Does Truth = Peace?

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

It is also logical to assume that a person who has excess food to spare will willingly give it in exchange for another's labor.

Not if they can keep their food and move into the starved families land next spring. Besides the grandchildren are on the way so they need to have a place for them to live.

If there is not enough food in society to feed everyone, then someone WILL die.

Should it be the guy who owns the food in the first place or should it be the guy who doesn't own it?

If there is enough food to feed everyone, then someone somewhere will be willing to make the trade.

Otherwise we are back to a world where everyone acts irrationally, which could never occur in reality.

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
If the land that each of them has grows just enough for each of their families to eat for the winter…… that means…………..

If family B,C, or D…… give family A any food, then they (the people giving them the food) would starve. So they could buy the farm in exchange for food, but they would die from lack of food……….. So, how is it different from family A killing them and taking their food?

If each family contributed a little, each could survive.

This is a self interest community though. The logical path for self interest is survival of the fittest. So, if family A dies, each family knows that is more land for them to divide up. That is why they will not help. It is in their logical self interest not to.

That is assuming that any of the other families has any extra food to give. If they were as hit by the drought as family A, they may not know if they have enough food to make it through the winter. They have no idea if it will be an early spring, or late spring. Or if it will be another dry year next year where the stuff they have extra from this year will keep them alive next year. They can’t tell the future. So, giving family A any food, may be dooming one, or all of them to death. That is a fact they have to come to grips with if they give family A any food.

What would you do if you were family A.

With Love,

Your Brother

If the other farmers have never done anything wrong to me to justify my right to their resources, there is only one option……… Something billions on countless billions have had to face head on……. Slow death while hoping for an early spring/miracle.………..

Does Truth = Peace?

Ultimately it does.

Relatively it doesn't. Horizontal truth seeking wont necessarily bring about more peace, often it does the opposite.

Absolute truth = absolute peace.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

It is also logical to assume that a person who has excess food to spare will willingly give it in exchange for another's labor.

Not if they can keep their food and move into the starved families land next spring. Besides the grandchildren are on the way so they need to have a place for them to live.

If there is not enough food in society to feed everyone, then someone WILL die.

Should it be the guy who owns the food in the first place or should it be the guy who doesn't own it?

If there is enough food to feed everyone, then someone somewhere will be willing to make the trade.

Real natural law states it is the one who is strong enough to hold on to it that gets to eat it.

I live in a small town with a market place. People come from the hills and sell their goods and I have heard them haggle and more than once I have heard a vendor say that he would rather have the produce rot than sell it for what the buyer was offering. This is what leads me to think that family A may be sentenced to death if they are to depend upon the charity of such people as those vendors.

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
That is assuming that any of the other families has any extra food to give. If they were as hit by the drought as family A, they may not know if they have enough food to make it through the winter. They have no idea if it will be an early spring, or late spring. Or if it will be another dry year next year where the stuff they have extra from this year will keep them alive next year. They can’t tell the future. So, giving family A any food, may be dooming one, or all of them to death. That is a fact they have to come to grips with if they give family A any food.

Yep, this is what happens when man divides up into families and does not work together.

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
If the other farmers have never done anything wrong to me to justify my right to their resources, there is only one option……… Something billions on countless billions have had to face head on……. Slow death while hoping for an early spring/miracle.………..

I am curious if you have children?

I ask because I am curious if you could really watch them die slowly through starvation. Not judging you either way, I just want to know if you truly considered it.

The reason I set this scenario up is because this is what people truly are facing in our lives. More will arrive at this step before we get to the promised land. So, it is good to think on what one would do in the situation.

Thanks for playing. My self, I would steal a enough from each family to support my own.

Yes, I would come like a thief in the night and feed my children. Watch ! LOL

It is a dog eat dog world we have created, no matter how rational some think it is.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by daskakik



Natural law says a person has a right to defend their property and person.

Natural law also says a person has a right to their property and person.

Natural law does not say a person has a right to another person's property or person.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I said real natural law not "Natural Law" as defined by man.

Originally posted by daskakik
Real natural law states it is the one who is strong enough to hold on to it that gets to eat it.

No my friend, that is the natural law of animals. We are Man and more is expected of us. Our natural law is to love one another. Through love, we would share and let nature decide which ones died. Through sharing, we would find that we are more resilient than we think.

It is because we value ourselves, our off spring more that we fight to survive rather than share equally.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by daskakik


Natural law is not defined by man.

It is defined by reality, hence the term natural.

reply to post by mnemeth1


As I stated above just because someone threw natural into the phrase does not make it so. I know that those that helped shape it say it wasn't created but found or discovered. I don't buy into it. Your "Natural Law" is unatural and that is why it never works out they way it's layed out.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Natural law says a person has a right to defend their property and person.

