scratch-mark

Recognizing Ignorance Requires Quality Knowledge: Paleo Epistemology and Sociology…and a Juxtaposition of Daves

I’m gearing up for more posts on the iron enrichment hypothesis to explain dietary “paradoxes” (debunk please). More researchers are weighing in. There are a couple posts in the works, and believe it or not, the most delicious of the two is the history of bloodletting (in barber shops) and how people flocked to get bled regularly (bleeding reduces stored serum iron—like pre-menopausal women do every month). Some people are hooked on donating blood regularly—which some chalk up exclusively to social conscience—but might it really be a selfish endeavor, even beyond the selfishness inherent in feeling like you’re a community value?

On a practical level? My just-begun experiment with making artisanal whole grain breads and cereals a dietary staple, combined with lowish fat and lowish protein, with protein being accounted for by sardines, clams, mussels, oysters, and various liver pâté—and otherwise small portions of meat and fowl. Simple tasty mini-meal-esque stuff.

In the meantime, another post on the list is my individual take on the non-aggression principle, 25 years in the chewing. My two most recent Zac posts (here and here) about living in a largely American community on the tip of Baja California for 2 months had comment threads that in a couple of cases gave me the impression I was dealing with toddlers that will eventually raise their hand to hit you after you’ve been explaining algebra to them for a while. It’s a perfectly common reaction from a toddler. When dealing with adults, what’s going on is that they’re ignorant to such an extent that they don’t recognize that they’re ignorant. They lash out like toddlers.

Take “Mr Dave,” in this thread. He begins with verbal “hitting” over what he’s ignorant about, exposed at least twice. First, when he asked me to explain my position to him in a way he could better understand. Second, when I did, and he asked me to explain the operative principle, then ended up concluding it would be a waste of time anyway, because he’d just rather operate pragmatically; presumably, so he gets to fight it out with others doing likewise on a case-by-case basis. He can’t see the simplicity of a single “law” and two implicit corollaries.

1. No entity may initiate force against any other entity.

2. Force may only be used in contravention (those violating #1).

3. There are no exceptions to #1 or #2.

He thinks it’s “smart” to have a million laws and have hundreds of millions of people subjectively fight it out ad infinitum, to the immense pleasure of professionals, on what’s a “valid” initiation of force…then have everyone fight over the authority to initiate force, ad infinitum infinitely. Too ignorant to perceive ignorance. I saw the elegant simplicity of that 25 years ago, never wavered a second, and have laughed at a million ignoramuses since.

Then there’s Dr Dave (David L. Racette, MD), a retired general-sergury specialist who lives in Zac, whom I met a few times, judging those to be generally pleasant experiences. His too ignorant to know he’s ignorant comes from a different cause.

…It’s probably the fault of a friend there who set it up badly, for me: told me that Dr. Dave is the most intelligent man he’s ever met. I was very new there and you may not believe this—given how things went—but I was getting so much bullshit I’d normally call, that I had to let some of it slide by, which I did in this case and a few others. For example, this friend called me on the carpet for going off on poor Justin Blok, and I put on a complete act of semi-contrition. Fuck Justin Blok. I don’t care…which is euphemism for not giving a runny shit.

The friend thinks it’s a waste of time to “correct a fool,” for “he will hate you.” Instead, “correct a wise man,” and “he will appreciate you.” Well, how stupidly ignorant in the former (why bother with fools?), and how presumptuously condescending in the latter (do you “correct” your friends, and what kind of friends are they who would put up with that?).

…I tried to see if there’s botched surgery dirt on Dr. Dave during the time he was going after me in comments here and the Facebook group. Zilch. So, it’s not only presumption of innocence, but presumption of competence. Simple. That’s the way I roll. Judge, but being honest and objective requires discipline that nearly everyone (even many judges) lack. …Yet people get their pink panties in a wad when I tell people to go fuck off.

…Dr Dave is a specialist in a number of primarily abdominal, gastrointestinal surgical procedures (they do thyroid gland too). Had he made a bit of an effort, perhaps I’d have had the opportunity to tell him how I raised a high salute to surgeons here, in 2010:  I Salute the Mechanics of Medicine. Ironically, that post could read like my own experience, three weeks before my move to Zac.

