. I've already explained that I merely find your shameless irrationality amusing.

**"Again, I'm only stating my view of things, my perception."

I would be no more or less amused if you based your world-view on Beowulf or The Lord of the Rings, just to put things in perspective.

**"You are defeating yourself."

Defeating myself by claiming your position has no grounding in logic or reality, and offering evidence to this effect (which you deleted)? Sorry, but I don't think there's a connection there. I don't have to be right for you to be wrong. If every tenet of science is disproved tomorrow, there is still no evidence that your deity exists.

**"If you say that my perception is just one that is right for me and for me alone...."

But I never said that, nor did I imply that, nor do I even think that.

-----

After deleting the entire conversation you see above, deleting all of the comments I left on his "Atheism is too Simple" video and blocking me from his channel, PheonixRise173 sent me the following private message:

-----

From: PheonixRise173
Sorry, but with your with your last few comments you've proven yourself to be a troll and a mischief maker. I will now delete your comments and block you.

Good day sir, may you one day see the light of God.

-----

I think that about covers it.

Bastards of the Anarchy Apocalypse

2008-02-15T02:47:00.000-08:00

So I've had this account awhile for commenting purposes, but I really haven't found any motivation to write anything here until now. I already have a website, after all.

Alas, purpose for this heretofore empty page has been discovered. From this day forward, I will respond here in writing to YouTube videos which I would like to address but simply cannot (or do not care to) devote the time to make an actual video of my own. I make notes for almost all videos anyway, so it's much faster to just write here than make a page of notes and record and upload a 20 to 80-megabyte video file.

This honorary first blog entry goes to inmendham. See his recent attack video ("It should be universally rational to seek fairness") below:

In the description, inmendham describes YouTube users XOmniverse, Luke12000 and myself as "3 bastards of the Anarchy Apocalypse." As is the case with most of inmendham's videos, he levels a fair smattering of insults, false attributions and straw-men, but he delivers almost nothing that resembles reasonable argumentation.

I'm not going to address his entire rant here, but I will address the comments he hurled in my direction.

After introducing me as a "crazy guy," inmendham claims that I postulate the U.S. Constitution was nullified upon the death of the last signer. While I did make mention of such a fact, I also made it clear that the argument was first offered by Lysander Spooner. I even provided links in the description of my video to Spooner's No Treason papers. Apparently, inmendham missed this and remains altogether ignorant of Mr. Spooner's works (a strange display of ignorance for someone who makes more videos "criticizing" anarchism than anarchists make discussing it).

Inmendham then expresses surprise at the notion that formal documents are given legitimacy by signature. His dismay notwithstanding, this is historically true of any pacta sunt servanda system resembling or based on common law. The two phases of note are "offer" and "acceptance." In the case of the U.S. Constitution, acceptance ("consent of the governed") ceased when the signatories died. It could not possibly have been otherwise without an appeal to some supernatural passing on of consent. As it stands, I never signed the Constitution, and I'm willing to bet that inmendham didn't, either.

Surely a reasonable person would never agree to me printing out some absurd "law," signing it and then declaring that everyone in a geographic area is subject to it. Unfortunately, many of these same individuals (such as inmendham) will excuse the founders of the United States (and legislators as a whole) from this simple line of reasoning.

Patrick Henry "smelt a rat in Philadelphia." Is there any wonder why?

Inmendham then says that I ignore the fact that the U.S. Constitution created a "legal body that, in turn, endorsed [the] Constitution." Ignoring the circular statist logic, what this means is that a particular group of individuals convened, adopted a set of rules, then used those rules to declare themselves sovereign over a geographic area and everyone within it. Whether one considers this a legitimate form of authority or not, it is irrelevant to the question of whether the Constitution was valid after the signatories passed away.

To this end, Spooner wrote:

"The necessity for the consent of "the people" is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of "the people of the United States" would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, "We, the people," is, that the instrument offered membership to all "the people of the United States;" leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure.

The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one that should say: We, the people of the town of A-----, agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children.

Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of "the people of the town of A-----," should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such."

Inmendham then says my "logic is so stupid" because any bill ever signed by a president is then nullified upon the signer's death -- a valiant attempt at reductio ad absurdum, but a failure in the end. He completely misses the actual point: that I have authorized no president to sign bills on my behalf.

Next, inmendham challenges my position that, even if the Constitution was valid, the southern states had seceded and were a foreign a nation, thus no longer subject to the laws of the United States. He apparently believes the Union had a mysterious "right" to prevent treason or insurrection beyond its borders, oblivious to the following facts: 1) secession is a diplomatic maneuver that was not constitutionally prohibited in the 19th Century, nor is it prohibited today, and 2) one country cannot commit treason or insurrection against another.

He claims that the southern states had "contracted" to be part of the United States, thereby justifying the war, but in doing so he unwittingly makes a mockery of "consent of the governed." Further, if the southern states had "contracted" to be part of the Union, then this requires the consent and signature of every single individual who lived in the southern U.S. at the time. I doubt such evidence will be unveiled any time soon.

In a fleeting moment of hilarity, inmendham expresses disdain at the notion of declaring independence. Is he aware of how the United States came into being in the first place?

Inmendham then opines that avoiding the war would have been great, but slavery had to be stopped. Again, he ignores the links provided in the sidebar of the video he is attacking, namely the book by Thomas DiLorenzo: The Real Lincoln - A New Look At Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda and an Unnecessary War. DiLorenzo explains how most civilized societies in the world abolished slavery without bloodshed, and the movement to do so in the U.S. had reached the point of no return by the time the war started.

Further, consider the words of Lincoln himself:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." --- (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois" (September 18, 1858), pp. 145-146.)

Also:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." --- (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley")

Certainly not the words of a man concerned with the ethical implications of slavery.

Inmendham then asserts, "A lot of people were willing to die to make us a civilized country." I'm not sure what relevance this has to anything, since people have always been willing to die for all kinds of reasons, both noble and evil.

Next, Inmendham refers to a "vocal population who rejects [civilization] and would like to go back to some crude, moronic and stupid day, where we could enslave each other; we could abuse each other; we could use each other in any manner we felt ---- just because that's who we are."

Aside from that being extraordinarily insulting, I have never expressed any such desire, nor do I know of any libertarians, minarchists or anarchists who have ever expressed such a desire. This is a straw-man from inmendham of the worst kind. The irony here is that Lysander Spooner defeated inmendham some 150 years ago.

"A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. Neither are a people any the less slaves because permitted periodically to choose new masters. What makes them slaves is the fact that they now are, and are always hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be, absolute and irresponsible."

If socio-political liberty is not contingent upon voluntary government, then there is no consistent argument to be made against slavery, because involuntary government is slavery.