Natural law also says a person has a right to their property and person.

Natural law does not say a person has a right to another person's property or person.

Where is this written?

You profess to use logic and reason but seem to subvert them both in your thinking.

Natural Law says that if I am bigger than you and more capable than you, I can take your possessions.

You are pulling things out of nothing.

Prove this law.

String it out logically and let me see it proved.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by daskakik


What you buy into or not is irrelevant.

The only thing of relevance is what the truth is.

If you want to ignore the truth, that is your business.

Of course, as my article points out, it is highly likely that ignoring the truth will result in the perpetuation of violence.

reply to post by IAMIAM


Rothbard provided a rigorous proof predicated on John Locke's work.

If you want to dispute the rigorous logic applied by Rothbard and Locke, be my guest.

Show me where they are wrong.

Show me how initiating violence is logical.

You are not being logical; instead you are being emotional in your stance and your stance is utterly flawed as a result. You conjecture that all violence comes from lies where it is the opposite that is true. All violence comes from the truth. You are neglecting the truth that there are many truths and not just one. I will endeavor to explain this from many angles and references.

Firstly, is religion, for Christ said, “I have come not to bring peace but the sword”. The truth is described in the Bible as a double edges sword because it cuts every angle that opposes it. If one accepts a truth then they must therefore reject, and oppose, a lie. Christ said, “I have come to put father against son and mother against daughter and ones enemies will be those of his household.” If the truth brings peace, then how can this be so? It is because the truth, just as in your own flawed logic, is being rejected for your own lie because it is easier for you to use to convince yourself and others that you are right when you are wrong. It is because the truth requires action in response to its acceptance. You cannot accept a truth and then do nothing about it and then claim to be objective. Do you stand up to those who lie if you know that the truth is different? Does knowing this truth demand action against what is false? Of course. It is not the liars alone who demand action, even in the form of violence, against others. It is also those who support and defend the truth against those who lie who also demand action and violence if it is deemed necessary to correct a wrong. Is anyone who is put to death for murder done so because of a lie? Of course not, do not be absurd.

Secondly, is your own supposed logic that proves that you are not for the truth. You state that the only justification for violence is in defense and yet you claim that only one side does violence from this stance. Does not both sides of any conflict feel the need for defense and self preservation, thus by your logic, justifying violence towards others in all cases of conflict from all sides? Yet you also fail to observe the truth that the greatest defense in any conflict is a most powerful and decisive offensive action. Does not each aggressor claim that their actions were necessary and just given the circumstances?

Lastly, is the logic of warfare in that to save a population of extinction and to preserve the means necessary for survival violence may necessary? If no one would give a starving man bread to eat is he not justified in taking it from those who possess an abundance of goods and a deficit of generosity? Is it wrong for the forced slaves of a nation to violently rise up against their masters and demand what is only humane and natural law in civilized countries?

So no, your premises are only the fact that you choose to believe lies over the truths because you want to think yourself superior to those who do violence when necessary. I suppose that you want to live in a dream world where you are the one who believes that you alone have the truth and everyone else must have the lies. Do you not see that your philosophy is one step away from what Hitler and Nazis used against the Jews? For if only the liars commit violence and you feel justified in using violence in defense against them, then you become the tyrant of genocide who believes that you have the truth and everyone else must be a liar.

Congratulations, Hitler and Stalin would be proud of you

reply to post by Hot_Wings


You are the reason war still exists.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Right and what you buy into or not is also irrelevent.

The only thing that is relevent is the truth and the truth is that if someone decides that it is in their best interest to use violence to infringe upon your property rights and they plan it out right then nature says it's theirs and if you are better prepared and you hold them off then it remains yours.

Again Truth =/= Peace.

reply to post by daskakik


Nature says it is more beneficial and less risky to one's own life to engage in voluntary trade with each other.

Two hands are better than one.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Not if I can take you without you even knowing what hit you.

Or tax you without being held accountable.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Rothbard provided a rigorous proof predicated on John Locke's work.

If you want to dispute the rigorous logic applied by Rothbard and Locke, be my guest.

They are not here for me to defend their position. If it is their position that you hold dear, You defend them.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Show me how initiating violence is logical.

Initiating violence is NEVER logical.

This isn't your position though.


With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by daskakik


In a society where one man took everything through the use of force from others, that one man would soon find himself dead along with the rest of society, for once he ran out of the things he stole, he would be left with nothing but himself to survive upon.

In reality, it is far more beneficial and less risky to his own life if he engages in voluntary trade with his neighbors.