But the rub, prefigured by my friend’s assessment of Dr Dave’s general knowledge that I found I could not share, is that Dr Dave lives in a place where he’s never ever questioned on a single thing, ever. Ever. That’s unhealthy. Whether by design, or he just found himself that way in spite of all modest undertures, Dr Dave enjoys being perceived as a widely integrated generalist on virtually all matters (even legal matters), when he’s actually a very competent specialist in a realm where lives are at stake and the smart move is to stay as specialized as possible.

But I just have to judge that in matters of philosophy, principle—wide integrations of classical liberalism —as argued from Aristotle to Bastiat to Spinoza to Locke to Ricardo to Thoreau to Spencer to Hayek to Popper…to Freidman and Rothbard and Rand and Nozik, to name just a smattering: the guy is too ignorant to grasp his ignorance.

His quality of knowledge is wholly specialized. Specialization is critical to life on a complex planet, but you don’t get to have your cake and eat it too. And when you try to play with those far more adept than you in other areas you’re ignorant of, don’t be surprised when they dismiss you like a toddler hitting people because you’ve gone beyond the point where he understands he needs to learn something.

And so, here’s my 17-minute talk at the Ancestral Health Symposium at Harvard a few years back. Ostensibly, it’s about about paleo Epistemology and Sociology. It’s really about anarchism that begins at home, once it’s generally rooted in the individual mind.

Richard Nikoley—Paleo Epistemology and Sociology from Ancestral Health Society on Vimeo.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

51 Comments

  1. Beans McGrady on August 3, 2015 at 00:00

    Okay, first off, you do toddlers a disservice. Take a close look at this, watch how the boy especially, raises his hands in anger but knows when to stop. I found it really fascinating, as I have been contemplating this NAP stuff lately.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVjKZyjhV3g
    Okay, lemme give ya a for instance;
    Mexico City metro, rush hour. The convention, both implicit and explicit is that you let people get off before boarding.
    Most people are actually pretty good about it.
    Sometimes it can be a bit of a fight to get off of the train, fist fights have started that way.
    I have a technique, which involves crossing my wrists over the messenger bag that I keep on my chest during the peak hours. If I need to, I am poised to give a broad, blunt shove to make sure that I can get out. At times, I would be in danger if I didn’t do it.
    In the above situation it seems that the first violation is from those trying to get on the train.
    Now, imagine Saturday afternoon. The train is not packed like rush hour, but is still full. There is reasonable amount of space to enter and exit. Some cockknocker still shoves into the train, impeding ones path, making physical contact.
    The exiting rider gives a slight push to send a message. Perhaps he drops a shoulder which doesn’t initiate contact, but makes it more pronounced.
    I am trying to look at the more subtle aspect. In a cruder sense, you don’t slap somebody, no matter how horrific what they say may be. But smaller, subtle situations, I am still pondering.

    I assume, from the way that you are discussing it, that we are talking about physical aggression and threats, which is reasonably separated from verbal aggression. (not talking simply about tone, or raised voices, but in discourse, one can certainly be unnecessarily inflammatory)
    In your other post you said that politeness was a euphemism for lying. I think that has come to be true, and is particularly dangerous in the modern PC nightmare. However, I also think that it is quite possible to call out, correct, invalidate, and even insult politely, as evidenced by some of the wonderfully colorful debates of old. It is a bit of an art.
    I suppose, what I am getting at is that while one may see clearly what the best way to live is, we have to deal with the confused, and often damaged masses who would beg for someone to control them and force you to be a part of the dream.
    Since force beyond self-defense is out of the question, we’ll have to convince enough of them or nobody will be left alone.
    First they came for the gamers. . .

    • Richard Nikoley on August 3, 2015 at 09:44

      You bring up a good distinction, that of jockeying for various position in crowded social environments. Done it in various train and subway systems around the world myself, including Japan, perhaps the most notorious of all.

      But this is far from aggression and in fact, is helpful to get the job done as it becomes individuals moving en mass—and everyone are experienced, willing participants. Herding cats comes to mind, and it overcomes that. Another, of course, is the jockeying that takes place at your average busy intersection all over Mexico and around the world…even on bicycle.

      All of this is contextual and no ethics can account for every situation, particularly in emergency situations (exiting a crowded theater on fire, lifeboat scenarios, being lost in the woods, etc.).

      Some libertarian theorists over the years have poo-pooed the NAP (used to be the non-initiation of force principle) on grounds that we initiate force all the time. When you make noise, others hear it whether they want to or not. If you stink, they smell it. If you’re butt ugly, they see it, etc. And if you turn on your porch light at night, photons invade your neighbor’s place.

      This is, of course, senseless hair splitting for the purposes of public masturbation (opps, somebody saw that!).

      Sensible people ought to usually be competent to sort out what it means to initiate physical aggression or credible threat of same (coercion). After all, it seems even both of those toddlers had a pretty good idea of where the bounds of aggravated discourse end.



    • Beans McGrady on August 3, 2015 at 10:01

      Yeah that makes sense.
      I actually did the latter example just the other day. I have been thinking about it since. I didn’t enjoy my reaction, but those few assholes can be really frustrating at times.
      I think we have to apply personal discipline in order to manage what may be perfectly valid anger. It isn’t always easy.
      It is kind of like being the polite driver in traffic and never reaching the destination.
      The kids in the video, and other similar indicators do seem to say, ‘ we all know deep down what being a dick is; don’t do it.”
      It is certainly better than trying to cork all the farts, if you follow my thread.
      Of course what you are proposing requires that pretty much every situation is taken as unique, which requires a certain participation in one’s own life that is out of fashion these days.
      The force issue is really key. You want to start a commune and be a bunch of hippies, fine, don’t force me or anyone else to join your star party.
      I have been thinking a lot in terms of the “you can’t get there from here scenario”
      For example, dismantling the welfare state tomorrow would create a lot of helpless people, ultimately causing more violence and suffering for some period. Incrementally returning to liberty would certainly be more prudent.
      With the pro-paternalism cultural ethos that is all the rage these days, being philosophically consistent might not be enough when the ‘suede-denim secret police come for your uncool niece’ (CALIFORNIA UBER ALLES)
      As you have said many times. . . one mind at a time. Only 6.89364 billion to go.



    • david racette on August 19, 2018 at 21:36

      Fyi, i was in a monestary for 3 yrs after high school.. i graduated college with 3 degrees biology, philosophy, theology. in 3 yrs.

      my senior thesis compared
      teilhard de chardin to sri aurobindo

      i ran the organic lab and tutored two classes of organic chem.

      somewhat well rounded there richard….who after one post kicked me off his blog foreever.



    • Richard Nikoley on August 19, 2018 at 21:45

      Well, since it’s in a comment on a blog it’s all surely true.



  2. getoffmylawn on August 3, 2015 at 07:38

    Hi Richard,
    We don’t know each other. I have no right to give you advice. You certainly don’t have to take it. But it is coming from one who has been reading your blog, and gleaning useful information from it, for years. I admire and respect your intellect, abilities, and devotion to the pursuit of knowledge.
    Let the entire Zac experience go. Just Let. It. Go. Let it become the past, just an unpleasant memory. It became, and continues to be, a distasteful distraction from your very important work here. You were badly treated. You were assaulted. You were attacked, then shunned, by a pack of mindless bullies. It sucked. THEY sucked. But it’s over. Don’t keep chewing on it. Don’t keep giving these morons space in your head or in your columns. Let them drift back into the abyss of puerile dysfunction where they belong. Go hug your wife and play with your dogs. know you are loved and respected. Please.
    With loving intentions,
    Susan

    • Dan Morrison on August 3, 2015 at 07:46

      100% Agree with Getoffmylawn.



    • v on August 3, 2015 at 08:18

      every experience, good or bad, can be “the work”.



    • Richard Nikoley on August 3, 2015 at 09:49

      That’s true, v. I try to use it all…the good, the bad, the ugly and you nailed it. It’s my work. Sometimes it’s nothing but various diet health stuff, and others, nothing but social stuff, and sometimes some mix.

      The astute will notice that this is a segue, where I’m merely referencing the Zac thing, using some of the observations as a springboard to whatever’s next.



  3. John on August 3, 2015 at 08:26

    I’ve been adding some refined and unfortified wheat products to my diet, and have noticed no negative effects, and I am enjoying the taste and variety. I notice that if I eat bread when I’m out a restaurant, there seems to be a bit of bloating/ water weight gain for a few days. Still, I quite enjoy going to restaurants once or twice a week, so I guess I’ll just deal with the consequences.

    I’d still check the ingredients when going for whole grain products, I’ve occasionally noticed added iron anyway.

    I’ve noticed that pretty much every time I’ve lost weight in my life, the calories that were cut would also cut iron absorption (usually involved reducing or eliminating soda, sugar, bread, or alcohol, along with increased exercise). The longest I ever maintained a reduced weight was for a year. I lost from a paleo/IF combo, and then decided to go completely gluten free for 9 months. Interestingly, I believe I was less active during the 9 month gluten free period. The weight seemed to come back quickly when I started eating bread and beer again.

  4. Hap on August 3, 2015 at 09:17

    Judging is the moral obligation of every individual or otherwise surrender your natural right to test reality. This requires effort , learning, and discernment. Non judgementalism, a fad and a fools errand, leads to tyranny by those who preach it but practice a cruel form of oppression and despotism. At some point arrogant know it alls step into the breach, seize power, and insist on conformity, even if by brute force.

    However, there is some rectitude in the axiom “don’t correct the fool….for he will hate you”. Surely a frontal assault (a last resort in desperate times) will not succeed. Another axiom, although somewhat cryptic “with the righteous act righteously, with the wicked ..act subtly” may apply.

    Thanks to you I have made a judgement that it would not behoove me to live in or visit that Mexican /American Baja community.

    • Richard Nikoley on August 3, 2015 at 10:29

      “Judging is the moral obligation of every individual or otherwise surrender your natural right to test reality.”

      This. People seem to not understand the very simple chain of logic to derive natural rights, and that has nothing to do with ancient texts or sky doGs.

      Everyone has heard the phrase: “choose to live or die,” or variations thereof. And it’s as simple as that. Unlike most other species on earth, humans have a choice in the matter. They can choose to pursue life and do what’s necessary to sustain or even prosper, or they can default to a slow decrepitness, or death, or of course, just be done with it and end it voluntarily by suicide.

      And this is all natural. It’s just how we are, how we evolved (or were “created,” if you insist) and it’s that natural choice over living or dying prematurely—or even on purpose—that logically establishes a “right.” All other “rights” are just corollaries. If you have the right to pursue your natural choice to live, it is necessary that you be left to a certain set of freedoms, else it’s meaningless, and it’s others or groups of others, or institutions, denying you the freedom to exercise (“test” in your words) your natural human attribute of being able to choose to live.

      And this is what leads to the NAP, since it would be contradictory to claim a set of freedoms for yourself while denying them to others via initiating aggression or credible threats of same. And doing so anyway makes one a parasite if one “chooses” to live at the expense of others, denying them their peaceful freedoms that do not involve the predation of others.

      Of course, such parasitism is now solidly institutionalized in most of the “developed” world.



    • Hap on August 3, 2015 at 11:40

      Interesting reply. I obviously do not choose to place human action solely in the context of secular wisdom. However, it’s not unreasonable for practical purposes (of discussion) to assume the Universe is amoral and all existence purely material. However, under those assumptions it may not be reasonable to assume any freedoms whatsoever, or any claim of a moral code….which you have succinctly described as sort of a golden rule. Why should human beings , among the “animals” be free from predation and subjugation?

      However, I am glad we do have such choices to act “judiciously” and I am glad you chose to get the hell out of hell.

      Free the animal…..it does appear that among the animals we are unique in freely pursuing (or not) our way.



    • Richard Nikoley on August 3, 2015 at 12:14

      “Why should human beings , among the “animals” be free from predation and subjugation?”

      The is-ought dichotomy. There is no universal “ought,” but just as a bird “ought” to fly, a human “ought” to choose to pursue the values necessary to live. In other words, the “ought” for a human is different than for a bird, sine we have the capacity to choose values, disvalues, some combination, etc.

      Values freely chosen by humans on whatever grounds renders the is-ought question somewhat moot, since it’s what humans do, and for the most part, they generally do as they “ought” to do.

      …One problem is that people have a difficult time differentiating between institutional “moral” codes (a plethora of laws) and basic human good will and rational behavior. Some think the very basis of morality is the codified stuff, when in reality, it’s difficult to imagine a species so successful as to migrate to all corners of the planet and thriving, prior to even the written word being invented.

      I always like to ask people: ‘OK, assuming no laws anywhere, who are you going to rape, pillage, and kill first?’



    • jcartman on August 4, 2015 at 05:16

      Richard, do you not think humans have implemented these institutions since the beginning of our existence, that maybe these institutions contibuted to our spread across the globe? Even the indigenous people from my part of Australia have an amazing and complex culture (institution) that says who they can and can’t marry, talk to (mothers-in-law – now they were onto something there!), tribal law and punishment, initiation rites (look up subincision!!), even what animals they can and can’t eat, all instilled through stories, song and dance, reprimand and celebration, one generation to the next. I’m sure all the indigenous cultures have similar rules instilled on them (all mammals have a social hierarchy), stemming from what generations learned did and didn’t work for survival of the mob as a whole. In my view, the ideals of religion stem from the very same ideas, how to live for the benefit of each other and the world – that is, how not to be a parasite. Obviously it’s all fucked up these days, from religion to politics to paleo. Dogma and “I’m right you’re wrong” mindset, as well as personal, corporate, and national greed, has so much to answer for…

      If there were no laws, I wouldn’t go and rape or murder anyone. But there are plenty of people out there who would, and I there have been since we began walking upright. Raping, murdering, and pillaging also has its useful place in history – at the level of survival of the fittest genes, giving us as humans (gene vectors) the best chance for survival, these have served well.

      One thing I am slowly learning, against my institutionalization and instilled ideals, is that everything has a time and a place – love, compassion, anger, violence, frivolity, feasting and fasting. It is learning when the right time/place is, the right circumstances, the right costs vs benefits, and controlling yourself when the urge doesn’t match the timing. Thats been hardest for me. Are you angry at yourself, the universe, fear of Mexican jail, whoever, for letting a little bitch beat you and you not doing a thing about it? Wouldn’t physical retaliation have been really freeing the animal, instead of immortalizing your fear to act and subsequent self loathing, veiled as philosophical debate, on the interwebs…

      I am only playing the fucktard, teasing in the hope for more visceral and tangible, real, take on this.



    • Wolverine on August 4, 2015 at 12:29

      Hap, any chance you are the same Hap from over at In The Pipeline whose comments I frequently find insightful?



    • Richard Nikoley on August 5, 2015 at 08:54

      “If there were no laws, I wouldn’t go and rape or murder anyone. But there are plenty of people out there who would”

      I’m unconvinced, since no laws changes everything. First, there are plenty of rapists, murderers, and all manner of law violators now, from petty theft to grand larceny. One reason is that these people don’t take law enforcement very seriously. But remember, no laws means retribution and retaliation is on the table. One reason crime is lower in some areas is because criminals know there are plenty of guns around and people willing and able to use them.

      I’m not convinced that creating laws does much of anything but make predation easier for some, and in terms of regulations, provides barriers to entry and livelihoods at the expense of others who have money and know how to work the system to their advantage.

      As I say in my video, EVERYTHING still happens in anarchy. The difference is the mix and the incentives, rewards and penalties and who mets them out, how quickly and carefully, etc.

      I also draw a distinction between collectivized, central authority and the social pressures of small groups. In small social groups, people have a real ability to influence what the group does. Contrast that with getting your 1/300 millionth say in your own affairs at a voting booth.

      I terms of “the incident,” I reiterate that I was in a crowd of at least a dozen people who have been friends with the guy for years and in some cases, a couple of decades. Tell me how you think it would have gone down had I tried to retaliate, given what I’ve shown the reaction to be?

      Hell, I even got more threats last night from one of the residents, including a voicemail message (“I’m coming for you.”)



  5. mr dave on August 3, 2015 at 16:27

    Your writing this incident covered the actual punch, your interactions with the locals, and some closing comments. In one post you named names, and made sure they would come up on google searches.
    Then there was a lot of talk, about how you would continue to say what you wanted. But you also said you were trying to defuse the situation, and what happened was because the guy was drunk.
    I’m truncating the discussion, but anyway that led me to say people would probably be more upset if you had been really hurt. some where in there I asked what you are after here, pity, shaming the perp and sympathizers? Or is this social commentary. If it social commentary was the critical issue you muddled you message, at least to me.
    BTW, I never said it was ok the guy hit you. My initial comment was more about how people do hit each other.

    Anyway back and forth we went into the NAP discussion. That is the good part. You addresses some of my questions above. I watched the video a couple of years ago. I’ll give it another look.

    Still wondering how you remove your personal opinion from selecting a moral code, You have to settle on what is “good”? And why something is good?

    I’ll check out the video, when I have more time to give it a fair shake.

  6. Mark on August 3, 2015 at 18:42

    Funny…the wheat thing kind of got my ire up a little bit. How dare he! WHEAT? Fuuuck him.

    Then I remembered, oh yeah…I call my self mostly paleo but eat bread when I want. And then I went and had a delcious Bahn Mi sandwich for lunch.

  7. mr dave on August 4, 2015 at 08:38

    …..25 years in the chewing

    Is that an appeal to authority? You’ve believed this for 25 years…. so that must make it so?

    • Richard Nikoley on August 4, 2015 at 09:18

      I’m juxtaposing my experience of 25 years vs your lack thereof. Implicit is that I’ve encountered your quibbles a thousand times and have yet to be satisfied or surprised.

      You haven’t said anything I and others haven’t encountered before, and even better. So if you want me to look at it differently, you’ll have to present something different.



  8. mr dave on August 4, 2015 at 08:41

    “He can’t see the simplicity of a single “law” and two implicit corollaries.”

    Is simplicity the base line for a valid idea?

    If we do a business case analysis to determine what is good, is simplicity the most heavily weighed in your book?

    A dictatorship is the simplest form of government, so it must be the best?

    • Richard Nikoley on August 4, 2015 at 09:27

      Cut to the chase Dave, and just tell us that domination of others through threats of fines, seizures, jails, and death, like zoo animals, is the best way, with the caveat that it’s OK if only thousands or hundreds of thousands “democratically” dominate others through force rather than one, or a small group.

      See, you toss out the “dictator” meme as automatically-spouted regurgitated bromide and you’ve likely never given serious thought to whether democracy is better or worse than forms of dictatorship, such as monarchy.

      https://mises.org/library/aristocracy-monarchy-democracy



    • mr dave on August 4, 2015 at 13:03

      I should have used the example.

      A unicycle is simplest form of wheeled vehicle, so a unicycle is the best form.

      The question was the importance of simplicity in you adopting this philosophy. Can you weigh it against other factors?



    • Richard Nikoley on August 4, 2015 at 13:51

      “A unicycle is simplest form of wheeled vehicle, so a unicycle is the best form.”

      Which only exposes your ignorance of Friar William of Ockham, to the well initiated (some like myself, over 25 years).



  9. mr dave on August 4, 2015 at 08:46

    ” He thinks it’s “smart” to have a million laws and have hundreds of millions of people subjectively fight it out ad infinitum”

    ” as argued from Aristotle to Bastiat to Spinoza to Locke to Ricardo to Thoreau to Spencer to Hayek to Popper…to Freidman and Rothbard and Rand and Nozik, to name just a smattering: the guy is too ignorant to grasp his ignorance.”

    aren’t they really fighting it out ad infinitum? they don’t all agree, and you don’t agree with all of them on everything.

    • Richard Nikoley on August 4, 2015 at 09:35

      Seriously? You’re going to purposefully fail to draw an obvious distinction between political discourse and political policy that engages main force, where the only difference is how much and against whom?



    • mr dave on August 4, 2015 at 13:12

      Doesn’t discourse lead to an adoption of policy,?



    • Richard Nikoley on August 4, 2015 at 14:00

      “Doesn’t discourse lead to an adoption of policy?”

      It could, but there’s nothing in voluntary discourse that demands it, so long as it’s voluntary and anyone is free to walk away.

      …Oh, I get it. You’re talking about presidential-candidate debate discourse, where what’s at play is whether they steal 50 cents, or 49.5 cents of every dollar you own. And it’s a HUGE CRITICAL-DISTINCTIONAL Fight!!!!

      You’re a SUPERSTAR!



    • mr dave on August 4, 2015 at 15:25

      You invited me over to ask questions, from the last post.

      I’m asking you questions and you keep either wanting to talk about me, or what you think I mean. Or you tell me some source I have to look at to better understand you.

      Milton Friedman advised Reagan, his son is much more lined up with you . Which Friedman do you mean? His son doesn’t even land where you do but he is much closer, as I understand it

      lots of great thinkers have a wide range of opinions.



    • Richard Nikoley on August 4, 2015 at 16:20

      Dave:

      I didn’t invite you, simply told you were the action would be.

      That you characterize it differently is the last straw and I’m done with you. You’re dishonest, which is even worse than dealing with an entitled woman.

      I do not care about you, or what you think and I’m banking on the fact that I’ve put out enough for hosnest people to get a gist they can go for if the’re curios enough.

      So, I suppose the last thing to do is thank for for being my bitch in that regard, for asking elementary questions that are answered and dismissed.



    • mr dave on August 4, 2015 at 18:47

      “Dave:

      Let’s take it up in comments on the new post. I’ll do what I can to help”

      That implies we’ll talk. I was asking about you and how you got to where you are philosophically.

      The fact that use the term bitch is funny. That’s like punk, or pussy. It implies physical superiority. Like I’ll say I want and you can’t do anything about it. we both know that you just got slapped around. You are not an alpha male. This is brave internet talk. I laugh with at this with no feelings of rage at all.

      Paleo knowledge should you tell that when dogs show the teeth, one has to back down or they fight. some times a snarling dog will bite, if one turns tail. That’s your experience in mexico. Now you snarl through the safety of your cage. Knowing this wolf can’t bite you.

      You are prone to temper tantrums and name calling. and you talk about toddlers, and maturity.

      You run your mouth and talk about paleo knowledge. Then you hide behind neolithic philosophy to intellectually justify why you should not have your ass kicked.

      You are to big to have a Napolean complex, what happened to you along the way to fuck up your thought process to the extent that you have question the honesty and intelligence of people who are asking you fair minded questions?



    • Richard Nikoley on August 4, 2015 at 22:42

      Dave, you must always resort to innuendo or direct allusion to physical violence. Always. M. O.

      It’s why you’re irredeemable and I got nothing for you. Brute force is all you respect and I got nothing for you there, either.



    • mr dave on August 5, 2015 at 06:43

      I don’t always do anything.

      what I’d really respect is if you had some sort of courage for your convictions. Instead you’ve staked out a absolutist moral position that has no teeth, into how you live.

      If you moved to Keene NH, I could at least say he’s trying to live it. Right now you take public transit and say what’s the ROI on avoiding coerced benefits of state force. Basically what’s in it for you.

      Thanks for sharing your insights.



    • Richard Nikoley on August 5, 2015 at 08:07

      Newsflash: refusing to initiate force against others has “no teeth,” and you’re being morally corrupt if you get some of the tax money stolen from you if you drive on paved roads.

      Glad that’s been cleared up.



  10. mr dave on August 4, 2015 at 08:52

    “I saw the elegant simplicity of that 25 years ago, never wavered a second”

    another appeal to authority…? two in a few paragraphs.

    It could be you stopped being truly open to new ideas once you established your world view. So you looked for ways to hone your arguments.

    When an argument starts, persuasion stops. A group of researchers including psychologist Drew Westen conducted a revealing experiment, which Westen wrote about in his book The Political Brain. In the heated election campaign of 2004, the researchers found supporters of presidential candidates George Bush and John Kerry and took MRI pictures of their brains as they watched video footage of their favorite candidate completely contradicting himself. So what happened in people’s brains when they saw information that contradicted their worldview in a charged political environment? As soon as they recognized the video clips as being in conflict with their worldview, the parts of the brain that handle reason and logic went dormant. And the parts of the brain that handle hostile attacks — the fight-or-flight response — lit up.

    Check this out:

    http://time.com/110643/how-to-win-every-argument/

    • Richard Nikoley on August 4, 2015 at 09:41

      “It could be you stopped being truly open to new ideas once you established your world view. So you looked for ways to hone your arguments.”

      Could have been, but wasn’t. In over 10,000 posts on various newsgroups on USENET and my posts on this blog from 2003-2008, I engaged all comers of all stripes.

      My brand of anarchy is actually shared by few. Most “anarchists” I knew are actually thinly disguised statists.

      So, no, my ideas are far different from the vast majority of libertarians, with only a few principles remaining (such as NAP), but where I interpret such principles far less equivocally than most.



    • mr dave on August 4, 2015 at 15:36

      in what way did you engage all comers?

      ad hominem , attacks, tell them to read something, simply declare victory and disengage.



  11. mr dave on August 4, 2015 at 09:01

    1. No entity may initiate force against any other entity.

    2. Force may only be used in contravention (those violating #1).

    3. There are no exceptions to #1 or #2.

    The next natural question to me is can you benefit from an action if rule 1 has been violated?

    at around 8:30 in your presentation, you got said you got there on a plane, took the subway, and when you get home you will drive your BMW, on a road lets presume.

    The state both local and federal collected taxes to fund your activities… air traffic control, air ports, roads, the subway is heavily subsidized. How how can you benefit from a action that violates your rule, and not be in violation of the rule?

    • Richard Nikoley on August 4, 2015 at 09:49

      No, not absolutely unless you’re invested in the system and worm your way into being one of the top parasites who profit greatly at the expense of most others.

      It’s not even hotly debated in economics that most people don’t make a profit via taxation and other impositions. I mean, just look at the dismal state of how people generally think getting a tax refund is just a great thing.

      Basically, your argument boils down to the silly notion that people are incapable of cooperating and pitching in to mutual benefit through pursuing things like paved roads, security specialists, commons spaces, health care, occupational safety and on and on–all invented by communities and industry in the first place, before being co-opted by centralized, force-backed authority.

      You’re saying that people don’t know and can’t understand what their values are, or associate with those who share them and must be forced to pay for them.

      Now, go ahead and respond with your free-rider and tragedy of the commons red herrings.



    • mr dave on August 4, 2015 at 13:08

      My question was specific. And I didn’t submit an argument.

      I know a lot of things can work differently than they do. But right now they don’t. There is private road in Indiana, you could live there and only travel on that, if you wanted to be true to NAP.

      Instead you went to Boston and used the MBTA, that is massively subsidized by the MA tax payer.

      Did you violate NAP?



    • Richard Nikoley on August 4, 2015 at 13:56

      What is your question, exactly?

      Let me guess. Your “question” is whether a person can live a life amidst various forms of initiatory aggression, the principle means being the theft of everyone at all times.

      Yes.

      Now, perhaps you can explain to me how those ends justify the means of figuring out how to live in spite of it.

      You are becoming quite lafable, but this is nothing new. I’m still only toying with you, because you haven’t yet put up any of the best arguments.



  12. mr dave on August 4, 2015 at 09:27

    “And when you try to play with those far more adept than you in other areas you’re ignorant of, don’t be surprised when they dismiss you….”

    Is that how arguments are won? you state your case, the other person disagrees, then you dismiss them and declare victory? do those rules apply for everyone or only you? You’ll never lose if you play by those rules.

    also by adept do you mean rhetorically? Like you have an arsenal of argumentative devices, you’ve honed over the years?

    I did watch the video. the suggestions at the end are good and valid, mostly. We may disagre on some. But most of them could be arrived at by reading “101 ways to simplify your life.”

    Maybe that is the link, you are looking for “simple”… a simple all encompassing rule to live by.

  13. mr dave on August 4, 2015 at 09:28

    sorry for the multiple posts… I had several varied thoughts on the topic and discussion, and wanted to be concise.

  14. Zen on August 4, 2015 at 10:56

    I’m not an expert on Italian food , but I’m very confident that you are the flying spaghetti monster.

    • Richard Nikoley on August 4, 2015 at 11:45

      Hahaha. You got a laf outta me.



  15. Dr. Curmudgeon Gee on August 4, 2015 at 12:59

    please report back results of your new diet.
    (cause i usually can tell from people’s teeth that they eat too much “healthy whole grain”)

    • Richard Nikoley on August 4, 2015 at 13:05

      check the newest post and consider whether you failed to make the critical distinction we all did.



  16. mr dave on August 4, 2015 at 15:38

    I’ve asked questions and you keep shifting focus.

    If you ride the MBTA is it a violation of your rule? that is straight forward question. You had other transportation options. You could have taken a cab, that would have promoted a fair exchange of value. That’s much more in line with what you believe.

    • Richard Nikoley on August 4, 2015 at 16:43

      “If you ride the MBTA is it a violation of your rule?”

      You have shown yourself to be far too dishonest (primarily) and perhaps stupid (not sure) to waste more time on.

      You see, Dave, there’s plenty of people who will be curious. Oh, you thought it was your mind I had to change? Silly. One mind at a time is completely open-ended and my guess is that there’s plenty of young folk unsatisfied with the regurgitate they’ve been fed that they’re more likely to be curious about my answers than your questions, so I’m going to leave it at that.



  17. mr dave on August 4, 2015 at 16:29

    “My brand of anarchy is actually shared by few. Most “anarchists” I knew are actually thinly disguised statists.”

    That’s why I wanted to ask you questions. i know you are different. You keep telling me to read people who you don’t even agree with all the way.
    You think I’ve never read any of this stuff?

    I don’t think you are as adept at explaining it as you think. You view of this as verbal combat. If this was a conversation about a business proposal, a college thesis, or a sales pitch you failed to make a case. Even the initial post was a hot jumbled pile of you ego stroking and attack.

    If the messenger doesn’t matter, only the message, then why does the questioner? the important thing is the question. You keep coming back to me and what you think I don’t know.

    Very strange approach to dialogue about an issue you hold dear.

Leave a Comment





Pinterest118k
YouTube798
YouTube
Follow by Email8k
RSS780